tbuczek's page

Greater Spell Immunity allows you to pick up to 1 spell for every 4 levels and you are immune to that spell.

How would this in conjunction with spells that affect magic work.

For instance

Lets say I am a level 20 cleric, and I cast Greater Spell Immunity.
If I pick Anti-Magic Shield as the Spell I am immune to, which effect wins out?

Spell Immunity? Or Anti-Magic Field.

Our level 6 Alchemist regularly dishes out 50-70 damage points in a round.

Sound high?

Well of course! We're using a 25-point buy, bonus Ability point every even level, free psionics... blah blah blah.

My point being, that damage itself is just numbers. We need a description of how characters are built and leveled to give you much more detailed advice.

We use a base stat system of 16,14,14,12,12,10. Core Rules from there with some prestige classes. But the main Damage dealers have drastically different set ups. 1 Is a Duel Wield Finesse/crit fighter, 1 is a 2 handed Great Axe Barbarian, 1 is a Ranger/Archer and the Other is a Fighter/Pally Sword and Board Style class. Most are core rules class setups.

The point is all of them deal a tremendous amount of damage. My concern was I was allowing them to get away with something, but it appears PF is designed with allowing 100+ damage as a full round action at these levels.

Also, I am correct in assuming Wizards/Sorcerers are supposed to be less than effective at single target damage correct?

Thank you all. Your replies helped. I had a very long reply typed out going over the issues and mistakes I ran into, but my browser crashed and I don't feel like typing it all out again so I will just summarize.

As a DM, I am not used to Pathfinder and was running it like a 3e. These changes to the rule set were obviously intentional and as a number of you pointed out easily circumvented by preventing full attack actions or avoiding simple Single Boss style fights. It looks like i just need to adjust my DM'ing style to suit the game system. Not ask why the game system doesn't suit my DM style ;).

[incidentally, we never upgraded to 3.5... ironically it was cause I thought the power curve shot up to much. We have been playing 3e since it came out (2nd before that))

Okay so my group is average level 12 and it seems the damage they do is insane. Magic Item wise, they are about 40% where the Rules say they should be so they are not that overpowered.

I have 3 players that push over 100 damage a round if Hasted. About 70 if they arent.

It really sunk in last night, when they were facing a creature with over 350 hit points, AC 36, Spell Resist through the roof, DR10/-. It was a big stupid boss type tank boss creature and it took them two round to drop it.

I can create challenging encounters, but they have to avoid combat mechanics as a factor, otherwise I need to scale the monsters hit points into the thousands... or just kill off PCs left and right. Additionally, I can make my NPCs all have tons of Physical Reduction, but that is kind of a cheap, and it screws over the non-min/maxed characters in the group.

So my question is this, does anyone else feel the Melee/Ranged combat PF damage rules really start to break down around level 10+?

Just one example, when Raging the Fighter Barb hits Thrice a round for 1d12+24. Throw in Haste... even assuming he misses once, that is 99 Damage a round.

Also, one of my guys managed to get his AC close to 36 with core rules. (His actually AC is 40, but he is a bladesinger, and that isn't a core class so I stripped that out).

It just seems to me the rules were built for reasonable gamers.. but they didn't take into account Min/Max'rs.

Does anyone else run into this issue?