Beyond Blasting: How a Warlock can actually contribute

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I've heard this complaint about Warlocks so often... "they suck because all they can do is blast, once a round, for pathetic damage". And sure, if you really want to, then you can limit yourself to doing this. But it's also akin to taking Druid and deciding to skip on taking Natural Spell or using any animal form outside of the SRD.

First off, no Warlock worth the title should be *just* blasting after about level 6 or so, and second, they've got some of the better battlefield control options in the game.

Sure, a warlock is limited to 12 invocations, without blowing feats or PrCing oddly or anything. However, he can be surprisingly versatile within this limitation. First, we're going to be looking at battlefield control/debuff options, then we'll look at some scouting options.

Anyone who says warlocks cannot debuff are apparently not reading invocation descriptions. For example:

For Least invocations, you have Summon Swarm. At will. This is Fort Save or Nauseated, plus spiders have Fort save or Str damage. This will steamroll any low-end encounters, although the save DC's are weak, so it becomes less effective as you get into higher-level encounters. And best of all, if your swarm goes after the wrong targets, simply cease concentration to make them poof, and re-summon in a more advantageous location.

Also, do not overlook Frightful Blast. At first, it seems rather sub-par. After all, the target is only Shaken for a minute. Which is a -2 to some stuff. Big flippin' deal. But then you realize that fear effects stack on each other. Now, it's effects generally don't stack, or at least doesn't apply to something already shaken (there's vague rules backings for either interpretation), but that doesn't mean that you can't use it as a one-two combo with another party member. Perhaps you hit it with a Frightful Blast, then the Barbarian uses Intimidating Rage and watch the little buggers run.

Not too shabby out of a Least invocation, eh?

Sickening Blast is, however, much less powerful, due to a lack of stacking of sickening effects.

Baleful Utterance is not to be underestimated, particularly in the low-level setting. If your GM is fond of tossing humanoids with character levels at the party, this can be very handy. You blow up a beatstick's sword, as long as it isn't magical, and you severely nerf his damage output. The price of a sword is not a meaningful contribution to your WBL anyways. And if it's magic, then you can't shatter it, which is a dead giveaway to the party that you've found a target with some real loot.

Now let's look at some Lesser invocations, shall we?

Beshadowed Blast. Will save or Blind. If you did not pick up Frightful Blast, then this is a very valuable Will Save or Screwed invocation. Plus your regularly scheduled damage output. Also, NOT mind-affecting, which is a bonus. As long as the target doesn't have Blindsense/tremorsense/etc... you've hit him with a pretty severe nerf-bat. Plus softened him up.

Charm. This is one of the reasons why Enchantment college is seen as powerful, despite the immunity clauses. And you have no limit on how many times you can use it. Plus, this opens you up for a dip into Mindbender for Mindsight. Which is all *kinds* of fun.

Voracious Dispelling. You have Dispel Magic. At will. You can use this to Counterspell, which lets you negate opponent casters (the real threat anyways) while your allies mop up. Plus you can strip buffs. Pretty handy, particularly at lower levels.

Eldritch Chain. Do you have an Eldritch Essence? If not, you should. Then you should get this. Essences are, effectively, 'you can debuff or nerf opponents, in addition to damage'. And this lets you apply them to multiple targets. Half damage is almost a non-issue, if you're blinding all your opponents with one shot.

Now we come to the Greater invocations, which is where we really start taking off.

Bewitching Blast. Confusion is an encounter-ender. You can do it every round. Plus your regularly scheduled damage output.

Noxious Blast. Fort save or lose. Now you can start targeting fort saves as well as will saves, giving you more options. Oh, you still do your regularly scheduled damage output while applying save or lose. Best used with Chain or Cone.

Hindering Blast. If you don't want Bewitching because of the random factors involved, I understand. Slow is also a beatstick crippler. And it can be loaded up into Chain or Cone for fun times.

Repelling Blast. Remember Dungeoncrasher? Yea, this does that. At range. If an opponent is already up against a wall, it's a bonus 1d6 number of d6's, plus knocks opponents prone. And can be chained or coned.

Eldritch Cone. Applying debuffs to multiple targets? Sign me up! Just watch out for Evasion. There's ways to make this much easier to aim, as well. We'll get into that later.

Tenacious Plague. A lot of people skip this over. I did too, at first. But then I saw how actually viable it really was. First off, it doesn't summon a regular swarm, as per the 2nd level Druid spell, that's what Summon Swarm does (and does it at 1st level, wheras Druid has to wait for 3rd). It duplicates Insect Plague, which is a 5th level Druid spell, and summons *multiple* locust swarms. Furthermore, you add your Charisma modifier to the DC of the nauseating ability, which means it's actually viable, and the damage the swarm does are treated as magic for purposes of overcoming DR. So it's basically Stinking Cloud + damage. Not a bad option for battlefield control.

Chilling Tentacles. One of the Warlock's star pupils for battlefield control. Black Tentacles + Cold Damage and spammable. Do I really need to go on?

And there's even some Dark invocations that are meaningful battlefield control or debuff...

Utterdark Blast. Negative levels? Check. Spammable? Check. Chain and cone capable for multiple targets? Check. Get this? Check.

Word of Changing. Again, I passed this up at first as well. Baleful Polymorph is a 5th level spell. Big deal. But then I realized that there's no limit to how often you can use it. So it's a single-target Save or Die that is not a death effect. Not many things are immune to polymorph stuff.

Okay, that's the Battlefield Control and Save or Lose type effects a Warlock can command. Now, let's broaden the horizon.

Let's say the party doesn't really have an effective scout/trapspringer. Well, no fear here, let's see what we can do...

Warlock actually pairs really well with Rogue, although it works best with dips from one or the other sides, unless you agree with a vague interpretation of the prerequsites of Arcane Trickster.

A dip in Warlock nets the Rogue a ranged touch attack he can sneak attack with. It also nets him some useful lower-end invocations. If he goes to Warlock4, he also picks up Take 10 on UMD.

A Warlock picking up a two-level dip in Rogue nets a bit of sneak attack and Evasion as well as Trapfinding and more skill points. With Able Learner, a warlock that started off a level or two in Rogue can be a perfectly viable skillmonkey.

And let's not forget he can use a Wand of Knock without risking failure by level 4, so Disable device is rather pointless after that point anyways.

Now let's look at some invocations that help a warlock be a sneaky bastard:

Entropic Warding. Pass Without Trace + Immune to Scent + 20% miss chance from ranged attacks. Yes, this is as good as it sounds. If you're going to be playing forward observation, this is a must-have.

Beguiling Influence. Particularly useful for 'party face' rolls, and one of the reasons why a one-level dip in Warlock is so valuable for a Rogue.

Darkness/Devil's Sight/HiPS Feat combo. Not very useful due to the amount of resources you are sinking into this one trick. But hey, if you absolutely, positively want to be able to sneak around like that without needing to dump feats into Shadowdancer, then a four-level dip in Warlock with the two invocations listed is not a bad option for a rogue who wants more tools in his kit.

See The Unseen. See invisible, from level 1. If you know you're going to be the point-man, get this after you get Entropic Ward.

Spiderwalk. You'd be surprised how many people don't look up when patrolling...

Also, never underestimate the value of a wand of Silence. Particularly since Invocations have no verbal components... immunity to Listen checks is surprisingly valuable. Also makes you invisible to things that have sound-related blindsight.

Lesser Invocations also have some viable options available for you:

Walk Unseen. At-will invisibility. This, plus a Wand of Silence plus Entropic Warding = virtually undetectable. It also stands for 'sneak attack at will'.

Charm. "Oh hey there, glad I ran into you. Could you tell me how get to the commander's room?". No, really, why bother scouting when you can get someone else to do it for you? Or better yet, get someone who already is familiar with the area to divulge this information. Even better, it sets you up for Mindbender and Mindsight.

Fell Flight. Remember what I said about Spiderwalk? Yea, this is moreso.

There's only a couple of Greater invocations that really help with scouting, neither are really anything worth writing home about, which gives scouting warlocks a chance to pick up a couple of other interesting things.

Warlock's Call. "Scout to base, come in base.", yea it's not *that* useful, specially since it's a Greater invocation.

Enervating Shadow. It doesn't do what you think it does, actually. In fact, I was mildly surprised about what it did when I just now read the actual invocation description at the back of the book. First off, it's not area effect, it's self targeting. It grants you Total Concealment (that means Hide checks are a go, no need for HiPS) which is actually better than Invisibility, because it can't be seen through with See Invis or even True Sight. Being countered by light spells does kind of suck, though. It's more useful than I thought, but is it worth a Greater invocation? That's a matter open to debate.

And now for Dark invocations...

Dark Foresight. It's a 9th level spell. At will. That you can use to buff the party with. And keep it up all day long without needing to cheese Incantatrix. For this alone, it is made of win. But wait, there's more! In addition to completely negating surprise rounds, it also grants you telepathy with your allies at the same time! Don't delay, order yours TODAY!

Path of Shadow. When it absolutely, positively has to get there TODAY... get a Wizard to teleport you. Don't blow a Dark invocation on this, please.

Retributive Invisibility. Greater Invisibility at will. Handy, if your opponents can't already see through invis.

And, of course, the Warlock has a number of defensive invocations available to him as well...

Least:

Dark One's Own Luck. If you've got Charisma for DC's, you've got a hefty bonus to one of your lagging saves.

Entropic Warding. Like I said, 20% miss chance to ranged attacks. You really shouldn't be getting into melee unless you want to be a Glaivelock.

Spider Climb. Because you can't hit what you can't reach.

Lesser:

Fell Flight. Remember what I said about not being able to hit what you can't reach? Yea... that.

Flee The Scene. Getting yourself out of a tight spot.

Walk Unseen. Because you can't hit what you can't see.

Greater:

Not a lot of truly defensive options here, but a plethora of offensive ones.

Dark:

Dark Foresight. Immune to surprise and flat-footed? Unlimited use of a 9th level spell? I'm up for that.

Okay, so let's recap and set up some sample builds:

Scout McStealthy: Human Rogue1/Warlock6/Mindbender1/Rogue2/Arcane Trickster10
Feats: Able Learner (human bonus), Craven (1), Spell Hand (3), Ability Focus (6), Mindsight (9), Extra Invocation (Eldritch Chain) (12), Empower SLA (15), Quicken SLA (18)

Invocations:

- Least: See the Unseen, Entropic Warding, Eldritch Glaive
- Lesser: Fell Flight, Walk Unseen, Eldritch Chain, Charm
- Greater: Hindering Blast, Vitriolic Blast, Chilling Tentacles
- Dark: Dark Foresight

Roles and Tactics:

This is your trapmonkey with damage output and battlefield control options. Surprisingly versatile, he's almost impossible to detect until it's too late, and dishes out quite a hit.

Damage output: 7d6+20 sneak attack packs a punch. Tack that on top of an 8d6 blast, which nets you 15d6+20. Not too shabby, eh? Of course, he can also toss in Hindering Blast for a Will Save or be Slowed. At the same time. Talk about 'snare kiting'. Oh, and if they have SR? Fine, use Vitriolic Blast if you don't think you can punch through. But it gets even better. He gets three attacks with his Eldritch Glaive, so if he's up close and personal, that's tripled. He's also got Eldritch Chain. Even half damage to secondary targets is gonna sting, and the slow is just as nasty as ever.

