| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But despite all that, I really do think now it played better than anything from 3.x on has.
Hmm, thinking back I'm inclined to agree with you. Our encounters (combat or otherwise) certainly seemed to be resolved much faster than they are in our modern game.
However I'd be reluctant to give up the increase in options and versatility that the modern games provide.
I wonder if there's a way to get the best of both worlds.
|
Also encounters took so much less time in previous editions. A complicated encounter in 3.x can take 4 hours, maybe longer. Just to play 4 or 5 rounds.
I've found in my own experience that this is a part of the breakdown that happens at higher levels in 3.X. I've rarely had issues resolving combats in a satisfying time frame at the low and even middle levels (it still might take an hour, but a lot of that ends up being fun tactical gameplay and a larger number of elapsed rounds, not math) but I just ran a combat in my 15th level game and found myself, as the GM, looking for excuses to end the combat after three hours.
Part of it is math, and part of it seemed to be an overload of fiddly bits and crunchy options on the players' part. We had most of our math done ahead of time in order to avoid dragging out the combats (the players even wrote down how their stats changed when they were under the effects of common buffs in various combinations to avoid doing buffstack math mid-combat) but there was a lot of rulebook-flipping during each player's turn - even the mundanes - and the back-and-forth of buff, debuff, and dispel made it necessary to keep a spreadsheet in order to keep track of what buffs were active on whom and how many rounds were left on them.
The iterative attacks didn't help, either, especially because many of the melees on both sides of the combat were twinked out to ensure that they had reliable accuracy down to their second or third iteratives.
I wonder if there's a way to get the best of both worlds.
It's my impression that this is what E6, E8, PFS being capped at 12, 10/12 + Mythic, etc, are meant to do - allow all of the crunch and customization of 3.X with some sort of hack to allow PCs to take on high-CR challenges without allowing them to reach the levels where the game starts to break down.
Personally, I think if I have the opportunity to run a high level 3.X game again, it's going to be capped at 12 and then go into Mythic. Mythic tiers are a nice fix in that they equate to +1/2 APL each, so stopping level progression at 10 or 12 and then adding mythic tiers up to 10 allows the party to take on the CR15-20 threats and challenges that we expect to be the epic "end bosses" of d20 games without dealing with all of the math and balance issues that come out of high level play.
IF you were 10th level in 1E, you were basically capable of taking on pretty much the strongest monsters in the game fairly reliably. Casters might have some conniptions with spell resistance, but that was it.
Anything after 10th level just added to the speed you killed stuff, and casters got better at direct damage, which was good, because everything started making their saving throws all the time. Casters could do crazy things in 1E, sure, but save or dies? They got less and less effective, not moreso. Your best way of dealing with enemies was to nuke them with bigger and bigger spells, so that they hurt even if they saved.
There were a lot more between-class balance points that 3.5 did away with, and yet still exist as nods in most video games.
In most games, melees have tons more HP then non-primary melees, and way more then casters. Not so much in 3.5 and PF.
Melees can get stronger then casters, to degrees spells just can't duplicate.
Melees get more and more resistant to magic, instead of less. Well, fighters, anyways.
YOu had to have 15 or higher in an ability score to have any bonus in it, no dipping with a 12. And the bonuses were small, and the max stats were capped. Only melee classes could get the benefits of high scores in Con and Str.
-----
1E combat was easier because it was attack, damage, done. All monsters had one saving throw table, the same as fighters. They all had the same attack table. They didn't get ability score mods, so you never had to worry about those things. They all had the same AC, and it also wasn't based on Dex scores.
However, try playing the 1E grappling rules. Ugh. CMB is a nice improvement as far as it goes.
3E took out the guesswork by adding tons of complexity. There's a lot more stuff to keep track of, and it slows things down because it opens up so many more possibilities.
Now excuse me while I cast my Radiant Arch while under the effects of Empradweomer and Devastate. I'm going to swat that dragon for 180 points of damage and freeze it solid in midair.
