Wizards can cast spells that are no save, and often have better initiatives than a fighter could possibly hope forI've heard this Wizards have better initiative argument a few times now-- show me the math where he gets it from, because in my games I find that fighters routinely go first in combat.
The usual wizard takes improved Initiative(+4), has a familiar(+4), has a highish dex score(+2 or 3), and takes reactionary(+2). I'm not a huge fan of the familiar thing myself, but that's a problem with attaching certain numbers to certain familiars and some bonuses being better than others. Why can't my cat be agile and fast anyway? The familiar makes a difference, as does the more freed up feat selection.
Alternatively, I can show you an oracle with +26 initiative who rolls 3 times and takes the highest, but that's a little more specific. Noble Scion can really help charisma based casters, and they qualify for eldritch heritage easily.
Or... maybe we could make it so your players don't realize how useless their class is compared to the other classes, because they are balanced and each useful in their own way?Just a thought.
Go ahead and do that when you make a new game. But nerfing something that already exists and they will notice.
@Mr.Sin quotations can also be used for paraphrasing. Which is what I did. The arguments are built on assumptions such as "this sleep spell will take out all the bad guys at once"
Wizards can cast spells that are no save, and often have better initiatives than a fighter could possibly hope forI've heard this Wizards have better initiative argument a few times now-- show me the math where he gets it from, because in my games I find that fighters routinely go first in combat.The usual wizard takes improved Initiative(+4), has a familiar(+4), has a highish dex score(+2 or 3), and takes reactionary(+2). I'm not a huge fan of the familiar thing myself, but that's a problem with attaching certain numbers to certain familiars and some bonuses being better than others. Why can't my cat be agile and fast anyway? The familiar makes a difference, as does the more freed up feat selection.
Alternatively, I can show you an oracle with +26 initiative who rolls 3 times and takes the highest, but that's a little more specific. Noble Scion can really help charisma based casters, and they qualify for eldritch heritage easily.
SO. . . the wizard who chooses familiar and spends a feat and a talent all for initiative will be good with initiative. . . awesome. So its a +4 bonus more than a fighter who wants to be good at initiative could have, and it "costs" him more because he gives up a feat which he has way less of than fighter. . .
I've never seen a wizard built like this in any game I have DMed nor have I ever played one, and even so-- it puts him with a +4 over a fighter (assuming there aren't more ways for fighter to increase his init which there very easily could be since I don't have Ultimate Combat)
@Mr.Sin quotations can also be used for paraphrasing. Which is what I did. The arguments are built on assumptions such as "this sleep spell will take out all the bad guys at once"
Except that isn't what was said. Paraphrasing isn't healthy or honest, and can even be insulting. No one in this thread has actually said something about sleep taking out all the bad guys at once.
Lets look at the Diviner Wizard.
At level 1 you can easily have +13 to initiative (+2 Reactionary, +4 Improved Initiative, +4 Familiar, +2 Dexterity +1 Forewarned.)
At level 20, you automatically roll a 20 so you guaranteed to get around +52 to initiative. (+2 Reactionary, +4 Improved Initiative, +4 Familiar, +7 Dexterity, +10 Forewarned, +5 Anticipate Peril.)
Other wizards will clock in at +22 to initiative, though even this can be raised higher.
I'm curious how the Fighter plans to get there... (And no one is beating the Diviner regardless.)
Ya, no offense but a Caster that isn't trying to win initiative are bad casters.
Or... maybe we could make it so your players don't realize how useless their class is compared to the other classes, because they are balanced and each useful in their own way?Just a thought.
Go ahead and do that when you make a new game. But nerfing something that already exists and they will notice.
Here is the point:
Buff a class: Happy player.
Nerf a class: Unhappy player.
Tons of people approach this matter by simple saying ways to nerf the spell casters , which lets be fair is a easier thing to do then to deal with buffed up fighters , but the problem is , the player will notice you nerfing his class , if you nerf enough , he will either give up on the PC and change to a martial himself , or he will leave.
If the GM buff the fighter in a way the wizard does not feel robbed of his own place , then he most likely wont mind at all , and you will have your balance.
IF the GM nerf the wizard to reduce him to the fighter side well ...
So its a +4 bonus more than a fighter who wants to be good at initiative could have, and it "costs" him more because he gives up a feat which he has way less of than fighter.