Oh, and he can Empower his blast 3/day for more blasty goodness. And can Quicken SLA 3/day as well. Handy for bringing the pain.

Toys on hand:

Wand of Knock
Wand of Gravestrike
Wand of Golemstrike
Wand of Silence
Wand of Mirror Image
Wand of Glitterdust (to expose invisible opponents)
Wand of Grease (to deny dex bonus to opponents)
Wand of Divine Power (to get an extra iterative attack if he knows he's going to be Glaiving a lot)

Rod of Arcane Precision (precise shot and improved precise shot without having to blow feats)

Battlefield Control Options:

Hindering Blast can hit multiple targets with Chain Spell. Chilling Tentacles is also a viable option.

Defensive options:

Fell Flight + Walk Unseen + Wand of Silence + Entropic Shield = darn near impossible to detect. Also 20% miss chance against ranged attacks that CAN lock him up.

Dark Foresight. The party will never be surprised.

Wand of Mirror Image. Because a 1 in 8 chance is better than a 50% chance. Opponents who can see invisible will only find the odds of hitting him actually *worsen*.

Scouting Options: Mindsight + See the Unseen. Do I really need to continue?

To recap: He's got solid DPS (though by no means ubercharger level), some good battlefield control, an excellent scout, and prevents the party from getting surprised. at the same time.

Who says a warlock can't be flexible?

Mr. Universal: Human Warlock6/Mindbender1/HFW3/Chameleon2/Binder1/Warlock 7

Okay, you've probably figured out that this was done as an example of just how flexible a warlock can truly be. However, a few notes about this build:

If your GM allows Strongheart Vest to block Con damage for HFW without shutting it down, then use that instead, which nets him an extra Dark invocation. Otherwise, Naberious is going to heal con damage as it is taken. Ensure you have an odd Con score to avoid loosing hit points temporarily every round.

Note: Many will immediately question why he went with more Warlock than with Legacy Champion to bolt on to HFW. This is because I wanted Warlock12 for item creation which, combined with the floating feat from Chameleon, lets him craft just about anything he wants to.

Feats of note: Able Learner, Extra Invocation: Eldritch Chain, Mindsight
Invocations:
- Least: Baleful Utterance, See the Unseen, Entropic Warding
- Lesser: Charm, Hellrime Blast, Fell Flight, Eldritch Chain
- Greater: Hindering Blast, Noxious Blast, Vitriolic Blast
- Dark: Dark Foresight

Basically, he really can do it all. The floating feat, when not being used to craft, will be used on Extra Invocation to give him another (up to) Greater invocation. If he knows he is going to be running into a lot of mooks, he typically gets Eldritch Cone. Otherwise, Chilling Tentacles is a popular choice. Tenacious Plague is the flavor of the day if he knows there's a truly huge number of things with poor fort saves. Clearing out Tucker's Kobolds, for example.

He's got damage, he's got battlefield control and Save or Lose, he's got both, plus damage output, at the same time, he's got utility, and he's got the flexibility to pick up situationally useful invocations.

Blaster McBoom Human Warlock/Binder/HFW/Legacy Champion
Yea, this is the guy. The guy who goes 'boom'. Legacy champion augments HFW, giving 8/10 warlock invocation progression as well as increasing Hellfire Blast by 16d6 for a total of 24d6, 26d6 with the Chasuble.

Eldritch Glaive is a natural, as is Eldritch Cone. He's actually going to be picking up Utterdark Blast as his Dark invocation to apply negative levels to the survivors. Other essence invocations may include Vitriolic Blast and probably some of the Greater essences that apply Save or Lose effects. He's probably going to blow a feat so he can have both Hindering and Noxious as well as Vitriolic and Cone as his Greater invocations.

Yes, he blasts. But his blasts ALSO apply Save or Lose to anything that actually survives it. He can target any save he chooses to. He can swat down swarms. He can single-target eliminate with a Wand of Divine Power in his pocket for 4 times 26d6*1.5 (Empowered SLA with Glaive) to a single target.

Shutdown McStopThat Warlock19/Mindbender1
This build will focus on battlefield control and Save or Lose effects, just to point out how powerful it can be.

Least invocations: Fearful Blast, Entropic Warding, Dark One's Own Luck (before level 6, the first invocation picked up is Summon Swarm, which is switched out for Dark One's Own Luck after it becomes no longer viable)
Lesser: Charm, Beshadowed Blast, Eldritch Chain
Greater: Chilling Tentacles, Tenatious Plague, Repelling Blast, Eldritch Cone (extra invocation feat)
Dark: Utterdark Blast, Word of Changing, Dark Foresight.

He'll likely also want to pick up a Rod of Hindering Blast and Rod of Noxious Blast. However, he already has Beshadowed to be a Will save or Lose (blind), which makes Slow less important, and Tenacious Plague targets Fort or Nauseated in a much larger area effect already. So these will be situational, thus he uses toys for them.

In conclusion: To say that a Warlock 'just blasts' is rather a misnomer, because frequently, particularly once he starts getting Greater invocations, his blasts ALSO apply Save or Lose effects. However, he's got far more options than simply blasting if one simply reads the invocation list, and can fill a surprising number of roles.

Is he as powerful as a Batman Wizard, Clericzilla, or Druid? No. Warlocks are not Tier 1 classes. Can he be a viable and valuable asset to any party? Absolutely. And can he do more than just damage? With essences, it's almost impossible for him NOT to.

[true_shinken]

Very good post, Shneekey.
Something you forget about Summon Swarm - it's 1d6 damage and an auto-hit. Mooks at level 1 have very low hp and many have good armor classes. Summon Swarm ends up with a better damage ratio than swords because it always hits. It deals about the same damage as magic missile, but it's at will and has a debuff effect as well.

About Frightful Blast, though... isn't it stated it's a fear effect that doesn't stack?

Let's spread that Warlock love!

[Darrin]

Something that's been nagging at me from an older warlock thread...

Is there anything a warlock can do vs. a golem before he gets Vitriolic Blast?

The only thing I could come up with was invisibility + fly, drop anvils or some other heavy objects on its head (falling object damage = no save).

[faceroll]

About Frightful Blast, though... isn't it stated it's a fear effect that doesn't stack?

The wording on it is kind of funny. Frightful blast doesn't affect opponents that are shaken. That's pretty much verbatim. That means you can frightful blast, followed by an intimidate to get something frightened, then you blast again to bump that up to panicked.

From Complete Mage, warlocks get two invocations that have good utility. One lets you pull out an eye to crawl around, which you can see through and use stuff like detect magic through; the other your hand detaches and flies around, letting you manipulate things. The eye one is definitely the coolest, as it only costs you 2 HP, takes 1d4 hours to grow back if it is destroyed, and has no range limit. Plus, you see through it at all times (until destroyed).


Is there anything a warlock can do vs. a golem before he gets Vitriolic Blast?

Assist his party with silent image, grease, or anything else he can pull off the scrolls/wands he's got packed for such an occasion?

[true_shinken]

Something that's been nagging at me from an older warlock thread...

Is there anything a warlock can do vs. a golem before he gets Vitriolic Blast?
Spam Summon Swarm :smallamused:
Or use eldritch claws. It's a natural attack.

[Darrin]

Spam Summon Swarm


How does that help? A swarm has to have 21+ HD before it can do enough damage to reliably get past DR 15/adamantine.



Or use eldritch claws. It's a natural attack.

...which still goes *PING* against the golem's DR, unless you can get the damage up to about 5d6.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Baleful Utterance. SR only applies to objects, not when it is used to damage constructs, doing (caster level)d6 damage.

Not that you'd be running into many golems before level 11, seeing as how most of them have fairly high CR.

[The Glyphstone]

Voracious Dispelling deserves a note that it's only viable till level 10-12 or so, because it functions as Dispel Magic and caps at +10 to the check.

good analysis though.

[Darrin]

Baleful Utterance. SR only applies to objects, not when it is used to damage constructs, doing (caster level)d6 damage.


I don't think that works. "Spell Resistance: yes (objects)" means a golem's magic immunity kicks in. Even if SR didn't apply, if you tried to target a single object, you can only shatter an object up to 10 lbs per caster level (CL 50 to shatter a flesh golem, CL 60 for clay, CL 200 for stone, CL 500 for iron). The 1d6 damage per CL only applies to crystalline creatures. Assuming you're dealing with a crystalline golem, constructs can ignore anything that allows a Fort save unless the effect also works on objects. In this case, it does, so the golem would still get a save for half.

[Hyfigh]

Doesn't Hammer Blast or whatever it's called negate SR? If it negates SR, shouldn't it affect golems?

[gbprime]

The last Warlock I played I did a "beastmaster" theme with. Call of the Beast gives Animal Empathy, add Handle Animal as a class skill (using Human Paragon), top off with Charm and a Combat Charm feat. I tended to collect beasts and throw them at foes. And after 1 level of Beast Heart Adept, I was collecting Magical Beasts and Aberrations too.

[gbprime]

Doesn't Hammer Blast or whatever it's called negate SR? If it negates SR, shouldn't it affect golems?

No, all Hammer Blast does is upgrade your blast from half damage to objects to one that does full damage to objects. SR is unaffected.

[Hyfigh]

No, all Hammer Blast does is upgrade your blast from half damage to objects to one that does full damage to objects. SR is unaffected.

OK.

Boo to being AFB when I visit the forum... :smallannoyed:

[MeeposFire]

Worse if it is a clay golem since they are immune to acid. Not impossible to deal with but it is annoying.

[Flickerdart]

Warlocks have another thing going - if you avoid invocations that offer saves, you don't need any ability scores to be effective. That means you can spend your cash on cool toys rather than +X stat boosters.

[MeeposFire]

I like boosting con myself (and intelligence since I am a skill monger and the warlock list is pretty good).

Would hellfire on a vitriolic blast work on a clay golem? I figure that the acid damage part would be useless but would the bonus damage from hellfire blast through and damage the golem?

[Runestar]

Something you forget about Summon Swarm - it's 1d6 damage and an auto-hit. Mooks at level 1 have very low hp and many have good armor classes. Summon Swarm ends up with a better damage ratio than swords because it always hits. It deals about the same damage as magic missile, but it's at will and has a debuff effect as well.

Umm...a 1st lv barb deals 2d6+9 minimum while raging, typically enough to 1-shot any mook. With 1d6 damage, you may be taking 2-4 rounds to do them in, during which they can still contribute in battle. Seems quite inefficient, IMO.

No caster at 1st lv uses magic missile anyways, not when you have better tools such as sleep or colour spray.

Though I agree that if you keep comparing them to wizards, they will always come up short. Like the warmage, I think they fit an archer theme better. It's all about context.

[Pechvarry]

Good write-up, though I'm not a huge fan of the assumed acceptance of legacy champion or even mindsight in campaigns. This makes me want to play with more warlocks.

It might be worth addressing the Drow of the Underdark Darkness feats, as has been highlighted elsewhere -- namely, immediate action darkness and a sort of ghetto hide in plain sight.

Is Loose a dialect thing? I think you want to say "Save or Lose".

[sreservoir]

Umm...a 1st lv barb deals 2d6+9 minimum while raging, typically enough to 1-shot any mook. With 1d6 damage, you may be taking 2-4 rounds to do them in, during which they can still contribute in battle. Seems quite inefficient, IMO.

