>CR of 7 >Has infinite spell turning

>>51838431
CR is useless, what a surprise

>>51838447
This

So don't cast spells at it?

Are 3.PF players so brain dead that they can't comprehend overcoming a challenge without magic?

spell turning sucks, and does not work on nearly as many things as retards think it does
stop trying to dominate everything to skip encounters

>>51838512
Scalamagdrions also are continuously under the effects of a silence spell, so if you're within 400 feet of it, you can't cast any spells with verbal components.

File: 1426119012383.jpg (5KB, 126x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 126x125px

>>51838619
Then cast spells that don't have verbal components. Or use silent spell. You're a fucking wizard for christ's sake.

>>51838511
Isn't is ADnD? But generally speaking, is a Rust Monster for casters.

>>51838693
What did you have in mind?

>>51838693
>You're a fucking wizard for christ's sake.

?!?!

And?

File: Intellect-Devourer[1].jpg (74KB, 717x592px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 717x592px

>>51838431
Is this a "fuck mages" encounter thread?

>>51838897
How does int eater fuck mages? Wizards are the only things it doesn't fuck since they never fail the throw

>>51838925
>wizards
>having good saving throws
what?

>>51838925
>they never fail the throw

????

I'm confused, what planet are you living on?

>>51838954
https://5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/bestiary.html#Intellect%20Devourer
Its an int saving throw

>>51839014
>https://5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/bestiary.html#Intellect%20Devourer
Ah, 5th edition, then yeah. 5e is a hell hole for that kind of stuff.

>>51838736
Discounting silent spell? Literally anything that doesn't directly target the monster, like a cone or other AoE spell. Even better, spells that target you or the other party members are always an option.

Hide from Dragons is a spell too, you know.

>>51838777
And by playing a wizard its not your job to throw the most dice at a monster, or even force saving throws. Your job is to bend the game until it suits you, whether that looks like casting divination to learn you will fight one of these monsters, or hasting and buffing your Chargebarian so he can full attack it's ass into the dirt.

>>51839014
>it's an int saving throw

Yea, in 5E. In 3.5 it's a charisma based saving throw.

>>51839029
>discounting silent spell?

Yea, because those very quickly take up a wizards high level spell slots.

>hide from dragons is a spell too you know
Great, so running away is the preferred option you're going to throw out.

>Your job is to bend the game until it suits you

>Wizard player detected

No, that's the DM's job, your job is to be his little bitch pretending your powerful until he feels like smacking you down.

File: tumblr_ogcd62rlqe1vktf23o1_1280 (1).png (266KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x512px

>>51839027
>Thing that is exclusively flavored as a creature which consumes your mind, is named an Intellect Devourer and is literally a brain with legs. It gives players an Intelligence saving throw

>5e is a hell hole because of shit like this

File: 1481397535693[1].jpg (31KB, 742x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 742x600px

>>51839134
>intellect devourer

>its only weakness is its primary preys strength

>>51839109
>Silent spell takes up higher slots.
Because it removes the weakest component to spellcasting.

>Great, so running away is the preferred option you're going to throw out.
Always. You're playing an RPG, not a videogame. As a GM, when I throw unfair encounters at my players sometimes they run. As a player, if we're losing a fight I have no qualms with running if it means no one dies.

>W-wizard player?!
I played a psion once. Once. It's my players who showed me how limitless the wizard is. I'm just sharing what I learned from them.

>>51838447
It's worse than useless. It institutionalized the idea of ranking monsters by power level rather than by what they can do in the context you put them in. A cockatrice is CR3 regardless of whether you foreshadows it five sessions in advance and let the party prepare or if you just put it in the next room they explore.

>>51839200
>Because it removes the most balanced component to spellcasting*
FTFY

>You're playing an RPG, not a videogame. As a GM, when I throw unfair encounters at my players sometimes they run. As a player, if we're losing a fight I have no qualms with running if it means no one dies.
Seeing as its a dragon, the likely scenario is that it's required to kill. Like-wise, I don't see why the party would run away when there's perfectly capable martials to deal with it, unless your party was truly dumb enough to go exclusively magic, thinking that they'd be fighting hobgoblins and ogres for their entire careers.

>It's my players who showed me how limitless the wizard is
Boy you're gullible.

>>51839190
>primary preys
Why would it only prey upon smart people
Why would it not take the biggest, stupidist barbarian to become a thrall.

>>51839404
>Seeing as its a dragon, the likely scenario is that it's required to kill.
>perfectly capable martials
Did you actually every play the game? Pen & paper game, Neverwinter Nights doesn't count.

>>51839474
It's not called the stupidity devourer.

>>51839200
>how limitless the wizard is

>except against undead, constructs, and virtually anything that catches you by surprise

Top tier b8, m8

>>51839190
You're arguing that housecats are bad predators because they suck at killing whales.

>>51839474
>called the intellect devourer

>"why doesn't it target people with the least intellect?"

It's okay anon, I think you're safe from it.

>>51839056
>charisma based saving throw.
What?

>>51839533
>>51839514
it eats intellect
>Noh, it has to only eat the smartest people or its name is wrong.

>>51839523
That's a really stupid equivalency. You should feel ashamed.

>>51839477
>perfectly capable martials

It has no breathe attack and doesn't have a relatively large amount of HP.

P.S. "Use Cone or AEO abilities" - It also has immunity to fire and cold.

>Did you actually every play the game?

Have you? When the fuck has a dragon ever been a "random" encounter, unless you're 15-20th level?

