Sacred Geometry


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

A completely overpowered feat that greatly slows down gameplay... I haven't seen something this badly designed in... well... a long, long time.

Who created this abomination? And who approved it?


Why would you do an echoing acid splash?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Timothy Hanson wrote:
Why would you do an echoing acid splash?

Because it's free!

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:

I couldn't get Ascalaphus' script to work at all. :(

Ah, yes. That site is a python interpreter, which is slightly different from calling a script from the command line with the spell name as parameter.

To get it to work in that interpreter, change the last line to:

Quote:
print ntn("lightning bolt")

Or just erase the last line, and type

Quote:
ntn("my spell name within these quotation marks")

in the box on the right side, followed by Enter.


What a fantastic and thematic feat. Sadly I am way too math challenged to understand it, let alone attempt it.

It definitely looks overpowered. A feat. That gives you two feats. I had a trait like that once...


I think this is being blown out of proportion. Apart from theorycrafting, has anyone actually tried to use it?

I can do math rather easily and _I_ wouldn't take this feat, just for the added complication (same as why I don't bother with the Summoner...)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Holy crap. Note to self: When designing feats, keep it simple. Simple.


darkwarriorkarg wrote:
I think this is being blown out of proportion. Apart from theorycrafting, has anyone actually tried to use it?

You get two metamagic feats for the price of one and you can use both of them without increasing spell level...

It really doesn't require a lot of insight and playtesting to see how broken it is. The fact that it potentially causes a major slow down in gameplay doesn't help either.


Lemmy wrote:
darkwarriorkarg wrote:
I think this is being blown out of proportion. Apart from theorycrafting, has anyone actually tried to use it?

You get two metamagic feats for the price of one and you can use both of them without increasing spell level...

It really doesn't require a lot of insight and playtesting to see how broken it is. The fact that it potentially causes a major slow down in gameplay doesn't help either.

I never thought I'd see an ability that slowed things down more than Weird Words... guess I really have seen everything now.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have thought a way to limit this feat so that it is interesting for NPC and very specific PC, will keep and increase his theme and will still make it very strong in the appropriate circumstances:

Add to:
Benefits
This feat can be activated only in a building constructed following the geomancy rules and perfectly know by the feat user as the user need to know the perfect position in which he should be to cast each spell in relation with the building structure and the time and date.

To design a building that follow the geomancy rules the architect need to make a Knowledge (engineering) check with a DC of 15 for a building that could fit in a 30'x 30'x 30' cube. Doubling the cube size (to 60'x60'x60') would increase the DC by 5, doubling it again (to 120'x 120'x 120) would increase the DC by another 5 points. That progression can be extended indefinitely, as long as you can make the check. If the check is failed by 5+ the architect isn't aware that he has failed to properly calculate the dimensions and positions of all the elements in the structure.

If the architect failed the check or he is reshaping an already existing building roll a d20 after he has completed his project.
With a result of 1-10 the building is too misaligned and it is not possible to use the Sacred geometry feat in it. The defect can't be corrected.
11-15 the Sacred geometry feat can be used, but the caster must add 4 levels to the modified level of the spell when you try to use it.
16-19 the Sacred geometry feat can be used, but the caster must add 2 levels to the modified level of the spell when you try to use it.
20 the Sacred geometry feat can be used, but the caster must add 1 level to the modified level of the spell when you try to use it.

If the user of the Sacred geometry take over an already existing building shaped to benefit from this feat he need know every location in it (he need to know the location and layout of every secret rooms, closet and so on) and spend 1 month drawing a detailed plan of it. Then he need to make a Knowledge (engineering) check with a DC 5 point lower than the DC needed to make the initial project of the building. If he is successful he can use the feat in the building, if he fail he need to repeat the procedure.

Owning a complete set of correct maps for the building will reduce the DC of the check by another 5 points and halve the time needed to make the check.

Major modification to the building will require a Knowledge architecture check with a DC equal to the starting DC to avoid problems. If the check fail the consequences are the same depicted above (the d20 roll), but the result of 1-10 can be corrected rebuilding the modified part as it was originally.

Simple holes in the walls, like those done by disintegrate aren't enough to make a building unfit for the feat, major structural damage (like from earthquake, massive damage by multiple siege engines and so on) is enough.

