Wizard VS StP Erudite

[Xar Zarath]

So its been a while since I posted and here's one that I have been a ponderin.

So lets say that a epic duel between these tier 1 classes.

As we all know Spell to power Erudite are great and OP because any spell can then be turned to a psionic power and only needing xp (in cases of some spells) otherwise presto, power manifested.

Now, it would seem that while the Wizard is a worthy contender, it does seem a little bit off so here's my bit into this situation. Part of the Wizard is the scribe/create your own spell. Technically RAW means that basically any spell or psionic power for that matter can be created/scribed depending only on the resources. However any DM worth their salt would watch out for this. But for the situation at hand, the scribe/create your own spell is as RAW with no DM adjudication


So for this brawl, which one would you prefer to play?
Which one would you feel would be the more powerful, versatile, best among the rest?
Which would you feel would be more your kind of style of playing, if you had to choose between the two?

[Xuldarinar]

All things being equal, the StP Erudite has a leg up because ANY spell a wizard can get, the Erudite can get too. If a wizard creates a spell, the erudite can learn it. Furthermore, an Erudite has a greater versatility throughout the day, not just the day to day.


Wizard: I have X number of spell slots in which to prepare spells in, each spell assigned to a specific slot. If I want to use a spell twice, I need to prepare it twice.
Erudite: I have X number of power points, with Y number of different powers I can manifest per day.. determined by my using of them.

A wizard is only as dangerous as their hour of preparation makes them, an erudite can roll out of bed and start manifesting whatever they want and need on the fly... From a theoretically limitless list. Only once they hit their limit of different powers they can manifest does the wizard have any kind of leg up, but the erudite still has a pool to draw from rather than a rigid system.

[Cosi]

So for this brawl, which one would you prefer to play?

The problem with Char Op duels like this is that both characters have options that allow them to have however much power they happen to want. So you have to start banning stuff to get a meaningful answer, but once you start doing that it becomes very difficult to avoid biasing against one class or the other. Do you ban PrCs? Well, maybe that helps focus on "just the class", but at the same time things like the disparity in spell lists between Wizard and Warmage definitely make Incantatrix more valuable to one than the other, and banning PrCs is (relatively speaking) a buff to classes like Druid that don't care as much about them. And there are things like that for everything. Should we assume the Erudite spent his XP to learn spells long enough ago that he's equal level with the Wizard? Can the Wizard learn (and use) arcane fusion? What about raise dead?


Which one would you feel would be the more powerful, versatile, best among the rest?

In practice the Wizard is going to be better, because there is a finite amount of crap any given DM will let you pull, and the Erudite spends a huge pile of it on getting to play a web enhancement variant of a splatbook variant of a class that is itself from a splatbook, and then has to spend even more to learn cool spells. The Wizard on the other hand can just be a Wizard, take good spells with his free spells, and fast-talk his way into being an Incantatrix or something.


Which would you feel would be more your kind of style of playing, if you had to choose between the two?

Wizard, easily. Power points are just a less interesting mechanic than spell slots. Also, there are way more options for Wizard builds.

[gkathellar]

Cosi basically has it. Tiers in D&D do not work like tiers in fighting games. Taking a pair of broken characters and having them fight sort of misses the point.

In the spirit of the question, though, wizard wins. Better feat/PrC support, more versatility.

[Lazymancer]

All things being equal, the StP Erudite has a leg up because ANY spell a wizard can get, the Erudite can get too.
False. StP Erudite learns spells one spell level below wizard. This also means that there is no access to 9th level spells.


Wizard: I have X number of spell slots in which to prepare spells in, each spell assigned to a specific slot. If I want to use a spell twice, I need to prepare it twice.
Erudite: I have X number of power points, with Y number of different powers I can manifest per day.. determined by my using of them.
Level 5 StP Erudite has 3 unique powers, by level 10 - 6. Wizard can have more long-term spells before even getting to actual spells.

I.e. Erudite can't cast spells as good as a Wizard: it has neither spell levels, nor versatility. Even if Erudite might have more flexibility than the Sorcerer, by the time you hit mid-game, he can function only as a secondary caster (all the mandatory spells like "Anticipate Teleportation" will be eating up his UPP).

[Cosi]

Even if Erudite might have more flexibility than the Sorcerer, by the time you hit mid-game, he can function only as a secondary caster (all the mandatory spells like "Anticipate Teleportation" will be eating up his UPP).

I believe the general trick is to avoid this by using arcane fusion and greater arcane fusion to cast a variety of spells while only using a single UPP per day. Whether you believe that works or not is subjective, but if it does it's not bad (particularly if you also grab from weird lists).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Level 5 StP Erudite has 3 unique powers, by level 10 - 6. Wizard can have more long-term spells before even getting to actual spells.
Not quite-- the exact text is "Unlike a psion, an erudite is limited to manifesting a certain number of unique psionic powers of each level per day." That means that the level 5 Erudite has 9 unique powers available per day, and the level 10 has 30, and the level 20 Erudite has a whopping 99. To say nothing of the potential for things like Linked Power or Arcane Fusion (as Cosi mentioned) to circumvent the limit entirely. Particularly given how well low-level psionic powers scale, unique powers/day very quickly stops being an issue. That said...


False. StP Erudite learns spells one spell level below wizard. This also means that there is no access to 9th level spells.
This is an excellent point-- the Wizard will always be one spell level ahead of the Erudite, although their non-discipline-specific Psionic powers will be right on track.

