Paladins don't get 4th level spells until 13th class level. Clerics and Wizards get 8th level spells at 15th class level. It's not as big of a disparity as the sell level numbers might lead you to believe.
That may be true, but should paladins be getting that powerful of spell to begin with? The fact they're getting it two levels before a full caster is even more troubling.
I'm undecided if the Greater version of this spell is overpowered or not. The amount of goodies you get is pretty substantial:
- low-light vision and 60ft darkvision
The big kicker to me is that it has a minute/level duration. The power seems about right for an 8th level spell, but too powerful for a paladin spell.
Wall of Stone wrote:
It is possible, but difficult, to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone, provided the wall is shaped so it can hold the creatures. Creatures can avoid entrapment with successful Reflex saves
So what exactly are the conditions for entrapment? Full enclosure? Or am I fine as long as I shape the wall so that enemies can move out of it without breaking through. For example, can I make a Wall of Stone with the following shape without allowing my enemy a saving throw:
C = Caster
Also, how high is a Wall of Stone? The spell says one 5ft square/level, so I'm assuming that each section is 5 feet high unless I double up on the sections, correct?
Wait a minute. If we're having a debate about a 20th level wizard vs. a 20th level martial, why does the wizard get to be a lich on top of it? Doesn't he already have enough advantages just by being a wizard?
One thing I will say is that as powerful as magic is in Pathfinder, it's honestly pretty weak when it comes to actually doing [single target] damage - especially at high levels (compared to martials, that is). I have a 15th level sorcerer in a Kingmaker game I'm playing in and for the most part our party's strategy for battles boils down to my character using spells to control the battlefield so that the martial characters can get into position to actually kill our enemies.
The thing is what if the reason is purely aesthetic? I personally don't like furries - I just don't care for anthropomorphic races - so they don't exist in my gameworld. I can't give any more reason than that. So are you saying aesthetic reasons aren't valid?
A good GM should make it clear from the start which races are allowed and which ones are not. If the GM only has certain races in mind as acceptable, she should say, "In the game I'm running the only available races are A, B, C, D, and E." That way there's no confusion - the player knows right away that he has to pick a race from those five. Alternatively, the GM might say, "all races from the CRB and ARG are allowable except for X, Y, and Z," in which case the players can pick anything they want except for the disallowed races.
Depends on what the "no" is exactly toward. When it comes to the details of my homebrew gameworld, Mythralia, I don't feel I owe any justifications as to why something does or does not exist - and in Mythralia, furries don't exist. Does a writer owe people justifications on why things are or aren't the way they are in her/his creation?
On the other hand, if I was thinking about changing a rule or a mechanic about the game I'd definitely discuss it with the players before the campaign started.
If even considering permitting a non-standard race results in the inevitable destruction of all of your fun, I'd say your idea of "fun" is restrictive enough that you're maybe better off not playing with others at all, much less DMing them.
And considering what "you say" is agreed with by pretty much no one I've ever played with, I feel pretty safe in saying that you're wrong.
If such determinations remove the key component of the game (fun), then he/she has failed as DM.
That's not something that needs to be taken into consideration. If the game's not fun, people will stop playing.
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your belief that the GM has an obligation to sacrifice her/his fun to accomodate a single player. That's ridiculous and the very definition of player entitlement. And like I said before, like it or not, the GM is the most important player at the table. If a player isn't having fun he'll quit, but the game will likely go on. If the GM isn't having fun, then the game itself comes to an abrupt halt.
Because like it or not the GM is the most important player. The GM is pretty much the one player that, if missing, the game doesn't happen. The GM is also doing the most work in game preparation, especially if it's a custom game or game world. It's absolutely within reason for the GM to make these kinds of determinations. If the player doesn't like it, he's free to find a different game.
(I will admit that I approach the issue as someone who only runs in a homebrew world, which is why I feel strongly about it. If I were running a module or adventure path, I probably wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.)
Vod Canockers wrote:
I have not yet found a place for them.
For me personally it's an aesthetic choice. I don't like anthropomorphic animal races in my fantay games, so they don't exist. Since I run in my own game world, that's not a problem. I tell my players what races are available, and they have to abide by those constraints if they want to play in my game.
Using magical coercion to run a cult is the lazy and foolish way to do it. For starters, as your cult grows you'd have to spend more and more time maintaining your spells, which gets taxing. Furthermore, spells can be dispelled, leaving your efforts undone and more importantly someone who not only will renounce your cult but likely even turn around to oppose it.
It's much better to use mundane methods, which can't be undone with dispel magic, break enchantment, and the like. Furthermore, if you build your cult using mundane methods it's much easier to grow your cult because such methods can much more easily be put to use by the cult members themselves - you don't want to have to do all the recruiting yourself once your cult grows beyond a handful of members.
