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.
In light of the fact that your guide doesn't look much at spell selection I wrote one that looks exclusively at spell selection.
Ogre's guide to Sorcerer Spell Selection
Hope you don't think I'm stepping on your toes too much.
My guide leans heavy on Treantmonks spell guide but calls out sorcerer specific issues regarding those spells.
Thank you so much Treantmonk !
I didn't play 3.5 much and althought I like pathfinder rpg, I was a bit lost when creating character's. This guide will help me a lot. If this was a book, I would buy it.
Here's a suggestion for Paizo : Sell a starter kit, which contains Pathfinder rpg, dice, bag, portfolio, character sheets and Treantmonk guide as a free pdf !!
In light of the fact that your guide doesn't look much at spell selection I wrote one that looks exclusively at spell selection.
Ogre's guide to Sorcerer Spell Selection
Hope you don't think I'm stepping on your toes too much.
Not at all- if you don't mind, I'd like to link this to my guide. (I'm currently rating the destiny bloodline one feature at a time- it's so bad)
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).
If you would like to, you may cut and paste my spell selection section and tweak it as needed to make for a good sorcerer fit, or change any rankings/comments to fit your own spell opinions that are different from mine.
Personally, I wouldn't even see the need for Orange ranked spells, or maybe just call orange spells not for spell lists, but for scrolls instead.
If you do cut and paste mine, and make some changes, I would only ask that you credit the source, something like, "This spell list is copied from Treantmonk's Wizard Guide with modifications by me to make it fit for Sorcerers and some differences of opinion." Or something to that effect.
In light of the fact that your guide doesn't look much at spell selection I wrote one that looks exclusively at spell selection.
Ogre's guide to Sorcerer Spell Selection
Hope you don't think I'm stepping on your toes too much.
Not at all- if you don't mind, I'd like to link this to my guide. (I'm currently rating the destiny bloodline one feature at a time- it's so bad)
You are more than welcome to link it from your guide. I'll probably crosslink yours as well.
I might add a section on bloodlines to my guide but just from the perspective of bonus spells.
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?
(...)
All good and valid examples of out-of-combat situations but there are also many examples where the duration is too short. I didn't say it has no use, I said duration limits its use.
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.
Ok, I didn't remember this one. So the workaround is to summon neutral creatures or use range attacks. Hum, somewhat limiting too.
Don't get me wrong, I think the SM spells are very good spells but the 1 round casting time, short duration, Protection vs X issue, redudancy (have to learn higher level spells) are clear drawbacks. They're worth mentioning in your "Summoning: God's favorite spells" section to be complete :P even if you think the benefits outshine them.
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?
In 3.5 a lot: enfeeblement, exhaustion, enervation, acid arrow (vs spellcasters), the occasional orb or scorching ray spell, etc. It's also very useful at low levels (up to 5/7) when you cannot cast every round to participate in combat with range weapons. Also missing a hit for an archer is not as much an issue than for a wizard wasting a spell. With the 10 feats every PF characters receive now, the opportunity cost is even lesser and +5 to hit is 25% more chance of hitting. Not necessary for every build but still good for debuffers.
Reading your guide was very instructive, like an accelerated 3.5 to PF course, thanks a lot! It will definitely makes me reconsider a bit my feats and spells selection.
They're worth mentioning in your "Summoning: God's favorite spells" section to be complete :P even if you think the benefits outshine them.
That's a good point. I'll consider that.
Treantmonk:
Hmm. In your opinion does globe of invulnerability (or the lesser variant) hedge out low level summoned creatures conjured up beyond its confines, or dimensional lock prevent the summoning or calling of creatures within its bounds?
The Globe of Invulnerability question doesn't require an opinion, as the rules cover it.
The Globe creates a suppression effect. Suppression effects are detailed more thouroghly under Anti-Magic field, but the way it works with summoned creatures is this:
If the creature is summoned by a spell over the resistance level of the globe, or summoned using a spell trigger item, the globe does not suppress the summoned creature.
