Overcoming Uncanny Dodge

[Yaitanos]

Okay, I'm baffled. How do you get around uncanny dodge? It seems that nearly every target my sniper gets sent after has it. Which just seems like a problem in the logistical department of the assassin's guild, or they're trying to kill me off. One of the two.

Also, knowing a way to add con damage to a spell effect would be super helpful. Preferably in a fashion that an assassin/unseen seer can pull off.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

(I may be reading this slightly wrongly, but...)

For context (from the Rogue SRD)


Uncanny Dodge (Ex)
Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

Uncanny dodge does not make you immune to sneak attacks. It allows you to keep your dexterity bonus to AC, but you can still become flatfooted, and you can still suffer from sneak attack damage.

I admit I have no idea how to bypass Uncanny Dodge, but really all that it does is stop your enemies AC from dropping. Therefore the best way of bypassing it is trying to increase your attack bonus somehow. By the looks of it you are playing some sort of ranged character, so boosting dexterity or purchasing items such as bracers of archery may be the best deal. Otherwise spells such as True Strike may help you make sure to make sure that you hit your target.

My knowledge of spells and metamagic feats is otherwise pretty poor. However, I seem to recall reading about some "fell metamagic" feat that allows you to give negative levels to creatures hit by your spell. I think it may be pretty costly spell level adjustment, so I don't know how feasible it is for an assassin.

[BowStreetRunner]

The easiest way to overcome uncanny dodge is to be flanking them (or if they have improved uncanny dodge then have 4 more effective rogue levels than the target and be flanking them). This is admittedly a problem if you are making ranged attacks however, as you are not likely to be flanking them.

[Twurps]

Also, knowing a way to add con damage to a spell effect would be super helpful. Preferably in a fashion that an assassin/unseen seer can pull off.

There are some martial maneuvers that can pull this off. Specifically:
Bonesplitting strike: 2 con damage
Bloodletting strike: 4 con damage, reflex for half.

Both are available to a swordsage, which is a good dip for just about any assassin build anyway.

there's also the 'wounding' weapon property(+2) for 1 con damage per hit.

EDIT: just realized the 'distracting ember' maneuver gets you a small fire elemental that provides you with flanking. Guess which 1 level dip will get you that one :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Yaitanos]

Uncanny dodge does not make you immune to sneak attacks. It allows you to keep your dexterity bonus to AC, but you can still become flatfooted, and you can still suffer from sneak attack damage.
With the wording "retains their Dex bonus" vs sneak attacks "whenever they are denied their dex bonus" it can be viewed that if you aren't flanking them you don't get sneak attacks.

There are some martial maneuvers that can pull this off
Yes. But I need to specifically add it to spell damage, not weapon damage. One of the problems I'm facing is a diviner and I plan to hit him with psychic poison next game. I'd like to kill him, not just make him stupid.

[noob]

Uncanny dodge does not prevents someone using blink to make sneak attacks.

[Yaitanos]

Uncanny dodge does not prevents someone using blink to make sneak attacks.

Blink states that you strike as an invisible creature, and uncanny dodge states the character retains their dex bonus even if caught flat footed or struck by an invisible attacker.

If any ability is anime-esque....

[Curmudgeon]

Feinting works, though the action cost is going to be painful.

[Yaitanos]

Feinting works, though the action cost is going to be painful.
Not really useful for a sniper.

[BowStreetRunner]

The rules for uncanny dodge does state the character still loses DEX to AC if they are immobilized...I've found references to bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned all conferring 'immobilized' status - Sepia Snake Sigil accomplishes this as well.

[Thurbane]

True, but it's a little redundant - once you have an opponent immobilized, you don't really need SA to finish them off.

[Yaitanos]

True, but it's a little redundant - once you have an opponent immobilized, you don't really need SA to finish them off.

And why on earth would a sniper bother to tie someone up? The whole point of being a sniper is to never have to get close to your target. With a 3 1st lvl spell combo my guy can hit people from over a 1000ft away and still get his sneak attack damage. Heck, 2 spells if he's pressed for time. He has the persistent attacker feat, and it's come in handy a LOT.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Yes, but sneak attack needs only one of those. The rogue is still flat-footed, he can just ignore the AC penalty.

