paizo.com Favorited Posts by Adept_Woodwrightpaizo.com Favorited Posts by Adept_Woodwright2020-05-12T14:29:45Z2020-05-12T14:29:45ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Mythic Surge and Automatic Failure?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1fk&page=2?Mythic-Surge-and-Automatic-Failure#682015-04-22T21:10:48Z2015-04-16T04:38:41Z<p>Do you see the inconsistency in that?</p>Do you see the inconsistency in that?Adept_Woodwright2015-04-16T04:38:41ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your GearsAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s0ns&page=17?Pathfinder-Forums-Memes-that-Grind-Your-Gears#8402015-03-26T03:31:42Z2015-03-25T16:14:50Z<p>What saving throw is required to resist Delayed Blast Threadlock? Because clearly, this thread optimized heavily on that save.</p>
<p>Edit- Evidently, it's a dirty <b>rollplayer</b></p>What saving throw is required to resist Delayed Blast Threadlock? Because clearly, this thread optimized heavily on that save.
Edit- Evidently, it's a dirty rollplayerAdept_Woodwright2015-03-25T16:14:50ZRe: Forums: Product Discussion: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/products/btpy9c25/discuss&page=20?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Pathfinder-Unchained#9722015-04-04T17:16:39Z2015-03-24T01:19:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Seifter wrote:</div><blockquote> It's a messageboard so deviations are kind of normal, I guess, which makes it a...standard deviation.</blockquote><p>I laughed.Mark Seifter wrote:It's a messageboard so deviations are kind of normal, I guess, which makes it a...standard deviation.
I laughed.Adept_Woodwright2015-03-24T01:19:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s22g&page=15?A-20th-level-fighter-is-bathing-how-does-he#7022015-03-23T05:11:21Z2015-03-23T04:41:40Z<p>The relevance of that post is that it offers an implication that your induction on the set of creatures (i.e. That the relative number of high CR caster to martial statblocks is reflected in actual population of high level creatures) is based on a questionable premise (that Paizo meant for such a reflection at all)</p>
<p>That inductive logic is a major premise in the argument, and I question it's validity in a slightly different manner than it has previously been questioned.</p>
<p>You might have noticed I can get a little pedantic... But all caps and infantilizing arguments? Really? It is easy to get frustrated, I understand that. I really am not trying to be belittling or condescending or anything. If I come off that way, let me know so I can phrase things better in the future.</p>
<p>I disagree fundamentally with the concept that an argument fundamentally based on induction (at least not the mathematical kind) can ever be easily proved.</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>I believe that the crux of Darkheyr's issue is that monster population is entirely based on setting. It appears as though Darkheyr believes your induction leads to a setting that unnecessarily favors the witch hunter power. Instead, he/she constructed a model in which a good number of level appropriate encounters (against core race NPC/PC classes) may not be affected by witch hunter.</p>
<p>In your frustration with what you took to be pedantry or petulance (justifiably, perhaps), you did make some fairly broad statements which could be seen as exaggeration , especially by someone who usually plays with that sort of model.</p>
<p>Does that make sense?</p>
<p>—-
<br />
Edit::
<br />
Admittedly it's also bad form to be pedantic without advancing arguments (as might have been done here - I omitted this correction as I remembered reading that very correction earlier on these boards... Different thread though . I could have noted that sort of infraction too, to be more fair)</p>The relevance of that post is that it offers an implication that your induction on the set of creatures (i.e. That the relative number of high CR caster to martial statblocks is reflected in actual population of high level creatures) is based on a questionable premise (that Paizo meant for such a reflection at all)
That inductive logic is a major premise in the argument, and I question it's validity in a slightly different manner than it has previously been questioned.
You might have...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-23T04:41:40ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s22g&page=14?A-20th-level-fighter-is-bathing-how-does-he#6962015-03-23T02:44:06Z2015-03-23T02:27:50Z<p>@Rynjin. Perhaps the preponderance of casters (or caster-lites) in bestiaries is indicative of the (objective?) fact that casters -are- harder to stat up in any way that even remotely approaches a concept of balance (as demonstrated via NPC stat blocks, anyway).</p>
<p>This leaves the creation of martial only opponents in the hopefully competent hands of the GM, while easing some of the heavier burden.</p>
<p>An assumption on my part, as I don't work for Paizo.</p>
<p>—
<br />
Edit: in reply to a post mentioning the difficulty of creating wizards and the relative ease of creating clerics/oracles/sorcerers/etc...</p>
<p>To respondent: I was speaking more toward the idea that it is a lot easier to artificially inflate encounter CR with a particularly synergistic set of spells.</p>
<p>If you have a set of high level caster (sort of caster) to compare against, you are less likely to accidentally create something far beyond the expected encounter difficulty.</p>
<p>That said, using the pregenerated stat blocks directly also allows for far less GM work than actually creating casters. </p>
<p>I'd further argue that feat selections are likely less onerous to generate (though that is gut feeling without -as of yet- supporting evidence). These are also less likely to be a source of imbalance (if not possibly resulting in a lower difficulty than desired - see this thread for evidence)</p>@Rynjin. Perhaps the preponderance of casters (or caster-lites) in bestiaries is indicative of the (objective?) fact that casters -are- harder to stat up in any way that even remotely approaches a concept of balance (as demonstrated via NPC stat blocks, anyway).