If the summoned creature is summoned by a spell level that the globe would normally suppress, then it has a chance to suppress the creature. The caster of the globe makes a caster level check against the Creatures SR. If they succeed, the creature is suppressed, otherwise...well...hopefully the globe wasn't their last line of defense.
As for the Dimensional lock. It does not deal with Summoning directly other than to say that you can't use Dimensional Lock to keep Summoned Creatures from leaving at the end of a summoning spell. My personal opinion is that it would prevent summoning them in the first place, but that's just an opinion.
|
One of the standard assumptions of the Arcanis campaign is that the Villain NPC's had access to the same options as the players did. If players are going to heavily enchant an arcane bond to make it a powerful device, why shouldn't their NPC counterparts do the same thing?
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.
The short answer is yes, NPCs can have bonded items. I never said they couldn't.
However, the difference is that the NPCs are, well, non-player characters. The player character wealth is never meant to be "treasure" for NPCs, therefore the comparison is largely irrelevant.
|
|
No.. you implied that they shouldn't, as it would essentially be "cheating" PC's out of a treasure item. On the other hand it's also a way of designing part of a challenge to an encounter without having to worry about adding an unwanted item to the PC's arsenal, like say a potent staff created this way.
The Arcanis campaign was created by folks who'd gone through the history of old, middle, and new school D+D, it's a pretty deadly campaign because your enemies can and will use the same tricks that you do. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
What I said is...
... 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...
What I was implying is that if you are going to use an uber-bonded item to ramp up the challenge of an encounter, and said uber-item cannot be utilized by the player characters that you should be mindful of the fact that players need to be compensated for their troubles. Keep in mind that the player characters most likely expended considerable resources in defeating this BBEG with the uber-item. As such, they should expect some sort of commiserate compensation/gain. It doesn't have to be the uber-item itself, heck, it doesn't even have to come from the BBEG himself at all, but the players do need be compensated or risk falling behind the curve.
Of course everyone's own campaign style will dictate where the curve lies.
Like I said, I am not against the NPCs using PC "tricks" and such, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of the player character's advancement/development.
All in all, after re-reading the Farabor's OP, I can see how it can be interpreted from both sides. I don't think that we are really that far apart in our thinking. It just seems that way. :)
Cheers
Great stuff as usual Mr. TreeMinky.
I'm in the fortunate position of creating a Wizard [Focused Specialist Conjurer] with access to 3.5 material.
Oh if only you could add in....
Cloudy Conjuration
Cloud of Bewilderment
Sculpt Spell
Metamagic School Focus
Note on Heighten Spell. With access to Cloud of Bewilderment [and others] I think Heighten Spell is a solid option.
In PF only, if you have a good AoE spell that targets a particular saving throw I see some value in Heighten Spell. It allows you to continue casting that spell, say Glitterdust or Web, at a higher level with a harder save. Sometimes the higher level spells kinda do the same as the lower level ones, just with a higher save. Once you have a solid spell of choice to target either Fort, Ref or Will, I don't have a problem with heightening it.
Great stuff as usual Mr. TreeMinky.
I'm in the fortunate position of creating a Wizard [Focused Specialist Conjurer] with access to 3.5 material.
Oh if only you could add in....
Cloudy Conjuration
Cloud of Bewilderment
Sculpt Spell
Metamagic School FocusNote on Heighten Spell. With access to Cloud of Bewilderment [and others] I think Heighten Spell is a solid option.
In PF only, if you have a good AoE spell that targets a particular saving throw I see some value in Heighten Spell. It allows you to continue casting that spell, say Glitterdust or Web, at a higher level with a harder save. Sometimes the higher level spells kinda do the same as the lower level ones, just with a higher save. Once you have a solid spell of choice to target either Fort, Ref or Will, I don't have a problem with heightening it.
Yeah - take all of those.
For those with access to 3.5, my old work should still pretty much apply.
