I'm honestly not sure what your post about the potential reason for why caster-types are so prominent in the Bestiary is relevant to the discussion at all, really. The point in question was "This is" not "why is this" and the point I was called out for "exaggerating" was the statement that "This is", so "This might be why this is" doesn't help resolve the core frustration I get from someone summarily crying "HYPERBOLE OMG HYPERBOLE" at something that he can EASILY see is true for himself.
It is quite clear that a LOT of published statblocks are creatures with SLAs and spellcasting. It is also clear that many of these things show up in adventures. Obviously so, because adventure paths utilize statblocks from the Bestiary as often or more often as they make humanoids with class levels (and even humanoids with class levels often have spells or SLAs...).
This is what I'm claiming. I am claiming that, golly gee, the various Bestiaries actually EXIST.
What Darkheyr is claiming is that I am "exaggerating" the prevalence of caster monsters, based on...nothing. He just sad it, with nothing to back him up.
That is the only dispute on this front.
I have said something which is easily provable. He has decried it as "hyperbole".
That's really it.
I don't see where your explanation fits into that anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The relevance of that post is that it offers an implication that your induction on the set of creatures (i.e. That the relative number of high CR caster to martial statblocks is reflected in actual population of high level creatures) is based on a questionable premise (that Paizo meant for such a reflection at all)
That inductive logic is a major premise in the argument, and I question it's validity in a slightly different manner than it has previously been questioned.
You might have noticed I can get a little pedantic... But all caps and infantilizing arguments? Really? It is easy to get frustrated, I understand that. I really am not trying to be belittling or condescending or anything. If I come off that way, let me know so I can phrase things better in the future.
I disagree fundamentally with the concept that an argument fundamentally based on induction (at least not the mathematical kind) can ever be easily proved.
---
I believe that the crux of Darkheyr's issue is that monster population is entirely based on setting. It appears as though Darkheyr believes your induction leads to a setting that unnecessarily favors the witch hunter power. Instead, he/she constructed a model in which a good number of level appropriate encounters (against core race NPC/PC classes) may not be affected by witch hunter.
In your frustration with what you took to be pedantry or petulance (justifiably, perhaps), you did make some fairly broad statements which could be seen as exaggeration , especially by someone who usually plays with that sort of model.
Does that make sense?
---
Edit::
Admittedly it's also bad form to be pedantic without advancing arguments (as might have been done here - I omitted this correction as I remembered reading that very correction earlier on these boards... Different thread though . I could have noted that sort of infraction too, to be more fair)
Take improvised weapon feats, and beat them with the bathtub until they die. NOTE: I have a PC in my current game who would do exactly this at a 1d12 17-20/x2 ratio due to some table interpretation of loose ruleage. And he would furiously focus his power attacks.
He'd probably still die tho. The 10th level party eating through 50-100hp per round will likely have 1 or 2 guys survive the bathtub iteratives.
thats assuming there not just bathing in a lake.
a 20th level fighter could carry around a bathtub with him but he would most likely have been unable to do so when he started his carer he will be so used to bathing in the lake he would see no reason to change
however if there is a lake there will most likely be a tree nearby run to the tree and rip of a branch to beat your enemy with.
you will probably still die though as the enemy party will have magic items and you wont.
however you might be able to use the terrain to your advantage but you would have to get lucky with surrounding terrain. You can probably survive if you retreat though
Title says it all. Lets assume he is naked (or at less without his weapon in hand). What are some good strategies for the fighter.I'll do ya one better:
Suppose that while the Fighter20 is bathing, a Warrior1 with the same (starting) ability scores grabs all his gear and puts it on, then attacks the Fighter20. Now the Warrior only misses on a 1 (with his +5 keen falchion or whatever) and the Fighter only hits on a 20 (and provokes an AoO with each attack thanks to a lack of IUS).
What are the odds of the fighter actually winning the fight?
Oh, THAT's easy. The warrior just uses grappling (base CMB of, say +26 (assuming STR isn't wished up), vs. a CMD of maybe... 10 + 1 BAB +5 Deflection + 4 Dex + 6 Str.. .. 26? So only fails on a 1?), pins the guy (who only has a +7 CMB vs. naked fighter's CMD 37 or higher, so needs a natural 20 to escape), and then strangles him to death for 1d3+6 damage a round. And then takes his gear back.
