Captain Elreth

Halfway-Hagan's page

Organized Play Member. 45 posts (46 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters.


RSS


Now with RegUSPatOff's example I see this as totally legal and do-able. Joe is using a movement action and not a 5 foot free step. Joe uses 10 ft of movement squeezing into Joan's space, then the player with the readied action interrupts once the space is clear, halting (temporarily) joes movement, moves into the now empty square, then joe continues his movement using another 10 ft of movement squeezing through the square he started in and using 5 ft of movement then going into the now vacant square that the readied action player started in. This is totally legal as long as joe uses 25 ft of movement (counting the extra movement penalty for squeezing.)


What the RAW states and this is where the contemplation began, is Person A wants to ready an action to move to Players B square when player B moves. They are adjacent to each other with no other spaces to move..Player B is behind Player A.

From what RAW says is that a readied action interrupts and actually is performed BEFORE the action that triggered it, so in essence..Player B has not moved yet since player A's triggered ready action will occur BEFORE player B's action. Now, you cant end your movement in a space occupied by another of the same size, since Player A would move into the still occupied space as player B and end his move, the move is not possible, remember, player B hasnt moved yet due to his action was interrupted by player A's triggered action.

So by RAW do you let them? I can see this being abused in larger tactical actions.


Race Boons I have:

Slyph
2 X Undine

Want:
Ifrit

Willing to trade 2 for 1


Its actually page 26 subnote 3 on the PP purchase chart.

Items purchased through Prestige points (like using 1 or 2 PP to make a free purchase) have a value of 0 gold.

Well if it has a value of 0 gold..then by the fame chart...you dont need any fame to make the purchase right?

:)


Spiritualist question for PFS ( I ask here for when I asked in the regular spiritualist forum I was told to ask the PFS folks)
What feats are available to the phantom? Player feats, monster feats...both? Can eidelon feats benefit the phantom?
The developer thought they might but didn't know the PFS take on it


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Halfway-Hagan wrote:
Also what all kinds of feats can you get for the phantom? Regular Player feats? Monster Feats? Both?
Regular play feats and monster feat if your GM or campaign allows.

And for PFS?


Also what all kinds of feats can you get for the phantom? Regular Player feats? Monster Feats? Both?


Question:
States Phantoms are treated as Summoned Creatures...would Augment Summoning Feat for the Spiritualist work for his phantom then?


Tels wrote:

Halfway-Hagan, something you're forgetting is that the 'touch AC' blasts all have to deal with elemental resistances, especially fire. Fire is the most commonly resisted element in the game, and the most common element creatures are flat-out immune to. That means a Pyrokineticist, as he exists currently, is the worst kineticist to be, because there will be many, many points in the game where his character is straight up useless in a fight. Then, to top it all off, he has to deal with Spell Resistance.

On the flipside, you have the 'normal AC' blasts, like with Geokinetics or Telekinetics. These guys don't have to worry about energy or spell resistance. However, they have to worry about normal AC, and damage reduction. This is huge for them as the class has no method of increasing its accuracy, outside of killing himself to do so via Feel the Burn. Nearly all of the builds shown made so far that I've seen, have the characters using, at best, a 60% hit chance with their non-touch AC blasts.

So, 40% of the time, the blast results in a miss, meaning no damage. Then, you have DR to deal with, and the physical blasts can't bypass DR (other than magic), with the exception of the Rare Metal Wild Talent and even then, that's only DR based off a metal material, like silver or adamantine. So a telekinetic picks up a sword an throws it at someone for 5d6+6 points of damage; only the creature has DR 10/good. So instead of 23 points of damage, he deals 13 points of damage, and, next round, he misses.

Archers deal with normal AC too, but the Archer is likely to hit with an 80% chance or higher on his first attack, and he has multiple attacks. Each attack may deal less damage than a single blast of the Kineticist, but, due to multiple attacks, their damage will be higher over-all. On top of that, as a weapon, it will bypass DR in more forms than the Kineticist will.

