Ah, perhaps at your table D&D is played as a one on one gladiator game. But in every table I have played it, D&D is played as a team.And if we're evaluating what each member of the team brings to the team, it's disengenuous to list things the way you're implying:
Member A brings his stuff; however,
Member B brings his stuff plus member A's stuff, because they're on the same team! Therefore, member B brings as much if not more than member A!
No, not at all. We’re evaluating where the dev’s have made faulty assumptions, and one such claim was that some classes can’t contribute. So far, this has not been shown. In our games- and according to JJ his games- all four main roles contribute meaningfully at all levels.
Maybe not in your games, of course.
Please list these.
Please see above, and elsewhere. I'm tired of this game where I explain stuff, and people ignore it and demand that I explain again.
2. Maybe in your games they don’t but in my games they do.
That's fine, but the point is that your way is not the only way to play -- by NOT using the casters' abilities to their potential. See long post previously re: narrative power.
I just wonder why there are no comments about making maneuvers function without feat investment. Surely its easy to determine whether that would fundamentally damage the games equilibrium?Maneuvers are VERY VERY boring for anyone who is not the ‘Maneuver-er”. I hate to play against or *WITH* a tripper. Slows down the game a lot. Yes, I’d get rid of the feat chain- by getting rid of the maneuver in it’s entirety. If they came up with agme where it was easier (as opposed to SIMPLER) to do trips, grapples etc , I wouldn’t play it. I want to see Conan killing the monster with a sword, not WWF.
So you want everyone to have less options because you don't like some of them? Do you want every martial character to only be able to shout "I full attack" every time?
Even Conan did more than just attack relentlessly.Trip, Disarm and etc give you variety. Full attacking every round, round after round, combat after combat is much more boring than any maneuver will ever be. Which is why I don't play Fighters anymore.
Please list these.Please see above, and elsewhere. I'm tired of this game where I explain stuff, and people ignore it and demand that I explain again.
2. Maybe in your games they don’t but in my games they do.That's fine, but the point is that your way is not the only way to play -- by NOT using the casters' abilities to their potential. See long post previously re: narrative power.
So, link me to that post or give us the number of the post if you can't cut & paste then. "above and elsewhere' isn't very helpful. If it's so easy to find, just link, give post number or cut n paste.
We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much. Maybe we just have better DM's?
We’re evaluating where the dev’s have made faulty assumptions, and one such claim was that some classes can’t contribute. So far, this has not been shown. In our games- and according to JJ his games- all four main roles contribute meaningfully at all levels.
Maybe not in your games, of course.
Again, that's the point. All the pieces are there in your post... just put them together.
In YOUR game, with the assumption that everyone sticks to the script and that play at all levels consists of dungeon crawling without any attempt to sidestep that, then everyone contributes.
In MY game, in which casters use their abilities (esp. divination, plus transportation, summoning, etc.) to sidestep whole dungeons (as described in detail previously), then not everyone contributes -- the noncasters are basically just along for the ride.
The faulty assumption is that all games run like yours, and that none run like mine. If the game only works when it's modeled after yours, there are two possibilities:
(A) Make sure everyone contributes in BOTH scenarios; or
(B) Nerf/remove the options that make mine possible.
Maybe we just have better DM's?
If by "better DM" you mean "a DM who forces you to stick with the script despite you having a better plan, and/or who actively works against the rules to make sure everyone feels special," then no doubt you do.
However,
Balance is a GM's job.I see this a lot, and I also see that, interestingly, many of the "don't balance the classes" people are also the "DM is God and needs to put those worthless troublemaker entitled players in their places or kick them to the curb" people.
An unbalanced game forces the DM to balance it through granted special authority and fiat. I am starting to suspect that many GMs have been on a power trip for so long that they actively want the game rules to be as unbalanced as possible -- because the less balance there is inherently, the more power everyone needs to cede over to them to correct it. If you disagree, call one of them a "referee" instead of a "game MASTER" and watch the spittle fly.
I would like to think this is just conspiracy theory, and I would like it very much if someone else could convince me that that's all it is.
We use our casters abilities to their full potential, thank you very much.
Somehow, I highly doubt that...
Maybe we just have better DM's?
Ah, the good old "I'm better than you" argument... It never gets old, right? Sure, it's offensive, presumptuous and stupid as it can possibly be, but it's still a valid argument, right?
In case you're wondering...
No, it isn't.
See long post previously re: narrative power.So, link me to that post
high-level casters ARE extremely powerful, but not necessarily if your whole party is committed to acting like they're still 1st level: going room to room killing monsters. What makes them powerful is their ability to choose NOT to follow that paradigm -- to throw off the narrative of the story, as you've alluded.
There are a lot of adventures/APs where you go into one dungeon to find the scrap of parchment that leads you to another dungeon that holds the amulet of the planes that transports you to the extraplanar dungeon where a prisoner (NPC ally of yours) is being held by the BBEG, who in turn resides on a different plane in a different dungeon. And the AP sort of expects you to tackle those things in that order, and to kill all the monsters in each dungeon along the way.
But, the thing is, higher-level casters have the tools so that they can choose not to do that. Divination, properly used, allows you to bypass one or both of the first two dungeons entirely. Following the timeline, that might mean that your NPC friend hasn't even been taken prisoner yet, eliminating the third dungeon as well. Instead, you can use divination or planar ally spies or whatever to find out that the BBEG is also planning to do horrible things in location X as part of his plans, which might be considered "backstory" in the AP as written, but is now within your grasp to pre-emptively put a stop to. And maybe you find the BBEG at that location. Even if he escapes, you now know who he is, so they can scry his location, teleport or plane shift there, bypass 90% of his "lair" dungeon, and take him out for good.
Most of the time, the DM doesn't want to deal with all that, and I really don't blame him or her -- because he's prepped a prewritten AP, and here the players aren't following the script, throwing all that work out the window! So most DMs, consciously or unconsciously, more or less railroad the party into pretending to be 1st level again. Either they pull the really stale "the bad guy and all his plans are mysteriously divination-proof" thing (even though no such thing may be written in the AP or in any way supported by the rules), or through other mechanisms. For example, "No! You can't go sraight for the bad guy! He captured your ally and you have to rescue them first!" -- forgetting that, as a point of plot continuity, he only captured their friend AFTER they crashed his 1st two dungeons, as a hostage against them crashing the fourth.
