I mean, there are something like 28 different combat styles available for rangers, and they're not all archery...
So if your moderately optimized archer ranger is so good it outshines the rest of the party, you could roll up a dwarf ranger that does TWF with Dwarven Warshields or something much less good (but still fun.)
The effort to change 1 char < effort to change the rest of the party.
Also the effort to be good at archery is minimal, there are a lot of feats to remove all penalties but you lead with multiple attacks and full attacks sooner than any other fighting style and the weakness of no attribute to damage disappears as soon as you can afford to buy or craft composite bows or an adaptive bow. A human ranger has all the feats he needs to be a murder machine archer by level 3 and more of them are level gated.
You're confusing "there are a LOT of really good archery feats" with "takes effort to be good"
You need 4
Point blank
Precise
Rapid
Deadly aim.
You can have it by level 3 as a human ranger.
|
I don't often agree with Lady-J, but it's kinda silly to say the archer needs to change just because he's taking the archery feats from the CRB (point-blank, precise-shot, rapid-shot, deadly aim, and manyshot).
It's perfectly reasonable for the archer to help the other players with their characters rather than have to rebuild his own because he took the archery feats from the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't often agree with Lady-J, but it's kinda silly to say the archer needs to change just because he's taking the archery feats from the CRB (point-blank, precise-shot, rapid-shot, deadly aim, and manyshot).
It's perfectly reasonable for the archer to help the other players with their characters rather than have to rebuild his own because he took the archery feats from the CRB.
We don't actually know what the ranger has in its build. Again, if you're the disruptive influence at the table, you're the one who changes or finds a table where you're a better fit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, not buying that. It's not disruptive to take the archery feats from the CRB. If the GM considers that disruptive then the GM needed to discuss that it was a low power game with the players beforehand and let them know it wasn't allowed rather than spring it on them mid game.
This isn't a hyper optimized archery character like a Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain Warpriest or a Sohei Monk. This is a ranger with the CRB feats we're talking about.
Yeah, not buying that. It's not disruptive to take the archery feats from the CRB. If the GM considers that disruptive then the GM needed to discuss that it was a low power game with the players beforehand and let them know it wasn't allowed rather than spring it on them mid game.
We dont know what feats or build the ranger has....again.
Just that he dramatically outperforms the rest of the party in combat.
|
|
Sorry. maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that they would be disruptive even with just the CRB feats you listed (and included the other ones in my post).
I just don't think outperforming the other party members in combat automatically makes you overpowered. If the other players are playing more Face/Intrigue focused characters and putting feats towards social skills rather than combat, and your character is a mercenary type more invested in combat then you're not OP, you just spent your resources in a different place.
Everyone has a limited amount of resources and if they spend ones on being better at non-combat options and you spend yours on combat you'll both shine more in your respective areas. And that's perfectly fine.
Sorry. maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that they could be disruptive even with just the CRB feats you listed (and included the other ones in my post).
No my point is that it doesn't "take a lot of investment" to be good at archery, it takes like 4 feats that a human ranger can have at level 3. There are a lot of good archery feats and lots have higher end BAB prereqs, but the playstyle isn't remotely complicated or difficult in any way, in fact its simpler tactically than almost any other weapon based combat style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it really matter that Wizards are OP (if they are)? Think about it.
I live in a world of magic. What should be the most powerful person?
1. The guy who finds magical swords created by wizards, and hits other things really hard with them.
2. The gal who finds magical knives and stabs people from behind with them, and who maybe is able to detect magical shenanigans or dabbles.
3. The guy who asks quite powerful extraplanar beings that can still in fact be killed to do stuff for them but doesn't actually wield the power directly themself.
4. The gal who literally taps into the forces of the universe directly to bend them to her will.
Wizards may be OP. So bloody what? They're supposed to be. Why else would anyone in character choose to be one otherwise? You are giving up your childhood, often your social life, sometimes health, and more to tap into the magic. Whether you RP that part of being a Wizard is not the fault of the class. They are weak, they are squishy, and they run out of resources, they are older at the onset of the adventure, they're skills are spread too thin, they rely on a BOOK.
If a GM choses not to exploit any of those weaknesses, yup, they're OP. But if you do, they are the least powerful class. That's the whole point. They can be a 1 or a 10. A fighter is maybe a 5-6. Cleric 4-8.
It's just like taking a drawback you know the GM will never call you on. Or picking some crazy race that has Vulnerability to sunlight, and Light blindness, and vulerability to fire and sonic energy (no, it doesn't exist)... For an underground campaign in an oxygen free enviroment where fire and sound can't exist.
If you choose to only look at the outright maximum potential of a class, sure, Wizards are OP in that they have the highest potential output in terms of raw effectiveness of any class (as they should). But they also have the lowest floor (as they should).
you missed many shot and cluster shot archery builds don't come online till about level 7 or 8You need 4
Point blank
Precise
Rapid
Deadly aim.You can have it by level 3 as a human ranger.
