Dragonborn3 wrote: I looked at Billy's stats, and it seems like he has 2 points unspent, using the 15 point buy you used. Doh. I used the human bonus on Con instead of the high-end Int. I'm used to dice rolls rather than building stats.
If I may, I'll shuffle him more efficiently and give him an extra +2 on Wis.
Go ahead, the only reason I even looked was because I was going to make a Sorcerer with the same stats(switching Int with Cha though).
Here's a rough draft of the 5th level Sorcerer
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 15 (18)
Init: 6 (Perception 10)
HP 5d6 + 5
AC 12 (16 w Mage Armor) +1 from Ring of Protection
F(2)/R(3)/W(4) +1 from Cloak of Resistance
Speed: 30’ (40’ w Longstrider)
Languages: 2Cos + 7Ling = 9
Feats 4 + Eschew Materials
Imp Init
Cosmopolitan (Per/Sense Motive)
Extend Spell
Silent Spell
Special
Whenever a metamagic feat is applied to a spell which modifies the level of the spell, the DC is increased by one
Once per day, add a metamagic feat to a spell without increasing its casting time
Spells Known
0th
Detect Magic
Message
Mage Hand
Prestidigitation
Dancing Lights
Detect Poison
1st (7)
Identify
Silent Image
Ch Person
Grease
Obscuring Mist
2nd (5)
Invisibility
Detect Thoughts
Blindness/Deafness
Skills (6)
Bluff (8 + 4 + 3Fam) 15,
Intimidate (8 + 4) 12,
UMD (8 + 4) 12,
Linguistics (7) 7,
Perception (8 + 2Fam) 10,
Sense Motive (8 + 2Fam) 10
Gear 10500
Wand of Mage Armor 750
Wand of C Light 750
Wand of Sanctuary 750
Wand of Entangle 750
Wand of Longstrider 750
Ring of Protection +1 2,000 gp
Cloak of Resistance +1 1,000 gp
Hat of Disguise 1,800 gp
As can be seen, the Sorcerer is not a variant Wizard. They have very different strengths. The Sorcerer is not a BOOM Mage and should -not- be written as such. The Sorcerer uses Juho - the art of using an enemy's strengths against him. The Sorcerer, for example, will have the highest bluff score in the game if he has a viper familiar. +15 to Bluff gives him a good chance of getting his target to believe an impossible lie. This character's AC is lower than the Wizard's, but his Per is higher, so, he'll be less likely to be surprised and he'll likely be able to use charm and illusion to buff up his defenses.
*For the 10th level build, I'm changing the familiar to a flying familiar - this will make it easy to use the cure wand at range, but, for the 5th level build, the +3 to bluff seemed like a better build.
Sorry to burst your bubble LT, but a Wizard could all of that too. He might not have a Bluff to rival the sorcerer's, or the high Cha to help with opposed checks, but he can still do it.
I had a raven familiar once and my DM said he couldn't use wands, even though he could use my UMD check to activate them. Are you going to pick an imp/quasit/pseudodragon to avoid this with the 10th level sorcerer?
Dragonborn3 wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble LT, but a Wizard could all of that too. He might not have a Bluff to rival the sorcerer's, or the high Cha to help with opposed checks, but he can still do it.
I had a raven familiar once and my DM said he couldn't use wands, even though he could use my UMD check to activate them. Are you going to pick an imp/quasit/pseudodragon to avoid this with the 10th level sorcerer?
Yes, a Wizard could do all that too. A Wizard could also, put on armor, grab a sword, and jump onto the front line in melee.
He'd suck at it, just like he'd suck at this, but, in theory, he -could- do it.
"I had a raven familiar once and my DM said he coldn't use wands.." Cure spells are touch spells. Your raven could touch your target.
But my sorcerer will be moving towards taking a pseudodragon.
This will be a lot more significant when the Sorcerer gains more levels and is carrying a heal scroll. The ability to cast invis on his familiar pseudodragon and have it drop a heal on a fighter type who got separated from the rest of the party is guaranteed to be a life saver if not a tpk preventer.
What book is Cosmopolitan in?
(also looks to be RoE bait.)
Matthew Morris wrote: What book is Cosmopolitan in?
