Wizards screwed in conversion


Advice

51 to 100 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sczarni

this is one reason I said all wizards, rather than all spell casters =P I'm pretty sure all druids can handle things fine.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Norgrim Malgus wrote:
What is CoDzilla? I'm not up on some of the lingo such as that and BBEG.

Cleric-or-Druid-zilla. Named for the way said classes tended to be highly versatile and dominating in combat, to the point of overshadowing other classes.

Big Bad Evil Guy is the acronym for the main villian of a campaign.

Lol, thank you, now i can scratch my head a bit less when i read this stuff ;)


Why don't you provide evidence to support your claim.

A party of nothing but casters will eventually fall into a situation without their abilities. Unless the GM is nice enough to allow their players to have a 15 minute workday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate to be a negative Nancy, however I do have to say that a group of 4 Clerics, or 4 Druids or any mix of Clerics and Druids could definitively survive 1-20 in 3.5.

At levels 1-3 they are wonderful and they get better as they get access to things like divine meta-magic and better and longer wild-shapes.

Honestly I do not have access to 3.5 material right now as I am at work, however please understand this is not an attack, just a set of observations based off of two things.

Anecdotal evidence, and logic.

If fighter A can do X damage and has Y hit-points at level one, he has to stop doing damage before Y=0.

If Cleric/Druid B can do X-Z damage and has Y-C hit-points at level one, he also has to stop before (Y-C) = 0. However Cleric/Druid B has the ability to extend their activity level via restoring health via spells or preventing damage via spells.

This means that Fighter A at level one will only outdo Cleric/Druid B if the penalty to damage a Cleric/Druid takes is not offset by the gain to hit-points by expending their limited resource of spells.

I would argue that with semi-intelligent use of spells a Cleric/Druid will have to rest less than a Fighter at the same level.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Why don't you provide evidence to support your claim.

Because you are clearly not interested in it, and I have no interest in a pointless argument with an unchangable mind.


Codzilla can definitely make it from 1 to 20. Clerics are not combat monsters any more*, but they do have a lot of utility if built well, and with summoning they can make life bad for the bad guys.

Druids + animal companions can deal out a good amount of DPR. On top of that they can also summon things, and their utility and battlefield control is not bad either.

Now if they try to handle things the way a traditional party would then of course there would be issues. One of the cleric can pump UMD to be able to use the occasional arcane spell when needed. I am failing to see how they won't make it.

*That does not mean they suck at fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair Azaelas Fayth did say "They wouldn't survive the ~10 15+ round encounters that typically make up a single quest in my games."

I will have to translate that to mean his players can't make it work unless he is willing to tell us how he runs his games.

I would have at least one of the casters focused on summons. A cleric can handle utility, and the druid can handle DPR.

PS: Assuming casters are casting spells every round is also not a good idea. Good players know how to conserve spells, and don't cast for the sake of casting, so don't assume that a caster only have 3 spells available at level 1 means they are only useful for 3 rounds of combat. That is player fail, not class fail.

Grand Lodge

I am playing a Pathfinder Wizard and I have to say it is the most powerful class and it would whoop the 3.5 wizard 7 out of ten times only cause of the spell changes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

My Holy Vindicator in training cleric managed to get to the final battle of Among the Living without casting a single spell. How this would have changed had the other characters been traded out for clerics I can't be sure, but I am confident that he would still have had reserves remaining.

Sczarni

I haven't seen any evidence anywhere in this thread.

So the problem with PF Wizards is that they have too many skill points and can no longer use them to improve their concentration checks? As far as too many skill points is concerned, all I can say is that you need to pick some new skills. I recommend Fly-- it wasn't a skill in 3.5 and Wizards get good use out of it.

For concentration checks, all I can offer is to stay out of combat. Mirror Image, Invisibility, Wall of Stone-- whatever works. Maybe some of those extra skill points could go into Stealth (to keep the enemy from spotting you) or Bluff (to pretend you're not a high-priority target).


