Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Shorafa Pamodae

KrispyXIV's page

Goblin Squad Member. 1,228 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get why it seems like a couple people are comparing Magic missile to higher level spells at ninth level. It's not competing with slots for wall of force... Its competing with mage armor and color spray.

And it's a wonderfully versatile and uncannily reliable offensive trick. It's not the best spell in the game, but it doesn't have to be to be good.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
I'm interested in that. How do the credits work? Do they decrease the gold/time component of retraining? I was allowing retraining so that may be a good idea.

Well, as I didn't necessarily want to slow things down in the campaign in general (and because the base times for retraining CAN make it a bit hard to use in some campaigns that set deadlines and such), I replaced the 'time' component in general with just declaring that the shorter retraining options could be done once per session (regardless of time passing), and that the bigger retraining options (class levels, archetypes) could be done once at the end of each book. If they needed to, they could spend time in addition as per the normal rules.

Completing out of game/away from table stuff then waive's the gold cost of retraining one thing, regardless of what it was.


For my current campaign, to add an incentive for out of game writing and contribution, I offered Retraining (as per UC) 'credits' for journal entries/out of game contributions.

Basically, writing something and posting it for the group gets you the time/gold cost of one minor retraining item (feat/hp/skillpoint/spell) waived (max of one per session to keep it from being too fast).

It lets people adjust their characters, or barring that improve their HP and such within a laid out framework, which seems to work out ok and has gotten me a bit more interaction than I might otherwise get from my group.


Umbranus wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

I really want a version of this class without any Focus at all on Buffs/Damage in the spell list.

Just want to put this out there for archetype suggestions; I'd love one that has more open spell access.

This is a really good idea. I should have proposed that myself instead of just criticising the new spell list.

I truely hope we get this archetype.

To me, a bloodrager that can cast Grease or Suggestion or Vomit Swarm or Invisibility is infinitely more interesting than one that can cast Fireball or Bulls Strength.

Barbarians can ALREADY kill things. The last thing they need is more ways to do things.

My whole playgroup has effectively written off the Bloodrager as is, because if they want to play a raging fighter, they dont want to dilute it with spells that add nothing to the barbarian it can't already do. 'more ways to kill things' are massively redundant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really want a version of this class without any Focus at all on Buffs/Damage in the spell list.

Just want to put this out there for archetype suggestions; I'd love one that has more open spell access.


My thought when reading the class was, with as weak as its spellcasting is, does it need a class spell list?

If it could add spells directly to its list of Spells Known from Sorcerer/Wizard, Magus, and Summoner (piggybacking off of the early entry out there, and giving it access to some of the more diverse sorcerer wizard spells for concepts that include things like Charm Person or Suggestion or such), is there anything that it could cast that would be OP?

As a cost, I dont necessarily know that the class needs access to Spell-Completion/Trigger items. Their action cost is clunky, they dont really fit with raging/intuitive casting, and I dont know that they help the class a whole lot... and these days, its not like most parties will lack for people who can use most wands.

The limited number of spells known and castable per day makes me feel like this wouldn't be super OP, and it would certainly add a bit to character diversity.


Lord Pendragon wrote:
Skerek wrote:
Lord Pendragon wrote:
Are there any witch-only spells I should be looking at?
Do really have to mention Ill Omen?
Hrm. I'm not sure giving up a standard action is worth imposing a single re-roll on my foe. Now imposing *five* rerolls would be worth it, but then we're looking at a wand at CL 20, which I imagine would cost quite a bit. :p

With a familiar it's like having Persistent Spell that stacks with Persistent Spell.

Which is an important note: UMD becomes best when it's not your actions it's eating. Get a familiar! Lyrakie are my favorite.


Karal mithrilaxe wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Claxon wrote:
You know, everyone keeps talking about how "if players are happy"...blah blah blah. But what about GMs? They should be happy too.
If the players don't want the same things from a game that the GM does, that IS an issue. Its not an issue with a spell though. The solution is communication between the GM and the players.
what happens if not ALL the players are happy? If just the one doing that casting is having fun and the others start to feel ripped off?

Then the issue still isn't one spell, its a player issue. The solution is to talk it out; if its hindering fun for the players, then find a solution or a compromise.

The issue I see here is this; Baleful Polymorph is not even a particularly good save or suck. Color Spray (while its level appropriate) is far worse, and BP the same level as things like Suffocation (I'd rather fail my first save against BP than Suffocation).

You can't just meta-against it, you'd have to meta against Save or Sucks in general.

