|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
First off, there are the Combat Maneuver rules, where which combat maneuver a character can use against another are restricted by their sizes. These have got to go.
I agree. "Can't" isn't nearly as fun as "Probably won't be able to because the roll is so hard." It would be reasonable for certain maneuvers to give a very large bonus/penalty for each difference in size category.
Secondly, Weapon Size Categories are double-dipping bonus damage onto creatures who already have massively higher strength scores than their smaller contemporaries.
Yes! Also, weapon sizes play havoc with die sizes and introduce strange inconsistencies. Personally, I would tone down some of the STR bonuses a bit and make weapon damage add a die for each additional size category. (But I would also eliminate weapons with more than one die of damage.)
Third, is the existence of the Small Size being so damn similar to Medium. Why have the size if it's going to take the same space and have the same reach dammit. For my own games I'm actually working on eliminating the Small Size, moving creatures in it to either Medium or Tiny.
Biggest Gripe Ever! Well, biggest gripe about size. The most common sizes are the ones that don't follow the rules? Bah!
Doomed Hero wrote:
I like your house rule a lot!
Doomed Hero wrote:
Another good house rule, although I prefer the way D&D Next handles it. If you move out of an opponent's reach, you provoke. Period. No measuring, no tricks, the rule introduced in 3.0 that was intended to keep people from fleeing without a moment of vulnerability is used to prevent fleeing rather than as a geographic movement limit.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I don't actually care about this one, but I commented on the rest. In my experience this problem is exceedingly rare, and can be handled with simply logic by the GM.
This probably belongs in Advice?
I'm looking for a rule that does something in particular, so I asked in "rules", but I could see it going either way.
If I can't find such a feat, and you don't know of one (I used to read these forms a lot, and I know that you're very knowledgeable) then there probably isn't one.
I know there are some feats that will allow a spellcaster to learn spells that aren't usually on their class's spell list, but is there one that would allow a druid to do so?
I really want to make a druid for an upcoming campaign, but I'll be the only divine caster in the party and I'd really like to get Breath of Life eventually. I love that spell:)
Broken Zenith wrote:
For some reason I missed that the oracle does melee. I even wrote "Oracle(no combat)" earlier, and I think I was mixing his oracle up with one from another thread.
I disagree with the Party Picker that a martial character who mainly contributes "ranged damage" is an essential component of a strong party. Since he's playing a Zen Archer in another campaign, I would still avoid any kind of dedicated archer build. Why play two characters with the same basic strategy when you can explore more of the game?
However, with the oracle stepping up into melee, the math does change a bit!
I would avoid order of the sword. It's too mount oriented and gets practically nothing for unmounted combat. You want Cockatrice. Standard action Dazzling Display means you can move into position and then mass intimidate. It's the best caster support option any melee class has. You're also not weapon restricted like it usually is so you can use it on a horse with a lance in your hand or on foot with a sword or at a fancy dress ball that suddenly turns into a war zone.
I chose Order of the Sword because I had a small race in mind. A small cavalier on a medium mount can take his trusty steed into any dungeon his tallfolk friends are foolhardy enough to enter. Unfortunately all of the small races get penalties to strength, making their martial performance suffer.
The character is beginning at 9th level, which means starting with the amazing Mounted Mastery ability. Among other bonuses, it allows the cavalier to add his mount's strength bonus to damage when charging. It's great for small cavaliers, and it can be combined with Beastmaster for some truly stunning damage output.
It wasn't so much a statement of "This is the best build" as "I think this would perform well and be fun to play".
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:
Liberating Command, but that isn't a Sorcerer/Wizard spell.
Yes, Liberating Command is a Sorcerer/Wizard spell, and it's great! Since it's an immediate action, it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. Any caster who has full ranks in Escape Artist and casts Liberating Command should be able to slip out of a grapple quite easily and without even wasting a standard or move action.
Other good low-level options are: Mirror Image, Levitate, Fly, attacking from far away, attacking from behind difficult terrain, or staying behind your bodyguards or summoned creatures.
There's a cool option that's a blend of my first two ideas (melee ranger + lancer cavalier).
Ranger with the Hippogriff Rider archetype gets a great flying mount, and with the chosen fighting style Mounted Combat, you'd get all the great mounted feats for free. (Or you could choose Archery fighting style, and use your regular feats for mounted combat.) Either way, you fly, charge for 3x damage, and have a bow for an excellent ranged option when needed.
