Even a freaking Grease will have the same effect because it is difficult terrain which will end up taking so much from his movement so he can only move this round.
You go melee, cast a 5th level spell, and then he can also only move this round.WOW! Great bloodline feature!
You get a saving throw. Fly beats it. Freedom of Movement beats it. Etc.
None of which beats laughing touch.
And if you'll notice, I also said that quickening true strike was usually unnecessary / overkill. A staggering number of terrifying melee monsters have touch ACs that aren't even 10.
(And if it's not a terrifying melee monster, you aren't scared to get into melee with it in the first place so the whole argument is moot.)
1. The saving throw doesn't beat it. You might want to read the spell again.
2. Fly somewhat beats your melee touch attack. Except if you also cast fly for another round to deny him a standard action. And not our simple dumb melee monster anymore?3. Freedom of Movement? Not our simple dumb melee monster anymore? Read below at melee monster!
4. Some yes.
5. If it isn't a melee monster it will most likely have buddies with him. And a melee touch attack still places you right in front of them.
Maybe after your 6 rounds of Buffing your AC will be okay and it might work out. But still we are talking about denying a standard action here.
I don't think you will find many allies on the forums who say that a melee touch attack that denies a standard action is worth more than a Animal Companion...
I removed a post. Don't post angry.
Edit: Removed another post and a bunch of replies to it. Lets not call each other names.
The fact that we need to argue about when to apply the -2 is another nail in the coffin as to why almost no one allows the feat/subsystem.
Since almost no one uses the feat, if you have a GM that allows it, he/she will have his/her own interpretation of the death penalty, accept/use that interpretation.
In essence, this is a moot discussion because it is one of those things punted to the GM to arbitrate.
P.S. For sh*ts and giggles, I agree with Dire Mongooses' argument.
This.
I don't know why its even still in the Player's Handbook and not in the DMs Guide.. all it causes are irritations and if the DM wants to use it EVERYONE will take it anyway. Its by far too good...
I don't think you will find many allies on the forums who say that a melee touch attack that denies a standard action is worth more than a Animal Companion...
Considering I was never making that argument...
FINALLY. BARBARIAN AM WAITING LIKE SEVENTY BILLION HOURS FOR CASTY SHOW 7 CHA FACE BACK ON BOARD.
HAHA, SEE? BARBARIAN AM WANTING CHARISMA DUMP STAT WIZURD, NOT FANCY TALKY SORCERER! WIZURD WANTED MORE THAN SORCERER!
AM HAVING ALL SPELLS AND METAMAGIC FEATS. AM CASTING SILENT SHATTER!
HAHA CONTINGENCY. THAT GENIUS THINKING.
HAHA CONTINGENCY. THAT GENIUS THINKING.FINALLY. BARBARIAN AM WAITING LIKE SEVENTY BILLION HOURS FOR CASTY SHOW 7 CHA FACE BACK ON BOARD.
HAHA, SEE? BARBARIAN AM WANTING CHARISMA DUMP STAT WIZURD, NOT FANCY TALKY SORCERER! WIZURD WANTED MORE THAN SORCERER!
AM HAVING ALL SPELLS AND METAMAGIC FEATS. AM CASTING SILENT SHATTER!
SPELL SUNDER. THAT AM HOW BARBARIAN FIGHTS!
UNLESS CONTINGENCY AM 'SEE BARBARIAN ON BATTY BAT, CRY.' THAT AM GOOD, FITTING CONTINGENCY.
|
It depend Alienfreak.
Why and where the cohort died for the flu?
It was in his bed at home after failing several ST? No problem for the leader.
It was in the middle of a Arctic plain, in winter, wile sleeping in the snow with only a wet blanket, following his lead in an expedition? The leader get the modifier.
It is all about the situation that caused the death. If the cohort was acting on the behalf of the leader or following his orders even an accidental death is a responsibility of the leader and affect his leadership score.
The cohort was minding his own business in what apparently is a safe environment and was assassinated? No modifier for the leader.
Even if the cohort was assassinate by an emissary of the BEEG to affect the leader assets it will no affect the leadership score of the character unless that little fact was know by all the populace.
I think a lot depends on the play style of your gaming group. If you're with a group of gamers who are really hesitant to back down from a fight, the Sorcerer actually winds up better prepared for the fight.
