Check I haven't screwed up

[IronWolf]

Cetainly any game will have its own structure. However, if that mystery broker can readily lay his hands on a scroll of any spell one happens to be looking for (the clear presumption if the wizard is able to get every spoell published into his spellbook through scroll purchases), how is it that he is unable to lay his hands on spellbooks with equal ease?

My point is that some of the presumptions don't match anything but one person's very specific scenario. So many games fall between these extremes that people are painting.

My point was that in a lot of games a person isn't going to be able to simply go to a vendor and get any scroll they want or spell. Sometimes that spell is simply not easily accessible. In other games that might be very different and everything is available.

The lack of verissimilitude is increased if we can also purchase any magic item in the books from this "curio dealer". His connections let him access so many esoteric items, right on up to a Ring of Wishes or a Ressurection item, yet the one thing he can't lay his hands on is a spellbook - even a book with no higher than first or second level spells? Pretty strange connections.

Who is purchasing any item they want from the curio dealer? This is again an area that differs between people's games. What happens in one game is not necessarily something that happens in another person's game.

My point from this is that it is hard to say with absoluteness that arcane bond is always the better choice versus a familiar and vice versa. Because everyone's game is different and factors specific to *their* game are going to have more of an impact on this choice.

I, myself, am not a huge arcane bond fan for games I play in. But with that said I am not going to say that someone choosing arcane bond is wrong and making a poor choice. It very well might work for their game. They are the ones that will know that.

 

[tylermalan]

Wow, did this argument/thread derailment really spawn that massive front-page article?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

1. Wow, that's sad.

2. Wow, do you seriouly need a community supporter account just to post to an article?

 

[Morrus]

1. Wow, that's sad.

2. Wow, do you seriouly need a community supporter account just to post to an article?

We're not going to call other members "sad"; especially after a thread warning.

And you don't need a CSA account; there was just a permissions error after I'd been locking down spammers.

 

[tylermalan]

So, that article was placed on the front page by mistake, or...? It's still up, from what I can see, complete with a hilarious comment by Systole.

 

[N'raac]

So, Morrus - did you get that character finished? Did this thread help? Anything more we can help with?

[Any chance we can put this thread wreck back on the rails...?]

 

[Morrus]

So, Morrus - did you get that character finished? Did this thread help? Anything more we can help with?

[Any chance we can put this thread wreck back on the rails...?]

Yup, I used him on Thursday and had a blast. Some of my spell choices weren't the best, but that's no big deal (it has been a while since I played 3.5).

My main observations were twofold:

1) Pathfinder magic and classes feel a lot more distinct and special than in 4E
2) You don't get to do as much in your turn as in 4E

That's a pro and a con; but (1) is more important to me personally, I think. I know it has it's critics, but I forgot how much I'd missed pre-4E magic. With an action structure (standard/move/minor/action points) more like 4E, plus an "at-will" attack spell rather than a crossbow (or a crappy cantrip) I'd be pretty darn happy. I might ask the DM if he'll let me "reskin" the crossbow - no change in the mechanics, just describe it as a spell, not a crossbow.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, you can have that many actions per round pretty easily after a while (swift/immediate, move, and standard...no action points for more actions, though), some classes more than others. Inquisitors need swifts to use or redirect/alter nearly all their class-based combat buffs, for instance.

And a fair number of the caster classes can get a 3 + [casting modifier] per day 1d6 +1/2 level ranged touch attack of some sort. You just chose a school with a different X/day 1st level ability.

Daze cantrip at will, even with the new restriction on it, is pretty nifty at 1st level, though.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I know it's too late. But I would like to say the familiar option, especially once you get improved familiar, isn't too bad. From what I understand a lot of wizards get Use Magic Device maxed out and have their familiar use magic items with its action as well as other items such as smoke sticks. The familiar provides an extra set of actions and improved familiars can do actions very similar to a character. And it's fun to have a Tinkerbell familiar.

Good to see you giving Pathfinder a try, Morrus.

 

[N'raac]

Yup, I used him on Thursday and had a blast. Some of my spell choices weren't the best, but that's no big deal (it has been a while since I played 3.5).

As a Wizard, changing spells is pretty easy. Even if the spell you now want isn't in your repertoire, you get two more when you level up, or you buy a scroll or access to a spell book (for L1 spells, a pretty cheap option).

In any case, I find we often get way too focused on "optimal choices" and fail to focus on what's really important, "optimal fun". Not having the best spell choices, and having a blast, seems a lot better to me (from your comments, you'd likely agree) than having a perfectly optimized character in a dull game.

My main observations were twofold:

1) Pathfinder magic and classes feel a lot more distinct and special than in 4E
2) You don't get to do as much in your turn as in 4E.

That's a pro and a con; but (1) is more important to me personally, I think.

Having not played 4e, I'm not in the best position to compare, but I've heard a lot of gamers comment that 4e, in much better balancing the classes, also removed a lot of their distinctiveness so they have similar abilities with different names.

I might ask the DM if he'll let me "reskin" the crossbow - no change in the mechanics, just describe it as a spell, not a crossbow.

Depends on the DM, obviously. The key differences I would see:

- spell resistance doesn't work on crossbows, but by the time that's remotely common, you probably won't be using that option anyway.

- the crossbow is easier to take away, and can run out of ammunition. A focus component plus an expendable material component fixes that, presumably the latter having a price similar to the price of crossbow bolts.

- I can lend my crossbow and share bolts with other crossbow users, and loot bolts from opponents. The spell won't have these advantages.

Maybe instead of a crossbow, the character has a wand. It costs the same for him to build the wand as to buy a crossbow (maybe even let him build it like a crossbow using the Spellcraft skill), and the wand needs to be maintained with magical materials at the same cost per usage as bolts. "Resetting" after using the wand takes the same time as reloading a crossbow. Voila!

If the desired effect is "low level wizards are forced to rely on mundane weaponry to supplement their spells", the change probably won't go over very well. If not, then it's really just special effects and doesn't change character power much, if at all, so why not?