PDA

View Full Version : Evokers suck? 3.5



ChrisDemilich
2009-12-31, 08:49 PM
Now, I have always played transmuters, or sometimes I'll play an illusionist for a change. And I have always agreed that direct damage spells are a weak option.

But recently, for a change, I decided to make an evoker, just for fun. I figured I'd play a bit, blast some orphanages, he'd die, and that would be that.

But.. He did really really well. Ending many encounters on the first or second turn. The reason I retired him was because he was too good, and the rest of my party was doing nothing. And this was not a weak party. We have one newbie playing a Ninja, but the others are veterans playing a Druid, a Warforged cleric, and a Barbarian/cheesy prestige classes.

Anyway, he was a grey elf evoker. I took the focused specialist variant, as well as the evoker varient to increase the caster level of my fire spells. I took the searing spell metamagic feat, as well as empower spell. Thanks to Metamagic school focus, and arcane thesis, I was able to cast empowered searing fireballs, with caster level 13, when I was level 8.

In case you did not know, searing spell makes your fire spells so hot, that they ignore fire resistance, and deal half damage to fire immunity.

I one hit killed the dragonne. And the group of Dwarven guards in the prison. And the ogre-mages who attacked us. And I two hit killed the undead Kraken. How is this underpowered?

I still like playing an illusionist more, since you can have a lot more fun, but I do not see why people seem to think that evokers are underpowered. I admit, the power of my evoker would not scale up well in higher levels. But for low to mid levels.. Anyway, your thoughts?

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 08:52 PM
Well, okay, sure, a character built entirely around using cheesy metamagic reduction is going to be quite powerful, no matter what spells he specialises in.

Evokers are only underpowered compared to other Wizard specialities. They're still freaking Wizards!

Kylarra
2009-12-31, 08:54 PM
Well, okay, sure, a character built entirely around using cheesy metamagic reduction is going to be quite powerful, no matter what spells he specialises in.

Evokers are only underpowered compared to other Wizard specialities. They're still freaking Wizards!Yeah this. It's not that evokers are a bad class in the overall schema of things, it's just that in comparison to other options, they're simply less optimal.

The Glyphstone
2009-12-31, 08:54 PM
Pretty much.

9000 < Evoker < Other Wizards.

ChrisDemilich
2009-12-31, 08:56 PM
That is very true. And I admit, it's a lot more fun to reshape the world around the enemy, make them question their sanity, make the DM wonder what could happen next, and turn my party into storming avatars of death.

But sometimes, blowing S**t up is satisfying..

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 08:56 PM
This is why you prepare Shadow Evocation every morning.

Or play a Shadowcraft Mage and prepare nothing but Heightened Silent Images.

ChrisDemilich
2009-12-31, 09:00 PM
Shadowcraft Mage. o.O

I am not familiar with them.. Yet. Time to peruse my books.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 09:01 PM
Races of Stone. Gnome-only, but Gnomes have a racial substitution class for Illusionist that's pretty awesome anyway, so I can't see why you wouldn't be a Gnome if you're an Illusionist.

ChrisDemilich
2009-12-31, 09:02 PM
If I am playing Illusionist, I alway go Whisper Gnome. :)

And yeah, I am reading Races of Stone right now. Getting to know the inticacies of Shadowcraft Mages... So I may break them.

Tyndmyr
2009-12-31, 09:03 PM
Specialized evoker/force missile mage could be fun. Stack on the usual metamagic cheese, and watch everything die.

Yeah, evocation is awesome if you want to kill something via hitpoints. It's one of the few schools that's fine to ban...but already perfectly fine to specialize in. Sure, orbs are great too. You specialized...you can still take other stuff.

That said, picking three schools to ban is tougher when you foc specialize in a traditional drop school like evocation. I'd typically drop illusion/enchant/necro, but that's a lot of schools to drop. It gets even worse if you opt to take up incantatrix.

In the end, people drop evocation not because it's actually bad, but because it's replacable.

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 09:04 PM
Heighten Spell, Earth Sense, Earth Spell, Arcane Disciple (Luck).

Congratulations, you're now casting 140% real Miracles from your 9th-level spell slots.

For even more fun, Signature Spell (Silent Image) - spontaneously convert any spell into any Evocation, Conjuration (Creation) or Conjuration (Summoning) spell.

ChrisDemilich
2009-12-31, 09:08 PM
Heighten Spell, Earth Sense, Earth Spell, Arcane Disciple (Luck).

Congratulations, you're now casting 140% real Miracles from your 9th-level spell slots.

For even more fun, Signature Spell (Silent Image) - spontaneously convert any spell into any Evocation, Conjuration (Creation) or Conjuration (Summoning) spell.

Hahahahaha! *copies down*

;D I like my wizards, with that extra cheese!

