| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial characters don't have to be limited to real-world ability. They can, however, be limited by the concepts their classes embody. A fighter can become an extraordinary combatant, but the class concept wasn't meant to encompass mountain-slicing or flash-stepping, so that's not on their class ability list. The wizard concept as envisioned by Paizo includes the potential to reshape reality within the bounds of their spell list and ability to cast, so that's what they can do. Ephemeral, non-quantifiable notions such as "narrative power" really only matter if you as a player feel that they do. The design team is not obligated to adhere to such standards, and, since not everybody thinks of narrative power as being an important standard at all, why should they?
Because one class can reshape reality as part of their class concept and the other class can only be good at combat? Unless the other class uses its reality shaping to make the combat simply not happen, of course.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
guys, the question isn't about caster martial balance. It was why is it not as common as the 8 or 9 board posters on this forum make it out to be that casters are uber I win everything.
There's plenty of reasons being posted right now. Some of the Uber casters win crowd don't like the answers, but they are answers none the less.
Again, you keep saying this, but you haven't answered the core question: Why should anybody (much less the design team) care? Fighters fight. Wizards manipulate the stuff of creation. That's what the classes were designed to do, and they do it well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because one of those things makes the other irrelevant. To see this in action click here.
Fighter: But how would that be using my combat abilities?
Wizard: We wouldn't, the angels would just take care of it.
Fighter: I think the thing is that your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my combat abilities look a bit redundant.
Wizard: Well, but at the end of the day it's all about results.
Figther: But... I'm quite good at combat abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
guys, the question isn't about caster martial balance. It was why is it not as common as the 8 or 9 board posters on this forum make it out to be that casters are uber I win everything.
There's plenty of reasons being posted right now. Some of the Uber casters win crowd don't like the answers, but they are answers none the less.
It's relevant. It demonstrates that the decriers of class disparity are, in at least some cases, engaging in a different form of entertainment than those who don't see a problem. In short, Anzyr and I aren't playing the same game. And that's absolutely fine! The game is flexible enough to accommodate both of us--if perhaps not at the same table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because one of those things makes the other irrelevant. To see this in action click here.
Fighter: But how would that be using my combat abilities?
Wizard: We wouldn't, the angels would just take care of it.
Funny. I do not feel irrelevant when I play a fighter, nor do my fighter players. Are we having badwrongfun?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial characters don't have to be limited to real-world ability. They can, however, be limited by the concepts their classes embody. A fighter can become an extraordinary combatant, but the class concept wasn't meant to encompass mountain-slicing or flash-stepping, so that's not on their class ability list. The wizard concept as envisioned by Paizo includes the potential to reshape reality within the bounds of their spell list and ability to cast, so that's what they can do. Ephemeral, non-quantifiable notions such as "narrative power" really only matter if you as a player feel that they do. The design team is not obligated to adhere to such standards, and, since not everybody thinks of narrative power as being an important standard at all, why should they?Because one class can reshape reality as part of their class concept and the other class can only be good at combat? Unless the other class uses its reality shaping to make the combat simply not happen, of course.
The DM's of the world would like to remind all the casters out there that reshaping reality has consequences in the game often beyond the scope of what the caster was thinking at the time.
Some gods don't like reality being reshaped, and are happy to send messengers to let you know about it.
Some agents of the world (like governments) don't like the world being reshaped, and are happy to prevent magic getting that far out of hand in the first place.
Sometimes reshaping reality breaks things in ways the caster never even dreamt of because most of the time the folks trying to do it are going "Huh! just bypassed that problem." and not realising they just created 15 more problems instead.
All of these are things GM's use in game. All of these are covered by rules the player character doesn't have. That is, the GM is running the world setting, not the player character.
If a GM happily lets it happen, then cool, wizards become uber. If a gm is concerned about it, the they apply relevant in world consequences that make sense to the setting.
Players who feel entitled call that GM fiat.
Gms who watch entitled players call that coddling players.
ITs a different way of thinking unfortunately, and is what leads to much of the disagreement here.
Again, you keep saying this, but you haven't answered the core question: Why should anybody (much less the design team) care? Fighters fight. Wizards manipulate the stuff of creation. That's what the classes were designed to do, and they do it well.
because it causes a discrepancy in the CR of creatures and expected pacing with other players.
when two-people are of the same level, you expect the guy with beter skill to win(AKA system mastery), not which has the better class. this is like why do people try to balance any game? because unintentional unbalance isn't that great of a thing to have lying around.
basically, if Y is labeled as level X, it should be level X, just so people can easily when picking up the game understand the power levels at work.
