Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards (Optimization)


Advice

151 to 200 of 799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Farabor wrote:
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.

I never realized this before, but the Target entry doesn't exist for this spell. I am going to have to agree with you.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Dark Archive

Treantmonk wrote:

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.

Oh! Hey! I'm not sure how I missed this.

Works for me. Nicely done.

Cheers

Dark Archive

Lich-Loved wrote:


I never realized this before, but the Target entry doesn't exist for this spell. I am going to have to agree with you.

Thanks for pointing this out.

There are actually quite a few spells that function like this. Never noticed til I started looking yesterday...

Learn something new everyday...


wraithstrike wrote:


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.

Ars Magica is published by Atlas Games, and the 5th edition came out a few years ago. At one point, the 4th edition was a free download. It's not a D&D style clone - mages are acknowledged as being beings of terrible power, working with the threads that hold the cosmos together, and being quite...careful...in doing so.

The schtick of Ars Magica is that there are fifteen magic words, and you have skills in each of them. To make a spell, you have to combine some of those words together, a minimum of two. The more powerful the effect, the more difficult the casting.

It is, in many ways, SIMPLER than what Pathfinder inherited from D&D 3rd Edition. It does require that your players be able to think on their feet, and you need to structure your adventures around something other than tactical combat....

Which is why I'd want to make a somewhat different approach than a direct port.

But my grumbles about D&D style 'casting are that you really only get useful casting from your top three spell levels, and that those spells seem so damned arbitrary.

Why should I be able to make an Interposing Hand that can't grasp things until I get to the next level? Why can't I just take Mage Hand and turn it into a 4th level spell, following some set progression of increased range and capability?


Monte Cooks Unearthed Arcana has spells that scale levels.

As for only the highest level spells not being useful, I think much of that depends on the caster. There are many low level spells which are useful for a long time. Grease, silent image, unseen servant, invisibility, glitterdust...


Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Monte Cooks Unearthed Arcana has spells that scale levels.

As for only the highest level spells not being useful, I think much of that depends on the caster. There are many low level spells which are useful for a long time. Grease, silent image, unseen servant, invisibility, glitterdust...

+1

Which, ironically, is why my Illisionist took Heighten Spell. I had too many lower-level spells that were too useful to just give up, and I didn't want people making those saves. Really, only Major Image continued to see use, but it saw use almost every single encounter!


AdAstraGames wrote:
But my grumbles about D&D style 'casting are that you really only get useful casting from your top three spell levels, and that those spells seem so damned arbitrary.

Not true. While some spells do become obsolete, most blatantly the blasts (Fear my 5d4 fire damage at level nine!), which weren't all that good in their prime anyways, many spells hold their value quite well. Grease and Silent Image are two of the most powerful spells in the game, from level one to twenty. In fact, one of the greatest keys to running a truly effective caster is learning to make good use of your lower-level spell slots, as that's where the bulk of your staying power lies.

AdAstraGames wrote:
Why should I be able to make an Interposing Hand that can't grasp things until I get to the next level? Why can't I just take Mage Hand and turn it into a 4th level spell, following some set progression of increased range and capability?

You may want to look into psionics. It's certainly a lot more sensible than Vancian, and has some meaningful scaling. It's more rigid than what you're talking about, but then, Ars Magica is rather constraining with regards to what any one spell does, as well.

The Exchange

Firstly, I loved your old guide and I really like your new one. It is mostly the same as the old one, but the pathfinderization worked.

One thing that I did find odd was:

Treant wrote:
Summon Monster III: One of the best Summon Spells for the Level. The Ape is nasty in combat (they bumped up the Bison, but forgot the Ape which is just as tough), Dire Bats for a flying steed or Blindsense, The Dretch can create stinking clouds and scare effects...just a really good spell.

The ape is as tough as the bison?

I remember it was like that in 3.5, but I think its a bit different now.

Old Ape was 29 HP with 2 claws +7 melee (1d6+5) and bite +2 melee (1d6+2).
New Ape is 19 HP 2 slams +3 (1d6+2)
Riding dog: 13HP bite +3 1d6+3 plus trip

So would you rather summon one Ape than summon 1d4+1 riding dogs?


Viletta Vadim wrote:
You may want to look into psionics. It's certainly a lot more sensible than Vancian, and has some meaningful scaling. It's more rigid than what you're talking about, but then, Ars Magica is rather constraining with regards to what any one spell does, as well.

+2!

And looking over at the psionics thread, it's somehow even less exploitable, but please don't anyone discuss that here! IMO, IMO, IMO!