Ultimately, as with most "full casters going all out" questions, it's like comparing infinities. Yes, theoretically one infinity may be larger than another (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes/), but for all intents and purposes they're the same. StP Erudites and Wizards can both burst the game wide open. Like, there are some seriously goofy tricks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?177889-Brainstorm-for-Psionic-Tricks-Tactics-and-Combos-Handbook) you can do with just psionics, and then you add in spells...?

[Psyren]

False. StP Erudite learns spells one spell level below wizard. This also means that there is no access to 9th level spells.

Epic Erudites can learn 9ths actually. You just need Epic Manifestation, and the two rules below:


Psionic characters take the Epic Manifestation feat, which works just like the Epic Spellcasting feat.


Epic Spell Levels
Epic spells have no fixed level. However, for purposes of Concentration checks, spell resistance, and other possible situations where spell level is important, epic spells are all treated as if they were 10th-level spells.

Thus making an Epic Manifestation gives you a 10th-level power, allowing you to learn 9th-level discipline powers - i.e. 9th-level spells, in the case of a StP Erudite.

The fun implication of this is that you don't actually need an epic erudite yourself. If there is one in the world with the 9th-level spells you need, he can teach them to your non-epic erudite via Psychic Chirurgery. In fact, liberal use of Psychic Chirurgery is what lead to Tippy's T1 Psion that can manifest the entire wizard/sorcerer/psion/psywar lists spontaneously.

[Lazymancer]

AFAIK Linked Power doesn't work. While Arcane Fusion (arguably) would work, it comes online by 11th level and you can cast only 4th level spells - now you are two spell levels behind. I.e. the problem of low UPP is not mitigated.


Not quite-- the exact text is "Unlike a psion, an erudite is limited to manifesting a certain number of unique psionic powers of each level per day."
Well, yes. But (almost?) nobody actually uses this strict RAW reading. I'm speaking from the point of practical optimization.


Particularly given how well low-level psionic powers scale, unique powers/day very quickly stops being an issue.
I'm not contesting the ability of Erudite perform as Psion. The point I'm making is that Erudite cannot perform as Wizard. Even StP Erudite will remain primarily psionic, not arcane. At least that was my experience.

Erudite can use many ways to go "off the reservation" (an ability that defines 1-Tier), but if we are comparing actual classes (as they are played), StP Erudite cannot fully replace Wizard - as was postulated by Xuldarinar. Especially, not Wizard with Uncanny Forethought.

[VisitingDaGulag]

OP did not define his question well enough. Does he mean the base class as a starting chassis (for PrCs?), or the straight classes?

Does he assume arcane fusion bypasses StP's only restriction? Does he assume a StP erudite does has unlimited XP to pay for spell acquisition?

etc etc

[Xuldarinar]

AFAIK Linked Power doesn't work. While Arcane Fusion (arguably) would work, it comes online by 11th level and you can cast only 4th level spells - now you are two spell levels behind. I.e. the problem of low UPP is not mitigated.


Well, yes. But (almost?) nobody actually uses this strict RAW reading. I'm speaking from the point of practical optimization.


I'm not contesting the ability of Erudite perform as Psion. The point I'm making is that Erudite cannot perform as Wizard. Even StP Erudite will remain primarily psionic, not arcane. At least that was my experience.

Erudite can use many ways to go "off the reservation" (an ability that defines 1-Tier), but if we are comparing actual classes (as they are played), StP Erudite cannot fully replace Wizard - as was postulated by Xuldarinar. Especially, not Wizard with Uncanny Forethought.

As something is played is a completely different question than RAW and Theoretical Optimization.

I will concede that the Erudite can't easily replace the Wizard, but an 8th level spell becomes an 8th level power, and epic gives them access to 9th level arcane spells for learning.. treating them as 9th level powers.

As far as Uncanny Forethought goes.. I disagree.

If I can cast any 99 spells I want (11 per power level), that completely blows out of the water the ability to reserve (Int mod) spell slots to be free, or consume action economy to use already reserved spell slots to do the same thing. An erudite, especially later on, is not likely to hit their limits before a wizard would.

That said.. There is a situation that Arcane beats Psionics, and that is when we mix Taint in. The Tainted Scholar is theoretically more powerful than the Subverted Psion, as the latter only get additional power points (and thus power per day), while the former gets to effectively have an Int score in the hundreds for the purpose of casting spells, amplifying DCs, Spells per day, and ect... Until the Scholar goes insane/drops dead because their Depravity or Corruption is too high.






If we want to go back to what is practical, how things are played, and what would sensibly be allowed.. That is a completely different question and I'll concede that short of an insane amount of resources that the Wizard might win out. It really is who has the first move, and who planned better for the encounter. And... what level of magic-psionics transparency is being used.

[Grod_The_Giant]

AFAIK Linked Power doesn't work.
...
Well, yes. But (almost?) nobody actually uses this strict RAW reading. I'm speaking from the point of practical optimization.
Hmm? Linked Power is debatable, I admit, but I'm not sure why you say that the unique powers thing is sketchy-RAW; that's exactly what the ability says, in plain language.

[Zanos]

I think there's a trick that lets wizards emulate erudites by using mental pinnacle to gain the ability to manifest, psychic chirurgery to learn all powers, and then metaconcert + psycrystal to pass it off so you can go back to casting CL Very Yes arcane spells.

They can both break the game in all the ways that matter so it doesn't matter much.

[Psyren]

Hmm? Linked Power is debatable, I admit, but I'm not sure why you say that the unique powers thing is sketchy-RAW; that's exactly what the ability says, in plain language.

It does, but the "certain number" mentioned in the text is left unspecified. This would leave us only with the values in the table, but there the header states "per day" rather than "per level per day."

