One of my fellow players, currently fielding a magus, realized in the middle of our last game that enlarge person took a full round to cast in Pathfinder.
He threw his arms up in the air and declared "I never would have taken the spell had I known that!" He then promptly asked the GM to switch it out for ray of enfeeblement.
Ray. of. enfeeblement. That now saves for half. Over enlarge person. In a party full of martial types.
Man, we are going to really miss that reach and higher weapon damage before long.
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
Was this the case of don't understanding optimization as such or just case of failed optimization? From your description it looks to me as the second, with player just terribly underestimating one spell and overestimating another one.
If the party is melee heavy already then having a caster with some Ray spells will come in more handy than boosting already good melee stats. I play a magus and what LazarX says is true. Its more about what works best with spell combat.
Take a positive look - diversity in players and their choices is where the fun comes from.
Show him the missed opportunities -
"Oh heck, if you still had enlarge, you could have cast it on the half-orc and he could have carried us and jumped that small crevasse."
"What do you mean we can't reach the treasure in the niche high in the wall...? Oh, if only we had a round hanging about here and an enlarge effect."
"Well, had you had enlarge, you wouldnt be drowning quite so soon would you?"
"Hmm, if we could enlarge the rogue, he could shimmy that chimney flue real easy, but for shame, he's too small and the flue is too wide."
If we all played the classes exactly the same way, it would soon become a little mundane. And as for optimization - just refer to it using this phrase "Min-Max" and you will see that no optimization can be a good thing.
Rejoice in your player's decisions, for good or bad, they are yours to make with what you will :)
Sounds more like a player not understanding teamwork, honestly.
He doesn't want to spend a round buffing himself. And he doesn't want to buff other people. He probably sees that as the job of the cleric or wizard (or that buffing is something you do to yourself only).
Enlarge Person is SO worth the 1 round cast time...
I get it, he wanted to use it with Spell Combat. Boo hoo. Note a potion is always a standard to imbibe regardless of casting time, and a move action w/ the accelerated drinker trait, if he wants enlarge w/o the wait time. 50 gp a pop gets expensive, though.
If it will matter that much just buy some potions, it will only take a standard action that way. Ray of enfeeblement is far from a bad spell still, provided the ray hits it can give anywhere from -1 to hit and damage to -5, not bad at all for a 1st level spell and less action intensive/less chance of being disrupted.
Rant: I don't like enlarge person, as the spell is too dramatic for it's level and somehow still underperforms compared to what you would expect from such a dramatic change. It feels like high fantasy from 1st lvl on. I'd up it to lvl 3 and slightly boost it's power to include a +2 natural armor and a +4 strength bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD, some questions...
Is your party currently suffering from a lack of martial prowess? Has the party leader suggested that adding reach and power to a martial character would be a desirable attribute? Does your Magus character typically buff up the martial characters?
Now I agree that "ray of enfeeblement" is a less than optimal spell, but from your description I get no sense whatsoever if the party is in need of enlarge person to improve their combat effectiveness. If your party is currently handling encounters just fine, why would your magus think that enlarge person would be worth a one-round action economy investment, meaning while your other party members go around and kick ass, he sits in his chair waving his arms?
Optimization isn't always about mechanics. Sometimes it's about fun.
Ray of Enfeeblement is an awesome spell. I love pooping on 7 strength Wizards with it so that they can't hold up their wands. There is nothing better than a metamagic enhanced ray of enfeeblement followed by a quickened R.O.E. enhanced with a metamagic rod, on the same turn, against your crappy 7 strength elven archmage. Yelling "Sit Down! Sit Down Expletive!" just adds to the fun.This doesn't seem to work. Ray of Enfeeblement applies a Strength penalty to the target, which doesn't stack with itself and can't cause the target to go unconscious. Additionally, the penalty doesn't seem to do anything to the target's carry weight capacity, so using it against an enemy wizard doesn't really seem to be all that useful.
AND it allows a save for half which will almost always inevitably fail since its Fortitude (which all strong monsters you'd want to debuff have in abundance) and it's 1st-level so the DC sucks from the start.
Good luck having fun when you tend to pick abilities that never accomplish anything. Such anti-optimizing will only serve to LIMIT all your choices <-- speaking generally, none of my friends are there yet.
