Xakihn

Letric's page

1,013 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,013 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Honestly, I don't think it will change. As long as spells are what they are today, nothing will change.
The whole system should be rework ala Spheres of Power at least to make it fair.
Caster will have the advantage and we should just assume it will be like that.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Letric wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Letric wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.

Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.

Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."

You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.

what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?

even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.

I'm saying that knowing terms like "AC" by a PC is not the same as a Player. IF your character knows this, it doesn't work.

People are complaining that REsonance feels "gamey" imagine know the AC of an enemy?

Hey guys, my senses tell me that this boss has high AC in the 40, we should run. What is AC for the others?

wait wait wait wait.

you can ALREADY identify the abilities and DCs of an enemy monster. how does that differ at all between knowing they have an AC of 30 over having a DC15 fortitude paralyzing stinger and being weak to acid damage?

the end result is:
player: alright, i try to identify the enemy's defenses.
DM: roll it.
player: *dice rolling, looks to nodding DM who notes it's a success*
DM: the warrior's defense is as...

Never had a DM tell me "The DC to is X". Abilities are an ability, like "spiting acid". It's not the same saying "his armor is very though" than saying "his AC is 50"


AndIMustMask wrote:
Letric wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.

Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.

Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."

You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.

what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?

even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.

I'm saying that knowing terms like "AC" by a PC is not the same as a Player. IF your character knows this, it doesn't work.

People are complaining that REsonance feels "gamey" imagine know the AC of an enemy?

Hey guys, my senses tell me that this boss has high AC in the 40, we should run. What is AC for the others?


WatersLethe wrote:

I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.

Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.

Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."

You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.


Epic Hoagie wrote:

/)_- SMH...that pretty much sucks. Seems like they're really narrowing the variety of options available to any given character, which is a shame cuz I've always really loved the broadness of Pathfinder. Might stick with PF1, though I'm not quite counting PF2 out yet.

The new systems, otherwise, are really interesting. Just peeved that I can no longer do a build even similar to what I typically do for Rogues.

What option? You have the option to dual wield, you just don't get bonuses.

Or do you want to go back to where THE FIGHTER was actually worst at dual wielding?


This shouldn't happen anymore. Shield cannot block Magic Missile because MM could be higher level, why would a level 1 spell block a level 9?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:


The archetypes in Pathfinder 1st Edition were an excellent compromise between the two views.

Not using features was something that always happened in PF1, eventually we had Archetypes, but you needed individual for each class. Instead now you can chose Pirate despite your class, in my eyes this is an improvent.

Who says you can't be a Light Armored fighter? You just do it. Ohh, you have features that aren't being used? Then you want concept+mechanics.

Now I only need to know the archetypes, because I can chose it no matter my class, and I find this really interesting.


Chess Pwn wrote:
The "point" of overspecialization IS to "trivialize" their thing, that's what they've invested everything into. They go and say, the game has 10 types of challenges, and the player says, I want there to only be 9 and then spends everything to do that. As the GM you shouldn't scale up the world and make that challenge a challenge again. You should allow them to shine at their thing and have the challenge be in the remaining 9 things.

Do you believe CM/D exist? If yes, why would you want something to be trivialized? The whole idea behing the Disparity is Caster trivializing every bit of content with a single spell.


I don't understand why people is mad at "no fighters with light armor anymore".
If you want to fight and use light armor, go Rogue with Multiclass Feat Fighter.
This is class based game, classes SHOULD matter. It should be important what I chose as my main class.

Why overspecialize? Why do you want a system that allows that? If the system allows it, it means half the game base might be "playing wrong", not having a 20 in INT as a Wizard (huge fail in PF1).
I like this holistic approach where it's harder to make something that is not good enough.

Overall it was interesting read. Havent finished it, but it seems great. I'm worried about needing a feat to do ordinary things, but I hope more things are not gated behind a feat, need more reading though


I find it fair. Dying seems "hard" to achieve, but so is rez. It makes sense to be a ritual and not a random spell.
Plus anyone can cast it as long as they have the Skills, no magic needed


Finally no more discussions about having 5 in CHA and being a mute and super ackward in social situations.
I can have my 18 in STR, or 16, and still be completely useful. Also game will consider a starting 18 as base stat, so it won't be "super powerful".


sadie wrote:
Letric wrote:

I personally hated that.

