Wizard PrC choices kinda meh?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Brambleman wrote:

Well, if blackfire adept counts, i figured Riftwarden would too. Their two of a kind. Neither seems really worth it to me. Giving up spell progression on a pure caster build is just distasteful.

I missed that someone brought up the Arcanist, but i kind of like it.

Hemothurge isn't evil really.

I think what abjurers need is more spells in their school. And conjuration needs to give some back. Like all of the healing spells. Mae armor should be abjuration too. A new set of abjurations would be a good forum project.

That's the thing. Blackfire, Riftwarden, Diabolist, Demoniac, Genie-binder, Agent of the Grave, are all /okay/ prc. But it's a bunch of, mostly evil themed, summoners and pet controllers.

I don't really have a point. I just find that a bit dull and restrictive since most non-evil parties scoff at use of such being, even if it's for the greater good, which is at best, limiting.

Anyone have good experience with third party stuff, I feel there's a breeze of stigma over those, at times they just feel "how the hell did they think that was balanced?" moments.


don't know if they were mentioned, but there is the Loremaster, eldritch knight adn the oh I forget but it some genie friend one.... basically the pathfidner version oft he elemental savant.

and the veiled illusionist too......


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

Well, you can sort of see why there aren't many Prestige Classes available in Pathfinder; no body asked for them. After all, there were Prestige Classes in the Advanced Player's Guide, but everyone got so excited for the new archetype mechanic presented in the same book that the prestige class mechanic was ignored for two years; they were even absent from the "definitive guides on magic and combat," which makes very little sense in my opinion.

The best way to start seeing more Prestige Classes out of Paizo is to prove to them that there is still a market in Prestige Classes; you're not going to get them if Paizo thinks they won't sell. First, get any many people as you can convince to buy Paths of Prestige. This is Paizo's only real serious Prestige Class-focused product; you don't buy this book for any other reason that to have more Prestige Classes, after all. Second, make it clear to the 3PPs that new, quality Prestige Classes will sell. Because the 3PPs are much faster at producing new material that Paizo, your feedback will have an impact on a 3PP sooner than it would on Paizo itself, and you can bet that the Paizo teams watch the 3PPs for buying and selling trends in the industry.

Of course, if you don't want to influence the market, that's fine too. Just don't complain about the lack of Prestige Classes if you're not willing to do anything about it.

The best way to get quality PrCs is to make the suppliers aware of demand, as people are here, not to buy substandard products or unusable products that share the name.

Your advice boils down to "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want." I do think this is almost the worst advice I have ever heard.


Rynjin wrote:

It saddens me that nobody seems to think Evocation needs more love.

Seems like there's only one good blasty casty painful death spell every odd spell level and that's usually a Conjuration spell.

Seems to me that evocation benefits a lot from feats, traits, and metamagic already.

You don't need more than a few spells each level, since you are going to specialize in a few anyway. With metamagic, you don't really need blasting spells a few levels higher. Heck, the fireball you get at lvl 5 or 6, is usable throughout the game.

My experience with focused blasters is that they deal more than adequatly damage compared to similar damage dealers, such as archers.

Sovereign Court

Evocation could use a few more evocation spells, more than a PrC.

Personally I don't think Cyphermage is all that bad. It gets you UMD, Disable Device, Survival and Perception as class skills, without screwing up your casting progression. It slightly disrupts the levels at which you gain wizard metamagic feats, but that's not a disaster.

Of course, I only intend to take 1-2 levels in it.


Here's my take:
For mechanical deviation, archetypes are anything and everything you'd need. If you just want to add your own flair to your class, this has you covered and it does a better job of doing so than any PrC ever will.
For campaign-specific groups, archetypes fail and PrCs shine.
I think Paizo knows this, which is why so much focus on PrCs has disappeared compared to 3/.5.

That said, there are a lot of dumb entry requirements into a lot of PrCs that really just don't belong (or is it that there are just a lot of unattractive feats/skills?) and it's also very obvious that some schools of/playstyles of magic get a lot more developer attention than the others.

Part of this problem is that the spell list is f'ed up, which anyone who takes more than a glance knows. Conjuration needs to be thinned out, enchantment needs to be more effective, etc. etc. etc.

(Unfortunately, none of this will happen, because doing so would constitute such a massive overhaul to so many things that "errata" wouldn't be good enough of an excuse to cover it. ie: Pathfinder 2.0 is the best shot we have of seeing our spell lists fixed.)


Any Spellcasting prestige class pretty much needs to lose at least one spellcasting level (and up-front if possible) to justify the added class features.

However, I think anything that reduces them to 1/2 casting for the duration is missing the point of being a spellcaster.

The key thing is to find the right balance of lost spellcasting and additional class features, so that the decision to take the prestige class isn't a no-brainer one way or the other.

