Search Posts
The incredible nonsense that comes out in these Paladin fall threads regarding morality is why I will never play a Paladin. If you sit five people down and ask them to define any alignment, you will get five different answers. and a shouting match for your trouble. Alignment should be scrapped.
Dumping Craft Wand for Craft Staff is impossible, because, as you note, it has a prerequisite of CL 11. Furthermore, taking a craft feat for a single magical item is of very dubious value. I don't take crafting feats because of availability, I take them because effectively doubling your wealth is incredibly powerful. As for Command Undead, it has a duration of days per level, and it doesn't have a saving throw, not at any time you actually want to cast it (i.e. on unintelligent undead, intelligent undead are too dangerous to keep around anyway). I have plenty of necromancy spells which offer saves, and that list will only grow at higher levels. A 12 Charisma isn't really "high" it's the bare minimum for characters who want to play the "social game". Charm type spells are absolutely atrocious as a substitute. Fail a diplomacy check on the king's minister, and he turns down your request. Cast Charm Person on him and one of two things happen: 1, he succeeds on his save. You are now a hunted fugitive. 2, he fails, and grants your request. Then the spell expires, he rescinds any favours granted, and orders a manhunt. You are now a hunted fugitive. Not exactly brilliant. Charm type spells are only ever useful for prisoners and other potentially useful, uncooperative but powerless to harm you individuals. I don't have a familiar because I don't want a familiar, Having a free spontaneous slot is pure bonus (and allows me to craft a ring of invisibility). Anyway, a lot of people seriously undervalue the ability to cast any spell in your spellbooks. As for initiative, I would like it higher, but the build is already packed with feats that are must-haves for this character. Whether going CRB only "these days" "hurts", is immaterial. It does, but that's neither here nor there. Some people try to argue that Pathfinder doesn't have power-creep. Lol.
Just noticed it says "Detect Undead" in 4th level spells, that should be Detect Scrying.
Generally? Looks pretty solid. Though, as others note, I'd never ban Conjuration, it has too many spells that are flat-out great to have. Enchantment and Necromancy are the default banned schools on all my Wizards, so I mostly just wanted to be forced into playing something off the beaten path. Thanks for the input.
Is no news good news?
Playing "that wizard" is why I play Wizards. Ending the combat before the fighter can roll any dice is my idea of a good time. But only if I can work in snarky comments and backhanded compliments (in character). What? It's their own fault. Should have played a spellcaster. Actually, they should have played a Wizard. ^_^
-
Str 7
HP 63
Fort +9
Feats: Scribe Scroll, Spell focus (Enchantment), Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment), Spell Focus (Necromancy), Greater Spell Focus (Necromancy), Craft Wondrous Item, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Craft Wand Skills: Asterisk marks Headband bonus skills Spellcraft +20
Arcane Bond: (Item, Ring) Spellbook: Forbidden Schools are Conjuration, Evocation. Spells marked with asterisk are those selected at level-up 5th: Mind Fog*
4th: Confusion*
3rd: Heroism*
2nd: Hideous Laugher*
1st:
Magical Gear Crafted: Wand of True Strike 375
Headband of Vast Intelligence +4 8000
Purchased: Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend 3000
Remaining gold: 2225 ------ How does that look?
I will tinker a little bit, then post a proper, complete level 10 build tomorrow, time permitting. To Reynard-the-fox, many of your points are addressed in my reply to andrewww (and the rest will most likely be addressed by the more complete build tomorrow). regarding Enervation, I would take the time to cast True Strike if I had reason to suspect that the target had a touch AC higher than 15. To the incoming mob bearing torches, yes, action economy, I know. But that's not an argument I want to have right now, suffice it to say I like to still have spells left after 2 encounters so I'm not useless when the 3rd encounter shows up.
Necromancy and Illusion (or necromancy and abjuration) are usually the schools i ban when i go the enchanter route. I would never replace conjuration though, its a dangerous decision. As you may have noticed, banned Necromancy and Evocation. We have a cleric in the party so loss of Necromancy probably isn't going to be a major problem if undead rock up. To both, as stated in my other reply, I consider the character as much a Necromancer as an Enchanter, the choice of specialization is made is easy by Necromancy school powers being awful in comparison. To shadowkras, while I consider Conjuration to be the most powerful school, I'm not sure I would go as far as to say banning it is dangerous, unless you specifically mean the lack of teleport makes escape less likely should events turn south.
