So which is the harder fight for a lv10 party? A lv14 NPC geared fighter or a lv14 NPC geared wizard? Both are a CR 13 fight so a CR+3 fight for this lv10 party. Is the fighter equally hard to deal with and the two are equally valid and powerful CR 13 enemies. Or is the wizard a much harder and difficult fight because of the magic he can throw around and the fighter easier since his gear is bad for his level and cause he can't really deal with all situations of flying, invisible enemies, being outmatched in actions, and whatnot that the party can throw at him?
I don't think it's totally unreasonable to observe that by design, different parties will have more or less trouble with different enemies of the same CR. A group with no sources of slashing damage is going to hate fighting oozes, a group that specializes in non-piercing damage is going to hate underwater, a caster who specializes in targeting one save will delight against enemies with a low value for that and be annoyed when they have a high value for that.
Since the GM usually does not play the antagonists to the extent of their abilities (since the GM is not actually trying to "win" these fights), I've seen multiple instances where a CR+3 fight against a single evil spellcaster goes badly when the evil wizard rolls poorly on initiative and/or a save and gets pincushioned before they get a turn. The fighter at least is probably going to have a high AC and some DR so they won't die in a hail of arrows.
Sort of by the nature of the game wizards are supposed to be squishy and need to prepare in advance to survive. If you've got a group that's *very focused* on maintaining secrecy and is sneaky and deals considerable burst damage, a wizard can be a much easier fight.
I personally didn't experience this issue, but I know it's there.
Mostly because my party members are bad at making characters, and I usually end up with Oracles that only heal, maxing CHA and nothing else or Ninja with max DEX and CHA and zero STR, or Slayers going 2WF caring more about having high AC than actual damage.
But I believe Sleep is just a 1 shot spell. A normal Wizard can use it 2 times a day. If that's not enough to overshadow everyone else, what is?
Plus why would a Wizard be easy target? 16 DEX is expected +4 Mage Armor +1 AC from mundame item. Thats 18 AC at level 1, unless they have very good rolls enemies will have a hard time hitting a Wizard.
A lot more than what could be expected from a Rogue or Fighter.
Sure, Mage Armor wont always be up, but if its a dungeon, 1 hour its more than enough.
Also, if youre using sleep, much easier, dont need to be up close, though the 1 round casting time requires protection from your fighters.
Thing is, as you go up in level, using spider climb for climbing 1000 feet is a lot cheaper and less risky than actually investing all your points into climbing and doing it yourself.
The same applies for movement in battle. Some scenarios without Fly are extremely hard to accomplish.
Crossing to another side without a bridge becomes impossible without thousands of miles of rope, when a simple spell can do it.
DC require so much investment and what you get in return doesnt even matter when a Wizard can cast 1 spell out of her 20 to her disposal.
So which is the harder fight for a lv10 party? A lv14 NPC geared fighter or a lv14 NPC geared wizard?
A Fighter is equally strong all day if he can get healing, while the Wizard has the ability to nova a few level 7 spells when it counts. If the PCs are the only battle the Wizard expects to fight that day, he can go all-out.
Party balance and encounter balance aren't really the same thing.
Well, in a situation where you're stuck in a warzone fighting fifteen encounters a day, and you have dozens of wands so the magic healjuice does hold out, it actually is pretty fair. The wizard has to be so cautious with his spells that he's underpowered most of the time.
But this rarely happens in the adventures I've seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The caster vs martial balance depends on many things (as well as the table)
1. The length of the adventuring day. At low levels a wizard can one shot and encounter (sleep/colour spray) But how often can they do it? At high levels you still have limited high level spells. Lower level spells and wand normal do not have a dramatic effect.
2. Do the party know what they will be encountering? Clearly prepared casters benefit from this more than spontaneous ones
3. Do they know when they will encounter them? Linked to number 1
Clearly each table has it’s own balance. We have never really found a problem. Pathfinder has certainly levelled things out. We certainly find no shortage of people playing martials which is the real test.
• Battlefield control is useful, but not easy to pull off in reality, as opposed to the theory, without also hindering your colleagues
• Direct Damage has improved under Pathfinder but requires considerable specialisation to consistently keep up
• Save or suck is where pathfinder has even things since 3.5. The suck is now seldom as bad as it used to be.
My own experience has been limited. While I've played in a bunch of games, most don't see level 10. And of those I've seen 5 busted characters. One doesn't count, I foolishly let him play third party.
