Gortle’s Sorcerer Guide


Advice

1 to 50 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I have done another guide. Because we are still too light on opinions on this game.
Here is my take on the Sorcerer

Gortle’s Sorcerer Guide

And on the Sorcerer Spells all 4 traditions.

Gortle’s Spell Guide for the Sorcerer

Comments welcome

Cheers


Thanks for making a guide ^_^

Bloodline magic does not work with cantrips.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like harm is overrated, even with undead bloodline magic and dangerous sorcery your aren't out pacing a fighter very much at high levels even when you're spending all 3 actions casting max level harms. And at lower levels you don't even beat the fighter in expected damage doing that. It does fair better against a higher level enemy, but I still feel it's not the best as a go to option.

I think it's fine as an emergency backup option, but single target damage is best done by martials. I think it should only be highly rated if you're healing undead.


citricking wrote:

I feel like harm is overrated, even with undead bloodline magic and dangerous sorcery your aren't out pacing a fighter very much at high levels even when you're spending all 3 actions casting max level harms. And at lower levels you don't even beat the fighter in expected damage doing that.

I think it's fine as an emergency backup option, but single target damage is best done by martials. I think it should only be highly rated if you're healing undead.

Agreed, the Diabolic sorcerer I GM for had harm as his only damaging 1st level spell at levels 1 and 2, and it felt incredibly underwhelming for him. When he hit level 3 he saw the light of flaming sphere, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Spell Guide wrote:
Remake * really a level 10 spell? Replace a destroyed item or magic item within limits. Too narrow.

It's a 10th level spell because it allows you to abuse the hell out of pushing wands for extra spells and then fix them during downtime.


Is harm really that good? I know undead can combo it with touch of undeath for a really odd way to buff healing spells, but the damage seems kinda low unless you are using it for an action filler against enemies that cant AoO you.

Asking since I do have an idea for running an undead sorc MC champion for a heavy armor mage that protects themselves with thick steel and temp hp


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

3 single action harms can be a lot of damage fast, since there is no MAP equivalent and only a critical save is no damage, but it isn't EFFICIENT damage, and is probably never going to be Plan A.


citricking wrote:

Thanks for making a guide ^_^

Bloodline magic does not work with cantrips.

There is alway something that you misread. For the record the fine print is in the main class blurb. Not near the detail of the rules. Fixed it up. Thanks.


HammerJack wrote:
3 single action harms can be a lot of damage fast, since there is no MAP equivalent and only a critical save is no damage, but it isn't EFFICIENT damage, and is probably never going to be Plan A.

Ah, gotcha. Funny thing is, this ploy was part of why I wanted to be wrapped in armor; this trick is something I wanted to pull on BBEG that decides to get in my grill and I have slots to burn


Xenocrat wrote:
Spell Guide wrote:
Remake * really a level 10 spell? Replace a destroyed item or magic item within limits. Too narrow.
It's a 10th level spell because it allows you to abuse the hell out of pushing wands for extra spells and then fix them during downtime.

Thanks for the tip

Liberty's Edge

How is the sorcerer in 2e?


Yure wrote:
How is the sorcerer in 2e?

That's a big question.

I like it compared to the Wizard. Social skills not lore. The power and flexibility to spend all your spells as fireball or whatever, just because you want to, is very nice.
But spells known is still a big limit as you would expect.
There are a lot more spells.
Illusions are back.
Access to all four lists is great. Cantrips are good.
But magic is generally much weaker as people have been harping on about balance for the last 20 years. Well this is what it looks like.


I tend to disagree with your comparison of spell lists. I don't think there are better spell lists, they are different and depend on what you want to achieve.

Also, the Divine spell list has the best healing spell, the higher single target damaging spells and one of the best (if not the best) area of effect damage dealing spell.

I agree that the rest is quite meh, but being strong in blast/heal is a strong asset that compensate the weakness in utility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I tend to disagree with your comparison of spell lists. I don't think there are better spell lists, they are different and depend on what you want to achieve.

Also, the Divine spell list has the best healing spell, the higher single target damaging spells and one of the best (if not the best) area of effect damage dealing spell.

I agree that the rest is quite meh, but being strong in blast/heal is a strong asset that compensate the weakness in utility.

Its an opinion piece.....