Sovereign Court

It's too bad they didn't give full casters more different class features; as is it's pretty difficult to design good PrCs and archetypes for them because there's so few features to switch out. Maybe that's why monks and druids have been doing so much better with archetypes.


Ascalaphus wrote:


It's too bad they didn't give full casters more different class features; as is it's pretty difficult to design good PrCs and archetypes for them because there's so few features to switch out. Maybe that's why monks and druids have been doing so much better with archetypes.

Well, wizards and clerics have a huge and versatile spell list, that is the primary class feature. Druids and witches have a more limited list, so they get more non-spell stuff. It makes for an obvious price when entering a prestige class. And as you have pointed out, more features make for more things to tinker with when building archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too bad spellcasters don't get many archetypes. Too bad most archetypes are awful, otherwise I'd agree that it could replace PrCs a little better.


Neo2151 wrote:

Here's my take:

For mechanical deviation, archetypes are anything and everything you'd need. If you just want to add your own flair to your class, this has you covered and it does a better job of doing so than any PrC ever will.
For campaign-specific groups, archetypes fail and PrCs shine.
I think Paizo knows this, which is why so much focus on PrCs has disappeared compared to 3/.5.

That said, there are a lot of dumb entry requirements into a lot of PrCs that really just don't belong (or is it that there are just a lot of unattractive feats/skills?) and it's also very obvious that some schools of/playstyles of magic get a lot more developer attention than the others.

Part of this problem is that the spell list is f'ed up, which anyone who takes more than a glance knows. Conjuration needs to be thinned out, enchantment needs to be more effective, etc. etc. etc.

(Unfortunately, none of this will happen, because doing so would constitute such a massive overhaul to so many things that "errata" wouldn't be good enough of an excuse to cover it. ie: Pathfinder 2.0 is the best shot we have of seeing our spell lists fixed.)

Not sure I agree that a Gunslinger, Bomb-thrower, Scroll-as-sword prestige covers everything a wizard character could be. I for one miss a decent Transmuter, Enchanter and Illusionist.

A prc that plays on the different Shape spells and natural attacks, one for more interesting ways to use jedi mind tricks, and one that might play more on the Shadow Gambit feat (allows ending an illusion for damage, such as exploding a fake wall to deal slashing damage or the fake goblin biting someone.)


Basically its a design philosophy thing. Paizo doesnt do what the OP wants with prestige classes, they do it with archetypes and wizard specializations. Mind you not everything is covered, but offering interesting mechanics to a certain class beyond what the base class gets is not the goal of prestige classes in pathfinder. Based on paizos behavior around them they are there to represent organizations, groups or very strong in world flavors. If you want interesting mechanics, you deal with the archetypes which shape and change the class from level 1 (or at least early levels). Mind you a wizard still has relatively few of these, but that is mostly because a wizard is already stupidly flexible in what it can do, because the same wizard with 2 different spell books is not the same wizard.

Personally I am quite happy with that. Multiclassing and prestige classes create balance problems. The more people mix and match the more unexpected interactions there are. If you have a single class the designer has a good idea of what abilities the character will have throughout its career. Multiclassed characters are far more variable, same with prestige classes, there is no basis for a designer to really balance the abilities the prc or multiclass character will have. So you end up with alot of variables.

Want a wizard who has different abilities then a normal wizard? Check out the witch, check out the summoner, check out the alchemist or magus. If you want to customize your wizard, you have arcane discoveries as well as school and elemental specializations. If you still arent happy, check out a host of 3rd party products like the Super Genius Games Death Mage, Mosaic Mage, Riven Mage, or Archon.

All of these things offer variety in spell casters. What they dont offer is the ability to mix and match class abilities until one finds something superior to an already powerful class. If you want significant class abilities as a wizard, you need to give something up (see witch). There are lots of classes that do that already. Pick one.


MrSin wrote:

I thought most from 3.5 were awful actually. Flavorful yes, but really only good for people who really really wanted it or npcs. Anything less than 9/10th casting already kills it for casters. There were silly things like the Blighter(has to be Fallen Druid) or Risen Martyr(Capstone: Dies no rez).

There were just a few that were really really nice. Casters just sort of dipped around the full casting or dropped out when it didn't give them anything. I don't see anything like that with Paizo for martials or casters, unless I'm really missing something. Its hard enough to get out of your class.

Blighters issue: +4 bab, 3rd level spells.

Right away these conflict: Druids are 3/4th BAB casters so you need 6th level. Remember you lose all Druid features so you you are already behind.
Then at 7th level you have 1st level Blighter with 1st level spells. Not till 8th level, 2nd level Blighter do you get a useful class feature Blightfire 5d6 Fireball centered on yourself (only usefl when surrounded).

Seriously, remove the silly prereqs and the class would be useful and not underpowered.


Kolokotroni wrote:

...

