| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my group, yes this is the case though not always multiple Wizards. Many people who liked Rogues have found Inquisitors, Bards and Alchemists to be superior and now mostly play those classes. I am a big fan of Tome of Battle and heavily encourage its use to help bring Fighters (Warblades) and Monks/Rogues (Swordsage) up to more balanced level. That is not to say that people do not dip into Fighter 2 for some bonus feats, or Rogue to qualify for a PRC. It also does not preclude people from playing a Rogue to achieve some very specific result, but in general yes the Fighter is non-existant at the tables I play at (unless we're playing 3.5 then Dungeoncrashers and Zhentarim Fighters make appearances).Thanks. Do you guys know the rules well?
One of the reasons I like fighters is just they're easy to play without having to look stuff up at the table. I wonder whether system mastery explains the disconnect I experience in these sorts of discussions.
Myself and the other person in our group who swaps GMing role with me both have quite a bit of system mastery. Everyone else has played enough games that they have a pretty good handle on system mastery. We've also covered a pretty wide scope of campaign from several 1-20 campaigns, to high and low level one shots, to E6 (though not P6, though its on my list to hit at some point, archetypes seem solid for this), which I feel has helped them to understand the differences at different levels. I think the experience helps because I would never advocate taking Craft Wondrous Item, if I had not myself used it in actual play and the found the time drawback to not be as significant as many make it out to be even though the campaign involved a hefty amount of traveling.
The Monk in question for example would never have realized how weak the class was if we hadn't gone up to and past Level 13. At low levels, he easily had the highest AC and saves by a wide margin, while still being able to hit reliably and deal a good bit of damage. However, by the time Level 13 rolled around he no longer had the highest AC (the Druid did), his saves while still high had worse consequences at high levels when he rolled a 1, his to hit did not scale well with the high level enemies AC, and his damage did not compare with with rest of the party (Blaster Sorcerer, Control Wizard, Jesus Christ its a Lion Druid).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The simple fact of the matter is that every single spell the Wizard uses to be a better Rogue is one spell he's not using to be a Wizard.
But let's say you take the stereotypical group (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) and replace the rogue with a wizard who knows their job will be to cover rogue-ish stuff.
Is that a net plus for the party? A net negative? Or about equal?
I posit there are a *few* things the wizard won't be able to do as well...but his magic should provide the party with enough boosts that the net effect will be positive for the party.
In the last two adventure paths I ran, nobody wanted to be the rogue. There was only one truly dangerous situation where trapfinding might have helped. But the party used magic to get out of it anyway, so...
::shrug::
Anecdotal, I know. But there's my view.
Stephen, I don't think Kirth is downplaying your play experience - I think he's saying that your extensive play experience informs your playstyle more than the rules as they currently exist - and then suggested something he thought might help evaluate if the rules, in and of themselves, push playstyle in a direction other than your extensive playing experience pushes you.
Thanks for the clarification.
No, that's what being a Vivisectionist Alchemist and using Eternal Potion plus a Greater Invisibility potion made by a Summoner with Alchemical Allocation are for. Beastmorph for pounce and bonus points.
Now THAT'S a hyperbole! *laughs* Getting rid of any magic which trumps skills is the same as creating 4.0 *laughs* Sure!That's why I specifically said "Pathfinder 2.0". Having magic be common causes too many problems in the game.
Asking this game to make magic 'less common' is asking for a fundamental change to the game. You are better off with a different foundation, pathfinder isnt a good starting point.Magic being common doesnt cause problems. Magic being powerful AND mundane abilities NOT being powerful is the problem. In addition, I dont believe that asking the next iteration of pathfinder to completely abandon a basic premise of the game is wise. See 4E for details on that one.
It was a drastic departure from 3rd edition, nut just in terms of rules structure, but in terms of the concept of the game. The whole reason pathfinder exists is because paizo wanted to keep telling the same kind of stories they did with 3rd edition, and couldnt with 4E. What you are asking for would require a similar kind of change, requiring the kind of stories being told to change.
Yea, you could actually read what I said. You said magic being common causes problems and needs to be changed in the next edition of pathfinder. I said, that magic being common is a basic assumption of the game, and changing that would be a fundamental change to the kind of game you are playing.
Not to mention that the commoness of magic has nothing to do with magic trumping skills, and is a different issue. If the only application of magic was that it trumped the skills of the rogue, and could only be achieved by elf wizards, it would be less common then it is in the current game, and it wouldnt solve the problem you are presenting.
