And an even better Sorcerer player. Silly Wizards; blasting is for Sorcerers.
It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes you a great wizard player.
Why is it assumed that sorcerers are better blasters when the spells are the same for both classes? Wizards can be built as effective blasters. They may not be seen as "proper" by the boards but they can actually do just fine.
Easy question to answer. Rays were nerfed for starters. Rays being nerfed = less reason to use rays = less reason to care about the ray stat
Not particularly compelling, since "hitting more often with rays" isn't why I'm spending extra on Dex in 3.5 or Pathfinder unless it's some specialized build.
Were you honestly pumping up Dex for wizards in 3.5 with the primary motivation, "My Rays are going to hit more often now...OH YEAH!"?
Seriously, if they had completely gotten rid of every spell in the game that required a touch attack I would still want Dex for my Wizard.
Second, MAD and items. Ordinarily, for a Wizard this is not a problem. You get your Int item, and your Con item, and neatly dodge the martial nerf that is cost markups on stats that boost more than one physical stat. But you get Dex and either you lose Con and therefore die all the time, or get martial nerfs all over your caster. Neither are acceptable. And since you're not going to have a good Dex without items, you might as well just leave it at 10.
I don't know what to say. You just said that once magic items come into play a +2 initiative bonus is no better than zero, as if initiative bonuses lose value when gaining levels.
I mean, not like HIT POINTS lose value eh?
Never mind the mind blowing statement that suggests that unless you focus on Con exclusively for physical stats, your wizard will die all the time.
I'll let you in on a little secret - the best defense a Wizard has is nothing to do with HP or Fort saves. Honest. They are both nice to have, and I would never suggest ignoring them, but focusing on them exclusively and ignoring Dex and the subsequent initiative bonus that accompanies it can remove your greatest defense of them all, prevention.
That's the biggest reasons.
That's the biggest reasons.
1) Because you don't care about hitting with ray spells
2) Because having higher than 10 isn't worth it if you want to keep pumping up Con instead of Dex.
Wow. Even I, who completely disagreed with your position, could have defended it better than that. Try going after the saving throw bonuses and how Fort is an important save that is weak for Wizards and needs help, or talk about how hp gained by wizards through Con amount to a greater percentage increase to total HP than for other classes so is a better investment.
I mean, I'm just shoveling it, but I can shovel it higher than "Who care's about hitting with rays?"
There's also such things as "Dex is STILL not the primary source of Initiative, which is the only useful thing it actually does."
Here's the issue I have with your entire position. Saying that Wizards don't need Dex for initiative because there are other ways to improve initiative is like saying that a Barbarian doesn't need Strength for to hit or damage because there are other ways to get to hit and damage bonuses.
Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.
Winning initiative is nice for anyone, but when your action are spells that take proactive action to control battlefields, the importance of that occurring before melee ensues is vital.
When your spells are buffing your allies, the importance of that occurring before their actions is vital.
When your spells are debuffing enemies, the importance of that occurring before they tear your party a new one is vital.
If your spells aren't doing any of those things, then you're casting the wrong spells.
Often the first spell a Wizard casts sets the tone for the rest of the battle, and if he casts it first, it can represent a significant tactical advantage for the entire group. Often winning initiative will prevent you needing extra HP at all, especially with battlefield controls and debuffs.
Dex creates an initiative bonus that stacks with everything. The value of this makes hitting with rays, crossbows, AC bonuses, and reflex save bonuses almost inconsequential in the decision to pump Dex.
and "Con is still better than Dex for laughing off Fireballs if you care
What? Although I disagree, I really don't care, so I won't pursue it.
Fireballs? Really?
Anyone who tells you to put anything other than Con directly after your primary stat is either not an optimizer, or deliberately misleading you. It's Character Building 101.
Not in any optimization community I've ever participated in. Con is always a secondary stat, but perhaps you've misunderstood to think that "secondary" means "second most important". This is not the case.
