How are Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter not feats?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This has really been bugging me.

Not that I'm complaining about player power; blasting things into oblivion is less useful for casters than using control magic, and Dazing Spell and Persistent Spell would be pains in the ass with or without level reducers.

I just think it's weird that something people base entire builds around is supposedly on the same mechanical level as an extra class skill, to the point where they can essentially pick up the same effect twice for low-level spells via Wayang Spellhunter (allowing auto-Empowered fireballs by level 5/6).

It just seems like they distort the game, is all.


I'm not sure they particularly distort the game. As you did point out, the effects that they make silly are pretty silly without their help.

They are really, really strong for traits though, and it's frustrating that they're in different categories.

But that's the nature of magic in pathfinder and I'm not sure one of them would be a particularly great feat outside something very niche, especially given the caliber of spellcasting feats in Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's funny. I just read the dragon empires primer, and was wondering what it was about Minata that caused its denizens to all become fireball blasters and shocking grasp maguses....

Granted, the area *is* full of pirates.

"Yarr... Give me all your gold!"

::Zap!::

::Tries to smooth out smoking hair.:: "Actually, I was mistaken, good sir, and will let you on your way.... No offense. Yarr."

I love that there is *some* way to reduce metamagic cost. What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates. It should give flavor to their characters beyond the combat magic possibilities.

Hmm


Hmm wrote:


I love that there is *some* way to reduce metamagic cost. What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates. It should give flavor to their characters beyond the combat magic possibilities.

Hmm

Well, that adds an entirely different conundrum to things.


Traits aren't exactly well balanced. That said, the builds based around them tend to suffer from being overly linear. The whole Crossblooded Red Draconic/Fire Primal Sorcerer with Magical Lineage+Wayang Spellhunter on Fireball who's dedicated to Spell Focus/Specialization with Empowered or Dazing Fireballs from the earliest possible level is nice, and when it works it works... and when it doesn't work they get chewed on by the fire-immune demon. Admixture Wizards can handle that... but in return it's much easier to wear out their spell slots. Admittedly they can solve this problem at higher levels, but they have a gaping weakness in there.

The Magus can skate by better since their normal setup is only one of those traits and one feat. But they still vastly prefer fighting things not immune to their novas.

Personally I feel like the two shouldn't stack, but that's me.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
swoosh wrote:


Well, that adds an entirely different conundrum to things.

Everytime I've used a regional trait, it has really served as a springboard for my back story. I think that is part of what traits should do... help define who a character is beyond just giving them the ability to zap things.

Hmm


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I've always adjusted to something similar that fits in the area i'm in. but ya'kno home games.. and lack of the actual asian lands haha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the whole trait system is in need of a do-over, it's particularly jarring in the case of those two traits.


Hmm wrote:
swoosh wrote:


Well, that adds an entirely different conundrum to things.

Everytime I've used a regional trait, it has really served as a springboard for my back story. I think that is part of what traits should do... help define who a character is beyond just giving them the ability to zap things.

Hmm

That's perfectly valid. I've used ideas like that to jumpstart characters before.

There's a flipside though. Like, should every Fighter who wants to be good at assessing the value of items really have to be the son or daughter of a merchant?

They can really inspire, but sometimes I think they can be constraining too, where Mechanical effect X makes sense but preattached fluff Y doesn't.


LazarX wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

This has really been bugging me.

Really... is there anything about the game that doesn't bug you? On my end I haven't found anything that agitates me that much.

The word bug is supposed to imply a level of concern below that implied by agitated, irritated, concerned, etc.

I suppose I could have said "you know what kind of gets me a little?"

How should I accommodate you in the future?


The part that annoys me is that a trait is supposed to be about half a feat, but I can almost guarantee they'll never print a feat that gives you two free levels of metamagic. Oh wait, this monster exists. It allows you to slap two free metamagics (and any others you want) on a spell with no level adjustment. So, if we can just get a trait "Took Calculus in High School" that lets you add a free metamagic (that it also gives you) if you can solve for the roots of a quadratic equation, then we'll be fine.


Hmm wrote:
swoosh wrote:


Well, that adds an entirely different conundrum to things.

Everytime I've used a regional trait, it has really served as a springboard for my back story. I think that is part of what traits should do... help define who a character is beyond just giving them the ability to zap things.

Hmm

I don't mind it so much. Reflavoring is a thing ya know. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for only a specific region to know how to reduce metamagic costs, therefore renaming the trait something like..."Warmage Academy Training" is in fine order.

That all said, several traits hold power on par or even greater than feats. The trait system is definitely out of whack but feats could definitely use a looking at as well.


Now, on about the feat/trait thing.

There was a feat in 3.5 that did exactly what magical lineage does (only for arcane spells), but with the added bonus of +2 caster level to that spell. But you needed to have reached 6th level, and also had to be able to cast the spell that was to be modified.

