Convince me PF's CMB and CMD are better than 3.5's opposed checks

[Psyren]

The same doesn't go for a success, because a good roll doesn't remove everything, it only removes 1/4 CL spells.

Yes, I know that; I still don't see the issue. After all, it goes both ways - an enemy getting a lucky roll can't strip all of your buffs with a single cast either, and the PCs are usually more likely to be the ones going around swaddled in buffs, so if anything this is a player-centric change. If you want a way to strip all of a target's buffs regardless of quantity with a single spell, use Disjunction.

[Zombimode]

Unless the DM also has 7 enemies in the encounters, and he really enjoys wargames

I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

[martixy]

I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

Me too. But I find it hard to run enough enemies to challenge a party of 7 of that optimization level without resorting to sheer numbers advantage.

[noob]

Except lets be honest, most of the time all of the spells will be of the same caster level, so fail against one means fail against all.



The metagaming portion can be handled by the DM rolling a bunch of dice behind the screen, or simply just by asking for A set amount of rolls, say, 10, and just comparing the relevant number of rolls for the buffs in question.

As for handling large numbers of rolls, there are tools for that, but simply having the DCs ready and just listing off the numbers post roll shouldnt be too difficult, in my experience, the difficult part is in re-doing the stat block post dispel, not the dispel itself.

Then what happens against an opponent with 500000000000 buffs?
Normally the gm does statistics on the odds of dispelling a buff then remove a proportion of those.
Now the gm is supposed to roll 10 dices with your weird rules even if none of those are useful for the situation.
Imagine the opponent have 11 buffs.
Do you decide that the eleventh buff can not be dispelled?
If there is a cap on the dispelled buff number for npcs(when targeted by dispelling) will that not make pcs angry about lopsided rules in their disfavour in case of buff stacking wars?

[Crake]

Yes, I know that; I still don't see the issue. After all, it goes both ways - an enemy getting a lucky roll can't strip all of your buffs with a single cast either, and the PCs are usually more likely to be the ones going around swaddled in buffs, so if anything this is a player-centric change. If you want a way to strip all of a target's buffs regardless of quantity with a single spell, use Disjunction.

Opinions on what's better aside, you seem to agree that it is in fact a nerf then? It's less consistent, and more swingy, and even when it does swing in your favour, it doesn't swing as far in your favour as it does swing away from your favour when it goes badly.

I have no idea why apparently many people think that single enemy encounters are the norm/a good idea. They should be (and are at my table) the exception. 3.5 and pathfinder work that much better if most encounters consist of mixed groups of enemies.

I feel much the same way honestly.

Then what happens against an opponent with 500000000000 buffs?

Uhh... ok?

Normally the gm does statistics on the odds of dispelling a buff then remove a proportion of those.

Sure, that sounds like a fine way to deal with it?

Now the gm is supposed to roll 10 dices with your weird rules even if none of those are useful for the situation.

Uhh... what? My weird rules? Well, no the players were supposed to roll those dice anyway, if the GM is rolling, he can just roll behind the screen? Or you know, just use an electronic dice roller so the players can't hear how many dice roll? Or use a list of pre-rolled numbers? Or... you know, any other method that works for the DM? Did you think this was some kind of hard and fast rule that must be adhered to down the the exact number?

Imagine the opponent have 11 buffs.

I genuinely feel like you've missed the point.

Do you decide that the eleventh buff can not be dispelled?

This is just being facetious.

If there is a cap on the dispelled buff number for npcs(when targeted by dispelling) will that not make pcs angry about lopsided rules in their disfavour in case of buff stacking wars?

Nice strawman I guess? You're arguing with yourself about a point that nobody's brought up.

[Aotrs Commander]

Unless the DM also has 7 enemies in the encounters, and he really enjoys wargames

Second point first, I literally make wargames models for an unliving, and I own about 1500 starships alone. (BattleTech, a game I consider something I play "casually," I have, like 150 and I just got another 30 in the recent kickstarter to come about this time next year...) So, yah, a wargamer who roleplays, not a roleplayer who wargames. So encounters that are just "this thing does and recieves hit point damage" = boring for me.

