I'm arguing that wizards are better in paizo.
Didn't answer my question.
because neither option is a correct answer, so if i'm limited to the two then i cannot give you an answer, unless you accept "neither". I did however, answer the implied question, "what are you arguing?".
because neither option is a correct answer, so if i'm limited to the two then i cannot give you an answer, unless you accept "neither". I did however, answer the implied question, "what are you arguing?".
I'm arguing that wizards are better in paizo.
Didn't answer my question.
So it's not a generic contest and it's not set in Golarion then.
That's what neither means.
Who made up that rule?
We are using all Paizo Pathfinder material. Where it comes from is irrelevant.
1) yes it is limited to Paizo material no 3pp, generic implied anything is allowed. 3pp can get bad fast...
2) I think it was the person hosting the contest who said they were using PRD, so the implied contest should have been "mythic fighter vs wizard: in a PRD environment" so that way people didn't get confused. to be frank, I use SRD, so I have no idea how they differ.
Good thing it's not then huh. The question was are Mythic Fighters better then a Wizard in Pathfinder.
Blood Money is in Pathfinder. This is very simple.
If it's PRD, then Blood Money is illegal. PRD does not include Golarion specific material.I think it was the person hosting the contest who said they were using PRD, so the implied contest should have been "mythic fighter vs wizard: in a PRD environment" so that way people didn't get confused. to be frank, I use SRD, so I have no idea how they differ.because neither option is a correct answer, so if i'm limited to the two then i cannot give you an answer, unless you accept "neither". I did however, answer the implied question, "what are you arguing?".
I'm arguing that wizards are better in paizo.
Didn't answer my question.
So it's not a generic contest and it's not set in Golarion then.
That's what neither means.
Who made up that rule?
We are using all Paizo Pathfinder material. Where it comes from is irrelevant.
well then i need to go find what he actually said... >_> in all these pages, wasn;t there another thread for this?
Anzyr, you find it since you actually remember the guys name probably.
You are extremely mistaken. I have not fought a Mythic (or any other Fighter) with a Wizard before. And I most certainly have never lost a Pathfinder PvP encounter.
I would love to this Fighter that could "kill" my Wizard. Pity said Fighter never showed up to the fight huh? "Never get a spell off" huh? Those are some big claims from someone who didn't submit a build.
Funny how you like to forget things, isn't it.
Still, in the REAL context of gaming, it's not important HOW it turned out, as I'll explain after this...but to tell the truth...what was a legitimate question in one thread turned out to be a similar thing that happened here. You came in and twisted and turned a ton of rules that no reasonable GM would allow (RAI), and tried to make it a duel of ridiculous situations and proportions rather than actually answering the question (actually, in truth, you DID answer the question initially by admitting the concept couldn't be beaten by your initial thoughts...but that the concept was also illegal...until someone pointed out that it was actually something already directly presented in a rulebook).
I deplored it then that a concept question was taken out of answering the question and turning it into some duel/fight/pvp thing which I feel is against the spirit of RPG's...and I don't really like it now either.
However, to recap the thread that you so conveniently forgot...
I remember you kept on having rules problems and not realizing certain items actually existed.
It wasn't quite the FIGHT per se, but it was one where you hated the concept, until you were proven wrong and that yes, the wizard would lose, basically all the time to the concept.
You then came up with some crazy conconction where the GM gave
1.the spellcaster was given all the time in the world, the martials ZERO time
2. The spellcaster was aware of the martials and all they had and the martials were NOT aware of the spellcaster
3. The spellcaster therefore was allowed to ambush the martials from WAAAAAAAAY up high and drop a lava bomb they had condensed to small size that would explode to full size...as if the Spellcaster could actually HIT anything from several thousand feet away with a ranged attack....
Basically giving a situation that ONLY was beneficial to the spellcaster with all advantages to the spellcaster and in no way something they would ever encounter against a party.
The thread concluded that if the GM let the Spellcaster THAT MUCH SLACK...the spellcaster could win against the concept...otherwise...probably not....as a forewarned party had other methods that allowed them to fly to counter the spellcasters flight methods.
Most importantly however...
