| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also have always wanted to play a fighter (at higher levels, of course) that is super awesome with one weapon, but for some reason or another, no longer uses that weapon. He's still deadly with his other skills, but has the opportunity to fight at below his optimum, until he is forced to. Now most players think I am nuts to want to do so. Often asking, "Why would you nerf yourself like that?" It's about role-playing. To me, that's that same as the wizard that does go hog-wild with the spells.
I ... am not left handed - Inigo Montoya
I have some problem on why the players should feel entitled on being annoyed on the world reacting to what they do. If in the real world we try to storm an enemy position and we fail or fall back to regroup, the defenders try to upgrade and reorganize their defence. What they do depend on their resources and the time available, but as it is not a computer game they don't return to the starting positions waiting for the next attack. Same thing for pathfinder.
Sure, but TOZ's point is that can only take you so far, perticularly at higher levels when Team PC is wind walking past all these mooks. I have a gentleman's agreement with myself never to play a wizard in any campaign run by a GM with less than 20-30 years' experience, because there's no possible way they can adequately react to the absurdly awesome array of divinations, transport spells, and get-out-of-jail-free cards -- plus the ability to adjust your tactics from day to day -- that the game hands out to wizards like party favors.
With a GM like houstonderek who HAS been around long enough, they know the problems as well as you do, so your group is more likely to be playing Kirthfinder than Pathfinder anyway.
If you take a cynical, scheming, obsessively cautious individual like myself or HD and hand him a boxful of tools allowing him to bypass any threat imaginable, and then give him 30 years to learn how to use those tools, it's a losing game. Doubling the guard isn't going to cut it, and there are only so many times your adventures can take place inside of a null-magic field before you're better off just saying, "Look! No more wizards, OK? Play a damn sorcerer so I can keep up with you. Or better yet, a noncaster!" There's a good reason that Viletta Vadim (I miss her around here!) used to pop into every thread about wizard and cleric problems, and simply recommend that everyone simply have to play sorcerers and oracles instead. There's a reason Derek and I always offer to play the rogue, especially in standard games.
Wolfsnap provided a very, very nice list of ideas on the last page, and I'd recommend all of them to delay the inevitable, but sooner or later it'll get to the point when a well-played wizard PC negates the campaign unless you start pulling really goofy stuff out of the air just to gimp him (or he voluntarily gimps himself).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You have a fighter that gets upset for being healed? All he has to do is make a will save to resist the spell, and try to move out of the way."
@Wraithstrike
Mr. Fishy has had a fighter chase Mr. Fishy's cleric to be healed.
LOL. I dont know which is funnier. A cleric chasing a fighter trying to get a heal, or a cleric running away because he does not want to heal.
Sure, but TOZ's point is that can only take you so far, perticularly at higher levels when Team PC is wind walking past all these mooks.
I understand that you are throwing this out as an off the cuff example, But I'd like to point out that it's a horrible example.
Wind walk makes you sorta look like a cloud, that's only defense is dr 10/magic. You have poor maneuverability, and are accompanied by a 60 mph wind rendering stealth useless. So all the mooks you wind walked past are likely to follow the cloud-like things that are wandering through the halls. It takes you 30 seconds to stop being a cloud, meanwhile you're getting beat to death.
I understand that you are throwing this out as an off the cuff example, But I'd like to point out that it's a horrible example.
Point well taken -- and, yeah, some of the spells just ain't what they used to be, which is for the better. But replace wind walk with ethereal jaunt, and the point stands.
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
It depends on your definition of the word.
If you mean a faster, easier way to do something then we take shortcuts all the time in real life. :) Why walk 30 miles instead of drive?
Even in literature you don't see them scaling the side of a building if they can fly unless the bad guys have a way to take them out if they do so.
If you mean take the easy but more risky way out, which is normally the bad connotation, then no it is not.PS: You have a fighter that gets upset for being healed? All he has to do is make a will save to resist the spell, and try to move out of the way.
