Shrug. The martial is also at the GM's mercy, as the martial doesn't get his equipment either automatically, either. A 13th level wizard (the level that would be casting simulacrum) has 140,000 gp in wealth by level according to the guidelines -- a simulacrum of a 14th level fighter costs 7,000 gp. So I could make ten of them and still have enough left to kit myself out reasonably.
If you're going to complain about giving a wizard a 7,000 gp minion and not complain about the archer's 8000 gp bow, then you're being unfair. And, more to the point, you're doing exactly what Kolokotroni described "restrict[ing] the narrative power of casters," in a way that you're not restricting the narrative power of martials.
The point is that the fighter is actually likely to go through all of the expected hoops to get the expected treasure, therefore giving him legitimate access to it. A wizard constantly taking shortcuts is going to have to find other ways of getting that treasure, effectively negating the benefits of the shortcuts. A wizard that takes the shortcuts and expects the treasure without any extra effort anyway is going to be out of luck at my table, the same way a fighter trying to do the same would be.
Making shortcuts and cutting the story short has costs, costs that both the player and the character need to be willing to accept. It's not about complaining about the caster and not complaining about the martials, it's about making everyone earn what they get. Casters are far, far more likely to expect magic to solve all of their problems with no effort, no cost, and all the reward than a martial is to expect similar treatment. That expectation is what built up around 3rd edition that caused a lot of problems. The rules themselves still had the balancing factors; DMs just stopped using them. Actually reading and following all of the rules for magic already in the book eliminates the vast majority of the complaints.
All of those options require DM help and support.Shrug. So I bring another martial. Hell, I can bring a dozen martials, all created as magic simulacra.
Alternatively, I find easier ways to get loot (planar ally again; I simply need to rent some equipment from the higher planes) and kit the fighter out, again with minimal risk.
You mean, they require the DM not to go out of his way to screw the wizard out of his abilities.
The wizard gets none of those automatically. At the very least, it requires the DM to give the party enough treasure in previous adventures to afford all the simulcra.Shrug. The martial is also at the GM's mercy, as the martial doesn't get his equipment either automatically, either. A 13th level wizard (the level that would be casting simulacrum) has 140,000 gp in wealth by level according to the guidelines -- a simulacrum of a 14th level fighter costs 7,000 gp. So I could make ten of them and still have enough left to kit myself out reasonably.
If you're going to complain about giving a wizard a 7,000 gp minion and not complain about the archer's 8000 gp bow, then you're being unfair. And, more to the point, you're doing exactly what Kolokotroni described "restrict[ing] the narrative power of casters," in a way that you're not restricting the narrative power of martials.
And why? Because martials have so little narrative power to restrict. You don't need to play silly-assed "taking equipment away" games with martials, because their equipment won't break the adventure.
Or we can answer with a much simplier answer...
Snow-Cone Wish Factory...
Arguement not invalid.
Wizards are making whole planets now?No class has an inherent advantage in shaping the world as a wholeAre we playing the same game? In Pathfinder, a caster can make his own world, once he gets tired of shaping the existing one.
Given enough time technically nothing is stopping a level 20 wizard...
I never said ignore class mechanics; I said don't use them for controlling story narrative. It's not that hard to do. Magic is really, really good at solving immediate, concrete goals, but that's about it.Except that magic is also awesome at solving long-term abstract goals, if you simply read the spells. Simulacrum is a very good example -- as a matter of fact, given the casting time, it's not actually very good at immediate goals. But as a long-term buff, it gives you a mini-me that can do more or less whatever you like (and at a fairly nominal cost) permanently.
You can crank out an army of golems one at a time until you have enough to sack the bad guy's castle and leave no two stones touching. You can even do this before you know whose castle you wish to sack.
You can create a private sanctum to which you can instantly retreat any time you feel the need.
The problem with the longer term spells is that problems and the world evolve and change. Everything the PC does is happening at the same time that hundreds and thousands of other NPCs are also acting, and the net result is not usually what anybody expects. Creating a private sanctum or plane may help in some ways, but it doesn't stop the world from turning, and it doesn't stop NPCs from acting. What usually results from a character, whether it be a PC or an NPC, trying to shape the world is that the immediate changes may or may not happen as expected and that character will probably lose control over the effects if they try to take on long term and/or abstract goals. Therefore, that character can create a certain amount of chaos, and can reshape the narrative in unexpected ways, but control is another matter entirely. That is much, much harder, and will almost always require more than casting a few spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shrug. The martial is also at the GM's mercy, as the martial doesn't get his equipment either automatically, either. A 13th level wizard (the level that would be casting simulacrum) has 140,000 gp in wealth by level according to the guidelines -- a simulacrum of a 14th level fighter costs 7,000 gp. So I could make ten of them and still have enough left to kit myself out reasonably.
If you're going to complain about giving a wizard a 7,000 gp minion and not complain about the archer's 8000 gp bow, then you're being unfair. And, more to the point, you're doing exactly what Kolokotroni described "restrict[ing] the narrative power of casters," in a way that you're not restricting the narrative power of martials.
The point is that the fighter is actually likely to go through all of the expected hoops to get the expected treasure, therefore giving him legitimate access to it. A wizard constantly taking shortcuts is going to have to find other ways of getting that treasure, effectively negating the benefits of the shortcuts. A wizard that takes the shortcuts and expects the treasure without any extra effort anyway is going to be out of luck at my table, the same way a fighter trying to do the same would be.
Making shortcuts and cutting the story short has costs, costs that both the player and the character need to be willing to accept. It's not about complaining about the caster and not complaining about the martials, it's about making everyone earn what they get. Casters are far, far more likely to expect magic to solve all of their problems with no effort, no cost, and all the reward than a martial is to expect similar treatment. That expectation is what built up around 3rd edition that caused a lot of problems. The rules themselves still had the balancing factors; DMs just stopped using them. Actually reading and following all of the rules for magic already in the book eliminates the vast majority of the complaints.
