Jeb Graden

Normal Pathetic Caster's page

19 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


I cannot seem to find any concrete answer in the PHB for this, so I ask away.

Can multiple instances of the same spell stack if they provide a different effect? An example being can one be affected by both a resist energy spell for fire and a resist energy spell for acid? Would this apply to a spell such a "spell immunity" as well?

Here is a crazy question. The rules for crafting a scroll state

"The process to Craft a scroll is much like that to Craft any other magic item. When you begin the crafting process, choose a spell to put into the scroll. You have to either Cast that Spell during the crafting process, or someone else must do so in your presence. Casting that Spell doesn’t produce its normal effects; instead, the magic is trapped inside the scroll. The casting must come from a spellcaster expending a spell slot. You can’t Craft a scroll from a spell produced from another magic item, for example. The caster has to provide any cost of the spell."

Would it be possible to cast

You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
Duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower.
Duplicate any non-arcane spell of 7th level or lower.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
Reverse certain effects that refer to the wish spell.

For say a wizard to create scrolls of 7th level or lower divine spells? Also would this not also make it possible to create scrolls of 9th level or lower uncommon arcane spells, to later then use the arcana skill to learn them and add it to your spellbook? Other than it being a gross misuse of vast arcane power.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread in a nutshell

Thanks all.

graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
"A cantrip is a special type of spell that doesn’t use spell slots." Plus "you can trade two spell slots of the same level for a bonus spell slot of up to 2 levels higher than the traded spell slots."

For some reason I just completely missed that first sentence.

Its a bit of a bummer that all the other theses actually do something at level 1, you can't even use this until level 3, but I guess that's the price for something so powerful. :)

Can a wizard with the Spell Blending thesis trade 2 cantrips for an extra 1st or 2nd level spell?

What are the names of all the Wizard Theses?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing rituals add to the game is page count.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I would like to see the whole UTEML thing getting a second look (I find it underwhelming and with no legacy/traction), and Item bonuses (I despise them), weapon damage (cannot stand that it mostly comes from your +X weapon). Also, Conditions, far too many of them. I was hoping for streamlining, this does not seem like a streamlined iteration of any RPG, so far.
I also have some issues with item bonuses, and think some of the rest of this could use adjustment. Item Bonuses specifically might be part of the math adjustment they've mentioned, though they also might not.
Yes, this is one change I actually have hope for, and as Andy Dufresne said: "...hope is the best of things...".

And as Bane once said, "There can be no true despair without hope."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:

The questions are: what is a hard 20th level task and should people have to optimize to have a 50% chance of success at it? ...

I am not sure what a 20th level hard DC task may be, but to pull an example from the real world would look like.

Let's use medicine as an example, a hard DC IRL would be heart surgery. A quick internet search yields this:

"99% survived their surgery to leave the hospital. The rate of such survival improved sharply as the study went on, from 85 percent in the early years to 98 percent by its end. Patients also reported a quality of life similar to that of those their age who did not have bypass surgery."

So depending on whether you would count leaving the hospital success or living a few more years, the rate is still 85%+.

So yes, its a bit insane that optimizing to the max possible in a skill only yields a 50-65% chance sucess rate.

I agree. Acrobatics should be removed as a skill. Just look at this thread, we already have people saying how it should apply to more things. Dexterity is already pretty much a god stat and yet people want it to do even more than it already does. By removing acrobatics it puts a bit more emphasis on Strength which is the second worst stat in the game and perhaps may lead to more actual build diversity rather than the standard, pump the shit out of DEX that we have now.

Although this is only a playtest lets talk about character optimization. With how wonky monster stats currently are this may be an exercise in futility, but it may still provide some insight.

So post your optimized character builds and lets see how big of a difference they are versus say the iconic level 1 pre-generated characters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My mistake, I ended up only posting 1/2 the question. Lets look at the metamagic Reach Spell,

"You add a Somatic Casting action to the casting of the triggering spell to increase its range by 30 feet. If the spell normally has a range of touch, you instead extend its range to 30 feet, and if the touch spell normally requires an attack roll or a touch attack roll, it now requires a ranged attack roll or a ranged touch attack roll, as appropriate."

I guess what I am asking is that can one add the Reach Spell that already has a somatic casting action such as Magic Weapon? And as a follow up if not, then what is even the point of having metamagic when all the metamagics add a somatic casting action and 95%+ of all spells already have a somatic casting action?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A bit of a dumb question, but there does not seem to be definitive ruling in the playtest material so I will ask here.

Can a spell have duplicate casting actions such as 2 somatic casting actions?

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
What's wrong with the conditions?

There are WAY to many conditions, 42 of them. Even if one were to cut out all the non-condition conditions from that list (obvious stuff like dead, or friendly and hostile) that still leaves over 30 different ones.

Since one of the design goals was a simpler game, having so many conditions seems counterproductive.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Those are some pretty cool ideas. Only thing I would add is maybe some sort of Anti-mage caster archetype that specializes in counterspelling and dispelling other magics.

Bruntfca wrote:

DEX is even more important than I thought before - this is on account of the whole ranged touch attack Touch Armor Class rigmarole.

What then at this point is the function of introducing this rigmarole for basically no net difference in about 97% of the cases?

They could scrap TAC, and just say casters make ranged attacks at their primary stat + training. For the 3% of monsters they want to make more vulnerable just put an entry into the Beastiary or something.

I can only think of 1 reason why Paizo doesn't do that... (something, something, don't want to be accused of copying 5e even if it is an actual good idea)

8 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I have never known Paizo to perform a blatant money grab before and I'm not sure where the certainty that is what is going on here comes from.

But I agree with most of your other points.

I mean they did sell a hardcover book of playtest rules that was obsoleted in less than a week.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Calvin Starbanger wrote:
Vancian Magic is garbage.
Calvin Starbanger wrote:
I don't want to houserule an entire magic system to make this game work for me, and I can only hope it's not too late for them to overhaul the system entirely.
Just ban Wizards, Clerics, and Druids. Sorcerers cover the bases pretty well. No overhaul needed.

The best part is that you will actually be doing your players a favor as GM banning those classes. I mean as of right now all but one of those classes are dead weight compared to any martial, and the one class that isn't completely dead weight only exists as a channel energy bot so the martials can keep carrying him.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

They have specifically stated that non-Charisma Classes who utilize Powers will get bonuses to their Focus.

What those bonuses are is not yet known, but it is entirely possible that, say, a Druid will wind up with Focus equal to their Wisdom + Charisma + 1 or more from Ancestry + bonuses from Feats.

That would be more points than they have now.

That also may not occur, or not precisely like that, but panicking or dropping the playtest when they have clearly stated that this issue will be addressed seems silly to me.

We are firmly dedicated to making sure characters of non-Cha primary classes that use powers will have the tools they need to enjoy use of their powers. But we also would like to not do this by swapping out Charisma because keeping Charisma around allows for more creative and disparate character choices where you might take Charisma as a secondary stat for your wizard to get even more if you wanted to be Int and Cha like an arcanist, say, instead of the cookie-cutter Int>Dex>=Con>=Wis wizard build in the current playtest, and the sheer creativity is one of the coolest things about the Pathfinder community.

Is this not disingenuous to say you can have CHA as a secondary stat when monster's +to hit is balanced around hitting a full plate fighter 50% of the time. I suppose if monster and NPC stats were made more reasonable at release this won't be an issue, but as of now DEX is needed as a secondary stat. Although I suppose non CHA casters can just make CHA a secondary stat and burn a feat on paladin multiclass to at least not be crit'd on every hit.