Works like "poly, except..." you had to check several pages, there where always doubts and most of the things Poly did were not covered in the new part, so it wasn't clear whether some things apply or not.

I wish they would aim for a limit of spells each level. Example, have no more than 20 spells per level per class.
I really didn't enjoy at all having new spells. It's nice, yes, but new spells are either extremely good and become must have or plain garbage.
I would prefer if they could add variants of the same spells, or something like that, as not to create spellcasters with 100 spells each level, having to scroll through thousands of texts.

New spells are nice when they do truly new and interesting things. A new spell that's just like the old spell but with a different element or damage type or targeting a different creature type is boring.

Here's an idea: how about using the new action economy to enable spell combos? So imagine you cast two spells in a round. The first, taking one action, adds a modifier such as "icy"; the second, typically taking two actions, is something like "firebolt". Combined, they produce an icy firebolt. Some archetypes, feats or monster templates would then allow you to cast a single modifier spell for free, without the extra action (eg ifrit get to make all their spells firey). The upshot is you'd have a hundred spell combos for the price of only a few extra, since a great many spells could be modified that way. The book doesn't get filled with pointless copies of the same spell, and casters have lots of new options.

I personally prefer the Spheres of Power approach, because you have a set of defined possible combinations.

I like flavor, yes, but having to separate flavor from what the spell actually does is annoying.
Also I never enjoyed being a Cleric and having over 50 spells on each level, when you end up using always the same ones, except corner cases, but have to read all of them every now and then to check what they do.
Plus when description is 10 lines long but the real effect is just 1 line long, you're wasting space and time.

I usually prefer to roleplay my spells, instead of having the game decide what they do for me. Just tell me "does 10d6 of damage in area" and I chose how the spell actually looks


If they have DR I'm guessing some shield will take more damage from Fire, otherwise DR and Materials won't matter much.


I personally hated that.
Works like "poly, except..." you had to check several pages, there where always doubts and most of the things Poly did were not covered in the new part, so it wasn't clear whether some things apply or not.

I wish they would aim for a limit of spells each level. Example, have no more than 20 spells per level per class.
I really didn't enjoy at all having new spells. It's nice, yes, but new spells are either extremely good and become must have or plain garbage.
I would prefer if they could add variants of the same spells, or something like that, as not to create spellcasters with 100 spells each level, having to scroll through thousands of texts.


Ckorik wrote:

If you could buy a wand of Heal (the 6th level spell) every game group that could afford to do so - would buy it - before even upgrading equipment.

The wand of CLW isn't just the best in 'cost per charge' - it's the best because the other healing spells suck so much.

Honestly how many people even cast the other healing spells? Cure light, Cure Mod - get used - the other spells - well it's channel or wand - no one is going to blow high level spells for Cure Serious. People cast Heal though - because it has a use.

Frankly the argument over cost misses the entire boat that the cure spells suck in general - which is why everyone just goes for the cheapest - because 3d8+10 can still roll a 13 - while 1d8+5 is at least a 6 - and considering the cost difference (in spell slot or otherwise) no one cares that it *could* be much higher.

I felt that needed to be said - after getting it off my chest I think there is room to change cure spells - it'd be nice to have a 'mini - heal' in the 3rd level spells that heals 75 hps or 50% (whatever is less) - that spell would get used.

I think the problem is HP. Instead if Healing Spells would just like "up to X% of your HP Pool" it would be much better.

Light up to 25%
Moderate up to 50, etc.

Then you can have to some sort of Ritual to heal out of combat, or just use normal consumables.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
Dragonborn3 wrote:


When you MUST save your spare Resonance for HEALING quickly because if you don't you could DIE then there is something wrong.

