james maissen wrote: Brian Bachman wrote:
House rules aren't something that you should wing. Why's that? Because one of the things that is best to deliver as a DM is a feeling of consistency as it promotes trust from the players.
-James
IMHO, a good DM should always be able to wing a rules interpretation. I, like I am sure is true of many DMd out there, have neither the time nor the inclination to memorize all the various rulebooks. I am pretty familiar with them (although more so with previous editions, as we are just getting started with PF) and can usually find what I want pretty quickly, but if I can't, I'm going to draw on my 30+ years of experience and wing it, rather than halt the game while we fumble around for the right reference. Similarly, when the RAW doesn't make sense to me, I'm going to ignore it and wing it. I don't do it dictatorially. I'll consult quickly with the players, especially the two others who also DM, and we usually arrive at consensus very fast. I have absolutely no doubt they would agree with me on this. In fact, they would think it is pretty cheesy for someone to claim they can make a Spellcraft check without modifiers against an invisible spellcaster, or one casting a still, silent spell.
This is really just a matter of preferred style. A lot of older gamers like me who have come up through all the editions are pretty comfortable with this style, and my whole group is. You can check out the Back in the Day... thread to get a flavor for that.
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Cite please? You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard? If "when the target drops his guard" is the readied action, I agree it wouldn't be triggered in that case. However, if the readied action is "when the target casts a spell", even if it is cast defensively, it still triggers the readied action.
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Cite please? You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard?
Would you, also, like a cite for "1 + 1 = 2"? Nope, I thought we were still talking about a silenced stilled spell can't be detected, therefore won't meet the readied action "If X casts a spell, then Y"
Jason Beardsley wrote: Charender wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Cite please? Casting on the defensive does not provoke an AoO. Do I really need to give you are rule quote for that? No, but it would still trigger a readied action against it. I think that's what he's referring to. I apologize if I'm wrong in that assumption. Thank you, Jason.
Jason Beardsley wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Cite please? You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard? If "when the target drops his guard" is the readied action, I agree it wouldn't be triggered in that case. However, if the readied action is "when the target casts a spell", even if it is cast defensively, it still triggers the readied action. And since, as per RAW, there are no restrictions on what the triggering condition for a readied action is, "when the target casts a spell" is just as legit a triggering condition as "when the target lies" or "when the target thinks something evil".
LilithsThrall wrote: "when the target thinks something evil" Oh thats good, im gonna try that on my DM
Slacker2010 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: "when the target thinks something evil" Oh thats good, im gonna try that on my DM Good luck with that.
Only on these boards have I found anyone who really held to the idea that, since there are no restrictions on what counts as a triggering condition, a readied action can be used to detect things which can't be seen, heard, etc.
Slacker2010 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: "when the target thinks something evil" Oh thats good, im gonna try that on my DM I have a crystal 30-sided die that I reserve specifically for throwing at players who make suggestions like that. :)
Usually the other players at the table will help by restraining the target to make sure I hit. :)
Brian Bachman wrote: Slacker2010 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: "when the target thinks something evil" Oh thats good, im gonna try that on my DM I have a crystal 30-sided die that I reserve specifically for throwing at players who make suggestions like that. :)
Usually the other players at the table will help by restraining the target to make sure I hit. :) Yea he has a very heavy and large die too, I will make sure I have something to duck behind when I try it.
LilithsThrall wrote: Slacker2010 wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: "when the target thinks something evil" Oh thats good, im gonna try that on my DM Good luck with that.
Only on these boards have I found anyone who really held to the idea that, since there are no restrictions on what counts as a triggering condition, a readied action can be used to detect things which can't be seen, heard, etc. What if I happen to have a Detect Thought spell active?
Then, I ready an action to attack if he thinks about drawing a weapon becomes a perfectly valid trigger condition.
You can name anything as a trigger condition for a readied action, but the readied action will only go off if I actually detect that condition happening. Thus, naming trigger conditions that you cannot detect is kinda pointless.
Still, there are plenty of trigger conditions that the players do not know are pointless. IE "I ready an action to shoot the first guy I see against a target with greater invisibility"
LilithsThrall wrote: Jason Beardsley wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: What this wouldn't work against, however, is one of the three done on the defensive - as it doesn't lower the guard.
Cite please? You want me to cite where it says that a readied action whose specified condition for being triggered is "when the target drops his guard" won't be triggered if the target doesn't drop his guard? If "when the target drops his guard" is the readied action, I agree it wouldn't be triggered in that case. However, if the readied action is "when the target casts a spell", even if it is cast defensively, it still triggers the readied action. And since, as per RAW, there are no restrictions on what the triggering condition for a readied action is, "when the target casts a spell" is just a legit a triggering condition as "when the target lies" or "when the target thinks something evil". Perhaps. Per RAW maybe, per GM though..
I'm of the opinion that it's up to the GM to dictate what happens "visually" in game as far as the silenced, stilled, eschewed spellcaster goes. I recall someone mentioning something about an electric energy in the air, that could be one GM's interpretation. As far as we, outside the game, are concerned, we say "i cast X" and it just happens. But in-game, it could take several whole seconds to manifest before going off. Perhaps, in-game, the person who readied an action against the enemy mage, waits for not just the mage to start flailing his arms about, but for signs of the manifestation of a spell. Such as a ball of fire suddenly forming in front of the mage, or the crackle of electricity over his body, or his hand being surrounded by a deepening dark energy.
Charender wrote:
You can name anything as a trigger condition for a readied action, but the readied action will only go off if I actually detect that condition happening. Thus, naming trigger conditions that you cannot detect is kinda pointless.
I'm glad to see we are in agreement on this issue.
LT wrote: I'd like to point out that, with Binding spells and Leadership, a Sorcerer does, in fact, have access to powerful divinations. In fact, you'll need knowledge (plane) to use a planar binding this way. Without it, you can bind "a powerful Demon" at best: you cannot be assured that the thing you called have any divination.
Brian Bachman wrote: I still think sorcerers make up for many of their defects by not having to memorize spells each day. Absent powerful divination magic (which of course takes spell slots itself), there is always a strong possibility that the wizard won't have all the right spells memorized for whatever faces him that day. Those spell slots are thus wasted, in a sense. So I like the sorcerer's ability to access all his spells at any time to respond to unforeseen challenges, albeit that is limited by knowing far fewer spells. Err, no.
If you look at my 5-th level wizard, he has 9 different spells prepared of level 1-3. A 5-th level sorcerer knows 8 differents spells of level 1-2.
Now, add "any spell from the spellbook" with the bonded ring" (you can choose this spell among 13 - and I didn't even buy any scroll) and the empty level 1 slot for a 15 minute-memorization during the day.
Now, let's talk about resources; the sorcerer has 12 slot (7 of level 1 and 5 of level 3), with 4 encounters each day, we can assume that he should cast 3 spells during each encounter.
First encounter of the day ? My wizard has more chance to have the right spell, since he has more directly accessible spells. Since he have 2 prepared haste, 2 prepared glitterdust, I think we can assume that he still have ~7 different directly accessible spells, and he hasn't used the bonded item effect. Second encounter ? He still has more chances to have the right spell - because 7+anything from spellbook is still more choice than 8. And now, we're at the middle of the day, he should prepare something in the empty slot - since he sees what he has cast and what he will be lacking for the rest of the day. We can assume that he has still 6 prepared spells, no double-prepared spell, and the bonded item effect. OK, third encounter ? He has still more chance to have the right spell, because of the bonded item effect; 8 still can't compare with 6+anything. We can assume that he has now 4 different prepared spells, and that he used the bonded item effect. Fourth encounter ? Hooray ! The sorcerer has more chance to have the right spell, even if he used all his 2-nd slots during previous encounters.
The point is, at 5-th level with 12 slots for the wizard against 8 known spells for the sorcerer (and also 12 slots), and the bonded item and the option of leaving some empty slots, you must be far too much specific in the expanding of resources to have a situation in which the sorcerer has more chance to have the right spell. A normal encounter don't require many spell (since you don't have many...), and at level 5, if the sorcerer casts 4 level 2 spells in the same encounter, it's a nova (4 out of 5 of his most precious resources). The advantage of being able to cast 3 times a scorching ray or a glitterdust comes almost never in play. The disadvantage of knowing only 3 level 2 spells and no level 3 spells comes in play.
