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*
The example didn't make sense though, as the wizard was incorporeal. It can make a 5' step into the floor, wall, ect and get away from melee so why did it stand there and let them pummel it after it got initiative? It was clearly not played well/intelligently.
The example didn't make sense though, as the wizard was incorporeal. It can make a 5' step into the floor, wall, ect and get away from melee so why did it stand there and let them pummel it after it got initiative? It was clearly not played well/intelligently.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*
Wait which example are you talking about?
The example didn't make sense though, as the wizard was incorporeal. It can make a 5' step into the floor, wall, ect and get away from melee so why did it stand there and let them pummel it after it got initiative? It was clearly not played well/intelligently.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*
But for that example still you can't say always or every time because regardless of if it could be done. it in fact was done the way where wizard was killed. there fore clearly it can happen. Not everyone makes the perfect move every time. I dare say if you always knew the perfect move you could do anything almost completely successfully every time but who can do that?
So saying always and every single time is still flawed. absolute statements are still usually shoty places to build an argument from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait which example are you talking about?The example didn't make sense though, as the wizard was incorporeal. It can make a 5' step into the floor, wall, ect and get away from melee so why did it stand there and let them pummel it after it got initiative? It was clearly not played well/intelligently.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*
Shinigami02's. You didn't quote who/what you were referring to so went to the exaple I recalled: If it's the incorrect one, could you point out who you're referring to and/or what example you mean.
But for that example still you can't say always or every time because regardless of if it could be done. it in fact was done the way where wizard was killed. there fore clearly it can happen. Not everyone makes the perfect move every time. I dare say if you always knew the perfect move you could do anything almost completely successfully every time but who can do that?
So saying always and every single time is still flawed. absolute statements are still usually shoty places to build an argument from.
We aren't talking 'always' or complicated tactics. We're talking about 'surrounded by melee as a caster' and having a simple/easy way to fix that. it's the equivalent of the fighter in that example forgetting to draw a weapon because "Not everyone makes the perfect move every time." If the tactics used are super subpar, how is it an example of anything other than super subpar tactics: Again, it's like the fighter punching without improved unarmed strike and claiming that proves fighters suck...
Well we can use your example however. If the mage wasn't incorporeal and surrounded their is still a fine chance that he could be killed even if he didn't use a super sub par tactic. The assumption that a 5th level mage surrounded by fighters can not be killed is ludicrous.
Well we can use your example however. If the mage wasn't incorporeal and surrounded their is still a fine chance that he could be killed even if he didn't use a super sub par tactic. The assumption that a 5th level mage surrounded by fighters can not be killed is ludicrous.
Correction, 8th level. Party and fighter 5th.
My point was, there wasn't much we could take from the example because it didn't use even basic tactics: how can we assume it WOULD have been surrounded if it's not going to take full cover and cast defensive spells when given the chance? A wizard that charges you with a dagger doesn't inform you on how dangerous or not a wizard is that uses basic tactics and has appropriate spells to make it an appropriate challenge for it's CR. IMO, it seemed as if the DM either went easy on the party and/or isn't used to 3D combat so I didn't find much use for it.
As to a general "assumption that a 5th level mage surrounded by fighters can not be killed" I don't think that anyone is suggesting that: I think the assumption is that based on the levels involved, that the caster should have more options that standing there and taking it [which is what sounds like happened] while the fighter actually put up a fight.
even with basic tactics their is still dice rolls involved he might not roll well enough to make his defensive casting check and provoke from the lot he could go full defense and the fighters could still hit and crit him and annihilate him.
I hate having to search through all (I should of just quoted the one I was looking at in the first place like you said) that but I can go back and find the post saying a wizard in that situation should not die and I'm pretty sure EVER was in their somewhere.
That sort of thing is what bothers me. When people outside of the situation look into it and say well he should of done this or that. hindsight is 20/20. He might not of had the right spell or the player might have been shaken by the situation. Theory-crafting and actual game player are different.
|
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.
1- Detect Magic doesn't help with non-magical traps. I've had groups of 5th level characters die to these, because no one make the perception check to see it or disarm it, heck in some cases couldn't identify the trap.
2- I wouldn't say a wand is cheaper than a rogue, but less likely to steal from the group. But if your captured and your things taken, the rogue has a good chance to save you. But not always.
3- really does depend on the group. What if the caster in question doesn't have a familiar [happens a lot in my experience] but an arcane bonded item? Then your argument about a familiar is invalid. It's choice.
Yes characters can make characters that get in the way of others. That's why Session 0's tend to help.
BTW Casting Defensively is a DC 15 + Double Spell level so that DC you quoted earlier would be Concentration +9 vs DC 21 for a 3rd level spell (that means a 12 on a d20 to make the check, or a 55% failure rate/ 45% successful rate) Combat casting would lessen that failure chance by 20%. It really does depend on character creation and generation.
even with basic tactics their is still dice rolls involved he might not roll well enough to make his defensive casting check and provoke from the lot he could go full defense and the fighters could still hit and crit him and annihilate him.