As for your Heighten Spell comment, I must still disagree.
Spells of higher level tend to actually be better spells, not just have higher saving throws.
Consider your example of Cloud of Bewilderment. A Cloud of Bewilderment with one level of Heighten Spell is just stinking cloud with an inferior AoE. Because Stinking Cloud is a higher level spell, it's just better, not just a higher save.
Treantmonk- I've always admired your work, it's helped me become the gamer I am today- a headache to my DM. But I must say, this week I've discovered a newfound respect for you- as I've finished the sorcerer guide I promised. I don't know how you pump these things out, but i salute you.
So yeah the sorcerer guide is done, but far from over- it's ready to be looked over, the more advice I get, the better it will be. so...yeah, that.
At this point, we've moved into the realm of a rules question and further discussion here won't help. I should raise the issue of Teleport and AoO on the Rules forum and see if there is a definitive answer.Thanks! If you get a definitive answer on the question, I would appreciate it if you could reply back here with what you found out. I'm certainly not anywhere near 100% on my interpretation.
Oh dread god-wizard Treantmonk,
As you requested I have journeyed long and far in search of the answer to this question. I sailed to the city of Paizo, where the gods who rule these worlds can be found and sometimes petitioned for answers to the questions that mortals pose. In the Forum of Rules, I shouted out my question along with all the other seekers of knowledge. Does The Act Of Teleporting Cause An Attack Of Opportunity?. But the gods did not answer my plea for enlightenment. I queried others amongst the mortals in the forum and their opinions match my own. But such is not proof. What mortal can claim to know the mind of a god?
Unwilling to return without a definitive answer, I searched through many a dusty tome hoping to find that the sages of other lands had addressed this issue. Even amongst the multitude of writings from the ancestral lands of Wotc (as you well know the ancestors were famous for the great volume of works they produced) I could find no answer. I was able to find evidence that indirectly may help answer this conundrum.
In the ancient tome, Players Handbook 2, I found reference to a spell called Dimension Step. You can imagine my excitement when I found it. I believed that at long last my search was nearing an end. But my hopes were soon dashed. This was not the same spell. It was similar and perhaps we can still glean some value from the writings of the ancients.
This spell allows your allies to make a short teleport. All creatures targeted by this spell can teleport a distance equal to their base land speed. A target can teleport to any square within its line of sight. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A creature can teleport up to a ledge, down to the base of a flight of stairs, and so forth as long as it observes the restrictions and limits given above."
While not the same effect, this at least answered one of my questions. When the gods created the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability, the sage who wrote the description was clearly familiar with this spell and included the description that so confused me earlier. In the context of the spell, I could understand why the ancients added this information. The targets were acting out of sequence, when normally they could not act. Being so different an action, the additional clarification was worth noting.
But still this was not proof and I have been unable to find that definitive answer I sought. Searching among the newer writings of Wotc, I found signs that their savants have considered the issue. In the Players Handbook 4.0, they provide the clarification that teleportation out of a threatened space does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. While the laws in Wotc have changed greatly since the revolution, we still trace our heritage back to the same ancient roots and we can occasionally glean useful information from even a disputed tome like this.
Lastly, I would point to the PF Core Rulebook, where it states that moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack. The tome then mentions two common ways to avoid it, but does not claim that these are the only ways.
So alas, I have failed my commission. I have been unable to answer conclusively whether teleporting does or does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. I believe the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that such movement does not provoke an attack. I was wrong in thinking that the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability did not provoke an attack when casting it. In that at least, this long journey has been enlightening.
I most humbly beg your forgiveness for having failed in the quest you set upon me.
Miralus of the Rainbow Halls
Ahhh, worry not, for it is the journey not the destination that leads to enlightenment.
Your quest has still brought us useful information, for now we know the truth, that we speak of the questions that cannot be answered.
If the Sages at Paizo will not answer our querry, we will need to go the next level up, to the mighty master of the game, and assure him or her that no such clear answer exists, but instead present them with the evidence you have found.
