|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes, in a perfect world where everything goes just how you want it to...
For what it's worth, I don't see many games where combat takes place over 50ft. 100ft+10ft/CL doesn't ever seem to mean much.
Edit - I also disagree with the idea that a party Wizard is holding action just to screw with the enemy caster. Early combat you're either blasting or battlefield controlling, and late battle the melee has already closed distance so you "counter-spelling" really doesn't make a ton of difference.
Why is the obvious benefit of Burning Hands always getting ignored in these comparisons?
3 enemies in front of you, and you're 5th level. BH or MM?
Yes, vs a single target, MM is better than BH. When's the last time a single target was worth throwing any spell at all? (ie: Either you've already won the fight and it's "cleanup" round, or your GM is a masochist who likes to watch the party insta-destroy his encounter.)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"
It's actually more like, "comparable to a low-damage melee weapon wielded by a character who devoted almost nothing to melee damage."
And with the way D&D/PF does "health?" Yes, that does, in fact, tickle. ;)
•Wayang and Lineage both require you to pick a specific spell (and honestly, what blaster picks MM? - Even your example is picking Fireball like a smart blaster).
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
If your level 9 encounter is a single lone wolf, why are you wasting spell slots on it in the first place?I think we're talking about several to many wolves, which require you to either ignore all but one at a time, or spread your missiles out so that they all do pathetic damage to several targets. Neither option seems like a "win."
K177Y C47 wrote:
So your argument is that it takes seven (7) specific career choices to turn a 1st level spell into a good option?Seems like overkill. Also seems like you've demonstrated the power of those feats and/or class abilities, not the power of the spell.
So I'm convinced that "useless" is way too strong a word now. I suppose it can, in fact, come in handy (especially if undead are a major thing in your low-levels.)
I'd say that the "miss chance" for a Ranged Touch is so low in most encounters that it shouldn't really factor, but it's not a point I'm willing to argue. :)
It's just my personal experience talking, I suppose. Any time I've made a caster with MM, I pretty much always end up wishing it was something else.
So sure, when your enemy numbers a handful or more of casters all dropping Magic Missiles at you, yeah that hurts.
Fun? Sure, maybe.
Sure, not everything is about DPR, and not everything should be.
For example, you know what else is fun? Enchantment Spells. But if you're not a Kitsune Sorcerer, you're (generally speaking) wasting your, and everyone else's, time by trying to make those work for you.
It feels like a lot of theorycraft in here. I still don't see any reason to prepare it past level 1, tbh, and really not even then.
Level 1: Color Spray and/or Sleep wins the game. Why bother with MM at all?
(A note on Shocking Grasp: The only class I ever see bother with this spell is Magi who abuse metamagic tricks/traits in order to make it better than 5d6. Otherwise, I just don't see people using it, so I didn't bother to include it.)
So here's my 2 (3?) cents:
•I'm not a fan of screwing with established more any more than absolutely necessary. The Nether Scrolls - I'd consider those "too important to screw with" for FR lore. (Lore is what makes fans of the setting - screwing with that lore screws with what people liked about playing in that world in the first place.)
•The idea that reading a Nether Scroll gives you a free level in any arcane spell casting class of your choice seems like a relic of older editions of the game. Back in 2nd Ed when everyone advanced at different rates? Whatever. In 3rd+? Probably a really bad idea.
•I'd never, ever, let these things into my game. There's a difference between giving the PCs items to make them feel special and powerful, and giving them a free "I win" button.
Or you are. :)
"Ranged weapons are projectile weapons that are not effective in melee or thrown weapons."
The rule is, "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack," not, "Deciding how to use your Full Attack."
Also (for what it's worth, and only somewhat related to my initial post) the RAW never differentiates between an Attack, an Attack Action, and a Standard Action. Those distinctions are entirely forum-based and do not exist in RAW anywhere I can find.
Countered by, "Light has to have a focal point to be cast on," and "cannot be in four different places at once."
Both can be made Permanent, and both are spamable, making duration irrelevant.
Also, Light does not have superior illumination. Both spells shed light "as a torch." The Light spell just goes on to describe torchlight where the Dancing Lights spell doesn't.
Manyshot specifically says that you must be making a full-attack action, which "locks you in" to making all your attacks.
If you don't make your additional attacks, then you aren't making a full-attack action, and if you aren't making a full-attack action, then you can't use Manyshot.
If you had to decide you were making a "full-attack" before you had actually done so (as you seem to suggest), then the rest of the Full-Attack rules would come into play, mainly:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
If you've decided on a Full Attack, then the only movement you can take is a 5-ft step, which means you cannot decide to take a Move Action after your initial attack.Which means that you have not "used" a Full-Attack action until you've decided to make that second attack.
Three simple reasons:
1) A lot of people don't know how to read. (ie: Eidolons the world over are built wrong.)
