Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

It makes sense that if the rest of the party can spend money to buy magic items and other goodies... the wizard should sure as hell be able to spend money to buy spells (or, just buy scrolls and transcribe them into his spell-book instead of casting them... or any number of other such solutions)-- deciding that the wizard can only get the base 2 spells per level that they receive from leveling up, is IMO unfairly nerfing the wizard-- unless everyone's being cut off from purchasing more resources other than completely mundane non-magical gear, and no magic items are ever found on the bodies and treasures of monsters taken out by the party.

On the other hand, one need not give the wizard unlimited access to any spell in the book that he/she can theoretically pay for-- it's not unreasonable to decide what spells are available from NPCs the Wizard may be able to make arrangements with, and have that be a specific, limited list, that makes sense for what that NPC is usually involved in (or, decide that there's a certain % chance that a given spell is available when a shopping opportunity comes around).

Silver Crusade

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

That's right but the only 100% guaranteed spells you receive are 2 at every level. The other rules are there if the DM goes that route, a Wizard's 2 per level are there no matter what.


At no point was I suggesting that the GM just use Rule 0. In fact I was making the exact opposite statement. Most of the problems go away or are diminished when the GM uses the rules as written to the best of his ability. Some rules are ambiguous, but most of the problems with power actually come from a misreading or non-enforcement of the rules. Most of the problems I read about let casters ignore the rules while non-casters are beholden to them as much as possible. When there is some ambiguity, the rulings are in favor of casters because it's "magic" while non-casters see rulings stuck in "realism." This causes some of the most disparity.

Quite a few of the ambiguous problems can be dealt with by looking at things from a plausibility point of view. Magic is real in Pathfinder. So we need to look at the spells and see if the intended effect beyond what the spell says it does is plausible. I generally try to avoid having magic go beyond what the spell says it does. A creative player may be able to pull off some interesting things, but they are still limited to the effects of the spell.


I'm referring to the things like commenting my 20th level casters are enslaved to do this, they'd die of old age after doing this and if he spent 100 years doing it he'd be driven insane. Those are personal opinions and not rules related. Particularly since I never said that all wizards must do this just something mine would.

I also never said that I'd be doing this during a campaign this is a theoretical discussion of what my wizard would like to do which given I'm unlikely to ever play a 20th level caster is unlikely to happen. I never said anything about resuming the campaign next week, in fact I don't recall mentioning anything about a campaign at all. Not to mention given that example about what a fighter would achieve in a similar 100 years it seems to me that he's overpowered compared to the wizard if I have to spend that time creating our new headquarters while he's off improving himself.

Anyway since we're talking slowly at each other here's my take on the matter. You have . . .

1) A Section of the rulebook talking about the STANDARD rules for spellcasting memorization of spells. We have the main heading Preparing wizard spells and then subheadings the first one dealing with [rest where it talks about how a wizard must sleep or rest for 8 hours. The next subheading is Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions which to me is speaking about rememorizing in context of the first section with its rules on 8 hours rest.

We then have elsewhere the ring of sustanence which specifically states in its rules . . .

This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day.

Now to me this OVERRIDES the general rules, its not in the same general section that deals with 8 hours a day. Otherwise why bother saying you can only prepare spells once per day. Its mentioned earlier in the book that a wizard can only prepare spells once per day. If that needed restating in the rings description why didn't they restate that spells cast in 8 hours also applies, unless it doesn't. To me that recent casting limit/rest interruptions (note the slash there) is to deal with the earlier sections "if he has any iterruptions it adds an hour" blah blah blah.

For that matter if you have to rest 8 hours and then spend another hour rememorizing spells that gives you 9 hours. SO lets see now 9 times 2 is 18 out of 24 leaves you six. If you have to wait eight hours before being able to rememorize cast spells that would mean you only have a 6 hour window in your adventuring day to act otherwise that second eight hours puts you OVER the 24 hour limit. If that was the case would they really worry about restating you can only memorize your spells once per day given you'd at most only be able to do it twice and probably wouldn't even manage that, or would they mention it if the eight hours NO LONGER APPLIES and their concerned that someone might try to memorize their spells every 2 hours. I know which seems more likely to me.

2) DO you also apply the rule that a wizard can't rememorize any spells if they are even ONE hit point off full? or if the fighter wont shut up? that dawn chorus? a cold morning? By the raw any or all of these would prevent the wizard memorizing.

TO me this is a mattter of player interpretation and we don't agree on how its interpreted. So as I said earlier unless a PAIZO rep comes in here and say's this is how we want it run I doubt we're going to change each others mind.

Oh and if we hand wave a century and I create our new home at vast personal cost while the fighter gets immortality, an army and a whole bunch of magic items it seems to me he's getting more out of the hand wavium than my caster.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

That's right but the only 100% guaranteed spells you receive are 2 at every level. The other rules are there if the DM goes that route, a Wizard's 2 per level are there no matter what.

Question: are you seriously advocating that a GM should hold the wizard to the 2 guaranteed spells per level, while allowing the non-wizards to buy their goodies and/or receive nifty stuff as treasure?

Because we agree that those are the only guaranteed spells a wizard gets, but I do find it highly unreasonable, even if permissible by RAW, to hold a wizard to only getting those spells, and never getting the opportunity to add to his/her spell-book via other methods all campaign long.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

That's right but the only 100% guaranteed spells you receive are 2 at every level. The other rules are there if the DM goes that route, a Wizard's 2 per level are there no matter what.

Question: are you seriously advocating that a GM should hold the wizard to the 2 guaranteed spells per level, while allowing the non-wizards to buy their goodies and/or receive nifty stuff as treasure?

Because we agree that those are the only guaranteed spells a wizard gets, but I do find it highly unreasonable, even if permissible by RAW, to hold a wizard to only getting those spells, and never getting the opportunity to add to his/her spell-book via other methods all campaign long.

Looking at some of the other stuff people are saying should apply to the wizard it wouldn't surprise me.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

That's right but the only 100% guaranteed spells you receive are 2 at every level. The other rules are there if the DM goes that route, a Wizard's 2 per level are there no matter what.

Question: are you seriously advocating that a GM should hold the wizard to the 2 guaranteed spells per level, while allowing the non-wizards to buy their goodies and/or receive nifty stuff as treasure?

Because we agree that those are the only guaranteed spells a wizard gets, but I do find it highly unreasonable, even if permissible by RAW, to hold a wizard to only getting those spells, and never getting the opportunity to add to his/her spell-book via other methods all campaign long.