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 09:10 PM
There's a reason they're called Killer Gnomes.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-12-31, 11:31 PM
"You weak minded fools! If you had the strength of will to look past his illusionary fire, you would see that - OH GOD, IT BURNS! IT BURNS EVEN HOTTER THAN THE REAL THING!"

Yuki Akuma
2009-12-31, 11:34 PM
20d6 fire damage. Will save for 28d6. Reflex save for half.

:smallbiggrin:

Saintjebus
2010-01-01, 12:02 AM
"You weak minded fools! If you had the strength of will to look past his illusionary fire, you would see that - OH GOD, IT BURNS! IT BURNS EVEN HOTTER THAN THE REAL THING!"

I like this. Can I sig this?

NeoVid
2010-01-01, 12:09 AM
Yeah this. It's not that evokers are a bad class in the overall schema of things, it's just that in comparison to other options, they're simply less optimal.

"Least powerful wizard build" is about the same as "Least powerful nuclear weapon."

Optimystik
2010-01-01, 02:45 AM
OP: If your DM is allowing Arcane Thesis, don't waste it on an evoker!


Races of Stone. Gnome-only, but Gnomes have a racial substitution class for Illusionist that's pretty awesome anyway, so I can't see why you wouldn't be a Gnome if you're an Illusionist.

Actually, the adaptation section of SCM specifically suggests opening it up to any race.

Tokiko Mima
2010-01-01, 03:01 AM
"You weak minded fools! If you had the strength of will to look past his illusionary fire, you would see that - OH GOD, IT BURNS! IT BURNS EVEN HOTTER THAN THE REAL THING!"


Tammi Terrell says: This fireball..
http://bp3.blogger.com/_up6O60nnN4Q/SD3bZDDkXxI/AAAAAAAAAIo/gpalL71JLVI/s320/tammy.bmp
Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-01-01, 03:22 AM
Congratulations, you're now casting 140% real Miracles from your 6th-level spell slots.

For even more fun, Signature Spell (Silent Image) - spontaneously convert any spell into any Evocation, Conjuration (Creation) or Conjuration (Summoning) spell.

Fixed that for you.


Seriously, though, the Killer Gnome can be silly. Grab Residual Metamagic (Complete Mage) so your 0th-level Silent Images also become Miracles.

olentu
2010-01-01, 03:26 AM
Eh at least for the miracle part it really depends on just exactly what a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell as to whether one actually needs to take the feat arcane disciple (luck). It would be good to check if a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell means a evocation spell on the sorcerer or wizard spell list. Then since the only way that the trick would work is if arcane disciple and so forth add the spells to the sorcerer or wizard spell list thus if any sorcerer or wizard ever has taken arcane disciple (luck) then you would not have to as the spells are now on the sorcerer or wizard list. So one should check as to save a feat in that case and as the build can be somewhat feat starved this would be somewhat of a boon.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 03:44 AM
I like this. Can I sig this?

Yes, though I'm fairly sure someone else said it somewhere else before I did.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-01, 03:46 AM
Killer Gnome is an example of one of those cheese builds.

You can also try the Incantatrix Conjurer with orbs, if you want blasting. It's not unreasonable to be able to 1 shot a great wyrm dragon with high levels and meta abuse.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 06:55 AM
Actually, the adaptation section of SCM specifically suggests opening it up to any race.

That makes absolutely no difference to the fact that by default it's gnome-only.

Just like by default the Swordsage doesn't cast spells and the Erudite can only learn psionic powers.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-01, 07:06 AM
That makes absolutely no difference to the fact that by default it's gnome-only.

Just like by default the Swordsage doesn't cast spells and the Erudite can only learn psionic powers.

It does, however, show that the intent is to provide valid and legal variants.

By default, wizards don't get the ability to do 10 foot immediate action teleports at level 1.

But that doesn't change the fact that Abrupt Jaunt is a valid, legal variant.

Just as your statement doesn't change the fact that expanding the allowed races is explicitly recommended in the SCM entry.

Few people care about the default, and what the base is. People are more concerned with the legal, the allowed, and what the final product is.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 07:12 AM
The adaptation section isn't the same as the fully fleshed out variants. They're more along the lines of suggested house rules.

If you can convince your DM to let you play a Shadowcraft Mage without being a Gnome, more power to you, although I don't see why (due to Gnome Illusionists having Silent Image as a cantrip, it makes them slightly more powerful anyway).

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-01, 08:40 AM
The adaptation section isn't the same as the fully fleshed out variants. They're more along the lines of suggested house rules.

If you can convince your DM to let you play a Shadowcraft Mage without being a Gnome, more power to you, although I don't see why (due to Gnome Illusionists having Silent Image as a cantrip, it makes them slightly more powerful anyway).

