Skeleton

Senkon's page

58 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Almarane wrote:

That's... hmm. Poor crusaders.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It's been clarified that all 13th level monsters have +3 to all skills over what they should have. The rest of their stats are intended, but that part is not.

They may well still be overpowered (I lean in that direction myself), but the skills should be lower than they are, and the fact that they aren't is an error.

This needs to be adressed in an official update document. It does not matter if Mark or anybody else says that in the forum. A post in the forum is not an official announcement. If they already know the problem, they should put it in the next update (I won't change any rule or stat block unless there is an official document telling me to do so).

They should make an official announcement for a lot of things but lol why be so obstinate? You'll only hurt your own games.


1.
Fortune and misfortune does not show up in the index. Found it much later and I was looking for it because of some box that explained what it was but not how you got it.
2.
Looked for Fortune, Misfortune, Luck and such words.

I was assuming that it was some kinda advantage/disadvantage mechanic that you could generate on a consistent basis. Since it is not I'm thinking that you thought no one would try to look for it?

1.
I looked for keywords. For various reasons though I think I was looking for fortune again.

2.
Keywords I guess? I can't quite remember but it doesn't seem to be there anyway.


We also have to consider which levels the most utility spells are found. I haven't gone through the list to much yet but there seem to be larger cluster of situational utility in slots 1-3 than anywhere else.


The text one 309 is wrong but not in the way you think if I'm getting this right. The text on page 175 is right. It tells you that the shield takes the damage and then reduces the damage dealt to it (it being the item not you) by it's hardness. So it takes 10 damage then reduces the dmg by 3. That is more than double it's hardness so it takes two dents.

This is a problem and you wouldn't know which is right without referencing the demos just like you say but at least we know. Maybe because other items would have to work according to page 175 we would have to assume the shield also works that way but meh.


There should be nothing stopping you from using the weapon. The feat is simply for classes outside of fighter and for fighters that want to use an exotic goblin weapon. Those are not in the game yet but might be when the game releases for real.


But the game/dm never game you the option to roll and keep whatever stats you got. You keep saying that if you roll you can get higher than 18 but the system tells you that you can't. You are never getting robbed out of the stats. The game is clear and upfront with you. If the dm also tells you that if you roll much higher than everyone else it's going to have to be tuned down. It's not a punishment it's just the system in play. It's not like it's you who roll well anyway. You are not skilled at rolling it's just random.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Texas Snyper wrote:

The point is that for EVERY scenario where you don't have a hard 10 min cap or are in combat, the lvl 4+ wizard can "spontaneously" prep for the scenario in front of them. Spell rarity helps, but that mostly doesn't apply until spell level 6+. Wizards can still spontaneously heighten their entire spell book better than a sorcerer can. Everybody knows prepared > spontaneous 80+% of the time, but the ability for wizards to spend 10 mins to heighten any and all of their spells at any time puts the wizard MILES ahead of the sorcerer.

Spontaneous casting was nerfed into the ground because of "choice paralysis" yet prepared casting has MANY more choices and wasn't touched at all.

Most scenarios aren't going to require a certain spell, unless PF2 really drop the ball. In PF 1 many times you had spells that would be perfect, and other spells that were good enough.

Players often choose to use the "good enough" spell instead of waiting, even if they had open spell slots or an ability that allowed them to swap spells.

For the sake of argument let's say you must have spell X because something got past editing, and there was no other way to bypass that encounter/problem, would you prefer the party have to rest just to get one spell?

The reason you wouldn't will an empty slot with a better spell is because and open slot is a valuable resource. You can run out of empty slots. This mechanic is as many times a day as you want so long as you have a spell left.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Yeah I just realized we've been talking over each others head all this time lol. Like we thought we were on the same page with parlance but we weren't. Glad that got cleared up :D

Yes!! So building upon that success, that's all I'm saying about the other ones too. Include the approach. And make sure the approach makes sense in fiction. And if the approach doesn't make sense (without the fixall "because magic", make it legendary.

Low level medics, healing people without magic, without tools(!), without limit, in two seconds flat(!!), doesn't make sense.

So require tools. Make it take a believable length of time. Make it get faster as you get better, I don't care. Let legendary bandage your wounds in two seconds. Let the first level guy take a minute. As-is, it feels like a math block to fix a balance problem. (We need nonmagical low level healing. Fine. Come up with an in fiction explanation that works.)

Same with crafting. Same with a few other odd spots. It's just a few odd spots that need grounding. And they're easy to ground. So let's just ground them in the playtest! (It's these very things that end up errata'd anyway!)

Yeah I agree. Don't even really want too much healing in the game but maybe it's fine. I'll have to how it gets tested by my group next week.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Ok you seem to be confused about one thing which I now finally realize. The rules about how survival skill works won't be found each feat about survival. It will be found in the general rules, presumably in the how to play section. That's where the how is.

OMG finally. THAT actually makes sense. You are absolutely right. "The HOW is there. Just not THERE." And the how IS there.

And you don't get to make crap up to auto-succeed. And you can't forage where there's nothing to forage. And you can't just *poof* make something alien and purely toxic, suddenly nontoxic. And it doesn't require legendary handwaiving. And it isn't magical.

You are absolutely right on Planar Survival. The HOW is there. It just isn't THERE.

Yeah I just realized we've been talking over each others head all this time lol. Like we thought we were on the same page with parlance but we weren't. Glad that got cleared up :D

Edit: changed the wording.


Lucid Blue wrote:

Planar doesn't give you the in world approach. Only the outcome.

"You find food. Even where there was none." Or alternatively, "you make toxic something's nontoxic."

It doesn't say HOW. It doesn't say what you DID. You didn't have food. Poof. Now you do.

Fireball says HOW. It states the approach. It doesn't state the result. "You cause a magical explosion of fire."

It states what happens in the world. Not the outcome. If the outcome is "bad guys die." And you ash how? The answer was in the spell. You fried them with fire.

Planar doesn't. You got food. There's the outcome. You ask how? Well you have no idea. You have to make it up. What if there was no food? What if toxic means toxic? What it what if what if. The mechanics are dissociated from the world. Is it magical? perfect. Say so. Now we know it doesn't work in magic dead planes. Are you nonmagically purifying materials? Great. Do I need equipment for that? Seems like I should. Every other class does.

