Colfenor's page

This is a cool combo. It reminds me of Harry Potter-esque magic in that it's an application of critical thinking to magic.

As a GM I'd have to treat it on a case by case basis in determining how many actions you need to accomplish this, and as a Jerk move try to trick you into not saying you apply the spell to yourself, but of course it's all a ruse to watch the blood drain from your face as you come to grips with the death of your character by Feather fall.

Also as a GM on the second insinstance of this massive Earth shattering damage you may just unleash the Terrasque from prison.

Edit: I wouldn't actually kill the PC

Fun fact is that the only occasion when I used this combo was to kill the Tarrasque on our way to the final boss of the campaign. :D

Ok, thanks!

Quick rule question.

Can intensify spell be used to increase the level cap of Heal/Harm ?

As to why sorcerers don't advance in CL when they multiclass? They aren't dedicating their efforts to improve their magical gifts. While it is innate, it is also partially inert. They have great potential locked away, but it takes dedication training and a bit of experimentation to bring it out in full force. If they divert their energy into mastering some other talents, then these gifts suffer.

Shouldn't races with innate spell-like abilities suffer too if they pick a non-spellcasting class, since they don't practice their gifts? That's not the case however.

@ ShadowcatX: You cast the spell-like ability as a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Concerning the rules, if a feat requires to be able to cast Sorcerer/Wizard spells and you have a Sorcerer/Wizard spell-like ability, then you qualify for the feat. If a spell-like ability gives you caster level equal to your character level, then you have an effective Sorcerer/Wizard or Cleric (in case of divine SLAs) caster level of 20 at level 20. All in all you are treated as a spellcaster that can cast only a specific spell, which in my opinion is like a bug in the game code.

Let me ask you this. The Sorcerer is considered to have innate magical power when compared to the Wizard who studies magic. Even though his magical power is innate (that means that he was born with these powers because they are part of his bloodline), he casts spells, not spell-like abilities. In addition, if he takes a level in a different class (even in an arcane spellcasting class!!!) his caster level won't increase at all.

However, if a character of a race like Aasimars takes a non-spellcasting class, his innate magical powers (which are part of his race, just like a Sorcerer's bloodline) will continue to increase no matter whether he bothers to practice them or not.

In the end, I want to ask both the community and the developers: What is the purpose of spell-like abilities if they work just like spells 95% of the time? They can be dispelled, Spell Resistance works on them and the only difference is that they cannot be countered and don't have any components associated with their execution. Why not give races spells instead?

Colfenor wrote:

Let me get this straight. A Wizard that has spent years over years developing his spellcasting ability can imbue his weapon with the same magical energy as a Fighter that happens to have an innate spell-like ability.

Uhh... he has innate magical ability. So... yeah.

Would it bother you if a Dragon took this feat imbued a weapon with his innate magical ability?

Is it that an innate magical ability can be harnessed in this way, or rather something else that bothers you about it?

First of all, a Dragon is a Sorcerer as he casts spells as a Sorcerer. What bothers me is why do they separate spell-like abilities from spells, if they want both to work the same way?

In case of Arcane Strike let me explain. A Fighter can take Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization to gain +6 damage in a SPECIFIC weapon. A Fighter with a spell-like ability can also take Arcane Strike which gives him 5 damage with ALL weapons for free, since 99% of the time he won't be using swift actions. Certainly nothing broken, but it is a bit of unfair advantage against other races, especially since their Fighters won't be able to use their swift actions for something.

Sure. The Wizard can use his power for infinitely more things, but the Fighter has just as powerful, say, a Daylight ability as the Wizard. Why couldn't he infuse the raw power into the weapon as well? It's a matter of the raw power inherent in that one spell not skill or versatility, or even number of spells. A Bard does as well as a Wizard...why wouldn't a Fighter who had spell access?

