I've lost track of how many people have asked me, "Why do you recommend fog cloud? It's completely useless and hurts the party as much as the enemy."It gives me disturbing visions of players playing a wizard for the first time, using my guide as a handbook, and then being disappointed when in the middle of a combat, they randomly throw a fog cloud over the whole mess and wonder why it didn't seem to help.
You may not believe me but recently an rather inexperienced player played a mage in our group and copycated your GOD Guide 1:1. And he really didn't know what he was doing.
It was an... interesting... experience...
So when you say you "Don't believe the croc is hindering/doing noticable damage/drawing attacks/grappling etc", is it because you haven't done the math, or is it cognitive dissonance?
You need to read on how grappling works. It would be really cool if it worked the way you want it to, however it doesn't.
I'd also note you are no longer suggesting a celestial animal, which was the major problem with the summon.
|
These scenarios of 'blaster VS single foe' aren't particularily appealing, I personally find blasting to be in its element versus larger numbers of lower CR enemies- blasting a single target is usually meh compared to SOL. Could someone do a couple of scenarios and number crunching with Maddigans wizard and a crowd, for example eight CR-2 appropiate enemies?
These scenarios of 'blaster VS single foe' aren't particularily appealing, I personally find blasting to be in its element versus larger numbers of lower CR enemies- blasting a single target is usually meh compared to SOL. Could someone do a couple of scenarios and number crunching with Maddigans wizard and a crowd, for example eight CR-2 appropiate enemies?
As I said earlier blasting mostly relies on AoE effects which will get really good once you can affect multiple enemies.
Slinging a 60ft Diameter effect at a single creature may not life up to your expectations but I guess once you look at the map and compare your area of effect and the creature's space you will see the problem...
You may not believe me but recently an rather inexperienced player played a mage in our group and copycated your GOD Guide 1:1. And he really didn't know what he was doing.It was an... interesting... experience...
I believe you.
It is unfortunate nonetheless. I'm not pleased to hear it.
|
While I agree with TM on almost every point, there is one "real-world" element which I don't think he takes into consideration in his builds:Strategic non-random effect casting takes practice. I always hope that discussions on the messageboards may help those that haven't had as much practice. Little things like the conversation about where to place a black tentacles spell so it doesn't interfere with other party member's attacks.
I've lost track of how many people have asked me, "Why do you recommend fog cloud? It's completely useless and hurts the party as much as the enemy."
It gives me disturbing visions of players playing a wizard for the first time, using my guide as a handbook, and then being disappointed when in the middle of a combat, they randomly throw a fog cloud over the whole mess and wonder why it didn't seem to help.
I'm used to using fog cloud (though I've grown more attached to having an improved familiar distribute smoke sticks or obscuring mist wands as necessary and save the casting slot) so much I don't even really need to think about it anymore.
It's just, "Wall of stone here, and familiar drops smoke stick...right here. Use free action to tell the guys to gang up on that caster there before the wall is breached, and he's lost line of sight to me because of fog."
THATS ME, the first time playing a wizard!
Atleast when I cast obsercuring mist at lvl 2, and there was 12 archers on top of 40 ft buildings aiming at us, It blocked a ton of damage!BTW how do you do black tentacles effectively?
I'd also note you are no longer suggesting a celestial animal, which was the major problem with the summon.
Ah, you missed my post I had made 1/2 hour before yours when you said it wouldn't work?
You need to read on how grappling works. It would be really cool if it worked the way you want it to, however it doesn't.
help me out. What am I getting wrong?
Why does all this discussion have to be at high level? rolls eyes.It doesn't, I'm quite happy to discuss lower levels (there is a lot more gameplay at lower levels in my experience). The scenario I responded to happened to be using higher levels. Do you have a contribution for the discussion relating to lower levels, or are you just sniping?
I think mainly at really low levels like level 1 or 2 magic missle is useless as it does not do enough damage. Blasts will help if you come into swarms some. Color spray has dominated encounter way eaiser than burning hands in my expirence. I think stone call if you can spot an enemy far away that only has melee weapons might be a nice blasty option at around level 3 when you first get it because it also creates a large area of difficult terrain so you can snipe with bows so it is also battlefield control but almost covers too big an area. I think flaming sphere is one of the better low level blast as it keeps doing damage for multiple rounds. I also think flaming sphere will be useful in hallway.
I also think summon monster I is not that powerful and does not get a long enough duration.
Color spray and sleep are really dominant at the lowest of levels except if you run into mind effecting immune things like vermin or undead. I don't have really any high level play expirence so not that useful in that discussion.
I think mainly at really low levels like level 1 or 2 magic missle is useless as it does not do enough damage.
Ah, well, i beg to differ. In such low levels a magic missile may burn half the HP of most opponents and its a SURE hit, which is also very important at lower levels.
Not the first choice maybe, unless you want the opposing caster distracted, but when i doubt... magic missile. Even 2 or 3 Damage are nothing to scoff at, when the timings good. Great range, too.
I also think summon monster I is not that powerful and does not get a long enough duration.
The duration of course also bugs me, exspecially at low levels, but again its about application. One round is enough, when all the eagle has to do is swoop down and pick at the enemy casters eyes.
I never seriously played a "summoner", so i also tend to forget that summoned creatures usually don´t have just one attack with low damage, they have special abilities: poison, trip, fire, flying, swimming, diseases, grapple, climb...Never got your a** saved by a badger with RAGE ?
Ah, you missed my post I had made 1/2 hour before yours when you said it wouldn't work?
Huh? Are you asking if I missed post you made, a post I made myself, or a post you made where I said it wouldn't work? I don't know how I would say something in one of your posts. I think you are trying to agree with me that celestial is bad.
You need to read on how grappling works. It would be really cool if it worked the way you want it to, however it doesn't.
help me out. What am I getting wrong?
Full attacking while maintaining a grapple. That the marilith can't still full attack while grappled. Haste (which has already been pointed out). Your damage total. That you can attempt to break a grapple several times a round. You suggest that a marilith with a 28 CMB will generally fail against a CMD of 35. I probably missing a few errors somewhere, but those are the basics.
Full attacking while maintaining a grapple. That the marilith can't still full attack while grappled. Haste (which has already been pointed out). Your damage total. That you can attempt to break a grapple several times a round. You suggest that a marilith with a 28 CMB will generally fail against a CMD of 35. I probably missing a few errors somewhere, but those are the basics.
1. The Marilith can of course still full attack, but does not threaten anymore.
If the dire croc didn't have a 10/good DR she could easily one round it, but with the 10/good DR she can't really kill it.2. You can only attempt to break a grapple once per round
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check
3. She will most likely succeed but still it takes her standard action and her best chance to evade another follow up grapple is to move away from the croc because it is slow...
Huh? Are you asking if I missed post you made
Yes.
