| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you even talking about at this point? You're saying monsters have low will saves (low enough that stock-Charisma summoner can do it too, by your numbers) and that it doesn't matter because you're apparently amassing an army during downtime, except going out and finding giants to charm kind of implies not-downtime (as opposed to summoning a giant into your living room summoning circle).
Is there a point you're actually trying to make here because at the moment it seems kind of all over the place and you've lost me. All I've seen is you trying to demand some spells of situational usefulness are situationally more useful with higher DCs (well, duh) but those spells are still pretty much topped by their rivals.
I'm curious as to what your games look like exactly if you never have encounters lasting more than 7 rounds but can casually stroll through the supermarket and pick up green giants in a can. :P
Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
They need a rule stating that the wizard/ cleric/etc(full core casters) list is the one that determines these things.
Teleport should also have been a 4th level summoner spell meaning he would get it at the same time as a wizard. Yes, I am aware that at 4th level it can still be put into a wand, but if a GM allows that then you can just make a staff with one spell since that is the same price as a wand anyway.
PS: I know some will say they should not have the spell at all
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
600 gp/charge. Buying some used wands is pretty easy with magic item availability what it is.
Nice counter argument, truly the extent of your wit and insight has overwhelmed me.
It's not a counter argument. There's nothing to argue. You made a statement (that you're doing something wrong if combat lasts more than 7 rounds). I laughed at that statement. It's funny to me. What more do you want exactly? For me to tell you how to use more than one monster in an encounter, maybe? For enemies to use terrain and/or tactics?
I dunno. Short combats are probably the rarity in the games I've been in, except when the encounter was built as nothing more than a speedbump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we've come to the agreement that we both do the same things. Fabulous. Now please stand aside, I must ride Mr. Scruffles into battle and my arms are full (of lances).
AM SUMMONER! *woosh*
Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
Good thing the party can share the benefits, then. This way every has an incentive to chip in.
600 bucks per teleport? 7500gp total?That's pretty cheap even for low/mid level parties, considering the utility such wand provides.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. Short combats are probably the rarity in the games I've been in, except when the encounter was built as nothing more than a speedbump.If your fights are lasting more than 7 rounds then I suspect your games are very much outliers. DrDeth, with whom I agree on almost nothing, ran a poll on the issue some time ago which suggested 4-5 rounds were common.
Yes, and I'm aware that the vast majority of people are inexperienced at building encounters. That's why we've got so many guides on how to build better encounters because the common thing for GMs to do is go:
"Level 5 party!" *drops CR 5-8 enemy*
"Oh, the monster seems to have imploded on the word 'go'. Oh dear,"
Which will naturally throw the average pretty low as well. But if you take a group that actually knows what they're doing, battles tend to be far more interesting and generally longer.
How incredibly special of you, the view must be impressive from up there on that high horse.I dunno. Short combats are probably the rarity in the games I've been in, except when the encounter was built as nothing more than a speedbump.If your fights are lasting more than 7 rounds then I suspect your games are very much outliers. DrDeth, with whom I agree on almost nothing, ran a poll on the issue some time ago which suggested 4-5 rounds were common.Yes, and I'm aware that the vast majority of people suck at this game. That's why we've got so many guides on how to build better encounters because the common thing for GMs to do is go:
"Level 5 party!" *drops CR 5-8 enemy*
"Oh, the monster seems to have imploded on the word 'go'. Oh dear,"
It's a hard game. Nobody starts good at it. Pathfinder makes it a lot easier than 3.x did. Still, yeah, the majority of players are beer and pretzel folks who think that wizards are helpless wussies and fighters are teh roxxors, rogues are the masters of skillmonkery, and that a lone sasquatch in the middle of a 20 ft. room is a real encounter.
Then they learn.
I was referring to the succubus, erinyes and lillend which come from planar binding. Obviously eidolons are limited to the summoner. Other casters are also getting these before the summoner, at least anything from normal planar binding is coming 2 levels sooner.The summoner brought his own army. Said army consists of himself, his eidolon, his succubus, his lillend, his erinyes, and doesn't have to worry about his army turing around and ripping his guts out when a random demon dispels his charms. :3As are the actual real casters so what is your point.Really? Where'd the 'real' caster get an eidolon from? And how'd he
make his charmed minions immune to dispel et al.?Oh. Your real caster doesn't have all of the permanent minions of the Summoner. So the Summoner already has a bigger and better army, is what you're saying.
To put it another way then, your 'real' caster has to have one Charmed-- and hence volatile-- minion to keep up with the Summoner. And then only if it's as good as an eidolon. And the Summoner had that edge from level one.
I think you're kind of defeating your own point here.
For the two levels where Planar Binding is a thing for one class and not the other, the poor Summoner will have to make due with his 3+Cha uses of Summon Monster VI... how many of those does the real caster have per day, and how long do they last again?