By the same token, many players don't have the imagination to play the scenario like that. Or maybe they do, but they want to make the DM's life easier, because he's a nice guy and all, so they play along with the railroad even if, on some level, they realize that there are really 20 other ways they could be approaching things.
In any event, if the players have the imagination to think outside the train line, and if the DM has the energy and improv ability to roll with it and follow the logical results, then the game at high levels is entirely different from the one you play at low levels. Because most fights can be bypassed by spells, information becomes more valuable than swords and armor. And the people with the tools to obtain that information, to travel vast distances instantaneously so as to make use of it, and to put monkey wrenches in the enemy's ability to do the same -- they're the ones who are calling the shots.
In D&D, it's spells that allow you to do that. Because no one saw fit to give the fighter a world-spanning empire as a class feature that would enable him to have, in effect, eyes and nearly-limited power in a lot of places at once. And no one wants to sit around while the rogue breaks into the prison and rescues the hostage solo (even if he had the abilities needed to do so) while they attack the BBEG simultaneously during the next session (while the rogue's player stays home).
So, in a nutshell, that's the deal. Casters are more powerful because thir abilities put them on only slightly lower footing than the DM's, when it comes to making narrative decisions. Fighters and rogues and monks can't do that. Either the DM artificially empowers them because he feels sorry for them or, far more often, he simply drags everyone else down to their level, and you end up with high-level parties still doing dungeon crawls, of all things. In which case the fighter is just fine.
We’re evaluating where the dev’s have made faulty assumptions, and one such claim was that some classes can’t contribute. So far, this has not been shown. In our games- and according to JJ his games- all four main roles contribute meaningfully at all levels.
Maybe not in your games, of course.
Again, that's the point. All the pieces are there in your post... just put them together.
In YOUR game, with the assumption that everyone sticks to the script and that play at all levels consists of dungeon crawling without any attempt to sidestep that, then everyone contributes.
In MY game, in which casters use their abilities (esp. divination, plus transportation, summoning, etc.) to sidestep whole dungeons (as described in detail previously), then not everyone contributes -- the noncasters are basically just along for the ride.
The faulty assumption is that all games run like yours, and that none run like mine. If the game only works when it's modeled after yours, there are two possibilities:
(A) Make sure everyone contributes in BOTH scenarios; or
(B) Nerf/remove the options that make mine possible.
Umm, well, sure, you can sidestep whole dungeons. But you see, we LIKE the fun, the combat, the loot, the experience points, the clues and needed quest items. Even if the use of higher divinatory spells mean you don’t need the clues and can find the quest items, where’s the fun in that? Best way of avoiding whole dungeons of nasty monsters is just sit at home by the fire with a good book.
I guess we just have completely different ways of looking at a D&D game. Good thing you have your Kirth game then, and I have PF. From reading his posts, and even his replies to mine, looks like JJ’s group is a lot like ours in the way we play. Looks like yours isn’t. That doesn’t make your game “badwrongfun” by any means, heck, if you’re having fun that’s all that’s really important.
But it would seem that MOST of us like playing PF/D&D this way, and that’s what the Devs “assumed” when writing the game. You apparently play D&D a different way, and have even done up your very own very high powered houserules for doing so. Kudos to you! And may you enjoy your game. Looks like you did a lot of work on it, too. Again- Kudos!
Now, can we get back to Pathfinder?
Everyone likes fun. Everyone has different play styles.
Maybe we just have better DM's?If by "better DM" you mean "a DM who forces you to stick with the script despite you having a better plan, and/or who actively works against the rules to make sure everyone feels special," then no doubt you do.
Ah, so your BBEG’s have never heard of T-port and don’t take appropriate countermeasures? When our PC’s first get such spells, yes, for a level or so, we are able to whiz thru some stuff, just like when fighters get some of their cool tools for the first time, etc. But then the encounters scale so as to be challenging. For all the party.
Now, can we get back to Pathfinder?
Sure! Like, if the assumption that your way of playing is "the way Pathfinder was intended to be played" is correct, then how come only half of the written rules reflect that assumption, and the other half stand in direct contravention to it? I'm still confused on that point.
Ah, so your BBEG’s have never heard of T-port and don’t take appropriate countermeasures?
Mine sure have, but the ones in most of the APs seem to not have gotten the memo. Which brings us to assumption that "The DM's job is to actively work against the rules." Why should that be? If teleport (and not just that, but also legend lore, plane shift, greater scrying, wind walk, greater planar ally, etc.) clearly have the potential to be so problematic, the designers can either (a) nerf them or (b) set an expectation for submitted adventures to make allowances for them; or (c) give the martials some narrative control, too. But they've done none of those three things.
See long post previously re: narrative power.So, link me to that post...high-level casters ARE extremely powerful, but not necessarily if your whole party is committed to acting like they're still 1st level: going room to room killing monsters. What makes them powerful is their ability to choose NOT to follow that paradigm -- to throw off the narrative of the story, as you've alluded.
There are a lot of adventures/APs where you go into one dungeon to find the scrap of parchment that leads you to another dungeon that holds the amulet of the planes that transports you to the extraplanar dungeon where a prisoner (NPC ally of yours) is being held by the BBEG, who in turn resides on a different plane in a different dungeon. And the AP sort of expects you to tackle those things in that order, and to kill all the monsters in each dungeon along the way.
But, the thing is, higher-level casters have the tools so that they can choose not to do that. Divination, properly used, allows you to bypass one or both of the first two dungeons entirely.
Well, yes, Divination could do that. Or, maybe the Deity isn’t being that helpful. They often give almost sibyl-like answers to questions, which is a fantasy trope. In our games, a Divination would NOT simply hand us the clue on a silver platter. It would explain the clue if the players can’t figure it out after grabbing it. It would tell us where the clue is. But no, it wouldn’t replace a whole months worth of having fun down in the dungeon, killing monsters & getting “phat lewt”. And if it could? We- as players- wouldn’t want it to. See, we WANT to adventure. We don’t want to just sit there while the DM and the Spellcaster play 20 questions with each other.
