Convince me Magic Missle isn't useless?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Diego Rossi wrote:
Avh wrote:
Snorri Nosebiter wrote:
if your wild animals aren't threathened or frightened by being hit with a high level magic missile, there's something seriously wrong with the way your DM plays them.

It just tickles a bit. If you were a wolf, would you fear a rat that bites you ? No, you would just devour it.

Magic missile is the same : a rat bite when you're fighting wolves.

Check the rat bite damage and a single magic missile damage. They are a bit different.

And normal predators don't want to be wounded at all. Getting damaged every time you try to take down a prey is a great way to be a dead predator.

Well, wolves aren't exactly gonna bolt the moment they get severely injured. If that was what they did, wolf packs would never bring down anything bigger than a beaver.


Dimon Scion wrote:
Imagine hunting in a forest at night, approaching your prey. You get close enough to hear it mumbling some giberish, see it point its finger at you, and suddenly it sends flashes of light out from nowhere that hurt you when they touch you and you are incapable of evading. If I were you, I'd start running like hell personally.

A real-world wolf wouldn't attack four guys with weapons and armor in the first place.

Magic missile has its place, but if you're using it as a standard tactic you're basically turning a caster into a martial character with inferior damage output, AC and HP.


If wolf packs avoided anything that could hurt them, they wouldn't eat. Wolves would just go after vulnerable members—the party rogue or wizard, for instance—and try to cut them off from the rest of the party. ;P


Wow, I missed the wolves special ability to detect class. Is it an extraordinary or supernatural ability? /humor
(Seriously, I am joking, I couldn't pass that one up.)

While yes a wolf may recognize 'shiny armor' as 'not good to eat' that would only be learned through some level of experience. That means, at some point in the wolf's life it must have been taught (probably via an encounter with a "shiny human") to avoid that. But, it is a more likely lesson that it will avoid humans altogether.

Of course, that is basing D&D/PF wolves on real world wolves. Real wolves really don't attack humans unless pushed to do so (usually by the same humans). D&D/PF wolves will attack based on the writers/GMs whim.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
MM is still pretty good at level 9, for the reasons I mentioned before. If you want to suppress a spellcaster, you really REALLY want your readied spell to hit. Otherwise you wasted your action, AND got hit with his spell. 5d4+5 is enough to screw up someone's Concentration check.
I don't agree with you here. Shield is pretty much guaranteed to be up for any spell caster who had time to buff because he heard you cracking skulls in the next room.
Eh, if I'm a wizard, I generally prepare mage armor. Better duration, and at what cost? It's not like the majority of my foes are gonna be throwing a level one spell at me all the time.

The two stack, which, IMO, makes it worth having both since +8 AC is quite a bit better than +4.


1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually most predatory animals prefer to hunt weak/injured prey. It's easier and safer.

A wolf that gets injured to the point that it can't hunt anymore, starves.

Real wolves prefer rabbits over burly adventurers. GM wolves are often total berserkers, however.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"

It's actually more like, "comparable to a low-damage melee weapon wielded by a character who devoted almost nothing to melee damage."

And with the way D&D/PF does "health?" Yes, that does, in fact, tickle. ;)


And for everyone who thinks real wolves are a pushover... Clearly you've never seen The Grey. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"

It's actually more like, "comparable to a low-damage melee weapon wielded by a character who devoted almost nothing to melee damage."

And with the way D&D/PF does "health?" Yes, that does, in fact, tickle. ;)

Oh, right. I forgot you are not supposed to role play in Pathfinder.


Is your suggestion, perhaps: "I got stabbed? Alright, I drop prone, roll around in 'agony,' and forfeit my turn, because it hurts."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:
Is your suggestion, perhaps: "I got stabbed? Alright, I drop prone, roll around in 'agony,' and forfeit my turn, because it hurts."

Yeah that sounds about right. I mean, clearly your only two choices are that or ignore it entirely.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Eoxyn wrote:

A paladin with a wand of magic missile automatically hits and adds their smite damage to each missile (As Smite Evil specifies every damage roll made against the target)

With Litany of Righteousness up and a CL9 wand of Magic Missile, a mid-level Paladin can one round most evil outsiders, dragons or undead.

Multiple missiles are still one spell. Bonus damage applied to a magic missile spell only applies to a single missile, period, so that includes smite.

For the same reason, he'd only get the smite damage on one scorching ray per spell, too.

