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.
Not all the time, and definitely not for long periods. Spells run out.
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.
Cute, but most warrior types have thought of those little problems. They are classic, you know. Ring of Regeneration, Comfort ability on their armor, maybe some Mithril. Ooh, how about a nice bow?
Then again, I am used to old school dungeon crawls where life is cheap, are you?
Like I said, the way the game is written, spellcasters need warrior types around. I have never heard of, nor played in, any high level group without at least one warrior type in the ranks. Have you?
Two can play the sarcasm game, and my arguments are very effective.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about what class is needed more than another, it's about what class do you want to play over another. People still play fighters by the handful so are you going to tell them they are playing wrong?
Stop worrying about which classes create the best synergy because not everyone cares about that. Fighters and other martials do just fine in groups, if they didn't and it was as widespreadas some of you claim then something would have been done about it already.
I notice the ones who complain about the fighter end up being the ones who don't play the class very well or come up with stupid corner cases just to try and justify their argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, it's not about debasing people for wanting to play fighters or something like that. Nobody (or at least nobody I've talked to) thinks the problem lies with people that like fighters. I like the concept of fighters. I know people that enjoy playing fighters. I don't personally, and that's fine.
But it doesn't change that they falter mechanically. I want people in my games to be able to play fighters without running into problems later that make them wish they hadn't. I don't want people to be punished by the game for playing something they enjoy.
I notice the ones who complain about the fighter end up being the ones who don't play the class very well or come up with stupid corner cases just to try and justify their argument.
Says the guy who complained for weeks on end about damage calculations and power gaming when his Fighters and Monks were criticized for being built at a level where they wouldn't survive encounters with CR-appropriate encounters without GM-fiat. Criticisms that actually had nothing to do with DPR and yet you complained about DPR in another thread for ages, and practically declared Pathfinder and everyone who knows the rules a failure at gaming forever.
My take on it anyway. There may be a few other posters like Dabbler who may come along and give their interpretation of said events.
Martial types have a few niches that are not filled well by casters. Some niches are full BAB specific, some are sneaky specific, and some apply to different degrees for rangers, monks, etc.
A martial can:
- Start a fight with almost all their combat ability in place.
- Survive standing toe to toe with an APL+2 creature for a few rounds.
- Deal massive damage to a single opponent, often without using any meaningful resources.
- Deal solid damage at range, and in melee.
- Take massive damage, and still survive.
- Make a difficult fortitude save.
- Provide an imposing influence on the battlefield.
- Carry a bunch of stuff all day, every day.
Note: These are GENERAL traits of a martial character. Not every character can do it all. Casters can do many of these things, but it usually takes resources, rounds, maneuvering, and often luck. Also, a caster built to do these things generally takes a big hit to its casting, thus creating a sacrifice that balances the gain.
EDIT: I would also add that many of these things are rocking early in the game, but become less so over time. One of the biggest problems I see in the game is that casters can "nova" if they suspect there will be a limited number of encounters, and have the resources to nova in almost every encounter once they hit about 15th level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man I feel like Willem Dafoe in Boondock Saints because all I want to do after these last few posts is just mumble 'it's on now' over and over
only without the blonde wig and smudged lipstick
Oh man I feel like Willem Dafoe in Boondock Saints because all I want to do after these last few posts is just mumble 'it's on now' over and overonly without the blonde wig and smudged lipstick
But the wig and lipstick are what makes it!
Actually, I haven't seen Boondock Saints, since I live under a rock and spend my time here instead of enriching myself watching quality cinema. So no more spoilers!
PS Lamontius - I've really been enjoying your posts lately! Keep up the good work.
Like I said, the way the game is written, spellcasters need warrior types around. I have never heard of, nor played in, any high level group without at least one warrior type in the ranks. Have you?
Yes, unless clerics and druids count as "warrior types". Or summoners.
Yes, martials use cash to cover their weakness, So?
Because they use cash to close the gap between them and casters, but the casters get the same amount of cash so the gap doesn't close, it just moves.
|
Yes, martials use cash to cover their weakness, So?Because they use cash to close the gap between them and casters, but the casters get the same amount of cash so the gap doesn't close, it just moves.
