The Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard party laughs at the hubris of your "traditional" party.
if you are ambushed on a shakey rope bridge with enemies on either side of you shooting arrows. The fighter can pull out a bow and shoot back, the rogue and make acrobatics rolls to make his way to one end and stab someone. The Wizard casts fly and calmly floats above the battle attacking with offensive magic
Unless he has first cast an 'immunity to arrows' spell, that really isn't going to end well for him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point. People who complain that casters only suck by GM fiat need to understand that casters only exist by GM fiat. You have no place for a wizard unless you have a GM to run a world that has wizards in it. At that point you should realize that the story is more important than your shenanigans. There is a reason you don't see a lot of the nonsense that people bring up here during actual play. Only a real dick goes out of his way to break the story.Ask yourself these questions: if 20th level full casters are capable of dealing with any situation, why are there still problems in the world (the world being whatever game universe you're using)? Why is there not just a dozen 20th level casters stopping every problem before it even becomes a problem? Why do adventurers even need to exist in your world?
When you answer those questions to your own satisfaction, you will see why high level casters don't just automatically win everything.
For the same reason that the entire planet isn't populated by nothing but Shadows and Wraiths, who hit small towns and created armies of themselves to descend on other villages and towns until there were just too many for even higher level threats to deal with.
Because there wouldn't be a plot otherwise.
While this is true, that is sort of besides the point. The point is what are the effects of the rules we are presented with by the game. Obviously any and every problem can be handled by a skilled gm/cooperative players. That doesnt do anything for the rules as they are written in the books we all buy.
If there was a feat that gave fighters +300 damage to attacks with axes, the fact that a player would choose to not take the feat, or the dm would choose not to allow the feat doesnt mean the feat itself doesnt present a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you are ambushed on a shakey rope bridge with enemies on either side of you shooting arrows. The fighter can pull out a bow and shoot back, the rogue and make acrobatics rolls to make his way to one end and stab someone. The Wizard casts fly and calmly floats above the battle attacking with offensive magicUnless he has first cast an 'immunity to arrows' spell, that really isn't going to end well for him.
You mean invisibility, greater invisibility, wind wall, mirror image, or any of the dozens of other spells a wizard can use to avoid being hurt during the course of any fight in any encounter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point. People who complain that casters only suck by GM fiat need to understand that casters only exist by GM fiat. You have no place for a wizard unless you have a GM to run a world that has wizards in it. At that point you should realize that the story is more important than your shenanigans. There is a reason you don't see a lot of the nonsense that people bring up here during actual play. Only a real dick goes out of his way to break the story.For the same reason that the entire planet isn't populated by nothing but Shadows and Wraiths, who hit small towns and created armies of themselves to descend on other villages and towns until there were just too many for even higher level threats to deal with.
Because there wouldn't be a plot otherwise.
By that logic, ALL THINGS EXISTING is GM fiat. It's a completely worthless metric. Even if you only boil it down to 'no prepared arcane magic users', that's witches, maguses, alchemists, and now arcanists you're completely eliminating. Sure, you could swap everyone to spontaneous variants, but where's the fun in that? Your hyper-vigilance against the shenanigans of one class is taking away diversity, flavor, and potential fun in the entire world. Which, y'know, makes the world and anything taking place in it less interesting.
Yes, the story is important. That's WHY casters going all out actually makes sense. Do you think your genius wizard is going to say to himself, "Gee, I could bypass those 8 levels of defense setup by the enemy with a day or so of prep time and a half-dozen spells, but I'd better be sporting and give Lord Uber-Death a chance to kill us all and then enslave/harvest/annihilate the world"? No, just like the other heroes (or anti-heroes or whatever) in the party, said mage will look at the problem and want to get it done in the most efficient way possible. It's metagaming and it's just as undesirable as the form of it which players try to use to empower their PCs.