With very basic tactics [5' step and cast] the wizard had a 100% chance to cast their spell [full cover inside an object]. They could then freely move anywhere they pleased, pop out and start casting offensive spells. In that situation, defensive casting was BAD tactics as was full defense. Those tactics were the equivalent of having them pulling out a dagger to attack and claiming wizards are weak...
I hate having to search through all (I should of just quoted the one I was looking at in the first place like you said) that but I can go back and find the post saying a wizard in that situation should not die and I'm pretty sure EVER was in their somewhere.
Hyperbole, which LITERALLY is not meant to be taken literally. I see any comments you pull out as reactions to the horribly awful tactic used which in effect was 'sit there and take a 1 sided beating' when a simple and easy method of NOT taking a one sided beating was there and not used. It wasn't an example that showcased anything but those tactics.
That sort of thing is what bothers me. When people outside of the situation look into it and say well he should of done this or that. hindsight is 20/20. He might not of had the right spell or the player might have been shaken by the situation. Theory-crafting and actual game player are different.
Myself, I hate it when tangential, incongruous or incorrect examples are held up as proof of anything. In this case it mattered not what spell he had: he had the opportunity to cast whatever spell he DID have without checks and/or move to a more advantageous location. Secondly, it's the DM so how shaken up can THEY be at an encounter they either made or read up on in advance?
Theorycrafting and plain, basic level 'check for a pulse' tactics are very, very different things. If someone comes in and claims a vehicle is slow because the driver 'forgot' to shift out of first gear, I'm going to point that out and not take their example seriously. It has to be an on point example for it to be relevant.
um... not for nothing, but the only example I can see said that both the enemies in question were incorporeal. Not the wizard.
So uh.
Kindly redo your perception check at a +4, because I think you missed something important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
even with basic tactics their is still dice rolls involved he might not roll well enough to make his defensive casting check and provoke from the lot he could go full defense and the fighters could still hit and crit him and annihilate him.
I hate having to search through all (I should of just quoted the one I was looking at in the first place like you said) that but I can go back and find the post saying a wizard in that situation should not die and I'm pretty sure EVER was in their somewhere.
SHOULDN'T EVER an CAN NEVER are different. A wizard in that situation SHOULDN'T EVER die to that party. Which is different than that wizard CAN NEVER die to that party.
After several of these threads it's clear that how a table/party is run can make a huge difference on the presence (or lack thereof) of the caster / martial disparity. Games that are combat heavy with a longer day (10-15 combats) will often have low/no disparity while games that focus on creative solutions and a have a shorter day (around 4 combats) see a greater disparity. Additionally, many GMs take it easy on casters and completely ignore tactics such as forcing concentration checks and foiling commonly used tactics. Essentially; if you optimize the game in favor of casters, they will shine.
4 combats in a day is the standard Pathfinder adventure design recommendation. Forcing more than that can feel like being shoved into a meat-grinder.
Forcing concentration checks is hard. Most standard enemies have no special aptitude for that.
And caster/martial disparity mostly happens outside of combat anyway.
(But I agree with you that letting the party teleport past the adventure is a bad idea.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting debate. It gets into the paradigm that "having the right spell" creates. Ranks in Stealth? Great, cleric has invisibility. Good at combat? A tornado will handle that bandit camp far better than one barbarian.
The suggestion of, "Don't be a dick, let people shine where they shine” is great, in theory, but not in practice. I think we should hold our content to a higher level. The fighter SHOULD matter AND the cleric should matter too. And yeah, I HAVE published a fighter rebuild (“man-at-arms”) that kind of addresses this but, by my own admission, doesn’t solve the problem of the basic paradigm (i.e, if I have the perfect spell prepped I am always more valuable). Now there are limiting factors (spells per day/spells known/intention spell list holes/etc) but I don’t feel it really addresses it.
I ascribe to the Tippyverse a lot and I think it needs to be examined HOW a martial/mundane character would work in a world where magic is at least semi-prevalent. There was a discussion from Lindybeige about weapons in a fantasy setting. He posits that they would be different than they would be in our world. As I’ve often said recently in my post about the Arms & Armor exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum weapons are tools that are suited for a task. Need a sword that will pierce certain kinds of armor? Get an estoc. Need a sword that will chop things really well? A falchion is designed for that. Walking around town and it would be a little uncouth to carry around a spear? Rapiers were made for that. That’s an oversimplification to a degree (we joking refer to the arming sword/longsword as a the “medieval crowbar” for its many uses) but it highlights the problem. We have classes that (for the most part) reflect real-world sensibilities like fighter and cavalier pitted against unrealistic sensibilities of people like wizards and clerics.
