I swear, sometimes I wonder if some of you actually play this game or just read the books.
Oh dear.
Scott Betts: Every thing you said is an exaggeration or filled with assumptions, and not the way things actually play out on any sort of regular basis.
A problem doesn't have to occur on a regular basis for it to be a problem. But, for the record, this one tends to occur pretty regularly. Regularly enough, in fact, that the guys who make the game have made dealing with it a priority. They're the ones with access to actual play statistics and reliable reports from both organized play and playtest groups, not to mention anecdotes and customer contact.
Is that what I said? really? Is that the only way you know of to keep the party from stopping to regain spells after every encounter? I'm so sorry for your players. I could come up with 5 ways in about 2 minutes. Your games must be so one dimensional. (see I can make assumptions too)
I used the word "force" purposefully. It was not an accident. The only way to ensure that your party does not rest to recover their spent renewable resources is to establish compelling reasons for them to avoid resting. This can be a time constraint on their quest, a pursuing horde that forces them to stay on the move, a magical curse that prevents rest, a desire to beat another group to the objective, or even as intangible as a looming threat that instills an atmosphere of urgency. But what all of these have in common is that they don't afford the party the luxury of handling things at their own pace. What you are saying is that this is acceptable. I say it's not. The DM should not feel forced to develop reasons to restrict the party's rest. For example, the "sandbox" style of play is predicated on the PCs tackling the campaign at whatever pace and in whatever order they feel like. You are advocating a system that makes sandbox play more difficult.
In editions prior to 4e, parties that were not forced to continue adventuring under strained resources would regularly stop once the spellcasters' daily resources were low. This meant that non-spellcasters rarely had a chance to overshadow the spellcasters, while spellcasters were consistently able to overshadow non-spellcasters. You are taking a position that holds that this is acceptable. I am taking a position that says that this is not. I think my position is more defensible.
Diffan: that's why it's called magic, and that's why it is a limited resource for casters. If the wizard could do all the things you mentioned all day. That would be a problem. But for each one of those things he does he loses the ability to do something else. Sure he might cast invisibility and sneak ahead (though it's not like that makes you silent, since 1st edition you were better off casting it on your rogue buddy.) or drag the rock across the traps(did you as a DM really let that trick work more then a handful of times?), But then those spells are gone for the day. A smart wizard saves his spells for the beast at the end of said trap filled hallway otherwise he is going to be chucking darts at it when they finally get there.
Since 1st edition the game has been about resource management. That's a big part of what made it DnD. 4th edition shattered that and lost enough of it's player base to cost the owners of the brand their place as the industry leader.
Beyond 5th level, D&D hasn't been about resource management for spellcasters since 1st Edition. The idea that a mid- or high-level Wizard needs to worry about resource management in 3e or Pathfinder is ridiculous.
I really feel like a lot of people look at the classes and insist on trying to balance them in a one encounter bubble. I think that really does a disservice to the game. It dumbs the game down and removes the complexity that has been inherent since the game was created. It also leads to trying to pigeon hole the classes. You're the striker, you're the tank, you're the healer and that's all you can be because you might step on the other classes toes. Bleck! That mentality is not the DnD I know. It's a different game entirely.
The classes are not supposed to be balanced. The group works together as a team to overcome multiple encounters.
And that's what you do in 4e. But 4e also provides that each character will be able to contribute meaningfully to most if not all encounters. This is a good thing. Get on board with it. No, it's not like how D&D was in the past, and that's because that particular aspect of past-D&D was terrible.
Wizards are supposed to be feared, magic is supposed to be terrifying. Trying to reduce the class down to the same level as the fighter or saying you can't deal damage as a caster, kills the wonder of magic.
AND HERE WE HAVE IT. I'm surprised it took this long.
This is the "Fighters can't have nice things," position in a nutshell. Magic should be awesome, and not-magic should be less awesome, and if you disagree then you're not a true patrio- er, true D&D-player!
I'm not saying melee shouldn't be impressive.
You're just saying it shouldn't be anywhere near as impressive as spellcasting.
I think 3rd edition-pathfinder fixed the weakness of those classes dramatically with the introduction of feats. But that's enough, There is no need now to keep pushing this agenda that casters must suffer because too long were we melee classes forced to dwell in darkness!
Oh yeah, those poor spellcasters. They're just suffering, coiled up in the corner while the fighters get to party. Won't someone have pity on the spellcasters?
Give me a break.
