Dragonslie's page

124 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

just a note.

You've done a great job so far but...

Emrikol,unless you are house rulling it, can not have spell perfection twice. as the feat does not state you can take it multiple times, you can only take the feat once.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Mage armor is beyond what a 1st level spell should do in my opinion, it is compensating for the wizard's lack of armor, the spell would be better if it was personal only, or had a shorter duration cast on anyone else besides your familiar. Some spells are just too good for their level, mage armor is one of them, not a big deal, just not a good spell to compare other spells and effects to when estimating powerlevel.

DEFINATLY NOT.

its about where it needs to be. Do you think the "fighter" starting out is NOT going to buy armor so the mage can "cast it".. When does MAGE ARMOR ever out perform any of the armors out there??

it doesn't.

It just works well with monk... and if a monk wants it that bad he can just take one level of wizard... There are plenty of boards here that say monks are under powered anywayz.

So how is it "to good' for first level???? when does it actually out perform any of the other armors available to anyone?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dust of dryness + a barrel of holy water.

Instant any undead kill.

Pick up pebble left behind. throw it at next undead (touch attack) follow immersion rules for holy water (20d6) per round while the holy water is covered on them...

Instant kill any 30th level lich ( they are wizards anywayz no HP... )

just make sure you have true seeing on :)


You should be comparing mage armor with a Chain shirt.

hence why it is balanced. mage armor at low levels is actually worse than a chain shirt.

it isn't until much later that mage armor is much better. (when Dex bonuses matter the most).

you are point at synergy between two classes and that is NOT a bad thing. it encourages team work and cooperative play which is very important in D&D.

hence why its actually not the best spell in the world, but its not the best. Actually I've always felt they needed to created BETTER mage armor spells. In my game i allow a mage armor spell every three spell levels with an increase of Plus 2 all the way to +10 for a 9th level spell slot.

I mean really +10 armor for a 9th level spell slot?? or even plus 6 for a third.. at 5th level whats better? fire ball or 6 armor bonus... seems pretty balanced to me. ( remember these are powers for the wizard to use)

its not just 'what is he gaining' its always 'what is he giving up'

while at 10th level i agree that a 1st level spell might not mean much.. think of ray of enfeeblement, thats one less of those...

not a deal breaker.

hence 1st Plus 4 3rd plus 6 6thth plus 8 and 9th +10


Seems to me that people are MAD serious about floating disk these days..........i WAS gonna say somethin ... but.. I def don't wanna get my head chewed off...

whew... floating disk and some serious mofo's in here.


I dug up the old adventure paths. Sounds like your on path one of 3.

that being said, i can now tell you the mechanic he is suppose to use.

the dragon has a 10 percent chance plus 10% chance every 6 hours of showing up, During this stage I believe you are suppose to be escorting refuges.

teleporting away from the dragon sorta of ruined things.... you have a TON of peasants with you and there are "combat" rules in the module for allowing you to deal with the dragon and 'drive" it away. Because of the story I can understand why it would "Hunt down" the party after dealing with the peasants.(its supposed to make 2 attacks vs the refuges, the PC's are suppose to hold it off while the refuges escape, and then the PC's are suppose to hide throughout the woods and escape.) at this point you should be using a hexagonal map and telling your DM which squares you would like to go into with the refuges.

That being said. At this point you've failed the Module. ask your DM for a "restart" from where you were suppose to escort the refuges.

(I know this is semi of a spoiler but knowing where you are in the game and what you are suppose to be doing should help you.)


cranewings wrote:

Your module sounds awesome.

I don't know if you know your dragon lance, but there are weapons in it called DRAGON LANCES.

If you GM is from the old school, ask him if you can use the 1e AD&D stats for them. They deal damage to dragons equal to your hit points. If not, don't bother - what you need is a dragon yourselves. Those are the two ways to beat a dragon in dragon lance.

Find a tower of high sorcery, use it to find out where the isle of good dragons is OR the relics you need to make a dragon lance. I recommend the former because the dragon could just steal the relics from you when you get them and building a lance takes time.

Do not take the bate on using a dragon orb is one shows up. The GM will screw you with it.

I've played and read the books. The dragonlances appear by advancing the story,

Movie plot spoiler:

as do dragon orbs,
good dragons re-appear
Kitiara offers the PC's an opportunity a chance to join.
The RED dragon is not meant to be defeated. If it was Vernindaads Red the PC's missed the only way to kill it. (Trick the great wrym red dragon who was the "caretaker of the children" into believing the other dragon was to kill her children) IMO if the DM screwed that up (as it was suppose to happen no matter what) im sorry. But as i recall the PC's are suppose to take the refuges from vernandaads keep to sancrist i believe.

TO BE HONEST If i knew where the very last plot thing happend I could tell you where you need to go back.


Ravingdork wrote:
Dragonslie wrote:

First KUDO's to your DM for running this correctly. Your running scared looking for a solution to this major dilemma (which is EXACTLY what the modual wants)

that being said the best thing you can do (without spoiling anything) is to try to find out what will advance the story, where do you need to go to advance the story...

think about it, your level 10. The dragon can cast limited wish as often as he wants with no repercussions. Do you really think you were meant to defeat this dragon right now???

Advancing the story will provide you with more options to deal with the dragon.

I wont ruin the REAL surprizes for you. Just be assured and have faith in your DM to run it correctly, advance the modual and the opportunity will present itself.

Kinda hard to advance the story when the story forces us to retreat backwards 50% of the time.

Focus on rumors.(again trying not to spoil it) also the pre-made chars are a little better for the game as each char would have brought something different STORY wise to the game and would have helped at this point as to where you needed to go, because each of the chars come from somewhere else. the original story (you've already started so the beginning wont spoil anything..is that a group of friends meet up in a tavern after being away for 5 years. The backstory of those 5 years actually helps with the modual as each Char has some small peice of the puzzle to help.(Example Raistlin know's about dragon orbs or at least read about them.)


