Spell ranges are quite short, what do blaster war wizards do on a battlefield?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

One country had (has?) an enormous council of archmage leaders (18th+) and the elite, statted-out mercenary force of hundreds of troops had Rings of Spell Turning. All of them.

Where are you getting these?

Nex (the most magical nation in the Inner Sea region) is certainly ruled by archmages...three of them (the Council of Three). Three is not an enormous number, and assuming them to be 18th level is speculative (as they have no printed stats), though thy're functionally unaging so they're likely quite up there in power, I'll grant. One is also a Witch, rather than a Wizard.

There's also the Council of Nine, but most of them are not actually statted with levels, and many are not 'archmages' by any reasonable definition (three are Clerics and one an Alchemist). They may be assumed to be of fairly high level, but 18th? That seems unlikely.

And I have no idea where the Rings of Spell Turning thing is from. I'm sincerely curious about that one (though all it requires is a lot of money, not being high level).

In all the published stuff I've ever seen dealing with whole populations, my level demographics numbers have remained a pretty good predictor of what the level distribution of NPCs in that population show up as.


The main point I was making was that blaster war wizards probably aren’t used in Agincourt type battles, as they are more valuable.

I liken then to B-2 Bombers, or stealth bombers as they’re commonly called. They’re expensive, and you probably aren’t going to use them for routine air support missions, but you’ll definitely use them to hit key targets through air strikes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
snip

I think Castilliano was talking about Faerun there, specifically Thay.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

One country had (has?) an enormous council of archmage leaders (18th+) and the elite, statted-out mercenary force of hundreds of troops had Rings of Spell Turning. All of them.

Where are you getting these?

Nex (the most magical nation in the Inner Sea region) is certainly ruled by archmages...three of them (the Council of Three). Three is not an enormous number, and assuming them to be 18th level is speculative (as they have no printed stats), though thy're functionally unaging so they're likely quite up there in power, I'll grant. One is also a Witch, rather than a Wizard.

There's also the Council of Nine, but most of them are not actually statted with levels, and many are not 'archmages' by any reasonable definition (three are Clerics and one an Alchemist). They may be assumed to be of fairly high level, but 18th? That seems unlikely.

And I have no idea where the Rings of Spell Turning thing is from. I'm sincerely curious about that one (though all it requires is a lot of money, not being high level).

In all the published stuff I've ever seen dealing with whole populations, my level demographics numbers have remained a pretty good predictor of what the level distribution of NPCs in that population show up as.

Wrong world, DMW.

I referenced Faerun, as in the Forgotten Realms, and I'm juxtaposing its (ridiculous/untenable) power levels with Golarion's. FR's preeminent mercenary army had inconceivable amounts of wealth merely to function vs. pervasive war magic. The magic escalation warped warfare beyond balance.
Gygax's Greyhawk was a bit more similar to Golarion's power level.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah! Sorry, I caught that you were referencing FR, but thought those in specific were examples of Golarion going that direction, and was thus confused. My bad.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's hard to do anything in FR without bumping into some ridiculous mary sue munchkin npc that creates plot holes in your adventures just by their very existence.


But magical warfare in Golarion...oh man there are so many factors which can't be easily compared

One of the first thing you would have to consider the the availibility of casters to the army itself. I can imagine that Nex, Magnimaar and Kyonin are rather well in that positions - others probably not so much.

Then there is the kind of casters.
Wizards? Clerics? Magi? Druids? Bards?

Then the distribution of them in the ranks.
Are the wizards concentrated in small units?
Are they spread out between the regular soldiers as 'special weapons'?

The question of what magical schools they use.
Conjuration? Abjuration? Necromancy? etc. ?

Tactics will also wildly differ.
A Kyonin unit of battle mages will probably be way better if they can use the woods to their advantage, while a group of mages from Magnimaar will bring their trusty Golems to the fight and a Shoan'ti Stormcaller sings to the winds in the midst of the heated battle.