And, let us suppose we could T-port right to the end, bypassing months of dungeon crawls, all full of experience and monsters. Now, we have to face the BBEG two levels lower and without that cool stuff that we would have found along the way. So the game goes like this: Hours are spent while the DM & the Spellcaster plays 20 questions. We now Tport to where the BBEG is, (as apparently he’s powerful, but not smart enough to figure out we can Tport.) Then, since we’re not powerful enough- he kills us. As Mark Twain once said “Fun? Yes, but of a mild sort.”
D&D is about the journey- not the destination. At least for us.
So yeah, you & I play a VERY different game of D&D. And, no doubt you enjoy yours, and that’s great.
So yeah, you & I play a VERY different game of D&D. And, no doubt you enjoy yours, and that’s great.
But, as it stands, half the rules support -- and even encourage -- mine, and the other half are written with your style as an assumption. You don't find that to be slightly schizophrenic?
See above re: DM vs. rules. (And, also, there's a whole post not too far upthread replying to the teleport thing, which you've again ignored.)
Ah, so your BBEG’s have never heard of T-port and don’t take appropriate countermeasures?Mine sure have, but the ones in most of the APs seem to not have gotten the memo.
I haven’t played one yet that has those issues. Name three PF paths that do that, pls.
So yeah, you & I play a VERY different game of D&D. And, no doubt you enjoy yours, and that’s great.But, as it stands, half the rules support -- and even encourage -- mine, and the other half are written with your style as an assumption. You don't find that to be slightly schizophrenic?
See above re: DM vs. rules. (And, also, there's a whole post not too far upthread replying to the teleport thing, which you've again ignored.)
Nope.
Not a major problem to me.
Linky? Post number?
I haven’t played one yet that has those issues. Name three PF paths that do that, pls.
So you can ignore that, too? I told you I was really tired of that game.
Here's ONE, to get you started: Legacy of Fire is an AWESOME AP in most respects. The individual adventures are REALLY COOL. But, as written, there's no reason the first 5 installments need to exist at all; anyone of sufficient power could use the above methods to find out what's going on with Rogavug and address that directly, or take steps to head it off in advance, before it gets to the stage where it is in installment 6.
|
Which brings us to assumption that "The DM's job is to actively work against the rules." Why should that be? If teleport (and not just that, but also legend lore, plane shift, greater scrying, wind walk, greater planar ally, etc.) clearly have the potential to be so problematic, the designers can either (a) nerf them or (b) set an expectation for submitted adventures to make allowances for them; or (c) give the martials some narrative control, too. But they've done none of those three things.
The simple solution to this problem (if you are indeed looking for a solution) would be option A.
By nerfing their functionality you have eliminated their impact on B) and by virtue of available power/economic use of abilities available to groups of players you have improved on C).
Nerfing casters wouldn't give martials more options than hit it with a stick... How'd you come to that conclusion?
Nerfing casters wouldn't give martials more options than hit it with a stick... How'd you come to that conclusion?
If martials' options were "hit it with a stick," and the wizard's options were "buff the martials," and the cleric's options were "heal the martials and the wizards," then there would be some semblance of balance (I'm not saying that's my preferred method, but it would work). It's only when you give one of those groups near-limitless options, and keep one or more of the others at the single-option stage, that there's a disconnect.
|
|
Nerfing casters wouldn't give martials more options than hit it with a stick... How'd you come to that conclusion?
It was never about giving martials more options. It is about managing expectations, functionality, effectiveness and roles. Nerfing casters = raising the stock value of skillmonkeys and brusiers when you are all sitting down to play an adventure. They become more economical in the group dynamic.
When you boil it all down though, casters cast and martials are going to hit it with a stick.
That's the basics of fantasy gaming. You can add variety to casting or hitting it with a stick - but the fundamentals remain the same. Martials deal with threats via damage (and only damage) while casters deal with problems via casting (limited damage, remove, turn off, or reinforce). This has worked for many years prior to 3rd ed with no major problem – when the powers were balanced against their respective roles.
The issues start to arise when casters can hit it with a stick as well as martials (CoD), deal with the world’s problems and still get to hit the "I win" button via overpowered casting (3rd ed)/problem solving. All the while the hitting it with a stick gig just got worse when hit points stopped capping and we gave monsters con scores with exploding bonuses and hit points while trying to make builds so fighters could figure out a way to catch up.
If you just wanted the short version.
I haven’t played one yet that has those issues. Name three PF paths that do that, pls.So you can ignore that, too? I told you I was really tired of that game.
Here's ONE, to get you started: Legacy of Fire is an AWESOME AP in most respects. The individual adventures are REALLY COOL. But, as written, there's no reason the first 5 installments need to exist at all; anyone of sufficient power could use the above methods to find out what's going on with Rogavug and address that directly, or take steps to head it off in advance, before it gets to the stage where it is in installment 6.
I haven’t played that path, but the first part is “For characters of 1st to 5th “
level.http://paizo.com/products/btpy8735?Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-19-Howl- of-the-Carrion-KingWhat sorts of Divination spells are your 1st level PC’s getting? I mean, “Detect” spells are pretty good and all that, but….
So, that's one, and not a very good example. But maybe I am missing soemthing....
Nerfing casters wouldn't give martials more options than hit it with a stick... How'd you come to that conclusion?If martials' options were "hit it with a stick," and the wizard's options were "buff the martials," and the cleric's options were "heal the martials and the wizards," then there would be some semblance of balance (I'm not saying that's my preferred method, but it would work). It's only when you give one of those groups near-limitless options, and keep one or more of the others at the single-option stage, that there's a disconnect.
