dusparr's page

I made a mistake on ordering and put in my old address; is this where I would make a request to change it?
if so; can you change it to
[redacted]

Basically my world works thusly:
1-4 is done by most people and can be very quick if pressured (a town under siege quickly deveolps 3-4th level soldiers and smith, if they survive)

5th takes ending a major event (the end of the siege may elevate the commander to 5th)

6th takes either a few major personal trials, or being pushed beyond human capacity (the commander may become 6th if the town continues to be pushed by a neighboring country and he has to take command, while a smith may be pushed to 6th if, in order to keep the town protected he is forced to make equipment, magical and mundane, 24/7 for a long time)

7-10th come around if the person pursues power (the commander takes the fight to the other countries, the smith starts making bigger and better magic stuff, like golems)

11th is another brickwall that requires a major event to pass in order to advance (the commander takes over another nation and in doing so provokes something really powerfull, like a lich or dragon, and manages to overcome it. The smith would have something similar happen, provoking something supernaturally powerful, either to get something neccesary to use, or by just provoking an outsider with something like a devil-armour)

12-15th are much like 7-10th in that they happen naturally. (commander unites multiple nations, removes most threats to the kingdom. The Smith makes weapons and armor for war or on a custom basis for adventurers.)

16th is the final hurdle and reqiures something truely epic to occur (Commander gains major territory in the world-wound. Smith makes a minor artifact)

on percentage:
50% 1-2nd
25% 3-4th
12.5 5th
6.25% 6-10th
6% 11-15th
.25% 16th+

Flip a coin (total endings) : 2 = F
Flip a coin and get heads (amount) : 1 : 50%
Flip a coin and get tails (amount) : 1 : 50%
Flip a coin and get heads or tails : 2 : 100%

Flip 2 coins and get 1 heads (01|10)&(00|01|10|11): 2 out of 4
Flip 2 coins and get 2 heads (11)&(00|01|10|11): 1 out of 4
Flip 3 coins and get 1 heads (001|010|011|100|101|110|111)&(000|001|010|011|100|101|110|111): 7 out of 8
Flip 3 coins and get 2 heads (011|101|110|111)&(000|001|010|011|100|101|110|111): 4 out of 8

if 1 head equates to a threat, and 2 heads equate to a confirm

then given that the first 2 are flipped together, threats happen 2/4 (50%), and confirmations happen 1/4 (25%)
or .5*.25 = .125

then given that the first 2 are flipped together and 1 tail may be ignored and re-flipped (turning it to 3 flips), threats happen 7/8 (87.5%), and confirmations happen 4/8 (50%)
or .875 * .50 = . 4375

however the actual course (for three flips is) is:
Flip 2 coins and get 1 heads (01|10)&(00|01|10|11): 2 out of 4
followed by flipping a third
Flip 3 coins and get 2 heads (011|101|110|111)&(000|001|010|011|100|101|110|111): 4 out of 8

of .5*.5 = .25

notice that all of the good outcomes for 3 (011|101|110|111) include the good outcomes for 2 (01|10) which alludes to the fact that in order to flip 3 and get 2 heads you must first flip 2 and get at least 1 head

now as .25 > .125 I believe I have proven that (through binary math) 2 flips for threat and another flip for confirm is statistically better than 2 flips and statistically worse than 2 and a re-roll (ie 3 for all cases)

and as a outro
tails = 0
heads = 1
3 coins = (0|1) + (0|1) + (0|1)
(000|001|010|011|100|101|110|111) & (000|001|010|011|100|101|110|111)
= 8/8
= 100%

and all of my cases are tautologically correct

Which is kindof counter-intuitive (dwarfs tumble more than elves?)

I will argue that dwarves roll in plate-mail a hellova lot easier than elves, thank you very much.

was originally going to put "Black sabbath's black dawn" from Bastard, but I am more partial to Slayers

Edit, and I appear to have been beaten to the punch there...

MUWHAHAHAHAH

ahem.. to add to the spells from random shows

"Thou who art darker than even darkness,
Thou who art deeper than even the night!
Thou, the Sea of Chaos, who drifts upon it,
Golden Lord of Darkness!
Hereby I call to thee,
Hereby I swear before thee!
Those who would stand against us,
All those who are fools,
By the power you and I possess,
Grant destruction equally upon them all!
GIGA SLAVE!"

Addendum to the above: the most fun I have had in a DnD session in a long time, it was about as much fun as the two F.A.T.E. games I am in. Of course in one of those I am playing a space marine librarian running around with a party that can only be described as "The colors Duke, THE COLORS" in a post-earth space game with turn based ship to ship combat, as well as ground combat.
If anyone would like to know more about that game just tell me, I might just make a thread somewhere.

