...
This is why I think it's impossible to balance and maintain any semblance of the concept of spellcasters being powerful cosmic-reality altering beings.
...
I think that is a big part of the problem. Many think of wizards as being like Gandolf or Merlin or any number of other demigod-like characters. But when they think of martials, they think of Conan, or Chuck Norris. Hilarious jokes aside, these are just characters who are very good at combat, but not supernaturally good. The problem is that at around 15th level the game is firmly into the territory of a superheros setting, and not a gritty one like Batman, were are talking full on Superman level.
I think the game needs to either just admit that 15th+ level is the realm of superheros and have high level fighters look like Iron man or Thor, or it needs to knock wizards back to "reality".
I have spent most of my gaming days in the lower levels of the game, so I'm more comfortable with the idea of casters who actually have to worry about running out of spells, casting in combat, and getting their ass kicked. I'm less comfortable with the idea of fighters casting spells with their swords, jumping 100's of feet, or picking up giants and throwing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all of you who continue to insist that casters and martials can be balanced, please explain to me why after more than 40 years nobody has done it in a way that is acceptable to the gaming community?
Have all of the game designers of three different generations of gaming been incompetent?
Or is there a more logical explanation?
This is complicated--it has a lot to do with the different perception of those who don't care or don't have a lot of skill compared to those who both care and are "good at the game."
For the average player, the classes are fine the way they are. Just look at all the threads about people making Rogues. They are either unconcerned (I don't really want to be a caster, I'd rather be sneaky! or whatever) or they don't have a great grasp of the mechanics/probabilities/etc. (oh man, Fireballs and Sneak Attack are awesome because they deal so many d6s!).
Now, I mean neither of those things with any disrespect--rpgs are supposed to be fun, they have fun, so they're playing fine.
These people are the majority of gamers, and thus the majority of customers rpg writers need to pander to. These people do not care abour or are unaware of balance issues, and thus they can be pandered to without balancing the game. It is easier for a game designer to write a game that isn't balanced, so in 40 years, the successful game designers have served the majority of their audience just fine, and have had no real need to change.
There in lies the problem--they don't need to balance the game, and it's hard to balance, so they don't. It's not incompetence, it's not an impossibility, it's just simple.
The issue for people like me, however, is that the people who do not care about balance do not care about balance, so, they will buy a balanced game as readily as they will buy an imbalanced game. In my mind, there is no reason not to balance the game, because it can only increase the audience.
So, in shorter form, I think no version of D&D has been balanced (other games have, however--such as Savage Worlds) because the game designers did one of the following:
1) Did not care about balance and still sold plenty of games so were unconcerned.
2) Felt that the profit they would get from attracting the "balanced game" audience was not worth the extra work it would take to balance.
Let me also add that, as I mentioned above in regard to those who didn't really "get" the game, for the typical group of gamers, you will see no actual in play difference between say, a Rogue or a Wizard. The difference appears when highly skilled players show up. An averagely played wizard isn't really better than any other averagely played class. But an optimally played wizard will always out do an optimally played Rogue or Fighter or whatever.
That to me is a huge issue with the game, because it means players of disparate skill cannot really play together unless the skilled person actively gimps themselves. Not cool.
|
Nobody is looking for perfect balance between the classes but Paizo could do better with the current with this regard but they don't/ It's not that they can't it's that they won't.
I have said this before and I will say it again, the game as not reached it's peak where perfection would have to be the next step.
|
As I've pointed out before, you were given that balanced system in 4th Edition, which you rejected to play Pathfinder. In 4E, Martials and Magicals were as balanced as you could get without making them the exact same classes.You're saying "It's broken but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it, don't try". You're implying that it's an all or nothing "Perfect balance is impossible, therefore improvements are impossible" scenario. Those two things are not equal. Perfect balance may or may not be impossible, but you can still improve the balance to the point that casters don't s@+# all over everyone else.
But, as you said earlier in this thread (or another), you simply DO NOT CARE about balance and think casters SHOULD be more powerful in all situations "Because magic".
4e offered one method of balancing the classes, which many (myself included) found a bit bland. We are merely wishing for a different approach that also attempts to balance the classes in the hope that it ends up better. Whether it would or not remains to be seen, though hostility towards the concept seems to hold back honest discussion on the topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I've pointed out before, you were given that balanced system in 4th Edition, which you rejected to play Pathfinder. In 4E, Martials and Magicals were as balanced as you could get without making them the exact same classes.You're saying "It's broken but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it, don't try". You're implying that it's an all or nothing "Perfect balance is impossible, therefore improvements are impossible" scenario. Those two things are not equal. Perfect balance may or may not be impossible, but you can still improve the balance to the point that casters don't s@+# all over everyone else.
But, as you said earlier in this thread (or another), you simply DO NOT CARE about balance and think casters SHOULD be more powerful in all situations "Because magic".
I also want to point out that while martials and magic users were balanced against each other, the classes were still not balanced at all. It was just that the lines were different.
Rangers or Wizards and, say, Seekers, are so far apart in power, they're barely playing the same game despite using the same mechanics.
Besides, just because Game X tried Method A to make things balanced and failed doesn't mean Methods B-Z are not worth trying.
For example, make crafting your own magic items cost the same as the sale price.
The moment you do this the sale price goes up. That's just life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't really get what this thread is all about. (I find the metaphors unclear - apparently casters can do Y but martials can only do X?) Anecdotal evidence from games you've played might be more enlightening. I've been through four adventure paths and never seen a situation where martial characters couldn't contribute.
What are the important things that casters can do and martials can't?
Fighters can fly. There are potions for that.
Fighters can teleport. Why would the party wizard want to leave the party fighter behind when casting a teleport spell? The fighter can participate in discussions about when and where to teleport. The only difference is that the wizard is the one who crosses the spell off his character sheet.
Do you not play as a team?
Or do you mean 'parties with no spellcasters are weaker than parties with spellcasters'? That's probably true.
I still don't really get what this thread is all about. (I find the metaphors unclear - apparently casters can do Y but martials can only do X?) Anecdotal evidence from games you've played might be more enlightening. I've been through four adventure paths and never seen a situation where martial characters couldn't contribute.
What are the important things that casters can do and martials can't?
Let me give two anecdotes showcasing two different classes that are kind of pigeonholed into an overly narrow niche.
