Lelomenia's page

1,266 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Is it just you two or is there a larger party? If it’s just the two of you, i get the interest in Ultimate Mercy.

As everyone above, Polearms would be very valuable to you in this campaign (and are usually better in other campaigns). There’s lots of good feats in the Polearm direction,

But assuming you want to stick with Greatswords, i would recommend Cornugon Smash/Hurtful as the way to go.


Because stacking 1d6 + 1d6 to get 10d6 is not how anything else in Pathfinder works, and was not possible when Vivi was printed so there’s no way it could have been intended.

Everyone agrees that’s what the words say though. Surprised it wasn’t errata’d, or maybe the errata was done before slow progression classes were printed.


Java Man wrote:
Allow me to repeat myself "No part of a monster entry is labeled "race traits" and the term is not defined for bestiary entries. So who knows?"

more simply, no part of a monster stat block is labeled “racial traits” because monsters don’t have racial traits.


Shaman with Planar Heritage/Shabti gets access to the Psychic Spell list, which is pretty much the wizard list minus blasty spells.


From that sketch, I would have a Tiefling with the Oversized Hands and make him a Hellknight given the jet black full plate. They tend to be pretty intimidating.

Wielding a wooden shield while wearing metal full plate doesn’t match to me tho, like wearing socks and sandals.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Skald is a better choice than bard anyways. Fortitude saves are more important than reflex saves, and a bard has fast progression for reflex instead of fortitude. Inspired rage also seems to be a better choice than inspire courage especially when you factor in the character can grant rage powers to the entire party. There are 5 other combat focused characters in the party besides the OP. Being able to boost the STR and CON of all of them is probably a lot better than anything a bard can do. Without seeing...

skald is going to be extremely dependent on group specifics.

In this case, i’d guess that the Rogue and Ninja are Dex characters, and the brawler, ranger, bloodrager are Str. And of those three, Bloodrager probably won’t benefit much from the Skald song. Where Inspire Courage is always going to give max benefit to all 5.


You can’t cast Wizard spells normally while performing a Skald’s Inspired Rage, correct?


Bard is a decent option, but once you consider the synergy between being a full caster while performing at the same time,

I can’t help but look at going Sorcerer // Oath of the People’s Council Paladin;

getting full caster + full performance + Cha to everything on one main ability score, and full BAB/D10 hp. Though i guess with a 32 point buy you could actually do a Wizard//OotPC Paladin fairly effectively.

On Wizard/Magus side of things, another thing they could do very well (beyond spell combat with ranged touch weapon) is Combat Maneuvers. Pretty easy to get +50 CMB with a magus around level 10, and Dirty Tricks are basically unstoppable (which you could combine with standard action spells each turn).

I think expectation that Greater Invisibility will help you hit things reliably isn’t accurate; enemy flat footed AC is often as high as regular AC. Giants, Dragons, Undead, Oozes, Aberrations, Constructs, Outsiders etc.


TxSam88 wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
Gun Chemist + Wizard is definitely a good build… the alchemical ordnance’s go a long ways to free up your spell slots for more utility spell casting… you can focus your extract preparation to more personal buffs if you don’t want to pick up infusion (which with full caster wizard you don’t really need), while your wizard spells are geared towards gendering foes and buffing the party. Should you need to do some blasting, you have the high power that is a firearm with explosive ammunition… if you are feeling especially daring, take the Spell Slinger archetype and cast some of your spells through your gun…
That sounds like a fun build, but Sadly firearms are not allowed in our games. (yet)

well that takes out my previous recommendation, Musket Master Eldritch Archer // Wizard.

But if the rule is “No Firearms.”, does that still allow Bolt Ace (crossbow, no guns) Gunslinger? Eldritch Archer with a few Bolt Ace levels works pretty well too.


TxSam88 wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:

Just curious, why Magus + Wizard?

Are you wanting to be a Magus that has a lot of extra spells, or are you wanting to be a Wizard who has a lot of options and staying power in melee?

Trying to figure out an arcane caster that can do more than cast 1 spell per round.

3/4 BAB would usually make it difficult to contribute by weapon attacks in a Gestalt campaign. Maybe Musket Master/Eldritch Archer + Wizard (Spellslinger or otherwise)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3rd party there is at least one feat (two wand technique, Kobold Press).

