I converted my 5th lvl rogue from 3.5 to PF and was looking at the new Rogue Talents (which I think are very cool btw). I decided to try out the Minor Magic at 2nd level and plan to use the cantrip Resistance (never hurts to up the saves). At 4th level I took Major Magic and plan to use the Persistent Blade spell from the Spell Compendium.
So my typical plan for most fights will be to cast the Persistent Blade as soon as is convenient then start in with the double attacks having 10 rounds of free flanking every day (5 rounds - recast - 5 rounds).
Do many DM's think this is a broken use of those abilites? Being a DM myself, I'm looking out for abuse and possibly other combinations of the two abilities that may be broken or overly powerful. Any suggestions?
|
Do many DM's think this is a broken use of those abilites? Being a DM myself, I'm looking out for abuse and possibly other combinations of the two abilities that may be broken or overly powerful. Any suggestions?
I'd say it's exactly what it's meant for. You could have had the same effect in 3.5 with Use Magic Device skill and a wand or scroll of Persistant Blade.
True enough, hadnt considered that. Guess just having it built into the class made it feel OP'd.
It seems fine. I do not know the spell so can not say if the spell would be an issues but the power works fine
I converted my 5th lvl rogue from 3.5 to PF and was looking at the new Rogue Talents (which I think are very cool btw). I decided to try out the Minor Magic at 2nd level and plan to use the cantrip Resistance (never hurts to up the saves). At 4th level I took Major Magic and plan to use the Persistent Blade spell from the Spell Compendium.
So my typical plan for most fights will be to cast the Persistent Blade as soon as is convenient then start in with the double attacks having 10 rounds of free flanking every day (5 rounds - recast - 5 rounds).
Do many DM's think this is a broken use of those abilites? Being a DM myself, I'm looking out for abuse and possibly other combinations of the two abilities that may be broken or overly powerful. Any suggestions?
From the spell...
If an ally also attacks the creature, the blade moves on your turn to flank the target.
Some DM's could rule that it only flanks when an ally is attacking the same target and it doesn't grant the caster any flanking bonuses.
From the spell...
If an ally also attacks the creature, the blade moves on your turn to flank the target.
Some DM's could rule that it only flanks when an ally is attacking the same target and it doesn't grant the caster any flanking bonuses.
I took that to mean an ally of the blade not of the caster specifically. The also part alludes that the sentence is talking about the blade and not the caster due to it not mentioning the caster attacking the target in any other part of the text, only the blade.
I took that to mean an ally of the blade not of the caster specifically. The also part alludes that the sentence is talking about the blade and not the caster due to it not mentioning the caster attacking the target in any other part of the text, only the blade.From the spell...
If an ally also attacks the creature, the blade moves on your turn to flank the target.
Some DM's could rule that it only flanks when an ally is attacking the same target and it doesn't grant the caster any flanking bonuses.
Yes, I agree. However the blade doesn't have allies itself, only the caster but this is a mute point as the question is whether the blade can be used to flank when cast by a Rogue.
The spell was written with a Wizard/Sorcerer in mind and therefore not likely to be involved in a whole lot of melee!
Spiritual Weapon [a higher level spell] doesn't allow flanking.
The main difference is that Spiritual Weapon is a Core spell and not from a book made up from all manner of untested sources!
It's a DM call, but if you compare the two spells I would say there are some balancing issues without doubt. Personally I wouldn't allow the spell at all because the whole backwards compatible part of Pathfinder is really a red herring to hook in 3.5 fans [I'm including myself in that]. Pretty much everything pre-Pathfinder Beta now exists in a very different world. I would stick to Core material if you want to have a balanced game. Fixing Druids of Doom and Polymorph doesn't make all that other non-core stuff any less broken, imo!
If your DM is happy with it then hey man go for it, as a player I would!
eh I prob would have changed the spell in 3.5 as well. That book has some good stuff but needs a hard looking at before you allow it.
eh I prob would have changed the spell in 3.5 as well. That book has some good stuff but needs a hard looking at before you allow it.
Totally with you on that.
The spell states that the dagger can use you to flank. It doesn't say that you can use it to. Considering that it's a 1st level spell, that'd probably be my ruling if I were DMing.
The spell states that the dagger can use you to flank. It doesn't say that you can use it to. Considering that it's a 1st level spell, that'd probably be my ruling if I were DMing.