That depends on the group. If the players are good they will have a spell ready for the occasion. Like I have said before, I have yet to see a good player run a sorc or wiz, and not having a spell that matters. At the end of the day the ability of the player is more important than which one he chooses IMO.
|
|
If the players are good they will have a spell ready for the occasion. Like I have said before, I have yet to see a good player run a sorc or wiz, and not having a spell that matters. At the end of the day the ability of the player is more important than which one he chooses IMO.
Actually, I agree with everything you just said.
Plus, the wizard has two major vulnerabilities against a well-prepared sorcerer - the sorcerer can send a swarm of expendable extraplanar beings ahead of time to destroy the wizard's spell book(s) or to destroy the wizard's bonded item.
Finding any caster that does not want to be found is very difficult. There was a wish thread I was in which sidelined into that topic. I would say that finding the caster is a corner case, and the time spent trying to find him would be better spent on other preparations.
|
|
That depends on the group. If the players are good they will have a spell ready for the occasion. Like I have said before, I have yet to see a good player run a sorc or wiz, and not having a spell that matters. At the end of the day the ability of the player is more important than which one he chooses IMO.
I think a lot depends on the play style of your gaming group. If you're with a group of gamers who are really hesitant to back down from a fight, the Sorcerer actually winds up better prepared for the fight.
That is a given, I think.
The point is that the wizard is more susceptible to needing the 15 minutes adventure day that a sorcerer.If the party want to go "one more room" a wizard that has memorized a few utility spells can easily have used up all of his combat spells and be forced to depend on expendables. The sorcerer has more endurance in that situation as, as long a he has spell slots, he will be still capable of casting all of his know spells.
So it depend a lot on the player preferences. He want to depend heavily on a few very good spells that he want always to have available? Sorcerer
He want to be a bit less powerful but noticeably more flexible? Wizard.
In my vision of the classes the sorcerer tend to be a hammer, applying the same solution to all problems, the wizard is a box of precision tools, you need to select the right tool for the job for him to work.
That depends on the group. If the players are good they will have a spell ready for the occasion. Like I have said before, I have yet to see a good player run a sorc or wiz, and not having a spell that matters. At the end of the day the ability of the player is more important than which one he chooses IMO.
I think a lot depends on the play style of your gaming group. If you're with a group of gamers who are really hesitant to back down from a fight, the Sorcerer actually winds up better prepared for the fight.That is a given, I think.
The point is that the wizard is more susceptible to needing the 15 minutes adventure day that a sorcerer.If the party want to go "one more room" a wizard that has memorized a few utility spells can easily have used up all of his combat spells and be forced to depend on expendables. The sorcerer has more endurance in that situation as, as long a he has spell slots, he will be still capable of casting all of his know spells.
So it depend a lot on the player preferences. He want to depend heavily on a few very good spells that he want always to have available? Sorcerer
He want to be a bit less powerful but noticeably more flexible? Wizard.
In my vision of the classes the sorcerer tend to be a hammer, applying the same solution to all problems, the wizard is a box of precision tools, you need to select the right tool for the job for him to work.
I think a wizard just chooses spells that almost always come up as useful(varies from game to game), and just buys scrolls or wands for situational spells*. That is how I see it done anyway. I also have yet to see a situation that can only be solved by one spell aka "not having the right spell".
If that situation were really that common the sorcerer would be in a lot of trouble.
I understand we are doing a lot of theory crafting, and I may have missed any set guidelines, but without them playstyle will always be the factor.
*I also do the same thing for sorcerers.
PS:I have never left slots blank so I never had to use that 15 minute time period.
I agree that finding a sorcerer or wizard that doesn't want to be found is very difficult. But it's not impossible unless the wizard is going far out of his way to be undetected.Plus, the wizard has two major vulnerabilities against a well-prepared sorcerer - the sorcerer can send a swarm of expendable extraplanar beings ahead of time to destroy the wizard's spell book(s) or to destroy the wizard's bonded item.Finding any caster that does not want to be found is very difficult. There was a wish thread I was in which sidelined into that topic. I would say that finding the caster is a corner case, and the time spent trying to find him would be better spent on other preparations.
True. It would depend on how hard he is trying to hide, and how long until the confrontation is supposed to take place. If it is only a few days he won't have to try so hard, but if the event is months or years away then I expect him to be very mobile.
The fact that we need to argue about when to apply the -2 is another nail in the coffin as to why almost no one allows the feat/subsystem.
