|
3.5 Life-drinker , one of the special weapons. Inflict 2 negative levels every time it hit.
Drawback, it inflict a negative level to the wielder every time it hit. Hence the Deathward.
Ok, I was very confussed about that as well, and figured it was part of the language barrier or a typo or something.
|
You are right, I didn't catch that part in the last section, which is what I was mostly tinking about an enemy trying.
Telekinesis is affected by SR (except for the "hurl an object at someone" part).
OFF TANGENT: I really wish somebody would extend the SR to the hurled objects as well, because it would kill the "Gargantuan Javelins" tactic cold. Luckily, my players and I have reached a truce on cheesy te-ke uses. :)
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR no
Enough said
|
I think you misundrstand how SR works. You add your caster level to 1d20, and need to overcome 25. I said 30 - 0% because it does not improve at all. A creature with a Caster Level of 16, only need to roll a ( or higher, if they don't have any other abilities to increase their CL or to overcome SR, which is not unheard of.
Exactly my point (beside the errr in the CL required.
24+1 (minimum on a d20) to have a 0% chance of being protected.
A Balor has a 20% chance of spell failure against the people protected,
a Marilith a 40%
a Pit fiend a 30%
Great wyrm Gold dragon, CL 19 (CR23) has a 25% chance of failure.
What you pretend from a level 8 spell that will protect up to 1 person/level?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR noEnough said
Care to find me a monster in B1 or B2 with that? :)
|
|
You're adding a flat 'miss chance' to spells. It may only be 30%, but who cares?
Mages love to argue that miss chances are better then AC. In the same vein, SR is as good as saves or better, they operate on the same principle. Unless you've got Arcane Mastery where you always roll 10 on the CL check, a 40% chance that most spells are just going to NOT AFFECT you is awesome.
===Aelryinth
I get what you are saying, but in this case it is not the same thing. Clerics have a 5th Level spell that grants 12+CL, Full SR, for 1 Min per Level.
Holy Aura grants SR 25 only against Evil spells or from Evil Spellcasters, to a group, for 1 Round Per Level, in addition to a few bonues that are probably worse or slightly better than what everyone already has.
The point is that it is 3 levels higher, and the only real benefit is that it affcts multiple targets, but is very limited and much, much weaker. It should do more along the lines of a Mass Spell Resistance Spell, even if it caps it off at sa SR 30.
|
|
You're adding a flat 'miss chance' to spells. It may only be 30%, but who cares?
Mages love to argue that miss chances are better then AC. In the same vein, SR is as good as saves or better, they operate on the same principle. Unless you've got Arcane Mastery where you always roll 10 on the CL check, a 40% chance that most spells are just going to NOT AFFECT you is awesome.
===Aelryinth
I get what you are saying, but in this case it is not the same thing. Clerics have a 5th Level spell that grants 12+CL, Full SR, for 1 Min per Level.
Holy Aura grants SR 25 only against Evil spells or from Evil Spellcasters, to a group, for 1 Round Per Level, in addition to a few bonues that are probably worse or slightly better than what everyone already has.
The point is that it is 3 levels higher, and the only real benefit is that it affcts multiple targets, but is very limited and much, much weaker. It should do more along the lines of a Mass Spell Resistance Spell, even if it caps it off at sa SR 30.
1. That's only one of Holy Aura's effects.
2. The SR from spell resistance is pretty much pointless, because it's a regular SR and thus forces your allies to beat it (or you to drop it with a standard action) in order to benefit from friendly spells.
Whereas the SR from holy aura is one of the best you can get in the game, because you can run around with it and not worry about how the hell are your friends going to buff/heal/teleport/sprinkle you.
Unless you have some Evil caster in your party. :)
|
|
3.5 Life-drinker , one of the special weapons. Inflict 2 negative levels every time it hit.
Drawback, it inflict a negative level to the wielder every time it hit. Hence the Deathward.
Ok, I was very confussed about that as well, and figured it was part of the language barrier or a typo or something.
It is in pathfinder too. One of the weapon I don't like because it is relatively easy to overcome the drawback and the effect is very powerful.
You can easily increase the attack bonus using greater magic weapon, so no drawback for the low hit/damage bonus, too.
Life-Drinker
Aura strong necromancy; CL 13th
Slot none; Price 40,320 gp; Weight 12 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
This +1 greataxe is favored by undead and constructs, who do not suffer its drawback. A life-drinker bestows two negative levels on its target whenever it deals damage, just as if its target had been struck by an undead creature. One day after being struck, subjects must make a DC 16 Fortitude save for each negative level or the negative levels become permanent.