There are other races that gain other benefits that are useful.

Note: They carry the same weight as any variant. They are optional selections that you can use or discard, as you see fit.

quiet1mi
2010-01-01, 08:51 AM
Favorite thread... because most things die when their HP hits -10...

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 08:57 AM
0 for monsters.

taltamir
2010-01-01, 09:09 AM
I think what hasn't been mentioned here is how easy it is to make a min maxed cheesed up evoker... it is a very simple concept, abuse metamagic reducers to get your damage to go up the wazoo.

As for one shotting the dragon... as a wizard, using other schools you could, at a lower level, one shot the dragon without rolling a single dice... its a simple case of "I decided to kill the dragon, so I did" and there is nothing it can do to resist. no saves, no nothing. Although, I guess with the right metamagic dice rolling can be taken out of the equation for the evoker too.

There is also the matter of defenses. the proper defense against evocation isn't "fire/ice/lightening/acid/sonic immunity/resistance" (although many things have it and its a hurdle to overcome), it is an optimized ref save with evasion.

Making a non evoker wizard shine requires more complicated and less intuitive planning, but overall nets you higher amounts of power if you can pull it off (char op experts can, the average person will have trouble even with guides). ok, I exaggerate... but it is less simple.
I would agree that blaster mages are underrated and underestimated compared to other mages if you allow meta reducers cheese.

part of the problem is, because certain things are so easy to defend against (blasting, mind effecting, etc), people don't use it, because people don't use it, people get complacent and don't bother having proper defenses.
I have been in a game where an enemy bbeg was a warmage with arcane thesised fireball... he went first... and TPKed with one fireball.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 09:15 AM
Making a non evoker wizard shine requires more complicated and less intuitive planning, but overall nets you higher amounts of power if you can pull it off (char op experts can, the average person will have trouble even with guides).


W to the TF?

taltamir
2010-01-01, 09:18 AM
W to the TF?

what? isn't it true?
you wanna be a cindy, you just stack metamagic + metamagic reducers... thats it.

you want to start optimizing your mage else where? well, now you gotta do all this legwork and planning. it can take many hours.

maybe I exaggerated a bit on how easy / hard it is to do either. but it is still easier.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 09:19 AM
Uh, being a non-evoker isn't hard. Pretty much all you have to do is flip through the Phb and read non blasty spells. Woah...I can stop time? I see that reaction a lot. Likewise, buffs aren't flashy, but everybody wants em.

This doesn't actually require a guide to be effective with. Just try lots of spells and keep what works.

I'm not saying that stacking metamagic reducers is hard, but that's not generally all there is to being a good evocation specialist. Cindy is technically a conjurer, for example. Sure, you can modify that guide to an evoker, but it kinda kills your "evokers are easier" idea.

taltamir
2010-01-01, 09:20 AM
thats another thing.. people always assume metamagic reducers are banned (crippling the would be evoker), but that other broken and cheesy spells are allowed.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 09:22 AM
thats another thing.. people always assume metamagic reducers are banned (crippling the would be evoker), but that other broken and cheesy spells are allowed.

I see nothing about metamagic reducers being assumed to be banned.

Non-Evokers can use them too!

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 09:24 AM
what? isn't it true?
No.


you wanna be a cindy, you just stack metamagic + metamagic reducers... thats it.
No, not even close. I have talked to Tippy and seen his build. You only see a shadow on the wall of the cave.


you want to start optimizing your mage else where? well, now you gotta do all this legwork and planning. it can take many hours.
You mean elsewhere other than Evocation? And no, no it doesn't.


maybe I exaggerated a bit on how easy / hard it is to do either. but it is still easier.
Let's see.

Transmutation buffing (includes Polymorph and Time Stop)

Or

Conjuration save or suck? (Only requires the spells and the Spell Focus feats)

Or

Summoning oriented (choose minions, summon/bind them)

Doesn't require more research than figuring out how to stack metamagic on evocations.

taltamir
2010-01-01, 09:26 AM
I see nothing about metamagic reducers being assumed to be banned.

Non-Evokers can use them too!

and evokers can break the action economy... no reason for an evoker not to use celerity and time stop like everyone else.

yea, ennervation gets more out of said metamagic reducer abuse. but then you have to deal with enemies who are immune.


Doesn't require more research than figuring out how to stack metamagic on evocations.

and yet the average person opens up the PHB for the first time, and makes a blaster wizard. you over estimate the average human being.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 09:32 AM
No, not even close. I have talked to Tippy and seen his build. You only see a shadow on the wall of the cave.

Definitely. Any truly optimized build isn't going to say "Hey, I found a great way to do damage" and stop there. Hell, an ubercharger can do that...the point of optimizing a wizard isn't to replicate what a melee chump can do.

