Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Universal Preview # 12 The Wizard


General Discussion (Prerelease)

101 to 150 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Now that I think of it, the new version of Arcane Strike is _way_ better than the old version, assuming it adds to attack rolls and not just damage.


Argothe wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:


The glass is half empty...

Come on, it's only a save for half, you'll still be lowering the monsters chances to hit and damage output.

The glass is half full...

Now I can pick Necromancy as a prohibited school without the pain of losing The Ray!

It is still a ray, so you have a chance to miss and then the target gets to make a save for 1/2 using what it probably their best bonus against the DC of a level 1 spell. Moreover, because of the way ability bonuses work you already had to apply 2 points of penalty to get one point of affect on the game's mechanics, so this isn't so much a save for 1/2 as it is a save for 1/4. If you get to save then the spell shouldn't be a ray and it should deal strength damage rather than apply a strength penalty so that multiple applications of the spell would stack.

Hmm… maybe a more appropriate nerf to the spell would be to not have the STR damage scale, or scale more slowly, like +1 per 4 caster levels.


Jadeite wrote:
(1d6+5)/2 still robs enemies of 4 points of strength in average even if they succeed on their saving throw. Not bad for a first level spell.

Whoops! I forgot the +1 per 2 caster levels part. I thought it was just a straight 1d6 STR damage. Forget everything I said. It needed nerfed something fierce. Should've just made it a straight 1d6 though. Not every spell has to scale up, especially since STR doesn't really scale up unless it is your dump stat or with magic items.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Arbitus wrote:

1. Ray of Enfeeblement was powerful indeed, but it does violate the long held rule of thumb - Ranged touch or Saving throw, very rarely both. Is it at least not subject to Spell Resistance?

2. Universalists got a huge hit with the nerf bat.


  • Hand of the Apprentice suddenly being subject to all of the ranged attack modifiers, PLUS having the damage nerfed down by using Strength, PLUS having the times per day limited.
  • Metamagic Mastery - Three fewer uses per day, and adding the spell level cap so you can't use metamagic on higher level spells.
  • No more bonus spells.
  • Decreasing the penalty for specialists by allowing them to memorize opposition school spells (not really prohibited anymore is it?)

1. I think I have already covered this. There are a number of iconic spells in the game that require an attack roll and a save (see disintegrate and harm). This is no different for a spell that is very good.

2. They did get scaled back a bit. I think if you check the playtest logs, most folks agreed that they were way too good. They had a lot of versatility and none of the drawbacks of a specialist. To top it off, their powers were better than most of the specialist powers. Now things are a bit more balanced. Once you get a chance to play with all of them, I am confident that you will change your mind.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


I wanted to chime in with my support for all the changes I'm seeing here today. I like the nerfs to RoE and HotA. I have a min-maxer in my home game who abuses these two abilities with particular glee. The prohibited school mechanic is also simpler than the Beta version.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

hogarth wrote:
Now that I think of it, the new version of Arcane Strike is _way_ better than the old version, assuming it adds to attack rolls and not just damage.

Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Scarab Sages

Prime Evil wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:

Are the 0 level spells usable 'at will' ala 4E

Or is my mind mixing editions (again)

EDIT: like sorcerer and bard, I guess

Actually, the ability to use 0 level spells 'at will' has become a bit of a problem in my game. One of my players believes that the combination of Detect Magic and Detect Poison makes the ability of rogues to find traps almost completely redundant.

Really? Lop his head off with a scything trap...no poison, no magic, just a HUGE blade...

I'll probably be boosting the damage that Evocation spells do in my games, since they are not nearly as powerful as they were in the past, mostly debuffers than DD.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Now that I think of it, the new version of Arcane Strike is _way_ better than the old version, assuming it adds to attack rolls and not just damage.
Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

I liked the incorrect version better. :-/


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Now that I think of it, the new version of Arcane Strike is _way_ better than the old version, assuming it adds to attack rolls and not just damage.

Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thanks for the clarification so back on my bard build list.


