No0b question time!
I am new to Pathfinder - indeed, to all tabletop RPGs - but from what I've seen so far, Pathfinder was a great place to land. My group has done a practice module, and we are now beginning our first big adventure path. It is an urban campaign.
My character is a half-orc aberrant sorceress*, and I've been studying hard to prepare as versatile a spell list as my class permits. The optimization guide for a sorcerer might well read, 'just play a wizard instead,' but I'm enamored of the storytelling possibilities of the aberrant sorcerer, and I'm trying to treat the severe limitations of the class as an intellectual challenge. I also have the advantage of a large party, including several other spell-casters (even a wizard), so I don't have to do everything. The bard and I are working together, treating each other's spell lists as run-off for the stuff we like but can't fit.
My character's emphasis is battlefield control, and I'm also trying to take a few blasts and a few of the spells that might require multiple unplanned castings. I don't want all my options to be lethal damage, because it's an urban campaign, and we'll all go to jail if we kill people willy-nilly.
My question: What do you think of the shadow conjuration/ shadow evocation spells - lesser and greater - as options for a sorcerer? (I've searched the messageboards for advice, but everything I've found predates pathfinder and refers to previous versions of these spells).
Considerations:
1. They are unfortunately susceptible to saves, but
2. They could make room for some crazy-ass circumstantial spellcasting, in a spell list that otherwise doesn't permit much.
3. Today I went through my proposed spell list and wrote down all the schools. It turns out that I plan on taking (or buying wands for) most of my favorite conjuration (creation) spells, anyway, though I have fewer instances of evocation, and if shadow conjuration is effective, it might relieve my burgeoning wand/scroll budget somewhat.
4. Would Spell Focus and Spell Focus, Greater - both for Illusion - be enough to make these spells viable at the levels I am going to have to wait for, just to get them? Or should I just take the Spell Focuses (Spell Foci?) in conjuration, instead? Is Spell Focus really worth my time? (There's a first level Paladin having trouble with the idea that I am more intimidating than he is 'for now'; I could be vindictively using those feat slots to ensure I stay Intimidatingest forever! And, uh, probably for other important things.)
I've found messageboards and optimization guides incredibly helpful - though I'm still gonna try some things that just sound fun, even if they go against advice - but I find that I am starting to get stressed out. I don't need my character to be optimal or compare well to the others in the group. But I don't want to make a mistake and be responsible for a TPK. And I'm worried about the thing I keep hearing about where characters are totally helpless and ineffective at high levels. This adventure path is supposed to go all the way through level 20. I just want to be an asset to my team!
*I have learned that this combination is regarded by many as an Abomination Unto the Lord, but I came up with it long before I had any idea that half-orc tradition dictates low intelligence and low charisma. I've tried to factor my character's orcish features into my interpretation of her charisma and give her a backstory that accounts for some quirkiness, as half-orcs go. And, for the record, I think I like the idea of *any* race being able to play any class. I think I'd play a dwarven sorcerer, too, even if the numbers did punish me for it.
One consideration I forgot:
5. Since the Bard's spell list is mostly will saves, and I think my character would have compunctions about summoning creatures - no matter how useful and awesome - just to send them to slaughter, I am not presently planning to max out on summon monster; the bard's alignment is neutral, so he's going to do the summoning, instead.
If I can get the GM to loan me his bestiary for a few days, I may take one or two carefully chosen summon monster spells for purposes of utility. Would shadow conjuration, lesser or greater, be a viable substitute for summons? I'm pretty sure my character is willing to allow shadows to stand in for sentient creatures and get hit.
First of all: The pathfinder sorcerer isn't the featureless slouch she was in previous editions. The bonus abilities, new metamagic rules, and expanded spell list makes the sorcerer a great competitor for the party's arcane caster. Wizards specialize in versatility, while sorcerers specialize in longevity.
Ok, from the get-go, the shadow spells are phenomenal for a sorcerer. I'd definitely recommend grabbing all of them, and I'd probably pick up the SF: Illusion & GSF: Illusion for them, too. Just remember that the shadow spells allow you to recreate many spells that, on their own, don't allow saves (Summons, Mage Armor, Light, etc) and might never interact with an enemy to allow them to save. Also, because you've ramped up your DCs for illusions you've got even more reason to pick up a couple of the "Image" spells, notably Silent. This will allow you to "cast" even more spells, like fog cloud or wall of stone.
Past that, I'd recommend diversifying your spell list with some other goodies. Chill touch is a nice spell to fall back on for abberant sorcerers - the damage isn't awesome, but the strength damage is nice. The "wall" spells are among my absolute favorites, as are the "Hand" series.
Past that, I'd recommend diversifying your spell list with some other goodies. Chill touch is a nice spell to fall back on for abberant sorcerers - the damage isn't awesome, but the strength damage is nice. The "wall" spells are among my absolute favorites, as are the "Hand" series.
I am SUPER excited for wall spells and hand spells! I have to wait SOOOO long to get them, but I want them so bad! If I can get the druid or the wizard to prep Mud to Stone for me, then I can make Walls of Stone in all kinds of places...
Thanks for the input, btw!
|
Shadow Conjuration is totally worth taking, as is Shadow Evocation. Versatility is a good thing and the Shadow spells are a good way to get it. And yes, you want the Focus feats.