No caster at 1st lv uses magic missile anyways, not when you have better tools such as sleep or colour spray.

Though I agree that if you keep comparing them to wizards, they will always come up short. Like the warmage, I think they fit an archer theme better. It's all about context.

the key is not how much damage it does. it's the auto-hit part.

[MeeposFire]

the key is not how much damage it does. it's the auto-hit part.

Yea but at these levels you chances of hitting most creatures is high enough that the swarm is very nice but quickly loses steam.

[thompur]

I like boosting con myself (and intelligence since I am a skill monger and the warlock list is pretty good).

Would hellfire on a vitriolic blast work on a clay golem? I figure that the acid damage part would be useless but would the bonus damage from hellfire blast through and damage the golem?

Although it's never stated in FCII, isn't Hellfire an essence? If my DM said it was, I wouldn't argue. The way it's described in FCII is very similar to the way CAr describes Eldritch Blast Esseences. An arguement could be made either way.

That gives me an idea for a meta-magic feat for warlocks: Combined Essences.
3x/day. Hmmmm

[gbprime]

Indeed. Even a Barbarian with a +7 to hit at 1st level is still hitting only 2/3 of the time against an AC 15 foe. Most party members are running 50% or worse against such a formidable AC at 1st level.

So yeah, auto-hit is good. and you can trade out the invocation later in your career.

[Runestar]

Indeed. Even a Barbarian with a +7 to hit at 1st level is still hitting only 2/3 of the time against an AC 15 foe. Most party members are running 50% or worse against such a formidable AC at 1st level.

So yeah, auto-hit is good. and you can trade out the invocation later in your career.

Yeah, +7 to hit minimum
+2 charge
+2 flanking
+1 masterwork weapon
Not to mention other misc bonuses such as bless/trip etc. I am really missing only on a natural 1.

Autohit is kinda overrated, if you ask me, with the weak damage and all.

[The Glyphstone]

+6 Str in a rage, +2 charge, +1 BAB...where are you getting the other +5 or 6 from? You can't assume a flank, unless the barbarian is delaying for a round or two, 1st-level characters can't even afford a masterwork weapon under typical WBL/starting packages, an enemy won't start the fight tripped, and it'll take a turn for the cleric to get a blessing on you.

Meanwhile, the Warlock is opening up with his auto-hitting 1d6 from turn 1. It's not a lot, but it's not the irrelevance that you appear to be seeing it as, since all those bonuses you claim are situational or take at least 1-2 turns to set up properly.

[MeeposFire]

Although it's never stated in FCII, isn't Hellfire an essence? If my DM said it was, I wouldn't argue. The way it's described in FCII is very similar to the way CAr describes Eldritch Blast Esseences. An arguement could be made either way.

That gives me an idea for a meta-magic feat for warlocks: Combined Essences.
3x/day. Hmmmm

Officially no. As far as I know it is not an essence nor has it been ruled as such. Though I do agree with you that it would be a reasonable houserule.

[Jack Zander]

You forgot something about summon swarm. It has a duration of concentration +2 rounds. If a swarm goes after an ally, you won't be able to simply poof it away. However, you can create a new swarm every round and have 3 swarms going at a time this way.

[gorfnab]

Here's my favorite versatile warlock build. The Hellfire Ur-Lock - Warlock 4/ Binder 1/ Ur-Priest 2/ Eldritch Disciple 2/ Hellfire Warlock 3/ Eldritch Disciple 8. You could also take out one level of Eldritch Disciple and put in a level of Mindbender if you want Mindsight.

[candycorn]

First, on stacking fear: Abilities do not stack with themselves unless they explicitly state that they do. That said, escalating fear makes a 1 minute shaken useful... After all, you can layer it on top of an intimidate check, and make it frightened for a minute.

Second, on using Voracious Dispelling to counter spells: SLA's cannot counter spells, nor can they be countered by spells.

Third, on the Blend into Shadows HiPS trick: You only need a 1 level warlock dip. The same book with Blend into Shadows has a feat that lets you ignore the Darkness spell. End result: 2 feats, 1 level dip, and you can have HiPS at level 1.

[aboyd]

You forgot something about summon swarm. It has a duration of concentration +2 rounds. If a swarm goes after an ally, you won't be able to simply poof it away. However, you can create a new swarm every round and have 3 swarms going at a time this way.
From Complete Arcane: "Unlike the spell, this invocation has a duration of concentration instead of concentration + 2 rounds." So yes, you can simply poof it away, and no, you can't have 3 of them going.

[true_shinken]

Umm...a 1st lv barb deals 2d6+9 minimum while raging, typically enough to 1-shot any mook. With 1d6 damage, you may be taking 2-4 rounds to do them in, during which they can still contribute in battle. Seems quite inefficient, IMO.
Yeah, they deal 2d6+9... if they hit. Accuracy is spetacularly low at level 1.


Yea but at these levels you chances of hitting most creatures is high enough that the swarm is very nice but quickly loses steam.
Hell no. Low levels are where AC shines.

[Runestar]

Yeah, they deal 2d6+9... if they hit. Accuracy is spetacularly low at level 1.

I honestly don't see 1d6 damage/round as worth it even if autohit as a viable alternative. I suppose if you were facing kobold mooks with 2 hp each...

For me at least, the damage is crap enough that I am willing to risk the miss chance for the potentially huge damage.:smalltongue:

[true_shinken]

I honestly don't see 1d6 damage/round as worth it even if autohit as a viable alternative. I suppose if you were facing kobold mooks with 2 hp each...
I was talking specifically about kobolds, actually.


For me at least, the damage is crap enough that I am willing to risk the miss chance for the potentially huge damage.:smalltongue:
I ran some numbers on this. The damage a raging Barbarian does indeed makes the comparison pointless.

[candycorn]

Also note: A barbarian, at level 1, rages once per day. That means, on the other 3 encounters, he is at 2d6+6, and +5 to hit.

Really, let's go with how it's usually gonna be, rather than the one encounter per day the barbarian tries to crush.

Summon Swarm is excellent at low levels because each round is a save or be stuck also; after all, a nauseated creature cannot: Attack, cast spells, use SLA's, total defense, fight defensively, withdraw, partial withdraw, etc etc.

They get a move action. That's it. And at these levels? Even a typical Orc warrior (CR 1/2) is going down in an average of 2 rounds to a spider swarm, and has a decent chance of either being Strength damaged or nauseated on his turn (35% chance for each).

Even better? Only Summon swarm ability I can think of that's a standard action. That means it comes out and deals damage on the round you use it. Even if you don't maintain concentration on it, it's still gonna be there long enough to drop the orc.

[Flickerdart]

Also, consider that most enemies will have considerably lower HP than 2d6+9. The damage is spectacularly higher than 1d6, but most of it goes to waste.

[fryplink]

What about Devils Whispers, I think it's in cityscape, but I'm not 100% sure. It acts as a suggestion, except the target thinks that they had the idea, not the Warlock. Absolutely beautiful. At-will.

I used that invocation to get a village of commoners to attack their lord (we were sent to assassinate him). I also had an eternal wand of alter self, and an eternal wand of charm. Convinced them their lord had killed a girl in the village (I actually used her soul and the souls of a few villagers to make some scrolls, I forget the exchange rate, but, it was either a houserule or from BOVD). That killed the guards (and most of the villagers, ashame, wanted to make another eternal wand), then I actually devils whispered him to hide in my bag holding. I closed it and he suffocated.

[Thespianus]

also, a Swarm is always a 10 ft creature if I'm reading the SRD right, so a strategically placed Summon Swarm could auto-hit 4 enemies, while the Barbarian has one attack against one enemy.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

First, on stacking fear: Abilities do not stack with themselves unless they explicitly state that they do. That said, escalating fear makes a 1 minute shaken useful... After all, you can layer it on top of an intimidate check, and make it frightened for a minute. Fear effects explicitly state that they stack.


Second, on using Voracious Dispelling to counter spells: SLA's cannot counter spells, nor can they be countered by spells. Voracious Dispelling allows you to use the spell Dispel Magic, which explicitly can be used to counterspell ANY spell, with a dispel check. This is the mechanic you use to counterspell with.

The passage you are referring to is about specific SLA's countering specific spells. Thus a creature with Haste as a SLA cannot use it to counterspell the wizard's casting of Haste, and vice versa.


Third, on the Blend into Shadows HiPS trick: You only need a 1 level warlock dip. The same book with Blend into Shadows has a feat that lets you ignore the Darkness spell. End result: 2 feats, 1 level dip, and you can have HiPS at level 1.

That's still a very steep investment for a single trick, although probably viable for a rogue build.

Also, the thing about Summon swarm vs barbarian attack are as follows:

* It's guaranteed damage. A barbarian can roll that natural 1, or simply not have all the advantages stacked in his favor.

* In addition to guaranteed damage, it's also Fort Save or Nauseated, and if you are using spiders, it's also a Fort Save or Str damage. That's TWO fort saves for the price of none.

* Area effect. It can hit multiple opponents, and can continue going after multiple opponents when a barbarian might have trouble fitting through or otherwise occupied.

Don't think of it as area effect damage. Think of it as a first-level Stinking Cloud that also does some damage even if they make their saving throw.

[Runestar]

Also note: A barbarian, at level 1, rages once per day. That means, on the other 3 encounters, he is at 2d6+6, and +5 to hit.

There are barbarians who don't take extra rage as their 1st lv feat? :smalltongue:


Also, consider that most enemies will have considerably lower HP than 2d6+9. The damage is spectacularly higher than 1d6, but most of it goes to waste.

Oh, I can think of quite a few foes with pretty high hp. Or maybe it is just my DM flooding us with tougher-than usual monsters.

Dire rat (cr1/3) - 5hp, or 8 if you replace its feat with toughness.
Human zombie(cr1/2) - 16hp, dr5.
Lemure (cr1) - 9hp, dr5
Small earth elemental(cr1) - 11hp
Dretch(cr2) - hp9, dr5
Gnoll(cr1) - 9hp
Ghoul(cr1) - 13hp
Wolf(cr1) - 9hp
Small animated object(cr1) - 15hp
Tanarruk(cr2) - 22hp
Bugbear zombie(cr2) - 39hp, dr5/slashing.

So it seems hard for the minimum 10 damage a raging barb would deal to be wasted.

[true_shinken]

Oh, I can think of quite a few foes with pretty high hp. Or maybe it is just my DM flooding us with tougher-than usual monsters.

I believe he meant a barbarian does high damage, so he should attack the tougher guys and let the warlock mop up the mooks.

[Flickerdart]

There are barbarians who don't take extra rage as their 1st lv feat? :smalltongue:



Oh, I can think of quite a few foes with pretty high hp. Or maybe it is just my DM flooding us with tougher-than usual monsters.

Dire rat (cr1/3) - 5hp, or 8 if you replace its feat with toughness.
Human zombie(cr1/2) - 16hp, dr5.
Lemure (cr1) - 9hp, dr5
Small earth elemental(cr1) - 11hp
Dretch(cr2) - hp9, dr5
Gnoll(cr1) - 9hp
Ghoul(cr1) - 13hp
Wolf(cr1) - 9hp
Small animated object(cr1) - 15hp
Tanarruk(cr2) - 22hp
Bugbear zombie(cr2) - 39hp, dr5/slashing.

