cathat89's page

I've read multiple threads on the boards regarding precision damage and volleys. I've seen arguments go back and forth on the topic, some simply citing house rules or feelings on the matter, and some involving some very distinct math and heated debate. After reading it all, I'm still not sure where the matter stands. I know the ruling from 3.5 is that a volley from a weaponlike spell (or, indeed, any volley) gets precision damage once. Pathfinder has changed sneak attack in a couple of ways, and the latest statement seems to say only the basics: if you catch a target without their dex bonus, or if you flank them, you can deliver sneak attack damage. The argument here seems to turn on whether Pathfinder, by not elaborating, is implicitly acknowledging the 3.5 ruling, or by omitting the statement, is wiping out the 3.5 ruling. I've seen time stamps going back to 2009 debating this, and there's been no definitive answer.

So I'm asking for one here.

Designers, can you shed a little light on this? I know there are a lot of factors to balance here, and every opinion I've read so far has some validity to it. However, the debate seems to be at an impasse, and I think a lot of time and energy could be saved if someone behind the pen could make some sort of call, even if that call is "We're not going to make a definitive ruling--decide for yourselves."

Thanks in advance, gang.

I don't know how many people are reading this thread anymore, because we've strayed pretty far off topic (including me) in that we've suggested some radical changes--some that Jason may not be able to include. I did want to put my two bits in on this, though--it's about balance and flexibility. Whether we should be doing more ROLEplaying or ROLLplaying isn't really a decision you make as a game designer (unless you're making Cyberpunk). YOUR job is to make the game as flexible, accessible, and fun as possible. The team that made 4e executed this concept, and stuck to it--they just went in a direction that Pathfinder core players don't prefer.

Making it specific: Arcane Trickster shouldn't be combat-heavy. It shouldn't be skill and trick heavy. It should have a nice blend so that you can create any number of different concepts while using the same rules and not feel cheated. What we love about this game is that we can run any crazy concept we want and have simple rules to do it with. This should be the same--not a sniper or trickster totally, but a host of options that revolve around a general theme--the magical rogue.

While both spellcasting and BaB at almost every level is good, it's not as much fun. Attacks and spells are two separate things unless you buff yourself or debuff your opponent. The real fun is the synergy between the two classes, which I think comes with some of the ideas posted here.

I agree that some sort of weapon channeling should be part of this class. There are a few options you can add (which I've posted elsewhere:

Spell Failure reduction from armor (Duskblade and Spellsword)
A Sudden Quicken option at higher levels (a la Duskblade)
An ability to convert spells to bonuses (attack, saves, etc) (Jade Phoenix Mage and Abjurant Champion)

I think the Spell Failure reduction would be pretty sensible, but the other two would have to be considered *major* class features, perhaps even replacing the bonus Feats. I do think that the "spells to bonuses" ability is the ultimate synergy for this class, I think it's *really* powerful.

Weapon Channeling: I think this is the big favorite, and to carry a theme from the Feats and Skills playtest, perhaps more opportunities to channel a spell could fill in those dead levels? Perhaps the ability to channel a spell on an AoO?

Finally (I know this is long), I think that with any PrC, you can allow the option for your school power to continue to class up with you.

Agreed. A smart, simple adjustment. Good job!

Dennis, I agree with you. While this class was originally described in the DMG as a rogue with spells to supplement stealth and stealing ability, you don't include a full SA progression without intending for it to be used, and that's commonly through ray spells. My additions have addressed what most class features are about--combat. However, I don't think it should be limited to ray or touch spells, either. If it's going to be, then those spells should be effective--not constantly, otherwise the additional SA damage becomes ridiculous. However, you shouldn't have to wait until Level 10 (the common level for a Rogue 3/Wizard 5/AT 2 to get 4th level spells) to become effective.

More importantly, the class should be open to options and interpretation. What if you want to be a spy, and not a sniper? What about a melee combatant? The spells should help, and should let you be a spy, a sniper, a cat burglar---whatever you want. And the class features should add to this, whatever your build.

It's true that the Arcane Trickster has a lot of resources at its disposal, especially with the Pathfinder rule changes. However, I also agree that you should have some extra fun stuff if you're going to take the level hits to get into a class. I know lowering the prerequisites seems to be guaranteed, but still. Keep Impromptu Sneak Attack, keep Ranged Ledgermain, but throw in a couple of extra toys (of whatever level-I've gone through this discussion way too much now) to make it fun.