Using Gygax's recommendations for 3.5 a typical Adventure/Quest should be 10 encounters 15+ rounds each. This includes 2-3 encounters around APL-1, 6-7 encounters at APL and APL+1, and 1 Boss Encounter above APL+3(or 4).
None of the encounters are against a single creature. There should be at least 2 enemies in each. A boss encounter should include at minimum 3 enemies 1 of which is 1 CR above APL.

A Party should be able to handle these in a single adventuring day in some manner.

@TOZ: You might could change my mind. It is just you have to provide an example that uses the above as a basis of a workday and survive at level 1.

If a party can't handle this situation then your assertion is wrong. As they can't survive anything that comes their way.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, let me ask something in all honesty here. If every class has a role to play in determing party success over the course of that party's careers, what is actually the fundamental problem with a single class.

By that, what i mean to ask is that if each class contributes in different ways, is that not what makes for a great dynamic between players and their characters?

I love playing wizards, it is just what i enjoy playing as a preference. People love playing clerics, rogues etc. As a wizard, in character, i have to acknowledge, no more than that, i have to owe my success as a powerful spellcaster to the melee types for protecting my fragile little self until i get to the point of reasonable self-sufficiency. Just as i owe my success to the healer for keeping me alive, just as the melee types owe their healers and so on.

A GM should be allowing for varying types of encounters that allow certain classes to shine. Not everything needs to be an encounter that my wizard can hurt or control, just like not every encounter needs to be set up that always allows for a Rogues backstab bonus. These are just a few examples only so please keep that in mind.

If i had one complaint about classes, it would be the ones that step on anothers Shtick. As an example, an oracle with the Bones Mystery blew my mind, it did so because my wizard specializes in Necromancy. My initial impression was that, Oh Look, a new book with a new class that makes my necromancer look like a novice!

Someone playing a fighter or other melee type may feel the same about the Magus, i don't know.

I love most of the classes that i have seen, but i don't think that, all things being equal, any one class truly outshines another. I have not had a great deal of PF experience yet and hopefully i won't run into what some of these concerns i see posted at all.

Hope some of this made some kind of sense.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Using Gygax's recommendations for 3.5 a typical Adventure/Quest should be 10 encounters 15+ rounds each.

Azaelas, where is this recommendation from? I do not believe it is what Paizo uses when considering balance concerns.

Under those assumptions, I would say the party is still viable, but not overwhelmingly so.


Gygax wrote this in an Article for a Gaming Magazine when 3.x was first released.

It is considered to be the Base Line for a Party to see if they are powerful enough to handle anything coming their way.


Eugene Nelson wrote:
I am playing a Pathfinder Wizard and I have to say it is the most powerful class and it would whoop the 3.5 wizard 7 out of ten times only cause of the spell changes.

Uh, what spell changes are in the PF wizards favor? The vast majority of changes to spells were nerfs.

Quote:
Using Gygax's recommendations for 3.5 a typical Adventure/Quest should be 10 encounters 15+ rounds each.

Why on earth would anyone care what Gygax's recommendations for 3x were, and why would that be at all relevant in this discussion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Gygax wrote this in an Article for a Gaming Magazine when 3.x was first released.

It is considered to be the Base Line for a Party to see if they are powerful enough to handle anything coming their way.

lol, considered by whom? Nobody I know gives a rip about how Gygax ran games, nor do we really enjoy any of his modules, without heavy modification. He had a vastly different playstyle than 3x or PF.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Using Gygax's recommendations for 3.5 a typical Adventure/Quest should be 10 encounters 15+ rounds each. This includes 2-3 encounters around APL-1, 6-7 encounters at APL and APL+1, and 1 Boss Encounter above APL+3(or 4).

None of the encounters are against a single creature. There should be at least 2 enemies in each. A boss encounter should include at minimum 3 enemies 1 of which is 1 CR above APL.