I wish I did not have to go to work now. I will check the response tomorrow.First, Will save for a Fighter, likely not going to resist, unless it is a Cure Light and even then, he is likely to fail half the time. :p
There are other reasons to not take shortcuts. Walk the 30 miles for exercise and to enjoy the company of a friend. It would be a lot more bonding, as well as good exercise, with a walk than a drive. In terms of a PF setting, your team relationships should be pretty solid by then, but it's nice to have reinforcement. Then some people also enjoy the feel of nature on their person... ;)
Flying is fine, if it is part of some plan, but just to frivolously fly up? Makes no nevermind... utility is fine. But why cast Knock, if you have a perfectly capable Rogue who is more than willing to take the challenge? It's that kind of...
I understand what you are saying, but the game does not support doing things the hard way, and neither does literature. The knock issue is actually a waste of resources to me. Why would I spend a spell slot when the rogue can do it for free? That is different than what you are talking about. From what I understand you saying you want the players to take the route of more resistance just for the heck of it. Climbing the castle falls instead of flying is an example of that.
There is a game called Iron Heroes which is d20 based. It is very low magic. It has one spell casting class and even that one is optional. It would taking some converting to use with Pathfinder, but it can be done, and it has none of the shortcuts.
PS:By "none" I mean almost none. I don't like to speaks in absolutes. Players are inventive. You might have to remove DR from a few monsters though since magical weapons don't exist unless the GM brings them into the game, among other things.
I understand that you are throwing this out as an off the cuff example, But I'd like to point out that it's a horrible example.Point well taken -- and, yeah, some of the spells just ain't what they used to be, which is for the better. But replace wind walk with ethereal jaunt, and the point stands.
Ethereal Jaunt only effects the caster, lasts 1rd/lvl , only allows you to see 60ft away and allows you to move at half speed.
I am by no means saying that a wizard can't do cool things. It's just that people tend to misconstrue how powerful wizards are.
...and Counterspelling are your friends. Any BBEG with any intelligence is going to keep one or more magical defense items or persons around solely to handle counterspelling duties and other magical defense.
.
Counterspelling requires readying an action which uses up a standard action and requires certain spells in order to work. It is not very efficient at all. Even if the you the correct spells prepared you are constantly on defense which is only stalling the inevitable.
|
Counterspelling requires readying an action which uses up a standard action and requires certain spells in order to work. It is not very efficient at all. Even if the you the correct spells prepared you are constantly on defense which is only stalling the inevitable.
You give the counterspelling job to a Vizier or Advisor while the BBEG gets out his Greatsword or his Staff of Napalm and goes to town on anyone within reach.
Your dispel monkey is ideally a Sorcerer with High Dex, Improved Iniit, Improved Counterpsell, decent HP and Saves, who knows Dispel Magic and/or Greater Dispel Magic or has a wand or a set of scrolls of the same. He sits at the back of the enemy lines somewhere in a protected position and shuts down one spell per round.
It doesn't have to be efficient: these are the NPC bad guys we're talking about. They have whatever resources I deem necessary.
Also: stalling the inevitable is pretty much what I consider to be 90% of the GMs job. :P My bad guys fight to win, but there's an obvious bias in the hero's favor in this game.
Counterspelling requires readying an action which uses up a standard action and requires certain spells in order to work. It is not very efficient at all. Even if the you the correct spells prepared you are constantly on defense which is only stalling the inevitable.You give the counterspelling job to a Vizier or Advisor while the BBEG gets out his Greatsword or his Staff of Napalm and goes to town on anyone within reach.
Your dispel monkey is ideally a Sorcerer with High Dex, Improved Iniit, Improved Counterpsell, decent HP and Saves, who knows Dispel Magic and/or Greater Dispel Magic or has a wand or a set of scrolls of the same. He sits at the back of the enemy lines somewhere in a protected position and shuts down one spell per round.
It doesn't have to be efficient: these are the NPC bad guys we're talking about. They have whatever resources I deem necessary.
Also: stalling the inevitable is pretty much what I consider to be 90% of the GMs job. :P My bad guys fight to win, but there's an obvious bias in the hero's favor in this game.
1. Dispel Magic only works against certain spells as a counterspell.
2. The advisor having the exact spells ready will reek of metagaming if the party can prove they have not been scried/spied on. This might effect the issue of resources also.3. I understand the GM's job, but the bad guy's job is to win, and the GM's job is to sell the image that they are trying to win.
