|
Thinking you're real clever by finding a roundabout way of saying bull****. Which means not only do you get all the negatives of randomly swearing, but you also get all the negatives of refusing to come out and say what you mean directly. Worst of both worlds.
LOLzzz...Hi Kettle! My name is Pot.
Dude talking about things as Definite, when really they only apply to game run like the ones you play in, wins you no points either. Come to earth and talk about the same game under the same rules as the rest of us and you may start to actually get taken seriously.
CoD, I've asked you three times in other threads to explain your core PF init booster strategy. I am convinced you have nothing. If you have a response, fine, but I'm only even mentioning this so that other posters realize you're all talk.
But... Considering you just threw down with treantmonk, I probably don't need to announce it.
CoDzilla I'm curious how much 3.X material you're playing with. I wonder if 3.X bandaids are overly stacking with the PF adjustments. I'm curious if you're using the Spell Compendium, where designers on this board have condemned it as full of poorly designed spells. . .
CoDzilla I'm curious how much 3.X material you're playing with. I wonder if 3.X bandaids are overly stacking with the PF adjustments. I'm curious if you're using the Spell Compendium, where designers on this board have condemned it as full of poorly designed spells. . .
I'd like to know too, but I seriously doubt he'll answer you. That could be mistaken for helpful.
CoDzilla I'm curious how much 3.X material you're playing with. I wonder if 3.X bandaids are overly stacking with the PF adjustments. I'm curious if you're using the Spell Compendium, where designers on this board have condemned it as full of poorly designed spells. . .
He's mentioned SC material a few times in the past, so that would seem to be a yes.
Part of his position is that the SC group buff spells are necessary for the caster characters to be able to help the martial characters out as a team, whereas many of the best core buff spells are self-only.
Part of his position is that the SC group buff spells are necessary for the caster characters to be able to help the martial characters out as a team, whereas many of the best core buff spells are self-only.
The group buffs in the Spell Compendium (I'm looking at you mass conviction and mass resist energy) are horribly balanced. Anyone who allows them in a PF game is asking for problems. In fact, I'd expect anyone to hate fireball if you allow mass conviction/mass resist energy spam.
BTW, here's an official take:
The spells [in the Spell Compendium] did not undergo the same level of scrutiny for balance and rules work as the spells in the SRD, and there's a LOT of confusing stuff in those spells that, if you get deep into the way the rules work there, cause more harm than good. The Spell Compendium is a great resource for expanding spellcaster options, but not a great source for lessons in balanced spell design.
3: No, the "problem" is that most people here do not play by the rules, either freeforming or fudging, and we do. So if the dice say someone dies, they drop dead. And there's plenty of instances where this happens to low tier classes and far fewer instances where it happens to higher tier classes.
AND
No amount of tactics makes weak numbers stop being weak. And Fireball is terribad even assuming average HP. Which is what I've been doing the entire time. It's worse with max HP, but that's not the point. Of course if you do want to bring my games into it when no one is discussing my games Fireballs there do around 20d6+40 instead of a pathetic little 10d6. Aka, not a complete waste of time.
Don't you see this as a contradiction? Either you are playing by the rules or you are bringing in house rules. Sounds to me like you are bringing in house rules.
Yawn. We've been over this. Ignoring the answer and repeating the same question earns you no points.
It has to be asked several times because you have failed to answer it every time. Have you considered that answering the question might get me to stop asking it? You have complained over and over that people are vague and don't use specifics. I am holding you to the standard that you want to hold others to. So, specifically, what are the target numbers?
You care about the 5% threat because it happens on a hit every hit, and if it succeeds, full attack + crit = dead you. And over the many, many fights in a campaign, and the many, many times you will be full attacked while just doing your job, this will happen All. The. Time. Even stock enemies pull this off very very easily. It doesn't even take a good one to do it.
Your math is off. 5% means that it doesn't happen on every hit. 100% would be happening on every hit. Also it is extremely unlikely that a full attack is going to net crits on every attack. Show me any creature or NPC from Pathfinder that crits 100% of the time. You have made the claim that it happens on every hit so now I ask you to show me where.
Who says it is a small bonus? Last I checked, 4d6+5 was a decent boost, being about 20 a hit every hit, and that's not even a full DPS array. That's just the bonus damage, not any other damage.
But is it necessary? You are talking about needing to spend an incredible amount of money for 20 points of damage. I don't think that's necessary. You can find other ways to deal 20 points of damage without spending that kind of money, assuming that you need those 20 points in the first place. 150,000 gold is a lot of money to spend.
