First rule of spell mastery: never take it at advertised level. Wait until you get 5th-6th level spells and grab it for those emergency spells (plane shift, overland flight, greater invisibility, emergency force sphere, teleport/greater teleport, wall of stone, etc.) for when youre trapped by gm contrivance without your spellbook.
You can grab a great many spells this way due to your stellar int at those levels, and you will never be reduced to a mere commoner by the loss or destruction of a book--not that you shouldnt have backups for this situation, but spell mastery helps you physically get to or fight your way to your stronghold where those backups are while you plan your revenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you ever run at someone and run straight onto a spear? I have a few times. In most cases it stopped me dead, sometimes it missed, and a few of them hit hard enough to redirect my motion.
They were also blunt, and I was wearing armour, which is why I'm able to type this. On or two of them missed the armour and left me with minor fractures, or the sort of bruising that goes away after a few months.So if we're talking simulationism (which may or may not deserve a nod depending on the person considering it, but you brought it up), I highly recommend leaving the AoOs in. Though I think the feat chains around them are ludicrous and could use some pruning.
The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.
Underpowered...does anyone ever take Spell Mastery? Seems like taking that feat is planning for failure.It's a tax for at least one PrC and also the flexible wizardry feat, which looks pretty good.
I keep looking at flexible wizardry and drooling slightly. Then looking at spell mastery and being sad.The reason Vital Strike and the like are not attack actions are to prevent them from being used in a full attack. That said, there is no reason not to put in a line saying that such feats can be used with Spring Attack other than martials can't have nice things.The other reason would be AoOs. If it can work on any attack that isn't a full attack it can work on an AoO, which would significantly boost an AoO-reach build.
Which would be awesome combined with the ACG feats that let you add entangle and other stuff to vital strike... and probably a bit good.
Why not just "Vital Strike can be used x amounts of times per round"
then you can make it so the base feat grants you 1 time per round. Then Improved Vital strike bumps it up to 2 times per round (now we're cooking), etc.can still leave in the "cannot be used as part of a full attack" if you are really scared of full attack shenanigans.
Thus allowing for a character to build vital strike into a spring attack build, or a whirlwind build, or a body guard build, and probably more; while still giving leaving controls in place so that he doesn't lay into people haphazardly.
edit or I guess if you're really a stickler don't make the "per round" number progress at all (but I kinda like the idea)
The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.
you know that sounds almost exactly like this tabletop game i play...
The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.you know that sounds almost exactly like this tabletop game i play...
It is called Pathfinder by any chance?
Any feat prerequisite is by definition a tax. You're paying X feat for Y feat.
Sometimes you might actually want X, which is great, but that's pretty rare.
It is called Pathfinder by any chance?The problem with taking a simulationist approach is that, unless you stick to low levels, spellcasters just don't care about the laws of reality anymore. If you make it so that martials do, they will always be straight up inferior, because they have to play by the rules and the casters don't. So, I'd go by what makes martials more relevant in combat, because if mister sparky fingers over there can throw all sorts of reality bending magic around like it's not even a big deal, I should be able to take an inhuman amount of pain and keep going.you know that sounds almost exactly like this tabletop game i play...
Yeah! How did you know?
|
They'd be close IF precision damage didn't exist and IF no magical damage increases existed.Interesting restatement of the problem. Sneak attack exists and buffs multi-weapon builds more than single-weapon builds, which means multi-weapon has to be rendered weaker so it's not OP with sneak attack. This in turn renders multi-weapon rubbish when it doesn't have sneak attack...
Design objective: balance multi-weapon no-sneak against single weapon without making multi-weapon sneak too good.
Possible solutions:
1.1) make multi-weapon by itself as good as single-weapon by removing the million feat taxes and pre-requisites.
1.2) make the sneak attack the thing that is expensively priced. Slow down sneak attack progressions, make there be feat requirements, etc.2) apply sneak attack to only a single strike per round. Multi-weapon is now no more buffed than single-weapon.
