Honestly, I think Cut from the Air is fine. It's a contested attack roll, so a well-made archer can pierce it if he rolls well, especially if he's got his rapid shots and multi shots buffed. It's less of a middle finger than the spells that shut down archery ENTIRELY.
But you see... That only applies to the first attack. Every other attack the archer makes suffers a cumulative -5. That doesn't happen to AoO.
What's really nice is Spellcut and Smash From The Air, as now Fighty McGee finally has what I wanted him to have, the ability to slice offensive spells away. Beating an optimized archer's attack roll isn't a sure thing since his BAB and attack stats are likely keeping pace with yours, but it's nice when the BSF completely no-sells the Enervation the wizard was trying to tag him with to avoid targeting his armor or saves.
Not sure how I feel about this... While I really like the fact that Fighters can deflect spells, I think the focus of the solution is misplaced. Of course, this can already be done with Snake Style, but at least it requires a immediate action, so it doesn't cripple archers.
Having narrative power is a BIG deal. Take Perseus, for example.
Perseus would not have accomplished much if...
...the gods hadn't saved him from the sea as a babe.
...the gods hadn't given him a magical sword.
...the gods hadn't given him a magical helm.
...the gods hadn't given him a magical shoes.
...the gods hadn't given him a magical shield.
If you're successful, you didn't get there on you're own (unless you're a spellcaster).
He never really had narrative power. He was just along for the ride, doing everything at the whim of the narrative gods. If even one of those things weren't handed to him on a silver platter, he likely would have died horribly.
Now, had he been a wizard, he could have summoned water elementals to guide his family to land, or manipulated the weather to push them to land, or started an underwater kingdom, or any number of other things. He could have crafted all of those magical weapons and tools himself. He could have dominated or charmed the hags into helping him rather than resorting to petty thievery and blackmail. He could have (easily) killed Medusa in a hundred different ways while avoiding her gaze.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
That... doesn't get you to Heaven. Unless you are saying you walk to Sigil, and find a door. In which case, you have violated the "using only your class features" by using the door.
Your Fighter is in the Outlands and needs to get to Heaven. Solve this problem using only your class features. (You can't.)I walk.
That is a thing you can do in the Outlands.
Now getting out of the negative energy plane without dying?
That's a neater trick.
By that logic you violated it way before the door by using your base speed to walk which is a race and not a class feature.
Anzyr wasn't suggesting either—that was Tark's idea.
|
Honestly, I think Cut from the Air is fine. It's a contested attack roll, so a well-made archer can pierce it if he rolls well, especially if he's got his rapid shots and multi shots buffed. It's less of a middle finger than the spells that shut down archery ENTIRELY.But you see... That only applies to the first attack. Every other attack the archer makes suffers a cumulative -5. That doesn't happen to AoO.
Again, any Fighter that takes the feat is only going to have 2-3 AoOs to work with. The prerequisites for Cut from the Air are Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5, and weapon training class feature with a melee weapon. This means you are encouraged to be STR-based to use the feat, meaning to have enough AoOs to defeat an archer's full attack is going to require a very high Dex, making you very MAD, not even counting the need for CON and WIS.
Even if you go dex based and only have the minimum STR, You are still removing you ability to control the battlefield with AoOs in order to negate that one archer's attacks. Which is something a caster can do from level one with obscuring mist.
Once again, Spellcut is only part of the solution. Making it so Fighters aren't entirely vulnerable to whatever the wizard chose to prepare that day helps; what also helps is the Magic Item Mastery feats. It's cool that all of those "well, the Fighter can just pick up magic items" arguments are actually valid now, since the Fighter (and other high-fort martials) legitimately get more use out of their magic items than the wizard does.
The issue is nothing you suggested actually *helps* martials. Which means it doesn't really address disparity and your listed suggestions would actually make disparity worse. If that wasn't clear from my post, I hope it is now.
How is reducing access to wands, scrolls and spells hurting martials?
The issue is nothing you suggested actually *helps* martials. Which means it doesn't really address disparity and your listed suggestions would actually make disparity worse. If that wasn't clear from my post, I hope it is now.How is reducing access to wands, scrolls and spells hurting martials?
