My beefs with it..
If you even attempt to use a 0 level scroll as a scroll blade/shield it is instantly destroyed. (It has 0 hp after all.)
2, you are putting a combat oriented ability for a class that is one of the furthest from combat oriented. That is like taking a barbarian and making it so he is able to cast spells from scrolls but that he has a 50% chance of messing it up and taking 1d12 points of damage per spell level on the scroll and then being hit with the scrolls effect if negative or giving the scrolls effect to an enemy if it is positive.
This would have been soo much better on a Magus.
Then is the fact it won't scale at all. At least with a bonded sword, I could enchant it as we go along. This one however?
If it would have gotten some more uses.. Like the ability to make things like grappling hooks, bows, crowbars etc, even if to gain said abilities requires arcane discoveries or feats.. Then also making it so that you don't just get x uses and it detonates.
The devs could have any number of viable reasons to say you can't dual wield scrollblades.
After reading stuff like the "dragonslayer" oath of paladins, it becomes harder and herder understand the "reasons od the devs".
After reading stuff like the "dragonslayer" oath of paladins, it becomes harder and herder understand the "reasons od the devs".The devs could have any number of viable reasons to say you can't dual wield scrollblades.
Sometimes you can't help but wonder if some of it is done for the lulz. Or if it was just a brainstorm idea that no one decided to vet before writing into a hardcoded rule.
The dragon slayer oath means you HAVE to kill the draconic sorcerer in the party... even if he is LG.
The devs could have any number of viable reasons to say you can't dual wield scrollblades. The intention was actually probably that you couldn't bash with the shield, but it was sort of forgotten. SKR is pretty much just pointing out that one is banned and the other is not, presumably to help you out if you want to go the sword+shield route OR the dual-wield route.
More interesting is the thing where the shield can bash without losing a hit point.
I'm at a loss as to why this archetype is generating so much attention anyway, but maybe I'm just not the target audience or something. I mean, it's not stunning mechanically, and thematically it's a bit silly. What's the appeal?
SKR has already said that the intent was to allow Sword and Board with it. Why are you trying to say that the intent was not to allow it?
The reason the archetype is getting so much attention is that= wait, no it's not. This is one of like 2 threads for it. This an old thread, too. I love this archetype for the imagery. I like the shark shaman archetype because when my shark shaman uses because when my shark shaman uses Totem Transformation, the image in my head is from the animated cartoon with the bipedal shark commando dudes. It's all about imagery. Sure it's suboptimal and can get expensive, but eventually you don't need to make higher caster level scrolls, and it becomes a lot cheaper.
SKR has already said that the intent was to allow Sword and Board with it. Why are you trying to say that the intent was not to allow it?The devs could have any number of viable reasons to say you can't dual wield scrollblades. The intention was actually probably that you couldn't bash with the shield, but it was sort of forgotten. SKR is pretty much just pointing out that one is banned and the other is not, presumably to help you out if you want to go the sword+shield route OR the dual-wield route.
More interesting is the thing where the shield can bash without losing a hit point.
I'm at a loss as to why this archetype is generating so much attention anyway, but maybe I'm just not the target audience or something. I mean, it's not stunning mechanically, and thematically it's a bit silly. What's the appeal?
Actually, that's not what he said. What he said was "That's what the rule says." He said nothing about intent or the development process.
The dragon slayer oath means you HAVE to kill the draconic sorcerer in the party... even if he is LG.
No it doesn't -- it specifically states that some people take it that far -- and then they aren't paladins much longer since they became lawful stupid instead of lawful good.
I meant the capstone. Or the gain/loss of the whole session, compared to the APG.
The dragon slayer oath means you HAVE to kill the draconic sorcerer in the party... even if he is LG.No it doesn't -- it specifically states that some people take it that far -- and then they aren't paladins much longer since they became lawful stupid instead of lawful good.
yeah it does.
"Slay evil dragons, as well as other dangerous dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons."
What is a draconic sorcerer? A sorcerer who has the bloodline of dragons in him. So at the very least the paladin must follow the sorcerer around and prevent him from having any sort of sexual activity in order to prevent future dragon blooded individuals.