File: IMG_3586.jpg (17KB, 150x302px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 150x302px

>CR 1
>Paralyzingly touch on all its attacks
What were they thinking?

>>51839559
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/intellectDevourer.htm

>The save DCs are Charisma-based.

>>51839589
You're the one who has trouble processing that an encounter does not have to be fought.

>>51839404
Are we really going to back-and-forth like this? Well okay...

>verbal components are balanced
I never said they weren't balanced. I said they were the weakest component. I think we can both agree on this.

>You LIKELY can't run, martials can handle it, your party is dumb.
In my example I mentioned *unfair* encounters. Like, "Monstrous Crab against level 3s" unfair. In an earlier post I mentioned that the wizard can just buff the martials and have them kill the scalamagdrion.

>You're gullible for thinking the wizard is the strongest class in the game.
I don't think I'm wrong, and you would be hard pressed to prove me otherwise... outside the realm of "but my fighter deals a lot of damage!" of course. Challenges are sometimes more than just who can throw the most damage dice at the problem, and more often than not the wizard has many options to solve or even circumvent challenges, whereas martials have very few options. Besides, a wizard that focuses on dealing raw damage is doing their job wrong.

>>51839672
If we're doing core 3.5 only, the wizzyman outdamages the fightyman pretty trivially at higher levels.

>>51839693
But core-only is a mistake, anon.

>>51839693
>At higher level
So just don't play at higher levels? Levels 2-11 are where it's at.

>>51839736
Aha! You have identified a logical failing in my statement but overlooked the more fundamental logical failing! Haha!

>>51839760
But wizkids get easy core bullshit damage online at 9th.

File: duped.jpg (6KB, 240x186px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x186px

>>51839762

>>51839347
You mean it's a general guideline and not an absolute statement? Who would have guessed?

OH WAIT, THEY EXPLAIN THAT IN THE BOOKS.

Fuck, you trolls need to try reading the books before your criticize the game.

>>51839780
And what if the party has no wizards? Or clerics, or Druids, or Witches, or Arcanists, or Shamans? In fact, my current party the highest tier class is a straight sorcerer played by a noob whose never played a full casting class before.

>>51839736
You have 3 options. Core only, all third party included, and selective third party included.

The first two options keep the balance pretty obvious and inherent.

The last one is the one most DM's include, and always shifts the gameplay from being either martial focused or caster focused.

>>51839672
>I don't think I'm wrong, and you would be hard pressed to prove me otherwise

Well it depends on your poison. If you're building a mage-hunter, it's surprisingly easy. There's tanglefoot bags which require a DC 15 reflex save or else the caster is stuck there for 2d4 rounds, which also means that they suffer a -2 on attack rolls, -4 to their dexterity, and every spell requires a concentration check. Pathfinder is REALLY generous with its alchemical items, all of which can cause disastrous results for casters, especially with things like Spider Sac's, which can wrap around casters preventing them from casting anything with a somatic component, unless they break the silk-like rope with a strength DC of 24.

Another way is to ready an action (ranged attack most likely) for whenever you notice that the spellcaster is going to cast, so that you may hit him (he won't be wearing any armor, and because of your higher initiative, you'll likely be going first majority of the time), which in turn will cause him to need a concentration check which is based on the damage your character did. Again, pretty bad for a caster.

There's also the fact that if you act first, you might be able to rush him and get into a grapple, which a caster is guaranteed to lose against any strength based martial.

Pathfinder also allows a feat called "Step up" which allows you to follow anyone who takes a 5 foot step away from you trying to disengage, meaning any caster that tries to run will be constantly tailed.

There's also the fact that you might simply carry a wand with you specifically for dispelling magic.

Do you want me to continue?

>>51839879
Then your party likely won't be able to overcome obstacles effectively once you start pushing past 7th level unless your GM knows his shit.

>>51839948
Hey retard, third-party means not WoTC. You can play WoTC-only non-core.

>>51839638
That's a completely different matter.

>>51840111
What do you mean? We already tackled a few CR 7 encounters at level 5 none worse for wear. Besides a bit of damage.

>>51840111
>third-party means not WoTC. You can play WoTC-only non-core.

Everything by Wizards of the Coast is core. Fuck off, retard degenerate.

>>51840143
I mean that in a few levels, trash playtesting and trash game design are going to catch up with you and math your shit in.

>>51839948
>mage-hunter, etc kills the wizard
Oh, are you thinking of wizard vs fighter? Because I was thinking of players in a party, and what each one can do to overcome the challenges put in front of them.

I know there are a lot of items, tricks and feats martials can use to help them against spellcasters, but wizards are equipped with harder, meaner forms of 'crowd control'. From the PVP angle you're taking, it seems to me you're boiling it down to an initiative roll.

Regardless, when I talk about the wizard being "the best class", I am talking about what they contribute to the party.

>>51840363
Well, if you're comparing it to challenges and what each one can do, the Wizard, may be able to more efficiently over-come obstacles, but in the long run, the fighter will out-endure the obstacles since there isn't a limit put on his ability.

That also means that your Wizard will be spending more time applying more utility spells rather than direct encounter spells.

The wizard is the best in terms of spell casting, but your naïve outlook on his preparedness for "anything" when he's limited to spell slots means that he's not going to focus on utility in most cases. Ideally, the rogue will have the most utility out of the group, just because of purely the amount of skill points rogues receive, and because they have the most class skills.

Is a wizard really going to waste one of his spells on a knock spell if they have a rogue? Especially considering that a Wizard doesn't have access to Knock until level 3, and that would be one of their only level 2 spells.