The other 4 were;
1) Rules lawyer game breaker Summoner - feat: One shooting a Gaint sand worm with Create Pit, and some water making spell
2) Busted Alchemist - feat: Having the spell's and mutagen to play all roles
3) Optimized to heck Gunslinger - feat: 2-3 shooting most enemies less on good rolls
4) Path of War mounted Fighter - Who mowed down things so effectively all the spell casters did was just ramp him up faster with buffs.
So saw 2 busted Martails and 2 Busted caster(well one and an alchemist). In my own practice of playing casters, I keep running into targets immune to my spell's, the area doesn't support my spell's, or a picked up wand does my job.
Do you have color spray or sleep? No? Then the first 5 levels are going to be you slapping Guidance on people every turn. With fun like that how do people actually stand casters?
But in many people's experience, they are equally valid and powerful options.So which is the harder fight for a lv10 party? A lv14 NPC geared fighter or a lv14 NPC geared wizard? Both are a CR 13 fight so a CR+3 fight for this lv10 party. Is the fighter equally hard to deal with and the two are equally valid and powerful CR 13 enemies. Or is the wizard a much harder and difficult fight because of the magic he can throw around and the fighter easier since his gear is bad for his level and cause he can't really deal with all situations of flying, invisible enemies, being outmatched in actions, and whatnot that the party can throw at him?
It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe most people just look at combat.
Anyone can do damage. Wizards, God Wizards, will just make the encounter trivial using 2 spells top.
There is no way any martial could achieve this, no matter how many free feats you give them.
At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.
Suddenly something hard become trivial for 1 party member, while still being challenging for another.
You can say the Rogue is able to buy Spider climb cloak, but while the rogue is dishing out X gold, Wizard wasted nothing to achieve same result.
It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell.
How is that possible? If the Wizard was level 5, and survived 1 round, the first thing you do is cast Invisibility. Or even the level 1 one.
That gives you plenty of time for buffing, summoning, casting non aggressive spells that wont make you visible.All a Wizard needs is to win Initiative to have the upper hand.
Invisibility isn't invulnerability. Cast a spell while invisible and (depending on GM interpretation) you give your location away with chanting and visible manifestations, allowing them to interrupt your summoning by attacking with a 50% miss chance.
And in this case he never got a spell off. Maybe he was grappled in the first round?
Still have to make a concentration check to cast defensibly right? if something is within reach those AOO could still hurt. I feel like you have a narrow view. Their are limitless possibilities.
It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell.How is that possible? If the Wizard was level 5, and survived 1 round, the first thing you do is cast Invisibility. Or even the level 1 one.
That gives you plenty of time for buffing, summoning, casting non aggressive spells that wont make you visible.All a Wizard needs is to win Initiative to have the upper hand.
Well, for one, the Wizard lost initiative. Hard. And promptly got surrounded by several hard-hitting melee. And for another, it was a pre-written adventure and Invisibility was not among the wizard's spells. Which, honestly, had he not been surrounded it wouldn't even need to be, both enemies in question were Incorporeals (the adventure had a fair bit of ghost-touch-equivalent weapons because all the bosses were Incorporeal) and had he not been surrounded and hit with Stand Still he would have slipped into the wall.
I think it matters on how the table wants to deal with the disparity.
I played a cleric strongly focused on healing/buffing/nerfing with the spells, and a couple crafting feats. If you know how and/or when to share your power everyone can have fun despite the disparity still being there.
There was also a time in a "Epic" and broken as hell 3.5 campaign were the party 'wizard' (full breed munchkin with 10 different classes/PrC) able to do anything (and I really mean it) better than the rest of the party, except healing.
The "kick in the door" style, which seems very common in PFS due to the limited timeslots, has IME led to more martial parity or even dominance. Games with more careful planning and preparation have generally led to more caster dominance. That's been a combination of the style encouraged by the edition, the adventure itself, and the group of players.
Although in one 2E case, rogues (thieves and bards) dominated. Since only they got 1 XP per GP in 2E, one party I occasionally played with planned a major heist and ended up with crazy-high-level rogues.
In B/X, I don't recall any disparity in my actual experience. It took years of play to get to 8th level so that was probably a factor. But the limited spell list was a major benefit to this game. Magic-Users couldn't make themselves invincible (or summon better fighters than the fighter), clerics couldn't become CoDzilla, and in general there was less stepping on toes. Still my favorite edition.