- * -

To speed up play using the feat would require a Knowledge (engineering) check with a DC of 15 + twice the modified spell level instead of the convolute official system. A die roll of 1 would be an automatic failure.

- * -

That way it is a very interesting ability for a mummified Pharaoh in his pyramid or a wizard in his tower, way less interesting for the typical adventuring spellcaster.

What do you think?

Sovereign Court

darkwarriorkarg wrote:

I think this is being blown out of proportion. Apart from theorycrafting, has anyone actually tried to use it?

I can do math rather easily and _I_ wouldn't take this feat, just for the added complication (same as why I don't bother with the Summoner...)

I just tried some toying around with dice to see if I could quickly reach the various numbers. I used 12 dice. It turns out it's really not that hard to do. You can get rid of any two dice with the same number or with a difference of only 1 by subtracting them to get 0 or 1.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

A completely overpowered feat that greatly slows down gameplay... I haven't seen something this badly designed in... well... a long, long time.

Who created this abomination? And who approved it?

People keep asking this question, but the authors of the book it is in are right at the bottom of the page. . . we know who approved it. . .

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry

Just.. wat? Such a weird (and amazing) feat.

My PFS wizard is so taking this feat at 9th level (assuming it makes it into the additional resources).


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

A completely overpowered feat that greatly slows down gameplay... I haven't seen something this badly designed in... well... a long, long time.

Who created this abomination? And who approved it?

People keep asking this question, but the authors of the book it is in are right at the bottom of the page. . . we know who approved it. . .

Yes, we do...

Authors • Jason Bulmahn, Crystal Frasier, Jim Groves, Brandon Hodge, James Jacobs, Erik Mona, F. Wesley Schneider, and Jerome Virnich

Creative Director • James Jacobs
Editor-in-Chief • F. Wesley Schneider
Managing Editor • James L. Sutter
Lead Developer • Mark Moreland
Senior Developer • Rob McCreary
Developers • Logan Bonner, John Compton, Adam Daigle, Mark Moreland, and Patrick Renie
Associate Editors • Judy Bauer and Christopher Carey
Editors • Justin Juan, Lyz Liddell, Ryan Macklin, and Matthew Simmons
Lead Designer • Jason Bulmahn
Designers • Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Sean K Reynolds

...but what to do about it? It's not like we do the whole torches and pitchforks thing anymore.

Artanthos wrote:
swoosh wrote:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry

Just.. wat? Such a weird (and amazing) feat.

My PFS wizard is so taking this feat at 9th level.

I would be VERY surprised if this was ever approved for Society play.

Scarab Sages

Ravingdork wrote:
I would be VERY surprised if this was ever approved for Society play.

So would I.

Given my wizard is already focused on summoning, I can foresee the results of adding this feat to my character.


The most amazing thing is that the description of the feat itself is so complicated that it summons an Eldridge abomination. You must not read from the book!


Wow...that...I don't even...

Is there a way we can bring this up and tell them that this is a bad idea? As players, we know this feat is too strong and will slow down the game.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a part of me that really wants this for my wizard. There's another part of me attacking the first part with a baseball bat.


I've got to ask. Didn't "free metamagic" ringed a bell inside the mind of the authors? Is Jason already getting so old?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I <3 this thread. So many people agreeing that something is simultaneously nifty and stupid...

So at 7th level, a wizard has unlimited castings of the first level spells he has memorized with echoing spell. At 9th, unlimited second level spells. At 11th, unlimited third level spells. And so on. Seems legit.

DM: What do you mean everyone has resist energy for every energy type and you still have all your second level slot?!
Wizard: I had a minute and a half to kill...

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Who says you have to fiddle with all your dice to get a result? There's a much easier way of picking and choosing what dice you want to use.

The Power of Zero:
Let's say I have a Level 17 Blockbuster Wizard with maxed ranks in Knowledge (Engineering). His name shall be Sparky. Prior to the session My GM bought everyone pizza, but everyone else got 3 pieces while I only got 2. This makes me a bit spiteful, so I decide to rain on his parade. And by "rain" I mean "throw a fireball at".