[Try survive]

The Sorcerer King defeats Erudite and Wizard fighting together.

1) Arcane Fusion requires, Sorcerer Spell Know. Wizards or Erudite don't know Sorcerer Spells, They know Wizard Spells or Erudite Power know by RAW.
Arcane Fusion require spell slots and be a spell.
Also, Universal spell can't be a discipline power. They can't learn.

2) Metamagic is far superior than Metapower

3) Arcane Spellcaster PrC is ABSOLUTELY superior than anything, Tainted Sorcerer (High DC and bypass Material cost, free Ice Assassin), Dweomerkeeper (Hey, Supernatural Spell is broken), Incantatrix, Zhentarim Skymage.

4) No level 9 spells. No Mage Disjunction, Shapechange, Ice Assassin, Hide Life, Invoke Magic is just enough arguments.

5) Greater Arcane Fusion, corrupt spells is just enough to be KING

6) Manisfester level isn't Caster Level (Psychic-Magic Transparence), Spell that increase Caster Level can't increase Manifester Level.
Sorcerer just use Persisted Consumptive Field (Via Theurgy Rings)

7) Reserve of the Strengh feat and a arcane spellcast just break the spell cap (Erudite can't do it).

8) Sorcerer King also know every power that Erudite can learn.

9) Charisma is far superior than Int.






I bealive, It's enough arguments.

[Psyren]

MP lasts rounds/lvl while PC takes 10 minutes for every power you want to learn (and 1000xp/level) so it's a bit trickier than that. Still doable but if you have that much downtime in your campaign then you are either the BBEG or have a very bored GM.

[Zanos]

MP can be persisted, since it's personal.

[Cosi]

MP can be persisted, since it's personal.

Yeah, I was going to suggest that. Then you can (assuming a plausible if not guaranteed reading of limited wish) use psychic reformation to get whatever powers you want.

But ultimately, it just goes back to what I pointed out earlier -- it's essentially impossible to determine which of two characters is "better" when both have options that let them do whatever they want.

[Psyren]

MP can be persisted, since it's personal.

Which you'll have to knock 3 levels of adjustment off of. As I said, it's doable, but still...

[Cosi]

Which you'll have to knock 3 levels of adjustment off of. As I said, it's doable, but still...

Incantatrix knocks all the levels of adjustment off, I don't think we're seriously concerned about the cost of Persistent Spell.

[Quertus]

So, how about a Wizard with UA Spell Points?

[death390]

You CAN get 9's manifesting with Erudite at the same point as a wizard as Erudite.

SptP: "You treat the spell as a discipline power for the basis of learning it"

Favored Discipline: "You choose a single discipline and all powers of that discipline, no matter what class list they are on, are considered general psion/wilder powers for purposes of learning."

by a only slightly skewed reading SptP Erudite is in of itself a discipline. the only problem with meshing these two together is the cost. both require your level 1 bonus feat. however it is arguable that you can use a ACTUAL feat slot instead of your "bonus" feat slot. this is because a bonus feat slot is limited in its capacity, whereas a true feat slot is for all intents and purposes unlimited.

so spending your bonus slot and first feat slot you can get both SptP Erudite and Favored Discipline (SptP) to enable 9's casting. in this case Erudite has a straight better versatility than the wizard will 11 of each spell level usable in any combination as long as you have spell points to power it. the power point system also enables you to sacrifice the equivalent of lower level spell slots to power higher tier powers.

Metamagic vs metapower, generally wizard has more actual metamagic to choose from. that said metapsionic has an easier to use reduction mechanic even if it is more limited. this is due to the stacking effect on a single power. if using straight cheese (and why not) the wizard has better meta-reduction mechanics (strong-heart vest + metaphysical spell shaper) what metapsionics there are is still great overall.

there are a few major balancing factors for meta-psionic, the first is the fact that you need to use your psionic-focus to use metapsionic, that said it takes more time to psi-focused but is more versatile. it is similar to sorc taking extra time. like the sorcerer you can apply meta-psi feats at on any cast. add into that the fact that with pp you don't take up higher level slots to use meta feats. i actually think that Erudite overall has better meta feat use.

[Psyren]

by a only slightly skewed reading SptP Erudite is in of itself a discipline. the only problem with meshing these two together is the cost. both require your level 1 bonus feat. however it is arguable that you can use a ACTUAL feat slot instead of your "bonus" feat slot. this is because a bonus feat slot is limited in its capacity, whereas a true feat slot is for all intents and purposes unlimited.

No need for this, Erudites get two bonus feats. (The second being Psicrystal Affinity.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

If necessary, Chameleon Crafting can put all spells and powers on all spell and power lists. Ultracheesy and ultraconvenient for shutting down list comparisons. Also, Mind Mages can make everything into a first-level spell or power, or even a cantrip. Yep, that's cheap.


The wizard has better PrC/feat/item support (just generally more volume, in bad and good stuff), the erudite has better base versatility (with the UPPLPD reading).


The obvious solution is to fusion + astral seed them both together, then give them ten levels of Mind Mage.

[death390]

No need for this, Erudites get two bonus feats. (The second being Psicrystal Affinity.)

ok this is a great point. i hadn't though of that. though i usually use the infinite PP trick with the psicrystal to refill between encounters.

[Psyren]

ok this is a great point. i hadn't though of that. though i usually use the infinite PP trick with the psicrystal to refill between encounters.

Assuming your GM allows FDStP Erudite in the first place, you can always grab the feat again later.

[Xuldarinar]

With anticipation and divination, what is to stop the erudite from trying to have the Wizard's spellbook(s) separated from them before they prepare for the day?