They may not all answer the same, but be assured, even if they answer differently, they are all correct.
Now something that can teleport as a supernatural ability will not provoke. But most of us mere mortals have to resort to spellcasting to emulate that ability. Casting a Teleportation spell will provoke an attack of opportunity just like casting any other spell. The caster does have the option of casting defensively and making the appropriate concentration check.
Now for casters of greater ability, casting a Quickened Teleport spell can get around this problem but only the mages of most superior skill can manage that without the aid of a metamagic rod.
Perhaps you missed the original post. There is no question that casting teleport provokes. The question is whether the actual act of teleporting away from a threatened square provokes.
So casting teleport would provoke 2 threats, 1st casting, then teleporting (leaving a threatened square). If you have a Su you only provoke once when you leave (teleport out).
*Note I'm not stating an opinion on this, just clarifying what's being discussed*
|
So casting teleport would provoke 2 threats, 1st casting, then teleporting (leaving a threatened square). If you have a Su you only provoke once when you leave (teleport out).
*Note I'm not stating an opinion on this, just clarifying what's being discussed*
I don't see why teleporting would provoke a second time. It's not movement, so why would it?
...from page 80 PFRPG
Dimensional Steps (Sp): At 8th level, you can use this
ability to teleport up to 30 feet per wizard level per day
as a standard action. This teleportation must be used in
5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke
an attack of opportunity. You can bring other willing
creatures with you, but you must expend an equal
amount of distance for each additional creature brought
with you.
No AoO.
[EDIT]
As a class ability, do I get the option to "cast defensively" ? And what would the DC be based on? It's an 8th level ability, maybe DC = 10 + 8 ?
Also, what happens if I don't cast defensively? So I get hit... then what? Do I still get to teleport?
RAW say you need to make a concentration check, which is based off the spell level, which in the case of Dimensional Steps is....???
I don't see why teleporting would provoke a second time. It's not movement, so why would it?
To be honest I'm not entirely sure.
Go back and read this bit and it's replies maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being debated.
Treantmonk:
What about a guide to Pathfinder Society play at some point (or updating your other guides with a paragraph or two on the topic)? There are unique circumstances in operation in PFS play (especially in games you pick up at a convention where you may not even know what classes you're going to be adventuring with until you turn up at a table) such as the ban on item creation and the limits on what items you actually are able to acquire, varying by what you retrieve in any particular scenario.
I would not be a good advisor for Pathfinder Society play as I know nothing about it.
I don't see why teleporting would provoke a second time. It's not movement, so why would it?To be honest I'm not entirely sure.
Go back and read this bit and it's replies maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being debated.
Let me try, since I'm the one who started the ruckus. When I read the description of the Conjuror's Dimensional Steps ability, I was confused by the wording. The statement that using the ability does not cause an AoO seemed strange, since it is a form of teleportation and I have always played it such that teleporting does not provoke an AoO. So I interpreted it as meaning that the act of casting it did not provoke the attack. (Otherwise it seemed like a useless bit of stuff to add in the description.) I was wrong about this.
At the time his was discussed there were some who argued that the action of moving out of the threatened space caused an AoO even if you cast the teleport type spell defensively or as a quickened spell (since you were 'moving' out of a threatened space). I did not believe that to be true and tried to find a definitive answer. My post above was just reporting what I found; no clear answer but sufficient evidence (for me at least), that the action does not provoke an attack. (This was answered definitively for the Dimensional Step ability by the clear wording of the ability, the question arose for Dimension Door and Teleport spells.)
As far as whether you can cast a SLA defensively, you can. The advice on spell levels is to treat it like a similar spell if you can find one (probably Dimension Door in this case) or the spell level of the highest level you can cast at the time you acquire it (4th level).
My Opinion based on what we've discussed would be:
Teleportation out of a threatened square does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Some abilities mention this specifically, some don't.
