Addressing the "Is it as broken as the wizard Fallacy"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Not that I'm otherwise arguing with OP's specific point, but certainly speaking in general:

Am I the only person who's seriously bothered by people using the template "The _______ Fallacy" to try to make their almost-entirely (or even wholly-so) subjective, d20 RPG-specific claims sound like cosmic rational truisms (as in, "AH-HA! I caught you violating the Stormwind/Obleroni/Rogue-rogue/whatever Fallacy, thereby proving that you are an idiot to disagree with me! BWA-HA-HA, kneel before my OBJECTIVELY superior intellect, worm, or I shall smite thee with my mighty 5th-grade pre-algebra!!!")?

- Shorthands are useful for things that need to be constantly repeated.

- You, who have posted in this forum that you believe yourself mentally superior to most other people (who suffer from "mind parasites") have no business complaining about others acting intellectually superior. Which I don't think I was, which makes your post look a lot like projection.

- Rule Zero/Oberoni and Stormwind aren't even system-specific. Come on now.

To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Not that I'm otherwise arguing with OP's specific point, but certainly speaking in general:

Am I the only person who's seriously bothered by people using the template "The _______ Fallacy" to try to make their almost-entirely (or even wholly-so) subjective, d20 RPG-specific claims sound like cosmic rational truisms (as in, "AH-HA! I caught you violating the Stormwind/Obleroni/Rogue-rogue/whatever Fallacy, thereby proving that you are an idiot to disagree with me! BWA-HA-HA, kneel before my OBJECTIVELY superior intellect, worm, or I shall smite thee with my mighty 5th-grade pre-algebra!!!")?

The Oberoni and Stormwind fallacies are both very useful ideas.

The quote in question, however, was very much not an Oberoni fallacy.

The Oberoni fallacy is, as originally stated, "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

The assertion being made in the quote was, paraphrasing, "The problem observed is a product of GMing style," with no invocation of Rule 0. Which is not Oberoni fallacy.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Sure there are ways to limit spellcasters. Just taking a long hard look at effects and durations could do wonders without resorting to spheres of power for example. Yet the problem is still there, magic is not internally ballanced in D&D and handling its misuse is left entirely to the DM with the risk of players starting to feel treated "unfairly" because the toys the rulebooks give them are not working as they expect due to GM meddling, which can cause its own set of problems in play.

In core, yes. I'm saying magic doesn't have to be balanced by making it less fun by putting those restrictions on it. There's systems that allow magic to both work in the framework of both worldbuilding and mechanics without attaching some form of punishment to it. Making a mechanic less enjoyable to use is rarely a good way to balance it, which is why I bring up SoP since it allows for all day stuff (there's a lot of things you can do without spending spell points) like the old Reserve Feats from late 3.5, helping to expand resources in a small and more balanced way.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
N. Jolly wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Sure there are ways to limit spellcasters. Just taking a long hard look at effects and durations could do wonders without resorting to spheres of power for example. Yet the problem is still there, magic is not internally ballanced in D&D and handling its misuse is left entirely to the DM with the risk of players starting to feel treated "unfairly" because the toys the rulebooks give them are not working as they expect due to GM meddling, which can cause its own set of problems in play.
In core, yes. I'm saying magic doesn't have to be balanced by making it less fun by putting those restrictions on it. There's systems that allow magic to both work in the framework of both worldbuilding and mechanics without attaching some form of punishment to it. Making a mechanic less enjoyable to use is rarely a good way to balance it, which is why I bring up SoP since it allows for all day stuff (there's a lot of things you can do without spending spell points) like the old Reserve Feats from late 3.5, helping to expand resources in a small and more balanced way.

I don't know if you ever played Mage. Having an internal system of rules dealing with magic does not mean "making it less fun", it's actually a way to deepen the playing experience. Backlashes and Paradoxes can be mitigated as long as you are smart about what you are doing. A mage casualling summoning magic to cause nuclear meltdown in New York, surrounded by witnesses is going to get all kind of retribution. The same mage using the same magic against rivals in the middle of the Nevada desert is still causing Paradox, but not on the same scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Ryan Freire wrote:


To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one

The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
"Ryan Freire wrote:


To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.

More referring to this threads title.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
"Ryan Freire wrote:


To be fair, calling it a fallacy doesn't make it one
The Stormwind fallacy definitely is, since the name just shorthand for a particular type of false dichotomy.
More referring to this threads title.