Since almost no one uses the feat, if you have a GM that allows it, he/she will have his/her own interpretation of the death penalty, accept/use that interpretation.
In essence, this is a moot discussion because it is one of those things punted to the GM to arbitrate.
P.S. For sh*ts and giggles, I agree with Dire Mongooses' argument.
It's not that difficult to understand if you know English.
When your cohort dies, you take a -2 to your leadership score. Nowhere in RAW does it say that Raise Dead removes this penalty. If you bring your cohort back to life and he dies again, you take no additional penalty (as the penalty is capped at -2 per cohort and you've already taken and have that penalty).
English is your friend. Get familiar with it.
I know you are overreacting because leadership is central to your sorcerer defense thesis but that does not give you a license to be an ass about it.
I believe we are both native English speakers yes? Then you bloody well know that English is an ambiguous language full of nuances. To make matters worse, not only do you need to decipher the language (usually pretty easy) but also the developers intent and the rules of the game that are counter-intuitive.
Leadership says "Caused the death of a cohort" equals a -2.
-It does not define what can be considered legitimate causes. Some people argue that if the cohort dies at all in your service you get the penalty because of some reason that really doesn't make sense to me.
-What if the cohort dies for you (-2), you rez him, and he then dies again. Is that another -2? You say no, but some say yes because they interpret it to refer to each death as a separate "entity" while you do not.
Bottom line, there's some ambiguity there. Even for those of us who understand English very well.
The fact that we need to argue about when to apply the -2 is another nail in the coffin as to why almost no one allows the feat/subsystem.
Since almost no one uses the feat, if you have a GM that allows it, he/she will have his/her own interpretation of the death penalty, accept/use that interpretation.
In essence, this is a moot discussion because it is one of those things punted to the GM to arbitrate.
P.S. For sh*ts and giggles, I agree with Dire Mongooses' argument.
It's not that difficult to understand if you know English.
When your cohort dies, you take a -2 to your leadership score. Nowhere in RAW does it say that Raise Dead removes this penalty. If you bring your cohort back to life and he dies again, you take no additional penalty (as the penalty is capped at -2 per cohort and you've already taken and have that penalty).
English is your friend. Get familiar with it.
Isn't that funny. You're talking smack about a rule that is not at all clearly defined. You run it the way you want.
I choose to run it that if a PC spends the money to bring back a character and thus his cohort is alive once again, then he doesn't take the cohort dies penalty. Why would he take a penalty to leadership if his cohort is still alive and no one knows the better? Do you not believe in applying a rule logically? Or do you mindlessly apply the rule regardless of whether it fits the situation?
It depend Alienfreak.
Why and where the cohort died for the flu?
It was in his bed at home after failing several ST? No problem for the leader.
It was in the middle of a Arctic plain, in winter, wile sleeping in the snow with only a wet blanket, following his lead in an expedition? The leader get the modifier.
It is all about the situation that caused the death. If the cohort was acting on the behalf of the leader or following his orders even an accidental death is a responsibility of the leader and affect his leadership score.
The cohort was minding his own business in what apparently is a safe environment and was assassinated? No modifier for the leader.
Even if the cohort was assassinate by an emissary of the BEEG to affect the leader assets it will no affect the leadership score of the character unless that little fact was know by all the populace.
This is logic.
DMs should use it unlike Lillith's Thrall seems to be recommending.
If a cohort dies because a leader sent him on a suicide mission, then the DM should apply the modifier even if the cohort is brought back and tell the player the cohort quit his service and you will have to make a new cohort.
That's the thing with the Leadership feat. The cohort is not a mindless automaton the player gets to do whatever they want with. The cohort must be well treated and should react in a reasonable manner as decided by the GM. The player gives guidelines, the GM is the one that truly decides what the cohort does.
When I run the game, I give a fair degree of latitude with cohorts. But each player that wants Leadership must write up an extensive background on their cohort including their personality, how they came to meet the player, and why they follow them. I don't allow Leadership into the game like I would Power Attack as though you're learning a skill.
You want an NPC that follows you as a leader, then you better act like a worthy leader to follow. If you act too poorly not caring for your cohort, I'll have the guy backstab you and take your stuff if you're cohort is neutral or evil and you mistreat him.
I think the intent is pretty clear. If you keep getting your cohort killed you lose 2.
Sure. My point is, if your cohort has a heart attack or some random psychopath kills him, that isn't you getting your cohort killed.
