Sacred Geometry


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Artemis Moonstar wrote:
The Chort wrote:
Artemis Moonstar wrote:

When this gets locked for going off topic, or we all get B#($^-slapped for derailing it... I'm all for a new thread to flesh these guys out... Funny, you'd never have expected the Druish to be so radical.

I throw my hat in for Greenwar or D.E.T.A. As long as DETA does more than run up to someone and throw a bucket of sap on them... Because that wouldn't work all that well depending on how cold it is.

Edit: Have you tried it with Calculating Mind gained at 5th level, Chort? Using d8s instead of d6s, or in any combination of the two.

...I would guess d8's would make this feat more difficult to use, strangely enough? As you get up in levels, you'll be glad to roll several 1's and d8s decrease your chance of that.

I suspected as much... The feat wouldn't be so horribly over powered, I think, if it scaled the dice size as you increased in level. Make it harder for you to hit those primes....

And are we sure that's how it works with Quicken? It says it negates the increased casting time, and it doesn't say it negates Quicken's decrease either... But perhaps it was intended to?

Edit: Oh look! Numerology!

You'll also be glad for lots of similar numbers for slight adjustments

i.e.

6-6 = 0
4/4 = 1
5-4 = 1

There are so many ways you can manipulate the numbers to reach your goal it becomes trivial as your ranks go up.


"Artemis Moonstar wrote:
"Oh look! Numerology!

I think it's clear by this point that Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Occult Mysteries was intended for wizards who have the same Int score as their wizard IRL. At least Arithmancy doesn't requires potentially 20 dice rolls. You can calculate all spells ahead of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whoops, missed this line of text of the feat:

You can apply any number of metamagic effects to a single spell, provided you are able to cast spells of the modified spell's effective spell level.

That does limit it somewhat, but still very strong. Maybe makes Quicken a mediocre first choice, but you'll likely take it as you get into higher levels. (9th level at the earliest.)

Sovereign Court

Hilarious. It should be easy to either write an app for this, or just generate some lookup tables.

I'm pretty skeptical about the d8s though.


Know what? Just for craps and snickers, I'm going to theorycraft a Scroll Master-Scroll Scholar Wizard utilizing Arithmancy, Sacred Geometry, and the Cypher Magic stuff. Might not attempt to break this bugger, but... Ya know, I just like the thematics of it.

Who better to break the universe than someone who'd unlocked the power of writing and numbers?


I really don't know why anyone thinks this is broken. It seems quirky and thematic but other then maybe getting some free metamagic feats on some first level spells it doesn't do much to unbalance anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Timothy Hanson wrote:
I really don't know why anyone thinks this is broken. It seems quirky and thematic but other then maybe getting some free metamagic feats on some first level spells it doesn't do much to unbalance anything.

Even if you can only cast up to your spell level, that's still an incredibly powerful effect. For instance, starting at level 11, every Fireball you cast has Dazing and still fits in a 3rd level spell slot. As you get to the levels where Quicken becomes viable for your character, you now get to use it for free and most likely every round because there is no downside besides what appears to be a miniscule chance of failure.

It's like a slightly less power Spell Perfection but with infinitely more uses. But even worse than that, it's the kind of effect that will bring the game to a screeching halt as the user spends 10 minutes trying math his way to victory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1) You basically get 2 metamagic feats for free. Yes, you can only use them using this feat, but you still have them as an option.

2) You can select it multiple times, choosing 2 metamagic feats to get for free with this feat as many times as you want.

3) You can use any metamagic feats you already have without this feat in any case.

4) You can apply as many metamagic feats as you want, as long as the modified level is not above that which you can cast.

5) The cost is increasing the casting time by one increment, or two if you're a spontaneous caster. This is negated by Quicken Spell metamagic feat.

6) If you succeed on this silly mechanic, you cast the spell using the base spell slot of the spell that was modified, NOT the modified spell level. Therefore, if you quicken, say, Color Spray, you still only use up the 1st level slot. At this point it is unclear if Quick makes it a swift, or merely negates the increment increase and you cast as a standard.

7) According to Chort's testing, he was capable of getting the assigned prime constants 10 out of 10 times. That means 10 times you get FREE metamagic tricks, as the "cost" of metamagic feats are increased spell slots used.