The main issue with the Divine spell list is the number of spells. It is signficantly less than the others especially at low levels.
Typically Arcane>Occult>Primal>Divine. Divine can be almost as low as half the number of Arcane spells.

Maybe that doesn't matter so much for a Sorcerer as you only really need a good 3 spells per level. But the overall list versatility does suffer.
At the top end there is not much difference.

Divine gets Air Walk now at the same level as Fly, which is a plus. It gets limited summoning and not till level 5, little in the way of polymorph or special senses. Its wall spells are not good. There is direct damage but it is mostly necromatic or alignment based. It has a few fire options but they are below average.

I feel Primal does blast and heal better.

But I'd be happy to play a sorcerer on any of the 4 spell lists.

Sovereign Court

My problem with the divine list is that the Remove X spells are all separate spells, and all counteract-based. So for them to work well you have to heighten them, but as a spontaneous caster, that's really problematic.

If there had been a generic Remove Affliction spell that added more things it could remove when you heightened it, then it'd be amazing for sorcerers. But as it stands, I don't think you can do a real "complete support" divine sorcerer.


Primal and Divine heals well, indubitably.

Divine blasts are a bit special. If you are in a classical "heroes VS evil" campaign, they work wonder, as you will face many Fiends, Undeads and evil opponents. But they don't work properly in a campaign where the enemy is not massively evil. So, it's hard to really compare them to Arcane and Primal blasts as they have higher efficiency, but with more conditions to be usable.

About the Remove X spells, they are bad at low level for a Sorcerer. But as soon as you have taken all the basic signature spells (Divine Wrath, Heal, Harm, Searing Light, Dispel Magic), you can take them as Signature spells so you can heighten them as much as you need.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read your comments on Sound burst and you might want to double check that. Deafened condition does NOT impact spellcasters use of verbal components since verbal does NOT have the Auditory trait

Rule snippet
(... If you perform an action with the auditory trait, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or the action is lost).


Laran wrote:

Read your comments on Sound burst and you might want to double check that. Deafened condition does NOT impact spellcasters use of verbal components since verbal does NOT have the Auditory trait

Rule snippet
(... If you perform an action with the auditory trait, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or the action is lost).

I saw the rules discussion on that and got the opposite impression. Hmm. It does seem you are correct though.

Annoying as this rule should be in the game. Never mind

Ta, I'll fix it up.

Shadow Lodge

What I wonder is what do sorceresses spend their gold on? I've flipped through the equipment section a few times and found absolutely nothing interesting to purchase.


gnoams wrote:
What I wonder is what do sorceresses spend their gold on? I've flipped through the equipment section a few times and found absolutely nothing interesting to purchase.

Yes everything has been nurfed out of existence. Nothing really stands out to me. Useful things for sure. But all the item bonuses are narrow.

I've declined to add items to my guide as I feel it's too generic.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
citricking wrote:
I feel like harm is overrated, even with undead bloodline magic and dangerous sorcery your aren't out pacing a fighter very much at high levels even when you're spending all 3 actions casting max level harms.

Care to show the numbers over the course of an adventurer's career? How much damage can a fighter really do compared to a Dangerous Dorcerery sorcerer spamming harm?

I'll do some of the math for you, at high levels:

A fighter can deal a maximum of 4d12+15 damage per hit at extreme levels. Maybe an additional +3d6 damage if you're able to get your hands on all three elemental runes. (Which, I don't believe is, or should be, as much of a given as some people on these forums seem to think).

Best case scenario, that's an average of 51.5 damage per hit. Three maxed out harm spells average to about 148.5 damage. That's slightly less than 3 successful Strikes from the fighter sure, but the latter two strikes take a -5 and -10 penalty to hit. The harm spells don't. Those increased chances of missing brings the fighter's round by round damage down by a whole heck of a lot.

The ONLY thing the fighter has going for it here is sustainability. He can keep hacking away, whereas the sorcerer can only nova a few times a day at best.

Fighters win the marathon races, but the sorcerer generally wins the sprints.


Ascalaphus wrote:

My problem with the divine list is that the Remove X spells are all separate spells, and all counteract-based. So for them to work well you have to heighten them, but as a spontaneous caster, that's really problematic.

If there had been a generic Remove Affliction spell that added more things it could remove when you heightened it, then it'd be amazing for sorcerers. But as it stands, I don't think you can do a real "complete support" divine sorcerer.

