| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)Martials multiclass easily with other martial classes while pure casters do not. This is important for saves and class ability dips that are highly profitable.
I think you have the economics of this backwards. The reason martials multiclass easily with other martials is because there's little if any synergy to taking another level in a martial class.
When a second level ranger gains a third level, there's nothing particularly advantageous she will pick up from a third level of ranger. A first level of barbarian is more valuable than a third level of ranger, because a third level of ranger is pretty worthless, frankly.
When a second level wizard gains a third level, the third level of wizard is so valuable that it trumps what a barbarian offers. Or what a ranger offers.
I don't know, endurance as a bonus feat and favored terrain are pretty nice options in my opinion.
Somewhat related note: is there anything a Rogue can do about an Alarm spell? I was certain that it was considered a trap that Rogues can detect and disable but it came up in a campaign recently and I found my Rogue's investment in stealth completely invalidated by this level 1 spell.
An alarm spell is a trap with DC 26 to detect and disable. It's no different than mechanical trap that rings bell alert the guards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhat related note: is there anything a Rogue can do about an Alarm spell? I was certain that it was considered a trap that Rogues can detect and disable but it came up in a campaign recently and I found my Rogue's investment in stealth completely invalidated by this level 1 spell.An alarm spell is a trap with DC 26 to detect and disable. It's no different than mechanical trap that rings bell alert the guards.
Where is this rule listed, and why isn't it listed in the text of the spell itself? My GM was quite certain that you needed to Detect Magic or you couldn't identify an Alarm spell and there's nothing to refute that in the spell's description.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, you think the Druid spell list is bad? Hoo boy. Hooooo boy.
One thing to remember in the spells vs. skills debate: casters get skills too. Heck, the wizard or witch usually ends up with the most skill points of any character in the party thanks to how much they pump up their intelligence. My Sorcerer can have a better diplomacy score than the rogue, and have access to charm and dominate on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is this rule listed, and why isn't it listed in the text of the spell itself? My GM was quite certain that you needed to Detect Magic or you couldn't identify an Alarm spell and there's nothing to refute that in the spell's description.Somewhat related note: is there anything a Rogue can do about an Alarm spell? I was certain that it was considered a trap that Rogues can detect and disable but it came up in a campaign recently and I found my Rogue's investment in stealth completely invalidated by this level 1 spell.An alarm spell is a trap with DC 26 to detect and disable. It's no different than mechanical trap that rings bell alert the guards.
You know, you're right. There are many spells, like glyph of warding, and the symbol spells, that have a specific note about the difficulty of disabling them, and the fact that only a character with the trapfinding ability can use disable device to disable them. Alarm has no such language, but I've always run it under the idea that it could be disabled at a 25 + spell level DC. I think I may have even read in a module along the way that Alarm could be disabled by a rogue just like a normal mechanical alarm...
Interesting. This is one of those things that could start a whole RAI/RAW string of posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it actually common for casters to summon monsters that are stronger and tougher than equal-level geared fighters? I get that the later summoned monsters have spells, but by sheer combat prowess, I can't see them having higher to-hit / damage / AC / HP than a geared martial PC of not-horrible optimization.
Stronger? Yes absolutely. Tougher? Probably not but they also dont have an achilles heel like a bad will save.
The reason being is summoning is REALLY easy to optimize. Augment Summoning and the rest is gravy. With a force multiplier like a Skald or area buff spells it gets insane. A summon takes it's turn immediately and requires no positioning time like a PC does which can be dangerous or outright impossible.
The summon is hand picked at the time of casting so you can adapt to many situations. Need a grappler? Flight? A damage machine? Something with special senses to spot invisible enemies? Summon Monster has you covered.
The 10th level Evangelist Cleric spits out 1d4+1 (Superior Summoning) Celestial Lions who immediately pounce and smite evil each then buffs them all with his Blessing of Fervor on his next turn. Or just summons Lantern Archons and Inspire Courages all of them.
Summons are inherently expendable and since you can summon more than one creature, its not odd to see an enemy unable to clear them all on his turn. Attacked summons are not attacked players who are all dangerous in their own right. So it also ties into damage mitigation that your allies benefit from.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a problem here.
That's fine. Just a few posts back I was talking about how the existence of the disparity doesn't have to mean everyone's fun is ruined. Heck, some people want the disparity. That's totally fine.
What's the problem with Endure Elements? Its a REALLY handy spell for GM who wants to introduce interesting extreme environments but endless fortitude saves can be too much of a chore. This is a good thing for the group to have. Wouldn't that be cool? Going into an underground level with Lava flowing everywhere or a completely frozen ice palace.
