North Star's page

I think most players end up with more than their default 2 per lvl spells as a wizard, that comes from gm "fiat"

a lvl 20 sorcerer knows 34 spells (not including cantrips)

A wizard at lvl 1 with 20 int, and then at lvl 20 without scribing extra will know 46 spells.

If these 12 spells really make the difference you need to stop playing wizards and just go with a sorcerer.

Or considering the spells known difference, you can go sorcerer and continue to get your spells known and be "on par" with those wizards that didn't get one for free for 6 or so levels. or you'll be ahead if not otherwise.

If your GM isn't accommodating to the whole culture that a wizard requires, you need to just not play a wizard. the issue of prestige classes not giving a wizard spells is not the issue in this scenario EVER. It's the GM. And even in a world of pure wizards without prestige classes, the versatility of your spell book is compromised by not being able to scribe scrolls, so why play one?

If it's "I want to play a wizard" despite my GM not wanting wizards to be played how they should... give up on it.

Regardless of GM attitudes, a wizard player in anything resembling a traditional campaign (like anything Paizo publishes, for example) pretty much has a right to expect to find some scrolls, a musty spellbook lost in a dungeon or another wizard or organization willing to sell or trade spells, Just like someone playing a fighter with weapon specialization (glaive) expects to somehow get a +1 glaive at some point, despite the fact that nothing about his class actually guarantees this or even really suggests that he should expect this. after all, a mundane glaive still grants the bonus from his feats so he should just be happy with this or play a different class right?

It's okay for there to be exceptions, but only as as long as everyone is on the same page from the start IMO, and this sort of game should really be an exception, rather than the rule.

I think it would be nice if evokers got the full +1 per die to all targets from their school power, instead of the half level on one target. Would that really be so crazy?

No it wouldn't be crazy. it wouldn't even be enough in my opinion, but it would be a start. What's crazy is that is that fireball still deals the same damage it did in second edition D&D, while hit points have massively inflated. Yet designers don't feel the need to correct this.

Fireball (for example) should be a second level spell at most as it stands in Pathfinder, and even then it's probably less useful than invisibility.

Since a second level of wizard improves your BAB to +1, you're just as well off going for that than a level of... something else, in that regard. I would go ranger for level 3 if you still don't have your book by that point though. It would kinda suck to throw off your spellcasting progression for the whole campaign if it turns out that get your stuff back soon.

North Star wrote:

I personally have fun minmaxing and it bothers me when poorly designed corner case concepts like the orc bloodline are so mechanically superior that I feel silly for not using them. Hence, this thread.

OK, I hope you feel happy now you have shared your feelings with the rest of us.

In my case, playing a cross-blooded Orc/Dragon (say) Sorcerer 1 / Evoker 19 would make me feel silly. Fortunately I've never played in a gaming group where my not doing so would have created an issue for other people.

I would feel silly too, that's why I resent it. I also feel silly for making PCs that are not as effective as they could be at their chosen role.

Rynjin wrote:

Optimal FOR BLASTING being the key words.

I think a stacking increase to save DC is better, or the ability to swap the energy type for free, is arguably better for blasting than a couple more points of base damage. Getting around those nasty resistances and saving throws increases the chance that damage actually happens.

Okay, yeah, +1/die is good, but it's not the undisputed be-all and end-all, even for blaster builds. Plus the other bloodline abilities (strength, for example) don't do anything for a blaster build.

Uh, you can swap the energy type, you go crossblooded sorcerer 1/admixture evoker 19. and it's +2 per level (crossblooded, remember?), plus the damage bonus from evoker. Where are you getting the scaling bonus to DC from? arcane bloodline? Because that doesn't kick in until fairly late.

I'm still waiting for the OP to invoke Bill of Rights and cite the Supreme Court.

Actually I got what I wanted to say out of my system for now. I got pissed off because this wasn't the first time I've had a beef with the Mods on this site. I didn't say anything that time though. I'm basically done with this thread for now, 'cause I don't have the time to correct all the wrong opinions that I have an issue with, and because when I posted this in the first place I thought that the forum police were going to delete it right away anyway.

Skeld wrote:

Sean, do you need a hug?