1st party, you can have as many wand wielding familiars as you want firing off each turn…


Chark the Shark wrote:

"As with the hierophant, gaining the spells per day of a 6th-level spellcaster is extremely good because your medium spells are lower level than they would be for a true 6th-level spellcaster, which means that you are better than a true 6th level spellcaster."

I could be wrong - the way I read it is that both the hierophant and the archmage get spells per day from the Mesmerist table which is less than a true 6th-level caster.

As a 6th-level Medium, you don't even have access to 3rd-level Divine or Arcane spells and only 1 1st-level Medium spell (assuming you can even cast your Medium spells still which I am still unsure of)

I would LOVE to be wrong about this as I am currently playing a 4th-level Hobgoblin Medium (and loving it).

he may be saying that Medium list 4th level spells are only at higher level on other lists, and while normally Mediums don’t access them until 13th level, when they go Hierophant they jump ahead to 7th level. There is some truth to that, with a handful of decent spells that are 3rd or 4th on the medium list but don’t show up until higher levels for others (e.g., True Seeing), but overall the list isn’t good and there aren’t a lot of those lower-for-Mediums that are that exciting. Haste and Heroism as 2nd level spells is nice, sort of Bardy there.


Two comments on the Wizard guide would be:
(1) For Calling, True Name is absurdly powerful, and Planar Binding > Planar Ally.
(2) For non-Int skills, familiars are very strong. They bring additional class skills with them, often alongside strong applicable ability scores and even racial bonuses at times, while still getting full benefit from Wizardly overabundance of skill points. Familiar archetypes (e.g., Figment) and Improved Familiar add another potential level of capability here. Not every skill is as useful on a familiar as it would be on the PC (e.g., Acrobatics), but a lot of skills are much better on the familiar (UMD is 1000x better on a familiar) or in combination with a familiar(Wizard/Familiar combo for Perception is as strong as any other class).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they started putting out the FAQs maybe 10 years ago, which are the ‘actual rules’, and substantial errata occurred to the CRB and APG. At this point, i think all of the hardcovers have had their errata (and FAQs), so at least for them RAI = RAW.

For your other question, if someone asks a rules question in the rules forum, I think the priority should be including a ‘letter of the law’ answer, although noting if it is ruled differently for PFS would be reasonable, or if it is particularly problematic/unplayable as written. Outside of the rules forum, letter vs spirit probably depends on the context of the question.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Normally imprisoning a lich requires incredibly powerful methods, not just piling a bunch of rocks on top of them.

Does it though? A spellcasting lich versus a non-spellcasting lich only means that said lich can cast spells, not turn themselves into a gas by sheer force of will like a vampire can.

Now, there may be some spells that could easily remove them from a pile of rocks, or spell effects they'd previously cast on themselves prior to being buried, or magic items... but unless the lich had prepped for this eventuality, how are they going to cast said spells from below said pile?

Are there a lot of liches that take Still Spell and Silent Spell for the off-chance that they get buried in rubble? There can be psychic liches I would assume, but these aren't classic "spellcasters." Contingency spells, would have to be cast beforehand as I mentioned above. Since liches get no immense Str or Dex boost, they won't suffocate, and the crushing damage may not kill them outright so they can rejuvenate, how precisely are spellcasting liches any less deterred by a pile of rocks as non-spellcasting?

Unless what you meant was a situation where the spellcasting lich has their hands and mouth free to use verbal, somatic and material components. If that's what you meant I apologize and yes, that would be child's play for a spellcasting lich to escape.

i would expect Contingency to cover most situations like that, given the required 11th level caster requirement. Can’t he just kill himself and reform in worst case scenario though?


Does he get all abilities for both schools? Bonus slots for each?

I think six opposition schools is excessive, three would probably be fine (assuming one bonus slot that could be used for either school; if two bonus slots, would compare to Sin Specialist).


Player is not adjacent to the door and didn’t indicate intent to use weapon to prevent door from being closed? Not that either necessarily matters from a rules standpoint, just curious for additional context.


Do you really mean “harder to dispel”, or possibly “harder to save against”? Usually things being easily dispelled isn’t problematic; if anything capable of casting Dispel Magic or Remove Curse is spending turns that way, that’s great (also Dispel magic looks at spell caster level vs. remove curse being spell DC based, which adds a bit more mess to this).