==Aelryinth
Now excuse me while I cast my Radiant Arch while under the effects of Empradweomer and Devastate. I'm going to swat that dragon for 180 points of damage and freeze it solid in midair.
That sounds badass.
The game can break down, but that does not mean it has too. It really depends on how the group plays and the skill of the GM.If the GM had to fix it, it means there was an inherent problem in the first place though. Never been a big fan of the philosophy that a GM should fix it myself. Lays blame on individuals instead of citing flaws.
No, it just means the GM isn't comfortable with the game. In reality, there's often nothing more to fix than the GM's perceptions and expectations of the game.
Some of it depends on your players.
You'll note that most examples of 'the breakdown' target a highly focused PC with magic items to support that single focus being way better than the other PC that didn't specialize.
It is 100% a fact that a PC with a maxed stat - plus max stat boosting magic - plus max stat boosting items (books) - plus max stat boosting at every level up - will outperform another PC who choose a different stat. In a case like that I can't really feel bad for the cleric that passes every will save on a 2 but fails every dex check. If your players don't have access to the best possible stat items/magic and put any effort at all into shoring up weaknesses instead of forgoing all for 'maximum main stat' - they as a whole become well rounded and the save matrix no longer looks so lop sided.
Put it this way - If you allow point buy and stat dumping - will you feel sorry for a fighter that has the following stats: Str 18, Dex 12, Con 17, Wis 7, Int 7, Cha 7 - 20 point buy. Now the fighter at level 1 - has a (-2) will save. The Cleric at level 1 (with stats in Wis of course) has a +6. That's an 8 point difference. At level 1 a DC 13 will save requires a 15 or better on the D20 for the fighter and a 7 for the cleric.
If your players play this way and take it all the way to 20th level - yes that gap will widen. If they make any effort at all to shore up the weak points it would require sacrifices to the 'min/max' and thus the gap will either stay roughly the same or narrow - so really how much do your PC's want to munchkin? :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now excuse me while I cast my Radiant Arch while under the effects of Empradweomer and Devastate. I'm going to swat that dragon for 180 points of damage and freeze it solid in midair.That sounds badass.
Probably illegal, too.
Nystul's Radiant Arch is a Greyhawk spell that was probably the best single target damage spell in the game. d6/level, +1/die against specific foes depending on the color you selected. In other words, same damage as Delayed Blast Fireball, but worked against everything. And 1E didn't have damage caps, see.
Empradweomer was a spell from the original Incantatrix, and in FR. 6th level spell, sets all spell effects to maximum, bonus to punch SR. Like Maximize Spell, with Kickers, lasted for rounds/ level. The reverse spell, Maladweomer, you cast on an enemy, and it minimized all his spells; min duration, damage, +4 to saves, etc.
Devastate is FR from Old Empires. Level 8, rounds/level: -5 to enemy saves, +25% punch SR, and +2/die of damage while it is up and running.
And yes, we used this down in the Queen of the Demonweb pits. My brother considered it a pyromancy spell because it worked with light, and we were off in Kandelspire and here comes the besieging army's reinforcements, which included two red dragons. His pyromancer Zytinth Pyrewyrd flexed his fingers...
One Radiant Arch later, first dead red dragon popsicle. Round two, the second one didn't fly away fast enough...
:) His character was our first ever to reach Archmage.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... I think that the constant search for RAW answers actually does damage some things. Gygax was probably correct in asserting that the game has become a bit too 'rules heavy'.
For example, just this week I read a thread asking if a character climbing a wall on a rope could toss a grappling hook to pull an enemy off of the wall that was shooting down at him. That is a great idea, full of flavor and cinematic action... but the RAW says that you need to score a crit to grapple a target with a grappling hook (it is detailed as a weapon in the ISWG) so the RAW puts a real damper on that idea.
That's what hero points are for! To give such creative scenes some leeway.