(also looks to be RoE bait.)
I don't know what book it's in. It's in the SRD - which is our basis for comparison.
LilithsThrall wrote: Lots of fun stuff, including, +15 to Bluff gives him a good chance of getting his target to believe an impossible lie. Interesting build. I like it and would love to DM it if played well, as I assume you would.
Had to react to that one line above, though. If it is truly an "impossible" lie, the DC should correspondingly be "impossibly" high. Bluff, a mundane skill, only gets you so far, it's not a mystical ability. While Charisma is tremendously powerful when wielded thoughtfully, most people are not stupid, and will not believe you when you insist that down is up and vice versa, no matter what you roll. As Abe Lincoln (not Evil Lincoln) said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Change it to improbable, rather than impossible, and I have no problem with it.
Also, just a comment. I assume from reading your various posts that you like to take extreme positions and make absolute statements because they spark reactions and you enjoy the ensuing debate/argument. If that's not the case, I would sugggest that you investigate the value of including qualifiers in your statements. Just a thought.
Enjoy your sneaky good Sorcerer build.
Lilith's Thrall,
I beleive you'll need to adjust your build.
Cosmopolitan does not appear in the PRD and in the d20pfsrd it is marked as 'fan created content'.
If the intent is to stay within the core rules, I think you'll need to correct that.
Brian Bachman wrote: If it is truly an "impossible" lie, the DC should correspondingly be "impossibly" high. I was referencing the SRD by calling it an "impossible lie". The SRD states that the penalty for making an "impossible lie" is -20. This sorcerer has a +15 to his bluff roll. So, succeeding at a die roll with a -20 is quite possible. Add in some bonuses for "evidence" (ie. a well done prestidigitation or silent image) and a -20 penalty becomes nearly negligible.
Brian Bachman wrote:
Also, just a comment. I assume from reading your various posts that you like to take extreme positions and make absolute statements because they spark reactions and you enjoy the ensuing debate/argument.
Yes *grin* - at least if we can avoid having insults and attacks in the ensuring debate.
Brian Bachman wrote:
Enjoy your sneaky good Sorcerer build.
Thank you
Matthew Morris wrote: Lilith's Thrall,
I beleive you'll need to adjust your build.
Cosmopolitan does not appear in the PRD and in the d20pfsrd it is marked as 'fan created content'.
If the intent is to stay within the core rules, I think you'll need to correct that.
Thanks, I'm evaluating changes now.
LilithsThrall wrote: Brian Bachman wrote: If it is truly an "impossible" lie, the DC should correspondingly be "impossibly" high. I was referencing the SRD by calling it an "impossible lie". The SRD states that the penalty for making an "impossible lie" is -20. This sorcerer has a +15 to his bluff roll. So, succeeding at a die roll with a -20 is quite possible. Add in some bonuses for "evidence" (ie. a well done prestidigitation or silent image) and a -20 penalty becomes nearly negligible.
Ah, then my problem is with the RAW (which I don't have in front of me). If impossible is merely -20, then I obviously do not share the same definition of impossible with the writers/designers. Good point regarding the addition of illusion magic as well. That certainly changes the situation and makes the impossible merely improbable or difficult. I was just considering the Bluff skill alone, without magical enhancement.
Thank you
OK, I think it would be more interesting if you guys compared at level 6, not level 5.
And I would do something like this:
1st (7)
Identify
Obscuring Mist
Magic Missile
Grease
Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd (5)
Invisibility
Mirror Image
Scorching Ray
3rd (4)
Dispel Magic (or Haste)
Feats: 5 + Eschew Materials
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Empower Spell, Improved Initiative, Craft Wand
Strategy: Use Rays for offense -- Ray Of Enfeeblement, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Scorching Ray, Empowered Scorching Ray. Keep Mirror Image up in combat. Buff the party with Haste, or use Dispel Magic, as preferred. Use downtime to craft wands of known spells that have no saves.
I think this would hold up better than what LilithsThrall suggests vs a wizard.
Ken
kenmckinney wrote: OK, I think it would be more interesting if you guys compared at level 6, not level 5.