Con is never a dump stat, nor do you want it to be 10, fortunately, with all but the most skimpy point buys neither of these needs to be the case even when Con is your third most important stat, or even further down the list.
Any half decent optimizer learned this on the very first day, so I have no idea what he's on about.
All those years on the optimization boards, weird how I never ran across this "law"
|
Why is it assumed that sorcerers are better blasters when the spells are the same for both classes? Wizards can be built as effective blasters. They may not be seen as "proper" by the boards but they can actually do just fine.And an even better Sorcerer player. Silly Wizards; blasting is for Sorcerers.
It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes you a great wizard player.
Assumed? This is from my own experience and analysis. Sorcerers get more spells per day and the Draconic bloodline grants +1 damage per die of their chosen element type. Seeing as blasts are the same all the way through the levels, the whole thing about Wizards getting their spells one level earlier doesn't make that big of a difference. Sorcerers have a definite advantage in blasting.
|
My character can beat up your character?I've asked this question before and it wasn't answered then either. Fundamentally, there is no difference. If everything is beefed up, then it's the same as nothing being beefed up (mechanically speaking anyway).What, exactly, is the practical difference between optimizing a character and then having to use higher CR creatures to challenge him/her/it, and not optimizing a character and using standard CR creatures to challenge him/her/it?
This is why I find the whole min/max thing funny.
Yes, in a specific context your character can beat up my character.
But if you have a Charisma < 10, no one like you and you are more likely to make enemies who will kill you.
If you have a Str < 10, you can't even carry the gear you want, let alone the phat lootz until you get a bag of holding, and don't even try to hit anything.
If you have Dex < 10 you fall lots, can't avoid AoO, act late in initiative, and can't hit things from range.
If you have Wis < 10 you can't or hear the enemy, avoid wandering monsters, tell if someone is being honest, or have the common sense to stay out of obviously dangerous situations.
If you have Int < 10 you have no idea what you are fighting, what it's weaknesses are, what language the map is written in...
In short, unless the players metagame like crazy, you need all of these things. Sure you can compensate with spells, but if your DM is smart a lot of those spell uses will be wasted on situation where the player gains nothing as there was no real danger.
For example you can cast detect lies. And if the guy isn't lying all you did was waste a spell and annoy someone by not trusting them and demanding they let you cast a spell on them.
My DM does this all the time, someone suspicious will walk in, we'll roll initiative, casters will buff, and he's the janitor. Keeps the metagaming in check.
|
|
Assumed? This is from my own experience and analysis. Sorcerers get more spells per day and the Draconic bloodline grants +1 damage per die of their chosen element type. Seeing as blasts are the same all the way through the levels, the whole thing about Wizards getting their spells one level earlier doesn't make that big of a difference. Sorcerers have a definite advantage in blasting.Why is it assumed that sorcerers are better blasters when the spells are the same for both classes? Wizards can be built as effective blasters. They may not be seen as "proper" by the boards but they can actually do just fine.And an even better Sorcerer player. Silly Wizards; blasting is for Sorcerers.
It's exactly that kind of thinking that makes you a great wizard player.
I would agree. If you find the weakness (or weaknesses of a group of creatures encountered in a given area), the sorcerer can throw the same spell at it round after round while the wizard needs to have it memorized multiple times.
On the flip size, if you can figure out what spells will be needed before combat, the wizard can make sure he has them while the sorcerer has what they have.
What, exactly, is the practical difference between optimizing a character and then having to use higher CR creatures to challenge him/her/it, and not optimizing a character and using standard CR creatures to challenge him/her/it?
One thing I notice in this conversation is the misconception that optimization has to do with individual power, so before I answer your question, I would like to clarify that optimization involves creating a character that contributes effectively (in a mechanical sense) to the group.
