Arcane Thesis is almost always a bad choice?

[Pippin]

Lately I was in awe. Arcane Thesis is absolutely devastating with some spells, if you're playing a Dweomerkeeper. Just to name a few:



Enervation (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Cooperative Spell -1, Empower Spell +0, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +1, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x4 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 4x1 (empowered, average) = 20 negative levels.
Ray of Stupidity (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Cooperative Spell -1, Empower Spell +0, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +1, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x5 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 4*1.5 (empowered, average) = 26 to INT.
Ray of Entropy (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Split Ray +0, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x4 (splitted, twinned) = 16 to STR, DEX, CON.


So, either the DM makes his monsters immune to these things, and you've wasted most of your feat slots; or he doesn't, and you destroy the fun of the game every time there's a battle. The only spell I know that would be playable with Arcane Thesis, is Silent Image in the hands of a Shadowcraft Mage, because you never do the same thing. Other than that, I would say that there's no point in taking Arcane Thesis.

What do you think?

[ZamielVanWeber]

You could also use it for boosting a spell a little bit instead of a lot. An Arcane Thesis boosted Greater Fireburst with just empower and searing spell on it is less like to draw your DM's ire. I generally find DMs only really get mad at it when it is combined with +0 metamagics, since you are lowering the cost of more expensive metamagics, and very costly metamagics, since those are supposed to be difficult to use.

Edit: Nitpick but you cannot empower Ray of Entropy. The penalty to stats is not a variable, numeric effect.
Further: Your numbers seem to be off: that Enervation should be 28 levels if all 4 hit. Each one deals 4 + 1d4*1.5 (average after rounding down is 3).
The Ray of Stupidity is 5 + (1d4+1)*1.5 (average 3 after rounding down) should be 8 per hit so 32 if all 4 hit.

[Troacctid]

I think everything you listed is less powerful for a level 18 character than just casting an actual 9th level spell. Considering that you used up literally every feat slot in your entire build on top of losing a level of casting, I should certainly hope you're getting something good in return.

[Gallowglass]

I think this is a tired old RAW argument. If you are willing to accept that a reasonable DM would act by making creatures immune to the effect, why is it so hard to accept that a reasonable DM would use a reasonable RAI for arcane thesis instead of the RAW cheese that comes from taking the most broken and liberal reading of the feat possible.

As a DM, I would never let someone get a (-1) with this feat. That is unreasonable and, to my mind, obviously unintended. So your +0 metamagic stay +0, they don't go to -1 (which is stupid and cheesy) Every single time I see a metamagic reducer reduce below 0 I chuckle and wonder if the theoretical optimizer has ever played the game with an actual DM or just in their head.

second, split ray doesn't work on any of the example spells you've listed. split ray only works on spells with direct damage. Enervation, Ray of stupidity, ray of entropy are not direct damage spells. Even if it did, you seem to be skipping the "each ray does half of the damage" part of the feat.

third, how are your reducing by 2 instead of 1? Is that a dweomerkeeper thing? because arcane thesis only drops it by 1.

So I would think it would be more like:

Enervation (Invisible Spell 0, Sanctum Spell 0, Cooperative Spell 0 striking out because this needs two casters, Empower Spell +1, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +2, Twin Spell +3; total +6) deals 4x2 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 2x2 (empowered, average) = 12 negative levels.

seems pretty good for a 10th level spell. Assuming you are using some way of legitimately getting the drop to be by -2 level instead of -1, then that's still a 7th level spell slot.

[Pippin]

You could also use it for boosting a spell a little bit instead of a lot. An Arcane Thesis boosted Greater Fireburst with just empower and searing spell on it is less like to draw your DM's ire. I generally find DMs only really get mad at it when it is combined with +0 metamagics, since you are lowering the cost of more expensive metamagics, and very costly metamagics, since those are supposed to be difficult to use.

Edit: Nitpick but you cannot empower Ray of Entropy. The penalty to stats is not a variable, numeric effect.
Further: Your numbers seem to be off: that Enervation should be 28 levels if all 4 hit. Each one deals 4 + 1d4*1.5 (average after rounding down is 3).
The Ray of Stupidity is 5 + (1d4+1)*1.5 (average 3 after rounding down) should be 8 per hit so 32 if all 4 hit.
I maximized everything, then rolled the dice and took 50% on average. Not 150% :v

Point taken for Ray of Entropy though. I'll correct the OP.


