PDA

View Full Version : What PrCs give metamagic bonus feats?



Lord of Syntax
2009-08-27, 02:09 PM
I am looking for a good prc for a blasty type, so i just need the metamagic. :smallconfused::smallsmile:

Kylarra
2009-08-27, 02:13 PM
Can't go wrong with incantrix :smallamused:

Well unless you don't like the taste of delicious cheese.

Douglas
2009-08-27, 02:14 PM
Incantatrix. It's rather cheesy, but less so on a blaster than certain other kinds of builds.

Not precisely metamagic, but the Mastery of Shaping special ability from Archmage would let you blast away without worrying about hitting your allies when they're mixed in a tangled melee.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 02:16 PM
Incantatrix gets bonus metamagic.

Given that they are THE go-to for metamagic (and hideously broken in the right hands) this is probably what you're looking for.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 02:17 PM
Mage of the Arcane Order, Spellguard of Silverymoon, Frost Mage.

sadi
2009-08-27, 02:19 PM
Given that they are THE go-to for metamagic (and hideously broken in the right hands)

You mean 99% of people who have a pulse and use metamagic feats?

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 02:21 PM
You mean 99% of people who have a pulse and use metamagic feats?

...Pretty much, yeah

Zaq
2009-08-27, 02:26 PM
Incantatrix. It's rather cheesy, but less so on a blaster than certain other kinds of builds.

One word: Cindy.

Anyway, to add something more direct, Alienist and Ultimate Magus both give free metamagics, but neither really fits a straight-up blaster.

The Glyphstone
2009-08-27, 02:31 PM
One word: Cindy.

Anyway, to add something more direct, Alienist and Ultimate Magus both give free metamagics, but neither really fits a straight-up blaster.

I think Cindy abuses Arcane Thesis more than Incantatrix, because AT allows feats to be reduced to +0, unlike Improved Metamagic.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 02:34 PM
Alienist, as you alluded to, doesn't fit blaster so much as extremely weird summoner.

Oh well... at least it's 10/10 casting, even if you do go crazy.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-27, 02:44 PM
Shadow Adept, from the PGtF, is pretty much enterable with one feat expenditure (Shadow Weave Magic), and gives Tenacious Magic, Pernicious Magic, and Insidious Magic at first level. It's more for enchanter types than blasty types, but it functions perfectly well if you rely on conjurations and necromancy for your blasting. 10/10 casting, spell-like shield ability that also grants concealment, d6 HD, and some other little goodies.

Lord Denyuar
2009-08-27, 02:46 PM
War Wizard of C...it is from Forgotten Realms: Magic of Faerun. 5 Level PRC with 2 bonus metamagic feats, auto widen for free 1+char/day, and doubles (in my opinion at least adds 50%) when using widen feat.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 03:27 PM
I think Cindy abuses Arcane Thesis more than Incantatrix, because AT allows feats to be reduced to +0, unlike Improved Metamagic.

It needs both to be truly silly; most of the worthwhile feats cost over +1 so you need both and some Easy & Practical Metamagic to reach +0. Improved Metamagic is probably the most broken thing in this entire deal though since it's basically MULTIPLE already-broken feats (Easy/Practical Metamagics) in one...epic feat on level 15. Arcane Thesis as written does nutty things with one spell, but Improved Metamagic does it with all spells.

Optimystik
2009-08-27, 03:45 PM
...Easy & Practical Metamagic...

Random thought: that sounds like a Martha Stewart guide to magecraft. :smalltongue:

woodenbandman
2009-08-27, 03:48 PM
Archmage and Loremaster both get bonus feats. Archmage can have up to five I think.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-27, 03:52 PM
If you don't mind a build that blooms a little late Sorcerer 3/Tainted Scholar 2/Incarnate 3/Soul Caster 10/Arch-Mage 1(Elemental Mastery) combined with the Strongheart Vest will net you free metamagic casting up to +4. Just invest the rest of your regular feats into whatever metamagics you want and you can easily one hit most things you'll encounter with no slot level adjustment. You miss out on 9th level spell but honestly it's not a horrible loss for the build since all you really need is a preferred orb spell and an aoe for groups.

Scarlet Tropix
2009-08-27, 04:01 PM
For those of us who don't know, what is Incantatrix from?

Stegyre
2009-08-27, 04:04 PM
And while we're on the subject of things we don't know about, does anyone have a link to the description of Cindy?
(I'm guessing she's some sort of Pun-Pun type, ultimately broken character construction?)

Lord of Syntax
2009-08-27, 04:05 PM
For those of us who don't know, what is Incantatrix from?

PGtF :smalltongue:

sentaku
2009-08-27, 04:07 PM
For those of us who don't know, what is Incantatrix from?

also unless I'm mistaken it's found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010803)

Douglas
2009-08-27, 04:11 PM
also unless I'm mistaken it's found here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010803)
That's 3.0. The 3.5 version is in the Player's Guide to Faerun.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-08-27, 04:36 PM
And the 3.5 one is MUCH more broken.

Vizzerdrix
2009-08-27, 07:06 PM
The Book of Erotic Fantasy has a three level PrC with full casting that has some good abilities that enhance Meta magics and give a few bonus metas as well. Kind of odd though. It doesn't fit with the theme of the rest of the book, but is a strong PrC in its own right.

Myrmex
2009-08-27, 07:17 PM
The Book of Erotic Fantasy has a three level PrC with full casting that has some good abilities that enhance Meta magics and give a few bonus metas as well. Kind of odd though. It doesn't fit with the theme of the rest of the book, but is a strong PrC in its own right.

It is a VERY overpowered PrC. At first level you can take ability score damage to replace metamagic level adjustment costs, second level gets you a bonus metamagic feat, and third level reduces the cost of all metamagic feats by 1. So you get what the incantatrix gets in 10 levels in 3. Combined with some ability score regeneration, you can extend persist EVERY spell that is persistable.

And of course, there's nothing preventing you from taking incantatrix after you finish that prestige class.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 09:01 PM
And the 3.5 one is MUCH more broken.

Ok...... what's so broken about it?

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 09:16 PM
Ok...... what's so broken about it?

Lessee:
-Ability to Persist (or Sculpt/Extend/whatever) 3+Int spells cast by your allies (or familiar or whatever) on level 2. All it takes is a Spellcraft check.
-Ability to do above for 3+Int spells in place on level 3. One of the very few ways to actually get to AMF-protected opponents under buffs making them immortal; though simply you can just Persist 3+Int buffs on people.
-Ability to apply metamagic for free to any spell you cast once per day on 7 and twice on 9. Errata limits this to your maximum spell level, so meh.
-Ability to steal control of any spells cast by opponents with just a check.
-Epic feat on level 10 (that you can gain by character level 15), and a very strong one at that.


Oh, and just so I don't forget, 4 bonus metamagic feats over the progression (entering costs 1 feat [that you can get from Otyugh Hole for 2000gp] and 1 metamagic you'd have anyways; say Quicken or Extend Spell). And ability to apply metamagic on Wands and the like for extra charges, but you don't really need to since you can kill anything with your daily spell load.

Generally, no matter what kind of a Wizard you're optimizing, it should involve 10 levels of Incantatrix. This is true to everything from blasters (who REALLY need that level 10 metamagic reduction ability, and the bonus metamagic feats) to Shadowcraft Mages (who really want the metamagic reduction and persisting abilities) to standard controller Wizards (who really like the ability to morph effects on the fly and all that; oh, and persistent buffs) to buffers (you heard me: persistent buffs) to...well, you get the point.


Straight answer to your question: Everything except having to give up a school (Evo/Enc if you're a Generalist, other of Evo/Enc if you're a Diviner, Necro if you're another specialist).

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 10:21 PM
Lessee:
-Ability to Persist (or Sculpt/Extend/whatever) 3+Int spells cast by your allies (or familiar or whatever) on level 2. All it takes is a Spellcraft check.
-Ability to do above for 3+Int spells in place on level 3. One of the very few ways to actually get to AMF-protected opponents under buffs making them immortal; though simply you can just Persist 3+Int buffs on people.
-Ability to apply metamagic for free to any spell you cast once per day on 7 and twice on 9. Errata limits this to your maximum spell level, so meh.
-Ability to steal control of any spells cast by opponents with just a check.
-Epic feat on level 10 (that you can gain by character level 15), and a very strong one at that.


Oh, and just so I don't forget, 4 bonus metamagic feats over the progression (entering costs 1 feat [that you can get from Otyugh Hole for 2000gp] and 1 metamagic you'd have anyways; say Quicken or Extend Spell). And ability to apply metamagic on Wands and the like for extra charges, but you don't really need to since you can kill anything with your daily spell load.

Generally, no matter what kind of a Wizard you're optimizing, it should involve 10 levels of Incantatrix. This is true to everything from blasters (who REALLY need that level 10 metamagic reduction ability, and the bonus metamagic feats) to Shadowcraft Mages (who really want the metamagic reduction and persisting abilities) to standard controller Wizards (who really like the ability to morph effects on the fly and all that; oh, and persistent buffs) to buffers (you heard me: persistent buffs) to...well, you get the point.


Straight answer to your question: Everything except having to give up a school (Evo/Enc if you're a Generalist, other of Evo/Enc if you're a Diviner, Necro if you're another specialist).

Ok.... still not seeing what's actually broken there. Powerful? Yes. But then there's that whole 'bend reality with force of will' thing going on with them being wizards or sorcerers in the first place.... so this shouldn't particularly surprise anyone.

Broken? Still not seeing it. Wizards in second edition were broken, badly.

Eldariel
2009-08-27, 10:27 PM
Ok.... still not seeing what's actually broken there. Powerful? Yes. But then there's that whole 'bend reality with force of will' thing going on with them being wizards or sorcerers in the first place.... so this shouldn't particularly surprise anyone.

Broken? Still not seeing it. Wizards in second edition were broken, badly.

The broken part is really:
- Basically all buffs you can imagine persistent on you and anyone else you feel like taking along. That means you can have whatever spells on you all the time regardless of their normal duration.
- Ability to apply metamagic in a really cheap fashion so your Quickened Enervation in level 4 slot deals an average of ~30 negative levels to any target you hit and every Orb you cast has ~300-400 damage built into it and all your Greater Dispels are Chained and so on.

Short version: You're invulnerable and can kill any common challenge with a swift action and one spell slot. By a meaning of "broken", that's not really "broken" as much as "most powerful thing in the game", but that's just semantics. It matches the common use of "broken" as in "too good" very well.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 10:36 PM
The broken part is really:
- Basically all buffs you can imagine persistent on you and anyone else you feel like taking along. That means you can have whatever spells on you all the time regardless of their normal duration.
- Ability to apply metamagic in a really cheap fashion so your Quickened Enervation in level 4 slot deals an average of ~30 negative levels to any target you hit and every Orb you cast has ~300-400 damage built into it and all your Greater Dispels are Chained and so on.

Short version: You're invulnerable and can kill any common challenge with a swift action and one spell slot. By a meaning of "broken", that's not really "broken" as much as "most powerful thing in the game", but that's just semantics. It matches the common use of "broken" as in "too good" very well.

See, there's your problem.

Wizards shouldn't be facing common challenges in the first place.

Get back to me when they can one-shot a Solar or Pit Fiend. That? Yes. That would be broken.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-27, 10:38 PM
Is Book of Erotic Fantasy really a Wizards book? I've never checked but I always thought it was 3rd party.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 10:40 PM
See, there's your problem.

Wizards shouldn't be facing common challenges in the first place.

Get back to me when they can one-shot a Solar or Pit Fiend. That? Yes. That would be broken.

I got back to you two years ago.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 10:55 PM
Is Book of Erotic Fantasy really a Wizards book? I've never checked but I always thought it was 3rd party.

You're right, it is third party. Amazon lists the publisher as Arthaus.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 10:57 PM
I got back to you two years ago.

Let's hear it. One-shot a Solar without cheating. (Hell, any class can do that if you cheat enough. A first level fighter can with a 'bribed the DM with a fifth of Laphroaig' set of equipment....)

** edit **

Bah double post sorry but y'all get the idea.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-27, 10:59 PM
You're right, it is third party. Amazon lists the publisher as Arthaus.

It's a shame too. I like the sorc's rez spell in that book.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:00 PM
Let's hear it. One-shot a Solar without cheating. (Hell, any class can do that if you cheat enough. A first level fighter can with a 'bribed the DM with a fifth of Laphroaig' set of equipment....)

** edit **

Bah double post sorry but y'all get the idea.

A Solar has 209 hp and a touch AC of 14 according to the Monster Manual. It is a CR 23 creature. I shall take it out with a 15th level wizard.

Melf's Unicorn Arrow does 5d8+40 damage at a caster level of 17.

At 15, you finish Incantatrix. Take Twin Spell (+4), Empower Spell (+2), Maximize Spell(+3), Arcane Thesis, Fell Drain Spell (+2) and Quicken Spell (+4).

Applying all those feats to one 3rd level Melf's Unicorn Arrow results in an 3+2+0+1+0+2 = 8th level spell cast at CL 19 that deals (40+40+2.5*4.5)*2 = 182.5 damage on average.

This is a Quickened spell. Without Quicken, you're firing off a 6th level spell. that's 91.25 damage on average after that, which results in a total of 273.75 damage.

This involves 15 ranged touch attacks, medium range, vs a touch AC of 14. You need to land 12 attacks of 18.25 damage each to deal 219 damage to the Solar and kill it. This is an 80% success ratio. This means you have to have an attack bonus of +10 or higher to hit 80% of the time. Having a base attack bonus of +7, you only need +1 from Dex and +2 from Gloves of Dexterity to hit +10. Reduce Person gets you a +2 from size and Dex bonuses from being small, so we're at +12 so far. It can go even higher with a little more buffing, but I think you get the point.

Due to Fell Drain, each instance of Unicorn Arrow drains one level from the Solar. We're looking at three levels drained, max, if all instances of Unicorn Arrow hit.