A wizard is only as useful as what they prepared for. You might be thinking "but 8+ possible spell slots for Level 2 and so on gives me tons of versatility!" Well, yea, 8 spells...Out of 50, and that's just for level 2 alone.

>>51840610
I didn't even factor in the possibility of one of their spells failing as well, meaning you literally just throw a spell away, and that DOES happen, especially when your players are going up against creatures they may not understand, and may not know the immunities/capabilities of, and end up wasting spells they think would other-wise have an effect. Needless to say, casters are very much relegated to back-seat drivers, if not completely irrelevant whenever the party comes face to face with anything that's undead or a construct.

>>51839635
What were they thinking with Imps? A flying ranged attacker with damage resistance and fast healing at CR 2 is just too much.

Wights are honestly the most annoying thing ever. So 4 level 3 PCs versus a few creatures that immediately drains a full level on every successful attack. TPK material right there.

>>51840673
>be fighter
>carry silver sword around "just in case"
>one-shot flying rat
>?!?!?!

>>51840610
>the fighter can out-endure obstacles
The wizard overcomes because he is capable. The fighter out-endures because he must. I say this as a player who loves the shit out of martials, by the way. Wizards have more options, and this is enables by traveling with a party.

>That also means that your Wizard will be spending more time applying more utility spells rather than direct encounter spells.
The strength of the wizard is how MUCH they can do, not that they can do it all at once.

>your naïve outlook on his preparedness
Hello, fellow frog.
When preparing spells, you keep in mind what you will need them for. A wizard won't prepare knock if they don't have to. Like you said, a rogue can lockpick, and even a fighter can kick down a door, and if either of those options will work then you don't have to prepare knock, and can prepare something more important instead.

>>51840610
>the fighter will out-endure the obstacles since there isn't a limit put on his ability
Fighting is limited by HP.
The fighter is likely to run out of HP before the wizard runs out of spells.

>>51840851
What about every single other fighter/barbarian/ranger that doesn't carry around 4 different swords made of weird metals?

>>51840855
The wizard over comes obstacles because he prepares. The FIGHTER over comes because he is capable. Out-enduring isn't a "must", because its what he was designed to do, along with the Barbarian (who is arguably better at doing so). These aren't semantics we're discussing.

>wizards have more options
This is where the argument starts. It assumes that a spellcaster, because he has more spells and has access to the same items that a fighter has, "has more options", when it's exactly the opposite. And I say this as a DM who has stumped spellcasters and caused rage quits from them on more than one occasion. Every single spell has the potential to be wasted via a failed concentration check. What causes a concentration check? Vigorous motion, high wind with rain, if they're grappled, attacked, distracted by another spell, or taking continuous damage. These are just basic examples given in the rule books, but they extend into virtually anything, akin to the "advantage" rule in 5E. On top of this, you have a wide assortment of creatures that have spell resistance. Now people say that spell resistance is a joke, which in some cases, it is. A CR 11 creature with a Spell Resistance of 19? Bitch please. but if you look at for example, a Xill, which has a CR of 6, and see that it's spell resistance is 21, then you see a problem. There's a real possibility of an equivalent spellcaster losing any of his spells to it. Even when you're looking at Devils and Demons, they all have spell resistance 30 and up, and Orcus has 41 spell resistance.

My point here is; what happens when he loses the spell he was counting on? A fighter, he can just swing again if he misses. But what about the wizard? More times then not, I find players over-estimating the Wizard's capability because of previously lenient DM's who weren't willing to challenge ALL the players, not just the martials.

>>51840906
>The fighter is likely to run out of HP before the wizard runs out of spells.

Assuming the wizard lives past the first 2 rounds.

>>51839638
>>51839056
This is a clear sign of someone that never played DnD.

A charisma save doesn't even exist in 3.5. This passage means the ability's save DC scales ith the monster's Charisma, for when the DM scales up his creatures with more HD and higher stats. That's also why giant vermin's poison DCs are high, because they are Constitution based, and giant shit gets lots of Con bonuses.

>>51841222
You the real hero, keep doing God's work.

>>51839638
As other anon pointed out, the *DCs* are Charisma-based. i.e., the monster's charisma affects the DC.

>>51841145
There is this strange idea that has been floating around forever, that the wizard can replace everyone else and essentially become a one-man party. Hypothetically true, but in practice it falls short.

A monster with SR is great because it forces the wizard to think before he acts, but it doesn't prevent the wizard from, say, polymorphing itself it to a big beastie, nor does it prevent buffing the party martials.

In my examples, you keep assuming that the wizard is either specializing too much into one role (blasting, targeting enemies) or stretching himself too thin (trying to do everyone else's job). This is where the preparedness I mentioned earlier comes into play: If the fighter deals damage, and if the rogue does sneaky shit et al., then the wizard need not deal damage or prepare sneaky spells.

I'm feeling really autistic tonight, so I'll present a scenario: A door, two orcs, and a wall; then we'll run a fighter, a rogue, and a wizard through it.

...
(1/2)

>>51843652
The scenario: A door, two orcs, and a wall.

The fighter attacks the door for a few rounds, alerting the orcs. He then aptly disembowels the orcs in a few rounds, and reaches the wall. He might have a grapple hook, but his Use Rope isn't too great, so he might fall down after a round or two of climbing.

The rogue picks the lock without a sound. He stabs an orc in the back, and might narrowly kill the other without a buddy to get sneak attack. The rogue then uses his awesome use rope and climb skill to scale the wall with a grapple hook.