[Yaitanos]

Yes, but sneak attack needs only one of those. The rogue is still flat-footed, he can just ignore the AC penalty.

The problem with this is that sneak attack requires them to be denied their dex bonus, not specifically be flat-footed. I need to be able to deny them their dex bonus without being in sight of the other person to use a skill trick like Sudden Draw or a feat like Flick of the wrist. As long as they can maintain their dex bonus to AC, I can't sneak attack them.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's really tough to overcome uncanny dodge. As a rogue player, I always kind of resented it. The defense it gives me is nice, but it always seems to end up being more annoying than its worth when enemies have it, to the point that I'd gladly trade it away for absolutely nothing in return for it being removed from the game.

Feinting works. If they're climbing or running, that works. None of those are helpful for a sniper unless you try to snipe them on their morning jog.
I thought grease or other effects to make the foe balance would work, but it seems that is also flat-footed, rather than just plain lost dex to AC. Every class except barbarian that gives uncanny dodge has balance as a class skill anyway, and you only need 5 ranks to negate that vulnerability...

The 3.0 Quicker Than the Eye feat works, but you explicitly must be under the target's direct observation. Makes sniping self-defeating.
Deadeye Shot feat would work, but requires an ally to strike the target in melee first. Which may or may not be practical depending on the target of your sniping. I suppose a rat familiar ankle-biting the target then scurrying off while his allies rush in to figure out where the hell that arrow came from is an option.

[ekarney]

Erm. Well?

Have you tried requisitioning a Barbarian? A high enough strength score and it doesn't matter whether they're flatfooted or not.

This may be a DM issue, they may not like what you're doing, if you're finding this to be a consistent problem.

[Yaitanos]

Erm. Well?

Have you tried requisitioning a Barbarian? A high enough strength score and it doesn't matter whether they're flatfooted or not.

This may be a DM issue, they may not like what you're doing, if you're finding this to be a consistent problem.

We have a high str character in the party, but I'm forbidden by my guild to reveal my true abilities. Not the greatest set-up, but I kinda asked for it with my background. As for the DM not liking what I'm doing, I'm not actively seeking these contracts, they are sent to me from time to time based on location. For the most part I'm the scaredy cat party trap specialist who doesn't have evasion.

[justiceforall]

Do you have access to 3rd level Assassin spells?

If so, Vital Strike spell, Complete Mage, pg122.

Solves your problem.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

With the wording "retains their Dex bonus" vs sneak attacks "whenever they are denied their dex bonus" it can be viewed that if you aren't flanking them you don't get sneak attacks.



The sneak attack entry states:

"any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"

(emphasis mine)

The word "would" here suggests that you only have to set up the correct condition which would have removed the Dex bonus, not that you HAVE to remove the Dex bonus to be able to apply sneak attack damage.

EDIT: because it would have been a lot simpler to write "any time her target is denied a Dexterity bonus to AC". I can't fathom why they would use the word "would", and not the word "is".


But then again at this level all this is purely semantics, and if at your table you play it that Uncanny Dodge does negate sneak attack, fair enough.


It just seems like a huge shame that the rogue's main class ability is trumped by such a small class feature...

[Crake]

The sneak attack entry states:

"any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"

(emphasis mine)

The word "would" here suggests that you only have to set up the correct condition which would have removed the Dex bonus, not that you HAVE to remove the Dex bonus to be able to apply sneak attack damage.

EDIT: because it would have been a lot simpler to write "any time her target is denied a Dexterity bonus to AC". I can't fathom why they would use the word "would", and not the word "is".


But then again at this level all this is purely semantics, and if at your table you play it that Uncanny Dodge does negate sneak attack, fair enough.


It just seems like a huge shame that the rogue's main class ability is trumped by such a small class feature...

I think we both know that is a very weak argument and that your reading of that sentence is very, very liberal.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

I think we both know that is a very weak argument and that your reading of that sentence is very, very liberal.

Actually, I don't know :smallsmile:

When somebody on our group played a character with uncanny dodge for the first time, we were all scratching our heads over its meaning: you had a reasonably easily obtainable class feature (a 2 level dip could often do it) which negated the main damage ability of any solo assassin or rogue out there. So we looked closer, and the word "would" just stood out there.