Looking at what you want to do I am rather unconvinced by the necromancy spell focus choices. You have two necromantic spells which allow a save, Blindness and Command Undead. Command Undead allows no save for mindless targets. Blindness is good but I don't think it is a two feat investment good. Many necromancy spells work with no save, enervation and waves of fatigue being prime examples. I would dump the feats. I would normally agree here, however, in all likelihood I will also end up with Hold Undead, Bestow Curse, Magic Jar, and later Eyebite and Undeath to Death. These spells give me anti undead options and additional save lowering capability. Magic Jar allows for some truly terrifying shenanigans. Especially with an Enchanter. It looks unimpressive right now but I fully believe those spell focus (N) feats will pay off handsomely in play. Furthermore, I think of the Character as a "dual-specialist" if you will. He could as easily be built as a necromancer with Spell Focus (enchantment) if the Necromancy school powers weren't such an awful joke. In their place I would definitely pick up improved initiative, especially with a Dex of 10 and no initiative boosting trait or familiar. I might also be tempted to take Toughness. Normally I would skip this as a bad choice but 10 Con is very dangerous on a wizard. Personally I would probably live with a starting 18 or 19 int, drop charisma some and boost dex and con. Other choices might include Extend Spell or Craft Rod. Craft Rod or Extend Spell can still be fit in, I haven't decided on my tenth level bonus feat. I like improved initiative, but I would be more likely to replace greater spell penetration than spell focus for it. The HP situation is perilous, but keep in mind that the 15 point buy assumption won't necessarily hold, since I haven't encountered a group that actually uses point buy since I was playing 3.5, about 5 or 6 years ago. I would consider dropping knowledge (history) and switching the favoured class bonus to HP, but this would be painful as I consider that skill thematically important. Banning conjuration is a bad idea, you will regret the lack of easy access to teleportation. Also with neither conjuration or evocation you lack many ways to deal with creatures which are traditionally immune to enchantment, undead, golems, oozes and swarms. You have access to necromancy but control undead, while excellent, is probably not enough on its own for undead. Golems will be immune to pretty much everything you have. You have no real area affect spells for swarms. I understand this. Banning the strongest (imo) school is pretty much a straight nerf. It is calculated though. For fast travel I can use Shadow Walk if I need to, but I actually wanted to avoid the whole "continent hopping" thing as much as possible and play a Wizard that is a little more low key and subtle than usual. I'm not really concerned about enchantment immune stuff to be honest, I don't want to be casting save-or-suck spells every encounter if it can be helped, a GM is liable to start fudging saves if you overdo it. Alexei is a Buffer/Debuffer first, so if a golem shows up I'll just focus on buffing. I have no trouble spending large sums of gold on scrolls, should they be available, So the spell selection above really only represents the bare minimum for what I want the character to be able to accomplish. Swarms may cause issues, but then again, these tend to be a low level threat, often handled by Alchemist's fire. On gear you will need some of the standard stuff in addition to those listed. The Handy Haversack and Cloak of Resistance are as near to mandatory as it gets for a Str7 wizard. The Mind Fog trick is interesting but really probably not needed. At level 10, assuming a +4 Headband your enchantment DC's are 20+level. CR10 monsters have saves between 9-13 generally. Hold Monster for example will work anywhere between 55% and 75% of the time. Mind Fog has to be cast in combat and is stationary and the target has to fail the save. You would be better off just using an offensive spell on each round. Yeah, Handy haversack and Cloak of resistance are mandatory. Any question is simply how much to invest in the cloak. As for the Necklace of Adaptation, it's really neat item that somehow managed to escape my notice previously. Yes, the Mind Fog trick is a bit gimmicky, but it can also act as a deterrent, making intelligent monsters think twice about getting in your face. Plus it can't hurt to be plain immune to drowning, suffocation and every cloud and fog spell and effect out there.
I haven't figured out Alexei's attitude regarding religion or what god he worships, if any, yet.