And THAT is the sort of thing that you should allow your entire party to rebuild characters based on (effectively starting from scratch), because when you build a character, you have an expectation of how that character is going to work. Having the DM change the rules on you (by reducing the effectiveness of whatever your particular thing is) is massively unfair if its done without consent and the ability to do something else.

That said, I dont know that you really have to meta against BP or Save or Sucks, just build better encounters in general (good encounters are resistant to these sort of things). There are already a lot of good suggestions in the thread, but things like multiple foes instead of one big bad guy, consumable but potent defenses, and building your badguys forces like a party would with redundancy and condition removal (his buddy the cleric has break enchantment, or maybe his familiar has a scroll...). And don't forget Contingency.

And absolutely make sure that the guy casting Baleful Polymorph with the unmakeable save has people to Polymorph... because thats what he finds fun.

Work with the players, not against them.

EDIT: As Ciretose points out, Vorpal Rabbit situations are great fun. A duck who's got 13 levels in fighter and still has the benefit of his constant effect magic items and most of his feats is FAR from out of the fight. A monk is even more hillarious.


Claxon wrote:
You know, everyone keeps talking about how "if players are happy"...blah blah blah. But what about GMs? They should be happy too.

If the players don't want the same things from a game that the GM does, that IS an issue. Its not an issue with a spell though. The solution is communication between the GM and the players.


Zhayne wrote:
If a game element is causing you to practically re-build your entire game around it, then it's a problem.

Except many posters here don't consider "players doing things they enjoy" something that requires any adjustment at all. Thats the game working as intended. Thats what people are trying to communicate.


If your players are having fun, you are doing it Right.

If you are taking actions to curb their fun, you are doing it Wrong.

The first statement above is about the most important guideline I've found yet for being a GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A crossbow is a Simple Weapon, and therefore available to more classes than the Martial Longbow. Being a Simple Weapon vs. a Martial, it SHOULD be worse than the Martial Equivalent at similar levels of investment.

The advantage of the crossbow (why it revolutionised warfare) has always been that it can be used by any old commoner... Which is reflected by the rules.

I think the problem is that people are expecting more of a Simple weapon than is necessary for it to fill the role of the crossbow within the rules.

No number of feats will make a dagger a kukri, why should the crossbow be different?


+5 Toaster wrote:
+5 Toaster wrote:
Just gonna throw this out there, SoH Aasimar add racial heritage orc, do a combo urban barb and scarred witch doctor. On phone so i am too lazy to work out stat block.
so i was wondering if the combo above makes for a decent EK.

Decent for what? With the core witch list, its a meh fighter with decent debuffing (but few hexes). With the strength patron? Probably an ok fighter with spell backup, but I doubt you will outfight a real fighter even so.

And without a bonus spell mechanic, you may hurt solidly for spells per day.

I dont think its bad, but I do think a normal witchdoctors hexes are stronger.

Edit: hugest problem is that a wizards defensive spells (which you dont get except in parts from patrons) will likely be more valuable than your insane hp.


Guys, none of the FAQs change how SLAs work... they function as per the PRD says they do, which is never touched in the FAQs. Spell level is clearly a part of how the spell functions.

The FAQ does tells us how to determine if a SLA is divine or arcane... this in no way implies a change in how it works or functions.

Edit: Daylight is not a second level spell and does not qualify for MT. You may be able to use a variant Aasimar, which have 2nd level SLAs.


Under the Universal Monster Rules for spell like abilities, there is a section which details how spells that function differently based on class (for example, spell level) are used. Specifically, it says it functions as the version used by the first class it appears in a hierarchy it provides, and druid is before bard.

I'd quote it for you, but I'm posting from a phone :/

And as a note, the faq does not specify rhe version of the spell used, only how you determine if a SLA counts as arcane or divine.


Pirate wrote:

Yar!

Gnomes get Speak With Animals just for being gnomes. Speak With Animals is a 3rd level bard spell (Arcane), so a level 1 fighter gnome qualifies for Eldritch Knight.

Per the PRD, the gnomes Speak With Animals functions as the druid version of the spell, not the bard one. After applying the FAQ, it is a level 1 arcane SLA.

Sorry.


You DO lose the upgraded Domain abilities though, which range from easily done without (Resist Fire, woo) to insanely good and flexible (War Domain, Travel Domain, Heroism subDomain).

Heck, in general, the better the domain the bigger the loss.

I dont see druids mentioned yet, unless i missed someone? Probably because they lose a ton of class features, especially if they wanted an animal companion or Wildshape. Painful.


ciretose wrote:
Given the amount of discussion still going on, I would say that if that was the clarification, it didn't succeed...