Each time a life-drinker deals damage to a foe, it also bestows one negative level on the wielder. Any negative levels gained by the wielder in this fashion lasts for 1 hour.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, enervation; Cost 20,320 gp
|
|
I think you misundrstand how SR works. You add your caster level to 1d20, and need to overcome 25. I said 30 - 0% because it does not improve at all. A creature with a Caster Level of 16, only need to roll a ( or higher, if they don't have any other abilities to increase their CL or to overcome SR, which is not unheard of.
Exactly my point (beside the errr in the CL required.
24+1 (minimum on a d20) to have a 0% chance of being protected.
A Balor has a 20% chance of spell failure against the people protected,
a Marilith a 40%
a Pit fiend a 30%
Great wyrm Gold dragon, CL 19 (CR23) has a 25% chance of failure.What you pretend from a level 8 spell that will protect up to 1 person/level?
Maybe for those specific monsters. But what about Spellcasters, who probably also have a boost in CL and SPell Penetrations/Greater Spell Penetation, which should by no means should be uncommon.
And as I pointed out, the majority of those creatures spells are either self buffs, not affected by SR, or not really worth worrying about too much.
One more point about Holy Arua is that specifies "Evil Spells or Spells cast by Evil Creatures", which means by the rules, it wouldn't hinder Spell-Like abilities at all.
|
|
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR noEnough said
[roll eyes emote]
Power Word Blind
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Wall of Fire
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
And so on.
|
|
I think you misundrstand how SR works. You add your caster level to 1d20, and need to overcome 25. I said 30 - 0% because it does not improve at all. A creature with a Caster Level of 16, only need to roll a ( or higher, if they don't have any other abilities to increase their CL or to overcome SR, which is not unheard of.
Exactly my point (beside the errr in the CL required.
24+1 (minimum on a d20) to have a 0% chance of being protected.
A Balor has a 20% chance of spell failure against the people protected,
a Marilith a 40%
a Pit fiend a 30%
Great wyrm Gold dragon, CL 19 (CR23) has a 25% chance of failure.What you pretend from a level 8 spell that will protect up to 1 person/level?
Maybe for those specific monsters. But what about Spellcasters, who probably also have a boost in CL and SPell Penetrations/Greater Spell Penetation, which should by no means should be uncommon.And as I pointed out, the majority of those creatures spells are either self buffs, not affected by SR, or not really worth worrying about too much.
One more point about Holy Arua is that specifies "Evil Spells or Spells cast by Evil Creatures", which means by the rules, it wouldn't hinder Spell-Like abilities at all.
[laugh]
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
Spell Resistance (Ex) A creature with spell resistance can avoid the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it.
About your caste: it require to be level 20 (maximum class level in Pathfinder, no rule for epic) with spell penetration and greater spell penetration to have a 0% chance of failure.
Probably your "average" 20th level wizard will have the feats, an "average" creature with spell like powers at 20th level probably will not.
Your "average" 20th level sorcerer, probable;
Cleric? Maybe
Bard? start to doubt it
And how common are your 20th level casters to use them as a benchmark?
|
|
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
I understand that. What I am saying is that Holy Aura specifies it ONLY applies againt Evil Spells and spells cast by Evil creatures. That is a specific rule that overrides the general one. Furthermore, I suggested that a DM MIGHT, MIGHT rule that way, not that it is what I think.
Why do people keep assuming I'm using a benchmark. I'm not. I am just pointing out that is why I said a possibility of 0%.
[roll eyes emote]
Hey, do you know we are talking about?
My first point wasn't holy word sucks all the time. It sucks in boss fights at higher levels. Bosses usually have god will saves and some, or most, have SR when you hit level 13. I was talking about 7th level spells and the Ashiel comes dragging with Holy smite fighting balors, because of the spell's blinding effect.My point was Glitter dust also have a blinding effect but no SR.
The damage from Holy smite doesn't matter. A balor with 260 HP is just as deadly as a Balor with 160 HP or 16 hp.
|
|
[roll eyes emote]
Hey, do you know we are talking about?
My first point wasn't holy word sucks all the time. It sucks in boss fights at higher levels. Bosses usually have god will saves and some, or most, have SR when you hit level 13. I was talking about 7th level spells and the Ashiel comes dragging with Holy smite fighting balors, because of the spell's blinding effect.
My point was Glitter dust also have a blinding effect but no SR.
The damage from Holy smite doesn't matter. A balor with 260 HP is just as deadly as a Balor with 160 HP or 16 hp.