However it still has an effect -- and its a decent effect at that. 1d6+5 is going to average 8, even if they make the save you hit them for 4 points of strength penalty which translates into a -2 to hit and damage, if they fail the save you've given them a -4 to hit and damage -- if you roll maximum you have a -5 to strength if they save and a -11 to strength if they don't.
In comparison touch of idiocy gives a -1d6 to three stats, and bestow curse gives a -6 to the stat in question.
Now granted you have two ways to 'fail' but only one of those is an actual full on fail and on success you can get an effect much larger than what higher level spells do.
For a magus I like chill touch better personally, but ray of enfeeblement is still a nice first level spell.
Um, why wouldn't the penalty affect the carrying capacity? (obv. agree on the non-stacking) - but a 1 (lowest it can go) still would have problems with encumbrance, I would think.Ray of Enfeeblement is an awesome spell. I love pooping on 7 strength Wizards with it so that they can't hold up their wands. There is nothing better than a metamagic enhanced ray of enfeeblement followed by a quickened R.O.E. enhanced with a metamagic rod, on the same turn, against your crappy 7 strength elven archmage. Yelling "Sit Down! Sit Down Expletive!" just adds to the fun.This doesn't seem to work. Ray of Enfeeblement applies a Strength penalty to the target, which doesn't stack with itself and can't cause the target to go unconscious. Additionally, the penalty doesn't seem to do anything to the target's carry weight capacity, so using it against an enemy wizard doesn't really seem to be all that useful.
Ability Score Penalties
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Strength score of 0 is too weak to move in any way and is unconscious. Some creatures do not possess a Strength score and have no modifier at all to Strength-based skills or checks.
EDIT: Ninja'd again! I need to start taking typing classes.
At least my post is more complete (as usual).
Um, why wouldn't the penalty affect the carrying capacity? (obv. agree on the non-stacking) - but a 1 (lowest it can go) still would have problems with encumbrance, I would think.Ray of Enfeeblement is an awesome spell. I love pooping on 7 strength Wizards with it so that they can't hold up their wands. There is nothing better than a metamagic enhanced ray of enfeeblement followed by a quickened R.O.E. enhanced with a metamagic rod, on the same turn, against your crappy 7 strength elven archmage. Yelling "Sit Down! Sit Down Expletive!" just adds to the fun.This doesn't seem to work. Ray of Enfeeblement applies a Strength penalty to the target, which doesn't stack with itself and can't cause the target to go unconscious. Additionally, the penalty doesn't seem to do anything to the target's carry weight capacity, so using it against an enemy wizard doesn't really seem to be all that useful.
*le sigh*
First, ability damage and penalties never lower an ability score, they count upwards like nonlethal damage does. So when you have 4 points of ability damage to Strengh, your Strength doesn't go from 16 to 12, it stays 16, and has 4 points of ability damage.
For every 2 points of ability damage (and/or penalty) you suffer a -1 penalty to certian checks and abilities, based on the ability score effected.
For strength, ability damage/penalties causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense. AND NOTHING ELSE. Since encumbrance is not listed, it is not effected, even if you have 16 Strength and 15 ability damage.
Here are the relevant rules, right out of the core rulebook glossary:
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.
Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
Constitution: Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed.
Intelligence: Damage to your Intelligence score causes you to take penalties on Intelligence-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Intelligence.
Wisdom: Damage to your Wisdom score causes you to take penalties on Wisdom-based skill checks and Will saving throws. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based on Wisdom.
Charisma: Damage to your Charisma score causes you to take penalties on Charisma-based skill checks. This penalty also applies to any spell DCs based off Charisma and the DC to resist your channeled energy.
Ability Drain: Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. Ability drain can be healed through the use of spells such as restoration.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good luck having fun when you tend to pick abilities that never accomplish anything. Such anti-optimizing will only serve to LIMIT all your choices
Sounds like you're the one who thinks you aren't going to have fun.
Here's a novel idea: why don't you play your character and let your friends play theirs?
-Skeld
|
One of my fellow players, currently fielding a magus, realized in the middle of our last game that enlarge person took a full round to cast in Pathfinder.
He threw his arms up in the air and declared "I never would have taken the spell had I known that!" He then promptly asked the GM to switch it out for ray of enfeeblement.
Ray. of. enfeeblement. That now saves for half. Over enlarge person. In a party full of martial types.