I think a lot of good ideas were thrown around in the splatbooks, and while many may have been poorly executed, the fanbase that Paizo is reaching out to has enjoyed many of them. My thought for AT, as well as many of the core classes, is that the class should be the be-all, end-all for that theme. Spellwarp Sniper, Unseen Seer--you should be able to execute these themes with the new Arcane Trickster class. Same for Abjurant Champion/Duskblade with the Eldritch Knight. If Paizo is going to put out its own splatbooks later on, let the ideas within them be new and fresh--and necessary, not just a twist on an old theme, as we've seen before. I'm personally happier with module support and good stories, rather than more crazy classes.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Total attack bonus=+14. Now tell me, under circumstances where your opponent has a high touch AC. (Oh, I don't know who would have a high touch AC... Gishes, Monks, Psionic enemies, a good number of outsiders, well built tanks with the right feats... I'd say depending on your dm that runs from 30-70% of your opponents.)

At level 13, most opponents will be having AC's in the 30's. Lets assume 36 (this is just a random number mind, I haven't had the time to actually dig this up, but these examples are based on my experiences... )If the opponent's touch AC is 6 less than their total AC (Natural Armor, they have ways of making their armor effective against touch attacks, or they simply don't use armor and have other AC boosters) that means that our Arcane Trickster is only going to hit on a 14 or higher. Thats not reliable at all.

... Kyrt... I'm just flabbergasted at the numbers you are suggesting here. CR 13 = AC 36? That's really your experience? Ouch.

Beta page 294 puts CR 13 average AC at about 29. As for *touch* AC? It's usually far far more than 6 under the total. Natural armor doesn't count, Armor doesn't count, Shield doesn't count. That's where most creatures get their AC from. Here are the touch AC's of the 11 CR 13 creatures in the Monster manual: 11, 8, 14, 13, 10, 8, 9, 14, 14, 11, 16. Average: <12. Even if we call that 6 too *low*, our example hits on a 4.

Most outsiders don't really have high touch ACs. A well equipped PC Monk at that level (the worst case scenario for an arcane trickster).. well let's say it has the same Wis as your example has Dex, +8, another +4 from Dex, +3 from class, and a +3 ring of protection. That's AC 28. That's when you'd hit on a 14 - about the worst case.

I'm not saying creatures with high touch AC's don't get encountered, but if they are coming constantly at levels where an arcane trickster can't keep up, that's a DM issue, not a balance issue.

Strong argument here. I don't know if there's any other classic tweaking that goes on here to boost touch AC (deflection bonuses?), but it's good to know what the average numbers are for ATs to hit. If you're sticking with the idea of sneak attacking with spells, it's a strong case for the lower BaB (although, remember, you're still looking at AT characters possessing lower BaBs than even a wizard). If, however, you want to diversify the class and integrate some regular attacks, with the spells being used more for support, then consider the higher BaB.

My personal preference? I love sneak attacking with spells. There was stuff in the splatbooks that made that incredibly hard to pull off, and I think it's going to be easier to do in Pathfinder, but still harder than if you're using the original core rules. So long as SA with spells can occur with reasonable frequency, regardless of level (as opposed to waiting for Improved Invisibility, then being unstoppable), it's cool.

LazarX wrote:

As it has been said before, the backwards compatibility mission of Pathfinder does not include the requirement to balance against every half-baked unbalanced class that WOTC decided to throw in a splatbook.

Thanks LazarX - I was trying to word that yesterday and couldn't come up with a polite way of saying it.

Bringing up those sorts of classes can have uses for ideas and for how things can work in different ways. But they are useless as a basis for comparison of power level.

Obviously we have some different ideas about acceptable power levels, as well as the validity of classes in splatbooks. No one wants another Incantatrix--the point is to make a class that's fun for everyone and balanced in general. But thanks for trying to maintain your manners.

As far as Combat Casting goes, again, there shouldn't be one required feat for any class--including Combat Casting or Practiced Spellcaster. The class should run fine on its own, and the feats should be used to add flavor. Unseen Seer comes up because it was so often used in place of AT that it should be an indicator of what players want.

I don't think 3/4 BaB, 6 skill points, and a lower entrance requirement is too much. Scaling back Sneak Attack a bit in favor of hitting more often (albeit, with about a +2 net gain overall) isn't a bad tradeoff. You're still virtually at a wizard's BaB if he had stayed in the straight class. Ultimately, though, if it's going to change (as with anything in this game), it has to fit the bill for your style of playing (high or low power) as well as mine.

