|
Show me in a build.There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.
What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".
???
I have no idea how we got here...
I bolded it for you. Does that help?
If you can't demonstrate something exists, you don't get to proclaim it's existence as fact.
Or possibly your ignoring it and throwing it all off the rails. "Feat chains suck." Shouldn't lead to "Well what's so bad about using it on wizards?" Wizards vs. maneuvers is something entirely different than say a Balor. Then when someone points this out you wonder why they're talking about a Balor. I don't fight a lot of wizards, but I do fight monsters. Monsters have many limbs, natural attacks, poisons, and come in sizes bigger than medium. They also have alternative forms of movements and all sorts of other nasty things.
Even if I burn feats on the maneuvers, they still suck a good portion of the time because I fight things that they suck against. I can not burn any feats to give the fighter an amazing mobility or even give him his iterative on a full attack. At best I can use vital strike, which is usually pretty awful and feat intensive. I might consider it if I had a gnarly big weapon and it scaled, but gosh, as it is now its not so great.
I bolded it for you. Does that help?Show me in a build.There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.
What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".
???
I have no idea how we got here...
Except I didn't say its dangerous to grapple wizards... 4 armed super demons with drain are dangerous. Didn't say that about wizards at all.
|
|
OK, here's all the "build" you need: We're 10th level. I've prepared plane shift twice, and my friend has prepared teleport twice. You can allocate all your gp and write down all your combat feats and stuff, but it's pointless -- because if we want to run away, or bypass an encounter, we can do that. If we want to rest without getting ambushed, we can go to Tahiti and do that while sipping pina coladas. And we can do that and still pay for all the hookers and blow we want. You can come with us, or stay behind and fight some more mooks.
So we generally get skip/bypass some fights entirely, and likewise a lot environmental challenges, and so on. Spells that do things like that mean, really, that the game has ceded large parts of the ongoing story to our discretion.
Of course, the DM can come up with a lot of contrived reasons why we can't do those things -- but that's working directly contrary to how the game is set up (i.e., with the assumption that we're supposed to get those abilities). Wouldn't it be nice if he didn't need to constantly work at cross-purposes to the written rules?
Again, the fighter can come along, or stay behind and be stranded and possibly ambshed. But in no event does he get to derail the whole story, or change the plotline. The game does not allow him the tools to do so. He can kill monsters, and that's it.
A "build" is fine for comparing combat options, but when you start looking at the bigger picture of what the narrative tools are, the disparity is jarring.
And when you leave (assuming you survive the attack) what happens?
Asking that question isn't a "contrived reason".
It the basic premise of any campaign.
What does the BBEG do in response to what you do?
The fact that you can run away is helpful. If the GM decides that has no consequence, other problems are at play, IMHO.
|
|
Except I didn't say its dangerous to grapple wizards... 4 armed super demons with drain are dangerous. Didn't say that about wizards at all.I bolded it for you. Does that help?Show me in a build.There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.
What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".
???
I have no idea how we got here...
Misuse of a double negative?
Wut? They're talking about monsters, not the fighter. Like, how it's kinda dangerous to try and disarm a Balor without the feat. That spellcaster's opportunity attack hurts!Show me in a build.There is also the often forgotten idea of using a maneuver without the feat because you really don't care if the 1/2 BaB class that does 1d6 + 0 damage gets an AoO.Many spell casting classes have their own way to get out of a grapple or move themselves around. Many foes at higher levels are outsiders or such who are spell casters with high BAB and monster levels and who do real damage when they get their attack off. You definitely don't want to do it to a large creature, but hey those guys hit you back hard anyway.
What did Lemmy say that has to do with grappling spell casters? It was about the weird way feats worked I thought. No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".
I didn't know "Wizard" spelled "Balor"
What the fudge are you even talking about? You were the one that brought up the Wizard, then the others said they were not talking about wizards, and then you said "show me a build" (???).
What the hill dude.
And when you leave (assuming you survive the attack) what happens?
Asking that question isn't a "contrived reason".
It the basic premise of any campaign.
What does the BBEG do in response to what you do?
That's what the whole game is ABOUT at higher levels! We can decide to fight the mooks here, or leave and go blow up the BBEG's golem factory halfway across the world, or whatever, and he reacts, and between the various maneuverings, the story gets told. Our choices matter!
