|
Exactly what it says on the tin.
On that note, since i need to go trait shopping...
My character doesn't seem to exist anywhere but on paper and on the "Describe your character" page where there wasn't a slot for everything except stats (and i can edit it anyway). Did i miss a step in registering the character?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
The reason why the ban certain traits/class alternatives/anything else is to keep PFS play at a certain level. They restrict item creation because it can be abused and could make games quite confusing, especially on the small (3-5 hr) time window most places have for society play. Unsure why they ban each particular thing, but my blanket response would be to keep PFS streamlined and simpler.
As for registering your character, just putting down the name and faction is enough to get credit for your sessions. Some people (like myself) fill in the descriptive text with their entire character sheet, although this is not required and takes a bit of time.
|
|
Okay, we understand why some things are banned in general.
However, it's not overpowering unlike, say, rich parents, where it does change the nature of that first adventure.
Only answer I can think of is it discourages level dipping for spell casters, which is an editorial rather than balance choice.
|
What the hell?! It's banned? Why?
Item creation is banned anyhow.
Granted, if you're a multiclassed spellcaster, it's too good NOT to take, but with no 'practised spellcaster' feat it's a must for the system.
Gaaaah.
Extra annoyed because there's no problems with adventurers lugging around the double hackbut but having a 'knack' in magic is deemed OP. Grr.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Okay, we understand why some things are banned in general.
However, it's not overpowering unlike, say, rich parents, where it does change the nature of that first adventure.
Only answer I can think of is it discourages level dipping for spell casters, which is an editorial rather than balance choice.
That does seem to be the case, which is regrettable. My only comment further would be that, given all the stuff to do for PFS, updating what traits people can access is fairly low on the priority wall for paizo, as traits are more of the frosting on your cupcake, rather than the cupcake itself.
However, if your cupcake is covered in fly matter, it matters not how good the cup cake might have been.
Exactly what it says on the tin.
Real reason: Because it's better than the average trait and someone didn't like that.
Official reason: Margle argle bargle not suited bargle argle organized play bargle margle argle.
|
|
It is banned because it is good, a lot of fist level spells become much better at CL 3 than CL 1.
for a feat it /might/ be balanced.
You have to have the HD for those extra levels. So, a first level wizard cannot use it. A first level wizard/2nd level rogue can use it, but it doesn't change the number of spells or anything else per day (your 1st level).
At higher levels the difference between 6 and 8 CL isn't very extreme.
Therefore it makes sense as a trait, though on the powerful end of that. I'd say it would be underpowered as a feat.
|
|
It's literally half a feat, going off 3.5's Practiced Spellcaster (+4).
You can't follow the definition of a trait more closely than that.
I guess Paizo just really, really doesn't like multiclass/prestige characters?
I know I'm harping on, but if there's a revision of what's in and what's out, this is the top of my list of what's in.
|
It's not a question of quantity ... It's a question of quality. Granted, this is best above first level, but, for the price of a feat it allows total access to low level spells through wands UMD. ... and they obviously feel that's pretty strong. That one skill simply isn't the same as getting Athletics or even Knowledge as a class skill
|
The one thing this thread has shown is that there are many misconceptions about how this trait works. Its only useful if you multiclass with a spellcasting class. Other than that, for your run of the mill straight wizards / clerics / etc. it does absolutely nothing because your CL can still never go higher than your HD.
I have to agree that Dangerously Curious is way more powerful of a trait because it actually gives you access to UMD and all the spells you can access with it. But then again, the classes that its useful for don't have that many spare skill points to be throwing around in the first place...
|
|
I would certainly agree that this is not perfect for all characters, and it think that it's obviously only good for multiclass characters (that's the point). And that doesn't preclude any other similar feats from being powerful.
But the OP questioned why this one is banned ... Not which other ones should or shouldn't be, or are more powerful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, if you're a multiclassed spellcaster, it's too good NOT to take, but with no 'practised spellcaster' feat it's a must for the system.
I think this is the exact reason why it's banned.
If You Must Take This, then You Must Not Take This.
Once something stops being merely an interesting option, but a required step, then it no longer adds to the interesting intricacy of the game, and it reduces creativity. It makes everybody less interesting. Thus, the game's better off without it.
|
|
well... this reasoning would lead to a banning of wands of CLW bought with PP and the selection of traits that give UMD as a class skill. A number of persons on this board suggest that one or both of these are required for all characters (not just multi-class casters).Granted, if you're a multiclassed spellcaster, it's too good NOT to take, but with no 'practised spellcaster' feat it's a must for the system.
I think this is the exact reason why it's banned.
If You Must Take This, then You Must Not Take This.
Once something stops being merely an interesting option, but a required step, then it no longer adds to the interesting intricacy of the game, and it reduces creativity. It makes everybody less interesting. Thus, the game's better off without it.
Sounds like a fine idea to me, if it's that ubiquitous.
The less ubiquitous, the better keeping it around is.
|
|
Perhaps, but I often hear the argument that "my character must have X" and "X really isn't overpowered, so what's the issue?"
That's just trying to have it both ways.