This leaves the creation of martial only opponents in the hopefully competent hands of the GM, while easing some of the heavier burden.
An assumption on my part, as I don't work for Paizo.
--
Edit: in reply to a post mentioning the...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-23T02:27:50ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s22g&page=14?A-20th-level-fighter-is-bathing-how-does-he#6872015-03-23T01:59:01Z2015-03-23T01:41:17Z<p>The supposition that one will face opponents that are predominately caster/non-caster, or armed/unarmed is entirely setting based. The core rules were published with the expectation that they could be applied to settings beyond Golarion, so listing (convincing) anecdotes concerning adventures in Golarion only provides evidence for a specific subset of instances.</p>
<p>Theoretically, both sides of the argument are based on an infinite representation of their specific idea: you could have (infinitely diverse) adventures with only caster or non-caster opponents, or only armed or unarmed opponents.</p>
<p>That said, having the stats up for how the barbarian deals with a specific subset of opponents is at the least not fully representative of the demonstrated barbarian's performance. It probably wouldn't take a lot of effort• to do the statistics for the remainder of the total set of opponents. </p>
<p>If the barbarian is still triumphant in that comparison with the fighter, that proves the point more strongly.</p>
<p>If the fighter comes out on top in that comparison, then maybe that's the niche a fighter fills that the barbarian doesn't fill as well (probably could still be filled better by others)</p>
<p>It might take a little more effort to properly equip both characters for their level, taking presumably near optimal items. This would be a good thing to do in order to eliminate potential arguments against fairness in equipment (this would require acknowledgment from both parties on what constitutes near optimal equipment — hard to obtain over internet)</p>
<p>• I might do it if I weren't constrained to a phone for the next few days. This post is already a bit long for a phone post</p>The supposition that one will face opponents that are predominately caster/non-caster, or armed/unarmed is entirely setting based. The core rules were published with the expectation that they could be applied to settings beyond Golarion, so listing (convincing) anecdotes concerning adventures in Golarion only provides evidence for a specific subset of instances.
Theoretically, both sides of the argument are based on an infinite representation of their specific idea: you could have...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-23T01:41:17ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Challenge: Highest caster levelAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r6pu&page=2?Challenge-Highest-caster-level#642015-04-01T15:16:17Z2015-03-20T04:03:40Z<p>I just got the Ranged Tactics Toolbox, and saw the Seeking Spell Metamagic Feat <a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/seeking-spell-metamagic" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">(Link)</a></p>
<p>I immediately thought of this thread.</p>
<p>— Now the Death Star Witch + Bat Swarm doesn't even need to •see• the targeted opponent (though it may be assumed that a curved line of effect must exist between caster/opponent).</p>I just got the Ranged Tactics Toolbox, and saw the Seeking Spell Metamagic Feat (Link)
I immediately thought of this thread.
-- Now the Death Star Witch + Bat Swarm doesn't even need to *see* the targeted opponent (though it may be assumed that a curved line of effect must exist between caster/opponent).Adept_Woodwright2015-03-20T04:03:40ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Challenge: Highest caster levelAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r6pu&page=2?Challenge-Highest-caster-level#612017-06-05T23:13:35Z2015-03-13T21:38:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Coriat wrote:</div><blockquote>Okay, but only if the lead witch intends to use her immense caster level to fight crime!</blockquote><p>Ha!
<p>I think I made my leaning on the pro/anti crime thing clear with <div class="messageboard-quotee">I wrote:</div><blockquote>I'd <b><i>shamelessly slaughter </i></b>the bats that failed their second save for being <b><i>too weak</i></b></blockquote><p>—-
<p>As far as I can tell, the minimum level for assured success is 12 - a few well positioned level 6 simulacrum clerics with magic domain (variant channel) and quick channel will give a blanket +3 to caster level checks, which will ensure success for the level 6 simulacrum bat witch swarm.</p>
<p>Level 12 is also where sorcerers and arcanists (accursed bloodline) would get access to the simulacrum spell to produce the winter hag and self-copy for the 3 member coven initiation fee — though they could grab scrolls earlier.</p>
<p>I realize level 10 simulacrums (of level 20 PC classes) are much more hardy in battle — But it is not always assured that a GM will allow you to generate a caster stat block on the fly - especially for high level casters. (I personally wouldn't have an issue with someone making a simulacrum of a PC class of an equivalently leveled character, but would raise an eyebrow at a level 10 character getting a (effective 10) simulacrum of a level 20 character - I recognize this is not a problem to some people) </p>
<p>It probably doesn't matter, though, if a GM is already going to allow the !?!?! CL that we're aiming for.</p>Coriat wrote:Okay, but only if the lead witch intends to use her immense caster level to fight crime!