==Aelryinth


Got FAQ on that? Eoxyn is correct that the wording specifies ALL damage rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was recently in a Fingerprints of the Fiend game (8th/9th level party), and our wizard's ONLY combat spell was Magic Missile. Empowered, Stunning, Tripping, Maximized... a dozen different flavors, but that was his only combat spell.

Worked quite well, too!

Sovereign Court

Aelryinth wrote:


For the same reason, he'd only get the smite damage on one scorching ray per spell, too.

And sadly, Smite Evil only auto-penetrates DR, not energy resistances.

Too bad, might have been interesting usage for the Aasimar early entry into EK...


Neo2151 wrote:
And for everyone who thinks real wolves are a pushover... Clearly you've never seen The Grey. ;)

I have a "wolf park" near my home, its has a nearly wild enclosure for them and it has a full pack with all the normal dynamics.

One of them alone is really no more dangerous than a medium dog gone feral. As a pack? Yeah, I'm not going near that when they are hungry. They more are willing to get hurt when in a pack, if it brings down a big meal. Hell their pecking order fights can result in pretty heavy bloodshed.

If hungry, and they are required to eat fairly regularly, a wolf is not really going to worry about a hit from a single MM.

In PF a wolf is fully functional until its at 0hp, and since the PF wolf has 2hd, it will heal a MM hit in 2-3 days. Which is less time than a bad bruise or laceration.

The HP system in this game is fairly abstract, but against most things the MM is no different than a really hard punch. A trained boxer can shrug it off, but the average person is going to be really hurt.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Got FAQ on that? Eoxyn is correct that the wording specifies ALL damage rolls.

The wording is also part of the smae sentence which refers to adding charisma to the attack roll. Arugably the damage clause goes with the attack clause and since no attack roll with magic missle no damage bonus for smite.

Now if we do not want to be that pendantic a single spell if say 3rd level does (2d4 +2) to a single target. A Greatsword wielded by a 14 strength paldin does (2d6 +3). Would a third level paladin swing a greatsword do +6 damage since he is rollign 2d6 or +3 damage.

I argue that it is one damage roll, which has multiuple dice (in both cases) and that the smite is added AT MOST once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic missile in 1e was great because of the 1-segment casting time, and the fact you auto-lost your spell if you took damage while casting it. A duel between archmages sometimes devolved into throwing magic missiles at each other because other spells were too slow to get off.

It was also nice in 1e because you could wipe out mirror images with it (making the fighter's life easier) and ablate a bunch of hits worth of stoneskin with it (the latter was way better back then as well).

As TOZ pointed out, the advantages we're left with are extremely situational, which makes it not a top choice for filling a limited number of "spells known" or prepated per day.


So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?

Ruling that a Smite only works if you have to roll to hit doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine anyone at my table making that argument.


thebigragu wrote:
So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?

Point 1 changing the goal posts since the orignal perosn saying smite and MM was good for one shotting an evil outsider cause each MM did smite damage to the outsider.

thebigragu wrote:


Ruling that a Smite only works if you have to roll to hit doesn't make much sense. I can't imagine anyone at my table making that argument.

Expect table variance, honestly this is the first discussion I have seen where it was considered smite might apply to spells rather then just Physical attacks. At our table smite would not be applicable to MM or to Fireball. Now I am willing to consider we might have been doing it wrong. Smite evil does not seem to specify weapon damage "like bard's inspire courage does".

However since it does several times mention attack roll, my INITIAL thought would be it requires at the minimum a spell that makes an attack roll.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Magic missile in 1e was great because of the 1-segment casting time, and the fact you auto-lost your spell if you took damage while casting it. A duel between archmages sometimes devolved into throwing magic missiles at each other because other spells were too slow to get off.

It was also nice in 1e because you could wipe out mirror images with it (making the fighter's life easier) and ablate a bunch of hits worth of stoneskin with it (the latter was way better back then as well).

As TOZ pointed out, the advantages we're left with are extremely situational, which makes it not a top choice for filling a limited number of "spells known" or prepated per day.

Magic missle was ALSO great in 1st edition for tow other reasons.

1) HP were much less... after about 9th level most classes stopped getting dice and only got an extra HP or 2 or 3 (for fighters). In first edition an Ancient Red Dragon had 88 hp (11 hd and 8 points per dice for Ancient).

