|
That is an interesting point about a trend in TM's advice on certain things--based on wacky contingencies rather than always-useful staples (this is not intended as a sweeping criticism of the whole guide). Silent/Still spell tend to be "oh crap" contingency plans rather than things that are universally useful. When I play a caster, I never find myself with enough feats to be worrying about taking something so situational as these. "Oh sweet, 6th level, now I can take Still Spell... I'll really be unstoppable now." I guess the point I am trying to make is that being grappled just sucks and it's a little counterproductive to try to focus a build toward being able to cast in a grapple. If you get grappled it's because you or somebody on your team wasn't doing their job right.Additionally, the thing is, there are so few circumstances that actually require Still Spell as a solution. You can still cast while climbing or being grappled for instance. It is just harder to do, not impossible. If you are bound then things have already gone wrong for you. And who doesn't also gag spell casters and remove their rods/wands/gear/etc when they tie them up? :)
How often do you need to cast a spell while holding something in both hands?
I can't think of very many scenarios that I might use Still Spell in a proactive manner. At least Silent Spell is useful for casting while stealthed.
I am not advocating that you take Silent Spell, but I would take it before I would take Still Spell....
Really? For a cost of making the spell 1 level higher I could cast in full platemail without having to worry about the arcane spell failure check. With a rod of still spell I don't even have to prepare my spells at 1 slot higher... Seems pretty awesome to me. Granted you still have to deal with the armor check penalty, but if you aren't casting spells that require attack rolls or being an acrobat, it seems pretty good. And I love it when people don't recognize me as a wizardly threat.
|
|
Really? For a cost of making the spell 1 level higher I could cast in full platemail without having to worry about the arcane spell failure check. With a rod of still spell I don't even have to prepare my spells at 1 slot higher... Seems pretty awesome to me. Granted you still have to deal with the armor check penalty, but if you aren't casting spells that require attack rolls or being an acrobat, it seems pretty good. And I love it when people...
Hmmmmm....
I don't think we are arguing the same thing here.
You are a wizard wearing full plate. You are either multi-classed or have already spent feats to do so (effectively). I have already stated that Still Spell has its uses with other builds. I'm talking about wizards for the most part.
There aren't any rods of Still Spell as pointed out in TM's guide. (In the core book anyways, but I guess you could design one if you wished.) If Still Spell rods do exist then I am for sure not taking it as a feat!
I'm talking about the value of taking Still Spell as a feat... not as to whether or not it has any uses.
Are you going to take the feat so you can memorize a large chunk of your spells at 1 level higher so that you can wear full plate and avoid the ASF penalty? Really? ;)
|
Re: Tiny Hut
Good catch on this often underrated spell. When outdoors, the (invisible) wizard can levitate/fly/dim door into the sky and create a Tiny Hut shaded to be the color of the sky (more or less, DM will get involved here). From there, it is all good as he rains down hell while being very, very difficult to spot. Since the wizard can move about in the full sphere, guessing his location is nearly impossible even if the sphere is spotted from the ground.
Re: Secure Shelter
This one is like Tiny Hut on steroids if you do it right. By casting from a scroll or wand, you can create a very handy defensive fortification in a hurry. Use it to block a 20' corridor or entrance to a dungeon room (most rooms in dungeons are bigger than 20 x 20 x 10 and have door smaller than 20' wide), so it doubles as a Wall of Stone until you can actually cast the spell. Face the door toward you and the windows toward the location where hostiles are likely to come, giving you a place to fight with cover that is every bit as good as a stone fortress if desired or just seal the corridor/doorway completely. Use a few scrolls or charges to build an instant stone fortress in the wild, complete with a courtyard, to hold off those ever-present hordes on the plains. You can also put a shelter inside a Tiny Hut to disguise it for camping purposes as their AOE's are the same.
Re: Cloudkill
You can get much more utility out of this spell by casting it and following it up with a wall spell or arcane lock on the dungeon door. The cloud moves, but only if the cloud has someplace to go, otherwise it just slaughters those inside it, remaining a 20'r, 20' tall cylinder of death. For example, a 12th level caster can put up a circular wall of stone 30' in diameter and 15' tall that fully contains a cloudkill (with some poison leaking over the top and away). If the room or corridor the enemies are in is 40' wide or smaller, a cloudkill + a wall is enough to kill them outright.
