GitP way to play a wizard

[Mad Bishop]

I've heard that the forums here have a very strong opinion about how to properly play a wizard in D&D or Pathfinder. I'm prepared to go down the rabbit hole and hear what it takes to be a GitP approved wizard. Please post what you think is required, even if it might be a massive amount of work.

[MisterKaws]

First off, always have a bunch of contingencies. Your conic hat should be a giant lead cone shrunken for use as an accessory, automatically expanded when dispelled for your protection. Always have a way to immediately warp out of the situation and back to your home base, where you can rest and prepare spells to specifically deal with the problem at hand. This home base should ideally be on a plane with higher temporal speed, but that's subject to DM fiat.

Your generic daily assortment of prepared spells should be as generic as possible, so as to deal with any problems. Favor multiple choice spells like Summon X or Polymorph over fixed effect spells. Always keep a wand of Celerity in your hand, sleep only in warded areas, preferably a rope-trick with its surroundings warded with Alarm, Magic Circles and other general-purpose wards. In case something you're not prepared for appears, you should immediately Celerity into Teleport back to your home, or use Evacuation Rune if your trip was short enough for it. In no case should you fight something you're unprepared for. Always run back home, then prepare your spells for the next day and kill them this time. You should max out Knowledge for all creature types, since otherwise knowing their weaknesses is metagaming, and thus subject to DM book-hurling.

You should probably become a Focused Specialist in order to get more spells per day. In addition, find ways to keep your spellbook as protected as possible. Ideally, you want to hide it inside yourself somehow, and take it out only while preparing spells. And about preparing spells: never do it on the open. Always do it from a safe, warded locations, with multiple summoned creatures/lackeys protecting you in the process.



I guess it's basically just that. Except doing it in real table play takes as much effort as some of the easier university courses.

[daremetoidareyo]

Spend all of your time shapechanged into a dire tortoise so that you're immune to sneakiness.

[Oracle71]

Don't forget that you get scribe scroll for free. Use it liberally. Having a couple of extra castings of your highest level attack spells is never a bad idea, and there are plenty of situational spells that you don't necessarily need at your highest CL.

[Biggus]

You should max out Knowledge for all creature types, since otherwise knowing their weaknesses is metagaming, and thus subject to DM book-hurling.

Also, Shapechange says "you can become just about anything you are familiar with". How DMs interpret that varies, but it's not unusual to call for Knowledge checks for creatures that aren't commonly seen and you haven't encountered in-game.


I guess it's basically just that. Except doing it in real table play takes as much effort as some of the easier university courses.

Ha, yeah, a friend of mine said "it's like you need to have a degree in Dungeons and Dragons" after hearing us talking about it for a while...

[Mad Bishop]

"it's like you need to have a degree in Dungeons and Dragons" after hearing us talking about it for a while...

This is also what I had heard and what I wanted to have expanded on. I would love to hear the conversations and the info dump that lead to that remark. I love playing a wizard (not that I get to very often as I am usually on the other side of the screen) and am always excited to hear about different tactics and approaches to my favorite class.

[Falontani]

You need to know all the spells available for choosing, and know which spells to prioritize. You should be able to describe the minute details between the schools of magic like why Sending is an evocation spell and not conjuration. You should be wary to the point of obsession. Flee the moment something doesn't go your way.
When you need to rely on dealing damage with your own spells, things have usually gone awry. A fighter is a dime a dozen, however a good warrior that knows their place and prioritizes your safety might be worth a quickened protection spell before your flight.

[MisterKaws]

This is also what I had heard and what I wanted to have expanded on. I would love to hear the conversations and the info dump that lead to that remark. I love playing a wizard (not that I get to very often as I am usually on the other side of the screen) and am always excited to hear about different tactics and approaches to my favorite class.

Isn't the best part of DMing the ability to constantly make new overpowered Wizard BBEGs for the players to stand off against? Why aren't you doing that? Fighting against big-ass monsters is fine and all, but unless you're into skimming across twenty books to stack templates and advancements to craft the perfect weird-ass monster to your campaign, the monsters in the Monster Manual will hardly make a worthy challenge to a prepared party. I myself am a monster creation addict, but I doubt most DMs share that same passion.

If you're DMing, you should enjoy all the benefits of it and make epic fights against cosmic-strength Wizards who are so prepared they seem unkillable. This feature of high-OP Wizards also makes them excellent recurring enemies, since players never seem to be able to finish them before their contingencies fire off.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Know how to wring the absolute most out of your spells and spell-combos, and be sneaky in doing so, especially in ways that allow you to spend temporary resources (spell slots) to get permanent (or at least long-term) benefits.