However, OUTSIDE of your discussion, it showed that a martial PAIRED with a Wizard was FAR more powerful than just a wizard, or even two wizards. The synergy of teamwork was FAR more powerful than this entire...my wizard is stronger then your fighter...because even in the situations where the wizard IS stronger...two wizards would probably be weaker then a fighter and a wizard combined due to the synergy and teamwork that they can work between them...at least at CERTAIN levels. This ties to what I really think of this entire PvP thing... it shouldn't happen...at all. In my playstyle...IT DOESN'T as this is a TEAM game and TEAMWORK focused rather than a ME vs. EVERY OTHER PLAYER AT THE TABLE game.
On lesser notes though
It also showed you hated the concept. I added the fact that it actually was munchkiny and very powergamey for the martial...I don't think you were the one who actually noted that at all. You didn't like the concept though as it didn't agree with your argument that wizards always ruled supreme. It's ME who is stating the very concept is obviously a munchkin and powergame concept, even if RAW, much like what you want to push here...but now with RAI rather than what I would see as RAW.
I imagine this is how you try to win all your Wizards are supreme things, you conveniently forget when you have problems when they AREN'T supreme...or you remember things differently than how they went down?
The funniest part was where you were trying to convince people that something couldn't possibly exist when an example was right online already.
I think the part that really is the worst is that you ALWAYS twist the rules as you would WANT them to be rather than how they are. You did it in that thread, and I suspect unless someone can actually GM to reign that in with you in this...it will happen here.
If I were to GM this, I'd put it in an actual dungeon type arena environment that could be just as deadly as the foe...meaning that stupid shenanigance such as trying to create lava bombs probably would end up killing your character rather quickly.
Ironically, (and this is perhaps the MOST ironic), is that I probably would actually AGREE with you on many of your points if you didn't simply try to shove them down and twist rules to suit you rather then listening to the other side.
Most of THAT comes down to the idea that I view this as an RPG and NOT a dueling PvP system. It's a game that has TEAMWORK and TEAMPLAY as essential elements. Players that are disruptive and try to pretend that they rule the roost with their characters...will be shut down by me as the GM. Why? Because the GM CAN do that. No player is immune, and a GM that CAN'T do that...is probably not thinking creatively enough.
With your build, I as a GM, could kill you wizard with an NPC rogue...very easily.
Does that make me a BAD GM...for your playstyle as presented here...ABSOLUTELY. Our playstyles seem to differ...however this entire combat thing or PvP thing...is an absolute Farce.
It ignores what is actually important in the game, and even moreso, the role of the GM that makes it so everyone actually has fun.
With my playstyle....with a GM...there are NO tiers...it's a team...and everyone has the opportunity to shine at some point. If YOU as a Player try to make someone else have NO FUN...then I as a GM would smack that player down.
I think there can be legitimate questions, and I think the OP had one. I think the thread has devolved into a men beating their chests a little too much to try to pronounce something that in game...doesn't happen, or if it did...at least in my gameplay style...someone would suddenly be finding another group.
We obviously have different playstyles. However this entire PvP thing...it is ENTIRELY dependant on the GM. Even a Fair GM isn't going to actually be able to be completely fair and non-biased...and if they are...it's going to be in a hostile environment for both characters.
Still, if a group is resorting to PvP...that's not really what I think should be happening...if anything one or the other should be controlled by as an NPC by the GM...and if that is happening...I'll say this...I'm going to favor whoever the PC is over the NPC.
In this instance...if your wizard was the PC...I'd definitely give them the upper hand to have advantages to beat the NPC to tell the truth...unless you were going around killing the rest of the party on purpose...and if you were the fighter and the wizard was the NPC..the fighter would have the advantage. I'd be biased...point blank...and for MY playstyle (not necessarily yours)...you have to let the players have a chance to survive.
And THAT is what I think really one can get out of that thread that I referred to previously...as well as what SHOULD BE GARNERED IN THIS ONE. You give me a shot, yes, I could kill the wizard with a rogue as a GM...and you would be very angry. At the same time, I could kill the Fighter with the environment and random happenings...
All very unfairly and terribly. How powerful or NOT powerful one is really boils down to the GM...IMO...and NOT some misguided attempt at PvP.