And I didn't even take into account the fact that the wizard don't need to cast as many spells. The more powerful the spells you cast, the least spells you need to cast: at level 5, haste can be an auto-win (and thus, don't require any other spell), it's harder to get the same effect from a level 1 or 2 spell. There's a good chance that the wizard has more choice (and more chances to have the right spell) all day long.
And, again, all of this is one of the side effects of the slower spell progression. At even level, we can discuss about which class is better: I still think that the wizard is better, but I admit it's very debatable. At odd level ? Maths don't lie. Maths says that the retard in spell level implies too many side disadvantages - less slot (for relevant levels, we don't care if a 17-th level sorcerer cast more first level spells), less accessible effect and thus less chance to have the right spell at hand, etc. All of this is just maths, you have less quantified things and thus you're weaker. Well, maybe all of this change when the sorcerer access to quicken. Because quicken a spell is a great, especially when you're casting spontaneously (and the bonded item can't cast a quickened spell). Here my maths totally fails, since we add a no-maths variable: how much is an a spontaneous quicken good ?
In fact at level 5, a bard knows almost as many spells as a sorcerer (7 instead of 8, including 3 level 2 spells for each), and have 25% less slots (but they have some useful spell-like instead): if bards were this good as spellcasters, it would be a known fact, but at level 1-5, they're not far away from sorcerer in term of spellcasting capability. If you play at low levels, there isn't many reason to play a sorcerer - see the build of LT. You have the choice between being a spellcaster which can be the half-face of the party, or essentially the same spellcaster (juste remove obscuring mist from the known spells), but with skills (and a versatility - say Cha-based sense motive, since you wanna be the face), higher HP, armor, higher BAB, whip and rapier proficiency... What do you chose ?
james maissen wrote: If an observer seeing the spellcaster when he/she is casting a stilled silent eschewed material spell, then he satisfies the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
Likewise is an observer hears an unseen spellcaster when he/she is casting a spell, then the observer meets the requirements for Spellcraft to ID the spell.
And he apply all the modifier that applies to Perception checks. What is the Perception modifier when you tries to see what a guy is thinking ?
Or, can a characters identify a glibness spell from an invisible bard ? After all, the ways he moves makes some noise, you should be able to reconstruct the somatic component, and then identify the spell - hey, invisibility gives only -20 to the Perception check, then only -20 to identify the spell with Spellcraft...
And, in fact, if you really want to play the game "RAW say that": RAW don't allow you identify any spell from an invisible caster. You must clearly see the caster, that's the RAW - nothing else. Oh great, I have just proved that a deaf oracle can identify the incantation of teleport even if the wizard is hiding his mouth, but it's totally impossible to identify the same teleport spell from an invisible caster. RAW arguments are just great.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: In fact, you'll need knowledge (plane) to use a planar binding this way. Without it, you can bind "a powerful Demon" at best: you cannot be assured that the thing you called have any divination. In fact, you won't. You just need to know what kind of creature you're summoning.
To make an analogy, I don't need to be a veterinarian to know what an eagle, goldfish, and hamster are.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
Err, no.
If you look at my 5-th level wizard, he has 9 different spells prepared of level 1-3. A 5-th level sorcerer knows 8 differents spells of level 1-2.
Yes, you have 9 different spells prepared. You can, for example, cast Detect Thoughts one time in the day. My Sorcerer build can cast it 5 times in the day - or not at all. Your build can cast Glitterdust twice in the day. Mine can cast blindness/deafness 5 times in the day - or not at all. Your build can cast Grease once per day. Mine can cast Grease 12 times in the day - or not at all - and can cast it silently if need be.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
Now, let's talk about resources; the sorcerer has 12 slot (7 of level 1 and 5 of level 3), with 4 encounters each day, we can assume that he should cast 3 spells during each encounter.
First encounter of the day ? My wizard has more chance to have the right spell, since he has more directly accessible spells. Since he have 2 prepared haste, 2 prepared glitterdust, I think we can assume that he still have ~7 different directly accessible spells, and he hasn't used the bonded item effect. Second encounter ? He still has more chances to have the right spell - because 7+anything from spellbook is still more choice than 8. And now, we're at the middle of the day, he should prepare something in the empty slot - since he sees what he has cast and what he will be lacking for...
Here, you're way off base. You have Grease prepared. Uh, oh. Your party finds itself against overwhelming odds and needs to flee. You cast Grease behind you to slow the bad guys down. You make a couple of turns, but, before you know it, you find that the commotion has attracted some of your pursuers buddies. You need to cast Grease again - only, you don't have Grease. Er..what do you do? Oh, I know, your Bonded Item! So, Grease goes off again. You start running again. You run up against a cliff and your buddies and you start climbing. You look back, and the mob is following you. Oh wouldn't it be great if you could cast Grease again?
The point is that having a wide range of spells available is nice (and, let's face it, the Sorcerer has easy access to Cleric scrolls which the Wizard doesn't - so, I'll give this one to the Sorcerer), but how many of which spell to cast in the day is also important.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
In fact at level 5, a bard knows almost as many spells as a sorcerer (7 instead of 8, including 3 level 2 spells for each), and have 25% less slots (but they have some useful spell-like instead): if bards were this good as spellcasters, it would be a known fact, but at level 1-5, they're not far away from sorcerer in term of spellcasting capability. If you play at low levels, there isn't many reason to play a sorcerer - see the build of LT. You have the choice between being a spellcaster which can be the half-face of the party, or essentially the same spellcaster (juste remove obscuring mist from the known spells), but with skills (and a versatility - say Cha-based sense motive, since you wanna be the face), higher HP, armor, higher BAB, whip and rapier proficiency... What do you chose ?
Create a 5th level Bard and we'll see.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: Whole bunches of words Just a few quibbles with you, Stephane.
You refer to the bonded item and being able to fill an empty slot in 15 minutes. Fine in some instances, but obviously not in combat that you didn't know was coming, which happens pretty much all the time. Can't exactly say: "Excuse me, Mr. Dragon, sir, while I take 15 minutes to memorize Protection from Energy - Fire. I would be ever so grateful."
Having more spells to choose from is both a blessing and a curse. It also means you have a greater chance of having the WRONG spell memorized. Who has never played a wizard and prepared spells for the day expecting one thing and then ending up with something else that made your spell selection less than optimal, at best?
You say that it is rare that being able to cast the same spell repeatedly in the same combat is useful. I have to completely disagree. Best example, dispel magic as a counterspell. Is a wizard really going to memorize all dispel magics on any given day? It's also never a bad thing to be able to cast your heaviest damage dealing spell repeatedly. It isn't for nothing that sorcerers were called magic missile machines when they first came out.
You also use the bard example, and the only response to that (since I like bards) is that their spell list is much smaller to choose from.
LilithsThrall wrote: In fact, you won't. You just need to know what kind of creature you're summoning.
To make an analogy, I don't need to be a veterinarian to know what an eagle, goldfish, and hamster are.
Yes:
* balor: a huge demon with a fire whip.
* bebilith: a spider-demon.
* marilith: a snake-demon, with many arms and blades.
* quasit: a tiny demon, the weakest of its kind.
* succubus: a seducing demon.
...
How do you know which of them have any divination, without the appropriate knowledges and without meta-gaming ? Without knowledges, you can only try a DC 10 check, and gaining information about a monster is DC 10+CR (DC 5+CR if very common, but there isn't many common outsider in the material plane - yes, if you're playing Korvosa, imp are very commons, but it's an exception).
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
Err, no.
If you look at my 5-th level wizard, he has 9 different spells prepared of level 1-3. A 5-th level sorcerer knows 8 differents spells of level 1-2.
Yes, you have 9 different spells prepared. You can, for example, cast Detect Thoughts one time in the day. My Sorcerer build can cast it 5 times in the day - or not at all. Your build can cast Glitterdust twice in the day. Mine can cast blindness/deafness 5 times in the day - or not at all. Your build can cast Grease once per day. Mine can cast Grease 12 times in the day - or not at all - and can cast it silently if need be. Oh, can I play also ? How many times per day your sorcerer can cast haste ? Clairvoyance/clairaudience ? False life ? See invisibility ? mount ?
But, if you really want it, add in the "equipement" section:
Wand of grease
You see, now he can cast 50 grease during the same day.