Ha! I think I made my leaning on the pro/anti crime thing clear with I wrote:I'd shamelessly slaughter the bats that failed their second save for being too weak
--- As far as I can tell, the minimum level for assured success is 12 - a few well positioned level 6 simulacrum clerics with magic domain (variant channel) and quick channel will give a blanket +3 to caster level checks, which will...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-13T21:38:40ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Challenge: Highest caster levelAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r6pu&page=2?Challenge-Highest-caster-level#592015-04-03T05:16:23Z2015-03-13T17:00:05Z<p>As long as we are going full on with the coven SLAs, we could consider all witch simulacrums to be subject to Baleful Polymorph (bat), as a more permanent transformation to diminuitive than beast shape. I'd shamelessly slaughter the bats that failed their second save for being <i>too weak</i></p>
<p>Then you don't need to be high level either.</p>As long as we are going full on with the coven SLAs, we could consider all witch simulacrums to be subject to Baleful Polymorph (bat), as a more permanent transformation to diminuitive than beast shape. I'd shamelessly slaughter the bats that failed their second save for being too weak
Then you don't need to be high level either.Adept_Woodwright2015-03-13T17:00:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Level 10 Party vs. Level 20 Solo ThrowdownAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s25d?Level-10-Party-vs-Level-20-Solo-Throwdown#232015-03-13T14:24:50Z2015-03-13T13:58:05Z<p>I'm not disagreeing with the absurdity here, but I think the situation could presuppose that the 4 witch team gets to bring along help if the higher level witch gets to bring along help. </p>
<p>Down that path lies madness! So carry on... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.</p>I'm not disagreeing with the absurdity here, but I think the situation could presuppose that the 4 witch team gets to bring along help if the higher level witch gets to bring along help.
Down that path lies madness! So carry on... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.Adept_Woodwright2015-03-13T13:58:05ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Challenge: Highest caster levelAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r6pu&page=2?Challenge-Highest-caster-level#522015-03-13T05:24:27Z2015-03-13T04:32:26Z<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p><a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/planarAlly.html#planar-ally-greater" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Planar Ally Description </a></p>
<p>The only interaction I see is a cost reduction in the negotiation, and a significant increase in the length of the negotiated task. I guess it makes it closer to a permanent 18 HD - can be class levels - companion (So essentially a nigh permanent cohort for 1800 GP every CL minutes? You could get a bunch with several uses, but each additional one adds a temporary negative level (as effectively permanent as the ghost).</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>In addition to Frostbite, options include:
<br />
Demiplanes - Huge volume
<br />
Greater Dispel Magic - yikes. Essentially targeted Mage's Disjunction on creatures
<br />
Holy Word - CL independent function on successful save
<br />
Icy Prison - works even on save
<br />
Finger of Death - works even on save
<br />
Reach Slay Living - works even on save
<br />
Wail of the Banshee - doesn't work at all on save
<br />
Others probably.</p>
<p>I think Frostbite (maybe tagged with Elemental Spell) will work on most everything but undead and constructs.</p>
<p>Thantopic Finger of Death/Slay Living will probably deal with undead, and Icy Prison will probably deal with constructs (that aren't outright immune to magic anyway) — Id like lower level options, if available</p>
<p>I especially like the idea of spawning a ~ 16 mile radius quasi-sphere of ice around my opponent with Icy Prison. (A million inches is a lot - I'm lowballing this thread at merely a million CL). That sphere would last a million minutes -> 694 days. It would have hardness 0 and 3000000 hp. And would require a STR check of 1000015 to break. I imagine somebody might be able to target sections of the sphere to tunnel out more quickly than the spell otherwise suggests.</p>
<p>What other spells are affected by absurd CL?
<br />
I'm looking for thing beyond the obvious time/range boost.
<br />
I suppose any class SP and SU abilities could also be considered (as one could just dip Witch/Sorcerer/Magus/Arcanist to qualify)</p>
<p>(N.B. I don't think any of this will fly with a sane GM, but there is some humor in observing the absurd)</p>[Spoiler omitted]
Planar Ally Description
The only interaction I see is a cost reduction in the negotiation, and a significant increase in the length of the negotiated task. I guess it makes it closer to a permanent 18 HD - can be class levels - companion (So essentially a nigh permanent cohort for 1800 GP every CL minutes? You could get a bunch with several uses, but each additional one adds a temporary negative level (as effectively permanent as the ghost).