If I had been GM in that situation, I would have let the player spend a hero point to bypass the crit requirement entirely (requiring only a normal hit). Still creates an exciting situation where failure is a possibility, but still allows for the cinematic scene everyone wants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you allow point buy and stat dumping
I'm going to stop you right there.
1) Dump stating is Dumb stating. If a player feels like gimping themselves that is there prerogative
2) If you roll for stats, you can't complain about lack of balance or mechanics breaking because you chose an inherently unfair system. Now if you are advocating for fixed arrays, carry on.
I constantly see people feel like high level play is unfair and horribly suited, but doesn't it also seem fun?
Yes, I can see how certain encounters could get steamrolled by high level PCs, but that doesn't mean everything is going to be save or die rocket tag. Shouldn't the DM take responsibility in balancing encounters to make them more challenging when your. Melee-damage dealer goes off the rails? Or your mages bend reality to the point where things start to crack? I don't want to seem like things are PC vs DM all the time, but if you know what your players are capable of, a counter to that every now and then won't muck up everything, you know.
I think the amount of choices that can be made does make things more difficult, but still more interesting and makes players feel like they're playing heroes on a massive scale. That sort of mindset just seems like it gets lost by most people, all because one bad, powergaming apple spoiled the bunch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, the d20 is horribly unsuited to use as the RNG when the bonuses and modifiers get to large. This has been an issue mostly in the 3.0 on era. The game really wasn't designed, back in the '70s, for the type of play seen now. WotC did some good things, but there isn't much you can do when the die used to complete anything only had twenty stops.
D6 and d% games didn't have as much of an issue and generally did a better job of scaling than d20 games. BRP and the like don't have as many issues as D&D/Pathfinder because it isn't locked in to one die.
Talk all you want of "balance" and whatnot. It matters not as long as the d20 is king.
I constantly see people feel like high level play is unfair and horribly suited, but doesn't it also seem fun?
I consider a campaign incomplete if it doesn't reach 20th level. I love high level play and it really is fun. I really wish we'd see some epic level rules for Pathfinder, but I'll probably have to settle for Mythic Tiers.
I especially love the earth-shattering powers because then I can throw a million and one impossible problems that I don't know how to solve at the players and watch as they somehow figure out a way.
The problems that I find isn't that the PCs are overpowered or powergaming but that they might be too weak in any field that they haven't focused the last twenty levels on. Saving throws can be especially difficult with a lot of CR appropriate monsters throwing around save or suck spells.
Look, the d20 is horribly unsuited to use as the RNG when the bonuses and modifiers get to large.
My current preferred solution: All bonuse totals above +5 get cut in half. All static DCs (including ACs) above 15 have the difference halved as well. In essence, you're increasing the comparative size of the RNG by keeping the bonuses slightly more manageable.
It's that or redo the whole system; my way is pretty quick, and might work as a band-aid.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's kind of the issue with the d20, though. All the bandaids in the world (and, being one of your playtesters I will say your bandaids are VERY effective) can't change the fact that there's a stopping point where the game is pointless to continue because of the limitations of the primary RNG.
The best part about your bandaids is how they flatten the power curve, making being well rounded a more viable option than optimizing one or two tricks. That is, it's better to have more options that scale moderately than few options that scale rapidly and unbalance aspects of the game.
|
|
We roll stats (we're old school). We occasionally get bad ones. We make the stat dump fit the character's appearance, personality, etc. Ask Kirth about my "stat dump" 6 STR wizard, and the back story, physical characteristics and personality issues the character carries around. His CHA is low as well (I rolled two really good rolls and two really bad ones), but it works. Are there mechanical advantages to the build? Sure. Did that hinder my using those stats to promote role playing? Nah. It made him a more interesting, well rounded character.
YMMV, but people who get their panties in a bunch over stat dumping generally have issues way beyond gaming.
We roll stats (we're old school).
It's old school because rolling stats actually worked in 2nd Ed and before. The rules were actually set up to make 3 playable.