Sparky wants to cast a Dazing Empowered Intensified Fireball (a 9th-level spell). To use Sacred Geometry, Sparky must get either 101, 103, or 107 from his dice roll. Here's the results:

5x1
3x2
1x3
4x4
3x5
1x6

With this many dice, getting to 100 is easy.
(5*5*4)=100

Getting to a prime constant? Easier.
((5*5*4)+1)=101

Using up your other dice? You're going to love this.
((5*5*4)+1) + ((1-1)*everything else)

In just three easy steps, Sparky gets the Fireball he wants and I get to see my GM's distraught face as he does it all with a 3rd-level spell slot.

Your normal Blockbuster Wizard would cast this spell using a Level 5 spell slot, and that requires four feats and a trait to pull off. Sparky does it with two feats and some skill ranks (which, as a wizard, he has plenty of). This feat is broken.

Sovereign Court

@Lunias: that's brilliant. So simple, but you're the first to see it.

---

Given the increased casting time, I'd say this is a good feat for out of combat spells (which is when the slightly longer player time is also less of an issue). Therefore I recommend taking Extend as one of the free metamagics. For clerics, I'd say Maximize is also good, for getting the most out of healing spells. Style points for wrapping your party into geometrically pleasing bandages.

Silver Crusade

If one adopts a relatively simple heuristic, it might not slow down play too much.

For example :
If you can get above one of the target numbers and still have at least 2 dice remaining just assume that a solution exists.

That is almost certainly VERY pessimistic in that its actually a LOT easier.

Its probably easier (from 5th level or so) to just go "assuming maxed out dice, unless all the dice are very low, a solution exists".

Of course, such a rule would clearly show how overpowered this feat is.


Ascalaphus wrote:
. . . Given the increased casting time, I'd say this is a good feat for out of combat spells (which is when the slightly longer player time is also less of an issue). Therefore I recommend taking Extend as one of the free metamagics. For clerics, I'd say Maximize is also good, for getting the most out of healing spells. Style points for wrapping your party into geometrically pleasing bandages.

See... that was my first thought. Extend + Heighten. Everything lasts longer and is harder to dispel/ignores minor/major globes once you run into them... perfect for a transmuter/abjurer, but I thought the idea just wasn't splashy enough.

Sovereign Court

The tragedy is that I really like the minigame, but the result is just a tad overpowered. If the feat did less but with the same minigame, it might be appropriate for home games.

I'm also thinking that this might be a good feat for Silent+Still spells; like when you need to do something in a crowd without drawing attention. Since you're pretending not to cast stuff, the increased casting time probably isn't an issue anyway.

Silver Crusade

Ascalaphus wrote:

The tragedy is that I really like the minigame, but the result is just a tad overpowered. If the feat did less but with the same minigame, it might be appropriate for home games.

I'm also thinking that this might be a good feat for Silent+Still spells; like when you need to do something in a crowd without drawing attention. Since you're pretending not to cast stuff, the increased casting time probably isn't an issue anyway.

House rule it, then. :-)

(Unrelated: as I understand it, Silent + Still does nothing to hide the visual manifestation of casting a spell. Glowing magical runes and all that...)


Te'Shen wrote:

I <3 this thread. So many people agreeing that something is simultaneously nifty and stupid...

So at 7th level, a wizard has unlimited castings of the first level spells he has memorized with echoing spell. At 9th, unlimited second level spells. At 11th, unlimited third level spells. And so on. Seems legit.

DM: What do you mean everyone has resist energy for every energy type and you still have all your second level slot?!
Wizard: I had a minute and a half to kill...

Not unlimited. An echoed spell cannot be re-prepared or recast by any means. It gives him an extra use out of a spell.


So, what I'm hearing is that my decision to ban basically anything that's not CRB or APG continues to be a good one.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, it's a ridiculously overpowered feat, but 99% of DMs aren't going to allow it, and if someone does allow it, they're probably running some sort of hyper-magic game where every player is a caster. Plus, as far as I can tell, the source it's taken from seems to revolve around that sort of thing anyway.

So I don't really see how this is a bad decision on Paizo's part. It's a cool tool for silly or high-powered campaigns, and if a DM is letting people use it in normal games, you probably shouldn't be playing with them anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In all honesty, this Feat may have taken the throne of "Most Powerful Feat Ever Written," from Leadership.

... That is, until you realize that you can take Leadership, and have your Cohort ALSO take this Feat.


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

In all honesty, this Feat may have taken the throne of "Most Powerful Feat Ever Written," from Leadership.