Proper necromancers (aka those that can raise multiple undead) are extremely broken. The ability to not only make it so your units keep fighting, but to also make it so that dead enemy units the former allies would be devastating to morale.

Wind mages, would make for a great telephone system relaying orders from the commander to the rest of the troops. Meanwhile, they are able to provide anti arrow support.

Water mages (that can create/purify water), would cut down on the weight of food supply. Making the army advance considerably faster and with less fatigue.

Earth mages can provide impromptu bunkers, while potentially opening the door to subterranean ambush tunnels.

We haven't even touched actual mechanics and how does get affected would be incredibly varied. Ex: The necromancers, summoners, and golem users would have a harder time overall due to the minion rule. But that gets fixed by having some squire carry the mages around in a cart (a tactic that doesn't work as well in a regular party).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that it is unlikely that spellcasters who can cast 4th level or higher spells are that common - your average war mage is probably equivalent to the mage for hire in the GMG, who is a level 3 creature who can cast 2nd level spells.

I think from memory that level 12 has been mentioned as roughly the level from which npcs of that level are very rare and always are significant characters that are comparable to PCs, so I doubt that most armies will have even a single 12th level spellcaster (so even a single 7th level spell is unlikely to happen in most battles)

In most cases, fireball is probably the big gun of spells being deployed on the battlefield, with stronger spells only turning during particularly epic battles.

An extraordinarily high level wizard (12+) probably can't make a huge enough difference on the battlefield to justify the risk of losing what might be the only wizard of that level in your kingdom - all of the spells that exist are impressive when deployed in an encounter with a dozen enemies, but aren't really designed RAW to actually do a lot to an army - the 10th level spell Cataclysm for example, only affects a 60 foot radius - anything in that area is almost guaranteed to die, but that is probably only somewhere between 20-60 soldiers (depending on how tight their formation is).

I think a if an army has access to a high level wizard, they are probably using them to scry and gather strategic information, and holding them in reserve to deal with really serious problems that crop up (for example, if the enemy bring a dragon to the battlefield, that wizard might be deployed because she is the only one who can deal with it). They are simply too valuable to risk just to throw big area of effect spells at rank and file soldiers - basically, the 14th level wizard is only called in if the enemy seriously escalates things to the point where she is needed.

There is also the issue of how people perceive and react to the use of excessive force. If you ride into battle on the back of a bound dragon and start throwing meteor swarms around, you are inviting a pretty severe escalation of hostilities, and many will probably consider you to be a war criminal - most of your warrior types will probably at least feel that this vaporising 30 people with a spell thing is a pretty dishonorable.


It seems like people are over estimating the direct power (not narrative power) of higher level characters. By the relationships of level and power that are actually described in the encounter building guidelines one x+2 level creature is worth 2 x level creatures. These are actuate for the power scaling in pf2. So a level 13 character is just worth 64 level 1 common soldiers, or 128 of the weakest level -1 soldiers.

That really isn't that many.


If decent AOE like fireballs (or even relatively cheap hand grenades) are reasonably common, then definitely warfare at a large scale would require more modern tactics of broken up maneuvering to be effecitve - this incidentally would require more tactical training for common troops to maintain coordination on top of training for discipline, cohesion, weapons usage, etc.

Given the extra cost and time associated as opposed to calling up conscript, on top of whatever magic is being obtained costs favor larger countries with more infrastructure, it's not surprising the Inner Sea tends to be dominated by superpowers.

While FR is a common comparison, Dragonlance springs to mind. Less magic, but air cavalry-mounted artillery got reintroduced after a moratorium for a millennia.


citricking wrote:

It seems like people are over estimating the direct power (not narrative power) of higher level characters. By the relationships of level and power that are actually described in the encounter building guidelines one x+2 level creature is worth 2 x level creatures. These are actuate for the power scaling in pf2. So a level 13 character is just worth 64 level 1 common soldiers, or 128 of the weakest level -1 soldiers.

That really isn't that many.