This is arguably the least efficient way of killing the Solar. It would probably be easier to hit him with a save or die spell. Getting the DC high is not a problem if you build correctly.

So, total investment by a 15th level Incantatrix to take out a Solar with my method? Celerity (4th level), Metamagicked Melf's Unicorn Arrow (6th level), Even More Metamagicked Unicorn Arrow (8th level), and Reduce Person (1st Level). There will probably be a Contingency in play, but that can be cast days ahead of schedule.

Oh, and Unicorn Arrow is a no save, no SR spell that deals untyped damage.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:08 PM
So, do you want me to try the Pit Fiend now or what?

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 11:21 PM
A Solar has 209 hp and a touch AC of 14 according to the Monster Manual. It is a CR 23 creature. I shall take it out with a 15th level wizard.

Melf's Unicorn Arrow does 5d8+40 damage at a caster level of 17.

At 15, you finish Incantatrix. Take Twin Spell (+4), Empower Spell (+2), Maximize Spell(+3), Arcane Thesis, Fell Drain Spell (+2) and Quicken Spell (+4).

Applying all those feats to one 3rd level Melf's Unicorn Arrow results in an 3+2+0+1+0+2 = 8th level spell cast at CL 19 that deals (40+40+2.5*4.5)*2 = 182.5 damage on average.

This is a Quickened spell. Without Quicken, you're firing off a 6th level spell. that's 91.25 damage on average after that, which results in a total of 273.75 damage.

This involves 15 ranged touch attacks, medium range, vs a touch AC of 14. You need to land 12 attacks of 18.25 damage each to deal 219 damage to the Solar and kill it. This is an 80% success ratio. This means you have to have an attack bonus of +10 or higher to hit 80% of the time. Having a base attack bonus of +7, you only need +1 from Dex and +2 from Gloves of Dexterity to hit +10. Reduce Person gets you a +2 from size and Dex bonuses from being small, so we're at +12 so far. It can go even higher with a little more buffing, but I think you get the point.

Due to Fell Drain, each instance of Unicorn Arrow drains one level from the Solar. We're looking at three levels drained, max, if all instances of Unicorn Arrow hit.

So, total investment by a 15th level Incantatrix to take out a Solar? Celerity (4th level), Metamagicked Melf's Unicorn Arrow (6th level), Even More Metamagicked Unicorn Arrow (8th level), and Reduce Person (1st Level). There will probably be a Contingency in play, but that can be cast days ahead of schedule.

Oh, and Unicorn Arrow is a no save, no SR spell that deals untyped damage.

The Solar in question looks at you blankly, says something to the effect of 'Um, really?' and one shots you with his sword, his bow, or power word kill.... whichever he feels like.

Angelic beings have lesser globe of invulnerability. If you're going to do this.... you're gonna have to use a spell that's higher than third level.

Maybe you'll have better luck with the Pit Fiend.

FMArthur
2009-08-27, 11:22 PM
All angels have a Protective Aura that acts like (among other things) a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. Do spells that ignore Spell Resistance get through Globes of Invulnerability?

edit: Damn it! Ninja'd by mere seconds!

Anyway, I think Ocular Spell (+2) is a very efficient metamagic that you could make use of instead of one of the others to make room for the Heighten you need.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:32 PM
The Solar in question looks at you blankly, says something to the effect of 'Um, really?' and one shots you with his sword, his bow, or power word kill.... whichever he feels like.

Angelic beings have lesser globe of invulnerability. If you're going to do this.... you're gonna have to use a spell that's higher than third level.

Maybe you'll have better luck with the Pit Fiend.

So let's throw on Heighten Spell and call it a day? That's 7 feats total I've used so far, and the Wizard5/Incantatrix 10 gets 11 of them at level 15, 7 of htem bonus feats and 4 of them bonus metamagic feats.

Heighten Spell raises the spell level by one... and lowers the metamagic adjustment by one, resulting in no net change. Pretty good, thanks for reminding me.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-27, 11:35 PM
The Solar in question looks at you blankly, says something to the effect of 'Um, really?' and one shots you with his sword, his bow, or power word kill.... whichever he feels like.

Angelic beings have lesser globe of invulnerability. If you're going to do this.... you're gonna have to use a spell that's higher than third level.

Maybe you'll have better luck with the Pit Fiend.

Or, alternatively, since your swift action did nothing, you could then use your standard action to do the same thing with enervation. You know, like the 30 negative levels proposed by the earlier poster.

Or you could do the same thing with a repeating extended Fleshshiver that no save no touch attack stuns the Solar for 3 rounds.

Or you could then watch the Solar try to kill you through your Persisted Greater Ironguard and Energy Immunity to everything and your greater than 150HP so waste an action on Power Word kill.

Kallisti
2009-08-27, 11:45 PM
For people who want to know why Incantatrix is broken, follow the link to Team Solar in douglas' signature. You can find it in post#3 of this thread.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-27, 11:56 PM
So let's throw on Heighten Spell and call it a day?

We'd have to use a Rod of Empower, but that is easily affordable at level 15.

Yes you'd have to use a Rod of Empower.... like any class you need to rely on external forces, same as any other caster. (Or class, for that matter.)

....all of which ignores the fact that as monsters.... Solars don't actually have levels to drain, per se. Just throwing that in there. Fell Drain isn't going to help you here.... and the damage reduction he's going to get if you're evil, (which if you're attacking a Solar, you probably are) and this starts to look much less impressive.

It also assumes he doesn't just throw an AMF on you at the beginning of the round. He is equivalent to a 20th level cleric, after all. With the protection domain, as I recall.

His sword would become nonmagical.... but it's still a really big sword, and an Incantrix is still a wizard. (Read: squishy.)

** edit **

Ok, I checked. They don't have protection by default, but their deity could give it to them.

Greater dispel magic would also be pretty useful here, and they have that as an SLA.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-27, 11:59 PM
Yes you'd have to use a Rod of Empower.... like any class you need to rely on external forces, same as any other caster. (Or class, for that matter.)
Actually, I forgot that raising the level of the spell by one via Heighten also reduces metamagic cost by one due to Arcane Thesis, meaning there is no need for the Rod, and by extension your statement.

Don't get your beef with relying on items. Wizards are inherently reliant on spellbooks. If you want, we can go sorcerer with this, and take it to the limit. Presenting a little something I read about on Charop: B. M. Evilwizardington (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=22841) (copyright Dandu)


....all of which ignores the fact that as monsters.... Solars don't actually have levels to drain, per se. Just throwing that in there. Fell Drain isn't going to help you here.... and the damage reduction he's going to get if you're evil, (which if you're attacking a Solar, you probably are) and this starts to look much less impressive.
Ok, firstly, level drain works on HD, and DR does not apply to spells.


It also assumes he doesn't just throw an AMF on you at the beginning of the round. He is equivalent to a 20th level cleric, after all. With the protection domain, as I recall.
Celerity. I go first.

Also, AMF has a radius of 10 feet. Incanty has a range of 100+10 ft/level.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-27, 11:59 PM
Y....all of which ignores the fact that as monsters.... Solars don't actually have levels to drain, per se. Just throwing that in there.LIAR. Hit Dice are levels.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-28, 12:08 AM
Actually, I forgot that raising the level of the spell by one via Heighten also reduces metamagic cost by one due to Arcane Thesis, meaning there is no need for the Rod, and by extension your statement.

Don't get your beef with relying on items. Wizards are inherently reliant on spellbooks. If you want, we can go sorcerer with this, and take it to the limit. Presenting a little something I read about on Charop: B. M. Evilwizardington (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=22841) (copyright Dandu)


Ok, firstly, level drain works on HD, and DR does not apply to spells.


Celerity. I go first.

Also, AMF has a radius of 10 feet. Incantyi have a range of 100+10 ft/level.

Celerity. You go first. Better hope you do actually manage to kill him with one hit.... because you appear to have forgotten that you're dazed for one round after that.

As well, so far you aren't listing anything that's specific to an Incantrix. Yes, that's a lot of metamagic feats, but not more than a regular wizard could take.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:10 AM
Celerity. You go first. Better hope you do actually manage to kill him with one hit.... because you appear to have forgotten that you're dazed for one round after that.
Or Greater Celerity actually, as Celerity only gives you a standard action. Or you could move several hundred feet away from him so that he wastes his action trying to get to you, then you pop him in the face with a full round's worth of spells.

Check the damage calculations posted in my post. I kill it beyond death on a moderately rainy day.

If I am stunned and he somehow survives the hail of Unicorn Arrows, there's always a pre-cast Contingency to GTFO when hurt comes along (or to activate after I cast Contingency to teleport me to a distance), as well as various ways to get immunity to Daze - Favor of the Matyr off the top of my head, though that's a Paladin 4 spell.


As well, so far you aren't listing anything that's specific to an Incantrix. Yes, that's a lot of metamagic feats, but not more than a regular wizard could take.

Incantatrix allows you to reduce metamagic costs. This enables the stacking of many, many metamagic feats.

At this point you're basically quibbling over minor points that can be worked around easily with the spare feats and spells I have left over.

Have you any more questions?

Douglas
2009-08-28, 12:15 AM
Heighten Spell raises the spell level by one... and lowers the metamagic adjustment by one, resulting in no net change. Pretty good, thanks for reminding me.
Except Arcane Thesis, and I think most other metamagic reducers, specifically exclude Heighten Spell from their benefits.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:17 AM
Except Arcane Thesis, and I think most other metamagic reducers, specifically exclude Heighten Spell from their benefits.

Hm, I may be misremembering the text. Oh well, back to caressing my Empowered Rod.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-28, 12:20 AM
Hm, I may be misremembering the text. Oh well, back to caressing my Empowered Rod.

Well you don't even need to heighten it, since his argument was unsound and Solars have no such protection.

Just like Solars are affected by Enervation, why do you think the spell exists?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:21 AM
Really? *checks SRD* I think they do, under protective aura.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-28, 12:28 AM
Really? *checks SRD* I think they do, under protective aura.

Yeah, I guess it does. So he was wrong the second time, you really do need to use a good level 4 spell. Personally, I like Fleshshiver. No save Stun is pretty nice.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-28, 12:28 AM
Rainbow falls. Timestop. Stored Lightning Bolt.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-28, 12:38 AM
Or Greater Celerity actually, as Celerity only gives you a standard action. Or you could move several hundred feet away from him so that he wastes his action trying to get to you, then you pop him in the face with a full round's worth of spells.

Check the damage calculations posted in my post. I kill it beyond death on a moderately rainy day.

If I am stunned and he somehow survives the hail of Unicorn Arrows, there's always a pre-cast Contingency to GTFO when hurt comes along (or to activate after I cast Contingency to teleport me to a distance), as well as various ways to get immunity to Daze - Favor of the Matyr off the top of my head, though that's a Paladin 4 spell.



Incantatrix allows you to reduce metamagic costs. This enables the stacking of many, many metamagic feats.

At this point you're basically quibbling over minor points that can be worked around easily with the spare feats and spells I have left over.

Have you any more questions?

Of course, being a 20th level cleric.... you also have death ward, entropic shield, shield of faith, enthrall, divine power, and the half dozen or so of his buddies he summoned to deal with.

...what, you thought you got to prepare ahead of time but he didn't?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:40 AM
So, method of attack is now:

1.
Greater Celerity for a full round action
-or-
Celerity + evasion
-or-
Celerity + Unicorn Arrow + Contingency Unicorn Arrow

2. Shoot it to death

3. ???

4. Profit.


Of course, being a 20th level cleric.... you also have death ward, entropic shield, shield of faith, enthrall, divine power, and the half dozen or so of his buddies he summoned to deal with.

...what, you thought you got to prepare ahead of time but he didn't?

Wizard spell list contains Summon Monster. It also contains Dispel Magic, Greater Ironguard, Superior Invisibility, Project Image, Planar Binding, etc.

quick_comment
2009-08-28, 12:42 AM
Wizard 5/Red Wizard 10

Via circle magic, boost your caster level up to 40. Take arcane disciple(evil).

Cast celerity, cast blasphemy, solar dies.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-28, 12:47 AM
Courtesy of our friend Phoenix00 on the Wizards boards.


Wizard 1/Ardent 2/Cerbemancer 4/Subverted Psion 1/Tainted Scholar 10/X 2

1 Precocious Apprentice
3 Practiced Manifester Ardent
6 Lunatic Insight (pre req feat for subverted psion but it is awesome for the +2 to initiative)

This is why subverted psion is awesome

Taint Immunity: You are immune to the further effects of taint except for those gained by this prestige class. Any previous symptoms gained before this prestige class are retained, though they can be removed through normal means. Your taint score is capped by the severe taint limit of your Constitution or Wisdom score as determined by Table 4-1: Taint Thresholds (see Heroes of Horror, page 63).

Severe taint is still a lot of taint if you have a wis and con of 21 that means you can have a deprativity and corruption of 83 or a save dc of 51+spell level and getting
17 1st level,
17 2nd level
16 3rd level
16 4th level
16 5th level
16 6th level
15 7th level
15 8th level
15 9th level bonus spells per day

Any more questions or can we say that the Solar is dead now?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:50 AM
There's always a simple level 15 Grey Elf Fatespinner who has a DC of 10+8+5+1+3+1+1+4 = 33 for an 8th level save or die.

Feat/Abilities needed: Fatespinning, Spell Focus (Relevant School), GSF (Same), Item of +6 Int.

Solar Saves: Fort +18 (+22 against poison), Ref +18, Will +20.

Not bad, but his fort save means a 75% chance of failure against an eight level spell.

quick_comment
2009-08-28, 12:53 AM
Tainted scholar doesnt count, ive never seen a game where it is not banned. Its just as bad as spell to power erudite.

Pharoah - dont forget greater spell focus, earth spell and the fatespinner's ability to force the solar to reroll the save.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 12:54 AM
So how much XP do we get for killing this thread?

