PDA

View Full Version : Optimizing a Wizard - Specialization



Hootman
2010-02-11, 12:52 AM
Only minutes ago, I was reading a thread on the OotS Comic board about which members of the Order were the most optimized, and I saw something I didn't expect:

Almost NO ONE there thought that Vaarsuvius was well-optimized. Heck, most people thought xe was actually poorly built. While I know that I may not know the MOST about this game, I've always considered myself fairly capable with the Core Rules, so I have to ask the following questions:

1. Why are so many people dumping on Evocation, claiming that it is a vastly inferior specialization?
2. Moreover, why are people pushing CONJURATION, of all things, as a superior choice?
3. Do you have a particular school-specialization suggestion for someone trying to create a great and mighty wizard?

Please, PLEASE, I'm begging you, keep all discussion limited to the CORE RULES. For the purpose of this discussion, the Spell Compendium doesn't even exist. Neither do Prestige Classes.

Ok, ready? Go. And thanks in advance for not trying to light me on fire (or, as the case may be, summoning giant monsters to eat me).

Bugbeartrap
2010-02-11, 01:01 AM
Okay, trying to answer before the ninjas.

In short, evocation is a poor school because it lacks variety and other schools can do damage as well. Conjuration is usually a Good School tm to specialize in because it has so many good spells to choose from: summoning, teleportation, Glitterdust, and outside of core, the Orb spells (which is conjuration doing it better than evocation). Theres a million other reasons why conj is better than evo but thats the gist of it.

P.S. I personally prefer to specialize in divination and ban evocation. Not much lost and one can always take the shadow spells if one really wants Wind Wall.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 01:01 AM
Likely ninja'd, but here goes...

1. Why are so many people dumping on Evocation, claiming that it is a vastly inferior specialization?Q. What is it that evocation does, and how does it do it?

A. It deals damage. And it generally allows SR and saving throws (usually Reflex). Not to mention energy immunities.

Dealing damage is not a good use of a wizard's resources, because anyone, even a commoner, can deal damage. Any wizard that wants to deal damage ought to be summoning or using effects that also debuff as they damage, as these are things that only spellcasters generally can do.

And the vast majority of evocation can be imitated or bested by conjuration and (for non-damaging spells) illusion (through greater/shadow evocation).


2. Moreover, why are people pushing CONJURATION, of all things, as a superior choice?Q. What is it that conjuration does, and how does it do it?

A. Pretty much everything. It summons. It creates magical and nonmagical items. It teleports. It hinders opponents (through many and varied ways). It creates barriers. It has tons of debuffs. It also deals damage, and in ways that are vastly superior to anything evocation does.

Conjuration very rarely ever allows SR, and often doesn't even allow saving throws. This is many times superior to evocation's way of doing things.


3. Do you have a particular school-specialization suggestion for someone trying to create a great and mighty wizard?Conjuration, transmutation, necromancy, or illusion. For the right kind of wizard, divination, as well. Divination is much better, in general, than evocation ever will be, for Knowledge Is Power.

And now you know!TMI

SaintRidley
2010-02-11, 01:01 AM
Teleport is in Conjuration.

Teleport is incredibly important.

V has barred Conjuration.


Every other specialisation, even none, has more to offer in terms of worth than Evocation. Hitting things with save or die/save or suck is a lot better than having to deal with targeting a save, hoping they don't have resistances and hoping you don't roll poorly for damage.

Direct damage spells are generally a trap.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-11, 01:01 AM
Evocation does one thing, and doesn't even do it that well. w/ evocatoin you do damage, but chances are the party barbarian will be doing significantly more if he is at all well built. Conjuration has a TON of good spells. what would you rather do, blind everyone in 10 feet and give -40 to hide checks, or 4d6 damage?

EDIT: Triple ninja?!? holy ****.

drengnikrafe
2010-02-11, 01:04 AM
1) Meet Shadow Evocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowevocation.htm) and it's big brother. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowevocationgreater.htm)
That's right, most of a school can be copied with a spell. You're probably pumping DCs anyway. Not to mention direct damage is not your best course of action when it comes to casting.

2) A lot of really nifty spells are the orb spells. But they're non core. How about a 3rd level spell that makes targets useless? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stinkingCloud.htm) Okay, so I don't know conjuration very well, but this can still be a really nifty spell.

3) Seems like everyone these days says "Conjuration or Transmutation".


Also, there's a good chance I was ninja'd, and even if I wasn't, other people will have more precise answers. They're more used to doing this kind of stuff, I'm just relaying information.

EDIT: Hah... Ninja'd. 4 times, no less.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-02-11, 01:08 AM
To be fair, V barred Conjuration before it included the Teleport line. IMO Transmutation was by far the best school in 3.0, if only for 3.0 Haste, so V didn't make an egregious error, given the available information.

Preview Post is a good way to check if you've been ninja'd.

/tangent

Anyway, speaking of ninjas, the logic ninja's batman guide put it best with regard to direct damage. Wherever that thing is.

Hootman
2010-02-11, 01:15 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 01:20 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.Conjuration can do nearly everything Evocation can do, but better. For everything it can't, illusion can.

See my post above; I explained it quite well.

TLDR: Evocation primarily deals damage, but allows SR, saves, and resistances/immunities. Commoners can also deal damage, and many classes specialize in doing so...without using limited resources. Conjuration deals damage as well (often without SR, saves, or resistances/immunities that sometimes make evocation a wasted spell slot) and does a ton of other stuff too. For non-damage, illusion works just as well (using only two spells, to boot).

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-11, 01:21 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.

I'm sorry, how is blindness to at least two creatures not better than 4d6 damage? if it can't see you, it can't hurt you.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-11, 01:21 AM
Except Conjuration specialists are not limited to *just* Conjuration schools. Evocation is considered the weakest of all schools

Aside from that, Grease and Glitterdust are held in fairly high esteem. Tentacles are pretty great.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-02-11, 01:21 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.

Glitterdust: One of the best 2nd level spells in the game. It reveals invisibility and keeps them from going invisible again. It blinds (effectively kills on a failed save) multiple enemies.

Fog Spells: Some of the best battlefield control spells in the game (particularly solid and acid fog, though fog cloud too to a lesser extent). They split up your enemies, allowing your pet fighter to focus on half as many people at once. Also can be used to hide your party's movements.

Summons: Gain 1-5 extra actions on your round.

Compare these to burn spells which, in general, don't do as much damage as a half-competent fighter would do in a hit.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 01:22 AM
There are a couple of good Evocation spells, you must admit. In core, there's Contingency. Outside of core, there's the awesome Invoke Magic. Miracle is also Evocation if you have some way of getting it.

drengnikrafe
2010-02-11, 01:24 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.

How about Complete Arcane's line of Orb spells?
Just about as good as evocation around 1st - 3rd level. Orbs move from lesser to normal at 4th spell level, and then it's keeping up with evocation, plus additional effects. Granted, it's not quite as versitile, but we're dealing with something like 10 spells as opposed to a whole school.
Plus, you can do a whole pile of other things with conjuration. Evocation is a one-trick pony that can be overcome by a large quantity of things. Like plenty of hit points. And that one's not even difficult.

EDIT: Got ninja'd 5 times this time.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-11, 01:24 AM
There are a couple of good Evocation spells, you must admit. In core, there's Contingency. Outside of core, there's the awesome Invoke Magic. Miracle is also Evocation if you have some way of getting it.

Indeed, wind wall, some burn spells, shatter and the like are useful, but you can always just get craft contingency.


How about Complete Arcane's line of Orb spells?
Just about as good as evocation around 1st - 3rd level. Orbs move from lesser to normal at 4th spell level, and then it's keeping up with evocation, plus additional effects. Granted, it's not quite as versitile, but we're dealing with something like 10 spells as opposed to a whole school.
Plus, you can do a whole pile of other things with conjuration. Evocation is a one-trick pony that can be overcome by a large quantity of things. Like plenty of hit points. And that one's not even difficult.

EDIT: Got ninja'd 5 times this time.

OP said stick to core only.

gorfnab
2010-02-11, 01:25 AM
1. Why are so many people dumping on Evocation, claiming that it is a vastly inferior specialization?
2. Moreover, why are people pushing CONJURATION, of all things, as a superior choice?
3. Do you have a particular school-specialization suggestion for someone trying to create a great and mighty wizard?


1. Outside of core, Conjuration has the best blasting spells, like the Orb spells. In core conjuration just has a more limited number of blasting spells. Also most of the evocation spells can be cast by using the spells Shadow Evocation and Greater Evocation, granted you need to have decent spell DC's to pull it off, or just summon or bind something that can cast it or has it as an SLA.

2. Not only can you blast with conjuration but summon as well. Don't have access to a particular spell? Summon something that can cast it or has it as an SLA. Conjuration also has all the nice teleportation spells. In core conjuration has awesome battlefield control (Grease, Web, Glitterdust, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Evard's Black Tentacles, Maze, and Walls of X).

3. Mostly Conjuration and Transmutation (Polymorph :smallbiggrin:) with Abjuration and Divination for backup/utility purposes.

Edit: Wow the ninjas are out in force today.

sonofzeal
2010-02-11, 01:25 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.
Evocation majors in Direct Damage, with a minor in Battlefield Control. Conjuration majors in Battlefield Control, with minors in Direct Damage, debuff, buff, utility, and just about everything else.


Direct Damage is generally poor for wizards for a few reasons. First, many wizard spells are able to end fights immediately, while DD almost always takes a while, during which the enemy can counterattack fully. Second, it tends to be the easiest things for enemies to resist, what with saving throws and SR and energy resistances and whatnot. Third, pretty much every other character can handle the damage side of things, while very few can do anything close to what a Wizard can in the other areas.

The conclusion, therefor, is that Direct Damage should rarely if ever be considered a Wizard's main priority, and hence Evocation is a very poor Specialist school.



....the counterargument is that Evocation actually has some pretty decent stuff outside of Direct Damage, and DD can sometimes be a deadly thing to have, especially with clever metamagicing. Really, the main thing is that Evocation overlaps too much with Conjuration specifically, and Conjuration is almost inarguably the better school (especially if SC or Completes are allowed with all their lovely lovely orb spells).

Mushroom Ninja
2010-02-11, 01:25 AM
How about Complete Arcane's line of Orb spells?
Just about as good as evocation around 1st - 3rd level. Orbs move from lesser to normal at 4th spell level, and then it's keeping up with evocation, plus additional effects. Granted, it's not quite as versitile, but we're dealing with something like 10 spells as opposed to a whole school.
Plus, you can do a whole pile of other things with conjuration. Evocation is a one-trick pony that can be overcome by a large quantity of things. Like plenty of hit points. And that one's not even difficult.

EDIT: Got ninja'd 5 times this time.

I think the OP wanted core only.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 01:26 AM
There are a couple of good Evocation spells, you must admit. In core, there's Contingency. Outside of core, there's the awesome Invoke Magic. Miracle is also Evocation if you have some way of getting it.Miracle, I'll grant you, though this too is better done through illusion (shadowcraft gnome!). However, the majority (including contingency) is done well enough via illusion. Oh, and conjuration (see: gate/summon a solar...or just planar bind an efreeti for 3 wishes/day).

Also, in contingency's specific case, you also have Craft Contingent Spell (which is orders of magnitude better).

Chineselegolas
2010-02-11, 01:27 AM
There aren't reasons to avoid it, merely others are more useful.
Fireball, does damage this round. Large area, so possibly hitting friends. And what usefulness does it have next round?

Enemy mage running around, summon a monster with a high grapple check and pin them down.
The fog spells trap the opponents down and then you can deal with them as you please.