I think everything you listed is less powerful for a level 18 character than just casting an actual 9th level spell. Considering that you used up literally every feat slot in your entire build on top of losing a level of casting, I should certainly hope you're getting something good in return.
Well I made a thread a few days ago so that I don't have to lose a level of casting :v


I think this is a tired old RAW argument. If you are willing to accept that a reasonable DM would act by making creatures immune to the effect, why is it so hard to accept that a reasonable DM would use a reasonable RAI for arcane thesis instead of the RAW cheese that comes from taking the most broken and liberal reading of the feat possible.

As a DM, I would never let someone get a (-1) with this feat. That is unreasonable and, to my mind, obviously unintended. So your +0 metamagic stay +0, they don't go to -1 (which is stupid and cheesy) Every single time I see a metamagic reducer reduce below 0 I chuckle and wonder if the theoretical optimizer has ever played the game with an actual DM or just in their head.

second, split ray doesn't work on any of the example spells you've listed. split ray only works on spells with direct damage. Enervation, Ray of stupidity, ray of entropy are not direct damage spells. Even if it did, you seem to be skipping the "each ray does half of the damage" part of the feat.

third, how are your reducing by 2 instead of 1? Is that a dweomerkeeper thing? because arcane thesis only drops it by 1.

So I would think it would be more like:

Enervation (Invisible Spell 0, Sanctum Spell 0, Cooperative Spell 0 striking out because this needs two casters, Empower Spell +1, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +2, Twin Spell +3; total +6) deals 4x2 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 2x2 (empowered, average) = 12 negative levels.

seems pretty good for a 10th level spell. Assuming you are using some way of legitimately getting the drop to be by -2 level instead of -1, then that's still a 7th level spell slot.
The Dweomerkeeper's capstone decreases all costs by 1, yes.
I looked up Cooperative Spell and I found a thread where it was agreed that you could pretty much apply Cooperative Spell on everything, regardless of the rest of your team/friends/colleagues.
I have no idea where you found all these details about Split Ray:


You can cause any ray spell tofireone additional ray beyond the number normally allowed. The additional ray requires a separate ranged touch attack roll to hit and deals damage as normal. It can be fi red at the same target as the fi rst ray or at a different target, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fi red simultaneously. A split ray spell uses a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

[Gallowglass]

I have no idea where you found all these details about Split Ray:


I just looked it up online, I'm probably looking at the 3.0 version or something.
http://www.dokdorspace.com/dndtools/feats/tome-and-blood-a-guidebook-to-wizards-and-sorcerers--51/split-ray--2742/index.html

I'm limited to what sites I can reach through my firewall.

[Troacctid]

Well I made a thread a few days ago so that I don't have to lose a level of casting :v
Without spending any feats? Congratulations, I guess.

[Pippin]

Without spending any feats?
I never implied that though.


I think everything you listed is less powerful for a level 18 character than just casting an actual 9th level spell.
I'm actually thinking that dealing 20 negative levels, or 26 damage to INT, with no saving throw, is better than most 9th-level spells.

[torrasque666]

I just looked it up online, I'm probably looking at the 3.0 version or something.
http://www.dokdorspace.com/dndtools/feats/tome-and-blood-a-guidebook-to-wizards-and-sorcerers--51/split-ray--2742/index.html

I'm limited to what sites I can reach through my firewall.

aye, tome and blood is the 3.0 veersion

[Cosi]

I don't really understand why someone aspiring to do abusive things as an Arcane Dweomerkeeper would drop a bunch of feats on Arcane Thesis. You have Supernatural Spell sitting right there and you have wish, limited wish, and any number of other spells that would love to be Supernatural on your spell list. Yes, you can do things which are quite powerful with Arcane Thesis. But you can also do things which are totally absurd with Supernatural Spell. And importantly, they are not things you would be better off doing as an Incantatrix or Artificer with Metamagic Spell Trigger and a stack of wands or staves.