I dare anyone to try to minmax in fate. and if you want to try http://www.faterpg.com/dl/FATE2fe.pdf

wraithstrike wrote:

dusparr wrote:

People that are unable to comprehend anything deeper than saves and initiative are the primary reason I have had the fun of helping 9 DMs TPK using CR-2 encounters.

My hat is off to you, he who gives me imbeciles to laugh at.

CR 2 encounters against what level party, and conditions? I can kill party with a CR 1 encounter in the first circumstances.

CR -2 I believe was his intent. Monster hoards that are 2 levels below what the party should be able to face.

What Caineach said.

Time for wall-o-text to make an appearance
Recently (today in fact) I got the joy of playing in a session where I actually got to use the "these hours need not be consecutive" rule for regaining rage as a barbarian. This is an oddity when neither the cleric nor the sorcerer got spells back during the session nor even HP for getting a night of rest.
Our group of 5 (Half orc barb 10, dwarf cleric 10, elf sorcerer 10, human monk 10, human rouge 10) entered a castle that we had thought (wrongly) was controlled by a vampire. It turns out that it was a lich (human lich witch 16) that we had pissed off for a verity of reasons over that last game year.

The castle was large, sprawling and very well defended. We managed to get into the deeper parts of the castle (3 encounters) before we had realized our error when we entered a secret basement connected to the castle throne room. We thought that we only had an encounter or two left so we entered the room. All of the info that we had gathered about the vampire we thought lived there was placed by the lich to make us believe that he was arrogant enough to want to fight us alone, and we found a few things in the castle that led us to believe that he was waiting in the basement alone (a note that had a tale about a king how sat under the throne all alone after an earthquake that left the throne room completely separated from the castle) so we believed that he would be waiting in the basement alone.

Now, our party is pretty conservative of our resources, we had only lost around 20% of the parties total HP, I had only raged for 3 rounds, and the cleric and sorcerer had 80% of their spells and abilities left, the monk had only used 2 ki-points and the rogue used a few potions. So we downed a few healing potions, and went in the basement. We found a portal/teleportation circle, one that could ony warp groups and only be used twice (yay spellcraft and taking a 20), with a note saying something on the lines of "I will see you beyond the circle". We had a small discussion, and determined that a boss at 85% power shouldn't be too bad and that even if he had 2-4 more encounters it would not be too fatal to do. So we went in.

On having the party arrive, we were given the description of a grand throne room with a cackling old man sitting upon the throne. We immediately did our statement of intent (technically we weren't here to kill the vampire, just make him give us something, most of us get along with evil NPC's as all of us are either neutral or neutral with an evil bent, like me) which just made him laugh even harder. Confused, we got ready for combat, when he held up his hand and explained that we had fallen for his trap and that he really was just going to make us feel the "same annoyances he had" and that in order to get out we had to destroy him and break an artifact he was carrying in order to leave.

So we quickly launched into combat, not giving him a beat of time to react.

5 rounds later, he laughed gleefully, stating "you have four hours before you have to move," and teleported out of the room, taking an AoO to the face by me.

Taking a quick glance around the room we first noticed that the room had an entrance on each side (4 doors) that were blocked by Walls of force, and that it looked like it was specifically designed as a resting place, but that there were large vents in the ceiling, that were also blocked by force. Of other note was our resident spellcaster making a perception/spellcraft check that made him realize that this room had been dimension-anchored (or GM equivalent, as it allowed short range teleportation, just not anything that would get you out) and that there was no obvious way out.

To make the rest of this short, every 4 hours, the main room would fill up with lava and force us out of a particular door, where we were forced to fight through 4-5 encounters and the Lich. This happened 4 times (12 hours + lich and encounters comes to about 13.5 hours) about 2/3 of the way through, we realized that the sorcerer had gotten up bright and early at 6 am to prepare spells and that it was 7 am the next day, we had gotten to the throne room at around 8 pm.

We immediately got extremely conservative about every thing. About half way through the spell casters told me to "tough it up" and "take it like a man" because I would not get any healing between encounters, only when absolutely necessary and when we got to the main room. At about this time, we took to handing the sorcerer every non-usable weapon and told her to just chuck them at enemies, we also gave her a suit of plate-mail we found from an encounter, me too.

When we finally got to the lich the final time, he gave us 10 minutes to get ready after laughing at our sorcerer and me for looking ridiculous. At this point the sorcerer and cleric were down to only the highest level spell slots and some very specific spell slots for specific spells, I had gotten my rage back 2/3 the way through, and was still down to only 10 rounds left (had to rage to go above 0 sometimes, as I was not going to get healed during combat), the monk had been on his last ki-point for 3 hours and the rogue ran out of arrows and throwing daggers a while back.