For me (for example) magic-users should be more powerful that non-spellcasters because that's how 'real magic' would be. Hopefully it's clear that isnt intended as a compelling argument (any argument based on 'what magic would be like' is clearly a silly one), but is rather a statement of aesthetic preference.I get it, I really do. And in novels and films, I've got no problem with magic being an outright superior force. I've been known to rave about the Wheel of Time series, and how awesome it is.
And I absolutely believe that it's possible to write a balanced game where magic is superior to non-magic. Which is why I'm writing a fantasy heartbreaker rpg. (Who isn't, right?)
Can you think of any examples of such a game? I found rolemaster pretty close, but mainly because it slowed down the disparity (so it didnt really manifest until 20th level or so), not because it did away with it altogether.
But for D&D, where wizards are supposed to adventure side-by-side with fighters of similar level, I find that class balance creates more fun than more 'realistic' casters. Wow, never thought I'd use that adjective with that noun. :)
I think it's better to have a balanced game than an unbalanced game. I dont think that's always possible. (Yeah - a conversation about 'realistic casters' and how magic is 'supposed' to work is a little weird).
YMMV, IMO, yadda yadda...
One of the things I've realised by pondering this thread is that I actually like to be mechanically punished for making certain flavor choices. I think it ties in to the perception of value and the fact that, if I'm paying something for it, I'll value an option more than if I can just get it for nothing.
There was a relatively heated discussion about the separatist cleric archetype from PF a while back. Now I'm a big fan of that archetype and my next cleric is going to be a separatist, I suspect. However, there were a lot of compelling arguments that it is a strictly suboptimal option mechanically (although there were some counterarguments) strangely, I found that logic to reinforce my preference rather than to dissuade me from taking it (and instead take a 'deityless' cleric which seemed to be advanced as the superior option).
[/self centred observations about mileage]
I'm just curious about others' experiences, but does it matter (in actual sessions of play, not in theoretical terms) if the classes arent balanced?I've experienced how the LFQW phenomenon can really throw a wrench into everyone's fun, yes.
I like casters, and I can see how "sucks now, awesome later" might work out for some gamers. Unfortunately I've never played a campaign for more than five levels, due to various real life obstacles. And given that DMs always want to start at 1st level -- or sometimes 3rd if they're feeling really generous -- "sucks now, awesome later" translates to "just sucks" for me. And that's no fun for me.
As a DM, I often start at higher levels because that's the only way I can experience them. And from my position behind the screen, I've seen casters absolutely dominate high level games, effectively turning the muggle PCs into side kicks.
No doubt part of my problem with understanding this view is that I quite enjoy playing the sidekick.
The campaign that sticks out most in my memory is a low wealth epic level 3.x campaign. The sorcerer player knew how to pick his spells, and was able to out-perform the other PCs in almost every way. For example, this player's gf was playing the party rogue; and at one point the two nearly broke up after the sorc player pointed out that she could attempt to disarm a magical trap...or he could just cast dispel magic from a safe distance.
If two SOs nearly breaking up doesn't demonstrate the consequences of class imbalance -- for some gamers, at least -- I don't know what does. ;)
I think it says more about the relationship, to be frank. Although I used to play bridge and that can get really ugly...
I did like me some gurps back it the day...kind of like Savage Worlds today. but what is BRP??
Chaosium Basic Role Playing: Runequest, Call Of Cthulhu, Pendragon, Ringworld and some other Chaosium games published in 80s. Revised by Mongoose to use in Runequest 4th edition, Runequest II and Legend. Currently Chaosium supports newer re-edition of BRP.
Diffan: that's why it's called magic, and that's why it is a limited resource for casters. If the wizard could do all the things you mentioned all day. That would be a problem. But for each one of those things he does he loses the ability to do something else. Sure he might cast invisibility and sneak ahead (though it's not like that makes you silent, since 1st edition you were better off casting it on your rogue buddy.) or drag the rock across the traps(did you as a DM really let that trick work more then a handful of times?), But then those spells are gone for the day. A smart wizard saves his spells for the beast at the end of said trap filled hallway otherwise he is going to be chucking darts at it when they finally get there.
Since 1st edition the game has been about resource management. That's a big part of what made it DnD.
Except at mid- to high-levels when wizards are far more equipped with wands, scrolls, staff, and rods that they're barely dipping into their actual spell slots per day. A good wizard knows that HP damage isn't directly the best route to ending a monster. So he doesn't fill his spell slots with them, instead he makes scrolls and wands (or buys them) that fullfill this aspect. And often enough, low level damage spells don't play that big a part unless your going with the Orbs spells due to their No SR aspect.