A Party should be able to handle these in a single adventuring day in some manner.

@TOZ: You might could change my mind. It is just you have to provide an example that uses the above as a basis of a workday and survive at level 1.

If a party can't handle this situation then your assertion is wrong. As they can't survive anything that comes their way.

So, just to be clear the criteria stipulated are as follows:

1.) 10 Encounters

2.) Each Encounter is a minimum of 15 rounds.

3.) Encounters split from APL-1 to APL +3/4 as you described above.

4.) No single creature fights, boss fights have minimum of three creatures.

I then have a few questions.

Question 1.) Do all of these Encounters have to be combat Encounters or does your baseline include Social Encounters, Puzzles, and Traps as well?

Question 2.) When the minimum is stipulated as 15 rounds for each encounter this means that 1 round is where each creature involved has received one set of actions, so each creature would receive a minimum of 15 sets of actions correct?

If you could address the above I will take a look at this.


He wrote the article but it was on things he discovered were ways to test a Party for their ability to be optimized as a whole.

It is considered to be the basis of testing a group of builds' effectiveness when used as a team.

Might I also state that it was based on research from watching and talking to over a thousand GMs WORLD WIDE.

That said. He had a good mind for rule design, but a horrible mind for writing stories.

@Covent:

1) Those are only the Trap/Terrain/Puzzles/Combat encounters.

2) The Rounds are 15 overall the full course of battle. It should also be noted that the number includes the surprise rounds.

Also remember that it is also assumed that the NPCs/Monsters should be cooperative. So the Boss Encounter could be a group of Tucker's Kobolds.


Dotting.


Covent wrote:


1.) 10 Encounters

2.) Each Encounter is a minimum of 15 rounds.

3.) Encounters split from APL-1 to APL +3/4 as you described above.

4.) No single creature fights, boss fights have minimum of three creatures.

The test is absurd, and self-refuting. The idea is to prove a team is 'optimized,' but the most optimized team might(probably will) reduce the number of rounds in a given combat, thereby disqualifying themselves by the very test criteria that's supposed to prove their optimization? lol

Quote:
That said. He had a good mind for rule design, but a horrible mind for writing stories.

I don't think he had a good mind for either. The 3e team produced a product that was vastly superior his original, even when lashed to all the 'sacred cows' the publisher make them drag along.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

He wrote the article but it was on things he discovered were ways to test a Party for their ability to be optimized as a whole.

It is considered to be the basis of testing a group of builds' effectiveness when used as a team.

Might I also state that it was based on research from watching and talking to over a thousand GMs WORLD WIDE.

That said. He had a good mind for rule design, but a horrible mind for writing stories.

@Covent:

1) Those are only the Trap/Terrain/Puzzles/Combat encounters.

2) The Rounds are 15 overall the full course of battle. It should also be noted that the number includes the surprise rounds.

Also remember that it is also assumed that the NPCs/Monsters should be cooperative. So the Boss Encounter could be a group of Tucker's Kobolds.

sounds rather spartan to me, but that set up sounds wonderful of an etrian odyssey-style world (you know, the kind that you better have a few backup characters handy, because you WILL die).

I'm sure the party has a rather large extended family consisting of eerily similar trained-and-looking cousins.


The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.

And you have to remember that Gygax was responsible for the Rule part of the Original D&D which was adding Magic and Dragons into Chainmail. A game meant to represent Historical Warfare.

@AndIMustMask: I am notorious for pulling absolutely no punches.

Most of my campaigns carry a no original character will survive warning. Anyone who can get one to the end without needing a Resurrection will gain an advantage in any future campaign of mine they play in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Edit: Gygax's responsibility for the rules ended around the start of 2nd Edition if I understand correctly.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Gygax wrote this in an Article for a Gaming Magazine when 3.x was first released.

It is considered to be the Base Line for a Party to see if they are powerful enough to handle anything coming their way.

It is not the baseline I am accustomed to, nor the one Paizo bases their design decisions on.

