So, even if the party does have full casters in it, the GM has to "softball" his full caster opponents to give the party a chance.
Isn't that also true for a nightly assassin, a (surprising) bull rush expert at a chasm or a really optimized warrior type of higher level (with the advantage of initiative)?
CR has its merits, but if you catch players on the wrong foot, the actual challenge is significantly higher. No matter where the danger comes from.
What about a group of 4 wizards making it through a whole campaign? Specifically making it all the way to level 3 without one of them dying? I know I've never seen it o_OI've GM'd a game of mostly full casters. The hard party was surviving the early levels. After that they owned the game. The party optimized their initiative to try to make sure they went first.
It was't all wizards though. It was a wizard, psion, sorcerer, and warlock(3.5 version) and wizards are not the only casters. If are going to nail down wizards then we can restrict this to fighters or rogues. :)
Yeah I probably should have said something like "1/2 BAB, 9th level casters"
With that being said wizards can take leadership to get a cleric or hire a cleric. They can also get UMD and buy scrolls for when they fail a save to remove status effects if the GM won't allow them to hire additional help.
Honestly Leadership probably doesn't belong in this thread. If we include Leadership then the party of 4 martials trying to get to high level can also have a wizard, druid, cleric and summoner, as well as being a party of 8 people.
I'll be honest. If a GM wanted to use all the caster tricks and cheesiness that is bandied about these message boards against the party, then no party would ever make it much past level 10, regardless of whether or not there are casters in the party.
That's true only if the PC casters don't do it to the BBEG first. PC casters have that option. Martial PCs do not.
There are endless variables (type of campaign, type of encounters, type of martials, etc.). We can theory-craft and trade anecdotes until Rovagug gets free, but my advice to the OP is: try it, have fun, and see what happens. Having an "all-something" party (all clerics, all dwarves, all grumpy "loners", etc.) can be a fun switch to the normal adventuring party set-up. In any event, many groups have new players come in or old players leave during the course of an AP, so the party composition might change. If the party gets TPKed, go out swinging and make up new PCs (perhaps *not* all martials) and continue the storyline.
Now we are moving from 'martials' to 'fighters or barbarians'.
I think 4 hyper-optimized fighters could build the more functional party, but 4 barbarians could bumble to success (with fly, haste, and healing potions)
Every high-level caster I've seen in an adventure path is just hanging around in their room with a few defensive buffs up. Anyone who can pass a saving throw and is prepared for basic tricks like flight and invisibility can beat them.Which brings us back to softballing adventure design and playing the casters unintelligently.
^ This was what I was going to say.
I really get the feeling that a lot of commentators in this thread haven't actually seen level 17+ full casters in play. Nothing in my earlier example was out of the ordinary. It wasn't build or archetype specific. It's just straightforward application of core rulebook spells that every wizard has at their disposal. It's not even getting close to the kinds of stuff a BBEG NPC caster with tons of resources could achieve.
How are 4 martial characters going to stop a 17th level Beast Bonded witch currently living inside the body of a Balor? How about a 18th level Necromancer Lich who has maxed out Mass Suffocation and lives in a Strong Negative Affinity Demiplane that he's been packing to the gills with Nightshade Nightcrawlers?
High level casters that aren't softballed by GMs look like This Guy. Or This Guy.
Yes, it isn't fair. It isn't even close to balanced. The caster martial disparity is real. That's why I said the only way four martials succeed against a high level caster is by GM fiat.
How are 4 martial characters going to stop a 17th level Beast Bonded witch currently living inside the body of a Balor? How about a 18th level Necromancer Lich who has maxed out Mass Suffocation and lives in a Strong Negative Affinity Demiplane that he's been packing to the gills with Nightshade Nightcrawlers?High level casters that aren't softballed by GMs look like This Guy. Or This Guy.
Yes, it isn't fair. It isn't even close to balanced. The caster martial disparity is real. That's why I said the only way four martials succeed against a high level caster is by GM fiat.
If you're playing a martial-focused campaign, why is a tricked out wizard the main villain? That doesn't seem at all in step with the focus the PCs are already selecting by playing all martials.
So, even if the party does have full casters in it, the GM has to "softball" his full caster opponents to give the party a chance.Isn't that also true for a nightly assassin, a (surprising) bull rush expert at a chasm or a really optimized warrior type of higher level (with the advantage of initiative)?
CR has its merits, but if you catch players on the wrong foot, the actual challenge is significantly higher. No matter where the danger comes from.