Man, we are going to really miss that reach and higher weapon damage before long.
Do you have someone in you games who just doesn't understand optimization? Describe your experiences.
Oh yeah we have one like that... ROFL
We were playing in a homebrew 3.5/PF game - High Fantasy and Opt PC's. A Dragon based game and were had to have a connection with Dragons. DM allowed a few choices.
1. Dragon Leadership for a cohort using Zerzix Bestiary levels down in converstion forum. To make it simple he gave them bonded hoard powers similiar to VOP from 3.5 BOED. Those Dragons were powerful.
2. Half-Dragon template for free no level adjusting.
3. Dragon blooded template (bonuses to stats / NA / nat claw attacks)
(This next one was posted as well but meant for NPC's and Leadership cohort connections).
4. Dragonwrought Tattoo's (+'s to intimidate/diplomancy with Dragons).
In this game we were also allowed to play any type of creature we wanted from Bestiary levels or Savage Species break down.
Everyone in the group had super powerful PC's
AntiPaladin Graveknight
* with dragon cohort
Half-Dragon Orge
Half Dragon Fallen Hound Archon
Lich Elven Magus
*Dragon cohort
Half-Dragon Druid was allowed to assume Dire animal forms and more powerful Elemental forms.
And last and certainly LEAST...
Human Dragonwrought tattoo Rogue lol
Every game he picks the least opt PC and usually leads us to trouble or some other PC death. Usually uses a bow and stays out of combat until thinks look well in hand.
Yeah so I know what you mean!
Good luck having fun when you tend to pick abilities that never accomplish anything. Such anti-optimizing will only serve to LIMIT all your choicesSounds like you're the one who thinks you aren't going to have fun.
Here's a novel idea: why don't you play your character and let your friends play theirs?
-Skeld
Not only is this off-topic, it insinuates that I'm actively interfering with the choices of others, of which I've done no such thing. At worst, I offer optimization suggestions, when asked for them.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only is this off-topic, it insinuates that I'm actively interfering with the choices of others, of which I've done no such thing. At worst, I offer optimization suggestions, when asked for them.Good luck having fun when you tend to pick abilities that never accomplish anything. Such anti-optimizing will only serve to LIMIT all your choicesSounds like you're the one who thinks you aren't going to have fun.
Here's a novel idea: why don't you play your character and let your friends play theirs?
-Skeld
I agree. You haven't interfered with your friend's character choices that's true.
Instead you have gone on to a internet message board to publicly ridicule his choice to thousands of people.
I think we can all agree that's way better.
I note with little surprise that my questions have not been answered. I suspect that's because the answers are not conducive to RD's position.
RD has a habit of airing his party problems on these boards, this is nothing new. In some cases his posts are still quite interesting and valuable in spite of their oozing condescension towards his GMs and fellow players.
This isn't one of those cases I don't think. Which is why RD is seeing a more negative reaction than he usually does.
The best approach here is to suggest a combat spell that the magus player likes that is superior to "ray of enfeeblement" or else find out from the magus player why he thinks RoE is a good spell.
Well... the "best" approach is just to let the guy play his character and find a way to have fun anyway, but absent that approach... go with suggesting a better combat spell.
And RD, buy yourself a wand of enlarge person if you think it's so dang awesome. Spend your own full round casting it.
Admittedly i am a new player,but wouldnt lowering a melee opponents str benefit the entire party? Enlarge only affects one target but lower the enemies str means he hits less often and for lower damage. Idk maybe im missing something,as ive said still fairly new.
Admittedly i am a new player,but wouldnt lowering a melee opponents str benefit the entire party? Enlarge only affects one target but lower the enemies str means he hits less often and for lower damage. Idk maybe im missing something,as ive said still fairly new.
Benoc, the issue with "ray of enfeeblement" is that it requires both an attack roll and it allows a save. I tend to avoid spells with two chances to fail per casting because they just fail too much.
Yes, if it's successful it can help a bit.
But enlarge person on a martial character with reach, combat reflexes and a high dex can be pretty friggin' awesome.
I play a sorcerer who has 'enlarge person'. However, whenever he tries to cast it on another player they make their saving throws, so really, he can only cast it on himself.