Summoner's don't have a bigger army since they lack access to Animate Dead and Dominate Person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a hard game. Nobody starts good at it. Pathfinder makes it a lot easier than 3.x did. Still, yeah, the majority of players are beer and pretzel folks who think that wizards are helpless wussies and fighters are teh roxxors, rogues are the masters of skillmonkery, and that a lone sasquatch in the middle of a 20 ft. room is a real encounter.
Then they learn.
Sorry, Ash... I gotta agree with andreww here. That's pretty high-horsey of you. Low system mastery is not "sucking at Pathfinder". Not knowing the mechanics is not the same as being bad at the game.
Those people might not have extensive knowledge of rules and mechanics, but they can still be playing very well. Those players and GMs might not know advanced tactics, but those tactics are not really necessary to play the game.
And this is coming from a guy who highly values mechanics, and tries to use creative and effective tactics both as a player and as a GM, as well as encouraging players to do the same (and I still see "rocket tag" happening quite often... Although to be fair, my last two sessions had encounters that lasted 4~6h of real time and gods know how many rounds!).
The things I'd qualify as "suck at this game" is far more often than not, unrelated to the actual rules. It's stuff like GMs removing player agency, people who cause unnecessary player conflict and/or are unwilling to even consider a compromise, etc...
Also, anyone who plays a Rogue.
I'm kidding, people! It was too obvious a joke! I just couldn't miss the opportunity! Chill!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said so before and I'll continue to say so, - I really want to sit in on one of these games where encounters are described as "rocket tag" or where people agree that the norm for encounters are 2-5 rounds. It's not that I don't believe them, I just wanna see what their GM/players are doing differently from me/my players.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a hard game. Nobody starts good at it. Pathfinder makes it a lot easier than 3.x did. Still, yeah, the majority of players are beer and pretzel folks who think that wizards are helpless wussies and fighters are teh roxxors, rogues are the masters of skillmonkery, and that a lone sasquatch in the middle of a 20 ft. room is a real encounter.
Then they learn.
Sorry, Ash... I gotta agree with andreww here. That's pretty high-horsey of you. Low system mastery is not "sucking at Pathfinder". Not knowing the mechanics is not the same as being bad at the game.
Those people might not have extensive knowledge of rules and mechanics, but they can still be playing very well. Those players and GMs might not know advanced tactics, but those tactics are not really necessary to play the game.
Perhaps I should clarify (I did edit my post prior to the quotation to explain more clearly, but I think it was missed due to the quote of the original from 30 seconds prior).
I sucked at this game, ergo those who make the same mistakes likewise suck at this game, because sucking at this game is part of learning.
I fell into the exact same traps, especially in 3.x where building a good encounter (especially with mixed CRs) was a confusing process made all the more difficult by the "helpful" charts rather than easier. Many a game went by with my sucking as a GM, and I fell into all the potholes that litter the road, using single enemies, misunderstanding CRs, and having short encounters. Because I sucked at this game.
But I learned, as I expect those who stick with it long enough generally do as well. It's part of the natural evolution of getting better at a game (and this is a game and you can get better at it). It's the primary reason why those who have learned better write tutorials and advice pieces to help others get a head start on those of us who learned the hard way.
Because every last one of us begin this game sucking at it. Some of us are naturally inclined to learning not to suck faster. "Not sucking" has nothing to do with builds or optimization or anything like that. It has to do with experience and know-how. Which is why you have guides dedicated to building good encounters, because the ones that we make when we suck at this game as a GM are short, boring, and bland.
Now, 30 seconds after I used the term "suck at this game", I thought that it might be misunderstood, so I clarified with a quick edit.
However, since it was the one with slang quoted, I'm willing to continue from there. "Sucking" at a game is the first place we all start and the most common rank of players in any game. From Guilty Gear to Dungeons & Dragons, those who have learned are generally apt to share what has been learned because rather than looking down on people from on high and laughing at them sucking, we want to give them the hand up that either we got or made do without.
To not accept that we, gamers, universally suck is to deny the truth of pretty much everything. Judge me as you see fit, but let it be said that not being able to admit the lack of perfection that is innate to all in our field seems pretty conceited to me.
And yes, when the vast majority of GMs are making the same newbie mistakes and just grabbing things of X CR and throwing them at party of Y level, I do very much expect the average encounters in a poll are going to reflect very short encounters.
In much the same way I expect to hear new players to UMVC3 insist Virgil is OP and Pheonix is a waste of space.
EDIT: Memo to me. Do not post when exhausted/sleepy. Goodnight/morning everyone. I'm going to go collapse now.
Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
600 gp/charge. Buying some used wands is pretty easy with magic item availability what it is.
Although i am not 100% sure, i think that you can't buy used wands with the "magic item below Base Value -> 75% chance of being available" rule so you can only buy used wands if one appears as a random magic item for that week.