2) Magic Missle scaling did not stop at level 9. It was 1d4+1 for every 2 levels (if muy memory serves). So a level 29 wizard (top the XP charts went up to) did 15d4 + 15 (average 52.5). This meant 2 MM would take out an Ancient Red Dragon.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"

Yes it does in pathfinder. Damage doesn't prevent you from doing anything, doesn't give you any malus or hinder you in any means.

A dagger wound is healed in a couple days (or a single day if you're 3rd level or something) without any help (so, even for a wolf in nature).
That's my definition of tickles : the same as real world bruises or mosquito bites.

It's different for a lvl 1 commoner with 8 in constitution, who could actually die from such a wound, eventually, if he's not lucky.

Remember that wounds in the world of Pathfinder are far from being as deadly as in our world.


Ughbash wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Magic missile in 1e was great because of the 1-segment casting time, and the fact you auto-lost your spell if you took damage while casting it. A duel between archmages sometimes devolved into throwing magic missiles at each other because other spells were too slow to get off.

It was also nice in 1e because you could wipe out mirror images with it (making the fighter's life easier) and ablate a bunch of hits worth of stoneskin with it (the latter was way better back then as well).

As TOZ pointed out, the advantages we're left with are extremely situational, which makes it not a top choice for filling a limited number of "spells known" or prepated per day.

Magic missle was ALSO great in 1st edition for tow other reasons.

1) HP were much less... after about 9th level most classes stopped getting dice and only got an extra HP or 2 or 3 (for fighters). In first edition an Ancient Red Dragon had 88 hp (11 hd and 8 points per dice for Ancient).

2) Magic Missle scaling did not stop at level 9. It was 1d4+1 for every 2 levels (if muy memory serves). So a level 29 wizard (top the XP charts went up to) did 15d4 + 15 (average 52.5). This meant 2 MM would take out an Ancient Red Dragon.

The same for all blasting spells actually.

Fireball was incredible in 1st and 2nd edition, but became a bit lame with 3.0 and just got worse with Pathfinder (with better HD and favored class bonuses).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Avh wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"
Yes it does in pathfinder.

I can't agree with that. Getting stabbed hurts, regardless of how many hitpoints you lose. I don't know anyone that enjoys getting stabbed, and neither does my character.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Avh wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
1d4+1 is comparable to a dagger. Does getting stabbed with a dagger "tickle?"
Yes it does in pathfinder.
I can't agree with that. Getting stabbed hurts, regardless of how many hitpoints you lose. I don't know anyone that enjoys getting stabbed, and neither does my character.

I don't enjoy moskito bites. The same as my characters don't enjoy getting stabbed with daggers.

It tickles, and you need a day or two to not feel it anymore. But it doesn't hurt you that much.

In real life, a dagger is deadly. Not in pathfinder (well, not for CR 1+ monsters or adventurers, at least when considering a single hit).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Avh wrote:
It tickles, and you need a day or two to not feel it anymore. But it doesn't hurt you that much.

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. There are no rules for how much pain a character feels.


Ughbash wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?
Point 1 changing the goal posts since the orignal perosn saying smite and MM was good for one shotting an evil outsider cause each MM did smite damage to the outsider.

It isn't moving goal posts, it is challenging an assumption of smite damage is "once per spell" instead of "once per damage roll." Generally, abilities that work only once per spell say exactly that. This is definitely a corner case because it is doubtful the smite ability was written with spells in mind.

For what it's worth, I agree that it probably only works once per spell (even with multiple smites up and firing at multiple targets,) but it is ambiguous enough to warrant further discussion. The line of questioning though is completely apropos and doesn't move the goal post at all.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I can't agree with that. Getting stabbed hurts, regardless of how many hitpoints you lose. I don't know anyone that enjoys getting stabbed, and neither does my character.

Remember hp loss does not always indicate a solid hit, it can sometimes be a glancing blow or near miss. But getting stabbed definitely does hurt.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Avh wrote:
It tickles, and you need a day or two to not feel it anymore. But it doesn't hurt you that much.
I fundamentally disagree with that statement. There are no rules for how much pain a character feels.

:-/ when you bring up "rules about something" then you generally have to accept that "something" doesn't happen unless there is a rule for it. There is no rule about feeling pain, so we have to assume characters don't feel pain.

Particularly given that we have rules for pain via the Symbol of Pain Spell. Since no amount of HP damage gives you the penalties of Symbol of Pain then within the rules we must assume that characters feel no pain.

