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.
Errant Inlad wrote:
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.
Interesting feat. I am more than willing to accept downsides, this character is somewhat deliberately absurd.
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)?
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.
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?