Actually it cost the wizard less, the wizard isn't dependent on feats so much as the fighter. Same with most full casters. Each level they gain access to more options, many of which are better than anything a feat will give. A fighter also isn't the only martial out there. That's actually one of the things that really stings I thought. Feats don't usually add options. They're often a weak bleh sort of thing, while many spells have that game changing potential people have been talking about. Sure, you can take skill focus(stealth), but invisibility is a whole different game for example! Sure you can climb and maybe put feats into it, but flying can also change the game and make life really simple, even if only one guy is doing it.
IF the GM nerf the wizard to reduce him to the fighter side well ...
I don't see people suggesting that. Personally, I'd rather see everyone with interesting options that make them useful all the time, rather than x/day abilities or just flat nerfing everyone down to someone else's level. Besides, fighter/rogue/monk isn't the best bar, and its hard to determine what that bar is when your talking about something like how many options you have and what you should be able to do, especially when everyone else is on another level.
nerf something that already exists and they will notice.
They should notice. That's the point.
You (and Nox) seem to be under the impression that just because some players like their broken toys means they shouldn't be nerfed.
Keeping hold of a minority of players who whine because an exploit or a class was fixed should not take precedence over creating a quality product. You're much more likely to make money and be successful if you make a good game, not a flawed game some people like because of the flaws they can exploit.
Honestly, I can live with this, if this is the quality of argument the other side is going to be bringing then I find this deeply amusing. Here let me link to Cwheezy's Wizard. It's not mine, but its pretty close to what I'd build. (If I was going to go close to all out.)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8f3&page=1?Standard-Level-20-Wizard
By all means... fact check away.
Needs to be a class feature, something somebody can't replicate. It also needs to be something a bit more far reaching than the Leadership Feat, and also less "in the ow" oriented. As-is the Leadership Feat essentially gives a player two characters, not an ideal solution since that causes problems with balance far beyond what it fixes.
Btw, have you checked my Fields of Expertise? If a fighter (or rogue) has the Aristocratic field of expertise, it gains among other things:
Entourage - At 8th level, you gain a personal retinue of assistants and servants. These four servants work like cohorts, but they can only have NPC class levels and no more than one can have adept levels. This ability works like leadership, but they stack, working separately. The cohorts have to be of the same race as you or the main race of the nobility in which you are part (if you are an elven noble in human lands, your entourage may consist of elves and/or humans). In addition, you gain an additional 2000 gps worth of non-combat items; neither these are included in WBL.And if you have the Military field of expertise you get (among other things):
Personal Detail - At 8th level, you gain a personal detail of soldier(s). This may take one of two forms. Either you gain a cohort or you gain followers. The cohort or followers are of either the same race as you or the dominant race in the army you serve. The cohort may only have fighter and/or rogue levels, the followers are all warriors. When determining your leadership score, you may replace your charisma modifier with your base attack bonus, if it is higher. Except for where noted otherwise, this works like the Leadership feat (but stacks with it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been gracious enough to stay out of the thread because in truth I am similar to Nathanael in that I've never had the disparity effect my campaigns in a negative way. I think it's a better thread when people like me simply stay out of it because saying the problem doesn't exist for me therefore the problem doesnt exist is both not accurate and not helpful in allowing those that see the problem to effectively talk about solutions that would work for them...
The posts where solutions are offered are the one's i'm enjoying. I'm just hoping to have to slog through less of the other type. Hence why my post is of the 'i don't have a dog in this fight' plus an interest in 'getting past circular arguments, what steps do people who have this trouble actually take?
Which in the interest of growth as a gm who can make everyone happy I'm interested in learning in case I have someone at my table who loves fighters but feels they're inadequate. I've never experienced it personally because like Nathanael my tables tend to be full of people who, in having a personal stake in the inadequacies of a fighter, choose something else.
I love learning even if and specifically about situations that because I disagree with them I lack perspective or internal empathy for. I might disagree with the sentiment but I read 6 pages in the interest of developing my knowledge about a sentiment that If I care about my games and my players I should be well informed about. I agree that expecting paizo to issue an official fix is perhaps aiming a little high but worth trying, since they are as receptive to community feedback as they are.... So I agree with ciretose when he says they best answer then is to find out what each person does at their individual tables that have helped 'even things out'
If the answer at your table is 'I could have +20 in every skill and it still wont help balance the power of a dedicatied initiative divination wizard build.... well. Thats a dead end conversation.