The issue is not that endure elements exists, the issue is that it's the only way to enable the things it enables; there's no martial option to become a badass who doesn't fear the air temperature. Either you get a caster to supply Spell X, or you face hazards on the same level as a Commoner with better numbers.
Someone said Overland Flight, the 5th level personal only spell? Nah. It's only good for Wizard to scout ahead, and if he goes ahead without fighter cover then he's going to get munched.
You think O.F. is a scouting spell? That explained some of your confusion; let me try to clarify.
The issue with O.F. is that it alters the nature of the adventure. The flying wizard can ignore geographical obstacles like cliffs and chasms, and in any combat against non-flying enemies, he can keep his distance and fight on his terms (this also relates to the non-importance of wizard AC, which I'll discuss more later). Overland flight's strength is not about scouting (though it can be used for that too), it's about the ability to set the terms of the game, in a way that no martial character can come close to (up to and including sometimes just deciding whether or not to even have a given encounter at all). It neutralizes whole swaths of monsters and enemy types, bypasses innumerable obstacles, and invalidates entire story tropes; simply by virtue of letting the caster ignore the state of the terrain and operate in three dimensions while others must operate in two.
Teleport is the same level, I guess the wizard has to fly there, get very familiar with the teleport target area, fly back all while avoiding the quest stuff to teleport the rest of the crew.
Once again, we're envisioning different uses of the spell, so I'll elaborate.
The most basic use is to leave a dungeon. You go adventuring, gradually expending the party's resources... and instead of having to trek back to a safe location to rest (and having to save resources for the return trek itself), you just adventure until you're down to mostly just teleport, then POOF! The party is whisked away to wherever you were already planning to rest that night. Additionally, if things go south and you need to bail out in an emergency, teleport is gonna be way better than just running.
There are other uses as well. I was playing an 11th-level adventure, and it included some kind of airship chase with custom mechanics for trying to catch up to the enemy and so forth. Instead, our party just teleported onto the enemy airship (not very risky when you can see the destination). So much for the pages of airship chase mechanics.
Really, the potential uses for instantaneous, long-distance, group transportation is limited only by your imagination. Try some games with a couple slots prepared and look for ways it could influence the situation, and I guarantee you'll start to see the power.
This just seems amazingly salty, I've never experienced this bitterness in any other game nor media. It's like a soldier hitching a ride in a helicopter and b+%%%ing the whole way about how a helicopter is so much faster and more convenient than walking. Oh give me a break.
All I did in my last post was disagree with your ideas. I'm going to go ahead and try to politely explain my ideas. You can feel free to choose how you're going to react to contrary points of view: to discuss them, to ignore them, or to lash out at them. It's up to you.
Infiltration is a team game as well, come on, haven't you heard of the Wookie Prisoner routine? Someone disguised as a guard, another apparently a prisoner and wizard nearby and invisible. The wizard can't just leave everyone else behind. And if EVERYONE is going to get invisibility cast on them then GOOD, considering how verboten party-splits are, it's no damn good if Rogue can sneak in but others cannot, you just tell the rest of the players to leave the table because they can't do anything and they can't actually see or hear what's going on.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I agree that infiltration is supposed to be a team game. That's part of the issue: unless the entire party builds for Stealth, the only way to make infiltration happen is with magic (such as the invisibility spell). The wizard can make sure Sir Clanksalot gets included. The rogue can only cover himself. That's part of the issue.
Additionally, infiltration usually involves gathering information about the location ahead of time, and once again, magic is the best way to do it. Magic can let you look through the walls, scry, or otherwise investigate at little to no personal risk and with much better odds of success than nonmagical methods. To use a real example, my party (same party as in the airship chase) wanted to scout out a mansion where we expected trouble. The druid turned into an earth elemental so she could glide silently through all the stone walls, another caster made her invisible so she wouldn't be seen doing it (at this point she's both silent and invisible, thus virtually undetectable), and I cast telepathy so that she could soundlessly communicate with us in real time. We were able to discover a deception and also investigate a later encounter area, letting us go into the situation already knowing that which the baddy wanted to conceal, and also already having appropriate buffs in place (resist energy, etc). A nonmagical team couldn't have managed that in a million years.
Charm Person is VERY much appreciated as the unpleasant alternative that appears without it, and that is for the desperate players to start torturing whatever poor sap they caught alive and it all gets way too unpleasant. And Charm Person just simplifies a tedious step. It puts them in a good position but you need the whole crew Role Playing and backing with with good diplomacy rolls to get the desired result.