I think what he is trying to say is that anything beyond those spells is limited to money and time (and GM for some spells). I have never seen a wizard with even half the spells in the CRB in his spellbook. It gets costly and time consuming to scribe all those spells beyond the two per level.

This is an example of what I was referring to earlier. Extra spells cost money to buy. They cost money to scribe. They take time to learn. They also take time to scribe. There are also a couple skill checks but I assume that the wizard will do just fine on those simply by Taking 10.

The wizard in my game is level 20 and has every non-illusion and non-enchantment spell in a spell book he acquired from a lich they beat the crap out of (this was two levels ago). He hasn't been able to learn very many of them, but he does take the time when he can to at least learn the spell so he can scribe it when he has time.

Silver Crusade

Liam Warner wrote:

I'm referring to the things like commenting my 20th level casters are enslaved to do this, they'd die of old age after doing this and if he spent 100 years doing it he'd be driven insane. Those are personal opinions and not rules related. Particularly since I never said that all wizards must do this just something mine would.

I also never said that I'd be doing this during a campaign this is a theoretical discussion of what my wizard would like to do which given I'm unlikely to ever play a 20th level caster is unlikely to happen. I never said anything about resuming the campaign next week, in fact I don't recall mentioning anything about a campaign at all. Not to mention given that example about what a fighter would achieve in a similar 100 years it seems to me that he's overpowered compared to the wizard if I have to spend that time creating our new headquarters while he's off improving himself.

Anyway since we're talking slowly at each other here's my take on the matter. You have . . .

1) A Section of the rulebook talking about the STANDARD rules for spellcasting memorization of spells. We have the main heading Preparing wizard spells and then subheadings the first one dealing with [rest where it talks about how a wizard must sleep or rest for 8 hours. The next subheading is Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions which to me is speaking about rememorizing in context of the first section with its rules on 8 hours rest.

We then have elsewhere the ring of sustanence which specifically states in its rules . . .

This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day.

Now to me this OVERRIDES the general rules, its not in the same general section that deals with 8 hours a day. Otherwise why bother saying you can only prepare spells once per day. Its mentioned earlier in the book that a wizard can only prepare spells once per day. If that needed restating in the rings...

"This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day."

The last part is what you need to focus on. You still cannot prepare spells that have already been cast more than once per day. I don't why you keep arguing about the ring. You will have 6 hours to do something else but it won't be re-meming spells that you have already cast.

Silver Crusade

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.

Also, the rules include methods for copying spells from scrolls, copying spells from other wizard's spell books (both spell-books found/taken as treasure, and friendly and-or paid wizards letting you copy spells from their book), and researching new spells. While it is up to the GM to determine availability of these things, the rules explicitly cover the possibility of gaining more spells through any of these methods.

That's right but the only 100% guaranteed spells you receive are 2 at every level. The other rules are there if the DM goes that route, a Wizard's 2 per level are there no matter what.

Question: are you seriously advocating that a GM should hold the wizard to the 2 guaranteed spells per level, while allowing the non-wizards to buy their goodies and/or receive nifty stuff as treasure?

Because we agree that those are the only guaranteed spells a wizard gets, but I do find it highly unreasonable, even if permissible by RAW, to hold a wizard to only getting those spells, and never getting the opportunity to add to his/her spell-book via other methods all campaign long.

Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:


Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

So first you're saying "we'll fix it using rules" which in your example amounts to "we'll fix it by having the GM make an arbitrary decision what spells does the Wizard have access to"?

Oberoni all the way, baby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:


Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

The fun part in all this is that most full casters (outside of witches) could really give a crap just how many spellbooks and scrolls you leave lying about. Spontaneous and divine casting being what it is.

So really, strictly reigning in just what spells a wizard can gain access to only restricts the wizard.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

So first you're saying "we'll fix it using rules" which in your example amounts to "we'll fix it by having the GM make an arbitrary decision what spells does the Wizard have access to"?

Oberoni all the way, baby.

I really really think you need to get better acquainted with the fallacy because you still don't seem to fully understand it with regards to how it works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's simple, you're saying that Wizard problems can be fixed by following rules. But you're not following any RAW, you're just arbitrarily handing out spells and disallowing magic item purchases. And you think that if there's a problem with RAW it's all-OK cause your rule 0 will fix it. That's Oberoni.

Also, what TarXT said. Clerics, Sorcerers, Oracles and Druids get a free ride while Wizards, Witches and Alchemists cry in the corner.

Silver Crusade

shallowsoul wrote:


Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

Evidently you and I are talking past each other, instead of to each other then. Because, NO, I'm not just talking about the strict lines of the rules, I'm concerned with how you actually play the game. 'Course that means that while I agreed with some of what Gorbacz said in earlier posts, I'm not following through this on the same angle/line of intent that he is either, if he is strictly focusing on RAW, but not focusing on RAI and involving RAW insofar as you actually apply it in game. As always for me, I place "how you actually play the game" as most important, beyond that I consider RAI more important than RAW, and if the two conflict-- I cheerfully admit that when it's up to me, I'll house-rule the RAW to bring it into compliance with RAI. And, RAW is always subject to interpretation anyway. So, this being the "general discussion" section, that's been my focus-- not the strict line of RAW that can be used to define just how much of a jerk you can be to your players; and how much RAW says you have to give them-- but rather, how are you actually handling this matter in game (or, if this is hypothetical/you haven't dealt with this before in a game, how you think it should be handled in actual play).

Now, again, I agree with you that the GM decides whether or not the wizard finds a spell-book, finds a place to buy spells (quite unlikely to be any sort of "Magic Shops R 'Us'" outfit-- quite agree with you there as well-- but making a private arrangement with an NPC Wizard should be quite possible, IMO), and what spells are available when he/she finds someone with whom he/she can make an arrangement with.

Yes, RAW only gives you 2 spells per level automatically and pretty much undeniably-- but the fact that there ARE other ways to gain spells in RAW definitely implies to me that, as far as RAI is concerned, you should allow their use and give the Wizard some opportunity to add spells to his/her spell-book. Now, IMO, this need not be (as Gorbacz implies) unlimited access to everything in the book-- but it shouldn't be no opportunity at all, or just access to suckage that isn't helpful to the PC at all anyway (I also think Gorbacz is right, in that you should decide what is and is not available in some reasonable, not entirely arbitrary fashion). RAW doesn't require you to give those opportunities to the PC wizard, but they aren't in the book for nothing. And, as Bob Loblaw has noted-- in RAW (and RAI), time and money are definite limits to how many spells the wizard can add, if he/she has more options to choose from than time and money available to take advantage of them all (which, IMO, should usually be the case).