Huh, that's that one fight out of Game of Thrones, ain't it?
Editing for more math!
i largly agree with you but it does depend on if the magic items need a command word to activate and if the thief knows said command words
for example say the fighter 20 has a sword that shoots fire that could screw him up from a distance especially if its a reflex save half rather then negate (although the fighter will likely have feats to fix that) but if the thief does not know how to activate it its useless to him
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately Dark, there are two major camps in threads of whether classes are effective or not. Those who go on play experience as a good measure of effectiveness (I'm in that camp), and those who don't
I get exactly what you're saying. That's because I'm coming from your point of view.
The other side tend not to accept it, or at least treat it as insignificant, as it isn't imprical enough for impartial analysis.
I've found both camps make really valid points to be honest. Now days I read for interest then ignore most of it to play the game how we like it. It's saved me tonnes of angst.
My advice is let it go and enjoy your game.
(Sorry, that sounds condescending. I'm trying to offer advice as someone who used to argue vehemently on these threads using your very stance. It only ever led to arguments in the end. Not much achieved)
|
I actually had something very like this happen to a Pendragon character of mine.
Our (very wealthy) host invited all the local nobles - Cymric & Saxon both - to a week-long feast at his hall. My character had survived an earlier poisoning at a friendly hall entirely by accident, and was a very devout Christian knight, so he forgoes the wine/mead.
On the last night the host broke his Hospitality oath and poisoned the entire feast with a paralytic (that left everyone awake and able to feel pain) so that he could personally kill the Saxon kings at the feast. Of course, his (unlimited number of) guards aren't paralyzed (although there were only a half-dozen in the room with us). And he's already promised that he isn't going to kill any Cymrics.
All my character has to do is not protect his mortal enemies and he'll live. It's also a breach of Hospitality to let the host kill them, and un-chivalric to let an oathbreaker like the host escape. He can even pretend to be paralyzed and no-one (on Earth) would ever know.
What followed was an epic battle of speeches, and a hilariously outnumbered unarmored knight making a valiant last stand - to defend people who'd gladly rape & pillage the PCs own manor - because it was the right thing to do. There was a tin turkey platter used as a make-shift shield, dueling with a serving fork vs. a spear, beer thrown to blind, tables & chairs used as high ground and terrain impediments to make them come one-at-a-time.
I had been sure I was dead as soon as combat started; Pendragon armor is much more protective rules-wise than Pathfinder armor. I figured it was a great way to go out. I mean, how often do we get to die for ideals in a RPG? I was amazed when I actually made it to the third round before one of the guards skewered me.
Then our host kept his word, executed the paralyzed Saxons, and abandoned his manor (he had a lot more) without harming any other Cymrics. But on his way out the host left my PCs unconscious body with some nuns, and their Churgery skill was good enough to save his life.
Or maybe God approved.
@Darkheyr: Yes, I can make up a setting where any ability I please is never going t work. That doesn't mean it is the default assumption of the game. "Yeah but in my game" is barely relevant, if at all. When 75% of the things in the game are valid targets for something saying "but I use only the other 25%!" doesn't really pertain to the discussion at hand, which is "Does this work on 75% of the things in the game or not". The answer is: Yes.
Unfortunately Dark, there are two major camps in threads of whether classes are effective or not. Those who go on play experience as a good measure of effectiveness (I'm in that camp), and those who don't
I get exactly what you're saying. That's because I'm coming from your point of view.
The other side tend not to accept it, or at least treat it as insignificant, as it isn't empirical enough for impartial analysis.I've found both camps make really valid points to be honest. Now days I read for interest then ignore most of it to play the game how we like it. It's saved me tonnes of angst.
My advice is let it go and enjoy your game.
(Sorry, that sounds condescending. I'm trying to offer advice as someone who used to argue vehemently on these threads using your very stance. It only ever led to arguments in the end. Not much achieved)
I'm tired of this implication that I only theorycraft. It seems to pop up a lot.
