Aurora Windraven's page

Apologies. I actually mis-typed that particular sentence, I was mistaken:

You haven't seen a Dwarven Barbarian 2 / Gunslinger 11 (Champion 3) with a modern-equivalent shotgun entering a rage and spazzing out with said shotgun, dealing hellfire rounds in a 30-foot cone 4 times in one turn before you've even had a chance to buff or throw out your first spell.

Something equally as hilarious and combat-effective (especially against enemies with dangerous abilities) as it is aggravating for this reason. And as for it being "in theory/on the boards"... number crunching is basically useless to me, so to be blunt I don't care. A lot of things work out different in practice than in theory. And telling me "well, mathematically speaking, more spellpower has higher potential so you shouldn't complain" doesn't change the fact that I can go multiple encounters a day without expending any spellpower at all and get turned into a third wheel/utility belt for the party, does it?

@Cap Here's my issue with that. Mythic Adventures' purpose appears to be to provide a way for the most overblown, BS powerful anime-esque characters you can imagine. It seems rather strange to do so freely with most classes, but arbitrarily restrict the caster. I am quite aware of the Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard thing, and if Paizo wants to even things up by buffing the warriors more than the mages, I can respect that. I would appreciate it if it were more clearly written, as it does get rather vague in places like this, but I can understand wanting to get the swingers something to help them remain relevant in the later game.

In practice, however, it seems that the rules as you've interpreted permit them to clear out an entire squad of enemies before the wizard even gets his turn, and when the trigger-happy dwarf can blast a dozen small enemies to death by abusing the Fleet Charge/Amazing Init (I find it vexing they specifically bar spellcasting with the extra action granted by Amazing Init), well, interpreting the rules as 'freely' as we have regarding Mythic Spells is pretty much the only way my Archmage can keep up at this point; if he can't launch two spells in one round, and it has to cost 2 MP for one recasting of a mythic spell, he's quite out-classed by the martial classes at this point, and we still have 7 character levels and mythic tiers to go. Considering that the entire *draw* of a Wizard is "start off weak, end a demigod", it seems the tone is a bit garbled here.

If you Think extra spells and mythic spells are bad compared to move and full attack i dont know what to say.

You haven't seen a 13th level Gunslinger / Champion 3 with a modern-equivalent shotgun dealing hellfire rounds in a 30-foot cone 4 times in one turn before you've even had a chance to buff or throw out your first spell.

Okay, it doesn't add to the cast time. Fine. What if the spell you're Arcane Surging has a cast time of more than one round?

My gaming group is getting rather frustrated with the precise wording of some of the text related to Mythic characters, particularly my Archmage. We're having difficulty finding either errata or a bit more context in the text to explain precisely how Mythic Spells are handled.

First off, let's start with the preparation of Wizard spells as an Archmage. The precise text for Mythic Spells is as follows:

Mythic spells draw upon the caster's mythic power to create more powerful magical effects—mythic fireball sets affected creatures on fire, mythic mage armor can negate critical hits, and so on. These spells aren't separate spells you gain as a spell known from your spellcasting class, but rather mythically charged versions of spells you already know.

Learning Mythic Spells: To learn a mythic spell, you must either select the mythic spellcasting universal path ability or the Mythic Spell Lore feat. In doing so, you unlock the secret of using your mythic power to amplify non-mythic spells you choose.

Casting Mythic Spells: If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it. This doesn't change the level of the spell slot you use to cast the spell.

If you're a caster who prepares spells (such as a cleric or wizard), you never have to prepare the mythic version of a spell—if you prepare the non-mythic version, you may cast it as the mythic version by expending one use of mythic power. Unless otherwise specified, casting the mythic version of a spell doesn't take any longer than casting the non-mythic version.

The top portion of this quote makes it seem like the procedure is pretty simple; you prepare the non-Mythic version of a spell, you use a MP to amplify it to the Mythic variant. However, the last paragraph has some rather unclear language that seems to muddy the point. You don't "have" to prepare the mythic version. "if" you prepare the non-mythic version. This implies that you can prepare the Mythic variant of the spell, but have an option if you want to be more judicious with MP. But that leads me to the question: Can you prepare Mythic spells or not? If so, does it cost MP?