Ah. Never mind, then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Very few campaigns go past this point, hell In fact i can't think of a single Pathfinder Adventure path that goes past 15 with the exception of kingmaker at 17.

For the final book of each AP:

Rise of the Runelords: Starts at lvl 14, goes to 16-17 by the end.
Curse of the Crimson Throne: Starts at lvl 15, goes to 16-17.
Second Darkness: ditto
Legacy of Fire: ditto
Council of Thieves: Starts at lvl 11 (not sure where it ends).
Kingmaker: Starts at lvl 15, can go to 17-18.
Serpent's Skull: Starts at lvl 15, not sure where it ends.
Carrion Crown: Starts at lvl 13, ends around 16.
Jade Regent: ditto
Skull and Shackles: ditto
Shattered Star: Starts at 15, goes to at around 17.
Reign of Winter: ditto
Wrath of the Righteous: Starts at 18, goes to 20, I believe.
Mummy's Mask: Starts at 15, goes to around 17.
Iron Gods: ditto
Giantslayer: ditto
Hell's Rebels: ditto
Hell's Vengeance: ditto
Strange Aeons: ditto.

The significant majority (15 out of 19) published AP's so far take the characters above level 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So for the OP, I've never seen anyone say that "It's not as strong as a Wizard so it sucks". They might have, I just haven't seen it. What I see far more frequently was "It's not as strong as the Wizard so it's not overpowered/it's fine to allow it/you should buff it" and variations thereof. And it's not level 15. It's not even level 9. A level 1 Wizard gets all kinds of options. Weaken 'em, trip 'em, daze 'em, blast 'em with acid/fire/cold/electricity, the list goes on. Whereas the fighter gets the choice of shoot them or stab them. Options the Wizards get too, of course. And as you get to higher levels... well, at least the Fighter actually gets stuff now (thank you WMH and AMH)! Remember when it was just higher level trainings and more feats? Those were dark days. But the Wizard always gets more. New spells every level, new slots to use them, way more power in the spell themselves. Personally I love Path of War and think we need more of it.

Disruptive builds are never exclusively about power. If a character is being disruptive then the issue is almost always somewhere else (power just lets them get away with more). I can break a game with a Bard with Glibness. "The lie is impossible" just counters the bonus from Glibness, that's when you let your ranks and Charisma work their magic. "No, no, I'm the king. You're just a body double we put on the throne."

Then a minor nitpick, there's no point to the Fighter taking Master Craftsman and both Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item. I cannot think of a wondrous item that uses Craft (bows), (armor), or (weapons) and those are what you need for Craft Magic Arms and Armor. Thankfully there's an AAT for armor (that I think doesn't count as having the feats, so you can take Master Craftsman twice). If you're going to say that "Wizards are not unbalanced" you need to include "as long as I houserule to make martials better" if that's what you're doing. It also sorta brings into question the truth of your first statement.

And then the anime thing. Let me find my old posts. Roland made a mountain pass with just his sword. Cu Chulainn threw his spear and rode it. Hercules diverted a river by bending it. You can make an argument for divine powers being involved for those but they are certainly an existing lore of powerful martials. But then we come to my favorite for these. Pecos Bill ate dynamite, used a rattlesnake as a whip, lassoed a tornado, and shot all the stars from the sky except one. No divine power or even magic involved. Just a man really good with his lasso and gun. Every legend and tall tale of the West is basically like that (maybe some Native American magic in some). Though many are also retellings of earlier stories with the supernatural removed. "Seven with one bullet" is "seven with one blow" is the Odyssey. Weirdly making that one nonmagical to magical to nonmagical. None of those were created after anime though. Some predate it by centuries, possibly millennia. So no, people don't want "anime". They want "epic", "mythic", or "legendary" (the language version, not their very specific meaning in pathfinder).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll never take anyone seriously who says a martial idea is too anime when clerics can choose to derive their magic from the ideal of friendship.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
The assertion being made in the quote was, paraphrasing, "The problem observed is a product of GMing style," with no invocation of Rule 0. Which is not Oberoni fallacy.

