Trait bonuses usually don't stack, so I think its quite possible that Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage wouldn't stack either. Overall, the build comes across as less inventive and more cheesy.
What bloodline are you looking at?
Get a lesser rod of persist spell when you can afford it. Looks pretty good, also consider expanding his repertoire if you get to high levels as a geysermancer, using Spell Perfection on geyser to help it along.
Also, since neither trait gives an actual bonus, by RAW those two traits do actually stack. I would like it if they did not, but no FAQ has addressed that other than to say they can't stack to reduce a spell below its normal spell level (which implicitly means they can stack when not trying to do that, also...).
What does the Birthmark trait do for you?
Unnamed bonuses always stack.
Until there's Errata changing it, those traits work fine together. If this is for a non-PFS game, GMs may want to consider house-ruling this combination if they feel it's overpowered.
"When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level."
"When you use the chosen spell with a metamagic feat, it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would."
These do not stack because there's nothing to stack. Both do the exact same thing. They treat the spell's level as one level lower than it normally would.
Treating something as one lower (or higher) is not the same as adding or subtracting 1. If two abilities add 1, then you've added two. If two abilities treat something as if it were 1 higher than normal, then it's one higher.
So, in the end, you get no benefit from having both traits for the same spell.
So would this level 6 dazing stone call sorcerer build work well.
Str:7
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:10
Wis:11
Cha:22 (+2 item)Traits: Birth Mark, Havock of the Society, Wayang Spellhunter (stonecall), Magical Lineage (stone call)
Feats:
1st Extra Traits, Spell Focus Conjuration
3rd Greater Spell Focus Conjuration
5th Dazing SpellThat way he ends up with dazing stone calls that have a reasonable high dc 20 will save that hits all enemies in a wide radius ignores sr and dazes enemies for 2 rounds as a third level spell .
How would they improve this build (get it as a standard action) are there anythings immune to being dazed?
Bludgeoning damage is highly resistable and that massive area of effect will often make it difficult to avoid hitting allies...
Are spells ever subject to DR in PF? It was kind of a confusing issue in 3E as well. In any case, the OP took Havoc of the Society, so unless the monster has DR and immunity or resistance to force damage, the spell will still trigger the dazing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though it wasn't true in D&D 3.5, in Pathfinder, it's been said by designers that any mundane damage (that is, bludgeoning/piercing/slashing) from a spell IS effected by DR.
the OP took Havoc of the Society, so unless the monster has DR and immunity or resistance to force damage, the spell will still trigger the dazing.
Good point. I'd still be hesitant about the unwieldy nature of that massive area, especially in confined spaces.
These do not stack because there's nothing to stack. Both do the exact same thing. They treat the spell's level as one level lower than it normally would.Treating something as one lower (or higher) is not the same as adding or subtracting 1. If two abilities add 1, then you've added two. If two abilities treat something as if it were 1 higher than normal, then it's one higher.
So, in the end, you get no benefit from having both traits for the same spell.
Rules citation needed.
Current rules precedent is that unnamed bonuses always stack. If there is an exception regarding Metamagic, you're going to have to show it.
These do not stack because there's nothing to stack. Both do the exact same thing. They treat the spell's level as one level lower than it normally would.Treating something as one lower (or higher) is not the same as adding or subtracting 1. If two abilities add 1, then you've added two. If two abilities treat something as if it were 1 higher than normal, then it's one higher.
So, in the end, you get no benefit from having both traits for the same spell.
Rules citation needed.
Current rules precedent is that unnamed bonuses always stack. If there is an exception regarding Metamagic, you're going to have to show it.
Uh, that's kind of my point. Stacking is irrelevant to the issue because nothing is stacking.
If something here was giving a +1 or -1 to something, then stacking would be a valid issue to bring up, but neither ability gives a bonus of any kind.
I quoted both traits. Neither grants a bonus or penalty. Both let you treat the spell as if it were one level lower than it actually was. There's no stacking issue at all.
Let me try and explain it in another way.
