Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6153093" data-attributes="member: 6681948">So are we looking to "equalization"?  If the wizard can do it, the fighter must also be able to do it, so give an ability to one or remove it from the other?  We should, then, have all characters with Poor BAB, d4 hp, Poor saves across the board, 20' movement, minimal weapon proficiencies, no armor proficiencies and no spells.  There - everyone is equal, and no one got any new abilities.  If the fighter can "use scrolls that did most of what the wizard's did and allowed him to write new ones every day", plus have full armor and shield, d10 hp, and full BAB, why should anyone play a wizard?So the players just resolve everything in the One True Way the GM has in mind?  Maybe he can just send us an email telling us what our characters did.On the assumption the orcs can move to a location that stops them, yes.  Otherwise, no.Now we are into the question of adventure design - if the PC's are able to teleport, the adventure should not be neutralized by that ability.  Teleporting away is not getting us past the Orcs to rescue the kidnapped villagers, though.Really?  To walk through a door?  Every corridor is 10' wide to facilitate this?  Did you have weapons out, or sheathed?  Are you wearing shields (which make your hands less useful for that touch).Are you dropping your sword to have a hand free to reach out?  You said you were keeping it out after you had to draw it a few minutes ago and as a result could not make a full round attack, remember?"roll up new characters" is not the end of an adventuring success story in my view.  If you need to spend actions to get into position, you are working with action resolution.  Seems like a good hint to the orcs that the scrawny spellcaster is going to do something - should we be ready to disrupt it?  Maybe this is a good time for a Bull Rush if they're trying to get into some odd formation.  Of course, if you can take three other characters and you were hoping to also get those two prisoners home, that Teleport seems less beneficial, somehow.So, basically, if we remove all of the actions that could be taken to prevent spellcasters from casting, nothing prevents them from casting.  Oh, and we need some new rules to make the spellcasters less powerful!  Will we actually use these rules, or will we ignore them as well and be surprised spellcasters are still overpowered?All of whom played exactly the same way, apparently.I rarely see Counterspells.  Silence?  Very frequent - but not "on someone" for the reasons you note.  "The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any."  Given that, why would I cast on an unwilling creature?  Every other spell cast targets a weak save, but not this one, even where a "no save" option exists?  We used Silence in our last game and hedged the caster in its radius for the rest of the (fairly short) fight.So, basically, "let's use this tactic when it serves no useful purpose, but not when it would actually be useful".  Great.  Again, lets remove a whole bunch of effective options and complain that the ineffective ones we kept aren't working.  Not to say that Pathfinder's streamlining of these combat maneuvers was not welcome - they needed the improvement.Gotta say, I can't see four thinking people deciding that, although this approach means we don't routinely get beaten, bludgeoned and cut, it takes longer, so we'll just suck up the beating so we can get done quicker. Of course, I would also be OK deciding that, with the target grappled and having little or no chance at escape, "With the enemy grappled, you are able to make short work of him."  Mind you, my games do not feature enemies with "30 hp" tattoooed on their foreheads either.What's the wizard doing there?  I thought he always Teleported away.  If the opponent can just hit him and he's down, then I agree - why would he grapple?  But, if the wizard easily hits in melee, the fighter should be going to town on this guy anyway.  The wizard holding a dagger and a wand/scroll doesn't have a hand free for somatic gestures either, so I dont see a lot of wizards drawing weapons.  I do see a lot watch the flow of the fight (delay) until a reason to use a spell comes along.It does, thanks.Go ahead and follow us right back to the settlement.  Of course, you are leaving your own lair unguarded while you chase us into an area unlikely to be friendly to Orcs.7th level PC's - which spell(s) are you using , and what all spells are you carrying?  Let's work out the DC's. 9th F is +3, -1 for a poor WIS is +2.  DC 10 + 6 (20 INT is pretty good at 7th, but we'll go 22, or assume Spell focus)  + 4 = 20  Orcs need an 18, so a bit less than a 40% chance at least one succeeds.  Now, let them use one of their Feats on Iron Will and they get +4, so now they need a 16+, so we have almost a 60% chance one succeeds.  That goes up if the spell level goes own, of course.  That's not great odds for the orcs, but the deck has been stacked against them.  A CR8 stone giant has a +7 will save, almost 80% likely one will save.  CR9 Frost Giant only gets +6 (27.5% chance all three fail).  I'm waiting to see the spells, though.  Feel free to assume the Wizard has three 4th level spells (he can be specialize) so one can target each save.You need a pretty effective spell with a high DC against each of the three save types.  And I suggest that changing the Orcs to a Fighter, a Sorcerer and a Cleric Orc, played with some of the tactics a PC group would use, will make the encounter much less a cakewalk.  If all the enemies are identical, the party's greater flexibility will typically make it easier.  3 9th level fighter Orcs, with their appropriate wealth by level, should have a pretty impressive array of abilities, and could certainly dedicate some to  bolstering those weak Will saves.  Pull out your own L9 fighter sheet and let's give them the same Will save.  Or let's load them up (at least one!) on Mage Killer feats and see how that works out.Seems more like the GM didn't consider the weaknesses of the opponent in light of his party's strengths.  What does the wizard do if the save fails, or if there is another encounter?  I suspect, also, that for every bad FORT CR 11 monster, we can find quite a few with spell resistance, magic immunities, etc. that render the wizard much less effective.  And that's OK - he got to shine against the one with weak FORT saves, so it's someone else's turn in the spotlight!As I recall, Stoneskin was not cheap, so it was not used universally.  And spells had casting times - if I used speed factors, I definitely also used casting times. Grappled, then pinned, then tied up.  Enemy defeated.  "defeated" need not mean "killed".  In the encounter I was referring to, the creature could be dragged to a pool and drowned.So why is the theme "kill", rather than "defeat", the monsters?  What is our actual goal, and why does it require their deaths?Pretty sure that's why we got Diplomacy skills - to avoid the GM just neutralizing parley attempts, we get a "you have a chance - roll the dice" mechanic instead.  "The monsters refuse to parley" is no more acceptable, as a universal issue, than "there's anti-magic fields everywhere", in my view.  Your spell can fail because of good saves, spell resistance or immunity to certain spells or effects, as well.IIRC, it is a Skill Trick from 3.5 Complete Scoundrel.  Sure, there it is - <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=5" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=5</a>But, if every encounter must be played out as a combat slog, then why be surprised that players gravitate to abilities that cut those slogs short?  It seems like half your comments above gripe about combat taking too long and the rest are complaints about things that shorten them.</blockquote>

Verification