|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that GM Fiat though, having a wizard use a spell available to wizards to negate another wizards?
You're missing the point of what was being stated in the post you quoted. They're not saying that casting antimagic zone is GM fiat, they're saying that antimagic zone doesn't do anything to shut down a well built caster. As was explained earlier, antimagic zone is easily overcome by a variety of different spells. A wizard can literally stand 15 away pummeling the cast of AMZ with orbs of ice and acid, or even send a planar ally into the zone's area of effect to beat up the now completely nonmagical fool who decided to take away all his own abilities. Spell resistance is similarly ineffective. They're saying that literally the only thing in the game that truly shuts down casters after a certain point is GM fiat, because spells can quite literally provide an answer for just about everything. It's not even a "Schroedinger's Wizard" thing- these boards are filled with rules legal caster builds that have all the tools they need.
Its not as if, with most wizards, they will suddenly be useless for the whole scenario if they aren't able to just invalidate the scenario with a teleport spell. It isn't as if they will suddenly have nothing to do for the whole session unless they are allowed to just short circuit the whole session. And believe me, from personal experience, when the magic "I win; button gets shut down in a specific situation, creative players, which most are, don't just sit on their thumbs. They find a way to use the other abilities and skills they have to make things happen.
Right, which is a great example of C/MD. If the Wizard is thwarted in one way, he has 5 more ways to attack the problem until he finds a way around. If martial can't hit it, push it over, or leverage mediocre skills against it, he's out of options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that GM Fiat though, having a wizard use a spell available to wizards to negate another wizards?Using GM Fiat is a good way to shut down casters. AMF spell isn't. Neither is SR. Walking a short distance and throwing snowballs solves the former, and summoning (or even snowballs) solves the latter. And these are combat issues, when a lot of the real problems are noncombat ones (levitate>climb, teleport>walking, knock>disable device, etc).SO martials are always useless so long as you disallow any of the options which can shut down a caster, because, while shutting down a martial is fair shutting down a caster is unfair. Do I have it?
In some scenarios if you shut down the magic shortcut to solving the issue then you have to _find a different way to solve it_. Maybe even using _other people's skills or abilities_.This is the other half of the problem...what other abilities? SU abilties (like the ones full casters ooze)? Mundane Skills (like the ones wizards get tons of because of a use for +10 INT)? I am all for having the entire party participate, but usually this happens when someone other than the wizard casts the spell that fixes the problem. Its another reason I like inquisitor, it is very much a martial who can also pop invisibility, knock, tongues, etc.
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize. But how AMF works doesn't negate wizards unless they cast it themselves. It simply changes their tactics. Instead of "summon an angel and a demon to mop up" the wizard goes to "move out of range and through in some damage to support while the party [melee] kills the idiot who just became a commoner." Its why I referred to throwing snowballs, because that spell does respectable damage, appplies a solid debuff, and can be thrown into an AMF.
In order to negate a wizard you can't rely on hat spell as written, you need to have it placed on a huge area permanently and have a goal that needs to be done in the large permanent area. This might be slaying a monster, or passing a chasm, or charming [descriptive term] a noble. It requires the GM to say "magic doesn't work" instead of "someone cast AMF."
Its not as if, with most wizards, they will suddenly be useless for the whole scenario if they aren't able to just invalidate the scenario with a teleport spell. It isn't as if they will suddenly have nothing to do for the whole session unless they are allowed to just short circuit the whole session.
IMO, trying to short circuit or invalidate encounters makes C/MD worse than it needs to be. A wizard is stronger when it isn't trying to invalidate the party, it means they have more spells available. They can, and for some groups they do, which having been invalidated in said groups...isn't very fun.
