|
T'swhy I vouch for "Mostly Human" being the most powerful geniekin alternate racial trait. You count as human for feats, can be targeted by the good stuff, and all in exchange for what, a free racial language? Yes please.
And you can be targeted by the bad stuff. Charm person, dominate person, and hold person are many levels lower than their charm/dominate/hold monster counterparts.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I seem to have been pooh-poohing other people's comments in this thread, I'll add a suggestion of my own:
The various shadow spells such as shadow conjuration and shadow evocation.
At first glance they seem really powerful for spontaneous casters. "OK, shadow evocation is a 5th level spell but it can duplicate any evocation spell of 4th level or lower? Ditto for shadow conjuration as a 4th level that can duplicate anything 3rd or lower? The higher spell slot kinda hurts but that's a whole lot of other spells I can learn!"
Then you start digging in: "Hang on, they get two saves instead of one? Shadow creatures only have 20% of the hit points? Objects automatically succeed?"
Don't get me wrong, they're still useful spells. And the higher level (greater) ones that have a greater effect even on a save are pretty good. Especially with classes/races that get bonuses to that effect. But the base spells aren't as powerful as they appear at first.
Spell Turning, since it doesn't block area or ranged touch (which rules out most attack spells) and the number of spell levels in can absorb is ruled in secret (which raises the question, if an NPC casts the spell, how does the DM avoid knowing how many spell levels are left? Have a player who seems trustworthy roll it?)It's a GM's job to compartmentalize information so that each NPC acts according to the information available from the NPC's perspective rather than the GM's omniscient perspective. If the GM cannot be trusted to do that, there are bigger issues than adjudicating spell turning.
By this logic, why have the DM roll the number secretly when a player uses it instead of just letting the player roll it and trusting them not to metagame?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requires you be a Teifling or have undergone the demon ritual to become a half fiendDemonic/Improved Posession requires "Demon or half-demon".
As far as I know, tieflings don't count as either. Maybe there is a way to make them count as such, but not by default.
Thank you for your critique! I must respectfully disagree though.
A Teifling is, in a very literal sense, a half demon. One parent was a demon after all. (Unless they came from a devil or something.)
There exists nothing in the rules called a "half demon" but there are Teiflings and half fiends which fill that design space and are, if you read the flavor text, half demon....
Since I seem to have been pooh-poohing other people's comments in this thread, I'll add a suggestion of my own:
The various shadow spells such as shadow conjuration and shadow evocation.
At first glance they seem really powerful for spontaneous casters. "OK, shadow evocation is a 5th level spell but it can duplicate any evocation spell of 4th level or lower? Ditto for shadow conjuration as a 4th level that can duplicate anything 3rd or lower? The higher spell slot kinda hurts but that's a whole lot of other spells I can learn!"
Then you start digging in: "Hang on, they get two saves instead of one? Shadow creatures only have 20% of the hit points? Objects automatically succeed?"
Don't get me wrong, they're still useful spells. And the higher level (greater) ones that have a greater effect even on a save are pretty good. Especially with classes/races that get bonuses to that effect. But the base spells aren't as powerful as they appear at first.
They take some experience to use properly but are very potent when used by someone experienced! (Which is what you were getting at...)
If other people are interested in learning some basic tactics, then some guy made a guide for those spells.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjR1dOeEVkRUU4WlU/edit?pli=1
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5kvBvq2DEHjTVF4NEY4SXpSTUU/edit?pli=1
You won't be a master with them just from reading but you'll have a much better idea how to use it and how to think outside the box...
..
Just in-case someone wanted to learn something!
Good Evening!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Requires you be a Teifling or have undergone the demon ritual to become a half fiendDemonic/Improved Posession requires "Demon or half-demon".
As far as I know, tieflings don't count as either. Maybe there is a way to make them count as such, but not by default.Thank you for your critique! I must respectfully disagree though.
A Teifling is, in a very literal sense, a half demon. One parent was a demon after all. (Unless they came from a devil or something.)
There exists nothing in the rules called a "half demon" but there are Teiflings and half fiends which fill that design space and are, if you read the flavor text, half demon....