(Giants, yes, I'm looking at you specifically, and especially Fortress of the Stone Giants.)



First point... Only seven?

My record is over 50, actually (on which only 15 were NOT some form a caster/manifester/adept/invoker), though that experiment is likely one we won't repeat.



A typical encounter proper encounter is very frequently equal or higher numbers than the PCs, though.

The most fun encounters are when the party fights evil adventurers of equal number (sometimes slightly more, if said bad guys are slightly lower level.)

An encounter with twenty enemies is not uncommon at mid levels; a goodly chunk will be lower-level chaff, screening (or providing ranged support for) higher level classed enemies.

For APs, merely doubling the number of enemies might be the quick solution, but that's boring (and gives the casters too much freedom with counter), so I will generally much prefer to add fewer enemies with higher class levels though, for fewer if they are higher; bare minimum ensuring there is ranged support. (Pile of ogres? Add maybe +50% as ones with a class level or so and spec from throwing things, plus maybe one or two orges with cleric levels.) A decent non-single-monster encounter will comprise melee, ranged, arcane, divine and optimally, skirmisher (re rogue et al).

But let me not speak in broad terms, and list a handful of examples.

Example of Bleakbane boss encounters,

Spoiler

Show

For very small (by Bleakbane standards) of 4 PC +1 NPC at level 3, (basically there as healbot, so that my nieces and their mates didn't have to do that role).

Spirit Shaman 5
Bard 4
Rogue 3 x 2
Barbarian 3


An enemy command element, verses approx 7 level 6 PCs (at the end of the day quest, with them being on a time-limit and thus having to do it on one rest's worth of abilities - though the PCs also may also have had the support of one of the character's contuberium of fighter 3s, I forget)

Fighter 1 x 10 (melee)
Marshal 6
Wight cleric 5
Tracker 6 (home brew more fighter-ish, non-spell ranger-y class)
Soulknife 9

(Fun aside - the PCs, not used to being on an actual timer, screwed that adventure, and ended fighting said command element as part of the fighting retreat from the field hospital, because they didn't press on fast enough to kill them before the enemy teleported their whole army in (the enemy army's overall commander was well out of the level range, so this was a side-skirmish in the main battle. Had they pressed on and knobbled these guys earlier, they would have prevented the loss of the hospital, as the bad guys wouldn't have teleported the rest of the army after this advance force.)



Evil adventuring party (added encounter into AP vs regular weekly group's Rise of the Runeloards 8 characters at approx level 8, consisting of fighter/barbarian (shock trooper early), wizard, druid, cleric, rogue/swordsage. bard/dragon shaman, bard), battle fought on lake after Flash Freezing PC's rowing boat with 30' x 20' ice field)
Cleric 7
Druid 7 (plus alligator compannion)
Psychic Warrior 7
Warblade 7
Warlock 7
Tracker 7
Archivist 1/Wizard 1/Mystic Theurge 5 (MT prereqs have been reduced so the class can be taken at level 3)



Encounter, again of Rise of the Runelords (down the bard, as a couple of players rotated out and only on rotated in, party level 10), originally verses two lamia cleric 8, upgraded to

2 lamia cleric 8 (i.e. 17HD) (improved spell load-out)
2 lamia crusader 8 (i.e. 17HD)

That was FUN, that pressed 'em actually nice and hard (the crusaders had spiked chains (3.5 spiked chains).

Wait, wait, wait, wait....

7-man parties are pushing it already, without 4/5 being full casters, and without the optimization levels uberschargers play in anyway.

You are playing a completely different game than most of the rest of us.

The action economy is already heavily skewed towards the party. Chuck in a party's worth of full casters and you get a stew very few DMs can swallow.