The more people mix and match the more unexpected interactions there are. If you have a single class the designer has a good idea of what abilities the character will have throughout its career. Multiclassed characters are far more variable, same with prestige classes, there is no basis for a designer to really balance the abilities the prc or multiclass character will have. So you end up with alot of variables.
...

I'm sure that's what about 3/4 of the senseless prerequisites on PrCs are- measures to make sure that the designer has a decent idea of what the character entering the class "looks like." The more prerequisites, the more predictable the entering character.

The other reason is a faulty one- the idea that the more choices you "lock down" in sub-optimal selections, the more power you can give through the class, since they paid an opportunity cost to get it. The reason I say this is faulty is because the designers have no way of knowing what was given up for the sub-optimal selections, so they can't know if their opportunity cost was necessary, or truly worth it. They also can't anticipate later material being added that circumvents some of these costs (racial bonus feats etc).

That is predicated on the idea that you can "go weak" for several levels to double up on relative power later- if the game concerned with character power in a group, and isn't a self-contained and discrete competition, this is bad reasoning.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
A prc that plays on the different Shape spells and natural attacks, one for more interesting ways to use jedi mind tricks, and one that might play more on the Shadow Gambit feat (allows ending an illusion for damage, such as exploding a fake wall to deal slashing damage or the fake goblin biting someone.)

These sound like excellent School powers, feats, Bloodline options, Discoveries, Mysteries, and Hexes. PrCs really aren't necessary to realize these, given all of the mechanical bugs multiclassing creates and senseless prerequisite baggage. Even if you want these to be powers that are earned by going above and beyond the normal, give these abilities level requirements and in-game achievements as prerequisites.

Prestige Classes are okay in concept, but seem to mostly fail in practice.


It worked great in 3.0 where class features and feats weren't as common. In pathfinder you give up much much more to enter and they really aren't all that great.


Parka wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

...

The more people mix and match the more unexpected interactions there are. If you have a single class the designer has a good idea of what abilities the character will have throughout its career. Multiclassed characters are far more variable, same with prestige classes, there is no basis for a designer to really balance the abilities the prc or multiclass character will have. So you end up with alot of variables.
...

I'm sure that's what about 3/4 of the senseless prerequisites on PrCs are- measures to make sure that the designer has a decent idea of what the character entering the class "looks like." The more prerequisites, the more predictable the entering character.

The other reason is a faulty one- the idea that the more choices you "lock down" in sub-optimal selections, the more power you can give through the class, since they paid an opportunity cost to get it. The reason I say this is faulty is because the designers have no way of knowing what was given up for the sub-optimal selections, so they can't know if their opportunity cost was necessary, or truly worth it. They also can't anticipate later material being added that circumvents some of these costs (racial bonus feats etc).

That is predicated on the idea that you can "go weak" for several levels to double up on relative power later- if the game concerned with character power in a group, and isn't a self-contained and discrete competition, this is bad reasoning.

I agree that the 'go weak' concept is flawed, hence why I think the whole mess ought to be avoided in the first place. Archetypes and new classes are self contained, require no 'pay for play' exchanges to allow for more power, and a designer can be reasonably sure what the design space they are working in is. I think at some point we have to accept that the game now has a host of otpions, including lots of 3rd party material, and that your concepts can be achieved with single classed options, be them archetypes, alternate classes, or new individual classes rather then multiclassing or prestige classes. It allows for cleaner design, and also removes the need to force players into crummy choices to balance what comes later.


I agree that making a wizard take feats for the Archmage abilities is a fail as well.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I agree that the 'go weak' concept is flawed, hence why I think the whole mess ought to be avoided in the first place. Archetypes and new classes are self contained, require no 'pay for play' exchanges to allow for more power, and a designer can be reasonably sure what the design space they are working in is. I think at some point we have to accept that the game now has a host of otpions, including lots of 3rd party material, and that your concepts can be achieved with single classed options, be them archetypes, alternate classes, or new individual classes rather then multiclassing or prestige classes. It allows for cleaner design, and also removes the need to force players into crummy choices to balance what comes later.

The quickest way to get rid of the go weak for prestige classes would be to remove silly prereqs wouldn't it? I don't see a lot of new classes or even alternates popping up. I see archetypes but many archetypes are bleh I think.

I'm going to say for the dozenth time I'm okay with archetypes, but I don't feel like there are a lot of quality ones. I have a few per class I think look cool, but I find most lacking and almost untouchable. We also still have unfilled niches, such as a ranger who gives up his animal companion or spells for something awesome, or an oracle who gives up his curse for another option that isn't just another curse. PrCs won't solve that issue, archetypes or alternate classes will!

Thers always been 3rd party material. I'm not sure how well it applies to the host of options a player has though. Many people I know refuse to use 3rd party at the risk of it being a different level of power, and I myself don't peek through it nor see any sign of it at the local stores so I don't really know much about it myself.


