please read my post above. you did make me realize that i mislabelled shadow conj as shadow evo and forgot to assess shadow evo. i'll do that now.Shrouded Wanderer wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:38 amI'm confused.Zavandar wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:14 ama non-shadowmage wouldn't be using these spells for damage. the ONLY exception would be darkbolt. non-shadowmages have igms.Shrouded Wanderer wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:11 am Would be great if these spells had these damages if, and only if the caster was a shadow mage, and give them a damage reduction if casted using the weave.
So did you always have a problem with shadow conjuration?
new spells
Moderators: Active Admins, Active DMs, Forum Moderators
Re: new spells
Re: new spells
However, the relation with shadowmage is a bigger issue. Basically, it opens up higher DC spells from illusion that were on their barred lists. It also gives them access to direct damage. It would be on par with saying that spellswords could suddenly get access to summons if they burned a spell slot higher to have the same summon.
The problem with this and why it wasn't as big a deal with the current apex, Spellsword (?) is that this class requires a very specific RP. You have to be a sharran. You have to do what Sharran's do. It should not be RP'ed as anything else.chris a gogo wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:30 am Give it a week then if it stays as is roll up a shadow mage they will be the new apex predators.
There is another class that is massively OP but has to be played in a very specific capacity - Harper. That class is locked behind a gate with an application. Perhaps that is the direction Shadowmage should take if it stays so powerful. Limit their numbers and actually expect players to play a sharran and not choose it for the power.
-
- Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:12 am
Re: new spells
Re: new spells
".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
and since he is presumably the dev behind this, it's probably how it works
Re: new spells
Nice.. Well, I assume these new spells will be towed in line, just as the previous spell additions did.
".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
That's not really contributing to the feedback thread. Ad hominem is uncool.Nobs wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:02 amWhen you see the player of a spellsword pointing to other classes cous op![]()

".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
(Edited)
".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
Freeze is Druid only though.Naiinara wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 1:11 am Freeze I think was conjuration too. Freeze even makes someone weak to fire. I wouldn't want to get hit with flame arrow then.
".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
Meanwhile you rolled a hips build post change
Anyway
2d8 per darkbolt, 7 bolts, so 7x2x8 for 112 damage. Meanwhile igms is 2d6 per missile hit can fire 10 into a single target. 10x2x6 for 120. Both can be maximized and that's what the calculation assumes. The only "saving grace" is that each dark bolt has a touch attack it must succeed. It checks the will save vs daze only once per cast, though. This is what I've been told anyway
Re: new spells
Ah, you're correct. I should stop doing math before getting my morning coffee.Zavandar wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:03 pm I played a spellsword since before the lore changes went in, and I actually play one of the weaker variants of it, nobs
Meanwhile you rolled a hips build post change
Anyway
2d8 per darkbolt, 7 bolts, so 7x2x8 for 112 damage. Meanwhile igms is 2d6 per missile hit can fire 10 into a single target. 10x2x6 for 120. Both can be maximized and that's what the calculation assumes. The only "saving grace" is that each dark bolt has a touch attack it must succeed. It checks the will save vs daze only once per cast, though. This is what I've been told anyway
".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry
Re: new spells
Dont think any thing changed for my build as i can still use all the stuff i was using before thatZavandar wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:03 pm I played a spellsword since before the lore changes went in, and I actually play one of the weaker variants of it, nobs
Meanwhile you rolled a hips build post change
Anyway
2d8 per darkbolt, 7 bolts, so 7x2x8 for 112 damage. Meanwhile igms is 2d6 per missile hit can fire 10 into a single target. 10x2x6 for 120. Both can be maximized and that's what the calculation assumes. The only "saving grace" is that each dark bolt has a touch attack it must succeed. It checks the will save vs daze only once per cast, though. This is what I've been told anyway

Re: new spells
Re: new spells
Was just responding to you chief.
Re: new spells
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:47 pm
Re: new spells
Assuming the go-to shadow mage build versus a STR-based non-div melee with uncanny dodge:
Code: Select all
15 (BAB) + 1 (dex mod) + 5 (GMW) + d20 (roll) vs. 10 (base) + 2 (SR helmet) + 1 (boots)* + 1 (dex mod) + 1 (MA)* + 4 (haste)* + 2 (armor skin) + 6 (tumble)*
*lost when flat-footed
Code: Select all
21 + d20 vs. 27
but if caught flat-footed (which a shadow mage can easily cause using HiPS):
21 + d20 vs. 15
Code: Select all
15 (BAB) + 1 (dex mod) + 5 (GMW) + d20 (roll) vs. 10 (base) + 2 (SR helmet) + 1 (boots)* + 1 (dex mod)* + 1 (MA)* + 4 (haste)* + 2 (armor skin) + 6 (tumble)* + divshield (9)*
*lost when flat-footed
Code: Select all
21 + d20 vs. 36
21 + d20 vs. 14 (flat-footed)
Code: Select all
non-div:
15 (BAB) + 1 (dex mod) + 5 (GMW) + d20 (roll) vs. 10 (base) + 2 (SR helmet) + 1 (boots)* + 14 (dex mod) + 1 (MA)* + 4 (haste)* + 2 (armor skin) + 6 (tumble)*
div:
15 (BAB) + 1 (dex mod) + 5 (GMW) + d20 (roll) vs. 10 (base) + 2 (SR helmet) + 1 (boots)* + 14 (dex mod) + 1 (MA)* + 4 (haste)* + 2 (armor skin) + 6 (tumble)* + divshield (9)*
*lost when flat-footed
Code: Select all
non-div: 21 + d20 vs. 40
div: 21 + d20 vs. 49
21 + d20 vs. 28 (flat-footed, for both non-div and div)
Sockss wrote: There is an overriding premise that all changes should be appreciated and welcomed because someone has taken time out for free to make them. [...] I don't believe volunteering should put your work above criticism [...] .
Re: new spells
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:47 pm
Re: new spells
Sockss wrote: There is an overriding premise that all changes should be appreciated and welcomed because someone has taken time out for free to make them. [...] I don't believe volunteering should put your work above criticism [...] .
Re: new spells
Re: new spells
Each bolt also rolls a touch attack to hit, it's not 1 roll for the whole attack.
Re: new spells
even if UV counters it i’d still find it funny that it exists. i will be honest and say that i appreciate your hard work bhr55 and i understand why you would want to create stuff for you to enjoy but this isn’t it.
you took a class with a very clear direction and trade off (direct damage for high DC and hips) but then jumped on the sourcebooks to justify adding just what this path lacks: direct damage (darkbolt being the biggest concern but all the other spells contributing, even in minor ways).
it doesn’t help that you say “we can all enjoy this” when you play the class that benefits the most from this (and it is the only one that really does since you were targetting shadowmage’s weaknesses considering all other mages have enough damage but no hips or higher DC).
if you consider the lack of direct damage a design flaw, then recognize that the entirety of the path is flawed and act accordingly. lack of direct damage was a single aspect of what makes the whole shadowmage path, yet you only addressed that (a weakness) and didn’t even bother to tweak all the boons this class gets in exchange.
Re: new spells
that's not in the forums update thread