[Jormengand]

I'm actually thinking that dealing 20 negative levels, or 26 damage to INT, with no saving throw, is better than most 9th-level spells.

20 negative levels is pretty nasty, but can be blocked by a mid-level spell. Meanwhile, a psion slinging empowered overchanneled stygian conflagrations can do that kind of thing anyway, and so can the third-level spell fell drain thunderhead (and you only need 3 feats to make fell drain free on all your spells, so fell drain thunderhead is now first-level, slap irresistible on it if you want to be certain). I mean, you're usually better off casting shapechange and getting access to hundreds of spells (because spellcasting is probably actually (ex) and some creatures have casting which is actually listed as (ex)) or gating something in to fight for you, or gating in an efreet to give you an energy transformation field and polymorph you into a garbler... look, there's better things you can do with those slots if you're in full cheese mode.

[Troacctid]

I never implied that though.
Well, your build has 8 feats. That's 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and a human bonus feat. You're kind of out of space.


I'm actually thinking that dealing 20 negative levels, or 26 damage to INT, with no saving throw, is better than most 9th-level spells.
At the cost of literally all your feats? Eh.

[Pippin]

Well, your build has 8 feats. That's 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and a human bonus feat. You're kind of out of space.


At the cost of literally all your feats? Eh.
Well I didn't start this thread to discuss on how to take so many feats, but yes, you can always have as many feats as you want. It just depends on how badly you want them. Not to mention, VoP is unplayable as it is, so it's always a good idea to negotiate with your DM over it first.

[Zancloufer]

Curious how you get +0 for a bunch of those +2 Meta-Magic feats. While I agree that by RAW arcane thesis could in theory reduce +0 Meta-Magic to -1 (which is probably RAI stupid but w/e) it doesn't work that way with Dweomerkeeper. The capstone EXPLICITLY SPECIFIES that it cannot reduce meta-magic below +1. Therefore all those +2 meta-magics can be +1 with arcane thesis OR Dweomerkeeper. So Empower and Split-Ray are still +1.

[Troacctid]

Well I didn't start this thread to discuss on how to take so many feats, but yes, you can always have as many feats as you want. It just depends on how badly you want them. Not to mention, VoP is unplayable as it is, so it's always a good idea to negotiate with your DM over it first.

If you assume you can always have as many feats as you want, then you've solved your dilemma. Take all the feats, and if your trick doesn't work in any given encounter, it doesn't matter, because you still have dozens of other feats you can use instead.

Generally, though, practical optimization assumes you don't have unlimited feats. So from a PO perspective, you've spent all your feats on this one trick. It's a decent trick, but it comes online very late, the opportunity cost is high, and it has a rather narrow application, so I can't say I'm all that impressed.

[Necroticplague]

Curious how you get +0 for a bunch of those +2 Meta-Magic feats. While I agree that by RAW arcane thesis could in theory reduce +0 Meta-Magic to -1 (which is probably RAI stupid but w/e) it doesn't work that way with Dweomerkeeper. The capstone EXPLICITLY SPECIFIES that it cannot reduce meta-magic below +1. Therefore all those +2 meta-magics can be +1 with arcane thesis OR Dweomerkeeper. So Empower and Split-Ray are still +1.

Dweomerkeeper can't reduce things to 0. Arcane Thesis, however, can. So if you apply it in that order, you get 2-1(dweomerkeeper)=1. No rules being violated. Then, you get 1-1=0 (arcane thesis). No rules being violated here, since arcane thesis can go to zero.

[Red Fel]

Lately I was in awe. Arcane Thesis is absolutely devastating with some spells, if you're playing a Dweomerkeeper. Just to name a few:



Enervation (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Cooperative Spell -1, Empower Spell +0, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +1, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x4 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 4x1 (empowered, average) = 20 negative levels.
Ray of Stupidity (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Cooperative Spell -1, Empower Spell +0, Split Ray +0, Maximize Spell +1, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x5 (splitted, twinned, maximized) + 4*1.5 (empowered, average) = 26 to INT.
Ray of Entropy (Invisible Spell -1, Sanctum Spell -1, Split Ray +0, Twin Spell +2; total +0) deals 4x4 (splitted, twinned) = 16 to STR, DEX, CON.


