So you have 1-2 per encounter. I can cast Summon monster as a standard action every round of every combat with a few utility auto win conjuration spells to back it up with a bonded item to give me 1/day free auto win spells.I'd say sin wizard is the best. Exploiter is actually better for 15 minute days but any time you have >2 encounters per day it's worse.Actually you could say the Exploiter is actually better off... With the ability to switch spells as they see fit, they can pretty muhc always have silver bullets. They should only need a few spells per encounter...
1) Bonded Objects are a really a theorycraft. I mean, last I checked, most people prefer Familairs for the Improved Familiar feat for a wand monkey.
2) You can cast Summon Monster as a Full Round Action every round. Unless, your an occultist Arcanist.
3) You have EVERY silverbullet at your disposal. No need to every worry about "Oh! I wished I had prepared X conditional spell"
I've never had a familiar. I see them as a pointless liability that's little more than a improved initiative feat. I don't want to waste money on a wand of haste.
I don't use familiars, either. Besides seeing the wand monkey as a cheesy, cookie-cutter solution that would surely be punished by any intelligent DM, I find the bonded ring quite powerful, both because of the bonded casting and the ability to craft.
You have a full round action added to the cast time of your silver bullet. I'm winning the encounter with evolved earth elementals who swing for 1d6+8/1d4+8/1d4+8 while you load up the mystical "perfect spell".
You really think that one extra round of that trumps the ability to call up and cast any spell in your spellbook? Summons cannot "win" every encounter, especially at higher levels. Standard stuff...sure, you're better off just throwing out meat and beating your enemies down, but that is not the point.
It is impossible to catch an EeeeeW without the right spells for the job. All those difficult encounters against strange creatures with lots of resistances are suddenly over very quickly. Admittedly, this still requires the player to be smart enough to invest widely and wisely in utility/niche spells (and it requires the gold for those spells, as well), but in the hands of a good players, the EeeeeW is the ultimate swiss army knife, and is capable of delivering a straightforward beatdown quite effectively, as well.
--------------------------------------
Apropos nothing, I'm not much a fan of the Sin Wizard. The fluff is corny, and the ability to spam "more of the same" is not what makes a wizard powerful in the hands of a good player, and the old-school absolute prohibition on spells from opposed schools is very limiting, not to mention sacrificing the often-potent school powers of the standard specialist. You want to be a conjuration sin mage...you will never cast an evocation or illusion spell in your career. Ouch!
Narrow wizard builds are teh suck if your DM is intelligent and plays your enemies as such. This is why Preferred Spell/Greater Spell Specialization shenanigans are traps for munchkins. Anyone with half a brain can figure out how to counter a single bloody spell! The sin mage is obviously better off than the oaf who has specialized in this way, but he's still a glorified sorcerer, and if he's the only arcane caster in the party...well, you'd better hope those earth elementals can fill the holes in your casting ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't drain off spell slots either, since that's very specifically a separate Arcanist class feature. You're effectively stuck with the staves and wands if you want more points in the pool.Wands are too expensive. The most efficient way to regain Arcane Reservoir points are 2nd level scrolls made by yourself with bonus Scribe Scroll feat gained by Wizard at 1st level - 150 gp apiece.
I got even idea how to visualize consuming scrolls. You turn them into magic dust and then snort it like cocaine, because nothing beats junkie Wizard literally addicted to arcane power :D.
I'd probably flavor it as my Arcanist eating the scroll.
"Mm-mm! Tastes like abjuration!"
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides seeing the wand monkey as a cheesy, cookie-cutter solution that would surely be punished by any intelligent DM...
ANY GM who feels the need to PUNISH his players is not only a MAJOR douche, but is missing the point of the game entirely.
ANY GM who feels the need to PUNISH his players is not only a MAJOR douche, but is missing the point of the game entirely.
Perhaps I should have phrased that more carefully; I seem to have offended you. Intelligent villains punish the party for the flaws and limitations in their strategies. The DM runs the villains.
I realize that not all DMs play truly diabolical villains, but they should. Let's be real here: the black wizard with the 26 INT that's been hounding the party for months is going to devote some resources to picking off that wand monkey if he turns into the spambot many players think he ought to be. Why? Because the familiar is a soft target and a force multiplier. The villain goes after him because the villain actually wants to win, not merely to present a class-level-appropriate challenge to the party on their way to world domination.