Magic is best used as an occasional aid once you already have your cult firmly established by traditional means.
I was reading the most recent module about the slavering and the cult of Lamashtu. In it one of the people is brainwashed by the cult. There is little discussion on how that happened. How would you emulate that in game terms? How would you emulate deprogramming?
Lots of Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate rolls, over an extended period of time. You'd be using Diplomacy to gain the victim's trust, Bluff to get the victim to believe in any falsehoods you want to instill, and Intimidate to make the victim afraid to try to escape your conditioning.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
This. The CR system was designed to provide challenges for non-optimized PCs. I GM for a group of optimizers, so if I don't change up feats to make monsters more dangerous then they aren't an appropriate challenge for the CR.
You don't generally need to optimize NPCs as thoroughly as you would a PC - they fight, die, and that's the end. And I'm not really sure Arcane Archer w/ only low level spells is much better than Zen Archer levels...
Non-optimized antagonists don't pose a real challenge to my group, so it really isn't an option for me. Although in this particular case, you are right since the NPC in question isn't an antagonist to the PCs.
Hmm, now I have something to think about. I have an NPC with 11 levels of Zen Archer so perhaps some of them would be better put into Arcane Archer instead.
Since you don't have any strength bonus you're going to have to get the agile weapon enchancement for your weapons ASAP. Furthermore, a lot of your potential damage is going to come from Sneak Attack, so you need to be able to sneak attack as much as possible. Some things to help you with that:
Fast Stealth - allows full movement while stealthed (ninja trick)
Two levels of Shadowdancer will also get you Hide in Plain Sight, Evasion, Darkvision, and Uncanny Dodge. The feat requirements are kind of steep, however.
If you're dead set on going Spellblade then convince your GM to let you get the splatbook spell I listed in this thread: Unbalanced Splatbood Spell?
It was the only way I was able to give a Spellblade character credible DPR. Oh, and also convince your GM to allow you to use Spell Combat as a prerequisite for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting.
That particular splatbook has too many problematic spells for me to simply allow everyone to freely pick spells from it. However there are certain spells I feel are interesting and balanced, and if I include them in the game then the PCs will have the theortical ability to get them - If the PCs find this guy's spellbook, they'd be able to copy it to theirs just like any other spell.
I'm giving an NPC the following spell, out of the 1001 Spells book:
As for why I'm giving an NPC this spell, I've spoilered the reason in case any of my players happens to read this thread:
The NPC in question is a Bladebound/Spellblade Magus. Spellblade is a pretty weak archetype that the NPC has for story reasons, and this spell I found is really the only way I could make the NPC a credible threat for his level.
I'm in a Kingmaker campaign and one of the cities my group claimed just got conquered by an army from another nation. My group is very concerned this army is just going to keep on rolling toward our capital city, considering their army will steamroll ours.
Then I remembered that my character is a 14th level sorcerer. When we have our session tonight, I'm going to teleport over to where this invading army is, get an assessment on their numbers, and determine if I can simply destroy the army myself. Between a variety of blasting spells and spec-focused enchantment spells, I can potentially wreak enough havoc to at least consider the possibility. Even the paladin in our group, who is our best damage dealer, can't approach the situation from my perspective.
So yeah, I'd say the disparity between casters and martials is still there.
What I originally meant by my first post was this: How do I account for the power when the barbarian attacks?
If the power allows him to consciously know that the monster/NPC that he's attacking qualifies, then I as the GM would have to tell the player that his enemy has spells/spell-like abilities - even if the creature hasn't used any yet.
On the other hand, if it's just a passive, "always on" power that just works without the character's conscious awareness (like the aforementioned Bane ability), then I wouldn't actually tell the player; I'd simply add the additional damage in when it applied.
Either interpretation annoys me. The first because it (lamely, IMO) has the potential to act as an infallible spellcaster detector, even if the spellcaster is making a point to hide the fact they're a spellcaster.
The second interpretation means more bookkeeping for me, of which I already have enough.
Between the two options, I'll take the latter, since it's less of a headache. Which is why I'm also changing it to a Supernatural ability - Supernatural abilities are magical, so I can simply handwave it that way.
Finally, although I don't think the ability is explicitly overpowered, it is unbalanced. It ends up being worth more than two feats combined, which is too much for a single rage power, IMO. That is however the least of my concerns, so I'm not too worried about it.
Say, I'm wondering if anyone's written up a book with supplemental magic rules. Specifically, I'm talking about things can can alter the existing spellcasting system - not replace it. Stuff like ritual spellcasting, cooperative spellcasting, use of ley lines/nodes to power magic, that sort of thing.
Just raise the threshold then. But really, you're never going to be able to get a workable system for temperature effects that mimics reality unless you want to get excessively complex.