If the existence of copious house-rules, consistent GM fiat against valid spell combinations, and a "gentlemen's agreement" to not pursue an arms race is the only thing preventing your campaign from disintegrating into hyper-magic shenanigans, there's something wrong with the inherent power-level of that portion of the overall system. It doesn't make the system unplayable or not fun, but it's a flaw that should be looked at and remedied.
Alright, time to take the bait. These are in the order of wizard, cleric, druid. So let's start with the highest level game. At level 13/14 (7th level spells) the spellcasters have access to the following:
I am immune to ambush, interruption, and everything else, no matter where I am.
Your non-good army is now blind/paralyzed/dead, worse with caster level boosts. This works with the other 3 alignments as desired.
I'm too lazy to do the work so I'll just Tornado/Hailstorm/Blizzard/Hurricane a 2 or 3 mile radius and leave.
I'm going to call this one a straight victory as every one of our spellcasters gets that last one, and there's nothing here any martial but a barbarian can do (and not in Core).
1. Nice for resting but doesn't make you immune to any of those things while actually adventuring.
2. Only if they don't have more HD that you have caster levels, and most encounters are higher CR.
3. Tornadoes are pretty good. Where does it say you get to pick that as opposed to just getting Hot weather? OK, Spring is dangerous. Hailstorm? Does nothing but slow them down, same as sleet. Pretty much the only thing that does anything but slow and harass is a tornado, and even there you don't control it.
and so forth.
You mean invisibility, greater invisibility, wind wall, mirror image, or any of the dozens of other spells a wizard can use to avoid being hurt during the course of any fight in any encounter?if you are ambushed on a shakey rope bridge with enemies on either side of you shooting arrows. The fighter can pull out a bow and shoot back, the rogue and make acrobatics rolls to make his way to one end and stab someone. The Wizard casts fly and calmly floats above the battle attacking with offensive magicUnless he has first cast an 'immunity to arrows' spell, that really isn't going to end well for him.
Yes. In the scenario described, the wizard spends the first two rounds of the combat casting two spells on himself, then can start casting offensive spells on round three. The archer fighter, meanwhile, can be doing full attacks on every one of those rounds. It's not exactly a clear-cut case of superior caster narrative power.
That's my point. People who complain that casters only suck by GM fiat need to understand that casters only exist by GM fiat. You have no place for a wizard unless you have a GM to run a world that has wizards in it. At that point you should realize that the story is more important than your shenanigans. There is a reason you don't see a lot of the nonsense that people bring up here during actual play. Only a real dick goes out of his way to break the story.Ask yourself these questions: if 20th level full casters are capable of dealing with any situation, why are there still problems in the world (the world being whatever game universe you're using)? Why is there not just a dozen 20th level casters stopping every problem before it even becomes a problem? Why do adventurers even need to exist in your world?
When you answer those questions to your own satisfaction, you will see why high level casters don't just automatically win everything.
For the same reason that the entire planet isn't populated by nothing but Shadows and Wraiths, who hit small towns and created armies of themselves to descend on other villages and towns until there were just too many for even higher level threats to deal with.
Because there wouldn't be a plot otherwise.
While this is true, that is sort of besides the point. The point is what are the effects of the rules we are presented with by the game. Obviously any and every problem can be handled by a skilled gm/cooperative players. That doesnt do anything for the rules as they are written in the books we all buy.
If there was a feat that gave fighters +300 damage to attacks with axes, the fact that a player would choose to not take the feat, or the dm would choose not to allow the feat doesnt mean the feat itself doesnt present a problem.
The rules in the book start with one saying "do with these rules what you will." What do you suppose a decent GM will do with the rules when everyone but the party wizard stops showing up to play?
Some people see RPGs as a game and they are there to win. Others see an interactive fiction that they enjoy taking part in and want the story to go on for as long as it can.
That's my point. People who complain that casters only suck by GM fiat need to understand that casters only exist by GM fiat. You have no place for a wizard unless you have a GM to run a world that has wizards in it. At that point you should realize that the story is more important than your shenanigans. There is a reason you don't see a lot of the nonsense that people bring up here during actual play. Only a real dick goes out of his way to break the story.For the same reason that the entire planet isn't populated by nothing but Shadows and Wraiths, who hit small towns and created armies of themselves to descend on other villages and towns until there were just too many for even higher level threats to deal with.