Actually, I don't bother casting it on other party members, I just accept that they don't want me to. All of the other characters believe that -2 to their armour class is not worth the benefits of reach and damage. So, my party has a difference of opinion with RD over what constitutes 'optimised'.
I hate full round casting time, although really, you don't lose out very much, it just *feels* like you're losing out because everyone else is doing something interesting and you're standing there like a lemon waving your arms saying "I begin casting". Although it would be a pretty funny lemon if it was standing there waving its arms.
Answering RD's initial question, the worst failed optimisation I've recently seen is a character who insisted on using a rod of wonder because it doesn't have limited charges so is an infinitely renewable resource. Yeah, we said, an infinitely renewable resource of &*$%, and if you get it out again we'll wrap it around your neck.
You don't need to make a saving throw on buff spells if they are cast on willing targets.
On the rod of wonder... it's a gimmick, I find that it is very welcome in games that have a high slapstick quotient and is usually unwelcome in games with a high grit quotient.
I personally like the rod of wonder as a way to introduce some humor to the game, but it's not much use in a real serious fight.
I note with little surprise that my questions have not been answered. I suspect that's because the answers are not conducive to RD's position.
You mean these questions? I passed over them, because I had already answered them incidentally up thread, they weren't pertinent to the discussion, or you already knew the answer, but hey, since I've gotten myself into this mess, I might as well humor you.
Is your party currently suffering from a lack of martial prowess? No. I said that.
Has the party leader suggested that adding reach and power to a martial character would be a desirable attribute? We're a party, there is no leader, we either make decisions equally or, at times, independently.
Does your Magus character typically buff up the martial characters? I don't play a magus. I play a conjurer who specializes in tripping magic missiles, dazing snapdragon fireworks, and summoning all sort of nasty brutes. When I DO play a magus, the only real party buff I throw out is haste. Otherwise I'm casting enlarge person on myself (unless there is somebody who would benefit more from it or I have extra castings to spare).
RD has a habit of airing his party problems on these boards, this is nothing new.
That is a bad habit, isn't it? I should work on that.
RD when I asked about "your Magus character" I meant the one in your party. Not one you were running yourself.
You might think you answered my questions RD, but I just went through and reread all of your posts and I don't believe you did. In fact you specifically implied that your party would be "missing" the need for an enlarged martial combatant. Why would that be if your party is doing fine in melee already?
I suspected that your party did not have a leader RD. Since you don't have a leader, why do you expect a party member to follow anything other than their own goals? That's what you do apparently. You just don't like his goals.
I really don't mind your posting about your party experiences RD, in some cases I find your lengthy posts detailing difficult situations and your clever solutions to be quite entertaining and even occasionally educational.
It's the dripping scorn and condescension that I have to tune out. But you don't restrict that to your party members either.
That's a problem we share I think...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You might think you answered my questions RD, but I just went through and reread all of your posts and I don't believe you did. In fact you specifically implied that your party would be "missing" the need for an enlarged martial combatant. Why would that be if your party is doing fine in melee already?
In a party full of martial types.
You might think you answered my questions RD, but I just went through and reread all of your posts and I don't believe you did. In fact you specifically implied that your party would be "missing" the need for an enlarged martial combatant. Why would that be if your party is doing fine in melee already?In a party full of martial types.
Why do you think "a party full of martial types" automatically means the party is doing well in melee?
I don't assume that, especially in a post where RD is ragging on his playing partners because they aren't playing as well as he would like. I wanted RD to specifically indicate if there was an actual problem that needed to be solved.
I didn't think there was.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You might think you answered my questions RD, but I just went through and reread all of your posts and I don't believe you did. In fact you specifically implied that your party would be "missing" the need for an enlarged martial combatant. Why would that be if your party is doing fine in melee already?In a party full of martial types.Why do you think "a party full of martial types" automatically means the party is doing well in melee?
I don't assume that, especially in a post where RD is ragging on his playing partners because they aren't playing as well as he would like. I wanted RD to specifically indicate if there was an actual problem that needed to be solved.
I didn't think there was.
Unless I missed something, the question you said he failed to answer was "Is your party currently suffering from a lack of martial prowess?"
He said the party was "full of martial types".
I am willing to assume that "full of martial" and "lack of martial" are opposites.
Is that so unreasonable?
Unless I missed something, the question you said he failed to answer was "Is your party currently suffering from a lack of martial prowess?"