I'm not familiar with the magic tricks thing--sounds interesting!

The at-will power was something I tried to add in the proposal.

As for the spells you can SA with, it's any ranged or touch attack. The trick is, though, that you've got to either a) flank the target (meaning you have to cast and then move into position or provoke an AoO) or deny Dex for ranged. Formerly, the way to do that was to go ethereal (thereby getting some form of invisibility), Invisibility proper (and it's improved form--the hallmark of this class) or a spell like Blindness or Grease. Most of these, however, have now been altered to specifically neutralize this option, stating that they do not deny Dex to an opponent. So, the issue becomes--how do you SA the target without going into melee weapon combat (which I could do as a regular rogue?)

I don't care for Ranged Ledgermain, but I see how it fits thematically. Dennis, I don't think Ledgermain should get three separate slots--it's meant to combine with the HotA ability to keep its worth. Also, although I agree that Silent Spell and Nondetection are great theme abilities, I don't think Nondetection warrants skipping a casting level just by itself. Perhaps both in combination....

I'd rather see the class follow one or two concepts and see them through, rather than a mix of everything. It doesn't have to be the Ranged Ledgermain/HotA combo I presented, but there should be a few things that make the class fun to play and an easy, flexible theme that anyone can get. A rogue that uses spells instead of Talents could be a scout, a sniper, an assassin, a master cat-burglar--but shouldn't have to be one in particular. In its current format, the most sensible route (and therefore the most used) is a ranged touch spell sniper, with SA. It shouldn't be that. That fact has governed the class options I've presented so far.

One idea we batted around was changing Impromptu Sneak Attack to a metamagic that could be stacked with a spell, allowing a level bump to deny an opponent their Dex. It would have to be restricted, but would also allow you to get past some of the basic limits and put a more long-term limit on.

After brainstorming with a couple of colleagues, I've got a couple of new concepts to put on the table:

1) What about an ability that allowed you to take AoOs with spells? It lets the AT use that Dex and forces the class to look at other stats besides Intelligence.

2) What about expanding/altering Impromptu Sneak Attack so that it's usable a little more often, but only with spells?

3) What about restricting a floating Hand of the Apprentice with threats so that it works for only a few rounds, 1-3 times a day? Or perhaps requiring an uninterrupted line between the caster and the weapon (thereby preventing you from positioning the weapon anywhere in melee you want)?

If you're playing up the idea of the rogue/caster, then I'm with my friends offline--give the rogue something specific to the class that lets you take away defenses, and debuff an opponent--instead of buffing yourself.

please note the quoted text above. I inserted a comment into it.

I think that dropping only a single caster level, to go into a class that gives full casting (minus school/bloodline powers) *and* full sneak attack, plus the suggested added abilities, *and* better BAB... is just silliness.

****Keep in mind that most builds of Arcane Trickster go Rogue or Spellthief 1/Wizard 4/Unseen Seer. This is already being done on the caster portion. Those that follow Unseen Seer are also getting that 3/4 BaB, the boosted skill points, and added abilities. The only thing different is the Sneak Attack progression. That said, I can still see toning something down--but what?

Frankly, the only prereq reduction I can see is to 2nd level spells, with +2d6 sneak attack. Rogue Talent + 3rd level spells could work, but that severely limits the class to Rogues only.

I don't think you need to kill 3 levels of spellcasting with Rogue. At the most, make Evasion a requirement, thereby routing players to Rogue 2, or some other class that neutralizes a level. To respond to Dennis in the same post, I can see staggering the Trickster casting back 1 full level, and I think an additional level of Rogue may be the way to do it.

Should the powers go away? Instead, would you do Nondetection and perhaps Evasion? As I've been thinking about it, HotA with Sneak Attack and threatening means a blade you can position anywhere to get a sneak attack in. What's a good way to limit this? Should it be nixed altogether?

So, keep in mind the theme in Pathfinder designs--streamline classes that seem redundant or attempts to patch another class. Let's be frank--this is the classic Gish. Why are you playing a Gish? To swing a sword and cast spells, in the best combination possible. This has been done with the Jade Phoenix Mage (Book of Nine Swords), Spellsword( Complete Warrior), Bladesinger (Complete Warrior), Abjurant Champion (Complete Mage), and Duskblade (PHPII--the full attempt at Gish). Eldritch Knight should nix the need for most of these. It's not going to be a full Wizard, because big spells are their purview. It won't have full BaB, because the spells should help nix that (looking for iterative attacks? Haste.). It SHOULD, however, offer novel ways to integrate both aspects.