Dreaming Warforged wrote:
stuff

Let's keep this as spoilers since it's probaly off topic a boring to others ;-)

Spoiler:

Zark wrote:

Enhancement does not stack with magic weapons. Hence it useless.

Dreaming Warforged wrote:

But let's not forget how much access the bard has to the best magic weapons (you can pick the feat or not, according to your campaign).

This is actuallt a proof the feat suck to bards.

Dreaming Warforged wrote:


Also, it allows the bonus to be put on another weapon.

How many non magical weapons does a BARD use at level 10 or 17 or whatever?

Dreaming Warforged wrote:


So the bard convinced the fighter to let him use the +3 weapon, now he wants to use another weapon for another purpose (our bard loves to trip, disarm, etc., or it was a bludgeoning and now you want slashing, or silver, etc.). The bard can swap this bonus from weapon to weapon, with the bonuses now applying to his CMB.

I don't inderstand you. It only lasts for one round.

It's a good feat becaus the fighter might lend the bard a weapon? Why would the bard use this ability on the fighters weapon? The fighters weapon is probably as good or even better than the bards weapon.
+1 at level 1 -3 is OK.
+1 (or +2) at level 2 is nothing
+3 at level 10 or 12 is rubbish.
Remember the bard still have to hit. The bonus does not apply to "to hit" and bards have 3/4 BAB
The feat suck.

Sovereign Court

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Cylerist wrote:
I guess the old rule if it requires a to hit roll it gets no save is out for PFRPG.

That has never been a rule sir. You might want to take a look at chill touch, disintegrate, harm, inflict light wounds, plane shift, and ray of exhaustion. I am sure that I am leaving out a few, but this rule does not exist. I would say that most spells that require a to hit roll do not give a save, but it is by no means a rule.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

My bad good sir.

You are as always correct.
Comment was not ment as a bad thing it makes sense and does balance the spell.

I can't wait to see the book, so far every thing I have heard I like.
You have done fantastic work.

Sovereign Court

Looks pretty solid to me. Can't see anything I don't like or at least don't understand why they did it.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

OK. So damage stack with magic weapons. Good. No bonus on attack , sad. But that's life.

I waaaaaaaaaaaant the book. well first the PDF then the book :-)

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:


It was ridiculously overpowered, that's the flair it had.

Low-level spellcasters with hand of the apprentice/accolyte very often were better offensive fighters than fighters.

As Jason said: It probably isn't a big deal if you make those powers at will again. Letting weakling wizards hit like steam hammers, on the other hand, is a problem.

I think that the only problem with the old HotA was Int for damage bonus. Other than that, it had to get to where it was to be used and you had to concentrate on it, so I don't see why it was such a big deal. The flavour, it being a somewhat souped-up mage hand, was great, though.

I'll make the domain and school powers of this sort at-will anyhow -- the old low-level caster as passenger is a bit dull, I think, and I like more than 12ish rounds of combat a day -- but I think I'll stick with HotA as it used to be, minus Int bonus to damage (which is how I've been using it anyhow, or maybe I'll limit Int bonus to damage to level/2 or something).

Sovereign Court

Charlie Brooks wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:

My problem with it is the limits on uses/day precisely because it's that sort of thing that leads to prescribed adventuring days. With Channel Energy in the mix, parties could go for longer; making the low-level wizards into passengers once the spells and powers run out is unfun. I also didn't think that HotA was out of character; it was a specialised version of a cantrip.

I'm still not sure that it puts much of a limit on the adventuring day, really. If the 1st-level wizard has a 16 Intelligence, then he can still use Hand of the Apprentice 6 times a day. If he's got a 20 Intelligence, that goes up to 8 times a day. Hand of the Apprentice is the equivalent of a 1st-level spell, basically. So now 1st-level wizards have the equivalent total of 8 to 11 1st-level spells per day, which isn't all that bad.

And there is still no limit to the number of cantrips a wizard can cast a day. Ray of frost might not be an ideal attack spell, but it's far from useless to the low-level adventurer.

