Evocation Specialist Build

[GuestEleven]

Hey guys, my group is starting an off-session and the DM particularly hates Pathfinder because he thinks it is broken/imbalanced and I'm setting out to prove to him that 3.5 is every bit as broken/imbalanced since he banned all Pathfinder options and I love Pathfinder. Aside from the general pettiness of me wanting to make him regret not allowing Pathfinder I also have wanted to emulate one of my favorite anime characters: Megumin from Konosuba.

If I weren't on my phone at work right now I would add a picture of what she looks like, but you lose a lot of post options when on a phone. But here general theme is 'explosion' magic. Basically massive Fireballs. I am aiming to become the most vicious Fireballer wiz possible. Thing is I haven't played that many casters, and that is even more true when being just limited to 3.5 material. I was wanting to know other people's thoughts and hear their experiences when playing and Evocation specialist. I also want to list what I have thought of already and get feedback on if it is any good.

First obviously going to have to take some levels in Wizard. Beyond that the DM said he will allow me to take Red Wizard, the Thay prestige class since the area I will be coming from in his world is very similar and it would make a lot of sense for me to have access to. Is it worth picking up? And for how many levels?

Next is Master Specialist and Archmage. It looks like a lot of people favor Archmage well above Master Specialist? Why is that? I see a lot of merit in Specialist, I think Archmage is nice but I don't see why people favor it so heavily. Maybe I'm just not thinking like a caster yet?

Lastly is feats. I think Arcane Thesis(Fireball) is a givein. What metamagic feats are good to take and which should I just get in a rod? I looked at Explosive Spell, I immediately realized it seems next to worthless for the cost of two spell slots higher. Am I just not seeing it right or was I correct in it being a waste of a feat? Also Of the Three Thunders seemed like it would be really good, and am I wrong to assume the the prerequisite feat would allow you to change the Lightning descriptor to Fire?

Also it is good to note that our DMs typically if you can explain something well enough and it is small non-game breaking changes to things it may be allowed. For example if Of the Three Thunders didn't allow for it to be changed to fire in the Eratta a DM may override that for the sake of the character, since it really wouldn't change the end result of the spell.

Thanks in advance to any advice or input. I look forward to a lot of helpful responses. :]

[OgresAreCute]

I'm not exactly a spellcaster afficionado myself, but you could look up the Mailman Sorcerer. It's a blaster build made for dealing as much damage as possible. The general idea is to stack a bunch of metamagics on top of each other and let it rip. You could also do something similar with an Artificer from the Eberron Campaign Setting book, using metamagic on a wand with a damaging spell to burn through all your charges at once and deal a few thousand damage.

[GuestEleven]

I'm not exactly a spellcaster afficionado myself, but you could look up the Mailman Sorcerer. It's a blaster build made for dealing as much damage as possible. The general idea is to stack a bunch of metamagics on top of each other and let it rip. You could also do something similar with an Artificer from the Eberron Campaign Setting book, using metamagic on a wand with a damaging spell to burn through all your charges at once and deal a few thousand damage.

That sounds really nice. I will look at them both, thank you.

[PhantasyPen]

Wow, how dare your DM have a preferred edition that is different from your own. How very dare your DM not want inferior Pathfinder material in a 3.5 game.

Now with that being said, Look up the Energy Admixture metamagic, if you're using Born of Three Thunders (and no, you cannot switch that particular feat from Electricity and Sonic damage to Fire damage because that's not what that feat is for, the Fire equivalent of that feat is Searing Spell) since both require Energy Substitution anyways.

I hate Pathfinder (or rather I hate anything to do with Paizo) but I enjoy breaking Wizards more, so I suppose I will assist in this endeavor.

[GuestEleven]

Wow, how dare your DM have a preferred edition that is different from your own. How very dare your DM not want inferior Pathfinder material in a 3.5 game.

Now with that being said, Look up the Energy Admixture metamagic, if you're using Born of Three Thunders (and no, you cannot switch that particular feat from Electricity and Sonic damage to Fire damage because that's not what that feat is for, the Fire equivalent of that feat is Searing Spell) since both require Energy Substitution anyways.

I hate Pathfinder (or rather I hate anything to do with Paizo) but I enjoy breaking Wizards more, so I suppose I will assist in this endeavor.

Thanks for clarifying that ruling. I like the looks of Energy Admixture. Wish it had Sonic in the list, then I would really love it.

