Director Robot

Xenocrat's page

1,743 posts (1,803 including aliases). 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 22 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Touch attacks miss about half the time now against equal level monsters, much worse than PF1.


Have...you...read any of the ranged touch spell descriptions? They all have crit effects!

It’s in the text of Polar Ray, not the heightening numbers.


It’s also true that the weakest and most restrictive option is the correct one 80% of the time.


Draco18s wrote:

As far as my group has been able to determine, spells with attack rolls (and no saving throw, e.g. Ray of Frost) can no longer crit.

The rules for crits on 178 says, "If you critically succeed at a Strike" and the rules for crits on 308 says, "When you double the damage on a critical success with a Strike, or with any other action or activity that multiplies damage."

However, spells do not use the Strike keyword, defined thus on page 10:

Quote:
You use the Strike action to make an attack.
Following the "spells only do what they say they do" no spell qualifies as "any other action or activity that multiplies damage" except the ones with saving throws.

That’s the general rule. The specific rule for each spell overrules it. If it says it crits, it crits in the way it says it does.


Mistwalker wrote:
I also agree that wizards should have 3 skills + int modifier per level, and that they should have more signature skills (including all lore skills).

Lore skills are always a signature skill, and are also always a terrible thing to invest skill improvements into unless you're really dedicated to your Legendary farmer concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Repentia wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Secondary, martial in this edition do much more damage than blasters.

Can you proof that claim?

Sorcerer spell level 9 Cone of Cold: 19d6+9 = average 75 damage in a 30/60 feet cone.
Sorcerer spell level 9 Disintegrate: 18d10+9 = average 108 damage to a single target against touch AC.

Show me how a martial class that can even come close to that.

Optimized casters generally have around a 50% chance of enemies making their saves against equal level opponents, slightly better for some, but often worse as well. Crit fails are going to be 5% more often than 10-15%.

So call it half.

Disintegrate has about a 50% chance to hit, plus a 50% for the enemy to make the save. So call it 35-40% of that damage.

Fighters hit about 55% on their top hit (which does a lot of damage), 30% on their second hit, 5% on their final hit, and have feats to make that better with reduced penalties, minimal damage on misses, and extra attacks.

Magicians are BAD at HP damage in this edition compared to fighters.


Right now it does, I've mentioned this as potential errata, so we'll see it if it changes in the future.


avr wrote:
Sounds like a job for a familiar. With no AoOs they should be OK to grab the fallen weapon and run off.

One action to move, one to pick up, then th retailing hits and it dies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Rabbit wrote:
Tripped is just flat footed + one action to stand up again. Disarm can end the fight for good (and requires to draw another weapon, which is also one action)

How does it end the fight? It's only an action for them to pick up an item in their square, and I don't think that you can pick up an item in an adjacent occupied square.


Yeah, what the guy above said.

Ghilteras wrote:
DerNils wrote:
Nope, you Need 20 Damage to cause a dent. As you ignore the first 10 Points of damage, the door only takes damage after that. That means in order to cause 10 damage to the door (and cause a dent), you Need to cause 20 damage initially.

"If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item's Hardness, the item takes a Dent." p.175

Doors have 10 hardness, 10 damage in a single hit will dent them, 20 damages will break them in a single hit. Taking 10 damage twice in 2 separate attacks (just roll for damage, doors have no AC) will also break them.

The item doesn't "take" the damage equal to hardness. Let's look at your 10 hardness example.

Door hit for less than or equal to 10 damage? Door "takes" no damage, no dent.

Door hit for 11-19 damage? Door "takes" 1-9 damage, no dent.

Door hit for 20-29 damage? Door "takes" 10-19 damage, 1 dent.


thejeff wrote:
Darkorin wrote:

That is really twisting the rules... The feats has a prerequisite that you have an arcane bloodline, and takes for granted that you will use the feat to take Arcana spells. If you go this way, you might as well say that "Cantrip expansion" allows you to have two more cantrips of any spell list as a wizard/cleric/bard/sorcerer! After all, it doesn't say that the cantrip you are learning must be from your arcane tradition...