So update, apparently the cleric died. So now replacing the cleric is a sorcerer, and replacing the monk is a healing witch. I guess that fills up the backline rather well, and leaves me with a lot of options to play around with. Would a more melee oriented character be suitable with the current composition?
So your party is now:
You have 1.5 characters who want to be in melee (counting the cohort as .5) and 3 characters who want to stand back. You have plenty of healing (3 characters), plenty of arcane magic (2 characters), and plenty of divine magic (1 full, 2 partial). That's a pretty tight group!
Since your party doesn't have any gaping holes that need filling, you're pretty free to make whatever you please. If you rule out duplicates (Paladin, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, Barbarian) and near-duplicates (Cleric, Wizard), you're left with these classes to pick from:
My suggestion is to make a character who:
My favorite ways to do this would be:
lock wood wrote:
this looks real good. temple sword is out but i do like as a
Right! Temple Sword is from the APG; I forgot. I'd just substitute any decent slashing or piercing weapon with the "monk" trait. The point is that you should carry a weapon so that you can fight enemies who shouldn't be touched or who have certain kinds of DR.
lock wood wrote:
the man reason for druid is shillelagh to have a +1 2d6 weapon that i can use my monk attacks with which would be great up to like level ten and i dont even think it will get that high
That's a good idea. I'd definitely check with your GM before trying it though. If you GM is restricting 3rd level characters to 1000 gold, she probably has some ideas about magic items. Either magic weapons are supposed to be restricted (she might resent you subverting her plan), or she might plan to give out special magic items (and your plan would be wasted).
Blueluck, thanks for the advice! Altho I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't even try playing a spellcaster with what I've proposed, it only affects some 40 spells total (and a lot of those are 8th and 9th level). And the spells still work as before, just taking more time and money. Ok, also some major penalties if they don't work, and minor penalties even if they do. :)
In my experience, playing a character type that your GM has a prejudice against, even a justified prejudice, turns out to be a bad time. If I were presented with your list during character creation, I would take it as a sign of things to come. What might you do if I pwned a couple of back-to-back encounters with Create Pit? How would you rule on spells used in creative ways?
Now, if you proposed a single change to alter the tone of your game, I would take that as GM world-building, not a prejudice.
Any spell which brings back the dead can only be cast at special holy (or unholy) sites. Access to many of these sites is controlled by various churches, and consequently bringing back the dead will be difficult, and likely involve social consequences. At the very least, some travel and a donation or favor will be in order.
Or, if you had only called out a couple of spells you'd had bad experiences with, I'd assume it was for good reason.
Wish and Limited Wish only do the listed options in my game, don't expect to use them as a Swiss Army Knife or to abuse them.
As I said, you sound like an intelligent and thoughtful GM, and I'd be happy to play with you. I'm curious if you plan to run Pathfinder for an existing group of gamer friends, and what they think of your proposed changes.
I would definitely play a front line martial character, for two reasons. First, because it's what your party composition needs. Second, because martial characters benefit from a wide array of high ability scores.
If you've ever had an interest in playing a monk, this is a great opportunity. The biggest problem with monks is that they're MAD (Multiple Attribute Dependent) and you certainly have the multiple attributes to depend on!
Don't waste a level on Druid. You already have a top notch healer (cleric), second tier healer (bard), and a little-bit healer (ranger), all of whom can use the important wands. Your other two party members are a sorcerer & rogue, both of whom are likely to have Use Magic Device.
I'd probably build it like this:
Human Monk 3
LN Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +3; Senses Perception +10
AC 18, touch 18, flat-footed 14 (+3 Dex, +1 dodge)
hp 33 (3d8+15)
Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +7; +2 vs. enchantment spells and effects
Defensive Abilities evasion
Speed 40 ft.