And I would do something like this:
1st (7)
Identify
Obscuring Mist
Magic Missile
Grease
Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd (5)
Invisibility
Mirror Image
Scorching Ray
3rd (4)
Dispel Magic (or Haste)
Feats: 5 + Eschew Materials
Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Empower Spell, Improved Initiative, Craft Wand
Strategy: Use Rays for offense -- Ray Of Enfeeblement, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Scorching Ray, Empowered Scorching Ray. Keep Mirror Image up in combat. Buff the party with Haste, or use Dispel Magic, as preferred. Use downtime to craft wands of known spells that have no saves.
I think this would hold up better than what LilithsThrall suggests vs a wizard.
Ken
I think it probably depends on what kind of campaign you play. In the campaign I've played in most often, the GM is, in real life, a reasonably high level intelligence officer in the US Army (and a military strategy geek) and the players almost all have been playing RPGs for a couple of decades, at least.
So, subterfuge/intelligence gathering/etc. tends to win battles, not how many rays can be shot in a combat. Also, nation building is emphasized, so politics is crucial.
Our attitude is that, if we have to draw swords, we've already made our first mistake. But, when we do have to draw swords, we strive to do so with the advantage already on our side. Of course, the enemy typically does the same thing. So, if our party didn't plan the encounter, chances are, the enemy did (which makes running away important to party survival).
To give you an example of the kinds of battles we aim for, we sneak attacked an enemy encampment with a catapaulted barrel of alchemy fire (greek oil) on their command tent - we spent weeks of game time scouting and moving to set this up. Compared to that, rays are a nuissance which, if you're lucky, takes out one target.
LilithsThrall wrote: To give you an example of the kinds of battles we aim for, we sneak attacked an enemy encampment with a catapaulted barrel of alchemy fire (greek oil) on their command tent - we spent weeks of game time scouting and moving to set this up. Compared to that, rays are a nuissance which, if you're lucky, takes out one target. Hang on, you had WEEKS to scout out an enemy CAMP? And managed to get a catapult in range of an armed camp without being stopped? "And now....the rest of the story...." <please> :D
LilithsThrall wrote: I think it probably depends on what kind of campaign you play. In the campaign I've played in most often, the GM is, in real life, a reasonably high level intelligence officer in the US Army (and a military strategy geek) and the players almost all have been playing RPGs for a couple of decades, at least.
So, subterfuge/intelligence gathering/etc. tends to win battles, not how many rays can be shot in a combat. Also, nation building is emphasized, so politics is crucial.
Our attitude is that, if we have to draw swords, we've already made our first mistake. But, when we do have to draw swords, we strive to do so with the advantage already on our side. Of course, the enemy typically does the same thing. So, if our party didn't plan the encounter, chances are, the enemy did (which makes running away important to party survival).
To give you an example of the kinds of battles we aim for, we sneak attacked an enemy encampment with a catapaulted barrel of alchemy fire (greek oil) on their command tent - we spent weeks of game time scouting and moving to set this up. Compared to that, rays are a nuissance which, if you're lucky, takes out one target.
My they were quite bad at defending their camp, but then again it is not like the defenses used most of the time in D&D actually seem like they would work given the world in which they exist.
WWWW wrote: My they were quite bad at defending their camp, but then again it is not like the defenses used most of the time in D&D actually seem like they would work given the world in which they exist. I'd use multiple fake command tents for sure, if not a shallow bunker or two. Actual D&D warfare might quickly degenerate into trench warfare, as cover is the only thing that will save people from enemy spellcasters - especially if they have wands.
Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: To give you an example of the kinds of battles we aim for, we sneak attacked an enemy encampment with a catapaulted barrel of alchemy fire (greek oil) on their command tent - we spent weeks of game time scouting and moving to set this up. Compared to that, rays are a nuissance which, if you're lucky, takes out one target. Hang on, you had WEEKS to scout out an enemy CAMP? And managed to get a catapult in range of an armed camp without being stopped? "And now....the rest of the story...." <please> :D
This event happened several years ago in real time, so some of my facts may be a bit off. But we learned from our forward scouts that the enemy army was on the move heading towards us. We sent our expert scouts (our Rogue and Bard PCs - iirc) out ahead to find the enemy army and track it. Our fighter and cleric stayed behind to organize the militia from the four surrounding villages and I, the wizard, started making alchemy oil and making it ready for transport (at this point, I didn't know what I was going to use it for - I just had a gut feeling).