First, the Rogue in our Serpent's Skull game. Great at out-of-combat things like picking locks, disarming traps and the like. INVALUABLE during the first part, Souls for Smuggler's Shiv because traps are EVERYWHERE. His issue? He almost died in EVERY SESSION. It got to the point that the most fun parts of some games were seeing the new ways Geralt could get mauled and how descriptive he could get with how pieces of his body were hanging by a thread and his impressive scar collection after he whiffed 4 attacks in a row on a skeleton.
And then we got off Smuggler's Shiv. And the traps disappeared, and we were on the road with no other human contact for a while, and he STILL almost died every session. At which point, he was no longer having fun. At all. Eventually, he did die, and rather than accept resurrection (at level 6, we had a scroll of Raise Dead from somewhere) he decided to f&%* off and make a Paladin instead.
Secondly, in my Carrion Crown campaign, we have a gestalt Fighter/Barbarian (Armored Hulk using Sword and Board). Played by the same player, ironically, who is absolutely untouchable and can deal out an impressive amount of damage. Nevertheless, when there's no combat he spends the entire time kind of bored since there's little he can do to contribute (well that's mitigated somewhat in part 2, he has a good Perception score and can Intimidate fairly well) in any situation where tact or Knowledge rolls are called for.
Fighters can fly. There are potions for that.
The big issue is that casters can do it for free, whereas Fighters need to invest in those types of consumables AND pay for their "necessary" gear. Now if the "necessary" (stat boosting) gear was less, well, NECESSARY I'd grant you this argument, but juggling both is a pretty big drain on resources.
Or do you mean 'parties with no spellcasters are weaker than parties with spellcasters'? That's probably true.
That's exactly what we mean. Look at it this way: While both are unbalanced party set-ups, an all caster party is likely to fair MUCH better than the all martial party past the likely brutal first 3-4 levels. Casters are fairly self-sustaining, if limited by their usages per day of class features, while Martials need caster support and magic/items in general to even have a chance against certain things (incorporeal creatures spring to mind).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, this thread isn't/wasn't about Fighters vs Wizards in terms of hard comparisons of balance. It was only using them as examples because they are the poster-children of two very different things.
The Fighter has high numbers, few options.
The Wizard has low numbers, many options.
I'm going to quote a PM I sent to Lemmy when he asked about this topic.
I didn't see a link to your thread in your PM, so if you could point me in the right direction (I've not been online in a bit) I'd try to respond there as well. In the meantime, the PM will do, and might keep the bickering to a minimum. :P
It's also not surprising that people will get drawn towards Fighter vs Wizard in such a discussion. At their very core they are the polar opposites in terms of...well most everything. Fighter is the poster-child of someone who lacks options but has high numbers, while wizard is the poster child of having low numbers but...well...being a god (in the "I have miraculous power" sense).
So using those two as the basis for this example, let's look at what the game is. D&D/Pathfinder is a roleplaying game of fantasy adventures, exploration, discovery, stories, and battles. It is a game where you face a variety of obstacles in the scenarios that flow to create the collective saga of your heroes. Obstacles may include everything from fighting disease-ridden vermin in sewers; to seeking a patron outsider to vouch for your worthiness to seek an ancient artifact; to convincing a dragon that you're much better at pillow talk than being BBQ (Bards, the #1 cause of half-dragons everywhere).
Now, in such a game, being able to influence the world - and thus react to your obstacles - is power. It's not always measured in raw numbers. A perfect example is the power of choice. The ability to say "I'll take a different option" is a very powerful thing all its own. The iconic example of this sort of power would again fall to the wizard and the fighter.
In this scenario, the party must make their way across a bridge with many swinging pendulum blades. Moving across the bridge too quickly and you must make very hard Acrobatics checks to maintain balance. Move across to slow and be at the mercy of the "attacking" blades, and each time you're hit you have to make another check to avoid falling from the bridge (which may result in further injury, or may force you to begin again).
Now the Fighter has the option to cross the bridge, and hope his numbers are solid enough to make it. He has +X acrobatics, +Y reflex, and Z armor class, and if he's lucky, he'll do fine. He's even got Armor Training and mwk mithral armor, so he's even well equipped for this sort of surprise obstacle. But at the end of the day, he either crosses the bridge or he doesn't. He only has one way that he can go.
Enter the wizard. His acrobatics is super balls. He would be half way down the pit before his reflexes so much as twitched a little. His armor is about as thick as a wet noodle and half as strong. But the wizard can choose to take a different route.
"I cast fly." and the wizard simply flies past the bridge to the other side.
"I cast gaseous form." and the wizard crosses the bridge with no fear of falling nor injury.
"I cast jump." if the bridge is short and he simply jumps across.
"I cast floating disk." and the wizard rides it across without making Acrobatics checks but while moving at his full speed (possibly while taking a total defense on the way over to carefully dodge the traps).
"I cast reduce person." to make the ledge less narrow for himself as he makes his way across.
"I cast shatter on the gears of the pendulum machine." and ruins the traps that are swinging around, making it safer to cross.
"I cast alter self and take the form of a strix, then fly across." is likewise do-able.
"I stand at the BOTTOM of the pit, near the ledge I want to get to, and cast levitate." allows the wizard to get to his goal without using the bridge.
"I cast spider climb." allows the wizard to walk UNDER the bridge with no chance of falling, and then casually make his way to the other side.
"I cast beast shape I and turn into a bird and fly across." avoids the bridge, dodges the pendulum blades.
The list goes on, and on, and on (also nothing here was above 3rd level spells, and most were 2nd level or less). Which is the point. Even if the wizard didn't prepare every spell perfect for every occasion, he's got enough versatility that he can probably come up with a solution to get around the obstacle, make it easier or even trivial, or could use any of a dozen spells that would be "good enough" to solve the problem. And at the same time, the wizard can still fall back to AC/Reflex/Skills when such options aren't necessary, or as supplementary power.
Giving the Fighter a break from the wizard for a moment, let's instead be a little fairer (Fighters aren't Wizards afterall, so perhaps it's not fair to compare them here), so let's go with one I've touted around a fair number of times on the boards.