If X isn't overpowered, then my character can survive not having X. If my character can't survive without X, then X is probably too powerful.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
well... this reasoning would lead to a banning of wands of CLW bought with PP and the selection of traits that give UMD as a class skill. A number of persons on this board suggest that one or both of these are required for all characters (not just multi-class casters).
On the other hand, it could be argued that the ubiquity of happysticks actually increases variety/creativity because it relieves the pressure of feeling like you need to have a cleric (or other dedicated "healer") at the table.
If having a thing of small cost be near-universalized can prevent the need to do the same with something of greater cost, then it's probably for the best.
|
Without Power Attack, melee fighting becomes rather pointless. Characters would not be able to survive.
So people build other things. And then those things get targeted because it is now too good (let's say Vital Strike, since that increases damage). So let's ban Vital Strike. And then Toughness, because our characters can last longer since we don't have good damage options, so that's too powerful.
Let's ban Color Spray and Sleep, because they end fights too easily for arcane casters. And Entangle for druids. And Shocking Grasp on magi. Let's remove Cure Light Wounds, because everybody uses it. Channel Energy does that better, so let's ban that.
And etc.
|
well... this reasoning would lead to a banning of wands of CLW bought with PP and the selection of traits that give UMD as a class skill. A number of persons on this board suggest that one or both of these are required for all characters (not just multi-class casters).
I don't understand. I have 3 perfectly viable characters above level 5, and none have spent a single PP, or bought a wand of CLW... in fact the level 10 only bought 3 potions of CLW at level 1, he finally used them on his third scenario as level 9 to save someone else.
None of these charaters even considered getting UMD traits, they are vastly underpowered compared to other options
|
Granted, if you're a multiclassed spellcaster, it's too good NOT to take, but with no 'practised spellcaster' feat it's a must for the system.
I think this is the exact reason why it's banned.
If You Must Take This, then You Must Not Take This.
Once something stops being merely an interesting option, but a required step, then it no longer adds to the interesting intricacy of the game, and it reduces creativity. It makes everybody less interesting. Thus, the game's better off without it.
It is not a must take. There are many reasons why a multiclass caster may choose not to take it. My Battle Oracle has some spells, and took levels of Barbarian and became a Rage Prophet. His spells are secondary, and his focus is on combat. Therefore, he didn't care about this trait. I wouldn't have taken it for him even if it were available at the time I created the character.
Optimizers will of course make out that everything that doesn't uber-optimize your character is useless, and if you don't have every iota of optimizing things, then your character is crap. I don't adhere to this philosophy.
|
|
Perhaps, but I often hear the argument that "my character must have X" and "X really isn't overpowered, so what's the issue?"
That's just trying to have it both ways.
If X isn't overpowered, then my character can survive not having X. If my character can't survive without X, then X is probably too powerful.
There are no must-haves. Optimizers may argue this point. But I've seen several characters that have taken different routes in their build, survive quite well.
|
I don't understand. I have 3 perfectly viable characters above level 5, and none have spent a single PP, or bought a wand of CLW... in fact the level 10 only bought 3 potions of CLW at level 1, he finally used them on his third scenario as level 9 to save someone else.
Perhaps you usually travel with healing-capable casters. Or with other PC's that have UMD. Or you're just lucky.
In any case, this is extremely rare, especially in a gaming environment where you never know who you will be adventuring with from table to table. Having some level of healing is a staple whether that be from divine casters, UMD, potions, etc.
|
|
Without Power Attack, melee fighting becomes rather pointless. Characters would not be able to survive.Assuming you're not an AC-dumping barbarian (i.e., you have some chance of avoiding attacks), you're actually better off using Combat Expertise than Power Attack versus any BBEM with more attacks than you have. E.g., you versus chimera at 6th level -- it has five melee attacks to your two.
well... this reasoning would lead to a banning of wands of CLW bought with PP and the selection of traits that give UMD as a class skill. A number of persons on this board suggest that one or both of these are required for all characters (not just multi-class casters).I don't understand. I have 3 perfectly viable characters above level 5, and none have spent a single PP, or bought a wand of CLW... in fact the level 10 only bought 3 potions of CLW at level 1, he finally used them on his third scenario as level 9 to save someone else. None of these charaters even considered getting UMD traits, they are vastly underpowered compared to other options
My TWF samurai has two PP-bought wands, CLW and Mage Armor, and UMDs both multiple times per adventure via the Dangerously Curious trait. He's even UMD'd scrolls of Grease on occasion both in and out of combat. His ability to UMD was integral to one table avoiding a TPK.