Melee Unarmed strike +8 (1d6+5/x2)
. . . . . . .Temple sword +7 (1d8+5/19-20/x2) and
Ranged Shuriken +5 (1d2+5/x2)
Special Attacks flurry of blows +1/+1
Str 20, Dex 16, Con 17, Int 15, Wis 18, Cha 13
Base Atk +2; CMB +8 (+10 Grappling); CMD 25 (27 vs. Grapple)
Feats Dodge, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack -1/+2, Stunning Fist (3/day) (DC 15), Toughness +3, Weapon Focus (Unarmed strike)
Skills Acrobatics +9 (+13 jump), Climb +9, Escape Artist +9, Knowledge (history) +6, Knowledge (religion) +8, Perception +10, Sense Motive +10, Stealth +9, Swim +9
Languages Common, Draconic, Undercommon
SQ ac bonus +4, fast movement (+10'), maneuver training, stunning fist (stun), unarmed strike (1d6)
Combat Gear Potion of cure light wounds, Potion of enlarge person, Potion of magic fang, Wand of Mage Armor, Shuriken (25), Temple sword, Backpack (empty), Pathfinder's kit, 51 GP
AC Bonus +4 The Monk adds his Wisdom bonus to AC and CMD, more at higher levels.
Evasion (Ex) If you succeed at a Reflex save for half damage, you take none instead.
Fast Movement (+10') The Monk adds 10 or more feet to his base speed.
Flurry of Blows +1/+1 (Ex) Make Flurry of Blows attack as a full rd action.
Improved Grapple You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when grappling a foe.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Maneuver Training (Ex) CMB = other BABs + Monk level
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Stunning Fist (3/day) (DC 15) You can stun an opponent with an unarmed attack.
Stunning Fist (Stun) (Ex) At 1st level, the monk gains Stunning Fist as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the monk gains the ability to apply a new condition to the target of his Stunning Fist. This conditio
Unarmed Strike (1d6) The Monk does lethal damage with his unarmed strikes.
I've used that solution myself. When I start a campaign, I ask the players if they're interested in taking Leadership or not. If most of them are interested, I give them all the Leadership feat for free at an appropriate time in the story. (It might be a level or two later than they would normally qualify, but nobody's ever minded waiting a level.) Some groups want it, some don't, and if there's just one person who's not interested I can usually come up with an equivalent for them. (A Figurine of Wondrous Power fits nicely.)
I've played that game. That game sucks. That guy shouldn't GM a game, he should stay home and write a novel.
The Crusader wrote:
Yep, and I understand why you resort to PvP as a measure. I've seen a hundred discussions of "what character is stronger" turn into "who would win in a fight" and it never really answers the right question.
To use an example that won't be controversial in this forum, 1st edition Shadowrun often spawned this same discussion.
So, the answer to "who would win in a fight" was always "fighters". The answer to "which character is stronger" never addressed the fact that "mages" could turn invisible, astrally project, summon elementals with immunity to weapons, cast healing spells, fly, read minds, and generally short circuit almost any story that wasn't extremely well planned.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
I've seen this problem in many games, and have a default solution when I GM. I simply set my adventure in a location that allows me to ignore most of the races/cultures.
Advantage #1 - I don't have to write about too many different cultures, instead just developing one, two, or maybe three that the PCs will encounter. So, if we're exploring the Mwangi jungles, I only think about the Mwangi culture. Every other culture is easily forgotten.
Advantage #2 - The PCs races/cultures either match the locals, or are left up to the player do define. If someone is playing a dwarf in my Mwangi adventure, they get to decide what it means to be dwarven. Some players will make stuff up on their own, others borrow from popular literature, and others find an "official" source to make their decisions for them. In any case, I don't have to do anything as a GM except support their assertions by reacting appropriately. (Once in a while I might throw in a fellow dwarven traveler, because it gives the PC a chance to talk about being dwarven.)
I like to run a pretty tough game, but that's not what you're describing. It sounds like you had a GM who wrote a story where his NPCs were both the heroes and the villains, and the PCs only existed to be their playthings. That is IMHO, one of the worst things a GM can do. It's incredibly frustrating for the players.
It's surprising how threatening CR+0 and CR+1 encounters can be when you have four or more of them per day. Occasionally send one at night, or right after another group, or have them lay an ambush. The variance between different enemies will make certain encounters harder for some parties and easier for others, and there's really no reason a GM would ever need a CRx2 encounter to challenge a party.
I'm not sure how I misunderstood that.
No worries. We're probably all skimming rather than studying. This is a discussion about a game, of course, not the manual for a nuclear weapon. It's my personal belief that anyone willing to say, "Oops, I must have had that wrong" is someone worth having a discussion with.
Admixture will be fun! Not only do your blasty spells deal extra damage, but they work against nearly every target. An elf wizard with the right feats can really blast the heck out of enemies, cutting through saving throws and SR.