And I don't think the spells power is really the problem, per-se, but the ease of which wizards can spam these effects for a good portion of any adventure (espically published ones). As my group went through the first two adventures in the Mega-series (Cormyr and Shadowdale) my wife's Sorceress would go a few battles without even casting maybe a 5th of her spell slots because she had scrolls and wands galore. So a solution I had thought about was making the requirement of any spell that's memorized can only be memorized once. That would require wizard to be more flexible with the spells they know. I'd also cut-down what spells could be cast into wands to possibly 10-15 spells total.
And really, it's a problem within the system for a LOT of people. Perhaps not you, and thats OK, but I definitly had a problem with the disparity at higher end levels. It's a reason that I REALLY only want to do E6 games with v3.5 anymore. I've DMed high level games and the tipping point for me was when an 18th level Sorceress/Hathran and a 17th level cleric/morninglord of Lathander walked into an EL 23 and wiped 12 out of 15 monsters with 2 spells.
Scenario: Cleric flies (via. Wings of the Divine spell) into the center of their camp and taunts them into a charge attack (readies a Standard Action). Monsters charge because they were ten dumb 12th level Barbarian Orcs and a few Half Frost Giant/Half-blue dragon monsters. The minute they get within striking range, *poof* cleric uses his standard action to cast Prismatic Sphere. The sorceress flies over the edge of the camp and cast *poof* Reverse Gravity (but the cleric is by-passed due to spell Shaping). So all but 3 Orcs were instantly killed. 3 out of the 4 half-frost giant/half-blue dragons were killed (one did makes saves all the way throught the sphere the first time, but 'what goes up must come down'). By the time round two hit (and the fighter was able to scale the wall) 90% of the monsters were dead.....and he played clean-up *Yawn*.
@ Tharen the Damned: Yes, most of the examples I mentioned were in lower level games (probably lower than 10th) but that doesn't take away from the effects those situations overcame with a simple spell. As for a rune-bomb, you really don't know how one works so I'll explain:
Step 1: Obtain the spells Explosive Runes (lvl 3, PHB), Amanuensis (cantrip, Spell Compendium), and Launch Item (cantrip, Spell Compendium) and the Feat Quicken Spell (really, wizards should have this by 10th level, easy).
Step 2: Take Explosive Runes and cast them as many times you want on a single piece of paper. The spell has no mention of a limit, so I went ahead with 10 castings in a week.
Step 3: Prepare Amanuensis as a Quicken spell (4th level slot).
Step 4: When you see your target, grab the rune-bomb (a piece of parchment) and cast Launch Item with it. Ranged touch attack against the sqaure the target is standing in (AC 10). Immediately cast Amanuensis, thus triggering the runes to explode.
Step 5: Roll 60d6 Force damage. Some DMs allow a Save even though the spell specifically says "Anyone next to the runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw" but because technically the target didn't read the paper, he might be entitled to a Reflex Save against force damage (and Force resistance is hardly ever seen in v3.5). And no application of Spell Resistance. Not many creatures in the CR 9-13 range is going to survive 60d6 (Ref, half) in a 10 ft. area.
|
Then tone back your impossible goal into one that is difficult but achievable, like pleasing a significant majority of D&D fans while creating a game that is appealing and accessible to those who have never played.
Paizo did this a few years ago, it worked out well for them and alot of peeps.
Maybe the developers should use the pathfinder open gaming license for 5th Ed. >:)
An intelligent magic-user cannot count on there being anywhere within a "dungeon" to rest and recoup spells. If such an opportunity presents itself, fine, but that should never be a given. So an intelligent magic-user in such a situation isn't going to blow his top hitting spells on a band of wandering orcs; he's going to wait for something bigger...
In reality, it comes down to this:
Either the DM allows the party to rest, or allows purchase/crafting of scrolls, wands, staves in the downtime, in which case the full casters can easily overshadow the rest of the party. In addition, the other players usually support the caster wanting to rest, as they also profit from his grease/glitterdusts/...
Or the DM does not allow resting, crafting and buying, in which case the full casters will plink away with their crossbow (levels 1-5) and their players will be bored and complain to the DM, or the full casters have enough spell slots that they can still dominate everything easily (level 6+).
Practically, most DMs want their players to have fun, and will hesitate to limit resting too much, simply because it makes the game not-fun for certain classes if they do.