Spending days on the move, trudging through the forest (this was nearly virgin growth - really, really thick), we stopped for a break and the expert scouts, who had rejoined us, headed back out to get a quick scout report (we knew the enemy was close - about a day away - and our scouts (or maybe the druid?) had figured out, based on the lay of the land, that the army would be passing near us). We also had a pretty good idea that they didn't know we were so close - they were expecting to meet us a bit later. So, we had the element of surprise - we just needed to make sure that we didn't blow it.
The problem was, our militia weren't expert soldiers and they were getting a bit antsy about going into battle.
My character decided they needed to be put to work so as to take their minds off the impending battle. So, he set them to work building a catapault. Again, I had no idea what we were going to use it for - my goal was to only keep the militia busy until it was time for battle.
Well, that night, we realized what was going on. We very slowly moved the catapault into range - as I recall, we made use of Silence (the spell) and put the catapault at max range. We put the barrel in place. I cast Truestrike and fired.
Nothing happened.
We got scared.
Our troops were, at this time, facing the enemy camp, but still far enough away to not be seen.
If we pulled this off, we'd save a lot of their lives. If we didn't, we'd lose a lot of lives - which would make it hard to put enough people out into the crop fields to have enough food for the winter.
We waited.
Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Everyone who hadn't been knocked off their feet just stood there with their mouths agape.
Then, our guys remembered what they were suppossed to be doing and they ran, screaming like banshees, their weapons held over their heads. They charged the enemy camp.
Well, in the scenario you just described you could have been an NPC expert with a high CHA and things wouldn't have been any different. So I don't think it's very instructive in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Wizard vs Sorcerer.
LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
Most realistic explosives rules use a square law. IE it takes 4 times the amount of explosive to make twice the boom. By that rule, 25 uses of alchemist fire would do 5d6 damage to a 5 square radius, which seems much more reasonable.
Otherwise, why bother with mages? For 2000 gold I can buy 100 flasks of alchemist fire, combine them together, and nuke anyone for 100d6 damage in a single attack.
kenmckinney wrote: Well, in the scenario you just described you could have been an NPC expert with a high CHA and things wouldn't have been any different. So I don't think it's very instructive in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Wizard vs Sorcerer. I didn't say it was instructive in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Wizard vs. Sorcerer. I said it was instructive on the type of campaign I'm typically in.
Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
My character had to design a fuse for the bomb. I forgot to mention that.
Like I said, it was several years ago.
Charender wrote: Otherwise, why bother with mages? For 2000 gold I can buy 100 flasks of alchemist fire, combine them together, and nuke anyone for 100d6 damage in a single attack. Clearly because you need someone to teleport that barrel into the king's bedroom.
Charender wrote: Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
Most realistic explosives rules use a square law. IE it takes 4 times the amount of explosive to make twice the boom. By that rule, 25 uses of alchemist fire would do 5d6 damage to a 5 square radius, which seems much more reasonable.
Otherwise, why bother with mages? For 2000 gold I can buy 100 flasks of alchemist fire, combine them together, and nuke anyone for 100d6 damage in a single attack. In retrospect, I should have realized that if I told a story in dramatic fashion, a bunch of you would start tearing it apart and analyzing it for how it demonstrates physics principles and what not.
You do realize that we're talking about a -game- here, right?
Having said that, if I were your GM and you really wanted to be carrying around 100 flasks of alchemists oil, I'd let you. Of course, I'd ask you if you have thought about what would happen if you were hit with a fireball, but I'd let you cary it if you want.
LilithsThrall wrote: Charender wrote: Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
Most realistic explosives rules use a square law. IE it takes 4 times the amount of explosive to make twice the boom. By that rule, 25 uses of alchemist fire would do 5d6 damage to a 5 square radius, which seems much more reasonable.
Otherwise, why bother with mages? For 2000 gold I can buy 100 flasks of alchemist fire, combine them together, and nuke anyone for 100d6 damage in a single attack. In retrospect, I should have realized that if I told a story in dramatic fashion, a bunch of you would start tearing it apart and analyzing it for how it demonstrates physics principles and what not.