{. . .}
Tieflings are less than half fiend. Paizo does have official general Half-Fiend and specific Half-Demon templates, although the latter are named according to the specific type of Demon. For instance, Half-Glabrezu.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Teifling is, in a very literal sense, a half demon. One parent was a demon after all. (Unless they came from a devil or something.)
There exists nothing in the rules called a "half demon" but there are Teiflings and half fiends which fill that design space and are, if you read the flavor text, half demon....
Yeah...no. Half-demons in Pathfinder follow the templates that UnArcaneElection mentioned. D&D may have tieflings be half demons, but the tieflings here have a smidge of outsider somewhere in their past.
Most tieflings never know their fiendish sire, as the coupling that produced their curse occurred generations earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requires you be a Teifling or have undergone the demon ritual to become a half fiendDemonic/Improved Posession requires "Demon or half-demon".
As far as I know, tieflings don't count as either. Maybe there is a way to make them count as such, but not by default.Thank you for your critique! I must respectfully disagree though.
A Teifling is, in a very literal sense, a half demon. One parent was a demon after all. (Unless they came from a devil or something.)
There exists nothing in the rules called a "half demon" but there are Teiflings and half fiends which fill that design space and are, if you read the flavor text, half demon....
Where do you get your flavor text from? According to Archive of Nethys, which is now the official SRD, "Most tieflings never know their fiendish sire, as the coupling that produced their curse occurred generations earlier."
The Pathfinder Wiki (not really official, but still useful) says "Though tieflings have the blood of fiendish beings, their ancestry is at least one step removed from the original introduction of that blood; the child of a union of a mortal with a fiendish being is a half-fiend, not a tiefling."
This is apparently from Book of Fiends, but I'm currently away from my books.
And I was... not ninja'ed, since I just didn't notice that literally every post between this and Lockewood's says the same. Badly failed perception there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The last time I played a caster it was in Iron Gods so... Also I was under the opinion that if a creature had DR/type they could overcome that type but I appear to be mistaken? I can't find any such rule in Pathfinder.
A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that matched the subtype(s) of the creature.
My vote for a spell: Raging Rubble. You get a controllable swarm that is is fairly durable, but it requires concentration and only moves at 10'. This means your standards are used up while you maintain the spell which does not do that much damage. I love the flavor, but have only used it once.
/cevah
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By this logic, why have the DM roll the number secretly when a player uses it instead of just letting the player roll it and trusting them not to metagame?Spell Turning, since it doesn't block area or ranged touch (which rules out most attack spells) and the number of spell levels in can absorb is ruled in secret (which raises the question, if an NPC casts the spell, how does the DM avoid knowing how many spell levels are left? Have a player who seems trustworthy roll it?)It's a GM's job to compartmentalize information so that each NPC acts according to the information available from the NPC's perspective rather than the GM's omniscient perspective. If the GM cannot be trusted to do that, there are bigger issues than adjudicating spell turning.
You can certainly do that if your players are good at compartmentalization. However, being good at compartmentalization isn't a requirement for Pathfinder players. That'd be impractical--it's not a skill everybody has, and that's okay. If one or more players can't help being affected by outside information, they shouldn't be put in a situation where they need to. When it does come up, the GM is in a position to help work out any compartmentalization failures (e.g., "Your character has no idea what trolls are, so why are you reaching for your alchemist's fire as soon as you seen one?").
It is practical (though not perfect) to expect the one player who bears the responsibility of juggling the campaign world and the uncounted NPC perspectives therein to be good at compartmentalization. If a GM fails to consistently compartmentalize, both the narrative and the mechanics rapidly fall apart.
I want to second true strike as I never knew it was self only. It seems almost useless unless it applies to touch and ranged touch attacks as why would your wiz/sorc use melee attacks? (particularly considering level 0 spells are now at will so a smart caster will pick at least one level 0 spell that does damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True strike does two things.
