Color me unimpressed by a mage focused on nothing but casting dealing 160 damage in a round, assuming they pass spell resistance and have the right element to not have it resisted or outright negated and allowing a save from creatures with +12 or better.
Its true. A Wizard who has focused on dealing damage can in fact spend a whole lot of turns casting spells that have no effect because the save DCs aren't high enough for high level enemies to fail.
But I don't think "Time Walk targeting my opponent" is that strong of a move.
And the assertion earlier in this thread was that the damage amount I listed for martials was unreasonable (it was low if anything) and then that its "way less than wizards" (unproven).
And before that the assertion was that anything from Invisibility on needed to require Wizards to expend mythic power to use. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You obviously haven't seen some damage builds at work. At 16th level, a blaster mage using Firesnake can toss out 160ish +12.5d6 dmg + Quicken another 160 pts damage. He can bend the element as needed, and the save DC is likely in the high 20's for what is a large number of creatures' weak save, Reflex.
I'm curious here, break down these numbers for me. This is a character with crossblooded bloodlines and the wizard evocation abilities who is intensifying and maximizing and empowering a fire snake spell, then maximizing, quickening, and intensifying another? How exactly is said character applying 8 levels of metamagic / 6 levels of metamagic to a single spell? What items are they using? How many times can they do this per day? Is this character using traits from level 1 that don't kick in at all until level 9 or higher? Is this their one trick?
Why have they leaned on a spell that only has a 60ft. range?
This seems pretty fishy to me.
Damage spells tend to have HORRIBLE scaling by spell level Nathanael.
A damage-focused mage takes low-mid level spells (typically level 3-4ish) and metamagics the crap out of them, usually reducing the metamagic cost in some way.
You're right. Damage spells have horrible scaling which is why claiming that casters do more hit point damage than martials is pretty silly.
2d6 large longsword + 3d6 insert weapon ability X + 12 (34 dex) + 4 Greater weapon spec + 4 weapon training+ 5 power attack= 5d6+29
Sorry. I was short changing him.
That adds up to +25, you were right the first time. However, you are short changing Power Attack, at 16th level it should give +10 damage with a one handed weapon.
That adds up to +25, you were right the first time. However, you are short changing Power Attack, at 16th level it should give +10 damage with a one handed weapon.Damage spells tend to have HORRIBLE scaling by spell level Nathanael.
A damage-focused mage takes low-mid level spells (typically level 3-4ish) and metamagics the crap out of them, usually reducing the metamagic cost in some way.
You're right. Damage spells have horrible scaling which is why claiming that casters do more hit point damage than martials is pretty silly.
2d6 large longsword + 3d6 insert weapon ability X + 12 (34 dex) + 4 Greater weapon spec + 4 weapon training+ 5 power attack= 5d6+29
Sorry. I was short changing him.
Math is hard for me tonight apparently. . . also missing the flat +5 for his weapon bonus, so it should really be. . .
12 (dex)+ 4 weapon spec+ 4 weapon training + 10 power attack +5 weapon magical bonus= 35 before group bonuses
You obviously haven't seen some damage builds at work. At 16th level, a blaster mage using Firesnake can toss out 160ish +12.5d6 dmg + Quicken another 160 pts damage. He can bend the element as needed, and the save DC is likely in the high 20's for what is a large number of creatures' weak save, Reflex.
I'm curious here, break down these numbers for me. This is a character with crossblooded bloodlines and the wizard evocation abilities who is intensifying and maximizing and empowering a fire snake spell, then maximizing, quickening, and intensifying another? How exactly is said character applying 8 levels of metamagic / 6 levels of metamagic to a single spell? What items are they using? How many times can they do this per day? Is this character using traits from level 1 that don't kick in at all until level 9 or higher? Is this their one trick?
Why have they leaned on a spell that only has a 60ft. range?
This seems pretty fishy to me.
Before I answer, let me note: A Blaster Mage still has access to ALL those lovely no-save spells from other schools, including buffs, conjurations, and other wonderful things, and can certainly spend all his time doing ALL THE THINGS other mages do.
He also has the incredibly high Int, so if he wants to throw a save or suck spell, he has the exact same chance as any other wizard who doesn't take SPell Focus feats.
==
Sure, you take a trait for a specific spell. Firesnake is the example because of the high damage cap and usefulness to adventurers. But you actually move your preferred spell from Burning Hands to Fireball or Scorching Ray, and retrain your Trait along with it.
So, because of the trait, Intensify is free.
Because of Spell Perfection, your most expensive meta is free. Cue Maximize. He can toss 20hd+40 (i.e. 160 dmg) Firesnakes from his 5th level slots (or higher ones) all day, without a problem.
So your actual slot cost is a 7th level spell, and Empowering it up, or Spending a Rod use to do the same.
Ditto the same with Quicken, using Spell Perfection to cut the cost to zero, and then Maximizing with Rod or a level 8 slot.
The fact is, he can DO the damage, without being mythic, it doesn't expend a lot of spell slots, and he has all his spell slots left to do everything else a wizard does in addition! And he can do it to multiple targets, of the element desired, at range, and repeatedly.
If you really want massive numbers, then he starts spending mythic spells. And those numbers can easily reach 4 digits.
==Aelryinth
I actually have not seen an issue with this, except as follows: level 1-4 martial rule. Level 17-20 spell caster rule. Does most of your playing occur levels 17-20? Ifso, then a house rule fix may be needed.
There is one issue, brought up here with some builds- with spell casters, more than martials- if you allow EVREYTHING from EVRY book and supplement, even those from campaigns far removed from yours- then spell casters can pick & choose more OP stuff.
But the solution is simple. Don't allow EVERYTHING.