Re: Bonded Items
I understand your dislike of them, but once Teleport becomes available, losing an item is not really a big deal. Casters in my group teleport back to some very safe place once spells are depleted anyway (why wouldn't they?). Quite often, they spend only 10-15 minutes in the dangerous area before retiring for the day. Unless your adventures are always "save the world in three days", high-level types will have the wherewithal to retreat, wait a week for a new item and return to finish the job.
BTW, good job on putting together the page!
The enemy must also be able to identify the familiar as the source of the AMF.... and if the enemy caster spends time going after the familiar then that in and of itself is a small victory, as the focus has been taken off of the party members.
This is also a good way to deal with troublesome summoned creatures. Probably why TM doesn't mention this tactic given his predilection for summoning! :)
About 1-2 rounds with an archer would end an unbuffed familiar flying or otherwise... so hope the enemies don't have any archers.
I think a better tactic than flying is to have a tiny familiar that can stealth well.
|
|
The enemy must also be able to identify the familiar as the source of the AMF.... and if the enemy caster spends time going after the familiar then that in and of itself is a small victory, as the focus has been taken off of the party members.
This is also a good way to deal with troublesome summoned creatures. Probably why TM doesn't mention this tactic given his predilection for summoning! :)
About 1-2 rounds with an archer would end an unbuffed familiar flying or otherwise... so hope the enemies don't have any archers.
I think a better tactic than flying is to have a tiny familiar that can stealth well.
True, but...
Every tactic usually has a counter!
Of course if the intended target of the AMF is flying then your familiar needs to fly (naturally) as well.
|
|
Hmm, but if your Improved Familiar flies naturally and has Damage Reduction of almost any kind...
Yeah, this. Besides, what is a medusa, naga, beholder, lich or mind flayer going to do to an air elemental flying 10' above if they can't affect it with spells or magic weapons and it is taking a standard action to go full defense each round? With a 100ft/perfect movement, it is going to frustrate the crap out of an enemy caster-type. My books aren't at hand, but a beholder may even be (Su) for fly, which means it is like a giant meatball on the ground.
Granted, a dragon, demon or the like will beat it down in no time, but that is when you put it behind you and get protection from SLA's or breath weapons.
I have seen this work to great effect (imagine some of the encounters in Spire of Long Shadows if the enemies couldn't fly or cast spells and had to rely on plain melee attacks). Trust me, it is ruinous.
About 1-2 rounds with an archer would end an unbuffed familiar flying or otherwise... so hope the enemies don't have any archers.
I think a better tactic than flying is to have a tiny familiar that can stealth well.
Yes very true. There might even be better ways to do it than this. Homunculus as a familiar, maybe? Hmmm...
That, in my opinion, would be a bit silly and leave the spell mostly useless... I admit, it's a knee-jerk opinion, and I haven't done any math what so ever, but hey! It's what I think ;)Not really, It leaves room for things like illusions of walls/ doors/ etc. An illusory wall of stone is almost as good as a real one. An illusion of stone floor over a pit is also quite useful and doesn't allow a save until you fall through.
In particular it works well in combination with actual effects or the silence spell. Cast wall of stone then another section that's illusory.
Oh! I totally agree on the wall part, that wasn't the instigator of the said knee-jerking, no, it was the sound-based illusion I thought was being nerfed if you got a save, just because you heard it. "Well, I don't believe me own ears.." ;-)
Edit: Same statement is true about the eyes of course... Just pointing out the nonsense I toss out at you guys :D
Oh! I totally agree on the wall part, that wasn't the instigator of the said knee-jerking, no, it was the sound-based illusion I thought was being nerfed if you got a save, just because you heard it. "Well, I don't believe me own ears.." ;-)
I think there is some precedence. The audible only spells (Ghost Sounds and Ventriloquism) both say there is a save when you hear them... so inferring that hearing is interaction kind of makes sense.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
What eez zees "beholder" you speak of? There's no such thing in Pathfinder. Unless somebody hit me with a forget spell. Oh wait, that doesn't exist anymore either....
Really though I think the real reason beholder flight was (Ex) was because otherwise a colony of beholders would constantly be making each other fall to the ground.