So, either the DM makes his monsters immune to these things, and you've wasted most of your feat slots; or he doesn't, and you destroy the fun of the game every time there's a battle. The only spell I know that would be playable with Arcane Thesis, is Silent Image in the hands of a Shadowcraft Mage, because you never do the same thing. Other than that, I would say that there's no point in taking Arcane Thesis.

What do you think?

So, let me see if I follow the logic.
Here are some powerful spells.
Arcane Thesis makes it possible to make them even more powerful.
These spells become so powerful that either everything is immune to them or you trivialize the game.
If everything is immune to them, Arcane Thesis is a waste.
If you trivialize the game, Arcane Thesis has broken the game.
I disagree with your reasoning. Here's why, in a nutshell.

Have you ever heard the saying, "A rising tide raises all ships?" The idea is simple - if you introduce something that benefits everybody, everybody benefits. Now, let's say you have two ships in the dock at the time - a grand galleon and a little dinghy. The galleon will always be larger, prouder, more elegant and more powerful. But with the tide rising, that galleon looks even more impressive, and the dinghy still looks like a dinghy.

Your logic says, Let's blame the tide.

In this metaphor, Arcane Thesis is the tide. It can be applied to a given spell to make it easier to empower that spell. Your argument is that because there are powerful spells, and AT can make them more powerful, AT is a problem. My response is that, No, the spells are the problem, stop being silly about this.

These spells are potent to begin with. When enhanced with metamagic, they become even more potent. AT makes it easier to do that, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that AT is just making the galleon look even more impressive. It's already a galleon; AT didn't change that.

AT can also be applied to other spells, with less game-breaking results. What if you put Arcane Thesis on a Fireball? Sure, you could make the biggest, baddest, great-ball-of-fire ever, but it would still just be a big fancy Fireball. That's not game-breaking.

And let's not forget just how much metamagic you're cheesing in there. This isn't just AT's fault, here. His buddy Sanctum Spell can take some of the hit. So can Twin and Maximize Spell. There's a lot of power being thrown around; AT is just facilitating.

Lastly, these spells are situational. There are creatures immune to negative energy, for example, as you've observed. Not every creature, but some. There are others with high saves or SR. These spells are not universal in their effectiveness, is the point. Whereas, as people have noted, there are game-breaking spells like Wish, Miracle, and Gate which can literally do anything. They are not situational. They are Swiss army knife spells. And they don't require Arcane Thesis to be game-breaking.

[Gallowglass]

just deleting. Pointless argument.

[icefractal]

I'd say the bigger problem with Arcane Thesis is that it usually encourages one-trick-pony tactics. Not usually what I want out of a caster. OTOH though, most non-caster classes are equally OTP, so I guess it's just a matter of preference. I probably wouldn't use "+0 becomes -1" though, seems unreasonable for most campaigns.

Edit: IIRC, the argument for going to -1 isn't that AT can reduce below 0 per-se, but rather that the calculation is "[spell level] + [total metamagic adjustment] - [# of metamagic feats]", versus reducing each adjustment individually.

[Cosi]

Dweomerkeeper can't reduce things to 0. Arcane Thesis, however, can. So if you apply it in that order, you get 2-1(dweomerkeeper)=1. No rules being violated. Then, you get 1-1=0 (arcane thesis). No rules being violated here, since arcane thesis can go to zero.

Is there a reason you get to stack things that way though? Dweomerkeeper -> Arcane Thesis gets +2 to +0, but Arcane Thesis -> Dweomerkeeper gets +2 to +1. I think there's even a reasonable case that because you got Arcane Thesis first, it applies before the Dweomerkeeper Capstone. Is there some text I'm missing?


And let's not forget just how much metamagic you're cheesing in there. This isn't just AT's fault, here. His buddy Sanctum Spell can take some of the hit. So can Twin and Maximize Spell. There's a lot of power being thrown around; AT is just facilitating.

Name one time in the history of the game Twin Spell has done something broken outside the context of metamagic cost reduction. 99% of metamagic feats are not worth the paper they're printed on if you don't have some way of dropping their costs.