And for the millionth time. Planar Survival is NOT legendary!!! That's my entire f'ing argument!

If it's going to create an inexplicable dissociated result. Make it legendary!

That seems to be the entire definition. Gonzo + unexplained = legendary. And I'm perfectly perfectly fine with that convention.

Ok you seem to be confused about one thing which I now finally realize. The rules about how survival skill works won't be found each feat about survival. It will be found in the general rules, presumably in the how to play section. That's where the how is.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Senkon wrote:

Not sure in which way you agreed with me. I'm just not seeing it.

But the pearl of fire isn't mentioned in the text. I meant that is the part the player makes up instead. Keep the what but not the how.

The HOW is still implicit in the damage type. It's fire. If you remove that, and allow the player to invent it, you start to damage the integrity of the game. "Oh it's a troll? It's fire. Now it's a fire giant? It's coldball."

Not that you can't have a variable type spell. But it will be higher level because the variability carries an in game advantage. No one picks third level fireball when they can pick the same stated third level DamageBall instead.

Fire dmg is a mechanic. I said you wouldn't remove the fire part or mechanics. Just the flavor. Sure you could say that fire aspect adds flavor but it can't be helped in that case. I also now realize that the spell doesn't have any flavor added. "It simply says A burst of fire explodes". Which considering that it is fire and a burst aoe is the bare minimum. Also the player came come up with the flavor. The dm doesn't need to.

Both fireball and and planar gives you the bare minimum you need to know which is the mechanics of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bhurano wrote:
shroudb wrote:


that's not the point.

the point is that the wizard loses nothing for the flexibility of having utility spells in his spellbook and preparing them only when needed.

the whole premise of "prepared casters have to juggle what to prepare" is gone with a simple level 4 feat without any requirements, costs, or anything.

the main issue remains: he loses NOTHING for gaining immense versatility and flexibility, something that's suppossed to be sorc's thing, and sorc loses everything for it.

give it a suitable cost, like needing a spellslot 2+ levels higher, or spellpoints equal to the swapped spell, and you'll see most of the arguments against the feat disappear.

The thing is that the Wizard should be the guy with the UTILITY spells when he NEEDS THEM, which he NEVER WAS, due to the fact that preparing the right spells is basically almost impossible unless you know EXACTLY what you need in advance. And as we all know Players and GM's alike make mistakes in planning, as well as in their assumptions.

The Sorcerer on the other hand is the guy who's flexible within his chosen field/spells. That can give him a LOT of focus or a general approach to a lot of problems... depending what spells got picked.

Again, Quick Preparation is not overpowered. It is well placed among the other candidates of the level 4 Wizard feats. It's up against the Cantrip Expansion (very powerful) and the Enhanced Familiar (also good), which are also strong contenders for a level 4 pick.

If you go for a Wizard/Fighter there is Magical Striker, which would IMMEDIATELY beat out the other options without even trying. Doubly so with a Universalist Wizard, go Familiar and way, way later Superior Focus and you'll have LOTS and LOTS of Magical Striker opportunities. :)

No he should have the amount of utility he takes when he prepares. Spontaneous casters should have answers all the time because that's how they work. There is one feat that makes the wizard always have the answer. That means that the default wizard does not have the answers all the time and it should stay that way.


If I don't like how it works I might test one resonance to make it function for 30 minutes. So that looting won't cost 2+ points per player.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Way to use hyperbole. Planar survival does have limitations. It only finds food. It needs resources or natural phenomena, just not the ones that you normally need. I never said remove the mechanical limitations, I just made a case for no flavor text. Fireball would then still have dmg numbers, range, aoe, dmg type etc. It wouldn't say it's a ball of fire though. It could be a grenade or it could be a pearl of fire that expands at the end of it's trajectory.

I was actually agreeing with you. (Other than forcing new GMs to invent their own fiction.)

Planar Survival says WHAT. It doesn't say HOW.

And "a grenade or it could be a pearl of fire that expands at the end of it's trajectory" is still inserting the flavor. It's just a different flavor.

You claim hyperbole, but it was actually a specific point. Flavor matters. Which you just demonstrated by reinserting the grenade/pearl flavor (along with Fire damage type).

Not sure in which way you agreed with me. I'm just not seeing it.

But the pearl of fire isn't mentioned in the text. I meant that is the part the player makes up instead. Keep the what but not the how.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Senkon wrote:

It's the best way to get new players and dms to make up their own flavor to skills. I mean I would never reflavor fireball for example. It seems wrong to do so. But if the spell didn't tell me anything I would have to and I would probably be happier for it.

As for the rest yeah I don't like too much healing either. The find food stuff seems kinda weak but whatever.

I would argue that any unnecessary vaguery does more to discourage new GMs and acts as a barrier to them ever playing. Step one is "learn what the hell the game even is." Let "tinker and fuss and invent my own rules" be step two or three or four.

Re: fireball. That one already has the flavor text I'm asking for. It already says HOW. It's a ball of fire that burns things.

But more than the flavor, we got CONTEXT. We got LIMITATION.

What if the spell was just "DamageBall. You cast the spell and things take damage?" Or "DamageBolt"? Or "Increase Hit Points?"

There's no more flavor. There's no context. There's no limitation. DamageBall damages EVERYTHING... fire elementals, demons, undead, people.

"Increase Hit Points" just makes hit points go up. Buildings. Structures. Undead. Golems. Characters.

The world is a lot less interesting when it lacks context. And strategy and tactics vanish almost entirely.

Way to use hyperbole. Planar survival does have limitations. It only finds food. It needs resources or natural phenomena, just not the ones that you normally need. I never said remove the mechanical limitations, I just made a case for no flavor text. Fireball would then still have dmg numbers, range, aoe, dmg type etc. It wouldn't say it's a ball of fire though. It could be a grenade or it could be a pearl of fire that expands at the end of it's trajectory.