In our eyes it just made a lot more sense. Nobody has ever doubted it, and non of the players that joined us since have ever mentioned it. I haven't even questioned it until today and thought that that was what everybody else thought as well. Though it seems that actually we are in the minority here?

Maybe it's because we don't use flanking that much, or that nobody has played a proper sneak attack melee rogue. I dunno, that's just what happened.

[Crake]

Actually, I don't know :smallsmile:

When somebody on our group played a character with uncanny dodge for the first time, we were all scratching our heads over its meaning: you had a reasonably easily obtainable class feature (a 2 level dip could often do it) which negated the main damage ability of any solo assassin or rogue out there. So we looked closer, and the word "would" just stood out there.

In our eyes it just made a lot more sense. Nobody has ever doubted it, and non of the players that joined us since have ever mentioned it. I haven't even questioned it until today and thought that that was what everybody else thought as well. Though it seems that actually we are in the minority here?

Maybe it's because we don't use flanking that much, or that nobody has played a proper sneak attack melee rogue. I dunno, that's just what happened.

The use of the word would is in the fictional sense, since the character does not exist, but if they did, they would be denied dexterity, the same way when you refer to your character's actions, you could say something like "John would walk across the room and open the door". Now, I can imagine that not everyone uses language in the same way, and some people would simply say "John walks across the room and opens the door" but that doesn't change the meaning behind the first way of saying it.

Taking a look at the meaning of the word, you have 2 meanings, the past tense of "will", or "indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation." Neither of these meanings give credence to your interpretation of the rule in any way, because in either case, the character will not be denied dexterity if you use the first meaning, and the consequence of the imagined situation is that the character is not denied dexterity, so again, they would not be denied dexterity.

Mind you, there are still plenty of ways to deny dexterity to a player with uncanny dodge, as others have said, inflicting a variety of conditions on them, feinting, along with the vital strike spell which allows sneak attack against a foe who is not actually denied dexterity. The flick of the wrist feat and the hidden blade skill trick would not work, however, since they make the target flat footed vs that single attack.

It is also worth noting that a helpless foe does not gain the benefits of uncanny dodge, so an invested assassin could simply skill the target in his sleep instead.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Woe be unto OP when his DM starts giving out Scout levels instead of Rogue or Barbarian.

[Yaitanos]

Woe be unto OP when his DM starts giving out Scout levels instead of Rogue or Barbarian.

As I don't know what classes each individual target had, I can't say they didn't have them. Although I am confused as to why you think a scout would be harder to snipe than a rogue or barbarian.

[Crake]

As I don't know what classes each individual target had, I can't say they didn't have them. Although I am confused as to why you think a scout would be harder to snipe than a rogue or barbarian.

It's a slightly different wording in their uncanny dodge class ability, though for the purpose of this thread, it would actually make things easier. The scout's uncanny dodge ability makes them never flat footed, as opposed to retaining their dexterity while flat footed. It does not however, have the clause about retaining their dexterity while struck by an invisible attacker. Note that the flat footed condition is merely the result of having not acted in combat yet, so a scout will still lose their dexterity to an unseen attacker, which, I'm assuming, the sniper would be, as he would be hiding somewhere far away (i'm guessing using the sniper's shot spell to get long range sneak attacks), being attacked by an unseen or invisible attacker does not make you flat footed, it merely denies dexterity against your attacks, so the scout uncanny dodge would not actually help at all.

It does have the line saying to see the barbarian class feature, so one could possibly argue that it would inherit it from that, however, the way I personally see it, since it does not say "this ability acts like the barbarian's uncanny dodge class feature except where noted here" it's either giving you a reference, with no inheritence, or it's meant to act exactly like the barbarian one and the author of the scout just didn't understand what the term "flat footed" actually meant in terms of the game.

