Mystic Theurge

Old_Man_Robot's page

Organized Play Member. 818 posts (821 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Can you whack somebody with your bow staff as a melee weapon while in Monastic Archer stance? The stance says "the only Strikes you can make are those using longbows, shortbows, or bows with the monk trait" and the bow staff is the latter, but the melee form is in the club group not the bow group, but the combination trait underlines that a combination weapon is one weapon with two uses.

I want to think the answer is "yes" but I am not sure.

Its a combination weapon, so to use it in melee you'll need to switch its mode.

When you switch it to melee mode, it moves from the bow to the club group. So you would no longer be able to make strikes with it while maintaining the stance.

Dark Archive

Some Exploration activities will care about it.

Things like tracking and scouting while ranging. Sometimes chases might use it, etc.

Dark Archive

aobst128 wrote:
A thaumaturge could sort of hypothetically hold up to 2 with some multiclassing into magus to get scroll striker. A weapon implement could have a scroll attached to it along with one in your hand with scroll thaumaturgy. The attached scroll could only be used to spellstrike however.

Lets go further.

Scroll staff while wearing the new Librarian Robes. Regalia/weapon implement is a shield with the Inscribed Rune.

Dark Archive

TeaNotorious wrote:
The witch still desperately needs fixing. Secrets of magic and dark archive was really lacking in further witch abilities, and it's there to would expect it. I hope treasures and elements will fix it but I doubt it.

I'd temper these expectations. Neither of these books will address what has generally been discussed in this thread.

Dark Archive

Perpdepog wrote:
Mutants and Masterminds

Wow, that takes me back.

I remember playing a character called THE COMET, who could only speak in all-caps.

His signature move was flying into orbit and then just letting himself fall back to earth. However he was incredibly dense, being several tons, and nigh-indestructible.

Fun system.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As partial (joke) additions, the Fighter feat Sever Space gives you 80ft reach. And the Magus feat Lunging Spellstrike can add anywhere from 5 to 50ft of reach to a spellstrike.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:
graystone wrote:
Long hammer: a d8 weapon with reach, versatile, trip and a dwarf wizard can use proficiently...
How would that work? It's martial, isn't it? So Dwarven Weapon familiarity makes it simple for proficiency. But Wizards are still not proficient in simple weapons. Unless that changed?

It hasn't changed. Wizards remain the only class with a tax to use simple weapons.

I will never not hate this.

Dark Archive

imthedci wrote:


Let's say that you don't have Munitions Crafter. How much ammunition can you craft from a single dose of black powder? I would guess one, but I'm not sure.
Also, do you have to pay extra for the bullet/pellet or is that somehow included free of charge?

In terms of the mechanics of it, there is no meaningful distinction between the these things. You don't need to create the black powder and the thing that that powder launches separately, when we are talking about mundane / basic alchemical ammo. These subcomponents are all contained within the Craft check or ability used to create the items.

There is no conversion of X doses of Black Powder can be used to craft Y number of rounds.

When you make ammunition to make it in batches, with the number of rounds made equal to the number listed in the craft table. For Firearm ammunition this is typically 10.

Both the Gunslinger class and the alchemical formula for black powder are uncommon, so your GM might well restrict access to them. In which case, you don't really have a recourse.

Dark Archive

Red Griffyn wrote:

Knights of Last Call just dropped more sneak peaks!

So many great items! Finally some advanced weapons worth the hoop jumping!

Chain Sword looks super spicy! Finesse, Reach and Sweep on a 1 hander are all pretty cool traits to stack on each other. I can see my Thaum's taking the fighting dedication in the future to grab Advanced Training for it.

I also love inscribed armour. I'm a big scroll guy, so more scroll-like options make me happy. And Library robes! Amazing!

Dark Archive

The Halcyon Speaker can be a little confusing to parse, but its pretty simple once you get the read of it.

Halcyon speaker gives you an additional set of spell slots which are separate from and in addition to your standard series of spell slots.

As stated in the dedication feat, these, very limited, number of spell slots are Spontaneous slots. In that way, they work just like a sorcerers spells would, for instance.