But lets look at your latest comment also. If the problem is, 'the rogue and skill use in general are marginalized by magic that can achieve basic function' then the problem is with skills and not with magic. The need to have more interesting applications, or be less important to skilled classes get.
You are also missing the inconsistencies your request would create. You cant have a sensible magic system in which a spell can warp time, call down fire from the heavens, turn you into a mythical creature, summon angels to fight by your side, literally enact a miracle, ressurect the dead, conjur torrents of water to knock people over, summon disembodied tentacles to grapple foes, pull creatures from the far reaches of distant planes to fight from you, and then not be able to deal with a locked door, or make you jump/hide/climb better. it doesnt make any friggan sense.
So what you are actually asking for is a dramatic reduction in the capabilities of magic, hence the fundamental change. And while there is nothing wrong with wanting to play that kind of game, pathfinder is a poor starting point for it. There are lots of games that limit the applications of magic. Pathfinder isnt one of them. Every book expands on what magic can do, and there is no rational limit besides spell level.
Changing that would change what magic means in the game, and be a sizable departure from both 3rd edition and pathfinder. Hence why I made the 4E comparison. There is nothing WRONG with what 4E attempted to do. But it wasnt the same game, and wasnt able to be used to tell the same kinds of stories as it's predecessor. What you are asking for will also change the kind of story that can be told with pathfinder. Hence the comparison.
No, that's what being a Vivisectionist Alchemist and using Eternal Potion plus a Greater Invisibility potion made by a Summoner with Alchemical Allocation are for. Beastmorph for pounce and bonus points.I really don't need to rebut your post as it does that job all by itself. So it essentially takes two classes, one of them particurlarly grotesque, plus a considerable amount of investment to do ONE THING the rogue can do with just skill. You rest my case.
That's not a considerable investment. Whirlwind Attack or TWF is considerable investment, a single spell and a good archetype are not. Going into summoner was probably a little much mind you.
Just skill? A Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemists does so so so much more than that. He gets all day pouncing sneak attack full attack (work those Natural Attacks!) It only takes 1 Class, with very little investment (seriously Extend Potion rocks and that's the only investment). It doesn't just make feinting look bad, it makes the Rogue in general look bad. (or do they have pouncing sneak attack full attacks, several spell-likes, hefty bonuses to physical stats and versatile forms they can adopt?)
Edit: He isn't going into Summoner... merely buying a potion of Greater Invisibility off one...
Also, Did you have fun playing with him?Did he have fun?The campaign ended after 3 months when the rest of us were about 6th level. He was a stump the entire game. I think the most useful thing he did was occasionally cast Light.
For the record, this is why I take no stock in people who call me a powergamer. Better to be a powergamer than a stump.
I don't think he had much fun. In the end he resorted to spamming Acid Splash (and missing) every round, IIRC. He stuck around for a couple more months into a Dark Sun game, but played a Druid who was pretty ineffectual, and then left.
I like the guy, he had been an acquaintance of mine for some time, but he wasn't able to contribute whatsoever. It didn't help that his purposely low Int and background painted him in a corner for roleplaying, and didn't contribute out of combat either.
You are also missing the inconsistencies your request would create. You cant have a sensible magic system in which a spell can warp time, call down fire from the heavens, turn you into a mythical creature, summon angels to fight by your side, literally enact a miracle, ressurect the dead, conjur torrents of water to knock people over, summon disembodied tentacles to grapple foes, pull creatures from the far reaches of distant planes to fight from you, and then not be able to deal with a locked door, or make you jump/hide/climb better. it doesnt make any friggan sense.That's like saying that if we can drive submarines with nuclear reactors, then there's no reason we can't drive cars the same way.
No its like saying if mankind has the technology to build nuclear submarines, how could they NOT have the technology to build bicycles, or automobiles. I can solve with technology the problem of traveling miles beneath the ocean, running on the power generated from breaking the bonds of atoms, but I cannot achieve basic locomotion on land by technological means.
If wizards have sufficient mastery of magic to stop friggan time, how exactly does it make sense that they have no solution for a locked door or a steep slope? It lacks consistency.
I take the point about replacing the rogue with a wizard-as-rogue-replacement that a few people have made, and I fully understand it. I even agree with it to a certain extent.
What I really, really, REALLY don't agree with is the idea that just because it is possible to have a wizard-as-rogue-replacement, who is as capable (maybe more? I've not seen a stat block comparison with a wizard who can non-stop stealth, trap-find, open locks and dish out 10-60d6+ damage per round) as a rogue, that somehow the rogue, as it currently appears, is rendered "useless".