PS: the most ironic out of all of this...is that I actually would agree with the martial/caster disparity as well. The difference, I think a good GM can make each shine and that together they can shine all the brighter than a party made up of only one kind of class.
OK, the other thread is enormously long so I am starting this one as a way to track my proposed running of the contest and to avoid it getting lost amongst the arguments. Feel free to use this thread to ask questions about the contest. Please don't bring arguments from the other thread here, keep them over there please.
Repeating the base rules her for information:
Entrants need to be sent to me by 4pm GMT Sunday 25.01.OK, in a vain effort to try and bring this ridiculous argument to some sort of conclusion I am going to offer to run this idiotic contest and am proposing some ground rules. I will also start a new thread containing them so as to avoid getting lost in this monstrosity.
I propose the following:
1. 20 point buy, it is standard
2. All PF materials available from the release of PF, no pr 3.x materials, no 3rd party
3. Standard WBL so 880000. As per UC having 1 crafting feat gives you a 25% boost, having two gives you a 50% boost.The contest is declared by the Gods of Tedium and Futility to settle an ages old argument which seems to refuse any opportunity to die. Our contestants are approached 1 week prior to the contest by heralds of our disinterested deities with the following stipulations:
1. In one weeks time each contestant will be teleported into the arena forged by the gods. It is a dull featureless flat plane some 1000' feet on a side. It is infinitely high.
2. Each contestant will begin on one side of the arena. You may bring whatever you wish with you. You will start in an area 100' on a side protected by an impenetrable barrier of godlike force.
3. You have 1 round to prepare following which the barrier will fall and you can act.
4. You cannot leave the arena although you may summon additional allies to help you if you wish. The ethereal and astral planes are coterminous and may be accessed but you still cannot leave the boundaries of the arena.
5. The winner is the first person to kill or otherwise permanently disable or incapacitate the enemy.
In order to ensure parity and to avoid complete madness before they leave our divine herald obliterates all existing animated or created undead, simulacrums, planar allies or planar bound minions or dubious time altering planes. You can bring what you are able to raise within a week.
I take the following positions on the various rules issues:
1. Blood Money is legal, if you want to use it you need to demonstrate that you can take the required strength damage. Given the limited time before the start of the contest you need to show you can heal any damage taken preparing or have some other means of getting around it.
2. Simulacrum is legal. While higher HD creatures may gain extra SLA's it isn't at all clear that lower HD ones lose them and without any clear guidelines I take the view that they keep them.
3. The silver cord of Astral Projection is just that, an incorporeal cord made of silver. It has the hardness and hp of a 1 inch thick silver cord. However it is protected by Mind Blank as other spell effects and equipment are.
4. Purchases need to be accounted for. This includes buying access to spells for the wizards spellbook. I imagine our fighter will be relying on scrolls. However, buying just a single scroll of for example mind blank for the contest, isn't going to demonstrate much as this is an ongoing cost. You can do so if you wish but be aware it weakens your case significantly.
I would much prefer not to run this as pbp and instead set up a roll 20 table and do it one weekend day. If you are interested in participating then PM me a full build by the end of this week and I will set something up.
I understand that some may not consider me a neutral arbiter. Frankly at this point I tend to think both sides are as ridiculous as each other so am not inclined to support either. I do think that PF has a real issue with caster/martial disparity, especially at the higher levels but am interested to see if Mythic can close that gap.
\
I just have bad memory at 11 PM, i guess, i'm sorry for the confusion.
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?
a 9th level fighter in superposition can have pretty much all the feats, and several different full upgraded weapons, he's covered. he also has infinite initiative making him always go first.
You are extremely mistaken. I have not fought a Mythic (or any other Fighter) with a Wizard before. And I most certainly have never lost a Pathfinder PvP encounter.
I would love to this Fighter that could "kill" my Wizard. Pity said Fighter never showed up to the fight huh? "Never get a spell off" huh? Those are some big claims from someone who didn't submit a build.
Funny how you like to forget things, isn't it.