Magical Lineage (trait)
At levels 1-2 I see martials being more powerful than casters, but not enough to cause a problem. Mainly, the martials can just "do their thing" to be effective, while a pure caster has to play strategically to be effective.
At levels 3-8 I see martials and casters sharing the limelight. Some encounters will favor one type, while other encounters favor another, depending on time of day, terrain, spell selection, character build, type and number of enemy, etc. I'd call this the sweet spot.
At levels 9-12 I see casters take the forefront, but not enough to case a problem. Yes, they have enough high level spell slots that with good system mastery they can dominate a couple encounters in a row without help, but teamwork is still critical to success and Haste is still a good spell.
I've only played a little at level 13+ but in my experience this is when casters have to put forth an effort to let others share the spotlight.
13+ is also the range where the sheer complexity of enemies can cause GMs to play them weaker than they're written. Countless times I've seen a GM forget an immunity, feat, special defense, or power of a monster, playing a complex enemy as a simple brute. This tends to favor casters, since martials are still dealing with AC/HP or Hit/Damage, which are easy to track.
Also, with such complex enemies, caster metagaming can become a major factor. The player may know which dragons and outsiders are immune to which elements, but the character has to make a knowledge roll and be given a limited number of facts by the GM.
The Crusader wrote:
So, my rationale: Suppose my group consisted of a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Further we are walking along when suddenly we are transported into a giant arena where we are staring down four identical dopplegangers of ourselves that we immediately know we must defeat. No surprise round.
I think this scenario is a distraction from the real issue. PC parties don't fight PC parties regularly, they fight a normal spread of encounters, most of which don't include any spellcasters. PvP scenarios play out completely different than normal adventuring.
I'll answer anyway:
I would always attack the Wizard first in that scenario, even at 1st level, because it's the character most likely to be killed with a single attack on a charge. A 1st level wizard is likely to have 6-10 HP, and 10-14 AC, while a 1st level rogue, cleric, or fighter will have significantly higher numbers in both categories.
Another school of thought on "what should we do" moments is to just assume they do the right thing in most circumstances. For example, if the party enters a room with some bedding, and any party members says anything to the effect of "What's here" or "I look around", just tell them what they find in the bedding!
For many people it is difficult to accurately picture their surroundings based on a brief description by the GM. Also, rather than being immersed in the game world, the players are in a room full of friends with books and character sheets stacked around them. Waiting for someone to say, "I look under the bed" is a losing battle.
A few days ago I posted a similar comment about Mr. Gygax's reputation, and it sounds like you have even more experience with him than I do.
People who never played old-school D&D don't realize that before the days of PFS and RPGA, many players would simply bring their home-game characters to conventions and expect to play them in someone's D&D game. This is before the days of WBL guidelines, point-buy ability scores, multiclass balance, and internet FAQs, so all sorts of crazy overpowered characters would show up. The players wielding the most powerful characters would frequently be the most competitive types, and they were there to beat the GM's game. Mr. Gygax responded to these players in kind, by creating difficult and unforgiving adventures just for them, and they rose to the challenge.
I've personally been at the table when Mr. Gygax was running a non-competitive game and asked for everyone's HP totals before declaring the damage from a fireball trap - a blatant ploy to avoid killing anyone's character.
It's important to keep your audience and goals in mind.
A simple solution would be to apply the penalties for being prone. Perhaps an exotic saddle would moderate the penalties.
Another approach would be to require a ride check to act normally while riding in an unusual position. This would represent your ability to position your mount, and yourself on the mount, in ways that don't interfere with your actions.
There's a group of graduate students at the Rochester Institute of Technology who has been developing a similar tool built on the Google+ platform.
I did baseline playtesting for them in the early stages by running a Pathfinder game online for them to observe, and they're entering the final stages of playtesting now. In any case, their professor is a friend of mine, and I'll share their results in this forum when the product goes public.
If you're reading this spoiler, I suspect you have interest in the Google+ Hangout product. Send me a private message with an email address and some statement saying you're interested in Google+ and I'll send you an email when it goes public. I expect that will be in the next between September and December of this year.
"Passive" and "permissive" are very different.
Considering the massive damage rules are optional, I'd say an easy GM wouldn't use them.
Wizards of the Coast has done an outstanding job supporting the rules for Magic the Gathering. I'd love to see Paizo, or other game companies for that matter, follow their model. They have a rules team, a comprehensive rulebook, and an extensive online FAQ that is well organized and easily searched. Obviously a CCG and an RPG have different needs when it comes to rules adjudication, but the model is still good.