Because there wouldn't be a plot otherwise.
By that logic, ALL THINGS EXISTING is GM fiat. It's a completely worthless metric. Even if you only boil it down to 'no prepared arcane magic users', that's witches, maguses, alchemists, and now arcanists you're completely eliminating. Sure, you could swap everyone to spontaneous variants, but where's the fun in that? Your hyper-vigilance against the shenanigans of one class is taking away diversity, flavor, and potential fun in the entire world. Which, y'know, makes the world and anything taking place in it less interesting.
Yes, the story is important. That's WHY casters going all out actually makes sense. Do you think your genius wizard is going to say to himself, "Gee, I could bypass those 8 levels of defense setup by the enemy with a day or so of prep time and a half-dozen spells, but I'd better be sporting and give Lord Uber-Death a chance to kill us all and then enslave/harvest/annihilate the world"? No, just like the other heroes (or anti-heroes or whatever) in the party, said mage will look at the problem and want to get it done in the most efficient way possible. It's metagaming and it's just as undesirable as the form of it which players try to use to empower...
I disagree, it makes the whole thing ridiculously unfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've progressed from how spellcasters win to how their winning ruins the game or how to ruin spellcasters.
What if my party is all full or partial casters, and I as a GM don't have to pull stuff out of my butt to make some of the party not feel useless next to the rest? Maybe most of the issue is not on spellcasters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(here represented by the forum spellcaster displaying superiority not displayed by the blue-water tabletop spellcaster)Stop that. That's downright misleading and somewhat rude. Just because it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other groups. Stop decrying legitimate problems as "your GM is doing something wrong" or "it's just theorycraft".
Restating the OP's observation and the crux of discussion, not making a particular value judgment on it. My apologies for not being clearer.
My earlier post was an attempt to make the various points of argument clear, not to entirely suppose one of my own.
The entire point of this thread, I remind, is the OP stating in effect, that he does not witness the much spoken of superiority and wondering why that might be.
If you have blue water experiences to the contrary, I believe this discussion would benefit from them instead of statements regarding superiority due to X or inferiority due to X or 'Proposed reason for superiority doesn't work because of XYZ'.
I don't believe that's a productive discussion for this particular thread.
However, if we can look at the anecdotal sides of things, we might see a difference or a position where the reason for superiority versus not superiority in different tables becomes clearer.
I've stated the reasons why I believe at my table the caster players (here the summoner, cleric, bard and the wizard) don't exhibit the godlike superiority presupposed for them. Mostly, less preparation time, the situation being somewhat unknown and so forth.
The casters do exhibit considerable amounts of synergistic superiority in terms of they make the party considerably better then what I think their meager APL would indicate, but that's an argument against CR.
So by all means, I think this discussion would benefit considerably from the other side giving us their examples from the table demonstrating the superiority that me and OP don't see.
Get rid of all classes but level 6 spell casters?
Compare Schrodinger's color spray wizard, who has a spell DC 15 (10 + 1 (for 1st level) + 3 (INT modifier) + 1 (spell focus)). With a +3 on the ogre's will save, the wizard has... a better chance to "hit" the creature (if it rolls an 11 or lower, the wizard hits it: that's a slightly-better-than 50/50 chance).
Really, the strategy should be to have the wizard hit it, and then have the fighter wail on it for three rounds (as it's AC will have dropped, due to its stunned state).
But what was an impossible fight for a lone fighter becomes a winnable fight with a wizard.
And for a lone wizard? Color spray and run away, means you live to color spray another day.
But Ok, so you use a scroll, great. First it's a move action to get a scroll out, and a std to read so no casting and moving (or casting then running). And if the monster makes his save= dead wizard. But certainly with a party of four, it's worth trying.