For instance, shrink item has so many uses it's not even funny*. Use it to create cloth items out of useful and/or dangerous substances. A cloak made from that pool of poison you encountered in the last dungeon? A blanket made of lava? A tinfoil hat (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ksmnx/35the_ubiquitous_wizard_hat_and_its_true_function/)? A box full of shrunken boulders you can drop on enemies from the air, or telekinesis at roughly the speed of sound? All doable. And feel free to permanency all of them so you can use them over and over (and over) again.

Use your 3rd level spell slots to create books full of high-CL explosive runes using very large runes. Have your familiar toss the book at a particularly difficult enemy, then have an ally hit the book with a low-CL dispel magic (or use a wand). Watch as every single rune in the book explodes all at once, dealing quadruple-digit damage with no save (since the runes are large enough to read from 5-10' away).



*It's not just funny. It's hilarious.

[Biggus]

This is also what I had heard and what I wanted to have expanded on. I would love to hear the conversations and the info dump that lead to that remark. I love playing a wizard (not that I get to very often as I am usually on the other side of the screen) and am always excited to hear about different tactics and approaches to my favorite class.

The slightly scary part is, I'm by no means an expert compared to some of the people on here. If I have my batchelor's degree, some of them are full professors. Still, here's some of the key things I'm aware of (some of this applies to other casters too):

Take every opportunity to get extra actions, especially extra spells, or to act out of turn. At low levels this means looking for spells (or cheap items) which are swift or immediate actions, Nerveskitter (SpC) for example. At mid-levels there's Quicken Spell, Celerity (PHB2), Belt of Battle (MiC), and Circlet of Rapid Casting (MiC). At high levels, Greater Celerity (PHB2) and of course, Time Stop.

Going first is very important, partly because you're squishy and partly because many Wizard strategies like debuffing and battlefield control are less effective once there's a melee in progress. Apart from the obvious (Dexterity and Improved Initiative), again Nerveskitter and the Belt of Battle help here. Other items include a Ring of Anticipation (DotU) which allows you to roll twice and take the better result, and is quite affordable at 6,000GP, the Eager and Warning weapon enhancements (both MiC) and at high levels a Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone.

Metamagic cost reducers are extremely valuable. Feats include Easy Metamagic (Dragon Magazine), Metamagic School Focus (CM), and Arcane Thesis (PHB2). There's also the Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic class feature (PGtF).

[Crake]

I feel like this thread spawned from the quote in my signature :smalltongue:

[StevenC21]

Most likely.

Also, this thread gives me more pleasure than sex.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Most likely.

Also, this thread gives me more pleasure than sex.That's not surprising. How could you have sex with the thread?

...On second thought, I don't want to know.

[Mad Bishop]

I feel like this thread spawned from the quote in my signature :smalltongue:

It did, indeed.

[MisterKaws]

That's not surprising. How could you have sex with the thread?

...On second thought, I don't want to know.

By Boccob, my mind's eyes!!!

[AvatarVecna]

It honestly kinda depends on exactly how far you wanna take things. Any schmuck with a pile of coins can afford the candle necessary to summon an efreeti and kickstart the charop apocalypse, it's just a question of at what point does decide he's got enough power and stops the wish loop. But that's not "playing a wizard the way the playground says to", that's "theorizing about what a wizard could do if played the way the playground says to", because it's the kinda thing that doesn't fly at basically any table, for the exact reason that it turns WotC's clumsy attempts at balance into a playground game of oneupsmanship like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d6W7VZFlEI). FROZEN IN TIME!

[Biggus]

That's not surprising. How could you have sex with the thread?

...On second thought, I don't want to know.

Actual LOL.


Further to my earlier post, here are a few more things to make the most of your actions at low levels:

Items (all MiC, all swift actions): Anklet of Translocation (1,400GP), Arcanist's gloves (500GP), Chronocharm of the Uncaring Archmage (500GP), Dispelling Cord (1,000GP)

Spells (both SpC): Swift Expeditious Retreat (1st level), Swift Fly (2nd level)

[MisterKaws]

It honestly kinda depends on exactly how far you wanna take things. Any schmuck with a pile of coins can afford the candle necessary to summon an efreeti and kickstart the charop apocalypse, it's just a question of at what point does decide he's got enough power and stops the wish loop. But that's not "playing a wizard the way the playground says to", that's "theorizing about what a wizard could do if played the way the playground says to", because it's the kinda thing that doesn't fly at basically any table, for the exact reason that it turns WotC's clumsy attempts at balance into a playground game of oneupsmanship like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d6W7VZFlEI). FROZEN IN TIME!

