|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
To throw my 2 cents in the ring.
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classes, they usually struggle - Sorcerer and Oracle aside - due to having to many options.
Since I am also playing hardball as a DM, there is a certain amount of lethality expected. And the 15 minute adventuring day other groups seem to enjoy is basically crushed into non-existence. :)
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield. D8, 2 skill points, middle BAB, up to medium armor, yeah survival is easy.
Druids are hardy enough and fighty enough to get away without spells and they either have one domain or a potentially fighty animal at their side. If they prepare some spells, they only need to remind themselves to pack a healing spell here and there and they are good to go. D8, 4(!) skill points, middle BAB... easy peasy.
Witches are good to go even in more hectic environments.
They have the advantage of having healing spells at their disposal and a nice array of other spells. Add in their hex ability and they are fine. Pick the right hexes and you can do a lot of damage from the backrow, sowing chaos and allowing your buddies to take out the enemies. D6, low BAB, 2 skill points, a really GOOD selection of spells and 2 hexes in the first 2 levels. Hit the ground running and never look back.
Sorcerer and Oracles have limited spells, but a good amount of slots to cast them AND the flexibility to use ALL them WHEN they want to.
In an environment that doesn't guarantee the 15 minute adventuring day though they are relative vulnerable. The Sorcerer sports D6, low BAB and 2 skill points, while The Oracle goes to town with D8, middle BAB, 4 skill points and up to medium armor. Huge favour for the Oracle.
That brings us to the wizard:
Wizards tend to go under faster than any other class in my campaigns.
Sure, they have potentially all the spells, but that's it.
They aren't guaranteed to have them prepared... and at low levels missing the right spell for the situation can spell an early death for them. Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second.
There is a reason that DSP's Psionics supplement is so well received in my group. They have a certain set of powers and they use them well, the same with the Sorcerer and the Oracle. You know what you can do and you do it well. And you do know one thing for certain: You are still better of than the wizard.
IF you can survive with a wizard though to around level 5 or 7, yeah you are going to see some increase in power... the just reward for the tough time you had from the very start. Problem is: You need teamwork, the ability to calculate WHAT spells you PROBABLY need and how many.
So yeah, I am not going to make life even harder for casters.
As a GM I find that most caster are already relatively balanced.
I will say this though:
I DM and play Mage (old and new), as well as Shadowrun, which means that I find Pathfinders Magic System rather easy. :)
Don't get me started on the crazy stuff wizards can do in mage. o_O
Compared to the insanity of that, Pathfinder magic is like easy mode. ^^
Psionics go over well in my group for the exact opposite reason. They're actually well designed, being significantly weaker than a Wizard while still being very good and fun to play.
Wizards are probably the most system mastery intensive class in the game. No class is stronger than a high-mastery wizard, and no class is weaker than a low-mastery one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bhurano wrote: Don't get me started on the crazy stuff wizards can do in mage. o_O I once had a player ask me what the could do with Forces 3 Prime 2 Life 3 in 2nd Edition.
I replied with, "I can think of thousands of things off the top of my head. If I were to start listing it we'd be here for a week."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: I'm going to paraphrase Kevin Seimbiada from Palladium's Rifts:
Classes are not, never were, and are not intended to be, balanced.
And boy did he ever live up to that statement, especially in RIFTS. I'm not sure how the GM is supposed to balance encounters with such widely disparate power levels without patronizing the weaker characters so that they can be given something to do while the stronger ones deal with the relevant threats. It's a pathetic excuse for bad mechanics—on par with a filmmaker making a bad film and claiming retroactively that it's bad on purpose—and in Kev's case completely unsurprising coming from such a megalomaniac.
Athaleon wrote: HWalsh wrote: I'm going to paraphrase Kevin Seimbiada from Palladium's Rifts:
Classes are not, never were, and are not intended to be, balanced.
And boy did he ever live up to that statement, especially in RIFTS. I'm not sure how the GM is supposed to balance encounters with such widely disparate power levels without patronizing the weaker characters so that they can be given something to do while the stronger ones deal with the relevant threats. RIFTS is more art than science. At its best it's a beautiful setting full of tons of nostalgic charm that calls back to the early era of table top game popularity, and at its worse is a mess of nonsense that is poorly written, edited, and managed.
