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

Neo2151's page

1,388 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.
It's absolutely great, in theory. I just doubt it comes up much in practice.

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?
1d4+1 per enemy, or 5d4 to all enemies, even if it's Fire and they get a save.

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.)

I already took back "useless." Jeez, read more. ;)

But, I mean, c'mon. It's useful in much the same way that Ray of Frost is useful.

Is your suggestion, perhaps: "I got stabbed? Alright, I drop prone, roll around in 'agony,' and forfeit my turn, because it hurts."

And for everyone who thinks real wolves are a pushover... Clearly you've never seen The Grey. ;)

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. ;)

I assume you have Quick Draw and lots of weapon cords to be swapping between so many Rods? ;)

•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).
•Admixture Wizard and Elemental Spell together are redundant. (And Elemental Spell is expensive - There's a reason it was a +0 cost in 3.5: It doesn't do enough to warrant a level increase.)
•Metamagic Rods are amazing regardless of what spell you use (I'd rather save that Dazing Rod for a real blast... Again, like Fireball).
•I'd argue that Toppling Spell is a waste of a feat, considering the dearth of offensive Force spells you have available to you throughout the length of the game.

Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
Avh wrote:
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
if your wild animals aren't threathened or frightened by being hit with a high level magic missile, there's something seriously wrong with the way your DM plays them.

It just tickles a bit. If you were a wolf, would you fear a rat that bites you ? No, you would just devour it.

Magic missile is the same : a rat bite when you're fighting wolves.

a standard wolf has 13 hp. a lvl 1 magic missile does between 2 and 5 damage. at lvl 9 (what we were talking about this entire thread) it KILLS HIM DEAD. If you're going to argue, atleast make sense man.

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:

Honestly, if you don't have the creativity and imagination to figure out how MM is a useful spell, you are probably not the best person to ask for things like this...

For instance, lets say you are a Crossblooded Sorcerer 1/Admixture Wizard X with the Elemental Spell Feat, the Toppling Spell Feat, and a Dazing Rod and with Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage traits. You can now permanently treat MM with elemental and Toppling for free. You can then abuse Admixture to change the type to match your dragonic arcana damage (since the spell was PREPARED as a force spell it has toppling but was changed to an... say acid... spell at the moment of casting). So now your MM is dealing 5d4+10 (+15 if damage type is fire and you have a goblin wardrum)+Trip+Daze. With a level 1 spell slot. Oh, and you can have real fun having it act as a counterspell with the combo.

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.
Even watching other casters use it: In my current game two weeks ago, one of our PCs managed to do nothing at all but piss off the enemy and get himself killed by using his wand of MM.

So sure, when your enemy numbers a handful or more of casters all dropping Magic Missiles at you, yeah that hurts.
But do you honestly care when a single enemy caster does? How is the reverse situation not also true?

Fun? Sure, maybe.
Balanced? Eh, I obviously think it's below par.
Effective? Only if the target is incorporeal.

Sure, not everything is about DPR, and not everything should be.
But successfully contributing to the party's success is important, and I just don't see how MM does that.

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?
Level 2: The above remains true, and Burning Hands suddenly becomes better DPS.
Level 3: Scorching Ray becomes available, and both it and Burning Hands do superior DPS.
Level 4: Probably the last level that Color Spray or Sleep are auto-win (they're still good though), and Scorching Ray/Burning Hands is still doing better DPS.
Level 5: Scorching Ray stops being obviously better for a bit here, but it's technically still superior and Burning Hands is still in the lead.
Level 6: Ditto level 5.
Level 7: Magic Missile finally overtakes Burning Hands again! Wait, no it doesn't: 5d6 > 4d4+4. Also, now you get your second ray for Scorching Ray, and from here on out, it's always better single-target DPS. (edit - Wrong dps for BH. Technically MM wins at this level, but still loses to Scorching Ray.)
Level 8+: Are you really using 1st level slots for offense anymore? Honestly?

(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.)