The encounter system doesn't scale beyond a few levels difference. It's not designed for 10 level differences.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wonder then if a campaign is based around large armies fighting and sieges, if the alternate rule of not adding level to proficiencies would be the way to go? Just for that campaign type.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
krobrina wrote:
citricking wrote:

It seems like people are over estimating the direct power (not narrative power) of higher level characters. By the relationships of level and power that are actually described in the encounter building guidelines one x+2 level creature is worth 2 x level creatures. These are actuate for the power scaling in pf2. So a level 13 character is just worth 64 level 1 common soldiers, or 128 of the weakest level -1 soldiers.

That really isn't that many.

The encounter system doesn't scale beyond a few levels difference. It's not designed for 10 level differences.

And I highly doubt that 128 level -1 soldiers would actually be able to defeat a level 13 character, despite being "technically" equal.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:

It seems like people are over estimating the direct power (not narrative power) of higher level characters. By the relationships of level and power that are actually described in the encounter building guidelines one x+2 level creature is worth 2 x level creatures. These are actuate for the power scaling in pf2. So a level 13 character is just worth 64 level 1 common soldiers, or 128 of the weakest level -1 soldiers.

That really isn't that many.

The guidelines in question only covers creatures within 4 levels of each other or thereabouts. That's intentional. A 13th level character can take an almost unlimited number of level 1 or lower characters in a fight. I mean, lets look at that 128 soldiers.

Assuming all are archers, that's 128 attacks per turn (okay, it's three times that, but the second and third ones simply can't hit, they crit fail even on a 20, making even nat 20s failures), meaning 6.4 will hit (as only natural 20s hit even on those first ones, and even they don't crit) for something like 1d8 damage a piece, making the total average damage 28.8 on turn 1 (before any die, it goes down after that)...if they won initiative, which they basically can't.

Now, assuming a spellcaster, what really happens is that they win initiative, then cast Greater Invisibility and make themselves basically immune to attack, and then kill the whole 128 within a few turns using things like Fireball and Cone of Cold (or whatever, all lists have options). The only meaningful cost of the encounter is a few spells.

A Fighter is one of the worst possible PCs to fight 128 random soldiers, all with bows, but with a shield will hit AC 37 and be literally unhittable by most level -1 foes (vs. AC 37 a +6 attack bonuses will always crit fail, meaning even 20s don't hit), and simply wade through a whole army of such foes murdering several a round until they run or die. He uses no resources at all for this. A Champion does not need a shield to be in the same situation. A Barbarian may well be in the same situation due to damage resistance alone, while a Ranger or Rogue can casually use hit and run tactics to murder the lot. Some of these options take damage, but none have real trouble.

Now, characters that level are very rare, and most armies aren't primarily level -1 soldiers, but the point stands that the guidelines you mention aren't designed to compare things more than a few levels apart and break down when you try to use them for such purposes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I dont consider that as having broken down, but rather the rules working exactly as intended.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I dont consider that as having broken down, but rather the rules working exactly as intended.

I think the point was that encounter budgets aren't meant to be used for that kind of level gap, not that the system isn't working as intended to make it so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would absolutely love it if, at least once in a given character's career, I got to experience that.

GM: "Remember when those goblin bandits nearly killed you outside your hometown when you were only level 2? Well, since the King has ordered every able-bodied man to fight in his war, the local goblin tribes have decided to take advantage of the situation and raised a small army of their own to sack your town! Only one heroine stands in their way: you."

I can't think of a better way to really see how powerful a character has become than to utterly trash something that was formerly very difficult to fight.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

I would absolutely love it if, at least once in a given character's career, I got to experience that.

GM: "Remember when those goblin bandits nearly killed you outside your hometown when you were only level 2? Well, since the King has ordered every able-bodied man to fight in his war, the local goblin tribes have decided to take advantage of the situation and raised a small army of their own to sack your town!"

I can't think of a better way to really see how powerful a character has become than to utterly trash something that was formerly very difficult to fight.