You are aware that martials are much more gear dependent and GM dependent than casters right? And if your GM feels like being a knuckle-head and giving you trouble with finding spells you can just as easily play a Human Sorcerer... between The "shadow X" spells, the Human FCB, and Eldritch Heritage (arcane) you can very easily run around with nearly every spell you will ever need...
You are aware that martials are much more gear dependent and GM dependent than casters right? And if your GM feels like being a knuckle-head and giving you trouble with finding spells you can just as easily play a Human Sorcerer... between The "shadow X" spells, the Human FCB, and Eldritch Heritage (arcane) you can very easily run around with nearly every spell you will ever need...
Right up until the DM throws you into a situation where highly specialized spells are required, and you don't have them. The sorcerer has it's own limitations that a good DM can use without stretching anything or being arbitrary. In the end, I have yet to see a case where magic can flat out break a world or campaign unless the DM is willing to play along. Individual encounters or stories, yes, but any story that could be broken by magic probably wasn't a very good story to play at that level to begin with for a host of other reasons.
The problem with the longer term spells is that problems and the world evolve and change. Everything the PC does is happening at the same time that hundreds and thousands of other NPCs are also acting, and the net result is not usually what anybody expects. Creating a private sanctum or plane may help in some ways, but it doesn't stop the world from turning, and it doesn't stop NPCs from acting. What usually results from a character, whether it be a PC or an NPC trying to shape the world is that the changes may or may not happen as expected and that character will probably lose control over the effects if they try to take on long term and/or abstract goals. Therefore, that character can create a certain amount of chaos, and can reshape the narrative in unexpected ways, but control is another matter entirely. That is much, much harder, and will almost always require more than casting a few spells.
I never said ignore class mechanics; I said don't use them for controlling story narrative. It's not that hard to do. Magic is really, really good at solving immediate, concrete goals, but that's about it.Except that magic is also awesome at solving long-term abstract goals, if you simply read the spells. Simulacrum is a very good example -- as a matter of fact, given the casting time, it's not actually very good at immediate goals. But as a long-term buff, it gives you a mini-me that can do more or less whatever you like (and at a fairly nominal cost) permanently.
You can crank out an army of golems one at a time until you have enough to sack the bad guy's castle and leave no two stones touching. You can even do this before you know whose castle you wish to sack.
You can create a private sanctum to which you can instantly retreat any time you feel the need.
I didnt say narrative control I said narrative power. No one says the caster will make everything he wants happen instantly. The point is he has the power to affect things on that scale. He can affect the story in a way a martial character cannot. Its up to him to figure out how to make the work to his advantage but again, thats not the point. The martial character isnt even playing that game. Titan fall is way more complicated then duck hunt. There are lots more variables when playing titan fall. Heck, its a lot easier to play duck hunt. That doesnt mean they are equal experiences.
I didnt say narrative control I said narrative power.
The fighter decides to challenge every armored stranger he encounters; the rogue wants to get into bed with every female NPC. Plenty of power there over the narrative; it may not be codified as thoroughly, but it can just as easily be abused and manipulated. The caster ultimately has no easier or harder time to pull that sort of thing off; it's written out, but they still have to read the book to do it. The caster has as much power in that arena as the DM and the rest of the party give him; no more, and no less. In 3rd edition, and to a certain degree in PF, way too many people just assume that the caster read the spell, is following it precisely, and has the best intentions of the party at the heart of his actions. That assumption and free pass being given to casters is the real problem, not with how the magic system is actually designed and written.
You are aware that martials are much more gear dependent and GM dependent than casters right? And if your GM feels like being a knuckle-head and giving you trouble with finding spells you can just as easily play a Human Sorcerer... between The "shadow X" spells, the Human FCB, and Eldritch Heritage (arcane) you can very easily run around with nearly every spell you will ever need...Right up until the DM throws you into a situation where highly specialized spells are required, and you don't have them. The sorcerer has it's own limitations that a good DM can use without stretching anything or being arbitrary. In the end, I have yet to see a case where magic can flat out break a world or campaign unless the DM is willing to play along. Individual encounters or stories, yes, but any story that could be broken by magic probably wasn't a very good story to play at that level to begin with for a host of other reasons.
So, the lord of the rings is a bad story right? Also game of thrones? That's a crummy story right? Because martial characters cant break those stories. Magic characters can. If the orcs, lanisters etc are the same level as the party, story remains the same in the face of any level of martial character. If elrond was a 20th level wizard, lotr takes about 30 seconds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making shortcuts and cutting the story short has costs, costs that both the player and the character need to be willing to accept.
And not making shortcuts also has costs.
You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to present "the party" with a problem to be solved, and also dictating that the most effective method for solution is, by GM fiat, off the table.
At that point, another valid option is to say "Fine. Kill your own damn BBEG."
It's not about complaining about the caster and not complaining about the martials, it's about making everyone earn what they get.
And it's also about allowing people to user what they've earned (and received).
Casters are far, far more likely to expect magic to solve all of their problems with no effort, no cost, and all the reward than a martial is to expect similar treatment.
That's right. That's because that's what magic does. Just as I expect a sword to perform as described, I also expect a teleport spell to perform as described.
Actually reading and following all of the rules for magic already in the book eliminates the vast majority of the complaints.
Not at all. If it were, you wouldn't be creating battalions of new house rules and conditions on spells.
Spell component costs are a thing, yes. But so are the wealth by level guidelines. It's not a rule already in the book that keeps a 13th level wizard from having 140,000 gp worth of treasure. It's also not a rule in the book that keeps him from being able to spend some of it on the necessary gems to cast simulacrum. And it's certainly nothing in the book that makes rubies somehow unavailable. By rules as written, without GM intervention, making a simulacrum is trivial. Teleport to a major city, purchase gems, repeat until you have enough. Cast the spell, and you have your minion.