Witch of Miracles wrote:
Senkon wrote:


Being able to leave slots open is just as bad. Not sure why you think wiz needs to be able to do thing he could do in 2e. Even if the other feats are better (doubt it) that's still not the only problem. I won't be able to properly challenge a party if wizard can just swap out to the best spell he has available for the situation. How do I get the party to go hunting for keys in the castle while sneaking around if the wizard can just swap in as many knocks as he has spell slots?

It's apparently easy, since the wizard is too dumb to have the rogue just unlock the doors and will run out of spells before any actual combat occurs.

Seriously, it's not hard to challenge the party. You're acting like the wizard is god. You already know what spells are in his spellbook. There are a lot of things in this game a wizard of adventuring level and adventuring means can't deal with, spell-swapping or no. There is a reason there is a rest-of-the-party. Throw them an actual puzzle that isn't "roll a d20 at it," place traps the Wizard won't notice, etc.

You need to think like a player in order to make a good challenge.

When did I mention combat or a rogue? I wanted them to hunt keys. A scavenge hunt for keys. They could also use shrink item on the door. Not to mention the reason rogue couldn't open the doors could be because it had lock on it and they needed magic keys or a password or something. A different type of item for each door.


Xenocrat wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

Quick Preparation is what you get for the Wizard not having the ability to leave slots open, fewer slots, and strict Vancian casting rather than the Arcanist casting of 5e that many were hoping for.

It's not even a "must have" feat at that level. Cantrip Expansion lets you cover all of your elemental bases in combat, Conceal Spell lets you attempt to cast sneaky stuff in social situations, Empowering Focus provides the only DC booster in the game, and Magical Striker is pretty great for a gish build that uses True Strike or the Diviner's Sight school power. All of these are legitimate contenders, and while I wouldn't take Enhanced Familiar or Steady Spellcaster they're not wastes of space, either.

Being able to leave slots open is just as bad. Not sure why you think wiz needs to be able to do thing he could do in 2e. Even if the other feats are better (doubt it) that's still not the only problem. I won't be able to properly challenge a party if wizard can just swap out to the best spell he has available for the situation. How do I get the party to go hunting for keys in the castle while sneaking around if the wizard can just swap in as many knocks as he has spell slots?
Perhaps you should learn to design encounters to challenge the best possible Wizard layout?

What a dumb reply. The best possible wizard layout can be challenged. But that layout is not twelve knocks.


Lucid Blue wrote:
Grapes of Being Tired wrote:

I think people are horribly misconstruing the point of the OP, or at least his main point.

Yes, a Ranger might be able to literally just create food for other people out of essentially nothing. He makes boiled leather palpable or somehow derives nutrition from sweat.

First, add some flavor text explaining HOW you do it. Almost every other thing in the book does this. This one probably just got missed. Saying that "but I can imagine my own HOW and flavor text" is not a fix. Yes, you can invent your own. So can I.

Why not add it?

It's the best way to get new players and dms to make up their own flavor to skills. I mean I would never reflavor fireball for example. It seems wrong to do so. But if the spell didn't tell me anything I would have to and I would probably be happier for it.

As for the rest yeah I don't like too much healing either. The find food stuff seems kinda weak but whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Page 305 says "Striking multiple times has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty applies to attacks after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the grapple use of the Athletics skill, or attacks from spells."
Page 306 refers to attacks of opportunity and tells you "Because an Attack of Opportunity is a quick and opportunistic Strike, you take a -2 penalty when using it, and even though it is an attack action, it doesn’t incur a multiple attack penalty to the attack roll."
As far as I can understand we only know it's an attack action because it tells you to make a melee strike against the target, same as with flurry. So yeah it probably takes the penalty same as everything else.

So using an attack action just means using something that involves something with the attack trait like a strike does. The action itself does not seem to need the attack trait just whatever it involves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bhurano wrote:

Did anyone READ the damn feat in question?

Yes/No/Maybe?

It clearly states:
Spend 10 minutes to empty ONE of your prepared spell slots and prepare a different spell from your spellbook in its place.

That's 10 minutes for just changing ONE freaking spell.
You want to change more. Sure, go ahead.
That's another run... ANOTHER 10 minutes.

It's not a magical solution for wizards to change up their whole loadout for the day.

A level 20 Wizard trying to change all his spells in go would need 270 minutes. Just 4 hours and 30 minutes. And that's just an universalist.
A level 20 Specialist Wizard would take 90 minutes more. Straight up 6 hours. So yeah, not happening. That's a lot of time that's better spent.
BTW, Cantrips not included.

What it ACTUALLY does:
It allows a Wizard to be a bit more flexible in case he chose a spell or two that he can't use at all on that day OR needs RIGHT NOW. If he has 10 minutes, he can kick that sucker out and kick in one that he needs.

Since there are no longer bonus spell slots this is potentially a very GOOD thing... if picked. Because it allows basically the elimination of spell slot waste, a problem that spontaneous casters shouldn't EVER encounter, unlike their prepared brethren.

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
READING COMPREHENSION MATTERS!

Quick Preparation is fine.
It's good but nothing special.
People should have actually read the text before being keyboardwarriors.

We already know this you... Changing out a few spells a day is the problem. You even say that prepared casters should experience spell slot waste. But this feat will remove that aspect of the game which in turn man just read the thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Quick Preparation is what you get for the Wizard not having the ability to leave slots open, fewer slots, and strict Vancian casting rather than the Arcanist casting of 5e that many were hoping for.

It's not even a "must have" feat at that level. Cantrip Expansion lets you cover all of your elemental bases in combat, Conceal Spell lets you attempt to cast sneaky stuff in social situations, Empowering Focus provides the only DC booster in the game, and Magical Striker is pretty great for a gish build that uses True Strike or the Diviner's Sight school power. All of these are legitimate contenders, and while I wouldn't take Enhanced Familiar or Steady Spellcaster they're not wastes of space, either.

Being able to leave slots open is just as bad. Not sure why you think wiz needs to be able to do thing he could do in 2e. Even if the other feats are better (doubt it) that's still not the only problem. I won't be able to properly challenge a party if wizard can just swap out to the best spell he has available for the situation. How do I get the party to go hunting for keys in the castle while sneaking around if the wizard can just swap in as many knocks as he has spell slots?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sorcerer Spider wrote:

So, under the crafting rules, you must spend at least 4 days crafting an item of your level, with a day less for every level you exceed the item's level.