I would choose these four:

Heal
Restoration
Neutralize Poison
Restore Senses

You would have to get these to counter conditions but aren't really Remove X:
Raise Dead - where is Revivify which is what you really want!?
Dispel Magic
Freedom of Movement

Then some of these - but how many of these are actually needed?:
Remove Paralysis - a lot of these are short term
Remove Disease - generally slow enough you can just go back to town and get it fixed.
Remove Curse - ditto
Remove Fear - wait a round or two. I guess its important if fear is used a lot, but if one person fails - tough it out and wait for them. If most of the group fails fixing one isn't a good idea. How about everyone runs for a few rounds.

And never this:
Purify Food and Drink

You should be taking Heal and Dispel Magic as signature spells. Maybe another to get some more level 2 spells.

What spell did I miss?

It seems OK till you realize you often have to heighten these spells and how many signature spells are you prepared to assign to them. Or just learn a spell at a higher level.

I guess its doable, but I agree a divine sorceror who must be able to cover everything should be a cleric instead. But you can get most of it without restricting yourself to cantrips for your offense.

Sovereign Court

gnoams wrote:
What I wonder is what do sorceresses spend their gold on? I've flipped through the equipment section a few times and found absolutely nothing interesting to purchase.

Wands and staves come to mind.

For example, a wand of mage armor is quite neat for a sorcerer: it's a spell you only need to cast once per day. The wand frees up a whole spell known.


Ascalaphus wrote:
gnoams wrote:
What I wonder is what do sorceresses spend their gold on? I've flipped through the equipment section a few times and found absolutely nothing interesting to purchase.

Wands and staves come to mind.

For example, a wand of mage armor is quite neat for a sorcerer: it's a spell you only need to cast once per day. The wand frees up a whole spell known.

Wands and Staves are mostly just extra spells slots with a very minor bonus to identify a narrow set of magc.

The wands for metamagic feats are useful but they are tied to a spell level, still increase the casting time and are still once per day.
There are minor bonuses for magic missile, and persistant damage on a failed save for fireball.
All pretty obvious. Clearly you want them but very minor bonuses aside from the extra slot.

Staff of healing is the best with its item bonus to all heal spells.


People forget scrolls because they are consumables. But they are better than most wands and staves. A bunch of scrolls is always a good thing to have for deadly fights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've updated the Spell Guide with spells from Gods and Magic plus Pathfinder #151 and 152

I had a bit more time on my hands than I expected...

Lots of good low level spells for the arcane, occult and primal lists.

This is what I really like about Pathfinder. So much content.

Enjoy


You overlooked one thing in your guide: Fortutious Shift, which solely puts the gnome as best race for a Sorcerer. It gives you an excellent reaction, which is very hard to get for a caster. Excellent for most sorcerers and a must have for the more melee inclined ones.

And why don't you put some abilities at 5-stars? For example, Crossblooded Evolution is a no-brainer for a Sorcerer, allowing you to cherry pick the best spells of the other spell lists. In my opinion a definite 5-stars feat.


SuperBidi wrote:

You overlooked one thing in your guide: Fortutious Shift, which solely puts the gnome as best race for a Sorcerer. It gives you an excellent reaction, which is very hard to get for a caster. Excellent for most sorcerers and a must have for the more melee inclined ones.

I have just done the spells not the feats so far which is what I said. But yes that will be going in soon.

SuperBidi wrote:


And why don't you put some abilities at 5-stars? For example, Crossblooded Evolution is a no-brainer for a Sorcerer, allowing you to cherry pick the best spells of the other spell lists. In my opinion a definite 5-stars feat.

I haven't gone to 5 stars in any of my guides. Because then you go to 7 stars or more multifaceted ratings system like FedoraFerret. I'm really just trying to highlight what I see as very good options, the bad options and why. If there are abilities that I see as compulsory, I do highlight it in the text.

Most have 2 and 3 stars, which is a reflection of the better overall balance of PF2.

Crossblooded Evolution is very good and I would always take it. But it has competition at level 8, Bloodline resistance is a permanent +1 versus magic and I can see everyone wanting that as well. Bloodline resistance loses out because its probably more boring, not because it is any less effective.

Likewise level 16 as a caster how do you choose between
Effortless Concentration,
Greater Mental Evolution, or
Greater Vital Evolution

If I put in 5 stars too many would be 5 stars. Then I'd be sweating over which were 3 and 4 stars. For each class guide that I have written I have normally highlighted one or two things in the intro, and I did with Crossblooded Evolution for Sorceror. I trust the players to make that call.

