Any love for the Dawnflower Dervish archetype as an archer?
I suppose the archetype would be better for humans, as it lacks the bonus feat granted by other archetypes (arrowsong minstrel, archaeologist, arcane duelist...), but I like the idea of a +6 atk/dmg at lvl.5 by stacking inspire courage, heroism and arcane strike.
Ah. So, say the spell only paralyzed on a failed Will save. Would it then seem like a low-level encounter to you?
I would say "mid-level encounter" (he still can fly, see invisible and teleport at will), but yes: without his "I win, No save" option, your demon is mainly a melee brute in combat. You don't really need knowledge or tactics: luck and/or good saves will suffice.=> fail the save, the PCs can't act and will probably lose the fight
=> make the save, the demon has wasted his turn and it'll probably be enough for the PCs to win the fight.
Again, that's my experience, with the play style at my usual table, so... Expect table variation.
Give your best shot: what shenanigan could you find for such a character?
7- Move + Cast a Spell + Move: your mount is taking 2 move actions, so a concentration check is required8- cast spells with a full-round action casting time (usually metamagic-ed spells for a sorcerer) and keep moving
9- Mount using "ready an action": move away if an enemy comes to melee range
Spells like "Sleep" to coup de grace an entire party exist at level one...
You missed my point.
Spells like "Sleep" allow a save to negate the effect.
In your case, the save is irrelevant: Blasphemy at CL=HD+5 says "You're paralyzed, no save" and the demon can do it twice per day. So:
At least, that's what "playing a high-level encounter" means to me. Otherwise, it would just feel like playing at low-level with bigger numbers.
Malthus Krieger wrote:
[...] I decided for a two handed build instead, because I like the concept of reach weapons and their possibilities.
What ChessPwn said, then.
May I suggest dipping into cleric? It will boost your Will save and some domains have strong 1st-lvl options, such as Travel or Growth (Plant subdomain).
The question is: "Is this unfair for a CR11 monster?"
Thank you for the clarification.
No, I don't think it's unfair and yes, I think this kind of opposition should be expected at high level.
The PC can defeat the demon in one round, it is "fair" to expect that the demon can do the same against the PC.
Yes, high level is "rocket-tag" style. While not ideal, I still prefer this to HP-grinding combats.
My 2 cp
Main concern is the CL14 Blasphemy... [...] If the party was one level higher or the CL was one lower that wouldn't be an issue.
You already know the answer to your non-question (because there is no question in your post): just reduce the CL of the demon by 1.
Pretty sure Enervation can do the trick if you don't want to houserule the monster. Winning the initiative and killing the demon before it gets to act is also a valid scenario (smiting paladin + caster dim-dooring the frontliners into melee position for full-attacks).
A whip build?
- half-orc for whip proficiency (city-raised)
- rogue (thug) 3
- enforcer, weapon focus (whip), whip mastery
=> you can deal lethal or nonlethal damages, trip, disarm, give the shaken/frightened/sickened conditions within 15ft (20ft if you consider 5-ft step).
=> you can go thug + scout for sneak attack on a charge at lvl.4 and add Befuddling Strike to your list of debuff.
You may prefer a stronger martial class
Other feats to consider: Improved Whip Mastery, Combat Reflexes,
Some advices are KM-specific, so (mini) spoiler-alert:
Don't try to be a "god wizard", but focus on being effective enough to get the job done.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
So here's my attempt at making the best Rogue I can at level 17.
You need too many favorable conditions:
How would you adjudicate this?
I would use the standard rules.Knowing that "the target is somewhere on this line" already gives the PCs a higher chance of picking the right square than "the target is somewhere on the grid".
Your blaster sorcerer should be happy: it is one of the rare situations where his lightning bolt will prove to be useful...
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
My view is there is not one definitive answer. Normal English just isn't that precise.
The final answer, albeit interesting, has little impact on the conclusion. Either way, I do not think it is worth to be a sub-par caster from lvl.3 to lvl.11, but I can see why the OP thinks otherwise.
Anyway, I am very interested in this upcoming Pact Wizard...
