Alexander Augunas wrote:
If you add some cough syrup and set it aflame, that's a flaming homer.
Ross Byers wrote:
Seriously, if you don't read those, you are doing yourself a disservice.
V normally has dimensional anchor prepared. Wonder if that will stop Laurin's wormholes?
Then again, using dimensional anchor would have been useful way earlier in this saga, so V either didn't prepare it today or already cast it and I've forgotten. (I mean, it's been like a 18 months of strips since they last got to prepare spells.)
Alex Martin wrote:
I went looking for the citation. And I both found I was wrong and discovered how long ago Captain Scoundrel was introduced (more than half the the strips ago).
I guess I just disagree that all deity choices have to be mechanically equal, as long as they're playable. A Pharasma warpriest is playable if you are so inclined to make one.
And frankly, I'm okay with the Warpriests of militaristic deities like Iomedae, Gorum, Torag, and Rovagug being just a little bit fight-ier than warpriests of deities like Pharasma (especially since Inquisitor is still available for those deities.) Yes, Shelyn is weird in this case, but the God tables have always liked to create interesting exceptions (e.g. Nonevil Death gods, Evil Glory gods, etc.)
It's not as if the dagger is a bad weapon. It averages two points less damage than a longsword, but it has a decent crit range, and you can throw it.
Is the problem just that people think you look silly marching off to war with knives? That never stopped rogues or wizards before.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I'd probably play the crap out of the arcanist, but that's mostly because I really like the flavor involved with wizard / sorcerer crossovers: I prefer spontaneous casting but love to look for lore and collect spellbooks.
I'm thinking of an arcanist as a person with a sorcerous bloodline but without the Chr score to make it work. But they do have a good Int and got admitted to the wizarding college down the road...
I agree with Peter. A wizard has enough spell slots that they can either prepare backup spells (in case something does not go as planned), or 'double up' on spells when they're specializing (looking a lot like the Arcanist in those fights because they cast the same spell more than once.)
Another comment is that an Arcanist is 'fidgety', by which I mean the majority of players (in my personal experience) figure out their wizard's prepared spells and only change a spell or two around the edges when they know of a good reason. Their 'spells per day' are damn close to just being their spells known. An Arcanist, in contrast, has so few spells prepared they really do need to change it nearly daily to make it effective against what they're fighting that day.
That's great for players who love fiddling out every little advantage, but a pain for players who just want to get back to exploding goblins. (So if you think the optimizers will get too much out of it, you might be missing that they're the intended audience.)
There is a certain amount of player-angst tied up in these decisions as well: When your sorcerer lacks a spell, there's nothing you can do about it anyway, so you improvise and move on. When your wizard or arcanist lacks a spell, you feel foolish. But with an arcanist, that feeling will happen more often: Where a wizard might have one each of fireball and lightning bolt and a arcanist has fireball prepared instead, the arcanist is more likely to be surprised by fire-immune enemies or a battlefield where a line is more useful than a circle.
Prince of Knives wrote:
Yes, at 17th level (where wizards have wish but sorcerers/arcanists don't) the difference is fairly small, because its one level out of 17. But at 3rd and 5th level, a lot of sorcerer players are wishing they were wizards.
Peter Stewart wrote:
I'm a little frustrated that four people have now attempted to correct me - all of whom have been wrong. Taking the thirty seconds required to read someone's entire post rather than shooting off with the first thing that jumps to mind is not something that I think is too much to ask.
I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was agreeing with you: I was saying there are ways the sorcerer's spellcasting is superior to the arcanist (and vice verse). Taking the time cuts both ways.
Suddenly, any god with a dagger as a favoured weapon gets no warpriests (maybe this is actually appropriate, since that seems like a god with a bunch of rogues... we totally need a rogue/cleric class btw). Personally, I dislike this restriction also. Doubly so if they don't get proficiency with the weapon (and what happens when the favoured weapon is unarmed? Hell, how do I rule this where my setting has a god with a favoured weapon of siege catapult. Why did I ever think that was a good idea.)
It's not like the dagger is a bad weapon, exactly. It does 2 points of damage less, on average, than a longsword, but it can be thrown and finessed.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Backing Sean up here, this isn't just space on the page, but also something to remember when designing spells, as well. You run out of mental "room". When freelancing, I know I've turned in spells and then realized "Oh, crap, that really should be been <x class> spell too."