To my experience the game is really hard to play without spells or something spell-like.
I haven't seen casters insta win everything, but it is almost impossible to win encounters without the caster (post level 10).
So effectively they win everything.
|
|
Then the player should know general conditions in which it will not work. Then they will also likely know that the gm will use this rule to railroad the party. Isn't it nice that many gms feel the need to change lots of caster abilities?Teleport goes through the astral plane. Something in the astral plane could stop it, or maybe sense it and track them, or maybe between your current position and your target position is a wall of force and it just stops the spell working at all. The spell doesn't say how you get from point a to point b, and teleport effects in the general description under magic sections says through Astral plane. So it could very well be you travel the entire distance through Astral space quantum speed. Running into a wall of force at quantum speed tends to get messy, so the spell just fails as a built in protection.
Teleport is also messed up by high levels of natural and arane energy.
Turns out those caves with the army in it have...
That isn't the GM changing anything. That is the GM using the rules as written limitations of teleport effects to prevent players "bypassing the story" as some people tell it.
Personally, I design games that work with the abilities the players have. If I know they can teleport, and really like to use it, I make sure the scenarios require it, rather than having the scenario ruined by it.
What I'm trying to point out is, teleport has limitations. Remember that as a caster, so when you cant use it you don't get bent out of shape.
Cheers
Funny. I do not feel irrelevant when I play a fighter, nor do my fighter players. Are we having badwrongfun?Because one of those things makes the other irrelevant. To see this in action click here.
Fighter: But how would that be using my combat abilities?
Wizard: We wouldn't, the angels would just take care of it.
What do you do while the horde of celestial superbeings handles the problem? I mean if whatever that is is fun for you that's great. But for me watching a horde of celestial superbeings make my combat abilities redundant isn't very fun. Even if the Ange... er caster is pretending that I can totally make that jump by myself.
Edit @ Wrath: I don't change how the rules work for spells anymore then I change the rules for how power attack works. Far from being biased in favor of casters, that is just fair to both parties.
Then the player should know general conditions in which it will not work. Then they will also likely know that the gm will use this rule to railroad the party. Isn't it nice that many gms feel the need to change lots of caster abilities?Teleport goes through the astral plane. Something in the astral plane could stop it, or maybe sense it and track them, or maybe between your current position and your target position is a wall of force and it just stops the spell working at all. The spell doesn't say how you get from point a to point b, and teleport effects in the general description under magic sections says through Astral plane. So it could very well be you travel the entire distance through Astral space quantum speed. Running into a wall of force at quantum speed tends to get messy, so the spell just fails as a built in protection.
Teleport is also messed up by high levels of natural and arane energy.
Turns out those caves with the army in it have...
It's an option, just as a GM is empowered to make situations in which casters thrive and swordsman do not. I've never felt the need to limit teleportation. If I were going to make teleportation fail significantly often for some reason, though, I would let my players know ahead of time so that they can plan their characters accordingly if it matters to them. But I won't relinquish the privilege of being able to say "it seems that teleportation doesn't work the same way when you're in a rift between the very planes themselves". That's a GM's prerogative.
Again, you keep saying this, but you haven't answered the core question: Why should anybody (much less the design team) care? Fighters fight. Wizards manipulate the stuff of creation. That's what the classes were designed to do, and they do it well.because it causes a discrepancy in the CR of creatures and expected pacing with other players.
when two-people are of the same level, you expect the guy with beter skill to win(AKA system mastery), not which has the better class. this is like why do people try to balance any game? because unintentional unbalance isn't that great of a thing to have lying around.
basically, if Y is labeled as level X, it should be level X, just so people can easily when picking up the game understand the power levels at work.