First KUDO's to your DM for running this correctly. Your running scared looking for a solution to this major dilemma (which is EXACTLY what the modual wants)

that being said the best thing you can do (without spoiling anything) is to try to find out what will advance the story, where do you need to go to advance the story...

think about it, your level 10. The dragon can cast limited wish as often as he wants with no repercussions. Do you really think you were meant to defeat this dragon right now???

Advancing the story will provide you with more options to deal with the dragon.

I wont ruin the REAL surprizes for you. Just be assured and have faith in your DM to run it correctly, advance the modual and the opportunity will present itself.

ALSO, after the adventures i HIGHLY recommend reading the books. and the serious DIRECTLY after the dragonlance series is AMAZING (TIME OF THE TWINS TEST OF THE TWINS) and MAGIC of KRYNN while short stories adds so much insight into the game world. (I still have these books from 1990 and re-read them every few years.)

sorry about the formatting the CTR button sticks which means sometimes the page reloads and I miss my typing...Which means to save my typing it is easier to space some stuff out, or type in word format and transfer over.


Jason S wrote:
magicalme1 wrote:

Surprise Spells

At 10th level, an arcane trickster can add her sneak attack damage to any spell that deals damage, if the targets are flat-footed. This additional damage only applies to spells that deal hit point damage, and the additional damage is of the same type as the spell. If the spell allows a saving throw to negate or halve the damage, it also negates or halves the sneak attack damage.

Normally one would think to apply this too higher level AOE spells but if you apply it to a quickened intensified magic missile things get pretty crazy. In a past thread I created everyone agreed that an intensified magic missile probably allows the caster to create two more magic missiles than the regular version. So since surprise spells gets around the restriction that only spells that require attack rolls can get sneak attack damage we can get in about 14 attacks per round that cannot miss. So assuming our target has no spell resistance or that we pass every spell penetration check a 1oth level arcane trickster can very easily deal 14d4 + 98d6 force damage. I'm not aware of anything that can top that.

You got an official ruling already and the fact is, it's very unclear how to handle it, therefore you're going to get many different replies.

My personal houserule would be to say you can't even use it with magic missile. Why? Because in the spell description it says:

"Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out"

Sneak Attack damage is precision damage, and with precision damage you need to damage vital areas, which means you need to attack specific spots. This is why Magic Missile can't crit and it's also why Sneak Attack should never apply to MM.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 (i'd vote this post of the day.)

now if we could only explain damage cap??

well lets start with 3.5..

damage cap is limited in D6's (need a 3.5 DMG "spell creation")

these are what are "known as damage caps"(created as a guide for spell creation)

it is 5D6 to lvl 2
10D6 to lvl 4
15D6 to lvl 6
20D6 to lvl 8
and 25D6 to lvl 9

(notice how the spells follow that?????)

magic missile does not follow this.

hence it has no 'damage' cap.

Damage cap almost always applies to "AOE" spells(there is only 3 spells in the game that breaks this FIRE SEEDS (druid only and SHOCKING GRASP,and POLAR RAY(THAT I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW)..

(Notice disintegrate has no damage cap(2D6 PER LEVEL)? finger of death(ORIGINALLY SAVE OR DIE)??( scorching ray(4D6 on independent rays)? and magic missile(1d4+1) thats because they do not follow the "damage cap" rules in 3.5

this is what meta magic is 100% based off of.

example

Empower spell. (*1.5 damage)

empowered fireball 5th level spell = 10D6 * 1.5 = 15D6
Cone of cold = 15D6
average damage? = SAME

Magic missile is missile dependent not damage dependent.(it does not max out at 5d6)

scorching ray is ray dependent not damage dependent.(it does not max out at 5D6)

FIREBALL is DAMAGE dependent (maxes out at 10D6)

Cone of cold DAMAGE DEPENDENT(maxes out at 15D6

Shocking GRASP damage dependent(THIS ONE OF THREE ODD BALL NON-AOE DAMAGE DEPENDENT SPELLS IN THE GAME its 1st level and requires a MELEE touch attack,something only done at 1st level usually and rarely even ever then)

Do you notice what ALL these spells have in common???? they all cap out with the "damage caps" SET IN 3.5 for spell creation.

NOTE: other spell casters have their "damage caps" decreased by 5 dice per level. (IE CLERICS damage cap is 20D6 at 9th not 25D6)

and that is what they are talking about for 'damage caps'

its an ACTUAL MECHANIC NAME in 3.5 for spell creation.

THATS WHY MM wont work... (there happy for the technicality of it??)

IF pathfinder had not assumed that every player of pathfinder was a 3.5 DM or long term player it would have saved itself a crap ton of headaches. Its so far along now it REALLY IS a game separate from 3.5. the ONLY book i've found comparable with minimal adjusting is the magic item compendium.


was it a hickman/weis adventure converted from a second edition adventure.

This sounds AWFULLY like an adventure I went through 20 years ago...

The object is NOT to kill the dragon actually... The object really is TO RUN. and RUN... and RUN.(as i recall)

i believe one of the FEW ways to kill it is to obtain a dragon orb at the clerist tower.

(as i remember this is an adventure path designed to take the players through the dragonlance novels as the players)...

( if that is the campaign and your DM allowed you to play other chars and moved stuff around..... sorry...)

BUT... in the actual campaign, (from 2nd ed) the way you won was to allow sturm brightblade to die on the high clerist tower while the rest of the group finds a dragon orb inside the clerist tower.

the clerist tower is actually a trap for dragons.

hope that helps..

if it is really a 3.0 - 3.5 modual. that is a 9 Level diffrence. you honestly SHOULD NOT be able to overcome up..

interesting though... I just killed a party member in a EL 15 party with an ANCIENT BLACK dragon CR 16...

this guy is putting CR 19 dragons against EL 10...

my only REAL question is..

WHY ISN"T THE PARTY DEAD????

your lucky i didn't create/design the dragon and run it...

after reading the part about fizban... let me guess...

he went up in a poof of chicken feathers??????

yup same adventure..

high clerist tower...( You should have had the nightmare dream by now which should have hinted at each char's destiny)

oh.. and whoever has raistlin... city of palanthis..(THIS IS IMPORTANT)... (THAT SHOULD HAPPEN WHILE everyone is at the high clerist tower and the other half is in the sea.... (the high clerist tower is north of palanthis as i recall the "lady" in "blue" should be there... Skie is the dragon you will have to worry about. the dragon orb takes care of the red.)