Unless of course, you raise the price for all items used by casters (wands, staves, stat boosters that affect DCs, etc).
From a "fix" perspective of course.
Yes, martials use cash to cover their weakness, So?
Because where martials need cash to cover their weaknesses, casters just need cash to improve their strengths.
Yes, martials use cash to cover their weakness, So?Because they use cash to close the gap between them and casters, but the casters get the same amount of cash so the gap doesn't close, it just moves.
Uhm, TINY problem there.
If you take a look at the magic items spellcasters tend to use, they don't really compensate for their shortcomings. Bracers of Armor are great, but deliriously expensive. So too is Arcane Armor Training, but in a different way.
Plus, your NON spontaneous spellcasters like Wizards have to blow buku gold to get access to new spells, ALL THE TIME. Why else do you think a Blessed Book is so prized? Spontaneous spellcasters suffer from that lack of variety in spells that make a Wizard (for example) so prized as being "broken".
Gee, you think I might have poked a few holes in your master point that spellcasters are all that and a bag of chips compared to warrior types?
Hmmmm.
As Michaelangelo of TMNT fame once said whilst casually twirling his weapon and shining his fingernails, "Keep practicing!"
Anyway, my point is that the game requires a healthy mix of classes, each covering the next one's tuckus in order to succeed. A spellcaster needs a warrior around, it's that simple. It means you aren't the invulnerable demigod you get to be in videogames. Cracks me up when I see your standard newbie thinking he can go off on his own in a given fight during a tabletop game session, because I know what's coming.
As an aside: I do like what Pathfinder did with the trait system. Makes it so you can really muck with a class and thus form a themed group. The one I am running now, all of them have darkvision and class access to Stealth, and many like to use fire-based attacks. Of course, they are all low level right now, so that may change where fire is concerned. They prefer to sneak up on their opponents and catch them with their pants down. Doesn't bother me any; I think it's smart gaming.
Yes, martials use cash to cover their weakness, So?Because they use cash to close the gap between them and casters, but the casters get the same amount of cash so the gap doesn't close, it just moves.Uhm, you DO know that being a Wizard, the classic example of a arcane spellcaster (and the one lots of people complain about because they are wildly flexible from day to day) has to spend buku gold just to record and have access to new spells, right? Why do you think Wizards value a Blessed Book so much, hmm?
Oops. Think I found a tiny flaw in your master point.
0 5 gp
1 10 gp2 40 gp
3 90 gp
4 160 gp
5 250 gp
6 360 gp
7 490 gp
8 640 gp
9 810 gp
Buku gold!
To put that into perspective, weapon enhancements cost the enhancement level squared times 2000. And last I checked armor enhancements cost enhancement squared times 1000.
That's not counting any of the other items a martial would need to buy to stay in the running.
And, have you taken a look at the magic items most primary spellcasters use in comparison to warrior types? Most don't compensate for the primary problems the classes have. Bracers of Armor is a counter example, but its deliriously expensive. Arcane Armor Training is deliriously expensive as well, but in a different way, this time with feats.
Oops. Found another problem. Think I might be on a roll? I could go on.
+8 bracers of armor still only cost 64k (or more likely, 32k because item crafting).
For those of you playing at home, that's the exact same price as a +8 enhancement bonus on regular armor.
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you are some Cleric or Wizard or Druid etc, primary spellcasters need a good warrior type around. And that doesn't bother me. I think it makes sense to have a mix of classes, each suited to certain roles, each covering the next PC's patookus.
But the thing is that they don't NEED a good warrior type around once the party hits level 4 or so, and things just keep getting easier for them after that.
I do like what Pathfinder did with the trait system. Makes it so you can really muck with a class and thus form a themed group. The one I am running now, all of them have darkvision and class access to Stealth, and many like to use fire-based attacks. Of course, they are all low level right now, so that may change where fire is concerned. They prefer to sneak up on their opponents and catch them with their pants down. Doesn't bother me any; I think it's smart gaming.
What does this have to do with anything whatsoever? Nobody said anything about traits (and racial traits at that in this example).