Is this a serious question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At no point did I suggest reducing quantity of magic weapons. I did suggest reducing impact of wand and scroll crafting.
Ready availability of scrolls, wands and new spells encourages C/MD. ergo removing these features is a way of mitigating CM/D
TL:DR
Point x is a Myth!! I say so!
No is not!!! You haven't proven it!!!
Yes it is!! I've proven it by saying it is!!
No is not!! I've never see it!!
Then is a myth, i've proven it by saing point x is a myth!!!!ecc. ecc. ecc.
All I see in this thread is some awesome display of circular logic.
No, its more like "if you're going to try to deny caster martial disparity, here are some pretty fallicious arguments that it doesn't exist you may want to avoid"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is nothing you suggested actually *helps* martials. Which means it doesn't really address disparity and your listed suggestions would actually make disparity worse. If that wasn't clear from my post, I hope it is now.How is reducing access to wands, scrolls and spells hurting martials?
The most obvious effect here is reducing caster versatility.
Which, in and of itself, is GREAT!
Except martials are very, VERY much reliant on that versatility. It encourages casters to be a bit more "selfish", and requires them to be much more prepared in general. They can't just whip out a scroll of Fly and send someone up a wall...now they need to prepare it.
Every Fly is one less Haste or Stinking Cloud.
Given the option, is a non-buffing focused Wizard going to prepare the buff or his attack/battlefield control spell?
Probably the latter. Which means the martial is SOL. But really, that's just a tangential effect.
The main problem is because in addition to this, now the martial can't just bring his OWN potion of Fly along when he needs to lift off, and things of that nature.
Essentially, you've taken Martials = X and Casters = X+1 and made it into Martials = X-1 and Casters = X. You've lowered the power of both equally, leaving the overall gap between the same.
You've simultaneously made casters less likely to buff martials with their spell slots, and martials less able to mitigate that with wealth expenditure.
At no point did I suggest reducing quantity of magic weapons. I did suggest reducing impact of wand and scroll crafting.
Ready availability of scrolls, wands and new spells encourages C/MD. ergo removing these features is a way of mitigating CM/D
Ok new question then; Who do you thinks benefits most from wands of Cure Light Wounds?
Edit: Plus everything Rynjin said.
Honestly, I think Cut from the Air is fine. It's a contested attack roll, so a well-made archer can pierce it if he rolls well, especially if he's got his rapid shots and multi shots buffed. It's less of a middle finger than the spells that shut down archery ENTIRELY.But you see... That only applies to the first attack. Every other attack the archer makes suffers a cumulative -5. That doesn't happen to AoO.Again, any Fighter that takes the feat is only going to have 2-3 AoOs to work with. The prerequisites for Cut from the Air are Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5, and weapon training class feature with a melee weapon. This means you are encouraged to be STR-based to use the feat, meaning to have enough AoOs to defeat an archer's full attack is going to require a very high Dex, making you very MAD, not even counting the need for CON and WIS.
Even if you go dex based and only have the minimum STR, You are still removing you ability to control the battlefield with AoOs in order to negate that one archer's attacks. Which is something a caster can do from level one with obscuring mist.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.
If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slightly off topic, but it's interesting coming to this thread after having spent a lot of time running Exalted and dealing with the problems in that system and getting into debates on the Exalted forums.
See, I was just recently reading about the caster/martial disparity that exists in Exalted. Namely, how dedicated spellcasters are vastly weaker than martially-inclined characters.
This is because characters that focus exclusively on spells (which in Exalted are very expensive to buy, and do one specific thing very well) have a much narrower range of options than people who spend that XP on Charms ("normal" class features, which are cheaper to buy and have a wider range of applications).
At the very least I feel like this proves that this is a problem that can be "solved", for those who view it as a problem.
Whether it can be solved without radically changing Pathfinder to basically no longer be the same system (Exalted could not possibly be more different, mechanically, from Pathfinder) is up in the air.