I threw some encounters like that at my party recently to demonstrate that they've become legit badasses and that the entire world doesn't just scale to their level. But because the encounters were such a foregone conclusion I didn't bother rolling dice for them. I just let my players narrate their victory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree it's very important to contrast the power gained by PCs. The mechanics of one's enemies rises to match one's own, so accomplishment has to be done through narration or comparison to one's past version. The rickety door at level 1 might require exactly the same number on the die as the door to the avatar's throne room, so it's up to GMs to flesh out the atmosphere for players. Plus, taking out a horde of Ogres when one used to be terrifying can be quite cathartic after a rough stretch.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I dont consider that as having broken down, but rather the rules working exactly as intended.
I think the point was that encounter budgets aren't meant to be used for that kind of level gap, not that the system isn't working as intended to make it so.

This.

I'm not criticizing the the system, just noting that the guidelines aren't useful for something like this. And yeah, an encounter like thus could be super fun, I just wouldn't award much (if any) XP for it given how easy it generally is.


But in a would were all levels are represented that relationship holds. Maybe the math breaks down between 1 and 13, but it holds for 1 to 5, 5 to 9, and 9 to 13. If all those levels are present in a battle/setting it really does seem that one level 13 is equivalent in direct battle power to 64 level 1s.

And improved invisibility doesn't make a character invincible, because of stealth rules it pretty much just halves damage taken.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you can't be hit you might as well be invincible.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
But in a would were all levels are represented that relationship holds. Maybe the math breaks down between 1 and 13, but it holds for 1 to 5, 5 to 9, and 9 to 13. If all those levels are present in a battle/setting it really does seem that one level 13 is equivalent in direct battle power to 64 level 1s.

Not really. A 13th level caster, and casters are what this thread is about, can basically ignore their within 4 levels opposition for long enough to utterly devastate the low level enemies with area effects. At least potentially.

Which makes putting your own 13th level people in a position to stop that really important, of course. But if you don't manage to do that, or one side has more high level people, they're worth a lot more than 128 low level soldiers.

citricking wrote:
And improved invisibility doesn't make a character invincible, because of stealth rules it pretty much just halves damage taken.

Uh...no. You can, with a 12 level difference, pretty casually spend a Sneak action to become Undetected while invisible with no meaningful chance of failure. That makes you impossible to target (well, they can target random squares and hope it hits you). At least if you're Trained in Stealth, which isn't exactly a stretch.

I mean, technically, with 128 enemies, they can all pick a square and fire, but Sneak can easily put you in one of 40+ (I'm too lazy to figure exactly how many) squares (assuming Speed 30...not hard for a 13th level caster, and this number multiplies by 3 on the first turn and more on subsequent ones if they can fly), and only has a 1/2 chance of hitting even if they target the right one. That makes the number of attacks that actually target you one in 80, or less. Technically, if they get lucky, it could be more than that, but they have to get real lucky. They're basically playing Battleship only with a 50% chance of hits being negated even though the 'ship' is there. That makes actually hitting the person under Greater Invisibility verging on impossible, especially if they manage to grab a flying spell (which they pretty much can).


Spending so many spells would cut down on how much attack spells can be cast. Also things like frequency are affected. Still would be able to kill a lot, but exact number heavily depends on how many spells are you using to avoid being hit and/or do other stuff.

Also AoE magic is countered by line of effect blocking, which makes tanks and covers with arrow slits extremely important and effective. Depending on how its done they can both serve as both against arrows and magic. (Uses the same theory as Familiars being safe inside a bag with a 1-ft opening.)

Ex: An Archer could in theory, use 2 actions to cover himself (or ready an action to do so) with a sack and close it using a specially made drawstring mechanism (creating a less than 1-ft opening); Therefore becoming virtually invulnerable to AoE magic. Yes that would make him really vulnerable to arrows, but that is a different problem.


Your ability to roflstomp large numbers of low levels is restricted by the fact that by RAW natural 20s attack rolls crit.

It's a popular homebrew that you use the task system instead, but this is not RAW.

I've seen some streams of Paizo devs doing it in games but a lot of "GM deviance" happens in games.

