Focused Specialist Evoker

[Myrmex]

I want to humiliate my group using a level 15 evoker wizard, and I was thinking Evoker2/Master Specialist 3/Incantatrix10. Banned schools would be illusion, enchantment, and necromancy. In combat, the only offensive spells cast, besides a greater dispel magic or two, would be evocations.

I'm thinking of metamagicking force missile out the wazoo, and using that to level the party, once member at a time. With CL 16 (easy), that's 4 2d6 missiles. Twinned, maximized, empowered, and repeated is 4*(48 + 0.5*8d6) over two rounds, or an average of 304 saveless damage. That should kill any party member on the first hit, and the party tank on the second hit.

With a familiar, and a quicken, that should be able to kill at least two party members in their first go.

How would you feel if this strategy was used on you? You have a reasonably optimized character (persistent metamagic abuse, over wealthed, gestalt, 40 point buy) that is level 13.

Another option would simply be using cone of cold or something with a similarly high damage cap on the dice that would kill even on a successful save.

[Frosty]

Be careful with Magic Missile. A simple Shield spell will be able to negate everything.

And why ban Illusion? It's got some of the best defensive spells in the game!

[Draz74]

And why ban Illusion? It's got some of the best defensive spells in the game!

Because it's better than banning Transmutation, Conjuration, or (arguably) Abjuration?

You're right, though, it does have some rockin' defensive spells.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm kind of strange with these things; when I'm playing I prefer medium power/difficulty games, but as a DM, I prefer PCs to be hyper-optimized while feeling bad about killing them, so I wouldn't really want to fight this due to the chances of winning appearing to be so slim, and I wouldn't want to use it against PCs if I was DMing. Why do you want to humilliate the party? Also, how does that Metamagic combination actually work?

[Who_Da_Halfling]

I don't see how this could be fun unless the party gets to seriously plan and prepare so they have a chance of winning (lots of Shield spells, for instance). 304 no-save damage is enough to kill pretty much anyone in one shot, and they'd have no chance whatsoever. The only way they could win was if they had 8-12 party members and were willing to acrue as much as 80% or more casualties in order to defeat you. Ok for a one-shot, i guess, but if a DM in a campaign did that to us, I'd seriously consider leaving. What would be the point of doing that? It's just easier to say "rocks fall, everyone dies."

-JM

[Myrmex]

Be careful with Magic Missile. A simple Shield spell will be able to negate everything.

And why ban Illusion? It's got some of the best defensive spells in the game!

As Draz points out, abjuration, trans, and conj are simply better. That, and this isn't about showcasing a wizard using great spells, it's about a wizard evoking large amounts of damage. Also, I'm using force missile, which is like magic missile's big brother. From SpC, and doesn't list shield as something that blocks it.


I'm kind of strange with these things; when I'm playing I prefer medium power/difficulty games, but as a DM, I prefer PCs to be hyper-optimized while feeling bad about killing them, so I wouldn't really want to fight this due to the chances of winning appearing to be so slim, and I wouldn't want to use it against PCs if I was DMing. Why do you want to humilliate the party? Also, how does that Metamagic combination actually work?

I'd feel bad about murdering them if they weren't so overpowered. As it is, the only things that I've really challenged them with are optimized chromatic dragons 10 CR higher than them (and monsters with gestalt caster levels). I just want to show that evocation can still kick ass and take names; the party wizard is a bit bigoted towards fireball and whatnot. As for the metamagic, as I understand it, it gets applied in the order that you want it to go, so
4 missiles get fired off, each max'd and empowered (each missile maximized in damage, then roll 2d6 for each and divide by half; see the feats for a better description of how they work together).
Twinning duplicates the spell, so another 4 missiles go off, each max'd and empowered.
Then everything repeats on the following round (including twinning, etc).

Total LA for spell would be +12, but that can be dropped with Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix to +4, and then with 4 LA +0 metamagic feats (or practical/easy metamagic), it goes to LA +0. If I wanted to be really nasty, I'd use a rod of chaining.

The party wizard would know that the spells would be repeated, so if stayed within range they would get fried. Whether or not he'd be alive after getting slammed for 150+ damage is another thing. As far as I can tell, only SR will keep the damage off.

[Tempest Fennac]

Thanks for the explanations (I can see why you want to use a build like that, now). Do any of them have Spell Resistance? If they do, I'm guessing it could stop Force Missile (if there is a chance that this would be an issue, having some Orb spells, or other blasty Conjurations like Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame, could be a good idea).

[Myrmex]

I don't see how this could be fun unless the party gets to seriously plan and prepare so they have a chance of winning (lots of Shield spells, for instance). 304 no-save damage is enough to kill pretty much anyone in one shot, and they'd have no chance whatsoever. The only way they could win was if they had 8-12 party members and were willing to acrue as much as 80% or more casualties in order to defeat you. Ok for a one-shot, i guess, but if a DM in a campaign did that to us, I'd seriously consider leaving. What would be the point of doing that? It's just easier to say "rocks fall, everyone dies."

-JM

Well, three players with minimal preparation killed an intelligently played adult black dragon with customized feats and spells, stats, and more caster levels than the party had levels, followed by killing 2 half-fiend crusaders backed up by 2 mummies, a level 13 DMM cleric, and his 9th level cleric allies riding on nightmares (with +20 attack on a charge, doing around 70 damage a piece), as well as getting hit with Blasphemy and Destruction. They only had one casualty.

But yeah, if they expect to win by kicking in the door unprepared or not running, then they get what they deserve. Which is a swift death.


Thanks for the explanations (I can see why you want to use a build like that, now). Do any of them have Spell Resistance? If they do, I'm guessing it could stop Force Missile (if there is a chance that this would be an issue, having some Orb spells, or other blasty Conjurations like Arc of Lightning and Blast of Flame, could be a good idea).

The cleric could put up Spell Resistance, and persist it on everyone. Because SR checks for each missile, SR could reliably cut damage by 40% to 50%, depending on the CL for the cleric and for the wizard. I don't want to use conjurations because that is both obvious and too good, and goes against the (generally false) meme that evocations = fail. Also, the touch AC of the rogue is like 30, which the wizard really is unlikely to hit.