So, I'm not currently in a game, but I want to have a character planned out and ready to deploy should I manage to hunt down a Pathfinder GM. I play CRB only characters because reasons. Please don't recommend any non-core materiel. Anyway, a rough build of the character as envisioned at 10th level. I intend to mainly concern myself with buffing and debuffing, with significant save-or-suck casting ability in a pinch. I will be preparing and setting the stage, to, at higher levels (12+),simultaneously bring in the Dominated Meat Puppet aspect of enchantment as well as undead minions, preferably strong, high HD monsters. Trying to pull this off any earlier often backfires since your Wizard isn't strong enough yet to really throw his weight around, and good aligned party members can get really pissy over this kind of thing (the pansies ; p) Sir Alexei Grigorovitch Petrov of Shudderwood and the Immortal Principality of Ustalav (and yes, that's how he introduces himself) Neutral human male Enchanter 10 (Consider this 15 point buy a placeholder array that shows my priorities. I don't know what I'll end up playing with) STR 7
Arcane bond: an item, a familiar is out of the question in this case. The extra Spontaneous spell is simply more Valuable to me in this instance. Feats: Scribe scroll w
Will take leadership if GM allows, probably at 11th, though possibly swapping out spell penetration in order to take it immediately at 7th. Spells I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I consider these the correct schools to "ban": Evocation, Conjuration. These are the two most "flamboyant" schools of magic, and, as you can see from my spell selection, I really wanted this guy's magic to be a little more low key and subdued, while still being effective. 5th level: Mind Fog
4th level: Confusion
3rd level: Heroism
2nd level: Hideous Laughter
1st level: Sleep
That's before scrolls. I plan on investing a not insignificant amount into scrolls, especially Illusion spells. Trained skills: Spellcraft
Linguistics is looked down upon as a skill, I know. However, It seems to often be forgotten that it isn't just the speak more languages skill, it also allows one to create and detect forgeries. A golden opportunity for fun and profit by the creative player. Magic Items: Necklace of Adaptation 9000 (4500)
These Items are non-negotiable, the Necklace of Adaption enables a very neat defensive gimmick in the tactic of standing in the middle of a Mind Fog, a trick which opens up all sorts of nasty options. The Blessed Book is one of my favourite items general (and pays for itself eventually), and the headband is self-explanatory. I'm quite open to advice regarding the rest of my potential baubles, and regarding just how much to invest in the headband. 501750 gp remains to be spent. Now on to characterization and background. Alexei is a member of a house of minor rural aristocrats whose ancestral holdings occupied an edge of Ustalav's Shudderwood forest. The keep was lost in a sudden night raid by undead when Alexei was still a youth of 17. Alexei's father and brother as well as many servants and retainers died in the attack, and Alexei himself nearly lost his own life to a Shadow in the attack, and in fact never fully recovered from incident. Eventually, Alexei was able to gain an apprenticeship (His mother, a woman who was loath to see the considerable talents of her only remaining son go to waste, had convinced her family, whom she now lived with, to pay his tuition) with with an Elven enchanter who lived near the Shudderwood in order to observe the malicious and exceedingly dangerous Fey who lived there, from as safe a distance as possible. Alexei was of an odd temperment, and despite, or perhaps because of, his experiences, He was utterly fascinated with the undead, Fey and magic. He had none of the Traditional Ustalavic Superstition, and was an extremely bright student. Personal characteristics: Alexei is Somewhat fatalistic, but this is tempered by a sort of rote paranoia and caution from living in a very suspicious and dangerous country. While he considers his enchantment magic his "secret weapon" and tries to conceal it as much as is possible without it becoming a serious handicap, He is quite open about his identity as a magic user, and actively courts the traditional aesthetic of the "mage", though he tries not to admit so. He is completely amoral, almost never making judgements about what is right or wrong, instead he talks about what is "correct" and "effective" or not. However, he is not vicious or cruel in the least, and his moral non-judgement sometimes means he can be more merciful than those who claim righteousness. Visual description: This man of about 30 wears an unadorned white robe and carries a satchel under a purple hemmed black cloak. his fair hair and carefully trimmed beard are conservatively coiffured after the style of Ustalavic nobility. His jewelry is understated and simple in design, and of high quality. He leans upon a staff of light coloured wood carved in a spiraling design.
'Kay. I've said enough in this thread. you've gone back to "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" again. I'm not going to argue in circles.
Which is not a majority of players to be honest. Of course not. The implication is that it should not be obscure to game designers. If I was working on an updated version of 3.5, the first place I would go would be to charop, to get a handle on what my job entails.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm saying, that failing a buff of varying potency across the martial classes (an event I am dead certain will not happen inside this edition of pathfinder, so maybe never), I want beast totem and superstitious nerfed, nothing more nothing less. I'm not asking for nerfs on anything else, just those two features, which in my opinion stretch things just a little too much considering that other classes get nothing comparable. I am aware of the power gap between Fighter, Rogue, Monk and the rest of the classes, but that in no way changes what I'm saying.