Im just going to go ahead and suggest the op read "Iron Heros" 3.5 supplement. Update it. and run that campaign setting.

Problem and headach fixed.


If the wizard only expends 2 spells a day do you honestly think

the fighter types would not be able to over come the encounter

fairly easy????????

I'd be willing to bet the fighter types do just fine without the

wizard. So what is the problem?????

In my game i use VARIED monsters. and i run them as effectively

as i can based off of the monsters intelligence.

example in my game there was DRAGON A. The pcs dispelled it,

enervated it, feebleminded it, polymorphed it. -- alot of fun for

the wizard pc's

with dragon B -- he powerword BLINDED the two major casters in

the group. One had a potion of cure blindness the other didnt. he

came back. and was able to contribute to the paladin and eldrich

knight winning the day.

DRAGON C -- this one was nasty. Started out with mage armor,

shield, displacement, heroism, deathward, protection from

spells,in a liar with unhallow with protection energy cold ( it

was a red dragon....)

hmm.... lets see.. cone of cold is out?? crap...try

enervate..didnt work.... dispell magic... ok good that worked...

wait its flying away into the darkness... it comes back 4 rounds

later.. breaths again... defenses back up????( its a sorc has

tons of spell slots...) ... PC's start over...

after they ran the dragon AND them selves out of "enervate" etc

etc.. they got the hint...when the dragon flew away and USE A

SCROLL OF GREATER RESTORATION. combined with a scroll of heal...

and the paladin getting beat up something fierce.. the group

finnally realized... maybe they needed blaster caster...

and blaster caster isn't what won the day... but it

CONTRIBUTED... it was the entire GROUP TOGETHER that it took to

bring the beast down. One caster did lightning bolt and flew out

of its range, the other cast ray of enfeeblement, the paladin

readied an attack against it as it fly by attacked, it went

toward the wizards, the cleric cast blade barrier to protect

them.. ( see????? wizards own??? this APL was 17 they were 14....It pretty much what a APL+3 should be..

Just think "how would this monster think and react??" save or suck??? maybe after it realizes what it is it flees only to come back.

PC's in my game hate that monsters almost always try to get away if hey are intellegent... they hate it more when they come back prepared....."thats a white dragon running away WE GOTTA GET IT NOW!

just recently the paladin had a humbling experience.... at level 15 he challenged a shaughan tribe leader to a duel... the leader swam away after being smited and brought back a CR 13 pet....FROGHEMOTH... after his smite failed, he got swallowed whole, and the beast started to turn around the wizards looked SHOCKED that he was about to be taken away as lunch... yup.. the wizards saved his BUTT that time.. but trust me... he's saved theirs PLENTY of times.

thats the point... wizards aren't over powered...It took 6 HIGH LEVEL spells to end this thing when it was half dead from the paladin. THATS 3 WIZARDS trying to kill this thing. The paladin only hit it 4 times and did half its life, without smite evil!

wizards just fill a certain role.... in all honesty, there are certain monsters wizards are just better at dealing with and vice verse. just vary your monsters.


It is extraordanary,

Everyone I know house ruled it to SU. Including me.


I just realized at 20th level I could have Done MORE... but im tired I'll post a higher DPR than 418 tommorrow.


Glutton wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
james maissen wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


Because the rays created by this spell don't all fire at the same time. At least, I don't see them as firing all at the same time. They fire in rapid succession, one after the other.

Aren't we talking about Scorching ray here?

Scorching ray wrote:
The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.

3.5 had rules for firing volleys (specifically for the old tome and blood orb spells, but also for scorching ray) that disallowed multiple sneak attacks from spells that fired volleys.

I'd suggest that Pathfinder consider adopting this for similar reasons.

-James

Well then!

The rays DO fire simultaneously, which is not something I knew they did (turns out, I don't have the core rules memorized!).

In light of this development, I probably would let all of those rays do sneak attack damage.

Still... the GM gets to make the final call.

JJ I would like to point out that this was ruled several times in 3.5, including the rules compendium, that things like manyshot, scorching ray, meteor swarm etc could not benefit from multiple sneak attacks because they where generated simultaneously. I suppose to the logic was its hard to fit 6 keys into a keyhole at once if you get my drift, where as a full attack you put the key in 6 times one at a time.

this is NOT 3.5 I would like to point out.


chavamana wrote:
Dragonslie wrote:


remember... wish is EXPENSIVE.(in other words its not really important until MUCH MUCH later in the game) and allowing a player 1 wish a year isn't a deal breaker if you start at low levels.
The genie's wish isn't expensive - it's a spell-like ability. No monetary cost. That said 1 wish/year isn't a deal breaker in MOST games.

If you are going to put it into a BASE race. it needs the material component cost.

example 1st level.

"I wish for 25,000 GP"

he would get it. 25,000 GP is the cost limit for the wish to create.

Hence why for a BASE race I would include the 25,000 GP material component as part of the spell like ability IF players are able to play it as a "noble" genie.


3 rogue / 3 wizard / 6 arcane trickster

(magical talent knack)

(rogue talent Surprise attack)

items: Meta magic rod quicken (lessor)(dust of disappearance foils true seeing) ( only items i need)

surprise round quicken scorching ray scorching ray (9D6 per ray)(27d6)

RD 1 Move action dust of disappearance quicken scorching ray scorching ray (9d6 per ray )27D6

END ROUND 1

ok lets do the math for DPR.

h(d+s)+tchd. = (.95(touch attacks?)(42 + 52.5 ) + .5*2*.95*42)= 129.675*2(counting surprise round im a rogue

DPR = 259.35 ( DPR after round 1 )

at level 20 same items

same items.