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

I'm gonna admit-- I think it's reasonable for the GM to make some decisions, that maybe some spells and items aren't available in a particular town/city/area, no matter what the dice say. But, I think the GM should have good reasons for doing so, if such a decision is made-- not just arbitrary nastiness, or desire to screw the player.


Geeze Gorbacz, quit yelling "Oberoni Fallacy". The rules work fine, they aren't broken. The problem is that the rules work fine for a certain playstyle.

Deviating from the intended playstyle (4-5 combats per session) will create the 15-minute day syndrome. As characters level up, combats take longer and it becomes easier to avoid battles. Fighters and combats can take a back seat or the story can take a back seat. This coupled with the fact that many mundane rules take a back seat to the forgotten magic rules creates an increasingly large gap between the mundane and magical in some games.

Silver Crusade

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Hold on a moment! We are talking about the rules here. The only rule that actually gives a wizard spells 100% of the time is the Wizard write up about 2 spells per level. That's the whole argument. Gor thought he would throw the whole Ob Fallacy in there to try and justify his argument, which failed to do so. By your token because there are write ups on magic items in the back of the book then your character should get that item. The DM decides whether or not a wizard finds a spellbook, finds a place to buy spells, and which spells are able to be purchased. Magic Shops R "Us" don't exist in my games.

Evidently you and I are talking past each other, instead of to each other then. Because, NO, I'm not just talking about the strict lines of the rules, I'm concerned with how you actually play the game. 'Course that means that while I agreed with some of what Gorbacz said in earlier posts, I'm not following through this on the same angle/line of intent that he is either, if he is strictly focusing on RAW, but not focusing on RAI and involving RAW insofar as you actually apply it in game. As always for me, I place "how you actually play the game" as most important, beyond that I consider RAI more important than RAW, and if the two conflict-- I cheerfully admit that when it's up to me, I'll house-rule the RAW to bring it into compliance with RAI. And, RAW is always subject to interpretation anyway. So, this being the "general discussion" section, that's been my focus-- not the strict line of RAW that can be used to define just how much of a jerk you can be to your players; and how much RAW says you have to give them-- but rather, how are you actually handling this matter in game (or, if this is hypothetical/you haven't dealt with this before in a game, how you think it should be handled in actual play).

Now, again, I agree with you that the GM decides whether or not the wizard finds a spell-book, finds a place to buy spells (quite unlikely to be any...

All I'm trying to say is that Gorbacz isn't correct with regards to the "O" Fallacy in this regard.

"The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions."

No houserule needs to be applied in order to bring spellcasters, such as wizards, down to where they are supposed to be. It's actually the houserule that puts them over the top by handwaving and not keeping up with costs and availability.

It would be the same if a ranger chose Undead to his Favored Enemy list and getting mad because he wasn't up against an Undead everytime.

Silver Crusade

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

I'm gonna admit-- I think it's reasonable for the GM to make some decisions, that maybe some spells and items aren't available in a particular town/city/area, no matter what the dice say. But, I think the GM should have good reasons for doing so, if such a decision is made-- not just arbitrary nastiness, or desire to screw the player.

I think the player shouldn't meta-game and expect certain items and spells to exist in certain towns.


Gorbacz kept saying "Oberoni Fallacy" because someone said they would just use GM power to restrict what spells the wizard gets, which runs contrary to my last post.
If nobody said that then I apologize for my misinterpretation, but that is how I read it.

In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

*I am only talking about items that exist in the book, not something a player made up such as a bracers of restoration.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Gorbacz kept saying "Oberoni Fallacy" because someone said they would just use GM power to restrict what spells the wizard gets, which runs contrary to my last post.

If nobody said that then I apologize for my misinterpretation, but that is how I read it.

In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

*I am only talking about items that exist in the book, not something a player made up such as a bracers of restoration.

Rule 0 is there to cover rules that aren't there. There are already rules about which spells are there and if they are there. It is already been given to the DM to do this. The DM doesn't have to go out of his way to keep spells from the DM.


shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

I'm gonna admit-- I think it's reasonable for the GM to make some decisions, that maybe some spells and items aren't available in a particular town/city/area, no matter what the dice say. But, I think the GM should have good reasons for doing so, if such a decision is made-- not just arbitrary nastiness, or desire to screw the player.
I think the player shouldn't meta-game and expect certain items and spells to exist in certain towns.

It does not matter if the player metagames or not.

Settlements are classified by size.

Player arrives at a settlement and ask for item X
If the settlement is too small to have that item the player can't find it.
If the settlement is large enough the 75% chance is rolled. Whether a player knows the size of the settlement is a non-issue as far as obtaining it.

Since larger cities have better things, that general knowledge should be known, even if a GM considers the exact settlement type to be a metagame knowledge.

That means if the item is not found in really big city A, the PC will try really big city B next, if the time to travel there is available.

@ Finn Kveldulfr:
A GM can restrict items to hold the wizard or any other class within a certain power range, but then Gorby gets to say "Oberoni Fallacy".


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Gorbacz kept saying "Oberoni Fallacy" because someone said they would just use GM power to restrict what spells the wizard gets, which runs contrary to my last post.

If nobody said that then I apologize for my misinterpretation, but that is how I read it.

In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

*I am only talking about items that exist in the book, not something a player made up such as a bracers of restoration.

Rule 0 is there to cover rules that aren't there. There are already rules about which spells are there and if they are there. It is already been given to the DM to do this. The DM doesn't have to go out of his way to keep spells from the DM.

I know that, but if I did not make that * comment someone would have said what about custom items so I put it there ahead of time.

As far as the available spells comment that rule is the magic item availability rule. Scrolls are magic items so they fall under that rule.


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Gorbacz kept saying "Oberoni Fallacy" because someone said they would just use GM power to restrict what spells the wizard gets, which runs contrary to my last post.

If nobody said that then I apologize for my misinterpretation, but that is how I read it.

In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

*I am only talking about items that exist in the book, not something a player made up such as a bracers of restoration.

Rule 0 is there to cover rules that aren't there. There are already rules about which spells are there and if they are there. It is already been given to the DM to do this. The DM doesn't have to go out of his way to keep spells from the DM.

And what Gorbacz (and others) have been saying is that that really doesn't matter at all. Divine and spontaneous casters don't care what you choose to make available for purchase. They just get spells. So if you actually want to rein in casting ability with restrictions on spell availability, you're only hurting the Wizard and a couple other classes. Everyone else just gets to have a field day with their full assortment of spells and you haven't fixed anything except maybe making the Wizard's life a little bit harder (he'll eventually get all the spells he wants, unless you purposefully deny spells to him).

