Zephrosyne's page

Before I make my inquiry, I want to make it clear that I am not denigrating anyone's choice of playstyle. I am a firm believer in the "do you" philosophy of gaming: if it works for you and your group, have at it.

I have read many threads and posts on different forums in different places regarding magic items and the necessity of having them and I find things a bit confusing. In some posts, people argue or at least imply that you absolutely have to have the so-called "Big Six" at max level to survive. I have read other posts where people are talking about players walking around like "Christmas trees" absolutely demolishing everything they encounter: the big bad ECL+5 being crushed in a single round. These seem like complete contradictions. Now I know that these posts are anecdotal and different groups are...well...different; still, the contradictions are a bit mind boggling.

My experience with editions of D&D more recent than AD&D Second Edition is rather limited. I have run 3.0 and 3.5 a couple of times but my campaign never went much beyond medium levels (levels 5-8 by my standards). I was going to run Pathfinder once but a scheduling issue prevented me from doing so. I never played with min-maxers or competent power gamers and most magical gear the player's used was found (I don't do Magic Mart). I have always been careful about encounters and measured them against what the player's had at their disposal and my approximate desired outcome. Outside of unusual random results because of dice rolls, I haven't experienced these extremes.

And, yes, I realize that I am asking for yet more anecdotes on yet another forum but I think I can get better insight by asking directly from the perspective of comparing the two extreme results (barely surviving versus crush all comers) if that makes any sense. Is this so-called "Big Six" really necessary or not to have reasonably challenging encounters in Pathfinder that don't drastically swing one way or the other (outside of the vagaries of the dice of course)? Thank you.

I am prepping a campaign using Pathfinder and I have a question about a 3rd party supplement. I intend on using the Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Bestiary 1-3, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic and that is it from Paizo.

I am also considering using 1001 Spells by Rite Publishing but since this is 3rd party content, I wanted to inquire about it from those who have used it in their campaigns. I am a bit reluctant about using 3rd party content because I have had mixed results with it when running D&D 3rd edition.

I do like the idea of more spells and that is the point of considering the supplement but I am concerned about the impact it may have on the campaign. First of all, does adding these additional spells increase the raw power of casters (compared to non-casters) as opposed to just giving them a bit more options? In other words, would it make them significantly harder to challenge compared to just using the Paizo material I have mentioned above? Are the spells in the supplement appropriate? In other words, are classes receiving spells that are not really appropriate for the class (e.g. Wizards healing, Clerics casting illusions, Bards flinging fireballs, etc.)? I know there is always some overlap when it comes to the spells assigned to each class but there is a general flavor to each class's spell list. Does 1001 Spells maintain this? Are the spells overall balanced? I don't expect every spell to be perfectly balanced for it's class and level; that is impossible but some supplements can get really out of hand. Lastly, are there any spells that really stand out as grossly unbalanced? Any assistance and words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.