2) Lots of people can't micro-manage miniature armies. (ie: Summoning lots of stuff to fight for you sounds cool, but it's a huge headache for the GM if you don't come preprepared for every potential summon you have.)
3) Some people are particularly bitter about early spell access. (ie: Summon Monster V as a 4th level spell, and therefore wand-able. No one cares if the SoS/SoD spells are early access, because save DCs suffer from lower spell levels, but when it's battlefield utility that doesn't care about save DCs, it's really unfair to the Wizard/Sorcerer that someone is casting arcane spells better than they are.)
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I think the OP has a point and this doesn't necessarily address it. :(
What I mean: You are not required to "announce" your Full-Attack action before hand.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Source: Paizo PRD
So, why couldn't you take that first attack, using the benefits of Vital Strike, and then decide to continue making attacks, as per the allowed rules quoted above?
The answer, I believe, is that choosing to use Vital Strike "locks you out" of taking more attacks. The problem with that answer is that the feat never mentions this. And as the OP already mentioned, feats do let you know when you can't make your extra attacks (as addressed in the wording of the Whirlwind combat feat).
tl;dr - I do not see anything in the RAW that prohibits you from using Vital Strike and making a full-attack action, based on the above quoted rule. It is very clearly against RAI, but I do not see any RAW to back up the RAI.
Clerics will have faster access to spells, and can prepare anything (within alignment restrictions) on the Cleric list.
Oracles will have slower access to spells but their list of other abilities is generally superior to what you'd get as a Cleric. Also, if you ever make it to level 20, nothing is better for a Pet Necro than the Bones mystery.
Why is Perform being treated as a "useless" skill?
Is Beethoven's "Perform: Keys" useless?
To be fair, the original post wasn't even deserving of a thread, considering all it takes is a quick browse through the online resources to find out that, no, there is no class that totally mimics another class in every way (Marthkus' definition of "eclipse").
So... I think a little "off-topic" is fine. ;)
Except your Bard example didn't take Focused Study - It took Skill Focus three different times. (Or maybe you did... I seem to have mistaken Focused Study for a different feat. My bad, but the below still applies.)
Here's my concern: On your Rogue, you take Skill Focus: Bluff because you absolutely need to land those feint attempts if you can't stealth and plan on doing any damage at all. You take Skill Focus: Stealth because you'd rather sneak than feint, your damage still relying heavily on outside conditions (inherent weakness of SA), and you took Skill Focus: UMD because, as a non-magical class, you need all the magical help you can get.
For no other reason than this, it's an imbalanced discussion.
A good point.
The alternative is that the party sets aside a "buff fund," for a collection of wands or something similar, but realistically, that's going to be rather expensive (and requires a very "gamist" attitude towards gameplay, rather than a narrative one - It's the kind of preparation you'd expect from a guild getting ready to try the last boss of the raid, not from a group of individuals all trying to roleplay a character in a unique, but still useful, way).
Can you point to where you've talked about this? I don't see it anywhere.
Your Rogue build doesn't include wealth to have scrolls/potions/etc for self-buffs (edit - Sorry, yes you do.), but you argue that both the Bard and the Rogue will have comparable buffs.
Example turn 1:
tl;dr - Why do the two have equal buffs again? (Not trying to be argumentative - Just honestly don't see anywhere you've discussed it.)
Quoting you earlier in the thread:
Why is the Bard blowing 3 feats on Skill Focus? (Sure, Bards get more out of that feat than anyone else, but that doesn't mean there aren't better uses for a feat slot!)
Where is the Rogue getting Inspire Courage from? I thought the whole point was two different parties, one with a Rogue and one with a Bard. If the Rogue's party also has a Bard, it kinda defeats a lot of the purpose.
Why aren't critical hits taken into account? This is a huge boon in favor of the Rogue, as SA can't crit, but all the Bard's bonuses to damage can.
Why isn't AC/To-Hit taken into consideration? Another huge boon for the Rogue, as the Bard is more likely to hit from self-buffs than the Rogue who lacks self-buffs.
You should, at the very least, list what classes are present in each party in your head.
Conclusion. What I personally believe makes monk, rogue and fighter great is their reliability. They might deliver so little in every ways compare to other class. But they can do it all day long. What'll happen next when caster run out of spells after the epic battle? After the bard finished all his performance? Paladin out of lay on hands and smite evil? Barbarian with no more rage? Ranger out of arrows? Monk might run out of ki, so yes, he is not as reliable as fighter and rogue. But overall all, when you charging into the castle, rushing your way to the top of the tower just to save that important friend you all care so much about, you need rogue and fighter by yours side.
Party of Four: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Bard.It's been a SUPER-taxing adventure day, and all casters are out of spells, Bard is out of Performance Rounds, and Cleric is out of Channels.
The Fighter is, of course, good to go still as you can't run out of Feat uses.