Ah yes, back in the good old days when you think you had 100 coins and suddenly the DM corrects you with a "nope, you only have 90". The rogue having pink hair because he got caught by the wizard. Or, my favourite, when the party wizard identified a girdle of masculinity/feminity and gave it to the rogue with a "here, this will suit you".
Have you ever tried psionics? Those guys had a power to counter every other class (most famous powers were the antimagic field that didn't affect psionic powers and absorb then return back physical damage). Not to mention that they could simply otk you in a single round with their psy blasts and those odd rules. Weak at low levels, "now you see me, now you are dead" at high levels.
I am also a romantic 2nd edition lover here.
Letric said
At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.
This is true but a 5th level wizard has limited 2nd and 3rd level spells. This goes back to my point about prepared casters shining when they know what to expect. Spell casters can make encounters easy, but only so many times in a day.
Also climb is one of the easiest skills to replace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letric said
At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.This is true but a 5th level wizard has limited 2nd and 3rd level spells. This goes back to my point about prepared casters shining when they know what to expect. Spell casters can make encounters easy, but only so many times in a day.
Also climb is one of the easiest skills to replace.
Yes, but WBL comes to help Magic users. Wizards for example don't need weapons. That's a lot of money you're saving for crafted scrolls to cover all the utility you want.
Considering all the defensive capabilities Wizards have, they only need +INT items, they can easily ignore DEX and CON.When a Cleric or a Fighter is dishing out 1500 for FullPlate, a wizard was able to afford learning several spells or having a great supply of Scrolls.
Yes, buying scrolls to learn spells is bad. But most level 3 spells or below will cover a lot of situational cases.
Also, if we're being fair, no one is expecting the Wizard to be able to make the whole party fly.
Also, any decent Wizard will always be carrying some sort of escape item on themselves that is not subject to AoO.
For examply my Wizard has a Wand of Vanish, level 2. Thats only 1500 gold for 2 rounds of Invisibility.
All I'm saying is that most of the times if a Wizard is easily killed is either because
- it was a 1 man encounter, where every class is bad due to action economy
- it was played as a non optimized blaster, just throwing fireballs instead of disabling enemies for easy clean up
Yes, wasting a spell on climbing seems harsh, or flying. But if you consider the outcome of a failure without such spells, youre looking at wasting several charges of a CLW wand to restore HP lost or even worse.
I completely agree that wizards are powerful and versatile, I just think it can be over emphasised. Scribe scroll is indeed very useful (even more for class which know their entire spell list like clerics) for utility.
I was simply pointing out that a wizard can do many thing, but not necessarily everything in the same day, and is best with some foreknowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I was wondering if people would like to share their experiences of when this has become a real issue for a group (not just a theoretical issue), if possible including the rough level it started to happen and the circumstances that caused it? I think it'd be interesting if there was a pattern to causes or a certain 'tipping point' level or whether it's all just circumstantial and all over the place.
I have seen this often to varying degrees.
Often, when we play a longer going game most players start out as martials beause they like to play them but when levels increase and the difference in versatility become more obvious one after the other changes to a casting class.
For example our kingmaker party: When starting we had ranger, rogue, magus and master summoner.
Later the setup was oracle, witch, master summoner, barbarian.
A recent personal experience on the matter was a game of curse of the crimson throne where our sessions often last 12+ hours with 1-2 hours of combat. My fighter level 9 can handle hinself well in the short periods of combat but has little to do outside of combat. So for 80-90% of the game I can set my charater sheet aside because for pure roleplaying I don't need it and when it comes to skills I have little to do.
One of the reasons we have so little combat time is the mage teleporting us everywhere so we don't have fights while traveling.
On the other hand my pc at the latter parts of rise of the rune lords was as close as it gets to a god wizards who dominated the combats and had a solution or at least something helpful for every out of combat problem we came upon. (level 12+)
In another game that only went from 1-2 we had an half-ork earth wizard with a pig familiar. Not only was this a great pc for roleplaying with him being dressed as a peasant and carrying along a flail. No, he was by far the strongest combatant.
That build would have fallen behind other wizards at higher levels but early on he rocked.
Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.
Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.
The Barbarian chopped people, the Fighter did good work, Gunslinger mowed guys down and had some real good skills.
Oh me? I have Bless. And then nothing. Woo, such fun and game breaking systems at play here.