When the intelligence of the NPCs is just a number on a stat sheet and their only function is to provide the illusion of true challenge...that, my friend, is the sign of a DM who has missed the point.
Honestly, I would strongly consider taking the Call Out feat rather than the Counterspell Exploit, it is potentially mechanically better, gives additional minor bonuses and all it requires is a way to boost intimidate to a decent level.
With this, you don't even have to do the whole +1 spell level to counter of the counterspell exploit, and you can draw aggro from the BBEG caster instead of your more vulnerable party members.
I think with this feat existing it is possibly a better route for the exploitater wizard and you save one of your few exploits.
My 2cp though ;)
|
Besides seeing the wand monkey as a cheesy, cookie-cutter solution that would surely be punished by any intelligent DM...ANY GM who feels the need to PUNISH his players is not only a MAJOR douche, but is missing the point of the game entirely.
Every table is different as is each group.
I've rewarded and punished players for various things in various ways. There are a great many techniques that can and, I feel, should be employed where necessary. I have every intention of punishing a player in the future should that course of action be most appropriate. When I hear statements like the one you made, it leads me to think about the entitlement discussions. People have these ideas about how a social game should be played and develop generic or specific philosophies related to them almost like following the rules of optimization, as if there is a preformated method one should always use. Sure, if I were going at your table, I might never encounter a situation where the concept of punishment was warranted. But I don't know you personally. Maybe if I were gming for you and you lacked the maturity to control your actions and be considerate but you did seem to have the cognizance to recognize that what you'd done was problematic via whatever negative action myself (and often other party members) might take in response, then that could be an avenue I'd use.
The 'rule' of mature discussion and the like does not always hold true. Not every player is mature (despite how we correlate age to maturity). Not every player understands lessons the same way. Not every player has the same behavior patterns around all people. Sticking to a particular set of behaviors when dealing with multiple intimate social groups won't always work.
In pfs- hard and fast guidelines with a touch of humanity is the key to success. In home games, it is so much more than that. So before you brand a given action or feeling based on ideas you have probably rightfully developed over the years, don't forget that your way and your idea is not the only acceptable way by any means at all. I am totally fine with your point of view as long as I don't ever have to abide by it.
Ps- I have punished players because I had an incredibly good grasp of the game and my actions directly facilitated the primary goal. So if my statement is true what does that say about yours?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only kind of "punishment" a GM should be able to dole out is to not invite a player or players back to his table (and with mature discussion of the problematic issue, hopefully it won't even come to that).
People play games to have fun, not to be punished. A GM (or anyone really) who feels the need to do more than the above (in any game) is having a power trip.
I am keen to hear you elaborate on a situation you felt warranted punishment, and how your chosen action resolved the issue, Dark Immortal.
|
|
There are some players who people like and don't want to lose or who you may not actually like but can't afford to lose for any number of reasons. Maybe nobody nearby plays and you're short on people as is, maybe they are just not smart enough to understand what you are trying to say or unable to handle 'mature' conversation well and often miss the point or behave totally different when dealing with more serious matters and it inhibits actually fixing the issue. I could enumerate a near endless list of ways where a person may be desirable at a table but simultaneously not be able to be dealt with in the stereotypical 'mature conversation' way.
Being restricted by your idea of conversation and then exile doesn't work in these (and a host of other) situations because everybody loses. Nobody has fun. The game is over and if it isn't the tone has changed or the problems persist and then you're all still losing when a genuine problem resolution was needed. Problem resolution doesn't have a rule saying it has to be pretty or kind or 'responsible'. That's not a criteria, but yes, it helps when dealing with people.
I never felt like I was having a power trip and my players never felt I was either (not in the circumstances we are discussing, anyway). Never mind that a gm on a power trip is OK in some circles. I know of and have seen some old school gamers who came from an erra where the gm was the absolute authority. I've seen some younger gamers with a gm who is borderline insane (but maybe fun) and always on a power trip. He throws rules to the wind when it suits his whims. He even torments his players as the mood inspires him. But they all keep coming back for more....lots more. Not my kind of game but I would never naysay his style. I enjoy seeing him and his table have their fun, even if it is not quite how I would have it.