8) The feat says NOTHING about not counting any of the tricks people can use to decrease the final modified spell level. Magical Knack, for example, knocks 1 level off the final modified level of the spell (though still can't go over what you can cast before this subtraction last I heard), thus changing the numbers you need to get to the lower level primes, which should be easier to get than the higher level primes.

That's just off the top of my head. Someone let me know if I missed anything.

Edit: Edited for typo.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

*PCs running from an orb of darkness consuming all*

"WHAT!? How did you do this by accident!?"

"I 'accidentally' divided by zero. It happens. Now shut up and take this rod of cancellation. I hope your throwing arm is good!"


Lol @ Kaisoku. Is that a reference to something I'm missing? Lol.

Really, it boils down to the fact that it's TOO versatile, and throws a monkey wrench into the game's speed.

Speed: How many people can math that out quickly without mechanical help, given the number of options you can possibly use?

Versatility: Oh look, 2 metamagic feats for the cost of 1! It would have been better had it only done this for metamagic feats you knew, rather than give you 2 free ones.

Then again, if it didn't give you the metamagic feats, people would be shouting it's a pathetic feat... lol.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Lol @ Kaisoku. Is that a reference to something I'm missing? Lol.

Yes. Yes it is. ;)


>Then again, if it didn't give you the metamagic feats, people would be shouting it's a pathetic feat... lol.

No, it would still be insane. You can quicken every 5 level and below spell every turn basically doubling your spell output for the cost of a few engineering skill ranks.

If this feat read

"attach quicken to a spell (if you have it), do some math with engineering, if you succeed you cast the spell for it's original spell rank" it would still be incredibly powerful.


Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Then again, if it didn't give you the metamagic feats, people would be shouting it's a pathetic feat... lol.

I'm not so sure about that. It would still be a very strong even as a standalone feat that required other metamagic feats to work. It can't be overstated how good it is to remove the increased resource cost to use your metamagics, and you are able to do it spontaneously to boot: An amazing boon for any prepared caster... potentially less so for spontaneous casters because I have no idea what "two categories" beyond a full round action is in regards to casting.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

If only there were a mechanic in the Pathfinder game that could do away with all of these fiddly mathematics by assigning an abstract, numerical difficulty to each in-character calculation a caster would make when using this feat. Then, instead of performing a bunch of metagame, out-of-character calculations to resolve an in-character action, a player could just roll 1d20, add any relevant modifiers, and compare the result to the assigned difficulty.

Too bad no mechanic like that exists in Pathfinder... What's that Jim? A mechanic like that does exist in Pathfinder? And it's the central action resolution mechanic of the entire game system? So instead of all this gonzo number crunching, this feat could have just assigned difficulties to various spell levels and required casters to make ordinary skill checks targeting those difficulties?

Huh. When you put it like that, this entire feat seems completely inefficient and regressive. Who knew?


This feat's mechanic is simply too broken. At lower levels, the rolling and math might have some kind of limiter, but at higher levels when you have a bunch of ranks to get gobs of d6s, you are going to be able to make the check pretty much all the time.
Multiplication should get you to what you need simple enough, even higher numbers. Then you just get rid of the rest: just minus some numbers down to create 0, and multiply anything you have left with that.

Anyone doing this in any serious way will have an excel sheet made up to quickly do the numbers.

Limiting it to just the two feats you picked, or only metamagic you already know, or anything isn't enough to limit this, because you'll just succeed every time and quicken-daze or whatever everything. Free metamagic for a feat and making an excel sheet.

The effect is just too good to not have a serious limiter in place, and while the effort of involving numerology in some way was noble, it would really kill the gameplay. Either it's slowing everything down for everyone, or you basically bring in a device to run an excel sheet and that part is practically ignored.
Might as well just make it a "roll a Knowledge check DC whatever".

I like the idea... I just don't know how I'd fix the implementation without killing that idea.


