I could see the reasoning behind this working in the surprise round, essentially for ambush predators only. When PCs get the ability, or when ambush predators are able to use their ambush predator ability every round, things get a little more complicated.
I would probably suggest that the Pounce ability should only be usable in the surprise round. At the very least, there should be a Reflex save to avoid the extra attacks from Pounce if the target is aware of the incoming attacker.
Some barbarian (and alchemist and druid, at least) proponents would probably disagree with that idea, but look at it this way - if you manage to land a Slow spell on an opponent with lots of attacks, you'd expect it to work the same way on him (restrict him to just one attack) whether he has Pounce or not.
If a creature with the Pounce ability gets hit with a Slow spell and then makes a charge as a standard action (thus being limited to only their base movement rate), do they still get all the attacks from Pounce?
It seems weird that when you're limited to either one standard or one move action, you either stand in place and make one attack, or you can move up to your base speed... or if you have Pounce, you can do both and make 5+ attacks.
This came up in the game last night, and there's not an obviously "right" answer.
Freedom of Movement spell description wrote:
If a character has FoM active on him and jumps into a body of water, does he simply fall through the water as if it were air? If not, why not (and "a wizard did it" is not an acceptable answer ;) ?
The two ways I can read the second paragraph are either that "move and attack normally while underwater" means "as if not underwater", and thus the character would fall (and take falling damage as usual); or, it means "normally" as in the same thing that would happen without the FoM effect, which is absurd on its face since that's the entire purpose of the spell.
I can't see any sort of logic in this effect letting you move without resistance when you're walking, running, or swinging a weapon, but still letting you "swim" up and down.
With my current interpretation (character would fall), I would say that any effect that would normally prevent a fall or falling damage (Air Walk, Featherfall, Fly speed, etc) would work underwater as well as in air. The character with the FoM effect would also know (if he were the caster) how the spell works, and would have the option not to jump and fall, or to dismiss the effect first.
What say you?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I know you don't like to hear it, but you are manipulating your friends.
Again, there is a difference between manipulating one's friends, and refusing to be manipulated by them.If one's friends insist that you spend your communal "fun" time with them doing something that's not "fun", perhaps they're not very good friends. Ahem.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
There's a difference between these two things:
1. Choosing not to play a good character, or not to play in a game with good characters
2. Stopping the rest of the group from playing that game.
Surely you can see this? Just because one person doesn't want to participate in a particular game, doesn't mean every other potential participant must immediately stop.
How would you folks build Corvo, from Dishonored? He seems to be mainly a rogue/assassin with a limited amount of magic tricks, such as short-range teleport, the ability to temporarily slow or stop time, and the ability to possess animals and people for a short time.
This is a thought experiment, don't worry about fitting into a specific number of levels.
My personal opinion is, I'd rather have maps than unrelated (or only tangentially related) fiction in an AP book. If I can't have maps, at least put in something that is useful and relevant for the module it's in (or at least for the AP it's part of).
Now, I know huge maps are a pain, but they don't need to be full scale when printed, they only need to be relatively scaled (so that you can get a full battlemat worth of map in a single page, or less) with a grid on them. They don't need to be 1 square on the map = 1 actual printed inch, that's ridiculous to the point of being a strawman.
Most of the fiction pieces I've read in the AP books have been pretty good... but almost every single one of them left me wondering why it was in an AP module, since it was clearly not necessary (and often not even useful) to run or play the module.
I do not believe the fiction should go away, I only think it should go somewhere it fits, like the campaign setting books (good suggestion, whoever suggested it - sorry I'm on mobile here and can't quote). The AP books should be exclusively things for that AP (with a small exception carved out for "how to fix problem/plot hole X" from prior APs).
So, say you have a creature that has a specific vulnerability (clockwork construct, vulnerable to electricity), and it's working for a caster that is: A, intelligent enough to know it's vulnerable; B, capable of casting Resist Energy and/or Protection from Energy; and C, aware that his opponent will be trying to take advantage of the known vulnerability. How do these interact?
Option 1: they don't. Vulnerability is vulnerability, the resist/protection spells don't stick at all.
Option 2: vulnerability first. Lightning Bolt damage is rolled, then multiplied by 1.5, then the protection/resist spells reduce that amount of damage.
Option 3: resistance first. Damage is rolled, reduced by the appropriate amount from protection/resist, then the remainder is multiplied by 1.5 before being applied.