Scenario 1: I have 5 units. An ability gives me +1 units. Another gives me +1 units. Stacking is a valid issue here. Do I get 5 + 1 + 1 = 7 units? Or do the +1's not stack and I only get 5 + 1 = 6 units?
Scenario 2: I have 5 units. An ability gives me a number of units equal to one more than I'd normally have. Another ability gives me a number of units equal to one more than I'd normally have. Stacking is not a valid issue here because there's no adding or other math. You normally have 5, and both abilities set your units at 6, so you have 6.
I want you to be right, mpl. But I just don't see it as such a sure thing. It seems like it would at best depend on what "order" the traits applied. One flat out makes it -1 level, the other makes it one level lower than "normal." If applied in that order, sure, they don't "stack." If applied in the reverse order, you're getting 1 below "normal" level, and then a global -1 level that doesn't care what the normal is.
And the FAQ on the subject that came out implicitly means they do actually "stack," since it says you can't stack them to get a spell lower level than it was to start with. If you couldn't stack them...period, they would've just said so and stacking them to (for example) turn a 1st level spell into a 0 level spell wouldn't even need to be addressed.
Though it wasn't true in D&D 3.5, in Pathfinder, it's been said by designers that any mundane damage (that is, bludgeoning/piercing/slashing) from a spell IS effected by DR.
Yeah this has been a relatively new errata if memory serves.
One flat out makes it -1 level
Er, which one?
"...treat its actual level as 1 lower..."
"...it uses up a spell slot one level lower than it normally would..."
Both use the "1 lower" terminology, not -1 or anything else for which stacking would matter.
And the FAQ on the subject that came out implicitly means they do actually "stack," since it says you can't stack them to get a spell lower level than it was to start with. If you couldn't stack them...period, they would've just said so and stacking them to (for example) turn a 1st level spell into a 0 level spell wouldn't even need to be addressed.
That faq was clearly for Merciful Spell and any other 0 level metamagic they make in the future.
Sorry MLP, they are bonuses and do stack. The way they are worded is just to clear up the issues that referring to a mathematical negative as a "bonus" would cause.
StreamOfTheSky is correct on the FAQ ruling. The example was for Merciful Spell, but the precedent was for all metamagic.
Damage Reduction: How does DR interact with magical effects that deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?
Although the Bestiary definition of Damage Reduction (page 299) says "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities," that's actually just referring to damage that isn't specifically called out as being of a particular type, such as fire damage or piercing damage. In other words, DR doesn't protect against "typeless damage" from magical attacks.
However, if a magical attack specifically mentions that it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, DR affects that damage normally, as if it were from a physical weapon. (Otherwise the magical attack might as well not have a damage type, as it would only interface with B/P/S damage in a very few corner cases, such as whether or not an ooze splits from that attack.)
For example, the ice storm spell deals 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. If you cast ice storm at a group of zombies, the zombie's DR 5/slashing protects them against 5 points of the spell's bludgeoning damage. Their DR doesn't help them against the spell's cold damage because DR doesn't apply to energy attacks.
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/06/13
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure spell level qualifies as a "check or statistical score" (correct me if I'm wrong), therefore these traits do not, in fact, provide bonuses.
However, I think by strict reading of the RAW, they would "stack" since Magical Lineage has you treat the spell's actual level as one lower when applying Metamagic Feats* (Fireball is treated as a 2nd level spell) whereas Wayang Spellcaster has you use a spell slot that is one level lower than the Metamagic Feat requires* (an Empowered spell would be prepared in a spell slot 1 level higher than its actual level). So if a wizard had both traits applied to Fireball, when preparing an Empowered Fireball, it would be prepared in a 3rd level spell slot (2nd level spell in a spell slot 1 level higher).
*Neither of these can be used to have a spell use a spell slot lower than its "actual" actual level (the above wizard's Merciful Fireball would still use a 3rd level spell slot).
That said, as a GM, I would probably not allow this combo, but as a player I'd be nonplussed if the GM did allow it and another player used it.