There is a profound difference between come online and are complete. They come online around level 3 most of the time, they become complete at 11 when they get improved precise shot.
Its the way damn near every fighting style that isn't some sort of combo gimmick works, it's majority working by 3 or 4, around 6 it gets a big power jump, and then around 11 some feat gives it another one. Obviously you eventually get many shot and cluster shot but you have 90% of the effectiveness of the build in the first 3 levels. Clustered is useful, because it means you don't have to spend and track specialty ammo, manyshot is a damage boost, welcome yes but not pivotal. Improved precise only comes online late anyway, but if it was integral to them working the builds would never get played long enough to get there.
^Somebody already did -- actually this is just the latest of several.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bunk.
A) Item creation. With 2 bonus feats you can double your wbl. In games that don't allow crafting or limit craft time this is obviously moot
B) Full access to the entire spell list. Its a big list and a high level wizard can solve any problem
C) Single stat reliant. They need int that is all. Con, dex, and wisdom are nice but int covers literally everything
D) Every class "weakness" can be covered by spells. Hp? Covered. AC. Very much so. Saves? Really don't need to make them in most cases but yes. CMD? Many times over. Targeted spellbook? 1st level slot. Honestly it only costs 10 spell slots to defend against basically everything for most of the day
E) Immortality. Even if they do happen to "die" somehow you have only popped a contingency or a clone at worst
F) Specialized while still being strong generalists. A blaster build still can control the battlefield. A summoner build can still throw out nasty save or die spells. Unlike many classes, Wizards remain capable at all tasks even with a hyper specialized build
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are a lot of work to play. You need to keep up with the spell list, guess at what is coming, manage expectations for what you will be able to do, balance conservation of spells and remaining effective, manage to defend yourself despite harsh vulnerability, keep up with action economy of yourself and the others, and so on. And guess what, if you take a little time doing this, the other players will complain.
It is unrealistic to claim that wizards always are informed. They don't have the slots, the spells are very unprecise, and things always change. Scrying is a pretty poor strategy and does make you vulnerable.
If you go for blasting, your damage output is generally poor unless you can count area damage as multiples. The martials will outdamage you pretty easily. If you go for save spells, many of your spells will do literally nothing.
The upside is that for a given situation you have prepared for, you often have what it takes to win. However, that is assuming a whole lot. If not, you will have your generic fallback spells, which are likely adequate but uninspiring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the answer to the original question has been answered multiple times, but I'll add my experience. I'm a level 11 wizard in my groups rise of the runelords game. We are definitely not min/maxing but I feel super powerful.
In a given day, we start off in Magnimar or Sandpoint, waking up in a nice bed, well fed (usually on the house because we saved the town so many times). I teleport us to the place we need to go. I scout the entire dungeon with divination mapping the entire dungeon and monsters I see (unless they know we are there, it doesn't make sense that monsters would be hiding or lying in wait). Encounters usually go with the party protecting me so I can do a mass aoe ability, like fireball or confusion, and the party cleaning it up. Once we meet the boss, I baleful polymorph it into a corgi. We have two corgi's now. Then we teleport back to the inn. What a day!
I have also cast geas on the mayor of magnimar so he will build me a castle as my lair. I can't even imagine what is possible in a couple more levels. Wizards are the only class I've played that actually change the way the game is played.
I don't find Wizards over powered in general but they can be if you allow higher than normal stats and greater wealth. In those situation they can shore up weakness. Wizards are typically glass cannons. Higher stats means better saves, better hit points while keeping the 20 INT off the start. That leads to being over powered. Give the same stats to fighter and they are better but nothing like what the Wizard gets.My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite. No one is going to say no to more stats or more money, but giving a wizard another point of AC or a few extra hit points ultimately isn't really going to change all that much and while I'll totally buy more scrolls and magic items only a fraction of that gold feels really necessary.
Whereas my martials tend to be the ones interested in a wider selection of magical equipment and with stats being more spread out in general more points makes it a lot easier to take a high primary without tanking everything else.
Higher stats allows that 20 stat in INT to occur. To do with normal stats it just doesn't happen. You'll see 16 INT wizard instead. That 2 points actually makes a huge difference. Then you have wealth. Give wizard too much wealth and they get access to more spells much faster to add to the spell book, more perfect combos sooner. Then on top of that scribe scrolls so they always have the perfect spell ready. Keeping with normal wealth by level ranges this is more controlled.
Also, just to touch on "you're giving the wizard too much downtime if they're scribing so many scrolls"
Dwarf wizard alternate favored class bonus.
If you develop a rep as a hard core no downtime gm, expect them.