These are some of the most central abilities:

1) Armor penalty reduction OR bonuses to magical armor spells

2) Boost to physical abilities by sacrificing spells

3) Channeling spells through your weapon

4) Swift casting of standard spells in special circumstances.

My opinion? Ditch the bonus feat, leave the level lost, and replace the feat with the ability to channel spells through your blade. Add in one or two of the abilities above at higher levels. You don't get the fighter or wizard bonuses, but you do get some nice perks that leave you the master of mixing magic and spells. The bonuses far outweigh the loss of BaB or caster progression.

Here’s a proposal for a rework of the Arcane Trickster. Many thanks to 7thson for his assistance in brainstorming.

Arcane Trickster Pathfinder Build (changes to current build only):

Base Attack Bonus: 3/4

Skill Points: 6+Int.

Requirements: Sneak Attack +1d6, Decipher Script 4 ranks, Escape Artist 4 ranks, Knowledge (Arcana) 4 ranks, must be able to cast 3rd level spells and Mage Hand.

Level 1: Novice’s Hand—Functions as Ranged Ledgermain. If AT doesn’t have Hand of the Apprentice, gains ability to make 1 attack/round at BaB, using Int as bonus to attack and damage (no BaB bonus to damage). Attacks are made at a -2 penalty, to reflect difficulty of remote attacks. No maneuvers, sneak attacks, etc. are allowed. Range for both abilities 30ft, hand moves at 30ft, weapon or tools are brought to your hand if dismissed, weapon is drawn for you. Use of this ability (for either option) is a full action.

Level 5: Trickster’s Hand—Penalties for Ranged Ledgermain remain, but caster has the option to take 10 on the test. Hand of the Apprentice ability keeps its penalty, but now allows maneuvers and the ability to threaten (thereby allowing remote sneak attacks).

Level 9: Master’s Hand—As Trickster’s Hand, but penalties for both functions are dropped. The Trickster has such experience with telekinetic action at this point that it’s fluid.

Going this route keeps the Arcane Trickster class in relatively recognizable shape while incorporating other changes that have already happened in Pathfinder. Ranged Ledgermain stays relevant, attack options are opened up, and the need for other damage-reducing abilities are reduced, since you’re operating remotely (for the most part). Bonus Feats aren’t as necessary in this build—with so many attack options, players can choose to devote their current Feats to abilities that help boost their Hand attacks, melee attacks, or spells, depending on their flavor. Also, the need for must-have spells (ray spells, Improved Invisibility) is reduced—characters can use Trickster’s hand for magical sneak attacks, and use those spells for Nondetection, Blur, Suggestion, etc. If you want Evasion, you take another level of Rogue to get it, thereby sacrificing another caster level.

I think this version leaves the class flexible for any number of builds, while preserving the magical rogue feel. If you want to be a Spellwarp Sniper, you can still do it and have some other options (perhaps using Hand to throw a bolt, like Launch Item, but with the benefit of Int bonus), and if you want to be an Unseen Seer, you can focus on being a Diviner, with the benefit of Hand and the luxury of devoting your feats to boosting those abilities.

What do you think?

So, since I have the time over this holiday to respond, I wanted to help flesh out the thinking on class powers. I've gone over Unseen Seer, Spellwarp Sniper, Rogue, and Wizard, and tried to evaluate the powers of each class. After some careful elimination, these are the best powers for AT to slip in:

Ray Mastery (component, Spellwarp Sniper)--only the 60' Sneak Attack range. Empower is too specific (and too powerful for AT), and Coup de Grace is a little much for a ray (and could be done by GM call)

Evasion--Great power that old AT builds came with (with rogue 3), but others gave up for the sake of Unseen Seer and caster progression. Great defense for a low HD class, but do the spells make up for it enough? Considering that most Wizards are looking for a Ring of Evasion at some later point in their careers, it might be worth looking into.

Guarded Mind (Unseen Seer)--Nondetection for a Wizard/Rogue? Great fit, but is it worth taking out another ability that a player could actively use, for a passive power?