Halcyon Speaker also gives you access to Halcyon spells. Halcyon spells can be prepared in your original classes spell slots (assuming you meet the conditions to cast that spell), but can also be cast on the fly using your Spontaneous slots granted by the dedication.

In practice this means you have two sets of spell casting options, just like your Wizard or druid would have if they took a Spontaneous casters multi-class dedication. You know a limited number of Halcyon spells, as they are only granted you you via the feats in the archetype, and you get a series of spontaneous bonus spell slots to cast them from if you chose.

Just think of it like a Wizard taking the multiclass dedication for a sorcerer, but with a tiny spell list.

Dark Archive

To break out Breithauptclan's answer a bit more.

You can indeed use Spell Substitution to replace the spell that was prepared in an expended spell slot. This option is called out in the 18th level feat Reprepare Spell.

Reprepare Spell wrote:
You’ve discovered how to reuse some of your spell slots over and over. You can spend 10 minutes to prepare a spell that you already cast today, regaining access to that spell slot. The spell must be of 4th level or lower and one that does not have a duration. You can reprepare a spell in this way even if you’ve already reprepared that spell previously in the same day. If you have the spell substitution arcane thesis, you can instead prepare a different spell in an expended slot, as long as the new spell doesn’t have a duration. Once you’ve reprepared a spell in that slot even once, you can use your arcane thesis to substitute only spells without durations into that spell slot.

In the above, the feat is calling out its impact on just this use case!

However, as Breithauptclan also said, it doesn't work with Drain Bonded Item.

Drain Bonded Item doesn't actually interact with your spell slots at all. It just allows you to cast a spell again which meets its conditions.

Drain Bonded Item wrote:
You expend the power stored in your bonded item, as long as the item is on your person. During your turn, you gain the ability to cast one spell you prepared today and already cast, without spending a spell slot. You must still Cast the Spell and meet the spell's other requirements.

So as long as you have:

1) Prepared that Spell today
2) Already cast that spell

You can use Drain Bonded item to cast it again.

There is some room to quibble here on its interaction Spell Substitution in that, if you no longer have the spell prepared, does it meet the first condition. For example, if I cast burning hands, but change the spell slot so I no longer have burning hands prepared at all, can I still use Drain Bonded Item for it?

Personally I would say the answer is yes, just as long as you haven't had another period of Daily Preparation since you last it. As you have met both of the conditions that Drain Bonded Item has called out.

Dark Archive

Yep, I dun goofed on what the name of the Ancestry was vs the heritage. Even though I played one for a bit when they came out, I always mix the names up.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The corgi is just a familiar.

General rules for basic features are here.

All familiars are largely amorphous blobs with familiar and master abilities attached. They generally don't have stats or abilities beyond what's laid out in the above link and granted to them by the abilities you can give them.

While they are superficially similar in some respects, I wouldn't try to think of them like animal companions.

The reason they are listed as small over tiny is so your Pixie can use it as a mount. As, by default, all familiars are otherwise Tiny (excluding some specific familiars)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John R. wrote:
Esoteric Lore is a class feature unique to the Thaumaturge that is only obtainable by taking Thaumaturge as your primary class. The lore skill itself is inarguably linked to this class feature and requires houseruling to override the intended default. You might technically be able to take Additional Lore for "Esoteric Lore" but it should not function the same and is quite possibly too broad and vague to be a valid choice (like how Magic Lore would be far too broad vs Arcana and Occultism).

Agreed.

The skill Lore (Esoteric) and the Esoteric Lore class feature are wholly separate abilities that can't be interchanged in spite of similar naming.

In the same way you don't get access to the bardic lore class feature or benefits by taking the lore skill in "bardic".

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So far my favourite custom vulnerability was from a Tengu who would mimic the voices and cries of all the people a bad guy has ever hurt.

It was all very dramatic.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know its been said they aren't going to ever do a book like it again, or at least not a long time, but a big book of character options to expand on themes would be amazing.

Just take all the smaller or not overly supported aspects of classes that don't go anywhere else, and expand the hell out of them.

Class archetypes for every class, theme expansions feats that allow more niche build options, class-skill relationship feats, etc etc.