Hmm, but if your Improved Familiar flies naturally and has Damage Reduction of almost any kind...Yeah, this. Besides, what is a medusa, naga, beholder, lich or mind flayer going to do to an air elemental flying 10' above if they can't affect it with spells or magic weapons and it is taking a standard action to go full defense each round? With a 100ft/perfect movement, it is going to frustrate the crap out of an enemy caster-type. My books aren't at hand, but a beholder may even be (Su) for fly, which means it is like a giant meatball on the ground.
Granted, a dragon, demon or the like will beat it down in no time, but that is when you put it behind you and get protection from SLA's or breath weapons.
I have seen this work to great effect (imagine some of the encounters in Spire of Long Shadows if the enemies couldn't fly or cast spells and had to rely on plain melee attacks). Trust me, it is ruinous.
Yes very true. There might even be better ways to do it than this. Homunculus as a familiar, maybe? Hmmm...About 1-2 rounds with an archer would end an unbuffed familiar flying or otherwise... so hope the enemies don't have any archers.
I think a better tactic than flying is to have a tiny familiar that can stealth well.
I never considered that. I guess I would have the enemies retreat and warn the others so they can set up an ambush. The familair goes ahead to the obvious threat, and the others, they have any stealth abilities come from behind or pull a pincer attack. I will have to look at the map and creatures again to see if its possible however.
So...about this whole "Antimagic field on your familiar" idea. Are you sure this works? Share spells lets you cast a spell that you normally target on 'you' on your familiar instead. AMF doesn't _have_ a "target" field. It doesn't say "target self". It merely has an area that emanates _from_ you, under the area field.
Good catch, by RAW it does not work. I wander however it the RAI was meant to be any spell a caster could only cast on himself. Off to the rules board I go to see if I can get an official interpretation.
|
|
Good catch, by RAW it does not work. I wander however it the RAI was meant to be any spell a caster could only cast on himself. Off to the rules board I go to see if I can get an official interpretation.So...about this whole "Antimagic field on your familiar" idea. Are you sure this works? Share spells lets you cast a spell that you normally target on 'you' on your familiar instead. AMF doesn't _have_ a "target" field. It doesn't say "target self". It merely has an area that emanates _from_ you, under the area field.
Well. That is some pretty extraordinary, fine hair splitting, devious, sneaky, underhanded, crafty word smithing rules lawyering... and probably right on the money (RAI)... :)
Ah well, it was a good idea/tactic while it lasted (for a few hours)...
I knew there was a reason I never got a familiar myself. ;)
Wow...busy day on the Wizard guide thread! 30+ new posts!
Thanks for replies everyone, been an entertaining read! The AMF complete circle was a great read!
I'll be taking time to read this stuff a bit more in depth as soon as I get some time...going to be a busy week.
I'd like an opinion on the prestige class in the new Pathfinder book Seekers. The scroll ability seems really strong, but is it worth losing a caster level on top of the losses for going into a prestige class(vs staying in wizard).
Oh! I totally agree on the wall part, that wasn't the instigator of the said knee-jerking, no, it was the sound-based illusion I thought was being nerfed if you got a save, just because you heard it. "Well, I don't believe me own ears.." ;-)I think there is some precedence. The audible only spells (Ghost Sounds and Ventriloquism) both say there is a save when you hear them... so inferring that hearing is interaction kind of makes sense.
You're unfortunately right :(
One thing though, for Ventriloquism, the PRD says:
Saving Throw Will disbelief (if interacted with)
So it means that hearing a sound is not automatically interaction. Unfortunately the description says:
With respect to such voices and sounds, anyone who hears the sound and rolls a successful save recognizes it as illusory (but still hears it).
Still doesn't make sense to me than hearing a sound is more an interaction than seeing something but by RAW it seems that it is :(
What is the next handbook going to be?
Maybe an extra addition to interposing or forceful hand:
If you have cover, it means you don't need to make those pesky high concentration checks to prevent AoO's. Often one enemy goes for the mage, 'hand' it and you don't have to worry about it anymore.
With any luck, the BSF. :) Hopefully Barbarian.
(Says the guy who's playing a Halfing Barbarian now.)
TM said he does guides for classes he likes to play and that his next one would likely be druids. He's also suggested the Barbarian/ Fighter ones could be done by someone else ;)
Why does anyone want to optimize any class? That sounds too much like min/max-ing. Why not make the character and roll with the punches? Part of the fun of roleplaying is working with drawbacks as well as advantages. Roll the dice and run with your character.