CR represents challenge to the party, not relative power level. Besides, the thread is about casters "winning". I assume that the OP refers to PCs, and PCs do not have nor need a CR.
yeah, I think people here need to notice the difference between the game they play and the actual pathfinder rules. Just because a GM can make something not a problem doesn't mean it still shouldn't be fixed as part of the normal rules.Yes, actually, it can mean exactly that.
why do we even need rules then?
also, really want someone to reference my weight class question, which is basically why can't martials be the same weight class as casters?What makes this scale any better a system for evaluating classes than any other system? For that matter, what's the point of "tiering" classes at all?
the scale is just a scale generically of characters. If you read their descriptions of 2-4, which are the ones I listed earlier, martials are 2 in general even at lvl 20, while casters end up level 4. the fact is that walking around at the same in game level but having dramatically less overall "power" is a problem simply at the least as a labeling issue.
the "tiering" is for the same reason you have a difference between a lvl 3 fighter and a level 8 fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CR represents challenge to the party, not relative power level. Besides, the thread is about casters "winning". I assume that the OP refers to PCs, and PCs do not have nor need a CR.Again, you keep saying this, but you haven't answered the core question: Why should anybody (much less the design team) care? Fighters fight. Wizards manipulate the stuff of creation. That's what the classes were designed to do, and they do it well.because it causes a discrepancy in the CR of creatures and expected pacing with other players.
when two-people are of the same level, you expect the guy with beter skill to win(AKA system mastery), not which has the better class. this is like why do people try to balance any game? because unintentional unbalance isn't that great of a thing to have lying around.
basically, if Y is labeled as level X, it should be level X, just so people can easily when picking up the game understand the power levels at work.
yes a CR 15 Wizard, is more dangerous than a CR 15 fighter, that's the point, PC classes tend to be enemies too.
|
Being able to cut through a mountain isn't magical. It is however awesome. And I would like my martials to be awesome.I'd beg to differ on that. Cutting through a mountain is pretty darn magical, or supernatural, or godly. Awesome sure, but it is beyond what even a really good guy with a sword should be doing IMO.
A martial with an adamantine weapon will cut through a mountain far more rapidly than a caster will.
Disintegrate removes only a 10' cube and can only be used a few times per day. A high level martial destroys that much stone per round, ad infinitum.
|
|
To my experience the game is really hard to play without spells or something spell-like.
I haven't seen casters insta win everything, but it is almost impossible to win encounters without the caster (post level 10).
So effectively they win everything.
Marcus, in my experience in both low, mid and high level (level 15 and up), I would have to say the only magic I've found you cannot dispense with entirely is healing.
Everything else can be overcome with other workarounds, just not necessarily as easily as some magic makes it so.
I've run two campaigns to level 20 where by the level 13 to level 20 mark we didn't have an arcane caster at all, and majority of players were martial types. They trounced nearly everything, but really needed the divine healing.
I've also been in one group at high level where most of us were casters, many of us very good at building and running casters, and we got pasted a number of times.
Now, I predict someone would drop in here and say we were obviously playing things wrong. We weren't. The GM wasn't trying to screw us over either. He was running the game as written and things got nasty in that campaign real fast.
Luckily, after a few of the casters were toasted, some players rerolled as martials and balance was returned.
Cheers
why do we even need rules then?yeah, I think people here need to notice the difference between the game they play and the actual pathfinder rules. Just because a GM can make something not a problem doesn't mean it still shouldn't be fixed as part of the normal rules.Yes, actually, it can mean exactly that.
That's the thing. We don't. They're useful tools, but that's all.
also, really want someone to reference my weight class question, which is basically why can't martials be the same weight class as casters?What makes this scale any better a system for evaluating classes than any other system? For that matter, what's the point of "tiering" classes at all?the scale is just a scale generically of characters. If you read their descriptions of 2-4, which are the ones I listed earlier, martials are 2 in general even at lvl 20, while casters end up level 4. the fact is that walking around at the same in game level but having dramatically less overall "power" is a problem simply at the least as a labeling issue.
the "tiering" is for the same reason you have a difference between a lvl 3 fighter and a level 8 fighter.
You've described the thing you are doing, not the reason for doing it.
To my experience the game is really hard to play without spells or something spell-like.
I haven't seen casters insta win everything, but it is almost impossible to win encounters without the caster (post level 10).
So effectively they win everything.
Marcus, in my experience in both low, mid and high level (level 15 and up), I would have to say the only magic I've found you cannot dispense with entirely is healing.
Everything else can be overcome with other workarounds, just not necessarily as easily as some magic makes it so.
I've run two campaigns to level 20 where by the level 13 to level 20 mark we didn't have an arcane caster at all, and majority of players were martial types. They trounced nearly everything, but really needed the divine healing.
I've also been in one group at high level where most of us were casters, many of us very good at building and running casters, and we got pasted a number of times.
Now, I predict someone would drop in here and say we were obviously playing things wrong. We weren't. The GM wasn't trying to screw us over either. He was running the game as written and things got nasty in that campaign real fast.
