|
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.
False. In some cased you would need to roll to see if the criteria of the spell is met. The not rolling would be obvious if the criteria could not be met but it does not replace the attack roll. I'll explain later – but this is wrong.
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.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.
Not my houserules, please drop that line of insinuation unless you have something to back it up.
No it doesn't say that – it says that if you attacked by a certain type of attack it fails. It doesn't block all physical attacks. Is a caster immune to pushing? No. Is that disruptive, yes.
And actually RAW does support quite a few of my points. SS does not provide protection from constriction (Complete Wizard) (i.e. some of the results from the grappling table) nor does it provide protection fire (magic or otherwise) (CW). It also does not provide protection from all forms of physical damage (falling damage, being crushed, etc)(CW).
And stoneskin doesn't say that if "someone trys to attack you X number of times they fail". Stoneskin says "everytime you are exposed to an attack, no matter what kind – mark of that many number of uses". Stoneskin makes the user immune to list of physical attacks -
When this spell is cast, the affected creature gains a virtual immunity to any attack by cut, blow, projectile, or the like. Even a sword of sharpness cannot affect a creature protected by stoneskin, nor can a rock hurled by a giant, a snake’s strike, etc. However, magical attacks from such spells as fireball, magic missile, lightning bolt, and so forth have their normal effects. The spell’s effects are not cumulative with multiple castings.
The spell blocks ld4 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. If not ended by attacks, the stoneskin
spell lasts for 24 hours.
The material components of the spell are granite and diamond dust sprinkled on the recipient's skin.
So what does that establish:
A) Stoneskin marks off attacks independent of type (not relevant to type). Done with that and that has nothing to do with the latter points.
B) Stoneskin does not stop all physical damage (as evident in the expanded description in the Complete Wizard). Crushing, suffocation, constricting and fall damage all still do hurt the wizard. As does fire (again CW).
C) Stoneskin is on the mage (on his skin).
Stoneskin checks when the caster gets hit to see if it protects. Your understanding that stoneskin lasted forever until used was wrong, you of course won’t admit that though. Your definition that SS blocks all physical attacks is incorrect – as evident by the only expansion that offers a little light the Complete Wizard (a book you claim to have used).
SS is limited in its use, and a level 1 guy (even a 0 level clown) could attempt to grapple and get what qualifies as a hold against the Wizard = negated stoneskin. Same thing with flaming oil – stoneskin doesn't protect from ANY kind of fire damage. Nowhere in the description does it say that it does.
So who is making stuff up to protect their incorrect use of the spell and style of play?
I'm not even getting into the realm of hitting/SS blocks/disruption argument definition. This is just the basic and common interpretation of the spell – if you took the time and care to read it and understand it.
Also on expanding the blocked/not blocked argument. The spell does block the attack – if it meets the criteria. So the spell blocks some attacks, yet on the other hand if you had a flaming sword/sword on fire the weapon still comes into contact with the wizard (at least the fire does).
All of that still doesn't negate distracted in combat (non-damaging factors) that could be easily ascribed to spell if used in melee. The wizard is in a fight, isn't immune to all forms of physical combat or damage and the most important of all factors when dealing with the rules: The Spell does not say that the Wizard can cast while he is in melee, this it is not assumed nor is implied – in any write-up. Remember 1st/2nd had some very harsh requirements on casting - pretty much anything outside of optimal conditions made it hard if not impossible to cast. That isn’t my interpretation of the rules, that is the RAW for both those editions.
A generous DM who favors casters could say that the wizard can cast, a correct DM would say – no, you still are at risk of taking damage from anyone close enough* to hit/grapple you = distracted.
*I would give no distraction/disruption to the wizard if it was say - a hail of arrows, nothing would happen till he was actually damaged.
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.
No, not easy to play if running RAW and a damn difficult class to play in a properly run game.
I can't help it of most people got it wrong or didn't take the time to put in the reading. I ran the game as written, and I used my discretion when two rules conflicted (casting in melee while being mostly immune to physical contact damage).
I like the attempt at "my version", nice attack. Unfortunately the above referenced material all exists in the game as RAW. I've cited my sources for the definition of what is distractive to spell casting (DM), the errata'd versions of the spell (which you didn't know) and the expanded restrictions on the spell (as written up in the Complete Wizard).
What are you citing – nostalgic memories of incorrectly run games? Softball and uncritical understanding of spells (to the benefit of PC casters)?
So what does this all prove - casters in older editions were more vulnerable - in some cases it could be limitations, loopholes or just an overall harsher casting environment. End summation - casting and playing casters in 1st and 2nd is CONSIDERABLY more difficult than it is in 3rd edition.
I'd go with just trying to be a competent fighter, and then arming yourself with counters to various hazards that you will face against different kinds of spellcasters, as well as general adventuring hazards.
For example, you will probably wish to have all of the following options.
1) Prevent mind control.
2) Prevent instant-death.
3) Freedom of movement.
4) Teleportation (even in short bursts).
5) Flight.
Most of these are pretty easy. By reverse engineering armor mechanics, we can determine that continuous effects on armor are simply the cost of the effect x1.5, which we can see by looking at the energy resistance armor properties.
Early in your career, you will want to have a permanent protection from evil effect on your armor, which is +6,000 gp for a continuous armor enhancement. That will protect you from compulsion effects that rob you of control of your character (such as dominate person, suggestion, or a vampire's influence).