Surprise round quicken acid scorching ray 12d6 + 8d6 sneak polar ray 19D6 + 8d6 Sneak

RD 1 same tactic 12d6 +8d6 + polar ray 19d6 +8d6

90D6 if all hits.(could be 94 with magical talent knack)
106.4
h(d+s)+tchd. === (.95(217 + 112)+ .5*2*.95*112)(already doubled figures for surprise round) =

DPR == 418.95 ( Good by great Wrym red dragon.)


those are WAY better than the base races.

I think you need to look at the base races and see the sort of things they receive and try to compare them to that. base races with "Invisiblity" and such could be equal to a CR 1 or 2 pick up.(example noble drow)

also base races never have abilities that scale. templates however do.

I think your best bet would be the races from the bestiary 2. (rename them) don't let the players see them and just call them jani, genie, effriet etc etc based on element. Its not the 'abilities; or what you call it its how you make it sound.

Also if you go that route I would remove the madrid and genie and jani and effriet as written in the beastiary 1 and use those races instead to create continuatlity and this way the players don't feel jipped. (make NPC's use these races) If you want the wishes just say NOBEL of the races have the wish ability. ( and add wish to a spell like ability 1 time per year) and keep it a DM thing.

If a PLAYER wants to play one... let them.. just mention that they have to pay the expensive material component cost (should be hard to obtain that all the way up to 17 if you keep treasure correctly). Just make sure all players have that option.

remember... wish is EXPENSIVE.(in other words its not really important until MUCH MUCH later in the game) and allowing a player 1 wish a year isn't a deal breaker if you start at low levels.


I read the FIRST post and immediately stopped.

I believe you need to read the "game mastery guide" with the section on item creation. It basically re-hashes all the 3.5 themes about which formula's to use.

mage armor as a spell on an item is not technically allowed. It really would be covered under 'armor bonus' PLUS taking up the wrong slot +50% PLUS increased base item +50%

(just to give an idea)

Shield spell is fine...

lets do the math (7 LVL caster(min caster level for forge ring) x 1(Spell level)) * 2000)*4(rds per level spell)*.7 = (7x1x2000)x4).7= 36,000 for all day shield.

yes.. shield spell all day is 36,000 if ONLY used by a wizard.(sounds like a fair price to me...)

(If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.)

So shield spell ALONE costs 56,000 times .7 = 36,000 GP now to ADD on an ability it is 1.5 times MORE 55,600 GP (thats just for a ring of shield and another effect...)

thats just ONE EFFECT!!!

also.. why did you .7 in between the creation process?? your math smells of math errors when it comes to creation.

your sort of taking the stance that mindblank usable once per day on an item is different from a continuous effect therefore costs less..

WRONG..

READ THE GAME MASTERY GUIDE please.. it will help you in determining which formulas to use.


Skaorn wrote:

Edit: Wow was I Ninja'ed

I can say that, if I had been playing a character for 3 years who was a devoted follower of a god that inspired the character to become a Paladin only to encounter that god and found them... lacking, I'd see that as a good reason to have the character retire. My faith has been proven false, the afterlife I was hoping for is out of reach and probably not desired now anyways. I'd see this as a good reason to retire.

Now, as a player, I might not give my DM my entire train of thought on why I'm retiring the character, especially if I think they might take it badly. "I'm retiring my charcter because my god is an @#$..." could be taken as an insult towards their DMing by some. Just because you have insight into a player doesn't mean you know everything going on in his or her head. I've been playing with many of the same people for over a decade and we still surprise each other all the time.

the player and I have known each other a VERY long time. and when he said He lost faith in his god i agreed, and even said he was right, But at the end of the day everyone in my group agreed that the GOD in question would probably try to LIVE and this is the aftermath.

after I explained to him that the char could become a "true becon of good" he realized that the char prob wouldn't abandon the quest.

the point is that he stood up to the god for what the char believe was the TRUE good and TRUE law.

so in essence she lost her powers because of what she believed in. (He didn't mind that because as he said what could he ask for thats the ONLY way a paladin fail, believing what she believes in.)

and that why i was somewhat upset about it. If she believes in this so much why would she not go on the quest that VALIDATES her beliefs.

the REALLY cool part is when i mentioned that just starting the quest would probrobly allow him an aspect of his power back, he refused saying he wanted to "earn them' back.

we also agreed once this transformation is complete to an independent paladin from a god, she would never be dependent on the gods for her powers.(A first for anyone in any of the games I've played or DMed.)

so yes interesting interesting.

I have another friend who is coming tommorrow. Since the party is PL 15 im going to allow him to play the black dragon. He hasn't decided if he would play it or not but if he does it will be interesting. The CR of the dragon is 15. ( He DM's other games for long periods so i have no problems with this) and the other players I do not believe will mind. Knowing it is an NPC.

onto the copper dragon :) ... straight out of the book... or...Should i change it? any suggestions or arch tpes you guys wanna throw at me?


I made a bard that was 5 levels of duelist ( to max ac )

combine that with combat expertise , sword of defense, monks robes, .. ( get the picture yet?)

at level 16 It had an AC of something like 48

best part.. singing as a "swift action" made up the combat expertise losses with the bonuses to attack :) sure i only hit on a 16 or 17 sometimes... but honestly most times it was 13 plus to hit.

AND... they ALWAYS needed a 20 :)


on to other news. I Spoke with the player today, and he agreed that playing the character and the ability to find 'Inner strength" is something she would probably do. and that gaining the abilities back over a period of time by "doing something that shows conviction" is an appropriate way to handle this.

Thanks to all...

Now.... to see how he handles a copper good dragon coming after the party.....


Gignere wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Also, per doubling rules...larger items double in weight with a size increase, they don't follow physics.

Plus, Large is x2, Huge is x3, Gargantuan is x4 and Colossal x5, not 2,4, 8, 16 and 32. Look at Giants and Titans.

So a Colossal Arrow is probably about 15 feet long, just about right for a 30' tall creature. Granted, it SHOULD weigh 125 times as much as a normal arrow, but by the rules I believe it only weighs 16 times as much, doubling at each size increase. I guess bigger stuff isn't porportionally thicker, or something.

==Aelryinth

I don't think arrows in PF will be half the body length of someone. It can be if this was arrows for an English Longbow, but PF doesn't distinguish between short bow arrows or long bow arrows. To fit a shortbow, arrows would be about 2 feet or 1/3 the body length.