There actually is a Ranger that gives up his spells (2 in fact) and one that gives something neat, I think.


Skirmisher and trapper. Trapper gives trapfinding and traps, but traps are underwhelming and you get less traps than you get spells if I remember right. Skirmisher eats up actions with many of its ranger tricks, and again its underwhelming.

I said something awesome. I don't think its amazing. Opinion may vary greatly though. I know a lot of people who love the trapper ranger. Do what you love! Sounds fun to drop traps all over the place if you had a chance to set up the field, I just don't get to do that in play.


I was talking about Skirmisher, which I like.

I don't really see how "Free action to make an opponent take -2 to attack rolls" or "Move double your speed as a single move action with no penalty on stealth" or "After hitting an opponent, give the next ally to attack him +2 on the roll as a free action" and other such things eat your action economy more than taking a Standard to cast a spell.

The majority of the Ranger tricks are Free or Swift/Immediate actions, which the Ranger uses little of, and they have overall pretty good (and at least DECENT) effects, which is why I like it.


Means no Lead Blades/gravity bow or Aspect of the Falcon. Beyond that I like spells for utility. I said it was my opinion it wasn't awesome.

Looked it over just now. Most of it is combat based and uses free or immidiate. Guess I need to take a better look at it. Seems like a lot of minor bonuses though.

Contributor

Sitri wrote:

The best way to get quality PrCs is to make the suppliers aware of demand, as people are here, not to buy substandard products or unusable products that share the name.

Your advice boils down to "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want." I do think this is almost the worst advice I have ever heard.

Actually, my advice "boils down" to "invest in products that contain content you like so that more of it will be made." There are maybe a dozen people posting in this thread; you're not going to convince anyone to take a risk on a different sort of product with words. Words aren't a guarantee of purchase. Spending money speaks much more loudly than simply posting in an internet forum.

Also, I take offense at the notion that 3PP products are substandard. There are plenty of quality products in the market that have been published by a 3PP, and several of the companies employ Lead Designers with impressive resumes; Owen K.C. Stephens of Super Genius Games is a well-known designer in the industry and both he and Steven Russel of Rite Publishing have freelanced for Paizo; Owen created the Eldritch Bloodline feats that appear in Ultimate Magic, for example. It is easier to get a 3PP to take a risk on a product then it is for a 1PP to do so; SGG has a yearly forum where you can submit your ideas for new SGG products, for example.


Maybe I should've used wild shape and druids as an example. Thats something I have experience with.


MrSin wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
I agree that the 'go weak' concept is flawed, hence why I think the whole mess ought to be avoided in the first place. Archetypes and new classes are self contained, require no 'pay for play' exchanges to allow for more power, and a designer can be reasonably sure what the design space they are working in is. I think at some point we have to accept that the game now has a host of otpions, including lots of 3rd party material, and that your concepts can be achieved with single classed options, be them archetypes, alternate classes, or new individual classes rather then multiclassing or prestige classes. It allows for cleaner design, and also removes the need to force players into crummy choices to balance what comes later.

The quickest way to get rid of the go weak for prestige classes would be to remove silly prereqs wouldn't it? I don't see a lot of new classes or even alternates popping up. I see archetypes but many archetypes are bleh I think.

The problem is, without the prereqs the designers dont know what they are working with when they design the class. You dont want the class to be lackluster, but how do you make sure it wont be unbalanced? The answer so far has been to make the prereqs painful. I dont see another way to improve on that. Because there is a huge difference between adding ability x to an 8th level sorceror, and 8th level wizard, an 8th level summoner, or a 15th level druid. And with alot of prcs the designer cant be sure what hte player will have when they enter it.

As for lot of classes and alternates I strongly recommend checking out 3rd party products. There is a TON of great stuff out there.

Quote:

I'm going to say for the dozenth time I'm okay with archetypes, but I don't feel like there are a lot of quality ones. I have a few per class I think look cool, but I find most lacking and almost untouchable. We also still have unfilled niches, such as a ranger who gives up his animal companion or spells for something awesome, or an oracle who gives up his curse for another option that isn't just another curse. PrCs won't solve that issue, archetypes or alternate classes will!

I reiterate my recomendation to check out some 3rd party material. Not sure about the oracle, but the ranger is definately covered (specifically kobold press' spelless ranger, and super genius games ranger knacks).

Quote:

Thers always been 3rd party material. I'm not sure how well it applies to the host of options a player has though. Many people I know refuse to use 3rd party at the risk of it being a different level of power, and I myself don't peek through it nor see any sign of it at the local stores so I don't really know much about it myself.

Most 3rd party material is digital (see the paizo store for instance) but it is in small digestible and reasonably priced chunks, and there isnt anything stopping you from printing it if you dont like digital things at your table.

