The rogue and monk were in my campaign I believe and I was questioned about how I adjudicated diving into water and avoiding damage. It was claimed I was home brewing when in fact it was prd and rules were not broken.
My point is rogues and monks can do awesome things.
The rogue and monk were in my campaign I believe and I was questioned about how I adjudicated diving into water and avoiding damage. It was claimed I was home brewing when in fact it was prd and rules were not broken.
My point is rogues and monks can do awesome things.
Except he wasn't referencing you in particular. Otherwise he would have named you specifically or quoted your story.
And I thought I was bad at reading people.
It may be someone else, but this was only two days ago and a lengthy conversation with Wraith about a rogue and a monk doing awesome things in. Though I may well be wrong, and will stand corrected if that is the case.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us want to keep some classes "non-casters", its iconic, and frankly, if everyone is a caster, that to me wouldn't necessarily be fun or lend itself to individual PC's utility in a given session.
*bangs head against table repeatedly*
Why do some people think that what C/MD believers want to turn martials into casters?| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going to just define any narrative control as "casting", martials are already "casters". They just only have one spell. Ever. And then a load of varyingly mediocre cantrips they have to invest heavily in to be remotely good at.
Intuitive solutions being blockaded by rigid selection of tools is problem of all classes, wedged into Pathfinder as a whole.
Even playing full caster can be hell if you did not take "the right" spells. Nobody wants to have a shingle froe, barleycorn measuring tool and- no wait a bottle opener is actually useful, but what I really wanted was just an adjustable wrench goddormit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stamina system seemed to do amazing things for our fighter in our home RotRL campaign.
Pity it's not allowed for PFS play.
As an example I have heard well written stories of how a monk or rogue did an awesome thing, but when I started to ask questions that let me know how it played out mechanically it shows that certain rules were broken.For the record it was established in the other post that diving into water was part of the prd rule set and not 3pp on the pfsrd.
...
Rise of the Runelords is one adventure I've never played or read but would love to, yet at least two people in each the groups I play with have. Grrr.
This comment I made about rogue and monk stories is referring to conversations I have been in over the years on this site, and on the older/former D&D forums. I found the prd rule on diving into water after you corrected me the first time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, stand corrected.
That's more picking them up and dropping them through hoops.In fairness, wizards will probably require more hoopjumping, since they have the power to jump the tracks. Fighters will just have trouble accomplishing anything.And thus GM would need to jump through hoops to make things happen despite the players being unable to do so themselves.
Still hoop-martial olympics, so it is fair.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to link this thing again, do I?
Frankly, I think every single MCD thread should include that in a copy-paste to add a little fun to this topic. Heck, we could create a few more squares (I'm a big fan of "Golems beat Wizards") so people could kick off each thread with their own randomized sheet.
BINGO!
Hey, you didn't show your work. On a related note: BINGO!
Who says Martials are bound by reality?The ruleset which doesn't allow them to break the bounds of reality...
that's the problem.I still want to know how a non-magical party of adventurers would solve a crime committed by a mage who killed a guy via disintegration effect while greater invisible and then teleported away.
Thinking about this one was actually pretty fun. First of all, I'm sure a GM throwing this at the party would add some context. Who was murdered? Did they have enemies? Why were they killed? I'm sure the party could, if nothing else, look at the fallout from the murder and try to piece together who would benefit from this person being killed. Bam, list of suspects right there. Initiate Investigation State Two.
I've played in a few Vampire: The Requiem games, so this is a very realistic problem. Elder Vampires turn into dust after death, after all, and there are twice as many Vampires with what amounts to Invisibility compared to those who can easily learn its See Invisibility counterpart. It's all about looking at the ripple effects, and how everyone ties together.
That said, I see your point about martials not being equipped to deal with the situation presented on its own. However, I believe that simply using a caster's high-end spells to quickly solve the problem can deny the party a very interesting and engaging story. I wouldn't use the above scenario as Wizard Spotlight Time unless it was a very quick breadcrumb to lead to a more important element of the main plot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, this is better than comparing apples to oranges.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, this is better than comparing apples to oranges.
Obviously, because oranges are better. A/OD is a well established concept, it affects many palates.
Oranges ward off scurvy, taste better, make cleaning agents, beverages, deserts, snacks, basically everything.