Similarly, "the king is going to be far more likely to trust the fighter acting as a general than the smooth talking bard that looks and sounds far too much like the constant schemers in his court." Really? So, not only are you completely nerfing the various charm spells, but also the various social skills? The king is going to distrust the bard because he has a high Diplomacy skill? I'd love to see the rule "already in the book" to support the idea that a high Diplomacy skill reduces someone's reaction.
The issue is that "the rules for magic already in the book" already give casters narrative control. Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do. There's nothing a fighter can do that equates to the level of control of a dominate person or magic jar.
So, the lord of the rings is a bad story right? Also game of thrones? That's a crummy story right? Because martial characters cant break those stories. Magic characters can. If the orcs, lanisters etc are the same level as the party, story remains the same in the face of any level of martial character. If elrond was a 20th level wizard, lotr takes about 30 seconds.
You are correct, for a tabletop adventure, those are actually not very good stories. For a book, they are great, but for something like D&D, they don't work after a while. You have to find stories that fit the genre and level you are working within. I won't say that I like everything about the D&D magic and combat systems (I don't and have largely turned away from the entire D&D family tree for new systems as a result), but they are what they are, and trying to change the system to fit the story rarely ends up well unless you basically start from scratch and rewrite the whole system. I don't know a lot of people willing to do that. If people really truly have that much problem with how the system disperses narrative power, they need to find a system that fits their needs better. D&D (and all of it's spinoffs) will always favor magic, for better or for worse, and trying to remove that is pointless. One can limit the effect, but that's about all you're going to do.
Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do.
And it works right up to the point that someone actually challenged him on it, and even then only to a certain degree. After all, it took the help of the scheming advisor to sustain, and it didn't really stop Gandalf from carrying out his own plans. Magic in LotR is not as all encompassing and powerful as a lot of people make it out to be. Most of it was created and sustained with a great deal of effort and was nothing like the cast and forget spells in D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are making whole planets now?No class has an inherent advantage in shaping the world as a wholeAre we playing the same game? In Pathfinder, a caster can make his own world, once he gets tired of shaping the existing one.They're making planes. How many planets would you like in your plane?
Well, let's see: how about we aim for Mercury, the smallest planet in the solar system (sorry Pluto)? Let's assume you're CL 21 for the purpose of this scenario, so each casting of this spell created 21 * 20 * 1000 = 420,000 (4.2 x 10^5) cubic feet per casting. There are 3.52876 x 10^10 cubic feet per cubic kilometer. That means you need 84,018 castings of Create Greater Demiplane to fill one cubic kilometer. Assuming you somehow swing ten 9th level castings a day, it'll take you a little over 23 Earth years and 1.89 billion gold pieces to create one cubic kilometer of a demiplane and make it permanent.
Mercury has an estimated volume of about 60 billion cubic kilometers. I'll let you do the math on what that means.
Honestly, and I don't say this lightly, the supreme arrogance of any player who purports to be able to create whole worlds in this way is a vast and astounding thing.
The problem with the longer term spells is that problems and the world evolve and change.
I never said ignore class mechanics; I said don't use them for controlling story narrative. It's not that hard to do. Magic is really, really good at solving immediate, concrete goals, but that's about it.Except that magic is also awesome at solving long-term abstract goals, if you simply read the spells. Simulacrum is a very good example -- as a matter of fact, given the casting time, it's not actually very good at immediate goals. But as a long-term buff, it gives you a mini-me that can do more or less whatever you like (and at a fairly nominal cost) permanently.
You can crank out an army of golems one at a time until you have enough to sack the bad guy's castle and leave no two stones touching. You can even do this before you know whose castle you wish to sack.
You can create a private sanctum to which you can instantly retreat any time you feel the need.
That's not a problem, that's an advantage of the longer-term spells. The mini-me, for example, gives you a minion forever that can do whatever you need him to do at any given instant, and can be doing something generally long-term useful like creating magic items or conjuring other resources when there's nothing pressing.
When the golems aren't waging war,.... well, I have some pretty statuary.
The private sanctum is there whether you need it or not, but if you don't need it, it's not a liability.
Everything the PC does is happening at the same time that hundreds and thousands of other NPCs are also acting, and the net result is not usually what anybody expects. Creating a private sanctum or plane may help in some ways, but it doesn't stop the world from turning, and it doesn't stop NPCs from acting
No, but it does mean that I'm better equipped to deal with the world, no matter which way it turns.
It's like having money in the bank. There are some problems that money won't solve, and there are certainly times when you don't need the money (or it wouldn't be in the bank). But it's very hard for me to think of a situation where I would be worse off if I had a secret stash of a million dollars that no one but me knew about.
What usually results from a character, whether it be a PC or an NPC, trying to shape the world is that the immediate changes may or may not happen as expected and that character will probably lose control over the effects if they try to take on long term and/or abstract goals.
Not an issue. That will also happen if they don't try to shape the world -- the difference is that if they don't even try, the results are generally going to be worse for them. Sure, the caster might only get 80% of what he wants,.... but don't tell me that the martial can always get 100% of what he wants by not casting spells.
Therefore, that character can create a certain amount of chaos, and can reshape the narrative in unexpected ways,
But they're not unexpected. Not to the caster, anyway. If I use teleport to go somewhere,.... I will most likely end up at that somewhere. Furthermore, I know exactly the risk that I will be off-target and can take precautions as I see fit, either to mitigate the risk or reduce the consequences.
The problem is that this puts control of the narrative in the hands of the caster player (to whom the change in the narrative is not unexpected), not the GM. And, getting back to the main point, not in the hands of the martial player, either, because fighters can't teleport.
Ok, I am going to break this down a bit...because seriously dude, do you even read what you are saying
The fighter decides to challenge every armored stranger he encounters; the rogue wants to get into bed with every female NPC. Plenty of power there over the narrative; it may not be codified as thoroughly, but it can just as easily be abused and manipulated.
This is the friggan point. I want the abilities codified. IE I want the rules to be in the rules.