I remain unconvinced of this, even in regards to the Ranger and Paladin. Mostly based on personal experience. The Monk is a complicated example because of the archetypes for that class were apparently supposed to "fix" the class, yet the chassis of the class is still fundamentally broken in my opinion. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the cavalier, as I have yet to see the class in play, but I have read it. Anyways, mounted has always been a really strong option, when it actually is an option, it is basically situational.
Yes, they are saying that, by insisting that "Barbs are fine becuz Wizards" which is ridiculous. It is because I'm aware of Paizo's mulish stubbornness regarding "balance", and I use that term very loosely in regards to pathfinder, that I'm pushing the more realistic course of nerfing, specifically, beast totem, and superstitious.
I don't think that is clear at all by my reading, and I also disagree that one cannot come to the conclusion that Barbs shouldn't be nerfed down to Fighter level. Like I said, Paizo thinks the Rogue and Monk are fine, to the point that they are extremely cautious about buffing them, or even flatly refusing to do anything about them. Do we really think the Fighter and Cavalier (and also the Ranger and paladin, since they also lack pounce like options) are going to get a buff from this company (this edition, if a 2nd ed is ever released)?
To be fair, haste is one of D&D's most iconic spells. It's nowhere near as obscure as stuff like Simulacrum and Planar Binding wish factories. I'd like to think it's a bit obvious for the dev team to overlook.While I agree in this case that haste is fine as published, this line of logic is dubious at best and in some cases a complete fallacy. That stuff isn't obscure to anyone who has spent a modicum of time on charop boards.
So what are you saying exactly? That I should just forget about playing any heavily armoured warrior (awful lot of fantasy history and tropes goes out the window with that one) that isn't lawful good and infused with divine power? Or maybe I want to play an effective Monk. You know, that class that has been around since 1st ed? Oh wait, it's refuse. I should know better. Monks are badwrongfun. Paladins are an ultra-specific RPG trope. Rangers are more flexible than they used to be, but they still come with boyscout nature boy flavour out of the box. Maybe I don't won't to play those classes. I'm sorry, but what you're saying is bs.
Which definitely serves to reinforce the idea that Barbarians are not OP, though they do have options that are pretty superior to the same level options of their martial counterparts.The weaker end of the Summoner spectrum is the stronger end of the martial spectrum.Fortunately they're already on the weaker end of the Summoner spectrum, so no worries there.Perhaps pounce in general should only apply to natural attacks.Synthesist Summoners would laugh even harder. So where does that leave Fighters? Barbarians do not equal "the martial spectrum". Either Barbarians get cut down to size to be in line with other martials, or the martials get buffed to the Barbarians level. Since Paizo seems to think that the Rogue, nevermind the Fighter, is fine as is, I'll only give you one guess as to which option is more likely to happen. It doesn't matter if the Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Druid or Wizard, it matters that Barbarian is or isn't balanced against the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk and Cavalier, Because those classes exist in the same continuum.
Funny thing is, slow is an awesome spell, but I haven't seen it cast in literally years, because haste, fly, dispel magic, fireball and you're done. anything beyond that is coming from scrolls, and if you're a Sorcerer, then, well I hope you enjoy casting those four spells, every single time you roll a Sorcerer. Your 3rd level spells are picked for you before you even get 2nd level spells.
It has everything to do with the need to drop your expectations that Pathfinder gameplay should mimic reality, though. That ship has long sailed. Realistic does not equal "reality". It's about verisimilitude.
AND FOR SOME REASON RANGERS AND FIGHTERS CAN'T DO ANYTHING REMOTELY SIMILAR. I GUESS THEY AREN'T ANGRY ENOUGH. WHY ARE WE YELLING IN CAPS?1?1!!1? Instant enemy has nothing to do with mobile full attacks, Fighters are underpowered, why do Barbarians get to hoard all the nice things (skill points, powers, pounce)?
It is broke. The designers are hardly infallible. Just ask the Monk, or Rogue. Or look at prone shooter, simulacrum, planar binding, CMD/CMB, size categories, Eidolons, ragelancepounce, instant enemy, etc, etc. Also, you sound defensive, why?
