Xavier319 |
Alright, i've always liked the idea of playing a caster that focuses on a single element type, such as a flame or winter oracle. However, when you run into a something that has high resistance to your element, you're boned. In 3.5 there were ways to get around this, feats you could take that would let you partially bypass it, or items. is there anything like that in pathfinder that allows you to mitigate some of the enemy resistance, like a casting version of penetrating strike? I know you can take elemental spell and change the element, i'm talking about keeping it as cold or fire and getting around resistance to that element. Thanks!
Itchy |
Like rkraus2 said, change tactics. Take some spells that deal damage other than your element, but flavor them to fit the element.
For example, describe your magic missile as icicles (or miniature fireballs or acid droplets, or lightning bolts) shooting out of your fingers.
Or...
Describe your summoned animals as being made entirely from flames (or ice, or stone or wind). There's no mechanical difference, they are not dealing elemental damage, they just fit your element.
Magic Weapon: describe it as a coating the weapon in ice or fire.
Spiritual Weapon: Describe it as a weapon composed of ice or fire.
etc...
Be creative and have fun with it.
-Aaron
Castarr4 |
Be a blaster sorcerer (elemental bloodline). Choose acid as your element. Never take any acid spells, but just substitute acid element in from your bloodline ability. Get bonuses when dealing acid damage. When acid is ineffective, just cast the spells you already know without substituting the damage type.
Change "acid" to "fire" or "cold" or "electricity" to taste.
LazarX |
Alright, i've always liked the idea of playing a caster that focuses on a single element type, such as a flame or winter oracle. However, when you run into a something that has high resistance to your element, you're boned. In 3.5 there were ways to get around this, feats you could take that would let you partially bypass it, or items. is there anything like that in pathfinder that allows you to mitigate some of the enemy resistance, like a casting version of penetrating strike? I know you can take elemental spell and change the element, i'm talking about keeping it as cold or fire and getting around resistance to that element. Thanks!
If you're determined to be single element there's only one thing to do about energy resistance (which is not immunity!) You have to take the Fighter's Power Attack approach to DR, which is mainly to pile on more damage for each spell.
Now some PrC's (such as the Winter Witch) and feats have options in which some of a foe's resistance (usually that of a particular element,like say cold) can be ignored.
Dekalinder |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you start describing whatever spells as made of fire and it then does not deal fire damage you are breaking the most important rules of the game, the one even more important than the rule 0. It's a rule that is so much given for granted than no one think of it as a rule, but is embedded into one's playing.
I'm talking about the fact that "things have to make sense". If i'm seeing a black horse made of fire I may not know that is a Nightmare, but i can use my intelligence to deduct that it's maybe a bad idea throwing fireball at him and I would be best served if I used something like Polar ray or the like.
Reflavoring is good, but it still have to make sense and must be universaly understendable and must not rework the fundamentals so much that it become unreicognisable. Magic Missiles are famus for being a force effect, you can't describe them as a phisical icicle.
Aratrok |
Fat Goblin Games has the Pyromancer, which can eventually ignore resistance, still deal half damage with fire to things immune, and completely ignore hardness.
That... doesn't sound like a good thing. xD
Fireballs are already famous for causing a ridiculous amount of collateral damage and destroying a ton of treasure. I can't imagine the amount of havoc you could wreak while ignoring hardness.
LazarX |
Dekalinder wrote:Magic Missiles are famus for being a force effect, you can't describe them as a phisical icicle.But they could still look like icicles. That's the point of the thematic reskinning.
Thematic reskinning taken that far is essentially cheating. It's trying to get out of the bed you made for yourself.
dorgrim |
Bill Dunn wrote:Thematic reskinning taken that far is essentially cheating. It's trying to get out of the bed you made for yourself.Dekalinder wrote:Magic Missiles are famus for being a force effect, you can't describe them as a phisical icicle.But they could still look like icicles. That's the point of the thematic reskinning.
Sorry for going off topic but, please explain how a flavor text *description* is cheating in this example? It's not changing the damage type in any way.
Castarr4 |
Suppose someone shoots what looks like icicles at my friend out of their hand, and I either don't have Spellcraft or I don't make my Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it's being cast. I am going to cast Mass Resist Energy (cold) on my turn based on what I saw. If I saw a fireball, I will cast Mass Resist Energy (fire) on my turn. I will drink a potion. I will hide my Necklace of Fireballs. A spell's visual effects, with the exception of the Illusion school of course, are practically a non-caster's only indication of what the spell does.
I would be highly against re-skinning spells to appear to do different damage types unless the damage types are actually changed or a metamagic feat that does this is used.
dorgrim |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suppose someone shoots what looks like icicles at my friend out of their hand, and I either don't have Spellcraft or I don't make my Spellcraft check to identify the spell as it's being cast. I am going to cast Mass Resist Energy (cold) on my turn based on what I saw. If I saw a fireball, I will cast Mass Resist Energy (fire) on my turn. I will drink a potion. I will hide my Necklace of Fireballs. A spell's visual effects, with the exception of the Illusion school of course, are practically a non-caster's only indication of what the spell does.
I would be highly against re-skinning spells to appear to do different damage types unless the damage types are actually changed or a metamagic feat that does this is used.
It's still moot because any good DM will tell a player what type of damage they took. As an observing character, you are fully within your rights to ask the DM, "Hey, did I see what type of damage she took?"
In my games, SURE! I'll let you try almost anything. Because, *I'm on the players' side.*
Give me a healing check. Don't have healing, what other skills do you have that might work? History, religion, weather? I'd use those too (with a small penalty). Still don't have a skill? Perhaps they've heard stories. "Roll d20 and add your highest class level!" Still no?
"Hey, buddy! Was that attack cold?" -- free action.
Even so, I just might right out and tell that player exactly what happened.
"The spell that the robed Ice Giant cast **looked** like magical icicles *made of force energy*."
Because, we're role-playing, and you can still do it in combat.
And I can easily answer your 2nd example:
"Your party is engulfed by pink flash and black smoke that rapidly dissipates, **burning** you for X damage. The succubus, scantily clad in pink and black lingerie cackles with delight."
Seriously, flavor text isn't cheating by any means, and not the only means whereby a character can figure out what's going on as long as they have a good DM.
Edit: It's not meant to change the spell effect or damage type in any way, only it's appearance for the sake of story and character background.
Castarr4 |
"A sudden blizzard springs up as the evil northerner cackles and chants. You all take X fire damage, reflex DC Y half." (reflavored fireball)
I'm in agreement with you about reflavoring spells being good and fun. It's if someone does something like this example that I take issue. You're making one damage type look like another. If you're conjuring ice, it should deal cold damage. Your succubus example is fine. It reflavors the spell and there is nothing indicating a damage type that is not actually present.
I'm just saying I personally feel there should be limits to how much you can reflavor the look of a spell.
Xavier319 |
My concern is not so much the ability to have versitility, I hate being a one-trick pony. But let's say you are a flame oracle, and you have a good spread of other types of spells, not just fire spells. but you're playing in a campaign that has any kind of demon or devil (see second darkness, not a perfect example) as the main bad guys for the second half of the campaign. It's not that you cant use your shtick against some enemies, ALL of the mare either immune or highly resistant to your element. That is what frustrates me.
LazarX |
My concern is not so much the ability to have versitility, I hate being a one-trick pony.
Then don't play a flame oracle or a winter witch. They are one trick ponies, but that's not a strike against them. It's a strike against the disconnect between the characters you want to create and what you want to be able to do with them.