Ignoring the answer and repeating the same question earns you no points.
I accept that you are unwilling to look at actual game play to support your points. When you are ready to look at the majority of the game instead of a small portion, then let's talk.
Not quite a contradicton Bob. Playing by house rules is still playing by the rules. In the first statement he is implying that other people here do not follow the letter of the rules they use and he does play by the letter of the rules he uses.
But you know as well as I do that he is implying that he is using Pathfinder rules in the first statement and that he is claiming that he doesn't in the second.
CoD, I've asked you three times in other threads to explain your core PF init booster strategy. I am convinced you have nothing. If you have a response, fine, but I'm only even mentioning this so that other posters realize you're all talk.
...
After a fairly exhaustive (OK, not really) search, I came up with this:
Improved Init feat +4Reactionary trait +2
Wizards or witches can get an additional +2 for a scorpion familiar. (Thanks to another poster for pointing that out.)
Divination specialists get +1/2 wiz level to init.
Most of the other classes and prestige classes can get various bonuses to initiative, generally between +2-4, and often situational (for example, the rangers favored terrain grants a +2 to init.)
So it seems to me that it is the other classes are the ones who got the boost to initiative, and mostly it is the martial classes, or situational bonuses.
EDIT: Oh yeah one more, if you are are all cracked out on Zerk, you get +1!
Improved Init feat +4
Reactionary trait +2
Wizards or witches can get an additional +2 for a scorpion familiar. Divination specialists get +1/2 wiz level to init.
Most of the other classes and prestige classes can get various bonuses to initiative, generally between +2-4, and often situational (for example, the rangers favored terrain grants a +2 to init.)
Oh yeah one more, if you are are all cracked out on Zerk, you get +1!
That's more than I had on my list, thank you.
And even so, the numbers that CoD has put forth as the init that a PC "should" have at a given level are not attainable with this at all (with a dex 10), unless every Wizard is a Diviner.
|
CoD, I've asked you three times in other threads to explain your core PF init booster strategy. I am convinced you have nothing. If you have a response, fine, but I'm only even mentioning this so that other posters realize you're all talk.
...After a fairly exhaustive (OK, not really) search, I came up with this:
Improved Init feat +4
Reactionary trait +2Wizards or witches can get an additional +2 for a scorpion familiar. (Thanks to another poster for pointing that out.)
Divination specialists get +1/2 wiz level to init.Most of the other classes and prestige classes can get various bonuses to initiative, generally between +2-4, and often situational (for example, the rangers favored terrain grants a +2 to init.)
So it seems to me that it is the other classes are the ones who got the boost to initiative, and mostly it is the martial classes, or situational bonuses.
EDIT: Oh yeah one more, if you are are all cracked out on Zerk, you get +1!
* The Compsognathus familiar from Bestiary 2 grants a +4 init
* A two level dip in Inquisitor would grant you +wis (okay that is a double hurt, non-wiz levels, and non-wiz stat...)
Improved Init feat +4
Reactionary trait +2
Wizards or witches can get an additional +2 for a scorpion familiar. Divination specialists get +1/2 wiz level to init.
Most of the other classes and prestige classes can get various bonuses to initiative, generally between +2-4, and often situational (for example, the rangers favored terrain grants a +2 to init.)
Oh yeah one more, if you are are all cracked out on Zerk, you get +1! That's more than I had on my list, thank you.
And even so, the numbers that CoD has put forth as the init that a PC "should" have at a given level are not attainable with this at all (with a dex 10), unless every Wizard is a Diviner.
I'll chip in dexterity boosters, be they spells or items.
What about items/spells that boost ability checks?
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.
A Dexterity check is an ability check, correct?
Just skimming the PRD, that would add on the pale green ioun stone and the luckstone (+1 competence, +1 luck).
The good hope spell would also boost initiative then I guess. . .
A few various class abilities also apply to ability checks. Conviction ability in the celestial bloodline for sorcerers. . . destined touch of destiny. . . etc. . .
|
|
What about items/spells that boost ability checks?
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. An initiative check is a Dexterity check.A Dexterity check is an ability check, correct?
Just skimming the PRD, that would add on the pale green ioun stone and the luckstone (+1 competence, +1 luck).
The good hope spell would also boost initiative then I guess. . .