This does make me ponder whether this goes to the root of my disagreement with CoDzillia regarding the value of Dex vs Con for Wizards. I'm assuming a party where the Wizard is working within a group where he provides tactical advantage and they in turn work to defend him, perhaps he plays in more an "every man for himself" type group, in this case, the defensive importance of Con would certainly increase.
A Wizard who controls the battlefield and buffs can't fight well on his own, nor would he be able to "beat up" any of the other characters, despite gearing a wizard in this way is optimizing. Fortunately, neither of these are the goals of optimization. This same character tends to work extremely well in a party where there are characters who deal damage, as he can decrease their mortality rate by giving them tactical advantage.
So...to answer your question, I've found if you've got no optimized characters in the group, things can fall apart pretty quickly in CR appropriate encounters, if everyone optimizes their character a "little bit" then CR tends to work quite nicely. If one or two characters optimize it can balance out a party where others have not, and if everyone optimizes carefully, well, I can't say I've ever played in a group that's done that, but theoretically I would assume that either the CR's should be increased, or the DM might use tactical situations (ambushes etc) to challenge the characters.
Does that answer your question?
[i[Careful with definitions though:
1) Min/Max or Optimization: Make a character that performs mechanically well in contributing to combat challenges with the rest of the group.
2) Powergaming: Make a character more powerful than the rest of the group.
Not synonymous terms, and although labeling optimization as powergaming usually just stems from not understanding the term or the goal, it can be offensive to label optimization as powergaming to those that optimize but don't powergame.[/i]
the long of it
The short of it:
When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.
Is that about right TM?
the long of itThe short of it:
When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.
Is that about right TM?
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. An optimized game doesn't necessarily have a logical conclusion of rocket tag. That would be a power gaming game. At least that's how I read it.
Careful with definitions though: ...more...
Interesting.
Over the years of playing and GMing, I have found that the most powerful options are based on synergy between the characters (or monsters).
You might be able to solo an encounter here and there through personal might, but when things get really tough, helping the group* is often more powerful then harming the enemy.
Anyway, thanks for interjecting a well thought out viewpoint into what often amounts to a playground squabble.
EDIT: * "Helping the group" can mean attacking the monster in a way that allows the other characters a chance to become more effective. For example, casting gust of wind so that the rest of the party can get clear attacks on the creature, or enervation, so that the creature can't attack and make saves as easily.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. An optimized game doesn't necessarily have a logical conclusion of rocket tag. That would be a power gaming game. At least that's how I read it.the long of itThe short of it:
When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.
Is that about right TM?
I guess I lump "optimized game" and "powergame" into the same category then.
|
|
Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.
Why do you call the divination specialty awful? Always act in surprise round? Gain a bonus on your initiative? Replace Diviner's Fortune and the Scrying features for the ones in the APG. Mostly to get the d20 replacement die feature and the Diviner becomes a great option.
Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.Why do you call the divination specialty awful? Always act in surprise round? Gain a bonus on your initiative? Replace Diviner's Fortune and the Scrying features for the ones in the APG. Mostly to get the d20 replacement die feature and the Diviner becomes a great option.
Mostly its the fact that the spells aren't as good as other schools, so your not going to be as enthusiastic about memorizing a divination over some other spells in your bonus spell slot.
|
|
I guess I lump "optimized game" and "powergame" into the same category then.I don't think that's what he was saying at all. An optimized game doesn't necessarily have a logical conclusion of rocket tag. That would be a power gaming game. At least that's how I read it.the long of itThe short of it:
When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.
Is that about right TM?
Which is the opposite of his point.
Optimized means optimized for a specific task, generally by minimizing the ability to perform other tasks. This is fine within a group if others fill in where you lack.
Powergaming is trying to game the system, find loopholes and exploits to "break" the game. One famous suggestion on here being "Since it says you can take any feat, you can take an epic feat"
Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.Why do you call the divination specialty awful? Always act in surprise round? Gain a bonus on your initiative? Replace Diviner's Fortune and the Scrying features for the ones in the APG. Mostly to get the d20 replacement die feature and the Diviner becomes a great option.
