Why does it seem like wizards got nerfed in PFS? They have no item creation, and I just learned they have no metamagic feats. Now I'll most likely have to go magus or summoner instead. Thoughts?
|
Why does it seem like wizards got nerfed in PFS? They have no item creation, and I just learned they have no metamagic feats. Now I'll most likely have to go magus or summoner instead. Thoughts?
Magic item creation has been demonstrated to be problematic in other organized play, so has been removed from PFS. It is removed not for just wizards, but for all characters. Given all the various differences of opinion regarding MIC and the PF changes to the creation system, it has been a good idea.
As has been mentioned already, the lack of metamagic feats is a false premise.
I don't see the problem you are suggesting.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Elondor
It is true that one of the things that wizards (and sorcerers etc.) can normally do is create magic stuff. Strictly speaking if one asssumes that this ability was a positive feature in the class design that was taken into consideration when assigning weakness for the purpose of balance... then PFS magic item creation (MIC) rules leave the wizzie at a net loss.
In practice to make most magic stuff required additional feats and skills which a non PFS wizzie might never have bothered with.
If you really have the MIC bug then choose a bonded object rather than a familiar & enhance it. It's not quite MIC as we know it but it allows wizzies a little bit extra "bang for the buck" when ensorceling that specific item!
Everything considered I honestly think a mage is still pretty useful!
I must admit that I am quite happy to get the spell focus at lvl 1 in exchange for scribe scroll though I don't feel that the sky would have fallen if PCs could make scrolls, I am happy to accept the staus quo.
Not sure about this alleged ban on meta magic..?
W
|
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)
|
Metamagic feats, in general, are allowed in PFS. Indeed, some prestige classes require metamagic feats.
As for item creation, it was an issue in the Living City campaign where players of spellcasters ended up creating items for characters. So, at times, I felt that my wizard character was spending a lot of off time creating items for others. So, having no one creating magic items saves the issues of tracking time units, dealing with cash exchange between PCs (not allowed in PF Society) and other issues.
Mages can be very useful, having a lot of spells and knowledge to offer a party. Different specialists also gain different benefits.
Huh just looked it up, they aren't banned. My GM is just ignorant, and lots of players auto agree with people they like.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh just looked it up, they aren't banned. My GM is just ignorant, and lots of players auto agree with people they like.
May not necessarily be that your GM is ignorant. GM's can forget things or not know things too. GM's aren't perfect and to call them ignorant makes you ignorant. If you think you can do a better job than them, then become a GM and deal with all the crap they deal with. Just saying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh just looked it up, they aren't banned. My GM is just ignorant, and lots of players auto agree with people they like.May not necessarily be that your GM is ignorant. GM's can forget things or not know things too. GM's aren't perfect and to call them ignorant makes you ignorant. If you think you can do a better job than them, then become a GM and deal with all the crap they deal with. Just saying.
When people are posting, the word ignorant should not always be assumed as a pejorative. IMHO you should give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Ignorant simply means not informed. I for one am ignorant of several things, but I endeavor to learn every day.
I think that your bring to keep the posting here civil, and for that I commend you, I just thought that this should be said.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
May not necessarily be that your GM is ignorant. GM's can forget things or not know things too.That's what 'ignorant' means. :)
Ah the subtle nuances of the English language :-) I guess on balance being called ignorant without qualifying it is quite harsh. e.g. Heretic is ignorant of the finer points of Kelish linguistics sound less drastic than "Heretic is ignorant" ;-)
W
Huh just looked it up, they aren't banned. My GM is just ignorant, and lots of players auto agree with people they like.May not necessarily be that your GM is ignorant. GM's can forget things or not know things too. GM's aren't perfect and to call them ignorant makes you ignorant. If you think you can do a better job than them, then become a GM and deal with all the crap they deal with. Just saying.
I meant no disrespect, as stated above ignorance is merely lacking knowledge of things. My gripe comes more from several players at a table auto agreeing with the gm and citing reasons and examples for something that they don't know about. Oh well, it happens.
Anyway, OT again...