Hand of the Apprentice--I know this power's got a lot of problems, but there's an obvious synergy between it, Mage Hand, and Ranged Ledgermain. Ranged Ledgermain could be made at-will, perhaps with higher penalties (it's competing with Knock, so I'm not sure how often someone would use it). HotA could be turned into a scaling ability-Hand of the Apprentice, Hand of the Adept, Hand of the Master, with scaling ability to do damage and use maneuvers (including Sneak Attack, thereby giving this rogue a magical flair without relying on ranged touch attacks). It would require some balancing, for sure, but I think by using one of the current spells (Persistent Blade?) as a model, or even basing it on the Ranged Ledgermain rules (penalty for remote use, but typical use otherwise), it could work and be a lot of fun.

Here's the list of abilities I nixed, and why:

Advanced Learning--too specific, and it gives you Hunter's Eye. Too powerful, when Persisted (the common build for almost every AT build I've seen).

Divination Power--good, but a little too specific. Save it for a Diviner class.

Spellwarp--Odds are, you have an at-will ray-like power, or something to boost your ranged attacks. Just not critical.

Silent Spell/Precise Shot--Good idea for bonus Feats, but given the other great options you have, not critical. Moreover, it begins to overlap with Wizard/Rogue bonus feats.

Uncanny Dodge--If you have Evasion, you shouldn't get this.

Sorry for the long posts, guys, but given our short window and the amount of things going on, I'd like to clear out some of the common thinking so we can spend more time on innovation. This could be a great class that's memorable, fun, not too powerful, and that lasts the years--IF we get it set in this forum.

The quick bullet points:

--I agree with Dennis on the rogue perks going back in, but I don't agree that Trapfinding should be one of them. You'll have it by picking up Rogue 1, and you're going to be able to work around the additional ability with spells. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, however, are still fair game. The higher level "talents" should be left alone, to make Rogue be solid and appealing at higher levels on its own.

--Lining up the other two common "feeder" classes for AT is a good move. There are a lot of benefits to those classes, and in fact most builds I've seen for this type of character have anywhere from 4-10 levels of Unseen Seer--it's just that good of a class for what you're trying to do. The bumped up BaB seems to be a common thread, as well as the bonus features...

--Which brings me to this point: What should Pathfinder's Arcane Trickster be? You certainly want it to resemble the original, but there's an obvious trend of incorporating concepts from other classes to help streamline (ex: Archmage). I'm a fan of this--it looks like there's three classes in existence that are trying to do the job of one. That doesn't mean try to smash them all together--that's too messy, and tries to capture too many ideas. However, I think there are some good ideas to incorporate. Perhaps Silent Spell or Nondetection from Unseen Seer, or extending the Sneak Attack range at higher levles? Too much focus on spell sniping takes away from the freedom to customize, but it could help.

BOTTOM LINE: If you bump BaB to 3/4, bump skill points to 6, give access to the class at 7th level, and perhaps swap out a couple of the current abilities for some other fun toys, you'll have yourself a great class that is fun to play for that wizard/rogue character, but doesn't outshine either of the separate classes, nor does it become a must-have class-just a good flavor class.

I've said my piece earlier in the thread--I think two of the big issues to be considered are:

a) What role does this class play in the party?
b) When do you want a character to be able to adopt it?

Jason brought up adding skill points and easing entrance--instead of lowering the skill requirement levels, why not knock down the big hurdle, and just make the Sneak Attack requirement 1d6? It gets around the 2 dead levels of spellcasting (although giving up Evasion is tough for most)and lets characters get in the class relatively quickly. It also allows you to alter the flavor a little bit by adding on some of the elements a player may have sacrificed to get into the class--ie Uncanny Dodge or Evasion at 5th level, a bonus feat at 5th, or something of the sort.

I think allowing characters to pick this class up at 6th level instead of 8th still makes it an enjoyable class.

Going back to a), if this is a rogue with magic, you've got to decide on whether this is going to have a melee flavor, ranged flavor, or leave room for both. I bring this up because of BaB and spell backup--if you're casting a touch attack spells, it's going to be hard to stay in combat without some sort of tweak (once you've cast the first spell, you've got to withdraw to cast the second or provoke AoO). If you're going the ranged/spellwarp sniper route, it's much harder to deny an opponent Dex against your attacks without the bonus of Improved Invisibility (which, Jason, I agree shouldn't be the crutch spell of this class). Is there some way to add an ability to this class to help out with that, without doing Impromptu Sneak Attack every other level? If you want to avoid the issue altogether and give flexibility for both (or just allow straight melee), you can raise the BaB for this class only to the average (instead of poor) progression.