--
In addition to...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-13T04:32:26ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Level 10 Party vs. Level 20 Solo ThrowdownAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s25d?Level-10-Party-vs-Level-20-Solo-Throwdown#212015-03-13T01:10:43Z2015-03-13T01:09:59Z<p>You could, perhaps, consider them as a massive overload of level 10 witch self-simulacrums from a level 20 witch with a winter hag in her coven.</p>You could, perhaps, consider them as a massive overload of level 10 witch self-simulacrums from a level 20 witch with a winter hag in her coven.Adept_Woodwright2015-03-13T01:09:59ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Challenge: Highest caster levelAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r6pu?Challenge-Highest-caster-level#482015-03-11T03:01:14Z2015-03-11T03:00:11Z<p>Note also that the winter hag adds simulacrum to the coven list as a spell like ability... So it wouldn't cost a bunch either.</p>Note also that the winter hag adds simulacrum to the coven list as a spell like ability... So it wouldn't cost a bunch either.Adept_Woodwright2015-03-11T03:00:11ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Mythic Surge and Automatic Failure?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1fk?Mythic-Surge-and-Automatic-Failure#502015-03-05T11:32:43Z2015-03-05T00:53:00Z<p>I think the question stems from the idea that the natural value of the die is also referred to as it's result... </p>
<p>So one group reads it as:
<br />
natural result = whatever appears on the die + surge
<br />
final result = natural result + bonuses/penalties.</p>
<p>The other group reads:
<br />
natural result = whatever appears on the die
<br />
final result = natural result + bonuses/penalties + surge.</p>
<p>The fact that English can be interpreted many ways is one of its most potentially wonderful qualities, though it can be frustrating when approaching a question of rules.</p>
<p>— I'd also point out that Force of Will renders the auto-fail question pretty much moot at 7th Tier, as rolling 1d20 for a mythic point is better in almost all regards to spending a mythic point to surge out of auto-fail (Marshal abilities make this fuzzy, and legendary item ability stacked onto the Marshal abilities might make the surge edge it out... but that's significant expense to make surge a great thing)</p>I think the question stems from the idea that the natural value of the die is also referred to as it's result...
So one group reads it as:
natural result = whatever appears on the die + surge
final result = natural result + bonuses/penalties.
The other group reads:
natural result = whatever appears on the die
final result = natural result + bonuses/penalties + surge.
The fact that English can be interpreted many ways is one of its most potentially wonderful qualities, though it can be...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-05T00:53:00ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Mythic Surge and Automatic Failure?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s1fk?Mythic-Surge-and-Automatic-Failure#472015-03-04T20:40:43Z2015-03-04T19:35:29Z<p>I'd be wary of people trying to optimize using that interpretation.</p>
<p>Lucky Surge (feat) roll twice and take higher (optional)
<br />
Potent Surge (feat) add 1 to surge result</p>
<p>Legendary item (ability) - legendary surge (bonded) use your die+1 step
<br />
— powerful surge (add 2 to surge result) — needs to be major artifact</p>
<p>Marshal
<br />
— focus (ability) roll twice take highest (all the time)
<br />
— greater surge (ability) treat surge as three tiers higher. At tier 10, gain 2d8</p>
<p>I omit maximize surge as it is 1/day.</p>
<p>With 3 abilities and 2 feats,</p>
<p>You get (tier + 3) surge die that you roll at least twice or optional 4 times, taking the highest. You add 1 to the result. You could then, optionally, have your item surge as well, adding (step above (tier + 3)) die.</p>
<p>This can be done at tier 3, giving you 1d8+1 roll 2/4 times, take highest, with optional +1d10 (maybe rolled twice if it's intelligent?)</p>
<p>At tier 6, you could make the item a major artifact.
<br />
At that point, you would get
<br />
1d10+1 rolled 2/4 times + optional 1d12+2 (maybe roll twice)</p>
<p>It's not necessarily a bad thing to do it the way you suggest, I'd just be sure to keep an eye out for people really trying to game the system.</p>
<p>The above is certainly not automatic, and would require 1-2 MP — so not all the time — but it does give the player a fair shot of turning low rolls into crits with a 15-20 threat range weapon at a potentially higher rate than a GM would be comfortable with. YMMV.</p>
<p>Note that abilities could be omitted to reduce the statistic standard deviation, lowering the result but making it less random.</p>I'd be wary of people trying to optimize using that interpretation.