I coudn't disagree more, a PC who isn't willing to reserve some of their personal equipment and "potential" for healing themselves should they get hurt (At least in a party without a dedicated Healer) SHOULD be punished.

If a PC can go in loaded to the gills having spent EVERY Copper piece they own on magic equipment to buff themselves, they would be remiss not to reserve some of that potential for healing. This is EXACTLY the kind of character who thrives in a 15 minute Day, they blow all their APL on powerful x/day effects and just wait until they can exploit them again.

I just don't understand why people think magical healing should be cheap, free, or easy.

Because I don't want to go through two rooms of a dungeon and then have to return to town to heal naturally for 4 days.

Because I don't want to be in a situation where one player is expected to be 'the healer' when no-one at the table wants to.

Because you say broken, I say working just fine thank you - as both GM and player.

We could have all PC reset to Full HP once combat is over. That would solve the Healing issue with Resonance, and you can diminish overall gold made by a tiny margin to make up for all those CLW Wands


Malk_Content wrote:
Letric wrote:


I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.

But if something is better it should cost more of something, otherwise

the worse version might as well not exist.

If something is better then CLW should costs MORE, not less, because IT IS better, that's why everyone uses it.

Who honestly uses Wands in Combat? And I mean Wands for healing. You just don't. If you get a Wand of level 4, you sell it, because you can buy 10 CLW Wands, or something even better.


I'm having a real hard time thinking "why people care so much about a single wand".

I think the issue is with pricing. If something heals 4d6 in 4 turns, and something heals 4d6 in 1 turn, they should cost the same.
If that were the case, no one would be spamming CLW.
On the other hand, even if you have a CSW Wand, you woudldn't use it in combat, it's not effective. You'd still use your own spells or much better options.

Being full HP after every single fight it's not "real life like" neither. You don't get into a fight, take some pills and are A-ok for another fight.

This could also be solved by having thresholds. Maybe CLW wounds can only heal you from 75% to 100% and if you're below that you need a CMW. It's annoying, and takes too much tracking.
That's why I'm in favor of this new system.


If the modifier is that low, won't the dice end up being the decision factor?
I dont like that, I mean, sorta happened in 5th where it was more luck based


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Letric wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

If I have it my way, I don't allow any rez magic besides Breath of Life and plot macguffin and PCs instead get a stack of fate/hero/whatever points they can burn to cheat death per game.

Easy access raise dead/resurrection honestly just makes internal consistency a pain to handle when anyone with means (kings, nobles, etc) just shrugs off death barring excessively convoluted means to keep a corpse dead and I was never a fan of Tippyverse frankly.

You cant avoid death by age. Wealth people live until they die, makes sense.

A King using reincarnate wouldnt be a kin anymore, why people should believe its him?

Actually you can avoid death by age these days with the various reincarnation spells. The cyclic variety even keeps you as the same race. Plus its not hard to verify that a reincarnated guy is in fact the same guy. Magic solves everything and all that jazz or just doing it publicly if you want to be mundane about it.

Cyclic reincarnation is a 6th level spell known only to druids. Good luck convincing druids to extend your life beyond its natural limits so you can keep your power. Just not gonna happen for the vast majority of king's/nobles.

Additionally, not everyone wants to come back after they die, even if they thought they did before death. One of the Pathfinder novels has a great example of this where someone who made plans to be resurrected just doesn't want to after their death.

And as for normal reincarnation, most people probably aren't gonna risk coming back as a kobold, goblin, bugbear, etc.

This was my point. Reincarte is nice, but its also risky move. Even if magic can tell youre the King, would people like being ruled by a dwarf, or kobold?

Regarding topic, I dont like coming back from death being harder than already it.
Its expensive, sets party back in WBL and requires having a cleric.

I dont know, never seen people going to their death just because they can come back


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

If I have it my way, I don't allow any rez magic besides Breath of Life and plot macguffin and PCs instead get a stack of fate/hero/whatever points they can burn to cheat death per game.

Easy access raise dead/resurrection honestly just makes internal consistency a pain to handle when anyone with means (kings, nobles, etc) just shrugs off death barring excessively convoluted means to keep a corpse dead and I was never a fan of Tippyverse frankly.