Its why I play control casters these days as support, setting up a field so that the [melee] can have a bunch of fun with haste, summoned flank buddies, and a grappled enemy. Its how the "god wizard" is described in many guides and can be quite fun. It isn't about shining, but instead polishing the group and pointing the glare toward the enemy eye. As a GM I encourage this behavior, and try to make sure there are fights where everyone gets to do their schtick be it AOE damage, deflecting 12 attacks, full attacking, or other. I will change the rules if needed, but dislike doing so because of how much I have to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is NPC's using spells that are in the world designed for a purpose for the purpose they are designed for going 'out of the way to target a caster'? A strong wizard WOULDN'T think of using Teleport trap to protect his lair? Really? Why not? They aren't allowed to plan?
If the shortcut magic option to do something is short circuited, as long as there are still OTHER ways to do something than someone else gets to act. If every single thing ever that the caster could do was shut down, sure, it would indeed be ridiculous. But the fact that scenarios are inserted where the caster isn't the automatic answer to every issue is not a 'problem' or some sort of unfair targeting.
Nobody should have a problem with a wizard(npc) using the spell to stop the pc wizard, but most of the time in these post the poster will, as I said before, "try to stop every idea the player/caster thinks of", which is not realistic for reasons I already described.
Teleport failing is not a problem, as long as the GM is not just actively aiming to shut the one player/class down. <----I hope that makes things clear.
As a GM I have had caster's whose primary purpose in combat was to counterspell the party casters, but it's not something I do for every fight.
Also if a player favors spell ___, and some bad guys escape they will let the higher ups know, so when the players get to a boss he might be very resilient or immune to that spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, now I'm having a beef with this proposed scenario. Who the hell teleports onto solid ground? You teleport into the air and open the bag of holding with your small army inside of it. I mean you can land before opening the bags but the teleporting thing should be a midair thing at least 150 feet above the place you're invading to avoid getting spotted by things with true seeing.
You have to end a teleporation affect on something that can support you.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO martials are always useless so long as you disallow any of the options which can shut down a caster, because, while shutting down a martial is fair shutting down a caster is unfair. Do I have it?
Probably not, but if you had a specific example which doesn't involve a GM having to go out of his way to target a caster feel free to post it here.
Also most of use don't think martials are useless. Taking arguments well out of context does not help your position, which at this point is not well understood. If someone did say they were useless then quote and address that person
Otherwise it just looks like passive-aggressive posting.
I can't speak for RDM, or some of the other GMs that posted, but it does often feel like if you say, you made an encounter (not an adventure, and not a campaign...an encounter, 1 part of 1 session) that included something like a no-teleport, or anti-magic, or SR monster you're immediately targeted by a couple zealots, with implications that its bad GMwrongfun, stealing agency, hating casters, shutting down players, etc. Not even removing ever possible spell option....either, just using things that exist in the game to provide -your own- players an enjoyable session.
While you'll hear nothing but crickets if you say you created an encounter that was DR/xxx and your group's melee characters had to use their back-up weapon to be "most effective".
its a double standard for some people on the forums, that's what gets old, as well as the "always/never" or other extremes that get tossed on your post regardless of if you clearly stated "sometimes, or infrequent". And I've created a house fighter to give them more toys....I know magic changes the options to characters, and I'm ok with that. So its interesting who will attack you for explaining how you operate your game, and why you do it that way and how you work -within the CMD- to create fun encounters for your players that include variety over time.
Some people just can't stand adversity I guess. Losing the ability to get the most out of your class features is just part of the game. As an example rogues can't sneak attack everything. Paladins can't smite everything. Magic won't always work whether it be by SR or some other reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I am missaplying the term Fiat. I mean "changing/ignoring the rules of the game for a narritive point." Its something that I support, and if the term seemed condescending then I apologize.
GM Fiat much like rules lawyering is not neccessarily a negative thing, but it can be a bad thing depending upon how it is used.
It is basically used in the forums(normally) for when the GM makes up things on the spot.<---Not always a bad thing.GM Fiat Positive: The players are stumped on how to bypass a certain obstacle. Maybe you thought player X could do it, but his character does not have the ability so you call for an intelligence or wisdom check, and then make up some new way to pass the obstacle that nobody had thought of, and that by the rules is probably not supposed to work.