So, generally, some form of invincibility or heavy duty protection is sought. Cindy is an incantatrix, for example, so persist buff cheese can be assumed. To make this really effective, you need to optimize spellcraft, since the DC for it is...high. IIRC, 18+modified spell level*3. Obviously, your feats are being burned almost entirely on damage and on PrC entry, so you do this via magic items, stat boosters, a mw skill tool...the usual tricks.

This isn't in any way a complete list of the optimization required for a truly powerful caster, but it's a good example of the things that are often assumed, but not explicitly laid out along the way. These sorts of things tend to apply to evokers and nonevokers equally.

Pharaoh's Fist
2010-01-01, 09:32 AM
and evokers can break the action economy... no reason for an evoker not to use celerity and time stop like everyone else.
Unless they banned Transmutation. And only AoE evocations with a duration of more than instantaneous can be used in Time Stop. (That and DBF)



yea, ennervation gets more out of said metamagic reducer abuse. but then you have to deal with enemies who are immune.
Protection from Energy.



and yet the average person opens up the PHB for the first time, and makes a blaster wizard.
You have no way of knowing or proving this unless you have done exhaustive research on DnD players.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 09:34 AM
To be fair to him, blaster wizards are Traditional, and what the game was playtested for.

The first time I played a Wizard he was a blasty generalist. I feel so ashamed.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 09:38 AM
To be fair to him, blaster wizards are Traditional, and what the game was playtested for.

The first time I played a Wizard he was a blasty generalist. I feel so ashamed.

*shrug* I still play blasty generalists on occasion. Much, much better blasty generalists than before, but still.

Despite all the effectiveness of battlefield control, sometimes you just want to set the world on fire.

Volkov
2010-01-01, 09:38 AM
You have no way of knowing or proving this unless you have done exhaustive research on DnD players. As such, your statement is baseless and proves nothing. I repeat: you have no way of backing up what you say, so how can you expect anyone to believe it?

Every first-time wizard I DM picks evokers. Without fail. And I have dmed roughly 500 people. Starting when I was 8 years of age. With 50 of them being wizards.

taltamir
2010-01-01, 09:41 AM
To be fair to him, blaster wizards are Traditional, and what the game was playtested for.

The first time I played a Wizard he was a blasty generalist. I feel so ashamed.

So was I for my first time, so do I feel about my first time :)
so was everyone I bothered asking...
was it a scientific study with a sufficiently large pool of people questioned? no...
it might be conjecture, but that doesn't mean it isn't true (nor does it mean that it is proven to be true)...

actually... I am gonna make a poll about this. "what was your first wizard".
Before I do, what do you think would be good ideas for the various "types"? I don't want to skew it via my choice of wording.

EDIT:

Every first-time wizard I DM picks evokers. Without fail. And I have dmed roughly 500 people. Starting when I was 8 years of age. With 50 of them being wizards.

wow, that is a lot of blaster wizards :)
and a lot of DMed people too. how many years have you been DMing?

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 09:41 AM
Every first-time wizard I DM picks evokers. Without fail. And I have dmed roughly 500 people. With 50 of them being wizards.

Doesn't mean it's easier to build. The entire game assumes wizards are blasty, and examples are set accordingly. Plus, it's not like most first timers even bother to read all the spells. Oh look...fireball. That sounds cool.

Factor in that popular options tend to reinforce themselves(how often have you heard magic missile or fireball recommended as good spells?), and it's clear that how hard something is may not be a huge factor in how popular it is.

Volkov
2010-01-01, 09:46 AM
So was I for my first time, so do I feel about my first time :)
so was everyone I bothered asking...
was it a scientific study with a sufficiently large pool of people questioned? no...
it might be conjecture, but that doesn't mean it isn't true (nor does it mean that it is proven to be true)...

actually... I am gonna make a poll about this. "what was your first wizard".
Before I do, what do you think would be good ideas for the various "types"? I don't want to skew it via my choice of wording.

EDIT:


wow, that is a lot of blaster wizards :)
Granted the games were quite silly before I was ten. My mother found it adorable. Of course back then the only language I knew was Russian, so you wouldn't be able to understand a word I was saying.

Kylarra
2010-01-01, 11:41 AM
Another factor in evokers being first time wizards might just be the attraction to actually dealing damage. True, you can get more mileage through various control spells, but that's not as obvious to the uninitiated as "woah I can deal <x> damage in a single shot to <target area>." It's not like most first time players sit down and weigh the options all that heavily or have the experience to think about the mileage they'd be getting from grease vs magic missile, etc.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-01, 12:32 PM
Another factor in evokers being first time wizards might just be the attraction to actually dealing damage. True, you can get more mileage through various control spells, but that's not as obvious to the uninitiated as "woah I can deal <x> damage in a single shot to <target area>." It's not like most first time players sit down and weigh the options all that heavily or have the experience to think about the mileage they'd be getting from grease vs magic missile, etc.