You cant avoid death by age. Wealth people live until they die, makes sense.

A King using reincarnate wouldnt be a kin anymore, why people should believe its him?


Omnius wrote:
Spheres of Power still works without Spheres of Might. It can be applied through archetypes or classes. Or both. It is significantly less complicated than Vancian, which is an immensely overbearing and complicated system with lots and lots of fiddly bits.

My question is this, we usually play APs, how do I adapt this?

Do I have to change every single combat to Spheres of Power?
To use feats and SoP I need to also use Spheres of Might?

I've been reading a bit, I get how it works, but still somewhat confused


It seems that you have to use those classes and basically re learn another game, right?
I though it was just something for the Magic, not an entire new game.

It seems quite complex and Im wondering how does it apply with feats and traits


Ive heard about this sytem, how does it work?
Is it ok to replace all magic with it?
Im trying to adopt it for my table

Where can I find it?


Youre effectively cancelling a spell 1 level higher with Limited Wish.
I would argue about the "cancels a harmful effect".
Being lost is not harmful.


ryric wrote:


+1 weapon has the same 75% chance as everything else. Luckily, most martials can easily outpace DR. It sucks, but shaving off 10 when you're hitting for 30 is manageable. No weapons above +2 are supposed to be easily available. Metropolis base value is 16k and that doesn't cover +3 weapons. Bigger than 16k cost and you're expected to craft it, find it, or get lucky with the random tables for major items in cities.

Fighter can craft his own +5 weapon if he spends the feats and skill ranks on it. It's suboptimal compared to having a caster friend, but the option is there. If you're really worried about magic DR oil of magic weapon is an option I often take with my starting money as a martial. Comes in handy if the adventure throws a shadow at you at level 1. It's like buying acid for swarms - just sound strategy at low levels.

It only takes a few hours to make a wedding cake IRL, but you need to order those well in advance. Successful crafters won't be prepared to drop everything they're doing just to make something for a PC. "Sure, I'll make your wand. But right now I'm halfway through a 5th level pearl of power. I'll add your wand to the list - come back in two weeks." I obviously wouldn't pull that every time as a GM, but doing it once or twice can enforce to the PCs that they're not the only adventurers in the world that want stuff made.

Sword is all a martial has, while not having a Wand of Vanish won't make a huge difference for a Wizard.

We usually just play according to wealth rules, if you want something that is up to X you can find it in small cities or big cities. We don't roll on each specific item in our group.
Personally I don't think it makes much sense, items are a necessity not a luxury for most PCs. But that is mostly to avoid time delays and such, not everyone plays like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:


I totally agree. Now imagine applying the same criteria for a Fighter. I'm sorry sir, we don't sell +1 weapon, try another city. Good luck bypassing DR, oh, surely your caster friend will help you with that.

If you want a Spell not to exist, you can do it, but it's not really a solution.
What if you want a +5 weapon, how do you get one? You need to buy one, or find a high level wizard.
You can potentially buy 1 scroll of Vanish and go to a Wizard and make 1 wand, it only takes 8 hours.


Shinigami02 wrote:


I will say just for fairness sake though, that the martial encounter had the same exact set-up (rises dead-center of room, over a pit, and immediately got surrounded) and didn't even have a potentially Wis-draining haunt right before it (though the haunt didn't actually get to do anything which is why I didn't actually mention it before.) It just happens the martial one could take a beating better, hit hard, and managed to survive the AoOs when it tried to retreat. Didn't have quite enough move speed to make it into a wall but just into a side room which is why it promptly died afterwards, but that's its own issue still.

EDIT: Also don't actually know why the party didn't use Stand Still then, but it wouldn't have changed the survival time really.

Usually Wizards from AP don't have many cool spells, or they learn spells thematically.