Meanwhile apples can only feed people. Oh sure if you work really hard you can make an apple pie, but what about diabetics? And you can't clean your floor with apples. Apples are only useful for meals, which is a big part about being a fruit, but there are many aspects of being a commodity that apples just can't contribute. Not only that, but oranges are as good or better for meals. It's really no contest. No amount of mental gymnastics can save the sorry state of apples next to oranges.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't use the above scenario as Wizard Spotlight Time.
A major part of the issue is that people disagree about what counts as Wizard Spotlight Time. A person familiar with the wizard's spell list may simply think she's using the spell for its proper purpose, as designed. The person playing Fighter McStabsthings sitting next to her, on the other hand may be bored and annoyed because nothing interesting happens that Deus McMachina can't spell her way out of. And the GM, especially a novice GM, may be annoyed because the whole adventure is getting derailed/skipped.
Just some quick examples:
Level 1:
GM: Okay, you know the Red Fang has their headquarters in a secret lair beneath this casino, but the security here is so tight you'll need to take special care ...
Player: No problem. I'll use charm person to get one of the guards to escort us to the lair. You know, like Luke did in Jabba's palace?
GM: <splutter>
Level 3:
GM: Okay, as you cross the desert, you realize that your water is running low and you will need to find...
Player: Create water. It's a cantrip. You know, like Moses in the desert?
GM: ... and that holes have mysteriously appeared in all your canteens. It looks like you will need...
Player: Mending. Got it covered.
GM: .... and that you have lost your way in the blowing sands. You know, like Moses in the desert? You will need...
Player: Know direction. We head south-south-east like the guy at the inn said.
GM: <splutter>
Level 5:
GM: Okay, as you get out of your boat, you realize that the cliffs of this island are four hundred feet of slippery, wet, nearly unclimbable rock and that the tower is at the top. There's no way to....
Player: I cast levitate on the fighter who carries the gnome and the rogue, and I will fly up myself.
GM: It's too windy; you'll get blown away. You will need to...
Player: Oh, that's all right. I've got a wand of spider cimb around here in my pack. You know, like Spider-Man crawling up the Daily Bugle Tower?
GM: <splutter>
Level 9:
GM: You can see the besieged tower outlined against the hills ten miles away, but between you and it is a fully armed battalion of the Legion of...
Player: I teleport to the top of the tower, taking everyone with me. You know, like Nightcrawler?
GM: <splutter>
Basically, how can you railroad the players if they have the ability to keep jumping the track? That makes no one happy -- not the GM, not the caster's player, and not the martial's player.
I don't think of those examples particularly as Wizard Spotlight Time, but I've been doing this for a while and I've seen (and plan for) most of the tricks. Most novice GMs won't be expecting that and won't be able to play the "yes, and..." improvisational game. And irrespective of skill levels, it's still a problem when the martial can't play the improvisational game at all because there aren't any abilities a fighter can bring to the task.
The GM shouldn't be spluttering.
A key skill of a DM is to know your party.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do those counter-actions show that the martials have something to do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM shouldn't be spluttering.
A key skill of a DM is to know your party.
He still won't know every spell or ability that is on everyone's character sheet. He may also not be used to more experienced players who are used to these things and are able to get around them.
And as the party levels up it gets more difficult to account for every little thing they can do, and that is before they start to get creative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1:
GM: Okay, you know the Red Fang has their headquarters in a secret lair beneath this casino, but the security here is so tight you'll need to take special care ...
Player: No problem. I'll use charm person to get one of the guards to escort us to the lair. You know, like Luke did in Jabba's palace?
GM: <splutter>Response 1:
GM: "You round the corner with your escort. Coming to a room with five guards. One of them looks at the guard with you.
"Oiy Larry, who is these blokes?" He says.
"These are my new friends!" Larry replies.
"New friends? Why's ya bring em back here Larry?"
"They asked to come here."
The guards draw their swords the jig is up. Good going wizard, ya just screwed up big time."
Response 2:
The other guard with Larry sees the light show from the charm spell and yells, "Intruders!" Alerting the whole base.Level 3:
GM: Okay, as you cross the desert, you realize that your water is running low and you will need to find...
Player: Create water. It's a cantrip. You know, like Moses in the desert?
GM: ... and that holes have mysteriously appeared in all your canteens. It looks like you will need...
Player: Mending. Got it covered.
GM: .... and that you have lost your way in the blowing sands. You know, like Moses in the desert? You will need...
Player: Know direction. We head south-south-east like the guy at the inn said.
GM: <splutter>Meh. Or someone just rolls a DC 10 survival check to find water. This isn't a good example. Though I doubt you have know direction memorized.