No, I'm just tired of people who think "it's their job" means "it's ok if I am a jerk to them because it's their job to deal with jerks."

Maybe you should moderated for indirectly calling me a jerk.

Yeah, that'll happen. lol

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Aw... some warm fuzzies for the moderators... That's so sweet.

So... do the moderators of this site get paid actual money to moderate?

Because if they do, well, then they get paid. Right? So it's not really "thankless" in that sense is it.

And if they don't get paid, why the heck do they do it? (And how do I sign up? Ultimate power over a tiny little universe has always been a dream of mine.)

Anyone whose actual job duties includes "moderating the messageboards" certainly has a lot more important and critical things to do, like "make sure the site doesn't crash" and "get these PDFs out to subscribers when the order ships" and "answer customer service emails and phone calls."

Dealing with obnoxious things on the messageboards may be part of their job, but it's certainly not the most rewarding part of their job, and it's probably the worst part of their job.

And just because you're paid to do something doesn't mean that counts as thanking them.

So maybe you should not throw gasoline on this fire?

The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.

It doesn't count as thanking them, but if they get paid they don't need thanks. I used to work at jewelry company, and I never expected to be thanked by people who wore a piece I may have worked on, because, you know, that was my job.

North Star wrote:

Skeld wrote:

Marshall Jansen wrote:

If you find moderation to have been heavy handed or mis-directed, then it is generally in your best interest to discuss that moderation politely, in private with the moderator.

It's fine to disagree with moderators, but discussing it in a thread that is being moderated is asking for flame/trollbait. Nothing good comes from it. Since nothing good comes from it, deleting public criticism of moderation decisions is good moderating.

True, but this way is much more entertaining for the rest of us.

So, where's the drama?

There wasn't any to begin with. That's why I'm complaining. Of course, even if there had been, It's deleted now.

I don't get it. If there was no drama (CoC violations) then nothing's been deleted. If there was drama and posts deleted, then there's evidence of it in the form of "posts have been deleted messages."

Which is it?

Also, it's not unusual for mods to deleted posts replying to deleted posts because they oftentimes contain quoted text from the offender.

I posted the "Orc bloodline is stupid" thread, Liz changed the the title to "orc bloodline is ???", I replied (not impolitely) that the moderation was unnecessary, and then Lambertz deleted my reply, which I think is a steaming pile of you know what.

Marshall Jansen wrote:

If you find moderation to have been heavy handed or mis-directed, then it is generally in your best interest to discuss that moderation politely, in private with the moderator.

It's fine to disagree with moderators, but discussing it in a thread that is being moderated is asking for flame/trollbait. Nothing good comes from it. Since nothing good comes from it, deleting public criticism of moderation decisions is good moderating.

True, but this way is much more entertaining for the rest of us.

So, where's the drama?

There wasn't any to begin with. That's why I'm complaining. Of course, even if there had been, It's deleted now.

The desire to play a Rogue named Rouge. I'm going to do it one day, and it will be amazing.

In my best interest? What are they going to do? Show up at my house with a baseball bat? Please. I've never had issues like this on ENworld, RPS, The Escapist or any other forums that I frequent/have frequented.

"Please don't publicly criticize the infallible ones. It ruffles their feathers." Yeah, whatever.

Never! My spellbooks go to the grave with me!

Deleting non-offensive replies to dubious moderation would be Orwellian if it wasn't so pathetically insecure. Yeah, I know this post is still-born but it's meant for you guys anyway.

Or maybe you'll ban me, if not now, then at the first and flimsiest opportunity.
I don't really care. I don't mind the forum itself, but when it's the kind where posts simply disagreeing with Mods are deleted, it's no big loss.

North Star wrote:

Rebel Arch wrote:

Or all those things are doable by a character with the stats I came up with and up to 6 class levels and the HP/skill points/feats/BAB that follow therefrom. I would not...

I think we are going to end up arguing over semantics about what a score means to us.

ie. if I want to think of my character as strong he needs to have a 16 v you might say an 11 or 12.

That being said I think there is evidence in the rule his INT is higher given how many languages he knows. And I do think you're not giving him credit for being a magnetic leader, and charming women, look at how the girls in the movie (not the celebrity) fawn over him.