So it seems hard for the minimum 10 damage a raging barb would deal to be wasted.

The average damage of the Barbarian (14) overshoots nearly all of the CR1 or lower encounters. The minimum (11) slays nearly half of the creatures you listed. Yeah, there are some guys with high HP - but not all of them will have high HP and the low AC you need to hit reliably.

[candycorn]

Fear effects explicitly state that they stack.Fair enough. Looking over the rules, it doesn't make any indication that the source needs to be different.

Voracious Dispelling allows you to use the spell Dispel Magic, which explicitly can be used to counterspell ANY spell, with a dispel check. This is the mechanic you use to counterspell with.
The passage you are referring to is about specific SLA's countering specific spells. Thus a creature with Haste as a SLA cannot use it to counterspell the wizard's casting of Haste, and vice versa.
Wrong. It lets you use the Spell-Like Ability Voracious Dispelling, which functions as Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic normally has an option for dispelling; however, when it is used as a spell-like ability, that option is barred from use.

The entire paragraph barring it (as well as the preceding):
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell:For Voracious Dispelling to override the general rule that Spell-Like Abilities may NOT counter spells or be countered (which does not refer to direct spell-to-spell counters, but to any and all uses in the counterspell description), it would need to explicitly state that it can. It does not, therefore it cannot. You can DISPEL with voracious dispelling, but not counter.

The wording is phrased in such a manner that when you come to a situation where you would try to counter, you do this:

1) Attempt to counter.
1a) Ability is a Spell-Like Ability; a ban is in place on counterspelling with SLA's

Q.) Does the ability explicitly state that it can counter, in spite of the ban?
If yes, then the ability can counter
If no, then the ability cannot counter.

Any other interpretation of that line is a houserule.

So, does Voracious Dispelling EXPLICITLY, in the description for the spell-like ability, state that it can be used to counter spells? No.

It references behaving as a spell. When that spell is cast as a spell, it can dispel. By default, when it is cast as a spell-like ability, it cannot.

This casts it, without anything empowering it to violate rules common to all SLA's. Therefore, it cannot.

[MeeposFire]

Interestingly enough the invocation casters lament allows you to counter spell and it is listed explicitly in the description.

[faceroll]

Fear effects explicitly state that they stack.

Frightful Blast doesn't affect shaken creatures. It's right there in Complete Arcane.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The entire paragraph barring it (as well as the preceding):For Voracious Dispelling to override the general rule that Spell-Like Abilities may NOT counter spells or be countered (which does not refer to direct spell-to-spell counters, but to any and all uses in the counterspell description), it would need to explicitly state that it can. It does not, therefore it cannot. You can DISPEL with voracious dispelling, but not counter.

The wording is phrased in such a manner that when you come to a situation where you would try to counter, you do this:

1) Attempt to counter.
1a) Ability is a Spell-Like Ability; a ban is in place on counterspelling with SLA's

Q.) Does the ability explicitly state that it can counter, in spite of the ban?
If yes, then the ability can counter
If no, then the ability cannot counter.

Any other interpretation of that line is a houserule.

So, does Voracious Dispelling EXPLICITLY, in the description for the spell-like ability, state that it can be used to counter spells? No.

It references behaving as a spell. When that spell is cast as a spell, it can dispel. By default, when it is cast as a spell-like ability, it cannot.

This casts it, without anything empowering it to violate rules common to all SLA's. Therefore, it cannot.

Oh, very good... an impassioned and reasoned response. I applaud your efforts. Have you considered a career in politics?

However, I would question a couple of points.

First off, these aren't spell-like abilities, precisely. They're invocations. Which mostly act as spell-like abilities. For example, they have somatic components and are subject to arcane spell-failure chance of medium and heavy armor.

Secondly, you need to turn to Complete Arcane, page 136, and read the actual description of the invocation at hand. "You can use Dispel Magic as the spell." Not 'as the spell-like ability', not 'you can dispel as though you had used Dispel Magic', but you can use dispel magic as the spell.

Reading under Dispel Magic, it explicitly states that it can be used to counterspell, albiet at a dispel check.

Ergo, explicitly stating it can dispel, it can.

Thank you for playing, we have an excellent consolation prize waiting for you after the show.

[aboyd]

First off, these aren't spell-like abilities, precisely. They're invocations.
From Complete Arcane, page 8: "invocations are spell-like abilities, not spells."

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Reading comprehension. Read the very next sentence in my paragraph, wherin I do state that it acts, in most ways, as SLA's.

Unfortunately, warlocks are not found in Complete Adventurer. Perhaps you were referring to Complete Arcane?

Ahh, here we go, I found the passage to which you refer. However, while it goes on to repeat the majority of the language found in the SRD vis-a-vis Spell-Like Abilities, it is notoriously mute on the topic of counterspelling.

And, as the invocation description states, use Dispel Magic as per the spell... which includes being able to counterspell.

[candycorn]

Oh, very good... an impassioned and reasoned response. I applaud your efforts. Have you considered a career in politics?

However, I would question a couple of points.

First off, these aren't spell-like abilities, precisely. They're invocations. Which mostly act as spell-like abilities. For example, they have somatic components and are subject to arcane spell-failure chance of medium and heavy armor.
I recommend less thought into my career choices and more into checking your facts. This took 30 seconds to disprove.


Secondly, you need to turn to Complete Arcane, page 136, and read the actual description of the invocation at hand. "You can use Dispel Magic as the spell." Not 'as the spell-like ability', not 'you can dispel as though you had used Dispel Magic', but you can use dispel magic as the spell.

Reading under Dispel Magic, it explicitly states that it can be used to counterspell, albiet at a dispel check.

Ergo, explicitly stating it can dispel, it can.

Thank you for playing, we have an excellent consolation prize waiting for you after the show.
Yes, As the spell. So you have 3 options, 2 of which are legal, because regardless of WHAT else the spell description says, the rules on SLA's say simply, no.

Say you have a car. Your car can go from 0-60 in 2.7 seconds. It tops out at 115mph, normally We'll call it the DisMag Roadster. However, your car has a limiter chip in it, the SLA Inhibitor, which shuts it off if you go over 85.

Now, you can argue all day that your car can go over 85. You can point out youtube videos of DisMag Roadsters without that limiter chip going 115 mph. But that doesn't change the simple fact that as long as your DisMag has an SLA attached to it, it ain't going over 85.

Because quite simply: Optional choices do not overcome hard and fast restrictions. SLA's cannot counter - hard and fast restriction.

Dispel magic: 3 uses - Dispel 1, dispel 2, counter.

Dispel magic as a SLA: 3 uses, 2 of which are legal, one of which cannot be used due to restrictions on the ability.

Per the SLA description, it functions EXACTLY "as the spell".... except for these few little things. Comp Arcane CAN overcome the "no somatic component" part, because it explicitly says that the SLA does have one. It's not an option. It's a mandatory part of the ability. It creates a rule contradiction, and it is primary source.

Dispel magic has no contradiction. The ability is usable in ways that do not cause the rules to contradict themselves. Since that is possible, then that is the interpretation that is RAW.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I recommend less thought into my career choices and more into checking your facts. This took 30 seconds to disprove.

Yes, As the spell. So you have 3 options, 2 of which are legal, because regardless of WHAT else the spell description says, the rules on SLA's say simply, no.

Say you have a car. Your car can go from 0-60 in 2.7 seconds. It tops out at 115mph, normally We'll call it the DisMag Roadster. However, your car has a limiter chip in it, the SLA Inhibitor, which shuts it off if you go over 85.

Now, you can argue all day that your car can go over 85. You can point out youtube videos of DisMag Roadsters without that limiter chip going 115 mph. But that doesn't change the simple fact that as long as your DisMag has an SLA attached to it, it ain't going over 85.

Because quite simply: Optional choices do not overcome hard and fast restrictions. SLA's cannot counter - hard and fast restriction.

Dispel magic: 3 uses - Dispel 1, dispel 2, counter.

Dispel magic as a SLA: 3 uses, 2 of which are legal, one of which cannot be used due to restrictions on the ability.

Per the SLA description, it functions EXACTLY "as the spell".... except for these few little things. Comp Arcane CAN overcome the "no somatic component" part, because it explicitly says that the SLA does have one. It's not an option. It's a mandatory part of the ability. It creates a rule contradiction, and it is primary source.

Dispel magic has no contradiction. The ability is usable in ways that do not cause the rules to contradict themselves. Since that is possible, then that is the interpretation that is RAW.

Your example is inherently flawed because anyone with a basic knowledge of how governors work can edit or remove them to allow the vehicle to move at it's full maximum speed. Which is what the wording of the ability is doing in this case.

By allowing you to use Dispel Magic as the spell, you are able to use a dispel check to counterspell. It doesn't say 'use dispel magic, except for being able to be used to counterspell', it doesn't say 'use dispel magic as a spell-like ability', it doesn't say 'can remove magical effects similar to dispel magic', it says 'use dispel magic, as per the spell', and therefore you can, specific rules about being able to trump general rules about normally being unable to.

[mykelyk]

Fair enough. Looking over the rules, it doesn't make any indication that the source needs to be different.

Actually Rules Compendium does.

Multiple exposures to the same effect don’t trigger this escalation of fear. Exposure to different effects does. When such multiple exposures occur, the worst stage of fear lasts until the duration of all the effects causing the fear expire.

I would say that the same spell/invocation is the same effect.

[aboyd]

And, as the invocation description states, use Dispel Magic as per the spell... which includes being able to counterspell.
All SLAs are as per the spell, with exceptions. That's the definition of an SLA. The fact that the SLA says "as per the spell" is merely redundant text. Regardless, everything else is stacked against your argument anyway. Complete Arcane, page 71:


"The only differences between invocations and other spell-like abilities is that invocations require somatic gestures and are therefore subject to arcane spell failure."
If that's the only difference, then Voracious Dispelling cannot get extra differences. And from The D&D 3.5 FAQ:


Question: A warlock’s eldritch blast is treated like a spell in all regards, and is also a ray. Thus, could a warlock use the Split Ray metamagic feat to hit two opponents instead of one?

Answer: No. First of all, a warlock’s eldritch blast isn’t “treated like a spell in all regards”—it’s a spell-like ability that also shares some special characteristics of a spell (for instance, being subject to arcane spell failure and requiring somatic components). As CAr points out, the warlock can’t apply metamagic feats to his invocations; however, he can apply feats that emulate metamagic effects specifically for spell-like abilities, such as Empower Spell-Like Ability (CA 7). Thus, you can’t use Split Ray to affect an eldritch blast.

From another question in the FAQ:


Question: Is the warlock’s eldritch blast considered a natural weapon? After all, it’s derived from his fiendish heritage.

Answer: No. A warlock’s eldritch blast is not a natural weapon; it’s a spell-like ability.
In summary, people keep trying to convince the publisher to treat the invocations as something other than an SLA, and they keep getting rebuffed. I understand that you want the advantage that a twisted interpretation of the rules would confer. Who wouldn't? But it clearly is not the intention of the publisher. But hey, if you can convince DMs to go with it, good for you. Just don't be surprised when your party is in trouble and the DM suddenly takes the unprecedented step of having a fiend use its Dispel Magic SLA to counter the teleport spell that would save the party from certain death.