Quickened doesn't seem like the optimal use of this feat. Probably casting a magic missile after tossing out a real 5th level spell at level 11 just doesn't affect the game too much.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
The Chort wrote:

I've been practicing die rolls several times with the premise of using 8 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering) casting an effective 8th level spell. I haven't missed it yet after 10 attempts. It's extremely easy to multiply your way up to the number you need and then add subtract back and forth until you reach your goal. The more 1's you roll the better of course, because add 1, subtract 1, multiply by 1 makes it easy to make adjustments. And it gets all the easier as you get more ranks.

I'm imagining casting a Quickened Empowered Mirror Image. Or an Empowered Summon Monster. Or even a quickened empowered Magic Missile..

Quicken is essential; it means you can make a Sacred Geometry attempt and only ever risk losing you swift action, not your standard action.(...and free freaking Quicken. Sweet.) Empower just seemed like a flexible metamagic that can be applied to a lot of spells. Other good targets might be Persistent, Selective, Extend, Maximize, Dazing... On and on. And taking this feat more than once is worth it!

In other news, wildly overpowered feat that's somewhere between inspiring and infuriating.

I don't think anywhere it even said you had to use all your dice, so multiply by 1 is pointless...

Scarab Sages

I think someone was playing Math Dice (google it), and made a feat based on it.

I hate this feat for several reasons (even though I love Math Dice):

1) Paizo has done an admirable job up until now not passing out free metamagic levels. You could use a trait to knock one level off one spell, but that was it. 3.5 became stupidly broken in large part due to all the free metamagic WOTC pumped out.

This feat will unlock all those horrors that we thought safely put away.

2) It gives out two free feats. In addition to completely breaking the power curve of the game. It's a feat that gives more feats than its cost!

3) It will slow the game down to a crawl. My 16th level wizard is probably going to have to take this, but throwing out 16d6 every time he casts a spell is just going to take forever, and there won't be any uncertainly about him succeeding - with that many dice, I don't think it's possible to fail.

If I had to house rule it, I would say: 1) You don't need to use all the dice (to speed things up) and 2) You have 30 seconds to make the math work. GO.


If there was an app or a way to punch this into a scientific calculator and get an instant result, the munchkin in me would strongly consider using it... which begs the question if anyone math inclined knows if/how you could key something like this in?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
chaoseffect wrote:
If there was an app or a way to punch this into a scientific calculator and get an instant result, the munchkin in me would strongly consider using it... which begs the question if anyone math inclined knows if/how you could key something like this in?

computers find it highly resource intensive to come up with equations without shortcuts. so trying to figure out how to arrange a bunch of dice is going to be pretty damn hard for a computer. I think it would be best if it treated the dice as a navigation tree though... okay i actually just thought of how i would program this never mind, maybe.

Sovereign Court

As I read the feat, you must roll exactly as many dice as you have ranks in Engineering, and use all of them; there's no text allowing you to use any less. That said, I think it becomes more probable you'll succeed with more dice, but the amount of calculation will also increase.

My first thought reading the feat was actually "is this integer division"? Because in that case, if you divide 10 by 3, you'd either get 3 or "undefined". And 3 might be the prime constant you're looking for.


The only way I could see this really working in play was if you did a bunch of rolls in advance, coded each as a success or fail, and then bought a bunch of hats with numbers on them ranging from 2 to the highest level spell you cast.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

So this feat is fine, but Crane Wing is overpowered? Honestly, I just don't get it. What were you thinking when you approved this cluster-frack of a feat, Paizo?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
So this feat is fine, but Crane Wing is overpowered? Honestly, I just don't get it. What were you thinking when you approved this cluster-frack of a feat, Paizo?

It's ok because it's magic. It's not like its some sort of water balloon fighting style. That would be ridiculous.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
So this feat is fine, but Crane Wing is overpowered? Honestly, I just don't get it. What were you thinking when you approved this cluster-frack of a feat, Paizo?
It's ok because it's magic. It's not like its some sort of water balloon fighting style. That would be ridiculous.

Exactly. Magic isn't bound by your silly reality and rules like martials are! Castys break reality so hard, we break the rule set too!

.....

Even Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann would cringe in terror at this feat, and they quite literally break reality on a daily basis.

Edit:

... *facepalm* How could I forget possibly my most favorite trap, er, I mean, artifact!?

