|
My character is a human universalist wizard that took 2x weapon prof general feat from 1st lvl and knows how to use all martial weapons.
I also like Hand of the Apprentice quite a bit, I think the Maul or Greatpick is a better weapon for it than the greatsword though (crit spec difference).
It makes effective use of the staff of divination as well, which is a cheap, effective item, as you don’t need to be wielding the weapon to use HotA, just holding it.
Speaking of hands, a shield is a compelling option. +2 AC and +2 to saves with a spellguard shield brings a caster's lackluster defenses up to standard.
My character is a human universalist wizard that took 2x weapon prof general feat from 1st lvl and knows how to use all martial weapons.I also like Hand of the Apprentice quite a bit, I think the Maul or Greatpick is a better weapon for it than the greatsword though (crit spec difference).
It makes effective use of the staff of divination as well, which is a cheap, effective item, as you don’t need to be wielding the weapon to use HotA, just holding it.
I agree, but I have a "greatkatana" and a Tian themed wizard that crafted his own blade that is also his familiar(my GM let me have a sword familiar for fluff) so it's for RP reasons :)....ahh the sacrifices we make for good stories
Figure out (recall knowledge) and target the targets weak saves.Some good advice here but I just wanted to call this part out specifically. Recall Knowledge RAW doesn't tell you the monsters weakest save. Only the Rogue feat Battle Assessment does that. Makes it very difficult to determine weak saves without trial and error.
You can read it that way, or you can read it as Battle Assesment providing rogues an alternate and universal means of obtaining information about enemies other than Recall Knowledge.
Unifying all enemy assessment skills into one check is already good enough for a 4th level feat (good enough, or absurdly good even) - it doesn't need to be the sole way to get that information also.
But Recall Knowledge is GM determined, so your mileage may vary.
Some good advice here but I just wanted to call this part out specifically. Recall Knowledge RAW doesn't tell you the monsters weakest save. Only the Rogue feat Battle Assessment does that. Makes it very difficult to determine weak saves without trial and error.
Have your martials shove, trip and demoralize him with some 3rd actions using assurance and you have all the figures pretty fast. ;)
Starting combat with scrolls in hand, just as martials want to start combat with weapons ready, strikes me as a simple Action economy improvement for many casters.
Scrolls in general are great for casters, they serve as backup so the caster never enters a tough fight without spells available. The goal isn’t to actually use the scrolls unless you absolutely have to - it’s to ensure you’re never conserving spell slots that don’t end up getting used in the end. Spell slots you still have when you go to sleep are wasted - you could have used those to contribute in combat instead.
Going with stereotypes usually result in a decent outcome in regard fighting enemies in the game.
It's the creature big and burly? Most likely strong Fortitude and low Will.
It's light armored and using a bow or dual wielding? High Reflex. try fortitude or will if it they don't look smart.
It's some kind of fairy and is casting spells? High Will, use something else.
Ask for what you character can see, the description of the creature and observe how it fights.
You can read it that way, or you can read it as Battle Assesment providing rogues an alternate and universal means of obtaining information about enemies other than Recall Knowledge.
Unifying all enemy assessment skills into one check is already good enough for a 4th level feat (good enough, or absurdly good even) - it doesn't need to be the sole way to get that information also.
But Recall Knowledge is GM determined, so your mileage may vary.
Just reading how it's written. If a wizard does recall knowledge on a creature, they learn the creature's best known attribute (Ex. Troll regeneration countered by acid or fire). Thats the RAW. The Trolls weak Will save is certainly not its best known attribute. I can't think of many creatures whose best known attribute is their weak save in comparison to their signature abilities. Would an Adult Black Dragon's best known attribute be their acid breath or their +18 Reflex save? Whereas Battle Assessment explicitly states it can give you weak saves.
If your GM let's you get weak saves off recall knowledge, that's great. But if the thread is caster tactics, we should be clear what's RAW and what's a house rule.
In the description of Recall Knowledge, there's this example -
"For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem..."
Which tells me that "I attempt to Recall Knowledge about the defenses of Trolls." is likely in the realm of reason for things you can Recall Knowledge about. Forcing people to roll entry by entry, line by line, to get each piece of information about a creatures defenses would be... its not tenable.
In the description of Recall Knowledge, there's this example -
"For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem..."
Which tells me that "I attempt to Recall Knowledge about the defenses of Trolls." is likely in the realm of reason for things you can Recall Knowledge about. Forcing people to roll entry by entry, line by line, to get each piece of information about a creatures defenses would be... its not tenable.
We are playing it like a novel. That is our GM will freely provide mundane information that could easily have been passed on from generation to generation (think garlic vs vampires or silver vs werewolves), or in old tomes, but never ever any game statistics.