Do you consider ppl in unskilled/menial labor work average or below average?

Languages can be bought with skill points, If you think his charisma is low than we can just put the 4th level increase in it to bump it to twelve. I'm not sure what you mean about people doing menial labour. But that's just a single point in profession generally, or just ability checks (taking 10) for money in really basic cases.

North Star wrote:

Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:

STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11

People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.

Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person

When I look at those stats, I see a pretty cool dude, but I don't see OMG MORE AWESOME THAN ANYONE I KNOW. I know people with more awesome stats than that. That's just a guy who happens to be somewhat above average in both fitness and intelligence.

More importantly than who I know, though, I read and watch stories about people with more awesome stats than that, and sometimes I want to play through stories about people with more awesome stats than that.

I've tried to explain, but I think I'll have to resort to this:

/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

Now the fun part debating Indy's stats! If it was another system I would agree about the skills, but PF/DND isn't really the type of game where skills improve your ability to do encounter based things the way a Fallout or Oblivion would.

Indy
STR 15 - all around physical guy, throws a guy over the dashboard, out a truck, across the hood with one arm and shot in it!, bashes in a marble library floor with a essentially a candlebra, pushes a 10 ton Egyptian statue over, holds onto a submarine navigating through the Ocean for hours

Dex 16 - going off my rule before, is he more or less dexterous than strong, jumps horses, swings on whips, finds and bypasses traps, scales cars, great shot, jumps mining carts dodges boulders!

Con 18 - takes some of the best beatings in fiction and keeps going, shot, punched out, ran under a truck, no sleep, no food, no water in the desert, dragged by tank and army truck, survives in hospitable terrain, survived nuclear blast!

Int 17 - Doctor, professor, has all kinds of skills, knows the most about obscure things ppl bring to him, quotes books no one has ever heard off, has pretty much every knowledge skill covered, speaks at least 5 languages from what we see in the movies, outsmarts everyone except for Belloch!

WIS 16 - solves age old mysteries, figures out every puzzle that gets other explorers killed, respects history and knows enough to treat relics properly, resists looking the ark! that Will save has to be incredible!

CHA 17 - He's Harrison Ford! Our grandmother's, mothers, wives, and probably in the future our daughters all want him, he is witty, convincing, ridiculous charm, and has multiple followers on his adventures, he is so charming that even when Sean Connery was in his group he was still the face!

He is either incredible or rolls nothing but 20s!

Or all those things are doable by a character with the stats I came up with and up to 6 class levels and the HP/skill points/feats/BAB that follow therefrom. I would not conflate Harrison Ford's charisma with Indy's charisma. Harrison is a movie star, while Indy doesn't really have any more magnetism than someone as exceptional as him would have anyway based on accomplishments, reputation etc.

My INT 14 definition is the same as your INT 17 definition. He probably has a couple ranks in most knowledge skills and full ranks in one or two knowledge skills, which is sufficient for what he encounters, for example.

North Star wrote:

... you need to take a really cheesy dip with a poorly conceived bloodline from the figurative backwaters of Pathfinder material. Simple enough?

Sounds like standard 3.5 CharOp to me.

Would you dislike the bloodline less if it wasn't fluffed as 'Orc'?

It wouldn't bother me as much no. I would still resent the sorcerer dip though, and I would still think the crunch was bad in that it would passively discourage other options.

North Star wrote:

Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:

STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11

People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.

Yeah, people generally see what someone is capable of in a movie and conflate natural ability with skill. He had a lot of skills--well, that could mean high Int, a class with lots of skills, or just a higher level. He took lots of punishment. Well, it could be a ton of Con, or it could just be big/more Hit Dice.

Exactly.

I would argue with Indy's mental stats and STR. A STR 14 is pretty average for anyone who lifts. That's a 175 lbs press or 350lbs squat or dead lift.

Indy is stronger than average but probably doesn't lift, and his intelligence is in the very gifted category, just short of genius (15-16). his charisma is above average.