The wizard casts mage armor, shield, and then knock on the door. He casts invisibility and walks past the orcs. Failing that, he can color sprays the orcs and coup de grâce them with a butter knife. Failing THAT, he has alter self boost his combat with an already high AC. etc etc. At the wall, he casts levitate.

Now while this is the ideal scenario for the wizard, imagine if all three were together. The rogue picks the lock and stabs an orc, the fighter murders the second orc with ease, and the low HP classes thank him for it. The rogue then throws his grapple hook, and they're over the wall.

Look at all those spells the wizard saved! Not because he was big fucking nerd and can do everyone's job, but because he can rely on his allies and support them as needed. Maybe he casts color spray on the orcs anyway, or grease so the rogue can get his sneak attack. Maybe he casts bulls strength on the fighter, or magic weapon, or blur, etc.

(2/2)

>>51843652

Before you even say it here's a counter.

Fighter attempts to intimidate orcs in to opening the door and surrendering. Fighter proceeds to smash through the wall with his +5 adamantine gauntlets and his 22 STR.

Rogue disguises as an orc and bluffs the enemies in to abandoning their position, but ordering them to hoist him up the wall first.

I'm guessing you have loads of varieties for wizard and just smash smash climb and pick stealth climb for the fighter and rogue respectively.

I haven't been following the argument so this may not be relevant, but if you think martials are boring you or your players are downright unimaginative.

I ban all caster classes from most of my campaigns.

>>51843759
>>51843807

Oh, it looks like my counterpoint wasn't relevant. Sorry about that.

Too high to read up but it looks like you're saying wizards can do anything, which is true. Which is why I ban them from all my tables.

>>51843759
At the lev you're fighting orcs you've just used more spells than your daily spell slots allow to circumvent something that would be considered easy if you were with your party. This is true of most "the wizard could do it better" scenarios that automatically believe that the wizard knows the spell and has it prepared

>>51843831
You said you weren't following the conversation, so I'll repeat that I fucking LOVE martials. The most wizard-y class I've played is the psion, which I only played once, almost three years ago.

I don't have a fucking clue what I'm doing in this thread anymore. My first post was telling OP to suck it up, and now I'm defending wizards...

>>51843878

I think the problem here is that you or your players don't engage the world properly.

Consider the following, you're a wizard who has to prepare spells daily, you're quite squishy and some adventurey types want you to come along and help them kill monsters. Now you know that without the right spells you could easily get squished by a giant or something, so would you go head first in to a dungeon to save the princess? Hell no!

You would gather information from the locals, maybe try to source some maps, find someone who has encountered these bandits before and knows their methods of security and patrolling. You work out what you need for a few days while working on some item in the evenings until you are prepared to go in to the cave and rescue the lich king from the bandits.

If you know the cave has lots of sharp cliffs you might prepare levitate or fly, if you know that giant spiders inhabit it you might bring some fly spray.

Point is if you're playing a character with high INT you would have a reasonable guesstimation of what lies ahead. You can even be as lazy as to ask the DM to roll one of the knowledges to give you a hint at what you should prepare, local knowledge we have an undead problem? Alright then, I'll bring some turn undead spells n sheeit.

The point the other guy is making (I think) is that a wizard can overcome any obstacle if he knows it ahead of time. He can do anything.

A rogue has to sneak and pick locks, a fighter has to smash and pillage. I mean they can do more but broadly they have a focus, they're intimidating, they're sneaky, they're charming whatever. A wizard can fake any of these things.

A wizard is a jack of all trades.

>>51844014
And master of none. His effectiveness is measured in slots and 5 minute adventuring days.

>>51843912

No no, it was all my mistake. You're absolutely right. Martials are objectively more fun but wizards can cover any role the martials cover.

A rogue has to be sneaky or charming or clever, a fighter has to be intimidating or commanding or pure brute force.

>>51841125
They deserve to die for their laziness.

>>51839799
A useless "guideline" shouldn't be printed in the first place if it's going to have the wild degree of variance that CR does.

>>51845661

The guideline is for a default party of adventurers. The DM should adjust the encounter accordingly, or if that's too much effort the DM should veto a party of 4 wizards from the start.

Local man panics

>>51841125
Your own fault for not being prepared. Wizards are only any good if they prepare for the situation, you can carry a silver sword.

>>51840162
Splats aren't core you mong

>>51843652
>but it doesn't prevent the wizard from, say, polymorphing itself it to a big beastie, nor does it prevent buffing the party martials

This is broken by 1 major flaw; wizards choose to polymorph into creatures they haven't even encountered in the game most of the time, so they're meta-gaming in order to pick a creature they know will be insanely useful for the situation. (There's also limits on polymorph, so its not as broken as 3.0, such as wizards not having access to extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities)

>>51843759
>Not because he was big fucking nerd and can do everyone's job

Hardly. It's like saying a fighter can do a wizards job because he just needs to run to the nearest magic/alchemy shop and buy any necessary items.

>which is true

Wrong. They can't fight worth a damn even at 20th level.

What they can do is almost entirely limited to what spells they can cast. They're going to dump all their points into concentrate and knowledge, so they're going to have shit skills (hey, why invest into skill points when I can just prepare a spell ahead of time?) Which is exactly where they fall flat on their ass. For every spell they prepare to make up for their lack of skills or ability, they waste a slot that could be used for something more important rather than something as easy to a rogue or a barbarian as "climbing". The rogue looks at the wizard and just shakes his head. Grappling hooks can be re-used. Rope can be re-used. Hell, arrows and bolts can be reused.

