Flying Mounts tend to be easy targets and not especially reliable. Boots of Flying are of very limited duration and the caster can simply wait you out. I am talking about casters as a whole which would exclude Alchemists, Magi, summoners and inquisitors from being a solution. Invisibility is extremely difficult to solve with a bag of flour when the caster who is invisible is say... flying. Blind-fight is not really a good solution to invisible opponents either because of its limited range (melee only) and significant miss chance.
Also my games have been running just fine without Fighters, Rogues, or Cavaliers, since no one has played any of those classes in quite some time. (Because there are better options for them to use.)
Edit @ lastblacknight: He has I linked it in this very thread.
I am waiting for him to post a fighter that can defeat a wizardWhy not post up your wizard stats and challenge people to kill it?
because if he posts that wizard first, there will be a chain of fighters built specifically for the circumstance of slaying "That Wizard." not even practical adventuring fighters, just fighters designed to slay a highly specific wizard.
it wouldn't even be a fighter that can defeat all wizards in general, just a fighter that can defeat a highly specific wizard or highly specific playstyle of wizard by means of preparation and highly specific gear that basically amounts to metagaming.
and i'm not the best person to ask about builds
another flaw with builds, is builds don't reveal the merits of the class, only how good the player is at milking bonuses by crunching numbers.
He did and while I'm quite certain another caster could kill it, anything without access to 9th level spells is going to get wrecked.
Edit: I don't actually think you can build a Fighter to defeat Cwheezy's build, take a look and give it a try. If you can manage it I'd be extremely impressed.
The issue is less about casters and more about the influence of magic in your world. Simply p play a low-magic campaign. I don't understand why in ' your' world wizards can cast spells but' fighters' are unwilling to wear magic armour.
perhaps plan some games in the mana wastes..
If you'd like to put up your god wizard build I am sure people will come up with creative ways to kill it
fighters can wear magic armor, but that is not a feature of the fighter, as much as it is a feature of the armor itself.
The issue is less about casters and more about the influence of magic in your world. Simply p play a low-magic campaign. I don't understand why in ' your' world wizards can cast spells but' fighters' are unwilling to wear magic armour.
perhaps plan some games in the mana wastes..
If you'd like to put up your god wizard build I am sure people will come up with creative ways to kill it
Also the god wizard is already up in the very post above yours. Good luck (your going to need it and 9th level casting).
I would actually be happier if he could do that than if he couldn't
Edit: I don't actually think you can build a Fighter to defeat Cwheezy's build, take a look and give it a try. If you can manage it I'd be extremely impressed.
Same, though I'm just counting the minutes until he declares that the casters using its abilities is unfair... in 3... 2... 1...
Same, though I'm just counting the minutes until he declares that the casters using its abilities is unfair... in 3... 2... 1...I would actually be happier if he could do that than if he couldn't
Edit: I don't actually think you can build a Fighter to defeat Cwheezy's build, take a look and give it a try. If you can manage it I'd be extremely impressed.
i'd be happy if he found a way that involved nowhere near the preparation the wizard went through. but the wizard has lots of minions.
so to sound like i am at least trying to even things out
we will give the fighter access to his choice of 5 12th level iconics to accompany him.
You can ignore the minions as well, they are mostly lawn ornaments.
I mean, did you read the claw guys? Touch of idiocy is no save, they just instant gank someone to 1 int whenever I feel like it from any plane. I just like their floating hands around my castle
even better than my suggestion
but most of them are still legitimate threats to the fighter. like the hundred handed titan, the succubi, the nymph and the planetar.
I am talking about casters as a whole which would exclude Alchemists, Magi, summoners and inquisitors from being a solution.
So, you're saying that removing two-thirds of the classes will change the game more than removing 10% of the classes. Oh boy, do I agree with that spectacularly bright observation!
Who would have thought? This must clearly prove something. Don't know what yet, but something at least.
And of course, just removing the PC's ability to use spells, not the enemies - they get to keep it all.
This is indeed a very good observation. How did you come up with that? It's brilliant!
The point's being missed a bit here.
Removing casters impacts the game more than removing martial classes. Not because of the number of classes being removed, but the way the game world shifts because of it.
Remove martial classes: There are no supreme warriors on the planet. Expected DPR drops by a bit.
Remove casters: No magic items. No quick ways of travel. Due to the lack of magic items, a lot of enemies become more difficult, even nigh impossible to beat (enemies with high DR/Magic, enemies with Regeneration, incorporeal foes, etc.), and a few other things that may or may not be significant.
