| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a friend and I were messing a bit:
My GM has allowed use of early firearms, as he allowed my friend to play a gunslinger. With use of the third party feats listed on d20pfsrd.com, we seem to have come up with an overpowered combination. I'd like some thoughts.
My third level magus has the song of triumph arcana (spend 1 arcana pool point for +3d6 sonic damage on a successful hit) and the eldritch athame arcana (spend 1 arcane pool point to make a weapon into another equal or smaller sized weapon for 1 minute per magus level, as well as grant proficiency with it). Two arcanas came from turning in my third level feat.
So, at current, round 1 use eldritch athame to make my +1 sword into a musket and then load the weapon. Round 2, use spell combat to fire the weapon and cast corrosive touch. In the first range increment (40ft) firearms use touch AC instead of normal AC. On a successful hit, my character would deal 1d12+1+3d4+3d6 damage.
Till we figure out if legal, I'm not going to use this combo, as it seems wildly out of balance for a third level character to inflict 8-43 damage (bludgeoning, piercing, sonic, and acid).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some good 3pp's such as super genius. I would not just allow a feat without at least thinking about how it applied in theory do, and if the 3pp is unknown then it is more likely to get a no.
|
I'm seeing a couple of problems here. For one you can't spell combat with a musket or spellstrike with one either. Second that song of arcane triumph arcana looks broken especially compared to the cannon pool strike arcana. I would recommend refraining from using it.
WOW!! that is the most amazingly overpowered feat I have ever seen.
song of arcane triumph arcana
I so have to talk my GM into letting me use this feat.
To clarify a few things. I gained one arcana for third level. The feat allows you to gain another arcana instead of a feat.
On further reading, this makes sense. The spell would be eliminated from the equation, as one cannot use them through a ranged weapon. It does not address the idea of eldritch athame to create a weapon made of pure energy, nor is there anything that prevents song of arcane triumph from being tossed into the mix.
Thanks thus far too for the input. Seems sometimes my mind gets ahead of my eyes.
I always find it depressing that people are so willing to write off all 3rd party because of a few broken or unbalanced things, but they don't do the same with Paizo stuff.
Antagonize is in the book?! No more Paizo stuff!!!!!!!111oneone!1one
I should probably mention I did a lot of editing on the book that that arcana is from.
The idea for this arcana is that only elves can take it, since they are the best gishes. It's a case of "Of course it's supposed to be powerful, they're the best at what they do!". The fluff states that only elves of a specific order teach this, and divorced of the fluff it loses that. I do think it's a bit too powerful though, so I'd alter it to allow it in my game.
I noticed the arcana when going through it, and IIRC, it's meant to be based off of some of Monte Cook's work.
|
To clarify a few things. I gained one arcana for third level. The feat allows you to gain another arcana instead of a feat.
On further reading, this makes sense. The spell would be eliminated from the equation, as one cannot use them through a ranged weapon. It does not address the idea of eldritch athame to create a weapon made of pure energy, nor is there anything that prevents song of arcane triumph from being tossed into the mix.
Thanks thus far too for the input. Seems sometimes my mind gets ahead of my eyes.
Well, wait a second. How big's your arcana pool to begin with? Because at one point to get the gun and one point to activate the arcana and a save for half on the damage to begin with, I'm not sure I'm really seeing a broken combo here. (Particularly since, with the gun route, you're also paying 12 gp per shot, money you're spending just to be able to use this combo.) And let's not forget either the size requirement - if you're using a longsword, a one-handed weapon, you shouldn't be able to convert it to a musket, which is a two-handed weapon.
This is illegal
spell combat only works when "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand." or your not turning the weapon into a musket.
extra arcana only gives one arcana not two.
Song of arcane triumph has a Fortitude save for half damage and only works on a single attack (pool strike does full damage)
Instead of making two attacks with spell combat and corrosive touch your making one attack with eldritch athame and song of arcane triumph (with a save for half). So its less damage if you hit with both attacks.