It seems that wizards and prepared casters in general are a bit less amazing due to the inability to craft scrolls of random spells for backup issues. Does anyone know what spellcasting classes are effective in PFS? Considering the limited environment (no item creation, max level 12, 3-6 combat/scenario) it seems that classes like the summoner, magus, ranger, druid, etc are all a step ahead of other casters in that they have melee capability outside of spells. Then again the highest society character I have is 3rd level, so more than likely classes like the wizard are much more effective 6th level and on.
|
more than likely classes like the wizard are much more effective 6th level and on.
This is the case with most primary casters. Low-levels leave you with limited spells, often few skill points, and little to no physical combat skill (melee or ranged). This can be overcome with some inexpensive magic items like scrolls, a wand of Magic Missile or focus on buff items like Enlarge Person, etc. The front-liners really appreciate that stuff and by increasing your companion's fighting skill it represents your contribution to the party's damage output.
Scrolls are a great support item as well. They are relatively inexpensive and as long as the spell is on your caster list, the DC to cast a scroll with a spell 1-2 levels higher than yourself is very make-able.
Once you get to higher levels, primary casters eventually catch up and often surpass the power potential of other classes. YMMV.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It seems that wizards and prepared casters in general are a bit less amazing due to the inability to craft scrolls of random spells for backup issues. Does anyone know what spellcasting classes are effective in PFS? Considering the limited environment (no item creation, max level 12, 3-6 combat/scenario) it seems that classes like the summoner, magus, ranger, druid, etc are all a step ahead of other casters in that they have melee capability outside of spells. Then again the highest society character I have is 3rd level, so more than likely classes like the wizard are much more effective 6th level and on.
I too have mostly just played low and mid level characters in PFS. However, I've seen some wizards do just fine. You just have to be really careful about picking the "best" spells and getting wands/scrolls for the more situational stuff.
For instance, a 1st-level wizard will usually prepare grease and/or color spray (amazing spells at low levels), and either ray of frost or acid splash as a cantrip (or else just carry a crossbow). Then they'll carry a wand of mage armor and some situational scrolls.
Remember: just because you can't craft scrolls doesn't mean you can't get scrolls.
This brings me to my next point. Specifically in society play, are classes that are complete casters inferior to other classes? Considering that you have to get through 18 sessions to be 6th level, at which point your halfway through anyway...
|
|
As a wizard, you can use most of the really useful 1st-level wands. Thanks to the 2 PA purchase rule, your character should be bristling with wands.
This rule makes a real difference with usual campaigns and you can really take advantage of it while building your character.
When I see how versatile these wands made my character, I am now tempted to always take a level in either wizard or sorcerer for any PFS character I will make in the future.
|
|
This brings me to my next point. Specifically in society play, are classes that are complete casters inferior to other classes? Considering that you have to get through 18 sessions to be 6th level, at which point your halfway through anyway...
If by inferior you are referring to their raw damage potential, then sure, they are probably inferior to fighters and other melee types. Even rogues have circumstantial where they can do tremendous damage. But that is a very narrow view of primary casters, especially wizards.
If you are strictly looking for a "blaster mage" then wizard may not be the most optimized choice. However, their flexibility with direct damage spells as well as battle-field control (grease, summoning, etc), buff (enlarge, ability enhancements, invisibility, etc) and debuff (ray of enfeeblement, etc) make they arguably the most important character in the group.
This brings me to my next point. Specifically in society play, are classes that are complete casters inferior to other classes? Considering that you have to get through 18 sessions to be 6th level, at which point your halfway through anyway...If by inferior you are referring to their raw damage potential, then sure, they are probably inferior to fighters and other melee types. Even rogues have circumstantial where they can do tremendous damage. But that is a very narrow view of primary casters, especially wizards.
If you are strictly looking for a "blaster mage" then wizard may not be the most optimized choice. However, their flexibility with direct damage spells as well as battle-field control (grease, summoning, etc), buff (enlarge, ability enhancements, invisibility, etc) and debuff (ray of enfeeblement, etc) make they arguably the most important character in the group.
I more specifically meant: are full casters in society inferior in usefulness to other classes, specifically casters with more options for combat, such as the summoner, magus, druid, etc.
|
|
I more specifically meant: are full casters in society inferior in usefulness to other classes, specifically casters with more options for combat, such as the summoner, magus, druid, etc.
Tbh, I think almost every class is inferior to an optimized summoner. Druids also have the highest DPR of any class last time I looked at the DPR olympics. Magus have nice burst, which is ideal for PFS.