A group of four clerics or druids will be successful in the average assumption of four equal CR encounters a day, or the variation of more numerous, lower CR encounters, or fewer encounters of a higher CR. They will most certainly reach 20th level in such a game.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.

And you have to remember that Gygax was responsible for the Rule part of the Original D&D which was adding Magic and Dragons into Chainmail. A game meant to represent Historical Warfare.

@Azaelas Fayth

Could you please address the two questions I asked in my earlier post.

I only ask due to the fact that it is obvious you are reading and responding to this thread, and I would like to give you a clear cognizant answer with numbers, rather than my own knee jerk reaction.


Covent wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.

And you have to remember that Gygax was responsible for the Rule part of the Original D&D which was adding Magic and Dragons into Chainmail. A game meant to represent Historical Warfare.

@Azaelas Fayth

Could you please address the two questions I asked in my earlier post.

I only ask due to the fact that it is obvious you are reading and responding to this thread, and I would like to give you a clear cognizant answer with numbers, rather than my own knee jerk reaction.

I edited my earlier post.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Covent wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.

And you have to remember that Gygax was responsible for the Rule part of the Original D&D which was adding Magic and Dragons into Chainmail. A game meant to represent Historical Warfare.

@Azaelas Fayth

Could you please address the two questions I asked in my earlier post.

I only ask due to the fact that it is obvious you are reading and responding to this thread, and I would like to give you a clear cognizant answer with numbers, rather than my own knee jerk reaction.

I edited my earlier post.

Ah I see it now my thanks.

SO the Answers are as follows correct.

1.) All encounters requiring initiative basically. No social encounters.

2.) Yes 15 rounds is 15 rounds not 15 actions.


Correct.

Social Encounters where figured to be handled before the Adventure/Quest.

This is do to a Game being split into 2 Phases. The Social Phase and the "Dungeoneering" Phase.

Any character can handle the Social Aspect in some way, but only a focused and well built party can handle a well designed adventure/quest.

Paizo builds more around story rather than numbers.


There is also no way to insure 15 round fights with GM fiat or contrived scenarios, maybe in boss fights(APL+3 or higher), but not otherwise.

Telling us you don't pull punches is not telling us much. That is only telling the casters to optimize more which makes it more likely for them to succeed.

How about you give examples of these combats and how your group plays?


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.

Use my brain? LoL, ok. So you set up test parameters, then say the parameters can be thrown out as needed? So what if we want to do 8 encounters (but the same creatures) in one day instead of 10? Is that legit? Or do you just keep changing the rules until they create the group that conforms to your personal definition of 'optimal?'

The test fails from inception. 'Optimal' is meaningless. Encounters are not created equal. It's trivially easy to set up encounters to either play to, or counter, a particular groups strengths and weaknesses. I could set up 50 encounters of appropriate CR that any standard team could handle. Then I could make 1 that will stonewall a totally optimized crew.

The GM is god. Trying to set up a competition with god to prove your comp is more optimized is rather silly. Regardless of group composition, a good gm will make encounters challenging, fun, and ultimately survivable.

A group of 5 anything can make it from 1-20, and have a lot of fun doing it. (I've personally played in an all-arcane group that was a blast)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

150 rounds of combat, with 1 minute per player, party of 4, 600 minutes, 10 hours of pure combat? Better stock the cheetos and mountain dew, somebody just threw down the gauntlet of old school grognards vs 3.x/PF kiddies.

C'mon, GG was done with D&D back in the TSR days, and got forced out before that company even killed itself. He sold some mediocre 3rd party stuff, and wrote some articles, but didn't have anything to do with balancing 3.x/PF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The number of Rounds is more to do with the fact that a worthy encounter will have the ability to prolong the combat. If the party can reduce the time it takes to defeat enemies going all out then so be it. Stop being literal and use your brain.
(I've personally played in an all-arcane group that was a blast)

what you did there, i see it.