Fighter vs Ranger
This is perhaps an even better example. Fighter and Ranger are - at first glance - destined for similar roles. Both are martial characters, have the same BAB, same Hit Points, similar proficiencies, and most importantly, the Fighter has much bigger numbers (at least on paper). Yet I'd take a Ranger over a Fighter in a group 9.9 times out of 10. Why is that?Well it goes back to options. The Ranger is competent enough in general fighting that it's always an option. Unlike the Fighter, however, it is not his only option. The Ranger has a variety of skills to draw from. If fighting a Troll is not very effective, then sneaking past the troll might be. If the party needs to escape from some bad guys, the fighter can only say that he runs at least as fast as he would while in armor. The Ranger can go "I cast pass without trace" and make his entire party immune to being tracked or followed by pursuers. If the party is exploring a spider-infested forest or hunting wyverns he can make him and his allies immune to poison. At high levels, he can benefit from freedom of movement and immunize himself or others to things like grappling / swallow whole / hold person / etc.
The ranger is more powerful in most cases because the ranger has more opportunities to exercise the power that he has in useful ways. If the game was about merely hitting an inanimate dummy over and over for as much damage as possible -- comparable to a Warrior and Paladin having a DPS race on combat dummies in WoW -- then the Fighter would be very poerful. However, in a game that is as dynamic as D&D/PF, power comes in many forms and most of them aren't measured in +1s. :P
It's An Interactive World!
We're ultimately talking about a game where even things that aren't measured as a statistic - such as darkvision - can make or break your chances for success. Sometimes strength fluctuates. A character with darkvision is much more powerful underground than someone without, for example. Humans are often considered to be one of the stronger/popular races for optimizers to use. This is usually because they are decent at most anything and they get a bonus feat / skill points, which are clearly beneficial (I mean clearly as you don't have to see them in action to appreciate them). Yet IMHO, once the game begins, races like dwarfs, elves, and even half-elves are often more "successful" in actual play.For example, not having darkvision isn't merely lacking a power. It's possessing a vulnerability. I mean, if you're toting a torch (or merely carrying a lightsource) in a dark area, you're basically going to alert anyone in a dark lair to your presence (down a strait hallway, you are removing all concealment from yourself, so lights can be seen for miles, while even in a winding corridor, light will be seen around corners before you reach them, alerting patrols to your arrival). In such cases, simply having darkvision is not only handy (saving you a light source) but even prevents or reduces further obstacles from happening (such as alerting those kobolds up ahead to prepare ambush formation #27). On a humorous note, wizards can give themselves darkvision too (those little minxes). :P
Options vs Numbers
Now I won't say numbers aren't important at all. All the options in the world aren't going to help if they are all equally useless. But it's really a matter of leverage. By leveraging your options, you can get the most bang for the proverbial buck. Yet sometimes, all the numbers in the world don't mean much. Here's a simple yet telling example strait from the Bestiary / Monster Manuals.The Tarrasque is kind of the poster-child for big numbers but rather lame power (even after he was humorously buffed from the 3.5 version). But why is it that the Tarrasque is basically a joke for a CR 25 encounter, when things like Pit Fiend and Solar are lower in CR?
The answer is because those other creatures have options. The Tarrasque has big numbers, but because it can't do anything except bite, throw spines, and move quickly. That's pretty much it as far as its options go (the rest of its power could be summed up as removing others' options to kill it). If it can't solve its problems using those methods, the tarrasque has little else to do other than avoid said problem. Contrast with the Pit Fiend who can try literally dozens of strategies to overcome a problem. Not just a combat problem, but almost any problem at all! So at the end of the day, if you yourself have options, the pit fiend is much scarier a foe than the tarrasque because he may have options to counter your options (are you weak vs melee? Pit fiend eats you! Are you weak vs magic? Pit fiend steals your soul! Are you weak vs ambushes? Pit fiend surprises you!)! :P
Abstract Power In Discussions
I think Xykon sums up the truth behind this abstract sense of power quite well. While still not obvious to everyone, options are power. Unfortunately, the abstract nature of options and opportunity make it difficult to quantify just how powerful options are on paper. This much is obvious when discussing fighters vs paladins/rangers in online forums. It's easy to see the numerical statistics like +1/+2 and quantify it. What's harder is the advanced knowledge that students of the game acquire by looking at the bigger picture.Ultimately, D&D/Pathfinder is about a small character (played by you) versus the big world (everything else). How you can choose to influence or adapt to that world will ultimately be the true measure of your success. Far more so than that extra +1 on your character sheet ever will be. Plus, most people would agree that being able to interact with the world in any given situation is more fun than waiting around for your one niche.
First, the Rogue in our Serpent's Skull game...
OK, rogues suck.
...a Paladin instead.
This is a thread full of people arguing that Paladins, being primarily martial, cannot participate much.
when there's no combat he spends the entire time kind of bored since there's little he can do to contribute in any situation where tact or Knowledge rolls are called for.
Knowledge rolls don't take up much play time, and once the roll has been made the knowledge can be shared. And are clerics, sorcerers, oracles, druids, etc really any better at those than, say, rangers?
Tact is role-playing, not class-based. You don't need to be a caster to put ranks into Diplomacy. And even if you've chosen to play someone tactless, you can still participate in dialogues with NPCs - indeed it's usually more amusing if you do.
The big issue is that casters can do it for free, whereas Fighters need to invest in those types of consumables AND pay for their "necessary" gear.
When I last played a caster, I mainly used my Fly spells to cast on melee-focused allies so they could get into battle against flying enemies. A caster who believes in teamwork is not going to hog all the glory.
And does it matter if a no-caster party is weak? How many groups have the problem of no-one being willing to play a caster, and the GM being unwilling to adapt the adventure to allow for it?
This is a thread full of people arguing that Paladins, being primarily martial, cannot participate much.
Well I never said it was a better option. But IMO Paladins and Rangers are in a much better boat than most Martials. Rangers are pretty good at a specific niche of things that includes things BESIDES combat. He's the wilderness Guru, with jacked up Survival and Perception, and likely Kn. Nature and possibly Diplomacy as well (though more likely Stealth) since he's got both skill points to blow (as many as a Bard, unless he dumps Int) and static class bonuses to some of those.
Paladin is a worse off, still having bad skill points, but he's got self and party healing, albeit not as good as a dedicated healbot, Detect Evil is pretty useful in social situations to an extent, and he's got boss Saves, making him much less likely than the fighter to be mind crushed and forced to do the cha-cha by some Demon.
On top of that, they have limited spellcasting to augment that. Neither are skill monkeys, but they're MUCH better off than the Fighter out of combat, while still remaining an on-par (or higher versus Favored Enemies or Evil enemies) with the fighter in combat. Ranger and Paladin are probably the best balanced full martial characters in the game.