I agree with the last part. I think the best way to handle it is to give everyone a variety of flavorful options. I feel like the game at the moment is mostly "Martials hit it with a stick. Sometimes harder!" and casters just get more and more options and more and more spell slots to horde the ones that are utility. Its not just their spells either, their feats and constructions allow them even more power and versatility. If feats added versatility to martials, or they had access to more class features that gave them a variety of options I think there would be a few less problems with martials. Though casters have a variety of problems that can pop up(scry and die) the only thing I see keeping people from doing it is... its boring? I guess? "Well that's not what your supposed to do" isn't a great reason not to do it. Just don't give such ridiculous tools!
|
Builds are good to prove that something can be done. They aren't very effective to prove something can not be done.This is exactly what a build shows. If you say something can't be done, and someone in the thread finds a way to do it in a complete build that is still useful, you are then wrong. It can be done, as demonstrated.Yes, but you keep asking people to use builds to prove negatives. That's not something that can be done, unless we try every possible class/feat/ability score combination. And I don't think anyone has the time for that.
You are the one who should be producing builds to prove your point.
I have offered to and plan to, once someone gives me some goal posts for expectations.
Would you like to do that?
Why isn't the party arcanist tossing Mage armor on him? My groups do this. So, he does get to raise his AC with mage armor like the wizard can.
Because there isn't always a party arcanist *to* toss mage armor on him?
My current PF game I have a high dex alchemist that would have loved mage armor, but the only "arcanists" were him and the bard/cavalier. I ended up buying a potion of Mage Armor and using Alchemical Allocation (2nd level slot, on a class that has stunted progression already) just to get it. (I could've gotten a wand, but the potion was cheaper, and CL 1 is stupidly easy to dispel and higher CL just too much money)
And besides that, what others said. That's not part of his class or build. I can make a lot of characters look a lot better if I get to pretend/assume they have a bunch of spell buffs on call from someone else.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nerfing casters wouldn't give martials more options than hit it with a stick... How'd you come to that conclusion?If martials' options were "hit it with a stick," and the wizard's options were "buff the martials," and the cleric's options were "heal the martials and the wizards," then there would be some semblance of balance (I'm not saying that's my preferred method, but it would work).
But isn't this where we started? Where D&D started?
What happened over the course of the life of 1st and 2nd is that we got more spells (helps casters with increased choices) and some major abilities for fighters (weapon specialization). But even with all the expanded spells lists over the life of 1st and 2nd ed while we were getting all those spells the casting paradigm remained the same: casting was difficult and casting was risky/had a price. This was AD&D/D&D LAW.The primary shifts (wholly detrimental to the game imo) was the removal of casting risks plus the increase of spell numbers, and spells with fixed result/values - all to the benefit of casters. On the other side we have the exploding hit point change, which hurts people who deal problem resolution by doing hit point damage. At low level a 3rd ed/PFRPG game seems similar to a low-level 1st and 2nd ed game in appearance and functionality with a few exceptions. Once the casting game takes off, and the hit points start exploding you can see where the casters just get better (and better) but the martials and skill based characters starts to lag due to damage output problems and the fact that several 1st and 2nd level spells eliminate the need for many skills. Just bad design.
To me it isn't about more options, it's about the options currently available being effective and worthy of needing a class dedicated to that role or task. I think the 3rd ed designers didn't think out the changes they made to the game as most of these were "feel good" choices (still cast after being hit, remove aging from casting certain spells) without thought of long term consequences on the overall game and impact on class roles/need.
And then we are left with endless debates on builds, fixes, house rules, etc, all to deal with why x class sucks or doesn't do its job right. MAD vs. SAD, E6, crappy monks and useless rogues are symptomatic of a game design that failed.
And besides that, what others said. That's not part of his class or build. I can make a lot of characters look a lot better if I get to pretend/assume they have a bunch of spell buffs on call from someone else.
Exactly what I assume. I also assume the Wizard won’t have to heal himself, that the Cleric won’t have to find traps, etc.....
I assume a balanced party that works as a TEAM. Oddly, when I make this assumption, every class is able to contribute. hmmmm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But maybe I am missing soemthing....
Yes, you are. But before I only thought you might be doing so willfully. Now I'm pretty sure of it.
But isn't this where we started? Where D&D started?
What happened over the course of the life of 1st and 2nd is that we got more spells (helps casters with increased choices) and some major abilities for fighters (weapon specialization). But even with all the expanded spells lists over the life of 1st and 2nd ed while we were getting all those spells the casting paradigm remained the same: casting was difficult and casting was risky/had a price. This was AD&D/D&D LAW.The primary shifts (wholly detrimental to the game imo) was the removal of casting risks plus the increase of spell numbers, and spells with fixed result/values - all to the benefit of casters. On the other side we have the exploding hit point change, which hurts people who deal problem resolution by doing hit point damage. At low level a 3rd ed/PFRPG game seems similar to a low-level 1st and 2nd ed game in appearance and functionality with a few exceptions. Once the casting game takes off, and the hit points start exploding you can see where the casters just get better (and better) but the martials and skill based characters starts to lag due to damage output problems and the fact that several 1st and 2nd level spells eliminate the need for many skills. Just bad design.
To me it isn't about more options, it's about the options currently available being effective and worthy of needing a class dedicated to that role or task. I think the 3rd ed designers didn't think out the changes they made to the game as most of these were "feel good" choices (still cast after being hit, remove aging from...
Huh? It was rare for any caster to have his spell disrupted in any game from OD&D thru 2nd S&P. Casting was not difficult nor was casting risky/had a price. True, it was nearly impossible for a caster to cast twice in a round, so metamagic changed things. Spellcasting has gotten more powerful, yes, but not less risky. Heck, there wasn’t even such as thing as a Attack of Opportunity nor Casting Defensively.
But even from Day One, the Wizard and the Cleric were the most powerful at the highest “Name” levels. Mind you, the Fighter (called a Lord) got a cooler stronghold by far.
And, we strongly disagree that the 'design has failed".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And besides that, what others said. That's not part of his class or build. I can make a lot of characters look a lot better if I get to pretend/assume they have a bunch of spell buffs on call from someone else.Exactly what I assume. I also assume the Wizard won’t have to heal himself, that the Cleric won’t have to find traps, etc.....
I assume a balanced party that works as a TEAM. Oddly, when I make this assumption, every class is able to contribute. hmmmm
I think there are a few assumptions in there - many based off of DM/Player aggrement. And while this may work for people who have played the game for many years, and with the same crowd - it doesn't hold as well for new players, organized play or just casual play.
