Everyone has a level of magical ability. It's called the UMD skill. To actually work like a spellcaster requires significant investment in the skill and a LOT of money.
Conversely, you can imitate or surpass a LOT of skills with simple spellcasting. Invis is 20 Stealth Ranks, Fly is better then any Jump, Knock for Open Locks, etc.
We thus do not have equality. We have devaluation of two key powers within the game...actually three, if you include BAB and multiple attacks.
And no, you don't need skills at all. You can simply replace them with class abilities and spellcasting, and do just fine. Kindly note that neither 1e or 2E really had skills, and they worked just fine. The only class that actually had 'skills' spelled out was the Theif, and to a smaller extent, the Ranger.
It was their shtick, just like casting spells was for the wizard, and you couldn't just replace it. It made them special.
They were selectively nerfed by handing their shtick away to everyone, just like Fighters.
==Aelryinth
Would you like a Soap Box Aelryinth?
This IS a discussion about mistakes in PF that started in 3.5, isn't it?
:)
===Aelryinth
This IS a discussion about mistakes in PF that started in 3.5, isn't it?
Yes! I'm saving my soapbox for the thread about mistakes made in the transition, but no harm in handing it out.
Necessary skills to open a door? An axe, the barbarian's lock pick.
What do you do when the healer doesn't show? not adventure?
No, you spend gold and use different tactics. Traps? throw 'Uncle Trapspringer the log' down the hallway. Aie, poor Uncle Trapspringer, guess we use him for kindling. Where's Auntie Trapspringer?
Ditto every role. However, skill monkeys are the least missed of any of the skill roles. 1, because role playing often handwaves the social aspect and 2, because other class abilities so easily sub for the rogue.
==Aelryinth
What do you do when the healer doesn't show? not adventure?
Sometimes Jeff the Cleric can't make it to the party(or no one wants to be the cleric).
1, because role playing often handwaves the social aspect
Erm... That doesn't go for every group, far from true with mine.
When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.
Nobody else puts ranks in perception besides the rogue? </skepticism>
When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.
Anyone with a good Perception check modifier can find traps; anyone with a good Disable Device check modifier can disarm most traps. The only thing Trapfinding gives (other than the bonus) is the ability to disable magical traps without using erase, dispel magic, etc.
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
Actually, I've had fighters act as the "locks and traps guy" occasionally. Usually, this is a trip maneuver specialist: probably human for the extra feat to pick up Combat Expertise (13 Int), Improved Trip, and Power Attack at first level; often, for this role, the character will also take the Vagabond Child trait (+1 Disable Device checks, Disable Device is a class skill). Alternately, Skill Focus (Perception) instead of Power Attack at 1st level is a possibility (especially with the Focused Study alternate racial trait) to really emphasize the role; Power Attack can often be deferred to 2nd level without major impact. Even sinking Skill Ranks into both Disable Device and Perception (which is one of the skills that is useful to anyone) every level as the character advances still leaves two Skill Ranks per level (with Skilled) for whatever.
A fighter may not get a great selection of class skills, but, on the other hand, they don't really have any skills they have to take, either. So, the question is: What do you want your fighter to do outside of combat?
When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.Except the Trapper or Urban Ranger. Or the Archaeologist, Detective or Sandman Bard. Or the Seeker Sorcerer or Oracle, who traded in Eschew Materials for half of the reason to play a Rogue.
I actually don't usually have any of those classes in my groups. At most I have a trapper, not because of trapfinding, but because the player didn't want to mess with spells! If you don't have any of those guys(Which is actually more than likely imo), then you can't disable magical traps... at all. Its not like you can't think, talk, or do whatever, but man that stings if you suddenly run into a lot of magical traps(or not, they may be the heal and walk away sort).
Another thing is; Does the game break if you allow anyone to disable magical traps? Probably not. You don't run into them all the time and there isn't much logic behind it other than niche protection. Its very possible you may be helping the game because you won't hear 'Guys! We need a rogue or we can't go into the dungeon!' which is something I'd really hate to hear.
When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.Nobody else puts ranks in perception besides the rogue? </skepticism>
I think he meant disable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.Anyone with a good Perception check modifier can find traps; anyone with a good Disable Device check modifier can disarm most traps. The only thing Trapfinding gives (other than the bonus) is the ability to disable magical traps without using erase, dispel magic, etc.
Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.Actually, I've had fighters act as the "locks and traps guy" occasionally. Usually, this is a trip maneuver specialist: probably human for the extra feat to pick up Combat Expertise (13 Int), Improved Trip, and Power Attack at first level; often, for this role, the character will also take the Vagabond Child trait (+1 Disable Device checks, Disable Device is a class skill). Alternately, Skill Focus (Perception) instead of Power Attack at 1st level is a possibility (especially with the Focused Study alternate racial trait) to really emphasize the role; Power Attack can often be deferred to 2nd level without major impact. Even sinking Skill Ranks into both Disable Device and Perception (which is one of the skills that is useful to anyone) every level as the character advances still leaves two Skill Ranks per level (with Skilled) for whatever.
A fighter may not get a great selection of class skills, but, on the other hand, they don't really have any skills they have to take, either. So, the question is: What do you want your fighter to do outside of combat?
I'm just using this quote as it's inspired a tangent, but this isn't directed directly toward Dragonchess player. Really, I just need to vent.
DeathQuaker's venting on trapfinding, spoilered because of excessive petulance:
1) It is a frequently misunderstood ability, and people never quite understand how it's supposed to work, even though it's fairly simple.
My guess is in the name, in part. It is called "trapfinding" after all. I can kind of understand why people would think you can't find traps without the ability called "trapfinding" --- especially as it was the descendant of an ability called "Find Traps" which many GMs would run that you could NOT, indeed, find traps, without this ability (and this ability was restricted to a handful of classes/kits).
"Trapfinding" in Pathfinder is also different than "Trapfinding" in 3.5. In PF, you can't disable magic traps without the ability. In 3.5, IIRC, you could not find magic traps, or traps over a Search DC of 20 or something. Many Pathfinder converts overlook this little switchover, especially since the name of the ability has not changed.
We could do something silly like hope people actually read the ability description, of course. But it also might behoove us to be sure in our home games we point out what the ability does and doesn't, and make a note for PF2.0 if or when it ever looms on the horizon that this needs to be made a clearer. If we keep the ability at all (see below).
2) Gamers cannot make up their mind/agree on who should be able to do it.
I DISTINCTLY recall when I played 3.5, the call of the day was "why do rogues only have trapfinding? Why can't my experienced dungeoneering fighter notice a tripwire or pressure plate? It's stupid and gamist and TERRIBLE and murdered my family!" There were MANY house rules touted that turned trapfinding into a feat, and some later base classes that also had the ability (e.g., the factotum, IIRC).
Then people who switched to Pathfinder also had their minds wiped/personalities rewritten by the Men in Black and suddenly went "why do people other than the rogue have trapfinding? That's not fair to the rogue and I don't care that, along with the change to the ability itself, if it's more simulationist, it ruins the rogue and is stupid and TERRIBLE and murdered my family!"
When, in fact, I think one of the big reasons trapfinding showed up in various archetypes is because Paizo's devs remembered the MASSIVE demand for trapfinding not to be rogue-only, and were trying to in fact give gamers something they wanted. Silly Paizo.
Really, I sort of just want to take the whole ability away. Everybody can find all of the traps, everybody can disable them. Rogues and other appropriate dungeoneering classes/archetypes should get things like the trapspotter rogue talent (which I think IS rogue only... well, rogue and archeologist only, since archeologists can also have rogue talents, but a rogue can get it at 2nd level and an archeologist would have to wait till at least 4th) and the quick disable rogue talent and the other trappy rogue talents that are all actually way more unique and interesting than actual trapfinding.
3) The dumb idea that what rogues should be for is trapfinding.
Personally, I think rogues should be less thieves and more... rogues. What makes them stand out to me more is sneak attack and rogue talents (e.g., a much wider set of utility options AND YES I ALREADY SAID ROGUE TALENTS NEED TO BE BETTER I KNOW MANY OF THEM ARE SHODDILY WRITTEN I JUST THINK THEY PROVIDE THE TEMPLATE FOR HOW TO MAKE THINGS WORK AND JUST NEED TO BE IMPROVED UPON SO DON'T MAKE ME SOUND LIKE I'M SAYING SOMETHING I'M NOT SO YOU CAN B+!&@ ABOUT THE ROGUE SOME MORE). Most of the best rogue archetypes swap out trapfinding and it is seldom missed. If you want to play a thiefy rogue, great, but people need to get their heads out of 20 years ago and accept that the thief class is dead and gone and good riddance, and that the rogue is evolving into something broader.