Lucky Surge (feat) roll twice and take higher (optional)
Potent Surge (feat) add 1 to surge result
Legendary item (ability) - legendary surge (bonded) use your die+1 step
-- powerful surge (add 2 to surge result) -- needs to be major artifact
Marshal
-- focus (ability) roll twice take highest (all the time)
-- greater surge (ability) treat surge as three tiers higher. At tier 10, gain 2d8
I omit maximize surge as it is...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-04T19:35:29ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why don't fighters take Master Craftsman?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s0yc&page=2?Why-dont-fighters-take-Master-Craftsman#752015-03-04T20:48:01Z2015-03-03T06:01:11Z<p>Yeah, it was for the elixers — his backstory would have been something along the lines of the town innkeeper (where Caylean's shrines are usually located), moonlighting as a brewer that supplies wealthy locals with some particularly fine drinks for parties. As Id only ever use it in home games, the GMs may have been willing to expand the list. Besides, with Mythic rules in play, it wasn't really hurting for utility.</p>
<p>(Now that I look at him again, he had a level of druid in there to pick up the cantrip Create Water with Caylean's variant spellcasting from Inner Sea Gods — three guesses what liquid replaces water in that variant... the first 2 don't count — so I guess the example loses a little weight because it eventually had access to most of Craft Wondrous Item via a legitimate caster level.)</p>
<p>Ah, it was Profession - Brewer. Wisdom skill was better for the monk</p>Yeah, it was for the elixers -- his backstory would have been something along the lines of the town innkeeper (where Caylean's shrines are usually located), moonlighting as a brewer that supplies wealthy locals with some particularly fine drinks for parties. As Id only ever use it in home games, the GMs may have been willing to expand the list. Besides, with Mythic rules in play, it wasn't really hurting for utility.
(Now that I look at him again, he had a level of druid in there to pick up...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-03T06:01:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Why don't fighters take Master Craftsman?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s0yc&page=2?Why-dont-fighters-take-Master-Craftsman#722015-03-04T20:47:31Z2015-03-03T05:35:04Z<p>Yeah, I don't really see it as a optimizing feat. It is pretty nifty as a thematic ability though.</p>
<p>One character I've drawn plans for is a Mythic Drunken Master Monk - Evangelist of Cayden Caylean (used Beyond Morality to get around Lawful limit) — he took Master Craftsman in (craft - brews) or whatever the actual name of it is. I don't think I'd like the look of the character half as much without it.</p>
<p>I'd just never take it in an optimizing build, and unfortunately those builds appear more often on forums (either for critique or as subject of complaint)</p>Yeah, I don't really see it as a optimizing feat. It is pretty nifty as a thematic ability though.
One character I've drawn plans for is a Mythic Drunken Master Monk - Evangelist of Cayden Caylean (used Beyond Morality to get around Lawful limit) -- he took Master Craftsman in (craft - brews) or whatever the actual name of it is. I don't think I'd like the look of the character half as much without it.
I'd just never take it in an optimizing build, and unfortunately those builds appear more...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-03T05:35:04ZRe: Forums: Advice: Help me deck out my final boss- Mythic Lich of DoomAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s13v?Help-me-deck-out-my-final-boss-Mythic-Lich-of#62015-03-01T22:41:08Z2015-03-01T17:41:52Z<p>The benefit of Mythic Paragon is especially hard to judge for a caster, as they enhance the Tier based effects of your mythic spells.</p>
<p>For instance, its an extra critter in your M Time Stop.</p>
<p>I don't think there are a bunch of key abilities in the spells you've shown where it is excellent — but you have a few more spells you could choose...</p>
<p>M Circle of Death - Creatures with 21 HD or fewer are affected! This makes the spell actually worthwhile in a level 20 fight. Also thematic</p>
<p>M Cloudkill - benefits pretty nicely off of it, and is thematic</p>
<p>M Contingency - you get one more contingent spell (more never hurt)</p>
<p>M Antimagic Field - you can allow up to 6 schools to function in your presence <- there are only 8 total, so this means you could say nuts to a set of spells you never plan to cast</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>There are probably more too. Also, Mythic Paragon would let you choose 2 more mythic spells.</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>Are you making this guy with the expected treasure for CR 25? Double/Triple?</p>The benefit of Mythic Paragon is especially hard to judge for a caster, as they enhance the Tier based effects of your mythic spells.
For instance, its an extra critter in your M Time Stop.
I don't think there are a bunch of key abilities in the spells you've shown where it is excellent -- but you have a few more spells you could choose...