Quote: Here, you're way off base. You have Grease prepared. Uh, oh. Your party finds itself against overwhelming odds and needs to flee. You cast Grease behind you to slow the bad guys down. You make a couple of turns, but, before you know it, you find that the commotion has attracted some of your pursuers buddies. You need to cast Grease again - only, you don't have Grease. Er..what do you do? Oh, I know, your Bonded Item! So, Grease goes off again. You start running again. You run up against a cliff and your buddies and you start climbing. You look back, and the mob is following you. Oh wouldn't it be great if you could cast Grease again? OK, let's play. You encounter one pixie with your sorcerer. You die. Against a CR 4 encounter.
Or, can my wizard not be some stupid fool ?
1/ he cast haste on the party. Everyone gains speed for 5 rounds.
2/ he cast glitterdust.
3/ since the monster is still here, he cast mount from the bonded item. It will allow him to cast spell while moving at a speed of 100-250 feet (depending on the situation).
4/ he cast haste, again, while running. 5 rounds more of increased speed. Including the mount.
5/ he cast glitterdust, again, while running.
6/ he cast 50 random spells from a wand, while running.
7/ he cast grease, while running.
Oh, crap, the monster is still here ! Right behind ! Err... And, don't forget the cliff that I couldn't see from range and avoid: it seems that the mount spell weren't a good idea. Contrary to the great 35-feet-range/10-feet-area grease spell, that the monster can't avoid in any way. But I can still get or give a +2 bonus to my climb skill, there is some hope.
But I'm curious: what would your sorcerer do ? 12 grease ? Since 56 spells, including 2 level 3 spells (which improve speed) and 2 level 2 spells weren't sufficient, since a movement of more than 50 feet weren't sufficient, I don't think that 12 level 1 spells would be sufficient. Especially when the spell has a range of 35 feet and an area of 10 feet. In fact, given the movement speed of the pursuer, I think he comes in melee range of your sorcerer in the first round (after you cast your grease spell at 35 feet, right below the feet of the pursuer since he could easily avoid it if you don't), and you die.
But maybe you're right: in this situation, I can only cast grease. Only. That why sorcerer with grease is the best class in the whole game. And wizard who memorize only grease, silent grease, silent still grease, silent still extend grease, quicken grease, quicken silent grease, quicken silent still grease, quicken silent extent grease, and quicken silent still extent heighten grease. Because, grease is the only relevant spell in any situation - especially when you're fleeing, it's far more useful than mount or haste.
Brian Bachman wrote: You refer to the bonded item and being able to fill an empty slot in 15 minutes. Fine in some instances, but obviously not in combat that you didn't know was coming, which happens pretty much all the time. Can't exactly say: "Excuse me, Mr. Dragon, sir, while I take 15 minutes to memorize Protection from Energy - Fire. I would be ever so grateful." The bonded ring is usable during fight. Once per day, you take a spell from your book and cast it normally. It's so powerful, it's silly. The bonded item is why I took spells like see invisibility, without planning to memorize them.
The weakness of the bonded item is the bonded item itself (if you lose it, you must succeed a hard concentration check for each spell), but since equipment has always been the weakness of a wizard, I don't see a real problem (I agree that a wizard without his pouch is one of the weakest class in the game. And without his spellbook also. Conversely, a sorcerer without his gear is still a powerful opponent). If the DM plans to steal my equipment, chosing the familiar instead won't prevent him to screw my character; and in fact, it's easier to hide a bonded ring, *hum*, somewhere in my body, than my pouch and my spellbook (my *body* isn't large enough; or maybe a tiny spellbook ?). And it will allow me to cast a spell from the spellbook that were stolen (more precisely, only a spell without material component).
For the 15-minute memorization of a level 1 spell, I agree, I need time. But I didn't even means to memorize it knowing what will happen next and what spell I'll need; I can use it this way, but I just proposed to prepare a first level spell I have already cast (I have used grease and not enlarge ? re-memorize grease), or a spell that seems useful (eg grease isn't very useful when you explore a lair of arrowhawk...).
Anyway, during a very though day, without any time to rest for 15 minutes, who is the best:
* the guy with 11 spells, including 3-rd level spells, and who can cast another spell directly from his spellbook (including a 3-rd level spell, again), but have an empty and useless slot (and maybe 3 others useless slots) ?
* the guy with 12 spells who can cast any of the 8 spells he knows at anytime ?
* the guy with a wand ?
Quote: Having more spells to choose from is both a blessing and a curse. It also means you have a greater chance of having the WRONG spell memorized. Who has never played a wizard and prepared spells for the day expecting one thing and then ending up with something else that made your spell selection less than optimal, at best?
You say that it is rare that being able to cast the same spell repeatedly in the same combat is useful. I have to completely disagree. Best example, dispel magic as a counterspell. Is a wizard really going to memorize all dispel magics on any given day? It's also never a bad thing to be able to cast your heaviest damage dealing spell repeatedly. It isn't for nothing that sorcerers were called magic missile machines when they first came out.
Err no, not the dispel used as a counter. x)
Dispel has only a 50% chance to work as a counterspell (if the two spellcaster are of same level); that means, there's 50% chances of a "pat" (both of you used your action and nothing happens), and 50% chances of a "lose" (you lost your action and your opponent cast a spell). Since a "pat" situation can be at the advantage of the party (you block the wizard while the barbarian approach and hit him on the head), it can be useful; but more than once in a fight means you're doing something wrong: you have a great chance of obtaining a "lose", and you should have better options to obtains a "pat" or even a "win".
Add that at level 6-7, a sorcerer who cast more than 3 level 3 spell in a fight is nova-ing. Sometimes it's useful to nova (even if it's rarely a good thing), but you should be able do perform a better nova than 50% counterspells. And personally, I prefer use a magic missile, a scorching ray or a fireball as a counterspell (and for that, yes, the sorcerer is quite good; blast are bad OK, it's a known fact, but bast used to disrupt incantation are quite good). x)
Anyway, I admit that some spell are quite good in spam. I think the best example is enervation.
But the whole "algorithm of power" is more like this:
First, the spellcaster looks if he has the right spell for the situation; a spell that wins the day without spaming it, and which will only require some low-level spells after the first powerful move. Here, the wizard wins: he has more chances of having the right spell, since he has more powerful spells and more different spells (and can have a bonded item); conversely, since the right spell for the situation shouldn't need to be spam (or we're in the second case), the sorcerer hasn't any advantage here. An example can be: my wizard knows there some high danger in some place, he cast clairvoyance, studies the map and the opponents, create a good plan with his party, and the though fight becomes a basic fight without spending many resources.
Second, if the first case doesn't apply, the spellcaster looks if he has a good spell; but in my experience, casting 3 different good spells or 3 times the same good spell leads essentially to the same result; see the above example of the fleeing wizard: I didn't change anything from the memorization list I gave, but still, I have maybe the right spell (haste or mount ?), and even if I don't, I can cast 6 useful spells (haste*2, glitterdust*2, mount, grease). If you need more in a single encounter, it's a high nova (more than half of your spell per day !), and it's not automatic that the sorcerer can use 5 or 12 times the same spell he knows for a better effect (I don't see what the sorcerer of LT can use for a better effect than 2 haste, 2 glitterdust and a mount in this situation; I admit that a sorcerer with the mount spell saves the day - since he can cast mount for himself and his party - , but you must admit that not every sorcerer have the mount spell; in the same way, my wizard can save the day against an invisible opponent only once per day, and only of he didn't use the bonded ring before, but it's still better than 0 per day).
The sorcerer can still have an advantage in this case, because of the metamagic feats. Being able to silent/still/quicken/something else only when you really need it gives you an great advantage; even heighten is good for a sorcerer, since it can change a "useless spell because they will save" into "a good spell because they have a good chance to fail the save". Personally I like to have invisibility and some silent summon, and I must admit that the sorcerer is better at this little game. But it's campaign-dependent: a wizard can create some rods of metamagic...
And lastly, if the two first cases don't apply, you cast something not very useful in the situation. An enlarge spell when the fighter don't need more damage or more reach, a deafness on a spellcaster with blindsight, a detect thoughts when the face of the party would be sufficient, etc (or, at low level, an acid splash, or you use your crossbow). Here, sorcerer have an advantage over a bad wizard: a bad wizard is more likely to be in this situation because of an over-specialized memorization (eg: he was thinking that only blast would be useful this day, and he fights a golem); but if the wizard know how to create a specialized spell list without giving up versatility, he shouldn't be in this situation more than the sorcerer and his limited spell known.
