Yes, I’m talking about fighter, who is supposed to be able to hit stuff reliably. Yet the fighter archetype doesn’t increase your ability to hit reliably.
Search Posts
I never claimed you should have everything that both classes get in full. I’m saying that 20 levels of feat investment should have more of an impact. It also strikes me as odd that multiclassing into fighter never makes me any better with my weapons. It just gives me access to more weapons. A fighter/wizard can eventually increase their spell proficiency to master. A wizard/fighter can never increase their weapon proficiency beyond that provided by the base class. The discrepancy between the two is my problem.
If I start wizard, and archetype into fighter, and spend every single feat on fighter feats, I will never be as good with a weapon as someone who started as a fighter and spent every single feat on other archetypes. Feat investment should matter more than a 1st level choice.
ps - as reprehensible as he may seem on paper, somehow, Raknor (yes, the murdering rapist) is the most lovable character in the group BY A MILE. how? roleplaying genius. best.
yes, i suppose i did mean "bleaching." i was typing from memory. i'd say the two are fairly synonymous with one another from a conceptual standpoint, but you are most certainly correct in terms of logistical accuracy (ya, i'm that guy). also, and i don't say this lightly (been playing for roughly 24 years (started at about 8, now 32), this is one of the most interesting games i've ever played in. today's session is, hands down, one of the most memorable i've experienced to date. /tipshattodar
pps - great game thus far. one of the best i've played in to date. i love my group. >.< <3
several things: 1) i stayed away from this post, per DM's request (initially). i've only looked at this now that he's told us it was ok to do so. i (was) am the original witch. he actually had a very (relatively?) high (16) con, but died to a bear trap at fairly low levels (nothing he was designed to do worked [dice rolls are a b%%~*] so i "suicided" by taking a face plant into a bear trap) and came back as a fey sorcerer. the witch had an abysmal str (6), but a good con (16), as all the beatings he took over the year toughened him up. 2) the sorceress's name is stix. get it straight! 3) the group dynamic is one of the most interesting i've ever played in. i don't know that i would classify my (gnome) sorcereress as evil, but i can see how someone else might. her primary concern is alleviating her boredom (so as to avoid the paling), so all she really cares about is new experiences, regardless of how morally reprehensible they may be (she's a hedonist to the core, and anything that could be deemed entertaining is fair game). she has no desire to cause pain to anyone, but if they die in an entertaining fashion, she's all for it (s!+!'s and giggles, and all that). basically, if she laughs in the process, why not?
The MAIN reason in my experience that immediate action spells are annoying is merely that they interrupt the flow of the game. They're designed to do so. It's like putting rules in the game that encourage you to interrupt other players in the middle of talking. It's kinda annoying. and yet you give melee characters immediate action feats. apply the rule accross the board or not at all. because you know what else is annoying? hypocrisy.
Quicken doesn't provide that mechanism, nor does the passage say that it does. It says that there is already a mechanism for casting two spells in one round. That is true. i know quicken doesn't provide for the mechanic. that was the point. =/ their choice of wording was poor, to say the least. in the first part of the sentence, they included immediate actions as a means of casting two spells in one round, and then referenced quicken spell, which in no way provides for the immediate action mechanic. their words, not mine.
That's what those immediate spells should be about: Emergency defences. They're for spellcasters who didn't have the foresight to prepare properly, so they'll have to blow their slots on short-term emergency magic to tide them over a little bit. Shouldn't be even nearly as good as the normal magic, since preparation should be rewarded. this sums up my thoughts on the matter.
combat. as in being in a fight. do you preemtively set your arm at a particular angle and hope that it deflects any incoming punch? or do you react to your opponent's attack to protect yourself from harm? ever heard of a parry? long term buffs are your plate mail; immediate action buffs should be the parry. i was speaking conceptually; i should have been less vague. imo, better advice would have been "if you're going to allow an immediate action spell, make sure it is defensive in nature, and that it has a duration of instantaneous or 1 round." i would touch on the immediate action melee feats, but several have already been mentioned above, and i see no point in reiteration. same goes for the paladin "haha, i really needed another way to be unkillable" spell and the 6th level swift action cone of cold. if you're going to hand down patronizing advice, at least have the decency to follow it.
