| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything else was great, but here are the disapointments:
The Dragon Druid.
My Reaction: Oh my god awseome!...Wait...Lizard?....Thats it?
Dragon is something you do not throw around willy nilly, if you give an option for dragons, saying "Lizard" is the degrading term dragons hate. How about Replacing Beast Shape 3 with Dragon Shape 1 with rechargable breath? Its just lame. It should be called "Reptile" Druid.
Undead Mastery (Or however its called):
Its decent but I wish there was a more powerfull version of the feat. Its usefull, but the title is too big.
Everything else was great, but here are the disapointments:
The Dragon Druid.
My Reaction: Oh my god awseome!...Wait...Lizard?....Thats it?
Dragon is something you do not throw around willy nilly, if you give an option for dragons, saying "Lizard" is the degrading term dragons hate. How about Replacing Beast Shape 3 with Dragon Shape 1 with rechargable breath? Its just lame. It should be called "Reptile" Druid.
Undead Mastery (Or however its called):
Its decent but I wish there was a more powerfull version of the feat. Its usefull, but the title is too big.
I got that too from the Dragon Shaman Druid, nothing Dragon about it. It's Reptilian druid, that's it.
Still it's minor thing, not what I'd call a disappointment.
Druids kinda got spanked a bit in this book, IMHO. Granted, some of the new Domains they have as options are cool, but if you're already PLAYING a druid, there were some "wait, what?" moments in looking at UM.
Mind you, I still think its an awesome book, so these are just nit-picks.
Having said that, I would think that anything to do with summoning, Elements, Weather, disease, age, and animosity toward constructs or Aberrations would have "druid" included in the spell lists. Instead I saw a number of those sorts of spells that were in the Witch, summoner, and Cleric lists, but were not included in the Druid lists. I was also hoping for some Meta-spells along the line of Enhance Wildshape, perhaps adding features like Poisons and Swallow Whole to Wildshape options, or increasing size to things above Huge...
Having said THAT, its not an situation that can't be houseruled with minimum conflicts, except that my particular DM subscribes to a theory of Publisher Infallibility -- if its not in list X, then there is probably a reason for that, and I trust Paizo to do it right.
But, I agree with you utterly about the Dragon Shaman. When I saw that, I was totally expecting to later find some kind of feat that enabled Druid to add Dragon Shape spells to their Wildshape (perhaps as a high-level option, once the 12th level Wildshape plateau has been reached), but sadly, no.
|
Druids got spanked?
Greater Wild Empathy
Moonlight Summons
Mystic Stride
Powerful Shape
Quick Wild Shape
Shaping Focus (for multiclass Druids)
Starlight Summons
Sunlight Summons
Superior Summoning
Wild Speech
... and of these Feats any help to your Druid at all?
Now, if you happened to be playing a Sorcerer, it's time for, 'Please, sir, may I have another!'... ;)
Druids got spanked?
Greater Wild Empathy
Moonlight Summons
Mystic Stride
Powerful Shape
Quick Wild Shape
Shaping Focus (for multiclass Druids)
Starlight Summons
Sunlight Summons
Superior Summoning
Wild Speech... and of these Feats any help to your Druid at all?
Now, if you happened to be playing a Sorcerer, it's time for, 'Please, sir, may I have another!'... ;)
I did say kinda got spanked? Oh, I'm not saying that they got spanked the MOST, and to their credit prior to UM, there has been essentially only one must-have druid Feat, two if you are interested in summoning at all, so having all those additional options for Druids is admittedly nice.
However, I think that the Summons boosts that are applicable to Summon Nature's Ally spells are minor at best (compared to the ones on offer for Summon Monster). I totally agree about quick wild shape and wild speech.
I think perhaps I was not entirely specific: my main gripe is the spell selection. While the Feats that I would have loved to see(Dragon wildshape, Colossal Wild shape...) were not there, I can't blame Paizo for not picking that up over the Psychic Network and incorporating it.
So many people seem to have a problem accessing the Psychic Network these days. Its weird!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is absurd. Yeah, Dragon Shaman has barely anything to do with Dragons (basically, elemental effects on claws, magic-focused Bonus Feats), as opposed to Reptiles, but that just means... call yourself a Reptile Shaman! Compared to the other 'Shaman' archetypes, it seems totally fine... You are hardly giving up any big abilities to gain these Archetypes. And of course, it addreses one of the complaints here, spell access, thru access to new Domains including Destruction and War.