My shot-in-the-dark at addressing it was to ban 9th circle casters and give all characters a lot more maneuverability in combat; this makes martials much more competitive in a fight, but doesn't really help their narrative power a whole lot.
|
|
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
Its a fair point Rynjin
I think the wizard if sensible should perform the activities that are going to create the most benefit for party. If a haste spell will have more effect than a stinking cloud (which it certainly does in my game) then how many spells can be cast shouldn't affect whether haste gets selected.
Unless you are randomly rolling loot, you can add as many potions of fly as you want. Is the primary method of receiving magic items not looting enemies and treasure?
Everybody benefits from cure lights wounds wands Anzyr, but the cleric benefits most because curing no longer requires any cost. As a result the cleric caster becomes more powerful, compared to a time when cleric used to have a party responsibility. Is that less fun to play - of course, but you can't have it both ways.
I think the wizard if sensible should perform the activities that are going to create the most benefit for party. If a haste spell will have more effect than a stinking cloud (which it certainly does in my game)...
How exactly do you ensure that buffs are better than battlefield control and major utility? Sounds like I'm doing things wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.
If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
And...? I'm not complaining about this shutting down rays. That's okay with me. I'm complaining about this screwing archers. Pointing out that there are other ways to shut down archery isn't an argument in favor of creating even more of them.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
Worth mentioning that the archer's options for shutting down melee damage are available baseline because, y'know, attacking at range.
I'm kinda surprised Lemmy is questioning this so much, up until this point archery has been superior to melee in basically every way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's the thing. You can't know until you get to the combat.
A control Wizard will generally be really good at it. Stinking Cloud potentially 100% f#+*s whoever is in the area, and 50% f#!+s them no matter what. Quite possibly better than Haste...and definitely what the Wizard player will have more fun with.
Ditto the wand...not all Clerics are healers. The Cleric player can very well say "I'm not that kind if Cleric" and never prepare a healing spell. And he'd be perfectly within his rights to.
How exactly do you ensure that buffs are better than battlefield control and major utility? Sounds like I'm doing things wrong.[\quote]
Assuming I'm doing it right is a big assumption lol.
As I understand it generally buffs automatically grant bonuses whereas battlefield controls are avoidable and/or require saves. Haste is buffing, AC, mobility and Speed. Granted stinking cloud can be effective but it requires a save, can be walked out of, many creatures are immune plus it limits the party's visiblity. In an unknown day, I'd go with Haste every time.
[EDIT] Though granted stinking cloud isn't bad. Damage spells are even less effective. I'm not saying a wizards full complement should be buffs, but I normally aim for a 1:1:1 split between buff, battlefield control and damage.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At no point did I suggest reducing quantity of magic weapons. I did suggest reducing impact of wand and scroll crafting.
Ready availability of scrolls, wands and new spells encourages C/MD. ergo removing these features is a way of mitigating CM/D
The answer to why this might not necessarily help is a bit counterintuitive at first, but let's see if I can explain it decently:
On the surface, if you recognize that part of the issue is that casters have all these utility spells that they can put on scrolls (creating a sort of "I have an app for that" situation), then it seems like a solution would be to clamp down on scroll access, right?
But what would actually happen if that were implemented?
The party encounters situation X. Currently, the next step is "The caster pulls out the appropriate scroll, and the party moves on." What does the scenario become if the caster doesn't have the scroll? Maybe "The adventure is over"? "Wait until tomorrow so he can prep the right spell, then move on"?
It could be any number of things, but what the situation does not become (at least, most of the time) is "The martial solves the problem instead of the caster".
You're still in the original position. You're still regularly encountering situations where the only effective solution (or sometimes literally the ONLY solution) is a spell. The only change is that now the whole party is inconvenienced by having to wait for it. The fighter's still looking to the wizard or cleric to solve the problem. That hasn't changed.
Taking away scrolls and wands doesn't make martials stop relying on casters, it just makes their reliance on casters take more in-game time. The fighter still can't cross large chasms or cure ability damage or decipher unknown languages or identify a relic's magical properties or shrug off extreme weather. He still can't do those things, and the casters still can. All you did was change the pace.
