Mythic Feather Fall can one-shot almost everything in the game


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
So glad that I will never have to deal with Mythic crap....

People can cheese and abuse anything. It is quite obvious this was not meant to work anything like this. Don't let abusive people sour you on something that is actually quite cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it is those damn people reading and using the spell, not the people who made the spell


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you? Play-testing exists so that such "bugs" can be detected and fixed. You cannot blame the players for finding ways to exploit such things. It happened in 3,5 version and it will happen again. As long as companies bring out new material, players will keep inventing new combos. Do not forget that a lot of people that play Pathfinder or D'n'D also play some video games like WoW, LoL, etc, where it is essential for you to find the most effective build for your character. Combat oriented pen 'n' paper games are no exception for some of them.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colfenor wrote:
Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you?

Science asks the question 'can I do this'. Philosophy asks the question 'should I do this'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Colfenor wrote:
Why is it wrong to use something that is given to you?
Science asks the question 'can I do this'. Philosophy asks the question 'should I do this'.

Gamers ask the question "am I having fun by doing this", if I may add. Though the real question would be "am I spoiling the fun of others with what I want to do". That's why GMs exist.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Players are responsible for their own actions at table.

"The rules say I can" is no more excuse than "it is what my character would do".

It does not absolve the player of making the choice.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Players are responsible for their own actions at table.

HOW DARE YOU !!!

This is just BADWRONGFUN !!!

:-)))


Diego Rossi wrote:

2) the OP assume that dropping a handful of pebbles don't count as an action. True if you are dropping them to free your hand, not true if you are dropping them to hit a location.

That is an attack.
Guess what? Even with a full attack and a BAB of +20 you are limited to the number of attacks you can make.

Except they're being dropped while already falling. No aiming is needed, just release them.

Quote:

3) The attacks are sequential, not simultaneous. So there is a problem on the timing of the casting of Feather fall.

FF is a targeted spell. It is a "bit" hard to target a pebble that you have dropped 4-5 seconds ago. In free fall it has traveled between 80' and 120'.

As has the caster. Everything is falling at the same rate, you're right next to them.

I think the real problem here is that object falling damage doesn't work right.


Not sure if in Pathfinder this work this way but let me explain, concussive damage is or can be interpreted as bludgeoning damage therefore you can apply damage reduction and since every rock inflict their own damage you apply the DR to each rock, still a lot damage pass but is something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Not sure if in Pathfinder this work this way but let me explain, concussive damage is or can be interpreted as bludgeoning damage therefore you can apply damage reduction and since every rock inflict their own damage you apply the DR to each rock, still a lot damage pass but is something.

Another flaw is that Intensify, Empower and Maximize feats are not legal feats for Feather Fall. If the base spell cannot use these feats, I would not allow them to be used by the Mythic version since the Feats must be added to the spell first. You don't memorize Mythic Feather Fall, you have a Feather Fall spell that you know how to add Mythic Power to if you choose.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Metamagic feats stack with one another unless specifically noted that they do not.

So, yes, you can Maximize an Intensified Burning Hands from 5d6 to 10d6 and get 60 damage. You can then Empower it and get an additional +5d6 out of it.

No, you aren't going to be able to accumulate clusters of damage independently with this spell. Spells don't work that way. The damage from the Mythic Feather Fall is all going to be considered 'one source', not multiple sources. You either have to stagger them out so the people affected have time to avoid them (effectively 'attacking' with the pebbles) or they are simply going to be counted as one 'object' whose force gets released when the first hits. Thematically, I'd just have them all hit bam-bam-bam with cumulative blasts that add up to the standard damage, as opposed to the BIG boom when something substantial happens.

This is the exact same reasoning why Wall of Fire does 2d6+1/level. If you pass through the Wall of Fire, you take the same damage as if you stand in it for one round. Same rule of effect would apply.

And Salazar, you can apply metamagic feats to a spell that can't use it, it just doesn't do anything. There's no rule requiring a spell to have variable components to Empower it...the Empower just doesn't do anything and costs a higher spell slot.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Aelryinth wrote:

Metamagic feats stack with one another unless specifically noted that they do not.

So, yes, you can Maximize an Intensified Burning Hands from 5d6 to 10d6 and get 60 damage. You can then Empower it and get an additional +5d6 out of it.