And no, the fighter being a douch or the rogue being a creep isnt narrative power. Thats basically just roleplaying. Narrative power requires actual challenges the dm has placed in the players path. If an armored fellow who is meant to be a challenge is fought by the fighter, the story is unaltered. If a woman needs to be bedded to gain access to someplace and the rogue beds her, the story is proceeding normally. The wizard teleports past the guy who the fighter is fighting, and uses dominate person to get the woman to help them out. He has CHANGED the nature of the challenge. Thats the point.
The caster ultimately has no easier or harder time to pull that sort of thing off; it's written out, but they still have to read the book to do it.
By read the book, do you mean the rulebook? yes, the wizard needs to read the spells to do the things...that doesnt affect how hard it is, it affects the whether or not the person playing the game, knows how the game works. The spells in the rulebook are not a secret.
The caster has as much power in that arena as the DM and the rest of the party give him; no more, and no less.
Please for a moment, step out of your own preferences. Please instead attempt to imagine challenges and situations. Ones that are presented to the party without the dm directly attempting to counter one specific player, but instead played out in an organic way. Like say if someone was running an adventure path. The dm specifically obstructing the use of in game abilities to prevent problems doesnt solve those problems. It just hides them. Its also a crappy way to spend time with your friends. Again, stop punching the guy for playing xbox. Seriously, stop. I think he has a concussion.
In 3rd edition, and to a certain degree in PF, way too many people just assume that the caster read the spell, is following it precisely, and has the best intentions of the party at the heart of his actions. That assumption and free pass being given to casters is the real problem, not with how the magic system is actually designed and written.
You just said that using the spell as it is written is the real problem and not how the spell is written... The players intentions are irrelevant here. We are talking about what the rules of the game do. We are not talking about free passes. I am talking about the thing inside that big book called pathfinder rpg. No more no less. If you use those spells as they are written and dont directly obstruct them, they can do some really amazing things, even at relatively low levels. At high levels they do world altering things. What the caster intends to do is not the issue. Its what he can do, based on the words on the pieces of paper between the covers of the rulebooks.
Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do.And it works right up to the point that someone actually challenged him on it,
If by "someone" you mean another, more powerful caster, yes. Tell me again about how Eowyn managed to "challenge" Saruman's spell?
Magic in LotR is not as all encompassing and powerful as a lot of people make it out to be.
And yet even with weakened magic, only another caster could affect Saruman's control.
a lot of stuff
All of that is true, but how much of it is really necessary? What makes you so certain that a fighter can't achieve the same results with a lot less effort and/or resources? All of those options make the wizard fun to play for a lot of people, but it doesn't really increase his ability to interact with the world. And there are lots of ways for a DM to take those abilities and turn them around very quickly without resorting to being "I want to screw the caster" arbitrary. From my point of view, I take everything players put out there and use it. If you want to put that much stuff out there, it will be used, and it will not always be in ways you expect or want. Ultimately, they don't have any more control or even power than the fighter that only give me two hooks instead of 20; they may put out more hooks, but it's still entirely up to me which ones are interesting and which ones aren't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a magic-heavy world. All these examples of wizards doing whatever they please with no chance of failure ... that's not "DM fiat", that's DM laziness. In a world infested with magic, do you really think you'll be able to Teleport right to the BBEG's lair?? That wouldn't be a very Big, or very Bad evil guy, if you ask me. Sounds like you have players that are magically active, and bad guys that are magically inert -- just sitting around waiting to get killed in a dungeon somewhere. Why is it you allow PCs to scrye on BBEGs, but don't assume the reverse is happening with similar frequency? That the BBEGs aren't using just as much magic to find and kill PCs that use magic to find and kill them? If magic is so powerful, how come it can't be used by bad guys to prevent assassination with the same rate of success? Makes no sense!
Sure, if you play all your monsters as if they have no clue that powerful wizards exist, of course wizards will have an easy time of it. This isn't "tailoring" adventurers to casters, it's just providing verisimilitude in a magic-heavy world. In such an actual world, magic is defended against actively and ferociously ... of course.
It would be like constructing bank vaults out of wood, and then complaining that burglars are too powerful because they have dynamite and sledgehammers.
Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do.And it works right up to the point that someone actually challenged him on it,If by "someone" you mean another, more powerful caster, yes. Tell me again about how Eowyn managed to "challenge" Saruman's spell?
Magic in LotR is not as all encompassing and powerful as a lot of people make it out to be.And yet even with weakened magic, only another caster could affect Saruman's control.
The underlying control was only challenged by a fellow wizard, but actual impact of the control was fairly limited. The tainted advisor was still just one of many, and the day to day affairs of the kingdom didn't really show much impact at all. The second that larger affairs came up, another caster noticed and acted. In the end, it was a ploy, but by itself, it wouldn't have come to much. It took other actions supporting that one to make it mean anything. The same is true for any D&D spell. No spell by itself will grant narrative control or power unless the DM wants to happen.
So, the lord of the rings is a bad story right? Also game of thrones? That's a crummy story right? Because martial characters cant break those stories. Magic characters can. If the orcs, lanisters etc are the same level as the party, story remains the same in the face of any level of martial character. If elrond was a 20th level wizard, lotr takes about 30 seconds.You are correct, for a tabletop adventure, those are actually not very good stories. For a book, they are great, but for something like D&D, they don't work after a while. You have to find stories that fit the genre and level you are working within.
Stop ignoring points please. Seriously its rude. These stories are just fine for dnd so long as theres no casters. Thats the problem. Game of thrones and lord of the rings are un altered by martial characters of any level so long as you scale enemies to match. Casters make the same story impossible. I am fine with making those stories low level only. But it shouldnt just be the casters that cause that. Everyone should be in on the narrative alteration.
I won't say that I like everything about the D&D magic and combat systems (I don't and have largely turned away from the entire D&D family tree for new systems as a result), but they are what they are, and trying to change the system to fit the story rarely ends up well unless you basically start from scratch and rewrite the whole system. I don't know a lot of people willing to do that. If people really truly have that much problem with how the system disperses narrative power, they need to find a system that fits their needs better. D&D (and all of it's spinoffs) will always favor magic, for better or for worse, and trying to remove that is pointless. One can limit the effect, but that's about all you're going to do.