It helps low level casters reliably hit with something, even if they’re not normally proficient with it. This also works for anyone who can do big attacks and cast arcane spells, for instance dragons with Power Attacking bites. Not all spells are primarily PC spells,
And it negates miss chances from concelmeant. This is incredibly powerful, especially when quickened in conjunction with powerful attack spells.
oh didn't know that. Does it affect touch/ranged touch attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requires you be a Teifling or have undergone the demon ritual to become a half fiendDemonic/Improved Posession requires "Demon or half-demon".
As far as I know, tieflings don't count as either. Maybe there is a way to make them count as such, but not by default.Thank you for your critique! I must respectfully disagree though.
A Teifling is, in a very literal sense, a half demon. One parent was a demon after all. (Unless they came from a devil or something.)
There exists nothing in the rules called a "half demon" but there are Teiflings and half fiends which fill that design space and are, if you read the flavor text, half demon....
Where do you get your flavor text from? According to Archive of Nethys, which is now the official SRD, "Most tieflings never know their fiendish sire, as the coupling that produced their curse occurred generations earlier."
The Pathfinder Wiki (not really official, but still useful) says "Though tieflings have the blood of fiendish beings, their ancestry is at least one step removed from the original introduction of that blood; the child of a union of a mortal with a fiendish being is a half-fiend, not a tiefling."
This is apparently from Book of Fiends, but I'm currently away from my books.
And I was... not ninja'ed, since I just didn't notice that literally every post between this and Lockewood's says the same. Badly failed perception there.
I stand corrected.
As for where I get my flavor text...I'm not sure??? I remember somewhere stating something to that effect but I'm now more inclined to think that was just an error, inconsistency, or typo...
Anyway, thank you for pointing that out! I hadn't noticed that.
Good night!
Pathfinder Tieflings have some sort of evil-outsider blood in them. The chances of it being demon blood are good, but less than 50%. D&D Tieflings are descended from devils, not demons.
Anyway you want to slice it, just being a Tiefling isn't good enough to count for demonic possession.
Beg pardon, but a) what version of D&D, and b) do you have sources for that? ever since tieflings were introduced in 3ed, I have been under the definite impression that they are the same regardless of what kind of fiend spawned their ancestor... demons, devils, daemons/yugoloths, all the same result... I'm not oppposed to tieflings being specifically devil spawn, but I'll need sourcing, especially since the demonic cambions have not reappeared.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Klorox, the Blood of Fiends Player Companion book I suspect is the current definitive work on Tieflings. It provides variants based on different sources of their fiendish blood. It does support the less than 50% bloodline Meirril wrote. As with Blood of Angels it does specifically preclude direct parental connections, it does specify that the outsider influence is weaker than the various half-[whatever]. It also allows for the generic Tieflings as well.
Specific to this thread,
Children born of these unions carry the blood of fiends in their veins, and are irredeemably marked. This first generation consists of true half-fiends—half mortal, half outsider—while their own children may be fiendish-looking tieflings or appear totally normal. Regardless, these latter generations carry an invisible power within their veins.
So, per the Pathfinder rules, no, Tieflings and Aasimar do not qualify as true halfbreeds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Body Double. Being able to have a creature adopt a willing person's identity should allow for all kinds of fun stuff.
The problem? Duration is 1 round per level. WHY?!
There are SO many cool spells that are rendered almost useless because of that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truestrike is a terrific Pathfinder spell under the right circumstances. My 5th level Luck Domain Cleric acquired a Mask of the Skull and still has it. This item is PERFECT for use with Truestrike. The sequences is:
1 Cast Truestrike and wait a round without taking any AoOs.
2 Launch the Mask of the Skull at your Main Target. Now the touch attack misses only on a natural 1.
3. Foe takes either ~23 hp damage (on DC 20 CON save) or 130 hp damage on a failed save.
4. Profit
Truestrike is not GENERALLY useful, but it's GREAT in specific circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Klorox, also note cambions are statted in Bestiary 5 just in case :)
Deja Vu and Bilocation.
It’s not at all clear how extend works with Deja Vu. And most people think it’s much better than it is.
It's only first level, has a decent range (medium) and HAS NO SAVING THROW. Looks OK to me. If that rune giant charges at you expecting to pound you into paste with a full attack, he's going to be a bit disappointed when he charges off again instead. This spell works at any level.