A persisted Assay Spell Resistance would probably negate anything the cleric could do, unless I was letting him abuse greater consumptive field (which I am not).

[Fenix_of_Doom]

I want to humiliate my group using a level 15 evoker wizard, and I was thinking Evoker2/Master Specialist 3/Incantatrix10. Banned schools would be illusion, enchantment, and necromancy.

Are you a focused specialist or not? because IIRC a focused specialist has to ban 3 schools and incantatrix requires you to ban another one, resulting in 4 schools banned.

[Talic]

If you're going to level 15, you're better off going Specialist: Conjurer, and using the Orb of X line.

Yeah, they require an attack roll (Quickened True Strike?), but can also be metamagicked out the wazoo, for similar results, without SR.

The Real challenge is surviving round 1.

To that end, I recommend banning Evocation, Enchantment, and Necromancy.

Use Illusion to hide (Greater invisibility, silent image, etc), Mirror Image to shield, etc.

One of my favorite tactics is to run/fly around a corner, cast a quickened silent image (of a wall), and behind it drop a prismatic wall. Turns most front-liners into goo.

But a Maximized, Twinned, Empowered, Split Ray Orb of Force (or pick the status effect from the orb list that you like)?

15d6 (maximized) = 90
+ 1/2 15d6 (empowered) = average 26.25
= 116.25
+ 116.25 (split ray)
= 232.5
+ 232.5 (twinned)
= 465 damage

More or less.

[jcsw]

If you're going to level 15, you're better off going Specialist: Conjurer, and using the Orb of X line.

Yeah, they require an attack roll (Quickened True Strike?), but can also be metamagicked out the wazoo, for similar results, without SR.

The Real challenge is surviving round 1.

To that end, I recommend banning Evocation, Enchantment, and Necromancy.

Use Illusion to hide (Greater invisibility, silent image, etc), Mirror Image to shield, etc.

One of my favorite tactics is to run/fly around a corner, cast a quickened silent image (of a wall), and behind it drop a prismatic wall. Turns most front-liners into goo.

But a Maximized, Twinned, Empowered, Split Ray Orb of Force (or pick the status effect from the orb list that you like)?

15d6 (maximized) = 90
+ 1/2 15d6 (empowered) = average 26.25
= 116.25
+ 116.25 (split ray)
= 232.5
+ 232.5 (twinned)
= 465 damage

More or less.

I'm pretty sure he wants to use evoker because he wants to show up his party who seems to believe that evocation is a sucky school. (Common misconception. It isn't really that bad, it's just a bad choice because duplicated by half the other classes out there).

Also: Split Ray applies to rays. Orb of ____ isn't a ray. I realize split ray doesn't define what a "ray spell" is, but I'm pretty sure it's near impossible to argue that orb of ____ is a ray.
---

Also: See if you can nab Wings of Flurry from Races of the Dragon... way better damage. (That is to say, somehow get around the Sorc-only limitation)

[Estrosiath]

Evocation IS a bad school. You need to build your character around a few spells if you want it to be effective. And then it just becomes ludicrous.

[Talic]

It can be argued that any ranged touch spell with one target is a ray. Matter of interpretation.

That said, you could always repeat it, or deal with the toned down 232.5 damage version.

For the evocation variant, I'd ban Enchantment, Necromancy, and Abjuration, in this case.

Illusion is too necessary for spells such as mirror image/invisibility/etc. If you need to ban a 4th, I'd ban conjuration, and keep either abjuration or illusion.

Before the hate wagon on banning conjuration flows, if he is intending to have all his offensive spells be evocation, then he gains access to utility through shadow conjuration, and conjuration is much less important than being almost devoid of buffs worth taking.

EDIT: Evocation is not a bad school. It's just the least good for a party because it replicates abilities others have. Damage dealing.

The key to making evocation effective lies not in optimizing a few spells, but rather, a few feats. Metamagic abuse is where it's at.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

For the evocation variant, I'd ban Enchantment, Necromancy, and Abjuration, in this case.


Not if you're going incantatrix, you can't ban abjuration in that case.

[Gorbash]

You could also take levels in Force Missle Mage from Dragon. He can ignore the effects of Shield and Brooch of Shielding and overall augments Force Missle/Magic Missle casting.

[Myrmex]

Are you a focused specialist or not? because IIRC a focused specialist has to ban 3 schools and incantatrix requires you to ban another one, resulting in 4 schools banned.

True, but the loophole is that any spells in my spell book I can use, prior to the first level of Incantatrix. If it becomes a real big deal, I'll just go with a necropolitan or something and get them spellstitched.


If you're going to level 15, you're better off going Specialist: Conjurer, and using the Orb of X line.

Yeah, they require an attack roll (Quickened True Strike?), but can also be metamagicked out the wazoo, for similar results, without SR.

The Real challenge is surviving round 1.

To that end, I recommend banning Evocation, Enchantment, and Necromancy.

Use Illusion to hide (Greater invisibility, silent image, etc), Mirror Image to shield, etc.

One of my favorite tactics is to run/fly around a corner, cast a quickened silent image (of a wall), and behind it drop a prismatic wall. Turns most front-liners into goo.

But a Maximized, Twinned, Empowered, Split Ray Orb of Force (or pick the status effect from the orb list that you like)?

15d6 (maximized) = 90
+ 1/2 15d6 (empowered) = average 26.25
= 116.25
+ 116.25 (split ray)
= 232.5
+ 232.5 (twinned)
= 465 damage

More or less.

If I wanted to do the obvious blaster that everyone does on char op, sure. But I think I'm going to go with half-orc evoker. Just to make a point.


You could also take levels in Force Missle Mage from Dragon. He can ignore the effects of Shield and Brooch of Shielding and overall augments Force Missle/Magic Missle casting.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to that resource.


It can be argued that any ranged touch spell with one target is a ray. Matter of interpretation.

That said, you could always repeat it, or deal with the toned down 232.5 damage version.

For the evocation variant, I'd ban Enchantment, Necromancy, and Abjuration, in this case.

Illusion is too necessary for spells such as mirror image/invisibility/etc. If you need to ban a 4th, I'd ban conjuration, and keep either abjuration or illusion.

