Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Egan_BW]

Barbarian bestbarian.

[SOLDIER First]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEERDS

enjoy getting killed by literally any caster with the ability to ensnare you

[Jimmy]

Pathfinder Barbarians get an awesome rage power called Spell Sunder that lets them basically substitute a Sunder attack for a Dispel Magic. Once they can Rage cycle, usually by taking a one level dip in Oracle by level 9, they can do this every round if they like. Add this to powers like Eater of Magic to reroll saving throws, and you're looking at a pretty effective anti-caster build.

[wierd]

Ok, I have a serious question now...

The "sacred geometry" feat listed earlier could be employed to tremendous effect, if paired with item creation, since metamagic effects can be imbued into magical items.  If used exclusively with item creation, (and taken several times), a very successful player character (has lots of money to burn) could create some pretty absurd magical items that technically only consume a low level spell slot. (eg, create wands with stacked metamagic effects without exceeding the wand's low level slot reqs.)

Since the magic of a magic item is very different than the one-off casting of a spellcaster, once the necessary rolls are successful in item creation, the resulting item would be able to routinely cast the spell for them in that manner. Say for instance, a staff (or wand).  This means that the dice roll fudgery of the sacred geometry feat need only be completed at item creation; the spell is then stored inside the staff, and gets the 10 charges. The creator is technically "able" to cast the spell that way, and thus can charge it every day, and has a boom-stick to fire it off with quickly.

Taking that feat, and combining it with item creation in this fashion could result in some very interesting (and likely VERY OP) consequences. (say, a wand of magic missile that is heightened, empowered, enlarged, etc... all at the base cost of magic missile, since the spell level is not raised by the additional effects. Wands get 50 charges off the bat, so constant attempts (and failures) to create wands with this feat would result in deadly sticks of doom that mostly negate the difficulty of using the feat, due to the number of charges granted on successful creation, as the number of charges granted in a wand mean you basically get 50 times the economy. The feat says "one, both, or all of the feats already gained" which means if you take this feat several times, each time taking 2 more metamagic feats, wands that shoot pure horror become a very real thing.)

Or, am I reading this incorrectly?

Another that could possibly be combined with this feat is Inscribe Magical Tattoo, which would allow the caster to "wear" several buff conveying "wondrous items" without interfering with actual magic item slot use.  Metamagic enhanced versions could make use of the sacred geometry feat without increasing the spell level.

Surely there is something to prevent abuse of this type, right?

[Draignean]

Surely there is something to prevent abuse of this type, right?

We're talking about Pathfinder. Of course there isn't.

The main thing stopping you in the (many) instances where Pathfinder rules twist themselves into apocalyptic singularity is a DM ruling.

[wierd]

Wands become absurdly OP if left as-is, in conjunction with abuse of this feat. I would suggest a house rule to limit abuse, or at the very least, make the person planning the abuse have to actually think about what they are trying to accomplish:


Wands:
For every 2 effects applied using this feat, reduce wand's created charge pool 50%.

EG, if they added Empower and Enlarge on what is otherwise a standard wand of magic missile, it only has 25 charges at creation, instead of 50, etc. If they add 2 more feats, it drops to 12 charges. Then 6. Then 3. This limits the maximum number of effects an abuser could saddle it with to 8 effects, which would reduce the charges of the wand to 3, greatly limiting the utility of attempting such a creation.

Not sure what to do about staves though. Only get 10 charge capacity, but they are rechargable. Maybe increase material costs and craft skill requirement by one component and one skill level for every 2 effects added??

[milo christiansen]

I finally did it! I got my Elements setting into good enough shape to run an actual game.

Due to my schedule it will run quite slowly, but that may be a good thing for people with limited time...

Anyway, the game thread is over here.

Any suggestions for a first time GM?