Wizards and sorcs are great too, but it depends on how they're built and how they're played. They can either be the MVP of the group or completely insignificant. It's hard to screw up a fighter, it's really easy with a full caster.
|
|
Tbh, I think almost every class is inferior to an optimized summoner.
Depends on your opinion of optimized and if you're evaluation is based largely on DPR output. If you are looking for a well-rounded character who can contribute adequately to both combat and non-combat encounters, IMO, there is no such thing as a "winner" in the class debate. Every class has options that make them desirable.
|
|
Remember: just because you can't craft scrolls doesn't mean you can't get scrolls.Yep; money falls out of the sky in PFS; the only really annoying module for a caster in PFS is their first one. After that, spend your first earned two prestige points on a wand of Magic Missile, and you're good.
Tbh, I think almost every class is inferior to an optimized summoner. Druids also have the highest DPR of any class last time I looked at the DPR olympics.PFS modules are notorious for finding ways to nerf mounts and companions. Caveat emptor. (Also note that PFS is more high-powered than the DPR challenges, which are built with typical 15pt story-arc opponents in mind -- the 10th level target AC of 24 is something you'll see at Tier 8 and sometimes even lower in PFS; this especially has implications for side-kicks with lots of marginal-bonus weaker attacks. Retraining a replacement side-kick after loss is also a multi-session ordeal in PFS -- so don't expect to be able to easily recycle "disposable" companions if you want them fully kitted with all their tricks.)
Magus have nice burst, which is ideal for PFS.
Magus is good; just realize that as a melee fighter in that capacity you will have to take it in PFS as well as dish it out. Party composition will vary greatly from one table to the next, and you cannot always rely on your allies to get you out of a pickle you've put yourself into.
|
|
Tbh, I think almost every class is inferior to an optimized summoner.Depends on your opinion of optimized and if you're evaluation is based largely on DPR output. If you are looking for a well-rounded character who can contribute adequately to both combat and non-combat encounters, IMO, there is no such thing as a "winner" in the class debate. Every class has options that make them desirable.
+1 one on this, there is more than just combat, in PFS. Often mysteries must be solved, people must be swayed and obstacles overcome.
Utility often trumps DPS, IHMO.
|
|
Personally, I never understood the concept that wizards/sorcerers are weak until they gain access to level three spells. Sure they are gimped in hit points, but assuming that you are referring to access to the classic blaster spells (Fireball/Lightning Bolt) those are only 5 or 6d6 to start. With saving throws that are, on average, not too problematic to make and increasing possibility of Resistance magic, they are not the effective killing machines they once were.
Level for level, I think earlier access spells have a much better return on investment...Color Spray, Glitterdust, Grease, Flaming Sphere, Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc seem to be more effective during the time they are primarily used (levels 1-5). And with level three spells, Haste is widely considered a better spell than Fireball in nearly every instance, except perhaps when dealing with large numbers of weak mooks. It is a very effective "room sweeper".
Once you reach level 5+, an arcane caster's real power seem to derive from controlling the battlefield by either enhancing her companions or frustrating the enemy. On average, the fighter/barbarian/paladin/archer are going to out-damage the caster, head-to-head, but their ability to do more than that often gives them the edge on the "power" scale.
|
|
Depends on your opinion of optimized and if you're evaluation is based largely on DPR output. If you are looking for a well-rounded character who can contribute adequately to both combat and non-combat encounters, IMO, there is no such thing as a "winner" in the class debate. Every class has options that make them desirable.
Well, the last time I saw a (semi-optimized) summoner, I was playing my 2H Fighter in a scenario. The Summoner was the same or better in combat (almost the same DPR, better movement so he could use his DPR, battlefield control, twice as many actions) and was much better out of combat (more skills, Infernal Healing wands). The summoner could "sway people", "solve mysteries", and "overcome obstacles" (literally), I could not. He was better on basically every level.
Does that make my Fighter unfun to play? No. This is an RPG. But burying your head in the sand and saying "all classes are equal" is a joke.
Anyway, my point is that casters aren't inferior (in response to the OPs question).
Utility often trumps DPS, IHMO.
Oh please. Utility does not trump DPS. If you can't handle the combat, you TPK, you're dead, you fail your mission and make a new character. If you don't have utility, you *might* fail a faction mission. Big deal. In rare scenarios, you *might* fail the main mission.
