Do CR's really assume the wizard goes nova?
No, but it ought to assume spellcasters will cast a spell every round (since that's what they've done in my 20 years of experience). Fights only last like 3 rounds anyway, so that's still a heck of a lot of fights.
"Good support character" is a way to say "Bad lead character". Don't get me wrong - I love playing characters that aid their companions with buffs, debuffs, cures, etc. In fact, I wish more character types had access to party-helping tools. (e.g. really good ways for melee characters to use shields to benefit adjacent allies, or melee induced debuffs that lower saving throws.) But if a fair number of a characters combat actions aren't spent adversely effecting the enemy, you're probably not contributing very much.I would argue that giving the rest of the party +your level to hit and damage (I think that's what it is, off the top of my head) to all their attacks is likely a pretty good contribution, especially if you do it once and it lasts a while after that.
Yes, granting a large bonus to hit/damage is an excellent contribution. However, as you said (and I highlighted) it shouldn't take up all your actions!
The entire system is based on maximized versitility over a 15 minute workday. . .Stop and rest for the wizards to get their power back whenever they run out. . .
IMHO D&D (all editions), Pathfinder, and a number of copycat games have all fallen behind the technology curve of RPGs in one important area. They still use the in-game day as the primary measure of game pacing.
I would love to see the next version decouple those by defining some metagame unit of time that is used for recovering "daily" abilities. Some measure like, "At the end of each chapter, a period of rest or recovery allows the party to regain spells, HP, and other abilities. A chapter should consist of 3-5 encounters, depending on the difficulty of the encounters."
Short-time example:
Let's say the party is in The Caves of Chaos, bashing heads room after room. After fighting the Dorks in the first room, the party hears more Dorks coming, who attack immediately. Then, entering the second room to make sure all of the Dorks are dead, they find that a trap has been armed, "Nobody move!" while it is disarmed (or it goes off). Escaping the trapped room, the party then encounters Boss Dork, who fights for a couple rounds until his Minion Dorks no longer have the upper hand, and then flees into the caves, threatening revenge. After the Minion Dorks are defeated there is a brief respite; the party rests a while to collect loot and bind their wounds, recovering abilities before moving onward. Elapsed time in-game, 15 minutes.
Long-time example:
Setting off across the Desert of Dismay, the party remains on high alert 24-7. Day 3, Dorks attacked in the night. Day 5, we've seen more Dork tracks and followed them to their lair; from the behavior of the Dorks we found there it is apparent that a Boss Dork has moved into the area and plans to attack the Village of Vulnerable. Day 6, crossing the Raging River proved perilous, and we continue on our way. Day 8, we discover that Boss Dork attacking the village, and destroy his Minion Dorks, but not before he escapes with his prisoners. After we bury the dead villagers, we sleep indoors for the first time since setting out on our journey, taking time for cooked food, fresh water, and much-needed baths. (recovery time!)
I don't cast spells every round, and to do so for the sake of casting is wasteful. Every fight has a point where the party assumes it is just mopping up. There should not be any casting after that point if the player is being tactical.
Do CR's really assume the wizard goes nova?No, but it ought to assume spellcasters will cast a spell every round (since that's what they've done in my 20 years of experience). Fights only last like 3 rounds anyway, so that's still a heck of a lot of fights.
Wow. Our battles usually last 5-10 rounds.
Well, I guess I should have been more explicit.
Fights only last about 3 meaningful rounds, at which point you're done casting. Mopping up might take longer, but the fight is effectively over.
My fights normally only last 3 actual rounds, but there is another thread about that.
|
But do note, it's burning two spells over two rounds just to get one the second round a spell you don't know. While I suppose there are times when the party REALLY needs Make Whole (or some other spell no other sorc would ever carry), this is hardly a game breaker.
It is only a 3rd level spell. A minor rod of quicken makes it a swift action.
In addition to Paragon Surge you also have the Ring of Spell Knowledge and pages of spell knowledge. The rings can be dynamically set to any arcane spell the user has experianced or has knowledge of (including new spells they witness being cast). Non-class arcane spells require a ring capable of holding a spell of the next higher level.
A sorcerer with only a few rings can changes his spells available more rapidly than a wizard, and at a lower total cost. (You only need a single ring of each level as opposed to purchasing large numbers of scrolls and paying the inscription cost for each spell.)
Pages of spell knowledge are less flexible but cheaper for single spells.
|
A wizard who goes nova in the first combat of the day and then complains would get no sympathy from anyone I've ever gamed with. There's a reasonable understanding that their power pendulum swings a lot more than anyone elses.
Yeah, I gotta say; Casters who expect a 15 minute adventuring day are going to have problems when they don't get it, but I've only ever played with a group who would tolerate that stuff once. And it only works in a dungeon, without time-sensitive plot. (Basically with no plot at all, just the dungeon).
If you rest a dozen times on the way up the wizard's 3 story tower? Well, you likely missed the fight with the BBEG, and maybe you find a little note taunting you for your failure.
