The thing is, why wouldn't you just play a straight Wizard if casting is your first resort? Considering a well placed spell can wreck an encounter, you have to be specifically holding back if it ever comes to meleeing.
Your main benefit is that after you reverse gravity negate the golem, you can turn into a dragon and rip it apart yourself.
Or if you are surprised attack, you are not a buff-less wizard, you are a fully geared EK probably in celestial plate.
It's not the most optimized path, but it works just fine. These are not 3.5 prestige classes, they don't make you straight better, but they do let you do odd things better, like being a wizard that is good with weapons, a wizard that sneak attacks with spells, or being the party wizard/cleric in a group that just loves martials and mundanes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Rynjin - Because you want to be a wizard that can kill people in melee when you feel like it?
The EK I had in RotR usually opened with spells, then switched to melee for mop-up once the fight had been rendered manageable - and had melee as an available option if none of her remaining spells was worthwhile for the current encounter.
Do you feel that an EK should be just as good at melee as an actual martial AND have 9th level arcane spells on top of that?
I suppose an easy way to do that would be to houserule that EKs get arcane strike as a bonus feat, and while using arcane strike get the damage bonus as a to-hit bonus as well.
I wouldn't do that, but I'm not convinced that a person can cast shapechange or wish NEEDS to have the base accuracy of a full BAB character. =P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the most optimized path, but it works just fine. These are not 3.5 prestige classes, they don't make you straight better, but they do let you do odd things better, like being a wizard that is good with weapons, a wizard that sneak attacks with spells, or being the party wizard/cleric in a group that just loves martials and mundanes.
Except there are better ways to do all of these options that are not terrible before 15th level.
Warrior Mage is better realized by magus or arcane duelist bard.
Arcane trickster can be any of sandman or archaeologist bard, alchemist, investigator, Druid, or even certain archetypes of single class rogue.
Arcane/divine hybrid can be a witch, Druid, shaman, oracle, or theologian cleric.
All of these single class options are effective from 1-20, and have class features that are actually good.
It's not the most optimized path, but it works just fine. These are not 3.5 prestige classes, they don't make you straight better, but they do let you do odd things better, like being a wizard that is good with weapons, a wizard that sneak attacks with spells, or being the party wizard/cleric in a group that just loves martials and mundanes.
Except there are better ways to do all of these options that are not terrible before 15th level.
Warrior Mage is better realized by magus or arcane duelist bard.
Arcane trickster can be any of sandman or archaeologist bard, alchemist, investigator, Druid, or even certain archetypes of single class rogue.
Arcane/divine hybrid can be a witch, Druid, shaman, oracle, or theologian cleric.All of these single class options are effective from 1-20, and have class features that are actually good.
Magi and company don't get 9th level spells. They are spell swords. EK is wizard who can use weapons, NOT a perfect blending of magic and steel.
AT same thing (sans druid).Eh. I need to see if there are any good spell combos. I see MT most relevant in parties without fullcasters.
@ Rynjin - Because you want to be a wizard that can kill people in melee when you feel like it?
The EK I had in RotR usually opened with spells, then switched to melee for mop-up once the fight had been rendered manageable - and had melee as an available option if none of her remaining spells was worthwhile for the current encounter.
Do you feel that an EK should be just as good at melee as an actual martial AND have 9th level arcane spells on top of that?
I suppose an easy way to do that would be to houserule that EKs get arcane strike as a bonus feat, and while using arcane strike get the damage bonus as a to-hit bonus as well.
I wouldn't do that, but I'm not convinced that a person can cast shapechange or wish NEEDS to have the base accuracy of a full BAB character. =P
Not quite.
A Prestige Class, in concept, makes you better at a certain niche.
The EK in concept fills the "Battle Mage" niche. If it were a more specialized caster there could be room for it to fill the fighter role better.
EX: If the Eldritch Knight progressed Wizard casting, but limited it to Evocation, Transmutation, and Abjuration spells, and then had an ability akin to the Bane/Judgement combo, Bardic Performance, Mutagen etc. in function.
Increasing the numerical effects of buff spells for example. Increasing them by half and then doubling them (Mage Armor gives +6 then +8 AC, Heroism gives +3 then +4 to stuff, and so on. Exceptions made for Polymorph spells because +20 Str and +16 Con from Form of teh Dragon is cray cray. but you get the idea.).