Wizards gain spells as part of leveling up, and scribing new spells is actually pretty darn cheap (it's the worst at level one, and for a 9th level spell at level 20 goes all the way down to .14% of their WBL, and that's for the most expensive spell they can scribe). Every wizard I've seen values the Blessed Book not for free spell scribing (it's typically more expensive than the spells you'd scribe into it anyway), it's for security and being able to more easily track your spells without playing page-tetris with your spell library.
Full casters don't typically need any more AC boosting items than a fighter might, in my experience. It's nice to keep Rings of Protection or Amulets of Natural Armor around for buffering your AC against iterative attacks, but wizards typically concern themselves with boosting their defenses using their spells. Resist/protection from energy, mirror image, false life/greater, blur/displacement, blink, mage armor, and many other spells are available to help a mage boost their defenses when they think they'll need 'em, and most of these buffs last all day, so they can cast them anyway. Arcane Armor Training is nice for mages that want to play fighter and dabble in Eldritch Knight or something like that, but rarely concerns dedicated casters.
I understand the point you're trying to make. I even agree with it; martials are great to have around, even necessary, for their reliable damage output and resiliency. I just don't think fighters fill that role very well- all they have to contribute is damage output, and sometimes that doesn't cut it.
Uhm, you DO know that being a Wizard, the classic example of a arcane spellcaster (and the one lots of people complain about because they are wildly flexible from day to day) has to spend buku gold just to record and have access to new spells, right? Why do you think Wizards value a Blessed Book so much, hmm?
Actually, you get 2 free spells automatically added to your spell book each time you level up!
Scribing a spell into a spell book costs (spell level squared)x10gp. Or 810gp for a level 9 spell. You are expected to have 410,000gp when you get to that point.
So, not really more then chicken feed.
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you are some Cleric or Wizard or Druid etc, primary spellcasters need a good warrior type around. And that doesn't bother me. I think it makes sense to have a mix of classes, each suited to certain roles, each covering the next PC's patookus.
...
Nah, a party can do just fine without a warrior type (or any other type). I don't see that as a flaw in the system, in fact, I see it as a feature! I don't think this is about "needing" one type of character or another, I see it as an issue of everyone playing a superhero, not superheros and their sidekicks.
EDIT: Damn. Double Ninja'd. That will teach me to watch half an episode of PAX D&D in the middle of posting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters can do alot and in the case of spellcasting, almost anything is achievable. However, no caster has every single spell known and memorized. So while each caster can definitely fulfill a role in the party, they cannot and therefore are not prepped for every single situation. For martials, they also cannot be prepped for every single situation. Thats not an issue with martials versus casters, its just how the game works. No class was designed to handle everything on their own and I like that. I notice the games where casters shine over martials is when the dm makes it extremely clear that the pcs are about to undertake a dungeon crawl and the casters therefore have the time to activate their buffs beforehand, hence entering a dungeon at maximum optimal efficiency.
Another feature is when the game is somewhat relaxed in terms of pace, ample opportunities to check into an inn for the night or even if they camp outside, very little bothers them and everyone gets their 8 hours rest. In those games casters really shine because they can max out the durations of their defensive spells. In games where it pushes the party to move at a quick pace to finish certain side quests, spellcasters really start to falter compared to martials. Fort saves vs fatigue start to come in. If the spell to remove such effects has been used the previous day but the eight hours of sleep was not reached, then you have to depend on a wand or potion or just be fatigued for the day. Its not just the heaking and defensive spells. Even the offensive spells have still not returned. In a hard, gritty game which steps away from the 15 minute workday, spellcasters are put on the back burner because they can't fall into the comfortable routine of recharging their blasters the moment its out of juice. Seen different players who played spellcasters take it differently. Some really had fun with the grit and bonding with the party's martial characters. Others were really offended they couldn't be superior to their martial counterparts for the majority of encounters.
0 5 gp
1 10 gp
2 40 gp
3 90 gp
4 160 gp
5 250 gp
6 360 gp
7 490 gp
8 640 gp
9 810 gpBuku gold!
That's not counting any of the other items a martial would need to buy to stay in the running.
+8 bracers of armor still only cost 64k (or more likely, 32k because item crafting).
For those of you playing at home, that's the exact same price as a +8 enhancement bonus on regular armor.
But the...
Damn quote program won't copy the entire letter for reference use, therefore I may have to reply in pieces. Sorry about that. I will likely miss a few bits in my reply, so if I do, remind me.