Knowledge rolls don't take up much play time, and once the roll has been made the knowledge can be shared. And are clerics, sorcerers, oracles, druids, etc really any better at those than, say, rangers?
Yes. Remember, we're running Carrion Crown in the campaign I mentioned. Knowledge Religion and History are the order of the day (Local in part 2). The Cleric Oracle, and Druid are better by the token that the Ranger will never make up that +3 from the class skill.
And they're CERTAINLY better than a Fighter/Barbarian.
Tact is role-playing, not class-based. You don't need to be a caster to put ranks into Diplomacy. And even if you've chosen to play someone tactless, you can still participate in dialogues with NPCs - indeed it's usually more amusing if you do.
You don't need to be a caster to put points in Diplomacy, but you do need SKILL POINTS to put points in Diplomacy. And as I've said before, role playing is all well and good, but all the role playing in the world still won't pass that series of DC 20 Diplomacy checks you need for the trial.
When I last played a caster, I mainly used my Fly spells to cast on melee-focused allies so they could get into battle against flying enemies. A caster who believes in teamwork is not going to hog all the glory.
He's not, but the point still stands that the caster is self-sufficient and the martial is usually not. If the caster goes down (and he has no potions) no force on earth will make that Fighter fly. But if the Fighter goes down, the Wizard still has options (ranged attack spells, protective spells, or simply GTFO-ing are all things that could be done with a simple standard action).
And does it matter if a no-caster party is weak? How many groups have the problem of no-one being willing to play a caster, and the GM being unwilling to adapt the adventure to allow for it?
That's not the point. The point is that the game should not rely on casters to be run properly. A magic-less party should be lacking, yes, but they should not find it impossible to progress (as it would be to do so when facing a a ghost with no magic).
As someone said somewhere else, a game with no magic should no turn into "Scooby Doo: The RPG".
I guess to me, it makes that the fighter would have to buy items to have more of the magic options in a game. It's something you see in fiction where people overcome magic with either magically enhanced technology or magic artifacts. And I've found that I can overcome a lot of obstacles with mundane means, whether it's crossing that bridge with rope and a grappling hook, or throwing flour on an invisible guy to try and find him. I prefer playing spell-less paladins and spell-less rangers because I like being that guy that is great with weapons and has some skills.
I think back to my HERO gaming days where I'd play in a "Justice League-esque" game with the Superman and Green Lantern type characters and I'd be more of the Batman/Ironman guy. While the others were clearly more powerful than I, I had the technology to equal the power. So I'm alright with spending gold on grabbing wands or potions or wondrous items that do some crazy stuff and be more self-sufficient.
Of course, I also had the skills that were handy to deal with stuff, which a fighter sadly lacks. Even with a 13 Int and favored class bonus, it's still only 4 skills. And while I can use my butt-ton of feats to get Skill Focus and use Traits to ameliorate the issue some, I really do hope to see fighters with 4 + Int skills one day. And just like there is an option to play a spell-less ranger/paladin and a casting ranger/paladin, would be cool to see some fighter options that do Supernatural and Extraordinary abilities similar to Rage Power. Granted, I don't need a spell casting fighter since I can always play a magus.
I think back to my HERO gaming days where I'd play in a "Justice League-esque" game with the Superman and Green Lantern type characters and I'd be more of the Batman/Ironman guy. While the others were clearly more powerful than I, I had the technology to equal the power. So I'm alright with spending gold on grabbing wands or potions or wondrous items that do some crazy stuff and be more self-sufficient.
The problem is, if you translated that to Pathfinder terms, Superman and Green Lantern would have the same amount of money you have, and thus the same access to technology.
You'd be a crippled guy in an awesome suit of armor, while he'd be Superman also in an awesome suit of armor.
The Fighter has high numbers, few options.
The Wizard has low numbers, many options.
How exactly does the wizard have low numbers?
For example, make crafting your own magic items cost the same as the sale price.The moment you do this the sale price goes up. That's just life.
I really don't see why the sale price would have to go up. Just because PCs would have to pay full price to create items, doesn't mean magic items from other sources would not follow the standard rules for buying and selling.
You'd be a crippled guy in an awesome suit of armor, while he'd be Superman also in an awesome suit of armor.
Actually, it would be worse. The wizard has the craft awesome suit of armor feat, so he only paid half as much. Therefore, superman is more powerful then you, has the same special suit, and 50% more wealth as well. Yay!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fergie, PCs following different rules from NPCs for basic daily life situations is a major verisimilitude problem for some players. It creates situations where the world somehow totally ignores a major obvious discrepancy between how different people interact with the universe.
This is true, AD. As a Highly Regarded Expert, I can barely walk out the door without being surrounded by hordes of admirers: Wealthy folks who want to give me money, supermodels wanting to have my babies, etc.
Things are very different from the early days, when I was a Frequently Ignored Novice.
For example, make crafting your own magic items cost the same as the sale price.The moment you do this the sale price goes up. That's just life.I really don't see why the sale price would have to go up. Just because PCs would have to pay full price to create items, doesn't mean magic items from other sources would not follow the standard rules for buying and selling.
You'd be a crippled guy in an awesome suit of armor, while he'd be Superman also in an awesome suit of armor.Actually, it would be worse. The wizard has the craft awesome suit of armor feat, so he only paid half as much. Therefore, superman is more powerful then you, has the same special suit, and 50% more wealth as well. Yay!
Since we're killing the metaphor here, I wasn't comparing the mechanics of HERO to Pathfinder. I was comparing an aspect of the superhero genre to the fantasy genre, since there is a bit of overlap and comparison between the two. Yes, the wizard could make a wicked cool piece of armor for himself and take the feats to use it. How often that happens, I can't really say.
And as for treating sale price differently for PCs than NPCs, count me in the group that dislikes that. Verisimilitude aside, just as a player it makes no sense and kills off wanting to be a black smith character since now, you can't make a profit off of it since the world apparently works differently to you.
|
|
I sure this was brought up in the 10 previous pages, but I got cross-eyed reading after the first 3, so here is my 2 cents.