M Circle of Death - Creatures with 21 HD or fewer are affected! This makes the spell actually worthwhile in a level 20 fight. Also thematic
M Cloudkill...Adept_Woodwright2015-03-01T17:41:52ZForums: Advice: Killing from Miles AwayAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s10u?Killing-from-Miles-Away#12015-02-28T07:34:36Z2015-02-28T04:56:28Z<p>The other day I dug into the Arcane Archer Prestige class after reading some of the commentary regarding the recent SLA FAQ.</p>
<p>I noticed something that looks pretty phenomenal when combined with some particular mythic abilities (yeah, surprisingly, something in mythic adventures can be used for something really strong. I know you're all shocked)</p>
<p>For reference:</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>[Spoiler omitted]</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>With a Seeker Arrow with a mythic feat and mythic ability, you can hit any known opponent on the same plane of existence as you (with an attack roll), so long as there is a physical path linking the two of you. You don't need to know where they are, so this will apply to Undetectable opponents as well (take that! OP legendary item ability)</p>
<p>With a Phase Arrow, the same is true — but now only magical barriers interfere.</p>
<p>I opened a thread concerning what "at a target known to him within range" means — I ask that long discussions concerning that aspect be directed <a href="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2s0wc?Arcane-Archer-Seeker-Arrow-Clarification#1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">there</a></p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>My questions for opening discussion: is there something I've missed?</p>
<p>If not, what are the most synergistic abilities that you think would go well with such a trick? Bear in mind that the required investment for this trick set is pretty lean (Arcane Archer Pre-Reqs, at least one Mythic Tier) </p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>Oh, if only you could shoot through Gates</p>The other day I dug into the Arcane Archer Prestige class after reading some of the commentary regarding the recent SLA FAQ.
I noticed something that looks pretty phenomenal when combined with some particular mythic abilities (yeah, surprisingly, something in mythic adventures can be used for something really strong. I know you're all shocked)
For reference:
[Spoiler omitted]
[Spoiler omitted]
[Spoiler omitted]
[Spoiler omitted]
---
With a Seeker Arrow with a mythic feat and mythic...Adept_Woodwright2015-02-28T04:56:28ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: How do I become a vampire/undead and remain a pc?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lf46&page=2?How-do-I-become-a-vampireundead-and-remain-a-pc#792015-02-16T15:50:37Z2015-02-16T15:48:26Z<p>With <i>Undead Revisited</i>, you can use a Contingency combined with Create Undead to self resurrect as a Skeleton Champion or as a Juju Zombie. Depending on GM, you might be able to swing templates onto the created undead.</p>
<p>How you go about dying is up to you.</p>
<p>It might temporarily skew your paper - alignment, but that has almost no bearing on anything but item use and trigger happy paladins. And a particularly trigger happy paladin might smite an undead just on principle, without checking alignment.</p>With Undead Revisited, you can use a Contingency combined with Create Undead to self resurrect as a Skeleton Champion or as a Juju Zombie. Depending on GM, you might be able to swing templates onto the created undead.
How you go about dying is up to you.
It might temporarily skew your paper - alignment, but that has almost no bearing on anything but item use and trigger happy paladins. And a particularly trigger happy paladin might smite an undead just on principle, without checking alignment.Adept_Woodwright2015-02-16T15:48:26ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=34?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#16762015-02-08T23:22:17Z2015-02-08T17:56:26Z<p>The thing is, there is a RAW way to run it. It's just so ludicrously overpowered that it might look like it doesn't exist.</p>The thing is, there is a RAW way to run it. It's just so ludicrously overpowered that it might look like it doesn't exist.Adept_Woodwright2015-02-08T17:56:26ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Does Magic Jar work on Outsiders?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ryp8?Does-Magic-Jar-work-on-Outsiders#82015-02-08T17:29:09Z2015-02-08T07:52:02Z<p>Intent does not, unfortunately, match with the actual written word. Sometimes, people use suboptimal language, or do not take into account that some similar words were used in other places that might have unfortunate interactions with the what they plan.</p>
<p>It may very well be fluff. However, fluff is not written in a special ink or font, so we can not rely on that as a basis for an argument.</p>
<p>It is your opinion that the creature is not effectively immune to the spell. I outlined my interpretation of the spell line by line, and asked for the opposing view's similar interpretation.</p>
<p>My interpretation does not ascribe more actions to the spell than what is explicitly written. It does make the written actions more significant, but it does •exactly• what the spell says it does with no extrapolation to try and make sense of it.</p>
<p>The response was a nit-picking of my interpretation, but not the opposing interpretation.</p>
<p>Really, if a clear reading is available, I'm all ears.</p>Intent does not, unfortunately, match with the actual written word. Sometimes, people use suboptimal language, or do not take into account that some similar words were used in other places that might have unfortunate interactions with the what they plan.
It may very well be fluff. However, fluff is not written in a special ink or font, so we can not rely on that as a basis for an argument.