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

I'm gonna admit-- I think it's reasonable for the GM to make some decisions, that maybe some spells and items aren't available in a particular town/city/area, no matter what the dice say. But, I think the GM should have good reasons for doing so, if such a decision is made-- not just arbitrary nastiness, or desire to screw the player.
I think the player shouldn't meta-game and expect certain items and spells to exist in certain towns.

It does not matter if the player metagames or not.

Settlements are classified by size.

Player arrives at a settlement and ask for item X
If the settlement is too small to have that item the player can't find it.
If the settlement is large enough the 75% chance is rolled. Whether a player knows the size of the settlement is a non-issue as far as obtaining it.

Since larger cities have better things, that general knowledge should be known, even if a GM considers the exact settlement type to be a metagame knowledge.

That means if the item is not found in really big city A, the PC will try really big city B next, if the time to travel there is available.

@ Finn Kveldulfr:
A GM can restrict items to hold the wizard or any other class within a certain power range, but then Gorby gets to say "Oberoni Fallacy".

Allow me to introduce you to a word "Guidelines". Now that word is used on page 460 of the Core Rulebook under Purchasing Magic Items.

"Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least
one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion
merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic
swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available
in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs
determine what items are available in a given community.
These guidelines assume a setting with an average level of
magic. Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines,
subject to GM discretion. The GM should keep a list of what
items are available from each merchant and should replenish
the stocks on occasion to represent new acquisitions."

There is no rule stating you have to abide by these guidelines. It's assumed that if you do use this then this what you would go by. This has nothing to do with the big "O".

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Gorbacz kept saying "Oberoni Fallacy" because someone said they would just use GM power to restrict what spells the wizard gets, which runs contrary to my last post.

If nobody said that then I apologize for my misinterpretation, but that is how I read it.

In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

*I am only talking about items that exist in the book, not something a player made up such as a bracers of restoration.

Rule 0 is there to cover rules that aren't there. There are already rules about which spells are there and if they are there. It is already been given to the DM to do this. The DM doesn't have to go out of his way to keep spells from the DM.

I know that, but if I did not make that * comment someone would have said what about custom items so I put it there ahead of time.

As far as the available spells comment that rule is the magic item availability rule. Scrolls are magic items so they fall under that rule.

It's not a rule but a guideline actually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
There is no rule stating you have to abide by these guidelines. It's assumed that if you do use this then this what you would go by. This has nothing to do with the big "O".

As DM, you own the game and have final say on everything. Everything is a guideline. There are no hard rules. That's the whole point of the Oberoni fallacy - any time you choose to ignore the rules or guidelines as presented and instead use your own rules or guidelines, but say, "The game is fine and well-designed because I can always use my own rules or guidelines to fix any problems!" you are committing the Oberoni fallacy.


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Magic items have a 75% chance to be found in a city depending on the city's size. You get to try again in a week. At higher levels if a city does not have an item you can just teleport to another city. It does not guarantee(100%) that you get the spells you want, but most of the time you will. 75% chance is pretty good even before teleport comes into play.

I think this is what Gorbacz was referring to.

I'm gonna admit-- I think it's reasonable for the GM to make some decisions, that maybe some spells and items aren't available in a particular town/city/area, no matter what the dice say. But, I think the GM should have good reasons for doing so, if such a decision is made-- not just arbitrary nastiness, or desire to screw the player.
I think the player shouldn't meta-game and expect certain items and spells to exist in certain towns.

It does not matter if the player metagames or not.

Settlements are classified by size.

Player arrives at a settlement and ask for item X
If the settlement is too small to have that item the player can't find it.
If the settlement is large enough the 75% chance is rolled. Whether a player knows the size of the settlement is a non-issue as far as obtaining it.

Since larger cities have better things, that general knowledge should be known, even if a GM considers the exact settlement type to be a metagame knowledge.

That means if the item is not found in really big city A, the PC will try really big city B next, if the time to travel there is available.

@ Finn Kveldulfr:
A GM can restrict items to hold the wizard or any other class within a certain power range, but then Gorby gets to say "Oberoni Fallacy".

Allow me to introduce you to a word "Guidelines". Now that word is used on page 460 of the Core Rulebook under Purchasing Magic Items.

"Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least
one or two purveyors...

My rules came from the GMG, not the CRB. The CRB does not even have the settlement rules I mentioned.

Quote:
Base Value and Purchase Limit: This section lists the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort. If an item is not available, a new check to determine if the item has become available can be made in 1 week. A settlement's purchase limit is the most money a shop in the settlement can spend to purchase any single item from the PCs. If the PCs wish to sell an item worth more than a settlement's purchase limit, they'll either need to settle for a lower price, travel to a larger city, or (with the GM's permission) search for a specific buyer in the city with deeper pockets. A settlement's type sets its purchase limit.

You can also find something above a settlement's base value, but the chances of getting what you want are small.

Silver Crusade

Scott Betts wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
There is no rule stating you have to abide by these guidelines. It's assumed that if you do use this then this what you would go by. This has nothing to do with the big "O".
As DM, you own the game and have final say on everything. Everything is a guideline. There are no hard rules. That's the whole point of the Oberoni fallacy - any time you choose to ignore the rules or guidelines as presented and instead use your own rules or guidelines, but say, "The game is fine and well-designed because I can always use my own rules or guidelines to fix any problems!" you are committing the Oberoni fallacy.

Actually there are certain aspects of the game that are spelled out as "rules" and some spelled out as "guidelines". It is assumed that a GM can change anything in the game but there are specifics that should not be assumed. Rules are assumed to be there and guidelines are not. Some of you really need a lesson where the Oberoni Fallacy can come into play, this is an instance where it doesn't.

There is a reason magic items, their creation and where they are found are in the DM's guide and not in the player's.


shallowsoul wrote:

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?

High magic games favor martial classes like Fighter. It implies they are going to have easier access to various staples they will need, be able to buy items as appropriate, and likely make up for what they're missing through increased amounts of magic items.

Low-magic worlds with core magic are the ones non-casters get hosed in. When everyone wields cosmic power, you're just the guy on the block with a little more of it. When you're the only one wielding cosmic power, you are issued little "Alpha & Omega LLC" business cards.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:


@ Finn Kveldulfr:
A GM can restrict items to hold the wizard or any other class within a certain power range, but then Gorby gets to say "Oberoni Fallacy".