Edit: The feat is named Arcane Evolution not Spell flexibility or something like that.

The Cantrip one does say "from your spell list" and your spell list is determined by your bloodline, so I don't think you can pick from other spell lists.

Right, even if you can add a non-list spell to your repertoire via Arcane Evolution so that you know it, you're still limited to casting spells off your actual spell list, so it's pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pojo2000 wrote:

I understand it in theory, and I have no problem with perception having a role in initiative.

But in practice clerics and druids are going to be the classes with highest bonuses to initiative, which feels weird. Personally I feel like that is the domain of the scout type classes like rangers and rogues.

Stealthing characters who are scouting in encounter mode do, in fact, roll their Stealth roll for initiative.


Culach wrote:

Using one of my wasters behind me, I was able to affix a trinket like item in about 30 seconds.

So, yeah, I agree, this makes precisely zero sense.

How long did it take you to integrate the magical field with the base item?


Every 1st level character chooses what to be trained in. It would be weird not to be trained in Religion as a cleric, but you have to actually select it, and nothing forces you to do so.


Right, the only limits on how many spells you can cast and how many concentration actions you may take are your number of actions in a round. If you have enough 1 action spells/cantrips available you can cast three spells per round. If you have a one round spell that requires a concentration action to maintain, you can eventually maintain three concentration spells per round by using all of your actions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”
Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

A _spell_ MAKING an attack (Spiritual Weapon, Black Tentacles) makes a Spell Roll based on your casting attribute. A _spellcaster_ ATTACKING WITH a spell (Disintegrate, Shocking Grasp) makes an attack roll based on the appropriate attribute (dex or str for melee, dex for ranged). In both cases you use your spellcasting proficiency (expert at 12, master at 16, etc.) as a modifier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”
Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?
For a melee touch attack, yes.

And I keep harping on this because they're easy to miss, you can get item bonuses from Spell Duelist Gloves (melee touch) and Spell Duelist Wands (ranged touch).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The aforementioned quote from Planar Adventure (about how Pharasma really does not care if you said a prayer even once, she just cares where you belong and unless you reject the notion of alignment entirely, you're fine) seems like a bit of a retcon (and a good one). Since Planar Adventures was published, I believe, while the playtest book was still being written it's conceivable that the playtest did not reflect Planar Adventures as much as it should, but there's no reason the final PF2 CRB won't. Indeed, it should.

I mean, for the most part the non-petitioners who fade away in the Boneyard seem to be people who would genuinely prefer oblivion.

Everyone is destined for oblivion and recyling in the long run due to outsider death through violence or planar absorption and Maelstrom erosion. Atheism, Groetus, and the Four Horsemen offer the only serious philosophies correctly aligned with the nature of reality. Everyone else is a spiritual dilettante dabbling for a a few thousand or billion years before they suffer the same fate.


Paizo is not in the business of making transportation magic convenient in this edition. Dimension Door only moves the caster, no allies (or familiar) at all, and Teleport will require more than 5 creatures to have two separate casters who then have to try to find each other at the other end.

Personally I think climbing into bags of holding is the solution...


Lyee wrote:


I am actually more concerned about weapons. I had thought that this system would be great for allowing the wizard to occasionally be useful swinging his staff, since he's trained in that and gets 'full BAB'. It'd be fun to have that option not be utterly garbage, it's not uncommon in media that they fend off someone for a moment with a basic weapon, and ye olde wizard stories frequently had them being great with a sword.

But if you actually look at the 2E math. High-ish level, 15 or so. Your 'normal sword dude' is legendary with his weapon for +3, has 24 str after his items for +7, and his weapon is legendary too for another +3. Before level and any class abilities, he's got +13. Our Wizard trying to not be useless with his staff is trained for +0, has 14 str (because he really is trying), and has an expert weapon, probably magic. That gives him a total of +3.