First, you are forgetting something crucial, once again. You know all those fancy weapon and armor price enhancement etc quotes you threw me? They are a one time cost, with the possible exception with a rust monster. Meanwhile, all those spell prices you quoted me? They happen each and every time a Wizard wants a new spell, plus it costs a large amount of time (personal) to achieve. Meanwhile, the warrior just pays somebody else to do it, and only does so once.
Most of the Wizard types I've seen are continually running on E for dough, in comparison of warrior types. The latter tend to save up for armor and weapon enchantments, meaning they have large amounts of moolah available for emergencies. Wizards just blow them on new spells, in order to get all that vaunted flexibility the class is reputed.
Try again.
Now, as for needing AC, you people DO realize that to get one's AC up like that, means your typical spellcaster has to spend the first several rounds casting defensive things like Mage Armor, right? Meanwhile, the warrior is moving in and attacking. It also means that a spellcaster can easily be caught with his pants down, far more so than a warrior since it happens nearly each and every fight. Mage Armor might last, but other protective spells have a duration of minutes or rounds. Why cast Blur instead of Displacement? Check the duration. Think about having to do that each and every new combat. Usually several minutes at minimum pass between combats, meaning your spell effects have expired.
Try again.
Recall that warrior types have access to early, and relatively cheap armor in comparison to primary spellcasters. You can enchant shields and body armor relatively quickly, too. Meanwhile the Wizard had to either cast Shield etc in each and every beginning of combat, or spend serious moolah on Amulets of Natural Armor and Bracers of Armor. Getting those items means you don't spend the first precious rounds of combat defending your unarmored butt via spells.
Do you guys get it? There is no uber class here (with the possible exception of Summoners). Each necessary role must be filled, and there are certain classes that are better than others for each role. Each class ends up needing each other. A Barbarian needs a Sorcerer around, and vice versa. A Wizard needs a Paladin around, a Cleric needs a Rogue, etc.
That's the point I am trying to make. You keep citing various situations that prove the superiority of spellcasters over warriors, especially Wizards over say, Fighters, but it just doesn't work. If I had a group of all 10th level Wizards, they'd blow their spells far too early, and be caught with their pants down especially when it comes time to rest. Having limited spells per day does that to you, as does limited ki etc. Meanwhile ye old Ranger can keep swinging that sword, and use long term enchantments to stay healthy. Your Wizard would end up blowing their wad on fancy spells and AC items, while the warrior would blow their wad on fancy arms and armor. Same diff. Doesn't change a thing.
All upper level spellcasting changes is raw versatility, but even then you have to prepare before the encounter starts, or you are screwed. The warrior just needs to nock an arrow or draw a blade, both of which takes almost no time. Why do you think a lot of primary spellcasters take Improved Initiative, even more so than warriors or skill monkeys? More time.
Casters can do alot and in the case of spellcasting, almost anything is achievable. However, no caster has every single spell known and memorized. So while each caster can definitely fulfill a role in the party, they cannot and therefore are not prepped for every single situation. For martials, they also cannot be prepped for every single situation. Thats not an issue with martials versus casters, its just how the game works. No class was designed to handle everything on their own and I like that. I notice the games where casters shine over martials is when the dm makes it extremely clear that the pcs are about to undertake a dungeon crawl and the casters therefore have the time to activate their buffs beforehand, hence entering a dungeon at maximum optimal efficiency.
Another feature is when the game is somewhat relaxed in terms of pace, ample opportunities to check into an inn for the night or even if they camp outside, very little bothers them and everyone gets their 8 hours rest. In those games casters really shine because they can max out the durations of their defensive spells. In games where it pushes the party to move at a quick pace to finish certain side quests, spellcasters really start to falter compared to martials. Fort saves vs fatigue start to come in. If the spell to remove such effects has been used the previous day but the eight hours of sleep was not reached, then you have to depend on a wand or potion or just be fatigued for the day. Its not just the heaking and defensive spells. Even the offensive spells have still not returned. In a hard, gritty game which steps away from the 15 minute workday, spellcasters are put on the back burner because they can't fall into the comfortable routine of recharging their blasters the moment its out of juice. Seen different players who played spellcasters take it differently. Some really had fun with the grit and bonding with the party's martial characters. Others were really offended they couldn't be superior to their martial counterparts for the...