I've had rules for players who chronically showed up late. I used to implement bonus rewards and the like and they could be turned in for in-game perks like race access and so forth. As we had problems of various types, tardyness and limited playtime being one of them, I felt it was incentive to reduce or remove the bonus point reward and even dock exp as needed for players being late. The older players who came late didn't get a discussion. They knew the deal and accepted it. They also were the start of the tardyness problem. The younger players never came late again. Also, starting on time whether everyone was there or not helped remove the tardyness issue. My game, at a local shop, had a waiting list of 12 people (though I think that number climbed). The shop owner had to find things to do with the customers coming in to try to play at my table and we had to run 3 different games with mine capped at 7 players. I was even forced to ask players from my table to leave and participate or run other games (shadowrun) so that other people could play in mine. Some people had been waiting for months.
This isn't me trying to sound special or amazing. I'm just telling you what was happening.
My game was low magic. I intentionally beat divine casters with a vorpal Nerf stick. Nevertheless our party had one. I planted an item for her character, specifically, and to reward the group in an adventure location I knew they would go to. They did, they found it and it was worth plenty of money but also was incredibly powerful with the divine magic restrictions. She had a staff with spells from her list on it.
Sessions passed, players were happy but she never used the staff. Combats were always gritty. I had a lot of player deaths on my hands. They knew this. She still never used the staff until people were losing their cool and starting to raise voices in frustration. After a very unnecessary second or third near tpk, and an attempt or two at just asking her why she didn't use the staff, players were growing angry and heated. I got plenty of venting phone calls over it. I called her up often and she was just scared to use it for some reason. Totally an out of game thing. I tried repeatedly talking her through her fears over the phone because we were friends. I wouldn't bother with this for a random player at a pfs table, afterall. But once my campaign started looking like it was going to end with her staff fully charged (and it had specifically been placed to keep them going strong and make her feel really useful and cool and the party happy and feeling safer) and she was unwilling or unable to use it, I took it away from her. It was unceremonious, might have even been raw divine intervention with me just saying the staff is gone. You don't have it anymore. And then something else to adjust for the sheer stress of the previous month of struggling and frustration. I don't recall if I docked her exp or even set her back an entire level. It might have been that, with the dictate to ruminate on what it meant to be a healer or some such (If memory serves she was a druid focused on healing or a cleric focused on healing and nature). From what I was understanding of her faith and actions, she would actually have lost all her powers and needed an atonement. Not happening in my world since that level of divine magic wasn't available....losing a level was me being nice.
Granted, she cried. But she did understand and everyone got back to having fun again. No one felt very sympathetic about her crying, though. I think everyone was just really angry that she wasn't contributing at all and whatever her personal fears were that inhibited her in character action was really messing up the game. There was no way we would ask her to leave the table. She'd been with us too long, was well liked, hell- we even talked on the phone about diablo 2 coming out (or maybe it was already out) and college and normal things.
I did not feel I could get through to her more effectively than that. Other people couldn't get through to her. Sticking to your suggestion would have made everyone pretty angry as we would have been telling her calmly and in different ways what she should do while she just isn't getting it and maybe getting angry herself now. And then removing her from the table. No. Not happening. She wasn't punished for being bad or wrong or anything. She was punished because that was what was needed to get her rear-end back on track. I learned a little (like maybe some people who get power sizee up and can't handle it and suffer from irrational or valid fear they cannot overcome or explain), I know she learned something, and everyone was better for it. But this doesn't mean that punishment is my only tool. I use whatever seems most appropriate. Even if it means that a rational discussion followed by a summary boot out the door is the way to go.
PS. I am afraid of the new power of the exploitations. Afraid that we have a wizard+ lurking in our midst and yet that is the last kind of thing the game needed. I am waiting for one of two things: additional resources shows the exploiter or arcanist are banned for pfs or for demonstration (gameplay, time, etc) to prove that the exploits and arcanist/exploiter are not just new, better wizards with more better options (because they didn't have enough before maybe).
Besides seeing the wand monkey as a cheesy, cookie-cutter solution that would surely be punished by any intelligent DM...ANY GM who feels the need to PUNISH his players is not only a MAJOR douche, but is missing the point of the game entirely.
I'm wondering if these DMs feel the need to punch people for using power attack or other rules.