If the DM doesn't allow any of that, then the story is always, "Go to the next room. Kill those monsters. Go to the next room. Kill those monsters. Go to the last room, kill the BBEG. Adventure done!" -- and that gets really old, really fast, because then it's pretty much just the DM whacking off to himself with minimal player input.
The tools are there so that the players (including the DM) can choose to play that way -- or they can choose a more dynamic game with a lot more options in terms of how the story unfolds. But all those options belong to the DM and to the casters. Martials don't get them. And that's a problem, to me. Either take them away from the casters, too, or give equivalent (but different) ones to the mundanes.
|
|
And let us discuss the Balor, since you brought it up.
The Balor has SR 31, immune to electricity, fire, poison; and saves of
+29, Ref +17, Will +25
It hits for a 2d6 +13, or an average of 20 damage. +31 to hit.
Is that 20 damage a real threat to a fighter of a level that is going to fact a Balor?
Are those saves and resistances a real problem for casters of that level.
That would be a legitimate question, I think.
Meanwhile, the point I made was that just because you don't have the feats doesn't mean you can't attempt the manuever, if the benefit outweighs the risk of AoO.
Edit: I just realized the Balor's AoO damage is less than the 9th level fighter discussed earlier and that makes me smile.
An example of what I'm talking about: what if the fighter got control of a multiplanar empire (a la The Warlord of Mars) as a class feature at, say, 15th level. Now he can choose to stand around fighting mooks, or he can choose to set the entire world hunting down the BBEG for him, while he goes and demands a reconciliation between two other planes of existence.
THAT would give him a lot of control over the story.
Do you not see bold?
You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with that is that we're playing in a level-based system, one that pretends your 15th level fighter contributes as much to the team as your 15th level wizard. That's what "15th level" is supposed to mean. .
They do. In our 11th level PF game, we NEED the tanks to keep the bad guys off the squishies, and also, once the spellcasters deliver some brutal save or suck spell (after “divide & conquer “with battlefield control), our tank (who is a pure fighter) does most of the actual, youknow- damage that kills the bad guys. Similarly in our 15th level 3.5 game (Ok, here, true the tanking is mostly done by the druid and his companion, but that’s 3.5 and the DM banned my Warblade as “he was too powerful”). The tank is part of the TEAM, and a critical part. No doubt, at the higher level, the spellcasters can do more cool things. They can Tport, etc. They too are a critical part of the TEAM. So is the buffer/healer who makes the whole party better- but the tank gets better than anyone (Haste boosts a fighter more than a Spellcaster).
Absolutely, esp when 9th level spells come in, the full spellcasters can do things that no warrior type could even consider. OTOH, at 1st level, the wizard can be easily killed in a single blow by the fighter, who far outshines him. Do you play more at levels 1-4 or level 18-20?
I have been playing since OD&D, and in each iteration, the tank/defender has been a critical part of any team, who “contributes as much to the team “, just as one leg of a chair contributes as much as any other, no matter how thick or carved one leg is over the other. The chair needs all four legs (or maybe three, …….). That’s why D&D is a TEAM game, and why the Fighter is still critical at higher levels.
@Kirth - Yes, but at that level the BBEG can do it as well. And often it comes down to your team doing X before the BBEG has time to do Y.
Right. And who gets to decide where you're going to hit him, and has the tools to get you there fast enough to do the job? Hint: not the fighter. Who gets to decide how you're going to foil his plans? Hint: the fighter's only method is to wait for the villain to stand still, then go kill the mooks, then kill the bad guy. Rinse, repeat. In every single adventure. Because he has no tools to combat the villain's plans in any other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example of what I'm talking about: what if the fighter got control of a multiplanar empire (a la The Warlord of Mars) as a class feature at, say, 15th level. Now he can choose to stand around fighting mooks, or he can choose to set the entire world hunting down the BBEG for him, while he goes and demands a reconciliation between two other planes of existence.
THAT would give him a lot of control over the story.
That's actually why I mentioned the Kingdom Building, Army, and Organization rules in Ultimate Campaign. I feel those would greatly change the narrative focus disparity you mentioned. Although I somewhat agree with ciretose that a BBEG would have some defenses against teleport, but also, I wouldn't bar teleportation (or other means) completely. Especially if every single dungeon was like that.
|
|
An example of what I'm talking about: what if the fighter got control of a multiplanar empire (a la The Warlord of Mars as a class feature at, say, 15th level. Now he can choose to stand around fighting mooks, or he can choose to set the entire world hunting down the BBEG for him, while he goes and demands a reconciliation between two other planes of existence.