Sure, it takes some planning and is useless in the wrong situation, but still, first level.
And for those who want to really abuse the spell, try adding the authoritative spell metamagic.
Beg pardon, but a) what version of D&D, and b) do you have sources for that? ever since tieflings were introduced in 3ed, I have been under the definite impression that they are the same regardless of what kind of fiend spawned their ancestor... demons, devils, daemons/yugoloths, all the same result... I'm not oppposed to tieflings being specifically devil spawn, but I'll need sourcing, especially since the demonic cambions have not reappeared.Pathfinder Tieflings have some sort of evil-outsider blood in them. The chances of it being demon blood are good, but less than 50%. D&D Tieflings are descended from devils, not demons.
Anyway you want to slice it, just being a Tiefling isn't good enough to count for demonic possession.
Well, you could look at the Wikipedia entry for Tieflings. I really don't want to dig through piles of old books trying to find the info myself.
Something else to mention is that at the time only Demons and Devils existed. Daemons, Yugoloths, and most anything else you'd consider a potential parent of a Pathfinder Tiefling didn't exist when Tieflings were first created.
No, it says that Tieflings were introduced in D&D 2nd Edition, while I have the AD&D 1st Edition Fiend Folio which introduces 2 Daemons, and the Monster Manual II which introduces several more. (The Yugoloth name did come in with D&D 2nd Edition, but the Daemons predated it.)
Those Daemons of AD&D 1st Edition were already not denizens of the Abyss, but of Hades (renamed to the Grey Wastes in D&D 2nd Edition), and were already Neutral Evil rather than Chaotic Evil, and the Monster Manual II even introduced Charon.
For Pathfinder, best I can tell, the sin types of Evil want freedom for themselves, with nothing systematic hanging around them to even pose a risk of confinement to themselves, but while they want to destroy things, they also want to have things to destroy. Pathfinder Neutral Evil, or at least the Daemonic version of it, is far from namby-pamby -- they want to finish destroying everything, and to have nothing left to destroy, without regard to tyranny or liberty. (Other forms of Neutral Evil presumably have the same disregard for both tyranny and liberty, but might well differ with respect to how complete they want destruction to be -- for instance, Urgathoa and her cult want to devour things, but they want to continue to have things to devour -- they might fail at scaling up a system of Undead farming the living as seen in Geb, and Demons would probably be even more likely to fail at the corresponding creatures of Sin farming the virtuous, but at least they would understand the concept and might well make a serious attempt at it even though they would likely botch it in the long run.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By this logic, why have the DM roll the number secretly when a player uses it instead of just letting the player roll it and trusting them not to metagame?Spell Turning, since it doesn't block area or ranged touch (which rules out most attack spells) and the number of spell levels in can absorb is ruled in secret (which raises the question, if an NPC casts the spell, how does the DM avoid knowing how many spell levels are left? Have a player who seems trustworthy roll it?)It's a GM's job to compartmentalize information so that each NPC acts according to the information available from the NPC's perspective rather than the GM's omniscient perspective. If the GM cannot be trusted to do that, there are bigger issues than adjudicating spell turning.You can certainly do that if your players are good at compartmentalization. However, being good at compartmentalization isn't a requirement for Pathfinder players. That'd be impractical--it's not a skill everybody has, and that's okay. If one or more players can't help being affected by outside information, they shouldn't be put in a situation where they need to. When it does come up, the GM is in a position to help work out any compartmentalization failures (e.g., "Your character has no idea what trolls are, so why are you reaching for your alchemist's fire as soon as you seen one?").
It is practical (though not perfect) to expect the one player who bears the responsibility of juggling the campaign world and the uncounted NPC perspectives therein to be good at compartmentalization. If a GM fails to consistently compartmentalize, both the narrative and the mechanics rapidly fall apart.
To keep it completely opaque to both player and GM, you could use the technique I saw at PaizoCon for random durations. Deal out a number of cards equal to the maximum roll (10 cards for a d10, 7 cards for 1d4+3) and have one be different from the rest. The GM used black and white mana cards from Magic, but different suits of playing cards likely work. Shuffle them up and when the duration or number of charges is expended, flip a card. If it comes up as the noted card, the effect expires. Neither of you will know where that card is, so there is no metagame knowledge to work on.