I agree with OP, my group still does 4d6 drop lowest, and we are low fantasy, don't like crazy magic + items, RPers. Not only is the point buy boring, and a perversion of the classic idea of playing a dice game with random elements (you roll well, you get something good, rolled great stats, now you can be the ranger!), it invites a lot more problems than it sets out to fix.

1) A 20 pt buy character is underwhelming,and wouldn't be the guy ppl go to, to get things done. Everything he might set out to do will get done by some one better.
** spoiler omitted **

2)It's artificial and tries to force weaknesses that don't exist so you get stereotypical character after cliche character. it's not the way we work so it severely hurts RP. And our weakness is we're mortal; our strengths can help us last longer but they can't beat that. Good genes are good genes.

** spoiler omitted **...

Indiana Jones would look something like this in my opinion:

STR 12
DEX 14
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 10
CHA 11

People in general have outrageous and unfounded ideas about what ability scores mean.

Edit: it is important to remember that these are very impressive stats that are far removed from the average person, and that 6th level is supposed to be the upper limit of human potential in the real world.

I don't believe a Blaster Sorcerer would ever really be any sort of optimal, anyway. Furthermore, you can be a perfectly good Blaster Sorcerer without going Crossblooded with the Orc bloodline.

Finally, I think this thread is far dumber than the Orc bloodline.

See, I never said that any sort of blaster is optimal (that's a different discussion), just that it seems that to be optimal at blasting (which means dealing as much direct damage as possible with spells as possible, not "controlling" the battlefield. Which despite usually being a superior option, is irrelevant to this discussion) you need to take a really cheesy dip with a poorly conceived bloodline from the figurative backwaters of Pathfinder material. Simple enough?

North Star wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Not very likable, but they remembered him. I'm sure there were plenty of other excellent commanders who did not get remembered.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think that there were many axis commanders equal to Rommel, my understanding is that he was something of a military genius who excelled as a soldier in WW1 and revolutionized mechanized combat and modern desert warfare in WW2. Remembered for ability, not personal magnetism.

Rommel's 'revolutionizing' of mechanized warfare (desert warfare under Rommel was effectively mechanized warfare) is sometimes vastly overstated. There were a number of other early German generals who were also heavily involved in the early years of maneuver warfare, particularly Erich von Manstein.

Rommel also had the benefit of fighting a French / British army that had no bloody idea how to fight a war, was handicapped by terrible leadership, and had all the wrong equipment. Their high commands were a mess and full of dinosaurs that (in the case of the French) wouldn't even allow a telephone in their command bunkers before the war. The degree of incompetence was truly staggering.

That said, Rommel was a pretty good general who really 'got' maneuver warfare at a basic level. He understood its application as well as anyone, and showed it many times. It's hard for me to label him a genius because of who he fought against for most of his successful period (40-41) but the guy was definitely not a slouch. He gets some props in my mind for realizing pretty quickly the problems with maneuver warfare later in the war even when others didn't - though he had the advantage of trial and error in Africa.

Right, well I'm not really a WW2 buff, I'm just using an example off the top of my head to make a point, That is that the low charisma character who does important stuff will be recognized for those things. In this example, Rommel would probably have had a low charisma and a good intelligence score if he was pathfinder-ized IMO.

Not very likable, but they remembered him. I'm sure there were plenty of other excellent commanders who did not get remembered.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think that there were many axis commanders equal to Rommel, my understanding is that he was something of a military genius who excelled as a soldier in WW1 and revolutionized mechanized combat and modern desert warfare in WW2. Remembered for ability, not personal magnetism.

It kinda does, since you'll always be the one whose name no one remembers.

Put it this way, Erwin Rommel probably wouldn't have a high charisma in pathfinder, If I remember correctly he wasn't even that well liked by his men, and was described as not very likable when met in person, yet he was a national hero and is still remembered today because of his prowess and accomplishments as a soldier and commander, not because he had charisma.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Gimli may or may not have a negative cha, I couldn't say for certain.

I'd say not, considering that he was Lord of the Glittering Caves and eventually sailed into the Undying Lands.

What do either of those things have to do with low charisma? If you actually do meaningful things it mitigates low charisma. It doesn't matter if your CHA is 8 if you're a famed member of the Fellowship.

North Star wrote:

Well if he's that kind of GM, I'd exercise my player fiat and hit the road.