Because a Fighter doesn't access spells. The big mistake they made in Pathfinder was to say that spell-LIKE abilities are the same as having the spell. If that is the case, then why have spell-like abilities in the first place? Just make the creatures have 1 or 2 spells available to them due to their magical nature. Technically this would blend much better with the Sorcerer theme. Now they say "we have spells and we have spell-like abilities that aren't theoretically spells but technically they are considered spells when talking about prerequisites, etc.

Right now the only difference between the 2 is the way of execution.

Colfenor wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colfenor wrote:

The thing that bothers me is not whether these builds are powerful. Actually I believe that true power resides in psionics exclusively. What bothers me is that it doesn't make any sense for a barbarian to suddenly use arcane powers without any training in the use of magic just because he can Light a torch once per day. From a lore perspective always.

Uh...he can do that by simply taking a level of Sorcerer or Wizard. This option is no different thematically, just better mechanically.

You cannot gain caster level 20 for arcane strike just from a level of Sorcerer/Wizard. However, if you have a spell-like ability that scales with your character level, you can.

Well...no. But Arcane Strike is +5 damage and maybe your weapon glowing a bit. Thematically, it's about as significant as getting Shield and maybe less than Prestidigitation and Light given their more obvious nature. It's more useful/powerful...but not more flashy or magical. Which is what matters thematically.

Let me get this straight. A Wizard that has spent years over years developing his spellcasting ability can imbue his weapon with the same magical energy as a Fighter that happens to have an innate spell-like ability.

Colfenor wrote:

The thing that bothers me is not whether these builds are powerful. Actually I believe that true power resides in psionics exclusively. What bothers me is that it doesn't make any sense for a barbarian to suddenly use arcane powers without any training in the use of magic just because he can Light a torch once per day. From a lore perspective always.

Uh...he can do that by simply taking a level of Sorcerer or Wizard. This option is no different thematically, just better mechanically.

You cannot gain caster level 20 for arcane strike just from a level of Sorcerer/Wizard. However, if you have a spell-like ability that scales with your character level, you can.

You can't get these talents more than once, so maybe you would like to save Combat Trick for a different feat. That's a possible answer I think.

The thing that bothers me is not whether these builds are powerful. Actually I believe that true power resides in psionics exclusively. What bothers me is that it doesn't make any sense for a barbarian to suddenly use arcane powers without any training in the use of magic just because he can Light a torch once per day. From a lore perspective always.

Want to stretch the rules a bit? Consider that before you became an Eldritch Knight you were a Sorcerer/Wizard (because these were the classes you took Daylight from in the first place) and start progressing one of the two. It doesn't make any sense, I know, but neither does the fact that you can gain full caster level from a spell-like ability.

Yeah, but even if you stop to take that one level of Wizard/Sorcerer, you still start at level 3, while most of them start at level 7-8.

Fun fact. Aasimars can make Eldritch Knights from level 2. Just take a level of Fighter for the proficiencies and you are ready.

A caster level is a caster level regardless of where it is coming from.

So a Barbarian that has never casted a spell during his life has the same caster level as a wizard, just because his race can use a spell-LIKE ability? Something is wrong here IMO.

How is caster level calculated for the use of these feats? Arcane strike mentions that you gain 1 damage +1 for every five caster levels you possess. Do spell like abilities provide you with actual caster levels or do they count as caster levels just for the use of the ability?

1. Temporary Hit Points (THP) from different abilities never stack, unless noted (though I have never seen any ability that allows them to stack).

2a. THP from an ability replace the ones you already have IF they are more (example, you have 5 THP left and you cast Aid and roll for 7. Then you will have 7 new THP, while the previous 5 are gone).

2b. The same rule applies here. Multiple uses of a spell do not restore THP. They replace them if the remaining THP you have are fewer than the new ones.

3. Increasing your Constitution doesn't give you THP. You gain more Hit Points, that can be healed normally. For example, let's say you are level 3, you have 20 hp and receive a Bear's Endurance. This will increase your total HP by 6. Now you have 26 HP. If you get damaged and drop to, let's say, 18, you can still be cured up to 26 by a Cure Light Wounds.

