I would've just made it "X times a day on your turn, you can give a melee strike a reach of 30, and it deals fire damage instead of its normal type"
Divine Magic focuses on spells that enable you to solve problems, but don't solve problems on their own. It can provide for necessities, release restraints, clear curses, and heal wounds, or blind your enemies, but you have to be the one to go out and kill the monster, not the magic.
The few spells that do solve your problems for you, tend to also be weaker than similar spells from other lists, like how Flame Strike has a much smaller radius than Fireball, has a higher level requirement, and does less damage than an equivalent-level fireball.
You substitute the material; as in full on replace the old stats with the ones of the Precious Material. So we found rules for that.
You still haven't explained how to account for the fact that Specific magic shields often have higher stats than their corresponding precious material shield. We therefore don't know what to do with those bonus stats. Do they add onto the stats for the new material? Do you ignore them? There's nothing to tell you one way or another.
You just proved why the Wealth Domain is wrong for Erastil. The Wealth domain's spells are not about prosperity, they're about coins and money.
You're looking at it wrong. A simple weapon that's been bumped up a die step is still a bit worse than a martial weapon. Deadly Simplicity is just there to make otherwise useless deity favored weapons not objectively bad.
So every monster that has an innate spell with a material component now needs to have that pouch no matter how odd it is or implausible it might be for them to have one?
Of course. Greater Nightmares keep the material components for their innate spells in their pockets. If you part their mane, you'll find a zipper. Open that up, and you'll find a set of trinkets each originating from one of the major planes, which they use as a material component for Plane Shift. You'll also find a bunch of candy, but that's beside the point.
I think he's going by the fact that each spellcasting class explicitly grants you the ability to satisfy spell component requirements, while innate spells do not. Since you cannot supply the spell's components, but still can cast the spell, the only consistent reading is that the spell must not have component requirements.
So you don't value Additional Lore because you assume there won't be any downtime opportunities? Where is this assumption coming from?
You only have enough skill increases to max out 3 skills. Are you assuming that everyone is just gonna max out Craft? Spending one skill feat to bring a lore skill to legendary is a much, much, much smaller cost than investing your skill ranks to bring Craft to legendary.
I noticed a strong combo with Aggressive Block + Flinging Shove. If there's an opponent within 10 feet of a precipice, you intentionally provoke an attack of opportunity from them, then when they hit you, you shield block, and Aggressive Block, to automatically succeed at pushing them over the edge. Because they just used their reaction, they won't have a reaction free to grab the ledge, and will fall all the way down.
However, this hinges on you being hit. Is there any way to ensure that your opponent lands their hit? Can you choose to drop your guard and take a hit?
You're underestimating Additional Lore. For a skill feat, it can make a huge impact on your ability to generate money, and it's great flavorwise too. Did you miss the part where the lore skill's proficiency advances automatically?
Also, you're seriously underrating Battle Medicine. Did you miss the part where it's a 1-action heal that you can use on yourself, in combat, even with your hands full? It's basically a mini version of Untwisting Iron Buffer.
Is there are reason you went with human instead of elf for bows? Instead of using your human ancestry feat for 1/2 weapon training, you could instead use your elven ancestry feat to get Elven Weapon Familiarity for shortbows (and more) from level 1. It also gives you access to Elven Weapon Elegance at 5. Not to mention elves get their ancestry bonuses to Int and Dex natively.
Nope, just the first thing I thought of. You're right, Elf does work better.
It does not include hunting, stances, or drawing weapons.
You're thinking of Double Shot. Hunted Shot is one action.
People have been complaining about caster weapon attacks being too weak to bother with, and I think that's an idea that constrains your thinking if you don't challenge it. Sure, casters aren't as synergistic with weapons as other classes, but that doesn't mean they don't make a difference.
I've had my eye on Hunted Shot as a good 3rd action for caster Gishes, so I decided to spec out a Bow Wizard build, and see how it comes out overall versus a Bow Fighter. tl;dr, it comes out very well.
The key feature of this build is the Ranger dedication + Hunted Shot. The game plan is cast a saving-throw spell such as Electric Arc for two actions, and throw out a Hunted Shot on the strongest enemy with your third action in order to maximize action economy.
The Bow Wizard gets shortbow proficiency from taking the Weapon Proficiency Feat twice. Once from Versatile Heritage, and then again from the General Training Human ancestry feat. Later at level 12 he'll retrain in order to take a Fighter Dedication and get Diverse Weapon Expert for Expert proficiency.
For comparison, I also mapped out the DPR of a Multishot Fighter, who goes down the Double Shot->Triple Shot->Multishot Stance feat line.
In terms of at-will damage, the Fighter and Wizard are neck-and-neck most levels if you count the damage to both Electric Arc targets. Against just one target though, the Wizard definitely falls behind.