Use of Dimensional Step, just like casting a spell, can provoke an attack of opportunity if you don't cast on the defensive.
Although I'm no kind of official on the subject, this would be my recommendation for DM's on how to handle it.
At this point, we've moved into the realm of a rules question and further discussion here won't help. I should raise the issue of Teleport and AoO on the Rules forum and see if there is a definitive answer.Thanks! If you get a definitive answer on the question, I would appreciate it if you could reply back here with what you found out. I'm certainly not anywhere near 100% on my interpretation.
Oh dread god-wizard Treantmonk,
As you requested I have journeyed long and far in search of the answer to this question. I sailed to the city of Paizo, where the gods who rule these worlds can be found and sometimes petitioned for answers to the questions that mortals pose. In the Forum of Rules, I shouted out my question along with all the other seekers of knowledge. Does The Act Of Teleporting Cause An Attack Of Opportunity?. But the gods did not answer my plea for enlightenment. I queried others amongst the mortals in the forum and their opinions match my own. But such is not proof. What mortal can claim to know the mind of a god?
Unwilling to return without a definitive answer, I searched through many a dusty tome hoping to find that the sages of other lands had addressed this issue. Even amongst the multitude of writings from the ancestral lands of Wotc (as you well know the ancestors were famous for the great volume of works they produced) I could find no answer. I was able to find evidence that indirectly may help answer this conundrum.
In the ancient tome, Players Handbook 2, I found reference to a spell called Dimension Step. You can imagine my excitement when I found it. I believed that at long last my search was nearing an end. But my hopes were soon dashed. This was not the same spell. It was similar and perhaps we can still glean some value from the writings of the ancients.
...
You somehow posted in the archives section which I did not even know existed. Most of us rules mongers only look in the rules section--->http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfind er/pathfinderRPG/rules
Teleporting is not a movement mode so it does not provoke. All movement modes such as burrowing, flying, walking, running, and swimming have speeds. When you teleport you just disappear. I thought I had answered this in more detail earlier in this thread, but maybe it was eaten. The boards do seem to conspire against me at times.
...from page 80 PFRPG
Dimensional Steps (Sp): At 8th level, you can use this
ability to teleport up to 30 feet per wizard level per day
as a standard action. This teleportation must be used in
5-foot increments and such movement does not provoke
an attack of opportunity. You can bring other willing
creatures with you, but you must expend an equal
amount of distance for each additional creature brought
with you.No AoO.
[EDIT]
As a class ability, do I get the option to "cast defensively" ? And what would the DC be based on? It's an 8th level ability, maybe DC = 10 + 8 ?
Also, what happens if I don't cast defensively? So I get hit... then what? Do I still get to teleport?
RAW say you need to make a concentration check, which is based off the spell level, which in the case of Dimensional Steps is....???
Since its a spell like ability you should have to cast defensively. I noticed many of the spell like abilities dont have spell levels assigned to them. Hopefully this was fixed in the 2nd printing of the book.
1. Do people frequently scrape down so many abilities to such low levels in search of points to spend on the ones they deem of primary importance? Even to the point of knocking down your Wizard's wisdom, which has a saving throw associated with it?
I can't say what people frequently do.
I can say however, that it is optimal to do so in my opinion.
There are drawbacks of a low ability score, but the benifits of a higher primary stat are often worth those drawbacks.
The drawbacks to a Wizard for a low Str, Wis and Cha are low, at least relative to most other classes having low numbers in those scores.
Keep in mind though my point buy examples are guidelines - if you prefer a higher Wisdom, Cha, Str, or all three - by all means set them at higher levels. The recommendations are based on my opinion only.
2. I'd previously encountered the concept of, but not the term for, "encumbrance nazi" (I love the term). That would be me. Nobody with a 7 strength (about 2 standard deviations below the human mean!) gets to claim they're carting around two or more spellbooks, a heavy crossbow and a bunch of gold with impunity in any campaign of mine; it boggles my mind that anyone would even try it.