AND FOR SOME REASON RANGERS AND FIGHTERS CAN'T DO ANYTHING REMOTELY SIMILAR. I GUESS THEY AREN'T ANGRY ENOUGH. WHY ARE WE YELLING IN CAPS?1?1!!1?
Actually, I agree. I would rather see Pounce deleted from Barbarians, But that's probably not going to happen. So I advocate bringing other classes up to par, with similar features.
There are wizards who don't want craft wand?Don't think that I don't. But that doesn't address the issue (that Haste is just to much for a 3rd level spell), it just means I'm spending a fortune (and a feat) crafting wands, even if it is a good investment. And that isn't even an option at levels when you're still relying on 3rd level spell slots anyway.Eh I don't think haste needs a nerf. It's one of the best kinds of spells. Powerful, but not directly for the caster. Correct.
Well, it it ain't broke... :) It is broke. It's been driving me nuts since 3.5. Even a material component cost would do. 100gp per casting, fixed.
We should outright ban haste. In fact, we should outright ban all spells. Hell, we should ban weapons too, nobody should have nice things in this game. No one."Hear Hear!" -- Every monk in the universe Nah, they'd still get shown up by Rangers. And Fighters. And Rogues... Ouch.
We should outright ban haste. In fact, we should outright ban all spells. Hell, we should ban weapons too, nobody should have nice things in this game. No one. I like where this is going... Can we ban kids on my lawn too? And fun? See, that's what all this is about, banning fun, not reducing the power of unbalanced spells that no one looks at twice because they've become acclimated to the unbalance.
Really, Barbarians shouldn't get pounce unless everybody gets pounce-like options. That alone makes Barbarians unbalanced. I wouldn't care all that much if say, Fighters and Monks and everybody else could do something similar, It would simply be a feature of "warrior types". The current situation is ridiculous though.
Eh I don't think haste needs a nerf. It's one of the best kinds of spells. Powerful, but not directly for the caster. Don't think that I don't. But that doesn't address the issue (that Haste is just to much for a 3rd level spell), it just means I'm spending a fortune (and a feat) crafting wands, even if it is a good investment. And that isn't even an option at levels when you're still relying on 3rd level spell slots anyway.
When I saw the Crane Wing errata it made me kind of sad. Not because of the changes to crane wing, I've never played with anyone who uses it, but because I knew there would be people asking "what should we 'crane wing' next?" I think it set a bad precedent.I disliked it because it was an option that only benefited martial characters, and only detracted from martial melee characters. It was of no use to your typical Wizard, Sorcerer, With, etc. But Slumber and such things that are caster-only got largely left alone.Well, is your Wizard a Buffer, Debuffer, Blaster, or Controller? Because only a buffer should feel anything wrong with not preparing at least 1 haste. The rest of wizard playstyles should probably have a Dispel Magic or three on hand most of the time. My point is that it doesn't matter what flavor of caster I bring, Haste is Haste. It's not like blasting or enchantment, which require investment to be effective, all haste requires is a party that includes characters that use the full attack action. Did you prepare haste? if so your Wizard is now a buffer, never mind that you don't even have any other buff spells, Haste is just that good. Did you prepare fireball? if so you should feel bad, because you made the Paladin and the Rogue cry.
Eh I don't think haste needs a nerf. It's one of the best kinds of spells. Powerful, but not directly for the caster. I think there is a problem when I feel guilty for preparing dispel magic or tiny hut thinking "this could have been another haste", or "that enervation could be an extended haste". My Wizard shouldn't be having breakdowns like he's f*$&ing Oskar Schindler at the end of the movie... Spoilers...
Personally I think that Haste should be nerfed to single target, close range, at leas, if kept at 3rd. If not raised in spell level as written, since only a few seem to agree with that solution. I'm aware of the 3rd edition version, and while it made casters even more powerful, not everyone agrees that the 3.5 version was a nerf. Some are of the oppinion that it was actually a "stealth" buff to the overall effectiveness of the party, while making it less of a "one man Wizard celebration".