There was also a feat (specifically for spontaneous casters) that allowed you to reduce the spell-level increase of one metamagic feat by 1, to a minimum of 1, when applying it to any of your spells. This feat required either the expenditure of additional feats to qualify, or else be restricted to certain races. It also required that you be 6th level to take it and have the metamagic feat in question.

And finally, there was a feat that allowed you to reduce the level cost of a metamagic feat (chosen by you when you prepared or cast the spell) by 1, but only 3 times per day, and only for spells of a single school of magic, for which you either needed the Spell Focus feat or be a specialized wizard. This feat was available with no level restrictions, so a 1st-level specialist wizard could theoretically take it, which might help explain the daily use limit (though another explanation may be that the design team was aware of the other metamagic-reducing feats and didn't want to permit shenanigans like Quickened 7th-level spells.

So, given that feats were much harder to come by in 3.5 than Pathfinder, it is telling just how difficult metamagic reduction effects actually were.

And while the existence of Persistent Spell (the "make a personal-range spell last 24 hours for a +6 level increase" version of CoDzilla fame) showed that not all of their design choices in this region were well-thought-out, the fact is that it was relatively difficult to get a continuous -2 reduction for a given spell (and even then, only for a spontaneous caster and only for one specific metamagic feat applied to that spell), and impossible (at least through feats alone) to get a continuous -3 reduction to an arcane spell.

Now, the Magical Lineage + Wayang Spellhunter combo permits a continuous -2 reduction for a specific spell of 3rd level or lower, and is available to any class. Alternately, it can be a -1 reduction to any one spell, and you can pick a combat trait like Reactionary for the all-important initiative boost.

And the reductions would perhaps be fine, if it weren't for Spell Perfection (which I know doesn't show up in PFS, but is still a part of the core rules). Dazing Intensified Quickened fireball with a 6th-level slot, plus Dazing Intensified Empowered fireball, also as a 6th-level slot. Only the fact that Intensified Spell can't be applied twice to increase the damage cap to 20d6 keeps this from getting kind of silly, at least compared to the CRB.

And yes, it is technically better to just throw around maze spells while the martials buff up and prepare to murderdeathkill the monster when it reappears. But that's just because high-level play is kind of silly.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Oh wait, this monster exists.

And was printed as a joke. That whole book was a waste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

This has really been bugging me.

Not that I'm complaining about player power; blasting things into oblivion is less useful for casters than using control magic, and Dazing Spell and Persistent Spell would be pains in the ass with or without level reducers.

I just think it's weird that something people base entire builds around is supposedly on the same mechanical level as an extra class skill, to the point where they can essentially pick up the same effect twice for low-level spells via Wayang Spellhunter (allowing auto-Empowered fireballs by level 5/6).

It just seems like they distort the game, is all.

I honestly don't think they were written (separately and likely by different designers) with the ubiquitous generic copy-cat builds in mind that we're seeing which double up on them as a matter of course.

I'd definitely only allow one or the other, as I would in any case where two traits replicated the same effect. Most of the time, traits include language (like 'trait bonus to...') that keeps such things from stacking. I mean, I can't stack +1 bonuses to a single skill because they would both be from Traits, but I CAN stack these two? Hardly seems RAI.


Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.

Devil's advocate: But where is the rule that allows that? Where is "flavor text" defined in the book? Are you sure you're not just breaking rules and making stuff up to get your way?

;P


Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.

But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?


Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?

Incorrect. One is a regional trait. The other is a magic trait. Wayang Spellhunter only applies to 3rd level or lower spells. Magical Lineage applies to any spell.


Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?

Sure.

Of course, you're just wasting a trait, 'cause both provide a trait bonus and, as such, don't stack, but if that's what tickles yer testicles, go for it.


Ravingdork wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.

Devil's advocate: But where is the rule that allows that? Where is "flavor text" defined in the book? Are you sure you're not just breaking rules and making stuff up to get your way?

;P

*PUNCH*


Traits should be re-skinnable, no doubt. There is no reason to restrict the specific background flavor for something like having Diplomacy as a class skill. There are loads of possible reasons for that.

That said, traits are one of the worst balanced parts of the game, and they encourage horrible, and boring, min-maxing, even if the specific flavor should be (though is not, RAW, afaik) irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

the secret fire wrote:

Traits should be re-skinnable, no doubt. There is no reason to restrict the specific background flavor for something like having Diplomacy as a class skill. There are loads of possible reasons for that.

That said, traits are one of the worst balanced parts of the game, and they encourage horrible, and boring, min-maxing, even if the specific flavor should be (though is not, RAW, afaik) irrelevant.

Say that to the character that was selected has his primary target by the jealous ghost because he had the trait "Charming".