And it's possible for a Fighter with a crit to one shot the ogre. Heck, give the fighter a bow and rapid shot, and there's a decent chance that with two rounds of full attacks the Ogre is down.
Not to mention, give the fighter a greatsword, power attack and Big Game hunter and he's +11 to damage and in two hits the ogre is down. True, in two hits the Fighter is down, but given the Fighter has a higher Init, it's better than 50/50.
|
(here represented by the forum spellcaster displaying superiority not displayed by the blue-water tabletop spellcaster)Stop that. That's downright misleading and somewhat rude. Just because it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other groups. Stop decrying legitimate problems as "your GM is doing something wrong" or "it's just theorycraft".
I see barbarians one-shotting everything far more frequently than wizards.
This is neither theorycraft nor a DM issue. Barbarians deal far more damage than monsters have hit points, and can do so all day long.
The GM has planned an overland(by walking) trek to meet NPC X because ____. Someone has leveled up and chosen teleport.
Well, OK, but suppose the NPC (whom you have never met) makes his save? And it's only a 76% chance of getting there.
But yes, once a caster can cast Tport, you no longer plan for days of walking. Any decent DM knows this. Or you take preventative steps.
|
|
I see barbarians one-shotting everything far more frequently than wizards.(here represented by the forum spellcaster displaying superiority not displayed by the blue-water tabletop spellcaster)Stop that. That's downright misleading and somewhat rude. Just because it doesn't happen at your table, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen in other groups. Stop decrying legitimate problems as "your GM is doing something wrong" or "it's just theorycraft".
Yeah, I see this as well, the barbarian rampaging across the field, delighting in his near 300hp, reasonable saves, deflection bonuses and ability to hit from reach like a freight train with anger management issues.
The wizard (an admixture specialist) was quite good at spreading damage and effecting damage at longer ranges. So I'd actually argue he "did more damage" in terms of the accounting balance sheets of hit points though. Not quite a 'superiority' issue.
The party summoner actually tends to take the effort of effecting paladin and barbarian full-attack delivery more then just summoning. Which again is a synergistic thing, less then a 'superiority' thing.
This actually does make me think of a possible reason for the perceived table-v-forum disparity.
The players aren't quite hobbling themselves, but they build as a part of their party. This might represent the difference between Society vs Normal Table play.
A normal table is longer developed thing, and PC are typically developed as a group so the casters might focus on certain areas to the detriment of others, whereas Society/Forum players have to make builds able to 'handle anything' since they might be in a game where one of the vital components aren't available otherwise..
The Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard party laughs at the hubris of your "traditional" party.
Nice balanced group, but no Teleport, and no spells higher than 6. Fly is a problem.
Someone mentioned the the sweet spot encounters per day 8 to 13. I am not sure how I would force a party on all casters to take that many encounters in 1 day.
There are lots of ways to shut down many caster tricks, but I'm getting ready for work and not going into it in great details.
Look, I didn't mean I do this everyday, but for the BBEG dungeon (roughly 4-6 in a campaign, about the same as in an AP), yeah I rock out their resources. Granted, a prepared casters can usually find a way to get away if they need to(even with all kinds of anti-this preparations), but usually there are time/plot restraints that really jacks up the progress the party has made to that part. A smart caster can still contribute meaningfully to every encounter at this point, but can't Nova so much.
I like the party to be able to ambush a bandit camp and rock them with fireballs, but they also need to be challenged greatly, and my player base knows that I run a hard game. They also are all optimizers so its a great balance:)
And someone mentioned the CR+4 to +6, thats what I run my curve at, sometimes more. I follow the CR guide, not Paizos CR system, which has so many flaws and glaring holes its ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another fun DM thing to do is the bait and switch telegraphing. I've seen arcane casters have trouble when they misinterpreted (either their fault, or my intentional gm-dickery) what was waiting for them. One came loaded for harpies he could fireball only to find fiends who were immune to fire, one came expecting rogues with low will saves and ran into vermin who straight up didn't care about his charms, the giant bone things turned out to be bone /golems/ not skeletons, etc, and since they didn't have the right flavor of blasty or bypass they had a rougher time of it, whereas the martials just shrugged and whalloped things.