Nothing is what it is. I just described to you a way to keep pathfinder effectively the same, and fix narrative power problems. There is no reason pathfinder must always be a certain way. You dont have to do anything from scratch. You just have to add. Add the theives guild or armies to mundane character as I described. There you go, problem solved. Dnd is still dnd. In fact, its closer to what it used to be (where this was in fact a normal part of the game). The GAME is still dnd. Obviously a lot of work has to go into designing the army or theives guild set of abilities. But its not pointless. its totally doable.
And you didnt even have to punch your buddy playing xbox in the face. You just had to add to the other guy's experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with magic in PF is that spells are designed to be superior to the whatever other options. It is the way it was designed and the way is still done with every new book.
Like Glibness and pageant of the peacock, the bard is the magic class and obviously the bard have to be just better than rogues in rogue supposed niche, because otherwise it woudl nto be magical enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a magic-heavy world. All these examples of wizards doing whatever they please with no chance of failure ... that's not "DM fiat", that's DM laziness. In a world infested with magic, do you really think you'll be able to Teleport right to the BBEG's lair?? That wouldn't be a very Big, or very Bad evil guy, if you ask me. Sounds like you have players that are magically active, and bad guys that are magically inert -- just sitting around waiting to get killed in a dungeon somewhere. Why is it you allow PCs to scrye on BBEGs, but don't assume the reverse is happening with similar frequency? That the BBEGs aren't using just as much magic to find and kill PCs that use magic to find and kill them? If magic is so powerful, how come it can't be used by bad guys to prevent assassination with the same rate of success? Makes no sense!
Sure, if you play all your monsters as if they have no clue that powerful wizards exist, of course wizards will have an easy time of it. This isn't "tailoring" adventurers to casters, it's just providing verisimilitude in a magic-heavy world. In such an actual world, magic is defended against actively and ferociously ... of course.
It would be like constructing bank vaults out of wood, and then complaining that burglars are too powerful because they have dynamite and sledgehammers.
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.
Everyone concedes that a gm can set things up to make the magic ineffective. But that doesnt balance classes. Thats like saying the raging barbarian doesnt do a lot of damage, I just have to make the enemy's ac so high he can only hit on a 20.
The rules should however not require any of that stuff. Because it shouldn't be on the gm to make the game work. If I create a story, all my players should be able to participate on a roughly equal basis. That isnt the case in the current game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with magic in PF is that spells are designed to be superior to the whatever other options. It is the way it was designed and the way is still done with every new book.
Like Glibness and pageant of the peacock, the bard is the magic class and obviously the bard have to be just better than rogues in rogue supposed niche, because otherwise it woudl nto be magical enough.
Eh, more like magic was designed to be balanced in the game but by different standards. It has its own unique set of restrictions and laws meant to curtail ridiculous power inflation. Unfortunately, those did not turn out to be as limiting and ironclad as intended, a weak standard that has only dissolved further under the progression of ever more versatile and powerful spells, feats, magical items, traits, etc.
a lot of stuffAll of that is true, but how much of it is really necessary?
"Necessary"? I'm not sure why you think that question is relevant.
What makes you so certain that a fighter can't achieve the same results with a lot less effort and/or resources?
Because any option available to a fighter is typically also available to a caster, with the exception of a few specialized feats that really only have to do with face-to-face combat. If something needs to have its head smashed in, summoned monsters will do that nicely. If something needs skills, summoned monsters will do that nicely. If something needs lances of fire reigning down from the heavens, the fighter can't do that at all.
All of those options make the wizard fun to play for a lot of people, but it doesn't really increase his ability to interact with the world.
Stuff and nonsense. They're all about being able to interact with the world. An army of golems at your beck and call gives you tremendous military influence. Having a minion able to craft items for you gives you a huge collection of tools to use whenever appropriate.
And there are lots of ways for a DM to take those abilities and turn them around very quickly without resorting to being "I want to screw the caster" arbitrary.
Perhaps, but I've not seen many proposed.
Teleporting into the BBEG's sanctum, for example, is actually an extremely logical and effective technique, to the point where it's got a cliche'd name -- "scry and die." Saying "oh, but you need the experience points to be able to face the BBEG" simply suggests that the team is the wrong group of adventurers -- if the king's best option for handling the BBEG is to send an inadequate force, he's a damn poor king and a worse general.
So, yes, that's an arbitrary "I want to screw the caster" limitation. Teleport exists and should work as written.
Similarly, if, recognizing that the force is inadequate, the caster is prevented from creating additional force to make sure that the more effective technique works? "I want to screw the caster" arbitrary. Simulacrum is a thing.
The LG hound archon refusing to help succor a besieged city or deliberately dragging out the rescue mission? That's almost the antithesis of how archons behave, and I can only consider that to be an arbitrary attempt to screw the caster.
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.
Not if you need to journey to even find the location of the lair. Which is what happens when bad guys use magic in pathfinder to prevent scrying. Your argument still assumes that the PCs have better access to magic than the BBEGs.
Everyone concedes that a gm can set things up to make the magic ineffective. But that doesnt balance classes.
You're missing the point. This isn't about making magic ineffective, it's about magic being just as effective for everyone. PC wizards have to contend with NPC wizards, and if the fight is even, that leaves the battle outcome up to the martials.
Thats like saying the raging barbarian doesnt do a lot of damage, I just have to make the enemy's ac so high he can only hit on a 20.
Um, no, it's like saying that if your PCs are running around with +20 bonuses to hit, then so should NPCs be enjoying +20 bonuses to AC, for all the same reasons. In your world it seems that only PCs get magic, and NPCs are stuck with martials ... or that you need "class balance" because your game involves PCs fighting each other? That's not the Pathfinder I know.