A wacky hypothetical example is if all warfare was based on magnets. Would you ride into battle with maximilian full-plate and a big, metal, sword? Probably not. You’d probably have armors and weapons made of a non-ferrous metal (or non-metal). So why do we have “dude with sword” fighting “dude with hurricane”? Sure “dude with sword” can hit people better with that sword then “dude with hurricane” but “dude with sword” never gets the option to be even a little good with hurricanes while “dude with hurricane” always gets a little good with swords.
This is a class design paradigm I call “option vs progression” and it is kind of a scale. The basic function of this scale (and its not a perfect one) is that, at its core, when a character advances 1 level (whatever an increment of power is in your game) they either get better at one task or get the option to do a new task (task being... anything. Swinging a sword, blasting with fire, eating cakes, diplomacy, etc). As wizards (and other casters) advance they get LOTS of options (have you seen the sorcerer/wizard spell list?) while a fighter generally gets better at hitting things with one category of weapon. Now this isn’t a perfect representation, fighter gets bonus feats and wizards have a progressing caster level, but you get the notion; No one is ENTIRELY on one end of the spectrum.
Early on this is not a problem- dude who can do the one thing is really good at that one thing and, assuming that one thing has many uses, it’s not a problem. The problem is that when an option character hits “that new thing they can do” squarely on the head they, by design, SHOULD be better at it. At low levels these more specific situations are not as frequently occurring but after many levels the option character has a LOT of options and it starts to encroach on the progression character’s territory. This is a lot of high concept work and doesn’t work perfectly but you can kind of squint and see where the caster/martial disparity comes in if you follow this to its logical conclusion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A tornado will handle that bandit camp far better than one barbarian.
THAT DEPEND ENTIRELY ON IDENTITY OF BARBARIAN IN QUESTION, THANK VERY MUCH.
REST OF POINT AM MIGHTYFINE, BARBARIAN JUST TAKE ISSUE WITH BEING CALLED LESS EFFICIENT THAN TORNADO.
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.
Just one or two monsters with garbage defenses and hit points is all you throw at them? Of course a Fighter will trivialize an encounter, because the encounter was trivial to begin with.
Maybe if you throw in several more it might be an appropriate encounter, but as it stands, those encounters are just silly in scope.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
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.
Just one or two monsters with garbage defenses and hit points is all you throw at them? Of course a Fighter will trivialize an encounter, because the encounter was trivial to begin with.
Maybe if you throw in several more it might be an appropriate encounter, but as it stands, those encounters are just silly in scope.
Two CR 1/2 monsters are a level 1 encounter. A CR1/2 monster should have about 10 hp and be AC11, well within a level 1 fighter's +4 to hit and 2d6+6 damage range.
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.
This is really not meant as snark, but honestly, what does a wizard uniquely bring to a group? There are so many classes in pathfinder there isn't really true niche protection for anyone. Any party role can be filled by several viable options.
Speaking from experience, I have one-shotted a boss with my cavalier (GM was not at all pleased).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.
Just one or two monsters with garbage defenses and hit points is all you throw at them? Of course a Fighter will trivialize an encounter, because the encounter was trivial to begin with.
Maybe if you throw in several more it might be an appropriate encounter, but as it stands, those encounters are just silly in scope.
I made a bandit hideout encounter where an NPC Cavalier I designed (which I let the PCs play as part of the encounter) did the same exact thing to the miniboss. Except there were two "mini-bosses" and a main boss, combined with two dozens worth of trash NPCs.
When that happened, the other miniboss got in reach and knocked that Cavalier right the f@#$ out with a solid swing of his axe from 15 feet away. The Cavalier got his moment of glory in, and saved the Inquisitor from a full attack, but paid the price for it.
@ ryric: Sure, if all we're considering is the Fighter, then it makes sense. But for a 4 person party, you'll want at least 3 sets of those, if not more. Which my example dealt with practically single-handedly because of bad saving throws.
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.
Just one or two monsters with garbage defenses and hit points is all you throw at them? Of course a Fighter will trivialize an encounter, because the encounter was trivial to begin with.
Maybe if you throw in several more it might be an appropriate encounter, but as it stands, those encounters are just silly in scope.
We were playing an adventure path. Those were the encounters,as printed. I do agree that the adventure paths are frequently too easy, but that was just me not house ruling it to make it harder than stated. But you have to admit, it's pretty easy for a first level fighter, with power attack and cleave to kill two ghouls in a single round. The cr 14 one was some demon, although to be fair, it spent it's turn charging and killing to party wizard, leaving it open to an attack from the fighter and bard (not that it lived long enough for the bard to do anything.
um... not for nothing, but the only example I can see said that both the enemies in question were incorporeal. Not the wizard.
So uh.
Kindly redo your perception check at a +4, because I think you missed something important.
"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.)"
SO who missed a perception check? Bosses, one martial and one wizard...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really not meant as snark, but honestly, what does a wizard uniquely bring to a group? There are so many classes in pathfinder there isn't really true niche protection for anyone. Any party role can be filled by several viable options.