GM Fiat Negative: The party is in a boss fight, and things are dicey. Player suddenly remembers he has ability X, which won't insta-win the fight, but it will significantly improve the party's chances. However you don't want that player to save the day because ___ so you decide the monster is immune to that ability. Then the player has another, which while not as good as the first idea is still a solid idea. However, it still involves that player's character largely contributing to the party's success, and you shut that idea down also, even though it would work by the rules.
Another one I see here from time to time is then GM's suddenly decide rogues can only sneak attack once per round or that it can not affect certain creatures, and this was never mentioned in advance.
You want to talk adventure design? Let's talk adventure design. As a GM, martials in the party are bloody boring. A party of casters can tackle pretty much any problem you can think of. If they can't do it immediately, they usually can come up with a solution that would work given some preparation time.
Want your BBEG to have their main base of operations in Abyss? Casters can find a way there. Martials need plot devices.
Want to see what would happen if you released a Tarrasque with a SLA Teleport into the world? Casters can fight it. Martials need plot devices/caster help.
Want to build the perfect unassailible fortress possible within the rules and then have the party actually storm it? Casters can do it. Martials die at the entrance.
Want to put the plot device underneath an ocean? Casters can find it, get to it, and bring it to the surface. Martials need caster help or plot devices.
A party of casters can deal with almost any problem you throw at them. Half-android undead demonic dragons riding ninja unicorns? Sure, keep them coming. A giant asteroid is going to impact the capital city in 2 days? They'll have a solution ready by then.
A party of martials? Not very g#&++$n likely. What sorts of epic problems can a party of fighters deal with? I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
You want to talk adventure design? Let's talk adventure design. As a GM, martials in the party are bloody boring. A party of casters can tackle pretty much any problem you can think of. If they can't do it immediately, they usually can come up with a solution that would work given some preparation time.
Want your BBEG to have their main base of operations in Abyss? Casters can find a way there. Martials need plot devices.
Want to see what would happen if you released a Tarrasque with a SLA Teleport into the world? Casters can fight it. Martials need plot devices/caster help.
Want to build the perfect unassailible fortress possible within the rules and then have the party actually storm it? Casters can do it. Martials die at the entrance.
Want to put the plot device underneath an ocean? Casters can find it, get to it, and bring it to the surface. Martials need caster help or plot devices.
A party of casters can deal with almost any problem you throw at them. Half-android undead demonic dragons riding ninja unicorns? Sure, keep them coming. A giant asteroid is going to impact the capital city in 2 days? They'll have a solution ready by then.
A party of martials? Not very g#&++$n likely. What sorts of epic problems can a party of fighters deal with? I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
Answered in order...
1. So what? Martials either get plot devices, or caster becomes a plot device. Either of these can become vehicles on which all party members get to participate. That's all on the GM.
2. I really don't think that teleporting tarrasques should be the nominatative on how class or encounter design should revolve.
3. If it's that perfectly unassailable, casters should be just as stymied as martials. If casters have no problems, than it's not even competent, let alone "perfectly unassailable." Or maybe your DM gives casters too many easy breaks, such as allowing too many easy "Scry and Fry" maneuvers.
4 and 5. This is a great quote from Erick Wujick when it came to campaign design in Amber Diceless. " If your players all bid up competitively in Warfare, don't make the game about Psyche." Design your game around what your players want to play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BS "nuh-uh" fiats pull me right out of the experience and back to when I was 5.
It's not that hard to make martials feel OK. Give them things to smash. Let them use their piddly skills and feat combos without having "nuh-uh"gasisms. If the fighter tries to intimidate a guard, even if it fails, don't have the guard call in the town's dragon slaying squad to dismember and blind the fighter for daring to try and affect the plot.