If the Wizard decides to use a max-level blast though, they can easily exceed the Fighter in single-target damage, at least for that round.
Now of course, if you wanted to be using only weapon attacks, that's just not going to be very effective. I think one possible compromise within the current system, in order for casters to feel more weapon themed without upending how everything is structured, is to add weapon-themed saving-throw cantrips. I'd imagine something like a cantrip version of Weapon Storm, where the spell's damage is based on your weapon's damage. This lets you incorporate your weapon into your fighting style, without it feeling like you're just a wannabe Fighter.
Personally, I think the build overall looks pretty viable. It's a shame that there are next to no spells that augment a bow-user offensively. The only ones I can see are Magic Weapon, Bless, Heroism, and Haste.
Human Wizard 4
General Feats: (Weapon Proficiency) x2
Armor: Explorer's Clothing
Weapons: +1 Striking Shortbow
Cantrips: Electric Arc, Chill Touch
plus concealment allows you to spend 1 action to gain the hidden condition, which is a lot more powerful than raise shield.
Not necessarily. If your opponent has a 40% chance to hit you, Raise Shield will lower their chance to hit to 30%. Concealment, on the other hand, would lower it to only 32%.
When did I ever say that 2e doesn't support gishes? Are you confusing me with someone else? Zapp was arguing that, but I criticized him, because I can't see what a system that supports gishes could possibly look like under his standards.
2E absolutely does support gishes.
You said this earlier. What did you mean by it? From what I see, you're saying it's wrong for casters to be able to match or exceed a martial through self-buffs.
"i think there is a base issue between you and I on how the game can be enjoyed.
I asked to post your best gish
not break the game
not exceed what martial characters can do innately by self augmenting with caster multiclass"
And I've been pointing out that his own points contradict themselves. He says Gishes can't nova, and never perform above martial baseline, even when buffed, and then gives an example of all the nova and buff spells he uses, like Haste, Blur, and fireball.
If I'm misrepresenting him, then it's only because he's misrepresenting me.
Strill, what are you trying to gain by intentionally misconstruing the OP's position? You know that's not what they said, I just don't get why you think this helps you or makes the thread better.
I said that gishes, by casting spells, achieve a level of performance which exceeds martials, for however long their spells last. The OP repeatedly disagreed with me on that point, so I have to assume he believes that that statement is false. If you think that's misconstruing his position, then I don't know what to tell you.
Ok, you said that a gish should not exceed a pure martial through self-augmenting. That means they either perform as good, or worse, when self-augmenting, and conversely that they perform that much worse worse when not self-augmenting. I'll take it from what you've said here, that you think a gish who self-augments should perform exactly as well as a pure martial.
So you are able to cast haste, mirror image, and true strike, but somehow your baseline level of performance is so poor, that even with all these spells, you still perform exactly as effectively as a pure martial? In other words, the two martial feats you gave up would have been so impactful, that they're worth all the benefits of those spells? I don't see how that's even possible.
nicholas storm wrote:
Why are you comparing casters to fighters, when getting +2 to hit is the fighter's special exclusive ability? Does that mean that Barbarians and Rogues and Rangers and Monks are all crap because they're at -2 to hit vs a fighter?
I just don't understand what you're expecting. If there are powerful buff spells in the game, you'll say they're better off used on the fighter, so you can't use them on yourself. If there aren't powerful buff spells, you'll say that all the gish spells were removed. What situation could there possibly be that would satisfy you? One where casters have special caster-only buff spells? Oh wait, that's literally what transformation spells are for. What are you looking for?
Yes but they are saying to make 1 action electric arc an attack cantrip, which means needing to roll to hit. Which also means creatures have to chance to avoid electric arc damage.
There are plenty of spells with the Attack trait, which do not require attack rolls, and some without the Attack trait, which do require attack rolls.
You're contradicting yourself all over the place. First you say that gishes shouldn't expect to surpass martials, then you give an example of a gish surpassing a martial by using AoE, and say that's good.
Yes, it's subject to MAP, but MAP only affects attack rolls. It has no effect on saving throws.
Hey, man, Martialmasters has made it abundantly clear that they were looking for gish builds from people, not a crusade against it. If you feel that strongly that gishes are somehow harmful to the game, go make a thread instead of attacking the OP's.
Martialmasters is the only one who's saying that gishes are harmful to the game.
That's true in a 1v1 fight, but not true in group fights.
In a group fight, you can have one character specialize in defense, at a small cost to the group's damage. If the party can then control the enemies' movement enough to keep them engaged with the party tank, you dramatically improve party survivability at a small cost to party damage.