Godskook
2010-02-11, 01:29 AM
Because Glitterdust is, hands-down, more powerful than any second level evocation spell in core. Because Glitterdust is not necessarily the best conjuration spell in core. *THAT* is why conjuration beats evocation. Because one spell beats another school's entire list for that level without being anything more than typical within its own school.

Because Grease + Heighten spell means that you've got a spell that will remain useful for your entire casting career, while no 'obvious'(read: damage-dealing) 1st level spell in evocation will be all that useful in high-level play simply by heightening it.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-02-11, 01:31 AM
Because Grease + Heighten spell means that you've got a spell that will remain useful for your entire casting career, while no 'obvious'(read: damage-dealing) 1st level spell in evocation will be all that useful in high-level play simply by heightening it.

Admittedly, once flight becomes more-or-less ubiquitous, grease looses some of its power, but your point holds firm for most things on the ground.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 01:32 AM
Miracle, I'll grant you, though this too is better done through illusion (shadowcraft gnome!). However, the majority (including contingency) is done well enough via illusion. Oh, and conjuration (see: gate/summon a solar...or just planar bind an efreeti for 3 wishes/day).

Also, in contingency's specific case, you also have Craft Contingent Spell (which is orders of magnitude better).

You can't shadow Invoke Magic (well, you can, but it's useless).

And no DM will ever allow Craft Contingent Spell, making its existence practically moot.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-11, 01:33 AM
Conjuration and Transmutation are two of the more popular specializations because both schools are very broad. Let's look at a quick summary:

Abjuration: protection
Conjuration: make things, move things
Divination: knowledge
Enchantment: control people
Evocation: explosions!
Illusion: make (fake) things, (pretend to) change things
Necromancy: injury and death. Also, zombies!
Transmutation: change things

Even if you didn't know what the actual spells did, Conjuration, Illusion, and Transmutation all stand out as inclusive and nonspecific. If you're specializing, that's good. The more stuff you can do with spells in your specialty school, the more it's like you got a huge power upgrade for free. Not exactly what wizards need, but why turn it down?

Conjuration in particular offers some very strong battlefield control effects, including all-stars like Grease, Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, and Solid Fog (and then continuing with the various Wall spells). It also gives Dimension Door, Teleport, and other movement spells, Summoning spells for versatility, and overpowered spells like Planar Binding, Major Creation, and Gate.

Transmutation tends to focus more on Buffs/Debuffs, with spells like Enlarge Person, Pyrotechnics, Fly, Haste, Slow, Greater Magic Weapon, Disintegrate, and so on. The signature broken spells are Alter Self, Polymorph, and Shapechange.

Illusion offers Silent Image, Color Spray, and Invisibility, plus a bunch of higher level variations on basically those three themes.

The rest of the schools tend to be either powerful but narrow (Enchantment, Necromancy), just plain weak (Abjuration, Evocation), or difficult to use (Divination).

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 01:33 AM
Admittedly, once flight becomes more-or-less ubiquitous, grease looses some of its power, but your point holds firm for most things on the ground.Don't forget that you can target, say, weapons.

Who needs Improved Disarm when one spell can repeatedly do so the entire fight?

Mushroom Ninja
2010-02-11, 01:35 AM
Relevant links:
TLN's Wizard Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002)
Treaentmonk's Wizard Guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0)

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-11, 01:36 AM
The rest of the schools tend to be either powerful but narrow (Enchantment, Necromancy), just plain weak (Abjuration, Evocation), or difficult to use (Divination).

Except that abjuration has the all powerful dispel magic, as well as some other very nifty protections.

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 01:36 AM
Everyone seems to be saying "Conjuration > Evocation", but no one is explaining WHY.

At lower levels, I can't see ANY reason to avoid Evocation spells--they deal considerable damage and have an even mix of "Save or Burn" and "Touch Class is a giant bullseye" spells. Conjuration is limited primarily to Summons, Glitterdust, Acid Arrow, fog spells, and Black Tentacles. I just don't see how any of those spells (aside from the Tentacles) stack up against a Fireball for single-round-usefulness.

Just in Core, a 3rd level Conjuration stands an equal chance of disabling the same spread of enemies as a fireball does of dealing full damage, and that's stinking cloud. Further, you can lob that just on the other side of the fighter and not worry about him catching on fire. Instead, he can smack anything that tries to get out that made its save, and poke anything that didn't while its down. Lasts at least 5 rounds. Now, what's the average of 5d6 again? 3.5 x 5 = 17.5, or less than most CR 2's. Unless the big bad is almost dead, you're better off crippling his offense, his spellcaster, his minions, and any mooks that might be in the area than you are lobbing a possible ticklebomb. If we include Transmutation, 3rd level gives us haste, the staple drug of choice from 5th level on for most adventurers. My wizards always have at least 3 spread throughout their arsenals, and if I have persist-tech, it's persistent. Heck, if I'm a swiftblade wizard, it's even non-dispellable and non-suppressable.

Now don't get me wrong...my iconic began life as a firemage in 1st/2nd Ed, when the elemental mages were the Billy Bad *** on the block. They got their usual wizard based progression, only faster access to some things, casting as a druid of their level with all the immunities (and their element right out of the gate), and finally an effective fighter level of 3/4 their level. When they flung fire, it hurt like hellfire, pun intended. They even had the 1st/2nd Ed version of AftS, in the form of Doomkill (10 mile/level radius, ground penetrating, saving throw number set by HD of enemy instead of enemy's class and HD, and the best even a greater god received to resist was 11+, or 50/50). Blasting even has it's place in 3rd Ed, either as a form of Mailman sorc, a War Weaver counterfiring another caster, or a SCM because they can, but for a Batman wizard, it's just plain outclassed by other more useful and productive options.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 01:36 AM
The rest of the schools tend to be either powerful but narrow (Enchantment, Necromancy), just plain weak (Abjuration, Evocation), or difficult to use (Divination).

You just called Abjuration weak.

Hand in your optimiser card. :smallwink:

mikej
2010-02-11, 01:39 AM
I see this a lot in real life gaming. Everyone at the table thinks damage is the only sole tactic for every class. To be honest it took me awhile to break out of that habit with and Fireball was my fav spell. When your class has soo many options to choose from why select one that certain classes can "only" do?

I get more mileage out of casting Haste on my nearest beatstick ally. Fireball is a 3rd level spell and of course so is Haste. While both are core.

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 01:43 AM
I see this a lot in real life gaming. Everyone at the table thinks damage is the only sole tactic for every class. To be honest it took me awhile to break out of that habit with and Fireball was my fav spell. When your class has soo many options to choose from why select one that certain classes can "only" do?

I get more mileage out of casting Haste on my nearest beatstick ally. Fireball is a 3rd level spell and of course so is Haste. While both are core.

Our latest ongoing game I finally gave in to my destructive urges and let loose with Scorching Rays (crazy CL boosting item the DM gave me made it fire 4 rays per shot, all empowered, all dice getting +2 damage, from EMpower Spell and Cold Spell Spec). The irony was that since the target was a dragon, I probably could have expended those same slots on empowered split ray reach spell shivering touches and made the thing cry like a baby, but that'd ruin the barb's, barb's, and rogue's day. Even at low levels, I love listening to the melee players compare kill counts, all forgetting they'd actually have to fight the enemies if I hadn't dumped them all on their keister with grease.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-11, 01:46 AM
You just called Abjuration weak.

Hand in your optimiser card. :smallwink:
If we're talking core-only, it's got good spells at 6th level and above, but honestly, how many games get past 11th level?

If you're a specialized Abjurer from levels 1-10, you are a sad panda. What's worse, the few spells you might actually want to cast are on the cleric list too. And they get better HD, saves, and BAB, domains, and turn undead.

The bottom line, though, is that you win D&D encounters by being active, not reactive. Abjuration doesn't let you do that.

mikej
2010-02-11, 01:53 AM
@ KellKheraptis

That's awesome. I do understand the want to do damage. It's tempting to dust off and revamp one of my earlier d&d characters. A Sorcerer who was obsessed with casting Fireball all the time. I had a real blast ( no pun intended ) back then. Although, Scorching Ray would certainly be more optimal.

Sadly, I can't do a lot of damage :smallfrown:

I was in big trouble when my Druid's animal companion out damage the other players in the first session.

sonofzeal
2010-02-11, 01:54 AM
The problem with Abjuration - in Core, almost everything you need it for can be handled better by the party Cleric if there is one. A Wizard should not be an emaciated Cleric who forgets to wear armor or how to swing a mace.

As good as some Abjuration is, other people can do it just as well if not better than you. Kinda like Direct Damage, really. You're far better off leaving both to those who don't have your more unique options.

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 02:01 AM
The problem with Abjuration - in Core, almost everything you need it for can be handled better by the party Cleric if there is one. A Wizard should not be an emaciated Cleric who forgets to wear armor or how to swing a mace.

As good as some Abjuration is, other people can do it just as well if not better than you. Kinda like Direct Damage, really. You're far better off leaving both to those who don't have your more unique options.

To emphasize this point, I once had a DM take issue with maw of chaos. Not meaning to add irony to the Abjuration kick just above me, but the part he didn't like was the d6/CL damage. I told him it would be no less lethal on my mage with half that, given my DC's. So we ran a test battle, and lo and behold, he realized what killed his 4 CR 20 encounters wasn't the damage (well, over time it did, but not the point), but the fact that as soon as the failboat loaded up and tipped over against the tsunami of my DC's, they were effectively helpless. Dazed+another impossible Save or Daze+nice long 30 round or more duration=screwed. For some reason he stopped complaining when my wizards would blast, because he knew I could do FAR worse if I played GOD (which of course I usually did, just not so aggressively...the druid and the FB both liked live prey). As it is, he wasn't too happy when I used a miracle to emulate giant size on the Dragon Wildshaped druid to fight another dragon. Pity that the poor dragon wasn't immune to venomfire...

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 02:06 AM
Thing about Abjuration is that multiple people doing it is actually very useful, because of how it interacts with the action economy. I'll admit that Clerics are good at it, but it's still an incredibly powerful school - and at its most useful when you can't rely on your other party members.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 02:20 AM
The Triad of low power core conjuration spells are Black Tentacles, Glitterdust, and Grease. They may not seem great, but they totally lock down most enemies, and enable the TWF rogue to full sneak attack them without retribution. TWF rogues are extremely deadly when they can SA a lot. A single blast for 7d6 damage from a 3rd level slot pales in comparison to the ability of making a creature immobile and taking 6d6/round from a 1st level spell slot.

If you tell your rogue "hey, I can make enemies useless so you don't have to burn 6 levels of feats on the retarded spring attack tree", you will be playing an entirely new game of D&D.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 02:22 AM
My wizards always have at least 3 spread throughout their arsenals, and if I have persist-tech, it's persistent.

How are you persisting a close range spell that affects multiple targets?

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 02:26 AM
How are you persisting a close range spell that affects multiple targets?

Given that most of my dedicated Wizards are also Incantatrices, they use Metamagic Effect, which doesn't give a hoot about the range of the spell, only that it is a "persistent magical effect." Add three levels of Incantatrix to an Iot7V, and you have the ultimate Abjurer :P Aka, god mode.

Felyndiira
2010-02-11, 02:44 AM
That's a very liberal reading of Metamagic Effect, to assume that it completely ignores any restrictive text on the metamagic effect itself and only applies the benefits. Then again, if your DM actually allowed Incantatrix, IotSV, and Arcane Disciple all at once...

Conjuration does lose a lot of its crowd-control power at high levels, though. Granted, Gate is cheap if your DM allows you to abuse it, but the fact that heightened grease is actually used says something about higher-level conjurations. Evocation at higher levels does gain a lot of utility, from the crowd-controlling ice spells and contingency to grasping hand, sunburst, and the likes. Resilient sphere is nice for CC and emergencies, as well.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 02:51 AM
That's a very liberal reading of Metamagic Effect, to assume that it completely ignores any restrictive text on the metamagic effect itself and only applies the benefits. Then again, if your DM actually allowed Incantatrix, IotSV, and Arcane Disciple all at once...