At low level the options for casters to cover all groups is limited if not impractical. But as the levels creep up, the options for casters to overtake roles of other classes becomes more probable - just by virtue of available power. In some cases - the rules exacerbate the problem.
Let me give you an example Dr D.
A mid level (say 4th or 5th) level group of adventurers are infiltrating a dungeon base. The rogue wants to sneak into a room with bad guys using his rogue abilities. Can he do this? Yes, at some risk - can the party Wizard who has invisibility just cast the spell on himself and do almost the same thing - get in the room? Yes. Now I still think it would be better to cast it on the rogue - this is a thematic/Player/DM sort of agreement. But, mechanically the wizard doesn't have to. And in PF, with senses and stealth being combined, the "I win"/one spell solution (in this example) is made even more glaring.
This is the junction where game design, rules and spell limitations all come together to create = the problem. And in most cases spells win out pretty much all the time as a solution to in-game problems. No risks in casting, no chance of failure of casting (unless in combat), superior to mundane activity, and so on. The only drawbacks are: did you select it and how many slots do you have. This becomes less of a problem as casters level up, and you get some system mastery of the "you need this spell to play" thing down.
Considering that invisibility isn't a rare or corner case spell it would be likely that a mid-level wizard would have it prepped while going on an adventure. And it pulls double duty. Need to get away in a bad fight - invisibility. The rogue needs to get away in a bad fight, make several rolls if the conditions permit.
That's just one low level spell. Of course in my group, they would cast it on the rogue. In another group, they may say - why have a rogue when we can have another caster (with more spells/I win options)? Nostalga or DM/Player aggreement is a poor solution to fixing bad rules and game design.
But maybe I am missing soemthing....Yes, you are. But before I only thought you might be doing so willfully. Now I'm pretty sure of it.
You *WERE* talking about spellcasters bypassing whole sections of dungeons due to high level divinations and Tport & such, no? This was THE BIG FAULTY ASSUMPTION MADE BY THE DEVS.
Then, when I asked you for AP’s where the party can do so, you gave as example Legacy of Fire , and specifically mentioned the first few installments. Right?
Now, Piazo sez they are “For characters of 1st to 5th “ , so then I asked how are these low level adventurers by passing large swaths of the adventure by means of high level divinations and Tport & such, since they don’t get such yet?
So, what am I missing? You didn’t make claim A?
You didn’t use the early installments of Legacy of Fire as an example?
I didn’t see the levels right, and it’s actually a high level AP?
What?
And besides that, what others said. That's not part of his class or build. I can make a lot of characters look a lot better if I get to pretend/assume they have a bunch of spell buffs on call from someone else.Exactly what I assume. I also assume the Wizard won’t have to heal himself, that the Cleric won’t have to find traps, etc.....
I assume a balanced party that works as a TEAM. Oddly, when I make this assumption, every class is able to contribute. hmmmm
I think there are a few assumptions in there - many based off of DM/Player aggrement. And while this may work for people who have played the game for many years, and with the same crowd - it doesn't hold as well for new players, organized play or just casual play.
At low level the options for casters to cover all groups is limited if not impractical. But as the levels creep up, the options for casters to overtake roles of other classes becomes more probable - just by virtue of available power. In some cases - the rules exacerbate the problem.
Let me give you an example Dr D.
A mid level (say 4th or 5th) level group of adventurers are infiltrating a dungeon base. The rogue wants to sneak into a room with bad guys using his rogue abilities. Can he do this? Yes, at some risk - can the party Wizard who has invisibility just cast the spell on himself and do almost the same thing - get in the room? Yes. Now I still think it would be better to cast it on the rogue - this is a thematic/Player/DM sort of agreement. But, mechanically the wizard doesn't have to. And in PF, with senses and stealth being combined, the "I win"/one spell solution (in this example) is made even more glaring.
This is the junction where game design, rules and spell limitations all come together to create = the problem. And in most cases spells win out pretty much all the time as a solution to in-game problems. No risks in casting, no chance of failure of casting (unless in combat), superior to mundane...
You make some good points my friend , yes the wizard can cast Invisibility on himself rather than the rogue,
But remember that invisibility is only +20 to your Stealth in this case. The wizard has maybe a 2, the rogue likely a 12.
A 22 is an order of magnitude easier to spot that a 32. Thus, if acting as a TEAM, the wizard should cast on the rogue.
If the wizard wants to solo showboat like that, he should meet an untimely end. Good riddance, too.
My groups are all about the Team thing.
Rogues don't get an innate bonus to stealth. My last wizard had more stealth than our rogue(he liked talking more than stealth).
Anyways, about the team thing, you never know who your with. I've had teams with no arcanist, teams with no divine, and teams with nothing but martials. I've had teams with no melee and teams with no ranged. I've had ones with no skill monkeys of any sort. Its been all over the place and varied between groups and who comes in post death.
A wizard casting invisibility on himself usually isn't showboating, nor anti-team. I like synergy a lot, don't get me wrong, but calling someone who isn't explicitly there for the other teammates rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
One other change from 2nd to 3rd that people often forget is the shift in saving throws. Back in 1rst and 2nd edition fighters started with some very poor saves, but in the end they had some of the best. This is in addition to the fact that the chance to save got better as characters leveled, while the chance of the spell working was static (no DC's, just the save chance based on level of the target).
All those things add up, especially with all the other stuff mentioned.
Huge factor and an excellent point I should have mentioned up thread.
Saves went from internal progression/fixed value (independent of source) to a check vs. a value controlled by the generator - which means you now need a specific attribute to boost your chance of beating that value. Which also means martials not just need a good Con score (assumed for decent hp), but they also need a good reflex (not as likely but still there) and a good Wis (not assumed). So that right there is part of your stat dependency and another part of the power shift between classes. This is also not taking into account casters optimizing their save DCs (by up to 2 in the core game) taking some already weak save categories even more out of range.Maybe if 3rd ed wasn't so binary on its saves - if it had a scaling fails/succeeds system - it wouldn't be so bad. So a fighter who gets held isn't fully held if he fails his save by 1 - he just gets a bunch of negatives/reduced speed for a few rounds, which would be mitigated by his high to-hit/Str values (the characters core ability). So having a low save category doesn't immediately turn into a shut down character, but one manageable by the individuals classes strengths. But usually it's winner take all on saving throws.