... That is, until you realize that you can take Leadership, and have your Cohort ALSO take this Feat.

That's what's so hilarious about leadership, every OP feat that gets published only makes it stronger. It will never be dethroned, as far as I can tell.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As has been stated, the Echo abuse doesn't work. The authors of Echo Spell were quick to errata the feat's text once they realized that Spell Perfection allowed people to have infinite castings of one of their spells. I very much doubt they would allow it to grant infinite castings of nearly all of their spells.

Te'Shen wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
. . . Given the increased casting time, I'd say this is a good feat for out of combat spells (which is when the slightly longer player time is also less of an issue). Therefore I recommend taking Extend as one of the free metamagics. For clerics, I'd say Maximize is also good, for getting the most out of healing spells. Style points for wrapping your party into geometrically pleasing bandages.
See... that was my first thought. Extend + Heighten. Everything lasts longer and is harder to dispel/ignores minor/major globes once you run into them... perfect for a transmuter/abjurer, but I thought the idea just wasn't splashy enough.

Though RAW likely doesn't back it up, I think RAI is that Heighten Spell wouldn't work with this feat. You could do something similar when Spell Perfection came out, and the developers were quick to squash that as well (and that was just ONE of your spells rather than nearly ALL of them).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MilesBeyond wrote:

So, what I'm hearing is that my decision to ban basically anything that's not CRB or APG continues to be a good one.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, it's a ridiculously overpowered feat, but 99% of DMs aren't going to allow it, and if someone does allow it, they're probably running some sort of hyper-magic game where every player is a caster. Plus, as far as I can tell, the source it's taken from seems to revolve around that sort of thing anyway.

So I don't really see how this is a bad decision on Paizo's part. It's a cool tool for silly or high-powered campaigns, and if a DM is letting people use it in normal games, you probably shouldn't be playing with them anyway.

Saying "It would never be allowed." is a poor reason to claim something isn't a problem. If Paizo publishes something it should be with the expectation that people will use it.


Reporting from the low end of the spectrum, 2 ranks gives a 50% success on 1st-level spells and a tiny chance on 2nd-level spells. 3 ranks gives a 70% chance on 1st-level spells and a 40% chance on 2nd-level spells.

Assuming perfect solving of the 'use these dice to make a number' puzzle.

I don't see this as a problem with the character/player/npc/setting_element I'm already allowing to do other miraculous things. I like that my narrative can now model such things.

Game balance is always an illusion. If a good fight lasts five rounds, and your damage doubles, the opposition suddenly 'will have been' breeding doubly-tough monsters, which you'll meet very soon... I acknowledge this is not the case in PFS.

This feat with Still and Silent could let your sorc cast while bound and gagged.


DualJay wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:

I <3 this thread. So many people agreeing that something is simultaneously nifty and stupid...

So at 7th level, a wizard has unlimited castings of the first level spells he has memorized with echoing spell. At 9th, unlimited second level spells. At 11th, unlimited third level spells. And so on. Seems legit.

DM: What do you mean everyone has resist energy for every energy type and you still have all your second level slot?!
Wizard: I had a minute and a half to kill...

Not unlimited. An echoed spell cannot be re-prepared or recast by any means. It gives him an extra use out of a spell.

*Looks at echoing spell* ... ah. I am, indeed, incorrect. I missed the "one additional time during that day"... I must have just glanced as opposed to read.

Ravingdork wrote:
Te'Shen wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
. . . Given the increased casting time, I'd say this is a good feat for out of combat spells (which is when the slightly longer player time is also less of an issue). Therefore I recommend taking Extend as one of the free metamagics. For clerics, I'd say Maximize is also good, for getting the most out of healing spells. Style points for wrapping your party into geometrically pleasing bandages.
See... that was my first thought. Extend + Heighten. Everything lasts longer and is harder to dispel/ignores minor/major globes once you run into them... perfect for a transmuter/abjurer, but I thought the idea just wasn't splashy enough.
Though RAW likely doesn't back it up, I think RAI is that Heighten Spell wouldn't work with this feat. You could do something similar when Spell Perfection came out, and the developers were quick to squash that as well (and that was just ONE of your spells rather than nearly ALL of them).