Before the hate wagon on banning conjuration flows, if he is intending to have all his offensive spells be evocation, then he gains access to utility through shadow conjuration, and conjuration is much less important than being almost devoid of buffs worth taking.

EDIT: Evocation is not a bad school. It's just the least good for a party because it replicates abilities others have. Damage dealing.

The key to making evocation effective lies not in optimizing a few spells, but rather, a few feats. Metamagic abuse is where it's at.

Can't ban abjuration, but banning conjuration is a good idea, since the utility for conjuration isn't that high for a blasty NPC that isn't going to last more than 4 rounds anyway. And metamagic abuse is always where it's at. :smallamused:

I'm not sure if illusion will help, since at least the party wizard will have persisted true sight and see invisibility, which will negate all the tricks illusion has.

[Farlion]

Seriously, if I wanted to humiliate my group I'd go with enervation and have them ripped apart by some mediocre monster they usually own. Besides, chainspell+maximized+splitray+twinspell enervation will already piss them off just doing the math to recalculate their stats ;-D

Cheers,
Farlion

[Talic]

I'm not sure if illusion will help, since at least the party wizard will have persisted true sight and see invisibility, which will negate all the tricks illusion has.

... Wouldn't the one that can SEE invisible foes be the first one to feel the blasty blast of blastyness?


Picture this: Intelligent Half-Orc Evoker, places an illusion of a solid floor, where a pit is. Normally, you can only disbelieve an illusion that you interact with.

So, whoever notices first will tip the mage off. Who sees through the scrying eye.

Now, when the party encounters him in the room at the end of the hallway, and bursts open, they see a room with 3 illusionary walls. Sure, that mage can see through. So can the evoker. 1st action? Pick a level 3 or lower evocation. Metamagic it to a 7th or 8th level slot. Use a lesser rod of quicken to speed it up.
Then pick a level 4 or higher spell, and metamagic it to 7 or 8.

Target anyone who noticed the 1st illusion... or the mage, behind 3 illusions that the party hasn't interacted with.

Have a Contingency for a Dimension Door (or wall of force), and you have more issues for the party to deal with.

[Myrmex]

That's is as devious as it is brutal.
Brilliant.

[Toliudar]

I won't try to recalculate any of the damage being accrued here. But any boss encounter that reliably kills a PC each round strikes me as no fun at all for the players (yes, I'm looking at you, Tomb of Horrors). It sounds like the players have put a lot of time into tweaking these characters.

Ah well. You know them. I don't.

[tyckspoon]

I would feel screwed by way of DM power-play, in the same way as if you had simply declared 'a trap strikes the first two members of your party dead. No, you don't get to save against this one.' But then, I would also say that 40-point-gestalt-extra wealth-persistent buffs is beyond the mark of "reasonable optimization." Your group seems to be into Rocket Launcher D&D, however, which makes 300 points damage no-save a perfectly reasonable proposition; the party should be expecting to suffer a death or two if any sort of serious threat gets the drop on them.

[Kylarra]

It strikes me as needlessly cheesy on the lines of instant DM death trap. You might as well walk a kobold up to them and introduce him as "Pun-pun". It'd have about the same effect if combat started, and hell they might get a laugh out of it before they died.

Quite frankly, if my DM pulled this metamagic abusing no save 300 damage on me, I'd be leaving the game.

[ChaosDefender24]

The only glaring hole I see with Talic's example is that nothing screams "illusory wall" more than a flurry of magic missiles shooting through it. But with adaptation, you can still get it to work

Seriously, you need to do something about Shield. Shield *ends* you. Can the PC's pull their scrying stuff on you, or use some sort of divination to get info about you? One solution is to make this guy be another mook, because they're not going to scry every mook they encounter. My wizardly characters tend to have shields up regularly to begin with, soo.... this gets worse if you have more than one shielded spellcaster running around. I think Force Missile Mage only works on the vanilla Magic Missile anyway.

...y'know, Scorching Ray probably works better here, unless people are walking around with massive touch AC's and/or immunity to fire, because of split ray etc.

Also, if the party is as strong as you say it is, you do NOT have four rounds with which to kill them all. You didn't tell us what's in your party.. I'm not good at gestalt optimization, but the Big 5 can easily throw a save-or-lose at you, give you a (much stronger) taste of your own medicine, pounce on you, etc.
Be sure to have some sort of defense or else your wizard is a 304 damage single-use trap encounter. And it would have to be insidiously good in order to work! Again, I don't know what the party's composed of, so I don't know what it's capable of doing.

[RandomFellow]

For those people that keep shouting about Shield...

They are talking about FORCE MISSILES.

Force Missiles are here. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20020809a)

Force Missiles aren't affected by Shield

As for people whining about death traps...

It is a style of play. I personally prefer DMs that kill the players every once in awhile. As long as we are capable of resurrecting or something.

[Radar]

The only glaring hole I see with Talic's example is that nothing screams "illusory wall" more than a flurry of magic missiles shooting through it. But with adaptation, you can still get it to work

Seriously, you need to do something about Shield. Shield *ends* you. Can the PC's pull their scrying stuff on you, or use some sort of divination to get info about you? One solution is to make this guy be another mook, because they're not going to scry every mook they encounter. My wizardly characters tend to have shields up regularly to begin with, soo.... this gets worse if you have more than one shielded spellcaster running around. I think Force Missile Mage only works on the vanilla Magic Missile anyway.

...y'know, Scorching Ray probably works better here, unless people are walking around with massive touch AC's and/or immunity to fire, because of split ray etc.

Also, if the party is as strong as you say it is, you do NOT have four rounds with which to kill them all. You didn't tell us what's in your party.. I'm not good at gestalt optimization, but the Big 5 can easily throw a save-or-lose at you, give you a (much stronger) taste of your own medicine, pounce on you, etc.
Be sure to have some sort of defense or else your wizard is a 304 damage single-use trap encounter. And it would have to be insidiously good in order to work! Again, I don't know what the party's composed of, so I don't know what it's capable of doing.
1. I'm quite sure, there was sort of an invisible spell metamagic somewhere (can't find it right now), so problem of being found can be solved.

2. Shield works only on Magic Missile, so Force Missile is good to go. I wouldn't expect a 1st level spell to block a spell a few levels higher.