The casters set the pace of the game: the narrative often doesn't advance (or doesn't advance far) unless the casters have the right spells at the ready (whether that's for gleaning information, healing the fighter's HP damage or conditions, or whatever else). When the casters stop, the progression of the game stops. Moving the game forward is dependent on magic.
The casters set the pace of the game. Restricting scrolls and wands slows the casters, but the casters still set the pace of the game. You just took the same overall paradigm and made it slower.
The casters set the pace of the game. A real solution has to make that sentence untrue; restricting scrolls/wands fails to do so.
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Worth mentioning that the archer's options for shutting down melee damage are available baseline because, y'know, attacking at range.
I'm kinda surprised Lemmy is questioning this so much, up until this point archery has been superior to melee in basically every way.
I don't think archery is nearly as powerful as everyone says it is... Besides, it's one thing to have an advantage and another one to have a feat that makes you all but immune to your opponent's attack. I wouldn't have like the feat if it applied to melee attacks either.
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Worth mentioning that the archer's options for shutting down melee damage are available baseline because, y'know, attacking at range.
I'm kinda surprised Lemmy is questioning this so much, up until this point archery has been superior to melee in basically every way.
I don't think archery is nearly as powerful as everyone says it is... Besides, it's one thing to have an advantage and another one to have a feat that makes you all but immune to your opponent's attack. I wouldn't have like the feat if it applied to melee attacks either.
Isn't this why Crane Wing got nerfed, because it nerfed one hit martials too hard?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.
Think of when the spells to defeat certain obstacles come on-line, and what the alternatives are.
3rd - Climb a cliff / levitate / long series of Climb checks
5th - Cross a chasm / fly or summon flying mount / climb down into canyon, cross, climb back up out of it
9th - Travel across the sea / teleport / somehow get ship, sail it, avoid storms, fight sea monsters, navigate to other continent
13th - Travel to another plane / plane shift / get a caster to do it for you! -- i.e., caster needed.
Notice how the martial solutions become more and more difficult and involved as levels scale, and eventually peter out completely. At 6th level, you're just leaving the level range at which martial solutions are more difficult, but still do-able without adding an entirely separate adventure on top of the one you're already in.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.
What happens when they get injured? Do they continue on in their adventuring with 15% or less of their HP remaining? Or do they wait for the caster (the ranger) to use his magic (whether slots or wands) to heal them before continuing? Or do you wait weeks at a time between encounters for natural healing to take care of it?
The casters set the pace of the game.
|
|
Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Worth mentioning that the archer's options for shutting down melee damage are available baseline because, y'know, attacking at range.
I'm kinda surprised Lemmy is questioning this so much, up until this point archery has been superior to melee in basically every way.
I don't think archery is nearly as powerful as everyone says it is... Besides, it's one thing to have an advantage and another one to have a feat that makes you all but immune to your opponent's attack. I wouldn't have like the feat if it applied to melee attacks either.
Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte is exactly this applied to Melee Attacks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.
If the game was designed for them in mind, sure! Hell, martial only games can be a lot of fun when everyone's aware of the fact that you'll all be mundane. But you have to be aware of that or else problems arise, such as problems that are intended to be solved by magic. It's all about the design of the campaign at that point, and if it facilitates that kind of play, such as by giving magic items that would help the party over come their problems more easily (like a helm of teleportation.)
Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte is exactly this applied to Melee Attacks.Yes, it's strong against archers. I'd be more sympathetic if the caster options for shutting down archery were not more numerous, effective, and available from level 1.
2~3 attacks is a lot. The archer will at best have 1 attack left. I had created a similar feat long ago, but removed it for precisely this reason. It ruins ranged attackers.If it required an immediate action, Fighters would still be able to deflect rays without crippling archers.
Worth mentioning that the archer's options for shutting down melee damage are available baseline because, y'know, attacking at range.
I'm kinda surprised Lemmy is questioning this so much, up until this point archery has been superior to melee in basically every way.