Yeah for TM.
Loved the old 3.5 guides, happy to see the old optimizers turning up here as well. ;)

Now, you've convinced me to finally try playing a Wizard; I've always been kinda "scared" of doing the non-spontaneous caster types.

Although I too like the idea of summons, the cast time has always been a big turnoff for me, just too many thing seems to happen during a whole round to feel safe doing it - and add to that the rather short duration on low(er) levels (never been past level 15 in those some 5 years of 3.5).

Thus I'd love some more input on tips and tricks for optimizing cast time and/or duration.
Quicken Spell (Metamagic) isn't an option: "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened."
For duration there's of course Extend Spell (Metamagic), but like others have pointed out, that's mainly a problem on the low levels, also there's a few options for buffing caster level.

Bottom line is: what to do about the inherent threat of spending a round summoning?


BeKay wrote:

Yeah for TM.

Loved the old 3.5 guides, happy to see the old optimizers turning up here as well. ;)

Now, you've convinced me to finally try playing a Wizard; I've always been kinda "scared" of doing the non-spontaneous caster types.

Although I too like the idea of summons, the cast time has always been a big turnoff for me, just too many thing seems to happen during a whole round to feel safe doing it - and add to that the rather short duration on low(er) levels (never been past level 15 in those some 5 years of 3.5).

Thus I'd love some more input on tips and tricks for optimizing cast time and/or duration.
Quicken Spell (Metamagic) isn't an option: "A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full-round action cannot be quickened."
For duration there's of course Extend Spell (Metamagic), but like others have pointed out, that's mainly a problem on the low levels, also there's a few options for buffing caster level.

Bottom line is: what to do about the inherent threat of spending a round summoning?

an unearthed arcana variant that requires you give up your familiar (or now arcane bond) to summon as a standard action.


I think you are underestimating the use of a Lantern Archon as a SM III. The thing is this, it gets Greater Teleport at will! How sexy is that!

Imagine this! You just found some sexy statute made of gold. However everyone is quite overencumbred already. Hmm, what to do.. Nobody has a bag of holding yet(not likely). I know, summon monster 3, get a lantern archon, describe your cellar to him, give him the item and whoop, he ports it away to your cellar.

He then returns and does the same with all the uneccesary items you carry.

Hmm, how about a large chunk of a Dragon's Horde... Lets see how much gold a Lantern Archon from a CL 5 conjurer can carry.. That's 10 rounds of duration. You spend 1-2 rounds to show him a picture of your cellar and show him the map of the location etc.. leaves you with 8 rounds of teleporting, that's 4 carry trips, 4x50=200 lbs of gold.

If I recall, 50gp =1 lb, thus 50x200 = 10000gp! You just hijacked 10k gp from a dragon with a 3rd level spell! Oh boy, that's one pissed off dragon! :D

NOW IMAGINE THAT WAS PLATINUM!

You could rob a bank with this!(LoL, this sounds like a interesting character concept!) :D


Iliyan wrote:

I think you are underestimating the use of a Lantern Archon as a SM III. The thing is this, it gets Greater Teleport at will! How sexy is that!

Imagine this! You just found some sexy statute made of gold. However everyone is quite overencumbred already. Hmm, what to do.. Nobody has a bag of holding yet(not likely). I know, summon monster 3, get a lantern archon, describe your cellar to him, give him the item and whoop, he ports it away to your cellar.

He then returns and does the same with all the uneccesary items you carry.

Hmm, how about a large chunk of a Dragon's Horde... Lets see how much gold a Lantern Archon from a CL 5 conjurer can carry.. That's 10 rounds of duration. You spend 1-2 rounds to show him a picture of your cellar and show him the map of the location etc.. leaves you with 8 rounds of teleporting, that's 4 carry trips, 4x50=200 lbs of gold.

If I recall, 50gp =1 lb, thus 50x200 = 10000gp! You just hijacked 10k gp from a dragon with a 3rd level spell! Oh boy, that's one pissed off dragon! :D

NOW IMAGINE THAT WAS PLATINUM!

Yes but when you summon an outsider they cannot use any of their teleport or gate spells....

You could rob a bank with this!(LoL, this sounds like a interesting character concept!) :D


Whaaaaat! O.o Since when can't they use their Teleportation abilities :_(

Damnit Paizo should have made a "changelog" from 3.5 >.<


Summoned creatures in 3.5 couldn't use teleport abilities. It's not a Paizo change, thus wouldn't be on a changelog. Check your PHB.

Summoning time/duration:

The 1 round casting time is certainly a Drag. Don't know what really else I can say about it unless you have access to 3.5 material.

It's just an accepted drawback of casting these spells I'm afraid.