Kell apparently gets away with a lot of very liberal interpretations, so I'm not surprised.

Math_Mage
2010-02-11, 02:51 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 03:14 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.Judicious use of aiming?

Zaq
2010-02-11, 03:16 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.

There's a reason that most (powerful) wizards optimize initiative.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 03:17 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.

Put the enemy in the spell but on an edge where the rogue can get to. The rogue then laughs heartily as he stabs at the prone and/or balancing foe.


There's a reason that most (powerful) wizards optimize initiative.

Little harder to do in Core. If using Foresight, that's an 8th level spell and requires some questionable rules interpretations.

Killer Angel
2010-02-11, 03:17 AM
Almost NO ONE there thought that Vaarsuvius was well-optimized.

I suppose you can count me in the "almost" field. :smallwink:


Can we say that V. is optimized (sort of), in one of the worst field of magic, for a wizard?

That said, remember a thing.
Is not that an evoker is weak (if you like Tier system, he's still in T1).
It's that most of the other schools are better.
And, on a role-playing note, dealing direct damage, subtracts fun to the meleers.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 03:20 AM
I suppose you can count me in the "almost" field. :smallwink:There are better options than that for evokers. Energy Substitution or Energy Admixture and Searing Spell, for starters.

Not to mention that V should be wearing a tinfoil hat. Would've done wonders against that AMF-spamming dragon.

faceroll
2010-02-11, 03:21 AM
There are better options than that for evokers. Energy Substitution or Energy Admixture and Searing Spell, for starters.

The OotS seems to be a mostly core group.


Not to mention that V should be wearing a tinfoil hat. Would've done wonders against that AMF-spamming dragon.

I feel like Rich wouldn't be keen on that level of wizardouchery. The whole story arc where V gets real ultimate power by being a wizard demonstrates his stance on wizards- they're powerful, but ultimately fallible. Very fallible.

k, I think I'm going to go have a croissant. wine is thirsty business.

Killer Angel
2010-02-11, 03:22 AM
There are better options than that for evokers. Energy Substitution or Energy Admixture and Searing Spell, for starters.


Totally true, but I don't know if those are available options in the OotS' world.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 03:24 AM
The OotS seems to be a mostly core group.And mostly incompetent (obviously). :smalltongue:


I feel like Rich wouldn't be keen on that level of wizardouchery.It's a very simple defense against a very crippling spell. The only wizards that SHOULDN'T have such a hat are those who have no access to shrink item for some reason. And since it's one of the more fun, useful, and powerful spells in the game, I can only see it as being DM-nerfage.

Probably because it made for a better story.

Killer Angel
2010-02-11, 03:26 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.

Leaving aside things like shaping of area spells (Archmage), rogue can SA even with ranged attacks (from 30'), ranged weapons, when the enemy is at the limit of the area subjected by the spell effect, etc.

And, on initiative


Little harder to do in Core. If using Foresight, that's an 8th level spell and requires some questionable rules interpretations.

...or you can say that in Core it's easier. you need a feat and to pump your dex (probably your secondary stat)

faceroll
2010-02-11, 03:27 AM
It's a very simple defense against a very crippling spell.

so is a bucket of water for a very crippling condition

tomorow i'm putting eggs & bacon in these croissants and maybe some cheese

Runestar
2010-02-11, 03:41 AM
Speaking of spells like Grease and Glitterdust, how do you avoid friendly fire on them? People talk about letting the Rogue sneak attack blinded or prone enemies, but that means *someone* on your team is in the area of effect. Do they simply not do anything after the turn you cast them? That doesn't seem right.

The idea is the rogue SA the foe after it has been blinded. Glitterdust also has a fairly long range (at least 130ft or 26 squares, so the wizard can cast this while the rogue moves into position).

Also, glitterdust has a fairly small area (2x2 square), so with some careful aiming, you should be able to hit the foe while avoiding the party.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 03:52 AM
Rich obviously thinks that the classes are balanced.

Math_Mage
2010-02-11, 03:56 AM
Rich obviously thinks that the classes are balanced tried to balance the classes.

FIFY. :smalltongue:

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 04:42 AM
FIFY. :smalltongue:

Hmm, I wonder... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html)

Hootman
2010-02-11, 11:20 AM
@Magic9: That's more a function of Xykon's template rather than his class. Becoming undead would remove his age penalties (restoring Str/Dex/Con), while allowing him to keep his mental boosts. It's a pretty sweet gig, especially when you flex your bones at a wizard with a strength penalty and no significant melee-combat training.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 11:26 AM
@Magic9: That's more a function of Xykon's template rather than his class. Becoming undead would remove his age penalties (restoring Str/Dex/Con), while allowing him to keep his mental boosts. It's a pretty sweet gig, especially when you flex your bones at a wizard with a strength penalty and no significant melee-combat training.

That was not what I was referring to.

What I was referring to was the dialogue.


I used to think spells equaled power, too, back when I was alive. I've learned a lot since then. You know what does equal power? Power. Power equals power. Crazy, huh? But the type of power? Doesn't matter as much as you'd think. It turns out, everything is oddly balanced. Weird, but true.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 11:31 AM
Becoming undead would remove his age penalties (restoring Str/Dex/Con), while allowing him to keep his mental boosts.

Undeath restores Str/Dex? I'd assume that your decrepit body would stay decrepit.

Also, Xykon isn't exactly the most reliable narrator, so that thing about power is questionable.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 11:33 AM
Undeath restores Str/Dex? I'd assume that your decrepit body would stay decrepit.

Also, Xykon isn't exactly the most reliable narrator, so that thing about power is questionable.

From what I can tell, given the fact that it's raining anvils for that entire arc, he's speaking as the author there.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 11:37 AM
The only anvilicious message I saw there was that Vaarsuvius is a bloody idiot.

Superglucose
2010-02-11, 11:56 AM
I took the message of that to mean, "It doesn't matter how powerful your build is, it only matters if you know how to play it."

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 12:02 PM
I took the message of that to mean, "It doesn't matter how powerful your build is, it only matters if you know how to play it."

In other words, Rich thinks all the classes are balanced.

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 12:04 PM
In other words, Rich thinks all the classes are balanced.Well, you have to admit, at the very least, that even the most optimized GOD-wizard in existence won't be very awesome if all he can think to do is use standard-issue wands of fireball.

Narazil
2010-02-11, 12:04 PM
In other words, Rich thinks all the classes are balanced.
Yes, make a general consumption concerning a real life person's opinions, based on something a written character in a humorous comic said once.

Gnaeus
2010-02-11, 12:49 PM
I think that Rich also pointed out that the druid has class features that are more powerful than entire classes.

d13
2010-02-11, 02:38 PM
I think that Rich also pointed out that the druid has class features that are more powerful than entire classes.

Which is a well-known statement; what are you talking about?

Gnaeus
2010-02-11, 02:42 PM
Which is a well-known statement; what are you talking about?

It is not very consistent with an "all classes are balanced" outlook.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 02:47 PM
Relevant links:
TLN's Wizard Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002)
Treaentmonk's Wizard Guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0)

QFT. OP, read those handbooks. Those two explain everything you need to know.




Evocation being used to deal Direct Damage is an inferior use of resources considering an optimized Barbarian or Fighter or Druid (yes, Druids can tank) can do the exact same thing, but at will with no save (AC be damned). Evocation used for utility is somewhat weak, but it has several very good BC and utility spells (Floating Disk, Contingency). Core-only, Evocation sucks no matter what. Outside Core, even Evocation can be a good specialization (provided you do not focus on the damage it deals, or if you do you abuse the hell out of Metamagic).

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 02:51 PM
How about Complete Arcane's line of Orb spells?I could be mistaken, but I don't think that's part of core.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 02:54 PM
And mostly incompetent (obviously). :smalltongue:

Remember Lycan: The PCs in OotS are only as incompetent as the plot calls for. It's called an Idiot Ball for a reason.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 02:54 PM
And, on a role-playing note, dealing direct damage, subtracts fun to the meleers.That's not a roleplaying note, it might be a gameplay note.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 03:32 PM
Evocation and conjuration spells are a lot closer in power in core than many would think imo.

True, at some levels, there are better (=also more versatile) spells available from the conjuration school (e.g. 1,2 and 4). But at other levels, the evocation spells are better (e.g. 3,5,6). Specialising in and/or banning one or the other school will not lead to one choice always or even usually being better.

Some important aspects for this comparison:
- The illusion/shadow spells can be used to replicate BOTH evocation and conjuration spells.
- Another reason why many think conjuration is so much stronger are the calling spells which are HIGHLY DM-dependent (on how the DM roleplays the called creatures). Many who see conjuration way ahead here, though, equalise mistakenly that the creatures called are mindless slaves.
- Then, reflex saves are usually the lowest saves of opponents - and evocation spells target this weakness or still have some effect when the save is successful. Meanwhile, some no-save-no-SR spells of conjuration (like solid fog/black tentacles) can be escaped/avoided even without any save or SR.

- Giacomo

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-02-11, 03:44 PM
The thing about using illusion to imitate conjuration is you lose out on a ton of SR: No spells that you don't when copypastaing from evocation.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-11, 03:50 PM
- The illusion/shadow spells can be used to replicate BOTH evocation and conjuration spells.

Only creation and summoning ones. Notably NOT Teleportation, which means banning Conjuration is idiocy anyway.


- Then, reflex saves are usually the lowest saves of opponents - and evocation spells target this weakness or still have some effect when the save is successful. Meanwhile, some no-save-no-SR spells of conjuration (like solid fog/black tentacles) can be escaped/avoided even without any save or SR.

But evocation spells don't generally actually hurt the enemy. The only hit point that matters is the last one and all that.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 03:52 PM
- Another reason why many think conjuration is so much stronger are the calling spells which are HIGHLY DM-dependent (on how the DM roleplays the called creatures). Many who see conjuration way ahead here, though, equalise mistakenly that the creatures called are mindless slaves.
- Then, reflex saves are usually the lowest saves of opponents - and evocation spells target this weakness or still have some effect when the save is successful. Meanwhile, some no-save-no-SR spells of conjuration (like solid fog/black tentacles) can be escaped/avoided even without any save or SR.

- Giacomo

Gate is subject to the DM's rules? Because whatever you call is automatically your ***** for the next 1 round/CL.

Solid Fog has one reliable escape route: Teleportation. An Abjuration spell in Core blocks it, and another outside core (in Divination) delays it. One of those two lasts 24 hours, so if the caster is within range to catch you in Solid Fog you're more or less stuck for a minimum of 1-3 rounds.

Black Tentacles is actually very reliable against anything short of a Druid or Totemist (who can get Grapple checks higher than the potential Caster Level and Int modifier of the Wizard using the spell). Granted, teleporting is another way out, but that really doesn't help you when they follow the Tentacles up with a Stinking Cloud. Save or Lose your Standard action, every round. Hell, even escaping the Tentacles normally (without Teleportation) requires a Standard action as written.

What 3rd level Evocation spells are worth casting in Core? Not that many. That honor goes to Transmutation.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 04:02 PM
Gate is subject to the DM's rules? generally yes; since it's something that on the "easily abused" list, it's not uncommon for GM's have houserules about how the spell functions that make it so that the summoned creature is not necessaruly your slave for 1 round / CL. Generally I would expect it to be some sort of blurring of the lines between what constitutes an "immediate task" vs something that requires a "contractual service"

Even without house rules, you're probably dealing with a fairly intelligent creature. If you give it reason to be antagonistic toward you, or if it's in that creature's nature to be capricious, you run the risk of it interpreting your commands in the least convenient way, sometimes to disastrous results.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 04:04 PM
Gate is subject to the DM's rules? Because whatever you call is automatically your ***** for the next 1 round/CL.