And like I've already said, the Summoner has more utility than most classes anyway, with that huge Int score.
I've yet to see a party with no utility anyway. But I've seen a party with too much utility, and these are the parties that TPK.
|
|
Depends on your opinion of optimized and if you're evaluation is based largely on DPR output. If you are looking for a well-rounded character who can contribute adequately to both combat and non-combat encounters, IMO, there is no such thing as a "winner" in the class debate. Every class has options that make them desirable.Well, the last time I saw a (semi-optimized) summoner, I was playing my 2H Fighter in a scenario. The Summoner was the same or better in combat (almost the same DPR, better movement so he could use his DPR, battlefield control, twice as many actions) and was much better out of combat (more skills, Infernal Healing wands). The summoner could "sway people", "solve mysteries", and "overcome obstacles" (literally), I could not. He was better on basically every level.
Does that make my Fighter unfun to play? No. This is an RPG. But burying your head in the sand and saying "all classes are equal" is a joke.
Anyway, my point is that casters aren't inferior (in response to the OPs question).
Utility often trumps DPS, IHMO.Oh please. Utility does not trump DPS. If you can't handle the combat, you TPK, you're dead, you fail your mission and make a new character. If you don't have utility, you *might* fail a faction mission. Big deal. In rare scenarios, you *might* fail the main mission.
And like I've already said, the Summoner has more utility than most classes anyway, with that huge Int score.
I've yet to see a party with no utility anyway. But I've seen a party with too much utility, and these are the parties that TPK.
Actually i said that "Utility often trumps DPS."
And you fail to make your point. Utility implies that your well rounded, capable of combat and other functions. You earn xp at the normal rate and fail to gain your prestige you fall behind the power curve.
|
|
Utility often trumps DPS, IHMO
I never said that?!? One does not trump the other. They are components of a character's build and, IMO, complementary.
While I agree that Summoners lend themselves to a greater level of power-builds largely due to the exceptions inclusive to the class, I do not agree that they "win" the class wars. I have seen competent Fighters also able to function outside of combat, just as I have seen Bards be more than the party face.
DPR is not the only way to win combat. With maneuvers, control spells, etc. you do not have to just beat the BBEG's brains in to defeat him. Often times, too much DPR can be a detriment if you are investigating.
IMO, and as a GM, there are a few other classes (Druids with Wild Shape-elemental I'm looking at you) that have powers that are more problematic to me than what Summoners do. Sure they have an advantage with economy of actions, but so does any companion-based class. And before you tell me the Eidolon is better than other companions, I'll just say that is in the eye of the beholder. If you judge your game strictly based on combat, then they have an edge, but again, I will always be willing to give up some DPR in favor of more utility.
Some classes lend themselves better for extreme builds, but that doesn't mean they are generally "better" or more "powerful." My paladin once did over 160 points of damage in a single hit. Not many classes/builds can do that, but it doesn't mean he "wins" the class wars. YMMV.
EDIT--ninja'd
|
Elondor,
I do think wizards in particular are somewhat hobbled by the rules of PFS. Not being able to craft IMHO is a handicap. However, I generally play specifically wizards and have found that I am able to more than adapt to the rules effects upon the class.
The answer to your question is no. Wizards are just as useful as the other classes. I would highly recommend experimenting with the various specializations.
I have retired two characters one of which is a straight wizard and the other is a straight fighter. I have another wizard and I am currently building up a Mystic Theurg and am going to build the current wizard into an Arcane Trickster.
Happy gaming!
|
|
So I engaged in the other thread, and am I guess now dipping my toes into this one as well. Two threads that both devolved into, “Why would you make that character, his DPR sucks compared to...”
Why can’t people make interesting characters without worrying about DPR? Have fun, enjoy your time (here’s where someone chimes in that creating huge DPR guys is fun for them, and where I remind them that it may not be fun for others who aren’t quite as optimized.) A fighter or Barbarian is going to be able to dish out tons of damage (my Half-Orc Battle Oracle/Barbarian/Rage Prophet does pretty well too) whether they are optimized for huge DPR or not.
So DPR doesn’t really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. Creating huge DPR characters is simply about Ego and Hubris in my book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first rule of Pathfinder Society is that we don't talk about Pathf...oh, wrong movie. :)
More germane, one of the questions I always ask when making a character:
1) "How does this character make things fun for other players at the table?"