3. Assuming the evocer gets a suprise round, which is possible, he can take two PCs before they can react (1 in suprise round, second in the next). Even if the rest of the party would be able get the evocer in the third round, then casualties would still be severe considering that first to go would be wizard and cleric (or any other full caster).

[Kylarra]

As for people whining about death traps...

It is a style of play. I personally prefer DMs that kill the players every once in awhile. As long as we are capable of resurrecting or something.Kill the players sure. Stuff happens. Players make stupid mistakes. Unlucky roll of the dice. It's part and parcel with the gaming system.

Instant kill the players with no chance of survival regardless of what they do? Not so fun. :smalleek: I mean you might as well just say "okay, you and you, you're dead. Go ress them."

[monty]

1. I'm quite sure, there was sort of an invisible spell metamagic somewhere (can't find it right now), so problem of being found can be solved.

Invisible Spell, a +0 metamagic from Cityscape.

[Radar]

Invisible Spell, a +0 metamagic from Cityscape.
It's only +0? Allmost to good to be true considering, that Incantatrix needs a few +0 metamagic feats anyway and the fact that invisible spell is quite usefull.

[crazedloon]

I do not think this is to mean as far as an encounter goes but have you tried simply using some antimagic fields....

or a master abjurer.... I am playing in a non optimized game and my abjurer dispels all buffs on a creature with a single casting of greater dispell (unless there caster level is 23). give him a greater rod of chaining (something I wish I could afford) and a greater rod of quicken. He can now first turn area dispell their spell turning and then chain dispel all their persistent buff cheese. He now is flying and invisible well above them with 2 dispell actions waiting to happen. Now have his friends come in with antimagic fields to really lay the smack down..... or if you want to be sneaky have a few allied earth elementals hiding in the ground with antimagic field cast on them to extend onto the players but where they can not be reached (melded with the ground)

It seems like a hard encounter would probably kill one or two before they somehow get out of the fields to be able to use their magic items to maybe cast 3 spells to get off 1 spell...

[woodenbandman]

You realize that cheesy tactics like Arcane Thesis, Easy Metamagic, and Incantatrix don't prove a thing, right? All that it proves is that Incantatrix is broken. Anything casting a 16th level spell in a 4th level spell slot is broken. Evocation is still a bad school. But all schools have their saving graces (scorching ray, enervation). And, yes, technically the DM can toss anything out that will kill anyone, but in the long run, an evoker will lose spell slots rather quickly, while yours starts with full spells and ends dead.

It seems that your game is a high challenge game which I applaud, but I just thought I'd let you know that this challenge doesn't prove the point that evocation's not crappy, because it is. That Incantatrix would destroy anything no matter what school it specializes in, because it's an Incantatrix.

[RandomFellow]

Kill the players sure. Stuff happens. Players make stupid mistakes. Unlucky roll of the dice. It's part and parcel with the gaming system.

Instant kill the players with no chance of survival regardless of what they do? Not so fun. :smalleek: I mean you might as well just say "okay, you and you, you're dead. Go ress them."

o0

Spell Immunity.

Researching your opponents for what they specialize in.

There are ways of getting around such tricks, it just takes more than 'ZOMG WE ARE GOING INTO ZE DUNGEONS AND KILLING EVERYONE'.

I'm assuming this DM is providing such an option. :P

Not his fault if the players don't use it.

[Kylarra]

o0

Spell Immunity.

Researching your opponents for what they specialize in.

There are ways of getting around such tricks, it just takes more than 'ZOMG WE ARE GOING INTO ZE DUNGEONS AND KILLING EVERYONE'.

I'm assuming this DM is providing such an option. :P

Not his fault if the players don't use it.If he's creating a cheesy nova-incantrix for the express purpose of humiliating his group and taking a surprise round to do it, I don't think he's going to let a little thing like spell immunity stop him. Also the greater dispellings he's quoting in the OP I suppose.

[Myrmex]

It strikes me as needlessly cheesy on the lines of instant DM death trap. You might as well walk a kobold up to them and introduce him as "Pun-pun". It'd have about the same effect if combat started, and hell they might get a laugh out of it before they died.

Quite frankly, if my DM pulled this metamagic abusing no save 300 damage on me, I'd be leaving the game.

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion of my DMing style.


The only glaring hole I see with Talic's example is that nothing screams "illusory wall" more than a flurry of magic missiles shooting through it. But with adaptation, you can still get it to work

I will be using the LA+0 metamagic invisible spell and another one called like directionless spell or something to mitigate LA costs with arcane thesis. Which means they will have no idea where it's coming from. They won't even see the spell without see invisibility/true sight or whatever.


Seriously, you need to do something about Shield. Shield *ends* you. Can the PC's pull their scrying stuff on you, or use some sort of divination to get info about you? One solution is to make this guy be another mook, because they're not going to scry every mook they encounter. My wizardly characters tend to have shields up regularly to begin with, soo.... this gets worse if you have more than one shielded spellcaster running around. I think Force Missile Mage only works on the vanilla Magic Missile anyway.

I don't think, RAW, shield does anything against these missiles.


...y'know, Scorching Ray probably works better here, unless people are walking around with massive touch AC's and/or immunity to fire, because of split ray etc.

The rogue's touch AC is like 30 or 40.


Also, if the party is as strong as you say it is, you do NOT have four rounds with which to kill them all. You didn't tell us what's in your party.. I'm not good at gestalt optimization, but the Big 5 can easily throw a save-or-lose at you, give you a (much stronger) taste of your own medicine, pounce on you, etc.
Be sure to have some sort of defense or else your wizard is a 304 damage single-use trap encounter. And it would have to be insidiously good in order to work! Again, I don't know what the party's composed of, so I don't know what it's capable of doing.

There are three party members. Even if I take out two in a round, the third one should be able to kill me. The rogue gets to teleport twice/round and make a full attack after each teleport. Maybe he gets 3 teleports/round. Either way, he gets to make an absurd number of wraithstrike attacks.