Personally all it takes to avoid Martial is a Wand of Vanish, as long as you can move, you can escape, or even cast standing next to them, they wont get an AoO.
Vanish is just 750GP for 50 charges, almost any level 2 character can get it. But this is because, I, as a player, will think of all the possible situations I could be in and try to avoid risks.
If I know I'm squishy, I'm having 14 CON and Favored Class bonus into HP.
I've seen Wizards from AP have spells like Shatter, which are completely useless against any PC since they will probably have a +1 weapon.

The issue with Magic is not only the stupid amount of spell selection, it is also the fact that unless DM restrict availability of them you can just buy them.

For example I love summons, but I just don't play them because they end up taking everybody spot. And now because of the system I'm having less fun so others can have fun with their martials.


RAW, you do not comply with requisites.

You have to charge from higher ground or while flying.
Falling down is not charging nor flying.
Algo being on higher ground it's already a +1, so the feat is only giving you +2.
Also, never seen anyone use the higher ground rules.


Graelsis wrote:
Party chat

You probably asked this as a player instead of character, and that made them believe that you person are selfish, which could not be. Maybe your character is. Make them understand it was your character and not you.

Also, if the Monk ask for free long term buff, ask him nicely to pay for a Pearl of Power, saying that having 2 prepare 2 Mage Armor will diminish your capacity for combat.
In all honestly this won't extremely change your like at +7 level, but it's a possible Vanish spell that last a lot that you wont have.

And if you really feel like being nasty, put the cleric on the spot and say "why isnt the cleric casting Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestment on the entire party? It's her job".
That will suddenly make your point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Oh I forgot one thing. Another personal instance were I saw this disparity.

Me as Shaman, being outclassed by the Martials.

At 1st (if taking the appropriate archetype) or 2nd level shamans pretty much spam their hex for most combats.

Other casters usually use have some means of staying relevant (or, at least, engaged). Clerics can build for being decent at combat, wizards school abilities are useful at low level (or they spam daze), etc.

Some caster builds can have a real problem at L1 but most are pretty decent by level 2+. Note, decent. NOT necessarily as powerful in combat as the barbarian.

With all this chat, I'd expect casters to break the game the moment they are included in the game. Doesn't matter what they actually can do or will do or how the player is.

DM: "Oh balls, caster. Time to scrap 75% of the game.".

It's like my experience with the Paladin threads all over again.

Hyperbole aside, it doesn't help my confidence to see all these threads and walk away with "You are a BAD caster you scrub" in my mind. This more than anything is making me not want to touch casters.

I'll just swap back to Alchemist.

It doesn't happen with every wizard, because it all depends on how it's played.

For example I had a party where being a God Wizard was completely useless because even though I could blind enemies for 4 turns, my party wasn't able to actually do enough damage to kill enemies.
In that case a Wizard might not seem OP, but it's.


Just a Mort wrote:
Some will say crafting a scroll is a waste of money, since you can use spell slots for it. Like running bulls strength every fight is exorbitant, but say Scrolls of lesser restoration, remove blindness, raise dead etc should be shared costs by the group.

I pay upfront the cost. I consider it is my duty as a Cleric to be ready for anything.

Now, if the scroll is used, I will demand money from the party.
Otherwise I will say: "Either I buy an armor or a scroll. I will go for the armor, if you want a scroll of Remove X just in case, pitch in everyone".

Now, random buffs? I don't think it's necessary to put those on scrolls. Most of the time I have scrolls like Prot from Evil, Water Brething for extreme cases where I have zero spells.
I don't ask my party to pay for those since they're part of the 25% players are supposed to destine to consumables.


Graelsis wrote:


Stuff

Monk is talking nonsense. If the benefit is for him, you shouldn't pay for that. Also, he should just buy you a Pearl of power level 1, you will ALWAYS prepare Mage Armor, this way 1 casting is for you, the other one for the Monk. Also 1hr/level for 1k, its pretty cheap.

Bracelets? Extremely expensive compared to that.