Yes, the spellcaster without fly, has to climb the mountain.
The plant/abberation/animal grapples the wizard.
You walk into a trap, you did not have detect traps on.
You are attacked in the first round by everyone using ranged, you do not have protection from arrows up. As this is after a number of fights already.
Fatigue, non temperate environmental factors, it can all be really bad news.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest argument that pops up on these forums is the fact that once a scenario is described, people go scrambling for the CRB to see which spells would be the most effective. I have a feeling some groups here play like that instead of writing their spell list ahead of time like they are supposed to.
Of course casters would dominate if you played the game that way. When you start enforcing a few things that should have been to start with, coupled with the fact that games don't function in a vacuum, you will get different results.
Very shady, but a good point shallowsoul.
Also another great thing a dm running a module can do, is add new dungeons and shift the monsters/rooms around, swapping some in and out. That can be hilarious!
"Is that in the book?" said the fearful spellcaster player, who had read up on everything ahead of time. Anxious as he was at the thought of a genuine challenge and going in blind, he now faced something he hadn't prepared for, and didn't have the right spell to quickly solve.
Reminds me of jade regent and the great journey, and people were saying when the books had only been released that their wizards would have endure elements on and cast all the time during the snow trek. Ho ho ho, really now? You will always rest well on a massive hike that far north? Nothing will ever knock out that spell, the only thing saving you from freezing solid like an ice cube, and which you are so reliant upon?
I remember the early parts of the kingmaker AP. Tengu spellcaster was annoyed that opponents in the forest were not primarily animals. I swappedsome out for a mix of animal and abberation. Ensured the CR for each creature was still the same though. He didn't take that so well, for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like now, the argument against caster superiority is that it takes more skill to play a caster (because you need more preparation, you need to know the right spells to take for the situation, etc.), therefore, it's ok that they're stronger because most people aren't good enough to play them that way.
Is that really what people are saying? You guys don't see a problem with that?
I will be the first to say that the average RPG player with a wizard (or any full caster) and the average RPG player with a fighter (or any non-caster) will end up roughly equal in power over the course of the game.
However, give them to highly skilled players, and suddenly, the gap is visible. Spellcasters require more skill than non-casters, but also give more when you have it.
Spell selection is a big part if it, but not even the best player can guess everything they need. Good thing prepared casters can leave slots open and fill them on the fly in just a short time (usually about a minute). Highly skilled wizard players barely fill half their slots in the morning, by the high levels.
You can also use divination magic (or even just high knowledge checks) to tell what's coming up later in the day, or various escape magics (teleports and such) to leave a fight you weren't prepared for and come back with exactly the right spell later.
I know that most real groups will never see the power difference. Lots of groups, in fact, feel like being a spellcaster is a bad idea. But the power gap being hidden from most does not mean it is not there.
I wouldn't agree with that summation of the argument mp.
What I would say is that for all the talk of OP spellcasters, I've seen them perform very badly and appear really weak in a number of circumstances, which are not the optimal contexts already covered by equalizer.
Even strong players can be easily challenged and low to mid level spellcasters shut down or greatly hindered by the strangest things.
I am curious though, what is this leaving of slots open? Then the idea of them being able to be filled on the fly "in just a short time"? Sorcerers get the freedom of choice with a limited range but others have to choose their spell list for the day (clerics of course can convert spells into healing and all that). No need for choice leave it all free? This is news to me.
Yes you can teleport away, leaving your friends to die, so you can come back with the right spell later.