I've said so before and I'll continue to say so, - I really want to sit in on one of these games where encounters are described as "rocket tag" or where people agree that the norm for encounters are 2-5 rounds. It's not that I don't believe them, I just wanna see what their GM/players are doing differently from me/my players.
-Nearyn
If you have optimized players that work as a team together then APL=CR encounters are not going to last long.
I will give an example in my next post which I am typing up now of an APL=CR encounter. <---This is typed so that you will stay tuned. :)
Half of the problem is that the CR system is terrible and utterly fails to accurately represent the difference in difficulty between monsters.
And action economy.
While the CR system tries to adjust for mutlple monsters (thus we have CR adjustments) there aren't any CR adjustments for the situations of monsters vs mid+ level party of 4.
For this example I will go with level 7 since it is when characters come into their own, and it gives me a situation I have seen in games.
The Party:
7th level archer ranger
7th level barbarian
7th level cleric
7th level sorcerer
The enemy:
2 large earth elementals (initiative of -1 which comes into play)
The situation:
The party enters a room, and for some reason nobody checks for traps. Trap is sprung and 2 earth elementals appears.
Initiative is rolled, the elementals are going last.
Round 1
The archer goes first and takes about 1/4 of the elementals hit points.
The cleric has blessing of ferver and the sorcerer has haste, but the cleric won initiative, and drops blessing of ferver.
The barbarian is next up, but he holds his action hoping for another buff.
The sorcerer decides to drop a fireball instead. The elemental both fail their saves taking about 30 points of damage and another has already lost 15 to 20 before that so one is at just above half, and the other is about to call it in.
Barbarian charges in and hits, but does not do great damage, so the one that is almost dead is a little closer to being dead.
The elementals both beat up on the barbarian(no archetype) btw, but he takes the beating because that is what barbarians do.
Round 2
Back up top, and the archer finishes off the badly hurt elemental.
The cleric moves up and attacks, and I don't remember if he hit or not, but if he hit the damage was not that great. Basically not factor in this round.
Sorcerer drops magic missile
Barbarian does well, but the elemental(#2) is still up.
The elemental hit the barbarian who is not looking so good. IIRC there was a crit involved.
Starting round 3 is the archer who whiffed his rolls.
The cleric decides to attack, but the dice gods are not liking him right now.
The sorcerer not being sure if the barbarian can take another assault drops another fireball, but the damage is only moderate. The earth elemental is now at single digits.
The barbarian ends the fight
----------------------------------
At higher levels the barbarian can pounce-kill things without much trouble. Even if they survive the party can normally finish them off easily.
PS: Yes I am aware that not every party will have a barbarian in it.
Half of the problem is that the CR system is terrible and utterly fails to accurately represent the difference in difficulty between monsters.
True, and it does not account for party composition, but that is why the GM should ad-hoc certain encounters.
Fighting a monster in its enviroment can be noticably more difficult than not doing so.
stuff
Then again, using "suck" as to denote low system mastery is something I really disagree with.
In much the same way I expect to hear new players to UMVC3 insist Virgil is OP and Phoenix is a waste of space.
They are.
Well... I wouldn't call PW "a waste of space", since he's a fun character and can be made useful... But he is one of the weakest characters of the game.
And Virgil most definitely is OP. Possibly slightly behind Zero, but infinitely easier to use. There is basically no risk of dropping a combo.
And no, I'm not inexperienced in UMvC3.
stuffThen again, using "suck" as to denote low system mastery is something I really disagree with.
Yeah, we get it. Poor word choice is poor. Why are you still going on about it after Ashiel already admitted that he realized that poor word choice was poor and edited the original post?
Discuss the point, not the speaker, right?
That's what I did. My 2nd post is there because I also disagree with a lot of what is said in Ashiel's 2nd post. I'm not persecuting the guy, I just don't agree with him in this particular stance.
I have nothing against Ashiel. Don't remember ever having. But that doesn't stop me from occasionally disagreeing with him. For example, even in his second post, he uses the word suck to mean "anything less than perfection".
To not accept that we, gamers, universally suck is to deny the truth of pretty much everything. Judge me as you see fit, but let it be said that not being able to admit the lack of perfection that is innate to all in our field seems pretty conceited to me.
I'm discussing the point Ashiel conveyed.
There is a pretty big gap between being bad at something and being perfect at it. I don't think "the vast majority of people" is bad at this game. I agree that said majority doesn't know the rules very well, but my point is that this doesn't stop them from being good players.
Those beer & pretzel guys Ashiel mentioned? I dare say most of them are pretty good at the game, even if their knowledge of rules and mechanics is... not great.