After all, if you're going to advocate munchkinism for yourself, you can expect the DM to do likewise.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

FAQ is not worth the paper it is printed on, pure and simple. It often contradicts itself.

Also, specific trumps general. Normally, the only differences between SLA's and Invocations are that Invocations have somatic components. However, if it explicitly states otherwise in the invocation description, then that will trump the 'general' rule.


In summary, people keep trying to convince the publisher to treat the invocations as something other than an SLA, and they keep getting rebuffed. I understand that you want the advantage that a twisted interpretation of the rules would confer. Who wouldn't? But it clearly is not the intention of the publisher. I would strongly disagree with all of the aforementioned points.

First off, RAI, it's pretty clear that using Dispel Magic to counterspell is, in effect, a preemptive dispelling, since it requires a dispel check to produce. So I see this as perfectly being within RAI and 'what the publisher intended'.

Second off, it's not that much of a power boost, considering the limitations of counterspelling anyways. You have to ready an action to do it, so it's only good if you know your job is to try to keep the opponent caster (and pray they've only got ONE) occupied while the rest of the party does their thing.


But hey, if you can convince DMs to go with it, good for you. Just don't be surprised when your party is in trouble and the DM suddenly takes the unprecedented step of having a fiend use its Dispel Magic SLA to counter the teleport spell that would save the party from certain death.

After all, if you're going to advocate munchkinism for yourself, you can expect the DM to do likewise.Wait, you mean your NPC's don't use their SLA's intelligently? Well, that's problem number one right there.

Of course, you still have to ready an action to counterspell, so you have to actively know you're going to need it before you do it. So you can't just do it on the fly.

But if you call using SLA's intelligently to be 'munchkining', then I suppose we've got radically different definitions of the term.

[candycorn]

Also, specific trumps general. Normally, the only differences between SLA's and Invocations are that Invocations have somatic components. However, if it explicitly states otherwise in the invocation description, then that will trump the 'general' rule.The bolded statement is a lot like saying, 'the only difference between pork and meat is that pork is always white.

The only difference between a Ford Focus and a car is fuel efficiency.
The only difference between an orange and fruit is citrus content.
The only difference between an ability that is a SLA and a SLA is.... buh?


First off, RAI, it's pretty clear that using Dispel Magic to counterspell is, in effect, a preemptive dispelling, since it requires a dispel check to produce. So I see this as perfectly being within RAI and 'what the publisher intended'. RAI is also worth the paper it's printed on. Counterspelling is NOT a pre-emptive dispelling. Dispelling is stopping something from happening, Countering is never letting it happen in the first place. It's like the difference between taking a cab 2 miles and then stopping early, and never leaving the house.

You claim to have some great insight into RAI. However, let's look.

"the SLA can't counterspell section is only intended to mean direct counters, like a Haste SLA used to counter a Haste spell" -You.
Rules - No support whatsoever.

"invocations aren't REALLY Spell-like abilities".
Rules - Direct contradiction.

I'd wager that your grip on designer intent is a bit shaky, considering your grip on what's in black and white has been continually rebuffed.


Second off, it's not that much of a power boost, considering the limitations of counterspelling anyways. You have to ready an action to do it, so it's only good if you know your job is to try to keep the opponent caster (and pray they've only got ONE) occupied while the rest of the party does their thing. And giving fighters an arbitrary bonus to hit of +1 for every 3 levels for off hand attacks isn't that much of a power boost either.

That doesn't change the fact that it's not the rules.

Of course, you still have to ready an action to counterspell, so you have to actively know you're going to need it before you do it. So you can't just do it on the fly. And then you have to use an ability that is either not a SLA, or an SLA that, in its SLA description, underneath its SLA title, explicitly and unequivocally states that it is eligible to counter.

Oh, and Shneekey? Anyone with a basic knowledge of rules can edit or remove them also. That doesn't change the fact that they are the rules. If you want to edit or remove rules to make warlock able to stack its own fear effects, or counter with abilities that can't counter, that's your right.

But what it is not, is RAW.

After all, if you're going to stick with this using Dispel Magic as the spell, then you have to take the other side of that too. Using it as the spell means you have to cast it. Expend a spell slot. Verify it's on your class list. Produce the required components.

Oh, wait, warlock can't do that? They don't have spellcasting ability? Oh, darn. Ah yes, because you don't get to pick and choose what parts are "as the spell" and what parts are "a spell-like ability". The whole thing is a spell-like ability, with ALL the benefits and hindrances that brings.

[true_shinken]

Shneekey and cadycorn, why are you discussing this? The warlock gets Caster's Lament. :smallconfused:

[Tael]

Also, to whomever stated "The only Summon Swarm ability that is a standard action", Invocations specifically say that take the same time to cast as the spell that they mimic.

[candycorn]

Also, to whomever stated "The only Summon Swarm ability that is a standard action", Invocations specifically say that take the same time to cast as the spell that they mimic.

Where does it say that? Complete Arcane, p.7, states:
A warlock’s invocations are spell-like abilities; using an invocation is therefore a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

There's the standard. Where's the exception?

Not saying I might not be wrong, but I have a rule supporting the position.

[true_shinken]

Where does it say that? Complete Arcane, p.7, states:

There's the standard. Where's the exception?

Not saying I might not be wrong, but I have a rule supporting the position.

He's probably confused by the Monster Manual description of spell-like abilities. There, it says a spell-like ability takes as long to cast as the spell it emulates. Warlock is an exception, though.

[Forged Fury]

He's probably confused by the Monster Manual description of spell-like abilities. There, it says a spell-like ability takes as long to cast as the spell it emulates. Warlock is an exception, though.
The way the warlock's entry is written (particularly the "therefore" part) is kind of weird. It's almost as if the designer assumed that SLAs were always standard actions, instead of "usually" standard actions as described in the MM.

[true_shinken]

The way the warlock's entry is written (particularly the "therefore" part) is kind of weird. It's almost as if the designer assumed that SLAs were always standard actions, instead of "usually" standard actions as described in the MM.

RAI for Warlocks is pretty convoluted. For example, Warlocks have invocations that use dark speech... but have no verbal components by RAW.
The RAW here is pretty simple, though. All invocations are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Shneekey and cadycorn, why are you discussing this? The warlock gets Caster's Lament. :smallconfused:

Caster's Lament is a Dark invocation, Voracious Dispelling is a lesser.

But you are right, this is turning into something like trying to argue with Giacomo...

[Flickerdart]

One wonders if the "can't be used to dispel" clause was intended to apply to stuff like using slow to counter haste, and similar combinations. Clarification on this point would have been nice, but it's WotC we're talking about here.

[Forged Fury]

One wonders if the "can't be used to dispel" clause was intended to apply to stuff like using slow to counter haste, and similar combinations. Clarification on this point would have been nice, but it's WotC we're talking about here.
I think I'm with Shneeky here. I think that was RAI if not RAW.
Voracious Dispelling = Dispel Magic
Caster's Lament = Greater Dispel Magic

Doesn't seem to overpowering to me (particularly since counterspelling tends to be so sub-par). Also, Dispel Magic is a specific exception to the Counterspell rules. I guess you'd have to determine which exception takes precedence.

[candycorn]

Caster's Lament is a Dark invocation, Voracious Dispelling is a lesser.

But you are right, this is turning into something like trying to argue with Giacomo...
Exactly. And that should give you an idea on how powerful an at-will counter should be.

I.E. available at the level you gain dark invocations. When they give a SLA the ability to explicitly counter spells. Prior to that, they do not. Which means it cannot.

Just as fear from the same ability cannot stack (as you claimed).
Just as Warlock invocations are SLA's (despite what you claimed).

You know the common factor in those arguments you speak of? He used a lot of false and misleading disinformation.

See, that is a perfect example of a spell like ability explicitly contradicting the rule against SLA's countering. It needs to be THAT specific. Anything less, and there's no contradiction. If there's no contradiction, the text of the power can't take precedence. If it can't take precedence, then the general ban on SLA's countering takes precedence.

And if that happens, then a SLA cannot counter.

It's that simple.

If you want to argue RAI, it's pretty clear that Voracious Dispelling was designed with dispelling active effects in mind, especially considering the rider effect. You can say that counterspells are "pretty much kinda sorta a bit like" dispels.... But they're not. That's false and misleading disinformation.

Just like invocations "not" being SLA's.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

One wonders if the "can't be used to dispel" clause was intended to apply to stuff like using slow to counter haste, and similar combinations. Clarification on this point would have been nice, but it's WotC we're talking about here.

That's precisely what my opinion is. Furthermore, as it is, in most respects, a spell, one can state that they would like to ready an action to counterspell that specific spell with that specific spell. This would let a critter with Haste as a spell-like ability, normally designed to make itself faster, use it to instead counterspell the wizard's Haste spell on the party, which was not as intended. A Haste spell-like ability should not be used to counter another Haste spell or spell-like ability.

However, one of the functions of Dispel Magic is to be able to counterspell, with an appropriate dispel check. This is one of the designed and intended purposes of the spell. Thus it is entirely appropriate and reasonable to allow this to continue to happen.


Exactly. And that should give you an idea on how powerful an at-will counter should be.Have you, perchance, considered a career as a stand-up comedian?

I can count, on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of times in which a Counterspell has been used in any game I have either played or GM'd in since 3.0 first came out. Generally, this is simply because there are better things to do with your time than try to counterspell something... like making sure it is no longer in a position to cast anything before it gets a chance. Why bother wasting a turn readying an action to counterspell when you can instead use something like Beshadowed Blast and prevent it from being able to target anything with a spell in the first place?

[candycorn]

I think I'm with Shneeky here. I think that was RAI if not RAW.
Voracious Dispelling = Dispel Magic
Caster's Lament = Greater Dispel Magic

Doesn't seem to overpowering to me (particularly since counterspelling tends to be so sub-par). Also, Dispel Magic is a specific exception to the Counterspell rules. I guess you'd have to determine which exception takes precedence.
Dispel magic isn't an exception to counterspell rules.

It's PART of them.

SEE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#counterspells)? Right there, in black and... greenish. Dispel Magic as a counterspell, in the section on counterspells.

It's an additional option for counterspelling.

When you go to the salad bar, you may take any of A, B, or C.
When you are on a diet, you may not take C.
If you are on a diet, and go to the salad bar, you may therefore take A or B.

The salad bar is dispel magic.
A is targeted dispel.
B is area dispel.
C is counterspell.
"Being on a diet" is "using a SLA"

[Flickerdart]

It's actually more of a beige.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Look, you are apparently incapable of comprehending 'specific trumps general', so I'm just going to leave it at that. You have fun with your diatribe.

[candycorn]

Look, you are apparently incapable of comprehending 'specific trumps general', so I'm just going to leave it at that. You have fun with your diatribe.

I am.

Generally, Dispel magic can counter spells.
However, specifically, Dispel Magic as an SLA cannot.
Specific trumps general.
Voracious Dispelling is Dispel Magic as an SLA.

Now, I've led the horse to water. I've splashed a little of that cool, refreshing water on its face. I've even smacked it about the head and shoulders with the RAW stick to get it drinking. But horses gotta choose to drink or they die, and I'm certainly not going to get to the point of beating a dead horse here. If that horse don't wanna drink, I guess I just gotta give up and leave it thirsty.

