|
"How to make enemy spellcasters fear fighters?"Run the 1st or 2nd edition versions of the game instead of 3.5/PFRPG?
Doesn't really hold up in 2nd.
It does a little better in 1st, at least at lower levels.
Holds up perfectly in 1st or 2nd. You are forgetting that saves in 1st and 2nd were independent of caster ability, thus every class would have good saves if the player sought that out (rings, pally, playing a Dwarf), which invalidates a tremendous amount of spell power and impact.
If you are going to use every glitch splat spell in 2nd the caster still has to fear the fighter.
Nothing beats the sheer stupidity of DC manipulation, shut down/save imbalance of 3.5 gaming.
Nothing.
I'd imagine that INT-draining poison would be a handy way to destroy a mage. Two can play the "target the weak save" game. Plus, he'd be losing his top spell slots. Alternatively, 2-3 hits with a strength draining poison might paralyze him at STR 0.
In most tables I have been at, unsupported mages drop like flies. The ones that don't, the person is either cheating or misreading rules/spells.
this also depends on the level of the mage and readied spells.
Most arguements of "mage wins" I read/hear are all based on metagaming the mage, constantly moving the goal post, and other games of rock paper scissors without realizing that what I did to trump your action used a spell slot, but here, 10 posts later im using that spell slot again.
It's the classic case of writing checks despite an overdrawn bank account.
Every wizard/sorceror that has ever been statted in a module I have run, has always seem subpar. they either didn't have enough spells, or they had goofy ones.
Lately I had a serpent folk wizard to play with, I really tired to kill the party (Honestly, I tired) I even added six encounters into this one encounter (took monsters from a-f and put them all in room g).
The wizard just wasn't statted up that great, the lightening bolts really helped do ALOT of damage (ad I did almost kill several players) but other spells had range limitations, or targeted good saves etc. And ultimately it came down to a "spider climb" stand off.
It was Really close. It was down to the wizard (all the mooks were down) and 2 players (well three but one had 1 hit point and was across the room) The wizard had a good AC and was out of reach with the spider climb, and the next spell could easily wipe the group.
The dwarf charged/lept at him (which meant if he missed he'd go splat on the wall and fall to boot) and managed to hit him, the magus from across the room then webbed him, and the witch critted on a ranged touch attack that resulted in arcane goo (crit cards) and the wizard was stuck/immobile and down to something like 3 hit points.
they finished him off the a spear.
That was a close fight but only because I had a girillon and a hoarde of crazy charau ka put in the room, that were not in the room previously and were scattered about.
Only in a recent sorceress fight, did it seem pretty equal, but the sorc was hag and had lots of racial HD and melee abilites.
A straight up humanoid caster, with no support isn't going to get away with what everyone likes to think is possible,
1)You can't always assume they are statted up for combat, unless they know the castle is being stormed
2) they DO have other things to use those spell slots for and they arent always taken up with random mcguffins.
3) they are more likely (and able) to just run away then stay and kill the melee combatants anyway.
4) I usally find high level cleric BBEG are usually a bit more difficult to kill than said wizard
I'd imagine that INT-draining poison would be a handy way to destroy a mage. Two can play the "target the weak save" game. Plus, he'd be losing his top spell slots. Alternatively, 2-3 hits with a strength draining poison might paralyze him at STR 0.
Poisons that deal drain are rare -- and ability damage doesn't cause spell loss.
.
..
...
....
.....
Sweet Zombie Raptor Jesus, not again..
::
What's the average level of the party, the number of members in the party, and the CR of the caster?
I'm just observing the exact opposite behavior in my games. If I push the caster's CR too high, they will easily crush the PCs. . . especially given their access to divination (and thus surprise).
I'd imagine that INT-draining poison would be a handy way to destroy a mage. Two can play the "target the weak save" game. Plus, he'd be losing his top spell slots. Alternatively, 2-3 hits with a strength draining poison might paralyze him at STR 0.Poisons that deal drain are rare -- and ability damage doesn't cause spell loss.
Really? Is that new? Touch of Idiocy in 3.5 specifically called out that ability damage could make it such that they wouldn't be able to cast their top spells. Says the same in the d20pfsrd, actually.
Or is that because they wouldn't have a high enough INT score to qualify to cast the high level spells, but would retain the slots?
Fighter just needs to beat a mage with a stick...While he sleeps.
I'd imagine that INT-draining poison would be a handy way to destroy a mage. Two can play the "target the weak save" game. Plus, he'd be losing his top spell slots. Alternatively, 2-3 hits with a strength draining poison might paralyze him at STR 0.Poisons that deal drain are rare -- and ability damage doesn't cause spell loss.Really? Is that new? Touch of Idiocy in 3.5 specifically called out that ability damage could make it such that they wouldn't be able to cast their top spells. Says the same in the d20pfsrd, actually.
Or is that because they wouldn't have a high enough INT score to qualify to cast the high level spells, but would retain the slots?
Touch of idiocy doesn't give damage in pathfinder -- it deals penalty -- and it specifically alters the normal rules -- which is why it specifies exactly what it does.
In pathfinder the ability damage doesn't render you unable to cast spells, or use feats -- it simply makes you less effective at using them (due to lower DCs or less bonuses).
Ability drain still causes ability loss (such as the loss of use of higher level spells or ability to use feats).
What's the average level of the party, the number of members in the party, and the CR of the caster?
I'm just observing the exact opposite behavior in my games. If I push the caster's CR too high, they will easily crush the PCs. . . especially given their access to divination (and thus surprise).
there goes that tweak. Because they have 'access' to divination, they HAVE to get surprise.
Really? Do they know to be divining that day?Is the wizard divining that day? Or is he instructing his unseen servant on the finer tips of making a grill cheese sandwich when adventurers kick down his door?
this assumes paranoid wizards.
Paranoid people hide in the houses, stock up ak-47s and ammo, and think $14 for an MRE is a great deal for food!
The also draw the attention of the FBI and never leave their hovel.
a paranoid wizard would act the same, wouldnt be too healthy of a guy and probably wasted a few lightening bolts before the pcs arrive because he was convinced that bluejay was really a polymorphed rival flying in his window to kill him.
Seriously, wizards don't wake up in the morning, and save all their spells in case someone kicks down the door. those wizards don't increase in power or get anything done because, well they are never casting their spells!
a perfect example of that is
That doesn't mean he's ill equipped to repel invaders, that means, he might have cast a few spells already that day, and some of his spell slots aren't going to have everything he needs right then and there.
An adventuring wizards spell list (we are going to assault the tomb of the lizard king tomorrow) is going to look different than a scheming wizards spell list (what are those nosey neighbors up to today) and a researching wizards spell list.
Wizards are people too, and even high level ones have finite resources per day. These need to be managed and not assumed there is a constant array of I WIN spells available.