Let me pick your brain on your Pathfinder opinion. I'm not chastising him for not liking Pathfinder, or at least trying not to, but rather more his 'opinion' on it being too broken. I'm doing this to show him that 3.5 is the same, and that players are either going to break the game or not regardless of what system(s) you're allowing.

I really don't understand anyone's problem with Pathfinder. At least I don't get it from the standpoint of exclusion. Pathfinder was made with the intention of 3.5 material being compatible, and it is. So it is naturally inclusive, in mechanics and player quality of life. When you exclude it you're just cutting out a swath of character options for seemingly no reason other than 'I don't like the art' or 'It breaks the game' while having no standing example of such. What are your thoughts?

[OgresAreCute]

Thanks for clarifying that ruling. I like the looks of Energy Admixture. Wish it had Sonic in the list, then I would really love it.

Let me pick your brain on your Pathfinder opinion. I'm not chastising him for not liking Pathfinder, or at least trying not to, but rather more his 'opinion' on it being too broken. I'm doing this to show him that 3.5 is the same, and that players are either going to break the game or not regardless of what system(s) you're allowing.

I really don't understand anyone's problem with Pathfinder. At least I don't get it from the standpoint of exclusion. Pathfinder was made with the intention of 3.5 material being compatible, and it is. So it is naturally inclusive, in mechanics and player quality of life. When you exclude it you're just cutting out a swath of character options for seemingly no reason other than 'I don't like the art' or 'It breaks the game' while having no standing example of such. What are your thoughts?

I would at least say that complaining about something being broken and playing 3.5e is a bit of an oxymoron. I can understand not wanting to include Pathfinder in 3.5 games though: After all, it is third-party, and many exclude other third-party content like dragon magazines or (more reasonably) at least wants to review it on a case-by-case basis.

[GuestEleven]

I would at least say that complaining about something being broken and playing 3.5e is a bit of an oxymoron. I can understand not wanting to include Pathfinder in 3.5 games though: After all, it is third-party, and many exclude other third-party content like dragon magazines or (more reasonably) at least wants to review it on a case-by-case basis.

Understandable. I just see it as an analogy like this. 3.5 is a hot dog and Pathfinder is ketchup. Saying 3.5 is better than Pathfinder is like saying hot dogs are better than ketchup. It isn't exactly comparable in that sense, one is a condiment and the other is a food condiments go on. This is probably a bad analogy but it was the first thing to pop in my head.

The real issue comes when you consider the playerbase of our group. Nobody wants to run just Pathfinder. Three of us prefer a 3.5/Pathfinder mix taking the most preferred options. For instance if you prefer 3.5 Power attack to Pathfinder's then that is the one you take and vice versa. But three others prefer 3.5 only with no Pathfinder(and a couple of people that don't care either way.

That isn't even the most concerning piece of the puzzle, but only one of the Pathfinder+3.5 enthusiasts is a suitable DM. The other PF/3.5 player is new and frankly not too talented at the game in general let alone DMing. Myself being the other non-DM PF/3.5 can somewhat DM, but nobody ever has enjoyed it because I get too easily frustrated with the players and just stop caring about the campaign. So that is not only needlessly shifting three players but it is severely shifting the DM because the only time he gets to use the material he likes is when DMing, which let's face it, to most people DMing is more of a chore than fun.

[OgresAreCute]

Understandable. I just see it as an analogy like this. 3.5 is a hot dog and Pathfinder is ketchup. Saying 3.5 is better than Pathfinder is like saying hot dogs are better than ketchup. It isn't exactly comparable in that sense, one is a condiment and the other is a food condiments go on. This is probably a bad analogy but it was the first thing to pop in my head.

The real issue comes when you consider the playerbase of our group. Nobody wants to run just Pathfinder. Three of us prefer a 3.5/Pathfinder mix taking the most preferred options. For instance if you prefer 3.5 Power attack to Pathfinder's then that is the one you take and vice versa. But three others prefer 3.5 only with no Pathfinder(and a couple of people that don't care either way.

That isn't even the most concerning piece of the puzzle, but only one of the Pathfinder+3.5 enthusiasts is a suitable DM. The other PF/3.5 player is new and frankly not too talented at the game in general let alone DMing. Myself being the other non-DM PF/3.5 can somewhat DM, but nobody ever has enjoyed it because I get too easily frustrated with the players and just stop caring about the campaign. So that is not only needlessly shifting three players but it is severely shifting the DM because the only time he gets to use the material he likes is when DMing, which let's face it, to most people DMing is more of a chore than fun.