I can only speak for my games, but I have always had someone who had really high perception as a player, and a GM. Anything that could realistically jump the party is likely at least EL+3, and as for your examples the assassin might even coup de grace one person, but then the person on guard will wake everyone up. Then they kill the intruder, and depending on the level the killed party member by be alive to join the fight.
As for the bullrusher and a chasm that is way too specific. Nobody was talking of setting up scenarios to kill the party with a specified build. Fighting casters is common, and no special setup is needed for a caster to kill the party.
You would need a bullrusher who uses dex for combat maneuvers, and had the ability to push several people off the cliff at once, and they'd have to be low level enough to not survive the fall..etc etc
What about a group of 4 wizards making it through a whole campaign? Specifically making it all the way to level 3 without one of them dying? I know I've never seen it o_OI've GM'd a game of mostly full casters. The hard party was surviving the early levels. After that they owned the game. The party optimized their initiative to try to make sure they went first.
It was't all wizards though. It was a wizard, psion, sorcerer, and warlock(3.5 version) and wizards are not the only casters. If are going to nail down wizards then we can restrict this to fighters or rogues. :)
Yeah I probably should have said something like "1/2 BAB, 9th level casters"
With that being said wizards can take leadership to get a cleric or hire a cleric. They can also get UMD and buy scrolls for when they fail a save to remove status effects if the GM won't allow them to hire additional help.Honestly Leadership probably doesn't belong in this thread. If we include Leadership then the party of 4 martials trying to get to high level can also have a wizard, druid, cleric and summoner, as well as being a party of 8 people.
I agree about leadership. As for 1/2 BAB 9th level casters they can survive. With the crafting feats they can also have money level over to use bind outsiders. Single casters have taken on entire parties. There is no reason a group of casters is losing to a bunch of monsters outside of some strange corner case.
Thought it would be worth mentioning the Iron Caster Guide.
If you're playing a martial-focused campaign, why is a tricked out wizard the main villain? That doesn't seem at all in step with the focus the PCs are already selecting by playing all martials.
I think that is a big part of where expectations comes in. If the players come to the GM wanting to play a low magic campaign similar to LOTR then maybe a full casting wizard with multiple contingencies in place is a bit much for the BBEG.
But if I tell the players I'm running Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and give them enough backstory to know that Count Strahd is a Vampire with decent spellcaster levels I'm not gonna feel bad if they show up with a Rouge, a Fighter, A barbarian, and a Vigilante.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are 4 martial characters going to stop a 17th level Beast Bonded witch currently living inside the body of a Balor? How about a 18th level Necromancer Lich who has maxed out Mass Suffocation and lives in a Strong Negative Affinity Demiplane that he's been packing to the gills with Nightshade Nightcrawlers?
...
That's why I said the only way four martials succeed against a high level caster is by GM fiat.
Those casters don't exist except through GM/adventure writer fiat. All adventure design is fiat. Either you fiat some weaknesses into your villains, or (if you hate your players, or your players are crazy powergamers who can't be challenged any other way) you fiat them as invincible optimized genius tacticians.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those casters don't exist except through GM/adventure writer fiat. All adventure design is fiat. Either you fiat some weaknesses into your villains, or (if you hate your players, or your players are crazy powergamers who can't be challenged any other way) you fiat them as invincible optimized genius tacticians.
In some cases, the "fiat" contributes to the feeling of an internally-consistent game world, full of immersion. In other cases, fiat breaks the paradigms of the game world we've been trying to establish, and ends up feeling like Fonzie is jumping the shark. Some groups of players are oblivious either way, but as a referee I prefer to err on the side of the former.
We also come back to accessibility of the game, and ways the referee can facilitate it. If the DM's NPC casters with Int 20 are going to act like their Int is 6, and ignore and/or not use 90% of their options -- and the DM expects the same of the players -- it's best to have that conversation up front, and bar the stuff they don't want by houssrule, rather than by fiat at all. That way everyone is on the same page up front, rather than scrambling to keep up.
Those casters don't exist except through GM/adventure writer fiat. All adventure design is fiat. Either you fiat some weaknesses into your villains, or (if you hate your players, or your players are crazy powergamers who can't be challenged any other way) you fiat them as invincible optimized genius tacticians.In some cases, the "fiat" contributes to the feeling of an internally-consistent game world, full of immersion. In other cases, fiat breaks the paradigms of the game world we've been trying to establish, and ends up feeling like Fonzie is jumping the shark. Some groups of players are oblivious either way, but as a referee I prefer to err on the side of the former.