You need to read on how grappling works. It would be really cool if it worked the way you want it to, however it doesn't.Full attacking while maintaining a grapple. That the marilith can't still full attack while grappled. Haste (which has already been pointed out). Your damage total. That you can attempt to break a grapple several times a round. You suggest that a marilith with a 28 CMB will generally fail against a CMD of 35. I probably missing a few errors somewhere, but those are the basics.
help me out. What am I getting wrong?
Full attacking while maintaining a grapple:
You mean the Crocodile? When did I say it got full attack while maintaining grapple? I believe it gets a natural attack (which would be the bite)
I've always assumed the marilith would break the grapple on its turn after being grappled.
However, as you point out, that wouldn't be as easy as I thought.
That the marilith can't still full attack while grappled.
It certainly can't use it's standard full attack (5 longswords) since you can't do anything requiring more than one hand, so that is 4 longswords too many. I assume by the wording of "while grappled" the tail slap is out too.
It can technically full attack in name only. It's normal full attack is not available.
Haste
I'm not getting that wrong. I dropped it when it was pointed out that there is another interpretation. Why are you bringing it up?
your damage total
What was wrong with my damage total?
That you can attempt to break a grapple several times a round
Considering the context of this conversation (I was asking what I was getting wrong regarding the effectiveness of the Crocodile grappling), it seems like you aren't answering my question, but just searching for a way to make the list longer.
Are you taking this personally? Let me know if you are, I was looking for discussion or debate, not argument.
You suggest a Marilith with a 28 CMB will generally fail against a CMD of 35
We are both in error. "Generally" is wrong, it's half the time. (since I was also incorrect about it attempting to break the grapple more than once per round, this doesn't alter overall effectiveness)
You are in error on the CMD of a Dire Crocodile, nevermind a Dire Crocodile that is Hasted and summoned with Augment summoning. 39 would be correct (36+2 Augmented summoning (due to 4 higher STR)+1 dodge (haste))
Likely, if the croc gets a grapple, my mephit familiar will throw a protection from evil on it with a 1st level wand. That will raise the CMD to 41.
It certainly can't use it's standard full attack (5 longswords) since you can't do anything requiring more than one hand, so that is 4 longswords too many. I assume by the wording of "while grappled" the tail slap is out too.
I think you are reading the rules wrong here...
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
You can't use an action that requires TWO hands and not two single hands.
So she couldn't attack with a greatsword but easily with multiple longswords...
It certainly can't use it's standard full attack (5 longswords) since you can't do anything requiring more than one hand, so that is 4 longswords too many. I assume by the wording of "while grappled" the tail slap is out too.
I think you are reading the rules wrong here...
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
You can't use an action that requires TWO hands and not two single hands.
So she couldn't attack with a greatsword but easily with multiple longswords...
So in your opinion, two weapon fighting doesn't take 2 hands to perform, because it requires two single hands?
Seriously?
Come on. Attacking with a one handed weapon requires one hand. Attacking with 2 one handed weapons requires 2 hands. Attacking with 5 one handed weapons requires 5 hands.
I believe the idea is that a combatant needs to use one of his hands to prevent the grappler from pinning/choking/whatever, thus nothing that requires "two hands". Whether that be a great sword or two short swords. However, the rule was clearly written for humanoids with only two arms. I don't think the rule had a Marilith in mind.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think he's saying that the marilith can attack because she is taking separate attacks which each use 1 hand, which means she is taking no individual action requiring more than 2 hands. Honestly, this is how I've always read it as well. As in you cannot use a 2-handed weapon, or anything that requires both (or more) hands to be free.
In short, I too believe the Marilith can full-attack the crocodile. The thing is, I still think summoning the crocodile in this case was optimal because she cannot eat through the gator's damage reduction easily at all, and 5 attacks at 2d6-6 is pretty pitiful. In either case, the crocodile is definitely doing its job. It's keeping her busy and is being a meatshield, while everyone else gets to pound on the marilith.
Full attacking while maintaining a grapple:You mean the Crocodile? When did I say it got full attack while maintaining grapple? I believe it gets a natural attack (which would be the bite)
I've always assumed the marilith would break the grapple on its turn after being grappled.
However, as you point out, that wouldn't be as easy as I thought.
Your total of 12 attacks over 4 rounds, while asserting that the marilith will probably fail to break the grapple.
That the marilith can't still full attack while grappled.
It certainly can't use it's standard full attack (5 longswords) since you can't do anything requiring more than one hand, so that is 4 longswords too many. I assume by the wording of "while grappled" the tail slap is out too.
It can technically full attack in name only. It's normal full attack is not available.
The Marilith can clearly attack with it's tail. It does so against the croc, hitting on a 3 or better, needs a 7 with the grab, constricts then drops the grapple as a free action. Then it takes 5 longsword attacks against the fighter, or whomever.
Haste
I'm not getting that wrong. I dropped it when it was pointed out that there is another interpretation. Why are you bringing it up?
your damage total
What was wrong with my damage total?
It includes haste and full attacking.
That you can attempt to break a grapple several times a round
Considering the context of this conversation (I was asking what I was getting wrong regarding the effectiveness of the Crocodile grappling), it seems like you aren't answering my question, but just searching for a way to make the list longer.
Are you taking this personally? Let me know if you are, I was looking for discussion or debate, not argument.
I'm not taking it personally.
You suggest a Marilith with a 28 CMB will generally fail against a CMD of 35
We are both in error. "Generally" is wrong, it's half the time. (since I was also incorrect about it attempting to break the grapple more than once per round, this doesn't alter overall effectiveness)
You are in error on the CMD of a Dire Crocodile, nevermind a Dire Crocodile that is Hasted and summoned with Augment summoning. 39 would be correct (36+2 Augmented summoning (due to 4 higher STR)+1 dodge (haste))
Forgot about augmented summoning, but the croc is taking a -4 to dex from the grappled condition. So it's a 27 vs a 36, better then 50%.
Likely, if the croc gets a grapple, my mephit familiar will throw a protection from evil on it with a 1st level wand. That will raise the CMD to 41.
And will the fighter also take the aid other action to help the croc's AC? And will you hit the croc with a cat's grace to help it's CMD?
I also think summon monster I is not that powerful and does not get a long enough duration.
The duration of course also bugs me, exspecially at low levels, but again its about application. One round is enough, when all the eagle has to do is swoop down and pick at the enemy casters eyes.
I never seriously played a "summoner", so i also tend to forget that summoned creatures usually don´t have just one attack with low damage, they have special abilities: poison, trip, fire, flying, swimming, diseases, grapple, climb...
Never got your a** saved by a badger with RAGE ?
duration is the main problem at low levels it is only one round at level 1. That is not really long in a fight and if it misses its attack it will not do anything at level 1 other than maybe provide flanking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not taking it personally.
Good. Sorry for asking, my gut was telling me that there could be some anger in your post. My mistake.
Your total of 12 attacks over 4 rounds, while asserting that the marilith will probably fail to break the grapple.
I said the Marilith would likely break the grapple in any given round, just not in the first attempt.