Mechanical Pear wrote:
Thank you for the answer. Here are my concerns:1. Regarding the summon stuff:
I do not think Added Summonings and Superior Summoning interact this way, but let's say, for the sake of the argument, that you are right and I am mistaken.
The way I see it:
Superior Summoning grants 1 extra creature when « the summon spell is used to summon more than one creature », which could mean:
1. anytime you use the spell to summon 1d3 creatures, you trigger Superior Summoning, effectively summoning 1d3+1 creatures, because "1d3 is more than 1", even if "1d3=1" 33% of the time.
2. Added Summonings does not trigger Superior Summoning if you use the spell to summon one creature only, because you are not using the spell to summon "more than 1 creature". The extra critter comes from another feature.
Is there any FAQ or Dev's comment that clarified this interaction?
OK, so your target is to consistently summon 3 creatures, instead of 1, 3, or 4 creatures... by lvl.12 (arc11/clr1), with a 16Kgp item.
Before this level, however, the trick does not kick in and you basically have the spell progression of a 2/3 caster, like a bard, without an early-entry spell list and without extra combat options. Quick comparison:
lvl.4: clr1/arc3 => you cast 1st-level spells only. The bard can cast 2nd-level spells.
lvl.7: clr1/arc6 => you can cast 3rd-level spells, like the bard.
lvl.10: clr1/arc9 => you can cast 4th-level spells, like the bard (but you did get your 4th-level spells one level earlier).
lvl.11+: you are now a better spellcaster than the bard.
2. Regarding the counterspell stuff:
1. let's say you and the enemy wizard are both lvl.12 (or any even level above 11):
- The wizard cast a 6th-level spell => you can't counterspell, as you can only cast 5th-level spells.
- The wizard cast a 5th-level spell => you have only two 5th-level spells prepared and one of them is Summon Monster V. You probably won't be able to counterspell.
2. let's say you and the enemy wizard are both lvl.13 (or any odd level above 11):
- The wizard cast a 7th-level spell => you can't counterspell, as you can only cast 6th-level spells.
- The wizard cast a 6th-level spell => you have only one 6th-level spell prepared and it is Summon Monster VI. You probably won't be able to counterspell.
In any case, if the wizard cast a spell with a "personal" range, you can't counterspell this way due to how counterspelling works: « If the target is within range, both spells automatically negate each other with no other results. »
So, does the ability to summon 3 creatures 100% of the time instead of 67% at lvl.12+ really worth having the spell progression of a 2/3 caster for the first half of the game?
Anyway, thank you again for your time.
Mechanical Pear wrote:
Djelai, I know common wisdom says no. But if I can optimize enough for where my summons can hurt enemies, then on the surprise round, I can get several attacks in from weaker summons. Compare that to: not the surprise round, not the first round, but the second (if I don't lose the spell in the first round), I get attacks in with a slightly stronger summon. The difference is two rounds of full attacks, which is usually a chunk of the battle.
I get that, but acting during the surprise round and summoning as a standard action are abilities tied to your cleric dip. My question was more like:- What are you getting from the arcanist that worth a whole spell level?
- Why not going full divine strategist cleric, full pact wizard specialized in divination, or whatever singled-classed prepared spellcaster with abilities to summon as a standard action and act during the surprise round?
@ the OP: Just a few remarks, please do not take offense.
Firstly, regarding the form:
Secondly, regarding those comments:
Not each encounter is supposed to be challenging. Some of them are supposed to be easily overcome by the PCs, to grant the players the feeling that their characters have gained power.If the fighter gains +X to HIT and +Y to DMG from a level-up, then granting the opposition +X to AC and +3Y to HP negates the effect of leveling. Same remark for the caster who get better spells and bonus to DC... If you symmetrically boost the defenses of the opposition, it becomes pointless to level-up.
As a DM, you can/shall offer some "cheap" encounters, so everybody can have his money time...
And my players aren't trying to pull "optimization" stunts like that in the first place.
Then, I concur with Arillia Kaenath: your house-rules are probably not needed.
Anyway, you can try this: « increase the damage dice by two steps for blast spells ». d4s become d8s, d6s become d10s, and so on.
Failing a grapple check to maintain only allows the opponent to break out if you can only make one grapple check that round.