We also come back to accessibility of the game, and ways the referee can facilitate it. If the DM's NPC casters with Int 20 are going to act like their Int is 6, and ignore and/or not use 90% of their options -- and the DM expects the same of the players -- it's best to have that conversation up front, and bar the stuff they don't want by houssrule, rather than by fiat at all. That way everyone is on the same page up front, rather than scrambling to keep up.
Did you actually read Doomed hero's post.
His options are theory craft characters that only exist on optimization boards that people don't play in games either because they wouldn't be allowed or because it's not that simple, he's also arguing as if it's pvp or in this case DM vs Player.
This should be really simple, the DM created npc's should have finite limits and be finite in what they are willing to do, you cannot argue the optimization of a DM character when there is no limit on how powerful the DM can make them if he wanted.
If a player wants to TRY and possess a Balor or make a 1'000 simulacrums 99.99% of DM's and other players will tell them not to be so stupid and if they push it the DM has the ability to make them suffer for it. On the other hand the DM can just say my Wizard has dominate monstered a 1'000 Balors all off screen against your 4 level 15 characters martials
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those casters don't exist except through GM/adventure writer fiat. All adventure design is fiat. Either you fiat some weaknesses into your villains, or (if you hate your players, or your players are crazy powergamers who can't be challenged any other way) you fiat them as invincible optimized genius tacticians.In some cases, the "fiat" contributes to the feeling of an internally-consistent game world, full of immersion. In other cases, fiat breaks the paradigms of the game world we've been trying to establish, and ends up feeling like Fonzie is jumping the shark. Some groups of players are oblivious either way, but as a referee I prefer to err on the side of the former.
We also come back to accessibility of the game, and ways the referee can facilitate it. If the DM's NPC casters with Int 20 are going to act like their Int is 6, and ignore and/or not use 90% of their options -- and the DM expects the same of the players -- it's best to have that conversation up front, and bar the stuff they don't want by houssrule, rather than by fiat at all. That way everyone is on the same page up front, rather than scrambling to keep up.
Did you actually read Doomed hero's post.
His options are theory craft characters that only exist on optimization boards that people don't play in games either because they wouldn't be allowed or because it's not that simple, he's also arguing as if it's pvp or in this case DM vs Player.
This should be really simple, the DM created npc's should have finite limits and be finite in what they are willing to do, you cannot argue the optimization of a DM character when there is limit on how powerful the DM can make them if he wanted.
If a player wants to TRY and possess a Balor or make a 1'000 simulacrums 99.99% of DM's and other players will tell them not to be so stupid and if they push it the DM has the ability to make them suffer for it.
Kirth is saying that there has to be verisimilitude in the world, no the bbeg doesn't have to be a forum-level badass, but if he is a wizard with 20+ int then he needs to act like he has it, not like a 80's cartoon villain who just assumes that his plan is working and no need to check in on things till the party is at his door. And that the players should also be thinking less like they are heroes destined to win and more like they need to plan and react properly
EDIT: 2 things 1. This is my interpretation of what Kirth has been meaning and 2. It doesn't make the other way wrong as long as everyone is on board from the get go.
I think you are missing the point that regardless of class an NPC exists as something that the DM has made or was made with expectations in mind to challenge player characters and the other posters seem to be arguing it as some sort of PVP scenario.
The 20int Wizard will act with intelligence in combat but he is not a PC, he has specific minions, specific magic items and specific spells. It has to be this way. They do not spending money, they do not have exp charts, they don't adventure, there power is completely dictated by the Dungeon master.
Players enter dungeons and fights are parceled out, you never have a situation where all the monsters and NPC's just meet at the entrance and slaughter the PC's for balance reasons when it rarely makes sense for bad guy base not to be alerted.
This isn't pvp, the npc's are not aware they are in a game and aren't going to go out and optimize themselves based on the rules of a game. The evil necromancer with death Knight bodyguards will cast horrid wilting because it's in theme instead of double metamagic lowering trait empowered, 1 level dip sorcerer, 19 wizard, alchemical item cone of cold followed by coldstrike for a bazillion damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are missing the point that regardless of class an NPC exists as something that the DM has made or was made with expectations in mind to challenge player characters and the other posters seem to be arguing it as some sort of PVP scenario.
The 20int Wizard will act with intelligence in combat but he is not a PC, he has specific minions, specific magic items and specific spells. It has to be this way. They do not spending money, they do not have exp charts, they don't adventure, there power is completely dictated by the Dungeon master.