I like over 20 rounds of combat a day, ideally. So the wizard's a passenger for a bunch of them. But as I say, I'll make it unlimited (and actually revert to the Beta HotA, pretty much, minus damage bonus, which has been a lot of fun).


I have to say I am a little sad with some of the changes but they are definitely warranted. I played as a Universalist through Second Darkness and I made the party unstoppable. Tossing around empowered, quickened RoE and Enervations (which is still completely awesome) was just great.

I fear the nerf to Metamagic might be a bit too much but really any free metamagic is still great. I think the new wizard is better balanced then before but I have to wait a couple more weeks to find out for sure.


So with spells from prohibited schools costing 2 slots instead of 1:
Does this mean that a specialist can use scrolls and spells from a prohibited school?


Zark wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

OK. So damage stack with magic weapons. Good. No bonus on attack , sad. But that's life.

I waaaaaaaaaaaant the book. well first the PDF then the book :-)

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.

Anyway, as we were talking about something that, as it now becomes clear , never existed, no point in continuing that discussion.

And now, I agree that the untyped bonus is a nice thing to have.

DW


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Now that I think of it, the new version of Arcane Strike is _way_ better than the old version, assuming it adds to attack rolls and not just damage.

Hmm.. actually it appears that the heat yesterday might have been cooking my head. Arcane strike is an untyped bonus to damage only. Meaning that it does stack with the weapons bonus, but it does not add to the attack roll. This will be corrected.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

At this point, I want to invite everyone to the Rusty Dragon for a live performance by Allezandro Mandrezi, Varisian Bard, and his new smash hit: "I get to keep kicking ass".

Sovereign Court

anthony Valente wrote:

So with spells from prohibited schools costing 2 slots instead of 1:

Does this mean that a specialist can use scrolls and spells from a prohibited school?

It seems they can certainly use the spells. Scrolls is an interesting question, though...


Bagpuss wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

So with spells from prohibited schools costing 2 slots instead of 1:

Does this mean that a specialist can use scrolls and wands from a prohibited school?
It seems they can certainly use the spells. Scrolls is an interesting question, though...

oops. fixed.

Sovereign Court

anthony Valente wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:

So with spells from prohibited schools costing 2 slots instead of 1:

Does this mean that a specialist can use scrolls and wands from a prohibited school?
It seems they can certainly use the spells. Scrolls is an interesting question, though...
oops. fixed.

To use a wand I guess they have to have it on their spell list, which it actually is. However, maybe the new rule is that it has to be on their spell list at base slot cost, rather than double slot cost.


Bagpuss wrote:


I think that the only problem with the old HotA was Int for damage bonus.

Combined with int for attack bonus. Double kill! Wizards tend to have a better int bonus than a fighter has strength, so it wasn't uncommon for wizards to hit harder and more reliable than fighters. At range no less.

Bagpuss wrote:


it had to get to where it was to be used and you had to concentrate on it

Not really: Lose concentration and it returns the weapon to you and winks out. Then you start it again as a standard action (same kind of action you need to maintain concentration). It draws the weapon as a free action and attacks anyone you want within 30 feet.


Looks nice.
Overall, it feels like PRPG will have made each class equally appealing and viable. A good thing.

Metamagic Mastery is good, but not TOO good.
Hand of Apprentice seems more reasonable now as well (STR bonus to DMG seems bizarre, but the outcome seems fine)

Defensive Combat Training is great for Wizards/Sorcerors (especially Bonded Item types wanting to avoid Disarms) - I wonder if there is still a +4 CMD Feat for everybody else? (everybody but those darned Monks, I mean)

I agree with the removal of the bonus spell for Universalists, it feels more in continuity with the 3.5 universalist/specialist dichotomy. The double-spell slot treatment for specialists' opposed schools was an interesting solution, I think it will work well, heavily pushing these types of casters to scrolls for banned-schools, but allowing SOME flexibility.

Scry/Teleport sounds more balanced, and bringing in the CMB mechanics to Web seems a good choice.