Fighters have more options than people give them credit for... all those feats are options, and if they are not, then you are spending them wrong. AND yes Combat Maneuvers!!! Yes yes, I don't have Improved whatever blah blah blah... So take your AoA... My AC is high and so is my Strength so you'll miss(or hit and I take the damage, but still crush you) and I'll bear hug you into next week. I saw someone complaining about provoking AoA... and needing to dump lots of feats to overcome that,which you don't, but that just part of the job description for a Fighter hence the AC and HP :)
Caster A with AC ~18-24 topping out by level 2 Mage Armor/Shield and putting too much into Dex, gets his face ripped off by the BBEG if he looses the initiative dance.
Fighter A with AC ~24-26 at level 2, but he'll get up over 30 with better equipment later, doesn't get hit with every attack the BBEG throws at him, if he looses the initiative dance and because he has twice as many Hit points he has the one option the Caster doesn't have... Breathing.
and Yes, by level 10 or so Everything is hitting everything... but not really... the only guys not smacking folks around are the casters with miserable BAB, and they pretty much get auto-hit because of their topped out AC. Monsters do miss Fighters with decent armor at level 10, but NEVER the wizard unless he is burning level 3 spells or higher.
I realize that a Wizard has "an answer for everything" but that's only luck or poor subterfuge on the GM's part if he has every metaphorical key for every metaphorical lock in an encounter or scenario. BUT even so He has to survive the first round of combat to use his key... so without his trusted buddy the Non-caster to stand in the way of impending doom... he's dog food.
And Yes, as they get more powerful they get more options, BUT as a GM, I guarantee I have a critter that can eat ANY spellcaster in 1 round if that critter gets the drop on him.
So what it comes down to is... you roll your d20 and PRAY you get to act first so your fragile butt isn't chewed to pieces by whatever the hell the guy behind the GM screen dreamed up, and the boring old Mundane takes it in the face like a champ, and returns the favor harder and faster with possibly some of those insignificant feats he has.
Parties need both... Fighters or their equivalent(not that any other martial class is, because they get their abilities handed to them and the fighter custom picks his) AND Wizard or their equivalent(not that any other caster can because like a fighter they get to customize soo much) BUT if my party had to pick just 1... we have a Specialist, a Healer, and say a ranged attacker... and you need one more... I'll take that Fighter over a Wizard ANY time, because when the Chit hits the proverbial fan there is NO substitute for the big dude up front who takes the anger and lets everyone else do what they do best, and politely keeps his mouth shut when we're playing the part of the game that your character is good at, like negotiating, or lying, or making riding dogs out of ground up fairy wings.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE casters... I love Specialist even more... Bluff is my favorite skill in the entire game... nothing more fun than LYING your way through a problem and making the BBEG flatfooted with the SAME skill. All just with your wits... no gods or incantations required
BUT every party NEEDS, or at least Benefits, from that Mundane dude you guys are looking down your noses at.
Just my opinion. No need for super-human content unless you think taking a full attack from a Pitfiend and living to return the favor is Super-human....
AND yes Combat Maneuvers!!! Yes yes, I don't have Improved whatever blah blah blah... So take your AoA... My AC is high and so is my Strength so you'll miss(or hit and I take the damage, but still crush you) and I'll bear hug you into next week. I saw someone complaining about provoking AoA... and needing to dump lots of feats to overcome that,which you don't, but that just part of the job description for a Fighter hence the AC and HP :)
To-hit scales up faster than AC so the AoO probably hits (and remember, if you're putting all your resources into maxing out AC then you've got fewer resources left for options which brings us back to square one). If the AoO hits, your combat maneuver is all but guaranteed to fail because your CMB attack roll suffers a penalty equal to the damage you took, so you can't just accept the damage either.
Fighter A with AC ~24-26 at level 2,
How? At level 2, even a set of mundane non-masterwork fullplate is out of your price range. Are we assuming the fighter gets six times WBL but the wizard doesn't? Or that our "fighter" is a Crane Style Monk who is also receiving Mage Armor from a wizard?
How exactly does the wizard have low numbers?The Fighter has high numbers, few options.
The Wizard has low numbers, many options.
Fighters tend to push numbers. By direct comparison fighters have more HP and BAB than wizards, usually more AC, have class features reducing armor check penalties, increasing maximum dexterity, increasing hit and damage modifiers, increasing saving throws vs fear (this feature is lame btw), and so forth. Generally a Fighter is about the numbers. They have very few options though.
Wizards have low statistics in everything except Will. Even their spells are rarely about high numbers (about the only spells really about high numbers are blastng spells which are handicapped anyway). But their spells do provide them options. Even if you have a wizard with the minimum requisite Intelligence to cast his or her spells the wizard will probably come out as the more powerful of the two during the game.
This is simply because wizards have more ways of interacting with their world. Like the example of the bridge, the wizard's low physical modifiers and poor armor class do not factor into the equation if the wizard can "take a third option".
Personally I don't have a problem with this. IMHO, Pathfinder is the most balanced that the game has ever been. Groups consisting of classes like Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard are in my experiences very well balanced. Now it could be because I cut my teeth on 3.x but it's a drastically different ballgame from 3.x->Pathfinder in terms of class capability and balance.
Out of the core rulebook, really only Fighter, Rogue, and Monk are hurting in the core. Compared to 3.5 where Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Paladins were really bad (Rangers were fair but even then lagging a bit). Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Sorcerer were all "omg wtf!?" without even touching splat material (in core a wizard could replicate every act of God described in the Holy Bible, including summoning the entire host of heaven or parting the ocean, before 20th level with core-only).
Casters have been pulled back heavily (even their game-ending spells like black tentacles while good are no where near as good as they were in 3.5), and most martials have been given exceptional boosts allowing them to be both sturdier and most importantly more well rounded. Barbarians are an excellent example as their rage powers now give them the option for impressive defenses or offenses, and allow a much better degree of control over how, when, and why you rage.
|
|
AND yes Combat Maneuvers!!! Yes yes, I don't have Improved whatever blah blah blah... So take your AoA... My AC is high and so is my Strength so you'll miss(or hit and I take the damage, but still crush you) and I'll bear hug you into next week. I saw someone complaining about provoking AoA... and needing to dump lots of feats to overcome that,which you don't, but that just part of the job description for a Fighter hence the AC and HP :)To-hit scales up faster than AC so the AoO probably hits (and remember, if you're putting all your resources into maxing out AC then you've got fewer resources left for options which brings us back to square one). If the AoO hits, your combat maneuver is all but guaranteed to fail because your CMB attack roll suffers a penalty equal to the damage you took, so you can't just accept the damage either.