Solved the action economy thing a good while ago as well for when it IS just a single boss monster (this is more a solution for APs than when I write for myself), by stealing 4E's idea of a solo and using that as a spring board. In extreme short, created a stackable templte that increment hit points as a block, an undamaged one of which can be expended to, essentially, psuedo-ironheart surge away any effect they don't like, or if anything would instakill them. (Encouraging the save or loses to be saved for the finishing blow, but also meaning thatb they are not simply wasted as they would be by just ramping a dave DC high.) Funnily enough, video games were right, skewed action economy does say you have to skew the enemy defences.

(No reason it has to be for individual monsters, either, I have on occasion stuck a single level on an encounter with a few monsters if padding it otu with other stuff was inconveniant.)

Works brilliantly, best thing 4E ever did, no sarcasm, was invent solo so thag I could invent my defiant template... it's great. Never looked back.



On the flip side, when we do Rolemaster parties, the emphasis tends to away from combat (and, in fact, the main party now (having retired the twenty-lus yera old aventuring party) was explictly designed for exploratory games.

[Psyren]

Opinions on what's better aside, you seem to agree that it is in fact a nerf then? It's less consistent, and more swingy, and even when it does swing in your favour, it doesn't swing as far in your favour as it does swing away from your favour when it goes badly.

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

And whose "favor" do you mean exactly? You can have dispellers on both sides (PC or NPC), remember?

[Crake]

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

And whose "favor" do you mean exactly? You can have dispellers on both sides (PC or NPC), remember?

Keep in mind that it was you who said that greater dispel magic was the counter to buff stacking as a tactical issue, but clearly, being able to 50/50 (assuming equal caster level) dispel a handful of buffs vs dispelling nothing, greater dispel magic no longer fills that niche in pathfinder. What's 3-5 buffs out of 10? 15? 20? So I mean, the issue is that technically greater dispel magic being nerfed is a buff to casters, because it's now harder than ever to dispel their buffs.

Your favour, being the caster's favour by the way, doesn't have to be specifically the PCs or not.

[Aotrs Commander]

Oh no, not a nerf to casters! How ever will we cope?

It's a direct nerf to the only counter to spells aside from the hard counter of antimagic.

[Psyren]

It's a direct nerf to the only counter to spells aside from the hard counter of antimagic.

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?

Keep in mind that it was you who said that greater dispel magic was the counter to buff stacking as a tactical issue, but clearly, being able to 50/50 (assuming equal caster level) dispel a handful of buffs vs dispelling nothing, greater dispel magic no longer fills that niche in pathfinder. What's 3-5 buffs out of 10? 15? 20? So I mean, the issue is that technically greater dispel magic being nerfed is a buff to casters, because it's now harder than ever to dispel their buffs.

Martials don't get buffed in your games?

[Crake]

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?

Why do you keep bringing up PC vs NPC? Whether it's a PC or not is entirely irrelevant to the impact of the nerf.

Martials don't get buffed in your games?

The fact that personal buffs exist means that casters will generally be more buffed than martials, so it still tips in the caster's favour.

[Aotrs Commander]

Once again, it applies to your buffs being dispelled too. Do only the PCs use targeted dispels in your games?

Doesn't matter which side of the screen it's on; Dispel is ONLY counter to spells, including but not limitied to buffs, battlefield control, a good chunk of save or sucks, summon spells for that matter...

[Psyren]

Why do you keep bringing up PC vs NPC? Whether it's a PC or not is entirely irrelevant to the impact of the nerf.

So if you agree it hits both sides equally, why does it matter?

The fact that personal buffs exist means that casters will generally be more buffed than martials, so it still tips in the caster's favour.

Except casters generally aren't on the front lines.

Doesn't matter which side of the screen it's on; Dispel is ONLY counter to spells, including but not limitied to buffs, battlefield control, a good chunk of save or sucks, summon spells for that matter...

All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

[Crake]

So if you agree it hits both sides equally, why does it matter?