Kinda reminds me of you-know-who and his 15 re-posts of acidic attempts at using a broken TO sorcerer shapeshifted into some 60-HD outsider to out-do H.I.V.E and Omniscifier.

[Malroth]

On a more sane level, leverage every scrap of information you can. Take spontaneous divination ACF at lv 5 and downtime is spent blowing every unused spell slot on things like augury, scrying, chain of eyes, and circle dance. Bind a lantern archon and have it invisibly scout suspected dungeon locations under invisibility popping back with greater teleport when finished or discovered.

[Eldariel]

Know how to wring the absolute most out of your spells and spell-combos, and be sneaky in doing so, especially in ways that allow you to spend temporary resources (spell slots) to get permanent (or at least long-term) benefits.

For instance, shrink item has so many uses it's not even funny*. Use it to create cloth items out of useful and/or dangerous substances. A cloak made from that pool of poison you encountered in the last dungeon? A blanket made of lava? A tinfoil hat (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1ksmnx/35the_ubiquitous_wizard_hat_and_its_true_function/)? A box full of shrunken boulders you can drop on enemies from the air, or telekinesis at roughly the speed of sound? All doable. And feel free to permanency all of them so you can use them over and over (and over) again.

Use your 3rd level spell slots to create books full of high-CL explosive runes using very large runes. Have your familiar toss the book at a particularly difficult enemy, then have an ally hit the book with a low-CL dispel magic (or use a wand). Watch as every single rune in the book explodes all at once, dealing quadruple-digit damage with no save (since the runes are large enough to read from 5-10' away).

Or Minor Creation some poison (Black Lotus Extract is pretty efficient and plant-based) and Telekinesis a bunch of GMW'd arrows (of the highest size you can manage to throw) at a target of your choosing. Or perhaps Limited Wish for Move Earth (it's quite convenient that the casting time of Limited Wish is a standard action and casting time is not a feature copied) to completely reshape a land area as you see fit (bury an army while at it). The "Try to beat a Fighter 20 with Cantrips"-thread also contains some fun stuff you can do with cantrips (particularly Launch Bolt & Launch Item) so I won't extrapolate on them right now (though Prestidigitation is awesome too (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?344300-Official-list-of-expanded-uses-for-Prestidigitation)). Honestly, the amount of encounters you can solve with cantrips is actually rather significant.

Of course, spells like Alter Self (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2811), (Draconic) Polymorph (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=519.0) (Any Object), and Shapechange (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517934-The-3-5-Shapechange-Handbook) (also this (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=3689.0)) need their own threads just to cover what they can do. And that's before we get to Planar Binding, Simulacrum, and company, that can do absolutely anything. Summons (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255219-The-Summoner-s-Desk-Reference-D-amp-D-3-5) are also pretty versatile and occasionally useful. Polymorph and Alter Self get a lot better with Outsider forms if you're an Outsider yourself and Assume Supernatural Ability [Savage Species] can do stupid ridiculous stuff with them (be a Beholder and get all the eye rays or be a Ravid and animate Gargantuan Objects for funzies or whatever).

Oh yeah, Magic Jar is a superb spell, from permanently taking over any body (it literally has no limits other than the other party having to fail a save; but it can target things without minds and if you do the double Jar shuffle by casting another Jar from the second body, and moving the first Jar out of range while you're in the second Jar, you can permanently take over any body) to simply walking through enemy bodies and having them kill one another in a fight. I shouldn't need to tell you, in how many ways this can be useful. Particularly since Gate can produce basically any body for you and it's your bitch for CL rounds so you can easily take anything over that way.

Of course, Protection from Evil and derivatives protects you against all possession and mind control so you have to get rid of those to Magic Jar anything.


Though "basic" functions of spells can also combo beautifully: you can just cast Solid Fog and Black Tentacles and enjoy the show. Live in Extended Magnificent Mansion, Lesser Planar Binding a Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightmare.htm)*and Astral Project out to adventure. Mind Rape (honestly, Mindrape can do almost anything from educating people to providing infinitely loyal anything to...well, anything) the Nightmare if you're worried it'll do stuff when you let it go (though you can just obliterate it when there's little time left in the spell and bind another one).