No, you aren't going to be able to accumulate clusters of damage independently with this spell. Spells don't work that way. The damage from the Mythic Feather Fall is all going to be considered 'one source', not multiple sources. You either have to stagger them out so the people affected have time to avoid them (effectively 'attacking' with the pebbles) or they are simply going to be counted as one 'object' whose force gets released when the first hits. Thematically, I'd just have them all hit bam-bam-bam with cumulative blasts that add up to the standard damage, as opposed to the BIG boom when something substantial happens.

This is the exact same reasoning why Wall of Fire does 2d6+1/level. If you pass through the Wall of Fire, you take the same damage as if you stand in it for one round. Same rule of effect would apply.

And Salazar, you can apply metamagic feats to a spell that can't use it, it just doesn't do anything. There's no rule requiring a spell to have variable components to Empower it...the Empower just doesn't do anything and costs a higher spell slot.

==Aelryinth

On page 112 of the Core rulebook, it says that Metamagic feats cannot be used with all spells. See the feat description for spells a feat cannot modify. The way I read that is if a metamagic feat cannot actually modify a spell, it can't be used on that spell.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.

Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.

Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.

==Aelryinth

I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?


My simple solution is that I just won't allow any target to take damage from this spell more than once per round. That way they'll only take 5d6, and this will encourage players to try and spread out the impacts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I respect the concerns of some people in this thread, I think that in order to avoid frustration from such combos, the GM should make a contract with the players at the beginning of a campaign about what is and what isn't allowed. This means that source books should be carefully picked and examined and more importantly, books that get published during the campaign should be avoided in general.

Instead of trying to nerf a combo just because it is overpowered, GMs should just accept it and agree with their players that such stuff should only be used as a last resort or during meaningless battles. This way, you can keep players happy, as they know that they have access to their lifesaver button and have the chance to show off and GMs can stay calm as they know that crucial battles will not be steamrolled.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Players are responsible for their own actions at table.

LIES AND PROPAGANDA!!!


While the first stone landing can't damage the other stones, I would rule that it would propel the other stones at least 30 feet away before they land as it is concussive force. This would severely limit the damage done and be fair to the rules of the spell.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Until this is errataed, I'll simply rule that the blasts don't stack in terms of damage, similar to some other effects in the game.

Liberty's Edge

Salazar wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.

Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.

==Aelryinth

I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?

I am with Salazar on this. Since the base Feather Fall does not have "variable, numeric effects", Empower or Maximize cannot be used on it. And thus cannot be used on its Mythic or Augmented versions either.

The nice trick of the OP then does not create the rain of absolute death we were blaming on the designers' oversight. It just means that the designers seem to have a far better and more comprehensive grasp of the rules than we do.

Which I think is far more likely than an oversight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:
Salazar wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

That's a good point, but it still doesn't prevent you from meta'ing a spell uselessly. Used with and used on are actually different things. The feat would actually have to say which spells it can't be used on...i.e. personal-only spells, non-instantaneous spells, etc.

Empower, maximize, etc, don't have that language. So, yeah, you can meta spells they do absolutely nothing for.

==Aelryinth

I think that there is room for honest disagreement on this and would like a FAQ answer because none of the metamagic feats use your specific phrasing. Instead they all have phrasing such as spells without the x are not affected by this feat. Why have that line if all Metamagic feats could be used with all spells, just to no effect?

I am with Salazar on this. Since the base Feather Fall does not have "variable, numeric effects", Empower or Maximize cannot be used on it. And thus cannot be used on its Mythic or Augmented versions either.

The nice trick of the OP then does not create the rain of absolute death we were blaming on the designers' oversight. It just means that the designers seem to have a far better and more comprehensive grasp of the rules than we do.

Which I think is far more likely than an oversight.

Even if the designers have a more comprehensive view of the rules THEY created, they are obliged to share this view with their players. You cannot expect the players to interpret the rules the same way. Pathfinder has created more than enough fails in terms of misunderstanding to make me believe that the designers are simply careless when writing down descriptions.

I will just mention 2 abilities that come into mind right now: Hidden Master and Perfect Lie.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
boldstar wrote:
While the first stone landing can't damage the other stones, I would rule that it would propel the other stones at least 30 feet away before they land as it is concussive force. This would severely limit the damage done and be fair to the rules of the spell.