Rogues with spells is fun, and can be really creatively used. However, we all know this is a combat game, and the possibilities for this class should be cleared up. It's a sneak attack class--how is that sneak attack best combined with the magical aspect?

So, in short, there are flaws with the Arcane Trickster class. My recommendations are as follows:

1) Increase skill points to 6/level. This is a combination of 2 of the most knowledgeable classes in the game. Come on.

2) Increase BaB progression to the mid-level progression (cleric, etc). This class is screwed in the BaB department from the cross-classing. It's a sneak attack build, and one that has to rely more on melee since invisibility has been neutered for ranged attacks. If sneak attack is the chief component of this class, you've got to be able to use it.

3) Allow for some combination of the Hand of the Apprentice/Ranged Ledgermain ability. It's Mage Hand, and since this class is so skilled with remote use, expand the Hand abilities (and perhaps clean up the rules) to make for something new.

Take one or all of the above. Just keep this in mind--when Arcane Trickster was designed, it was the ranged touch attack choice. It was built to let you play a rogue with magic, not be a primary caster (as mentioned previously in this thread). Spells have been added and changed, the class has been played thoroughly (and recognized as needing help--see Unseen Seer), and all in all, it hasn't weathered well. It's a great concept, and can be a lot of fun. With a few minor tweaks, it could be brilliant to play a magical rogue again.

delslow wrote:

Sooooo... Does anything come out of these feedback threads? Are rules changed and errata added anywhere? Or do we just wait for the next version of the PDF to be published?

Sometimes Jason says, 'Yeah, I'm thinking of changing that, how about this?' Sometimes it's a month or two before he responds again to a topic. Sometimes he doesn't tell us every single thing he thinks about the 250+ separate suggestions (or, in some cases, demands) we give him every single day.

He's whacky like that.

I certainly get that. I'd just like to get a bone and some vague timeline (even "it's going to be a few months before I can touch this one") so I know what to expect and what to play with in my own games. I don't mind playing with a rule, but if Jason's deemed it as extinct for the next edition, I'd like to know and I'll make something else up.

cathat89 wrote:

aya_aschmahr wrote:

cathat89 wrote:

You don't stop being a specialist when you choose a Prestige Class. [/

Quote:

I agree, its not like you regain access to your forbidden schools. And the point of specializing is that you gain some power in your chosen school by giving something up. Regaredless of whether I am taking a prestige class or going straight wizard, I'm still giving up something. Not giving the wizard bonus spells when they prestige class is just handicapping them unnecessarily. I agree that the other specialist powers, like the evokers energy ray and wall of energy abilities, should be available only if you take wizard levels. If you take away the bonus spells your actually weakening the wizard from the 3.5 version. How is that balanced?

I actually meant the reverse. You have the powers already. You shouldn't get the bonus spells that arrive at higher levels. You should see your previously acquired powers keep scaling, however--you earned them already.

cathat89 wrote:

You don't stop being a specialist when you choose a Prestige Class. [/

Quote:

But you also don't further your specialization, but take on a different path.

In our group we, for example, have an Ultimate Magus. He widens his focus and at the same time specializes? A bit hard to explain, I find - and unfair, too.

My understanding was that, even as an Ultimate Magus, you wouldn't regain the schools you lost as a Specialist Wizard. Perhaps that would only apply to the preparation class, but the rule would be the same. Same rules go for Incantatrix, Master Specialist, Spellsword, etc.

Kyrinn S. Eis wrote:

If HotA is 'nerfed' in that regard, I think it should simply be replaced with a 'Force Bolt' with the ability to cause 5' of knockback v. a CL DC Fort save. Damage on the order of 1d6/2 levels, no Int mod.

Or, if we only want to have a "melee strike" type as an at-will attack, we could easily replace it with something like I made for converting some Domains from the Eberron campaign (using as a basic guideline the existing 1st level powers of the others existing PFRPG Domains):

"As a standard action, you can briefly materialize a ghostly (INSERT WEAPON - in the Domain I converted, it was a scimitar) made of force to strike any foe within 30 feet with a single melee attack, using your base attack bonus and your Intelligence (Wisdom, in my version...) modifier to the attack roll. If the blade hits, it deals (INSERT BASIC WEAPON DAMAGE - for my Scimitar, 1d6) points of force damage +1 for every four caster levels you possess. The blade has a critical range of (INSERT CRITICAL RANGE - 18-20 for a Scimitar) and can strike incorporeal foes without the usual miss chance. Damage reduction does not apply to this damage. Once the strike has been made (either successful or not), the blade winks out of existence."