Since when did the argument switch to "it takes more skill to play casters?" The issue being discussed was the fact that casters being all powerful and invincible compared to martials is not universally true. Things like the setting also affect the game. The power levels of martials and spellcasters varies also by the level of loot and wealth acquired, on average. Is it a high loot, magic item heavy game? In such campaigns the casters will be more powerful than martials. The main reason being although martials are dependent on magical gear, a magic item heavy setting allows casters to acquire numerous wands and staves. They are then walking around with a sackful of wands and get around the problem of running out of spells with ease. In a low magic setting, where such resources are not so readily available, it is the casters who have to really play it carefully. How much arcane or holy juice do they burn for each encounter. The problem of running out of spells per day really crops up. I've seen both settings with martials and casters. Those used to the safety net of multiple scrolls,wands and staves being readily available become extremely annoyed when that safety net is taken away. With martial characters, some also get annoyed but the number of them who are bothered number a lot less than casters. Most of them sitting on fatigue or ability drain penalties keep swinging away. Something casters can't do with their spells once they re used up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly, there was something about sticking dragons in full plate and ensuring they have rings of protection plus consumables and some other stuff. I don't recall reading any of that in monster manuals or the bestiarys.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like now, the argument against caster superiority is that it takes more skill to play a caster (because you need more preparation, you need to know the right spells to take for the situation, etc.), therefore, it's ok that they're stronger because most people aren't good enough to play them that way.
Is that really what people are saying? You guys don't see a problem with that?
I will be the first to say that the average RPG player with a wizard (or any full caster) and the average RPG player with a fighter (or any non-caster) will end up roughly equal in power over the course of the game.
However, give them to highly skilled players, and suddenly, the gap is visible. Spellcasters require more skill than non-casters, but also give more when you have it.
Spell selection is a big part if it, but not even the best player can guess everything they need. Good thing prepared casters can leave slots open and fill them on the fly in just a short time (usually about a minute). Highly skilled wizard players barely fill half their slots in the morning, by the high levels.
You can also use divination magic (or even just high knowledge checks) to tell what's coming up later in the day, or various escape magics (teleports and such) to leave a fight you weren't prepared for and come back with exactly the right spell later.
I know that most real groups will never see the power difference. Lots of groups, in fact, feel like being a spellcaster is a bad idea. But the power gap being hidden from most does not mean it is not there.
It's not always about skill because that will only go so far. You cannot always have just the right spells available no matter how good you are unless you can read the GMs mind.
|
|
I wouldn't agree with that summation of the argument mp.
What I would say is that for all the talk of OP spellcasters, I've seen them perform very badly and appear really weak in a number of circumstances, which are not the optimal contexts already covered by equalizer.
Even strong players can be easily challenged and low to mid level spellcasters shut down or greatly hindered by the strangest things.
I am curious though, what is this leaving of slots open? Then the idea of them being able to be filled on the fly "in just a short time"? Sorcerers get the freedom of choice with a limited range but others have to choose their spell list for the day (clerics of course can convert spells into healing and all that). No need for choice leave it all free? This is news to me.
Leaving spell slots open still takes time so it's not on the fly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the experience outside of theorycraft varies from GM to GM.
Prepared casters can be incredibly powerful when they are given time and space. Some GMs argue they can make time and space using spells, others argue that while they can take time and make space, the actions of the BBEG do not stop while you regroup.
My experience with Wizards in games I've played has been in a few categories.
1. The support Wizard egg project who makes everyone better with spells, occassionally is awesome with a SoS project, but also needs constant help keeping things off him so he can cast and he doesn't die.
2. The all-win all-fail wizard who has absolutely awesome spells that end the combat when they work or fail spectacularly leaving him exposed and vulnerable.
3. Mr. Consumable, the crafting machine who always has something ready since he spends all his free time crafting scrolls and wands, but needs extra protection and cover for that standard action and burns through wealth like crazy on consumables, since they will be obsolete in a few levels anyway
4. The guy who pretends he memorized that spell that he needs...really...I have grey eyes...I know it says blue eyes, but...
With lots of shades in between. I've had Wizards dominate encounters, and even story arcs. But they are also the ones who seem to either die the most or need the most support to not die if spells are run as written and the 15 minute day isn't the norm.
YMMV.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
before my wife and I run beginner box for her sister, mom, brother-in-law and our young nephew and niece, I am going to force them to read this entire thread first
just so they all completely understand the situation
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious though, what is this leaving of slots open? Then the idea of them being able to be filled on the fly "in just a short time"? Sorcerers get the freedom of choice with a limited range but others have to choose their spell list for the day (clerics of course can convert spells into healing and all that). No need for choice leave it all free? This is news to me.