I'm totally tuned in to the parts of this conversation that aren't dead ends and posturing and speaking as someone who's only here to hear about the solutions other people have to a problem that doesn't rear its head in my games enough to care about... I still care about actual answers that those who care about it use to resolve the issues they feel strongly about.
@Vincent: Fair enough.
I can definitely see how someone could play for years without seeing a problem. Group trust and a firm, but fair, GM helps with that a lot.
I'm just of the opinion that the flaws in the system can be pinpointed, and that the system should do as much of the heavy lifting as possible.
Given the choice between a game where Wizards aren't a problem because players are nice and GMs are smart, and a game where Wizards aren't a problem because the system puts fair limitations on them (or other classes can do similarly significant things), I'll take the latter every time.
I have been gracious enough to stay out of the thread because in truth I am similar to Nathanael in that I've never had the disparity effect my campaigns in a negative way.
I'm in the same boat myself. While every single player in my group would agree that the fighter is less powerful than the wizard, they all still play fighters every now and then. I don't have a single player who hasn't played a fighter at least once, because it was what they felt like doing that game.
But in the interest of getting back on track as Vincent suggests, if it is a problem there are a few solutions I've heard from other people over the years.
1) Make wizard/sorcerer/etc a prestige class. This way people will have to play non-casters until they get to level 6 and then take it as a prestige class.
2) For every level you take in a caster class you have to multi-class another level in a non-caster class. Particularly harsh interpretations of this I've seen where you have to take levels in the Expert NPC class.
3) Adapt the book of nine swords to Pathfinder.
I have been gracious enough to stay out of the thread because in truth I am similar to Nathanael in that I've never had the disparity effect my campaigns in a negative way.I'm in the same boat myself. While every single player in my group would agree that the fighter is less powerful than the wizard, they all still play fighters every now and then. I don't have a single player who hasn't played a fighter at least once, because it was what they felt like doing that game.
But in the interest of getting back on track as Vincent suggests, if it is a problem there are a few solutions I've heard from other people over the years.
1) Make wizard/sorcerer/etc a prestige class. This way people will have to play non-casters until they get to level 6 and then take it as a prestige class.
2) For every level you take in a caster class you have to multi-class another level in a non-caster class. Particularly harsh interpretations of this I've seen where you have to take levels in the Expert NPC class.
3) Adapt the book of nine swords to Pathfinder.
Number 3 is a really the easiest option here especially since Dreamscarred Press is doing just that and I am very excite.
3) Adapt the book of nine swords to Pathfinder.Number 3 is a really the easiest option here especially since Dreamscarred Press is doing just that and I am very excite.
Interesting. Dreamscarred press do good work, I look forward to seeing that when it's finished.
|
But you don't have 20 minutes. You have 5. And a search check takes at least a minute in and of itself. . . so no search, I assume you must be kicking down every door because picking a lock or searching for traps would eat up your minutes. . . whose doing this door kicking?
The Wizard?
Or are you only able to rush through because Barbarian is barreling through the doors for you?
So Wizard is broken because Barbarian can help him to get to all the encounters in a dungeon before his spells run out?
Ah I see the problem here! You evidently don't know that taking 10 on perception to search is only a move action. Opening a door with Disable Device is only a Full round action. You can search a room and open the door to the next area in 1.5 rounds. And while no the Wizard is not usually the Disable Device user (though hey give Knock a read sometime), a group is going to have someone who can (and it has not been a rogue in my groups for quite some time now.)
So again... still not seeing what mundanes are supposed to in response to csaters getting more and more layers of buffs as they level...
And you have X ray vision.
You can use perception to detect what is perceptible.
That strip of paper under a book? No, you will not see it with a quick glance from the open door.
The book in the desk drawer? You need to open the drawer to see it.
And so on.
You seem to play in a very mechanic way. "Noticing the underlined passage in the book is a DC 30 perception check." to you seem to mean that you don't need to check the books, you use your amazing perception to notice that without even opening the book.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
If the stimulus isn't observable you need to take the appropriate actions to make it observable.