>>51841125
>silver is a weird metal

Also
>not carrying around multiple weapons based on enemy weaknesses
>not having an armory later in the game with weaponry organized by killing-type

Is this your first D&D game?

>>51846609
>party of 4 wizards

ehehehehe, heheheehahahh, ahahaHa, Ahahaha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, AAAHHAHAHAHAAAHA!

>pits them against a Rakshasa Lich

>>51839533
Every carnivore that doesn't hunt elephants/whales does not deserve a title of meat eating creature

>>51847839
You told them. I tired of these fucking faggots

>>51841125
Carrying swords is stupid. Get a warhammer, a shortsword and a longsword.

>>51847059
>pits one spellcaster against four spellcasters
>somehow expects the lich to win

>>51844047
>>51843759

I'm sorry, but both argument falls flat when actually analysed with game mechanics.

When both the fighter's scenario and rogue's scenario have massive risks of failure - the fighter "aptly disembowls orcs" and risks death or HP loss, and a rogue might get one orc with a sneak attack but will get even MORE badly injured when he can't sneak attack the other orc.

Another fight and they might die. Without a cleric, they heal 2 points a day and it takes them 2 weeks to heal the damage done by getting hit with axes.

Fighters need to have strength and constitution to actually be good in a fight, and get 2 skillpoints per level. They can't intimidate worth a damn because if they do they won't be able to climb or move around well in combat.

A rogue picking the lock has a possibility of failure and if he does fail then either something bad happens, or nothing happens. GMs often adjudicate skill failures to do something bad - fail the roll by five points or more and you make enough noise for people to here or the door jams or your tools break. Fighters punching a wall I've actually seen GMs say "yeah, take two damage, you hurt your hand and your pride because you didn't beat its hardness"

Wizards cast a spell and poof, knock doesn't require a skill roll, magic and the door is open. Wizards cast passwall and bam, there's a hole in the wall. And neither action takes a skill roll.

Assuming an 18 in int, Wizards have as many skillpoints as rogues. They have good intelligence and therefore can have a higher knowledge skill - a "useless thing" according to >>51846900 and make a roll to see if there's any circumstantial bonuses they can gain. They have 3 extra languages compared to the rogue and fighter and might actually be able to communicate with the orcs.

>>51848725

At low levels, the wizard can do many of these things, a limited number of times a day.
At low levels the fighter can possibly fight a limited number of people a day. He can also break things good. His low skill ranks means he isn't good at anything else.
At low levels a rogue can do some skill tasks and also risk death for all of them.

At high levels the wizard can do all these things and more, and all the low level stuff can with a fraction of his money have effectively hundreds of spell slots for knock and protection from all arrows and things like that.
At high levels the fighter can fight a limited number of people a day and can also break things good. He's still unable to do anything else.
At high levels a rogue can do the same skills he could do before, just slightly better.

>>51845661
Welcome to a game with a lot of options. It seems like you prefer games with only a semblance of options.

>it's "casters vs. martials" episode on /tg/
The primary strength of the casters is that they don't have to fight the encounter in the first place.

Consider the following:
A dragon attacks your character.

What can a martial do?
>fight
>flee, probably unsuccessfuly

What can a caster do?
>teleport away
>use a summoned decoy to provide distraction while he flees or does something else
>hide behind walls of iron
>hide in rope trick
etc.

The main thing people fail to grasp - you don't need to defeat the encounter in order to solve the encounter, unless it's some sort of final boss-esque thing.

this is why 2.5e is the best

>>51839347
>It institutionalized the idea of ranking monsters by power level rather than by what they can do in the context you put them in.

You mean except for the part where the DMG specifically states that you're supposed to take the context into account when making encounters?

>>51839948
>You have 3 options. Core only, all third party included, and selective third party included.

CORE DOES NOT MEAN "ALL 1PP" YOU FUCKING RETARD! IT MEANS COREBOOKS(PHB, DMG AND MM) ONLY..

>>51849370
That's why PF has a section in the back of the Bestiaries that states "monster roles" and suggests what you use the mosnter to do. castigation monsters aren't the enemy of wizards - skill based monsters are, because 9 times out of 10 a skill based monster is going to trick, deceive, and confound the caster before the caster ever encounters it.

>>51838619
>have silent spells on all my illusions for free
>Am Shadowcraft Mage
>Orb of Force his face off or just cast prismatic spray

>>51838431
Try beating it with axes, swords, halflings if your alignment allows

What is this thing?

>>51839190
That's how it works in real life as well

For example any large carnivore, they have nothing to fear from bugs, but they eat large prey which can fight back because they have a larger return on their effort.

File: 1455683101480.jpg (80KB, 643x628px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 643x628px

>>51848882
CR takes away options. It introduces HP bloat and all sorts of other issues. Please explain to me the rationale behind why a Mind Flayer would have more health than an ogre? Literally the only way that makes sense is in the backwards ass, gamist paradigm that D&D inhabits.

You can't judge the danger of an encounter based on the attributes of the creature, it's all based off whether or not it's "level appropriate".

Here's another example: Take a kobold and compare it to say, the tarrasque. Kobolds are fast little fuckers (their DEX is the same as a panther's). They get 1 attack per round. The tarrasque is this big, lumbering behemoth that smashes through buildings and is the size of a sauropod. It makes 5 attacks per round (bite, claw, claw, tail, horns). A round is 6 seconds.

