Couple problems with this.
1) You don't fight single enemies of equal CR. Action economy is too poor to be a real challenge to the party.
2)The Horn devils SR is not an auto win against. Assuming your an elf who got both pen feats, you need to roll a 6 or higher to break. Without those feats (cause there are better ones) you fail on anything lower than a 10. So 45% fail chance.The dragon has one point less SR, so ditto there.
3) Spell perfection is an awful argument. "Casters are best because they are so versatile" vs "I invested a feat to make 1 spell pretty good". Spell perfection is taking the martial approach with your casters, but your "hammer for all the nails in the world" is not infinite use. So you are either prepping a lot of acid fogs (killing versatility) or prepping like 1-3 (burning a feat)
4) Lastly, you don't get to fight devils a lone.
I'm pretty ignorant about such things, but how many times can you do that? If you fight (say) the white dragon then the devil using those tactics - do you have many spells left?
Constructs are Trivial Period
you can't buff most of them
you can kill them with flasks of acid
you can cripple them based upon their poor reflex, fortitude, or will saves
they have poor HP, making Acid splash and Alchemical items a viable sort of damage
thier poor reflex save leaves them vulnerable to grease and pits
thier poor will saves leaves them vulnerable to glitterdust
their lack of a constitution score leaves them with lousy HP and poor fortitude
the only Defenses a Golem has are Bottomless Spell Resistance and Massive DR that can be overcome by an Adamantine Weapon, a +4 Weapon, Clustered shots, cheaply blanched ammunition, and alchemical items
and because of a golem's infinite spell resistance, they cannot be buffed or healed so easily
the True Threat Heirarchy is
Dragons
Good Outsiders
Devils
Other Evil Outsiders
Other Outsiders
Fey
Intelligent Undead
Aberrations
Everything else
I'm pretty ignorant about such things, but how many times can you do that? If you fiht (say) the white dragon then the devil using those tactics - do you have many spells left?
Varies from wizard to wizard, based on intellect, chances to rest, and what spells. There are ways to get around certain limitations such as keeping a wand of keep watch on you, mage's magnificent mansion, or if you really crazy creating a demiplane where time is wonky to let you get a full rest in a minute time in your home plane.
At later levels full casters tend to have more than enough spells in the day to leave some blank to prepare when they want, keep a few for encounters, base utility, buffs, and still have some left over.
Unfortunately its hard to measure because a lot of people play differently, and judging tends to fall on anecdotal evidence. Mine is strongly in favor of the casters being crazy powerful.
I'm pretty ignorant about such things, but how many times can you do that? If you fiht (say) the white dragon then the devil using those tactics - do you have many spells left?Varies from wizard to wizard, based on intellect, chances to rest, and what spells. There are ways to get around certain limitations such as keeping a wand of keep watch on you, mage's magnificent mansion, or if you really crazy creating a demiplane where time is wonky to let you get a full rest in a minute time in your home plane.
At later levels full casters tend to have more than enough spells in the day to leave some blank to prepare when they want, keep a few for encounters, base utility, buffs, and still have some left over.
Unfortunately its hard to measure because a lot of people play differently, and judging tends to fall on anecdotal evidence. Mine is strongly in favor of the casters being crazy powerful.
Cheers. I actually meant Undone's specific wizard - it sounded like he'd pulled an actual, real example from an ongoing game rather than the usual "typical wizard".
.Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.
Twenty!? The game is meant for like, three or four that last three to four rounds each. Twenty could possibly make the life of a caster very boring. You might want to look for alternate RPGs if you do that, ones that tailor to less x/day and more to x/encounter. Those are far easier to balance when your talking about anything from twelve to twenty.
here is a balanced assortment of encounters for a dungeon population designed to be cleared in a 30 adventuring day month
120 fights at EL = APL -4
60 Fights at EL = APL -2
16 Fights at EL = APL +0
12 Fights at EL = APL +2
5 Fights at EL = APL +4
Cheers. I actually meant Undone's specific wizard - it sounded like he'd pulled an actual, real example from an ongoing game rather than the usual "typical wizard".
.
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.
I can't figure out any circumstances that would call for twenty separate fights in one day. The logistics of that are staggering. I'm really curious how that could ever possibly work.
Hell, I've always objected to the assumption of 4 encounters per day because I can't figure out how to reliably have even 3 each day. I think I average 1, maybe 2.
Twenty? I want to be wrong, but it's sounding like:
"You open the door. There are 6 orcs inside."
"We kill them! Then open the door on the other side."
"Very clever, this one has 6 goblins!"
"Grr! Kill them! Now the next door."