See... and the way it stands, I don't really get the point of heighten. Its seems to be better to add more damage and muscle through rather than boost the save for some of the spells you're using if you're tossing damage spells. If you're using save or dies or save or sucks, the higher level version is better anyway than heightening... I don't really see a lot of globes of invulnerability in play, but I tend to play lower levels anyway... so it just seems that if you have to choose between a heightened spell and another spell at the appropriate level, the higher level version gets memorized.

I cannot say it's the same for sorcerers, but I think you understand what I am trying to say.


I have never seen Globe of Invulnerability ever be an issue as it may as well be renamed Globe of Utter Suicide. The Globe is immobile so you have to stand there and take full attacks from people with pointy weapons which is a terrible idea.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thornborn wrote:
If a good fight lasts five rounds, and your damage doubles, the opposition suddenly 'will have been' breeding doubly-tough monsters, which you'll meet very soon... I acknowledge this is not the case in PFS.

Assuming you are doing it because of a new combination the player came up with rather than typical level/CR advancement, I've always viewed this as rather bad GMing. If you are having a problem with a player character's new toy or trick, you should talk to the player and resolve the root of the problem, not compound it by killing everyone else with strong monsters.

Also, I find it best to just leave it be if it doesn't appear to be diminishing the fun of anyone else. I've found that oftentimes, the apparent problem lies with the GM alone. (Even so, a GM should strive to have fun too.) Whenever one of my players comes up with a powerful character, concept, combo, or whatever, I revel in their joy and keep the story moving forward as already prescribed by my notes or the module in question. The only time I step in is when it is causing problems for others (such as stealing away too much of the limelight or whatnot).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

From the land of Giantitp.com.

AnonymousPepper wrote:

So my good friend Al wrote up a little program to have a look at this... and after setting it to do 1000 rolls for every combination of skill ranks and spell levels, it turns out that 12 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering), no Calculating Mind necessary, the chance of coming out with a valid solution is 100% for every effective spell level.

All credit to GitP user alcarithemad for this one.

Of course, the primes can be extrapolated further for higher spell levels, in the case of getting higher-level spell slots. Not sure what the required ranks would be for those.

Link to Post


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Does Calculating Mind let you ignore numbers? If not, why does it say "as long as the number of dice does not exceed the number of ranks you possess in Knowledge (engineering)"?

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

From the land of Giantitp.com.

AnonymousPepper wrote:

So my good friend Al wrote up a little program to have a look at this... and after setting it to do 1000 rolls for every combination of skill ranks and spell levels, it turns out that 12 ranks in Knowledge (Engineering), no Calculating Mind necessary, the chance of coming out with a valid solution is 100% for every effective spell level.

All credit to GitP user alcarithemad for this one.

Of course, the primes can be extrapolated further for higher spell levels, in the case of getting higher-level spell slots. Not sure what the required ranks would be for those.

Link to Post

It seems imperfect. I tried a level 2 spell with 3 ranks and it worked. I tried it with Calculating Mind and it failed.

Seeing as Calculating Mind still lets you use d6s, it should have succeeded as well.


It should probably require you to select the number of dice that you want to make d8s instead of d6s. I think it's assuming that they're all d8s.

I wish the program displayed the dice results, even on a failure.


LuniasM wrote:

Who says you have to fiddle with all your dice to get a result? There's a much easier way of picking and choosing what dice you want to use.

** spoiler omitted **

So simple, yet so perfect. No need for a huge look up table, just get to the goal somehow, create a 0 and multiply the leftovers by it. Done. A lot shorter than a full round attack.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Changed thread title to be less baiting.

Liberty's Edge

Just thought I would throw out there for those claiming larger numbers of dice will be more difficult. All you have to do to eliminate unwanted dice is pair two dice with the same result as (d1-d2) which gives 0, then multiply this 0 to all of the dice you don't need. So, (d1-d2)*(d3+d4+...dn).

For those who are worried about finding a matching pair of dice: If you roll 7 d6, at least two must result in the same value. This means at 7 ranks you are guaranteed to be able to produce a 0. Once you reach 10+ ranks, you will have a 0 and plenty of dice left over to get the number you want. At 20 ranks, it is probably an infinitely small chance, if not outright impossible, to not be able to make any of the given numbers.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I heard it said that 12 ranks guarantees 100% success rate with any spell of 9th-level and lower.


Well... I'm planning to be gaming a duo game with my GF today. It may be a GMPC, but, eh... I think I'll give this and Arithmancy a try.