OK does not mean the problem is fixed. It means you are aware and take steps to mitigate it. Letting the game just roll "as-written" is a perfectly valid form of play and is where C/MD hits the hardest even if "as-written" amounts to "DM nerfs caster combos" because casters just have endless tools while strict RAW WBL martials can never feel like they belong.
You'll also find that high CR monsters challenge casters just fine. It's your silly class based NPCs that lag behind. True-sight, high SR, super Save, High DR, high energy resistance epic APL+5 demons tend to be an issue. The same CR NPC fighter just isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.
Not really.
I actually described a scenario where a caster-light party got their butts kicked, and how things would have been different if I had a caster instead.I don't know if you missed, forgot it, don't believe the account, or if you think it was a corner case so it doesn't count.
Personally, as a GM if I run a monster it plays "keep away" to avoid the party ganging up on. I know people can pull out ranged weapons, but unless they are focused on ranged attacks or have spells the fight will be a lot more difficult.
MC/D doesn't mean martials can't do anything at all. It means there are things they can't do, and often when they can do them they may have a more difficult time getting them done. <--People also take comments like these to mean "martials are helpless and can not do anything", even though that is not what was said.
Another issue with topics like this some is that people will use words like "useless" and those get all the attention instead of more objective post which give martials some credit but also outline their limitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.What part do you disagree with?
EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?
You want to talk adventure design? Let's talk adventure design. As a GM, martials in the party are bloody boring. A party of casters can tackle pretty much any problem you can think of. If they can't do it immediately, they usually can come up with a solution that would work given some preparation time.
Want your BBEG to have their main base of operations in Abyss? Casters can find a way there. Martials need plot devices.
Want to see what would happen if you released a Tarrasque with a SLA Teleport into the world? Casters can fight it. Martials need plot devices/caster help.
Want to build the perfect unassailible fortress possible within the rules and then have the party actually storm it? Casters can do it. Martials die at the entrance.
Want to put the plot device underneath an ocean? Casters can find it, get to it, and bring it to the surface. Martials need caster help or plot devices.
A party of casters can deal with almost any problem you throw at them. Half-android undead demonic dragons riding ninja unicorns? Sure, keep them coming. A giant asteroid is going to impact the capital city in 2 days? They'll have a solution ready by then.
A party of martials? Not very g#&++$n likely. What sorts of epic problems can a party of fighters deal with? I'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.
You want to talk adventure design? Let's talk adventure design. As a GM, martials in the party are bloody boring. A party of casters can tackle pretty much any problem you can think of. If they can't do it immediately, they usually can come up with a solution that would work given some preparation time.
Want your BBEG to have their main base of operations in Abyss? Casters can find a way there. Martials need plot devices.
Want to see what would happen if you released a Tarrasque with a SLA Teleport into the world? Casters can fight it. Martials need plot devices/caster help.
Want to build the perfect unassailible fortress possible within the rules and then have...
>1. So what? Martials either get plot devices, or caster becomes a plot device. Either of these can become vehicles on which all party members get to participate. That's all on the GM.
If it is done once, it isn't a problem. If it is a constant occurence, it turns into GM playing the game with themselves, with party only nominaly participating.
--
>2. I really don't think that teleporting tarrasques should be the nominatative on how class or encounter design should revolve.
When did I say they were? It was the first example of an obscure, unexpected and difficult encounter I came up with. My point was that casters have the capability to deal with such things, so you can use them in a campaign. Martials don't, so you have to spend mental energy to not only come up with problems for the party, but also with solutions.
--
>3. If it's that perfectly unassailable, casters should be just as stymied as martials. If casters have no problems, than it's not even competent, let alone "perfectly unassailable." Or maybe your DM gives casters too many easy breaks, such as allowing too many easy "Scry and Fry" maneuvers.
There is a difference between "not perfectly unassailabale" and "easilly assailibale". Casters have enough tools at their disposal to deal with almost anything, so GM doesn't need to carefuly consider if the party can find a way to deal with %a problem%, he just needs to know their general level of power. Not so with martials.