Immune means immune. It doesn't mean partially immune, and furthermore, nowhere in the description of the spell is any mention of the blasts knocking items back, just damage.

Scarab Sages

Colfenor wrote:
A possible easy solution to the problem would be to limit the damage of the blasts according to the size of the objects dropped. For example, fine objects deal 1 point of damage, diminutive objects deal 1d2, tiny 1d4, etc.

Yep, I think whoever wrote this was visualising someone hefting a sofa off a tenth floor balcony, not having a handful of dropped grit puncture the planet's core.

Scarab Sages

Mathius wrote:

My counter as a GM.

The objects do not land at the same time. The first one lands does 20d6 to all the other objects around. 120 damage will destroy even an andmantine pebble therefore the other objects do not land.

The black raven wrote:
"The targets of this spell are unaffected by these concussive blasts"

They're immune to their own blast, not the blasts of other pebbles exploding microseconds before they land.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.


Am I the only one to think "Hey, to deal 20D6 of falling damage, those objects have to be thrown 200 feet into the air" ?
An ordinary pebble throw would not reach terminal velocity, and the damage would be much less.
And as a DM, I would never allow adding up the dmage from multiple parts of the same spell or effect, unless it is specifically stated to do so in the rules.

Liberty's Edge

Colfenor wrote:
To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.

Funny that you're now arguing "common sense" when this thread was started because your interpretation is twisting RAI as far away from common sense as is possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Colfenor wrote:
To avoid misinterpretations, I believe that the original idea behind the spell was to make a flashy entrance. This means that 4-5 people land together and create a crater at the point of arrival. It makes perfect sense that the spell protects them not only from their own blast, but also from that of their comrades.
Funny that you're now arguing "common sense" when this thread was started because your interpretation is twisting RAI as far away from common sense as is possible.

I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.


The only issue I see with this is that it never says the objects' damage stacks or that a creature can be affected by the concussive blast more than once. Plus, from how I'm seeing it, it's an earthquake like effect, which seems like it would only damage creatures on the ground. Seems like you really need to get a lot of ducks in a row to get this to work as you, though.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Colfenor wrote:
I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.

Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.

We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."

A big difference in approach goes a long way.
Your approach has been 'Look at this crazy combo. I'd never want to use it as a daily tactic, but boy, is this whacked.'.

Which is miles away from "I've been wrecking my home game for weeks, using this, the GM is protesting, and I'm going to stamp my virtual feet and insist I'm entitled to keep on doing it.".

Overpowered options and unintended combos can never be fixed until people drop the GM Fiat option, read the actual text, and agree that 'Yeah, that's badly worded, it needs a rewrite'.


Kenji Elindir wrote:
boldstar wrote:
While the first stone landing can't damage the other stones, I would rule that it would propel the other stones at least 30 feet away before they land as it is concussive force. This would severely limit the damage done and be fair to the rules of the spell.
Immune means immune. It doesn't mean partially immune, and furthermore, nowhere in the description of the spell is any mention of the blasts knocking items back, just damage.

And note the Mythbusters episode where they looked into people being thrown by explosions--oops, that's just Hollywood.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Colfenor wrote:
I'm only using the tools given to me. It's not my fault that the designers are careless, or that GMs are offended by such combos. If it's in the game, it's in the game. If someone doesn't like it, it's his problem. However, trying to attack the validity of such ideas is not the best way to deal with it. I kept saying during the thread that such combos should be used only in extreme cases. If a player abuses them, it's up to the rest of the group to discuss it with him and find a solution.

Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.

We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."

A big difference in approach goes a long way.
Your approach has been 'Look at this crazy combo. I'd never want to use it as a daily tactic, but boy, is this whacked.'.

Which is miles away from "I've been wrecking my home game for weeks, using this, the GM is protesting, and I'm going to stamp my virtual feet and insist I'm entitled to keep on doing it.".

Overpowered options and unintended combos can never be fixed until people drop the GM Fiat option, read the actual text, and agree that 'Yeah, that's badly worded, it needs a rewrite'.

At last someone here understands what I am saying. Thank you Sir :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Despite me trying to disprove this one, you're OK by me.

We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."