[ryu]

With anticipation and divination, what is to stop the erudite from trying to have the Wizard's spellbook(s) separated from them before they prepare for the day?

Well for one spellbook defenses can become continually more absurd right up until the point where the book is a microsized aleax of itself housed within the wizard's bloodstream with spells prepared inside of stopped time. Do you REALLY wanna go down this rabbit hole?

[death390]

Two words: Eidetic spellcaster.

[Big Fau]

Not quite-- the exact text is "Unlike a psion, an erudite is limited to manifesting a certain number of unique psionic powers of each level per day." That means that the level 5 Erudite has 9 unique powers available per day, and the level 10 has 30, and the level 20 Erudite has a whopping 99. To say nothing of the potential for things like Linked Power or Arcane Fusion (as Cosi mentioned) to circumvent the limit entirely. Particularly given how well low-level psionic powers scale, unique powers/day very quickly stops being an issue. That said...

There's also the extra-stupid interpretation where the Erudite gets 220 UPD, by reading that sentence as referring to class level instead of power level. Literally no one uses it, but the TO interpretation exists.

More on-topic, I agree that being behind a spell level is crappy but the Erudite only needs to copy certain spells to mitigate it. Depending on the levels involved the Erudite can just ignore the highest levels in favor of the Psionic substitute, especially if those spells only matter once initiative is determined.

The Erudite also has access to a hell of an ability: Linked Timeless Body.

[Xar Zarath]

OP did not define his question well enough. Does he mean the base class as a starting chassis (for PrCs?), or the straight classes?

No, just base, no PrC. Straight base class.


Does he assume arcane fusion bypasses StP's only restriction? Does he assume a StP erudite does has unlimited XP to pay for spell acquisition?

etc etc

Hmm, that would depend if we already going that far with the cheese we already have but, I would consider no. And in order to meet some xp requirements, the StP Erudite would have to have the xp required.



And just a thought, how would spell points figure into this? I mean, at some point it would seem like there would be no difference either way.

[Lazymancer]

I'm not sure why you say that the unique powers thing is sketchy-RAW; that's exactly what the ability says, in plain language.
Read again. It's not sketchy RAW, it's just people tend not to use "proper" reading of RAW in this instance and - since I'm talking from the point of practical optimization (i.e. how StP Erudite / Wizard actually get played IRL, rather than how they should be played as written) - this means that UPP limitation should not be ignored.



But ultimately, it just goes back to what I pointed out earlier -- it's essentially impossible to determine which of two characters is "better" when both have options that let them do whatever they want.
Unless you define specific context - yes, it is impossible (just like having any real answer to any improperly defined question). Currently we have quantum Erudite and quantum Wizard - both are simultaneously of every level (including epic levels), with all potential rule lawyering enabled.

However, for all intents and purposes, we can assume the way those classes are usually played to be default - otherwise all discussion loses any meaning (what is the merit of discussing the ways classes were never meant to be played, nor are played?). And in this sense classes are clearly comparable.

That said, it might be hard to define this regular way the classes are played (with all usual nonsense of people trying to muddle up the topic). But this does not mean characters cannot be compared. As I've said: IRL Erudite does not play as spontaneous Wizard.



With anticipation and divination, what is to stop the erudite from trying to have the Wizard's spellbook(s) separated from them before they prepare for the day?
With anticipation and divination, what is to stop the Wizard from killing Erudite before he manages to steal the spellbook? As a rule, it's easier to simply off the Wizard.

[DMVerdandi]

Personally, I would open up the challenge in 2 ways.

1. Use the Dragon magazine Erudite. The Cpsi one is broken.
The dragon magazine one is the first one printed, and does not have the mistakes that the complete psionic one has. It was the wizard to the psion being the sorcerer.


The dragon magazine erudite has Unique powers per day like spell slots so it goes 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4[which is the same amount of powers that the psion gets. 36.].
The reason they work like this is because the unique powers per day only work on their own slot level, so if you are level 20, you still uniquely cast level 1 powers in a level one slot, and the same goes for everything else, so you only have 4 spells per spell level in quantum superposition. Once you cast 4 4th level spells, you can't prepare any more 4th level spells in lower slots.
Cpsi erudite prepares any level spell in its UPPD instead.


This actually significantly changes the play style, and ends up playing more like an arcanist or psychic mage from Pathfinder.
Furthermore, it requires feats to increase the amount of unique powers per day. They don't increase by bonuses in ability score.

This one is not broken. It's strong as hell, and probably the best class in the game, but from level 1-20, there is no trouble getting it off the ground. It works. Cpsi erudite does not.






2. Allow Eidetic Spellcaster for wizard.
It should have been in the dragon compendium. I have such a hate for spell books....






Anyhow, Still, even with Eidetic Spellcaster, Wizard is going to have trouble. Using ACF's like Spontaneous Divination and Spell point variant IMO put it ever closer, but the big part about erudite is it has like access to the full psion/wilder spell list which is DAMN good. Access to 8th level psionic discipline powers, which are FANTASTIC, and then finally, access to 8 levels of all arcane spells.
yum.


Erudite IMO is closer to playing a more stable Sha'ir, than necessarily a super wizard. Like it has that kind of "Hold my beer" power use, where they can pull whatever they need to out of a hat, but doing so kind of makes them weaker at the same time.


It's much better for creating an expy of characters though. Turns out being reliably manifesting from all of those lists really can have some cool thematic applications, and it's not just a trick that you prepare a couple of times.
If you need to Spam lightning blade 10 times, you can, and then if you need to manifest a couple of buffs for the team, you can. without worrying about if you prepared it.
It's just GOOD.