So I guess I did make a mistake, but not the one you think I did.
needs a 7 with the grab, constricts then drops the grapple as a free action. Then it takes 5 longsword attacks against the fighter, or whomever.
So in your game you houserule grab to work on creatures 2 size categories larger?
I don't play with that houserule, under the normal rules, the tail doesn't get the grab ability. It does however do that 2d6+3 damage against the Crocs 173 HP.
It includes haste and full attacking.
Haste again? So this wasn't really a separate point. You realize when the point was made that the interpretation of Haste was in contention I retracted the point about extra attacks right? I'm not sure why you brought it up once, nevermind twice.
Forgot about augmented summoning, but the croc is taking a -4 to dex from the grappled condition. So it's a 27 vs a 36, better then 50%.
Reason you removed the +1 dodge bonus?
And will the fighter also take the aid other action to help the croc's AC? And will you hit the croc with a cat's grace to help it's CMD?
Not likely. The mephit does the little stuff, I do the big stuff.
I won't buff Summons (unless it is part of a mass buff), but a mephit familiar will.
Treantmonk:
What do u think of a familiar UMD mage armour to summond creaters?
At low lvls?
At mid lvls?
at high levels/
How effective is it?
Remember it has a range of touch.
Treantmonk:
What do u think of a familiar UMD mage armour to summond creaters?
At low lvls?
At mid lvls?
at high levels/
How effective is it?
Remember it has a range of touch.
The range of touch isn't that big an issue. I like mephits as familiars, and they have fly 50' (Perfect)
I don't like using buffs that make the Summoned creature a less attractive target though.
If it's got an enemy in a grapple, raising its CMD isn't a problem, but if it has a choice of targets, make the summoned creature as attractive a target as possible.
|
These scenarios of 'blaster VS single foe' aren't particularily appealing, I personally find blasting to be in its element versus larger numbers of lower CR enemies- blasting a single target is usually meh compared to SOL. Could someone do a couple of scenarios and number crunching with Maddigans wizard and a crowd, for example eight CR-2 appropiate enemies?
This is a key point. A blasted caster and an SoS caster fill completely different roles and have completely different strengths and weaknesses.
Fighting a lot of things, a blaster is your guy to clear a room. But his damage against a single target isn't really worth the resource expenditure in a lot of cases.
Fighting "a" thing, an SoS has a good chance of making it a short fight. But he can also be in trouble if things come in groups or in waves.
Both depend on initiative more than other classes, and but each shines in a different setting. Doing both is an option that shortens the day, causing other issues...not to mention that each would get different feats and items...
Basically like any class, it depends on what you need in the party and who can fill in the gaps where you lack.
|
|
Treantmonk:
What do u think of a familiar UMD mage armour to summond creaters?
At low lvls?
At mid lvls?
at high levels/
How effective is it?
Remember it has a range of touch.The range of touch isn't that big an issue. I like mephits as familiars, and they have fly 50' (Perfect)
I don't like using buffs that make the Summoned creature a less attractive target though.
If it's got an enemy in a grapple, raising its CMD isn't a problem, but if it has a choice of targets, make the summoned creature as attractive a target as possible.
So your saying that harder to hit would make it less apealing target, therefor wouldnt soak up as uch damage if it didnt have that cast?
These scenarios of 'blaster VS single foe' aren't particularily appealing, I personally find blasting to be in its element versus larger numbers of lower CR enemies- blasting a single target is usually meh compared to SOL. Could someone do a couple of scenarios and number crunching with Maddigans wizard and a crowd, for example eight CR-2 appropiate enemies?This is a key point. A blasted caster and an SoS caster fill completely different roles and have completely different strengths and weaknesses.
Fighting a lot of things, a blaster is your guy to clear a room. But his damage against a single target isn't really worth the resource expenditure in a lot of cases.
Fighting "a" thing, an SoS has a good chance of making it a short fight. But he can also be in trouble if things come in groups or in waves.
Both depend on initiative more than other classes, and but each shines in a different setting. Doing both is an option that shortens the day, causing other issues...not to mention that each would get different feats and items...
Basically like any class, it depends on what you need in the party and who can fill in the gaps where you lack.
I agree with this completely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your saying that harder to hit would make it less apealing target, therefor wouldnt soak up as uch damage if it didnt have that cast?
Exactly. Look it from your enemy's point of view.
If you have two targets, and you know one is summoned, tactics would suggest going for the non-summoned target, since that summoned creature isn't likely to be as big a threat.
However, if that non-summoned creature is wearing thick heavy armor, or it has mirror images spinning around, or other protections, and that summoned creature has zero additional protection, tactically you may be better off trying to kill the summoned creature first.
If that summoned creature has glowing force protection around it (mage armor), that might just be the deciding factor to not attack the summoned creature.
We don't want that. Enemies who attack summoned creatures are playing right into our hands.
Fighting "a" thing, an SoS has a good chance of making it a short fight. But he can also be in trouble if things come in groups or in waves.
SoS is commonly AoE. You are thinking about no-save debuffs like enervation I think.
When I think SoS I'm thinking of Stinking cloud, Cloudkill, Black Tentacles (technically not a save, but a similar mechanic), Glitterdust and Slow.
All are good against groups.
Wizards are good against groups. That isn't restricted to one kind of spell.
Wizards of all kinds are actually diminished against the single foe. There are still good things a Wizard can do (buff allies, single target debuffing), but in general, they do better against multiple lesser enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming a group of four plays the stereotypical group (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard)...
Fighter
Deals Good weapon damage
Soaks damage
Rogue
Deals Medium/Major weapon Damage
Cleric
Deals Medium Damage
Soaks Damage
Damage Control
Buffs
You have two characters that are basically already fully focused on dealing damage. Once a cleric has cast his own spells, and if he is not on damage control duty, he is attacking pretty good too. Why devote yourself to doing what two other participants are basically already doing well? (and is there main basic function)
Of course not all partys fall into this group, but I find that more often then not you have a spellcaster, a healer, and two damage dealers. If your group is lacking in the damage dealing department, then obviously blasting becomes a much more optimal option.
I guess long story short, depends on the group.
-------------
When I play a wizard/sorcerer, I often try to play with a goal to prevent as much damage to the group as possible. Taking a sword to the gut HURTS. Sure Brutal Steve the Fighter has full plate, 70 hp, and is supposed to sop damage. That doesn't mean that I want to see him get hurt!
If I'm in a situation where I can get a large group of enemies in a spell, and I am sure I can bring them down, a blast is fine by me. But more often then not that is not the case. Dealing a lot of damage to a group of enemies is good, but that will not stop the hoard from rushing and pin-cushioning my fighter, or far worse, getting to me!
If I can entangle, ensnare, slow, trip, block or hinder the opponents, I do. If I can delay 3 out of 5 enemies, forcing my fighter to focus on only one or two at a time, then I trust my fighter to destroy them, and protect me. (It's his job, he's a Professional!)
----------------------------
Lets say you succeed on making blasting as powerful as possible, always killing all the enemies before battle even starts. That actually causes more problems then you think.