The rules allow for all kinds of ways to get around encumbrance - moreso for Wizards than for any other class.
First of all, you aren't wearing armor. That's a big difference right off the bat.
If you want to find someone stretching his encumbrance - check out the Cleric, not the wizard.
Secondly, you have spells starting right at first level, that are specifically designed to reduce your need to carry stuff personally.
Beyond that - if you check out my suggestions on equipment, look at the recommendation level for the Handy Haversack.
At higher levels, add on an efficient quiver for wands and staves.
Even if your DM keeps track of every ounce, you can still work a 7 Str on your Wizard.
The discussion on summoning, in the thread there, for example, highlights this in that one obvious way your recommendation runs into problems is when people start to wonder if it may not always be possible to communicate your precise intentions to summoned creatures. Well, the obvious way (to me) that might happen is if the GM starts to question your assumptions when you start dictating to him just what "your" creature is "doing."
Depends on the creature. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if you speak "Terran" you can instruct an earth elemental to glide through the wall, come back and report what it sees on the other side.
Though I must admit that some of those recommendations trace back to 3.5, when a celestial/fiendish creature automatically had greater intelligence than a normal animal.
Maybe the Wizard needs to consider handle animal...
3. And does anybody else get frustrated like I do about character generation? Over the tension between randomization and balance, on the one hand, and point buys and players getting the character class and role they want, on the other? My next campaign is going to use a 2-step process where players purchase their abilities and then turn them in to me, whereupon I'm going to adjust the stats on a party-wide basis to smooth some of the extremes and shake things up a bit ("Oh, I'm sorry, your fighter's strength got changed to 17 from 18, but, look, his charisma went from a 7 to a 14!" (if, ex poste, charisma doesn't matter so much to a character, it should be cheaper))
Yeah - we disagree on that one. I'm not a fan of random character generation. I don't even like random HP rolls.
I think character generation has moved in the right direction on this matter over the years.
Once again, kudos on the entertaining and informative guide.
Thanks!
Hi,
1. Do people frequently scrape down so many abilities to such low levels in search of points to spend on the ones they deem of primary importance? Even to the point of knocking down your Wizard's wisdom, which has a saving throw associated with it?
Most people dont maximize one stat to the exclusion of the others. You never know when an ability damage/drain may come up. I advise my players to try not to drop anything below 10, at the the most 8, but if they do....
2. I'd previously encountered the concept of, but not the term for, "encumbrance nazi" (I love the term). That would be me. Nobody with a 7 strength (about 2 standard deviations below the human mean!) gets to claim they're carting around two or more spellbooks, a heavy crossbow and a bunch of gold with impunity in any campaign of mine; it boggles my mind that anyone would even try it.
In fact, it seems to me that many of your recommendations presume a very accomodating GM in many respects. The discussion on summoning, in the thread there, for example, highlights this in that one obvious way your recommendation runs into problems is when people start to wonder if it may not always be possible to communicate your precise intentions to summoned creatures. Well, the obvious way (to me) that might happen is if the GM starts to question your assumptions when you start dictating to him just what "your" creature is "doing."
Anyway, I think it's encumbant on a 'good' GM to be evenhanded between party members WITHOUT being overly accomodating about applying the rules: the implication in both cases is that characters with more balanced ability scores reap the benefits, where applicable, while those with pronounced weaknesses suffer from them, at least on occasion. So, while I may be and approve of your strength (encumbance) nazi type, I would...
As for the summons they have to be able to communicate with it. If I make a summoning caster I make sure I can speak to the animal/monster in question.
I get around the encumbrance with heward's haversack.How do you force charisma checks? If you try to get me to speak the party face simply starts to talk as the nondiplomatic person has already been told his role is to stay quiet in important situations and kill things, as an example.
Tangent: I was once in a party with a barbarian who did not realize he was not the face, and due to his fast movement he often got to the important people first said something wrong, roll low on any social based checks, and get us in a lot of trouble. It was a fun campaign.