I feel like we should take it as a given that any particular party role can be filled by classes x, y, and z (if not more.) So the question then is more appropriately "why should I play x and not y or z?" not "why does x even exist."
So the Wizard case is particularly interesting since it seems to me that the only reason to play a Wizard instead of a Witch, Sorcerer, or Psychic (for instance) (for example) is "raw power at the high end of optimization". Which is sort of the problem with the class, isn't it?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really not meant as snark, but honestly, what does a wizard uniquely bring to a group? There are so many classes in pathfinder there isn't really true niche protection for anyone. Any party role can be filled by several viable options.I feel like we should take it as a given that any particular party role can be filled by classes x, y, and z (if not more.) So the question then is more appropriately "why should I play x and not y or z?" not "why does x even exist."
So the Wizard case is particularly interesting since it seems to me that the only reason to play a Wizard instead of a Witch, Sorcerer, or Psychic (for instance) (for example) is "raw power at the high end of optimization". Which is sort of the problem with the class, isn't it?
And yet, I suspect if you look for posts from GMs complaining that "x ruined my game," witch will come up far more often than wizard will, due entirely to the Slumber hex.
I have seen people literally equate rogue to expert, which certainly comes off as "why does it even exist?"
And yet, I suspect if you look for posts from GMs complaining that "x ruined my game," witch will come up far more often than wizard will, due entirely to the Slumber hex.
It's a toss up between slumber and dazing spell. Slumber starts at an earlier level while dazed hits more targets.
I have seen people literally equate rogue to expert, which certainly comes off as "why does it even exist?"
In many instances, there isn't much narrative difference between an expert and a chained rogue and if sneak attacks are hard to consistently pull off, it's not much different IN combat. This is increasingly true when compared to other classes that can get trapfinding, can skill monkey AND cast spells.
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.
GM Guy from the scenario. And let me just say, no, it was not "and because of DM" unless you're really blaming me for (as a new GM for this matter, this was only my second time GMing) not wanting to manually go through and rebuild every single encounter of a Paizo-written campaign including the enemy that on top of being a Ghost outlevels the party by 4x. If you're the type of person that would hold that against me, then... I don't really have a response to that, because expecting that is just shy of incomprehensible to me.
The example didn't make sense though, as the wizard was incorporeal. It can make a 5' step into the floor, wall, ect and get away from melee so why did it stand there and let them pummel it after it got initiative? It was clearly not played well/intelligently.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*
It tried to flee into a wall where it could cast in peace, failed the Acrobatics (it was pretty far from the walls since the adventure has it rise dead center of the room. Over a pit at that. Honestly the entire group including myself feel that was a stupid move, but again pre-written adventure) and got AoOd with Stand Still.
I have seen people literally equate rogue to expert, which certainly comes off as "why does it even exist?"
I think what uniquely hinders the rogue is that so many of the things that can fill is role in combat are some linear combination of more fun, more powerful, or more exotic. Like what sounds more fun for Mummy's Mask- A rogue, or a Gathlain Overwhelming Soul Telekineticist with the Trap Finder and "Voices of Solid Things" traits?
Which is not to say that the (Unchained) rogue is a bad chassis, it's just a lot more "dull" than most of its competitors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, assuming that martials are strong before level 10, and full casters are too strong after level 10,what is it that fighters want?
Back when I was still foolishly optomistic that people actually wanted to make fighters a bit more versatile I made some suggestions.
1) fighters get 4+ int skill points per level
2) bravery adds to all will saves, not just fear
3) fighters get a suite of tactical abilities, like a rogue's skill unlocks, but based on weapon groups.
I was scolded and told that this would make fighters too rogue-like, and fighters didn't want to be more rogue, cleric, or wizard like. I asked we'll, what do you want? I was generally told:
1) immunity or heavy resistance to magic
2) remove level 7 to 9 spells from the game
3) MOER DAMAGE!
So what would fix the fighter vs. wizard disparity?
Anything less drastic than banning wizards? I'd like to see the floor raised for casters and the ceiling lowered, but that would take some finesse that I'm not sure Paizo can muster.
So what would fix the fighter vs. wizard disparity?
Rewriting the combat chapter of the rulebook. Which would mean that you'll need to rewrite every feat.
Numbers don't mean much when your every action starts with crippling penalties and needs a ton of resources (feats) to become half decent. And that's ignoring the parts where actions are completely prohibited to be even attempted due to size difference or some unknown "balance reasons".
Kill full-attack, allow combat manoeuvrers to be usable on everyone. Hell, maybe even allow crippling attacks without a ton of restrictions on top of them (and as a side bonus Heal could become actually useful).
...
Then you'll need to get to the Skills and do them at least on the level of what True 20 has.
With very basic tactics [5' step and cast] the wizard had a 100% chance to cast their spell [full cover inside an object]. They could then freely move anywhere they pleased, pop out and start casting offensive spells.
Can you cast while inside a object? I'd like to see a rule cite that says you can cast like that without any hinderances.