It is your opinion that the creature is not effectively immune to the spell. I outlined my...Adept_Woodwright2015-02-08T07:52:02ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=33?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#16292015-02-07T18:25:01Z2015-02-07T17:55:09Z<p>The argument is that it •does• change how it works.</p>
<p>"Magic Jar says you end up in the body"</p>
<p>The body of the outsider, linked inseparably with the soul, ends up in the receptacle. I don't think that is what you're going for, and no part of Magic Jar actually creates a new body.</p>
<p>— The globe of invulnerability bit was a reminder that arbitrary rule interpretations cut both ways.</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>To convince me, it will suffice to present an order of operations described in the spell description that results in the outcome you desire, without relying on the separation of the outsider's body/soul.</p>
<p>If you cant do that, your argument reduces to something along the lines of... Everybody else has always done it this way. That's an appeal to the majority (argumentum ad populum), which pretty classically doesn't mean its true. It might be a fairly universal house rule, but if you cant make it work by the rules, its not RAW.</p>
<p>—-</p>
<p>Upon re-reading Bandw2's post, I realize he may have been talking about simulacra, not outsiders.</p>
<p>I suppose that particular interpretation is correct: your target doesn't necessarily need a soul, though it results in parts of the magic which do nothing</p>
<p>That however, brings up a second part. Once you are in the magic jar receptacle, how do you sense soulless simulacra? You sense life forces while in the Jar.</p>
<p>However, I'm not convinced that simulacra don't have rudimentary proto-souls (as golems), so I'm not too terribly eager to go that way.</p>
<p>(I misread, because I had given an argument also in support of magic jar applied to simulacra)</p>The argument is that it *does* change how it works.
"Magic Jar says you end up in the body"
The body of the outsider, linked inseparably with the soul, ends up in the receptacle. I don't think that is what you're going for, and no part of Magic Jar actually creates a new body.
-- The globe of invulnerability bit was a reminder that arbitrary rule interpretations cut both ways.
---
To convince me, it will suffice to present an order of operations described in the spell description that...Adept_Woodwright2015-02-07T17:55:09ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=24?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#11912015-01-20T12:47:07Z2015-01-19T22:28:37Z<p>Ah. I stopped at the point where they act as Antimagic Fields.</p>
<p>I apologize for upsetting you... I think I'm going to take a break from this forum for a while.</p>
<p>Apparently I've gotten too hasty with posts because of the speed of this forum, and the quality is degrading. I am actually sincerely apologetic.</p>
<p>—</p>
<p>I don't care what the wizard does. He can get 100000 every day: it doesn't matter. He •already• completely blew WBL expectation out of the water. </p>
<p>Its easy to get lost in this thread, but I'll make it clear. I was arguing against simulacrums because it shifts the real purpose of the game, but I never outright said I wouldn't participate in the infinite simulacrum duel anyway. In fact, that was the •only• reason I was trying to get so many protections.</p>
<p>An arena, because otherwise the wizard •would have no reason, ever• to know where the fighter is.</p>
<p>I also never was a proponent of the duel, nor the terms of it. I do not believe it will answer the question.
<br />
—</p>
<p>Yeah, Im done for now.</p>Ah. I stopped at the point where they act as Antimagic Fields.
I apologize for upsetting you... I think I'm going to take a break from this forum for a while.
Apparently I've gotten too hasty with posts because of the speed of this forum, and the quality is degrading. I am actually sincerely apologetic.
--
I don't care what the wizard does. He can get 100000 every day: it doesn't matter. He *already* completely blew WBL expectation out of the water.
Its easy to get lost in this thread,...Adept_Woodwright2015-01-19T22:28:37ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Martial versus WizardAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rw6v?Mythic-Martial-versus-Wizard#212016-06-13T03:24:07Z2015-01-19T20:24:46Z<p>In order to not muddy this thread further, I invite you to continue the discussion over in the other thread. I already have a few posts on the subject, fairly recently. If you don't want to do that, then I politely concede here.</p>In order to not muddy this thread further, I invite you to continue the discussion over in the other thread. I already have a few posts on the subject, fairly recently. If you don't want to do that, then I politely concede here.Adept_Woodwright2015-01-19T20:24:46ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Martial versus WizardAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rw6v?Mythic-Martial-versus-Wizard#192016-06-13T03:24:09Z2015-01-19T20:08:56Z<p>To be fair, and not to try to start an argument in this thread which is ongoing in the other... the wizard is sort of self-obviating his own need for Leadership by making ~ as many simulacrums of creatures with 9th Level Spells as spell like abilities as he wants — and not counting against WBL via blood money.</p>To be fair, and not to try to start an argument in this thread which is ongoing in the other... the wizard is sort of self-obviating his own need for Leadership by making ~ as many simulacrums of creatures with 9th Level Spells as spell like abilities as he wants -- and not counting against WBL via blood money.Adept_Woodwright2015-01-19T20:08:56ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Mythic Fighter vs Wizard!Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvum&page=22?Mythic-Fighter-vs-Wizard#10552015-01-19T02:46:12Z2015-01-19T02:25:46Z<p>I think the best part of it all is the fact that a sorcerer almost surely is a better choice for an arena-type battle.</p>
<p>Such a battle removes nearly the entire advantage a wizard has in his spellbook (limitless options on a day to day basis), and instead you have options to pick and choose from as needed. One off spells can be relegated to scrolls.</p>
<p>Or am I missing something? My system mastery is admittedly not the greatest, so I could very easily be missing something.</p>
<p>Not that it really should matter. Go ahead, make it a sorcerer. If we cant build a fighter for a sorcerer, then we have just as many problems as before.</p>I think the best part of it all is the fact that a sorcerer almost surely is a better choice for an arena-type battle.