For my money the best feats are:
Crossblooded Evolution for Sorceror - so flexible,
Attack of Opportunity for Barbarian - covering a glaring hole in the class,
Order Explorer for Druid - because your order abilities are what defines a druid.

But even then I can see players who won't take them.


I was looking at the guide, and the write-up on the usefulness of "undeath's blessing" ("touch of undeath" in the book) seems to have an error. It says that this focus spell reverses the effects of positive and negative energy, but the wording on the spell says that "harm" spells treat the recipient as undead and "heal" spells treat the recipient as living, so it looks like it can only restore hit points, not make the living be injured by "heal" spells.


Bluescale wrote:
I was looking at the guide, and the write-up on the usefulness of "undeath's blessing" ("touch of undeath" in the book) seems to have an error. It says that this focus spell reverses the effects of positive and negative energy, but the wording on the spell says that "harm" spells treat the recipient as undead and "heal" spells treat the recipient as living, so it looks like it can only restore hit points, not make the living be injured by "heal" spells.

True, but you are treating a commentary as a rules text - its not. I have a few paragraphs on in in the bloodline part of my commentary.

I can't be sure as you aren't actually quoting what I wrote.

I'll have a think about making it clearer. I don't want to mislead people. But I have to assume that people are reading the rules for the details, because I'm not copying the rule into my commentary, just linking to it.

For the record it reverses the effect of harm for the living, and heal for the undead. What it doesn't do is reverse the effect of harm for the undead, or heal for the living.

So I guess in that sense it is always a buff, not a debuff. There really is no reason to resist it, if you knew what was being cast.

Paizo should probably take out the rules for the saving throw. There is little point in it. Either that or actually allow the reverse effect.


Undeath's Blessing can't be cast on an undead. It must be cast on a living creature.

And Bloodline Resistance is no competition not because it's boring, but because it's a status bonus, and as such doesn't stack with so many things.
And when the competition is Crossblooded Evolution, well, you just ignore Bloodline Resistance.

I quite agree with you, there are a few feats that are nearly taxes. And for these feats, I would put 5 stars. Not taking Crossblooded Evolution on a Sorcerer is extremely weird considering how powerful it is. Dangerous Sorcery, Attack of Opportunity, these feats are so crazy good that people multiclass just to get them.

For Order Explorer, I will disagree for a 5-stars. These kind of feats are not good per se, they are just necessary to get the feats you want. It's the same with the MCD feats like Basic Maneuver. Stating that they are good because they are necessary to get the feats you want is overrated in my opinion.


SuperBidi wrote:

Undeath's Blessing can't be cast on an undead. It must be cast on a living creature.

I'll clean that up thanks. Doesn't really affect the rating though as casting it on yourself or an ally is the primary tactic.

SuperBidi wrote:


And Bloodline Resistance is no competition not because it's boring, but because it's a status bonus, and as such doesn't stack with so many things.
And when the competition is Crossblooded Evolution, well, you just ignore Bloodline Resistance.

I know, I still think its very good. I am only using 4 stars. Obviously not all 4 stars are the same value.

SuperBidi wrote:


I quite agree with you, there are a few feats that are nearly taxes. And for these feats, I would put 5 stars. Not taking Crossblooded Evolution on a Sorcerer is extremely weird considering how powerful it is. Dangerous Sorcery, Attack of Opportunity, these feats are so crazy good that people multiclass just to get them.

Still not going to 5 stars. I'll let the gamers work that out themselves

What I'm really saying with a four star option is "look at this, you probably want it".
I don't buy the assumption that there is one optimal build. It is reasonable to build a Sorcerer without Dangerous Sorcery.


where was the errata for the change from bludgeoning to your damage type again? I think remember seeing it, but it's not in errata document 1.


I don't think this works:

Quote:
It is possible to put a big 3 action harm onto a Glyph of Warding **** that is triggered on say the opening of a potion vial. Undead blessing, open the vial without the correct password triggering the harm. Obviously be careful when you do this.

Glyph of warding is triggered when the container is moved or opened by someone who doesn't say the password or who matches the trigger.