I've played the game where the 2nd level fighter had an AC of 25 and hit on a +6 to hit with his Large Sawtooth Saber for 2d6+5 damage, and everyone else kind of sat there twiddling their thumbs while he tried to solo the module, up until there was a door to be unlocked, or an opponent he couldn't reach with his sword.
One of the first things about PFS that most people don't seem to get:
PFS is largely built around encounters for average to slightly above (and in some cases, below) party strengths. You don't need to make The Ultimate Beat Stick to have fun in PFS - and making a character who's too optimized sucks the fun out for other players.
Always ask yourself "What am I doing to make the game fun for everyone else?"
|
|
Creating huge DPR characters is simply about Ego and Hubris in my book.
I have a problem (take that however you choose) with VCs and VLs posting comments like these because there is a perception that both have some level of 'authority' for the campaign. When you have a Venture-Lieutenant title by your name, your book seems (to some) to have some worth.
One can make the ultimate beat stick because they are comfortable with the rules for doing as much. One can create a sub-median PC for pure RP reasons, and that is an exercise in ego. The point I would hope one could find is that people should be allowed to make characters which allow them to enjoy their play experience (and hopefully not interfere with the enjoyment of others). What I imagine to be the case is that people who want their PCs to be able to dominate combat (be it with damage, the inability to be damaged, the ability to shut down/turn off opponents, etc.) will find their PCs facing combats that just aren't that challenging. Then, such players must decide if 'winning' this way is the reward they were after.
But as long as players are having fun and not ruining anyone else's good time, I think the discussion of how 'they' make their characters is an antagonistic one.
It is interesting that when someone makes a comment about a very small subset of players who's characters are actually detrimental to the fun of the average table and GM, lots of people who aren't actually part of the subset feel insulted.
Let me be very clear. I am not telling people how to make their characters. I do some optimizing myself when creating my characters. When I create an archer, I try to create a good archer. It makes sense. But I don't go out of my way to create the best archer who will uber win every single combat encounter ever. I have no problem with players who wish to create a character who is good at something.
After all, that's what makes them a hero.
What I do have issue with, is those players who choose to over-optimize into one trick ponies, and then deride others for being stupid when they want to choose something other than the cookie-cutter DPR machine. Don't say this doesn't happen, because I've seen it at least twice in the last two weeks.
|
|
The first rule of Pathfinder Society is that we don't talk about Pathf...oh, wrong movie. :)
More germane, one of the questions I always ask when making a character:
1) "How does this character make things fun for other players at the table?"
I've played the game where the 2nd level fighter had an AC of 25 and hit on a +6 to hit with his Large Sawtooth Saber for 2d6+5 damage, and everyone else kind of sat there twiddling their thumbs while he tried to solo the module, up until there was a door to be unlocked, or an opponent he couldn't reach with his sword.
One of the first things about PFS that most people don't seem to get:
PFS is largely built around encounters for average to slightly above (and in some cases, below) party strengths. You don't need to make The Ultimate Beat Stick to have fun in PFS - and making a character who's too optimized sucks the fun out for other players.
Always ask yourself "What am I doing to make the game fun for everyone else?"
This.
|
|
You GOTTA share this build - how the heck is this possible?
It's a prime example of what Andrew Christian and I abhor.
Human fighter 2nd
STR 18+2[17], DEX 14 [5], CON 13 [3], INT 7 [-4], WIS 13 [3], CHA 7 [-4]
Trait: Heirloom Weapon (since changed): "The Sawtooth Saber of Gigantic Cheese." - this is a Large MW Sawtooth Sabre.
Trait: Armor Training
Feats: Weapon Focus [Large Sawtooth Sabre], Shield Focus, Power Attack; Dodge.
Equipment: MW Large Sawtooth Sabre, Plate Armor, Tower Shield.
AC: 10+9+1+4+1+1=AC 26 (Armor, Dex, Shield, Dodge, Shield Focus)
To Hit: 2+5+1+1+1-1-2=+7 to hit. (BAB, STR, MW weapon, Weapon Focus, old Heirloom Weapon bonus, -Power Attack, -2 for oversized weapon).