For a Colossal creature 30' tall perhaps 10' arrows, which would let it fit in a portable hole.

I agree with you about 100 times in weight but the weapon weight rules in PF defy physics.

this is entirely WAY to into it.


enrious wrote:
Dragonslie wrote:
But by abandoning attempting to " prevent the gods from warring" which is his ENTIRE REASON for telling the god NO. pretty much goes against EVERYTHING and the very REASON and CORE of the char.

Funny thing.

The DM doesn't get to determine what the "REASON and CORE" of the characters is - that's solely the player's discretion.

he played the CHAR for 3 years. You don't think that gives the DM ANY insight over the char's values???????

thats a foolish statement.


Aelryinth wrote:

Anyone who tries to argue that Magic Missile does not do more damage as you go up in level at a predictable rate is fooling themselves. The fact that the damage manifests as more missiles is a delivery vehicle, like saying 'burst' is the delivery vehicle for a fireball. It's still going up by every 2 levels in damage potential, which is what the spell is looking at. 'extra missile' is irrelevant to what the feat is looking for.

It is looking for "damage" not vehicles sorry YOUR INCORRECT.

It also raises the damage cap, not the level cap. So an Intensified Magic Missile is a 2nd level spell that is worthless until level 11, when it deals 6 dice of damage, and it maxes out at 10 dice at level 20...always less damage then a Scorching Ray.

SEE ABOVE. 10 dice FORCE DAMAGE is much better than 12 dice FIRE damage.

Note that Intensify and Spell Mastery would still be useless for Magic Missile...adding another 5 dice to the damage cap means you would have to be level 21 to start adding another missile, and is beyond normal levels of play.

SPELL MASTERY IS USEFUL but intensify would not work with magic missle

In short, an Intensified Magic Missile is perfectly balanced.

10 dice FORCE damage is much better than 12 dice FIRE damage. not balanced.

James' arguments are not coherent and following the rules re: Surprise Spell. He's arguing from a tacit DM 'problem spell' standpoint. That's not part of the feat or spell description. In effect, it's a House Rule.

I AGREE.

As Written, the spell grants SA dmg to anyone you hit with it during a surprise round...fireball, scorching Rays, magic missiles, evard's tentacles, ICE STORM, Reverse Gravity, telekinesis, whatever. The feat makes no special mention of damage type, hit roll required, saves requested, or anything of the sort. It implicitly is not limited to one target per spell, since it works with AoE's.

READ THE SPELL SECTION in core about SA and spells... SA's damage type is that of the spells type.

I don't have a problem with it. A first level spell doing Sneak Attack damage at that level is little different then a Rogue doing the same with a bow against flat footed opponents for even more damage dice.

And Magic missiles DO have to check against SR.

AGAIN see posts for magic missle.

Given that they hit simultaneously and are one spell, I'd note SA dmg once per target, exactly like a fireball, rather then once per missile, because that's the way the feat seems to...

SA does not check if it is a "volley" or a "all at the same time" it checks to see if a target is flat-footed when the attack roll is made. SEE MY ABOVE POST.


John Kretzer wrote:

I think...a possible solution to this is...SA and touch spells.

All spells that you SA with if you hit the targets normal AC (rather it is flat footed or not this would include flanking w/ melee touch spells) you get the SA dice on the damage...however if you only hit the touch AC you just do regular damage.

My problem with precision damage thru touch attacks if it is not precise...that is why it is easier. I mean how are you hitting a vulnerable part when hit a shield? Requiring them to hit their normal AC mean you are aiming it more precisy. But they don't loose out on the advantage of touch spells...they will do something.

I think I might use this as a house rule. What do other people think? Hey if Pazio want to steal it...I won't be upset.

If a DM wants to houserule this sort of thing i say no problem. If he wants to house rule ONLY THE FIRST shot i have no problem.

I DO HAVE a problem with a creative designer saying the rules state one thing when they OBVIOUSLY do not.


So let me get CoDzillas argument..

If i expend half of my spell slots i can overcome 3 encounters?

and if i cast nothing the fighters can overcome 3 enounters??...

so.. the fighters can overcome the encounters, wizards can overcome the encounters?..

oh..t he wizards do it in 1 round instead of 2...

not fair..

oh the fighters get "hit" and lose "HP"

just so people understand..... those 5 - 6 spells are the wizards resources..

those 100 HP the fighter loses... are his resources.... seems pretty on par to me.....actually considering..

100 HP loss ='s 1 heal spell. I'd say Codzilla has his economy of actions backwards.


Reckless wrote:

I just wanted to ask those who think they can "Break" high level play: Isn't that like taking a sledgehammer to a clock that is only right two times a day?

I'd be much more interested in someone's ability to turn high level play into old faithful or Big Ben.

currently running a 16th level game that started from level 1. No breakage yet.


But by abandoning attempting to " prevent the gods from warring" which is his ENTIRE REASON for telling the god NO. pretty much goes against EVERYTHING and the very REASON and CORE of the char.


James Jacobs wrote:
Dragonslie wrote:

"If you're popping out of stealth, you'd only get the sneak attack damage on the first ray of multiple rays on a single target, since he's only flat footed against your first attack; after that, even a split second later, he sees you and can react and isn't flat footed."

why would only the "first ray count" when popping out of stealth?? On surprise spells I would say yes. But why only the first when he would clearly be "flat footed" vs ALL rays.

Because the rays created by this spell don't all fire at the same time. At least, I don't see them as firing all at the same time. They fire in rapid succession, one after the other.

If your GM instead says they all fire at once... then sure... they would all gain the sneak attack in that situation. I've just always envisioned them as going one after the other because they increase in number as you get higher level, just like how your iterative attacks increase as you get higher level.

(shrug)

Both interpretations are legit. Only the GM gets to pick which one is legit at any one time.

And honestly... that goes for PFS play too. No two GMs are alike, and as a result, no two games will ever be alike. That's kinda the neat part.