If you remove martial classes, the game world is largely unchanged. It's a high magic world still, and there are a number of classes with acceptable or even quite good combat ability left. If you remove casters, the entire world of Golarion would need to be re-written to account for that.
Removing casters impacts the game more than removing martial classes. Not because of the number of classes being removed, but the way the game world shifts because of it.
But this is of course influenced by the vast majority of powerful figures in the world - assuming a somewhat even distribution of classes - are spellcasters.
Remove casters: No magic items.
So now we're going even further than removing spellcasters, now we are removing all magic items too?
If you remove martial classes, the game world is largely unchanged.
Yes, but it's a very weird comparision. Of course the game changes less if you remove a handful of specific classes than if you remove _all spells and magic items_.
That says nothing about anything really. If we remove all non-magical people and creatures Golarion would have to be rewritten too.
Removing magical items is a logical extension of removing casters.
I suppose they wouldn't be COMPLETELY gone, but even weak ones would be excruciatingly rare since you'd need to be at least 7th level to start crafting ONE type of magic item, and characters above 5th are not the normal populace.
Yes, but it's a very weird comparision. Of course the game changes less if you remove a handful of specific classes than if you remove _all spells and magic items_.
That says nothing about anything really.
It really does. The fact that the existence of casters is so integral to the proper functioning of the setting says a lot.
Again, it's not about the number of classes removed.
If Wizard were the only caster class the game world would still be largely unchanged if you removed the other 95% of classes.
The number of classes is irrelevant, the impact is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing magical items is a logical extension of removing casters.
I suppose they wouldn't be COMPLETELY gone, but even weak ones would be excruciatingly rare since you'd need to be at least 7th level to start crafting ONE type of magic item, and characters above 5th are not the normal populace.
Yes, but it's a very weird comparision. Of course the game changes less if you remove a handful of specific classes than if you remove _all spells and magic items_.
That says nothing about anything really.
It really does. The fact that the existence of casters is so integral to the proper functioning of the setting says a lot.
Again, it's not about the number of classes removed.
If Wizard were the only caster class the game world would still be largely unchanged if you removed the other 95% of classes.
The number of classes is irrelevant, the impact is not.
Wow-- so you are telling me that if you removed all magic from a fantasy game it would be different? I never would have thought that could be. . .
Does this mean that if we removed all technology from science fiction it would be different as well?
What if we took a romance novel and took out all the romance?
Perhaps we could take a non-fiction book and remove all the facts?
That argument is weak because its meaningless-- telling me that stripping away the integral elements of the genre by removing all magic from the game would change it doesn't prove that the player character spell caster is super broken and shouldn't be allowed, it just changes a fantasy game to something else.
Also, Magic items ARE a feature of martial classes. Wealth by level. . . that's another reason these arguments are ridiculous-- the wizard gets all his class abilities, plus all his magic items, but then you say magic items have to come from a wizard so fighter can't use any.
I'm not going to comment on a wizard build that show only Divinations memorized and has a theoretical simulacrum slave that hands them "every spell from 6 down". That's certainly not RAI even if it is RAW, and the abuse of that spell I'm certain has been tackled elsewhere.
Crazy builds really aren't required to show the power of the caster over the martial type.
Even at low to mid-level Fly + Imp Invis + SoL spells can wreck the day of a martial character.
Yes it's a limited duration combo due to the low duration of Imp Invis but it's incredibly powerful and there really isn't a lot of hard counters that the Fighter has to deal with it.
I mean assuming that the Fighter is going to struggle to actually sneak up on a decent Wizard in his Full Plate I think it's safe to assume the first round of any encounter is going to be at range and like others have shown it's really really important for casters to have high init.
So even assuming no pre-buffs the caster can typically choose the following scenarios- fighter appears to be a ranged combatant - invis or imp. invis to make me basically immune to being a pin cushion then summon (even low level summons tend to be good at harrasing archers. If fighter is a melee or charger type then flight to get above the charge line of the fighter and then imp. invis to deal with the possibility that he'll draw a bow.
Both of these tactics fighters are going to struggle with even with bags of flour and missile like attacks at a square.
Even lower level spells like levitation and spider climb can really impact the fighter's ability to counter the wizard in anything other than a tight corridor (where the ability to elude the fighter is limited).
I'm not saying that the fighter is useless by any means it's just that his limited ability to change the shape of the battlefield is an issue as well as his pretty much complete ineptness at non-combat activity.
The game tends to devolve into rocket tag. TV Tropes has a quick article on it. Its not just a playstyle, its just the way it tends to work for dnd.And the source of this information is? You have a survey that prove your affirmation?Keep in mind that a lot of games are basically built around high stakes games of rocket tag. This was especially prevalent in high end 3.5 games. PF toned down some of the rocket tag aspects of the game but they are still there.