Credit for introducing the idea to me goes to David Creighton, an excellent GM all around.
On the topic of spells that aren't all that, I concur with True Strike. It's useful, but not that powerful. Add in Fireball as the go to spell when you absolutely, positively must NOT kill every creature in the room.
It's only first level, has a decent range (medium) and HAS NO SAVING THROW. Looks OK to me. If that rune giant charges at you expecting to pound you into paste with a full attack, he's going to be a bit disappointed when he charges off again instead. This spell works at any level.
Sure, it takes some planning and is useless in the wrong situation, but still, first level.
It doesn't do much against enemies with Spellcraft, though, which most of the really tough ones will have. You cast it, they identify it, they choose an action that they don't mind repeating on their next round. Or flee (for 2 rounds) until it's over.
Most people who think it's good think it makes them repeat the action they took BEFORE you cast it on them. It doesn't - you cast, it, they do something, then the round after that they do that again. I'd rather cast a debuff that sets up my next spell rather than a debuff that takes two rounds to (maybe) inconvenience my target.
It's only first level, has a decent range (medium) and HAS NO SAVING THROW. Looks OK to me. If that rune giant charges at you expecting to pound you into paste with a full attack, he's going to be a bit disappointed when he charges off again instead. This spell works at any level.
Sure, it takes some planning and is useless in the wrong situation, but still, first level.
It doesn't do much against enemies with Spellcraft, though, which most of the really tough ones will have. You cast it, they identify it, they choose an action that they don't mind repeating on their next round. Or flee (for 2 rounds) until it's over.
Most people who think it's good think it makes them repeat the action they took BEFORE you cast it on them. It doesn't - you cast, it, they do something, then the round after that they do that again. I'd rather cast a debuff that sets up my next spell rather than a debuff that takes two rounds to (maybe) inconvenience my target.
Unless you can have an ally hit them with command (or a similar spell), then hit them with deja vu before it gets to be their turn.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True strike does two things.
It helps low level casters reliably hit with something, even if they’re not normally proficient with it. This also works for anyone who can do big attacks and cast arcane spells, for instance dragons with Power Attacking bites. Not all spells are primarily PC spells,
And it negates miss chances from concelmeant. This is incredibly powerful, especially when quickened in conjunction with powerful attack spells.
Unless there’s been an errata or something I missed, True Strike does three things.
The two you mentioned, plus Combat Maneuvers.
They count as attack rolls, and explicitly benefit from spell bonuses. Getting a +20 on your disarm, grapple, or bull rush can make a huge difference, especially at low level.
True strike does two things.
It helps low level casters reliably hit with something, even if they’re not normally proficient with it. This also works for anyone who can do big attacks and cast arcane spells, for instance dragons with Power Attacking bites. Not all spells are primarily PC spells,
And it negates miss chances from concelmeant. This is incredibly powerful, especially when quickened in conjunction with powerful attack spells.
Unless there’s been an errata or something I missed, True Strike does three things.
The two you mentioned, plus Combat Maneuvers.
They count as attack rolls, and explicitly benefit from spell bonuses. Getting a +20 on your disarm, grapple, or bull rush can make a huge difference, especially at low level.
While true, it fails on 3 levels. First: self only. Few spellcasters I know will be in a position to be doing a combat maneuver.
Second: Opportunity attack. Most spellcasters aren't going down the Improved X feat line to avoid the AoO. And even then, they require 2 feats of investment.
Third: True Strike's limitations. The first character I thought about for using True Strike with a maneuver was a White Haired Witch, since the hair has the Grab ability. However it wouldn't work, since True Strike limits you to the very next attack. So it would burn on the hair attack and not be available for the grapple check, even though it is part of that same attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While true, it fails on 3 levels. First: self only. Few spellcasters I know will be in a position to be doing a combat maneuver.
Second: Opportunity attack. Most spellcasters aren't going down the Improved X feat line to avoid the AoO. And even then, they require 2 feats of investment.