Paizo does have rules experts, and they do post an FAQ. I think the major differences are twofold.
First, with Pathfinder, as with RPGs in general, there is less of an emphasis definitive answers. The company is satisfied to leave some rules vague or questions unanswered, instead trusting GMs to rule independently. That's healthy, up to a point, but in a very rulesy game system like Pathfinder, I'd like more clarity from the top.
Second, there's a hesitation to publish official material outside of the printed books that might contradict the print media. This is understandable, as one shouldn't undermine one's own material lightly. On the other hand, unless those contradictions are extensive, I don't feel they pose a problem. Presumably "core concepts" are strong enough that any online rulings would simply clear up misconceptions rather than introduce conflicts, and less-core rules, the proper interpretations of details of specific feat or spell interactions, only impact players (and GMs) who have encountered a bump and choose to look up an official solution.
TL;DR I like rules teams and think Paizo's should be more aggressive.
Thank you:) 4chan really is an excellent training ground for insults. Perhaps the greatest concentration of experts ever assembled in the English speaking world.
OP's first post sounds like he wants house-rules in the form of advice.
Yes, he does explicitly rule out muser-gimping houserules, and imply that he would rather boost martials. He doesn't explicitly say that he wants to boost martials using house rules rather than advice withing the existing rules, but it does seem that he's open to it.
I've played games with over-controlling GMs, and games with Monty Hall* GMs, and I've seen both go terribly terribly wrong. Generally, modest changes go over well, and the more experience and system mastery the GM has, the more customizations they can make without causing problems.
ZenFox42, I would simply not make a spellcaster to play in your game. You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person, and an experienced GM. I'd be happy to work on a project with you, have you as a player, or even to play a martial character in the game you're planning. But, your introductory sentence actually states the difficulty I have, "relatively new to D&D/Pathfinder, I've recently become aware of spells that many consider to be breakers"
I strongly suggest that you don't change things you haven't experienced for yourself. There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling. Don't take our word for it that a particular spell is overpowered. Try it for yourself!
An middle road between houseruling a game you don't know yet and playing a game you suspect might be spoiled by certain spells, would be to establish a "watch list". Take your list of breakers and share it with your players. Tell them that you feel those particular spells could be abusive, and that you reserve the right to modify the spell descriptions if they get out of hand.
Monty Hall hosted the game show Let's Make a Deal in the 60's and 70's. For many years in D&D circles a "Monty Hall Game" was a game in which there was far too much treasure and magic given out, and in some cases, over generous house rules. (Sure, you can play a Genie!) I think a modern equivalent would be an Oprah GM, "You get an artifact, and you get an artifact, everybody gets an artifact!"
I'm having a similar experience.
I keep wanting to type, "This is the Advice forum, not the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum!"
Oops! I read the table wrong and thought archon blooded got +2 STR, +2 WIS. My mistake.
That's some pretty good advice. Thanks, and now that I think about it I don't really trust our monk player to do an arcane caster...well. So with that said I suppose my options are summoner, bard, sorcerer, wizard, or witch.
That sounds like a good plan.
I'm not too hot about spotaeneous casters simply because I'd like to use metamagic stuff if I were to play a caster.
Spontaneous casters use metamagic feats slower, but can apply those feats. . . spontaneously, which is an advantage. For example, imagine a sorcerer and a wizard, each who have the feat Silent Spell. To benefit, the wizard has to go around with a metamagiced spell memorized all the time taking up a higher level slot, while the sorcerer can just ignore the feat until someone casts Silence on him, then apply his feat to just about any spell he knows. So, who's better at using metamagic? With rods they're equivalent, with feats you have a choice between speed and flexibility.
The choice between memorized and spontaneous casting is largely a matter of taste. Pick whichever style will be more fun for you, and make the most of it.
Question though, why is a witch considered a lesser caster when she has full arcane progression? Do the hexes not make up for the limited spell list?
I intentionally didn't put the witch in the "lesser casters" group. The reason I don't recommend a witch for this party, although I like witches, is that they use a mix of (traditionally) arcane and divine magic. Since your party already has three divine casters, the witch's divine magic would be wasted.
This sentence establishes two divisions, "I suggest a sorcerer or wizard, but a witch or lesser caster would be reasonable."