If he scried, those are spell slots burned, set up enchanments, alarms, protections? More spell slots used. That means there are less spells slots available for combat and counter spelling, you can't burn those spell slots twice.
For this reason, a sorcerer might be better set up for this kind of existence, because of the spontaneous casting, but has less spell slots in general, so those scrying spells, alarms, enchantments and protections are going to leave even less combat spell slots available.
|
The real danger in the spellcasting classes isn't PC's. NPC spellcasters are far, far more dangerous. This is because a PC has to spread their spells out among four, five, six, or even ten different encounters, while an NPC can blow everything in one encounter, because they are only going to be in one encounter.
NPC spellcasters are effectively a tougher encounter than martial NPC's. But PC spellcasters don't have such a huge advantage over martial PC's.
Wizards are people too, and even high level ones have finite resources per day.
Actually no, NPC Wizards are not people (: They're elements of a game. If it's bad game play to have wizards randomly unprepared for a group of PCs, then I won't allow it to happen. If it's bad game play for NPC wizards to waste all their spell slots plotting against the PCs, then I'll simply create some method for the wizard to rest. PCs do it all the time; two can play at that game.
If the PCs don't take specific action to thwart divination, it is going to happen. I applaud the foresight to counter divination. I encourage fighting divination with divination. If there's some story-based way to render a wizard truly flat-footed, OK fine.
But if you don't care about divination, it is going to bite you in the butt. . .every time. . .without fail.
Our Spellcaster had a bad time with an Orc who used Step Up, Following step and Step up and strike - no 5ft step + cast anymore :)
I think with Lunge, Disruptive and Spellbreaker he would be a pain in the as. If your cster uses a lot of rays, the shield line would be also nice, i thought there was a feat which allows to block touch attacks
I added a spoiler tag.
In most tables I have been at, unsupported mages drop like flies. The ones that don't, the person is either cheating or misreading rules/spells.
this also depends on the level of the mage and readied spells.
Most arguements of "mage wins" I read/hear are all based on metagaming the mage, constantly moving the goal post, and other games of rock paper scissors without realizing that what I did to trump your action used a spell slot, but here, 10 posts later im using that spell slot again.
It's the classic case of writing checks despite an overdrawn bank account.
Every wizard/sorceror that has ever been statted in a module I have run, has always seem subpar. they either didn't have enough spells, or they had goofy ones.
Lately I had a serpent folk wizard to play with, I really tired to kill the party (Honestly, I tired) I even added six encounters into this one encounter (took monsters from a-f and put them all in room g).
The wizard just wasn't statted up that great, the lightening bolts really helped do ALOT of damage (ad I did almost kill several players) but other spells had range limitations, or targeted good saves etc. And ultimately it came down to a "spider climb" stand off.
It was Really close.
Many of the AP's have spells in there to fill up space since they don't want to optimize too much. I always have to change spells since my group optimizes pretty well. I also have baddies run away to let me know they are coming or I have an alarm spell nearby so I can start buffing.
If there is a clear lane between a caster and the party the caster drops pretty quickly most of the time.
Why don't the two sides run a competition. One at low levels, one at mid levels, and one at high levels.
Because of the time and energy such a competition would take just figuring out the 'rules' in use, and the fact that any such competition would almost inevitably invalidate it's own outcomes at some point somehow, or be wildly influenced by the 'flukes' of probability.
Everything from character development to dungeon, to specific encounters would have to be hashed out in advanced, as well as the 'scoring' criteria.
It's almost not worth doing simply due to the work involved for so little gain.
Personally my experience is that when characters are played with equally skilled players over the course of a complete campaign going up into the high levels (for me levels 17~20) everyone tends to come out even at all level ranges.
I can show it mathematically, I can 'prove' it with builds and what not, but at the end of the day people will grip of things like, "Well grappling is a special specific caster nerfing tactic so you can't use it" or "Well yeah if the fighter can find that stuff" or "Why didn't the wizard just do this?"
The armchair critics will complain no matter the outcome and on all sides of the argument.
***************************************
At the same time you then have situations like what happened at my regular table last weekend:
A sorcerer I built that ended up an NPC vampire caused a TPK using ghoul touch on the fighter, oracle (of life) and paladin -- everyone of them failed their fort saves, both on the ghoul touch and then on the coup'd'grac that came from the vampire spawn afterwards.
That same sorcerer has waylaid the party several times already and has generally wrecked havoc -- partially because I built him well, and partly because the way I built him just happens to also line up really well with the party's general weaknesses (just not that last time -- fluke city there!).
Why don't the two sides run a competition. One at low levels, one at mid levels, and one at high levels.
I don't think there are any real sides. Most of us just don't think it is possible most of the time for the melee types to be threat if the caster is played well. Magic is almost unlimited in what it can do. It would be like playing basketball against someone who is allowed to foul you, not have to dribble, or follow a lot of other rules. You might win a game here and there, but on average you will lose.
Another example is that a single caster can challenge an entire party. A single melee type can't do it past level 7, and starts to become hard pressed before that unless it is a monster with class levels. That alone shows the discrepancy.
In most tables I have been at, unsupported mages drop like flies. The ones that don't, the person is either cheating or misreading rules/spells.
this also depends on the level of the mage and readied spells.
Most arguements of "mage wins" I read/hear are all based on metagaming the mage, constantly moving the goal post, and other games of rock paper scissors without realizing that what I did to trump your action used a spell slot, but here, 10 posts later im using that spell slot again.
It's the classic case of writing checks despite an overdrawn bank account.
Every wizard/sorceror that has ever been statted in a module I have run, has always seem subpar. they either didn't have enough spells, or they had goofy ones.
Lately I had a serpent folk wizard to play with, I really tired to kill the party (Honestly, I tired) I even added six encounters into this one encounter (took monsters from a-f and put them all in room g).
The wizard just wasn't statted up that great, the lightening bolts really helped do ALOT of damage (ad I did almost kill several players) but other spells had range limitations, or targeted good saves etc. And ultimately it came down to a "spider climb" stand off.
It was Really close.Many of the AP's have spells in there to fill up space since they don't want to optimize too much. I always have to change spells since my group optimizes pretty well. I also have baddies run away to let me know they are coming or I have an alarm spell nearby so I can start buffing.
If there is a clear lane between a caster and the party the caster drops pretty quickly most of the time.
Well if mooks escape, and that is even planned in certain published modules, then yes, BBE-wizard is going to have several rounds to prep. heck he could end up with minutes or hours to prep.
But if you have a 'taliban' wizard (someone who knows he's likely to be compromised or is aware there are people likely to try and stop him) then he's going to have the daily regulars prepared (things like mage armor etc) that will be up and running anyway.
So it really depends on the situation, how its written and whats the situation.
Most paizo stuff is written is such a way as to assume the wizard/spellcaster isn't planning on your arrival.
But it's really not reasonable to assume that every wizard is going around the the most optimized spell list all the time either.