IF you want to finish the item right away after those days, you need to spend the remaining half of the item's market price; making crafting it cost the SAME as buying it! (which kinda makes this option suck)

OR you can spend additional days crafting, reducing the remaining price by an SP value equal to what a character of your level and proficiency can do in a day. BUT... That means you're reducing a cost frequently measured in GP by SP, you know, 1/10th the value you're trying to reduce. Mind you that consumables don't quite have this issue, since they're usually priced in SP anyway.

BUT... If you're crafting pretty much anything over 100gp and you're level 15 or less, you'll be working on it for a while. Making it really undesirable to do this.

Particularly in the case of most of the formerly "Wondrous Items" which cost 1000s of gp, you've basically retired that character. What started as a simple crafting project has now become a doctorate degree level life's work (if you're trying to actually save any money by crafting).

Again, I feel the need to point out that many of these formerly "Wondrous Items" need a high LV to even be able to craft them, but aren't particularly useful by that point, let alone enticing to wait that long for them.

Yes, a 15th level character can make a 4000gp item in a month or less (if their craft proficiency is high), but does a 15th level character even need what they made by then? Meanwhile a 7th level character spends nearly a whole year making even a 1000gp item! And forget about doing anything so ambitious before lv7.

Again, you could just spend the remaining money to finish right away, but that really completely ruins the whole point of crafting if you're just going to end up paying market price anyway.

Is 1000gp project appropriate for a lvl 7 character though? Also the point of paying the same for an item to craft is to get an item not found at the marketplace. All seems to be in order to me.


Uchuujin wrote:

That's definitely how I am reading it RAW.

I'll already be house ruling it an invested item with no activation cost though unless I hear darn good reason why the current rules are intended this way.

Best I can give you is that bag of holding is a really really really good item. Maybe this is the bare minimum cost you need to give it for players to ever consider an alternative. Still haven't played but I will give bag of holding resonance a shot to see if gives room for some interesting inventory management.


Triune wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Triune wrote:
Visanideth wrote:
Senkon wrote:


I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.
That's kind of hard to reconcile with the 10.000 posts threads, the success of 5E and all that jazz. People most definitely care about power parity.

I mean, right?

It's also very easy to say "more fun options for martials", but actually implementation is another story. You just want an ability to do another thing on your turn, so the three action system works for you. For someone else, they want that narrative power that casters get, the ability to actually change things more meaningfully. For them, kicking over a table doesn't quite cut it. The kind of things they want are the kind of things other people react violently to, like a bow critical immobilizing for example. They see that and go "But what about huge creatures! They realistically wouldn't be immobilized by a tiny arrow!". Understand the problem?

But I like the crit specializations including those. I mean I can understand not wanting it to work for some creatures but even if you have a huge creature it probably would have a smaller part that could get pinned somewhere. I'm not sure sometimes pinning a creature and only if they are close to a wall is powerful compared to spells that immobilize however the fact you brought that example up tells me something. It tells me that you want the ability to chose between many fun options (weapons with crit effects) not something that is as powerful as a wizards aoe stun effect. Even with single target immobile effects they tend to last longer and with no wall requirements.

Edit: 5e wizards are more powerful than martials lol :^)

I don't think you understood my point.

The point is that that arrow thing you find fun, that you enjoy? For other people (and those people aren't me) it makes the game worse. They are legitimately complaining about it. And they're not wrong and your opinion...

Ok but I think what they think they want and what they actually want is different. I think they want fun options. You seem to work as an example. You brought up the narrative power of the arrow as a thing. If that's good enough for you then something that is basically a lvl 2-3 spell for a wizard but worse is good enough for you. Because it's a fun option. If you are not satisfied with that kinda power lvl then I would like to know what you actually want instead of what other people who are/aren't angry about martials want. So that a discussion can take place. So far I assumed that the arrow was an example of what you like from martials in 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
At no point did I imply the adventure should require a wizard.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
but if you, the wizard, have the wrong spell, no one else can cover that weakness. You're just boned.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
However, I did imply that a sane wizard would not go into combat with monsters with only charm person and comprehend languages prepared. If there's a wizard in your party, it's idiotic to take a wizard into a situation he's not prepared for if you can avoid it. You're basically down a party member.

But you shouldn't have. No one is talking about playing the wizard like trash. We are talking about a wizard preparing a normal spell list for the day and then having to deal with it...

Witch of Miracles wrote:
The weakness wherein wizard doesn't always have the optimal spell isn't negated by waiting a day, since you will almost always be running on imperfect information and making some guesses and compromises at spell prep anyways. You are preparing spells that are 60-80% likely to be useful in most slots, and maybe preparing and one or two 20-30% spells. You're playing the odds and might get burned -- that's the right way to see the risk, imo.

...like this. This is exactly what I want. Made impossible with quick preparation because if faced with 3 locked doors you can now quick prep in three knocks.

Witch of Miracles wrote:
It's not binary. It's not "I've got the right spells and I'm set or I've got the wrong spells and I'm f*#+ed," because if you put wizards in that situation a lot, there's no reason to play a f&&+ing wizard.

Sure agreed.

Witch of Miracles wrote:
You're also ignoring that this is a compensation for losing the ability to leave a slot empty, which was vastly superior to preparing a 10%-20% spell.

That also seems op. It makes it harder to dm. At least there should be a limit to how many spells you could leave open just like there should be a limit to how many times you can quick prep (once).

Witch of Miracles wrote:
(I also think the way spell heightening works is a net buff to the sorcerer for reasons I've explained before -- in many cases, they're getting spells for free through the spontaneous heighten feature when compared to PF1, like if you choose to have spontaneous heighten on summon monster. You had to take each level individually in PF1 anyways, so net buff. That's not wholly relevant here, though.)

Don't care about sorc comparison to much it's not about that for me but this part is relevant. This is only true for combat/time pressed scenarios. Wiz can now "spontaneously" heighten a spell with quick prep.

Witch of Miracles wrote:
How many times did you know what the perfect spell would be after you woke up and prepared but before you were in serious combat?