We did kill that lich though, it took 8 rounds of just beat-down, half the party (rogue, monk, me when I stopped raging ) were unconscious, but we won, and we left the dungeon. Later we realized that the lich is still alive, and it is probably going to become our party's next quest -kill the dammed lich.

Edit: forgot to point out that the lich had used the hex Nightmares successfully against both the monk and the rogue, meaning that I was the only one getting any real sleep.

tl;dr
A dungeon lasted 13.5 hours (no sleep longer than 3 hours) and had roughly 20 encounters (8 cr-1 5 cr-0, 3cr+1, 4 cr+2, I count the lich as CR+2 instead of +4 as he didn't use full power, he was only establishing that he could kill us if he wanted, and that we would be wiser to stay out of his affairs), used all the party's resources and was the most fun I have had in a session in a long time.

~Dusty~

I'm not sure why people are upset with the OP. He stated the facts very clearly and correctly. The magus is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.

I believe the reason is his comment of "So the only practical way to fix it is to focus on what does work in D&D. Two handed weapons, save or lose spells. Less direct damage, more buffing action."

"Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures, except that they are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal"
um seems it works to me

I will give that glitter dust will probably blind it, and yes as a mindless construct it would then only attack in self-defense and on being ordered as it would not be able to perceive surroundings well enough to know where it was.

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Mistah Green wrote:

Read the last part again.

Ok, and?

"Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it."

and in all of the spells (web, entangle, grease) the golem just wails on the druids companion till it dies, because it will be doing more damage and it will take less due to DR.

And of course giving your core book a once over reveals dozens of save or loses.
why yes it does... *takes a look* o-yes they all have SR or only target a specific type of thing until 6th level spells... hmmm they seem like snipe spells, not good spells to take anywhere that has more than 2 encounters a day.

Read the last part again.

That's still a better showing than the Magus, as his DCs are lower and many of his spells won't work.

Yay higher Bab, better weapon, and other things Golems are specifically designed to take to the face.

Same as Dire Mongoose said.

Those two work. So does Web, I think Entangle, and quite a few others. It has really bad saves, despite being 3 levels higher you can expect 75% success rates. Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it.

flesh golem
Web is beaten by a +15 cmb
grease makes it fall but as long as someone is within 10 ft it does not have to move to attack and DR stops most longer ranged non-magic attacks. so the druid's pet gets mauled by the golem, additionally it will half the time make the DC 10 to move.
entangle is beaten by str, and it can still move and it really does not care about the -4 dex, if it does not beat it with str.

In the vein of the original topic
"just what, exactly, is the magus supposed to do?"
I believe that he is a conservative caster that can engage in melee most of the time, but will, when required, buff either himself or another to increase survivability and damage output.
What do I mean by conservative caster:
One who will spend most encounters without casting a spell (aside from 0th) but on harsh encounters, will quickly shoot off all of their spells.
What do I mean when I say "engage in melee most of the time"
This means that when the enemy is not specifically made to fight on par with the primary melee, he will engage it with no worries, but will only engage the melee focused foes when required to help the party or in slf defense.

I am sorry, I would like a total clarification of what spells you are talking about, Mistah Green, when you say "Save or Lose".
Maybe I am not reading a book you are -> for the sake of arguing on this forum, I only consider the Core books (Core rulebook, Bestiary) and what ever book the topic is about originally (Magus play-test).
Any other spells I consider to be DM choice, and in any arguments I make that choice is always a resounding no.
Here is the list of spells according to the standards that I make my judgment by:
any spell listed between page 224 to page 239 of the Core rulebook
and any spell mentioned in the magus play-test book.

Could you please make a post (or contact me in some other way) that is in this format:

[Book name] [page number]
[Spell name]
[School (if applicable)]
[Spell level] [Class/Classes] [Minimum level with respect to each class]

EXAMPLE (simple)

Core Rulebook pg. 362
True Resurrection
conjuration (healing)
9th Cleric 17th

EXAMPLE (advanced)
Core Rulebook pg. 310
Magic Weapon, Greater
Transmutation
3-4th Cleric/Paladin/Sorcerer/Wizard 7th/10th/8th/7th

~Dusty

Lord Twig wrote:

But a bunch of pure casters are not better than a balanced group, and in some cases will probably be worse.

The point goes further IMO.

The amount of challenges a DM can create is huge. Situations, item and such can be adapted.

Full casters, few caster, no casters, all bards.. the game can support everyhting if the story and the encounters are well tought.