The cleric//psychic warrior gets pounce. He also has OA's battle jump which lets him do double damage after a charge. Coupled with power attack, monkey grip, strongarm bracers, and being huge sized, nothing lasts long against him. He also got some RKV (I relaxed the no dual progression classes stuff, since there were only three of them), which means he gets to do multiple swift actions, I think. The wizard//factotum's real utility is persisting stuff at the beginning of the day, though his save-or-dies are devastating. He can pretty much drop 0.75 boss opponents per round, if he guesses their weakness.


I do not think this is to mean as far as an encounter goes but have you tried simply using some antimagic fields....

or a master abjurer.... I am playing in a non optimized game and my abjurer dispels all buffs on a creature with a single casting of greater dispell (unless there caster level is 23). give him a greater rod of chaining (something I wish I could afford) and a greater rod of quicken. He can now first turn area dispell their spell turning and then chain dispel all their persistent buff cheese. He now is flying and invisible well above them with 2 dispell actions waiting to happen. Now have his friends come in with antimagic fields to really lay the smack down..... or if you want to be sneaky have a few allied earth elementals hiding in the ground with antimagic field cast on them to extend onto the players but where they can not be reached (melded with the ground)

It seems like a hard encounter would probably kill one or two before they somehow get out of the fields to be able to use their magic items to maybe cast 3 spells to get off 1 spell...

It's not about being tricky, it's about leveling the party with tons of damage from a "bad school".


You realize that cheesy tactics like Arcane Thesis, Easy Metamagic, and Incantatrix don't prove a thing, right?

Oh?
If my players make all the right choices, and I make all the right choices -1, I think it proves something. It's like they optimize 90%, I optimize 85% (though most see evocation as like 50%).

Also, save-or-dies are only useful 1) at lower levels and 2) if you start with an 18 in int, play a gray elf, and get +int items at every single level. And fight monsters that are susceptible to your tricks.


All that it proves is that Incantatrix is broken. Anything casting a 16th level spell in a 4th level spell slot is broken. Evocation is still a bad school. But all schools have their saving graces (scorching ray, enervation). And, yes, technically the DM can toss anything out that will kill anyone, but in the long run, an evoker will lose spell slots rather quickly, while yours starts with full spells and ends dead.

Spell slots really aren't an issue with a 16th level FS.


It seems that your game is a high challenge game which I applaud, but I just thought I'd let you know that this challenge doesn't prove the point that evocation's not crappy, because it is. That Incantatrix would destroy anything no matter what school it specializes in, because it's an Incantatrix.

I'm not trying to prove that it's not crappy; I'm going to show them how to destroy 3 highly optimized characters with an orc evoker. I wouldn't be making it an incantatrix if there wasn't on in the party.

Hell, I can drop incantatrix, and still kick the crap out of them. I'll have to use higher spell slots, but who cares? NPC cannon fodder doesn't make it past round 5.

[Kylarra]

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion of my DMing style.

Uh, you solicited feedback in the first post.

How would you feel if this strategy was used on you? You have a reasonably optimized character (persistent metamagic abuse, over wealthed, gestalt, 40 point buy) that is level 13.


I'm not trying to prove that it's not crappy; I'm going to show them how to destroy 3 highly optimized characters with an orc evoker. I wouldn't be making it an incantatrix if there wasn't on in the party.Quite frankly, optimizing a blaster mage and saying yes I can kill big things by abusing metamagic isn't proving much of anything.

[Heliomance]

The cleric//psychic warrior gets pounce. He also has OA's battle jump which lets him do double damage after a charge. Coupled with power attack, monkey grip, strongarm bracers, and being huge sized, nothing lasts long against him.

You do realise Monkey Grip and Strongarm Bracers don't stack, right?

[Myrmex]

You do realise Monkey Grip and Strongarm Bracers don't stack, right?

Why?
I'm AFB right now, so I can't compare the two texts. I'm guessing they both have the same wording or something?


Uh, you solicited feedback in the first post.

I asked how you'd feel if it was used on you. That's different than getting hostile and implying I am a bad DM.


Quite frankly, optimizing a blaster mage and saying yes I can kill big things by abusing metamagic isn't proving much of anything.

Well, you know, except the part where even the lowly school of evocation should be taken seriously when you apply the tricks everyone else uses for necromancy and conjuration.


o0

Spell Immunity.

Researching your opponents for what they specialize in.

There are ways of getting around such tricks, it just takes more than 'ZOMG WE ARE GOING INTO ZE DUNGEONS AND KILLING EVERYONE'.

I'm assuming this DM is providing such an option. :P

Not his fault if the players don't use it.

They will have the option of reconnaissance.


If he's creating a cheesy nova-incantrix for the express purpose of humiliating his group

Just the wizard, actually.


and taking a surprise round to do it

I doubt the evoker will get a surprise round. He'll be too low level for mindblank.

[RandomFellow]

Monkey Grip and Strongarm Bracers both reference normal size as the basis for the increase.

So one or both, you get only 1 size increase.

@OP
Ya, as long as it is possible for a PC to counter via being prepared (and assuming they do optimize) the incantrix-meta cheese is fine.

[Kylarra]

I asked how you'd feel if it was used on you. That's different than getting hostile and implying I am a bad DM.
I'm rarely hostile on the internets. If it was used on me, I'd feel that you were probably a bad DM. That seems pretty simple neh? Keep in mind said response is based on the fact that you didn't really elaborate on what sort of scenario we're looking at it, but in a vacuum, anything that is going to OHKO half the group in one round with no save is pretty much not fun to me.

Depending on the actual situation, I may change my opinion. It's even possible (or probable based on what you've been saying so far) that the game has devolved so far into an optimization arms-race that it may be worth restarting the campaign.



Well, you know, except the part where even the lowly school of evocation should be taken seriously when you apply the tricks everyone else uses for necromancy and conjuration.Blaster is blaster is blaster.
Applying tonnes of metamagic to X damage spell is proving that applying tonnes of metamagic to a damage spell will produce lots of damage. It says nothing much about schools.




Just the wizard, actually.


I want to humiliate my group using a level 15 evoker wizardEmphasis mine for why I said what I did. But I will concede that the target of the humiliation is pretty much irrelevant.





I doubt the evoker will get a surprise round. He'll be too low level for mindblank.Okay fair enough. I must've skimmed over a different post mentioning it and added it into my calculations.