Edit: I can't believe I forgot Sanctum Spell - It lowers the spell by one level if cast outside your sanctum. Yes, you read that correctly. It lowers the spell by one level...

Corwin Weber
2009-08-28, 12:59 AM
Courtesy of our friend Phoenix00 on the Wizards boards.



Any more questions or can we say that the Solar is dead now?

If we were talking about those classes, maybe. This is about an Incantrix.


Wizard spell list contains Summon Monster. It also contains Dispel Magic, Greater Ironguard, Superior Invisibility, Project Image, Planar Binding, etc.

Why, yes.... actually it does.

Now pick one. Celerity only gives you one action. Dispel magic will help you briefly, except that he can re-enable his effects as a free action... and you just used up your instant action. Invisibility and project image won't help you at all whether cast ahead of time or not. Angels have trueseeing active at all times. Planar binding could be useful..... hope your charisma is decent..... If it isn't, you're sorta screwed. (His is 25 by the way.... and unlike your unicorn attack, his spell resistance does apply to this as well.) Ironguard I don't have access to, so I can't speak to that.

T'ain't as easy as you think. You're discussing killing something that's a baby step below a deity. All of the spells I listed off can be cast ahead of time in preparation for you with a save DC based on a wisdom of 25.

....unless you think you can sneak up on a being with an intelligence of 23 with see invisibility, true seeing and detect evil as constant effects?

** edit **

FOCUS HERE, PEOPLE. FOCUS. THE GENERAL 'KILL THE SOLAR' THREAD IS HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.

FMArthur
2009-08-28, 12:59 AM
So how much XP do we get for killing this thread?

Edit: I can't believe I forgot Sanctum Spell - It lowers the spell by one level if cast outside your sanctum. Yes, you read that correctly. It lowers the spell by one level...

But uses a slot of its normal level. I know Arcane Fusion throws it into an infinite loop of hilarity, but what other shenanigans are enabled because of it?

And I will bet that a first level chicken-infested commoner can kill a solar if he wins initiative. :smallcool:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:01 AM
But uses a slot of its normal level. I know Arcane Fusion throws it into an infinite loop of hilarity, but what other shenanigans are enabled because of it?

It functions as a metamagic reducer for Incantatrix/Arcane thesis Cheese iirc. Either that or it allows you to prepare, say, a 9th level spell in an 8th level spell slot. I'll have to get back to you on that one....

quick_comment
2009-08-28, 01:02 AM
....unless you think you can sneak up on a being with an intelligence of 23 with see invisibility, true seeing and detect evil as constant effects?



My red wizard up above has CL 40 nondetection.

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 01:05 AM
Actually, I forgot that raising the level of the spell by one via Heighten also reduces metamagic cost by one due to Arcane Thesis, meaning there is no need for the Rod, and by extension your statement.


AT explicitly does not work with heighten spell.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:05 AM
If we were talking about those classes, maybe. This is about an Incantrix.
Actually,


See, there's your problem.

Wizards shouldn't be facing common challenges in the first place.

Get back to me when they can one-shot a Solar or Pit Fiend. That? Yes. That would be broken.




Why, yes.... actually it does.

Now pick one. Celerity only gives you one action. Dispel magic will help you briefly, except that he can re-enable his effects as a free action...
Only the ones under Protective Aura.


and you just used up your instant action. Invisibility and project image won't help you at all whether cast ahead of time or not. Angels have trueseeing active at all times.
Range of 60 feet. Shorter than the range of Dispel Magic


Planar binding could be useful..... hope your charisma is decent..... If it isn't, you're sorta screwed. (His is 25 by the way.... and unlike your unicorn attack, his spell resistance does apply to this as well.) Ironguard I don't have access to, so I can't speak to that.
No reason not to have a bit of Cha, or an item thereof.

Greater Ironguard is a spell that makes you immune to magical metallic weapons, and nonmagical metallic weapons. Full stop.



T'ain't as easy as you think. You're discussing killing something that's a baby step below a deity. All of the spells I listed off can be cast ahead of time in preparation for you with a save DC based on a wisdom of 25.
And they will run out unless Persisted. Meanwhile, guess who can Persist buffs for free?

The answer starts with "I" and ends with "ncantatrix"


....unless you think you can sneak up on a being with an intelligence of 23 with see invisibility, true seeing and detect evil as constant effects?
Given that I am out of its detecting range of 60 feet and all? Sure thing.

Misc Notes:

I miscalculated the damage the two Unicorn Arrows should have done. It should actually be on the order of 365 damage, one point of damage for every day of the year. I can afford to miss a good chunk of the time.

The feats involved so far are Twin Spell (+4), Empower Spell (+2), Maximize Spell(+3), Arcane Thesis, Fell Drain Spell (+2), Invisible Spell (+0), Sanctum Spell (?) and Quicken Spell (+4). I have two feats left over and am open to suggestions.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:06 AM
AT explicitly does not work with heighten spell.

Understood. Invisible Spell (+0) will be used to offset Heighten Spell.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:09 AM
But uses a slot of its normal level. I know Arcane Fusion throws it into an infinite loop of hilarity, but what other shenanigans are enabled because of it?
Hm. I suppose a wizard could get Arcane Fusion on his list (Wyrm Wizard, Recaster, Limited Wish) and use Sanctum Spell to initiate an infinite loop in which he pelts the Solar to death with Magic Missiles...

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 01:13 AM
Why, yes.... actually it does.

Now pick one. Celerity only gives you one action. Dispel magic will help you briefly, except that he can re-enable his effects as a free action... and you just used up your instant action. Invisibility and project image won't help you at all whether cast ahead of time or not. Angels have trueseeing active at all times. Planar binding could be useful..... hope your charisma is decent..... If it isn't, you're sorta screwed. (His is 25 by the way.... and unlike your unicorn attack, his spell resistance does apply to this as well.) Ironguard I don't have access to, so I can't speak to that.

Any personal buff that has a duration will be persisted or extend persisted (24 hours or 48 hours) and can be cast up to 2 days before battle, thanks to Incantatrix's metamagic tricks. She can use that 3+int times per day.

Superior Invisibility can only be broken by True Seeing (which has a fixed range), and with Ghostform up, he will be incorporeal and enjoy a 50% miss chance from anything a MM Solar is tossing around, as well as being able to break LoE by going into walls, floors, etc.


Understood. Invisible Spell (+0) will be used to offset Heighten Spell.

My bad, I saw that that was corrected further on. I think Sanctum Spell just makes your spell function as one spell lower, without taking up a lower level slot. So if you had a 5th level spell, and applied Sanctum Spell to it, it'd be treated as a 6th level spell in your sanctum and a 4th level spell everywhere else, yet still be occupying a 5th level slot.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-28, 01:13 AM
Actually,





Only the ones under Protective Aura.


Range of 60 feet. Shorter than the range of Dispel Magic


No reason not to have a bit of Cha, or an item thereof.

Greater Ironguard is a spell that makes you immune to magical metallic weapons, and nonmagical metallic weapons. Full stop.


And they will run out unless Persisted. Meanwhile, guess who can Persist buffs for free?

The answer starts with "I" and ends with "ncantatrix"

Given that I am out of its detecting range of 60 feet and all? Sure thing.

Misc Notes:

I miscalculated the damage the two Unicorn Arrows should have done. It should actually be on the order of 365 damage, one point of damage for every day of the year. I can afford to miss a good chunk of the time.

Ok, so if you jump him in a football field, and wait for his buffs to run out.... and hope he doesn't just get bored and leave before then.....

We could keep going with this, since it is possible to set up whatever unlikely circumstances you'd like to in this game. I, on the other hand, have better things to do. Like go to bed.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:15 AM
Ok, so if you jump him in a football field, and wait for his buffs to run out.... and hope he doesn't just get bored and leave before then.....

We could keep going with this, since it is possible to set up whatever unlikely circumstances you'd like to in this game. I, on the other hand, have better things to do. Like go to bed.
Does your Solar casts buffs with durations of minutes/level at the start of his day, or right before the wizard shows up?

If he casts at the start of his day, there is a significant chance that they won't last until the encounter. 20 minutes, or 200 minutes really isn't that long in a day. 200 minutes is just over 3 hours, and a day has 24 hours. Even if extended via the feat or a few rods, it is going to take several castings.

You have fundamentally misunderstood my point: I do not need to wait for his buffs to run out, unless he devotes his entire daily allocation of spells to buffing the rounds, minutes, and 10 minutes per level duration spells, he will not be at full power unless he knows exactly when I'm coming in to get him.

He'll also have a tough time summoning monsters if he spends all his spells for short term buffs. Just saying.

We don't need to fight in a football field. 60 feet is not a long distance. Anywhere outdoors, in a city, woods, or even a decently sized dungeon would work. How unlikely is that?

If you want to meet me on a neutral playing field, feel free to drop by the Test of Spite. Otherwise, I suppose it's good night.

FMArthur
2009-08-28, 01:26 AM
Solars descend gracefully from the sky. Everyone dies.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:33 AM
If you feel like picking this back up, Corwin, I have a new way of doing this: Go Wyrm Wizard, then cast Celerity, Arcane Fusion, and use Sanctum Spell to initiate an infinite loop in which I recast Arcane Fusion with Arcane Fusion, netting me one first level spell in the process.

I cast Summon Monster 1 an infinite amount of times. Heh. That was fun.

But, Corwin, since the original question you asked "Give me a wizard that can one shot a Solar or Pit Fiend" has been answered several times, I think we can call it a night.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-28, 01:34 AM
Lets play it this way.

The set-up:

The wizard casts Gate summoning an elemental weird. He asks it two questions. Where is the solar and where can I find a rainbow fall?

The execution:

Now a round later as talking is a free action and Weirds can use their divinations of a free action we teleport to the Rainbow Falls and acquire its power.

Next we teleport ourselves to the Solar.

We now use Instant Meta-Magic: Maximize and Instant Meta-Magic: Empower to cast Timestop and then enhance it with the power of the rainbow falls. We now have 21 rounds of free time.

End with as many Maws of Chaos, Stored Lightningbolts, and Delayed Blast Fireballs as you can shake a stick at.

On the off chance the Solar wins initiative we just cast Celerity and proceed to do the combo regardless.

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 01:37 AM
If you feel like picking this back up, Corwin, I have a new way of doing this: Go Wyrm Wizard, then cast Celerity, Arcane Fusion, and use Sanctum Spell to initiate an infinite loop in which I recast Arcane Fusion with Arcane Fusion, netting me one first level spell in the process.

I cast Summon Monster 1 an infinite amount of times. Heh. That was fun.

But, Corwin, since the original question you asked "Give me a wizard that can one shot a Solar or Pit Fiend" has been answered several times, I think we can call it a night.

Is the sup dawg meme to old? 'cause I heard you like Arcane Fusion....

Wings of Peace
2009-08-28, 01:37 AM
If you feel like picking this back up, Corwin, I have a new way of doing this: Go Wyrm Wizard, then cast Celerity, Arcane Fusion, and use Sanctum Spell to initiate an infinite loop in which I recast Arcane Fusion with Arcane Fusion, netting me one first level spell in the process.

I cast Summon Monster 1 an infinite amount of times. Heh. That was fun.

But, Corwin, since the original question you asked "Give me a wizard that can one shot a Solar or Pit Fiend" has been answered several times, I think we can call it a night.

What the hell man? No consumptive field for all those badgers?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:39 AM
There will be no mention of Consumptive Field in this thread! :smallmad:

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 01:48 AM
I think even I could build an incantatrix that could solo a Solar, on (almost) any terms that Corwin wanted to lay out.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 01:49 AM
Go for it, I am eager to see your build.

If you could incorporate elements of mine into it, I'd appreciate it. I don't have the time to build it myself.

quick_comment
2009-08-28, 01:58 AM
I could build a straight level 15 wizard that could take on a solar.

Things needed: Metamagic school focus(necromancy), arcane thesis(enervation), split ray, twin spell, delay spell, empower spell, lingering metamagic, rod of quicken spell, invisible spell.

I prepare a split(+1), delayed(+2), twinned(+3) invisible(-1) enervation, using metamagic school focus to drop it into an 8th level slot. I prepare 3 of these. Call these enervation As

I also prepare split(+1), invisible(-1), delayed (+2), empowered(+1) enervations, in 7th level slots. These are enervation Bs

I see the solar.

I cast celerity, then cast timestop (from a scroll). I have 1d4+1 rounds. In the first round, I can enervation A, then enervation B. In the 2nd round, I get to twin enervation B from lingering metamagic and empower enervation A from the same.

I get a minimum of 4d4+2d4*1.5+4d4*1.5*2 (assuming I get 2 rounds out of my timestop).

Thats an average of 47 negative levels. If I roll better on the timestop, I get even more. If too many miss, or the rolls are unusually low, when the timestop ends, I just cast celerity again into another timestop.

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 02:05 AM
You can't enervate while in a time stop, can you?

Also, I want to see what terms Corwin wants to lay out. I'm going to try and do this without items (other than a spellbook & components pouch).

I think I will go wizard5/incantatrix 10, just so we can really let incantatrix shine.

[edit]
Oh, delayed spell. Nice.

quick_comment
2009-08-28, 02:07 AM
Yeah, delayed spell.

This is the only use I can think of for it. Blasting stuff while timestopped.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 06:20 AM
You can't enervate while in a time stop, can you?

Also, I want to see what terms Corwin wants to lay out. I'm going to try and do this without items (other than a spellbook & components pouch).

Ah yes, I seem to remember him making a big deal out of the fact that wizards need items... yet gives the solar a sword.

Douglas
2009-08-28, 06:47 AM
Regardless of whether the Arcane Fusion + Sanctum Spell trick ever worked, it definitely does not work after the Complete Mage Errata. They added a sentence clarifying both that metamagic feats can be applied to the spells chosen for the Fusion and that the spell slot level used by the metamagiced spell is what gets used to determine eligibility. Sanctum Arcane Fusion may be a 4th level spell outside your sanctum, but it still takes a 5th level slot and is not eligible.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-28, 06:51 AM
Very well. Back to 365 points of damage then!