Option 4: something else?
Keep in mind I'm looking for a general rule, so whether this caster is a PC or BBEG is irrelevant.
How does one, in PF, *become* a paladin? If you take paladin as your first character level, all the joining up and oaths and such are nearly always handwaved away, but what about the lawful good fighter who has aspirations of becoming a paladin later in her career?
Is it just a matter of writing Pal 1 on your character sheet? Is there some sort of quest or training that would be required? What about if you're adventuring in a land that isn't exactly conducive to worship of the deity you follow?
I'm facing exactly this in a campaign I'm running now, one of the players wants to eventually start taking paladin levels... in Cheliax.
As a separate issue, how are alignment transgressions normally handled prior to being a paladin? This character has done some very questionable things so far, that are not at all compatible with the paladin code. (If it makes a difference, such actions are part of an extended pattern of behavior from the player over several years.) I'm hesitant to just say "sorry, no, you can't be a paladin now" after several levels of building towards that.
Would it be inconceivable for another deity (say, Asmodeus) to step in and grant paladin-ish (LE instead of LG, with Smite Evil being replaced with Smite Chaos, etc) abilities to this character *in secret* (so far as the character is concerned)? I don't think it's too outlandish to look at this as sort of a Job analogue, where the character is tempted into a contract (via vague wording etc, so that the character/player thinks it's serving a different god) and given power, just to see how dedicated and principled the character is.
So, a character who is deaf has a -4 penalty on Initiative and opposed Perception checks, and automatically fails Perception checks based on sound.
However, the SRD text for the Deafened condition states that characters who remain deafened for a long time "grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them".
Assuming the character isn't simply affected by a Blindness/Deafness spell (which can be easily removed) and is innately deaf... which of the drawbacks can be overcome, and how does it happen? The one I'm really concerned with is the autofail on sound-based Perception. Is there a magic item that causes sound to be translated into (the sensation of) light, or something else that would help out?
Okay, I can see I need to clarify somewhat. I'm looking for a term to define the difference between someone who is essentially nameless and without consequence (whether in combat as cannon fodder, or out of combat as an extra) and someone who has a personality and consequence in the game world (either in combat as character/monster or out of combat as character). I want the terms to include (or at least not be associated primarily with) any sort of morality, and any level of agency (ie, PC and NPC alike), and either side of the party line (both ally and enemy of the PC group).
I'm not actually sure there IS a term like that, but figured I could check here for a wider slice of opinion/experience than my local circle of friends and fellow gamers.
The best term I've found so far (suggested by a friend) was "mook" vs. "face", although mook/name might work as well.
Deceased: Wade Wilson, Ninja 2 (name and character concept chosen largely to fit a mini that looked like Deadpool)
This was a very edge of the seat fight. At the beginning, the dice heavily favored the bad guys - zombies rolled over 17 to hit most of the time, and the caster throwing touch spells was unable to hit their touch AC of 8. After Wade went down for the count the rest of the party (bar the paladin) actually ran down to the first floor, before deciding to return to the fray (lucky rolls on the part of a summoned eagle actually took down one zombie while they were running). Once they took out Filge, the zombies were easily dispatched by kiting them with Disrupt Undead. Things probably would have been significantly easier, had the druid been present that session.
Filge managed to land two spells the entire fight. One was a Ray of Frost, which did nothing against the paladin's Aasimar resistance to cold; the other was a Chill Touch against the summoner.
This is the first actual death for this campaign so far, although there have been 5 or so KOs. That feels about right, to me. They're pretty much playing it smart, and as soon as they don't it turns around and bites them. I'm looking forward to seeing how they do in the temples.
I've come to the conclusion that it would be really really nice if the editors would favor clarity over low word count. 90% or more of these arguments would just vanish if we could get unambiguous (and non-conflicting) wording in the rules.
And yes, this is me volunteering to help do exactly that, though I know the offer won't be accepted.
Tvarog, please read Sean's first post.
I did read it. It flatly contradicts the rules in my CRB and in the PRD regarding DR. Which is fine, if that's the way it was always intended to work, or if it's a balance change or something. Then it's basically errata, and I'd like to be sure whether that's the intent. This is the sort of change/clarification that has wide-ranging ramifications in other areas of play, and will have a fairly large impact on the Sunday game I play in, where we're facing things with DR and Resistances on a daily basis.