Eh, no he doesn't. When I feel the need to "house-rule" something or otherwise apply such restrictions (especially if it's something I fixed because I thought it was broken; as opposed to something I adjusted for personal preference and-or particular world flavor, but that I acknowledge as not broken), I don't pretend that I didn't see anything wrong with the game-rules before I applied the "patch". :D


Ashiel wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?

High magic games favor martial classes like Fighter. It implies they are going to have easier access to various staples they will need, be able to buy items as appropriate, and likely make up for what they're missing through increased amounts of magic items.

Low-magic worlds with core magic are the ones non-casters get hosed in. When everyone wields cosmic power, you're just the guy on the block with a little more of it. When you're the only one wielding cosmic power, you are issued little "Alpha & Omega LLC" business cards.

This only happens when the GM doesn't know what they want from a low-magic game. A properly built and maintained low-magic game will keep everyone at roughly the same power. When you do this though, you must make changes to the system otherwise things will get out of control very fast as the characters level.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:


In short if an idea only has weight because it ignores RAW, and depends on GM fiat it falls under the Oberoni Fallacy.

So far as I know, it only falls under the 'Oberoni Fallacy' if you're claiming there's nothing wrong/no conflict in the rules because you can "erase" any conflicting rule with a 'Rule 0' application.

wraithstrike wrote:


PS:I do believe Shallowsoul said the GM decides which spells are there, and as the GM he can, but by the rules the GM never had to decide anything about magic items*. All he has to do is roll the dice to see if that 75% chance is met.

And, actually I did imply, and do believe, that as GM I might step in and decide what spells and magic items are available at a particular location-- however, honestly-- I wouldn't be doing that just to penalize or limit a wizard character. My approach for that would be figuring what the local NPC wizard does in the town being visited, and what spells the NPC wizard needs and/or is likely to have... and that's what will be available-- not gonna have strange and obscure spells that happen to be in the book, but have no freakin' reason whatsoever why the local mages would deal with them at all, being available. Not that the wizard can't get them, just that the wizard might need to make a special trip to somewhere where there's a school of wizardry, a library that includes collections of magic, or a powerful and scholarly wizard to obtain a copy of rare and unusual spells that most people just don't need to use.

I'd apply (and have, in past D&D games) the same principle to magic items-- you're unlikely to find items that the locals in an area don't use, don't want, and don't need... because whomever is making the magic items, isn't going to make toys that none of his/her customers want. However, if there's a mage in town (whether wizard, magewright, whatever) who has the prerequisites and/or level to make the item; and the players have the money and can provide or secure any rare materials requirements-- I'd allow the players to commission specific magic items.

Basically, my thought on this is-- that the spells and items available should make sense for the town/city/whatever you're in. I don't think it's arbitrary and unfair to play it that way.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?

High magic games favor martial classes like Fighter. It implies they are going to have easier access to various staples they will need, be able to buy items as appropriate, and likely make up for what they're missing through increased amounts of magic items.

Low-magic worlds with core magic are the ones non-casters get hosed in. When everyone wields cosmic power, you're just the guy on the block with a little more of it. When you're the only one wielding cosmic power, you are issued little "Alpha & Omega LLC" business cards.

This only happens when the GM doesn't know what they want from a low-magic game. A properly built and maintained low-magic game will keep everyone at roughly the same power. When you do this though, you must make changes to the system otherwise things will get out of control very fast as the characters level.

I might be believe this if I hadn't seen so much to the contrary over the years. Without heavy house ruling, it always ends up the same way. Once you are heavily house-ruled and you've removed item creation feats, find several new ways to nerf spellcasters along with those limitations, it will always result in the same outcome.

In a "low-magic" game with full casters, you will always come to the same conclusion, unless you do a lot of house ruling, or constantly try to employ tactics like preventing PCs from having downtime, which gets both old and assumes the PCs lack the basic freedom to take their riches and say "Ok, I'm going to take a break and do something I want to do, rather than running off to explore dungeon #37".

A look into a low-magic campaign + core mechanic casters.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
pobbes wrote:
Personally, I think the biggest problem is with the fighter class. The key feature of the fighter class is getting a feat every other level which makes it the same as every other class over 20 levels. So, every class essentially gets the most defining features of the fighter for FREE. The only way to remove disparity is if every other class could learn spells provided they met the ability score and some other related requirements.

This is an incorrect assessment though. The fighter not only has 11 more feats than everyone else (some are fighter only), it also has a few other class features that only the fighter can have. With the addition of archetypes, the fighter becomes even more unique. There are some feats that many other classes will never be able to use (base attack bonus higher than +15).

Many spellcasting classes share similar or the same spells and it isn't seen as a problem. Why would sharing feats be seen as a problem?

The biggest problem I've seen isn't the sharing of feats, but the overall implementation of feats. Because most of them give a static effect that never improves, most of them don't actually end up working all that well in a system where almost everything else grows at least somewhat with the character's levels. Combine that with the fact that while BAB goes up naturally, as does HP, increasing base damage at the same rate without resorting to magic is extremely difficult, and you end up with martial characters lagging behind in the area of combat, which is supposed to be their strongest area, and is sometimes their only strong area.

I see a few to deal with this, none of which involve the power of spellcasters. First, the issue with feats. They are great in concept, but their implementation often leaves something to be desired. To fix them several things need to be done. They need to make the feats a little more like class abilities, and build some growth into them by putting the the improved and greater versions, as well as most of the requirements, into one feat. Not only does this reduce the amount of mostly redundant feats, but it gives the martial classes more versatility by freeing up feat slots currently used simply to stay decent on a single trick. It also makes the martial classes feel like they are actually gaining something every time they take a new feat, instead of simply maintaining existing abilities. This is not to say that all feat chains are bad. Requiring Point Blank Shot before Precise Shot, Power Attack before Cleave, or Two Weapon Fighting before Two Weapon Defense makes sense and works. There is a natural progression of new abilities with no redundancy. However, requiring Point Blank Shot before you can learn Far Shot is a bit more of a stretch, and requiring Combat Expertise or anything else to get access to the combat maneuver feats is just plain overkill. These feats could easily be rewritten to maintain logical requirements without requiring an entire feat (that may not even really fully apply) as a prerequisite.

To further reduce feat bloat, I would make a lot of the current feats that provide one time access into traits, along with figuring out some way to increase the number of traits gained over time. Weapon Finesse, all of the proficiency feats, and similar feats are all good candidates for traits as their benefits never increase, and they, by themselves, don't add much to a character's power, as they simply allow the character to use a wider range of equipment effectively. This also enhances the difference between traits and feats, with traits generally providing a single, static effect and feats providing at least some limited growth, making it easier to peg which is better for any given desired ability. One would have to figure out how to balance the interaction between feats and traits to make it really work, but it could be done, and would strengthen those classes that rely primarily on feats.