I do think there was an oversight (WHAT!? IN ULTIMATE MAGIC!?) in that Dragon/Reptile Shaman seems PERFECT for having access to the Serpent Domain, and likewise the Shark Shaman could have access to the Acquatic Domain, and some of the other new Domains (Wolf, Plains, ?) could really be added as options for other 'Shaman' (and other) archetypes.
Overall, I think the new Domains and archetypes DO alot to expand options for Druid spell-lists.
That and all the Feats, mostly focused on Summons and Wildshape (i.e. Druids defining Class Features) seem awesome for Druids.
I do think there was an oversight (WHAT!? IN ULTIMATE MAGIC!?) in that Dragon/Reptile Shaman seems PERFECT for having access to the Serpent Domain, and likewise the Shark Shaman could have access to the Acquatic Domain, and some of the other new Domains (Wolf, Plains, ?) could really be added as options for other 'Shaman' (and other) archetypes.
Um, those "animal themed archetypes" all have access to the Animal Domain. The new domains specifically state that you trade either the Animal or Weather domain for the Animal / Terrain themed domains. They didn't NEED to list it as a special cause; it would have been redundant and pointing out the obvious because rules as written you can already do that ....
My only real dissapointment was the dragon shaman druid, the class may be mechanically sound (although i think the saurian is better) but the flavor is argggggg, WHY is it a dragon shaman? Yes i know it's very hard to balance a druid with form of the dragon spells, but still i have tried and it was going quite well. I think that they shouldn't have put such a name to this archetype.
Anyway, otherwise it's a great book.
A lot of the wizard-only psuedo-feats are stupid powerful. I mean come the hell on, is that really the class that needed more?
A lot of the wizard-only psuedo-feats are stupid powerful. I mean come the hell on, is that really the class that needed more?
This is true. Few of them are disturbing.
It seems someone said "the class has few weak spots left. This cannot be".
What I don't like of UM? Read my review (just click on my username). Warning: LONG.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I do think there was an oversight (WHAT!? IN ULTIMATE MAGIC!?) in that Dragon/Reptile Shaman seems PERFECT for having access to the Serpent Domain, and likewise the Shark Shaman could have access to the Acquatic Domain, and some of the other new Domains (Wolf, Plains, ?) could really be added as options for other 'Shaman' (and other) archetypes.Um, those "animal themed archetypes" all have access to the Animal Domain. The new domains specifically state that you trade either the Animal or Weather domain for the Animal / Terrain themed domains. They didn't NEED to list it as a special cause; it would have been redundant and pointing out the obvious because rules as written you can already do that ....
Except it DOESN`T ¨specifically state that you trade either the Animal or Weather domain for the [new] domains¨.
What do you think `specifically states` MEANS?What it says is:
A druid with the nature’s bond ability can choose an animal domain or terrain domain listed here instead of one of the standard domains.
Nothing about Animal or Weather domain.
Now, all the new Archetypes still have access to some Domain that is a `standard domain`, so they could be good.
Or, the Archtypes could be considered to not have access to `the standard domains` (having their own list), meaning the Archetype Druid couldn`t select these new ones. Since that sucks, and the first option is just as plausible, I WOULD lean to that one.
There`s a further problem: the `Shaman` Archetypes don`t even use the same wording for Domain choices:
A dragon shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a crocodile or monitor lizard. If choosing a domain, the dragon shaman must choose from the Air, Animal, Destruction, Earth, Fire, War, and Water domains.
A saurian shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a dinosaur. If choosing a domain, a saurian shaman must choose from the Animal, Destruction, Fire, and War domains.
A shark shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a shark. If choosing a domain, a shark shaman choose the Animal, Death, War, or Water domain.
A storm druid may not choose an animal companion. A storm druid must choose the Air or Weather domain, or the Cloud, Storm, or Wind subdomain.
So all of the `Shaman` archetypes have the same `must` wording that the Storm Druid has, EXCEPT for Shark Shaman which says `may`. SO even by the interpretation that the new Domains are available to any Druid who can access any Domain which individually is amongst `the standard domains`, only the Shark Shaman has the freedom to do that since the other Archetypes all MUST choose from their stated domain lists (their wording is identical to the Storm Druid in this aspect, and I doubt anybody believes the intention is for Storm Druids to be able to freely select the new animal/terrain Domains).
Obviously, I believe this to be an Errata issue, i.e. Shark Shaman shouldn`t work differently here,
since the Shaman archetypes seem presented as being equivalent to each other.