A few various class abilities also apply to ability checks. Conviction ability in the celestial bloodline for sorcerers. . . destined touch of destiny. . . etc. . .
While an inquisitor level dip is unlikely, a sorcerer level dip is probably more so.
Well, low level wizards are anything but helpless combat bystanders - if they use the right spells.
Here's what my 2nd level wizard's (Transmuter) player sprung on me during the last sessions as the party was setting up an ambush:
Pre-cast spells: Gravity Bow; Magic Weapon; Enlarge Person.
End result: She spent first 9 rounds of combat popping off arrows for 3D6 damage (1D8 - 2D6 Enlarge - 3D6 Gravity Bow) every round with a +5 to hit (+1 BAB, +1 Magic Weapon, +3 Dex, +1 Masterwork, -1 Size). Not even mentioning she managed to crit twice in those 7 rounds, her damage output was every bit as impressive as any fighter's, barbarian's or rogue's.
Admittedly, this is a slightly extreme example - she did burn 3 out of her 4 or 5 1st lvl spells for that combat - but the impact was undeniable - not to mention greater than if she'd been popping off magic missiles. Hell, only way she could've pulled off that amount of damage with direct damage spells was had she dropped 3-4 Burning Hands spells, caught 4+ enemies every round, with everyone failing saves.
Chameleon: Made by a nobody in the CO community. Same for Psychic Warrior.
Unlike you?
I'm not sure what's with the Duskblade guide. He should know better.
Let me get this straight. You are the authority on what "decent optimizers" believe. If you disagree with me on Pathfinder, then I'm incorrect. If you disagree with Dictum Mortuum (the guy who basically invented the "handbook" concept and has more respected handbooks than any other optimizer for 3.5) then he "should know better"
How about Tleilaxu_Ghola? If anyone has a longer and more respected history in the optimization community than Dictum Mortuum it would be TG. Check out his Truenamer guide - Int first, then *drumroll* Cha
I'm tempted to research posts from other known optimizers, but really - you don't seem to be worth the effort.
One thing is certain, the claim you put forth that
SAD character: Prime stat > Con > anything else.
MAD character: Prime stat > Con > anything else that matters > anything else.Any half decent optimizer learned this on the very first day, so I have no idea what he's on about.
is debunked now for both 3.5 and Pathfinder, which convinces me finally that when it comes to "decent optimizers" you really are no authority.
Your further posts are of no real concern to me, but feel free to get in the last word if it makes you feel better.
|
|
Well, low level wizards are anything but helpless combat bystanders - if they use the right spells.
Here's what my 2nd level wizard's (Transmuter) player sprung on me during the last sessions as the party was setting up an ambush:
Pre-cast spells: Gravity Bow; Magic Weapon; Enlarge Person.
End result: She spent first 9 rounds of combat popping off arrows for 3D6 damage (1D8 - 2D6 Enlarge - 3D6 Gravity Bow) every round with a +5 to hit (+1 BAB, +1 Magic Weapon, +3 Dex, +1 Masterwork, -1 Size). Not even mentioning she managed to crit twice in those 7 rounds, her damage output was every bit as impressive as any fighter's, barbarian's or rogue's.
Admittedly, this is a slightly extreme example - she did burn 3 out of her 4 or 5 1st lvl spells for that combat - but the impact was undeniable - not to mention greater than if she'd been popping off magic missiles. Hell, only way she could've pulled off that amount of damage with direct damage spells was had she dropped 3-4 Burning Hands spells, caught 4+ enemies every round, with everyone failing saves.
The gravity bow spell is very effective (and i'm assuming the Transmuter had 18 Dex to begin with as Enlarge Person reduces it by 2).
However, you handled the enlarge person spell wrong. Specifically-
"Any enlarged item that leaves an enlarged creature's possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown and projectile weapons deal their normal damage."
So really, she should have been doing 2d6 damage with the bow only.
The workaround for this is to carry a large sized bow and large sized arrows of course...
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.
1: Any PF module after (AoW/SC/ST... whichever came last) has been proven to be incredibly easy.
2: Low levels are easy enough to not kill the low tier classes as often. Try playing non E6 and see how it goes.
3: No, the "problem" is that most people here do not play by the rules, either freeforming or fudging, and we do. So if the dice say someone dies, they drop dead. And there's plenty of instances where this happens to low tier classes and far fewer instances where it happens to higher tier classes.
First you say standard encounters slaughter non-optimized characters, then you say standard encounters are "incredibly easy".