If he's doing to be a jerk, then yes, I agree the player should look at other options for gaming. If he's doing it temporarily to advancing the adventure plot and the player walks, the player is jerk. And probably an ungrateful one at that, as the GM probably built the adventure featuring the character dealing with this adversity. The player is probably walking away from a golden role playing opportunity and a mechanical challenge.

Honestly, if a player at the table I run did that, I'd be pretty upset after wasting time creating the adventure, and probably not want them back at my table. I spend a lot of time creating and preparing for adventures, and someone who walks at the slightest sign of difficulty without discussing their concerns with me first is a pretty poor person, and someone I don't care to game with again.

Sorry if some of you think of this as harsh, but I've seen way too much "player picks up his toys and goes home as soon as he doesn't get his way" responses in threads as of late. We are all adults (or young adults), and should have the maturity to deal with a little adversity. If you don't like the situation, discuss it with the GM privately after the session. If they are even a mediocore GM, they will listen to the player's concerns and adjust their plot accordingly.

And apologies to North Star - this rant isn't directed at you. Your comment just spurred me to get something off of my chest that's been bothering me. I've had to deal with this situation before, and it apparently bothers me still.

<<Gets off soapbox>>

No worries, I get what you're saying. I was commenting more specifically on the "result is the same no matter what you do as a player" Railroading GM fiat issue raised by MrSin.

sowhereaminow wrote:

If the GM has your class item stolen or destroyed, but then shortly thereafter provides an adventure hook for you to get it back or replace it, then don't whine. It's just part of the adventure plot that's focussing on your character.

If the GM does this and his only action is to say "Sucks to be you!", then he's being a jerk. Or you've done something to really, really piss him off.

And if you are truely concerned about having such an Achilles' heel, then play a monk. It's hard to take their toys away...even if they aren't necessarily the most effective toys...

Except it really sucks while you don't have class features. I'm not a fan of those kinds of plots myself, but YMMV.

Take away the monks weapon/AoMF, put a monster with DR/good or evil in front of him. Monks are actually really dependant on magic items and the like. They just kick a lot more butt without their shirt on than the other martial classes.

North Star wrote:

As a Wizard player, the solution is prevention by paranoia. Contingency (not the spell... well until later that is) plans, backup copies stashed multiple locations (this all goes for clones too at high level by the way) all sorts of redundant layered plans and so on. There is a reason that the spell mastery feat exists, not that I've ever taken it, but still.

If the DM wants to take your book no amount of contingency is going to stop him. DM fiat always wins.

Well if he's that kind of GM, I'd exercise my player fiat and hit the road.

North Star wrote:

Also, some people find playing useful characters fun.

For those new to the terminology, 'useful' is not equal to 'optimized.' Number-crunchers who worry about optimization go WAY beyond considerations of mere usefulness.

Actually, usefulness is equal to optimization, It's just that optimization involves a lot more than math, contrary to the popular misconception. Optimization also includes tactics, strategy, and creativeness, System mastery represents the fundamentals of optimization and therefore figures very highly in it. Number crunching is handy, but not even necessary to optimization.

I'd say that sacrificing a Wizard casting level for a mediocre boost to blasting damage is not optimized at all.

And if your group is so worried about optmization, they wouldn't like you playing a Blaster anyway.

If you're just going for damage there is a pretty strong argument for the dip. As for blasting, it's actually pretty good if you can boost damage enough.

I should point out that I'm not actually playing a blaster. I'm complaining about the orc bloodline because I think it's a dumb concept and I feel that you are almost forced into it in order to deal high direct damage with spells. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced.

Something about Golarion's pantheon just seems really... Off. I don't really like any of them. I never had this issue with the Greyhawk or Faerun pantheons. I can't quite figure out just what it is that I don't like though.

Change your gaming group.

The example was a shared setting in which there were more than 6 different GMs with wildly different styles and a large, shifting player base with a core of about 12ish players constantly shifting from GM to GM all while playing the same characters in the same overarching setting.

However I am currently between gaming groups.