Players enter dungeons and fights are parceled out, you never have a situation where all the monsters and NPC's just meet at the entrance and slaughter the PC's for balance reasons when it rarely makes sense for bad guy base not to be alerted.
This isn't pvp, the npc's are not aware they are in a game and aren't going to go out and optimize themselves based on the rules of a game. The evil necromancer with death Knight bodyguards will cast horrid wilting because it's in theme instead of double metamagic lowering trait empowered, 1 level dip sorcerer, 19 wizard, alchemical item cone of cold followed by coldstrike for a bazillion damage.
They don't have to be aware they are in a game, but they need to be realistic, at least for my group. And for some GM's and I know from his homebrew rules Kirth is one we do build NPC's by player rules. If a BBEG has an army that army is from leadership and possibly his top cohorts leadership feats, not just me deciding he has an army. WE do use WBL for them and bind them to the same rules and we don't have them sit like orcus on his throne waiting for the party to barge in. They gather information on the party once aware of it. They plan for how the party operates. Its not about optimization its about acting like the character you are. If I know from minions surviving or scrying attempts that this party opens every single fight by summoning fire elementals then as a high level wizard if that catches me off guard I'm an idiot.
That's a flawed argument the level of BBEG, how much wealth they have, etc all will be dictated by the GM. His cohorts, etc.
How successful the BBEG is on gathering information will be dictated by the GM, those minions spying the players in battle just happened to be at the right place at the right time, those scrying attempts just took place at the right time. These are options for DM NPC's, not players.
What resources he has access to when preparing for the players is again dictated by the DM.
I get the argument of a BBEG preparing for a player but even that's within limits, it's reasonable they use resist energy or magic circle against evil. If you weren't arguing with me just for the sake of it and actually listened to the other guys there response would be that the BBEG prepares by animating a couple of dozen Hill Giants.
We are going off topic and this has become an argument over why don't the BBEG become super optimized, it's not really about the ability of martials to handle Pathfinder.
Answer is they can
No class can handle super power DM NPC's, if they try the DM will just give them more power.
Every high-level caster I've seen in an adventure path is just hanging around in their room with a few defensive buffs up. Anyone who can pass a saving throw and is prepared for basic tricks like flight and invisibility can beat them.Which brings us back to softballing adventure design and playing the casters unintelligently.^ This was what I was going to say.
I really get the feeling that a lot of commentators in this thread haven't actually seen level 17+ full casters in play. Nothing in my earlier example was out of the ordinary. It wasn't build or archetype specific. It's just straightforward application of core rulebook spells that every wizard has at their disposal. It's not even getting close to the kinds of stuff a BBEG NPC caster with tons of resources could achieve.
How are 4 martial characters going to stop a 17th level Beast Bonded witch currently living inside the body of a Balor? How about a 18th level Necromancer Lich who has maxed out Mass Suffocation and lives in a Strong Negative Affinity Demiplane that he's been packing to the gills with Nightshade Nightcrawlers?
High level casters that aren't softballed by GMs look like This Guy. Or This Guy.
Yes, it isn't fair. It isn't even close to balanced. The caster martial disparity is real. That's why I said the only way four martials succeed against a high level caster is by GM fiat.
This is reasonably straightforward to test.
Choose an AP, pick a high-level caster NPC for Doomed Hero to play as a PC, and then have four other people build martial characters of the appropriate level. A sixth person is GM. Run the encounter on Roll20 and see who wins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those casters don't exist except through GM/adventure writer fiat. All adventure design is fiat. Either you fiat some weaknesses into your villains, or (if you hate your players, or your players are crazy powergamers who can't be challenged any other way) you fiat them as invincible optimized genius tacticians.In some cases, the "fiat" contributes to the feeling of an internally-consistent game world, full of immersion. In other cases, fiat breaks the paradigms of the game world we've been trying to establish, and ends up feeling like Fonzie is jumping the shark. Some groups of players are oblivious either way, but as a referee I prefer to err on the side of the former.
We also come back to accessibility of the game, and ways the referee can facilitate it. If the DM's NPC casters with Int 20 are going to act like their Int is 6, and ignore and/or not use 90% of their options -- and the DM expects the same of the players -- it's best to have that conversation up front, and bar the stuff they don't want by houssrule, rather than by fiat at all. That way everyone is on the same page up front, rather than scrambling to keep up.
Thanks, Kirth. Once again, you put my thoughts into better words than I do.
I am all for certain spells being nerfed, banned or considered so rare than they only exist as plot devices.