I have played D&D for some forty years now. Nothing but one ultra high powered epic game ever devolved into rocket tag.
It is just a play style.
Wow-- so you are telling me that if you removed all magic from a fantasy game it would be different? I never would have thought that could be. . .Does this mean that if we removed all technology from science fiction it would be different as well?
What if we took a romance novel and took out all the romance?
Perhaps we could take a non-fiction book and remove all the facts?
That argument is weak because its meaningless-- telling me that stripping away the integral elements of the genre by removing all magic from the game would change it doesn't prove that the player character spell caster is super broken and shouldn't be allowed, it just changes a fantasy game to something else.
Also, Magic items ARE a feature of martial classes. Wealth by level. . . that's another reason these arguments are ridiculous-- the wizard gets all his class abilities, plus all his magic items, but then you say magic items have to come from a wizard so fighter can't use any.
I'm not going to comment on a wizard build that show only Divinations memorized and has a theoretical simulacrum slave that...
Your points above are both hitting the mark and veering wide.
People are saying that wizards and clerics and full casters have no effect on the world. We are then removing them and all they can do from the world, and yes, that includes lots of easy magic items. The only magic items that exist are made by Magical Artisans, and so restricted to Wondrous ITems and armor/weapons. No scrolls, potions, wands, rings, or staves.
BING, the world is no longer high fantasy. It's low fantasy on the PC side, high fantasy on the monster side. It has COMPLETELY CHANGED.
If we remove the two non-magic classes (replace with warrior and expert, if you like), NOTHING CHANGES. It's still a high magic campaign. Ignoring the other big 3 martial classes, your alchemists, magus, druids, fighting bards and clerics can all fill the martial role perfectly.
heck, a well kitted out warrior can do it to an extent. So can a buffed animal companion, or summoned creatures.
That's the difference between the narrative power of casters vs martials. Casters define the setting. Martials just live in it.
As for technology...the difference is technology is available to everyone and not exclusive to a class. Tech is gear. Everyone gets gear. Magic is more akin to the Force...not everyone gets to be a Force User. The difference is that in SF the tech is usually powerful enough to offset The Force to some extent (especially when you start talking starships and WOMD). In PF, that is not the case.
==Aelryinth
Exactly.
But he knows that, or at least I hope he does. He's just trying a little too hard to miss the point.
Hey Diego,
Have you ever tried making a fighter without combat feats? You can pick all the general feats you like, of course, and he still gets his class benefits. He just loses his fighter bonus feats.
I'm wracking my brains for any game changer feats, and I can't think of any except Power Attack and its clones, since the damage boost is so extreme.
I can GUARANTEE YOU that this fighter will be a magical artisan x2, and have both wondrous items and arms and armor so he can craft at half price. Doubling his WBL in gear will probably make up for anything he loses in combat feats.
==Aelryinth
|
On scrying and teleporting, that's definitely a houserule by JJ. Not a bad one, but I don't like to bring in houserules when discussing the power of a spell itself.
Well, yes and no. His argument was effectively that the viewed once aspect of scrying only comes up if you learn the location – e.g. the people you scry talk about where they are. That isn’t strictly spelled out within the rules either way, so ultimately it’s a GM call. I don’t run it as such, but I’m reluctant to describe something that is a judgment call as a house rule.
That said, again, I don’t think it is a needed position.
It is not even remotely a 'judgment call'.
It's a flat-out change of the rules.It's a good change, which removes some of the unutterable silliness of having people hurling themselves into places they've never been, but it is a change. Saying it 'isn’t strictly spelled out within the rules either way' is utterly false.
The Teleport text reads, '“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.' .
Using houseruled versions of the rules, to argue that your group doesn't have any problems, therefore the actual rules (which you aren't even using) must be fine, and therefore don't require the very changes your group is using, is an utterly illogical stance.
"The rules work fine, whenever I change them or ignore them, therefore they don't need to be changed."
o_O?
Note when I say Scrying, I use that as a catchall for long distance viewing Divinations. It's the most iconic, and generally are referred to in fiction either as divinations, or "scrying magics".
Right, so what divination spell lets you look in on a far off place you’ve never seen before?
Ummm...Scrying?
Man I love Wind Wall.
Hm? Why'd I mention that?
No reason.
*yawn*
Martials are soooo underpowered since all they can do is obscene amounts of damage, right? Want to talk about archers? Or power attacking crit builds?
I have seen more Pathfinder archers annihilate bosses than casters.