Will I do see this, these are the same issues a normal caster has to deal with, and though a some casters might be able to pump a larger alpha strike they cannot come remotely close to the sustained damage output of the Keneticist as they will run out of spells of that caliber and he never will. Over the course of an adventure this is huge. Every fight, every round in every room. No other caster can compare, as as far as SR and resistances, other casters have to deal with these as well. Is he an archer? No..but no one is. As I said before we all know no one punches damage like the archer classes sustained. But he does have more dynamic advantages in many situations that again can bring him close to par, but compared to other more pure casters...he leaves them in the dust I think.. Every round, every fight all night/session long he is pumping out respectable damage output. Other casters are limited by resources. None of them can do that. The psychic which looks to be a nice dps class is still limited bu spell slots, and once hes out...hes out. And if he casts at every enemy in every fight he will be out very very quickly. Not so with the kenetecist.

But those are my thoughts, we shall see how the play test in PFS goes. Things on paper sometimes dont translate to what happens in the game, so either side could prevail.


Theres also the thought that this caster can wear light armor which is nice. and unlike the archers he can move and do this every round, which an archer while pumping out good damage does more when they dont move for full round actions (the multiple attacks) and then thereis this caster can always cast defensively and blast and not provoke, where an archer has to move out of a foes reach (higher level it gets more and more that its not just 5 ft reach) without having to spend feats to shoot within threat and not provoke. You can sunder a bow, you cant sunder/disarm an archer but not the Kineticist, so theres more dynamics to it than just standing still and pumping out dice, AND an archer will be spending rescources on his gear (bow) to make things better, the kinetecist doesnt have to enchant a weapon to do so. But with all that said, the kinetecist appears to be a full caster type that can go well beyond ANY other caster in terms of sustained or burst damage. He has no equal..and I dont think that should have been the goal with this class.

But its just my opinion.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Halfway-Hagan wrote:

Have I missed something? Can the kineticist actually use its blasts forever, every round with no max use?

I keep looking for an update where it limits the amount per day or perhaps a resource points system.
At 7th level (just to pick one element) a fire Kietecist with a con of 16 seems to be able to chuck a 4d6+7 blast every round with no max usage , and its a ranged touch attack. This is the equivalent of a 6d6 attack...at 7th level....every round...forever.
This cant be right? Again, did I miss the limit? Perhaps it didnt download into my guide? Heck spend a little burn (2 points for blue flame) and now its a ranged attack doing 8d6 +14, this of course is equivalent to a 12d6 blast...again...7th level and he takes 14 points of non lethal.
Isnt this a bit much into the OP category?
No class should be pumping out these kind of heavy attacks (in relation to level) ranged touch every round forever with no limit.
I am thinking I have missed something or misread.
Please correct me.

The math has been done on it, and despite that sounding powerful, the Kineticist gets out damaged by an archer Bard or even an archer Expert.

But the archer bard or archer expert has to hit a real AC, not a touch attack..this balances how often the classes hit. But I agree archers are over the top, but we are putting other casters now even farther behind in the dps mechanic with this limitless blaster that will never run out of blasty spells no matter how much they use them. This to me is overshadowing the other casters. We have a few too many monsters as it is...flooding the playing field with even more just makes things worse. I mean of course in a home game this is completely not relevant as a GM can just say whoa! I guess my perspective is geared more to the PFS, where Powergaming tends to run a little higher (nature of the beast) and I just cant see how this is ok. Not even a 7th level archer pumps out a 12d6 attack even if that part is limited. But I really beleive if the Kintecist is only targetting touch, he will hit more often and thus even the playing field or surpass in sustained damage. This is just poo pooing on other casters to me. There needs to be a limit, or a rescource mechanic, they shouldnt be able to blast unlimited forever. No other caster in the game can do that.