As for duration, Once you get to level 5 (when you can access the first Summon Monster spell I recommend) you will find that 5 rounds is a pretty decent duration. If you can afford a lesser extend rod all the better, but really, most combats are over by round 6. As your levels increase, combat length tends not to increase with it, so it becomes a complete non-factor soon enough.

xIN: As you probably guessed, I was assuming the ape was still tough. Ouch! I'll have to re-examine the spell and see what good alternatives you have.


OK - re-evaluated SM III.

The premeire summons for this level are:

Herd Animal, Aurochs: only 1 attack, but it's +7 to hit for 1d8+9 damage (before smite bonuses) and HP of 22. Not bad at all. Similar to the Bison from 3.5.

Cat, Leopard: 3 attacks with pounce. +6 to hit with 1d6+3 damage on each (before smiting). HP is a respectable 19

Cat, Cheetah: 3 attacks, but no pounce. +6 to hit with 1d6+3 damage on each (before smiting). HP is a respectable 19. The main difference between the Cheetah and Leopard is you give up pounce, but get trip instead. Not a bad tradeoff depending on your circumstance.

Obviously the other benefit to cheetah's is the "sprint" ability - if a long distance needs to be covered (Ummmm...500 feet!)

Wolverine: When it rages, it has the same bonus to hit and damage with its 3 attacks as a cheetah or Leopard, but can take a hit better, with 28 HP (in rage).

Personally, I think my favorite would be the Leopard. Using Smite Evil and a Charge, that's +8 to hit on 3 attacks doing 1d6+6 damage each...not bad for a summons at level 5...


Are you going to edit your guide according to your new summon findings?


Already done.

Starting to outline my Druid guide...it's going to be a nightmare. 50 million (hyperbole obviously) wildshape forms to evaluate - but it gets worse, the same form grants different abilities as you increase level, so the Eagle for example needs 4 different evaluations. That's before getting into spells. GAAAAH! What have I gotten myself into?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Treantmonk wrote:

Already done.

Starting to outline my Druid guide...it's going to be a nightmare. 50 million (hyperbole obviously) wildshape forms to evaluate - but it gets worse, the same form grants different abilities as you increase level, so the Eagle for example needs 4 different evaluations. That's before getting into spells. GAAAAH! What have I gotten myself into?

A nightmarish dystopic future from whence there is no escape?


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


A nightmarish dystopic future from whence there is no escape?

Hmmm...sounds like an interesting Roleplaying Campaign World.

The Exchange

Treantmonk wrote:

Already done.

Starting to outline my Druid guide...it's going to be a nightmare. 50 million (hyperbole obviously) wildshape forms to evaluate - but it gets worse, the same form grants different abilities as you increase level, so the Eagle for example needs 4 different evaluations. That's before getting into spells. GAAAAH! What have I gotten myself into?

Don't worry, we have faith in your abilities.

Besides, call me selfish but I really want a good druid guide to look at.

Scarab Sages

I'd still like to go back to the conversation about Arcane Bond. While the extra 1 spell per day freely chosen from your spellbook seems like a nice ability, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned another case where the bonded item is useful: being a store for additional magical effects.

As stated in Arcane Bond (PFSRD):

Arcane Bond wrote:
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object [...] The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it.

A wizard can add different magical effects to his bonded item for only the fourth of their market price. With a finite number of magic item slots, a wizard with a bonded ring or amulet can wear plenty of different magical items in just one item. With most of these being of constant duration or activated as free actions, I tend to prefer bonded items to familiars. Especially when the crafting feats or Improved Familiar come to play (you don't need the first one, but may want to get the latter one).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the wording I understand that it is possible to add multiple effects to one bonded item. Rules prohibit wands with different spells, everything else is fine.


Wickerman wrote:

I'd still like to go back to the conversation about Arcane Bond. While the extra 1 spell per day freely chosen from your spellbook seems like a nice ability, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned another case where the bonded item is useful: being a store for additional magical effects.

As stated in Arcane Bond (PFSRD):

Arcane Bond wrote:
A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object [...] The magic properties of a bonded object, including any magic abilities added to the object, only function for the wizard who owns it.

A wizard can add different magical effects to his bonded item for only the fourth of their market price. With a finite number of magic item slots, a wizard with a bonded ring or amulet can wear plenty of different magical items in just one item. With most of these being of constant duration or activated as free actions, I tend to prefer bonded items to familiars. Especially when the crafting feats or Improved Familiar come to play (you don't need the first one, but may want to get the latter one).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the wording I understand that it is possible to add multiple effects to one bonded item. Rules prohibit wands with different spells, everything else is fine.