I mean, yeah, it works on incorporeal creatures, but c'mon...
Even at it's most powerful, we're talking about 5d4+5 damage at level 9.

How has this spell survived sooo long when it's so terrible?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
The "official lore" surrounding these(this?) artifact(s) doesn't specify at all what they do, other than to suggest that they bestow incredible knowledge of arcane matters. I think the suggestion of Mythic Paths is a MUCH better idea than free caster class levels. However...

•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.
I suggest people actually read the lore behind these scrolls! We're talking about something that, with an incomplete set, turned a "magically literate" community into one of the (if not THE - arguably only challenged by the Elves and the Imaskari) most powerful magical societies in the history of the setting.
Finding even one of these scrolls shouldn't happen until late levels, and it's basically the point where it's time to retire your character (as they've either accomplished so much they have nothing left to adventure for - or they're going to keep searching out more scrolls, effectively turning them into an NPC).

Remy Balster wrote:
Why do people write without precision? Because it takes effort, thought, revisions. We are human and make mistakes, and language, especially English, is sloppy.

Should probably fire all the editors then, eh? ;)

SlimGauge wrote:
Ssyvan wrote:
PRD wrote:
Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.
This means that Daggers aren't Ranged Weapons.

You're parsing that sentence incorrectly.

Ranged weapons include thrown weapons.
Ranged weapons include projection weapons that are not effective in melee.

The clause "that are not effective in melee" modifies only the subject "projectile weapons", not both thrown weapons AND projectile weapons due to the use of the conjunction "or".

(Edit: Yes, I had to diagram sentences in grade school. You got a problem with that ?)

Or you are. :)

"Ranged weapons are projectile weapons that are not effective in melee or thrown weapons."
This would be the correct way to word the sentence to get the meaning that you're finding.

Playing a Sandman Bard and can't decide on my 2nd trait.
The first one is going to be Trapfinder (for when the rogue doesn't show up to our dungeon-crawl game) but I can't decide on a 2nd.

Any suggestions? (Preferably something interesting - not just a stat bump).

Are classes from ACG even PFS legal? It's not even published yet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You know what, I spoke in haste. Consider my post retracted.

I see what you did there. :D

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.
The rules language really needs to be cleaned up. :(

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.
On the other hand, however, Dancing Lights can choose to shed light as a "lantern" which is 30ft+30ft instead of 20ft+20ft.


Dancing Lights?

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:

PRD wrote:
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.

From a personal standpoint? I'd hate it if Haste was nerfed.

If I was a designer on the team? I'd probably never let it have as many potential targets as it does. One target per cast is still a significant boost when placed on the right target.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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:
WinterwolfNW wrote:

Sorry it's been a while since I been here, I'm not a forum troll. I see I stirred up some conversation.

I can see your arguments about the extra free damage when you have to move anyway before attacking. Good point.

However I hardly think an extra D8 (for a Longsword) is stupidly overpowered when a -3 Power attack does 6 extra points of damage, but then I admit I don't know your campaigns.

As for "Attack Actions"... I consider anything that would break an Invisibility spell an "Attack Action", I guess we each have our own interpretations here.

There is a difference between an attack action, which is under the heading of "Standard Actions," (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 182) and an attack when you use a full-attack action, which is under the header of "Full-Round Actions" (Core Rulebook 187). It can be a little confusing because and attack action has one attack, while a full-attack action has multiple attacks and things in the game can trigger on attacks or attack actions or rules can hinge on using an attack action or when making an attack. While the distinction is there in the text, it can be very easy to gloss over it because of the similarity of words and terms the rules use.

If we had it to do over, I think we could have made a better distinction between the two, but it was like that way in the 3.5 ruleset as well, so a bit of momentum took hold and now the problem my be too systemic for a reasonable and complete fix.

To answer the original question, you can gain the benefits of Vital Strike when you take the attack action, that is a standard action where you make one attack. You cannot use it when you take a full-attack action where your make multiple attacks.