It's dumb, but I think it helps prevent more shenanigans than it causes problems.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
:-/ when you bring up "rules about something" then you generally have to accept that "something" doesn't happen unless there is a rule for it.

Bull. No rules for breathing.

Some things are just up to the players to describe.

I just refuse to describe a dagger wound as 'tickling'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
:-/ when you bring up "rules about something" then you generally have to accept that "something" doesn't happen unless there is a rule for it.

Bull. No rules for breathing.

Some things are just up to the players to describe.

I just refuse to describe a dagger wound as 'tickling'.

Rules don't have to be long or descriptive. There are definitely rules for breathing, even if they are as short as "it happens" in creature type/subtype descriptions.

Edit: the issue isn't "saying" that being stabbed by a dagger hurts. The problems is saying that "the wolf got stabbed and so it should run away because it is in pain."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
K177Y C47 wrote:

Oh! And not to mention MM makes for a really funny way to screw with your DM's "flavour" of his campaign.

1) Buy a level 1 wand of magic missile

2) Buy a hand crossbow

3) remove the bow assembly from hand crossbow, leaving only the stock.

4) Attack wand to hand crossbow stock (this can be achieved in many ways. Can be as simple as tying it down or as elaborate at using Wood Shape to mold the wood around the wand, creating a socket for it).

5) Profit from your new Phaser Pistol! Forget boring old crossbows, you can now blast away at your enemies with your new patented phaser pistol. I guarentee that it will be so accurate, not even a storm trooper can miss with it.

(I love doing this when my GM bans gunslingers due to "flavour reasons")

Arguably though, this won't work, not straight off You have to be holding a wand to use it, which means direct contact. Not mounting it on something else and having it fire on command. If I were to allow this, I'd have to allow tripod mounting as well. So... no go at my tables.


LazarX wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Oh! And not to mention MM makes for a really funny way to screw with your DM's "flavour" of his campaign.

1) Buy a level 1 wand of magic missile

2) Buy a hand crossbow

3) remove the bow assembly from hand crossbow, leaving only the stock.

4) Attack wand to hand crossbow stock (this can be achieved in many ways. Can be as simple as tying it down or as elaborate at using Wood Shape to mold the wood around the wand, creating a socket for it).

5) Profit from your new Phaser Pistol! Forget boring old crossbows, you can now blast away at your enemies with your new patented phaser pistol. I guarentee that it will be so accurate, not even a storm trooper can miss with it.

(I love doing this when my GM bans gunslingers due to "flavour reasons")

Arguably though, this won't work, not straight off You have to be holding a wand to use it, which means direct contact. Not mounting it on something else and having it fire on command. If I were to allow this, I'd have to allow tripod mounting as well. So... no go at my tables.

a wand of magic missile is already a phaser pistol with an odd shape. and a phaser pistol, is no different from a wand of magic missile

though, because of the lack of non-cosmetic difference between a wand of magic missile and a phaser pistol, and the lack of difference between a lot of other spells and magic items from modern and even futuristic technology. i tend to have no issues with a gunslinger picking up a 6 shooter or even an M24 assault rifle with a built in grenade launcher

because if you look at it, there isn't much to differentiate magic from technology except magic tends to be better.

so, i would happily allow phaser pistols that dealt 1d4+1 force damage on an autohit. only because i know, that if a player desires a specific aesthetic, they will find ways to shoehorn that aesthetic. so it is better to let them get it out of their system by allowing them to play it. they will eventually grow bored of their gimmick.


My next character is going to be a human arcanist who will specialize in magic missile up until level 6 when he will switch it to fireball.

At level 1 2-8+4 (orc bloodline, spell specialization)
At level 2 a couple of times per day of 3-12+6 (arcanist potent spells)
At level 3 a couple of times per day of 4-16+9 (varisian tattoo, admixture school)
At level 5 a couple of times per day of 5-20+11

Not bad damage at low levels when you fully optimize for it. I considered burning hands (which the blockbuster wizard guide suggested), but I feel getting into melee range is not something an arcane caster should strive for.


Jay the Madman wrote:

My level 9 Bard loves his wand of Magic Missle (CL 7 I think I don't have his sheet handy at the moment). Generally, he won't out damage the party's Fighter or Druid, but he can use the wand while singing and dancing. Sometimes massive piles of damage are not the responsibility of the wizard (or bard) or the wizard does not want blow throuAndals his best spells and the relatively small, but reliable, damage from Magic Missile is just bonus.