PS:I am using a general game as an example. Some people will never catch on or care how a GM gets things done.
1. Dispel Magic only works against certain spells as a counterspell.
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
I think this is what they were talking about, not dispelling it after it's been cast.
|
|
1. Dispel Magic only works against certain spells as a counterspell.
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.I think this is what they were talking about, not dispelling it after it's been cast.
That is indeed what I'm talking about. As far as I know, you can dispel almost anything with Dispel Magic when you're counterspelling (as long as you make the caster level check). Se also under Magic:
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell: You can usually use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn't always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).
I don't think that counts as metagaming - just prudent magic defense on behalf of the NPCs. Hell, I learned this trick from a party of PCs! :)
(That's another thing - always steal good ideas from your players!)
|
Check out the article I posted on calibrating expectations. Compared to what Real life people can do with regards to 3.x 5th level is very close numerically to what the best of the best can do. He gives exampels of olympic long jumpers (in terms of the then jump now acrobatics skill) and albert einstein (in terms of how knowledge works). And while I agree that aragorn and co were beyond what humans can actually do, they were still relatively human. Boromir was brought low a single archer firing 3 arrows. Could 3 arrows from anyone bring down a 15th level fighter?You are right that this is a matter of interpretation, but I think the way the game plays (as opposed to how we want it to play) and the creation of things like E6 supports my concept that once you leave 6th level you are talking superheroes and not classic fantasy characters.
I am reading it in tidbits, as I take breaks at work. It is a very interesting read, but I will refrain from commenting on it too much until I have read it in its entirety. Thanks for the link!
Expediance? Convenience? If you own a bike and a car and you need to go food shopping, you COULD do it by bike, or even walking, but it is much easier to use a car in the vast majority of cases right? Its not showing off to pull your pickup truck into home depot when you could have brought your sub compact is it? For a dnd/pathfinder caster, magic is a simple and...
Obviously it is also a cultural perspective as well. I live in Hawaii, where walking 3 miles to breakfast is something I choose to do instead of driving. The weather is nice, the air is clean, it is a generally pleasant experience. In the case of driving v. walking, I weigh the benefits from each and have decided that walking is more beneficial and less wasteful. In that case it is not showing off. I see your case of using the best tool that you have for the job.
So what is your opinion of the knock spell, when you have a rogue there to open the lock? In my opinion THAT is showing off. But there are all kinds of factors that go into which is the more viable option.
As for the fighter, you are using extremes. In my scenario, it is a high level fighter, using regular weapons, or no weapons, fighting lower level fighters/soldiers/guard... he comes across the lieutenant, who is obviously a bigger threat. They fight to what seems to be a stand-still, but he spies his chosen style of weapon (i.e. - Specialization, first weapon training group, etc.) and makes for the weapon. After defeating the opponent soundly, he gives a nod of respect for making his have to "pull out all the stops."
--
Brown Greengrass promptly filled his chest with three more arrows. (Unbeknownst to us, though we should have known because he was adding damage for double specialization, he could actually fire 5 arrows a round!) When asked by the DM, after an incredulous, "WHAT?!?! You can do that?!? Why haven't you ever..." the player calmly replied, "I never needed to."
To this day, this has undoubtedly been my favorite story about my gaming experiences...
|
|
I understand what you are saying, but the game does not support doing things the hard way, and neither does literature. The knock issue is actually a waste of resources to me. Why would I spend a spell slot when the rogue can do it for free? That is different than what you are talking about. From what I understand you saying you want the players to take the route of more resistance just for the heck of it. Climbing the castle falls instead of flying is an example of that.
There is a game called Iron Heroes which is d20 based. It is very low magic. It has one spell casting class and even that one is optional. It would taking some converting to use with Pathfinder, but it can be done, and it has none of the shortcuts.
PS:By "none" I mean almost none. I don't like to speaks in absolutes. Players are inventive. You might have to remove DR from a few monsters though since magical weapons don't exist unless the GM brings them into the game, among other things.