This is a hilariously wrong assumption given the sheer number of games, with a variety of different characters I am CURRENTLY in (12), combined with games that are already completed (8 or 9, since I'm cutting out the ones that died on the vine, like the Reign of Winter game that ended after two encounters).
I am PLAYING a Witch Hunter using Barbarian in Rise of the Runelords right now (funnily enough, the same character I used for your RotRL game before its untimely demise). I have come across maybe 2 things since level 10 that the Rage Power doesn't work on. We're currently level 17, and about to fight Karzoug. Who, as you might guess...is a valid target.
I've done the math. I've played the game.
Both hold up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to argue "witch hunter doesn't come up enough to matter" is a really weird argument. Even the dang giants gets SLAs once you're high enough level.
Heh. Honestly, a more reasonable argument is that Witch Hunter is too good - unless I'm missing something, Witch Hunter's just outright better than other rage powers that directly increase damage, since it applies on every single attack instead of just 1 attack per rage. (For example, Powerful Blow is +1 to +6 damage on a single attack per rage. That honestly isn't impressive. Even with rage cycling up and running (making it 1/round if you don't need the swift action for something else), Witch Hunter completely blows Powerful Blow away.) =P
@ Rynjin - out of curiosity, have you looked at the math of a character with expertise that's using a one-handed weapon and a buckler? (I did that with my fighter in Jade Regent, actually.) A character who's doing that can just swing the weapon two-handed when he's going for damage, or choose use the buckler normally, or also do expertise with the buckler. Being able to decide between higher damage or a 6 to 11 point swing in AC was pretty damn handy.
Yeah, you have -1 to hit while swinging two-handed, but in practice I found that to be an incredibly trivial penalty.
I haven't, no.
|
|
I didn't use any names Rynjin. I also said major groups, not an exclusive term you'll note.
Also, I never mention theory raft at all. I merely say one group doesn't like using play experience in analysis. I never said they don't have play experience.
Funnily enough, I've played the game and done math as well and still come up with a different answer to you in many cases.
I just don't argue about it anymore. Not everything on the net is an attack.
I have no problem with the assertion that barbarians are better damage dealers than fighters so long as they are able to rage/otherwise use those powers. That has some fairly well versed evidence supporting it. I actually fully support that view actually: in the majority of circumstances, a raging barbarian *should* outperform the fighter in DPR. That's sort of that class' schtick.
My issue was more with the idea that witch hunter was so broadly applicable that it is unnecessary to consider barbarian DPR without it. Not providing that is not representative... It is also a weakness in the argument to not compare a fully equipped character (that takes more effort, but *would* make the concept more solid)
I might have gotten a little too pedantic in response to what I thought were weak bases for arguments. Any leaning on specific settings or individual testing is extremely weak evidence. Induction on bestiary sets might be indicative, but can not possibly be offered as conclusive evidence to someone who induces differently.
My pedantry obscured the fact that I actually agree with the conclusion.
And yeah, witch hunter is great. Maybe a little too applicable, but a GM can adapt encounters if a power makes a group more powerful than the APL suggests.
|
|
Answering my post with "you haven't read the previous discussion, go away" is not answering my post.
Saying that one group "doesn't use play experience in analysis" sounds an awful lot like "they only use theoretical stuff". I also think that any person that relies on play experience to judge something's value is going to reach an incorrect conclusion. We've already have several people say repeatedly that play experience varies wildly, judging something based on your own personal play experience doesn't help anyone who doesn't have that exact same play
True Bob, individual play experience doesn't often mean too much.
Play experience of many people that don't match with the empirical data does though.The reverse of your statement is also true. Given the vast array of games out there and how they vary, the analysis of any perceived power discrepancies is only good for the exact conditions used in that analysis. Anything outside those conditions and your analysis loses validity. That can mean invalid for many games (won't use most there, that's hyperbole).
here is a question that might have been asked in this long thread already
Who is the PC in this encounter?
