Sysryke's page

Is Eldritch Archer an archetype or a prestige class? If it's a prestige, then you still have to meet the prerequisites before you can gestalt it with the witch half of the character.

Yep.

Depending how "cold dark of winter" you're going with the Witch, void might be an equally or more appropriate secondary element, either as an alternate to air, or go water(cold)/void/air.

This might be too unwieldy a topic, but I'm curious about adventure Paths. I'm not at all new to Pathfinder, but I've always played homebrew store and home games.

Where could I find a complete list of Adventure Paths?

Is there any overarching chronology that ties them all together?

How many could you play through with the same characters?

Are they all set in the Golarion setting?

What are some of the pros and cons to adventure Paths?

If not an overall chronology, are there any recommended play orders outside of publication order?

Literally anything else? I don't even know what I don't know.

People's favs or highlights. I'm open to medium/lite spoilers here. If I ever get to play any of these, it will be years if not a decade from now.

Thanks for any contributions.

Dragon78 wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I feel old knowing I started playing TTRPGs in 2005.

I started around 1993/1994.

1988 in my case, I think.

The year I was born, tee hee! I don't claim to be an old gamer, but I did crack my first D&D book when I was three. Didn't get to truly play until about 2008, though.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Plus, the "typical" party back then was usually six to eight characters instead of four.

Yes, there we even nights when we had upwards of 15-20 players and just 1 GM. I do not miss those days - as very little got done.

I only ever played in a group that size one time. It was a store game, mostly a combat session, and the GM was highly organized. Not sustainable long term, but that one session was actually quite fun.

I do generally prefer a 5 - 8 person party, though.

Wow! That fairy is a powerful little feature. Now we all know why we put up with constant reminders to, "Hey! Listen!"

Are RAW Ogres a cultural dish like Sushi or Oysters, or just a bad idea like consuming raw pork?

Does it help if you add lemon juice? :p

As much as I love Zelda, I grew up in a house without video games until I was a teen, and all of my systems have been a generation or two behind. I'm learning about titles I hadn't even heard of.

Are these Goriyas in any way related to the Keatons?

Woot! Yay Deku!

I'm quite enjoying the other races as well. I'd probably still want to add some custom or modified racial spells or feats in a home game, but this is a fantastic foundation.

I am a bit curious as to how you determined which races were core, versus uncommon or monstrous. The Hylians make perfect sense, and to a very slightly lesser degree, so do the Gerudo. But, what makes the Goron, Zora, or Rito more core? I would think the Sheika, Kokiri, or perhaps even moblins and/or faeries would be more common/core. Did you go by personal preference, frequency of appearance in games, or use some other metric?

Just to pull focus back to the OP, could you use a badger, maybe a dire badger, as a mount? Has some fun possibilities if you can get it a burrow speed.

Sysryke wrote:

... used to run a Wyrwood Cavalier with a snake mount. It was quite entertaining.

my guess wood be haus slytherin...

Not for that campaign, but whenever he takes a HP quiz, almost always.

I on the other hand, tend to be a nearly even three-way split between the other houses, with just a splash of Slytherin. It was something like 29/31/30/10%. But, choices mattering most, I choose Hufflepuff.

This is basically the premise of Angel from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Hate to disagree here, but I'll be that nerd. Different premise, with some similarities.

In the Buffyverse, a vampire is a relatively weak demonic spirit that drives out the human soul. Souls are not inherently good or evil in Buffy, but possessed of the capacity for compassion and conscience, which the vampiric demon generally lacks. Upon dying and then rising, a vampire is basically possessing the deceased humon shell, the soul cast out to whatever judgement it had coming. Angel is cursed to have his soul restored into his body, both fighting and surpressing the demon within him. His soul is tormented by the centuries of evil committed with his body, and he at first hides from the world, then slowly is motivated by sympathy for others suffering to try and right his wrongs. His whole thing is more of a redemption arc through punishment, suffering, repentance, and eventually love.

Even though I'm a sucker for first love, and the whole Buffy Angel tragic romance, a closer parallel to the OP would be Spike's character arc in the Buffy series. He slowly becomes a "good guy" while still fully a vampire possessed of only the demonic spirit. It's not until much later that he seeks to reclaim his human soul. Of course, by then the series had created several examples of demons not all being inherently evil, but more complex and nuanced just like any other sentient beings. So, eh, none of this lines up super well with the O.P.

Here endith the nerd diatribe:p

Huzzah! Now that I understand the history/process here, I'm more excited.

Zelda is my videogame happy place, with Majora's Mask at the very top for me. Do you have additional race feats, spells, and/or alternate traits? Either way, I like what I see so far.

Deku, please.

Oli, I'm guessing you're either a teacher, or some type of counselor.

Melkiador summed things up pretty well. My initial brain itch that prompted this thread has been scratched. That said, I'm still interested to see if others have experience or ideas with plinking characters. General concepts, full builds, or anything in between are welcome.

One such concept I'm always trying to figure out is my mouse character. Basically, I imagine your classic thief-style rogue. I do like mixing magic into most of my characters, so maybe Arcane trickster, but more in spirit than rigidly locked to those classes.

The main focus of the character would be stealth, infiltration, finagling fine trap mechanisms, larceny, slight if hand, and only lastly very minimal pokey type damage. Being mouse inspired it feels silly to be a martial beast, and pocket blaster casters are rightly seen as too much cheese. At most, combat wise, I'd want a character like this to do small dazing attacks like R2D2's taser, or dirty tricks, or perhaps steal or disarm maneuvers. A useful set of skills for many classic adventure styles, but hopefully not locking out other characters from non-com participation.

Anyway, that's just one idea.

I'm all for this, and I don't wish to take the wind from your sails. However, are you aware that there is already a Zelda RPG sourcebook for the D20 system? I can't recall if it was a 3.5 splat book, or just a D20 3rd party content, but I used to have a PDF on o e if my old laptops.