ErrantX
2009-08-28, 09:30 AM
Back to the OT, another class that gives some free metamagics is the War Mage from Dragonlance: Age of Mortals, it gives you two metamagic feats that are good for blasting, a battle magic class feature that actually makes blasting moderately worthwhile, ASF reduction, and the arcane aegis ability which makes your allies happy by you just existing to protect them with your cheerful personality.

-X

Cyclocone
2009-08-28, 09:55 AM
Back to the OT, another class that gives some free metamagics is the War Mage from Dragonlance: Age of Mortals, it gives you two metamagic feats that are good for blasting, a battle magic class feature that actually makes blasting moderately worthwhile, ASF reduction, and the arcane aegis ability which makes your allies happy by you just existing to protect them with your cheerful personality.

-X

Unfortunately, they felt the need to nerf it, so it's only 3+CON mod/day.:smallfrown:
Still a very good blaster PrC though, I approve.

The only real problem is the setting specific-ness; you might have to do a bit of planes-walking to make an Incantatrix/War Mage.
Still, if you can get it past your DM, there's no reason not to take it.

ErrantX
2009-08-28, 10:40 AM
Unfortunately, they felt the need to nerf it, so it's only 3+CON mod/day.:smallfrown:
Still a very good blaster PrC though, I approve.

The only real problem is the setting specific-ness; you might have to do a bit of planes-walking to make an Incantatrix/War Mage.
Still, if you can get it past your DM, there's no reason not to take it.

I personally don't see why they nerfed it; it allowed wizards to compete damage wise with clerics and druids. That way if you weren't smart or clever enough to be Batman, you could just blow it up.

I don't really see anything setting specific about it; it mentions nothing in the abilities as being specific to any organization within Krynn. High Sorcery wizards, for example, would be. Same goes for Incantatrix for that matter, but still. Really, it comes down to DM fiat as to whether or not you can play an Incantatrix/War Mage :vaarsuvius:

-X

Fax Celestis
2009-08-28, 11:34 AM
On the Solar debacle:
With no metamagic reducers:
Human Sorcerer 13/Spellthief 1/Spellwarp Sniper 5

Casting Stat: 18 + 4 (levels) + 6 (cloak) + 5 (tome) + 5 (wish) = 38 (42 for determining free spells and save DCs)
Dexterity: 14 + 6 (gloves) + 5 (tome) + 5 (wish) = 30
Relevant feats: Enlarge Spell, Sherem-Lar Sorcery, Sherezem-Lar Sorcery, Invisible Spell, Master Spellthief, Split Ray
Relevant spells: celerity, disintegrate, nondetection, scrying, wish
Relevant equipment: Cloak of Charisma +6, Gloves of Dexterity +6

Premise: Rays do not have range increments.
Premise: scrying is enough to target an opponent just over a half mile away.
Premise: nondetection + Invisible Spell is sufficient to keep your target from locating you. Note: Invisible Spell is not an invisibility effect: your spells just do not have a visible display.

Procedure: Cast enlarged split invisible disintegrate. Cast celerity. Cast enlarged split invisible disintegrate again.

Save DC for enlarged split invisible disintegrate is 16 + 14 + 2 = 32 (or a 30% save rate; I could kick this higher if I went into more detail on gear.)
Maximum range for enlarged split invisible disintegrate: 800' + 80'/level (2400')
Attack bonus for enlarged split invisible disintegrate: +20 v touch 14 (or flat-footed touch 9): auto-hits
Damage for enlarged split invisible disintegrate: 80d6 (or 80-480, ~240 average).

Total damage dealt before the solar can act: 160d6 (or 160-960, ~480 average).

Result: dust.

Myrmex
2009-08-28, 01:08 PM
Both Tomes & Wishes give inherent bonuses to ability scores, which cap at +5. Also, you didn't use any incantatrix in that build.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-28, 01:33 PM
I personally don't see why they nerfed it; it allowed wizards to compete damage wise with clerics and druids. That way if you weren't smart or clever enough to be Batman, you could just blow it up.

I don't really see anything setting specific about it; it mentions nothing in the abilities as being specific to any organization within Krynn. High Sorcery wizards, for example, would be. Same goes for Incantatrix for that matter, but still. Really, it comes down to DM fiat as to whether or not you can play an Incantatrix/War Mage :vaarsuvius:

-X

Blasting is still plenty effective. I've argued this point on another thread. The problem with blasting isn't that it's inefficient. If you want to make an optimized blaster I and I'm sure at least a few other people on these forums can build you one than can even nuke the enemies in the epic level handbook. The problem comes when we realize optimized blasting is too efficient. If you can one hit everything it's no fun but if it takes numerous shots it loses it's efficiency and it becomes smarter to cripple the enemies batman style instead and then let the party kill them.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-28, 01:33 PM
Both Tomes & Wishes give inherent bonuses to ability scores, which cap at +5.Damn, you're right. Alright, well, uh...custom item of +5 competence to a stat.


Also, you didn't use any incantatrix in that build.

Well, yes, that was kinda the point.

Doc Roc
2009-08-28, 02:36 PM
3+Con mod per day. So... Polymorph!

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-29, 02:09 PM
Wait, what?

Eldariel
2009-08-29, 02:45 PM
Wait, what?

What's the best way to increase Con mod? Polymorph, of course.

Myrmex
2009-08-29, 02:45 PM
There's a feat from a 3rd party splatbook that lets you choose any ability score to be the one you use for spellcasting.

Eldariel
2009-08-29, 02:53 PM
There's a feat from a 3rd party splatbook that lets you choose any ability score to be the one you use for spellcasting.

There's also Illumian.


But let's face it, if the Solar is built by a competent DM, it won't be dying. It has Epic Spellcasting and thus no character of under level 21 is any challenge to it. Now, Pit Fiend, that's a much more doable challenge. Or Great Wyrm Black Dragon or some such.

Myrmex
2009-08-29, 02:54 PM
There's also Illumian.

Doesn't that just let you use dex for extra spells or something?

Eldariel
2009-08-29, 02:56 PM
Doesn't that just let you use dex for extra spells or something?

Dex or Str, but yeah, only for bonus spells. Meh.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-29, 03:10 PM
There's also Illumian.


But let's face it, if the Solar is built by a competent DM, it won't be dying. It has Epic Spellcasting and thus no character of under level 21 is any challenge to it. Now, Pit Fiend, that's a much more doable challenge. Or Great Wyrm Black Dragon or some such.

I'm pretty sure the assumption being made is "The Solar in the MM" Not, A 25HD outsider with 20th level Cleric casting and a host of abilities, but whatever spells and feats you want.

Eldariel
2009-08-29, 03:21 PM
I'm pretty sure the assumption being made is "The Solar in the MM" Not, A 25HD outsider with 20th level Cleric casting and a host of abilities, but whatever spells and feats you want.

But assuming a DM actually runs a Solar, especially in a non-Core game, he probably should switch out the feats for something effective and give it some more buffs to keep itself somewhat protected constantly.

Meh, I suppose an Incantatrix would kill a few for practice...say, metamagicked Orb of Fire/Force (depending on mood) for ~300 damage penetrating resistances and immunities and Celerity to act first. I don't really see the point of that discussion. Without Incantatrix, you just aren't really getting enough dakka to pull it off, though you can SoD it as shown above, given sufficient focus on pumping the save DC. But Incantatrix is more likely to succeed, since the ranged touch attack doesn't fail on anything but 1 (which can easily be rerolled with Alter Fortune or whatever) and that's the only involved roll.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-29, 03:23 PM
But assuming a DM actually runs a Solar, especially in a non-Core game, he probably should switch out the feats for something effective and give it some more buffs to keep itself somewhat protected constantly.

I would assume that a DM actually running an anything ever would not use Epic Spellcasting.

Myrmex
2009-08-29, 03:23 PM
But assuming a DM actually runs a Solar, especially in a non-Core game, he probably should switch out the feats for something effective and give it some more buffs to keep itself somewhat protected constantly.

Meh, I suppose an Incantatrix would kill a few for practice...say, metamagicked Orb of Fire/Force (depending on mood) for ~300 damage penetrating resistances and immunities and Celerity to act first. I don't really see the point of that discussion. Without Incantatrix, you just aren't really getting enough dakka to pull it off, though you can SoD it as shown above, given sufficient focus on pumping the save DC. But Incantatrix is more likely to succeed, since the ranged touch attack doesn't fail on anything but 1 (which can easily be rerolled with Alter Fortune or whatever) and that's the only involved roll.

We aren't talking level 20 though- just level 10. I'm not sure incanta offers enough dakka before level 10. Persisting your buffs is certainly worthwhile, but they're only a greater dispel away from being no buffs.

[edit]
What epic spells would a Solar reasonably have access to? Or are we assuming that Solars are chain gating and the DM auto-approves any and all epic spells?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-29, 03:25 PM
We aren't talking level 20 though- just level 10. I'm not sure incanta offers enough dakka before level 10. Persisting your buffs is certainly worthwhile, but they're only a greater dispel away from being no buffs.

I think you might be in the wrong thread. We aren't talking about level 10, we are talking about how broken Incants are, if you can prove that they might lose to a CR more than double their level... You just proved they are broken.

Myrmex
2009-08-29, 03:26 PM
I think you might be in the wrong thread. We aren't talking about level 10, we are talking about how broken Incants are, if you can prove that they might lose to a CR more than double their level... You just proved they are broken.

Hahaha, I am in the wrong thread. :smalltongue:

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 08:40 PM
A Solar has 209 hp and a touch AC of 14 according to the Monster Manual. It is a CR 23 creature. I shall take it out with a 15th level wizard.

Melf's Unicorn Arrow does 5d8+40 damage at a caster level of 17.

At 15, you finish Incantatrix. Take Twin Spell (+4), Empower Spell (+2), Maximize Spell(+3), Arcane Thesis, Fell Drain Spell (+2) and Quicken Spell (+4).

Applying all those feats to one 3rd level Melf's Unicorn Arrow results in an 3+2+0+1+0+2 = 8th level spell cast at CL 19 that deals (40+40+2.5*4.5)*2 = 182.5 damage on average.

This is a Quickened spell. Without Quicken, you're firing off a 6th level spell. that's 91.25 damage on average after that, which results in a total of 273.75 damage.

This involves 15 ranged touch attacks, medium range, vs a touch AC of 14. You need to land 12 attacks of 18.25 damage each to deal 219 damage to the Solar and kill it. This is an 80% success ratio. This means you have to have an attack bonus of +10 or higher to hit 80% of the time. Having a base attack bonus of +7, you only need +1 from Dex and +2 from Gloves of Dexterity to hit +10. Reduce Person gets you a +2 from size and Dex bonuses from being small, so we're at +12 so far. It can go even higher with a little more buffing, but I think you get the point.

Due to Fell Drain, each instance of Unicorn Arrow drains one level from the Solar. We're looking at three levels drained, max, if all instances of Unicorn Arrow hit.

This is arguably the least efficient way of killing the Solar. It would probably be easier to hit him with a save or die spell. Getting the DC high is not a problem if you build correctly.

So, total investment by a 15th level Incantatrix to take out a Solar with my method? Celerity (4th level), Metamagicked Melf's Unicorn Arrow (6th level), Even More Metamagicked Unicorn Arrow (8th level), and Reduce Person (1st Level). There will probably be a Contingency in play, but that can be cast days ahead of schedule.

Oh, and Unicorn Arrow is a no save, no SR spell that deals untyped damage.

I finally got curious enough about this to borrow a forgotten realms book.... um..... this doesn't work. At all. The Incantrix description specifically says +1 spell level minimum.

Your quickened spell requires a tenth level spell slot, (3+1+2+1+3) and the unquickened still requires 7th. (3+1+2+1) The former is impossible at 15th level, the latter is possible but still isn't going to one-shot the Solar even if you do hit with every missile..... (something which any seasoned player will tell you is not assured) and since it's not quickened he gets an attack of opportunity.

You're not going to one shot him. You'll hurt him, sure. You'll get his attention.... but in this case I'm going to suggest that this really isn't a good thing, per se. :)

olentu
2009-08-30, 08:44 PM
I finally got curious enough about this to borrow a forgotten realms book.... um..... this doesn't work. At all. The Incantrix description specifically says +1 spell level minimum.

Your quickened spell requires a tenth level spell slot, (3+1+2+1+3) and the unquickened still requires 7th. (3+1+2+1) The former is impossible at 15th level, the latter is possible but still isn't going to one-shot the Solar even if you do hit with every missile..... (something which any seasoned player will tell you is not assured) and since it's not quickened he gets an attack of opportunity.

You're not going to one shot him. You'll hurt him, sure. You'll get his attention.... but in this case I'm going to suggest that this really isn't a good thing, per se. :)

I believe that the additional reduction is coming from having arcane thesis for the unicorn arrows spell.

Edit: Arcane thesis reduces the slot adjustment by one for metamagic feats applied to the spell with no minimum if I am remembering the feat correctly.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-30, 08:51 PM
I finally got curious enough about this to borrow a forgotten realms book.... um..... this doesn't work. At all. The Incantrix description specifically says +1 spell level minimum.

Your quickened spell requires a tenth level spell slot, (3+1+2+1+3) and the unquickened still requires 7th. (3+1+2+1) The former is impossible at 15th level, the latter is possible but still isn't going to one-shot the Solar even if you do hit with every missile..... (something which any seasoned player will tell you is not assured) and since it's not quickened he gets an attack of opportunity.

You're not going to one shot him. You'll hurt him, sure. You'll get his attention.... but in this case I'm going to suggest that this really isn't a good thing, per se. :)

Yeah, see the whole Other metamagic reducers like Arcane Thesis.

That's kind of the point.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:00 PM
Yeah, see the whole Other metamagic reducers like Arcane Thesis.

That's kind of the point.

