My group is in the middle of character building to start the adventure path. One of the PCs wants to create an Inquisitor with the Spellbreaker archetype. Seems to fit the theme pretty well but I'm a little concerned with the capstone:
Impervious (Ex)At 20th level, a Spellbreaker becomes immune to the effects of a single school of arcane magic. That school of magic must be the first one she picked for defense against magic (see above). Neither harmful nor helpful arcane spells of that school have an effect on the Spellbreaker. If a spell of that school is an area of effect spell, the spell goes off as normal, but the Spellbreaker is untouched by its effects. Once per day, as a swift action, the Spellbreaker can grant this imperviousness to all allies in a 60-foot burst for 1 minute.
I could see it potentially trivializing the final encounter in the game if they pick the "correct" school, especially the effect of applying it to your party for 10 rounds.
Am I being too concerned about this? If not, any suggestions on how to handle it?
The ability to trivialize the final encounter is a concern. However, it isn't a guarantee it will be trivialized, since there is a 1-in-8 chance of picking the right one. There are far more debilitating schools of magic than evocation, which is often pointed out as a good choice to make an opposition school in Wizard class guides.
If the player does choose Evocation for this, try to make them burn the once per day ability before the final fight. That way, it's only the player who is immune, and the rest of the party can be affected as normal.
If they do still have the ability, I would suggest a small tweak to Alaznist's stat block - replace the Arcane Surge Archmage Arcana with the Wild Arcana Archmage Arcana. That way, Alaznist can pull non-Evocation spells to use in those spell slots, as opposed to being stuck with useless Evocation spells.
Unless you plan on giving Mythic to your PCs (a perfectly viable option), I would stay away from the first one. It comes a little too close to "bending the rules to counteract the players choices" for my liking.
The second option is a better one, IMO - immunity to an entire school of magic is close in power to True Judgement's Instant-Kill ability. You could just say you're concerned about the power of the archetype, and think the sharing ability is too much. Just remember to be consistent about it going forwards - if someone else chooses the archetype in a later game, they should have the same limitation.
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I wouldn't change the rules to favor an NPC like this. That's unfair, which seems wrong to me on its own, and even aside from that the players might well notice that fact which is really unfun and likely to lead to badness.
But really, this doesn't make the end fight an easy one by any means. With, at most, a DC 35 Religion check, Alaznist can, by the rules, recognize this ability and know to plan around it. Her Religion skill is +36, meaning she cannot fail. Knowledge checks take no action and should be routine for an ancient Wizard. So...she can and should know about this effect and how it works.
She will win initiative, so if the ability is up (a possibility) you can adjust her tactics and use her non-Evocation spells. She does have a number of them, after all. If it's not up, she can hit them with a big Evocation before it goes up, then do this sort of thing for the remainder of the fight. This makes the fight easier, yes, but it won't feel like the player's abilities are being sidelined and Alaznist remains a potent foe.
As another, in-world, option, she has Wish prepared, and removing the 'one minute aura' part of the power seems very much within the scope of a Wish with GM permission (and you're the GM). This, again, feels less like a cheat since it involves the villain spending a turn and a 9th level spell to counter the effect rather than just GM fiat.