I'm sorry how can anyone play Casters long enough for the disparity to 'flip' the other way. You're basically an NPC Adept at worse, passing your turn cause you can't waste your few Prepared Blesses.
It exists in games where the gm refuses to exert control the way their job requires and get offended when that fact is pointed out.
Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.
Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.
The Barbarian chopped people, the Fighter did good work, Gunslinger mowed guys down and had some real good skills.
Oh me? I have Bless. And then nothing. Woo, such fun and game breaking systems at play here.
I'm sorry how can anyone play Casters long enough for the disparity to 'flip' the other way. You're basically an NPC Adept at worse, passing your turn cause you can't waste your few Prepared Blesses.
In my personal experience low-level casting frequently is "Pick a Cantrip and spam it"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.
Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.
At 1st (if taking the appropriate archetype) or 2nd level shamans pretty much spam their hex for most combats.
Other casters usually use have some means of staying relevant (or, at least, engaged). Clerics can build for being decent at combat, wizards school abilities are useful at low level (or they spam daze), etc.
Some caster builds can have a real problem at L1 but most are pretty decent by level 2+. Note, decent. NOT necessarily as powerful in combat as the barbarian.
Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.
Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.
At 1st (if taking the appropriate archetype) or 2nd level shamans pretty much spam their hex for most combats.
Other casters usually use have some means of staying relevant (or, at least, engaged). Clerics can build for being decent at combat, wizards school abilities are useful at low level (or they spam daze), etc.
Some caster builds can have a real problem at L1 but most are pretty decent by level 2+. Note, decent. NOT necessarily as powerful in combat as the barbarian.
With all this chat, I'd expect casters to break the game the moment they are included in the game. Doesn't matter what they actually can do or will do or how the player is.
DM: "Oh balls, caster. Time to scrap 75% of the game.".
It's like my experience with the Paladin threads all over again.
Hyperbole aside, it doesn't help my confidence to see all these threads and walk away with "You are a BAD caster you scrub" in my mind. This more than anything is making me not want to touch casters.
I'll just swap back to Alchemist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.
Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.
At 1st (if taking the appropriate archetype) or 2nd level shamans pretty much spam their hex for most combats.
Other casters usually use have some means of staying relevant (or, at least, engaged). Clerics can build for being decent at combat, wizards school abilities are useful at low level (or they spam daze), etc.
Some caster builds can have a real problem at L1 but most are pretty decent by level 2+. Note, decent. NOT necessarily as powerful in combat as the barbarian.
With all this chat, I'd expect casters to break the game the moment they are included in the game. Doesn't matter what they actually can do or will do or how the player is.
DM: "Oh balls, caster. Time to scrap 75% of the game.".
It's like my experience with the Paladin threads all over again.
Hyperbole aside, it doesn't help my confidence to see all these threads and walk away with "You are a BAD caster you scrub" in my mind. This more than anything is making me not want to touch casters.
I'll just swap back to Alchemist.
It doesn't happen with every wizard, because it all depends on how it's played.
For example I had a party where being a God Wizard was completely useless because even though I could blind enemies for 4 turns, my party wasn't able to actually do enough damage to kill enemies.In that case a Wizard might not seem OP, but it's.
|
Really it comes to campaign and characters made to break said campaign.
If the campaign mostly deal with warriors, casters can be an issue, if the campaign is mostly centered around magic, Warriors can over power the other way in encounters.
Depending on the campaign and characters built anyone can over shadow others or make an encounter trivial. The hard part is making the encounters fun for everyone.
If your in a war campaign. Evoker Wizard, Fighter, War Priest and Bard, etc. Generally fit.
Intrigue would likely mean characters that are built for talking, persuading and intimidating enemies not always combat.
If your running a general campaign where everything/anything can happen. Then that's when a person runs into a problem within there games from players making their characters to deal with everything/anything that could have an issue.
But, it generally becomes a problem in a general campaign if there is no actual goal. Without a goal the campaign becomes 'dungeon day' While there is nothing wrong with it, if the PC's started with the idea of a city based game, but it became a constant dungeon crawl they might not be able to keep up with other heroes after they some how made theres to fit the unknown 'path' of the general campaign.
This is generally Fighters & Wizards.
Wizards can buy scrolls to improve their spellbooks and to change what's needed for the campaign if it doesn't fit. Most common wizard is evocation for the damage output.