[Pippin]

Is there a reason you get to stack things that way though? Dweomerkeeper -> Arcane Thesis gets +2 to +0, but Arcane Thesis -> Dweomerkeeper gets +2 to +1. I think there's even a reasonable case that because you got Arcane Thesis first, it applies before the Dweomerkeeper Capstone. Is there some text I'm missing?
I'm no expert, but I would say that General should always chime in before Specific. The dweomerkeeper's capstone has permanently decreased all metamagic costs by one. Arcane Thesis, on the other hand, alters metamagic costs for 1 specific spell. With that in mind, it seems only natural to choose this order rather than the other.

[Incanur]

I don't really understand why someone aspiring to do abusive things as an Arcane Dweomerkeeper would drop a bunch of feats on Arcane Thesis. You have Supernatural Spell sitting right there and you have wish, limited wish, and any number of other spells that would love to be Supernatural on your spell list.

Yeah, Supernatural Spell is obscenely broken under the RAW that it allows you ignore material and XP components. Of course, if you're doing that, you probably did the wish-for-an-ever-increasing-number-of-wishes trick earlier, so reality more or less just implodes.

[Zancloufer]

I'm no expert, but I would say that General should always chime in before Specific. The dweomerkeeper's capstone has permanently decreased all metamagic costs by one. Arcane Thesis, on the other hand, alters metamagic costs for 1 specific spell. With that in mind, it seems only natural to choose this order rather than the other.

Doesn't specific trump general by RAW though?

Unless RAW states which comes first (Dweomerkeeper or Arcane Thesis) then both orders are equally valid. Also by RAI Dweomerkeeper doesn't reduce meta-magic below 1. If it is applied before arcane thesis you can reduce a meta-magic below 1 using it, but if it is applied second you do not reduce a meta-magic below 1 with it. Since applying it second makes more sense in a RAI perspective and both are equally valid by RAW as far as I know it shouldn't work in conjecture with Arcane Thesis to reduce a +2 meta-magic to +0.

[AnachroNinja]

The generally accepted rule, which I believe was originally a Sage question, is that the player can always apply simultaneous effects in the midst beneficial order. The same rule is frequently mentioned in regards to the natural bond argument about whether it can negate the penalties of higher level companions. I don't have a citation though.

[Pippin]

Doesn't specific trump general by RAW though?

Unless RAW states which comes first (Dweomerkeeper or Arcane Thesis) then both orders are equally valid. Also by RAI Dweomerkeeper doesn't reduce meta-magic below 1. If it is applied before arcane thesis you can reduce a meta-magic below 1 using it, but if it is applied second you do not reduce a meta-magic below 1 with it. Since applying it second makes more sense in a RAI perspective and both are equally valid by RAW as far as I know it shouldn't work in conjecture with Arcane Thesis to reduce a +2 meta-magic to +0.
Note that, in order for Specific to trump General, Specific has to be applied last.

This thread has taken many unexpected paths I must say :v

[Troacctid]

Note that, in order for Specific to trump General, Specific has to be applied last.
Specific only trumps general in cases where the rules disagree. So in order for specific to trump general, they have to be mutually exclusive--the general rule won't be applied at all.

[Necroticplague]

Specific vs. general doesn't help though, because both of these are specific rules. It's equally accurate to say "Dweomerkeepers with Arcane Thesis is more specific" as it is to say "People with Arcane Thesis who are Dweomerkeepers" is more specific.

[Kraken]

I'd opt for arcane thesis on celerity before any of the options presented in the OP. Twinned repeated celerity is scrumptious indeed.

[Godskook]

What do you think?

I think that, as a reasonable DM, I have a long-standing houserule that says:

You must be able to cast a spell without reducers to be able to cast spells with reducers. For example, you cannot maximize a 1st level spell until you can cast 4th level spells, but may reduce the cost at your leisure.

Overall, this pushes the two largest problems of metamagic off until either high levels or epic. Specifically, metamagic stacking like you're doing costs +11 spell levels, and thus wouldn't be fully possible until you could cast ~15th level spells(going off Enervation, I don't know the other spells' levels), while DMM: Persist cheese wouldn't start showing up until level 15+. At those points, I honestly don't care that you've built yourself around doing this out of low-level slot because you'd already be able to do it out of your high-level slots, so you're mostly just buffing your longevity with the trick.