The group I run is going from oldschool to Pathfinder and while Feats are annoying, nobody is cherrypicking abilities, a character is thrown together and hits the ground running. Is that so bad? So far nobody is making career choices based on where they are at, we have just dived in.
Why does anyone want to optimize any class? That sounds too much like min/max-ing. Why not make the character and roll with the punches? Part of the fun of roleplaying is working with drawbacks as well as advantages. Roll the dice and run with your character.
The group I run is going from oldschool to Pathfinder and while Feats are annoying, nobody is cherrypicking abilities, a character is thrown together and hits the ground running. Is that so bad? So far nobody is making career choices based on where they are at, we have just dived in.
Reasons follow:
Many DM's dont pull a lot of punches, and I do realize it varies from group to group so if you come to the table with a random character you might get a brand new one before the session is over. Another reason is a lot of us play these games to do things we could never do in real life so we might as well be as good as we can at it. There is nothing wrong with making your class good as long as you dont try to break the game. Every character has drawbacks, going out of your way to make them less obvious isn't going to take the fun away. Is it so bad to make the best character you can?
I am sure others can think of more reasons, but that was off the top of my head. I don't think either playstyle is wrong however, and in the end each group should do what works best for that group.
I'm not going to get back to everyone on this post yet (so many unanswered posts), but at least I'll get started before work here:
Regarding Illusions (audio giving Will save): There was a web enhancement that WotC had for clarifying exactly what illusions could and couldn't do.
I'll read it over again later today - because I expect the question is answered there - but if anyone else wants to look it over (hint?) the links are all at the bottom of my 3.5 illusions page at this address:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871874/Treantmonks_guid e_to_Illusion_Gods_Tools
I've been having trouble directly accessing Gleemax - if you get an "error has occurred" page - click the D&D link at the top left to get to their main page and try again - that works for me.
Regarding Heightened Spell: I just don't think spending a feat so you can raise the spell level just to get a higher save DC is worth it IMO. Why not just get Spell Focus/Greater spell focus and save your higher level slots for higher level spells.
Regarding Still/Silent Spell: These are interesting points. Perhaps I have rated them too high. I'll think about changing the ratings later today. If I do, I'll post it here.
Lich Loved: Interesting spell use suggestions - I'll take some time to evaluate and will respond to each tonight.
Blope: I do not have the required book to do an evaluation I'm afraid.
Wraithstrike: My next project is a Druid handbook, but I'm taking a bit of a break from handbook writing (the wizard handbook was a big project) to remotivate first.
AdAstragames: Barbarian handbook is WAY down on the list - sorry. I'm not very good at optimizing straight front line fighters.
DennisDaOgre: Ninja'd me on the guide thing ;)
AncientVaults&EldritchSecrets
...is that so bad?...
Absolutely not if that's the way you like to play. If other people like to play in a different way from you, is that so bad?
As for the first question, the reason people optimize (and I'm not sure the difference between "Optimize" and "Min/max" because everyone has a different definition of each) is to make sure their character operates effectively the way they want it to.
Making a Wizard who is supposed to be a help to the party through Buffing/Debuffing/BC's but falls on his face because he took spells that don't accomplish the task very well can be dissapointing to play.
You can certainly "roll with the punches", but a lot of people prefer not to be punched in the first place, I'm sure you can understand that.
Fake Healer: Going to treat it as a legitimate question, not trolling at this point. Prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt...
And my coffee is officially empty - off to work...
Wraithstrike:...... but I'm taking a bit of a break from handbook writing (the wizard handbook was a big project) to remotivate first.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Now that I have had my dramatic moment I guess I understand.
I removed a couple posts. I'd rather the discussion stay civil and on-topic.
Thank you Wraithstrike and Treantmonk for your explanations.
I ran 3.0 & 3.5 and I did have a player thatr tried figuring out his prestige classes while creating his character. This is fine, and I had a RIFTS player that squeezed every possible mechanical benefit from his character and the game system, which was a bit annoying at times.
With 3.x and Pathfinder there are enough pulled punches with the system that optimization just seems overly busy. It is a game. If your wizard doesn't have the best spells, his mentor taught him what he could and sent him out into the world. The character and the rest of the party get to deal with that and make the best of it. With skills and feats one could make up for a few discrepancies here and there, I would imagine.