You do realize that we're talking about a -game- here, right?
Having said that, if I were your GM and you really wanted to be carrying around 100 flasks of alchemists oil, I'd let you. Of course, I'd ask you if you have thought about what would happen if you were hit with a fireball, but I'd let you cary it if you want. Well carried or worn items generally survive saving throws as I recall. But then again I suppose if a fireball happens to burn all of a characters equipment then I suppose it could be a problem, though players will probably be annoyed more by the whole all my magic items are on fire thing.
LilithsThrall wrote: Charender wrote: Helic wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Then a blast of heat washed over our guys as the enemy's command tent went up in flames. The barrel had something like 24 dice of alchemy oil in it and it all went up. Does Alchemist's Fire actually go boom? Not sure that just if you strap 24 flasks of it together (so to speak) you get 24D6 of boom-age either...<shrug>
Most realistic explosives rules use a square law. IE it takes 4 times the amount of explosive to make twice the boom. By that rule, 25 uses of alchemist fire would do 5d6 damage to a 5 square radius, which seems much more reasonable.
Otherwise, why bother with mages? For 2000 gold I can buy 100 flasks of alchemist fire, combine them together, and nuke anyone for 100d6 damage in a single attack. In retrospect, I should have realized that if I told a story in dramatic fashion, a bunch of you would start tearing it apart and analyzing it for how it demonstrates physics principles and what not.
You do realize that we're talking about a -game- here, right?
Having said that, if I were your GM and you really wanted to be carrying around 100 flasks of alchemists oil, I'd let you. Of course, I'd ask you if you have thought about what would happen if you were hit with a fireball, but I'd let you cary it if you want. No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.
1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10 sense motive modifier.
B. Just because they believe you doesn't mean they are going to recklessly act on the information. You tell them that a cliff is actually solid ground, they are not just going to blindly jump off. If I convince someone that the sky is green, most people are going to immediately peek outside to see the green sky(thus giving away the lie).
2. I try to keep an even playing field. If the players can duct tape a bunch of common items together and do an absurd amount of damage, then that means their enemies can to. Since most of the players enemies have more resources than the players, then that begs the question of why have they done this already? Yes it is a game, and it is glaring inconsistencies like this that kill the suspension of disbelief for my players.
Thus, your campaigns are very different from any campaign that I have ever DMed.
LilithsThrall wrote: Here's a rough draft of the 5th level Sorcerer
Spells Known
0th
Detect Magic
Detect Poison
1st (7)
Identify
Obscuring Mist
2nd (5)
Invisibility
Detect Thoughts
Blindness/Deafness
Skills (6)
Bluff (8 + 4 + 3Fam) 15,
Intimidate (8 + 4) 12,
UMD (8 + 4) 12,
Linguistics (7) 7,
Perception (8 + 2Fam) 10,
Sense Motive (8 + 2Fam) 10
Gear 10500
Wand of Sanctuary 750
Just a few comments here.
First is the last line that I've left.. a wand of sanctuary? Are you serious here??? You're talking about spending a move action to draw this thing, a standard action for around a 2 in 3 chance to activate it and the result a 1 round duration DC 11 will save??
I always laughed at potions of sanctuary... I never thought anyone would ever go with a WAND of it?!?!
Next, you've taken the arcane bloodline so not only do you have detect magic, but you have identify. But you have no spellcraft to back up either spell. Even 1 rank would be a great improvement for this character.
Also a hat of disguise is a cute item, but the disguise skill would be of better use for this character imho. Pity you can't seem to afford sufficient skills for everything that you'd want.
Since you don't have glitterdust as a spell known, you might want to go with a wand of faerie fire. It's not as useful in many situations, but you might be able to activate it should you be able to narrow down where an invisible enemy is..
You've taken detect poison as a spell known. It's a nice spell. Pity you can't have the craft alchemy to back it up.. still a 1 in 20 chance is a chance. With a single rank you get 6 times as many chances to get it (mind you that same rank for a wizard nets significantly more, but c'est la vie).