"Uh-oh, 3 orcs and 3 goblins!"
How else...I don't know, trust me, I'm not criticizing, just genuinely confused.
Can you give me a quick rundown of what an average adventuring day is like for you?
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.Twenty!? The game is meant for like, three or four that last three to four rounds each. Twenty could possibly make the life of a caster very boring. You might want to look for alternate RPGs if you do that, ones that tailor to less x/day and more to x/encounter. Those are far easier to balance when your talking about anything from twelve to twenty.
I dont really care about balance in an RPG.
I appreciate our game is a long way outside "normal" and I wondered if that was part of the reason casters arent that crash hot. We presumably spend much attention conserving our spells than the average group.
I find that the more interesting out of combat situations require neither spells nor skills to solve. Even the more boring ones like a locked door can be kicked down most of the time.you've also stated that your group roleplays social encounters without using social skills rolls. So of course you don't see an issue with the fighters out of combat abilities.
You're using your groups interpretation to make a broad statement that isn't RAW true.
False. You need skills for persuasion. You don't need it for talking your way out of situations.
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.Twenty!? The game is meant for like, three or four that last three to four rounds each. Twenty could possibly make the life of a caster very boring. You might want to look for alternate RPGs if you do that, ones that tailor to less x/day and more to x/encounter. Those are far easier to balance when your talking about anything from twelve to twenty.
Well there you have it folks. No shit the caster is better in a 3-4 encounter day. Our level 1 dungeons will have at least 6 encounters.
Yeah if you can burn 20% of your slots for every fight, I'm sure you're buffed out with plenty of utility spells left over.
Jesus people. 3-4 really? That's a light day on the town.
I dont really care about balance in an RPG.
Careful, that statement says a lot. Your not playing like everyone else your going to get a very different result
Jesus people. 3-4 really? That's a light day on the town.
Well that's the expectation anyway. Your free to break free from it, but the ideal average is what I stated.
I should probably note that 20 encounters in 12 hours is one every 36 minutes. Would a human die of exhaustion from that? That's a lot of stab wounds and trauma and all sorts of nasty business. Not sure how much delving, social encounters, and RP go into that.
Anyways! The important thing was stating the expectations. Being outside of the norm will radically change the game. So sure, in a game with 20 encounters that are 5 rounds in length the x/day casters are going to be radically different than x/encounter with refresh mechanic warblade or the boring full attack guy than they are for those same characters going into 4 encounters four rounds each or one encounter for six rounds.
I think the game assumes 4~6 encounters per day, depending on what kind of adventure your party currently is. Less than makes casters even more overpowered, and more than that is a logistic nightmare for GMs, unless he recycles encounters. It also stretches the party resources way too thin, unless the GM is holding his punches.
Most encounters do tend to last 4~6 rounds. At higher levels, however, PF suffers with Rocket tag. It's not unusual to see encounters finished in 1 round, with maybe a couple extra rounds of clean up work.
I'd say at low/mid levels, it's about 4 rounds of effective combat and 2 of clean up.
At higher levels, it's usually 2 rounds of effective combat and 2 of clean up, but 1 round of effective combat + 1 round of clean up is not a rare event.
I dont really care about balance in an RPG.Careful, that statement says a lot. Your not playing like everyone else your going to get a very different result
Jesus people. 3-4 really? That's a light day on the town.Well that's the expectation anyway. Your free to break free from it, but the ideal average is what I stated.
I should probably note that 20 encounters in 12 hours is one every 36 minutes. Would a human die of exhaustion from that? That's a lot of stab wounds and trauma and all sorts of nasty business. Not sure how much delving, social encounters, and RP go into that.
Anyways! The important thing was stating the expectations. Being outside of the norm will radically change the game. So sure, in a game with 20 encounters that are 5 rounds in length the x/day casters are going to be radically different than x/encounter with refresh mechanic warblade or the boring full attack guy than they are for those same characters going into 4 encounters four rounds each or one encounter for six rounds.
Ugh. Its such a huge limit to put on narrative not to mention dungeons.
Party: "We can only have 4 encounters a day, because the casters in the group are burning all their spells to make martials feel bad"
DM: "My dungeon has more than 4 rooms. Since none of you played a rogue most of the rooms will have monsters instead of traps. You may catch your breath in the puzzle rooms."
Prty: "We can't live through this."
DM: "Fine dungeon ends after this hallway"
Ugh. Its such a huge limit to put on narrative not to mention dungeons.Party: "We can only have 4 encounters a day, because the casters in the group are burning all their spells to make martials feel bad"
DM: "My dungeon has more than 4 rooms. Since none of you played a rogue most of the rooms will have monsters instead of traps. You may catch your breath in the puzzle rooms."