I think the devs believe this one as well. I tried to talk about simulacrum to one and his response was basically "ignore everything the spell says and create a custom monster also you are a bad Gm for using the spell as written". I would rather a community more open to change and problems being solved.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."

Except one of the designers, SKR in fact, has specifically stated that you're meant to actually use your brain when you read the rules. And using your brain tells you that feather fall isn't a massive damage spell. People who want to abuse the system and game the system will always be able to, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a little, but the potential will always be there, so why waste efforts on those people when the same amount of effort can improve the game for the other 99%.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I interpreted mythic spells very differently. I interpreted (misinterpreted?) the line:

If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it.

I took this to mean:
1) you begin casting the spell in whatever form you know/memorised (metamagic enhanced or otherwise).

2) THEN convert it to mythic version while casting (as a free action?).

Essentially a diference in timing as to when the mythic power comes into play. So i would say you couldn't apply the metamagics in question since featherfall is not an eligible target to begin with.

If you had a, say maximised fireball, or spontaneously cast a quickened fireball you would start the spell (yes even if a swift action) then convert to mythic as you cast by using MP. This converts the spell to make either a mythic maximized or quickened fireball.

So to use the featherfall, you cast as a swift, and once you start casting you use MP (free action?) to convert it to the mythic version.

I may be very wrong, but I think my interpretation will mitigate some of the issues like this.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:

Players are responsible for their own actions at table.

"The rules say I can" is no more excuse than "it is what my character would do".

It does not absolve the player of making the choice.

So much this. (And I'm quoting you in the "what do people not know about the rules thread.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:


Except one of the designers, SKR in fact, has specifically stated that you're meant to actually use your brain when you read the rules.

My brain tells me that planar binding should be a complex action, which costs a lot of money

Then they printed this

This seems like everyone should follow the planar binding rules, except for wizards.

In this case, feather fall is a non damaging spell, except for wizards. This seems consistent with wizard powers, tbh


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:

I interpreted mythic spells very differently. I interpreted (misinterpreted?) the line:

If you know the mythic version of a spell, any time you cast the spell, you may expend one use of mythic power to convert the spell into its mythic version as you cast it.

I took this to mean:
1) you begin casting the spell in whatever form you know/memorised (metamagic enhanced or otherwise).

2) THEN convert it to mythic version while casting (as a free action?).

Essentially a diference in timing as to when the mythic power comes into play. So i would say you couldn't apply the metamagics in question since featherfall is not an eligible target to begin with.

If you had a, say maximised fireball, or spontaneously cast a quickened fireball you would start the spell (yes even if a swift action) then convert to mythic as you cast by using MP. This converts the spell to make either a mythic maximized or quickened fireball.

So to use the featherfall, you cast as a swift, and once you start casting you use MP (free action?) to convert it to the mythic version.

I may be very wrong, but I think my interpretation will mitigate some of the issues like this.

This can work backwards though. Since spontaneous spellcasters apply metamagic feat as they cast their spells, couldn't one just say that he waits until the spell is converted to its mythic version and apply metamagic just after this? If this is the case, then those who prepare spells are at a serious disadvantage here.


Colfenor wrote:
This can work backwards though. Since spontaneous spellcasters apply metamagic feat as they cast their spells, couldn't one just say that he waits until the spell is converted to its mythic version and apply metamagic just after this? If this is the case, then those who prepare spells are at a serious disadvantage here.

I would say that spontaneous casters can't do it either. It takes a full round action to actually cast a meta-spell, so you initiate this "before" (even if only momentarily) you apply mythic.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Snorter wrote:
We hear too much Oberoni Fallacy round here, ie "the rule can be houseruled not to work that way, therefore the actual text isn't broken."
Except one of the designers, SKR in fact, has specifically stated that you're meant to actually use your brain when you read the rules. And using your brain tells you that feather fall isn't a massive damage spell. People who want to abuse the system and game the system will always be able to, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a little, but the potential will always be there, so why waste efforts on those people when the same amount of effort can improve the game for the other 99%.

Pretty sure turning mythic Feather Fall into a nuke IS using your brain, and quite a bit too. I love the spirit behind this idea, and while I'm not sure all the rules sync together to make it work, it's a pretty solid thought experiment. I now have an urge to make a mage who does this on a smaller scale, using a hand of buck shot and whipping it at the ground like a megaton shotgun.