So anything the weapon-man has a 50% chance to hit, our wizard has a 0% chance to hit, just getting as normal success on a nat 20.

That's before we consider the actual damage dealt, and that the weapon person probably gets bonus strides and strikes and fancy things from class features when they're weapon-ing.

So, like 1E, the wizard's weapon is completely useless again. I had really hoped that the flat +level would fix this and open up combat options to use your 'less invested, but still invested' abilities and actions, but with so many class-feats that make their attacks better for weapon classes, it only makes the gap wider than ever.

As noted above, your Fighter can only have 23 (+6) Strength at 15th level, not 24. So reduce the gap by 1.

If a 15th level Wizard plans to hit things with his staff rather than cast cantrips he needs a +3 Magic (or legendary mundane) weapon at that point and should be investing in strength up to 18. That gets him a +7, 25% worse than the Fighter. But he can also boost via an 8th level Heroism to get a +10, 10% worse. Add in Magical Striker for another +1 and a damage die increase.

Or he can cast ranged cantrips with an 18 Dex, a +2 (+3 at 16th) item bonus from a Spell Duelist's Wand, and +1 (+2 at 16th) proficiency bonus, for the same +7 bonus as above but against TAC that is 2-3 points lower. He could also invest in a 20 Dex.

At 16th level you can have a +10 against TAC to compare to the Fighter's +13 (he got a +4 weapon at that level) against AC. He's only 0-1 points behind on actual hit percentage, attacks at range, has the ability to exploit weaknesses with proper cantrip selection, but takes two actions and has less damage, especially against a two hand build.


If a door doesn't have an AC it's odd that a number of stationary spell constructs (like Wall spells) do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thistledown wrote:
Asmodeus not taking LN clerics is far too counter to Golarion lore to stand. There's even a trait for people from Holomog that lets you treat HIM as LN for your cleric. The Wily Linguist has too strong a role in the world.

Yes, a fringe trait from a fringe book about a fringe country outside the main campaign areas has a really strong role in the world.


Xenocrat wrote:

For a single classed Wizard or Sorcerer wanting to engage in melee a Staff of Divination isn't a terrible weapon choice (suitable enhanced) as it can hold depending on its level 2, 6, or 9 charges of True Strike to use with Magical Striker (albeit at a cost of 1RP per use...), the two handed d8 damage isn't terrible, and you can use a magical staff to make Somatic Components for all your spells. As long as you have Eschew Materials there's no reason to ever take a hand off during combat.

I actually ran some numbers on this and at 8th level (19 Int, 18 Dex) if you take a +2 lesser Staff of Divination (760 gp) and cleric archetype to get Deadly Simplicity (Nethys) for a boost to your staff damage you're actually only doing 4d10+4 (avg 26) +15 ranged attack bonus with Magical Striker and Hand of the Apprentice throws vs. 3d10+4 (avg 20.5) +13 ranged attack bonus with Telekinetic Projectile and a +1 lesser Spell Duelist's Wand (500 gp).

Since you can only do Hand of the Apprentice four times and +15 is still a 50% hit (5% crit) chance against equal level opponents this probably isn't worth the extra gold and especially feat investment. At extreme levels and wealth you might be able to retrain and buy this into a better gimmick once you're putting a Heroism (8th) and haste on yourself.


Other legendary saves generally also convert critical failures to failures, and make you take half damage on a failure if applicable. I'm guessing they left it out because Monks already have so many more save options than other classes, plus Monk's Evasion gives you part of that benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lane123 wrote:

Just to clarify, at what point should we bring up details related to flavor over function? For example, I think that Pharasma, as the impartial judge of the dead, should have no issues with her clerics channeling negative energy. Should I wait to voice this and similar concerns until after the playtest is over, or should I bring such ideas up immediately?

And before I get flooded with comments disagreeing with my views on Pharasma, I base this idea on what negative energy *is* according to 1e lore. It isn't inherently connected to creating abominations that walk the line between life and death, so Pharasma shouldn't object to it.

What negative energy *is* is a method to hurt the living or heal the undead. Neither of these meet Pharasma’s spheres of interest.


There’s also a rogue feat that provides poison damage without saves. It looks like it’s just a damage type that interacts with immunity and resistance.


Greyblade23 wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Blave wrote:

Not sure why some of you seem to think concentration on a spell is easily broken. It's no longer "take damage on an enemies turn and lose the spell".

Concentration takes a single action on your turn each round. Only being damaged on this action will make you lose concentration. The action has only the concentrate trait, so it doesn't even trigger attacks of opportunity.

Not counting exotic reactions some monsters might have (haven't read the bestiary yet), the only reliable way to hit a caster when he does his concentration action is to ready an action with that trigger.

There four monsters in the bestiary who have Disruptive on their AoO, which allows them to trigger on a Concentrate action. Levels 13, 20, 20, and 22, though.
It can't be RAI for disrupting spells to be this difficult for enemies, even if it is RAW (at least for now).

Normal AoO is more common and triggers on any somatic or material components. Disruptive just adds verbal components and nonspellcasting concentrate actions.


Ed Reppert wrote:
The old prohibition against armor wearing arcane spellcasters was arbitrary and capricious and existed solely to prevent game imbalance. I'm not sure the current "let 'em wear armor" is going to work out without some other way to balance the spellcasters' power, but you have to start somewhere, and for my money it's better than keeping the old nonsense, which is basically just saying "that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be". Which is not an attitude that Paizo endorses, from what I've seen.

The spellcasters don't have much combat power to balance anymore. They're utility and debuff/buff monkeys, with pretty weak options on all fronts.


Logan Bonner wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.
Do you recall which monk feat it was? I'd like to take a look for potential rewording.

I don't offhand, it was late at night a few nights ago. I might have been mistaken, but I'll check next time I look over the Monk.


Raisse wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Elemental Tempest wizard power needs to clarify that it doesn't work with cantrips, which are "spells" cast at your highest level, so they provide a really offensive boost if they work with this.

Powers don't have needs. :-)

An evocation spell (not a cantrip) cast at the caster's highest level would seem to suffer from the same "problem". Do you suggest that Elemental Tempest shouldn't work with those either?

Okay, cantrips are "unlimited use" in that they don't consume a spell slot. Is that the problem?

Yes. I imagine they designed this thinking your ability to store up the max level of damage was limited by your spell slots, but if cantrips work with it then that's not the case.
You're still limited by your spell point pool, and elemental tempest burns 2 points per use.

Yes, but it's the a big damage boost to Elemental Tempest if every single use of it is at your max spell level.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Elemental Tempest wizard power needs to clarify that it doesn't work with cantrips, which are "spells" cast at your highest level, so they provide a really offensive boost if they work with this.

Powers don't have needs. :-)

An evocation spell (not a cantrip) cast at the caster's highest level would seem to suffer from the same "problem". Do you suggest that Elemental Tempest shouldn't work with those either?

Okay, cantrips are "unlimited use" in that they don't consume a spell slot. Is that the problem?

Yes. I imagine they designed this thinking your ability to store up the max level of damage was limited by your spell slots, but if cantrips work with it then that's not the case.


David knott 242 wrote:

The 20th level feat that grants access to 10th level spells needs language that eliminates the need for a check, as there is only one chance ever to make that check for a spell that can be learned only at 20th level.

I don't think they have much sympathy for the character who doesn't get extra (past the two guaranteed) 10th level spells. Pobrecitas!


Mage Armor works fine, especially if you have a high Dex (for ranged touch attacks) and provides a higher TAC than some heavier armors, no ACP for sneaking under invisibility or trying to break a grapple, and no speed penalty. It's a bit more costly at some values and can't take armor runes (it can take trinkets).

If anything medium and especially heavy armor kind of suck, given that many classes have an incentive to invest in Dex for plenty of other reasons (ranged attacks, skills, reflex saves).