Have I missed something? Can the kineticist actually use its blasts forever, every round with no max use?
I keep looking for an update where it limits the amount per day or perhaps a resource points system.
At 7th level (just to pick one element) a fire Kietecist with a con of 16 seems to be able to chuck a 4d6+7 blast every round with no max usage , and its a ranged touch attack. This is the equivalent of a 6d6 attack...at 7th level....every round...forever.
This cant be right? Again, did I miss the limit? Perhaps it didnt download into my guide? Heck spend a little burn (2 points for blue flame) and now its a ranged attack doing 8d6 +14, this of course is equivalent to a 12d6 blast...again...7th level and he takes 14 points of non lethal.
Isnt this a bit much into the OP category?
No class should be pumping out these kind of heavy attacks (in relation to level) ranged touch every round forever with no limit.
I am thinking I have missed something or misread.
Please correct me.


James Jacobs wrote:
Legend lore is a 4th level spell for a bard, so a bard could indeed make a wand of legend lore, and a wizard or sorcerer (or anyone else with legend lore on their spell list, regardless of where that spell appears) could use that wand.

What about a 1st level ranger who techincally doesnt have the spell class feature yet and thus has no spells? Could he use a wand (without a UMD check) with say Cure light wounds before 4rth level when he not only acquires the spell but the spell class feature?


Hi,
I have a question concerning the Fighter Archetype of the Archer and his trickshot of Sunder.
The common perception is that his damage is halved against objects he is sundering at range, because of what the CRB states on pg 174:

Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a seige engine or something similar - see pg 434). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.

I don't think this perception is correct due to this heading is under SMASHING an OBJECT on pg 173 Where it is in the second sentence:

Smashing an object is LIKE sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat manuever check is opposed by the object's AC.

But the first sentence of Smashing an Object states:

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat manuever (see chapter 8.)

Chapter 8 pg 201 Sunder 2nd paragraph:
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally.

The Archer when using the Trick Shot of Ranged Sunder is not using the smashing an item rules, he is using the Sunder rules just as if he had a mellee weapon, hence the use of Sunder and not simply smashing a weapon which ANY person with a ranged weapon could in fact do by the rules.
There are no rules prohibiting a character from using a weapon to smash, ranged or not, but they may not use the Combat manuever Sunder to do so at range. Only the Archer Archetype can do this. If he is the only one that can use this combat maneuver to do this, why would he not use the special Sunder mechanics as opposed to the normal Smashing an object rule? Not to mention he takes an additional -4 to hit when using the trick shot Sunder when if he was just using the Smash an Object rule, he wouldnt take that penalty?

Could you perhaps provide some light on this or a ruling perhaps?
Either way is good.

This is what is leading me to beleive that the Archer Archetype, when using his trickshot to sunder, and taking an additional -4 to hit, does not in fact halve his damage vs objects, but treats his damage normally as a mellee weapon for this purpose, doing full damage.

Thanks


I should over 80 but its reporting 50 and thats after reporting this afternoon. Down to 2 stars

Tito....hand me a tissue /cry


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
TGMaxMaxer wrote:

Ok... so since this is something I have to be able to point to from you Sean or the PDT FAQ in order to use it in PFS, as some GMs have been applying the penalty for firing into melee, but not allowing us to get the bonus to damage for things like point blank shot, Inspire courage, etc.

------------------
If a spell or ability requires an attack or ranged attack roll, even if it is not necessarily a ray, it takes the normal ranged attack penalties for firing into melee/cover, and also recieves any bonuses to damage that would apply (only applicable to hit point damage, not spells like enervation etc).
-------------------
Correct?
Yes, correct.

The problem I have with many of Sean's rulings is consistancy.

In one ruling he will point to the specified wording in the rules and state more or less "thats why the rule has to be this way" ie: Brass Knuckles in UE and monks not receiving their own damage but having to use the 1d3, but then like this ruling he completely ignores the specified wording in the books. In the CRB it specifically states that attacks made by ranged <weapons> into close combat receive a -4, not ranged attacks in general but only those made with weapons, and in the case of Point Blank Shot it states the same thing, shooting with or throwing ranged <weapons> receive a +1 bonus etc etc.
The way the rules are specifically worded, the -4 shooting into close combat only occurs with ranged attacks made by weapons, same with PBS.