This isn't just a martials issue though. Making saves against an external value vs. an internal one also affects the monster challenges in the game. If monsters scaled like fighters of older editions, counting on an "I win" spell to overcome a problem would not be an even remotely good tactic unless there were handicaps to the target creatures saving throws (save gimps/debuffs via other spells). Changing the save paradigm, without shoring up saves for those making the saves was a major game changer.
Good point Lensman.
|
|
Maybe if 3rd ed wasn't so binary on its saves - if it had a scaling fails/succeeds system - it wouldn't be so bad. So a fighter who gets held isn't fully held if he fails his save by 1 - he just gets a bunch of negatives/reduced speed for a few rounds, which would be mitigated by his high to-hit/Str values (the characters core ability). So having a low save category doesn't immediately turn into a shut down character, but one manageable by the individuals classes strengths. But usually it's winner take all on saving throws.
Feel like I'll be cross-linking this thread and the "4e argument" thread with this, but I actually really liked how 4e did this for a number of spells and abilities-- the "Save Save Save or Suck" method as some poster put it somewhere.
Take sleep for an example. If you fail your save, you're slowed (reduces your movement speed to 10 ft.). Another failed save makes you unconscious. You can then continue to save every round. Mind you, 4e has a roughly 55% chance of saving against something period, so the idea would take some work to retro-fit into Pathfinder.
|
|
Huh? It was rare for any caster to have his spell disrupted in any game from OD&D thru 2nd S&P. Casting was not difficult nor was casting risky/had a price.
Were you playing a different version of 1e or 2e than I? Standing in combat and trying to cast if you were a Magic User was more often than not a complete fail. Especially in 1e --> If a fighter with multiple attack was in melee range of a Magic User he automatically got to strike first, and even then with the initiative rules for casting the fighter was likely thump the Magic User during the actual round*. But in defense of the game Gygax states quite clearly that this was intentional.
Or were you being sarcastic? The internet hides intent and inflection well.
For the record I agree that the big four (or sub-classes of) should have areas of zero mechanics cross over.
S.
*Schrodinger's Wizard of course would have all the right defense spells already running...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? It was rare for any caster to have his spell disrupted in any game from OD&D thru 2nd S&P. Casting was not difficult nor was casting risky/had a price. True, it was nearly impossible for a caster to cast twice in a round, so metamagic changed things. Spellcasting has gotten more powerful, yes, but not less risky. Heck, there wasn’t even such as thing as a Attack of Opportunity nor Casting Defensively.
Sorry for the late response to this Dr D, I must have missed this one.
I think it didn't happen often in 1st or 2nd ed (at least in my circles) because no one even tried. The casters, if put in that situation just bailed until they could get to a spot where they could cast safely. Clerics would occasionally do a desperate cast (cure wounds), but they also had the benefit of a spell designed to let them potentially cast non-hostile spells in combat: Sanctuary. Not being able to cast in melee was a hard fact. Casting was difficult - some spells aged the caster - and if you had a DM who rolled when you would die of natural causes dying of old age without the protection of securing longevity potions was a very real risk for human casters. And even if it wasn't - people were loathe to cast spells that would age them 1, 2 or 5 years. That is the risk I'm talking about , bad teleport = death. Same with getting fly dispelled, system shock checks on and on. And spell backups were less common because there were less spell slots to go around to serve as buffers or to serve as part of the roster on Schrodinger Spell List (tm).
Mid to high level casting was powerful, but trying to play Against the Giants, Vault of the Drow or Queen of the Demonweb pits with an all cleric or all Magic-User party would be a suicidal endeavor. A high level fighter with +2 sword was the most effective and economical damage dealer at mid to high level, hands down. You NEEDED a fighter as much as a Cleric or Magic User, Thief less so but they had abilities that were not measured in other classes so their mundane always in use special abilities were very niche and well protected mechanically.
The fighter going to the Vault of the Drow only needed a few items to pull that off - the +X weapon, to the do the "need to be this tall" to fight certain monsters being the exception. But with internal save improvements you didn't need stacks of save boosters either. No x-mass tree effect because it wasn't needed to play the numbers game.
But even from Day One, the Wizard and the Cleric were the most powerful at the highest "Name" levels.
Spells have always been powerful, but it never felt like they so outpaced the fighter that a fighter could not easily kick a wizards ass. This is at mid to high levels. Stoneskin et al, didn't matter.
And, we strongly disagree that the 'design has failed".
You strongly disagree - which is ok if you like this game and are having fun.
I've personally gotten tired of the 3rd ed design flaws inherent to the system made and perpetuated since 2000. I will be running one more AP under the pathfinder system and probably will not come back. I have a re-write of the game I was working on - stripping away many 3rd ed considerations while keeping some superior components, but to be honest I rather put my time into a different system than to clean up the genetic defects of 3rd edition. 3rd edition (and it's derivatives) is the most flawed design version of this game since its inception, imo. To me, 3rd ed is the Nexus 6 of Rpgs, good up until you play it for 4 years and then it starts to fall apart as a system and becomes too difficult to defend when discussing what makes up a good system.
They made changes to some core concepts in an effort to update and modernize the game and hard coded those changes into the infrastructure - the end results, problems and inherent flaws tells me that this was a major design failure. If you enjoy the game as it's written and as it's been supported then good for you. For me and my group we are getting close to being done. Maybe a heavily modified version of 2nd ed going forward, or maybe no more fantasy d20 based gaming - not sure at this point.
|
But isn't this where we started? Where D&D started?
What happened over the course of the life of 1st and 2nd is that we got more spells (helps casters with increased choices) and some major abilities for fighters (weapon specialization). But even with all the expanded spells lists over the life of 1st and 2nd ed while we were getting all those spells the casting paradigm remained the same: casting was difficult and casting was risky/had a price. This was AD&D/D&D LAW.The primary shifts (wholly detrimental to the game imo) was the removal of casting risks plus the increase of spell numbers, and spells with fixed result/values - all to the benefit of casters. On the other side we have the exploding hit point change, which hurts people who deal problem resolution by doing hit point damage. At low level a 3rd ed/PFRPG game seems similar to a low-level 1st and 2nd ed game in appearance and functionality with a few exceptions. Once the casting game takes off, and the hit points start exploding you can see where the casters just get better (and better) but the martials and skill based characters starts to lag due to damage output problems and the fact that several 1st and 2nd level spells eliminate the need for many skills. Just bad design.