In our group we often have things like comprehend languages etc memorized.
What happens if, a party has a band of cohorts (ie they all have the leadership feat) The cohorts bust down the door and attack the wizard, and he blows his list of spells and goodies, because that's how he's supposed to be played, yknow because he doesn't need any spells for the rest of the day? What happens when the real adventures wander into the room, does he suck his thumb now?
the idea that all these spells are meant to be popped off in 6 combat rounds, and that there are actual wizards (who arent tipped off before hand) wandering around with spells prepared that way, is silly. And it's meta gaming.
You are forgetting that saves in 1st and 2nd were independent of caster ability, thus every class would have good saves if the player sought that out (rings, pally, playing a Dwarf), which invalidates a tremendous amount of spell power and impact.
I'm not. You're forgetting that by the time saves are irrelevant (and I agree that that make-all-spell-saves-on-a-2 point happens, if faster for some classes than others), there are too many great core spells that win the fight and don't have one.
Why don't the two sides run a competition. One at low levels, one at mid levels, and one at high levels.I don't think there are any real sides. Most of us just don't think it is possible most of the time for the melee types to be threat if the caster is played well. Magic is almost unlimited in what it can do. It would be like playing basketball against someone who is allowed to foul you, not have to dribble, or follow a lot of other rules. You might win a game here and there, but on average you will lose.
Another example is that a single caster can challenge an entire party. A single melee type can't do it past level 7, and starts to become hard pressed before that unless it is a monster with class levels. That alone shows the discrepancy.
The problem is people insist on melee and simply "step up and swing" -- which gets exactly what it deserves.
"Those that live by the sword get shot by those that don't."
Or eaten by those who aren't bothered by swords, in my experience.
Very true -- the eating without use of swords can also shorten life spans of sword users.
As someone I know pointed out, "Demons like you best with barbecue sauce"
and I believe she should know.
Dire tiger with pounce vs 6th level Scout = full to negative 8 HP in first round.
To be fair the wizard would probably have the same result (as the cleric probably would too).
I think the wizard hadn't made 5th level by that point. I think any other character but the 6th level paladin would have died outright. :)
Yeah my magus survived similar treatment from a hellcat -- but he was level 8 at the time, had 16 con, toughness and dropped all his favored class points into HP and still lost a significant chunk at that (maybe 70 hp total lost iirc)
Well if mooks escape, and that is even planned in certain published modules, then yes, BBE-wizard is going to have several rounds to prep. heck he could end up with minutes or hours to prep.
But if you have a 'taliban' wizard (someone who knows he's likely to be compromised or is aware there are people likely to try and stop him) then he's going to have the daily regulars prepared (things like mage armor etc) that will be up and running anyway.
So it really depends on the situation, how its written and whats the situation.
Most paizo stuff is written is such a way as to assume the wizard/spellcaster isn't planning on your arrival.
But it's really not reasonable to assume that every wizard is going around the the most optimized spell list all the time either.
In our group we often have things like comprehend languages etc memorized.
What happens if, a party has a band of cohorts (ie they all have the leadership feat) The cohorts bust down the door and attack the wizard, and he blows his list of spells and goodies, because that's how he's supposed to be played, yknow because he doesn't need any spells for the rest of the day? What happens when the real adventures wander into the room, does he suck his thumb now?
the idea that all these spells are meant to be popped off in 6 combat rounds, and that there are actual wizards (who arent tipped off before hand) wandering around with spells prepared that way, is silly. And it's meta gaming.
I agree many AP casters have no idea the PC's are coming, and in that case having a few non combat spells on hand makes sense.
If they send the cohorts in they will probably die real quick. I doubt they are going to make the wizard burn through all of his spells. I also doubt they would sacrifice the followers because that is basically what they are doing. I am assuming a good aligned party that cares about their followers of course.For the sake of argument though if the cohorts do give the wizard a tough time, and burn a lot of his spells the wizard should run away when group A arrives. If not the deserves to die a quick death.
I do agree that if a wizard has combat spells up every day for no reason that it is metagaming, but most wizards never get to use all of their spells anyway so all of the spells prepared as combat spells are not needed.
Holds up perfectly in 1st or 2nd. You are forgetting that saves in 1st and 2nd were independent of caster ability, thus every class would have good saves if the player sought that out (rings, pally, playing a Dwarf), which invalidates a tremendous amount of spell power and impact.
Independent of caster ability, saves were still s#~#, unless the GM took mercy on you and dropped a Ring of Protection +5 in your lap. Which he wasn't obligated to do at all. Without that, you needed to be around 10th level to start making saves half the time. Assuming the opponent isn't using a SoL spell that reduces saves. Which were plentiful. But once 5th-6th level spells came into play, saves didn't matter anymore, because of ways to kill a fighter or make him your slave without save becoming available. 2E wasn't even pretending to be fair to classes that were not wizard at two-digit lvels.
If you are going to use every glitch splat spell in 2nd the caster still has to fear the fighter.
Stoneskin made you practically imprevious to fighters, save for uber-Strength dart throwers. Because it was always on and automatically negated a fighter's attacks for 2-3 rounds. Fly + Protection From Normall Missiles hopelessly screwed over approximately 99% NPC fighters in 2E adventures.
And splat 2E spells, which include about at least a half-dozen extra ways to get off more than one spell per round, and ways to reduce saves/SR, made non-wizard characters into utter jokes past level 9. At best they were there to save the wizard from using his Win potential on mooks. But the wizard could just summon/geas a squad of bodyguards for himself anyway.
Nothing beats the sheer stupidity of DC manipulation, shut down/save imbalance of 3.5 gaming.
Nothing.
DC manipulation is only important in 3.X because spells, particularly non-SoL spells, with a few exceptions were hugely nerfed in edition transitions. In fact, many SoL spells were nerfed too, compared to their old potential, they just suffered less. In 2E, where direct damage spells often bordered on one-shot kills against typical enemies, people paid less attention to SoLs.
So, your claims are laughable. AD&D openly admitted that wizards rule the game, if they survive low levels. 3.0's attempt to achieve overall balance between classes was something new and unfamiliar at that time.
the idea that all these spells are meant to be popped off in 6 combat rounds, and that there are actual wizards (who arent tipped off before hand) wandering around with spells prepared that way, is silly. And it's meta gaming.
Good thing the GM is supposed to metagame.
Otherwise why not throw CR inappropriate challenges at the PCs constantly? Or why not give the PCs far more/less wealth than they're supposed to get? Or why not allow one character to be many, many levels ahead of every other member of the party? It goes on and on, but a GM is ultimately responsible for making the game fun and entertaining.
I can see exceptions for unintelligent sorcerers who don't prepare any defenses or real strategy. I can see exceptions for cursed or otherwise insane casters. But a smart wizard is going to be incredibly smart with his abilities. And if that intelligence borders on metagaming, the GM has the right to simply state that the super-intelligent wizard (using his spells) would figure it out.