...Level 5:
GM: Okay, as you get out of your boat, you realize that the cliffs of this island are four hundred feet of slippery, wet, nearly unclimbable rock and that the tower is at the top. There's no way to....
Player: I cast levitate on the fighter who carries the gnome and the rogue, and I will fly up myself.
GM: It's too windy; you'll get blown away. You will need to...
Player: Oh, that's all
DC 10 is a "common(anyone can make it)" check. Commoners are not finding water in the dessert in most games. That would pretty much kill the idea of the dessert ever being dangerous, which is obviously the idea the GM was trying to represent. And none of these examples to anything to disprove his point. Of course a GM can just keep throwing more obstacles in the party's way but it becomes obviously pretty quickly.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do those counter-actions show that the martials have something to do?
They don't. Someone forgot that this was not a "How can the GM make up stuff to shut down the casters" thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A new GM might freak out, and frankly if the player is trying to play "stump the GM" its not any more acceptable to me than the GM putting holes in all the canteens.The GM shouldn't be spluttering.
A key skill of a DM is to know your party.
Yes, but that -- AGAIN -- is part of the issue. An experienced player probably wouldn't consider the mending cantrip to be "stump the GM" any more than they would consider making sure to take a ranged weapon to be "stump the GM." Things like that are part of what mark an experienced player.
I don't see any issues with any of those examples.
Nor do I, but then, I've done a few of these rodeos before.
Or, rather, the issue I see is the one I brought it up to illustrate:
Editing your comment,
You as GM create a challenge, some of the PCs -should- have ways of solving it.
.... because in each of those, frankly, rather simplistic, situations, there are easy magical solutions that can and will completely trivialize whatever the GM had planned for tonight. He wanted a stealthy, trap-filled, Metal Gear Solid infiltration and spent hours designing a maze of twisty little ventilation shafts, air ducts, and secret passageways -- and instead, the PCs are willing (and able, barring heavy-handed GM intervention) to walk in like they own the place due to a single spell.
The GM isn't particularly going to enjoy this, and the wizard's player isn't particularly going to enjoy the obvious ad-hoc obstacles thrown in his way by an unimaginative GM. But most importantly, while the GM and wizard are glaring at each other, the figher and ranger's players are not going to enjoy being completely shut out of the ability to do anything, because they can't actually solve this problem with their own abilities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
>The GM isn't particularly going to enjoy this
I find that one of the key GMing skills is being able to look at all your ideas catching fire and going up in flames because a player did something, smile, laugh, and add some gasolene of your own to the flame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Caster is never going to be using magic to "solve" a PC story-line for the fighter in my game, because that wouldn't be using choices, it would be stealing the other players spotlight.
The trouble I found playing higher level casters, is that it can be difficult to know when to back-off and let another player solve the problem. Especially when it comes to expending resources and taking risks. Sometimes it is obvious that Mr Disable Device should get the opportunity to open a lock before the knock spell is used. Other times it is difficult to know if you should just shut down an encounter with a feeblemind spell or flesh to stone or whatever. When a PC gets killed, and the wizard could have just ended the fight, but did not want to steal the spotlight, things get weird. I also recall an incident where my wizard was taken out by a feeblemind, when I had decided that using that spell myself was too disruptive to the campaign. The unspoken agreement to share the spotlight and not disrupt the campaign is going to vary from player-to-player and player-to-GM as well.
Having to make those kinds of calculations all the time makes it difficult to get into the mindset of my character, who would always uses his powers to their fullest in an adventuring situation.
EDIT: I should also note that having to constantly worry about your character being overpowered affects more then just when to act. I found that buying/crafting items gets difficult when you are already very powerful. I ended up making items for Dex rather then Int because getting a +8 or +9 modifier was just over the top. There were several spells that were too disruptive to the campaign to memorize. Several items (staves and rods) that just made me better at the thing that was already too powerful. By the time I got to 15th level, it was difficult to use any of my highest level options without disrupting the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Congratulations, HWalsh... You proved the GM is more powerful than casters and can create adversities that not even then can surpass if he's creative and mean enough...
You also proved that the GM has to be far more creative and mean to deter the casters than to deter the martials.
Good going, right there...
And most of this is because anti-magic options are either waaaaaay too expensive, or the NPC's can't have any anti-magic abilities.
Seriously, just take the spell SPell Engine from 3.5, and sit it on top of an enemy keep.
No spellcasting in the 30 ft/level radius of the spell. No spell trigger style items. You can drink potions and swing swords and use SU's. You're down to fighting and skills.
EVERY HARDPOINT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS. Because no non-magical group of people in their right mind is going to put up with being so vulnerable to magic.
But it shuts down casters! waaaaaa.
Yes, it's crowd control vs casters. But can't do that, only to non-casters. It's not allowed.
Dust of Dispelling from 3.5 lords of Madness. Sprinkle it, creates an A-M shell. Imagine a dungeon where the PC's are in a long corridor, a switch is triggered, down comes the dust, and at the same time, Rogues, that horrible, underpowered class, open up secret doors to either side and are flanking the whole party...including the casters who have no magic concealment, miss chance, spells, or buffs, or working magic items.
Suddenly, +3d6 Sneak attack damage isn't looking too shabby. They have a good chance of wiping every caster in the party.
But that would be badwrongfun. Meh!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So why is it unfair for the moments to use the spells design to counteract common magical effects where...
I don't think certain people anticipate having adventurers meddle in their affairs so they don't think to take certain measures, and if adventurers are so common that they are always in everyone's business* then the common measures to stop them would be known so the players would likely not use the common methods and it would be almost impossible to stop every idea a player can think of without it coming across as railroading.
You can enter a castle via teleport. You can charm you way in. You call planar monsters to assault the place for you. With the right spells you can just destroy the place if you can't find a way in. I could keep going, but my point is for the NPC to have a perfect counter to whatever the player came up with as a commonly occurring theme is going to look very suspicious.
It also doesn't really help the rest of the party since their lives are now more difficult. As a GM you have to have some idea of what players can be expected to do, and not even attempt certain types of adventures because of how the game is made. If you want to keep them at the level to where _____ is a challenge then the best thing is to use slow levelign or completely stop it(leveling).
*If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it generates lots of heated posts because sometimes its assumed if you do this as a GM its because you're just "sticking" it to the casters. However, I don't think I've ever read that it was "sticking it" to the fighter when describing how dominate person vs the fighter/barbarian turns them into the anti-party "blender of death". (C) Ssalarn. Either of them "could" be a sign of group dynamic problems, and if used a lot are not going to be fun IMO.I use things like this in moderation, and for our group that adds to the enjoyment (because sometimes things not working how you thought it would and suffering a setback also makes ultimate success more enjoyable.)
So anti-magic, no-teleport, crit/precise immune creatures, high SR creatures, etc all have a place in the game and all can add to player enjoyment (not just a GM Power/hate move). But use in moderation like anything.
That right there in bold is the problem though. There are *NO* non-GM fiat counters to spellcasting. You literally just posted antimagic as (presumably) an effective method of dealing with casters in a thread where I explained in great and copious detail how useless antimagic field is against casters. Furthermore you seem to believe that high SR creatures are somehow a counter to casters, despite me pointing out that SR is joke. So what are your non-fiat counters to casters? Because the two you listed there are completely worthless as counters and I am genuinely curious to hear what you think counters spellcasting.
Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.
Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.
It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.
IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.
Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.
It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.
IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.
Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.
For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this were to happen laws would likely be in place to stop them from doing so, and to stop the profession as whole.
...This sounds like a rather fun campaign setting idea actually. I might try to build something off of it.
As for shutting down casters, I think the reason that it's frowned upon is actually again the core of the C/MD. If you shut down casters (well, clerics, druids, sorcerers and the like) they now have to play by the fighter's rules. Not that they are mundane, but that they have 0 versatility. The wizard gets a bit of a pass because int focused means skill points, but in the case of casters you just put them into a situation where their class features give them nothing to work with. Inquisitors & bards would still have 6 skills per level plus related skill features, int based classes still have skill points & skills to work with, so they're better off. But for full casters with no versatile features outside of casting? Welcome to the life of the martial, here's a stick.
Which is a bit ironic. No one likes being in a position where their class doesn't equip them to solve (or have some potential solution) to a given situation eh?
As far as GM fiat - which is sometimes tossed around as a disparaging term
Ah not quite. The reason it's...attacked in these kinds of threads is because nothing mechanics based can really be discussed without a common set of rules. So, the assumption has to be that everyone is using the same set (those printed), and that's where the balance discussion happens. I'm sure everyone's happy to house rule, but the validity (in regards to balance) of those house rules is determined by how they affect the core rules, and whether such affect is needed.
That right there in bold is the problem though.
Are you really intending to be inflammatory or am I mis-reading the tone of this?