So yeah. If you use the original erudite, and throw convert spell to power on it, it's AMAZING. However it's still playable at all levels and can function as that generalist type, OR just a REALLY clutch sorcerer.

[Psyren]

Hmm? Linked Power is debatable, I admit, but I'm not sure why you say that the unique powers thing is sketchy-RAW; that's exactly what the ability says, in plain language.

What it says in plain language is "a certain number." It does not define that number, nor even refer to the table. And even if it did refer to the table - which is in fact all we have to go on - it says "Unique Powers/Day" in the header.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Read again. It's not sketchy RAW, it's just people tend not to use "proper" reading of RAW in this instance and - since I'm talking from the point of practical optimization (i.e. how StP Erudite / Wizard actually get played IRL, rather than how they should be played as written) - this means that UPP limitation should not be ignored.
I see how you read it that way, though I very much disagree with the RAW. I don't think you can put it forth as the only valid "as actually played" interpretation. But sure; if the Erudite is stuck with the harshest reading of UPD, they lose to the Wizard.


What it says in plain language is "a certain number." It does not define that number, nor even refer to the table. And even if it did refer to the table - which is in fact all we have to go on - it says "Unique Powers/Day" in the header.
What it says in plain language is "a certain number of unique psionic powers of each level per day from, the repertoire of powers he knows, according to his class level." That "certain number according to his class level" seems to pretty clearly refer to the table. That gives you your "certain number" of each level per day. You get X per day of each level. It seems clear enough, especially with "text trumps table" rules.

[Psyren]

What it says in plain language is "a certain number of unique psionic powers of each level per day from, the repertoire of powers he knows, according to his class level." That "certain number according to his class level" seems to pretty clearly refer to the table. That gives you your "certain number" of each level per day. You get X per day of each level. It seems clear enough, especially with "text trumps table" rules.

Text trumps table when they conflict, but by not having a number in the text, there is no conflict.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Straight base class.

the StP Erudite would have to have the xp required.

And just a thought, how would spell points figure into this? I mean, at some point it would seem like there would be no difference either way.SP are bad because they are broken. They are both too weak and have ramifications that were not anticipated when translated to a mana system. It's all the pp recharge problems but uglier.

Straight base class comparisons depend on if XP is a river. If you play the silly RAW that a character can spend as much XP as necessary and just make up for it when leveling, then players essentially have infinite XP because there is no 'time limit' on how long they can wait/accrue XP (there is a limit on how much they can spend at once, though).

So if you play a campaign where ECL 20 is exactly 170k xp (and either LA doesn't factor into that, against RAW, or it does but the total is adjusted) then StP Erudites still comes down to if arcane fusion et al bypasses Unique Powers Per Day. The RAW is pretty clear, but would you allow it?

Without bypassing UP/D, StP Erudites can't come close to a wizard. With it ... the answer is messy. It comes down to 9th level spells abuse. Erudites tend to win that but 9th are broken to begin with so its a hollow victory. If 9th's are out but the Arcane Fusion loophole is still in, Erudites win. The loophole is that good.

Wizards aren't limited to just a few kind of spells per day (spontaneous casters generally are) and they aren't limited to the inverse way: prepared casters being only able to cast one instance of each spell known per day. If Tier 1's (aside from artificer) couldn't cast 2 magic missiles in one day but tier 2's could, then suddenly tier 1's would be on par with tier 1's.

In a game where the UP/D loopholes are closed and spontaneous casters were nerfed into tier 1, suddenly its a tier 2 battle for supremacy. Neither the Wiz nor the StPE can spam the same spell and both have a huge repertoire to chose from. This is perhaps the most interesting case and it depends on psionics transparency rules now. Are you using RAW transparency where NI-CL grants the far more powerful (but originally more balanced within its own system) ML?

Are you noticing a theme? Find a weak/broken part of the rules, optimize there, realize its silly, fix, repeat.

[Mato]

Are you noticing a theme?Yes, multiple assumptions.

Like choosing multiple bad tools while standing at the toolbox before walking over and finding out what you actually needed instead of bringing the toolbox with you and choosing the best multitools for the job. You don't need four to six save-or-dies, you just need one that no one can ignore like blasphemy. You don't need multiple divinations that limit them selves to a single type of target, you just need one general remote viewing like greater scry. You don't need multiple action granting spells, you just need one that gives you an infinite amount of actions like temporal acceleration. You don't need multiple stacked buffs to increase a wide range of numbers like AC, saves, & hp, you just need one that renders you immune to everything like timeless body. You just want those useless extras.

A wizard vs StP erudite debate is first and foremost, and entirely composed of, a discussion of min-maxing. Every child and novice in the world will presume more is better. More toys, more video games, more work, more money, more play time, more cancer, more cars, more music, more lawsuits, more friends, more candy, more diabetes, more time to stay up late. But it takes someone with an understanding of things to appraise each thing for it's worth, it takes a non-horder to realize throwing something away can be helpful, it takes an experienced master to make something seem simplistic, and it takes a real optimizer to understand the core tenet of minimizing inefficiencies is just as, if not more, important than maximizing bonuses.

And if all you can think of is more, you might think there is an easy answer and side with the wizard. There are more posts about them, they can learn more wizard spells, they can learn more 9ths, and if we have no idea what we're talking about we can even assume they can cast a wider range of redundant spells each day while blaming the other guy for shenanigans if he can cast more.

But if you've learned the other half of things, you'd realize the few posts that talk about the StP always list it as the greatest, you'd know that they can learn any arcane spell/power allowing them to cherry pick lists for better spells at lower levels, you'd know there are only about two or three 9th level spells not outperformed by lower level options, you'd know that there are quite a few ways to regain power points or even manifest powers for free giving psionics multiple methods of perpetually, and you'd realize that using bad interpretations with one and banning ideals of the other is simply a sign of how unfair the fight really is in the first place. Like thinking spontaneous divination is somehow a trump card to use in combat while complaining about UPD is per level as several of these posts do.

And that is what is being discussed here.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Are you noticing a theme? Find a weak/broken part of the rules, optimize there, realize its silly, fix, repeat
Yes, multiple assumptions.

Like choosing multiple bad tools while standing at the toolbox before walking over and finding out what you actually needed instead of bringing the toolbox with you and choosing the best multitools for the job. You don't need four to six save-or-dies, you just need one that no one can ignore like blasphemyAaaand done. If you don't want blasphemy fixed, I hope every DM/ally you play with blasphemies every PC you build from now until forever.

[Lazymancer]

Why is this not dead yet?


You don't need four to six save-or-dies, you just need one that no one can ignore like blasphemy. You don't need multiple divinations that limit them selves to a single type of target, you just need one general remote viewing like greater scry. You don't need multiple action granting spells, you just need one that gives you an infinite amount of actions like temporal acceleration. You don't need multiple stacked buffs to increase a wide range of numbers like AC, saves, & hp, you just need one that renders you immune to everything like timeless body. You just want those useless extras.
Unrealistic expectations. You don't get access to blanket-effects until late game.

For example, until you hit level 15 and get your Mind Blank, you will be forced to use multiple different spells to keep your privacy and wits: Detect Scrying, Anticipate Teleportation, Nondetection/Misdirection, Disobedience, Private Sanctum and what else is there.

Wizard can - and will - use a dozen of buffs to keep himself and party safe. They might be forced to spend half of their slots on this, but they can do it. Erudite doesn't have this option, since number of such buffs simply exceeds his UPP (if table reading is used).

Thus, the only way Erudite can do the Wizard thing is by negating his UPP problems - which rely on obviously cheesy tricks (i.e. not available to practical optimization) and (IIRC) aren't accessible until mid-game anyway.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Thus, the only way Erudite can do the Wizard thing is by negating his UPP problems - which rely on obviously cheesy tricks (i.e. not available to practical optimization) and (IIRC) aren't accessible until mid-game anyway.
UPPD-bypassing tricks are available at level 1 (synchronicity + Linked Power + Metapower), and aren't particularly high-OP. Maybe cheesy in some ways (low cost, high power gain), but no more than the likes of Incantatrix or DMM:Persist.

[Zanos]

Why is this not dead yet?

Wizard took Necromancy school, or the Erudite is cheesing divine spells into his powers known.

I never saw UPPD as an issue past level 1. The text is pretty clear that it's unique powers per level per day.

[Mato]

For example, until you hit level 15 and get your Mind Blank, you will be forced to useGod-blooded.

It's also funny you mentioned nondetection since with a high enough caster level no divination can find you or any object (like your castle) you touch anyway. I think Mato said something about this but I'm glad you didn't get his point.


Why is this not dead yet?Because Lazymancer pulled this off page 5 to tell us about great nondetection actually is after VisitingDaGulag complained about using powerful spells is unfair.

[Lazymancer]

UPPD-bypassing tricks are available at level 1 (synchronicity + Linked Power + Metapower), and aren't particularly high-OP. Maybe cheesy in some ways (low cost, high power gain), but no more than the likes of Incantatrix or DMM:Persist.
What makes you think that? Both of the latter do things they clearly were expected to do - even if those effects were not expected to be this powerful.

Before legality of Synchronicity+Linked Power+Metapower combo even gets discussed, it is already obvious that it hinges on interaction between three elements. I.e. there is no clear intent for it to work the way it works. And then it clearly changes the way class works.

Any GM will have a knee-jerk reaction to call shenanigans on Synchronicity combo before banning Incantatrix or DMM.


I never saw UPPD as an issue past level 1. The text is pretty clear that it's unique powers per level per day.
Yes. I already responded that this RAW reading people tend to ignore. Consequently, it is not RAW, but the actual games that should be discussed.



Because Lazymancer pulled this off page 5 to tell us about great nondetection actually is after VisitingDaGulag complained about using powerful spells is unfair.
Ah. So that's what happened. Impressive how VisitingDaGulag did not up the thread to the first page.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Any GM will have a knee-jerk reaction to call shenanigans on Synchronicity combo before banning Incantatrix or DMM.
No. That's just you, trying to avoid actually arguing about something. For reference, I've played a synchronicity + Linked Power + Metapower StP erudite, and the DM didn't bat an eyelid. How's that for arguing actual games?


Yes. I already responded that this RAW reading people tend to ignore. Consequently, it is not RAW, but the actual games that should be discussed.
Not that we should talk about 'actual games'--we should talk about the positions we take on RAW and how the game should be played (after all, we can't guarantee the game has been played right at any point in the past). Instead of dismissing the point by arbitrarily restricting the discussion to a bunch of games we have no access to, argue the point: Zanos and myself say that the rules are clear, and UP/L/D is totally usable. What is your counterargument?

[Cosi]

Hey look, as soon as you ban the infinite power loops so you can have an actual debate, it becomes impossible to get consensus on which things are too powerful to be included in rankings. If only someone had predicted this failure mode for this kind of analysis.