I definitely know that feeling of DMing something to get your group to play it when you really just want to play that system yourself. I thought DMing was decently fun when I did that, but preparing encounters and dungeons for the next session was definitely a chore on par with school homework.

[Nifft]

I really don't understand anyone's problem with Pathfinder. At least I don't get it from the standpoint of exclusion. Pathfinder was made with the intention of 3.5 material being compatible, and it is. So it is naturally inclusive, in mechanics and player quality of life. When you exclude it you're just cutting out a swath of character options for seemingly no reason other than 'I don't like the art' or 'It breaks the game' while having no standing example of such. What are your thoughts?

Pathfinder is huuuuuuuuuuuuge.

It's got a lot of content, and some of the content is poor quality.

Learning how to handle 3.5e D&D, including how to balance various inclusions, probably took your DM years to learn.

Gaining the same proficiency with Pathfinder would presumably cost several more years, and your DM presumably doesn't want to spend that time -- maybe the DM has kids now, or a job with more responsibilities.

-- -- --

In terms of wizardry, it's weird that you want to break the game and yet you want to be an Evoker (one of the least-broken schools).

Usually I see game-breakers as Conjurers (with planar binding and friends) or Transmuters (with polymorph shenanigans starting at alter self).

[DarkSoul]

Pathfinder is huuuuuuuuuuuuge.

It's got a lot of content, and some of the content is poor quality.

Learning how to handle 3.5e D&D, including how to balance various inclusions, probably took your DM years to learn.

Gaining the same proficiency with Pathfinder would presumably cost several more years, and your DM presumably doesn't want to spend that time -- maybe the DM has kids now, or a job with more responsibilities.

-- -- --

In terms of wizardry, it's weird that you want to break the game and yet you want to be an Evoker (one of the least-broken schools).

Usually I see game-breakers as Conjurers (with planar binding and friends) or Transmuters (with polymorph shenanigans starting at alter self).This is exactly why I don't allow all Pathfinder content in my 3.5 game; there are already enough 3.5 books to keep track of, I don't want to have to know all the PF content too, nor do I really have the time to do so. Many times I barely have enough time to prep for the next session, let alone read through all the PF content.

It's also interesting that you mentioned conjurers over evokers since the Mailman sorcerer was mentioned.

@OP: Master Specialist actually sets you up nicely for archmage, there's little reason not to go Wiz 3/MSp 10/Acm X if that's the direction you want to go with the character.

People likely consider Archmage better because of mastery of elements. Unlike Energy Substitution, mastery of elements allows you to choose sonic damage, and you can choose any of the five energy types spontaneously instead of preparing a bunch of substituted spells. It's got some other decent abilities too.

[Karl Aegis]

You'll probably want Explosive Spell and Arcane Thesis. Probably should pick up some of the cooler evocations like the ones dealing with light/darkness, force and ripping holes in reality.

[Mike Miller]

Am I the only one thinking this is a terrible idea? We've seen plenty of threads where the OP comes in saying they want to break the game to "teach the DM a lesson" and the advice is almost always "this is a bad idea, deal with it OOC" with this thread being the exception. What happened with this thread? Why is this suddenly a fun idea?


What's the idea, get him to ban you from the game? Or just to kill your character? This isn't "teaching him", this is provoking him, and provoking a DM with a deliberately game-breaking character in order to "teach him a lesson" is an incredibly bad idea.

Honestly, this sort of attitude is exactly what causes the prejudice against optimisers. When RP-focused D&D players talk about how much they hate "powergamers", this is the kind of thing they're thinking of, and I really can't blame them for it.

This quote was from a similar thread from 11 years ago. It is a familiar issue and I don't feel it was addressed properly this time around. So to make my long point a little shorter, GuestEleven, just try explaining things to your DM better, because you aren't taking the correct approach here if you want things to change for the "better."

Also, GuestEleven, you have a lot to learn about breaking characters if you think blasting wizards are OP.

[GuestEleven]

There seems to be a lot of hang up on the PF/3.5 topic.


Pathfinder is huuuuuuuuuuuuge.

It's got a lot of content, and some of the content is poor quality.

Learning how to handle 3.5e D&D, including how to balance various inclusions, probably took your DM years to learn.

Gaining the same proficiency with Pathfinder would presumably cost several more years, and your DM presumably doesn't want to spend that time -- maybe the DM has kids now, or a job with more responsibilities.

-- -- --

In terms of wizardry, it's weird that you want to break the game and yet you want to be an Evoker (one of the least-broken schools).