I hope that helped.

Then this part of the power is really stupid. I mean, almost all of the types listed there have similar traits. And for the love of God, humanoids do not give anything!

Hello community,

I am currently playing an Egoist Psion in our campaign and I have a question about the way True Metamorphosis works. In case someone doesn't know the description is:

"As minor metamorphosis, except you gain two menu
choices from the Enhancement Menu C and two menu
choices from Abilities Menu C from major metamorphosis.
As a swift action, you can change your menu choices while
the duration of this power is in effect.
While under the effects of this power, you can choose
to become one of the following types, with the associated
benefits: aberration, dragon, fey, humanoid, magical beast
or monstrous humanoid. As a swift action, you can change
what type you are while the duration of this power is in
effect."

My question is that, since I can gain a creature type like dragon and all its benefits, do I also get the creature's HD (example d12) or its BaB, or do I just get the racial traits?

Thanks in advance

I interpreted mythic spells very differently. I interpreted (misinterpreted?) the line:

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.

I took this to mean:
1) you begin casting the spell in whatever form you know/memorised (metamagic enhanced or otherwise).

2) THEN convert it to mythic version while casting (as a free action?).

Essentially a diference in timing as to when the mythic power comes into play. So i would say you couldn't apply the metamagics in question since featherfall is not an eligible target to begin with.

If you had a, say maximised fireball, or spontaneously cast a quickened fireball you would start the spell (yes even if a swift action) then convert to mythic as you cast by using MP. This converts the spell to make either a mythic maximized or quickened fireball.

So to use the featherfall, you cast as a swift, and once you start casting you use MP (free action?) to convert it to the mythic version.

I may be very wrong, but I think my interpretation will mitigate some of the issues like this.

This can work backwards though. Since spontaneous spellcasters apply metamagic feat as they cast their spells, couldn't one just say that he waits until the spell is converted to its mythic version and apply metamagic just after this? If this is the case, then those who prepare spells are at a serious disadvantage here.

Colfenor wrote:

I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.

Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.

We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."

A big difference in approach goes a long way.
Your approach has been 'Look at this crazy combo. I'd never want to use it as a daily tactic, but boy, is this whacked.'.

Which is miles away from "I've been wrecking my home game for weeks, using this, the GM is protesting, and I'm going to stamp my virtual feet and insist I'm entitled to keep on doing it.".

Overpowered options and unintended combos can never be fixed until people drop the GM Fiat option, read the actual text, and agree that 'Yeah, that's badly worded, it needs a rewrite'.

At last someone here understands what I am saying. Thank you Sir :)

Colfenor wrote:

To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.

Funny that you're now arguing "common sense" when this thread was started because your interpretation is twisting RAI as far away from common sense as is possible.

I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.

To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.

Salazar wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.

Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.

==Aelryinth

I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?

I am with Salazar on this. Since the base Feather Fall does not have "variable, numeric effects", Empower or Maximize cannot be used on it. And thus cannot be used on its Mythic or Augmented versions either.

The nice trick of the OP then does not create the rain of absolute death we were blaming on the designers' oversight. It just means that the designers seem to have a far better and more comprehensive grasp of the rules than we do.

Which I think is far more likely than an oversight.

Even if the designers have a more comprehensive view of the rules THEY created, they are obliged to share this view with their players. You cannot expect the players to interpret the rules the same way. Pathfinder has created more than enough fails in terms of misunderstanding to make me believe that the designers are simply careless when writing down descriptions.

I will just mention 2 abilities that come into mind right now: Hidden Master and Perfect Lie.

While I respect the concerns of some people in this thread, I think that in order to avoid frustration from such combos, the GM should make a contract with the players at the beginning of a campaign about what is and what isn't allowed. This means that source books should be carefully picked and examined and more importantly, books that get published during the campaign should be avoided in general.