I think he was talking about the divination spells of having to take one at first level. Sure scrying is nice but what are you preparing with those slots? Sure the good ability is to make up for the bad spells espically at low levels.
|
|
Mostly its the fact that the spells aren't as good as other schools, so your not going to be as enthusiastic about memorizing a divination over some other spells in your bonus spell slot.Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.Why do you call the divination specialty awful? Always act in surprise round? Gain a bonus on your initiative? Replace Diviner's Fortune and the Scrying features for the ones in the APG. Mostly to get the d20 replacement die feature and the Diviner becomes a great option.
I guess?
They don't have the flash-bang of some of the other spells but getting a CompLang in your bonus slot, or True Strike for that sure hit, is not so bad. At 2nd you get See invisible cause if you cannot see your victim you cannot target it. Tongues @ 3rd. Arcane Eye in the 4th.I just don't see Divination as Awful when you consider the specialty features along with the spells.
Mostly its the fact that the spells aren't as good as other schools, so your not going to be as enthusiastic about memorizing a divination over some other spells in your bonus spell slot.Initiative is extremely important for Wizards, so important it is actually worth taking an otherwise awful Divination specialty just to get extra bonuses.Why do you call the divination specialty awful? Always act in surprise round? Gain a bonus on your initiative? Replace Diviner's Fortune and the Scrying features for the ones in the APG. Mostly to get the d20 replacement die feature and the Diviner becomes a great option.I guess?
They don't have the flash-bang of some of the other spells but getting a CompLang in your bonus slot, or True Strike for that sure hit, is not so bad. At 2nd you get See invisible cause if you cannot see your victim you cannot target it. Tongues @ 3rd. Arcane Eye in the 4th.I just don't see Divination as Awful when you consider the specialty features along with the spells.
I think the inititive was made powerful on purpose becuase otherwise diviner's would not be worth it was treantmonk point. Yes diviner is not that bad a choice overall because the abilities compensate for the spells worse than conjuration. Why do wizards need comphrehend langauges again? Lets see get 1 or more from race and then some from bonus int and more from linguistics if you take that as a skill. Realistically as a wizard I could get 8 langagues at level 1. 2 race if making a elf, half -elf, or half orc all good choices for a wizard and 5 from 20 int and 1 from linguistics.
|
|
I think the inititive was made powerful on purpose becuase otherwise diviner's would not be worth it was treantmonk point. Yes diviner is not that bad a choice overall because the abilities compensate for the spells worse than conjuration. Why do wizards need comphrehend langauges again? Lets see get 1 or more from race and then some from bonus int and more from linguistics if you take that as a skill. Realistically as a wizard I could get 8 langagues at level 1. 2 race if making a elf, half -elf, or half orc all good choices for a wizard and 5 from 20 int and 1 from linguistics.
And for those that do not take the 20 Int @ first...and are not a multi-lang race...and even then there are 21 languages in the Core book...more if you start to use regional languages like in some Campaign Worlds like Golarion. 8 of 21 is a damn good start but it does not exclude the need for a spell like CompLang @ low levels.
Like I said. Sure the spells form Diviner are not the sexiest spells to have as your bonus spells but they have their uses and can be pretty handy. I personally like the utilitarianism of the Diviner specialty.
YMMV, s'all good.
I guess I lump "optimized game" and "powergame" into the same category then.
That's why he explained the distinction that he uses, especially for his guides.
Answers
First, let me say that I'm a big fan. When I got into 3.0/3.5 after a long hiatus from gaming, I found your guides to be extremely helpful in "acclimatizing" myself to the new system. Always meant to say thanks, so, "Thanks!"
I probably should have used a different word than "optimized." "Uber-optimized," "Min/Max-ed, CoD-ified" or something along those lines would have been a better choice. Unfortunately, every term I can think of is entirely subjective. Choosing the proper terminology is difficult when no two people seem to agree on what any particular term means.
