|
Topic, also pathfinder chronicler is it any good at all? If so what's the most optimal way to build one? Thanks in advance.
I would probably go with a straight wizard build. The base classes in PRG reward players who stick with the class until higher levels. (OK, people may dispute that claim). Also, what school would you be interested in specialising in?
The Loremaster and the Pathfinder Chronicler did not knock my dice off the desk! Again, faced with those two options, I would stick with wizard only. In fact, I would like the opporunity to build a cleric/wizard/mystic theurge.
|
Strait wizard then. Keep in mind wizard is no longer a damage specialist, and really trying to play the evoker of doom is more than likely just going to frustrate you.
Wizards are better played as battlefield control specialists and buffers. You prepare you stock spells you are going to be relying on during combat like web, flaming hands, mage armor, a couple wall spells etc. and you make scrolls for everything else, spider climb, detect secret doors, you name it.
Summoning a few weenie monsters can also do wonders for your combat situation as well, that little spider or celestial dog can help poison, trip and flank your opponents so the rogue can tear into them.
You may want to look at this if you are looking to optimize.
|
|
That's pretty wrong. You can still play the evoker of doom; but since Pathfinder is more balanced (and hit points have gone up, one way or the other), you will not be as effective - IF you ONLY use Pathfinder products. If you also use products coming from the 3.5 you can still do way too much damage way too easily.
...
If you want to do massive damage, you're better off just doing a sorcerer.
Um... no, it's not. And I never assume that someone is going to allow 3.5 splat material since it is generally self defeating to be playing pathfinder which sought to put an end to the endless cycle of powercreep that took hold during that era. Of course you can still build a crazy 3.5 blaster of doom... if you are still playing 3.5, yes PFRPG is still 3.5 "compatible" but at a certain point you have to realize that it antiquates all that material and that bit is only a good bit of marketing.
And the bit about sorcerers being better blasters... that doesn't make any sense, they don't get anything fancier than wizards do, other than more spells per day.
I apologize if it comes off as offensive but your advice is just... bad and uninformed.
Look. There is no such thing as optimisation, there is only specialisation. You can'optimise your character to hell and back, but all your really doing is making your character more vulnerable to the characters weaknesses and gaining additional power for doing so. The only reason it seems your getting more powerful, is because your DM isn't pushing back at the right places, i.e. those weak points.
Over-specialise and you breed in weakness. It is specialises which fall to extintion first when ecologies are disrupted, and it is specialist characters which fail first when games change direction.
Look. There is no such thing as optimisation, there is only specialisation. You can'optimise your character to hell and back, but all your really doing is making your character more vulnerable to the characters weaknesses and gaining additional power for doing so. The only reason it seems your getting more powerful, is because your DM isn't pushing back at the right places, i.e. those weak points.
Over-specialise and you breed in weakness. It is specialises which fall to extintion first when ecologies are disrupted, and it is specialist characters which fail first when games change direction.
READ
AND
TAKE
NOTE
..a party comprised of well balanced characters also fairs better when a 'critical' element falls/fails..
Redundancy people! Think redundancy! [http=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)] Redundancy [/http]
Look. There is no such thing as optimisation, there is only specialisation. You can'optimise your character to hell and back, but all your really doing is making your character more vulnerable to the characters weaknesses and gaining additional power for doing so. The only reason it seems your getting more powerful, is because your DM isn't pushing back at the right places, i.e. those weak points.
Over-specialise and you breed in weakness. It is specialises which fall to extintion first when ecologies are disrupted, and it is specialist characters which fail first when games change direction.
READ
AND
TAKE
NOTE
..a party comprised of well balanced characters also fairs better when a 'critical' element falls/fails..
Redundancy people! Think redundancy! Redundancy
Sorry, but I have to disagree that a wizard is limited to controlling the battlefield and not a main damage dealer.
In my Sunday game (we only use Pathfinder products), I'm playing a conjurer. I had to make a heavy-hitter because that group is all about fighting and killing (*sigh*). The character I made before this one was all about role-play (he was working towards Pathfinder Savant) and wasn't very effective in combat... and was killed. Nobody missed him. So, I made a conjurer (not an evoker, even though that would do even more damage. I chose conjurer for the instant traveling abilities and spells) with a lot of evocation spells. The party loves this character because of the empowered fireballs... and now the empowered / selective fireball since the Advanced Player's Guide. Also, the empowered MM. Hungry Pit is a great one, too which can also control the battlefield.
The great thing about wizards (as opposed to Sorcerers) is their versatility. They can control the battlefield one day, then deal out massive damage the next. And, during down time, they can do research, scry on someone far away or have a host of unseen servants clean the house. :)
Now, there are some instances where a wizard is not an effective damage dealer... as in fighting a golem. Then again, every class has their limitations. You pit a grappling monk or fighter against a flying "anything" with range, and their screwed.
All-in-all, a wizard is able to deal a lot of damage, if you build it that way.
As a side note, I am still able to make a good role-play character out of it despite the mindless carnage that follows our group everywhere. He loves bouncing around the battlefield with dimension hop, Shift, and dimension door spells.... confusing the enemy and hitting them from unexpected locations.
That said...
I like the idea of a "scholarly-type". If you're looking for good role-play and general effectiveness (not a damage specialist, but still able to deal some damage), the Loremaster is a very good choice... In my opinion.
You will know just about anything the party needs to know. That can be a huge asset.
As I mentioned before, my previous character was more role-play. He saved their butts a couple of times because I knew how to defeat a certain creature or how to open a gate... or even use a magic boat (that required a lot of Use Magic Device ability) to get off an island.
You basically need to reach your own conclusion about this. It depends on what you want to play, what kind of game your GM runs and what kind of group you're in.
One thing you forgot in your assessment, pad: advancement in existing school powers for the wizard, e.g. metamagic mastery, increased usage of a conjurer's teleport, etc.
There is not a single PrC in the Core Rulebook that is worth using from an optimization standpoint, other than silly stuff like "what's the highest strength I can get".
There is not a single PrC in the Core Rulebook that is worth using from an optimization standpoint, other than silly stuff like "what's the highest strength I can get".
It depends what you're optimized FOR. I will agree that by and large the core PrCs are now more flavor and less crunch. Arcane Archer is a very solid class, even for straight Bards, and Loremaster is crazy good if you're okay giving up higher level school powers, many of which are unimpressive.