I don't think archery is nearly as powerful as everyone says it is... Besides, it's one thing to have an advantage and another one to have a feat that makes you all but immune to your opponent's attack. I wouldn't have like the feat if it applied to melee attacks either.
Well, costing Panache plus an Attack of Opportunity isn't the same as just an Attack of Opportunity.
Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte is exactly this applied to Melee Attacks.
But it uses Panache. And even so, I think it's a poorly designed ability as well... But at least it won't nullify 80% of all attacks of every melee attacker.
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.
Up to a certain point, yes. I expect that group will hit trouble around 10th, especially the Swashbuckler, one of the martials distinctly lacking options. Rangers have magic and Barbarians can get so pissed they fly and punch magic, but poor lil Swashy is purely mundane.
At no point did I suggest reducing quantity of magic weapons. I did suggest reducing impact of wand and scroll crafting.
Ready availability of scrolls, wands and new spells encourages C/MD. ergo removing these features is a way of mitigating CM/DThe answer to why this might not necessarily help is a bit counterintuitive at first, but let's see if I can explain it decently:
On the surface, if you recognize that part of the issue is that casters have all these utility spells that they can put on scrolls (creating a sort of "I have an app for that" situation), then it seems like a solution would be to clamp down on scroll access, right?
But what would actually happen if that were implemented?
The party encounters situation X. Currently, the next step is "The caster pulls out the appropriate scroll, and the party moves on." What does the scenario become if the caster doesn't have the scroll? Maybe "The adventure is over"? "Wait until tomorrow so he can prep the right spell, then move on"?
It could be any number of things, but what the situation does not become (at least, most of the time) is "The martial solves the problem instead of the caster".
You're still in the original position. You're still regularly encountering situations where the only effective solution (or sometimes literally the ONLY solution) is a spell. The only change is that now the whole party is inconvenienced by having to wait for it. The fighter's still looking to the wizard or cleric to solve the problem. That hasn't changed.
Taking away scrolls and wands doesn't make martials stop relying on casters, it just makes their reliance on casters take more in-game time. The fighter still can't cross large chasms or cure ability damage or decipher unknown languages or identify a relic's magical properties or shrug off extreme weather. He still can't do those things, and the casters still can. All you did was change the pace.
But changing the pace could lead to a whole new interesting range of adventure. As it becomes in the above examples; Climb across, rest/medical attention, find a sage/bard, experiment or pack a wooly jumper.
None of which ruins the adventure just means that the party has to think up new avenues of thought rather than relying on the caster to act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, to explore that idea - could a party of a Martials enjoy a game of Pathfinder and have a reasonable game. I'm currently running a campaign with a Swashbuckler, a Ranger and Barbarian/Brawler. They are now level 6 and seem to be succeeding.Up to a certain point, yes. I expect that group will hit trouble around 10th, especially the Swashbuckler, one of the martials distinctly lacking options. Rangers have magic and Barbarians can get so pissed they fly and punch magic, but poor lil Swashy is purely mundane.
And furthermore, fights against opponents will become increasingly difficult as CR increases. Especially against high CR opponents with a decent set of SLAs and being played to their INT.
I mean you can softball everything in a home campaign to ensure that no group has issues, but that group of martials would have an incredibly rough time clearing an AP. Even Kingmaker would be nearly impossible.
But changing the pace could lead to a whole new interesting range of adventure. As it becomes in the above examples; Climb across, rest/medical attention, find a sage/bard, experiment or pack a wooly jumper.
None of which ruins the adventure just means that the party has to think up new avenues of thought rather than relying on the caster to act.
For some, that may be a feature. For my part, it bugs me that you're limited in plot pace and scope by martial abilities.
Think of when the spells to defeat certain obstacles come on-line, and what the alternatives are.
3rd - Climb a cliff / levitate / long series of Climb checks
5th - Cross a chasm / fly or summon flying mount / climb down into canyon, cross, climb back up out of it9th - Travel across the sea / teleport / somehow get ship, sail it, avoid storms, fight sea monsters, navigate to other continent
13th - Plane shift / plane shift / game over.