And yeah, oldie, basic: go to a safe place (Magnificent Mansion or Extended Rope Trick is generally fine). Scry on your enemy until they fail their save. Summon some stuff and Teleport in to obliterate them. Teleport back. The basic, efficient way of killing things. Though beware of Anticipate Teleportation, which can turn this all around on you (you should have it available yourself; it's a very useful effect).

Also, take Extraordinary Spell Aim or be an Archmage with Mastery of Shaping and cast an Antimagic Field with a hole in it for you. This way it gives you a field of "you can't do ****" so e.g. people flying with magic can't reach you. It's not all that but it's nice and allows you to threaten enemy casters by just walking up to them and siccing a Skeleton Grappler at them if they let you reach 10' (or 20' with Widen Spell) of them. Or your familiar manages that for that matter.


Honestly, it is a university degree's worth of stuff. No way to even scrape the surface with a single post.

[lord_khaine]

No. What you need is initially to look at the evocation school.
Thats your default target for what you want to focus on.
Invest your feats in stuff like empower spell, or improved toughness.
Maybe make a few schorching ray wands.
Sprinkle with stuff personal buffs until you can stay alive.

If your having problems with being consistently outshined by the rest of the party.
Then start looking at crowd control.

If your still having problems.
Then, and first then, start looking at some of the other demented suggestions here in this thread.
At that point the risk of flying books are lesser.

Recall. D&D is at its core about having fun with friends.

[Eldariel]

No. What you need is initially to look at the evocation school.
Thats your default target for what you want to focus on.
Invest your feats in stuff like empower spell, or improved toughness.
Maybe make a few schorching ray wands.
Sprinkle with stuff personal buffs until you can stay alive.

If your having problems with being consistently outshined by the rest of the party.
Then start looking at crowd control.

If your still having problems.
Then, and first then, start looking at some of the other demented suggestions here in this thread.
At that point the risk of flying books are lesser.

Recall. D&D is at its core about having fun with friends.

Crowd control plays quite nicely with stickwaverclasses though, much more so than direct damage. Anyways, that really wasn't the question in this thread though.

[StevenC21]

How are we this deep and nobody's discussed how abusable Arcane Thesis yet?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

No. What you need is initially to look at the evocation school.
Thats your default target for what you want to focus on.
Invest your feats in stuff like empower spell, or improved toughness.
Maybe make a few schorching ray wands.
Sprinkle with stuff personal buffs until you can stay alive.

If your having problems with being consistently outshined by the rest of the party.
Then start looking at crowd control.

If your still having problems.
Then, and first then, start looking at some of the other demented suggestions here in this thread.
At that point the risk of flying books are lesser.

Recall. D&D is at its core about having fun with friends.
{Scrubbed}

[MisterKaws]

No. What you need is initially to look at the evocation school.
Thats your default target for what you want to focus on.
Invest your feats in stuff like empower spell, or improved toughness.
Maybe make a few schorching ray wands.
Sprinkle with stuff personal buffs until you can stay alive.

If your having problems with being consistently outshined by the rest of the party.
Then start looking at crowd control.

If your still having problems.
Then, and first then, start looking at some of the other demented suggestions here in this thread.
At that point the risk of flying books are lesser.

Recall. D&D is at its core about having fun with friends.

If he starts playing Evoker and goes on to look at the Mailman handbook it'll be worse than a CC Wizard. CC Wizards are actually very much loved by the party in low-OP games, because they let the beatsticks beat things to death instead of just annihillating said things from the get-go.

[lord_khaine]

To repeat the relevant part in the OP.

Please post what you think is required


If he starts playing Evoker and goes on to look at the Mailman handbook it'll be worse than a CC Wizard. CC Wizards are actually very much loved by the party in low-OP games, because they let the beatsticks beat things to death instead of just annihillating said things from the get-go.

But that goes against the core of what i said.
I said Evocation school. Not mailman, and not conjuration school.

[Efrate]

Do not be a blaster. Just no. If you want to be a tactical nuke ala mailman thats fine, but if you are starting or in a new group just be a (elvan) generalist.