Of course, this does not mean different group can face different threats in the same way, or with the same effort.

BUT this does not mean that there is ONE way to play. Point out mistakes and umbalances is one thing, advocate a "true way" that BTW excludes half of the game is another.

also as pointed out his way of playing gets him killed by golems very easily.

dusparr wrote:

Justin Franklin wrote:

I think there is a simple fix to spell combat actually: If you fail your concentration check you don't take the -4 to your attack. So if you want to attack and cast a spell make your Concentration check if it succeeds proceed as now (i.e. cast spell or attack) if you fail you lose the spell but you can still attack and not at the -4.

New Percentages:
13.65% both work
23.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
31.15% neither work

sorry, a little late but I would like to point something out..

Ahem...
"he can make all of
his attacks with his melee
weapon at a –4 penalty"
does not say anything about the touch attack made, presumably with your off hand, getting a -4.
also
"A magus
can choose to cast the spell first
or make the weapon attacks
first"
umm... does that mean that a magus could do this
->cast touch spell with 1-round duration
->make touch attack with spell
->darn i failed to hit
->attack
-> i hit with my attack
-> use spellstrike to use the spell that is still charged for the round

edit->
yea you can page 185 "touch spells in combat"
"in the same round that you cast the spell you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action"

The most powerful part of this ability is that it can be used with any spell, not just touch spells. Haste, Fireball, obscurring mist, pick your fancy. His calculations are for generic spell, not for touch attacks. But yes, if you are using a touch attack spell then what you say is true.

actually He specifically said "For this case I will assume scorching ray, so that is ranged touch and we will give the opponent a touch AC of 12. So at a +5 ranged touch you miss on a 6 or lower."

dusparr wrote:

One of the things to note, and I am not sure if you did this, is that the touch attack (if you make one) during spell combat still gets it's free touch attack for casting the spell. Additionally, the touch attack does not get the -4 as the wording says that only weapon melee attacks made get -4. Finally, any touch spells that do not connect on the touch can still connect (assuming you hold charge) on attack with spellstrike.

this also allows you to cast a touch spell 1 turn, and if you cast it but miss with both the touch and attack, you can use spell combat next turn to hit first with an attack, and discharge the touch, then cast another spell, and if that spell is a touch then you can make a touch attack immediately as per the rules of touch attack spells.

Yeah, that's how he would have attacked had I used something like shocking grasp. Elemental Touch, however, is a buff spell as opposed to an attack spell, so I figured the extra weapon it provides would have to be used as a TWF rather than the touch attack half of Spell Combat (Much like Magic Weapon or Shillelagh, both of which imbue a weapon with power, this weapon just happens to be your melee touch hand).

Any particular reason why you had him use that spell vs shocking grasp. It seems that he wasn't built to use the touch attack as a TWF instead of as part of a cast, which has none of the minus's.

Loengrin wrote:

I think there was a shield in 3.x that was specifically designed to hold it while casting no?

Both a buckler and a light shield allow characters to cast with their shield hand, the former by RAW and the latter by a rules clarification.

Thank you for that, I hand been wondering that for a build that I was going to do.

but, for example, a light shield says specifically that it can hold an item, just not use a weapon.
Would you consider that "free."
most of this is just to have a general clarification of what most people think constitutes making a hand un-free.

The books never actually define exactly what a "free hand" is, and I would like it if someone could make a list of things that makes a hand not free.
Only things that appear in the core rulebook - and where in the rulebook it says that it makes your hand un-free;
I will start -> Holding a weapon. page 140 most of the way down the page "its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, two-handed)"

One of the things to note, and I am not sure if you did this, is that the touch attack (if you make one) during spell combat still gets it's free touch attack for casting the spell. Additionally, the touch attack does not get the -4 as the wording says that only weapon melee attacks made get -4. Finally, any touch spells that do not connect on the touch can still connect (assuming you hold charge) on attack with spellstrike.
this also allows you to cast a touch spell 1 turn, and if you cast it but miss with both the touch and attack, you can use spell combat next turn to hit first with an attack, and discharge the touch, then cast another spell, and if that spell is a touch then you can make a touch attack immediately as per the rules of touch attack spells.

People that are unable to comprehend anything deeper than saves and initiative are the primary reason I have had the fun of helping 9 DMs TPK using CR-2 encounters.
My hat is off to you, he who gives me imbeciles to laugh at.

I think there is a simple fix to spell combat actually: If you fail your concentration check you don't take the -4 to your attack. So if you want to attack and cast a spell make your Concentration check if it succeeds proceed as now (i.e. cast spell or attack) if you fail you lose the spell but you can still attack and not at the -4.