The obsession with "all GMs must rule every single possible ruling exactly the same in PFS play" is a waste of energy. It'll never happen. Hasn't yet, for sure, and the PFS is still going strong. So it's not that big of a deal.

(end unexpected rant)

So your saying if i full attack with a bow only the FIRST one counts?

last i checked they all resolved ON the TURN they are shot. because they are shot on THAT turn... even if "they had a chance to react" in the end they are FLAT FOOTED to each attack. they LOSE their DEX. which is the only pre req that SA have.

them firing 'all at once" or 'as a volley" has no BEARING on whether or not they are flat footed..

still trying to see your logic.

first ray. is he flat footed? = YES

second ray. Is he flat footed?= check to see if flat footed.. did he act this turn? NO - flat footed = YES

third ray. Is he flat footed? = check to see if flat footed... Did he act this turn? = NO - Flat footed = YES.

ALSO what about the rogue talent surprise attacks in the first round they are considered flat footed even if they aren't. So same end result just by taking one talent.

your the creative designer if you don't like the rules change them. don't blame me for pointing them out, I mentioned this during beta and the thread was deleted immediately without a thought. I just started posting again since beta, cause i noticed less deletion of people posting who do not agree with the status quo.

how does your interpretation hold ANY water at all? IT DOESN'T. dont try to say the rules say something and bring up "3.5" when its not in pathfinder. you should know better than that. RAW states they are ALL SA.

So by your count... the touch AC goes up on the second and third ray????

with bows same thing?????

many shot is DIFFERENT because of its description.


TBH, if half the boards DM's say "wizards need to be nerfed"

and the other half says " they were nerfed enough in my game they aren't that big of a deal they are just like any other class."

and pathfinder went out of their way to fix the 'class"

what is the difference between group A and group B.

what is group B doing differently than group A?

considering group B isn't house ruling anything usually how come their wizards are not "out of control" ???

maybe that should be the topic.

"how can I DM to not make wizards own everything instead of making a house rule."

that should be the REAL question.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

Many people vehemently disagree with you dragonslie.

I spend a lot of time on these forums battling hard for the case that wizards are not far and away the most powerful class. More time arguing the same against full casters.

Needless to say, there are a lot of factors. It is very complex. Different people have different experience with the rules.

While you are not wrong in your own style-of-play, I would say more than half of posters here believe that the game is skewed in favor of full casters. Does that mean you are wrong? No. But I can expect a tidal wave of contradiction if you continue to make your case! :)

So, permit me to play the other side of the field for now: I have a wizard PC in my game who has dominated from level 3 onward. We vote for "MVP awards" at the end of sessions, and he routinely gets them.

In the end, I'm pretty sure the classes are balanced fine as they are, it just takes a pro-active GM to make certain that nothing gets skewed too far in one direction of the other.

but that's the point, if you read the rules DM's are suppose to be PRO ACTIVE.

Heck if you follow the rules for spells, and the gold chart and make sure pc's stay on par with gold of that level wizards actually have VERY LITTLE GEAR compared to other classes. Sorc's pose another problem as they can actually afford metamagic rods.. but lets be honest.. wizard is better just because of spell selection..

the point is.. i do not think its the class, but rather the DM and players that make it the way it is. If you look at saves and strategies of monsters at the higher levels i mean... dang dude.. in combat they just don't "got it" the way people think.

outside of combat ok sure they shine.. but so do rogue's

the point is I think alot of people had a bad 3.5 taste in their mouths and they truly do not realize how much the spells have changed.


WarColonel wrote:

I've just read every post in this long discussion, and now my 2 cp.

The paladin was acting in alignment. Falling because he chooses no to follow a morally gray command from his deity w/o explanation is not grounds for him to be stripped of his powers, in and of itself.

But, since in the campaign setting the paladin is granted his powers through his piety to his deity, his god has grounds to remove his patron-ship. The deity gave a command, and regardless of reasoning, the paladin disobeyed. So the paladin should have fallen.

But, since he was still acting within the purview of his alignment and code, I would, as others suggested, allow the paladin to draw power from a higher, 'truer' power source, his own conviction. He exemplifies what it means to be a paladin. Granted, one undergoing a moral and emotional crisis of faith.

Now, if the paladin doesn't try to be one anymore, such as quitting and retiring, I wouldn't give her any chance of regaining her powers.

If the player does decide to forge onward, she should receive he powers. I would go further and possible adapt parts of Complete Scoundrel's Gray Guard PrC and give her the flexibility of the code he PrC entails.

I honestly would have stripped her of powers, but I would definitely tell the player there is an excellent chance of regaining them by just trying to be a paladin.

this is exactly what i was going for (if you notice my previous posts about wanting to do this) the problem is the PLAYER just wants her to 'retire" and I just don't see how she would??? maybe he is just tired of playing the char?

in anycase Im probrobly going to NPC the paladin ( with his permisstion) and if it gets to the point where she gets her powers back im 99% certain he will then jump bandwagon back to the char...

this week..

Cooper dragons and how they are bounty hunting a good party.......(It needs to prevent them, as they are the destroyers of this realm!)

Black dragons.. and why they hate cooper dragons so much that it is going to try to HELP the party......(of course it wants the all the gods to fall)

Interesting that the party has a TON of mis-information, and i would believe 99% of both worlds would have the wrong information....

what happends when they all ACT on it?
He,He,He


"If you have a party and a 5th member is going to be a caster or a fighter you are generally better off taking the caster. A caster if it gets the drop on an entire party of the same level may still defeat that party. A fighter can not barring extreme cases of luck."

that is SOOO not true.

as to "taking out the caster" true.. but not because they cast spells.. but because they are easy to take out. one less person in the group is much more manageable and wizards are just easier... its the same at higher levels... force-cage the fighter round 1, finger of death the wizard round 1 why? because its easy. its economy of action.

5th level wizards do not take out entire parties???? one fireball is not going to kill of a paladin or fighter or monk or rogue. quicken spell isn't even an option at that level. sleep isn't even a good alternative.

at 1st level sleep isn't even a good alternative vs an entire party... what are the odds 1 you catch everyone 2 it works on everyone??

same goes for color spray...low level wizards are so far behind the standard it isnt even funny.

in fact if the campaign isn't going to high levels or at least 14 I don't know a single person who would play a wizard other than flavor...