When I see the castle that I'm about to siege/infiltrate. If i want to sneak in then invisibility, dimension door, spider climb etc is good. If I'm sieging then battle spells/summons etc. When I wake up I can prepare a full list of charm spells until I'm out of town. Then prepare a new list perfect for the road etc.

Witch of Miracles wrote:
Even then, in how many cases would Quick Preparation have provided a solution not available with a "prepare later" slot or two in PF1?

All of the above and more. Anytime you have ten mins. Standing in front of a bunch of locked doors as an example.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

And what about the case with PF1 wizard where you take preferred spell as a feat and can just spontaneously cast an 80% useful spell with a 10%-20% useful slot?

I wouldn't know. This is not pf1 anyway. If that's the same or worse then I don't want it.

Witch of Miracles wrote:
(Also, arcanist could do this way faster in PF1 anyways...?)

See above.


Triune wrote:
Visanideth wrote:
Senkon wrote:


I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.
That's kind of hard to reconcile with the 10.000 posts threads, the success of 5E and all that jazz. People most definitely care about power parity.

I mean, right?

It's also very easy to say "more fun options for martials", but actually implementation is another story. You just want an ability to do another thing on your turn, so the three action system works for you. For someone else, they want that narrative power that casters get, the ability to actually change things more meaningfully. For them, kicking over a table doesn't quite cut it. The kind of things they want are the kind of things other people react violently to, like a bow critical immobilizing for example. They see that and go "But what about huge creatures! They realistically wouldn't be immobilized by a tiny arrow!". Understand the problem?

But I like the crit specializations including those. I mean I can understand not wanting it to work for some creatures but even if you have a huge creature it probably would have a smaller part that could get pinned somewhere. I'm not sure sometimes pinning a creature and only if they are close to a wall is powerful compared to spells that immobilize however the fact you brought that example up tells me something. It tells me that you want the ability to chose between many fun options (weapons with crit effects) not something that is as powerful as a wizards aoe stun effect. Even with single target immobile effects they tend to last longer and with no wall requirements.

Edit: 5e wizards are more powerful than martials lol :^)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Triune wrote:

I feel for Paizo, because they have two opposing design goals.

The first is avoiding these dissociated mechanics as you refer to them. Keeping the game feeling grounded in reality. Even in a world with dragons and magic and what have you, that feeling is important. It keeps players invested in the game and inspires good role playing.

The other is fixing the good old martial caster disparity. The problem is that magic is pretty much exempt from constraint. It can do whatever and people will say, "A wizard did it" and move on. It will always have way more narrative power than the mundane.

So the options are essentially:

a) Nerf magic until it's capable of barely more than the mundane. At that point it becomes boring and stale, and the game becomes more gritty low fantasy.

b) Buff martial stuff to be able to do the supernatural. You them get the problems outlined thus far in this thread.

c) Leave it as it was in first edition. You then get endless balance complaints and wars amongst your player base. Threads about martial caster disparity that reach into the ten thousand post mark. Etcetera.

I have no idea what the correct solution is. No matter what they do there will be a huge contingent of angry people shouting that they made the wrong decision.

I think the answer is d) people don't really want power parity, they just want fun options as a martial.

Hard to say if they've succeeded because I've yet to get a game going but the new crit specializations and fun ammo stuff fixes the problems I have with the disparity. I'm comparing it to 5e not pf1 because I have no idea what goes on there but I don't think it matters. This is a new version so I'll just judge it for what it is now. The 3 action system favors martials to me in that they can now chose to not attack as their first action without losing their whole turn essentially. I can now push over a table or try to lie pull levers are whatever else fun there is in the area without giving up my attacks. Most spells are 2 actions so you could cast a spell move to the lever but not use the lever until next turn. Martials will use 1 move 1 attack and 1 fun thing each turn potentially and I just really like that.
Then there's the ammo but it's magic so maybe doesn't count? I mean it is a martial option and it doesn't break my suspension of belief.


Witch of Miracles wrote:
Senkon wrote:

Even so let's think about the scenarios where it does help. When you wake in the city you prepare skills that are good in the city. As you set of in your wagon or whatever you prepare skills that are good on the road. As you sit outside the dungeon you prepare skills that are good in a dungeon. When you know you are going to infiltrate a castle before you get to the castle but after you prepare your daily allotment of spells etc. There are so many time where you can hyper specialize for the mission at hand. Think about the poor dm that is trying to challenge the group with some fun puzzle s+@@. By which I mean the puzzle of getting into a castle or some such thing.

Edit: lol the word filter randomizes each time you refresh.

Those are scenarios where every group I've been in legitimately just says, "we're doing this s*@@ tomorrow."

As far as I know, that's how that's normally handled. If your spellcasters don't have the right spells, you just wait until the next day, because that's a lot like being down a party member. If anything, the wizard changing out his slots like this is an *improvement* over having the entire party wait a day for the wizard.

EDIT:

Hastur!Hastur!Hastur! wrote:

Spending 10 minutes, even in a dungeon, is nothing. It takes that long to search a room properly. At best the wizard will just not help with the search and will change up spells.

Also something is overpowered if it requires the DM to be constantly thinking of a way to not let the player use it as printed.

10 minutes is a long time in any dangerous place -- especially in PF1 if you were trying to keep up min/lvl buffs. Searching for treasure after clearing the place has usually been eminently safer. Nothing here really changes that. Most of my groups would maybe do a quick glanceover of a room first time through, and not do a thorough search until it was obviously safe unless they had no choice and had to search thoroughly to advance.

Also, none of what I said is the DM...

Why would it be an improvement over have to wait a day for the wizard? If waiting a day has no downside then waiting a day is as simple as saying "we wait a day lol" and then you move on. If there is a drawback to waiting a day then that where quick prep is op. But to begin with I wouldn't allow them to wait a day because it's blatant metagaming. Don't they have a reason to press on? Even if they are just looking for fame and glory saying "meh I'll do it tomorrow" does not sound like that of a future hero. Remember, I wanted to challenge the group. The wizard not having the absolute perfect spell setup to get into the castle is what I wanted.