Luckily, after a few of the casters were toasted, some players rerolled as martials and balance was returned.
Cheers
I can assure you that it is approaching (but not quite reaching, there is always a chance) impossible for a party of martials to beat Rise of the Runelords, if Karzoug is played to his intelligence.
|
|
Edit @ Wrath: I don't change how the rules work for spells anymore then I change the rules for how power attack works. Far from being biased in favor of casters, that is just fair to both parties.
That's interesting. The difference of course is that power attack has far less limitations to how it can work than most magic does. You just don't like it when the limitations to magic are put in place.
"DM fiat!!!DM fiat!!!!"
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).
yes a CR 15 Wizard, is more dangerous than a CR 15 fighter, that's the point, PC classes tend to be enemies too.CR represents challenge to the party, not relative power level. Besides, the thread is about casters "winning". I assume that the OP refers to PCs, and PCs do not have nor need a CR.Again, you keep saying this, but you haven't answered the core question: Why should anybody (much less the design team) care? Fighters fight. Wizards manipulate the stuff of creation. That's what the classes were designed to do, and they do it well.because it causes a discrepancy in the CR of creatures and expected pacing with other players.
when two-people are of the same level, you expect the guy with beter skill to win(AKA system mastery), not which has the better class. this is like why do people try to balance any game? because unintentional unbalance isn't that great of a thing to have lying around.
basically, if Y is labeled as level X, it should be level X, just so people can easily when picking up the game understand the power levels at work.
PC classes, yes. PCs, no.
A CR 15 fighter can be every bit as dangerous as a CR 15 wizard when used as an enemy. Challenge is heavily situational. A CR 2 mosquito swarm can be far more dangerous than a CR 5 cleric in some situations. If you have a beef with he challenge rating system, I understand completely, but it's existence does not necessitate the need for all classes to be equally dangerous. The GM is responsible for providing appropriate challenges to their party, not yawning and throwing in something CR 7 and expecting it to work exactly like any other CR 7 challenge.
Karzoug will get a curb stomped by a party of casters played to their intelligence. It would literally not even be a contest, thanks to the value of their action economy. I mean for real, its easier to list the things he is immune to, which is a very bad sign for a boss against casters.
|
|
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).
From the PRD
- - You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible
Those two bolded parts are the limitations from the spell description. Lots of things for a DM to play with there.
-Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation
That parts from the PRD under general rules for magic.
Lots to play with there too.
To my experience the game is really hard to play without spells or something spell-like.
I haven't seen casters insta win everything, but it is almost impossible to win encounters without the caster (post level 10).
So effectively they win everything.
Marcus, in my experience in both low, mid and high level (level 15 and up), I would have to say the only magic I've found you cannot dispense with entirely is healing.
Everything else can be overcome with other workarounds, just not necessarily as easily as some magic makes it so.
I've run two campaigns to level 20 where by the level 13 to level 20 mark we didn't have an arcane caster at all, and majority of players were martial types. They trounced nearly everything, but really needed the divine healing.
I've also been in one group at high level where most of us were casters, many of us very good at building and running casters, and we got pasted a number of times.
Now, I predict someone would drop in here and say we were obviously playing things wrong. We weren't. The GM wasn't trying to screw us over either. He was running the game as written and things got nasty in that campaign real fast.
Luckily, after a few of the casters were toasted, some players rerolled as martials and balance was returned.
Cheers
A game with all fighters is just as playable as a game with all wizards or anything in between. It's a different kind of game, to be sure, but it's very much playable.
I think casters are generally considered to be more powerful than martial characters not because they have any one ability that breaks the game, but because of the absolute versatility spells lend them in solving the problems that the game throws at them. I've been in a game where it was not a caster, but rather the ranger who was breaking the game, killing the entire encounter with his arrows before anyone else had the chance to act. But the GM designed several clever encounters to separate the ranger from their bow, and they were next to useless. They could only really attack problems along a single axis, and as soon as the ability to attack along those lines was taken away, it invalidated that character.
Casters, meanwhile, gain more and more spells with each level they advance. Each spell offers the chance for attacking encounters along a different axis. A caster can pigeonhole themselves to attacking along a single axis, such as pure blasting builds, but there is no need to do so. Each caster can pick a number of different spells, and most casters can change the spells they prepare each day. When a caster has an understanding of the game and how to solve each problem it throws at them, there's almost always a spell at their disposal that will serve as a solution. And as they accumulate levels, the number of problems they can solve per day increases.