Third: True Strike's limitations. The first character I thought about for using True Strike with a maneuver was a White Haired Witch, since the hair has the Grab ability. However it wouldn't work, since True Strike limits you to the very next attack. So it would burn on the hair attack and not be available for the grapple check, even though it is part of that same attack.
I disagree. There is also the Magus, who can off-hand True Strike and then disarm or trip.
A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
While true, it fails on 3 levels. First: self only. Few spellcasters I know will be in a position to be doing a combat maneuver.
Second: Opportunity attack. Most spellcasters aren't going down the Improved X feat line to avoid the AoO. And even then, they require 2 feats of investment.
Third: True Strike's limitations. The first character I thought about for using True Strike with a maneuver was a White Haired Witch, since the hair has the Grab ability. However it wouldn't work, since True Strike limits you to the very next attack. So it would burn on the hair attack and not be available for the grapple check, even though it is part of that same attack.
I disagree. There is also the Magus, who can off-hand True Strike and then disarm or trip.
A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.
Even better, use a whip for the maneuver and do it at reach so no/much-less need for the improved X feats.
Even better, use a whip for the maneuver and do it at reach so no/much-less need for the improved X feats.
The one originally making the statement used grapple and bull rush as examples however. Maneuvers which cannot be done with a whip (or weapon in general, I think the list is in a Weapon Finesse FAQ), or by Pilfering Hand.
So even with workarounds, the option is incredibly limited, requiring outside assistance.
True strike does two things.
It helps low level casters reliably hit with something, even if they’re not normally proficient with it. This also works for anyone who can do big attacks and cast arcane spells, for instance dragons with Power Attacking bites. Not all spells are primarily PC spells,
And it negates miss chances from concelmeant. This is incredibly powerful, especially when quickened in conjunction with powerful attack spells.
Unless there’s been an errata or something I missed, True Strike does three things.
The two you mentioned, plus Combat Maneuvers.
They count as attack rolls, and explicitly benefit from spell bonuses. Getting a +20 on your disarm, grapple, or bull rush can make a huge difference, especially at low level.
While true, it fails on 3 levels. First: self only. Few spellcasters I know will be in a position to be doing a combat maneuver.
Second: Opportunity attack. Most spellcasters aren't going down the Improved X feat line to avoid the AoO. And even then, they require 2 feats of investment.
Third: True Strike's limitations. The first character I thought about for using True Strike with a maneuver was a White Haired Witch, since the hair has the Grab ability. However it wouldn't work, since True Strike limits you to the very next attack. So it would burn on the hair attack and not be available for the grapple check, even though it is part of that same attack.
Weird how Telekinesis and Invisibility don't exist in your games.
Klorox, also note cambions are statted in Bestiary 5 just in case :)
thanks, if I ever buy bestiaries 4,5,6 that will be an interesting comparative read...
Beg pardon, but a) what version of D&D, and b) do you have sources for that? ever since tieflings were introduced in 3ed, I have been under the definite impression that they are the same regardless of what kind of fiend spawned their ancestor... demons, devils, daemons/yugoloths, all the same result... I'm not oppposed to tieflings being specifically devil spawn, but I'll need sourcing, especially since the demonic cambions have not reappeared.Pathfinder Tieflings have some sort of evil-outsider blood in them. The chances of it being demon blood are good, but less than 50%. D&D Tieflings are descended from devils, not demons.
Anyway you want to slice it, just being a Tiefling isn't good enough to count for demonic possession.
Well, you could look at the Wikipedia entry for Tieflings. I really don't want to dig through piles of old books trying to find the info myself.
Something else to mention is that at the time only Demons and Devils existed. Daemons, Yugoloths, and most anything else you'd consider a potential parent of a Pathfinder Tiefling didn't exist when Tieflings were first created.
My library is woefully understaffed, but I have a feeling you're not quite right... the first true half fiends, the alu demon and cambion were introduced, IIRC, in AD&D1 MOnster Manual 2... at the same time as daemons, though at the time, cambions were deemed to be exclusively demonic in nature, the concept of other fiends breeding with mortals had not yet percolated down... as for tieflings, they seem to have their origins in the plansecape D&D2 setting, to which I don't have access.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure extending deja vu would only extend the confusion effect if they can't repeat - it won't make them repeat for three rounds.