So either you constantly speak the password in question in order not to trigger the glyph when carrying it around, or you set a trigger condition. But you can only set one trigger. So if you set a trigger so you won't set it off by carrying it around, that trigger will also prevent you from setting it off by opening it.

You could use it to ward a fixed location ("break glass in case of emergency"), but that's (a) not particularly useful to most adventurers and (b) working as intended.


Staffan Johansson wrote:

I don't think this works:

Quote:
It is possible to put a big 3 action harm onto a Glyph of Warding **** that is triggered on say the opening of a potion vial. Undead blessing, open the vial without the correct password triggering the harm. Obviously be careful when you do this.

Glyph of warding is triggered when the container is moved or opened by someone who doesn't say the password or who matches the trigger.

So either you constantly speak the password in question in order not to trigger the glyph when carrying it around, or you set a trigger condition. But you can only set one trigger. So if you set a trigger so you won't set it off by carrying it around, that trigger will also prevent you from setting it off by opening it.

You could use it to ward a fixed location ("break glass in case of emergency"), but that's (a) not particularly useful to most adventurers and (b) working as intended.

The spell explicitly says you can set both triggers. The details are not locked down.

There are lots of commas and 'or's in the original text so you could fit some tighter restrictions on the spell if you really desire.

There is no reason that the password would be limited in this way except for an argument if you think its is not balanced. The spell leaves those details open to the caster.

There is going to be some GM interpretation involved with this spell. IMHO the spell text does not lock it down as you say. But talk to your GM.


ikarinokami wrote:
where was the errata for the change from bludgeoning to your damage type again? I think remember seeing it, but it's not in errata document 1.

The official errata:

Page 197: In the Elemental Type section, change the last
sentence to read “Replace any existing elemental traits
with the trait of the element you chose.”


Gortle wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
where was the errata for the change from bludgeoning to your damage type again? I think remember seeing it, but it's not in errata document 1.

The official errata:

Page 197: In the Elemental Type section, change the last
sentence to read “Replace any existing elemental traits
with the trait of the element you chose.”

Which is a bit strange. The rule now reads

At 1st level, choose the type of elemental that influenced your bloodline: air, earth, fire, or water. If your element is air, you buffet your foes with powerful winds; if it’s earth, you toss huge chunks of rock; if it’s fire, you incinerate your foes with flame; and if it’s water, you inundate your foes with torrents of water. For fire, all marked spells deal fire damage. For other elements, they deal bludgeoning damage. Replace any existing elemental traits with the trait of the element you chose.

So all elemental traits are their own element. But additional if it is not fire it is bludgeoning and its elemental trait.

But note that elemental traits are not damage traits. So the possible traits are:
Fire (elemental) and Fire (damage) or,
Air (elemental) and Bludgeoning (damage) or,
Earth (elemental) and Bludgeoning (damage) or,
Water (elemental) and Bludgeoning (damage).

Weird. I confess I was confused by this.


Gortle wrote:

The spell explicitly says you can set both triggers. The details are not locked down.

There are lots of commas and 'or's in the original text so you could fit some tighter restrictions on the spell if you really desire.

There is no reason that the password would be limited in this way except for an argument if you think its is not balanced. The spell leaves those details open to the caster.

There is going to be some GM interpretation involved with this spell. IMHO the spell text does not lock it down as you say. But talk to your GM.

The spell description says: "You can set a password, a trigger, or both for the glyph. Any creature that moves, opens, or touches the target container or enters the target area that doesn't speak the password or that matches the trigger activates the glyph, releasing the harmful spell within."

The default state is that when someone moves, opens, or touches the container, the spell goes off. The password negates one instance of activation - it basically means it goes off unless the activating creature says the password. If you set a trigger, that narrows the conditions for activation. For example, you can set the glyph to only go off when an elf interacts with it. If you set both a password and a trigger, the glyph will go off when interacted with by someone who matches the trigger condition and does not say the password.

So, if you set the glyph on a chest with the password "flugelbinder" and the trigger "being an elf", you would have the following possibilities:

1. A dwarf opens the chest. Nothing happens, because the dwarf does not fulfill the trigger condition.

2. An elf opens the chest while saying "flugelbinder". Nothing happens, because the password was used.

3. An elf opens the chest without saying "flugelbinder". Boom.

What you can't do is limit how the glyph is activated. You can't set it to only activate when opened and not when moved. You also can't set a password that will set the glyph off – only one that will stop it from going off. So you can set the trigger to be "not-me", and then the glyph will activate when someone other than you interacts with it. But that means you won't be able to activate it at all, at least not without shenanigans. You could, for example, activate it by handing it to someone else.