Is a player who doesn't want to play a wizard somehow "gimping" themselves or the party because they want to play a rogue? Should the other players deny them the ability to play that rogue if they want, using the argument "you can do better with a wizard"?
Do I think the rogue could be "improved" or "balanced"? Probably. So could all of the classes.
I do not believe that character optimisation is the be-all and end-all of the game. I don't chase the holy grails of DPR (if I did, I wouldn't have played a front-line fighter TWFing two longswords) or AC (same character wears chain mail) or maximum skill bonus (same guy, I think his only max rank skill is Perception, but it might be Stealth). I play to have fun, to hang out with friends, and to tell shared stories. That character I mentioned still regularly dishes out hundreds of points of damage per round at 20th level (being quite able to drop the Tarrasque in a single round with a little luck). He's not too easy to hit. And he's by no means overshadowed in skills by the other PCs. He has his role in the party, and not one of the people I ever played him with suggested that I change him in any way. He's good enough for me, good enough for my fellow players, but to some people here he would be considered gimped. Because a ranger could do all of that and be just as good in all respects, if not better. Thing is, he's not a ranger. Or he could use a greatsword. But he doesn't. He uses two long swords. Put him in full-plate. Except he's always worn chain mail. Since day one. All of these things are part of what makes him who he is. Could he be "better" if I replaced fighter with ranger? Perhaps. I've never bothered to try. Is he good enough the way he is? You betcha.
If wizards have sufficient mastery of magic to stop friggan time, how exactly does it make sense that they have no solution for a locked door or a steep slope? It lacks consistency.
If Stephen Hawking has sufficient mastery of physics to explain friggan black holes, how exactly does it make sense that he has no ability to design the Hagia Sophia?
Sure, buildings stand up because of the laws of physics. But it's architects and engineers who design them -- guys with just enough physics to make it work, but a lot of other talent and experience in other areas.
QUOTE="Jess Door"] Stephen, I don't think Kirth is downplaying your play experience - I think he's saying that your extensive play experience informs your playstyle more than the rules as they currently exist - and then suggested something he thought might help evaluate if the rules, in and of themselves, push playstyle in a direction other than your extensive playing experience pushes you.
I have to agree on this point: anyone who started the game on Gygaxian dungeon-crawls is going to think of trapfinding as far more useful than a player who started the game with the much rarer and far less dangerous traps of modern Paizo APs. I think our early experiences with RPGs always tend to color how we look at the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I really, really, REALLY don't agree with is the idea that just because it is possible to have a wizard-as-rogue-replacement, who is as capable (maybe more? I've not seen a stat block comparison with a wizard who can non-stop stealth, trap-find, open locks and dish out 10-60d6+ damage per round) as a rogue, that somehow the rogue, as it currently appears, is rendered "useless".
This is a big issue that touches on group dynamics, social contracts of play and personal preferences as much as anything that can be objectively measured.
In a group of players with system mastery and a difficult campaign, I would argue that the answer can sometimes be that the player that wants to play the rogue for flavor / preference reasons is going to run into some resentment from those players with system mastery / lacking social graces who feel they are "carrying" him/her.
I like the idea of playing fighters and rogues. But I don't play them anymore, simply because I feel like I'm holding everyone else at the table back when I make that choice. Even going gish in a high level 3.5 campaign has me feeling pretty helpless to be a useful part of my party, at this point, in a 3.5 game.
If wizards have sufficient mastery of magic to stop friggan time, how exactly does it make sense that they have no solution for a locked door or a steep slope? It lacks consistency.If Stephen Hawking has sufficient mastery of physics to explain friggan black holes, how exactly does it make sense that he has no ability to design the Hagia Sophia?
Sure, buildings stand up because of the laws of physics. But it's architects and engineers who design them -- guys with just enough physics to make it work, but a lot of other talent and experience in other areas.
But someone can still do it. Stephen hawking if he applied himself to engineering instead of theoretical physis sure as hell could have designed Hagia Sophia.
The wizard who created the time stop spell ought to have instead be able to dedicate himself to creating a spell that lets him jump higher or open a locked door.
If wizards have sufficient mastery of magic to stop friggan time, how exactly does it make sense that they have no solution for a locked door or a steep slope? It lacks consistency.If Stephen Hawking has sufficient mastery of physics to explain friggan black holes, how exactly does it make sense that he has no ability to design the Hagia Sophia?
Sure, buildings stand up because of the laws of physics. But it's architects and engineers who design them -- guys with just enough physics to make it work, but a lot of other talent and experience in other areas.