No, what I was originally saying was that I get frustrated, both as a player and a GM when their first instinct is to use magic. Firstly, as a Wizard, being Intelligent, I would expect one to at least take an attempt to evaluate the situation instead of BLAM! Spell! The debate sort of devolved into me arguing for use the "path of most resistance" to get a point across.
In the past, I have been in campaigns where, as the fighter, I felt useless because I wanted to do certain things myself (i.e. - make use of skills or strengths that I had) but had it completely wasted because the party wizard went, BLAMMO! and the opportunity was stolen from me. It just made me disappointed. Thinking back on it, it comes from the Players' ego and drive to be in the spotlight. I have not had luck with players that truly think about the group versus the individual.
In that case, my problem has less to do with the Wizard as it does with the players. ^_^ (Why do I feel like I have been lying on a therapist's couch?)
Thanks for being patient with me, guys.
Doesn't that kind of depend on who's playing what though - not all intelligent wizards are going to evaluate all situations with the idea of NOT using the spells they spend half of their waking time developing and thinking about and talking about and casting - especially at mid to higher levels when they aren't waiting for tomorrow to get more spells back?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You give the counterspelling job to a Vizier or Advisor while the BBEG gets out his Greatsword or his Staff of Napalm and goes to town on anyone within reach.You think that's nasty, try an abjurer BBEG with an extensive spy network who spends time testing party resources and learning what spells PC wizards favor. When the fur starts to (finally) fly he's got a prepped spell list with a handful of encounter enders and a lot of dispels, silences, mental stat-nukes, anti-magic defenses, fly, greater invisibility and a handful of evasion/get out of jail free cards. A nice big chunk of those, especially the dispels, are silenced and he's carrying a rod or three of silent spell. He's also got three or four cohorts with him, mostly big dumb meat shields for whom he's provided potions and easily-accessed buffs.
Open up with the encounter enders to force the PC spellcasters on the defensive/reactionary, then float around counterspelling everything. Once the PC's are nice and cheesed and out for caster blood, the assassin cohort who's been hiding in plain sight out of the way doing nothing most of the encounter death attacks the party's wizard. Extra nice if the assassin himself has ranks in kn. arcana and spellcraft (as any anti-caster assassin should) and can recognize the PC caster's defenses on his own. Once that's done, our BBEG can open up.
All this blather about action economy and "if you start counterspelling you auto-lose the encounter!" is nonsense.
It's all fun and games until AM BARBARIAN out preps the casty bad guys by sundering the support for the tower they're in.
|
|
Doesn't that kind of depend on who's playing what though - not all intelligent wizards are going to evaluate all situations with the idea of NOT using the spells they spend half of their waking time developing and thinking about and talking about and casting - especially at mid to higher levels when they aren't waiting for tomorrow to get more spells back?
You are absolutely right, it should be on a case by case basis. However, having played with several groups and having it happen constantly, well, that frustrated me. :)
I'm good now! All vented. ^_^
|
I have some problem on why the players should feel entitled on being annoyed on the world reacting to what they do. If in the real world we try to storm an enemy position and we fail or fall back to regroup, the defenders try to upgrade and reorganize their defence. What they do depend on their resources and the time available, but as it is not a computer game they don't return to the starting positions waiting for the next attack. Same thing for pathfinder.Sure, but TOZ's point is that can only take you so far, perticularly at higher levels when Team PC is wind walking past all these mooks. I have a gentleman's agreement with myself never to play a wizard in any campaign run by a GM with less than 20-30 years' experience, because there's no possible way they can adequately react to the absurdly awesome array of divinations, transport spells, and get-out-of-jail-free cards -- plus the ability to adjust your tactics from day to day -- that the game hands out to wizards like party favors.
With a GM like houstonderek who HAS been around long enough, they know the problems as well as you do, so your group is more likely to be playing Kirthfinder than Pathfinder anyway.
If you take a cynical, scheming, obsessively cautious individual like myself or HD and hand him a boxful of tools allowing him to bypass any threat imaginable, and then give him 30 years to learn how to use those tools, it's a losing game. Doubling the guard isn't going to cut it, and there are only so many times your adventures can take place inside of a null-magic field before you're better off just saying, "Look! No more wizards, OK? Play a damn sorcerer so I can keep up with you. Or better yet, a noncaster!" There's a good reason that Viletta Vadim (I miss her around here!) used to pop into every thread about wizard and cleric problems, and simply recommend that everyone simply have to play sorcerers and oracles instead. There's a reason Derek and I always offer to play the rogue, especially in...