You just can't do that 3, 3.5, 4th, or PF. Everything is very mechanical. The only way I've seen rolled stats work is that they use a system which normally yields stats higher than what a 25 point buy would get. Sometimes they do end up with a 6, but I've seen too many threads where "I just rolled a sorcerer. I was going to put my 20 in cha, but where should I put my 16 17 14 13 15?".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You just can't do that 3, 3.5, 4th, or PF."
We do, and 4d6 drop averages about the same as a 20 pt buy. Gamers nowadays don't want random, and they don't want to "settle" for what the rolls give them. Generational thing, I think. I'm sure if I took a bunch of modern gamers and ran them through a 1e session, they'd invariably b!~%* that they actually have to THINK and PLAN rather than just have the die do the work.
Meh. I feel old now.
The thing is, a D20 can be fine for high-levels probability if the bonuses scale fine.
If you want your fighter to pass the fort save 20% more often than the wizard at all levels (example number, do not dissect the number), then the fighter has 4 more on his fort save bonus, that's fine, sorted!
Then, 10 levels later, the fighter will have gained more than the wizard, and the difference grows, so the wizard either has too low of a chance, or the fighter has too high of a chance.
Then, 10 levels later, the fighter will have gained more than the wizard, and the difference grows, so the wizard either has too low of a chance, or the fighter has too high of a chance.
Exactly the issue! I'd welcome supplemental discussion for that specific issue HERE.
I used dump stats in my example to show how big of a gap can exist even at first level.
The point wasn't about starting stats really - it was more to show high/low stats are what produce the problem.
All the examples of high level play pointing at problems only highlight this fact (because it assumes a single power attribute that is advanced exclusively at level up, with magic and items to support that stat). This to me is the same as 'dumb statting' at first level - if putting all your eggs in one basket making you weak at level 1 is considered bad play (again RP aside I like characters with flaws as well) - why is it that a level 16-20 that has used the only magic they have available and items to create the same 'dumb stat' array at higher levels not also getting what they deserve when they can't save unless they roll a nat 20?
That's my point - many gamers get into the 'my barb needs str, maybe con' and ignores that adding a bit of wis/dex might fill in the blank spots in their character. I want to finish with - I'm not condemning this, if someone is having fun with a Wizard that can solve quantum mechanics in the blink of an eye but is susceptible to mind control (high int bad wis) then that's good play and should be fun when it happens. If, however you think the play is unbalanced because the 42 dex rogue can't save against the magical poison (Fort save 34) and the rogue is complaining about it, perhaps it's not the system both of you have the issue with, but instead the rogue would be *happier* with a more moderately rounded character.
That's my two cents.
The problem is that PF punishes you, hard, if you try to multiclass, so there's really no way to bridge the gap with saving throw advancement. You can grab Iron Will at 1st level, but you immediately start falling behind again on Will saves at 2nd.
|
|
The problem is, in Pathfinder/3.x, "well rounded" generally means "dead by 10th level". ;-)Oh noes!
It's an RPG, and "role" is in there, so a group can play however they want, and fudge whatever they need to get their experience.
However, in a strictly mechanical sense, any game based on the 3.x engine requires characters to be built with some degree of optimization to be viable. In a strictly mechanical sense, min/maxing and optimizing are part of the system (read Cook's designer notes blog about how they intentionally put bad options in the game to reward people who took the time to learn the mechanics inside out).
Discussions like this should be labelled either "mechanical" or "holistic" so the role players and the char-op people can avoid each other and stop mudding up each others' waters with pointless "examples" from their games that may have nothing to do with the root of the thread's purpose.
Yeah, anyone can make it work. That doesn't change the math. ;-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think high level works easier if you don't have players already trying to break the game at low levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my own perspective, with the rocket-tag style of play that happens because damage outstrips HP/defense at higher levels, epic fights are somewhat trivialized into who goes first.
Furthermore, the PC groups generally become more and more concerned about having the optimal balance, so someone has a really high Reflex save for finding traps, someone has a really high fort save, and someone else has a really high will save. While this is great teamwork and planning, it can trivialize challenges when the players put their super-easy save character against a particular challenge.