I don't want to put down your efforts, it is a noble venture to help people enjoy a game, it just seems that the game hands a player so many options that dealing with the pros and cons would keep a group on their toes.
it just seems that the game hands a player so many options that dealing with the pros and cons would keep a group on their toes.
Could you explain this for me?
Could you explain this for me?
I run oldschool games mostly, or retro-clones. Pathfinder is a beautiful book, and I bought the core and bestiary and as we had 3.x experience we dove in.
With newer editions (mind you, I am not in on any edition wars, any game that you and your group likes is perfect, regardless of edition) there are skills and feats that help to make up for flaws or lack of power in a particular area, especially spell related feats. My group is more used to figuring things out without these options, which are basically just mechanical reminders of something that your character can do. Earning a feat that circumnavigates a fault is a great patch for an inadequacy in the character.
I do like the idea of helping people enjoy their game, that truly is great, optimizing just sounds like trying to squeeze every bit of potential from a character when overcoming one's shortcomings is also important. Character is forged through adversity, not taking the easy road.
Maybe I am just used to a bunch of scoundrels who sometimes do heroic things, usually for some profit to themselves, than characters that start out as heroes.
Could you explain this for me?I run oldschool games mostly, or retro-clones. Pathfinder is a beautiful book, and I bought the core and bestiary and as we had 3.x experience we dove in.
With newer editions (mind you, I am not in on any edition wars, any game that you and your group likes is perfect, regardless of edition) there are skills and feats that help to make up for flaws or lack of power in a particular area, especially spell related feats. My group is more used to figuring things out without these options, which are basically just mechanical reminders of something that your character can do. Earning a feat that circumnavigates a fault is a great patch for an inadequacy in the character.
I do like the idea of helping people enjoy their game, that truly is great, optimizing just sounds like trying to squeeze every bit of potential from a character when overcoming one's shortcomings is also important. Character is forged through adversity, not taking the easy road.
Maybe I am just used to a bunch of scoundrels who sometimes do heroic things, usually for some profit to themselves, than characters that start out as heroes.
I look at feats as things your character learned how to do so life would be easier.
You want to be able to fight with two weapons so you trained for it and took - TWF.You dont want to be attacked in the middle of the night unarmored so you start walking around, doing everything in your armor to get used to the feel until its almost like a second skin-Endurance.
You want the to hit the enemy, but don't want to him to be able to bring his fury upon you, so you decide to use hit and run tactics-Spring Attack
All of these make sense to me from a fluff and mechanical view. Allowing someone to hit you in the face does not make you any more of a hero.
Even those of us that optimize have a background story, and those of us that are really good at it limit the power level of the character, so if fits well with the group, but each group has different power levels they play at, but after playing with a group most of us know where the line is drawn at. In other words we dont make the character as strong as possible, we make it as strong as possible for the situation. Most of us anyway.
Edit: to avoid more derailing I will step away from this subject.
I ran 3.0 & 3.5 and I did have a player thatr tried figuring out his prestige classes while creating his character. This is fine, and I had a RIFTS player that squeezed every possible mechanical benefit from his character and the game system, which was a bit annoying at times.
Let me give you a hypothetical which hopefully will illustrate the difference for me between Optimization and Min/Maxing, and that might also explain why a lot of players might have more fun if they consider optimization when character building.
Since this is a Wizard optimization thread, we'll stay on topic and use Wizard optimization as the example.
Let's say hypothetically one of your players gets a neat character concept for a Wizard. He decides that his Wizard is going to be a dark hero who uses the fears of his enemies against them. Mysterious, and dreaded, his style of magic is intended to be intimidating to the enemy.
This player is making his Wizard at level 7 and after reading the variouis spell descriptions, decides that Phantasmal Killer is going to be his premiere spell, after all, creating the most horrible image imaginable to the enemy so that it actually kills him sounds like a great choice for this concept.
Then in gameplay he is excited to try out his ultimate weapon, so he uses his 4th level memorizations on Phantasmal Killer. During gameplay he casts the spell over and over, going through all his memorizations, only to discover that creatures may fail a saving throw, but they usually don't fail two in a row. His ultimate weapon turns into an ultimate dissapointment. Now the player has a character who is not fulfilling the concept he had imagined for it.