Prty: "We can't live through this."
DM: "Fine dungeon ends after this hallway"
Ha! And here I am thinking it puts a huge narrative strain to have even as many as 3 or 4.
First of all, I can't imagine a dungeon with one encounter per room. That sounds like madness. There are no empty rooms? No way to avoid fighting? No option but to dutifully kick in doors and kill what's inside before moving on to repeat?
Further, if things are so packed that there's something to do in every room, how do these not spill over? Wouldn't the second room's encounter bleed into the first, so, uh, it's really just one encounter?
If we're talking personal preference here, though, I kind of hate running "dungeons." I think they feel ridiculous and forced. I prefer a natural flow to my game--stuff happens, and the PCs react to it. They fight when it makes sense, and only then. I don't pre-plan them to encounter X monster or clear out Y complex. They just do what they do, and that's the end of it. It's all player guided.
And if you're talking about my personal game, you won't even find full spellcasters for the most part because people I play with hate prepared casting, and are only slightly better with spontaneous. They find the magic system in D&D obnoxious and tedious, and would rather do without. I've been lucky--I have run countless D&D games across all editions without any spellcasters in the party and had loads of fun.
But when I talk about the game formally, when issues like this are brought up, I don't talk from the perspective of my aberrant game. I know I run things differently than normal, differently than what the book expects. I do not pretend what I do is common--I don't say, "Casters suck because my players hate book keeping."
The game is explicitly designed around facing an average of 4 encounters per day with a party consisting of physical muscle, a trapfinder, divine magic, and arcane magic. That is the "given" in this debate--that is the place you have to argue from.
You cannot say, "staying power is super important and awesome and spellcasters are totally balanced because they run out of spells too fast" and then say it's because your game has 50% more encounters per day than you're expected to. You can't say that anymore than I can say that "spellcasters never run out of spells because my game only has 1 encounter per day." The standard expected amount is 4. Period.
And the game expects dungeons to have more than 4 encounters in them, it just expects you to take multiple days to fully conquer dungeons like that. It is fairly typical to venture in, clear some rooms, leave for camp (or find a safe room inside) and rest up before going back to clear some more.
Actually the guidelines are for a daily series of encounters for a typical adventuring day are
4 encounters at EL = APL -4
2 encounters at EL = APL -2
1 Encounter at EL = APL
1 Encounter = APL +2
which averages to equivalent to
5 encounters at EL = APL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't I quit this thread?
Have you tried "martial/caster disparity" patches or "game balance discussion" chewing gum?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THAT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
IT WAS A RHETORICAL ANSWER!
I know that doesn't make sense... But this is the internet, making sense is not required.
I dont really care about balance in an RPG.Careful, that statement says a lot. Your not playing like everyone else your going to get a very different result
Yeah, of course. I was just responding to your suggestion that I try another game, since it's easier to balance then. I'm not trying to suggest Pathfinder is supposed to have a dozen encounters a day.
I was (and still am) curious about how many of his resources Undone used fighting the dragon and devil he outlined in his example. It occurred to me that maybe the difference in expected number of encounters per day might explain the different experiences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is meant for like, three or four that last three to four rounds each.
It seems odd to me to say that the game is meant to have x number of encounters per day and also to say that (at that rate) casters are unbalanced and much better than martials.
Doesnt that suggest it's 'meant' to have more than x? (ie that if casters had to budget for 8-10 encounters per day then the limitation on their resources relative to martial characters would be a much more relevant factor and the two groups would be more balanced?)
Hmm, rhetorical questions and answers kind of sums up the thread.
I suspect there are a number of rhetorical lurkers as well.
Our preference is to have like a dozen or more combats in a day (twenty would be our "goal", I guess though we dont usually make that many). Of those, I'd be aiming for about four 'tough to very tough' fights. I wonder whether that sort of expectation colours one's perspective.I can't figure out any circumstances that would call for twenty separate fights in one day. The logistics of that are staggering. I'm really curious how that could ever possibly work.
Hell, I've always objected to the assumption of 4 encounters per day because I can't figure out how to reliably have even 3 each day. I think I average 1, maybe 2.
Twenty? I want to be wrong, but it's sounding like:
"You open the door. There are 6 orcs inside."
"We kill them! Then open the door on the other side."
"Very clever, this one has 6 goblins!"
"Grr! Kill them! Now the next door."
"Uh-oh, 3 orcs and 3 goblins!"How else...I don't know, trust me, I'm not criticizing, just genuinely confused.