Arcane thesis also isn't limited to the Incantrix, and the fact that they neglected to put a minimum would make it DM's prerogative as to whether or not a 0 modifier is possible. (It doesn't explicitly say that 0 is possible, and it isn't in other circumstances. Most DM's are going to say 'forget it.') It also only applies to one specific spell. I'll concede, this particular spell is a good choice for it, but it's not a global thing. I forgot that you also have to maximize the spell with a rod, so it actually takes an 8th level slot, not 7th. (Base spell has to be at least 4th level.) This makes it possible, but aside from bonus spells it's the only spell at that level he can prepare.

So in the long run, you'd better hope he goes down in one shot, and that he doesn't have any friends with him, or you're seriously screwed. This isn't exactly a strategy that lends itself to your longterm survival.

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 09:01 PM
Yeah, see the whole Other metamagic reducers like Arcane Thesis.

That's kind of the point.

Indeed. Incantatrix alone produces only slightly insane effects, such as Split Ray Empowered Enervation at level 6 slot, and Quickened at level 9 slot. However, it's the cornerstone in reducing metamagic costs across the board along with Arcane Thesis which DOES allow 0 and even NEGATIVE adjustments (the only stipulation is that the end spell level must be equal to or higher than the original spell level).

These two make Empowered +0, Split Ray +0, Twin +2, Invisible Spell -1, Maximize +1, Quicken +2, etc. So Empowered Split Ray Twin Invisible Maximized Quickened Enervation would be level 8. Throw the free Heighten Spell in (so it counts as a level 6 spell as per Incantatrix) and we're talking level 9. If we feel like taking Practical/Easy Metamagic for Quicken and Twin Spell, we're talking level 7.


The whole key is that without Incantatrix, such mass reductions are utterly impossible (and Arcane Thesis only applies to a single spell while Incantatrix just plain reduces all metamagic by 1). Further, yeah, most buffs available to Solar have to be cast in fight 'cause it can't Persist them. Incantatrix can have ALL his buffs on ALL the time.

As for the Solar's epic spells, given how much time he has, he could just use casting time as a mitigating factor for permanent effects and have just about any kinds of buffs on...that or backlash damage or whatever. Point being, a character without Epic Spellcasting won't be challenging a character with Epic Spellcasting (unless you have stated "epic spells can't be researched", which unfortunately isn't even a farfetched rule).

Doc Roc
2009-08-30, 09:04 PM
Solars are still potentially very deadly, I just want to highlight that. Like, yes, we can take them. But of the monster manual, they're some of the few critters deserving of their CR.

Douglas
2009-08-30, 09:07 PM
Further, yeah, most buffs available to Solar have to be cast in fight 'cause it can't Persist them. Incantatrix can have ALL his buffs on ALL the time.
To see just how broken this can get when taken to an extreme, see my sig.:smallbiggrin:

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:13 PM
Arcane Thesis specifically can not produce negative modifiers. PHB2 errata, available for free download from Wizards. It still doesn't say whether it can reduce 1 to 0 or not, again, that's going to end up being DM's discretion. (Most are going to say 'forget it,' since even specialists like Incantrixes can't do that.)

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 09:17 PM
Arcane Thesis specifically can not produce negative modifiers. PHB2 errata, available for free download from Wizards. It still doesn't say whether it can reduce 1 to 0 or not, again, that's going to end up being DM's discretion. (Most are going to say 'forget it,' since even specialists like Incantrixes can't do that.)

Have you read the errata? This is what it says:
"A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat."

That means the spell cannot be reduced below its original level. So Enervation can't be reduced below level 4. That's the only limitation it issues. Negative adjustments are a fair game, +0 adjustments are a fair game, etc.

Even WITHOUT negative adjustments though, as long as you have those Incantatrix-levels, you could still with relatively little effort apply half a dozen metamagic feats to perfectly castable spells.


Do you really think the whole internet has somehow missed an errata or something? No, by the rules this works just fine. There's a reason many people consider Incantatrix and Arcane Thesis both as written completely broken.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:21 PM
Have you read the errata? This is what it says:
"A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat."

That means the spell cannot be reduced below its original level. So Enervation can't be reduced below level 4. That's the only limitation it issues. Negative adjustments are a fair game, +0 adjustments are a fair game, etc.

Even WITHOUT negative adjustments though, as long as you have those Incantatrix-levels, you could still with relatively little effort apply half a dozen metamagic feats to perfectly castable spells.


Do you really think the whole internet has somehow missed an errata or something? No, by the rules this works just fine. There's a reason many people consider Incantatrix and Arcane Thesis both as written completely broken.

No, the entire Internet hasn't missed this at all.... there are actually several discussions on the Wizards' forum about it.

olentu
2009-08-30, 09:22 PM
Arcane Thesis specifically can not produce negative modifiers. PHB2 errata, available for free download from Wizards. It still doesn't say whether it can reduce 1 to 0 or not, again, that's going to end up being DM's discretion. (Most are going to say 'forget it,' since even specialists like Incantrixes can't do that.)

Er the errata says

"Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit”
section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its
original level with the use of this feat.”"

I see nothing about prohibiting negative modifiers except in the case that a negative modifier would reduce the spell slot of the spell below its original level.

In fact this errata makes no sense if negative modifiers are prohibited as if they were it would be impossible to have the situation where a spell would be reduced below its original spell slot level. So I would say that the errata supports the stance that arcane thesis can cause a metamagic feat to apply a negative adjustment to the slot required.

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 09:27 PM
No, the entire Internet hasn't missed this at all.... there are actually several discussions on the Wizards' forum about it.

Everyone who has read the errata can figure out exactly what it says though. There's nothing unclear about it. Not a single word of not allowing +0 or negative adjustments - the sole change is that the spell may not be reduced below its original level. It in no way limits how metamagic costs are reduced, only limits what you can do with them.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:34 PM
Everyone who has read the errata can figure out exactly what it says though. There's nothing unclear about it. Not a single word of not allowing +0 or negative adjustments - the sole change is that the spell may not be reduced below its original level. It in no way limits how metamagic costs are reduced, only limits what you can do with them.

Allowing negative adjustments allows you to drop the spell below its stated level. Ergo, it's not allowed.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 09:38 PM
Allowing negative adjustments allows you to drop the spell below its stated level. Ergo, it's not allowed.

Not when you combine it with other metamagic feats.

olentu
2009-08-30, 09:38 PM
Allowing negative adjustments allows you to drop the spell below its stated level. Ergo, it's not allowed.

That does not really follow.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:44 PM
Not when you combine it with other metamagic feats.

Even then. The fact that you can add more metamagic feats to keep it from going below the stated level doesn't matter.

To use an analogy, the fact that someone could wear a kevlar vest doesn't make it legal for me to shoot someone.

olentu
2009-08-30, 09:47 PM
Even then. The fact that you can add more metamagic feats to keep it from going below the stated level doesn't matter.

To use an analogy, the fact that someone could wear a kevlar vest doesn't make it legal for me to shoot someone.

On the other hand one can say that the fact that you could shoot someone does not make it illegal to properly own a firearm.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 09:48 PM
It is illiegal to run people over with my car, but that doesnt make it illiegal to drive.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:50 PM
It is illiegal to run people over with my car, but that doesnt make it illiegal to drive.

It does make it illegal to drive on the sidewalk, or to cite the previous post, illegal to use the gun outside of specific circumstances.

You get the feat. That's the legal use. Negatives aren't legal. Period. Don't like it? Take it up with WOTC and/or your DM.

But then that gets us back into 'well, if I show up with a fifth of Laphroaig for the DM, I can one shot anything in the game' territory.....

Alteran
2009-08-30, 09:51 PM
Allowing negative adjustments allows you to drop the spell below its stated level. Ergo, it's not allowed.

It would, unless the errata specifically prohibits that.

Oh hey, it does.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 09:54 PM
It does make it illegal to drive on the sidewalk, or to cite the previous post, illegal to use the gun outside of specific circumstances.

You get the feat. That's the legal use. Negatives aren't legal. Period. Don't like it? Take it up with WOTC and/or your DM.

But then that gets us back into 'well, if I show up with a fifth of Laphroaig for the DM, I can one shot anything in the game' territory.....

No, the law is that I cant drive on the sidewalk. Having a car enables me driving on the sidewalk, so the law forbids me from driving. Thats your logic.

Arcane thesis says the spell cannot occupy a lower slot than the base spell. A lightning substituted empowered fireball occupies a 4th level slot, which is not a lower level than fireball.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 09:55 PM
It would, unless the errata specifically prohibits that.

Oh hey, it does.

Yes, that's why negatives are disallowed. For that matter the errata doesn't even specify (nor do any of the listed examples) whether going from 1 to 0 is even allowed. Hence, DM's discretion.... and most of them are going to say no.

Alteran
2009-08-30, 09:56 PM
Yes, that's why negatives are disallowed.

Consider the following.

The errata says
"A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat."

This means, simply, that through no mechanism can Arcane Thesis be used to reduce the level of a spell below its original level. It does not mean that any method that could conceivably reduce the spell below its original level is banned, only that the method cannot actually lower the spell below its original level. So negative adjustments are fair game, they just can't be used to reduce a spell below it's original level. It's really quite clear.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 09:58 PM
Corwin, you need to read the rules more. (Level drain not working on HD, lol I'm still entertained by that one)


Even then. The fact that you can add more metamagic feats to keep it from going below the stated level doesn't matter.

To use an analogy, the fact that someone could wear a kevlar vest doesn't make it legal for me to shoot someone.

Not only is your intepretation of the rules incorrect, your analogy is also badly written.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 10:06 PM
Corwin, you need to read the rules more. (Level drain not working on HD, lol I'm still entertained by that one)



Not only is your intepretation of the rules incorrect, your analogy is also badly written.

Let's hear what's wrong with the analogy or what's wrong with my interpretation. Incantrix just plain doesn't work that way, and neither does arcane thesis. Your oneshot isn't possible at 15, and only technically possible at 20. (Still not bloody likely.)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 10:12 PM
I find it interesting you skipped several posts worth of explanation to ask me to explain what had just been explained.

Douglas
2009-08-30, 10:13 PM
Let's hear what's wrong with the analogy or what's wrong with my interpretation. Incantrix just plain doesn't work that way, and neither does arcane thesis. Your oneshot isn't possible at 15, and only technically possible at 20. (Still not bloody likely.)
You are arguing that because the end is banned, the means are also banned. This is faulty logic. Only the end is directly banned. Any potential means are banned if and only if they are used to attempt to achieve the end in question.

If your logic were correct, the exact same logic would, for example, make any and every potential murder weapon illegal to possess just because it is possible to use it to commit murder. This is clearly not the case.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 10:15 PM
It has been explained to you in the posts preceding mine, has it not?

Inadequately. To say the least.

Again, fifth of Laphroaig means I can do just about anything. This says nothing about whether or not a class is broken.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 10:17 PM
Inadequately. To say the least.

Again, fifth of Laphroaig means I can do just about anything. This says nothing about whether or not a class is broken.

You asked for a wizard that could one shot a solar. I gave you such a wizard that is rules legal, build with advice from people who have a far greater knowledge of the rules than you or I.

You got what you asked for. Stop complaining.

Besides, there were some generic wizard builds with no prestige classes that used Save or Dies to kill the Solar, without using remotely questionable feats or abilities, just by pumping the DCs. How about that?

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 10:24 PM
Even then. The fact that you can add more metamagic feats to keep it from going below the stated level doesn't matter.

The part wrong in this is that THIS IS NOT WHAT THE ERRATA SAYS! It says you can't use a lower level slot than normal for the spell. It says nothing about how you should come about to the adjustment; all it states is that you can't have end up in net negatives. It says nothing about anything inbetween.

BUT! As I said, it doesn't even matter. Even +0 adjustments are plenty:
Empowered Twinned Split Ray Maximized Heightened Enervation is:
+0
+2
+0
+1
+1

or a level 8 spell. Let's take Practical Metamagic for Twin and Maximize and it's a level 5 spell. Then let's take Quicken and take Practical Metamagic for it too and it's a level 6 spell.

See? No negative adjustments, perfectly doable by level 15 without even touching your highest level slots. So even though you're wrong, it does not even matter; the spell can be cast anyways.

And if you start arguing that the feats aren't sufficient, we need to do simple math:

Silverbrow Human [Dragon Magic; trades Human skill points for Dragon ancestry] Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10
1. Iron Will, Quicken Spell [Human]
3. Practical Metamagic: Quicken Spell
5. Split Ray [Wizard]
6. Twin Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Twin Spell
9. Arcane Thesis: Enervation, Empower Spell [Incantatrix]
12. Maximize Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell
15. Heighten Spell [Incantatrix], Whatever.

Hell, all we need to drop is Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell to give him Extend Spell + Persistent Spell (the spell still remains castable and that's better with regards to all his other spells). And this is without using Flaws, sources of bonus feats or anything of the sort. If dropping Practical Metamagic: Twin Spell (which makes our spell 8th level Quickened, 7th not Quickened - still castable), we could also cram e.g. Craft Contingent Spell in there.

Note that all our other spells can be Quickened for 2 spell levels too. And that we have access to practically whatever metamagic we want.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 10:28 PM
You still haven't told me, Corwin, how this Solar has his summons (rounds/level), Shield of Faith (minutes/level) and other short term buffs up just as the wizard comes into the battlefield.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-30, 10:37 PM
Allowing negative adjustments allows you to drop the spell below its stated level. Ergo, it's not allowed.

Cure light wounds gives people HP. HP can't go above a character's limit.

Therefore, cure light wounds cannot heal people, as it would let them go above their normal limit!



THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

FMArthur
2009-08-30, 10:39 PM
The part wrong in this is that THIS IS NOT WHAT THE ERRATA SAYS! It says you can't use a lower level slot than normal for the spell. It says nothing about how you should come about to the adjustment; all it states is that you can't have end up in net negatives. It says nothing about anything inbetween.