One question: From the sounds of it, Bonded Item (and Familiar) are basically unchanged from Beta - IS that the case?
There was some confusion during the playtest whether a Wizard could use this spontaneous spell from every spell in his spellbook(s)/scroll collection, every spell memorized earlier that day, or what...?

I assume since it hasn't been in any of the Caster previews, that no change was done re: a Standard Action/Full Round Action dichotomy for Spellcasting on par with physical combatants (who are more often forced to Move and take sub-par Standard Action, to do anything at all).


Morgen wrote:
Looks pretty solid to me. Can't see anything I don't like or at least don't understand why they did it.

Same here.

Chapter 4 in Runelords, I saw HEAVY reliance on Ray Of Feeb. Not that it was stupid of the players, but that they'd found a consistant winning strategy with one spell.

I like the whole preview.


Arbitus wrote:


3. Specialists can memorize opposition school spells without hosing their specialist abilities.

Since the bonus spell slots are the lion's share of the specialist's abilities, I'd say that requiring the extra slot per prohibited spell memorized negates that bonus.


KaeYoss wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:


I think that the only problem with the old HotA was Int for damage bonus.
Combined with int for attack bonus. Double kill! Wizards tend to have a better int bonus than a fighter has strength, so it wasn't uncommon for wizards to hit harder and more reliable than fighters. At range no less.

Gotta concur with K.Y.

I playtested. I GMed. I saw it for myself. No one is going to tell me that the HotA wasn't flying right past anything the figher in damage output.

Sorry.


Prempted


OK, you gotta love that on the "Are Universalists or Specialists now "better" topic, pretty much it's alternating 50:50,
one poster says "OBVIOUSLY most everybody will play Universalists", and the next says "OBVIOUSLY most everybody will play SPecialists" :-)
Hmm... Perhaps that's about as close to balance as is possible, me thinks...

Arbitus wrote:
Since the bonus spell slots are the lion's share of the specialist's abilities, I'd say that requiring the extra slot per prohibited spell memorized negates that bonus.

Right, it negates it IF YOU MEMORIZE a 'prohibited' school.

AKA take your prohibitions seriously, or just scribe these spells ahead of time, and you're good.
If you REALLY need to prep those spells at normal spell slot cost, you can do that too.
Versus 3.5's "real" prohibition, it makes it EASIER on specialists with regards to using 'banned' schools. Good by my book.


Argothe wrote:
DougErvin wrote:
Zark wrote:
DougErvin wrote:
I don't see how arcane strike giving an enhancement bonus instead of an untyped damage bonus makes it useless to bards. Can you explain?

OT .

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks Zark for the explanation. I still see a low level bard getting some use out of it. Once magic weapons become common for the party I can see the bard hardly using it.

Doug

This isn't a change from Beta. However, a Bard still could get some mileage out of the feat if they wanted to use their weapon enhancement bonuses for other characteristics like "flaming" et. al.

It's untyped, read Jason's post above, so you can have both!


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Arbitus wrote:

1. Ray of Enfeeblement was powerful indeed, but it does violate the long held rule of thumb - Ranged touch or Saving throw, very rarely both. Is it at least not subject to Spell Resistance?

2. Universalists got a huge hit with the nerf bat.


  • Hand of the Apprentice suddenly being subject to all of the ranged attack modifiers, PLUS having the damage nerfed down by using Strength, PLUS having the times per day limited.
  • Metamagic Mastery - Three fewer uses per day, and adding the spell level cap so you can't use metamagic on higher level spells.
  • No more bonus spells.
  • Decreasing the penalty for specialists by allowing them to memorize opposition school spells (not really prohibited anymore is it?)

1. I think I have already covered this. There are a number of iconic spells in the game that require an attack roll and a save (see disintegrate and harm). This is no different for a spell that is very good.