A wolf shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a wolf. If choosing a domain, the wolf shaman must choose from the Animal, Community, Liberation, and Travel domains.
A serpent shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a snake. If choosing a domain, the serpent shaman must choose from the Animal, Charm, Trickery, and Water domains.
A lion shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a lion. If choosing a domain, the lion shaman must choose from the Animal, Glory, Nobility, and Sun domains.
An eagle shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a bird (eagle). If choosing a domain, the eagle shaman must choose from the Air, Animal, Nobility, and Weather domains.
A bear shaman who chooses an animal companion must select a bear. If choosing a domain, the bear shaman must choose from the Animal, Earth, Protection, and Strength domains.
So the STANDARD here is `must` wording, meaning Shark Shaman is the ONLY exception to state you `may` choose it`s stated Domains. Note that the Eagle, Wolf, and Serpet Shaman can`t technically choose the Domains of identical name.
I don`t know what the answer is... Changing `A druid with the nature’s bond ability can choose an animal domain or terrain domain listed here instead of one of the standard domains` to `instead of one of their standard domains` (i.e. standard for each list)? But that leaves the Storm Druid able to choose one of the new Domains instead of their thematic list...??? Otherwise, the least that could be done is individually adding these domains to the lists of Archetypes with `must choose` limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I still don`t see why Paizo just didn`t use an existing mechanic and say the new Domains were Sub-Domains (with pre-req of being selected as a Druid`s Nature`s Bond), which WOULD be acceptably clear that anybody who can choose the parent domains can select the Sub-Domains... (and allows easy automatic exclusion, e.g. for Storm Druids who can`t select Animal, Plant, Earth, etc, but possibly could allow for Weather->Arctic Sub-Domain which seems reasonably appropriate)
What it says is:
A druid with the nature’s bond ability can choose an animal domain or terrain domain listed here instead of one of the standard domains.Nothing about Animal or Weather domain.
Touche, Quandary, but I can quote from Ultimate Magic as well! Read THIS, from the final paragraph of that very same section:
Other nature-themed classes with access to domains may select an animal or terrain domain in place of a regular domain.
So, if you want, rule that the Archetypes are their own "nature-themed classes." Don't like that? Okay, because I have a back-up with THIS quote, from the section's first paragraph:
A druid with the nature's bond ability can choose an animal domain or terrain domain instead of one of the domains listed in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Guess what? All of the Druid Archetypes are druids with the nature's bond ability; check it, all of the Archetypes only modify the ability. None of them flat-out changes it for another name. By this, you could, if you really wanted to, take the Shark Domain as a Bear Shaman or the Wolf Domain as a Dragon Shaman. THIS might be an actual oversight of the rules (though no DM worth his salt would allow a player to make such a choice), but there is absolutely NOTHING in the rules that prevents a Druid of the Shaman archetypes from taking an animal domain. In fact, I'd go the extra mile to say that the developers went out of their way to make sure that this option was available to any nature-themed class that wanted it.
|
|
A lot of the wizard-only psuedo-feats are stupid powerful. I mean come the hell on, is that really the class that needed more?
You're suggesting that being able to blow a mere Feat at level 20 to get the Immortality an Alchemist strives his whole career to get as his capstone ability is in some way powerful? Or a Feat to gain the unlimited ability to Speak With Animals is somehow unbalanced? Say it isn't so! ;)
I'm not even going to touch spending a Feat to make some poor Outsider your b!tch...
Welll, i presume that the UC will even things out...
Sorcerers are gonna' get some love in Ultimate Combat? Ah... we can always dream... ;)
The "mere feat" is at level 20 pot. It is the wizards capstone. They actually get one now.
You're suggesting that being able to blow a mere Feat at level 20 to get the Immortality an Alchemist strives his whole career to get as his capstone ability is in some way powerful? Or a Feat to gain the unlimited ability to Speak With Animals is somehow unbalanced? Say it isn't so! ;)
You are suggesting that the immortality one is the broken discovery? :D
The immortality powers (for every class) are just stupid because that should be material for epic quests and adventures, and epic material in general, and exist regardless the class. But is not unbalanced.
Speak with animals is just another "if your class can do it I can too since I'm a wizard".
I'm not even going to touch spending a Feat to make some poor Outsider your b!tch...
In fact, in my review I classified that as "redundant".
|
All in all, Ultimte Magic is a huge isappointment to me because of a lot of reasons.