Of course a magic Missile is situational. All spells are situational.

Wizard:"We need to get out of this deep hole, what spell should I use? Magic Missile!"
GM: No effect
Wizard: "Fireball! That is my go-to spell"
GM: Still no effect
Wizard: "ooo I know. Haste! That spell is perhaps the most useful spell available"
GM: ugh

This right here is pretty spot on...it is a really nice realiable wand for when you dont want to waste precous spell slots and want to contribute something reliable to the damage totals.

I wouldnt be preparing it or rushing to add it my list or anything but there is value in it not missing/ being saved against etc.


I've only "experience the wonders of MM" from the GM side. I have one sorcerer who uses it as a staple in combat.

He throws up a couple support or control spells and then falls back to using MM. He isn't doing the wild damage that the other characters are, but the other characters miss their attacks or deal reduced damage 30-40% of the time. He doesn't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
because if you look at it, there isn't much to differentiate magic from technology except magic tends to be better.

Like hell there isn't. Magic requires special circumstances, blessings, or training to operate and it's results tend to be idiosyncratic.

Technology is consistent, repeatable, and can be operated by any idiot who can flip a switch.

So there's a lot of difference between casting a light spell and turning on a lamp.


however only magic can make pockets

Scarab Sages

This thread makes me sad.

Let me attempt to add some logic.

The problem with much that has been said is that the usefulness of all spells is subjective to the situation in which it is used. Almost all caster build strategies revolve around trying to be prepared for as many situations as possible. Class features/feats/abilities can be used to help mitigate this problem.

So inherently the usefulness of any given spell is going to be directly proportional to the play style of the GM running the game and/or the authors writing the scenario/module/AP. For example Magic Missile will become more useful if Incorporeal creatures are encountered more frequently.

Thus someone of the opinion that MM is "Useless" may have played games in which situations typically downplay its usefulness. Maybe lots of villainous caster who cast shield as a buff regularly.

The other ting to consider is that due to action economy players tend to bring out theirs best spells first. As a caster raises in level this typically translates to their highest level spells slots. In very few situations will a 9th level caster be looking to cast a 1st level spell straight out of the gate. So it is difficult to compare 4th level spells to 1st level spells for their usefulness.

Side thought:Which is more useful Cure Light Wounds or Breath of Life? BoL has saved many an adventurers life, but so has CLW by making out of combat healing to full to full hit points a rather trivial cost.

So in conclusion, anyone trying to make definitive statements on such a subjective matter is likely guilty of gross generalities and/or situational bias.

In my own experience most casters keep a handful of Magic Missiles around to cover the proverbial bases. It is a great spell for when the combat is going in the party's favor and the caster does not want to use a more powerful spell that might best be saved for another fight. Then they toss out a MM or two to try and be somewhat useful.

Shadow Lodge

Dragoncat wrote:

And not only that, but think of all the metamagic feats that can be applied to it.

There's very few guaranteed defenses against it: the shield spell and spell resistance.

It can even target multiple foes at once.

way more then just one spell to defend against it, but i agree with the metamagic boosting ability of the spell.


LazarX wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
because if you look at it, there isn't much to differentiate magic from technology except magic tends to be better.

Like hell there isn't. Magic requires special circumstances, blessings, or training to operate and it's results tend to be idiosyncratic.

Technology is consistent, repeatable, and can be operated by any idiot who can flip a switch.

So there's a lot of difference between casting a light spell and turning on a lamp.

just as it takes training to throw a fireball, it takes similar training to throw a hand grenade without blowing yourself up in the process

and there is plenty of other technological devices that require training

cranes and other heavy machinery is one example

as are vehicles

crafting

and medicine

not everything can be done by simply flipping a switch or pulling a trigger.

which reinforces my opinion that there really is no discernable difference between casting a cantrip to make light and flipping a switch to turn on a light, because using a cantrip might as well be flipping a switch.

and in any setting where magic is known to exist, people will be seeking to build reliable and repeatable technology that emulates magic for a cheaper price at at least 75% efficiency

instead of spending 750 on a 5d6 potion of fireball that can be thrown like a grenade. they will buy like a 50 GP hand grenade that does 5d6 shrapnel damage with a shorter range because the impact is equivalent to a fireball and works just as well in their professional field of mining.

thing was, it was the discovery of fireball that inspired the need to produce this cheap grenade for the miners so they wouldn't need a wizard to clear the mines for them.

so magic and technology, would not only be similar, but linked. every magical discovery would eventually lead to a cheaper technological attempt to clone it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Ughbash wrote:
thebigragu wrote:
So, with three Smites up, using MM against multiple targets, only one of those MMs deals Smite damage?
Point 1 changing the goal posts since the orignal perosn saying smite and MM was good for one shotting an evil outsider cause each MM did smite damage to the outsider.