Well, what's the problem? Well, as a GM if you want to create a challenge, sometimes the challenge is near-instant death for many PCs in the group and a moderate challenge for the one-PC in the group optimized for that particular thing.
Plus, spells get to the point where you can avoid many challenges. Well, I know that's part of the game and people want their characters to survive, etc. I'm not trying to kill the characters in a game either, but I want them to sense danger. I want them to feel thrilled with victory and the story to have meaning needs meaningful combat and risk. It becomes very difficult at higher levels to create the correct balance between challenging a player group and out-right slaughtering them with minimal chance of success. If I create an encounter that the players feel was inappropriately difficult and they all die, they aren't going to be happy. If I create an encounter that is too easy, they'll go on their way but the story suffers.
How to fix it:
I think the White Wolf version of having to spend a lot more XP points to raise a skill that is beyond a certain point one way of preventing people with really high skills and make them just have a lot of average skills. This could be applied to a variety of character attributes, not just skills.
Second, while casters are relatively weak at lower levels compared with fighters, by the end of the game it is reversed. The primary reason for this is the amazing utility of the non-damage based spells. I'd like to see utility spells toned down at higher levels, but I'd also like to see the fireballs and lightning (damage-based spells) made a bit more powerful at earlier levels for casters. This would make Sorcs probably better than Wizards, so maybe give Wizards exclusive access to the fewer (but still useful) utility spells.
Third, I think damage resistance should be a total amount to overcome per round, and then additional damage beyond that amount is incurred. As it stands now, those with many attacks but with lower damage cannot overcome damage resistance, but those with fewer but bigger attacks can overcome it. It would allow for characters to all be useful in overcoming the creature's damage resistance.
Finally, as people keep pointing out how damage outpaces health/defense at higher levels. You'd need a way of allowing for various defenses to stack, or perhaps make defensive bonuses far cheaper than offensive bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that isn't true at all. A Wizard who sticks a 7 in Strength and/or isn't gimping themselves as they don't use it for anything. You get all of -2 on social skills compared to someone who put a 10 there. Your CMD will be lower but you aren't making opposed checks as a Wizard anyway.If you allow point buy and stat dumpingI'm going to stop you right there.
1) Dump stating is Dumb stating. If a player feels like gimping themselves that is there prerogative
It is TOTALLY true. Said wizard better not whine when a CR 3 shadow happens to pop out of a wall and kill him at 20th-level (or any other level for that matter) or gets shot up with strength damaging poison, leaving him unconscious and at the mercy of the villain.
It is TOTALLY true. Said wizard better not whine when a CR 3 shadow happens to pop out of a wall and kill him at 20th-level (or any other level for that matter) or gets shot up with strength damaging poison, leaving him unconscious and at the mercy of the villain.
Or you play a campaign in which you never fight shadows or get hurt by strength-damaging poison. Unless your DM is searching for monsters just to exploit a low ability score, there's no guarantee that you'll ever face shadows. But even if you do, shadows are only dangerous if they can successfully touch you. Winning initiative, the usual defensive spells, etc. all mitigate the threat posed by shadows to the Str 7 wizard. Being a diviner helps too. Strength-damaging poison is similar but much easier to guard against.
Anyway, "lol a couple of greater shadows reached through the wall and killed you before you had a chance to react" is an antagonistic way to DM. If you're going to kill a PC without giving them a chance to respond or defend themself, you can do that even if they don't have a dump stat.
It is TOTALLY true. Said wizard better not whine when a CR 3 shadow happens to pop out of a wall and kill him at 20th-level (or any other level for that matter) or gets shot up with strength damaging poison, leaving him unconscious and at the mercy of the villain.Or you play a campaign in which you never fight shadows or get hurt by strength-damaging poison. Unless your DM is searching for monsters just to exploit a low ability score, there's no guarantee that you'll ever face shadows. But even if you do, shadows are only dangerous if they can successfully touch you. Winning initiative, the usual defensive spells, etc. all mitigate the threat posed by shadows to the Str 7 wizard. Being a diviner helps too. Strength-damaging poison is similar but much easier to guard against.