Interesting. Though I confess you got my hopes up. I thought you had a proposal ready for how those last two builds could work in a PC group.

Anyway, what's your win condition for this fight? Fighting a Kaiju could be fun for a bit, but with that much strength/rage/size/power stacking, head to head hit point whittling seems futile, or at least tedious/untenable. Are there ways for the party to split the fusion? Maybe get the forms to turn on one and other. Or, enter the Kaiju and diffuse the rage from inside.

I've only ever played in store or home games created by the GM. At least as far as I know, every encounter has been built to be somewhere within appropriate levels to the group I was playing with. If a fight was meant to be easy, I think the GM would still have us roll, just so we could see/feel our characters be powerful every once in awhile. This is rare in my personal experience though.

I'd imagine this situation only really occurs in Society or adventure path play. I would assume there it is possible to come to an encounter or entire arc for which the group is well over-leveled.

The only experience I have like this comes from the Marvel Universe RPG. My group was playing some powerful mutant special forces operatives in a dystopian future of our world. We were allowed to describe how we plowed through mobs and armies of mook robots before getting down to the meat of the opposing army's commanders. That system is much more description/story roleplay based anyway though. You don't roll dice, you assign stones (points) of energy into actions you describe that go against unknown preset challenge numbers of enemies or obstacles. Creative and/or relevant descriptions and character powers/modifiers add bonuses, similar to situational modifiers on skill checks in Pathfinder.

Not sure if I'm posting correctly for this thread, but the link for the 2021 guide by Allerseelen for the Kineticist doesn't seem to be working properly. The title page pops up, but then it stops loading and says "no connection".

All good. Just trying to keep the side track abreast of the main topic. I'm happy to see the builds, just didn't want the Investigator v. Bard volley to pull all focus. Please, carry on :)

Unfortunately the campaign got hijacked and rebooted before we got to play for very long, but my husband used to run a Wyrwood Cavalier with a snake mount. It was quite entertaining.

Just to pull things back a bit gentlemen, they both sound like fine options each with their own strengths. I wasn't necessarily looking for specific builds on what to play, more about philosophy or people's experience of what can be played as it pertains to this topic. It is good to see examples and options I might not have considered before.

Theoretically any class could be used to build a "plinker". I would think though, that pretty much any full BAB class would be against the spirit of this. Of course from a mechanical perspective a Ranger, for instance, who devotes every optional resource to non-combat would be significantly less gimped than a Witch or a Rogue.

I was going to respond to earlier posts a couple of days ago, but my tablet was fighting me (and winning *sigh*). Anyway, part of that response addressed Derklord's post where he brought up percentages. It changes the conversation a bit, but might be a more balanced approach to the idea. These figures aren't exact from class to class, but generally, if you divide all of a build's resources into combat and non-combat utility, what percentage of a character can be devoted towards non-combat and still be acceptable/viable when combat occurs?

This is a question that comes up in other threads, but usually in reverse as a caution to min/maxers. I've seen folks talk about benchmarks and how at a certain point your character might not need that fifth bonus attack if they can't do anything else. So, I guess I'm asking how far/high can you take the non-com powers/skills/versatility/numbers before it's a bit pointless? I feel this answer will change from class to class if talking about resource percentages.

I can't remember the exact rules, but there is an option to advance stats on ACs without advancing size for either Druids or Rangers, so I'm assuming there's an option for Hunters.

Halfling riding dogs are iconic. Wolves being a common alternative. Any AC can be taught the mount trick, so as long as you can afford the saddle, you can go nuts. Obviously the big cats are powerful combat choices. Though a boar or goat could be fun if you do decide to use charging tactics.

What types of tactics are you thinking of? What critters spark fun ideas or visuals for you?

I don't know the rules for Spellcrafting, specifically as it pertains to spell research, making new spells, or converting spells from other class lists. Depending on how much of that can be done RAW, albeit at great expense, versus what requires house rules and GM fiat, determines wether or not the following group would work.

All the things:
-- A fighter taking feats, traits, or multiclass to gain All weapon proficiencies, able to use All weapons, armor, shields, equipment
-- Some Bard/Investigator/URogue combo, Intelligence based for all skills
-- Some Brawler/Inquisitor/(Monk?) combo for all combat and teamwork feats. I don't know of any theoretical access to all feats
-- Arcanist or Wizard with enough time and resources to Spellcraft All spells in the entire game as Arcane. Unless there's a way for a Cleric to pray their way into All spells.

On a different tack, Powerful supernatural ability all day:
-- A kineticist for all day blasts outlasting any blaster caster
-- A druid eventually having all day shape shifting with huge versatility
-- Either a Witch or Shaman for all day hexes, many of which scale
-- A Summoner or Spiritualist for the all day Eidolon or Phantom

I realize anti-magic screws this group hard, but if they plan ahead for work around, this group always has something more than the mundane to bring to the table. I specifically ignored cantrips/orisons/knacks because while they are inexhaustible, they're quite miniscule in effect at higher levels. (Some exceptions of course).

I find myself in agreement with the Dudemeister. With so many four player combos possible, I want a theme or some other prompt. The tyranny of the blank page overwhelms me.

If there isn't a theme, then I'm probably waiting to see what others are building, then comparing them to the "classic" four person party and looking to fill the holes as I perceive them. I usually also find some theme along the way, even if it's just my own mental projection on the group's composition.

Since even with standard rules most classes can fill multiple roles/jobs, I'd need to know more than just classes, though I might make some default assumptions.

I'd assume a Barbarian is a combat/damage focused character, but they could theoretically be a face, a skill jockey, or a battlefield controller, for instance.

I tend to default to the four elements, terrains/movement types, power sources, or maybe TMNT/Golden Girls. Of course, I'm also an odd numbers guy. If I'm imagining teams of my own, it's almost always groups of 5, 7, or 3.