And at least Numerology can be done before the game session! Just take all your spells, apply Numerology to it, and you're done.... This thing though...

Martials should get a feat that let you get more feats than what you originally had... I know! Let's turn the Brawler's class ability to gain multiple feats into a feat itself you can get at level 2! "Profession: Warrior 2 ranks". You can take it multiple times to get even more phantom feats!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

As I read the feat, you must roll exactly as many dice as you have ranks in Engineering, and use all of them; there's no text allowing you to use any less. That said, I think it becomes more probable you'll succeed with more dice, but the amount of calculation will also increase.

My first thought reading the feat was actually "is this integer division"? Because in that case, if you divide 10 by 3, you'd either get 3 or "undefined". And 3 might be the prime constant you're looking for.

dah fet wrote:
Perform some combination of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division upon the numbers rolled that gives rise to one of the relevant prime constants.

this to me feels like it says you just need to get a few dice together that can produce the desired number, no where does it say you need to use all your dice.

basically, "some" suggests that there are no limits except by what you rolled. also the dice don't appear to be required to all be in the same set, and only 1 set needs to produce the prime numbers.


The example uses all the digits, including putting a "x 1" at the end.

Hurray, already have FAQ needed on this, lol.


So, correct me if I'm wrong but:

with 3 dice (taking the feat at level 3 having 3 ranks in the skill) every single roll can be arranged in 96 different ways.
(3 dice can be arranged in 6 different ways and +-*/ can be arranged in 16 ways so 6*16 is 96)

That doesn't sound too bad...

With 7 dice, the number of possible combinations is now 20,643,840.

Yeah....I guess without some good logic built in to it you would have to wait a bit for your desired result.(all thou technically you could cut away from that number because it doesn't matter how you arrange the dice if you only multiply or add and only subtractions are pointless as well)


You could also tweak it to stop once it hits one of the three primes you need, so it's likely you aren't going through every single combination possible before hitting your result.

Basically, run combinations, stop if you hit X, Y or Z. Probably get an answer in a fairly short time, even with 20 dice combos.

Sovereign Court

I'm pretty sure that "upon the numbers rolled" doesn't mean "upon some of the numbers rolled".

I'm trying to come up with an efficient algorithm although not with a lot of luck so far. However, for each dice result and effective spell level you only need one solution, so if you somehow got all the number-crunching done, you could just make a lookup table that would, for any result rolled, provide one of the (probably multiple) solutions.

I wonder if there are some quantities of dice that are optimal, because they have a higher probability of any roll having a solution? That would encourage you to not take any more ranks in Engineering than that lucky number.


The Lion Cleric wrote:
If there is one, I'm getting it. There should also be a defensive version of this one, probably involving dodging actual bullets in order to make gunslingers not attack your touch AC

It was mentioned repeatedly during the playtest that if they were insistent on guns doing something like this that it should target flat-footed AC. What with it being extremely hard to dodge bullets, especially at close range, combined with the fact that clearly armor does protect against bullets (the term armor proofing actually is derived from plate mail, because armorsmiths would shoot the armor with a pistol, and it would leave a teeny, tiny, dent in the armor's surface which showed the buyer that it had been gun-tested and approved).

Anyway...that feat. D:


Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm pretty sure that "upon the numbers rolled" doesn't mean "upon some of the numbers rolled".

I'm trying to come up with an efficient algorithm although not with a lot of luck so far. However, for each dice result and effective spell level you only need one solution, so if you somehow got all the number-crunching done, you could just make a lookup table that would, for any result rolled, provide one of the (probably multiple) solutions.

I wonder if there are some quantities of dice that are optimal, because they have a higher probability of any roll having a solution? That would encourage you to not take any more ranks in Engineering than that lucky number.

Yes......that's good.

So you first calculate which combinations CAN give you the correct answer and after you are done with that you build a list which you than compare to your rolled results. At that point it's just a question of optimizing the search algorithm which the Internet should be full off.

Finding out what number of dice is best for a particular number should be easy enough, just numOfWrongResults - numOfCorrectResults, the lower the number the better.

Creation that list thou...hmmmm.