If it is the Fighter, that is an EL 13, assuming the Fighter was equipped, maybe an EL15(Higher since the Fighter is solo)If it is the 10th level, the base CR is 19, probably CR 16 since he is bathing.
I would just build the encounter and run it, but I am crazy that way. I would just use the Core Rulebook to build the bad guy(s), but that will be sufficient.
The bath water provides cover and when submerged the water breaks line of effect for most spells
It doesn't actually matter who the PC is, since everybody is using CR. The only difference between a PC and a typical NPC is that PCs usually use slightly different build rules and have more wealth. The level 20 fighter is CR20 if they have PC wealth(gearless isn't defined by the CR rules afaik), and the party is CR 14 given PC wealth.
Also, where are you getting water blocking line of effect. All I can find on that is that fire spells get blocked by the water surface. Everything else works fine unless the spell description says otherwise.
@Darkheyr: Yes, I can make up a setting where any ability I please is never going t work. That doesn't mean it is the default assumption of the game. "Yeah but in my game" is barely relevant, if at all. When 75% of the things in the game are valid targets for something saying "but I use only the other 25%!" doesn't really pertain to the discussion at hand, which is "Does this work on 75% of the things in the game or not". The answer is: Yes.And yet again you completely miss the point.
This default assumption of the game? It does not exist, or at least cannot be accurately constructed from a Bestiary lineup. My game only comes in as an example. We are not somehow playing different than intended, we are simply using different parts of it than what you seem to somehow assume to be a fictional default game.
Missed this post before. Interestingly, I was trolling my favorites a few days ago looking for something from the PDTI'd Favorited and came back across this:
I don't see it to be problematic. There IS a difference there between Golarion and all those other worlds though. The Pathfinder rules are built to work for ANY game world, of course, but at the same time they do have an underlying assumption—Golarion, or a Golarion-like setting.
So yes, Golarion is the default setting. Meaning it is assumed that most, if not all, of the Bestiary actually exists in the default assumptions of the game.
here is a question that might have been asked in this long thread already
Who is the PC in this encounter?
If it is the Fighter, that is an EL 13, assuming the Fighter was equipped, maybe an EL15(Higher since the Fighter is solo)If it is the 10th level, the base CR is 19, probably CR 16 since he is bathing.
I would just build the encounter and run it, but I am crazy that way. I would just use the Core Rulebook to build the bad guy(s), but that will be sufficient.
The bath water provides cover and when submerged the water breaks line of effect for most spells
It doesn't actually matter who the PC is, since everybody is using CR. The only difference between a PC and a typical NPC is that PCs usually use slightly different build rules and have more wealth. The level 20 fighter is CR20 if they have PC wealth(gearless isn't defined by the CR rules afaik), and the party is CR 14 given PC wealth.
Also, where are you getting water blocking line of effect. All I can find on that is that fire spells get blocked by the water surface. Everything else works fine unless the spell description says otherwise.
If you are underwater, you are considered to have Total Cover which breaks line of effect.
As for the Fighter, his equipment available is figured into his CR, if has no or very little immediately on hand, his CR is significantly lower.
"Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects."
Also, as per RAW, his CR is only 1 lower without his equipment. So CR 19 instead of 20.
Which is ridiculous, but CR wasn't really designed for this scenario.
Mr_Outsidevoice, you may not have read the whole thread, but we did cover the topic of water and line of effect a few pages back.
Also, yeah, nominally.
A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC)
Practically, as we saw already, losing all gear can throw published 20th fighters down below CR 10 numbers, let alone CR 18.
Note there's a significant difference between said fighter being in a standard bathtub and being out taking a dip in the local lake or stream.
In the former, technically speaking, he's still 'on land' and likely gets no bonuses at all.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not read this thread past the first page, but I feel the Martial Master could be in okay shape. Still probably in a lot of trouble but he could at least activate relevant feats.
Definitely. There are a selection of feats that would be handy for this situation, but there's quite a bit of contention over how often those feats would be chosen in a full, balanced build. There's a big difference between a Fighter built for a "standard" campaign and one made specifically to survive this particular scenario. Martial Master gets to avoid that issue by having flexible feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as per RAW, his CR is only 1 lower without his equipment. So CR 19 instead of 20.