Personally I'm not a fan of the crazy stuff in the game like sentient space whales. I think the game runs much better when the party and campaign are all following a common theme. That said, the game has the probably the easiest means of facilitating a GM via "a Rift open up and X happens".
Too bad I hate the mechanics or I'd play it more. Also, take Kevins word with a grain of salt. RIFTS is equally loved and hated simply because there's virtually no effort made for internal consistency or balance, but that's only what works for them (somehow).
Athaleon wrote: HWalsh wrote: I'm going to paraphrase Kevin Seimbiada from Palladium's Rifts:
Classes are not, never were, and are not intended to be, balanced.
And boy did he ever live up to that statement, especially in RIFTS. I'm not sure how the GM is supposed to balance encounters with such widely disparate power levels without patronizing the weaker characters so that they can be given something to do while the stronger ones deal with the relevant threats. It's a pathetic excuse for bad mechanics—on par with a filmmaker making a bad film and claiming retroactively that it's bad on purpose—and in Kev's case completely unsurprising coming from such a megalomaniac. The same way you do it in Pathfinder.
Party Wizard wiping every encounter? Give the enemy a Wizard that can go blow for blow. Have enemies start opening battle focus firing him. (That's the same way you deal with a Glitterboy.)
Does the Fighter feel useless? Plan a scenario where the PCs encounter a tribal people who will only give up the info the PCs need if they can defeat their greatest champion in a non-magical test of arms.
Your mistake is thinking that encounters have to have "relevant" and "non-relevant" threats. You just have to learn the mechanics and you can balance any encounter for any group regardless of the difficulty.
And, yes, it is an art form. GMing IS an art form.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Athaleon wrote: HWalsh wrote: I'm going to paraphrase Kevin Seimbiada from Palladium's Rifts:
Classes are not, never were, and are not intended to be, balanced.
And boy did he ever live up to that statement, especially in RIFTS. I'm not sure how the GM is supposed to balance encounters with such widely disparate power levels without patronizing the weaker characters so that they can be given something to do while the stronger ones deal with the relevant threats. It's a pathetic excuse for bad mechanics—on par with a filmmaker making a bad film and claiming retroactively that it's bad on purpose—and in Kev's case completely unsurprising coming from such a megalomaniac. The same way you do it in Pathfinder.
Party Wizard wiping every encounter? Give the enemy a Wizard that can go blow for blow. Have enemies start opening battle focus firing him. (That's the same way you deal with a Glitterboy.)
Does the Fighter feel useless? Plan a scenario where the PCs encounter a tribal people who will only give up the info the PCs need if they can defeat their greatest champion in a non-magical test of arms.
Your mistake is thinking that encounters have to have "relevant" and "non-relevant" threats. You just have to learn the mechanics and you can balance any encounter for any group regardless of the difficulty.
And, yes, it is an art form. GMing IS an art form.
OTOH, it becomes blatantly obvious - Here's a thing for the fighter to do. Here's another way to negate the wizard so he doesn't dominate.
Gosh, they're protected by Kryptonite again so I guess Superman will have to hang back and let Green Arrow save the day this time.
If it works for you, it works for you. Either I've never had a GM as good as you or this kind of thing bothers me more.
Way to balance magic:
Any spell with a casting time of one standard action or greater starts casting on the players initiative but finishes at the players initiative + (spell level -1).
Any damage the player receives between the start and finish of the casting requires a concentration check (DC = total damage received from the start of the cast).
So instant and quickened spells go off as normal - first level spells work like they do now - everything else gets risky to use.
Chengar Qordath wrote: Wizards are probably the most system mastery intensive class in the game. No class is stronger than a high-mastery wizard, and no class is weaker than a low-mastery one. I don't know that I buy that. True, the ceiling for the Wizard is really high, but the floor isn't all that low. A low mastery Wizard is probably just blasting things without optimizing for blasting. He's still doing fair damage compared with a low mastery Fighter, Rogue, or Paladin. Assuming the player isn't trying to intentionally tank the build, he's also got a fair amount of skills.
Wizard isn't really The Master's Class, but it is a class that benefits greatly from mastery.
Unoptimized blasting is really weak though, trading limited resources for pitiful damage. Plus sorcers do that better, at least on the even levels.
A martial with barebones optimization [high strength and Power Attack] can do quite well compared with that [which may have been the baseline all along]
kyrt-ryder wrote: Unoptimized blasting is really weak though, trading limited resources for pitiful damage. Plus sorcers do that better, at least on the even levels.
A martial with barebones optimization [high strength and Power Attack] can do quite well compared with that [which may have been the baseline all along]
Not to mention that if we're talking about a low system mastery wizard, I'd think that would include someone who struggles badly with Vancian spell prep. Think anti-Schrodinger's Wizard: he never has the right spells prepared.
That said, an unoptimized blaster wizard can be pretty painful. One guy a played with in 3.5 absolutely loved magic missile because it was "guaranteed unsaveable, unavoidable damage." To the point where his level six spell slots were mostly devoted to Empowered Maximized Magic Missile.
Chengar Qordath wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Unoptimized blasting is really weak though, trading limited resources for pitiful damage. Plus sorcers do that better, at least on the even levels.
A martial with barebones optimization [high strength and Power Attack] can do quite well compared with that [which may have been the baseline all along]
Not to mention that if we're talking about a low system mastery wizard, I'd think that would include someone who struggles badly with Vancian spell prep. Think anti-Schrodinger's Wizard: he never has the right spells prepared.
That said, an unoptimized blaster wizard can be pretty painful. One guy a played with in 3.5 absolutely loved magic missile because it was "guaranteed unsaveable, unavoidable damage." To the point where his level six spell slots were mostly devoted to Empowered Maximized Magic Missile. And if we're talking about a low system mastery Fighter, we could be talking about a TWF Fighter... or a Defense "Specialist" who has neglected offense to the point of being safely ignored by enemies... Or a Halfling Sling specialist who didn't pump his strength above an 8.
We can certainly unoptimize a lot of builds, if that's our goal. At least a Wizard has a chance of doing something useful.
It just depends on where we set the level of mastery. Is it a blaster Wizard without feats vs a 2HW Fighter with Weapon Focus and Power attack? Or does the Wizard have School Specialization, a Varisian Tattoo, an Arcane Focus with 7 spells to pick from, and a School power of casting Magic Missile 7 times per day?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote:
The same way you do it in Pathfinder.
Party Wizard wiping every encounter? Give the enemy a Wizard that can go blow for blow. Have enemies start opening battle focus firing him. (That's the same way you deal with a Glitterboy.)
So you're designing encounters around the most powerful class. What happens if that player makes a mistake or gets unlucky and loses? The enemy, which is balanced around the most powerful party member, is going to turn around and stomp all over the weaker members. In other words, the Wizard (or whatever class happens to be top dog in a highly imbalanced system) is the hero and everyone else is a sidekick. Some players might be okay with that but in my experience most aren't.
Quote: Does the Fighter feel useless? Plan a scenario where the PCs encounter a tribal people who will only give up the info the PCs need if they can defeat their greatest champion in a non-magical test of arms. When imbalance reaches the point that the party is being split into strong and weak members facing entirely separate encounters, which the GM has to contrive to make the weaker members feel like they are still important, some people are playing the game and the rest are playing on their phone (which is the other reason you Never Split The Party). Those classes might as well belong to different rule sets at that point, which is a failure of game design no matter how you slice it. Trying to justify or gloss over it by saying that a good enough GM can fix it is like saying a good enough contractor can fix a structurally unsound house: Though true, it means a great deal of effort will go into fixing something that should never have needed fixing, in order to arrive at something that is still not as good as it should have been in the first place because of all the patching and retrofitting. Unless or until it's fixed, you have people displaced from, or having to live in, that unsound house. And the fact that the problems can be fixed obviously cannot be used to say there never was a problem to begin with.
Athaleon wrote: HWalsh wrote:
The same way you do it in Pathfinder.
Party Wizard wiping every encounter? Give the enemy a Wizard that can go blow for blow. Have enemies start opening battle focus firing him. (That's the same way you deal with a Glitterboy.)
So you're designing encounters around the most powerful class. What happens if that player makes a mistake or gets unlucky and loses? The enemy, which is balanced around the most powerful party member, is going to turn around and stomp all over the weaker members. In other words, the Wizard (or whatever class happens to be top dog in a highly imbalanced system) is the hero and everyone else is a sidekick. Some players might be okay with that but in my experience most aren't.
Quote: Does the Fighter feel useless? Plan a scenario where the PCs encounter a tribal people who will only give up the info the PCs need if they can defeat their greatest champion in a non-magical test of arms. When imbalance reaches the point that the party is being split into strong and weak members facing entirely separate encounters, which the GM has to contrive to make the weaker members feel like they are still important, some people are playing the game and the rest are playing on their phone (which is the other reason you Never Split The Party). Those classes might as well belong to different rule sets at that point, which is a failure of game design no matter how you slice it. Trying to justify or gloss over it by saying that a good enough GM can fix it is like saying a good enough contractor can fix a structurally unsound house: Though true, it means a great deal of effort will go into fixing something that should never have needed fixing, in order to arrive at something that is still not as good as it should have been in the first place because of all the patching and retrofitting. Unless or until it's fixed, you have people displaced from, or having to live in, that unsound house. And the fact that the problems can be fixed obviously cannot be used to... First:
You're confusing "different" with "more powerful"
A guy decked out in anti-magic user gear is more powerful, against a wizard. Than same guy isn't more powerful when compared to a fighter.
I feel you're doing this intentionally. Probably because it is your preconceived notion that this must be addressed in hard mechanics because nothing else, to you, is acceptable regardless of the fact that this has been done with RPGs since day 1.
I can show you plenty of builds that will make a Wizard quake with fear but would make a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin smirk and say, "Awwww look! It thinks it's people!"
You see this happen in comics all the time. Batman doesn't slug it out with Doomsday, Darkseid, or Mongul. He's tried, and he's gotten bloody and battered for it. He does other things which are far from useless.
Sure, Superman could flick Bane with his index finger and knock him out while Batman might end that same fight with a snapped spine, but Superman's not going to figure out the fact that Bane was just a distraction so the Joker can spatter Commissioner Gordon with an acid cream pie in time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bhurano wrote:
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classe
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield......Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second..
Nice analysis.
Oddly, I rarely see cleric sin heavy armor and shield. That loss to movement, and earlier- skills, hurts. Also, yes shield, but then you got reach wpn, THW and bow clerics, too.
That whole " typical 15 minute adventuring day"? Seems to be more in theory than actual gameplay. At least in my "limited' experience. :-)
Kitty Catoblepas wrote: or a Defense "Specialist" who has neglected offense to the point of being safely ignored by enemies... Except, other than DM metagaming- how do they know to ignore him? Sure after a few rounds, maybe the smarter monsters can figure it, but that's usually too late.
Just like "attack the spellcasters first" works real well if the wizard goes around in robes with arcane symbols and a pointy hat with "WIZZARD" done in sequins. :-)
It depends on how you define a '15 minute adventuring day.' if you're counting exploration and social events then definitely not.
If you're only talking combat however, I would be quite upset if a GM tries to put my group through more than 50 rounds of combat per day, let alone the 150 rounds of 15 minutes.
DrDeth wrote: Bhurano wrote:
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classe
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield......Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second..
Nice analysis.
Oddly, I rarely see cleric sin heavy armor and shield. That loss to movement, and earlier- skills, hurts. Also, yes shield, but then you got reach wpn, THW and bow clerics, too.
That whole " typical 15 minute adventuring day"? Seems to be more in theory than actual gameplay. At least in my "limited' experience. :-) I take it you have never read any AP published by Paizo then. If you have then you are either being willfully ignorant of the fact that the "15 minute adventuring day" is an actual part of the game, or have a very unique definition of the phrase.
DrDeth wrote: Kitty Catoblepas wrote: or a Defense "Specialist" who has neglected offense to the point of being safely ignored by enemies... Except, other than DM metagaming- how do they know to ignore him? Sure after a few rounds, maybe the smarter monsters can figure it, but that's usually too late. Gather information. If they are class enemies anyway.
If monsters in a dungeon the smarter ones scout intruders out.
Just like "attack the spellcasters first" works real well if the wizard goes around in robes with arcane symbols and a pointy hat with "WIZZARD" done in sequins. :-) The guy will a spell component pouches, the guy not wearing armor but also lacks a martial arts fighting stance.
There are tons of ways to spot the wizard. The old, "I are smart! I don't dress like wizard!" Trick really isn't very effective.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Bhurano wrote:
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classe
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield......Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second..
Nice analysis.
Oddly, I rarely see cleric sin heavy armor and shield. That loss to movement, and earlier- skills, hurts. Also, yes shield, but then you got reach wpn, THW and bow clerics, too.
That whole " typical 15 minute adventuring day"? Seems to be more in theory than actual gameplay. At least in my "limited' experience. :-) I take it you have never read any AP published by Paizo then. If you have then you are either being willfully ignorant of the fact that the "15 minute adventuring day" is an actual part of the game, or have a very unique definition of the phrase. Uh no. Most APS have timed events. Take too long in game and your party loses by default.
HWalsh wrote: ...
First:
You're confusing "different" with "more powerful"
A guy decked out in anti-magic user gear is more powerful, against a wizard. Than same guy isn't more powerful when compared to a fighter.
I feel you're doing this intentionally. Probably because it is your preconceived notion that this must be addressed in hard mechanics because nothing else, to you, is acceptable regardless of the fact that this has been done with RPGs since day 1.
I can show you plenty of builds that will make a Wizard quake with fear but would make a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin smirk and say, "Awwww look! It thinks it's people!"
You see this happen in comics all the time. Batman doesn't slug it out with Doomsday, Darkseid, or Mongul. He's tried, and he's gotten bloody and battered for it. He does other things which are far from useless.
Sure, Superman could flick Bane with his index finger and knock him out while Batman might end that same fight with a snapped spine, but Superman's not going to figure out the fact that Bane was just a distraction so the Joker can spatter Commissioner Gordon with an acid cream pie in time.
At that point I have to question Mr. anti-caster's existence... sure It makes sense to be prepared to face casters, but to then pretend muggles you see everywhere(as opposed to casters whom you see rarely) don't exist and ONLY have caster defenses doesn't just seem stupid, it puts their survival up to that point in question.
At best I'd expect they waste their anti-martial counters first so the caster can protect them, but that's opposite your intent, so they should have anti-martial counters left after the caster's day is ruined.
HWalsh wrote: Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Bhurano wrote:
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classe
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield......Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second..
Nice analysis.
Oddly, I rarely see cleric sin heavy armor and shield. That loss to movement, and earlier- skills, hurts. Also, yes shield, but then you got reach wpn, THW and bow clerics, too.
That whole " typical 15 minute adventuring day"? Seems to be more in theory than actual gameplay. At least in my "limited' experience. :-) I take it you have never read any AP published by Paizo then. If you have then you are either being willfully ignorant of the fact that the "15 minute adventuring day" is an actual part of the game, or have a very unique definition of the phrase. Uh no. Most APS have timed events. Take too long in game and your party loses by default. And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.)
Anzyr wrote: HWalsh wrote: Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Bhurano wrote:
I have players who pick regularly non-caster classes and they never complain about a caster being more powerful than their chosen classes.
If they go for the caster classe
In that environment let's see how the different classes do:
Clerics have survival in easy mode, thanks to the fact that they can prepare whatever the hell they want and can still convert them to healing spells (assuming good or neutral) AND they go around in heavy armor and shield......Add in the absence of the typical 15 minute adventuring day some people seem to see as standard and you have it tough as a wizard, the sorcerer is a close second..
Nice analysis.
Oddly, I rarely see cleric sin heavy armor and shield. That loss to movement, and earlier- skills, hurts. Also, yes shield, but then you got reach wpn, THW and bow clerics, too.
That whole " typical 15 minute adventuring day"? Seems to be more in theory than actual gameplay. At least in my "limited' experience. :-) I take it you have never read any AP published by Paizo then. If you have then you are either being willfully ignorant of the fact that the "15 minute adventuring day" is an actual part of the game, or have a very unique definition of the phrase. Uh no. Most APS have timed events. Take too long in game and your party loses by default. And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) Shattered Star gets up there.
Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest.
DrDeth wrote: Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest. That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right?
Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest. That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right? Exactly. I'm curious what a typical adventuring day looks like for those who claim casters aren't broken if you avoid the 15 minute day.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest. That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right? Exactly. I'm curious what a typical adventuring day looks like for those who claim casters aren't broken if you avoid the 15 minute day. Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based.
Example:
Roleplay Encounter 1:
Get job from person. Learn about mission. Use interaction skills to increase rewards etc.
Combat Encounter 1:
Random encounter on route to destination to deliver thing to place.
Chellenge encounter:
The bridge is out. How do you cross?
Combat Encounter 2:
Monsters picking clean the recent remains of a caravan!
Challenge Encounter 2:
Tracks leading away from remains show that something was drug away! Can you follow them?
Combat Encounter 3:
There is a huge monster guarding the entrance to enemy place!
Combat Encounter 4:
Fight enemies inside enemy place!
Combat Encounter 5:
Fight enemy leader!
Roleplay Encounter 2:
Talk to victims you rescued who were taken from caravan.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: I can show you plenty of builds that will make a Wizard quake with fear but would make a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin smirk and say, "Awwww look! It thinks it's people!" Words are wind.
HWalsh wrote: Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based.
Sounds great for a Shaman, Druid, arcanists and summoner party
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: thejeff wrote: Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest. That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right? Exactly. I'm curious what a typical adventuring day looks like for those who claim casters aren't broken if you avoid the 15 minute day. Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based. Ok so:
4-5 Combats (approx 16 rounds.)
2-3 Roleplay encounters (approx 25 rounds)
1-2 Skill Challenges (approx 1.5 rounds)
=
42.5 rounds. So not very many.
Let's look at expected spell expenditure:
4-5 Combat rounds: At most, the caster might eat through all their highest level spells if they use one per encounter. Will eat into their next highest spell slot, at maybe a 50% attrition rate. Some lower level spells may be utilized to mop up past that.
2-3 Roleplay encounters: 1 spell per. 2 per if you are buffing skill for diplomacy checks or replacing diplomacy. Often lower level spells can solve these unless Teleport or Plane Shift renders the whole RP moot.
1-2 Skill challenges: 2 low level spells. At best, the caster simple burns a low level spot and completely obviates the skill (Spider Climb, Invisibility) or the skills are INT or WIS based and the caster simply chugs Tears to Wine. At worst the cast is forced to consumer 1 short duration spell buffing the check.
At the end of the day the caster is expected to have the majority of their lower level spells and some of their second highest.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anzyr wrote: HWalsh wrote: thejeff wrote: Anzyr wrote: DrDeth wrote: Anzyr wrote:
And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.) There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest. That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right? Exactly. I'm curious what a typical adventuring day looks like for those who claim casters aren't broken if you avoid the 15 minute day. Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based. Ok so:
4-5 Combats (approx 16 rounds.)
2-3 Roleplay encounters (approx 25 rounds)
1-2 Skill Challenges (approx 1.5 rounds)
=
42.5 rounds. So not very many.
Let's look at expected spell expenditure:
4-5 Combat rounds: At most, the caster might eat through all their highest level spells if they use one per encounter. Will eat into their next highest spell slot, at maybe a 50% attrition rate. Some lower level spells may be utilized to mop up past that.
2-3 Roleplay encounters: 1 spell per. 2 per if you are buffing skill for diplomacy checks or replacing diplomacy. Often lower level spells can solve these unless Teleport or Plane Shift renders the whole RP moot.
1-2 Skill challenges: 2 low level spells. At best, the caster simple burns a low level spot and completely obviates the skill (Spider Climb, Invisibility) or the skills are INT or WIS based and the caster simply chugs Tears to Wine. At worst the cast is forced to consumer 1 short duration spell buffing the check.
At the end of the... Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them.
Enemies don't group up, there is usually at least 1-2 spoilers (characters with Dispel and are willing to wait to counter the PC mages) and enemies have items to aid them (talismans are fun)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
To the original post...
Yes you can have a successful highly enjoyable low magic campaign that lasts into high levels. We've been playing the Northlands Saga up to 10th level so far with a barbarian, sword and board fighter and a skald (who's spell slots go to buffs and healing) we're having a blast.
All that is required are willing players and a DM who is prepared to take low magic into account with the encounter design/delivery.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them. This is mathematically impossible for a group of 4 PCs without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use a single high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy / increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this still gets crushed by the sheer power of the action economy in 3 rounds or so. If you use multiple high CR opponents, the fights will still only go 4 or so rounds, except it will be the opponents ending the encounter in 4 or so rounds. If the solo high CR opponent is high enough, chunking 1.5 PCs a round will only take 4.5 rounds.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anzyr wrote: HWalsh wrote: Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them. This is mathematically impossible without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use multiple high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy/increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this instead goes the other way and the players should be defeated in 4 rounds or so. You're really underestimating how encounters can go. Enemies don't just stand there and slug it out. Positioning, movement, use of LOS can all draw encounters out.
Sure 4 on 1 encounters go down fast but well trained opponents can do all kinds of things.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't think you can tell another DM how long his encounters last Anzyr. If they last that long they last that long.
Party balance, encounter balance, terrain, surprise, lethality, enemy attacking in waves etc will all change how long enemies or PCs stand on their feet.
I would expect most sessions to have a range of Long and short combats. If every encounter goes 9 rounds it's gonna get boring. If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating.
HWalsh wrote: HWalsh wrote: Typically 4-5 combat encounters of varying size and difficulty that are spaced out over a period of 8-10 hours (of game time).
Between combat encounters 2-3 "roleplay" encounters.
As well as 1-2 challenge encounters that are usually skill based.
Example:
Roleplay Encounter 1:
Get job from person. Learn about mission. Use interaction skills to increase rewards etc.
Combat Encounter 1:
Random encounter on route to destination to deliver thing to place.
Chellenge encounter:
The bridge is out. How do you cross?
Combat Encounter 2:
Monsters picking clean the recent remains of a caravan!
Challenge Encounter 2:
Tracks leading away from remains show that something was drug away! Can you follow them?
Combat Encounter 3:
There is a huge monster guarding the entrance to enemy place!
Combat Encounter 4:
Fight enemies inside enemy place!
Combat Encounter 5:
Fight enemy leader!
Roleplay Encounter 2:
Talk to victims you rescued who were taken from caravan. This is precisely the sort of adventuring day I run that casters used to dominate before I dramatically boosted martials.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
The Sword wrote: I don't think you can tell another DM how long his encounters last Anzyr. If they last that long they last that long.
Party balance, encounter balance, terrain, surprise, lethality, enemy attacking in waves etc will all change how long enemies or PCs stand on their feet.
I would expect most sessions to have a range of Long and short combats. If every encounter goes 9 rounds it's gonna get boring. If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating.
It's worth remembering that HWalsh specifically designs encounters to counter his casters. That may matter.
HWalsh wrote: Anzyr wrote: HWalsh wrote: Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them. This is mathematically impossible without fudging dice, or houseruling. The math of the game indicates that even a much higher CR enemy should not survive 2 rounds of concentrated attacks from even *very* lightly optimized players. 3 rounds is possible if you have spread out enemies. 4 if the PCs luck is bad. 5+? That requires either really bad luck or GM fudging/houserules. 7+ is impossible without Touma's luck or GM fudging/houserules. 9+ is impossible without GM fudging/houserules even with Touma's luck.
Even if you use multiple high CR opponents to reduce player's accuracy/increase save percentages and hit points to deplete, this instead goes the other way and the players should be defeated in 4 rounds or so. You're really underestimating how encounters can go. Enemies don't just stand there and slug it out. Positioning, movement, use of LOS can all draw encounters out.
Sure 4 on 1 encounters go down fast but well trained opponents can do all kinds of things. No, I'm not. What you are suggesting is mathematically impossible. There literally are not numbers that support it. Positioning, tricks, movement, line of sight, all of those are irrelevant factors. They will not produce math that gets encounters to average 7-10 rounds a fight. Unless all your "encounters" are shooting at the players 250 ft. away, running back 30 and repeating you are not going to get an average of 7+ rounds. Even then the players at worst can run and catch the adversaries in 3 rounds and finish the fight in another 3-4. Even using that encounter consistently will not produce the result you claim.