As-is here's how the EK works:
-For the first 7 levels or so, you suck all around at everything you're trying to do. You're a pretty shitty combatant, and your spells suck too.
-After that and up to level 12 -14, you sorta even out so you're middling good at combat and middling good at spells, making a middling sorta class. Better than a Fighter, worse than an Inquisitor overall.
-After level 15, most of the downsides of the class disappear, but at that point you're left wondering why you didn't just go straight Wizard since you've slogged through 14 levels of being all around worse at everything than a more specialized class could be. Spending 14 levels meh just so you can spend a few levels as a Wizard who can fight if he wants is just uninspired design-wise, and not really worth it playing-wise.
Given most games end pre 12, and the ones that go higher (APs mostly) end around 16 or 17, not 20, that's a whole lotta levels of suck capped off by ultimate cosmic power combined with decent melee ability.
How the EK SHOULD work:
-As soon as you enter it you're middlingly good at both casting and fighting. As you level these things synergize, making you actually good at bth in ways that one makes teh other better. The aforementions limited spells with increased effect, combined with something that makes attack spells worthwhile (iterative damaging spells, limit spell level equal to half your EK level might be interesting. I don't think at level 10 being able to get off 2 Scorching Rays a round woud be too busted).
That sort of thing leaves the class more interesting than simply teh sum of its parts. It raises the power floor, but lowers teh ceiling, basically.
|
|
I'll go over my preferred MT replacement, the witch. Witch has access to most of the important healing spells (all of them with the right patron) arcane buffs and debuffs, some blasts, good battlefield control, and hexes. They can also channel with an archetype. Healing hex + a wand of hex vurneability is all the out of combat healing a party will need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or if you are surprised attack, you are not a buff-less wizard, you are a fully geared EK probably in celestial plate.
But...Your build was completely dependent on buffs.
Without those buffs, you have the following to-hit and damage(assuming you are forking out for a 5+ greatsword, ignoring crits for simplicity)
16 BAB + 6 strength + 5 weapon enhancement = 27 to-hit
2d6(average 7) + 9 strength + 5 weapon enhancement = 21 average damage
Power attacking puts it at the following
16 BAB + 6 strength + 5 weapon enhancement -5 power attack = 22 to-hit
2d6(average 7) + 9 strength + 5 weapon enhancement + 15 power attack = 36 average damage
Note that by the monster creation rules, expected CR20 AC is 36 and hp is 370. Your best attack hits 11/20 times (without pa). Iteratives are 6/20,1/20,1/20 Even with a speed weapon, you are not hitting much more than once per round. With your expected damage, you are going to take around 10 rounds to kill an equal cr enemy by hitting it. This is embarrassingly atrocious.
Note that a fighter who uses none of his feats or class features on boosting damage with a greatsword (you know, those things the fighter uses to keep up with other martial class numbers) has a to-hit 6 better than you (assuming 18 base + 5 level advancement str) or 5 better when power attacking, and 3 better damage (or 6 when power attacking).
Without buffing time, using a weapon is basically not an option for you. You are stuck casting as a weaker wizard, with a slightly higher AC. You even get screwed over by your higher AC, because to have it you have to either lose your swift action each turn to arcane armour mastery, risk losing spells to ASF, or cast spells that are stilled(wasting a precious feat) or are without somatic components.
Your main benefit is that after you reverse gravity negate the golem, you can turn into a dragon and rip it apart yourself.
If you trivialize an encounter like that, isn't it better to not expend more resources finishing it and instead letting someone else do that for you. Even if you need to finish it yourself, conjuring 1d4+1 lantern archons to pew pew it to death over a minute and a half is far more resource efficient than blowing several spells (some of which are high level) to go in there and do it yourself.
Right now I should point out that level 20 is generally regarded as when the EK is the best. At level 10 the EK is even further behind both wizards and fighters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blade Adept Arcanist is a Wizard that can use weapons, too.
Spell lists's the same, it prepares your Spells Known every day and then spams them like a Sorcerer... it's spell progression is actually BETTER than the EK.
It loses out on BAB and HP, but it gains Arcanist Exploits, which are pretty kickass, and much more than what an EK gains.
Even with early entry, the EK is just outclassed by other Martial builds and by other full-casters.