Staffan Johansson wrote:


What you can't do is limit how the glyph is activated. You can't set it to only activate when opened and not when moved. You also can't set a password that will set the glyph off – only one that...

No totally disagree. Its just a list of options under control of the caster who sets the glyph.


Gortle wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:


What you can't do is limit how the glyph is activated. You can't set it to only activate when opened and not when moved. You also can't set a password that will set the glyph off – only one that...
No totally disagree. Its just a list of options under control of the caster who sets the glyph.

The list of options is:

* Set a password.
* Set a trigger.
* Set a password and a trigger.

But you can't decide what actions will activate the glyph. That's inherent to the spell: moving, opening, or touching the container, or entering the area. So you can set a glyph on a chest that will blast anyone who isn't you that messes with it, but you can't set a glyph that allows you to move the container without triggering it but does have you trigger it by opening it.

The point of the spell is to make a magic trap. It's there to defend something – either a place or a container. It's not a spell that's meant to be used offensively.

If you want a spell that lets you do more fine-tuning regarding trigger conditions, that's what contingency is for.

Dark Archive

Just chiming in here to make a note about the Elven feat, Elemental wrath. it's not JUST "the acid splash cantrip, but with a different element." It's also the cantrip with only a single action to cast.

"You can call to the land to cast the acid splash cantrip as an innate primal spell at will, except the spell has only verbal components and deals the type of damage you chose instead of acid damage;" (bolding mine.)

As you mention in the into, action economy is paramount. Dropping a spell you already rate at 3/4 stars, to one less action, seems to bump it to "great" to me. Further, if one wasn't going Primal, then it's still an innate spell, which scales on charisma anyway, and thus as a sorcerer is better than innate spells for most other classes. Finally, by getting rid of the somatic component, it drastically reduces the number of enemy reactions that it can trigger.

As such, better action economy, bloodline flexible (for varying degrees of value of course,) as well as element flexible so you can get around immunities/resistances (or if lucky, even hit weaknesses,) and reducing your interaction to enemy aggressive reactions? This is about as much as I, personally, could ask for in a level 1 ancestral feat.

Just my two cents.


Kitsune Kune wrote:

Just chiming in here to make a note about the Elven feat, Elemental wrath. it's not JUST "the acid splash cantrip, but with a different element." It's also the cantrip with only a single action to cast.

"You can call to the land to cast the acid splash cantrip as an innate primal spell at will, except the spell has only verbal components and deals the type of damage you chose instead of acid damage;" (bolding mine.)

As you mention in the into, action economy is paramount. Dropping a spell you already rate at 3/4 stars, to one less action, seems to bump it to "great" to me. Further, if one wasn't going Primal, then it's still an innate spell, which scales on charisma anyway, and thus as a sorcerer is better than innate spells for most other classes. Finally, by getting rid of the somatic component, it drastically reduces the number of enemy reactions that it can trigger.

As such, better action economy, bloodline flexible (for varying degrees of value of course,) as well as element flexible so you can get around immunities/resistances (or if lucky, even hit weaknesses,) and reducing your interaction to enemy aggressive reactions? This is about as much as I, personally, could ask for in a level 1 ancestral feat.

Just my two cents.

If it really makes it a single action cantrip then it is amazing. Potentially 3 times per round. But because of the multiple attack penalty better combined with something else

I'm thrown a bit by the plural in except the spell has only verbal components are they really saying its a single action? Or two verbal actions?


Gortle wrote:
Kitsune Kune wrote:

Just chiming in here to make a note about the Elven feat, Elemental wrath. it's not JUST "the acid splash cantrip, but with a different element." It's also the cantrip with only a single action to cast.

"You can call to the land to cast the acid splash cantrip as an innate primal spell at will, except the spell has only verbal components and deals the type of damage you chose instead of acid damage;" (bolding mine.)

As you mention in the into, action economy is paramount. Dropping a spell you already rate at 3/4 stars, to one less action, seems to bump it to "great" to me. Further, if one wasn't going Primal, then it's still an innate spell, which scales on charisma anyway, and thus as a sorcerer is better than innate spells for most other classes. Finally, by getting rid of the somatic component, it drastically reduces the number of enemy reactions that it can trigger.