Instantly ending a whole encounter before it starts increases the party's moral... at first. But eventually your taking the fight out of your fighter and your other party members. Pretty soon, the others are collecting their share of loot for doing mainly nothing. The fighter is slacking on training, busy flirting with wenches via text. The rogue is spending all his money on pesh and hallucinating about crafting mines on something called a laptop. And when was the last time the cleric prayed for a new list of spells? It seems like the only worship to the goddess of art he's been doing is repeatedly drawing in his sketch book.
Finally it happens. You get into a fight where your blasting can't win. A bunch of constructs or will-o-wisps or something. Normally, you have other spells to rely on. but you've gotten cocky. You've got mainly nothing but blast spells prepared. It's all you've needed in the past! No worries, your group can handle it!
But wait, after not having to do anything, your fighter has gotten fat and lazy and your rogue has since specialized in skills and out of combat things. All the cleric has prepared is divination and out of combat spells. he even sold his armor for a circlet of persuasion. when did he do that? the party is killed, and the unstoppable monsters are coming for you! You try your wand of web or something, but the save is too low, frigg'n wands! Your dead, or for the first time your casting that get of of jail free spell that whisks you away from harm. TPK.
(this is a total dramatization, and was really fun to type...)
-------------------
As the wizard, your party is your best tools. Know their strengths, cover their weaknesses.
Edit: AS a side note, I usually like to invest in wands for blasting, and essentially use them like a weapon. Sure it's not as powerful as preparing a spell, but it frees up spells slots, and if there there is one thing blasting is good for imho, its spamming.
That's not what I'm assuming, nor have I ever made that claim. I think that any one of Battlefield control, buffing and debuffing are tactically superior to blasting more often than not. They are better overall. That is not the same as better in every situation.
I disagree that they are better overall. I can end encounters with blasting 70 to 80% of time without even using top end blasting. This is in actual level appropriate modules, not your theorycrafting.
Look over some modules or designed encounters. Look at 70 to 80% of them and come back to me again with how using one or two blasting spells versus a cadre of battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing spells is more effective.
Just the other day with the above build in an end game encounter with minions and a main BBEG, I destroyed the minions in one round with one spell leaving my group to completely focus on the main BBEG.
My DM doesn't even use summoning spells against my blaster build because I wipe out summoned creatures quickly.
You are completely ignoring what I'm not about to try to explain in a post as it would take several pages, which is a party can strengthen a blaster build through coordination.
I'm not really into absolutes.
Neither am I.
Fair enough. Outsiders were the only opponent you mentioned in your original post, so I picked the first outsider I could find with an appropriate CR.
You are backing off your claim regarding acid and outsiders then?
No. I am not. Saying acid is ideal against outsiders and blasting isn't ideal against a Marilith isn't the samething is it? You really do try to appear clever in debates don't you?
Acid blasting may not be so good against said marilith, but it is quite good against said marilith's lesser minions with lower hit points and SR.
Once again, I'm not theorycrafting here. I'm speaking from experience where I eliminate the surrounding minions of BBEGs with blasting spells in what is usually a round or two allowing a pure focus on the main creature.
Maybe you don't have the same experience as I do, but in our games the main BBEG creature has minions in the room with him meant to occupy our time while he hits us with spells and attacks. And blaster builds usually eliminate such minions faster than other builds.
And yes I am familiar with battle field control spells like walls and the like, which in my experience smart BBEGs use to their advantage like teleporting behind them for BBEG outsiders or using them against us.
Which is why I prefer to kill minions outright to eliminate their presence.
Not reliably in my experience, but I'll keep an open mind.
You seem only focused on end game encounters against single powerful targets.
In my experience the game has more than such targets in adventures. In my experience, I can destroy them reliably.
Small clarification, that's the damage you rolled, not what you've inflicted. (for 3rd parties who are reading: damage rolled for blasts and damaged inflicted are often quite different)
That is not the damage I rolled. That is average damage using the number 7 for 2d6 and Empowering after all numerical values are added for level. Per the FAQ for the core rulebook and what I have read on the boards, non-variable numerical values added to variable dice are empowered after the initial damage is totaled.
The exampled used in the FAQ are cure spells. In the absence of other guidance, we empower the spell after the initial damage is totaled. Which for exact average rolled damage is the 221 point number.
I roll higher and lower quite often.
I didn't "cherry pick" the Marilith, YOU mentioned acid being good against outsiders, and the Marilith was the first one I found that was appropriate CR.
OK, this time you gave examples of where blasting is "dangerous" YOU picked the creature and the build this time. Let's see how good blasting is when you optimize it and you pick the opponent.
I notice you mentioned Dragons specifically as an opponent ripe for blasting. I'll pick that since your post follows a post where joeyfixit gave an example of a party wizard doing the "wrong thing" by blasting a dragon. Which one of you is right?
Once again, cherry picking.
I would prefer that you prove wrong my claim that 70 to 80% of modules or designed adventures are made up of encounters that don't feature top end CR creatures.
Your claim is that battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing is almost always a superior option. I think you are incorrect.
I'm basing that assumptions off adventure design and experience. In the majority of adventures, encounters are mixed. In fact out of probably 15 to 20 encounter points, maybe 4 to 5 are major encounters. Maybe 1 or 2 of those against BBEGs like mariliths and dragons. In fact, there is usually only one major dragon per adventure.
I say blasting is an equal, to superior option, the majority of the time in those adventures.
Are you not claiming that battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing are usually the superior option? Why yes you are.
I'm saying that blasting is an equal to superior option most of the time. I'm right sorry to say, Mr. Treantmonk..
I play this game just like you. I'm telling you that in the majority of encounters, I would say 70 to 80% of designed encounters, my blasting build is as effective, if not moreso, than your battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing tactics because I end the encounters. No other resources wasted.
You seem to under the assumption that adventures are filled with a majority of acid resistance, high save, high SR creautures. They are not.
So when you make specious claims about blasting being a lesser option the majority of the time, I find the notion laughable when my evoker build is annihilating most encounters we face within a round or two. No need to summon, no need to cast a wall, no need even to spend a slot on haste. Creatures blasted, encounter over.
This is me speaking from experience. Want to pick up an adventure path or designed module and look through it to see how many of the encounters can withstand my blasting build? We can do that if you want, see if your slow battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing can beat my blasting crush build for endind the majority of encounters.
You're not the only experienced player out there.
We aren't though. You are comparing blasting to battlefield control, buffing and debuffing.
Yes. I am. But I'm not just comparing it to end game encounters like you are doing. I'm thinking of a blasting build over an entire series of adventures.
Adventures usually including 3 or 4 of these end game encounters you are using as examples lauding battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing over blasting. While I see blasting equally as effective over the course of entire adventures.
If every single encounter were a marilith or appropriate CR dragon, the I'd be agreeing with you and tossing blasting aside like a bag of garbage. But that isn't the case.