It should just do straight Con damage instead of HP damage. I feel similarly regarding falling damage; you should take ability damage from falling, not just HP damage.
That doesn't homogenize them at all. It gives them choices and more variety, the big thing is that they can choose between multiple weapons instead of being sucked into one. Theres nothing keeping htem from saying "I like swords best" and never using a mace, but with that change they can say "I don't feel like tripping today. Its all flying foes. I'm going to try out archery! Hand me the +2 bow we got yesterday."
This is one of the two main goals of my change. Instead of tying up 4+ feats into a single weapon, the fighter can actually use that +3 shocking falchion he found instead of hocking it because he specialized in greatswords.
The other goal was to try to get some actual use out of the more specialized and corner-case feat chains out there. It's not so bad to take the Teleport Tactician feat chain in order to prepare for the fight with the evil wizard when you know you can swap them out for more useful feats the next day.
Well why not? Everyone else has taken their swings at buffing fighters to bring them in line with the other martial classes, so I figured I'd take my turn and step up to the plate.
Since the common complaint is that the main problem with the fighter is their lack of true versatility and out of combat options, that's what my simple changes aim to fix:
1. Fighters receive 4 + Int skill points per level. In addition, Acrobatics, Knowledge: Local, and Perception are class skills.
2. At 8th level fighters receive the following ability:
Perhaps this change may homogenize fighters to an excessive degree, but I feel you'd still see plenty of variations given all of the fighter archetypes that exist. More than that I feel that with this kind of day-to-day flexibility the fighter can adapt to meet the challenges she expects to face that day - much like a prepared spellcaster - and truly live up to the title of the foremost master of combat.
This is how I interpret it to work as well. Both Rapid Attack and Whirlwind require you to give up the same iterative attack, so you can't use them together.
Stream of the sky: Where is that "I want to nerf _____ ability" funny post you used to have linked? All GMs who tote the ban hammer/nerf bat need to read it...
This is such a strange sentiment. There are always threads on the forums here about how some rule/class/ability is broken/unbalanced and needs to be fixed (fighters, rogues, monks, summoners, guns, the conjuration school, vital strike, etc.), yet if a GM takes it upon themselves to try to fix something everyone decries it as bad GMing. Why is it that nerfing is always considered a sign of bad GMing and poor system mastery, but buffing is not?
In my gaming experience, people rarely - if ever - play a character with lawful good alignment unless they're playing a paladin. Furthermore, those players who do come up with a character they envision as lawful good end up gravitating toward paladins anyway - as if to say that if they're going to be lawful good, they might as well be a paladin and enjoy all the benefits that paladinhood brings.
Is this true for anyone else, or perhaps this is just a theme common to my gaming groups?
Gunslingers because I don't like the way the class works and because guns don't exist in my game world. Summoners because I don't care for the flavor of the class. Druids aren't an absolute no, but I warned my players that druids in my game world are extremely rare, secretive, and prone to being persecuted.
Somethings I'm willing to fluff because they fit in my game/gameworld in one fashion or another, but others would require so much reworking that it's easier to simply ban them instead.
If that means someone doesn't want to play my game because of it, that's no big deal to me.
A barbarian cannot make Knowledge checks to identify monsters while raging.
Yeah, that's another issue. Frankly I'd be more comfortable if Witch Hunter was a Supernatural Power instead of an Extraordinary Ability - which is also why I don't have any issues with the Bane ability.
In fact, that's what I'm leaning toward right now. I'll just treat Witch Hunter and Superstitious as (Su) abilities instead of (Ex).
Hmmm, I think we have pretty divergent approaches to the game. I have zero issues nerfing or more commonly banning things that don't fit conceptually. Moreso for campaign setting reasons (druids, summoners, gunslingers, and the majority of the races in the ARG are banned in my game) than mechanical ones (Clustered Shots). I don't know if we'll be able to see eye-to-eye on this issue.
Also, of course the party ranger needs to make Knowledge checks on creatures in order to get his Favored Enemy bonus if their true nature isn't immediately obvious.
I don't think it's particularly overpowered; my problem with it is more conceptual. If the barbarian otherwise has no way to tell that the target of his attack is a spellcaster, why should he get the bonus damage?
I think I'm going to amend it so that he has to see the creature cast a spell or use a spell-like ability in order for the power to work.
A PC in the game I'm running just took this power, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to adjucate it. The wording simply states that the barbarian simply gets +1 (or more) damage against creature possessing spells or spell-like abilities. The kicker for me is how does the barbarian know a creature possesses spells or spell-like abilities? Especially for NPCs - does the power just magically let him detect and identify if a person has spells, even if the barbarian has no idea?
What's the best way to rule this? (To be honest if I would've known about this power at the start of the campaign I simply would've banned it.)