Two cleric two wizards is pretty optimal, clerics can still smash with a two hander and cleric buffs, and then you have the dumbest class in the game going hoop de coop sleep and colour spray and grease for five levels and owning


As I said later a group of enemies fighting with all the resources at their disposal can easily last 15 rounds. or damn near it.

An optimized group is more than just characters.

@wraithstrike: Level 3. Goblins with Goblin Dogs as the basic foes. The boss encounter is with a Goblin Oracle & Sorcerer led by a Orc Fighter. Boss Battle is CR 7.

First 2 encounters are with some Goblins in an outpost. they are easy encounters.

The next few encounters are against squads of Goblins who use the terrain of their village to force the party to use synergy to win.

When the Party makes it to the Boss Encounter they have to deal with the Oracle & Sorcerer buffing the Orc who is built for dealing and taking damage.

Sczarni

sleep is actually really easy for a GM to get around as long as he does encounters with 3 or more npcs, or sets situations up for it.

My GM had all sorts of cheesy and irritating ways around waking up NPCs before we could coup de grace em.


Simplest way I can think of is a swift kick from a comrade.

Silver Crusade

CWheezy wrote:
Two cleric two wizards is pretty optimal, clerics can still smash with a two hander and cleric buffs, and then you have the dumbest class in the game going hoop de coop sleep and colour spray and grease for five levels and owning

Lol, dumbest class in the game huh? I think it's safe to say that you would be in a minority with that kind of thinking.

I don't think i can say that any class is dumb, maybe not for me, but not dumb.


Sarcasm... Lost on so many of the Masses...


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

As I said later a group of enemies fighting with all the resources at their disposal can easily last 15 rounds. or damn near it.

An optimized group is more than just characters.

@wraithstrike: Level 3. Goblins with Goblin Dogs as the basic foes. The boss encounter is with a Goblin Oracle & Sorcerer led by a Orc Fighter. Boss Battle is CR 7.

First 2 encounters are with some Goblins in an outpost. they are easy encounters.

The next few encounters are against squads of Goblins who use the terrain of their village to force the party to use synergy to win.

When the Party makes it to the Boss Encounter they have to deal with the Oracle & Sorcerer buffing the Orc who is built for dealing and taking damage.

So your encounter list would look like as follows:

APL - 1: (Goblin Warrior 1 x 4) and then (Goblin Warrior 1 x 4)

APL: (3 Goblin Warrior 1 + Goblin Dog) and then 2 more sets of this encounter.

APL + 1: (3 Goblin Warrior 1 + 2 Goblin Dogs) and then 2 more sets of this encounter.

APL + 4: (Orc Fighter 6 [CR5] + Goblin Sorcerer 4 [CR 3] + Goblin Oracle 4 [CR 3])
Or
(Orc Fighter 5 [CR4] + Goblin Sorcerer 5 [CR 4] + Goblin Oracle 4 [CR 3])

Is this correct?

Shadow Lodge

Vestrial wrote:
I don't think he had a good mind for either. The 3e team produced a product that was vastly superior his original, even when lashed to all the 'sacred cows' the publisher make them drag along.

In your opinion. In my opinion, the only real improvement that 3.X/PFRPG has over the the original D&D is that it's better organized. In my view, in every other way, 0E kicks the living crap out of d20.

Also, could we stop marginalizing Dave Arneson's role in the creation of D&D into non-existence?


@Covent:

APL-1: Goblin Warrior1 x 4 x2

APL+0: 3 Goblin Warrior1 + Goblin Dog x3

APL+1: 3 Goblin Warrior1 + 2 Goblin Dogs x4

APL+4: Orc Fighter 6[CR5]+Goblin Sorcerer4[CR 3]+Goblin Oracle4[CR 3]

I am pretty sure this is the structure of my standard test.

Either this or my Kobold/Dire Weasels lead by some intelligent Lizard/Dragon thing. Same general lay out as the Goblin Encounters.

