Evocation Specialist Build

[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.

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

[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 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.