Imagine quick retraining. Each time I announce a castle siege the martials of the group takes 10 to retrain their skill sets to better suit the task at hand. The point of preparing spells is so you have to do a good job at well preparing for the tasks ahead. The point of retraining skills taking a long time is so that you can't just do it to always match the tasks ahead. For some reason I'm sure you wouldn't be fine with the lvl 4 feat quick retraining.

min per lvl buffs no longer exists.


Maybe you have to mimic the antler bull attack making it hard to use your free hands to grapple with. I dunno. Seems boring to not have animal rage as a default at least. Ape and snake gets climb speed so that's something to consider.


Witch of Miracles wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
This is reaching a point where you just need the GM to use common sense (which is, admittedly, dangerous). You can't just sit around in a dungeon for 10 minutes while the wizard is meditating on his spellbook without consequences. Are there no patrols? Is there no wildlife? Hell, even if they acknowledge that, is the rest of the party going to keep escorting this maniac out of the dungeon so he can swap spells in peace every time the situation changes slightly? Continuously...
If you read the official AP's from Paizo, then the answer is "yes, you can totally sit all day on your duff in dungeons and do whatever, as long as you move three rooms back." Because monsters seldomly move from their rooms. The dungeons with active patrols and so on are very few and far between.

That's what I mean about common sense, though.

Combat is loud. Extremely loud. If you're forgetting that a lot of the dungeon has a shot of hearing you if you start clanging swords around, that's an issue.

Certainly, not -every- dungeon has active patrols, and not every dungeon has monsters willing to leave their rooms, but in the vast majority of cases, if an intelligent dungeon inhabitant hears combat, the party is probably going to end up on something of a timer as those inhabitants start moving to check it out. Same goes if they alert the wrong person. (I still well remember my party entering the boss room in Catacombs of Wrath first, then just getting slammed by everyone the boss could alert arriving in waves.) While it's also your job to exercise "don't penalize the party for making mistakes they couldn't have known to avoid," you've also got to play the enemies out in a reasonable fashion.

Also worth noting that if enemies won't or shouldn't leave their rooms, there's usually a good reason (forge at hook mountain is loud and full of clanging noises anyways, so enemies there probably wouldn't hear combat at the entrance; bosses taking time to buff once the...

Even so let's think about the scenarios where it does help. When you wake in the city you prepare skills that are good in the city. As you set of in your wagon or whatever you prepare skills that are good on the road. As you sit outside the dungeon you prepare skills that are good in a dungeon. When you know you are going to infiltrate a castle before you get to the castle but after you prepare your daily allotment of spells etc. There are so many time where you can hyper specialize for the mission at hand. Think about the poor dm that is trying to challenge the group with some fun puzzle s!@$. By which I mean the puzzle of getting into a castle or some such thing.

Edit: lol the word filter randomizes each time you refresh.


Bluenose wrote:
...there's absolutely no rational way to explain turns/moves/initiative as something happening in the world, which is one of the fundamental arguments for declaring some aspect "dissociated", but that gets excused because it's an "abstraction".

Yes there is. They all happen at the same time so you're not waiting for your turn or anything. The reason you fail to react to your buddy getting slaughtered is because you were busy doing the thing that you just did/are about to do but really already have done. When something doesn't make sense, like you moving up and attacking them and then they run away and attack you from a range, you just have to imagine a slightly different order. The round that just happened was an abstraction of reality. What really happened was that he was finishing an attack or thinking about attacking one of your allies if it was the start of combat. Then the corner of his eyes he sees a madman rushing up to him. He panics and turns around to run but it is too late. You do a mighty leap for the last 10 feet and strike him with your sword. Screaming out in pain he stumbles as he does his "move". Turning around as he stumbles he starts casting scorching ray. Meanwhile you are stowing your sword and drawing your bow. As you take aim a ray streaks past you, a second ray hits your shoulder. You flinch slightly but quickly recenter your self and brace for third impact. As it gets you square in the torso you let lose your arrow etc. Meanwhile everyone else is also doing the same s%~~.


Hunterofthedusk wrote:
Lucid Blue wrote:

I guess I'm genuinely baffled that so many people support the Dissociated Mechanics.

So are you all also in favor of Planar Survival feat allowing people to forage for food on planes of existence that don't have food? Where the act of searching poofs the food into existence?

And if so, are you against letting the DC10 tree be DC10 for everyone? And believe the same tree should have higher DC for higher level characters?

So, the issues you raise feel like corner cases to me, so I don't really care, to be honest. Most planes, including the planes of earth, fire, and whatnot all have creatures on them, and you could hunt them for food. The issues with battlefield medic I've already addressed, and that's really more of a GM dealing with an unreasonable player

But the corner case is built into the skills. Why even mention foodless planets? Why not a skill that says "...unless the area has no food to forage". Also it's not a animal tracking skill so it shouldn't work on the creatures that live there. Other feats would work for that.

Edit: I mean it says normally doesn't sustain you. Obviously the implication is that you take that food and find a way to make it edible. Something you can only do with that feat.


Igor Horvat wrote:
Senkon wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

also, what is with volley trait penalty?

didn't this people read any history books? bows(and crossbows) were most deadly at point blank range!!

I guess the rp is that it's harder hit when close? Like if someone is up in your face it's easier to strafe out of the way and harder for you to keep up with the aiming.

That is only if someone is almost in your face.

If they wrote volley 10ft or 15ft, I would say: Hey, this is great, they realy tried to think something good.

I mean that would probably be fine but I would think that the closer you are the more amplified your sideways movement is. So it would be the most obvious point blank but still a bit harder if they are mid range to you. To me it's not so obviously wrong that I can't deal with it at least.


Igor Horvat wrote:

also, what is with volley trait penalty?

didn't this people read any history books? bows(and crossbows) were most deadly at point blank range!!

I guess the rp is that it's harder hit when close? Like if someone is up in your face it's easier to strafe out of the way and harder for you to keep up with the aiming.


It's 5e ritual casting for every spell in the game in exchange for wasting the slot. Unless this game is drastically different then the feat will trivialize preparation. It takes 10 minutes to use in 5e too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:

I see no reason whatsoever to bother with composite bows. They cost more than regular bows, and it takes Strength 14 to add a measly +1 extra damage to a composite bow. Considering that the majority of damage comes from magic weapon damage dice, I cannot see a dedicated archer ponying up the Strength 14 for the +1 damage.