At this point he has a couple options, he can beg the DM for help, or a chance to pick different spells, he can change the character concept entirely, realizing that the character he had hoped to play just isn't going to happen, or, (and I've seen this many times - most of you probably have to), his character starts to be played a bit recklessly, and when the character finally dies, the player lets everyone know he does NOT want to be ressurected, confirming that the character's death my not have been an accident at all, but instead was the end of a character that the player was simply not having fun playing.
Imagine the same scenario, but this time the player with the same character concept decides to consider optimization to ensure his concept works. After reading a fantastic, well thought out, and brilliant wizard guide, clearly written by a handsome and charming fellow, he decides that Phantasmal Killer isn't going to work the way he thought, and that his character concept can still be realized by instead perhaps using different spells - so instead of Phantasmal Killer he chooses Fear as his premiere spell.
The end result may not be death, but by targeting multiple creatures with an effect that only offers one save, and still leaves them shaken even if they do save, the character concept not only remains in place, but actually works. The player actually has fun with his character, and can play up the "everyone's worst nightmare" concept.
That's what optimization is to me.
One of the reasons why I tend to gravitate to the "stabbity" builds is because the spell lists in D&D and Pathfinder seem so fricking arbitrary, more so with the Arcane ones than the Divine ones.
If I could get my gaming group to agree to a house rule set that allowed something like Ars Magica's 'noun and verb' spell creation system, I'd be tempted to make a wizard...but a spell list where Web is a more generally useful spell than Meteor Swarm, where most of the spells are variations on "Attach condition X to target","Do Xd6 Damage to Target", "Give target buff/debuff"...meh.
Illusions/interaction with illusions/saving throws:
So I did a bit of research - this is what Skip Williams has to say regarding what qualifies as "interaction" when it comes to illusions:
Interacting With Illusions
According to page 173 in the Player's Handbook, you don't receive a saving throw against an illusion effect with a disbelief saving throw until you study the illusion carefully or interact with it in some way. The text uses an illusory floor as an example. The character in the example provided there gets a saving throw by stopping to examine the floor (study) or by probing the floor (interaction).
For game purposes, we can define "studying" an illusion as taking an action (which DMs can choose to make a move action since this is an extrapolation of the rules and not an actual rule) to observe an illusion effect and note its details. Some DMs I know require a Spot or Search check to disbelieve an illusion. That's going too far. Merely pausing and using an action to make the check is enough to allow a saving throw.
Also for game purposes, we can define "interacting" with an illusion as doing something that could affect the illusion or allowing the illusion to have an affect on you. You have a valid claim to an interaction with an illusion when you attack it, touch it, talk to it, poke it with a stick, target it with a spell, or do something else that one might do with a real creature or object.
The key to disbelieving an illusion is investing some time and effort in the illusion. If you decide to ignore the illusion, you don't get a saving throw to disbelieve it. Let's consider the illusory guard from a previous example. The guard is a figment created with a major imagespell, and the caster has left the illusory guard to prowl around a chamber. A character entering or looking into the chamber might react to the illusory guard in several ways, some of which will allow a saving throw to disbelieve and some that will not. Here are just a few possibilities:
He goes on to say that the exception to this rule is in cases where the spell specifically states a different criteria for interaction, like the Ventriloquism spell that says in the description that all who hear it get a saving throw (his own example).
This would suggest that if you are using a Minor/Major image with sound, that if the character percieving the illusion takes an action to listen carefully to evaluate the sound, they get a saving throw, if they don't spend that action to carefully listen, they don't.
I'll be updating the guide to reflect this, which is probably the most official clarification we're going to get (and personally, I think it makes sense)
Edit: Changes to illusion spell ratings/descriptions should be complete - if I missed anything, let me know.
Regarding Still Spell: I decided to make the rating change to Orange. New description as follows:
Still Spell: Not available as a standard metamagic rod unfortunately, but mainly for use if you are paralyzed, or really don't want to be identified as the source of a spell (in these cases, Still spell will need to be used in conjunction with Silent Spell). Some method of casting silent spells (such as the Rod) should really be obtained first, as Silent Spell is more useful on its own than Still Spell is.
P.S.:
My Guides are now available at "Treantmonk's Lab" at the PFSRD.