Yes, but it's a 9th-level spell. Won't often see the light of day.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 04:04 PM
Gate is subject to the DM's rules? Because whatever you call is automatically your ***** for the next 1 round/CL.

But that is not what the spell says. The spell speaks about "a service". No slavery here. And certainly nothing beyond the 1 round/CL. The called being remains an npc run by the DM throughout.


Solid Fog has one reliable escape route: Teleportation. An Abjuration spell in Core blocks it, and another outside core (in Divination) delays it. One of those two lasts 24 hours, so if the caster is within range to catch you in Solid Fog you're more or less stuck for a minimum of 1-3 rounds.

Solid fog can be escaped from with a simple 4x move (since only the speed is reduced to 5ft, not the total movement someone can make inside). And there are many, many more ways out than just this or teleport.


Black Tentacles is actually very reliable against anything short of a Druid or Totemist (who can get Grapple checks higher than the potential Caster Level and Int modifier of the Wizard using the spell). Granted, teleporting is another way out, but that really doesn't help you when they follow the Tentacles up with a Stinking Cloud. Save or Lose your Standard action, every round. Hell, even escaping the Tentacles normally (without Teleportation) requires a Standard action as written.

Black tentacles come around in lvls 7-8. At those levels, there are quite a few large+ monsters that will be able to overcome the grapple check of +15/+16. Also, STR-focused melee classes with enlarge buffs can free themselves, as can escape artist rogues... and clerics have freedom of movement possibly cast in time...


What 3rd level Evocation spells are worth casting in Core? Not that many. That honor goes to Transmutation.

All of them are worth casting.

- Giacomo

Foryn Gilnith
2010-02-11, 04:08 PM
if the caster is within range to catch you in Solid Fog you're more or less stuck for a minimum of 1-3 rounds.

Solid fog can be escaped from with a simple 4x move (since only the speed is reduced to 5ft, not the total movement someone can make inside).

More or less stuck for 1 round, as Sinfire stated.


All of them are worth casting.

Daylight? Really?

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 04:08 PM
But that is not what the spell says. The spell speaks about "a service". No slavery here. And certainly nothing beyond the 1 round/CL. The called being remains an npc run by the DM throughout.

If you command it to fight for you, then there is no bargain, no give and take, no nothing. It has to do so.

It may not be mindless, but it will do so to the best of its ability (particularly if you call something that matches your alignment.)

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 04:10 PM
But that is not what the spell says. The spell speaks about "a service". No slavery here. And certainly nothing beyond the 1 round/CL. The called being remains an npc run by the DM throughout.

Which is why you end the encounter within 3 rounds, leaving 17 rounds of screwing with the called monster with it being unable to act, or just tell it to get back to it's own plane. Oh and:


A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.



Solid fog can be escaped from with a simple 4x move (since only the speed is reduced to 5ft, not the total movement someone can make inside). And there are many, many more ways out than just this or teleport.

Debated. Heavily debated. Even if it is true, a simple Grease spell is going to shut that option down too.


Black tentacles come around in lvls 7-8. At those levels, there are quite a few large+ monsters that will be able to overcome the grapple check of +15/+16. Also, STR-focused melee classes with enlarge buffs can free themselves, as can escape artist rogues... and clerics have freedom of movement possibly cast in time...

Those are very specific encounters. Any NPC is going to fall to that spell.


All of them are worth casting.

- Giacomo

FIREBALL AND LIGHTNING BOLT ARE NOT WORTH CASTING OVER HASTE!

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 04:41 PM
If you command it to fight for you, then there is no bargain, no give and take, no nothing. It has to do so.

It may not be mindless, but it will do so to the best of its ability (particularly if you call something that matches your alignment.)

Again, the spell states nothing about "to the best of its ability". It just says "fighting for you in a single battle" (which is an important distinction from the summoning spells where, indeed, the monsters have no choice at all with that wording being used "attacks your opponents to the best of its ability").


Which is why you end the encounter within 3 rounds, leaving 17 rounds of screwing with the called monster with it being unable to act, or just tell it to get back to it's own plane. Oh and:

I sincerely doubt that 3 rounds will end the encounter at those levels - though I would not exclude it. And yes, you do not need to pay anything for the service. But hey, it's a 9th level spell - what do you expect?:smallsmile:


Debated. Heavily debated. Even if it is true, a simple Grease spell is going to shut that option down too.

It is not heavily debated. It is only often misunderstood. I am starting to get the feeling that your preference of conjuration over evocation is at least partly based on rules misinterpretations.
Once more: Speed is not the same as movement total possible in a round. Speed is a defined game term and this is what the solid fog spell reduces, not the movement total.
And a simple grease spell suffers from not having line of sight any more to the target which may have moved in the meantime.


Those are very specific encounters. Any NPC is going to fall to that spell.

Any npc? Also the 7th level orc fighter? I don't know.
But yes, black tentacles is very powerful in some situations. In other situations, ice storm is more powerful.


FIREBALL AND LIGHTNING BOLT ARE NOT WORTH CASTING OVER HASTE!

Haste is not conjuration school. And: fireball and lightning bolt CAN be a better attacking option than haste in many instances.

Also, Foryn Gilnith - daylight lasts quite long and at that level is quite useful for a group in a dungeon when not everyone has darkvision.

- Giacomo

Ormagoden
2010-02-11, 04:50 PM
Relevant links:
TLN's Wizard Guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002)
Treaentmonk's Wizard Guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0)

I double plus this. ++

Mushroom ninja has pointed you to the path now you must walk it.

Nice advice today by the way Mushroom! Keep it flying.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 04:57 PM
Again, the spell states nothing about "to the best of its ability". It just says "fighting for you in a single battle" (which is an important distinction from the summoning spells where, indeed, the monsters have no choice at all with that wording being used "attacks your opponents to the best of its ability").

The spell does not say that - the monster's tactics in the MM do.

Unless you have a very compelling reason why it would deviate from those, the strategy it will follow in a fight is already written out.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 04:58 PM
particularly if you call something that matches your alignment.I would say that this is not necessarily the case, especially for evil or chaotic aligned creatures. CE, CN, and NE creatures are not generally know for being good team players, especially if you're essentially forcing them to do something. In many cases, those creatures are going to resent it, if only because they are being forced; it really depends on the nature of the creature in question.


Unless you have a very compelling reason why it would deviate from those, the strategy it will follow in a fight is already written out.I would say that the "very compelling reason" is quite obvious... many creatures aren't going to be happy with the idea that you've yanked them out of their living room and shoved them into a battle that they have no personal stake in with no payment. They're going to fight in the way that puts them in the least amount of danger, not necessarily the most effective way for you.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 05:04 PM
Except the spell requires them to fight, so you default to "tactics" in the MM at that point.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 05:04 PM
Except the spell requires them to fight, so you default to "tactics" in the MM at that point.No, not at all; it requires them to fight. It does not require them to use any particular tactics.

certainly, the MM has good guidelines to show how a creature will fight, but what they actually do is going to vary from individual to individual, and it will vary depending on the situation. Those aren't some sort of straightjacket that demands that the creature is played in some rigid manner.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-11, 05:07 PM
It is not heavily debated. It is only often misunderstood. I am starting to get the feeling that your preference of conjuration over evocation is at least partly based on rules misinterpretations.
Once more: Speed is not the same as movement total possible in a round. Speed is a defined game term and this is what the solid fog spell reduces, not the movement total.
You can't actually run in solid fog, though:

You can’t run or charge through any square that would hamper your movement.
At best, you could double move, at 10' per round.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-11, 05:17 PM
But that is not what the spell says. The spell speaks about "a service". No slavery here. And certainly nothing beyond the 1 round/CL. The called being remains an npc run by the DM throughout.Even so, it's a "get a powerful ally". And it should provide said benefit, since that's what it says it does, AND it costs a rather large sum of XP.


Solid fog can be escaped from with a simple 4x move (since only the speed is reduced to 5ft, not the total movement someone can make inside). And there are many, many more ways out than just this or teleport.So, in other words, every creature inside of it needs to use a full round action and deny themselves dex and the ability to make AoO's for a round to get out? Sounds good to me. If it were legal, that is. No running in fog, per rules.


Black tentacles come around in lvls 7-8. At those levels, there are quite a few large+ monsters that will be able to overcome the grapple check of +15/+16. Also, STR-focused melee classes with enlarge buffs can free themselves, as can escape artist rogues... and clerics have freedom of movement possibly cast in time...The vast majority of CR 7-8 creatures cannot reliably escape Black tentacles. This is another example of you stating information that has no basis in fact.

As for Fireball and Lightning bolt over haste?

Let's see. At the following levels:

{table=header]Level | Fireball/LB Damage | On a save
5 |5d6 (17.5) | 8-9 avg
6 | 6d6 (21) | 10-11 avg
7 | 7d6 (24.5) | 12-13 avg
8 | 8d6 (28) | 14 avg
9 | 9d6 (31.5) | 15-16 avg
10+ | 10d6 (35) | 12-13 avg[/table]

Now, let's compare, say we're trying to drop a low save enemy.
Fireball vs Hold Person/Glitterdust/Web
Fireball does 17-35 average damage. HP/Gd/Web removes the enemy from the fight.
Advantage: Control spell.

Let's say, it's a high save enemy. Compare vs Haste on party.
Fireball does 8-13 damage, possible 17-35 on a few nearby mooks (and possibly also on the party). Haste? Makes the entire party more accurate, better able to move, and harder to hit.
Advantage: Buff spell.

Energy Resistant enemy with good saves (such as some outsiders)

Compare vs Web.
Fireball/LB (assuming ER 10 to Fire and electricity): 0-3 damage.
Web: Entangled, half movement, and easier to hit.

As you can see, Fireball is readily and rapidly eclipsed by many standard spells.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 05:18 PM
You can't actually run in solid fog, though:

At best, you could double move, at 10' per round.

Hm, where did you find that? The quote I found in the SRD (in difficult terrain/movement section) sounds differently:
"You can’t run or charge across difficult terrain." And difficult terrain is defined.
Also, hampered movement is defined, with the effect being a penalty to the speed, but not a prevention of running (4x move).
And overall solid fog does not exactly fit into these terms (since it creates a completely independent magical effect whose exact effects are described in the spell).

- Giacomo

Gnaeus
2010-02-11, 05:22 PM
I would say that this is not necessarily the case, especially for evil or chaotic aligned creatures. CE, CN, and NE creatures are not generally know for being good team players, especially if you're essentially forcing them to do something. In many cases, those creatures are going to resent it, if only because they are being forced; it really depends on the nature of the creature in question.

I would say that the "very compelling reason" is quite obvious... many creatures aren't going to be happy with the idea that you've yanked them out of their living room and shoved them into a battle that they have no personal stake in with no payment. They're going to fight in the way that puts them in the least amount of danger, not necessarily the most effective way for you.

On the other hand, a lot of those same evil creatures love to fight, and would always enjoy a good beat down. You do get to pick what you gate in.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 05:26 PM
Even so, it's a "get a powerful ally". And it should provide said benefit, since that's what it says it does, AND it costs a rather large sum of XP.

Yes, gate gets a powerful ally, worthy of a 9th level spell. But not a slave, but an npc run by the DM with its own agenda.


So, in other words, every creature inside of it needs to use a full round action and deny themselves dex and the ability to make AoO's for a round to get out? Sounds good to me. If it were legal, that is. No running in fog, per rules.

Solid fog is a mixed bag. Good for delaying the enemy or even surrounding the wizard himself to get full concealment and protection from missile attacks.
But that's about it.
And you can run in a solid fog, as per the rules.
5ft around you is not full concealment, and the solid fog does not create difficult terrain.