Exactly
There's all sorts of hypotheses which come to mind with a little bit of thought. Here are some
* magic is inherently chaotic and the skill in being a wizard is to surf on that chaos. Engineering, on the other hand, requires a degree of precision which wizardry isn't capable of.
* any form of magic has a cost and wizards don't learn to mimic mundane actions with magic because its frankly easier to do those mundane actions than to do magic
These all again change basic assumptions of the game. Vancian magic is inherently not chaotic. There is no chance in it, only chance in resistance. Magic also doesnt have a cost in pathfinder and dnd. And given the ease in which spellcasting is undergone, it isnt easier. You are proving my point. You have to change how magic works fundamentally in order to achieve your desired goals.
* build a better mouse trap and someone will build a better mouse. A long time ago, for every advance in lock making, there was an advance in the knock spell, followed by an advance in lock making. Now, lock making and the knock spell have advanced as far as they can and lock making has won. Could someone build a better spell? Probably, but the sheer cost of such research is prohibitive and would take time away from researching the mysteries of the Universe. So, a detente was called.
This already exists, its called higher dc locks. And given the nature of magic (only one person in the world needs to think its important enough to research, and he can then effortlessly pass it on to other wizards), and the absurd amount of funds available to high level casters, it cant possibly be cost prohibative.
* same cold war as above, but the locksmiths eventually found a cheap alloy which destabilize telekinetic forces such as knock very, very slightly, but enough to stop the knock spell
This doesnt seem a little contrived to you? Having a material in the game world that is essentially 'antimagicium'?
Stephen hawking if he applied himself to engineering instead of theoretical physis sure as hell could have designed Hagia Sophia.
As a failed architecture major, I have to disagree. I subsequently excelled in science, but my abilities as an architect, despite striving just as hard in that area, were never more than modestly competent, and never would be.
I have to agree on this point: anyone who started the game on Gygaxian dungeon-crawls is going to think of trapfinding as far more useful than a player who started the game with the much rarer and far less dangerous traps of modern Paizo APs. I think our early experiences with RPGs always tend to color how we look at the game.
Definitely. I have something of an odd view, growing up with AD&D and OD&D, abandoning them for other game systems, and finally coming back to 3rd edition just so that I could play in Age of Worms. After all those years under other systems, I made an abortive attempt to go back to the old 1e playstyle, before finding that my attitudes on how one "should" play D&D had changed quite a bit -- and most especially so when viewed through the lens of what the 3rd edition rules were actually saying.
There's a feat for that too! I mean there is a feat chain and you have to have so many points into so many attributes and be this race.
There really isn't a feat for that, but yes you do hit one of the big flaws with feats vs. spells Marthkus. This is compounded by the fact that a caster feat chain gets them free metamagic and doubled feat benefits for a spell, versus a martial feat chain which gives them +2 hit/damage. But alas there is no summon meatshields feat, no stop time feat, no create a demiplane feat, no make a back-up clone feat (well I guess technically Extra Discovery could count here...), etc.,
Well, the point I was trying to make with the Spell=Apps is the low resource cost and low opportunity cost of both. Also, given the portability of both and the ease of copying, once a spell or app gets out in the marketplace it can become widespread fairly quickly if it fills a useful niche.
Spell level ^ 2 * 10 = gp value of ink to copy
Spell level = hours taken to copy spell
+ Fee to copy spell or cost of the scroll.
That adds up very fast.
Vancian magic is inherently not chaoticOf course it is. How does somebody memorize something twice? At the same time? That breaks the laws of neuroscience. And they can take a pea-sized ball of bat s*~! and create a giant fireball just by membling over it?
Magic takes the laws of the Universe (not the laws of our Universe, but the laws of Golorian, for example) and forces them to play "pin the tail on the donkey" with local reality. That's pretty chaotic.
This doesnt seem a little contrived to you?No. Calling something "magic" which doesn't feel "magical" seems contrived to me.
Think about it. In modern folklore, a demon can cross dimensions by force of will, but can't cross a line of salt. By comparison, "antimagicalism" seems pretty tame.
Aaaaah....
Perhaps you just don't understand the magic system?
Also how the heck does a magic system have an alignment?!@?@?
AAAAAH! These kind of post make my head hurt.
Vancian magic is inherently not chaoticOf course it is. How does somebody memorize something twice? At the same time? That breaks the laws of neuroscience. And they can take a pea-sized ball of bat s&$~ and create a giant fireball just by membling over it?
