Zealot Pact

[Jdvn1]

I use Stalwart Pact on a regular basis. Great spell.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If it were me I would require a very uber spellcraft check to know that detail of the spell on the spot.

Not me. It's a spell just like any other spell. A successful Spellcraft check lets an observer with spellcraft identify the spell, period. Nothing "very uber" about it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Not me. It's a spell just like any other spell. A successful Spellcraft check lets an observer with spellcraft identify the spell, period. Nothing "very uber" about it.

Actually, a spellcraft check to spot an in-place effect requires there to be a visible effect. Period.

So, assuming the spell isn't cast where the bad guy can observe it, it should be pretty much undetectable until triggered. Double damage, however, seems like a pretty dramatic visual effect so it should be spellcraftable when it kicks in.

 

[Crothian]

seems fine. It is not that the caster cannot regaiun the XP spent, it is really hwe will be behind on XP of the rest of the players. If this gets used a lot the character can easily lag a level behind

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, a spellcraft check to spot an in-place effect requires there to be a visible effect. Period.

So, assuming the spell isn't cast where the bad guy can observe it, it should be pretty much undetectable until triggered. Double damage, however, seems like a pretty dramatic visual effect so it should be spellcraftable when it kicks in.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting the spell could be identified before there was a visible effect, any more than a wizard could identify an untriggered Contingency. My point was that once it takes effect, a standard spellcraft check (not a very uber one) will tell an opponent the limitations of the spell regarding alignment, required targets, etc...

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The way I look at the xp cost: it's nearly as much as it is to craft a +4 armor or resistance item. Looking at it that way, it doesn't look so bad.

Stalwart Pact is a far more useful spell because it's almost guaranteed to be useful when it's triggered and the xp cost is only half that of Zealot Pact.

 

[Jdvn1]

Zealot Pact is also one use.

Yeah, Stalwart Pact is probably superior. As long as you stay high on hp in the non-boss battles.

 

[Gaiden]

Thanks for all of the replies. Do you think imposing rp'ing restrictions on the pact spells is a good idea. My DM suggests that he doesn't like the way clerics can just cast any spell - he is a fan of 2E spheres that would individualize clerics to specific deities. I agree with him on this and usually impose my own RP'ing restrictions on spells chosen - so no darkness or negative energy spells for my Radiant Servant of Pelor.

For the zealot pact, the rp restriction would be that the character in question would have to be a follower of the deity the pact was made with.

We came up with a similar restriction and/or having the same alignment as the deity the pact was made with or following a deity who was allied with the deity the pact was made with. Essentially we want to make the pact spells specific to appropriate deities. So Heronious would hand out a zealot pact, Pelor a renewal pact, and perhaps Moradin a stalwart pact - or something along those lines (think available domains matching to pacts).

Do you think this is appropriate?

We have a LG paladin of heronious, a CG fighter type, a LG psion, and a NG cleric. The paladin. It may not have an actual in game effect in limiting the characters as the good Greyhawk pantheon covers pretty much all possiibilities but for flavor reasons we would want to be specific about getting the pact (who it was with).

 

[Nail]

Yeah, Stalwart Pact is probably superior. As long as you stay high on hp in the non-boss battles.

Actually, I'd say there's "no contest". Stalwart Pact is definitely superior.

When I play my Clr 14, I cast it on our front-line fighter and on the fragile monk. I also boost my caster level (typically to CL 20) so that my friends will get:

• 100 temporary hp,
• DR 5/magic
• +4 luck bonus to saves

Very nice.

 

[moritheil]

I think it's not a good idea to arbitrarily impose restrictions. However, in the context of a larger restriction on spells, perhaps it makes sense.

If you don't like the idea that clerical types know all spells, look at the Favored Soul.

Thanks for all of the replies. Do you think imposing rp'ing restrictions on the pact spells is a good idea. My DM suggests that he doesn't like the way clerics can just cast any spell - he is a fan of 2E spheres that would individualize clerics to specific deities. I agree with him on this and usually impose my own RP'ing restrictions on spells chosen - so no darkness or negative energy spells for my Radiant Servant of Pelor.

For the zealot pact, the rp restriction would be that the character in question would have to be a follower of the deity the pact was made with.

We came up with a similar restriction and/or having the same alignment as the deity the pact was made with or following a deity who was allied with the deity the pact was made with. Essentially we want to make the pact spells specific to appropriate deities. So Heronious would hand out a zealot pact, Pelor a renewal pact, and perhaps Moradin a stalwart pact - or something along those lines (think available domains matching to pacts).

Do you think this is appropriate?

We have a LG paladin of heronious, a CG fighter type, a LG psion, and a NG cleric. The paladin. It may not have an actual in game effect in limiting the characters as the good Greyhawk pantheon covers pretty much all possiibilities but for flavor reasons we would want to be specific about getting the pact (who it was with).