And yes, there's some Cheesy stuff- for example, to me, taking one level of Crossblooded Sorc then Wizard is very cheesy. Going full sorc is fine, but by going wizard you lose half of the downside for taking Crossblooded. I know of no DM that allows this, but it's a given assumption here in many Wizard builds. YMMV.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is one issue, brought up here with some builds- with spell casters, more than martials- if you allow EVREYTHING from EVRY book and supplement, even those from campaigns far removed from yours- then spell casters can pick & choose more OP stuff.
Just bear in mind that a lot of stuff in the core rulebook, the way it's actually written (vs. how many people more intelligently play it), is very firmly in the "do not allow" category. APG isn't much better -- anyone allowing Dazing Spell as written is also completely off their rocker. In terms of cheese, it's 10x worse, right out of the box, than any crossblooded sorcerer exploit yet devised.
"Really high Int" does not = Really high saves. Int 26 makes saves for 9th level spells DC 27. . .
The creatures you are fighting at that point such as the Balor have saves akin to Will +25 Fort +29
SO your non-specialized in Save or Suck spell Blaster wizard casting a spell of 9th level against a Balor with a 26 Int needs that Balor to roll a 2 or less for Will or a -2 (somehow) for Fort saves.
Lets put this to rest right now--
At high levels Save or Die/Suck spells do not work unless you have hyper-focused on raising the save DCs.
Before I answer, let me note: A Blaster Mage still has access to ALL those lovely no-save spells from other schools, including buffs, conjurations, and other wonderful things, and can certainly spend all his time doing ALL THE THINGS other mages do.
He also has the incredibly high Int, so if he wants to throw a save or suck spell, he has the exact same chance as any other wizard who doesn't take SPell Focus feats.
==
Sure, you take a trait for a specific spell. Firesnake is the example because of the high damage cap and usefulness to adventurers. But you actually move your preferred spell from Burning Hands to Fireball or Scorching Ray, and retrain your Trait along with it.So, because of the trait, Intensify is free.
Because of Spell Perfection, your most expensive meta is free. Cue Maximize. He can toss 20hd+40 (i.e. 160 dmg) Firesnakes from his 5th level slots (or higher ones) all day, without a problem.So your actual slot cost is a 7th level spell, and Empowering it up, or Spending a Rod use to do the same.
Ditto the same with Quicken, using Spell Perfection to cut the cost to zero, and then Maximizing with Rod or a level 8 slot.
The fact is, he can DO the damage, without being mythic, it doesn't expend a lot of spell slots, and he has all his spell slots left to do everything else a wizard does in addition! And he can do it to multiple targets, of the element desired, at range, and repeatedly.
If you really want massive numbers, then he starts spending mythic spells. And those numbers can easily reach 4 digits.
==Aelryinth
I confess, I'm still lost. Clarify a couple things for me:
1. This 20*6 applies only at level 20, when you are at caster level twenty, correct?
2. The +40 comes from what? Crossblooded sorcerer?
3. If you are a crossblooded sorcerer how are you able to change the element on the fly? How are you also getting the wizard evoker abilities - and when doing so aren't you losing 40 points of damage per spell?
4. You actually cannot intensify, empower, then use spell perfection on top to tag quicken / maximize, as it would increase the spell level beyond 9th (unless I've missed something). You could do so using a rod, but said rod only gets three uses per day and is quite expensive (especially with FAQs that settled the argument on metamagic rods and spells with metamagic once and for all).
5. These tricks rely on spell perfection, which comes online at 15th level, correct?
On the other hand, against a balor such a caster can autobypass SR and blast it to smithereens - or at least near so - in a single round. It still deals more damage than the martial tpes, and unlike them it can also cast a bunch of other really powerful things.
If casters can outdamage martials, and chooses to focus in other things because damage is the least powerful of their options, what does that say about martials?
Though to some degree i agree with DrDeth - while dazing spell is OP, it doesnt break the game nearly as early without wayang spell hunter and similar stuff.
Limiting material curbs some of the issues, but theres still a large amoubt of caster rool fighters drool.
Ive previously considered trying balance by book allowance in another way - martials can pick from any book, casters have access to core and a single other book of their choice.
Peter Stewart: Usually blasters take a single level dip in crossblooded, rest is admixture evoker. Wayang spellhuter and magical lineage are used to reduce the level to allow spell perfection. Though i dont know firesnake and cant access the PRD from my phone, so if its 4th level or higher i dont know.
And you just use rods when you need the extra boost, so one or two should be enough. I know an intensified empowered maximized fireball with perfection and the traits is a 4th level spell slot so a regular rod is enough. With firesnake i dont know.
@Gaberlunzie-- caster do not out-damage martials. The math is not on your side here. . . the supposed damage that claimed they did didn't even deal more than a very vanilla random fighter.
At 20th level the Wizard has to roll an 11 or better to beat the Balor's SR-- so if failing approximately 40% of the time is your definition of "autobypass" then sure?
If you then assume that it will fail its +17 Reflex saves, that you will always hit its 20 touch AC, that you are using only spells that it is not immune to (no electricity or fire and minus 10 on cold and acid so better have sonic ready. . .)
And then you can deal 370 damage, and oh yeah, survive taking 100 damage just for killing it. . . then sure, you can "blast it to smithereens".
Sounds great-- why would a filthy wizard player deserve to be able to use those other books he's bought? Its core rules only for you, wizard guy. . . yeah that sounds like fun for everyone.
Why not just tell everyone they can't play casters at all? These kind of ham handed nerfs just don't encourage good game play, just ticked off caster players.
And yes, the supermassive damage only works for really low and really high levels. At mid levels you pick up dazing spell to do decent damage and great debuffing.
Edit: and int26 at level 20? If youstart out with 18 (which is pretty modest) you end up with 34 (18+6+5+5). Which means yorur spell of choice will have a dazing DC of 10+4+12+spell level wuith only GSF and perfection.
Peter Stewart: Usually blasters take a single level dip in crossblooded, rest is admixture evoker. Wayang spellhuter and magical lineage are used to reduce the level to allow spell perfection. Though i dont know firesnake and cant access the PRD from my phone, so if its 4th level or higher i dont know.
And you just use rods when you need the extra boost, so one or two should be enough. I know an intensified empowered maximized fireball with perfection and the traits is a 4th level spell slot so a regular rod is enough. With firesnake i dont know.
This has been gone over in a ton of threads before, but mixing ridiculous options like this is why you think casters are OP.
Allowing characters to take two traits that have such similar effects because "one is a racial one and the other is general" is sketchy for RAI even if it works for RAW-- and allowing their bonuses to stack is also pretty sketchy-- there's a reason there are bonus types and rules on what can/can't stack and that logic should apply here.
Also, allowing a 1 level sorcerer Dip into Cross Blooded Sorcerer for two bloodlines with +damage boost (Dragon and Orc usually I believe) is a fairly abusive if technically legal build choice.
I'm sure that the half-elf paragon abuse is in this build as well?
So lets think about this character--
Half Elf-half human with bloodlines of dragons and orcs who was raised in a society that lived super close to Wayangs.
And you think that its easier to do things liker nerf all wizards to the ground than to say, "No, you cannot play a half human/half elf with blood of dragons and orcs who grew up with Wayangs"?
Edit: You want the kind of house rules that are actually worth using and not simply game destroying? Too easy--
1. Don't use traits; they aren't in the core book and there are no good ones for martials so don't bother with them.
2. Don't allow Archetypes on classes that a character is not taking 3+ or 5+ levels in-- allowing an archetype like crossblooded on a 1 level dip is getting the benefit of the archetype with none of the sacrifice and goes against everything that archetypes are supposed to be.
I confess, I'm still lost. Clarify a couple things for me:
1. This 20*6 applies only at level 20, when you are at caster level twenty, correct?
2. The +40 comes from what? Crossblooded sorcerer?
3. If you are a crossblooded sorcerer how are you able to change the element on the fly? How are you also getting the wizard evoker abilities - and when doing so aren't you losing 40 points of damage per spell?
4. You actually cannot intensify, empower, then use spell perfection on top to tag quicken / maximize, as it would increase the spell level beyond 9th (unless I've missed something). You could do so using a rod, but said rod only gets three uses per day and is quite expensive (especially with FAQs that settled the argument on metamagic rods and spells with metamagic once and for all).
5. These tricks rely on spell perfection, which comes online at 15th level, correct?
1)The Blaster Caster build hits Caster level 20 at level 15, when Spell Perfection comes on line and doubles Varisian Tattoo and Spell Specialist from +3 combined to +6, and you might even add an Orange Ioun Stone on top for CL 21. In effect, he goes from CL 14 to 21 in one level.
At level 20, he's at CL 26. With one Spell Penetration feat, he auto-bypasses SR except on a 1.2) yes, the +40 is the fixed dmg/die bonus from crossblooding yourself.
3) You change the element on the fly because you're an Admixture evoker.
4) I noted that an Blaster CAN do that much damage if he wishes to. If you don't want to use a rod, you are limited to:
Maximize an intensified Firesnake for 20d6+40 = 160 damage, permissible because the intensify is free..Note that Empowered Firesnakes would be 30d6+60, or 175 damage. Hmm. Let's use Empower instead, shall we?
and if you like, Quicken an Intensified firesnake for 20d6+40 = 110 avg damage, for 285 pts of AoE damage, using any 5th level or higher slot, on demand with spell specialist.
And unlike the crazy mythic melee, I haven't used ANY mythic spells or mythic power. ANd am using middle level spell slots!
If I get to use Rods, add Maximize to the Empower and Empower to the Quicken. They are the magic swords of mages, so at that level, worth the money! ANd kindly note you are still casting 5th level spells, because the metas are free.
5) At 15th level, he's doing ka-blooey damage to everything under the sun. Before then, he's merely dishing out 100+ points of damage for the same purpose. An Empowered Intensified Fireball from a 5th level slot at level 10 is 12d6+24 +50%, or 18d6+36 (99 avg damage), and a medium Rod of Quicken maybe tossing a 12d6+24 backup for another 66 is just waiting to go off as needed. (Note that an Empowered fireball does more damage then a Maximized one because of his bonus/die).
This is a 10th level character, mind you. If you want to quibble about Quicken Rods, he can always apply Quicken to an Intensified Burning hands if he's in range for another quick 10d6+20, if needed! (Or to Shocking Grasp for the 10d8 if he's going to be that close).
The key to any Blaster build is accelerating your caster level, and using metas to multiply damage. And we aren't using Mythic at all.
People think mages can't blast, and they're right! The average mage can't blast at all. You have to BUILD a blaster caster to be able to blast. The fixed damage bonuses you can only get from being a sorc are vital!
But the blaster caster can still cast all those other fun spells that non-blasters can. But there's no way they can rival him at his shtick.
==Aelryinth
How do you make Burning Hands do d6 damage and Shocking Grasp do d8?
did I get the dice wrong? sorry, going off of memory.
==Aelryinth
Burning Hands does d4/level capped at 5d4.
Shocking Grasp does d6/level capped at 5d6.
Using a 5th level spell to quicken either is almost always a bad option. Blowing a daily charge from a Rod is even worse.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but reading spell perfection it can't increase the effective level past 9. . . you could use it to quicken 5th level spell using a 5th level slot, but could not use it to quicken a 6th level spell because that would be "effectively" a 10th level spell?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any good house rules against the problem Linear Warriors - Quadratic Wizards?
The best simple fix that I have come up with is to limit starting stats to around 17 (after racial adjustments). That simple change really cuts down on many problems associated with casters game balance.
Next step would be to alter the crafting rules and magic item acquisition and Wealth By Level guidelines a little. It is a lot easier to upset game balance when a PC has total control over magic items. I would house rule that your WBL should be based on the total value of equipment, rather then crafted items counting as 1/2 value.
Later in the game, I would consider making level 7-9 spells require at least a full round action to cast.
The best house rule for maintaining game balance I discovered was simply sit down with everyone and decide what aspects of the game are overpowered/not fun. I personally don't enjoy a lot of action denial in my games, and agreed with my players that they won't specialize in tripping, paralysis, stunning, etc., and in turn, I rarely use it as GM.
|
The best house rule for maintaining game balance I discovered was simply sit down with everyone and decide what aspects of the game are overpowered/not fun. I personally don't enjoy a lot of action denial in my games, and agreed with my players that they won't specialize in tripping, paralysis, stunning, etc., and in turn, I rarely use it as GM.
I think this is a really good idea.
There is one issue, brought up here with some builds- with spell casters, more than martials- if you allow EVREYTHING from EVRY book and supplement, even those from campaigns far removed from yours- then spell casters can pick & choose more OP stuff.Just bear in mind that a lot of stuff in the core rulebook, the way it's actually written (vs. how many people more intelligently play it), is very firmly in the "do not allow" category. APG isn't much better -- anyone allowing Dazing Spell as written is also completely off their rocker. In terms of cheese, it's 10x worse, right out of the box, than any crossblooded sorcerer exploit yet devised.
Meh. I have seen that used, and even tried it myself. If they save, the feat does nothing, and you just burned a slot 3 levels higher.
Burning Hands does d4/level capped at 5d4.
Shocking Grasp does d6/level capped at 5d6.
Using a 5th level spell to quicken either is almost always a bad option. Blowing a daily charge from a Rod is even worse.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but reading spell perfection it can't increase the effective level past 9. . . you could use it to quicken 5th level spell using a 5th level slot, but could not use it to quicken a 6th level spell because that would be "effectively" a 10th level spell?
Using Intensified to Quicken either spell for 10dX+20 is 45 or 55 dmg when needed, of the element you want, one with a small area, the other with no save.
It's certainly a good finisher. There's not a lot of CR 10 opponents who can take 150 points of damage to the face. The reason you have Quicken is to get off key spells more then once a round. There shouldn't be a problem
And remember that Intensify on your key spell is free via Trait (also important), if you're referring to an Intensified Firesnake, so it doesn't count against the level 9 limit. Note that if your DM allowed you to take Magical Lineage and Wayang SPellhunter, you could Empower and Quicken a Firesnake without problem.
You are correct that you can't Spell Perfect Quicken a level 6 Spell...unless you use your Magical Lineage to reduce the cost by one (hee!) making it a 9th level spell. You can Rod it for more damage if you need to. But that effect alone is why Blaster builds don't use high level spells....the effect of metamagic is more important then the effect of higher level spells' higher caps. A CL 10 Cone of Cold does the same damage as a CL 10 fireball...but you can EMPOWER the fireball, and suddenly, for the same slot, it's doing 15d6 instead of 10d6.
That's how a Blaster operates. You take a lower level spell and meta it up, you don't use a high level spell.
This was easier in 3.5, because you had more Metamagic mitigation (Metamagic Spell, Efficient Metamagic, Arcane Thesis) and more damage add-ons (Twin Spell, Elemental Admixture, Born of the Three Thunders, Burning Spell, Consecrate Spell, Purified Spell, etc), + some spell add ons (Acidic Sheathe adding +1/die to acid spells, which you could elemental tweak).
As things worked out there, the best spell to use was Magic Missile with the Force Missile Mage PrC. You could meta that spell up to nearly 1k damage at higher levels. Popping 15d6+45 damage out of a 3rd level slot was just giggles.
==Aelryinth
Allowing a trait to reduce the level cost of meta-magic to zero is sketchy at best, nothing should be "free".
Add that to the list of simple, intelligent house rules that don't destroy entire classes-- reductions to metamagic effects cannot bring the cost below 1 spell level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are already zero cost metas. Reducing most +1 metas to zero breaks nothing.
You could say that all Spell Focus feats are +1 Heightens with no level cost. So, meh. The control factor is the power of the metas, not just the reduction.
==Aelryinth
There are already zero cost metas. Reducing most +1 metas to zero breaks nothing.
You could say that all Spell Focus feats are +1 Heightens with no level cost. So, meh. The control factor is the power of the metas, not just the reduction.
==Aelryinth
Well, maybe that's part of the problem?
I love the Wizard class and it frustrates me so much that the vast majority of the suggestions on how to fix the perceived problem basically leave the class not worth playing.
I don't see why simple house rules like imposing a limit to how low a trait can modify meta-magic effects, not allowing some traits or traits in general, not allowing archetype abuse (i.e. 1 level dip with an archetype) aren't considered before ideas like "make Wizards be on slow EXP while everyone else is on fast" and "make Wizards take con damage to cast spells" and other nuclear options that might as well amount to banning the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because, even with some of the "nuclear options," for many people the class would still be not only playable but still extremely powerful -- while losing some combat flexibility, it would still occupy the apex of the narrative power spectrum.
And, yes, for some people, changing the wizard from an "I WIN" button to a class with more chops out of combat than in might make the class "unplayable." But as noted, for many others it might work out well. Given that this thread is in the "suggestions/houserules" section, people for whom these ideas are unacceptable can simply ignore them, but others might find some of the ideas useful.
It depends on the person/group. One size does not fit all.
|
|
I have to say, "narrative power" is starting to become a sort of ritual magic phrase. There's like a mob of people all listing Narrative Power as being the big problem, and they look like they're all very unified in that opinion. But if you open the NP box to see what specific narrative powers they're talking about, are still still all in agreement?
It might be useful to create some lists of lesser and greater narrative powers, and then to decide to remove specific, problematic narrative powers from the casters.
Also to power-down/expense-up some narrative powers that are stealing niches from other classes, if those other classes SHOULD be better at it.
Also, to grant lesser and ideally greater narrative powers to non-casters, using the "nonmagical but so skilled it looks like Fantasy/Wuxia" paradigm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Narrative power" is a quick way of saying "can influence the storyline and game world beyond his immediate presence without resorting to DM fiat to do so." A caster can potentially instantly remove himself and/or the party from danger; can see what's happening halfway across the world and can instantly move the party there to intervene as desired; can unravel plot mysteries and find McGuffins without getting out of his easy chair; can send demons to teleport around and kill his enemies instead of doing it himself. Probably not all in the same day, but with preparation, all of it. Plus he can kill/incapacitate enemies and control battlefields.
Martials don't get any of this stuff by way of class features, even classes that are supposed to be the best in a certain area. Take the ranger, for example, whose "schtick" is supposed to be tracking and exploration and all that kind of stuff. But when push comes to shove, who gets find the path and discern location and the ability to follow teleporting quarry? Not the ranger, but the casters, who already get everything else. Who is the best at finding and dispelling magic traps? Arguably a caster with arcane sight and a staff of greater dispel magic, not a rogue with a DC of 25 + spell level. Who is the best at leading his troops to military victory? Arguably the bard with his inspiration and buff spells, or the cleric with his buffs -- and not the fighter.
As far as lists of specific recommendations, in my houserules, I've both modified/removed some of the offending spells, and also provided "narrative" type class features to martial classes. Rather than clutter the thread with pages of text, though, I'd prefer to refer people to that thread.
If we insist that the casters be able to do everything the martials can do (and in most cases outperform them in their own areas of interest), and also be able to do stuff they can't do, then martials are, by design, second-class citizens. They become equal in play because the casters pull their punches by gentleman's agreement, and/or because the DM nerfs spells on the fly and gives the martials all kinds of plot help in order to tilt the balance -- and for most people (I suspect the majority of the Paizo fanbase), that's how they want it done. Some people, though, would rather see those solutions implemented directly in the rules, and this thread seems to be for them.
|
|
@Kirth: I'll check out your systems. In general I do think casters shouldn't be poaching on other classes so much. However, I don't agree with all of your examples.
For example the magical traps. I think that this is very much shared territory; as the creators of magic traps, it makes sense to me that casters are also good at dealing with them. However, rogues need to be able to infiltrate anywhere, so also past magical traps. So shared. I think it would actually be better to make it harder for casters to get past mundane traps, making mundane traps more the domain of skilled/rogue-like characters.
As for following teleporting prey - yeah, if you use wizard magic to escape, it makes sense to me that wizard magic is also good for chasing after you.
I think I would prefer making mundane "techniques" better, and make casters worse at trumping a mundane problem with magic. Casters are good at countering casters, mundanes good at countering mundanes. "It takes a thief to catch a thief", and likewise for wizards.
|
In my experience, the narrative control issue with casters falls apart slightly when magic is so capable of cancelling itself out. A caster vs. a martial, in some sort of one-on-one conflict with no outside resources, does have more narrative control, but in-play, high-level nonmagical characters often see the score early enough to load up on magic items, UMD checks, and caster friends. At that point, magic negates itself and the game falls back on favoring the skill-using characters who are buffed up by equal magic on both sides.
Now, this creates a different headache, which is the GM having to figure out what sort of absurd buffstack every mid and high level NPC is carrying around, but when Invisibility is something you can place upon any thief or assassin starting at 3rd level, any noble or king's guards is going to prepare for that tactic - meaning that countermages and anti-invisibility magic items are acquired posthaste.
Once that happens - once Disguise Self is no longer a free pass because all of the guards have access to Detect Magic, and Invisibility doesn't work because the guards are using See Invisibility, and you can't use social items or buffing spells to succeed in negotiations with the king because you had to leave your Circlets of Persuasion at the door and the king's mages are using Arcane Sight to make sure nobody has Glibness cast on them in the presence of the king, and Teleport doesn't work in many situations because the enemy's casters have locked down important areas with Dimensional Lock or Forbiddance and gave wands of Dimensional Anchor to their UMD-capable minions - the only way to get things done is to have the magic to cancel out your enemy's magic, and then once nobody's magic is altering the playing field, use skills or fighting ability.
Which makes this a different kind of fantasy game - IME, more like Shadowrun except that magic replaces technology. If everybody has the same tech, than the winner is the person who is most capable of working with and around it.
In my Pathfinder game, the assassin ends up having the most narrative power, because the arcane and divine casters in the party don't have the skill modifiers to deal with any situations where the enemy matches their win buttons and buffs spell-for-spell. Instead, it's her absurd stealth, perception, and social modifiers that get things done, and the casters fall back into support roles - they load her up with Invisibility, Negate Aroma, etc, and send her into all of the missions. It ends up working like modern technology - technically the people who invent, modify, or repair the high-tech gadgets are the ones with all of the power, but they fall into support roles and give their buffs out to soldiers (martials) and skillful characters who are more suited to field work than the lab people or the support techs are.
Which makes the most dangerous characters the ones that can combine fighting ability or skill use with heavy investment in casting, because then they don't need the rest of the team.
EDIT: Though, to be fair, my campaign does have one martial-buffing "house rule" which is that I allow ToB, so most of the martial characters in my game are either nearly indestructible determinators that can reliably make saves in any category or untouchable wall-running Wuxia heroes.
in-play, high-level nonmagical characters often see the score early enough to load up on magic items, UMD checks, and caster friends.
The issue for me is that a small group of caster friends can have all the magic in the form of spells, and then have just as much magic as any martial, on top of that, in the form of magic items (or even twice as much, since they get easier access to crafting). So that a team of 4 casters ends up with 150% as much magic as a team of 2 casters and 2 martials. At very low levels, the difference in skills evens that out, but at higher levels, +50% magic is worth way, way, way more than the +3 bonus for class skills. As much as everyone hated the 1/2 ranks for x-class skills in 3e, it definitely was more conducive to the style of play you're describing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in-play, high-level nonmagical characters often see the score early enough to load up on magic items, UMD checks, and caster friends.The issue for me is that a small group of caster friends can have all the magic in the form of spells, and then have just as much magic as any martial, on top of that, in the form of magic items (or even twice as much, since they get easier access to crafting). So that a team of 4 casters ends up with 150% as much magic as a team of 2 casters and 2 martials. At very low levels, the difference in skills evens that out, but at higher levels, +50% magic is worth way, way, way more than the +3 bonus for class skills. As much as everyone hated the 1/2 ranks for x-class skills in 3e, it definitely was more conducive to the style of play you're describing.
I agree, though the 2+INT skill ranks classes are still going to fall way behind on skills as compared to the 6 or 8 + INT classes. But I do find that skills are narrative power, even at the level of high magic that is typical beginning at the upper single digit levels.
I think part of the problem is that Pathfinder and all of the games that it is based on put a heavy emphasis on skill at arms as a means of narrative control, so many prominent character classes have "good at fighting" as a primary function, and "good at fighting" basically forces you to give up more than "good at sneaking" or "good at telling convincing lies". Being good at fighting has a way higher opportunity cost that you must pay in order to have that skill. But that possibly falls apart when skill-based characters can linearly scale up in 6-12 different areas of expertise, and casters can quadratically increase their options for altering reality at some fundamental level, but full BAB classes often increase in combat competence and *possibly* a handful of other areas of skill. Even more so in any campaign that doesn't follow an action-adventure dungeon crawl model.
From the GM's perspective, I try to even the score a little by being totally uncompromising with skill checks, so as to reward characters with skill quantity as well as skill quality. Essentially Knowledge and a lot of the Wisdom skills spell out what sort of information I give to the players. If they ask questions, I don't volunteer anything that Jeo-bob the farmer wouldn't know unless they have skill ranks. And I take advantage of the risk-free, cause-and-effect rules of magic by allowing any NPCs who have more than a player class level or two to be wise to most common player tricks and plan for them. Everyone above the first few levels knows that if you make an enemy of the adventurers, they'll try to scry and fry you, so you prepare ambushes or hide yourself behind Nondetections, etc. With so many counters out there and all enemies with decent Int/Wis scores and experience with the adventurer's life having already prepared for all of the typical magical-win-button approaches, brute-forcing everything with magic often just fails.
But then there are classes like Bard, or 3.5's Beguiler, that can do it all when properly optimized. Some of the scariest NPCs in my campaign are the Bards, especially after factoring in Versatile Performance and 3.5's Sublime Chord PrC.
Other than allow ToB/PoW (my current solution), I wonder if it would be worth increasing the "opportunity cost" of magic by limiting all full caster classes to 2+INT skill ranks per level, and partial casters to 4+INT skill ranks/level or less, and increasing the skill ranks/level for all martials that are currently below 6+INT/level. That would cut down on the Bard's ability to be a full competency skill user with 2/3 casting and moderate combat skill on top, and allow martials other than the Slayer, Ranger, and Rogue to have a lot to do out of combat.
There is, of course, the GM-dependent semi-nerf of *ruthlessly* requiring the casters to engage fully with the fluff and minor mechanical requirements of their classes. Which is to say, Wizards are stuck adding a measly two spells to their spellbook at each level-up unless they pay time and money to research new spells, but require them to play out seeking new spells for their books - they can't just walk into spell-mart and hand over the gold, they have to go to a Wizard's guild, and if they haven't kept up with office politics, they might find that nobody's willing to give them 5th level spells until they help the instructors with under-the-table guild favors. Or maybe they have to apply for a license in order to get any of the good combat or deception spells. Same with Magi and Alchemists. No wonder adventuring Wizards are so keen on lost knowledge and spell scrolls - it might be the only way to learn "Enervation" without signing up for five years in the King's service or asking permission from Wizard-Lumbergh who will ask you to go ahead and work Sundays at the guild for the next few decades. And Clerics have priestly duties that eat up a lot of free time. If they don't tend to the flock, either the god in question pulls its support, or if they're on a truly holy mission, they have to deal with temple politics, since the rest of the clergy isn't that happy about being shown up by some unattached miracle-worker who didn't have to put in the ten miserable years of being an altar boy or cleaning the elder priest's chamber pot to get their spellcasting ability.
Often times in fantasy fiction, the cost of magic is all of the hoops you have to jump through to get and keep that power. The rules support it a little, but in d20-based games it's mostly left to fluff and completely GM-dependent, but it ruffles my feathers a little bit because then gameplay doesn't match fiction and verisimilitude suffers.
I agree, though the 2+INT skill ranks classes are still going to fall way behind on skills as compared to the 6 or 8 + INT classes.
Not always; a wizard with 2 + INT/level (Int 24, for +7 = 9/level) is ahead of the rogue with 8 + INT/level (Int 10, for 8/level). But, yeah, the bard gets 6/level and Versatile Performance, so he'll almost always be at the top of the heap for skills.
Often times in fantasy fiction, the cost of magic is all of the hoops you have to jump through to get and keep that power. The rules support it a little, but in d20-based games it's mostly left to fluff and completely GM-dependent, but it ruffles my feathers a little bit because then gameplay doesn't match fiction and verisimilitude suffers.
I agree with you 100% on this, but again it's an issue I try to address with clear houserules, disseminated in advance, instead of DM improvisation during play.
|
|
I agree, though the 2+INT skill ranks classes are still going to fall way behind on skills as compared to the 6 or 8 + INT classes.Not always; a wizard with 2 + INT/level (Int 24, for +7 = 9/level) is ahead of the rogue with 8 + INT/level (Int 10, for 8/level). But, yeah, the bard gets 6/level and Versatile Performance, so he'll almost always be at the top of the heap for skills.
Often times in fantasy fiction, the cost of magic is all of the hoops you have to jump through to get and keep that power. The rules support it a little, but in d20-based games it's mostly left to fluff and completely GM-dependent, but it ruffles my feathers a little bit because then gameplay doesn't match fiction and verisimilitude suffers.I agree with you 100% on this, but again it's an issue I try to address with clear houserules, disseminated in advance, instead of DM improvisation during play.
Me and house rules have a bad history. In my campaigns, any house rule that takes more than a single sentence to describe usually ends up annihilating game balance or making the game too complex for anybody except the 3.5 hardcore CharOp crowd to follow. But I admit that might just be my group.
My favorite house rule against caster dominance is "I'm allowing liberal use of ToB and the campaign level cap is 12 except for one or two BBEGs who have good excuses like being undead and training for thousands of years to get to level 15". But I admit I chose simplicity over fully fixing the issue.
If I wanted to *really* fix the issue, I think I would go with Words of Power. Personally I like the idea of spellcasting as the art of breaking the laws of physics in powerful but not particularly graceful ways. Once all of the skill buffing and skill-replacing spells are gone (as well as ending absurd buffstacking), I can then tell a fantasy story where wizards can teleport and fly and blow up armies with fireballs and dominate the minds of others, but still rely on the rogue to pick the locks on chests or convince people to do what they want in ways that are more subtle than magical enslavement.
Although it might also fun to say "all rules as written, except that any PC that has no spellcasting ability whatsoever gains a mythic tier for each level above 10th" and see how that does. That way, martials reach a point where they officially transition from nonmagical into Wuxia-style heroes that break the laws of physics with their superhuman competence.
Me and house rules have a bad history. In my campaigns, any house rule that takes more than a single sentence to describe usually ends up annihilating game balance or making the game too complex for anybody except the 3.5 hardcore CharOp crowd to follow. But I admit that might just be my group.
Heh. My players and I are notorious for houserules: we started with some minor class revisions during the Pathfinder playtest, added revisions and amendments (me drafting, the group proposing changes and voting, with me abstaining except in the case of a tie) and finally ended up with a 600-page tome that I just now declared complete, due to lack of further energy.
Although it might also fun to say "all rules as written, except that any PC that has no spellcasting ability whatsoever gains a mythic tier for each level above 10th" and see how that does. That way, martials reach a point where they officially transition from nonmagical into Wuxia-style heroes that break the laws of physics with their superhuman competence.
I would totally be willing to try this in a game.
in-play, high-level nonmagical characters often see the score early enough to load up on magic items, UMD checks, and caster friends.The issue for me is that a small group of caster friends can have all the magic in the form of spells, and then have just as much magic as any martial, on top of that, in the form of magic items (or even twice as much, since they get easier access to crafting). So that a team of 4 casters ends up with 150% as much magic as a team of 2 casters and 2 martials. At very low levels, the difference in skills evens that out, but at higher levels, +50% magic is worth way, way, way more than the +3 bonus for class skills. As much as everyone hated the 1/2 ranks for x-class skills in 3e, it definitely was more conducive to the style of play you're describing.
Except Wizards gain far less from magic items.
Any magic item that isn't a meta-magic Rod is at best saving the Wizard one spell slot, or giving him one-ish extra possible casts (i.e. Wand of X spell just gives one more option that he already had).
Magic items are far more useful for non-casters-- after all, all Boots of Flying does for the Wizard is save him one third level spell, but it gives the fighter an entire new option.
And maybe there are SOME people that want to play extremely limited Wizards, but there are plenty of people who like to be able to play actual Wizards and would not agree to the afore mentioned nuclear options.
My biggest issue with them is that it seems that most people treat it as a toggle switch-- if I don't want to play Wizards limited to only 2nd level spells that take a full round action to cast, absolutely every abuse of the rules has to be allowed in the estimation of so many people here-- there's no middle ground, nerf the absolutely ludicrous and let Wizards be actual Wizards still suggestions.
|
|
Although it might also fun to say "all rules as written, except that any PC that has no spellcasting ability whatsoever gains a mythic tier for each level above 10th" and see how that does. That way, martials reach a point where they officially transition from nonmagical into Wuxia-style heroes that break the laws of physics with their superhuman competence.
This sounds interesting. I don't really feel any need to give the spellcasters any more than they already have, but the non-casters don't feel sufficiently fantastic right now. So this might indeed be a decent fix.
That said, I haven't actually read any of the mythic stuff. Just heard rumors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic items are far more useful for non-casters-- after all, all Boots of Flying does for the Wizard is save him one third level spell, but it gives the fighter an entire new option.
Underlining how limited the martial guys are in relation to the casters, by design. That's a game in which "magic rulez, swords drool" -- i.e., the standard game they talk about over in the "Game Rules" threads. You might like that game. Most people do. It's in print and everything.
And maybe there are SOME people that want to play extremely limited Wizards, but there are plenty of people who like to be able to play actual Wizards and would not agree to the afore mentioned nuclear options.
And, as I keep trying to point out, the game is already designed for the latter sorts of people, who can play it right out of the box. The former people have nothing but a few threads with "House Rules" in the title, located in the Houserules section -- and you seem determined to prevent them from having even that. Isn't it good enough for you that the game is already written for you, that you need to tell everyone else they're not allowed to even discuss playing differently? Ah, but then we come to "middle ground."
My biggest issue with them is that it seems that most people treat it as a toggle switch-- if I don't want to play Wizards limited to only 2nd level spells that take a full round action to cast, absolutely every abuse of the rules has to be allowed in the estimation of so many people here-- there's no middle ground, nerf the absolutely ludicrous and let Wizards be actual Wizards still suggestions.
The so-called "middle ground" you talk about, to me, is like taking a penny away from Bill Gates and giving it to a homeless guy. I honestly see the need for two different games, if that's the best we can do otherwise.
Magic items are far more useful for non-casters-- after all, all Boots of Flying does for the Wizard is save him one third level spell, but it gives the fighter an entire new option.Underlining how limited the martial guys are in relation to the casters, by design. That's a game in which "magic rulez, swords drool" -- i.e., the standard game they talk about over in the "Game Rules" threads. You might like that game. Most people do. It's in print and everything.
And maybe there are SOME people that want to play extremely limited Wizards, but there are plenty of people who like to be able to play actual Wizards and would not agree to the afore mentioned nuclear options.And, as I keep trying to point out, the game is already designed for the latter sorts of people, who can play it right out of the box. The former people have nothing but a few threads with "House Rules" in the title, located in the Houserules section -- and you seem determined to prevent them from having even that. Isn't it good enough for you that the game is already written for you, that you need to tell everyone else they're not allowed to even discuss playing differently? Ah, but then we come to "middle ground."
My biggest issue with them is that it seems that most people treat it as a toggle switch-- if I don't want to play Wizards limited to only 2nd level spells that take a full round action to cast, absolutely every abuse of the rules has to be allowed in the estimation of so many people here-- there's no middle ground, nerf the absolutely ludicrous and let Wizards be actual Wizards still suggestions.The so-called "middle ground" you talk about, to me, is like taking a penny away from Bill Gates and giving it to a homeless guy. I honestly see the need for two different games, if that's the best we can do otherwise.
So you'd rather there be only two games-- those for people incapable of saying no to players and allowing every ridiculous thing imaginable
and those for people who want Wizards severely nerfed via some form of nuclear option, and nothing else
I see the need for true, common sense, house rules that limit the egregious and ridiculous without bombing casters down into nothing.
And to be fair-- I have played in the "casters basically useless" game-- its levels 1-10 in every game ever which gets played a lot more often than level 11-20.
From what i can tell, it's utterly hopeless.
Nerf? Displeasure.
Buff to fighters? Guess what, they're wizards now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in response to the last guy- if your casters aren't doing well at level one, you aren't building them well. I assume you're making blasters.
And to be fair-- I have played in the "casters basically useless" game-- its levels 1-10 in every game ever which gets played a lot more often than level 11-20.Speaking from experience... I have NEVER found this to be true.
Right now I'm playing a 3rd level Wizard who is MVP amidst a party of Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, and has been since level 1.
How? Like. . . seriously-- how? At level 1 you have 2 spells-- what are you doing to be "mvp" at that level?
Or is it just back to the old five minute work day and you never get to round 3 of combat and find yourself firing then reloading crossbows because you have no spells left?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How? Like. . . seriously-- how? At level 1 you have 2 spells-- what are you doing to be "mvp" at that level?
How? Through playing pathfinder, not 1e.
1 base spell1 specialist spell
1-2 bonus spells from high int (2 certainly possible at 15 pb, almost guaranteed on 20 bp)
1 arcane bond =
4-5 spells.
I mean, with the argument that "wizards have 2 spells", a first level fighter will have a +2 attack bonus and deal 1d6+1 damage...
After that, you still have Daze (which is a good spell whenever you're numerically superior), might have a school power 8/day (depends on school) and after that you're reduced to mundane effects like throwing nets (which is still pretty decent at level one for someone with dex as secondary attribute). And of course, even when out of spells you have useful out-of-combat cantrips such as mage hand and detect magic.
Also, since a lot of spells are battle enders if successful (color spray, sleep, grease, cause fear etc), there is a quite high likelihood of never going to round 3 in a battle, and at least not have round 3 still be a deciding moment where magic would be needed.
It's not uncommon to be laying down DC 17-19 battle deciders at 1st level. If you do, it's not that big of a deal only being able to do that 5 times per day (especially since you have other stuff to do afterwards). As a wizard you likely have 7 maxed skills, for instance.
Granted, I'm not seeing casters as OP or anything at level one - the limitation IS still a limitation, which is good. I think casters are perfectly balanced level 1-6, at level 7+ martials can feel a little to dependant on casters, and full M/C disp doesn't really happen in our games until around level 10+.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, battle enders assuming that you can line all the enemies up in a single tiny cone?
If color spray is ever hitting more than 2 of the bad guys there is something wrong with this situation.
And Daze? To be honest, you are better off crossbowing, because Time Walk the Both of us isn't great.
And grease is not a battle ender. Not even close. And again. . . its a 10 ft square so it stop 1 maybe two enemies.
And if the enemies are even vulnerable to Color Spray that means that the Fighter who has +7 to hit (+9 on his charge) is one shotting them.
Until level 5 for Wizards 6 for Sorcerers the disparity is definitively in the other direction. And level 10 only gives you 5th level spells, which barring teleport aren't that great.
Sure, battle enders assuming that you can line all the enemies up in a single tiny cone?
Not that hard to do, considering that PF lets you take a full move before you cast.