Still, in the REAL context of gaming, it's not important HOW it turned out, as I'll explain after this...but to tell the truth...what was a legitimate question in one thread turned out to be a similar thing that happened here. You came in and twisted and turned a ton of rules that no reasonable GM would allow (RAI), and tried to make it a duel of ridiculous situations and proportions rather than actually answering the question (actually, in truth, you DID answer the question initially by admitting the concept couldn't be beaten by your initial thoughts...but that the concept was also illegal...until someone pointed out that it was actually something already directly presented in a rulebook).
I deplored it then that a concept question was taken out of answering the question and turning it into some duel/fight/pvp thing which I feel is against the spirit of RPG's...and I don't really like it now either.
However, to recap the thread that you so conveniently forgot...
I remember you kept on having rules problems and not realizing certain items actually existed.
It wasn't quite the FIGHT per se, but it was one where you hated the concept, until you were proven wrong and that yes, the wizard would lose, basically all the time to the concept.
You are extremely confused. I have literally no idea what you are talking about.
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?
I'm not in this thread, I was referring to another thread to tell the truth.
In this situation, if it came down to it, I would actually be a GM...in which instance, IF I had the time and we created another thread, it probably would be easy to demonstrate how the Wizard would die by a Rogue rather than a fighter (that is if they even made it to the rogue, doing something stupid in the dungeon more likely than not would get them killed instead).
These would be NPC's though...and not necessarily a PC vs. PC thing. As I noted above...this entire PvP thing really isn't my playstyle thing and I hate that many threads that ask what I view as good questions, devolve into this type of thing.
It should also be noted, NORMALLY I would be VERY reluctant to kill the wizard...and probably would favor the Wizard to kill the rogue rather than running a more Gygaxian type of dungeon. I'm typically a GM that favors the players and groups and hope that they win and survive rather then purposefully creating NPCs or areas that will kill them.
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?a 9th level fighter in superposition can have pretty much all the feats, and several different full upgraded weapons, he's covered.
But can still be defeated in 6 seconds by a 20th level wizard.
In several ways.
That's why I'm curious as to how a 9th level could win. And even more curious as to how a 9th level Rogue could win...
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?a 9th level fighter in superposition can have pretty much all the feats, and several different full upgraded weapons, he's covered.But can still be defeated in 6 seconds by a 20th level wizard.
In several ways.
That's why I'm curious as to how a 9th level could win. And even more curious as to how a 9th level Rogue could win...
That thread went on like this one. I don't really like seeing this go on all over again, as I made my point clear. I'll send you a PM though.
@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?I'm not in this thread, I was referring to another thread to tell the truth.
In this situation, if it came down to it, I would actually be a GM...in which instance, IF I had the time and we created another thread, it probably would be easy to demonstrate how the Wizard would die by a Rogue rather than a fighter (that is if they even made it to the rogue, doing something stupid in the dungeon more likely than not would get them killed instead).
These would be NPC's though...and not necessarily a PC vs. PC thing. As I noted above...this entire PvP thing really isn't my playstyle thing and I hate that many threads that ask what I view as good questions, devolve into this type of thing.
It should also be noted, NORMALLY I would be VERY reluctant to kill the wizard...and probably would favor the Wizard to kill the rogue rather than running a more Gygaxian type of dungeon. I'm typically a GM that favors the players and groups and hope that they win and survive rather then purposefully creating NPCs or areas that will kill them.
A 20th level wizard is basically immune to death.
I don't believe a rogue can kill him.
@greyworf
if this is a 20th level wizard versus a 9th level fighter and a 20th level wizard, this makes more sense. except i would just have 1 wizard be the dispell monkey and the other one kill the defenseless fighter then team up on the remaining wizard...
These would be NPC's though...and not necessarily a PC vs. PC thing. As I noted above...this entire PvP thing really isn't my playstyle thing and I hate that many threads that ask what I view as good questions, devolve into this type of thing.
have you ever played chess with yourself? it's not that fun because eventually you just make yourself win...
That thread went on like this one. I don't really like seeing this go on all over again, as I made my point clear. I'll send you a PM though.@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?a 9th level fighter in superposition can have pretty much all the feats, and several different full upgraded weapons, he's covered.But can still be defeated in 6 seconds by a 20th level wizard.
In several ways.
That's why I'm curious as to how a 9th level could win. And even more curious as to how a 9th level Rogue could win...