Meanwhile, martial characters rely primarily upon static feats and class abilities to confront the problems that the game throws at them. And while a martial character can be built to overwhelm most problems, it is impossible to build them to solve all problems, like you can build the caster. The number of class features they are offered are simply more limited than the number of spells a caster is provided with.
Winning everything is about always being relevant, always having solutions to the diverse problems that pathfinder as a game throws at players, and I think the caster delivers in this regard while the martial character is lacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, I think people here need to notice the difference between the game they play and the actual pathfinder rules. Just because a GM can make something not a problem doesn't mean it still shouldn't be fixed as part of the normal rules.Yes, actually, it can mean exactly that.
why do we even need rules then?
That's the thing. We don't. They're useful tools, but that's all.
then why are you DISCUSSING HOW THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED? if you're fine with changing them, that's fine, but doesn't actually lead to constructive talk on this topic. remember threads are threads not sticks that poke out of the OP(AKA the topic changed a while ago).
You've described the thing you are doing, not the reason for doing it.
also, really want someone to reference my weight class question, which is basically why can't martials be the same weight class as casters?What makes this scale any better a system for evaluating classes than any other system? For that matter, what's the point of "tiering" classes at all?the scale is just a scale generically of characters. If you read their descriptions of 2-4, which are the ones I listed earlier, martials are 2 in general even at lvl 20, while casters end up level 4. the fact is that walking around at the same in game level but having dramatically less overall "power" is a problem simply at the least as a labeling issue.
the "tiering" is for the same reason you have a difference between a lvl 3 fighter and a level 8 fighter.
no I'm explaining that when X is labeled as X, it damn better be X. the tiering thing, I in general don't actually care if they're labeled as Tier 3 or what ever on the table I listed, only that they all fall on the same weight, and can express the same power over the events unfolding when they are labeled with the same power level, aka the character's level.
"Playable" doesn't really say much. An all commoner game is "playable."
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).From the PRD
- - You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works. Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible
Those two bolded parts are the limitations from the spell description. Lots of things for a DM to play with there.
-Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation
That parts from the PRD under general rules for magic.
Lots to play with there too.
None of those are significant limitations though. Unless you intend to tell me that "areas of strong physical or magical energy" are literally all over. In which case, the caster would know that in advance and simply pick a different powerful spell. (Like Magic Jar.)
"Playable" doesn't really say much. An all commoner game is "playable."
Hey now, I enjoyed playing an Expert. I guess that means casters must not equal win, since I can have fun playing an Expert. Since evidently a class just needs to be fun, why doesn't everyone just play Experts? They're just as fun to play as any other class and match their concept perfectly making them balanced against classes whose concept is to reshape reality.
/sarcasm.
@ blahpers, true. Unfortunately in both situations you severely limit what you can design as encounters. A mixture of both opens many more doors.
Maybe so. I find it refreshing sometimes, though. If my party is all fighters, that opens some doors and closes others when it comes to adventure design. But I actually feel more nervous if they're all squishy wizards, since for all that phenomenal cosmic power they only have to screw up royally once to get smashed into paste. I much prefer a party of various types, as you mentioned.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
|
|
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).
Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.
Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".
Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
What if the reality of the argument came in a flowchart?
Welp guess I know the answer to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
i'm just going to quote this for effect
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
I am glad you are here as one of us.
Have a seat and realize yours is not the only opinion.
then why are you DISCUSSING HOW THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED? if you're fine with changing them, that's fine, but doesn't actually lead to constructive talk on this topic. remember threads are threads not sticks that poke out of the OP(AKA the topic changed a while ago).yeah, I think people here need to notice the difference between the game they play and the actual pathfinder rules. Just because a GM can make something not a problem doesn't mean it still shouldn't be fixed as part of the normal rules.Yes, actually, it can mean exactly that.
why do we even need rules then?
That's the thing. We don't. They're useful tools, but that's all.
I'm not. I'm discussing the thread topic, which is about casters "winning" or not.
no I'm explaining that when X is labeled as X, it damn better be X. the tiering thing, I in general don't actually care if they're labeled as Tier 3 or what ever on the table I listed, only that they all fall on the same weight, and can express the same power over the events...
.
Tier, weight, doesn't matter--you're imposing an ordering on classes based on some arbitrary metric. Why?