For what it's worth, since you asked about the Psychic, take a look at the alternative spell components and the UnderCasting mechanic. Psychics get screwed if they get affected by adverse emotional effects (fear being the most common), but if you trust in your good Will saves and/or don't deal with these effects often, then basically all of your magic is Still and Silent . . . Ultimate sneaky caster!!!

UnderCasting gives you some nice spell versatility, and theoretically expands your total spells known a fair bit. Not saying this is superior to the sorcerer, but nice options.

Of course, if you want nearly the best of both (if not moreso) then the Psychic bloodline has already been mentioned.

Sysryke's initial post had me wondering what kind of Game he is in that others are pressing to be high DPR PCs (thus the post). People are always trying to be "successful" and adapting their play to the campaign(challenges) they are in. I'm guessing it's a simple martial focused game with limited magic.

We all know there are different types of games that focus on different aspects of "Let's Pretend" (mixed, martial, gritty, skilled, stylistic, horror, fluff, operatic, emotional, storytelling, etc). The nice thing is that d20/PF1 can serve as the system for all of them and scales reasonably well over the levels.

With PF1 Classes there are several ways to look at them; Power, Effectiveness, DPR, castable Spell Level, Roles, etc. The metrics aren't equivalent. . . .

Good question. While parts of this might be personal to me in ways I hadn't realized, the initial inspiration for this topic came from a coincidence of several negative opinions of low-combat characters I came across in numerous threads, old and current. I guess my husband is also rather critical of Chilchuck from Delicious in Dungeon (awesome show, highly recommend).

Anyway my current campaign is actually rather full of beat sticks, myself included. This is coincidence for than commonplace though. We run 3rd Party friendly, high stat generation games. Some of our players like to hack and slash, some are less experienced or less system skilled, and we all enjoy the hero/power fantasy usually. We have a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, an inquisitor (me), and a bard. The Bard is probably our least beat stick (still somewhat), but she's being played by the 13 year old daughter of two of our other players. It's her first game, and I think she's having fun.

The closest I've come to playing something like this that I can recall would be my Ratfolk sorcerer/alchemist gestalt. Traded away bombs for Blacksnake whip abilities. He's a near nothing damage dealer, but I think a decent and varied debuffer. Plus, he uses pit spells. He did get some flack from my husband (who is a simple/big numbers guy), but I don't think he was too combat light, just different.

I do sometimes find myself min-maxing, but rarely do I try and make a DPR primary character, we have two to three other players who default that way. When my numbers challenge theirs, it's usually a side effect of focusing more on a combat applicable theme, than a specific combat mechanic, like my current flaming sword wielding inquisitor.

Not everyone needs to make a direct damage contribution during combat.

A bard that sings and cast buff spells and stand in the back is usually quite welcome.

But I don't think that's what the OP means. I think the OP means a character that has virtually 0 combat contribution, beyond what can be easily coincidentally had. Imagine the character hiding in combat and randomly tripping the enemy because the enemy hadn't noticed them.

I'm almost imagining a Rincewind type character. Rincewind rarely does anything to intentionally harm others and tries to avoid combat completely (but hilarious find himself in the midst of combat constantly). While it's funny to read that story, if I was a fellow player I might get annoyed.

You really have to have exceptional non-combat abilities, to the point of being well beyond what others could reasonably achieve. And I'm not sure Pathfinder actually makes that feasible (useful). . . .

A really good analysis. I think you also managed to phrase my idea better than me. I had been considering this from more of a storytelling and play-style angle, but I hadn't necessarily looked at it from the system perspective. There are so many rules, variant options, extra splat, etc. available in Pathfinder, and even more from 3rd party that it feels like nearly anything should be possible.

The challenge here comes down to measuring what is or isn't a relevant/meaningful/useful contribution, and that's a subjective analysis of objective numbers. As is so frequently the case, at least part of the answers here are going to come down to play style. That's what sparked my interest in this, wondering if anyone has or does ever play this way, or even if they've seen it. A few sorta yes answers, but mostly no, and that's to be expected.

I guess part of this too was fueled by a bit of fatigue with character/build analysis on the threads. If it's a rules or numbers thread, I get combat analysis being heavily weighted. It just seems not every critique should come to "this character can't do x, or can't hit y" so it's not viable. This is coming from a desire to look at some characters through a different lens.

Azothath wrote:

I think it's obvious that the game divides up PC roles and you have melee/ranged, magic, skill, and special ability focused classes.

Not only is it not "obvious", I say this is outright wrong. Any such separation is done by the players and only serves to make characters and games worse.

At the risk of setting my own thread on fire, I will point out that both of your points are firmly in the realms of opinion. Supported I am sure, by many thousands of hours of gameplay, research, life experience, and whatever real world knowledge and skills you possess. For all of that, one can not definitively prove an opinion. The very fact that there are thousands of players out there that would take either of your sides supports this. I'm glad for all contributions to the discussion, but let's try to avoid derailing this conversation with a rehash of that debate.

I do understand that my question/idea/proposal does not fit with the most common types of gameplay, but I think weird things sometimes, and that's why I ask. Please do understand, I'm not trying to gimp characters, make intentionally useless characters, or spoil anyone's fun. This is mostly theoretical; though some of the group's I play with are more story driven. And, to a point by Mysterious Stranger, my groups tend to average 5-7 players.

Other characters from film, t.v., and literature that kind of fit this bill. Regis the halfling from the Chronicles of Drizzt, Conan's their companion from the second Arnold Schwarzenegger film, R2D2, Rattrap in the second BeastWars/Machines cartoon, Evie in the first Mummy movie. There are probably dozens if not hundred/thousands more examples given enough thought/time. I realize some of these characters enter combat from time to time, but rarely do they shine. If they do, it tends to be by finding a novel application of a traditionally non-combat ability/skill/tool.