Ashiel obviously knows a lot about the mechanics of Pathfinder. But he is not the only one who does, and his experience is not the only one representative of players with good system mastery (And yes, I know he didn't claim it is). I've seen, for example, great games, with great GMs who are really freaking good at building encounters, still fall prey to rocket-tag.... Of course, you could argue that said GMs were not as good at it as Ashiel, but at that point, we'll just enter a pointless "Does too! Does not!" discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner's don't have a bigger army since they lack access to Animate Dead and Dominate Person.
Oh I'm sure I can find a way.
Although i am not 100% sure, i think that you can't buy used wands with the "magic item below Base Value -> 75% chance of being available" rule so you can only buy used wands if one appears as a random magic item for that week.Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
600 gp/charge. Buying some used wands is pretty easy with magic item availability what it is.
Exactly, so first ask if 1 charge available. If it is make note.
Then ask if 2 charge wand available. If it is make note.
If 3 available: If it is make note.
Continue till you have 10 charge wand (most you likely want) then get it. If it isn't, get enough charge wands to count as 10.
With each 75% chance, you are sure to get 10 charges even if multiple of used wands needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A combat summary
Thanks for the summary, it does help me to see the difference a bit.
See, what you describe is not the type of encounter I would make use of. I understand you may be cutting details for the sake of brevity, but I can only speculate, so I'll assume the encounter went as written.
To me, what you describe is a bad encounter. If I'm coming off as an elitist jerk, I'm sorry, but I promise I mean no offense. I don't think what you describe is a fun encounter, more to the point, I'd be bored of said encounter 2 seconds into it.
Were I to GM a session and someone handed me this encounter and said: "if your players enter the room marked A12, you should run this", then the first questions that would spring to mind would be:
What are the features of this room?
Are there any lightsources in this room, and if so, where?
There doesn't seem to be ANYTHING to the encounter you describe other than monsters popping into existence. No furniture in the room to provide basis for tactical movement, no statues lining the walls for enterprising PCs or NPCs to use for cover. No difficult terrain, no areas of less-than-normal-light. This seems like a really boring and trivial encounter, not because the party was optimized in a way that suits the system, or because the encounter was a certain CR, but simply because it seems it was designed to be nothing but team A and team B, appearing in charge-range and then proceeding to shave HP off eachother, until one side gives. Did this encounter feature a map?
Then there's the trap itself. I assume this was the standard Summon Monster Trap, that summons 1d3 large elementals with a summon monster VI? If so then the magical trap can summon the elementals out to a distance of 50ft from the centerpoint of the trap.
So the party springs the trap, because they are unaware of it, it then summons two elementals who by standard summoning rules should get to act right then and there, or at the very least get a surprise round before being shuffled into the buttom of the initiative-deck.
They then proceeded to just stand there and get wailed on, instead of using their earth-glide ability, bull-rush the big human with the sword out of the way, attempt any form of combat maneuver, or really anything else but "PUNCH THE ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE HUMAN! THE ONE WHO DID PITIFUL DAMAGE!" I mean... there's INT 6 and then there's dumber than a house-cat.
Simply put, if this is the encounters GMs run (I apologize for the broadstrokes generalization), then I'm not surprised whatsoever that encounters are over in 2 rounds.
I considered writing a substitute encounter, with details for the room, furnishings, terrain, lighting and whatnot, but dinner is not gonna make itself. Instead I'll just say what I would have done differently leading up to, and in just the first round of the encounter.
Two Earth Elementals Appear! as run by Nearyn with no prep-time
I'm gonna assume the encounter used a standard summon-monster trap, activated by proximity through an alarm spell, and using a summon monster VI to conjure 1d3(in this case 2) large earth elementals.
[out of combat]
The trap summons the elementals as close to our heroes as possible, possibly in melee with whoever triggered the trap by coming too close. Let us assume that in this case, they cannot be summoned in melee, because the barbarian in your example charged, implying they for some reason were at a distance.
[surprise round]
If the party is within 20 ft. the earth elementals charge and attack their foes. If not, they move closer to their foes, intent on killing them for their intrusion. We assume they cannot reach the party and instead move closer.
[1st round]
-The archer goes first and takes about 1/4 of the elementals hit points.
-The cleric has blessing of ferver and the sorcerer has haste, but the -cleric won initiative, and drops blessing of ferver.
-The barbarian is next up, but he holds his action hoping for another buff.
-The sorcerer decides to drop a fireball instead. The elemental both fail their saves taking about 30 points of damage and another has already lost 15 to 20 before that so one is at just above half, and the other is about to call it in.
-Barbarian charges in and...
...and recieves 1, if not 2 attacks of opportunity from his enemies, depending on what course he must take in order to charge his designated foe. We continue...*ahem* barbarian charges in and...
...hits, but does not do great damage, so the one that is almost dead is a little closer to being dead.