I can't think of any smart way to do it so I'd probably brute force it. Just create an table of all the possible combinations of the numbers and let every single one run against every single combination of +-*/.

Note how often you are correct and if correct save that line to an array, move how often you are wrong and discard it.

I don't have the time right now since I should be cleaning up my place, but if I'm motivated I'm gonna build it after my visitors are gone.


Hmmm... AIM logs, open sesame!

Quote:
You're going to laugh until you cry when I show you the occult secrets of math magic.

Heh, yeah.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:

So, currently I think this is the most poorly balanced Feat ever to be released by Paizo. I mean, I know casters get all the wonderful toys, but do they have to be THIS wonderful?

Lets' break down what the Feat does:

1.) Gives you 2 free Metamagic Feats for free. So it's 3 Feats in one.

2.) Allows you to apply either (or both) of these to a spell, for free.

3.) Allows you to take it MULTIPLE TIMES. It's more bang for your buck than a single Metamagic Feat is by a looooooooong shot.

4.) The only drawback is that you have to do math, which leads us to point 5:

5.) It slows down the game by a buttload because the party Wizard will be stopping to go "So how can I arrange these 2-20 numbers into the proper sequence for me to cast my 100% free Metamagic".

Who wrote this? Why does he have a job? Can I have his job instead?

The idea is fun and I see it as an "how it is done from the prospective of the characters" (where the throwing of the dice is finding the right geomancy spot for casting the spell, but it is terrible at the gaming table. it is powerful and it will slow down the game.

I would change the casting time of the spell to the time the player would spend doing the calculations. While he do that the game will go on, with him busy casting the spell.
I think that most spells would require several rounds.

- * -

Someone asked if more dices wouldn't make harder to get the lower prime constant. I don't think so, let's try it:

20 ranks in engineering: 20d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 3, 5, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 5, 1, 1, 5, 2) = 63

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Let's chose a target of 11, seem a hard one:

start 14.26.13

4, 1, 3, 5, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 5, 1, 1, 5, 2

(4+5+4+3+5+5)/(4+5+4+3+5+2+3)=1 +( 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2)= 11 / 1 - 11

14.29.28

3 minutes and something, beside the time spent deciding what spell I want tot cast, against whom , with what metamagic and so on.

Faster than I had thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks like an awesome feat for PbP games (where you have all the time in the world).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I at first thought this was very elaborate trolling, but after some google use I have the following to say.

My apologies to the original poster for thinking you were a troll, you are not.

I have very very few things on my banned list but Sacred geometry and arithmancy are being added.

Too much table slow down for both and for sacred geometry way too powerful.

*Sigh* I know it is a splat rather than a core line book, but these feats seem to me to be complete jokes and phoned in.

I am a big Paizo fan, but honestly wow, this is just bad.

It is my opinion that printing things like this makes Paizo and Pathfinder look bad. This should never have seen print. I understand wanting unique mechanics and "Fun" feats, but the slowdown and power up is ridiculous.

It does mean I am not inclined to ever buy this book.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Let's chose a target of 11, seem a hard one:

start 14.26.13

4, 1, 3, 5, 4, 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 5, 1, 1, 5, 2

(4+5+4+3+5+5)/(4+5+4+3+5+2+3)=1 +( 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2)= 11 / 1 - 11

14.29.28

3 minutes and something, beside the time spent deciding what spell I want tot cast, against whom , with what metamagic and so on.

Faster than I had thought.

Diego just using this as an example, not trying to bash you in any way.

If we assume between 3-4 minutes per spell that means between 6-8 minutes added per turn just by one feat, and that is not even considering things like arguments about magical lineage, spell perfection or any other effect that modifies metamagic.

Then add Arithmancy, and you are probably talking adding between 10-15 minutes per turn to a caster.

Just, NO.

Now the above is all my opinion, some people may not mind the extra time or the Wizard > (Wizard + Sacred Geometry + Arithmancy) effect, so please take it all with that in mind.

Silver Crusade

That is absurdly powerful. And will take forever to adjudicate with players who are NOT particularly numerate.

I REALLY hope PFS disallows this


Unlimited spontaneous metamagic, additional metamagic choices, no additional spell slot cost, and table stall to defeat a random (and often low) difficulty?