How is the tiny, whippy, dexterous little bugger a slower combatant than godzilla? Because if a kobold had two attacks then it would kill a first level wizard, and if the tarrasque didn't have 5 attacks then it wouldn't be a challenge.

Basically, levels are DUMB. challenge rating is DUMB, and you should play a system other than D&D if you're interested in playing an immersive game that doesn't inevitably decay into Murderhobos and Monsters

>>51839948
Wew
Fucking
Lad

Polymorph
Scry
Teleport
Flight
Various no-save-just-lose

In 3.5, incantatrix invalidates all arguements for wizard vs anything.

They are by miles stronger than any martial without even trying.
They can nuke you from hundreds of feet away, invisible, and silently.

>>51839799
>>51846609
>>51848882
>>51838511
>>51838512
ITT: People who missed the entire point of the OP.

The point isn't that it has infinite spell turning, it's the fact that a CR7 creature has such a powerful ability while being marked down as an equal to something like a dire bear.

If you're going to lump monsters into an arbitrary category based on strength then the monsters should be around the same relative power level or, failing that, the CR system should also include integers as well to account for these differences.

Like if a dire bear is CR 7.5, a scalamagdrion should be 7.9, or if a giant be is a 1.2, a ghoul should be a 1.9 or something along those lines.

>>51854874
CR assumes that the party has a way to kill creatures resistant to magic. A.K.A. Martials.

>>51854993
Yet at the same time, the game also assumes that a cleric will only heal and buff the party, rather than turning into a whirling dervish of death and destruction that can potentially solo a campaign with the right buffs cast with enough hours of preptime.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say the game designers for 3.PF didn't know a damn thing about their own game until they made 4e and 5e.

>>51855093
>potentially solo a campaign with the right buffs cast with enough hours of preptime.
Except no GM worth his salt is going to allow 3-5 rounds of self-buffing before every encounter and 8 hours of rest immediately after it.

>>51855303
Some buff spells can last fucking hours dude. The martials will run out of HP before the cleric actually loses all his spells for the day.

>>51854874

CR is balanced for a default party. If you have a party with no way to kill things with SR then you should adjust accordingly.

We can't sit down and work out the CR on everything for every permutation of party.

>>51855829
Then what's the fucking point of having CR in the first place? Also, what exactly is a "balanced" party anyways? One where it's a Fighter (T5), a Wizard (T1), a Cleric (T1), and a Rogue (T4)?

Because the "balanced party" isn't actually that balanced but that's another seperate issue with the rules as a whole.

>>51857091
Because in practice literally none of the things /tg/ bitches about actually happens.

>>51857121
This.
/tg/ bitches about pretty much everything and then makes up shit to bitch about. For example:
>Wizards in D&D are OP as hell
In actual play the wizard is situational as hell. His spell slot selection every morning is a pain in the ass so it's rushed for simplicity's sake in a group. And if they're caught off guard or in a threatened space they can't 5ft step out of they'll get hit by a 10-20damage AoO that'll fizzle that mythical non-existent "instant encounter ending spell" /tg/ bitches about.
>Every Pathfinder party has a wizard, Druid, and cleric in it with a tier 5 martial.
I've found the opposite in actual play. People tend to pick stuff that's flavorful and/or fun.

>>51857121
>>51857261
>Because in practice literally none of the things /tg/ bitches about actually happens.
>This.
That's a pretty bold claim to make famalam. Are you one of those 3.PF fanboys who, when confronted with the sytem's flaws, buries their head in the sand and deflects all criticism with "your flaws are petty" or "it's popular so it HAS to be good" or some shit like that?

Because nobody else would claim that none of the balance issues have actually affected play.

>>51857261
>In actual play the wizard is situational as hell.
Not off to a great start.
>His spell slot selection every morning is a pain in the ass so it's rushed for simplicity's sake in a group.
Maybe if the player is new or a fucking idiot. Assuming you start at level 1, the player should have an idea of which spells are his bread and butter by level 3 at least, maybe level 5 at the latest.
>And if they're caught off guard
Divination Wizards are literally impossible to sneak up on.
>or in a threatened space they can't 5ft step out
What about teleport spells like misty step and dimension door, or spells like Blur and Displacement that adds a miss chance to any melee attack an opponent makes, or spells that summon obstacles like summons and wall spells? I mean, if you're basing their power level off newbies and retards then of course they're not going to look impressive.
>People tend to pick stuff that's flavorful and/or fun.
Until they realize that it's garbage.

>>51857386
big with with wizards in my experiance is that they depend a lot on the experience and skill of the player.
Players who don't know what they are doing often find themselves off guards, and give a mix between big effect and being worthless (this is still not good game design). Experianced players constantly contribute, and still deal with a decent percentage of encounters all by themselves.
Player who've mastered the class can utterly distort the game while playing entirely within the letter and spirit of the rules.

It's still possible to have a lot of fun with 3.X, but it involves extra work by the GM, house rules, and an understanding by the players to preserve the fun of the game even when trying to become powerful.

>>51857542
>big with with wizards in my experiance is that they depend a lot on the experience and skill of the player.
Literally every fucking core class in the game depends on player experience to succeed, whether it's through play or during character creation.

Honestly, Fighters are the most difficult class for newbies to wrap their heads around, simply because you'd need to know which feats to buy in order to not gimp yourself halfway through the campaign.

>>51857529
You're assuming that the wizard is given free reign with all spells known, all spells memorized, infinite spell slots, and specific magic items that may not exist in the setting.