Lastly you have obscuring mist as a known spell. It's a wonderful spell but imho it seems better as a wand spell.. any particular reason you took it rather than just get a wand of it?
-James
Charender wrote:
No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.
1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10...
I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll. And there is no rule that I know of which says that the benefits of Bluff are short term.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
"Does every NPC in your campaign have a 0 sense motive?" Did I say that the character will be able to easily tell an impossible lie to everyone? No. So, what is your point?
james maissen wrote:
Just a few comments here.
First is the last line that I've left.. a wand of sanctuary? Are you serious here??? You're talking about spending a move action to draw this thing, a standard action for around a 2 in 3 chance to activate it and the result a 1 round duration DC 11 will save??
I always laughed at potions of sanctuary... I never thought anyone would ever go with a WAND of it?!?!
Next, you've taken the arcane bloodline so not only do you have detect magic, but you have identify. But you have no spellcraft to back up either spell. Even 1 rank would be a great improvement for this character.
Also a hat of disguise is a cute item, but the disguise skill would be of better use for this character imho. Pity you can't seem to afford sufficient skills for everything that you'd want.
Since you don't have glitterdust as a spell known, you might want to go with a wand of faerie fire. It's not as useful in many situations, but you might be able to activate it should you be able to narrow down where an invisible enemy is..
You've taken detect poison as a spell known. It's a nice spell. Pity you can't have the craft alchemy to back it up.. still a 1 in 20 chance is a chance. With a single rank you get 6 times as many chances to get it (mind you that same rank for a wizard nets significantly more, but c'est la vie).
Lastly you have obscuring mist as a known spell. It's a wonderful spell but imho it seems better as a wand spell.. any particular reason you took it rather than just get a wand of it?
-James
james maissen wrote: I always laughed at potions of sanctuary... I never thought anyone would ever go with a WAND of it?!?! There are certainly more polite ways to make constructive criticism than you've chosen. Having said that, I clearly said that this was a rough draft. One point that I was particularly aware needed more review was the magic item selection.
james maissen wrote: any particular reason you took it rather than just get a wand of it? Because, later, when the character is able to cast 6th level spells, a quickened obscuring mist will be very helpful and there is no need to have to fish a wand out of your bag when you need the spell right away. Along those same lines, the hat of disguise is much faster than the disguise skill to actually use - rather important for when a quick change is needed.
james maissen wrote: you might want to go with a wand of faerie fire good point
LilithsThrall wrote: Charender wrote:
No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.
1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10...
I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll. And there is no rule that I know of which says that the benefits of Bluff are short term.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
"Does every NPC in your campaign have a 0 sense motive?" Did I say that the character will be able to easily tell an impossible lie to everyone? No. So, what is your point? I think the real question is where in the bluff skill does it say that someone would change their actions based upon the result of a successful bluff barring feint.
Charender wrote: 2. I try to keep an even playing field. If the players can duct tape a bunch of common items together and do an absurd amount of damage, then that means their enemies can to. Since most of the players enemies have more resources than the players, then that begs the question of why have they done this already? Yes it is a game, and it is glaring inconsistencies like this that kill the suspension of disbelief for my players.
Thus, your campaigns are very different from any campaign that I have ever DMed.
Actually, yes, in the campaign in which I typically play, the enemy could do this to one of our villages.
Scouting is critical and we've built several watch towers near our villages to make sure it doesn't happen. We also, usually, travel light and in small groups so as to make it harder to track our location. But, we have gotten in serious trouble by moving in large groups in the past. On a couple of occassions, we nearly had a tpk because the enemy found us and built traps for us.
Paranoia is a virtue.
WWWW wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Charender wrote:
No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.
1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10...
I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll. And there is no rule that I know of which says that the benefits of Bluff are short term.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
"Does every NPC in your campaign have a 0 sense motive?" Did I say that the character will be able to easily tell an impossible lie to everyone? No. So, what is your point? I think the real question is where in the bluff skill does it say that someone would change their actions based upon the result of a successful bluff barring feint. The character believes a lie - that's what bluff does.
So, if I bluffed and told you, "that door is trapped, don't open it or it'll probably kill you" and you believe that lie, you probably won't open that door unless you're suicidal or overly confident.