Higher stats allows that 20 stat in INT to occur. To do with normal stats it just doesn't happen. You'll see 16 INT wizard instead. That 2 points actually makes a huge difference. Then you have wealth. Give wizard too much wealth and they get access to more spells much faster to add to the spell book, more perfect combos sooner. Then on top of that scribe scrolls so they always have the perfect spell ready. Keeping with normal wealth by level ranges this is more controlled.
what is that"normal" stats? because the officially recognized and used way of stats is 20PB.
|
Also, just to touch on "you're giving the wizard too much downtime if they're scribing so many scrolls"
Dwarf wizard alternate favored class bonus.
If you develop a rep as a hard core no downtime gm, expect them.
Oh, my...I basically never play dwarves so I never noticed that before. That's insanely useful for crafty types.
Basically you cannot outright kill a creature without a failed save OR succeeding in a ranged touch. Forcing permanent strong emotional ties like love is also difficult.AHAH!!!
I got it, it isn't wizards or even casters that are overpowered! It's magic, something casters just happen to be good at and wizards are probably the most versatile casters...
...Nothing prevents any class or character from acquiring these abilities either. They are not the sole providence of spellcasters.
...the high fantasy of campaign worlds such as the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. ... They are not specialist of martial prowess but magical prowess. Each DM and campaign searches for the balance that they find the most enjoyable between martial and magical arts and influence.
Partially yes.
Wizards are "OP", but so are druids and clerics. Wizards are probably the most egregious, though clerics are a close second.
The most unifying feature of these classes is "magic", but it's not just the presence of "magic" that makes them powerful, its how that magic is defined.
Here's a trick: name a thing wizardly magic can't do.
...
On the first two, you're not looking at spell effects, but requirements. Yes, wizards will need to meet the requirements of spells in order to cast them and/or have them have effect.
As to the third: Kiss of Unrequited Love
Memory of Love
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger bad?
Hahahahaha no.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If manyshot boosted the character above the rest you are either reading it very wrong or are playing very unoptimized characters. There isn't anything wrong with that but a ranger who takes the standard archery feats and uses one of their most useful spells (as Instant Enemy was mentioned) in no way relates to the wizard having the most potential to break the game.
And wizards having the greatest ability to break the campaign itself is the main reason I considered them "OP." You can break the math easily whether with a pouncing barbarian, smiting archer paladin, or maxed DC wizard, all of which will trivialize combat. High level casters are the only ones with consistent means of breaking the campaign itself as magic allows for abilities that bigger numbers can never replicate.
not quite permanent... 8^)
Basically you cannot outright kill a creature without a failed save OR succeeding in a ranged touch. Forcing permanent strong emotional ties like love is also difficult.On the first two, you're not looking at spell effects, but requirements. Yes, wizards will need to meet the requirements of spells in order to cast them and/or have them have effect.
As to the third: Kiss of Unrequited Love
Memory of Love
Magic is still being used to evoke the feeling though.
I mean, there's not spell that exactly duplicates my real life apartment down to the things I have in my desk drawer. But there are spells that create homes out of thin air.
Really, Charm Monster already meets the requirements of "strong emotional ties" and with a duration of days, might as well be permanent, since you can always have a new casting prepared, assuming you aren't a 0-level caster. Once they've failed once, they'll fail forever (unless you trigger another save). As for whether or not it is "love" really depends on how you want to define "love". It doesn't force a target to feel romantically towards you, but if you are of the targets desired gender and they were normally inclined to amorous activity, that really would be within the purview of "normal actions".
So, the spell doesn't have "permanent" or "love" in the description, but it can certainly meet those criteria in practice.
If manyshot boosted the character above the rest you are either reading it very wrong or are playing very unoptimized characters. There isn't anything wrong with that but a ranger who takes the standard archery feats and uses one of their most useful spells (as Instant Enemy was mentioned) in no way relates to the wizard having the most potential to break the game.
eh
So lets say its level 6 and an optimized ranger. Thats functionally 4 attacks when full attacking with manyshot+rapid. Its really not hard for a ranged character to murder the crap out of things before melee can get there if they're throwing that many attacks.
This may be an issue of the forum overvaluing narrative power and undervaluing more than level appropriate damage. If he's for example one rounding an AP's BBEG because of his favored enemy bonus + composite magic bow + deadly aim + 4 shots that's still an issue, even if the party wizard can make his own demiplane in 12 levels.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If manyshot boosted the character above the rest you are either reading it very wrong or are playing very unoptimized characters. There isn't anything wrong with that but a ranger who takes the standard archery feats and uses one of their most useful spells (as Instant Enemy was mentioned) in no way relates to the wizard having the most potential to break the game.
eh
So lets say its level 6 and an optimized ranger. Thats functionally 4 attacks when full attacking with manyshot+rapid. Its really not hard for a ranged character to murder the crap out of things before melee can get there if they're throwing that many attacks.