Whatever full-round, standard, or move actions the creature takes on its first turn after you cast this spell, it must repeat on the turn after that.
That's the effect of the spell. Extending the duration doesn't somehow change that line of text. It's like extending true strike - extra duration doesn't change the fact that the spell text indicates it only works once.
Lots of way for a 17th level wizard to protect themselves from a targeted 1st level compulsion spell - globe of invulnerability, protection from *alignment*, the maligned spell turning above.
I'm not saying it's a bad spell - it certainly has uses.
Personally, I may allow it to make them repeat the action twice, but not three times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you extend Deja Vu it lasts 4 rounds. So 1 round to set an action, and 3 repeats. Even with just 1 round of repeat actions, you can keep chain casting it to put the target into a loop.
As above posters noted, it's by no means obvious that an extended Deja Vu forces three repeats rather than two cycles of Deja Vu. Or nothing except confusion if that effect triggers.
Deja Vu vs casters: This is where Deja Vu really shines. Hit the target with normal Deja Vu, and see what they do. If they cast a spell, they have to keep casting that spell at that target. Depending on what it is, it could be worth locking them down. Now imagine you open a combat vs a 17th level Wizard. You hit them with extended Deja Vu. What are they going to do? Immediately flee? Timestop knowing they will Timestop again? That is one screwed individual.
LOL. That's one mildly inconvenienced individual. Yes, immediately flee for two rounds, then reengage on your terms. Or cast dispel magic (or greater dispel magic, catching himself and the party in the radius). Or cast a big offensive spell that you have prepared twice. Or go invisible and accept a round of confusion. Or surround yourself with a Resilient Sphere and accept a round of confusion.
It's not a bad spell. It's just not a GREAT spell, and far too many people who casually engage with it think it's a great spell.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True strike does two things.
It helps low level casters reliably hit with something, even if they’re not normally proficient with it. This also works for anyone who can do big attacks and cast arcane spells, for instance dragons with Power Attacking bites. Not all spells are primarily PC spells,
And it negates miss chances from concelmeant. This is incredibly powerful, especially when quickened in conjunction with powerful attack spells.
Unless there’s been an errata or something I missed, True Strike does three things.
The two you mentioned, plus Combat Maneuvers.
They count as attack rolls, and explicitly benefit from spell bonuses. Getting a +20 on your disarm, grapple, or bull rush can make a huge difference, especially at low level.
While true, it fails on 3 levels. First: self only. Few spellcasters I know will be in a position to be doing a combat maneuver.
Second: Opportunity attack. Most spellcasters aren't going down the Improved X feat line to avoid the AoO. And even then, they require 2 feats of investment.
Third: True Strike's limitations. The first character I thought about for using True Strike with a maneuver was a White Haired Witch, since the hair has the Grab ability. However it wouldn't work, since True Strike limits you to the very next attack. So it would burn on the hair attack and not be available for the grapple check, even though it is part of that same attack.
As it turns out, true strike is also on the alchemist, bloodrager, inquisitor, and magus spell lists, plus available through a couple cleric domains. Those all seem like they could find themselves in a position to do combat maneuvers.
And as other people pointed out, the aoo issue is an easily solved one. Use reach weapons, spells to extend your reach, spells that make you harder to hit, or just reserve this trick for enemies that don’t get aoo’s (e.g. archers), or don’t hit hard enough to matter (e.g. spellcasters and spellcaster-y monsters).
I love to skim read, which tends to have me find key parts of a spell, and allowing me to believe the spell is better than it actually is. Mostly because I missed a small disclaimer.
So, I've found a spell called "Continual Flame" one day and thought it was awesome. This was because its a "flame" you can apply to any object, and it will last forever. Apply this to your weapon, and it will be on fire forever.
Upon a 2nd reading I found the disclaimer that this does not give off heat or consume oxygen, making this flame harmless. Ruining my idea of getting a cheap flaming weapon, by simply buying an Oil of Continual Flame for 350gp.