2. They did get scaled back a bit. I think if you check the playtest logs, most folks agreed that they were way too good. They had a lot of versatility and none of the drawbacks of a specialist. To top it off, their powers were better than most of the specialist powers. Now things are a bit more balanced. Once you get a chance to play with all of them, I am confident that you will change your mind.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I don't think Arbitus was complaining about any of the changes so much as asking what about this preview was supposed to get us excited for Pathfinder and Wizards? It seems the whole preview is taken up discussing balance issues with little to no "check out this cool new ability/mechanic" that we saw in most other previews.

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:


I think that the only problem with the old HotA was Int for damage bonus.
Combined with int for attack bonus. Double kill! Wizards tend to have a better int bonus than a fighter has strength, so it wasn't uncommon for wizards to hit harder and more reliable than fighters. At range no less.

I followed Jason's suggestion from the playtest and removed the Int for damage bonus. Then you have merely Int for to-hit and you have to spend at least a round getting the thing there, and then you have to concentrate, and it can't make Attacks of Opportunity. I just can't see that that version was overpowered.

KaeYoss wrote:


Bagpuss wrote:


it had to get to where it was to be used and you had to concentrate on it
Not really: Lose concentration and it returns the weapon to you and winks out. Then you start it again as a standard action (same kind of action you need to maintain concentration). It draws the weapon as a free action and attacks anyone you want within 30 feet.

It only moved 15' a round, which takes a move action for the wizard (the wizard then needs to use a standard action to concentrate on it attacking). My player wizards tend not to want to be within 15' of the bad guys if they're concentrating on something.

Also here is the post where Jason mentioned ditching the Int bonus to damage. I used that and the other guidance from that thread and it was fine (and, additionally, a lot of fun, I have found).

The issue I didn't see resolved was whether people can move through the weapon's square or not. I've ruled that they can but can't end the round occupying the same square, but I'd relax that last, too, if context demanded it.

I'm going to stick with the old version, I am pretty sure.


Again, why did the at will level 1 abilities need to be limited? What were they breaking? Do the changes to Hand of the Apprentice apply to all level 1 school abilities? If so, what impact does that have on level 1 Sorcerer abilities or level 1 Domain abilities? Does Seoni only get her familiar for 3 + Cha modifier rounds per day?


Jason,

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

A previous poster makes a good point, it would be easy to scribe up prohibited spells in advance.

One could increase the cost of such a scroll to mitigate that, but I'm not sure what you would do for a wand... accept perhaps make the wizard have a copy of the prohibited spell in their spellbook? (As opposed to just on their list.)

Sovereign Court

In fact, the more I recall DMing with a player with HotA, the more I like it (subject to the discussions above, i.e., no damage bonus from Int and the clarifications Jason gave).


Quandary wrote:

OK, you gotta love that on the "Are Universalists or Specialists now "better" topic, pretty much it's alternating 50:50,

one poster says "OBVIOUSLY most everybody will play Universalists", and the next says "OBVIOUSLY most everybody will play SPecialists" :-)
Hmm... Perhaps that's about as close to balance as is possible, me thinks...

Oddly enough, I saw the same arguments in 3.5; some campaigns never used specialists, and some campaigns never used anything but specialists.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Argothe wrote:
I don't think Arbitus was complaining about any of the changes so much as asking what about this preview was supposed to get us excited for Pathfinder and Wizards? It seems the whole preview is taken up discussing balance issues with little to no "check out this cool new ability/mechanic" that we saw in most other previews.

Yeah, I realize this. Unfortunately, Ezren is a specialist and I wanted to stick to the iconics as they currently are as much as possible. A number of the specialist bonuses got revamped and some of them are really pretty cool now.

Take evokers now. Their first level ability is called force missile and allows them to fire off magic missiles one at a time, adding in their bonus from the intense spells ability (+1 damage to every spell per 2 caster levels, minimum +1).

Hmm... that seems like more spoiler.. anyway..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Dark Archive

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Hmm... that seems like more spoiler.. anyway..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Tease ;-)

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Watcher wrote:

Jason,

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

Well, I am not going to spoil everything just yet... but it is quite a bit more open for them now. Remember that these come with other costs...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


Bagpuss wrote:


I followed Jason's suggestion from the playtest and removed the Int for damage bonus. Then you have merely Int for to-hit and you have to spend at least a round getting the thing there, and then you have to concentrate, and it can't make Attacks of Opportunity. I just can't see that that version was overpowered.