Sorry, I don't see how you get that from the spell description. It says 'If an ally also attacks the creature, the blade moves on your turn to flank the target.' Doesn't say that flanking rules change in any form or fashion.
Also, in our games, spells from the Spell Compendium are allowed with DM approval. If he allows it great, if not, I'll find some other spell to work with (shield per chance).
Sorry, I don't see how you get that from the spell description. It says 'If an ally also attacks the creature, the blade moves on your turn to flank the target.' Doesn't say that flanking rules change in any form or fashion.
Exactly, it doesn't state "the blade can be used for flanking". It says that blade can use a person to flank. I can see how you could argue this either way, really. I would guess that this was the original intention of the spell though maybe not. It's a bit too powerful otherwise. Even if a Wizard cast it, perminant flanking for the rogue every battle is powerful. If only the blade can flank, it just has a better chance to hit for minimal damage.
Also, in our games, spells from the Spell Compendium are allowed with DM approval. If he allows it great, if not, I'll find some other spell to work with (shield per chance).
The ability is fine, and if it's a nice benefit you've paid 2 rogue talents to get and have to sacrifice a round/ encounter to cast it.
Whether the spell is broken or not... *shrug* I don't know. I'll let your GM worry about it.
Maybe a summoned flanking buddy might not be out of the question then. And there is no better way to check for traps than sending a SMI monkey to spring it.
Problem is by 5th level or so most creatures will one shot his SMI buddy.
Maybe a summoned flanking buddy might not be out of the question then. And there is no better way to check for traps than sending a SMI monkey to spring it.Problem is by 5th level or so most creatures will one shot his SMI buddy.
Exactly. The force dagger is invincible to anything but dispel magic and globes of invulnerability.
Exactly. The force dagger is invincible to anything but dispel magic and globes of invulnerability.Maybe a summoned flanking buddy might not be out of the question then. And there is no better way to check for traps than sending a SMI monkey to spring it.Problem is by 5th level or so most creatures will one shot his SMI buddy.
While I have no doubt that it's nicer than SMI. However, if his GM allows this he likely allows a lot of other stuff from various sources. If every player in the group is using more powerful stuff and the GM levels his encounters to suit is it really an issue?
If everyone in his group is using non-core Spell Compendium stuff and he isn't then he is handicapping himself for no real benefit.
It's appropriate to play based on the groups play style, there is no "pure" game.
Exactly. The force dagger is invincible to anything but dispel magic and globes of invulnerability.Maybe a summoned flanking buddy might not be out of the question then. And there is no better way to check for traps than sending a SMI monkey to spring it.Problem is by 5th level or so most creatures will one shot his SMI buddy.
OR a failed Spell Resistance check.
While I have no doubt that it's nicer than SMI. However, if his GM allows this he likely allows a lot of other stuff from various sources. If every player in the group is using more powerful stuff and the GM levels his encounters to suit is it really an issue?
If everyone in his group is using non-core Spell Compendium stuff and he isn't then he is handicapping himself for no real benefit.
It's appropriate to play based on the groups play style, there is no "pure" game.
No, no issue at all. I just like to argue the other side when I can. It's fun.
OR a failed Spell Resistance check.
Ah yes, that to. Of course, do you actually have to attack to flank an opponent? Apparently just being there is enough so you could purposely forego the dagger's attack and just gain the flanking benefit which is still way worth a first level spell that lasts 1 round/level.
I made a good pathfinder rogue that went the minor/major magic route. My first level spell... Grease. :) While they're balancing in the grease, whether they made their check or not, they lose their dex mod. :) Sure, the area is small, but if you can back someone into a corner, its a nice way to go.
Probably one of the best core choices for a rogue there. Grease them and move in, when they stand up you get an AoO,
|
I personally like the Talent tricks for the rogue. In your case, even though I own the Spell Compendium, our DM only lets us use the Core Book material in our Second Darkness campaign. I agree that as a DM it's my call to allow something that could make or break a campaign dependeing on its usage.
The Persistent Blade spell does have the advantage by the comments given here that you could be facing off on a monster, your ally attacks from the left side, and on your turn you're able to attack as though the creature is flanked for as long as your ally is there. Wicked and deadly and possibly capable of breaking many monsters depending on the current level of the encounter.