[Pippin]

I'd opt for arcane thesis on celerity before any of the options presented in the OP. Twinned repeated celerity is scrumptious indeed.
Oh wow. I feel a bit stupid for not thinking of it before! Thank you for breaking this game's action economy in even tinier pieces :v

[Gallowglass]

Please note that an arcane thesis twinned repeated celerity would be a 9th level spell. Comparing it to other 9th level spells, even taking a liberal reading of the power, it is pretty good but not astonishing.

That's with a liberal reading of the power. Please also note that celerity causes "after you take the standard action granted by this spell, you are dazed until the end of your next turn" which, in a perfectly reasonable interpretation means after your first standard action, you are dazed through the rest of the standard actions the metamagicked spell is granting you. If you want to argue that the daze won't kick in until after all the standard actions granted by the metamagicked spell, you can argue that, but its not RAW unambiguous, its just another interpretation.

Of course, I'm probably reading the 3.0 version of celerity or something.

[Kraken]

Just like with vanilla celerity, you'd almost never do it without acquiring a way to mitigate the daze effect. In terms of how the daze effects would hit, I believe it'd come in two waves. Twin spell specifies that both spells are happening simultaneously. Due to real life temporal limitations, one action will necessarily happen at the table after the other, but in the actual game, both spells happening simultaneously means that both standard actions happen simultaneously, then daze kicks in. The repeat metamagic would then daze again during your next turn. Otherwise, I didn't necessarily mean to imply that this was earth shattering in any way (certainly not compared to supernatural wish shenanigans that dweomerkeeper makes possible), it was more to point out the options in the OP were pretty wimpy. Wimpy because they're basically blasting type stuff, and at this level you can run around with shapechange active, so you already have a very large variety of unlimited blasting. Incidentally, shapechange also gives you way easier, low-investment ways to also break action economy, like turning into a chronotyryn.

[Pippin]

Well I don't know the best way to ruin the action economy, but with Residual Magic shenanigans I know that a Shadowcraft Mage can manage to cast eight completely real, 9th-level spells per round. I'm not sure if Celerity can make it any worse at this point.

Edit: Actually, provided that you always cast twinned, repeated Celerities, you'd have 5 standard actions per round. That's twenty 9th-level spells per round for the Shadowcraft Mage. Not that bad if you want your DM to throw you out the window I suppose :v

[Jormengand]

Well I don't know the best way to ruin the action economy,

I do; it involves Energy Transformation Field and infinite-level utterances to cast infinite wishes which can copy greater celerities to gain infinite actions, or other spells because hey, you have infinite wishes which are resolved immediately.

[Kraken]

As a more reasonable (well, you know, relatively), the previously mentioned chronotyryn is in the Fiend Folio. By being shapechanged into one you've got double actions per round. Depending on your reading of the ability, this might mean more than just 2 standards, moves, and swifts, if you have other sources of actions.

[Quertus]

I think that, as a reasonable DM, I have a long-standing houserule that says:

You must be able to cast a spell without reducers to be able to cast spells with reducers. For example, you cannot maximize a 1st level spell until you can cast 4th level spells, but may reduce the cost at your leisure.

Overall, this pushes the two largest problems of metamagic off until either high levels or epic. Specifically, metamagic stacking like you're doing costs +11 spell levels, and thus wouldn't be fully possible until you could cast ~15th level spells(going off Enervation, I don't know the other spells' levels), while DMM: Persist cheese wouldn't start showing up until level 15+. At those points, I honestly don't care that you've built yourself around doing this out of low-level slot because you'd already be able to do it out of your high-level slots, so you're mostly just buffing your longevity with the trick.

So, I need to have my epic illithid savant simulacrum cast my spells for me? :smalltongue:


I do; it involves Energy Transformation Field and infinite-level utterances to cast infinite wishes which can copy greater celerities to gain infinite actions, or other spells because hey, you have infinite wishes which are resolved immediately.