--
>4 and 5. This is a great quote from Erick Wujick when it came to campaign design in Amber Diceless. " If your players all bid up competitively in Warfare, don't make the game about Psyche." Design your game around what your players want to play.
Believe me, I do. My players just don't use pure martials(fighter, gunslinger, etc). My point is that a Wizard can work in almost any campaign. Fighter can't, which means that Fighters in the party constrain the GM's storytelling to an extent.
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.What part do you disagree with?EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?
I disagree with the fixes for C/MD you propose(IMO you should buff martials, not nerf casters), but rest of it seems very solid.
P.s. I don't think that "nominatative" is an actual word.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is clear is that the expectation of a lot of the posters here is far, far away from the typical adventure path. Based on how some people are describing encounters it is almost as if they are playing another game. It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.
I've noted and given examples of C/MD issues in like 4 APs and one dungeon book, all from Paizo, and could add several Paizo published adventure modules to that list as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.What part do you disagree with?EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?
Yeah I disagree with parts of it, but I think we agree for about 75% of what you wrote.
Like someone said it is really a magic/non-magic disparity, but for the purpose of this comment I will use caster/martial because I am so use to typing it.
I don't think casters outshine martials at most tables, but I do think they have the ability to do so. It just doesn't happen for several reasons, one of which is that it is inefficent to spend spells on something if a someone else can do it with a skill. This of course assumes the problem can be solved with a skill.
Another part of the disparity is that martials can be replaced by casters. Before anyone gets too bent out of shape, I am not saying a wizard, druid, or a cleric is going to match a fighter or a barbarian in DPR vs a single target, but between their ability to fight and their spells they tend to take care of combat with less trouble. The fact that they don't focus on hit point damage as much doesn't change the fact that they make life easier.
I agree with the rest of your write up, until you get to your ideas on how to fit it. I don't think there is an across the board solution(s) that will work. It will vary by table, except for number 10, which is basically "talk to your group".
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, on the subject of C/MD in APs, modules, etc.-
The Ruby Phoenix Tournament is an almost hilarious module for seeing C/MD in action. It's a multi-day martial arts tournament with all kinds of threats for the party face, and it's a completely different experience for martials than casters. Amongst the highlights-
1) Encounters against non-spellcasting enemies, mainly monks and fighters, always have more enemies than encounters against magical opponents.
2) There is a single-classed Oracle with PC array stats and WBL who actually fights the party solo, and is one of the more difficult fights in the module without the right magic.
3) There's a fight on a vertical cliff face that can be deadly for non-magical characters, but which I watched a sorcerer win with literally one spell.
4) There's an entire espionage subplot that can be difficult to sort out or even be aware of without magic, but which a cleric and sorcerer managed to become aware of and thwart just by using their standard cantrips and low level divinations as usual, like detect poison.
5) The least magical NPC to make it into the semifinals is a ninja/alchemist who prebuffs and spends basically the entire fight invisible.
6) The BBEG former champions are a single classed sorcerer and a sorcerer/monk.
So, in an adventure that screams "martials should excel here", not even Paizo's adventure writer thought it was believable that non-spellcasters would present a real challenge in the the tournament, and all of the major NPCs and martial arts champions either have a bunch of mooks or are just straight up casters.
Well, the thing there is every PC in Exalted (except the hardcore masochists playing Heroic Mortals) is using magic - they're just using it to power their skills and abilities to impossible-to-mortal levels via Charms instead of casting spells.
(And Sorcery in Exalted is, IMO, pretty well-handled - it's immensely powerful, but it's also hard to get, risky to use, not even remotely subtle, and it DOESN'T do all the same things Charms can do.)
But yeah, this is a good example of the problem with C/MD: If the
peasantsnon-spellcasters are going to keep up withtheir rightful overlordsthe spellcasters, they're going to need abilities that are equally game-breaking and versatile.As someone pointed out in one of the many, many previous iterations of this thread, past level 6 or so, there ARE no 'mundane' characters in Pathfinder, but we keep pretending there are if they don't cast spells.