Now it is the elementals' turn. Depending on the situation they will do one of two things. If the Barbarian looks like he's about to drop, the first will attempt to kill him. If he does not, both earth elementals withdraw, using earth-glide to burrow into the floor, and proceed to approach the archer and the sorcerer, who were the ones almost killing them last round. They maintain awareness of their positioning via tremorsense.
[2nd round onward]
From here on in the encounter depends on how the players react. Earth-elementals(if used as presented) are masters of bull-rushing, and work really well tandem against foes with less reach than them.
Let's say the barbarian found his way into melee again and was the primary target. He'd take an AoO moving in, then when the elementals get their turn they 5 ft. step back, keeping him in reach. One full-attacks him, the other bull-rushes him with a CMB of +20 (improved bull-rush -> greater bull-rush), pushing him back so he cannot make full-attacks, but must instead charge back in, again taking AoOs.
Now there can be any number of circumstances that would dictate how things would and would not pan out, and I cannot account for them here. But I would -not- have run the encounter as you described wraithstrike, though I appreciate you taking the time to write it, in response to my curiosity.
At my table, encounters typically takes between 5-8 rounds, if the party is moving in closed quarters, such as in a dungeon. It tends to take longer if in the open, with people moving into cover, finding advantageous positions, trying to get into(or onto) a place where they can get that sweet +1 bonus from height advantage, etc. My RotR players are near the end-game and I'm not seeing any rocket-tag going on, the last fight lasting about 14 rounds before the players retreated with 1 PC casualty, 1 dead familiar and 1 dead cohort. Typically they don't have casualties, but they typically fight somewhere between 8 and 18 rounds against most encounters, as of book 5 and onward.
Not saying I'm doing it right and everyone else isn't, just that I would find myself a bit bored in the encounter you described(and others like it).
Thank you for the opportunity to compare.
-Nearyn
I have to raise an eyebrow at Ashiel's assertion that "if your encounters routinely take less than 7 rounds, you're a bad GM" - if anything, I'd counter with "if your players routinely take more than 7 rounds to resolve encounters, you might have bad players - or at least players who aren't actually trying." =P
Especially once you're past mid-level.
At low levels, I can see a large/complex encounter taking a long time simply because the PCs are low level and can't do much.
At higher levels, something odd needs to be going on for an encounter to stretch out (such as the fight really being multiple encounters linking together, which I've cheerfully done myself), as PCs often have the ability to power through or negate any shenanigans that are part of the encounter design - and without a lot of tweaking, fights are lethal enough that there should be an obvious winner within a couple rounds as people start dropping.
I suppose the 7 or more rounds figure makes more sense if you're treating an entire level or more of a dungeon or fortress as a single massive running encounter (or otherwise routinely running fights where the PCs are significantly outnumbered), rather than the series of smaller encounters assumed by game design.
Or if your enemies have good tactics and your players really struggle to come up with countermeasures - or don't care enough to.
The CR system is definitely goofy - I believe the Devs erred on the side of caution when setting their ballpark numbers for higher level creatures.
But then again, monsters and the game in general are balanced to be manageable by new players, not hardcore optimizers.
@ Andrewww - Your wizard/sorcerer gets to enslave multiple tribes of giants as a casual downtime activity at no risk to himself? Man, you must have an incredibly lenient GM =D
Back on topic: Honestly, a lot of the APG classes are pretty powerful, and have a very experimental feel to them - it's telling that most of the early access stuff that summoners have going on hasn't shown up in more recent classes (with the notable exception of hunter, because they explicitly get the earlier access of two different spell lists).
For a different example, there was a lot of complaining that the warpriest isn't as strong as an inquisitor. And I'm inclined to say that the warpriest's alleged lower power level is intentional - the inquisitor, like the summoner, may be a little too good (its spell list isn't as problematic as a summoners, but it's still very strong, and very much has the cherry-picked feel of the summoner list), and the inquisitor would be written up as a weaker class (probably getting just 1 to 6 cleric spells instead of their own list) if it was designed today.
I think the Spiritualist from the Occult Adventures might be a stealth preview of the Unchained Summoner - a rebalanced spell list (with early access spells taken out), a weaker pet, but more abilities focused on making the summoner himself stronger.
I'll be happy if the Unchained Summoner is GM-friendly at least. When I write up Summoner enemies I always make them Master Summoners so that I don't have to give a damn about statting out that @#$%^&* eidolon. =P
response to my summary
The monster appearing immediately is seen immediately. I do not think that gives it a surprise room anymore than someone teleporting into a room gives it a surprise round.
With that aside if you use stock monsters they are getting destroyed in less than 4 rounds anyway against optimized groups not really working as a team, which is how most groups play.
-------------------------------------------------------
My players will not move around just to get a +1 to attack unless they are struggling to hit the enemy. That is good combat RP, but it is more efficient to just use the full attack most of the time.