From the way I read the rules item creation prices were half, not 1/4 using core rules that is. As for the multiple abilities you it can be done as long s it is an item that would normally allow it by RAW.


Wickerman wrote:

A wizard can add different magical effects to his bonded item for only the fourth of their market price. With a finite number of magic item slots, a wizard with a bonded ring or amulet can wear plenty of different magical items in just one item. ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the wording I understand that it is possible to add multiple effects to one bonded item. Rules prohibit wands with different spells, everything else is fine.

Arcane bond gives a virtual craft item feat for your arcane bonded item. For that one item you can craft as if you had the appropriate feat to craft the item.

You can put multiple effects into your main item but then you aren't getting much of a discount and you are exaggerating your reliance on that one item. Further, unless you ignore the body slots requirements you are pretty limited in what you can craft on a given item regardless.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Treantmonk wrote:
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.

But a wiz could contribute Craft Wand feat and a cleric, ranger, druid, bard, or paladin can contribute cure light wounds. Craft collaboration FTW. And wands of cure light wounds, the ubiquitous "happy sticks," are the real winners of wands. Everybody who has cure light on their spell list should carry 1 or 2. At 10th level or so you can burn through a whole wand after a single fight. And that's OK, cause it only cost you 375 gp. It's a cleric on a stick. Pure awesome.

Treantmonk wrote:
Skip Williams on illusion interaction

Ah, the classic "I attempt to disbelieve."

The Exchange

Charlie Bell wrote:


But a wiz could contribute Craft Wand feat and a cleric, ranger, druid, bard, or paladin can contribute cure light wounds. Craft collaboration FTW. And wands of cure light wounds, the ubiquitous "happy sticks," are the real winners of wands. Everybody who has cure light on their spell list should carry 1 or 2. At 10th level or so you can burn through a whole wand after a single fight. And that's OK, cause it only cost you 375 gp. It's a cleric on a stick. Pure awesome.

Ah, the classic "I attempt to disbelieve."

Yes, as far as I know the only requirement is the craft feat. Getting the spell off of a scroll or from another caster is fine.


Treantmonk wrote:

Already done.

Starting to outline my Druid guide...it's going to be a nightmare. 50 million (hyperbole obviously) wildshape forms to evaluate - but it gets worse, the same form grants different abilities as you increase level, so the Eagle for example needs 4 different evaluations. That's before getting into spells. GAAAAH! What have I gotten myself into?

I understand the magnitude of the task. Since you are not a fan of clerics and I have played them forever I decided to look at a Handbook for Clerics done in your style. Analyzing the major roles a cleric can fill, the domains and spells may actually be lenghter than your wizards handbook. I have next week off from work so I may be able to get some of it done.

Doug


BeKay wrote:


Bottom line is: what to do about the inherent threat of spending a round summoning?

1) Take rapid spell (full round spells become standard action)

2) Take practiced metamagic or metamagic school focus or whatever it's called to get rid of the +1 for rapid spell

Result: You can apply rapid spell on all your summons for +0 adjustment.

It's not Pathfinder core, those feats come from the Complete books.
But if you're a summoner wizard those would be well spent feats imo. You get way more feats in Pathfinder anyway.

Sovereign Court

Regarding the lack of Still Spell metamagic rods, I believe the reason for their absence is that they cannot be used while immobilized. Metamagic rods are "use activated", and if you can't move, you can't activate it. I guess there might be a minor niche for armor wearing mages to have them, but in most cases where you NEED a Still Rod, you couldn't even use it anyway.


It's a tiny bit off topic, but one of the "Evil" (TM) things about arcane bond magic items is the 'usable only for creator'. Nice for the GM who wants to make a nice challenging fight for his party, without then giving them the Amulet of Roxxors that made the fight challenging in the first place (And thus making it even harder to challenge in the future....)


Farabor wrote:

It's a tiny bit off topic, but one of the "Evil" (TM) things about arcane bond magic items is the 'usable only for creator'. Nice for the GM who wants to make a nice challenging fight for his party, without then giving them the Amulet of Roxxors that made the fight challenging in the first place (And thus making it even harder to challenge in the future....)

Bad DM! Bad DM! *hits DM*


Treantmonk wrote:


Summoning time/duration:

The 1 round casting time is certainly a Drag. Don't know what really else I can say about it unless you have access to 3.5 material.

It's just an accepted drawback of casting these spells I'm afraid.

As for duration, Once you get to level 5 (when you can access the first Summon Monster spell I recommend) you will find that 5 rounds is a pretty decent duration. If you can afford a lesser extend rod all the better, but really, most combats are over by round 6. As your levels increase, combat length tends not to increase with it, so it becomes a complete non-factor soon enough.