New Percentages:
13.65% both work
23.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
31.15% neither work

sorry, a little late but I would like to point something out..

edit->
yea you can page 185 "touch spells in combat"
"in the same round that you cast the spell you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action"

ahh another page discussing this:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/stealthAndObservation

You know whats fun:
Playing too many games like Magic, and other rules intensive games... and thus reading every-god-forsaken line of text in a ruling and then ripping it apart by the standards set in the game- thereby destroying the heart of the game and making it's rules be interpreted in ways never intended, yet easily bent so that they are.
Makes me warm and fuzzy on the inside.

A thread about a chicken thief comes to mind...

But the answers are right there in the quoted text. Starting with 'you need cover or concealment to use Stealth'. Which is the same as saying if you lack it for any reason, and someone looks at you they auto win.

it also says that you can make a stealth check whislt not observed, and the book has this to say about stealth vs perception, if the stealth has been made first:

tell me of these "autolose" conditions and I shall tell you of the skills perception and stealth

Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception
check of anyone who might notice you. You can move up
to half your normal speed and use Stealth at no penalty.
When moving at a speed greater than half but less than
your normal speed, you take a –5 penalty. It’s impossible
to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size
bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size
category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4,
Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.
If people are observing you using any of their senses
(but typically sight), you can’t use Stealth. Against most
creatures, f inding cover or concealment allows you to
use Stealth. If your observers are momentarily distracted
(such as by a Bluff check), you can attempt to use Stealth.
While the others turn their attention from you, you can
attempt a Stealth check if you can get to an unobserved
place of some kind. This check, however, is made at a –10
penalty because you have to move fast.
Sniping: If you’ve already successfully used Stealth at
least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged
attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take
a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your
obscured location.
Creating a Diversion to Hide: You can use Bluff to allow
you to use Stealth. A successful Bluff check can give you the
momentary diversion you need to attempt a Stealth check
while people are aware of you.
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth
check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate
action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged
attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on
Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on
Stealth checks if you’re moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a bonus on Stealth
checks (see Chapter 5).

so stealth vs perception...
perception:
Perception has a number of uses, the most
common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent’s
Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being
surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent
and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can
take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and
attacking you.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the
environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending
upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the
detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.

Perception Modifiers
Distance to the source, object, +1/10 feet
or creature
Through a closed door +5
Through a wall +10/foot of
thickness
Favorable conditions1 –2
Unfavorable conditions1 +2
Terrible conditions2 +5
Creature making the check is distracted +5
Creature making the check is asleep +10
Creature or object is invisible +20

ahem...
perception
Eyes of the Eagle
+5 perception
elixer of seeing
+10

stealth
elixer of stealth
+10
shadow armour
+5
Ring of Chameleon Power
+10
Cloak of the Bat
+5
Cloak of Elvenkind
+5
for the sake of argument
lets just use an elixer (250gp), cloak of elvenkind (2.6k) armour (4k) (10 k total) so 20% of wealth at lvl 10
+15 perception - (list of things that lower it)
+20 stealth

Google save or lose.

If you can't use the correct definition of the good spells, we have nothing to discuss.

why do you think I keep asking "which spells are we talking about?"

dusparr wrote:

Mistah Green wrote:

dusparr wrote:

On the topic of things auto dying to spells:

CR 10
Bebilith: outsider
Fort +15, Ref +11, Will +7
Rakshasa: outsider
Fort +9, Ref +12, Will +8
giant flytrap
Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +5
Immune mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, polymorph,
sleep, stun; Resist acid 20
clay golem:
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +4
DR 10/adamantine and bludgeoning; Immune construct
traits, magic
Immunity to Magic: stuff

Also; which spells are you using?

Bad Will save, bad Will and Fort save, really bad Will save, really bad all saves. If you were trying to make the point that not everything could be blown away by spells, you should have picked enemies that aren't spell bait.

bebelith: not killed by phantasmal killer, held at will by hold monster (your highest level spell), sorta stoped by charm monster

giant flytrap: immune to phantasmal killer, hold monster, charm monster, sleep, stun. -> tell me the spells you are using so I can tell you what the problem is...
clay golem: Immunity to Magic....
Rakshasa: a spell caster....

Read the Magic Immunity line again. Realize it makes no actual difference. Proceed to easily defeat silly 3-4 saves creature.

so umm immunity to magic says that if SR applies he is immune, and construct says:Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms,

so what kills him instantly?

dusparr wrote:

On the topic of things auto dying to spells:

CR 10
Bebilith: outsider
Fort +15, Ref +11, Will +7
Rakshasa: outsider
Fort +9, Ref +12, Will +8
giant flytrap
Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +5
Immune mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, polymorph,
sleep, stun; Resist acid 20
clay golem:
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +4
DR 10/adamantine and bludgeoning; Immune construct
traits, magic
Immunity to Magic: stuff

Also; which spells are you using?