And if you want to design the best trapfinder ever the best class is still in fact the rogue because of how many talents they get and at how early they get them (plus trapfinding at level 1) -- it's not just trapfinding, it's trapfinding + trap spotter + quick disable etc. etc. that makes them the best at it so if what you really want is the rogue that all he does is runs around disabling traps, he's still your guy so there. You want me to build you a trapfindy rogue, ask me, I'll be happy to.
Done now.
I think he meant disable.When Derek the Generic Cleric can't make it to the game, someone else (the Witch, Druid, Bard, or Oracle) can heal. No one else can find traps.Nobody else puts ranks in perception besides the rogue? </skepticism>Yes, thank you.
Except the Trapper or Urban Ranger. Or the Archaeologist, Detective or Sandman Bard. Or the Seeker Sorcerer or Oracle, who traded in Eschew Materials for half of the reason to play a Rogue.Those are rather specific builds and the more specific build, the less likely it is to be a PC.
If the only thing that makes a Rogue worth playing is a power that is -highly- circumstantial, that's a problem with the Rogue class.
That is what happens when you give a Ranger trap-finding without any meaningful trade off. It is a Rogue But Better.
2) Specific build per build, in aggregate they steamroll the idea you need a rogue to trapfind. In toto they are all excellent reasons not to play a rogue. You have many options. Why 'specifically' play a rogue when you have alternatives that do just as good, better, or are far more versatile?
3) Yes, it's a rogue but better. Almost all of the choices are.
4) It's not the 'only' reason, but it was once central to the concept.
Note that for many parties, the answer to 'disarm magical traps' is 'spend 750 gp on a wand of cure light wounds and keep going.' As so many traps are simply damage based, put someone up front who can soak the damage if you don't have a trapfinder and keep going.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're moving goal posts. I'm calling out 'options to trapfind', and there are MANY. Then you're saying 'because these aren't full classes, they don't count', and then you dismiss them because of 'archetypes', when 'core rogue' is ALSO an archetype.
And going through AP's, yes, most of the magical traps are indeed damage based...sometimes a LOT of damage, but still. There are other effects, but a CLW wand is overall the best option if you don't have a trapfinder around.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're moving goal posts. I'm calling out 'options to trapfind', and there are MANY. Then you're saying 'because these aren't full classes, they don't count', and then you dismiss them because of 'archetypes', when 'core rogue' is ALSO an archetype.
And going through AP's, yes, most of the magical traps are indeed damage based...sometimes a LOT of damage, but still. There are other effects, but a CLW wand is overall the best option if you don't have a trapfinder around.
==Aelryinth
It is not and never has been just about options to trapfind. It is about the probability of a PC party having an option to trapfind when the PC rogue can't make the game night.
In other words, _accessibility_ of options is what is important. Those archetypes you mentioned aren't good options if the players aren't likely to select them for their characters.
So, when a specific group of players build their characters to fit narrow "roles" and don't take advantage of the options that are available (see my post above; also detect magic, detect poison, detect snares and pits, erase, unseen servant, find traps, knock, dispel magic, and the various summon monster/summon nature's ally spells), this is a system problem? If the rogue is out, then maybe the spellcasters can step up in the utility role; or maybe some other character should have invested in Perception skill ranks while the spellcasters buy/make some low-level scrolls (or wands later on) to deal with the challenges.
And when players choose what's fun and gets crushed for it, is it the game's fault or the player's fault?
smart play is smart play. If the PC's want to play whatever they want and end up with an unbalanced party, let them have their fun - but no GM should feel afraid to pull punches when the PC's can't handle a situation because of their own choices.
I would also like to point out that if a trapfinder is desired, all of the other options are basically more balanced and 'fun' then the Rogue is, if you want the ability.
==Aelryinth
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when players choose what's fun and gets crushed for it, is it the game's fault or the player's fault?
smart play is smart play. If the PC's want to play whatever they want and end up with an unbalanced party, let them have their fun - but no GM should feel afraid to pull punches when the PC's can't handle a situation because of their own choices.
If the GM is using a published scenario and makes this clear to their players and also makes it clear that they won't be adjusting the scenario for the actual party's abilities, then yeah it would be smart to cover all the traditional bases.
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.
I still don't really see why you would consider a Rogue desirable there unless the area was filled with highly deadly resetting magical traps (and even then other classes can disarm them with the right archetype).
A lot of the times in my experience the whole trap process could be streamlined by players saying, "We have about X charges of Cure Light Wounds sitting here. Why don't you tell us how many we have to mark off and we can skip the next tedious hour and get back to having fun." Unless the trap is an encounter besides "I roll disable device or take damage," then all it's only attrition, hence the idea that the DM can just say how many resources to get rid of and you can move on with your day.