Please click HERE to access.
This will be a single location where you can view all my Pathfinder stuff. I'll be linking future handbooks directly here.
Adding a touch to what TreantMonk said.
If the game were filled with choices that were relatively equal at every juncture then guides like this wouldn't add any value. Paizo did a fair job of evening things out but for various reasons there are still tons of options that are just plain stinkers. You can play the game and figure out all the various weak options or you can read a guide like this and save yourself the trouble.
|
|
@ Treatmonk
Don't take this personally, but it is quite obvious that we will have to become mortal enemies from here forth!
My scrying has also alerted me to your realm's plan to send an army of fire elementals to try and capture Rexall Keep from out stalwart earth elementals (petroleum variant) a week after the winter solstice! I know that these two armies have met a few times recently and that the flames have bested our guardians each time, but I assure you this time will be different! Mark my words!
;)
Greetings to a fellow northlander!
Thank you for the insights, everyone.
I will send my players towards your endeavors, Treantmonk, so that they may read the bounty and encourage them to read the advice therein.
Purposely forgetting feats and skills has gotten us off the path of dealing with the concepts of using these to their full potential.
Nice to see a fellow Albertan on the boards!
Frostflame: Not saying wands aren't useful. Please see my section on "Wands". However, the low level wands are very inexpensive, even at full retail. Once you get to the higher level stuff, you are going to want to be able to substitute your Caster Level and goodies to get the full bang for your buck.
Remember that you don't need item creation feats at all, they are just a way to sell off your feat slots for cash. Craft Staff simply is going to put more cash in pocket than craft wand.
Also note that a Wizard cannot make Cure or Lesser Restoration wands because, according to the feat description, you can only make wands of spells you know.
Final Note: If you are playing a campaign where magic items are very hard to come across, or buying the magic item you want just isn't an option, craft feats become more necessary in these cases.
P.S.:
My Guides are now available at "Treantmonk's Lab" at the PFSRD.
Please click HERE to access.
This will be a single location where you can view all my Pathfinder stuff. I'll be linking future handbooks directly here.
Hey TM - We usually give out the d20pfsrd.com url to the general public as the Google Sites URL is supposed to be just for collaborators. The general public is certainly free to access the site from that URL but very many links will not work, leading people to believe the site is not working correctly. The public url for your page would be...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab
Thank you for the insights, everyone.
I will send my players towards your endeavors, Treantmonk, so that they may read the bounty and encourage them to read the advice therein.Purposely forgetting feats and skills has gotten us off the path of dealing with the concepts of using these to their full potential.
WOOOHOOO! CONVERT!!!!! What's our tally now????
|
If I could get my gaming group to agree to a house rule set that allowed something like Ars Magica's 'noun and verb' spell creation system, I'd be tempted to make a wizard...but a spell list where Web is a more generally useful spell than Meteor Swarm, where most of the spells are variations on "Attach condition X to target","Do Xd6 Damage to Target", "Give target buff/debuff"...meh.
I can completely relate to that. There's something so much grander in playing a Magus who casts Visions of the Infernal Terrors (Rego Mentem 30) on his enemies, incapacitating them with fear, rather than a Wizard casting Fear and scattering his enemies away. That being said, Pathfinder is quite a lot easier system to understand, and the amount of good work Paizo has been doing with the rulebook and all the adventure paths makes it a lot easier to organize and, most importantly, play.
After reading TM's guide, I'm looking forward to fielding my own elf wizard, and put all the GM's creatures to shame with brilliant battlefield control! Thanks for the awesome guides!
One thing Ars Magica did right: They called fighters "Gronks"!
Even without the massive power differential between Ars Magica magi and commoners, and the resulting bits and pieces tied to playing them, D&D/PFRPG magic really doesn't feel well integrated.
All wizards have the same Web spell. All wizards have the same Magic Missile spell. All wizards find that as they progress in levels, their lower level spells effectively become useless.
All wizards are stuck with a Vancian spell casting mechanic, and X spells per day before they become dead weight.
I understand WHY it's that way (backwards compatibility ruuulz0rs) and that they're stuck with something that's mutated a small bit from 1st ed AD&D and got tweaked in 2nd Ed AD&D. Doesn't mean I can't wist for something better.