The Sword wrote: If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating. Why is it frustrating?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: The Sword wrote: If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating. Why is it frustrating? Because as a player I want to be able to do stuff. Ideally for more than 12 seconds. I don't develop a character to have a range of interesting abilities to get one round of action just because I rolled badly on initiative.
I expect my DM to challenge me so there are a range of challenges to allow my character (and all the other characters) to shine. That doesn't happen when fights are over before they've even started.
thejeff wrote: All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
If we're going to run this experiment we should run it with two more GMs.
One who is impartial and runs the game as close to RAW as possible and one who feels casters are disadvantaged vs martials due to limited resources.
All gameplay to be well documented.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The Sword wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: The Sword wrote: If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating. Why is it frustrating? Because as a player I want to be able to do stuff. Ideally for more than 12 seconds. I don't develop a character to have a range of interesting abilities to get one round of action just because I rolled badly on initiative.
I expect my DM to challenge me so there are a range of challenges to allow my character (and all the other characters) to shine. That doesn't happen when fights are over before they've even started. Interesting.
As a player ending combat as quickly as possible is one of my prime objectives, the longer the fight the nore likely you are to die
kyrt-ryder wrote: thejeff wrote: All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
If we're going to run this experiment we should run it with two more GMs.
One who is impartial and runs the game as close to RAW as possible and one who feels casters are disadvantaged vs martials due to limited resources.
All gameplay to be well documented. I guess. But those don't seem as likely to generate useful results. The design is intended to see who's missing the tricks - the "caster is god" group or the "I never have problems with casters" group.
I would assume the game would be run RAW in the "without houserules" sense. Fixing casters with house rules is a separate issue.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: thejeff wrote: All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
If we're going to run this experiment we should run it with two more GMs.
One who is impartial and runs the game as close to RAW as possible and one who feels casters are disadvantaged vs martials due to limited resources.
All gameplay to be well documented. Had I the time/effort/motivation, I would create a list of challenges pulled from published Paizo adventures, roll randomly on the list to get 4 combat challenges, 2 "roleplay challenges" and 2 skill challenges. Then, I would have two players run different groups through the random challenges. One player would run a group of X Caster/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue or Fighter (contenders choice) and then other player would run a group of X Martial/Fighter/Rogue/ Wizard or Cleric (contenders choice). The Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric that are used would be the same for each player, with the only difference being the party make-up and the chosen caster or martial the player is running. I already know what the outcome will be of course, but I cannot think of a more fair way to demonstrate it plainly.
The Sword wrote: I don't think you can tell another DM how long his encounters last Anzyr. If they last that long they last that long.
Party balance, encounter balance, terrain, surprise, lethality, enemy attacking in waves etc will all change how long enemies or PCs stand on their feet.
I would expect most sessions to have a range of Long and short combats. If every encounter goes 9 rounds it's gonna get boring. If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating.
I'd think positioning and when you consider the "start" and "end" points of an encounter could throw this off, if you start with only a portion of the enemy visible, or end only after your foe has already escaped(or fully bled out/negative con)... it would drastically affect your timeline compared to starting them at 30ft with all the targets visible.
thejeff wrote: All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
I'll do it. I have a Roll 20 set up for my old group that even has the beastiary transcribed with tokens and macros for ease of use. It has all of the maps and handouts set for a 1-15 game ready too. I just have to clear out the old PCs
kyrt-ryder wrote: The Sword wrote:
I expect my DM to challenge me so there are a range of challenges to allow my character (and all the other characters) to shine. That doesn't happen when fights are over before they've even started. Interesting.
As a player ending combat as quickly as possible is one of my prime objectives, the longer the fight the nore likely you are to die I would rather die in glorious combat after a heroic career than succeed at mediocrity lol.
As a player, the most frustrating thing in the game for me is when an encounter gets cake walked and you wonder what was the point of rolling initiative or buckling on your sword belt/spell pouch.
The second most frustrating thing is getting curb stomped by an encounter you don't stand a chance in lol.
|