Your GM can have your cohort ruthlessly murdered every time he walks away from your PC to pee in the bushes, but it's ridiculous to blame the PC for not going along each time.
Hahaha. That would be hilarious.
Sorcerer cohort, "Master, I'm going to take a piss. I'll be right back."
*Entire party groans*
Sorcerer starts to sweat.
Cleric pulls out his bag of diamonds.
No one says a thing. They just wait a while.
Fighter says, "Should we start looking for the corpse?"
Sorcerer, "Yes. It's probably been long enough." Mutters under his breath, "Son of a bi..."
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Its like you're putting words together, but the sentences are senseless ravings.If people weren't working jobs in America, they wouldn't have died on 9/11.
Causes the cohort to die is not dies from random enemy.
Are you seriously telling me that as GM you wouldn't expect a cohort that serves adventurer to accept a certain level of possible death? That's ridiculous.
That would be like the police station getting a bad reputation because a police officer died from the act of a random criminal. When you take on a job such as being the cohort of an adventurer, you accept a certain amount of risk.
Causes death of cohort would have to involve not healing the cohort when he needed it, not spending any resources protectiong your cohort, sending him to engage a dragon alone, or something else that causes the death of the cohort.
Not cohort traveled with adventurer PC and died during the adventure to random evil monster that almost killed the entire party. A DM needs to use reason to decide rules like Leadership. Cause death of cohort means exactly what it says.
I dunno. I think the fact you can copy meta'd spells into your book and they agree with me now is plenty argument enough.
==Aelryinth
No one agreed with you. I'd love to see if you can find a game designer to agree with you, but they probably realize you're just one rare player misinterpreting a rule everyone else seems to understand and play correctly.
So why don't you try to join a Pathfinder society game and see if your interpretation flies with them. That would be a sure way for you to figure out whether you are applying the rule correctly since they pretty much follow the rules as written.
Even the one guy that even saw your argument as having any merit, Blayde, clarified that he uses metamagic scrolls as a means to allow casters to learn metamagic feats while in the field, not scribe them into spell books as is.
You're pretty much alone with your house rule.
I dunno, does the Sorcerer have a Bloodline that gives an initiative bonus? He probably does, right? I haven't actually read through all of them.Nope.
Some of them can get improved initiative from their bloodline feats, but that's it.
Then there you go.
No Sorcerer build can defeat a +10 to initiative Save or Die Wizard.
Sure it's random. But I like the odds.
How do you figure this? You assuming they square off like the old west?
I have a sorcerer with 185 hit points right now at lvl 14. He'll end up with close to 300 hit points. He has SR 14+level. He is immune to crits/precision based damage. He has a 28 Con.
At 16th level he'll have a DR 5/- and Blindsight 60 feet and immunity to acid. He can shapechage into a dragon. That will give him well over 300 hit points while still casting.
So tell me again how no sorcerer could beat a save or die wizard (diviner)?
You pro-wizard guys really don't know what sorcerer's are capable of. You don't play them or design them, so you sort of don't realize how powerful a sorcerer can become.
If you're facing my sorcerer at lvl 20, you're facing an SR of 34, over 250 hit points easy (closer to 300), and Blindsight 60 feet that works past your mind blank or invisibility combos. Your mirror images, your illusions, and can withstand your best Save or Die spells with an incredibly high fort save who will also bieng using some of the samer hammer spells right back at you as he takes your initial onslaught and shrugs.
I'm not saying a sorcerer can slam dunk a wizard or vice versa. But you have to understand that sorcerer's have some nightmare builds as well that if the take full advantage of them, you're not going to have an easy time beating them.
I dunno, does the Sorcerer have a Bloodline that gives an initiative bonus? He probably does, right? I haven't actually read through all of them.Nope.
Some of them can get improved initiative from their bloodline feats, but that's it.
Then there you go.
No Sorcerer build can defeat a +10 to initiative Save or Die Wizard.
Sure it's random. But I like the odds.
How do you figure this? You assuming they square off like the old west?
I have a sorcerer with 185 hit points right now at lvl 14. He'll end up with close to 300 hit points. He has SR 14+level. He is immune to crits/precision based damage. He has a 28 Con.
At 16th level he'll have a DR 5/- and Blindsight 60 feet and immunity to acid. He can shapechage into a dragon. That will give him well over 300 hit points while still casting.
So tell me again how no sorcerer could beat a save or die wizard (diviner)?