Let me list some examples in recent adventures:
1. Pack of worg rangers ripping apart fighter and tripping him. Blasted down in two rounds.
2. Group of rock throwing giants with BBEG Rock throwing giant ranger.
Giants blasted down in two rounds clearing path to BBEG ranger and doing some nifty damage. Fighter and archer focus fired BBEG ranger, dead by 3rd round.
3. Swarms of small plant sized creatures stealthing on group in middle of forest. Blasted down 1 round.
4. Group of 9 ogres. Killed solo in one round.
5. BBEG summoner. Blasted him and his eidolon to the brink of death in one round. Fighter cleans it up.
6. 2 flying enemy nymph druids blasted down in two rounds.
I use this build. I'm not theorycrafting as you seem to be.
There are a bazillion creatures in designed adventures with weak reflex saves and minimal resistance to blasting damage. If your party works with you and positions well, you add tremendous amounts of destruction that end fights very quickly with minimal resources spent.
Some of the advantages:
1. You can hit flying targets easily, which can give melees a problem.
2. You pound right through most protection spells like mirror image, displacement, invisibility, stoneskin, immunity to mind-affecting spells, high ACs, high fort and will (much more common than reflex), and the like, which are fairly common at high level.
3. Damage is a highly effective way to kill something. It's the one thing almost nothing is immune to and ends every encounter you face. Even if you render creatures blind or nauseated, you still have to kill them. With damage you kill them, nothing fights back when it is dead.
That being said I use battlfield control, buffing, and debuffing at times. I do agree that often such spells are best against many end game creatures such as dragons or major outsiders unless you are using a conjuration based blasting build. Yet I find a blasting build to be far more fun and equally as effective in the majority of encounters in adventures.
Sure, occasionally blasting is going to an inferior option to others when you are dealing with creatures that have the trump card against what you're trying to do. But that is often the case with many strategies. Sometimes summoning monsters is a waste of time because the enemy has an ideal counter to get rid of them or they are little more than a mild nuisance due to high AC, CMD, SR, or resitances.
The right tool for the job is how I play arcane casters too. Difference is I have found that blasting can be the ideal tool in many, many encounters (as in the majority) and do not see it as a lesser option. But you can't expect to use ideal enemies to discount blasting. That would be like me putting every enemy in a room to small for summoned creatures to ever matter.
Anyhow, nice to debate you. Alot of the tactics you have listed I have used. You play the game as long as I have you figure out more than one way to do the job. The majority of the time, you don't need optimal spell use to win. You can sit back as a wizard and watch the fighter, rogue-type, and cleric butcher everything doing nothing and not lose more than a round or two of what it would take if you threw a spell in.
It's nice to mentally masturbate about ideal or optimal spell use. But such optimal use isn't necesary the majority of the time. But having mastery of the magic system, no matter what tact you take be it battlefield control or blasting, is always helpful.
I can certainly battlefield control, buff, and debuff as well as I can blast, just like I have builds for mind control and creature summoning. All can be equally effective. It's more a matter of what you feel like doing at a given time versus what is necessary or optimal to win a battle. Because all can be effective options.
Assuming a group of four plays the stereotypical group (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard)...
Fighter
Deals Good weapon damage
Soaks damageRogue
Deals Medium/Major weapon DamageCleric
Deals Medium Damage
Soaks Damage
Damage Control
BuffsYou have two characters that are basically already fully focused on dealing damage. Once a cleric has cast his own spells, and if he is not on damage control duty, he is attacking pretty good too. Why devote yourself to doing what two other participants are basically already doing well? (and is there main basic function)
Of course not all partys fall into this group, but I find that more often then not you have a spellcaster, a healer, and two damage dealers. If your group is lacking in the damage dealing department, then obviously blasting becomes a much more optimal option.
I guess long story short, depends on the group.
-------------
When I play a wizard/sorcerer, I often try to play with a goal to prevent as much damage to the group as possible. Taking a sword to the gut HURTS. Sure Brutal Steve the Fighter has full plate, 70 hp, and is supposed to sop damage. That doesn't mean that I want to see him get hurt!
If I'm in a situation where I can get a large group of enemies in a spell, and I am sure I can bring them down, a blast is fine by me. But more often then not that is not the case. Dealing a lot of damage to a group of enemies is good, but that will not stop the hoard from rushing and pin-cushioning my fighter, or far worse, getting to me!
If I can entangle, ensnare, slow, trip, block or hinder the opponents, I do. If I can delay 3 out of 5 enemies, forcing my fighter to focus on only one or two at a time, then I trust my fighter to destroy them, and protect me. (It's his job, he's a Professional!)
----------------------------
Lets say you succeed on making blasting as powerful as possible, always killing all the enemies before battle even starts. That actually causes more problems then you think.
Instantly...
This in spades. Jlord hits it on the head (critical hit even)! The fact of the matter is you're wasting your time doing what everyone else always does. Crowd control is important, and dealing damage doesn't do the whole crowd-control thing unless it actually kills them. Since HP is pretty good in Pathfinder, your odds are pretty bad at just 1-shotting them. Think about it like this, even if you leave an enemy in critical condition with 1 HP left, and they run up and hit the Fighter for their normal damage, then you have FAILED AT YOUR JOB. If you could have thrown up a wall, stunned them, confused them, put them to sleep, anchored them to the ground, slowed them down, or otherwise prevented the Fighter from actually taking that hit, then you did good. Not only did you stop the fighter from getting hit, that means you saved the cleric resources in healing the fighter, which means you saved your group time and assets that could be used on the next battle or during a late-night ambush.
Such strategies are universal is most tactical games. From Final Fantasy Tactics to World of Warcraft, crowd-control is king. If I put you to sleep 50% of the time, and you will stay asleep for 5-6 turns you would have taken, in 2 turns I've denied you 5 turns, so if I couldn't have simply killed you in 2 turns, I have been more effective and can have my monk (who are damage kings in Final Fantasy) murder you in your sleep, after we take out the healer you're no longer protecting.
In World of Warcraft, normal enemies aren't usually very tactical. However, the enemies in dungeons where you play as a group tend to be a bit more impressive, and you tend to use more strategy. Crowd control here is king. Mages and Warlocks actually ARE blasters in that game, as are hunters, but mages can temporarily turn enemies into sheep, warlocks can send them screaming in fear, priests can shackle undead to the ground so they can't move/act. All of these tactics take the heat off the rest of the party so the party's warrior, paladin, rogue, or whatever can unleash hell on 1-2 enemies at a time, and work their way through them without getting overrun or putting way more stress on the healer's longevity. However, blasting is also way better in WoW, since mages can drop AoE damage spells that only hurt their enemies. That means if you have a Paladin or Warrior who can survive an onslaught of a whole bunch of enemies mobbing him (say your priest is keeping him alive something fierce) then the mage can rain ice-shards down on them and slaughter them in mass over multiple rounds, while the warlock can do the same with rain of fire.