Anyway, the wizard would have the advantage on the first case, even if the sorcerer hadn't the spell level disadvantage (because you don't need to spam in case 1, and the wizard has more different spells at the same time). Because of the spell level disadvantage, the wizard has a huge advantage in case 1, and is almost in par with the sorcerer in case 2. That's why I said the wizard would still be better if we remove the spell level disadvantage (but it's debatable : the sorcerer would be really better for case 2), but is inherently weaker for now. A new spell level gives too many side advantages to be ignored.
Quote: You also use the bard example, and the only response to that (since I like bards) is that their spell list is much smaller to choose from. I agree completely. But for the sorcerer that LT propose, and at level 1-5, the bard is best in almost all aspect of the game (only exception: number of slots). The sorcerer is an interesting choice at low level only if you don't take only bard spells... And if you don't think that having spells of 1 level higher is a huge advantage, then you must wait for level 11.
I will indicate the bard build, which is essentially the same as LT's sorcerer. But I agree: not all sorcerer are like this, and some are not bards. I just fear that if the APG tendency to create 2/3 spontaneous spellcasters is pursued in other supplements, the sorcerer will become an almost useless class when you don't play at high level, because he's not enough a "full" spellcaster...
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Morris wrote:
Again, please point to the rule, as written saying that a stilled silenced spell does not set off the readied action of "He's casting a spell." I can find no such rule, but I can site the 3.5 ruling that actions can be readied against psionic powers which by default are stilled and silenced.
First, psionics -aren't- core.
Because it's not core, I'm not up on it. Please link to the Hypertext d20 where it states that psionic powers are still, silent, and can have readied actions against them. He doesn't have to. Psionics have manifestation effects. they can be visible, audible, or even material displays. it takes an act of concentration to bypass such displays. However if the Psi is in threat, the very act of concentration is going to lower defense enough to provoke whether he has displays going off or not.
LilithsThrall wrote: Create a 5th level Bard and we'll see. As you wish.
Base: human bard 5, Str 7 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 14 Sag 10 Cha 18 (15+2 racial+1 lvl)
Init +2 (sorry, no improved init), senses Perception +8
----
HP 5d8 + 10 (with flavored class bonus)
AC 16 (+4 armor +2 Dex)
Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +4 (+4 vs bardic performance, sonic, language-dependant)
----
Speed: 30’
melee: masterwork whip (irrelevant stats) (or, +8 CMB for trip and disarm; +10 with inspire courage); or masterwork sickle (irrelevant stats) (or, +8 CMB for trip; +10 with inspire courage)
distance: crossbow (irrelevant stats)
Spells known:
2nd (3/day): Blindness/deafness (DC 16), Detect Thoughts (DC 16), Invisibility.
1st (5/day): Charm person (DC 15), Grease (DC 15), Hideous laughter (DC 15), Silent image (DC 15)
0th (at will): Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation
Bardic performance (16 round/day): Countersong, Fascinate, Inspire courage +2, Inspire competence +2.
----
Base attack +3, CMB +5 (+7 trip), CMD 13
Feats: agile maneuvers, combat expertise, improved trip, quick draw
Skills (45 points): Bluff +12 (no rank), Diplomacy +12 (5 ranks), Knowledges (arcana, dungeonneering, geography, local, nature, religion) +8 (1 rank each), Knowledges (the planes) +12 (5 ranks), Knowledges (anything else) +4 (no rank), Perception +8 (5 ranks), Perform (percussion) +8 (1 rank), perform (Sing) +12 (5 ranks), Spellcraft +10 (5 ranks), Sense motive +12 (no rank), stealth +10 (5 ranks), UMD +12 (5 ranks), 3 more points to spend
SQ: bardic knowledges +2, versatile performance (sing), well-versed, lore master (take 10 on knowledges checks; 1/day take 20)
Language: common, 2 other languages
Gear: mithral chain skirt, masterwork whip, masterwork sickle, other random stuff like wands, cloak of resistance, magical armor...
I have 3 skill points to spend, depending of what's the more useful for the party: it can be disable device (not a class skill, but still useful), acrobatics, more knowledges (but if I didn't mistake, I have an auto-18 for identifying any monster, and the DC for a CR 5 creature is 15; once per day, an auto-28), more rank in percussion (for the versatility at level 6), some ranks in linguistic...
I took trip for the fun, I don't think it's very efficient with Dex 14 (and without buffing spells); if I really wanted to take that road, I should have more Dex and less Cha (or more than 15 points), but it's not a subject to see who's the best at optimizing characters, just to compare spellcasting capability; quick draw is here for exchanging the whip and the sickle, since the whip has reach but provoke. Since I need at least 13 Int for improved trip, I picked exactly the ability score of the sorcerer. I have 5 rank in knowledges (the planes), because there's a sorcerer in my group who want to bind some outsiders without knowing anything about them.
Let's look at the differences with the sorcerer:
* I spend some money on a mithral chain skirt.
* Like I said, I have less spells per day; two less 2nd level spell and two less first level.
* I have instead a small party buff: +2 to hit/damage; oh, not bad, considering the 1st and 2nd level party buffs among the spells. And a small skill buff. 16 round per day, it should be enough to compensate the loss of 4 spell slots.
* I didn't take identify, since I have +10 in spellcraft; I didn't take obscuring mist and detect poison, since they aren't bard spells. I took hideous laughter and mending. Anyway, hideous laughter is a very good spell: there isn't many level 1 save-or-lose spell, not limited to humanoid or by the number of HD. I think hideous laughter is the only one. I have charm person, but I don't know why: I'm a face, I have detect thoughts, and I'll have suggestion at next level. Anyway, I have it.
* I have less in bluff; but I have +12 sense motive (without rank. And without Wis); the impossible lie of a sorcerer will be discovered. I also have Diplomacy. Since I wanna be the face, I'm looking for the percussion versatility at level 6, to get Intimidate +13 and be the perfect face (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense motive), and then I'll be looking for the dance versatility.
* I can't cast silently and have less init.
* I have a better BAB, and sometimes I use it to trip some random guy with my whip. I also have 12 more HP. And a better AC, if I buy a magical mithral chain skirt. Or a non-mithral chain skirt, I would still have better stealth.
* I bring some good knowledges to the table: +8 isn't that great, but +8 and taking 10/20 is great (I've played a bard, and taking 10 on knowledge is great even with only 1 rank in the knowledges).
* I also have +12 UMD, but I don't need UMD for a wand of cure light wounds.
Overall, in term of spellcasting/spell-like-casting, my class gives me a party buff instead of obscuring mist, and a dedicated resources for this special power instead of 4 spell slot. Our spellcasting capability are almost the same. During next levels:
6: the sorcerer is a better spellcaster, with level 3 spell. I only increase in skill (with another versatility). Advantage: sorcerer.
7: I gain the access of level 3 spells, some of them aren't accessible to sorcerer yet (and some will never be). I gain the ability to cast a spell and a spell-like in the same turn, if I don't need my move action. A sorcerer with only bard spells is laughable at this level.
8: The sorcerer gains access to level 4 spells, I have some of them yet (like fear), and I gain one of my most powerful spell-like: dirge of doom, which shaken my enemies without any save, and I can activate it as a move action; if I cast fear in the same round, they make a save with a -2 penalty, and in case of success, they flee for one round. I think having this is better than knowing one level 4 bard spell.
Well, if the sorcerer learn anything else than bard spells, he can be good, but a sorcerer who play a bard like LT's sorcerer need to be level 10+ to have some interesting tricks. If you want to play a bard, just play a bard: bards were good in 3.5, in Pathfinder they are even better.
Edit: we read many "you shouldn't play a sorcerer as a wizard" on this thread. This bard template is not here to prove that sorcerer aren't good, but that a sorcerer played as a bard is not better. And since the only template of sorcerer were a bard...
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: Lots of stuff, most of it good. Good solid analysis, for the most part, and more balanced than many of the "WIZARDZ RULE!!" ramblings on these boards. As you point out, there are several areas that sorcerers have distinct advantages, and quite a few in which the wizard has distinct advantages. My point all along has not been that the sorcerer is a better class overall, but rather that they each have their advantages and disadvantages, and which you prefer is largely a matter of taste.
I personally like the sorcerer better in desperate combats when it is optimal to cast certain spells repeatedly, and in situations when the party is caught surprised and/or unprepared for the situation at hand. These things happen a lot in my campaigns, because I am an evil, nasty DM.