LilithsThrall wrote: WWWW wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: Charender wrote:
No, I would say you have a DM who plays it very loose with the rules, and lets you get away with a whole lot more than I let my players get away with.
1. Bluff isn't a god mode skill in my campaigns. Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped), while the benefits of Diplomacy are long term(You are building a working relationship with the person).
A. A +15 bonus with a +5 situational modifier for having proof gets you a +0 net modifier for an impossible lie. Does every NPC in you campaign have 0 sense motive? A level 5 cleric with 5 ranks in sense motive will have around a +10...
I'd say you are playing it very loose with the rules. As per the SRD, impossible lies take a -20 to the roll. And there is no rule that I know of which says that the benefits of Bluff are short term.
If you can point out the rules which contradict either of these points, do so. Else, admit that you aren't playing by the rules.
"Does every NPC in your campaign have a 0 sense motive?" Did I say that the character will be able to easily tell an impossible lie to everyone? No. So, what is your point? I think the real question is where in the bluff skill does it say that someone would change their actions based upon the result of a successful bluff barring feint. The character believes a lie - that's what bluff does.
So, if I bluffed and told you, "that door is trapped, don't open it or it'll probably kill you" and you believe that lie, you probably won't open that door unless you're suicidal or overly confident. That is only true when you assume people act like real people. However if you assume that then this "Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped)" should also be true. So you can not have it both ways.
LilithsThrall wrote:
There are certainly more polite ways to make constructive criticism than you've chosen. Having said that, I clearly said that this was a rough draft. One point that I was particularly aware needed more review was the magic item selection.
Sorry if I offended you, but you've said that you were by no means new to the game so I assumed you knew the spells.
And a quickened obscuring mist would be a 5th level spell, and while its sooner than the 12th level that you were planning I'd think I'd go with something else instead. At worst I guess I'd pick it up last if this is a reasonable goal for you.
As to the hat of disguise, I didn't suggest you get rid of it.. rather that you have the disguise skill to back it up. A DC 11 will save, again isn't something upon which to rely. If you're going to go this route then actual ranks in disguise are helpful. Likewise decent spells.. perhaps using disguise self until at least 6th level, then you could swap obscuring mist back in.
-James
WWWW wrote: LilithsThrall wrote: The character believes a lie - that's what bluff does.
So, if I bluffed and told you, "that door is trapped, don't open it or it'll probably kill you" and you believe that lie, you probably won't open that door unless you're suicidal or overly confident.
That is only true when you assume people act like real people. However if you assume that then this "Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped)" should also be true. So you can not have it both ways. Choose your lies carefully. Unless the target has trap finding skills or sees someone else amble through the door they might never choose to question the lie.
Of course, blasting the twit who disturbed that door would tend to reinforce the lie. ;)
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
There's nothing this Sorcerer build can do that a Wizard cannot. And there are things a lvl 5 Wizard can do and a Sorc cannot - like, say, Fly or Gaseous Form.
james maissen wrote: As to the hat of disguise...
-James
I think the Hat is to be used more along the lines of "I ran around a corner to get away from the ambush and now I don't look like me anymore."
Personally, I have never my used Disguise Self to imitate anyone, only to hide from pursuers or sneak past gate / bridge guards.
Calistria's Ace wrote: james maissen wrote: As to the hat of disguise...
-James
I think the Hat is to be used more along the lines of "I ran around a corner to get away from the ambush and now I don't look like me anymore."
Personally, I have never my used Disguise Self to imitate anyone, only to hide from pursuers or sneak past gate / bridge guards. With an investment into CHA, Bluff, Liguistics and Sense Motive.. lacking disguise is a true shame... but that's closer to a real bard there.
-James
Gorbacz wrote: There's nothing this Sorcerer build can do that a Wizard cannot. And there are things a lvl 5 Wizard can do and a Sorc cannot - like, say, Fly or Gaseous Form. I asked all of you to create an example 5th level Wizard to do a comparison against and all of you with the exception of Stephan refused to do so.
So, frankly, I'm not listening to some unsupported claim that a lvl 5 Wizard can do all of these things and be just as good as a Sorcerer.