[Curmudgeon]

The scout's uncanny dodge ability makes them never flat footed, as opposed to retaining their dexterity while flat footed. It does not however, have the clause about retaining their dexterity while struck by an invisible attacker.
...
It does have the line saying to see the barbarian class feature, so one could possibly argue that it would inherit it from that, however, the way I personally see it, since it does not say "this ability acts like the barbarian's uncanny dodge class feature except where noted here" it's either giving you a reference, with no inheritence, or it's meant to act exactly like the barbarian one and the author of the scout just didn't understand what the term "flat footed" actually meant in terms of the game.
I would make that inheritance argument. There are only two sentences in Scout Uncanny Dodge:

The Scout is never flat-footed.
See Barbarian Uncanny Dodge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#uncannyDodge).

The sole reason to link to the Barbarian ability is to explain what the Scout gets, beyond the unique properties stated in the first sentence, without having to repeat the text. If there were no inheritance then referring to that (noninherited) ability would only create confusion.

While it may sometimes be true, declaring that the game authors didn't know what they were writing about, and thus certain parts of the rules should be ignored, is not generally helpful. That always engenders more contention as different readers point to more and more rules which they think should be ignored.

[Crake]

I would make that inheritance argument. There are only two sentences in Scout Uncanny Dodge:

The Scout is never flat-footed.
See Barbarian Uncanny Dodge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#uncannyDodge).

The sole reason to link to the Barbarian ability is to explain what the Scout gets, beyond the unique properties stated in the first sentence, without having to repeat the text. If there were no inheritance then referring to that (noninherited) ability would only create confusion.

While it may sometimes be true, declaring that the game authors didn't know what they were writing about, and thus certain parts of the rules should be ignored, is not generally helpful. That always engenders more contention as different readers point to more and more rules which they think should be ignored.

The problem though, is that it makes no clarification as to which two rules to use, one says that you cannot be caught flat footed, the other says that he instead retains dexterity while flat footed. I suppose you could say that the scout uncanny dodge and the barbarian uncanny dodge do not conflict with eachother, since one makes you never flat footed, but the other makes you retain dex while flat footed, two cases that do not conflict, however, it does not say that the ability functions like the barbarian ability, merely to "see" it, so there is actually no rules inheritance written there. Look at all other inheritance rules, they all say "this ability functions as, with these exceptions". The only time the "see this ability" language is used is when a rule functions exactly the same as another.

This is the basis for why I think the scout uncanny dodge was written by someone who didn't quite understand the implications of what they were writing, because the way it is written, with the reference at the end not implying any inheritence, the author seems to believe that what he wrote is functionally identical to the barbarian uncanny dodge.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's poorly written, and the RAI could be a lot of things, but Curmudgeon has the right of RAW. Scout is Uncanny Dodge+. I brought it up because a dip of Scout 2 allows for immediate action countermeasures, such as using a Shadow Cloak to gain concealment.

[Yaitanos]

It's poorly written, and the RAI could be a lot of things, but Curmudgeon has the right of RAW. Scout is Uncanny Dodge+. I brought it up because a dip of Scout 2 allows for immediate action countermeasures, such as using a Shadow Cloak to gain concealment.

Eh, not too worried about it. Most of the targets I've been sent after are high ranking nobles or merchant lords. I think one may have been an incarnate but I believe the vast majority are rogues. The dwarf was a pain to be sure. Racial bonuses verses poison are annoying.

[Optimator]

Uncanny Dodge does indeed totally hose sneak attacks. Is that such a catastrophe though? Sneak attack isn't supposed to be the be-all end-all damage source. This isnt some MMO where all classes are supposed to do equal damage in all situations. It's unfortunate that the OP is getting shafted more often than may be warranted though. I am just saying I dont have a problem with Uncanny Dodge totally negating sneak attacks on a conceptual or game-rule level

[Aleolus]

I'm going to stick with the "dm is screwing you" theory, for two reasons.

1. A group as large scale and illegal as an Assassins Guild is not going to make logistic errors on that scale and
2. If an Assassins Guild wants someone dead, they send someone to kill them, end of story.

[LokeyITP]

Rule quote? SRD's Sneak Attack page calls out Uncanny Dodge situations specifically (it still applies)...granted a missing comma in RaW has done worse, and SRD isn't RaW.

[Zweisteine]

SRD isn't RaW.

No, the SRD is, in fact, RAW.


And here's my non-RAW input, from this (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a) article:

The uncanny dodge ability allows a flat-footed creature to retain its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) and it foils sneak attacks when in does so.