Duration of SM X is still an issue at level 5 for out-combat situation. That makes it a lot less versatile than you say. Also I'm not an expert re the 3.5 material you are referring to but I thought that you stated at the beginning of your handbook that the handbook is made for PF Core, as is in PF I think you are overrating the Summon spells. Did I mention that a 1st level spell can sometimes protect from the effects of the summoned creature (Protection vs X)?

You don't mention the Ray specialization (PBS, Precise Shot feats) in your handbook. Do you think it's dead with PF nerfed spells (I think Enfeeblement for ex) or were you never an adept? Enervation still rocks and IMHO is one of the best spells of the level.


Some of those spells I will have to return back to their old form. I just dont feel like doing a spell by spell comparison at the moment.


Faenor wrote:
Duration of SM X is still an issue at level 5 for out-combat situation.

Depends which out of combat situation you are talking about. How many out-of-combat uses do you want for summoning at level 5? 9 enough?

1) Use a lantern archon to ask a question to a creature you would normally not be able to communicate with.

2) Use a Dire Bat/Dolphin (depending on environment) to find an invisible foe and reveal their location. (Which of course turns the out of combat situation into a combat situation)

3) Use a Dire Bat as a mount to fly across a pit or up to a balcony etc.

4) Use a small Earth Elemental to glide through a wall, come back, and tell you what is on the other side.

5) Use a small water elemental to swim around the iconic "murky pool" in the dungeon, and tell you what is under the water (or at least have it reveal itself)

6) Use a small earth elemental to open that door or chest you fear is trapped - while you and the party wait a safe distance away.

7) Use the small Water Elemental's "drench" ability to put out a fire. Of up to large size

8) Use a small fire elemental to set some fires quickly

9) Send a dire rat down a hallway you think may be trapped to trigger them.

Quote:
That makes it a lot less versatile than you say.

Or would, if I had been wrong...

Quote:
Also I'm not an expert re the 3.5 material you are referring to but I thought that you stated at the beginning of your handbook that the handbook is made for PF Core, as is in PF I think you are overrating the Summon spells.

I am rating Pathfinder core, which is why I only mention that there are 3.5 options here in the reply section, and not in the guide.

However the Guide is for core, otherwise I would not have said "It's just an accepted drawback of casting these spells I'm afraid.", I would have said "What drawback? Lets discuss mining 3.5 abilities..."

Also note that Summon Monster got better in Pathfinder, not worse (especially at higher levels - but lower levels too). (Though I liked it in 3.5 too). A 3.5 wizard would have to lift his chin off the floor if he saw Smite Evil in Pathfinder for example.

Also the very idea of getting a Celestial/Infernal Rhino at SMIV, or an Eryines at SMVI, or an Astral Deva at SMIX, or any number of summons available in Pathfinder, these options blow 3.5 away. Do you need a list of creatures unavailable or only available at higher level in 3.5? Warning: it will be long.

Quote:
Did I mention that a 1st level spell can sometimes protect from the effects of the summoned creature (Protection vs X)?

No, but someone else did, and we discussed how to work around that. Check the replies.

Quote:
You don't mention the Ray specialization (PBS, Precise Shot feats) in your handbook. Do you think it's dead with PF nerfed spells (I think Enfeeblement for ex) or were you never an adept? Enervation still rocks and IMHO is one of the best spells of the level.

I never really considered spending feats "to hit" with a class that has so many combat options that have no "to hit" roll was a good investment.

How many Ray spells are you planning to cast per day? Is that really giving you the same (or even close) milage from those feats as an archer, who is using them multiple times every round in every combat?

Dark Archive

Twowlves wrote:


Regarding the lack of Still Spell metamagic rods, I believe the reason for their absence is that they cannot be used while immobilized. Metamagic rods are "use activated", and if you can't move, you can't activate it. I guess there might be a minor niche for armor wearing mages to have them, but in most cases where you NEED a Still Rod, you couldn't even use it anyway.

I'm not sure I agree with you here.

Look at the definition for use activated on page 458.

"This type of item simply has to be used in
order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing
a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look
through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat."

To which one could add "holding a rod" as per page 484 activation of rods, "Unless noted otherwise, you must be holding a rod to use its abilities."

The definition of use activated (again in page 458) goes on to say that most use activated items function when worn or when simply possessed, with some of them requiring a command word. It then goes on to say that usually however it only requires mentally willing the activation. It then states that each item should be consulted for specifics.