Charm person isn't really on my list of spells that are an issue, and I haven't seen many complaints about it from others. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Wizard AC does matter.
I have explained how it does.
You have simply scoffed that is doesn't.
Explanation vs hollow allegation of "flawed". People can make their own judgements on that.
I re-read your post and couldn't find your explanation of how wizard AC matters. Perhaps you meant to explain but forgot?
In any case, you're correct that I didn't explain why wizard AC doesn't matter. I was trying to be brief (as you can see, I can get longwinded if I'm not careful). Here's my explanation:
A wizard's AC doesn't matter (past very low levels), because AC only matters when it's the primary thing getting between a target and an attacker, which tends not to be the case with a wizard (again, outside very low levels).
For one thing, there's the aforementioned overland flight. In any battlefield other than a low-ceiling dungeon, the wizard is just straight-up immune to non-flying non-archers' attack rolls. That's a sizable chunk of encounters in which his AC is literally irrelevant.
So that leaves us with those encounters where the wizard is actually reachable: either there's no room for altitude, or the enemies can fly/shoot. (I'm not counting enemy casters, because we're talking about AC, and they won't be targeting AC.) Now the wizard is at least capable of being attacked, but his AC is not his only defense: blur, mirror image, displacement, stoneskin... just in the Core Rulebook, the wizard has a number of buffs (some low enough level to carry on scrolls or in wands if he prefers) that give him comparable—or even superior—odds of being missed by an attack regardless of his AC.
Now, you did point out that some of his AC (maybe you meant his defenses in general?) don't work if he gets ambushed. This very fact is probably the reason the Divination school is so popular: that wizard literally can't be surprised. He can throw up a defensive buff before the ambushers themselves even get to act. But hey, that's just one build, right? Well, the rest of the wizards can still max out Perception (they have lots of skill points, and can spare more wealth for skill-boosting items than martials can) and can pump their initiative higher than most martials thanks to init-boosting familiars.
And even if you do have a situation where (1) the monster is capable of making attack rolls against the wizard and (2) the wizard hasn't been able to put up a defensive buff yet, wizards typically have almost as much HP as a fighter: from hit dice, the wizard averages only 2 less HP/level than the fighter, the relative significance of which decreases as they level up due to steady increases in CON due to stat-boosting items and effects (which, ironically, the wizard can obtain more cheaply than the fighter). Thus, one bad round won't drop the wizard, and then he can use a turn establishing himself to make his AC not matter.
Put it all together, and 99% of the time (outside of very low levels), the wizard's AC does not matter.
There, now I've explained it. :)
I don't want to power-down the Wizard, that's the problem, Wizard SHOULD be powerful, but that class has SERIOUS limitations if he tries to direct attack a group who has a bit of sense of how to counter Wizard.
Wizard should be good, and he is.
That isn't a bad thing.
Sorry if I miscommunicated; I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone else is either) that the wizard shouldn't be a good, strong class. I love me some good spell-slingin' as much as the next guy. I'm just saying he shouldn't be BETTER than other classes. It's about relative power. Don't necessarily need to power-down the wizard; you could power-up the fighter, or maybe meet in the middle (5E did this to some degree).
I totally agree with you that wizard should be a good class. :)
It does not leave other players left out of the game, what's the point in all these spells to trip, disarm or blind if the there's no one to exploit this?
Oh absolutely, I like the spells that simply create opportunities that the martials can exploit. That's good fun teamwork, and I love it. :) Those aren't the types of spells in question here. Really, that's where I wish more magic was designed to be.
It's only a bad thing when he can destroy as well as Fighter can, well he can't. Most GM's can easily stop such blasting.
You're correct that "blasting" can't destroy things as well as a fighter can. However, two things:
First, as I've said before, C/MD is primarily a non-combat issue. Yes, the fighter is good at depleting enemy HP. However, that's basically all he gets to do. Whenever you encounter an obstacle that isn't a creature whose HP needs to be depleted (and that's a lot of situations, unless your games are mostly hack-and-slash dungeon crawls, which is fine, just not something that can be universally assumed), then martials generally can't contribute. Some of them have skills, but usually there's a cheap-and-easy spell that the caster can whip out at trivial cost (especially with scrolls and wands) which handles the situation better. That's the bulk of the C/MD: out-of-combat narrative options.