I've said the rules for why what you want and what the rules are, are different. You want to do it differently in your game? Great. You want to tell yourself that you're right, and the others are wrong? Cool. You do that. I've made the points. The points are correct. Keep saying what you want. Ain't gonna bother me none. After all, you aren't in a game I'm in.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I am.

Generally, Dispel magic can counter spells.
However, specifically, Dispel Magic as an SLA cannot.
Specific trumps general.
Voracious Dispelling is Dispel Magic as an SLA. That made my brain hurt...

SLA's not being able to dispel or be dispelled is a general rule
Voracious Dispelling acting exactly as a dispel magic spell, including being able to dispel, is an ability-specific rule.
Specific trumps general.

[testpatternmih]

Just check PHB pg:
170-171 for counterspelling
180 for Spell-Life abilities

For the casting time: In PHB description of Spell-Like and in MM1 they both say it is a standard action, where are you seeing the reference to spell-life using the original spells casting time?

[candycorn]

That made my brain hurt...

SLA's not being able to dispel or be dispelled is a general rule
Voracious Dispelling acting exactly as a dispel magic spell, including being able to dispel, is an ability-specific rule.
Specific trumps general.
I agree. Voracious Dispelling is able to dispel. That's not in contention. If you are referring to it being able to counter?

It doesn't say "exactly as a dispel magic spell". It says "as the spell".

Here's one for you:
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
Can it counter? That's the opening line of spell like abilities in the SRD, just before it says that they cannot. Usually, they DO work just like these spells. It's only in certain, very specific cases, that they do not.

The specific trumps general principle only applies if the rules contradict. The rules only contradict here if you wrangle them until they do.

If Voracious Dispelling's description in the book contradicted the SLA general text, you'd be absolutely right.

It doesn't. It mentions that the spell like ability uses a spell as it's template. Much like almost every Spell like ability out there.

It doesn't get to trump, because it never disagrees. The rules are only in discord when you force them to be. But there is an option which complies with all rules. That option is: Dispel Magic, as an SLA, cannot be used to counter, unless the ability granting it explicitly states that it can.

In that case, Voracious Dispelling is satisfied: You can use Dispel Magic at will.
The SLA rules are satisfied: You cannot counter a spell with a SLA.
No contradictions, and champagne falls from the heavens.

Now, no contradictions, nothing trumps nothing. Rules are in harmony.

In other words: The text "Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell" applies specifically to spells which can counter. For example: Light and darkness spells. Identical spells. Dispel magic.

It bars that option. You can't use the player that's been kicked out of the game to make your slam dunk, guy. When Dispel is used as part of a SLA, the third option is GONE. Vanish. Poof! Because the rules say nein. To reintroduce them, specific text must allow it back in. That text must specifically be in the SLA, or the general spell text don't matter diddly. And hanging your hopes on "as the spell", when nearly all SLA's function as the spell they imitate, by the first sentence on SLA's in the SRD, before it explicitly bans countering... Seems a rather unstable foundation.

[Marnath]

Seems to me like only a willful misreading can lead to saying that you can't couterspell with voracious dispelling. "as the spell" doesn't get more explicit.

I'm with shneekey.

[Tr011]

I didn't read the whole thread, I'm sorry if it doesn't work or just was allrdy said...

But why don't you just max out your Warlock by Cerebremancer?
Eldritch Blast AND the Invocations climb up to their maximum by just increasing your CL. So you start like that:

Human Sorcerer 1: (lvl1-Feat) Able Learner, (Human) Precocious Apprentice

Now you are a arcane Spellcaster with access to some schools (you need this for Precocious Apprentice) and any 2nd-level-spell (by Precocious Apprentice ComArc 181).

(ECL 2) Wilderer 1: Manifester Level 1, uhh yeah it is based on Cha just like Sorcerer. Now you still can, as a Arcane/Manifester with high Cha just blast your way up to...

(ECL 3) Warlock 1: Finally you take Warlock. Choose some cool invocations like that huge buff for your cha-skills. As a Feat, you take Practised Manifester. Wow, level 3 manifester allows you using lvl 2 Powers. So you are a overpowered semi-skill-monkey on Cha-checks at level 3 with Level-1-spells, a tiny Eldritch Blast and some cool Powers.

(ECL 4) Cerebremancer 1: Skills at 6? Check. Level 2 Spell and Level 2 Powers? Check. So no reason not to improve your Warlock Invocations and your powers.

The next levels you just take Cerebremancer and the 6th-level-Feat will be Practised Spellcaster - to adjust your Warlock-invocations to your HD. You still can take one Level into Binder and a later level into Hellfire Warlock just for the lulz and you will still be a full-powered Manifester AND Warlock, granting you unlimited uses of Nukes and usefull powers (and even Spells like Detect Magic by the Sorcerer Level).

Any reason for this not to work properly?

[candycorn]

Seems to me like only a willful misreading can lead to saying that you can't couterspell with voracious dispelling. "as the spell" doesn't get more explicit.

I'm with shneekey.

If it didn't put "as the spell", there would be no rules to adjudicate HOW the dispel went down. It would be an ability without any definition. No rolls, no checks, no way to determine what was and wasn't dispelled.

"as the spell" is written in Invocation descriptions all over that book. It's more likely bad editing leaving open a loophole for people desperate to counterspell at will on the same level Sorceror gets it a few times a day.

Yes. Lesser invocations are available at level 6. Sorcerors first get dispel magic at level 6 as their only known spell of that level, no more than 4 times per day. Consider this when you're having your RAI party, and claiming other views are deliberate misreading.

[Marnath]

If it didn't put "as the spell", there would be no rules to adjudicate HOW the dispel went down. It would be an ability without any definition. No rolls, no checks, no way to determine what was and wasn't dispelled.
how fortunate then that it does list how you are to use it, yes?


"as the spell" is written in Invocation descriptions all over that book. It's more likely bad editing leaving open a loophole for people desperate to counterspell at will on the same level Sorceror gets it a few times a day.

"There's evidence against my position all over in this book, so obviously it was an editing error." this is what I'm hearing from you.


Yes. Lesser invocations are available at level 6. Sorcerors first get dispel magic at level 6 as their only known spell of that level, no more than 4 times per day. Consider this when you're having your RAI party, and claiming other views are deliberate misreading.

I'm not seeing any relevance here. Care to elaborate? They can already use it to dispel normally unlimited times a day. That is not in dispute, even.

[Particle_Man]

I can count, on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of times in which a Counterspell has been used in any game I have either played or GM'd in since 3.0 first came out. Generally, this is simply because there are better things to do with your time than try to counterspell something... like making sure it is no longer in a position to cast anything before it gets a chance. Why bother wasting a turn readying an action to counterspell when you can instead use something like Beshadowed Blast and prevent it from being able to target anything with a spell in the first place?

V thinks otherwise. :)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html

[candycorn]

I can count, on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of times in which a Counterspell has been used in any game I have either played or GM'd in since 3.0 first came out. Generally, this is simply because there are better things to do with your time than try to counterspell something... like making sure it is no longer in a position to cast anything before it gets a chance. Why bother wasting a turn readying an action to counterspell when you can instead use something like Beshadowed Blast and prevent it from being able to target anything with a spell in the first place?

Because Beshadowed Blast allows a save, and a counterspell can deny any choice or option.

Regardless of your personal opinion concerning counterspelling, the game put "at will counterspell" as a dark invocation. That's about level 16. You can disagree with that little bit of RAI, if you like.... but it's hard to spit "RAI" out of your mouth like candy when it suits you, and dismiss it as laughable when it doesn't.

Just like multi round good speed flight is geared for level 5. At will natural flight is 6-8 ECL. You'll see smatterings of low speed flight (30 or less) with average maneuverability before then, and typically they'll have strict usage limits.

For example: Starspawn. Assuming you move at speed 40, you get a 20 foot fly speed at average maneuverability, usable for 1-5 rounds at a time, with a 2 feat investment and a Con investment. That speed will let you go up 5 feet a round (since you can't maintain vertical ascent, and vertical move costs double. Therefore a vertical diagonal is 15 feet of movement.

The game puts these limits in for reasons. Those are the RAI. Imagining that the "can't counterspell" line applies to some means of counterspell and not others (arbitrarily)... That's not.

[sreservoir]

Because Beshadowed Blast allows a save, and a counterspell can deny any choice or option.

that's in addition to damage which will force a concentration check; the counterspell allows a caster level check. which is easier to make, do you think?

[Forged Fury]

Dispel magic isn't an exception to counterspell rules.

It's PART of them.
Honestly, Voracious Dispelling as described in Complete Arcane specifically allows you to do anything contained HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm). The use of Dispel Magic is a general exception to How Counterspelling Works (See, it isn't even listed under that heading). Vis a vis, specific over general.

[candycorn]

that's in addition to damage which will force a concentration check; the counterspell allows a caster level check. which is easier to make, do you think?

A moderately dispel-oriented caster at level 13 can dispel CL 21 spells, regardless of level, with a level 3 dispel magic, 100% of the time. That's in addition to being perfectly set up for IotSV.

A psion can do it at level 10. Both are limited in uses per day, of course, but there are dispel boosts out there, and abilities that let you take 10 on the check. So, level 6? Add on a dispelling cord, and take 10 via feat? And it'd auto-counter any spell with a caster level 7 or less. Which means you can shut down a caster... As in, totally shut down.... That's casting a level higher than you.

And that's with a 2000g item, and 1 feat. So, Which is easier? The counterspell check.


Honestly, Voracious Dispelling as described in Complete Arcane specifically allows you to do anything contained HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm). The use of Dispel Magic is a general exception to How Counterspelling Works (See, it isn't even listed under that heading). Vis a vis, specific over general.

Honestly. Open up the SRD. Go to Magic Overview, and Counterspells. You have 4 sub-headings.
1) How the default works.
2) How metamagic applies.
3) Specific exceptions.
4) Using Dispel Magic to counter.

So, using dispel magic is not an exception. It's not listed in the exceptions section. It's another way to counterspell, as listed in the SRD section on counterspelling. That's the base section. Exceptions are like the Darkness spell, which is NOT specifically listed in the description, but has an entry.

See? Everything in the Counterspells section is the base counterspell rules.

Exceptions are those little things that come up in other places, like heat metal and chill metal. The base rules acknowledge that those exceptions are out there, but don't go into detail.

Everything in the Counterspell section is the rules, unless it's denoted as an exception.

And voracious dispelling allows you to do anything HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm), subject to restrictions, such as the ones found HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities).

[Forged Fury]

Lesser invocations are available at level 6. Sorcerors first get dispel magic at level 6 as their only known spell of that level, no more than 4 times per day. Consider this when you're having your RAI party, and claiming other views are deliberate misreading.
LOL. Yes, then at Level 7, the Sorcerer gets another Level 3 spell known. The Warlock waits until 8th level to get another Lesser Invocation, at which point a Sorcerer gets access to 4th level spells. It only gets worse from there. I don't think that's a very strong argument.

Yes, as interpreted by Shneekey and others, a Warlock with Voracious Dispelling can probably be a pretty good dedicated counterspeller (assuming they roll a good dispel check) if they do nothing else with their actions. That's not extremely useful.