Why the "use an anti-magic area" example is used so often in this forum?
Really you* can't think of any other solution?You realize how bad is the message you give?
A guy with little experience read that and say "Even old GM can't find another solution, so it is the only solution." and stop even trying. You have a impressive toolbox in your hands and end using a 2x3 inch spell description.
* with you I mean the people that constantly use that as the example oc the solution.
Why the "use an anti-magic area" example is used so often in this forum?
Really you* can't think of any other solution?
You realize how bad is the message you give?
A guy with little experience read that and say "Even old GM can't find another solution, so it is the only solution." and stop even trying. You have a impressive toolbox in your hands and end using a 2x3 inch spell description.
I can easily think of dozens of others, and have used them all. But they're gimmicks -- each one has a limited shelf life. Say your toolbox has over 500 such stratagems (and I challenge anyone to make a list of viable options that long without basically recycling a lot of the same items with different window dressing).
Now realize that some people have been playing once a week or so for 30 years. That's over 4,500 game sessions. Which means some of them have seen every one of these "unique" and "creative" solutions up to ten times each. If you see 9 or 10 of anything, then by definition that thing is not unique.
|
|
Why the "use an anti-magic area" example is used so often in this forum?
Really you* can't think of any other solution?
You realize how bad is the message you give?
A guy with little experience read that and say "Even old GM can't find another solution, so it is the only solution." and stop even trying. You have a impressive toolbox in your hands and end using a 2x3 inch spell description.I can easily think of dozens of others, and have used them all. But they're gimmicks -- each one has a limited shelf life. Say your toolbox has over 500 such stratagems (and I challenge anyone to make a list of viable options that long without basically recycling a lot of the same items with different window dressing).
Now realize that some people have been playing once a week or so for 30 years. That's over 4,500 game sessions. Which means some of them have seen every one of these "unique" and "creative" solutions up to ten times each. If you see 9 or 10 of anything, then by definition that thing is not unique.
We had been agreeing so often recently...
After a certain level, everything is a trope since there is nothing "normal" that will bother a high level character.
At high levels the enemy is almost always intelligent, almost always aware of the party (if only because the party is really famous by that point) and almost always adjusting strategy to deal with the group.
That isn't troupe, it's planning.
Yes wizards have more options. But they also have the highest "oh crap, I got nothing" factor in the game combined with the highest "oh crap, it targeted me, see you after you raise me" factor.
Wizards are all win or all fail, at all levels. Fun to play, most potentially powerful, and most likely to die in a given encounter if it is halfway decently planned and executed.
|
Some more tricks to really mess with the players (and PC's) heads.
Diversions: Sure, Mr. Wizard and his Super Friends go off and stomp the bad guys into a mud puddle in 15 minutes or so. Then they take some time to identify all that copper and low-level magic items.
While doing so, who's protecting their friends, family, livestock, and cities from the real BBEG? Oh wait, that's right, not them.
Illusions: I use this a LOT, to the point that some of my players are actually starting to use true seeing from time to time. BBEG stands on his dais delivering monologue, blah, blah, blah. Can't engage him because its a project image spell, and then the archers begin filling the heroes with arrows from behind illusory wall spells.
Misdirection: BBEG Bard, with lots and lots of Disguise, Bluff, glibness, and a hat of disguise gets to infiltrate the party's group pretty much with impunity. Play him super smart, and be friends with the heroes, get to know them, go on adventures with them, use them to crush your enemies and make BBEG Bard the ruler/landowner/etc or whatever he really wants.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he never existed," after all. Bonus points if he's not particularly "Evil" but the antagonists he sets up are, and the party includes a Paladin.
Now, for starters, I'd like to say that I don't hate wizards. As a player, I rather dislike prepared casting. As a GM, storyteller and stick-in-the-mud, the feel of my world is pretty important to me.