If you really mean ‘harder to dispel’, Tenacious Spell metamagic is nice. It looks like there isn’t officially a metamagic rod for it, but there should be a Metamagic Gem for it.


If the other “you” statements preceding the turn-ender also only apply to the caster, then this issue isn’t a problem because even though the companions get to take full turns immediately afterwards, they are all unarmed, naked, and randomly located.


Agree that there shouldn’t be a bunch of 10s in each category, but I think for a lot of these 7-8s are achievable at least with appropriate builds. E.g., i think divine casters in general can get to at least 7-8 for combat and healing, and int casters should all be close to 7ish to start for utility. And saying a class can get up to 8 in multiple categories isn’t really that big a claim; “if you devote your build to this, you can be third rate at it”. Sure, fine.

And I certainly have favorites, but i would put the 10s down as:
Shaman (optimizing) for spell list access,
Druid (optimizing) for ‘combat’,
Oracle (optimizing) for ‘heal’,
Arcanist (optimizing) for buffs,
Arcanist (optimizing) for critters,
Sorcerer (optimizing) for blasting,
And Wizard (optimizing) for utility. So i don’t think i’m really going back to the same class for everything. I would guess there’s a witch build that gets the ‘debuff’ 10, but that’s not very familiar territory for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For wizard, on ‘critters’ the Acadamae Graduate feat buys you standard action summons, which is one of the biggest criteria i look to when judging whether a class is good or not at summoning. They have access to familiars out of CRB, so that is nice here. And the Instructor archetype gives you a Cohort, which is overpowered but i’m not sure whether to count it as a critter.

For Utility, wizard is an Int class with arbitrarily many different spells in his book (and Scroll writing as a class feature by default). So very high floor; the Spell Savant archetype gives on demand access to most other spells as well, pushing that archetype up to at least a 9 for utility, pending whether anyone suggests something else could be better.

For Healing, i guess Arcane Physician is an intended archetype, but it’s terrible, maybe pushes wizard from a 1 to a ‘1.5’. Spell Savant is probably better even purely for healing purposes.


For Arcanist, Occultist Archetype is the place to be for ‘Critters’, 9 or 10 out of 10 for that. For ‘buff’ing, Brown Fur Transmuter is the 10 of 10. For Healing, White Mage i guess is the high point for Arcanist, maybe puts you up to 3-4 out of 10, comparable to a Witch. So Arcanist archetypes align pretty cleanly with the categories you have.

For Utility, one comment I’d make is that Int-based casters have a huge Utility advantage because they end up flooded with skill points, and that tends to overwhelm any class feature skill advantages other builds have, at least by high level.


Northern Spotted Owl wrote:


Lelomenia wrote:

Shaman examples are an extreme example of that in multiple ways. Going by their default spell list, they are the worst 9th level caster for spell list: i’d put them at a 3. But building for spell selection, they have by far the best effective spell list in the game (i would have them as the only 10). And it would be confusing to a reader to just toss that into ‘class features’; if someone looks at the guide wanting to build something with a strong effective spell list, they shouldn’t be pushed away from classes that are potentially ideal for that (also not clear that FCBs are ‘class features’).

Combat is the same challenge for shaman. By default, shaman is the worst divine class for combat (i’d give them a ‘4’ maybe). But building for it, i’d put them 2nd among 9th level casters built for combat (behind druid).

I'd appreciate (truly) more detail on those builds.

for the ‘spell selection shaman’, key features i would note are:

FCB: i think shaman is the only class that was designed with an FCB in mind. The Cleric spell list is the standard list for Shaman to access through FCB, but Druid, Psychic(!!!!), and portions of the wizard list are available. With a racial heritage feat, you can access up to two of these lists through FCB.

Spirit magic: lots of good spells through spirits, but unlike clerics/sorcerers/oracles, they can change these daily.

Arcane Enlightenment: has been discussed enough.

Fluid Magic: Would be amazing if Waves spirit magic spells weren’t so bad.

Serendipity Shaman: An archetype that can be used to do almost nothing other than replace bad Waves Spirit spells with great spells.

So at high level shaman ends up with access to every shaman and wizard list spell, and every cleric, druid, and psychic spell up to level 8 (but can only do two of those three lists). I’m a big Miracle fan, which is one of the reasons Serendipity merited a place on the list above.