Each hit does 2d6+7 damage. At level appropriate encounters, where most attacks are hitting at a +4 to +6, he isn't going to get hit. Anything level appropriate he hits, he's going to drop.
He utterly sucks at any kind of skill challenge other than Survival between his horrific ACP penalties and whopping 2 skill points per level.
I'm not trying to say that wizards dps is gimped by society, that isn't my argument at all. My two gripes are: without item creation, and more importantly scribe scroll, many of the random situational spells become much less accessible. (ie: all the role-play based ones, some of the random combat ones) Also, it seems that with at least 3 combats in a scenario in pfs, usually in one day, that a wizard will tend to be ineffective specifically at levels 1-5.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
You GOTTA share this build - how the heck is this possible?
It's a prime example of what Andrew Christian and I abhor.
Human fighter 2nd
STR 18+2[17], DEX 14 [5], CON 13 [3], INT 7 [-4], WIS 13 [3], CHA 7 [-4]
Trait: Heirloom Weapon (since changed): "The Sawtooth Saber of Gigantic Cheese." - this is a Large MW Sawtooth Sabre.
Trait: Armor TrainingFeats: Weapon Focus [Large Sawtooth Sabre], Shield Focus, Power Attack; Dodge.
Equipment: MW Large Sawtooth Sabre, Plate Armor, Tower Shield.
AC: 10+9+1+4+1+1=AC 26 (Armor, Dex, Shield, Dodge, Shield Focus)
To Hit: 2+5+1+1+1-1-2=+7 to hit. (BAB, STR, MW weapon, Weapon Focus, old Heirloom Weapon bonus, -Power Attack, -2 for oversized weapon).Each hit does 2d6+7 damage. At level appropriate encounters, where most attacks are hitting at a +4 to +6, he isn't going to get hit. Anything level appropriate he hits, he's going to drop.
He utterly sucks at any kind of skill challenge other than Survival between his horrific ACP penalties and whopping 2 skill points per level.
And apparently forgetting the -2 atk from using a tower shield. Fortunately its not possible to do anymore. 1) heirloom is fixed/nerfed 2) now sawtooth sabres are only light in respects to 2wf so a large one would be 2 handed.
|
|
IMHO society wizards are perhaps more powerful, than regular wizards with scribe scroll and other creation feats. PA purchases definately offset the 1/2 off mechanic of creation. I would imagine the only hurdle that would be noticable would be the second or third scenario for a player. I would hate to argue the point of scroll action economy and spending allotment. A list of scrolls would be great to see, but IMHO scrolls are more of a nessecity of clerics unless you are speaking about an archetype or advanced player option like a feat or prestige class.
I have noticed a tendacy for pure progression casters to pull ahead of hybrids around level 5. Not in DPS but utility and encounter changing effects. All classes can be paticulary devasting if played to their strengths. I have noticed a tendancy for optimized character's players to be the first to complain if their character suffers from a optimized weakness, manuevers and save effects. In these aspects it can be fun to GM when a couple players have basic stats in th 5's or 7's. Allong comes an ability drain or effect...
|
|
Elondor, I think you are overestimating the value of Scribe Scroll at low levels. Remember, it is only saving a 1st or 2nd level wizard 12.5 gold on those first-level spells that they are capable of scribing. That difference in cost is covered 6 x over by the increase in starting gold a PFS wizard gets over core (odd that people don't complain the fighter-types got gimped by having their starting gold decreased when all the other classes got an increase). By the time you would be ready to scribe 2nd-level spells, you should have sufficient Fame to buy them.
I agree that it hits a spellcaster in the pocketbook a bit, but that imbalance is much less than the imbalance created in Org Play when crafting is allowed.
Timothy McNeil
If the campaign volunteers moderate their opinions on these board, we are "brainwashed" or "parroting", but if we express opinions we are chastised for mis-speaking from a position of "authority".
In many cases, volunteers may have been chosen because they post their opinions on these boards.
I may have expressed things differently from Andrew, or even had a different opinion. However, on these boards he has a right to politely express his opinion, just as you have a right to politely disagree with it.
|
|
I do think wizards in particular are somewhat hobbled by the rules of PFS. Not being able to craft IMHO is a handicap. However, I generally play specifically wizards and have found that I am able to more than adapt to the rules effects upon the class.
I am willing to disagree with you, really.