Now... The question is, what options are we looking at for race/archetype/schools/etc that make this thing completely balls-to-the-wall broken? Assume level five as a starting point.


Heighten is for classes with limited spells known or a lack of higher level spells targeting a specific save. Persistent is better if you're going two levels, but if you're not raising by exactly two heighten helps.

It's also useful if you have restricted slots. What does a CRB only necromancer prepare in his 6th level school slot? Eyebite has a HD limit and everything else has an expensive material component. Heighten Spell to the rescue.

And then there are the low level spells that aren't superseded. Like Entangle. While higher level BFC spells have additional effects and aren't terrain restricted, nothing matches the size, range, duration, and tie down. In the right terrain, Heightened Entangle is worthy of its slot. Other examples appear in later books like Aboleth's Lung (save or die on will is rare).

And have you looked at the bard list? At low levels they have some save variety, but at higher levels they're mostly will.


I don't know if this has already been looked at, but I thought about a way to home brew some balancing into this feat. instead of d6's rolled = ranks of knowledge engineering; i think it should be # of d6's rolled are ranks of knowledge engineering minus the effective spell level of the modified spell.

example: a lvl 9 wizard can cast up to 5th lvl spells. but if the player chose to max out his spell, assuming he has max ranks in knowledge engineering, he would only be able to roll 4 d6, making it incredibly hard for him to get the 43, 47, 53 he needs to make the spell work. but if the same wizard decided to only beef up a lvl 0 spell to a lvl 2 spell, he would be in a much better situation. Making the feat reward smart use of low cost metamagic vs rewarding players for wasting table time to crunch massive amounts of dice and sooner or later make everything work.

[edit] removed unnecessary text


Ravingdork wrote:
Thornborn wrote:
If a good fight lasts five rounds, and your damage doubles, the opposition suddenly 'will have been' breeding doubly-tough monsters, which you'll meet very soon... I acknowledge this is not the case in PFS.
Assuming you are doing it because of a new combination the player came up with rather than typical level/CR advancement, I've always viewed this as rather bad GMing. If you are having a problem with a player character's new toy or trick, you should talk to the player and resolve the root of the problem, not compound it by killing everyone else with strong monsters.

If I let a trick in, my players know I will still challenge them. My players rely upon me to present challenges. So while I will celebrate WITH them, their latest gizmonic, possibly joke about it smelling of cheese, they know the presence of the new method is not going to _only_ let them kill 2.4 more city guards a round. The new cannon is going to also blow open the door of the Iron House, and let out the legion of lightning golems.

Because it was always about fighting cooler stuff with cooler stuff, not about pasting mooks more efficiently.

And I think it's rather good GMing.

I find both "No, you can't have it, not even going to talk about it" and "OK, you win, they're all dead, now go home", as bad GMing.

Ravingdork wrote:
Also, I find it best to just leave it be if it doesn't appear to be diminishing the fun of anyone else. I've found that oftentimes, the apparent problem lies with the GM alone. (Even so, a GM should strive to have fun too.) Whenever one of my players comes up with a powerful character, concept, combo, or whatever, I revel in their joy and keep the story moving forward as already prescribed by my notes or the module in question. The only time I step in is when it is causing problems for others (such as stealing away too much of the limelight or whatnot).

I agree with all of the above, with the caveat that if a new toy breaks something, I'm supposed to have something else ready to serve.

To keep this remotely on topic, I think the feat is pure flavor for low-levels, where my games start, and I expect of myself that I would adapt as PCs leveled up.


Another point of interest, since it is commonly accepted that for this feat chain d6's > d8's... why not just flip the feat chain around.

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:
I heard it said that 12 ranks guarantees 100% success rate with any spell of 9th-level and lower.

I think thats "effectively" 100% chance. I think that very low rolls like all 1's still screw things up. So, "only" really a 99.99% chance :-)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I heard it said that 12 ranks guarantees 100% success rate with any spell of 9th-level and lower.
I think thats "effectively" 100% chance. I think that very low rolls like all 1's still screw things up. So, "only" really a 99.99% chance :-)

rolls of only ones actually i think screws up only the highest tiers because you can do stuff like

(1+1+1+1)*(1+1+1)+1+1+1-1-1)

201 to 250 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.