To me it isn't about more options, it's about the options currently available being effective and worthy of needing a class dedicated to that role or task. I think the 3rd ed designers didn't think out the changes they made to the game as most of these were "feel good" choices (still cast after being hit, remove aging from casting certain spells) without thought of long term consequences on the overall game and impact on class roles/need.
And then we are left with endless debates on builds, fixes, house rules, etc, all to deal with why x class sucks or doesn't do its job right. MAD vs. SAD, E6, crappy monks and useless rogues are symptomatic of a game design that failed.
And we have come so far and search for so long for the Grail, only to find we are once again back where we started. I remember how I cried the day that 2.0 died, and something touched me deep inside... but I digress. In the dark days at the end of the 2nd Age, we argued about "realism" vs. "playability", complained about the things our characters should be able to do, but the rules wouldn't let us. We moaned about "killer dungeons" and "Monty Haul" campaigns and the inconsistent applications of rules by DMs. Everybody had a plan on how to fix 2.0, and a whole lot of house rules were in effect to patch up things way before 3.0 hit the stands.
Sounds like the same B/S all over again to me.
They fixed a lot of things that weren't working when they made 3.0. They fixed even more for 3.5. Paizo fixed some more when they morphed the game into Pathfinder.
Is everything fixed? No. Did they new stuff they threw in work exactly they way the designer's expected. I doubt it, but since I don;t knwo their expectations, I can't be sure. Does it need another major overhaul? NO!
The longevity of 3.5, and the amount of content material developed for it tend to show that the game has been working pretty good for many years now. The minimal changes that Paizo effected in the Pathfinder transition also tend to indicate that most things were (and still are) working satisfactorily.
A far as the original premise of this thread goes: Until a DESIGNER gets on this thread, and provides us with his own list of design assumptions, then this whole thread is pretty much pointless. Any assumptions that YOU make are YOUR assumptions, not necessarily the designer's assumptions. The whole argument boils down to "I assume the game is broken.", and then sets out to prove that it is indeed broken.
My assumptions:
1) Rogues have more Skills than other classes. Skills help you avoid fights.
2) Fighters have more Feats than other classes. Feats help you win fights.
3) Casters have more Spells than other classes. Spells help you survive fights.
4) The Cleric, as first introduced in the original game, was the first hybrid. A combination of fighter & caster.
5) Every other class ever invented is a hybrid or a special case of the first 3.
6) A d3 has 6 sides.
7) Wizards are crunchy (not squishy) and taste good with ketchup, same as everybody else, especially gnomes, which are delicious.
8) I'm not paranoid, the GM really is trying to kill me.
9) Two people playing the exact same character (say, a pre-gen) will not play the same way.
10) Most players have no clue how their character should act in a combat situation, and have even less of an idea how they themselves would react if they were to find themselves in a real-life combat situation.
I could go on.
I make no assumptions about what the game designers intended. I don't really care what they intended. I know what my character intends to do in combat or social situations within the game context, and I find the rule(s) that let me do that. If the rules I want don't exist, I find something else I CAN do with that character, or I go find another game.
If you really dislike the rules, go write your own game. A lot of people have, some are as good as Pathfinder, others not so much. Almost nothing available is better than either Pathfinder or 3.5, regardless of the genre. Don't forget to write about 15,000 pages of scenarios and modules while you're at it.
My apologies to Auxmaulous. I started off with commiserations and confirmation that this thread really was the same argument that has existed since Gygax first released Chainmail and Eldritch Wizardy, and ended with bunch of comments that were not directed towards his comments in particular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One other change from 2nd to 3rd that people often forget is the shift in saving throws. Back in 1rst and 2nd edition fighters started with some very poor saves, but in the end they had some of the best. This is in addition to the fact that the chance to save got better as characters leveled, while the chance of the spell working was static (no DC's, just the save chance based on level of the target).
The changes to saves, cyclical initiatives, and easy magic item creation are pretty much the trifecta of full spellcasters gaining a lot of power in 3e-based D&D games (including PF) over 1e/2e games.
Huh? It was rare for any caster to have his spell disrupted in any game from OD&D thru 2nd S&P. Casting was not difficult nor was casting risky/had a price.Were you playing a different version of 1e or 2e than I? Standing in combat and trying to cast if you were a Magic User was more often than not a complete fail.
Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.
|
|
If you really dislike the rules, go write your own game. A lot of people have, some are as good as Pathfinder, others not so much. Almost nothing available is better than either Pathfinder or 3.5, regardless of the genre. Don't forget to write about 15,000 pages of scenarios and modules while you're at it.I am already working on this:
but to be honest I rather put my time into a different system than to clean up the genetic defects of 3rd edition.
I gave up working on a 3rd ed re-write some time ago and have been pouring my time into a non-d20 (and superior) system for the last few months. The only reason why I would continue to run PF is as a placeholder till I get enough of my system going to start running a campaign. As far as the scenarios and modules - to be honest, I lost interest in what Paizo was putting out some time ago (at the inception of the Jade Regent) and I haven't looked back. Their APs suffer from some of the problems that the system does, overly formulaic and only fun for the first 1-3 parts out of the 6. I do like the new longer single module format they are now offering - but it's a little too late to bring me back into the fold. If anything, I will run Necro/frog god stuff since that's more my groups speed vs. paizo's offerings and challenge level.
And we have come so far and search for so long for the Grail, only to find we are once again back where we started. I remember how I cried the day that 2.0 died, and something touched me deep inside... but I digress. In the dark days at the end of the 2nd Age, we argued about "realism" vs. "playability", complained about the things our characters should be able to do, but the rules wouldn't let us. We moaned about "killer dungeons" and "Monty Haul" campaigns and the inconsistent applications of rules by DMs. Everybody had a plan on how to fix 2.0, and a whole lot of house rules were in effect to patch up things way before 3.0 hit the stands.