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.
If you haven't moved, you can make a Standard Attack at your full Base Attack Bonus. You then have a choice of whether to continue making attacks (at iterative attack penalties) or to take a Move Action, or to do nothing.

PRD wrote:
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.

Ah, that helps. :)

If your goal is to control as many powerful shambling undead monstrosities as possible, you can't go wrong with Cleric (Death) or Oracle (Bones).

Why is Perform being treated as a "useless" skill?
Sure, it doesn't slay enemies, but it's basically the difference between some twit who thinks he can sing (zero ranks) and Pavarotti (max ranks). And out of those two options, which one gets more favors? Which one is invited to see the royalty/nobility? Etc. Etc.

Is Beethoven's "Perform: Keys" useless?
Is "The Bard's" (Shakespeare's) "Perform: Oratory" useless?

Define "necromancer."

And, since this discussion was brought on because of the Fly skill, if you spend enough time using magic boots that allow you to fly, it makes sense that you'd get the hang of flying, doesn't it? (ie: Raising the skill.)

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").
And even if we weren't totally sure... It was solved on page 1 (2?).

So... I think a little "off-topic" is fine. ;)

About as silly as the idea that wearing a pair of boots can make you fly in the first place, eh? ;)

Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
1. 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!)
1. He's trying to parity the rogue and then do more stuff. Focused study means 3 skill focus for 1 feat.

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.
Now, with the Bard build - The Bard doesn't suffer the same drawbacks as the Rogue. Without desperately needing SA to land (because it doesn't have SA) then it doesn't have any *need* for any Skill Focus feats.
In essence, they are "fun" choices, not "optimal" choices. Where with your Rogue build, you made all "optimal" choices.

For no other reason than this, it's an imbalanced discussion.

A good point.
For example, Heroism is a great buff. It's also a single-target spell.
The likelihood that the Bard/Wizard/whoever is going to throw it out 4 times is, well, it's kind of ridiculous.

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).

Marthkus wrote:
Serum wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon.

Shield of Faith.

Greater Magical Vestment.

Great now both the rogue and the bard have those buffs.

So.. nothing changed!

So, your example is that the rogue is receiving buffs from someone else, while the bard is casting them on himself? The rogue is sucking up party resources, while the bard is providing them himself.

You don't think it's a little lopsided that, in the rogue's party, someone is casting heroism on everyone (costing 4 spells), while in the bard's party someone is casting heroism on everyone except the bard (costing three spells), and the bard has to cast something on himself instead?

I've already talked about this in-depth.

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.
But in reality, the Bard should have the extra benefit of Inspire Courage that the Rogue's party will not have.

Example turn 1:
Rogue Party - Wizard casts a buff. Druid casts a buff. Rogue (edit - quafs a potion or UMD's a scroll).
Bard Party - Wizard casts a buff. Druid casts a buff. Bard casts a buff and starts Bardic Performance.

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.)

Marthkus wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
2. 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.
2. He's not. The first comparison he has heroism on, the second one he does not.

Quoting you earlier in the thread:

Marthkus wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Greater Magic Weapon.

Shield of Faith.

Greater Magical Vestment.

Great now both the rogue and the bard have those buffs.

So.. nothing changed!

Untrue, as the Bard gets inspire courage boosting his hasted extra attack, the bonus buffs we are discussing boost him even further than the rogue.

Extra attacks boost DPR.

How so?

Both get the buff, so both have their damage increased by a percentage.

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.
From the sounds of it, based on examples from this thread, it seems like:
Rogue's Party- Rogue, Druid, Wizard, Bard, Fighter.
Bard's Party- Bard, Druid, Wizard, Fighter.

SiuoL wrote:
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:
A) The party keeps going because the Fighter, and only the Fighter, is in "fighting-shape." The other three have no complaints because they know the Fighter can carry them through all future hardships for the day.
B) The party finds a spot to rest because 3 out of 4 players have spent all their daily resources (essentially making the Fighter's "strength" useless) and it would be suicide to assume that the Fighter could carry a party of four for any more hostilities.