Second, even in combat, "blasting" is often considered the weakest thing a caster can do. If a caster needs to end an enemy, he can summon an extraplanar minion that fights just as well as (sometimes better than) a fighter. Or in some cases, he gets such a creature by default (druid with companion). Some casters can actually do the fighting themselves: I've played a cleric who, starting at a very early level, was just as effective on the front lines as a fighter, while still getting to dispel the darkness and walk on air and raise the dead in addition to his melee combat capability. So, yes, the casters can destroy things just as well as the fighter in some cases; they just won't be doing it with fireball.
Golems are totally immune to all spells with any sort of spell resistance which is... almost all of them. One relevant exception is Disable Construct specifically spells out relevant penalties. They present a huge problem for.
Once again, summoned creatures are a good answer. The wizard can take a nap on a cloud while his summoned monster fights the golem. Or he can blind it with glitterdust, drop it in a create pit, or even just decide not to fight it and just fly away. Non-SR spells may be a minority, but they still include a lot of very strong spells, many of which the wizard would have prepared anyway.
And that's just a traditional wizard; there's also the shapeshifting druids (and their animal companions), the battle oracles, clerics like mine that I already mentioned, and others who can just stab the golem and use their magic on the next fight instead. No fighter required.
Serious talk now: why do Tabletop RPGs have this prejudice when other games do not?
Couple of things:
First, "prejudice" means making a judgment before looking at the evidence. If you ask the folks who complain about the C/MD, you'll find that they encountered it in actual play. This is not some phantom idea that got into people's heads but doesn't match reality. This is how the game actually goes in practice. This is not prejudice.
Second, this isn't something that appears in tabletop RPGs in general (as you suggest), but rather something that's mostly present in 3.X and PF systems. D&D 5E has much less of a C/MD issue, I've gotten the impression that it was very differently balanced in AD&D and 2E, and many non-D&D-style tabletop RPGs don't have the issue at all.
So this is not a "prejudice" that exists with "tabletop RPGs", this is an experience-based critique of a couple of specific games' design flaws.
So why doesn't this issue come up in other games? Because other games are other games. Why would this games design flaws show up in other games? They wouldn't, just like those other games' design flaws wouldn't show up in Pathfinder.
This is classic dynamic class roles, different classes with radically different capabilities and strengths and weaknesses. Wizard is great for enabling magic in other non-magic characters.
That's the ideal, and some games (both tabletop and otherwise) achieve it beautifully. Other games, such as Pathfinder, have design issues. Would you really expect every fantasy game to achieve the same balance ideal? Should it really surprise you that one or two of them missed the mark?
Hopefully this post helps elaborate on the subject. I'd be happy to continue discussing it with you. Sorry for any previous miscommunications. :)
Great, what if he makes the save?
So, 19 times out of twenty, the wizard wins with a single spell.
What does he do the 20th time? He casts a second spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets say he was a bit smarter and cast create pit. Great. The Golem climb out of the pit and you are back at square one. Now if there had been a fighter there to provoke and hit the Golem causing it to fall back in the pit...
Let's actually do some math on this one. Let's take a 9th level caster (so he has access to hungry pit), and let's assume Int 18 + 4 (item) + 2 (levels) for a total of 24 in the casting stat (+7 to save DCs).
Create pit is a 2nd level spell, so DC 19. An armored clay golem has a +3 Reflex save, so it needs to roll a 16+ to avoid falling in the pit.
An acid pit is a 4th level spell, so it needs an 18+ to avoid falling in. Hungry pit is 5th level, so it needs a 19+. Not bad odds when you consider that a level 9 caster has a 90% chance, by himself, to one-shot a CR 11 monster.
Oh, but wait, what happens when it climbs out? Well, tries to climb out, anyway. The hungry pit is 40 feet deep at this level and has a climb DC of 35. Good luck climbing this untrained, even with a +7 Strength modifier. It can get out if it can roll four successive 28s on a 20-sided die. The acid pit is easier; it only needs four successive 23s. And even the ordinary create pit spell, which is only 30 feet deep, requires 18s to climb out of. That's basically three chances out of a thousand to get out.
So, yeah, I'm not seeing "climb out of even the second-level pit" as a realistic option for an Armored Clay Golem. In fact, I'm not even seeing this as a realistic threat. I've got a single spell with a 75% chance of rendering the golem hors de combat from which it literally cannot escape while I stroll quietly away....
from any of your silly antics like just walking away while a CR11 monster is merely blinded for only a round or two.
Oh, yeah, let's do the math on the glitterdust spell as well. Same DC 19, and it's got a +4 Will save, so it needs to roll a 15 to save. 70% chance of being blinded.