The vast majority of CR 7-8 creatures cannot reliably escape Black tentacles. This is another example of you stating information that has no basis in fact.

Er...kindly check that again. The vast majority of core CR7-8 creatures are flying (meaning no tentacles effectivness in the first place), and/or large or larger (thus good grapple checks), and/or have means to SLA out with some ability or whatever.

- Giacomo

Lycanthromancer
2010-02-11, 05:26 PM
You can also use gate to pull in things dozens of CRs above you. Just make sure you pull in something incredibly angry and aggressive, and have a teleport (or superior invisibility) handy. You don't need to control it to sic it on your enemies.

For instance, my level 17 wizard can gate in a half-dozen hecatoncheires on your arse. So long as they kill you (and I can get away scott-free), who cares if I'm controlling their every action?

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 05:29 PM
For instance, my level 17 wizard can gate in a half-dozen hecatoncheires on your arse. So long as they kill you (and I can get away scott-free), who cares if I'm controlling their every action?

Hecantoncheires are not core. And it is somehow doubtful that a wizard can be absolutely sure from the knowledge checks he does (and the information the DM gives him) what kind of high-CR-creature will usually not come after him for revenge after the spell.
After all, the calling effect puts the creature into true danger - unlike the summoning spells.

- Giacomo

olentu
2010-02-11, 05:30 PM
PHB p. 163.



You can’t run or charge through any square that would hamper your movement.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 05:31 PM
No, not at all; it requires them to fight. It does not require them to use any particular tactics.

certainly, the MM has good guidelines to show how a creature will fight, but what they actually do is going to vary from individual to individual, and it will vary depending on the situation. Those aren't some sort of straightjacket that demands that the creature is played in some rigid manner.

And as I said before, your DM needs a good reason for it deviate from those tactics.

Why exactly wouldn't a Phane (CR 36) try to trap everything in null time once it makes the scene?

You can argue - it's going to just head to the nearest monster and swing, without using any abilities - to which I say, very unlikely.

Jacob Orlove
2010-02-11, 05:38 PM
Hm, where did you find that?
From the movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm) section of the SRD. The fog impairs visibility, which causes hampered movement (in the PHB, it even lists "darkness or fog" as examples of conditions that impair visibility).

A literal reading of the spell, though, would suggest that when a character "progresses at a speed of 5 feet" that they might in fact make 5' of progress per round. I'll admit it's ambiguous, but it'd be consistent with the rules for exceptionally hampered movement:

In some situations, your movement may be so hampered that you don’t have sufficient speed even to move 5 feet (1 square). In such a case, you may use a full-round action to move 5 feet (1 square) in any direction, even diagonally. Even though this looks like a 5-foot step, it’s not, and thus it provokes attacks of opportunity normally. (You can’t take advantage of this rule to move through impassable terrain or to move when all movement is prohibited to you.)

But even at 10' per round, you can buy a minimum of two rounds by putting them in the middle of the fog, or more if terrain permits.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-11, 05:43 PM
Yes, gate gets a powerful ally, worthy of a 9th level spell. But not a slave, but an npc run by the DM with its own agenda.So, it's a good spell.



Solid fog is a mixed bag. Good for delaying the enemy or even surrounding the wizard himself to get full concealment and protection from missile attacks.
But that's about it.
And you can run in a solid fog, as per the rules.
5ft around you is not full concealment, and the solid fog does not create difficult terrain.
Per SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#tacticalMovement)

Hampered Movement

Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.

If more than one condition applies, multiply together all additional costs that apply. (This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling)

In some situations, your movement may be so hampered that you don’t have sufficient speed even to move 5 feet (1 square). In such a case, you may use a full-round action to move 5 feet (1 square) in any direction, even diagonally. Even though this looks like a 5-foot step, it’s not, and thus it provokes attacks of opportunity normally. (You can’t take advantage of this rule to move through impassable terrain or to move when all movement is prohibited to you.)

You can’t run or charge through any square that would hamper your movement.
Nope. No running or charging if your movement is hampered. And if you can only see a few feet away? That's the very definition of "poor visibility".


Er...kindly check that again. The vast majority of core CR7-8 creatures are flying (meaning no tentacles effectivness in the first place), and/or large or larger (thus good grapple checks), and/or have means to SLA out with some ability or whatever.

- Giacomo
Let's check.
{table=header]Creature | Grapple | Mitigate Ability?
Aboleth | +22 | No
Juvenile Black Dragon | +16 | No
Black Pudding | +18 | No
Young Bronze Dragon | +15 | No
Bulette | +25 | No
Chaos Beast | +10 | No
Chuul | +17 | No
Young Copper Dragon | +13 | No
Generic Caster | +4 | Maybe (FoM possible, or DC 20 Concentration Required)
Generic Melee | +11 | No[/table]
Generic Melee assumed medium size and Str of 20. Generic caster assumed medium size and Str of 12.

Compare vs tentacles and their grapple check of +15, and the fact that even if they're not grappled, movement is cut in half.

Oh, and the ability to fly? Doesn't prevent you from engaging with tentacles. Even most flyers will engage the enemy in melee. That makes them vulnerable.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 05:50 PM
Well, Jacob Orlove- good find! I admit that the "impaired visibiltiy" should reduce the movement to max x2 speed in the fog.
The second condition does not apply, though - since a speed of 5 is still possible.

Will go to bed now ...

- Giacomo

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-11, 05:51 PM
Well, Jacob Orlove- good find! I admit that the "impaired visibiltiy" should reduce the movement to max x2 speed in the fog.
The second condition does not apply, though - since a speed of 5 is still possible.

Will go to bed now ...

- Giacomo

So, in other words, you concede that a 5 foot opponent needs to spend essentially 2 full rounds to get out of something the caster does with a standard action, then?

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-11, 05:59 PM
So, it's a good spell.

never denied that.


Nope. No running or charging if your movement is hampered. And if you can only see a few feet away? That's the very definition of "poor visibility".

Yep. see above/below.


Let's check.
{table=header]Creature | Grapple | Mitigate Ability?
Aboleth | +22 | No
Juvenile Black Dragon | +16 | No
Black Pudding | +18 | No
Young Bronze Dragon | +15 | No
Bulette | +25 | No
Chaos Beast | +10 | No
Chuul | +17 | No
Young Copper Dragon | +13 | No
Generic Caster | +4 | Maybe (FoM possible, or DC 20 Concentration Required)
Generic Melee | +11 | No[/table]
Generic Melee assumed medium size and Str of 20. Generic caster assumed medium size and Str of 12.

Compare vs tentacles and their grapple check of +15, and the fact that even if they're not grappled, movement is cut in half.

Oh, and the ability to fly? Doesn't prevent you from engaging with tentacles. Even most flyers will engage the enemy in melee. That makes them vulnerable.

You picked a bad sample - overrepresenting the creatures that are on the weaker grappling side. Also do not forget that flying creatures may stay up in the air and still melee, out of tentacle reach.
Have a look at ALL the core CR7-8 creatures again and compare them to the +15/+16 grapple check of the tentacles.
And generic melee has +17/+18 with a typical cheap enlarge buff up.
And...weren't you also among those who once criticised me for suggesting a monk (with about +20 and higher grapple check easily at those levels) should grapple?:smallsmile:
Seems like reversed roles...

- Giacomo

EDIT

So, in other words, you concede that a 5 foot opponent needs to spend essentially 2 full rounds to get out of something the caster does with a standard action, then?

Yes, with mundane means, you'll need 2 rounds to get out. Will the opponent want to get out, though, with full concealment vs the caster's attacks?
Depends.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-11, 06:05 PM
You picked a bad sample - overrepresenting the creatures that are on the weaker grappling side.
Have a look at ALL the core CR7-8 creatures again and compare them to the +15/+16 grapple check of the tentacles.
And generic melee has +17/+18 with a typical cheap enlarge buff up.
And...weren't you also among those who once criticised me for suggesting a monk (with about +20 and higher grapple check easily at those levels) should grapple?:smallsmile:
Seems like reversed roles...

- Giacomo

I picked A-C, and the checks ranged from +10 to +20.

Enlarge is a cheap buff, and a use of a round of combat actions. If your party wizard is behaving as your personal butler, maybe. But perhaps the characters that are controlled by other players may have a notion that they may want to do something other than be your personal servant.

It is POSSIBLE in core at level 7 to have a +20 BAB as a melee, with optimization (+str item, all points into str, Imp grapple feat)... But then you're not a generic melee. You're a grapple specialist.

By the same token, it's POSSIBLE for a Level 7 wizard to get tentacles up to over +20 grapple. But I'm running both without any specialized character builds, to feature the spell, rather than the build. A typical 20 Str fighter will have a Grapple mod of +12 (+7 BAB, +5 Str), at level 7.


Yes, with mundane means, you'll need 2 rounds to get out. Will the opponent want to get out, though, with full concealment vs the caster's attacks?
Depends.

So, either it wastes 2 rounds getting out, or it hides in a cloud for the combat?

Sounds pretty win/win to me.

Felyndiira
2010-02-11, 06:06 PM
I'm not advocating evocation, but here's a few of the non "damage-only" spells that evocation offers in core:

Sonic Spells - Shattering objects is useful in many circumstances, and sonic is the hardest to resist.

Wall of Ice - Effective evocation crowd-control. The reflex save only applies if you've made the wall compact enough to trap the opponent in one square, so you can still make a large prison to trap a group of enemies. Also more difficult to escape than a solid fog (regardless of where solid fog is cast, unless if you widen or reshape it, you can get out in two turns) barring SR.

Resilient Sphere - Save-or-be-ejected-from-battle, pretty much. Useful for isolating the big bad or anything that is of particularly mentionable threat and ensuring that thy don't get out, as disintegrate is harder to get than gust of wind.

Tenser's Floating Disk - Yes.

Wall of Force - You can imprison someone with no saving throw if the wall's targeted correctly. It's a heck of a lot harder to remove than solid fog, even, and barring its weakness to SR, is just as effective in crowd control on a broad level.

Contingency - No sane DM would allow craft contingent spell. Most DMs would not allow shadow contingency. That is all.

Hands - They don't have the same area effect of Black Tentacles, but at 7th spell level, anything worth using grapples on is probably something that Evard's is not quite adequate for. The mage hand, on the other hand, has a considerably superior modifier; if it fails at grappling, it can always be converted to cover, giving it extra functionality.

Forcecage - Yeah, it costs 1,500 GP. Nonetheless it's the ultimate way to trap someone - no saves or SR or anything of the sort. Shadow Evo doesn't duplicate this very well, either.

Sunburst - Glitterdust at the eighth level. Blindness, plus damage plus a free uberdamage to a bunch of creature types including undead, all at four times the area of glitterdust.

Hence, evocation != just blasting. It has a lot of neat CCs even in core, and outside of core, we have stuff like howling chains.

KellKheraptis
2010-02-11, 06:10 PM
Something to keep in mind...all of these spells work better in synergy with other spells. Having troubles with enemies grappling the tentacles? Grease the area. Solid Fog the area so they are in there longer. Even better, Ray of Exhaustion, chained with a lesser rod, and a second one the next round if need be. Let's add this up :

- 5', 10' maximum movement, under ideal interpretation.
- -6 Str and Dex, no run or charge, and IIRC isn't exhaustion half move as well?
- Ref save or fall, automatically flat footed for the balance check if they don't have 5 ranks in it (which is most things)
- Being grappled the entire time to boot

From at most 5 spells, all spammable within 3 rounds if you know what you're doing, and all relatively low level. Would I waste this kind of resource when even just one of these spells will most likely get the job done? Probably not. Grease alone absolutely owns anyone who doesn't have Balance ranks, and with a means of keeping the enemy planted (say...Solid Fog?), they might as well be dead. And on the off chance your tank is built to lock down enemies (yay for proper tanking!), you don't even need SF. Just let them slip and slide to their deaths.