Such a battle removes nearly the entire advantage a wizard has in his spellbook (limitless options on a day to day basis), and instead you have options to pick and choose from as needed. One off spells can be relegated to scrolls.
Or am I missing something? My system mastery is admittedly not the greatest, so I could very easily be missing something.
Not that it really...Adept_Woodwright2015-01-19T02:25:46ZRe: Forums: Advice: Anti-magic Field solution?Adept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rvsb?Antimagic-Field-solution#52015-01-15T14:30:36Z2015-01-15T03:45:52Z<p>Fly above their feasible jump range and spam with pellet blast until defeated. The opponent won't have a means to reach you (antimagic removes SP, SU, and magic item flight abilities) and the opponent's reflex save shouldn't be super high (again, they won't benefit from their stat improving items or their save boosters)... </p>
<p>Basically, anything that is instantaneous duration - conjuration[creation] will ignore the AMF. I'd prefer a spell that didn't target reflex, but ?all? of those require at least a touch attack to hit: something I'm not sure is practical against a monk without having specifically optimized for it.</p>
<p>In the future of your character, I suggest at least looking into Eclectic/Esoteric training. It's in Inner Sea Magic, and could give you +3 effective spellcaster level in one class, and +1 in the other. This caps at HD like Magical Knack, but actually gives spell slots and spells known as if you were a caster of your effective level. Some people don't like it because it is an incredibly strong role playing benefit (requires membership and Fame in a magic guild— and that's all)</p>
<p>Edit: and I'm not sure how the magic item that produces antimagic field continues to work in the field it produces. It should immediately turn itself off (I realize that the DM is using fiat... I say this only to reinforce the previous posters' points. Your GM can fiat anything, up to a point where playing is no longer fun. Don't let it get there, if you can help it.</p>Fly above their feasible jump range and spam with pellet blast until defeated. The opponent won't have a means to reach you (antimagic removes SP, SU, and magic item flight abilities) and the opponent's reflex save shouldn't be super high (again, they won't benefit from their stat improving items or their save boosters)...
Basically, anything that is instantaneous duration - conjuration[creation] will ignore the AMF. I'd prefer a spell that didn't target reflex, but ?all? of those require at...Adept_Woodwright2015-01-15T03:45:52ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Upgradable Legendary Item (mythic) questionAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rtf2?Upgradable-Legendary-Item-question#42014-12-27T02:23:52Z2014-12-21T16:50:42Z<p>Unless I'm very much mistaken, you should still be able to enchant/upgrade your legendary item through the regular process. Upgradable is just faster/easier (possibly cheaper up front as well) . And it lets martials do their own upgrades</p>Unless I'm very much mistaken, you should still be able to enchant/upgrade your legendary item through the regular process. Upgradable is just faster/easier (possibly cheaper up front as well) . And it lets martials do their own upgradesAdept_Woodwright2014-12-21T16:50:42ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Awaken questionAdept_Woodwrighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qnxw?Awaken-question#182014-02-08T03:05:59Z2014-02-07T23:53:01Z<p>As you are the GM, it is certainly up to you to do this. I think the general sense, however, is that doing this is more or less equivalent to giving a free feat (Leadership) to the Druid who has a classed follower and henchbeasts... which is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the other players are not then outshined/overshadowed by the druid and his animal army.</p>
<p>In a practical sense, it seems as though the idea is to build a 'settlement/kingdom' of intelligent animals, which would be self-supporting (unless you want to handwave food/shelter), and which would provide a capable fighting force of any number of intelligent, class-levelled animals. Armies of many types and sizes are classified in Ultimate Campaign, and extending the rules for type to PC-class animals should not be too difficult (I have ideas on the matter if you are interested).</p>
<p>If, on the other hand, the idea is to actually have a squad of more than a couple intelligent animals follow you... I believe that your plan is practically unfeasible due to the sheer amount of time needed to resolve your battles and the complexity of planning needed to challenge the party.</p>
<p>Those opposed to the matter have legitimate ground, as this type of ploy has been rehashed many times in the past, in regard to both the Awaken spell, and the Leadership Feat. It usually crops up as somebody looking for that one, shining 'yes, it may be done' answer so that the player can show their current GM and say that it is unfair to disallow their brilliant idea.</p>As you are the GM, it is certainly up to you to do this. I think the general sense, however, is that doing this is more or less equivalent to giving a free feat (Leadership) to the Druid who has a classed follower and henchbeasts... which is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the other players are not then outshined/overshadowed by the druid and his animal army.
In a practical sense, it seems as though the idea is to build a 'settlement/kingdom' of intelligent animals, which would be...Adept_Woodwright2014-02-07T23:53:01Z