I'm having a hard time figuring out WHAT buffs are you talking about. For example if the Human Archer wants to have all day darkvision, that is something you shouldn't pay for.
If the barbarian is asking for an Enlarge Person, you just prepare it in your slots. Also, having those spells around in scrolls isn't a bad idea. But since your DM imposed a limit on scrolls, you should carry things that:

- will keep you alive. A dead wizard is a useless wizard
- will prepare you for the unexpected. See Invisibility, a second Glitterdust for invisible enemies, something to deal with swarms, etc.

Any other buffs depend on your build. If youre not a buffing Wizard, just dont buff your allies if this will cost you a sustainable amount of money.


Actually class matter a bit. I'm guessing you're a Wizard because of craft scrolls.
It all depends on roles. Is your role being the party buffer or is it just extra?
Is it a buff that a party member demands or is it you being nice?

A monk asking for a daily casting of Mage Armor should provide a Pearl of power to compensate for the slot.
Also, why put buffing on scrolls? Buffs should come from your daily spells, unless it's corner cases, like Water Breathing. In that case I personally wouldn't demand money, it's just a Wizard being ready for every situation.
I also wouldn't demand money if I'm a cleric buying a scroll of Remove Blindness. It's just my responsability to be ready for those situations. I might ask money to replace such scroll or I would just say "next time someone goes blind in middle of combat, you will have to wait for me to prepare spells".

One situation is being ready for the impossible, the other is pretending I should have a scroll of resurrection just because I'm a cleric.

Now, in cases like Lesser Restoration, I demand a party buys a wand and everyone put money on it, because unless they want to rest for days to refill my spells, all should be preapared to dish out money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Haldrick wrote:
Quote:

Letric said

At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.

This is true but a 5th level wizard has limited 2nd and 3rd level spells. This goes back to my point about prepared casters shining when they know what to expect. Spell casters can make encounters easy, but only so many times in a day.

Also climb is one of the easiest skills to replace.

Yes, but WBL comes to help Magic users. Wizards for example don't need weapons. That's a lot of money you're saving for crafted scrolls to cover all the utility you want.

Considering all the defensive capabilities Wizards have, they only need +INT items, they can easily ignore DEX and CON.
When a Cleric or a Fighter is dishing out 1500 for FullPlate, a wizard was able to afford learning several spells or having a great supply of Scrolls.
Yes, buying scrolls to learn spells is bad. But most level 3 spells or below will cover a lot of situational cases.
Also, if we're being fair, no one is expecting the Wizard to be able to make the whole party fly.

Also, any decent Wizard will always be carrying some sort of escape item on themselves that is not subject to AoO.
For examply my Wizard has a Wand of Vanish, level 2. Thats only 1500 gold for 2 rounds of Invisibility.

All I'm saying is that most of the times if a Wizard is easily killed is either because

- it was a 1 man encounter, where every class is bad due to action economy
- it was played as a non optimized blaster, just throwing fireballs instead of disabling enemies for easy clean up

Yes, wasting a spell on climbing seems harsh, or flying. But if you consider the outcome of a failure without such spells, youre looking at wasting several charges of a CLW wand to restore HP lost or even worse.


Shinigami02 wrote:


It's actually funny you mention this, because I have an anecdote that sort of applies to this (though the levels were really much lower, so not quite the same thing.) Party of 5, still low level (level 2 for both fights) fighting two bosses. One, CR 5 (equivalent to a level 6 NPC) martial opponent. Other, a level 8 Wizard (that because of plot things didn't have the chance to pre-buff.) Both fights start with basically the exact same setup. The martial opponent took several rounds to defeat, and even managed to kill a party member. The Wizard went down in a round and a half, never even had the chance to get off a single spell.

How is that possible? If the Wizard was level 5, and survived 1 round, the first thing you do is cast Invisibility. Or even the level 1 one.

That gives you plenty of time for buffing, summoning, casting non aggressive spells that wont make you visible.

All a Wizard needs is to win Initiative to have the upper hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe most people just look at combat.
Anyone can do damage. Wizards, God Wizards, will just make the encounter trivial using 2 spells top.
There is no way any martial could achieve this, no matter how many free feats you give them.