I go back to a recent campaign that I ran in 3.5 (Yes, the rules have changed with PF, and have boosted both classes, but perhaps the wizard a bit more), Age of Worms. The party had both a wizard and a sorcerer, and they played quite distinct roles in the party, both extremely valuable. The wizard was the master of subtlety, with a solution to any problem from his vast spell list. The sorcerer, who ended up with an ungodly high Charisma, was the one who applied raw magical power in combat, just wearing the bad guys down with repeated and varied magical attacks. Of course, I allowed them the use of Spell Compendium spells, which was probably a mistake, as there are quite a few spells in there that are unbalancing, particularly at high levels, as they ignore spell resistance, and my group found and used them all. The sorcerer also had pretty high Dex, which made her ray and other ranged touch spells absolutely devastating, particularly against large critters. The poor dragons had nary a chance. Watching the devastation she laid down throughout that campaign gave me a lot of respect for what a sorcerer can do.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: Edit: we read many "you shouldn't play a sorcerer as a wizard" on this thread. This bard template is not here to prove that sorcerer aren't good, but that a sorcerer played as a bard is not better. And since the only template of sorcerer were a bard... Just because I said you shouldn't play a sorcerer like a wizard doesn't mean play her like a bard. You should be playing her like... oh I don't know.... a Sorcerer perhaps? As a sorcerer you are a magical being whose powers thematically come from a specific bloodline. What you need to look at is the total package of each bloodline which lend themselves to varying methods of play. The most important difference between spontaneous casters and prepatory casters is that the former unlike the latter have thier roles defined for them as thier spell selections are locked. If you plan to multiclass the sorcerer the spell selection should be made with the other class in mind. i.e. the rogue/sorcerer Arcane Trickster path for instance. On the other hand a draconic sorcerer would be more physically oriented, especially on the path to dragon disciple.
You don't have to worry about a spellbook. Although carrying a fake one along with a spell component pouch to surrender to the local security can be quite handy. These are just examples of various things to consider. Which path to go on will depend on the context of your campaign. If it's just combat heavy that would suggest one route, if it's urban and roleplay intensive that would call for different approaches.
LazarX wrote: Just because I said you shouldn't play a sorcerer like a wizard doesn't mean play her like a bard. I was only responding to LT's build. When he posted it, I had the feeling that it was a bard-like sorcerer, but I had to check the spell known of bards (for spells per day, I know by experience that they have enough in Pathfinder; "enough" is still less than a sorcerer, but since they have some good spell-like (*)...).
But the fact that LT build has some flaws doesn't means that all sorcerer has these flaws. I just answered for a particular build.
(*) in fact it's not a spell-like, but a supernatural ability. But you see what I mean: they have less spell, but have also something else that looks like spells.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Create a 5th level Bard and we'll see. As you wish.
Base: human bard 5, Str 7 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 14 Sag 10 Cha 18 (15+2 racial+1 lvl)
Init +2 (sorry, no improved init), senses Perception +8
----
HP 5d8 + 10 (with flavored class bonus)
AC 16 (+4 armor +2 Dex)
Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +4 (+4 vs bardic performance, sonic, language-dependant)
----
Speed: 30’
melee: masterwork whip (irrelevant stats) (or, +8 CMB for trip and disarm; +10 with inspire courage); or masterwork sickle (irrelevant stats) (or, +8 CMB for trip; +10 with inspire courage)
distance: crossbow (irrelevant stats)
Spells known:
2nd (3/day): Blindness/deafness (DC 16), Detect Thoughts (DC 16), Invisibility.
1st (5/day): Charm person (DC 15), Grease (DC 15), Hideous laughter (DC 15), Silent image (DC 15)
0th (at will): Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Prestidigitation
Bardic performance (16 round/day): Countersong, Fascinate, Inspire courage +2, Inspire competence +2.
----
Base attack +3, CMB +5 (+7 trip), CMD 13
Feats: agile maneuvers, combat expertise, improved trip, quick draw
Skills (45 points): Bluff +12 (no rank), Diplomacy +12 (5 ranks), Knowledges (arcana, dungeonneering, geography, local, nature, religion) +8 (1 rank each), Knowledges (the planes) +12 (5 ranks), Knowledges (anything else) +4 (no rank), Perception +8 (5 ranks), Perform (percussion) +8 (1 rank), perform (Sing) +12 (5 ranks), Spellcraft +10 (5 ranks), Sense motive +12 (no rank), stealth +10 (5 ranks), UMD +12 (5 ranks), 3 more points to spend
SQ: bardic knowledges +2, versatile performance (sing), well-versed, lore master (take 10 on knowledges checks; 1/day take 20)
Language: common, 2 other languages
Gear: mithral chain skirt, masterwork whip, masterwork sickle, other random stuff like wands, cloak of resistance, magical armor...
I have 3 skill points to spend, depending of what's the more useful for the party: it can be disable device (not a class skill, but still useful), acrobatics,... Just after a quick look at your build I've noticed several places where the Sorcerer is better.
1.) The Sorcerer has a familiar. This means that he can do a cure light wounds at range. This is rather important considering that he isn't a primary healer and, so, won't be positioning himself to be in touch range of the fighters
2.) He's got a lot more languages known. It's kinda hard to bluff a target if you can't speak the target's language.
3.) He can cast first level spells with a metamagic feat once a day without extending the casting time and with a +1 to the DC. Your character doesn't even have metamagic feats. Have fun in a silence effect, let alone casting from invisibility (the enemy may not be able to see you, but he will hear you)
4.) My character has Intimidate maxed. As mentioned earlier, Bluff is often not sufficient by itself and Diplomacy can't be used in combat or when the target is planning on attacking you in the immediate future.
5.) How did you get a +10 Inspire Courage?
I'm confident that a deeper analysis will revolve more problems with your build.
So LilithsThrall, since you already regard the Sorcerer as being superior to the Wizard, can we assume that you agree that the new Human Sorcerer class feature in the Advanced Player's Guide (sorcerers can choose a new spell known 1 level lower than the max they can cast each time they level, rather than getting a skill point or HP) is broken?
Ken
kenmckinney wrote: So LilithsThrall, since you already regard the Sorcerer as being superior to the Wizard, can we assume that you agree that the new Human Sorcerer class feature in the Advanced Player's Guide (sorcerers can choose a new spell known 1 level lower than the max they can cast each time they level, rather than getting a skill point or HP) is broken?
Ken
I'm disappointed that they gave the Sorcerer that new ability. I don't think it's needed and may even be a bit unbalancing. What the Sorcerer could use most is more skill points.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Just after a quick look at your build I've noticed several places where the Sorcerer is better.
1.) The Sorcerer has a familiar. This means that he can do a cure light wounds at range. This is rather important considering that he isn't a primary healer and, so, won't be positioning himself to be in touch range of the fighters
Uh, wasn't that a VIPER familiar on the sorcerer you posted? They have a 0ft reach, which means they're basically underfoot if you try this (if I understand the reach rules correctly) - it will be in MORE danger than you would be standing directly behind the fighter (it has 1/2 the sorcerer's hit points, probably a poorer AC, and everybody just LOVES venomous snakes, right?).
Also, I'm not sure that the familiar can deliver touch spells cast from a wand, or even a scroll. I can see some GMs allowing it from scrolls, but wands...
LilithsThrall wrote: 1.) The Sorcerer has a familiar. This means that he can do a cure light wounds at range. This is rather important considering that he isn't a primary healer and, so, won't be positioning himself to be in touch range of the fighters No, he can't.
The deliver touch spell ability is only usable if you cast a spell, not if you "use any ability that looks like a spell, like activating an item".
Quote: 2.) He's got a lot more languages known. It's kinda hard to bluff a target if you can't speak the target's language. OK. Remove stealth, add linguistic. Now I have as many language as you. Incidentally, I'm better to decipher, create a forgery, or detect a forgery.
But if you want my opinion, there are more than 7 languages in the whole world. You should take the tongue spell, and I don't understand why you haven't, if you really think languages are that much important. Oh, I remember now: unlike my bard, you can't have the tongue spell.
The funny thing is that, you consider languages as a very important thing, but you didn't even take comprehend language. Then, languages, important, not important ? It seems that the correct answer is: exactly seven.
Quote: 3.) He can cast first level spells with a metamagic feat once a day without extending the casting time and with a +1 to the DC. Your character doesn't even have metamagic feats. Have fun in a silence effect, let alone casting from invisibility (the enemy may not be able to see you, but he will hear you) That rise another question: if you want to have fun in a silence effect, why didn't you take the silence spell ? Oh, I remember again: unlike my bard, you can't.