You pro-wizard guys really don't know what sorcerer's are capable of. You don't play them or design them, so you sort of don't realize how powerful a sorcerer can become.
If you're facing my sorcerer at lvl 20, you're facing an SR of 34, over 250 hit points easy (closer to 300), and Blindsight 60 feet that works past your mind blank or invisibility combos. Your mirror images, your illusions, and can withstand your best Save or Die spells with an incredibly high fort save who will also bieng using some of the samer hammer spells right back at you as he takes your initial onslaught and shrugs.
I'm not saying a sorcerer can slam dunk a wizard or vice versa. But you have to understand that sorcerer's have some nightmare builds as well that if the take full advantage of them, you're not going to have an easy time beating them.
I have to agree. Sorcerers are very powerful, and winning initiative does not guarantee you a victory in combat. I think that all things being equal or pretty close to equal whoever goes first wins, but "No Sorcerer build can defeat a +10 to initiative Save or Die Wizard." is a statement of absolutes, and they almost never hold true.
With people quoting people quoting people, it can get confusing...
So, I just want to point out that it's Aelryinth who is arguing that he is right until Paizo issues a ruling...at which point he's proven right anyway (otherwise there'd have been no need for a ruling).
That was Aelryinth, not me.
Carry on.
Exactly the reason why Paizo will never issue a ruling. They don't care if some house rule like Aelyrinth's is out there. As long as the majority of players understand how the rule works, they won't worry about issuing a ruling. It's not necessary.
Aelyrinth is just one of the many players that uses a house rule that wouldn't fly in about 99% of games. They can live with it. We all have them, but we don't all try to claim our house rules are the rules as intended as Aelyrinth is doing.
I'd still love to see how many tables allow him to scribe metamagic spells that way.
I am surprised to see him making the argument of that being the intent. Hopefully he is just saying that is his argument for RAW, and not RAI, not that I buy it as RAW either.
I am surprised to see him making the argument of that being the intent. Hopefully he is just saying that is his argument for RAW, and not RAI, not that I buy it as RAW either.
I'd like to know how his table came to that ruling as well. Did Aelyrinth sell everyone on his interpretation of the rules with no resistance or was their resistance and they had a vote or some combination of the two. If that argument came up at my table, there are probably at least three of us that would completely shoot that down. Though I doubt any of five, and sometimes six people at the table, would ever grossly misinterpret a rule in that fashion. Though we do in general vote on house rules with the majority winning.
|
|
I choose to run it that if a PC spends the money to bring back a character and thus his cohort is alive once again, then he doesn't take the cohort dies penalty. Why would he take a penalty to leadership if his cohort is still alive and no one knows the better? Do you not believe in applying a rule logically? Or do you mindlessly apply the rule regardless of whether it fits the situation?
+1 to this. If people start whispering that everyone around a PC gets killed, I can see the rationale for a -2 (or more). If they point to the guy standing next to him, who is alive and healthy as an example, I just don't see people taking that too seriously.
This is logic.DMs should use it unlike Lillith's Thrall seems to be recommending.
If a cohort dies because a leader sent him on a suicide mission, then the DM should apply the modifier even if the cohort is brought back and tell the player the cohort quit his service and you will have to make a new cohort.
That's the thing with the Leadership feat. The cohort is not a mindless automaton the player gets to do whatever they want with. The cohort must be well treated and should react in a reasonable manner as decided by the GM. The player gives guidelines, the GM is the one that truly decides what the cohort does.
When I run the game, I give a fair degree of latitude with cohorts. But each player that wants Leadership must write up an extensive background on their cohort including their personality, how they came to meet the player, and why they follow them. I don't allow Leadership into the game like I would Power Attack as though you're learning a skill.
You want an NPC that follows you as a leader, then you better act like a worthy leader to follow. If you act too poorly not...
Thats what the cruelty modifier is for, no?
If you enter the service of a cruel selfish Leader don't expect to live long. And yet enough people stick with incompetent leaders that regularily send people into suicide missions.
|
|
I choose to run it that if a PC spends the money to bring back a character and thus his cohort is alive once again, then he doesn't take the cohort dies penalty. Why would he take a penalty to leadership if his cohort is still alive and no one knows the better? Do you not believe in applying a rule logically? Or do you mindlessly apply the rule regardless of whether it fits the situation?+1 to this. If people start whispering that everyone around a PC gets killed, I can see the rationale for a -2 (or more). If they point to the guy standing next to him, who is alive and healthy as an example, I just don't see people taking that too seriously.