Anyway, "lol a couple of greater shadows reached through the wall and killed you before you had a chance to react" is an antagonistic way to DM. If you're going to kill a PC without giving them a chance to respond or defend themself, you can do that even if they don't have a dump stat.
Strength damage is a very common means to do damage.
Ray of Enfeeblement drops that wizard to 1 and more likely than not the wizard falls down for carrying too much.
I constantly see people feel like high level play is unfair and horribly suited, but doesn't it also seem fun?
Its fun depending on who you are imo. For me martials quickly become not fun but casters become lots of fun. Linear vs. Exponential growth. I think what makes it fun is that you get all those world moving/smashing powers, just wish the barbarian and ranger and fighter got some of those too.
Strength damage is a very common means to do damage.
Ray of Enfeeblement drops that wizard to 1 and more likely than not the wizard falls down for carrying too much.
I haven't gone through and cataloged the number of options for doing strength damage versus other ability score damage, but in my experience, strength damage isn't terribly more common than dexterity or constitution damage. It's decently common, but there are a variety of protections against it, most of which a wizard would have anyway. Mirror image, fickle winds, flying out of reach, invisibility, and all the other usual defensive tricks that wizards have help defend against strength damage. Strength damage also usually allows a save to resist, adding in another layer of defense.
Ray of enfeeblement is not nearly as effective as you make it out to be. The ray has to hit the wizard who then gets a fort save (relatively easy, as the spell is first level) to halve the damage. Even if the wizard is reduced to 1 strength, with ant haul that's a carrying capacity of 30 lb. Playing an 11th level wizard, I'd much rather my opponents waste their turns casting ray of enfeeblement rather than spend it attacking someone, casting an actually effective save-or-suck/die, buffing their allies, or so forth.
Having a low stat does introduce a weakness, but it's not trivial for monsters to take advantage of that weakness.
Strength damage is a very common means to do damage.
Ray of Enfeeblement drops that wizard to 1 and more likely than not the wizard falls down for carrying too much.
I haven't gone through and cataloged the number of options for doing strength damage versus other ability score damage, but in my experience, strength damage isn't terribly more common than dexterity or constitution damage. It's decently common, but there are a variety of protections against it, most of which a wizard would have anyway. Mirror image, fickle winds, flying out of reach, invisibility, and all the other usual defensive tricks that wizards have help defend against strength damage. Strength damage also usually allows a save to resist, adding in another layer of defense.
Ray of enfeeblement is not nearly as effective as you make it out to be. The ray has to hit the wizard who then gets a fort save (relatively easy, as the spell is first level) to halve the damage. Even if the wizard is reduced to 1 strength, with ant haul that's a carrying capacity of 30 lb. Playing an 11th level wizard, I'd much rather my opponents waste their turns casting ray of enfeeblement rather than spend it attacking someone, casting an actually effective save-or-suck/die, buffing their allies, or so forth.
Having a low stat does introduce a weakness, but it's not trivial for monsters to take advantage of that weakness.
Agreed, especially when the rest of the party is whacking on the enemy while he's trying to do strength damage to the wizard.
Whenever an opponent focuses on one target in the party, the other three or four kill him. DMs that bring up focusing on a weakness of a particular character as a viable strategy don't have much experience as a DM. You can tell because they forget the others don't share the same weakness and are just as dangerous.
Tactical development by a DM should focus on challenging the entire party, not one character.
Strength damage is a very common means to do damage.
Ray of Enfeeblement drops that wizard to 1 and more likely than not the wizard falls down for carrying too much.
I haven't gone through and cataloged the number of options for doing strength damage versus other ability score damage, but in my experience, strength damage isn't terribly more common than dexterity or constitution damage. It's decently common, but there are a variety of protections against it, most of which a wizard would have anyway. Mirror image, fickle winds, flying out of reach, invisibility, and all the other usual defensive tricks that wizards have help defend against strength damage. Strength damage also usually allows a save to resist, adding in another layer of defense.