But, because I'm curious: which spell do you plan to use while invisible ? Grease and obscuring mist dispel the invisibility if there's a foe in the effect; and, obscuring mist makes the invisibility useless. Charm person dispel the invisibility. Identify ?
OK, let's add "wand of silent image" in my equipment. The DC isn't important (because of the "if interacted with" condition), nor is the CL (the range is long enough, the duration isn't tied to CL, no SR). and now I can cast a silent image while invisible, just like your sorcerer (but I must admit, I will never have a wand of entangle (DC 11, CL 3) or a wand of sanctuary (DC 11, CL 3)). Oh, maybe I also need a wand of ghost sounds ?
And if I'm in a silence effect, I move. If the silence is centered on me ? I use the wand, the whip, and the inspire courage. It cannot be worst than casting 5 grease, and then having only level 1 spells left.
I would see your metamagic advantage if you had Summon monsters I as a spell known, but with your spell selection ? I fail to see the interest of metamagic for your sorcerer:
* The fact that you can use a metamagic without increasing the casting time isn't that great, since you don't have spell with a casting time of 1 round. Cast and move in the same round ? The mount spell allow it. It means, any sorcerer and any bard can do it, and more than once per day. And since you haven't any great move action except "move"...
* The fact that you can take silent casting can be good, but invisibility+silent casting is totally unadapted to your spell selection. Wands don't require any verbal component, and your character will essentially use wand while invisible - like mine.
Quote: 4.) My character has Intimidate maxed. As mentioned earlier, Bluff is often not sufficient by itself and Diplomacy can't be used in combat or when the target is planning on attacking you in the immediate future. Remove Diplomacy, add Intimidate. That is, if you really think that Intimidate is more useful than Diplomacy. And now I have Intimidate maxed.
I thought you didn't take Diplomacy because it's not a class skill, unlike Intimidate. But since I don't want to have an argument about which skills are better, simply consider that I have an exact copy of your skills, 15 more skill points, one free skill (+one useless free perform skill: with only 1 skill point, I gain rank in three skills, including one perform; that's two free ranks, including one rank in an useless skill), and bonus to knowledge.
When it comes to skills, the only things you gets are +2 Perception and +3 Bluff (and only before your familiar dies when trying to deliver a touch thing that he can't deliver). Anything else, I can have the same or better.
Quote: 5.) How did you get a +10 Inspire Courage? I have a total CMB of +10 with inspire courage. I included this on the profile, since it does not depend on my teammates.
Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Just after a quick look at your build I've noticed several places where the Sorcerer is better.
1.) The Sorcerer has a familiar. This means that he can do a cure light wounds at range. This is rather important considering that he isn't a primary healer and, so, won't be positioning himself to be in touch range of the fighters
Uh, wasn't that a VIPER familiar on the sorcerer you posted? They have a 0ft reach, which means they're basically underfoot if you try this (if I understand the reach rules correctly) - it will be in MORE danger than you would be standing directly behind the fighter (it has 1/2 the sorcerer's hit points, probably a poorer AC, and everybody just LOVES venomous snakes, right?).
Also, I'm not sure that the familiar can deliver touch spells cast from a wand, or even a scroll. I can see some GMs allowing it from scrolls, but wands...
Whether it requires a scroll to do this trick is a minor quible, as it can be done from a scroll. However, the familiar description states, "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity". NOTE that you are "casting a spell from a wand" - that is, you're still casting a spell. The familiar description states, "If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the 'toucher.'" All that is required is for the master to cast a touch spell (there is no requirement for it not to have been cast from a wand, only that it be cast).
To do this effectively, the viper familiar would have to be changed for a different familiar. This would result in 3 less ranks in Bluff. But such a change is relatively minor. (In the spirt of full disclosure though, when I posted earlier, I was envisioning the viper being in the Fighter's pocket before combat - I wasn't considering that the familiar has to be in contact with the caster at the time of casting. So, a minor correction is required for this trick to work.)
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: But if you want my opinion, there are more than 7 languages in the whole world. You should take the tongue spell, and I don't understand why you haven't, if you really think languages are that much important. At 5th level, you aren't likely to be travelling the whole world - only a region of it. Let's see, you live in France. How many languages do you run into throughout a calendar year? German? French? English? Now, what if you make your living communicating with foreigners? An old friend of mine who made her living in trade spoke 7 and she just focused on a small part of Asia.
Where you get at the level where you do start travelling the whole world, there are magic items which grant tongues. So, why take it as a spell?
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
That rise another question: if you want to have fun in a silence effect, why didn't you take the silence spell ? Oh, I remember again: unlike my bard, you can't.
But, because I'm curious: which spell do you plan to use while invisible ? Grease and obscuring mist dispel the invisibility if there's a foe in the effect; and, obscuring mist makes the invisibility useless. Charm person dispel the invisibility. Identify ?
OK, let's add "wand of silent image" in my equipment. The DC isn't important...
I'm trying to figure out why an invisible caster would even want to cast obscuring mist on a target. You're not making a lot of sense here. And there are plenty of reasons to cast Grease without targeting an enemy. I think the reason you aren't making sense is that you are stretching for justification to defend your build. And who said anything about needing to cast silence? Your argument makes as much sense as arguing for wizards to be able to use swords competently since they will want to defend against people who do.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
* The fact that you can use a metamagic without increasing the casting time isn't that great, since you don't have spell with a casting time of 1 round. Cast and move in the same round ? The mount spell allow it. It means, any sorcerer and any bard can do it, and more than once per day. And since you haven't any great move action except "move"...
I didn't realize you were -trying- to be funny.
Okay, I get it.
"Be very, very quiet" *clop* *clop* *clop* "I'm casting my spell as a silent spell" *clop* *clop* *clop" *neigh* "so as not to be detected" *clop* *neigh* *clop*
Beautiful tactic there!
LilithsThrall wrote:
Whether it requires a scroll to do this trick is a minor quible, as it can be done from a scroll. However, the familiar description states, "casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity".
Hang on. WHERE is this quote from? I can't find it from skimming pg 82-83 "Familiars". Hang on, found it in "Wands" pg 496. However, it says casting a spell from a wand, not that you're casting a spell. The familiar ability is about the BOND between caster and familiar, not the wand and the familiar. Also, the spell trigger section uses different wording:
Using Items, Spell Trigger, pg 458 "Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity."
Quote: NOTE that you are "casting a spell from a wand" - that is, you're still casting a spell. No, not exactly. You're activating a spell trigger item. Similar but different. It's not YOUR magic you're using, it's the wand's magic. Will that magic flow through the master-familiar bond? I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure a lot of GMs would frown upon it.
Now I don't think this is a super huge deal (either way you interpret it), as generally using your familiar this way gets them dead. If sorcerers and wizards are squishy, familiars are super squishy.
Helic wrote: Will that magic flow through the master-familiar bond? I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure a lot of GMs would frown upon it.Quote:
While this is a discussion worth having, at the end of the day, I believe you agreed that, if it can't be done through a wand, it can be done through a scroll.
So, avoiding the side issue of how exactly the Sorcerer does it (wand or scroll), at the end of the day, it can be done.
Helic wrote:
Now I don't think this is a super huge deal (either way you interpret it), as generally using your familiar this way gets them dead. If sorcerers and wizards are squishy, familiars are super squishy.
Certainly, familiars are super squishy. That's why I would only do it if the familiar had invis or the like already cast on it and, even then, I'd do it only to buff fellow party members and only as a backup (eg. to get the Cleric back on his/her feet). Since the Cleric isn't expected to drop below zero more than once a combat (if he ever actually does, the party should consider running away) and isn't expected to drop even once a combat on a regular basis, the enemy isn't likely to be expecting this as a standard operating procedure of the party. Still, it can be a PC life saver or, even, a TPK preventer.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Whether it requires a scroll to do this trick is a minor quible, as it can be done from a scroll.
Well first you have to decipher the scroll.. that's a DC 26 UMD check, it would be a DC 21 Spellcraft check, but you don't have that skill.
To read a scroll of cure light wounds, wouldn't you need to make 2 more UMD checks, one at DC 21 to activate the scroll (a 60% chance for you) and another at DC 26 to emulate the 11 WIS that you also don't have (a 35% chance).