Man only martial can deal damage, casters surely can't blast for massive amount of damage to multiple people and definitely not twice in a turn. I mean there's no way there would be a way to cast two spells in one turn and still move or items and feats that let you get metamagic for free...
All a fighter need to kill a wizard is maxed out stealth.
They rely so much on their spells, buffs and See invisible and the like that you can defeat them most easily only using mundane options like sneaking near em and hitting them really hard. A net or a good grapple check is also your friend, but try to sunder his spell components first. Take Step up as a feat and watch him squirm.
Also, you should really compare a world without casters AND magic items with a world without full bab classes AND no armor/weapons.
It´s only fair this way...
I assure you, a world without weapons and armor would be a different world, indeed!
A proper caster will casually end that fight in a single round (there are several ways a CR 17 caster could do so), unless the Dragon is a better prepared caster. A Fighter against a Dragon using its spells and natural flight properly? Mostly an annoyance.
Stealth is also not an especially good solution, the Wizard is fully capable of summoning beings that can locate you with their senses and then simply nuking said area.
Removing magical items is a logical extension of removing casters.
Oh, so you're also removing all creatures that have SLA's?
So now we're down to comparing:
Removing two specific classes
vs
- Removing two-thirds of the classes (and heck, rogue has to go too)
- Removing all magic items
- Removing about half of the playable races and half of the bestiary
What more would you like to add to make this an even more meaningful comparision?
A CR 17 Caster should be able to overcome to a 29 SR on a 1 with a caster level of 22 both Spell Penetration feats and an Otherworldly Kimono. An Explosive Rune suicide bomber, or package detonation will instantly kill the dragon with no save (seriously... gods do not play dice), unless it has a contingency prepared for that. Alternatively, the caster could simply use Blood Money to cast Limited Wish duplicating Geass/Quest and be able to no save order the dragon the around (this will end badly for the dragon). Those are just the easiest methods, there are many many more.
(The caster is also more survivable in this situation due to layered buffs)
Also your archer best hope the dragon doesn't just cast say Wind Wall or Fickle Winds making all of your archery investments useless.
On scrying and teleporting, that's definitely a houserule by JJ. Not a bad one, but I don't like to bring in houserules when discussing the power of a spell itself.Well, yes and no. His argument was effectively that the viewed once aspect of scrying only comes up if you learn the location – e.g. the people you scry talk about where they are. That isn’t strictly spelled out within the rules either way, so ultimately it’s a GM call. I don’t run it as such, but I’m reluctant to describe something that is a judgment call as a house rule.
That said, again, I don’t think it is a needed position.It is not even remotely a 'judgment call'.
It's a flat-out change of the rules.
It's a good change, which removes some of the unutterable silliness of having people hurling themselves into places they've never been, but it is a change. Saying it 'isn’t strictly spelled out within the rules either way' is utterly false.
The Teleport text reads, '“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.' .
Using houseruled versions of the rules, to argue that your group doesn't have any problems, therefore the actual rules (which you aren't even using) must be fine, and therefore don't require the very changes your group is using, is an utterly illogical stance.
"The rules work fine, whenever I change them or ignore them, therefore they don't need to be changed."
o_O?Note when I say Scrying, I use that as a catchall for long distance viewing Divinations. It's the most iconic, and generally are referred to in fiction either as divinations, or "scrying magics".Right, so what divination spell lets you look in on a far off place you’ve never seen before?Ummm...Scrying?
Note that the spell doesn’t say you can always use Scrying as “viewed once” it sez :”possibly using magic such as scrying”. So, even JJ sez it’s possible to use Scrying for TPort, just not routinely, thus the common tactic of “scry & fry” “doesn’t work”.
There’s a ambiguity there. In PF, generally RAI trumps RAW, esp if there’s an ambiguity. Altho true, JJ is not “the rules guy” he *IS* the RAI guy.
It’s not a houserule, it’s a RAI “rule”. Now sure, you’re not wrong if you interpret “possibly using magic such as scrying” as “Anytime you scry you can T-port”, but since the creative Director has given us his thoughts on RAI here, it’s best not to assume comparative power based upon a dodgy tactic.
Not to mention, there are a bunch of ways to prevent ‘scry & fry”, and IF that tactic is common and valid any decent BBEG should take those preventions. Mind you, if that tactic rarely works, you’d expect to rarely see those protections…and indeed, in most Ap’s you rarely do. So the AP were written with the idea that “scry & fry” is not a common tactic that can be relied upon.
So you can have it one way or the other;
either “scry & fry” is a common reliable tactic- in which case BBEG take precautions, thus it rarely works.