Sure, they require saves, but the point is you spam the bad guys as much as you want; they *will* fail their saves eventually. You've got the slots, so use 'em! Think like an evil NPC. :)
Yes the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells are excellent choices for any Sorcerer.
The key to playing a sorcerer is to pick a spell list that provides versatility. And the Shadow spells provide lots of that on their own. Yes, they are easier to resist since often there will be two saving throws, although often the saving throw DC is a bit higher for the Shadow spell than the original version. But it is worth it to have that nice range of options for an otherwise limited spellcaster.
The advice to take Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (illusion) is solid. Those also translate well to some other versatile spells.
But they are not the panacea cure for a sorcerer's lack of breadth in comparison to a wizard that some would believe to be the case.
That's exactly what I'm worried about. A few highly effective *real* things might be preferable to many more not-very-effective not-very-real things... (Not that I'd forego taking all the real things in favor of waiting for the fake versions. Just wondering how much to bother with arranging my feats and spell list around a couple of promising but sub-optimal choices).
Then again, I really like to keep our GM guessing. He remarked the other night that he was sure I'd just take Sleep as a first level spell, so he didn't plan for the scenario where I'd have Grease instead and just make his creatures fall down. I'm going to try to think of unconventional uses for *every* spell on my list, but I'm still concerned about quickly becoming predictable.
Sorcerers are not made like walls brick by brick. Rather they are better done holistically with a theme and overall vision in mind.
This is what I'm working on now, as I check and double-check my plans. On the one hand, I want to be a real boon the group and provide multiple castings of staples like fly and invisibility. On the other hand, I have a strong sense of which spells suit my character, and sometimes they're not the very highest rated or most popular options. Summoning, for example, sounds incredibly useful, but I just don't see it meshing with my storytelling concept, so I probably won't make room for all the summon spells. (My friend the bard is very excited about summoning, but apparently he'll get access to the summon spells more slowly than I will, so that's not an ideal solution, either).
I decided yesterday that I'm only going to play *this particular sorceress* once, so I want to stop worrying quite so much about math and saves and damage and make my final choices because they synergize well and are special to this build. (And all vindictiveness aside, I've decided I'm totally going ahead with the Weaponized Intimidation feats. Because when am I ever again going to be a mild-mannered young half-orc with a very high charisma and an evolving sense of her own capacity to use drama to her advantage? In a campaign where notoriety and drama are actually important parts of the story? Even if it's not a perfect use of my resources, at least it'll be memorable - and I'm sure to play other casters down the line).
Cool! A falchion-swinging sorceress drama-queen should be a hoot! As far as spells go, nobody always has the right spell for every occasion. Sounds like you've got a handle on things.
On the other hand, I have a strong sense of which spells suit my character, and sometimes they're not the very highest rated or most popular options.Don't forget items like staves, wands, scrolls, and the like. They are essential for any arcanist, but for a sorcerer they are especially important.
-James
I'm definitely *very* interested in these items! I've already got a shopping list as long as my arm. But so far our campaign earnings aren't anywhere near keeping pace with the chart in the back of the rulebook, so if it ends up being a low-income campaign I might have to make do without. (Our wizard also wants to specialize in artificing, so if we can afford even the half-costs for enchanted items that will help a lot).
Yes the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells are excellent choices for any Sorcerer.
Sorcerers are not made like walls brick by brick.
Rather they are better done holistically with a theme and overall vision in mind.
The shadow spells while good on paper can be bad in practice.
Many of the spells you are going to talk about there are ones that you choose for lack of a save, lack of an SR check, and for a guaranteed effect. All of these factors are gone in the shadow version.
They are nice spells, don't get me wrong. But they are not the panacea cure for a sorcerer's lack of breadth in comparison to a wizard that some would believe to be the case.
-James
um, huh?
I think your just trying to be contrary. What did I say that is contradictory to what you said?
The OP asked for opinions on the shadow spells. I said they work well for a sorcerer since they are versatile spells, and that they help shore up the sorcerer's prime weakness of a limited spell selection. Rereading my original post I see no indication that I considered them the ultimate sorcerer spell or that they somehow put the sorcerer on par with a wizard in spell versatility.
Yes the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation spells are excellent choices for any Sorcerer.
Sorcerers are not made like walls brick by brick.
Rather they are better done holistically with a theme and overall vision in mind.
The shadow spells while good on paper can be bad in practice.
Many of the spells you are going to talk about there are ones that you choose for lack of a save, lack of an SR check, and for a guaranteed effect. All of these factors are gone in the shadow version.
They are nice spells, don't get me wrong. But they are not the panacea cure for a sorcerer's lack of breadth in comparison to a wizard that some would believe to be the case.
-James
um, huh?
I think your just trying to be contrary. What did I say that is contradictory to what you said?
The OP asked for opinions on the shadow spells. I said they work well for a sorcerer since they are versatile spells, and that they help shore up the sorcerer's prime weakness of a limited spell selection. Rereading my original post I see no indication that I considered them the ultimate sorcerer spell or that they somehow put the sorcerer on par with a wizard in spell versatility.
I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that James Maissen was just warning me against having too much confidence in the spells, without attributing that high confidence to any other particular poster. I didn't think the end of the post referred directly to the citation at the beginning.