Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be?Prepared casters are versatile and powerful classes, but they're not game-breakers.
A prepared caster can crack an adventure wide open if she or he 1) has used divinations or other means to gather info about the enemy and battlefield, 2) has correctly anticipated the tactical situations that will be involved in the adventure, 3) has girded up with scrolls or other items to cover unanticipated needs, 4) has reasonable luck with the dice, and 5) is not playing under a GM that will change things just to keep them challenging. Notice that only points 1 and 3 are in the player's complete control.
This reminds me of the arguments and outrage over Morrison's BadGod, where Batman can beat up anyone if he has time to get his goodies in order, and of course he is always prepared and has everything he needs all the time.
Under a different writer, the Penguin uses him as a pinata. This seems similar to this discussion for some reason.
Wizards can be problematic. What is more problematic to me, however, is the number of people on all sides pointing out the problems and then sort of shrugging and saying "Well, the rules allow it so what can you do. I almost HAVE to do this guys!" Which is garbage.
The people who write rules for this and other games are great people and know the rules. They don't always write the best things for whatever reason, and they don't always expect the sort of interesting ways people will twist things to make them fit whatever they want. If there is something -- a spell, class, item or whatever -- causing problems for your table, then fix it. Don't wait or expect someone else to. If you just have to play in a game where it isn't fixed, try not to exploit or use it. Seems pretty simple.
|
It's one thing to name a spell that would be perfect for each scenario named, but it's another to actually posses the spell and be in a situation to cast it.This is why potions and scrolls exist. Really this isn't rocket science.
Potions and scrolls are not restricted to casters. Any class can use them.
LOL!
It's exactly the same situation. There is no difference between having the right spells memorized/known and having the right scrolls and potions on hand.
I agree.
My fighter carries and uses both. Zero martial/caster disparity there.
I'm shocked at how underestimated Wizards total resources are... seriously, when is the last time you saw a 10+ Wizard actually run out of spells? The correct answer is never.
I've personally had a 10th-level caster run out of spells. Though I did manage to leave an entire army of over 700 monstrous soldiers decimated in my wake as a result.
That's funny, I don't remember making any claims about the Magic Jar bit. I also don't see an explanation of how my logic on this is sketchy. Not that I don't trust you, of course, but perhaps could you spell it out for me?Even if the ring didn't work, and your logic on that is extremely sketchy, it doesnt matter. Most of the strength boost is coming from other effects and so all you do is make the caster look for something better to magic jar into. There are no shortage of big, strong, stupid monsters which you can make use of.
Blood Money remains stupidly broken.
Wow, no one answered this yet? I honestly expected someone to point out the flaw in his logic on Ring of Inner Fortitude and Blood Money before I got back. Oh well, happy to oblige.
"Spellcasters who do not have blood cannot cast blood money, and those who are immune to Strength damage (such as undead spellcasters) cannot use blood money to create valuable material components."
The Ring does not make you immune to Strength Damage and you are presumably not undead, Ring of Inner Fortitude will simply reduce the STR damage taken by 6 (but you still absolutely took it).
Oh yay, another dime richer!
So you create mechanically inneffective characters to do that instead of creating decent ones that can do that.
K
Didn't you argue that Galley Slave was a good feat?
Yes. Just like the warrior got to put on his armor and equip a weapon.Soooooooo the wizard actually gets to do something before the combat even begins.
Yeah, that really shows us that the wizard needs an advantage to pull it off.
I'm a nice guy so I even let them start with their weapons drawn and any long term buffs they have from consumables running. But I'm just a softy, what can I say.
Wow, no one answered this yet? I honestly expected someone to point out the flaw in his logic on Ring of Inner Fortitude and Blood Money before I got back. Oh well, happy to oblige.
"Spellcasters who do not have blood cannot cast blood money, and those who are immune to Strength damage (such as undead spellcasters) cannot use blood money to create valuable material components."
The Ring does not make you immune to Strength Damage and you are presumably not undead, Ring of Inner Fortitude will simply reduce the STR damage taken by 6 (but you still absolutely took it).
Oh yay, another dime richer!
My point is not that the ring prevents the spell from functioning at all, it's that it reduces its effectiveness up to the ring's ability score buffering potential. The fact that the spell itself specifies that blood is required to work is a clue that a item which prevents ability score damage, in this case through lost blood, won't jive too well with it. Just 'cause it's magic, doesn't mean it all works together perfectly. Or, to put it another way...
X units of blood lost = X ability score dmg
X ability score dmg = X * 500 gp in casting materials
X units of blood lost = X * 500 gp in casting materials
Ergo...
X - ring value units of blood lost = (X - ring value) * 500gp in casting materials
If X = 10, for a Simulacrum, you get 5000 gp 'free' from Blood Money, but only 2000 gp with a greater Ring of Inner Fortitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mesmo predicts!
;-)
You have to take the damage for the Ring to mitigate. You already took the appropriate amount of STR damage to pay for the cost. If you hadn't taken the damage the Ring would do nothing. The amount of gold you get is based on the STR damage you take, not the actual amount of STR damage you end up taking. There is nothing that suggests in the rules that preventing STR damage negates or reduces the amount of gold cost. You may feel that the flavor does not jive, but that is not a rule and for some of us the flavor works perfectly.
Unintended combos in my Paizo game? Balderdash!
Btw, my group has a skit we do
"Spell perfection who came up with this cheese?! What book is it in? The Advanced Players Guide? Seriously?"
Guys, can we take the ring vs Blood money debate elsewhere?
Blood Money has no valid place in this debate anyway, as I pointed out. Certainly it's worthy of a debate/thread by itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, even I wouldn't allow blood money in a straight Pathfinder game. Whoever wrote it should be flogged with wet dollar bills until they come to their senses.
Yeah, even I wouldn't allow blood money in a straight Pathfinder game. Whoever wrote it should be flogged with wet dollar bills until they come to their senses.
Yep. Great idea, poor execution. Needed a limit.
I think its on point since spells are what make a Wizard powerful after all.
You have to take the damage for the Ring to mitigate. You already took the appropriate amount of STR damage to pay for the cost. If you hadn't taken the damage the Ring would do nothing. The amount of gold you get is based on the STR damage you take, not the actual amount of STR damage you end up taking. There is nothing that suggests in the rules that preventing STR damage negates or reduces the amount of gold cost. You may feel that the flavor does not jive, but that is not a rule and for some of us the flavor works perfectly.
...what?!?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, can we take the ring vs Blood money debate elsewhere?
You have to take the damage for the Ring to mitigate. You already took the appropriate amount of STR damage to pay for the cost. If you hadn't taken the damage the Ring would do nothing. The amount of gold you get is based on the STR damage you take, not the actual amount of STR damage you end up taking. There is nothing that suggests in the rules that preventing STR damage negates or reduces the amount of gold cost. You may feel that the flavor does not jive, but that is not a rule and for some of us the flavor works perfectly....what?!?
Here's a step by step:
Step 1: Take 50 STR damage to get 25,000 GP of material components. At this point your price is locked in the actual damage you will end up taking at a later step is irrelevant.
Step 2: Since you have to actually take STR damage for the ring to work you take the 50 STR damage. Then, Ring says "Oh look your taking damage lets negate 6 of that."
Step 3. You take 44 STR damage.
It's really that simple. Nothing in the spell suggests that a reduction to what you take changes the initial value you get. 50 STR damage = 25,000 gp.