The other major area that would improve the game for martial characters would be to rein in the HP inflation. That way, fighter abilities like weapon training, along with their greater access to feats, would actually have a chance to keep up and be relevant at higher levels. It would also encourage more defensive builds that right now simply are impractical if one wants to contribute meaningfully at higher levels.

The biggest issue with martial classes tends to be versatility, and feats far too often become taxes rather than opportunities to expand the character, and end up getting in the way of growth rather than facilitating it. If you fix that, most of the weaknesses of the martial classes would disappear.


The only thing I would do to rein in casters is to really read the spells and rules regarding magic and access to it. In all cases, read the spell in question, and make sure the player can explain it in full (including any stated limitations) when they cast it; that doesn't mean they can't ever get creative, but it gives the DM a better chance of judging whether that creativity is within the bounds of what the spell is normally expected to do.

For wizards, really watch the WBL. For divine casters, don't forget that the powers granting the casters their spells have agendas as well, and expect their servants to be aware of them, and do what they can to further those agendas. Yes, it's using RP to balance mechanics to a certain extent, but that is how those classes were built; you get power in exchange for making yourself a servant/follower of a higher power defined by the DM.

All caster classes are going to have to deal with pubic perceptions of magic. Not all societies accept magic or casters of all kinds equally; spontaneous casters especially are going to face different social perceptions than prepared casters. Even if you're making your own world, reading a published setting to see how different societies react to magic is helpful.

What I would really love to see in Pathfinder 2.0 isn't a redoing of the rules, but a reorganization of the rules to make it easier for DMs to find the counter rules for everything a player can do. That would eliminate many of the headaches with higher level magic.


Magic Items I find quite easy to deal with. They already have 3 overall categories: minor, medium, and major. Simply extend those to encompass all magic items and regulate accordingly. Minor stuff is usually easy to find and make. Medium items take some time and coin to find and make, but is generally easy enough as long as you have those two commodities (which the DM has ultimate control over). Major items are fully 100% DM regulated, period; if you want something specific, be prepared to have an in game explanation for why your character even knows about it, and be prepared for some questing in order to get it. From there, apply common sense based on the society and environment the party is currently in (finding a trident of any kind in the middle of the desert is going to be rather difficult in most cases), and the party should be able to get what they need without causing the DM too many headaches.

Crafting is similar. The processes for making minor items are generally commonly known, though unusual items will be less so, and will require more work to find out about. Medium item processes will generally be able to be found with some footwork, time, and money, though again, the more unusual stuff is going to require more work. Major stuff, along with custom stuff, is 100% DM regulated. If you want it, you have to go through the DM; no amount of "but the rules say this" is going to grant you automatic access to anything in these two categories, ever. Players can still be involved in the process, and probably should be, but they can't just assume anything at this level.

This does require the DM to be reasonable in turn, especially at higher levels where major items are expected, but it does a good job of keeping it managable.


Um still arguing about the ring because I still disagree with you. Let's say I prepare my spells at 12 am, get in a huge fight a 9, go to bed at 10 and I'm up at 12. It's an entirely new day and 24 hour period. I've had what is specified as eight hours rest and yet you saying because I cast those spells at nine I still need to wait ANOTHER three hours because I cast in the last eight because that's what the general rules section states.

I notice no one responded to my other questions.


Liam Warner wrote:

Um still arguing about the ring because I still disagree with you. Let's say I prepare my spells at 12 am, get in a huge fight a 9, go to bed at 10 and I'm up at 12. It's an entirely new day and 24 hour period. I've had what is specified as eight hours rest and yet you saying because I cast those spells at nine I still need to wait ANOTHER three hours because I cast in the last eight because that's what the general rules section states.

What? No, the spell slots you used up are gone until you've had at least 8 hours of rest since you've used them.

You can only prepare the spells once per day, but that's a different subject of whether or not the spell slots are actually usable. It's weird and a bit confusing but that's the spell system for you.

EDIT: I just realized that I have no idea if you're talking about in the morning or night for half of the times you've listed. I assumed you were speaking about a battle happening 3 hours before you tried to prepare again.


Liam Warner wrote:

Um still arguing about the ring because I still disagree with you. Let's say I prepare my spells at 12 am, get in a huge fight a 9, go to bed at 10 and I'm up at 12. It's an entirely new day and 24 hour period. I've had what is specified as eight hours rest and yet you saying because I cast those spells at nine I still need to wait ANOTHER three hours because I cast in the last eight because that's what the general rules section states.

I notice no one responded to my other questions.

I would personally say no to that simply because I don't care how much rest you get, it's still spells/day, not spells/rest cycle. You can shorten the rest time required since you last cast a spell, but a day is still 24 hours. I may bend this occasionally to keep an adventure flowing with reasonable in game time flow, but except for extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the DM, not the player stupid enough to blow all of their spells that quickly, spells/day means precisely that. You cannot get up at 6 am, blow through your spells by 10 am, rest for 2 hours with the ring, and have your full complement of spells again at noon. Spells are balanced to be cast x number of times per day (24 hrs).

A large part of the perceived gap between martial and caster classes is that too many casters think they can wake up, unload, rest for a few hours (either 2 or 8 hrs, it really doesn't matter which), and be at full strength again right after resting despite not even having a full day gone by. This is annoying, but not game breaking, at lower levels, but higher level spells are simply too powerful to not be game breaking if this is allowed. You are essentially ignoring one of the biggest limiters the system has in place to keep the casters from overrunning the game. Reducing rest time can reduce the headache of having to get a full night's rest before preparing for a new day, but it cannot, and should not, be used to get past the x/day restriction.


One of the reasons I dislike that damn ring is that it spawns so many arguments over how it works. I am frequently reduced to invoking Rule 0 just to get the RAW followed since some players simply can't accept or understand RAW.

Casters, without the ring:

1. Can only prepare each of their spell slots ONCE within a 24 hour period. Usually that is done in the morning.

2. Must get 8 hours of uninterrupted SLEEP and REST (not just "sleep" since effects OTHER THAN THIS RING might reduce their SLEEP, but that doesn't affect their REST) before they can prepare spells.