Thinking back to the first edition loyalty tables, I see it working this way:
- the cohort that was resurrected: increased loyalty, increase resistance against attempt to turn him against the leader and some bonus against attempt to intimidate him when the leader is involved as he know that if he is killed his leader will get him resurrected;
- a leadership score bonus as a "fair and generous leader", possibly above and beyond the standard +1 (it depend on the situation and the level of lord and cohort);
- all the above will be counter balanced (if the situation that caused the death of the cohort warrant that) by the "Caused the death of a cohort" malus.
From my point of view the potential new cohorts and followers will still see working for the leader in question as hazardous duty, so they will be a bit less willing to follow him.
Another factor would be a lessening of the penalty for the death of the cohort as time pass by.
Losing a cohort once in 10 years is one thing, after a time it will be forgotten and forgiven. Getting a cohort killed every few months, even if he is always brought back to life, is very different.
Someone a few post ago stated that if the cohort was killed in a battle where there were several deaths and the party risked a TPK the modifier should not be applied.
I feel that the depicted situation is exactly one of those where the modifier should be applied. Independently from the players and cohort motivations, what other people will see is that the leader chose to fight a almost hopeless battle against a hard opposition.
He can get the "Great renown" modifier for his victory, but the battle still caused several deaths. Most people prefer the easy victories.
I removed some posts. Be civil.
Also, this might not be the best place to discuss the finer points of the Leadership feat. Perhaps that needs it's own thread in the rules forum?
How do you figure this? You assuming they square off like the old west?
I have a sorcerer with 185 hit points right now at lvl 14. He'll end up with close to 300 hit points. He has SR 14+level. He is immune to crits/precision based damage. He has a 28 Con.
At 16th level he'll have a DR 5/- and Blindsight 60 feet and immunity to acid. He can shapechage into a dragon. That will give him well over 300 hit points while still casting.
So tell me again how no sorcerer could beat a save or die wizard (diviner)?
You pro-wizard guys really don't know what sorcerer's are capable of. You don't play them or design them, so you sort of don't realize how powerful a sorcerer can become.
If you're facing my sorcerer at lvl 20, you're facing an SR of 34, over 250 hit points easy (closer to 300), and Blindsight 60 feet that works past your mind blank or invisibility combos. Your mirror images, your illusions, and can withstand your best Save or Die spells with an incredibly high fort save who will also bieng using some of the samer hammer spells right back at you as he takes your initial onslaught and shrugs.
I don't exactly have a dog in this fight, but extremely high level character comparisons tend to make the sorcerer look relatively better, in that one of its biggest effective shortcomings relative to a wizard in actual play (being a spell level behind every other level) eventually goes away entirely.
How do you figure this? You assuming they square off like the old west?I have a sorcerer with 185 hit points right now at lvl 14. He'll end up with close to 300 hit points. He has SR 14+level. He is immune to crits/precision based damage. He has a 28 Con.
At 16th level he'll have a DR 5/- and Blindsight 60 feet and immunity to acid. He can shapechage into a dragon. That will give him well over 300 hit points while still casting.
So tell me again how no sorcerer could beat a save or die wizard (diviner)?
You pro-wizard guys really don't know what sorcerer's are capable of. You don't play them or design them, so you sort of don't realize how powerful a sorcerer can become.
If you're facing my sorcerer at lvl 20, you're facing an SR of 34, over 250 hit points easy (closer to 300), and Blindsight 60 feet that works past your mind blank or invisibility combos. Your mirror images, your illusions, and can withstand your best Save or Die spells with an incredibly high fort save who will also bieng using some of the samer hammer spells right back at you as he takes your initial onslaught and shrugs.
I'm not saying a sorcerer can slam dunk a wizard or vice versa. But you have to understand that sorcerer's have some nightmare builds as well that if the take full advantage of them, you're not going to have an easy time beating them.
Sounds like a fun, strong character. Still loses.
Post a specific build, I'll do the same.Level 14: I'll give you the edge having the even level.
But more or less I'll be at +21 init.
Thats a great beefy Con. So we won't hit it. Hows your reflex save?
Lets start off with a DC 30 Dazing SnapDragonFireworks. We're not nearly done, but I figure that that ought to be enough to end the conversation.Once you're dazed for seven rounds (oh and I can repeat that every round as a move action) I'll summon lowly lantern archons (or let my familiar do it) for the win.