[Myrmex]

I'm rarely hostile on the internets. If it was used on me, I'd feel that you were probably a bad DM. That seems pretty simple neh? Keep in mind said response is based on the fact that you didn't really elaborate on what sort of scenario we're looking at it, but in a vacuum, anything that is going to OHKO half the group in one round with no save is pretty much not fun to me.

I'm just using the rulebooks, that they all have access to. It's not like I'm doing some sort of special DM trick here. In fact, I am doing a really standard trick, suboptimally.


It's even possible (or probable based on what you've been saying so far) that the game has devolved so far into an optimization arms-race that it may be worth restarting the campaign.

Not at all. Since the whole party are casters/martial initiates, their power increases exponentially. So it's as much as an arms race as any D&D game is where the PCs are expected to gain levels, but turned up to 8 or 9.


Blaster is blaster is blaster.
Applying tonnes of metamagic to X damage spell is proving that applying tonnes of metamagic to a damage spell will produce lots of damage. It says nothing much about schools.

That's like saying shocktrooper is no good because you're just using power attack, anyway. Or that gishes are no good, because you're just using arcane strike to turn a spell into damage, which you could do anyway.


Emphasis mine for why I said what I did.

Ah. I thought I had mentioned the party wizard in my OP. My apologies.

[Kylarra]

I'm just using the rulebooks, that they all have access to. It's not like I'm doing some sort of special DM trick here. In fact, I am doing a really standard trick, suboptimally.In the same vein, I'll just use my CoI here...

Sorry, about that I was feeling a bit snarky. The cheese justification doesn't quite work since the players are the ones playing the game and rolling up a new character tends to take more time than slotting in another monster to fight them (no belittlement of the time it takes to DM intended, I am well aware of the time investment required to write and run good adventures.)

Them OHKOing a monster or group of monsters using cheesy blaster tactics may be annoying to you as a DM (and apparently is, given previous statements), but killing off the group means rerolls for everyone. Granted, you might not kill off the entire party with no-save 300+ damage rolls, but given the normal tactics for a BBEG, I'd be surprised if you didn't have enough minions/other distractions to hold them off for the 2-3 rounds needed for that.



Not at all. Since the whole party are casters/martial initiates, their power increases exponentially. So it's as much as an arms race as any D&D game is where the PCs are expected to gain levels, but turned up to 8 or 9. It was an extrapolation based on a previous statement you made. If I misread the implications, then my apologies.

I'd feel bad about murdering them if they weren't so overpowered. As it is, the only things that I've really challenged them with are optimized chromatic dragons 10 CR higher than them (and monsters with gestalt caster levels).




That's like saying shocktrooper is no good because you're just using power attack, anyway. Or that gishes are no good, because you're just using arcane strike to turn a spell into damage, which you could do anyway.
Er no. It's simply a statement of fact the you're not proving anything about evocation by applying a ton of metamagic. Anyone with basic math skills could say "yes with metamagic optimization cheese, direct damage spells can output lots of damage."

You're not proving anything about evocation, but more about how powerful arcane thesis (and its metamagic friends) are.

[Nomad Pangolin]

As Draz points out, abjuration, trans, and conj are simply better. That, and this isn't about showcasing a wizard using great spells, it's about a wizard evoking large amounts of damage. Also, I'm using force missile, which is like magic missile's big brother. From SpC, and doesn't list shield as something that blocks it.

I'd feel bad about murdering them if they weren't so overpowered. As it is, the only things that I've really challenged them with are optimized chromatic dragons 10 CR higher than them (and monsters with gestalt caster levels). I just want to show that evocation can still kick ass and take names; the party wizard is a bit bigoted towards fireball and whatnot. As for the metamagic, as I understand it, it gets applied in the order that you want it to go, so
4 missiles get fired off, each max'd and empowered (each missile maximized in damage, then roll 2d6 for each and divide by half; see the feats for a better description of how they work together).
Twinning duplicates the spell, so another 4 missiles go off, each max'd and empowered.
Then everything repeats on the following round (including twinning, etc).

Total LA for spell would be +12, but that can be dropped with Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix to +4, and then with 4 LA +0 metamagic feats (or practical/easy metamagic), it goes to LA +0. If I wanted to be really nasty, I'd use a rod of chaining.

It wouldn't go to LA +0 - metamagic cost reduction effects cannot lower a cost to less than +1. (Arcane Thesis is covered in D&D FAQ, 5/14/08; Improved Metamagic by RAW for the epic feat of that name, as found in SRD.)
Thus, from your +12 cost, Arcane Thesis and Improved Metamagic would lower Twin to +2 and the other effects to +1 - a total of +5. Thus, you need Easy Metamagic: Twin Spell to reduce Twin to +1, get the spell down to +4, so that you can cast it as an 8th level spell.

Also, you are creating a character that spams a 4th level directed spell. This leaves you completely vulnerable to Spell Immunity and Globe of Invulnerability.

In the end, though, you are running a Monty Haul gestalts campaign, which is pretty much the same as letting the players plug their character sheets into a Gameshark. I'll leave it at that.

[ChaosDefender24]

Hahaha, oh wow! For some reason I thought force missiles were repulsed by shields, too.

Everyone who's saying OMGGGGGGGG BORKED KILLER DM needs to chill; in the campaign he's in, that kind of power is necessary to challenge his party.

Also I'm surprised that your group isn't already aware that evocation is able to be powerful with the metamagic fun. I mean, scorching ray is THE direct damage metamagic spell other than the orbs.

[tyckspoon]

It wouldn't go to LA +0 - metamagic cost reduction effects cannot lower a cost to less than +1. (Arcane Thesis is covered in D&D FAQ, 5/14/08; Improved Metamagic by RAW for the epic feat of that name, as found in SRD.)
Thus, from your +12 cost, Arcane Thesis and Improved Metamagic would lower Twin to +2 and the other effects to +1 - a total of +5. Thus, you need Easy Metamagic: Twin Spell to reduce Twin to +1, get the spell down to +4, so that you can cast it as an 8th level spell.


The FAQ entry for Arcane Thesis does not say an individual metamagic can't go to +0 or even negative; it just says the total adjustment for the spell cannot be negative. The errata for it encodes that into the rules that while explicitly stating that the reduction is per-metamagic, which directly contradicts the FAQ, and does not include any text about 'may not reduce below +1'... would have been a good time to insert that if it really was supposed to work that way.