1.) They include a lot of not-magial classes in it, when said classes are to have their own book.
2.) It is primarilty a Wizard book, with a little Arcane and Sorcerer, and little other magical classes, (and mostly poorly done for them).
3.) It spawned a thread about the UM that deals almost exclusively with the Monk's Vow of Poverty. (both as part of #1, and because it is so stupid).
4.) I do not (personal opinion) really care for much of the stuff they included, (called Ultimate Magic, but fails horribly in that regard), (again, my opinion), but chose not to include things that are very much more in theme with the book.
5.) Really didn't offer much for non-Wizards, but instead reenforced the idea that other classes can't have nice things.
6.) Failed with most Class Archtypes, (yet again, personal opinion).
7.) Throughout varius paytest, many things where specifically called out as "we want that to be a Fighter ONLY thing", or some lame excuse. Then comes the Magus, and completel blows all that away. But it's okay, because it's the Magus. (Specidically granting Weapon Specilization to the Exalted Arbinger rchtype, or treating classes as Fighter for Fighter "Only" Feats, or granting the Armor Training).
8.) Most non-Wizard (well non-Alchemist or Inquisitor also), spells are very, very circumstantial or near pointless, in my opinion.
9.) That some of the cooler (at least themed) spells are Monk only not really spells at all.
10.) And most importantly, to me, once again pulled the "well just wait until __________ comes out for that" card.
I could honestly care less for the Cantrips (they are all Wiz/Sor only anyway), the Spellbooks, Words of Power, and the oriental themed stuff. Again, personal preference, I just wont use it. Ever. On the other hand, I have no problem with them, (aside from taking up space for other things I would have liked :) ), if others actually do.
Things I really wish where included:
1.) Actual mechanics for making Divine and Arcane different.
2.) Rules for High Magic games, (as oppossed to Low Magic in Ultimate Combat).
3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Holy Symbols, Feats to boost Channeling, to help multiclassing for Casters, Caster Level, Spells per Day, and Concentration.
4.) More variants for Magic, like Spell Points, switching up spell lists, creating new caster classes, and fun options for mixing things up.
5.) A lot more evening up of the number of Archtypes each class gets, and possibly guidelines for making your own (primary casters only) balanced Archtypes.
IMHO the channeling options for clerics could have been made feats instead that all-or-nothing changes.
I would have appreciated an elemental cleric similar to the druid stormlord.
The Geisha.
The Cloistered Cleric.
The Dragon Shaman.
Vow of Peace, Vow of Poverty.
The Cloistered Cleric.
Ranger Traps.
Sorcerer Genie Bloodlines (they're the same as the elemental bloodline!)
Arcane Discoveries.
Spellbooks.
The Cloistered Cleric.
Words of Power.
The Cloistered Cleric.
And of course, some of the editing ;)
|
Wotc had a DDM card that had...
" Sign of Vengeance (range 10) Until end of battle, this creature can use Vengeful Step against target.
Vengeful Step: Replaces move action; place this creature adjacent to target afflicted by this creature's Sign of Vengeance. "
I thought this would be an awesome spell for a paladin to use against his smite target so every spell with "Pursuit" I was hoping to give that ability
Horn of Pursuit. Tireless Pursuit
Also I was hoping there's be options for uses for many spell casting class abilities, at higher levels the 1d6+halve level rays are useless compared to the high level spells you could be casting or at least be able to use the abilities at higher levels as a free action.
I was also hoping that rather than coming up with new bloodline Paizo found a way to make the current bloodlines more flexible with the powers granted.
Example...
" At higher levels as spell caster could trade 3 uses of a power (non-spell) that was a ray or bolt and make it an area affect 20ft radius."
I will agree that I do not foresee myself using a lot of the material in UM.
3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost Channeling
I disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
|
3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost ChannelingI disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
It's cool, the only way Beckett could ever be remotely satisfied with UM was if it errated Cleric into a full BAB, heavy armor wielding class with a spell list that makes Wizards cry at night and out-DPRs Fighters by a mile.
I was hoping for a wizard archetype or options for a wizard that specialized in Force spells.
I am assuming you got this from the 3.5 force missile mage or whatever it was called. I never saw the class in actual play, but I heard it made GM's cry. If it was as powerful as I heard it was I understand why it was "overlooked".
Then again I don't remember a lot of posters asking for it so maybe it was an issue of the quiet wheel not getting the grease.