Your point was fairly clear:
"Glitterdust
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR no
Enough said"
with that SR: no bolded mean "SR is not worth much, there are spells that don't use it".
I countered with "ST isn't worth much, there are spells that don't use it", or to be more precise " there are spells where SR don't matter and there are spells where St don't matter, that don't make SR useless" as you were implying.
And BTW: it is about Holy Aura, not Holy word, unless you have missed half of the last page.
EDIT: re-read your post. You meant your post as a reply to something said about half a page ago, and it ended appearing to be a reply to the last posts.
|
|
+
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, focus, or material components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability is based on would be subject to spell resistance.
I understand that. What I am saying is that Holy Aura specifies it ONLY applies againt Evil Spells and spells cast by Evil creatures. That is a specific rule that overrides the general one. Furthermore, I suggested that a DM MIGHT, MIGHT rule that way, not that it is what I think.Why do people keep assuming I'm using a benchmark. I'm not. I am just pointing out that is why I said a possibility of 0%.
"Beckett wrote:
*25 SR, (but ONLY against EVIL spellcasters or spells), so around 30% to 0% chance of working against such a small selection of things. And doesn't scale. "This is why I think your benchmark is people with CL 19+
As it is worded it don't appear to be a "against some NPC" but "In my games this is the standard situation".
"I understand that. What I am saying is that Holy Aura specifies it ONLY applies against Evil Spells and spells cast by Evil creatures.
When the spell say "Second, each warded creature gains spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells cast by evil creatures." and the general rule say "Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells" I have a hard time accepting your ruling.
It is your game and you can apply it as you wish, but to me it seen a strange interpretation.
|
|
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR noEnough said
Not to mention the part about getting another save each round...
Glitterdust is over-rated. People keep thinking it is the 3.5 version.
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR noEnough said
Not to mention the part about getting another save each round...
Glitterdust is over-rated. People keep thinking it is the 3.5 version.
No I'm not. We are talking about 'blinding effect Glitterdust' vs. 'Blinding effect Holy Word'.
Holy word = 1 round + SRGlitterdust = 1 round pewr level + no SR.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hightened Glitterdust:
Glitterdust
School conjuration
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread
Duration 1 round/level
Save Will negates (blinding only); SR noEnough said
Not to mention the part about getting another save each round...
Glitterdust is over-rated. People keep thinking it is the 3.5 version.
No I'm not. We are talking about 'blinding effect Glitterdust' vs. 'Blinding effect Holy Word'.
Holy word = 1 round + SR
Glitterdust = 1 round pewr level + no SR.
Actually, with Holy Word that's 2d4 rounds, 1d4 rounds on save. But hey, why read the rules when you can just write things out of the air? :)
I actually think that Holy Aura is fine, but it should scale, at least somewhat.
SR25 is decent at lvl15, not so much @lvl20. That does not sound right for a level 8 spell. Admittedly, it remains useful for minions.
I can't see huge issues about "overpowered" protecting spells, especially those that are creature or alignment specific. Any member of the party will enjoy them. So, why don't make them powerful? Unless of course, we fear that a cleric may do something (very specific) that other classes can't.
What you pretend from...
Lolz. That is sooo italian. ;)
Actually, with Holy Word that's 2d4 rounds, 1d4 rounds on save. But hey, why read the rules when you can just write things out of the air? :)
Sorry, I'm getting tired. I meant Holy Smite.
This is why I think your benchmark is people with CL 19+
We were talkning boss fights. Beataing SR 25 isn't that hard if you're a boss.
When the spell say "Second, each warded creature gains spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells cast by evil creatures." and the general rule say "Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells" I have a hard time accepting your ruling.
Ny RAW his is right by RAI you are probably right. I betting on you. Sloppy wording on the spell. They likely mean spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells/Spell-like abilities cast by evil creatures.
general rule doesn't always aply. Just as spell resistance could aply only against evil spells and not against other spells it could aply only against spells and not against Spell-like abilities. Still I think you are right.
That's kind of a cop-out isn't it?What happens if they don' worship a deity? Normally I am all for godless Clerics, but this even I think is easily broken, if they can choose whatever Domains.I'd say outright ban a godless cleric
I'll ad mit "godless" clerics have enver sat well with me. I understand the arguents for them and see where they can fit in certain settings but I don't like it and don't want to derail the thread getting into an argument over it.
I suppose if someoen really wanted to be a cleric who worshiped a concept rather than a deity the GM would choose a set of domains that fit the concept rather than let the player pick whatever. That whole deal is still in the document stating that they must pick domains through GM approval.