Dave Arneson isn't being Marginalized. At least not by me. It is just he is the one I have seen/read/heard the least from.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

@Covent:

APL-1: Goblin Warrior1 x 4 x2

APL+0: 3 Goblin Warrior1 + Goblin Dog x3

APL+1: 3 Goblin Warrior1 + 2 Goblin Dogs x4

APL+4: Orc Fighter 6[CR5]+Goblin Sorcerer4[CR 3]+Goblin Oracle4[CR 3]

I am pretty sure this is the structure of my standard test.

Either this or my Kobold/Dire Weasels lead by some intelligent Lizard/Dragon thing. Same general lay out as the Goblin Encounters.

Dave Arneson isn't being Marginalized. At least not by me. It is just he is the one I have seen/read/heard the least from.

Understood.

For the basic goblin's Kit I was thinking the following.

Please advise if you find it acceptable.

Short Sword
Short Bow
Leather Armor
20 Arrows
Light wooden shield
Alchemist's Fire X 2
Tanglefoot Bag
SmokeStick
Potion of Prot Good Cl 1
ThunderStone

Alchemical Items will come from the sorcerer having Craft (Alchemy) and the Oracle will have Brew Potion.


Wow you are nicer than I am... I gave them NPC support in the form of NPC Experts in the background that crafted all their equipment...

They got everything for the crafting cost...


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Wow you are nicer than I am... I gave them NPC support in the form of NPC Experts in the background that crafted all their equipment...

They got everything for the crafting cost...

where would goblins even get an expert willing to work with them?

i'm beginning to think your version of "pull no punches" is "throw extra punches as well".

that's almost like giving every enemy everywhere PC wealth (which, might i add, is a CR +1 increase)


Goblin NPC Experts. I also give them grenades from UE as well.

And it is more of the PCs needed to go into a Goblin Warcamp being lead by a fairly intelligent Orc. Well intelligent when it came to organization and resources.

I do make it to where if the fight is on the enemies' home turf the enemy has an advantage.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Wow you are nicer than I am... I gave them NPC support in the form of NPC Experts in the background that crafted all their equipment...

They got everything for the crafting cost...

Ok, then would you please provide a list of Kit for the basic goblin, assuming the normal 260 GP NPC limit?


Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Goblin NPC Experts. I also give them grenades from UE as well.

And it is more of the PCs needed to go into a Goblin Warcamp being lead by a fairly intelligent Orc. Well intelligent when it came to organization and resources.

I do make it to where if the fight is on the enemies' home turf the enemy has an advantage.

just curious: why orc? i'd think hobgoblins would fit more.


I'm trying to remember the last time I had a 15-round encounter in Pathfinder.

I'm certain I've never had an adventuring day of ten 15-round encounters in Pathfinder.

So, if the all-cleric/druid team is so non-viable at first level, how much does replacing one of them with a barbarian actually help? The barbarian only gets maybe 7 rounds of rage per day with 16 Con - a mere drop in the bucket since you're assuming 150 rounds of combat. And thanks to deity's favored weapons, clerics have access to martial (or even exotic) weapons too. So the barbarian's big advantage is only a +1 BAB - which is useful, but not something that is going to make or break a party's viability in and of itself.

Seems to me that if team cleric/druid isn't workable, neither is team cleric/druid/barbarian. Low-level barbarians suck? News to me.


In the Background of the specific Adventure the Orc was an Outcast and took over the Goblin tribe. If you want make it a Hobgoblin. They Also had a trade agreement with some dark dwarves. The PCs were hired by a Dwarf Mining Village to eliminate the goblin/orc/dark dwarf threat.

Basically it is as you list with the gear that a CR1 Goblin/Kobold Expert could Craft.

Instead of Alchemist Fire and such they instead have Pellet Grenades (Iron) and the way it worked was the 2 Goblins rode the Dogs while the third had the supply of Grenades and would operate as a Type of Mine Layer.