... and I have this irattional hatred of enlarge and reduce person. I really can't explain it. Theres something so... clunky, ridiculous and devoid of flavour about it. I'd rather see my players shapeshift into a rat or a dragon in these kinds of situations. Its just inherantly cooler, y'know? But I love wizards, I just like to see them played for flavour. I want the spells that will be most dramaticly and aesthetically pleasing and draw on classic fantasy stuff. (I will stop here at risk of invoking the Stormwind Fallacy.)
A lot of the issues in this thread apply to other classes. I just see them as inherantly harder to deal with. Take the Beast Rider calavier. Despite protests of "no, there arent any axebeak dinosaurs in Varisia" one of my players wants to turn his inquisitor into a dino-rider. My response here? "You want x? Find it." Sure, by the book, he wont be finding any axebeaks in RotR. However, I'm sure he'll be able to tame something memorable without it being handed to him. Would you rather play the dragon rider PC, or the PC that went out and tamed a bloody great dragon? There's a difference here, and its important.
These kinds of restrictions dont really work with wizards, as written. Wizards and Sorcerers are given X amount of spells on a level up, no questions asked. I dont think you'll find many GMs willing to restrict spell selection. Thus, an empasse.
Hopefully I've made some kind of coherant point here. I'm off to try and salvage the rest of my weekend and curse all of you folks on the other side of the international date line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what you are saying, but the game does not support doing things the hard way, and neither does literature. The knock issue is actually a waste of resources to me. Why would I spend a spell slot when the rogue can do it for free? That is different than what you are talking about. From what I understand you saying you want the players to take the route of more resistance just for the heck of it. Climbing the castle falls instead of flying is an example of that.
There is a game called Iron Heroes which is d20 based. It is very low magic. It has one spell casting class and even that one is optional. It would taking some converting to use with Pathfinder, but it can be done, and it has none of the shortcuts.
PS:By "none" I mean almost none. I don't like to speaks in absolutes. Players are inventive. You might have to remove DR from a few monsters though since magical weapons don't exist unless the GM brings them into the game, among other things.
No, what I was originally saying was that I get frustrated, both as a player and a GM when their first instinct is to use magic. Firstly, as a Wizard, being Intelligent, I would expect one to at least take an attempt to evaluate the situation instead of BLAM! Spell! The debate sort of devolved into me arguing for use the "path of most resistance" to get a point across.
In the past, I have been in campaigns where, as the fighter, I felt useless because I wanted to do certain things myself (i.e. - make use of skills or strengths that I had) but had it completely wasted because the party wizard went, BLAMMO! and the opportunity was stolen from me. It just made me disappointed. Thinking back on it, it comes from the Players' ego and drive to be in the spotlight. I have not had luck with players that truly think about the group versus the individual.
Now I understand. I think if another player can solve the issue without going to magic, and it makes sense to do so then the wizard should save his spells. The rogue and knock spell is an example of that. It seems the GM just allows the party to rest at will or they would be more conservative with the spells*. As an example I won't cast charm person if someone in the party can use a social skill to get us into a social event uninvited.
*I may be wrong since I am not at the table.
All this blather about action economy and "if you start counterspelling you auto-lose the encounter!" is nonsense.
How so? Remember you won't realistically be able to counterspell every spell. That means you are wasting actions when the other caster is not. Losing actions is not the way to success.
I can easily think of dozens of others, and have used them all. But they're gimmicks -- each one has a limited shelf life. Say your toolbox has over 500 such stratagems (and I challenge anyone to make a list of viable options that long without basically recycling a lot of the same items with different window dressing).
Now realize that some people have been playing once a week or so for 30 years. That's over 4,500 game sessions. Which means some of them have seen every one of these "unique" and "creative" solutions up to ten times each. If you see 9 or 10 of anything, then by definition that thing is not unique.
I think you need to expand upon this idea. It sounds as if you're saying if something responds in an intelligent manner to a players behavior, that's a gimmick. Which is a silly thing to say, so I'm pretty sure I'm not understanding what you are actually saying.
Say for example, party goes in and does the 15 minute workday thing, BBEG uses Discern Location to find the party while they rest and beats them to death. Is that a gimmick or simply smart play on the BBEG's part?