Personally, I used to consider myself an "optimizer" in that I try to build characters (well, npcs) that are effective at their assigned roles (often referencing one of your guides, btw, so, "Thanks!", again). Apparently, however, that's now referred to as "playing in easy mode." Much like modern politics, the terms of the discussion seem to end up being defined by those who are the most extreme in their views. Our fault, I guess, for letting them get away with it. :(
I will try to use more specific language in the future. Hope I didn't offend. I've found your "optimization" guides to be extremely helpful, practical, and reasonable, even when I didn't agree with your conclusions.
And for one last time, "Thanks!"
Edit: I think I should have said, "What, exactly, is the practical difference between optimizing a character to the extent that the only way to challenge him/her/it is to use higher CR creatures, and not optimizing a character and using standard CR creatures to challenge him/her/it?
Which is the opposite of his point.
Optimized means optimized for a specific task, generally by minimizing the ability to perform other tasks. This is fine within a group if others fill in where you lack.
Powergaming is trying to game the system, find loopholes and exploits to "break" the game. One famous suggestion on here being "Since it says you can take any feat, you can take an epic feat"
Well he did say this earlier:
If you get into the forums where the theoretical powergaming min/maxers hang out, you'll find them suggesting that eventually it all comes down to initiative, for which dumping Dex isn't just a bad idea, it's the [i]worst[i] idea.
Optimizers aren't necessarily power gamers, but power gamers are optimizers. At least that's what I'm seeing. So despite distinctions between the two terms, I tend to lump them together.
@Treantmonk, I do enjoy hearing your insights.
the long of itThe short of it:
When casters are involved, taking the optimized game to its logical conclusion, it becomes rocket tag and the caster who goes first wins.
Is that about right TM?
I've heard that analogy before (or similar ones), but I can't say I necessarily agree. Winning initiative with an optimized wizard isn't necessarily instant win, even at high levels, though some of the forum chatter may suggest otherwise.
However, when your battlefield controller wins initiative, this is very big for tactical advantage, and tactical advantage wins combats, although not as spectacularly as save or dies and the like.
Why do you call the divination specialty awful?
I think the divination specialty is worth taking, so obviously I don't think the specialty itself is awful.
I think specializing in divination spells is awful. The specialty is worth taking despite this because the special abilities granted rock.
Divination is not an awful school, but it is VERY narrow, and highly redundant. Taking a divination spell for every level of spell you can cast creates a very redundant spell memorization list, which is not what you want generally. Also note that some levels don't have ANY good divination spells, making memorizing one a bitter pill.
Look even at your example of good divination spells. CompLang is a decent spell, Tongues is also decent - but do you really want to memorize both? If I'm not specialized in divination, I'm happy to have a couple comprehend lang scrolls on hand (very cheap - and not nearly as level dependent as many other first level spells), then I don't memorize either of them.
I like arcane eye too, but it's only one spell, and once you have arcane eye memorized, do you really want Clairaudience too? Again, we are facing redundancy. Divination spells, unlike Conjuration or Transmutation really have a very narrow function. It's a useful function, but you normally just don't need that many.
IMO of course.
I've heard that analogy before (or similar ones), but I can't say I necessarily agree. Winning initiative with an optimized wizard isn't necessarily instant win, even at high levels, though some of the forum chatter may suggest otherwise.
To be honest, I have little experience in optimization theory and and zero experience seeing or participating in that style of game. Nevertheless, I'm enjoying following this thread and trying to draw some basic conclusions from the point of view of an optimizer and/or power gamer or whatever term people call want to call it.
|
|
Why do you call the divination specialty awful?I think the divination specialty is worth taking, so obviously I don't think the specialty itself is awful.
I think specializing in divination spells is awful. The specialty is worth taking despite this because the special abilities granted rock.