Which is weird, because it isnt unclear. The answer to "do SLAs qualify for PRCs" is. "Answered in FAQ" and the FAQ says "yes"

The fact that people are unhappy with it does not make it "unclear".


ciretose wrote:

If a character class grants a spell-like ability that is not based on an actual spell, the ability's effective spell level is equal to the highest-level class spell the character can cast, and is cast at the class level the ability is granted."

Which indicates the spell level isn't based on the spell itself, but based on the the highest-level class spell the character can cast.

You ignored the part where this only applies to SLAs with no spell equivalent.

SLAs of actual spells function as spells. It says so right in the PRD.

Edit: your quote does, on the other hand, explicitly establish SLAs have spell levels, which is good to know.


Rogue Eidolon wrote:

I know the idea of the "highest spell slot only" is very popular, but if this were so, then sorcerers would be irrecoverably behind wizards at all odd levels, not even able to compete, and I just don't think that's the case, from plenty of play at a variety of levels.

The Cleric2/EmpSorc1/MT has the same highest spell level as a Wizard or Cleric at all even levels--and it's never behind an oracle or sorcerer on that front, at any level. It has huge versatility and phenomenal staying power--I haven't done the math, but it should be a substantial increase from the math I did above for Cleric3.

I also failed to note lost class features, by mistake. Druids lose out on Wildshape (which is very powerful, and scaling is important, even for casters... hummingbirds and bats make great Blaster or Summoner forms), Wizards on School Powers and their shiny new discoveries and feats, Sorcerers are unlikely to see any of their higher level Bloodline abilities, Oracles will pay through the nose for more Revelations...

In exchange, you get a second, weaker spell progression.

I agree thats now good, as it hasn't crippled your primary spellcasting. Is it better than a pure class? That may depend on class features.

Is it getting your something you couldn't previously obtain via UMD? I think that's more relevant.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I don't see the unbalancing factor.

Really, if there is some numbers available to show me what I am missing, then I can reconsider.

Seriously agree.

Its a primary spellcaster. Its high end power is in its ability to cast spells, and that's ALWAYS going to be tied to the biggest baddest spells available to you.

And guess what... Theurges are still at least a level behind. Plus they're also probably splitting their casting stats (unless its a sorc/oracle, and now they're TWO levels behind a pure wizard).

What they actually gain now is versatility and staying power... something that they didn't really gain before, as they only got extra low level spells, and their total spells per day weren't actually that far ahead of anyone. Certainly, their versatility wasn't ahead of what UMD could provide in many cases.

In a way, this may actually let things work as described or intended for this prestige class.

Certainly, I don't see how a theurge can be more powerful than a pure Wizard... but at least they're close.


Xaratherus wrote:


btw, MechE, the 'concern' you posted regarding Disintegrate has nothing to do with a PrC. A 15th level Magus can do the exact asme thing: Spell Combat\Spellstrike; cast Disintegrate, crit, use Quickened Arcana to cast a second Disintegrate. Unless I'm missing something?

Its also damage based, and not great at that. Its way inferior to what a dedicated blaster could put out with a pair of optimized fireballs, and probably significantly less threatening than a Save or Die build/Control Build.


ciretose wrote:


There is also a Mystic Theurge issue, although I still think you would need to have 5 levels of a full divine to qualify (although you could argue the Aasimar is Divine rather than Arcane...I would say the ruling frowns on it...), and you would need one additional level of an arcane class to benefit so you are 6th level before you get it and still lagging way behind and not getting your class benefits so that doesn't particularly bother me.

Theurge requires second level spells, meaning Daylight does not qualify for it.

Tieflings and Variant Aasimar do, however, have appropriate SLA's.

I still think this is a perfect example of an 'advanced' character option however. Its something you can do if you understand the system, and I've not seen much evidence it produces overpowered results.

Advanced applications of mechanics to do cool things permeates Pathfinder, and I think this example is far from the most absurd thing you can pull off.

Its certainly no Vivisectionist/Beastmorph, Synthesist, or Ridiculous Pouncing Barbarian build.


I Hate Nickelback wrote:
I don't get why everyone is saying mystic theurges are a lot better now. In the end, aren't they the same power wise as they were before?

No, you're now able to qualify after level 4, meaning you can have one casting class at level -1, and another at -3 as opposed to two at -3.

Its still less good than a pure whatever, but its a whole heck of a lot more fun and viable.