Just a 500 page tome of options to expand out playstyles.

Dark Archive

What's that? The Alchemist has a series of design flaws?

Well I never!

Dark Archive

If we get a version of the PF1 weapon cords, I think a Free-hand weapon Thaumaturge that uses something like Double Slice, or the flurry ranger feats, could be on the cards.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Have I mentioned I want an Odachi? I do in fact, want an Odachi
Where do you think they'd go for an odachi that can't just be done with two handing a katana?
Bumping the damage die to a d12, for starters.

Inhales

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" b~+!&#++ that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Exhales

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Like if Wizards could mind control people without anybody noticing, why would anybody trust a Wizard?

4th level invis and Silent Spell would let them do this.

Remember, its not the Wizard you can see thats the problem, its all the Wizards you can't.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just got in the expected shipping costs for the next quater, and, well, they're still climbing.

So after various work re-arrangements, I've also sadly sent an email off to Paizo CS today to end my subs.

The squeeze is real.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dennis Muldoon wrote:
I think the way handwraps are written is a good indicator that you're right. If that's the case, though, I have to say that it's a frustrating choice for the generic term to use, given that elsewhere the designers went to great lengths to explicitly say that unarmed strikes are not weapons.

It is a confusing area at times.

The number of people I've talked to who think you also gain the additional damage on any dice added from the Deadly trait is way too high as well.

A bit of extra caution needed to be taken with the language here.

Dark Archive

Witcher style characters can be done in a number of ways, and the level ability matching can take some build crafting.

Thematically, a Witcher character can be done with just a plain old Ranger, Investigator, Magus, Thaumaturge or Rogue. There are several Witcher schools who have different methods and techiques, so they can be captured in many ways.

The Alchemist dedication feels like a must no matter what, just to get that potiony vibe going on.

Then if you can get a few cantrips from somewhere, you've covered the mechanical tripod of the Witcher combat options.

My personal favorite option right now is a Thaumaturge with the Alchemist Dedication. Take the scroll chain and the odd cantrip from an ancestry if possible, and you have a very reasonable facsimile in both form and function.

But there are lots of options!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atlas_hugged wrote:


Your proposed errata would indirectly make it more clear, but people would still take it based on a belief that glimpse vulnerability can sub in for exploit vulnerability (given other feats in the archetype, which work similarly). I would much prefer the errata just directly address the issue in a clear manner, rather than try to address it in an round-about manner.

I think we are being overly generous with our interpretation here.

The Dedication only gives you the Glimpse Vulnerability action and nothing more around EV.

Quote:
Glimpse Vulnerability (esoterica, manipulate); Frequency once per round; Requirement You are holding your implement; Effect You glimpse a hidden vulnerability and then strengthen it to aid you. Select a creature you can see. Until you Glimpse Vulnerability again, that target gains weakness 2 against your unarmed and weapon Strikes.

Its its own, wholly different ability, that does not in any way grant a you Exploit Vulnerability on any basis other than a theme.

If we look at the only other archetype feat which mentions Glimpse Vulnerability

Implement Initiate wrote:
You gain your implement's initiate benefit. If the benefit affects the target of Exploit Vulnerability, for you it affects the target of Glimpse Vulnerability instead.

Once again its a wholly different ability that doesn't even connect. What this feat is saying is that, even though you don't have ability X, you can instead use ability Y, in cases ability X was needed to target.

It doesn't interact with feats, access, prerequisites or anything like that. It just allows you to swap one ability use with another in a particular set of circumstances.

The Thaumaturge dedication has literally zero ways of gaining either the Esoteric Lore or Exploit Vulnerability class features. These are unique class features held by the Thaumaturge class itself.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
atlas_hugged wrote:


I agree, this needs errata to be more clear. I believe the intent is that you can't and don't gain esoteric lore through any means other than being a full thaumaturge.

Its a Thaumaturge class feature, it doesn't really need called out.

atlas_hugged wrote:


But this should be spelled out explicitly, in both the entry on esoteric lore, and the Thaumaturge dedication. (The summoner is a good example of a dedication explicitly calling out features which aren't gained by the dedication, RE tandem actions).