There's only one right answer to the above.

Yeah, yeah. Inspire Courage. I'm dumb when I'm tired. :P

Inspire Competence is, in general, going to be a better damage buff than one character having Sneak Attack.
The other Bardic Performance options just add insult to injury here, as Sneak Attack can't do anything else but damage things (most of the time, but not even always).

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.
One Trait fixes the Trapfinding issue, and a single Wonderous Item fixes the Evasion issue.
That leaves Trap Spotting and Uncanny Dodge as the only things that the Rogue can claim that the Bard can't either mimic or outperform.

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.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's funny to me, cuz' they specifically nerfed the Druid's ability to do this so that it couldn't be all OP like it was in 3.5.

And then they turn around and put it right back in the game with Synthesist Summoner. xD

Nathanael Love wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

I don't want PF 2.0

If it comes anytime soon I am out on anything this company ever publishes ever again.

That sounds totally reasonable. Let me try:

"If Paizo doesn't introduce Pathfinder 2.0 immediately and make it just the way I want, I'll burn all my Pathfinder books, and then pull out my own fingernails."

See? It just sounds ridiculous. Don't do it.

That's not the same thing at all.

I haven't purchased any White Wolf books since they stopped printing the editions of their games I liked and put out a "new better" version that I did not.

I have not purchased any books from WotC since they stopped publishing the edition of their game I liked and put out a "new better" version that I did not.

Its more reasonable to assume I'm not coming along to a new edition of pathfinder than that I am.

I've been playing in some form for 20 years now, and in that time there have been 5 separate editions-- an average of one every 4 years. I don't want that. PF has been out 5 years and if they follow the schedule and release a new edition now I'm not coming along for it-- I don't want a new edition every 4-5 years.

I don't want the game I like now to go away and be replaced by a "new better" version because history has proven that the new version is rarely if ever better/

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?
(In other words: The exact same game, but with better, cleaner, and more enjoyable rules.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.
You might also have Stinking Cloud in your spellbook as a 3rd level spell, but you couldn't cast that at all, because you didn't prepare it.

tl;dr - How the Arcanist from Advanced Class Guide/Spirit Shaman from 3.5/Casters in general in DDN cast. I'd rather that be the norm for prepared casters (Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc).

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
I'm also not a fan of the "cookbook" example on a previous page. Simply put, anyone can use a cookbook.
Not if you can't read it. If I hand you a C+ handbook, can you program for me?

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.)

Liches-Be-Crazy wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:
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.
Yes, you can, because the Sorcerer was written for you.

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.
You can look at it two ways: Either you cast most of the spell when you prepare it and leave the very last of it for when you actually cast it, or you memorize a spell and once it's cast, you don't "know" it anymore.
Option A doesn't fit at all with every other type of caster in the game and option B is just dumb.

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.
But if a Wizard is special in their ability to "fuel" a spell... Then why can't they "fuel" it multiple times?

DrDeth wrote:
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.

DrDeth wrote:
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.

I agree with the whole "use what's best for you," in theory.
In actual practice, I understand my position is in the minority - meaning me and 99% of my GMs don't see eye to eye on it, which means I never get to "use what's best for me." ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?...
•Reshuffle the entire Spell List. I want my Cure line back in Necromancy. I want my Enchantment to get the heck out of Necromancy. I want my "create something out of nothing" to all get back into Evocation. And I want Transmutation trimmed down and spread out so it's a Spell School and not a Spell University.

•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!
It's a real shame that they're entirely and utterly necessary though. Cloak of Elvenkind? Only if you wanna fail all your saves! /facepalm

•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.
This pretty much sums up everything I have against PF as it currently stands, everything above included. Sacred Cows are dumb, and if you can make a better rule, you should. You're not kidding anyone with claims of, "PF is backwards compatible" anymore anyway - no sense sticking to dead rhetoric.

1 to 50 of 1,388 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.