You're suggesting that buffs should cause you to perform worse than how a martial performs all the time? And that's your idea of a Gish? Why would you ever bother with buffs at all if you can't even briefly exceed a martial's baseline performance? The whole point of spell slots is that they let you nova. You dump a bunch of them on an encounter to make it easier, but you have to be careful that you won't run out of slots for the next encounter.
What's stopping you from buffing up as a caster? You have spells like Bless, Heroism, Fire Shield, or Enlarge for damage. What about Barkskin, Stoneskin, Blur, Blink, and Resist Energy for defense? And of course you can't pretend that Haste doesn't boost your damage. Why does it have to be +Atk and +AC that are all that matters?
I think you're underestimating the buffs that are already in the game. I personally think it's telling that Enlarge At-will costs Barbarians a class feat, and is restricted to one Instinct, but you can easily get a use of it with just a 2nd-level spell.
No, because MAP is irrelevant to Electric Arc. You just use it as your last action, and bypass the attack penalty.
At the OP's request, I'm not going to continue this derail. I disagree with your premise that gishes require the character to get an exchange of more power and that fighter feats provide more power than spellcasting.
Fighter feats aren't stronger than spellcasting. Fighter feats are stronger than caster feats.
That's not true. Caster feats generally provide combat options, but martial feats absolutely do provide combat power. They give you more actions per turn. They give you passive perks that apply to the things you're already doing. They give you activities that give more actions than they cost. All of these raise your power. Just look at the Fighter.
Passive Bonuses with no action cost:
Improved action efficiency:
The first two categories don't cost you any additional actions, so they're just raw power. The third category are mutually exclusive with other options, but still give you more actions than they cost, so they give you raw power as long as you don't plan to use some other option.
But a gish can do what a martial can do. They're less limited by design. To say that a martial can use abilities all day doesn't stop a gish from using those same abilities all day, they just get that AND spellcasting.
If they're a gish, then they're sacrificing a bunch of class feats that they could be using on other things. Yes, they can technically do martial things and spellcasting, but they're missing out on a ton of martial stuff.
I mean limited in terms of how many times they can use it. A Fighter's abilities can be used all day. Spells cannot. If you're getting your abilities from spells, they should be more powerful than similar at-will abilities to compensate for the fact that they cost spell slots.
Of course it needs to be a power gain. If you go gish, your abilities are limited to spell slots. If you go straight fighter, your abilities are unlimited. That limitation should offer greater peak power in exchange.
DOn't play semantic games. The cleric gets that in exchange for -1 spell slot per spell level.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Seriously? Is this all just one big elaborate joke? You're trying to lecture people that AC isn't important and can be ignored, because you just don't get into combat? We already told you that if the rest of your party can beat encounters without you, then your encounters are clearly way too easy. This just takes the cake though.
What weakness? If cantrips were 1-action flourish moves, I'd take them on every martial, because a 1-action Electric Arc beats the crap out of any other 3rd action I can think of.
Since when is triple attack the best answer? What about demoralize, or raising a shield, using Battle Medicine, or or using many of the two-action martial feats? What about using a magic item, or commanding an animal companion, or sustaining a spell?
Arcane Bond does scale. With the level 8 feat Bond Conservation, when you use Arcane Bond, you can use it again for free on the following action, but the next spell has to be at least 2 levels lower. You can chain this together to get oodles of bonus spell uses.
For example, if you cast a 9th-level spell, you can use Bond Conservation to cast a 7th-level spell again for free on the following turn, and then use it again to cast a 5th-level spell on the turn after that, and then a 3rd-level spell, and then a 1st-level spell.
If you're a Universalist Wizard, you get one use of Arcane Bond for every spell slot level, and each of those arcane bond uses can be used with the above technique, meaning you can do this over and over again to get huge piles of extra spell casts, all on top of the ordinary spell spell slots you already had. With this build you get way, way, way more spell uses than any other caster.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
It's not easy at all to take INT as a Bard. If you took INT, it means that you didn't raise Charisoma, or one of the saving throw attributes.
There's nothing other than spell versatility that the wizard is better at. Spell versatility used to be great when spells scaled by level, but with the new magic paradigm spell versatility isn't near as valuable considering only your highest level spell slots are useful due to things like the Incapacitate trait, the limits on summoned creatures, and the way you Heighten Spells.
Did you know that Wizards can sacrifice lower level spells to get more of those higher-level spells that you think are so all-important? Probably not if you wrote that paragraph.
C'mon man. If you know so little about the class as to write something like that, why are you here lecturing us like you're an expert?
Sorcerers are hit and miss based on their bloodline, because some of them give you reliable new actions and some of them... don't. Though even then comparing Tempest Surge and Elemental Toss feels pretty bad.
What do you mean? Tempest Surge does damage and a debuff for two actions, while Elemental Toss deals damage for one action. Why is one more or less reliable than the other?