Well charms would be extraordinary abilities like combat tricks/stamina or a rage power, they're not actually magic. Every exalted is fantastic and over the top, but when a guy leaps from one island to another he isn't casting a spell he's just really good at jumping.
The biggest facet in the C/MD issue isn't really being addressed here. For the "Look at me, I am the greatest" type of player, this is really an issue. Yes, we get it, if you played an old school summoner, you hardly need anyone else. If you have memorized the adventure path, you can fine-tune your caster to dominate play, especially if you can control the pacing. If you aren't worried about dominating the game, a lot of this becomes irrelevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest facet in the C/MD issue isn't really being addressed here. For the "Look at me, I am the greatest" type of player, this is really an issue. Yes, we get it, if you played an old school summoner, you hardly need anyone else. If you have memorized the adventure path, you can fine-tune your caster to dominate play, especially if you can control the pacing. If you aren't worried about dominating the game, a lot of this becomes irrelevant.
Except you can dominate a game without meaning to or wanting to. My Herald Caller cleric has a tendency to dominate encounters by the sheer power of her summons. I figured since she lacked the spammability and wasn't a wizard she'd be powerful but not dominating, boy was I wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is ever likely there is disagreement about CMD.What part do you disagree with?EDIT: This is an open question to all, not just The Sword. Does anyone disagree with any part of the summary?
I personally like the summary, though people can't even agree on what counts as a martial any more.
I personally see the debate as fairly pointless, as the difference between magic and normality is feature of the game and all classes get access to magic in some form or other. I also don't agree with the premise that Martials don't have options or with the view that casters can do anything they like or that full casters can replace Martials unless they have been specially built force purpose. It is my opinion that CMD is a problem when players and DMs create the problem. That said a lot of posters here play pathfinder on the assumption that they have access to every splat book and every supplement, which is not how a lot of people play.
After seeing the position argued on this thread that if you don't agree with the CMD it's because you are skilled enough as a player, and even though you don't know it's there, it is, and it's spoiling your fun... I've started taking what people say on the subject with a pinch of salt.
Hypermissingno, I can see your Herald Caller dominating or at least appearing to dominate a lot of combats. At the very least, as with any summoner, you will likely have a lot more actions than the other players, so you can't really avoid taking more than your "share" of your time in the spotlight, since you have to declare, move and dice for effectively several characters. The gimme with the free Augment feat also allows you bypass the feat-sinks other summoners shave to deal with. The 4 point base skill helps your versatility. You are right, in a head-to-head combat centric game, you would have a hard time not being the one doing the most, even when you might not be the most tactically effective, Short of abbreviating the action options for summoned combatants, there really isn't any way of avoiding temporal (RW) dominance of combat time. Even if your GM effectively neutralizes your summons with a running battle that limits your effectiveness, you are still going to be eating up playtime just managing your part of the fight. Since you are effectively bound to the one tactic, it is a problem.
anyone who can bring in an effective summon 1/combat is going to be a dominating character, period.
Summons are just that strong.
anyone who can bring in an effective summon 1/combat is going to be a dominating character, period.
Summons are just that strong.
yeah summons are party dominating.
Usummoner is pretty strong just by having the SLA and using his eidolon as a second level spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reality of this situation is why Summoning was so hard in 1e.
In 1e, summons were always treated as hostile. You had to spend your entire action maintaining control of your summons, if you didn't, they turned on you! None of this summon-tell them to kill the enemy-keep casting. uh-uh. You summoned, and then you were stuck. If you got hit, you lost control of your summons that round, and that could be BAD. Summoners memorized Protection from Evil not to protect themselves from enemies, but to protect themselves from THEIR OWN SUMMONS.
A successful Dispel Magic could GRAB CONTROL of your summons and TURN THEM BACK ON YOU.
