weathermancer's page

14 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


The archetype mixing thing seems to require a good deal of homework so I won't be bothering with it, but for returning to the original class it's good to know that's fine.

Thanks everyone for your help.

Is that allowed?

That is, could you take a fighter, multi-class into something else for a few levels, then return to taking fighter levels again? I'm aware from previous forums it seems mixing archetypes this way is banned, but if resuming with the same archetype as originally is it ok?

Cavall wrote:


Just keep that weapon around so that you can use the feat. Lacking access to a death shuts off things that branch off from it. I doubt it will be an issue given weapon choices.

I'm ok with the downside. If the DM takes away my dueling sword I'm severely nerfed anyways.

Is this you interpretation, or do you know if pathfinder material refers to this "benefit of a feat" language/implications somewhere?

P.S I am aware that I can easily request a home-rule, but it gives me some satisfaction to know if what I'm doing is "officially" legit. I guess that makes me a bit of a lawyer.

From the duelist class description:

"At 4th level, a duelist gains the benefit of the Combat Reflexes feat when using a light or one-handed piercing weapon."

The question is, can I use this to get feats that require 'combat reflexes' as a prerequisite, e.g 'stand still', 'bodyguard'?

Errant Inlad wrote:

Would you be able to post his build so we can do an audit? He's doing A LOT of damage per round, and I can't help but think he must have made a mistake while building his monk. Or perhaps the macro he built for his phone is faulty.

If his build is kosher, then my next suggestion is to buff the other players. Offer them a free rebuild in order to match his optimization. Ask the monk player to help them optimize their builds! He seems fairly good at it. If they're not interested, then they may need to accept that he built his character better.

Finally, and as others have said, have an out of game conversation with him. If his level of optimization is making him a killjoy, kindly and politely point it out in a non accusatory way. Ask him to help you out by lowering the power of his characters.

That's an interesting, creative idea. Might also be a fun activity if experience level is much less for some of the players.

With that said, unlike the general consensus here, I also am totally ok with the idea of DM involuntary character nerfing to fix the issue. My guess is, if someone is capable of creating a build like this, they know how to bring it down enough to a decently-optimized-but-not-broken level. The DM could even refer them to that "bench pressing" spreadsheet I keep seeing online & say "whatever it is, you have to keep EDV/round below the blue numbers" or something like that. The "reward" of d&d should be the reward of succeeding through a combo of good roleplaying/emotional-intelligence/battle-tactics etc, not auto-winning encounters with a broken character. If the latter reason is the player's main motivation, why play d&d when there's Friday night magic? If not, then they're probably just as bored as everybody else & would be willing to modify the character.

Understood, apologies for thread necromancy.

There's a fine line between when fun metagaming becomes endless strategizing or micromanaging. That IS a different topic and a different thread, and I'll readily admit I don't have a good answer for it. I've been in campaigns where I provided some 'tactical assistance' to greener players [as a fighter PC in that case] and others where I solicited advice from more experienced players and then started resenting it (yes, I know that's stupid).

I did get a chance to read more of Treantmonk's posts on the subject in this thread, and it sounds like his defining experience that led to the guides was one in which he played a controller and was intentionally subtle about it. Which is interesting, and I could see how that could work well character-wise as a wizard. For my sorcerers I prefer a bit more flashiness and deliberately impressive spells...which I know is a bit of a cliche, but there it is.

Dasrak wrote:
weathermancer wrote:
Basically, I want to shoot lightning bolts out of the bard's favorite musical instrument [using the other stuff permitted by the 'magician' alternate type].
Probably the best way to do this is the Spellsong feat. I don't think think there's any way to make your instrument a bonded item, and it's a rather severe downside to have such a bulky bonded object anyways so I wouldn't advise it even if it were possible.

Interesting feat. I am more than willing to accept downsides, this character is somewhat deliberately absurd.

Though I do realize that the tuned bowstring is very cool.

Treantmonk wrote:
stringburka wrote:

Of course I do. But "damage reduction 20/non-fire" (aka fire resistance) can be solved via any of the ways to deal some other kind of blasting spell.

Good, then we're on the same page.


That's a bit like saying that you can't bypass DR/cold iron if you're using a non-cold iron weapon. Yes, it's true, but that's why you don't use it in those circumstances.

That's true.

There is immunity to certain types of physical damage.

That doesn't really address the point I made regarding resistances to energy being higher on average.

I would also point out that there are 4 types of energy, and immunities to one of them aren't that rare.

Again, look at outsiders.

That said, attack roll is usually better than save.


I do however see evasion (and certainly improved evasion!) as fringe cases in style with ethereality.

What about SR? Do you consider that "fringe" too?

My point was that at levels 4-10, they perform viably but not more - like a TWF barbarian or whatever odd build's out there. Levels 10+, like ravingdork has proven, they become good builds right up with standard ones like a decently optimized sword and board fighter

Perhaps for damage potential in a limited scope. Not round for round over an adventuring day. Also, not defensively.

No. Killing 90% of the enemy force IS better than hindering their movement for a turn or two without killing a single one.

Even if you bunch them exactly as a blast, with no spaces, you STILL aren't killing 90%

Also, Sleet storm isn't just slowing them down, it's removing their ability to coordinate (no visibility) and giving them different movement speeds. That will stagger their approach.

Since the rest of the party could probably defeat 10 goblins without a expending resources, it doesn't really matter if it is one group of 10, or 5 staggered groups of 10, the end result is the same.


I am aware I'm reviving a dead thread to some extent, but...