Eh, more like magic was designed to be balanced in the game but by different standards. It has its own unique set of restrictions and laws meant to curtail ridiculous power inflation. Unfortunately, those did not turn out to be as limiting and ironclad as intended, a weak standard that has only dissolved further under the progression of ever more versatile and powerful spells, feats, magical items, traits, etc.The problem with magic in PF is that spells are designed to be superior to the whatever other options. It is the way it was designed and the way is still done with every new book.
Like Glibness and pageant of the peacock, the bard is the magic class and obviously the bard have to be just better than rogues in rogue supposed niche, because otherwise it woudl nto be magical enough.
I can not believe it. Magic and magic classes are suppsoed to have the better tricks. Cha to will for swashbuclers woudl have been umbalanced but oracles with cha to all saves for the price of a feat is publishable. The way I see it this is the design paradigm of PF, the otehr option is that the Devs simply do not care much.
The underlying control was only challenged by a fellow wizard, but actual impact of the control was fairly limited. The tainted advisor was still just one of many, and the day to day affairs of the kingdom didn't really show much impact at all.Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do.And it works right up to the point that someone actually challenged him on it,If by "someone" you mean another, more powerful caster, yes. Tell me again about how Eowyn managed to "challenge" Saruman's spell?
Magic in LotR is not as all encompassing and powerful as a lot of people make it out to be.And yet even with weakened magic, only another caster could affect Saruman's control.
Orcs running rampant over the borders, the king's most skilled general banished, and that's "not much impact"?
The impact of the control was exactly what Saruman wanted -- Rohan was more or less eliminated as a military power for as long as the control lasted.
The second that larger affairs came up, another caster noticed and acted.
Yes. Another caster. Out of the entire population of Middle-earth, there were exactly four people capable of acting effectively against Saruman.
In the end, it was a ploy, but by itself, it wouldn't have come to much.
Actually, by itself, it would have taken Rohan down. Had Gandalf not intervened, the Rohirrim would have been slaughtered at Edoras instead of survived at Helm's Deep, and would not have been available at the Pelennor Fields. Minas Tirith would have fallen, et cetera, et cetera.
The same is true for any D&D spell. No spell by itself will grant narrative control or power unless the DM wants to happen.
Except that's simply not true. If I use greater teleport to go somewhere, I and the people I designate go there, no matter whether the DM wants me to or not. Unless he decides to be "screw the caster" arbitrary about it.
You are aware that martials are much more gear dependent and GM dependent than casters right? And if your GM feels like being a knuckle-head and giving you trouble with finding spells you can just as easily play a Human Sorcerer... between The "shadow X" spells, the Human FCB, and Eldritch Heritage (arcane) you can very easily run around with nearly every spell you will ever need...Right up until the DM throws you into a situation where highly specialized spells are required, and you don't have them. The sorcerer has it's own limitations that a good DM can use without stretching anything or being arbitrary. In the end, I have yet to see a case where magic can flat out break a world or campaign unless the DM is willing to play along. Individual encounters or stories, yes, but any story that could be broken by magic probably wasn't a very good story to play at that level to begin with for a host of other reasons.
Like what?
How about making an arbitrary statement you give an example? And don't say somethign stupid like "This door will only open if you cast a magic missile at it... nothing else"
I didnt say narrative control I said narrative power.The fighter decides to challenge every armored stranger he encounters; the rogue wants to get into bed with every female NPC. Plenty of power there over the narrative; it may not be codified as thoroughly, but it can just as easily be abused and manipulated. The caster ultimately has no easier or harder time to pull that sort of thing off; it's written out, but they still have to read the book to do it. The caster has as much power in that arena as the DM and the rest of the party give him; no more, and no less. In 3rd edition, and to a certain degree in PF, way too many people just assume that the caster read the spell, is following it precisely, and has the best intentions of the party at the heart of his actions. That assumption and free pass being given to casters is the real problem, not with how the magic system is actually designed and written.
You must not know RAW do you...
a lot of stuffAll of that is true, but how much of it is really necessary? What makes you so certain that a fighter can't achieve the same results with a lot less effort and/or resources? All of those options make the wizard fun to play for a lot of people, but it doesn't really increase his ability to interact with the world. And there are lots of ways for a DM to take those abilities and turn them around very quickly without resorting to being "I want to screw the caster" arbitrary. From my point of view, I take everything players put out there and use it. If you want to put that much stuff out there, it will be used, and it will not always be in ways you expect or want. Ultimately, they don't have any more control or even power than the fighter that only give me two hooks instead of 20; they may put out more hooks, but it's still entirely up to me which ones are interesting and which ones aren't.
How about you quit being vague and/or lazy and give A FREAKING EXAMPLE. You keepo saying thing "well you could be in a scenerio where they COUld maybe do something" but you never give any real examples... I wonder why that is?
Okay, I take it back, that's both cheap AND incredibly effective. I'll have to remember that about hound archons.
Fair enough.
But that's what I mean about bypassing adventures, though. Rescue-the-besieged-city is a classic dramatic situation; I've run it myself, several times. Either the party needs to find a way to get badly needed supplies into the city, or perhaps they need to get a message out of the city to the relief column, or they simply need to find a way to lift the siege by neutralizing the enemy commander or by finding the McGuffin, or whatever.
Teleport makes it a very short and very dull story. You can only run this kind of a story if your magicians can't teleport, can't summon anything that can, can't bypass the army in other ways, and so forth.
Similarly, murder mysteries only work if speak with dead doesn't. Find-the-thingy stories only work if locate object doesn't.
To every classic plotline, there is an equal and opposite spell.
The underlying control was only challenged by a fellow wizard, but actual impact of the control was fairly limited. The tainted advisor was still just one of many, and the day to day affairs of the kingdom didn't really show much impact at all. The second that larger affairs came up, another caster noticed and acted. In the end, it was a ploy, but by itself, it wouldn't have come to much. It took other actions supporting that one to make it mean anything. The same is true for any D&D spell. No spell by itself will grant narrative control or power unless the DM wants to happen.Saruman the wizard doesn't like the king's behavior, so Saruman takes control of him with a spell -- that's what the various spells do.And it works right up to the point that someone actually challenged him on it,If by "someone" you mean another, more powerful caster, yes. Tell me again about how Eowyn managed to "challenge" Saruman's spell?