Thankfully I only every GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dark Immortal, taking away a magic item they were refusing to use in the first place doesn't sound like a punishment so much as it does a practical adjustment. Docking XP and levels, on the other hand, does though, and I still fail to see how that did much of anything to improve the situation.
As for the new Exploiter Wizard, only playtime and experience will really tell. Armchair theories can only tell us so much before it gets into the realm of the misleading.
If my DM allows it, I will try playing EW in my next campaign and see how it works compared to classic Foresight Universalist style Wizard :D.
Playing thrown out of wizardry school anarchistic prodigious magic-junkie, who breaks all the rules when it suits him (even laws of magic) seems like a lot of fun :D... Someone a bit similar to main character from "Good Will Hunting" but a magician.
I'm wondering if these DMs feel the need to punch people for using power attack or other rules.
Thankfully I only every GM.
The point, which it seems some people aren't trying particularly hard to grasp, is that the garden variety wand monkey familiar, even the improved kind, is actually an easy, obvious target, and likely the first member of the party (which is essentially what he is if he's throwing out wand effects with any regularity) that an intelligent enemy would target. He has crappy hit points, and though he gets his master's base saves, he doesn't get any of his master's other save bonuses, meaning he ends up having crappy Reflex and Fort saves. He is very easy to kill, especially if you're another wizard and know what his weaknesses are.
Tell me: if you were faced with an enemy wizard whose familiar tossed wand effects at you every round, wouldn't you fry the thing? Wouldn't you...better yet...try to corner it and pick it off before you confronted the master, himself? Wouldn't that make the final showdown all the easier?
The fact that some players feel somehow entitled to their familiars - like they are out of bounds for nasty effects - is not the villains' problem. I have nothing against familiars, per se, but people who use them in overaggressive or foolish ways are going to get their fingers burnt by enemies with the slightest modicum of intelligence. The game is more fun when it's actually challenging.
1) Come up with a monster where I am within 1-2 CR and I promise you I can beat it with summoning rather easily. Summons do a ton of damage almost obnoxiously so. They have very strong SLA's as well. With the addition of the new rings summoning becomes even more absurd at high levels. I simply disagree about summons not winning all the encounters. Anything outside of an AMF summons are 90%-100% as effective as anything else.
Lol...nevermind the fact that a well-played party actually needs about CR+4 monsters to really be challenged. Sure, no problem. You're a 6th level...whatever you want to be...now "rather easily" take down an Ogre Mage (CR 8) with the summonings available to you. Good luck.
2) Evocation is a pretty lack luster school.
Really...you don't like the now three very powerful contingency spells? You don't like Icy Prison, Emergency Force Sphere, Tiny Hut, Cold Ice Strike, Sirocco, etc.? You sound like you're talking about 3.5. After Conjuration, Evocation is in the conversation for the best school in the game.
Let me guess...you don't care for Illusion because you only care about high level play? Your posts regarding summoning seem to indicate that.
My Core Rule Books Schools Were:
Conjuration
Illusion
Transmutation
Necromancy
It has shifted to:
Conjuration
Evocation
Transmutation
Illusion
Just for my thoughts on the where the schools stand. Evocation has gotten a lot of love, and some of their metamagic is completely broken.
Summons are pretty versatile but struggle vs DR. On the whole though I'm definitely in the summons are great camp.
.
.
----------
Artful Owl
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering if these DMs feel the need to punch people for using power attack or other rules.
Thankfully I only every GM.
The point, which it seems some people aren't trying particularly hard to grasp, is that the garden variety wand monkey familiar, even the improved kind, is actually an easy, obvious target, and likely the first member of the party (which is essentially what he is if he's throwing out wand effects with any regularity) that an intelligent enemy would target. He has crappy hit points, and though he gets his master's base saves, he doesn't get any of his master's other save bonuses, meaning he ends up having crappy Reflex and Fort saves. He is very easy to kill, especially if you're another wizard and know what his weaknesses are.
Tell me: if you were faced with an enemy wizard whose familiar tossed wand effects at you every round, wouldn't you fry the thing? Wouldn't you...better yet...try to corner it and pick it off before you confronted the master, himself? Wouldn't that make the final showdown all the easier?