Fighter A with AC ~24-26 at level 2,How? At level 2, even a set of mundane non-masterwork fullplate is out of your price range. Are we assuming the fighter gets six times WBL but the wizard doesn't? Or that our "fighter" is a Crane Style Monk who is also receiving Mage Armor from a wizard?
Save your cash, My Level 2 PFS Armor master has AC 26 with Fullplate, Dodge, Shield Focus, Heavy Shield, Combat Expertise, Dex 14, and Defender of the Society Trait... with the around the same amount of gold the Wiz can buy a Pearl of power :)
And you're right AoO(eek I misspelled an acronym several times)do cramp your style a bit when they hit... but they hit him infrequently. The point was that players tend to ignore Combat Maneuvers unless they have an Improved version. Unless it is bigger than you are, and wielding something nasty, dropping your weapons and tackling is always fun or knocking the bad guy prone...
I think the main problem with caster comes from the fact that they have way too many spells to choose from. They ahve pretty much every possible option.
Summoning alone makes them rather powerful. Mix that with healing, battlefield control, blasting (which is suboptimal, but not useless), buffing, debuffing, skill boosting (who needs Stealth and Bluff when you have Invisibility and Glibness?).
And as they level up, even the spells per day limit is not a such a problem. You mostly only use your top 2 (maybe 3) spell levels for combat, so for everything else, you got dozens of spells, scrolls, pearls of pearl, wand, etc...
And even reducing the spell lists, we are still left with many spells that are too powerful or their level and/or much better than they shoukd be.
IMHO, there's two things that must be done in order to better balance the game.
Revise the spell lists. This is a lot of work, but it must be done. We have real campaign changers with little or no cost, from binding outsiders to the always lovely Time Stop.
Give martials nice things. Specially mobility. Really, why should I be unable to walk 10ft and swing my sword twice while the guy in the point hat can fly 60ft and still make really cry (twice). And don't hide all the cool stuff behind a pile of useless/boring prerequisites I don't want. Feats should scale with level, I shouldn't have to pay one of them for every +1 I want!
I personally like the idea that if you stand in place, you get to be more effective, (because it creates a real choice, should I go first and deal less damage or try and survive his attack and then retaliate with greater force?), but the difference is HUGE! Why the hell can't a legendary dragon-slayng demon-hunting monster-killing mountain-breaking pie-eating warrior walk 10ft without losing nearly all his effectiveness? And why should he be easily dominated/paralyzed by a caster 4 levels lower?
Mobility is probably my main problem with martial classes right now. But oh, Barbarian can pouce at 10th level, after spending 3 rage powers, that's nice... Except that summoners can do it at 1st level for a single evolution point, and druids do it at 6th level (and they don't suffer armor penalties either).
I hate that martials have to stick to crippling notion of realism with wizards get to create worlds and enslave angels. -.-'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save your cash, My Level 2 PFS Armor master has AC 26 with Fullplate, Dodge, Shield Focus, Heavy Shield, Combat Expertise, Dex 14, and Defender of the Society Trait... with the around the same amount of gold the Wiz can buy a Pearl of power :)
Fullplate alone is putting you over WBL, and this is a fighter specializing in AC to the exclusion of all else, making heavy sacrifices in damage output in the process. Hardly "Fighter A".
And you're right AoO(eek I misspelled an acronym several times)do cramp your style a bit when they hit... but they hit him infrequently. The point was that players tend to ignore Combat Maneuvers unless they have an Improved version. Unless it is bigger than you are, and wielding something nasty, dropping your weapons and tackling is always fun or knocking the bad guy prone...
Yeah, they hit him infrequently because he's a level 2 character who has chosen to pump nothing but AC. Come back in ten levels and we'll talk.
|
|
You bind outsiders and the GM doesn't make you pay? Casting time of 10 minutes and more scary warnings in that spell's description than I care to mention... Your GM is WAY to kind... bind my outsiders with out righteous authority and they visit you months later in your sleep with 10 of their friends and peel your skin off with your familiar's de-fleshed skull... and those are the good aligned ones...
AND yes Time Stop is ridiculous, but you are very limited in what you can do in those 2-5 rounds, and you just burned one of your top spell slots
|
|
Save your cash, My Level 2 PFS Armor master has AC 26 with Fullplate, Dodge, Shield Focus, Heavy Shield, Combat Expertise, Dex 14, and Defender of the Society Trait... with the around the same amount of gold the Wiz can buy a Pearl of power :)Fullplate alone is putting you over WBL, and this is a fighter specializing in AC to the exclusion of all else, making heavy sacrifices in damage output in the process. Hardly "Fighter A".
And you're right AoO(eek I misspelled an acronym several times)do cramp your style a bit when they hit... but they hit him infrequently. The point was that players tend to ignore Combat Maneuvers unless they have an Improved version. Unless it is bigger than you are, and wielding something nasty, dropping your weapons and tackling is always fun or knocking the bad guy prone...Yeah, they hit him infrequently because he's a level 2 character who has chosen to pump nothing but AC. Come back in ten levels and we'll talk.
What is WBL? In Society play Fullplate is very doable by level 2 if you play your cards right. He is just a good old fashioned tank, and still one shots most things he meets and good old PFS... He's not suffering the offense department at all I promise. the next guy could spend those feats on Improved Unarmed, Combat Expertise, and Improved grapple and then it is a mute point, but that would be Fighter B :)
By level 10 he'll have better AC and which ever Maneuver he takes a shine to won't provoke, on account of all those feats he gets. And he'll have kept your caster alive for the first 10 levels of the game ;)
For example, make crafting your own magic items cost the same as the sale price.The moment you do this the sale price goes up. That's just life.I really don't see why the sale price would have to go up. Just because PCs would have to pay full price to create items, doesn't mean magic items from other sources would not follow the standard rules for buying and selling.
You'd be a crippled guy in an awesome suit of armor, while he'd be Superman also in an awesome suit of armor.Actually, it would be worse. The wizard has the craft awesome suit of armor feat, so he only paid half as much. Therefore, superman is more powerful then you, has the same special suit, and 50% more wealth as well. Yay!
Not precisely.
Superman is a level 3 expert with the Kryptonian under the Yellow Sun template giving him a +20 modifier to his level. Unfortunately, all his wealth by Template is concentrated in his FOrtress of Solitude monument to a dead world and out of human reach (monuments and alien tech is pricey!). In human terms, he's got very little money in the 'real' world...not that he couldn't go get some raw gold easily, but that's the comics.