Improved Metamagic is not a general rule. The statement that it may not reduce an adjustment below +1 is a specific limit of Improved Metamagic, not a blanket rule of metamagic. The only thing near a general rule regarding metamagic level adjustments I have yet found is a line in the basic description of metamagic feats, "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal." Which obviously was no longer true as soon as the very first +0 adjustment metamagic was printed.

[Waspinator]

I think that evocation does get railed on more than it deserves, but that it is not completely baseless. Yes, you can do some good damage with evocation. However, almost every class can do damage while wizards get other schools of magic which include effects that most other classes can not duplicate unless they are also arcane casters (or close equivalents like psionics). Evocation isn't necessarily bad as much as it is redundant. Also, if I'm wanting to play a blaster-mage type, I'd rather do it with psionics since Energy Missile is awesome.

[Ashdate]

I don't understand how the metamagic cost is reduced so low. There must be a ruling about Arcane Thesis I'm not aware of.

So you have a twinned, maximized, empowered, and repeated 4th level spell. That's before reduction from Incantrix and Arcane Thesis a 16th level spell slot.

Incantrix drops the metamagic cost by one for each metamagic applied (if I remember correctly), which brings it to a 12th level spell. Arcane Thesis reduces this by one more, to an 11th level spell.

How are you casting this? The feat states that you can't take Arcane Thesis twice and apply it to the same spell...


From the D&D FAQ (6/30/08)
If a character with Arcane Thesis (PH2 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?

Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent(+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

- Eddie

[tyckspoon]

See a few posts up- Arcane Thesis also applies once per metamagic. The PHB2 errata is very clear about that and, as an official change to the rules, overrides the FAQ statement. Getting lower than that depends on whether or not you accept that Arcane Thesis can create a negative adjustment (I believe this is how the RAW of the errata'd feat works- that's a different thing then whether or not it *should* work like that, mind.) If you accept that premise, then you can apply +0 metamagic feats like Invisible. Arcane Thesis makes them -1, so they counteract some of the remaining adjustments from expensive metamagics like Twin.

There are also other feats like Easy and Practical Metamagic that can reduce the adjustment of a particular metamagic feat, so you can end up with something like Twin: +4 -1 (Improved Metamagic) -1 (Easy Metamagic) -1 (Practical Metamagic) -1 (Arcane Thesis)= +0.

[Ashdate]

I don't disagree that the PHBII Errata is quite clear that Arcane Thesis reduces each metamagic applied but...

... it's older errata than the general D&D FAQ. The PHBII Errata is dated 10/16/2007, while the 3.5 D&D is dated 06/30/2008. Newer rule updates override older rules usually, do they not? (Thank you Kylarra)

- Eddie

[Kylarra]

I don't disagree that the PHBII Errata is quite clear that Arcane Thesis reduces each metamagic applied but...

... it's older errata than the general D&D FAQ. The PHBII Errata is dated 10/16/2007, while the 3.5 D&D is dated 06/30/2008. Older rule updates override newer ones usually, do they not?

- EddiePresumably you mean the opposite.

[Nomad Pangolin]

The FAQ entry for Arcane Thesis does not say an individual metamagic can't go to +0 or even negative; it just says the total adjustment for the spell cannot be negative. The errata for it encodes that into the rules that while explicitly stating that the reduction is per-metamagic, which directly contradicts the FAQ, and does not include any text about 'may not reduce below +1'... would have been a good time to insert that if it really was supposed to work that way.

Improved Metamagic is not a general rule. The statement that it may not reduce an adjustment below +1 is a specific limit of Improved Metamagic, not a blanket rule of metamagic. The only thing near a general rule regarding metamagic level adjustments I have yet found is a line in the basic description of metamagic feats, "Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal." Which obviously was no longer true as soon as the very first +0 adjustment metamagic was printed.


A character can gain this feat multiple times. The effects stack, though a character can’t reduce any metamagic feat’s spell slot modifier to less than +1. From SRD on improved metamagic, again. The plain RAW language in this special entry is absolute - not limited to IMM, but applies (and it's actually stated anyway) to easy metamagic, and it applies to Arcane Thesis based on source priority (DMG > PHBII.) It does not say "less than +1 in this manner," it says "less than +1."

Thus, the OP's spell is +5 unless Easy Metamagic is applied to twin; and applying any number of +0 metamagics will not affect this. (And applying any number of +1 effects will add +1 per effect.)

Even if we presume that the plain RAW applies only to imp meta, it also applies to easy meta by its own RAW- and a simple demonstration can show that it must also apply to arcane thesis.

Empowered Fireball, with improved meta and arcane thesis, demonstrates this: the effects stack, for a -2 effect on metamagics. If we were using a quickened fireball, for example, the level penalty would be reduced to +2. But on the base +2 penalty for Empower, our stack would try to reduce the penalty to nil. It should be plain that it cannot - because doing so would violate the restriction placed on improved meta.


There are also other feats like Easy and Practical Metamagic that can reduce the adjustment of a particular metamagic feat, so you can end up with something like Twin: +4 -1 (Improved Metamagic) -1 (Easy Metamagic) -1 (Practical Metamagic) -1 (Arcane Thesis)= +0.

Actually, it is +1, not +0. Improved metamagic cannot cause the penalty to reduce to zero; nor can easy metamagic; nor can practical metamagic. I checked this, and all three contain, in various language, the "cannot reduce to +0" limitation. Thus, RAW prohibits any of them from effecting the +0.

And since the effects are of the same nature, they stack - "applying arcane thesis last" is arbitrary and not supported by the way stacking works elsewhere. (An argument could be made that they don't stack - but the epic spell version of improved metamagic clearly self-stacks.) If the stack were to reduce the penalty to +0, this would violate the rule for ____ metamagic.

[tyckspoon]

Hmm. By your argument on Improved Metamagic, a base +0 adjustment metamagic must really be a +1, because no metamagic can ever go lower than +1. Is that correct? If not, why not? (On a semi-unrelated subject, do you believe it is possible to reduce an ability score to 0 by stacking real ability damage with a penalty ability that contains the line 'this effect may not reduce [score] below 1?)