The fact that some players feel somehow entitled to their familiars - like they are out of bounds for nasty effects - is not the villains' problem. I have nothing against familiars, per se, but people who use them in overaggressive or foolish ways are going to get their fingers burnt by enemies with the slightest modicum of intelligence. The game is more fun when it's actually challenging.
I actually read the quote as "punched" mistakenly.
I will disagree with any GM who sees it as him/her vs the players or feels that he/she is someone that can/should punish people. As a GM you are just roleplaying and that sometimes causes bad things to happen to PCs. Seeing that as punishing or getting back at these filthy mongrels who DARE play games with you is ridiculous.
I get the feeling that people are getting bent out of shape by the word "punish" because it is an emotionally-charged term, not because they actually take umbrage with anything that has been said about how a DM ought to run his monsters. Nobody here is hitting his players with a ruler.
Regarding DM-vs-players, there is a very fine line between being proactive with villains and just being a jerk. I am aware of that, which is why I go out of my way to do things like not knowing what spells the party has prepared and even not knowing what items they've recently bought (I have the players control one another) unless the villains would reasonably have that information (which, in the case of spells, they never do).
The thing is: at the end of the day, epic villains should be a tough out. They shouldn't just roll over and die like video game bots, and if you want a villain to really put up a good fight, your DM has got to do his best to go after the party with all of the resources the bad guy could reasonably bring to bear. But like I said...it's a thin line.
At any rate, against that kind of villain, the Exploiter is just too strong, too versatile, too capable of sabotaging the best laid plans without any real forethought on the player's part. If you're playing in the kind of campaign where spamming summons is the bee's knees, then the archetype shouldn't pose any problems that weren't already there. As for me, the Arcanist and EeeeeW will never see the light of day in my campaigns.
The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that there are only a few worthwhile explois for a wizard IMO of course. Those being potent and quick study and quick study is up in the air for me. Standing around for a full action to switch in the perfect spell is nice outside of battle but makes you a bigger target during. I could see a well buffed or invisible wizard doing fine with it though, but unfortunately for me I play in games where it's often, "surprise! Thing is going to attack you out of no where now."
Dimensional slide is nice, but I can't help but think you can't use it when grappled ue to it being a move action and grappled specifically says you can't move when grappled.
Counterspell can be nice if you're facing an enemy caster that uses low level spells a lot. Most casters I've run into have been around my level and use the bigger spells more than not.
Bloodline and school are ok for arcanists. So-so on wizards. With school you're just buying something you could have had instead of exploits. Bloodlines are interesting though. Possibly opening doors to different wizard builds or at least stronger versions of evocators and enchanters.
But yeah, potent and maybe quick study are the only ones that seem to be truly worth it. With dimensional slide, counterspell and bloodline being in the potentially good shelf for me. Not sure it's worth losing numerous slots, powers and a bond over though.
Metamixing is really nice later on. Spontaneously applying Metamagic Feats to your spells adds much to the versatility.
For example, you can combine Persistent Spell with Potent Spell and Foresight School Power (for beating SR) for nearly guaranteed success with some really nasty SoDs.
Quick Study is also there... Risky combat uses aside, you won't ever have to prepare utilty spells anymore. In vast majority of out of combat situations 6 seconds to swap your spell won't make much of a difference.
Wizard spell casting is extremely powerful... Possibly the most powerful class feature in the game.
Arcane Exploits are extremely powerful... And specifically built to synergize with arcane spell casting.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this archetype is overpowered.
Metamixing does indeed seem pretty nice now that I really consider it. Like you said Novack, it's better at high and sadly I've never gotten to play a pathfinder game past 7th level... so I don't know how it feels haha. You make a good point about quick study, although I wouldn't throw all utility from my prepared since it is still a point per spell switched.
That being said, since you said you'll play one of you can, mind letting me know how it goes / feels? I'm interested how it plays for real rather than me speculating what may or may not be good.
|
|
@Ravendork, The punishment worked. The game resumed on pace. People were having fun again. Problem solved. There were probably other solutions but that is the one I chose and felt worked best for that particular situation.