>>51857611
Honestly, why pick fighter when barbarian is an all around better option?

>>51857611
false.
Sorry, but there is a very low ceiling to the pure martial and half maritial classes.
You can try to get clever with combat feats but one, even with those maxed out your stuck at a very low comparitive amount of possible actions, and more importantly they are combat actions.

People bring up 'it's a role playing game, it depends on the roleplay' or story, but that's where pure casters can distort the whole fucking thing. They have effects on the narrative.
Invisibility says 'you are invisible', charm even under the restricted interpretation turns someone into an instant friend, illusion spells have to be interacted with and saved against or they appear exactly as the real thing. That's where experience is the bigger factor.

It's why experienced wizards choose evocation as one of the schools to give up.


>>51857631
you've never played with or against a skilled wizard.

>>51857631
And you're assuming that a smart player wouldn't have a small collection of spells memorized that are versatile enough to be used for any situation.

Like there's few situations where something like Blur, Wind Wall, Dimension Door, Fly, etc. wouldn't be useful to have just in case and spells like Web, Wall of Force, or Summon Monster is great simply because they have the potential to direct where an opponent is able to go without dealing with some issues.

Not to mention, scribe scroll is also something that I can take advantage of while I'm waiting for the martials in the party to heal up from combat and any treasure that we come across can just as easily be used to purchase magic items while the martials are spending their gold on magic weapons and armors.

Or I can just make a cheap wand or something.

>>51857759
Wait. So you're saying that the only reason that wizards are OP is because powergaming munchkins with 0 roleplaying experience play them? Oh golly gee I never noticed!

File: 1436943416668.jpg (48KB, 402x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 402x490px

>>51858038
>So you're saying that the only reason that wizards are OP is because powergaming munchkins with 0 roleplaying experience play them?
Wizards are OP by default thanks to how versatile their spell list is, you can break a campaign on accident just using basic logic.

It's generally what happens when you give one class over 100 spells that can be switched out at the start of the day and do awesome shit per cast.

>>51858246
Then don't make it super easy for wizards to get new spells. It shouldn't be like magical Walmart where you can walk in, buy a copy of force cage, buy a cloak of displacement, buy a few divination spells, buy 15th level, and walk out.

>>51858409
>Then don't make it super easy for wizards to get new spells.
Wizards get 2 new spells every time they level up, not to mention the extra spells they get for having a high INT score after character creation.
> It shouldn't be like magical Walmart where you can walk in, buy a copy of force cage, buy a cloak of displacement, buy a few divination spells, buy 15th level, and walk out.
Unfortunately, Magical Walmart is the default assumption that the system makes due Wealth by Level being a thing.

For the record, cutting out WBL only hurts Martials more than Mages since Martials NEED their magic items just to keep up.

>>51858461
new guy, but the 3.x game I'm in has about a 3 to 1 loot ratio between mages and martials.
Pure money is pretty low as a reward, and high level magic can't be bought (+1 is the max off the shelf).

And the wizard is very inexperienced and needs a lot of help, and the cleric needed to be told to back down on the self buffing.

Fun game but that's what it takes.

>>51858461
It actually hurts casters more because they can't have any +6 INT headbands or cloaks of resistance or winged boots or +10 crafting skill gloves or at-will CLW necklaces or wish scrolls or immovable rods or ioun stones or metamagic rods or haversacks or bags of holding or spell-storing rings or goggles of true sight or +5 deflection AC bonus shoulder pads or... I think you get the point.

>>51858578
>Pure money is pretty low as a reward, and high level magic can't be bought (+1 is the max off the shelf).
Mages can still make the magic items though, and unless you're going from dungeon to dungeon, you should have enough downtime to make something while on the road or while you're waiting for the martial to be healed up.
>And the wizard is very inexperienced and needs a lot of help, and the cleric needed to be told to back down on the self buffing.
This proves how OP mages are though. In order for everyone to have a good time, the mages need to either be new, retarded, or self-restraining.

>>51858724
It's not really that bad. At least when you understand the emotions of other people and know when to turn down the powergaming aspects every so often.

>>51858632
>It actually hurts casters more because they can't have [...] I think you get the point.
Everything that you listed, save for epic six items like the +6 INT headband and the cloak or resistance, are items that are superfluous to the mage's overall power.

Chances are, they either already have a spell that does something similar to a magic item or they enough skill points to invest in a particular skill thanks to having high INT.

Martials on the other hand literally cannot survive in the higher levels without magic items. Between high ACs, resistances/immunities, Damage Reduction, and spell-like abilities, a martial just won't have enough power to affect combat in a significant way.

File: ghost-08.png (26KB, 781x811px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 781x811px

>CR of 7
>Has infinite defense against all mundane attacks and 50% chance to ignore magic weapons
>Can seep into the floor and become immune to pretty much every form of direct attack in the process
>7d6 damage on touch
>Cannot be permanently killed

>>51858749
That has nothing to do with the argument though, the argument is whether or not mages are OP, not about whether or not there's a way to play a mage without ruining the game for everyone else.

It's like saying that nukes aren't dangerous because nobody would ever use one, it doesn't make the nuke any less dangerous just because most people wouldn't want to be the guy who fired first, it just means that people know how serious they are and are smart enough to only use it as a last resort.

>>51858461
Martials only NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED their magic items if you throw DR/magic monsters at them. A single casting of bull's strength is equal to a +2 sword.