OR
“scry & fry” rarely works, in which case precautions are rarely used, in which case it rarely works.
Thus, in either case, the tactic doesn't work very often.
An Explosive Rune suicide bomber,
We have told you over and over that tactic/spell doesn’t work like that. Now, maybe your DM lets you get away with it, but that has no bearing on PF balance issues. Altho it does explain why you think casters are overpowered.
Also Blood Money is not part of Core, and should be limited as per campaign. Assuming all spellcasters have it, and have maxed out str is another assumption that has no bearing on whether or not there is a general inbalance.
Scry and Fry would realistically work in the scenario presented. There are a number of ways to prevent a fixed location or select individuals to not be scryed on, there are no such methods to hide an army from being scryed on and any blank spots in the transmission are really just giving away key locations. As the rules are written any time you can scry you can teleport, admittedly there is a chance of failure with both these, but no so significant as to call it "unreliable".
An Explosive Rune suicide bomber,We have told you over and over that tactic/spell doesn’t work like that. Now, maybe your DM lets you get away with it, but that has no bearing on PF balance issues. Altho it does explain why you think casters are overpowered.
You keep saying that, but both methods absolutely do. Your dislike of them is noted as is your lack of rules that support you.
EDIT: I really enjoyed that DrDeth post above me saying that "Even though the rules specifically mention that you can do it, you can't actually do it because it is not intended for you to, because the rules specifically say you can do it"
The rules say you can "possibly" do it. That's different than you can ALWAYS do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No the rules specifically allow both tactics, I avoid making of use the tactics at are not RAW so the only circumstances where they would not work is if a GM houserules against it working a scenario that is irrelevant to this discussion regardless how likely a scenario that is or isn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, generic "I can fight wizards really well; and incidentally non-wizards as well" Fighter/Monk that I've played in PFS. Level 10 (technically 9-2 now, but will be 10 next weekend). Has a 1-point add-in from faction change in PFS (Lantern Lodge), thus explaining his slightly-over-20 point buy
Tengu Lore Warden 5 / Qinong Manuever Master 5
S: 7
Int: 14
Wis: 16 (18)
Dex: 22 (26)
Con: 12
Chr: 7
Feats: Agile Manuevers, Weapon Finessee, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved/Greater Trip, Improved Grapple, Improved Dirty Trick, Two-weapon fighting (and Improved), Improved Blindfighting
Magic items of note:
Flying carpet (5x5)
Dueling Gloves
Agile Amulet of Mighty Fist
+2 Cloak of Resistance
Green ioun stone (+ 1 saves)
+1 Init Ioun stone
+4 Dex belt
+2 Wis Headband
Traits are +2 Init and Diplomacy-as-class-skill
5th level Qinong ability is barkskin.
How he beats mage types:
If they don't fly, trip them, try to grapple (usually works if they don't have FoM)
If they do fly,try to grapple. If that fails, blind them via dirty trick and beat the heck out of them (closing eyes if they are displaced or mirror imaged to use blind-fighting).
He has a solid init bonus... diviners can beat him out, but only barely.
Generally bats around +31 to his CMB to the manuever of his choice for the round, and if he gets a full attack no "standard" mage can survive (9 attacks with decent to hit, and each attack does +11 or +7 damage).
All saves are +13 I believe, with Reflex being in the +18 range.
And that's unbuffed and on his own, built to beat dragons and demons rather than "mere" human mages :).
How do you find them if they are invisible? How do you grapple them when they can dispel your carpet out from under you? How do you avoid no save spells?
Very true andreww if hey if you got it, flaunt it!
No the rules specifically allow both tactics, I avoid making of use the tactics at are not RAW so the only circumstances where they would not work is if a GM houserules against it working a scenario that is irrelevant to this discussion regardless how likely a scenario that is or isn't.
No, they don't.
As I said before:
I have made a poll and read many posts and it seems those screaming the loudest play a different style. The do rocket tag, which encounters lasting only 2 rounds or so, then heal with wands (if needed) with resting every two encounters or so. If you run hyper-optimized characters, with every magic item, high point buy, dumping like crazy, and every sourcebook VS standard vanilla AP encounters, yes, this is to be expected. If you allow spellcasters to Nova and rest, then yes, they will have a advantage even earlier.
I am not condemning this playstyle. But it's not what the Devs counted on when designing the Ap's. Most folks don't play like that, altho it is apparently moderately common. But you can't expect them to re-write the entire game to support a minority playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to link this too:
link
I don't know if everyone discussing here was around back when AM BARBARIAN had his glory days, but it's very worth to read.