BUT! As I said, it doesn't even matter. Even +0 adjustments are plenty:
Empowered Twinned Split Ray Maximized Heightened Enervation is:
+0
+2
+0
+1
+1

or a level 8 spell. Let's take Practical Metamagic for Twin and Maximize and it's a level 5 spell. Then let's take Quicken and take Practical Metamagic for it too and it's a level 6 spell.

See? No negative adjustments, perfectly doable by level 15 without even touching your highest level slots. So even though you're wrong, it does not even matter; the spell can be cast anyways.

And if you start arguing that the feats aren't sufficient, we need to do simple math:

Silverbrow Human [Dragon Magic; trades Human skill points for Dragon ancestry] Wizard 5/Incantatrix 10
1. Iron Will, Quicken Spell [Human]
3. Practical Metamagic: Quicken Spell
5. Split Ray [Wizard]
6. Twin Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Twin Spell
9. Arcane Thesis: Enervation, Empower Spell [Incantatrix]
12. Maximize Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell
15. Heighten Spell [Incantatrix], Whatever.

Hell, all we need to drop is Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell to give him Extend Spell + Persistent Spell (the spell still remains castable and that's better with regards to all his other spells). And this is without using Flaws, sources of bonus feats or anything of the sort. If dropping Practical Metamagic: Twin Spell (which makes our spell 8th level Quickened, 7th not Quickened - still castable), we could also cram e.g. Craft Contingent Spell in there.

Note that all our other spells can be Quickened for 2 spell levels too. And that we have access to practically whatever metamagic we want.

How are you qualifying for Practical Metamagic without spontaneous casting? Maybe you could drop your 5th level feat for Spontaneous Divination? I see you're a Silverbrow Human already.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 10:40 PM
Cure light wounds gives people HP. HP can't go above a character's limit.

Therefore, cure light wounds cannot heal people, as it would let them go above their normal limit!



THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

Cure light wounds specifies that it heals 'up to the maximum health.' These feats don't. Therein lies the difference.

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 10:43 PM
How are you qualifying for Practical Metamagic without spontaneous casting? Maybe you could drop your 5th level feat for Spontaneous Divination? I see you're a Silverbrow Human already.

*shrug* There are feats to spare, sure. I did that without books handy so I didn't remember Practical had prerequisites other than Dragonblood. Toss Split Ray to level 3, take Spontaneous Divination at 5 and go to town.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-30, 10:43 PM
Book and page number for that quote please. I can't find anything in CLW's description that says anything about it only healing to a certain point in either my PHB or the SRD.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 10:48 PM
Book and page number for that quote please. I can't find anything in CLW's description that says anything about it only healing to a certain point in either my PHB or the SRD.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#healing

Douglas
2009-08-30, 10:49 PM
Ok. Now explain how that limit does not ban the means while the one in Arcane Thesis does.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 10:52 PM
Cure light wounds specifies that it heals 'up to the maximum health.' These feats don't. Therein lies the difference.

It doesn't say what happens in the middle, only that the end result may not be lower than the original spell level.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-30, 10:52 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/injuryandDeath.htm#healing

That's right! People can't be healed over their limit. CLW heals people, allowing them to go over their limit. Therefore CLW doesn't work.

Corwin? More like RAWwin, right?

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 10:52 PM
Ok. Now explain how that limit does not ban the means while the one in Arcane Thesis does.

There's no other use for negatives, there is for healing.

What you're suggesting is that any extra healing points should become at least temporary hit points, or should heal ability damage, or should cure poison.

They don't. The extra points just disappear. So do the extra points from arcane thesis. Even having free metamagic is questionable. Negatives aren't.

** edit **


That's right! People can't be healed over their limit. CLW heals people, allowing them to go over their limit. Therefore CLW doesn't work.

Corwin? More like RAWwin, right?

And RAW would be a problem..... why, exactly?

Them's the rules. If you don't like them, talk to your DM.... but don't expect everybody else to accept that those are the standards.

Kylarra
2009-08-30, 11:03 PM
Let's hear what's wrong with the analogy or what's wrong with my interpretation. Incantrix just plain doesn't work that way, and neither does arcane thesis. Your oneshot isn't possible at 15, and only technically possible at 20. (Still not bloody likely.)
You posit:

A is not allowed.
Some forms of B can achieve A.
Therefore B is illegal.

A is Arcane Thesis reducing a spell to less than its original spell level
B is negative metamagic adjustments.

However, this is not a tautology by any means as we can prove that B does not always lead to A.
(Multiple metamagic adjustments leading to a total adjustment of +0 or greater.)

We can similarly disprove by using substitution and reductio ad absurdem.

A is murder
B is a fork.

Murder is not allowed.
Forks can be used to murder.
Therefore forks are illegal.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-08-30, 11:03 PM
What book is Invisible Spell from? Cityscape? Those tricksy +0 adjustment metamagic feats seem more trouble then they're worth, given these shenanigans.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:05 PM
And RAW would be a problem..... why, exactly?


I think he was joking.

Oh, and there were a few wizard builds posted a few pages back that did not rely on much "controversial" material to kill the Solar with, so...?

Douglas
2009-08-30, 11:06 PM
There's no other use for negatives, there is for healing.
Yes, there is - mitigating the cost of other metamagic feats.


What you're suggesting is that any extra healing points should become at least temporary hit points, or should heal ability damage, or should cure poison.

They don't. The extra points just disappear.
If and only if the final result would otherwise put the character's hp above his max hp.


So do the extra points from arcane thesis.
If and only if they would result in a final spell slot level lower than the unmodified spell.


Even having free metamagic is questionable. Negatives aren't.
A negative final adjustment is, indeed, unquestionably not allowed. That says absolutely nothing on the subject of whether negative adjustments as part of a non-negative total are allowed.

You have two cases of a limit specifically on the final result. You are arguing that one of them applies only to the final result but the other applies to every step along the way. There is no basis whatsoever in RAW for such a distinction.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-30, 11:07 PM
There's no other use for negatives, there is for healing.

What you're suggesting is that any extra healing points should become at least temporary hit points, or should heal ability damage, or should cure poison.

They don't. The extra points just disappear. So do the extra points from arcane thesis. Even having free metamagic is questionable. Negatives aren't.

Uninjured character has 10 HP.
Character gets hit for 2 damage and is now at 8 HP.
Character gets CLW that heals him for 2 damage, putting him back at 10 HP.


Character has a level 1 spell.
Character uses a +1 metamagic on it to make it a level 2 spell.
Character uses a -1 metamagic on it to make it a level 1 spell again.


As long as you apply the -1 metamagic after the +1 one, it seems to add up to me!


And RAW would be a problem..... why, exactly?

YOU TELL ME BRO


Them's the rules. If you don't like them, talk to your DM.... but don't expect everybody else to accept that those are the standards.

oh u

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 11:08 PM
You posit:

A is not allowed.
Some forms of B can achieve A.
Therefore B is illegal.

A is Arcane Thesis reducing a spell to less than its original spell level
B is negative metamagic adjustments.

However, this is not a tautology by any means as we can prove that B does not always lead to A.

We can similarly disprove by using substitution and reductio ad absurdem.

A is murder
B is a fork.

Murder is not allowed.
Forks can be used to murder.
Therefore forks are illegal.

In most jurisdictions lockpicks are illegal unless you're a licensed locksmith. If something is primarily used for illegal activity, it's usually illegal. The exception is when there's a compelling reason to allow it anyway, and at that it's usually controlled so that only people with a specific reason can own or use whatever it is legally.

Ever been to a head shop? Notice how everything there is labelled 'for tobacco use only?' Same idea, and even that isn't enough in a lot of places. (Paraphernalia are still illegal even if you intend to smoke tobacco in them.)

** edit **

The point a lot of you seem to be missing is this:

You aren't supposed to be able to mitigate metamagic feat costs outside of a few very specific circumstances.

They're powerful effects. They're supposed to hurt. The fact that Incantrixes can mitigate such costs to some extent is part of what you people are complaining about in the first place, and now we see you claiming that the rules allow for even more of the same modification when they don't.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:10 PM
You are not addressing the rules argument over Arcane Thesis, nor have you discussed the other wizard builds that have fulfilled your request to be able to take down a Solar.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 11:11 PM
There's no other use for negatives, there is for healing.



Sure there is. The use is reducing other metamagics.


Imagine a new tax law. It says "Everyone must pay at least 1 dollar in tax"

Under your logic, tax deductions are now outlawed, since they can reduce your tax burden to the point that you pay less than 1 dollar.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:14 PM
Actually, funny thing about modern tax law, you see... *is shot with a tranqulizer dart by the IRS Special Enforcement Branch*

Douglas
2009-08-30, 11:15 PM
In most jurisdictions lockpicks are illegal unless you're a licensed locksmith. If something is primarily used for illegal activity, it's usually illegal. The exception is when there's a compelling reason to allow it anyway, and at that it's usually controlled so that only people with a specific reason can own or use whatever it is legally.

Ever been to a head shop? Notice how everything there is labelled 'for tobacco use only?' Same idea, and even that isn't enough in a lot of places. (Paraphernalia are still illegal even if you intend to smoke tobacco in them.)
Yet I imagine that all of those jurisdictions have laws that specifically state that lockpicks, etc. are illegal outside of certain circumstances, or have laws about that "primary use" thing plus a court ruling that the primary use of lockpicks is illegal activity. For your analogy to work, there would need to be a similar specific ban in the rules on negative adjustments used to pay for other metamagics rather than to get a negative final adjustment or a clear ruling that the primary use of negative individual adjustments is to get a negative final adjustment.


** edit **

The point a lot of you seem to be missing is this:

You aren't supposed to be able to mitigate metamagic feat costs outside of a few very specific circumstances.

They're powerful effects. They're supposed to hurt. The fact that Incantrixes can mitigate such costs to some extent is part of what you people are complaining about in the first place, and now we see you claiming that the rules allow for even more of the same modification when they don't.
Right, now explain what basis in the rules you have for stating that this is not one of those circumstances despite the fact that Arcane Thesis quite clearly is intended to reduce metamagic costs.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 11:16 PM
Sure there is. The use is reducing other metamagics.


Imagine a new tax law. It says "Everyone must pay at least 1 dollar in tax"

Under your logic, tax deductions are now outlawed, since they can reduce your tax burden to the point that you pay less than 1 dollar.

See above. Metamagics aren't supposed to be easy to reduce. They're supposed to be painful to use. Let's remember that these are the same people who gave us spontaneous casting at the cost of knowing enough spells to actually be useful.


You are not addressing the rules argument over Arcane Thesis, nor have you discussed the other wizard builds that have fulfilled your request to be able to take down a Solar.

Haven't addressed the other builds, nor am I going to. Incantrix was what you were complaining about, the others only prove the point even more. (They're apparently even more broken, by the standard you're applying, but you don't seem to have a problem with them....)

And actually the discussion we're having is the discussion about arcane thesis. Noooooooo workie. To quote Futurama, 'Arcane Thesis does not work that way!'

Kylarra
2009-08-30, 11:18 PM
I'll use another analogy since you're nitpicking (and not very successfully).

Hypothesize a coupon that requires you to spend at least $25 if you wish to receive 10% off. (not implausible, I received one for Target a while ago)

This doesn't mean that you cannot purchase items valued between $1-24 using the coupon, only that you cannot purchase them individually. As a group of items worth say $8, $9, and $10 individually, this is fine.



Make sense?

Similarly, Arcane thesis states that the spell may not be reduced below its original spell level. Well fine, then applying a single +0 metamagic to it does nothing to reduce spell levels, but in conjunction with several other metamagics, it can still result in a net +0 or greater adjustment, fulfilling Arcane Thesis's limitations.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:18 PM
Haven't addressed the other builds, nor am I going to. Incantrix was what you were complaining about, the others only prove the point even more. (They're apparently even more broken, by the standard you're applying, but you don't seem to have a problem with them....)
You seem to have me confused with someone else. At no point did I complain about Incantatrix.



And actually the discussion we're having is the discussion about arcane thesis. Noooooooo workie. To quote Futurama, 'Arcane Thesis does not work that way!'

Your knowledge of Futurama is unparalleled.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 11:18 PM
See above. Metamagics aren't supposed to be easy to reduce. They're supposed to be painful to use. Let's remember that these are the same people who gave us spontaneous casting at the cost of knowing enough spells to actually be useful.



"Supposed to be" has no impact even on RAI. Fighters are "supposed to be" just as good as wizards. Ice Storm is "supposed to be" just as good as enervation or black tentacles. Etc, etc.

Douglas
2009-08-30, 11:19 PM
See above. Metamagics aren't supposed to be easy to reduce. They're supposed to be painful to use. Let's remember that these are the same people who gave us spontaneous casting at the cost of knowing enough spells to actually be useful.
"Supposed to" is not always the same as "is actual reality".


Haven't addressed the other builds, nor am I going to. Incantrix was what you were complaining about, the others only prove the point even more. (They're apparently even more broken, by the standard you're applying, but you don't seem to have a problem with them....)
People complain Incantatrix is overpowered, and that Arcane Thesis is broken. This is quite thoroughly distinct from the matter of whether they are RAW.


And actually the discussion we're having is the discussion about arcane thesis. Noooooooo workie. To quote Futurama, 'Arcane Thesis does not work that way!'
You have yet to provide any non-fallacious logic to back up your conclusion.

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 11:24 PM
See above. Metamagics aren't supposed to be easy to reduce. They're supposed to be painful to use. Let's remember that these are the same people who gave us spontaneous casting at the cost of knowing enough spells to actually be useful.

So? None of that changes what Arcane Thesis does. It sounds like you're arguing Arcane Thesis SHOULDN'T do it, but that does not change what it does. You have not presented one ounce of an argument as to why rules wouldn't work as written. As written, rules state you can't reduce the level of a spell under its original level, full stop.