For example we might learn that a clay golem is resistant to all weapons except adamantine, is immune to magic with the exception that it is harmed by cold and water spells, healed by acid spells, slowed by earth spells and vulnerable to the disintegrate spell.
All of the above constitute "the golems magical defenses".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the description of Recall Knowledge, there's this example -
"For example, Arcana might tell you about the magical defenses of a golem..."
Which tells me that "I attempt to Recall Knowledge about the defenses of Trolls." is likely in the realm of reason for things you can Recall Knowledge about. Forcing people to roll entry by entry, line by line, to get each piece of information about a creatures defenses would be... its not tenable.
We are playing it like a novel. That is our GM will freely provide mundane information that could easily have been passed on from generation to generation (think garlic vs vampires or silver vs werewolves), or in old tomes, but never ever any game statistics.
For example we might learn that a clay golem is resistant to all weapons except adamantine, is immune to magic with the exception that it is harmed by cold and water spells, healed by acid spells, slowed by earth spells and vulnerable to the disintegrate spell.
All of the above constitute "the golems magical defenses".
I'd personally throw in, "They're mindless nature and programming also makes them poor at adapting to changing conditions or unexpected complications." Or similar. Golems are a bit weirder in particular, and their magical defenses are extremely involved.
For the troll example, in addition to the bit on reflexes, I'd also give something to the effect of, "While they're extremely tough, they aren't known for their grace and reflexes, and especially not for being strong willed or hard to fool."
I consider "what are its defenses" as functionally similar to "what are the most effective forms of attack".
Also not sure if this is serving caster tactics anymore, maybe a new thread?
Casters and their tactics are heavily reliant on targeting bad saves. Ways to determine these - such as enlisting aid from party members via combat maneuvers, or recall knowledge - i think are reasonably relevant.
That said, its likely best to avoid going down the rabbit hole here, so...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recall knowledge is vague, it's not easy to simply say "this is the RAW way of playing it". An argument based on a completely separate feat with no explicit ruling is always going to be a little shaky.
I'd argue you're doing the game a disservice as a GM if you give players useless information as a GM though. Monster identification is fun, so it might as well also be a useful tactic.
Agreed Henro its fun to identify monsters.
Too bad the rules on it are so vague that if you read them too favorably you outright invalidate feats. But reading them too literally makes them weak or useless in most situations.
What feats are invalidated? Certainly not the rogue feat that let's you identify any monsters weaknesses with a pseudo-skill that advances for free and is worth enhancing any way you can anyway because its already alpha-tier important?.
|
Recall knowledge is vague, it's not easy to simply say "this is the RAW way of playing it". An argument based on a completely separate feat with no explicit ruling is always going to be a little shaky.
I'd argue you're doing the game a disservice as a GM if you give players useless information as a GM though. Monster identification is fun, so it might as well also be a useful tactic.
My PFS experience tells me that there is currently HUGE variation on how GMs handle recall information, more than there was in PF2 (which also had a lot).
The variance has made me fairly unhappy with my (still low level) knowledge bard in practice. It's rare that I get information worth the action let alone worth the amount of build resources that have gone into the ability in the first place.
It is very common to just get hold information that is already pretty obvious from tactics, appearance, etc
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two big rules for monster identification I use.
1) The knowledge needs to be helpful, which means actionable. Knowing a creature can do a thing is only helpful if the player can take steps to avoid it, for example, and don't already know it.
2) Go from most well known to least well known, as long as it follows rule number 1.
So in practice what I usually do is read the monster's flavor text out loud until I get to the first thing that is also represented in the stat block and is actionable. The flavor is fun for context, but I usually make sure the specific mechanics involved are explicit. So if the first juicy bit about Medusas is that their gaze turns people to Stone, I make sure the players know that ending their turn within 30 feet of the Medusa will require a save.
It is possible that a monster without a lot of interesting or actionable info might just default to saying what save is lowest. And I think I'd probably share it if that was what a player specifically wanted to roll for-- maybe applying a hard DC adjustment for that level of specificity. One nice thing about allowing this is you have a really easy go to for a critical failure for wrong information.
Recall knowledge is vague, it's not easy to simply say "this is the RAW way of playing it". An argument based on a completely separate feat with no explicit ruling is always going to be a little shaky.
I'd argue you're doing the game a disservice as a GM if you give players useless information as a GM though. Monster identification is fun, so it might as well also be a useful tactic.
My PFS experience tells me that there is currently HUGE variation on how GMs handle recall information, more than there was in PF2 (which also had a lot).
The variance has made me fairly unhappy with my (still low level) knowledge bard in practice. It's rare that I get information worth the action let alone worth the amount of build resources that have gone into the ability in the first place.