Earth Elementals have a low intelligence. IIRC it is about a 5, so I don't use too many tactics with them, but lets say they were to go after the sorcerer. If he had fly he would use. If not that he could have popped mirror image. I do know he had mirror image, but I don't remember if he had the fly spell or not. If they pop up beside him he would likely survive, and dropping another fireball on them. Of course the cleric may need to decide what he is going to do, and I don't remember his character well enough to recall his options.
I will admit the tactics make the fight more dangerous, but it I still don't see it going to 5 rounds.
PS: What is RotR? Is it Rise of the Runelords?
If so I am running that now, and those fights are not lasting long either, but I don't have time to give a breakdown on why. That can be done later tonight.
In much the same way I expect to hear new players to UMVC3 insist Virgil is OP and Phoenix is a waste of space.They are.
Well... I wouldn't call PW "a waste of space", since he's a fun character and can be made useful... But he is one of the weakest characters of the game.
And Virgil most definitely is OP. Possibly slightly behind Zero, but infinitely easier to use. There is basically no risk of dropping a combo.
And no, I'm not inexperienced in UMvC3.
It just occurred to me that you're probably talking about Phoenix, not Phoenix Wright...
Yeah, Phoenix is a very powerful (and annoying) character... Although not as powerful as she was in vanilla MvC3.
Virgil is still most definitely OP, though.
Although i am not 100% sure, i think that you can't buy used wands with the "magic item below Base Value -> 75% chance of being available" rule so you can only buy used wands if one appears as a random magic item for that week.Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
600 gp/charge. Buying some used wands is pretty easy with magic item availability what it is.
Exactly, so first ask if 1 charge available. If it is make note.
Then ask if 2 charge wand available. If it is make note.
If 3 available: If it is make note.
Continue till you have 10 charge wand (most you likely want) then get it. If it isn't, get enough charge wands to count as 10.
With each 75% chance, you are sure to get 10 charges even if multiple of used wands needed.
And the correct response of the DM to this is "There is a 75% chance that the wand you are seeking is available. There's an x chance it is fully charged, and a Y chance that it randomly has from 1-49 charges."
The GM can use those rules back against you, too, you know. He just has to set x at 100%, and there's no partially charged wands around. Treating each 1 charge as a totally separate magic item request is in no way required of the GM...that's a PC thing to cut costs. His job is to see if a Magic Item is available, not a magic items with x charges and other infinitely customizable features. I don't see trying to buy a wand with 1, 2 or 5 charges to be any better then trying to buy a Sword +1, orcbane, but only in the hands of an elf with FE: Orcs.
Since the magic item purchase rules don't say "roll for random charges" any more then they say "adjust uses/day", asking for x charges is asking for a customized magic item.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could just craft it.
My thoughts exactly. They're may never be any summoner crafters in the world. But nothing really stops you if crafting is allowed.
While you could of course make your own teleportation wand, I'm pretty sure you can't craft partially charged wands?
Although i am not 100% sure, i think that you can't buy used wands with the "magic item below Base Value -> 75% chance of being available" rule so you can only buy used wands if one appears as a random magic item for that week.Sure, and they are a snip at only 30000gp, which is just shy of 50% of the WBL of a level 10 character.Fun fact: Summoners allow the creation of wands of Teleport.
This is how well designed the class is...
600 gp/charge. Buying some used wands is pretty easy with magic item availability what it is.
Exactly, so first ask if 1 charge available. If it is make note.
Then ask if 2 charge wand available. If it is make note.
If 3 available: If it is make note.
Continue till you have 10 charge wand (most you likely want) then get it. If it isn't, get enough charge wands to count as 10.
With each 75% chance, you are sure to get 10 charges even if multiple of used wands needed.
And the correct response of the DM to this is "There is a 75% chance that the wand you are seeking is available. There's an x chance it is fully charged, and a Y chance that it randomly has from 1-49 charges."
That is not the correct thing. That is the passive aggressive response.
If he wants to houserule, just be honest about it.
The GM can use those rules back against you, too, you know. He just has to set x at 100%, and there's no partially charged wands around. Treating each 1 charge as a totally separate magic item request is in no way required of the GM...that's a PC thing to cut costs. His job is to see if a Magic Item is available, not a magic items with x charges and other infinitely customizable features. I don't see trying to buy a wand with 1, 2 or 5 charges to be any better then trying to buy a Sword +1, orcbane, but only in the hands of an elf with FE: Orcs.Since the magic item purchase rules don't say "roll for random charges" any more then they say "adjust uses/day", asking for x charges is asking for a customized magic item.
==Aelryinth
But each wand is a different item.
If it was not: a wand with 10 charges should cost the same as a one with 50, after all they are the same item (sarcasm here).If it is not the same item: then of course they cost different.