Still, pretty impressive sorc...
...
He might show up with illusions so you have to choose, and true seeing has a limited range assuming he is not mindblanked. This is really more a contest of player ability build than class.
|
It's a pretty interesting decision because while both classes cast arcane spells they are still extremely different. The sorcerer can play the face of the party, but is going to be hurting for the skill points. The wizard on the other hand isn't probably going to be playing the face, but due to his intelligence is going to have more skill points. This is even thematically correct because the Wizard tends to be bookish, while the sorcerer just has his powers and this in turn give him a type of 'magnetism' or some such.
In terms of casting potential I think it's a bit more straightforward than what people are trying to do. The Sorcerer is going to be able to cast more spells a day, but has the drawback that his number of spells he can draw from is a finite amount. This number of course can be modified somewhat for a price such as the human alt. feature, but you are then not getting the skill points or hit point (I think this is still a great trade but still has a cost).
The Wizard on the other hand is going to be able to cast less spells per day, but has the flexibility of being able to create a custom spell list everyday. You also have the benefit of getting the higher level spells earlier. This can be very beneficial if you find yourself changing enemy types, modules with different enemies, different planes or just widely different situations. You can specialize to get more spells, but again are sacrificing some versatility.
In terms of staying power the sorcerer is probably going to excel more than the wizard where you are having several encounters spread throughout the day so you are really having to recast buffs and be throwing many spells. The Wizard on the other hand can, depending on the level, bring the higher level spells and can really lay down hell, but can be taxed if you are having him go through many encounters and keep them spaced so buffs are going to be needing to be recast.
Playability is subjective, but the sorcerer you really need to have a good idea in mind when selecting those spells known or you can really pigeon hole your character. The Wizard on the other hand is going to have to be on the ball with not having wasted memorized spells, but if he makes a mistake on what he is memorizing can probably just not do so again and be a bit more gimpy during one day.
When people claim that the wizard has a wider variety of spells, I can't help but recall that the only arcanist who beat AM BARBARIAN in the recent thought experiment was a Sorcerer (wizards kept getting slaughtered) and that sorcerer did it by casting a spell the wizard couldn't (a Druid spell via UMD).
Link please? I must have missed this and I'd be excited to see the back and forth.
When people claim that the wizard has a wider variety of spells, I can't help but recall that the only arcanist who beat AM BARBARIAN in the recent thought experiment was a Sorcerer (wizards kept getting slaughtered) and that sorcerer did it by casting a spell the wizard couldn't (a Druid spell via UMD).Link please? I must have missed this and I'd be excited to see the back and forth.
So the sorcerer didn't beat the wizard, the UMD skill did. Something any character can do. For that matter wouldn't a druid be more suited to beat AM BARBARIAN based on the above facts?
So the sorcerer didn't beat the wizard, the UMD skill did. Something any character can do. For that matter wouldn't a druid be more suited to beat AM BARBARIAN based on the above facts?When people claim that the wizard has a wider variety of spells, I can't help but recall that the only arcanist who beat AM BARBARIAN in the recent thought experiment was a Sorcerer (wizards kept getting slaughtered) and that sorcerer did it by casting a spell the wizard couldn't (a Druid spell via UMD).Link please? I must have missed this and I'd be excited to see the back and forth.
I'm just trying to figure out what druid spell was so important.
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out what druid spell was so important.So the sorcerer didn't beat the wizard, the UMD skill did. Something any character can do. For that matter wouldn't a druid be more suited to beat AM BARBARIAN based on the above facts?When people claim that the wizard has a wider variety of spells, I can't help but recall that the only arcanist who beat AM BARBARIAN in the recent thought experiment was a Sorcerer (wizards kept getting slaughtered) and that sorcerer did it by casting a spell the wizard couldn't (a Druid spell via UMD).Link please? I must have missed this and I'd be excited to see the back and forth.
Tornado if I recall correctly AM BARBARIANS mount didn't take too kindly to it. Then it just turned into a wait until his rage expires and kill appropriately.