In the meantime I'm going to get that skeleton for the more extensive cleric rebuild I had in mind written.
LOL. Can it get more derailed?
LOL. Can it get more derailed?Well, we could discuss Cleric heavy armor proficiency...
/ducks under the table.
LOL. Actualy if there is one class that really doesn't need that many feat it's the cleric. Or should I say, there aren't really that many feats a cleric wants. Sad in a way, proves there aren't to may cleric feats
Melee cleric: heavy armor proficiency, power attack, combat casting, improved crit, Quicken spell. And a feat so you can wield the weapon you want. That's about it. Perhaps quick draw.
Spell clerics need even less.
People saying clerics are short of feats are MAD. ;-)
|
|
Ny RAW his is right by RAI you are probably right. I betting on you. Sloppy wording on the spell. They likely mean spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells/Spell-like abilities cast by evil creatures.
general rule doesn't always aply. Just as spell resistance could aply only against evil spells and not against other spells it could aply only against spells and not against Spell-like abilities. Still I think you are right.
I've said repeatedly that I don't believe this, but that it could be interpretted that way. All I was really doing was trying o show how different Spell Resistence (a 5th level Cleric spell) and Holy Aura (an 8th level Cleric spell) really are.
People saying clerics are short of feats are MAD. ;-)
Partially because there are no Cleric only Feats, (I don't believe) in the core material, and because Clerics really can't finish off te Feat Chains very well. A lot of people complain because Feats are one of the only real (mechanical) ways for Clerics to be different, but at th same time, there are not a lot of worthwhile Feats to actually take, or by the time that a Cleric can qualify, the Feat is much less useful. Which basically leads to most Clerics taking the same Feats over and over, even regardless of their concept.
Every other class, but also every other Caster has thier own stuff.Eve Metamagic, which is generally a waste of time for Clerics. They are pretty balanced for Arcane magic, but terrible for Cleric's Divine Magic, most of the time. And in addition to that, WIzards and Sorcerers get them for free. It's like kicking the Cleric when they are down. Twice.
|
|
Ny RAW his is right by RAI you are probably right. I betting on you. Sloppy wording on the spell. They likely mean spell resistance 25 against evil spells and spells/Spell-like abilities cast by evil creatures.
general rule doesn't always aply. Just as spell resistance could aply only against evil spells and not against other spells it could aply only against spells and not against Spell-like abilities. Still I think you are right.
I've said repeatedly that I don't believe this, but that it could be interpretted that way. All I was really doing was trying to show how different Spell Resistence (a 5th level Cleric spell) and Holy Aura (an 8th level Cleric spell) really are.
People saying clerics are short of feats are MAD. ;-)Partially because there are no Cleric only Feats, (I don't believe) in the core material, and because Clerics really can't finish off te Feat Chains very well. A lot of people complain because Feats are one of the only real (mechanical) ways for Clerics to be different, but at th same time, there are not a lot of worthwhile Feats to actually take, or by the time that a Cleric can qualify, the Feat is much less useful. Which basically leads to most Clerics taking the same Feats over and over, even regardless of their concept.
Every other class, but also every other Caster has thier own stuff.Eve Metamagic, which is generally a waste of time for Clerics. They are pretty balanced for Arcane magic, but terrible for Cleric's Divine Magic, most of the time. And in addition to that, WIzards and Sorcerers get them for free. It's like kicking the Cleric when they are down. Twice. They are also one of the only classes that doesn not get bonus Feats.
As someone else has pointed out, life-drinkers are core, and useful. Each hit deals a -2 to all saves. A fighter hitting twice or thrice per round at that level is almost assured. At that level, virtually all fights should involve you being hasted (+1 best attack), and Fighters can easily sport to-hit modifier in the +40 range by that level, which means +40/+40/+35/+30/+25, which is pretty good (I think).
Likewise, Zark complains about scaling and spells not being effective. If you're using a 4th level spell, and expect it to be useful at high levels, I would think you want to use it. So I want to know why spells like Holy Smite (one of the spells he complained about originally) actually should be worth it. I showed some ways you can use it.
But again, psionics man. I think I'll post a psionic version of a cleric and see if anyone likes that. To the drawing board...
|
LOL. Can it get more derailed?Well, we could discuss Cleric heavy armor proficiency...
/ducks under the table.
You know, they should have nerfed the Fighter. He should have to pick Light, Medium, OR Heavy Armor Proficiency. Having all of them at once is overpowered and breaks versimilatude. Same thing with weapon proficiencies.
Not to mention the part about getting another save each round...Glitterdust is over-rated. People keep thinking it is the 3.5 version.