= = = =
Regards Magical Knack.... I suppose a weird combo of spells and feats exist out there which make it "broke" when placed into a mostly melee class, but I don't play casters enough to know. (A magus dip in a fighter build seems most likely, but did that class even exist when MK was restricted?) Extending Enlarge Person to 18 rounds (from 6) in a strength-domain cleric dipper hardly seems over-powered, nor does getting a 2d4+3 Magic Missile.
|
|
Perhaps you usually travel with healing-capable casters. Or with other PC's that have UMD. Or you're just lucky.In any case, this is extremely rare, especially in a gaming environment where you never know who you will be adventuring with from table to table. Having some level of healing is a staple whether that be from divine casters, UMD, potions, etc.
haha I know it... I was mostly just busting on nosig's comment. the level 9 ranger is a ranged ranger, so he's only been healed 3 times.. only been below 1/2 hit points 4 times (and one of those was from another PC who went crazy and brought me from full to 0 in one hit) and he went 3 levels without getting a hit against him at all due to fact that I grouped with melees who's Attack of Opportunities hurt(read: the fighter who makes GMs cry) .
But this reasoning could be used to remove EVERYTHING.
Chain Shirt Armor is by far the most common armor in the game.
Chain shirt armor is almost identical to studded leather armor; if you removed the former, people would just take the latter instead.
What almost identical trait do people always take when Magical Knack is unavailable?
(For what it's worth, I have no problem with Magical Knack. But you're really comparing apples and oranges with that one.)
|
|
IMHO I think Magical Knack is more powerful than traits ought to be. Look at all the traits. Most of them give some situational bonus, or a +1 to a skill check (and make it a class skill). Magical Knack gives you a +2 CL. Not under certain situations, but at ALL TIMES. It is better than some feats that are out there. Traits are supposed to be worth ~ 1/2 of a feat. This clearly isn't.
|
|
Magical Knack gives you a +2 CL. Not under certain situations, but at ALL TIMESNo. It only gives you +2 CL under the situation where you're a multiclass caster. Its almost needed to make a mystic theurge viable.
There are a ton of Multiclass combos/prestige classes that are less viable because of the lack of magical knack. Basically it's lack discourages a lot of options.
To get at what I mean, playing around 70 tables and GMing 30 I've seen one attempt at an Arcane Trickster and none for any other prestige class. That player was somewhat frustrated.
And I can't really think of a good reason why these concepts should be discouraged.
|
|
That, precisely, is what is being described above!!!
The idea that it is "needed" to make the character viable in some way. ... And the situation is that you are a multiclass caster? C'mon! That's like saying the situation for Power Attack is being a Fighter!
The point is that it can still be viable! There are plenty of us out there that don't feel the need to make it a competition to optimize a character for sake of numbers and scoring through... Whatever. Damage potential, high enough saves, whatever metagame content you like.
I've played a eleven blade singer-type character and was perfectly pleased with him without Practiced Caster or Magical knack. I've played a cleric who didn't bother with Selective Channel. There were other things that I want to concentrate on for the characters.
But, then again, I don't believe that the cleric has to be a healer, either. Shocking, I know.
|
My money is on the fact that it's wording is rather confusing, from a newer player's perspective. A newer player might assume that since your caster level goes up, so do the number of spells you get. For example, a Wizard 1/Fighter 2 would get access to 2nd level spell slots. Yet that problem is easily dealt with by more experienced players explaining the use of this trait to the newer players, so...
As Matt up there put it, the real question is why it's still banned. Come on Paizo, someone over there should have an answer. This is why I haven't been leveling an mystic theurge or eldritch knight.
|
|
Maybe the problem is not that it was "too good", but in the way it was too good. Essentially it made a 2d level whatever/1st level wizard better at spellcasting than a straight first level or 2nd level wizard.Magical Knack gives you a +2 CL. Not under certain situations, but at ALL TIMESNo. It only gives you +2 CL under the situation where you're a multiclass caster. Its almost needed to make a mystic theurge viable.
While this may be true, that same 1st level wizard, when leveled up to 3rd level, would have second level spell slots and more spell slots than the Wizard 1/whatever 2. Of course, it wouldn't have the other benefits that the two levels in the other class provided, but then again, the pure Wizard would have more levels towards improving his school powers, which is a wizard's go-to tool when out of spells.
|
Maybe the problem is not that it was "too good", but in the way it was too good. Essentially it made a 2d level whatever/1st level wizard better at spellcasting than a straight first level or 2nd level wizard.Magical Knack gives you a +2 CL. Not under certain situations, but at ALL TIMESNo. It only gives you +2 CL under the situation where you're a multiclass caster. Its almost needed to make a mystic theurge viable.
Not so. In terms of DC's, its going to remain the same. By third level, a character would have at least access to more spell slots (including possibly 2nd level spells), while the multiclassed character would have the same caster level, but not the benefits of more spells, class powers, etc. To be entirely honest, I don't see why this trait would be considered broken. There are far more common traits used: reactionary, dangerously curious, or any of the traits that give you +1 on a save. Most characters I have met have at least one of those.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Chain shirt armor is almost identical to studded leather armor; if you removed the former, people would just take the latter instead.But this reasoning could be used to remove EVERYTHING.
Chain Shirt Armor is by far the most common armor in the game.
As far as I know you can't get mithral studded leather.
|
|
As far as I know you can't get mithral studded leather.Chain shirt armor is almost identical to studded leather armor; if you removed the former, people would just take the latter instead.But this reasoning could be used to remove EVERYTHING.
Chain Shirt Armor is by far the most common armor in the game.
No but you can get studded leather with mithral studs!