Combining the features from that list, a high level shaman might prepare any combination of Wishes, Miracles, Time Stops, Gates, and Mass Heals in 9th level slots (which i view as the best/most important 9th level spells, and i don’t think any other class can come close to that). If you wonder where Communal Mind Blank is, said Shaman gets it as an 8th level spell from the Psychic list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really endorse MrCharisma’s proposal to use ranges for all of these; lots of cases where a class is generically not very good at something, but if you build toward that thing it becomes better than other classes building toward that.

Shaman examples are an extreme example of that in multiple ways. Going by their default spell list, they are the worst 9th level caster for spell list: i’d put them at a 3. But building for spell selection, they have by far the best effective spell list in the game (i would have them as the only 10). And it would be confusing to a reader to just toss that into ‘class features’; if someone looks at the guide wanting to build something with a strong effective spell list, they shouldn’t be pushed away from classes that are potentially ideal for that (also not clear that FCBs are ‘class features’).

Combat is the same challenge for shaman. By default, shaman is the worst divine class for combat (i’d give them a ‘4’ maybe). But building for it, i’d put them 2nd among 9th level casters built for combat (behind druid).


For a straightforward build,

Spell Focus + Greater and Elemental Focus + Greater gets you +8 with Spell Perfection. On a Spellslinger using a +5 gun,

I could see:
+17 Int bonus
+9 spell level
+8 ‘focus’ Feats and Spell Perfection, as above;
+5 from Gun

Then start grabbing little bonuses, Focused Spell metamagic (rod), +2, Robe of Runes, +2, Outlander trait, +1, Djezet material component, +1, Yulrael’s Blessing, +1.

That’s 56?


Fine as originally published or fine using all subsequent published content?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think sorcerer is objectively better at Battering Blast builds just from Blood Intensity.

Fireball builds (which are pretty absurd for damage post Magic Trick) can use any of wiz/sorc/arc effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1st party, i think kineticist is closest to what you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the lack of armor proficiency would be most immediately noticeable.

The lack of strength might also be something that would be noticed. In game, however, most NPCs are probably more familiar with warrior npc-class characters, not PC classes that would have the obvious heroic str level. So maybe trying to pass yourself off as a the more common and less heroic warrior class might be easier.


There’s a Class Guide for the shaman class stickied in the advice forum if that’s what you are looking for.

Not really a general way to convert witch/oracle to shaman (beyond “nature patron/mystery => nature spirit”, etc); if there’s a specific build to be converted, could help with that.

For the classes, witch and oracle certainly have plenty of roles and niches they are great at, but yes, shaman has a lot of benefits of both of those classes while avoiding issues with them that are common complaints (while lacking other advantages of those classes and adding some new issues, of course).


Charisma bonuses definitely won’t ‘stack’ together.

But neither do enhancement bonuses, and yet for AC it’s common for a character to have three different enhancement bonuses contributing to AC: an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus to AC, an enhancement bonus to your shield bonus to AC, and an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus to AC. Enhancement bonuses don’t stack, but more than one can contribute if they do so indirectly. If there were mechanics (maybe there are) for it, a character could also have an enhancement bonus to their dexterity bonus to AC and an enhancement bonus (directly) to their AC. All five enhancement bonuses would be adding to the AC, even though they don’t stack.

Similarly, a character could have a charisma bonus to their Armor bonus to their AC adding on to a charisma bonus to their shield bonus to AC, adding to a charisma bonus to their dexterity bonus to AC adding to any applicable charisma bonus to AC. The charisma bonuses wouldn’t stack, but you would still be adding your charisma bonus to your AC multiple times. As written for this, one is a Charisma bonus directly to AC and one is a Charisma bonus added to your Dexterity bonus to AC; they won’t ‘stack’, but they should both contribute to your AC, giving you the double Cha effect that you actually care about..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Narrowascent wrote:
So playing a Half-Orc Warpriest And I need some suggestions for a Diety. Am Chaotic Neutral. I am also wondering how aura works. I don't quite understand it.

what weapon/general combat strategy?


gesalt wrote:

Outside of thief rogues, archer builds and druids, I can't see any reason to ever build dex in pf2e given how trivial it is to get heavy armor prof for bulwark.