[Lazymancer]

No. That's just you, trying to avoid actually arguing about something. For reference, I've played a synchronicity + Linked Power + Metapower StP erudite, and the DM didn't bat an eyelid. How's that for arguing actual games?
So, the only argument you have is something that is commonly classified as "anecdotal evidence"?


we should talk about the positions we take on RAW and how the game should be played
Why not "how the game is actually played"? Debating theory sans practice is uniquely useless activity.


Instead of dismissing the point by arbitrarily restricting the discussion to a bunch of games we have no access to, argue the point: Zanos and myself say that the rules are clear, and UP/L/D is totally usable. What is your counterargument?
There is no counter-argument, since I do not argue RAW, which was made abundantly clear.

What I am interested in is the comparison of Wizard vs Erudite as they are played.

And what you and me are actually arguing about right now (whether or not you acknowledge it), is if it is possible to have "practical optimization" (with you attempting to reduce everything to RAW alone). It is obvious, that you are wrong here: otherwise Pun-Pun would've been a playable build. It is clearly not.

Once (or if) you'll admit this, we'll be able to proceed to the next point of discussion: what understanding of practical optimization is appropriate for the topic at hand (which class has higher "optimization efficiency").

[Lazymancer]

Hey look, as soon as you ban the infinite power loops so you can have an actual debate, it becomes impossible to get consensus on which things are too powerful to be included in rankings. If only someone had predicted this failure mode for this kind of analysis.
I'll admit a certain lack of understanding here.

Are you telling "some people will always argue in bad faith which is why consensus is impossible"?

[Zanos]

What I am interested in is the comparison of Wizard vs Erudite as they are played.

And what you and me are actually arguing about right now (whether or not you acknowledge it), is if it is possible to have "practical optimization" (with you attempting to reduce everything to RAW alone). It is obvious, that you are wrong here: otherwise Pun-Pun would've been a playable build. It is clearly not.

Once (or if) you'll admit this, we'll be able to proceed to the next point of discussion: what understanding of practical optimization is appropriate for the topic at hand (which class has higher "optimization efficiency").
"As they are played" will get you a different answer at every table. I personally have never played at a table that allowed StP erudite but house ruled the UPPD.

[Cosi]

I'll admit a certain lack of understanding here.

Are you telling "some people will always argue in bad faith which is why consensus is impossible"?

I'm telling you there is no meaningful answer to the question "which is better, Wizard or StP Erudite". The baseline power of those classes is "as much power as they happen to want". You can ban the things that get them that much power, but once you start banning things you enter into territory that is too subjective to give good data. ExLibrisMortis isn't arguing in bad faith when they say that their table is less likely to ban Erudite tricks than Wizard tricks, they just have a different experience than you. But because both of those experiences are based on a subjective list of "banned broken things", neither one can be said to be correct.

[Lazymancer]

I'm telling you there is no meaningful answer to the question "which is better, Wizard or StP Erudite".
Don't you think this sound a bit like "there is no meaningful difference between rolling d6 and d20 - d20 might roll 1, while d6 will roll 6"?


But because both of those experiences are based on a subjective list of "banned broken things", neither one can be said to be correct.
This presupposes that it is impossible to make an educated guess on what is more likely to be banned.

However, I'm quite certain that nearly all tables did not legitimize d33 sap - and you'll probably agree that there is no need to check each and every table to see if this holds true to declare d33 sap an impractical optimization - even if some tables might've allowed d33 sap.

I.e. lists of "banned broken things" are not necessarily subjective.

[Cosi]

Don't you think this sound a bit like "there is no meaningful difference between rolling d6 and d20 - d20 might roll 1, while d6 will roll 6"?

No. The correct analogy is "which is larger, the integers or the natural numbers". The answer is that they're both infinitely large and the comparison isn't meaningful.


However, I'm quite certain that nearly all tables did not legitimize d33 sap - and you'll probably agree that there is no need to check each and every table to see if this holds true to declare d33 sap an impractical optimization - even if some tables might've allowed d33 sap.

I don't agree. You haven't defined your terms well enough. What makes something "practical optimization"? Is a rule "practical optimization" if 90% of tables accept it? 51%? 99%? Why? What's to stop someone from saying "actually, I think the d33 sap is fine"? If you've proven "X > Y, given A, B, and C" that's not the same as proving "X > Y".

[ExLibrisMortis]

So, the only argument you have is something that is commonly classified as "anecdotal evidence"?

Why not "how the game is actually played"? Debating theory sans practice is uniquely useless activity.

There is no counter-argument, since I do not argue RAW, which was made abundantly clear.

What I am interested in is the comparison of Wizard vs Erudite as they are played.
You are contradicting yourself.
You refuse to take "actual games" seriously, but then require that we talk about them exclusively.
You refuse to argue RAW, yet claim to be interested in the comparison of two classes, which are RAW constructs (besides the other things classes also are).


And what you and me are actually arguing about right now (whether or not you acknowledge it), is if it is possible to have "practical optimization" (with you attempting to reduce everything to RAW alone). It is obvious, that you are wrong here: otherwise Pun-Pun would've been a playable build. It is clearly not.
You do not get to frame our argument in whatever way is advantageous to you. We are arguing whether it is viable and expected for a PO erudite to bypass their UP/L/D limits, implied to be for the purposes of comparing the wizard and the erudite by the context of this thread. You have stated that ways to bypass UP/L/D limits are more cheesy than expected in PO, and then neglected--no, refused to back that up, despite actual experience to the contrary.


Cosi is, incidentally, right: the distinction between PO and TO is subjective. That's not because there are no general tendencies towards banning certain things, but because those are statistical in nature, and so cannot be condensed down to one "typical" situation without making subjective (even arbitrary) calls on significance and so on. To make matters worse, we don't actually have the data to put together the distributions we would have to make these calls over.