You already mentioned gitp way so look for ways to get all day or longer buffs. Anima mage with early entry gets you infinite rebuke undead for powering divine metamagic to persist all your buffs once tenebreous comes online. A human with 2 flaws can enter at level 2, or no flaws at level 4 without ever taking a level of binding. Then pick up extend persist and dmm persist and have all the spells all the time active. Combines well with ocular spell and other tricks.

All buffs all the time is slightly more group friendly than immediately teleport out, divine and prep, then teleport in. Plus you can share forever buffs with the team. You still teleport out if things go against you and come back, but you shouldn't always have to do it immediately.

On top of that, contrive as many immunities as possible always active at all times. Before your contingencies. Things such as FoM, Mind Blank, energy immunities and protection from negative energy should never not be active. Ideally all while astral projecting from your safe place with your helm of opposite alignment/mind raped bound nightmare.

[StevenC21]

The DMM shenanigans won't work since DMM, surprisingly, only works with Divine magic.

[JNAProductions]

The DMM shenanigans won't work since DMM, surprisingly, only works with Divine magic.

You can make your arcane casting divine.

I don't know HOW, off-hand, but if you can't do it, I will be GOBSMACKED.

[StevenC21]

Alternate Source Spell and Southern Magician will do it, if I recall correctly.

[MisterKaws]

Alternate Source Spell and Southern Magician will do it, if I recall correctly.

Also Geomancer but that requires a dip into Ur-Priest.

[daremetoidareyo]

Always travel as an astral projection. Keep your real body on a different plane.

[Karl Aegis]

I feel like you should be doing something with Quick Potion, Extend Spell and your familiar. Why do something today when you can do it yesterday?

[King of Nowhere]

craft items and sell them, getting money.
use those money to buy common animals that are statted.
kill those animals for xp.
use the xp to craft more items to sell.

in general, whenever someone is questioning the money cost of something you want to make, say you can dig gems from the elemental plane of earth.
whenever someone is questioning the xp cost, say you are having deathmatches against farm animals.

[PraxisVetli]

Fighting against big-ass monsters is fine and all, but unless you're into skimming across twenty books to stack templates and advancements to craft the perfect weird-ass monster to your campaign, the monsters in the Monster Manual will hardly make a worthy challenge to a prepared party.

Can I quote this?
I do this literally every encounter

[Malphegor]

Gemjumps are handy. Level 6 Spell Compendium spell, unlimited range teleport within a plane.

Prepare it in the morning, find safe spots to hide your magic gems, then at any point for the rest of history you can teleport to that gem once via a command word.

Have you ever played Minecraft? It's basically an Ender Pearl. What I'd do is load up a fast familiar, send it somewhere as the bat glides over many threats, then teleport in once it lands. bypassing many land encounters, and at the worst you teleport to a dead familiar and a group of bow-wielding savages you've got the fire to burn.

[MisterKaws]

Can I quote this?
I do this literally every encounter

Sure, please do.

[Jay R]

Always keep a wand of Celerity in your hand,...

This shouldn't work, should it? Activating a wand is a standard action, so even though Celerity is an immediate action, casting it from a wand is a standard action. So you could only use it when you have a standard action, which you use up in order to gain ...

... a standard action.

I'm fairly new to 3.5e, so I'm quite probably wrong. If I am, please explain why; I'm trying to learn more.

[MisterKaws]

This shouldn't work, should it? Activating a wand is a standard action, so even though Celerity is an immediate action, casting it from a wand is a standard action. So you could only use it when you have a standard action, which you use up in order to gain ...

... a standard action.

I'm fairly new to 3.5e, so I'm quite probably wrong. If I am, please explain why; I'm trying to learn more.

Damn, true. I always forget this limitation.

Okay, a Runestaff with celerity on it.:smallamused:

[Eldariel]

Damn, true. I always forget this limitation.

Okay, a Runestaff with celerity on it.:smallamused:

As per Rules Compendium page 9, activating a scroll/spell trigger takes as much time as the spell's casting time. It only defaults to a standard action when not replicating a spell or if otherwise stated by the spell.

[MisterKaws]

As per Rules Compendium page 9, activating a scroll/spell trigger takes as much time as the spell's casting time. It only defaults to a standard action when not replicating a spell or if otherwise stated by the spell.

Oh well, that's where I misremembered it from, then. Though there's always the problem with Rules Compendium being secondary source to the primary core books and all that, but I think that rule is fine to use.

[Anthrowhale]

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek: GitP wizards always have exactly the right spell to cast in any given situation.
Q. How do you do this in a real game?
A. Learn all the spells and take Uncanny Forethought.