And yes, a +1 sword that is Orc bane in the hands of an elf is 75% chance if the DM follows the rules (if he is houseruling, then he is houseruling, but we can't expect him to be houseruling. We should discuss as if he is following the RAW).
If he is banning +X that is +Y then he should mention that. No need for him to be a jerk, just tell us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In much the same way I expect to hear new players to UMVC3 insist Virgil is OP and Phoenix is a waste of space.They are.
Well... I wouldn't call PW "a waste of space", since he's a fun character and can be made useful... But he is one of the weakest characters of the game.
And Virgil most definitely is OP. Possibly slightly behind Zero, but infinitely easier to use. There is basically no risk of dropping a combo.
And no, I'm not inexperienced in UMvC3.
It just occurred to me that you're probably talking about Phoenix, not Phoenix Wright...
Yeah, Phoenix is a very powerful (and annoying) character... Although not as powerful as she was in vanilla MvC3.
Virgil is still most definitely OP, though.
Okay, fair point. I usually play Morrigan so I guess he just doesn't feel OP 'cause I too am OP? :P
Sidenote: I usually play Morrigan, Trish, and Virgil or Ryu (I really like Ryu) while my brother runs Dante, Virgil, and Wesker. Most of the time I've more trouble fighting Wesker than I do with Virgil because I find Virgil easier to defend against (there is a fair chance that both of us just suck at this game though :P).
And yes, I was talking about X-Men Phoenix, not Lawyer Phoenix. :P
Back On Hand: About 30 seconds later I edited the OP using the word "suck" to instead say "inexperienced". It was super late where I am and I had been at work all day prior, so it didn't initially cross my mind that it might come off as hostile (but text being what text be, it's hard to note certain inflections) so I edited out the slang and was more specific with it.
It got caught in a quote in the 30 seconds, misunderstood, and then the rest is history. The entire post means "Lots of people are bad at building interesting encounters, so the average rate of good encounters is naturally going to be low".
I used terminology I would have used on myself. That my friends would use on me. That I laugh about.
Friend: "Hey want to go play *insert game here*?"
Me: "Hah, dude I suck at that game. Let's do it!"
And I am quite serious that a lot of people are bad at this game. We would be hard pressed to find someone that sat down and just miraculously did awesome on either side of the screen. In this case I was talking about GMing because I have the most experience GMing and man, I sucked. I sucked bad. I suuuuuuuuuucked at building encounters. I made all the newbie mistakes and then some.
Then I learned. And Pathfinder is even easier to learn with. The core rules actively encourage you to use multiple creatures in encounters and separate NPCs by roles. And when you actually use the features and abilities of creatures (be they humanoids with class levels or otherwise), battles quickly run through rounds. Summons enter the field. People dive behind cover and set to firing at their enemies. Demons teleport to various advantageous positions. Combat becomes three dimensional or even extradimensional (when combat is taking place on several layers of reality at once).
Even the starter encounter in Rise of the Runelords took more than 4 rounds to complete when a friend of mine was running it. It's generally surprising to me if an encounter takes less than 10 rounds to complete (during one encounter in recent memory, a number of low level soldiers, a some low level mages, and a couple of trolls were fighting with the party, and enemies were using trees in the forest for cover and spamming magic missile at the party's Paladin [who would have been so much burgermeat had he been a fighter]; and that fight lasted far more than 3 rounds).
The only encounters I see that are super short like that are ones that either didn't matter on the CR scale (basically the sorts of scenes where the hero effortlessly deals with a minor villain before moving on), or were just run very poorly (IE - here's a tiger [without stalking]), or where one side has a massive ambush tactic or trick (such as getting the enemy to come in close and then pinning them in danger zones).
But I might just suck at it. :P
While you could of course make your own teleportation wand, I'm pretty sure you can't craft partially charged wands?
IIRC you are correct. But at the point you are crafting them the saved money for the ability to basically spam teleport or dimension door is well worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, fair point. I usually play Morrigan so I guess he just doesn't feel OP 'cause I too am OP? :P
Virgil struggles against Morrigan (although, overall, he's still more powerful), but without the Dr.Doom assist, she isn't too bad. It's really the Hidden Missles that amp her brokeness to eleven.
Sidenote: I usually play Morrigan, Trish, and Virgil or Ryu (I really like Ryu) while my brother runs Dante, Virgil, and Wesker. Most of the time I've more trouble fighting Wesker than I do with Virgil because I find Virgil easier to defend against (there is a fair chance that both of us just suck at this game though :P).
Huh... I always found Wesker to be an easier fight. He is more straightforward, easier to predict. Virgil has greater range and can keep locking you down and dominating neutral with those f*!+ing spiraling swords... And they make everything he does safe too!
Wesker is more fun to play, though... He's my main character. Well... He was. I haven't really played UMvC3 in the last 6 months or so.