;-)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

See, I'm completely opposite when it comes to traits and flavor - IMO the original intention for traits was that you take them for their flavor, and the small mechanical bonus is a bribe to get your to think about your character's background. Taking them for their mechanics and then reskinning them is completely backwards to my way of thinking - plus if that were the intention there would be no need to actually print most of them, as they could simply be things like:

"Pick any skill. It is a class skill and you get a +1 trait bonus."
"Get a +2 trait bonus to initiative"
"+1 trait bonus to one saving throw"

Without flavor that's 75% of traits right there. Personally I always choose traits based on their flavor and my character background then take whatever mechanics they come with. Obviously YMMV.


Yes, you take them for their flavor; but that flavor is whatever you want it to be. The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.


ryric wrote:
See, I'm completely opposite when it comes to traits and flavor - IMO the original intention for traits was that you take them for their flavor, and the small mechanical bonus is a bribe to get your to think about your character's background. Taking them for their mechanics and then reskinning them is completely backwards to my way of thinking - plus if that were the intention there would be no need to actually print most of them

FWIW, that's also the official use as presented in Ultimate Campaign. The first chapter (Character Background) presents a set of tables to use (via random die roll or deliberate selection) that open specific traits. For example, you can roll/select "Born out of Time," in which you were born at some distant time and some event has magically displaced you from your home era. (Fans of Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series take note.) This, in turn, gives you access to, but does not grant, the Scholar of the Great Beyond trait.

So you can still have whatever cheezy traits you want (by selecting), but it also gives you fluff text corresponding to the fact that you have the Gifted Adept trait (e.g., "when you were only a child, you made contact with a magical creature").


Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?

No but you can take reactionary and addopted elf warrior of old for two +2's to init.


Mulgar wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?
No but you can take reactionary and addopted elf warrior of old for two +2's to init.

Again, both trait bonuses, and thus do not stack.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring them is an obvious choice ... after all, PF's doing it.


i never said they they stacked, lol ;)


Zhayne wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?
No but you can take reactionary and addopted elf warrior of old for two +2's to init.

Again, both trait bonuses, and thus do not stack.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring them is an obvious choice ... after all, PF's doing it.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring is not intended, after all there would be no reason to print versions with different fluff if you were supposed to change it yourself.


thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
But if you go that route (which I agree with, incidentally), then you have two identical traits with absolutely nothing differentiating them... Can I take the 'Reactionary' trait twice if I simply re-write the flavor text each time?
No but you can take reactionary and addopted elf warrior of old for two +2's to init.

Again, both trait bonuses, and thus do not stack.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring them is an obvious choice ... after all, PF's doing it.

The fact that so many traits are duplicates says to me that reflavoring is not intended, after all there would be no reason to print versions with different fluff if you were supposed to change it yourself.

The main thing that duplicate traits indicate to me is that Paizo probably doesn't do an exhaustive check to see if they already have a trait that does something before they publish new traits.


Probably not.

Still, looks to me like they go "Sure, you can reflavor this. After all, we already have."


Zhayne wrote:

Probably not.

Still, looks to me like they go "Sure, you can reflavor this. After all, we already have."

Except they didn't. They added another trait. If reflavoring was intended, there would be no need.

Obviously you can house rule in another trait of your own, so it's really a moot point.


thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Probably not.

Still, looks to me like they go "Sure, you can reflavor this. After all, we already have."

Except they didn't. They added another trait. If reflavoring was intended, there would be no need.

Obviously you can house rule in another trait of your own, so it's really a moot point.

Adding the same trait with a different name isn't adding a different trait, it's the same trait.


Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.

If you play with a GM who enforces it, it can be every bit as binding as a feat's prerequisites.


I'd still ban those two traits for being too character defining in a bad way. Growing up in a island of magic pirates, sure that can give you a free cantrip regardless of class or some such, but that doesn't make you better as mana economy than the greatest archmages.


blahpers wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Hmm wrote:

What bugs me is that no one taking Wayang spell hunter seems to include it in their backstory. They're from Minata, an asian island territory full of smuggling and pirates.

That's just flavor text, and as such nonbinding. The trait can easily be renamed, and the flavor text re-written.
If you play with a GM who enforces it, it can be every bit as binding as a feat's prerequisites.

And a GM can enforce a rule where you have to stand on your head and say the alphabet backwards to cast a spell. Doesn't make it really relevant


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Growing up in a island of magic pirates...that doesn't make you better as mana economy than the greatest archmages.

No, but it does explain how they can be a little bit more versatile when it comes to modifying their spells.


Ravingdork wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Growing up in a island of magic pirates...that doesn't make you better as mana economy than the greatest archmages.
No, but it does explain how they can be a little bit more versatile when it comes to modifying their spells.

To me they really overstated that ability due to undervaluing spell slots. Something allowing people to skip out on actually having the metamagic feat once per day would be better balanced than reducing spell slot level.

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How are Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter not feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.