Now? Feh, summon up an army, no risk, all return.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest facet in the C/MD issue isn't really being addressed here. For the "Look at me, I am the greatest" type of player, this is really an issue. Yes, we get it, if you played an old school summoner, you hardly need anyone else. If you have memorized the adventure path, you can fine-tune your caster to dominate play, especially if you can control the pacing. If you aren't worried about dominating the game, a lot of this becomes irrelevant.
Wow, assumptions much? I never play in an AP I've GM'd before, and I actually had the entire adventure path for Way of the Wicked sit on my shelf unread for almost two years as I waited for a GM to run it, since I really wanted to play it. Despite that, I've GM'd and played in games where it's come up and been an issue.
More than that, C/MD frequently occurs by accident. When you have severe option disparity, it's only a matter of time before those options come into conflict.
The reality of this situation is why Summoning was so hard in 1e.
In 1e, summons were always treated as hostile. You had to spend your entire action maintaining control of your summons, if you didn't, they turned on you! None of this summon-tell them to kill the enemy-keep casting. uh-uh. You summoned, and then you were stuck. If you got hit, you lost control of your summons that round, and that could be BAD. Summoners memorized Protection from Evil not to protect themselves from enemies, but to protect themselves from THEIR OWN SUMMONS.
A successful Dispel Magic could GRAB CONTROL of your summons and TURN THEM BACK ON YOU.
Now? Feh, summon up an army, no risk, all return.
This actually sounds like an interesting way to handle it, especially if you're allowed to summon things that would otherwise be above your power. Risk / reward and all that. Perhaps more complex in mechanics than players may want to deal with though, but I suppose current case is "I hope you know all the rules to everything you summon ever, in addition to your own rules, and can apply them all correctly"
1e summoning was indeed dangerous, and you didn't see it happen much for fighting. Too, you summoned explicitly REAL CREATURES. It was basically slavery. If they died, you couldn't summon creatures like them again until the next level. OF COURSE they turned on you. You were plucking them out of their lives and throwing them into deadly situations where they had to battle at your whim and die for your pleasure.
Summoners were NOT good people.
The idea of summoning an Efreet to get wishes? That was just asking for disaster to happen.
So, yeah, summoning was NOT the power it currently is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the best "summoner" classes I've seen in 3pp material have to spend their own actions to command their pets. That allows summon or companion classes to gain versatility and other benefits, but puts them on the same action economy as everyone else. It's something that seems to work pretty well.
I know it's there, I just work around and refuse to use certain spells, unless necessary.
I have best initiative as Wizard on my party, my first action is usually to Delay.
I just wait for my martials (Slayer 2WF and Ninja 2WF) to move into position, then I work with that.
It sucks, because most of my Crowd Control is AoE and setting things up with them on the middle it's awful, but throwing a Create Pit and watch them scratch their heads because they probably don't have a bow sucks anyway.
Last fight Slayer got Paralyzed by Ghouls. Ninja could do nothing, Oracle of "I only heal and nothing else" just stood there.
I Create Pit and then Summon SM2, Earth Elemental. Crap, I was doing 1d6+11, DM was actually "that can't be right". Looked at the numbers, Ok... it's right.
The CDM is there, you just gotta work around it. First round of combat at level 5? Well, Haste. Could I cast something 10 times better, like maybe Glitterdust, or a Summon, or some Crowd Control? Yes, but you gotta help your Martials get into position.
Scouting? Cast Invisibility on Ninja. Can I re apply it as needed? Yes, do I have Vanish? Yes. But well, Ninja is a Rogue Archetype afterall.
I just use Wizard as a big buffer who sometimes needs to get things done, and does it.
This actually sounds like an interesting way to handle it, especially if you're allowed to summon things that would otherwise be above your power. Risk / reward and all that. Perhaps more complex in mechanics than players may want to deal with though, but I suppose current case is "I hope you know all the rules to everything you summon ever, in addition to your own rules, and can apply them all correctly"The reality of this situation is why Summoning was so hard in 1e.
In 1e, summons were always treated as hostile. You had to spend your entire action maintaining control of your summons, if you didn't, they turned on you! None of this summon-tell them to kill the enemy-keep casting. uh-uh. You summoned, and then you were stuck. If you got hit, you lost control of your summons that round, and that could be BAD. Summoners memorized Protection from Evil not to protect themselves from enemies, but to protect themselves from THEIR OWN SUMMONS.
A successful Dispel Magic could GRAB CONTROL of your summons and TURN THEM BACK ON YOU.
Now? Feh, summon up an army, no risk, all return.
A tool that can be used against you, it's useless, pretty much like the Fighter, or any martial with low WILL saves.
If you cannot guarantee control of your summons, there's no point in summoning them, unless it's a "summon and run away" scenario.
Ssalarrn (mostly),
I wasn't trying to say that you or any specific person are actually cheating. I have seen several people who obviously are doing this, and the purer casters are the best able to take advantage of this. This kind of thing is rare, but if you see someone doing it, and don't catch the scam, it is going to totally reinforce the idea that casters are broken. Not an attack on Dev perks either, I really doubt you would do that. Any advantage you might get perfectly honestly would be more in regards to creating a character that fits better for a campaign setting, not to mention your encyclopedic knowledge of what is out there. It would only be a "bad thing" (tm) if you used your advantages to detract from the rest of the players.
On the same light, most Summoner players are not spotlight hunters. Summoners are just so good for that kind of thing. The reasons I mentioned before are fairly unavoidable, but if someone was actually trying to dominate it gets worse. How you place your pets can go a long way towards limiting your fellows' options. AoE attacks become problematic, as do mobility based melee fighters. Note that a mobility fighter can do the same thing to AoE casters.
All these things tend to reinforce the emotional side of this, as does rhetoric calling classes useless because they don't support what you want to go down. You can't answer this, because you can't get rid of all the observational bias as to what are the salient points. Even without the emotions, without the deliberate BS, you still won't ever get everyone to agree on what is actually important.
This actually sounds like an interesting way to handle it, especially if you're allowed to summon things that would otherwise be above your power. Risk / reward and all that. Perhaps more complex in mechanics than players may want to deal with though, but I suppose current case is "I hope you know all the rules to everything you summon ever, in addition to your own rules, and can apply them all correctly"The reality of this situation is why Summoning was so hard in 1e.
In 1e, summons were always treated as hostile. You had to spend your entire action maintaining control of your summons, if you didn't, they turned on you! None of this summon-tell them to kill the enemy-keep casting. uh-uh. You summoned, and then you were stuck. If you got hit, you lost control of your summons that round, and that could be BAD. Summoners memorized Protection from Evil not to protect themselves from enemies, but to protect themselves from THEIR OWN SUMMONS.
A successful Dispel Magic could GRAB CONTROL of your summons and TURN THEM BACK ON YOU.
Now? Feh, summon up an army, no risk, all return.
A tool that can be used against you, it's useless, pretty much like the Fighter, or any martial with low WILL saves.
If you cannot guarantee control of your summons, there's no point in summoning them, unless it's a "summon and run away" scenario.
And thus, you didn't see use of Summons in big fights. Unless the enemy was all martials, no casters.
And you couldn't summon and run away. Your own summons would chase you down and kill you. Cause if you died, they got sent back home, and wouldn't have to die for you.
Conjurors were useful OUT of combat, since they could summon up servants to do things, or for information, or to cast SLA's in controlled conditions, or for mounts, or whatever.
But no, you didn't see them in combat much. The benefits of having a proxy take your damage and do your killing for you while you remain absolutely safe are VERY obvious. It just wasn't that easy in 1e.
You can still see a legacy of this in the ability of golems to break lose of control and go into a frenzy. Same thing...absolutely obedient and powerful cannon fodder controlled by a mage. Powerful, and 'expensive', yet with drawbacks regardless.
proxies and powerful minions are Extremely Valuable. And totally undersold in 3e and its descendants.