A sorcerer I built that ended up an NPC vampire caused a TPK using ghoul touch on the fighter, oracle (of life) and paladin -- everyone of them failed their fort saves, both on the ghoul touch and then on the coup'd'grac that came from the vampire spawn afterwards.
That same sorcerer has waylaid the party several times already and has generally wrecked havoc -- partially because I built him well, and partly because the way I built him just happens to also line up really well with the party's general weaknesses (just not that last time -- fluke city there!).
Dang, a paladin and an oracle? You'd think someone would have a scroll of remove paralysis -- or have it prepared/on the spell list -- or have a wand. . .
Guess that teaches your party a thing or two (-; Sometimes it takes a TPK to learn. . .
the idea that all these spells are meant to be popped off in 6 combat rounds, and that there are actual wizards (who arent tipped off before hand) wandering around with spells prepared that way, is silly. And it's meta gaming.Good thing the GM is supposed to metagame.
Otherwise why not throw CR inappropriate challenges at the PCs constantly? Or why not give the PCs far more/less wealth than they're supposed to get? Or why not allow one character to be many, many levels ahead of every other member of the party? It goes on and on, but a GM is ultimately responsible for making the game fun and entertaining.
I can see exceptions for unintelligent sorcerers who don't prepare any defenses or real strategy. I can see exceptions for cursed or otherwise insane casters. But a smart wizard is going to be incredibly smart with his abilities. And if that intelligence borders on metagaming, the GM has the right to simply state that the super-intelligent wizard (using his spells) would figure it out.
If he used his spells to "figure it out" he doesn't have them available to throw at the party, now does he?
PCs can and do meet Cr inappropriate monsters, I can think of several APs where you are thinking to yourself why are we running into these garbage encounters? Because that's just what happens to be there.
Worlds/Dungeons aren't perfectly set up to balance against the PCs power. IF you are doing that, you are playing like a one dimensional video game. That is NOT what a DM is "supposed" to do.
People keep quoting things like WBL and CR...these are GUIDELINES to the instructions for what is supposed to happen when.
WBL will average out if one correctly.
Sure BILBO got sting at 2nd level, but he also didn't get a new sword ever...
Things are going to happen based on random treasure and monsters that happen to be there.
There are some APs that have random wandering monster tables that say "give the PCs a chance to run away from this" , thats because it is technically too powerful, and you may just want it as "you see five trolls, they are looking at something down a ditch, you are down wind from them and they do not notice you"
Five trolls? Holy cow! let's high tail it!
TRolls don't suddenly 'poof' come into existence when the PCs get powerful enough to kill them.
People should stick to MMORPG with they want to play that way
If he used his spells to "figure it out" he doesn't have them available to throw at the party, now does he?
Scrolls. Wands. Maybe he had a wand with one charge on it. Potions. Maybe he has a feat that allows him to craft scrolls that use his spell save DCs.
PCs can and do meet Cr inappropriate monsters, I can think of several APs where you are thinking to yourself why are we running into these garbage encounters? Because that's just what happens to be there.
Hence my use of the word "constantly". Yes, CRs can range in difficulty, but not extremely. You wouldn't throw 10 CR 10 encounters at a level 1 party.
Worlds/Dungeons aren't perfectly set up to balance against the PCs power.
While I wouldn't use the word "perfect" to describe my worlds/dungeons, I would say that I do take the PCs power into consideration when designing anything. Any good GM will do that.
There are some APs that have random wandering monster tables that say "give the PCs a chance to run away from this" , thats because it is technically too powerful, and you may just want it as "you see five trolls, they are looking at something down a ditch, you are down wind from them and they do not notice you"
Five trolls? Holy cow! let's high tail it!TRolls don't suddenly 'poof' come into existence when the PCs get powerful enough to kill them.
Of course, running away is part of the game. And if you look at a lot of APs, you'll start seeing troll adventures (not necessarily random encounters, but full adventures) around the time PCs can start being effective against them.
A sorcerer I built that ended up an NPC vampire caused a TPK using ghoul touch on the fighter, oracle (of life) and paladin -- everyone of them failed their fort saves, both on the ghoul touch and then on the coup'd'grac that came from the vampire spawn afterwards.
That same sorcerer has waylaid the party several times already and has generally wrecked havoc -- partially because I built him well, and partly because the way I built him just happens to also line up really well with the party's general weaknesses (just not that last time -- fluke city there!).
Dang, a paladin and an oracle? You'd think someone would have a scroll of remove paralysis -- or have it prepared/on the spell list -- or have a wand. . .
Guess that teaches your party a thing or two (-; Sometimes it takes a TPK to learn. . .
To be fair it was a party of 4 and at the point that 2 went down to paralysis against 2 vampires and some spawn things looked very bleak.
Save throws looked like this on the dice:
2,3,2,2,2,3,4,1
From what I am given to understand -- I was supposed to be a player in that game that day but was out of town for Easter.
I wouldn't think that this would be a normal situation but heck, I got disintegrated the week before and in all my time in this hobby that was the first time I've ever seen a disintegrate connect, the save pass, the damage be done and then the player fail on the massive damage save throw.
After all there is a first for anything.
|
|
Holds up perfectly in 1st or 2nd. You are forgetting that saves in 1st and 2nd were independent of caster ability, thus every class would have good saves if the player sought that out (rings, pally, playing a Dwarf), which invalidates a tremendous amount of spell power and impact.Independent of caster ability, saves were still s*@@, unless the GM took mercy on you and dropped a Ring of Protection +5 in your lap. Which he wasn't obligated to do at all. Without that, you needed to be around 10th level to start making saves half the time. Assuming the opponent isn't using a SoL spell that reduces saves. Which were plentiful. But once 5th-6th level spells came into play, saves didn't matter anymore, because of ways to kill a fighter or make him your slave without save becoming available. 2E wasn't even pretending to be fair to classes that were not wizard at two-digit lvels.
Need to get your facts together if your are going to make an attampt at an argument. A mean of 15.8 for 5 save categories at 1-2 second level for a fighter. The high end being Spells at 17 - which is around the range of a specialized 1st level caster's DC in 3.5.
It only gets better for the fighter after that - automatic increase in saves without stat dependance or additional requirements. No, your argument fails at it's most base numbers and math. It's tough for low level fighters in 1st or 2nd ed, but nothing more (and on average better over the range of different types of saves) than their 3.5 counterparts.The 1st/2nd ed 5th level fighter doesn't care about your DCs, he's saving at around 35%-50% whereas his 3.5 counterpart is having to beat DC 18 to 21 saves from his 3.5 wizard counterpart (3rd level spell). All with a 35%-45% rate on his good save, and a pathetic 15%-25% on his poor saves. The numbers do not support your position at all.