Green Lantern is a level 3 expert/level 1 fighter with 1 level of Green Lantern Corpsman Prestige Class who happens to be wearing an Epic Magic Item on his finger. His WBL is crap, because he's level 5, and it's not going to get any better, since he's wearing a mass-produced epic magic item.
Batman is Gestalt Ranger/Monk/Rogue, probably about level 7/7/7, and the Absurdly Wealthy feat (second or third wealthiest person on the planet, I think). This allows him to aggregate his gestalt levels for purpose of gear, and so he's got Epic Level Wealth. Lex Luthor does the same thing on the other end of the moral spectrum.
==Aelryinth
Actually by level two, a player will have around 3000 gold as per WBl. Full plate is 1500 so it's not far fetched for someone to have one.
Actually by level two, a player will have around 3000 gold as per WBl. Full plate is 1500 so it's not far fetched for someone to have one.
You're looking at the wrong side of the chart or your eyes slipped down. Level 2 is 3000 EXPERIENCE. WBL for a level 2 character is 1000. 3000 at level 3.
|
|
Save your cash, My Level 2 PFS Armor master has AC 26 with Fullplate, Dodge, Shield Focus, Heavy Shield, Combat Expertise, Dex 14, and Defender of the Society Trait... with the around the same amount of gold the Wiz can buy a Pearl of power :)Fullplate alone is putting you over WBL, and this is a fighter specializing in AC to the exclusion of all else, making heavy sacrifices in damage output in the process. Hardly "Fighter A".
And you're right AoO(eek I misspelled an acronym several times)do cramp your style a bit when they hit... but they hit him infrequently. The point was that players tend to ignore Combat Maneuvers unless they have an Improved version. Unless it is bigger than you are, and wielding something nasty, dropping your weapons and tackling is always fun or knocking the bad guy prone...Yeah, they hit him infrequently because he's a level 2 character who has chosen to pump nothing but AC. Come back in ten levels and we'll talk.What is WBL? In Society play Fullplate is very doable by level 2 if you play your cards right. He is just a good old fashioned tank, and still one shots most things he meets and good old PFS... He's not suffering the offense department at all I promise. the next guy could spend those feats on Improved Unarmed, Combat Expertise, and Improved grapple and then it is a mute point, but that would be Fighter B :)
By level 10 he'll have better AC and which ever Maneuver he takes a shine to won't provoke, on account of all those feats he gets. And he'll have kept your caster alive for the first 10 levels of the game ;)
WBL is "Wealth by Level". It's the chart that you're supposed to follow to determine how much wealth a character should have at a specific level. Full plate costs 1500gp. The amount a level 2 character is supposed to have in total wealth is 1000gp. Clearly, full plate is over the limit (by the rules) for a normal game. It doesn't mean it won't happen, it just means that you can by no means expect it to happen. Level 3 has a WBL of 3k, though, so you could get the full plate *during* level 2, but not for its entirety.
By level 10 your AC will have improved by ~6-7 (+2 to the armor and shield each, +1 from a feat, +1-2 from misc sources like amulet of natural armor). Unfortunately for you, to-hit has improved by as much as 13-14 (+8 from BAB, +2 from strength increases, +1-2 from class features, +2 from weapon bonus). This means that instead of that big bad guy you're protecting people from hitting you on an 18, he's now hitting you on a 10. This problem grows at higher levels until (by 20th level) the martial types are almost always hitting on their first attack. This makes relying on being able to soak an AoO a very very bad strategy in the long term. Not to mention the fact that CMD scales super fast for many creatures, making such checks literally impossible in many cases if it weren't for the "auto-success on 20" rule.
Also, being sucky at low levels is not a good balance point for being better than everyone else at high levels. Each level should be balanced on its own merits. To do otherwise leaves some players bored at some levels, and flips it the other way during other levels. This might be okay for one or two sessions, but not for a full level (which often takes 5+ sessions), much less several levels in a row.
Actually by level two, a player will have around 3000 gold as per WBl. Full plate is 1500 so it's not far fetched for someone to have one.You're looking at the wrong side of the chart or your eyes slipped down. Level 2 is 3000 EXPERIENCE. WBL for a level 2 character is 1000. 3000 at level 3.
yeah you're right. Missed one. Still, not unusual to see someone with full plate before level 3. Could've gotten it in the middle of level 2.
You bind outsiders and the GM doesn't make you pay? Casting time of 10 minutes and more scary warnings in that spell's description than I care to mention... Your GM is WAY to kind... bind my outsiders with out righteous authority and they visit you months later in your sleep with 10 of their friends and peel your skin off with your familiar's de-fleshed skull... and those are the good aligned ones...
AND yes Time Stop is ridiculous, but you are very limited in what you can do in those 2-5 rounds, and you just burned one of your top spell slots
It's actually been quite a while since I even saw a player use bind outsider in game. Not the point, though.
My point is that casters, specially prepared casters, have way too many powerful options.Options far above anything martials can do.
Casters are not too powerful, and yes they should have all the options they've got. I say this just because it's my opinion.
Of course martial classes should have nice things too, I just don't think they should rival the casters in my ideal campaign.
"Martials can't have nice things"
"Casters are too powerful"
Doesn't matter. Even in the upper levels, your warrior types are necessary to have around. Problem with being a spellcaster is that you start out a fight with your pants down, and you have to prepare for a given threat. A warrior is good no matter what sudden threat appears.
What matters more is the ROLE you have in a given party of characters, not the relative power level comparing them to each other. You still need each other just to function.
The thing I find so annoying about this forum is that too often, people make characters or consider character builds in a vacuum. Oh, it's nice that you have some uber combo of feat/character build, but what happens when you have to make a saving throw and you suck at it? Or what happens if someone interrupts your invincible combo of feats?
Me, I make my characters according to the game environment, and to the other PC's. I compensate for their shortcomings, they compensate for mine, and so we can handle a variety of challenges competently. And if all heck breaks loose, my PC can handle it because I chose my feats to compensate for the game environment. If I have a Wizard, and am facing undead, you can bet I won't be using Enchantment spells and will have taken Great Fortitude!
Doesn't matter. Even in the upper levels, your warrior types are necessary to have around. Problem with being a spellcaster is that you start out a fight with your pants down, and you have to prepare for a given threat. A warrior is good no matter what sudden threat appears.