This other thread never happened. Not with me. This is the only PvP build I've ever posted on the forums.
is it perhaps this? or something like it?
is it perhaps this? or something like it?
If it is that's kind of sad.
That's not even a build though and even if the Limited Wish -> Geas was used and unsuccessful the follow up tactic would end it. And even then none of that helps the Paladin to actually get past my contingency or my other trick that I didn't use for this contest that gives me a lot of extra readied actions.
That's not even a build though and even if the Limited Wish -> Geas was used and unsuccessful the follow up tactic would end it. And even then none of that helps the Paladin to actually get past my contingency or my other trick that I didn't use for this contest that gives me a lot of extra readied actions.
It's the only time i see you mention dropping lava on people other than in a thread with a town that apparently have anti-magic field on all their weapons... they really f*!*ed that one up.
This other thread never happened. Not with me. This is the only PvP build I've ever posted on the forums.That thread went on like this one. I don't really like seeing this go on all over again, as I made my point clear. I'll send you a PM though.@Greywolf : I don't see your 9th level fighter. Where is it ?a 9th level fighter in superposition can have pretty much all the feats, and several different full upgraded weapons, he's covered.But can still be defeated in 6 seconds by a 20th level wizard.
In several ways.
That's why I'm curious as to how a 9th level could win. And even more curious as to how a 9th level Rogue could win...
You PVP all the time. Maybe not with as specific a build as this one, but you do it constantly.
Anyways, it's water under the bridge. Basically, in a Gygaxian dungeon, anyone can die, even 20th level wizards. It's all GM dependant though...
have you ever played chess with yourself? it's not that fun because eventually you just make yourself win...
These would be NPC's though...and not necessarily a PC vs. PC thing. As I noted above...this entire PvP thing really isn't my playstyle thing and I hate that many threads that ask what I view as good questions, devolve into this type of thing.
I think that's the point. RPG's aren't about PvP with yourself and another, it's about playing as a TEAM. It's a cooperative game...NOT a game where you beat your chest, and say...my wizard is going to kill your fighter.
NO...at least in my playstyle. A GM would basically say...is that right, and create a situation that the wizard dies rather quickly and gruesomely in if that player decided to create inter party conflict and hurt other players for no real reason.
If anything, instead of a duel, it should be how a fighter can contribute just as much as a 20th level wizard...or a 12th level wizard, or whatever level you want. It should be more about, at what point in Mythic can a fighter equal a Wizard.
I admit, this thread started with a PvP type premonition, however, generally it's FAR more beneficial to say...okay at what point will the Mythic fighter be able to contribute as much to the party as a Wizard who has NO mythic levels?
That actually could be beneficial as I tend to run PARTY's rather than PvP at my game table...and knowing if I could suddenly start granting the fighter mythic levels (perhaps in an Arthurian type storyline where one character has mythic levels with others who don't) to allow the fighter to be just as great at contributing to many situations as the spellcaster...now THAT's a useful conversation...
A PvP like this one though...that's not going to ever reveal or actually answer the question as there are TOO many variables in the equation to answer that. Even if the fighter BEATS the wizard...there are going to be tons of situations in game where the wizard simply is going to have spells that are far more useful than bashing things away.
However, OUTSIDE of your discussion, it showed that a martial PAIRED with a Wizard was FAR more powerful than just a wizard, or even two wizards. The synergy of teamwork was FAR more powerful than this entire...my wizard is stronger then your fighter...because even in the situations where the wizard IS stronger...two wizards would probably be weaker then a fighter and a wizard combined due to the synergy and teamwork that they can work between them...at least at CERTAIN levels. This ties to what I really think of this entire PvP thing... it shouldn't happen...at all. In my playstyle...IT DOESN'T as this is a TEAM game and TEAMWORK focused rather than a ME vs. EVERY OTHER PLAYER AT THE TABLE game.
Just noticed this comment.
This is completely untrue. Past say level 7, 2 Wizards is better then Fighter + Wizard. All day. Every day.
I could go on into how this was your point was disproven, but that's trying to resurrect a dead thread which you derailed anyways...
Of course I found the actual answer (No thanks to your derail on it), which had NOTHING to do with your wizard and how powerful they are (in fact one could say it turned out quite the opposite) later...
However, you ARE true to point...however you are so committed to thinking spellcasters are all by themselves the only thing that matters that you are missing the forest for the trees.
I actually agree about the disparity of casters to martials to a degree (though I personally think that's a GOOD thing to tell the truth, at least to a degree and for roles in regards to it), but my thoughts are always how it's going to affect actual gameplay, as in how the PARTY deals with it and how it affects the game in THAT way rather than this PvP thing you are always going on about.
This entire, let my wizard take down your fighter...really does NOTHING to aid me in dealing with parties and the way that each class contributes within it. That's where the biggest problems of disparity comes. I don't think many care that the wizard takes down the BBEG with ease, the bigger problems are if players don't feel part of the game because they don't feel like they are contributing enough to it or being a part of it as much as another player's character.
If there's is this thread... where you think I challenged a 9th level Fighter or Rogue. Just post it. The reason you aren't is because it doesn't exist.
And yes, two casters are much better at tackling virtually anything better then caster + martial. The fact that martials *don't* contribute as much as casters is kind of a fact. The best way for your so called Party to handle any situation is to add more casters to the party.
@Bandw2 in regard to the artifact and endless ammunition question. It makes a difference to the wall of suppression.
I am inclined to say yes, because the phrasing is 'The wall does not affect artifacts, anything stemming from the direct action of a deity, or similarly powerful sorts of magic.'
If the only magic on the ammunition is supplied by an artifact, (my reading is) it shouldn't be affected.
In this regard, it would be similar to the antimagic field ( which has similar language , allowing artifact full functionality.)
If there's is this thread... where you think I challenged a 9th level Fighter or Rogue. Just post it. The reason you aren't is because it doesn't exist.
And yes, two casters are much better at tackling virtually anything better then caster + martial. The fact that martials *don't* contribute as much as casters is kind of a fact. The best way for your so called Party to handle any situation is to add more casters to the party.
I already said it's water under the bridge, however, it COULD be a good indication to how one would beat your wizard (if they wanted to) rather easily.
But that is still missing my entire point, was that this PvP stuff actually proves NOTHING in regards to actually answering anything.
As I said, even if the fighter wins, it still doesn't answer the question which would actually benefit my playstyle. I think that's the major playstyle most people utilize (instead of having PvP arenas in every PF game group and game session).
I think we may actually be on the same side of the equation if you'd actually answer the dang questions with relevant answers to how people actually play the game.
You have a great knowledge of the rules and great capacity in using them, or at least it appears so from what you've demonstrated. I guess what's annoying is that instead of using it to help in answering many questions, you boil it down to situations that really won't occur that often in actual play and hence don't provide me with useful answers when I know you could.
I guess that's why I'm a little unhappy, because you have so much potential in answering the questions which COULD help with the playstyle I see utilized most (teamwork and teamplay) but instead, are so focused on one thing you refuse to do so...even when you could answer the pertinent questions if you decided to do so.
I saw it in that other thread that as I said is water under the bridge (I actually got an answer to it eventually outside of that thread, which I think you probably could have answered with your knowledge, but instead it devolved into that entire petty lava thing instead), I see it in this thread, and I see it in other threads you post. You have the ability to answer the questions, but you almost always make into a PvP thing instead of how PF actually gets played. Why does the fighter care about whether the wizard is able to kill him or not (I mean, at first level in theory a wizard could put half if not the entire the party to sleep...of course that leaves the wizard that much more vulnerable to the REAL enemies that are NOT the party to which the wizard may quickly succumb) when the REAL concerns are what obstacles the party is supposed to overcome and deal with together.
I think you could be a great asset and answer these types of questions...so it's only my own disappointment when you decide to do otherwise.
I think with your imagination and zeal, if you redirected it to see what ways one could construct Martials (not just fighters) to equal certain types of spellcasters, you could come up with some ideas that none of us have thought of, but which could be just as spectacularly brilliant. That in turn may help the GM to inspire much more in helping that player that uses the fighter that never contributes anything useful and feels like it's a waste of time to play next to a spellcaster who does everything they can't.
|
Grey Wolf, you are not aiding to the conversation. Please stop posting in this thread. I see gigantic walls of text, you seem to forget the point of the thread, and you reference a thread frequently that you say is "water under the bridge", but are unwilling to link. Not to mention that this supposed conversation never existed, as demonstrated by searching through every post you've made.