Usually I see game-breakers as Conjurers (with planar binding and friends) or Transmuters (with polymorph shenanigans starting at alter self).

Pathfinder isn't as huge as 3.5, a lot of the options are the same, it is practically the exact same system but polished and with a few extra features we're all already familiar with. Sure, it has its issues, but 3.5 sure isn't without its own. I'm not breaking it just for the sake of breaking it, I like to enjoy my characters.


This is exactly why I don't allow all Pathfinder content in my 3.5 game; there are already enough 3.5 books to keep track of, I don't want to have to know all the PF content too, nor do I really have the time to do so. Many times I barely have enough time to prep for the next session, let alone read through all the PF content.
@OP: Master Specialist actually sets you up nicely for archmage, there's little reason not to go Wiz 3/MSp 10/Acm X if that's the direction you want to go with the character.

People likely consider Archmage better because of mastery of elements. Unlike Energy Substitution, mastery of elements allows you to choose sonic damage, and you can choose any of the five energy types spontaneously instead of preparing a bunch of substituted spells. It's got some other decent abilities too.

Nobody has to know everything about something to enjoy it. How many people do you know that stepped into any D&D system knowing 100% of all there is to know? It isn't like Pathfinder content is just going to annihilate everything you know in 3.5. They're made to work together, and run side by side for the most part fluidly.

I do like the sounds of adding Sonic Damage to my evocations. I will have to look into the class a lot deeper. Doesn't sound like this would leave any room for the Red Wizard class.


You'll probably want Explosive Spell and Arcane Thesis. Probably should pick up some of the cooler evocations like the ones dealing with light/darkness, force and ripping holes in reality.

Is Explosive Spell not an awful option? A flaming reality rift sounds really cool.


Am I the only one thinking this is a terrible idea? We've seen plenty of threads where the OP comes in saying they want to break the game to "teach the DM a lesson" and the advice is almost always "this is a bad idea, deal with it OOC" with this thread being the exception. What happened with this thread? Why is this suddenly a fun idea?
Also, GuestEleven, you have a lot to learn about breaking characters if you think blasting wizards are OP.

I'm not talking about "teaching someone a lesson" so to say, as much as I am just showing him that 3.5 is broken. These people can't be explained or even argued down. They're what the Germans call Shadenfreude. All of the 3.5 enthusiasts in my group are this way I believe, and we're all good friends messing with each other. I think they actively turn it down because they know it gets under our skin. And as I said previously in this reply, I'm not making a blaster because I think it is the strongest thing possible, I am making it because I think they're cool and enitrely capable of being effective.

I use my character's potential power and general as a foundation for their force of personality. After all, what is a master swordsman if he can't hit his target and do massive damage? Why I like Pathfinder is there are ways readily available that adds to basic concepts. For instance, a bare bones human fighter in 3.5 is almost always going to look the exact same at level 1 to just about every other level 1 3.5 fighter. Through the archetypes and flavor feats available in Pathfinder this isn't the case. Two level 1 fighters can seem very different from one another without losing effectiveness. And honestly core class mixing is far more polished than 3.5s ever thought to be through the new core classes such as Slayer, Brawler, Magus, etc. But this is myself also lingering on 3.5 vs PF when I wanted this to be about Evocation wizard.

[Ramza00]

Hun you have to remember it is the DM who does the real work with planning the game, creating the right type of encounters, adapting on the fly, doing the most talking, etc.

Being a DM requires an amount of system mastery and system understanding. Thus you should adapt to what the DM is comfortable with, or you should volunteer to be the DM. Life is already complicated enough as it is, with work, stuff outside D&D, sometimes school, kids, etc.

[Goaty14]

Hun you have to remember it is the DM who does the real work with planning the game, creating the right type of encounters, adapting on the fly, doing the most talking, etc.

Being a DM requires an amount of system mastery and system understanding. Thus you should adapt to what the DM is comfortable with, or you should volunteer to be the DM. Life is already complicated enough as it is, with work, stuff outside D&D, sometimes school, kids, etc.

This. I should add that pathfinder is balanced differently than 3.5

[Nifft]

Pathfinder isn't as huge as 3.5, a lot of the options are the same, it is practically the exact same system but polished and with a few extra features we're all already familiar with. Sure, it has its issues, but 3.5 sure isn't without its own. I'm not breaking it just for the sake of breaking it, I like to enjoy my characters.

The cross-product of Pathfinder ╳ D&D is significantly larger than either Pathfinder or D&D would be alone.