Magic in LotR is not as all encompassing and powerful as a lot of people make it out to be.And yet even with weakened magic, only another caster could affect Saruman's control.
because Deus Ex Machina the plot dictates that he didnt...
If Saruman REALLY wanted to screw the humans and ensure they would not be an issue it would not have been that hard for him to... This is a case where the enemy does not use their full power because then the plot would completely fall apart...
For instance, just because you decide to have the dragon land and fight in melee with a barbarian does not mean the dragon was not a challange... it means you suck as a GM and do not know how to use combat tactics...
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.Not if you need to journey to even find the location of the lair. Which is what happens when bad guys use magic in pathfinder to prevent scrying. Your argument still assumes that the PCs have better access to magic than the BBEGs.
Everyone concedes that a gm can set things up to make the magic ineffective. But that doesnt balance classes.You're missing the point. This isn't about making magic ineffective, it's about magic being just as effective for everyone. PC wizards have to contend with NPC wizards, and if the fight is even, that leaves the battle outcome up to the martials.
Thats like saying the raging barbarian doesnt do a lot of damage, I just have to make the enemy's ac so high he can only hit on a 20.Um, no, it's like saying that if your PCs are running around with +20 bonuses to hit, then so should NPCs be enjoying +20 bonuses to AC, for all the same reasons. In your world it seems that only PCs get magic, and NPCs are stuck with martials ... or that you need "class balance" because your game involves PCs fighting each other? That's not the Pathfinder I know.
1) So yoru argument still falls to the problem of "to defeat the caster you need a stronger caster" i.e. CASTERS ARE STILL THE ONES CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE
2) That is incorrect... if the enemy is a "PC party negative" then the martials are STILL not deciding anything. They are pretty much playing tick tack toe while the CASTERS are duking it out. The caster that wins is the party that wins..
3) You know what the funny thing about magic is though? It is not basic math. 1 PC caster + 1 (- NPC Caster) =/= 0. A PC caster can disbale an NPC before even entering combat... Funny thing about magic, it allows you to engage an opponent before he even knows he is being engaged.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.
And this is just an example of bad game design/creating things in a vacuum. A good game would have several magic traps and snares built into the system whereas teleporting anywhere near the BBEG's lair brings down a swarm of Dark Hunters while warning his Black Guard to head out to the marked (with targets who teleported perma tracked) location.
No one would expect people trying to kill the BBEG to actually walk through the Forest of Despair - that would be suicide. So the BBEG doesn't need watchers placed there since the natural inhabitants are bad enough. He just keeps his guards near the border of the woods.
Problem is, all the stuff in paragraph one doesn't exist. So you can in fact teleport around the Forest of Ignore/Win button. The defenses in paragraph one do not need to be derived from a spell. It could be sourced by a class neutral ritual, a curse, an item that can be used by anyone powerful (one that cannot be reproduced but needs to be found) - but whatever it is, the source it should exist in game.
-
Part of the problem is terrible in-game consistency of power and managing everything in spell equivalents (lazy), some of this design philosophy was derived from the early days when everything was created for the PCs to beat dungeons and in fact was written in a vacuum. Worked back then when the game worlds were small, now there are no excuses and it's just bad game design
There are several other parts to the problem, mostly stemming from 3.X easy mode for casters, but internal consistency is a big issue that should have been fixed going back to 1st ed. Maybe fixes placed in that era would have been expanded and enhanced circa 2000.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is not that magic cannot be countered. The point is that when it works it can do things mundane methods cant. Can you always teleport to the big bads lair? No. But you can teleport across the forest of despair to NEAR the bad guys lair, skilling 6 months of walking.And this is just an example of bad game design/creating things in a vacuum. A good game would have several magic traps and snares built into the system whereas teleporting anywhere near the BBEG's lair brings down a swarm of Dark Hunters while warning his Black Guard to head out to the marked (with targets who teleported perma tracked) location.
Well, teleporting "anywhere near" the lair will require a lot more than "several" traps. How much area do you think each trap covers?
But more to the point, if you need to adjust your narrative this much to cover the possibility that someone is going to use a mid-level spell that's found in the core rulebook, then either the spell is way too strong or the narrative is way too weak.
And that's what I mean about "controlling the narrative." By having to re-write this much of the adventure design to counter this one spell, you're implicitly accepting that the caster has control over the narrative (because otherwise he could just skip to the Big Fight) and resorting to GM fiat and arbitrary "screw the caster" restrictions to prevent him from doing so.
And, furthermore, you're not even doing it that effectively, because a good caster has lots of travel spells that don't involve the word "teleport," and unless you're going to come up with a counter to shadow walk as well, you might as well not bother.
Part of the problem is terrible in-game consistency of power
.... which is what the rest of us have been talking about when we say "caster/martial disparity" and "controlling the narrative."
There are several other parts to the problem, mostly stemming from 3.X easy mode for casters, but internal consistency is a big issue that should have been fixed going back to 1st ed. Maybe fixes placed in that era would have been expanded and enhanced circa 2000.
Actually, as has been pointed out in other threads, there was a standard fix in 1st Ed, which is that martials were given narrative power of a different sort. Casters had high-level spells, martials had minons. So while the arch-mage would simply teleport everyone into the BBEG's castle, the master thief would instead just wave his hand and say 'make it so," and his scouts would provide him with a detailed map of the way past the traps. Or the High Justicar would dispatch his legions and lay siege to the BBEG's tower, and he'd only step in at at the gates of the tower.