The Thaumaturge dedication doesn't grant the Esoteric Lore class feature, nor can you take it via one of the feats.

The only thing I would errata here is to grant the Diverse Lore feat the "Prerequisites Exploit Vulnerability" line, to stop people taking it by mistake.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:


So nowhere in the rules does it say that Esoteric Lore is bound only to thaumaturges. Sure, you say it is a 'special' skill, but you don't say anything about normal classes not being able to pick it up. I know I assumed that was the case, but it isn't stated specifically.

I think you've tripped yourself up a good bit here.

Everything interesting about Esoteric Lore is a Thaumaturge class feature, and not active to the skill itself.

Anyone can take a Lore skill, call it Esoteric Lore and use it like a normal lore skill on whatever the GM deems it applies to.

Nothing from the Thaumaturge class feature carries over inherently to any skill called "Esoteric Lore". Just like Bardic Lore (which, if taken without a class feature, would just be about bard s@%@)

Dark Archive

John R. wrote:
I'm sure a bunch of people are all into the Kineticist playtest right now. Just wanted to mention I've made a few updates, mainly to some multiclass opinions. Also wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions on other topics you think I should cover. Just a heads up, one I won't cover is ancestries. There are too many and they all have their own bunch of feats and it's just too much for me to want to handle, especially for such an open ended class as the Thaumaturge.

The only ancestry that I think really needs a call out is plain old human.

The Thaumaturge is in the rare position of having several very desirable 1st level class feats. Natural Ambition really shines here.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The difference in this situation would be that while the Barb is worst at hitting than the fighter, it’s not because they are below the baseline, it’s because the fighter is above the baseline.

The psychic is potentially in the inverse situation. I haven’t played a psychic yet to know personally, but I can certainly see why people are saying it.

(As a side note, and perhaps interestingly, the Dancing Blades cantrip looks like it would benefit from weapon potency runes. If that turns out to be true, then it will serve as an excellent test case on this whole issue)

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Falco271 wrote:

I consider spell attacks spells part of a casters play, and whether you want to use them or not is up to the player. My 14th lvl bard has only one spell attack spell (biting words) but it is a signature spell. She has a shadow signet and a staff of divination (useful both in combat and out of combat). Which spell and levels to use depends totally on the situation and using biting words certainly has its uses. It helps that you get 3 attacks with one 7th level spell, with the second and third attack using only one action (bard are king of one action actions).

In short: part of the game, use it or not, but it has it's uses, with or without true strike (although it helps of course).

Well those are all part of the problem being discussed here.

In order to make them work, you not only have to jump through some hoops, but everyone has to jump through the same hoops in order to do it. Whats more, these aren't things that can be picked up for free or at any level. Shadow Signet didn't even exist for the first several years of the gameline, so its not like it was part of the fundamental game design.

Additional if part of the solution is "well just don't use them", that's not actually a solution, thats a just a strategy for coping with the problem.

Its still all coming down to the same issues with the design of the spells themselves.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
I actually play this game, and I can tell you that parties where everybody is running around with a frost weapon, a fire weapon, a ghost touch weapon, acid weapon and a good weapon, in general, don't exist. People have one good magic weapon that maybe has one elemental damage run and that's it. Maybe one person in the party has a ghost touch weapon - maybe. Apart from once in the blue moon powergamers, most folks are just happy with whatever magic weapon the DM hands out or they buy it in general magic mart.

I don't think I've ever seen a party like that in the last 15 years of playing TTRPG's. There has been the odd player, but never once a whole party. Both as a game runner and a player.

I'm not just talking about D20 systems either.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Isn’t the fact that a +2 alone is enough to usually bring a spell attack roll spell on level with a saving throw spell, and only spell attack roll spells can benefit from a flat footed enemy, a pretty strong indicator that the issue was known and built into the math?

Surely this point flows the other way?

I'm taking the stance that these universal tactical advantages are baked into the overall game math, including with martial scaling. Being flat foot is univerally accessable, but isn't enough in and of itself to overcome the disparity, because the gap still exists when taken against the general scaling.

In an "all things being equal" sense, SAR's are still behind.