He said the party was "full of martial types".
I am willing to assume that "full of martial" and "lack of martial" are opposites.
Is that so unreasonable?
Jiggy. You are repeating yourself and forcing me to repeat myself.
"full of martial" does not equal "does not lack martial prowess." It is an assumption to make that just because the party has martial characters in it, that they are competent and work effectively as a team.
I wanted RD to specifically indicate if his party actually had a need for the optimization of the magus to make their melee characters better.
I suspected that was not the case.
I wanted it to be explicitly clear.
Understand?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unless I missed something, the question you said he failed to answer was "Is your party currently suffering from a lack of martial prowess?"
He said the party was "full of martial types".
I am willing to assume that "full of martial" and "lack of martial" are opposites.
Is that so unreasonable?
Jiggy. You are repeating yourself and forcing me to repeat myself.
"full of martial" does not equal "does not lack martial prowess." It is an assumption to make that just because the party has martial characters in it, that they are competent.
I wanted RD to specifically indicate if his party actually had a need for the optimization of the magus to make their melee characters better.
I suspected that was not the case.
I wanted it to be explicitly clear.
Understand?
I acknowledged that it was an assumption, stated that I was willing to make that assumption, and asked if that was unreasonable.
You critiqued RD for not answering your questions, when one of them looked (to anyone willing to make the assumption I made) like it had already been answered. My point is that such an assumption of general competence is reasonable enough that RD should not be faulted for having thought the question was sufficiently answered and therefore you shouldn't insinuate avoidance in this case.
You don't need to make a saving throw on buff spells if they are cast on willing targets.
;-) I was aware that you don't have to make saves against buff spells, but you are entitled to if you want. I was just stressing the point that my allies don't want me to enlarge them so much that they'd use their option to save against a beneficial spell to prevent me doing it.
You critiqued RD for not answering your questions, when one of them looked (to anyone willing to make the assumption I made) like it had already been answered. My point is that such an assumption of general competence is reasonable enough that RD should not be faulted for having thought the question was sufficiently answered and therefore you shouldn't insinuate avoidance in this case.
Jiggy. One last try.
RD ragged on one of his fellow players for not enhancing the melee prowess of his team. He ragged on that player publicly and scornfully.
I asked if there was a need to increase the martial prowess of the team.
I had a specific purpose in asking the question. The question was asked to determine if there was an actual NEED for the spell to be cast.
I suspected that there was no need, and that RD was just complaining because although his group is perfectly competent in melee, that just wasn't enough for RD.
You are assuming quite a bit here too.
Not assuming general competence from a group where the poster is whining about the lack of "competence" of at least one character is quite reasonable in my opinion.
Anyway, I got my question answered. RD was whining about a playstyle choice that he disapproved of. That's all.
I just wanted that to be perfectly clear.
It is now.
|
|
Not only is this off-topic, it insinuates that I'm actively interfering with the choices of others, of which I've done no such thing. At worst, I offer optimization suggestions, when asked for them.Good luck having fun when you tend to pick abilities that never accomplish anything. Such anti-optimizing will only serve to LIMIT all your choicesSounds like you're the one who thinks you aren't going to have fun.
Here's a novel idea: why don't you play your character and let your friends play theirs?
-Skeld
It's not off-topic at all. You brought up the concept of fun in your first post and implied that his poor choices (in your humble opinion) are fun-limitig. That begs the question I posed: when you get down to the brass tacks of your complaint, who's fun are concerned about?
-Skeld
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly i am a new player,but wouldnt lowering a melee opponents str benefit the entire party?Optimists don't like relying on strategies that hinge on opponent saving throws.
Don't you mean pessimists?
I wanted RD to specifically indicate if his party actually had a need for the optimization of the magus to make their melee characters better.
I suspected that was not the case.
I wanted it to be explicitly clear.
Well, why didn't you just say that?
We will probably be fine even without enlarge person, but we could be BETTER.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted RD to specifically indicate if his party actually had a need for the optimization of the magus to make their melee characters better.
I suspected that was not the case.
I wanted it to be explicitly clear.
Well, why didn't you just say that?
We will probably be fine even without enlarge person, but we could be BETTER.
When I read your post, RD, I thought it was pretty clear that your group was fine with or without the enlarge person. After all, why post about optimization when competence is outside your grasp?