I'm also curious, since the example given was using ice storm, how the two types of DR interact with this rule (also from PRD section on DR):
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.
It seems like, since spell damage is treated "like weapon damage" for purposes of DR, then only the Resist Cold 10 would apply, since it's higher than the DR 5/ cold iron and good, and the spell is a single source of damage (the bludgeoning and the cold are not separate).
If the ice storm was cast on an area that included a Gelugon (ice devil), would they be completely immune to all the damage (including the bludgeoning) due to their immunity to cold?
(ETA: Thanks, Umbral Reaver, that's exactly it. I'm not trying to "dogpile", I just want to make sure I'm understanding the intention behind this change.)
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
This seems to contradict the PRD text on Damage Reduction, which states (in part): Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
Is this errata to how DR works, and those things now no longer ignore DR?
I'm trying to categorize (most of) the things Pathfinder characters do over the course of their adventuring careers. So far, I have the following:
There's some overlap, and many things fit in more than one category (knowledge and crafting overlap with just about everything). Are there any other categories I'm missing?
Are undead (Su) all the time, or just when they're being created? Obviously the Create Undead (or whatever other spell/ability) being used to create a zombie would fail if the caster or the corpse were inside an AMF. But, what happens to a zombie who walks into one? They don't just fall into a heap ( = become a corpse again), right?
Lol, and now Capt. Harrigan will eat his own crew very funny stuff. I wonder if Kroop will notice or will he be so drunk and it be left to the player to mess us what would be the crab soup that now tastes like human soup. I think it would take a real high Prof. cook to hide that taste difference
Prestidigitation will take care of the taste issue. /snicker
Enchanter Tim wrote:
Honestly, I think there should be more status conditions used across the board. It's been argued in countless other threads (here and elsewhere) that D&D/PF is "rocket tag", that characters can survive falling off a cliff or getting mauled by a bear with no actual reduction in effectiveness, etc.
The root problem seems to be that HP is an all-or-nothing resource. You lose 1 hp, no big deal. 10 hp, no big deal. All but 1 hp, still no big deal because it's better mechanically to keep pushing out the damage to kill the monster before it can take that last 1hp from you, instead of someone "wasting actions" to heal you.
You can take ability score damage and it degrades your performance, but hp damage has no mechanical effect until the very last point.
HP is a great way to simplify a lot of different factors, but I think it almost goes too far without some sort of wound system or condition track (like in SW Saga) to accompany it.
I see a lot of people speaking out against in-combat healing at all. Why? I can understand that with even more limited resources, combat could tend to be more tactical, but (IMO) the system really isn't built to handle that.
There are already complaints about balancing repetitive-action characters (e.g. fighters, who do the same thing to every monster - hit it with a stick, then once they heal up afterward they're just as effective as before) with nova-capable characters (casters, who run out of spell slots and thus become less effective with each fight). (As an aside, I personally think that removing the fire-and-forget magic system would neatly solve this problem too.)
I'd like to know some of the design logic behind why healing spells are so vastly outclassed by damage spells, and why healing (apparently by design) is suboptimal in combat.
Is is possible to make healing (during combat) a viable and fun party role? Currently it's not even close to keeping up with incoming damage, until you get Heal, so the only reason to use Cure X in combat is when you're so outclassed that there would be a TPK without it. It's far more useful for the cleric (or other healing capable class) to do other things, and then patch everyone up after combat ends.
All my thoughts on how to make healing useful (and fun, if possible) require sweeping changes. Things like making Cure spells do significantly more healing (well, scale up better), making them not Touch range, removing most non-player healing abilities/items (wand of CLW), adding spells that give more temporary HP than the paltry few available now, using status conditions (like sickened/fatigued/blinded) more often and making them easier to cure (something like paladin mercies perhaps), etc.
Is it worth doing? Has anyone looked at this before and made any progress?
In an effort to relive some of my own "golden years" of gaming, I've brought forward some concepts from other games and mingled them with bits and pieces of Pathfinder to create a necromancer class with an entirely different flavor from what is already available. It uses a "new" spellcasting mechanic to replicate draining your own life to cast spells (and draining the enemy's life to replenish your own), a minion that is intended to harass and hinder the enemy, and a dazzling array of debuffs and control abilities that make your teammates more effective.