In this case, freeing up dex allows a magus to have ideal stats by investing in str/con/int/wis and further boosting by taking dex and cha flaws (usually for more con). From there, grab sentinel at 2 or if you're daring, wait until 3 for the general armor training feat and delay sentinel until 10 or 12. Magi feats are pretty low value for the most part so you can pretty easily start a dedication at 2, take archetype feats at 4 and 8 and then sentinel at 10.

Edit: and then after taking sentinel, retrain the general feat for something better

you don’t see value in better reflex saves or extra class feats?


Unicore wrote:
Shocking grasp is amazingly effective with spell strike as just a raw damage dealing spell. Getting item bonuses and being combined with the attack for the sake of truestrike makes it a really heavy boss hitter. Right up there with a fighter's single target damage capacity.

if you are spending your spell slots to be ‘right up there’ with single target damage classes for a few rounds per day, what is the value in being a magus, as assumptively you are worse than them for single target damage the rest of the day and worse defensively all day?


avr wrote:

Someone had a prettier version, but this is my list of 1st party PF1 spellcasting types.

If you're going to make a guide I'd note the {wizard or arcanist} 7/divine spellcaster 1 option using faith magic to get a 2nd level divine spell.

it was recently pointed out to me that Spirit Whisperer Wizard can take Arcane Enlightenment at level 5, weirdly granting divine spells.

On the original topic, yes, fast progression for both divine/arcane with shared ability score is ideal. You’ll still be a pretty worthless character for a few levels unless you cheat in without needing three levels of both classes.


Xenocrat wrote:
Note that the Backfire Mantle magic item in SoM is useful to a Magus who wants to fireball someone in melee - it grants a circumstance (not status/item) bonus to reflex saves and some flat resistance to your own spells. Blow yourself up with more security.

Mantle’s resistance appears to only apply vs alchemical item splash. If i was going to do a blow-myself-up build, i’d look at Elfbane Hobgoblin, but honestly just use Cones instead of Burst.


The “lifetime to understand” phrase hints to me that the 9th version of clone would be relevant for someone at advanced age; given that standard clone is useless for someone about to die of old age, one possibility for Greater Clone would be the option for the clone to have a different age and does not fail for creatures that die of advanced age/natural causes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Not to be SPOILERS. But being a wizard in Rise of the Runelords is especially awesome. Bards also but only if you get that far.

I'm super curious about this.

Is it actually wizards? Or would any arcane caster work? Or any INT-based caster (What about a Psychic or Occultist)?

My group is planning on running this AP eventually (after we finish the 2 we're already running), so I really appreciate the spoiler warning.

If you CAN answer without spoilers I'd appreciate it, but if you can't then I appreciate the discretion you've already shown.

the authors did a pretty even handed job of splitting RotRL loot into two categories; ‘wizard loot other classes could also potentially benefit from’ and ‘wizard only loot’.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
*Khan* wrote:
In my opinion limiting ability scores to min 8 and max 16 before racial bonuses would help more. Or no magic equipment to enchant ability scores.

I prefer to have a min/max limit after racial modifiers are applied.

A 16 max before racial mods is basically the same as an 18 max after racial mods, but it allows for more diverse race/class selection.

EDIT: That last sentence was backwards - the 16 max before racial mods allows for less diverse race/class selection ... you get it =P

i don’t get the logic…8 Min/18 Max after racials basically kills Orc and Kobold races off as options with no obvious benefit…?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oath of the People’s Council Paladin is literally what you describe; a paladin that gets Bard performance.


roquepo wrote:

Mental is as broad as it is so creatures can be immune to it.

Even though allowing it as a staff is a GM call, my biggest problem with it is that the Mentalist Staff already exist.

If allowed it is a really strong personal staff for an occult caster, that said.

if disallowing traits because a relevant staff already exists is the right thing to do, then there aren’t really any good traits left (unless you are on board with “commoner’s staff” type traits).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scabbard of Pain is for rerolling failed saves against mind-affecting. Don’t actually need a melee weapon for it, or even a slot.

Boots of Speed are a reasonable investment around ~10th level. Getting grappled is pretty bothersome for an archer; Talisman of Freedom (Lesser at low levels) is a lower cost solution (vs. the 40K ring you’ll eventually want or the 10k unfettered shirt).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What level?

Cloak of Resistance for sure.
I always push Scabbard of Pain.
Lots of other stuff if there’s any particular skill you are pushing.

Weapon (+ammo) and Armor should be big expenses as well.


Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'd view the line of "The GM might add others to this list" as an indication that the GM can have final say on if a staff is themed or not - especially for spells that clearly have a thematic relation despite not having a specific associated trait.

For example, spells like Magnetic Acceleration, Magnetic Attraction, and Magnetic Repulsion clearly have a common theme, but do not have a common trait outside the evocation school. If enough spells themed around magnetism were added to build a staff around, I'd certainly allow a Staff of Magnetism despite not having a "magnetic" trait included on the spells.

the list the GM can add to is the list of spell traits that can’t be used for staves.

Obviously people can do whatever is agreed on in a home game, but i don’t see any supportive language for non-shared trait staves there.


Xenocrat wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Thunder999 wrote:
Using it with cones or lines is nice in theory, but I just don't see a magus actually using line or cone spells much to begin with.
They've got just as much reason to use them as a wizard. You'd do more damage to a single target with a standard attack spell but the when the time arises, maneuvering a cone behind enemy lines could be just the right move. You'd probably have just 1 or 2 prepared or have scrolls for scroll striker for it though.
Their save DCs are much less reason to use them than a wizard. You can ignore this and have a 10 intelligence otherwise.

their save DC with Int as your secondary ability is on average about 1 point behind wizard. It’s not really crippling, but if you want to dump Int (Champion etc archetype maybe), that’s certainly workable.

I’m generally more interested in Expansive for AoE spells, which are situationally spectacular, than single target save spells, which aren’t that exciting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I think that the theoretical potential of the expansive spellstrike feat is going to capture the attention of a lot of players.

Personally, I just think that it is rarely going to do in play what a lot of players think it will and will be discouraging players from taking it as a GM unless they are really excited about some idea that requires it.

I would hate for the general consensus around the magus to be that bounded casting is terrible and their spell casting proficiency is abysmal, and thus the class is a total failure...because all the Magi are running around think this feat helps them play the best magus possible, when in fact it amplifies the limits of the class with minimal interaction with its strengths.

I think this style of Magi might have been better off being a class archetype that just modified the spell strike mechanic to work more like the striking spell mechanic of the playtest, but allowed for multi targeting spells.

without expansive, you either only use cantrips for Spellstrike (which is a bit dull for my taste), or you have to prepare attack spells (which are generally bad) in your few precious slots.

I do think both of those directions are viable, and I don’t think there’s necessarily a “right way to magus”, but i’m confident taking a feat that allows you to combine Magus Spellstrike action economy advantage with the best spells available at each level isn’t “the wrong way to magus.” And i don’t think i’ve seen almost anyone complaining about ‘bounded spellcasting’ for the magus.


masda_gib wrote:

Even bigger bursts can work with expansive spellstrike. The burst starts at a corner of your choice in the center of the target.

With a reach weapon against a gargantuan target, even a fireball doesn't hit the magus.

at which point you are likely only hitting one target with the aoe (Unless other players in your group don’t have reach), which kind of makes it pointless.


Malk_Content wrote:
I don't know why we a marking the spell loss on a critical failure as some nasty downside. It's actually nicer than regular spell strike where you lose the spell on a regular failure.

i think the logic is that aoe spells normally have no chance of ‘failure’, where the attack spell’s chance of failure is effectively decreased with spellstrike.

For Expansive Spellstrike, i think people will realize that spending slots on AOEs is a very strong option (despite being 1.1 points lower in spell DC than wizards), and getting an extra effective action point or two at the beginning of combat is frequently a big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not clear to me why the potential that an AoE effect might be less impactful if one target dies from the initial Strike makes it preferable to spend your high level slots on single target attack spells instead, which won’t affect anyone if the target dies from the strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

The witch kind of covers this space. They exist in a lot of the same conceptual space as the Wizard, being an int-based, studious caster that stores magic in a spellbook... their spellbooks are just kind of weird.

Which kind of runs counter to a lot of the claims here imo that it wouldn't make sense.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:


Plus, that would also open the door for "why can't I have a nature-loving Wizard that isn't a Druid?"
TBH, some kind of Int based "naturalist" that approaches primal magic and other druidic arts more like a biologist sounds cool.

Halcyon Speaker seems like this. Though making an Occult Wizard along the Halcyon Speaker approach might make Speaker feel less special.

1 to 50 of 1,266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>