Wizards start out with lower item costs, due to not needing the big ticket primary function items, like weapons, armor and shield.
So, 25 gp for a scroll for backup of Comprehend Languages. Big deal whether it is 25 gp or 12.5 gp.
So, wizards have a serious advantage, especially if they use items that help their strengths. They really don't need to effectively have double the WbL of most other classes in the game.
To be honest, if Magic Item Creation were allowed in PFS, I would expect there to be a lot of semi-optimizers (on up) who take Master Craftsman, in order to boost their WbL.
MIC was a serious problem in LG. Especially with the spend XP rules, and the easy-to-achieve effects of having to get raised from the dead.
It broke, severely, the WbL levels of the game. The Wizard would have better permanent equipment than the same-level Fighter, and a major league issue of consumables, to boot. Made running a non-MIC character less fun, since the Wizard easily reached the place where he could solo a "normal" module, and you get the ridiculous modules where, if you didn't have an uber-optimized Wizard, you had a guaranteed TPK. Yuck.
Heck, I had a 9th level fighter in LG who got killed during a module, raised during the module, and, at the end of the module, there was enough overcap gold available to have paid for a Resurrection instead of just the Raise Dead; and still allow everyone to get the max gold for the module.
Stuff like that meant that you actually wanted to get killed every few modules. Lose a level, gain full gold, bump your equipment/value even higher above the WbL for your nominal level. And a MIC character doing that was even worse, since they got double value for their money. Ugh. Just ugh.
As menti9oned, a scroll of the less used first level spell is 25 gp, a wand of a first level spell is only 750 gp or 2 PA. So, after your first module, your Wizard/Sorceror can be running around with a wand of Magic Missile, and, unless something goes seriously wrong, he will get several adventures out of it, until he can actually use MM with multiple missiles on his own, and have enough spells to be able to handle a day of adventuring.
Look at a wand of Color Spray, Grease, Endure Elements, Enlarge Person or Protection from Evil, and you can cover a lot of the common situations. Sure the DC isn't terribly high, which is why you stick with either straight damage (MM) or utility (Prot/Evil) stuff at the early levels, but it lets you save your slots for the other stuff you would want to use regularly.
Add in a bunch of 25 gp scrolls, and you might never use up any of your own slots during a scenario. Heck, if you do fairly well or follow the First Steps type scenarios, where full PA is fairly easy to achieve, you can have access to second level scrolls about the time you reach second level. That Caster Level check isn't that bad, especially if you already have a high enough casting stat to begin with.
Arg, I'm not trying to say that wizards are unable to be optimized, nor am I trying to say that item creation being gone is a bad thing. What I want to debate is if in the limited environment of society play, does the fact the there are a minimum of 3 encounters/scenario in a single game day (most often) seem to be a large hindrance to full spell casters in general? Also, I didn't realize 2pp could get a wand, so I suppose having a backup wand of magic missile is a highly viable tactic at low level, where wizards seem to be the most hampered. (no real combat options, low number of spells that are easily blown if not careful) I have to say that int-based full casters do have an advantage in that they have a large number of skill points for the role playing outside of combat. Then again, a lot of the rp areas can be steam-rolled or gotten through cleverly without use of skills. Hmmm, just food for thought I suppose.
|
|
Creating huge DPR characters is simply about Ego and Hubris in my book.
I have a problem (take that however you choose) with VCs and VLs posting comments like these because there is a perception that both have some level of 'authority' for the campaign. When you have a Venture-Lieutenant title by your name, your book seems (to some) to have some worth.
One can make the ultimate beat stick because they are comfortable with the rules for doing as much. One can create a sub-median PC for pure RP reasons, and that is an exercise in ego. The point I would hope one could find is that people should be allowed to make characters which allow them to enjoy their play experience (and hopefully not interfere with the enjoyment of others). What I imagine to be the case is that people who want their PCs to be able to dominate combat (be it with damage, the inability to be damaged, the ability to shut down/turn off opponents, etc.) will find their PCs facing combats that just aren't that challenging. Then, such players must decide if 'winning' this way is the reward they were after.
But as long as players are having fun and not ruining anyone else's good time, I think the discussion of how 'they' make their characters is an antagonistic one.
And it seems to me that you rebuke is heavy handed. All he did was give an opinion, he didn't make any prohibitions or call out specific players as being wrong.