The description for metamagic rods does not state that command words are required or that any action is required other than, the aforementioned, being held.

If you read further in the use activated definition you come to the bit about actions required and it seems fairly straight forward that metamagic rods fall under the, "If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all." I mean, it clearly states that, "use-activated magic is either a standard action or not an action at all." If activating metamagic rods required a standard action to use then they wouldn't be usable as intended, as casting a spell requires a standard action and you can't do two standard actions in one round.

Therefore, rods of metamagic are use activated by holding in one's hand and mentally willing activation with the "not an action" action type.

If you have a rod in hand, you can still activate it even if you cannot move.

That is my take anyhow...

Cheers

Dark Archive

Farabor wrote:

It's a tiny bit off topic, but one of the "Evil" (TM) things about arcane bond magic items is the 'usable only for creator'. Nice for the GM who wants to make a nice challenging fight for his party, without then giving them the Amulet of Roxxors that made the fight challenging in the first place (And thus making it even harder to challenge in the future....)

What Treantmonk said....

... and besides, you still need to provide challenge appropriate treasure/magic items for defeating the wizard (which his bonded item does not count against, as you have pointed out the party cannot benefit from) or you are just being a jerk GM. Who wants to be known as one of those? :)

That is why they have wealth by level guidelines...

Dark Archive

I am curious, Treantmonk, if your recommendations remain mostly true for sorcerers, or if the different casting mechanic is sufficiently removed that they would require, essentially, another guide entirely. Specifically the concepts of party role and spell recommendations. Thoughts?


AsmodeusUltima wrote:

I am curious, Treantmonk, if your recommendations remain mostly true for sorcerers, or if the different casting mechanic is sufficiently removed that they would require, essentially, another guide entirely. Specifically the concepts of party role and spell recommendations. Thoughts?

As I am currently writing the sorcerer guide (halfway done!)I guess I might be qualified to way in, as if has forced me to research the crap out of this subject.

All of what goes for wizards goes for sorcerers- a good spell is a good spell no matter what, and bad one should always be avoided. However the big difference is that a sorcerer cannot afford to take situational or redundant spells. A wizard can take teleport and then greater teleport, but a sorcerer doesn't have enough slots to spend two on essentially the same spell. He (or she) must choose one or the other. He should take as many multi funtional spells as possible- polymorph is better than the beast shape iv, even if beast shape give more powerful buffs, as polymorph can do so much more. This creates a balancing act with summoning, as they are so multi functional, but also redundant. I like summoning so I suggest taking three versions, like Summon Monster III, VI and IX.

However my guide will have less to do with spells selection and more to do with everything else- like the bloodlines.

As for party role, they serve a similar one to wizards- but they can't pull off the same utility belt "tool for this specific problem" batman stuff. The wizards still trumps the sorcerer in sheer power.


MinstrelintheGallery wrote:

However my guide will have less to do with spells selection and more to do with everything else- like the bloodlines.

As for party role, they serve a similar one to wizards- but they can't pull off the same utility belt "tool for this specific problem" batman stuff. The wizards still trumps the sorcerer in sheer power.

I think you are making an error here. Bloodlines are nice additions to the sorceror, but they are still that, additions. Any useful guide should have an in depth look at the spells, since in fact spell selection is dramatically MORE imporant to a sorceror then a wizard.

I also disagree that the spells are similar in usefullness between a sorceror and a wizard. Sorcerors need to take spells they can get more milage out of. Situational spells need be completely avoided, and some spells become more useful because the sorceror can afford to cast multiple spells in an encounter.

I also dont think the party role is the same, sorceror fit the glass cannon much better then they fit the roll of god. After all, they will not have the selection of buffs, debuffs and battlefield control that a wizard can muster. They will have to focus on one of these areas to be of any worth at all.


Blasting bites on its own merits, whether for Wizard or Sorcerer. You need spells that are more flexible, yes, and that you can make more use of, but you can still play God. Glitterdust is still good for a Sorcerer. Fly/Levitate are still good for a Sorcerer. Summon is still good for a Sorcerer. It's just that incidentals like Command Undead aren't any good, since you effectively always have them prepared.

Arguably, Sorcerers are better blasters, true, but that doesn't change the situation that blasters just aren't any good.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MinstrelintheGallery wrote:
A wizard can take teleport and then greater teleport, but a sorcerer doesn't have enough slots to spend two on essentially the same spell.

Keep in mind that a sorcerer can learn teleport at level 10 and then swap it out for a new 5th level spell once she's picked up greater teleport at level 14.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord oKOyA wrote:


What Treantmonk said....