I am also all for Martial characters being significantly boosted in power so that they have more narrative-pushing options available to them.
In my opinion, agreeing as a group to do those things is neccessary for high level play. it's the only way the game works.
The whole "linear fighters quadratic wizards" thing means that if the players are using all the options at their disposal as martial characters, and the GM is using all the options in the book for their caster villians (designing their caster villains like characters), then without having the conversations Kirth mentioned, the martial PCs will be outclassed.
The same holds true for mixed parties of casters and martials. Casters need to be talked to about holding back at high levels. Martials need to be boosted and given more narrative tools. That's the only way a party stays reasonably balanced.
Using the core rulebook alone, any wizard can have effectively unlimited money with Polymorph Any Object and Fabricate. They can have effectively unlimited time with Create Demiplane. They can have effectively unlimited Wishes or Miracles with Simulacrum. They can go anywhere with Greater Teleport, Planeshift or Gate. They can find anything with Discern Location, Vision and Greater Scrying.
These aren't special things. All wizards can do them. They aren't theory crafted, they don't require much in the way of resources or saving throws, and with them a smart caster can make themselves all but unbeatable. These things are literally the baseline of what casters can do. It starts with "all the money, materials, time, and power I could ever need" and only gets worse from there.
The narrative options available to a high level caster are vastly superior to those of a high level martial. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of what high level play is actually like.
If the boss villain is a wizard in more than 5% of campaigns, that seems weird to me.
The villain could, for example, be a Sorcerer or Oracle. They're not super-geniuses, just charismatic and dangerous. They didn't choose their spells; they were granted them by bloodline or the whims of chaotic gods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has any published adventure path ever featured a schrodiner's wizard? I've played/GM'd several and a 4-martial party could beat any caster I have ever seen printed.
Sure, if you are running a home brew where the BBEG is constantly scrying the party, armed to the gills with clones, contingency spells, astral projection, etc all from their own private demi plane, then no, a 4-martial party won't win. But neither should a party with a few wizards. Hyper intelligent BBEG with the unstoppable information net should hear about the PCs and wish them to be encased in the earth long before they are a real threat.
So yes, a 4-martial party can beat an adventure.
Has any published adventure path ever featured a schrodiner's wizard? I've played/GM'd several and a 4-martial party could beat any caster I have ever seen printed.
Sure, if you are running a home brew where the BBEG is constantly scrying the party, armed to the gills with clones, contingency spells, astral projection, etc all from their own private demi plane, then no, a 4-martial party won't win. But neither should a party with a few wizards. Hyper intelligent BBEG with the unstoppable information net/divination spells should hear about the PCs and wish them to be encased in the center of the earth long before they are a real threat.
So yes, a 4-martial party can beat an adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has any published adventure path ever featured a schrodiner's wizard? I've played/GM'd several and a 4-martial party could beat any caster I have ever seen printed.
Sure, if you are running a home brew where the BBEG is constantly scrying the party, armed to the gills with clones, contingency spells, astral projection, etc all from their own private demi plane, then no, a 4-martial party won't win. But neither should a party with a few wizards. Hyper intelligent BBEG with the unstoppable information net should hear about the PCs and wish them to be encased in the earth long before they are a real threat.
So yes, a 4-martial party can beat an adventure.
Part of that problem is your running dynamic characters against static opponents if you run any published work flat as written vs a party making their own characters. If the BBEG has access to information he should use it. Also that wish might not work remember wishes have limits (that yes the GM can ignore, but lets face it if your breaking the wish rules to 'win' that's another issue), but yes i would expect a good villain to adjust. That was one of the things I liked about Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and Red Hand of Doom in 3.5. They gave examples of what the villains would do based off what they might learn and gave ideas of how they might learn it.
They don't have to be aware they are in a game, but they need to be realistic, at least for my group. And for some GM's and I know from his homebrew rules Kirth is one we do build NPC's by player rules. If a BBEG has an army that army is from leadership and possibly his top cohorts leadership feats, not just me deciding he has an army. WE do use WBL for them and bind them to the same rules and we don't have them sit like orcus on his throne waiting for the party to barge in. They gather information on the party once aware of it. They plan for how the party operates. Its not about optimization its about acting like the character you are. If I know from minions surviving or scrying attempts that this party opens every single fight by summoning fire elementals then as a high level wizard if...If the NPC villains were as "realistic" as some people seem to believe, then the PC's would literally never win. The NPC BBEG's are always higher level than the PC's in order to provide challenge. Consequently, they have larger resources, better spell casting ability, etc.