As for not allowing it, at this point I think thats a fairly stupid policy. Obviously it should have some review, but there are some companies where the lead designers do work for paizo too. The ones that come to mind are Super Genius Games, Kobold Press and Frog God games (these are just the ones I am certain of that have writers who have done work for paizo, its not an exhaustive list).

Given paizo's plan for the rpg line (a limited number of books per year and no more 'option heavy' books planned) you wont be expanding your options at all in the future without embracing 3rd party or by going with setting material from paizo that if you just want character options is not a good value and will leave situations like the one the op mentioned where there is a dirth of a certain kind of option.


Rynjin wrote:

It saddens me that nobody seems to think Evocation needs more love.

Seems like there's only one good blasty casty painful death spell every odd spell level and that's usually a Conjuration spell.

Evo got some good feats to make spells have rider effects, but they're pricey.

Seems Paizo hired whoever it was in 3.5 who decided it wasn't enough that conjuration was already better than all the other schools at practically everything, but that it should also make better damage spells than evocation could ever hope to match.

That person turned around and gave us Snowball.


A highly regarded expert wrote:
That person turned around and gave us Snowball.

I don't complaining about someone who can't see or hear you is needed in this conversation.

Yeah I know their rules aren't perfect Kolo, but most GMs I know are far from it. It usually gets written off as being only pfs legal or a thought they would have to let every 3rd party in if they let one. I'll have to take a look at those when I get into another homegame, I love having more options.


Alexander Augunas wrote:

Actually, my advice "boils down" to "invest in products that contain content you like so that more of it will be made." There are maybe a dozen people posting in this thread; you're not going to convince anyone to take a risk on a different sort of product with words. Words aren't a guarantee of purchase. Spending money speaks much more loudly than simply posting in an internet forum.

The OP and others here have repeatedly said they don't like that content you are telling them to buy. That is the whole point of this thread and the reason for the statement "throw money at things you don't want in the hopes someone will some day make it the way you want."

As to the numbers speaking, I am sorry I don't have the time or stamina to debate macroeconomics with you, but I would think it obvious that a few people expressing interest in a market gap would be more effective in closing that gap than those same people buying a product similar to the gap. Tipping Point is actually a really good book about the tendency of certain things to reach critical mass;the author's words are far more articulate than mine. If you do have the time I would give it as recommended reading for anyone.

Alexander Augunas wrote:


Also, I take offense at the notion that 3PP products are substandard. There are plenty of quality products in the market that have been published by a 3PP, and several of the companies employ Lead Designers with impressive resumes; Owen K.C. Stephens of Super Genius Games is a well-known designer in the industry and both he and Steven Russel of Rite Publishing have freelanced for Paizo; Owen created the Eldritch Bloodline feats that appear in Ultimate Magic, for example. It is easier to get a 3PP to take a risk on a product then it is for a 1PP to do so; SGG has a yearly forum where you can submit your ideas for new SGG products, for example.

Unless you are a 3PP I can't imagine why you might get offended, unless you just don't like people disagreeing with you. Also, weren't you just trying to advocate a 'suck it up' mentality for others earlier? Regardless, that is a moot point since I said "...substandard products or unusable products...." I really don't know the quality of most 3rd party work because the only GM I have ever played with that allows it was when I ran a game that allowed psionics. I will say the mage PrCs from Piazo are pretty substandard. I have read and reread them more times than I can count trying to make one usable. I like harrower, which I cannont play in PFS, and I almost can like bloodmage, but ultimately it just gives up too much for what it gives on my character. Nothing else seems close to usable.


Rynjin wrote:

It saddens me that nobody seems to think Evocation needs more love.

Seems like there's only one good blasty casty painful death spell every odd spell level and that's usually a Conjuration spell.

I never say "this", But... THIS! I'm not happy with blasting at all right now. Current options are really cheesy and fiddly IMO. And worse, they are mostly sorcerer based. ;p


If you want to be a good wizard, you just take levels in wizard. Prestige Classes are for interesting flavor or mechanics. I think Prestige classes serve their purpose perfectly well. Maybe that's just me, though.


Some PrCs manage to find a good balance between flavor and power.

Like...hrm. Horizon Walker is a good example.

You are a lot worse than a regular Ranger at being a combat badass, sure, but you are a terrain MASTER. Pretty much every area you step into you have SOME sort of bonus, and some of them are pretty nifty for sure.

It's flavorful and gives its own niche without sacrificing TOO much power that it's a completely undesirable option.

And there are a few other PrCs like that...but they're the overwhelming minority IMO.

More need to be more like that, that make you really, REALLY good at one thing, while sacrificing a bit of power in other areas, rather than making you kinda somewhat better at one thing while sacrificing a good bit of power in other areas.


Horizon Walker Rogue/Ranger could definitely be an awesome combination, though the "use your Favored Terrain bonus on enemies native to the Terrain" is too ambiguous to me; wish they would have just done something like you can use half the terrain bonus vs all enemies while in that terrain to simplify.