It does not stop you from reducing the level of the spell to its original level, and it does not in any way control how you do it. The only limitation rules give is that the spell level cannot be reduced the original level. If you look at any other metamagic feat, they specifically state they can't drop a metamagic feat's costs to negatives. Now, see Arcane Thesis. It lacks the ruling that every other such feat has. Therefore, it's an exception and it can do it. Indeed, it is the only thing within 3.5 rules that does it.

The feat was errata'd, but they chose to use a wording which in no way intervenes with the process of applying metamagic to a spell, only limits what the final outcome of the spell can be (not under the spell's original level).


What part of this are you arguing against, and by which rules? What book contains rules that contradict this? Page number and citation, please. Alternatively, you have no basis for your point and thus no argument, and we can move forward knowing that by RAW, Arcane Thesis allows negative adjustments. If you irrationally choose to decline this, no matter, the Incantatrix still has the firepower to gank the Solar on level 15.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-30, 11:29 PM
So? None of that changes what Arcane Thesis does. It sounds like you're arguing Arcane Thesis SHOULDN'T do it, but that does not change what it does. You have not presented one ounce of an argument as to why rules wouldn't work as written. As written, rules state you can't reduce the level of a spell under its original level, full stop.

It does not stop you from reducing the level of the spell to its original level, and it does not in any way control how you do it. The only limitation rules give is that the spell level cannot be reduced the original level. If you look at any other metamagic feat, they specifically state they can't drop a metamagic feat's costs to negatives. Now, see Arcane Thesis. It lacks the ruling that every other such feat has. Therefore, it's an exception and it can do it. Indeed, it is the only thing within 3.5 rules that does it.

The feat was errata'd, but they chose to use a wording which in no way intervenes with the process of applying metamagic to a spell, only limits what the final outcome of the spell can be (not under the spell's original level).


What part of this are you arguing against, and by which rules? What book contains rules that contradict this? Page number and citation, please. Alternatively, you have no basis for your point and thus no argument, and we can move forward knowing that by RAW, Arcane Thesis allows negative adjustments. If you irrationally choose to decline this, no matter, the Incantatrix still has the firepower to gank the Solar on level 15.

Any of you:

Show one published work (that hasn't since been errata'd) that allows you to use negatives.

I'll wait.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:29 PM
Show a published work that doesn't allow the use of Arcane Thesis as we envision it.

Also, do you mean like a novel or what?

Wings of Peace
2009-08-30, 11:30 PM
Yes, that's why negatives are disallowed. For that matter the errata doesn't even specify (nor do any of the listed examples) whether going from 1 to 0 is even allowed. Hence, DM's discretion.... and most of them are going to say no.

That is a terrible ethic to go by... Following this logic does that mean because the rules don't say our blood clots everyone in the world is a hemophiliac?

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 11:30 PM
Any of you:

Show one published work (that hasn't since been errata'd) that allows you to use negatives.

I'll wait.

The PHBII errata allows this. The errata has not been errated.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:31 PM
Oooh, does it?

SparkMandriller
2009-08-30, 11:32 PM
Any of you:

Show one published work (that hasn't since been errata'd) that allows you to use negatives.

I'll wait.

Are we only allowed to use names for our characters that have been in published works too?

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 11:33 PM
Oooh, does it?

Yeah, it rewords arcane thesis, and allows it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:33 PM
Also, are we sure about the legality of distributing copies of said published work? the mods have been known to get touchy about such things.

Eldariel
2009-08-30, 11:33 PM
Any of you:

Show one published work (that hasn't since been errata'd) that allows you to use negatives.

I'll wait.

Since nothing in any of the published works actually use Arcane Thesis, your request is moot. However, our request for RULES is not moot. Arcane Thesis specifically lacks the limitation other similar feats have, has an errata applied to it that does not add the usual limitation, but instead applies a different limitation that specifically enables what the feat by letter of rules does.

Arcane Thesis reduces each metamagic feat's cost by 1. It has no associated limitations other than the final spell level needs to be at least the same as the original spell level. As such, +1-adjustments are reduced to 0 and +0-adjustments are reduced to -1. This is basic arithmetics.

What rules citations do you have to counteract what the feat and the errata say?

Douglas
2009-08-30, 11:34 PM
Any of you:

Show one published work (that hasn't since been errata'd) that allows you to use negatives.

I'll wait.
I'd look up the official name of this logical fallacy, but I really need to get to sleep.

Oh, and PHBII with errata included.

quick_comment
2009-08-30, 11:35 PM
Corwin, show me a published book that makes use of warblade with horizion walker levels.

Oh, no book has that? I guess it cant be done.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-30, 11:40 PM
Does it have to be published by WotC, or is third party ok?

Kelpstrand
2009-08-31, 12:00 AM
Seriously Guys!

Let's take a look at some facts:

Arcane Thesis as written in the PHB allowed for:

Invisible Enervations as level 3 spells.
Invisible Split Rayed Enervations as level 4 spells.

Some people wanted to argue that the intent was not to allow these things.

WotC made an errata. Knowing specifically what things were currently possible, based on the fact that everyone on every forum had talked about them, they made an errata that:

Made using Invisible Enervations level 4 spells.
Had no effect on Invisible Split Rayed Enervations.

If there was any question as to the intent of Arcane Thesis, it's gone now.

They could have said "to a minimum of +1" they could have said "to a minimum of +0"

And yet, they did not. What they did do was specifically write an errata which said:

"You can no longer reduce the entire spell to a level lower than it's original level."

Why would you even write that if you couldn't use Arcane Thesis to reduce a metamagic effect's modifier to negative?

Answer: you wouldn't.

Corwin, you have a problem with the rules as they are written and intended.

So do I. I usually ban or nerf Arcane Thesis in my game. I do not pretend it doesn't work how it does in fact work.

quick_comment
2009-08-31, 12:04 AM
So do I. I usually ban or nerf Arcane Thesis in my game. I do not pretend it doesn't work how it does in fact work.

The fix I have for metamagic reducers is that each one applies once per spell, not once per metamagic.

So an incantrix with arcane thesis(enervation), can cast an empowered enervation as a 5th level spell. A maximized enervation would also be a 5th level spell. An invisible split ray enervation is a 5th level spell. A quickened enervation is a 6th level spell. An invisible quickened enervation is still a 6th level spell.

Myrmex
2009-08-31, 12:08 AM
@ Eldariel's build:
Very nice. Missing Persistent Spell, unfortunately, which for me, is the most powerful aspect of incantatrix. Having things up that should only last rounds/level for all day? Insanity!

Could you get the same results (dead Solar) with straight up damage? Energy draining attacks get thwarted by Death Ward. I'm thinking an energy substituted Scorching Ray, or Sonic Orb.


They could have said "to a minimum of +1" they could have said "to a minimum of +0"

And yet, they did not. What they did do was specifically write an errata which said:

"You can no longer reduce the entire spell to a level lower than it's original level."

Why would you even write that if you couldn't use Arcane Thesis to reduce a metamagic effect's modifier to negative?

Answer: you wouldn't.

An alternate hypothesis:
WotC did it for the lulz.

Kelpstrand
2009-08-31, 12:09 AM
The fix I have for metamagic reducers is that each one applies once per spell, not once per metamagic.

So an incantrix with arcane thesis(enervation), can cast an empowered enervation as a 5th level spell. A maximized enervation would also be a 5th level spell. An invisible split ray enervation is a 5th level spell. A quickened enervation is a 6th level spell. An invisible quickened enervation is still a 6th level spell.

There are a billion and one fixes for this sort of thing, I generally find that one to be too weak and make in general all metamagic reducers other than DMM and Incantatrix spellcraft checks not worth it.

Frankly, I'd like for attack metamagics to work without crazy specialization for maximum damage, and for Persist to go away.

Superglucose
2009-08-31, 12:14 AM
I'd look up the official name of this logical fallacy, but I really need to get to sleep.

It's Ad Populum as far as I can tell. Also, he's confusing cause an effect, and all of his arguments have been non-sequitur.

Corwith: you're wrong to an unbelievable extent. Solars have nothing on properly built Wizards (you can Test of Spite if you'd like, I'll do Core only). Also Arcane Thesis does work the way Pharaoh's Fist says. The reason everyone disagrees with you is because you are wrong, not because you are collectively smarter than all of them.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 12:18 AM
The reason everyone disagrees with you is because you are wrong, not because you are collectively smarter than all of them.

It is technically impossible for him to be collectively smarter than all of us because he is a singular being.

So unless he's a Borg, he can't be a collective.

Eldariel
2009-08-31, 12:42 AM
@ Eldariel's build:
Very nice. Missing Persistent Spell, unfortunately, which for me, is the most powerful aspect of incantatrix. Having things up that should only last rounds/level for all day? Insanity!

Yeah, I included notes on how to fit Extend and Persistent Spell in there; all it takes is one Practiced Metamagic less.


Could you get the same results (dead Solar) with straight up damage? Energy draining attacks get thwarted by Death Ward. I'm thinking an energy substituted Scorching Ray, or Sonic Orb.

Yeah, though that build would have more difficulty fitting Persistent Spell without negative adjustments (as Energy Substitution > Energy Admixture becomes a must when you go for damage, as does Searing Spell, and Admixture adds another +2 enhancement).

The good news is that as an Orb, it becomes infinitely more omni-usable and you don't need to feel bad about banning Necromancy. But yeah, it's doable. Taking the same guy:


1. Iron Will, Quicken Spell [Human]
3. Energy Substitution
5. Spontaneous Divination
6. Twin Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Twin Spell
9. Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, Empower Spell [Incantatrix]
12. Energy Admixture [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Quicken Spell
15. Heighten Spell [Incantatrix], Practical Metamagic: Energy Admixture

Now the levels go as follows:
Twin Spell +1
Empower Spell +0
Energy Admixture +1
Quicken Spell +1
Heighten Spell +1

For a level 8 slot. Without being able to use Split Ray, it becomes a lot more expensive and indeed, you'd want to fit Searing Spell (along with Persistent Spell) in there still.

Note that Solars have Regeneration and thus Enervation actually kills them while Orb of Fire merely knocks them out for a long while. You'd need Violate Spell or something similar (be evil) to actually kill them with an Orb.

Still, the above Orb does some 315 points of damage, which is sufficient to knock a Solar out for almost a minute. With one swift action. And yes, it would be way easier with Scorching Ray, but again, SR sucks.

Myrmex
2009-08-31, 01:15 AM
Thank you for the thorough explanation, Eldariel.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-31, 01:46 AM
Just posting this here for those curious about metamagics since it may have been lost in the Corwin Wars (Not intended to be an attack just an observation of the threads shift in direction.)

Classes that grant metamagic feats

Incantatrix (4)
Lore Master (1)
Mage of the Arcane Order (2)
Magical Trickster (1)
Spell Guard of Silverymoon (2)
War Wizard of Cormyr (2) [Requires three debateably rare feats. Not taking this class would yield more metamagic feats than taking it.]

Dip wise Lore Master, Magical Trickster, Incantatrix, and Spellguard of Silverymoon all give a bonus metamagic by at least second level and don't require horribly useless or weird feat investments.

quick_comment
2009-08-31, 01:48 AM
Dip wise Lore Master, Magical Trickster, Incantatrix, and Spellguard of Silverymoon all give a bonus metamagic by at least second level and don't require horribly useless or weird feat investments.

Spellguard requires combat casting.

Wings of Peace
2009-08-31, 01:56 AM
Spellguard requires combat casting. True. I wasn't sure whether to call that a bad thing or not though since a lot of caster prcs require combat casting so it has some practicality as a feat depending on your planned build.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 09:31 PM
It is technically impossible for him to be collectively smarter than all of us because he is a singular being.

So unless he's a Borg, he can't be a collective.

Actually it's not a question of being singularly or collectively smarter. You all just seem to be fundamentally incapable of staying on topic, so I'm done.

This has turned into a 'let's munchkin wizards in general' thread out of what was originally 'incantrixes aren't broken.' I'm not even going there, because quite frankly I don't care about the former. I also don't have the pile of sourcebooks that the entire forum has, nor do I have the time to plow through them to find which miniscule point you missed or got wrong.

Not 22 with something to prove anymore. Been there, done that. Starred as myself in the made for tv miniseries. If anything this thread has proven that incantrixes aren't broken, or if they are then the entire wizard class is broken, so we've got bigger issues.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 10:04 PM
If you didn't want this thread to involve optimized wizards, then you shouldn't have asked for one.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-31, 10:21 PM
If anything this thread has proven that incantrixes aren't broken, or if they are then the entire wizard class is broken, so we've got bigger issues.

You catch on quick!

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 10:26 PM
You catch on quick!

Somehow I suspect you're going to find some resistance to editing the entire wizard class out of the game, but hey, if you want to make the suggestion, knock yourself out.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 10:28 PM
No one said anything about editing it out, so what's that about?

SparkMandriller
2009-08-31, 10:33 PM
Somehow I suspect you're going to find some resistance to editing the entire wizard class out of the game, but hey, if you want to make the suggestion, knock yourself out.

Don't play wizards at full power.
Ask the people you play with not to play wizards at their full power.



MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 10:35 PM
Don't play wizards at full power.
Ask the people you play with not to play wizards at their full power.



MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 10:39 PM
That was helpful advice. Common sensical and all.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 10:41 PM
That was helpful advice. Common sensical and all.

We all know it's not going to happen, nor should it.

Anyone that considers wizards to be overpowered should play second edition for a while. Consider third edition to be compensation for that.

SparkMandriller
2009-08-31, 10:45 PM
So on one hand you think people shouldn't play anything but the most optimised characters possible.

And on the other hand you don't know how the rules work.


Doesn't that make making characters hard as hell?




Also uh Corwin it are you sure it shouldn't happen? Because I kinda think you should be playing with your friends. If one friend a asks friend b not to play a particular character, is it really that wrong if friend b refrains? They're, y'know, they're friends. They're meant to keep each other happy. That's what friends do.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 10:48 PM
So on one hand you think people shouldn't play anything but the most optimised characters possible.