In stories and fiction, magic always has its price. In D&D, Magic requires that everyone check out their spells from the exact same formulary, and the price is usually "nap for 8 hours and study a different list of spells for tomorrow."
I'm not saying magic is underpowered, either. It most assuredly ain't; this is a game of linear fighters and nigh unto quadratic wizards. And a Cleric using Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments and Divine Might is at least as good as a fighter at turning enemy mooks into smears on the corridor floor.
But boy, I wish they'd come up with a coherent set of level depended spells for each theme of magic that logically built from the prior level's spells...
Hmm. Wonder if Paizo'd be interested in that as a product.
Even without the massive power differential between Ars Magica magi and commoners, and the resulting bits and pieces tied to playing them, D&D/PFRPG magic really doesn't feel well integrated.
All wizards have the same Web spell. All wizards have the same Magic Missile spell. All wizards find that as they progress in levels, their lower level spells effectively become useless.
All wizards are stuck with a Vancian spell casting mechanic, and X spells per day before they become dead weight.
I understand WHY it's that way (backwards compatibility ruuulz0rs) and that they're stuck with something that's mutated a small bit from 1st ed AD&D and got tweaked in 2nd Ed AD&D. Doesn't mean I can't wist for something better.
In stories and fiction, magic always has its price. In D&D, Magic requires that everyone check out their spells from the exact same formulary, and the price is usually "nap for 8 hours and study a different list of spells for tomorrow."
I'm not saying magic is underpowered, either. It most assuredly ain't; this is a game of linear fighters and nigh unto quadratic wizards. And a Cleric using Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments and Divine Might is at least as good as a fighter at turning enemy mooks into smears on the corridor floor.
But boy, I wish they'd come up with a coherent set of level depended spells for each theme of magic that logically built from the prior level's spells...
Hmm. Wonder if Paizo'd be interested in that as a product.
I will admit I have no knowledge or Ars Magica(sp?), but a lot of things are done for the sake of simplicity. Ars sounds like a really versatile and fun thing to use but versatility usually mean complexity, and some people don't do well with complex things. Where is Ars Magica found anyway(book, website etc)?. I might want to look into it. It sounds interesting.
Regarding Illusions (audio giving Will save): There was a web enhancement that WotC had for clarifying exactly what illusions could and couldn't do.I'll read it over again later today - because I expect the question is answered there - but if anyone else wants to look it over (hint?) the links are all at the bottom of my 3.5 illusions page at this address:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871874/Treantmonks_guid e_to_Illusion_Gods_Tools
Very interesting stuff! My understanding from the different articles from Skip Williams, especially the Part Three is that illusion of sound does not give an automatic save. Some illusion spells state that they give automatic saves like Ventriloquism and Ghost sound but not Minor Image (or more). I find the explanation of interaction close to what I stated before: you need to do an action to interact with the illusion (e.g. at least taking some time observing/listening the illusion).
So Minor Image does not give an automatic save even if there is sound, silent image + ghost sound do (actually only ghost sound but if one successfully saves vs ghost sound, as a DM I would allow another save with a HUGE bonus vs the silent image).Edit: wow you beat me at that, you guys are fast at typing! Glad to see we have the same opinion about this now :D
Regarding the rest of your spells selection, I have few comments:
Acid Arrow:
The reasons why people still takes it are mainly:
1. It does damage overtime so it's very nice against spellcasters (concentration check at -5 in average is tough at low levels, better than 3.5 with the new PF Concentration rule).
2 It doesn't have any SR so it's sometimes the only way for a low to mid level wizard to do damages to high CR critters (e.g. Rakshaaza)
I agree that it looses a lot of interest at high level but it's still an OK spell at low levels. I don't think it deserves Red on your list.
Sleep:
It takes one full round to cast which is a pain. Color spray is better in my opinion at any level (a full round casting time for a spell that is useful only during 4 levels is a waste of space in my spellbook in my opinion).
Summon Monster X:
I'm not sure but it seems that you like SM spells a lot :P which is fine. But I think you forgot to mention the 2 majors flaws of these spells:
1. Casting time is one full round which makes it sub par for in-combat situations
2. Duration is 1 round per level only which limits considerably its use for out-of-combat situation (e.g. SM I is not a viable replacement option for Mount...).
Still a spell that I like to use sometimes but probably not with the same love than you.
Cheers