And yes, I was talking about X-Men Phoenix, not Lawyer Phoenix. :P
Yeah, well... Jean Grey is a c%*#.
She is no longer the broken piece of uber brokeness she was in vanilla, but she's still annoying as hell. >:(
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the correct response of the DM to this is "There is a 75% chance that the wand you are seeking is available. There's an x chance it is fully charged, and a Y chance that it randomly has from 1-49 charges."
The GM can use those rules back against you, too, you know. He just has to set x at 100%, and there's no partially charged wands around. Treating each 1 charge as a totally separate magic item request is in no way required of the GM...that's a PC thing to cut costs. His job is to see if a Magic Item is available, not a magic items with x charges and other infinitely customizable features. I don't see trying to buy a wand with 1, 2 or 5 charges to be any better then trying to buy a Sword +1, orcbane, but only in the hands of an elf with FE: Orcs.
Since the magic item purchase rules don't say "roll for random charges" any more then they say "adjust uses/day", asking for x charges is asking for a customized magic item.
==Aelryinth
1- There is no "correct" response. There is no "correct" way of playing the game. But even if there were one, as someone already mentioned, the response you propose is closer to "passive-aggressive" than to "correct".
2- The GM can use any and every rule against you. That's not an argument.
3- RAW, "custom" items aren't harder to find than typical items. IIRC, rarity of gear is decided by its price, not by its effects or by whether or not they appear in the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, Custom items are not available without GM adjudication or ordering them personally. So you can't just roll for a 75% for the perfect custom tailored item for your Dwarven Bloodrager is available.
RAW, you do not purchase or make Wands by the charge. All items rolled for are at full price and full charges. If the GM feels like house ruling, hey, that's fine. But he's in no way obligated to do that for you.
By RAW, ordering a 1 charge wand is no different then ordering a full wand with a cost of 50 charges per spell. That's a custom item. That's catering to the PC's. The standard wands are all made at full price, 1 charge per use. Anything deviating from that is a custom item, and buying a wand with 10 charges is mechanically absolutely no different then buying a custom 5 chg/use wand.
The GM is not obligated to cater to your desire for customized toys. If you want to ORDER a wand that can do that...that's fine, go ahead and order one. But the idea that customized items are just going to randomly pop up for you is waaaaay outside RAW, and has no support there.
It's also a very blatant attempt to metagame. By that same rationalization of looking for a wand of CLW with 1 charge, 2 charge, 3 charge, I'll look for a scroll of spell x at Caster level y, y+1, y+2, etc...which, while easily calculated, is also not in the core rules, where scrolls are made at minimum CL unless customized to the purchaser.
Or I'll look for a wand of CLW at CL2, 3, 4... which are also not RAW, but customized items.
It's just an attempt to metagame passively aggressively by the player. It's 'logical', and saves them money...why wouldn't they do it?
Equally so, the GM just has to point out the rules don't work that way, and the PC is trying to bend them. Wands and scrolls are listed for sale as they appear in the relevant guides and SRD, which means fully charged, minimum caster levels, no customizing. IF you want customizing, you order something.
The fault here is on the PC, not the GM.
==Aelryinth
stuff
I'm unconvinced. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Well, if you can find me where it states that wands are priced by the charge and sold that way, I'll go along with you.
Otherwise, it's a variant item, which means custom, which means under standard rules it's not available.
Can you buy a partially charged wand in PFS? I'm pretty sure that's a no. Ignoring prestige rules and stuff, of course.
Here's another metagame borker: I want to buy a magic sword +2. 75% chance...oops, non available.
Using your wand justification, I'll ask for a sword +2 at CL7. It has no effect on the item, doesn't even raise the save yet (CL 8 to raise the save!). Different item, right? Roll again!
What about at CL 8?
Oddly enough, the saving throw for the unattended item goes up by 1...but there's no increase in price, because CL has no affect on the price of enhancement items. So a CL20 Longsword +2 costs the same as a CL6 Longsword +2.
So, MR. DM, keep rolling that % chance for me. Those are all different items, after all.
RAW says they are custom, so, no. The GM is supposed to look for core magic items from the SRD, they even have the tables and % for randomly rolling them!
But not for variant charges, caster levels, or 'cheaper because I'm a race x character with class y' variants added in.
There's just nothing there, Lemmy.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you can find me where it states that wands are priced by the charge and sold that way, I'll go along with you.
Otherwise, it's a variant item, which means custom, which means under standard rules it's not available.
Whatever... I'm not having this discussion again. I'm sure someone will do it in my stead.
Can you buy a partially charged wand in PFS? I'm pretty sure that's a no. Ignoring prestige rules and stuff, of course.
And...? You can't craft items in PFS either, even though that's perfectly possible (and rather easy) to do using core rules (in fact, Wizards get a magic item craft feat at 1st level). PFS has its own set of house rules.