+1.
Granted, I still think it's a very good spell -- but the duration isn't "longer than you have any reasonable chance of surviving without teleport" anymore.
Beyond that, as long as some people posting in this thread don't understand that the cleric is still easily among the most powerful classes in the game, I think we're going to continue talking past each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beyond that, as long as some people posting in this thread don't understand that the cleric is still easily among the most powerful classes in the game, I think we're going to continue talking past each other.
The problem is that most of that power was added on simply so people would play the class, but did nothing to increase the flavor any. With the addition of the other divine classes now, that lack of flavor is going to bite the class in the butt, especially with the decentralization of healing and diminishing returns of building a healing cleric. Like the 3.5 fighter, it needs a good workover to give it something unique that isn't copied by the other classes out there. Simply adding more for the sake of making it more appealing isn't going to work, but neither is refusing to add anything because it is already seen by many as being too powerful. Finding a balance between the two extremes, while not easy, is what the class needs.
Well, we could discuss Cleric heavy armor proficiency...You know, they should have nerfed the Fighter. He should have to pick Light, Medium, OR Heavy Armor Proficiency. Having all of them at once is overpowered and breaks versimilatude.
Preach on, brother!
|
|
This is why I think your benchmark is people with CL 19+
We were talkning boss fights. Beataing SR 25 isn't that hard if you're a boss.
And as I already pointed out most boss fight against monsters don't involve 20th level spell casters.
And a 20th level spell caster need 2 feat to bring his chance of failure to 0%.Both things aren't granted.
(that beside the little point that you are speaking of boss fight at 20th level apparently)
20% chance of failing for every spell subject to SR that is cast against every member of the party by the big boss is not bad at all.
All the spells used by the mooks that will fail in a way greater % are damage you don't get, debuffs that don't affect you and so on.
A fight against the boss usually isn't in a vacuum: the party vs. the boss.
Usually it is the party, cohorts, animal companions, eidolons and c. vs the boss hand his followers. So you should consider what a spell do for your party and/or against the enemy party.
The coohrts, the eidolon and the animal companion have +4 defensive items?
If not they get a boost to AC and saves plus the SR.
The Boss followers cast spells?
Almost certainly the SR help a lot against them.
They are melee combatants?
Beside the AC the different auras have secondary effects every time you are hit (so they have to check fairly often) and the followers usually don't have high levels of will saves.
That for the different auras.
Holy word and co. Same thing. Very good to thin out the rank of the mooks even if the headman is to strong for it.
If some of the spell were buffed as you appear to want:
Fist round, players won initiative: "hei guys I have feebleminded/blinded/paralysed he balor, let's play with him."
alternate
Balor win initiative: "Blasphemy" whole party weakened and dazed
round 2: implosion "Oops where is our mage?"
"Epic" fight that are resolved by the initiative roll. Very fun.
And as I already pointed out most boss fight against monsters don't involve 20th level spell casters.
True, they might involve fights vs. creatures that cast SPA, use Ex, SU or rely on melee damage. With descent CL SPA won't be a much problem.
(that beside the little point that you are speaking of boss fight at 20th level apparently
No I'm not. Drop the snark remarks please.
A Boss can be Caster with CL 18, 19, 20 or even 17 or a dragon or a powerful undead or a powerful Outsider.Point was at level 15+ a caster will have more HD than you and they will have good enough CL to beat SR 25, unless they roll very badly.
They will have a lot of hit points or be buffed and most of them will have SR, except when you are up against a high level caster. In that case he will beat SR 25 and he will be buffed and make his villain speech and if you are unlucky his is not evil but neutral.
And a 20th level spell caster need 2 feat to bring his chance of failure to 0%.
A 20th level caster probably have those 2 feats, but most definitely one. That said there is no need to bring his chance of failure to 0%.
Average roll is 11.11 + 14 = 25.
A 18 level caster will have at least spell penetration. He will succeed when rolling a 5 or more, that's 80 % chance of success. Good enough to me. A 20 level caster + spell penetration = succeed when rolling a 3 that's 90 %.
But I do agree SR is nice since casters doesn't always roll 11, but the need to bring his chance of failure to 0% is just a silly argument.
20% chance of failing for every spell subject to SR that is cast against every member of the party by the big boss is not bad at all.
Or you could say: 80% chance of success for every spell subject to SR that is cast against every member of the party by the big boss is not good at all.
A boss fight won't last for more than 3 rounds. If it does you are dead. 80 % chance means a chance/risk that 4 out of 5 spells will hit you, more if the boss has feats or abilities that raises caster level or use SU or use conjuration spells or is neutral. Boss may not even cast 5 spells and most likely he will beat SR 25.