Treantmonk, when you do encounter combats, do you metagame-the-hell-out-of-them and dictate where and when the rest of the party will stand and act so it all fits into your control plan? Or do they make some of their own decisions? Yes I know you've said your guide is hyperbolic, but what I see in all of this is a distinctly possible systematic issue of tending towards that with so much focus on area-control. When you play with tactically-minded martial characters and/or other casters, can this be an issue (e.g fighters w/ high int, cavaliers, bards, etc)?

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

It was a lot easier to make a good blaster in 3E. PF nerfed Energy Substitution (which NO ONE thought was broken) to cost +1 spell level in its PF update. As of now, there still is nothing like Searing Spell to simply cut through resistances and most immunities like a hot knife through butter. There are no prestige classes like Force Missile Mage to make certain types of blast spells do more damage, either.

The other side of the coin is just how ridiculously non-blasters have been buffed. Look at Persistent Spell and Bouncing Spell. Why did save or lose spells need the help? Look at the Teleportation Conjuror school or the divination ones. It seems like blasters are the only types of casters PF DIDN'T buff up.

If I were to make a blaster in PF, I would probably base it around the Dazing Spell metamagic feat. It wouldn't be about doing damage, it'd be about debilitating lots of foes with reflex saves, with the fact that the spells used are "blasty" merely seeming like a coincidence in the end.

In 3E, blasters could be easily broken by experienced players. You could do sorcerer-->incantatrix, get rapid metamagic and some other crap, and end up at ~1000/round damage. I played a deliberately nerfed version of one of these mailman-like builds once.

You can't do that in pathfinder, but the general principle is similar: gearing the build to stack damage and/or save DCs over the course of it (persistent spell can be good for blasts), and doing most blasting by metamagic-ing the hell out of mid level blast spells. Dazing spell is helpful but optional. Personally I find it a bit flavorless and unconvincing (rime spell seems a more convincing & flavorful option for combining a control aspect in blasts).

Regarding save-or-suck, I honestly suspect that while also very viable, it's actually the most difficult one to do correctly. Upping DCs is probably even more critical than for blasters.

My sense from the controller-favoring folks so far is that they prefer to stick to control stuff that doesn't give the opponent any save and buffing/debuffing. They say that makes you a god, but to me it seems like being a less-interesting cleric. It takes the magic out of it, pun intended. In all honesty, I'm sure the people who write these guides can get plenty of flavor out of that kind of build. But it's not what I signed up for, and I think they should be honest with themselves and admit that clearly a lot of other players share that view: they're playing full-caster classes so that they can blow stuff up or mind-control people or read their minds or turn enemies into stone/frogs. My advice to guide-writers is to stop trying to railroad players away from fully-viable builds with undeniable fantasy appeal. If the builds for those are different enough to require a different guide, say "refer to so-and-so's guide to blasters" instead of just claiming that they suck.

Clarify: weapons aren't allowed as bonded objects for the magician variant.

In this case I'm looking at the magician, not the 'arcane duelist' variant. Weapons aren't allowed for magicians. And I'm leaning pretty strongly towards the magician for the general character concept in mind.

Gun Dragon wrote:
Why are blaster spellcasters are not rated well on the player guides? I want to play one, but this is keeping me from making one. Is there any good blaster caster classes/builds?

Because the paizo forums are filled with overzealous system-'masters' who want you to avoid a good character concept so that they can feel smart.

Ignore them. They're not rescuing you from anything awful, which is why I don't get why these folks always pop out of the woodwork, even on threads that are specifically devoted to blaster builds and NOT to discussing the *merits* of a blaster. Again, there's no good reason for these folks always showing up to chide against a blaster build. Yes, like it's 3rd edition ancestry, pathfinder surely has some attractive-appearing concepts that suck in reality. The blaster isn't one of them.

The guides stay away from blasting for the more legitimate reason that doing an optimized blaster is different enough (in terms of feat color-coding, etc) from a 'generic' wizard/sorcerer that it would really need an entirely different guide.

On to some general build ideas. There are both "long game" and "short game" ways to do blasting. For the long "game builds" (e.g spell perfection), some general principles are:

-Find a way to steadily stack save DCs and/or damage over the course of the build. The most common posts I've seen focus on damage in the bloodlines. I suspect that similar effectiveness could be achieved combining bloodlines for high save DC & 'persistent spell' feat (e.g stormborn/arcane crossblooded- less overall damage, but adds to DC w/ max DC in an energy type that less stuff is resistant to).

-Most of the best blasts are level 3-6 spells. The blaster builds are about metamagic-ing the hell out of mid-level spells. If doing a sorcerer, avoid the tempting first-level blasts that max out at 5dX and require getting really close to the target. When doing a blaster build the color coding in Treantmonk's guide for magic feats is essentially turned on its head. Empower is now very good. Quicken is still good. Spell focus is essential.

-Versatility in some way. It's not all about fireballs. Have more than one energy type. Mix area-of-effects with more focus-able ones (e.g fire snake, chain lightning). Include some control, or at least something to keep yourself out of harms way (e.g flying, teleporting). "1001 spells" is also a nice source for blast versatility.

I am currently considering playing a 'magician' bard. Seems like an interesting alternate class type, w/ the arcane bond feature added. I saw recent discussions of people asking essentially the same question for a kind of "El Kabong" arcane duelist bard, and I'm wondering that same thing: Is incorporation of one of the wizard-permitted bonded items (e.g wand/staff/ring) into a musical instrument permitted? E.g Can a flute also be a wand, or can the 'bonded item' wand be inside the bow of a violin or the legs of a piano? Basically, I want to shoot lightning bolts out of the bard's favorite musical instrument [using the other stuff permitted by the 'magician' alternate type]. Is this allowed?