Multi-weapon would still get more out of sneak attack if it could only trigger once a round. If there's no accuracy penalty, then you're far more likely to hit with at least one blow and trigger sneak attack than with only a single swing.
Why does multi-weapon fighting have to be as good anyway? Currently - the only mechanical reason to take the TWF tree is if you have sneak attack (and now to a lesser degree if you go massive dex & a pair of sawtoothed sabers, dip a level in swashbuckler, and take slashing grace) - and that's fine. It fits the classic fluff of the guy doing it being an agile sneaky guy Historically - it was done only very rarely anyway.
It's also not a mechanically good idea to play a character who uses drastically over-sized weapons. It's allowed. It's kinda cool. But that doesn't actually make it a good idea mechanically.
Multiweapon fighting doesn't *have* to be good; it just needs to be a viable play style because people want to play it. But if it's going to cost feats (you know, those things that make your combat skills better) the feats in question should make your combat skills better. As it stands, TWF is the weakest method of fighting, even for most rogue builds. I think the only good TWF builds are shield bashers, which is perhaps quite realistic, but rather missing the point.
It's quite telling that 99% of the feat taxes and long trees are martial; there are almost no metamagic or item creation taxes. Some very obvious taxes don't exist (eg you can Craft Staff without knowing how to Craft Wand; Maximise doesn't need Empower).
They'd be close IF precision damage didn't exist and IF no magical damage increases existed.Interesting restatement of the problem. Sneak attack exists and buffs multi-weapon builds more than single-weapon builds, which means multi-weapon has to be rendered weaker so it's not OP with sneak attack. This in turn renders multi-weapon rubbish when it doesn't have sneak attack...
Design objective: balance multi-weapon no-sneak against single weapon without making multi-weapon sneak too good.
Possible solutions:
1.1) make multi-weapon by itself as good as single-weapon by removing the million feat taxes and pre-requisites.
1.2) make the sneak attack the thing that is expensively priced. Slow down sneak attack progressions, make there be feat requirements, etc.2) apply sneak attack to only a single strike per round. Multi-weapon is now no more buffed than single-weapon.
dear sweet lord dont nerf SA more, it's already so needlessly g%~@@+ned restrictive and LITERALLY THE ONLY COMBAT FEATURE THE ROGUE HAS AT ALL. what little faith i had in this game would be completely shattered if someone where to honestly try to say that rogues are somehow overpowered by sneak attack existing, and a nerf for it were actually approved in print.
it'd be worse that paizo's epic blunder of "hey, MoMS is too good in our houserule system, lets nerf one of the only good things available to monks into complete and utter uselessness!" that someone actually thought was a good idea (instead of, say, banning the MoMS AT in PFS and solving several problems at once)
Honestly, I'd rather sneak attack was an optional thing, rather than a core part of the Rogue class. You have to have a specific play style to make it really work for you, and not everybody who wants to be a Rogue has that style, or has a party that accommodates that style. Generally, I use the SGG Talented Rogue, which does just that. You can get it if you really want it, but you don't have to.
Honestly, I'd rather sneak attack was an optional thing, rather than a core part of the Rogue class. You have to have a specific play style to make it really work for you, and not everybody who wants to be a Rogue has that style, or has a party that accommodates that style. Generally, I use the SGG Talented Rogue, which does just that. You can get it if you really want it, but you don't have to.
personally i'd like it if it were more like what the sleyer has: yes it's a slower progression, but they're actually competent in combat without it--they dont hinge entirely on one easily shut down ability. it's certainly a boon when it comes up, but they don't require it to function.
i'm still upset that there are no rogue ATs that grant either studied combat/strike or favored target (both of which were stated in the playtest to be a thing that was happening). that they didn't even get a brawler feat-grab or panache AT unlike every class under the freaking sun is just another slap in the face--as someone who likes the rogue i'm getting sick and tired of bruised cheeks.
not even going to START on the monk.
What percentage of your feats do you have to pay annually?
What percentage of your feats do you have to pay annually?
When I'm a fighter who invests in feats chains, I'd say at least 75% as a conservative estimate.