It also comes into play with the other question I have about the Archmage - namely, features such as Arcane Surge.

Arcane Surge (Su): As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast any one arcane spell without expending a prepared spell or spell slot. If you prepare spells, this spell must be one you prepared today (even if you have already cast it); if you're a spontaneous caster, this spell must be one of your spells known. If the spell requires a saving throw, any non-mythic creatures affected by the spell roll twice and take the lower result. If you must attempt a caster level check for the spell to overcome a creature's spell resistance, you can roll your caster level check twice (adding your tier to each) and take the higher result. You can't add a metamagic feat to a spell you cast using this ability.

This raises a couple questions as well. The first is related to the above question because it determines how much MP it costs to throw out that Mythic goodness. If it costs no MP to prepare a Mythic spell, then I can just use 1 MP to Surge that Mythic Fireball again, essentially making my MP pool a massive extension to my spell slots. If it costs 1 MP, but I can still prepare Mythic Fireball as such, then it costs 1 more MP to duplicate the Fireball as Mythic, costing 2 instead of 1. If I can't prepare Mythic Fireball but have to augment it, it's kind of the same deal - I can Surge the Fireball, and then spend a second MP to make it Mythic. Basically, I'd like to know which is the most 'correct' for the Rules As Intended.

To sum up: Can I prepare a Mythic Spell as such, does it cost MP, and what's the total cost in using Arcane Surge with a Mythic Spell (if it can be prepared)?

The second question I have with Arcane Surge is related to the time involved here: "As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to cast..." So the cast time is now Swift Action? Can I also utilize my Standard Action to cast a spell from my prepared list, essentially getting to throw two spells in one round? How does that mesh with spells whose cast time are greater than "Standard Action"? Are they reduced to Swift (unlikely, given that some spells have a 10 minute cast time!) or what?

For the last one, I'm assuming that, if it's Standard, it's reduced to Swift and can be cast in conjunction with a Standard Action casting. Part of my reasoning is, looking at the Champion next door, he can make a Full Attack, use a Fleet Charge as a swift action to move *and* attack again, AND use Amazing Initiative for yet [i]another[i] attack, and it would be strange to hamper the Archmage from being able to perform similarly. But anyway, if anyone could help clarify the situation, I'd appreciate it.

*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.

And that's the problem. Why WOULD you play a Wizard or a Sorc when you can have the Arcanist? With a Bloodrager, you can see why you'd want this, or one of the parents. Barbs get better rage and powers than the Bloodrager and Bloodragers only get 4th level magic. Right there, you have a reason to play any one of the three options. With Arcanist... it seeks to replace the parent classes, and it succeeds with flying colors.

Utterly pointless.

Oh, okay. I see that. Alright, fine. Whatever.

Rest of my post still applies; the Arcanist still essentially plays the "me too!" game with about... four other classes by major extent (Wiz, Sorc, Witch, Magus), Cleric by lesser extent, and bits and pieces of the Paladin and Fighter to boot. Again, I state, this does not need to exist. At our table, it doesn't. Will be looking into the other hybrid classes later; at least at first glance they look less ridiculous.

Quote:

Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.

There are a few archetypes of various classes, plus the core Magus off the top of my head but I know there are others, that can also take Weapon Specialization, usually only with a slight level delay. It hasn't been exclusive to Fighters for quite some time.

EDIT: No, the Magus does NOT get Weapon Specialization, in fact...

EDIT 2: Actually, I'm hard-pressed to find these archetypes. Where are you finding this?

My thoughts on the hybrid classes?

Well, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them just yet, because... I'm a huge, HUGE fan of mages. I love them. I love them to my core. I always prefer to play a caster of some kind if possible; failing that, rogue or some other kind of skill-based class, etc. I have yet to roll up and playtest the Bloodrager, Skald, etc, but I will say they seem like fun classes to play.