An intelligent magic-user cannot count on there being anywhere within a "dungeon" to rest and recoup spells. If such an opportunity presents itself, fine, but that should never be a given. So an intelligent magic-user in such a situation isn't going to blow his top hitting spells on a band of wandering orcs; he's going to wait for something bigger...In reality, it comes down to this:
Either the DM allows the party to rest, or allows purchase/crafting of scrolls, wands, staves in the downtime, in which case the full casters can easily overshadow the rest of the party. In addition, the other players usually support the caster wanting to rest, as they also profit from his grease/glitterdusts/...
Or the DM does not allow resting, crafting and buying, in which case the full casters will plink away with their crossbow (levels 1-5) and their players will be bored and complain to the DM, or the full casters have enough spell slots that they can still dominate everything easily (level 6+).
Practically, most DMs want their players to have fun, and will hesitate to limit resting too much, simply because it makes the game not-fun for certain classes if they do.
I don't think DE was saying no rest should be allowed ever, but "resting on demand" should not be something that is assumed to happen, and even though in theory a caster can do everyone's job, and steal the show in practice it does not happen as much.
In short that is not the reality. It is the theorycraft since it is not the norm.
Can you think of any examples of such a game? I found rolemaster pretty close, but mainly because it slowed down the disparity (so it didnt really manifest until 20th level or so), not because it did away with it altogether.For me (for example) magic-users should be more powerful that non-spellcasters because that's how 'real magic' would be. Hopefully it's clear that isnt intended as a compelling argument (any argument based on 'what magic would be like' is clearly a silly one), but is rather a statement of aesthetic preference.I get it, I really do. And in novels and films, I've got no problem with magic being an outright superior force. I've been known to rave about the Wheel of Time series, and how awesome it is.
And I absolutely believe that it's possible to write a balanced game where magic is superior to non-magic. Which is why I'm writing a fantasy heartbreaker rpg. (Who isn't, right?)
No, I've never played such an rpg, but imagine this: a fantasy rpg where you can't decide to be a 1st level caster, because magic has to be earned thru play. One of the points of adventuring, besides the ol' standbys gold and glory, is to discover your character's magical potential. So you start as a warrior, and eventually become a powerful warrior-mage.
It's not as diverse as D&D, in that you can't decide to play just a fighter or just a wizard, but it reconciles game balance and realistic magic.
YMMV, IMO, yadda yadda...One of the things I've realised by pondering this thread is that I actually like to be mechanically punished for making certain flavor choices. I think it ties in to the perception of value and the fact that, if I'm paying something for it, I'll value an option more than if I can just get it for nothing.
You're a regular poster here, so you probably have a better idea of what you're losing mechanically than most people who I've gamed with, who took their character options at face value. So while you know what you're getting into when you play a separatist, the rogue player I mentioned was understandably surprised and upset to discover thru play that her rogue could largely be replaced by her bf's sorc.
I'm not saying that those two didn't have their issues, because what couple doesn't, right? But games are supposed to be fun, and to have a game be the straw that almost breaks that camel's back...well, I don't feel right in just saying "Oh well, they just weren't mature" or some such, and leaving it at that.
As for myself, maybe it's because I don't play as often as I'd like or maybe it's because I don't often get to feel like a hero in real life, but playing a sidekick just doesn't appeal to me. I want to be the hero, and I want to rock the [pretend] world!
I don't think DE was saying no rest should be allowed ever, but "resting on demand" should not be something that is assumed to happen, and even though in theory a caster can do everyone's job, and steal the show in practice it does not happen as much.
A wizard is rarely out of spells before the cleric is out of cure x wounds, and once that happens, you can be pretty sure that the whole party will try to find a way to rest.
While a DM can withhold resting once or twice for story purposes, most DMs who generally disallows resting will have players complaining.
In short that is not the reality. It is the theorycraft since it is not the norm.
That has not been my experience. In 3.5/PF game I participated that went on for more than a few sessions, the full casters dominated. And why not, when you can summon monsters that are almost as good or better than the melee's but whose hit points don't matter.
So, no one has fun playing Pathfinder any more?
I still quite enjoy the system, but make no mistake as I fully believe that if I play a melee/non-magic class I'll need to optimize the heck out of it to be worth a salt in the later levels. I have a 10th level Rogue/Swashbuckler/Swordsage (yes, from ToB) in a Pathfinder campaign but I need so many feats and synergy to be useful at that level that's I'd say 75% of my mechanics comes from non-PF sources.