[NullForceOmega]

There's quite a bit of good advice spread across the thread, so I'd suggest reading at least the first ten pages or so, other than that some quick pointers:

1 ) NPCs make or break a game, good ones can save even the worst setting
2 ) If you make a ruling on something don't ever go back on it unless there is an extremely good reason
3 ) Try to understand what your players want from their experience and work with it (unless it is disruptive to the game)
4 ) You are in charge, what you say goes, but abusing that leads to an empty table
5 ) Consistency is the most important part of your job, this ties into everything else

Those are the important ones off the top of my head.

[Rolan7]

Ok, I have a serious question now...

The "sacred geometry" feat listed earlier could be employed to tremendous effect, if paired with item creation, since metamagic effects can be imbued into magical items.  If used exclusively with item creation, (and taken several times), a very successful player character (has lots of money to burn) could create some pretty absurd magical items that technically only consume a low level spell slot. (eg, create wands with stacked metamagic effects without exceeding the wand's low level slot reqs.)

I try to avoid learning about PF (my group still plays 3.5 occasionally, it's similar enough to be very confusing) and the Paizo forum was surprisingly anti-helpful.  I was initially just trying to confirm that metamagic could be used in wands, and *most* of the posts I found implied it wasn't RAW but sounded fine.  Or just claimed it was fine with no explanation.  It is fine, of course:

While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

Frankly I think that last sentence is terribly worded.  Some people argued it allows metamagic'd spells as long as the original spell was fourth level or less.  People's response was basically "Nah that sounds OP" or "That'd be pretty expensive though".

But back to the actual idea, sacred geometry...

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) [...] The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand’s creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster’s currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

That wording indicates to me that the spell isn't actually cast at creation, the slot is merely expended.  Sacred Geometry specifically takes place when the spell is cast.  If item creation did explicitly involve a spell being cast and "stored" (which I think might be how the "spell storing" enchantment works in 3.5) then it'd be pretty broken/questionable to have it multiplied 10 or 50 times.  But this is a different process, which simply expends the slot and a pile of materials (and several hours).

Now, could a sacred geometer attempt to add metamagic to a spell they cast through a wand...?
(Probably not)

[wierd]

With the statement on item creation, it has no means of being fullfilled unless the spell is stored-- unless you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a normal spell slot, and have it prepared somehow.

IIRC, a few wondrous items (and some standard) allow the storage of spells like that-- Instead of casting the spell out into the world, they store it inside the item, where it resides in a special "extra" spell slot. They then could craft the wand with it, which would expend the slot. Convoluted, but looks possible.

Take for instance, the ring of spell storing.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-spell-storing/

DM will probably call shenanigans on that-- but the effort required to go through the process would take several days time to prepare such a wand.

[Neonivek]

Still remember the DM who nerfed Spell storing to uselessness by requiring that you touch the person with it... OR if it is a weapon of spell storing you must hit the person will a full on attack.

Well ok not useless but goodness did it feel like he just didn't want me using spell storage.

[wierd]

Spell storage is potentially very dangerous (to game balance), because a "very well prepared" caster could take time in town to overload their caster this way. (Say, wearing a headband of intellect to get extra slots, and two of these rings, loads up on metamagic enhanced versions of base spells in the rings, and puts a trump card type escape spell in the headband.) Such a caster would have 7 additional slots, 6 of which could be loaded with craziness, while still getting leveled list monsters appropriate to their level instead of how powerful they really are.

Either the DM has to start throwing harder monsters at the party, which is not similarly buffed out-- or they have to find a way to limit abuse.

I can only imagine the reaction that DM would have to somebody trying this absurd loophole I am trying to determine actually exists or not. (This is just my intrinsic nature as a curious hacker looking at a possible exploit vector, just because it is an exploit vector.)

[SOLDIER First]

they have to find a way to limit abuse.

Simple.

If someone wants to do that, let them - and then the minute it gets abused to destroy any combat scenarios, you take the kid's toys away.

[milo christiansen]

That's what I plan to do. Allow anything, but if it sounds OP warn the player ahead of time that they had better not abuse it. If abused it gets nerfed. Simple.

[SOLDIER First]

Simple.