I invite all of you to peruse, analyze, criticize, optimize, even abuse this class. Tell me where it's weak, where it's strong, where it's broken. A good deal of effort went into designing this class, and I believe it's solidly in between tier 2 and 3.
Here's a breakdown of the philosophy and intent behind the class:
Primarily I wanted a class that feels like the Everquest necromancer. That entails 3 things - first, having a pet that can either tank or DPS (DPR in this case, I suppose), with spells to augment/select his role. Second, DoTs (damage over time) and debuffs - few actual direct damage spells, very few area spells. Mainly status ailments, like sickened, frightened, nauseated, etc. Some spells that do damage but not quickly (and this is tough to balance, given the average 5-round-long combat in 3.5/PF). Some thematic utility stuff. Also, *specifically*, decent control spells for use against undead. Third, the ability to manipulate HP - healing and lifetap/lifedrain. That's where the casting mechanic comes from - in EQ, necros have a spell line called Lich, which puts a skeleton (or other undead) illusion on them and drains their HP in exchange for faster mana regen. Basically they're casting spells from their own life force, but at a measured rate. This works side-by-side with their lifetap/lifedrain abilities, allowing them to keep up casting (at a non-peak rate) pretty much indefinitely. Sure, they can do some burst damage, but it leaves them low on options until they've had time to regen. In the middle of a tense fight, that's generally a poor choice (but it IS at least an option).
For this concept, I looked at a number of existing classes. None of them had the feeling I was looking for (I know this is pretty subjective, but even with massive reskinning the mechanics just wouldn't allow what I was going for to be effective - even the coolest concept ever isn't much fun if it can't perform in-game). I looked at Druid, Summoner, Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer/Oracle, Witch, and Alchemist (even a few third-party classes), and didn't find a way I could mix and match to get what I wanted without a lot of difficulty and just general sloppiness. One of my side goals in this was to not slow down play too much. The "archetypal" necromancer from D&D-style fantasy is a guy who has legions of the dead at his command. In-game, however, this has several drawbacks. First, the sheer number of minions required to be effective (using the standard available undead types) is rather high, and this not only stretches the action economy but slows things down for everyone at the table. Second, it's entirely dependent on GM largesse (what creatures are available to be animated and how much onyx is available for purchase/looting, etc). While I don't think anyone in my current group would intentionally gimp a character, it's all too easy to forget to make allowances to let the character do their shtick, and if we get stuck in the wilderness for weeks, or end up racing the clock for some reason, it's entirely possible for multiple levels to pass by with no real advancement (and likely a loss, as the minions would be ablating in combat) in that realm, resulting in wasted character options. Best to simply avoid the possibility.
So, in order to reify this concept properly, I've taken bits and pieces from several classes and put them back together in (what I think is) a coherent fashion.
First, the basic caster concept. Spontaneous casting (doesn't have to memorize spells or worry about a spellbook), no armor, simple weapons. Limit the number of effects known (simplifying decision making in play but increasing challenge when selecting effects known), limits "innate" offensive/defensive capability. Good will save (have to be strong-willed to resist corruption and control life force), good fort save (necro casting is based on his own life energy, so he has to be healthy and full of vitality), poor reflex save (no need to be fast when you have undead to do all the scut work and fight for you, and crawling around in musty damp tombs isn't good for the joints).
Second, the skeleton pet. I took the base idea from here: UA Necromancer Variants, added some buff abilities from the Summoner spell list, added some more buff abilities to match the buffs in EQ and provide some actual utility. Now there's a "sticky" mechanic that lets him tank, along with a few other things. He's commanded (mentally) by spending a move action, so he doesn't ravish the action economy - selecting new targets, positioning, etc. It is completely controllable; it's made with a tiny shred of the caster's soul so it's immune to turn/rebuke/command. It's not truly mindless, but it has no preservation instinct of its own (it does defend the caster if he's injured, etc). Since it's a basic skeleton, even with more HD it sucks combat-wise, so it can be equipped with items of its own (weapons and armor only). It already does get HD advancement equal to the caster, and there are plenty of buff effects he can put on it temporarily to make it good at things (at a cost!), basically granting templates and abilities to it for the duration of the spell. I really don't want to have the same sort of complexity as there is in, say, the eidolon, so I steered away from build points type of improvements for this. It's not really "undead", anyway, more of a homunculus (essentially a constructed body with a little of the caster's life force powering it).