And a 70% chance of being blinded next round as well. And a 49% chance of being blinded the round after. And a 35% chance of the round after that....
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, whoever decided that the Pit spells need to be impossible for most CR-appropriate creatures to get out of really needs to be made to sit in the corner and think about what they've done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, whoever decided that the Pit spells need to be impossible for most CR-appropriate creatures to get out of really needs to be made to sit in the corner and think about what they've done.
Agreed. But what I find interesting is that the encounter -- a single Armored Clay Golem -- is already CR = APL+2, since I'm a 9th level caster by assumption (and so, presumably is the rest of my group). So it's already a "hard" encounter, a tier above "challenging." Or, alternatively, I'm adventuring by myself, which make me not APL 9 but APL 5, and this encounter that I've got a better than 50/50 chance of soloing is beyond "epic."
Now, our stunt double suggests that
you think you're only going to fight ONE Armoured Clay Golem? Nothing else, not even an archer with a ready action to shoot as soon as the wizard tries to cast?
So, in order to create an encounter that my wizard might have to actually work to nullify, he needs at least two golems and a (presumably equal level?) sniper.
To shut down me -- not me and my posse, just me -- he wants to drag three CR 11 monsters in as a strike team. So to shut down an APL 5 wizard, he needs CR 14 worth of monsters.
(And I'm still not sure he could do it. Two golems can fall in that pit as easily as one, and a simple invisibility, wind wall, or mirror image spell will take care of the sniper. Or a protection from arrows spell cast over breakfast.)
What I'm wondering is, from a purely damage per round point of view, can a non-summoning specialized caster out-damage a not-horribly optimized martial character via summoning? Let's assume the caster has Augment and Superior Summoning because 2~3 feats are relatively cheap.
Also, regarding the Lions, I belive it's 1d3+1 (Summon Monster V to replicate a IV Summon + Superior Summoning).
Yes. I pulled the level 8 Sellsword from the NPC codex and assumed a CR 9 opponent with AC 23 and ran it through the standard DPR calculations. He does 7.8 DPR with his primary attack, and 5.46 with his secondary, for a total of just above 13 points of damage per round.
A single augmented dire lion has three attacks, doing 8.085, 7.35, and 7.35 DPR, respectively, for a total of 22 and change.
Now, for fairness, it should be a level 9 fighter (I couldn't find one quickly), but the DPR won't change that dramatically. Giving him another +1 BAB and another +1 somewhere from only brought him to 17 and change points per round. And also in fairness, the lion has two more attacks if it can grapple and rake -- and with the grab ability on its bite attack, there's little opportunity cost for that.
But, of course, you won't get just a single lion. You'll get at least two, probably three, possibly four, which makes the damage just that much more impressive. We're probably looking at 66 points of damage per round if they can all find targets.
Is it actually common for casters to summon monsters that are stronger and tougher than equal-level geared fighters? I get that the later summoned monsters have spells, but by sheer combat prowess, I can't see them having higher to-hit / damage / AC / HP than a geared martial PC of not-horrible optimization.Stronger? Yes absolutely. Tougher? Probably not but they also dont have an achilles heel like a bad will save.
The reason being is summoning is REALLY easy to optimize. Augment Summoning and the rest is gravy. With a force multiplier like a Skald or area buff spells it gets insane. A summon takes it's turn immediately and requires no positioning time like a PC does which can be dangerous or outright impossible.
The summon is hand picked at the time of casting so you can adapt to many situations. Need a grappler? Flight? A damage machine? Something with special senses to spot invisible enemies? Summon Monster has you covered.
The 10th level Evangelist Cleric spits out 1d4+1 (Superior Summoning) Celestial Lions who immediately pounce and smite evil each then buffs them all with his Blessing of Fervor on his next turn. Or just summons Lantern Archons and Inspire Courages all of them.
Summons are inherently expendable and since you can summon more than one creature, its not odd to see an enemy unable to clear them all on his turn. Attacked summons are not attacked players who are all dangerous in their own right. So it also ties into damage mitigation that your allies benefit from.
I get that Summons are more versatile than most things a martial can do. I don't intend on contesting that point.
I also get that spells can circumvent encounters without relying on beat-sticking. I don't intend on contesting that either.
What I'm wondering is, from a purely damage per round point of view, can a non-summoning specialized caster out-damage a not-horribly optimized martial character via summoning? Let's assume the caster has Augment and...