I like the role of the sneaky, skilled character that uses stealth and brain over brawn and power. I like potentially one-shotting opponents with sneak attack, with the ability to either kill them or knock them out.
Sounds fun! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using traps creatively can be very fun. For example in Shattered Star...
|
|
And when players choose what's fun and gets crushed for it, is it the game's fault or the player's fault?
smart play is smart play. If the PC's want to play whatever they want and end up with an unbalanced party, let them have their fun - but no GM should feel afraid to pull punches when the PC's can't handle a situation because of their own choices.
If the GM is using a published scenario and makes this clear to their players and also makes it clear that they won't be adjusting the scenario for the actual party's abilities, then yeah it would be smart to cover all the traditional bases.
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.
I don't see why thing should be dumbed down because people want to restrict their options.
I the whole party is made of melee characters, the GM should rework all challenges so that they can be beaten by melee fighters?You sound like the guy that was saying "our party of 7 melee combatants and 1 cleric can't beat a flying wizard"...
Apparently if you are a melee combatants you forget how to use bows.
As Aelryinth and other people have pointed out, there are several archetypes of other classes beside the rogue that can get trapfinding.
If no one want to play those classes and archetypes, there are magical and mundane ways to defeat traps.
To be totally unable to manage traps each character in the party should have focused on extremely narrow roles, trading away everything in exchange for being the most badass at a single thing. If people like to mix max to that level they should be willing to pay the price of their choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM is using a published scenario and makes this clear to their players and also makes it clear that they won't be adjusting the scenario for the actual party's abilities, then yeah it would be smart to cover all the traditional bases.
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.
I'd like to say that, in general, I agree with this sentiment. I don't agree in all cases and situations, but for the most part, I agree.
I don't see why thing should be dumbed down because people want to restrict their options.
It's a matter of Social Contract, Diego. Yours might not function that way - which is fine! - but many do. Often (though not always) when people create a certain kind of character, they're signaling, consciously or not, the type of game they want to play.
I the whole party is made of melee characters, the GM should rework all challenges so that they can be beaten by melee fighters?
... yes (if they're all fighters)!
... at least sort of.
You shouldn't send a crew of melee-based characters into adventures based around "definitely not melee-based things."
You sound like the guy that was saying "our party of 7 melee combatants and 1 cleric can't beat a flying wizard"...
Apparently if you are a melee combatants you forget how to use bows.
Now, see, here's part of the example, right here. If the wizard is played in such a way that the melee-focused characters can in fact, grab some bows and take him out, cool. Great, even!
This presumes, though, that:
1) they have bows on-hand
2) there has been either communication up-front that the occasional ranged combat should happen (always good thing to do) or that the players think fast-enough on their feet (always a good trait, not necessarily a good presumption) to come up with something out of their comfort zone
3) the wizard is played in such a way that archery is doable
Given those presumptions, though, yeah. It's a great twist to occasionally throw into a melee-focused group's scenario... so long as it doesn't become a habit whereby the GM forces the group to become ranged specialists or die.
...
Unless the social contract indicates that it would be okay to do that. In which case, that goes from, "That's unpleasant." to "That's cool."
And I really, really do mean that.
I think bringing a little variety can be (depending on the group) a very good thing. I think it could shake things up, and be fun every once in a while. But when you're entirely circumventing a party's strengths (as in the case of the flying wizard), it becomes very tricky. The GM can all-to-easily go too far and destroy everyone's fun.
Some people can and do enjoy a "let's play to death" game style. Some don't.
And that, more than anything, is how a GM should "tailor" the adventure to a group. Do they want to min/max and pay the price? BAM! That could be awesome. Do they want to focus on a particular play style? BAM! That could be awesome.
Not all GMs can or should run all game styles, though. They're players, too, and it should be fun for everyone. That doesn't always work out easily, but often enough it does. People are complicated like that.
As Aelryinth and other people have pointed out, there are several archetypes of other classes beside the rogue that can get trapfinding.
If no one want to play those classes and archetypes, there are magical and mundane ways to defeat traps.
Agreed!
To be totally unable to manage traps each character in the party should have focused on extremely narrow roles, trading away everything in exchange for being the most badass at a single thing. If people like to mix max to that level they should be willing to pay the price of their choices.
Generally also I agree. But only to a point. It's no fun if the GM constantly makes you "pay" for something the collective group thought would be fun.