But then if the sorcerer is dangerous and there for by tentent 1 of the oath, you must slay him.
No where does it state that some people are able to ignore their oath.
An oath that you can ignore the tenants of is not an oath.
Now if it goes against the deity they are following the the paladin cannot take the oath in the first place.
Why not quote the whole thing?
Oh yeah because it doesn't support your position that way:
Few dragons see the smaller races of the world as their equals -- to most, humanoids are either food or an annoyance. Some paladins swear to protect others against the predation of dragonkind. Some include dragon-blooded creatures (such as half-dragons or even sorcerers with the draconic bloodline) in their oath and team up with inquisitors to root out those whose ancestry carries the taint of dragon magic.
Code of conduct: slay , as well as other dragons whether or not they are evil. Prevent the bloodlines of other creatures from being corrupted with draconic power. Protect the innocent against the predation of dragons.
So while they can do what you suggest it is not forced either.
Finger = Bad.
Moon = Good.
The. Capstone.
My beefs with it..
If you even attempt to use a 0 level scroll as a scroll blade/shield it is instantly destroyed. (It has 0 hp after all.)
2, you are putting a combat oriented ability for a class that is one of the furthest from combat oriented. That is like taking a barbarian and making it so he is able to cast spells from scrolls but that he has a 50% chance of messing it up and taking 1d12 points of damage per spell level on the scroll and then being hit with the scrolls effect if negative or giving the scrolls effect to an enemy if it is positive.
This would have been soo much better on a Magus.
Then is the fact it won't scale at all. At least with a bonded sword, I could enchant it as we go along. This one however?
If it would have gotten some more uses.. Like the ability to make things like grappling hooks, bows, crowbars etc, even if to gain said abilities requires arcane discoveries or feats.. Then also making it so that you don't just get x uses and it detonates.
Yeah, I agree that it feels like it missed something. If it could deliver the scroll's spell on a successful attack (sortof like the Magus), or it automatically gained properties based on the keywords of the highest level spell, or something like that, it'd really have a place. As it is, it's an easy but expensive way to gain some AC and threaten in melee, and to have a weapon for when you use transformation, and that's about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting all that aside, has anyone else noticed how silly this ability is? A parchment scroll "in the hands of a wizard" carries the same damage as a short sword? Really? And it can have reach? Give me a break. And by doing a d6 in damage a piece of parchment loses 1 hp only. Look, if it's hard enough to act like a short sword, it shouldn't be damaged at all. If it's not, one try should rip it apart. Many other issues i won't bother mentioning. I really dislike this whole concept as written.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting all that aside, has anyone else noticed how silly this ability is? A parchment scroll "in the hands of a wizard" carries the same damage as a short sword? Really? And it can have reach? Give me a break. And by doing a d6 in damage a piece of parchment loses 1 hp only. Look, if it's hard enough to act like a short sword, it shouldn't be damaged at all. If it's not, one try should rip it apart. Many other issues i won't bother mentioning. I really dislike this whole concept as written.
Nope, I like it. In a world where magic permeates through the lands, people in robes bending the laws of reality to their whim, raging barbarians channeling totems, clerics and paladins having the divine powers course into their bodies from their gods, and singing bards able to even make a their music become a solid tangible note (re: that spell...), and folks running faster than a horse or falling a hundred feet with no damage and able to channel elements into their fist. No, the fact that a magic user can use the magical powers imbued in the parchment to be used as a weapon is not that silly in my view.
how is a scroll shield and a scroll blade not dual wielding? if you shield bash and attack with your scroll blade in the same round, aren't you using the rules for two weapon fighting, effectively wielding two of them ( one to bash, one to slice )?
The archetype doesn't say "you can't dual-wield."
It says "A scrollmaster cannot wield two scrollblades at the same time." Which doesn't rule out using a scrollblade in one hand and a scrollshield in the other (in fact, the archetype calls out that this is allowed), and using the scrollshield to make a shield bash is perfectly valid.
If I shield bash with my scroll does it lose hit points?
If I shield bash with my scroll does it lose hit points?
Nope