Emmerask
2010-02-11, 06:20 PM
Hence, evocation != just blasting. It has a lot of neat CCs even in core, and outside of core, we have stuff like howling chains.

Yep it´s not as bad as most people seem to think and one of my favorite spells remains Defenestrating Sphere its just lots of fun ;)

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-11, 06:21 PM
Hence, evocation != just blasting. It has a lot of neat CCs even in core, and outside of core, we have stuff like howling chains.
It does have several useful spells. That can be done with other schools.

Other schools have useful spells. That cannot.

Heck, the main reason for banning enchantment is that illusion can do most of what it can, and often, more.

That makes the difference a bit more cut and dry.

Felyndiira
2010-02-11, 06:22 PM
Something to keep in mind...all of these spells work better in synergy with other spells. Having troubles with enemies grappling the tentacles? Grease the area. Solid Fog the area so they are in there longer. Even better, Ray of Exhaustion, chained with a lesser rod, and a second one the next round if need be. Let's add this up :

- 5', 10' maximum movement, under ideal interpretation.
- -6 Str and Dex, no run or charge, and IIRC isn't exhaustion half move as well?
- Ref save or fall, automatically flat footed for the balance check if they don't have 5 ranks in it (which is most things)
- Being grappled the entire time to boot

From at most 5 spells, all spammable within 3 rounds if you know what you're doing, and all relatively low level. Would I waste this kind of resource when even just one of these spells will most likely get the job done? Probably not. Grease alone absolutely owns anyone who doesn't have Balance ranks, and with a means of keeping the enemy planted (say...Solid Fog?), they might as well be dead. And on the off chance your tank is built to lock down enemies (yay for proper tanking!), you don't even need SF. Just let them slip and slide to their deaths.

I don't want to sound like I'm advocating evocation or anything, but all of this assumes that your enemy will just stupidly stand in one place and allow you to apply all of the abovementioned spells in specific order without, you know, any form of resistance. Fun facts:

1) Solid fog grants complete concealment. Casting solid fog first followed by Evard's practically guarantees that the tentacles themselves have a miss chance on top of the attack penalties from the fog. Even worse, you'd have no idea where the enemies are standing after one round in solid fog due to, well, concealment; thus, you either have to guess or lay the tentacles over the entire fog, which guarantees that your big dumb fighter and glass cannon rogue can't get to them either - not without risking being grappled themselves.

2) Grease is a balance-or-suck spell. Any creature that is caught by grease do not need a black tentacle layered on top of it to subdue. Any creature that is not caught by grease will likely not be standing on grease by the time you cast black tentacles, since an intelligent creature would know to get out of the spell's area if at all possible. Solid fog on top of grease is overkill.

3) Evard's Black Tentacles work in the same way. Anything not grappled by the tentacles will be walking outside the wall of tentacles by the time their turn is over. Since it only halves your speed, a 20 ft. movement creature can double-move to get out of the area.

4) Solid fog, against a skilled DM, can and will be used as cover if the opponent is adequately skilled. Casting it on any conjuration save-or-suck spell is only granting your enemy an advantage on top of a disadvantage and not truly accomplishing the CC task you're supposed to be doing.


It does have several useful spells. That can be done with other schools.

Other schools have useful spells. That cannot.

Heck, the main reason for banning enchantment is that illusion can do most of what it can, and often, more.

That makes the difference a bit more cut and dry.

Never implied otherwise (although nothing that won't be banned by most DMs can duplicate contingency. By all applications, you should never be able to shadow contingency, and no DM would allow craft contingent spell due to how stupidly broken it is.)

It's why I really think Wizard made a bad move by putting the orb spells and melf's arrows in the conjuration school (and will personally always house-rule them as evocation, especially orb of force). They're all blasting spells and would offer an excellent addition to evo by giving it the option to target touch AC instead of reflex, but no - obviously GATE and TELEPORT isn't good enough for the WotC interns =x.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 06:58 PM
Never implied otherwise (although nothing that won't be banned by most DMs can duplicate contingency. By all applications, you should never be able to shadow contingency, and no DM would allow craft contingent spell due to how stupidly broken it is.)

I'd love to see this statistical sample of DMs that you polled, showing most of them would ban Craft Contingent Spell.

For that matter, I'd love to know what the problem is with simply nerfing it from "You may have contingencies = your CL" to "You may have one Contingent Spell." Isn't that much more reasonable?

"What I think should be banned because I don't like it" has no place in a pure utility discussion.

Felyndiira
2010-02-11, 07:05 PM
I'd love to see this statistical sample of DMs that you polled, showing most of them would ban Craft Contingent Spell.

For that matter, I'd love to know what the problem is with simply nerfing it from "You may have contingencies = your CL" to "You may have one Contingent Spell." Isn't that much more reasonable?

"What I think should be banned because I don't like it" has no place in a pure utility discussion.

>.> Fine, let me rephrase my argument:

It is suboptimal to specialize in any school other than illusion, simply because shadowcraft illusion can duplicate most things with judicious application of miracle.

olentu
2010-02-11, 07:07 PM
>.> Fine, let me rephrase my argument:

It is suboptimal to specialize in any school other than illusion, simply because shadowcraft illusion can duplicate most things with judicious application of miracle.

That is questionable.

erikun
2010-02-11, 07:08 PM
I think part of the whole joke is that Vaarsuvius is an optimized 2nd edition Wizard (or perhaps 3.0 edition Wizard). Banning Conjuration was a better idea when Dominate Monster was nearly unstoppable and Disintegrate was amazing. The "specialize Conjuration, bad Evocation" is mostly a 3.5e invention, thanks to spells being re-juggled into making Conjuration a good school (and direct damage a bad option).

I'm afraid I'm too lazy to check if the 3.0 spell list was changed significantly when switching to 3.5e.

Doc Roc
2010-02-11, 07:13 PM
You just called Abjuration weak.

Hand in your optimiser card. :smallwink:

I must say that abjuration is, unfortunately, a day-to-day necessity.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 07:16 PM
>.> Fine, let me rephrase my argument:

It is suboptimal to specialize in any school other than illusion, simply because shadowcraft illusion can duplicate most things with judicious application of miracle.

Not all Wizards can enter Shadowcraft Mage unless the DM allows the adaption section, and not all DMs allow Races of Stone. Hell, some DMs ban Shadowcraft Mage outright. And some others rule that Arcane Disciple doesn't actually add the domain's spells to your spell list, it just lets you cast them. And a number of DMs will not allow Earth Spell to exceed 9th level pre-Epic. Last, but not least, some DMs enforce the XP cost, despite the RAW.

Yes, Shadow Miracle is powerful. No, it is not optimal for every Wizard because of other factors. A basic rule of thumb from CO:

It's called Practical Optimization for a reason. DMs are fickle, and no one plays the same game twice. Don't suggest things just because they literally are the most powerful ability you can get. Only suggest it if you think the OP can get away with it.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 07:21 PM
I'm afraid I'm too lazy to check if the 3.0 spell list was changed significantly when switching to 3.5e.

Well, there was one significant change - namely, that teleportation spells were moved from Transmutation to Conjuration. (He remarks on this when they teleport to Cliffport.)

But summons are both highly useful, and have always been in Conjuration. With them, he could have taken on that Death Knight, and possibly even escaped from Mama. (Certainly he could have teleported away, post-revision.)


I must say that abjuration is, unfortunately, a day-to-day necessity.

That depends - much of abjuration's goodies can be handled by the cleric/archivist. The fact is that it's a strong candidate as the third school to drop if you go Focused Specialist. (Though personally, I would pick Necromancy as #3.)

JoshuaZ
2010-02-11, 07:28 PM
That depends - much of abjuration's goodies can be handled by the cleric/archivist. The fact is that it's a strong candidate as the third school to drop if you go Focused Specialist. (Though personally, I would pick Necromancy as #3.)

Honestly, necromancy seems pretty often like it should be #2. Many DMs feel so uncomfortable with lots of the interesting necromancy stuff or decide that it is evil and don't want evil PCs. (This may be connected to the fact that WoTC seems to think that since necromancy is baaad there should be little support for it in other sources. And when they do it is often broken under the apparent assumption that it is going to only be used by NPCs so sensible DMs won't let you use it anyways). I think necromancy is thematically one of the more interesting schools. But if I need to play a specialist wizard and I'm really optimizing, evocation and necromancy are most likely those to go.

Felyndiira
2010-02-11, 07:31 PM
Not all Wizards can enter Shadowcraft Mage unless the DM allows the adaption section, and not all DMs allow Races of Stone. Hell, some DMs ban Shadowcraft Mage outright. And some others rule that Arcane Disciple doesn't actually add the domain's spells to your spell list, it just lets you cast them. And a number of DMs will not allow Earth Spell to exceed 9th level pre-Epic. Last, but not least, some DMs enforce the XP cost, despite the RAW.

Yes, Shadow Miracle is powerful. No, it is not optimal for every Wizard because of other factors. A basic rule of thumb from CO:

It's called Practical Optimization for a reason. DMs are fickle, and no one plays the same game twice. Don't suggest things just because they literally are the most powerful ability you can get. Only suggest it if you think the OP can get away with it.

You're missing the sarcasm.

I guess I have to apologize to Optimystik for getting a bit mad at an internet debate, but what you're saying is exactly the point: DMs are fickle. Not all DMs will allow shadowcraft mages in the same way that not all DMs will allow Craft Contingency - namely, I've seen enough instances of the feat being banned or cautioned against that I can identify it as a "problem feature." Sure, I admit that my wording for it isn't exactly optimal, but nonetheless, I think what my post meant was quite clear.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "most DMs," but it wouldn't be logical to argue that banning Evocation will get you contingency just fine yet maintain that shadowcraft mages/Arcane Disciple and its ilk are strictly banned, and use the "[citation needed]" argument in such a case. Perhaps, in the interest of clarity, I should restate my original argument so that hopefully I won't be slammed by semantics again:

Contingency with evocation banned is risky, since Craft Contingent Spell is a controversial feat and thus liable to banning for the sake of balance.

My apologies if I've offended anyone with this post, and apologize beforehand if I misunderstood anything.

Jayabalard
2010-02-11, 07:49 PM
Not all Wizards can enter Shadowcraft Mage unless the DM allows the adaption section, and not all DMs allow Races of Stone. Hell, some DMs ban Shadowcraft Mage outright. And some others rule that Arcane Disciple doesn't actually add the domain's spells to your spell list, it just lets you cast them. And a number of DMs will not allow Earth Spell to exceed 9th level pre-Epic. Last, but not least, some DMs enforce the XP cost, despite the RAW.Why did just give a bunch of "DM's house rule X" statements in response to that? I mean, I seriously
Felyndiira: dms would generally ban X, and X is a nice feature of Evocation
Optimystik: "What I think should be banned because I don't like it" has no place in a pure utility discussion."
Felyndiira: <sarcasm>Fine Y according to RAW is optimal. </sarcasm>
Sinfire Titan: But that may be banned by the DMs.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-11, 07:57 PM
4) Solid fog, against a skilled DM, can and will be used as cover if the opponent is adequately skilled. Casting it on any conjuration save-or-suck spell is only granting your enemy an advantage on top of a disadvantage and not truly accomplishing the CC task you're supposed to be doing.

The point of Solid Fog is to buy time for buffing. If they waste time staying inside it, then that's perfect for your party. Alternatively, a Ring of Spellguard (CM) means one of your party members is immune to the spell's effect completely (miss chance included), but his enemies are not. You don't cast Solid Fog+Grease unless you absolutely know the enemy can escape from one or the other, but not both. You then buy time, buff up, and ruin them when the effects end or when they finally do get out.