Fair enough. I jumped to it out of impatience, but it's a closely analogous argument: You can't claim "Wizards are fine if the GM reins them in" without the tacit admission that "Wizards need the GM to rein them in".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im pretty sure the kineticist powers list was written by watching Fairy Tail and One Piece then going "oh man, that was rad as hell"


Since when games end at 7th level?


Grandlounge wrote:
A wizard at 6th level has 14 spells. Two per fight should be sufficient to swing fights, so you're looking at 7 combats per day.

In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.

Liberty's Edge

That might be true if you look at every spell a wizard can cast and assume they're all taken with the same frequency. In my experience though, wizard players tend to select spells that remain useful for most of the their careers. Or change out spells once they're no longer useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:

In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.

I disagree.

One of the keys to a caster's power is choosing spells that age well.

A hill giant is a CR 7 monster. It has a fortitude save of +11, and a reflex save of +2. I may have 4th-level spells, but that 1st-level Grease spell is still going to put it on its ass and have a major impact on the outcome of the fight.

Targeting weak saves, choosing spells that don't allow saves, defensive buffs, utility spells, mobility effects. All of these are very useful things to do with low-level spell slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

In a world where everyone has access to a dozen magic items, and you can fall two hundred feet onto pointy rocks and still punch out an elephant, it's basically anime.

(Whether the anime martial who can cut through walls and defeat dozens of foes in a few seconds can keep up with a flying teleporting mind-controlling angel-summoning wizard is another question...)

Western fantasy is deeply rooted in mythology.

Like, say, The Tain. Where Cuchulain goes friggin' super Saiyan and does all manner of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense.

Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying, when that's just a small sub-set of anime and someone like Balsa (from Moribito) should be perfectly reasonable to use in a game where power levels don't go so high. And as you say, there are plenty of 'Western' characters who do things that are well beyond what the PF rules allow, long before they'd heard of anime and knew they shouldn't. Beowulf spending several hours underwater is another.

It's also worth noting that finding characters who compare to the capabilities of the Wizards usually requires heading for superhero comics or high-powered anime, with the sources that are accepted as valid for warriors also having significantly weaker spellcasters.


Potato disciple wrote:

Ok. Let's start of with the fact that although at 17th level a wizard is reality-warping powerful, at level 9, which is right around where most characters start coming together, a wizard is already capable of trivializing entire encounters with spells like dimension door. Seeing as a wizard has access to both divination spells and teleportation spells as well as insane knowledge skills, "scry and fry" becomes an ever growing threat. For reference, scrying is a 4th level spell and teleport is a 5th, at level 11 a wizard can:

A) use the appropriate knowledge skill to learn of an enemy's weakness(es)
B) prepare the right spells to exploit said weakness
C) scry
D) fry
E) ???
F) profit.

PD out.

Your E) btw is called Loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...

Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

I like "awesome fighters" myself. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people should just play wizards and give up the class envy shtick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People have identified and studied this fault line for so many years for now.

But people get all awkward and skittish when someone asks "Ok, so, which side of the fault is the greener field? Which side is the correct side?" Sure, people homebrew, they turn to 3pp. Path of War is basically not Pathfinder. Bob's "low magic" setting where he just takes the axe to all magical in the ruleset is not Pathfinder either. But both are just looking for their own "perfect" Pathfinder experience at heart. The fault line is real, but it harms nobody because tables are individuals and how you homebrew does not impact my table.

Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.

Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.

Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!

Etc etc.

Really irks me.

YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.

Silver Crusade

Claxon wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.

Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.

Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!

Etc etc.

Really irks me.

YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.

You could also start playing more tactically and have most of the enemies try to make a beline for the wizard.

A lot of this also has to do with Gm's just kinda letting the wizard just sit back and do whatever they damn well please.

Where as the smart thing to do would be to treat the wizard, like you would treat a support in league of legends, Blaze past everyone else, outnumber him and kill him before he even gets a chance to breath. At least when it comes to intelligent enemies.

Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...

Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

If by some twist of fate I end up DMing a game with you in it, remind me to have you get ambushed by anti mage assassins every encounter.


Envall wrote:
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.

By making everyone spontaneous casters they removed tier 1 from the game.

But that doesn't mean technomancers and mystics are not the strongest classes.

Summon monster, animate dead, planar binding, ect.

Casters will also be stronger when "making more martials" is class feature.


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Honestly what bugs me more about the whole "well its not as OP as the wizard" thing is how a decent chunk of people use it as an excuse to dismiss other disruptive builds.