My alternative methods would be...
Climb a cliff...with a rope + pitons
Cross a chasm... jump, bridge, climb
Travel across the sea... By boat
Get to another plane... Through a portal.
The solutions provided below are far more satisfying and interesting for adventure than simply casting a single spell and it happening instantly. I know it has been said before but if a DM/writer has challenges that requires a specific spell to overcome (planeshift/overland flight/teleport) without another alternative method then that is poor adventure craft. I've not read an adventure yet that required a player to teleport to solve the problem. Plenty assume they might, but I've not seen one that assumes they do.
"By boat" was already spelled out -- you added an adventure.
"Portal" is a gate opened by a spell -- i.e., a caster. An NPC caster is still a caster. Or, if you simply declare there's a rift that's always there, then functionally it's the same plane, not a different one.
Teleport might not be required, but might make a near-impossible job trivial. Unless you ban it or declare all places teleport-proof (i.e., ban it), that fact remains.
Climb a cliff - with a rope + pitons
Cross a chasm - jump, bridge, climb
Travel across the sea - By boat
Get to another plane - Through a portal.The solutions provided below are far more satisfying and interesting for adventure than simply casting a single spell and it happening instantly. I know it has been said before but if a DM/writer has challenges that requires a specific spell to overcome (planeshift/overland flight/teleport) without another alternative method then that is poor adventure craft. I've not read an adventure yet that required a player to teleport to solve the problem. Plenty assume they might, but I've not seen one that assumes they do.
Savage Tide demands Teleport and Planeshift. Rise of the Runelords expects you to have it. It's not unfair or poor writing to expect players to have access to these abilities at higher levels, since their opponents after all will.
|
|
Think of when the spells to defeat certain obstacles come on-line, and what the alternatives are.3rd - Climb a cliff / levitate / long series of Climb checks
5th - Cross a chasm / fly or summon flying mount / climb down into canyon, cross, climb back up out of it
9th - Travel across the sea / teleport / somehow get ship, sail it, avoid storms, fight sea monsters, navigate to other continent
13th - Plane shift / plane shift / game over.My alternative methods would be...
Climb a cliff...with a rope + pitons
Cross a chasm... jump, bridge, climb
Travel across the sea... By boat
Get to another plane... Through a portal.The solutions provided below are far more satisfying and interesting for adventure than simply casting a single spell and it happening instantly. I know it has been said before but if a DM/writer has challenges that requires a specific spell to overcome (planeshift/overland flight/teleport) without another alternative method then that is poor adventure craft. I've not read an adventure yet that required a player to teleport to solve the problem. Plenty assume they might, but I've not seen one that assumes they do.
You're missing the point. The problem isn't that the adventures assume they do, it's that they assume they don't. They are written as challenges that must be overcome by painfully finding a way around the obstacle by using skills, equipment, or searching for a mcguffin, that can be simply bypassed by a spell.
Maybe it should be a new thread, but why do you guys think that dnd and pathfinder players are the least aware of balance compared to other genres of games?
Maybe it's because there's always been imbalance between the classes, so that state developed into an expectation, which grew into a default and then finally the "correct" setting of power between martials and casters?
(Personal puzzlement of mine - surely it should be a mundane/caster disparity not martial/caster disparity?)
Sigil is full of portals, its part of the nature of the plane. The Forgotten Realms is full of portals crafted by ancient empires. Several APs i have run have methods of travelling between planes (portals if you like) that don't require someone casting a spell to use.
Having acknowledged there is a C/MD, I throw it back to the people who feel so passionately about it - what is the solution?
Considering the only class that is both mundane and not "martial" is the Commoner, I don't know if it's its really that big of a difference.
(Personal puzzlement of mine - surely it should be a mundane/caster disparity not martial/caster disparity?)
I'm imagining that there are some casters (or could eventually be) who are also martial. It seems to me the real issue is between people without magic and people with magic. As opposed to people who cast spells and people who fight.
EDIT: I'm meaning mundane as "not magic" - my point being that martial isn't really the other end of the caster spectrum. (Is it?)