1) Infinite level utterances?
2) all wishes resolve simultaneously, not one per round?
3) you get to control the wishes?

I was never confident that etf worked well enough to allow wish to work the way I'd want.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh wow. I feel a bit stupid for not thinking of it before! Thank you for breaking this game's action economy in even tinier pieces :v

Unless you have daze immunity that's not going to accomplish much.

EDIT: woops. Didn't realize I wasn't on the last page.

[Cosi]

1) Infinite level utterances?

Garbler cheese, IIRC.


2) all wishes resolve simultaneously, not one per round?

Looks like it: "The field automatically triggers its linked spell if it has enough stored spell levels and the duration of its previous casting has expired."


3) you get to control the wishes?

I see basically zero indication that it works that way. The spell doesn't say that you get to make any decisions, and some language (weakly) implies you don't. It calls out things that are like you were casting the linked spell (duration and level-based effects), which would seem to mean that other things are not like you are casting the linked spell.

It's kind of a moot point either way, as it's simply not better than regular wish cheese (i.e. arbitrary stats and all spells at-will) so you don't care.

[Kraken]

Eh, energy transformation does have plenty of hilariously abusable uses though. An ETF of absorption (SpC) combined with another ETF of any 9th level spell that targets you is an easy way to get an arbitrarily large number of spells per day, if you're doing it in your timeless demiplane (because of course you are!), then astrally projecting yourself out from it, so that you don't even ever need to recharge yourself ever, just dismiss your current astral projection and send out a fresh copy of yourself, all consumables, daily abilities, and so forth intact. Even if you don't get to choose new effects of wish each time (I agree that's the case), it's still an easy infinite money machine that requires no investment of resources whatsoever, because supernatural spell is ridiculous.

[Andorn]

Yeah, Supernatural Spell is obscenely broken under the RAW that it allows you ignore material and XP components. Of course, if you're doing that, you probably did the wish-for-an-ever-increasing-number-of-wishes trick earlier, so reality more or less just implodes.

Eh, law of thermodynamics says you can't get more energy out of a system than went in. You can't use a wish to get more power than there is in the wish to begin with. So, you could wish for another wish, use that wish for another wish, etc, but you never gain any ground.

Problem solved.

[Kraken]

Eh, law of thermodynamics says you can't get more energy out of a system than went in. You can't use a wish to get more power than there is in the wish to begin with. So, you could wish for another wish, use that wish for another wish, etc, but you never gain any ground.

Problem solved.

Easy to get around this. Wish for a scroll of wish with supernatural spell. Same energy in, same energy out. Repeat as often as you feel like abusing supernatural spell. Or just use supernatural spell to create an energy transformation field of wish creating a scroll of wish. Step in and every round you can create a new scroll by attempting to use a nightmare's astral projection ability (which you have from shapechange), which will then get eaten by the ETF and turned into a scroll of wish. All with no permanent resource investment, just the use of daily abilities.

[Pippin]

Eh, law of thermodynamics says you can't get more energy out of a system than went in. You can't use a wish to get more power than there is in the wish to begin with. So, you could wish for another wish, use that wish for another wish, etc, but you never gain any ground.

Problem solved.
If we're going to bring physics into this, I would like to point out that Dragons can't fly in the first place. The whole D&D system needs review :v

[Jormengand]

It calls out things that are like you were casting the linked spell (duration and level-based effects), which would seem to mean that other things are not like you are casting the linked spell.

I dunno, that's not really enough for me to be convinced. Also, if you don't get to choose the effect of the wish, there's no real way of determining what the wish does.

The reason I feel it's a lot better is that you can resolve all of the wishes at once, which usually allows you to get the one-up on Pun-Pun of all people as you can resolve infinite actions before he gets to act.

Either way, messing with wish is probably more powerful than messing with AT, which is the point.

[KillianHawkeye]

Eh, law of thermodynamics says you can't get more energy out of a system than went in. You can't use a wish to get more power than there is in the wish to begin with. So, you could wish for another wish, use that wish for another wish, etc, but you never gain any ground.

Problem solved.

Wizards: making the Laws of Nature sit down and cry in the corner since 1977. :smallbiggrin: