sad panda is sad thread.
sad panda is sad thread.
Well at least my eyes were opened to the possibilities of self-simulacrums.
Which I guess by virtue of those being useful we can make claims about game balance.
A simulacrum of the party fighter isn't worth the money when you can do it to yourself and gain access to undead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
Incorrect!
Show me a rule that states I, as a DM, have to allow everything.
Don't bother looking because you want. What spells and items you present in your campaign is not a houserule because there is no rule in this regard. Just like it isn't a house rule if you had no undead in your games.
And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
Incorrect!
Show me a rule that states I, as a DM, have to allow everything.
Don't bother looking because you want. What spells and items you present in your campaign is not a houserule because there is no rule in this regard. Just like it isn't a house rule if you had no undead in your games.
Except that is not the point of issue. The point of issue was the arguement of "having to study to learn new spells." That is house-ruling away the basic class feature of the wizard class. The arguement gets even dumber when applied to Sorcerers who do not even study at all..
|
|
Except that is not the point of issue. The point of issue was the arguement of "having to study to learn new spells." That is house-ruling away the basic class feature of the wizard class. The arguement gets even dumber when applied to Sorcerers who do not even study at all..And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
Incorrect!
Show me a rule that states I, as a DM, have to allow everything.
Don't bother looking because you want. What spells and items you present in your campaign is not a houserule because there is no rule in this regard. Just like it isn't a house rule if you had no undead in your games.
No its not. Please God go an learn what a houserule is. What books are used in my campaign has nothing to do with rules. There is no rule in the book that says you get access to each and every spell from every piece of Paizo material. By RAW, the only spells I have to allow are those from the CRB, any other book is optional by the DM. It's not confusion some of you are displaying, you are purposefully misreading yhe research and access to any spell on the wiz/sor list. You have access to any spell from the Wiz/sor spell list from the books that I am using in my campaign.
Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.
That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
Custom spells are a mechanic (an established one at that see Ultimate Campaign feats).
Blood money was not printed in a rule book. It's from an AP. You could try making a custom spell like it but all those are subject to GM approval.
Now if your PCs find a scroll of it, then sure they can learn it. But they don't by RAW have automatic access to it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What books are used in my campaign has nothing to do with rules
Okay, but that's not what I said was a houserule, nor what Kitty said was.
Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.
I said you automatically learn 2 each level, and that is RAW. Unless your houseruling, the guy gets 2 spells per level, regardless of where he is and what he can access for 'research'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
Oh man, if you removed the last line on many rogue talents and abilities they would be SO much better (some would even go from trash to being useful).
No its not. Please God go an learn what a houserule is. What books are used in my campaign has nothing to do with rules. There is no rule in the book that says you get access to each and every spell from every piece of Paizo material. By RAW, the only spells I have to allow are those from the CRB, any other book is optional by the DM. It's not confusion some of you are displaying, you are purposefully misreading yhe research and access to any spell on the wiz/sor list. You have access to any spell...Except that is not the point of issue. The point of issue was the arguement of "having to study to learn new spells." That is house-ruling away the basic class feature of the wizard class. The arguement gets even dumber when applied to Sorcerers who do not even study at all..And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.*looks at spell list*
*Sees blood money*
Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?
Incorrect!
Show me a rule that states I, as a DM, have to allow everything.
Don't bother looking because you want. What spells and items you present in your campaign is not a houserule because there is no rule in this regard. Just like it isn't a house rule if you had no undead in your games.
Tell me where in the Wizard's section of the Spells class feature does it say that a Wizard/Sorcerer/Summoner/Magus/Bard/Bloodrager/Arcanist that the caster must "research" to add new spells upon leveling up? It says NOTHING of the sort. It says flat out "the (X Class) may learn 2 new spells (in the case of the wizard) when gaining a new level of up to his highest level known.
Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
Ahahaha, ya right I love using half-fiend elementals explicitly for their high for CR spell resistance. Also, those who think spells are op are those who know how they work. Do you really I'll let Invisibility give more then +20 stealth? Or let summon spells take a standard action without certain feats? Because no one who knows spells would, since spells are already to strong when following the rules. No need to give them advantages that don't exist.
|
|
Ahahaha, ya right I love using half-fiend elementals explicitly for their high for CR spell resistance. Also, those who think spells are op are those who know how they work. Do you really I'll let Invisibility give more then +20 stealth? Or let summon spells take a standard action without certain feats? Because no one who knows spells would, since spells are already to strong when following the rules. No need to give them advantages that don't exist.Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
*yawns*
You do realize that playing the old "match the spell with the given scenario* doesn't solve the argument. You won't be prepared for everything nor will you get out of everything. I don't care how good you "think" you know or "misinterpret" the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahahaha, ya right I love using half-fiend elementals explicitly for their high for CR spell resistance. Also, those who think spells are op are those who know how they work. Do you really I'll let Invisibility give more then +20 stealth? Or let summon spells take a standard action without certain feats? Because no one who knows spells would, since spells are already to strong when following the rules. No need to give them advantages that don't exist.Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
*yawns*
You do realize that playing the old "match the spell with the given scenario* doesn't solve the argument. You won't be prepared for everything nor will you get out of everything. I don't care how good you "think" you know or "misinterpret" the rules.
Except that a lot of spells are good in damn near EVERY scenerio...
I mean, Summon Monster is just a damn good spell in ever scenerio
Invisibility is just strong
Glitterdust is a staple for a reason
Not to mention your comment reaks of arrogance and rudeness. If anything, you are the person who has yet to show his true understanding of the rules...
Ahahaha, ya right I love using half-fiend elementals explicitly for their high for CR spell resistance. Also, those who think spells are op are those who know how they work. Do you really I'll let Invisibility give more then +20 stealth? Or let summon spells take a standard action without certain feats? Because no one who knows spells would, since spells are already to strong when following the rules. No need to give them advantages that don't exist.Not in our games. SR, energy resistance, concentration checks, saves, range/positioning issues, and other factors can and do mess with both party spellcasters and enemy spellcasters.That's usually been my take on the entire question. The tables I've seen where GM's complain about how spellcasters just steamroller over everything with no opposition either forget about those rules or never learned them.
There's also something I like to call the 'Last Line Problem'. Most of the time when a person thinks they have a spell that just does something amazingly awesome with no problems, they've forgotten to read that last line where it says something like 'this spell is only useful at night' or 'does not affect turtles'.
Other problems: not paying attention to the type of spell (does it work on this type of target?), not paying attention to the casting time, playing as if everyone has 'quiet spell' 'still spell' or other metamagic feats running all the time, playing as if everyone has 'eschew materials', etc etc etc.
*yawns*
You do realize that playing the old "match the spell with the given scenario* doesn't solve the argument. You won't be prepared for everything nor will you get out of everything. I don't care how good you "think" you know or "misinterpret" the rules.
Oh you rarely have the *perfect* spell for any given situation. However, by the same token you rarely have all "awful" spells for a given situation. But it is very easy to have a "Good" or "Great" spell for any given situation, especially as your system mastery increases. Just make sure you have a spread of effects and of course summons. Because Summon Monster is like a swiss army knife. Sure I'd rather have a real can opener, but it'll do when I need a can opened. Or a knife, or a screwdiver, or...
Not to mention your comment reaks of arrogance and rudeness. If anything, you are the person who has yet to show his true understanding of the rules...
This same thread has happened before. The last time half these people were disagreeing with Anzyr and stayed that way to the end.
Many people have disingenuously took up the mantle "casters OP" in an attempt to get more love for martials.
Of course that doesn't follow. Is the party winning level appropriate encounters? If yes then no one needs a buff. Buffing martials "up to casters" would just make the encounters easier. If you prove that casters are too much for encounters then logically they get a nerf.
Somehow you have to show that martials aren't enough for the encounters they are already winning.
Really it's asking for two things: Martial buffs and caster nerfs or martial buffs and encounter buffs.
Both options require sweeping changes to the rules and just won't happen.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Guys page 563 of the CRB.
Invisibility doesn't make you quieter because the +20 to stealth checks is offset by special penalties you can only get while invisible.
Not to mention your comment reaks of arrogance and rudeness. If anything, you are the person who has yet to show his true understanding of the rules...This same thread has happened before. The last time half these people were disagreeing with Anzyr and stayed that way to the end.
Many people have disingenuously took up the mantle "casters OP" in an attempt to get more love for martials.
Of course that doesn't follow. Is the party winning level appropriate encounters? If yes then no one needs a buff. Buffing martials "up to casters" would just make the encounters easier. If you prove that casters are too much for encounters then logically they get a nerf.
Somehow you have to show that martials aren't enough for the encounters they are already winning.
Really it's asking for two things: Martial buffs and caster nerfs or martial buffs and encounter buffs.
Both options require sweeping changes to the rules and just won't happen.
Martials aren't enough for the encounters they are winning. At high levels, the only realistic way martials can win fights is if they have casters doing all the heavy lifting for them. A Pit Fiend will wipe the floor with a group of high level martials that has no caster. Look at those at wills, greater dispel magic, invisibility, mass hold monster, unholy aura (not factored into it's AC yet, making them effectively AC 42), Blasphemy spam, and that's before we touch on summon, natural flight, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't say that LazarX.
It makes SENSE to rule that way, and I would argue that such is how the rules should have been written, but that is not the text in the book.
Are those four words the entirety of your thought process?
The rules don't say a lot of things. And I'm not sure whether you or many others in this venue, realize this, the rules don't say everything you need to run a game. They don't predict every possible application, every possible situation, nor every possible attempt by some munchkin to corner his way around them. Otherwise you could substitute a punch card Babbage machine for the human usually required to run a table.
But the rules *DO SAY* that you get a +20 bonus to stealth. Even while moving. I go by what the "Rules Say I Can", not by the "Rules Don't Say I Can't".
But the rules *DO SAY* that you get a +20 bonus to stealth. Even while moving. I go but what the "Rules Say I Can", not by the "Rules Don't Say I Can't".The rules don't say that LazarX.
It makes SENSE to rule that way, and I would argue that such is how the rules should have been written, but that is not the text in the book.
Are those four words the entirety of your thought process?
The rules don't say a lot of things. And I'm not sure whether you or many others in this venue, realize this, the rules don't say everything you need to run a game. They don't predict every possible application, every possible situation, nor every possible attempt by some munchkin to corner his way around them. Otherwise you could substitute a punch card Babbage machine for the human usually required to run a table.
Page 563 of the CRB.
Invisible creatures +20 to stealth check is offset by special penalties if they are being noisy.
So no the spell doesn't actually make you quieter.
Heck In-combat is a minus 20 penalty to the perception DC for invisible creatures. Detecting them is a DC 0. pinpointing them is an opposed stealth vs perception check where the +20 cancels out with the -20.
Speaking also is a minus 20 (same line as in combat so the penalty doesn't stack).
EDIT: Moving at half speed is a -5, moving at full speed is a -10, charging minus -20 (if in combat is a minus -40).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow.... That "Invisibility + Move Quietly" discussion has more lives than a Highlander Cat with Tarrasque-levels of Regeneration.
sad panda is sad thread.Well at least my eyes were opened to the possibilities of self-simulacrums.
Which I guess by virtue of those being useful we can make claims about game balance.
A simulacrum of the party fighter isn't worth the money when you can do it to yourself and gain access to undead.
Well atleast someone was listening.
Many people have disingenuously took up the mantle "casters OP" in an attempt to get more love for martials.
Of course that doesn't follow. Is the party winning level appropriate encounters? If yes then no one needs a buff. Buffing martials "up to casters" would just make the encounters easier. If you prove that casters are too much for encounters then logically they get a nerf.
Somehow you have to show that martials aren't enough for the encounters they are already winning.
Really it's asking for two things: Martial buffs and caster nerfs or martial buffs and encounter buffs.
Both options require sweeping changes to the rules and just won't happen.
I'd actually be really interested in encounter buffs.
I do take issue with your statement however. Right now, Casters simply do more to end encounters than Martials. They do more to progress the adventure as well. Casters simply have more agency and I think that's an issue worth discussion.
Wow.... That "Invisibility + Move Quietly" discussion has more lives than a Highlander Cat with Tarrasque-levels of Regeneration.
I've retracted my claim that the +20 to stealth doesn't go into hearing you.
But let's not forget the -20 invisible creature only penalties you can take.
Wow.... That "Invisibility + Move Quietly" discussion has more lives than a Highlander Cat with Tarrasque-levels of Regeneration.
Nahh, its been dead for a while. Just keeps getting beaten.
Wow.... That "Invisibility + Move Quietly" discussion has more lives than a Highlander Cat with Tarrasque-levels of Regeneration.Nahh, its been dead for a while. Just keeps getting beaten.
That's even worse! It'll become a Lich BBEG!
I do take issue with your statement however. Right now, Casters simply do more to end encounters than Martials. They do more to progress the adventure as well. Casters simply have more agency and I think that's an issue worth discussion.
I don't think ending encounters is a fair measure. My rogue ends most encounters, that doesn't mean my rogue is OP.
The agency discussion is something to explore. I do really like the agency martials get in dungeons. When was the last time you saw a wizard in the front of the party?
I find the party has trouble going anywhere when the martial is indecisive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works both ways. Casters by themselves will be meat for the pit fiends without martials to help watch their backs. This is a GROUP game, not Solo Adventure Time. Much of those at will castings aren't going to be gentile to casters either.... WHICH ANY SMART PIT FIEND WILL TARGET FIRST.
Casters can cast summon to create a meat shield and aren't actually all that squishy by higher levels though, in fact because they have easy access to magic, they have in class skills that can give them more defenses against a pit fiend than the fighter, such as energy resistance, protection spells, mirror image, and all sorts of ways to actually reach the pit fiend they share.
In a group game martials suck at giving things to the group, they ask for someone else to give things to them often enough though, or they require magic items.
It works both ways. Casters by themselves will be meat for the pit fiends without martials to help watch their backs. This is a GROUP game, not Solo Adventure Time. Much of those at will castings aren't going to be gentile to casters either.... WHICH ANY SMART PIT FIEND WILL TARGET FIRST.Casters can cast summon to create a meat shield and aren't actually all that squishy by higher levels though, in fact because they have easy access to magic, they have in class skills that can give them more defenses against a pit fiend than the fighter, such as energy resistance, protection spells, mirror image, and all sorts of ways to actually reach the pit fiend they share.
In a group game martials suck at giving things to the group, they ask for someone else to give things to them often enough though, or they require magic items.
Eh I can maintain a martial with a CLW wand. I have to maintain summons with spell slots.
My buff spells are better on the martial than a summon and are low level spells.
Spectral hand, mirror image, dimension door, stone wall, dimensional anchor.
Against a pit fiend these are low level spells. SM8 and SM9 would cost me more resources, and I have to spend them because there is no martial.
That's even worse! It'll become a Lich BBEG!Wow.... That "Invisibility + Move Quietly" discussion has more lives than a Highlander Cat with Tarrasque-levels of Regeneration.Nahh, its been dead for a while. Just keeps getting beaten.
You know the worst part? Your players won't stop making jokes about how they're beating a dead horse when they fight the lich and when they first meet him. Your just inviting the jokes, and they will be made, and they won't stop until he's dead... and a while after, but that's just beating a dead horse.
If you aren't using permanent see invisibility and a ring of freedom of movement by the time you are likely to meet a pit fiend then you almost certainly lack the brains to have survived to that level.
Aye, as I said earlier, magic and magic items.
Also as I said earlier, martials tend to eat up resources and ask for them rather than share. Not too many, if any, way they can actually buff the party. He's not actually a team player in a team game, if that makes sense.
It works both ways. Casters by themselves will be meat for the pit fiends without martials to help watch their backs. This is a GROUP game, not Solo Adventure Time. Much of those at will castings aren't going to be gentile to casters either.... WHICH ANY SMART PIT FIEND WILL TARGET FIRST.Casters can cast summon to create a meat shieldHi there... this is me and my swift action teleport.
Being a smart pit fiend, before the actual encounter I had cast invisibly on myself and you failed to make the perception check when I teleported right behind your sorry ass. Now say high to my plus 30 or 40 something grapple check vs your flatfooted CMD. I will have you grappled in the s uprise round, and pinned on my first opportunity while MY meat shields (who had already started a fray with your group) deal with yours.
If you survive this encounter, it will be solely due to your friends.
If you want to play that game:
Good luck teleporting to a Wizard tower. A High level wizard has more than a few ways to stop teleporting.
2) Invisibility is a non-issue at level 15+ (true seeing is fun)
3) Hello Mr. Pitfiend, Say hi to my dismissal.
4) If the wizard is a Diviner wizard (a lot of wizards are diviners or conjurers) he isnt being caught flat-footed....
5) the wizard can take out a pitfiend easy by making a simulacrum of Cthulhu or something... make the poor devil...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi there... this is me and my swift action teleport.It works both ways. Casters by themselves will be meat for the pit fiends without martials to help watch their backs. This is a GROUP game, not Solo Adventure Time. Much of those at will castings aren't going to be gentile to casters either.... WHICH ANY SMART PIT FIEND WILL TARGET FIRST.Casters can cast summon to create a meat shield
Well, let's see.
1. Pit Fiends can't cast Teleport. They can however cast Greater Teleport, so I'll assume you meant Greater Teleport.
2. Pit Fiends don't have Quicken Spell-like ability (Greater Teleport). There's a reason for that.
3. Pit Fiends don't qualify for Quicken Spell-like ability (Greater Teleport).
Looks like some other posters already covered why the rest of the scenario doesn't look all that realistic. Ring of Freedom of Action is very common on high level casters.
There absolutely are methods available for screwing high-level spellcasters, but grappling isn't really one of them.
Apparently when Paizo merged the Hide and Move Silently skills, what the actually did was rename Hide to Stealth and removed Move Silently from the game. The only way to succeed at moving silently now is to be magically silenced.
Those penalties are only for invisible creatures.
So moving silently is still in stealth. It's the +20 to stealth from being invisible that is being accounted for.
I do take issue with your statement however. Right now, Casters simply do more to end encounters than Martials. They do more to progress the adventure as well. Casters simply have more agency and I think that's an issue worth discussion.I don't think ending encounters is a fair measure. My rogue ends most encounters, that doesn't mean my rogue is OP.
The agency discussion is something to explore. I do really like the agency martials get in dungeons. When was the last time you saw a wizard in the front of the party?
I find the party has trouble going anywhere when the martial is indecisive.
I'd consider Clerics are generally better front of the party material. Better Saves, Same general AC, has spells for solid reactive play i.e "Oh crap a Wraith *Casts Deathward and moves up to engage*"
I'd consider Clerics are generally better front of the party material. . Better Saves, Same general AC, has spells for solid reactive play i.e "Oh crap a Wraith *Casts Deathward and moves up to engage*"I do take issue with your statement however. Right now, Casters simply do more to end encounters than Martials. They do more to progress the adventure as well. Casters simply have more agency and I think that's an issue worth discussion.I don't think ending encounters is a fair measure. My rogue ends most encounters, that doesn't mean my rogue is OP.
The agency discussion is something to explore. I do really like the agency martials get in dungeons. When was the last time you saw a wizard in the front of the party?
I find the party has trouble going anywhere when the martial is indecisive.
We always put the divine caster in the rear to be flanked with tanks in case of surprise attacks.
We also find the being in the back is better for casting spells. Until mid to high level that concentration check is nothing to laugh at.
We also normally play with druids and not clerics.
We always put the divine caster in the rear to be flanked with tanks in case of surprise attacks.We also find the being in the back is better for casting spells. Until mid to high level that concentration check is nothing to laugh at.
We also normally play with druids and not clerics.
I assume those druids aren't wildshape face smash druids then. Druids can generally maintain a solid AC, better saves, and have good reaction based spellcasting. Wall of Thorns, Entangle, Summon Nature's Ally and etc.
At low levels 1-5, a 5 ft step is usually enough to avoid concentration checks.
We always put the divine caster in the rear to be flanked with tanks in case of surprise attacks.We also find the being in the back is better for casting spells. Until mid to high level that concentration check is nothing to laugh at.
We also normally play with druids and not clerics.
I assume those druids aren't wildshape face smash druids then. Druids can generally maintain a solid AC, better saves, and have good reaction based spellcasting. Wall of Thorns, Entangle, Summon Nature's Ally and etc.
At low levels 1-5, a 5 ft step is usually enough to avoid concentration checks.
I played a balanced druid once and lead from the from with my wolf. The person who was going to be the martial never showed up which contributed to that.
Our current druids AC keeps up with the synthesist in melee (AC only has 3 attacks though), but see dumped strength and spends most of her time as a bat.
My personal challenge as a GM is to find a way to challenge the party with at least the 4-5 encounters per day. Much to my dismay, I am probably thinking with this mindset because I know that spellcasters have to recharge the batteries at some point. It -is- pretty gratifying when you kicked a dragon's butt and saved a nation by the end of a day, with hardly anything left to spare. (:
There is a turning point in where the players will be able to control when they rest however. Rope Trick and Teleport come to mind. -That- might be what boggles me from time to time. When they might realize that potential, my players might just skim by with their higher-level spell slots, rest, go at it again, all without even touching levels 0-2.
Sure there's some thing I can do to counteract that, but it may come off a bid unfair. ("I counterspell your teleport." "Arcane Sight finds your Rope Trick." etc.)
Player ingenuity should be rewarded. As the players' knowledge pool grows, it may get more difficult in finding ways to challenge them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to remind people that a wild shaped druid can wear barding.
The Druid in may party has leather lamellar armor (+4AC) appropriate for a large Tiger that he has the party put on him before dungeons.
What books are used in my campaign has nothing to do with rulesOkay, but that's not what I said was a houserule, nor what Kitty said was.
Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.I said you automatically learn 2 each level, and that is RAW. Unless your houseruling, the guy gets 2 spells per level, regardless of where he is and what he can access for 'research'.
Sure. You get two spells per level. From the DM approved guidelines for that campaign. If the DM sez "Core & APG only" that's not a "houserule".
If you say you can pick spells from ANY source, even if not in the DM approved guidelines, that allows all 3.5 and 3PP spells.