At level 1 climbing to a house to infiltrate it seems extremely hard for a level 1 party.
For a Rogue the difference between level 1 and 5 will be 4 more skill points, for a Wizard its going to be Fly, Levitate, Spider Climb, pick your thing.

Suddenly something hard become trivial for 1 party member, while still being challenging for another.
You can say the Rogue is able to buy Spider climb cloak, but while the rogue is dishing out X gold, Wizard wasted nothing to achieve same result.


That archetype if useful for level 10 only. And the shield one, if you have cool spells.
But the level 10 is worth if you dont like having wizard bond. You can now invest in scrolls that will become super useful lasting your CL, which is the most important reason.
Also using feats and INT for DC is just great. Scrolls of Fireballs, of enervating, anything you can think of and you will never be out of spells.
Wizards dont really need Wealth to be usefull except +INT, so even if you go scroll crazy, youre still going to be contributing more than enough to your party.


I personally didn't experience this issue, but I know it's there.
Mostly because my party members are bad at making characters, and I usually end up with Oracles that only heal, maxing CHA and nothing else or Ninja with max DEX and CHA and zero STR, or Slayers going 2WF caring more about having high AC than actual damage.

But I believe Sleep is just a 1 shot spell. A normal Wizard can use it 2 times a day. If that's not enough to overshadow everyone else, what is?
Plus why would a Wizard be easy target? 16 DEX is expected +4 Mage Armor +1 AC from mundame item. Thats 18 AC at level 1, unless they have very good rolls enemies will have a hard time hitting a Wizard.
A lot more than what could be expected from a Rogue or Fighter.
Sure, Mage Armor wont always be up, but if its a dungeon, 1 hour its more than enough.
Also, if youre using sleep, much easier, dont need to be up close, though the 1 round casting time requires protection from your fighters.

Thing is, as you go up in level, using spider climb for climbing 1000 feet is a lot cheaper and less risky than actually investing all your points into climbing and doing it yourself.
The same applies for movement in battle. Some scenarios without Fly are extremely hard to accomplish.
Crossing to another side without a bridge becomes impossible without thousands of miles of rope, when a simple spell can do it.

DC require so much investment and what you get in return doesnt even matter when a Wizard can cast 1 spell out of her 20 to her disposal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine this. Cause Fear is a level 1 spell. If you fail the check, it's 1d4 rounds running away from the spellcaster and another 1d4 to come back to your party.

And thats a level 1 spell.


JDLPF wrote:

They're 15th level so far, so the item's within the Wealth by Level guidelines, and as far as I can see, it functions at will to cast Plane Shift as a standard action command word.

As for encounters, fleeing to a different plane would depend on their initiative roll for the start of combat. Typically they'd be able to survive one round of environmental hazards on most planes, even the ones hostile to humanoids such as the Plane of Fire (3d10 fire damage per round isn't gonna kill a 15th level character fast enough to matter, though they might be more upset that their flammable gear such as cloaks are gonna take fire damage and likely be destroyed).

So far I've got the following:

Astral Plane: Astradaemon (CR 16)
Ethereal Plane: 4 Advanced 14 HD Xill (CR 16)
Shadow Plane: Nightwalker (CR 16), Advanced Dark Creature Lesser Bandersnatch (CR 15)
First World: Advanced Ankou (CR 15), 3 Advanced Fey Hounds of Tindalos and Wild Hunt Scout (CR 16), Phantom Ring (CR 9)
Elemental Plane of Air: Tornado (CR 10)
Elemental Plane of Water: Flowing Water, Whirlpool (no CR, but failed Swim checks separate party members)
Elemental Plane of Earth: Cave-In (CR 8)
Elemental Plane of Fire: Fire-Dominant Trait Damage, Lava Immersion (CR 14)

I wouldnt mess with pc items unless it was previously agreed. Messing with pc items could be wrongbadfun for many. I do not take pleasure in having my +5 Saves cape destroyed because I got teleported.

Also, why would the party take the risk of using this amulet? Is there a reason for this?