It's cool, the only way Beckett could ever be remotely satisfied with UM was if it errated Cleric into a full BAB, heavy armor wielding class with a spell list that makes Wizards cry at night and out-DPRs Fighters by a mile.3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost ChannelingI disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
:-)
It's cool, the only way Beckett could ever be remotely satisfied with UM was if it errated Cleric into a full BAB, heavy armor wielding class with a spell list that makes Wizards cry at night and out-DPRs Fighters by a mile.3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost ChannelingI disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
Nah, not even that. He wants Pathfinder to implement all the 3.5 cleric cheese, or he will never rest.
I was hoping for a wizard archetype or options for a wizard that specialized in Force spells.I am assuming you got this from the 3.5 force missile mage or whatever it was called. I never saw the class in actual play, but I heard it made GM's cry. If it was as powerful as I heard it was I understand why it was "overlooked".
Then again I don't remember a lot of posters asking for it so maybe it was an issue of the quiet wheel not getting the grease.
It mostly just made a first level spell quite a bit more powerful. Truthfully, if the DM had much of anything really going on in his game, it could be very weak.
It also needed Ultimate Magus to fully work, or the ability to convince your DM that higher level spells that acted similar to magic missile, counted as magic missile for the classes effects. If the latter happened, it probably got ridiculously powerful.
|
|
3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost ChannelingI disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
They do have a few. But how many classes can channel energy now. Cleric, Pladin, Oracle, Wizard, Druid, . . . What I mean was I was hoping for some Channeling Feats exclusive to those classes, or at least only open to a few of them along a theme. Versatile Channeler is a little too restricted, but along those lines.
|
|
It's cool, the only way Beckett could ever be remotely satisfied with UM was if it errated Cleric into a full BAB, heavy armor wielding class with a spell list that makes Wizards cry at night and out-DPRs Fighters by a mile.
I don't even think I mentioned the Cleric, you did. None of my reasons are about the Cleric specifically, and no, that wasn't my main focus or reason for not being particuarly fond of the book. I have no interest in what you said, actuallly, and it gets annoying when people fail to read and assume something that is not the point at all.
|
|
First off I want to say I am very happy with UM, I did have expectations (dreams) of what I wanted in the book. But I don't think there are many people who did not buy this book. For a book labeled UM I expected Prestige classes, magical items, cantrips. And if it were to just have spells we'd expect more offensive spells for all classes, not just wiz/sor & the Magnus. In my opinion Magic missile and other spells are setting the bar for their levels, as described in the book. And I expected the book to have more spells in the book that set the bar for other classes and other level spells.
I was hoping for a wizard archetype or options for a wizard that specialized in Force spells.I am assuming you got this from the 3.5 force missile mage or whatever it was called. I never saw the class in actual play, but I heard it made GM's cry. If it was as powerful as I heard it was I understand why it was "overlooked".
Then again I don't remember a lot of posters asking for it so maybe it was an issue of the quiet wheel not getting the grease.
It could be this person could be asking for something similiar the the 3.5 Complete Arcane Argent Savant. Which I would not mind seeing also.
They do have a few. But how many classes can channel energy now. Cleric, Pladin, Oracle, Wizard, Druid, . . . What I mean was I was hoping for some Channeling Feats exclusive to those classes, or at least only open to a few of them along a theme. Versatile Channeler is a little too restricted, but along those lines.3.) More exclusively Non-Wizard stuff. Feats to boost ChannelingI disagree with you on alot...but that is just personal opinion....but they did have feats that effected channeling:
Channeled Shield wall
Life Lure
Quick Channel
Versatile Channeler
Um....well Paladins to get a lot of feats based of their Lay on Hands ability which is base of their channeling.
But as far as I know....only Clerics and paladins and life oracle can channel(that is only if you select it). I know wizards can't....and I don't remember druids gaining the ability to do so.
I'd say the biggest disappointments for me..
Lack of Cantrips. I would have loved a few cantrips like No Light (creates "non magical" darkness) or Summon Caltrops.
Lack of magic items.
Lack of Magical PrCs. Things that combine multiple classes together. For example, the internal alchemist BEGS! for a monk MC PrC. The slew of Ki based spells beg for Monk arcanist, or sacred fist-esc PrCs. I'm quite certain we can find more that could have been made. But seriously a Drunken Monk/Internal Alchemist? That would have been AWESOME!
Lack of magical based alternate racial features, and more favored class bonuses.