One of two scenarios is going to happen, and I'd like your input on which one you think is more likely:
There's only one right answer to the above.
Inspire Competence is, in general, going to be a better damage buff than one character having Sneak Attack.
Versatile Performance means the Bard not only has more skill points per level than the Rogue, but will have more points in roleplay skills and won't be forced into a single skill style.
Jack of All Trades and Spells both provide the same sorts of benefits that Rogue Talents will provide, except far superior mechanically.
Both have high Ref and 3/4 BAB, but the Bard gets to add High Will to his list of toys.
The only things that the Rogue has that the Bard can't either outperform, or just totally mimic, are Trapfinding, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion.
So can the Bard totally, 100%, eclipse the Rogue? Technically no. But the only way that it doesn't is so minor that it doesn't matter.
Nathanael Love wrote:
You stopped playing D&D when they released 3.5? What did you play from 3.5 until Pathfinder??
Or are you just unwilling to accept that like, 95% of the posters here are suggesting an "upgrade" that is similar in scope to 3 > 3.5 and not like 3.5 > 4?
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's the distinction between preparation and "fire and forget"?
Currently, you can have any number of spells in your spellbook(s), but you can only prepare so many that you can cast in a day (based on your spells per day chart).If you can cast 3 level 3 spells, let's say you prep Dispel Magic, Fireball, and Fly. Once you cast Fly, you can't cast it again.
I'd rather everything be the same as above, except if you wanted to, you could cast Fly again, up to 3 times.
Can I suddenly be a programer professionally? No.Can I do some programing? Sure. Because I'll just follow the instructions in the handbook. It doesn't even necessarily have to make sense to me, as long as I do it correctly. (You don't have to 'understand' 2+2 in order for it to equal 4.)
Except it wasn't at all.I like spellbooks and preparation and school specializations and a familiar and bonus item creation and/or metamagic feats.
But I don't like "fire and forget" casting.
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook. All you need is the ingredients. If a Wizard isn't special in their ability to "fuel" a spell, then why can't a Fighter learn how to cast a Fireball just by finding the spell and learning it's "ingredients?" Not spellcasting in general, mind - Just a Fireball.
We call those "sorcerers".
Not at all. Sorcerers would remain innate and Wizards would still have to collect spells in their spellbook and prepare them daily.
What's wrong with having a Wizard with true Vancian and sorc and even other systems, all as choices? I don't get the Vancian haters- if you don;t have to play vancian, then why not let the rest of us have it? Can't we have 2-3-4+ systems?
There's nothing wrong with having multiple system choices - I just doubt you'll ever see that much "sandbox" in a D&D/PF game.Besides, if we go with my system, you can choose to limit yourself to one cast per prep all you want.
If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land.
So, just being painfully honest; I'm seeing a lot of "grognard" going on in here. ;)
You can like the current system all day long, but just because you like it, doesn't mean it doesn't have problems that could use fixing.
Problems I'd like to see fixed?...
•Clean out the Feats list. Trim the fat. Take feats that should just be do-able by anyone (PA, Combat Expertise, etc.) and make them part of the combat rules. Get rid of stupid prereqs. Make the effects stronger and/or scale with level better. There is thousands of feats and 90% of them are garbage.
•Give me Spirit Shaman casting. I like the "Vancian-ish" casting we have now, but "fire-and-forget" is dumb. When I prepare Magic Missle, I should be able to cast it as many times as I have spell slots.
•Normalize the Casting Levels. In other words, get rid of the delay for spontaneous casters.
•Revisit Skills entirely. PF stepped in the right direction from 3.5, but they could have done a better job at it. Examples: I like Perception being a combination of Spot and Search, but I think Listen should still be separate. I love 'Acrobatics' but I don't understand why we still have 'Swim' and 'Climb' when we could have 'Athletics.' I don't see the point of 'Profession' skills - They serve no purpose. You can't make enough money from them to buy anything realistically useful unless your goal is to not go adventuring. (Uh, why are you even playing then?) Bluff and Disguise can be entirely rolled into Perform: Acting. Etc. etc. etc. and so forth.
•Mobile combat needs to happen. I refuse to believe that the devs actually think separating Full-Attacks from Movement was ever a good idea. This is a perfect example of, "It's baggage from the old system that we refuse to move away from, in the interest of 'backwards compability.'"
•Magic items need to be special. There is absolutely nothing special about a +X item of whatever. Belt of Str/Dex/Con? Boring. +X Weapon? Boring! Cloak of Resistance +X? boring, Boring, BORING BORING BORING!
•Spell DCs based on Caster Level. Complain about the "power of spellcasters" all you want. We know the truth is that spellcasters are fine and you'd complain less if they buffed martials. But what I'd really like to see is high level casters using their low level spells. Currently, they're wasted space on the character sheet, and that's a shame.
•Stop being afraid to fix things that were wrong with 3.X.