3. That would not go over well in my group, but to answer your question, yes it is annoying.
|
I have to add that this guide was the best thing to happen to my wizard. I read through it and converted from a blaster spell list to a utility list and managed to use two grease spells and a web spell (level 4 wizard) to effectively control 12 opponents while my party destroyed them.
My favorite was the grease spell in front of the door the rogue was holding. Her first attack against everybody was automatically a sneak attack. Would never have been able to do this with two magic missiles and a scorching ray.
As for the summons they have to be able to communicate with it. If I make a summoning caster I make sure I can speak to the...
How does a Wizard speak to animals?
I have to add that this guide was the best thing to happen to my wizard. I read through it and converted from a blaster spell list to a utility list and managed to use two grease spells and a web spell (level 4 wizard) to effectively control 12 opponents while my party destroyed them.
My favorite was the grease spell in front of the door the rogue was holding. Her first attack against everybody was automatically a sneak attack. Would never have been able to do this with two magic missiles and a scorching ray.
Ahhh...posts like this make it all worthwhile!
Thanks for sharing your experience! Sounds like you've become a great "God" wizard.
How does a Wizard speak to animals?
As for the summons they have to be able to communicate with it. If I make a summoning caster I make sure I can speak to the...
Some summons are creatures, but if its an animal I guess he is out of luck now since the celestial/fiendish template no longer bumps the intelligence up to three.
Yep, I agree. An Int 1 or 2 creature is not going to understand verbal commands in any language. The spell description says they will attack your opponents to the best of its ability, so that's pretty much all you can expect.
In a non-combat situation it will be up to the DM to decide what you can convince a creature that is basically the Int of an animal what you want it to do. Whether Handle Animal works (using "push") will really be up to the DM, because technically they aren't animals (though I would expect most DM's would allow it anyways)
Any creatures summoned with Int 3 or more (which is pretty much any outsider you summon), will understand verbal commands as long as you have the right language.
Yep, I agree. An Int 1 or 2 creature is not going to understand verbal commands in any language. The spell description says they will attack your opponents to the best of its ability, so that's pretty much all you can expect.
In a non-combat situation it will be up to the DM to decide what you can convince a creature that is basically the Int of an animal what you want it to do. Whether Handle Animal works (using "push") will really be up to the DM, because technically they aren't animals (though I would expect most DM's would allow it anyways)
Any creatures summoned with Int 3 or more (which is pretty much any outsider you summon), will understand verbal commands as long as you have the right language.
So do they have the intelligence to use their Smite ability?
So do they have the intelligence to use their Smite ability?
The rules don't specifically say one way or another, but if I had a DM who said that a Celestial animal isn't smart enough to use its own standard ability, I would slap him hard.
I have to add that this guide was the best thing to happen to my wizard. I read through it and converted from a blaster spell list to a utility list and managed to use two grease spells and a web spell (level 4 wizard) to effectively control 12 opponents while my party destroyed them.
My favorite was the grease spell in front of the door the rogue was holding. Her first attack against everybody was automatically a sneak attack. Would never have been able to do this with two magic missiles and a scorching ray.
Ahhh...posts like this make it all worthwhile!
Thanks for sharing your experience! Sounds like you've become a great "God" wizard.
For much of my gaming career I prefered sorcerors to wizards. I liked the simplicity and found wizards to be a bit too limited to me. It seemed I always had the wrong spell preped. It was some time ago that I read your original 3.5 guide to wizards. It changed my outlook on the wizard for good. It was shortly after reading your 3.5 guide that I played my first successful conjuration specialist. Prior to that I had never really had a taste for battlefield control spells, but I dont think I will ever turn back now. Grease, glitterdust, and their ilk are now always on my must take list.
This guide is exactly the quality I expected and remembered from the first time i read your 3.5 guide, and I thank you for the time and effort it took to do it.