Edit: Also by that argument, a Sorcerer can only use the other abilities of Dispel Magic 3 or 4 times a day at 6th level, while a Warlock can do it all day long. Should't that be considered overpowered too? All day long abilities are the price a Warlock pays for having so few of them, it's part of their schtick.

[candycorn]

LOL. Yes, then at Level 7, the Sorcerer gets another Level 3 spell known. The Warlock waits until 8th level to get another Lesser Invocation, at which point a Sorcerer gets access to 4th level spells. It only gets worse from there. I don't think that's a very strong argument.

There's a reason that dispel magic is a must-have. It's that good. Being able to spam it at will? Shuts down any caster you face, unless they're several levels higher than you.

And a decent sorceror level 3 might be... stinking cloud? Great, now the sorceror can use (stinking cloud + dispel magic) 5 times per day, and the lock? At will.

I'm not saying sorceror is weaker. I'm saying that the interpretation you suggest is absurd.

However, if you're arguing that it be used as a spell, then expend a spell slot to cast it. After all, it's used EXACTLY as the spell, right? And spells must either be memorized in a slot (which is then expended), or a spontaneous slot must be used. That's how we Use Dispel magic, exactly as the spell.

So show me how that happens. You guys want to tell me that "as the spell" means "exactly as a spell and not a spell-like-ability, despite the fact that it's a spell-like ability", then show me how on earth a warlock will be expending those level 3 slots. Heck, show me what level spell it is for warlocks.

EDIT: The difference is? Let's say I cast Enervation on the party barbarian. Now if you can counter, it never landed. If you can only dispel? that's a class of spell (instantaneous duration) that cannot be stopped. It's a big enough gap to balance it, and luckily, it's within the rules to deny it.

[Marnath]

, subject to restrictions, such as the ones found HERE (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities).

General rule. The Specific entry for voracious dispelling specifically says you may use it 'as the spell' which allows you to targeted dispel, area dispel, or counterspell.

Specific trumps general.

[Forged Fury]

I'm saying that the interpretation you suggest is absurd.
Except that it apparently isn't. Power level is about on keel with standard Dispel Magic whereas Caster's Lament is equivalent to Greater Dispel Magic. That's not absurd. Now this is absurd...

However, if you're arguing that it be used as a spell, then expend a spell slot to cast it. After all, it's used EXACTLY as the spell, right? And spells must either be memorized in a slot (which is then expended), or a spontaneous slot must be used. That's how we Use Dispel magic, exactly as the spell.I think most can see the absurdity of this interpretation of our argument.

By my position, Voracious Dispelling can be used to counterpsell based on the specific capability granted by the Dispel Magic spell (including the additional requirement of the Dispel Check). What it can't do is be used to counterspell an opponent's Dispel Magic, unless the counterspell technique used is the specific capability granted under the Dispel Magic spell.

Hmmm... considering how sub-par the technique is, I think I'm done arguing about it. Play on!

[only1doug]

V thinks otherwise. :)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html

1 encounter which was worth multiple prepared dispelling, they do occur occasionally but they are rare.

We recently put on hold our DnD campaign, having played from L1 to L18.

in 18 levels My Gish Character met exactly 1 encounter where it was worth shutting down the opponent with multiple prepared dispells. (Ok not 18 levels, closer to 10 Levels from the time I had dispell magic).

[true_shinken]

"There's evidence against my position all over in this book, so obviously it was an editing error." this is what I'm hearing from you.

This made me laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair. You, sir, deserve a cookie.

[aboyd]

I think it's pretty clear to me that we have a bunch of people debating a rule that cannot be implemented without adjudication, and each side is trying to advocate that their adjudication is the correct one. But in the end, it's utterly irrelevant, because how it will play out is that you'll take your warlock to the game and the DM will agree or disagree with your implementation, and that's that. You'll either get your way, or you won't.

I would note that outside of our little bubble here, all over the Internet there are people who have conceded that Voracious Dispelling doesn't counterspell. So I suspect that those of us here trying to advocate for it will have tough time dealing with other DMs out there. But hey, try.

In my game, a warlock trying to counterspell with Voracious Dispelling won't work. For those of you advocating otherwise, maybe you'll have a DM who sides with you. Good luck.

[true_shinken]

Is it? :smallconfused:
That's funny. I remember a few arguments like that coming up on 339 and never reaching page 2 because someone would simply point out that specific overrides general.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Is it? :smallconfused:
That's funny. I remember a few arguments like that coming up on 339 and never reaching page 2 because someone would simply point out that specific overrides general.

And Brilliant Gameologists... and the old WotC boards...

Really, I wonder where all these hypothetical antagonists are lurking...


V thinks otherwise. :)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0166.html

One strip out of... 785 and counting. I believe you just made my point.

[true_shinken]

And Brilliant Gameologists... and the old WotC boards...
That's what 339 is. The old WotC boards.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That's what 339 is. The old WotC boards.
Really? Hmm... for some reason, I always saw them as separate things...

[aboyd]

Is it? :smallconfused:
That's funny. I remember a few arguments like that coming up on 339 and never reaching page 2 because someone would simply point out that specific overrides general.
And Brilliant Gameologists... and the old WotC boards...

Really, I wonder where all these hypothetical antagonists are lurking...
Wow, it sounds like everyone is on your side. I guess you'll have no problem getting DMs to accept your interpretation. Good for you.

[Forged Fury]

Just did a Google search and I don't see anything clear and convincing. I did notice that someone pointed out this part of the Dispel Magic description:


Counterspell
When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster’s spell.So if it isn't a true counterspell, does the SLA restriction apply to it?

[Marnath]

Just did a Google search and I don't see anything clear and convincing. I did notice that someone pointed out this part of the Dispel Magic description:

So if it isn't a true counterspell, does the SLA restriction apply to it?

I think that means unlike using the actual prepared spell to counter a spell.

[true_shinken]

I think that means unlike using the actual prepared spell to counter a spell.
Yes. Which is what the spell-like ability description mentions.

[gbprime]

Seems to me like only a willful misreading can lead to saying that you can't couterspell with voracious dispelling. "as the spell" doesn't get more explicit.

Gonna jump in on this one.

if we can assume that the folks who put the book together have a technical understanding of the English language (a leap of faith, I know), then the answer is crystal clear.

The ability says "as the spell", which grammatically means "as per the spell". This is fundamentally different from saying "as a spell", which would clarify that the action being used was a spell and not a spell like ability.

Given that, I have to conclude that Voracious Dispelling is a spell like ability and thus cannot be used to counterspell, RAW.

[Veyr]

I agree that "as a spell" and "as the spell" are grammatically different, and that you would still be casting Voracious Dispelling as a Spell-like Ability and not as a spell. However, Dispel Magic has a special, unique clause contained within its use as a spell for counterspelling. You would not be able to use "Dispel Magic, as the spell" unless all three options included in the spell description were available to you.

Consider "Dispel Magic, as the spell" as short-hand for transcluding the entire text of Dispel Magic at that point in the Invocation's description. The Invocation's description now reads as follows:


Voracious Dispelling
You can use

Dispel Magic
Abjuration

[...]

You choose to use dispel magic in one of three ways: a targeted dispel, an area dispel, or a counterspell:

[...]

Counterspell
When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster’s spell.

Any creature with an active spell effect dispelled by this invocation takes 1 point of damage per level of the spell effect (no save).Emphasis mine.

[gbprime]

I agree that "as a spell" and "as the spell" are grammatically different, and that you would still be casting Voracious Dispelling as a Spell-like Ability and not as a spell. However, Dispel Magic has a special, unique clause contained within its use as a spell for counterspelling. You would not be able to use "Dispel Magic, as the spell" unless all three options included in the spell description were available to you.

Hmm.. Hadn't considered that. You're suggesting that the reason it can be used as a counterspell has nothing to do with whether it's a spell or spell like ability, but rather that counterspell is a listed function of Dispel Magic.

:smallconfused: ... :smallsigh: ... :smallconfused: ... :smalleek:

I actually agree with that. And here I thought I'd be harder to dissuade. :smalltongue:

[true_shinken]

Hmm.. Hadn't considered that. You're suggesting that the reason it can be used as a counterspell has nothing to do with whether it's a spell or spell like ability, but rather that counterspell is a listed function of Dispel Magic.

:smallconfused: ... :smallsigh: ... :smallconfused: ... :smalleek:

I actually agree with that. And here I thought I'd be harder to dissuade. :smalltongue:

But that is the whole argument! If it weren't for that, no one would be defending Voracious Dispelling. :smallbiggrin:
Glad to have you on our side, gbprime.

[Etrivar]

Not to derail the...derailment, but...

What about baleful utterance? As a sorcerer, I have never regretted taking shatter as a spell, and the invocation has the added bonus of deafening anyone who's holding something that gets shattered and fails a fort save, which is a good way to give a spellcaster a failure chance at low level. and being able to automatically break stuff at will is a saving grace. If you really apply yourself, you can always make breaking something help your situation :smallbiggrin:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Not to derail the...derailment, but...

What about baleful utterance? As a sorcerer, I have never regretted taking shatter as a spell, and the invocation has the added bonus of deafening anyone who's holding something that gets shattered and fails a fort save, which is a good way to give a spellcaster a failure chance at low level. and being able to automatically break stuff at will is a saving grace. If you really apply yourself, you can always make breaking something help your situation :smallbiggrin:

Actually, the key part of that debuff is the Dazed for a round, since that's a very difficult condition to be immune to. And yes, Baleful Utterance is nifty fun, however you also have to keep in mind that your team mates may not appreciate blowing up their WBL.

[Particle_Man]

It is also technically one of the few ways for a chaotic good character to utter a word of Dark Speech without dying.

I guess it also is one of the few warlock invocations with a verbal component (unless you DrowSL the Dark Speech or something). :)

[Flickerdart]

Actually, the key part of that debuff is the Dazed for a round, since that's a very difficult condition to be immune to. And yes, Baleful Utterance is nifty fun, however you also have to keep in mind that your team mates may not appreciate blowing up their WBL.
Shatter doesn't work on magical objects. If you're the kind of person that actually keeps track of the 5 mundane daggers and 5 suits of leather you just got from the Rogues that ambushed you...then enjoy your pittance in GP, I guess.

[Etrivar]

Shatter doesn't work on magical objects. If you're the kind of person that actually keeps track of the 5 mundane daggers and 5 suits of leather you just got from the Rogues that ambushed you...then enjoy your pittance in GP, I guess.

That's not entirely correct. When used as an area attack, shatter doesn't affect magic items. When targeted against a specific object, it never says that it doesn't work against magic items.

And there is so much more to blow up than the beatstick's sword! Once I targeted Shatter on the floor directly beneath my feet, in a second story room to escape from captors. Incidentally, using it to destroy building supports, and thereby collapsing the building on someone, works just as well. If the only thing you can think of to do with BU is to make a jigsaw puzzle out of the enemy's weapon, you certainly aren't trying very hard :smalltongue:

[Hyfigh]

I'm gonna chime in late, but, meh. :smallsigh:

Baleful Utterance cannot be used to counter another casters shatter spell.
The Charm invocation can't be used to counter another casters charm spell.
Voracious Dispelling cannot be used to counter another creatures dispel spell - unless you're using the specific part of the dispell spell that allows it to be used to counter a spell...
Voracious Dispelling, as a function of the dispel spell, can be used to counter spells because it's a specific function of the dispel spell. "As the spell" would cover that portion of the spell-like-ability quite handily, and in turn, contradict the general rule about SLA's not being able to counter-spell.