Divination is not an awful school, but it is VERY narrow, and highly redundant. Taking a divination spell for every level of spell you can cast creates a very redundant spell memorization list, which is not what you want generally. Also note that some levels don't have ANY good divination spells, making memorizing one a bitter pill.
Look even at your example of good divination spells. CompLang is a decent spell, Tongues is also decent - but do you really want to memorize both? If I'm not specialized in divination, I'm happy to have a couple comprehend lang scrolls on hand (very cheap - and not nearly as level dependent as many other first level spells), then I don't memorize either of them.
I like arcane eye too, but it's only one spell, and once you have arcane eye memorized, do you really want Clairaudience too? Again, we are facing redundancy. Divination spells, unlike Conjuration or Transmutation really have a very narrow function. It's a useful function, but you normally just don't need that many.
IMO of course.
Of course all this is IMO and YMMV and such. Wee's all goot on dat. You get some respect from people here on these boards so I would certainly like to hear your opinion, it would be silly of me to not hear you out.
Now back to the discussion...
I see what you are saying on the divide between specialty and specializing in Divination. I can agree that Divination IS very narrow and there is a lot of overlap as you increase in level in the spells you get.
In the example CompLang/Tongues...Tougues is superior in every way so by the time I would have access to it I would not memorize CompLang, but switch that to one of the other 1st level Div spells (most likely True Strike). Again, not as sexy a choice as other schools but if you are taking the Divination Specialty you have made a decision to be about playing a certain way. Since you are regularly taking Tongues you are free to have Arcane Eyes when you reach that level.
Again, agreed on the more limited scope of the Divination school, but by devoting one slot every level to a Div spell I find I am prepped to handle certain situations immediately, but that is probably just me and my play style. I don't optimize Wizards, my poor little brain just don't think that way.
Thanks for replying to my question
I removed some posts that linked to offensive material or attacked other posters.
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 removed some posts that linked to offensive material or attacked other posters.
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.
Thanks for keeping the peace on your day off Ross.
The resta yous, knock it off already.
Quote:
First, Why does initiative being an opposed roll make it suffer from diminishing returns? ...
Basic math. Observe.
...
I went over the probabilities with your numbers in mind and have to agree completely , provided that the opposition's intiative modifier dos not improve with CR. A quick and unscientific read of a dozen or so monsters from the Bestiary shows me a possible weak link between CR and initiative modifier. Without further research I'd suggest the average monster's initiative modifer is approximately 1/3 of CR, althoiugh the range is quite high.
Exhaustive research could determine a better value.
2: Non optimized characters of the wrong classes get slaughtered by standard encounters.
I don't see this at all. Now, I mostly play on lower levels, but we rarely have TPK's, and player deaths aren't that common either; this mostly in home-brewed campaigns with standard encounters, but we played through Burnt Offerings as a halfling barbarian, a human fighter/monk, a human fey sorcerer and a half-elf bard. Fifteen point buy. I didn't soft-ball them but rather followed the tactic instructions from the AP as far as I could for the AP encounters, adding some homebrew mainly non-combat encounters (but not increasing treasure or xp overall), otherwise playing the enemies appropriate for their int/wis and type, and the only one dying was the sorcerer, and that was due to in-game stupidity, not to lacking number crunching.
No-one got slaughtered at all.EDIT: Could it simply be that you are a good caster optimizer, but don't play as well in-game? Maybe lack of teamwork in your group or something? Don't take this as an insult, it's just that I can't see this at all.
|
|
Notice how I followed it with "if you care"? That's because again, context is important. Someone actually claimed it was. I pointed out they were wrong both because Fireballs are trivial, and because Con is superior for even THAT specific and narrow point.
And go onto a decent or better CO board, like BG and ask the people that have a clue what everyone's second most important stat is. I'll wait.
You are putting your your credentials against Treantmonk? Seriously?