I have played a character like that, but not in Pathfinder. I played a character in a Hero System game that had almost no direct combat ability but had skills that were incredibly high. The campaign was set in modern times, but we fought strange monsters. In many ways it was similar to Call of Cthulhu. Most of what we went up against was immune or at least highly resistant to normal damage. My characters job was to figure out how to kill the monster, then I let the rest of the party do the actual fighting.

I was also a highly skilled doctor and on more than one occasion saved the other PC’s from dying. We had no access to magic, so normal medicine was the only way to keep the characters alive. The campaign was also heavy on investigation, and my character was the absolute best in that area as well as in technology. In many cases I would invent or modify the weapons the other characters used to allow them to hurt the monsters.

So, while I did little or no damage, I still made major contributions to combat. In Pathfinder that is the equivalent of the buff and support that the OP does not want to do.

Actually, I think these are some pretty great examples. I truly don't mean to be shifting goal posts, I'm just not always clear in my phrasing. The fact that these contributions to the other players' combat efficacy are done outside of the combats is what makes this work. When I said no to buffing and specific combat support buffs, I was specifically thinking of in combat actions. Things done before hand do fit the spirit of what I'm asking about.

Grok and Small Ears have best understood or clarified my idea. By plinking, I did mean to imply minimal amounts of damage. Overall I'm asking about characters who have no more combat use than whatever the minimum baked into the class chassis is. Characters built not to be handicapped, but with most (all?) character building resources dedicated to non-combat abilities.

A wizard with all utility spells who pretty much only uses a staff or crossbow in combat could be one example.

I am familiar with D&D's history, though I may have a different understanding of terms from others. The miniatures used were being put through military engagement scenarios, hence my use of the term War games. As far as I am aware, not all war games involve practice maneuvers by actual troops/cadets. Sometimes they are conducted using battle maps and markers/tokens in classrooms or war rooms.

Random musings in the small hours of the night . . .

Does anyone play in any games where you have non-combat PCs in the party?

I know that D&D was born from war games. I know that every iteration of D&D and Pathfinder has tons (if not the majority) of it's rules text given over to combat mechanics. I know that for many players, the game is often a power fantasy, and the easiest/flashiest power to fantasize is that which blows stuff up or otherwise ganks one's foes. I love playing combat powerful characters. But . . .

Every once in awhile I have an idea for a character who's power lies in some extreme skill set, some wonderously expansive utility ability, or some other exceptional trait, status, or privilege.

I like characters like this in books and films, so why not in games. I don't mean to say a character who's an actual detriment to a party. Not something built to actually cause problems. But rather, does anyone play with a character who's so useful or integral to the party off the battlefield, that it's okay that they don't do much on it? I'm not talking about buffing and other support characters, but actual nothing but plinking and smart player choices. Hide from the enemies, maybe flank or trip if you get a chance, deal a point or two of damage on a hit types.

Obviously these types of characters won't work in all games, but I find it hard to believe there's no place for them. If the hobby has gone that far to exclusively combat, I'd find that a bit sad.

So, does anybody have any good plinkers out their?

Sadly, while I've seen a bit of high-level play in other systems, I've only had one group make it legitimately to lvl. 11 (13?), before I accidentally killed us all. That was my first time GMing. I built a too strong encounter at the group's request for a challenge, with specific orders not to pull punches. I learned a lot from my mistakes, but that game still died.

Anyway, that preface to say, I haven't experienced truly broken Supermanesque PCs yet. I figure in a cosmos as expansive as Pathfinder, there should always be a bigger fish, always a challenge to face or weakness to exploit. One thing that definitely undercuts the Superman comparison a bit, is that the game is one of numbers. Even if bonuses can get stupidly high, characters still have hard mathematical caps. Superman has none. I love the character, but his powers have been broken for decades. Death Battle does a great job of breaking this all down.

All that said, telling high-level stories about PCs I'm internal struggles and processes can be an intriguing change of pace to break up the easy power fantasies if/when they have become the biggest fish who haven't yet left their pond (even if that pond is the whole Prime Material Plane).

I realize every solution creates new problems, but isn't part of the answer to this built into the game already?

Death both has to be meaningful and yet also surmountable. Obviously the balance of this will change from group to story to session to campaign. But, various forms of resurrection, revival, reincarnation, etc. do exist. Challenging fights can and should take place if they work for the group/story, but since it is a power fantasy for many players, part of that power should be contingencies in place to come back from or fight free of death. Depending on the story this could be done as a side quest in the afterlife, a mission taken on by secondary/backup/alternate PC's, or a pre-arranged fail safe with a suitably prepared NPC caster.

There's very little new under the sun, so unless a group just agrees that the best story is served by the T.P.K., there's little reason to not embrace the game continue trope of choice to keep the story going. Just because death is an obstacle that can be overcome, doesn't mean it can't still be impactful to a story. What does escaping death cost? What fates or scars are worse than death?

Are you comparing the character to other character or to actual dragons? If you are comparing the character to other characters, there are numerous dragon themed options that are decent. If you are comparing it to actual dragons of course the character will seem underpowered.

Either.

On the one hand, as I said above, the breathe weapons gains feel weak compared to other blaster options. Draconic Sorcerers are generally considered good for blasters, but that seems to be more about the energy/damage boosts than any other dragon traits. Most other dragon archetypes I've seen seem to be compared in disfavor to others in the same class.

But, more generally, I've always wondered a bit why high level shape shifting type characters aren't able to become fully powered versions of the creatures they can become, like dragons. When you're high enough level to surpass a creature's CR, shouldn't you be able to just be that creature? Or is my understanding of the theory not matching the actual mechanics at those levels?

Sysryke wrote:

I know dragons are cool, iconic, and the actual creatures are generally quite powerful. I get they're the big bad monster grand-daddies of the original game. But, is the name or image worth so much, that the mechanics have to be gimped?