Until they make a comment abour rules in a rule stream (which confirms its developers RAI and not a GM thing), or print it in a rules document, it will remain unofficial.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Core Rulebook, p. 445.

CRB wrote:


If you rolled a 20 on the die (a “natural 20”), your result is one degree of success better than it would be by numbers alone. If you roll a 1 on the d20 (a “natural 1”), your result is one degree worse. This means that a natural 20 usually results in a critical success and natural 1 usually results in a critical failure. However, if you were going up against a very high DC, you might get only a success with a natural 20, or even a failure if 20 plus your total modifier is 10 or more below the DC. Likewise, if your modifier for a statistic is so high that adding it to a 1 from your d20 roll exceeds the DC by 10 or more, you can succeed even if you roll a natural 1! If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.

Emphasis mine. That is the rules text being cited by DMW and others for "roflstomping" large numbers of low levels.

More importantly, if you look under the rules for an Attack roll (Core Rulebook, p. 446), it says nothing about a natural 20 being an automatic critical hit like it was in PF1. It's just that, usually, a natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical success because you're fighting appropriately leveled opponents, not opponents that are 10 levels higher than you.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW is definitely that a 20 only increases your tier of success. It's not a "popular homebrew" or "GM deviance," it's the rules and one of the fundamental ones.


Core rules page 278

CRB pg. 278 wrote:

Critical Hits

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the
number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack
exceeds the target’s AC by 10, you achieve a critical
success (also known as a critical hit).

This is a specific rule in the specific section for attacks. It overrides the generic checks rule for attacks only.

This rule makes natural 20s on an attack role into critical hits, always and automatically.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does this help?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ruzza wrote:
Does this help?

OK, that's fine. I will concede. They need to get that into the rulebook or errata fast because it's ridiculous to have to read twitter to understand the rulebook.

edit: For such a fundamental thing as attack rolls, no less!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

P. 446 has a specific section on Attack Rolls that does not include that language, in the chapter titled "Playing the Game". That's why I referenced it in my post. It's literally under a section titled "Specific Checks".

The fact this rule is listed in Equipment and not Playing the Game tells me someone messed up on editing, either leaving out this text from p. 446 or not deleting it from p. 278.

I'd say it's less "popular homebrew" or "GM deviance" than it is simply that the text is not included in "Playing the Game", so people don't realize it's part of the rules.

Thank you for pointing this out, krobrina. I'm going to make a separate thread in the Rules Discussion forum for further clarification on whether this is the rule or not.

Ninja'd while I was typing by Ruzza. I agree with krobrina that that needs to be posted somewhere besides twitter fast, though. I don't check twitter anymore, and I've never followed game designers on it.


One thing to remember w/ the 128-warrior metric is in the body of one 13th level PC there's perfect coordination. Also, it's easily deployed, doesn't lose effectiveness at half damage (which would kill 64-ish warriors), can all be buffed/moved/made invisible w/ a single spell, and so forth.
Of course it can also be debuffed (but that won't come from a peon) and may fall prey to an environmental hazard (oops), but with decent intel, consumables, and an escape plan (or three) it can keep repeating the same strategies daily. Odds are the Wizard won't square off against all 128 warriors unless prepped to do so.
There's quite a difference between troops dying and one wizard going off to do Medicine checks for a span to recover the same relative damage. It's like having a self-repairing tank (w/ stealth tech & flight) fighting ground troops.

Which is why arguably in Golarion there shouldn't be armies of peons except to do grunt work like building, searching, looting, or rounding up (even lower level) civilians. Or setting off traps and scouting danger (a.k.a. dying for the cause).
There's a lot of military busywork to be done, but the critical fighting would fall upon the commando teams taking out rival commando teams involving lots of trickery.