Also when someone points out a legal use of an ability that is broken I am happy to fix it so that we can maintain balance, so I will be taking a hard look at this and one can expect an update in the next few weeks.
This is illegal
spell combat only works when "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand." or your not turning the weapon into a musket.
Song of arcane triumph has a Fortitude save for half damage and only works on a single attack
Instead of making two attacks with spell combat and corrosive touch your making one attack with eldritch athame and song of arcane triumph (with a save for half). So its less damage if you hit with both attacks.
I will still take a hard look at this and see if we need to make an update since the gunslinger has been introduced.
Perhaps it should be an attack action? All or nothing.
Or Bladesinger only.
As to making it into a musket, the arcana allows you to convert the weapon into a weapon one size bigger or one size smaller. A medium longsword could become a two handed sword by that definition, couldn't it?
We hadn't calculated the save for half damage as well. At third level with a 19 int, I have 6 arcane pool points.
So what I am seeing is an ability that is 1d12(musket)+enhancement and whatever the weapon converted had + 3d6 sonic (dc 15 for half)... that I can use a maximum of 5 times a day at 12gp per shot, and that is if I want to burn off all of my points in one minute of combat?
As to making it into a musket, the arcana allows you to convert the weapon into a weapon one size bigger or one size smaller. A medium longsword could become a two handed sword by that definition, couldn't it?
We hadn't calculated the save for half damage as well. At third level with a 19 int, I have 6 arcane pool points.
So what I am seeing is an ability that is 1d12(musket)+enhancement and whatever the weapon converted had + 3d6 sonic (dc 15 for half)... that I can use a maximum of 5 times a day at 12gp per shot, and that is if I want to burn off all of my points in one minute of combat?
Yes, but you're better off just whacking someone with Shocking Grasp and this with a sword twice.
Also, this will be changed soon enough, so don't get too attached to it.
Yes, but you're better off just whacking someone with Shocking Grasp and this with a sword twice.
Also, this will be changed soon enough, so don't get too attached to it.
Good point. The damage would be more consistent with multiple attacks. Lol feels like a hunter playing WOW, mention something over powered and get the nerf stick. All good though, if used this was going to be a weapon of true last resort. Plus, I don't really have the gold to burn at 12gp an attack.
And as for the confusion, I didn't get two arcana from one feat. Ding level 3 get one arcana and a feat. Turned in the feat for another arcana. Two total. Seems people are sticking on that.
You need to figure in the load time of the musket as well. Given that, this will be a two round to pull off thing... not sure you really come out ahead in damage.
You need to figure in the load time of the musket as well. Given that, this will be a two round to pull off thing... not sure you really come out ahead in damage.
Another good point. If I really wanted to pursue it later and devote skills and feats it could come out, but I'd be better off focusing on existing strong points instead of trying to create one.
I love the idea of crowd sourcing these things. A lot of variables that my groups collective eyes didn't catch. Thank you all for the input!
Or you know next time you could just email the source. But then again you looted it from d20pfsrd and never actually bought the product :)
Or you know next time you could just email the source. But then again you looted it from d20pfsrd and never actually bought the product :)
*grounds toe in dirt with guilty look* and look at the trouble it caused. :D
I am working on getting my GM to allow it, though I'll probably pick it up for my own reference.
There are some good 3pp's such as super genius. I would not just allow a feat without at least thinking about how it applied in theory do, and if the 3pp is unknown then it is more likely to get a no.Even Super Genius Games has some whacked out or easily munchkinable characters like the Artificer who can pack multiple effects into one device and shoot them all at once in a standard action.
3pp developers unlike Paizo, develop primarily for players intead of gamemasters. They sell these broadsides to players who then badger GM's to allow them in home games. Since these are developed as wish fulfillment devices for players, there's not that much push for balance.