So do they have the intelligence to use their Smite ability?The rules don't specifically say one way or another, but if I had a DM who said that a Celestial animal isn't smart enough to use its own standard ability, I would slap him hard.
Well, I want to use the ability, but I can see my DM's position on this [and mine in the game I DM], which would be this...
Summon Monster V
Dire Lion: He can smite Good/Evil with a +0 [Cha 10] to hit and +8 [hit dice] to damage. In this case I'd like to say he'll use it.
however,
Rhinocerous, Woolly: He can Smite Good/Evil with a -4 [Cha 3] to hit and +8 [hit dice] to damage. In this case I'd probably not use the ability as I don't want Mr. Woolly missing.
The other point is how would the animal know if the thing he's attacking is Good or Evil? They are practically mindless, I guess you'd have to rule that they all use the ability against their first target, or can't use it ever because of their lack of grey matter!
Rhinocerous, Woolly: He can Smite Good/Evil with a -4 [Cha 3] to hit and +8 [hit dice] to damage. In this case I'd probably not use the ability as I don't want Mr. Woolly missing.
You only apply CHA bonuses, not penalties. So Rhino smite is +0 attack and +8 damage. (see quoted below)
The other point is how would the animal know if the thing he's attacking is Good or Evil? They are practically mindless, I guess you'd have to rule that they all use the ability against their first target, or can't use it ever because of their lack of grey matter!
That's pretty much how I see it. An animal is going to smite early and smite often. I do think you can set an initial target for it but beyond that it's on autopilot. They only get smite once per day so they are going to burn all the ability on the first target regardless.
Special Attacks smite evil 1/day as a swift action (adds Cha bonus to attack rolls and damage bonus equal to HD against evil foes; smite persists until target is dead or the celestial creature rests).
Kolokotroni
Thanks! I was always proud of that 3.5 Wizard's Guide, so it was important to me that this one live up to its predecessor.
Especially, since this one, unlike my other Pathfinder Handbooks - isn't really a new handbook, but instead a Pathfinder - revised edition.
stuart haffenden
Everything Dennis da Ogre said +1.
So do they have the intelligence to use their Smite ability?
The other point is how would the animal know if the thing he's attacking is Good or Evil? They are practically mindless, I guess you'd have to rule that they all use the ability against their first target, or can't use it ever because of their lack of grey matter!
Instinct. How does a bird know how to make a nest when he's never seen his parents do it? How do animals know they should find higher ground because a tsunami is coming? Or a fire? An animal just 'knows'. At least, it's how I would rule it. Maybe a celestial animal is highly sensitive to evil auras lingering like a foul stench around evil creatures. Cats and dogs always seem to precisely know when someone hates cats or dogs. It's the first target to jump on his/her lap after all ;-)
So Mr. Treeminky, what's your next project?
I actually never took that planned break between handbooks - I've been slugging away at a Druid handbook for quite awhile.
It's kind of an overwheming project. I've evaluated all the Druid spells - but I'm doing an in-depth evaluation of Summon Nature's Ally (creature by creature). I've also done a creature by creature evaluation of Wilshape - at least for one build (the caster, not the meleer).
I figure another week or so it'll be done. It will probably be seperated into 2 or 3 "chapters" for easier reading though.
As for your Heighten Spell comment, I must still disagree. Spells of higher level tend to actually be better spells, not just have higher saving throws...
This is why I'm heavily in favor of the house-rule giving Heighten Spell "for free" to all Casters. If it doesn't cost a Feat, then perhaps it may be useful 5% of the time. I mostly see it as a good option for Sorcerors, even with Full-Round Casting Time, by extending their "Genres" of Spells Known at all power levels. The same CAN apply to Wizards, but only to a fraction of the degree that it does to Sorcerors.
I also think other Metamagics (that you need Feats for) should Heighten the DCs to match their Spell Slots (excluding MM Rods which don't use higher spell slots, and MM affecting HOW you cast, i.e. Quicken, Silent, Still, etc.) ...Obviously that's well in house-rule territory :-)