Third, the casting mechanic. Vancian magic just doesn't do it for me. I tend to play spontaneous casters if I play caster at all, since memorization is bloody annoying (and makes very little sense to begin with, given a bit of thought). So, spell points/pool. Problem there is, it gets ridiculous because of the way spell slots work, plus the fact that damage spells are horribly underpowered. So, limited pool (like ki points, basically) that gets bigger as you level, so you can do more before you need to tap into your life force. Since it IS life force, I based it on Con. Added a class ability to regain pool by spending HP (which is always risky in combat, especially with the d6 hit die of casters), also scaling up with level. The balance point here is being able to use two of your highest level effects before needing to recharge (sometimes 3 if you have pact going before you start using the effects, which gives you 2 rounds worth of regen while you cast), or several lower level ones if you don't "need" the extra oomph, or a couple of "maintained" effects and one big one every few rounds, etc etc. Interesting Choice is the primary concept. Speaking of maintained effects - added an option to let necromancers sustain some effects (generally buffs/debuffs) at an ongoing cost. They're limited in several ways: first, the point cost - you spend casting pool points every round to keep the effect going. Second, pool size - as small as the casting pool is, you just can't have a bunch of effects running at once. Third, every sustainable effect is single target. Finally, hard power limit - you can only have a number of effects sustained equal to your casting stat mod. That done, I provided a limited way to mitigate the sustain cost, since the class is themed around DoT and debuffs - a focus item that can sustain one instance of a single effect at no per-round cost. The effect it sustains is chosen at creation, and only a limited number can be used at once (*very* limited). Sustain effects are much like concentration-duration spells, they work as long as you pay their cost every round, and then (some of them) for a little while after that.
Fourth, the "spells". I use quotes because these effects are balanced differently than the normal spell system. They're balanced against what a Fighter can do, using level appropriate equipment and abilities. In point of fact, they're balanced noticeably *below* what a Fighter could do, specifically because the necro gets a pet that can keep him out of melee (up to a point). Fighters, of course, do less damage than rogues (only when SA'ing) or barbarians or paladins (only vs undead/evil) (or clerics/druids, if they're built for melee) or rangers (vs favored enemy). So, this class won't be putting anyone out of a job damage-wise. Most of the better necro effects are spread across multiple rounds (like the Darkness line that reduces movement - limited utility but it's something that can be maintained, at a continuing cost, as long as necessary and as long as the caster has HP to burn for it). Nearly everything scales with level, but in a much more limited fashion than normal spells. And of course, he chews through his own HP like candy to maintain casting, so *every* cast is a risk. The effects on the Veil Magic list balance out moderately (slight but noticeable) more powerful than the equivalent wizard spell *at the level it becomes available*, but they do not scale up as much, so the power curve drops behind at higher levels. This also has the pleasant side effect of encouraging the necromancer to use higher level effects, with their corresponding higher cast cost (hooray for self-balancing!). This is sort of a "dark side of the force" flavor - quicker, easier, but not really more powerful.
As an aside here, I think, after looking at a *lot* of math, I found the source of the "quadratic wizard" problem. It's because *everything* about spellcasting scales with level. The number of spells you have per day (including activated items and bonus slots for casting stat), the difficulty in resisting the spells (spell penetration, spell focus, casting stat mod increase), the effect of the spells (damage dice, empower, maximize), the power level of the spells (spell level), the sheer versatility/number of different effects that become available, eventually the number of spells you can cast in a round (quicken, familiar + wand, contingency). Not only does a caster become more powerful as he levels, he becomes more powerful *faster* with every level. I think I've mostly alleviated this with the necromancer, since the effect of the spells doesn't increase nearly as fast, or as much, as standard ones. The versatility is also greatly reduced, since Veil Magic has extremely low overlap with other spell lists in terms of available effect, and no overlap at all in terms of "spell list" per se, so a necromancer would need UMD to use pretty much any wand/scroll (and likewise, other classes would need UMD to take advantage of any Veil Magic items; I actually lean towards Veil Magic effects not even being allowed as scrolls/wands, though some would be okay as potions/staves).
