CR of 7

Is this a "fuck mages" encounter thread?

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

>wizards
>having good saving throws
what?

>they never fail the throw

????

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

5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/bestiary.html#Intellect Devourer
Its an int saving throw

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

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.

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.

>it's an int saving throw

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

>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.

>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

>intellect devourer

>its only weakness is its primary preys strength

>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.

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.

>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.

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

>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.

It's not called the stupidity devourer.

>how limitless the wizard is

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

Top tier b8, m8

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

>called the intellect devourer

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

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

>charisma based saving throw.
What?

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

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

>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?

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

d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/intellectDevourer.htm

>The save DCs are Charisma-based.

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

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.

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

But core-only is a mistake, user.

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

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

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

...

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.

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.

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.

>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?

strength DC of 17*

Not 24. Don't know where I got that.

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.

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

That's a completely different matter.

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

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

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

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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

>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.

>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.

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

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.

>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.

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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.

They deserve to die for their laziness.

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.

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

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

Splats aren't core you mong

>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)

>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.

>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?

>party of 4 wizards

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

>pits them against a Rakshasa Lich

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

You told them. I tired of these fucking faggots

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

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

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 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.

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.

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 Veeky Forums
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

>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?

>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..

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.

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

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

What is this thing?

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.