Oh, the local AM BARBARIAN is trivializing all your encounters behind impervious saves and massive damage? Pfh, it's only hp damage, at least he's not crank calling the gods for macguffin advice.

Sorceror vaporizing everything with orc/draconic bloodlines with blood havoc? Hey, at least it isn't a God Wizard build with a snow come wish factory!

Etc etc.

Really irks me.

YES! This is something that bothers me excessively. I see far too many people try to justify something that is disruptive for other players to deal with or for the GM to have build encounters especially around by saying well the wizard can do "X" at this level. I know. The wizard is broke AF, but we don't make the game better by adding other broken things to it. We have to address the wizard class (and other tier 1 classes) and bring them down in power. This is usually accomplished by addressing problematic spells/metamagic (like dazing) and not allowing for its use in the campaign.

You could also start playing more tactically and have most of the enemies try to make a beline for the wizard.

A lot of this also has to do with Gm's just kinda letting the wizard just sit back and do whatever they damn well please.

Where as the smart thing to do would be to treat the wizard, like you would treat a support in league of legends, Blaze past everyone else, outnumber him and kill him before he even gets a chance to breath. At least when it comes to intelligent enemies.

You're not wrong. It's a very valid tactic to use against wizards anywhere, engage them first because they're potentially the most dangerous thing around.

But it also gets pretty old for the player if they're constantly swarmed and don't get to do anything except for try to avoid enemies to stay alive.

It's a balancing act between in game driving forces (like intelligent enemies should always try to kill wizards [at higher levels] before killing anyone else because they represent the biggest threat) and metagame driving forces (like the player of the wizard character doesn't have fun when every combat he gets swarmed and knocked out before he can cast a spell).

That's why personally I try to curate what spells I allow 9th level spell casters to access and also ask them on a personal level not to do anything to break the game or overly outshine others. Same of my friends that I play with, I just straight up ask them not to play 9th level spell casters because they're not really capable of holding back.

Personally....I like Starfinder's solution best of all. Remove 9th level progression spell casters and several of the more offending spells in terms of damaging the GMs control of the campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Wuxia.

Interesting how three of those things are available to a Wizard at 5th level, isn't it? Over-the-Top abilities, I wonder.

Sovereign Court

Elegos wrote:
Im pretty sure the kineticist powers list was written by watching Fairy Tail and One Piece then going "oh man, that was rad as hell"

The fact that you choose those two instead of referencing, say... Avatar: The Last Airbender, makes me twitch.

It's not even that old, and people have forgotten it already?


MR. H wrote:
Envall wrote:
Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.

By making everyone spontaneous casters they removed tier 1 from the game.

But that doesn't mean technomancers and mystics are not the strongest classes.

Summon monster, animate dead, planar binding, ect.

Casters will also be stronger when "making more martials" is class feature.

Cutting away 95% of the level 7-9 spells helped a good bit, and many of the spells that are still in have been toned down significantly

Summon Monster and Animate Dead are great examples of the latter. :)

Also since all casters follow bard spells known progression many "problem spells" that are still in come online much later than they do in Pathfinder. Easy access to technology also solves a lot of the "fighter can't fly" problems. Fly spells are nice, but so are jetpacks and you can probably afford a jetpack before the Technomancer learns Flight 3. Teleporting 2000 miles at level 13 is handy, but I can fly there in ~an hour using my starship. Finally, there's a much stronger emphasis on skills in SF, and casters have no particular advantage there.

The system hasn't been out that long and I haven't gotten around to playing the high levels yet, but so far I see Starfinder's casters being solidly grounded in the Tier-3 region. They're absolutely useful and a clever player can use them to great effect, but they're nowhere near the kind of abuse a PF wizard can pull off (thank God).


this thread is a mess...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kageshira wrote:
Since when games end at 7th level?

In PbP? A hell of a lot more often than I'd like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

This is something that always bothered me, I see people talk about whether characters are strong or not, and every now and again someone brings up how it isn't as strong or campaign breaking as a wizard to point out why something sucks.

I've never seen this sense with any real prevalence.