I think it's a bit silly - I always thought bloodlines were sort of connected to, you know, magical creatures or concepts, but hey. It strikes me as a useful tool for GMs to amp up that sub-optimal orc sorcerer boss a little though.

I hardly think a blaster wizard that fails to take that dip is sub-par, though. +1 per damage dice is pretty sweet, but blaster wizards were just fine before this bloodline was published.

It's not +1 though, it's +2 per die because of the crossblooded thing. It makes a big difference. Before feats or anything else, Delayed blast fireball deals an average of 104 damage on a Sorcerer 1/evoker 19. It deals an average of 70 damage on a evoker 20, just as a minor example.

And if your build is subpar, the raid leader reviews your stats and kicks you out in favor of a better optimized... oh, wait. That doesn't happen.

Don't like it? Skip it. Problem solved. Nobody cares if your character is 'optimized.' What matters is
1) You're decent at your job, and
2) You have fun.

Oh hi Calybos. We meet again. Some GMs and players do care if your build is un-optimized, and as a veteran of a shared campaign setting with many GMs and players with different styles I can say that sometimes it pays to play a character that has a mechanical edge.

I have been chastised for playing "weak" characters and I have been chastised for playing for playing 4th level characters who dominate a table full of 5th to 7th level characters. I personally have fun minmaxing and it bothers me when poorly designed corner case concepts like the orc bloodline are so mechanically superior that I feel silly for not using them. Hence, this thread.

I mean, Orc is just the first thing that pops into mind when you think "magical heritage" right? Right up there with dragons and fiends right? ugh.

Of course it just has to be the go to blaster thing to have. As a fan of blasters, it really bothers me that this bloodline exists because now you have to have this dumb crossblooded sorcerer dip with a silly bloodline that shouldn't even exist from an obscure source on your Wizard or your build is sub par. /Rant

Char-op isn't really a "kind of gaming" distinct from anything else, just so you know. But that has probably been said before. I started to read that thread but didn't get far, it made me angry.

I favor the 25 point buy, but I really don't care for the whole 'dump stat' concept. So, my house rule would be: 25 point buy. No score lower than 10. This is after racial modifiers. So if you're playing a dwarf you would need to pump your Chr up to 12. Racial mod makes it a 10.

The above is based on my belief that charisma is not a viable dump stat. If you have an eight charisma, you server at the tavern, is probably spitting in your food and drink on a regular basis. Do you really want to role-play a character like that?

Actually, I don't think any of the abilities are suitable for dumping. A wizard needs to be strong enough to pack his own books.

A rogue needs to be able to recognize when she is being conned.(Wisdom.)

A cleric should be able to operate a doorknob. (Dexterity.)

Etc, etc.

This is super wrong IMO. You probably pass a bunch of people on the street who would have an 8 charisma, you just don't notice because 8 is just slightly below average, and you know, they have 8 charisma. A person with an 8 int for example is just not the sharpest tool in the shed. They wouldn't be developmentally handicapped or even particularly challenged in life, just slow.

The guides revolve around 'optimization,' i.e., crunching the numbers to gain the most combat efficiency with zero regard for anything else. Some players like that kinda stuff.

Others are roleplayers, who are interested in things like personal style, characterization, and fun. Give that a try.

That old routine? Really? Please don't corrupt the newbie, the best optimizers I've ever personally encountered Have also been among the best roleplayers I've encountered. Also, some people find playing useful characters fun.

I'd really like one. Minmaxboards isn't active or Pathfinder specific enough for me. I'm also interested in seeing how many other people would like this. Is there any particular reason that there isn't one already?

As a Wizard player, the solution is prevention by paranoia. Contingency (not the spell... well until later that is) plans, backup copies stashed multiple locations (this all goes for clones too at high level by the way) all sorts of redundant layered plans and so on. There is a reason that the spell mastery feat exists, not that I've ever taken it, but still.

Just remember, Your spellbooks are your babies, and everyone's out to get them. Everyone. *looks around shiftily*

I will add though that you shouldn't be trying to actually kill things with spells until 3rd level or so,as it is not really effective until Magic missile gets a second missile, and you pick up scorching ray and flaming sphere. Sleep, enlarge person and such-like should be your bread and butter until then.