Fighters because they can be civilized [IE City Guard], a sell sword, etc. None of these histories change any of their basic feat choices or Equipment.
In a City Based Campaign. Evoker Wizard & Fighter and very little different in build from a Dungeon Crawl Campaign. The differences strike in other classes.
City Rogue, might not be able to keep up with Dungeon Crawl Rogue- Sure they can both break an enter, but both not be able to Lie or have Knowledge for their opposite locations early level. [this happened to me, I was told to prepare for a city Campaign and to make a rogue. Instead it was a dungeon crawl and survival campaign, couldn't help the group nearly as well as I could when we where in town]
Cleric- Generally city campaigns the clerics generally don't focus on healing, generally it's Domains are least combative. But Dungeon Crawls generally get very much so.
Most other classes do fall into the same issues, except for Bards, Sorcerer & Oracle which can fall into similar pattern's as Fighter & Wizards, accepted anywhere and useful in the same. But limited spells makes selections more problematic and harder to fix if the conceived character doesn't work in the campaign setting.
example, a God Wizard or Sorcerer- Enchantment Domination based in a campaign where the primary enemies worst saves are Will. Likely will control the campaign early on, same arcane caster likely would have a problem and die horridly against creatures with good will saves.
An Evoker wizard will likely die versus Rogues that can hide effectively and perform sneak attacks.
If GM's are having trouble with a spell caster all you need is an enemy with a Ring of Evasion if they have a high Dex score and an Amulet of Energy Protection (Grants 60pt's of Absorption per day versus a single type of energy, CL 5 Market Price 6,000 GP, Craft Price: 3,000 GP)
All quite fun for improving an encounter with an enemy you want to be tougher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had encounters from level 1 or 2 trivialized through simply casting a single spell or two and enemies failing their saves.
I've had encounters from level 1 or 2 trivialized through simply having a fighter cleave and end the fight in a single round.
I've had encounters from level 14 trivialized through simply having a fighter do a full round attack and end the fight in a single round.
If you don't want casters at any level in your games, just ban all caster or play Iron Heroes.
All that reminds me of another experience: Do not start the arms race.
The arms race sucks. It sucks for everybody.
Not only is it just voodoo science when you start doubling enemies, doubling AC, double HP and saves, you are just actively fighting against your players. Not just the ones doing good, but all of them.So you make enemies harder. Now the guys who were playing "normally" feel weaker and/or more in danger to death. The archer/sorcerer feels targeted and frustrated because of it. The GM is forced to spend even more time preparing the sessions because he now suddenly needs to be an expert game designer to redesign the encounter system. On the freak chance you hit the right balance, now the game is ... better? experience for all, maybe? But there is the huge chance now you just make it less fun FOR EVERYONE AT THE TABLE.
Think about game on easy mode. Sure, it is trivial and kinda boring. Now you crank it up to some NIGHTMARE difficulty out of desperation. Now your players are in a gridlock and everyone hates playing the game.
I absolutely agree. The single house rule we play with, and have since 3rd addition, is "Don't use dirty tricks you don't want to experience yourself". This applies to both martials and casters. It has served us well.
I believe most people just look at combat.
Anyone can do damage. Wizards, God Wizards, will just make the encounter trivial using 2 spells top.
There is no way any martial could achieve this, no matter how many free feats you give them.At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.Suddenly something hard become trivial for 1 party member, while still being challenging for another.
You can say the Rogue is able to buy Spider climb cloak, but while the rogue is dishing out X gold, Wizard wasted nothing to achieve same result.
So, why doesnt the wizard cast spider climb on the rogue?
Look, let us say some sneaky types attack the party from the rear. The two spellcasters in in melle and hurting.Does the fighter and the Rogue just go: "Well, it's your fight, have fun?" No. D&D is a TEAM game.
It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell.How is that possible? If the Wizard was level 5, and survived 1 round, the first thing you do is cast Invisibility. Or even the level 1 one.
That gives you plenty of time for buffing, summoning, casting non aggressive spells that wont make you visible.All a Wizard needs is to win Initiative to have the upper hand.
Well, he didnt. And it is hard to do combat casting. Mkaing that roll with three guys hitting on you is tough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, why doesn't the wizard cast spider climb on the rogue? D&D is a TEAM game.
And the rogue uniquely brings... what, exactly, to the group? "Hey, guys, all I ask is that you cast your good spells on me instead of yourselves. In exchange, I'll, um, receive all your good spells for you!"