On the other hand do not rely solely on combat. Plane of Fire could be easily resisted with Resist Energy which last a lot of time, so it's not really a huge problem. If part knows they will be forcefully teleported, they will just get an item/spell to breathe anywhere and solve most of their problems.

Im having a hard time with a party accepting this, unless theres some plot forced down the characters throat.


I mean, besides the "fun" if Id have a character like that in my party, even my 6 INT Wizard would refuse to party with such character.
Imprevisibility is something an adventurer can expected, now, forced imprevisibility, no, I outright refuse it.

If you really want it, you could have 2-3 encounters prepped for each scenario and shuffle between them, or/and just add random NPC reprensentative of those planes that always have a way to go back


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2017 where everyone gets offended by anything and you want to play that? Please, dont.
People rage at Paladin, could you even start imagining about a character with insert whatever it is, i wont say it might offend people.
No, no, no. Dont.


It's funny because all of that doesn't matter if he puts points in diplomacy.
It's just a stat imo.
You can have 5 STR doesn't mean you can't climb a tree, just need More ranks Ana you Will never Excel at it


So 10 is an average roll that I can always take unless im in combat or heavily distracted.
20 I can only take if there's no chance of failing?
So I couldn't take 20 for Disable Device or Traps, but I could for searching.


I'm a bit confused about this. I'm not when and on what skills check I can take 10-20.
Lets say I'm climbing, why could I take 10 if I could fall or why couldn't I take 20 and just dont bother with it?


I wouldnt chose asmodeus, bcs you lose imp familiar, since imp familiars can't have archetypes.


Illeist wrote:

Two creatures who are each other's allies are not in melee when standing adjacent to one another. If those two were also each adjacent to a mutual enemy and threatening it and being threatened, then they are in melee and could be randomly hit by a natural one with Reckless Aim. (Sleep dep makes me not 100% sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing and with which part of the statement, so I'm just going to lay everything out.)

Also, just to further rain on your parade, I think you might have parsed Finish the Fight wrong. You only gain the bonus to attack rolls on a given creature once you've wounded it, not if you've wounded someone else. It's neat, but it's not super useful for high AC enemies, since you still need to hit them first.

Hm, I don't read it that way. I mean, yes, the feat says:

When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee

but the condition to apply the damage to them is not that they're engaged in melee, but that they threaten your intended target:
"you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target".
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).


Illeist wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

There are other ways to reduce the risk for your allies:

- get allies with reach (reach weapons, enlarge and so on);
- get disposable allies, (low level summons), maybe even a swarm could work (diminutive creatures would be immune from your damage, the only problem is controlling them ).
Swarms don't threaten, and non-adjacent threatening creatures aren't in melee.

I decided to go against the feat mostly because I don't want to deal with people complaining I hit them LOL.

It could happen and well, we don't have a cleric, so Breath of Life is not an option, except for me at very high levels.

Since I'm Arsenal chaplain I should be more than ok with to hit and I even took Finish the Fight which is a trait that gives +1 attack if you have injured someone in the last 24 for hours, which means is basically always on.

But it was my understanding that yeah, even enemies count for the 1, not just allies


nicholas storm wrote:

I was building a dwarf warpriest with the evangelist prestige class for fun. It delays your feats, but gives more skill points and you get a big payoff at level 14 with WIS to hit and damage within 30'.

If you build a straight warpriest, it's possible to load up on Wisdom instead of DEX if you take Erastil's Blessing.

I HATE Erastil. The lore for that god is awful. I haven't decide my deity yet, but I'm going to be from Urglin, close to a human settlement, so I intend to worship a chaotic/evil god, being Chaotic Neutral if possible.

Evangelist is a great PrC, but I'd lose Fort/Ref, 1 BAB and 1 Casting level. And honestly, I don't even need 6 skill points!
Since we're always the same group, we have divided our skills carefully, so we have a skill monkey with some Knowledges and a Witch with others.

The paladin and my warpriest are the damage dealers of the party, so I need to be quite good.

I'm thinking about classes to combine evangelist with, because it's a really cool class

1 to 50 of 1,013 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>