Can you give me a quick rundown of what an average adventuring day is like for you?
Well I've never actually counted (and I did say we dont usually get to twenty - that's just a number I pulled out of the air that I thought was about right). Maybe we usually get through 8 and I'd like us to get through a dozen?
.My favorite game is still a dungeon. I think there should be lots of empty rooms and lots of stories behind it and secrets to uncover, but still I much prefer to be exploring a large, interconnected, indoor areas. Infiltrating an enemy citadel (or something) should involve more than three or four fights and I like the image of doing it in one day, since that's far more what I see in the fantasy novels I've read (where the warriors fight endless hordes of monsters beyond all reasonable physical limits - they dont enter the evil temple, fight a few guardians then retreat for a day).
The game is explicitly designed around facing an average of 4 encounters per day with a party consisting of physical muscle, a trapfinder, divine magic, and arcane magic. That is the "given" in this debate--that is the place you have to argue from.
You cannot say, "staying power is super important and awesome and spellcasters are totally balanced because they run out of spells too fast" and then say it's because your game has 50% more encounters per day than you're expected to. You can't say that anymore than I can say that "spellcasters never run out of spells because my game only has 1 encounter per day." The standard expected amount is 4. Period.
Do you think there might be some number of expected encounters at which the two groups are balanced? (Somewhere between 4 and 20 presumably)
No, because Fighters still gonna need healin.
There is a sort of "sweet spot" where casters are starting to wind down (but aren't worthless and therefore might push on some more), and still have enough juice to heal and buff for 1-2 more encounters. By my estimate it's around encounter 6 or 7 this might happen, with 7 and 8 or 9 allowing the martials to shine a bit more.
Problem being this isn't the norm, and it's a bit of a slog for everyone involved when there are that many encounters in a day.
No, because Fighters still gonna need healin.
That's part of what I was thinking if the "expected" number of encounters per day was six or eight or something. The casters may have to devote more resources to keeping the martials alive, leaving them less spells/etc to end encounters (and thus increasing the importance of the martial characters). If they try to go it alone and ignore the martials, they run out of resources around encounter four or five and everyone dies at encounter seven or eight.
In case it isnt clear, I'm not advocating for any change, just wondering how things would be.
EDIT: I find it odd that my iPad spellchecker decided that martials meant materials once and Martians the second time...
Party of 4 wizards.
Dies.
Party of 4 fighters
Dies.
*Barring extreme DM fiat
It's like the game is balanced or something...
Every time you post you demonstrate how little you understand the game. Leaving aside the fact that a single Golem is a terrible encounter for any group a party of 4 fighters facing, say, a APL+4 Golem almost certainly destroy it assuming even one of them has a weapon that can address its DR which is likely. They might take a fair chunk of damage unless they are archers but it is going to die due to action economy.
A party of casters however will simply ignore it. It simply is not a threat to them after level 9 or so when you can expect them all to be flying all of the time. If for some arbitrary reason they have to go through it then a single summon spell for some Lantern Archons will eventually destroy it at no risk to the party.
Alternatively if you have a direct damage specialist (Admixture Wizard or Crossblooded Sorcerer) then it will fall to a series of Intensified Empowered Snowballs (hello No SR). It doesn't take many 15d6+30 touch attacks to destroy most golems and it is only a level en leave it be. You will be well past it by the time the Wall ends and being mindless it's not likely to pursue if it can't see you.
As for your comment about Dragons the bestiary 1 Dragons are a joke. The CR19 Ancient Red Dragon has a mighty Reflex defence of +13. It falls to something as simple as a Dazing Chain Lightning about 80% of the time.
Devils and Demons can be trickier tending to have good all rounds saves, SR and a range of resistance and immunities but casters have ways to get around each of those by choosing a spell appropriate to the task. Fighters don't, they have one...
4 fighters can easily beat the golem too. Golemns are easy encounters.
That doesn't mean both parties wouldn't die a balanced encounter.
Dragons have SR. I don't except spell perfection as a viable tactic because you are trading all that versatility to be good at one spell.
Level 20:
1: Something at sea has been aggressively preventing ships from traveling at a major world port. High level adventurers have been summoned but none have returned. (Turns out to be two krakens)
2: A Solar angel has fallen and now worships asmodeus. He has slain several major devils in hell. Your job is to go down and finish him off before hell's feud spills over onto the material plane.
3: A huge guild of mage hating fighters have been walking around killing innocent wizards. Each has an AMF while their base resides in an AMF that covers 1000 or so feet.I was going through these various challenges thinking how to address them at each level before I decided it wasn't worth the trouble as it clearly wont be accepted by the "martials are fine camp" regardless of what I posted.