ultimate magic, pg 132 - "avoid the temptation to invent spells with a casting time of '1 move action,' '1 swift action,' or '1 immediate action,' as that's just a cheesy way for spell casters to be able to cast two spells in a round, and there's already a mechanism for that: the Quicken Spell feat." i can agree on the move action. swift action, maybe (though if someone wants to spend the time and resources to design a single spell with that functionality rather than pick up quicken spell, i don't see a problem with that, especially if it's a spontaneous caster who's losing a spell known slot as a result). but immediate actions? how is that cheesy? immediate action defensive spells add fluidity to combat, and provide an alternative to long duration defensive buffs. also, how does Quicken Spell in ANY way provide a mechanism that allows for immediate actions? pretentious, inaccurate wording aside, this is just bad design advice. physical based characters have several options for immediate actions. casters should be no different. throwing up a defense in a response to an attack isn't cheesy, it's a classic part of combat.
you can empower wall of fire as well, the results of which last the duration of the spell. granted, the damage at range won't be as much, but the damage for passing through is quite a bit more. as for the subsequent concentration checks, the DC to avoid spell loss to a DoT is trivial. as written, it's a terrible feat. situationally useful, sure, but nowhere near worth the +2. hell, given how infrequently it would be worth using, it most certainly is NOT worth the feat slot.
how on earth is this worth a +2 increase? are you honestly trying to place it on even terms with empower? most you're going to get out of it is an extra 14 points of damage, (18 with a meta magic rod and a 9th level spell) and it only works on fire and acid spells. even at +1 it would be awful. given the limited scope and miniscule effect, i'd be hesitant to take it as a +0. even then, the only way i'd consider it is if it was for flavor reasons (i.e. fire sorc).
seriously. the existing ones are terrible. here's hoping the new book gives me something caster related that's worth taking, rather than catering almost exclusively to melee.
when the playtests were first released, the summoner was the class i was the most excited about. now i wouldn't play one if you paid me. they butchered the class. maybe it's just me, but if i'm going to play a caster, i want a caster, not some gimped out half caster with a gimmick class feature. the 3/4 bab is nearly worthless for this class given that a) you don't have enough spells that require an attack roll for it to matter, and b) you don't get a single class feature that supports using a weapon. give me half bab and better casting (or, better yet, enough with the blatant favoritism shown to divine casters over arcane). what really baffles me is this: if it was the eidilon that was breaking the class, why not tone that back instead of nerfing the summoner's ability to summon? burly "free" (obviously it's not really free, since it costs you just about everything) cohort aside, they're by far the worst summoner in the game. as for the "they take up too much time at the table" argument, stupid players are not a good reason to nerf a class. come prepared with stat sheets for commonly summoned monsters. people who use a lot of polymorph spells should be doing the same thing (having their augmented stats all plotted out ahead of time), and enchanters need to keep detailed notes on their charmed menagerie. edit: also, the shared magic item pool is just a slap in the face. when initial play testing showed that the original incarnation of the summoner was completely broken, they should have started over from scratch rather than trying to cobble it back together with duct tape and super glue.
short and to the point, and i couldn't agree more.
^ this casters are boned by multiclassing as is, and something to address that is very much needed.
...(how the heck is I supposed to "cast" that anyway? Just uncork it?)... pour it on them while they sleep so that they think they had an accident?
...To the sake of brevity in my response.../cast walloftext i lol'd
Having 2 targets instead of 1 just means the damage is being spread out more, not that there is more damage. yes and no. in terms of single target attacks, certainly, but not when it comes to AoE. |