However, anyone who plays the more strategy elements of the game will tell you that crowd-control is a huge part of the game, both in players versus the computer AI and in PvP Battlegrounds. The reason is ultimately simple. If they aren't able to attack you, then you can deal with them when it is convenient.
While I agree with TM on almost every point, there is one "real-world" element which I don't think he takes into consideration in his builds:
Tactical control is hard. Blasting is relatively simple.
In other words, in most situations, the blaster might be considered the superior option, because it's easier to use (point and shoot). The only real thing you need to do is make sure your spells don't hit your own party, and that you do hit as many baddies as possible, then let the dice fall where they may.
The wizards are super-geniuses. The players (and DM's)... not so much.
Blasting isn't simple. Dropping a wall spell to split an enemy is simple.
Blasting requires tight control by a party and planning by the evoker. Poor movement by the party can completely mess up a blaster.
Recent example, Eldrtich Knight dimensioned doored behind enemy lines to engage a caster I was going to annihilate along with his minions in front of him. He thought he was being helpful, but he completely messed up the ideal blasting point on the map with his movement.
You also want your party melee to hold certain contain points and draw the enemy into a particular area to maximize your targets. For blasting to be effective, you want a party that works with you.
You also usually need to invest heavily in knowledge skills and spellcraft because it is far more important to know what enemy casters are casting. You need to know what type of resistance spells or defensive spells are being used. Not knowing what type of spells are up can mess you up blasting, while it generally doesn't matter when you cast haste or a wall spell.
You also need to use spells like greater arcane sight or any spell that can more quickly help you determine enemy defenses. Otherwise you're wasting spell slots.
It helps to have another caster you can coordinate a greater dispel magic with like a cleric to eliminate spell defenses to set blasting up.
It's not easy, at least at high level, against smart DMs to be a good blaster. That is an area where battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing have an advantage in that they work usually regardless of defenses and at least take up precious actions to remove or defeat.
Whereas blasting can be a waste of precious actions if you aren't paying attention or haven't built your character properly. Sure, against low level orc mooks, you're usually fine. But if you're going against an enemy NPC party or outsiders, you better know what they can do.
|
|
If every single encounter were a marilith or appropriate CR dragon, the I'd be agreeing with you and tossing blasting aside like a bag of garbage. But that isn't the case.
Let me list some examples in recent adventures:
1. Pack of worg rangers ripping apart fighter and tripping him. Blasted down in two rounds.
2. Group of rock throwing giants with BBEG Rock throwing giant ranger.
Giants blasted down in two rounds clearing path to BBEG ranger and doing some nifty damage. Fighter and archer focus fired BBEG ranger, dead by 3rd round.3. Swarms of small plant sized creatures stealthing on group in middle of forest. Blasted down 1 round.
4. Group of 9 ogres. Killed solo in one round.
5. BBEG summoner. Blasted him and his eidolon to the brink of death in one round. Fighter cleans it up.
6. 2 flying enemy nymph druids blasted down in two rounds.
I use this build. I'm not theorycrafting as you seem to be.
There are a bazillion creatures in designed adventures with weak reflex saves and minimal resistance to blasting damage. If your party works with you and positions well, you add tremendous amounts of destruction that end fights very quickly with minimal resources spent.
Some of the advantages:
1. You can hit flying targets easily, which can give melees a problem.2. You pound right through most protection spells like mirror image, displacement, invisibility, stoneskin, immunity to mind-affecting spells, high ACs, high fort and will (much more common than reflex), and the like, which are fairly common at high level.
3. Damage is a highly effective way to kill something. It's the one thing almost nothing is immune to and ends every encounter you face.
<bang stein on table approvingly>
Hear-hear -- great write-up.
- - - - - -
Another example, being on the receiving end: 10th-level Living Greyhawk core special final encounter: PCs cautiously move out of corridor into a tall-ceiling chamber, in which the Boss and his several 6th-level sorcerer minions are waiting in hidden alcoves with monster concealment bonuses to their hide checks. Of course, nobody sees them.
Fireball-Fireball-Fireball-Fireball-Maximized Cone of Cold!
Boom!-Boom!-Boom!-Boomitty-KABOOOOM!
....we were punked.
While I agree with TM on almost every point, there is one "real-world" element which I don't think he takes into consideration in his builds:Strategic non-random effect casting takes practice. I always hope that discussions on the messageboards may help those that haven't had as much practice. Little things like the conversation about where to place a black tentacles spell so it doesn't interfere with other party member's attacks.
I've lost track of how many people have asked me, "Why do you recommend fog cloud? It's completely useless and hurts the party as much as the enemy."
It gives me disturbing visions of players playing a wizard for the first time, using my guide as a handbook, and then being disappointed when in the middle of a combat, they randomly throw a fog cloud over the whole mess and wonder why it didn't seem to help.
I'm used to using fog cloud (though I've grown more attached to having an improved familiar distribute smoke sticks or obscuring mist wands as necessary and save the casting slot) so much I don't even really need to think about it anymore.
It's just, "Wall of stone here, and familiar drops smoke stick...right here. Use free action to tell the guys to gang up on that caster there before the wall is breached, and he's lost line of sight to me because of fog."
Do your groups really take that long to kill stuff where you have to set up such tactical advantages?
My general experience is I rarely need to do anything for long stretches of time in adventures as the party is very adept at butchering encounters without my assistance. When I do need to do something, it usually entails providing minor assitance in the way of dividing a battlefield, providing mobility to attack a flying creature, hasting a group to give a combat advantage, or something simple.
Which is another reason why I find blasting more satisfying and enjoyable than battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing. Sometimes you get bored watching the melees do all the damage and barely in need of your presence. You can only derive so much enjoyment watching everyone else get the crits, do the big damage, and in essence get the glory why you act as the support guy.
Gotta change it up at times to be entertained.
If every single encounter were a marilith or appropriate CR dragon, the I'd be agreeing with you and tossing blasting aside like a bag of garbage. But that isn't the case.
Let me list some examples in recent adventures:
1. Pack of worg rangers ripping apart fighter and tripping him. Blasted down in two rounds.
2. Group of rock throwing giants with BBEG Rock throwing giant ranger.
Giants blasted down in two rounds clearing path to BBEG ranger and doing some nifty damage. Fighter and archer focus fired BBEG ranger, dead by 3rd round.3. Swarms of small plant sized creatures stealthing on group in middle of forest. Blasted down 1 round.
4. Group of 9 ogres. Killed solo in one round.
5. BBEG summoner. Blasted him and his eidolon to the brink of death in one round. Fighter cleans it up.
6. 2 flying enemy nymph druids blasted down in two rounds.
I use this build. I'm not theorycrafting as you seem to be.
There are a bazillion creatures in designed adventures with weak reflex saves and minimal resistance to blasting damage. If your party works with you and positions well, you add tremendous amounts of destruction that end fights very quickly with minimal resources spent.