A fight against the boss usually isn't in a vacuum: the party vs. the boss.
At higher levels it's quite common. When it isn't, you really don't care about the mooks. But sure Holy word and Holy Aura are great vs. mooks.
Not all parties have cohorts, animal companions, eidolons. If you have them, at level 15 they probably have +3 items (or at least +2). +1 to AC and saves is no big deal. Some might actually have +4 items. Cloak of res +4 is not über at level 15. If they don't got any descent defensive items they are expendable.
Usually it is the party, cohorts, animal companions, eidolons and c. vs the boss hand his followers. So you should consider what a spell do for your party and/or against the enemy party.
The coohrts, the eidolon and the animal companion have +4 defensive items?
If not they get a boost to AC and saves plus the SR.
If you have them in your party, not all have them. Yes they will get a boost, but at +15 that boost won't add up to much. +2 to AC and +1 to saves isn't a big deal at level +15.
Holy word and co. Same thing. Very good to thin out the rank of the mooks even if the headman is to strong for it.
Yes I know that. Point was there are too few good high level spells useful in boss fights. When you are group vs. a dragon, a powerful undead, a powerful outsider or a caster there not much fun on the 7th and 8th spell list.
I never said Holy Aura and Holy word aren't good vs. mooks.
If you bring forth a lot of summons, Holy Aura can be useful, or if you have been stripped of all your magic items it is fantastic. If the wizard killed the boss the first round and the death triggered an army mooks to attack you it can be great. If your mission is to rescue another party that have been stripped of all their protective items it can be great, etc.
Creating any scenario just to justify any point is not hard, but it is a bit silly.
|
|
Creating any scenario just to justify any point is not hard, but it is a bit silly.
Work both way.
You consider a final fight with a boss alone the norm, I don't.
From my experience I have reached the conclusion that the "boss alone" fight is the best way to get a fight that is not epic at all. So I prefer a not so overwhelming boss with some good cohort capable of actually helping him.
That is especially true if it is the last fight of a campaign or series of linked adventures.
Round 1: successful Feeblemind
Poff the boss is a drooling idiot governed by his animal fight or fly reflexes. the fight has practically ended even if he was a bruiser kind of boss.
He is no longer capable of using his feats effectively, he will not recognize spellcasters as a threat, he will have difficulties to realize that the archer in the corner is the reason why he constantly get wounded by those pieces of wood and so on.
Alternate options are Rogue sneak around very well, get the drop on the boss and deliver 200-300 HP of damage while the archer add another bunch of damage finishing him.
Too easy to get a anticlimactic end when there is only one target.
Work both way.
Edit:
Point taken.
still:
boss with mooks
boss with one or two mooks
boss with no mooks.
Facing a high CR boss at some levels - not saying all levels - the cleric spell list is a bit boring, with or without mooks, if it's the boss you want to deal with.
You consider a final fight with a boss alone the norm, I don't.
Didn't say that.
"At higher levels it's quite common. When it isn't, you really don't care about the mooks. But sure Holy word and Holy Aura are great vs.mook".
Or I should say: "At higher levels it's quite common. When it isn't, mooks are not the big problem if you are a cleric, since Holy word and Holy Aura are often great vs. mook".
From my experience I have reached the conclusion that the "boss alone" fight is the best way to get a fight that is not epic at all. So I prefer a not so overwhelming boss with some good cohort capable of actually helping him.
That is especially true if it is the last fight of a campaign or series of linked adventures.
Good point. But it's still 7th and 8th spell are a bit lame fighting a boss. Epic fight or not.
Let me add some wisdom from Treantmonk. Taken from Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards: Being a God. Yes it's about wizards but the points are still valid
Why to skip the "all powerful" Save or Die spells:
Yes, Save or Die is powerful, we've all heard why (who cares how many HP the monster has? If they fail their save, the fight is over) - however, it is overrated. This is why:
Lots of enemies: You take down one and do little else to help your Big Stupid Fighter and Glass Cannon. You spent a high level spell doing so. Congratulations - you've been demoted from God to Glass Cannon. Ouch!
One Big Enemy: You either do nothing or everything. The Big Stupid Fighter and Glass Cannon are either in lots of trouble or are feeling useless. This is like the chess player who is addicted to using his queen - ends up losing it, and then sucks for the rest of the game. Use your lesser pieces (That's the big stupid fighter and the glass cannon - your peons) to your advantage - let them do the dirty work - your job is to make it easy for them, not to take their place. Try to take their place your spells will run out fast. Besides, you are a team, enjoy the benefits of that.