Its a problem for who? Because its not a problem for me or my players, and I didn't say you and your group are wrong if you don't agree or imply that of anyone else game.
I don't need to worry about "non-GM fiat" ways to "counter" PC actions, because the way we play the game its not a competition for me vs my players, but if its how you play the game that's ok too.
As far as GM fiat - which is sometimes tossed around as a disparaging term, I don't have any problem using it if I feel like I need to or it'll enhance the story overall. As I've matured as a GM, the confidence to both overrule players, even in the face of a rule; or allow a player to do something cool contrary to a rule or how I'd planned a session is something I've become comfortable with.
I literally don't have any problem saying "you try X, and it doesn't work/or this happens instead of what you expected", if I feel it'll add story affect and end up making a more enjoyable and memorable encounter.
And I don't have any problem letting the PCs accomplish something cool that I didn't plan for or that isn't covered in the rules.
for example, one of the PCs has had no memory of her past for about 9 months of this campaign and until recently couldn't get it back. There is no non-GM "fiat" way to do that, but it fit the story arc and built up to a key point for the group.
If you're truly interested in coming up with some ideas to use in your game, pick a spell we probably discussed it in my "Game Altering (or Game Breaking) Spells: XXX" series of threads. If we didn't cover a particular spell I'd be happy to thread it and get several GM's input on how they handle it in games.
Inflammatory? No. Challenging? Yes. Because the statements deserve to be challenged. We are talking about Caster/Martial Disparity and how it can cause martial characters to be overshadowed. Your post in that context advocates that there abilities which restrict classes and therefore can be used to avoid situations where characters are overshadowed. So I'd say that my post was very relevant in that context.
Especially since you then go on in the above quoted post to talk about how you are fine with using fiat to control (presumably casters again) characters actions. This deprives the players of agency within your game. If you players have agreed to be deprived of agency then that's fine, but if not you are doing your players a grave disservice. But that is a whole separate topic from the one at hand here.
If your posts are not in relation to Caster/Martial Disparity... may I ask who or what point you are attempting to address?
Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.
Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.
It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.
IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.
Not having spells makes the party weaker, and it you are a druid,or other fighty caster then you might still be able to give the melees a run for their money.
For the 2nd time in this discussion➡➡full arcane casters are not the only ones stepping on people's toes.
Well, duh, Wraithstrike.
It also makes NPC's weaker. Now, we have equity. In some situations spellcasters will be uninhibited and more effective then mundanes. In other situations, Casters will be suppressed and skills and fighty guys will shine. Tellingly, urban campaigns will favor skill, and rural adventures favor casters.
It makes monsters somewhat more dangerous in cities, because they are 'naturally buffed'. But then martial skill becomes even more important as long as the monsters can't cast, either.
Aye, Anti-magic Shells are useless unless you can force a caster into the shell. And that area is SMALL.
Spell Engine has a huge area, and you can make it nigh impossible for a caster NOT to enter the area of effect.
It's just such magic is too pricey for NPC's to use on a broad scale, when in actuality it should be pretty cheap and common. Wards and similar magical defenses are VERY common in literature, I don't know why they are so expensive in PF. Let casters labor under penalties, and rogues have a place to shrine.
IMC, spell engines are everywhere, restricting any spellcasters not sworn to the service of the city. Urban areas are the playgrounds of rogues and martials. Casters have to invest heavily in magical items of defense because they can't cast such spells themselves, have bodyguards, etc.
I have bad news. That only works in 3.0. The 3.5 version of Spell Engine only allows a caster instantly to swap spells prepared for other spells from their spellbook.
No one likes being in a position where their class doesn't equip them to solve (or have some potential solution) to a given situation eh?
I wouldn't say that. It is more because people expect for their class abilities to work. As an example if I am a rogue, and the GM randomly says sneak attack does not work against monster X, or if I am a caster, and a GM gives the monster immunity to every spell I have prepared that day that could adversely affect it, I would not be happy about it.
As a player, unless you are really new you know there things you(your character) are not able to handle and/or things you can not handle.
As far as GM fiat - which is sometimes tossed around as a disparaging term
Ah not quite. The reason it's...attacked in these kinds of threads is because nothing mechanics based can really be discussed without a common set of rules. So, the assumption has to be that everyone is using the same set (those printed), and that's where the balance discussion happens. I'm sure everyone's happy to house rule, but the validity (in regards to balance) of those house rules is determined by how they affect the core rules, and whether such affect is needed.
Pretty much.