Dark Archive

I was waiting for this point to gain more traction!

Deathsworn wrote:
Dancing Weapon's is written as a subaction that the weapon itself takes as if it were a creature, but it has a listed damage that scales with your spell level and is a spell attack roll. Critical effects aren't mentioned anywhere.

As Baarogue said, using your Spell Attack Roll doesn't actually make a difference. Not only is there nothing stopping SAR from benefiting from runes, its explictly called out that they do, with the noted rider that they are rare.

The damage override is important, in that it means that any attack wouldn't also benefit from Striking runes.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Being legendary in spell attacks will offset the accuracy issue so maybe item bonus would be overkill but only at 19th level.

I honestly feel that making all full casters get to legendary by default was one of the fundamental design misteps in PF2. Especially at the fxed level strucutre which has been appiled across the board. Its a far less dynamic way to do things than really needed to exist, and is more than likely a big driver in several of the problems mentioned in this thread.

If we a few casters that get to legendary, most stick to master, but have more flavoured, mechanical and situtational ways to get where they needed to go, it would have been a massive boon for design potential.

Just to toss out an example, say Sorcerers only went natively to Master Spellcasting, but had a way to impact on enemies saves at some sort of cost, it would have allowed them room to be a better blaster-caster type, with more dynamic balancing.

Gortle wrote:


They are a trap for new players in that they are noticably inferior, and as a mechanism they fall a bit short of normal PF2 balance standards. On the scale of d20 systems its not terrible. But it should be better. A few +1 or +2 items would make the situation better. Which is glaring because Paizo have deliberately left them out. Paizo obviously disagreed and haven't reevaluated their position.

Depending on the level you get access to them, a +2 would maybe really be all that was needed to bring things more in line. Perhaps +1 at 5th and +2 at 11th. Something like that. Help nudge the characters a long when their under performance is really starting to show.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:

To put a bit of a bow on it however, your arguement is basically the specialization vs generalists one. Wherein martials having a narrowing field of focus means that they get rewards and perks for that, whereas the generalists payoff is there access to utility.

This is both fine and correct as an assumption. And it is indeed present already in almost every aspect of the class design.

The standard caster chassis is weaker in virtually every way to that of the standard martial. That is part of the cost they pay. Caster resources are also limited in a way that martial resources generally are not. Casters generally also have less interaction with the action econom of the game, as most spells are two-actions and can't be easily or often spend up.

No, that still does not. The argument is "The numerical white board math you are citing as an inequity is balanced by a utility that you can not quantify".

As such, listing more numerical white board math does not, in fact, respond to my point, because I'm going to simply say, as a response to "but you are physically weaker"... illusions, dimensional travel, and summoning demons.

It's still balanced.

If, by your reasoning, we can't sqaure the relative value of these things, how do you arrive at the conclusion its balanced?

Dark Archive

Unicore wrote:

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

"At almost every level, you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed," is only true without any tactical application of status and circumstance bonuses and penalties. (as clearly demonstrated against a level +2 enemy above) It is more true for saving throw spells than it is for spell attack rolls in actual play that you will get the worse critical effect than the best critical effect.

Thus, "if you wanted something like [gambler's spells], it would be a flat check with no modifiers," is like walking into a casino and thinking you have a better chance of winning on a roulette wheel or slot machines, than you do playing poker at a table full of other players.

I could have parsed that better!

What I was driving that was, if we really wanted spells which functioned with a gambling mechanic in mind, we shouldn't use the existing spell structure, and instead have a pure probabalistic determination. A flat check being the natural option for that.

That said, when it comes whiterooming, shouldn't we just assume people are doing what they can to maximise results that don't involve GM oversight (rare items & spells, etc)

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:

Why can't they use Shadow Signet?

You can't apply metamagic to a spell which has an amp on it. So you would need to use it either/or.

Which means if Shadow Signet is meant to be the answer to accuracy issues, one of the psychics core mechanics is working against that option.

That said, I'm not read up on the psychic enough yet to know if Mindshift spells actually help counter that.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
It is flatly a false premise, but spell attack roll spells are much swingier on damage and experience higher highs and more frequent lows. They are gambler spells and gambling without tactics or strategy is usually a bad idea.