The thing is, we're talking about subjective opinions here. A Bloodrager with the Draconic bloodline can take on the form a large chromatic or metallic dragon. The +6 size bonus to Strength, +4 size bonus to Constitution, and +6 natural armor bonus almost certainly boost such a character's Strength, Constitution, and AC above those of a CR15 size huge adult gold dragon. You get 80% of the breath weapon, aren't nearly as fast while flying but much more maneuverable, and have to rely on spells to gain some of the protections dragons enjoy (others are out of reach until 20th level).

Is that character punished? I don't think so, but you may feel otherwise.

Quote:

Most reviews I read of dragon themed or powered options for PC's are almost always underpowered, prohibitively expensive in trade, or limited to the point of near uselessness.

I guess what I would ask if whether that reflects the reviews you've read or your own opinion of the actual archetypes, class features, etc., out there.

Reviews I've read. I don't know about all the different dragon options out there, but most I've come across in guides or reviews are usually rated quite poorly. Drake companions and Dragon Shifters come to mind immediately. Also, many options for breathe weapons seem to cap at about 3 uses per day (rarely 5). When comparing this to other blaster types, it seems a bit punitive in comparison. But, that's why I made this thread, I'm asking about draconic options that are good. I didn't know about the Bloodrager one, for instance.

Dang! I have no ranks in Knowledge (internets). Couldn't spot a bot to save my life. Thanks Oli

Hey. Not trying to shame you. I've made plenty of mistakes myself on other threads. But, this post (and hopefully the marriage) is over 10 years old now. What were you searching for that pulled up such a specific and outdated thread? :p

Hopefully that's clear enough.

I know dragons are cool, iconic, and the actual creatures are generally quite powerful. I get they're the big bad monster grand-daddies of the original game. But, is the name or image worth so much, that the mechanics have to be gimped?

Most reviews I read of dragon themed or powered options for PC's are almost always underpowered, prohibitively expensive in trade, or limited to the point of near uselessness.

Does anyone get to become a dragon that feels like a dragon? That's on par with other party members? Equivalent to other members of one's class?

Alternatively, do any dragon companions truly scale well to pets or features they replace? Are breath weapons truly so mighty that 5-day is a near mythic capstone?

Going a bit more extreme, outside of possession shenanigans, is there anyway to ever become a Colossal size dragon?

I'm not trying to build anything right now. Just curious. Thanks all :)

Ah. Thanks Stranger. I hadn't considered those.

Sorceror 6th level (Spontaneous caster) Cha 18 (+4) with varisian tattoo (K) and Spell Focus (K), Heighten Spell feat.

Known Fireball:K3@7 (7d6)[fire] Rflx:18 using SplLvl 3 slots.
He could also cast;
> Scorching Ray:K2@7 rng 40ft for 2 rngd tchs (4d6)[fire] using 3rd slot.
> Not Molten Orb:K2 as it is [earth, fire] so that extra descriptor stops it.
> Ear-prc Scream:K1@7 rng 40ft for (3d6)[sonic] daze 1r or save Fort 16 for dmg/2 & no daze using a 3rd slot. IF Ear-prc Scream is known he could use Heighten MetaMagic full round cast for DC18 (really the same as using heighten on Ear-prc Scream). I think I'd want an item or feat to allow Heighten Spell to be used on a spell or short list of spells.

Wizard 6th level (Prepared caster) Int 18 (+4) with varisian tattoo (K) and Spell Focus (K), Heighten Spell feat.
Prepared Fireball:K3@7 (7d6)[fire] Rflx:18 using SplLvl 3 slot.
He could also cast;
> Scorching Ray:K2@7 rng 40ft for 2 rngd tchs (4d6)[fire] using the prepared Fireball.
> Not Molten Orb:K2 as it is [earth, fire] so that extra descriptor stops it.
> Ear-prc Scream:K1@7 rng 40ft for (3d6)[sonic] daze 1r or save Fort 16 for dmg/2 & no daze using the Fireball. Two possibilities; spontaneous substitution IF Ear-prc Scream is scribed he could use Heighten MetaMagic full round cast for DC18, OR a GM could just say no to spontaneous metamagic use. Again, a feat would allow a short list of spells.

Arcanist is the class in the middle.

Notice knowing or having the spell scribed isn't required for Scorching Ray. It IS required for applying a known metamagic feat.
Heighten is the easy & least complex metamagic. I don't see it upsetting the system.
Another might be too much especially for the prepared caster. At high level expect Quicken to be an option. Nobody wants prepared casters suddenly shooting out benthic scorching rays using their Fireball.

Thanks for the breakdown.

So, this would be an option for all casters? Big versatility boost for all. Not inherently bad, but does fail to address the spontaneous v. prepared gap. This also would widen the casters vs. non-casters gap, which I think we all agree is bad. If this is open to all casters, definitely should require build/resource option requirements.

I do like the versatility, but I think without further restrictions, thematically it wouldn't fit what I was looking for. The goal, at least in part, was to keep the spell upgrades linked by theme. Keep Invisibility, Fire, Flight, Summoning, Polymorphs, etc. together. I do like keeping things linked by schools though. That would keep the spell chains from my original idea from becoming to unwealdy.

Sorcerers are also a CHA based class with UMD as a class skill. That opens the possibility to use magic items from other classes. How many wizards can use cleric or druid specific item?

If you play your sorcerer like a wizard of course they will come out behind, but if you play them like a sorcerer the wizard cannot match them at what they do. A wizard trying to be a blaster usually does not work well, but a sorcerer can do this well. With the right bloodline and taking the Blood Havoc bloodline mutation the sorcerer can get up to +2 per die on their damaging spells.

Thanks again for the numbers break down. I do concede and agree with that point. I had been operating under a misapprehension from a thread from long ago.

As to the rest, I have been looking at the casting mechanics purely in relation to one and other, only spontaneous vs. prepared. I've used Sorcerer and Wizard because they are the oldest/easiest reference, but this is also about (perhaps worse for) Oracle v. Cleric, Psychic v. Shaman, Sorcerer v. Witch, etc.