The rules are wonky enough to the point where "Use your Brain" isn't a valid argument, and really adds nothing to the discussion. It's like saying "Simulacrum isn't broken if you house rule the crap out of it, like we assume everyone does, and thus doesn't need fixing.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8, Contributor

Personally, I love the conceptual empowerment of the OP's idea and think it raises interesting questions about intent versus optimization. However, I think that there are some assumptions to making this work that are not necessarily granted given the writing of the spell itself. I think that before we discuss house rules and errata for this spell, there's a crucial aspect to be discussed that was originally mentioned by a previous poster and that leaves the power of the spell firmly in the hands of the GM.

The original post is predicated on the idea that the caster drops small objects and then uses mythic feather fall to weaponize them.

Now, we could debate the semantics of the following line in the mythic spell description.

"the spell absorbs the targets' velocity and transforms it into a concussive blast."
Webster's first definition of velocity is "quickness of motion." This would mean that if the pebbles were dropped at the last moment, or from a non-consequential height, their velocity would thus be non-consequential for the spell's absorption.
HOWEVER, that is PURELY conjecture and runs into the problem of real world versus game world physics, which has already been enumerated. I bring it up simply to show that there is room to view alternate intent in the description as opposed to simple developer oversight.

But HERE is the real crux.
What does it mean to drop an item?
It's a free action correct?
Yes.
BUT, as written, the core rulebook says
"Drop an Item
Dropping AN [emphasis mine] item in your space or into an adjacent square is a free action."

Why would the caster get to drop more than one?

Well, that would require us go to the rules for free actions.

Again, Core Rulebook
"Free actions don't take any time at all, **though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn**."

Dropping AN item is a free action, so dropping more than one item already requires the use of multiple free actions and just like speaking in combat is a free action, but reciting all of Hamlet would likely not fit the Free Action description of "don't take any time at all" the rules as they exist already require some at-the-table adjudication for situations like these.

Moreover the rules for dropping an item say that you can drop it into your space or an adjacent space as a free action. So, even if we were to allow up to NINE free actions (which, as a GM I'd be not inclined to do) to account for the caster's own space and the eight adjacent squares for a medium creature that caps the ability unless we start adding enlarge person to give you more space or more reach, or Lunge, etc etc.

All of these, to me, divert from the original point: conceptually, this idea is AWESOME, it is imaginative and I love the OP's work in calculating massive damage from it.
However, the entire premise is based off the idea that they are allowed to make multiple free actions in the same turn in a manner that the description of Dropping an Item, and the definition of Free Actions do not unequivocally support as presented.

I agree that the language of the spell could use polish and clarification, but I disagree that it opens itself up to the loophole and "abuse" calculated. The existing framework for dropping items and using free actions seems capable of handling the situation without houserules or errata in my opinion.

Still...awesome idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

A few nitpicks:

...So you get 49 blasts, which is 4410+245d6. Pretty big damage. But you are spending an 7th level spell to do it, at level 20. And this trick is completely shut down by spell immunity...

Yeah, because you know anybody whose anybody will have Immunity to Feather Fall as a permanent buff.

:D


Colfenor! You rock! I'm going to improve your arsenal however.

Recipe:
1) Mythic Feather Fall
1) Flying Archmage with proper spells, any configuration that makes you happy!
50 or whatever quantity you're allowed) or so items prepared with a Shrink Item spell, I prefer a mix like jelly beans, consisting of (2x level cu ft.) Lava, Rocks, Glass, Cold Iron, Flaming Oil, Tanglefoot bags sized for giants, an ACME piano/anvil and something nasty like Acid. Cast permanency on all of them separately. (So you can pick them up later!) Drop for fun!

If you do this from 200 feet up (approximately) you can cast the feather fall as an immediate action, then when they hit at least the 151' mark say the command word to enlarge them. They build Velocity, our favorite word! and hit with each item doing 10d6 damage - see falling damage rules for stuff dropped. 500d6 plus fire, acid, cold iron, entangling, etc...in addition to your 9000 plus or minus. That's another 2000-3000 damage you're missing out on.

Concerned you might miss your target? Truestrike potion FTW!

Don't short yourself here, you're an Archmage and nukes are just a way of saying Hi!