This may be an issue of the forum overvaluing narrative power and undervaluing more than level appropriate damage. If he's for example one rounding an AP's BBEG because of his favored enemy bonus + composite magic bow + deadly aim + 4 shots that's still an issue, even if the party wizard can make his own demiplane in 12 levels.
My point is a wizard with the same level of optimization as that ranger will be just as effective at eliminating enemies but will also be able to redefine the narrative, even at the same level 6.
Just looking at 3rd level spells (there are still plenty of good non combat spells lower than this) some of the highlights (by no means the extent) of what a level 6 wizard can do: rapidly appear as many different individuals, completely mimic a dead person, travel through solid rock, contact eldritch creatures, keep someone from being resurrected or know if they are, create totally obedient miniature dragons, reliably and quickly fly quicker than most walk, turn into mist, turn a group invisible, puppet another creature (great with low morals and good bluff), pierce any magical disguise, force someone to constantly follow another, force someone away from another, make someone do something so long as it sounds reasonable, safe camping wherever and doubles as a one-way mirror in combat, solve all language problems, and allow a group to breathe underwater.
These give the wizard many more ways of approaching problems than a non-caster has and the non-combat abilities of other non-magic classes don't even come close to what these spells allow,especially at only level 5/6.
But no matter how many arrows the ranger buys he is never making the entire party invisible.
That is the thing.
I consider wizards and other 9 level caster to be "OP".
By this I mean they are capable of so much more than any of the other classes.
Yes I accept that a wizard might not have the perfect spells to deal with the challenges a specific day throws at them. However, a wizard of high enough level can literally wake up one day and decide to travel to another plane, or destroy a city, or remake the landscape, or become king, or basically anything else they can think of.
To counter the argument of "But the fighter can do a bunch of this stuff too by talking to the king, or embarking on a years long political campaign, or getting in a cart and travelling there." Those are all options still available to the wizard, he just has a bunch of stuff that the fighter can never do. The wizard can do all of that by midday tomorrow, the fighter/rogue/whatever will take years or months.
Let us compare some options that a wizard get's at level 17 to the Fighter's capstone.
The wizard can now do some of the following: create his own plane (Create Demiplane, Greater), visit another plane with Gate, create a tsunami, teleport to another planet, dominate any creature, destroy a 1 mile radius of crops, create an area where zombies just happen, and more.
The fighter, what is his capstone? Better crits.
Okay, what about the wizards actual capstone? He can choose to become actually immortal.
This comparison of capstones shows the difference in the type of power.
A fighter can always be incredibly good at doing damage, but a wizard will always be much much better at changing the world.
The wizard can choose to never die by aging, while the fighter gets to hit things better.
If I have to explain why never dying is more powerful, in a narrative sense, than hitting harder...
[edit] A fighter might make it necesarry to change combats to keep the game fun. A wizard can make you have to change the entire game world
{. . .}
B) Full access to the entire spell list. Its a big list and a high level wizard can solve any problem
{. . .}
That's assuming that you manage to get access to a library or at least Scroll store that has everything you want. Back in AD&D 1st Edition, Magic-User/Illusionist spells were supposed to be HARD to get (of course 1st Edition Magic-Users also had a limited number of spells known unless they were super-intelligent, as well as a significant chance to fail to learn any particular spell even after they managed to get their hands on it); in fairness, a lot of people ignored all this, which probably played a major role in the evolution of the way things are in D&D 3.x/PF.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
in terms of being good in combat ranger is 3rd worst with core only classes and 5th or 6th worst once you add in base classes and hybrid classes pretty much every class in game decently built will out shine a decently built ranger in combat assuming no horribly crippling archetypes, outside of combat tho a ranger is pretty much the best when it comes to tracking without needing magic, navigating terrain(without just strait up removing terrain) and survival
This is simply not true.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
what is that"normal" stats? because the officially recognized and used way of stats is 20PB.
Higher stats allows that 20 stat in INT to occur. To do with normal stats it just doesn't happen. You'll see 16 INT wizard instead. That 2 points actually makes a huge difference. Then you have wealth. Give wizard too much wealth and they get access to more spells much faster to add to the spell book, more perfect combos sooner. Then on top of that scribe scrolls so they always have the perfect spell ready. Keeping with normal wealth by level ranges this is more controlled.
Er, the default PB assumed in APs is 15. 20 is the standard for PFS. Neither one is more "official" than the other. IMO, 15 works fine when the players coordinate as a group to make a good interlocking team. PFS 20 allows some wiggle rooms to let less efficient groups be successful, groups who may be missing one or more party roles.
For those who don't know, Lady-J plays in games where ability scores are quite inflated compared to many other groups. I've seen comments where she indicates that ~14 is a "dump stat" and feels characters with (any) stats of 12 are unplayably weak. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that - if her group has fun they're doing it right. But it does inform context for how I read her posts.