With all of the various class features and modular options added to many classes, I've been operating on the premise that those features (more or less) balance out against one and other. I said somewhere above that I thought Bloodlines balanced against the various Wizard Features pretty evenly.

Falling back into the Sorcerer vs. Wizard comparison (which truly was not the intent of this thread), I hadn't really considered UMD. I do see that Sorcerers get an edge in UMD, but I figured that balanced against the Wizard's INT dependency and Knowledges. I'm probably mistaken, but I thought more spells known also had an impact on the need for a UMD check or not. I do see though, depending on the availability of various magic items, where UMD impacts on both types of castings versatility. Devil's advocate to this though; can't Spellcraft be used by prepared casters to create/learn their own variants of off-class spells?

Tangential rules question/clarification.

You have any spell that requires a saving throw by the target. Let's say it's a Lvl 1 spell. You are out of 1st level spell slots for the day, but this spell is the right tool for the job. You decide to use a 3rd level slots to cast the level 1 spell.

Does the save DC go up by 2 because you cast using a 3rd level slots? (This is what I was originally taught)

Or does the save DC stay as whatever your level one spell DC is?

In either case, what does Heighten Spell actually do?

what it does is say if you know a spell at 5th, you can cast something from the same school with the same descriptor at 4th. Then cast many more associated spells from 3rd.

We also assume the lower spells aren't quite as good and DC's drop, but you gained options as a caster. So that's the price for flexibility. It also opens up Heighten Spell metamagic to being actually useful.

The Psychic/occult spells are more curated than the arcane/divine spell lists. Those are built with undercasting in mind. Just like the ICE/Rolemaster spell lists.

I think I'm getting you, but I'm not quite there. Your experience and system mastery is greater enough than mine that I think I'm not aware of certain things you're assuming as common knowledge. It's like Einstein trying to teach Calculus to someone who's only taken Algebra 1. We're missing some steps.

Is your proposal meant to help make an UnderCasting variant for other spontaneous casters viable, or to help make a more consistent path for upgrade chains? I'm getting the impression it's the former, which is fine.

I need to use some concrete examples to wrap my head around this. Time for the classic Fireball example. For the purposes of this example, this will be the only spell known. Evocation [fire], 3rd level spell requiring a 3rd level slot. If you take it the next step down both Flaming Sphere and Scorching Ray qualify; Evocation [fire] level 2. Are you proposing a 3rd level spot is still required to cast these? Or would they take a 2nd level slot?

At only one spell level down, you can not change descriptors?

So then, one more level down, Burning Hands qualifies. However, (as current) Shocking Grasp, Magic Missile, and Floating Disk all qualify? You can change one descriptor, so [fire] can swap to [electricity] or [force].

From your earlier [sonic] example was [darkness, light] not acceptable because that was 2 descriptors on the same spell? So [sonic] two levels down to [light] would be acceptable?

If a spell has multiple descriptors, as you decrease levels further, you get to swap more descriptors? So, a 5th level spell with three descriptors must all match dropping to 4th, change one descriptor at 3rd, change up to two at 2nd, and possibly all 3 at 1st.

I get adding descriptors to many more spells to make this up, but it seems unwealdy. This would be potentially even more powerful than standard UnderCasting. It would definitely need to be gated behind feats or swapped class features. Many meta-magic feats would be gimped by this option. I'm not opposed, it just seems like a lot of front end work would be necessary.

Of course, if some of the Words of Power were used to make descriptors (thanks @DragonChess Player) that could tighten this up considerably.

The three concerns or misunderstanding I have:

1. As above, this seems like a lot of work up front (not bad), and may be overly complex (possibly bad).

2. If this isn't kept tight or gated behind other resources, it could make spontaneous casters too versatile in comparison to prepared. I want to even the scales, not tip them the other way.

3. Thematically, as I currently understand this, it could get more than a bit silly. I already don't care for Fireball being able to swap down to Shocking Grasp (I'd prefer to keep elements matching), but I don't think anyone would be on board with the Floating Disc being in the same line as Fireball.

If Words of Power had gotten enough support to replicate/match all normal spells, then it would probably be the best answer to what I'm looking for.

So, @Azothath? How much did I understand correctly? And where were we speaking different languages?

The early entry tricks have been for the most part declared invalid by developers.

I would recommend against the Mystic Theurge. Getting spells lots of spells from two different lists seems like a good idea, but it is a trap. You are extremely far behind on gaining higher level spells. If your classes do not have the same casting stat you will have to split your stat resources, which makes your spells even weaker. So, you either need to go with an oracle/sorcerer or go with a cleric/empyreal sorcerer.

Mystic Theurge also does not advance any class features of your previous classes except spell casting. That includes bloodline and mystery, which means you do not get bloodline or mystery spells. You also cannot take advantage FCB of extra spells know for spontaneous casters. This means not only do you not have access to higher level spells you do not have access to many spells at all. At 9th level (Oracle 4/Sorcerer 4) the Mystic Theurge knows 12 0 level spells, 11 1st level spells and 7 2nd level spells. The 9th level Oracle has 8 0 level spells, 7 1st level spell, 6 2nd level spells, 5 3rd level spell, and 4 4th level spells. This does not include the FCB of some races, if those are factored in the single classed Oracle has 11 0 level spell, 9 1st level spells, 8 2nd level spells, 7 3rd level spell and 4 4th level spells. The Mystic Theurge can gain up to 6 0 level spells, and 1 1st level spell assuming he is a half elf.

Your caster level is also lower than normal so your ability to deal with spell resistance is also penalized. It also means the spells you do cast will be less effective especially when it comes to damage.

Like I said it is a trap.

I agree with your overall analysis, but I'm a little confused by your numbers. You specifically said that you weren't accounting for FCB extra spells in your first comparison. I'm assuming that you are counting the bonus spells from mystery for one extra spells known per level.