Wizards are my favourite and most played class. Blasting get really fun when you get to the point where you can drop chain lightning and then clean up with a maximized fireball quickened with a intermediate rod of metamagic. and as a Wizard you don't even need a special build to do that.

I don't know anything about RotR, but these are generally useful scrolls in my experience: the "Remove X" spells, create food and water, water breathing and stone shape, among others of course.

The blaster wizard is at a optimization deficit compared to other wizards, but it really doesn't matter in my opinion because they still compare favourably to other classes in relative power.

@ People complaining up-thread about the ranger being left behind by a hypothetical fighter pounce feat... Screw Rangers.

Really. They get 6+ skill points, a ridiculous spell that allows them to get favoured enemy on anything, spells, and a whole bunch of peripheral stuff like evasion and more. The Monk stares with envy at D10 HD and actual BAB, And the rogue only wishes he could be as stealthy (HiPS for ranger, but not the rogue? Dafuq? I don't even play rogues and that pisses me off).

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Waaaaah! My overpowered class isn't getting as much free stuff as I want it to!

Beg your pardon?

My character was 10th wizard. Now he's 5th and finalized. That means I lost what, four level 5th spells I'd gain for free?

Instead I have to fork over 1,125gp x4 for a scroll with that spell and write it over into my spellbook. Unless your gm somehow allows you to just pay the scribings cost, then yes, it's cheap.

Its only 5000 gold! What was I going to buy? A hat of disguise? Cracked Dusty rose Ioun stone? a +1 mithril Klar? Or all that together for about 4.5k?

Uh... No. How about I craft a blessed book instead. No? a wand of haste? Or maybe we could craft a cloak of resistance +3. Or a lesser metamagic rod of empower and a pearl of power 1 to boot.

It saddens me that nobody seems to think Evocation needs more love.

Seems like there's only one good blasty casty painful death spell every odd spell level and that's usually a Conjuration spell.

I never say "this", But... THIS! I'm not happy with blasting at all right now. Current options are really cheesy and fiddly IMO. And worse, they are mostly sorcerer based. ;p

I envy people who play with 4ish players regularly. I tend to end up being the 8th player, or the 2nd. I also played in a group of 12 before, GM only did that one session though.

Parka wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I personally liked a few more of the 3.5 PrC that added to flavour without necesarrly obsessing with it. Top of the hat there's a class that makes your abjurations better, sure it focuses on abjuration, but it gives varied bonuses and new ways to do stuff than say, three ways to use a costly scroll.

I'm gonna bite back my usual rants about PrCs and instead ask the question: What PrCs from 3.5 were you hoping to have?

There are a ton of converted PrCs in the Conversions section.

Also, please tell me you aren't talking about the Abjurant Champion. Lie to me if you need to.

Problem is the close-minded, paranoid DMs who say "Core only and anything you try to bring in will be killed with fire along with you, heretic" and seem to be dominating most of the known community. If not that, then they're really loud and obnoxious about their preferences while wanting to shove said preferences down the throats of everyone around. Those kind of people will slap you for even suggesting something as monstrous as "homebrew" or "3.5e converted material" etc.

Heh. I'm like that but I'm a player. Heretic. ;p

I thought most from 3.5 were awful actually. Flavorful yes, but really only good for people who really really wanted it or npcs. Anything less than 9/10th casting already kills it for casters. There were silly things like the Blighter(has to be Fallen Druid) or Risen Martyr(Capstone: Dies no rez).

There were just a few that were really really nice. Casters just sort of dipped around the full casting or dropped out when it didn't give them anything. I don't see anything like that with Paizo for martials or casters, unless I'm really missing something. Its hard enough to get out of your class.

I'm not talking about caster specific PrCs, Just PrCs in general. I'm a little rusty on 3rd ed splat-books but I distinctly recall being appalled by at least 2 or 3 PrCs per book in those days.

While we're talking about PrC's, anyone think being feat taxed to get into a PrC is wierd? It sometimes makes sense, but usually its something like Iron Will. As weak as some are I feel like need persuasian or similar feats just isn't very attractive.

Yeah, I think it's just a holdover from 3.5 When PrCs were much more powerful relative to single classes.