@Secret Fire I agree. I think people hear the word 'punish' and fabricate ideas and connotations and immediately rule the very concept out. Punishment is fine when it is necessary or the most affective tool based on the circumstance. Just because someone has reached or surpassed their 'age of majority' has nothing to do with whether a punishment, should it be considered, be directed their way. I think that word and being subjected to it in any fashion wounds some peoples personal pride on a deeper level and they feel that they should be beyond it and by default, it is a less sophisticated solution. This way of thinking is wrong. If one happens, it is simply what it is, no more and no less. I imagine that a mature player would recognize it and deal with it in whatever manner they felt appropriate. If you dislike a gm who punishes players for being late, disrupting the game, etc, don't play with that gm. Dictating that they should deal with problems in just one way is foolhardy and I say this with a nod of respect to the counterarguments party.
@everyone else:
Evocation works. You don't have to like it. You can make all sorts of arguments. But in the end when I evoke a spell that forces you to save twice or take too much damage or take the spell affect again or something worse...you'll either die or you'll feel the heat.
When I cast my quickened version of that same or a different spell and have successfully dealt all of your HP in damage, through all of your resistances, all of your arguments about flying, save or sucks, debuffing, controlling etc, fall flat. My turn is over and the enemy(ies) are dead. If you're still complaining it better be about why I didn't leave any for you to deal with.....
Before you mention that things are immune to this and resistant to that, it is -entirely possibly to run a blaster who uses a single element with no way to change it and does as much or more damage than martials to resistant targets. I know. I have one. Every time someone argues that blasting is inferior I wonder if they understand that numbers from a single spell or two that are => enemy HP means a dead or staggered enemy.
I am not optimized for max damage and our gm runs monsters at max HP. With that, I still hold back on the nukes so my party can feel like they are players instead of spectators. I know of blaster builds that can win encounters on the first round on the first turn- consistently.
Summoning is awesome, too- at all levels with the exceptions of 1 and 2 unless you're a summoner or have the feat letting you keep them out for a minute per level. My summoner has abused earth elementals for most of his career. Sure, he could summon fancy things but why? Earth elementals get the job done so easily so often. I have used earth elementals and eagles well into the mid-high levels. If I wanted to get creative and flex the abusive properties of the spell, there are other things I could have summoned for more specific circumstances bit my strategy was battlefield control and to keep enemies near the ground and away from me. As long as I did that, I could default back to (you guessed it) earth elementals....
I could probably make these kinds of arguments for every school or darn near close to it....they're all good.
PS. I wish banned schools were still a thing.
Enervation!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides seeing the wand monkey as a cheesy, cookie-cutter solution that would surely be punished by any intelligent DM...ANY GM who feels the need to PUNISH his players is not only a MAJOR douche, but is missing the point of the game entirely.
There is a difference between punishing and intelligent opponents targeting the wand-wielding monkey.
Those same intelligent opponents may decide to do something about the caster standing in the middle of a fight flipping through their book.
When it comes to familiars and spellbooks, I tend to go with, "out of sight, out of mind." You want to bring them into play during combat, intelligent opponents are going to notice them.
I've got to agree with RavingDork, a DM who attacks either is a major douche.
Only until the player makes them an active component of during a fight. At that point, they are just as valid a target as anything else.
|
|
I guess that's OK for players to use tools like this against enemies but not for the gm to use them against players? A villain can't want to hurt a character mechanically and emotionally by striking at familiars, animal companions and spell books and the like? But I guess it's entirely OK if the characters home village is razed...or is it? This sounds like everybody has their own line in the sand and there isn't a right or wrong way to go about this.
I am just as fine playing in a game where spell books are stolen, destroyed or worse, and familiars and bonded items are targeted and slain as a matter of consequence, as I am playing in a more cheerful world with less grit as those things don't happen.
In or out of battle, your familiar can die, be targeted or whatever. Tough. The consensus is that you can do anything already. If everything is within your grasp why would you complain about a weakness you can negate? Don't want an enemy villain going after your spell book, familiar or bonded item-you're god(aka a wizard). So stop them. Don't sit here and talk up the sheer power and versatility of the class, then in the same darn breath suffer grievance because there is a weakness. Making claims that any gm who goes after such weakneses (so what, you can stay at ultimate power for all time?) is doing something personally degrading to their character is also out of line. You don't know what that GM's intentions may be or the state of their game and players. The line of arguments presented to favor having ones cake and eating it, too dove well into the land of hypocrisy when taken in the context of the consensus of what the wizard is and can do. if wizards are as powerful as people say and can do as much as people say, then we shouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
I agree but there is a big difference. Fireball, chain lighting, acid fog, aqueous orb, black tentacles, exct don't target the familiar but they effect it. There is no check to determine what item is bonded. It can just as likely be the necklace or the stick you carry. Knowing what item is bonded is basically metagaming.