The flip flop of why a rule is the way it is makes it exptremely difficult to know when to ignore the specific wording and when not to.


Scorpion Whip question:
"Sorry I can find if this one has been answered before"
Does a Scorpion whip have the same reach as a whip?

I would think it does since the only difference between a whip and a scorpion whip is a scorpion whip has metal blades attached to the end, but UE only lists as performance (which is illegal in PFS even though the whip itself isnt)

Thanks in advance :)


Except the samurai was an alternate class as well and now he has his own archtype the Sword Saint. With that example I once would have agreed about "alternate class" thing but not anymore since they set a precedence now with the samurai. So now I would look at it as; No, the Ninja stands alone. Not that he needs any help.


Rynjin wrote:
David Higaki wrote:

Honestly, I doubt it, for a couple of reasons.

1. Masterwork Transformation requires that the target have a masterwork equivalent. However, there's is not a masterwork unarmed strike. RAW, the spell would fizzle.

"This is the stated reason for why it doesn't work."

And I have already shown by the strict wording of the text in UE it could. UE simply states that Masterwork Transformation can turn any non masterwork weapon into a masterwork one. Forget the added wording in UM as we seemingly have to do in both APG AND Adventurer's Armoury in place of the new wording in UE. Obviously from the ruling we have received, it's all about the wording in UE and nothing else. Remember, my point here is not whether it should, but if Sean's explanation was based on a change of wording in UE and UE trumps all, then the new wording in UE also allows for this.
If his explanation is not based on wording, I would like to hear the reasoning for another nerf to the monk...and dont give me this its only the equipment that got nerfed, if they had let the equipment of knuckles stand as was the weakness that is inherint to anything but a defensive monk wouldnt be there as bad. And a monk cant go massive defense and go all out offense in the same build any more than most classes. The other classes have the option of different builds,each that are effective and valuable, so should the monk.
I would like to hear WHY the knuckles arent UA damage anymore. A cap on enhancements could have easily been placed on them, and even 3.5 had gloves that could be enchanted to provide weapon bonuses for monks...why not now. Why the extra hit?

And for the martial artists and boxers comparison, guys...Boxing IS a martial art, as is Sumo, olympian wrestling etc etc. They gave us AoMS but made it so its horrendously expensive and in a crappy slot. How about a ring? Much nicer....like the ring of invisibility comparison.

Remember, if it's about the wording...then UE trumps and UM is not relevant. Thats what I understood Sean to say in his explanation of the knuckles.


Well how about it Devs...can a monks unarmed strikes be enchanted like a manufactured weapon if they were first Masterwork ie: Masterwork Transformation, which under the Unarmed Strike of the monk in the CRB leads one to beleive they should be treated as manufactured weapons in relation to spells and effects that improve and or enhance the weapon?
And since UE states Masterwork transformation transforms any non masterwork weapon (like a manufactured one) into a Masterwork weapon....etc etc


Or, lol, come out and say that monks can be enchanted like a weapon, per what UE hints at, then again fix it.....when you have time :)


And here's a thought, if they acknowledge the monk is weaker than intended, then rather than nerfing him further, leave things the way they were and fix them when you can, changing the knuckles did nothing but hurt the monk further.


Problem with the body wraps is that they only effect one strike. Again more nerf age for the monk, even though I think it's a little wierd, Sean's explanation seemed to lean toward the whole "the wording has changed" . Well yes it's wierd but again by that same logic we could interpret that by the changing of the wording in UE, Mastetwork transformation effects a monk since his UA strikes are manufactured weapons.
Did they intend this? Probably not, I am simply using re logic that was given but applied to this to illustrate that it wasn't a good reason given. But a loophole it could be....