Instead of trying to nerf a combo just because it is overpowered, GMs should just accept it and agree with their players that such stuff should only be used as a last resort or during meaningless battles. This way, you can keep players happy, as they know that they have access to their lifesaver button and have the chance to show off and GMs can stay calm as they know that crucial battles will not be steamrolled.

Colfenor wrote:

Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you?

Science asks the question 'can I do this'. Philosophy asks the question 'should I do this'.

Gamers ask the question "am I having fun by doing this", if I may add. Though the real question would be "am I spoiling the fun of others with what I want to do". That's why GMs exist.

Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you? Play-testing exists so that such "bugs" can be detected and fixed. You cannot blame the players for finding ways to exploit such things. It happened in 3,5 version and it will happen again. As long as companies bring out new material, players will keep inventing new combos. Do not forget that a lot of people that play Pathfinder or D'n'D also play some video games like WoW, LoL, etc, where it is essential for you to find the most effective build for your character. Combat oriented pen 'n' paper games are no exception for some of them.

I would never let this work as the OP describes. Among the reasons I might use is "Feather fall works only upon free-falling objects." I'd rule that rocks you're attacking with(1) are not free-falling objects. Not to mention that, since you're attacking with them, you need to roll (easy) attacks and use your (limited) supply of actions. Even free actions have the "GM can limit" language.

But there's some interesting inventiveness in the OP, so ... I might rule (complete GM rule-creation) that if you can get a good "scatter" of objects, you could blanket a larger area with 5d6 (or whatever you can Empower/etc.) blasts. No single 5' square could generate more than 1 blast, though.

So someone comes up with this idea when they're falling a short distance - "OK, make an attack roll to hit the square next to where you land with a stone. As long as you don't screw up, there'll be a blast there too." Longer distance, maybe more stones. Multiple people, maybe each gets a stone. I do want to reward creativity, but not with fun-and-credibility-straining (for me) thousands of points of damage.

(1) I'm a firm believer that the effect of a game-action is what determines which rules should apply, not some doomed-to-fail attempt at seeing the rules as realistically mirroring some gameworld "physics". The rules are abstractions - dropping rocks with an intent to damage is different than just dropping rocks as colorful description. One is an attack, and needs to follow attack rules. The other isn't, and doesn't - no matter that the "actual" (ha! - imaginarily actual) action is the same in both cases.

That's why you are not throwing the rocks, but simply let them go. You do not apply force, thus they are considered free falling objects. The broken part is that the spell doesn't include a height restriction. This means that you can literally drop the stones a few inches from the ground and cast the spell, since it's an immediate action, and still have the effect.

A possible easy solution to the problem would be to limit the damage of the blasts according to the size of the objects dropped. For example, fine objects deal 1 point of damage, diminutive objects deal 1d2, tiny 1d4, etc.

All in all, I believe that Paizo has been extremely careless with the design of Mythic Adventures, as it contains some pretty broken stuff in the wrong hands (Perfect Lie anyone?).

Artanthos wrote:

Colfenor wrote:

I find such GMs to be pretty sinister.

I have always made it clear that I am playing by the same rules the players are.

Fun and flavor filled, but less than optimal character will find a world filled with similar NPC's

Hyper-optimized munchkins exploiting loopholes in the rules to destroy everything they encounter will find a world full of like minded NPC's.

I then leave it to the players what kind of campaign they want. Some players prefer the later.

Very much this. As far as the OP, I'd just stare at the player and say "no" and move on with the game.

As I said before, if the player promises to only use it once just for the sake of it, it's fine. Otherwise it may threaten the quality of every encounter.

In my case, we are playing a fast paced mythic campaign in order to try how mythic options work. To be honest, we all promised not to use these rules again, because it is very difficult to balance the encounters, especially when players become almost untouchable and kill anything within 1 round. I just promised my GM that before the final encounter, I would show him something in order to make him realize just how stupidly strong some combos are. He accepted and now I am just waiting to hit level 20/ tier 10.