Precisely. Going after (or simply hitting with effects) a familiar that is an active combatant is a far cry from using DM fiat to dork up somebody's bonded item. The former is a tough, but rational response to a questionable tactical decision on the part of the player. The latter is, in most cases, just being a jerk.
Only until the player makes them an active component of during a fight. At that point, they are just as valid a target as anything else.
Most of the time, intelligent monsters, just like intelligent players, will choose the path of least resistance - the tactics which are most likely to lead them to victory. If an intelligent monster can kite you, it will probably do so. If an intelligent monster perceives that borking your exposed familiar is the easiest way to sap your party of its strength, it will probably do so.
----------------------------------
I seem to have hit quite a nerve with this discussion of wand monkeys and the awful things my monsters occasionally do to them. I hadn't really meant to start a brush fire, but the "can a DM target your familiar without being branded an archdouche" question turns out to be a quite interesting litmus test for players' feelings of entitlement.
My feelings on the issue are clear: the PCs exist as part of the world, not its center. Players who want to spam attacks and hack suicidal sacks of hit points to bits should play a video game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always wonder if these so called super intelligent villains also stock their dungeons with rust monsters and equip their guards with admantine weapons. If they are going out of there way to destroy familiars and spell books, despite this having 0 effect on a wizard in the middle of battle beyond pissing them off(post battle is another matter, but by then they are dead), they must put destroying the raging barbarian's great sword or w/e as an even higher priority.
There are no AOO's allowed. They appear in your square sucking blood.
I should add that this is a horribly munchkinoid interpretation of the summoning rules. If your DM seriously allows you to summon stirges directly into an enemy's hex without provoking an AoO (but, of course, the enemy would provoke if he tries more than an 5 foot step out of the hex, amirite?), what you really need is a better DM.
So find a cave, either it leaves or comes for you. One of the two things will happen.
Lol...and if you're facing an Oni because you have to stop him from doing something (a very typical scenario), explain to me how hiding in a cave every time he shows up doesn't lead to strategic, if not tactical failure. Intelligent villains have goals beyond pounding the party into a bloody pulp. If the PCs cannot proactively engage the monsters, but must rather hide in caves, then they have already lost.
If you don't like power gamers you should read this. http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636 because you're committing it right now. I'm definitely a power gamer. So what? You act like that's a bad thing. It boggles my mind that people inherently hate power gamers.
You apparently haven't actually thought about the Stormwind Fallacy very much. It states, simply, that roleplaying and rollplaying aren't mutually exclusive things, which is obviously true. For my part, I want player characters who are powerful, smart and efficient, as they will be facing monsters to whom those same adjectives also apply. I have no problem with optimization.
But...I draw the line with Traits. Why? Because Traits are the point where mechanics and fluff most clearly come together. They have mechanical effects, but are also explicitly a part of the character's personal history. If you're consistently building characters who were either beaten as children (Reactionary), received the mythical Elven combat training (Warrior of Old) or whatever other cheese you can find to grab a free +2 initiative (does this describe you...I bet it does), then you are munchkining your PC at the expense of roleplaying.
It doesn't take a whole lot of deep thinking to understand this point. The fallacy, such as it is, does not apply to Traits.
I always wonder if these so called super intelligent villains also stock their dungeons with rust monsters and equip their guards with admantine weapons.
That depends on how common such resources are. In an part of the world in which Rust Monsters are native...sure, why not?
If they are going out of there way to destroy familiars and spell books, despite this having 0 effect on a wizard in the middle of battle beyond pissing them off(post battle is another matter, but by then they are dead), they must put destroying the raging barbarian's great sword or w/e as an even higher priority.
This is the error in your thinking. Intelligent monsters don't just assume that they will die in the next 3-4 rounds the first time they meet the party, and charge forward to meet their fate. This is what video game monsters do. Intelligent monsters, like the PCs they fight, are perfectly capable of playing the long game of striking and retreating if they don't think they can win a straight-up fight.