Oh god, that tired argument again? If it's not balanced, no GMs will allow it. If no GMs allow it, products won't ever sell. They can't rely on "being Paizo" to sell products. They need to be balanced.
You seem to be stuck in the mindset of 3e and 3.5, where it was a gold rush. That's not the case anymore.
Plus, Adamant Entertainment did Tome of Secrets, where the artificer was from. The guy behind Super Genius Games also does a lot of work for Paizo.
|
|
3pp developers unlike Paizo, develop primarily for players intead of gamemasters. They sell these broadsides to players who then badger GM's to allow them in home games. Since these are developed as wish fulfillment devices for players, there's not that much push for balance.
This is pretty much how I see it as well. And another reason that I do not allow any rules wise stuff from 3PP. I will maybe use setting info or monster books or adventure/modules but that is really it. Stuff from 3PP IMO just seems to go to far above and beyond from what I have seen done by Paizo and always seems more of flash rather than substance. Stuff made to grab your attention and say whoa cool but doesn't really follow established rules or power levels.
I always find it depressing that people are so willing to write off all 3rd party because of a few broken or unbalanced things, but they don't do the same with Paizo stuff.
Antagonize is in the book?! No more Paizo stuff!!!!!!!111oneone!1one
That's just...
er...
umm...
Damn. That's actually a really good point. I have been thinking about it since I read this post last night and it has been eating at me a bit. I need to spend a little time reconsidering my view on 3PP materials.
Damn you for making me think!
I should probably mention I did a lot of editing on the book that that arcana is from.
Full disclosure of possible conflicting interests doesn't make an argument wrong or right... but I am sure more suspicious when things aren't disclosed... so thanks for being upfront.
Sean Mahoney
3pp developers unlike Paizo, develop primarily for players intead of gamemasters.
I would like to politely disagree with this
Coliseum Morpheuon adventure/minisetting for high level
The Breaking of Forstor Nagar adventure with Virutal Tabletop support
Curse of the Golden Spear trilogy of adventures (japanesse/horror)
Evocative City sites (all 8+ parts of it still going) drop in locations
Faces of the Tarnished Souk (all 12+ parts of it and still going) Npc series
The Book of Monster Templates (our best selling pathfinder product)
The Living Airship adventure
Fantastic Maps (all 25+ parts of it and still ongoing)
Fold-N-Go (all 3+ parts of it and still ongoing)
# 30 Haunts for X (all 3+ [parts of it and talk of an adventure)
#30 Traps for Tombs, 101 Malevolent Magic Items, 101 Monster Feats, 101 Npc Grudges....
Frog God Games does not offer a single player centric product.
Open Design primarily does setting books, design guides, and adventures with only one line for players (Advanced feats).
Tricky Owlbear is primarily known for Fearsome Foes a monster book (and the behind the spells series)
Raging Swan does the lonely coast campaign setting and supplementary materials with a few rare player-centric products.
Alluria Publishing got an ENnie nomination for their underwater campaign setting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it depressing that people are so willing to write off all 3rd party because of a few broken or unbalanced things, but they don't do the same with Paizo stuff.
Antagonize is in the book?! No more Paizo stuff!!!!!!!111oneone!1one
That's just...
er...
umm...
Damn. That's actually a really good point. I have been thinking about it since I read this post last night and it has been eating at me a bit. I need to spend a little time reconsidering my view on 3PP materials.
Damn you for making me think!
I should probably mention I did a lot of editing on the book that that arcana is from.Full disclosure of possible conflicting interests doesn't make an argument wrong or right... but I am sure more suspicious when things aren't disclosed... so thanks for being upfront.
Sean Mahoney
Y'know, I really do understand that some 3rd party stuff is broken. Personally, I wouldn't allow most of the things from Tome of Secrets. Possibly the Swashbuckler. Stuff from A Fistful of Denarii would be under close scrutiny (especially that Full BAB Full Sneak Attack progression class). That book is kind of a special case, since it was an attempt to pump up martial classes.