Why even bother with the Strength 14 when you could be raising Dexterity (for your attacks) and some mix of Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma?

Because int is a dump stat for archers anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

>i-it's n-not a treadmill


Paradozen wrote:
I'm hoping there is a ritual for army-building undead and a low-action-cost spell that gets a small number of temporary undead. Best thing about animate dead in PF1 is it is a standard action to use which means raising fallen foes mid-fight is a somewhat viable option, at least around the level animate dead appears.

I'm not sure what we think the rituals are going to be but I agree with something along these lines at least. There is a lvl 5 spell called Danse Macabre which summons a decent amount of skellies/zombies with a lot of power boosts. I personally do want both that and animate dead still though.


Dasrak wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
I suspect Animate Dead will end up as a Ritual instead of a spell, so that we are less shoehorned as GMs when choosing the general for our uhdead army.

I concur that seems very likely, although I expect to still see at least some spells that fit into that niche.

Senkon wrote:
I want to compare 5e Animate dead/create undead with pathfinders animate dead (not sure about pf create undead, seems fine).
PF1 Create Undead is utterly terrible. The strength of the undead creatures it creates are completely out of line with the caster level prerequisites, such that by the time you can create them they are so massively below your power level as to be meaningless. The only exceptions are the Juju Zombie and Skeleton Champion options from the Undead Revisited softcover. If they're not allowed, the spell is basically useless. On top of that the spell confers no special control over the undead it creates, and the options for controlling free-willed undead are perilous and risky. It's hardly any wonder that Animate Dead is the one that gets used. Certainly I hope Create Undead gets a second look in PF2 because it really needs help.

When I say create undead seems fine I mean that it I like it conceptually. I don't know about the power lvls of these spells in pf but I think it doesn't need to otherwise change.

I think skeleton armies are fine you just need to adjust how good they are. In my game it's not very easy to accumulate my army. It's just the pf version where it's given to you to easily that's the real problem.


We've been told that these things won't be in the playtest but I want to talk about them anyway. Not sure why they won't put it in though. Seems like a good way to get some of the players involved in trying out mass combat and how to play it.

I want to compare 5e Animate dead/create undead with pathfinders animate dead (not sure about pf create undead, seems fine). I prefer the way 5e handles it in general with the exception of variety. The focus will be on a Wizard character. There's 3 things the matters to me.
Commitment
Payoff
Variety

In 5e commitment works in a few different ways.

1. Spells prepared
2. Spells learned
3. How the spells themselves work
4. Misc. costs like how society will view you, resources spent hiding your minions etc.
--------------------------
1. You can prepare spells equal to your lvl + casting modifier. So lvl 20 = 25 spells to prepare. You also only have to prepare the spell once then it stays there until you prepare another spell to replace it. All casters in 5e are kinda spontaneous casters and can therefore prepare the spell once then cast it in each lvl3+ slot they have. Preparing the spell is a decent commitment because you will only be able to prepare less that half your spell selection assuming that you find a few spells on your journey.

2. You learn, 2 spells per lvl + any spells you learn from scrolls/books + 6 spells starting lvl 1. This means that learning 1 spell (animate dead) is not that large of a commitment.

3. Animate dead is a lvl 3 spell. When cast you animate dead you gain control of 1 skeleton/zombie. With the lvl 6 feat of the necromancy school you can animate and gain control of 2 skeletons/zombies. These skeletons will remain in you control for 24 hours after which they will act on their own accord. You can cast the spell to reassert control over your minions. A lvl 3 Animate Dead will reassert your control over 4 skeletons/zombies. This is not increased by your lvl 6 feat from the school of necromancy. For each lvl above lvl 3, Animate Dead will raise/reassert 2 more. Animating is recruiting for your army and will determine the speed at which your army grows. Reasserting is paying the upkeep and will determine the maximum size of your army. It takes 1 minute to cast.

4. The misc. cost is basically the same as in pf1 I believe. The main difference is that you have to reassert control of your minions daily which means the discomfort of you animating these vile creatures will come up more frequently. More opportunities to rp the whole shtick.
--------------------------

The payoff is simpler. In pf1 it's instant. You press the button twice and voila, you have max capacity. 5e makes you work for it a bit more*. What I like is that I basically get two systems to engage with, recruitment and upkeep. The both feel different and they are both fun in their own way. Both way feels like a proper investment, one that I have perfect control over. I can make all different sizes of army. I can make a small personal guard or a full blown army and anywhere in between.

Pf1 variety beats 5e easily. I want that to remain the same.

I'm not really sure how to really describe it. In my group I'm trying to hide, badly, that I'm a necromancer. First time I tried to animate a zombie was after we just killed some bandits and was getting ready to move on. I was faking my phantom steed ritual while I was really trying to pull a bandit closer to our carriage (which I bought and had painted pink). I thought that it would be more subtle. One of my companions heard me and wondered what I was doing I I gave some poor excuse that I can't remember then I gave up on my really great attempt.
First time I successfully animated something I abandoned my watch to go to a place where we killed a few guys, about 30 minutes away. 1 Zombie and a guy I previously suggested we burn as a burial ritual kinda thing so I could get a skeleton :^). I then proceed to put the skeleton in the back compartment and I kinda shoved the zombie between the axle of the wheel. If this was pf1 I could have just turned around and done a quick cast while lagging slightly behind before even leaving the gravesite.

What I would really want is if there was a feat that let undead spells more or less function identically to how it's done in 5e. Maybe even just make the spell itself a weird exception. Similar to how they are doing counterspell maybe? Let us just pick a slot to burn after preparing it.
Do you think there is a advantage to pf1 system?

*a lot more

P.S. I have never played pf1


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Seems more a matter of people ignoring old inconsistencies because that's just what they were used to. "Sorcery" was just as much "connoted" as sinister, yet nobody complained there, or why it wasn't classed as divine since it was "connoted" as worshipping evil deities.

Probably because sorcery is no longer connoted with something bad and connotations are "just what people are used to".


Sounds like pretty much every class can pick every feat from each of their subclasses without picking the subclass. True? Can I pick a divination school (which I assume is not just a specialization option but a subclass thing) then get all the feats from the necromancy school?