The EK gets NO special abilities at all.
OOH, LOOK! A BONUS COMBAT FEAT AT LEVEL 1! AND AGAIN AT LEVEL 5! SOOOO MANY ABILITIIIIIES!
'Cause, y'know...
A Ranger doesn't get Ranger Style feats at 2nd, 6th level, and 10th levels, on top of all its other abilities and spellcasting if you're not a Skirmisher
And a Slayer totally doesn't get exactly the same thing.
Nor does a Barbarian get Rage Powers every other level, which in many cases can be just as good as feats.
And a Bloodrager doesn't get Bloodline abilities en masse.
A Fighter doesn't get a Feat every level.
A Warpriest doesn't gain just as many feats as the fighter if it's a human, along with things like Sacred Weapon, Sacred Armor and Fervor.
A Cavalier doesn't get bonus feats every 5 levels as well, along with a whole bunch of other abilities like Banner, Challenge, Mount, etc.
A Paladin doesn't get tons and tons of abilities...
...
Basically, yes. You might be able to hit okay, and cast spells okay, but... that's it.
Even with the SLA exploit, Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Oracles, Witches, Shamans, Druids, and Arcanists are ALL just better casters than an EK, AND they have more abilities.
And full-progression, or even multiclassed, martials are going to be more accurate and hit a hell of a lot harder than an EK.
Even things like the Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, and Warpriest are more versatile than the EK.
Accuse me of proclaiming badwrongfun if you want, but the class is the very definition of "Empty levels", and I can't understand why anyone would want it just because you get decent attack progression plus spell progression - all you're able to do there is swing your sword and cast spells, with no other abilities to speak of that any other full-progression casters would get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How the Ek SHOULD work:
-As soon as you enter it you're middlingly good at both casting and fighting. As you level these things synergize, making you actually good at bth in ways that one makes teh other better.
You are describing magus.
We have that.
EK does not need to be that.
EK's are people who are like, "you know instead of a level of spellcasting, I want cleric BAB and proficiencies"
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old. If that applies to you, throw out prestige classes. Heck that would have been true even in 3.5.
Of course by that metric the whole martial vs caster disparity isn't a thing either.
Or most of what people talk about on these forums.
Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.
You are describing magus.
We have that.
EK does not need to be that.
Magus is not that. Magus has a pretty crappy spell list all things considered, even more limited than a Sor/Wiz ist limited to certain schools, and is all about combining spells with sword simultaneously to deal damage.
Which is not at all what I described, which was a caster who is better at casting, but only certain spells, and can still throw down with enough +1's to match a Fighter when buffed.
EK's are people who are like, "you know instead of a level of spellcasting, I want cleric BAB and proficiencies"
Why does an entire half class need to exist just to give some weapon proficiencies and some +1's? That's boring. You may as well make a Wizard archetype that gives a +1 to-hit every 3 levels.
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old. If that applies to you, throw out prestige classes. Heck that would have been true even in 3.5.
Not just me. The VAAAAST majority of players. Not just PFS players either.
Your experience is atypical.
Of course by that metric the whole martial vs caster disparity isn't a thing either.
Many of teh spells that trivialize encunters and make skills 100% worthless pop up well before 13th level.
Color Spray, Invisibility, Create Pit, Black Tentacles...the list goes on.
Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.
Please stop my ribs can't take any more
Nah. I refuse to talk more about "most campaigns end pre-12"
It invalidates nearly every forum discussion.
Why bother talking about all this optimization if most of your game and actions is just whatever the d20 feels like? Go commoner 12, you won't even feel behind for the first half of your game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how. Most of the gamebreaking Wizard builds can come online by 10th.
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old.
It's true though. Having consistent campaigns that run 1-20 are an oddity. I wish they wheren't but they are.
Nah. I refuse to talk more about "most campaigns end pre-12"
It invalidates nearly every forum discussion.
It's not really a fair discussion when you compare things to endgame and ignore the bulk of the characters play. It's even worse that end game is the least played part of the game.
Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.
Ah... You're talking about pathfinder right? They stop being "pretty ok" after the first few levels. Against an investigator, bard or other class that fills the same space, they are hilariously outclassed.
Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.Ah... You're talking about pathfinder right? They stop being "pretty ok" after the first few levels. Against an investigator, bard or other class that fills the same space, they are hilariously outclassed.