Then you say that the problem is that people aren't playing "by the rules" while you do, when you play in a game so heavily house-ruled it's unrecognizable.Make up your frackin' mind.
I removed a post. Let's not make things personal.
The rest of your post is just you being wrong some more.
Sit down before reading because the thing could shock you: just say someone is wrong DOES. NOT. WORK.
You have to say why.
And just to add, say that someone is trolling because you are unable to answer, is quite a cheap tactic, too.
Mass Conviction is absolutely required to reduce the RLT caused by save or lose spam. Without it, enemies go down like drunken sorority girls. And so do you. Win init or die.
Well, in that case, Dexterity would certainly be a higher value stat, no? (:
Most of the posters in this thread probably do not play with Mass Conviction while you state it is "absolutely required". It's hard to come to any agreement about how to play when we have foundational differences in how our games are structured.
I'd venture to say any spell that is "absolutely required" is simply broken. I think if you'd limit some of the 3.X material in your games, you'd find that things are actually more balanced than they appear.
Mass resist energy is a bit more subtle than mass conviction. Proactively buffing an entire party to be resistant to a specific damage type can drastically alter the combat. Things are different if you're surprised and retroactively trying to save the party's collective behinds given a limited action economy. The tempo gain of reactively protecting the entire party in one standard action is huge compared to the single-target buffs of core. And this is a tempo gain that could be applied to many combats. Mass resist energy is a spell I'd hate *not* to take.
That's generally the broken test. In this case, I don't even think making adjustments to the spells would help. I would ban them entirely from any game I ran.
I'm getting far off topic (overpowered 3.X cleric spells), but the point still stands -- you can't design a character without considering later spells. If I were in CoDzilla's game with mass conviction/resist energy, I'd probably lower the value of Dexterity for wizards too.
Just so we're all on the same page and arguing from the same premises, we do all know that characters that die don't necessarily stay dead, right?
I'd venture to say any spell that is "absolutely required" is simply broken. I think if you'd limit some of the 3.X material in your games, you'd find that things are actually more balanced than they appear.
I disagree to a certain point: There is an inherent discrepancy in the system, not all spells are as good as every other spell. Same with feats. Power Attack is absolutely required for a martial character who intends to deal damage in melee.
Unless you love gimping, then skill focus is needed :P
This is annoying because I think that without absolute statement discussion could be more interesting.
BTW, I agree with CoDzilla point 2, at least for a lot of spells. Even the infamous orbs get nerfed.. in their range (not enough).
I true that other spells are there but should have never existed (see the "bite of.. " line, nice for the spirit shaman, "WTF crazy good" for druid since they STACK WITH THE ALREADY POWERFUL 3.5 WILDSHAPE).
No, because then you are even more vulnerable to RLT, while due to diminishing returns the Dex does not help with first strikes much.Mass Conviction is absolutely required to reduce the RLT caused by save or lose spam. Without it, enemies go down like drunken sorority girls. And so do you. Win init or die.Well, in that case, Dexterity would certainly be a higher value stat, no? (:
How can you be MORE vulnerable than "win init or die"? "Lose init or die"?
E]
The Bite of line is a round/level, so it isn't worth casting without Persist. And as it is available to arcane casters, and Druids, but not Clerics DMM is not normally available. There are ways to do it, but they just prove that Forgotten Realms are Realms best left Forgotten. Not that the Bite of line is too good.
You mean the "bite" are from FR, or that you can persist them through some "WTFey" prestige class from FR, like Incatatrix? I guess the second...
About "isn't worth casting", there is one is + 16 str on top of a str 39 dire polar bear. Seriously, what they were thinking..
The Bite of line is a round/level, so it isn't worth casting without Persist. And as it is available to arcane casters, and Druids, but not Clerics DMM is not normally available. There are ways to do it, but they just prove that Forgotten Realms are Realms best left Forgotten. Not that the Bite of line is too good.This is annoying because I think that without absolute statement discussion could be more interesting.
BTW, I agree with CoDzilla point 2, at least for a lot of spells. Even the infamous orbs get nerfed.. in their range (not enough).
I true that other spells are there but should have never existed (see the "bite of.. " line, nice for the spirit shaman, "WTF crazy good" for druid since they STACK WITH THE ALREADY POWERFUL 3.5 WILDSHAPE.
If all of your combats only last 2-3 rounds, shouldn't that be a long enough duration?