Bad Will save, bad Will and Fort save, really bad Will save, really bad all saves. If you were trying to make the point that not everything could be blown away by spells, you should have picked enemies that aren't spell bait.

bebelith: not killed by phantasmal killer, held at will by hold monster (your highest level spell), sorta stoped by charm monster

blink:
While blinking, you can step through (but not see through)
solid objects. For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through,
there is a 50% chance that you become material. If this occurs, you
are shunted off to the nearest open space and take 1d6 points of
damage per 5 feet so traveled.

ummm 10ft walls aren't hard to come by anywhere save towns.

Force effects and abjurations affect you normally. Their effects
extend onto the Ethereal Plane from the Material Plane, but not
vice versa.

I see some stuff to do to blinkers

An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal,
incorporeal:Even when hit by spells or magic weapons,
it takes only half damage from a corporeal source.
Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect
incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do
not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting
an incorporeal creature.
An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid
objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior,
and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space
is larger than its own.
a la the bestiary: a wall greater then 10ft stops you immediately as you cannot be adjacent to a side after 10ft of movement

On the topic of things auto dying to spells:
CR 10
Bebilith: outsider
Fort +15, Ref +11, Will +7
Rakshasa: outsider
Fort +9, Ref +12, Will +8
giant flytrap
Fort +17, Ref +8, Will +5
Immune mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, polymorph,
sleep, stun; Resist acid 20
clay golem:
Fort +4, Ref +3, Will +4
DR 10/adamantine and bludgeoning; Immune construct
traits, magic
Immunity to Magic: stuff

Also; which spells are you using?

dusparr wrote:

As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job.

Speed of combat resolution, IRL, is a function of skill/power, not of parity of sides. Two untrained slobs can slug at each other all day and not have a clear winner. Two world-class operatives with lifelong Krav Maga or Hapkido immersion, surprising each other in an alley, will result in one dead person inside of a few seconds.

And 4 people vs 4+ people ends in 6 seconds... When? (Aside from the mexican standoff, that is not a "challenging" encounter, but a roleplay)

I suppose I forgot an important part of my question. The DM Claims to be making up his own encounters to create a major challenge to counter act the groups power. But it is not just me that is overpowered. Our wizard just got a staff in our off session RP that makes a staff of the Magi look like a tooth pick.

Everyone in the group is just as powerful. There are 6 of us. The only reason one person has died was because he stepped on a 40 d6 trap.

The DM's creation of BBEG's and Monsters have been a joke.Myself and another player have brought it up to our DM that we are way to strong.

On the Role playing aspect, it would seem that I am one of the few people who "Role Play" or ask questions before killing. All my "Role playing" has got me has been "Shut up and go with it."

hack and slash has been an understatement of the game.

I don't want to hurt the DM's feelings but overpowered walks on imaginative beaches aren't why I play the game. >_<

I hate to ask this but do you like how the game plays?

If you really don't like how the game is going (hack-n-slash) bring it up with the DM...

If that doesn't work...

Well you need to decide if the game is right for you, if not then you may need to find a new game. Or perhaps DM your own?

I would just tell him the next time you see him that you believe that you are way too powerful, if he does not believe you, get one (or two) of the other players together and discuss whether they believe that you are very powerful. If they agree then have them help you convince the DM.

If, in the end, he decides that you are not too powerful, then find a roleplaying reason to not use all of your resources all the time.

Who knows, the DM may be making you super-powerful so that the party CAN trudge through 10-20 encounters a day by making you the bastion of the party.

And by round 2 the fight is either over or half over. At this point it no longer matters, and you've cut your already barely relevant DPS by at least half trying. More, if you got full attacked and died.

As a DM: If my party can finish any encounter that was designed specifically to challenge them in 1-3 rounds, I have not done my job.

As as player: If my DM has made an encounter that was designed to challenge us but we killed it in 1-2 rounds, either we are way overpowered or he totally misjudged our power.

all of this is moot when talking about non-challenging encounters, and when nat-20s show up.

thus far as a DM; 2 different parties, levels 1-15 on first and 1-5 thus far on the second, I have not had a battle that was meant to challenge them last less than 5 rounds, and that was at level 4 against a goblin king (4 rounds).

A Man In Black wrote:

The magus is squishy.

I wonder if there should be a way to make him cast in combat (I mean, while attacking) not only offensive spells but defensive buffs too..

This, and arcana should be more frequent.