Fifth, thematics. The necro is focused around manipulating life force in its raw form, so of course he gets healing effects. Nothing even close to what the cleric gets, and even if it was, the cleric really shouldn't be healing 95% of the time anyway, it's so massively underpowered compared to his other options. No channeling ability, so no elemental wackiness; no lay on hands; just the pure transfer of life energy (most of it stolen from monsters/enemies anyway), and always at the cost of some of his own (the casting cost, or simple direct transfer). He also gets some limited versatility by way of "undead-like", poison/cold/ghost/scary-type stuff.
One thing I've been pleasantly surprised by, is that as I flesh out (ha!) the effect list, I'm finding that there is plenty of variety in terms of saves, durations, schools, etc. I had been a little concerned that everything would end up being necromancy and conjuration.
So, that's where it's all coming from. Now to see if it gets there...
Gauss, good point (and I really am on Paizo's side here, I want PF to be the best system on the market and I enjoy playing most of it). However, that begs the question - how long does proper analysis take, when the proof has already been provided? At least, say (even unofficially) "we're looking at X", even if you come back a month or three later and say "well, we decided it's not really a problem". PF has been out long enough for the monk problem to have been looked at by now, and probably 95% of the math was done before it was even officially released. Prone Shooter, well, again... how long does it take to look at a feat, realize it does literally nothing, and say "we're looking into the problem"?
I think I'm going to stop posting for a while, I don't want to "be a jerk" by trying to help bring attention to things that need fixed. I will however follow this issue with great interest.
I certainly sympathize with Paizo in terms of being only human. We all are. However, when it's pointed out (with supporting math) that certain options are not just "less than optimal", but outright not worth taking or not functional/possible as written, that should be AT LEAST officially acknowledged. I would personally prefer the issue be fixed, but at minimum it should be acknowledged in the FAQ/errata.
And anyone who puts forth the argument that some players "have no ability to make logical conclusions on their own", well, that's entirely spurious. As someone who's paid several hundred dollars to Paizo in exchange for their RPG books, I expect the rules to be functional, internally consistent, and entirely without "trap options".
I don't think anyone is claiming everything must be perfect out of the gate. However, once the problems are pointed out, and mathematically proven to be problems, they *really* ought to get fixed. That's what I (and presumably hundreds of others) am paying for. Acknowledge the problem, publicly, then fix it. Take the time to do it right, but DO IT. Your loyal fans and customers are watching eagerly.
Yes, I'm playing almost this build exactly (2 pal / 1 oracle / 13 sorc) in a high level game currently, and basically when saves come up, it's "don't roll a 1".
The Oracle level is just more synergy, I went Lore with Sidestep Secret, which gives Cha mod to AC and Reflex saves. Ended up with +25 Fort, and +28 Ref/Will.
I'm sure it could be more optimized, but I was building for survivability. 30 AC (could easily get to 39ish) and 179 hp works out rather nicely.
I feel your pain on the alignment thing, but given the composition of the party I was joining it wasn't a loss; the group's (other) paladin would have been cramping my style anyway. :) Might as well join in.
Spell Perfection + Maximize Spell + Calcific Touch is a nice combo, add in Reach Spell and maybe Piercing Spell for good times. 4 points Dex damage (no save for the Dex dmg, SR only), close ranged touch, + 10 vs SR (if you have Spell Pen and Greater Spell Pen that goes up to +18 vs SR!). Good against anything except undead (and whatever else might be immune to stat damage). Magical Lineage would mean either the Reach or Piercing metamagic is free, apply Spell Perfection for Maximize (since it's +4 levels), and you get one VERY nasty 5th level spell. Doesn't come online until 15th level minimum, but starting at 17th that's no hindrance.
Also, consider a 2 level dip into Paladin for massive save bonuses and a little tiny bit of healing ability and smite. With as much Cha bonus as you'd have it might be worth the loss of CL. Magical Knack trait (I think, the one that gives you +2 CL not to exceed total HD) would take away all the sting from that aside from the actual spell level lost. Might be better to do this instead of Magical Lineage, you'd still have 7th level spells.
Can we see your stats, spells, and feats?
Stats:Str 13 / Dex 11 / Con 22 / Int 14 / Wis 14 / Cha 34
This is including +4 Str enhancement, +6 Con inherent, +5 Cha inherent, +6 Cha enhancement. Character was intended as survivable controller/disabler.