So the problem seems to be that casters have too much access to wands/scrolls/items. These dilute the 'flavour' of magic being supreme, so these are what is need to be dialled back; not the spells.
|
So the problem seems to be that casters have too much access to wands/scrolls/items. These dilute the 'flavour' of magic being supreme, so these are what is need to be dialled back; not the spells.
Thats what I am seeing from the article. Question is can they achieve some type of compromise between playing styles? People seem quite adamant about how they play the game. I can only say good luck to WOTC.
That's what 4th Edition got right, wands being an extension or foci of the wizard, like Dresden Files. Rather than being a item of it's own power. Thus wiards didn't have to carry around golf bags of the things.
Of course, some people might like the versatility of 'spells in a can' wands.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So the problem seems to be that casters have too much access to wands/scrolls/items. These dilute the 'flavour' of magic being supreme, so these are what is need to be dialled back; not the spells.
I agree with this. People never complained about, for example, knock, "taking away the rogue's job" before 3e becasue the wizard might only be able to cast that spell once, and would save it for an emergency. Once the wizard could buy/make 50 charges of knock, suddenly he can do it at every locked door the party finds and the rogue is thinking, "why do I even have skill ranks?"
The solution is not to nerf the spells, it's to hold back the endless supply of scrolls and wand charges.
Try playing a wizard in a "no magic item shop/no item creation feat" game and see if they're still godlike - they are a lot less so when all they have to rely on is their personal spell selection and 2 freebies a level in their book.
I'm very much in the "elevate martials, don't nerf casters" camp. Let a 17th level barbarian cut a mountain in half with his axe. Let a fighter cut his foe so hard that the enemy's children have scars. I'm cool with that.
The easiest way to keep spell casters from making other characters superfluous is simply to remove those spells like heroism, iron body, knock, mage armor, detect secret doors, detect snares and pits, etc.
If the caster can't cast such spells, then there remains a need for other characters.
The problem with that is it means that you need to have a specific class to fulfill those roles. Certainly some Summons Spells could be weaker.
While a DM can withhold resting once or twice for story purposes, most DMs who generally disallows resting will have players complaining.
I am going to have to disagree. Of course I could be lucky enough that players realize the consequences of their actions.
I will also that at high levels there are spells like Mage's Magnificent Mansion to allow the caster to rest without being bothered most of the time. At lower levels there is rope trick.That has not been my experience. In 3.5/PF game I participated that went on for more than a few sessions, the full casters dominated. And why not, when you can summon monsters that are almost as good or better than the melee's but whose hit points don't matter.
Whether or not class X dominates depends on the GM, and the players. Summon monster, even with augment summon added is not as good as a fighter(insert other melee class as needed) that is in the party, if it is decently built.
Most fighters can fight things of an equal CR in melee combat, and summoning spells summon things below the party's CR so I don't see how someone thing that is CR=APL-2 or APL-3 is keeping up with the fighter in terms of damage output.
The easiest way to keep spell casters from making other characters superfluous is simply to remove those spells like heroism, iron body, knock, mage armor, detect secret doors, detect snares and pits, etc.
If the caster can't cast such spells, then there remains a need for other characters.
Mage Armor?
|
The easiest way to keep spell casters from making other characters superfluous is simply to remove those spells like heroism, iron body, knock, mage armor, detect secret doors, detect snares and pits, etc.
If the caster can't cast such spells, then there remains a need for other characters.
So ... now every party has to have a rogue? What if your group wants to play two fighters, a wizard and a cleric. Now you are just SOL on traps and secret doors.
the idea that every class must be unique and no class should step on the toes of any other is ...silly in my opinion and frankly not supported by the history of the game. You might as well not allow any character other than fighters to "fight" bnecause that after all is their purpose.
Now in D&D next and Pathfider 2
Fighters --can only fight
clerics ---can only heal
rogues --can only sneak and disarm traps
wizards -- can only cast spells that don't relate to fighting, healing, or anything a rogue does
Like I said...silly...but if you want that as your model go for it...it just won't be D&D or at least not very exciting D&D.
I don't have a problem with needing to have a specific class.
Cool, some people don't though. The number of threads on this board about not having a cleric for healing is more than a handful, despite it being proven that a party doesn't need a healbot. Some of the spells you listed are not as good as a rogue, yes they make an adequate substitute, but wizards don't have that many spells to blow on trying to one-up a rogue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mage Armor?Mage armor helps to obviate the need for a fighter type to protect the mage while he is casting. It encourages wizards and sorcerers to engage in melee combat.