And on the other hand you don't know how the rules work.


Doesn't that make making characters hard as hell?

Oh I'm well aware of how the rules work.

How they actually work. And my DM isn't as lenient as yours.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 10:49 PM
Oh I'm well aware of how the rules work.

How they actually work.


....all of which ignores the fact that as monsters.... Solars don't actually have levels to drain, per se. Just throwing that in there. Fell Drain isn't going to help you here.... and the damage reduction he's going to get if you're evil, (which if you're attacking a Solar, you probably are) and this starts to look much less impressive.
The part where level drain does affect creatures with HD, and DR doesn't apply to spells, makes me wonder...

SparkMandriller
2009-08-31, 10:50 PM
It's wierd, if you were so right about the rules I'd expect someone to actually agree with you. Over the course of seven pages. Just one person.

Very wierd.

Karsh
2009-08-31, 10:53 PM
And while we're on the subject of things we don't know about, does anyone have a link to the description of Cindy?
(I'm guessing she's some sort of Pun-Pun type, ultimately broken character construction?)

This is way late to the game, but I got a little fuzzy feeling when I saw Cindy come up.

Cindy is a character I made for a "Cheese your brains out" adventure on GitP that combines Incantatrix, Arcane Thesis, and the Embrace the Dark Chaos and Shun the Dark Chaos spells to become an absolute monster in combat. Her character sheet is here (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=5890)

While it's true that this build was based more on Arcane Thesis (and Embrace/Shun the Dark Chaos) than Incantatrix, it isn't doable without the PrC. Or, at least, it's much much harder to pull off to the extent that I did without it.

For those who don't have the inclination to look, Cindy is a 6 year-old little girl elf with the mind of a 400-year old Archmage (same person; magical experiment gone awry) who uses Arcane Thesis on Orb of Fire and proceeds to Empower, Maximize, Twin, Energy Substitute (Cold), Piercing Cold (ignores cold resistance, 1/2 damage to cold immune creatures), Fell Drain (Negative level per hit), Invisible, and Energy Admixture (Cold) it, resulting in two ranged touch attacks that allow no save (vs damage) and no SR dealing 180+15d6 cold damage and a negative level each with a Fort save or daze for 1 round as a 4th level spell. That's the equivalent of 66d6 damage, or, if both hit, 132d6 damage. The build is also only 18th level, so theoretically it could become even more absurd, especially if you could figure out how to get Split Ray on there, as well.

She is a bit of a glass cannon, but the insane part is that with her apocalyptic spell of death only taking a 4th level slot, she's free to use all her higher level spells to make sure she doesn't die.

It should also be noted that she was originally built to work as a team with her big brother, another Incantatrix, to also abuse the everliving-hell out of the Cooperative Metamagic ability.

Dublock
2009-08-31, 11:00 PM
you know I started reading the thread right after it was made and kept up with it and I have yet to see any good RAW examples that Arcane Thesis can't go into the negatives. I'm the type of person that needs those hard facts that haven't been provided yet.

Thanks for the Cindy sheet I was wondering about her :smallbiggrin:

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 11:04 PM
You tell me what's wrong with this statement.

You know, such as the part where level drain affects creatures with HD, and DR doesn't apply to spells.

It comes from the same place as a third level spell that can get through a lesser globe of invulnerability. :)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-08-31, 11:05 PM
It comes from the same place as a third level spell that can get through a lesser globe of invulnerability. :)
Heightened to fourth with a metamagic feat using one of my many spare feat slots.

Corwin Weber
2009-08-31, 11:14 PM
Heightened to fourth with a metamagic feat using one of my many spare feat slots.

After the fact.

I've known DM's that would have giggled as you cast that.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-31, 11:22 PM
you know I started reading the thread right after it was made and kept up with it and I have yet to see any good RAW examples that Arcane Thesis can't go into the negatives. I'm the type of person that needs those hard facts that haven't been provided yet.

Thanks for the Cindy sheet I was wondering about her :smallbiggrin:

IIRC, they fixed it in the errata only.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-08-31, 11:36 PM
IIRC, they fixed it in the errata only.No, they errata'd the feat in a way that specifically left using negative metamagics to cancel out higher-level ones viable.

Corwin Weber
2009-09-01, 12:04 AM
No, they errata'd the feat in a way that specifically left using negative metamagics to cancel out higher-level ones viable.

If it had specifically done that there would have been at least one example of such.

There isn't. Neither 0's nor negatives are in any of the examples.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-01, 12:07 AM
If it had specifically done that there would have been at least one example of such.

There isn't. Neither 0's nor negatives are in any of the examples.The errata states that you can't reduce the spells level below the base through the feat. The mere fact that that is an issue means that you can get negative metamagic.

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 12:08 AM
If it had specifically done that there would have been at least one example of such.

There isn't. Neither 0's nor negatives are in any of the examples.

Examples are not rules in any form. I cite the famous Abjurant Champion for whom mage armor was an abjuration in Complete Mage.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-01, 12:10 AM
Corwin we've already had this argument. It's not funny anymore.

Start a new argument please. A funny one.

quick_comment
2009-09-01, 12:21 AM
If it had specifically done that there would have been at least one example of such.

There isn't. Neither 0's nor negatives are in any of the examples.

If they didnt want to allow negative adjustments, why didnt they just use the same wording that they used for EVERY OTHER METAMAGIC REDUCER?

Incantrix, Dweomerkeeper, Improved Metamagic, Practical Metamagic and Easy Metamagic all say you cant reduce the adjustment to less than +1. Arcane thesis does not say this.

Corwin Weber
2009-09-01, 12:48 AM
If they didnt want to allow negative adjustments, why didnt they just use the same wording that they used for EVERY OTHER METAMAGIC REDUCER?

Incantrix, Dweomerkeeper, Improved Metamagic, Practical Metamagic and Easy Metamagic all say you cant reduce the adjustment to less than +1. Arcane thesis does not say this.

Given how many of the metamagic feats could easily be reduced to even just 0.... it's odd that none of their examples do so.

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 12:52 AM
Given how many of the metamagic feats could easily be reduced to even just 0.... it's odd that none of their examples do so.

*Cough ignored my post cough*


Examples are not rules in any form. I cite the famous Abjurant Champion for whom mage armor was an abjuration in Complete Mage.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-09-01, 12:54 AM
Given how many of the metamagic feats could easily be reduced to even just 0.... it's odd that none of their examples do so.WotC examples are bunk. There's the Abjurant Champion bonuses applyin to Conjuration spells, the Master of 9 who doesn't have the prerequisites for Mo9, and the example Good Cleric of a Good God casting an Evil spell. That's 3 off the top of my head and I can list several more without going to books. Examples do not imply RAW.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-01, 01:12 AM
Hey Corwin, while we're at it, why would a Solar get damage reduction specifically against people of evil alignment?

I know this is from back on page 2, but I only noticed now. I'm kinda slow.



I could understand if you'd just said they got damage reduction, even if you were wrong about it applying to spells, but specifying alignments confuses me. Requesting an explanation.

Wings of Peace
2009-09-01, 01:17 AM
Hey Corwin, while we're at it, why would a Solar get damage reduction specifically against people of evil alignment?

I know this is from back on page 2, but I only noticed now. I'm kinda slow.



I could understand if you'd just said they got damage reduction, even if you were wrong about it applying to spells, but specifying alignments confuses me. Requesting an explanation.

The alignment is part of it's entry. It's DR is penetrated by Evil and Epic weapons.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-01, 01:18 AM
But he said it'd get DR against evil characters. Like it only works against them.

Which is wierd. Isn't it?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-01, 06:24 AM
Examples are not rules in any form. I cite the famous Abjurant Champion for whom mage armor was an abjuration in Complete Mage.

Also, sorcerer's don't qualify for the Fiend Blooded prestige class until level 13 due to skill requirements, yet WotC's example build for the Fiend Blooded sorcerer is sorcerer 6/Fiend Blooded 10. WotC examples should not be taken seriously.

quick_comment
2009-09-01, 10:32 AM
Given how many of the metamagic feats could easily be reduced to even just 0.... it's odd that none of their examples do so.

Why is it odd? Most metamagic feats are more than +1

Leewei
2009-09-01, 03:47 PM
Just weighing in on Corwin v. Everyone, here.

Give up, Corwin. What you're arguing is Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. The basis for brokenness is RAW. And this is a game that by RAW allows for Earth Elementals to be Petrified.

Optimization isn't about what sane DMs allow, nor what you'd allow in any game you run. They're about uninterpreted rules as they appear in the source material.

Any DM would justifiably invoke rule zero on Arcane Thesis to make it work as you described. It's still a broken feat and rule zero, though. Unless some official errata update comes along (4E is out, fat chance there), you're still dealing with your ideal and not the published feat.

quick_comment
2009-09-01, 04:08 PM
He isnt even arguing RAI. RAI means doing a close reading of the text to determine what they intended. If they intended that arcane thesis work the same way as improved metamagic or the incantrix's capstone they would have written it the same way. Every other metamagic reducer is a copy and paste of the incantrix's ability. Arcane thesis is not.

RAW and RAI have no discrepancy here, but they are both broken. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

infinitypanda
2009-09-01, 06:20 PM
This thread is the forum equivalent of a car crash. I feel disgusted, but I can't look away.

Leewei
2009-09-01, 08:23 PM
Hahaha. Reminds me of a Marshall Law quote: "Why do men go to the zoo?"

Mind you, posting at this point makes me just another one of the monkeys.

Leewei
2009-09-01, 08:25 PM
...If they intended that arcane thesis work the same way as improved metamagic or the incantrix's capstone they would have written it the same way ...

Actually, by this logic, there is no such thing as RAI at all, since it implies rules are written as intended.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-01, 08:29 PM
Actually, by this logic, there is no such thing as RAI at all, since it implies rules are written as intended.

I think what he's saying is that RAW and RAI and Arcane Thesis are the same, because they applied specific errata to it that left its primary function (metamagic stacking) usable.

Douglas
2009-09-01, 08:32 PM
I think what he's saying is that RAW and RAI and Arcane Thesis are the same, because they applied specific errata to it that left its primary function (metamagic stacking) usable.
In particular, they wrote errata that strongly implied that they knew exactly what kind of abuse RAW character optimizers were using it for and, despite that knowledge, said nothing to explicitly and directly stop such abuse even though the wording required to do so would have been very short and simple.

The combination of "they knew about X abuse", "they issued errata", and "the errata did not ban X" is pretty compelling evidence that X is RAI.

Myrmex
2009-09-01, 11:16 PM
Corwin, why don't you address Eldariel's build that uses Incantatrix to solo a Solar at level 15 without any use of Arcane Thesis? You seem to be evading the fact that having persisted 8th level spells & casting level 10+ spells from 4th level is incredibly powerful, and obtainable pre-epic by only one class.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-09-02, 12:28 AM
This thread is hilarious! I just read the entire thing.

Corwin: You are debating against the finest of giantitp. All of them (or most in any case). Which is more likely: You are incorrect, or all of these extremely good optimizers are?

Leewei
2009-09-02, 10:47 AM
In particular, they wrote errata that strongly implied that they knew exactly what kind of abuse RAW character optimizers were using it for and, despite that knowledge, said nothing to explicitly and directly stop such abuse even though the wording required to do so would have been very short and simple.

The combination of "they knew about X abuse", "they issued errata", and "the errata did not ban X" is pretty compelling evidence that X is RAI.

Ah, I see now.

I'd point out that it seems more than a little odd that the rulesmakers intended for an Extended, Quickened mind fog to be cast at a lower level than a merely Quickened mind fog.

Intent doesn't follow from the lack of copy and pasting, either. I'd suggest that a few of the optimizers here have a far better grasp of the various class features and feats than the actual rulesmakers.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-02, 12:02 PM
Ah, I see now.

I'd point out that it seems more than a little odd that the rulesmakers intended for an Extended, Quickened mind fog to be cast at a lower level than a merely Quickened mind fog.

Intent doesn't follow from the lack of copy and pasting, either. I'd suggest that a few of the optimizers here have a far better grasp of the various class features and feats than the actual rulesmakers.

1) Extended Quickened Mind Fog is not a lower level than Quickened Mind Fog, using any of the builds so far presented.

2) It's not a lack of copy pasting.

The point is:

The new errata says "you cannot reduce the spell level to lower than it's original level"

This indicates that they are aware that you can use arcane thesis to reduce adjustments to negative, or else why would they make a specific errata limiting something that is impossible.

They also specifically used "original spell level" rather than just saying "you cannot reduce a metamagic adjustment below 0" which would have prevented both the use of +0 metas to reduce, and having a lower level spell.

1) The errata demonstrates conclusively that they knew about +0 metas being turned into -1s.

2) They explicitly choose to limit one use of that ability in a way that still allows you to create -1 metamagics adjustments.

Leewei
2009-09-02, 09:21 PM
1) Extended Quickened Mind Fog is not a lower level than Quickened Mind Fog, using any of the builds so far presented.


The metamagicked mind fog was my example, not one from the builds previously mentioned. I used it to show that negative levels probably weren't intended. It is essentially the same trick used on the Melf's unicorn arrow and enervation spells.



...This indicates that they are aware that you can use arcane thesis to reduce adjustments to negative, ...


No, it conclusively indicates no such intention. You're making an assumption -- one that I think is a bit shaky.

I'll try to restate my thoughts on this: Net negative levels from metamagic feats applied to spells is RAW but not RAI. I'm not debating the validity of this particular trick in the various builds that use it; I simply don't think it was intended in either the original feat writeup, nor in the errata'd version.



... or else why would they make a specific errata limiting something that is impossible.


Badly written errata would be my assertion. It seems plausible enough that the intent was to prevent abuse, however the replacement text contains an unintended loophole.

Given the numerous rules texts with similar issues that we read about in the optimization / broken / balance postings, this really should be anyone's first assumption about intent underlying screwball game mechanics.