I personally also like Soul Drinker a lot; one of the things I really like about it is the lack of spell casting prerequisite, so full BAB two weapon fighters or crafters can get some nifty spell like abilities and reduced crafting costs plus the ability to give negative levels (yay Conductive weapons!)... for a full caster (like it seems to be naturally for) on the other hand, it seems pretty bleh.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Evocation is interesting, because it heavily rewards those who invest in mastering it.

Evocation is the only school that gets better with investment, that cannot be generally matched by someone not investing.

Why? Because the feats and class abilities to up damage are significant.

A high level Evoker can Mess Things Up with DD and AoE magic. No other caster is going to come close...they'll be lucky to do a third the damage at higher levels. At higher levels, the Evoker has the hammer and yes, indeed, everything starts looking like a nail.

That same evoker can then turn around and NOT MEMORIZE EVOKER spells and play a kickass wizard of a totally different stripe. Why? Because the other types of wizards get power from their spells, not from their feats and investments. Any wizard can play at playing any other kind of wizard...except the Invoker.

That's the reason evocation is looked down on, people. Because no wizard can just slide a few evocs into slots and be effective. YOu actually have to jump through hoops.

Evoker has no such problem playing divination expert, summoner, or party buffer, if the need arises.

Magic MIssile builds in 3.5 could easily wind up with 7-800 pts of damage in one round. Or he could memorize Mind Blank. Any other wizard could also cast Mind Blank, but not a one of them could take out a Red Dragon with force damage in one round.

===Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Evocation is interesting, because it heavily rewards those who invest in mastering it.

Evocation is the only school that gets better with investment, that cannot be generally matched by someone not investing.

Why? Because the feats and class abilities to up damage are significant.

A high level Evoker can Mess Things Up with DD and AoE magic. No other caster is going to come close...they'll be lucky to do a third the damage at higher levels. At higher levels, the Evoker has the hammer and yes, indeed, everything starts looking like a nail.

That same evoker can then turn around and NOT MEMORIZE EVOKER spells and play a kickass wizard of a totally different stripe. Why? Because the other types of wizards get power from their spells, not from their feats and investments. Any wizard can play at playing any other kind of wizard...except the Invoker.

That's the reason evocation is looked down on, people. Because no wizard can just slide a few evocs into slots and be effective. YOu actually have to jump through hoops.

Evoker has no such problem playing divination expert, summoner, or party buffer, if the need arises.

Magic MIssile builds in 3.5 could easily wind up with 7-800 pts of damage in one round. Or he could memorize Mind Blank. Any other wizard could also cast Mind Blank, but not a one of them could take out a Red Dragon with force damage in one round.

===Aelryinth

Do you have a couple of builds to show us this?


chaoseffect wrote:
Horizon Walker Rogue/Ranger could definitely be an awesome combination, though the "use your Favored Terrain bonus on enemies native to the Terrain" is too ambiguous to me; wish they would have just done something like you can use half the terrain bonus vs all enemies while in that terrain to simplify.

Just a side note, but "native to the terrain" isn't ambiguous. Every monster's bestiary entry has a native terrain listed in it. For example, goblins are native to forests and plains, while rocs are native to mountains. So if you took Terrain Dominance (Mountain), your bonus would apply against rocs, but not goblins (regardless of where you're fighting them or where this particular group of goblins is from).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

LazarX wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Evocation is interesting, because it heavily rewards those who invest in mastering it.

Evocation is the only school that gets better with investment, that cannot be generally matched by someone not investing.

Why? Because the feats and class abilities to up damage are significant.

A high level Evoker can Mess Things Up with DD and AoE magic. No other caster is going to come close...they'll be lucky to do a third the damage at higher levels. At higher levels, the Evoker has the hammer and yes, indeed, everything starts looking like a nail.

That same evoker can then turn around and NOT MEMORIZE EVOKER spells and play a kickass wizard of a totally different stripe. Why? Because the other types of wizards get power from their spells, not from their feats and investments. Any wizard can play at playing any other kind of wizard...except the Invoker.

That's the reason evocation is looked down on, people. Because no wizard can just slide a few evocs into slots and be effective. YOu actually have to jump through hoops.

Evoker has no such problem playing divination expert, summoner, or party buffer, if the need arises.

Magic MIssile builds in 3.5 could easily wind up with 7-800 pts of damage in one round. Or he could memorize Mind Blank. Any other wizard could also cast Mind Blank, but not a one of them could take out a Red Dragon with force damage in one round.

===Aelryinth

Do you have a couple of builds to show us this?

Paizo BLASTER CASTER build (Note: I did not make this, I just track it, and I've never seen a better one):

Goal: Pile on the hurty-hurt with direct damage spells. You don't need battlefield control if the enemy is dead.