If it's a TEAM game, then every member should contribute to the team. If some only take, without giving back, it stops being a team and becomes a charity ward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is hard to do combat casting. Mkaing that roll with three guys hitting on you is tough.
Basic math disagrees. Past median level, combat casting is ridiculously easy, even if you don't just take a 5-ft. step first to avoid needing to cast defensively at all (a free precaution that requires an entire feat chain to counter, BTW). And it's just as easy if you're threatened by 3 opponents as by 1.
None of this is a problem at my table because I have house rules causing the defensive casting DC to scale with the threatening opponent's BAB, and increase if you're threatened by multiple opponents, and prevent the caster from just stepping away first... but those are, again, house rules. They're not the way the Pathfinder game is actually designed.
So, why doesn't the wizard cast spider climb on the rogue? D&D is a TEAM game.And the rogue uniquely brings... what, exactly, to the group? "Hey, guys, all I ask is that you cast your good spells on me instead of yourselves. In exchange, I'll, um, receive all your good spells for you!"
If it's a TEAM game, then every member should contribute to the team. If some only take, without giving back, it stops being a team and becomes a charity ward.
Detecting and removing traps.
Opening locks.
Scouting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Detecting and removing traps.
An at-will cantrip is infinitely better for detecting magic traps, and dispel magic is far more likely to remove them. For mechanical traps, a wand of summon monster I is hard to beat (or just walk into them, because in Pathfinder, non-magical traps usually aren't anything that a cure light wounds won't easily fix.
Opening locks.
An adamantine dagger is cheaper than a rogue, and again, more reliable. If you're in a hurry, a wand of knock is cheaper that a rogue, and actually lasts longer, because it doesn't soak up healing.
Scouting.
Familiar is far better equipped for this, and with its size bonus can be far stealthier than the rogue.
Again, what does the rogue uniquely bring to the group? Nothing, except that his character sheet says "rogue" on it, and your group declared that someone has to play that particular handicapped individual, and that the rest of the group is bound by EOE laws to hire the handicapped.
And it is hard to do combat casting. Mkaing that roll with three guys hitting on you is tough.Basic math disagrees. Past median level, combat casting is ridiculously easy, even if you don't just take a 5-ft. step first to avoid needing to cast defensively at all (a free precaution that requires an entire feat chain to counter, BTW). And it's just as easy if you're threatened by 3 opponents as by 1.
First of all, the wizard in question was lvl 5, which is below median level.
Next if there are three guys attacking you from various angles, you cant 5' step out of reach.
Thirdly, Step Up has no feat Pre-reqs, it does not require a feat chain- altho there are better versions.
But yeah, "basic math" here hasnt studied Pathfinder rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, the wizard in question was lvl 5, which is below median level.
Level 5 + 4 (Int 19) = +9 vs. DC 16 for your 3rd level spell; you succeed 70% of the time for your very best spells, with no feat investment. Combat casting or a stat boost puts your chances a lot closer to 100%.
Next if there are three guys attacking you from various angles, you cant 5' step out of reach.
You can if they're approaching you -- just not if you already allowed yourself to be surrounded (which involves a lot of AoO provoking on their part unless they're teleporting... and if the opposition is already strategically teleporting into combat like that, your 5th level party is in way over their heads).
Thirdly, Step Up has no feat Pre-reqs, it does not require a feat chain- altho there are better versions.
Yes,like the one that actually lets you attack the person who's escaping...
Detecting and removing traps.An at-will cantrip is infinitely better for detecting magic traps, and dispel magic is far more likely to remove them. For mechanical traps, a wand of summon monster I is hard to beat (or just walk into them, because in Pathfinder, non-magical traps usually aren't anything that a cure light wounds won't easily fix.
Opening locks.An adamantine dagger is cheaper than a rogue, and again, more reliable. If you're in a hurry, a wand of knock is cheaper that a rogue, and actually lasts longer, because it doesn't soak up healing.
Yeah, how does "Table: Summon Monster
1st Level SubtypeDire rat* —
Dog* —
Dolphin* —
Eagle* —
Fire beetle* —
Poisonous frog* —
Pony (horse)* —
Viper (snake)*
Open doors? Or open chests? Or if the chest is trapped with so that it destroys the scrools and potions inside if you set it off?