Finding Haleen, Carefully Hidden, Magical Knack, Reactionary
Feats (in no particular order):
Additional Traits, Blind Fight, Craft Wondrous Item, Defensive Combat Training, Extend Spell, Extra Revelation (Sidestep Secret), Maximize Spell, Piercing Spell, Reach Spell, Spell Penetration, Spell Perfection (Calcific Touch)
Spells (including the 4 I selected above, which I suppose could still be changed between now and Sunday):
6 (6/day) Dispel Magic, Greater, Planar Binding (DC 28), True Seeing (DC 28)
5 (8/day) Dominate Person (DC 27), Contact Other Plane (DC 27), Teleport, Icy Prison (DC 27), Lightning Arc (DC 27)
4 (9/day) Charm Monster (DC 26), Invisibility, Greater (DC 26), Scrying (DC 26), Enervation, Boneshatter (DC 26), Calcific Touch (DC 26), Emergency Force Sphere
3 (9/day) Suggestion (DC 25), Haste (DC 25), Tongues (DC 25), Arcane Sight (DC 25), Magic Circle against Evil (DC 25), Displacement (DC 25), Countless Eyes (DC 25), Heatstroke (DC 25)
2 (9/day) Touch of Idiocy, Glitterdust (DC 24), Resist Energy (DC 24), Scorching Ray, See Invisibility (DC 24), Shatter (DC 24), Mirror Image (DC 24), Pilfering Hand
1 (9/day) Color Spray (DC 23), Protection from Good (DC 23), Magic Missile, True Strike (DC 23), Ray of Enfeeblement (DC 23), Grease (DC 23), Feather Fall (DC 23), Stumble Gap (DC 23)
0 (at will) Acid Splash, Message, Dancing Lights, Light, Prestidigitation (DC 22), Read Magic (DC 22), Ghost Sound (DC 22), Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Mending, Arcane Mark, Spark (DC 22)
Got Piercing Spell already, it doesn't help as much as I hoped it would.
I really don't see any buffs in the list that the cleric or druid can't cover just as well (and they don't need to waste known spell slots on them). Also, I don't see any control spells that wouldn't interfere with the party (all the solid fog/lava/tentacles stuff would hurt us just as much as the enemies).
I think I'm going to go with MCaE, Boneshatter, Lightning Arc, and True Seeing. Hopefully at least one of those will be useful, eventually.
I'm going to Hell. Literally, the party is going to Hell, and I'm stuck as to what spells to pick that will be useful against devils. Character is LG Pal 2 / Ora 1 / Sor 13 (CL 15, 17th vs SR), and I need to pick a 4th, 5th, 6th, and one more that can be anything under 6th level.
The main problem so far is that nearly everything we fight has SR. Despite Spell Penetration (don't have greater yet, maybe next level) and Piercing Spell, I still get shut down over half the time. (Meanwhile the paladin with a Sunblade is dishing out 200+ per hit on a regular basis.)
Any suggestions? Should I just Haste the party and then turtle until there's something I can land spells on? Magic Missile forever?
I don't understand why all the hubbub at all. If Detect Magic can be used to detect magical auras, and you don't want your players to find a particular [wall | keyhole | item], just make it NOT MAGICAL. Or MORE MAGICAL. Seriously, why all the hate for something that has so many counters already?
"I don't want players to find the secret entrance to X's lair!" =
Nerfing Detect Magic is NOT the only option, or even the best one.
Great, just what I was looking for, thanks!
Abraham spalding wrote:
A level equivalent fighter should be able to ... make its weak saves at least 40% of the time
By this, do you mean the fighter should be able to land a status condition (like Stunning Critical) against the monster's weak saves 40% of the time, or should be able to resist monster abilities which attack the fighter's weak saves (like a Pixie's entangle SLA) 40% of the time? (Or something else entirely?)
(I'm not entirely sure that this is the right place to put this question, but it seemed like the most appropriate - Mods, if this needs to go somewhere else please feel free.)
Where can I find the "baseline" combat progression per level for PF? (IS there one?) More precisely, I'm looking for the "standard" build of a fighter at a series of levels (1,5,10,15,20 or similar), with level-appropriate gear/wealth/abilities; as well as the "typical" opponent he'd face at those levels.
I'm trying to determine the balance of some potential mechanic changes for an upcoming game (not really ready to discuss the changes yet until I have something to compare to), but haven't been able to locate a "Treantmonk's guide to fighters" equivalent.
(Also, if anyone could point me to something similar for SWSE, 3.5 or 4e I'd appreciate that as well.)