THAT would give him a lot of control over the story.
Which is why it is a party based game.
The same logic applies to a wizard ambushed by mooks who grapple him trying to cast a spell.
It is a team game.
Could it be improved. Yes. Is all this theorycrafting without actual evidence moving us toward that.
Nope.
So far, and I give him credit for this, Ashiel has posted one set of what he perceived a fighter of a certain level could do.
When we actually looked at the numbers, they were wrong, which isn't an attack on Ashiel (god knows I make similar mistakes all the time) but an analysis of how untested assumptions can be tested and found to be...well...wrong.
At this point the example of a "scary" AoO on at CR 20 creature is less than the damage from that "weak" 9th level fighter.
That is kind of telling, with regards to how much is being assumed and how little is being examined.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you not see bold?You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
I'm actually more amazed that he's looking at the Balor as first and foremost a melee threat. Instead of all those luscious spell-like abilities.
In our 11th level PF game, we NEED the tanks to keep the bad guys off the squishies
Why don't the bad guys ignore the tanks? Because the DM chooses to facilitate that playstyle by making them do dumb things. Because the rules handle things like interception poorly or not at all. As soon as one bad guy figures out that he can bypass the fighter without engaging him, the tank is obsolete.
If (a) tanks could meaningfully intercept bad guys, and (b) casters could not cast -- at all -- while under attack, your point would be excellent. I'm all in favor of that happening.
|
|
Do you not see bold?You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
At that level? He has to hit me with a perfect 20 and then confirm. +31 seems awesome, but what is it +31 against?
At that level? He has to hit me with a perfect 20 and then confirm. +31 seems awesome, but what is it +31 against?Do you not see bold?You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
Who cares? That wasn't the point.
|
|
I'm actually more amazed that he's looking at the Balor as first and foremost a melee threat. Instead of all those luscious spell-like abilities.Do you not see bold?You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
I wasn't. I was told the AoO was the problem. You can't cast spells with AoO.
And the whole point of engaging him is to make him have to cast all those lovely spells on the defensive...or worse depending on the build. But that gets a bit schrodinger's fighter.
In our 11th level PF game, we NEED the tanks to keep the bad guys off the squishiesWhy don't the bad guys ignore the tanks? Because the DM chooses to facilitate that playstyle by making them do dumb things. Because the rules handle things like interception poorly or not at all. As soon as one bad guy figures out that he can bypass the fighter without engaging him, the tank is obsolete.
If (a) tanks could meaningfully intercept bad guys, and (b) casters could not cast -- at all -- while under attack, your point would be excellent. I'm all in favor of that happening.
I'd actually dislike b. I prefer the Concentration Check mechanic, though they could make it a bit hard to do so. Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey. I feel that in that scenario, most minions would be terrified of a dude in armor with a large sword right in front of them. Also, you can trip on an attack of opportunity to essentially stop them from moving (if they do move past you of course).
The AoO is part of the problem. You need to a feat to know how to do something simple without somehow stabbing yourself. Unless of course your a monster with the grab quality on an attack. Anyways, you also need a feat just to be able to get the feat to know how to do a maneuver without getting yourself stabbed. Of course you then need a different feat for each maneuver, and that feat is needed to get anything related to using that maneuver well.
|
|
Who cares? That wasn't the point.At that level? He has to hit me with a perfect 20 and then confirm. +31 seems awesome, but what is it +31 against?Do you not see bold?You. Were. The. One. That. Brought. Up. Wizards.
Then because of an obvious double negative you decide to try hard as can to make this about Schrodinger's wizard, When no one was talking about that.
Also, Balors have Vorpal swords. Do you feel lucky?
I have no idea what your point was.
My point was that you don't need the feats to use the manuvers, and there are many circumstances where the cost benefit of taking the AoO makes sense.
Then you said
No one said "its not dangerous to grapple wizards".
So since I explained what my point is, perhaps you can explain what your point is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the Concentration Check mechanic, though they could make it a bit hard to do so.
That's what I've done. Unlike the current system, in which Concentrations are moderately difficult at low levels but auto-succeed at higher levels, I've scaled them: the DC is 10 + the BAB of the person threatening you + 2x spell level.
Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey.
Not if the opponent has half a brain. Then it screams "self-preservation."
|
|
The AoO is part of the problem. You need to a feat to know how to do something simple without somehow stabbing yourself. Unless of course your a monster with the grab quality on an attack. Anyways, you also need a feat just to be able to get the feat to know how to do a maneuver without getting yourself stabbed. Of course you then need a different feat for each maneuver, and that feat is needed to get anything related to using that maneuver well.
Stabbing yourself...You might want to read how they actually work.
We could keep playing Schrodinger's monster if you like. I mean the Balor got brought up, and it seems like those saves and SR are going to be a bit problematic for casters, what do you think?
|
|
I prefer the Concentration Check mechanic, though they could make it a bit hard to do so.That's what I've done. Unlike the current system, in which Concentrations are moderately difficult at low levels but auto-succeed at higher levels, I've scaled them: the DC is 10 + the BAB of the person threatening you + 2x spell level.
Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey.Not if the opponent has half a brain. Then it screams "self-preservation."
For the record, I would welcome Kirth on the redesign team, as unlike most people on here, he actually does the math and tests his ideas.
|
|
Also the whole "ignore tanks, gib wizard" screams metagamey.Not if the opponent has half a brain. Then it screams "self-preservation."
Not only that, the casters are squishier. If it will take me several rounds to take out the tank and only one round to take out the caster, why wouldn't I try to take the caster out first and eliminate rounds and rounds of attacks?
Plus, my attack on the caster might disrupt spell casting either by death or concentration checks.
Bleed damage FTW.
The AoO is part of the problem. You need to a feat to know how to do something simple without somehow stabbing yourself. Unless of course your a monster with the grab quality on an attack. Anyways, you also need a feat just to be able to get the feat to know how to do a maneuver without getting yourself stabbed. Of course you then need a different feat for each maneuver, and that feat is needed to get anything related to using that maneuver well.Stabbing yourself...You might want to read how they actually work.
We could keep playing Schrodinger's monster if you like. I mean the Balor got brought up, and it seems like those saves and SR are going to be a bit problematic for casters, what do you think?
You take an AoO. You get yourself stabbed making the action. I did read it, and I stated it in my way. You shouldn't infer I didn't read it.
This isn't a game of Schrodinger's monster. You won't accept anything I give you. Why is a caster involved? This was talking about maneuvers. Caster uses metamagic Battering blast wouldn't he? Which is another thing altogether than feat chain related things martials deal with. Which was the point earlier.
In our 11th level PF game, we NEED the tanks to keep the bad guys off the squishiesWhy don't the bad guys ignore the tanks? Because the DM chooses to facilitate that playstyle by making them do dumb things. Because the rules handle things like interception poorly or not at all. As soon as one bad guy figures out that he can bypass the fighter without engaging him, the tank is obsolete.
If (a) tanks could meaningfully intercept bad guys, and (b) casters could not cast -- at all -- while under attack, your point would be excellent. I'm all in favor of that happening.
Well, you see, unless the foe has some pretty good Ks or Divinations, how does he know who is who? And, it’s really, really hard to move through a foe. Then, even if you do so, the guy who actually does all the real damage will kill you anyway. From behind. ;-)
Which is why it is a party based game.
The same logic applies to a wizard ambushed by mooks who grapple him trying to cast a spell.
Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore. Which is pretty stupid, IMO.
Oh, and Rings of Freedom of Movement are stapples of mid/high level play, IME.
Fighters can fight. And that's it. There is no class feature allowing them to teleport, fly, be invisible, summon creatures, heal allies or see the future. No matter how Schorindigger his player is.
They don't affect the story much more than "I stand still and kill stuff". If that's not an option, then there is very little a Fighter can do. Or at least, very little that comes from her class.
I'm guessing this is the point Kirth is making about martials having no narrative control.
Putting that aside for a moment...
WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???
Well, you see, unless the foe has some pretty good Ks or Divinations, how does he know who is who? And, it’s really, really hard to move through a foe. Then, even if you do so, the guy who actually does all the real damage will kill you anyway. From behind. ;-)
Guy in full plate swinging a sword? Probably not a caster.
Guy holding religious symbols? Probably a divine caster.
Guy with no armor or weapons? Probably an arcane caster.