As such, better action economy, bloodline flexible (for varying degrees of value of course,) as well as element flexible so you can get around immunities/resistances (or if lucky, even hit weaknesses,) and reducing your interaction to enemy aggressive reactions? This is about as much as I, personally, could ask for in a level 1 ancestral feat.

Just my two cents.

If it really makes it a single action cantrip then it is amazing. Potentially 3 times per round. But because of the multiple attack penalty better combined with something else

I'm thrown a bit by the plural in except the spell has only verbal components are they really saying its a single action? Or two verbal actions?

If the Cantrip went down to one action, that'd be a significant change the spell should note, yet doesn't. The fact Paizo uses the plural "components" rather than "a single verbal component" also means the spell has multiple components, in this case two verbal ones.

Isn't it possible to have two verbal components? (Even if unusual.)

It wouldn't be that great for 3/round, but tagging on a free attack Cantrip w/ every spell w/ a save you cast would change the game balance. This falls in the "too good" of an interpretation territory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Components are no more linked to number of actions since the release. You can have single action spells with multiple components and single component spells with multiple actions (magic missile is a good example). Elemental Wrath is one as it costs 2 actions with one component.
Fiery Body is an example of a spell reducing a cantrip's actions but not its components.

Dark Archive

You all are right. Reading over the spell sections again it does mention that components and actions are only "usually" the same. So my previous statement is incorrect. It still does remove the interact trait from the spell. Allowing you to cast it in times you could not otherwise, thus improving it. However it is not nearly as improved as I first read it.

Liberty's Edge

Kitsune Kune wrote:
You all are right. Reading over the spell sections again it does mention that components and actions are only "usually" the same. So my previous statement is incorrect. It still does remove the interact trait from the spell. Allowing you to cast it in times you could not otherwise, thus improving it. However it is not nearly as improved as I first read it.

It still seems like a strong choice for an Elf who intended to pick up a damaging Cantrip anyway. You get the benefit of dropping Manipulate, Acid Splash carries that proviso about damaging objects, and you can pick a different element if you want.

It's probably not enough to draw someone who wasn't already in the market for a damaging Cantrip, but it looks like the sort of thing you'd like if you like that sort of thing.


Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Is harm really that good? I know undead can combo it with touch of undeath for a really odd way to buff healing spells, but the damage seems kinda low unless you are using it for an action filler against enemies that cant AoO you.

Asking since I do have an idea for running an undead sorc MC champion for a heavy armor mage that protects themselves with thick steel and temp hp

I'm finding it sucks. Though you can use it as a single action, doing so burns spells slots. It's better to cast a sustain spell and use your single action to do damage with a sustained spell like spiritual weapon or flaming sphere.

Vampiric Touch is a far better use of a 3rd level spell slot than a 3rd level harm. Vampiric Touch also scales better. A 5th level vampiric touch does 10d6 or an average of 35 damage with 17 temp hit points. Two 5th level harms does 10d8+10 for two of your 4 fifth level slots for an average damage of 55 damage. That looks nice in a round if you don't need spell slots, but that an average damage of 27 per 5th level spell slot compared to 35 per spell slot with some temp hit points.


Great guide and helped me with my Sorcerer character but can I point at some little mistakes I've seen?

1) Chill Touch has somatic component so it has a manipulate trait

2) 3-actions Heal and Harm have emanation area. The rules say "An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired." So you don't need to be immune to positive/negative damage if you want to be unaffected.

The list can be expanded but I just want to help make this guide much better.


GreyMesmer wrote:

Great guide and helped me with my Sorcerer character but can I point at some little mistakes I've seen?

1) Chill Touch has somatic component so it has a manipulate trait

2) 3-actions Heal and Harm have emanation area. The rules say "An emanation effect includes the target of the emanation, but the creature creating the effect can exclude the target if desired." So you don't need to be immune to positive/negative damage if you want to be unaffected.

The list can be expanded but I just want to help make this guide much better.

Cool I read the somatic component wrong.

I've updated my advice.
Thanks.


I've updated both of these for the Advanced Players Guide

Gortle’s Sorcerer Guide

Gortle’s Spell Guide for the Sorcerer

Cheers

1 to 50 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Gortle’s Sorcerer Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.