And altho you can move, you can't see where to move.
So, assuming that martials are strong before level 10, and full casters are too strong after level 10,what is it that fighters want?
Back when I was still foolishly optomistic that people actually wanted to make fighters a bit more versatile I made some suggestions.
1) fighters get 4+ int skill points per level
2) bravery adds to all will saves, not just fear
3) fighters get a suite of tactical abilities, like a rogue's skill unlocks, but based on weapon groups.So what would fix the fighter vs. wizard disparity?
Anything less drastic than banning wizards? I'd like to see the floor raised for casters and the ceiling lowered, but that would take some finesse that I'm not sure Paizo can muster.
1. Pretty much you can get this now.
3. Same here.
Armor and weapon masters.
There is little disparity and no need to fix. As you said, Martials do fine and perhaps overshadow spellcasters at lower levels, where the vast majority of games are played.
I did find spellcasters ruled once they got 9th level spells, but that is pretty rare. I dunno if that needs a"fix" except maybe some good DM work on that particular campaign.
I have seen people literally equate rogue to expert, which certainly comes off as "why does it even exist?"I think what uniquely hinders the rogue is that so many of the things that can fill is role in combat are some linear combination of more fun, more powerful, or more exotic. Like what sounds more fun for Mummy's Mask- A rogue, or a Gathlain Overwhelming Soul Telekineticist with the Trap Finder and "Voices of Solid Things" traits?
Which is not to say that the (Unchained) rogue is a bad chassis, it's just a lot more "dull" than most of its competitors.
That second one sounds confusing along with needing to be played/built right. That and as a DM/GM, that sounds on the "Oh this will cause problems" path.
I'd take Rogue.
Also isn't Kinetiscist also supposed to be kinda bad/garbage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That second one sounds confusing along with needing to be played/built right. That and as a DM/GM, that sounds on the "Oh this will cause problems" path.
I'd take Rogue.
Also isn't Kinetiscist also supposed to be kinda bad/garbage?
Kineticists don't vary much in their strength. Like the only real optimization choice you have to make is your stats, and the class does a good job letting you know you want dex and con. So as long as you have dex and con you have built your kineticist right. But because of this low ceiling it gets a little bit of a bad rap by people that routinely could fight CR +5 enemies solo, you can't crank it's numbers to stupid high nor is it really dip friendly.
But when comparing to all classes normally it fairs quite well.But I think his point is equally valid if you sub in that class for any other class that likes mid-high dex, which is basically everyone not in full plate.
That second one sounds confusing along with needing to be played/built right. That and as a DM/GM, that sounds on the "Oh this will cause problems" path.
I'd take Rogue.
Also isn't Kinetiscist also supposed to be kinda bad/garbage?
Kineticists don't vary much in their strength. Like the only real optimization choice you have to make is your stats, and the class does a good job letting you know you want dex and con. So as long as you have dex and con you have built your kineticist right. But because of this low ceiling it gets a little bit of a bad rap by people that routinely could fight CR +5 enemies solo, you can't crank it's numbers to stupid high nor is it really dip friendly.
But when comparing to all classes normally it fairs quite well.But I think his point is equally valid if you sub in that class for any other class that likes mid-high dex, which is basically everyone not in full plate.
Technically CHA instead of CON in the example given I believe. And this is off topic but the more terms you slap on a character the harder I find it to picture/understand easily. Using the above example again. "Player 1 what are you doing?"
Player 1: Gathlain Overwhelming Soul Telekineticist with the Trap Finder and "Voices of Solid Things" traits.
Me: "Um... ok, lemme look those up, see how that plays... um player 2?
Player 2: Tiefling Rogue.
Me: Ah okay you're in. You can do Unchained too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiefling Div-Spawn trading for Scaled Skin False Medium Scout unchained rogue with Beast Bully and Called traits.
vs
gathlain kineticist.
like both sides can do it.
With very basic tactics [5' step and cast] the wizard had a 100% chance to cast their spell [full cover inside an object]. They could then freely move anywhere they pleased, pop out and start casting offensive spells.Can you cast while inside a object? I'd like to see a rule cite that says you can cast like that without any hinderances.
And altho you can move, you can't see where to move.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Nope, don't see any issues.
Incorporeal: Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
Nope, not here either.
If they can cast in the air, what changes then in an object when you don't have a physical body? Asking for a rule about 'in object' casting is along the lines of asking if they can cast anywhere: We have rules for blocking sight so what else could the object possible do to hinder them?
Tiefling Div-Spawn trading for Scaled Skin False Medium Scout unchained rogue with Beast Bully and Called traits.
vs
gathlain kineticist.
like both sides can do it.
Never said both sides can't do it.
Though I would still have to look up Gathlain and Kineticist. I know a bit about Kinetticist but have no idea what a Gathlian is.