That would be all well and good if the reward was worth it.

At almost every level you are more likely to critically fail your spell attack roll than critically succeed. You don't get any do-overs on the spell, or the resources spent on it (like true strike) if it still fails.

That is also not a good way to design a "gamble" spell. If you wanted something like that, it would be a flat check with no modifers.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


Because white room theorycraft can give you your to hit % and damage curves but it will never tell you how powerful, in terms of practical gameplay, is your ability to teleport, dispel magic, conjure cozy huts, summon stuff, shadow walk, create walls etc. etc.

This point has been glossed over because of the confrontational presentation (that was kinda harsh), but it is incredibly important. There are a zillion arguments proving decisively that RAW spell attack rolls never match up with martial attacks or save spells.

So?

They absolutely SHOULDN'T, because spellcasters have a versatility that can not be charted in a spreadsheet. You can't easily chart how much of a difference /HAVING/ Save spells is. If the spellcaster with Produce Flame also has Electric Arc, how do we factor in potentially switching to EA? You can't without knowing what the caster decides, and that will be a function of conditions on the ground. There are too many variables in combat to be able to White Room having a bunch of options.

Someone earlier asked about how low spell attack rolls would make a newer player not want to play a full spellcaster. I would respond to that with "Why would you want to give a newer player a full spellcaster?" That is at minimum SIX different mechanics for the player to learn (four cantrips and two first level spells), ignoring anything specific to the class, at level one. That is NOT the formula for an easy time for a new player.

It also conveniently demonstrates the options differences between a spellcaster and a martial and why its a bad idea to boost spell attack rolls. Yes, it is easy to wrap your mind around hitting and less so more abstract topics like options versatility. Yes, missing always sucks. However, if we allow spell attack rolls to match martial accuracy, you suddenly have someone that can blast as well as the martials as well as take over your mind.

That's not balanced, and the imbalance is not going to show on a Google Sheet.

It hasn't been glossed over. There are several points addressing it directly.

To put a bit of a bow on it however, your arguement is basically the specialization vs generalists one. Wherein martials having a narrowing field of focus means that they get rewards and perks for that, whereas the generalists payoff is there access to utility.

This is both fine and correct as an assumption. And it is indeed present already in almost every aspect of the class design.

The standard caster chassis is weaker in virtually every way to that of the standard martial. That is part of the cost they pay. Caster resources are also limited in a way that martial resources generally are not. Casters generally also have less interaction with the action econom of the game, as most spells are two-actions and can't be easily or often spend up.

The argument being presented here is that Spell Attack Rolls are atypically bad even already accounting for all of this.

Spell Attack Rolls
- Target something which is scaled both of martial progression and on the assumption of access to runes.
- Don't have failure riders like other spells
- Don't generally outperform other damaging spells when they do hit
- Can only be done a limited number of items per day.
- Many supplimental bonuses to attack don't effect them already

They are an underclass of spell.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Many bosses have spell resistances and such high saves that getting them to fail a save is much, much harder than landing an attack roll with even just a hero point and a debuff or a buff to attack rolls (which again is much easier to achieve than a buff to saving throw spells).

I'm not saying they aren't out there, but I can't recall the last time I saw a creature over 10th with saves higher than its AC. You're right that sometimes they have bonuses that can push them near or over, but those generally effect spell attack rolls as well.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I brought this up in another thread, but I'll throw it in here as well.

Since the Dancing Blades cantrip makes a weapon attack, it seems like by RAW it would benefit from any Potency runes on the weapon itself. Its text diverges from similar sorts of spells, and since it uses a permanent item, it can be runed.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

A real weapon as an implement that is not Weapon implement seems OK by RAW.

Nothing prevents an implement from being useful in ways other than being an implement.

Generally I agree, except in cases where attempts at abuse are more obvious, such as having an endless stein as your chalice, then claiming it's auto fill should allow you to activate it's implement properties more frequently.

Cases like that are just a player being a fast and loose with the rules. Also, since its mostly a narrative argument, it could be solved with a narrative solution.