It isn't moving goal posts, it is challenging an assumption of smite damage is "once per spell" instead of "once per damage roll." Generally, abilities that work only once per spell say exactly that. This is definitely a corner case because it is doubtful the smite ability was written with spells in mind.

For what it's worth, I agree that it probably only works once per spell (even with multiple smites up and firing at multiple targets,) but it is ambiguous enough to warrant further discussion. The line of questioning though is completely apropos and doesn't move the goal post at all.

It is moving the goal as it require 3 different smites against 3 different targets. Each smite is applied once, to the attacks against the appropriate target.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jay the Madman wrote:


Of course a magic Missile is situational. All spells are situational.

Wizard:"We need to get out of this deep hole, what spell should I use? Magic Missile!"
GM: No effect
Wizard: "Fireball! That is my go-to spell"
GM: Still no effect
Wizard: "ooo I know. Haste! That spell is perhaps the most useful spell available"
GM: ugh

Yeah, well that's one thing about the Optimizers here on these boards.

Toughness isn't the VERY VERY best feat evar, so it's useless. The rogue niche can be filled by other classes, so the class is worthless. The crossbow isn't quite as good as the Longbow for dedicated archers, so it's there as a trap. Or maybe just there because SKR hates crossbows or some other silly reasoning.

Everything must be the very very best in ALL situations and the way THEY play or it's worthless crud, and a TRAP! by the devs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Granted, you're grossly misrepresenting most of the arguments there, but I should probably expect that.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Granted, you're grossly misrepresenting most of the arguments there, but I should probably expect that.

Par for the course with DrDeth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Jay the Madman wrote:


Of course a magic Missile is situational. All spells are situational.

Wizard:"We need to get out of this deep hole, what spell should I use? Magic Missile!"
GM: No effect
Wizard: "Fireball! That is my go-to spell"
GM: Still no effect
Wizard: "ooo I know. Haste! That spell is perhaps the most useful spell available"
GM: ugh

Yeah, well that's one thing about the Optimizers here on these boards.

Toughness isn't the VERY VERY best feat evar, so it's useless. The rogue niche can be filled by other classes, so the class is worthless. The crossbow isn't quite as good as the Longbow for dedicated archers, so it's there as a trap. Or maybe just there because SKR hates crossbows or some other silly reasoning.

Everything must be the very very best in ALL situations and the way THEY play or it's worthless crud, and a TRAP! by the devs.

Unless you're talking about the sling or a slingstaff in the hands of a halfling; then cue Admiral Ackbar. [/humor]


DrDeth wrote:
Jay the Madman wrote:


Of course a magic Missile is situational. All spells are situational.

Wizard:"We need to get out of this deep hole, what spell should I use? Magic Missile!"
GM: No effect
Wizard: "Fireball! That is my go-to spell"
GM: Still no effect
Wizard: "ooo I know. Haste! That spell is perhaps the most useful spell available"
GM: ugh

Yeah, well that's one thing about the Optimizers here on these boards.

Toughness isn't the VERY VERY best feat evar, so it's useless. The rogue niche can be filled by other classes, so the class is worthless. The crossbow isn't quite as good as the Longbow for dedicated archers, so it's there as a trap. Or maybe just there because SKR hates crossbows or some other silly reasoning.

Everything must be the very very best in ALL situations and the way THEY play or it's worthless crud, and a TRAP! by the devs.

I think we can all be honest with each other here and admit that crossbows really are a trap option. At the point you decide to take rapid reload you should just take MWP: longbow and you are already ahead.


Crossbows are perfectly good alpha strike weapons and are good if you have to arm peasants or other people without martial weapon training.


FuelDrop wrote:
Crossbows are perfectly good alpha strike weapons and are good if you have to arm peasants or other people without martial weapon training.

Definitely a perfectly valid NPC option.

151 to 200 of 278 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Convince me Magic Missle isn't useless? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.