[martixy]

There's been a lot of picking apart the "how" by RAW.

I am now interested in a decently designed homebrew feature that solves that problem.

Any ideas?
BAB-based? Character level?

[Anthrowhale]

The feat "Poison Spell" allows you to add a poison which does Con damage to any melee touch spell.

[LokeyITP]

Without target having improved uncanny dodge, you're good to sneak attack flanking (which you have to figure out how to do ranged and there's probably other ways to set up a sneak besides the if you can do this, you don't need to sneak attack). Improved, you get if you have 4 more levels of uncanny dodge granting classes, otherwise it's going to take book diving. I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out how to do that off the top of my head (lots of cool things just don't work in DnD).

ETA: Yes, I read the sneak attack entry wrong. It's a thing I do sometimes :)

[Yaitanos]

The feat "Poison Spell" allows you to add a poison which does Con damage to any melee touch spell.

Melee touch spells are not what I'm using. I've got a diviner issue and want to add con damage to my psychic poison spell affect that I have going.

[justiceforall]

Which could then be combined with spectral hand/anything similar to get around the range issue on the melee touch attack (if you've got access to that spell).

[Yaitanos]

Which could then be combined with spectral hand/anything similar to get around the range issue on the melee touch attack (if you've got access to that spell).

Psychic poison isn't a touch attack spell. You put it on a an area/object/creature and it affects anyone targeting those targets with a divination spell or effect with the poison. I don't think poison spell will work with that.

[justiceforall]

I was referring to the Poison Spell feat:


You can add a contact or injury poison as a material component to a melee touch spell you are casting. Doing this entails the same risk of poisoning yourself as applying poison to a weapon (DMG 296)

Looks like it should work to me?

[Yaitanos]

I was referring to the Poison Spell feat:
Looks like it should work to me?

I got that. However, the spell I'm using to combat said diviner is : Psychic Poison. Cause yeah, what's it's made for. The feat : Poison Spell, cannot be applied to the spell as it is not a melee touch spell. And, since said diviner will never be in reach of any melee touch spell, regardless of use of spell, feats or magic items that extend the reach of those spells, the feat Poison spell isn't of much use. I mean, I could totally apply a con damage poison to Psychic poison, however since I'm then casting the spell on either an item in my possession or myself (those options deal the best damage vs diviners) I would in fact inflict the con damaging poison on myself. Not a happy day for me. And I don't think it would then be also be inflicted upon the diviner.

[justiceforall]

Sorry I was still in the mode of solving the OP:
Also, knowing a way to add con damage to a spell effect would be super helpful. which Poison Spell would actually do.

Do you particularly need to add Con damage to Psychic Poison? Let's assume the Diviner has at least one bad mental stat (lets guess charisma) and you hit him up full of psychic <stat> damage. He topples over paralyzed, and there's no longer any problem with uncanny dodge = kill shot?

[Yaitanos]

Sorry I was still in the mode of solving the OP: which Poison Spell would actually do.

Do you particularly need to add Con damage to Psychic Poison? Let's assume the Diviner has at least one bad mental stat (lets guess charisma) and you hit him up full of psychic <stat> damage. He topples over paralyzed, and there's no longer any problem with uncanny dodge = kill shot?

I am the OP, and while dealing mental stat damage will temporarily incapacitate the diviner, con damage will kill him. I doubt I will EVER have line of sight to snipe this guy.

[Anthrowhale]

You might consider Scry Trap---it does damage rather than ability damage. Since these spells are cast out of combat, you can plausibly increase caster level, save DC, etc... quite a bit.

Detect Scrying gives you the means to get personal.

Love's Pain is the classical approach for killing someone at a distance although you need to get creative about causing someone to fall in love with your true target.

[Yaitanos]

You might consider Scry Trap---it does damage rather than ability damage. Since these spells are cast out of combat, you can plausibly increase caster level, save DC, etc... quite a bit.

Detect Scrying gives you the means to get personal.

Love's Pain is the classical approach for killing someone at a distance although you need to get creative about causing someone to fall in love with your true target.