Which is ridiculous, but CR wasn't really designed for this scenario.
It is ridiculous. Also untrue. His CR is 1 lower if reduced from PC wealth to heroic NPC wealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are OP. Nerf plox.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He should attempt to grapple to closest member of the party.
If the character is male, he will forget anything and everything he was about to do and focus on the fact that there is a naked man trying to grab him.
If the character is a female with any kind of self respect, she will forget anything and everything she was about to do and focus on the fact that there is a naked man trying to grab her.
After rinsing a repeating 3-4 times, he will be left with only the female members of the opposition who are of weak morale character. In which case they will be focusing on the fact that he is naked.
In conclusion, this strategy will likely turn a potentially deadly situation into an epic one for the naked, unarmed fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All fighters have 7 Charisma. The attacking party must treat this as nothing other than a gaze attack.
im afraid i dont understand what retconing does a spellcaster do
|
If I find I have a few moments free this week, I might see what happens with the NPC Codex fighter 20 vs the fighter 10, cleric 10, rogue 10 and wizard 10.Naked or with full gear? Either way I can tell you exactly how it ends. Wizard 10 casts Greater Invisibility on the rogue, rogue stabs the fighter until he dies. Probably with spring attack so he's harder to track. The fighter has a perception of +2, the rogue has a stealth of +17, and that's before greater invisibility. The wizard can also go invisible and actually has some Save or Die spells, the cleric mostly has buffs (and mostly self-buffs).
Statements like this are what make me think that people's fighter hate gets in the way of their common sense. Without a fly from the wizard, the rogue can't even participate in the fight; the Infernal Champion has winged boots. Even with flight, a readied action to attack the rogue when the rogue attacks the fighter means the rogue has a roughly 50% chance of having to save vs death from massive damage - and that's assuming the rogue can even hit the Champion, since the rogue only has a +13 to hit and the Champion tops out at AC 29 even after penalties for invisibility. And save or dies? The Champion's worst save is a +17 and the wizard's highest save DC is 21; against phantasmal killer, he only fails on a nat 1.
Naked, it's a fight. Fully equipped, though? It's going to be a slaughter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
im afraid i dont understand what retconing does a spellcaster do
Well of course I have [insert spell here] prepared! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I have a scroll of [insert spell here]! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I have a contingency active! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I keep my spellbook in a waterproof bag! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Etc, etc, etc.
To be fair, a wizard would keep his book in a waterproof bag just like a fighter would maintain his sword. And such statements are irrelevant anyways, as this wizard exists solely for this encounter, and had no chance to say something beforehand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a wizard would keep his book in a waterproof bag just like a fighter would maintain his sword. And such statements are irrelevant anyways, as this wizard exists solely for this encounter, and had no chance to say something beforehand.
No, that's not fair. I used to be a soldier. We relied on our gear to keep us alive. And yet you still have plenty of idiots who lose their comsec, night vision goggles, rifles, etc. Plenty of them don't clean their weapons. Tons of them don't waterproof their books.
Unless it happens IC, it doesn't happen. Including poop.
No, that's not fair. I used to be a soldier. We relied on our gear to keep us alive. And yet you still have plenty of idiots who lose their comsec, night vision goggles, rifles, etc. Plenty of them don't clean their weapons. Tons of them don't waterproof their books.
Unless it happens IC, it doesn't happen. Including poop.
Ah, but remember wizards have 30+ Int so therefore are infallible and never make mistakes or screw up.
im afraid i dont understand what retconing does a spellcaster doWell of course I have [insert spell here] prepared! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I have a scroll of [insert spell here]! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I have a contingency active! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Well of course I keep my spellbook in a waterproof bag! (Despite never having mentioned it before.)
Etc, etc, etc.
Not in games I GM. No notes or paper trail on your spell choices, contingencies, safehouses and so on? Then sorry, you are out of luck.
I expect my players to keep notes -- heck, at least three of them have journals of what their PCs are doing and how the adventures are going. It isn't asking too much for them to jot down gear and spells, and if it is? Then it must not be very important to them.