How so? Remember you won't realistically be able to counterspell every spell. That means you are wasting actions when the other caster is not. Losing actions is not the way to success.You did notice that part where I said "the assassin cohort death attacks the wizard" right? Do you think a BBEG is going to go into an encounter unprepared on his own?
The very point here is to force the PC wizard on the defensive/reactionary by throwing encounter enders out, forcing them to respond in turn. After that, back off and start counterspelling. If the wizard falters or gives an opening, punish with another encounter ender.
Fortunately this is a team game. What does that mean. It means my cleric will gladly "take his pleasure" of the BBEG, ressurect the wizard, brofist him, then sleep with his wife. FOR GORUM!
Fortunately this is a team game.Unfortunately, nothing prohibits antagonists or villains from participating in the exact same teamwork.
Nooooo~ but it does mean that your scenario straight up fails. You've essentially created a scenario to beat the wizard. That's it. That's all. All you've done is kill the wizard. Which mildly annoys the cleric.
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
I am a great and renowned smith. I have grown in my craft starting from a simple apprentice doing little more than pumping bellows, stoking flames and watching. Today I can take a lump of raw ore and turn it into the greatest blade you will ever see. My tools were assembled over time, many of them custom made by me to suit my needs. My hammer is of the perfect weight, my fires of the perfect heat and my temper of the finest grain. All these things not only make my job easier, but allow me a great versatility in my craft.
But instead of using these things I have learned with long hours and hard work, I think I should just hit this chunk of iron with a rock.
Because, you know, it's about the journey.
Once, my 17th level sorcerer hit a guy with acid splash. He was mad at him. Got in a lot of trouble for that.
Why we hate wizards? Oh let me count the ways, mwahaha.............j/k. Sometimes it is not just to be a dick.
The spell book thing is pretty evil… but every once and a while you want to hit ‘em where it hurts. Not just the wizards though. That goes for every PC. As long as this type of thing is done infrequently and handled fairly, it is fun drama for all involved. It is just that sometimes sneaky ways needed.
On limiting spells and such, I’ve never done it. I’ve only seen it done as a way to create a ‘low magic’ setting, nothing to do with wizard hate.
Are wizards that game breakingly powerful? Sometimes yes. You just hope to get a lot of good game in before it happens. Then start another game. :P But seriously, magic is some powerful stuff. Sometimes more than a GM can handle. Win button spamming is only amusing for so long and you have to put a stop to it somehow.
|
|
It is a shortcut. Whether or not it is there right to use a tool that they have, it is still a shortcut.
But you have a valid point. As a GM, if I want to curtail it, I can do that by providing a reason not to, but it frustrates me as a player too. It's like the fighter that gets upset at the cleric for healing him after a big battle... "There you are all better, now go back out there and soak some more damage for us!"
Anyway, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, the OP asked, and I gave my answer. :)
I am a great and renowned smith. I have grown in my craft starting from a simple apprentice doing little more than pumping bellows, stoking flames and watching. Today I can take a lump of raw ore and turn it into the greatest blade you will ever see. My tools were assembled over time, many of them custom made by me to suit my needs. My hammer is of the perfect weight, my fires of the perfect heat and my temper of the finest grain. All these things not only make my job easier, but allow me a great versatility in my craft.
But instead of using these things I have learned with long hours and hard work, I think I should just hit this chunk of iron with a rock.
Because, you know, it's about the journey.
O.o Was that really necessary?
Man, I wish I could delete this... Sorry, shouldn't have reacted like that. >.<O.o Was that really necessary?
It's alright, I was being snarky. I read the early part of the thread, saw something that made me O.o, and wrote a response before I knew that you were actually a reasonable person venting some frustration (and not an unreasonable person who simply doesn't grasp how high-level play operates)
I left the post up because I still thought the point was valid and because it amused me to write it. As long as you see why a wizard would actually *want* to use the tools they've developed to quickly solve a problem, then the point is moot.
My question to you is- Have you played a higher level wizard?
|
|
Man, I wish I could delete this... Sorry, shouldn't have reacted like that. >.<O.o Was that really necessary?