If half of your game is 1-6, then what does it matter?
You're only really behind by the "useless end game metric" of 12.
Anecdotal evidence, true, but I have never seen a Rogue live past level 6.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. I refuse to talk more about "most campaigns end pre-12"
It invalidates nearly every forum discussion.
It's your refusal to acknowledge that other people play differently than you does that.
Why bother talking about all this optimization if most of your game and actions is just whatever the d20 feels like? Go commoner 12, you won't even feel behind for the first half of your game.
The game is most balanced from 8-12. Casters have caught up to martials, martials aren't yet irrelevant. Before then, martials are king and after then it's casters dominating everything playing rocket tag.
Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.Ah... You're talking about pathfinder right? They stop being "pretty ok" after the first few levels. Against an investigator, bard or other class that fills the same space, they are hilariously outclassed.If half of your game is 1-6, then what does it matter?
You're only really behind by the "useless end game metric" of 12.
1-6? I was thinking more 1-3. Around 4 the other classes get their stride and take off leaving the rogue further and further behind. so 3/4th of the way to 12 not 1/2.
Anecdotal evidence, true, but I have never seen a Rogue live past level 6.
Yes far too many rogues think "flanks are easy" and then put themselves in suicidal positions.
I retired my rogue ALIVE in RotRL at level 12. So many situations tried to bait me into killing myself.
1-6? I was thinking more 1-3. Around 4 the other classes get their stride and take off leaving the rogue further and further behind. so 3/4th of the way to 12 not 1/2.Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.Ah... You're talking about pathfinder right? They stop being "pretty ok" after the first few levels. Against an investigator, bard or other class that fills the same space, they are hilariously outclassed.If half of your game is 1-6, then what does it matter?
You're only really behind by the "useless end game metric" of 12.
4?
d20 is you're lord and master then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal evidence, true, but I have never seen a Rogue live past level 6.Yes far too many rogues think "flanks are easy" and then put themselves in suicidal positions.
It's not "flanks are easy", it's "I need flanks to hit and deal damage". A rogue without sneak attack is an expert with more skill points as far as combat goes.
And like Rynjin said, level six is when you start seeing fort and will saves that can kill you. Poisons, disease, domination, phantasmal killer, the list goes on and on.
Ironically enough the Rogue in the first game I ever played died (right after we turned level 6. Like the first encounter afterward.) because of a SUCCESSFUL Will save.
He failed a save against being mesmerized by a bunch of Spriggans (as did everyone in the party but my Monk. -.-'), and then tragically passed the save against the Fear that came after, leaving him all alone to be brutally mobbed by 6 Enlarged Spriggans simultaneously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1-6? I was thinking more 1-3. Around 4 the other classes get their stride and take off leaving the rogue further and further behind. so 3/4th of the way to 12 not 1/2.Heck even a rogue can be pretty OK if nearly all the game is pre 12.Ah... You're talking about pathfinder right? They stop being "pretty ok" after the first few levels. Against an investigator, bard or other class that fills the same space, they are hilariously outclassed.If half of your game is 1-6, then what does it matter?
You're only really behind by the "useless end game metric" of 12.
4?
d20 is you're lord and master then.
At level 4, both bard and investigator has in class ways to improve their combat prowess. it only goes down hill from there. So yes, 3rd is the end of rogues being sort-of "ok".
EDIT: I just noticed we're getting a bit off topic. I think if we're going to compare classes, a better metric would be either mid-level or at a few levels (like 6, 12, 20). I don't feel that just 20 is giving the full picture, especially if you're playing 1-20.
And like Rynjin said, level six is when you start seeing fort and will saves that can kill you. Poisons, disease, domination, phantasmal killer, the list goes on and on.Ironically enough the Rogue in the first game I ever played died (right after we turned level 6. Like the first encounter afterward.) because of a SUCCESSFUL Will save.
He failed a save against being mesmerized by a bunch of Spriggans (as did everyone in the party but my Monk. -.-'), and then tragically passed the save against the Fear that came after, leaving him all alone to be brutally mobbed by 6 Enlarged Spriggans simultaneously.
Is this Kingmaker? I think so. When I was playing Kingmaker, the party rogue died 7 times before 9th level. If it wasn't for extracting build points, he'd be dead dead.