Either way, the effect is the same -- at high levels in 1st Edition, you weren't supposed to be having travel adventures, because you could take care of them offscreen. The actual adventure started at the point where you no longer had control of the narrative. Martials have since been actively stripped of their narrative-control abilities, which means that it's still a challenge for them to get to the gates of the enemy keep -- but that's not a problem of overpowered casters. It's instead a problem of underpowered martials in conjunction with controlling GMs.
After reading this entire thread (there's some time in my life I'd like back), it seems to me that you people won't be happy unless either :
a: magic was removed from the game
or
b: you were playing Exalted where everyone uses magic.Seriously, this was 200+ pages of b@#@+ing about magic with little to no actual attempt at finding a solution.
Actually, it's 200+ posts of arguing about whether the b^&%ing was justified, given that there are a number of people who don't seem to believe that magic as described is more narratively powerful than mundane solutions to problems.
We can't find a solution until we know what the problem is.
For myself, it's simple:
* The problem is that magic gives PCs power to bypass some types of narrative, an increasingly large number of types as you go up in level. However, this power is restricted to casters, and generally to "tier 1" casters at that.
* A lot of GMs resent this power and attempt to run level-inappropriate adventures and then resort to arbitrary restrictions to prevent casters from exercising this control. I consider this to be a bad GM style.
* The short-term solution is to determine what sort of adventure cease being level-appropriate when they can be bypassed easily. The long-term solution is to find a way to give martials narrative control at high enough levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, you don't have to punch the other guy. Imma stay on the NES all night!And if you are happy with your nes, go for it. The problem is the guy who doesnt want to just play the nes while someone else is playing titan fall or some such thing.
Man, that guy is a sucker. More NES time for me! :D
Titan fall is way more complicated then duck hunt.
HOLY MACKEREL, YOU'VE GOT DUCK HUNT! Please tell me you have the light gun! Oh, man, oh man~! This'll be so~o good!
|
|
Well, teleporting "anywhere near" the lair will require a lot more than "several" traps. How much area do you think each trap covers?
Problem is you are limiting yourself to the finite/minutia - the secured area should be "his realm", not every 30 x 30 patch.
But more to the point, if you need to adjust your narrative this much to cover the possibility that someone is going to use a mid-level spell that's found in the core rulebook, then either the spell is way too strong or the narrative is way too weak.
The simpleton response would be to attack DM competency or frame the whole thing as narrative.
Having or wanting internal consistency =/= controlling the narrative. False comparison.Teleport exists in various forms so it is logical that counters should exist for teleport in various forms. Cheap and easy counters. As it stands counter are limited and mostly an afterthought in their current incarnation.
By having to re-write this much of the adventure design to counter this one spell, you're implicitly accepting that the caster has control over the narrative (because otherwise he could just skip to the Big Fight) and resorting to GM fiat and arbitrary "screw the caster" restrictions to prevent him from doing so.
Of course it's screw the caster/spells when those things were designed horribly and skew the system.
The point of this thread is to seek a fix. 3rd ed created the problem by gladhanding casters and spells - only a very entitled "caster/supers" focused player would see it otherwise. And only an entitled "casters/supers" focused player would fight giving up any power or making any corrective changes (which is par for the course in these forums).
No one mentioned GM fiat but you.
Asking for counters, consistency and fixes for a system is not fiat. But from your presentation of your argument anything but a steamroll = GM fiat.
Introducing counters into the game - actual game design considerations by the producer of the game would not be GM fiat, they would be what's called "the rules". Currently "the rules" show preference and support one side and one style of play, yet whenever anyone presents fixing the problem - the people touting things like "controlling the narrative" are the first to jump up and down and throw a tantrum.
And, furthermore, you're not even doing it that effectively, because a good caster has lots of travel spells that don't involve the word "teleport," and unless you're going to come up with a counter to shadow walk as well, you might as well not bother.
"Warded from travel/planar magic" covers it in five words.
Actually, as has been pointed out in other threads, there was a standard fix in 1st Ed, which is that martials were given narrative power of a different sort. Casters had high-level spells, martials had minons. So while the arch-mage would simply teleport everyone into the BBEG's castle, the master thief would instead just wave his hand and say 'make it so," and his scouts would provide him with a detailed map of the way past the traps. Or the High Justicar would dispatch his legions and lay siege to the BBEG's tower, and he'd only step in at at the gates of the tower.
Did you read this somewhere or did someone tell you this?
LOL
* The problem is that magic gives PCs power to bypass some types of narrative, an increasingly large number of types as you go up in level. However, this power is restricted to casters, and generally to "tier 1" casters at that.
This is true!
* A lot of GMs resent this power and attempt to run level-inappropriate adventures and then resort to arbitrary restrictions to prevent casters from exercising this control. I consider this to be a bad GM style.
Huh. Crap. I suck as a GM. :(
* The short-term solution is to determine what sort of adventure cease being level-appropriate when they can be bypassed easily. The long-term solution is to find a way to give martials narrative control at high enough levels.
Man, I love handing out the Leadership feat for free.
Multiple times! :D
(Also preternatural ability to martials at high levels, but then again, I kind of suck as a GM. which is awesome!)
* The problem is that magic gives PCs power to bypass some types of narrative ...
The concept of "bypassing narrative" is another one that makes no sense at all to me. The PCs are the protagonists of the story. If they don't do it, it wasn't the "narrative" in the first place.
If a GM prepares and expects wilderness encounters between the known location of a BBEG and known party of PC teleporters, then the GM is trying to tell a story other than one the players are helping to create.
Well, If the DM have everything prepared (maps, stats, etc...) and the players teleport right in the worst place then the DM is not punishing anyone, and hte PC did not anything particularly smart.
Agreed, and it's not even "punishing" the PCs to assume that a super-intelligent adversary (read "smarter than the players sitting at the table") has already guessed your oh-so-smart plan, and has set up a trap specifically for it. This is a perfectly legitimate way to emulate super-intellect.
Of course, that all assumes again, still, that only the PCs have access to all this uber-powerful scrying and teleporting, and thus the bad guy wasn't actually informed of their plan ... for some reason.