Sorry for the short tangent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It tried to flee into a wall where it could cast in peace, failed the Acrobatics (it was pretty far from the walls since the adventure has it rise dead center of the room. Over a pit at that. Honestly the entire group including myself feel that was a stupid move, but again pre-written adventure) and got AoOd with Stand Still.
Yep, it seems like the poor wizard had things stacked against them to make the fight easier that didn't allow him any viable options. I mean it specifically stood in the one place that prevented retreat while not preventing melee: almost sounds suicidal...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM Guy from the scenario. And let me just say, no, it was not "and because of DM" unless you're really blaming me for (as a new GM for this matter, this was only my second time GMing)...
I can't shoot worth a damned. Give me a firearm of any kind and I'll almost certainly miss any target that's not at point-blank range, because of lack of practice in general and vast amount of time elapsed since the last practice. It would not be at all fair for someone to point out me shooting a Remington 700, missing a lot, and concluding that the Remington is an inaccurate firearm compared to an antique blunderbuss.
That's not something to be ashamed of, but it is something to take into account.
Granted, in your case it sounds like someone also bent the barrel and knocked the sight out of alignment before handing it to you, so even if you were a stellar marksman you'd be at an enormous disadvantage -- All the more reason not to conclude that any old blunderbuss is obviously a superior weapon to a new Remington, or even "just as good."
Just a note depending on positioning and terrain a simple 5 foot step may not get you away from 3 npc's that have you surrounded. you might be able to get out of reach of 1 or 2 but unless their positioned badly you will most likely still be threatened by 1 at least.
Just a note depending on positioning and terrain a simple 5 foot step may not get you away from 3 npc's that have you surrounded. you might be able to get out of reach of 1 or 2 but unless their positioned badly you will most likely still be threatened by 1 at least.
In a non-contrived situation, an incorporeal opponent JUST has to 5' step into a floor/wall/ceiling/ect to remove themselves from threat. As was pointed out, the situation was seemingly made to make the poor, poor NPC wizard a punching bag without any viable option but to sit there and take it.
As to the average PC surrounded by 3 npc's, I question how that happened in the first place as most wizards don't make a point of standing far enough away from allies to allow multiple charge lanes for 3+ martial NPC to surround them... :P
If you DO for some reason go out of your way to allow yourself to be surrounded, it's usually not hard to cast defensively unless the NPC is build to be anti-wizard. as the DC are generally stack in the casters favor, especially if you aren't trying to cast you highest level spell.
good Stealth check, dark dungeon where visibility is poor, busy city street where suddenly people around you draw weapons, Hanging out at the back of the party where you should be safe while others move into room to fight then back up comes from behind and one of the others your party is fighting turns on you thus surrounding you. (also wasn't it the monsters that were incorporeal not the wizard?)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-Magical Challenge!
It seems like a lot of the issues for the Martial's is that they want less magic.
It's an easy fix.
remove all casters from the PC selection
(Bards, Clerics, Paladin's, Ranger's, Sorcerer and Wizard) add martial only classes from other books that have no spell casting abilities.
(such as Gun slinger, Samurai, Ninja, etc)
Limit monsters encounters to Animals, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, plants and vermin (at least those without magical origin)
No Aberrations, Constructs, Dragons, Fey, Magical Beast's, ooze's, Outsiders and Undead
No magical items of any sort.
Alchemy should be fine, but not the Alchemist class.
Non-magical healing
1 HP per level for 8 Hours of Rest (twice this if under a character with the heal skill care)
2 HP per level for each full day of rest (again twice this if under care)
also heal back 1 Pt of ability recovery per 8 Hours or 2 per full day of rest (again double if under healer's care)
In case you where wondering. This is a real possibility, magical encounters are meant more for the casters that seem overpowered, if you don't like them, then being able to limit yourself to this system should be no big deal for you or your group. let's face it, I've out 'wizarded' a wizard as a cleric, so really it breaks down to casters versus Martial's so remove the magical and your campaign should break down to this.
I've enjoyed such games, but most people playing these days don't
So, assuming that martials are strong before level 10, and full casters are too strong after level 10,what is it that fighters want?
Back when I was still foolishly optomistic that people actually wanted to make fighters a bit more versatile I made some suggestions.
1) fighters get 4+ int skill points per level
2) bravery adds to all will saves, not just fear
3) fighters get a suite of tactical abilities, like a rogue's skill unlocks, but based on weapon groups.I was scolded and told that this would make fighters too rogue-like, and fighters didn't want to be more rogue, cleric, or wizard like. I asked we'll, what do you want? I was generally told:
1) immunity or heavy resistance to magic
2) remove level 7 to 9 spells from the game
3) MOER DAMAGE!So what would fix the fighter vs. wizard disparity?
Anything less drastic than banning wizards? I'd like to see the floor raised for casters and the ceiling lowered, but that would take some finesse that I'm not sure Paizo can muster.