Yeah, assurance is a terrible feat unless you plan to attempt low DC checks with bad modifiers and hefty penalties. It definitely won't solve your problems with learning spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've brought this up in the errata thread, and many others have posted about it as well. I imagine it will be fixed in the final product, don't know about interim errata, though.


For a single classed Wizard or Sorcerer wanting to engage in melee a Staff of Divination isn't a terrible weapon choice (suitable enhanced) as it can hold depending on its level 2, 6, or 9 charges of True Strike to use with Magical Striker (albeit at a cost of 1RP per use...), the two handed d8 damage isn't terrible, and you can use a magical staff to make Somatic Components for all your spells. As long as you have Eschew Materials there's no reason to ever take a hand off during combat.


The Elemental Tempest wizard power needs to clarify that it doesn't work with cantrips, which are "spells" cast at your highest level, so they provide a really offensive boost if they work with this.


Mergy wrote:


Now one change I would like is making Assist possible with reach weapons; as it stands currently, you need to be adjacent to the foe in order to Assist.

Reach weapons no longer have the Donut of Futility. You can attack an adjacent enemy with a reach weapon.


If you're having issues with resistance so that your hits don't do any/much damage, increase the to hit of your friend who can pierce the resistance and/or up his crit chance.


AndIMustMask wrote:

the sorcerer level 4 feat "Divine Evolution"'s effect reads:

"You can channel energy, per the cleric class feature, once per day. If you already have the channel energy class feature, you instead gain one additional use per day."
currently there is no means to get more than one source of channel energy on a character, as multiclassing doesn't work that way anymore, and the cleric multiclass doesn't grant the channel energy ability.

there is no sorcerer multiclass (at least yet) and I'm not entirely certain there would be enough space in the dedication feats list to give every bloodline-centric feat in such a case (there are generally 6 dedication feats, with the most being 8 feats for cleric and wizard), so even then they'll likely not get access to this feat, so I'm not entirely sure this line is needed even on a futureproofing perspective, as all the usual suspects are already here, and i dont recall any advanced, hybrid, or occult classes that got channel energy either.

There's no way the eventual Sorcerer multiclass archetype won't require a choice of spell list, and this feat (and all the dedications) simply goes off spell list as prerequisite, so it's a completely valid choice for the generic "pick a Sorcerer feat" advanced option.


Offensive cantrips will suffer if you don't invest in Dex to hit (most of them), or Int for the save (Electric Arc).

If you're going for this build you want to fill up your slots with True Strike and use Magical Striker feat.


UncleG wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
It's a balancing tool for Wizards (and Quick Preparation), you can't have every spell you want unless you get lucky die rolls or take the feat or wait until you're overleveled to backfill your spellbook at lower spell levels.
Balancing what? Wizards already get the lowest ht points, lowest skills, no useful armor. H*^^ they don't even get the same benefits as other spellcasters(divine). I ive the same advice to all my players, if you playu a wizard roll a 3rd level character right off, if you don't you won't last long.

You haven't seen all the sorcerer partisans screaming in rage about Quick Preparation, which they claim invalidates the Wizard's preparation limits and makes them strictly superior? The cost and difficulty of learning spells is the only thing limiting a Wizard from picking his spells on the fly from the entire list outside of and between combats.

UncleG wrote:
Honestly failing the learn DC isd pretty minor. My concern is how the COST of learning an extra spell will play. 2 gold for a 1st level, 140 for a 6th, 7,000 for a 20th, pricey.

You have a consistent 30-35% chance to fail to learn a spell of your highest level. It's worse if you don't max your Int and item bonuses, better if you're learning lower level spells.

As for costs, I discussed that here.


A Bard with the Wizard archetype and the Magical Striker feat (which requires a hefty three feat investment) can chain together Inspire Courage (1 action cantrip) -> Inspire Heroics (free action power/spell that is not a cantrip) -> Magical Striker (free action triggering off your free action spell) -> Strike -> [Final Action]

Makes that Inspire Heroics attempt worth it even if you fail the Performance check to boost your bonus. On a crit success Performance check you get a personal +4 to attack, +3 to damage, and extra weapon die out of this. At the very least you get a +2 to attack, +1 to damage, and bonus weapon die.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
playtest rulebook page 320, Blinded wrote:
You automatically fail or critically fail (whichever’s worse) Perception checks that are fully dependent on sight
playtest rulebook page 321, Deafened wrote:
You automatically fail or critically fail (whichever’s worse) Perception checks based on sound.