I'm just trying to figure out what druid spell was so important.So the sorcerer didn't beat the wizard, the UMD skill did. Something any character can do. For that matter wouldn't a druid be more suited to beat AM BARBARIAN based on the above facts?When people claim that the wizard has a wider variety of spells, I can't help but recall that the only arcanist who beat AM BARBARIAN in the recent thought experiment was a Sorcerer (wizards kept getting slaughtered) and that sorcerer did it by casting a spell the wizard couldn't (a Druid spell via UMD).Link please? I must have missed this and I'd be excited to see the back and forth.
Cure Light wounds?
I am surprised to see him making the argument of that being the intent. Hopefully he is just saying that is his argument for RAW, and not RAI, not that I buy it as RAW either.
This.
Obviously people have not been reading the repeated intent of my posts. I've reiterated this, what, four times now?
My original argument against metamagic scrolls was because, by the language of the ability to scribe spells, you could scribe a meta'd spell from a meta'd scroll.
This is indeed a RAW argument, not a RAI argument. The flagrant misreading of what I'm saying IS somewhat irritating. The logic trotted out on the other side doesn't work to shoot it down, it basically comes down to "Well, we've never done it that way."
RAW, this is totally permissible. As for allowing it at a table...it's not really that unbalanced, and it would free up some feat slots, plus Sorcs could use it, too, if they wanted to (swapping out fireball for Empowered Fireball, then Delayed Blast Fireball at later levels, etc). It's really nothing more then what goes on in making magic items now available for memory.
Think of it this way. If any wizard WITHOUT a meta'd feat can use a scroll, wand or other magic item effect WITH the feat, shouldn't he be able to CAST that same spell, too? Without having the feat?
A meta'd version of a spell IS a complete spell unto itself. If you can have a magic item of it, you should be able to have a spell of it. The game is built that way.
==========================
For the wizard vs sorc: Remember that sorc can meta the Divine Grace effect spell that adds Cha to all saves. His saves are probably incredible.
Also, where'd you get a level 14 with a 28 Con? Your sorc's point buy must be insane. With a starting 18, a +2 for race, and a +6 enhancer, you'd still need 2 points of Inherent to make 28. And doing so would tank your Cha bonus if you're instead applying level gains to Con.
That's also 9.5 x 14 hp, or about 135 hp. Add false life, ignore spells/level bonus for hp, and you're at 163. Seriously, are you putting levels into Con instead of Cha? If you're not into DC spells, that's not a bad tactic, but still.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Also, where'd you get a level 14 with a 28 Con? Your sorc's point buy must be insane. With a starting 18, a +2 for race, and a +6 enhancer, you'd still need 2 points of Inherent to make 28. And doing so would tank your Cha bonus if you're instead applying level gains to Con.
That's also 9.5 x 14 hp, or about 135 hp. Add false life, ignore spells/level bonus for...
I'm not sure, since I haven't seen the build, but at 14th level he could be casting form of the dragon II (+4 size bonus to Con).
Also, the Sorcerer might have the Wildblooded Archetype with the Pit-Touched bloodline (+4 inherent bonus to Con).
Base 14 Con + 6 enhancement (belt) + 4 size (spell) + 4 inherent (bloodline) = 28 Constitution (no level adds required)
You could reasonably have 58 (levels) + 14 (Toughness feat) + 3 (Favored Class bonus) + 126 (Con mod) = 201 hit points.
If the Sorcerer isn't Human, you'd be looking at 11 more hit points for Favored Class bonus, or 212 total.
Note that the form of the dragon spells are only a 1 min/level buff.
Or...he could have started with a 16 Con, and be getting a +6 inherent bonus (if he was Pit-Touched with Robes of Arcane Heritage)...then he'd be 28 Con all the time (32 Con when using form of the dragon, and potentially 240 hit points before false life).
Anyway, that's just a guess.
This is indeed a RAW argument, not a RAI argument. The flagrant misreading of what I'm saying IS somewhat irritating. The logic trotted out on the other side doesn't work to shoot it down, it basically comes down to "Well, we've never done it that way."
RAW, this is totally permissible.
I think the disconnect is, nobody else thinks that it's permissible by RAW.
So you think they're arguing about the spirit of the rules and they just think you're wrong, and everyone's talking past each other.
|
Nah. Quickend dazing magic missile takes care of figments.
Look, in the general constraints that he announced he is spending feats on shapechanging and con. Fun character -but its really not a challenge to the strengths of a wizard.
It comes down to who goes first - and numbers of actions. Wizard wins on both counts.
Magic Missiles specifically do not get rid of images ... it requires a attack roll of some kind. See the spell.