If you are going to use every glitch splat spell in 2nd the caster still has to fear the fighter.Stoneskin made you practically imprevious to fighters, save for uber-Strength dart throwers. Because it was always on and automatically negated a fighter's attacks for 2-3 rounds. Fly + Protection From Normall Missiles hopelessly screwed over approximately 99% NPC fighters in 2E adventures.
LOL, 3/2 attacks with a level specialized 1st level fighter and it just gets better as he levels up!
Default extra attacks with ranged weapons (darts, bows, etc). Your stoneskin argument is a joke. Remember stoneskin in 2nd did not care about hits, just attacks (re-read your phb). So my 1st level fighter takes 5 hits off in two rounds, regardless of roll. Was also reduced (but did not protect from) magical attacks. So each MM hit did damage and also took off a hit.I chalk these 1st/2nd perceptions to softball Dming, poor gaming or just misunderstanding of the rules.
And splat 2E spells, which include about at least a half-dozen extra ways to get off more than one spell per round, and ways to reduce saves/SR, made non-wizard characters into utter jokes past level 9. At best they were there to save the wizard from using his Win potential on mooks. But the wizard could just summon/geas a squad of bodyguards for himself anyway.
LOL, Geas. That one is really open to DM interpretation, at best it is a very risky way to get servants/slaves or mooks who can't loophole and and kill you. Again, need to re-read the spell.
Also I did deride the 2nd ed splat spells by implication (see original post) but even then the wizard is still weaker.
Second - you're citing softball/braindead DMing (not surprising considering some of the gaming websites out there) - there are plenty of ways to shut down casters, more in 2nd than in 3rd, that's for sure.
Finally - No concentration for casting, lower hit points, less effective spells (saves), less spells to cast, restrictive specialization requirements (useless caster stats), restrictive spell selection, restrictive to non-existent item creation, restrictive spell speed and use in a round, etc, etc, etc. All these facts work against your arguments that casters were more powerful in earlier editions.
DC manipulation is only important in 3.X because spells, particularly non-SoL spells, with a few exceptions were hugely nerfed in edition transitions. In fact, many SoL spells were nerfed too, compared to their old potential, they just suffered less. In 2E, where direct damage spells often bordered on one-shot kills against typical enemies, people paid less attention to SoLs.
uhh...no. DC manipulation and inflation by stats is what makes 3.5 unplayable, the saves for all non-casters do NOT follow and the requirements to keep up to make the game work - end of story.
Need to get your facts together if your are going to make an attampt at an argument. A mean of 15.8 for 5 save categories at 1-2 second level for a fighter. The high end being Spells at 17 - which is around the range of a specialized 1st level caster's DC in 3.5.
So... you only have less than 25% chance of not instantly losing to a spell that can hit the entire party... Color me unipressed. 3.X characters had better chances, with save bonuses and stat bonuses modifying their roll.
It only gets better for the fighter after that - automatic increase in saves without stat dependance or additional requirements. No, your argument fails at it's most base numbers and math.
Oh yes, it is only get better for the fighter, so that by the point EXP requirements practically slow his advance in levels to an absolute crawl without GM's fiat he has whole 50% chance of not instantly losing to a spell that still can hit the entire party. Assuming this attack does not modify his saves.
The 1st/2nd ed 5th level fighter doesn't care about your DCs, he's saving at around 35%-50%
I don't even know how you concluded that rolling 14 or above on d20 amounts to 35-50% and not just 35%. By the way, if a 2E caster really hates the fighter, he can fire a Hold Person, and even at 6th level the fighter will have only 25% chance of not instantly losing. I also don't know how you managed to conclude that losing 65% of the time to area attacks mean that SoLs in 2E are underpowered.
LOL, 3/2 attacks with a level specialized 1st level fighter and it just gets better as he levels up!
Default extra attacks with ranged weapons (darts, bows, etc). Your stoneskin argument is a joke. Remember stoneskin in 2nd did not care about hits, just attacks (re-read your phb). So my 1st level fighter takes 5 hits off in two rounds, regardless of roll. Was also reduced (but did not protect from) magical attacks. So each MM hit did damage and also took off a hit.
I chalk these 1st/2nd perceptions to softball Dming, poor gaming or just misunderstanding of the rules.
That says the man who just cranked out the most insane and far-fetched interpretation of Stoneskin in the history of ever?
Anyway, even with your attempt at rules-lawyering Stoneskin still makes fighters a joke. Even with 3 attacks per level from a bow, even with your interpretation of Stoneskin, the fighter will need a minimum of two rounds to just get through the defence any sane wizard has up at all times and get a chance of maybe hurting the wizard. In each of these rounds the figher still has a 50% chance of being destroyed on the spot. Never mind that the wizard can just put up another defense on Round 1, and the fighter in 2E can only get anything to counter any of the wizard's tricks, like invis or flight, if GM takes pity on him (that's why your mention of "softball GMing" in this context is intensely funny).
LOL, Geas. That one is really open to DM interpretation, at best it is a very risky way to get servants/slaves or mooks who can't loophole and and kill you. Again, need to re-read the spell.
Well, you do need to reread the spell, indeed. It is not open to DM interpretation (except for whether it goes off if the caster dies, but that is not specific to it). At all. It forces the target to obey the caster's commands or die rather soon. Without save.
Also I did deride the 2nd ed splat spells by implication (see original post) but even then the wizard is still weaker.
Maybe, or maybe not, but when the high-level wizard's strength is still measured in fighters he can destroy with zero risk to himself, the point is academic.
Second - you're citing softball/braindead DMing (not surprising considering some of the gaming websites out there) - there are plenty of ways to shut down casters, more in 2nd than in 3rd, that's for sure.
I like this style of personal insults. And so no, it is you who are twisting the rules to be arbitrarily unfair to one of the classes, while coddling another. In fact, that's the standard pattern of old-school AD&D GMing, the idea that the GM is supposed to be fair and even-handed, and is not supposed to fix authors' screwups, again only really took root in 3.X.
Finally - No concentration for casting,
Only matters at low levels, after that physical combatants can't ever hit you without GM's pity. And low levels in 2E were a luck-based mission to everyone, usually.
lower hit points,
Only mattes at low levels, again.
less effective spells (saves),
False, as proved above. Never mind that SoLs weren't the casters' only resort in 2E, as blasting actually worked.
less spells to cast,
True, but really only matters at low levels, and even then less, because spells were better.
restrictive specialization requirements (useless caster stats),
Con is not useless to anyone, and it was all you needed for specialization.
restrictive spell selection,
True... if you rolled Int poorly. And that's was the day of 2E when fighters pretty much needed to roll 18 for strength, if they wanted a long, successful career.
restrictive to non-existent item creation,
Item creation in 2E was not restrictive. It was basically entirely at GM's mercy. But I see you forgot, that while wizards had the problem with not being to crank out items they liked, everyone else had the problem of not being guaranteed to have any magic items ever.
restrictive spell speed and use in a round, etc, etc, etc.