I've always wanted to do a theurge, but level 7 is forever away and getting there only to be a 4th level caster twice over is kindof a letdown.

Now? I can play a divine caster with a splash of arcane to back it up, without crippling my main spellcasting or having my secondary be irrelevant.

Edit: You could theoretically qualify for MT AT level 4 with a pair of SLA's if you can find one arcane and one divine. I haven't looked into it though.


For anyone keeping track, the thread under the rules forum about the larger subject just got flagged "Answered in the FAQ"


David, are saying having TWO SLAs would satisfy you?

Also, you are presuming there is currently a problem.

Edit: karossii, the FAQ doesnt modify the prd entry in any way and is not errata. Therefore the PRD takes precedence, and the FAQ clarifies how its implemented.


karossii wrote:
So, it is either arcane (a bard spell) OR divine (a druid/ranger spell).

Or its a special case as defined by the specific rules in question. The rules say it functions as a druid spell, AND that its arcane. Both of these things can be true.

I agree its not intuitive, but it is how the rules read currently.

For an equally odd comparison, Cure Light Wounds as an SLA counts as arcane, because it appears on non-divine spell lists.


Ssalarn wrote:

My biggest issue with it is that it drastically increases the value of having an SLA, any SLA, just to be able to qualify for feats, PrC's, etc.

I don't think the mechanic of allowing them to be used to qualify by itself is a bad thing, but I do think it screws with the balance between races, since this pretty much just throws the Race point system right out the window unless they increase the assigned value of an SLA substantially.

I do like that it opens up a lot of neat possibilites for magical races who aren't primarily spellcasters though.

Unequality between races is nothing new though. Dwarves will never be good casty oracles or sorcerers for example: no one thinks thats a horrible thing, right?

So whats inherently wrong with some races having an easier time here?

Its not even a hard lock like Dwarven Defender and such used to be... its just an advantage.


Karossii, there is not a arcane version and a divine version of the spell here: there is a druid, bard, and ranger version. The rules tell us this SLA functions as the druid version.

The FAQ then tells us it counts as an arcane spell.

There are no contradictions here, just an odd result.


bugleyman wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
RAW support is actually very solid at this point.

Are you referring to:

FAQ wrote:

Q: Does having a caster level from a spell-like ability meet the caster level prerequisite for selecting an item creation feat?

A: Yes

?

If so, I don't see how jumping from "for selecting an item creation feat" to "qualifying for a prestige class" can accurately be described as "very solid."

You're reading the wrong FAQ entry. The relevant one is "Does an SLA count as being able to cast that spell for prerequisites or requirements?" To which the answer is 'yes'

I would quote it, but my phone is awful for that.


Ssalarn wrote:
Morgen wrote:

Actually Ssalarn it'll be a bit behind on Magus BAB up until character level 5, and then tied for another 3 levels. So your looking at it not having a better BAB then a straight Magus until 9th level.

Not to mention you'll be 2 levels behind on your wizard spells so your actually get your second level wizard spells the same time a Magus would get their spells and your only a sliver ahead by 9th level and down a whole spell level from a straight wizard. Certainly your selection is better but then the Magus gets plenty of great spells and

In those 7 levels of EK you've gotten...2 bonus feats (which is only 1 more then a Magus would have at that point) and you get to count as a 7th level fighter. A 9th level magus has a huge pile of nice abilities, like the ability to fight in medium armour with no spell failure, spell strike, and several arcana abilities.

So the answer to what can the EK do at levels 3-7 that the other character couldn't? Take Weapon Specialization. Not exactly overwhelming.

You're wrong on a couple counts there. The EK build of wiz 1/ fit 1/ EK 1 has the same BAB as the same level magus, and then starts pulling ahead at 5th level (wiz 1 / fit 1 / EK 3 = BAB +4). A simple trait like Magical Knack closes the caster level gap completely, and now at 5th level you've a got a character who is a full BAB point ahead of the magus, only one behind the fighter, and caster progression equal to a same level wizard. This is a huge difference, and one that stays pronounced throughout the next 5 levels of play.

But hes still a worse fighter than a fighter, a worse caster than a Wizard (CL is pointless next to having lost spell progression), and a worse Magus than a Magus (its not BAB that makes them good... its action economy and spell threat). I still dont see the issue.


+5 Toaster wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Aasimar are descended from angels and gain their power based on that ancestry. I don't see how it can get any more divine flavored than that.
Last time I checked, Aasimar were descended from good outsiders, which can include agathions, peri, azata and the like. Dunno where you got that exclusively 'Angels' stuff from.
Agathions, peri, and azata aren't divine creatures?