>>51858867
Even then if you have a bag of holding you could swap out their current battleaxe for one coated in cold iron/silver/etc or the +1 magic battleaxe they usually use is good enough for DR/magic

>>51858724
>Mages can still make the magic items though
still require components which require cash.

Craft Wonderous item is awesome enough you could probably get around some of that, but outside of that it's pretty easy to control loot by restricting most big rewards to directly giving items, not having them be bought.

Also, because I think this might be causing confusion, NEVER treat plot NPCs as the same as PC classes. Enemies you can justify, but the item merchant works by item merchant rules and guidlines, not PC class guidelines.
This isn't a 3.x thing, or a even a dnd thing. This is an RPG thing.

>>51858867
After a certain point, every monster within a given CR will have DR, spell-like abilities, etc. of some capacity.

Also, why should the mage make you useful when they can cast literally any other spell to either debuff the enemy (which still helps you) or affect the environment (which also still helps you).

Teamwork is ideal but a team is only as strong as its weakest link, which will be the martial w/o the aid of magic items.

>>51858835
to be somewhat fair, some people do go to the stronger argument of "caster/martial imbalance means you can't have fun with 3.x".
Which is all sorts of stupid, but people on here say it.

I'm >>51858578 btw. So yes, 3.x can be fun, but that fun requires being aware of and working around the problems. That doesn't mean they aren't problems.

>>51858724
>Mages can still make the magic items though
So what magic item is the mage going to make? The necklace of Fly that only he is able to use and will use up nearly his entire WBL budget (if thats even given in pure gold and you have a few weeks of downtime) or a belt of 5/day enlarge Person for the hulking barbarian so he can start doing 3d6+11+3 damage per hit at +14 to hit at level 5.

>>51858941
>But martials are weak without magic items
Then craft them some
>But I can do better by not giving them magic items and crafting myself a +3 AC bracer for myself.
How is that helping the party?

>>51858632
>It actually hurts casters more...

A 17th level fighter, missing 99% of his WBL,

>Can't Fly
>Can't Teleport
>Has a shit Touch AC
>Has a decent fort save, shit reflex and will saves
>Is vulnerable to confusion, paralysis, domination, charm, stunning, etc.
>Has, at best, a couple +1 items.
>Can swing a sword good or shoot a bow good.

A 17th level wizard, missing 99% of his Wealth By Level

>STILL HAS 9TH LEVEL SPELLS

>>51859019
A caster being alive is more helpful to the party than a martial being alive

>>51859019
this is called being aware of the problem and working around it.
That does not mean that the problem does not exist.

>>51859159
A caster can get at most a +8 to his AC if he casts both his buff spells, one of which lasts minutes while the other lasts hours and doesn't stack with any other armor. A armor using martial has +6 minimum AC as a base before accounting any shields, racial bonuses, class bonuses, etc. Besides, the martial characters ARE your shield. I remember playing a buff focused sorcerer once and the barbarian, paladin, and ranger in the party would routinely form a body shield around my squishy caster every combat because they knew I'd make it hell on anyone they're attacking and making them all combat monsters. That's how it should usually go with a full-caster and martials in the same party.

>>51859019
>Then craft them some
But then, why not make magic items that benefit themselves rather than the martial? A wand of flight or web or blur is going to be more useful to the party than a Fighter would be.
>How is that helping the party?
Because having a way to utilize spells without dipping into my allotted spells per day means that I can be useful for longer while also dedicating my spells per day to spells that I wouldn't normally use because they're so situational.

The question you should be asking is, what does the Fighter add to the party that couldn't theorhetically be filled by an awakened animal companion, assuming such a thing were possible?

>>51859417
The problem with your argument is that a mage can summon 1d4+2 creatures whenever he wants that can do more with their attack than the meatshield that they're sharing loot with.

Like think about it, a bear gets a free grapple whenever they hit with their claws, which effectively takes one dude out of the fray while the rest of the party does other shit. Considering you'd also get a wall of meatshields as well, that each can do this shit, how can the Fighter really compete?

>>51852737
You're right about a lot of things.

But you fail to see that
>A round is 6 seconds.
this is the biggest issue to complain about.

>>51838447
>friend makes gestalt fighter/cleric
>level 5
>CR is 13
Kek

>>51862190
Why do you always assume it's a baseline T5 fighter?

>>51839693
>core only
>cuclywizzu pissy sissy
>not bbc packing mandingo CoD
Hahaha le /tg/ at it again I see

>>51838897
I wish. I need more domine and fighter archetypes images

>>51838897
What I don't understand is why does something with a big soft organ as a torso still have a natural armor bonus of +5?

>>51838431
I'm so glad you pointed this thing out, the spellsinger in my campaign will not be happy.
They'll get one chance to kill it before it joins bbeg's retinue.

>>51865636
It's D&D. It's not supposed to make sense.

>>51865506
You didn't answer my question.

>>51862190
The ability to not get bitched at OOC for replacing him and making it feel like you hate him as a person.

>>51867944
So basically nothing, they contribute nothing to the party and they'd be better off playing an animal companion instead.

>>51867954
Now Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, etc. They contribute more to the party by being martials and not reliant on magic as heavily as casters.

File: JUSTDROPPEDINTOSAY.png (20KB, 243x218px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 243x218px

You have 5 minutes to justify why save or die/save or lose spells exist other than to create artificial barriers of difficulty based on RNG bullshit

>>51868154
You have 4 minutes to justify why PCs would have access to save or die/save or suck/suck or die spells at any level.

Why are flumphs CR 1? Pretty sure a single character with a throwing hammer could kill the thing in one round.