Sounds like the same B/S all over again to me.
Comparing the standard complaint list of older games/other editions vs. the real mechanical and numbers problems of 3rd ed + derivatives is no comparison.
Barring some later 2.5 nonsense (which was optional) and a few badly written "complete book of" books, the game was internally consistent. TBH honest with you, 2.0 just needed a tune up and face-lift. Add in some skills (slow scaling and progressing), while protecting the skill classes (some skill functionality being reserved for classes only and non-reproducible via spell), dump inverted AC/Thaco and use 3rd eds open value AC and save system - but converting saves to true numerical values from earlier editions - not the skewed numbers that were produced for 3rd ed and you have a true 3rd ed. The 3rd ed that came out in 2000 was not even the same game, not enough to call it a 3rd edition. It was a re-imagined Dungeons and Dragons, and I don't think it was play-tested extensively with all the new changes in mind.Barring a few mechanics (skills to do things) all the things in your quoted paragraph go to play-style an not system mechanics. Realism vs. playability is a complexity level issue that every game faces - again, a face lift could have handled most of that (dumbing down thaco for people who don't like math, clean up some confusing rules). Killer dungeons, Monty Haul and inconsistent rules go to mostly to play style and clarity of the written rules (the latter of which was a real problem for 1st and 2nd ed). Again, better guidelines and some clean-up could have gone much further than the changes that were implemented. On a system functionality level 1st and 2nd were mechanically and functionally more sound systems than 3rd.
And Arni, no need to apologize - I've been trying to take this hill (unsuccessfully) since around 2007. I'm actually surprised I haven't been fan pounced yet since I started going down the heretic line in this thread. Honestly, If people are happy with the system - good for them, they have a living supported game to play. I just can't deal with the mechanical issues of this game anymore. It functions well at low level, but I'd rather play/run 2nd ed since that runs low level better.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.
Way I heard it, fighters just whipped a dagger or dart out while the magic user was casting and threw it to interrupt the spell before it was complete.
Huh? It was rare for any caster to have his spell disrupted in any game from OD&D thru 2nd S&P. Casting was not difficult nor was casting risky/had a price. True, it was nearly impossible for a caster to cast twice in a round, so metamagic changed things. Spellcasting has gotten more powerful, yes, but not less risky. Heck, there wasn’t even such as thing as a Attack of Opportunity nor Casting Defensively.Sorry for the late response to this Dr D, I must have missed this one.
I think it didn't happen often in 1st or 2nd ed (at least in my circles) because no one even tried. The casters, if put in that situation just bailed until they could get to a spot where they could cast safely. Clerics would occasionally do a desperate cast (cure wounds), but they also had the benefit of a spell designed to let them potentially cast non-hostile spells in combat: Sanctuary. Not being able to cast in melee was a hard fact. Casting was difficult - some spells aged the caster - and if you had a DM who rolled when you would die of natural causes dying of old age without the protection of securing longevity potions was a very real risk for human casters. And even if it wasn't - people were loathe to cast spells that would age them 1, 2 or 5 years. ...
Mid to high level casting was powerful, but trying to play Against the Giants, Vault of the Drow or Queen of the Demonweb pits with an all cleric or all Magic-User party would be a suicidal endeavor. A high level fighter with +2 sword was the most effective and economical damage dealer at mid to high level, hands down. You NEEDED a fighter as much as a Cleric or Magic User, Thief less so but they had abilities that were not measured in other classes so their...
Yes, Haste was a bummer. But there were few spells with costs, Haste is one of the few that aged you. You could fire Fireball, Magic Missile, etc all you wanted. But for example, there are hundreds of 3rd levels spells. Exactly one (Haste) aged you. Wish was costly too, mind you.
But yes, they “just bailed”. A few feet back and you’re fine. And if the speed factor of the spell was fast enough, you could cast even under the threat of a TH sword. See, instead of standing there next to the guy with a sword, you just moved. No penalty for doing so.
True, yes, you needed a Tank. You still do, at least IMHO. Cleric could still tank back then. So could Druid. Sure, unless they were very weird, arcanists couldn’t tank. This is something new, the arcanist who self-buffs himself into a tank.
Once the Wizard got high enough to get 9th level spells, it was “game over”.
Why would you stand in melee range? Just move back and cast. Remember, no AoO’s back then. Or better yet, just not be on the front line. True, no casting defensively either, but if you're not within reach, there's no issues.Way I heard it, fighters just whipped a dagger or dart out while the magic user was casting and threw it to interrupt the spell before it was complete.
That’s possible, since those weapons have good speed factors. BUT, there was no such thing as a Attack of Opportunity or a Readied Action*. A spell took 1-9 segments, usually the level of the spell. If the fighter’s Initiative happened to be right, and the wizard was casting a spell longer than the fighters speed factor, then the fighter could interrupt it. This was rare.
So the stars would have to be *just right* and the wizard cast a longer spell. Since init wasn't secret, you just didn't do that. Magic Missle did the trick. One segment spell could not be interrupted.
* most DM's let you Delay, however.
So, let us go over what has to happen for a Fighter to disrupt a Wizards spell by throwing a dagger in 2nd ED. First, he has to have the dagger out, instead of his sword. Unlikely, but maybe that’s his job- disrupt.
The fighter declares he’s going to delay until the wizard starts casting
The wizard declares she’s casting Fireball- a 3 segment spell.
Then everyone roll Init, a d10, lowest goes first. Subtract your Dex Modifier, add your weapon factor. (Generally these were ignored- UNLESS some Fighter anted to try this trick)
Let us say the Wizard has a 4 init. The spell takes 3 segments starting 4, going off in 7. The Fighter must hit the wizard at 5 or 6 to disrupt. This will only work if the fighter rolled a modified number of 6 or less.
If the Wiz declared Magic Missle, they could not be disrupted.
I did see some Thieves with super Dex try this trick, since they usually had a dagger out anyway. No fighter would bother. Too much trouble, not enuf damage.
It did discourage spells with a long casting time, sure.