Some of the advantages:
1. You can hit flying targets easily, which can give melees a problem.2. You pound right through most protection spells like mirror image, displacement, invisibility, stoneskin, immunity to mind-affecting spells, high ACs, high fort and will (much more common than reflex), and the like, which are fairly common at high level.
3. Damage is a highly effective way to kill something. It's the one thing almost nothing is immune to and ends every encounter you face.
<bang stein on table approvingly>
Hear-hear -- great write-up.
- - - - - -
Another example, being on the receiving end: 10th-level Living Greyhawk core special final encounter: PCs cautiously move out of corridor into a tall-ceiling chamber, in which the Boss and his several 6th-level sorcerer minions...
Haha. Glad to see someone sees the advantages.
There are quite a few to blasting. The additive effect is also a plus. There isn't much additive effect to battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing.
But you get a lot of addtive power if say the following happens:
1. Wizard blaster nukes for 200.
2. Cleric nukes for 50.
3. Magus nukes for another 35.
4. Fighter smashes a few creatures with lunge and whirlwind attack for 40 plus per attack.
That damage starts to add up. You can't get quite the same wallop with additive effects from other types of builds. Though summoning can also have a pretty strong additive effect if you and the cleric gate something in.
The one fun thing about Pathfinder/D&D, there are plenty of ways to come at a problem. Just like fighters have archer builds, two-hander builds, AC builds, and two-weapon builds, casters have blaster builds, battlefield control options, mind control builds, summoning builds, and other options for coming at the same problem.
The fun is learning how to use each build to maximum effect rather than assuming there is one best way to do something. In general, there isn't. I've been surprised at the clever use of abilities by players to this day. I hope that continues.
These scenarios of 'blaster VS single foe' aren't particularily appealing, I personally find blasting to be in its element versus larger numbers of lower CR enemies- blasting a single target is usually meh compared to SOL. Could someone do a couple of scenarios and number crunching with Maddigans wizard and a crowd, for example eight CR-2 appropiate enemies?
Blasting is more effective against crowds. But you can still do a substantial amount of single target damage with an evoker. You focus on different spells.
When you want to do single target damage, you quicken single target spells.
For example, you may cast mage's sword on a target with a single target quickened magic missile or scorching ray or an enervate
Round 1: Mage's sword and quickened magic missile:
Damage: 4d6+14 or 28 from sword and 5d4+10 or 22 for 50 points in first round.
Round 2:
mage's sword: 29
Empowered magic missile: 33
Quickened magic missile: 22
Total damage: 84
In two rounds, you've done 134 points.
Probably not as good single target damage as the fighter or ranger, but not too shabby and more than enough to kill many, many creatures if part of aggregate damage.
You can probablby find better spells too. I'm tossing easy ones out there. If you really pour over the books, you can find some better single target spells to up the output. The key to single target evocation damage is layering with spells that do damage as a move action once cast.
Just because you're a blaster, doesn't mean you can't summon a creature or use a disintegrate. I often use enervation as a set up for disintegrate at high level. With the above wizard build, your disintegrate will have a potential of 30d6+30 damage or an average of 135 points single target damage. Follow it up with a 22 point quickened magic missile for 157 point single target damage and that's not too shabby. Most creatures won't know whether to come after you or hammer the fighter that just added another 100 or so points, if they're even alive.
...Assuming a group of four plays the stereotypical group (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard)...
Fighter
Deals Good weapon damage
Soaks damageRogue
Deals Medium/Major weapon DamageCleric
Deals Medium Damage
Soaks Damage
Damage Control
BuffsYou have two characters that are basically already fully focused on dealing damage. Once a cleric has cast his own spells, and if he is not on damage control duty, he is attacking pretty good too. Why devote yourself to doing what two other participants are basically already doing well? (and is there main basic function)
Of course not all partys fall into this group, but I find that more often then not you have a spellcaster, a healer, and two damage dealers. If your group is lacking in the damage dealing department, then obviously blasting becomes a much more optimal option.
I guess long story short, depends on the group.
-------------
When I play a wizard/sorcerer, I often try to play with a goal to prevent as much damage to the group as possible. Taking a sword to the gut HURTS. Sure Brutal Steve the Fighter has full plate, 70 hp, and is supposed to sop damage. That doesn't mean that I want to see him get hurt!
If I'm in a situation where I can get a large group of enemies in a spell, and I am sure I can bring them down, a blast is fine by me. But more often then not that is not the case. Dealing a lot of damage to a group of enemies is good, but that will not stop the hoard from rushing and pin-cushioning my fighter, or far worse, getting to me!
If I can entangle, ensnare, slow, trip, block or hinder the opponents, I do. If I can delay 3 out of 5 enemies, forcing my fighter to focus on only one or two at a time, then I trust my fighter to destroy them, and protect me. (It's his job, he's a Professional!)
----------------------------
Lets say you succeed on making blasting as powerful as possible, always killing all the enemies before battle even starts. That actually causes more problems then you think.
This can be true.
But in Pathfinder an optimal wizard isn't even necessary any longer unless the DM is really going out of his way to mess you up. There are so many different class combinations that have incredible utility and damage dealing capacity, it's really not fun to sit around and do battle field control, buffing, and debuffing while these other guys are smashing. I've cast a slow spell before only to watch my party butcher what we're fighting.
Have you seen what some of these melee classes can do now? Have you seen a optimized barbarian with 400 hit points and superstitious in action? Or an Inquisitor with Seize the Moment, Judgements, and fully spell buffed fighting next to a crit build fighter can do in battle? Or a two-hander fighter?
How much fun is it as a arcane caster to cast your piddly little battlefield control spell while the fighter pats you on the side with his gore covered hand and thanks you for doing nothing. "Nice spell, bud. Didn't really need it. Killed that thing in about 6 seconds. But glad you cared."
It's not all that fun. That's why sometimes it's more fun to get a little of the damage glory for yourself. Melees just don't need the little snobbish "GOD" wizard as much any longer except to get them around when they want to buy something at a major city.
The only time my party melees need the crowd control and the like is when we face off against another party using said crowd control. But I can't even put a major dragon in direct melee with them and expect that to be a challenge. They'll butcher it.
Just the other day the friggin lvl 3 Magus did a 50 point critical hit ending the encounter with the big bad NPC in one hit in our level appropriate module.
Why should melees have all the damage fun now? They aren't the little easily killed podunks they used to be. Their sick damage beasts now. I want to be a sick damage beast blaster wizard so I don't get to sit there being their errand boy.
Barbs, magus, inquisitors, archers, monks, and physical damage dealers just don't need arcane casters like they used to. They have crazy abilities that allow them to deal with 80 or 90% of what they fight with fair ease on top of more hit points.
So screw that if I'm not going to compete for some of the damage glory on occasion. I'm tired of watching the Come and Get Me barbarian do 200 plus points of damage a round or the Two-hander fighter obliterate everything he hits in strike or two. Gods help the creature he crits.