I've had a number of successful rogues in my games I've ran, but that's mostly because they've taken great pains to not put themselves in harms way, or they've ensured they get buffed enough to meaningfully contribute. Like one Rogue who bought a Wand of Greater Invisibility and used it to great effect in combat.
I mean, after 6 rounds of buffing between a Bard, Cleric and Wizard, even Rogues can be good fighters :P
Contributor
|
@ Rynjin - Because you want to be a wizard that can kill people in melee when you feel like it?
The EK I had in RotR usually opened with spells, then switched to melee for mop-up once the fight had been rendered manageable - and had melee as an available option if none of her remaining spells was worthwhile for the current encounter.
Do you feel that an EK should be just as good at melee as an actual martial AND have 9th level arcane spells on top of that?
I suppose an easy way to do that would be to houserule that EKs get arcane strike as a bonus feat, and while using arcane strike get the damage bonus as a to-hit bonus as well.
I wouldn't do that, but I'm not convinced that a person can cast shapechange or wish NEEDS to have the base accuracy of a full BAB character. =P
Not quite.
A Prestige Class, in concept, makes you better at a certain niche.
The EK in concept fills the "Battle Mage" niche. If it were a more specialized caster there could be room for it to fill the fighter role better.
EX: If the Eldritch Knight progressed Wizard casting, but limited it to Evocation, Transmutation, and Abjuration spells, and then had an ability akin to the Bane/Judgement combo, Bardic Performance, Mutagen etc. in function.
Increasing the numerical effects of buff spells for example. Increasing them by half and then doubling them (Mage Armor gives +6 then +8 AC, Heroism gives +3 then +4 to stuff, and so on. Exceptions made for Polymorph spells because +20 Str and +16 Con from Form of teh Dragon is cray cray. but you get the idea.).
As-is here's how the EK works:
-For the first 7 levels or so, you suck all around at everything you're trying to do. You're a pretty s@!#ty combatant, and your spells suck too.
-After that and up to level 12 -14, you sorta even out so you're middling good at combat and middling good at spells, making a middling sorta class. Better than a Fighter, worse than an Inquisitor overall.
-After level 15, most of the downsides of the...
I'm curious though, wouldn't the class have to start losing some of what it currently has to gain these improvements? And since most of what it has are spellcasting improvements, and nobody wants to lose those, the end result might put people off as well.
I guess what I'd like to see is a more complete version of your vision for the Eldritch Knight. Full BAB, 9/10 wizard casting, and a bunch of improvements to buffs at the cost of having to take a single level of a martial class seems... a little much. But maybe you have a more nuanced vision, and if you could, I'd like to see that.
Also, I think your autocorrect might be broken. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old. If that applies to you, throw out prestige classes.
Why do you think that it's OK that prestige classes are a bad choice in most games?
Prestige classes work for you. Great. I want them to work for me, too. We want them to work for us, we people who play games that run from level 1-15 or so.
Why do you think that I should not be able to enjoy prestige classes?
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old. If that applies to you, throw out prestige classes.Why do you think that it's OK that prestige classes are a bad choice in most games?
Perhaps it is the games fault?
1-15 could work for prestige, just condense the low levels and stretch out the 12+.
For those thinking Eldritch Knight is useless now that the Magus is out: How about the following niche: Reach Eldritch Knight, using the same principles as Reach Cleric? I think that before the latest SLA FAQ, Eldritch Knight actually had potential to do this better than the Magus, thanks to having a more expansive spell list (even at levels where caster level is no greater, assuming your base caster class was Wizard or Sorcerer), giving more battlefield control options (Magus has some of these, but is missing some, most obviously Summon Monster, although that isn't necessarily the best choice for Eldritch Knight either). After the latest SLA FAQ, Eldritch Knight really has to go through a valley of bleh before getting good at this, which gets pushed into the levels where Reach tactics are starting to lose their luster and you want to invest in something else. That said, if the campaign IS going to go into higher levels, Eldritch Knight does have the problem of being bad early and powerful late -- which SLA FAQ you use just shifts that point. So I wouldn't mind something like a Magus archetype that specializes in two-handed weapons (which includes ALMOST all of the Reach weapons) and adds a bit to the spell list (earlier than Greater Spell Access lets you add to it).