TRIVIAL: this was originally made by me for the Revered Ancestor Domain of Valenar Elves

I like this concept, although I'd make it a little more like Persistent Blade, where you get your level + Intelligence to attack. Keep the base weapon type damage, and the +1/3 levels, or +1/4 levels. Sounds more manageable. I would just want to see some sort of damage upscale along with the to-hit, since at 12th level your baddies are going to take a lot more to bring down.

If you kept the weapon, you should keep it BaB + Intelligence to-hit.

generally other classes have general issues. They don'T get class-specific benefits when advancing in other classes (Prestigeclasses) - instead they gain the benefits of the Prestige Class. Can't see why the wizards should be handled differently here.

Because the majority of abilities you gain from a Prestige Class either aren't level based, or factor in your total caster level into the effect of the power. The premise is sound--you take a new class, your benefits are from that class, not your previous one. But tying level effect for the school abilities to Wizard level only is like saying your have to choose a new class of spellcasting when you choose a new spellcasting class.

You don't stop being a specialist when you choose a Prestige Class.

cathat89 wrote:

3) Scrap the whole idea. Make it either a telekinetic blow (truly a Universal, with Magic Missile and all), or in the spirit of the rest of the package, choose one of the other first level abilities.

I'm leaning more in this direction. Mage Hand + Telekinetic Blow would be cool. No tie to a weapon at all, although the visible manifestation of the attack might *look* like a weapon.

Frankly, at this point I agree. The weapon is troublesome. The biggest issue I have with HotA, neat as it is, is that it can be munchkined too easily. The ray and orb powers are pretty straightforward.

It should be tied to Wizard level. This will be clarified.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I think it should be left to caster level. You're already getting cut out of future abilities when you switch to a prestige class. I understand maintaining interest in Wizard throughout all levels--I think the higher level abilities do that just fine. If you create/maintain this link, then many of these abilities will become useless to prestige pursuing classes.

Your options 1) and 2) seem better than the actual power (especially the second).

That may be. I understand that a lot of people are wigging out about the Intelligence bonus here, especially added to damage. It's no different than a fighter with Strength. The Fighter, however, gets iterative attacks and Feats to jack the ability. A Wizard's magical ability should be a match in some respect. The point of this power is that it should be a solid attack when you've run out of spells. If it's a choice between this power as is and a ray attack with 1d6 every other level, I'd still take the ray. It's easier to hit and deals better damage.

My point is that this power does need retooling. The concepts I've offered are an attempt to stick with one previously established rules set per concept. I want to see this power be good, but scaling.

I've made a couple of statements on this before, and have to agree with a few posters here:

--There are way too many rules for a basic power.
--This is too powerful at low levels
--Doing nothing for an action sucks
--The Hand moves too slowly.
--This power isn't all that at higher levels, regardless of your Intelligence
--It doesn't scale well with the rays and orbs available to other schools
--Removing the Intelligence bonus makes it even less attractive.

There are a few ways to fix this:

1) Treat the thing more like Mordenkainen's Sword or the Spiritual Weapon it seems to be designed to be. Give the attack level + Int to hit, and weapon damage + Intelligence (or 1/2 level). It's one attack, you're not getting Feats on it, it scales with level, and depending on how you handle damage, it's worth it at all levels. It's supposed to be an at-will power that makes you useful at all times, right? Let it be.

2) Treat it as a remote ability to attack. Go with BaB + Intelligence to hit. Take weapon damage + Int to damage. Let it be iterative, and channel feats/SA/etc. You become a remote fighter, but not an overpowered one, but it still scales with you.

3) Scrap the whole idea. Make it either a telekinetic blow (truly a Universal, with Magic Missile and all), or in the spirit of the rest of the package, choose one of the other first level abilities.

I see where this power came from. There are 4-5 spells that allow floating blades, each with a special effect. But recognize the theme: You have as good a chance to hit with your magical weapon as a fighter, you hit with a little something extra, and it's your spell for a while. If this is your exclusive activity, you need to make a power that scales and is worth it to the user. This could be fun, or this could be everyone's big regret.

I think the point that a lot of posters are missing is that the 1st level abilities are designed to be functional for the career of the spellcaster, to make them functional when the spells run out. Admittedly, at higher levels this seems rare, but it can happen, especially if you're trying to encourage regular combat without resting after every other battle.