"As a fullround

The magus is all about one particular weapon, and how has he mastered that technique? Through study (ie, the flavor text of the class). Fighters are good at hitting things in general, while the magus is so/so because the fighter learned by hitting and swinging in the field of battle while the magus took long hours to figure out exactly the precise angles and motions to make his blade effective.

"...and there are those who spend their time perfecting the use of one weapon, becoming a master without equal..."

"...learning the fighting techniques of exotic masters, and studying the art of combat..."
from the description of the fighter...

I think you misunderstood the flavor of the classes, as both the fighter and magus are of the same in the weapon regard as it seems to me that the only difference on the "use of weapon" is that the Magus chooses a weapon, and the fighter chooses a type of weapon, how one of them learns how to fight is very much the same - either through battle, or through study - It makes no difference to either how they learned.

In my playtests we came up with a few Arcanas:

Necromantic proficiency:
add chill touch, ghoul touch, vampiric touch, contagion, waves of fatigue, eyebite. to the magus spell list. the DC for these spells increases by 1.

Necromantic Mastery:
3+int times per day the magus is allowed to cast Vampiric touch when he hits an enemy with his weapon as a swift action, this does not use up a spell slot. Additionally, the 1st time per day that the magus goes below 0 hit points he may cast Vampiric touch on each enemy within touch range. This uses up 2 spell slots equal to his highest available level. He must have Spell Focus(necromancy) to get this Arcana; The magus must be level 12 to chose this arcana, and may not chose or have chosen any of the following: Abjurant Champion, Master Medic, Grand Illusionist, or One with his Weapon.

Abjurant proficiency:
add Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Resist Energy, Protection from Energy, Globe of Invulnerability Lesser, Dismissal, Globe of Invulnerability. These spells are cast at +2 caster level;

Abjurant Champion:
At the begining of each round pick an energy type, you Take 10 damage less from that energy type. Once per day, you may cast as a swift action, a spell that acts like Resist energy(acid, sonic, fire, cold, electricity) and Globe of invulnerability, lesser. This spells lasts for 3+int rounds. He must have Spell Focus(Abjuration) to get this Arcana; The magus must be level 12 to chose this arcana, and may not chose or have chosen any of the following: Necromantic Mastery, Master Medic, Grand Illusionist, or One with his Weapon.

Combat Medic:
add cure (1st level -> 6th level versions ( mass not heal for 6th)) to the magus spell list: he may cast these on himself 3 times per day as swift actions.

Master Medic:
2/day the magus may cast heal as a swift action. When he casts heal he may cast Lesser Restoration on himself. He must have Spell Focus(Conjuration) to get this Arcana; The magus must be level 12 to chose this arcana, and may not chose or have chosen any of the following: Necromantic Mastery, Abjurant Champion, Grand Illusionist, or One with his Weapon.

Illusionary Apprentice:
add Illusion spells (I don't remember which) to the magus spell list: these spells have +1 to the save dc.

Grand Illusionist:
3+int per day the magus may cast invisibility as a swift action, these uses do not use spell slots: additionally his Illusion spells last 50% longer, this does stack with extend spell; He must have Spell Focus(Illusion) to get this Arcana; The magus must be level 12 to chose this arcana, and may not chose or have chosen any of the following: Necromantic Mastery, Abjurant Champion, Master Medic, or One with his Weapon.

One with his Weapon:
The Magus is considered to have the following feats with his weapon: Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization; he is also considered to be a fighter 4 levels higher than normal, this may not allow his "fighter level" to be greator than his hit dice; if his Weapon is a light weapon he is also considered to have Weapon Finesse while using that weapon and may use this to qualify for other feats, but they only apply while he is using that weapon; He must have Weapon Focus and Dazzling Display feats with his weapon of choice. The magus must be level 12 to chose this arcana, and may not chose or have chosen any of the following: Necromantic Mastery, Abjurant Champion, Master Medic, or Gran Illusionist.

All of the +1 DCs stack with spell focus;

we also toyed with making some that require level 18 and the one below it... but we were only doing a play test of levels 4(good enough), 6(better), 8 (yay), 11 (really good), and 14(hells yes)

i got bored and made a damage comparison between 1 hand 2 handed, two weapon (2 attacks) and 1 handed and spell
yes algebra and substitution are required to use this, i think i got the math right (or at least close based on some assumptions)

dmg compares
wd = weapon damage
p = power attack penalty (always positive)
m - magic
WF = weapon focus
WS = weapon specilization
BAB = base attack bonus
STR = STR bonus
dex = dex bonus
cl = caster level
cc = combat casting bonus
ab = abilities
AC = ac of enemy to hit
for the purposes of dmg calculation all weapons do same damage, all two weapon fighting weapons are light and using weapon finesse and caster level and spells are magus and spell level = ~ 1/2 * CL for 7 and under
number of attacks * % * dmg per hit = dmg

for convinence on my part i will be using caps lock from here on.
2-Handed weapon:
WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 2-HANDED =
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)