It is very common to just get hold information that is already pretty obvious from tactics, appearance, etc
For what it is worth, I had a similar experience. I mostly chalk that up to bad GM calls though. (One of the many reasons I don't do PFS. Every year or two I think maybe I should give it another shot, and every year or two I conclude I hate the social dynamics of it.) Hopefully PFS gets some guidelines in order eventually.
I don't think it is hard to actually do knowledge checks well if you keep the stuff I mentioned above in mind though.
How is it vague? It literally just says "A character who successfully identifies a creature learns one of its best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes" p. 506. How is a Trolls best known feature that they're kind of clumsy? A trolls best known attribute is clearly it's regeneration and how it's stopped by fire. A dragon's best known attribute is that it has a breath weapon. I'd challenge someone to find creatures whose best known feature is how weak their weakest save is. Creature saves are only usually within 10-15% of each other, how could that ever qualify as its best known attribute?
Again, I have no issue with GMs making Recall Knowledge better than it is RAW, but it's a house rule and should be presented as such.
Its unclear because that's NOT consistent with what it says under the Recall Knowledge action description. The Recall Knowledge action shows examples that are broad and implied to be target able by the player/character ("I want to recall Creature X's complicated magic defenses").
Of course, the specific quote you've chosen on 506 is more limited. If I were trying to guess why the inconsistency exists, I'd say they were advising GMs to be conservative... though in this case I'd say they're going overboard.
Alternatively, they're talking about different scenarios. That quote specifically applies to Creature Identification, and implies that you get a free piece of info on identifying the creature. That does not in any way preclude following that check with another in the vein of, "OK, so its a Rock troll and its best know for being weak to fire. What do I remember about strategies for killing it?"
My character is a human universalist wizard that took 2x weapon prof general feat from 1st lvl and knows how to use all martial weapons.
He uses Hand of the Apprentice to throw his greatsword 500ft as 1 action in addition to casting a 2 action non attackroll blast spell, or uses a true strike + HotA
He's 10th level currently and has a +2 striking, wounding, flaming greatsword that he can throw max 4 times in a single fight(2 focus points and 2 abilities to regenerate them 1/day) and has bespell for extra d6
2d12+2d6+5+1d6 persistent bleed(d12bleed+d10 persfire+ flatfooted on crit)
against boss opponents i usually use sudden bolt + HotA and i wait for a fear+flatfooted debuff from my party before i go all in
7d12 sudden bolt 5lvl + HotA does amazing dmg to a single opponent at this point for me
I also use phantasmal killer alot on all beasty monsters that usually have bad will saves(extra fear debuff let's me hit it better w HotA after)
In addition I also have rogue dedication and I'm the party rogue and crafter with maxed thievery and crafting...playing Age of Ashes
EDIT - I find HotA a better alternative to Elemental toss bc it let's you add item bonus to spell attack...the only thing in the game that does AFAIK
Excellent addition. The more I see of general feats, the more I feel this is a good expenditure of general feats. Being able to use a weapon is a nice one action way to add damage for a caster. So most casters should Gandalf it up and get into weapons.
Going with stereotypes usually result in a decent outcome in regard fighting enemies in the game.
It's the creature big and burly? Most likely strong Fortitude and low Will.
It's light armored and using a bow or dual wielding? High Reflex. try fortitude or will if it they don't look smart.
It's some kind of fairy and is casting spells? High Will, use something else.
Ask for what you character can see, the description of the creature and observe how it fights.
I allow this from my players. I think it represents what was likely taught to casters who use battle magic. If it proves otherwise, then they figure it out then. Even though we as DMs and players see a random high roll can lead to success, I'm feel it is fair to allow players to assume they are taught to watch for a skill defending against a particular spell or ability.
|
|
lExcellent addition. The more I see of general feats, the more I feel this is a good expenditure of general feats. Being able to use a weapon is a nice one action way to add damage for a caster. So most casters should Gandalf it up and get into weapons.
You can also go into fighter dedication (using Multitalented from Half-Elf if you don’t have the stats) or use ancestry feats (e.g. orc Weapon familiarity for greataxe) if your ancestry has good weapons that it trains you in.
HotA is IMO the best focus power for wizards, though from memory with True Strike and Bespell (doing the calcs) it’s only about equivalent to fire ray even with a fully decked out weapon.
lExcellent addition. The more I see of general feats, the more I feel this is a good expenditure of general feats. Being able to use a weapon is a nice one action way to add damage for a caster. So most casters should Gandalf it up and get into weapons.You can also go into fighter dedication (using Multitalented from Half-Elf if you don’t have the stats) or use ancestry feats (e.g. orc Weapon familiarity for greataxe) if your ancestry has good weapons that it trains you in.
HotA is IMO the best focus power for wizards, though from memory with True Strike and Bespell (doing the calcs) it’s only about equivalent to fire ray even with a fully decked out weapon.