And like Rynjin said, level six is when you start seeing fort and will saves that can kill you. Poisons, disease, domination, phantasmal killer, the list goes on and on.Ironically enough the Rogue in the first game I ever played died (right after we turned level 6. Like the first encounter afterward.) because of a SUCCESSFUL Will save.
He failed a save against being mesmerized by a bunch of Spriggans (as did everyone in the party but my Monk. -.-'), and then tragically passed the save against the Fear that came after, leaving him all alone to be brutally mobbed by 6 Enlarged Spriggans simultaneously.
Is this Kingmaker? I think so. When I was playing Kingmaker, the party rogue died 7 times before 9th level. If it wasn't for extracting build points, he'd be dead dead.
I've had a number of successful rogues in my games I've ran, but that's mostly because they've taken great pains to not put themselves in harms way, or they've ensured they get buffed enough to meaningfully contribute. Like one Rogue who bought a Wand of Greater Invisibility and used it to great effect in combat.
I mean, after 6 rounds of buffing between a Bard, Cleric and Wizard, even Rogues can be good fighters :P
Serpent's Skull, actually.
As he'd neary died in all of the other encounters before then, he decided Geralt was dead dead and we got Corvus the Paladin in his place.
Which made my LE Monk make himself scarce for a bit. =)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the whole "most games end before 12" thing is getting old. If that applies to you, throw out prestige classes.Why do you think that it's OK that prestige classes are a bad choice in most games?Perhaps it is the games fault?
1-15 could work for prestige, just condense the low levels and stretch out the 12+.
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
PFS is 1-12.
APs are 1-15/16.
Many people such as myself who do not play PFS or APs play overwhelmingly within the 1-15 range. Not entirely sure why. Maybe we like starting from level 1 but can't sustain a campaign longer (spent two years of weekly gaming once getting from 1-13). Maybe it's because there's not as much support for play after level 15 thanks to PFS and APs being written in that level space. Either way, that is not just my game, that is a sizable chunk of how Pathfinder is played.
If the game is at fault for prestige classes being a bad choice, then Pathfinder needs to be rewritten.
If you'd like to campaign for more support for high-level play, great, but I think fixing prestige classes to work at the most-played levels of Pathfinder would be easier than making the levels at which prestige classes work more played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you get cha to saves dumping wisdom is unplayably bad.
8 wisdom and the ggs are going out imo
Don't worry, he took his last level in Fighter and picked up bravery. It's all good now. /sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
You're not making it up.
You are however using a survey of less than 200 people, limited to posters on one specific message board, over five years ago, to justify a sweeping generalization about everyone who plays Pathfinder.
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
You're not making it up.
You are however using a survey of less than 200 people, limited to posters on one specific message board, over five years ago, to justify a sweeping generalization about everyone who plays Pathfinder.
Sweeping generalizations are the best generalizations though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It it were a Wow martial option then I would agree, but really that 4th iterative does nothing.
I agree with Nicos. Getting the 4th iterative by 20th was important* for a gish in 3.5, because there were tons of ways to make it hit (e.g.: wraithstrike). But the thinking that places such emphasis on reaching BAB +16 is obsolete; in Pathfinder, the +1 out of your 16/11/6/1 at 20th is just going to miss anyway.
(And that's on the off chance that you aren't fighting with a natural attack routine in the first place. High level polymorphs are one of the few things an EK can look forward to)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
You're not making it up.
You are however using a survey of less than 200 people, limited to posters on one specific message board, over five years ago, to justify a sweeping generalization about everyone who plays Pathfinder.
Vic and Lisa have both said that supplements geared for high level characters sell far less copies than those aimed at lower levels, and the stuff that sells the best is for levels 1-3. When is the last time you saw a first party product for levels 17-20?
That should give you a pretty clear picture of where most people play the game.
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
You're not making it up.
You are however using a survey of less than 200 people, limited to posters on one specific message board, over five years ago, to justify a sweeping generalization about everyone who plays Pathfinder.
Vic and Lisa have both said that supplements geared for high level characters sell far less copies than those aimed at lower levels, and the stuff that sells the best is for levels 1-3. When is the last time you saw a first party product for levels 17-20?
That should give you a pretty clear picture of where most people play the game.
Most the people I know who play PF, play homebrew campaigns.