But I just wanted to pick up on this last one about the Krakens. Two Krakens just aren't a credible threat to even a single level 20 spell caster. They make their main attacks at +26. Any moderately optimised caster can easily be rocking around AC41 by that point, more with buffs or if they invest much in it. So most of their attacks miss. Their grab fails as anyone who knows what they are doing has a Ring of Freedom of Movement by the mid teens anyway. Their spell like abilities do nothing and their Will save is +11. Their is no way they are surviving being Plane Shifted to the Elemental Plane of Earth to become curious finds for extraplanar archaeologists in a thousand years time.
For the Solar there is no way I am traipsing all the way through Hell just to get at one idiotic Solar. An orange Ioun Stone and a Death Knell spell gives me +2 caster levels necessary to Gate the Solar directly to me and control it completely allowing me to dispose of it at leisure. If you cant boost your CL for whatever reason then buff to hell, Gate it anyway and then kill it. Much easier than slogging through all those devils.
The third option shouts out contrived nonsense but all those...
Krakens are in water. Water elementals should take care of that problem. That or all the other OP water summons that have high stats because most adventures never see a larger body of water than whats in a glass.
The Solar is a single enemy encounter, which is always a bad example. If he manages to get some devil mooks, I would say balanced party is the best approach.
The legion of AMF is slaughtered by the martials. But since the casters are not given their normal role, they probably make a gate above the fortress from the plane of lava and melt the whole thing to the ground. This should cut down on the main force, leaving the martial, the rogue, and the unbuffed cleric an easier fight.
Dragons have SR. I don't except spell perfection as a viable tactic because you are trading all that versatility to be good at one spell.Except that there is no trade off. Spell Perfection is one feat. It makes you insanely good with one spell. It requires you to have three metamagic feats. Guess what, you were taking those anyway. Persistent, Dazing and Quicken are the core metatmagic feats for higher level play. It also boosts your other stuff like Spell Focus and Spell Penetration. Guess what, you were taking them as well and they continue to apply to your other spells.
Taking Spell Perfection doesn't magically mean you no longer can cast any other spells or that they become crap.
Doesn't make it less dumb. Spell pen feats kind of suck too. I'd rather just use the correct spell than cast the same spell every encounter because I had a need to minmax.
Doesn't make it less dumb. Spell pen feats kind of suck too. I'd rather just use the correct spell than cast the same spell every encounter because I had a need to minmax.You are the one who brings up SR every single time and yet you don't think Spell Penetration is useful. How do you hold those two completely contradictory ideas in your head at the same time without keeling over from the stupidity.
Because I see casters as buffers and battlefield controllers during high SR encounters. But if you want to trade all that versatility to make 1 silver bullet spell, by all means.
Like was having 1 good spell worth the 3 meh feats it took (I'm not counting dazing meta, that's a nice feat).
Spell pen, spell pen greater and spell perfection are meh feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell pen, spell pen greater and spell perfection are meh feats.
That depends entirely on the campaign, the character, and the class levels.
The game is meant for like, three or four that last three to four rounds each.It seems odd to me to say that the game is meant to have x number of encounters per day and also to say that (at that rate) casters are unbalanced and much better than martials.
Doesnt that suggest it's 'meant' to have more than x? (ie that if casters had to budget for 8-10 encounters per day then the limitation on their resources relative to martial characters would be a much more relevant factor and the two groups would be more balanced?)
Actually it may mean the game isn't built very well. Its actually a weird assumption when the number of spells you have grows over time, and the rounds per encounter tends to shrink with rocket tag and the like. Casters right at the start also have very few spells, but near the end have a ridiculous number and gold for extra magic too.
Having to have a specific number of encounters for balance and constantly watch on x/day abilities is probably one of the most annoying things about the game to me. I prefer x/encounter to x/day because its harder to run out of steam and just get bored.
No, because Fighters still gonna need healin.That's part of what I was thinking if the "expected" number of encounters per day was six or eight or something.
How much health you have can be pretty up in the air and dependent on builds and dice rolls. For example; Joe got hit with a string of crits and is near dead, but Jeff wasn't hit once. Jeff is in a much better place than Joe if you aren't healing between encounters, and if Joe has one HP and wants to sit out instead of die the rest of the encounters are probably not balanced against the party. Ideally you artificially heal with wands or healing items between fights though.
So... Anyone else with me on full attack being boring and casters having more problem solving skills available? That's always been the big thing about caster vs. martial to me.