I'm getting some of that damage glory for myself. They don't need me to control the battlefield as much any longer. They don't even need my haste as much. I'd rather have a build that lets me as the arcane caster hammer.
treantmonk
I read over your wizard guide. Your advice is solid, especially for inexperienced players.
I've often wanted to try a summoner, but haven't been able to take advantage of it due to optimization by other players in the group. Optimized physical damage dealers kill so fast in the groups I've been in that it rarely pays to summon a creature for a few rounds. By the time I get the spell off, most of what we're fighting has been butchered. Not sure why your experience differs so greatly from my own when it comes to power of physical damage dealers.
Also don't quite understand your view on elementals not being able to use spells with somatic components. They can grapple, engage in fine manipulation if given the appropriate skills like Disable Device or Crafting, can pick up small items, open doors, and do everything a regular human can. My assumption was always that elementals could form the necessary limbs as necessary for fine motor control. I think unless stated otherwise, it would be a house rule that they can't use somatic components. By RAW they should be able to use them and thus you should be able to use them when polymorphed. That spell is another pretty key spell to a good blaster build as Air Elemental form with Eschew Materials turns you into a mobile blasting platform.
You should update your guide to incorporate new options from Ultimate Magic and the Advanced Player's Guide. I think you would love True Name for wizards. Give up a lvl 15 wizard bonus feat for the ability to summon an 18 HD creature with no need to pay component cost as if using Greater Planar Binding one time a day. Very powerful ability and what would probably fall into your Blue Category for must have.
Have you seen what some of these melee classes can do now? Have you seen a optimized barbarian with 400 hit points and superstitious in action?
You mean that primitive lvl Barbarian with Str 28(34 Rage) using his pounce power attack in round one to obliberate anything in his path?
He only features a rough 11(BAB)+12(Str)+1(WF)+3(Magic Weapon) = +26/+21/+16 attack Progression making that +28/+20/+15 with his PA Pounce Charge.
Noting that his damage will be somewhat like 2d4+18(Str)+6(PA)+4(Primitive)+3(Magic Weapon) = 36 per hit and noting the crit range of his Falchion will most likely be 15-20 (30% of all hits) he will obliberate most other classes in the first round...
I disagree that they are better overall.
Wow...first of all, did you just spam 5 posts in a row? Dude!
OK, I understand you disagree, you stated my position incorrectly, wanted to make sure we both knew where the other stood.
Your claim seems to have changed in this post from:
I'm a wizard. I'm a blasting wizard. I kill my enemies myself.
to
I'm speaking from experience where I eliminate the surrounding minions of BBEGs with blasting spells in what is usually a round or two allowing a pure focus on the main creature
I can't really debate your personal experience, which is really what the rest of your post devolves into.
The messageboards involve theory, we're not actually roleplaying here. Not sure why you find that offensive.
I would prefer that you prove wrong my claim that 70 to 80% of modules or designed adventures are made up of encounters that don't feature top end CR creatures.
I can't do that, I don't read the adventure paths before playing them.
I generally assume that the encounters that are challenging either include or are a creature that has a CR 1-3 higher than the party level. That's just my experience, which is anecdotal. If you've gone over the designed adventures on your own, I'll assume you are correct.
Want to pick up an adventure path or designed module and look through it to see how many of the encounters can withstand my blasting build?
A bit, but I won't.
You seem to under the assumption that adventures are filled with a majority of acid resistance, high save, high SR creautures. They are not.
That wasn't my assumption or claim at all.
Let me simplify:
Outsiders that are CR appropriate for a 15th level party will likely have an array of energy resistances as well as SR.
The bestiary has very few creatures of appropriate CR for a 15th level party that don't at least have SR.
At low levels, both resistance and SR are less common, but your example was 15th level.
Do your groups really take that long to kill stuff where you have to set up such tactical advantages?
depends on the encounter, but yes, in challenging encounters, the battle can last many rounds.
Which is another reason why I find blasting more satisfying and enjoyable than battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing. Sometimes you get bored watching the melees do all the damage and barely in need of your presence. You can only derive so much enjoyment watching everyone else get the crits, do the big damage, and in essence get the glory why you act as the support guy.
I can understand your view, though I don't share it. Support/battlefield control/debuff/buff doesn't get the kill.
You play the game as long as I have you figure out more than one way to do the job.
OK, I'll just wait until I've played as long as you. Then I'll see the light I'm sure.
My assumption was always that elementals could form the necessary limbs as necessary for fine motor control. I think unless stated otherwise, it would be a house rule that they can't use somatic components. By RAW they should be able to use them and thus you should be able to use them when polymorphed
I don't think there is RAW on the subject. Your assumptions are as valid as mine, but they aren't RAW.
It's nice to mentally masturbate
Don't let me disturb you.
If I recall, as of Bestiary 1 there were no creatures above CR 13 without SR of at least CR+11. Off the top of my head I can't recall if B2 added any creatures of higher levels without SR, save for the CR 14 white whale.
If I recall, as of Bestiary 1 there were no creatures above CR 13 without SR of at least CR+11. Off the top of my head I can't recall if B2 added any creatures of higher levels without SR, save for the CR 14 white whale.
You are mostly right here. Most of the higher CR creatures do have high SRs.
But those SRs don't even seem to scale with a factor of 2 or 3 to their CR so if it has 2CR more it seems to have like 4-6SR more than the lower creature.Due to that fact if you don't have one BEEG who is your group level +4 in CR but rather a BBEG with your group level (or +1 or +2, which is more likely in terms of good playability than a single +4 CR behemoth of doom and despair) he will have supporters who sometimes happen to be at your level -2 (or even your level). And those are really dangerous, too.
This is where Blasting is really strong IMHO. Even if you don't right kill them in the first round you will deal your blasting damage x3 or even x4 which can even break the 1000 dmg barrier at lvl 15 (or sometimes even lower). And dealing 1000 dmg in one round after all is impressive! In the end (most likely) HP dmg will kill the enemy. And even the "most optimized" (means as much as you usually optimize in real playing groups) Barbarian (with haste) will need about 3-4 rounds for this.
You can't tell me that this is worse than trying to split them or hindering their sight/movement.
You may not believe me but recently an rather inexperienced player played a mage in our group and copycated your GOD Guide 1:1. And he really didn't know what he was doing.
It was an... interesting... experience...
I actually have had the opposite experience recently with a group of newer players in a level 9 game. The wizard player recently read Treantmonk's guide and went from a decent contributor in the party to bending every encounter over a barrel, lol. It's a lot of fun.
I actually have had the opposite experience recently with a group of newer players in a level 9 game. The wizard player recently read Treantmonk's guide and went from a decent contributor in the party to bending every encounter over a barrel, lol. It's a lot of fun.
Either hes a fast learner/natural talent or your DM is doing it wrong? :)
Well, I'm disturbed...It's nice to mentally masturbateDon't let me disturb you.
Ummm...ohhhh...yeah...
Sorry...did you post something?
(that was the joke I should have used the first time)