It is only a 3rd level spell. A minor rod of quicken makes it a swift action.
In addition to Paragon Surge you also have the Ring of Spell Knowledge and pages of spell knowledge. The rings can be dynamically set to any arcane spell the user has experianced or has knowledge of (including new spells they witness being cast). Non-class arcane spells require a ring capable of holding a spell of the next higher level.
A sorcerer with only a few rings can changes his spells available more rapidly than a wizard, and at a lower total cost. (You only need a single ring of each level as opposed to purchasing large numbers of scrolls and paying the inscription cost for each spell.)
Pages of spell knowledge are less flexible but cheaper for single spells.
I dunno about the rings. I don't see any mention of the ability to empty the ring so you can put another spell in it. You sure you're not stuck with the first spell you teach it?
Looks like you guys have pretty much settled on a tier system.
Do you have any recommendations for putting together a balanced party?
I play different spellcasters differently. My wizards, clerics and druids are normally very stingy with spells. I've had wizards who simply sat out battles when they figured the rest of the party could handle it. My druid is an archer specialist and does enough damage with a bow that she can get away with not casting.
My sorcerers tend to cast every round, even if they are just using a cantrip. I generally play my sorcerers as being so tuned to magic that they don't really think of non-magical solutions. They are sort of "well, that sort of looks like a nail to me, so I better get out my hammer."
There are variations of course. My witch may cast one spell per encounter, but he will use his hexes liberally.
In general, if your clerics, wizards and druids are casting every round, you'll be looking for a place to hole up and rest a lot more than I like when I play.
|
|
Looks like you guys have pretty much settled on a tier system.
Do you have any recommendations for putting together a balanced party?
There's some contention about which classes would go in which tier, such as the Cavalier (which has a bit of a hard time in enclosed spaces, and no option to get rid of the mount for other stuff.)
But Basically I would suggest (from my tiers) cutting down on the number of tiers you use. The bigger the gap, the more noticeable it will be.
If you have Tiers 1-6 in a party, it really shows, and the tier 4-6 guys might feel like they make much less important contributions to the party, unless your 1-3 guys are going out of their way to make them feel useful. If you only use tiers 1-3 it should be a bit closer, for instance. The power jump is more from 2-3; and the jump from 1-2 is more about flexibility. Tier 1 characters are more flexible than tier 2, but the power level is pretty similar. Tier 3 is a bit weaker than 2&1, but generally alot more flexible (but similar powered) than tier 4. Tier 4 are close in power to tier 3, but their schtick is useful less often. 5 and 6 are kindof pathetic.
And I would say (as a general rule): don't let anyone play rogues or monks or unless your top tier is 4 (in which case you need to keep that in mind when designing your adventures).
But they are rough guidelines. Someone with alot of system mastery could make a barbarian or fighter that keeps up with a meduim-system-mastery-built paladin; or a rogue who can almost keep up with a fighter. And a couple of the monk archetypes put them around fighter or ranger power level.
If you're going to have low tier characters be played, it helps to have very proficient players playing and building them.
I'd advise against letting new players make rogues or monks unless you're running a really weak tiered game; or it's a really experienced player making the monk or rogue (and even then, I would want to avoid the tier 1&2 characters).
If someone wants to build a rogue, try steering them to rogue-like archetypes of a higher tiered class like a ranger or a bard.
For monks, steer them toward more useful martial classes. An eastern skinned magus could work quite well, for instance. With a little work, again, ranger could do it (afterall, flurry of blows is just a crappier two weapon fighting). And maybe even paladin could do it with the right options.
Do you have any recommendations for putting together a balanced party?But Basically I would suggest . . . cutting down on the number of tiers you use. The bigger the gap, the more noticeable it will be.
Exactly!
One of the only reasons I find discussions of power level to be useful is that I think it's important not to mix high-powered with low-powered characters within a party. Whether I'm playing or GMing, I actively seek to have my groups be of similar power level during character creation.
The Skull & Shackles campaign I just started GMing has five PCs: Magus, Inquisitor, Bard, Gunslinger, & Monk. In some taxonomies the monk would be an outlier, but I'm quite happy with the power distribution in this group. Also, I'm very happy that everyone in the party has decent defenses and rolls d20 to strike enemies for damage. It means that they're all "playing the same game" in a way, unlike a group with a wizard/fighter divide who can't decide if they want to start combat as close as possible or at a range of 600'.
|
|
[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p4z9?Ring-of-Spell-Storing-Unintended-Effects#5]Ring of Spell Knowledge Unintended Effects[/url]
I noticed that RAW, Rings of Spell Knowledge allow for an arcane spontaneous caster (like a Sorcerer) to add divine spells to his spells known at the same level as in-class spells, but out of class arcane spells are at +1 level.
Also, when building a party it depends a lot on the level of play. Most tier systems are based on level 20, which is when the spellcasters are at the biggest advantage relative to the martial.
However, at level 8 or so, everyone can still participate. Monks are having some serious problems contributing by this level, and rogues might be beginning to have some trouble as well.