It's alright, I was being snarky. I read the early part of the thread, saw something that made me O.o, and wrote a response before I knew that you were actually a reasonable person venting some frustration (and not an unreasonable person who simply doesn't grasp how high-level play operates)
I left the post up because I still thought the point was valid and because it amused me to write it. As long as you see why a wizard would actually *want* to use the tools they've developed to quickly solve a problem, then the point is moot.
My question to you is- Have you played a higher level wizard?
Honestly, I haven't made it past 6th level, since the campaign died when the GM moved to England. But even then, the character was a little chubby, because he was a conjurer and had a lazy bent. ^_^ Would have fit very well as a Sloth Runelord! :p
I think as a player, I always try to be aware of the other players. Allow them their chance to shine, and at the same time I hope that they do the same for me. That has rarely been the case, in my experience, hence the frustration. I will eventually get the chance to play a wizard again. I will try to be conscious of my own actions as a Wizard and see if my philosophy changes any. (Especially since this thread...)
Thanks for responding sir, I feel a lot better now...
I think the reason probably is in the fact that most wizards don't understand that they can't have every spell they want in their spellbook automatically. There are rules for researching spells and times for recording spells for a reason. In fact, according to the RAW, because of GP limits and limited numbers of items in a community they will seldom be able to get everything they want to have in their book.
That and being the only class that has to go and describe buying items for leveling up makes them oddballs.
I think I was supposed to post something angry about how wizards can adapt to any situation or their abilities are too powerful or their robes smell funny, but I guess I forgot to.
|
Wizards are harder to design encounters for because there are many options out there for them. This means the DM has to know every spell available to the player and come up with ways to make sure the player can use them without negating all their encounters too rapidly. This is a big ask for anyone if they have limited time.
Having said that, many of the spells that people complain about have been changed in minor ways by pathfinder that completely changes the ideas that the older guard have about the awsomeness of casters. We find these little changes even now, and sometimes they catch our casters off guard.
The other issue with many spells is the fact they require "interpretation" or a GM call. This opens up debate at the table and that can be problematic. It means as a group you have to come up with internally consistant rulings for your game constantly, particularly with higher level spells.
I find ruthlessly enforcing the wording of spells can be limiting to casters if that's what you need. I actually prefer to let them go for it and work in creative ways to make the casting and magic of teh world more interesting.
Kirth and I have had chats about this in the past, and he terms mst of my responses as house rules. I prefer to think of them as campaign specific. The rules are generic, they don't go into the actual mechanics of how certain magics work, or how the gods are responding. Those types of details are found in campaign books. This is deliberate so folks can manipulate things to suit their worlds.
My advice - Make a list of the spells that cause the most problems and then think about how they actually work. This can lead to very interesting campaign mechanics/physics for you
eg - Teleport in my world causes a hum of building magic as you are arriving. This gives creatures a chance to notice the teleport and be prepared (not flat footed). A minor tweak that doesn't prevent the ability, but can make it less effective.
The other thing to consider is respond to their tactics creatively. Kirth mentioned etheral jaunt (used to be much more powerful). Note that you are now travelling in the etheral plane. All sorts of things live in this plane. While travelling for a short distance probably isn't an issue, long travel is just begging for an encounter with some form of otherworldly critter. Don't prevent the ability, adapt to it. I think of the etheral plane as similar to the ocean. Empty areas of the material plane aren't interesting to creatures so there's little life there (open oceans), but have buildings, or dungeons or other such things and suddenly life concentrates. It comes down to how you define your world. Make sure it's consistant though, otherwise you are just trying to screw over your players.
People cry foul of these tactics at times, but remember this is a world that evolved with these magics in place. Why wouldn't these things happen? Why aren't the big bads aware of what could happen and be ready? Are the PC's truly the only ones to be able to use this stuff effectively? If baddies are doing something for, say, a god; Why is it not possible that the god warns them of the approaching PC's? sends a messenger that tells them all the PC's abilites (a higher level thing certainly). It works for the PC's, the baddies can use it
too.
I guess to get back to the OP, all of that takes lots of time and work. Many people don't enjoy that aspect of the game and so you get the "caster" hate you mention.
I don't mind it, but then I've had years to work out campaign rules for our games that my players know and understand.
Cheers