3. Cannot prepare spells in any slot that has been cast from in the previous 8 hours.

Casters, WITH the ring:

1. Can only prepare each of their spell slots ONCE within a 24 hour period. This is not affected AT ALL by the ring.

2. Can get only two hours of SLEEP and two hours of REST to be able to prepare spells. This is the ONLY thing that the ring affects for spellcasters.

3. Cannot prepare spells in any slot that has been cast from in the previous 8 hours. This is not affected AT ALL by the ring.

As others have noted, the ring does nothing to address the 15 minute day.

What the ring does that is so nice for casters is it allows them to use 6 additional hours for crafting items, spell research, casting spells with lengthy cast times, etc. But the main thing this does is allow casters to recharge in only two hours instead of 8. That vastly increases the odds that you can regain spells while in the middle of a dungeon or otherwise in a situation where you are pressed for time.

Plus it greatly reduces the chance that an unexpected encounter is going to catch the caster asleep.

Since most wise casters keep some spell slots free for situational spells during the day, the inability to reload slots used in the past 8 hours is not usually a serious limitation.


Sorry yes that was night as I'm posting on my phone at TAFE. My point is the ring converts 8 hours of sleep/rest to two. If I've slept eight hours I'm not casting in my sleep since I get those eight sleep/rest hours in two I can then reprepare my spells provided at least 24 hours have past since my previous memorizing. Which it had midnight to midnight. Anything else is arguing the eight hours of sleep you get in two wearing the ring DOESN'T count as rest which is ridiculous in my opinion and not RAW.

Still seeing no ones been willing to address the other part of my earlier post.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Liam Warner, the Recent Casting Limit has nothing to do with rest. Divine casters don't have any rest requirement in order to learn spells, and they have the same limitation placed on them.

PRD>Magic>Divine Spells>Preparing Divine Spells wrote:

A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells.

....
Recent Casting Limit: As with arcane spells, at the time of preparation any spells cast within the previous 8 hours count against the number of spells that can be prepared.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Our fighters do just fine in high magic campaigns.

How come people are expecting the casters to go off and do their own thing when high level is reached? Why wouldn't they continue to buff the martial guys, who will be decked out in magical gear galore along side the casters, and still work as a team?

High magic games favor martial classes like Fighter. It implies they are going to have easier access to various staples they will need, be able to buy items as appropriate, and likely make up for what they're missing through increased amounts of magic items.

Low-magic worlds with core magic are the ones non-casters get hosed in. When everyone wields cosmic power, you're just the guy on the block with a little more of it. When you're the only one wielding cosmic power, you are issued little "Alpha & Omega LLC" business cards.

This only happens when the GM doesn't know what they want from a low-magic game. A properly built and maintained low-magic game will keep everyone at roughly the same power. When you do this though, you must make changes to the system otherwise things will get out of control very fast as the characters level.

I might be believe this if I hadn't seen so much to the contrary over the years. Without heavy house ruling, it always ends up the same way. Once you are heavily house-ruled and you've removed item creation feats, find several new ways to nerf spellcasters along with those limitations, it will always result in the same outcome.

In a "low-magic" game with full casters, you will always come to the same conclusion, unless you do a lot of house ruling, or constantly try to employ tactics like preventing PCs from having downtime, which gets both old and assumes the PCs lack the basic freedom to take their riches and say "Ok, I'm going to take a break and do something I want to do, rather than running off to explore dungeon #37".

A look into...

If you are creating a low magic world, you are already house ruling. If you don't continue to make it work, then the problem isn't the classes. The problem is the GM didn't finish their job. From much of the talk on the boards on what people mean by low magic and the problems they have had, it is obvious that many people do not know how to create a low magic world. It can be done. It can be done without changing the classes. The GM needs to know exactly what they want to achieve. They also need to know how the system works so they can make appropriate changes to the system. It would be a topic for another thread, but I have several ideas that I'm sure would work.


@joana
yes but the whole point of my argument is that restriction applies to when your memorizing without sleeping. The ring supersedes that because your getting that eight hours of rest in two.

Still no one has touched my other points.


sunshadow21 wrote:
The biggest problem I've seen isn't the sharing of feats, but the overall implementation of feats. Because most of them give a static effect that never improves, most of them don't actually end up working all that well in a system where almost everything else grows at least somewhat with the character's levels. Combine that with the fact that while BAB goes up naturally, as does HP, increasing base damage at the same rate without resorting to magic is extremely difficult, and you end up with martial characters lagging behind in the area of combat, which is supposed to be their strongest area, and is sometimes their only strong area.

I can tell you that tonight my party of a ranger/sorcerer/shadow scout/arcane archer, paladin, sword and board fighter, two-handed fighter, barbarian/rogue, and wizard (all level 20) defeated Dragotha and it was the fighters that got the dirty work done. The two key points that saved the party could have been done by anyone. 1st, the paladin had a strand of prayer beads so she summoned a Solar. 2nd, the wizard remembered that there was a bard NPC nearby that had promised to help if called. Anyone could have used the bead and anyone could have called the bard. We did lose one fighter but the attack was going to take someone down no matter who it hit. The barbarian/rogue couldn't get close enough to deal any damage. The ranger took 5 rounds before she could actually get her arrows to connect. Again, it was the fighters and the paladin that were putting the hurt on the dragon. The wizard spent his time debuffing the dragon while the bard and solar spent time buffing the party. The AC was more than 20 points over what the best of the fighters could hit without help. The CR was way too high. Without great tactics, they would have seen a TPK. The dragon (round 0) opened with buffs, (round 1) a breath weapon that dealt 22d10 (Ref 41), and (round 2) a nasty attack routine that got 2 crits in a single round. The fight lasted 6 rounds and without the wizard using a wish to heal the whole party, they would have lost the paladin on the next attack. So I don't agree with you. It was a total team effort and it was the casters in a support role that made the difference. In the Army we had a saying, "there are two types of soldiers: infantry and support."

Quote:
I see a few to deal with this, none of which involve the power of spellcasters. First, the issue with feats. They are great in concept, but their implementation often leaves something to be desired. To fix them several things need to be done. They need to make the feats a little more like class abilities, and build some growth into them by putting the the improved and greater versions, as well as most of the requirements, into one feat. Not only does this reduce the amount of mostly redundant feats, but it gives the martial classes more versatility by freeing up feat slots currently used simply to stay decent on a single trick. It also makes the martial classes feel like they are actually gaining something every time they take a new feat, instead of simply maintaining existing abilities. This is not to say that all feat chains are bad. Requiring Point Blank Shot before Precise Shot, Power Attack before Cleave, or Two Weapon Fighting before Two Weapon Defense makes sense and works. There is a natural progression of new abilities with no redundancy. However, requiring Point Blank Shot before you can learn Far Shot is a bit more of a stretch, and requiring Combat Expertise or anything else to get access to the combat maneuver feats is just plain overkill. These feats could easily be rewritten to maintain logical requirements without requiring an entire feat (that may not even really fully apply) as a prerequisite.