This is why player skill matters just as much as the class chosen. A smart player always has generalized spells, and usually still leaves slots open. It should not require every spell you have to be dedicated for to solving one problem. Sometimes the best thing to do is have spells that make the fight easy for the party instead of assuming you will be the star that day.
The "Win" buttons are the spells that let you solves problems the party could not handle or that make the problem a lot easier.
{. . .}
And I still live by the mistaken belief a party's composition should be the fighter-cleric-rogue-wizard combo.
{. . .}
Aside from the particular choice of classes, isn't the average party expected to have 5 characters now? Or am I just getting confused because 5 seems to be by far the most common number of characters in the PbP part of these boards?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself these questions: if 20th level full casters are capable of dealing with any situation, why are there still problems in the world (the world being whatever game universe you're using)? Why is there not just a dozen 20th level casters stopping every problem before it even becomes a problem? Why do adventurers even need to exist in your world?
When you answer those questions to your own satisfaction, you will see why high level casters don't just automatically win everything.
Because there are other 20th level casters opposing them. :)
But seriously I think the idea of "casters(the one true build) can do anything" is a misunderstanding. It is more like a good build and a good player can do a whole lot of things to wreck a GM's game, and make some players feel useless.
{. . .}
And I still live by the mistaken belief a party's composition should be the fighter-cleric-rogue-wizard combo.
{. . .}
Aside from the particular choice of classes, isn't the average party expected to have 5 characters now? Or am I just getting confused because 5 seems to be by far the most common number of characters in the PbP part of these boards?
I suspect the standard is still 4, but many people play with more. I've found the sweet spot for AP's is 4, otherwise the GM has to do work to make it challenging. Heck, I ran a 3 person party through CC and they roflstomped it.
For my home games my sweet spot is 5.
{. . .}
And I still live by the mistaken belief a party's composition should be the fighter-cleric-rogue-wizard combo.
{. . .}
Aside from the particular choice of classes, isn't the average party expected to have 5 characters now? Or am I just getting confused because 5 seems to be by far the most common number of characters in the PbP part of these boards?
It is 4 to 5 according to the CRB. I prefer 5 as a GM.
We've progressed from how spellcasters win to how their winning ruins the game or how to ruin spellcasters.
What if my party is all full or partial casters, and I as a GM don't have to pull stuff out of my butt to make some of the party not feel useless next to the rest? Maybe most of the issue is not on spellcasters.
Spellcasters per se aren't the issue, it's the spells and how FANTASTICALLY handy they can be. If you have them, you're generally gonna be better than those without. I don't even need to roll Perception checks on my Inquisitor anymore when I have See Invisibility and Acute Senses up. Our party simply used Spider Climb and flying items/magic to scale a 3 mile tall mountain instead of doing actual skill checks (it allowed us to take 10) while using Resist Energy to ignore the attacks of Will-O-Wisps. We used Rope Trick to escape giant storms of undead spirits and flesh-eating acid while completely protecting ourselves from creatures with grab via Freedom of Movement. These are all examples from just the past few months of the last two Pathfinder games I've been in. The first two happened when we were around levels 9-10. It's the power of spells, great versatility when you need it with little in the way of drawbacks or trade-ins. A party where everyone has magic is generally going to be capable of protecting themselves and handling challenges as I illustrated above better than one with fewer such magic users.
We've progressed from how spellcasters win to how their winning ruins the game or how to ruin spellcasters.
What if my party is all full or partial casters, and I as a GM don't have to pull stuff out of my butt to make some of the party not feel useless next to the rest? Maybe most of the issue is not on spellcasters.