Depends. Is everything in position already? Is the martial an archer? Are the summons up and running already? How many summon spells is the caster dedicating to combat? What is the rest of the party composition?
Are we in a blank 4x4 room? Difficult terrain?
Where are those blaster Wizard builds that did a bazillion points of damage? I'm pretty sure there were some that could out-damage even dedicated Fighters.
Where are those blaster Wizard builds that did a bazillion points of damage? I'm pretty sure there were some that could out-damage even dedicated Fighters.
I have like 3 of them somewhere. One for high level stuff, one for low level stuff and one crazy one.
I like the high level one because he just spams chain lightning till everything is dead or ran away from him. Yo Pit Fiend! Make two saves and die if you only pass 1 and live with 30ish hp if you pass both!
If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.
"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."
Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.
"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."
Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.
*Cleric, sorcerer, oracle, arcanist, druid, summoner, and psychic start laughing*
So this looks a lot like Myth #3, just replacing "specific spells" with "all level 5+ spells". And doesn't really provide allowances for spontaneous casters, and completely ignores divine casters (who always know all of their spells), and ignores the low-level spells being discussed. Again, Endure Elements is completely impossible to duplicate without magic and absolutely necessary for specific types of adventures.If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.
"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."
Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.
Technically Barbarians get this for one type of weather (Invulnerable Rager, but any Barb worth their salt is almost certainly an Invulnerable Rager). Races that get energy resistance work too but that is also not an overall solution.
Yes. I pulled the level 8 Sellsword from the NPC codex and assumed a CR 9 opponent with AC 23 and ran it through the standard DPR calculations.I'm guessing by sellsword, you mean this NPC. I think you're right in that it should be a level 9 Fighter, but I'd also note these NPCs get NPC gear, which is substantially less than what a level 9 PC gets.
I am asking these questions to get a better idea of the disparity. It's objectively true that the disparity exists for many in-combat and out-of-combat scenarios. What I'm wondering is if the standard Augment + Superior Summon Monster can produce a better vanilla fighter than a vanilla fighter. I'm asking if any full caster who has these two feats and one casting of the highest level of Summon Monster for their PC level can replace a Core Fighter for a beatstick for one combat. I'm asking if C/MD is so wide that it even encompasses being (or summoning) a better Martial with little specialization (three feats for a pure caster is not that expensive).
To gauge this, I would personally disregard buffs (unless it's a buff provided by the summon itself, such as Smite Evil). In a balanced party, buffs are likely being handed left and right. Some buffs are emulated through consumables. Other buffs apply to the whole party. I want to know whether one casting of Summon Monster can overshadow a Martial without any exterior help to either party.
I'd do the calculations myself but I'm kind of busy right now. Lame excuse, I know.
Yes, and I did them for you. One single dire lion can out damage a CR 7 fighter. Two dire lions can outdamage a CR 9 fighter. And the spell gives you, on average, three lions.
*Cleric, sorcerer, oracle, arcanist, druid, summoner, and psychic start laughing*If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.
"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."
Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.
I did not say "get a scroll" it would affect all spell casters, including 1-6 hybrid casters.
Don't have a spell book? Then You need to unlock via ritual.
|
Isn't this the point of the term "paper mage" and "glass cannon" I think people are so totally missing how despite all their power that doesn't mean they aren't fragile. They aren't just fragile to other magic, they are fragile to those who are good at fighting.
I ran a game at PaizoCon for a 12th level monk. He had a ring of blink and a 10AC. I did not manage to kill him despite his charges into melee.
Now imagine the wizard who can do all that and more and doesn't have to get in melee.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not say "get a scroll" it would affect all spell casters, including 1-6 hybrid casters.
Don't have a spell book? Then You need to unlock via ritual.
Oh, that's just annoying then and forces the game to turn into "Instead of our normal plots we are searching for spells for our caster."
Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
lv8 = 30hp?
6 +7*4=34 + fcb=42+con 14 = 58+false life = 66+1d10
even at 58hp 30 isn't the average health of a wizard.
Oh, that's just annoying then and forces the game to turn into "Instead of our normal plots we are searching for spells for our caster."I did not say "get a scroll" it would affect all spell casters, including 1-6 hybrid casters.
Don't have a spell book? Then You need to unlock via ritual.
the thing is that instead of "you hit level 12 you can cast wish now" it would give black and white rules for a gm to decide how to allocate spells. it's not house ruling now it's an actual rule that you don't just know the spell.
If your gm is like " pow you know it" then that's a house rule now not a core mechanic.
I'm on a phone and auto-correct is killin me