Magic takes the laws of the Universe (not the laws of our Universe, but the laws of Golorian, for example) and forces them to play "pin the tail on the donkey" with local reality. That's pretty chaotic.
What are you talking about? Magic is the least chaotic of anything in pathfinder. It works on time every time. There is no chance involved. Yes it warps reality, that isnt chaotic if it happens consitstently and in an ordered and expected fashion. Which vancian magic does. If you were going to give magic an alignment, it would be lawful neutral.
This doesnt seem a little contrived to you?No. Calling something "magic" which doesn't feel "magical" seems contrived to me.
Think about it. In modern folklore, a demon can cross dimensions by force of will, but can't cross a line of salt. By comparison, "antimagicalism" seems pretty tame.
I am not talking about folklore. I am talking about a game. The kind people play. You are putting a basic material into the game that blocks the primary class feature of several classes. Thats as silly as the green lanterns inability to deal with things that are yellow. Its also counter to pathfinders design philosophy. I cant imagine the people who made it so you could crit undead so rogues could sneak attack them including a mundane material that stops magic cold.
I ran an epic game for just under 7 years, most of it above level 20. Over and over, I'd read about how completely broken the epic rules were, how the math doesn't work, how it was unplayable, etc., and yet week after week for years we happily got together bi-weekly to play our impossible, unplayable game.
It worked because we were there to have fun.
Any single player at the table (or myself) could have broken that game in a second. But why would they?
So you're saying (a) the rules didn't really work at all ("could have broken that game in a second"), but (b) your group carefully used kid gloves to avoid using the broken parts ("it worked because we were there to have fun"), and therefore (c) the rules work perfectly ("happily played our impossible, unplayable game!").
In other words, your game worked despite the rules, not because of them. I'm frankly unconvinced that that's an ideal state of affairs.
Holy exploding discussion Batman.
Unfortunately, your portrayal of my answer as "Well, it's not A so it must be B" is exactly my point. Just because we were able to find "I Win!" scenarios and things that didn't make the game fun does not mean that the entire rule set is a pile of horse crap. Most of my commentary was from the viewpoint of others - we were doing what others said was impossible. Clearly it wasn't impossible for us - we were doing it.
And if you choose to call it "using kid gloves" that's fine. I call it "identifying and not using rules components that make the game not fun."
Any complex system has a lot of unforeseen interactions, sometimes conflicting. That's why I believe games like Pathfinder are best played in a non-antagonistic environment - when everyone is working together to have fun.
The way I see it, anyone who wants to play at very high levels is just going to have to accept that there will never ever be a rule set that covers every possibility in a sane way and still gives the freedom to do stuff that needs doing in a high-level game.
So I'll cheerfully accept your implication that "we're doing it wrong" (omg ... we were playing to have fun, not to break the game, how dare we) and will still cheerfully keep doing what our group likes to do - stretch the rules badly in all the wrong directions yet still have fun doing so, even if the theorycrafting says we're doing it wrong.
Well, the point I was trying to make with the Spell=Apps is the low resource cost and low opportunity cost of both. Also, given the portability of both and the ease of copying, once a spell or app gets out in the marketplace it can become widespread fairly quickly if it fills a useful niche.Spell level ^ 2 * 10 = gp value of ink to copy
Spell level = hours taken to copy spell
+ Fee to copy spell or cost of the scroll.
That adds up very fast.
Bro, do you even Craft Wondrous Item for Blessed Book and then copy another Wizards book?
I love how wizards use CHA as a dump stat, then their players demand that the GM provide an NPC wizard cheerfully willing to let them copy out of their spell book on the cheap.
Bro, do you even Craft Wondrous Item for Blessed Book and then copy another Wizards book?
There is mechanic and pricing in the game for it, so its not really unreasonable. Looking at the rules:
This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.
So its not like the other Wizard isn't getting paid. I'm not sure how CHA really factors into this scenario. Also parties with 2 Wizards effectively get twice as many spells (for free once they make Blessed Books).
And him being a chod changes the price? Does this go for all purchases in your world cause that seems like quite the houserule. What if the Wizard has a high Diplomacy? Your commentary on CHA seems odd and out of place. As to finding Wizards, that should not be difficult in the default Pathfinder society, or most campaigns as Wizards tend to have learned their spells from a school or mentor. I'm not saying your campaign has to have 8 Hogwarts lying around, but are the no temples to Gods with Magic related domains? Seems like that kind of campaign would be kind of an outlier.
Rare and unique spells may cost more.
Aka GM sets price based on what he considers rare.
Of course a magus at level 7 gets int bonus new spells per day that he can put into a book.