The union of Pathfinder issues with D&D issues means significantly more issues than either Pathfinder or D&D would have alone.

I mean, people can & do run 3.pf games, and if you want to run one then more power to ya, but it's not really reasonable for you to demand that someone else do all that work.


Hmm, I wonder. If the price for advice about breaking some other DM's game came at a cost -- say, that the OP were compelled to run a weekly game in that system for a year -- would the people who post this stuff gain a few shreds of empathy?

[GuestEleven]

Hun you have to remember it is the DM who does the real work with planning the game, creating the right type of encounters, adapting on the fly, doing the most talking, etc.

Being a DM requires an amount of system mastery and system understanding. Thus you should adapt to what the DM is comfortable with, or you should volunteer to be the DM. Life is already complicated enough as it is, with work, stuff outside D&D, sometimes school, kids, etc.

I know DMing is work, and I did volunteer. I ran several worlds, and not a single one was successful by any degree. Of course being the stubborn individual that I am I kept trying and wanted to approve, but eventually it came down to either I keep going at the sacrifice of people's enjoyment or I sacrificed my pride by quitting and letting the better suited people DM. We have no shortage of DMs. There are five or more in our group.

As far as life complications go I am quite aware, and respect those bounds. But this situation is apart from those struggles. The whole reason we're starting the campaign I'm making this character for is because two players can only play every other weekend, and the rest of us want to fill the gaps because we really don't have anything pressing at hand and want something to do. This world is a fix to having too much free time on our hands.


I should add that pathfinder is balanced differently than 3.5

People readily make points like this and typically don't have anything to back it up, it is nearly always a hollow statement. Balance differences between the system are minute for the sake of compatability and are easily adjusted in either direction.

[GuestEleven]

The cross-product of Pathfinder ╳ D&D is significantly larger than either Pathfinder or D&D would be alone.

The union of Pathfinder issues with D&D issues means significantly more issues than either Pathfinder or D&D would have alone.

I mean, people can & do run 3.pf games, and if you want to run one then more power to ya, but it's not really reasonable for you to demand that someone else do all that work.


Hmm, I wonder. If the price for advice about breaking some other DM's game came at a cost -- say, that the OP were compelled to run a weekly game in that system for a year -- would the people who post this stuff gain a few shreds of empathy?

All what work exactly? Be knowledgeable about what the PCs are using for their characters? That should be the case no matter what system you're using. If DMs don't familiarize themselves with what the players are using then it doesn't matter what system it is from because they still don't know what the players are using.

Sure there might be a larger amount of possible issues, but the amount of active issues will still likely stay to what ever frequency is regular for the group. Having played the systems stand alone and inclusively I can tell you, either a player is going to pull out things that cause problems or they won't. It doesn't matter.

Your last statement doesn't flow very well. I am assuming you're saying that I have never Dungeon Mastered a 3.5 campaign? If that is the case then you're wrong, I most certainly have.

[Mordaedil]

There is some strange amount of irony of pot calling the kettle black here, I'll say. Sure, yeah, Pathfinder is broken, but it inhereted all of its brokenness from 3.5 in the first place.

That said, I love broken games more than balanced games. If you want to be a blaster you'll just kinda be playing 3.5 as the designers intended, mind you, so you won't really be showing up the DM, but you can still have fun with it. The suggested mailman is pretty good, and it allows you to go full on cyclops with eye-lasers that last for 8 hours or until used, so you can prepare before you release them and fire off, up to 8 lasers at a time, using twin(x2), split ray(x2), ocular spell(stores 2 castings to be fired as 1 action) and if you grab searing spell and arcane thesis it will cost almost nothing and you'll reduce even red dragons to ash.

[OgresAreCute]

Am I the only one thinking this is a terrible idea? We've seen plenty of threads where the OP comes in saying they want to break the game to "teach the DM a lesson" and the advice is almost always "this is a bad idea, deal with it OOC" with this thread being the exception. What happened with this thread? Why is this suddenly a fun idea?

The OP already admitted it's petty in the very first post, so there's no reason to go harping about that instead of just answering the question.

[GuestEleven]

The OP already admitted it's petty in the very first post, so there's no reason to go harping about that instead of just answering the question.

Thank you. Not to mention we're all good friends in my group. None of us are just strangers that happen to meet up due to a similar hobby. None of you understand our social dynamics and how we interact with each other. Among us this amounts to playful banter and fuel for a debate, in which we all enjoy because we're all argumentative people.