"Sure the chalice might be full again, but the magical properties still haven't had time to replenish. You have the liquid back, but you think it will take time before it can heal you once more."

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


The solution to "the spell attack" problem has always been flexibility and variety. "Casters get choices" is why making it easy to specialize in one specific cantrip and never cast anything else is something that the game generally tries to avoid.

Doesn't this carry with it the implication that spell attack rolls are a designed underclass of spell, which requires investment to use effectively?

How, for example, would a newer player be expected to know these things and plan accordingly? It just seems like a bad design philosophy for some things to only work effectively once you have a certain level of game knowledge.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


Because white room theorycraft can give you your to hit % and damage curves but it will never tell you how powerful, in terms of practical gameplay, is your ability to teleport, dispel magic, conjure cozy huts, summon stuff, shadow walk, create walls etc. etc.

Do non-casters in your games just stand around aimlessly until its there turn to roll attack again?
Something tells me you're emotionally invested in the argument if you're going this route.

Ah, the "No U" line of argument when you get called out.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


the caster fandom kvetch

I feel like this is a very telling line. I get the sense that you have an emotional investment in this that won't be swayed by argument.
Says the guy who walked into the thread stating that there's "a lot of BS that I will now put to rest" :D

Well yeah, there was a lot of half-truths and hidden assumptions that were being used to paint an invalid picture of the situation. Calling out hypocrisy doesn't make one themselves a hypocrite.

If you are going to talk about builds of casters where you employ specific spells, items and feats to get your desired result, but only use a vanilla caricature of a martial, you aren't speaking objectively.

Dark Archive

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


Because white room theorycraft can give you your to hit % and damage curves but it will never tell you how powerful, in terms of practical gameplay, is your ability to teleport, dispel magic, conjure cozy huts, summon stuff, shadow walk, create walls etc. etc.

Do non-casters in your games just stand around aimlessly until its there turn to roll attack again?

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:


the caster fandom kvetch

I feel like this is a very telling line. I get the sense that you have an emotional investment in this that won't be swayed by argument.

Dark Archive

11 people marked this as a favorite.

OKay, there is a lot of straight BS in this thread, lets put it to rest.

1) True Strike is not exclusive to casters, anyone can get access to it several times a day.

2) The chassis differences between martials and casters are much greater than ability to hit. Casters generally also have worse HP, worse saves on-level, armor generally tops at expert, worse action economy, etc. They pay for their utility already.

3) Martials can also do things outside of swinging to hit. Every martial class has access to abilites which allow them to do all sorts of things. Combat maneuvers also exist and are much better for martials than casters, so lets stop pretending like martials only hit AC.

4) Range is not exclusive to casters, nor is melee range exclusive to martials. Bow damage builds can be some of the highest in the game, and its not like Gunslingers don't exist.

But, and most importantly, none of that is actually relevant, or else it would be present in all caster damage options, not just spell attack rolls.

If you think fireball is fine, but acid arrow would be OP if it actually hit someone, you aren't grasping the issue.

Dark Archive

Ah shoot! I missed that trait.

That really takes it down several notches.

Dark Archive

Psi Burst is a very neat little feat.

A single action, ranged, variable save, variable damage option, that can be grabbed from the MC. It’s damage is not too far off from some of the lesser cantrips.

I can see myself grabbing it on some characters just as a neat little 3rd action.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Old_Man_Robot wrote:
Jonathan Morgantini wrote:
This thread derailed a bit. A product thread is not the place for discussion of Paizo's procedures and policies. Please keep all conversation relevant to the topic on hand.

It’s hard to find a place where it is considered an appropriate item of discussion.

Perhaps there should be some form of dialogue opened up around the whole topic. Or at least some additional transparency.

I’ve worked with several businesses that would love this level of engaged response from their customer base.

Customers of several businesses would love the level of engaged response from a company where management comes down on a forum to talk to little people and explain things.

I'd hazard a guess that most businesses don't bow down that far.

A forum post wouldn't be a suitable venue. It's also too niche. There would need to be a better format decided.

They just need a new strategy.

Also, customers should never been considered "little people".

1 to 50 of 818 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>