Treantmonk has posted 5 separate guides on how to build characters of specific classes that is held in high enough esteem in the community to be a section on the most used System Reference Documents.
You have never posted a single build, and people actively hope you will avoid posting it their threads because your consistently derail discussion.
It's like a goblin challenging a pit fiend. Or more appropriately to context, Kirk Cameron vs Richard Dawkins.
Wow.
Fireballs? Really?Notice how I followed it with "if you care"? That's because again, context is important. Someone actually claimed it was. I pointed out they were wrong both because Fireballs are trivial, and because Con is superior for even THAT specific and narrow point.
If you don't give everything MAX HP, and use good tactics you might discover that fireball has it's uses, and isn't underpowered for a 3rd level spell.
|
|
If you don't give everything MAX HP, and use good tactics you might discover that fireball has it's uses, and isn't underpowered for a 3rd level spell.
Fireballs? Really?Notice how I followed it with "if you care"? That's because again, context is important. Someone actually claimed it was. I pointed out they were wrong both because Fireballs are trivial, and because Con is superior for even THAT specific and narrow point.
I did a full scale battle a few weeks ago with the party attacking city defenses. Most of them consisted of low level fighters who could only hit and some 5th level battle casters (Bigger baddies coming soon)
Area effect blasts were very helpful to players who didn't have high enough AC that they only get hit on 20's or evasion so they took no damage from the blasts coming at them in volume. Which were the people who had the spells :).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And go onto a decent or better CO board, like BG and ask the people that have a clue what everyone's second most important stat is. I'll wait.
OK
On the BG Min/Max it boards now. Let's go to the handbooks section and see what they suggest for various classes:
Pathfinder: I see a Wizard, Bard, Ranger, Druid and Monk guide there, but since I posted all of them, I have to disqualify them.
I guess let's look at 3.5 material...
1) Chameleon - top of the list in the handbook section - they suggest Int and Wis as top 2
Go down
2) Duskblade - Str and Int
3) Psychic warrior - Str and Wis
4) Wizard - Oh wait - Dan2 has posted a Wizard guide that suggests Con as the second highest score.
whoops - that guide starts, "Alright guys, this is a compilation of Treantmonklvl20's guide to wizards and the subsequent spell handbooks."
So why did I suggest Con as second highest stat for Wizards in that guide? Because it was for a different game, like all those guides, and thus irrelevant to Pathfinder.
If looking at 3.5 material is how you come up with your Pathfinder optimization ideas, I see how you can be so wrong yet think you are right. Concentration used to be based on Con, HP for Wizards used to be D4. You had less feats to spend on Great Fortitude and the like, and there were MANY more ways to improve initiative in 3.5
Thanks for telling me about BG though, though I knew about it already when Meg sent me a personal email when it was started asking if I would join. I don't visit there much anymore since they don't really cover Pathfinder, which is what I play now.
|
And go onto a decent or better CO board, like BG and ask the people that have a clue what everyone's second most important stat is. I'll wait.
OK
On the BG Min/Max it boards now. Let's go to the handbooks section and see what they suggest for various classes:
Pathfinder: I see a Wizard, Bard, Ranger, Druid and Monk guide there, but since I posted all of them, I have to disqualify them.
I guess let's look at 3.5 material...
1) Chameleon - top of the list in the handbook section - they suggest Int and Wis as top 2
Go down
2) Duskblade - Str and Int
3) Psychic warrior - Str and Wis
4) Wizard - Oh wait - Dan2 has posted a Wizard guide that suggests Con as the second highest score.
whoops - that guide starts, "Alright guys, this is a compilation of Treantmonklvl20's guide to wizards and the subsequent spell handbooks."
So why did I suggest Con as second highest stat for Wizards in that guide? Because it was for a different game, like all those guides, and thus irrelevant to Pathfinder.