Sure, there's the occasional person who's acting weird and cagey who might say something like that, but the majority of times where I see someone pointing out the strength and abilities of a Wizard in comparison to something is when people are over-reacting to someone having nice, useful abilities, having forgotten or never known exactly what Wizards and other fullcasters are capable of within the system.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:
Grandlounge wrote:
A wizard at 6th level has 14 spells. Two per fight should be sufficient to swing fights, so you're looking at 7 combats per day.

In general, only the highest level or two of a wizard's spells are going to be significant in a fight.

I did 5th level because the top three levels are easily viable against weakest save which are easily identifiable for a wizard. There can be huge gulfs becuase best and worse save. You can run the numbers for an optimized caster and a spell 3rd from the highest against a weak save is almost always better than top spell against a good save. A relatively high level of success.

The other reason I include 3 levels and not 2 is because bouncing and persistent exist. And the rods are really affordable. Your 3rd level persistent slow is harder to resist than a 6th level spell. The same goes for persistent or single target bouncing. Similarly, Focused will give a good boost at a fair cost. Your -3 level school focused spells will have the same dcs as off school spells with spell focus and greater spell focus.

Finally not all spells have saves. Wall spells, battering blast (kind of has a save), black tentacles, haste. I did not say a spells needed to have a save or to be worth casting.

I have seen greater dispel debuff like crazy and tip a fight by its self. And, it's not even a great spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

I'd give a first level fighter substantially better odds than a first level wizard against a rat swarm. A 20th level fighter would have no problems, nor would a level 20 wizard.

Also, many GMs would rule that an energy weapon (Flaming, Flaming Burst, etc.) are effective even against swarms made up of Fine and Diminutive creatures, eliminating that problem at higher levels. Similarly, many GMs would rule that torches or lanterns can deal 1 pt of damage against swarms (as was the case explicitly in 3.5 iirc).

Then again, there's no evidence that Hercules could deal splash or AoE non-weapaon damage so ... maybe he was also helpless against swarms in PF.

Liberty's Edge

Envall wrote:

People have identified and studied this fault line for so many years for now.

But people get all awkward and skittish when someone asks "Ok, so, which side of the fault is the greener field? Which side is the correct side?" Sure, people homebrew, they turn to 3pp. Path of War is basically not Pathfinder. Bob's "low magic" setting where he just takes the axe to all magical in the ruleset is not Pathfinder either. But both are just looking for their own "perfect" Pathfinder experience at heart. The fault line is real, but it harms nobody because tables are individuals and how you homebrew does not impact my table.

Starfinder is much more consistent. I don't see a fault line in that, the classes and the mechanics are much more tightly focused.

Have to agree in my campaigns I generally have Channel Energy Affect everyone as it's suppose to effect them, not just do you heal with it or harm with it.

Channel Positive both heals and Harms undead at the same time in my campaign worlds and visa versa for Channel Negative Energy. It just made more sense to me, and after I explained that to me, it's like energies. Flood an area with fire, things take damage, except those immune or whom get healed by fire. So why not the same with channel energy?

Most agree it made sense, and it made Diviner's with channel pretty dangerous on both sides of the fence, and for the evil one's sometimes more dangerous than wizards.


Cheburn wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

I'd give a first level fighter substantially better odds than a first level wizard against a rat swarm. A 20th level fighter would have no problems, nor would a level 20 wizard.

Also, many GMs would rule that an energy weapon (Flaming, Flaming Burst, etc.) are effective even against swarms made up of Fine and Diminutive creatures, eliminating that problem at higher levels. Similarly, many GMs would rule that torches or lanterns can deal 1 pt of damage against swarms (as was the case explicitly in 3.5 iirc).

Then again, there's no evidence that Hercules could deal splash or AoE non-weapaon damage so ... maybe he was also helpless against swarms in PF.

Looking at the rat swarm's entry again, it is in fact somewhat capable of being attacked with weapons, so a fighter can indeed actually fight back against a group of g!#*&~n rats. That's good, at least.

You can't take for granted that energy weapons are gonna save you, though, because just as many GMs will insist it doesn't count because it's still weapon damage. These GMs presumably want even max-level martials to dread an ordinary swarm of bees more than dragons and lords of hell, but I digress. The swarm subtype is stupid and whoever designed it needs to play a martial vs a swarm-happy GM sometime. It's not fun.

Hercules probably just would have ripped out a section of one of the walls and squashed 'em flat, though.

That said, I got way off topic. The original point was the progression is killing rat to killing dragon.