Detect scrying is a nice one and I'll be sure to get a clickie of it asap. Scry trap seems like an iffy solution as I can't afford a version that would have the damage needed to off this guy. Love's pain is just... well I don't think I'll be able to find this guy's, if it even is a guy, loved one, or someone who loves him. I certainly don't. Though a little magical manipulation and I could... Still, would rather not. Would be tricky to override my characters love for Father. Or at least override it and not get killed for doing so. Even for a minute or so.
Straight damage is also not a great solution as there are a LOT of spells and stuff that could immediately be used to heal him. Stat damage, not so much. Especially since while poisons are removed via raise dead, it doesn't say the damage is. Would have to clarify with the DM about that, but if they died via con damage I don't think they will be able to easily get up after that.

[Anthrowhale]

if it even is a guy, loved one, or someone who loves him. I certainly don't. Though a little magical manipulation and I could... Still, would rather not. Would be tricky to override my characters love for Father. Or at least override it and not get killed for doing so. Even for a minute or so.

The traditional approach is to manipulate someone nearby (rather than yourself) into loving your diviner friend.



Straight damage is also not a great solution as there are a LOT of spells and stuff that could immediately be used to heal him.

Maybe add Reaping Spell metamagic?

One other to consider is Dreaming Puppet. If it works, you have several minutes to arrange a suitable tragic accident.

[Yaitanos]

The traditional approach is to manipulate someone nearby (rather than yourself) into loving your diviner friend.

Maybe add Reaping Spell metamagic?

One other to consider is Dreaming Puppet. If it works, you have several minutes to arrange a suitable tragic accident.

I could get someone to love him, perhaps. Not being able to hit someone in the vicinity that knows what the diviner looks like might become an issue.

Reaping spell would help when he's killed, but stuff like close wounds and an amulet of emergency healing, even a contingency, could prevent him from actually dying. Perhaps if there was a way to curse the damage so it couldn't be healed. Right away.

Dreaming Puppet is a outright no. For story reasons I'm actually forbidden to willingly enter the realm of dreams. To the point where I take a drug as to not dream.

[Anthrowhale]

Perhaps if there was a way to curse the damage so it couldn't be healed. Right away.

The standard solution here is Violate Spell which makes half the damage be only healable in the area of a Consecrate or Hallow spell.

[Yaitanos]

The standard solution here is Violate Spell which makes half the damage be only healable in the area of a Consecrate or Hallow spell.

So adding that to either psychic poison or scry trap would definitely slow him down, but neither method will permanently take out a diviner capable of casting scry, either simply because of high stats or the average damage for the spell, even at max caster level, doesn't equal the average hit points they would have. (For safety's sake I assume they have a con mod of at least +2)
For the purposes of planning I like to count on them making the saving throw. Makes life easier. For me anyway. Another reason I don't wanna use poison for the con damage. The psychic poison ability I'm using has the irresistible spell feat applied to it, so I don't worry about that.
But whatever I do to this guy, I won't get a second chance, he'll be protected against it the next time. So really need to get him the first time. I've been delaying the event as much as possible, and I've got a bit of money to throw at this, but not a whole lot and time is becoming a factor. I'm also not a crafter myself and use my faction resources to get the materials I need.

[Anthrowhale]

...but neither method will permanently take out a diviner capable of casting scry...

I'm not sure what your target damage is, but consider the combination of Maximize Spell, Empower Spell, and Enervate Spell as a baseline.

[Yaitanos]

I'm not sure what your target damage is, but consider the combination of Maximize Spell, Empower Spell, and Enervate Spell as a baseline.

That's a total of +7 to the spell level, not something I can do to scry trap.

[Anthrowhale]

That's a total of +7 to the spell level, not something I can do to scry trap.

There are many ways to reduce metamagic costs. A simple one is Psychic Reformation to get arcane thesis (scry trap) which reduces this to +4. Another is Metamagic School Focus which could further reduce this to +1. A different approach would be using Sudden Maximize and Sudden Empower.

[Yaitanos]

There are many ways to reduce metamagic costs. A simple one is Psychic Reformation to get arcane thesis (scry trap) which reduces this to +4. Another is Metamagic School Focus which could further reduce this to +1. A different approach would be using Sudden Maximize and Sudden Empower.

That's all well and good, but I am not capable of casting scry trap, I would have to get an item that does it.