I'm looking at the book right now. Lvl.9 Oracle knows 8/5/4/3/2 spells of 0-4th level. With each extra mystery spell that becomes 8/6/5/4/3. Where are you getting the extra spells per level known beyond that?

expanded[italics]

Azothath wrote:

adding a cross-connected(or non-exclusive) hierarchy to the spells would be complex. creating and adding a bunch of interconnected spell lists would be a pain in the Haas and just open up lots of second guessing and questions.

Why not just stick with the same school and descriptors allowing one descriptor change per spell level decrease after the first spell level?

You'd just have to ensure the right →descriptors← are on the spells for your game. Converting some keywords like Cure, Monster, Nature, Space, Interdimensional, Void, Chaos(chaódis/anarchic), Neutrality(fysikós/aptus), Law(nómimos/axiomatic), Good(kalosýni/bonum), Neutral(oudéteros/rectus), Evil(kakía/malum), Positive(anáptyxi/zoí), Negative(diálysi/nekrós), etc would define and constrain the relationships more than arcane school.
descriptors is a technical term and linked to the RAW list. Adding more doesn't really alter how they function but describes how the work or the effects associated with the spell. So these descriptive details help create interconnections which is exactly what you want.
I included some suggestions for names rather than using the existing key words or terms to avoid alignment crossover or blurring the current meaning.

Example:
Knowing Sonic Thrust:K5 evokation [sonic], you could cast a K4[sonic] or a K3[fire], but not a K3[darkness, light].
again, I always write spells with their school and basic class spell level(Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Alchemst). I changed evocation to a K as it makes it unique and I'm for easy shorthand.
descriptors are in square brackets.
Sonic Thrust{name of spell} : K{school} 5{Spell Level}.

Thanks for clarifying. The "K#" was part of what was throwing me off. Now that I understand your notation a little better, I do like it. This would definitely make creating chains more uniform and less subjective.

Using your example though, if schools stay the same, and descriptors get to change as you drop down spell levels, why couldn't [sonic] become [light] when it could become [fire]?

Constantly rethinking my phrasing . . .

Put a different way, in threads and guides I've been reading, prepared casters are said to be the best specialists, but because of their greater spell selection, they are also the best generalists. With either scouting or a bit of downtime, the prepared casters can become the specialist they need to be.

The spontaneous caster is forced to either be a specialist who is handicapped when their specialty isn't relevant, or be a generalist who lacks enough spells known to cover the bases a generalist should.

I don't mind that prepared casting is better at some things, but it just seems wrong that the only circumstance where the spontaneous caster gets to shine is immediate combats with no foreknowledge, where their spells known are actually relevant, and the encounter lasts long enough for one more highest level slot to make the difference.

I will still almost always choose to play a spontaneous caster. It's my style preference. But a flavor, roleplay, or player style choice shouldn't be mechanically penalized. What Pathfinder added to spontaneous casters in class features was a huge step towards fixing old issues. Options and flavor are wonderful. What was missed is this still ongoing imbalance in the actual mechanics of the two casting styles.

The argument for prepared casters great versatility being hypothetical (for Divines it's indisputable) is completely counterbalanced by the fact that spontaneous casters's extra spells don't come into play much either.

Since most encounters are expected to last 2-5 rounds, by earlyish levels most casters have plenty of spell slots. Most conventional wisdom I see suggests that a full caster should only need to cast a few spells per combat to fulfill their part. Unless you have a marathon combat, or tons of encounters between rests, the spontaneous casters "spells all day" is as irrelevant as the prepared casters' "every spell known" is theoretical.

What is true though, is that prepared casters will definitively have more spells know (again, all for Divine), and can get an absurd number. Spontaneous casters still run into a hard cap on their spells per day. They have an edge on prepared, sure. They can't grow that edge into a cliff though.

The advantage of the prepared caster over the spontaneous caster is mostly illusion. In theory the prepared caster can reconfigure his spell selection to meet any challenge. The reality of that is usually not anywhere close to the theory. For that to happen requires the prepared caster to know what they are facing and not have any surprises. While that situation can occasionally come up in a game it is extremely rare. In fact, it is more common for a prepared caster to have made poor choices and end up with an extremely week selection of spells.

In addition, spontaneous casters get more spells per day than prepared casters. The prepared caster does get access to higher level spells earlier, but when it comes to casting more spells, the advantage is with the spontaneous caster. Even when it comes to casting total spell levels the spontaneous caster has the advantage in almost all cases. Comparing a sorcerer and a wizard the sorcerer can cast more spells at every level except for 5th. At 5th level both sorcerer and wizard can cast 5 spells. When it comes to total spell levels cast per day the sorcerer gets more at every level except 3rd, 5th and 7th. At 3rd and 5th, the wizard has the advantage and at 7th they are equal at 30 total spell levels. These numbers include the wizard’s specialist slot but do not include high casting stat. At 12th level the sorcerer can cast 32 spells per day with a total spell level of 103, the wizard can cast 26 spells with a total spell level of 84. That is a significant advantage.

Some races get extra spells knows as a FCB, while the wizard gets extra spells in their book. The sorcerer FCB is way better than what a wizard gets. When you factor in that and the bloodline spell a sorcerer can end up with 8 spells known per spell level. Spontaneous casters also have access to magic items that can allow them to add spells to their known spell list. Mnemonic Vestment is cheap and incredibly useful. Pages of spell knowledge.

What it comes down to is not...

Thanks for a more detailed breakdown on the spell numbers. I was working off of recollections from an old post I saw from several years ago. It may be that my memory is in error, but the impression I had been left with was that the Wizard's extra school spells per day, early higher level spells, and possibly bonded item came close enough to Sorcerer's spells per day to make the difference negligible at many levels. That post also placed more significance on high level spells, which is a rather subjective metric depending on tactics, play-style, and spell selection. All of that to say that I do concede/agree/understand that the spontaneous caster's greater numbers of spells per day is one of their (more consistent) advantages.