You understand that this whole thing came up because you said that greater dispel magic is the counter to stacking buffs, to which we both responded that, with the pathfinder nerf, it's not really a counter anymore? What you're basically saying here is "yeah, ok, it's not really a counter, but that applies to both sides of the screen". You understand how that's... not actually an argument right?

Except casters generally aren't on the front lines.

Doesn't really affect the argument at all?

All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

Ok, but the point is that your claim that "stacking buffs aren't an issue when you can just greater dispel the buffs off" is objectively untrue, no matter how much you try to make it into a PC vs NPC argument.

[Aotrs Commander]

All of which can be used by PCs, so it's now harder for enemy casters to deal with yours.

Yes...?

I'm really not sure what your point is. Dispel magic being nerfed means that less spells are being taken out on both sides of the screen AND THAT'S BAD. More spells getting dispelled = GOOD.

It's the metaphorical equivilent of dropping Armour Class from, like, base 10 to base 5; yes, it hits both sides equally, but that's not the point; the net result is not a gain for anyone except rocket tag (and the game is rocket tag enough).

I mean, if your arguement here is rooted in "but I wouldn't want my character's spells to be dispelled more and negate my actions," then, like, I don't have any sympathy, because the martials don't want you to not have your spells dispelled more, and, like have their actions always negated by spells that no-one can do anything about.

Flying characters much prefer it when the enemy doesn't have any ranged attacks, (especially warlocks), but they very really get that lucky in my games there, either.

[Psyren]

Dispel magic being nerfed means that less spells are being taken out on both sides of the screen AND THAT'S BAD. More spells getting dispelled = GOOD.

That would be what I disagree with, yes. If you want one spell that can strip 5000 buffs, that's what Disjunction is for.

But you're talking about your houserules, right? So there's no point in continuing to go round and round on this; I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

[Aotrs Commander]

That would be what I disagree with, yes. If you want one spell that can strip 5000 buffs, that's what Disjunction is for.

Which doesn't come nearly low enough level.

But you're talking about your houserules, right? So there's no point in continuing to go round and round on this; I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

No, not really, spells are one thing I have not looked bringing in from Pathfinder, they are running from 3.5, bar a few tweaks here and there.

[Psyren]

Which doesn't come nearly low enough level.

Good.

No, not really, spells are one thing I have not looked bringing in from Pathfinder, they are running from 3.5, bar a few tweaks here and there.

Then you've made your decision not to consider it in the first place, whatever - either way, let's agree to disagree.

[Crake]

I'm fine with the rule as-is and you've made your decision not to use it, so let's agree to disagree and drop it then.

I mean, being fine with it as is doesn't change the fact that it's not really an appropriate countermeasure to the stacking buff issue, but I guess you've already kinda admitted that, which is all I was really after.

[Psyren]

I mean, being fine with it as is doesn't change the fact that it's not really an appropriate countermeasure to the stacking buff issue, but I guess you've already kinda admitted that, which is all I was really after.

Whatever "stacking issue" you seem to perceive is less of a concern to me than metagaming and a dozen rolls for every targeted dispel. And evidently for Paizo as well.

[Crake]

Whatever "stacking issue" you seem to perceive is less of a concern to me than metagaming and a dozen rolls for every targeted dispel. And evidently for Paizo as well.

You say "you percieve" like you disagree that stacking buffs become a problem? I mean, you did say

At the levels where buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem, Greater Dispel Magic is available anyway.

So one has to imagine that you percieve the issue as well? You're basically saying "A is a problem, B is the solution" while simultaneously saying "Ok, B isn't the solution to A, but I'm fine with that". Sure, great, you're happy with the way greater dispel works in pathfinder... It still doesn't provide an answer to the times where "buff stacking becomes a true tactical problem" due to its swingy nature, and the limited number of buffs it dispels.

[Psyren]

What I meant by that, was that by the time removing more than one buff at a time is an expected part of combat, GDM is available. Not that removing a dozen buffs at a time with a single cast and a corresponding number of rolls would ever be.