A spellcaster can play like a warrior and be just as effective in the role (if not more so), while maintaining their superior options. This is the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your experience with fighting games was fighting the computer or hacks. In all those games the grappling character well played can own anyone.Its a combat game it DOES come down to damage. So damage IS the foremost consideration of power.
Having options is very different from having the time to use the options and those options being viable: damage can stop you from using any options, and options cannot always be used.
3 options that come up all the time vs having 100 options that come up rarely - in a game where there are 100000000000 situations means the 3 reliable options are supreme.
Unless you read modules and the GM plays NPCs with death wishes.
Of course... I just don't know how to play fighting games or RPGs. Nor do I know anyone who does... It's so obvious... Thanks for clarifying...
I always thought I had spent my life playing with real people, both online and in person. Obviously I was mistaken. I only played against very convicing robots. And all those hours of training combos and watching pro tournaments and players were just a dream.
¬¬'
Look, you may disagree with me, but please, don't assume I'm an idiot who plays Mortal Kombat on arcade mode and thinks he's the best player ever when he beats his little brother.
Yeah, in a fighting game it all comes down to "who deals more damage", or to put it better, who deals enough damage faster, but that's not the same as "who has more damaging moves and/or HP".
I've never said grapplers are useless, all I said is that they're usually considered to be suboptimal characters (again, not always, but usually). In fact I even mentioned that there are games where grapplers are rather powerful, but that was never due to increased damage/health... It was thanks to the game designers giving grapplers the necessary tools to make use of all that damage/health.
But that's the thing, if even in a game about combat and nothing else, simply having a bunch of damage and lots of health is not as good as having a decent way to approach the enemy, good pokes, a solid anti-air, etc, so what happens when your challenge can be anything from an flying, invisible, intangible ghost to a infiltration mission to find out who is behind the conspiracy to kill the king?
No matter how sharp is your sword if you can't find/reach/hit the enemy or find out who are the traitors.
Also, you're confusing "more complexity" with "more options". They're not that same either. Having tons of possible options, but only 1 or 2 that actually matter is pretty much the same as only having 1 or 2 options.
Having a single option who can solve lots of different problems is also basically the same as having more options.
A sorcerer who spends all his spells known on a 100 blasting spells still only really has 1 option (considering only his spells), while a sorcerer who focus on summoning will have many more viable courses of action.
Fireball will never be as good a summoning a red dragon who can breathe fire. Even if its breath weapon only deals half as much damage.
Complexity is not necessarily the same as power/versatility.
Sure if you play in a hack-n'-slash campaign that is little more than combat after combat after combat, then only being able to deal lots of damage is okay. just like only having a fireball but no decent anti-air is okay in a fighting game where you can't jump.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A warrior is good no matter what sudden threat appears.
Sure, assuming the sudden threat is anything that can be subdued by poking it in the face with a stick, that the fighter can locate it and get within stick-poking range, and that someone with healing magic is keeping the fighter in tip-top condition. Oh, and hopefully this sudden threat doesn't appear at night, since the fighter's defenses rely on that heavy armor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
what the-
man can I like have one thread on here that is not just ruthlessly hard on fighters and/or rogues
and do not say the succubus in a grapple thread because that one will never be equaled
I come in here all herp derp let us talk about wizards and bam, like fighter and rogue hate falcon punch out of nowhere
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what the-
man can I like have one thread on here that is not just ruthlessly hard on fighters and/or roguesand do not say the succubus in a grapple thread because that one will never be equaled
I come in here all herp derp let us talk about wizards and bam, like fighter and rogue hate falcon punch out of nowhere
Can we have one thread where people can talk about the problems with Fighters, Rogues, and the other non-casters without people calling it "hate" or trying to ridicule the topic into the dirt?
It is not "Rogue hate" to say that Rogues suck--if anything, it is Rogue love because we want them to be better.
It's great that you apparently like playing Rogues and Fighters. Awesome. Go play them, then, while those of us who'd like to play Rogues and Fighters but also don't want to be mechanically weak discuss the issue.
what the-
man can I like have one thread on here that is not just ruthlessly hard on fighters and/or roguesand do not say the succubus in a grapple thread because that one will never be equaled
I come in here all herp derp let us talk about wizards and bam, like fighter and rogue hate falcon punch out of nowhere
If it helps, my point wasn't specifically about Fighters and Wizards, although I did mention them because they're very iconic classes and very clear examples of the differences between having bigger numbers and having more options.
I was mostly trying to call attention to the fact that dealing more damage than most and/or having better AC or Saves does not make a character OP.
Paladins are a martial class, and I believe they're very well balanced, although they could use more skill points.
Really, give them Int+4 skill points and possibly Intimidate and Knowledge(Planes) as class skills and they'd be the best balanced class in PF! Although they'd still suffer from some of the martials' shortcomings (specifically, the "Stand still or Suck" syndrome.)
Bards and Inquisitors are, IMO, also very well balanced. And other than the focus on Cha (for Bards) and divine spells (for Inquisitors), they're very different from Paladins, but still just as useful.
These 3 classes can contribute in pretty much every situation and excel at their main job, but they're never so awesome that they steal each others' thunder.
All that said... I agree with mplindustries.
what the-
man can I like have one thread on here that is not just ruthlessly hard on fighters and/or roguesand do not say the succubus in a grapple thread because that one will never be equaled
I come in here all herp derp let us talk about wizards and bam, like fighter and rogue hate falcon punch out of nowhere
Can we have one thread where people can talk about the problems with Fighters, Rogues, and the other non-casters without people calling it "hate" or trying to ridicule the topic into the dirt?
It is not "Rogue hate" to say that Rogues suck--if anything, it is Rogue love because we want them to be better.
It's great that you apparently like playing Rogues and Fighters. Awesome. Go play them, then, while those of us who'd like to play Rogues and Fighters but also don't want to be mechanically weak discuss the issue.
well okay but what about wizards
well okay but what about wizards
wizards get hate from those dumb jocks who stuffed them into magic lockers in wizard school but who are now jealous because the wizard is writing their paychecks and creating demiplanes
No no first you give them a bag of holding then you put them in a portable hole locker because not only can you kick a football but you are all up on the quadratic formula and then you go on to create a lucrative demiplane startup with all the lunch money you stole only to sell it off and then just live it up in absalom for like the rest of your life
PartyLich
Man I should trademark that term