Correct. The issue isn't spellcasters, it's spells. If you have them, you're simply gonna be better than those without. I don't even need to roll Perception checks on my Inquisitor anymore when I have See Invisibility and Acute Senses up. Our party simply used Spider Climb and flying items/magic to scale a 3 mile tall mountain instead of doing actual skill checks (it allowed us to take 10) while using Resist Energy to ignore the attacks of Will-O-Wisps. We used Rope Trick to escape giant storms of undead spirits and flesh-eating acid while completely protecting ourselves from creatures with grab via Freedom of Movement. These are all examples from just the past few months of the last two Pathfinder games I've been in. The first two happened when we were around levels 9-10. It's the power of spells, great versatility when you need it with little in the way of drawbacks or trade-ins.
So, by including spells, you raise the bar for what is possible in the game. If a character completely lacks those and their class features fall short in comparison, they're going to have to lean on the magic-users more often. It's why ninjas taking Vanishing Trick / Invisible Blade are better in combat than rogues. It's why a fighter ends up getting his brain fried more often than a paladin. There's not much wrong with the idea of magic being this awesome, provided that you give non-magic users the ability to be awesome as well in their own way.
Why are spells the issue? Perhaps it's the spell-less ki-less plebeian classes that are the issue.
However, we have NEVER had a spellcaster be able to finish/complete an adventure "all on his own". There is simply no way that would happen. He may get close, but after that, without anyone else to protect him, he's a gonner.
Synthesist Summoners laugh at your idea of not being able to Solo things...
They can very easily have near untouchable AC, Rediculous stats across the board, all good saves, ability to heal themselves, a VERY good spell list, AND access to the full SM line...
Yeah... they can handle themselves quite fine
It's a trade off. Cash vs having to quit because your cleric has no spells left.Yes, but when you need to heal 100 HP every combat between the two guys, you burn off charges way quick.
I'm not saying it's a bad option, just saying you're probably going to end up using one or two of your spell slots to patch the big boo-boos first.
I have a cleric now that is in around level 10. I tend to have a good number of spells left over at the end of the day, but I still burn the wand. If I convert a spell I might need then I am out of luck. I could get a pearl of power, but they get pricey. What I am saying is that after a certain point casters don't really worry about running out of spells. I do tend to choose spells like dispel magic that can potentially solve a lot of problems. It can used to remove a status, as a debuff, and to get rid of magic affects in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: spellcasters have a few ways of producing "wins" that martial classes don't. The one some people here are talking about is in the form of combat. The other way is the one that is easier to notice because there isn't a ton of character variation masking the issue.
The problematic "wins" are those that the other party members cheer. Endure Elements, Comprehend Languages, Charm Person, Detect Scrying, Augury, Divination, Commune, Commune with Nature, Scrying, Teleport, Plane Shift, Discern Lies, Dominate Person, Transport via Plants, Wind Walk, Speak With Dead, Speak With Animals, Speak With Plants, Stone Tell, Contact Other Plane, Hallow, Simulacrum, Clone, Polymorph Any Object, Wish, Miracle, etc... These are just some of the spells that players use to tell GMs that this content is boring and needs to be bypassed ASAP. New players don't do this very often, but in 21 years of this hobby I have seen people play casters just for access to this narrative power very, very often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magus can fly.The Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard party laughs at the hubris of your "traditional" party.Nice balanced group, but no Teleport, and no spells higher than 6. Fly is a problem.
So can the Alchemist. The magus can even teleport.
Why are spells the issue? Perhaps it's the spell-less ki-less plebeian classes that are the issue.
Honestly, I think it's both. Non-magical solutions to problems just aren't anywhere near as good as the astronomically useful magical ones. Adding too much to column A or taking away too much from column B, though, sounds like a recipe for system shock. Also, this thread is about how "spell-casters = win", though, so I'm trying my best to stay on topic.
@PMing
At low levels a caster will no win an adventure by itself but at high levels single caster can fairly easily do it.
Invisibility plus non detection plus gaseous form plus fly means you can get to any where in a compound undetected.
If the goal is to get something then simply touch it an dim door or teleport. If it is to stop a plot you really only need to to win an encounter or two and skip all the rest. Killing a single target is trivial. Also planar binding allows to easily get a replacement for a fighter or cleric.
In beastmass 2 a character built a caster that soloed an adventure for his level and even bad dice rolls would not mean much. Many high level adventures could not even be started with out magic. As to the 15 min work day, just teleport out of the dungeon or use rope trick or many other spells that allow one to rest in safety. Or plane shift to fast time plane and rest up in 1 round if you can find the right plane.
What does the PC caster do to prevent the BBEG from attacking him at home in exactly those same ways? If nothing, then the caster is only alive because the GM is not playing the opposition intelligently. If something, then the BBEG can do that something too.
Mage's Private Sanctum is kinda fun you know...
Oh and I heard Personal Demi-planes are all the rage...
Or you can be like that one Wizard who built his tower ON THE FREAKING SUN... because politics suck apparently...
|
|
I think we've gone off so far into theoryland and personal experience that this thread is largely useless, as most of these wind up being.
Theory aside, it seems clear that the OP and some other posters don't have the issues with full casters that many people see. What's unclear is why.
The only way I see to get any real info out of this is to test it out. If the OP were to run an online game, with a couple of his regular players as non-casters and a couple of the "casters as gods" advocates playing casters, the results might be interesting.
It would have to be high enough level (10 or so?) for the uber-casters thing to really kick in, but other than that should be run in his usual style. That way we could hear from both sides and see if the casters did dominate or find out what was different about the game that stopped them.
It'd be interesting as an experiment, but in this case the 'casters as gods' players might feel obliged to up their divine rank a bit more then they might in actual table play. You'd blind test groups and a blind control group to get real actual data, and you'd want to eliminate the APs or DM fiat from the equation so you'd need to use APs and homebrew in the study.
So you'd probably want like...6 groups.
1 test group with a homebrewed campaign.
2 test groups with different Paizo APs (lets say Runelords and Reign).
3 Control groups emulating the above.
And no communication between the six. All conducted by the same DM (to make sure its not the DM causing the difference, if thats a concern, you need to have like...24 groups.
4 DMs overseeing six groups based on the above.
And god help you if you want to make it long term vs short term. Since a single session or five sessions wouldn't likely show through.
And we'd still need to determine what precisely 'superiority' is defined as.
And that's way too much science. ;)
Also, my party sizes are currently 6 and 6. I used to run with one at 8, but the monk and wizard players had to drop due to life issues. Since the 8-man party built around the wizard as their blaster and long range damage dealer, he's (ironic for this thread) left a hole in the party the other casters have trouble filling.
The GM has planned an overland(by walking) trek to meet NPC X because ____. Someone has leveled up and chosen teleport.
Well, OK, but suppose the NPC (whom you have never met) makes his save? And it's only a 76% chance of getting there.
But yes, once a caster can cast Tport, you no longer plan for days of walking. Any decent DM knows this. Or you take preventative steps.
Why is the NPC making a save, and I have seen GM's on this board caught off guard by something as simple as teleporting past ____. Passwall also works in dungeons, even though I don't consider it to be a staple spell.
My point however is simply that a caster can do things a GM is not ready for, things that can alter the story line, and/or make things a lot easier than intended. I was not trying to make a long list of potential ways to do it.
Magus can fly.The Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard party laughs at the hubris of your "traditional" party.Nice balanced group, but no Teleport, and no spells higher than 6. Fly is a problem.
Sure, and so can the alchemist. But will the Magus have enuf 3rd level slots to allow the Bard & Inquisitor to Fly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've gone off so far into theoryland and personal experience that this thread is largely useless, as most of these wind up being.
Theory aside, it seems clear that the OP and some other posters don't have the issues with full casters that many people see. What's unclear is why.
I think he has met the "right/wrong" player yet, and his group style of play is affecting the game. He may have to sit at another GM's table.
Why is the NPC making a save, ....