Heck, I know experienced players who still do this all the time.

nekomata2
2010-01-01, 01:19 PM
Another factor in evokers being first time wizards might just be the attraction to actually dealing damage. True, you can get more mileage through various control spells, but that's not as obvious to the uninitiated as "woah I can deal <x> damage in a single shot to <target area>." It's not like most first time players sit down and weigh the options all that heavily or have the experience to think about the mileage they'd be getting from grease vs magic missile, etc.

This. I was never much of a blasty wizard, even early on, I always liked Transmutation..., my noob group's sorcerer does this. When she got 3rd level spells, she wanted suggestions on good ones, I told her like 10, she then went and picked fireball. She told me it doesn't feel like she's contributing if she doesn't deal damage.

Crow
2010-01-01, 02:24 PM
Let's be honest here. It IS pretty boring waiting for the rest of the group to mop up after you've dropped a major save-or-lose on someone. You COULD speed up the whole thing if you wanted, but the battle is already won, so why waste another spell?

So you end up waiting around "not contributing", even though your initial contribution was plenty enough.

Yuki Akuma
2010-01-01, 02:30 PM
You can always plink away with your crossbow to help mop up. I'm sure there'll be some weak critters you can coup de grace.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 02:33 PM
Thats the biggest reason why I enjoy reserve feats. Better than a crossbow, and less boring than waiting.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-01-01, 02:39 PM
Let's be honest here. It IS pretty boring waiting for the rest of the group to mop up after you've dropped a major save-or-lose on someone. You COULD speed up the whole thing if you wanted, but the battle is already won, so why waste another spell?

So you end up waiting around "not contributing", even though your initial contribution was plenty enough.

Actually, as a caster, I love rounds when I don't have to cast anything. Each round of inactivity gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling as I smile about all the spells I didn't have to cast.

nightwyrm
2010-01-01, 03:43 PM
Actually, as a caster, I love rounds when I don't have to cast anything. Each round of inactivity gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling as I smile about all the spells I didn't have to cast.

It does tend to get a bit boring though. My wizard casts glitterdust, the monsters fail their saves, the rest of the party spends the next three rounds mopping up, my wizard starts making lunch in the meantime. As a player, something does seem to be missing when you're not touching the dice for the whole combat and waiting around for 10-15 mins not doing anything.

Amphetryon
2010-01-01, 03:47 PM
Actually, as a caster, I love rounds when I don't have to cast anything. Each round of inactivity gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling as I smile about all the spells I didn't have to cast.
I actually have had DMs try to reduce my share of XP for those situations. The logic, for want of a better word, was that I only did one round worth of action, and killed none of the critters myself. I was mildly perturbed by this.

EDIT: typonese

Draz74
2010-01-01, 04:00 PM
I actually have had DMs try to reduce my share of XP for those situations. The logic, for want of a better word, was that I only did one round worth of action, and killed none of the critters myself. I was mildly perturbed by this.

"Uh, wait, Solid Fog has a Concentration duration! I was concentrating on it all those rounds!" *bluff check vs. DM*

But seriously, that's sickeningly dumb. :smallyuk:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-01-01, 04:24 PM
I actually have had DMs try to reduce my share of XP for those situations. The logic, for want of a better word, was that I only did one round worth of action, and killed none of the critters myself. I was mildly perturbed by this.

EDIT: typonese

Quick fix to that: have a crossbow ready so you're "doing something" for the rest of the rounds of clean-up. If said DM still gives you trouble, just say you're saving slots for the next fight. Or for tea, because, really, free tea from Minor Creation is always a great pick-me-up after you've finished telling the janitors what to do.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 06:55 PM
I actually have had DMs try to reduce my share of XP for those situations. The logic, for want of a better word, was that I only did one round worth of action, and killed none of the critters myself. I was mildly perturbed by this.

EDIT: typonese

This sort of thing leads me to display exactly how much I can do without killing people.

Ernir
2010-01-01, 07:27 PM
Pff. Direct damgage/Evokers only suck if you didn't optimize hard enough to kill anything in one hit.

Dimers
2010-01-01, 08:25 PM
actually... I am gonna make a poll about this. "what was your first wizard".

Not that you've made the poll yet, but ... my first was an illusionist, because 2nd-ed had this big ol' section about the craziness you could pull off with illusion spells. That was back when basically all illusions were "shadow conjuration" / "shadow evocation" type -- real enough to K.O. if the target believed 'em, with the further cheese that no save was allowed unless the target had some solid reason to disbelieve.