... and besides, you still need to provide challenge appropriate treasure/magic items for defeating the wizard (which his bonded item does not count against, as you have pointed out the party cannot benefit from) or you are just being a jerk GM. Who wants to be known as one of those? :)

That is why they have wealth by level guidelines...

Quite frankly after a certain point, parties don't need to be showered with treasure. D+D scenarios and playing style still seem to be influenced by the old paradigm that experience depended on treasure that was looted. Other fantasy RPGs like Amber, Ars Magica, practically any superhero rpg aren't bound by this incessant need to feed greed. In a heroic campaign... defeating the big bad should be it's own reward.

And that' why they're guidelines.... not rules.


Viletta Vadim wrote:

Blasting bites on its own merits, whether for Wizard or Sorcerer. You need spells that are more flexible, yes, and that you can make more use of, but you can still play God. Glitterdust is still good for a Sorcerer. Fly/Levitate are still good for a Sorcerer. Summon is still good for a Sorcerer. It's just that incidentals like Command Undead aren't any good, since you effectively always have them prepared.

Arguably, Sorcerers are better blasters, true, but that doesn't change the situation that blasters just aren't any good.

I wasnt really talking about blasting. What I am saying is, a wizard takes a spell he can reasonably use once a day, and in that one occassion he will have a huge impact on the encoutner, and thus its a great spell for a wizard. A sorceror must take spells that are usable in EVERY encounter. Glitterdust is a good spell, but area effect spells like that arent always useful. What if you are in a small space? What if your allies need to get close to the enemy? What if you are facing an enemy you know has a strong will save? If one of the precious few spells a sorceror takes is not usable in any single encounter it is a VERY big hit. Less so for a wizard who probably only prepared one or two of those for the day anyway and can use them in other fights. Fly is a great spell, but is that the spell the sorceror takes at level 6? Or even level 7? I dont think so. While excellent when it is used it is more situational then a sorceror can afford for his first 1 or 2 spells of a given spell level.


MinstrelintheGallery wrote:
However my guide will have less to do with spells selection and more to do with everything else- like the bloodlines.

I have to agree with Kolokotroni, spell selection is the single most important aspect of making an effective sorcerer. Wizards have the luxury of being able to pick bad spells and it's a small penalty. If a sorcerer makes a bad choice then it's 2 levels before they can change it out.

Dark Archive

LazarX wrote:

Quite frankly after a certain point, parties don't need to be showered with treasure. D+D scenarios and playing style still seem to be influenced by the old paradigm that experience depended on treasure that was looted. Other fantasy RPGs like Amber, Ars Magica, practically any superhero rpg aren't bound by this incessant need to feed greed. In a heroic campaign... defeating the big bad should be it's own reward.

And that' why they're guidelines.... not rules.

Agreed.

That is why made sure to specifically use the term guidelines.

My point was more in response to a GM trying to shaft his players by using the bonded item as a loop hole.


LazarX wrote:
Lord oKOyA wrote:


What Treantmonk said....

... and besides, you still need to provide challenge appropriate treasure/magic items for defeating the wizard (which his bonded item does not count against, as you have pointed out the party cannot benefit from) or you are just being a jerk GM. Who wants to be known as one of those? :)

That is why they have wealth by level guidelines...

Quite frankly after a certain point, parties don't need to be showered with treasure. D+D scenarios and playing style still seem to be influenced by the old paradigm that experience depended on treasure that was looted. Other fantasy RPGs like Amber, Ars Magica, practically any superhero rpg aren't bound by this incessant need to feed greed. In a heroic campaign... defeating the big bad should be it's own reward.

And that' why they're guidelines.... not rules.

It should if you have a system that doesnt assume a certain amount of treasure. Those other systems epsecially the super hero rpgs have difference founding influences. You have to remember some of the originating influences of dnd focused heavily on magic trinkets, namely the Jack Vance Novels of the Dying earth. That atmosphere where heroes tended to rely heavily on magic gear, means that the system assumes players have a certain amount of the stuff. If you dont want to hand that out it throws the system off balance.

I am ok with 'defeating the evil villian' being its own reward as long as the appropriate gear gets destributed to keep the party in line, or something like the VoP is used so monetary rewards arent neccessary. I had a campain once where each player had custom built legacy like items that levels with the player, making the usual shower of magic items much less frequent, and also allowed us to become more attached to certain key items.

Dark Archive

Kolokotroni wrote:

It should if you have a system that doesnt assume a certain amount of treasure. Those other systems epsecially the super hero rpgs have difference founding influences. You have to remember some of the originating influences of dnd focused heavily on magic trinkets, namely the Jack Vance Novels of the Dying earth. That atmosphere where heroes tended to rely heavily on magic gear, means that the system assumes players have a certain amount of the stuff. If you dont want to hand that out it throws the system off balance.

I am ok with 'defeating the evil villian' being its own reward as long as the appropriate gear gets destributed to keep the party in line, or something like the VoP is used so monetary rewards arent neccessary. I had a campain once where each player had custom built legacy like items that levels with the player, making the usual shower of magic items much less frequent, and also allowed us to become more attached to certain key items.

+1


Kolokotroni wrote:

I think you are making an error here. Bloodlines are nice additions to the sorcerer, but they are still that, additions. Any useful guide should have an in depth look at the spells, since in fact spell selection is dramatically MORE important to a sorcerer then a wizard.

I also disagree that the spells are similar in usefulness between a sorcerer and a wizard. Sorcerers need to take spells they can get more mileage out of. Situational spells need be completely avoided, and some spells become more useful because the sorcerer can afford to cast multiple spells in an encounter.

I also don't think the party role is the same, sorcerer fit the glass cannon much better then they fit the roll of god. After all, they will not have the selection of buffs, debuffs and battlefield control that a wizard can muster. They will have to focus on one of these areas to be of any worth at all.

HA! I should have been more careful with my wording. I know perfectly well how important spells are- so powerful that the boost given to sorcerers doesn't even come close to giving them comparable power to a wizard. Spells are the most powerful thing in DnD (therefore Pathfinder) by quite a stretch.

But the fact remains that when building a sorcerer the bloodline is quite an important choice, and something there is not guide for. Go to the wizards forums, go to Brilliant Gamologists- they have made guides on the sorcerer's spell list. If you're running a pathfinder only game, look at the spell guide Treantmonk wrote- it's what you need for that sort of thing. There are plenty of spell guides, if you regularly read handbooks, you have a good idea what spells are good, and you don't need me to tell you again.

That being said, spell selection is important for sorcerers- but I don't need to rate each spell again, most get the same rating. Would you want me to write some sample spell lists? Or would advise on building a good spell list be more appropriate? I feel you should figure out your spell list in it's entirety at character creation- to make sure the list works well off of itself. Of course, you can change it later depending on the demands of the campaign.

Sorry to worry you Kolokotroni, the sorcerer isn't in terrible hands, though I do appreciate comments and criticism- as long as it's constructive.

To sum up, sorcerer spell selection differs from wizards- but I'm not sure enough to warrant it's own guide. I just want to want people about how bad the destiny bloodline really is, and how good the abyssal bloodline's level 15 ability is- that kind of thing.


MinstrelintheGallery wrote:


HA! I should have been more careful with my wording. I know perfectly well how important spells are- so powerful that the boost given to sorcerers doesn't even come close to giving them comparable power to a wizard. Spells are the most powerful thing in DnD (therefore Pathfinder) by quite a stretch.

But the fact remains that when building a sorcerer the bloodline is quite an important choice, and something there is not guide for. Go to the wizards forums, go to Brilliant Gamologists- they have made guides on the sorcerer's spell list. If you're running a pathfinder only game, look at the spell guide Treantmonk wrote- it's what you need for that sort of thing. There are plenty of spell guides, if you regularly read handbooks, you have a good idea what spells are good, and you don't need me to tell you again.

That being said, spell selection is important for sorcerers- but I don't need to rate each spell again, most get the same rating. Would you want me to write some sample spell lists? Or would advise on building a good spell list be more appropriate? I feel you should figure out your spell list in...

Certainly the bloodlines are an important choice, but I think a guide to sorcerors without direction on spells is incomplete. In fact I think your bloodlines should guide your spell choice, not just because you want your selected spells to make the most of the ones granted by your bloodline but also because some bloodlines will make certain spells better. An example is touch spells and the abberant blood line. I also think if you want to truly be a genuine guide and call it that it should be all inclusive and not rely on other sources.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I also think if you want to truly be a genuine guide and call it that it should be all inclusive and not rely on other sources.

Perhaps you are right, though most sorcerer guides I've read rely on the spells guides from wizard handbooks (usually treantmonk's). Maybe it's time to change that... it's just that, well I'd be saying alot of the same thing treantmonk would- it would essentially be re-typing his guide (I am commenting on bloodline spell list though).

I'll post to the incomplete guide- with advice to go to his guide, and noting it isn't the definitive handbook to sorcerers. If I can get myself to re-rate all the spells, I'll certainly post them. There ARE plenty of guides on spell selection, but none on bloodlines- so that's my priority- to make something no one else has.

151 to 200 of 799 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards (Optimization) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.