As more coordinators come on board you will see more opinions, and some you will agree with and some you won't. As of yet I have yet to see anyone give me more credit for anything for my Venture-Captain status. Role players in my opinion, are mostly independent thinkers and made of pretty stearn stuff, if these message boards are any indication.
Personally I try not to care about how characters are built as long as thier legal, but I understand why a GM might be un happy when he sees a player grab all the glory and sees other players frustrated when they don't get a chance to shine.
|
|
It's a prime example of what Andrew Christian and I abhor.
Human fighter 2nd
STR 18+2[17], DEX 14 [5], CON 13 [3], INT 7 [-4], WIS 13 [3], CHA 7 [-4]
"The Sawtooth Saber of Gigantic Cheese." ...snip
OK, I'll bite -- exactly why is this suboptimal tank build abhorrent cheese? Switch his stats to boring-as-boring-gets array of 15(+2),14,14,12,14,07, make him barbarian at 1st, ditch the shield and give him a polearm, and he trades 5 AC for probably twice the attacks when you counts AoOs, is +7/d10+10 Power Attacking, +8 HP and +3 will save while raging, and has 10 skill points as opposed to 4.
Yet nobody thinks a barbarian with a base strength of 17 and carrying an ordinary glaive is cheesy.
He utterly sucks at any kind of skill challenge other than Survival between his horrific ACP penalties and whopping 2 skill points per level.
Exactly -- the game corrects itself.
|
|
Mike - even your alternate barbarian renders a lot of standard PFS modules down into "Well, we'll watch Jimbob here turn the encounter into chutney..." And you're missing the point.
A tier 1 encounter usually has a +4 to +6 to hit. At an AC of 26, he's not going to get hit. A tier 1 encounter is going to have an AC of 16 to 18, tops, and a +7 to hit (which is what I saw - I'm pretty sure he didn't factor in the -2 for the tower shield) hits about half the time.
PFS is built around a certain range of NPC abilities and a certain set of expectations of PC abilities. If PCs exceed this range of abilities, encounters are less fun. If enough PCs exceed this range of abilities, encounters will ratchet up in difficulty, driving other characters towards combat optimization as a means of survival.
I, personally, prefer PFS modules and encounters that permit 'sub-optimal' characters - ones who trade combat power for other, non-combat abilities - to be viable and to allow them to shine. If your party has to drag along a 4 skill point fighter because you know there will be two encounters that will wipe you without him...then PFS gets a lot less interesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who doesn't mind having a Mr. Greatsword clone at my table?
If the encounters go faster, there's more time for roleplay.
He pretty much disappears during noncombat stuff, so my noncombat skills get to shine.
If he's the obvious threat, I don't have to spend as many resources keeping myself alive.
And if I need to protect a squishy, it's easier to do if I can let someone else worry about DPR in the meantime.
Seriously, what's not to like?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
**
Honestly, we can't win here.
If the campaign volunteers moderate their opinions on these board, we are "brainwashed" or "parroting", but if we express opinions we are chastised for mis-speaking from a position of "authority".
In many cases, volunteers may have been chosen because they post their opinions on these boards.
I may have expressed things differently from Andrew, or even had a different opinion. However, on these boards he has a right to politely express his opinion, just as you have a right to politely disagree with it.
VCs and VLs are allowed to express their thoughts and opinions freely on this board, just like every other poster. As long as the conversations remain civil, then everyone's welcome. All of the volunteer VCs and VLs know that I do not want yes men and we have disagreements from time to time on the VC message board.
For anyone to think that they are not allowed to post their thoughts and opinions is just wrong and they are not going to be restricted from posting those thoughts just because they have a voluntary title.
As Neil said above, any VC or VL have the right to politely express their opinions and should not be attacked or scrutinized for their opinions more than any other poster on these forums.
Keep it civil folks.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It might be nice if there were some way for the Venture-Cpatains and their Venture Minions to post using aliases, so that another poster could more clearly understand when they were speaking in their capacities as regional coordinators and when they were posting as just people.
Barring that, I'd suggest that we all just assume that a Venture-Officer is posting as just another goob here, unless he or she states otherwise. (For example, if a VC says "In my region, I'm not going to support your decision to run a table of 8 players and report it as two tables of 4.")