If looking at 3.5 material is how you come up with your Pathfinder optimization ideas, I see how you can be so wrong yet think you are right. Concentration used to be based on Con, HP for Wizards used to be D4. You had less feats to spend on Great Fortitude and the like, and there were MANY more ways to improve initiative in 3.5
Thanks for telling me about BG though, though I knew about it already when Meg sent me a personal email when it was started asking if I would join. I don't visit there much anymore since they don't really cover Pathfinder, which is what I play now.
Love your guides bro!
I am currently a 4rth level wizard, never been hit , or targeted by any spell. stay in the back of the party, and Win initive all most every combat... I love your thing on spells, its really helpful.Glitter dust the Fire elemental, 'looks at my dm' make a dc 18 will save or be blind!
Party kills it with eaze with 1 spell used.
Awesome!
Initive is extremely important, my +12 at 4rth level is not enough!
And I do love telporting around the battle field using the telaport sub school.
It has helped keep me out of combat so many times, that extra 5-10 feet a turn helps a lot.
Now back to the discussion...
After reading your post, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Love your guides bro!
Glad to hear!
Area effect blasts were very helpful to players who didn't have high enough AC that they only get hit on 20's or evasion so they took no damage from the blasts coming at them in volume. Which were the people who had the spells :).
and
{quote="Fergie"]If you don't give everything MAX HP, and use good tactics you might discover that fireball has it's uses, and isn't underpowered for a 3rd level spell.
I agree that blasts have their uses, and fireball is decent as far as blasts go, nice range and a circular blast radius. The quote was regarding Fireball being used as a specific example in regards to how to make your character, which I'm sure you would agree exaggerates its importance.
It's like a goblin challenging a pit fiend. Or more appropriately to context, Kirk Cameron vs Richard Dawkins.
Awesome. Just awesome.
"...evolution still can't explain...the CROCODUCK!"
If looking at 3.5 material is how you come up with your Pathfinder optimization ideas, I see how you can be so wrong yet think you are right. Concentration used to be based on Con, HP for Wizards used to be D4. You had less feats to spend on Great Fortitude and the like, and there were MANY more ways to improve initiative in 3.5
Thanks for telling me about BG though, though I knew about it already when Meg sent me a personal email when it was started asking if I would join. I don't visit there much anymore since they don't really cover Pathfinder, which is what I play now.
Monk, where you been for so long? We love ya.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know full well what I meant.
Obtuse? You failed to be specific. You are the one always griping that people aren't specific enough. Either be specific or admit that you don't have a point. So, specifically, what are the target numbers that matter? Remember that you can only use Pathfinder materials.
Your evasive language aside, you get full attacked and crit, and you die. Therefore you are required by law to have Heavy Fort so you don't get 1 rounded all the time. Simple to understand.
What evasive language? Since most of the monsters only crit on a 20 or better, why would you even care about a potential 5% threat? Even then, you should be able to handle a crit coming your way. You shouldn't see so many that it's a requirement. If you do, then you are not using the same encounters the rest of us are using.
There are multiple general purpose DPS properties. And you need all of them to hit hard enough to matter.
If you can get your bonus attack and damage without having to spend so much money, does it matter then? Why spend so much for such a small bonus? There are far better ways then this.
Skipping more absurdity.
Hand waving away points doesn't make you right. It means that you are either unwilling or unable to support your position.
Would you prefer I didn't look at the best case scenario? Because as stated, that means the problem of "WBL is not enough wealth" is more pronounced, not less. That and you'd instead complain I picked the example most favorable to my argument, and not least. See, you're transparent like that. Very, very predictable.
I would like you to admit that level 20 is such a pointless level to look at anything when it comes to overall balance and costs. If you only play level 20, that's cool with me. I don't care one way or the other. The rest of the community plays more than level 20. So you can ignore the other 19 levels, but that isn't going to make you right.
So why not look at level 5, 10, or 15 like was suggested? Since it is by far more likely that games will occur at those levels than 20, it seems like those would be better gauges.