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
What was that, Lord Paizo? Shun the non-believer? It shall be done, lord.
lol, troll.why don't you come back once you are a successful game company. until then keep your ameuteur thoughts on game design to yourself rofl
Yesssssss, lord, your will has been done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of campaign worlds where the magic in the world is affected by the campaign in ways not described by the core rules.
- Darksun. One of the most popular campaign worlds of 2nd ed and 3.5 edition for those who got the setting material from dungeon mag. Casting there had all sorts of dire ramifications.
- Zeitgeist campaign world has a whole section on how scying and teleporting get limited through using an unbroken ring of gold. Put that on a casters finger, or in a ring around a dungeon cell or chamber, or city wall or .....you get the point. It made teleportation in and out of that area impossible.
- War of the burning sky. The entire astral plane had been set alight. Travel of any type in there was not healthy.
- Eberron. The planes had shifting levels of reachability, making summoning and binding spells particularly tricky. In fact, the entire book took magic use to whole new levels and built around it. Great setting. Wish my players had wanted to stay there instead of Golarion. However, I now love Golarion too.
- Golarion. The god of Prophecy was slain. All prophecies are unreliable. That makes high level divination magic unreliable, although so far Paizo hasn't done much to push that issue. There are entire areas of the setting where magic doesn't act the same way as spelled out in the core books. That's because the core books are setting neutral. That means they are flexible enough to be used by anyone depending on what setting they want.
The problem in these discussions is that one group wants to talk about bare rules, no setting thanks.
The other group wants to discuss why the settings show that casters cant rule completely.
you can certailnyl make a setting where casters rule completely. But very few campaigns work that way.
This is probably why the OP and vast quantities of other players don't see the Casters = Win situation.
Cheers
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.
Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".
Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.
how is a false destination even possible? no seriously, I've been wondering this because I agree you need some familiarity.
like what? your shown a photoshopped image? you were high as a kite when you were last there?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
Well, the Word of God from Paizo is that the martial-caster disparity is nothing but a myth perpetuated by evil people with a sinister agenda...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Versatility equals greater power, but only in the hands of a superior pilot. In the hands of a perfect pilot, I think the caster would ALMOST ALWAYS be more relevant than the martial character. But luckily, Pathfinder in practice is not a game of perfect piloting, but rather of imperfect players trying to figure out situations on the fly and solve them given a character concept. Martial characters always and constantly supply a powerful baseline, the ability to deal damage, that is applicable to practically all of the obstacles that a GM throws at their characters, while a caster may be better or worse able to contribute on the basis of the applicability of the spells they have prepared.
But even more importantly, Pathfinder is a cooperative game between players. This argument doesn't matter a whole lot because, when played well, the whole team is contributing to solve the problems thrown at them, and the GM is designing the problems to throw at his playgroup with the parties composition in mind. Often the best spellcasting strategies are the ones that use the martial characters to their best advantage and give them more of the spotlight, such as buffing and healing. The game is won or lost as a group, not as an individual. So I wouldn't worry about the argument overmuch unless you have disruptive players who are taking away from the groups overall enjoyment.
What limitations does Teleport have? Other then the ones that are in the spell, which have no real impact on it's power (and I say this having DMed a Wizard who rolled similar area twice and mishap once in a single campaign).Range limitation: yes, there are published campaigns where this is relevant.
Familiarity requirement: you cannot teleport to a location you have never seen and have no familiarity with. Note: there is no entry for "never seen".
Weight restriction: I hope you did not dump strength.
The range limitation... isn't though. I'd like to see anyone (other then... say a higher level caster) travel faster then teleporting. And that is what makes it powerful.
The familiarity requirement isn't much of a limitation either. It limits you to "only" instantaneously covering distances that you can "see".
Weight Restrictions... two words. Ant Haul. Two more words. Bull's Strength.
Trust me, I've GMed it as written. It's powerful, and I was absolutely enforcing all of the above limitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
Asserting that people who do not agree with you must be ignorant or deluded is not a very effective way to convince them that you are correct. It's a pretty good way to get your post flagged, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to post this thing again, do I?
Whatever, there's no point arguing this with people who steadfastly refuse to be convinced. It's not an accident that disparity deniers only exist on this board, which has a (not 100% undeserved) reputation for being an echo chamber for Paizo fans.
As far as I can tell the flowchart is factually accurate. Care to point out where you feel it is not blahpers? And most importantly why? Preferably in that order, but I'm flexible.