Basically, whatever it takes for everyone to have fun. :)
|
|
As a GM, always playing 1 stile NPC and 1 challenge games because the players have narrowed their options to only one is the most unfun thing I can think.
If really there are groups that find fun restricting their options so much, they can have one of them playing GM managing a random melee focused monster that respawn every few round. That seem the whole extent of their gaming interest.
|
|
This is not a good solution for two reasonsAnd when players choose what's fun and gets crushed for it, is it the game's fault or the player's fault?
smart play is smart play. If the PC's want to play whatever they want and end up with an unbalanced party, let them have their fun - but no GM should feel afraid to pull punches when the PC's can't handle a situation because of their own choices.
If the GM is using a published scenario and makes this clear to their players and also makes it clear that they won't be adjusting the scenario for the actual party's abilities, then yeah it would be smart to cover all the traditional bases.
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.
When you say "this is not a good solution" are you referring to Aelryinth's post about GM's not pulling punches? Or are you referring to my suggestions that if the GM is willing to tailor a scenario to his players that he should do so?
|
|
However, if the GM is writing their own scenario, or is willing to adapt a published scenario, they should see their players choice of characters as a message saying "this is the type of game we want to play" and the smart GM will then write the scenario around that party makeup.I don't see why thing should be dumbed down because people want to restrict their options.
Tailoring an adventure for your PCs is dumbing down? I don't see that at all.
If you had a scenario written on the assumption of having 4 PCs but you actually have 6 players, would you say adding the odd foe and adjusting the challenges to be appropriate for a 6 man team is dumbing down? Because that is tailoring the scenario to the PCs too.
I the whole party is made of melee characters, the GM should rework all challenges so that they can be beaten by melee fighters?
Now, if you as GM made it clear that your campaign is suited for the traditional mix of classes and that you expect all the bases to be covered then the players all making melee characters is an issue - communication has broken down somewhere and it needs to be addressed.
However, if you are willing to collaboratively create the campaign with the players and they express an interest in all playing melee focussed characters, then they are expressing a desire to play a particular type of game. As the GM you probably want to avoid situations where a magic user is required to move the plot forward for example.
Similarly, if players have built social & investigation based characters - bards and rogues with high Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Search etc with Feats like "Favoured in House", "Investigate" "Recognize Impostor", "Right of Counsel" and "Urban Tracking" then they probably want a campaign of political manoeuvring, scheming and mysteries with the odd action scene, not all of which need be combats (chases are good instead).
To quote Spirit of the Century:
More than anything else, aspects are a player’s most explicit way of telling the GM, "This is the stuff I want to see in the game". If the player picks an aspect like "Death Defying", then he should be able to fully expect that the GM will put him in death-defying situations.
Likewise in D&D / PF, the choice of races, classes, skills and feats a player chooses is a way of telling the GM what they want out of the game.
You sound like the guy that was saying "our party of 7 melee combatants and 1 cleric can't beat a flying wizard"...
Apparently if you are a melee combatants you forget how to use bows.
I think you reading way more into my post than what I actually said.
And when players choose what's fun and gets crushed for it, is it the game's fault or the player's fault?
Neither
Its the GMs fault.
Part of the role of the Gm is to provide a challenge to the players that doesnt overpower the,m.even if its a published adventure....or if it does overpower the,, there's a good story reason for it (or a good fun story that comes out of it like "captured by the ghoulies")
The only excuse really is if you're a starting GM, in which case you're likely to have a few problems while you get used to the system anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to say that, in general, I agree with this sentiment. I don't agree in all cases and situations, but for the most part, I agree.
I agree with pretty much everything you said there! :)
As a GM, always playing 1 stile NPC and 1 challenge games because the players have narrowed their options to only one is the most unfun thing I can think.
If really there are groups that find fun restricting their options so much, they can have one of them playing GM managing a random melee focused monster that respawn every few round. That seem the whole extent of their gaming interest.
I really think you are overestimating what we are suggesting as an option.
All we are suggesting is that it is possible to play D&D campaigns with a particular focus - mercenary based, investigative, kingdom building, magic focussed etc - and that if your players have expressed a desire to play one of those types of more focused campaigns and you as GM are willing to write your own scenarios or adjust published scenarios then it makes sense to tailor the campaign to meet the desires of the players.
That doesn't mean you can't have traps - just don't make them too common, and maybe not too difficult to defeat / disable / overcome so the players have a chance to do so.
Also make it so that the plot doesn't rely on overcoming the traps - if its a dungeon bash have another tunnel circumvent the traps but requires the PCs to scale a cliff, or cross a river of lava, or encounter monsters or something else.