Think of (or go watch!) the movie Clear & Present Danger. Commandos decimate lesser enemies who set a trap which the commandos, due to intel, can suss out and avoid. And that's without level bonuses & h.p. :)

----
And one reason I'm against familiars being safe in backpacks is that silly sort of stuff mentioned above about having thin fabric protect you from a fireball. Don't forget to get a roll of it for your castle windows so you can keep pulling down a fresh barrier after every magical blast. And why bother with arrow slits at all? Just have a curtain puller (or two) w/ readied actions (and lots of spare curtains). And march your troops inside large tents, but layered like a Matryoshka doll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:

Which is why arguably in Golarion there shouldn't be armies of peons except to do grunt work like building, searching, looting, or rounding up (even lower level) civilians. Or setting off traps and scouting danger (a.k.a. dying for the cause).

There's a lot of military busywork to be done, but the critical fighting would fall upon the commando teams taking out rival commando teams involving lots of trickery.

Think of (or go watch!) the movie Clear & Present Danger. Commandos decimate lesser enemies who set a trap which the commandos, due to intel, can suss out and avoid. And that's without level bonuses & h.p. :)

That is how the game system works. But if it worked like that in the lore, it would be a superhero setting not a fantasy one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
krobrina wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Which is why arguably in Golarion there shouldn't be armies of peons except to do grunt work like building, searching, looting, or rounding up (even lower level) civilians. Or setting off traps and scouting danger (a.k.a. dying for the cause).

There's a lot of military busywork to be done, but the critical fighting would fall upon the commando teams taking out rival commando teams involving lots of trickery.

Think of (or go watch!) the movie Clear & Present Danger. Commandos decimate lesser enemies who set a trap which the commandos, due to intel, can suss out and avoid. And that's without level bonuses & h.p. :)

That is how the game system works. But if it worked like that in the lore, it would be a superhero setting not a fantasy one.

Golarion has basically always been a superhero setting cleverly disguised as a fantasy setting.

Whispering Tyrant? Supervillain.

Aroden, Iomedae, Arazni? Superheroes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Mythologies of all kinds are filled with superhero stories. Pathfinder and D&D draw heavily from those, so I guess that's not surprising.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.


And then there's the question of whether or not you can find adequate characters of that level interested in engaging in warfare for a government on anything more than a mercenary level of duty and obligation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.

Why governments aren't like that? Some of them are: cheliax has a high level sorcereress with a divine patron, and she can clap her hands to drop pit fiends on troublemakers. What about the ones that don't?

How do they keep order?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
krobrina wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.

Why governments aren't like that? Some of them are: cheliax has a high level sorcereress with a divine patron, and she can clap her hands to drop pit fiends on troublemakers. What about the ones that don't?

How do they keep order?

I'm not sure they do? Like Nirmathas doesn't have a lot of high level characters but is also a disorganized mess of libertarianism.

That being said, you only actually need high level characters maintaining order if you have high level characters sowing chaos. And even then, you can often get away with just hiring some adventurers. Low level law enforcement works for low level crime just fine.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
krobrina wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I think what armies are generally good for is conquering and holding territory, which is why high level characters bother building them. Your level 13+ characters aren't usually available to man an Outpost or walk a beat. And player characters are rarely the conquerers themselves.

Why governments aren't like that? Some of them are: cheliax has a high level sorcereress with a divine patron, and she can clap her hands to drop pit fiends on troublemakers. What about the ones that don't?

How do they keep order?

Nation leaders in the Inner Sea region (and Tian Xia) average about 14th level (it's mostly 13th to 15th level with some outliers), and those of lower level are mostly inherited monarchs (ie: almost certainly not the highest level characters in their region).

Queen Abrogail Thrune of Cheliax is higher than that, but no nation really lacks high level members of the establishment (okay, maybe Nirmathas, whose leader is a mere 11th level...but as Captain Morgan notes they don't have a lot of centralized authority).

Which is to say, they do pretty much work like that. High level people in positions of power is the norm for nations in Golarion.


(High level people are the ones less likely to be killed by a random peasant, soldier, or caster. Nirmathas is special in that they are decentralized so the power need to control any given area is much smaller.