1 HANDED:
WD + P + M + WS + STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 1-HANDED =
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR)

2 WEAPON FIGHTING:
WD + P + M + WS + 1/2 * STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 2-WEAPON =
2*((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + P + M + WS +1/2 * STR)
OR
((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(2 * WD + 2 * P + 2 * M + 2 * WS + STR)

SPELLS:
DMG = SPELL DMG (DEPENDS ON SPELL)
DC = 15 + 2 * N = 15 + 2 * 1 / 2 * CL = 15 + CL
CHECK = 1D20 + INT + CL + CC + AB
CHANCE = 100% - ((DC - CHECK) * 5%)
FOR HIGHEST LEVEL SPELLS;
CHANCE = 100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%)

1 HANDED VS 2 HANDED
((X + STR / AC) * (.5 * P + .5 * STR)

2 WEAPON VS 2 HANDED
X * ( H - 1.5 * STR - .5 P )+ (STR /AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR) + (DEX /AC) * (H - STR)

1 HANDED AND SPELL VS 1 HANDED
-20% H + CS * SPELL

1 HANDED AND SPELL VS 2 HANDED
-20% * H + CS * SPELL - (1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (.5 P + .5 STR)

Yes i agree that it is a gamble to use at low levels, I belive that the ability to use magic and attack should be a gamble that should be only 50->70% doable at any level due to the fact that it does give you an extra standard action

A halfling rogue (22 DEX, 12STR) with TWF, Weapon Finesse (talent) and Exotic weapon: sawtooth sabre.

The rogue has a pair of +1 sabres that normally attacks at +9/+9(3BAB 6DEX 1Size 1weapon -2TWF) for 1d6+2+2d6. Against AC 18 the rogue has a 60% chance to hit for 12.5 each time, or 15 expected damage.

A human fighter (22STR) with Power attack, WF/WS greatsword. The fighter has a +1 greatsword that normally attacks at +10 (4BAB 6STR 1Weapon 1Feat -2PA) for 2d6+18. Against AC 18 the fighter has a 65% chance to hit for 25 avg dam or 16.25 expected damage.

And this is reasonably a good place for the magus at low levels as it's when he just gets arcane weapon, hasn't lost a 2nd BAB, and has 2nd level spells now. At a -2 to hit rather than -4 the magus moves up to around the rogue's level of damage (before he picks up his next sneak die).

-James

max lvl 1 dex 20 (18 +2 halfling)

also BULL's STRENGTH magus has it guys his STR or DEX or CON should be 4 higher.

also damage from str rounded down from 1 to zero due to light weapons (sabre not in PHB so assuming light if not penaltys are -4, -4).
2 sabres at level 4 do 1d6 each i assume so 2d6 + 2 (magic)
gotta go to class be back in 3 hours

dusparr wrote:

so why should a guy in melee combat be good at casting in combat without combat casting

He should not be good at it, I will give you that, but he should at least be able. He should be able to perform adequately from the beginning; the feat should give him the ability to actually be good at it. But the Magus, it could be argued, is not even adequate at using Spell Combat before the 8th level (when he gets the Improved version) without the Combat Casting feat. But, from 8th level and on, he is fine and dandy and the Combat...

Do i need to point back to my first post yesterday which points out that a conservative magus IS able to cast all of his spells WHILE in combat at level 4 and up with combat casting?

The assertion that Combat Casting for the Magus to use Spell Combat effectively is not a feat tax because TWF is a not feat tax because everyone needs it to perform a specific type of combat effectively is the epitome of absurd. It's like saying "I need Power Attack to Power Attack! It's a feat tax!"

I disagree, as one does not need to take power attack to do what it does which is "hit harder" one only needs to increase their STR. but as it should be pointed out, at early levels it is easier to "hit harder" by taking power attack, rather than increasing one's STR. And power attack has a penalty with it, it is harder to hit with, whilst combat casting has no penalties and you can still do the same thing as combat casting by increasing your caster level, the feat itself is unnecessary to cast in combat it only makes you better.

Alot of barbarians will however say that they can do other things aside from swing every round (any combat manuver, intimidating glare, etc) and thus don't require power attack.

Alot of magus will however say that that they can do other things aside from cast every round (magus arcana, combat manuver, etc) and thus don't require combat casting.