But balance is an extremely subtle thing.
Oh, it takes expensive actions (some dragons take Standard actions!) to do anything but move around? hmm.
And the PC gets no offensive capabilities? hmm.
And they only get defensive / sensory abilities? Well, that does emulate certain aspects of a dragon...
And they only get light armor?
And their only offensive ability, the dragon, can't go in many places due to the size? I hope you don't have a dungeon crawl. Sure, it might take a while to kill the dragonrider, but he won't be killing you too fast either.
Let's take a look at the weakest Good dragon, the Brass. His starting stats are barely better than a Horse!
Starting Statistics: Size Large; Speed 50 ft.; AC +4 natural armor; Attack bite (1d4), 2 hooves* (1d6); Ability Scores Str 16, Dex 13, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6; Special Qualities low-light vision, scent.
That horse gets +3 1d4+3 bite, and -1 1d6+3 hooves. Also has +4 natural armor.
Size: Small; Speed: 50 ft., fly 50 ft. (clumsy);
AC: +2 natural armor
Attack: bite (1d4), 2 claws (1d3)
Ability Scores: Str 11, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10
Focus: swift action
Special Attacks: breath weapon, 1d4 fire, 30 ft. line;
Special Defenses: immunity to fire, paralysis, sleep;
Special Qualities: darkvision (60 ft.), low-light vision, scent.
This guy gets +2 1d4 bite, and +2 1d3 claws. Already that horse is doing better damage than this dragon. Yes, he can fly (badly). Yes, he can do 1d4 fire damage every 4 rounds (an astounding .625 DPR!). And yes, he has darkvision. And to get him to do anything but herpderp around, you need to use a swift action. That isn't much, but again, this is the weakest.
Now the strongest one? Yea, that's impressive.
Size: Large; Speed: 40 ft., fly 30 ft. (clumsy);
AC: +7 natural armor
Attack: bite (1d8, 10 ft reach), 2 claws (1d6)
Ability Scores: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 14
Focus: standard action
Special Attacks: breath weapon, 1d8 fire, 15 ft. cone;
Special Defenses: immunity to fire, paralysis, sleep;
Special Qualities: darkvision (60 ft.), low-light vision, scent.
Very powerful, but you can't do anything. At 8th level, it becomes a move action to command him. Welp, can finally hit people too, but you still can't full attack. It's not until 16th level that you can full attack and use the dragon, and by that point balance is already out the window.
You really do need to judge everything equally, especially since Paizo contracts out 3rd party guys quite often to work on crunch books (look at the list of people who authored UM / UC!). You also need to judge it carefully.
For example, what if I told you of a 3rd party book that gave barbarians the ability to move and full-attack, had a class that had unlimited use of some magic (which included to put an enemy to sleep for a lonnnng time, as well as force rerolls), another class that had a pet that could do obscene amounts of damage while moving about the battlefield, or daze an opponent just by hitting him? Those are all far past the "established power curve" as set by the CRB. And the book I'm talking about is the APG! One of the best splatbooks of all time.
Antagonize, Synthesist, snap shot. An archetype that totally obsoletes the rogue (hi there vivisectionist. Command your pets to spring traps.).
Take a look at this feat combination: Combat Reflexes, Greater Trip, and Paired Opportunists. Let's say 3 people have Combat Reflexes and Paired Opportunists, and one of those has Greater Trip. They're all fighting the same enemy, and one person is adjacent to two people while the rest are adjacent to just one. What happens? The guy with G.Trip trips the enemy. He falls, provoking an AoO from the guy who tripped him, and his allies. Now due to Paired Opportunists, each of those AoOs triggers *another* AoO from adjacent allies. And they get +4 to it.
So that's something like 6 AoOs after the trip. Then the tripper gets to finish his attacks.
And then the enemy stands up, triggering at least 6 more AoOs. This time with +8 to hit from Paired Opportunists and since he's on the ground.
An enemy can't survive that! There's a really good chance that he'll be dead before the tripper even finishes his full attack!
Even with just two people, that's ridiculously powerful.
Should one write off all of Paizo's work because of this?
Regarding the charge of "wish fulfillment"...isn't that the whole point of RPGs? We get some awesome idea in our head, and we would like to play it out in our awesome little fantasy world. Everything is tools to fulfill that wish. All the classes Paizo has put out, all the archetypes. All the feats, all the spells! Everything. SKR's profile (who, by the way, writes forewords for SGG) even says that he's making options for all playstyles, all character concepts. Is that not the very essence of wish fulfillment? People say that as if it's a bad thing!
You mean there's an option out there that helps me better realize my character concept? Awesome, lemme see it!
Back to the topic on hand...
This arcana isn't balanced. I think a quick fix of making it only for the Bladesinger archetype (which it's supposed to be for anyways!) and then making it an attack action (good bye spellcombat, hello vital strike) will go a long way to making it better. I also have other ideas for it, and Rite Publishing knows my views by this point. At the very least, a level prereq. He's already said there'll be errata soon, and I think he'll be taking into consideration the precedent UC set with Thunderous Pool Strike. (Side note, Clinging Pool Strike is just nastily powerful. Spellcasters can't cast easily through that!)
|
Even Super Genius Games has some whacked out or easily munchkinable characters like the Artificer who can pack multiple effects into one device and shoot them all at once in a standard action.
On the one hand I like the phrase "even Super Genius Games," which certainly suggests you think we normally get it right.
On the other hand, that's not our artificer. We don't have an artificer. The closest we get is a set of rules for spagyric devices for alchemists, which are cool but absolutely don't have the power you just outlined.
3pp developers unlike Paizo, develop primarily for players intead of gamemasters. They sell these broadsides to players who then badger GM's to allow them in home games. Since these are developed as wish fulfillment devices for players, there's not that much push for balance.
I can see why people might think that. I can even see it might be true for some companies. But I have always felt for long-term success, the things I write for Super Genius Games must be as balanced as the ones I write for Paizo. Otherwise GMs just end up saying "I don't allow any 3pp" or even just "I don't allow SGG products" and then I can't sell anything.
We do try to hit a balance of GM-themed products, including our One Night Stands and Mythic Menagerie books. And even out class and spell and feat oriented products often have sections telling GMs why we wrote the rules the way we did, how you might change them if you want a different effect, and ways you can introduce and use this material in a campaign. Because I see GMs as the harbingers of a successful business. If GMs like my products and buy and promote them, their good opinions will multiply and garner greater sales.
Also, I allow all SGG products in my own campaigns, and I run Pathfinder more than I get to play it. So when I write or publish anything, I have to ask myself "How are my players going to user this against me?" (And with playtesting, they often get a chance to show me, rather than just having to guess.)
Or you know next time you could just email the source. But then again you looted it from d20pfsrd and never actually bought the product :)You say this like its a bad thing? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying ANY 3pp sight-unseen. Have to check it out somehow. Being available on d20pfsrd means this can happen. If I see enough that I like to make a product worth buying, I'll do so. If you meant this as sarcasm, or was stating this with a light-hearted tone, its hard to get through text, so I apologize if you meant no ill will by this statement. I just seemed spiteful in my reading, that you were angry someone was using stuff from your book that was on d20pfsrd instead of buying the whole product.
The ":)" face was meant to say I was having a bit fun with a light-hearted tone.
Also when someone points out a legal use of an ability that is broken I am happy to fix it so that we can maintain balance, so I will be taking a hard look at this and one can expect an update in the next few weeks.As it is, my tone deaf magus who can't carry a tune in a bucket is not restricted from using this feat.
I would strongly suggest putting in a Perform (Sing) Check requirement, one whose DC should scale with the potential amount of D6 damage that would be rolled. I would also limit it to the first successful attack in that combat round.
noted