Show me the proof.
WWWW wrote:
That is only true when you assume people act like real people. However if you assume that then this "Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped)" should also be true. So you can not have it both ways.
You're assuming that the rube will eventually discover that they've been lied to. There's no guarantee of that.
james maissen wrote: With an investment into CHA, Bluff, Liguistics and Sense Motive.. lacking disguise is a true shame... but that's closer to a real bard there.
-James
I played a Cleric as Ace. Trickery & Knowledge so I can appreciate where LT is coming from. It left many at my table scratching their heads & telling me how to run my character. (And it took saying, "OK, show me how it's done, you play the heal-monkey," to shut them up.)
Once the benefits of Copy Cat, Remote Viewing & Mass Invisibility were noticed they stopped whinging so much. But then again, our Sorcerer doing the tired old Boom-Mage thing, so there was much slack for me and Trinia to pick up.
LilithsThrall wrote: WWWW wrote:
That is only true when you assume people act like real people. However if you assume that then this "Generally, the benefits of Bluff are short term(they last until the person figures out they have been duped)" should also be true. So you can not have it both ways.
You're assuming that the rube will eventually discover that they've been lied to. There's no guarantee of that. You are assuming that no "rube" will ever discover that he has been lied to. I find this even less likely.
LilithsThrall wrote: I asked all of you to create an example 5th level Wizard to do a comparison against[...] The challenge, though skewed in the Sorcerer's favor, was interesting enough that I saved a copy of what you said so I wouldn't have to look it up all the time.
LilithsThrall wrote: Okay, let's make this a bit more fun
Create a Wizard at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels.
<weeps bitterly at being ignored>
WWWW wrote: You are assuming that no "rube" will ever discover that he has been lied to. I find this even less likely. Happens all the time. Go to randi.org. There you may find diatribes by people who are mortally insulted when they are shown evidence that the lies that con-men have told them are false.
Heck, I've known people who were angry when I showed them how to do a card trick.
Heh. The motto of bloggers everywhere: Fight for your right to be wrong!
Billy Blork wrote: WWWW wrote: You are assuming that no "rube" will ever discover that he has been lied to. I find this even less likely. Happens all the time. Go to randi.org. There you may find diatribes by people who are mortally insulted when they are shown evidence that the lies that con-men have told them are false.
Heck, I've known people who were angry when I showed them how to do a card trick.
Heh. The motto of bloggers everywhere: Fight for your right to be wrong! I did not however find diatribes. I did select randomly so I may have just gotten unlucky but then again perhaps not.
I have known people who get angry at card tricks as well. However they did also know that it was a card trick and not magic.
LilithsThrall wrote: Here's a rough draft of the 5th level Sorcerer
Str 7
I remember dump stats, and not fondly. A kindly DM will avoid touching you with too many Shadows, Rays of Enfeeblement, Strength Damage Poisons...
LilithsThrall wrote: UMD (8 + 4) 12, I'm currently playing a Bard that has UMD at 12. I find I get more fizzles (with a Wand of MM) than I'm really comfortable with.
Nice selection of wands there. Purchased fully charged from "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe"?
LilithsThrall wrote: The Sorcerer uses Juho - the art of using an enemy's strengths against him. That’s more a player thing, overcoming limitations is true creativity, not a bunch of stats. The gang at my table are great at that, but they’d mostly rather hit things first and make off color comments later.
LilithsThrall wrote: This will be a lot more significant when the Sorcerer gains more levels and is carrying a heal scroll. <cringes remembering the 3.x "Smite"> DC: 31? You are a daredevil! That's a 40% kerfluffle at Lv 11? If it works, great! Otherwise... perhaps it's time to leave your challenge and think about the relative values of Sorcerer & Wizard when cross-classing with a Cleric. (Dare I mention Mystic Theurge? Apparently I do.)
On the whole I’d say your build is weak against undead, outsiders and others who are immune to Illusion / Enchantment, or simply have excellent Will saving throws (I know, that’s what Grease is for), but is an excellent build for dealing with mortal-types in an intrigue / espionage type campaign. I was in one of those myself before PF came out, but I’d still get bushwhacked because we still wound up dungeon crawling.
|