Sad times for us; rarity blog. Did pf1 not have rarity?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I:^(


Wohoo archetypes.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Isn't this going to cause the math to broke? PF2 has a tighter math after all and more prone to this kind of disruption. Like Senkon said, what if characters pool their wealth to buy a very high level item? Resonance seems like a very good incentive to go this route.
Eh. The price progression seems to be on par with PF1, which makes this not something you can usually afford unless you're leaving everyone else seriously undergeared for their level, in which case it tends to balance out.

But isn't that because wealth and prices are quadratic and not linear? I forget who is arguing for what now but I'm saying that loot wealth and shop prices should be quadratic. This makes it a choice on weather you should use cost effective items or resonance effective items or a mix of both.


edduardco wrote:
Senkon wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Senkon wrote:
edduardco wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Unless item effectiveness is also going to increase quadratically prices should increase in a way that correspond to actual item effectiveness, a linear progression is easier to compare and calculate prices, if that means changing treasure progression to linear so be it. Right now looks like Resonance is been placed in order to force players use overpriced consumables.

Hitpoints mostly increase linearly. This allows enemies to be in the level ballpark, rather than needing to wait until the PCs are level 2 to use level 2 enemies.

If hitpoints Increase linearly, healing effectiveness should increase linearly.
So, we can’t change healing to quadratic.

If we make treasure progression linear, that means that two level 10 characters have the wealth of a level 20 character. That’s a huge balance issue, because you can’t have any items that are appropriate for a high level character but broken for a low-level party.

Resonance, the pricing structure, and the healing/health progression push using the same percentage of your wealth by level on healing the same percentage of your health.

But PF2 restricts items by level like Starfinder, isn't that enough?
Lvl 10 chars with wealth of lvl 20 can still equip one lvl 10 with lvl appropriate gear beyond his means. Each slot fully loaded with everything you'd want.
But from where did they get level 20 wealth to begin with? Would that be a real scenario following the rules by the book?
If wealth is linear then the wealth you have at lvl 20 is two times the wealth you have at lvl 10. And so two lvl 10 characters will have the wealth of one lvl 20 character.
OK, but what is good for if you cannot have items of higher level than you? I admit this is pure speculation of my part at this point, and this exemplifies the issue of having quadratic progression for somethings and linear for others.

Well like I said you can deck out 1 of the character with more items he would normally have while sacrificing the second character. Where you might have normally been able to buy 1 or 2 best in slot for each you can now buy 2-4 items for 1 character. Even if those items are all lvl 10 it might push him into unstoppable territory against lvl appropriate enemies. This does not even account for different lvl 10 items having different costs.

Imagine a lvl 10 char that spreads their stats out evenly. He might be able to do alright but someone who min/maxed is probably a few steps sharper. Putting most into main stat + cha + con + dex for armor is probably going to be much better than the jack of all trades. The same can be said for lvl 10 items.

There will be items that when added up will account for all the "stat" points available when making a lvl 10 items but they will be spread too thin. The more specialized items will be coveted more and therefore be more expensive. Demand drives up the price. It's a lvl 10 item that is more appropriate for lvl 11+ characters. It might even be so expensive that it's really just meant to be relegated to a roll on the loot table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Senkon wrote:
edduardco wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Unless item effectiveness is also going to increase quadratically prices should increase in a way that correspond to actual item effectiveness, a linear progression is easier to compare and calculate prices, if that means changing treasure progression to linear so be it. Right now looks like Resonance is been placed in order to force players use overpriced consumables.

Hitpoints mostly increase linearly. This allows enemies to be in the level ballpark, rather than needing to wait until the PCs are level 2 to use level 2 enemies.

If hitpoints Increase linearly, healing effectiveness should increase linearly.
So, we can’t change healing to quadratic.

If we make treasure progression linear, that means that two level 10 characters have the wealth of a level 20 character. That’s a huge balance issue, because you can’t have any items that are appropriate for a high level character but broken for a low-level party.

Resonance, the pricing structure, and the healing/health progression push using the same percentage of your wealth by level on healing the same percentage of your health.

But PF2 restricts items by level like Starfinder, isn't that enough?
Lvl 10 chars with wealth of lvl 20 can still equip one lvl 10 with lvl appropriate gear beyond his means. Each slot fully loaded with everything you'd want.
But from where did they get level 20 wealth to begin with? Would that be a real scenario following the rules by the book?

If wealth is linear then the wealth you have at lvl 20 is two times the wealth you have at lvl 10. And so two lvl 10 characters will have the wealth of one lvl 20 character.


edduardco wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Unless item effectiveness is also going to increase quadratically prices should increase in a way that correspond to actual item effectiveness, a linear progression is easier to compare and calculate prices, if that means changing treasure progression to linear so be it. Right now looks like Resonance is been placed in order to force players use overpriced consumables.

Hitpoints mostly increase linearly. This allows enemies to be in the level ballpark, rather than needing to wait until the PCs are level 2 to use level 2 enemies.

If hitpoints Increase linearly, healing effectiveness should increase linearly.
So, we can’t change healing to quadratic.

If we make treasure progression linear, that means that two level 10 characters have the wealth of a level 20 character. That’s a huge balance issue, because you can’t have any items that are appropriate for a high level character but broken for a low-level party.

Resonance, the pricing structure, and the healing/health progression push using the same percentage of your wealth by level on healing the same percentage of your health.

But PF2 restricts items by level like Starfinder, isn't that enough?

Lvl 10 chars with wealth of lvl 20 can still equip one lvl 10 with lvl appropriate gear beyond his means. Each slot fully loaded with everything you'd want.


JRutterbush wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
JRutterbush wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

one other point on illusions. They are apparently immune to Detect Magic if the caster is lower level than the illusion.

As I recall, it's actual spell level. No matter what your caster level is, you can't use a cantrip to see through a 2nd level illusion, for example .
I think they were specifically talking about Detect Magic in the Podcast, so unless we are doing the 5E thing of using any spell slot for your spells it would have to be caster level
Except there will likely still be spells like arcane sight and so on, which are higher level spells.

I think spells prepared in a higher lvl slot will work against lower lvl spells. It should count slot lvl.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>