Oh, and a mention to the immunities, sure you may not have the perfect answer to everything, but mix in some adamantite, silver, etc...or finally a use for Magic Stone so DR gets bypassed. Technically the Shrunk Item IS a magic Item.
Unfortunately this mix of spells often gets followed up by a raging torrent of Purple Dragon of GM Ire Flaming Diarrhea that will swallow your poor Archmage.


I don't think it is very OP because when you are in Mythic tier, anything can happen. What I love to do for OP spell casting PCs would be that everytime they tried to pull powerful tricks to steal all the spot light from others, I will just tell them that tell them that suddenly you feel no magic around you. With your experience, you realized that sometime in some places when there are too much mana gathering and become too dense, it will burst out into other realms and create an anti-magic field temporally. I like that idea because it keeps caster at bay in late levels. Of course, you also had to be fair to them as they were weak at early game, so I normally give magical items that would help caster to survive very early as well.

But yea, the spell combo is powerful, but nothing is OP if the GM keeps it under control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?


Johnico wrote:
So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?

Well, material plane shouldn't always be able to handle so much magic so dense in one spot, the space of material plane just can't handle it, that's why you don't see magic everywhere. However, if players go to other planes where it's very magical, it makes sense for players to be able pull powerful spells. Powerful monsters or deity require offering in some sort to come to material plane because the need something from the material plane in order to stable the space enough for their powerful magic to transfer into this plane.

Also in my game, I rule that in the wild or no magic urban city, it's harder to pull power arcane magic due to the it's own balance in place, make mana harder to flow as the energy in that region has been very stable for a very long time. More technological advanced in certain place, the divine magic would be less stable due to the lack of faith around that region. For those cases, it would be hard to players to do those crazy spell combo without a chance of failing, I have not once found my players think it is unreasonable.

My method make total sense while perfectly control players who take all the spotlight from other players. Material plane is not a plane full of magic, it is a plane where everything is balanced, that's why it is such an important setting for most stories.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually your method is total nonsense, since it is basically "Your spells don't work randomly, and even though you are a practiced spellcaster with many years of experience, you couldn't have predicted it to happen"

If you wanted to have the same effect, you could have a base 10% failure rate on all spells


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SiuoL wrote:
Johnico wrote:
So, basically, your method of preventing spellcasters from stealing the spotlight is to just tell them "nope, doesn't work" with no rhyme or reason?

Well, material plane shouldn't always be able to handle so much magic so dense in one spot, the space of material plane just can't handle it, that's why you don't see magic everywhere. However, if players go to other planes where it's very magical, it makes sense for players to be able pull powerful spells. Powerful monsters or deity require offering in some sort to come to material plane because the need something from the material plane in order to stable the space enough for their powerful magic to transfer into this plane.

Also in my game, I rule that in the wild or no magic urban city, it's harder to pull power arcane magic due to the it's own balance in place, make mana harder to flow as the energy in that region has been very stable for a very long time. More technological advanced in certain place, the divine magic would be less stable due to the lack of faith around that region. For those cases, it would be hard to players to do those crazy spell combo without a chance of failing, I have not once found my players think it is unreasonable.

My method make total sense while perfectly control players who take all the spotlight from other players. Material plane is not a plane full of magic, it is a plane where everything is balanced, that's why it is such an important setting for most stories.

So basically you don't use Pathfinder Magic. Ok, that's great, but it has little to do with this topic.

On topic, this combo seems fine. Compare versus stacked Explosive Runes in CRB.


CWheezy wrote:

Actually your method is total nonsense, since it is basically "Your spells don't work randomly, and even though you are a practiced spellcaster with many years of experience, you couldn't have predicted it to happen"

If you wanted to have the same effect, you could have a base 10% failure rate on all spells

Once again, it's not random. And I would not have a failure rate on all spell because I want caster to be able to cast spell like normal without failure. Now my method will stop caster from spamming their OP spell combo all the time because now they have to think about where they are before they do that. However, they can still cast spell normally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many is too many times? Is it like, per day? Per week? Does the practiced spellcaster know when this will happen or is it always a surprise?
Also, what happens if they cast a spell normally and you deem it op? It suddenly starts to fail randomly?

51 to 100 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Mythic Feather Fall can one-shot almost everything in the game All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.