My point was to mitigate the "damage estimation", which should be reduced by at least 25% (failing to maintain the grapple does not allow you to deal damage). I should have been more explicit.
Anyway, since I am here, I have a few questions:
if you hit you immediately make grapple check with nearly 100% success rate (grab).
Success rate can't be higher than 95% as a natural "1" is always a failure for combat maneuver checks.
Which unfortunately increases your chances to roll a natural 1 and fail to maintain the grapple.In the routine you described, you rolled 6 grapple checks in 2 rounds. That's a 26.5% chance of rolling at least one natural "1".
ill state the same thing i was told when i last quoted JJ he is not a rules guy and those are just his homebrewed stuff in his own home game the official rules are npcs get npc wealth and pcs get pc wealth
Except JJ was using the CRB rules => Source
NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR.
there's a conversion for that :D can't link it though as i don't have the link saved on this computer :(
For the records, I am not saying the OP should convert the warlock from 3.5 to PRPG or play a warlock.I am saying he probably wants a similar gameplay.
Simple modification of the existing sorcerer class:
Changing the 1st-lvl bloodline power into an at-will blast like the alchemist's bomb class feature (in terms of damages, AoE, etc.) may suffice.
You may want to boost the damage output and nerf the spellcasting ability of this "sorcerer" by giving him the bard spell progression and create some stuff (feats / bloodline feats / bloodline power / whatever) that modify this blast: change damage type, increase range, hit multiple targets, shape into AoE, activate in move or swift action, etc.
In this case, this at-will blast becomes a main feature of the class instead of just being a "sustainable but still sub-par" damage option.
There is no "other reason" to boost damage spells than damage spells don't do enough damages to kill the enemy quickly. Because spell slots are a limited resource for casters.
As it turns out, I start to believe that the problem is not the amount of damages. The problem is the gameplay of the sorcerer class. The player chooses to play an arcane full-caster but actually wants to (or you want him to) play a class with blasting power on par with martial classes. In this case, he has to be able to blast all day long to eliminate the need of ending encounters quickly in order to save spell slots, especially if combats last longer than usual due to the overall HP increase.
Basically, it seems to me that you (or your player) want a class with the gameplay of a warlock from D&D3.5...
[...]a feat whose only purpose is to replace carrying a particular light, inexpensive object.
Then you missed the point of the feat.Eschew Material is a "high level" feat, which lets wizards and sorcerers cast spells when polymorphed into a dragon (and the like).
Otherwise, an extra bloodline feat seems indeed appropriate.
I like your train of thought here, though, and think it's worth considering/continuing. But I don't think APL-2 is a good indication of mook status.
And I am glad you like it.Now, please keep in mind that I consider the most potent blast routine (something the caster could do 3~4 times per day) of a dedicated blaster in the best-case scenario (failed save, no SR, no energy resistance). In this case, I consider a [CR=APL-2] creature a "fair mook".
But, ok, let's say [CR=APL-2] is too challenging for a mook. Do you consider [CR=APL-4] a fair definition of a mook?
OK, he could cheat with a metamagic rod: 3 times per day, he could cast a Maximized Empowered Intensified LB (72+12+6d6+6=111dmg). He still need a 40% increase to deal with mooks. And at that level, you can expect SR or Energy resistance to pop-up quite often.
As you can see, your sorcerer needs to increase the damages of his best blast spell by 60% (and keep going) to be able to "work as a blaster", which, in this case, means "dealing with CR=APL-4 mooks".
And we only considered CR=APL-4 here. Of course, it will be worse against tougher monsters, who will more likely save against his spells and/or have SR, energy resistance, etc.
Actually, the argument to triple the current damages to "make blasting work" is not as silly as you seem to believe, if we choose to define "blasting work" as:the blaster can wipe mooks who fail their save with a single AoE spell, with a mook defined as a [CR=APL-2] creature.
Details in spoiler:
Under standard rules, it means a 7th-level blaster sorcerer should consistently deal 50~60dmg with his best AoE spell to be considered "working", which is almost twice the damages that your current sorcerer can do. And this is on a failed save, without considering spell or energy resistance (which your current sorcerer cannot bypass).