False. Spell speed was superior to weapons when it still mattered. Use in a round only majorly differed in 3.0 (Haste).
uhh...no. DC manipulation and inflation by stats is what makes 3.5 unplayable, the saves for all non-casters do NOT follow and the requirements to keep up to make the game work - end of story.
This statument does not correspond to easily observable facts. Like, 3.5 being so much more playable than old relics of game design no one cares about anymore, that even its Patfinder version is reasonably popular.
By the way, it was fairly trivial in 3.5 (past low levels) to make your saves outstrip DCs completely and fail only on 1 against level-appropriate stuff, slightly more often against really optimized opponents.|
|
Ok -back from the weekend and now I have a proper chance to clear up some falsehoods and misunderstandings.
So... you only have less than 25% chance of not instantly losing to a spell that can hit the entire party... Color me unipressed. 3.X characters had better chances, with save bonuses and stat bonuses modifying their roll.
Uh, no. At best (since this is a Fighters vs. Caster discussion) the Fighter is going to have a very minor bonus on Dex (Reflex) and no bonus on his Will saves. Auto-scaling > MAD based save system.
The 1st/2nd ed 5th level fighter doesn't care about your DCs, he's saving at around 35%-50%I don't even know how you concluded that rolling 14 or above on d20 amounts to 35-50% and not just 35%.
That is the whole range of saves , Death, rod, wands, etc - stop playing the ignorant card (if you can). Save vs. Death at 5th level is 11 or higher = 50%.
Someone who actually played the game correctly wouldn't have these easy to spot misunderstandings.By the way, if a 2E caster really hates the fighter, he can fire a Hold Person, and even at 6th level the fighter will have only 25% chance of not instantly losing. I also don't know how you managed to conclude that losing 65% of the time to area attacks mean that SoLs in 2E are underpowered.
WTF do you get only 25%? Save vs spell at 6th level for a fighter is a 14 or higher =35%. I never said SoLs were underpowered in 2nd, they are in fact far more difficult for the caster to get off successfully due to all the other caster restrictions - movement and disruption being the greatest factors in a speed based initiative round.
LOL, 3/2 attacks with a level specialized 1st level fighter and it just gets better as he levels up!
Default extra attacks with ranged weapons (darts, bows, etc). Your stoneskin argument is a joke. Remember stoneskin in 2nd did not care about hits, just attacks (re-read your phb). So my 1st level fighter takes 5 hits off in two rounds, regardless of roll. Was also reduced (but did not protect from) magical attacks. So each MM hit did damage and also took off a hit.
I chalk these 1st/2nd perceptions to softball Dming, poor gaming or just misunderstanding of the rules.That says the man who just cranked out the most insane and far-fetched interpretation of Stoneskin in the history of ever?
Anyway, even with your attempt at rules-lawyering Stoneskin still makes fighters a joke. Even with 3 attacks per level from a bow, even with your interpretation of Stoneskin, the fighter will need a minimum of two rounds to just get through the defence any sane wizard has up at all times and get a chance of maybe hurting the wizard. In each of these rounds the figher still has a 50% chance of being destroyed on the spot.
What interpretation - read a book before opening the cake-hole:
The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of experience the caster has achieved. This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th-level wizard would protect against from five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by three each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage.
Like I said, you have a complete misunderstanding of SS, there is little from the above passage which is open "rules lawyering" or "denning" unless you do not understand basic English.
BTW, that 3/2 attacks scheme is for a 1st level fighter, I know it hasn't sunk in, let it sink in.
A 7th level fighter is getting 2/1 round (no neg) and that is just with a melee weapon, dagger is 4/1 dart is 5/1.
That same fighter is Saving vs Death, Para, Poison:55%,
vs Rod, Staff, Wand:45%
vs Petrification/Poly:55%
vs Breath:45%
vs Spell:40%
All the above numbers are unmodified
A 7th level Wizard stoneskin lasts for 3+1d4 hits - that is also his best spell. If he casts it way before the fight then it is even worse and he will lose some of those hits with ranged attacks.
Remember invis, etc, doesn't care about checking for stone skin, if the attack could take place you minus off a hit - simple. So some of those defenses just don't work when layered with SS.
Also (as an aside), if your caster is a Transmuter (so he gets two 4th level spells) he is barred from Abjuration and Nec spells. That transmuter better have some good tricks that he can get off (remember initiative) in time before he loses his SS.
Considerably more challenging to play a caster in 2nd ed.
While a geas cannot compel a creature to kill itself or to perform acts that are likely to result in certain death, it can cause almost any other course of action. The geased creature must follow the given instructions until the geas is completed. Failure to do so will cause the creature to grow sick and die within ld4 weeks.[Doesn't sound like it would be combat effective] Deviation from or twisting of the instructions causes corresponding loss of Strength points until the deviation ceases. A geas can be done away with by a wish spell, but a dispel magic or remove curse spell will not negate it. Your DM will decide* any additional details of a geas, for its casting and fulfillment are tricky*, and an improperly cast* geas is ignored.
*[Read Fail - Open to DM interpretation]
I'll snipe the rest of the bilge in a pile
only matters at low levels, after that physical combatants can't ever hit you without GM's pity.
No, concentration always factored in unless your DM softballed you (Nova, unintelligent creatures, no consideration for casters in the world, poor understanding of spells (as you have exhibited), etc)
And low levels in 2E were a luck-based mission to everyone usually.
LOL - channeling the Den/MG, same old tired defense.
Con is not useless to anyone, and it was all you needed for specialization.
So much failure and misunderstanding, I'll end it here exposing your flat out lie since it would be too difficult to cite and fix all of your mistakes and misunderstandings of 2nd ed. Too many with not enough time so I'll leave you with the obvious.
Abjurer - Min 15 WisConjurer - Min 15 Con (can't blast or Greater Divine)
Diviner - Min 16 Wis
Enchanter-Min 16 Cha
Illusionist - Min 16 Dex
Invoker - Min 16 Con (can't summon or charm)
Necromancer - Min 16 Wis
Transmuter - Min 15 Dex
2nd ed specialist didn't get to choose opposition schools (yet another balancing factor), 3.5 edition does. The specialist casters were extremely limited in spell selection and available broken "win" combinations when compared to 3.5
Another big balancing factor is the fact that there is a VERY HIGH stat (unless playing in one of your games - Re: DM pity, so you could always play your Conjurer or Invoker) requirement that the player is going to have to be a specialist.
Ok, I'm through with you.
A 7th level fighter is getting 2/1 round (no neg) and that is just with a melee weapon, dagger is 4/1 dart is 5/1.
Well, that's a dart specialist. Surely you're not going to try to convince me that every fighter was a dart specialist. (And if you are, there are other ways to slap that down, honestly.)