If the Experts, Casters, or even the Orc could reasonably Craft an item they got it at crafting cost.

Even gave them reserves of Grenades and arrows based on the wealth a goblin of equal CR to the goblin dogs would have.

if the PCs were smart they might could have gotten their hands on the Ammo.


Pathfinder assumes average encounter length of 3 rounds not counting any maneuver or surprise rounds for average CR = APL fights.

In my experience this is pretty accurate, especially with 4 PCs vs 1 foe cakewalks.

In these setups team CoDzilla can definitely romp. You really don't need full BAB to handle most CR appropriate foes and battle clerics with a high strength can easily keep pace through 3-4 encounters as long as spell slots are being used for buffs and consumables are being used to handle the bulk of the healing.

I generally don't play with summoners (I think the class has some gameplay issues) but a team of summoners especially with some UMD and wands of CLW should be able to blow through many APs relatively easily.

Wizards can definitely struggle at lower levels but honestly once they get the ability to bypass encounters, bind meatshields (which technically happens with charm person), and dictate the course of a day's adventure a team of them really can be quite powerful. Vulnerable but with enough skill they can probably deal with most published APs


Ok, I have been thinking about this for the last few hours and I just do not see how the goblins can reliably stretch an encounter out to 15 rounds. I honestly have a hard time believing in a 10 round goblin encounter.

The only way I see it as possible is by some variation of Tucker’s Kobolds, with the goblins abusing the squeezing rules, having traps pre-set, and in all cases having a very thorough terrain and knowledge advantage.

The only problem with this set of assumptions is that with this amount of terrain optimization on the part of the NPC’s the CR would undoubtedly increase which would mean that there would be fewer goblins.

This would result in the encounters being as follows:

APL – 1: (3 x Goblin Warrior 1) x 2

APL: (Goblin Warrior 1 + Goblin Dog) x 3

APL + 1: (3 x Goblin Warrior 1 + Goblin Dog) x 4

APL + 4: (Orc Fighter 5, Gob Sorcerer 3, Gob Oracle 3)

This also means as a band of organized goblinoids of this number at level 3 as soon as an alarm goes off the PC’s are dead.

I do not see how any level 3 party could survive this even if the goblins are stupid, only come in neat encounters and do not use terrain.

At level 3 the PC’s could handle the APL -1 Encounters losing only minimal amounts of the fighters health if the goblins are caught unaware or are stupid. If played Tucker style the goblins target the non-armor wearer, always open with volleys of grenades, and never ever engage unless trapped. Even the two sets of three goblins armed with grenades and a maze like trapped lair could TPK a level 3 party.

Basically I have two problems with this premise.

Problem 1.) 15 round encounters: I do not see how to manufacture a 15 round encounter with these opponents unless there is either A.) a lot of time spent in combat rounds that should be spent out of rounds, or B.) a very intelligent guerrilla warfare style of goblin play which will just wear the PC’s down and result in an inevitable TPK.

Problem 2.) Expecting a party to perform 10 encounters without a rest is definitively not the baseline Pathfinder is designed for. Any party would most likely be out of resources by encounter 5-7 and would simply TPK somewhere in encounters 6-10. I suspect encounter 10, due to the fact that if it is played as intelligently as the rest of the goblins have been then the PC’s will only interact with the Orc after being entangled, Strength Damaged, and dazed. I would not be surprised if the Goblin Oracle was a heavens Oracle and simply TPK’ed our PC’s with a single color spray.

In short or TLDR: I do not find a standard adventuring day of 10 encounters at 15 rounds each to be believable.

I would appreciate if you could defend your assertion by providing a set of encounters and a set of PC’s that could survive those encounters with at least a 50% survival rate.

Otherwise I am going to continue to assert that the above mentioned adventuring day is nigh-impossible with the standard 15 point buy and WBL.

51 to 100 of 193 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Wizards screwed in conversion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.