[Jopustopin]

Let me pick your brain on your Pathfinder opinion. I'm not chastising him for not liking Pathfinder, or at least trying not to, but rather more his 'opinion' on it being too broken. I'm doing this to show him that 3.5 is the same, and that players are either going to break the game or not regardless of what system(s) you're allowing.

I really don't understand anyone's problem with Pathfinder. At least I don't get it from the standpoint of exclusion. Pathfinder was made with the intention of 3.5 material being compatible, and it is. So it is naturally inclusive, in mechanics and player quality of life. When you exclude it you're just cutting out a swath of character options for seemingly no reason other than 'I don't like the art' or 'It breaks the game' while having no standing example of such. What are your thoughts?

I pretentiously consider pathfinder homebrew. Which is why I don't allow it in my games.

[Mordaedil]

I pretentiously consider pathfinder homebrew. Which is why I don't allow it in my games.
You sure said it.

[CharonsHelper]

On the 3.pf - I'll play either one, but I don't like to mix them. There are a lot of base options which just don't mesh - especially when you get much past core Pathfinder.

Overall I think that Pathfinder is the better balanced system with fewer major trap options (The two biggest - monk & rogue - they eventually fixed), especially at low levels (both systems' wheels start to come off at 7-9ish, hence the invention of E6 & E8).

Plus, in Pathfinder the martials don't need to multiclass out the wazoo to keep up, which makes it more newbie friendly.

(Not that either system is particularly newbie friendly.)

[noob]

On the 3.pf - I'll play either one, but I don't like to mix them. There are a lot of base options which just don't mesh - especially when you get much past core Pathfinder.

Overall I think that Pathfinder is the better balanced system with fewer major trap options (The two biggest - monk & rogue - they eventually fixed), especially at low levels (both systems' wheels start to come off at 7-9ish, hence the invention of E6 & E8).

Plus, in Pathfinder the martials don't need to multiclass out the wazoo to keep up, which makes it more newbie friendly.

(Not that either system is particularly newbie friendly.)

In the end the martials that does not multi-class out the wazoo are inferior to those who does in pathfinder.
But those who multiclass crazily now have nice things easier than 3.5 ones.(except for getting pounce and that is sad but you have a lot of things to compensate like ending lots of opponents per turn at range or yet tripping and dealing tons of damage to everything within range and a bunch of things like that)

[GuestEleven]

Lol. This is the most replies I have gotten to a thread on this site, and it isn't even replies to the topic I made it about, this has just turned into a PF hate thread for the most part. Or at least a general dislike.

[GuestEleven]

I pretentiously consider pathfinder homebrew. Which is why I don't allow it in my games.

So you're saying you call PF homebrew to impress people by referring to it as what it is not? A round of applause for you, sir. Mighty impressive.

[GuestEleven]

In the end the martials that does not multi-class out the wazoo are inferior to those who does in pathfinder.
But those who multiclass crazily now have nice things easier than 3.5 ones.(except for getting pounce and that is sad but you have a lot of things to compensate like ending lots of opponents per turn at range or yet tripping and dealing tons of damage to everything within range and a bunch of things like that)

True, but surely you can agree that PF has made taking 20 levels in a class far more appetizing than 3.5 did.

[noob]

True, but surely you can agree that PF has made taking 20 levels in a class far more appetizing than 3.5 did.
I like what pathfinder did to mundanes but I think they could add more to mundanes if they tried to.

[CharonsHelper]

I like what pathfinder did to mundanes but I think they could add more to mundanes if they tried to.

Well... of course they could. It's ink and paper. They could just print up "mundane = always beats casters" if they really wanted to. :smallcool:

[noob]

Well... of course they could. It's ink and paper. They could just print up "mundane = always beats casters" if they really wanted to. :smallcool:

It would not help much
I think things like "mundanes can lift planets and turn them in castles by throwing them against each other" would also be needed.

[PhantasyPen]

Thanks for clarifying that ruling. I like the looks of Energy Admixture. Wish it had Sonic in the list, then I would really love it.

Let me pick your brain on your Pathfinder opinion. I'm not chastising him for not liking Pathfinder, or at least trying not to, but rather more his 'opinion' on it being too broken. I'm doing this to show him that 3.5 is the same, and that players are either going to break the game or not regardless of what system(s) you're allowing.

I really don't understand anyone's problem with Pathfinder. At least I don't get it from the standpoint of exclusion. Pathfinder was made with the intention of 3.5 material being compatible, and it is. So it is naturally inclusive, in mechanics and player quality of life. When you exclude it you're just cutting out a swath of character options for seemingly no reason other than 'I don't like the art' or 'It breaks the game' while having no standing example of such. What are your thoughts?