@ ryric and TriOmegaZero I suggested Jump in order to manage to jump just over you opponent and drop the bombs. For medium sized creatures I think that you just have to jump 10 ft to go over their heads without provoking an AoO. Never mind, according to the description of the spell, it is implied that you can simply let the pebbles drop from where you stand and still manage to get the spell off, since it's an immediate action.

@Artanthos Certainly I would not abuse it myself. We already finish every encounter within 1 round in our campaign. I believe that if a player pulls such a trick just once, it is alright to let is pass like this. My idea for the current campaign since I am a Bard is to craft some guitar picks and let them rain over my opponents. It will be pretty cool I think. :D

Why 50 ft? I think I lost you somewhere :/

ryric wrote:

A 5th level caster targeting themselves and 9 rocks dropped from their hand does 45d6 damage(9 packets of 5d6 save for half), for an average of 157.5 damage in a 10 foot radius, for casting a level 1 spell at 5th level. That seems rather extreme for level 5, even with mythic factored in, and the easy counters aren't really available yet.

The players will when love when the GM uses this tactic against them.

After all, what is good for the goose....

I find such GMs to be pretty sinister. Personally I would like to see someone use such a trick for a tough situation.

If someone wants to bring something like this against the players, he can always create a trap that lets little stones drop over their heads but keep it at a sane DC and limit the number of stones. Even 5 of these little things can almost wipe out an entire party at low levels.

Then you're using two spells and not one.

Two first level spells to get 10 times the damage of a Fireball at level 5 isn't such a bad deal, I think.

This also requires a lot of setup at level 5, since you have to be able to get above the enemy to a point where you can drop on them.

You can always cast Jump and land on their square, I guess.

I was thinking some more about this, and the real place this tactic is broken is at 5th level. You don't even need all the path abilities or metamagic feats, just the ability to cast the mythic version.

A 5th level caster targeting themselves and 9 rocks dropped from their hand does 45d6 damage(9 packets of 5d6 save for half), for an average of 157.5 damage in a 10 foot radius, for casting a level 1 spell at 5th level. That seems rather extreme for level 5, even with mythic factored in, and the easy counters aren't really available yet.

I'm going to go with a personal ruling that the spell can only deal damage once per casting, no matter how many overlapping areas there are. Rare is the effect that lets you "double dip" on caster level like this - 2 targets/level and 1d6/level/target = (2*level^2)d6 which is not cool.

That's why I don't plan on abusing it. I just find it funny that one of the most innocent spells in the game manages to surpass pure damage spells in destructive power and I made it just for exhibition purposes.

Hasn't anyone noticed the spell you're using?

Feather Fall?

So, your enemies see the mighty, mythic wizard drop some floating rocks and they... move out of the way.

No, because augmented mythic Feather Fall causes the objects to fall at their normal speed. This means that before your turn is over, they have already landed. Technically speaking, since the spell is cast in an instant, you can release the pebbles just a few feet from the ground and still manage to cast it. So, no, the enemies don't have time to avoid it.

A CR 25+ foe who knows its enemy's signature move?

This is a great one-off attack. Use it too regularly, and powerful and intelligent enemies will take the minor steps required to counter it.

You are right about this one. The only reason I created this attack was to show our DM how deadly an innocent spell like Feather Fall can become. I haven't used it yet in the campaign and I am planning to use it only once, just to show off. I am playing a skill-based supporter Bard btw :D

What about falling together with the rest of the targets? Mythic Feather Fall makes you immune to its damage if it affects you. Furthermore, Channel Power makes you ignore SR completely and if you use Wild Arcana you do not even expend a spell slot.

The good thing about this combo is that it does not require you to take feats or path abilities that suck. All parts of the combo are useful by themselves and are solid choices for most wizard/sorcerer builds.