Funny because the big argument people make about schools is the extra spell slots...
In a vacuum absent school abilities, the extra spell slots vastly outweigh the penalty of opposition schools. The comparison was more nuanced in 3.5, but in Pathfinder the penalty is significantly easier to work around. Perhaps if the school abilities of the universalist school or the class features of some of the generalist archetypes were more powerful then there might be a discussion to be had, but prior to the ACG no generalist archetype was even arguably that strong. That's the game-changer: this is the first published generalist archetype whose class features that overshadow the baseline school abilities. Extra spell slots are very nice, but as evidenced by the presence of generalist wizards in high-optimization gameplay in 3.5 they aren't strictly needed. All Pathfinder was waiting for was an incentive to go generalist, and the ACG just provided that. On a class as powerful as the wizard, however, that's an easy one to push too far.
I'd also note that there have been relatively few wizard archetypes that trade away the arcane bond, and those that do are generally terrible. Part of the excitement here may very well be from people who dislike the arcane bond class feature and have finally been given an archetype that lets them exchange it.
At this point I'm uncertain about the exploiter archetype. If I had to guess, I'd say it'll probably be under control at lower levels but will become problematic at higher levels. Exactly where it crosses the line, I'm not sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Novack: I don't see why an Exploiter Wizard couldn't get the Extra Arcanist Exploit feat. Could you explain that?
I can jump on that one. Extra Arcanist's Exploit requires the Arcanist's Exploit class feature as a prerequisite. Exploiters get Exploiter's Exploit instead.
Quite honestly, that's about the only thing that keeps the Exploiter from being flat-out perfect.
Paizo has stated previously that "duck typing" generally applies to their published material (if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck). For example the sensei (monk archetype) "advice" ability and evangelist (cleric archetype) "sermonic performance" both allow you to qualify for Extra Performance and Lingering Performance feats even though only "sermonic performance" spells out that it interacts with feats.
I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to Exploiter's Exploit too.
|
|
Lol @KuntaSS
All of these people issuing their judgments on the gming styles of others (regardless of whether they work or not) is entertaining to see and frustrating to be subject to. I don't want to gm under their rules of entitlement. So I don't. They cannot prove their argument as any sort of fact, only personal opinion based on their personal preference. Yet, this seems enough to warrant a universal label to all those who don't follow their belief system. Didn't realize this was Sunday church.
Being told I am a not very nice person because I don't do a particular thing in a particular way that a few people would prefer I do those things can be really aggravating when those people in other respects present themselves as intelligent and able minded individuals who can understand how that view is entirely wrong, narrow-minded and limiting. But as I described in my example a couple of posts up- sometimes you just can't get someone to see something, accept something or understand something, despite however much logic, reasonable discourse or fairness is given.
Apparently, though, it is not enough for some people to let other people do and enjoy things in the way they do and enjoy them. They want their flavor to be the flavor of your pie because they like that flavor-in this case it doesn't seem to matter much to them if you or anyone else likes it or not.
But it won't stop me from surprising a party with repeated night encounters that start with rust monsters eating their unattended gear followed by imperial soldiers chasing the monsters down and running into the PC's who are now weaponless and who were fleeing such province for being wanted for crimes they didn't commit. I do that crap. I do it intentionally. I make unfair encounters and then villains who can be bullied around by the pc's. I have dragons that are cake walks and gargoyles that will tpk. My players don't give me flak for these things and don't call me a douche. But they do call me. They call me to ask me when the heck will I run again. They call me to help them incorporate ideas of mine into games they want to run. They call me to chat about the adventure, or to remenisce about sessions long past-even now, after a decade+. I've run for lots of groups and people in lots of places. But only here, with people I have not run for, have I been accused of 'doing it wrong'.
Something's not right.
** spoiler omitted **...
1) TUrn down the hostility there mr. OH SO GREAT WIZARD!
2) So, you say a wizard's strength comes from his spells and what he choses. So by that logic, the Exploiter Wizard would actually be stronger, because the ability to potentially have EVERY SPELL IN HIS SPELL LIST as "prepared spells" could make him infinetely more versatile and powerful vs a guy who has to prepare certain spell for teh day.