Late reply is late, sorry about that, but my dislike for *Paizo* material breaks down to the following:


On the 3.pf - I'll play either one, but I don't like to mix them. There are a lot of base options which just don't mesh - especially when you get much past core Pathfinder.

We'll start here: In every 3.PF game I have ever seen, the DM said "if it exists in Pathfinder, you have to use the Pathfinder version" and to be perfectly honest, I have found that more often than not, the Pathfinder version is either inferior, or flavored so differently that it should be something else entirely. (Combat Expertise and Power Attack spring to mind, as well as the Paladin's "Smite" in Pathfinder. In fact, most Pathfinder "improvements" seem to assume that players are incapable of basic mathematics greater than one digit.)


I like what pathfinder did to mundanes but I think they could add more to mundanes if they tried to.

I feel the opposite of this as well. I hate what Pathfinder has done to most of their mundane characters, especially in the core rulebook, they needlessly nerf abilities (Barbarian's Rage springs to mind, as well as Smite) simply because they seem to assume people don't know how to number-crunch in a game that is mostly about crunching numbers. I also don't like the way Paizo handles gish-type characters, which is my favorite archetype, which is to say: if it's not a divine gish, you're plum out of luck unless you multiclass or decide to fiddle with a full-caster. Seriously, they have like three different Paladin rip-offs but the only Arcane option is the Magus, which to this day I call an inferior copy of the Duskblade, if you want to play an Arcane Warrior, or just a mundane warrior, Paizo has basically stated that you are out of luck, and with those being my favorite things to play, I obviously would prefer the edition that supports my favored ways of playing better.

[Ramza00]

Lol. This is the most replies I have gotten to a thread on this site, and it isn't even replies to the topic I made it about, this has just turned into a PF hate thread for the most part. Or at least a general dislike.

Pettiness attracts pettiness it is an endless waltz. Once you determine the other person does not operate in good faith to another person who is operating in good faith it is just simple game theory.

People are being petty for it seems that 1) you do not get this or 2) you do not care and just want to be petty and feel SMUG about your pettiness. For example you did this in response 23161709. Oh look at the fact that no one gives me attention unless I am being petty, and thus I am not the true petty one, it is everyone else :smallsigh:

[CharonsHelper]

...if you want to play an Arcane Warrior, or just a mundane warrior, Paizo has basically stated that you are out of luck, and with those being my favorite things to play, I obviously would prefer the edition that supports my favored ways of playing better.

There are several ways to play an effective arcane warrior in Pathfinder.

1. Melee bards are my favourite way to play them. There are several archetypes designed specifically for it.

2. A Skald is a barbarian/bard hybrid focused moreso on melee beefiness.

3. Dragon Disciple is far more playable in Pathfinder than 3.5 - being one of the few prestige classes which isn't nerfing yourself.

4. Did you miss the Bloodrager?

5. For a sneakier bent - the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype for the Unchained Rogue could be a lot of fun.

[PhantasyPen]

There are several ways to play an effective arcane warrior in Pathfinder.

1. Melee bards are my favourite way to play them. There are several archetypes designed specifically for it.

2. A Skald is a barbarian/bard hybrid focused moreso on melee beefiness.

3. Dragon Disciple is far more playable in Pathfinder than 3.5 - being one of the few prestige classes which isn't nerfing yourself.

4. Did you miss the Bloodrager?

5. For a sneakier bent - the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype for the Unchained Rogue could be a lot of fun.

1. Now you're assuming I would want to play a bard :smalltongue: I've stated in prior threads I don't really like the 3.5/Pathfinder version of the bard, for various reasons, and given that the alternatives to the bard I prefer aren't available in Pathfinder, I think this proves my point about why I dislike the system.

2. Same problem as above.

3. I wasn't particularly sold on the Dragon Disciple to begin with,and the reliance on multiclassing to properly gish was one of the things I stated I dislike about Pathfinder/Paizo content.

4. I haven't missed bloodrager, but it's casting and playstyle feel rather limited compared to what I'm normally looking for.

5. I'd consider an arcane rogue separate from an arcane *Warrior* specifically, not that I have anything against that archetype.

[liquidformat]

It would not help much
I think things like "mundanes can lift planets and turn them in castles by throwing them against each other" would also be needed.