Ditto for magic stuff, if none of your PCs are magic users, by all means have magical threats, but don't write a scenario that in order to progress requires a PC to dispel some magic or detect magic etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5. Sorcerers Still Have To Lag In Spell Level Progression.
The point of that is what? Especially when Wizards seem to be stronger
mechanically. Is this another one of those lovely "BUT TEH SORS WUD PRESTEEJ KWIKKER!" 3.5 artifact when most Pathfinder games don't use
3.0 and 3.5 prestige classes and prestige classing is less emphasized?
That's one that baffles me.
Wizards are better in so many ways.The supposed advantage of a sorcerer (casting more spells/day) is undermined, when the wizard gains his next level of spells a level earlier, and can immediately cast [1 plus 1 for Int, pus 1 for specialisation]/day.
Also, when a bloodline grants access to a certain spell, I believe it is bad form to make the sorcerer wait one level, before being able to add this to their spells known. If this is the bloodline's signature spell, shouldn't it be learned first?
Also, given the description of the sorcerer class;
""
In what way is this reflected in the class?
Shouldn't they be the class that gets the bonus metamagic feats, instead of the wizard?
When you're casting the same spell, over and over and over and over, wouldn't you be more likely to find alternate ways of casting it, than the wizard who changes his spells along with his socks?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a good solution for two reasons
1.) You are relying on a particular player to be able to make it to the game for that session. They may not be able to do so or they may have to leave in the middle of the session. Either way means that the one character you were relying on for a problem is not there. This doesn't just relate to traps, but to undead encounters, the PC who has Knowledge(History), etc.
The prescence of any specific player should have zero bearing on which regular characters are present at the encounter site.
If you left the last session on a cliffhanger, the essential character shouldn't suddenly 'poof' out of existence.
"Where's Samson?"
"He was holding up the collapsing roof! Where is he? FOR THE LOVE OF THE GODS, WHERE IS HE!!"
<rocks fall, everybody dies>
5. Sorcerers Still Have To Lag In Spell Level Progression.
The point of that is what? Especially when Wizards seem to be stronger
mechanically. Is this another one of those lovely "BUT TEH SORS WUD PRESTEEJ KWIKKER!" 3.5 artifact when most Pathfinder games don't use
3.0 and 3.5 prestige classes and prestige classing is less emphasized?
That's one that baffles me.
Wizards are better in so many ways.The supposed advantage of a sorcerer (casting more spells/day) is undermined, when the wizard gains his next level of spells a level earlier, and can immediately cast [1 plus 1 for Int, pus 1 for specialisation]/day.
Also, when a bloodline grants access to a certain spell, I believe it is bad form to make the sorcerer wait one level, before being able to add this to their spells known. If this is the bloodline's signature spell, shouldn't it be learned first?
Also, given the description of the sorcerer class;
""
In what way is this reflected in the class?
Shouldn't they be the class that gets the bonus metamagic feats, instead of the wizard?
When you're casting the same spell, over and over and over and over, wouldn't you be more likely to find alternate ways of casting it, than the wizard who changes his spells along with his socks?
The thing about Sorcs and Wizards...
When you take magic items out of the equation, Sorcs are WAY better. "Aw, you didn't have that prepared today? Sux to be you!"But then, when you put magic items back into the equation, the power flips. "You didn't learn that spell? Too bad for you - good thing I learned it a decade ago and made a scroll so I would have it just in case and never need to waste a preparation slot on it."
|
|
Not sure how you can say Sorcerers are way better without magic items. Your scenario assumes that the situation is going to be one of the few times that the sorcerer's permanent limited spell base is going to have an effect.
Exactly.
Party approach cave. They inspect the steaming droppings and charred corpses.
Wizard: "Ah, so it is as I feared, a red dragon. I agreed to help the villagers, and I will, but I prepared fire magicks this morning. We will leave this place forthwith, and return tomorrow, when we shall corner the beast."
VS
Party approach cave. They inspect the steaming droppings and charred corpses.
Fire Sorcerer: "Ah, s#%+. Screw these peasants, we're not stopping."
I enjoy how wiz vs, sorc debates always assume the wiz has a high degree of certainty what he's going to find.
Well with all that knowledge and intelligence he's got to figure out something when he sees those charred corpses right? Besides, the wizard that day screwed up. He only prepared the most common resistance, luckily tomorrow he can switch to cold with a side of force, just in case, unlike the sorcerer. Which I think was the point of what Snorter said.