Come on now, this is just silly talk.
If the wizard wants to cast mage armor and start flailing about with his staff then let him.It's the same as the fighter trying to use Use Magic Device and zap stuff with a wand.
Again this mentality that this class must do this and that class must do that is not what this game is about. That line of thinking comes from computer games, not the historical rules of DnD that fostered your imagination.
DnD is not supposed to be a set of rules that regimented what you had to do, or how you had to play if you wrote down a specific class on your character sheet. THAT mentality is what brought us the obnoxiousness of roles, like striker, controller, tank, etc.
Now the concept of limiting magic items that replicate spell casting (scrolls and wands) isn't that terrible on paper. But I think it is already controlled by the DM well enough, simply by how much treasure you hand out. Scrolls and Wands are very expensive once you start getting into higher level spells. A 9th level character with a wand of fireballs (9th level-9d6) has 1/4 his entire wealth (if you are militant about the WBL tables-which I am not)invested in that wand. And when it's depleted it's gone! For the same price the melee can have a weapon with +3 worth of bonuses and it never runs out.
I don't see the problem here.
My apologies Ross, I'll try to tone it down.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what you do to the Wizard it comes down to the DM and pacing. 3e and then 4e attempted to fix 'in rules' a 15 min adventuring day with rules by upping the number of spells (or making unlimited) and making it (far too)easy for spells to be cast in melee. May be more spells would have been ok, but the ease of casting in situations that would have spelt death for a Magic-User was too far. I still say wrong approach to the 'problem' as the ball was ALWAYS in the DM's court to address this. Now I can design an adventure that causes the fighters to have little to no hp's left after the first encounter of each day, should we now call fighters the 15 min adventuring limit and say double or triple the hit dice of fighters?
DM decide pacing full stop, layer several 600+ page books of rules on the game and it still won't matter.
Bring back the Glass Cannon - Arcane casters as D&D was meant to have. I like the idea that they are creeping in the idea that Casting + Melee = Bad Idea, but they seem to be tip-toeing about the issue. Not far enough - reword and update mechanically the 1e/2e rule of "If you get hit/disrupted goodbye spell". The rule is simple and clear. I have this sinking feeling that 5e may attempt to please everyone and we all know how that usually ends up.
5e get a spine and make the hard calls - tough love and all that.
Ravings of an old time 1e Mage...
|
|
Not to mention that scrolls and consumable magic items need to be bought or created both of which are under the control of the GM...and creating magic takes time. One thing I have learned as a player and GM is that if a GM is not willing to hand wave time, most players are not willing to waste time creating a mountain of consumable magic items.
"Sure you could sit here for a couple of days creating scrolls...but...you probably won't be able to pick up the trail of the BBG if you let it go cold"
or
"Sure you could sit here for a couple of days creating magic items but what do you think that orc horde will be doing to its hostages while you are doing that...oh the humanity!"
Both of these result in no item creation 99% of the time.
Mage Armor?Mage armor helps to obviate the need for a fighter type to protect the mage while he is casting. It encourages wizards and sorcerers to engage in melee combat.
What if the fighter does not want to be stuck babysitting the mage? He might want to be an archer.
No wizard or sorcerer I know engages in melee, not if he wants to live anyway. Well maybe at level 1-3 if he has to, but most of the time they use cantrips, crossbows, or slings while staying at the back. Personally I don't even use touch spells because I don't want to be that close to anything that might want to kill me.
They(casters) use spells like mirror image, blur, and expeditious retreat to make sure that people don't get to them. They don't use them so they can run up and fight, and hopefully not get hit.
Using mage armor to go into a fight is a playstyle thing, and not a system error. It is also not one I have seen or heard of being used commonly in any forum or in real life.
|
I don't think DE was saying no rest should be allowed ever, but "resting on demand" should not be something that is assumed to happen
Exactly...
While I make good use of random encounter tables when and where it is appropriate to the adventure; I allow a party to safely rest whenever and wherever it is safe for them to do so...
But this is dictated by the adventure at hand and not because the party's mage ran out of spells...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using mage armor to go into a fight is a playstyle thing, and not a system error. It is also not one I have seen or heard of being used commonly in any forum or in real life.