I just kinda wish in the same way a mage was killing a rat with magic missile at 1st level and sending a dragon directly to hell or turning it to sone or this or that or the other thing at level 20, the fighter's tactic for killing the dragon was not the exact same thing he used to kill rats; get in attack range and full attack until it dies. I am still doing the same thing I started my career doing, with a bigger shinier sword against a bigger shinier rat.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

Rats are tiny, so the swarm would take half damage from piercing and slashing weapons and full damage from bludgeoning attacks.

As for tiny and diminutive swarms, there are solutions such as the ones you mentioned. Swarms are rare (at least in the games I play in), but something that should be planned for.

Back to topic, the point is that just because a fighter swings a stick at level one and still swings a stick at level 20 doesn't mean that there isn't progression.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

I'd give a first level fighter substantially better odds than a first level wizard against a rat swarm. A 20th level fighter would have no problems, nor would a level 20 wizard.

Also, many GMs would rule that an energy weapon (Flaming, Flaming Burst, etc.) are effective even against swarms made up of Fine and Diminutive creatures, eliminating that problem at higher levels. Similarly, many GMs would rule that torches or lanterns can deal 1 pt of damage against swarms (as was the case explicitly in 3.5 iirc).

Then again, there's no evidence that Hercules could deal splash or AoE non-weapaon damage so ... maybe he was also helpless against swarms in PF.

I just kinda wish in the same way a mage was killing a rat with magic missile at 1st level and sending a dragon directly to hell or turning it to sone or this or that or the other thing at level 20, the fighter's tactic for killing the dragon was not the exact same thing he used to kill rats; get in attack range and full attack until it dies. I am still doing the same thing I started my career doing, with a bigger shinier sword against a bigger shinier rat.

I think that wizards get built in flavor progression in more ways than martials. It helps to imagine a 1st level fighter with one unsteady swing and the 20th level fighter expertly slashing and slicing multiple times per round.

Crit builds and feat chains can help your character come alive as well, adding nasty effects on your attacks and giving a better sense of improvement.


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:


Now from what I can understand, Wizards and pretty much Most 1st tier characters, Wizards, clerics, Druids what have you are capable of breaking campaigns in 2, but this generally only happens after you reach around level 15-16.

This right here is wrong. 4th level spells obtained at level 7 or 8 are about when casters start pulling far ahead of the pack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallant Armor wrote:
I think that wizards get built in flavor progression in more ways than martials. It helps to imagine a 1st level fighter with one unsteady swing and the 20th level fighter expertly slashing and slicing multiple times per round.

I get what you're saying here and I don't entirely disagree. I just feel it's kinda lame that for martial arts you're often not feeling like you're learning new techniques and stuff (third party martial options often get around this, as do tactical feats, but Paizo is resolutely refusing to make tactical feats for reasons that elude me), just needing to roleplay your numbers getting bigger while the spell list is tripping over itself in its haste to ladle out flashy new powers for magic-users. The rules just seem very unfriendly to the things I've noticed my sword-swinging players want to do at higher levels, like swinging around on chandeliers or hamstringing giants or bursting through walls; you can sorta manage some of it but it's certainly requiring a lot more work and permissiveness on my part as the GM than the magic-user just, well, casting a spell that does what it says it does.

Quote:
Crit builds and feat chains can help your character come alive as well, adding nasty effects on your attacks and giving a better sense of improvement.

...To a point. I've never really liked crit builds because I feel like that's an entirely luck-based character by the end. You've got the numbers to try and coax Luck to be a lady tonight, but you can't plan around critical hits, and that's usually where the stuff is at for martials because the things you can plan around are feats like stunning assault, which is pretty powerful but arrives at the same time spells are letting you open portals into heaven and nonsense of that sort.

I'd appreciate more feats that scaled and gave you more of a sense of pizzazz at the end of your career. Stunning enemies is well and good, but what about feats for a flying leap, or running on/up walls, or things like the Whirling Dervish's Whirlwind Dance to rush through a crowd of enemies, striking an entire mob at once? None of those are particularly out-there powers for high-level martials to use at will but it sorta seems like far too many feats focus on numerical bonuses or making your crits add a condition rather than the feeling of truly expanding your powers like going up on the spell list does.