Level 1: Take Sorceror: Crossblooded Orc/Draconic, Human, take Varisian Tattoo, take Trait: magical Lineage (pick spell), Reactionary (+2 Init)

Then take Wizard/Evoker -Admixture Specialist for your remaining levels. Why Admixture? Because you can change the element of any of your blasting spells on the fly to get around elemental resistances/immunities.

If you want to superspecialize outside of Evoker, take Sin Magic, lose two schools (Conjuration/Abjuration), gain yet another spell slot per level of raw power.

Key Feats: Intensify Spell, Empower Spell, Quicken Spell, Spell Perfection, Spell Penetration, Spell Specialization, Greater Spell Specialization.

End result: Crossblooded sorc orc/dragon bloodline 1, Wiz/19, Admixture Evocation specialist.
Note: Can use Sin Magic for more slots. Sorcerer level allows use of spell devices from denied schools (Conj/Abjuration).
Magical Lineage Trait allows Intensify for free on chosen spell.
Spell Perfection allows free Quicken at higher levels.

===============================================
Play Hints:

Take Burning Hands or Magic Missile as a Specialized Spell early. Burning Hands will deal more damage, Magic Missile has better long-term utility and keeps you out of danger. Every other level, you can change your specialized spell.

Add Greater Spell Specialization at level 7 or 9. Why? You can then memorize utility spells, and trash them for your blaster spell.

Change your specialized spell up to Scorching Ray or Fireball when you can, depending on campaign, typically at 5 or 7.

At level 12 or higher, change it to Fire Snake.
Use Admixture specializing to change the element on the fly.

Use Fire Snake until higher levels. Why? High damage base and level 5 spell still leaves room for metamagic, esp Quicken.

Mechanics behind Choices: Orc blooded, Draconic: +1 to all damage spells, +1 to element of choice, retasked by Admixture = +2 dmg/die on blasting spells.

FEATS
Intensify Spell: Increases caster level damage cap +5 to apply to a specific spell. Burning hands goes up to 10d4+20. Magic Missile goes to 7d4+7. Fireball to 15d6, Fire Snake to 20d6+40.

Empower Spell: Increase dmg by 50%.

Quicken Spell: Hit enemy with two spells/rd.

Spell Specialization: +2 to caster level with a specific spell. Helps bring the damage earlier and faster.

Varisian Tattoo: +1 to Caster level with a specific school (Evo). This buys off your sorc level.

Greater Spell Specialization: Sacrifice spells to power your chosen blaster spell. Means you can memorize utility spells freely.

Spell Perfection: Doubles fixed feat bonuses, apply one metamagic for free. An Empowered/Intensified spell with Magical Lineage is still its original spell slot. SPell Penetration doubles to +4. Varisian Tattoo to +2. Spell Specialization to +4. Effectively, you've got +10 on Spell Resistance rolls, and are casting at 5 levels higher then your own.

Top End Damage: 30d6 +60 from Fire Snake, empowered, Intensified, average 165 dmg, save 1/2, level 5 slot.
Quicken for another hit, 5th level slot, 20d6 + 40dmg, avg 165.
= 330 blasting dmg in one round, save for 1/2. If you've a Rod of Maximize, you can lift this to 215 base damage.

Base level 5 spell slot is 20d6+40 dmg, 165 dmg.

BY LEVEL

At level 1, your Burning Hands should be 2d4+4 (avg 9)

At level 2, its unchanged.

At level 3, Spell Specialization kicks in. 5d4+10 (22.5). This tops it unless you Intensify it.

At 4th, 6d4+12 (27), Intensified BH.

At 5th, Intensified BH, 7d4+14 (31.5).

At 6th, you can shift Spec to Scorching Ray. 2x 4d6+8 (44). Your Fireball is 5d6+10 as well, or 7d6+14 if specced.

At 7th, 6d6+12 fireball, or 8d6+18 if spec. An Empowered, Intensified Burning Hands, if still the spec spell, is 13.5d4+27 (about 60).

8th - Empowered Scorching Ray, 2 x 6d6+12. E/I BH is 15d6+30 (74, max)

9th - Intensified, Specialized Fireball is 11d6+22 (51).

10th - Firesnake. E/Spec Fireball is 15d6+30 (74). Emp Scorching Rays are 3 x 6d6+12, or 18d6+36 (99 dmg). You can now Quicken a Burning Hands or Magic Missile as kicker damage in a round, although you've few slots.

12th - E/I/Spec Fireball is 21d6+42 (115) damage. You can now Quicken a 12d6+24 Scorching Ray.