Why "Blast" spells should be recreation only:
The first point is that in 3.0, blast spells became in inefficient way to do damage. Look at a fireball for example. Cast by a 5th level wizard it does 5d6 damage...but not really, saving throws can reduce that by half, evasion can eliminate it entirely, and improved evasion will at least cut it in half. Then you take into account fire resistance (AFTER the save), which will very commonly reduce it further by 5, 10, 20, or even offer full immunity...and fire resistance and immunity is common. In the end, that Fireball will do 20 points of damage if you are lucky, more likely, anywhere from 5 to 10 damage. So how many creatures that you fight at level 5 can take that? Yep...all of them, while laughing at you. Now how much damage does a Haste spell do? Well, you would need to take one average attack from every party member for every round of duration and add them together. The number will vary, but it will dwarf the damage of a fireball spell. You don't get the glory, but you did the right thing.
Then the second point is a tactical one. HP damage in Pathfinder does NOT decrease your ability to fight. The big bad monster with 1 HP has just as deadly attack as the big bad monster with 100 hp. "Softening" up the enemy with a blast spell may or may not change the time it takes the rest of the party to drop the enemy, but it does nothing to ensure their safety during that time. Giving your allies a tactical or mechanical advantage prevents party deaths. Throw a blast when you have nothing better to do, but never throw one when you have one of your 3 jobs to do.
I'm not saying you should never do pure blast. In fact, my own wizards usually have a blast or two at hand. I'm just saying that blasting is something you do after you've ensured tactical advantage in the combat. Blasting in combat should be....what comes after tertiary?
Round 1: successful Feeblemind
Creating any scenario just to justify any point is obviously not hard ;-)
Too easy to get a anticlimactic end when there is only one target.
True. Actually happened last week. A Demilich got destroyed in two rounds and only got to act once during the fight.
But facing a big fat dragon, Nightwalker, or a Balor fights can be just heroes vs. big bad monster. Those fights seldom end with BBEG failing save first round and fight end. But sure it might happen.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Partially because there are no Cleric only Feats, (I don't believe) in the core material, and because Clerics really can't finish off te Feat Chains very well. A lot of people complain because Feats are one of the only real (mechanical) ways for Clerics to be different, but at th same time, there are not a lot of worthwhile Feats to actually take, or by the time that a Cleric can qualify, the Feat is much less useful. Which basically leads to most Clerics taking the same Feats over and over, even regardless of their concept.
+1
The problem is that most of that power was added on simply so people would play the class, but did nothing to increase the flavor any. With the addition of the other divine classes now, that lack of flavor is going to bite the class in the butt, especially with the decentralization of healing and diminishing returns of building a healing cleric. Like the 3.5 fighter, it needs a good workover to give it something unique that isn't copied by the other classes out there. Simply adding more for the sake of making it more appealing isn't going to work, but neither is refusing to add anything because it is already seen by many as being too powerful. Finding a balance between the two extremes, while not easy, is what the class needs.
+1. Spot on.
|
|
Work both way.
Edit:Point taken.
Round 1: successful Feeblemind
Creating any scenario just to justify any point is obviously not hard ;-)
Too easy to get a anticlimactic end when there is only one target.
True. Actually happened last week. A Demilich got destroyed in two rounds and only got to act once during the fight.
But facing a big fat dragon, Nightwalker, or a Balor fights can be just heroes vs. big bad monster. Those fights seldom end with BBEG failing save first round and fight end. But sure it might happen.
You say "point taken" and you break a argument in two part to "win" using again "Creating any scenario just to justify any point is obviously not hard ;-)"?
Wonderful. You have "win" if what you want is no discussion.
Wonderful. You have "win" if what you want is no discussion.
?
Ah, Clerics. I agree that while they are powerful and useful, they don't have any real specific purpose that can't be held by another class. In my homebrew games, I set up diety-specific spells that only Clerics of a specific deity can cast. For example, I have a Diety in my campaigns named Valdus, God of Light, and all Clerics of Valdus can cast a spell that ONLY those clerics can cast. And every diety has spells like that. They are a cut above other spells of thier level, and only castable by Clerics. So far, I haven't made too many damage spells except for use by evil dieties, they're mainly buffs. But it's a way to give a little more flavor to the Cleric.