As I've said before: We argue a (personal) position on practical RAW (RAW limited to result in PO gameplay). That is, essentially, rules-as-meant-to-be-played (RAMP)--yes, subjective, but also the primary motivation for rules-as-used-at-the-table (RAUT)(the difference is that RAUT is defined for individual groups, and RAMP for individual players), which, as it happens, is what you're interested in. You choose your position on some piece of RAMP, then argue from that position that (some facet of) the comparison between wizards and erudites works out to X, Y, and Z.

[Lazymancer]

No. The correct analogy is "which is larger, the integers or the natural numbers". The answer is that they're both infinitely large and the comparison isn't meaningful.
I'm sorry, are you claiming both classes are usually played as omnipotent?
Or that it is possible to have them omnipotent on some theoretical table?


I don't agree. You haven't defined your terms well enough.
For what purpose did I need to define it? The intent was to refute your argument. To prove that the RAW is not holy and absolute - so that we can proceed further.

And there is no need for elaborate definitions to demonstrate that practical optimization exists. I am not required to develop all-encompassing Theory of Everything.


If you've proven "X > Y, given A, B, and C" that's not the same as proving "X > Y".
Yes. But "X > Y" becomes a religious statement if applied to practice without defining conditions under which it holds true.

[Lazymancer]

You are contradicting yourself.
You refuse to take "actual games" seriously, but then require that we talk about them exclusively.
:smallannoyed: I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

There is a difference between "one specific game" and "games in general". I've already referenced "anecdotal evidence". Since you did not react, let me explain (very basic concepts) in very simple terms:

Tendencies that apply to games in general ("d20 usually rolls higher than d6") do not necessarily apply to one specific case ("roll of 1 on d20 and with d6 rolling 6"). Consequently, you cannot refute tendencies with a singular example.

Is this simple enough?


You do not get to frame our argument in whatever way is advantageous to you.
Yeah. I got it. You have the right to interpret any statement in any context whatsoever.

[Cosi]

I'm sorry, are you claiming both classes are usually played as omnipotent?
Or that it is possible to have them omnipotent on some theoretical table?

The later, because the former is impossible to sample. Your experience is something. But others have other experiences. Do you have some actual data, or just generalizations in the form "clearly, groups definitely ban X"?


For what purpose did I need to define it? The intent was to refute your argument. To prove that the RAW is not holy and absolute - so that we can proceed further.

The RAW is not "holy and absolute". It's just the only Schelling Point for discussion. "RAW" is the only thing you can get everyone to agree to, so it's the only place you can have a discussion where everyone agrees with the conclusions.


And there is no need for elaborate definitions to demonstrate that practical optimization exists. I am not required to develop all-encompassing Theory of Everything.

Ah, but practical optimization like obscenity -- you can't define it easily, but you know it when you see it. There are central examples of practical optimization to which everyone can agree. No one would dispute that a Ranger playing with the Archery bonus feats and a Wolf animal companion is practical optimization. Similarly, there are central examples of theoretical optimization. No one thinks that The Wish and The Word are practically optimized. But what people don't agree on is the boundary.

Clearly, using planar binding to get a single Outsider minion is practical optimization. Equally clearly, using Chain Binding to get infinite Outsider minions is theoretical optimization. But what, exactly, is the boundary value between those two conditions? Is it two Outsiders? More Outsiders than there are party members? More Outsiders than your group is willing to resolve with the combat rules? Here we aren't going to get consensus. But here is exactly where we need consensus, because it is quite obvious that these are the abilities whose inclusion or exclusion is going to most heavily inform the result of this experiment.

[Lazymancer]

Do you have some actual data, or just generalizations in the form "clearly, groups definitely ban X"?
If all generalizations are unacceptable, why do people uniformly agree that d33 sap is not practical optimizations? Consequently, it is possible to have generalizations that are - for all practical intents and purposes - true.

Clearly, purely empirical data is not the only possible basis for conclusions.


The RAW is not "holy and absolute". It's just the only Schelling Point for discussion.
If that was so, every guide would've included d33 saps and Pun-Puns. But they do not (other than TO). Clearly, most people do not agree with RAW being default. This means they are using different Schelling point.

Tyranny of majority, eh?


Ah, but practical optimization like obscenity -- you can't define it easily, but you know it when you see it.
Nothing could be defined without context. Some ideas simply have default context that is assumed unconsciously, but you need to clarify context (method of application) for others. Which is why there are problems with definitions: there is no one true definition/meaning. Consequently, we simply need to choose definition that is the most appropriate to the discussed topic. I.e. clarify our intent.

Once we know intent, definition becomes easy.

For me, "practical optimization" in this topic is the most helpful answer to players who want to know what class to choose.

Which is (imo) "given A and B (use of table UPPD and no removal of UPPD via synchronicity shenanigans), X > Z (Erudite cannot fill the shoes of Wizard as primary arcane spellcaster)". Now the question is if for most players "A and B" hold true (if it is practical to reduce this answer to "Wizard > Erudite" for most people who want to know).

See? This specific practical optimization got easily defined.


There are central examples of practical optimization to which everyone can agree.
Not everyone. Most people who argue in good faith, yes?


But what, exactly, is the boundary value between those two conditions?
Since I'm getting bored, I'll go meta.

As I already pointed out, even your "central examples" do not have 100% acceptance rate. Consequently, I must ask you: where is the boundary between "there is boundary consensus" and "there is no boundary consensus"?