Well I did ask the team to explain why knuckles aren't to be considered unarmed strikes but you have to use a unarmed strike to use them, your performing a punch. Or explain why they feel monks needed so much nerfing as to take away the knuckles and only give a not very efficient way of compensating t the cost of a major ac enhancing slot. Which monks need as well. Sure double the cost of knuckles to enchant, state they have to be on each fist, but to take them away and call them light weapons that you can't wield anything in that hand but them, now they are space filler on a page since gauntlets do everything they do and none of the downside. If the argument is going to be a change of wording, then you have to apply that across the board.
We talk of RAI all the time, taking away the knuckles old ability simply doesn't make sense logically.
We need a second review by the dev team. It's not like monks are OP, so what gives?


I think most monk players if not all, would rather see an enchant able fist slot with unarmed strikes using the monks damage and just get rid of amulet of mighty strikes


Or if they went back and just gave monks enchant able gloves or, here it comes, put the brass knuckles back to the way they were


Yeah the equivalent thing stands out, however, if the unarmed strike is considered a manufactured weapon, ALL manufactured weapons have masterwork equivalents....even a brass knuckle or gauntlet, but since UE trumps even UM, under master work weapons in UE it states:
The masterwork transformation spell (Ultimate Magic) transforms a non-masterwork weapon into a masterwork weapon.

No mention of the non equivalency, and since brass knuckles don't work like they used to because of a change in wording in UE can then not the same logic apply here, the wording has changed, UE states the spell can change any non masterwork weapon (and a monks unarmed strikes are to be considered manufactured weapons) into masterwork weapons.


What about the cleric spell that transforms things into masterwork quality? Again the monks unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons for purposes of SPELLS that enhance or improve weapons?
Isn't that falling directly under the description?


Ok here's a question, it states in the CRB under Monks Unarmed Strikes:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Now though it might be reading into it, would then this not also apply to enhancement bonuses paid for like magic weapons +1, +2 etc directly on the monk since his unarmed strikes like the rule states are to be treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance weapons?

Seems silly I know, but so is calling brass knuckles a light weapon.


So ok Sean, question then, are you saying you can use Brass Knuckles WITHOUT performing an unarmed strike?
And if so can you logically explain the thought process behind it without simply stating "it's how we wrote it in the rules"?
And if you have to use an Unarmed strike to use them, why then isn't it, well, an unarmed strike?
And last question: why did you (the staff not you personally) change the item from
Both APG and Adventurers Armory to what is presented in UE? Why the nerf?


I have to concede on Sean's title, he is listed as a "developer" on UE's credits


That's why it says "see text" unlike gauntlets


And that still doesn't answer that to use brass knuckles you still have to do an unarmed strike by the weapons description.


"Sean is a developer. That's what "designer" means."

Then why do some guys have the title "developer" and not designer?

Designer could be art layout. No offense to Sean, but would like to see Jacobs chime in.
And if this is the case, the rule I mean, what's with all the hate to the monk and "nerfing" him?


The problem I have with all this Knuckles not doing unarmed damaga and being light weapons in the DESCRIPTION in UE. It seems everyone is only staring at the weapons chart and ingnoring the description of Brass Knuckles in UE.
They allow you to do lethal damage instead of non lethan with unarmed strikes.

Thats it, you still have to use an unarmed strike to use the things.
And if you have to use an unarmed strike to use them...then..they do unarmed damage.

If not they are without a doubt the dumbest entry and only designed to take up page space for filler. There is absolutely no reason to use them otherwise, gauntlets trump them since you can hold AND wield weapons with gauntlets but no knuckles and still do lethal damage using unarmed strikes.

I want to see an official ruling on these from a Developer...not a designer, not subscribers, not rpg gods....a developer.

To me the description trumps the chart.

Why has no developer that I can find posted on this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, first of all it wasn’t a conversation the poster was having with “members of his table”. He was having a conversation with the VC and a VO of our lodge. (yes I know the poster as we are in the same PFS lodge) The conversation was not with any of the GM’s running.