Doesnt mean their powers are necessarily divine. Lillend Azatas, for instance, cast as bards.


It's useful, but not necessarily the most important defense. Failed saves can cripple you instantly, hp damage wont.

Also, there's no point to AC past a certain point. If a 19 misses you, it doesn't matter if it missed by one or forty.


Mortuum wrote:


It's also not power creep. Power creep is a continuous increase in the power of options presented in successive products. This is a buff to existing options that have been around for as long as pathfinder itself. I'm not convinced its even enough to bring them up to par. Huge bumps are are a good thing when they're targeted and judged correctly.

Right. A casters power is based primarily on their highest level spells, and these tricks still slow you down on that front.


Artanthos wrote:


He did not, however, respect the laws of the society in which he lived.

Except for the versions of the story where he's opposing a usurper to the rightful King who's stripped his family of what is rightfully theirs through illegal means.

In those hes lawful good, as he's opposing unlawful rule by acting in the spirit of the true law of the land.

...just saying.


Claxon wrote:
At level 5 and above you don't detect as evil for having "an evil heart" or "wanting" to commit evil acts. You detect as evil for actually doing evil things.

You did not read the whole spell.

Creatures with evil intents explicitly count as evil for the purposes of the spell.

Which could easily include the paladin who's just seen a innocent murdered and is thinking of nothing but revenge as opposed to justice.

This still doesn't make him evil. Acting on those intents may be evil, but intending evil things is enough to make you ping at 5 HD or more... explicitly.


I was building a Blaster-Druid to replace a dead Oracle, and was going to take a level of Crossblooded sorcerer for Bloodlines anyway... going Musetouched Aasimar has allowed me to dodge out of the way of all the Druid stuff I DONT like (Wildshape) and replace it with making my sorcerer spellcasting still progress (though at a really, really slow rate).

Which I think is notable... Crossblooded sorcerer dips got a whole lot less painful IMO.


karossii wrote:

Here is a list of the possible SLAs from the Core races, including their type and level. I will add the Advanced races soon.

** spoiler omitted **

Karossii, as I noted on the last page the gnome Speak With Animals is (most likely) a 1st level arcane SLA.

Per the PRD entry on Spell Like Abilities it 'functions as' the Druid version of the spell (IE, first level spell) before the Bard version, but per the FAQ is Arcane.

Unless you can find a hole in that logic? While there is no 'normal' 1st level arcane version of the spell, I dont know that it matters... see the class SLA abilities which have no 'spell' equivalent for precedent

As far as why this FAQ matters with GM's and such... I kindof agree with BBT. Its a case of before, this was clearly not an option and it never occurred to me to bring it up.

Then the FAQ puts it on the table, and suddenly its worth asking about/considering.


+5 Toaster wrote:
Bobson wrote:
Question: assuming an aasimar counted as being able to cast third level spells innately (daylight), do they also count as being able to cast 2nd level spells? Or do they only qualify when it's exactly third? [/phone]
as written no since they don't know any 2nd level spells.

A workaround is to take any of the variant Aasimar (or Tiefling). They all have second level SLA's, I believe.


On the topic as it was started, I think its a pretty cool thing. My GM is letting me bring in a Musetouched blaster sorc/druid/theurge.

Hardly optimal, and the raw power is all from druid (and not really anything i couldnt do with just the one level in crossblooded sorcerer as i wont exceed sorcerer wand potential in the context of the campaign), but it provides a cool way for me to dodge all that Wildshapey stuff i dont like about druids.

A couple ideas i passed on that seem good for theurge builds are things like Sorcerers with Sage Bloodline being a great choice for divine prepared casters.

Its going to be hard to pass on Nature/Lore Oracle for Cha to AC for many sorcerers now, if they're looking for that sort of protection.

'


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Ah that right I never pay attention to aasimar and the other way out there races because I always felt like they'd just be weird to play most of the time.

Way out there races like the Gnome? Speak with Animals is a 3rd level Bard spell. Sure it's also a 1st level Druid and Ranger spell, but since we're to assume it is Arcane, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, I see no reason a Gnome would be particularly Divine, so not Druid or Ranger, and thus Bard is the only Arcane class that gets the spell.

Thus, a Gnome at 1st level can cast a 3rd level Arcane spell.

Except the core description of Spell Like abilities say you use Druid before bard. Its therefore (apparently) a 1st level arcane version of the druid spell?