Perhaps low level material sells better because people who play at low levels buy more adventure material.
The sheer excitement people exhibit at when a high level game is proposed over on the Online Campaigns board is telling too. People don't generally get excited over something they do often, even if they like it.
We might want to establish what "high levels" are. It seems to me like you guys are saying most of your games are spent pre-9. Even in the campaigns I had that ended at 12 abruptly, pre-9 was about half of the sessions.
I'm using 9 as a metric because in 3.5, 9 was the highest you could get from killing CR1 or lower foes. So I saw no reason for anything more than the tutorial period to be at pre-9.
The sheer excitement people exhibit at when a high level game is proposed over on the Online Campaigns board is telling too. People don't generally get excited over something they do often, even if they like it.
What?
No that is not how that works at all.
|
|
I'd say high levels begin around 12+ (the ending of PFS), since that's the point that Paizo has said "Nah, not dealing with this jazz." Balancing anything to finally be good around that point isn't a strong decision, and doesn't help any argument that something is acceptable.
Is there any official Paizo product that even deals with 20th level? Just curious here.
Of the games I've played:
-One ended at 8th (Serpent's Skull)
-One is currently at 17th (end of RotRL)
-I've run 2 APs and a homebrew currently all at 6th.
-One ended at 1st (GM dropped it due to lack of time)
-One is currently at 19/MT 9.
-One is at 2nd.
-One started and is ending at 9th.
-One is at 3rd.
-One stopped at 13th due to GM not being able to handle high level play.
-One is at 5th.
-One is at 15th in Way of the Wicked.
-One is at 7th in Age of Worms.
-One is an 18th level Gestalt.
Plus a few others I can barely remember, all below 6th.
This is with me purposefully trying to find high level games.
|
|
I'd say high levels begin around 12+ (the ending of PFS), since that's the point that Paizo has said "Nah, not dealing with this jazz." Balancing anything to finally be good around that point isn't a strong decision, and doesn't help any argument that something is acceptable.
Is there any official Paizo product that even deals with 20th level? Just curious here.
I wouldn't say "Not dealing with this jazz" for 12th level. The last volume (or two) of APs routinely goes past that.
Those are generally considered high level and would be a bad place to finally start being good.15+ is closer to when they stop dealing with it. A few modules and the very end of most APs are all that supports that.
I was just talking PFS, but I will admit that APs at least touch on higher levels than that, although 15-17 seems to be the stopping point, with 17th on a very sparse basis, neither of which hitting 20th. Either way, hitting stride at 15th level is abysmal. Personally, my biggest complaint with the Investigator is 1-3 levels being garbage compared to what else you could take, Rogue excluded for obvious reasons.
Oh, I'll agree that high level play is fairly rare.
Many people aren't willing to run it (a lot of folks hate the superheroness of high level play), and many campaigns die out before they can reach high levels.
(For example, Book 6 of Rise of the Runelords is the only final book of an AP to have actually sold out.)
If the majority of your games make it to high level, you're an anomaly, and your campaigns also probably last a long time.
My longest campaign was a homebrew under 3.5; it went to L35 over the course of about two and a half years.
The Carrion Crown game I took to L20 lasted about a year and a half, and I'm guessing my current mythic Reign of Winter game will do the same (though my current game's also behind schedule due to RL causing a couple month long hiatuses from it.)
High level play is rare, and it takes a lot of time to get there unless you actually start at it.
(Which I suspect is why WotC started writing 5 level prestige classes. Of course, that was also under 3.X, where base classes didn't reward sticking with them.)
High level play is more burdensome to run at the table, is hedged around with major entry barriers (such as higher prep time for DMs to produce statblocks) and is not as well supported as lower level stuff, particularly in the fundamental books, Core Rulebook and Bestiary 1. (Compare CR 1-3 monsters with 18-20, for example, in the Bestiary 1)
All reasons to expect that it would be rarer. Combine that with the other anecdotal evidence, while it isn't proving anything definitely, I don't see any great reason to doubt thejeff's (et al.) contention that it's rarer.
And in PF you could in theory reach 20th level by killing CR1 or lower foes anyway. It would just take a long time and be really boring.
Note, the CRB tells us that one should not award XP if an encounter's CR is 10 or more levels lower than the party's APL.