The main thing about 2E stoneskin that's really gamebreaking is that its duration is permanent until used up. There's a bit in the 2E wizard's handbook to the effect that you're stupid and deserve to die if you get into a fight without it already up, and that's mostly true. It gives the wizard an excellent chance to cast several spells in a one on one fight before he has to even consider other defenses, winning initiative, or (most humiliatingly) recasting it, and each of his offensive spells has a non-trivial chance of just flat-out winning the fight.
That's just using the PHB, and that's assuming the wizard player is remotely competent. For every book you add (and 2E had lots of them), it gets worse, and worse, and worse. 2E looooooved to add spells to the game that sounded really cool but were even more broken than the spells in the PHB. (At this point, you can mount some kind of argument that pristine, un-other-book-tainted 2E is balanced and it's only adding the other books that breaks it, but besides being wrong this is a huge cop-out.)
As the wizard player's mastery of the system improves, it gets worse and worse and worse, too. At best, the DM could try to run a sort of metagame arms race with that.
There's a reason that by the end of my groups' run with 2E no one was making a character that wasn't a wizard anymore, and it's not because we loved wizards so much. It's because they were ridiculously better than everything else.
|
|
A 7th level fighter is getting 2/1 round (no neg) and that is just with a melee weapon, dagger is 4/1 dart is 5/1.
Well, that's a dart specialist. Surely you're not going to try to convince me that every fighter was a dart specialist. (And if you are, there are other ways to slap that down, honestly.)
The main thing about 2E stoneskin that's really gamebreaking is that its duration is permanent until used up. There's a bit in the 2E wizard's handbook to the effect that you're stupid and deserve to die if you get into a fight without it already up, and that's mostly true. It gives the wizard an excellent chance to cast several spells in a one on one fight before he has to even consider other defenses, winning initiative, or (most humiliatingly) recasting it, and each of his offensive spells has a non-trivial chance of just flat-out winning the fight.
On casting spells
During the round in which the spell is cast, the caster cannot move to dodge attacks. Therefore, no AC benefit from Dexterity is gained by spellcasters while casting spells. Furthermore, if the spellcaster is struck by a weapon or fails to make a saving throw before the spell is cast, the caster's concentration is disrupted. The spell is lost in a fizzle of useless energy and is wiped clean from the memory of the caster until it can be re-memorized. Spellcasters are well advised not to stand at the front of any battle, at least if they want to be able to cast any spells!
The above bolded quote makes no mention of damage - you get hit, even with Stoneskin, your spell is disrupted. To reinforce non-damaging distractions affecting casting spells -
Once the casting has begun, the character must stand still. Casting cannot be accomplished while riding a roughly moving beast or a vehicle (non-damaging), unless special efforts are made to stabilize and protect the caster. Thus a spell cannot be cast from the back of a galloping horse under any conditions, nor can a wizard or priest cast a spell on the deck of a ship during a storm. However, if the caster were below decks, protected from the wind and surging waves, he could cast a spell. While it is not normally possible to cast a spell from a moving chariot, a character who was steadied and supported by others could do so. Your DM will have to make a ruling in these types of extraordinary conditions.
So - more reinforcement that it isn't the damage which factors into spell disruption - it's the distractions, force, buffeting, etc that do. I rule in favor of the above vs. a 4th level spell.
I think most of the problems with 1st and 2nd ed is that many, many people wanted spells to be very powerful, in effect have their characters be more powerful. Unfortunately most people never really read the rulebooks or spell thoroughly and made some jumps in reason. Nowhere in the description of SS does it say that you are protected from loosing your spells if you attempt to cast them, it only protects you from damage - and only physical damage.
Still powerful but not the "run into melee and keep casting spells" that people have made it out to be.
The Spell Compendium (Vol 4) (came out 8 years after the Complete Wizard) only changes one thing in the write up for the revised version of the spell.
It add a 24 duration to the spell.
This write up came out after all the Complete CharOp series of books ran their course. The write up of Stoneskin in the Complete Wizard amends the original 2nd ed PHB and adds the 24 hour duration. It says it protects only from blows, cuts, pokes, and slashes directly at the recipient.
It does not protect against falls, magical attacks or non-magical attacks that do not involve blows (flaming oil, suffocation, constriction). Also the caster does not know how many hits his casting of the spell can absorb (beyond the die range).
That is the Complete Wizard version - even if you accepted that version the wizard could be hurt by something as simple as a torch or a sword covered in flaming oil - wizard burnt, take damage - no spell. Also it still doesn't say that the Wizard is immune to spell disruption from being hit while under the effects of SS.
Again, neither version say anything about preventing spell disruption, and spell disruption is not associated with damage (as quoted above). I still go by the original "struck by weapon" version of the spell (and all spells).
The spell as a damage soaker is powerful enough, it doesn't need to also serve (and be misread) as a sanctuary spell, there are other things to keep melee attackers away (walls, etc). SS just negates damage physical damage (somewhat).
There's a reason that by the end of my groups' run with 2E no one was making a character that wasn't a wizard anymore, and it's not because we loved wizards so much. It's because they were ridiculously better than everything else.
If I recall you also stated prior that you played in a group where everyone had split classed PCs. Again, without knowing your group I suspect everything was not on the up and up with that style of play.
What I mean by that is did your DM throw threats at you based on your current "active level" or did he asses vs. total PC xp?In other words: you anger enough NPCs (guilds, orders, cults, etc) during your adventures while you accumulate xp but you have 3/2 split PCs and your DM is throwing level 2 encounters instead of level 5 because everyone's "active" level is level 2.
The above bolded quote makes no mention of damage - you get hit, even with Stoneskin, your spell is disrupted.
I'm not exactly going to say that you're wrong because I can see the argument to be made there (although I do think it's a stretch), but I can honestly say that I had hundreds of different DMs for 2E and that I did a fair bit or RPGA / tournament / organized play for 2E, and exactly zero of all those DMs ruled the spell that way -- and you would probably be amazed at the variation in reading of the rules among that swath of DMs.
My gut feeling is that Stoneskin probably isn't an isolated issue in that respect and that, as such, 2E probably seems to balance a lot better at your table than at most everyone else's, which would explain a lot of the disconnect when 2E comes up.
|
|
The above bolded quote makes no mention of damage - you get hit, even with Stoneskin, your spell is disrupted.
I'm not exactly going to say that you're wrong because I can see the argument to be made there (although I do think it's a stretch), but I can honestly say that I had hundreds of different DMs for 2E and that I did a fair bit or RPGA / tournament / organized play for 2E, and exactly zero of all those DMs ruled the spell that way -- and you would probably be amazed at the variation in reading of the rules among that swath of DMs.
My gut feeling is that Stoneskin probably isn't an isolated issue in that respect and that, as such, 2E probably seems to balance a lot better at your table than at most everyone else's, which would explain a lot of the disconnect when 2E comes up.