Preparing divine spells:
"A divine spellcaster selects and prepares spells ahead of time through prayer and meditation at a particular time of day. The time required to prepare spells is the same as it is for a wizard (1 hour), as is the requirement for a relatively peaceful environment. When preparing spells for the day, a divine spellcaster can leave some of her spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes. During these extra sessions of preparation, she can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if she prepares more than one-quarter of his spells."
Just for the hell of it, Alchemists, too:
"An alchemist can create only a certain number of extracts of each level per day. His base daily allotment of extracts is given on Table: Alchemist. In addition, he receives bonus extracts per day if he has a high Intelligence score, in the same way a wizard receives bonus spells per day. When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist’s possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before becoming inert, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it’s not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed."
Oh, and every highly skilled Wizard player will take Fast Study:
"Prerequisite: You must be at least a 5th-level Wizard to select this discovery.
Benefit: Normally, a Wizard spends 1 hour preparing all of his spells for the day, or proportionately less if he only prepares some spells, with a minimum of 15 minutes of preparation. Thanks to mental discipline and clever mnemonics, you can prepare all of your spells in only 15 minutes, and your minimum preparation time is only 1 minute."
Yes you can teleport away, leaving your friends to die, so you can come back with the right spell later.
Teleport can take the entire party with you--why would you abandon them?
"Crap, I'm not prepared for this--everyone gather round, we'll come back in 15 minutes."
If you've not seen something akin to that phrase, you have not seen a highly skilled wizard.
And, of course, half-elf Sorcerers and Oracles only need a single round to get the exact spell they need with paragon surge...
It's not always about skill because that will only go so far. You cannot always have just the right spells available no matter how good you are unless you can read the GMs mind.
You absolutely cannot have them right ahead of time. That's what divination magic and tactical retreats are for. Scry ahead, use high knowledge checks, etc., and figure out what enemies are coming, then prepare for them (you only need 15 minutes or less). Or, if it's a surprise, flee the scene, prepare what you need, and come back.
If your group is refusing to retreat and come back better prepared, or not letting the caster divine ahead, then your group is not a good one to judge the true power of these classes. That's basically your social pressure preventing them from being as powerful as they really are--it's like forcing clerics to use all their spell slots on healing.
Since when did the argument switch to "it takes more skill to play casters?"
When people started arguing about casters being vulnerable and unable to be prepared for everything--unskilled players end up with bad luck like that. Skilled players make their own luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing spellcasters can be challenging for some players. In our group we have two players who simply feel that spell casters have too many options and it overwhelms them to try to figure out which options to take. When they do play spellcasters they tend to gravitate towards a small number of spells they use over and over, and they then very much fall into the analogy of "I have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to me." Fireball and magic missile tend to become the default "solutions" for most combat situations.
In most cases this approach is perfectly adequate for spellcasters in most groups dealing with most encounters in most campaigns.
In other words, playing a spellcaster in "easy mode" is generally a perfectly adequate tactical approach.
The issue of "what sort of things can a spellcaster do if played intelligently" is really not one about whether spellcasters are useful or even overpowered, it's more a question of "what can you actually do with the abilities this character has?"
In many groups the idea of playing a spellcaster in such a way to truly maximize their ability to scry and plan for encounters becomes a question of whether the spellcaster is dominating the game play. Because there is a LOT the spellcaster can do if they really want to. It's very similar to the issue at lower levels of the "scout" who goes out and does their thing for 45 minutes while the rest of the party gossips over the campfire.
Sometimes game play considerations can trump player character options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am curious though, what is this leaving of slots open? Then the idea of them being able to be filled on the fly "in just a short time"? Sorcerers get the freedom of choice with a limited range but others have to choose their spell list for the day (clerics of course can convert spells into healing and all that). No need for choice leave it all free? This is news to me.** spoiler omitted **...
Divinations only work so much. I mean there is no divination that is going to tell you what exactly you may be fighting and where they may be lurking.
Leaving and/or retreating isn't always an option. I've had people try and run only to be ran down and slaughtered. Also, creatures aren't going to wait around on you to buff and come back for more.
We don't run nor play in games where you can finish sections, leave and come back to finish another section etc... Once you've started you have to finish it, unless you get really lucky.