The Barbarian's rage powers get him to a good place at the end of it, I feel. At first level he's getting mad and breaking some heads. At 20th level he can get mad, break any head he wants, break the castle walls, break the wizard's spell, and be so angry he flies through the air to break the laws of gravity. I'd just like other full BAB classes to get powers that are similarly flashy at the end of the day. The fighter's journey culminating in a nice critical hit feels very anticlimactic by comparison.


Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Using "anime characters" as a shorthand for ridiculous over-the-top power-levels is quite annoying...
Do you have a preferred short-hand for "fighters who can fly, turn invisible, teleport and have swords that can cast AOEs"?

Epic heroes? Wuxia protagonists?

I'm just sayin', I feel like a high level fighter is Gilgamesh or Hercules, not a regular guy with a sword and armor. A level 1 fighter is a regular guy with a sword and armor who hits very hard, where's the sense of PROGRESSION?

A first level fighter can kill a rat each turn, a level 20 fighter can kill a dragon each turn. That's the PROGRESSION.

Well, actually, no, the first level fighter runs away or dies screaming against a swarm of rats.

As does the 20th level fighter who didn't bring a swarmbane clasp or alchemist's fire, interestingly enough.

A swarm of rats can actually be fought with melee weapons. If the fighter focuses on bludgeoning weapons they even deal full damage.

A swarm of spiders, on the other hand, is immune to weapon attacks.


Omnius wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

In a world where everyone has access to a dozen magic items, and you can fall two hundred feet onto pointy rocks and still punch out an elephant, it's basically anime.

(Whether the anime martial who can cut through walls and defeat dozens of foes in a few seconds can keep up with a flying teleporting mind-controlling angel-summoning wizard is another question...)

Western fantasy is deeply rooted in mythology.

Like, say, The Tain. Where Cuchulain goes friggin' super Saiyan and does all manner of ridiculous over-the-top nonsense.

Unfortunately, Cuchulain was killed by his obligations before he reached his final form.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
avr wrote:
Even at the lowest levels, sleep or color spray can 'obviate entire encounters'. A wizard's problem solving abilities aren't as well developed as they will be later but keeping a vanish on hand and a few odd spells in your spellbook will make sure they top the spontaneous casters at those levels. Their weakness at those levels is being unable to really get over their vulnerability to attack.

Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time? Sure, at first level a wizard can put to sleep 3 or 4 goblins for the first two fights, but what about the other six? Do GMs really let their players get away with a 15 minute work day? I always have a time limit of some kind, or have the monsters do something each time the players sleep. Seriously, do most GMs just have their monsters standing around, timidly, awaking destruction? Most full casters lose a lot of fire if you don't let them sleep after every two encounters.

Seems like people are always complaining about spells that are already fixed in some way, it's just the GM always forgets to enforce the rules.
Dominate Person: Has a 1 full round casting time and forcing a creature to violate their alignment grants a 2nd save at +2.
Scrying: A creature can notice the sensor by making a Perception check with a DC 20 + the spell level. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked. (from pathfinder SRD)
Dimension Door:After using this spell, you can’t take any other actions until your next turn. You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent per three caster levels.

Dimension Door can get you past an entire encounter (no EXP or loots), but what about when you have to go back? Or if the creatures hear you later and attack from behind? You can take 3 friends @ level 9, or level 12, if someone has a familiar, or level 15 if someone also has an animal companion.

And last, but not least, is the GM's nuclear deterrence. Simply put, I don't use dirty tricks that players don't use (unless an adventure path says to use one, but that's rare). But as soon as they do...... Most players stop trying to scry and fry once they have been the subject of scry and fry (or other various dirty tricks).

Seems like the real problem is weak GMs that just let casters do whatever they want to and never bother to check the rule book.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:


Am I (and the GMs I regularly play with) the only pathfinder players that don't give their players infinite time?

There are lots and lots of ways for a caster to compensate for long adventuring days. It just causes different builds to shine.

Witches and Shamans have it built in. Cleric/Druids (and even wizards) built to take advantage of long term buffs are almost a match for martials even when they don't cast other spells and still have the spells for emergencies. And scrolls and wands too, of course.

Plus, of course, the martials rely on the casters for their healing, their buffs, etc. The long day works against EVERYBODY.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One only needs 15 minutes if they are able to accomplish a days worth of goals in that time.

51 to 100 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Addressing the "Is it as broken as the wizard Fallacy" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.