True, but don't forget that HotA adds weapon item bonus to your spell attack and you can customize it by adding different property runes
|
|
True, but don't forget that HotA adds weapon item bonus to your spell attack and you can customize it by adding different property runes
Even with all of that, it’s only slightly ahead of Fire Ray after you use True Strike and Bespell.
I gave it +X and Striking at the appropriate levels, as well as flaming level 8, shock level 10, (Greater versions level 15) and (Greater) corrosive level 16.
That’s just how good Fire Ray is as a focus power.
it is good, but it lacks that flexibility of casting...you can't cast fire ray + another high hitter spell like chain lightning or whatnot
I find Hand of the Apprentice to be very expensive for what it does. If your DM is nice and gives you lots of extra runes (or automatic bonus progression) and if he doesn't care if you are trained in the weapon you use it can be nice. But if you have to invest in 3 feats, 2 hands, a weapon and focus points for a "nice little trick", then it's not worth it in my opinion.
Even with GM support, I'd argue that both the abjurer and the diviner have better focus powers than Hand of the Apprentice.
Protective Ward makes the wizard like a defensive minded Bard. Status bonuses to AC are tough to come by.
diviner's sight is one of the only non-domain focus powers that is useful in and out of combat, and is incredibly flexible. The ability to roll before you commit to using a skill is massive, as is making a secret check public. And it works on Saving throws.
This isn't to say HoA is bad, just that it feels like the wizard gets attacked a lot for having bad focus powers, but that there are several excellent powers, and most of the rest are decent as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite wizard focus spell is the illusion 4th level power Invisibility Cloak. Between that and Silent Spell, you have an out to stay invisible continuously once you get level 12.
I also really like both the illusionist powers. Silent spell is a massively underrated feat that is limited to wizards.
|
|
I find Hand of the Apprentice to be very expensive for what it does. If your DM is nice and gives you lots of extra runes (or automatic bonus progression) and if he doesn't care if you are trained in the weapon you use it can be nice. But if you have to invest in 3 feats, 2 hands, a weapon and focus points for a "nice little trick", then it's not worth it in my opinion.
Only needs to be 1 feat technically, a simple ancestry feat to get you a good weapon, or fighter dedication.
1 hand is all that's necessary, you don't need to be wielding the weapon, just holding the weapon. You could argue the necessity of a staff of divination for extra true strikes though.
The cost of the weapon is pretty irrelevant currently, casters don't have much to spend money on and runes/runed weapons drop like hotcakes in APs.
Focus points is only a couple of feats really, of which, universal versatility is probably dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
of course that wizard has more than one option, but OP was kinda aiming at dealing damage, and this is the best wizard can do and is also the most precise spell attack in the whole game... Keep in mind that your weapon special features also apply...there is a unique item in AoA that we got. It blinds for 1 round on critical hit(no save). I was seriously thinking of transforming it into a bastard sword via shifting rune and using it as my HotA. I'm sure there is more of that kind of stuff around...
Only needs to be 1 feat technically, a simple ancestry feat to get you a good weapon, or fighter dedication.
Hand of the Apprentice is one feat. So it's at least 2 feats.
1 hand is all that's necessary, you don't need to be wielding the weapon, just holding the weapon. You could argue the necessity of a staff of divination for extra true strikes though.
This one is complicated as it's really GM dependent. Do you need to be trained with the weapon, do you need the proper number of hands, do you get the rune bonus to attack, all of that will depend on your DM. But I don't see a DM giving you the rune bonus to attack if on the side you don't wield the weapon properly. And if you don't have the rune bonus to attack, then Hand of the Apprentice gets really weak and a spell like Force Bolt will nearly deal the same average damage but with less costs.
The cost of the weapon is pretty irrelevant currently, casters don't have much to spend money on and runes/runed weapons drop like hotcakes in APs.
This is in my opinion a big error. Casters have a lot to buy, at least if they want to last. My Sorcerer doesn't have money for a weapon. I won't even buy a magic armor at level 5 considering what I need to have.
Scrolls, scrolls and scrolls... And a wand or two, maybe a staff? Slippers of spider climb is a good one too.
Casters have a lot of things to buy even though they don't need to rune up as much.
One more caster tactic came to mind - Animal trainer dedication is now here...and that's a cool way to spend your 3rd action each turn.
Even with GM support, I'd argue that both the abjurer and the diviner have better focus powers than Hand of the Apprentice.
Protective Ward makes the wizard like a defensive minded Bard. Status bonuses to AC are tough to come by.
Hmmm. I hadn't noticed that Protective Ward is a status bonus. That would be an appealing choice for Arcane School Spell for a character with Wizard Dedication. If there is a Bard in the party, Protective Ward would supplement Inspire Courage pretty well. +1 status to pretty much everything. :)