Currently, your 7th-level sorcerer could only deal with mooks if they were CR 3...
Under your house rules (max HP/HD... I assume it applies to NPC and monsters too), your sorcerer should blast for at least 80 dmg on a failed save to be considered "working".
Dave Justus wrote:
My advice for a person who wanted to play a sorcerer under those house rules would be to not focus on damage, but go for other effects.
This. The party has enough damage-dealing PCs already. It would be wiser for the sorcerer to focus on battlefield control and/or debuffing.
May I suggest: Glitterdust-focused sorcerer
- arcane bloodline
- magical lineage (glitterdust)
- spell focus + greater spell focus (conjuration), persistent spell, improved familiar, improved initiative (bloodline feat)
Grab a few more conjuration spells (Grease, Create Pit, Stinking Cloud, Aquaeous Orb... whatever, but do not overload the spell list with similar effects) and complete the spell list with utility spells. Yes, this sorcerer is not blasting, but he is still a pain in the ass for the enemies.
With that said, Blur has a few distinct advantages.
This.Blur/Displacement is also less CL-dependent that Mirror Image, so you can cast it from srolls or wands and save your spell slots for more offensive spells.
Then you can pass the scroll or wand to your improved familiar, so he can cast it on you while you are using your precious standard action to meaningfully contribute to the battle on round 1 instead of buffing yourself defensively.
My 2 cts.
...stuff about stealth...
Except all of this is not directly related to 2WF and a 2HW-rogue could do it just as well (even better is you consider that 2HW is less feat-hungry than 2WF, so you may have more feat slots for your stealth stuff).So, the comparison remains unchanged: the 2WF-rogue is (allegedly) the "king of DPR" if he can full-attack + sneak-attack. In any combat situation where he is denied one or the other, he (allegedly) *sucks*.
Honestly, I do not really care what a 15th-level rogue can do, because I know what he cannot do: he cannot cast 8th-level spells.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Name-dropping Archetypes, feats, and obscure Rogue Talents interests me, though!
Ok, just name-dropping then :Half-orc city-raised + sacred tatoo + Fate's favored
Thug archetype + Enforcer + whip mastery feat chain
Power Attack, Lunge and Quickdraw
whip and shortbow + tangleshot arrows
Enjoy! (or not...)
Corporeal creatures cannot pass through force effects and Tiny Hut is a force effect.
Could you cite the rule, share you source?
I do not want to be rude or trolling. I just want to point out that a standard force effect is not necessarily a impenetrable barrier (which you seem to assume), and Tiny hut is not necessarily a deviation from the standard.
I really think the question of the OP deserves a FAQ and I can see the answer going both ways.
Tiny Hut is already an underused camping spell, because Rope Trick is a better shelter at a lower level. Tiny Hut is essentially a battlefield spell which provides with one-way total concealment for the entire group. The spell is already not used as intended.
I would think "specific trumps general" applies here. The spell is more specific. It says how it interacts with creatures, and makes no exceptions for incorporeal creatures.
Even if the "specific trumps general" rule was anywhere in the CRB, how can you define that "a spell description is more specific than a creature's special quality"?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
it's certainly beyond the intended power level to make it a barrier against some of the [...] creatures in the Bestiary
I refuse to make any assumption regarding the thoughts of the author when he wrote the description of the spell. I am interested in what the spell actually does instead of what it is supposed to do.
Don't get me wrong: I understand your position. I just don't buy it and I have no interest in argument. That's why I FAQ'ed the OP.
Incorporeal creatures cannot pass through force effects and Tiny Hut is a force effect. How the spell affects physical creatures and objects does not seem relevant.
Even if another party member can cast it, I would still pick wall of stone with a sorcerer... Anyway, you might also appreciate prying eyes for scouting or telekinesis for its versatility.
If you think you'll need teleport so badly, just buy a couple of scrolls (or scrolls of greater teleport: you automatically succeed at your CL check with 1d20+12 vs DC13 as there is no automatic failure for rolling 1 on CL check).
SM VI is indeed a very versatile spell, but I think it's still a 2nd pick for a sorcerer: Greater Dispel Magic is really a must-have.
I agree with andreww on the archery style.