EDIT: Scratch maybe. Thats exactly the result of applying all rules. It functions as the druid spell before the bard, but as per the FAQ is arcane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
karossii wrote:
Krispy, the issue I see would be in organized play, where a player can come to a group and use the letter of the RAW (whether or not it violates RAI) to play something which is either dramatically overpowered, dramatically underpowered, or simply not 'party friendly'...

Whether or not something is legal for organized play is not necessarily related to it being legal at all.

I dont do PFS, but I am aware many options like Master Summoner and Synthesist are not legal for it.

These options didnt have to be FAQed out of the book, did they? They're still valid choices as written.

The new FAQ ruling may very well end up being illegal for PFS... that doesnt mean it needs changed for general use.


Hawktitan wrote:
Allowing SLAs to qualify for a PrC is never going to fly.

What exactly is the issue here?

Its an advanced character build using advanced racial options and already requires GM approval for every case I can think of this working.

I cant see any legit reason to oppose it unless other people having fun with it bothers you. You can always houserule it... which goes both ways of course.

But i think more options with the gm having veto authority is better than less options in the box.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
samerandomhero wrote:
I mean, what would a inquisitor of Calistria do? Find and punish people who are bad at sex?
Uh...Calistria is the Goddess of Vengeance. Inigo Montoya makes an excellent Inquisitor of Calistria, as does Frank Castle. She's one of the easiest Gods to figure out what her Inquisitors do.

I believe she's also a patron of knowledge, specifically secrets and intrigue (if I recall) . My infiltrator of Calistria jumped on the opportunity to get closer to the Red Mantis in Serpents Skull to learn their delicious secrets.

Also with the vengeance, wherever appropriate.


Torger Miltenberger wrote:

P.S. by all means please let me know what I've missed.

Short list of things I personally would expect on a 20th level fighter (not necessarily all of them, mind): dodge, combat expertise (qualified by headband likely or base), +4 inherent dex, 3 ranks in acrobatics for superior fighting defensively, possibly crane style or something similar, depending on race there's the possibility of natural armor (with potential for improvement), extended mage armor (I would, at least)... thats all i can think of ATM that's not gear based.


Nitpick: I cant actually imagine a 20th level combat character that will be as vulnerable, even naked, as they were at level 1. They're going to have inherent bonuses, class features, feats, persistent spell based defenses, etc.

These values DO scale... but its not on a chart, and its not quite so linear as BAB. Which IMO is a good thing.

When designing any other defense mechanic, you're going to need to account for existing scaling. Otherwise its just MORE scaling on top.


hogarth wrote:
I Hate Nickelback wrote:
Though I somewhat disagree about the oracle/cleric list. Animate dead with no material component as a 2nd level word? Yes please!
The superstar spell that I like is Alignment Shield. Rerolling saves against any kind of "spell or effect" as long as it's not from a neutral creature? That's comparable to an improved version of Break Enchantment, but it's a first level spell!

...huh. They certainly did forget the typical "...has just made..." stipulation on that reroll didn't they. I don't think my DM would let that fly though: imagine the insanity. "On second thought, i think I'll go for half damage on that fireball after all."

Madness.

I guess my real issue with the cleric list isnt that its totally awful because there are some ok choices: unlike the arcane lists, there's just not much that combines interestingly beyond some buffs. Most spells also are target restricted, further strangling the creative possibilities from the list.


I feel like the Cleric/Oracle word list is far,far inferior too the wizard/sorcerer list for this system. There are way too few compatible combinations for a lot of words. For instance, I can't find anything particularly good to go with Wrack or Discordant Note, mostly due to incompatible durations.

If anyone has any good Oracle insights sharing them would be much appreciated, as most of the best examples elsewhere on the boards are for arcane Wordcasters...

As an aside I almost think experimental spellcaster as a feat is a better route to wordcasting than being a strait up word caster...


Hama wrote:

Aw darn, nobody else likes it?

Yes, this is shameless self promotion :D

Honestly, its amazing... except one of these recently nearly wiped my party :P


First, I want to state this first, because it's important: if you present something as an obstacle, players will try and overcome it. If it looks impossible, most players WILL ASSUME the gm has provided some means of making it survivable, especially if you have not.

Second, as far as nightmare stuff goes... It's 90% in the description. But, what I've found helps is 'impossibility and expectation violation'. For instance, things that are apparently humanoid with extended reach and 'impossible' abilities like Swallow Whole can up the ante. Nothing like seeing your buddy swallowed by a Child sized nightmare, and struggling in its distended belly

1 to 50 of 1,228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.