That said, there is practically no reason, at higher levels, to go without Mage Armor while adventuring. A 25 gp scroll (or 12.5 gp if you're packing Scribe Scroll) will net you a full hour of +4 AC for you no-armor characters. Realistically, very few dungeon crawls involve more than an hour of adventuring. A pittance of gold for a very noticeable up-tick in survivability just in case you do stray into melee.
Not to mention that scrolls and consumable magic items need to be bought or created both of which are under the control of the GM...and creating magic takes time.
Magic item creation is not under the control of the GM, any more than spellcasting is under control of the GM. If the PC has the requisite feat(s) and can spend the money, it can be crafted. Sure, it takes a little time, but not much. And if you're the sort of GM who purposefully comes up with ways to prevent your players from having the downtime they require to get use out of the abilities they invested in as they leveled, then a big thumbs-down for you!
One thing I have learned as a player and GM is that if a GM is not willing to hand wave time, most players are not willing to waste time creating a mountain of consumable magic items.
"Sure you could sit here for a couple of days creating scrolls...but...you probably won't be able to pick up the trail of the BBG if you let it go cold"
or
"Sure you could sit here for a couple of days creating magic items but what do you think that orc horde will be doing to its hostages while you are doing that...oh the humanity!"
Both of these result in no item creation 99% of the time.
And that's fine, when it makes sense in the story. But most campaigns involve significant stretches of downtime, and those should be used to the fullest.
Remember, selecting item creation feats involves a significant expenditure of character resources. It is terribly unfair to the player if you purposefully deny him the chance to make use of the abilities he selected. If the story dictates that he cannot use those abilities at the moment, that's fine. But if you dictate that the story dictates that he can't use them because you don't like crafting, then why did you even let him pick those abilities up in the first place? You might as well house-rule them out of your game.
A 9th level character with a wand of fireballs (9th level-9d6) has 1/4 his entire wealth (if you are militant about the WBL tables-which I am not)invested in that wand. And when it's depleted it's gone! For the same price the melee can have a weapon with +3 worth of bonuses and it never runs out.
I don't see the problem here.
I do, and I'll lay it out for you.
We'll assume a Medium progression rate. I know many home groups play using the Fast track, but we'll play it conservative just so you can't counter with, "But you calculated that using Fast progression!"
With a Medium progression rate, a typical party should face roughly 20 equal-CR encounters over the course of one level.
Now, practically-speaking, that never happens. Encounters tend to ride high on the CR scale in order to challenge players, and significant chunks of experience come from non-combat encounters, story rewards, and other sources. It's reasonable, then, to assume that, using Medium progression, a party can expect roughly 10 combat encounters per level.
It's also reasonable to assume that a Wizard packing a Wand of Fireball will make use of that wand twice per combat encounter. Sometimes he won't need it at all, because he'll have his own personal arsenal of spells at his command (many of which are stronger than Fireball, if he's level 9). Sometimes he'll use it maybe three or four times, if dealing with multiple tough monsters and particularly later in his career. But two is a reasonable average. This means that his wand will last him 25 combat encounters, give or take.
If you'll recall, I noted a reasonable expectation of 10 combat encounters per level, so we now know that the Wizard's Wand of Fireball will get him through a good 2.5 levels - or, in other words, probably through to level 12 (since it's very doubtful he'd have crafted the wand at the very beginning of 9th level, given the mutiple-weeks crafting time).
Over the course of those 2.5 levels, the Wizard's equipment value will have increased to 108,000 gp. His wand's value, expressed as a percentage of total character wealth, has been halved by the time he exhausts it. Meanwhile, the Fighter is now 12th level as well, and needs to upgrade his sword to a +5 combined bonus in order to stay optimal, not to mention his armor and possibly shield (and gods help you if you wield a double weapon or dual-wield)!
The idea that a +3 sword lasts forever is a short-sighted myth. In a world of static characters who never leveled up, you'd be right. But that's not what D&D is. The reality is that you constantly have to reinvest money in your equipment in order to maintain its effectiveness in combat. If you purchase a +1 sword and never upgrade it (or never find a new one; for the purposes of a wealth-by-level argument, they're interchangeable) you will be significantly under-powered by the time you reach level 20! Your +3 sword is good enough for a few levels, just like the Wand of Fireball, but eventually will need to be upgraded or exchanged for something more powerful.
The smart spellcaster understands this, and is not afraid to invest his character wealth in powerful consumable items. The word "consumable" has a negative connotation in D&D because far too few players appreciate the limited nature of an adventuring career and the impact that experience gain has on equipment relevance.