If the NPCs are being run the way you say they are, the GM is pulling punches if the PC's ever win.
you do realize realistic includes flaws. Whether it be pride and believing they will be fine (this is how I play the standard barely prepared villain) , or maybe they think they can win these powerful enemies over. The point is to be a challenge to the party, but at the same time letting good planning be a boon. The party can plan as well, if they learn they are dealing with a lich I'm sure they are going to look for the phylactery first if able. If dealing with an elemental using foe resistances. If dealing with a powerful caster they should be doing their best to use tactic dealing with it. No one is legitimately saying the guy should be using scry and fry techniques or snow cone wish machines but if the party has been wrecking face due to a high str barbarian and his spell book has spells to deal with that type of threat why would he not prepare them.
Has any published adventure path ever featured a schrodiner's wizard? I've played/GM'd several and a 4-martial party could beat any caster I have ever seen printed.
Sure, if you are running a home brew where the BBEG is constantly scrying the party, armed to the gills with clones, contingency spells, astral projection, etc all from their own private demi plane, then no, a 4-martial party won't win. But neither should a party with a few wizards. Hyper intelligent BBEG with the unstoppable information net should hear about the PCs and wish them to be encased in the earth long before they are a real threat.
So yes, a 4-martial party can beat an adventure.
Said the same thing myself.
4 martials will be fine.
The thread has descended into argument about martials not beating schrodingers wizard or there version of the "correct way to do things"
Four competent martials could probably cope with Jade Regent.
They'd struggle with Carrion Crown, due to haunts and so forth, though there might be ways around it with paladin powers and sufficient system mastery.
We have a vote for Shattered Star being a difficult one. Any others?
If the boss villain is a wizard in more than 5% of campaigns, that seems weird to me.
The villain could, for example, be a Sorcerer or Oracle. They're not super-geniuses, just charismatic and dangerous. They didn't choose their spells; they were granted them by bloodline or the whims of chaotic gods.
Sorcerers and oracles didnt choose to learn magic, but they do choose their spells. It's not so much that they dont know magic. It is just that they dont have to study for it or ask a deity for it.
PS: I know the bloodline spells or a witch's patron spells are not chosen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to the original question is this, assuming the GM does not softball the combats and is using NPC's similar to those in AP's--> "It depends on the martials".
If the GM is using super optimized NPC's then normal parties won't do well either. They would also have to be super optimized.
Sorcerers and oracles didnt choose to learn magic, but they do choose their spells. It's not so much that they dont know magic. It is just that they dont have to study for it or ask a deity for it.
PS: I know the bloodline spells or a witch's patron spells are not chosen.
Do they? I mean, yes, clearly the player chooses their spells, but does the character? I don't know that I've ever seen that question addressed.
Do they? I mean, yes, clearly the player chooses their spells, but does the character? I don't know that I've ever seen that question addressed.Sorcerers and oracles didnt choose to learn magic, but they do choose their spells. It's not so much that they dont know magic. It is just that they dont have to study for it or ask a deity for it.
PS: I know the bloodline spells or a witch's patron spells are not chosen.
Yes they choose them. Why wouldn't they? Nothing says the granted spell sare random.
A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of her choice.
That is written from a character-centric point of view, and the oracle has similar language.
If it said "the player chooses" or "you choose" that would be a player-centric point of view.
As an example of player centric language.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task (hence why it is generally not allowed with skills that carry such penalties). Common "take 20" skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
^THAT'S player-centric? Wait a minute, I have to tell my boss about this Take 20 thing . . . .
^THAT'S player-centric? Wait a minute, I have to tell my boss about this Take 20 thing . . . .
It is talking to the player so yes, and I noticed you didnt say anything about my character-centric example.
And you could be just being snarky, but I am not so sure, but just in case you aren't the GM does similar things for NPC's that players do for PC's. In addition as a GM you can't talk to the boss(NPC). Well I guess you can but he doesn't really exist as a living creature in our world so it's just better to make decisions for him then try to verbally communicate with him.
Of course you would have also meant your boss at work who is a player at your table, but I'm not really sure since you didn't specify.
Feel free to let me know if I misunderstood anything you said.
^No other takers? Okay:
The quote you ended your post with looks TOTALLY character-centric to me, not player-centric. However, if it WAS player-centric, I'd like to be able to tell my boss at work(*) that I have to Take 20 to make sure I get my difficult Modern Necromancy Life Science Research experiments right . . . actually this isn't far from the truth . . . .
(*)Who has been displeased with my lack of progress