@ OP: Evokers don't suck. They RP as well as anything else does. Just ask Vaarsuvius.

taltamir
2010-01-01, 08:28 PM
Not that you've made the poll yet, but ... my first was an illusionist, because 2nd-ed had this big ol' section about the craziness you could pull off with illusion spells. That was back when basically all illusions were "shadow conjuration" / "shadow evocation" type -- real enough to K.O. if the target believed 'em, with the further cheese that no save was allowed unless the target had some solid reason to disbelieve.

@ OP: Evokers don't suck. They RP as well as anything else does. Just ask Vaarsuvius.

for a wizard who is at least level 11, V is doing very very poorly.

I was waiting to hear some suggestions on how to phrase the poll fairly so that the phrasing doesn't skew the results.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 08:29 PM
Yeah...my group has a fair number of 2nd ed players, and illusionists are regarded surprisingly highly, since in third ed, they're really not that insane. Not bad, mind you, but not really more crazy than other wizard builds.

Xenogears
2010-01-01, 08:35 PM
for a wizard who is at least level 11, V is doing very very poorly.

I was waiting to hear some suggestions on how to phrase the poll fairly so that the phrasing doesn't skew the results.

Maybe go for something like:

Blaster
Enchanter
Illusionist
Buffer/Debuffer
Anything Else

They all seem fairly nuetral answers but are mostly clear on what they mean as well.

ex cathedra
2010-01-01, 08:40 PM
Yeah...my group has a fair number of 2nd ed players, and illusionists are regarded surprisingly highly, since in third ed, they're really not that insane. Not bad, mind you, but not really more crazy than other wizard builds.

Aside from Shadowcraft Mages, of course.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 08:42 PM
Aside from Shadowcraft Mages, of course.

True enough. That's a whole nother level of craziness. Most of the people I know that talk up illusionists don't even know about that class though.

ChrisDemilich
2010-01-01, 09:00 PM
Funny you should mention that. As we speak, I am making a shadowcraft Mage to replace the evoker that started this thread.

The only problem being, that it is a level 8 campaign, and Shadowcraft mage only comes into it's own after level 9. 10 if you take Master specialist 4, for the +2 DC to Illusion spells.

So, I am trying to find ways to make him optimized until he is able to get Shadow Illusion.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-01, 09:02 PM
*shrug* He's a wizard. It's not like he's exactly weak at level 8.

Since you're going illusion themed, just abuse stacking miss changes. If you cant die, everything else is mostly irrelevant.

Chemus
2010-01-01, 11:29 PM
Evokers get more glory. Though you often compete directly with the damage dealers when playing one, getting the kill can be a heady thing.

That said, I've never played one. In 2ed, I took one look at the length of the Transmutation school and fell in love. And as Dimers and Tyndmyr said, in 2ed Illusion rocked! Phantasmal Force a pit underneath the BBEG, and if he fails, he thinks that he falls. If the image made is patently unsurvivable he gets a bonus to the save, but you could SoD with a 1st level spell done right. And as a gnome, there was a kit that gave you the ability to have even those creatures normally immune to illusion having to make saves.

Gnomes have had nifty toys for a long time.

Back OT, Evokers don't suck, but since they can be replaced almost entirely by two spells, and outclassed at their own game with Shadowcraft Mage, there's little reason to play one. And often if you do, you're duplicating abilities that someone else could be providing rather than standing around looking silly.

dyslexicfaser
2010-01-01, 11:43 PM
And of course, there is always fun to be had with Force Missile Mage, if that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think? If so, I've forgotten).

If you want to be a mobile artillery platform, there are worse ways to do it. And you never have to use anything more complicated than the humble Magic Missile. Flaming magic missiles. Electric magic missiles. Acidic missiles. Sonic missiles. Quickened Twinned Repeating missiles.

taltamir
2010-01-02, 05:13 AM
*shrug* He's a wizard. It's not like he's exactly weak at level 8.

Since you're going illusion themed, just abuse stacking miss changes. If you cant die, everything else is mostly irrelevant.

wait wait... illusion miss chances STACK!?
I never got what the big deal was about the miss chance since I thought it capped at 50%... so on a full attack by something mean you are still getting hit.
if miss chances stack then this just godly.


And of course, there is always fun to be had with Force Missile Mage, if that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think? If so, I've forgotten).

If you want to be a mobile artillery platform, there are worse ways to do it. And you never have to use anything more complicated than the humble Magic Missile. Flaming magic missiles. Electric magic missiles. Acidic missiles. Sonic missiles. Quickened Twinned Repeating missiles.

the energy type is more of a flavor thing... its the ability to ignore SR, and bypass spells and items that specifically block MM with an easy check that makes FMM nice. its just "I deal damage.. no questions ask"... then its just about abusing MM reducers to stack the most damage in one round.

mostlyharmful
2010-01-02, 05:26 AM
wait wait... illusion miss chances STACK!?
I never got what the big deal was about the miss chance since I thought it capped at 50%... so on a full attack by something mean you are still getting hit.
if miss chances stack then this just godly.