And even with a corridor trap, you need a good perception to SEE the trap to use the pony on it, and Wizards and clerics dont have perception as a class skill and only 2Skp lvl. Not to mention, once the summoned pony sets off the pit trap, you are still left with a pit.
Sure, chop open the chest- that works only if the chest isnt trapped so as to destroy the treasure. Or a big boom.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, chop open the chest- that works only if the chest isnt trapped so as to destroy the treasure.
Yes, I'll happily concede that the DM can declare that every item holding treasure automatically destroys that treasure if not opened by someone with the word "rogue" on their character sheet. I can also declare that the entire campaign is an antimagic field. But if I'm forced to resort to stuff like that for everything, rather than as an interesting twist, then I'm working against the rules rather than with them.
In essence, those are house rules, not that different than mine, except that the players aren't told about them ahead of time.
Next if there are three guys attacking you from various angles, you cant 5' step out of reach.You can if they're approaching you -- just not if you already allowed yourself to be surrounded (which involves a lot of AoO provoking on their part unless they're teleporting... and if the opposition is already strategically teleporting into combat like that, your 5th level party is in way over their heads).
Thirdly, Step Up has no feat Pre-reqs, it does not require a feat chain- altho there are better versions.Yes,like the one that actually lets you attack the person who's escaping...
How many wizards have combat reflexes and just how dangerius is a 5th level wizards dagger on a AOO anyway? Nothing about teleport was needed. Even so with a good movement, you can move around and not provoke.
You atill provoke.
And of course a readied attack 'when he starts casting" makes that DC much higher.
Sure, chop open the chest- that works only if the chest isnt trapped so as to destroy the treasure.Yes, I'll happily concede that the DM can declare that every item holding treasure automatically destroys that treasure if not opened by someone with the word "rogue" on their character sheet. I can also declare that the entire campaign is an antimagic field. But if I'm forced to resort to stuff like that for everything, rather than as an interesting twist, then I'm working against the rules rather than with them.
Let's not be ridiculous. Traps that destroy the contents unless you disarm them are a pretty standard item, and of course you can disarm with a Investigator and several other class options. You dont need a rogue, per se.
I mean, what is the use of a trap on a chest if you can just smash it and there's no danger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many wizards have combat reflexes and just how dangerius is a 5th level wizards dagger on a AOO anyway? Nothing about teleport was needed. Even so with a good movement, you can move around and not provoke.
I thought this was a TEAM GAME? Now it's 3 on 1, and the caster has to adventure solo with no pets (druid), eidolon (summoner), minions (cleric with animate dead), etc., etc.?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
of course you can disarm with a Investigator and several other class options. You dont need a rogue, per se.
Exactly so. And those other classes bring more to the group than the rogue -- the Investigator, for example, is like a rogue that's also a 6-level caster. Before that, the trapfinder bard, was better in pretty much every way than a rogue. It's almost as if Paizo realized that the rogue needed spells to do his job, but instead of adding them directly, instead made some new rogues that are the old rogue + spellcasting.
How many wizards have combat reflexes and just how dangerius is a 5th level wizards dagger on a AOO anyway? Nothing about teleport was needed. Even so with a good movement, you can move around and not provoke.I thought this was a TEAM GAME? Now it's 3 on 1, and the caster has to adventure solo with no pets (druid), eidolon (summoner), minions (cleric with animate dead), etc., etc.?
Becuase you see, if you had read the thread, you'd see we are talking about a actual situation one player posted "It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becuase you see, if you had read the thread, you'd see we are talking about a actual situation one player posted "It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell."
I read that.
In one scenario, we have a martial villain (1) vs. 5 PCs (one of whom is presumably a wizard). That's a fairly reasonable (and even common) scenario, worth addressing. Which I did.
In the other, we have a 2nd level party easily wiping the floor with 8th level full casters. That's not at all reasonable -- I can only conclude that the DM is pulling punches to the point of absurdity. (He says, "because of plot couldn't buff," but I also read, "and because of DM had no dimension door or mirror image or an array of other utility spells that would drastically alter the outcome, but instead only had minor creation prepared for his basketry class"). In short, it's more along the lines of "the campaign is an antimagic field."
Neither scenario you just quoted involved a single 5th level wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asks for example. gets example. Criticize example. Standard internet argument tactics. That and a lot of absolute statements that sound ridiculous. Example: That should NEVER happen. X should ALWAYS go this way. Absolute statements are "almost" always flawed.
*abandon thread*