They gain Enhancement Bonuses via the Animal Aspect which could clash with the most common belt slot choices, but hell, it might free up more options so I'm not complaining.
I'm hereby suggesting these should be polymorph/size bonuses or something of that ilk.
I'm not sure a Hunter needs to be an expert Archer. Druids have some of the worst ranged attacks in the game, and a lot of rangers take non-archery combat styles.
Since they get Teamwork with their companions, it makes sense to be melee-oriented, so the tactical aspect of the teamwork feats can be played up.
Maybe they need something resembling combat styles?
What if I'm playing a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater?
Benn Roe wrote:
On the one hand, one thing I really like about existing hybrids like the magus and inquisitor is that if you want them to feel more like one parent class or the other you can do so by multiclassing them with that parent class. A magus 5/fighter 3 feels a lot more like a swordsman who dabbles in magic than a typical magus 8 does, etc.
On the other hand, a Magus 5/Wizard 3 is worse at both spellcasting and fighting than a Magus 8.
Captain K. wrote:
Maybe you should wait to see what the classes actually do, before judging them on their power level or level of originality?
Almost every AP I've played in has had a few encounters that, if you don't have WBL appropriate gear, are going to be meat grinders and chew you up....
This is why I hated Pre-3.5-style DR. "Have a +3 weapon? It dies in two hits. Only a +2 flaming weapon? Rocks fall, everyone dies."
Defeating Tarquin through a superior understanding of dramatic tropes? Poetic.
Epic Meepo wrote:
I want to see Azra (from Prince of Wolves) come back.
More spellcaster protagonists, because I love seeing their take on how their magic works.
Or Tarquin has a 'ring of mind shielding' or something. He's the kind of guy who makes sure he's immune to his ally's friendly fire.
Not saying he's trying to turn on them or expects to be betrayed. Just that it's easier for the wizard to cast fireball when all the guys on your team are wearing amulets of fireproof.
Hmmm...V failing a Will save seems unlikely. I wonder if the position of his hands on the side of his head means that he made the save. And, if that assumption is correct, then Elan also appears to have made his save.
One could argue Elan is immune to mind-affecting effects.
There's no 'replacement' mechanism for Great Old Ones. They are eternal.
Demon Lords, by contrast, are replaceable. If you wipe away Lamashtu, Noticula will take her place. Slay Pazuzu, some greater Vrock will take his realm. And so on. There are always more demons scrabbling to take the place of their masters.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Depends on how 'low wealth' you mean. Breastplate is only 200 gp. The fighter can jump up his AC rather rapidly with small amounts of wealth (going from studded leather to breastplate and a shield, for instance.) But then he hits a hard cap without thousands of gp for +1 bonuses.
I'm not going to claim to know what the 3rd edition designers were thinking, but I know that Roger Zelazny used the 'prepared spell' idea in the Merlin half of the Chronicles of Amber, without being shackled to a legacy mechanic.
It's not a terrible way to reconcile 'magic is complicated and difficult' with 'magic fights should be fast paced'.
The 'memorize' terminology went away in 3.0. Because you're right, it makes no g*$!+~n sense.
I think the more modern idea is that 'preparing' (the modern terminology) a spell means doing most of the work of casting it, so that you can set it off with a word or two and a gesture when you need it. This makes sense, because doing a three-page set of complex instructions to cast a fireball would take too long.
Once you've cast it, you still remember the words and the gesture, but the spell is still expended until you can pack up another one.
Another idea is looking at it like Batman's utility belt: manufacturing a sleeping-gas filled batarang is a pain. He has to do it before he gets in a fight. And once he throws it, it is spent. And he only has so many pockets to hold all his gimmicks in. He hasn't forgotten how to make more, but he needs access to his equipment in the batcave before he can do it again.
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong: Some people just don't like Vancian mechanics. But I find a lot of people get hung up on the 'memorize' wording from 1st & 2nd edition instead of the mechanics themselves or the modern fluff of them.
Imagine there is a group of guys out at a bar. Each one takes a turn complaining about his wife. Now, they all love their wife very much and can't imagine life without her. You are the guy who after each person complains says, "You might as well divorce her."
This is a great analogy.