In many groups the idea of playing a spellcaster in such a way to truly maximize their ability to scry and plan for encounters becomes a question of whether the spellcaster is dominating the game play. Because there is a LOT the spellcaster can do if they really want to. It's very similar to the issue at lower levels of the "scout" who goes out and does their thing for 45 minutes while the rest of the party gossips over the campfire.
I'm sorry, but you just came to nearly the opposite conclusion that I did.
We both agree that a spellcaster can truly maximize their ability by scrying and planning, etc.
However, you seem to take that in the direction of, "since actually doing that makes you a jerk, it's not a problem," presumably because you do not play with jerks or whatever.
In my mind, however, "actually doing that makes you a jerk, so it's an even bigger problem." That means not only are these classes too powerful, but being powerful also makes you a jerk of a player.
You cannot and should not design classes assuming social pressure will force balance. That is bad design.
|
|
Playing spellcasters can be challenging for some players. In our group we have two players who simply feel that spell casters have too many options and it overwhelms them to try to figure out which options to take. When they do play spellcasters they tend to gravitate towards a small number of spells they use over and over, and they then very much fall into the analogy of "I have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail to me." Fireball and magic missile tend to become the default "solutions" for most combat situations.
This approach to playing a spellcaster always seems to leave them perfectly on par with the rest of the group and they don't ever seem to become a problem to manage either for the player or the DM.
I've always wondered what the game would look like if full casters only got 1 spell known per level, but could cast them as many times as they wanted. Any spells not appropriate for that would be moved to special (presumably long) rituals or otherwise have weird kinks to them that make them impractical in most situations. Heck, the ability to do such rituals might even require a feat.
Even better, in my mind, would be to make it so that casters only had 1 spell at first level and gained another every even level thereafter, but also had the potential to improve a subset of those spells drastically via their feat and class ability choices. Again, this assumes they could use those spells at will.
EDIT: I has a grammar?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mpl, I don't think we are at opposite ends of the discussion.
I also don't think the spell casting classes were designed deliberately with the idea that social pressure would force balance by suppressing some abilities of the spellcasters. I frankly think the designers didn't think that deeply about the game play consequences of most of their spells beyond "how much damage does it do" or "how does this fit into the generally accepted fantasy role of this class?"
I have not played a wizard in a long time. In fact I've not yet played one in Pathfinder at all. My last wizard I played was probably in 2e actually. (Well, technically I played a wizard in 4e but that ignores the obvious fact that there are no wizards in 4e.)
Back in the day though, my recollection of wizard play was that scrying and preparing for the upcoming day was at least as important and time consuming as it is today. I typically did most of that off-line between gaming sessions with the GM, frequently over the phone or by email.
I do play a mid-level druid in PF though. And these things apply to druids as well. In the last major campaign my druid was in we were in a deep dungeon crawl situation where scouting and planning were critical to our success in the final encounter. Most of that I worked with the GM between sessions. Yes, that takes a risk of putting a character in a situation where the next session starts with "Well, your druid wildshaped into an earth elemental to go scouting and hasn't come back on schedule. What do you do about that?" But she's actually a pretty competent scout so she completed all her scouting, scrying and spell prep by email or phone so that when the actual game session began the GM just quickly summarized the activities of my druid and the party rogue who had also been scouting, and then off we went to the big dance.
When I play a spellcaster I do try to avoid hogging the spotlight, but I try to avoid hogging the spotlight no matter what I play. In combat a fighter or barbarian can be quite the spotlight stealer as well so I don't think that's restricted to the spellcasting classes.
Sometimes a player will email me after or between sessions to ask how I knew something or what had led me to prepare for a particular encounter. When that happens I take them through the off-line process I went through with the GM. If I learn something that I think is valuable to the party I will relate that in-game, but won't necessarily take the additional time to explain what I did to learn it.
This is really no different than the activities my witch has been engaged in to depose the town mayor in another game. Most of that activity is skill-based (stealth, diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc) not spell based so technically any class could do the same thing. But I don't do all that stuff during at-the-table game session time. I work with the GM to do all that stuff offline and then the GM and I just adapt to the situation in game.
In some cases where there is desperate need I will do some of this stuff during game. My druid spent probably 30 minutes scouting and preparing for a red dragon fight but all that prep resulted in the fight being much easier for the party so in the end the other players were fine with it.