You cannot analyze issues like this superficially, as you have done. "Swords last forever and wands don't!" is an incomplete way of examining the issue. It means nothing until you place it within the context of a typical campaign, and then you begin to see exactly how heavily the game's math favors spellcasters.
By the way, in case you were curious, if we had used the Fast progression, the Wand of Fireballs would last more than 4 levels, dropping the PC's investment of personal wealth on it to 10%. The Fighter's investment remains the same.
Oh, and if the Wizard loses his wand? He's still a full-fledged character with an arsenal of his own spells capable of personally turning the tide of multiple combat (and non-combat!) encounters every day. If the Fighter loses his sword, armor, or shield (or worse, all three) he is severely hampered and cannot hold his own against the game's math.
All published adventures written for PfRPG (as opposed to 3.5) assume the Medium advancement track.
All published adventures written for PfRPG (as opposed to 3.5) assume the Medium advancement track.
Whoops! My bad. Corrected.
|
You cannot analyze issues like this superficially, as you have done. "Swords last forever and wands don't!" is an incomplete way of examining the issue. It means nothing until you place it within the context of a typical campaign, and then you begin to see exactly how heavily the game's math favors spellcasters.
Unlike wands, swords are typically upgraded, meaning the initial investment is never lost. A fighter using WBL will carry gear of that value.
Consumables are not upgraded. Once they go away, that wealth is permanently lost. If the wizard is relying heavily on consumables, total available resources at any point in time will be significantly less than the fighters. This gap will only increase as time passes.
|
|
Thats a nice write up Mr. Betts. I think the point of the high level fighter losing all his gear getting bent really sums it up or it should. Now from what I read the designers plan to flatten the progression math to try and end the magic item Christmas tree effect. So I dont think 5E is going to play out the same. Any ideas how a this might look going forward?
You cannot analyze issues like this superficially, as you have done. "Swords last forever and wands don't!" is an incomplete way of examining the issue. It means nothing until you place it within the context of a typical campaign, and then you begin to see exactly how heavily the game's math favors spellcasters.Unlike wands, swords are typically upgraded, meaning the initial investment is never lost. A fighter using WBL will carry gear of that value.
Consumables are not upgraded. Once they go away, that wealth is permanently lost. If the wizard is relying heavily on consumables, total available resources at any point in time will be significantly less than the fighters. This gap will only increase as time passes.
That's simply not true. In order to stay at the top of his potential, a Wizard probably has to invest 35% of his character wealth in consumables. Less if he crafts a lot. A Fighter needs to invest a similar amount in his +whatever gear (weapons, armor, and shield). The difference is that the game assumes the Fighter has access to that gear just to compete in the climbing math-war! The game does not assume that the Wizard has access to a pool of consumables, because the Wizard is incredibly effective even without them! They're just icing on the cake!
You are right in the sense that the Fighter never loses his investment. But, practically speaking, that doesn't matter at all. He still needs to spend huge piles of money that the Wizard does not have to. Sure, if he buys that +1 sword for 2,000 gp at 3rd level, he'll never lose that investment. But unless he invests another 100,000 gp or so into that sword over the course of his adventuring career, the fact that he still has his original +1 sword won't count for much. The Ancient Red Dragon will laugh at his missing +4 bonus to attack.
Thats a nice write up Mr. Betts. I think the point of the high level fighter losing all his gear getting bent really sums it up or it should. Now from what I read the designers plan to flatten the progression math to try and end the magic item Christmas tree effect. So I dont think 5E is going to play out the same. Any ideas how a this might look going forward?
No idea. We'll know more tomorrow, and the picture will start to come together over the coming months.
Scott, can I ask if you thought the Item creation rules were better or worse back in 3E when it cost XP as well as gold? It sorta delayed the fighters can't have nice things problem, but only because it took item crafters longer to get there if you see what I mean.
Scott, can I ask if you thought the Item creation rules were better or worse back in 3E when it cost XP as well as gold? It sorta delayed the fighters can't have nice things problem, but only because it took item crafters longer to get there if you see what I mean.
I disliked item creation xp costs, because they discouraged individual party members from taking on the responsibility of party crafter. The character is already making a significant investiture of resources just in selecting the magic item creation feats. Making the character sacrifice his own experience for the sake of his fellow party members' equipment is just adding insult to injury.
The game plays more smoothly when its underlying math assumes that a party of adventurers will have the capacity to enchant their own magical gear when necessary.