So assuming that you had deciphered the scroll of cure light wounds already, it would be a move action (or worse) to take out the scroll, a standard to try to read it (around a 21% chance to do so successfully), then your familiar would need to enter the fighter's square to deliver the touch spell. This would leave the familiar with 13hps in the same square as the fighter...
This is an advantage?
-James
PS: A wand of entangle is useful even with it's low DC in denying charge areas from the hampered terrain. That is unless this was changed in pathfinder- I haven't checked.
james maissen wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Whether it requires a scroll to do this trick is a minor quible, as it can be done from a scroll.
Well first you have to decipher the scroll.. that's a DC 26 UMD check, it would be a DC 21 Spellcraft check, but you don't have that skill.
To read a scroll of cure light wounds, wouldn't you need to make 2 more UMD checks, one at DC 21 to activate the scroll (a 60% chance for you) and another at DC 26 to emulate the 11 WIS that you also don't have (a 35% chance).
So assuming that you had deciphered the scroll of cure light wounds already, it would be a move action (or worse) to take out the scroll, a standard to try to read it (around a 21% chance to do so successfully), then your familiar would need to enter the fighter's square to deliver the touch spell. This would leave the familiar with 13hps in the same square as the fighter...
This is an advantage?
-James
PS: A wand of entangle is useful even with it's low DC in denying charge areas from the hampered terrain. That is unless this was changed in pathfinder- I haven't checked. Honestly, it really doesn't help the thread for me to have to keep repeating myself. No, it wouldn't make sense to do this trick regularly. But can such a trick prevent a tpk or a character death? Yes. Is a trick which is used only as a backup, but can prevent a character death or tpk, albeit with only a one in five chance of success worthwhile? Well, that's going to depend on how averse you are to character death and tpk.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Honestly, it really doesn't help the thread for me to have to keep repeating myself. No, it wouldn't make sense to do this trick regularly. But can such a trick prevent a tpk or a character death? Yes. Is a trick which is used only as a backup, but can prevent a character death or tpk, albeit with only a one in five chance of success worthwhile? Well, that's going to depend on how averse you are to character death and tpk.
You're billing this as a strength. It's not.
You have a slim to none chance to do anything in this instance. That's not a strength.. that's a desperation. You're better off going with a monkey familiar that can try to pour a potion down the PC's throat.
Mind you, you don't have a potion of clw.. so if this is a concern you might want to have the 100% chance of saving the PC rather than the 21% chance...
In general when your party is at the point of a tpk having main PCs take actions that are reactive is bad.. have them taking actions that on average will do nothing is even worse. Its a question of tempo and action economy.
As the party arcanist being able to shape the battle is an important thing to the table. This PC does not do this very well, even though you have given him some area control spells. You have equipped him horribly and this is telling, and you are willing to 'show off' to give a 79% chance of letting a PC die and essentially doing no action in a tight spot for the party.
All in all this is a bad move, and a worse plan.
-James
james maissen wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
Honestly, it really doesn't help the thread for me to have to keep repeating myself. No, it wouldn't make sense to do this trick regularly. But can such a trick prevent a tpk or a character death? Yes. Is a trick which is used only as a backup, but can prevent a character death or tpk, albeit with only a one in five chance of success worthwhile? Well, that's going to depend on how averse you are to character death and tpk.
You're billing this as a strength. It's not.
You have a slim to none chance to do anything in this instance. That's not a strength.. that's a desperation. You're better off going with a monkey familiar that can try to pour a potion down the PC's throat.
Mind you, you don't have a potion of clw.. so if this is a concern you might want to have the 100% chance of saving the PC rather than the 21% chance...
In general when your party is at the point of a tpk having main PCs take actions that are reactive is bad.. have them taking actions that on average will do nothing is even worse. Its a question of tempo and action economy.
As the party arcanist being able to shape the battle is an important thing to the table. This PC does not do this very well, even though you have given him some area control spells. You have equipped him horribly and this is telling, and you are willing to 'show off' to give a 79% chance of letting a PC die and essentially doing no action in a tight spot for the party.
All in all this is a bad move, and a worse plan.
-James Yeah, a wizard of the same level wouldn't have let that character get so bad in the first place.
Funny enough, our counter-example bard can cast CLW himself if he wanted to.
james maissen wrote:
As the party arcanist being able to shape the battle is an important thing to the table. This PC does not do this very well, even though you have given him some area control spells. You have equipped him horribly and this is telling, and you are willing to 'show off' to give a 79% chance of letting a PC die and essentially doing no action in a tight spot for the party.
I've already agreed rather early on in this discussion that the magic items are not optimally selected. In fact, when I posted the character, I said it was a rough draft. I said that one of the big reasons I considered it a rough draft was that the magic item selection was not optimal. The fact that you keep harping on something that I said early on was not optimal makes me wonder if you've got anything else to contribute or if you just feel compelled to parrot the same thing over and over and over again.
Having said that, the UMD approach does allow for a natural progression of abilities that the potion approach does not. The potion approach is going to tap out around 3rd level spells.
Let's assume that, instead of 5th level, we're looking at 11th level characters. We've got about a 1 in 4 chance of pulling off a heal this way. Again, that's not bad as a last ditch effort.
LilithsThrall wrote: james maissen wrote:
As the party arcanist being able to shape the battle is an important thing to the table. This PC does not do this very well, even though you have given him some area control spells. You have equipped him horribly and this is telling, and you are willing to 'show off' to give a 79% chance of letting a PC die and essentially doing no action in a tight spot for the party.
I've already agreed rather early on in this discussion that the magic items are not optimally selected. In fact, when I posted the character, I said it was a rough draft. I said that one of the big reasons I considered it a rough draft was that the magic item selection was not optimal. The fact that you keep harping on something that I said early on was not optimal makes me wonder if you've got anything else to contribute or if you just feel compelled to parrot the same thing over and over and over again.
Having said that, the UMD approach does allow for a natural progression of abilities that the potion approach does not. The potion approach is going to tap out around 3rd level spells.
Let's assume that, instead of 5th level, we're looking at 11th level characters. We've got about a 1 in 4 chance of pulling off a heal this way. Again, that's not bad as a last ditch effort. So instead of 21% chance, your at 25% at 6 levels higher...how about you do your job and have a 100% chance to prevent the TPK in the first place. This isn't even just about EQ selection, it's about the skills you took with no complimentary skills along with spell selection. The items are just a bonus of how badly you made the sorcerer.
LilithsThrall wrote: makes me wonder if you've got anything else to contribute or if you just feel compelled to parrot the same thing over and over and over again.
You know, I think I've tried to be civil to you. I've seen you rail against others.. quit it.
Your sorcerer is not done out well at all. From start to finish. It's a badly done bard, as I think was evidenced by someone else.
Mistaking a sorcerer for a bard is a mistake, you've gone to great lengths to scrounge skill points sacrificing build points and hps for it and it's still lacking compared to the bard build put up.
People routinely try to play sorcerers and wizards as the other class. They attribute their lack of success with the class they chose rather than the fact that they are mismatched between playstyle and class.
That said, a sorcerer does a poor job of integrating into a group when compared to a wizard. The class is a decent one and can be done well.. it does take more care and work at building one than, for example, the one you hastily threw together (and it shows).
-James
james maissen wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: makes me wonder if you've got anything else to contribute or if you just feel compelled to parrot the same thing over and over and over again.
You know, I think I've tried to be civil to you. I've seen you rail against others.. quit it.
Your sorcerer is not done out well at all. From start to finish. It's a badly done bard, as I think was evidenced by someone else.
Mistaking a sorcerer for a bard is a mistake, you've gone to great lengths to scrounge skill points sacrificing build points and hps for it and it's still lacking compared to the bard build put up.
People routinely try to play sorcerers and wizards as the other class. They attribute their lack of success with the class they chose rather than the fact that they are mismatched between playstyle and class.
That said, a sorcerer does a poor job of integrating into a group when compared to a wizard. The class is a decent one and can be done well.. it does take more care and work at building one than, for example, the one you hastily threw together (and it shows).
-James The class' shortage of skill points and the sub-optimal magic item selection are both things that I pointed out before you ever commented.
The fact that your "constructive criticism" is limited to hammering those same points over and over and over again - the way an obsessive compulsive purse poodle humps to death a young child's pants leg - doesn't make what you have to offer "insightful".