Besides this, there are certainly ways to avoid it (though most creatures in the bestiaries can't), but honestly, who the heck includes Feather Fall when he casts Spell Immunity???

Ok. Because there is confusion about this combo, allow me to explain.

First of all, the objects that you drop need not fall in the same square as the target, because the blast they create covers a 10-ft radius. Since you let them fall, rather than throwing them, it is a free action.

Second, the spell notes clearly that damage is dealt "when a target lands", literally meaning that each time a target lands it deals the damage.

Third, there is absolutely no problem with the casting time of feather fall after you let the objects drop, since it is an immediate action. Even if you are a spontaneous caster and applying metamagic would mean that the casting time is increased, there is still the Rod of Quicken Spell, or since we are talking about Mythic here, Wild Arcana, which lets you cast ANY spell as a swift action. So, in any condition, you manage to affect all objects.

Finally, concerning Empower Spell, Pathfinder has really destroyed the description of the feat, due to the poor details they offer. The description in the Core Rulebook states that "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls" and it stops there.

Luckily there is still the description from 3,5 Player's Handbook, which mentions that "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. An empowered spell deals half again as much damage as normal, cures half again as many hit points, affects half again as many targets, and so forth, as appropriate".

As for the Empower + Maximize combo, you are right, as it seems that Empower damage is rolled separately. It doesn't make that much difference in the total picture though. It will just drop the damage of the combo by 1-2 thousand.

Maximize spell notes that ALL variable, numeric effects of a spell are maximized. This means that even the extra 5d6 from Intensify are maximized as well. Maximize is an effect that is applied at the end of a spell.

Intensify on the other hand, is something that affects the base damage of a spell, which means that it just increases its damage cap. So it is applied at the beginning. On the other hand, Empower and Channel Power increase the damage by 50% each, which by base math means that they add up for 100% extra damage.

That being told, it doesn't even matter if you apply these 2 or maximize first. The end result is always going to be 120 damage per object.

At least, that's how I interpret it.

Hello community,

this is my first post in these forums and I want to share a combo I came up with the other day, while I was experimenting with Mythic Adventures and it is about the spell Mythic Feather Fall and an extremely powerful combo that you can create.

Mythic Feather Fall by default doubles the number of targets that you can affect and removes the range limitations of the normal spell. The interesting part is its augmented version, where is says that:
"If you expend two uses of mythic power,
the spell absorbs the targets' velocity and transforms it into a
concussive blast. Targets fall at the normal rate (not slowed)
but land safely. When a target lands, it creates a 1 0-foot - radius
burst of force that deals 1 d 6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 5 d 6, Reflex half, DC equal to the DC of feather fall).
The targets of this spell are unaffected by these concussive blasts."

Normally, feather fall can affect up to 1 creature or object/level. Its mythic version affects 2/level. Now this is where is gets interesting. Since you can target medium or smaller objects is you want, you can always carry with you small stones or coins and drop them over your opponent. This will deal 200d6 damage with a reflex for half. However is does not stop here.

Archmage's Abundant Casting allows you to add your tier to the number of targets affected by the spell. In addition, Channel Power (again from Archmage) allows you to increase the damage of a spell by 50% for 1 mythic power. Add Intensify spell, Empower spell and Maximize spell and the combo grows immensely in power.

Let's do the math.
With Intensify, the damage of each blast increases to 10d6. Empower spell and Channel Power increase this damage to 20d6, which is then Maximized to 120 damage per object affected. Empower also increases the number of targets affected by half. At level 20/ tier 10 you can target 50 objects, which increase to 75, after empower.

The final damage is 75*120 for a humble 9000 points of damage in a 10 ft radium allowing a reflex for half and ignoring spell resistance, costing 1 spell and 3 mythic power.

Certainly the DC is low as it is just a 1st level spell, but with the exception of the Evasion ability, every other creature in the books is obliterated. And the best part is that even a bard can do it.

What are your opinions?