Why did just give a bunch of "DM's house rule X" statements in response to that? I mean, I seriously
Felyndiira: dms would generally ban X, and X is a nice feature of Evocation
Optimystik: "What I think should be banned because I don't like it" has no place in a pure utility discussion."
Felyndiira: <sarcasm>Fine Y according to RAW is optimal. </sarcasm>
Sinfire Titan: But that may be banned by the DMs.

Because I R Illiterate.

Optimystik
2010-02-11, 08:00 PM
Honestly, necromancy seems pretty often like it should be #2. Many DMs feel so uncomfortable with lots of the interesting necromancy stuff or decide that it is evil and don't want evil PCs. (This may be connected to the fact that WoTC seems to think that since necromancy is baaad there should be little support for it in other sources. And when they do it is often broken under the apparent assumption that it is going to only be used by NPCs so sensible DMs won't let you use it anyways). I think necromancy is thematically one of the more interesting schools. But if I need to play a specialist wizard and I'm really optimizing, evocation and necromancy are most likely those to go.

My top two are usually Evocation and Enchantment. Targeting reflex is a losing game because everybody and their mother has Evasion or Imp. Evasion at high levels. Even in the rare instance you want to do so, conjuration can handle it. Meanwhile, Illusion is already targeting will (and typically doing so without the pesky [Mind-Affecting] tag,) so you have no reason to keep Enchantment.

So for #3, it boils down to Abjuration and Necromancy. There are good arguments on both sides.


I guess I have to apologize to Optimystik for getting a bit mad at an internet debate, but what you're saying is exactly the point: DMs are fickle. Not all DMs will allow shadowcraft mages in the same way that not all DMs will allow Craft Contingency - namely, I've seen enough instances of the feat being banned or cautioned against that I can identify it as a "problem feature." Sure, I admit that my wording for it isn't exactly optimal, but nonetheless, I think what my post meant was quite clear.

The difference between Craft Contingent spell and SCM/Incantatrix, however, is that the power level of the former can be far more easily reined in. Limit it to one spell at a time and bam! It's suddenly reasonable. But, short of stripping away caster levels, there's no way to limit SCM and 'trix that won't also remove their identities. The very things that make them unique, are what make them broken.

And in any case, I wasn't the one proposing a ban on anything - so I still maintain that, if one school has completely unique effects (like Teleportation) while the other school's killer app is easy to duplicate (Shadow Evocation, Craft Contingency), then from a pure optimization standpoint it stands to reason that you would drop the more replaceable option. That's all I was saying.

Math_Mage
2010-02-11, 11:29 PM
Evocation has a number of excellent spells at higher levels.

Conjuration has a number of broken spells at higher levels.

In theory, Conjuration is by far the stronger school.

In practice, Conjuration is stronger until you get to the point that the DM starts banning spells in frustration.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-02-11, 11:55 PM
Evocation has a number of excellent spells at higher levels.

Conjuration has a number of broken spells at higher levels.

In theory, Conjuration is by far the stronger school.

In practice, Conjuration is stronger until you get to the point that the DM starts banning spells in frustration.

By high-level, what do you mean? 6th+ level spells? If that's the case...

At those levels, Evocation has: Contingency, Forcecage, Telekinetic Sphere, and arguably Prismatic Spray.

At the same Levels Conjuration has: Acid Fog, Planar Binding*, Mage's Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift, Summon Monster VII, Greater Teleport, Maze, Greater Planar Binding*, Gate*, and arguably Summon Monsters VI and VIII

* Indicates broken stuff that quite possibly might be nerfed

Now, to me it looks like Evocation has 3 to 4 very solid spells in core level 6-9 while Conjuration has 6 to 8 really solid spells and 3 really broken spells during the same levels.

So, no, Evocation still doesn't come out ahead; not even close.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-02-12, 01:03 AM
Also, every single one of Evocation's useful spells can be duplicated with Greater Shadow Evocation. This is, to say, Contingency, Wall of Force, and Forcecage. Plus, you don't blow 1500 a pop for Forcecage, nor need a focus for Contingency anymore.

However, trying to use Greater Shadow Conjuration is an exercise in futility. First off, the biggest thing Conjuration has is that most of the spells ignore SR. When you Shadow it, you suddenly *allow* SR. Plus it stacks ANOTHER save on top.

Now, the extra save is almost pointless for Forcecage since the vast majority of the targets you want to use it on have craptastic Will saves. Besides, you can stat-stack pretty easily. Contingency, well it's a non-issue, of course. Wall of Force is somewhat more problematic, of course.

Shadow Conjuration type spells also cannot mimic teleportation spells, nor can they mimic summon spells, which are a huge part of Conjuration's power.

Even better, with Conjuration, you can target every single save, whereas Evocation can only target Reflex. This means you can tailor your Save or Loose to hit a target's most likely lowest save.

Bunch of opponents with low Will saves? Glitterdust and let the party rogue have fun with unlimited sneak attacks due to full concealment.

Got some caster types giving problems? Stinking Cloud, suck on poor fort saves, sucker.

Got things with a poor Reflex save? Grease.

All 3rd level or under, and you are targeting every possible save.

Then once you hit 4th level spells, you start in with the 'no save, just suck' with Solid Fog, and can Get Out Of Trouble Free with Dimension Door. You also get Black Tentacles to screw over anything without a good Grapple check, targeting yet another type of potential weakness, and Minor Creation is just pure broken, if you aren't watching the player carefully.

Evocation... okay, does have a Reflex Save or Loose, and a Protect Thyself with Resilient Sphere. That's pretty handy. But the rest? Well, you have some battlefield control with Wall of Ice. I suppose. The rest is pointless.

It just gets worse the higher up the tree you get.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-12, 01:05 AM
Personally, my preferred ban order is:

1) Enchantment
2) Evocation
3) Necromancy

Now, it's possible to switch up those last 2, based on RP issues, and the like. However, losing necromancy hurts.

Just not as much as Transmutation, Conjuration, Abjuration, and Illusion.

Enchantment is a no-brainer for me, due to the number of things immune to mind affecting, and the fact that most things that can be done with it can be done just as well with illusion (Will save or lose spells).

Evocation has some good spells, but you can get by without.

In other words... It's not that Evocation/Enchantment are BAD.

There's just others that are more versatile. It's that others are better.

Sir Giacomo
2010-02-12, 02:01 AM
I picked A-C, and the checks ranged from +10 to +20.

OK, here's the comprehensive survey of core CR 7-8 A-C creatures with their grapple check mods (and the impression does not change for the other letters...:smallwink:):
Aboleth +22, Air Elemental +24, Animated Object/Gargantuan +31, Elder Arrowhawk +25, Athach +26, Behir +25, Black juvenile dragon +16, Blue juvenile dragon +23, Bodak +5, Brass juvenile draagon +16, Bronze young dragon +15, Bulette +25, Cachalot Whale +33, Chaos Beast +10, Chimera +17, Chuul +17, Copper young dragon +13, 6- and 7-headed Cryohydra +17/+19.

This is not a "vast majority" where black tentacles with a check of +15/+16 are superior. It's actually the complete opposite - only three (!) creatures out of the 20 listed have a lower grapple check. A monk focused on grappling has a good chance to overcome the majority of these creatures with grappling- but not black tentacles...:smallwink:
So like solid fog, black tentacles is often way overrated in what it can do. Or rather, not that far in effect from a third or fourth level evocation spell doing some good area damage.


Enlarge is a cheap buff, and a use of a round of combat actions. If your party wizard is behaving as your personal butler, maybe. But perhaps the characters that are controlled by other players may have a notion that they may want to do something other than be your personal servant.

I know that you would not advocate buffing other characters in the group when playing a wizard ("personal butler" indeed ...). But this is not what this question is about. This is about whether a DM will have his npc warriors occasionally equipped with an enlarge potion as treasure or not (or have an npc group wizard buff the warriors with enlarge).
And whether this has an effect on whether the conjuration school with black tentacles really has such a great boost to its repertoire...


It is POSSIBLE in core at level 7 to have a +20 BAB as a melee, with optimization (+str item, all points into str, Imp grapple feat)... But then you're not a generic melee. You're a grapple specialist.

It is true that humanoid opponents are quite good targets for a black tentacles spell. But this kind of humanoid opponents is also a good target for the AoE evocation spells which tend to do even more than just hampering them in their movement and some minor damage (with a chance to get out). Evocation spells can actually kill them.


By the same token, it's POSSIBLE for a Level 7 wizard to get tentacles up to over +20 grapple. But I'm running both without any specialized character builds, to feature the spell, rather than the build. A typical 20 Str fighter will have a Grapple mod of +12 (+7 BAB, +5 Str), at level 7.

Let me say that a typical core level 7 fighter with STR 20 will have an enlarge buff up way more often than a core level 7 wizard having a CL boost of +3 by that level.


So, either it wastes 2 rounds getting out, or it hides in a cloud for the combat?

Sounds pretty win/win to me.

No, as also outlined by others above, solid fog is a mixed bag in this regard. The moment you know no longer what the opponent does you're already at a tactical disadvantage. Solid fog renders the opponent immune to missile fire from your group, provides no more target for targeted spells, severely limits ray spells, and the melees can no longer make contact so easily.
In other instances, it is exactly these properties which make the solid fog so good. So it is situational - like when to use the evocation spells of that level.

- Giacomo

Killer Angel
2010-02-12, 02:49 AM
That's not a roleplaying note, it might be a gameplay note.

A little late, but... point taken. I missed the precise term I was looking for.

absolmorph
2010-02-12, 04:49 AM
By high-level, what do you mean? 6th+ level spells? If that's the case...

At those levels, Evocation has: Contingency, Forcecage, Telekinetic Sphere, and arguably Prismatic Spray.

At the same Levels Conjuration has: Acid Fog, Planar Binding*, Mage's Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift, Summon Monster VII, Greater Teleport, Maze, Greater Planar Binding*, Gate*, and arguably Summon Monsters VI and VIII

* Indicates broken stuff that quite possibly might be nerfed

If Summon Monster VII is powerful, well, Summon Monster VIII is 1d3+1 times as good at getting monsters off that list.

Jon_Dahl
2010-02-12, 05:05 AM
My 2 coppers:
If you have cleric in your group or something equilavent, I'd say scrap necromancy.

Killer Angel
2010-02-12, 05:08 AM
Also, every single one of Evocation's useful spells can be duplicated with Greater Shadow Evocation. This is, to say, Contingency, Wall of Force, and Forcecage. Plus, you don't blow 1500 a pop for Forcecage, nor need a focus for Contingency anymore.


I've only an objection.
Contingency is a 6th lev. spell, while Greater shadow ev. is a 8th lev. spell.
If the PCs grow up in levels during a campaign, the wiz. without evocation school, must wait 4 levels before obtaining shadow contingency, which is a pain in the a**.
(I'm not counting Craft contingent spell, which can be easily banned)

Aharon
2010-02-12, 05:31 AM
RAW, Evocation is slightly less sucky then most people assume:



Massive Damage

If you ever sustain a single attack deals 50 points of damage or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save. If this saving throw fails, you die regardless of your current hit points. If you take 50 points of damage or more from multiple attacks, no one of which dealt 50 or more points of damage itself, the massive damage rule does not apply.

So, at higher levels, all evocation spells that deal more than 50 damage are Save or Dies.

Of course, this is also the case for Orbs and chargers and anybody else dealing hit point damage, so the relative strength doesn't change.

And most groups disregard that rule anyway.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-12, 05:33 AM
OK, here's the comprehensive survey of core CR 7-8 A-C creatures with their grapple check mods (and the impression does not change for the other letters...:smallwink:):
Aboleth +22, Air Elemental +24, Animated Object/Gargantuan +31, Elder Arrowhawk +25, Athach +26, Behir +25, Black juvenile dragon +16, Blue juvenile dragon +23, Bodak +5, Brass juvenile draagon +16, Bronze young dragon +15, Bulette +25, Cachalot Whale +33, Chaos Beast +10, Chimera +17, Chuul +17, Copper young dragon +13, 6- and 7-headed Cryohydra +17/+19.