Gorbacz wrote:
Can somebody ask Dragonslie to lay off the caffeine and fix that capslock?

BUT I LIKE CAFFEINE!!!!!!:):):)


James Jacobs wrote:
Dragonslie wrote:

ALSO James please read above post and confirm that was your thought. " on surprise spells" and flat footed.

ALSO.. imagine all this with greater invisibility + mind blank or 1 level of shadow dancer.

again.. theory craft... trust me this stuff rarely makes it into games.

Your GM should be the one you're worried about confirming rules, not me.

Just clarifying what you were saying here

"If you're popping out of stealth, you'd only get the sneak attack damage on the first ray of multiple rays on a single target, since he's only flat footed against your first attack; after that, even a split second later, he sees you and can react and isn't flat footed."

why would only the "first ray count" when popping out of stealth?? On surprise spells I would say yes. But why only the first when he would clearly be "flat footed" vs ALL rays.


LazarX wrote:
Davor wrote:


Here's the thing. As written, Intensify increases the dice damage dealt by a spell. However, Magic Missile adds MISSILES as it increases, not dice. As such I would say that one cannot Intensify Magic Missile. Also, a 10th level Arcane Trickster would have 7d6 Sneak Attack dice, due to the 2d6 prerequisite.

Reread the feat. What intensify does is raise the level cap on damage by 5 provided one actually as the caster levels to meet that raise. (So in the case of magic missle you would have to be a 10th level caster) In magic missle's case it adds 3 missles. If you're a 15th level caster it would raise the damage cap on Lightning bolt to 15d6.

Magic missle is not a "damage cap" it is an increase in "missles" NOT DAMAGE.

hence it does not work


LazarX wrote:
magicalme1 wrote:


Quote:


You're a level 15 spellcaster spending a sixth-level and a second-level spell each round against seven flat-footed opponents to get 2d4 + 14d6 damage to each of them. This is not impressive.

I don't see why each missile couldn't target the same creature.

They can all be targeted on the same creature. However you can only get sneak attack damage ONCE on each creature per SPELL cast.

Almost every case of someone "breaking" high level play comes from imperfect reading of the rules.

That is correct with SURPRISE SPELLS.

With scorching ray and flat footed opponents it is PER RAY.


http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/didIJustBreakHighLevelPathfinder&page=2#65

Please see this thread about arcane trickster. I point out some "broken stuff" but int he end.. i NEVER see it played.

also, I do not feel wizards need to be "nerfed" I played in games where wizards are nerfed..

wanna know what happends? NO ONE PLAYS A CASTER, (and players quit games)

if that is what you want you might as well just say "no casters allowed"

also the MOST powerful class in the game IMHO is the PALADIN.

if you look at the PALADIN vs the ENVIRONMENT it is literally the best class.

honestly what is the difference between a wizard killing the dragon on round 1 VS a paladin full attacking the dragon in round 1 and killing it?

and in my game I allow the magic item compendium.. imagine a paladin with a belt of battle???!! or adding that ability to a different item slot?!

how about that for "disparity"?? TRUST ME wizards do not need to be Nerf.. if you want to close the disparity just allow a belt of battle,

trust me that FULL ATTACK OPTION by a PALADIN smiting is WAY better than a wizard with 3 spells. Ive seen Mature CR 15 red dragons fall to a paladin faster than a wizard with the party being EL 13 with a paladin with that item.

AND WITHOUT that item trust me the paladin does insane damage.

so comparing the CLASSES vs MONSTERS NO the wizard is not "more powerful"

you might say " but we cant hit the wizard he flies" well about this.

If the wizard is EVER HIT or GRABBED he is probably going to die.

( as for knowing monsters good saves or chars good saves)

that is ABSURD. rouges in my game say "im a fighter" no bluff roll needed." all the other casters other than wizards have TWO good saves usually fort and will.. ( oh imagine that all the game ending spells are fort and will... I WONDER WHY)

99% OF THESE wizards are to powerful are probably because some DM decided that wizards at 6th level should have +4 headbands, and do not read spell descriptions all the way.

all this talk about "black tenticals being over the top,or that spell being over the top" TBH since pathfinder has fixed them I haven't played a SINGLE game and have that be the case.

I've had wizards use enervate for 4 rounds and then hit monsters with poly morph.. ok sure.. but I've seen that SAME tactic FAIL. when the awesome dragon has DEATH WARD.


ALSO James please read above post and confirm that was your thought. " on surprise spells" and flat footed.

ALSO.. imagine all this with greater invisibility + mind blank or 1 level of shadow dancer.

again.. theory craft... trust me this stuff rarely makes it into games.


Gignere wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Gignere wrote:

James since you are here, can you sneak attack with the hurl ability of telekinesis?

Imagine Perfect Spell Quicken Telekinesis + Telekinesis and you are hurling 30 gargantuan arrows.

That would be 90d6 + 30 x Sneak attack damage.

Med arrows do 1d4 under telekinesis
Large 1d6
Huge 1d8
Collosus 2d6
Gargantuan 3d6.

That's a pretty hard core bit of rules manipulation... but why are you throwing arrows when you could have cast flaming arrow on them? That'd up your damage by another 30d6, after all.

In addition, at the point you're doing 90d6 damage... adding sneak attack damage at that point is pretty much pointless.

In any case, since you're at minimum a 20th level character (rogue 3/wizard 7/arcane trickster 10) in order to pull this off... I'd be fine with that. What would annoy me isn't the damage you're doing, but the fact that you'd be forcing the game to a halt in order to roll that many dice. 30 attack rolls in a round is kinda lame.

If someone pulled this in my game, I'd just ad-hoc it to be an area effect attack that does 20d6 damage to all creatures in the area of effect. Not to reduce the damage, but to speed things up.

James I don't think you need to be an Arcane Trickster to do this. Same for rays spells, you can sneak attack as long as the spell requires an attack roll as long as you are within 30 feet.