Sure, you won't be right 100% of time, but it's not exactly difficult to tell them apart
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grapple doesn't even stop you from casting anymore
You still have to make that DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level check, and it’s darn hard to do.
|
|
The AoO is part of the problem. You need to a feat to know how to do something simple without somehow stabbing yourself. Unless of course your a monster with the grab quality on an attack. Anyways, you also need a feat just to be able to get the feat to know how to do a maneuver without getting yourself stabbed. Of course you then need a different feat for each maneuver, and that feat is needed to get anything related to using that maneuver well.Stabbing yourself...You might want to read how they actually work.
We could keep playing Schrodinger's monster if you like. I mean the Balor got brought up, and it seems like those saves and SR are going to be a bit problematic for casters, what do you think?
You take an AoO. You get yourself stabbed making the action. I did read it, and I stated it in my way. You shouldn't infer I didn't read it.
This isn't a game of Schrodinger's monster. You won't accept anything I give you. Why is a caster involved? This was talking about maneuvers. Caster uses metamagic Battering blast wouldn't he? Which is another thing altogether than feat chain related things martials deal with. Which was the point earlier.
One of you changed it to a Balor. It wasn't me.
You don't need the feat chain, which was my point. The bonus isn't enough to matter against the stuff that you worry about the AoO for and you don't worry about the AoO or need the bonus from the things it would work on.
And before you comment on what I "infer" you might want to read what you wrote.
|
|
WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???
Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.
The point, yet to be refuted, is that if you are in a situation where using a maneuver makes sense, the AoO probably isn't a big worry.
In many circumstances, it makes a lot of sense to just go ahead and take the AoO, thanks to the upside of success.
Can you cast in a grapple. Maybe. But what are the odds you actually will succeed at the check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.
WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???
Its also a title to give whatever you don't like a name, that way you can just claim "Hey, you won't always have that prepared!" or "Hey, that won't always be the case!". Sort of like player entitlement, its something you can shout anytime you don't like something and relate it kind of to this one personal thing that's vagueish and people have a hard time responding to it. Hard to get a point of when that happens, which is why I said no matter what monster it was it wouldn't be the right one.
WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.
I know that. I just don't think it works very well for monsters. PCs fight dozens of different monsters... How can it be a "Schrodinger's Monster" if there are lots of them?
Altering a build or spell selection? I suppose you could call that Schrodinger. Changing the adversary? Not really... It's not like PC only face a single type of enemy.The point, yet to be refuted, is that if you are in a situation where using a maneuver makes sense, the AoO probably isn't a big worry.
Yes, it is. Having a terrible option and only using it against weak targets doesn't make it a good option.
Maneuver only being good against wizards and the like is just another evidence of how weak they are.In many circumstances, it makes a lot of sense to just go ahead and take the AoO, thanks to the upside of success.
That's because your target is weak. You can say anything is useful if your standards are low enough!
I don't need +3 swords to kill that same Wizard... Does that mean I shouldn't bother upgrading my weapons?Can you cast in a grapple. Maybe. But what are the odds you actually will succeed at the check.
I still don't understand why they had to change that...
God forbid there is any situation where casters can't cast!
In PF, pinning an opponent does not give you the free option to silence them, like 3E did.
|
|
Its also a title to give whatever you don't like a name, that way you can just claim "Hey, you won't always have that prepared!" or "Hey, that won't always be the case!". Sort of like player entitlement, its something you can shout anytime you don't like something and relate it kind of to this one personal thing that's vagueish and people have a hard time responding to it. Hard to get a point of when that happens, which is why I said no matter what monster it was it wouldn't be the right one.Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.
WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???
It is when people won't actually put down numbers that can be challenged and keep moving the goalposts.
It isn't vague at all. It is actually very specific.
That it happens so often in threads is a problem. If you don't like it, provide numbers.
Its also a title to give whatever you don't like a name, that way you can just claim "Hey, you won't always have that prepared!" or "Hey, that won't always be the case!". Sort of like player entitlement, its something you can shout anytime you don't like something and relate it kind of to this one personal thing that's vagueish and people have a hard time responding to it. Hard to get a point of when that happens, which is why I said no matter what monster it was it wouldn't be the right one.WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.It is when people won't actually put down numbers that can be challenged and keep moving the goalposts.
It isn't vague at all. It is actually very specific.
That it happens so often in threads is a problem. If you don't like it, provide numbers.