Okay, but we're not to know that you're not including the Int bonus if you don't tell us. I realize you are telling us now, but when making the point that you don't think it was overpowered the way it was, it's helpful to know that you were using a modified version.

Bagpuss wrote:
The issue I didn't see resolved was whether people can move through the weapon's square or not. I've ruled that they can but can't end the round occupying the same square, but I'd relax that last, too, if context...

Well.. now that it is catagorized as a ranged attack and not a melee attack, the weapon's presence as a 'melee combatant' has been done away with. The description and mental image that resembled a dancing self-fighting sword worked against the actual text that said it always returned the same round. Initially I had that problem with it, until I really reinforced, to myself even, that the weapon was always coming back to the owner the same round it attack (ergo it was not occupying a space at the end of the wizard's turn).

As a ranged attack, that is less confusing. Does a boomerang or starknife occupy the space of something else in it's return flight? Maybe, but not for very long.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Watcher wrote:

Jason,

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

Well, I am not going to spoil everything just yet... but it is quite a bit more open for them now. Remember that these come with other costs...

Eeeh. Okay. It is however gratifying to know that you have this covered.


I really like the the previews, and I'm looking forward to the book!


Watcher wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Watcher wrote:

Jason,

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

Well, I am not going to spoil everything just yet... but it is quite a bit more open for them now. Remember that these come with other costs...

Eeeh. Okay. It is however gratifying to know that you have this covered.

That goes for me too.

Maybe they require some sort of check? Spellcraft? Concentration (caster level)?


anthony Valente wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Watcher wrote:

Jason,

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

Well, I am not going to spoil everything just yet... but it is quite a bit more open for them now. Remember that these come with other costs...

Eeeh. Okay. It is however gratifying to know that you have this covered.

That goes for me too.

Maybe they require some sort of check? Spellcraft? Concentration (caster level)?

Or maybe costs twice as much XP/Gold. That'd be the simplest way to adjudicate it.


Piety Godfury wrote:
Or maybe costs twice as much XP/Gold. That'd be the simplest way to adjudicate it.

I was thinking that a wand might use 2 charges.


hogarth wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
Or maybe costs twice as much XP/Gold. That'd be the simplest way to adjudicate it.
I was thinking that a wand might use 2 charges.

I was thinking the 'crafting' aspect, but, this is a good thought as well for using items.


Watcher wrote:

I would like to read your thoughts on Specialist use of wands and scrolls of prohibited spells.

A previous poster makes a good point, it would be easy to scribe up prohibited spells in advance.

You have to hold two wands now to expend a charge and scribe the spell on the scroll twice. :)


hogarth wrote:
Piety Godfury wrote:
Or maybe costs twice as much XP/Gold. That'd be the simplest way to adjudicate it.
I was thinking that a wand might use 2 charges.

Those sound like great approaches in line with the 'double spell slot' memorizing rule itself.

It's a hit to the pocket-book, or spells-per-day, to pretend you're a Universalist, but fundamentally there's nothing stopping you from using any specific spell/scroll/wand. And at higher levels, there's plenty of lee-way for routine memorization of opposed-school spells at lower spell levels, given the number of low-level spell slots and the rarity of actually running out of EVERY spell slot.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Take evokers now. Their first level ability is called force missile and allows them to fire off magic missiles one at a time, adding in their bonus from the intense spells ability (+1 damage to every spell per 2 caster levels, minimum +1).

Hmm... that seems like more spoiler.. anyway..

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Oh well, I really liked energy ray but nothing is immune to force effects so I guess I will adapt to 3+Int bonus force missiles per day especially with the intense spell ability. In the play test using World's Largest Dungeon the at will energy ray proved extremely useful to the party. Mow I will have a reason to prepare Ray of Frost.

Doug

101 to 150 of 450 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Universal Preview # 12 The Wizard All Messageboards