I don't think it's a stretch and that isn't me arguing the point to win a discussion. I'm not going to get dismissed with a "2E disconnect". I cited all my info with text from the rules - no one arguing against me has done the same.
Bottom line: SS is a crappy 4th level spell, it isn't a "all physical damage is reduced to 0 + you get to cast in melee" spell. Reducing all physical damage to 0 is an incredibly powerful ability as it is, and nowhere is there any connection to damage being a requirement for spell disruption in 2nd ed. Hell, you don't even need to be hit to take of strikes from SS, just be threatened by a set number of possible attacks and they go. And still being vulnerable to torches, grappling, etc, if you take your definition of the spell - which I don't.
When you compare SS with other 4th level spells you can see some of the major suckage (with SS being at least useful). Fire Charm? Lol. Also you have spells which can be negated by lower level spells (Shout vs Silence, Solid Fog vs Fireball) which just means that lower level casters could easily negate higher level spells.
3rd ed did move into a damage = DC for concentration formula (player manipulation) which in some respects was good (for clarity), where it fails in the added power it gives the caster with bad math + balancing out class powers vs each other.
The spell casting passage from 2nd ed cites - it's always a question of any kind of disruption, damage or no damage. This has ALWAYS been the case with spellcasting in 1st and 2n edition versions of the game - spells were incredibly fragile and casters were incredibly vulnerable. Does that open up the issue to DM fiat, sure it does and rules in 2nd could have be clarified a little better to avoid hitting players with nonsense or overly flexible spell interpretations. That also doesn't change the fact that casting and spell use (as a concept) became much safer and easier in 3rd - which is the core of my argument on the caster vs. fighter issue.
As time went (+ product) people misread a good number of spells because they wanted spells and casters to be more powerful/munchkin when in fact casters (wizards in particular) were very difficult to play and keep alive. Some spells (the product part) were stupid broken - not really an issue since the same thing happened in 3.5 with bloat.
Maybe it was all an outgrowth of the supreme difficulty of keeping a MU alive in 1st ed, IDK - but I did see a trend to hand wave rules, modify or softball interpretations of spells (to the benefit of the PCs) as the game continued into 2nd - going into the splats and then eventually into 3.0
Spells in 1st/2nd are just not as powerful as their 3rd ed counterparts - you had to have perfect conditions to cast them and unless you are playing in DM softball land those conditions rarely occurred. On some levels of raw power (no save sleep, etc) the earlier ed spells were very powerful, but when you take the whole package of limited casting conditions, disruption, and lower number of spells 3rd edition casting is far easier.
And all of this doesn't change the rules though - the paragraphs I quoted were from both the 2nd ed and revised 2nd ed books and they solidly back the concept that anything beyond gentle action or or activity will disrupt spell casting. If the description of SS in the PHB or Complete Wizards handbook or the latter wizard spell compendiums stated that spellcasting could be maintained then I would concede the point - the fact is that they don't.
Anyway, sorry for the derail.
I'll let you guys go back to trying to figure out how to make enemy spellcasters fear fighters in 3.5/PFRPG.
Good luck with that.
I don't think it's a stretch and that isn't me arguing the point to win a discussion.
Well, of course you don't think it's a stretch. :P
Stoneskin, as phrased, blocks attacks. It doesn't say "reduces damage to zero"; there you're mixing in 3E SS thinking, I'd think? You aren't struck at all; it's blocked the attack for you.
Hell, you don't even need to be hit to take of strikes from SS, just be threatened by a set number of possible attacks and they go.
Correct; the attacker spends their round attacking, but they don't need to roll to hit -- any attack burns a hit.
Ultimately, 2E wizard not being all that afraid of being chopped down in melee comes down to a few dozen things that pretty much flip the fighter the bird; Stoneskin's just one in a long, long list, and if even one of them works it gets ugly fast. Hell, in a game with weapon speeds in play you can probably just chance initiative and come out ahead most of the time.
|
|
Stoneskin, as phrased, blocks attacks. It doesn't say "reduces damage to zero"; there you're mixing in 3E SS thinking, I'd think? You aren't struck at all; it's blocked the attack for you.
Even if you were to go that route (you still need to hit for it to block the attack, SS is not floating 1 ft away from your body) it still isn't a game ender. Flaming weapon (as in oil on sword), a torch, grappling, pushing, etc - all disrupt spell casting once the caster is hit. So this precious spell is negated by a garbage/level 1 attack, and a 7th level fighter is going to have more than that to throw at the wizard of the same level.
And you are struck - this is a game of semantics.
A spell can't block something unless it hits. If it's hitting the spell then we are entering the land of stupid, since contact is still made and the spell is located on the mage's skin. The same spell which does not block ALL kinds of force. And since the spell doesn't protect from all force (physical) and since the rules say that if you are hit, in a windy area, riding in a carriage, or even just running around your spell is disrupted - damaged or not. If the spell blocked all forms of physical force then I would be inclined to go with the "not distracted" mindset,
Also since the spell does not provide total immunity to physical attacks and the barrier is on the skin I would say no, you still are in a rigorous environment, even if you don't take damage (if hit) and SS "blocked the attack".
Just ascribing more abilities to a spell that doesn't need it - nor does it fall in an appropriate power level for spell at it's tier. That is pretty much every argument in how "wizards ruled in 2nd ed also" go. No, not easy to play if running RAW and a damn difficult class to play in a properly run game.
The moral of the story is:
Wizards always win in theory. That's why they're the most powerful class on the boards.
They're less powerful in the game, but still pretty awesome.
I pretty much have to agree with this. I am running my first wizard as a PC though, mostly as an experiment to see how much I can do. If I end up taking over the game I will just dial it back so the other players can have fun.
Even if you were to go that route (you still need to hit for it to block the attack,
You certainly don't. That's why you don't need to roll to hit to burn 'charges' off it.
SS is not floating 1 ft away from your body) it still isn't a game ender. Flaming weapon (as in oil on sword), a torch, grappling, pushing, etc - all disrupt spell casting once the caster is hit. So this precious spell is negated by a garbage/level 1 attack, and a 7th level fighter is going to have more than that to throw at the wizard of the same level.
And that's all your house rules as well. The rules as written do not support this without a very selective reading, by which I don't mean that you're necessarily ignoring things that disagree with you, but that you've already decided what the answer is and you're going to try like hell to find interpretations that support it, rather than see what's actually there. Certainly the stoneskin spell text doesn't say any of that; it says: if someone tries to attack you, X number of times they fail. If the spell were meant to have a dozen weird exceptions to its intended purpose it probably would say so.
No, not easy to play if running RAW and a damn difficult class to play in a properly run game.
It's increasingly clear to me that your version of "properly run" = playing with an interpretation of the rules that no one else was. Which, hey, enjoy your version of 2E and more power to you, but understand that in the versions of the game played by most people, 2E wasn't any worse for casters than 3E. They were still crazily overpowered in the hands of a decent player, just in mostly different ways.