I still don't see how the term is supposed to apply to monsters... I'd think most players prepare to face a lot of different creatures, not just a single one.
I thought wizards were overpowered?
either you're joking or you completely missed my point...
|
|
In PF, pinning an opponent does not give you the free option to silence them, like 3E did.not that.
in a grapple you can only cast spells without somatic components. that is what SKR whant to change (or already changed, i do not know).
I don't know if we need it when you consider the check.
(DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) is pretty significant.
Why that argument is still going on? provoking an AoO for making a combat maneuvers is not a good idea like in 99% of the time
But the wizard will most likely miss. Half-BAB and low Str make AoOs very difficult to land.
Obviously, this means Combat Maneuvers are a great option! And Combat Expertise/Improved Trip are not at all feat taxes... Becuase we can always choose to suck at tripping, and it might even work like... 3% of the time!
/sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spellcaster can become immune to probably the most overall useful maneuver, trip, just by flying.
Grapple DC is insanely high for casting, though the grappler still has to get to the caster, get past any magical defenses like miss chance or mirror image he has, and beat the CMD, which IME is pretty decent even for "feeble arcanists" due to pumping touch AC up and thus also boosting CMD as a result.
Then you have to assume the caster did absolutely nothing to plan for getting hugged. Which seems unlikely. Whether he's a Teleport Conjuror and just plain doesn't care; contingent dimension door or teleport; buys a ring of freedom of movement; has his familiar pull out a scroll of dimension door to Use Magic Device on...
...he likely took some sort of precaution. But go ahead and scream Schroedinger at the top of your lungs, it's what you're best at. Basic preparation and planning for not so uncommon threats is something characters never do, after all, certainly not wizards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its also a title to give whatever you don't like a name, that way you can just claim "Hey, you won't always have that prepared!" or "Hey, that won't always be the case!". Sort of like player entitlement, its something you can shout anytime you don't like something and relate it kind of to this one personal thing that's vagueish and people have a hard time responding to it. Hard to get a point of when that happens, which is why I said no matter what monster it was it wouldn't be the right one.WTF is a "Schrodinger's Monster"???Schrodinger is the ever changing whatever. Be it wizard, fighter, goal post.It is when people won't actually put down numbers that can be challenged and keep moving the goalposts.
It isn't vague at all. It is actually very specific.
That it happens so often in threads is a problem. If you don't like it, provide numbers.
I still don't see how the term is supposed to apply to monsters... I'd think most players prepare to face a lot of different creatures, not just a single one.
I thought wizards were overpowered?either you're joking or you completely missed my point...
I feel the same way about your posts.
I'll try again.
It is a quite often an intelligent strategic move for a full BaB class to use a manuever regardless of the feat, as the AoO isn't really a threat to them since they are designed to take Melee hits.
If they can succeed on the manuever, they can functionally remove an enemy from the battle and leave them vulnerable for the team. This is particularly useful with casters who will have a hell of a time casting given the check needed to overcome grapple (or disarm/sunder of arcane bonded weapon)
So taking the feats is often not needed, because that AoO is more than a fair trade off
That you can only do this to "wizard" and such is fine, since they can hit the other things with weapons. It is an option.
You know, the thing you keep saying it is all about.
As to the Schrodinger issue, what happens in these threads is someone spouts an unproven assumption and gives an example to prove it.
For example, in this thread when I commented you can use maneuvers against casters, someone said "Not a Balor!"
Why? Because they wanted to come up with something to prove what they believe is true, because this has become an e-peen contest for them. It is, for them, no longer about the question. It is about showing they are right.
So a wild Balor appears and now we are talking about the AoO from Balors, which I never said you would try to grapple...but who cares because they are going to be "right" and if the Balor fails (which is does since it is even more of a pain to casters with it's mobility, SR, and Grab ability) they will pull out some other example that proves their point.
Why that specific example? Because they are trying to prove the point.
Meanwhile, no numbers. No testable material. Why? Because so far when numbers were provided and checked, they were wrong.
Which is fine. It happens. It happens to me all the time. Having your numbers corrected is something you should thank people for, if you are actually seeking to get answers. I do.
But if you aren't...it is e-peen and someone said you were wrong and etc...etc...etc...
So the ever moving goalposts we are facing ironically in a thread criticizing the Devs for assumptions, demonstrate the players in this thread are actually the ones with untested assumptions.
Do you understand now?