No thanks.


Covent wrote:
Now the above is all my opinion, some people may not mind the extra time or the Wizard > (Wizard + Sacred Geometry + Arithmancy) effect, so please take it all with that in mind.

Sorry, I meant Wizard < (Wizard + Sacred Geometry + Arithmancy). But, too late to edit now!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, that feat is not a joke? Seems like something you'd release on April 1st.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Wait, that feat is not a joke? Seems like something you'd release on April 1st.

Yeah, this was my first thought as well.


Table stall is easy to avoid. Do the rolls and math before your turn comes up.

It's nice that PF finally found a use for KN: Engineering and SF (Divination), but still, wow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Is it sad that most GM's I know who would disallow this feat would do so because of the reason "I can't math that good?"


Zhayne wrote:
Table stall is easy to avoid. Do the rolls and math before your turn comes up.

But tactics change on the fly, contingent upon the results of others' actions in the turns preceding the geometer's. Also, much easier to hide failure that way, or change course after rolling. Really, you'd have to pre-plan and lock in your entire turn's actions for this to be considered reliable or fair.

And it's already OP.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
It was mentioned repeatedly during the playtest that if they were insistent on guns doing something like this that it should target flat-footed AC.

With the caveat that one couldn't sneak attack with firearms because they 'weren't precise enough,' yeah, I remember that being suggested, and seeming more logical than armor-piercing bullets.

I even vaguely remember a possible exception for folk with evasion or uncanny dodge, because they were assumed to be that much faster than normal folk...


Well, I would support banning it from PFS for time concerns.

However, it can actually go quite quickly if you're reasonably good at math and have practiced with the feat.

Let's say you roll 9 dice as a 9th level wizard trying to cast an effective level 5 spell. The prime numbers are 43, 47, 53. Usually you only need ~3 dice to get you in the ballpark of where you want to be, or even 2 dice (6 * 6) Then you fit in the rest of the dice. Which is often a simple matter of adding/subtracting back and forth, (+6, +3, -4. +4, -2...) or "making 1's" i.e.

6/6 = 1
5-4 = 1
2-1 = 1 (You can pair a 2 with a 1 at any time to remove it from your pool of dice)

Then you just multiply by 1 or add and subtract 1's until you get there.

After some practice, I wouldn't be surprised if you could do it in ~30 seconds each turn. I've practiced several rolls of 9 and it's taken 15 to 20 seconds. And perhaps a sensible GM would allow you to roll before your turn starts?


Robert Young wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Table stall is easy to avoid. Do the rolls and math before your turn comes up.

But tactics change on the fly, contingent upon the results of others' actions in the turns preceding the geometer's. Also, much easier to hide failure that way, or change course after rolling. Really, you'd have to pre-plan and lock in your entire turn's actions for this to be considered reliable or fair.

And it's already OP.

I play with people who don't cheat, so that's not a worry for me.

And I already encourage people to look stuff up and do computations between turns.


You know it's one of those feats I love the idea for. The theme is spot on, the implementation matches the theme and fluff and the effects are really awesome.

However as it stands yeah, this was a horrible idea. Sacred Geometry is way too easy to use (since you are arraigning the numbers it would be almost impossible to fail the check) and the effects are much too strong for the classes that already have a lot of really strong options.

I get the idea of looking to build feats that give casters something other than, "I cast a spell" and offer some uniqueness to the casting playing style, and I get that where most of the non-casters get some of their interesting stuff is from feats but this was a good idea over-engineered into a monstrosity.

Arithmancy at least you can have worked out before the game so you can simply roll the check for the spell (after all it's simple name exchange just put the DC beside the spell name) and eats a swift action.

Dark Archive

Abraham spalding wrote:
Arithmancy at least you can have worked out before the game so you can simply roll the check for the spell (after all it's simple name exchange just put the DC beside the spell name) and eats a swift action.

Arithmancy also has some built in limiters like, 'usable x times per day,' and a Spell Focus feat tax. Rip off both of those limitations and put them on Sacred Geometry, and SG is still too good, and Arithmancy still not particularly overpowered...

51 to 100 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Sacred Geometry All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.