I've proposed that the root of the problem is actually more tied to how characters can impact the campaign world than it is to precise levels of combat performance (though it hasn't gotten much traction, people want to focus on combat performance). Most people who play the game are fine with asymmetrical characters as long as each character has a role to fill. The fundamental problem then is that the Wizard (and a couple other classes) can be made to fill any role, and indeed a single Wizard can fill more than one role for a party.
Classes like the Rogue and Fighter don't need combat steroids (a few buffs aren't bad, but don't solve the basic problem). Instead the classes need some methods of interacting with the campaign world that makes it interesting and useful to have those specific classes over other classes.
Imagine for a moment if any spell that mimicked or dramatically boosted any skill were removed. Suddenly the Rogue becomes more useful, though not unique (a Bard can essentially do the same thing, perhaps better).
The problem with how the game is designed and continues to grow is that as soon as a thing becomes possible to do in the game, someone also writes a spell that does essentially the same thing (or will in the next book/ap). The problem with Wizards isn't that they have magic. It is that their magic has been defined to include "anything that is either possible, or impossible". Small niches need to be carved out for each class AND they need to be protected.
Just a note depending on positioning and terrain a simple 5 foot step may not get you away from 3 npc's that have you surrounded. you might be able to get out of reach of 1 or 2 but unless their positioned badly you will most likely still be threatened by 1 at least.In a non-contrived situation, an incorporeal opponent JUST has to 5' step into a floor/wall/ceiling/ect to remove themselves from threat. As was pointed out, the situation was seemingly made to make the poor, poor NPC wizard a punching bag without any viable option but to sit there and take it.
As to the average PC surrounded by 3 npc's, I question how that happened in the first place as most wizards don't make a point of standing far enough away from allies to allow multiple charge lanes for 3+ martial NPC to surround them... :P
If you DO for some reason go out of your way to allow yourself to be surrounded, it's usually not hard to cast defensively unless the NPC is build to be anti-wizard. as the DC are generally stack in the casters favor, especially if you aren't trying to cast you highest level spell.
I will say just for fairness sake though, that the martial encounter had the same exact set-up (rises dead-center of room, over a pit, and immediately got surrounded) and didn't even have a potentially Wis-draining haunt right before it (though the haunt didn't actually get to do anything which is why I didn't actually mention it before.) It just happens the martial one could take a beating better, hit hard, and managed to survive the AoOs when it tried to retreat. Didn't have quite enough move speed to make it into a wall but just into a side room which is why it promptly died afterwards, but that's its own issue still.
EDIT: Also don't actually know why the party didn't use Stand Still then, but it wouldn't have changed the survival time really.
I will say just for fairness sake though, that the martial encounter had the same exact set-up (rises dead-center of room, over a pit, and immediately got surrounded) and didn't even have a potentially Wis-draining haunt right before it (though the haunt didn't actually get to do anything which is why I didn't actually mention it before.) It just happens the martial one could take a beating better, hit hard, and managed to survive the AoOs when it tried to retreat. Didn't have quite enough move speed to make it into a wall but just into a side room which is why it promptly died afterwards, but that's its own issue still.EDIT: Also don't actually know why the party didn't use Stand Still then, but it wouldn't have changed the survival time really.
Usually Wizards from AP don't have many cool spells, or they learn spells thematically.
Personally all it takes to avoid Martial is a Wand of Vanish, as long as you can move, you can escape, or even cast standing next to them, they wont get an AoO.Vanish is just 750GP for 50 charges, almost any level 2 character can get it. But this is because, I, as a player, will think of all the possible situations I could be in and try to avoid risks.
If I know I'm squishy, I'm having 14 CON and Favored Class bonus into HP.
I've seen Wizards from AP have spells like Shatter, which are completely useless against any PC since they will probably have a +1 weapon.
The issue with Magic is not only the stupid amount of spell selection, it is also the fact that unless DM restrict availability of them you can just buy them.
For example I love summons, but I just don't play them because they end up taking everybody spot. And now because of the system I'm having less fun so others can have fun with their martials.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I will say just for fairness sake though, that the martial encounter had the same exact set-up (rises dead-center of room, over a pit, and immediately got surrounded) and didn't even have a potentially Wis-draining haunt right before it (though the haunt didn't actually get to do anything which is why I didn't actually mention it before.) It just happens the martial one could take a beating better, hit hard, and managed to survive the AoOs when it tried to retreat. Didn't have quite enough move speed to make it into a wall but just into a side room which is why it promptly died afterwards, but that's its own issue still.EDIT: Also don't actually know why the party didn't use Stand Still then, but it wouldn't have changed the survival time really.
Usually Wizards from AP don't have many cool spells, or they learn spells thematically.
Personally all it takes to avoid Martial is a Wand of Vanish, as long as you can move, you can escape, or even cast standing next to them, they wont get an AoO.
Vanish is just 750GP for 50 charges, almost any level 2 character can get it. But this is because, I, as a player, will think of all the possible situations I could be in and try to avoid risks.