However, I've been too preoccupied with the Arcanist. Reason being, it angers me. Greatly.

It's not that it's overpowered - I've rolled up a lv1 Arcanist and Wizard using similar stats and was able to make them approximately equal in power level. And that's the problem. It can do about 85% of what a Wizard of the same level can do, only with Exploits to do some of those things better. In fact, many of the Exploits seem to exist solely to close any weaknesses or gaps that the Arcanist has in her abilities compared to the Core classes, which doesn't sit well with me or anyone in my group.

On top of that, you have the Archetypes that allow them to perform the basic functions of the Magus, the Witch, and even the Cleric to a point (the spontaneous healing and whatnot). It seems it's designed to step on the toes of almost half a dozen different classes. Some even borrow a couple abilities from the Paladin (enhance weapon), or even...

Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.

...until the Arcanist comes along.

I'm sorry, but duplicating the effects of many other classes, including a couple fragments of martial classes?

Who the [expletive] does the Arcanist think she is??

I'll be going over the other classes soon, because I'm done with the Arcanist. She has earned the dubious honor of being the first Paizo published class to be banned in our gaming group, an agreement that was unanimous upon reading and discussing the class features (and simulating level-ups with similar stats between the Arcanist and other classes*) Not necessarily because she's too powerful, but because she can essentially replace the core features of too many of the base classes.

*By which I mean we used the same stat "pool" to generate the character; for the record, we rolled 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10. While the Wizard began with 18 INT, we gave the Arcanist 16 INT/CHA, assuming a Human +2 bonus. We didn't want to use races that affected a large number of stats to minimize alterations to the base rolls, which were good enough as it was.

I'll end this post with a brief paragraph from the ACG, pp. 240-41, where they helpfully give advice on designing your own classes:

In addition to having a strong concept, each class should also have a space in the rules that it can occupy. While the rules for a class can share some similarities with those of an existing class, each new class should have something that makes it unusual, giving it a means to interact with the game, and the game's world, in a new and interesting way.

Look for a way that the class can perform its role without coming into contact with the rules of another class. If the rules are too close, you might end up with a class that invalidates (or is invalidated by) an existing class's mechanics in a way that makes it unappealing to play.

For example, the rogue class focuses on moving unseen and striking foes in precisely the right spot to make it hurt. While there are certainly other classes that have rules that allow them to sneak or hit for a lot of damage, the way that the rogue goes about it - via sneak attack - is iconic to that class. You want to avoid creating mechanics to do the same thing in slightly different ways.

The last sentence is referencing the sentence right before it. It is clarifying that while the bonus feats gained at 5th,10th etc must be metamagic, item creation, or spell mastery, the regular feats gained from advancing levels are not limited to those categories.

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you!

Hey there, I've attempted to find this answer on my own, but I've not had luck. My apologies if it has already been asked/answered..

Anyway! I'm reading over the rules text for the Wizard and I've discovered a seeming contradiction that I'd like some extrapolation on if that's possible. As the title suggests, it's about the Bonus Feat section, and it says this:

Bonus Feats: At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat. At each such opportunity, he can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation feat, or Spell Mastery. The wizard must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including caster level minimums. These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. The wizard is not limited to the categories of item creation feats, metamagic feats, or Spell Mastery when choosing those feats.

I'm a bit confused as to what this means. I don't believe the earlier text is merely 'suggesting' that the Wizard take these feats; if I read right, I believe that the Wizard should in fact be limited to these, which makes sense. But that last sentence throws me off. At first I thought it was referring to the headers seen in Ch. 5, and in other books, where it groups feats together, such as Metamagic, Teamwork, Item Creation, etc... but Spell Mastery isn't a group, for one, and for another, I don't know of any Metamagic feats that aren't in the Metamagic category! The very existence of this last sentence appears to me to completely invalidate the rest of the paragraph. But that doesn't seem right. Would someone kindly explain to me what this rules text is trying to say?