Later you will definitely wish to have a few spells added to your items as x/day effects. A once per day freedom of movement on your armor, boots, or similar, would add +25,200 gp to the armor's cost, and would provide up to 70 minutes of freedom of movement per day; allowing you to escape from that black tentacles, a dragon's grapple, or other movement hampering effects.
You will likely wish to add an option to fly. There are many items in the books already listed as giving flight, and it's easy to calculate the value of additional unique items. Adding the ability to fly for 5 minutes per day (50 rounds) to a pair of boots of striding and springing would add +9,000 gp to the cost.
In-combat teleportation in achievable through effects that mimic dimension door and costs 11,200 gp per daily use, or 16,800 gp if you're adding it to another magic item.
Death Ward is another good enhancement to add to your armor. It costs +168,000 gp if you want it continuously active, or +16,800 gp for every charge you want it to have per day (or 7 minute increments of protection). This allows your Fighter to deal with monsters like Shadows, Vampires, and Wights, while also protecting him from enervation, ray of exhaustion, and similar spells. It also provides a passive +4 moral bonus on saves vs Death spells and effects, which provides a +20% chance to save with spells like wail of the banshee or finger of death.
Additional options are available to high level characters, as you can get effects like mind blank, protection from spells, and similar effects.
Likewise, having an item that let's you use spell turning once per day costs 34,600 gp, or +54,600 gp to add it to an existing magic item. It would last 170 minutes when you activate it (almost 3 hours), and would be a nice surprise for some crazy wizard who decided to blast you with a maximized enervation or similar.
Some would suggest antimagic field but this will actually hurt you in most cases, because magic items are good for fighter-types. Likewise, there are many ways for wizards to avoid antimagic fields, even if you get ontop of them (contingency can prevent you from locking them down with AMF), so it's better to be able to counter their stuff.
So your checklist should be:
1) Avoidance
2) Mobility
3) Counters
4) Miscellaneous options
Cover those bases and you'll be both a better adventuring Fighter, and simultaneously make it much harder to kill you as a mage, because it will be harder to lock you down, or disable you.
Also, for bonus points, consider picking up a ring of counterspells with greater dispel magic cast in it. That gives you a 1/off save against a targeted greater dispel magic, and you can either let your party caster recast the spell for you later, or pay an NPC to do it.
In the game I run the Players that play wizards do fear fighters. That's why they put so much into defense. By doing so they reduce their offensive power. That's as it should be. I've almost killed wizards on so many occasion with pure melee type monster if the wizard goes 100% offense. I've found it only takes round with a two handed weapon fighter against a wizard to drop them in most cases. So Wizards in my game take steps to avoid having that fighter in melee with them for 1 round.
My two houserules to fix the issue.
-5ft step provokes attack of opportunity.
-Defensive Casting DC is defenders CMD + Spell level (hey, the mechanics are there, that keep combat manouvers and tumbling challenging and sometimes impossible to perform).
We are actually using the first houserule in our campaigns and it has made my melee charaters feel meaningful without sacrificing for those half good anti-casting fighter feats.
The second houserule is still to be tested, but I am trying to tumble it in to my own campaign. *evil laughter*
Not my houserules, please drop that line of insinuation unless you have something to back it up.
Insinuation implies I was being subtle about it. I wasn't.
Frankly, it's not worth my time or energy to dig my dusty 2E books out of storage to properly lawyer you down on this -- and I have my doubts that I could convince someone who managed to reach a different conclusion than everyone one else who's ever played that game, and is convinced that means everyone else is wrong, not that they might have missed something.
So I'm agreeing to disagree (whether or not you agree to that) and letting this thread go on without further comment on this subject by me.
In the game I run the Players that play wizards do fear fighters. That's why they put so much into defense. By doing so they reduce their offensive power. That's as it should be. I've almost killed wizards on so many occasion with pure melee type monster if the wizard goes 100% offense. I've found it only takes round with a two handed weapon fighter against a wizard to drop them in most cases. So Wizards in my game take steps to avoid having that fighter in melee with them for 1 round.
I respect the martial guys which is why I make sure I have defensive spells, but fear will never happen. You kill them from afar, and make sure the never get close. If your meat shields are bypassed then you may have to retreat.
You can't. Spellcasters always trump warriors. (Even little kids know that.)
He did say 'low end archers'.Protection from arrows is a nice long duration buff which can make casters relatively secure vs low end archers.The subject gains damage reduction 10/magic against ranged weapons... Not *that* good, trust me!
Magic (bows that fires magic)arrows are not that hard to find :P
A 3rd level PC can standardly afford a bow with a +1 enchantment just with the regular starting gold for 3rd level player characters.
It only costs 2000gp for the base weapon enchantment, thus making the bow magical. Thereby leaving 1000gp for the bow itself and for armor.
And since archery uses Dex as its default ability for attacking with a bow, it stands to reason that the archer would be more likely to wear light or medium armor for the purpose of keeping the higher max Dex bonus. Especially since Dex bonuses to AC work against touch attacks, which are a spellcaster's primary form of attack.
I say this, because I feel a level 3 archer is still a low end archer. Protection from arrows is good against city guards, bandits, and low end monsters like goblins. It does very little againstmost important NPCs and PCs of lower level.
As a fighter - HP, good movement and a decent Will save are key IMO.
Chances are you arent going to win initiative - so you have to be able to get through the first round, then close the distance to unleash hell!
Overwatch style makes the readied action fighter wreck the wizard, gloves of missile snaring or no.