Grey Wolf, you are not aiding to the conversation. Please stop posting in this thread. I see gigantic walls of text, you seem to forget the point of the thread, and you reference a thread frequently that you say is "water under the bridge", but are unwilling to link. Not to mention that this supposed conversation never existed, as demonstrated by searching through every post you've made.
Ah, I'm willing to stop posting, but YES, the thread did occur, a few months ago. However, the PvP stuff, with many other conversations (without even including me in the conversations) have already occurred multiple times.
This thread offered the hope of something, but was sabotaged unfortunately with this entire PvP thing.
I don't link the thread because in truth, it counter intuitive. I was just pointing out that this stuff already happened and had a resolution of sorts already...and STILL didn't answer the questions brought up...
Sure, you can have PvP but it doesn't actually answer anything AT ALL...except for who or what the GM is more biased towards typically.
RAW was answered pretty early on, but there were enough questions on applicability that this PvP thing derailed that it is sort of annoying because IT HAPPENS EVERY BLOODY TIME, it seems.
We get to the edge of answering the question, and then some person (normally the same person) comes in and starts a pvp type thing. Sure, it has things posted this time with character stats, but it's the same idea and answers NO real questions regarding the actual question.
It's a facet of chest thumping and pride rather than looking and analyzing the actual questions at hand.
I'm just kind of tired that when I start seeing something that looks interesting, it always gets derailed into a PvP thing rather than continuing to go down the line of answering the question.
The 9th level was actually NOT in the thread (but concept could just as easily be utilized by a 9th level fighter as a 20th level fighter, it's rather simple to tell the truth, but as I said, but pretty one dimensional and only really good at tackling wizards and such and nothing else), but to tell the truth, that was me annoyed because once again, a good thread got derailed by someone wanting to pound a drum which avoids answering the REAL questions and answers which came up in the thread.
I just wanted to see a more concrete resolution of the original line of reasoning in this thread, and overall this entire PvP thing derailed it entirely and as far as I can see, this PvP thing WON'T actually answer anything to tell the truth. It didn't really answer anything in the thread I posted about, it hasn't in other threads that it's come up, and I doubt it will in this one, which is why I finally got unhappy after holding out hope that the original line of conversation would continue indepth and finish up and finding out it's been drowned out.
@greywolflord: this is the same position that anzyr was put in (and after two threads and a thousand posts or so of needling, acquiesced to): link the relevant material or go away.
or talk about something actually relevant to the thread.
if nothing else I can see you're on the fighter's side--that's good, more folks to try and brainstorm countertactics with adept_woodwright.
speaking of;
@adept_woodwright - isn't there a weapon enchant for bows now that helps do away with the "wind wall club no arrows allowed"?
@greywolflord: this is the same position that anzyr was put in (and after two threads and a thousand posts or so of needling, acquiesced to): link the relevant material or go away.
or talk about something actually relevant to the thread.
if nothing else I can see you're on the fighter's side--that's good, more folks to try and brainstorm countertactics with adept_woodwright.
speaking of;
@adept_woodwright - isn't there a weapon enchant for bows now that helps do away with the "wind wall club no arrows allowed"?
wall of suppression or what ever would stop the effect from working.
i thought you could only have one spellbane active at anytime, why are you using plurals?
also, to bandw2: i suppose that'd be a pain for archery, yes--are firearms affected like that as well?
edit - reading above: ah, the enchant's name was cyclonic, i'd forgotten (thanks mathius for reminding me).
IMHO:
After glancing at Anzyr's build, even after axe-ing snow-cone abuse (too much non-PRD content to axe), it could out melee ANY 9th level fighter.
Aroden's spellbane is also specifically Golarion-centric, so if you're banning Blood Money..
==Aelryinth
Aroden's spellbane is also specifically Golarion-centric, so if you're banning Blood Money..
I would ban all non-PRD content.
It is a standing rule in most games that I play, that anything not in the PRD or ultimate psionics has to be ran by the GM first.