Edit: Also - at-will counterspelling powerful? Um, no. The Warlock doesn't have a way to break action economy while the caster he's trying to counter does. This means that the Warlock could counter one of his spells, but there's still a chance that the caster will destory the Warlock - if the Warlock even got the chance to act... This is something that can kind of counter the most powerful classes in the game. Why is that bad? :smallconfused:

[aboyd]

That's not entirely correct. When used as an area attack, shatter doesn't affect magic items. When targeted against a specific object, it never says that it doesn't work against magic items.
Line 1 of the spell: "sunders a single solid, nonmagical object."


I targeted Shatter on the floor directly beneath my feet, in a second story room to escape from captors.
Also from the spell: "[an object] weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level." Even if you were level 20, that's still just 200 pounds. How you convinced a DM to define "5 feet of floor" as an object, and how you convinced him it was less than 200 pounds, is beyond me. Load bearing materials are not exactly light. Same goes for columns supporting a structure.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I strongly disagree. Speaking as a civil engineer, load-bearing supports do not necessarily have to weigh a great deal, particularly not if you are using lumber.

I will agree that five feet of floor is not an object, the entire floor might be, but it is doubtful that you can affect the whole thing.

Taking out the ceiling support, on the other hand, could be easily viable, depending on how it is braced and what materials are being used. If you are using your typical mine shaft supports, the cross-braces weigh less than 50 lbs. Take a couple of them out, depending on the stability of the surrounding materials, and you could easily create a collapse.

'support' does not necessarily mean 'stone pillar'. In fact, unless you happen to be in a greeko-roman temple, it's probably not very common. Stone pillars are cumbersome to use, and not very effective on a square footage of support basis.

I will agree, however, that a stone pillar would almost certainly be weighing more than you could target with a shatter.

[Etrivar]

1) Never saw that before, point conceded :smallredface:

2) By debating the feasibility of one particular action, you demonstrate that you miss the point, which is that there are thousands of things that can be destroyed to your benefit. Use BU as an area attack centered on a person. all their potions: gone. The potions themselves, are magical, the glass that contains them, usually not. That person now has no potions to use against you. Any thing that isn't glass or ceramic is left intact, they still have plenty of stuff to loot.

See this is the thing that bothers me about people saying that warlocks are inflexible, or that sorcerers are more inflexible than wizards. Say you have two mechanics, both of which have to do twenty different jobs. One has twenty different tools, the other has five. The one with twenty has the luxury of growing lazy and complacent with the tools they use, because they have the right one for every job. The mechanic with five tools has to be the flexible one, able to look at his tools with enough ingenuity to figure out how to make his five do the jobs of twenty.

[true_shinken]

It is also technically one of the few ways for a chaotic good character to utter a word of Dark Speech without dying.

I guess it also is one of the few warlock invocations with a verbal component (unless you DrowSL the Dark Speech or something). :)

The fun thing is that it does not have a verbal component by RAW. :smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:

[aboyd]

By debating the feasibility of one particular action, you demonstrate that you miss the point, which is that there are thousands of things that can be destroyed to your benefit.
False dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive. I do not have to miss the point if I note that your examples are horribly flawed and/or probably impossible to get past most DMs. I can (surprise!) both get the point AND note that what you tried to do wasn't actually something you could do with the spell. In fact, let's provide more commentary, on your new example.


Use BU as an area attack centered on a person. all their potions: gone.
So this magical ability "hurts" or somehow diminishes the enemy's battle capabilities by destroying our potential loot? Worst. Ability. EVAR.

[Marnath]

Well, with potions it's a lot more likely that they'll be used against you than you getting to keep them as loot, so not really destroying loot per se, unless you are sure you can down them before they drink the potions. In that case yes, it'd be a bad thing.

[candycorn]

Is it? :smallconfused:
That's funny. I remember a few arguments like that coming up on 339 and never reaching page 2 because someone would simply point out that specific overrides general.

Exactly. Here's a general rule:


In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

And here's a specific one:


Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

So this means that Stacking rules don't apply.

Make no sense? Just what I thought. Specific only overrides general if it contradicts it.

"using dispel magic as the spell" does not contradict "spell-like abilities may not be used to counterspell." You need to derive information from other sources, and interpret it in a way advantageous to you, to make that happen.

For example. Let's look at a Shambling Mound.


Shamblers take no damage from electricity. Instead, any electricity attack used against a shambler temporarily grants it 1d4 points of Constitution. The shambler loses these points at the rate of 1 per hour.
Does this stack with itself? Well, you'd first think no.. Because bonuses from the same source don't stack.

But then, it's not a bonus. Bonuses are positive modifiers to a die roll. Your constitution score is not a modifier to a die roll, therefore altering it is not a bonus, unless the effect which grants it explicitly calls it a bonus (such as an amulet of health). Since it's not a bonus, it renders anything about which bonuses stack as irrelevant as talking about flavors of bread in response to a question about turkey.

Now, you could say that increasing your con score increases your con modifier, and that con modifier increases die rolls for the concentration skill, so increasing the con score must be a bonus.

But that involves deriving additional information that is not laid out, making assumptions about that information, and interpreting it in a favorable, and non-RAW, way.

Just like, "Use dispel magic as the spell" being interpreted as, "use Dispel magic exactly as the spell in all ways, except of course for the ones that require spells to be cast, and require spell slots to be expended in order to do so, because that wouldn't be at all convenient for me" is an assumption that isn't based in rules.

Yes, specific trumps general. But flawed assumption trumps nothing.

Either you argue that it IS used EXACTLY as a spell... and you can't cast it, because you have no slots to expend to do so...

Or you argue that it isn't... and your entire argument goes out the window.

So either way, it does not work as the counterspell advocates say. Because either interpretation causes a contradiction in your interpretation.

[Etrivar]

Again, point conceded. Allow me to rephrase: Arguing against one example is a pointless deflection from the point.

And if you had asked me to provide more details about the situation, you would know that shattering the floor was a perfectly viable solution, well within the rules. The floor was made up of slats of wood, each of which was two feet wide. I am much less than five feet wide, and was easily able to fit through the hole. Now granted, the architecture of the building had been a discussion point earlier in the session, and that is the only reason I knew that.

[Marnath]

Just like, "Use dispel magic as the spell" being interpreted as, "use Dispel magic exactly as the spell in all ways, except of course for the ones that require spells to be cast, and require spell slots to be expended in order to do so, because that wouldn't be at all convenient for me" is an assumption that isn't based in rules.

Yes, specific trumps general. But flawed assumption trumps nothing.

Either you argue that it IS used EXACTLY as a spell... and you can't cast it, because you have no slots to expend to do so...

Or you argue that it isn't... and your entire argument goes out the window.

So either way, it does not work as the counterspell advocates say. Because either interpretation causes a contradiction in your interpretation.

I'm having a hard time making out what your argument here is.:smallconfused: It would be easier to understand if it was coherent. Saying it works exactly like the spell does not mean you need to burn a spell slot you don't have. Why? Because it's NOT a spell, it's an invocation. That works like the spell.

[Tytalus]

So, does Voracious Dispelling EXPLICITLY, in the description for the spell-like ability, state that it can be used to counter spells? No.

It references behaving as a spell. When that spell is cast as a spell, it can dispel. By default, when it is cast as a spell-like ability, it cannot.

This casts it, without anything empowering it to violate rules common to all SLA's. Therefore, it cannot.

You almost had it there.

Generally, SLAs can't be used to counter spells. General.

However, this SLA *explicitly* allows you to use Dispel Magic as the spell, which, in turn, allows you to do just that. Specific.

Veyr's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10750810&postcount=96) brings it to a point.





Also, specific trumps general. Normally, the only differences between SLA's and Invocations are that Invocations have somatic components.

The bolded statement is a lot like saying, 'the only difference between pork and meat is that pork is always white.


No, since meat is not a special kind of pork. Even if you turned it around, your comparison wouldn't be correct.

Invocations are SLAs with special properties. Specifically, they have somatic components. Thus, they are not like other SLAs.


Wow, it sounds like everyone is on your side.

Says the guy who claimed "all over the Internet there are people who have conceded that Voracious Dispelling doesn't counterspell" out of thin air?

Wow.

[Veyr]

So, does Voracious Dispelling EXPLICITLY, in the description for the spell-like ability, state that it can be used to counter spells? No.
Incorrect; it most certainly does state that you can do that, by transcluding the rules text of Dispel Magic into itself via the statement "Dispel Magic, as the spell".

Baleful Utterance could not be readied to counter Shatter. Voractious Dispelling could not be readied to auto-counter Dispel Magic. But it could be readied to make use Dispel Magic's special explicit counterspelling function by making a Caster Level check.

The statement that "you can use Dispel Magic, as the spell" would not be accurate if you could not counterspell.

The issue of spell slots is a red herring, by the way, and does absolutely nothing to further your argument. Voracious Dispelling does explicitly waive those requirements by virtue of saying that when you use Voracious Dispelling, you get the effects of Dispel Magic. You would not otherwise be able to use Dispel Magic even if you did have the spell slots unless you knew it independently, because the Voracious Dispelling ability does not give that, it only grants the effects of Dispel Magic when you use the Voracious Dispelling SLA, and that SLA explicitly can be used "as the spell" would be used, including the counterspelling function.

[Hyfigh]

Baleful Utterance could not be readied to counter Shatter. Voractious Dispelling could not be readied to auto-counter Dispel Magic. But it could be readied to make use Dispel Magic's special explicit counterspelling function by making a Caster Level check.

Yea, I said that in my previous post.
Counter-spelling is a special function of a spell that one caster may use to prevent another caster from casting that spell. This generally is done by using the same spell to counter. Dispel Magic has it's own rules sub-set (specific rules) that dictate how Dispel Magic alone can be used to counter any spell without having to meet the general requirements of normal counter-spelling...

[Etrivar]

As a side-note: Thank you, *****. I live on a military base, so when I get into an argument with people, they generally can't articulate their disagreement to any greater extent than 'F*** you' or 'that's retarded/stupid/gay'. So for your excellent grammar, your stellar vocabulary, and the stunning refreshment they have both brought me, you have my sincere and heartfelt gratitude. (I still disagree with you, BU and Shatter rock, but you are a gentleman and a scholar non-the-less)

[aboyd]

{{scrubbed}}


So for your excellent grammar, your stellar vocabulary, and the stunning refreshment they have both brought me, you have my sincere and heartfelt gratitude. (I still disagree with you, BU and Shatter rock, but you are a gentleman and a scholar non-the-less)
Wait, you forgot to say something about my stunning good looks. ;)

But in all seriousness, I concede that you've had much success with Shatter. I would never use it to destroy potions, but I do think it would be delightful to work with an ally to have him/her use the ranged disarm feat to drop the enemy's weapon, and then on my turn shatter it (with no save, as it is now unattended). It would be a wonderful way to "encourage" enemies to surrender on round 1. And since it won't work on magical weapons, I would feel protected, because it wouldn't destroy potentially awesome treasure.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, this would be awesome for villains to do, too. The PCs rush in ready to fight, the villains disarm them all, and say, "Now, let's talk about the terms of your surrender." Muhahahaha!

Thanks for the discussion.