Now I think what the VC and VO were looking at was where it states that Mithral makes armor one category lighter for purposes of Movement and other limitations (not EVERYTHING Ipslore – don’t add words) and does not make say heavy armor actually medium armor, it’s just treated as such. Now with that said, I am (as the poster will undoubtedly confirm) the single biggest hard line GM in our lodge when it comes to RAI over RAW, but I agree with the poster on this one. If you rule as the VC and VO did in their conversation, in regards to the Cavalier and Emmisary with regards to Heavy armor is still heavy armor, then you have to rule that way for all classes in regards to using mithral to make armor a class category lighter, Rangers, Rogues etc etc with all their special abilities that are tied to medium and or light armor. If the rule stated armor is treated as one category lighter for movement purposes and all RELATED limitations, now I would agree with the VC and VO, but it doesn’t, nor do I think that was their Intent. The poster in my opinion is correct, the cavalier would treat the Mithral Plate as medium armor for purposes of “In or out of the saddle”.

Now an issue I DO have issue with something the poster stated that RAW should trump RAI in PFS always unbalanced or not….{insert buzzer noise here}. The developers have already posted that it was not their intention or ability to try and cover every loophole, every exploit in the rules, that they expected the GM’s and players to use common sense on how a rule should be applied when the intent is clear. It is not the purpose of PFS for players to find loopholes to create exploit monsters with. When you do this you reduce the enjoyment of all the players at your table who have not done so, and many times reduce if not ruin the flavor and excitement of the adventure in question. If the developers (as they have stated before) wrote a set of rules that they had to try and cover every possible loophole to prevent exploit, the books would be incredibly large, unwieldy, and cumbersome. Please use common sense even in PFS, if you think something looks whacky…chances are it is.

Bottom line of topic though, I agree with Quite Riot on his interpretation on of Mithral and it’s effect on armor categories.


Why is 3 spells bad? A wizard or cleric at first level isn't going to have more than that. He has 3 osirions and 1 level 1 spell, plus a bonus level 1, plus a spirit magic level 1. Cleric has the same amount as does a wiz. I don't see why he needs more, at second level he will have 4 0 lvl and 4 first to cast...that's plenty for a second level character to me.


roysier wrote:
I remember reading a post a while back that since mythic was not going to be made PFS eligible, the PFS powers were not sure how to handle this AP and were unsure if they would even make it PFS legal. I'm not sure if that has changed since.

Well Wrath of the Righteous is listed under Sanctioned AP's, and that still doesn't explain the lack of chronicle sheet for the last installment of Reign of Winter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know I am definitely in the minority here but this is an AP I am not looking forward to.
I cringe at the thought of Fantasy characters running around with laser beams and stuff. I didn't like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and I know I was not alone in this.
But I also understand I have the recourse simply not to play in it or purchase it. :)

I can just see it now, the maximized Zen Archer with Proton Beams, or the maximized Gunslinger with the Plasma Cannon...may the Gods help us all.


Eh now laddies, I dunno if ye be a thinkin this thing here through all proper and like.
Speakin from experience now as I be, if ye were to be a raidin these scallywags, then ye just a might be a putting the dear cargo in peril aye.
The thing ta do here me bucko's is ta either be a payin what they be a askin (most scallywags be of an honorable sort once they be a havin what they askin fer) or, ye needs to be a thinking like freebooter yeselves!
Find ye the knowin of who this here cap'n be, troll the taverns an pubs for rumors of his or her crew is a bein, then ye launch yer own raid on something they be a holdin most dear and to be a offerin a trade then. Though I must be admittin that most scallywags would not be a carin even if ya did steal their own mothers and sisters!
Nay laddies, to be a raidin them just be givin them salty dawgs all the more reason to be a drfitin into the mornins mist and to high seas by noon where unless yer craft be a mighty fast one, and yer pilot wise, they simply melt away unto the seas. Best to be just a givin them what they be a askin fer and to settle the matter away all smooth and easy like. Ye raid these dogs with flags a flyin and then they just a set the cargo aflame or drop inta the sea for Ole Davy Jones to be a readin with his morning constitutional.