While I don't think this is a bad idea, I also don't think that the feats simply give numerical bonuses. The combat maneuver feats also grant attacks of opportunity along with better bonuses. The critical feats are also there to give the martial characters more in combat.

Quote:
The other major area that would improve the game for martial characters would be to rein in the HP inflation. That way, fighter abilities like weapon training, along with their greater access to feats, would actually have a chance to keep up and be relevant at higher levels. It would also encourage more defensive builds that right now simply are impractical if one wants to contribute meaningfully at higher levels.

But with the easy ways to deal more damage: multiple attacks, charge, vital strike, etc., the enemies need to be able to last a bit so that the characters can do some fun tricks. 1-round kills are neat but if they are the norm they lose their awesomeness.

Quote:
The biggest issue with martial classes tends to be versatility, and feats far too often become taxes rather than opportunities to expand the character, and end up getting in the way of growth rather than facilitating it. If you fix that, most of the weaknesses of the martial classes would disappear.

I don't see them as non-versatile. I run a very versatile game and everyone, including the martials, have plenty to do. I encourage them to be versatile. It also increases the teamwork because there is some overlap and sometimes taking a feat that grants versatility came from a feat that would have granted specialization.

Grand Lodge

I think its odd that if you take into the effect of what a high level fighter can do, opposed to a wizard. The disparity is out the window think about it. The Wizard gets one maybe two spells. The fighter can hit multiple times. Also if done right the wizard is after not the minions or peons but the BBEG. Yes as A wizard i can hurl lighting create demiplanes use wish ( which I believe should be granted as worded, thus any loop holes not shored up should be exploited . But a well trained fighter can snp four creatures necks in 3.6 seconds!!! or slay a horde of goblins via whirlwind!!! I mean come on.

Also look at what they are. Spellcasters are weak in the begining but fighters are not. Wizards that make it past these tentitive frist adventures are lauded powerful, fighters and other martial classes are a dime a dozen at lower levels. Any body whose played 1e and 2e know this little cavet.

And finally Wizards, Sorcerors, summoners, ect. have there spells regulated by the DM. So for any one who says full spellcasters are powerful, n esscene the DM is responsible for the spells granted via prayers, and spells in spellbooks, and even spells of blood. And if your player wants to research a spell or make one, play it out make them go on quests... Heck while pondexter is weazing and piening for his prescious spell, or lost text, the good ol fighter and rogue are hualing in dough. Some thing if hes studying the good ol non casters are having a fine time partying slaying things. I mean come on thats the bum wrap of spellcasters they have to seek out there power while or rogue and fighter friends have the ability to stroll into town and bam a dagger, club ect. and can easily take down a foe. no harm no fowl


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Lots of good points.

I think you make good points, but it tends to take experienced players to see those points. A new player is not going to be able to take advantage of the feat system as it stands right now, and that can be problematic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Critzible wrote:
I think its odd that if you take into the effect of what a high level fighter can do, opposed to a wizard. The disparity is out the window think about it. The Wizard gets one maybe two spells. The fighter can hit multiple times. Also if done right the wizard is after not the minions or peons but the BBEG. Yes as A wizard i can hurl lighting create demiplanes use wish ( which I believe should be granted as worded, thus any loop holes not shored up should be exploited . But a well trained fighter can snp four creatures necks in 3.6 seconds!!! or slay a horde of goblins via whirlwind!!! I mean come on.

You think this demonstrates that Fighters are on par with Wizards at high levels? Seriously?

Quote:
Also look at what they are. Spellcasters are weak in the begining but fighters are not. Wizards that make it past these tentitive frist adventures are lauded powerful, fighters and other martial classes are a dime a dozen at lower levels. Any body whose played 1e and 2e know this little cavet.

It's kind of a sucky "caveat".

Quote:
And finally Wizards, Sorcerors, summoners, ect. have there spells regulated by the DM. So for any one who says full spellcasters are powerful, n esscene the DM is responsible for the spells granted via prayers, and spells in spellbooks, and even spells of blood. And if your player wants to research a spell or make one, play it out make them go on quests... Heck while pondexter is weazing and piening for his prescious spell, or lost text, the good ol fighter and rogue are hualing in dough. Some thing if hes studying the good ol non casters are having a fine time partying slaying things. I mean come on thats the bum wrap of spellcasters they have to seek out there power while or rogue and fighter friends have the ability to stroll into town and bam a dagger, club ect. and can easily take down a foe. no harm no fowl

Except for divine spellcasters. And spontaneous spellcasters. And really anyone who isn't a Wizard. And including Wizards, since they get two free spells of their choice to add to their books when they level up.

That whole paragraph you wrote is little more than a textbook example of the Oberoni fallacy at work. In order to rein spellcasters in at all, you have to drastically alter the rules of the game in terms of access to spells. "It's fine if I just change the rules," is not a valid defense of the game's rules. It's an indictment of them.

Grand Lodge

DM always controls spell selection, if he doesn't like what you pick than he says no. This is what I don't get why doesn't the DMs out there inforce this Idea.

As for clerics, you are there god, they "pray" to you for spells. Spontaneous casters, unless its a bloodline spell have to go threw you, then reapeat as wizard

Plus a fighter, rogue, barbarian, gunslinger, cavalier, samurai, monk, and ninja Are not Spellcasters, and thus have to rely on their own abilites. I mean scence the games inception this has exsisted, and this arguement continues, If you want some thing cool for the fighter or other non spellcaster make a feat with a level requirement that allows him to detect the invisible, try to parry spells with his weapon ( with a spellcraft check mind you) I mean adapt the game.

And please I apologize for the spelling I know my spelling lacks compaired to my vocabulary but I'm just sick of people whining about this, either change it or your game, its thats simple as for how. I don't know if your going low fantasy, make all spell casting classes prestidge classes, look up other d20 classes like the Akashic from arcana evolved, awesome class, infact that game has a system of common, uncommon, and exotic spells. All spellcasters have access to common, a few to uncommon ( one was specialized to Plant amd healing) and exotics could only be taken by feats. other wise I'm sorry to tell you Pathfinder, like DnD before it has mostly been geared towards High Fantasy, as it seems to be more attractive and lucretive.

151 to 200 of 740 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.