* Recommended (sorcerer, wizard) vs. reasonable (witch, lesser casters)
* Full casters (sorcerer, wizard, witch) vs. lesser casters
This very similar sentence would have put the witch in the group with lesser casters, "I suggest a sorcerer or wizard, but a witch or other lesser caster would be reasonable."
Should players attempt to convert their holdings into gear, a GM would, of course, count it against WBL or whatever measure he chooses to gauge the party's power by. Also, a good GM will turn the conversion itself into a story.
Cheeseweasel is right that there's nothing in the Wealth By Level rules explicitly stating that only adventure-usable wealth counts. On the other hand, there is ample ancillary evidence that this is the case.
Text in the Gamemastering chapter of the Pathfinder Core Book describes the division of WBL, "For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins." This description leaves out the possibility of owning significant commodities, land, or other non-adventuring wealth. Other statements in that chapter also demonstrate that the wealth being referred to is "the amount of treasure they carry and use".
Text in other Pathfinder books also strongly implies that non-adventuring holdings are not considered part of a character's WBL. For example, the Kingmaker (and more recently Ultimate Campaign) rules for kingdom building don't count the value of a character's castles against their wealth. Many other published adventures give adventuring parties strongholds, lands, or titles without reducing adventuring gear to compensate.
The generally accepted intent of the WBL rules is that a character with significantly more or less gear than the expected amount will be commensurately more or less powerful an adventurer. Owning 10,000 head of cattle in a foreign land may make one "wealthy" but it doesn't help you fight a troll, and therefore does not need to be addressed by the rules of adventuring.
I simply adopted WBL as the magic allotment.
Yes, I simply dropped the item crafting feats. I had a sorcerer who wanted to craft his own magic staff - so he did. All the work (roleplaying) he put into working on his staff late into the night while sitting around the party's campfire made an excellent explanation for its increasing power.
N. Jolly wrote:
@Blueluck: I don't really see how it's unusable, it's just organized. I did actually try to start with a google doc at first, but seeing as I'm not too tech savvy, I wasn't sure how to set it up. Maybe I'll talk to someone else who does know how to do it later and have them help me.
Maybe "unusable" was a bit harsh. With everything on another forum behind spoiler tags, the guide isn't easily searchable. Also, I can't make a copy for my own use, make edits, or copy/paste without losing important formatting.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I feel exactly the same way.
I usually choose what character to play based on what my party mates have chosen. This has led to me playing, and enjoying, a barbarian, paladin, fighter, cleric, wizard (twice), and sorcerer, each long enough to get a good feel for the class. I've played a others for a few levels, and enjoyed those too. I'd be happy to play any of the remaining classes in future games.
I know this isn't the kind of answer you're looking for, Phasics, but I've not found which character class I'm playing to be particularly important to my enjoyment. When it comes to character class, having a well constructed party with good teamwork is far more important.
Now I just need to explain how a tiefling has a variation on the celestial bloodline.
Don't bother. Play an Archon Blooded Asimar instead, which not only makes more sense, but will also be vastly better at being a monk/sorcerer. To fit in well with the Skull & Shackles campaign as a lawful character, keep a GM approved copy of The Pirate's Code on hand.
No I have seen just about every class trivialize an encounter at one point but never every encounter. Battlefield control and buffing can be very nice but sometimes it doesn't make a real impact.
1. My experience has been the same as yours.2. Thanks for answering the actual question.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
One little emergency item I like to get the group is a scroll of reach breath of life. 1650 gp (and a dc 12 caster level check if you're below 11th level) and the cleric can put you back on your feet from 50 feet away.
I'm playing Kingmaker with an oracle who has the metamagic feat Reach Spell, and recently hit 12th level. It rocks!
"Counterspell-breaker : has a limited number of options for negating or getting around the spell".
I'd like to make a point about this particular guideline. Any spell that can be defeated with Dispel Magic probably shouldn't be considered a counterspell breaker. Yes, a spell may be negated by "a limited number of options" and that limited number may even be one, but if the one spell that works on it is Dispel Magic - no problem. It's a low-level spell, and every caster in the game gets access to it, both arcane and divine. In addition to it being omnipresent, it has one big obvious function that everyone knows - breaking spells. "Spell broken only by Dispel Magic" is like "Door opened only with doorknob" or "Can only opened by can opener".