But again, tis just Ole Hagan's opinion of how the swells do be in this sea, me bein all familiar as it were with the way the winds blow in this sorta thing as it bein.

Keep the wind to yer back and the prize to yer bow laddies.

Half Way Hagan
Pirate Bard


I am getting ready to start a S&S campaign and something one or two of my players have asked and I havent answered yet is what if they (some of them) want their own ships?
Has anyone addressed this and if so what are your thoughts?


Wow no thoughts?


The issue I am having in our game with my paladin, is not the moral codes, behaviour or even compatability of the Paladins codes with the party. My DM I think secretly hates paladins. He keeps over time diminishing my abilities so that my damage output is lower and lower and lower.
Our party is comprised of a Druid, Ranger (archer), a non combat spec rogue and a witch and of course my paladin. The ranger has become the only real high damage dealer.
I have had my off hand damage reduced, the ability to offensively enchant my shield banned ( I am a dual wielder with a shield/Sword) my Smite no longer crits, and now I have had my immunity to Lycanthropy removed so werewolves can get me..oh..and my remove disease from my lay on hands wont remove lycanthropy. I have also had my smite reduced to only primary hand as opposed to all attacks, and a trait reduced (Shining Beacon) to again lessen output.
At early levels it was a problem as I could walk up to weak bosses and WHAM dead (they were undead bad guys) but the bad guys are getting tougher and tougher and tougher as we get to the medium levels.
I have been diminished in a few other ways as well over time.

I wonder is this common in a lot of games, are Paladin players seeing the nerf bat thrown at them from DM's for being OP?


LazarX wrote:
leo1925 wrote:


5. if you have any wizard of druid abilities that depend on caster level they advance, if not (which is more likely) they don't. Now about the 2 free spells, it's not clear in the rules about that but i say give them, it's just too much trouble (finding them and time needed mostly), also the sorcerers gain spells known.
Last time Jacobs ruled on this... spontaneous casters continue to gain spells known, but no wizard freebie spells for advancing in a PrC.

He wasnt ruling on the Mystic Theurge I am willing to bet but PrC's in general. The fact of the matter is that the Mystic Theurge specifically states that spells known are included, it does not state only spells known for the divine side. I would see this as a class feature specific to the Mystic Theurge.


The rules state, on page 388 CRB:
"This essentially means he adds the level of Mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class AND divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly."

Its the last 4 words that concern me, those last 4 words are making it seem the caster leves for both sides are stacking.

Now while a lot of people are also seemingly quoting page 208 (Caster Level) of the CRB it actually states:
"A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for MOST spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell."
Now right here it used the word most..not all, leading to suggest some classes in fact dont adhere to this rule. The third paragraph goes on to say:
"In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).
So then it begs the question, in the description mentioned at the top (page 388 CRB) do the caster levels stack for the Mystic Theurge as part the class feature mentioned on page 208?

a character who is Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Thuerge 10 is by the way the above sentence is worded a 13th level wizard AND a 13th level cleric (for purposes of spells per day and spells known) AND 26 caster level?

There are a lot of far reaching effects this could have depending on the interpretation.
If the same character but only wiz 3/cleric 3/ MT 2 were to cast a fireball, would it be 5d6 or 10d6 as fireball states its caster level dependent?

So I am curious for a word from the developers about what caster level is a Mystic Theurge considered when casting his/her spells? Is it just one class caster level or both? I have seen a lot of arguments on a lot of threads concerning this. And while it seems OP, its not really, the same example above, if a straight 8th lvl wizard cast the fireball its 8d6, but that 8th lvl wizard also has level 4 spells at his command and getting ready to have 5th at 9th lvl while the Thuerge of the above example just got 3rd level and wont get 4rth for another 2 levels. Its seems to be somewhat of a balance.

Has a developer chimed in on this before and I simply havent seen it?