That depends on DM but there's different ways of getting miss chances that really should stack, blink, mirror image and displacement for instance, you could argue whether the Illusion spells will work together but the blinks all golden.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 05:33 AM
wait wait... illusion miss chances STACK!?
I never got what the big deal was about the miss chance since I thought it capped at 50%... so on a full attack by something mean you are still getting hit.
if miss chances stack then this just godly.


Some do. Concealment miss chances don't stack. The rules for concealment explicitly state this.

However, if you have a miss chance from concealment (say, Obscuring Mist), and a miss chance from another reason (say, having an Incorporeal form or the Blink Spell), then the attacker would need to roll a miss chance versus each of them seperately.

The reason miss chances are godly?

Let's look at blur. 20% miss chance.

Let's say you're being attacked by a kobold. It's AB is +5. Assuming it hits (vs your AC of let's say 16, for +2 dex and mage armor), it needs to roll again vs an effective AC of 10. The enemy went from a 50% accuracy to a 40% accuracy. That's the equivalent of having an AC of 18.

Let's say you're being attacked by a dragon. It's AB is +35. Assuming it hits (vs your AC of let's say 23, for +5 dex, Mage armor, Ring of Protection +4), it needs to roll again vs an effective AC of 40. The enemy went from a 95% accuracy to a 76% accuracy. That's the equivalent of having an AC of 41.

Let's say you're being attacked by the same dragon, except now you're in an Obscuring Mist, and you've got a blink spell active. The miss rolls of 20% and 50% are made, and the 95% hit chance just went to 38%. That's the equivalent of having an AC of 48.

Note how the higher your opponent's attack gets, the better it performs?

taltamir
2010-01-02, 05:34 AM
but blink is a double edge sword, sure they miss you, but you also miss them. even spells can go off in the astral plane and have no effect
granted, this isn't an issue with greater blink though.

I can see mirror image and displacement stacking... although mirror image has some confusing bits in the description; specifically, the images looking burned after being hit by a fireball (shouldn't they disappear when hit by a fireball, since its a hit). Is it referring to the real you being hit and some images not, or maybe only a targeted attack works, and not an AoO (makes magic missile useful here, one missile per image).
The specifying that people can close their eyes and are then unaffected by the spell, instead treated as if blind. This should probably apply to both mirror image and displacement... so basically, they are just a more convoluted glitterdust. I would guess that means listen checks to attack and then 50% miss chance.

PS. a dragon has blindsense, it ignores those miss chances.
EDIT: or does it?

Blindsense (Ex)
Dragons can pinpoint creatures within a distance of 60 feet. Opponents the dragon can’t actually see still have total concealment against the dragon.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 05:37 AM
I can see mirror image and displacement stacking... although mirror image has some confusing bits in the description; specifically, the images looking burned after being hit by a fireball (shouldn't they disappear when hit by a fireball, since its a hit). Is it referring to the real you being hit and some images not, or maybe only a targeted attack works, and not an AoO (makes magic missile useful here, one missile per image).
Fireball is not an attack.
Magic Missile is not an attack.
Scorching Ray is an attack.

Things are an attack if, and only if, they require an attack roll. If something disappears when attacked, then they only disappears if someone rolled a D20 to hit them.




PS. a dragon has blindsense, it ignores those miss chances.
Blindsight would do that. Blindsense does not. Blindsense merely pinpoints (which means, RAW, that it knows what square you are in). It does not allow it to ignore concealment based miss chances.

taltamir
2010-01-02, 05:38 AM
Fireball is not an attack.
Magic Missile is not an attack.
Scorching Ray is an attack.

Things are an attack if, and only if, they require an attack roll. If something disappears when attacked, then they only disappears if someone rolled a D20 to hit them.

ok those spells are a lot more valuable then I thought they were, now that I am not misinterpreting their mechanics in a way that nerfs them.

I was curious about what it means for invisibility + fireball...

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

tyckspoon
2010-01-02, 11:23 AM
I was curious about what it means for invisibility + fireball...

Invisibility specifically has a much broader definition of 'attack' than the general game. You break invisibility whenever you make a direct offensive action. You break a Mirror Image only when you specifically attempt to hit the Mirror Image protected target.

PhoenixRivers
2010-01-02, 11:37 AM
Actually, upon further review:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm

Attacks

Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Mirror image makes a special exception for area spells. However, non-spell area attacks (such as breath weapons) would bust every image at once.


Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball).
Bolded text is specific enough to be an exception.

dyslexicfaser
2010-01-02, 12:48 PM
the energy type is more of a flavor thing... its the ability to ignore SR, and bypass spells and items that specifically block MM with an easy check that makes FMM nice. its just "I deal damage.. no questions ask"... then its just about abusing MM reducers to stack the most damage in one round.
I like using the Energy Gestalt feat and various combinations of those energy types to hit enemies with things like a freebie Nauseated.

Talya
2010-01-02, 01:25 PM
Magic Missile is wonderful for popping a bunch of mirror images, btw. Best reason to keep it in your spell list...there are few better ways to blow a level one spell.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-02, 01:53 PM
wait wait... illusion miss chances STACK!?
I never got what the big deal was about the miss chance since I thought it capped at 50%... so on a full attack by something mean you are still getting hit.
if miss chances stack then this just godly.

To be technical, not all miss chances stack. For instance, many of them grant miss chances via concealment, and in such instances, you take only the better one.

However, if you use something like mirror image or it's beefy cousin, that alone gives you a much higher than 50% miss chance, and not via concealment. If you get an additional miss chance by using blur, or some other method of concealing both you and the images, then the chance for you to be missed goes through the roof.

There are counters, of course. If they close their eyes, they're down to standard blindfighting penalties. If they magic missile all your images away, you're down to concealment. True Seeing will make all the illusion based miss chances irrelevant.

But against regular ol' mooks, it's basic invulnerability.

Optimystik
2010-01-02, 06:38 PM
Maybe go for something like:

Blaster
Enchanter
Illusionist
Buffer/Debuffer
Anything Else

They all seem fairly nuetral answers but are mostly clear on what they mean as well.

I would specify other archetypes, like Summoner and Spellsword (how many new wizard players want to be Gandalf? My guess is a lot.) Diviner might also be a heavy draw in a mystery-type campaign. And then there's Anti-caster/Abjurer/Nullmage, whose magic exists primarily to screw with other casters through dispels and countermagic.

Superglucose
2010-01-28, 12:29 AM
Actually, as a caster, I love rounds when I don't have to cast anything. Each round of inactivity gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling as I smile about all the spells I didn't have to cast.
Much agreed. If I can end the encounter in one or two spells, I will gladly take pleasure in NOT doing anything.

Leon
2010-01-28, 01:15 AM
Inside this Board (ie Theoretical Musing) - Consensus is that they suck.

Outside this board (ie Real Games) - Your mileage may vary, Ive seen them do really well and really badly depending on who is playing them.

Shadowbane
2010-01-28, 01:43 AM
I love evokers. I really do. In fact, most of the wizards I roll up are evokers. Really good ones, yes, but still evokers.

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 07:05 AM
Inside this Board (ie Theoretical Musing) - Consensus is that they suck.

Evokers don't "suck" - they are still Wizards, and even if they ban Conjuration and Transmutation (the mere thought makes me twitch, but whatever), they still easily outshine the Warmage - they are just suboptimal compared to other specialists.

A wizard who bans Conj and Trans loses a lot of options, but he can still target all three saves (Evoc targets reflex, Ench/Illus target Will, Necro targets fort.) He can still zip around on his greater floating disk. He can still throw up fake walls (Silent Image) or real ones (Wall of Force/Fire) to control the grid. He can still protect himself and his party with Illusion/Abjuration. And they can still solve the campaign with the right Divinations.

A wizard's time is better spent away from evocation, because for the most part all it can do is blast. Well, Conjurers can blast equally well (thanks to orbs, and summoning things to blast for them), while other classes tend to blast even better (i.e. Psions and Sorcerers.)

2xMachina
2010-01-28, 07:47 AM
To be technical, not all miss chances stack. For instance, many of them grant miss chances via concealment, and in such instances, you take only the better one.

However, if you use something like mirror image or it's beefy cousin, that alone gives you a much higher than 50% miss chance, and not via concealment. If you get an additional miss chance by using blur, or some other method of concealing both you and the images, then the chance for you to be missed goes through the roof.

There are counters, of course. If they close their eyes, they're down to standard blindfighting penalties. If they magic missile all your images away, you're down to concealment. True Seeing will make all the illusion based miss chances irrelevant.

But against regular ol' mooks, it's basic invulnerability.

On the other hand, if you're fighting someone who uses this stuff, try out MiC's Illusion Bane +1. Ignores Miss Chance from illusion. Also can try to dispel it with a swift action. For another +2, you can steal the dispelled illusion. You can also use this to get Mirror Image (or other Personal Illusion buffs) on your melee. Simply get your Wizard to cast it on themselves, you try to dispel it. Then you can cast it on anything with a standard action.

In fact, I'd see no reason not to have a Illusion Theft weapon as a wizard. Now, you can buff your melee with personal Illusion spells.