14th level - A Specialized Firesnake now exceeds/equals an intensified Fireball. Fireball caps at 22.5d6+ 45 (123~) damage. An Empowered Firesnake is 24d6+48 (132) damage. You can now Quicken a 10d6+20 Fireball. Intensified, Empowered Scorching Ray tops out at 24d6+48 (132 dmg)

15th level - Spell Perfection. You can now add a Meta for Free. This will be Quicken or Empower. Intensified might be free if Magical Lineage applies to it. Caster level buffs for spec spell exceed +5, so top out at 20d6 dmg at 15th level. You will miss Spell Resistance rolls against CR appropriate enemies on a 1.
Assuming Firesnake, you can now cast a Quickened Intensified Firesnake for 20d6+40 (110) damage out of a 5th level slot, and an Empowered Firesnake out of the same slot for 30d6+60 (165) damage. Using a 7th level slot, you can Empower both.

16th+ - Damage remains the same, higher level spell slots are open for use of other Metas or control spells.

Conceivably you could use Disintegrate to get a higher damage total, but the delay isn't worth it, and you'd lose the Varisian tattoo bonus.

If your DM allows you Twin Spell from 3.5, you can very, very easily clock in at 495 raw dmg/round. IF he allows Arcane Thesis, god help your enemies.

==+Aelryinth


Aratrok wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Horizon Walker Rogue/Ranger could definitely be an awesome combination, though the "use your Favored Terrain bonus on enemies native to the Terrain" is too ambiguous to me; wish they would have just done something like you can use half the terrain bonus vs all enemies while in that terrain to simplify.
Just a side note, but "native to the terrain" isn't ambiguous. Every monster's bestiary entry has a native terrain listed in it. For example, goblins are native to forests and plains, while rocs are native to mountains. So if you took Terrain Dominance (Mountain), your bonus would apply against rocs, but not goblins (regardless of where you're fighting them or where this particular group of goblins is from).

Perhaps I was wrong about it being ambiguous (as you gave me a good RAW answer), but basing where a creature is native to just on where it is normally found doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in a variety of situations. Using the goblins you mentioned, it is quite odd that these hypothetical goblins who lived their entire life on this mountain and never stepped foot in a forest or plain are native for all intents and purposes to those areas instead of the mountain. Is also makes me wonder about non-monsterous enemies; how about humans? Are all humans native to only certain types of terrain, regardless of where their family lived for generations?


I know its wierd but the answer to that question is yes. Fluff it how you want, feel free to houserule something different. Its not that far fetched.


"Just houserule it" is always an option, but sometimes it would have just been better if the implications had been more thoroughly thought out beforehand. It seems like a hard decision; go with RAW that would perhaps frequently not make sense, or ask the DM where it spent its entire life for each individual enemy ;p.


Things I would like as a prestige class or an archetype:

Dungeoncrasher

Wild Mage

end list


Well, it's already a bizarrely supernatural ability. I assumed it was based on some natural affinity the creature has for a type of terrain, but as you said, you can flavor it how you like. :P


I don't know if this has already been covered but there are no prestige classes that are good for wizards because they dont get the 2 free spells in their books every level..... idk about your wizard pc's but mine like haveing spells

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Devin O' the Dale wrote:

I don't know if this has already been covered but there are no prestige classes that are good for wizards because they dont get the 2 free spells in their books every level..... idk about your wizard pc's but mine like haveing spells

So research them, buy them, or steal them. There are a lot of ways to fill your spellbook.


You can still copy and scribe spells unless your DM completely negates the availability of scrolls and other wizards spellbooks. In PFS and the like though its really more of a pain than it should be, and it becuase a money tax on top of all the other taxes your paying.


Devin O' the Dale wrote:

I don't know if this has already been covered but there are no prestige classes that are good for wizards because they dont get the 2 free spells in their books every level..... idk about your wizard pc's but mine like haveing spells

Preconstructed Spellbooks can give you dozens of new spells for a cheap price, often cheaper than buying all those spells with scrolls and then scribing them. Perfect for any prestiged, higher level wizard, it totally saved my bacon, went from zero spells above 3rd to about dozen in each level for measly 8,000gp (I bought four of them.)


You can buy pre constructed spellbooks? I'm pretty sure you can't in a PFS setting, but I didn't know they existed outside of someone elses pockets.


MrSin wrote:
You can buy pre constructed spellbooks? I'm pretty sure you can't in a PFS setting, but I didn't know they existed outside of someone elses pockets.

They are in Ultimate Magic, so they should be okay. Wording says you can just refluff them.


The problem here is that "spells" are the Wizard's core ability, even with PrC levels. The ruling by JB basically halts a wizard's progress for his or her entire PrC experience. Sorcerers still learn new spells known, but wizards don't get their 2/level? No other class has to pay a tax just to advance their main feature like this - only spellbook users.


Every prepared Arcane Caster has to pay that price actually. So witches and Magus too. Most games I know would houserule becuase they didn't even know it existed anyway. Its a little silly and mostly hurts in the PFS setting where you can't fight RAW. It gets to be a little expensive at the higher levels though, the levels you actually take the PrC.

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Wizard PrC choices kinda meh? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.