Also even Nirmathas was freed by a lv 14 Ranger.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A level 11-12 PC is not just powerful but EXTREMELY powerful. Look at the monster at Levels 14-15. This is the range of a "boss" monster for level 11 PC. What's there? Adult red dragons, ancient white ones, demilich, vieled masters. Major threats to entire civilized areas. Level 12 PCs can fight 6 Frost Giants without breaking a sweat and a small army of Bulettes before breakfast.

These are STRONG characters that can single-handedly defeat threats that would devistate entire regions. You don't have to be level 18-20 to be super strong, certainly not compared to the average person.


As I see it, Casters in 2e Pathfinder would serve best as support with rituals and/or in raid and guerilla groups, attacking supply-chains and commiting night-raids on camps, then teleport or inivisibly sneak back behind their own front lines.
Spellcasters does not have very good lasting power, and an extended fight will leave them next to useless in a matter of minuttes, but in short, strategic strikes against key targets or summoning up a game-changer from far behind the frontline seems to fit them far better.


krobrina wrote:
Ruzza wrote:
Does this help?

OK, that's fine. I will concede. They need to get that into the rulebook or errata fast because it's ridiculous to have to read twitter to understand the rulebook.

edit: For such a fundamental thing as attack rolls, no less!

Yes. I have seen this same question come up SO many times, and I'm disappointed in Paizo that they still haven't included this in their Errata. I raised this same question when the CRB came out half a year ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

In Pathfinder, it would take several direct hits from a longbow to get you down, in real life one would suffice.

There goes the comparison.

Oh hey, a post where someone asks what wizards should do, the first answer is Gorbacz.

Why am I not susprised.

Keep up the "good" work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nation leaders in the Inner Sea region (and Tian Xia) average about 14th level (it's mostly 13th to 15th level with some outliers)

For my tastes I feel like even that's a little bit extreme. It strikes me as a bit of an uncomfortable stretch that Joe Monarch just ends up being comparable to an Adult Dragon or several flavors of major demon.

Andarr wrote:

Oh hey, a post where someone asks what wizards should do, the first answer is Gorbacz.

Why am I not susprised.

Keep up the "good" work.

Are you just going through their post history so you can make snide comments? That's a little weird.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Nation leaders in the Inner Sea region (and Tian Xia) average about 14th level (it's mostly 13th to 15th level with some outliers)

For my tastes I feel like even that's a little bit extreme. It strikes me as a bit of an uncomfortable stretch that Joe Monarch just ends up being comparable to an Adult Dragon or several flavors of major demon.

Andarr wrote:

Oh hey, a post where someone asks what wizards should do, the first answer is Gorbacz.

Why am I not susprised.

Keep up the "good" work.

Are you just going through their post history so you can make snide comments? That's a little weird.

I'm not sure why we consider anyone able to keep power as "joe monarch" in a world in which personal power can be so extreme.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure why we consider anyone able to keep power as "joe monarch" in a world in which personal power can be so extreme.

I mean that's why it bugs me, because personal power and executive power are often pretty different things and I've never been a big fan of the trope of the leader of an organization always happening to be one of its strongest members.

I think stories about power systems work better when those power systems are entrenched politically, economically and socially more than when every nation is essentially ruled by a dragon who could probably just solo the underclass if they got uppity.

I concede this is absolutely just a matter of personal preference, though.


I am guessing its more a result of A person level X would get manipulated and out politiqued by B person level X+Y.

So a level 1 leader who is trained in deception and things would not be able to control people as well as someone who is level 5 and experts. Those would lose to people who are level 10 and masters. While all of those would lose to people who are level 15 and legendary. Of course its also possible for there to be a level 1 NPC with really high level in those skills, but a high level NPC will have both the power to not get assassinated and a similar amount of skills (thanks to level to proficiency).

If not using level to proficiency it becomes a lot easier for a low level but highly skilled to be able to keep power. But still runs the risk of just being killed off.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Spell ranges are quite short, what do blaster war wizards do on a battlefield? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.