The GM has planned an overland(by walking) trek to meet NPC X because ____. Someone has leveled up and chosen teleport.
Well, OK, but suppose the NPC (whom you have never met) makes his save? And it's only a 76% chance of getting there.
But yes, once a caster can cast Tport, you no longer plan for days of walking. Any decent DM knows this. Or you take preventative steps.
VS Scry. Or how will the mage know how to teleport to the NPC?
To the OP, will a caster = win, not to sure, depends on the player just as much as the class IMO. But in the current game I am running the wizard is just 1 of the 4 party members. If the wizard is gone I have to rewrite the adventure for the night or it is a tpk more often then not. If it is any other player, healer, tank, or the bow user it does not matter near as much to if at all. Mind you the wizard is a scary smart person that likes to let everyone have their time to shine, maybe because they know if they don't they will be playing alone. YMMV
I can honestly say I as a GM do not want to prep 8-13 fights every day. Besides the fact that there is other non-combat stuff I'd want to do, that would take forever. Hell, one fight already takes 90 minutes in this system if you're lucky.The only real way to stretch a caster's resources at higher levels is to make them participate in five or more combats a day, consistently, which means most of your days just consistent of combat.Somewhat off topic, but I know PF is supposed to be based around 4-6 encounters a day, but I've found the sweet spot to be 8-13. Even then the casters pull out ahead, but do a little more resource management, and it lets the martials shine more. I think the 4-6 encounter days are laughable at best as far as making people manage resources at all. It also really helps bring the Nova classes (alchemist and magus) in line.Same.
I'd much rather be throwing 4 to 6 higher CR (ECL +1/+2) encounters at an optimized party, or customize the monsters to make them more difficult than as presented in the bestiary, and hope that those can soak a similar amount of resources that 8 to 13 encounters would soak.
It's less work for me as a DM, means that the story can progress faster than if I had more encounters, leads to an equal amount of xp, and helps to prevent me running out of environment and CR-appropriate enemiesm, or needing to stat up NPCs. Though, I'm also a DM/Player who would rather die than have to face the 6th group of goblins today.
True, and if you are running 8-13 combats a day, then the combats are probably easy mode and would end up pretty boring... I mean, killing orcs is fun and all, but after the 7th group of level 2 orc fighters I would get really bored...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Cleric never runs out of healing? Yes, yes he does. Limited Channels (which don't heal a whole lot in the first place past low levels) and limited spell slots means his healing is very limited indeed, especially if he wants to actually have fun instead of doing nothing but patching ouchies all day with every one of his spells.
And I'll tell you the Fighter runs out of muscle and the Rogue runs out of rogueishness (though it's not worth very much anyway, so you might as well let him) really damn quick when the Cleric is out of healing.
That's the thing though. Wizards (and in this case, spellcaster almost always means wizard since sorc spells are narrower) are reliant on preparation, when you remove from them their metagamey requirements for that preparation, they start preparing less like they getting ready for the 'ice level' and more like they're getting ready for adventuring, which means their spells are more balanced and less of the 'I have an app for that.'The problem is, the balanced spell list is A.) Probably the best regardless and B.) still problematic.
It's not like Fly and Invisibility are niche spells here. They're both quite useful in a ton of situations.
Ditto most of the other arcane staples. Stinking Cloud, Create Pit, Reverse Gravity, Black Tentacles...the list goes on and on with spells that are useful (and more than useful) against a wide variety of foes. Icy Prison works on basically everyone and it's one of the best spells in the game because of it. Even creatures immune to ice aren't free from its ability to essentially paralyze (but better, since it encases creatures immune to paralysis too) or entangle, though they miss out on the damage portion and are "merely" taken out of the fight for MINUTES PER LEVEL unless someone rescues them.
I think one of the major issues of 3e and Pathfinder was, in their urge to forever put the 'crossbow wizard' to bed, they inflated the amount of spells an arcane spellcaster has...
So.... the 3.5 Warlock?