Ray of enfeeblement is not nearly as effective as you make it out to be. The ray has to hit the wizard who then gets a fort save (relatively easy, as the spell is first level) to halve the damage. Even if the wizard is reduced to 1 strength, with ant haul that's a carrying capacity of 30 lb. Playing an 11th level wizard, I'd much rather my opponents waste their turns casting ray of enfeeblement rather than spend it attacking someone, casting an actually effective save-or-suck/die, buffing their allies, or so forth.
Having a low stat does introduce a weakness, but it's not trivial for monsters to take advantage of that weakness.
The most common ability score reducer is poison, not that one spell, but RD's point is not so much that one spell, but the threat of dumping that score and having it bite you in the arse later on.
On a side not consitution is not target as much as dex and strength are.
Yeah I know that if a monster can hit a wizard that the wizard is already in trouble, but poison can go into affect even if the caster can create more distance.
With that aside point buy which is where this started is no less of a problem than rolling unless the GM has special rules to prevent terribly low rolls, and in that case he may as well just go with a stat array.
PS: I do think the wizards/sorc are less likely to suffer from dumping str, but he is gimping himself to an extent by creating an big weakness. The better characters give you less weaknesses to attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is TOTALLY true. Said wizard better not whine when a CR 3 shadow happens to pop out of a wall and kill him at 20th-level (or any other level for that matter) or gets shot up with strength damaging poison, leaving him unconscious and at the mercy of the villain.If a level 20 Wizard is ever in a position where a CR3 shadow can drain him to incapacity then he was clearly too stupid to reach level 20. As far as poisons go poison immunity is not hard to obtain at higher level and the printed poison DC's are generally terrible at higher level. Still not an issue.
Would you mind making a list of methods of getting poison immunity?
I know there is an (expensive) item that does it, and a number of class abilities, but I'm not sure I'd call it "easy"--especially when the opportunity costs are considered.
It is TOTALLY true. Said wizard better not whine when a CR 3 shadow happens to pop out of a wall and kill him at 20th-level (or any other level for that matter) or gets shot up with strength damaging poison, leaving him unconscious and at the mercy of the villain.If a level 20 Wizard is ever in a position where a CR3 shadow can drain him to incapacity then he was clearly too stupid to reach level 20. As far as poisons go poison immunity is not hard to obtain at higher level and the printed poison DC's are generally terrible at higher level. Still not an issue.
Poison immunity is not common so that makes it a corner case. With that aside how is a wizard getting poison immunity without multiclassing?
slow poison gives you functional poison immunity while its up, or at least you can neutralize even accumulated amounts of it before they have any effect.
other means? Morphing, probably. Iron Body, becoming incorporeal or gaseous form.
And how many wizards out there actually memorize Ant Haul? It wasn't even a spell until, what, 6 months ago?
==Aelryinth
And how many wizards out there actually memorize Ant Haul? It wasn't even a spell until, what, 6 months ago?
APG has been out for 3 years now.
Ant haul lasts two hours per level. It's the sort of spell you can memorize and cast the day before. There's little reason to not have it constantly up.
Which doesn't answer my question. Who would actually bother to do that? :)
==Aelryinth
Because a 1st or 2nd level slot every two or three days is really cheap and it limits one downside of a low strength score.
I've also used it on a familiar. Being flown about by your fairy dragon familiar is nice.
Which doesn't answer my question. Who would actually bother to do that? :)
How many? Who knows. I usually keep it to give to the guy I make carry my stuff... I mean umm... you know, help carry my own things!
More seriously, I don't think strength damage actually affects carrying capacity according to the glossary.
The problem is if you exceed your heavy load and cannot move unless you (take an action to) drop your stuff. But even then, if you can manage a teleport spell, you won't die. And as long as you are within your heavy load, you're right, it doesn't overly hurt the wizard.