So you want to abuse war hulk+ hulking hurler at epic levels? Ya I currently have a game with one of those. The numbers get confusing as to what you are actually picking up and throwing! I think I can current throw a rock that is 819200 lb (4099d6 if I did the math right).

I do like the skills from PF and often use them instead in 3.5 beyond that I like the idea of the summoner though never played one.

Anyways back on topic, checkout the artificer handbook it goes over feat selection for a wand wielder and they can get some goofyly huge damage outputs but you will be paying through the nose for it. Otherwise, Sorceress might be a bit nicer to play with evocation focus and if you want to demonstrate some abuse just go ahead and be dragonwrought kobold and be sure to grab 1 level of mindbender or similar class and let the fun begin!

For the most part if you have a few hours to burn google up some of the sorcerer, artificer, and wizard handbooks and read through them they will give you a pretty good idea of what to take and why. Being God is always a great one to read to familiarize yourself with abusing wizards. And if you are truly bored checkout being bane it is quite fun though completely useless for your purposes...

[CharonsHelper]

...I like the idea of the summoner though never played one.


If you ever do - play the Unchained version. It fixes several broken spells/combos in the original Summoner, and it's just a lot cleaner/easier to use/play. It just 'feels' better. The eidolon isn't quite as customizable (still a lot of choices) but that's why the first one could be broken.



...and the reliance on multiclassing to properly gish was one of the things I stated I dislike about Pathfinder/Paizo content.


Without multi-classing, what were all of the good 3.5 gishes? The only two I can think of off the top of my head are the hexblade (kinda sucked) and the duskblade (which they basically updated with the magus). The magus is a less potent combatant (but has a bit more utility and I prefer his spells) but frankly - it needed the mid BAB etc. to leave room for martials to have a place.

[noob]

If you ever do - play the Unchained version. It fixes several broken spells/combos in the original Summoner, and it's just a lot cleaner/easier to use/play. It just 'feels' better. The eidolon isn't quite as customizable (still a lot of choices) but that's why the first one could be broken.



Without multi-classing, what were all of the good 3.5 gishes? The only two I can think of off the top of my head are the hexblade (kinda sucked) and the duskblade (which they basically updated with the magus). The magus is a less potent combatant (but has a bit more utility and I prefer his spells) but frankly - it needed the mid BAB etc. to leave room for martials to have a place.
you forgot divine gishes.
Druids and clerics are completely awesome fullcasting gishes(and the latter can get full bab rather easily with quickened divine might or dmm persist shenanigans)

[Mordaedil]

Battle sorcerer was a thing from Unearthed Arcana.

Bards could be made into gishes, but you'd have to know what you're doing with spell choice, to make them viable melee gishes.

[CharonsHelper]

you forgot divine gishes.
Druids and clerics are completely awesome fullcasting gishes(and the latter can get full bab rather easily with quickened divine might or dmm persist shenanigans)

I realize - but PhantasyPen had already dismissed divine gishes when complaining about Pathfinder. After all, Pathfinder has a bunch of those. (Besides the same Druid/Cleric - there are the Inquisitor, Hunter, Warpriest, and some Oracle builds.)


Battle sorcerer was a thing from Unearthed Arcana.

Bards could be made into gishes, but you'd have to know what you're doing with spell choice, to make them viable melee gishes.

I did forget about the Unearthed Arcana stuff - but I already mentioned the Pathfinder bard (which is a substantially better class - getting 1st level spells at 1, more unique spells, and its song is a Competence bonus so that it stacks with far more buffs) which is actually my favorite class.

[liquidformat]

I did forget about the Unearthed Arcana stuff - but I already mentioned the Pathfinder bard (which is a substantially better class - getting 1st level spells at 1, more unique spells, and its song is a Competence bonus so that it stacks with far more buffs) which is actually my favorite class.
Ya that always bugs me with bards I mean really WotC would it really have broken the game for bards to have access to level 1 spells at level 1? Mostly I don't play pathfinder because my favorite class is druid and they ruined druids, I understand what they did with wild shape but why did they have to ruin animal companions too they were just fine the way they were.

[CharonsHelper]

I understand what they did with wild shape but why did they have to ruin animal companions too they were just fine overpowered the way they were.

Fixed that for you. :P

It was part of Paizo's attempt at keeping martials relevant since in 3.5 it was easy to make a druid's animal companion as good of a melee face smasher as a decently built martial - letting the druid match the martial AND be a 9 level caster.

While they still fall by the wayside at high levels, I think that Paizo did a decent job of making martials feel more relevant for the first 8ish levels especially.