If I know I'm squishy, I'm having 14 CON and Favored Class bonus into HP.
I've seen Wizards from AP have spells like Shatter, which are completely useless against any PC since they will probably have a +1 weapon.The issue with Magic is not only the stupid amount of spell selection, it is also the fact that unless DM restrict availability of them you can just buy them.
For example I love summons, but I just don't play them because they end up taking everybody spot. And now because of the system I'm having less fun so others can have fun with their martials.
It is really easy to justify keeping a somewhat tight reign on spell availability. Even super cheap magic items only have a 75% chance to be available in most cities, so there's the off chance that a wand of vanish just isn't around when you want one. Sure, you can commission one but you might not be the only customer that crafter has, so there may be a wait. In terms of spells, besides scribing costs, which come out of the wizards WBL, any spells beyond the free 2/level require you to find copies. Buying a scroll is one way to do so, but again, 75% chance. I had a witch in S&S fail to find a particular 1st level scroll in 4 different port cities. Besides scrolls, you might think you just go find the local arcane casters and ask to copy...but that leads to its own problems. Are you letting random NPCs copy your book? Why not? Would most NPCs lend their most valuable possession to a stranger for hours at a time? Even for money? They have to consider the risk that you'll take their book(s) and simply teleport away, never to be seen again. Even if they have backup copies they are risking the time and money it takes to make a backup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree. Now imagine applying the same criteria for a Fighter. I'm sorry sir, we don't sell +1 weapon, try another city. Good luck bypassing DR, oh, surely your caster friend will help you with that.
If you want a Spell not to exist, you can do it, but it's not really a solution.
What if you want a +5 weapon, how do you get one? You need to buy one, or find a high level wizard.
You can potentially buy 1 scroll of Vanish and go to a Wizard and make 1 wand, it only takes 8 hours.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I totally agree. Now imagine applying the same criteria for a Fighter. I'm sorry sir, we don't sell +1 weapon, try another city. Good luck bypassing DR, oh, surely your caster friend will help you with that.
If you want a Spell not to exist, you can do it, but it's not really a solution.
What if you want a +5 weapon, how do you get one? You need to buy one, or find a high level wizard.
You can potentially buy 1 scroll of Vanish and go to a Wizard and make 1 wand, it only takes 8 hours.
+1 weapon has the same 75% chance as everything else. Luckily, most martials can easily outpace DR. It sucks, but shaving off 10 when you're hitting for 30 is manageable. No weapons above +2 are supposed to be easily available. Metropolis base value is 16k and that doesn't cover +3 weapons. Bigger than 16k cost and you're expected to craft it, find it, or get lucky with the random tables for major items in cities.
Fighter can craft his own +5 weapon if he spends the feats and skill ranks on it. It's suboptimal compared to having a caster friend, but the option is there. If you're really worried about magic DR oil of magic weapon is an option I often take with my starting money as a martial. Comes in handy if the adventure throws a shadow at you at level 1. It's like buying acid for swarms - just sound strategy at low levels.
It only takes a few hours to make a wedding cake IRL, but you need to order those well in advance. Successful crafters won't be prepared to drop everything they're doing just to make something for a PC. "Sure, I'll make your wand. But right now I'm halfway through a 5th level pearl of power. I'll add your wand to the list - come back in two weeks." I obviously wouldn't pull that every time as a GM, but doing it once or twice can enforce to the PCs that they're not the only adventurers in the world that want stuff made.
+1 weapon has the same 75% chance as everything else. Luckily, most martials can easily outpace DR. It sucks, but shaving off 10 when you're hitting for 30 is manageable. No weapons above +2 are supposed to be easily available. Metropolis base value is 16k and that doesn't cover +3 weapons. Bigger than 16k cost and you're expected to craft it, find it, or get lucky with the random tables for major items in cities.Fighter can craft his own +5 weapon if he spends the feats and skill ranks on it. It's suboptimal compared to having a caster friend, but the option is there. If you're really worried about magic DR oil of magic weapon is an option I often take with my starting money as a martial. Comes in handy if the adventure throws a shadow at you at level 1. It's like buying acid for swarms - just sound strategy at low levels.
It only takes a few hours to make a wedding cake IRL, but you need to order those well in advance. Successful crafters won't be prepared to drop everything they're doing just to make something for a PC. "Sure, I'll make your wand. But right now I'm halfway through a 5th level pearl of power. I'll add your wand to the list - come back in two weeks." I obviously wouldn't pull that every time as a GM, but doing it once or twice can enforce to the PCs that they're not the only adventurers in the world that want stuff made.
Sword is all a martial has, while not having a Wand of Vanish won't make a huge difference for a Wizard.
We usually just play according to wealth rules, if you want something that is up to X you can find it in small cities or big cities. We don't roll on each specific item in our group.Personally I don't think it makes much sense, items are a necessity not a luxury for most PCs. But that is mostly to avoid time delays and such, not everyone plays like that.