Main points:

1) The damage should scale. I like the damage where it is. If you want to tweak it so it's not so heavy overall, instead of adding BaB and Int (or whatever stat you choose), just make the attack and damage based on caster level. It equates to roughly the same thing, is easier to track, and scales better.

2) Make it only one attack. Considering the damage of 1), that should be enough regardless of what level you're at

3) Don't make sneak attacks or feats eligible. It's a spell like effect. You're already going to be able to cast spells on the weapon, not to mention the quality of the weapon itself.

Your other option is to frankly let it be fighter at range. Let it have caster level to attack, let attacks be iterative, and let sneak attack and feats be eligible. This way, gishes and tricksters can still put it to use, and if they really want to focus on this ability, that's less feats and spells they're devoting to being a straight mage.

Everyone gets to have fun. AND, as a bonus, if you're using HotA with option 2, you're NOT adding an ability bonus--giving you motivation to get up close and do some damage!

Based on everything I've seen, this acts like a Sword of Deception/Mordenkainen's Sword/Persistent Blade/Steeldance. The descriptions all vary, based on which version you use. Since it doesn't threaten, the biggest questions to answer are

a) does it get iterative attacks, like Sword of Deception?
b) how quickly does it move? Like Mage Hand, or like these other spells?

I would say that it gets one attack/round and moves the full 30ft/round. Otherwise, it's not as useful to a wizard that doesn't want to be that close.

For the record, I think GMs should choose whether this ability functions like Sword of Deception (threatening, only doing the weapon damage, and having iterative attacks based on caster level) or 1/round with all bonuses. I understand that weapon damage and INT bonuses are scalable, but not to the same degree that the Conjuration/Evocation abilities are. If the principle is to be a regularly usable ability for all your days, then it should be more dramatically scalable in some regard. Perhaps it adds iterative attacks as you gain them? Not like you'll get many...

So, forgive me if this statement sounds uninformed (I'm not a regular poster), but this entire discussion seems to hint at something WotC already did with the Warblade. Same concept--switch out maneuvers as you see fit. Now, without walking in those exact footsteps, I suggest a relatively simple solution. Instead of creating feat trees, or worrying about what slots are switchable when, just edit the list of feats available for fighter slots. Make those feats swappable every day, or after 1 hour of practice in forms. Core feats that a fighter would use no matter what (Improved Initiative, Blind Fighting, etc) would be standard feats not available for the Fighter slots, while Weapon Specialization, Cleave, Improved Trip, etc would be. This would allow players to set their own feat trees to match either their favorite weapon suites, or whatever they have. They can play all those fun combos we all know, while not getting locked down into them.

I see the Fighter as a grizzled warrior who, in this world, is capable of working with any tool available to them. They may have some swift moves with favorite weapons, but they have some instinctive traits that apply all the time, that give them the edge over their opponents. He should be that mythical character that doesn't have rage or magic, but pure combat intelligence that makes him a raw force to be reckoned with. I think this is the way.

Speaking from the other side, I'm at a loss of how to be a ray specialist and actually get the sneak attack damage for the rays. I can see the abuse from a Wand of Blink, and I can definitely see the issue being huge at higher levels, but it comes up again at 4th level with Greater Invisibility.

I'm honestly content if I simply have some semi-reliable way to deny an opponent their Dex. It doesn't have to be foolproof-Blink offers a % chance of missing, and other spells offer Will saves. I just want to actually run the character.

cathat89 wrote:

If this is the case, how can an Arcane Trickster deliver ranged sneak attacks (if they are a 3rd level caster or below-I understand that Greater Invisibility is the cure-all here)?

Glitterdust? Blindness? Invisibility? Just plain old hiding?

All good options-what holds up more than 1 round? Most creatures I use Glitterdust on can make the Will save. Is there an effective sniping rule that would allow me to attack and hide again?

I don't understand how you can attack with an invisible creature's bonuses, and be targeted as an invisible ethereal creature, but not be treated as invisible. It's a split between the purpose of the spell (as per description) and the rules of it.

If this is the case, how can an Arcane Trickster deliver ranged sneak attacks (if they are a 3rd level caster or below-I understand that Greater Invisibility is the cure-all here)?

After reading Alpha 3, I noted that Blink now omits the descriptor that the target of a blinking attacker is denied their Dex bonus to AC. Was this purposeful?