@greywolflord: this is the same position that anzyr was put in (and after two threads and a thousand posts or so of needling, acquiesced to): link the relevant material or go away.
or talk about something actually relevant to the thread.
if nothing else I can see you're on the fighter's side--that's good, more folks to try and brainstorm countertactics with adept_woodwright.
speaking of;
@adept_woodwright - isn't there a weapon enchant for bows now that helps do away with the "wind wall club no arrows allowed"?
The irony of it all is that (if you read earlier posts by me on the original topic near the beginning) you'd find that RAI I probably favor the wizard in general. I just know the tactics Anzyr tends to be weak at from previous discussions.
That doesn't mean I actually am wanting to see him LOSE in this to tell the truth. Perhaps that's why I'm not so keen on presenting these ideas or items.
I truthfully think he's quite bright to be honest, and knowledgeable. His methods just don't really ever resolve the questions I have on the entire martial/spellcaster thing, which is where my interest in this type of stuff actually lie.
I can see this PvP IS a fun little thing for people to do, but as it's flowing right now, with the tactics I'm seeing, I don't see it as actually going to answer any questions in regards to they Mythic Fighter vs. Magic User thing though, and I suppose that's why I'm unhappy how it's turned out thus far.
Basically this PvP thing isn't going to answer the primary questions I'd have in regards to the issue.
It appears it will be a fun little exercise for others though, and I'm probably dampening the fun, which is why I probably will have this as the last post for me right now in this topic.
i thought you could only have one spellbane active at anytime, why are you using plurals?
also, to bandw2: i suppose that'd be a pain for archery, yes--are firearms affected like that as well?
edit - reading above: ah, the enchant's name was cyclonic, i'd forgotten (thanks mathius for reminding me).
In case one is Dispeled by some means.
Best initiative wins
Best initiative wins
A flat 78 versus a flat 0.
I got this.
|
|
@Mathius Invisible arrows are a thing :P, sure your perception might be good enough to see an arrow coming from a mile away, but not from 120 feet away.
@Anzyr
I'm having some trouble following some of your calculations, particularly in the initiative section. Could you help me out? I see that you have +4 trait bonus, but reactionary only gives +2. Is there something I'm missing?
Also, what is "+4 (GH+C(+8 MoG))* Morale"? I know moment of greatness, but the GH+C? Greater Heroism (which doesn't add to initiative...)?
Finally, where are your profane bonuses to stats coming from? I'm unfamiliar with SRD content.
By the way, I haven't decided on one thing or another yet, I'm still looking at options. (I didn't have a fighter sitting in my back pocket the entire time, I really am taking things one step at a time)
Question: if a simulacrum has a special ability which allows 'spellcasting as cleric level X', we are in agreement that these class levels do not go down, right? (Because RAW, not RAI)
Furthermore, with that phrasing, would the resulting spells on the simulacrum be fixed to what is available on the PRD, or could they be chosen?
If they can be chosen, can they be chosen during creation, or do they need to wait until re-selecting spells?
Can simulacra wield magic items? (Ive seen enough debates on what 'increasing power' means that I want to nail these things down before assuming)
---
You can have several spellbanes active at one time, but only one will actually be in effect (unless they are spread out among several creatures. Then the effects overlap). The most recent casting overrides the previous (it might seem strange, but the utility is that it provides pretty ample coverage against Mage's Disjunction
---
I'm not currently looking at Magic Jar at all, but I guess I shouldn't write it off entirely.
---
What's the most optimal concentration check you can finagle?
Question: if a simulacrum has a special ability which allows 'spellcasting as cleric level X', we are in agreement that these class levels do not go down, right? (Because RAW, not RAI)
No.
All spellcasting and special abilities are related to racial HD. Any snowcone with racial HD and those abilities has them or doesn't have them through pure GM fiat.
I take the "increasing power" to mean level gain and only level gain. Any other interpretation is far too abstract and vague in an already abstract and vague spell.
@ Rhedyn, the context of this at the moment is the rule set described by andreww in the other thread.
He was not going to apply any adjudication to simulacra beyond things that are explicitly dependent on HD. Thus the question
I would never run things that way, but I'm trying to take advantage of the opportunity now that I see something. My interest in such will depend on the answers to my questions in the context of the provided GM guidelines.