As for the Bard character - this is the character who was suppossed to circumvent subpar silent spell casting by sneaking around on a horse? Seriously, you're aware that that character's tactic was meant as a joke, aren't you?
As for your claim that the character is 'subpar', many people on this thread called the character scary effective. Your inability to think outside the box of "roles" (as per 4e) can only be addressed by pointing that the rather obvious fact that this is NOT 4e.
LilithsThrall wrote:
The class' shortage of skill points and the sub-optimal magic item selection are both things that I pointed out before you ever commented.
The fact that your "constructive criticism" is limited to hammering those same points over and over and over again - the way an obsessive compulsive purse poodle humps to death a young child's pants leg - doesn't make what you have to offer "insightful".
As for the Bard character - this is the character who was suppossed to circumvent subpar silent spell casting by sneaking around on a horse? Seriously, you're aware that that character's tactic was meant as a joke, aren't you?
As for your claim that the character is 'subpar', many people on this thread called the character scary effective. Your inability to think outside the box of "roles" (as per 4e) can only be addressed by pointing that the rather obvious fact that this is NOT 4e.
Okay the magic item I'll give you can change out...no big. But skills and spell selection?!? I think not...that is solidly a part of the build and they are picked in a manner that does not work with eachother very well. Screw roles...your character can do a bunch of stuff half assed because he went willy nilly with skill and spell choices.
BTW who said scary effective? I see a lot of umm that doesn't work from people who umm you know actually know the rules and play by them.
LilithsThrall wrote: As for the Bard character - this is the character who was suppossed to circumvent subpar silent spell casting by sneaking around on a horse? Seriously, you're aware that that character's tactic was meant as a joke, aren't you? Your sorcerer don't have the stealth skill. And you think he's a better sneaker that a horse ?
Well, you're right. +2 stealth, vs -2 stealth for the horse (because of its size). Now add the bonus from invisibility: +22 vs +18. Great difference. Your argument would be more plausible if your sorcerer actually had the stealth skill... Consider also that a phantom steed doesn't make any noise with his hooves.
You need to cast invisibility twice, which would be a plausible counter-argument if you didn't suggest to lose 1 round to cast invisibility on your familiar when there's a high risk of TPK...
Anyway, I have already answered: I can't take the silent casting feat, but when I want cast silently, I use a wand. At this level, since you can only cast a level 1 spell silently, it's not a big deal: I just need to chose a spell which don't need high DC and CL, and pay 750 gp. If you want to use your special metamagic power for anything else than "once per day, I'm invisible, I cast silently and then I move", any sorcerer who really want to do that can. This bloodline power is very useful for spell with a casting time of 1 round, not so much for other spells.
james maissen wrote: PS: A wand of entangle is useful even with it's low DC in denying charge areas from the hampered terrain. That is unless this was changed in pathfinder- I haven't checked. You're right; I didn't think about that. And I also saw that the minimum CL of a wand is 1, I thought it were 3 or 5. Anyway, a sorcerer should have better option than UMD to do this.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote: Your sorcerer don't have the stealth skill. And you think he's a better sneaker that a horse ?
Well, you're right. +2 stealth, vs -2 stealth for the horse (because of its size). Now add the bonus from invisibility: +22 vs +18. Great difference. Your argument would be more plausible if your sorcerer actually had the stealth skill... Consider also that a phantom steed doesn't make any noise with his hooves.
You are aware that your Bard build doesn't have the phantom steed spell, right? He won't get it for another several levels.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
You need to cast invisibility twice, which would be a plausible counter-argument if you didn't suggest to lose 1 round to cast invisibility on your familiar when there's a high risk of TPK...
er..no.
I need to cast Invis once. It is my familiar. It will be rendered invisible when the Sorcerer is rendered invisible.
Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
Anyway, I have already answered: I can't take the silent casting feat, but when I want cast silently, I use a wand. At this level, since you can only cast a level 1 spell silently, it's not a big deal: I just need to chose a spell which don't need high DC and CL, and pay 750 gp. If you want to use your special metamagic power for anything else than "once per day, I'm invisible, I cast silently and then I move", any sorcerer who really want to do that can. This bloodline power is very useful for spell with a casting time of 1 round, not so much for other spells.
The fact is that we aren't just concerned about this one level. We're also concerned about how this character progresses (which is why you and I both have mentioned what our respective characters would take over the next several levels - such as your phantom steed).
So, you've spent gold on (and your character is dependent on) high priced armor and a stack of wands.
james maissen wrote: PS: A wand of entangle is useful even with it's low DC in denying charge areas from the hampered terrain. That is unless this was changed in pathfinder- I haven't checked. You're right; I didn't think about that. And I also saw that the minimum CL of a wand is 1, I thought it were 3 or 5. Anyway, a sorcerer should have better option than UMD to do this. And this sorcerer build does have better options than UMD to do this. He can cast Silent Image to achieve the same effect - as an illusion of an entangle is just as good as an actual entangle for the purposes of denying terrain. The enemy is still going to want to avoid entering the area.
LilithsThrall wrote:
I need to cast Invis once. It is my familiar. It will be rendered invisible when the Sorcerer is rendered invisible.
Wrong-o. You need 2 casts, share spells LETS you cast spells on him that would normally affect you, not let you and the familiar split the benefit for a spell. Sorry.
Edit- to sound like less mean, sometimes it seeps through... also, Happy independence day everybody!~
Themetricsystem wrote: LilithsThrall wrote:
I need to cast Invis once. It is my familiar. It will be rendered invisible when the Sorcerer is rendered invisible.
Wrong-o buddy. You need 2 casts, share spells LETS you cast spells on him that would normally affect you, not let you and the familiar split the benefit for a spell. Sorry. That's how it used to work in 3.5. Looks like it was changed in PRPG. Bummer
Themetricsystem wrote: share spells LETS you cast spells on him that would normally affect you, not let you and the familiar split the benefit for a spell. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that there was a rules change on that point.
So, to avoid a character death or tpk, a Sorcerer can have a 1 in 4 chance of casting a cure (or heal) spell from a scroll and using that spell to heal an ally who is located somewhere else in the combat by using a flying familiar to make a touch attack (we'll forego invis unless it's really needed).
I still call that a good alternative to character death/tpk.
LilithsThrall wrote: Themetricsystem wrote: share spells LETS you cast spells on him that would normally affect you, not let you and the familiar split the benefit for a spell. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't noticed that there was a rules change on that point.
So, to avoid a character death or tpk, a Sorcerer can have a 1 in 4 chance of casting a cure (or heal) spell from a scroll and using that spell to heal an ally who is located somewhere else in the combat by using a flying familiar to make a touch attack (we'll forego invis unless it's really needed).
I still call that a good alternative to character death/tpk. A better alternative would be having the right spells to prevent the TPK to begin with. OR like a bard being able to heal without that wand. If only you'd been able to scry the area and see what you were up against first!
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, a highly experienced professional military strategist who was a student of Clausewitz, held two central ideas on strategy which have been incorporated into fundamental strategy training the world over ever since.
These two ideas are
1.) No plan survives contact with the enemy
and
2.) Strategy is a system of expedients
To apply them to the question of Wizard vs. Sorcerer, the Wizard is able to choose their spells at the beginning of each morning. The Wizard may arguably have the ability (at least in theory*) to plan strategy better than the Sorcerer.
But it usually isn't strategic planning that saves one's ass because no plan survives contact with the enemy. What really saves the day is the ability to change tactics from round to round. Molitz describes this as "a system of expedients" - ie. "if they do X, then I do Y, if they respond to Y with Z, then I do A, else, I do B". Now, what is needed to make that happen? You need a range of options and you need to be able to delay choosing which option to take until the last possible moment. Wizards have a lot of options, but they must make those choices far in advance. Sorcerers, arguably, have fewer options**, but they can make their choices at the last possible moment. Further, Sorcerers, having a much smaller spell selection, are able to learn and master the tactical use of those spells to a much deeper level and they benefit from the fact that several spells which are on the short list of the most powerful spells in the game work to better effect in the hands of a Sorcerer than in the hands of a Wizard.
*Despite what you might think a divination can do, what it actually -can- do is often very limited. The most commonly regarded divination is scrying which isn't even available to a Wizard or Sorcerer until level 7th level and is far from fool proof
**As I've mentioned before, UMD and the fact that Sorcerers can do binding better than a Wizard means that Sorcerers actually don't have as few options as is commonly believed.
LilithsThrall wrote: bunch of nonsense Couldn't be more wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