[Ashdate]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's saying metamagic can't be reduced below +1. If it starts at +0, then it it couldn't be reduced any further as it already below +1.

At least, I think that's what he was getting at.

- Eddie

[Toliudar]

Hmm. By your argument on Improved Metamagic, a base +0 adjustment metamagic must really be a +1, because no metamagic can ever go lower than +1. Is that correct? If not, why not?

I think there's a big difference between something that can't be 0, and something that can't be reduced to 0. Weapon damage, for instance, has this caveat:


If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

This is not the same as saying that you can't have a weapon that does 0 damage. A net, for instance.

The same reasoning is being used here to demonstrate the difference between a +0 metamagic, and reducing a metamagic to or below 0. Aside from the (I think) reasonableness of this ruling, it also might prevent some of the overpoweredness of the wizard character that the OP is describing. It's a good thing.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You want to prove the power of Evocation? Here's what you do...

Tucker's Kobolds, Sorcerer Style.

The party hears about some uber powerful artifact in this dungeon that NO ONE comes out of alive. No one really knows what is in there.

So the party gets pelted by 8 level 6 sorcerers. Fireballs and Lightning bolts, with Scorching Rays and Magic Missiles backing them up.

Okay, so they probably survive that encounter and kill off the kobolds. Big flippin' deal. Energy Resistance: Fire, and move on.

The next group has Energy Substitution: something else. This continues until party falls over.

Not only did you ream them with Evocation, you reamed them with 6th level opponents. Have a nice day.

[monty]

FAQ is not RAW, so quoting that in a RAW discussion is meaningless.

In addition to there being no actual rule against it, it is very strongly implied that you can have negative metamagics. The errata for Arcane Thesis explicitly says that you cannot reduce the spell below its original level. For this to be possible, and therefore necessitate a note, it must be possible to have negative adjustments.

[Myrmex]

Re: Evocation is a bad school

I disagree that evocation is bad; it's just that everything else is so much better. Conjuration is usually the better school for direct damage, since you also get teleport spells, creation, calling, and summoning, which blow evocations out of the water. However, many of those conjurations require touch attacks, which against many targets, will fail to land, or have a chance of failure similar to the ASF of fullplate. Quickened True Strikes are cool, but then you are using up your swift actions to make sure your orbs land.

Every school, besides evocation, has a way to be both brutally offensive and have a lot of utility, which is why evocation is almost always the best school to ban.

I'd actually put evocation and necromancy on about equal levels, if cheese like Astral Projection and Magic Jar abuse are disallowed. Enervation is pretty good, as are the no save ability penalty spells. Those spells are probably more efficient uses of lower level spell slots, though really you're just trading slots to either reduce the amount of healing you're going to do after battle (yawn), or increase the amount of damage your friends are doing (by dropping dex). Enervation is a clear exception, but that has limited efficacy, due to monster type and it being an obvious candidate for NPCs to guard against. Also, increasing the amount of damage your friends are doing by dropping AC is dependent on how many friends you have swinging weapons. In my party of 3, both the cleric and rogue are dedicated damage dealers, with a crapton of attacks, so dropping the AC of a monster by a couple points ends up being a ton of extra damage. With metamagic abuse, I think evocation catches up with necromancy in terms of killing stuff. At higher levels, necromancy's save-or-dies just aren't going to do much, but damage will still be useful, especially using higher level spell slots to hit stuff with lower level metamagic'd spells.

[monty]

I disagree that evocation is bad; it's just that everything else is so much better.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; "bad" is a relative term, so if everything else is better than it, then it is bad.

[Starbuck_II]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; "bad" is a relative term, so if everything else is better than it, then it is bad.


By that reasoning CW Samurai, Monk, and Truenamer are bad classes.


Yeah, I laughed after reading that as well. :smallbiggrin:

[Nomad Pangolin]

it must be possible to have negative adjustments.

Not necessarily: the FAQ example that reflects this errata ruling is that of an Energy Sub (+0) operating alone. This was ruled to not reduce to -1.

By the errata, arcane thesis operates separately on each metamagic applied to the chosen spell. Thus, a max-emp'd fireball is (3-1) + (2-1) or +3.

But now let's take an emp-sub'd fireball. Arcane thesis, as we know, operates separately on each feat - so emp gets (2-1) as expected. Sub, however, does not get (0-1) - not if the operations are separate. (If Sub's ability to receive the benefit is contingent on the overall penalty, then this is the FAQ interpretation of Thesis, which just gives a -1 to the overall penalty if there is one.)

The popular interpretation, however, imposes a "best of both worlds" reading - -1 *per metamagic* to the overall, in effect. Arcane thesis, in and of itself, isn't broken unless you do this.


Hmm. By your argument on Improved Metamagic, a base +0 adjustment metamagic must really be a +1, because no metamagic can ever go lower than +1. Is that correct? If not, why not? (On a semi-unrelated subject, do you believe it is possible to reduce an ability score to 0 by stacking real ability damage with a penalty ability that contains the line 'this effect may not reduce [score] below 1?)

To the main argument, incorrect, for the reason you stated. No metamagic can *go* to +0 - that is, no metamagic can *become* +0 by reduction effects. If a metamagic already is +0, then it can't be further reduced.

To the second: Interesting question, which I'd love to see another thread for - and the answer is "depends on the stacking order." Using ray of enfeeblement, if you hit an 8 Str mage for -11 with the ray, only -7 is applied, bringing the mage to 1 Str. The excess is lost. So there is no contradiction when Str damage brings this mage to 0 Str. (But if you do 4 Str damage before the ray, then the ray is hitting a 4 Str mage, and truncates to a -3 penalty.)

I know where you are going with this, though - and the argument is actually not a bad one (saying that Improved Meta + Empower occurs globally, and that the situational -1 from Thesis allows it to reduce to zero afterward.)

[Talic]

The First illusory wall, certainly. But the one behind it? No.

Plus, the big issue is getting the guy who can see invisible.

You Greater Invis from there, and laugh as you slaughter the rest of the fools.

Alternately, you use a contingent wall of force to raise the wall of force after the missiles fly through... 1 man down, go from there.