When is failing a Perception check worse than critically failing it? If there isn't a critical failure entry at all, it's the same as failure, right?

Yes. If they just said you auto failed people would ask if blind/deaf is a way to avoid critical failure conditions. If they just said you critical failed people would ask what happens if there is not listed critical failure condition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:


2... Maybe I missed something but I thought armor was invested generally? Or is that only armor with special fx? If basic +X armor isn't invested, then bracers shouldn't be either.

That's correct, there's a generic "Magic Armor" item on page 397, and it is invested. So are the unique magic armors.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

So, I'm trying to do a series of threads discussing some issues I've found with the game as a whole. This is the one for issues with magic items specifically. So here are some problems:

#1: Skill Items seem absolutely essential to have for a variety of skills, but are currently all Invested, making being a skill-based character prohibitively expensive in terms of Resonance (and quite possibly gold as well). In a related note, +5 skill items for some skills do not seem to exist, nor do items for Lore skills just in general (well, there's a +5 one, but not lower options).

This gets into the "why don't Pit Fiends and Demigods wear stat boosting items" problem in PF1. For monsters with high intelligence, a sophisticated society, and a treasure budget you'd expect them to wear power/survival enhancing stuff just like PCs, but if they do it becomes part of the Christmas tree problem (with hits to treasure diversity) and requires baseline adjustment of CR.

I agree that monsters should have their max skill set at the level of PCs without items, but then you should expect monsters with Grab routines like Pit Fiends to invest heavily in a +5 Athletics item. That introduces its own problems. And if these monsters get that bonus without the item, you still need a good reason for them not to be using an item.


Aldarc wrote:
Laithoron wrote:

One thing I'm wondering is... Why was Summon Monster the preselected spell for the Polymath muse? It seems to me that Charm compliments the theme of Versatile Performance much more closely.

The only thing I can think of as to why monster summoning would be relevant to using one's skill at performance to influence others would be if we're going for some sort of Disney-princess-who-sings-to-animals shtick. :-\

I would have given them a healing spell instead since that's one of the glaring absences of the bard's occult spell list.

Soothe is the Bard's healing spell, and Maestro muse grants it as a spell known.


I can't decide how I feel about the balance between the Ring of Wizardry and Staff of (Anything). The Ring of Wizardry generally gives you more free slots (but not as high as the equivalent staff) at lower resonance cost (you don't pay to cast your extra spells). The staffs really give you very little in terms of bonus spells (and each costs you resonance), but act instead as a (level heightening limited) page of Spell Knowledge allowing you more flexibility with your spells known/prepared, again, though, at the cost of resonance.

I feel like this more or less probably works right now, but if they change the resonance rules one or the other will pull ahead without serious adjustments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Spellcaster DPR is really, really bad. Even with high level single target blasting spells. Fighters are doing great in combat compared to the spellcasters against everything except a horde of AOE fodder.


One issue holding the Wizard's spell book (and Quick Preparation) in check is that learning your highest level of spells has a 30-35% failure rate across your entire career, and if you fail you can't try again until you gain a level unless you pay a skill feat tax (Magical Shorthand). One out of three spells a Wizard wants at his peak power level he can't have.

Sorcerers will have the same problem learning uncommon/rare spells, but better because it won't come up very often, but worse because they have an attribute handicap on their magic skill and may not be investing as much in a boosting item.


It's a balancing tool for Wizards (and Quick Preparation), you can't have every spell you want unless you get lucky die rolls or take the feat or wait until you're overleveled to backfill your spellbook at lower spell levels.

1 to 50 of 1,743 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>