I'm compelled to disagree with you, partially, on the advantage of prepared casters when it comes to versatility and preparation. Table/campaign/playstyles have to be discounted or there become too many variables to make any analysis relevant. I do agree that the huge spell selection versatility becomes theoretical at a point. What is not theoretical is the difference in the base classes. A base lvl 20 basic Wizard who takes his new spells known from the highest level he has access to will know 20/10/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/8 spells of levels 0-9. With the exception of 2nd level spells, he either meets, or far exceeds the Sorcerer's spells known at any given level. By itself, I'd say that is the balancing advantage for prepared casters. There's more to consider though.

Prepared casters have the option to leave spell slots open for the day when prepping spells. This may not be much of an advantage for in combat casting, but for scouted encounters or any non-time sensitive obstacles, this gives prepared casters a huge boost in tactical and utility casting.

As far as race, feat, and magic item choices go, that's all pretty much a wash. All of the items you listed to help spontaneous casters gain spells known have to be balanced against prepared casters items. If the Sorcerer has access to those specific items, than it is equally (if not more) likely that the Witch or Wizard will have access to scrolls, tomes, and other casters to dramatically increase their spells known. I can't say this definitively, but I'd venture that scrolls and enemy caster spellbooks as loot, plus trade option NPC casters, are a more common game design assumption than Ye Old Magic Marts. Which is to say, new spells are more easily acquired than specific magic items.

My word choice as far as "powerful" may not have been the most apt. As I see it, spontaneous greater number of spells per day is roughly balanced against prepared greater number of spells known. Spamability of relevant spells could be said to balance against prepared's higher level early access. But then, prepared casters get to leave open slots, potentially spontaneous cast (a super tiny bit) from bonded items, and have options for acquiring even more spells known. The scales tip here in prepared's favor. Both types of casters are powerful. But, if we say the spontaneous advantage is consistency, and the prepared is versatility, we see where things get lopsided.

Leaving open prepared slots allows prepared casters to more consistently have the right spell for any given job. As they acquire more and more spells known, this expanded versatility pushes their advantages further. By contrast, spontaneous casters don't have any equivalent options to boost their advantages. Giving them even more spells per day would be busted. So, that leaves giving them something to pick up a bit more versatility, to balance against the prepared casters' dip into consistency. Wether it's my proposal, Limited UnderCasting, or something else, the extremely limited spell retraining needs an addition or a big boost.

well, I think you are assuming that access to *more* spells or simply more spells is the answer.

My method trades some power for more flexibility. It does require you to comb over the spells adding descriptors to constrain the recursive permutations. I think adding some descriptors is a sensible thing to do anyway. Some schools like Shadow, Darkness, Void, etc need help.

If you ask me about overall balance, I don't see spell access or spell volume as the problem, they are pretty good as is.
Tweaking skill points into automatic class skills, scaling weapon proficiency with level, fixing weapon groups, and scaling or tweaking some feats is more the answer. IMO you're barking up the wrong tree.

Could you explain your method a bit more clearly? You use some abbreviations and/or notations that I'm not familiar with. I kind of understand some of your first post, but then I feel like I'm looking at computer code or something. :p

I do definitely like the idea of adding further descriptors to spells. That is the same thing as key-words, right?

As to the other balance issues. For the purposes of this thread, I'm less concerned with those. Within the confines of Arcane/Psychic and Divine casters, the features you reference are pretty much matched between spontaneous and prepared casters. Those features might affect how these classes balance against other classes, but not each other. Once we start talking about other classes, they all get to rightly say, "You're a full (Arcane) caster. Shut the heck up!"

The only tree I'm trying to bark at, is the gap between prepared and spontaneous casting. I want the choice to be closer to mechanically equal but distinct, so that one isn't penalized for making a play-style or flavor choice.

Bit of a bummer that you couldn't get them a little spooked, but it sounds like it was a great session.

Thanks for sharing!

Ah, but planned obsolescence is a terrible thing!

I'm well aware that when comparing a full caster class to most of the rest of the classes in the game, the caster is always considered to be more powerful. As I said in the OP, I know casters don't need more goodies.

The point of this idea was to address the disparity between prepared versus spontaneous casters. By preference, I generally prefer to be spontaneous. However, as much as I enjoy that mechanic, I'm also aware that as the classes currently stand, over time the prepared classes pull farther ahead. The theoretical reliability of a spontaneous caster is nowhere near as strong as the theoretical versatility of the prepared. I don't mind one class being stronger than the other in certain areas, but I don't like them being lopsided.

This isn't meant to be Sorcerer vs. Wizard, but those are the easiest examples here. Bloodlines are fantastic, they're what makes Pathfinder Sorcerers fun and worth playing. This feature balances well against the Wizard's Arcane Bond, School specialties, and bonus feats. However, if you strip away all the extras from both sides, then you have to look at just casting vs. casting. Prepared gets earlier entry, equal or nearly numbers of spell slots at odd levels, and an ever expanding variety of spells known. Spontaneous gets more spell slots (probably) at even levels, and the ability to cast whatever they know.

They are close, I grant you, but the scales still tip prepared. I don't want to nerf the prepared casters, I just want a little more boost for the spontaneous so that the mechanical cost of the choice is more of a trade off and less a tolerable loss.

UnderCasting I now see is too strong paired with much of anything else. There's already a bloodline that picks up some variant of this, and it's considered pretty powerful. So, what about just the "upgrade" idea, specifically as an addition to the normal spell retraining. You keep the ability to lose outlived or useless spells and gain new ones, but you also gain the choice to let spells grow into more powerful versions of higher levels accepting the opportunity cost of fewer available uses per day. Either way, your total spells known stays locked in. This bit of on level up versatility should in no way threaten prepared casters every day versatility.