The minimum level would be a 9 wiz/6 rogue to get Spell Perfection and fifth level spells. Also you don't want to cast flame arrows because you want to use them again by using gargantuan durable arrows;). (I am cheapo irl and when I roleplay)

Of course you can cast Greater Magic Weapon on them for more damage too.

but what if the caster only targets one thing??? or goes down the line..

why not just say " X creatures die" ....

again.. this would VERY RARELY turn up in a game.


Sarrion wrote:
where do you keep all those gargantuan arrows??

quiver of Elana :)) hahahahahhahaa


ANOTHER interesting thing..

its these threads that people take and say "WIZARDS NEED TO BE NERFED!!!""

BUT HONESTLY... i VERY RARELY see this play out in a game....


James Jacobs wrote:

I'd rule scorching ray would do additional sneak attack damage per ray, honestly. But ONLY if the target is flat footed.

Treat multiple scorching rays on a single target the same way you'd treat a full attack action on a single target, in other words.

If you're popping out of stealth, you'd only get the sneak attack damage on the first ray of multiple rays on a single target, since he's only flat footed against your first attack; after that, even a split second later, he sees you and can react and isn't flat footed.

If you're hitting a target before he goes in combat or while under greater invisibility, all of the rays count.

Since scorching ray, unlike magic missile, uses a damage type (fire) that's actually often reduced by resistances, and since you DO have to make an attack to hit (however easy that attack might normally be), it's not nearly as gross to let all the rays be viable surprise spells, in other words.

RAW states you are flat footed until you act so TECHINCALLY...

rd 1 SURPRISE ROUND SCORCHING RAY quickend STANDARD ACTION ONLY scorching ray. 60D6

RD 2 initiative repeat ( COMBINE WITH SURPRISE ATTACH ROGUE TALENT)

so TECHNICALLY. ON ROUND 1 120 d 6 OF ELEMENTAL DAMAGE. USING RAW.

EDIT: USING SURPRISE SPELLS: you are correct ONLY THE FIRST RAY would consider him flat footed.

so round 2: SURPRISE SPELLS scorching ray = 22 D6 Damage

So in 2 rounds of combat 142 D6 Average Dmg 497 DMG

(its interesting that damage dealing arcane trickster is probably the MOST broken of the casting classes, combine this with the ability to choose the damage element with a few feats..and now we are cooking with gas.)

oh wait.. minor globe of invulnerability...


In a 15 - 16th Level game, I have 3 wizards.

They are going to be OWNED by 5th level Orc WARRIORS and you want to nerf them??/

TRUST ME when i say this. they do NOT need nerfing.

fact ALMOST ALL high level monsters have ALL good saves.

fact IF THEY DO NOT have all good saves they have good FORT AND WILL saves.

the best encounter a friend of mine went through he will remember for ever.

he feebleminded the BBEG. and the DM let it work when he failed the roll.

alot of DMs would say " I wouldn't have let that happen some how"

but i want to point out that to this DAY that one player remembers that and always will...

The BBEG if it is the end of campaign BBEG should have MANY defenses and mostly all good saves. If it is just a BBEG, I have no problem with a 5%-70% chance that the wizard owns it. It just adds to a players enjoyment.

In a well ran game some encounters the fighters will have to over-come and the wizard will have to play battle field control, in others the wizard will have to shine the win through.

Believe me after running pathfinder from 3.5 - beta - core.

If wizards are so over powered how come 32 advanced template 5th lvl warrior orcs with supreme cover are going to own 3 wizards????

Trust me its all in DM prep not the class.

Do not go by the theory of "this class does this vs this class does this."

Go by how the classes handle encounters.


Davor wrote:

Agreed, Scorching Ray is definitely the way to go in regards to Arcane Trickster damage. Since we can count on more touch-range spells being added in Ultimate Magic for the Magus, I'd be willing to bet Arcane Trickster will be able to benefit from it as well.

Along the same vein, though, you could do Quickened Magic Missile/ Normal Magic Missile and still add the sneak attack damage twice to the same creature without missing.

Alternatively, you could do so with Intensified Fireballs, Lightning Bolts, and all sorts of other spells to really make them work well. Yeah, it requires that opponents be flat-footed, but with so many stealth options available to a Rogue with Arcane Spellcasting, getting Flat-Footed opponents shouldn't be a problem (Grease, anyone?).

I've always loved the idea of an arcane trickster, but I never seem to get to a high enough level to make one work.

Edit: I also just realized that Magus actually works REALLY well with Arcane Trickster. You could potentially full-attack from a flank (while invisible, of course), get off your melee attacks for sneak attack damage, and then throw down a melee-touch Scorching Ray on top of it, and STILL be able to use a quickened Scorching Ray if need be. Combine with Haste for more fun.

Edit**: Actually, why not use Ninja/Magus/Arcane Trickster? You get the ability to go Invisible without using up spell slots, the nifty Ki pool, and Spell Combat.

If your playing arcane trickster and MISSING with scorching ray, you've built it wrong... there is NO way you miss save on a nat 1


Just checking because I have the APG and was intending that the red dragon be an ABJURE using the counterspell sub school.


I know of a better spell than magic missle.

In a game i was in a char did this as a sorc.

Quicken scortching ray, scorching ray. ( using elemental spell to change to acid or electricity, which ever was better)

ok.. break down

3 rays per spell 2 spells = 6 rays.

6d6 sneak atttack 4d6 for ray for total of 10D6

6 rays = 60D6

60D6 against flat footed opponents.

( and you think magic missle is the way to go)

that averages out to 210 HP

oh touch attack??.. yea.. who misses those at higher level, not to mention the Dex bonus to touch????..yea no brainer

Combine spell push + spell pen + Greater spell pen + robes of arch magi and your set on SR.

die BBEG die.


So I want to create a great wyrm red dragon that casts as and OBTAINS WIZARD special abilities. (for flavor reasons)

question. If i transfered all of its sorc CL INTO wizard CL and allowed it wizard sp abilities (NOT extra feats just school powers, bonded item, or familier)

What would the increase in CR be??

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>