Also, I've noticed a complaint that combat healing is pretty useless, and having played for several years, I can corroborate that theory. I changed healing spells so they are much more useful in combat. Haven't play-tested it yet, this is a new system, so I don't know how balanced or not balanced it is yet. But I changed the cure spells so that they do dice/level in increasing die types. For example, Cure light wounds does 1d4 healing per level (to a maximum of 5d4) instead of 1d6 + 1/lv healing. Cure Moderate does 1d6 per level to a maximum of 10d6. Cure Serious does 1d8 per level up to 15d8, and Cure Critical does 1d10 per level up to 20d10. This would make a Maximized Cure Crit heal more than the Heal spell (which would make sense, since Heal is one level lower AND acts as a restoration as well). I changed the Mass Cure spells to Greater Cure spells, which are as such: Greater Cure Light Wounds either heals 2d4 per level to one target (to a maximum of 40d4 (or 4d4 x 10)) or 1d4 per level (to a max of 20d4) to one target/level, no 2 of which can be more than 30 ft. apart. The higher greater spells work similarly. Breath of Life and Regeneration also work in a similar way.
Anyway, these seem to me to give teh Cleric a bit more purpose without increasing thier power too much. After all, all it really does is give them a reason for combat healing. But like I said, haven't play-tested it yet.
Edit - Oh, almost forgot, I tend to make changes to the cleric class baced on diety as well, such as selected bonus feats (like my God of Fire gives Elemental channel as a bonus feat at level 1). Of course, doing the whole dieties give you more power is completely home-brew, and I stick to feats that don't give much of a combat advantage except against VERY specific foes, if the advantage is combat-related at all. A lot of the time, it's things like Skill Focus.
Well...
Sure, the cleric is "bland". But it still remains an amazingly powerful class, which does not even need to prepare healing spells in order to cast them, and, which, when it does need to cast them, needs to cast fewer of them because they can now channel energy in order to heal the group. I see no "feat tax" in turn undead or command undead; sure, they used to be able to, but how often did they actually do it? Most of the time, the ability might as well not have been there! At least now they can use it constantly; the trade-of of which is that they lost the ability to turn undead or command undead from the get go.I mean... 3/4 BAB, d8, 2 good saves, spells up to 9th level, able to use heavy armor and cast spells in it, one additional spell per level (without any opposition school), as well as additional domain powers. What more do you really need? They have buffs, they have offensive spells, they have healing spells, they have summoning spells that are excellent... What else do you want?
The question isn't about the power of the cleric at its heart, but rather the genericness of the class. What many of us want is a bit more variety, whereas now we make our choices for abilities for the class at 1st level and we're done, we know what we're getting the rest of the game. It could be argued that clerics are now the class that you want to PrC out of the most, rather than sorcerers like in 3.X....
Variant. Channeling. Worship something different? Do something different with channel.
Yay, Ultimate Magic.
I won't get UM before 18th, so I'd like to hear your impressions on the product: does the cleric get many new options and a fair treatment compared to the other divine classes?
I won't get UM before 18th, so I'd like to hear your impressions on the product: does the cleric get many new options and a fair treatment compared to the other divine classes?
If the divine characters were to be 'fair' they would suffer more like the arcane classes do (not that the arcane classes suffer too much -- just that they pay substantially more for what they get than the divine casters do)
|
Variant. Channeling. Worship something different? Do something different with channel.
Yay, Ultimate Magic.
I won't get UM before 18th, so I'd like to hear your impressions on the product: does the cleric get many new options and a fair treatment compared to the other divine classes?
Not enough, IMO. Inquisitors got Inquisitions, which appear to be new domains, essentially. Druids got new Druid-only domains. Oracles got Archetypes and new mysteries. Haven't looked at the Paladin bit yet.
Clerics got no Cleric-Only domains. What they did get are archetypes and Variant Channeling. Archetypes look cool but I need to read them in more depth.
Variant Channeling is pretty cool. Channeling becomes half-effective at the healing/harming aspect, and then you get a rider effect according to theme. Now the wording makes it looks like the modification only applies to the effect of your channeling on Living Creatives - if you channel positive, only the healing effect, if negative, only the harming - but I'm not sure. Examples are Ale/Wine themed variant channeling has as it's Heal effect that creatures ignore sickened/nauseated and some other effects until end of your next turn, while the Harm effect nauseates for one round.
Combined with the Quick Channel feat (burn two uses to channel as a move action) this could make Channel actually useful, and I think thematically is a huge step in the right direction. However, Life Oracles and Paladins have access. That said, at least clerics are the only ones that can do much with the negative energy... if they want to go down that route.
More on the archetypes later.
In my homebrew games, I set up diety-specific spells that only Clerics of a specific deity can cast.
Can you post some?