So, Who here is willing say that Haste, when you account for general effectiveness returned versus spell level, is the single most powerful spell in pathfinder? I am. Other spells may be more powerful in absolute terms, but none so consistently and drastically effect an encounter, at such an early level, and remain so tremendously effective into the highest levels as haste. If Haste didn't already exist and a player came to me with Haste as a custom spell, I would say "Okay, this looks cool, but it's not a 3rd level spell, make it 6th level and you've got a deal". If that seems extreme to you, look at 6th level Transmutations and ask yourself honestly, Would I rather cast Mass Bull's strength, Disintegrate or Haste? Well, Disintegrate might deal a fair amount of damage, but it requires an attack roll... And allows a save... And probably won't deal as much damage as hasting your party works out to anyway. I motion that haste be Crane Winged. Yay? Nay?
The fact that you are comparing the entire classes with one class feature of the Summoner is telling. Who are these mysterious "opponents" and how are they handwaving "just killing" a D8 hit-die class that can cast stoneskin and comes with a hard hitting meat shield as a class feature? One of the Wizards favourite battlefield control tactics is... You guessed it, flooding the battlefield with summons! Your examples are terrible.
they are op because people say they are... not because they are in reality. "Nuh uh!" Give me specific reasons and comparisons to other classes showing how they aren't actually overpowered. Substance, not empty denials.
Summoners brokenness stems from the ability to at will modify the eidolon on the fly using the aspect spells. There aren't any classes that outperform them. You're completely ignoring all the posts that specifically point out all the reasons Summoners are ridiculous. Yet you act like the case is closed when the Summoners-are-fine crowd's arguments basically amount to "nuh uh!". Read Ashiel's post and just try to demonstrate how his arguments are wrong, specifically. I'll be waiting (but not holding my breath).
I can't stand Druids either. But that is sort of an odd pet hate, a very uncommon one I believe. BTW, who cares about cure spells like they're some big deal anyway? Summoners get Haste!
It might work on Golems... Maybe... !
There is a difference between top tier and broken. Like I pointed out in my post above, a Conjurer with an emphasis on summoning (emphasis, not tunnel vision), is already generally considered one the most effective ways to play a very dominant class. Then the Summoner comes along and is even better at that tactic, and has an "Eidolon" (whatever that is) to boot, of course people are going to hate it.
I dislike the summoner on the basis that there was already a specialist wizard devoted to the same concept; on the basis that its "six spell levels" include spells that are ordinarily 7th, 8th, or 9th (unlike the inquisitor or bard); and because the eidolon, while great for player freedom, didn't strike me as particularly well-balanced.Seconded. But it's the "taking the conjurer's stuff" that I most dislike. Yeah, this. I mean, who thought, I know, let take one of the most powerful and popular tactics, from one of the most powerful and popular subtypes (conjurer specialization, which is already too good compared to other Wizard specializations), of one of the most powerful and popular classes, even though that class subtype already perfectly represents the intended archetype, and then make it make way more powerful and effective at that one thing! Oh, and give it a completely customizable full BAB familar/pseudo cohort that makes the Fighter weep, as a class feature. Brilliant.
If it's not on other forums, maybe it's just a quirk of the paizo forum. That being said, and although I haven't seen the extremes you're talking about, I also really dislike the class. For one thing, It's overpowered, for another, minions are just a pain in the ass, extra bookkeeping, and they slow the game down to a grind as the summoner player flips through the bestiary looking for the bestest monster to summon, recalculates hit points because he forgot about augment summoning's con bonus, and his dire tiger really shouldn't have died last turn, and a million other fiddly little things while I sit on my hands asking if it's finally my turn and I can just cast my dazing fireball and be done in half the time it took for the summoner player to decide which beastie to summon. Plus the class gets nonsensical stuff like Haste, which has nothing to do with summoning, other than the fact that it works really well with summoning.
"Slam" has always bugged me. What's the difference between a "slam" and an unarmed strike? Being a vampire Monk would be weird... Does his unarmed strike inflict drain? if not, why not? It's just odd.
a Fighter 2/ Cavalier 2/ Ranger 2/ Paladin 2/ Monk 2 (just for example, and arguably more effective than what your player is doing), while fairly nifty and very survivable, is far from problematic. In 3.5 this build tactic actually worked better, since you didn't have to worry about losing capstone abilities etc.
If we're stuck with the current system, I can't choose to cast another Dispel Magic if the only one I prepared failed to land. Yes, you can, because the Sorcerer was written for you.
This is what I'm talking about. If some people want point based or skill based casting, that's fine, but why does that have to entail gutting the current system? The Wizard isn't all that different from the Magic-User of old, and for those of us who prefer to continue playing that class more or less as is, and has been, let us do so. |