This is not a "vast majority" where black tentacles with a check of +15/+16 are superior. It's actually the complete opposite - only three (!) creatures out of the 20 listed have a lower grapple check. A monk focused on grappling has a good chance to overcome the majority of these creatures with grappling- but not black tentacles...:smallwink:
First: Missed Cloud Giant Skeletons and Cachalot Whale.

And a +15 vs +17 is still a good chance. However, even on a failed check, the opponent is still in half movement, which prevents running and charging also. Look at that, the spell accomplishes more than one thing.

On a side note: Let's stay on topic. No need to pollute this caster discussion with specific noncaster classes. Though it should be noted, for a melee class to reliably have a chance at two enemies within the same area in the same round? He'd need an incredible reach (around 20 feet), and he'd need to take a -20 to his grapple to not be considered grappled. So, if you compare an AoE CC vs a Single target CCer, when it's a single target? You might see a viable comparison. When you compare the additional movement restriction, and even 1 additional target? The same cannot be said.


So like solid fog, black tentacles is often way overrated in what it can do. Or rather, not that far in effect from a third or fourth level evocation spell doing some good area damage.If a 3rd or fourth level evocation spell existed that did good area damage, I might be inclined to agree.

Unfortunately, at level 7? Fireball does a whopping 24.5 damage average on a failed save. Which, oddly enough, at level 7, won't neutralize a single monster on that list. Not one. Even in the result of a failed save.

As for your opinion of solid fog? Didn't we already establish that either the targeted creature/creatures has to spend 2 full rounds escaping or sacrifice having LoS/LoE? In other words? It's out of the fight for at least 2 rounds? That doesn't sound "understated". That sounds like "Giacomo waits for subject change so he can slip in false statements and get them accepted".

As for tentacles? Movement restrictions, damage, and restrictions. Compare vs typical CR 7-8 humanoid, and odds go way up. Every spell has a role. You don't use a hammer to turn screws. You don't use Hold Person on wizards. You don't use Finger of Death on Giants. You don't use Fireball on... well, anything worth fighting.


I know that you would not advocate buffing other characters in the group when playing a wizard ("personal butler" indeed ...). But this is not what this question is about. This is about whether a DM will have his npc warriors occasionally equipped with an enlarge potion as treasure or not (or have an npc group wizard buff the warriors with enlarge).I do advocate buffing... when it's the best course of action. A mass buff that provides bonuses to everyone is generally more useful, however (such as haste) than a single target buff (such as Enlarge).

It's group thinking vs individual glory-hogging.

And whether this has an effect on whether the conjuration school with black tentacles really has such a great boost to its repertoire...Well, when a DM has to purposely include extra loot and 8th level grapple specialist monks to combat it, I'd say the spell is effective.


It is true that humanoid opponents are quite good targets for a black tentacles spell. But this kind of humanoid opponents is also a good target for the AoE evocation spells which tend to do even more than just hampering them in their movement and some minor damage (with a chance to get out). Evocation spells can actually kill them.
Let's see. Low grapple targets that are vulnerable to tentacles?
Can be rogue types (with high reflex and evasion)
or Caster types (with easy access to elemental resistances by level 3).
Further, a level 7 NPC wizard with even a +2 con modifier will survive a typical level 7 fireball, even without resistances. So yes, this statement too, is flawed.


Let me say that a typical core level 7 fighter with STR 20 will have an enlarge buff up way more often than a core level 7 wizard having a CL boost of +3 by that level.Let me state that a level 7 fighter (typical) is unlikely to have any caster buff up, barring the presence of a friendly caster. It's not his class ability.


No, as also outlined by others above, solid fog is a mixed bag in this regard. The moment you know no longer what the opponent does you're already at a tactical disadvantage. Solid fog renders the opponent immune to missile fire from your group, provides no more target for targeted spells, severely limits ray spells, and the melees can no longer make contact so easily.
In other instances, it is exactly these properties which make the solid fog so good. So it is situational - like when to use the evocation spells of that level.Situational:
Solid Fog: Whenever you want to completely remove one or more enemies from combat for a round or two, for any reason whatsoever (such as finishing off allies, escaping, becoming invisible, hiding, etc etc etc), and ignoring saves and SR.

Evocation: When you're fighting mass numbers of creatures with low hp and low saves... I.E. The kind of creatures that are weaker than the party (incidentally, Tentacles would just as easily destroy such creatures).

The real advantages of Tentacles:
(1) Battlefield alteration - Limit mobility of enemies in an area, open them up to possible damage and encourage them to leave that area (possibly provoking AoO's and limiting their ability to engage the party).
(2) Multi-round independent - It keeps going round after round, even when the caster chooses other actions in subsequent rounds.
(3) Potential to tie up enemies in grapple.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-12, 05:36 AM
So, at higher levels, all evocation spells that deal more than 50 damage are Save or Dies.

Of course, this is also the case for Orbs and chargers and anybody else dealing hit point damage, so the relative strength doesn't change.

And most groups disregard that rule anyway.

DC 15 SoD is hardly a SoD worth mentioning at higher levels.

Once you get into higher levels? DC 15 is lower than characters will have on their level 0 cantrips.

EDIT: Also, the typical reason this rule is generally written out is that it is a dramatic power shift in favor of NPC's.

Even if the party forces 10 failures for every 1 that the enemies force, the DM has pretty much an endless supply of minions.

A player has one character, and death is often at least a small to moderate setback.

Aharon
2010-02-12, 05:58 AM
I know that. I didn't say it makes it really great - just slightly less sucky. Just wanted to add it because this is a RAW discussion, and RAW it does make damage dealing in general slightly less sucky - including evocation. A 5% chance to kill anything that is not much, but it isn't non-existent, either.

I agree to your objections to it, and the reasons why most DMs don't use it are sound.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-12, 06:05 AM
I know that. I didn't say it makes it really great - just slightly less sucky. Just wanted to add it because this is a RAW discussion, and RAW it does make damage dealing in general slightly less sucky - including evocation. A 5% chance to kill anything that is not much, but it isn't non-existent, either.

I agree to your objections to it, and the reasons why most DMs don't use it are sound.

The simple fact is? Most Direct Damage spells are not able to reliably hit that threshold.

Fireball can, on a failed save, if empowered.
On a passed save? Not even if empowered and maximized, with maximum possible damage rolled for the empower. (that's an 8th level slot)

Melee, however, typically ARE able to reliably hit for that, as their attack form doesn't allow a save for half damage.

Aharon
2010-02-12, 01:03 PM
Oh come on. If you decide to deal direct damage with spells, your maximized empowered spells won't take an 8th level slot. And if I want to deal direct damage with a 3rd level evocation, with the intent of triggering the rule, I won't use Fireball, but Sound Lance (or Manyjaws, if I don't care about massive damage). Or, at higher levels, you know... maybe Streamers? No save for exactly 50 damage when maximized.

It's not as if every spell in the conjuration school is awesome. Someone who thinks fireball is awesome might also take Acid Arrow instead of Web/Glitterdust, or Unseen Servant instead of Grease.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-02-13, 01:43 AM
one other thing I would like to point out:

The biggest reason why blasting is inefficient is called action economy.

Head on over to the Test of Spite thread. The guys who usually win? Generally do so by having more actions than their opponents.

Blasting? One-shot. You have to keep doing it for several rounds to take anything down.

Screwing things over with Save or Loose effect? It generally persists for several rounds, leaving you free to do something else in the process.

Blast with a Fireball, do a piddling amount of damage
Toss in a Stinking Cloud. Good odds they're going to be completely neutralized as a threat for several rounds.

Blast something, even a troll, with a Fireball. It gets pissed and turns you into a greasy stain. Lock it down, however, and it is unable to do much of anything, and can be picked apart at your leisure.

This is, ultimately, why a Batman Wizard is more 'powerful' than a Blaster Mage. You can simply do more things, have more options, and aren't tied up being a Warlock who runs out of juice.

PhoenixRivers
2010-02-13, 02:01 AM
Oh come on. If you decide to deal direct damage with spells, your maximized empowered spells won't take an 8th level slot. And if I want to deal direct damage with a 3rd level evocation, with the intent of triggering the rule, I won't use Fireball, but Sound Lance (or Manyjaws, if I don't care about massive damage). Or, at higher levels, you know... maybe Streamers? No save for exactly 50 damage when maximized.

It's not as if every spell in the conjuration school is awesome. Someone who thinks fireball is awesome might also take Acid Arrow instead of Web/Glitterdust, or Unseen Servant instead of Grease.

I believe many parts of the discussion are based on Core. Which pretty much none of those are.

Polar Ray would be an option, seeing as it averages 15d6 damage when you get it (average 52.5 damage), but it's an 8th level spell.

Outside of core, if we're going with single target spells? Why not just the Conjuration Orb spells. Easily able to metamagic up to 50 at low levels, and they don't allow SR to boot.

Runestar
2010-02-13, 02:10 AM
Not to mention that damage spells still have to contend with resistances/immunities and reflex saves/evasion on top of sr. Think a maximized cone of cold does a lot of damage at 90? Halve that to 45 on a save, followed by -20 from possible cold resistance and you are looking at as little as 25 damage. And you still have to overcome its sr first.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-02-13, 02:32 AM
Not to mention that damage spells still have to contend with resistances/immunities and reflex saves/evasion on top of sr. Think a maximized cone of cold does a lot of damage at 90? Halve that to 45 on a save, followed by -20 from possible cold resistance and you are looking at as little as 25 damage. And you still have to overcome its sr first.

To be fair, SoL tends to have to deal with a lot of saves/immunities as well. It's one of the reasons why Enchantment goes from #1 to the lower half of the middle of the pack. Too many things are Immune to Mind-Affecting.

However, SoL's can target any save, blastomancy only targets Reflex. That means against targets with a high Reflex save, particularly those with Evasion, find you laughable at best. Wheras a SoL guy can tailor his resistances to suit his needs. Against a Rogue? Stinking Cloud. Even if he's got the rogue ability to roll a second Will save, he's still screwed. Or better, Slow. Not being able to get into position = loose for a rogue. Worried about a charging berzerker? Glitterdust. Let's see if he can hit what he can't see. Or Grease, and watch him fall on his behind. Or Slow, and prevent him from charging. But blasting? Probably not going to do much more than tick it off.

Let's look at the archetypes and see which ones Blastomancy can really hurt...

1) Beatstick. Has way too many hit points for blasting to kill it before it kills you.

2) Skillmonkey. Generally has very high Reflex saves and often comes paired with Evasion.

3) Healbot. Resist Energy. Next.

4) Arcane caster. Go ahead, you cast Cone of Cold, and I'll cast Feeblemind. We'll see who goes down first.

Sophismata
2010-02-13, 02:44 AM
Also, glitterdust has a fairly small area (2x2 square), so with some careful aiming, you should be able to hit the foe while avoiding the party.

You are mistaken on this point.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-02-13, 02:49 AM
You are mistaken on this point.

Yes, it is a cone, not a 2x2 square, he's probably thinking Sleep.

A Cone is generally much easier to aim, in my experience.

Runestar
2010-02-13, 03:14 AM
You are mistaken on this point.

You are right.


Area: Creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread

In my defense, it has been quite a while since I last used glitterdust in anything but the sculpted form (which nets 4 10-ft cubes). :smalltongue:

Sophismata
2010-02-13, 03:42 AM
That 10ft spread has saved my (character's) life, so I got thrown when you said it was a 2x2 square :smallwink:.