[Haldir]

Lots of youngin's in this post, because nobody has brought up the iconic GiantITP Wizard Guide-

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?104002-3-5e-The-Logic-Ninja-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-Batman

Please respect our forums rules on thread necromancy.

This is the end-all be-all for what a GiantITP Wizard is and should be. The specifics to 3.5 are very dated, but the principles are just as valid in 5e as they were back then. Be the Goddamn Batman.

[Biggus]

Oh well, that's where I misremembered it from, then. Though there's always the problem with Rules Compendium being secondary source to the primary core books and all that, but I think that rule is fine to use.

Yeah, that's one of those RAW/RAI arguments that keep coming up: the Rules Compendium is clearly intended to update the rules it changes, but as they forgot to say "this book overrules previous versions of the rules" technically it doesn't. In this case taking the strict RAW interpretation seems pretty silly to me, but YMMV.

[Jay R]

Yeah, that's one of those RAW/RAI arguments that keep coming up: the Rules Compendium is clearly intended to update the rules it changes, but as they forgot to say "this book overrules previous versions of the rules" technically it doesn't. In this case taking the strict RAW interpretation seems pretty silly to me, but YMMV.

In this case, it wasn't me being silly. I've never seen the Rules Compendium, and my DM has never mentioned it. I was applying the only rule I knew.

But even with this rule, a wand of celerity seems rarely useful, since there is no value in it unless it's already in your hand (unless the RC states that you can draw it and cast a spell with it as an immediate action).

A contingency plan that requires me to already be holding the wand isn't a contingency; it's the main plan.

[This discussion has had one effect - I just ordered a Rules Compendium.]

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A single wand bracer (you can wear one per arm) would allow you to have any of 5 wands at hand (though I believe this costs a swift action to use, unless I'm mistaken), and a gauntlet with a wand chamber would allow you to have one "in hand" even when your hand is empty or has something else in it (like another weapon).

[AnimeTheCat]

A single wand bracer (you can wear one per arm) would allow you to have any of 5 wands at hand (though I believe this costs a swift action to use, unless I'm mistaken), and a gauntlet with a wand chamber would allow you to have one "in hand" even when your hand is empty or has something else in it (like another weapon).

Is this actually the case? If you're weilding a weapon in a hand that you also have a gauntlet (spiked or not), are you considered wielding that gauntlet? I was under the impression that you had to be wielding the weapon for the wand in the wand chamber to be considered "in hand".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Is this actually the case? If you're weilding a weapon in a hand that you also have a gauntlet (spiked or not), are you considered wielding that gauntlet? I was under the impression that you had to be wielding the weapon for the wand in the wand chamber to be considered "in hand".According to Dungeonscape:


A wand chamber is a thin, cylindrical slot on the handle of a weapon or the edge of a shield that can hold a single wand. When a wand is loaded in the chamber, it is considered ready and can be activated without having to drop the weapon or shield. Changing the wand in the chamber is a full-round action.Most weapons are hand-held, but gauntlets are obviously different. Like with a shield, you'd have to alter it slightly to function with the gauntlet's shape. Just load it into the portion that covers the forearm and you're set.

[AnimeTheCat]

According to Dungeonscape:

Most weapons are hand-held, but gauntlets are obviously different. Like with a shield, you'd have to alter it slightly to function with the gauntlet's shape. Just load it into the portion that covers the forearm and you're set.

but... that didn't answer the question. You're using that weapon or shield, but you're not using the gauntlet, at least not in an active way. I'm not arguing about it being a viable target for a wand chamber, but I'm questioning that you can use the wand in that chamber while youre actively using something else. Essentially i guess the question is, can you activate a wand in a wand chamber of a shield if the shield is on your back? I'm inclined to say no, though I can't verify because I don't have Dungeonscape available to me at this time. If you can't activate a wand within a wand chamber of a shield while the shield is not in use, you shouldn't be able to activate a wand inside a wand chamber of a gauntlet when the gauntlet isn't in use. If gauntlets provided a shield bonus to AC and was treated as a shield even if you weilded a weapon, then golden. But gauntlets are weapons, and you're not actively using that gauntlet as a weapon when you are holding another weapon, so you shouldn't be able to utilize special effects of the weapon if it's not being wielded.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

but... that didn't answer the question. You're using that weapon or shield, but you're not using the gauntlet, at least not in an active way. I'm not arguing about it being a viable target for a wand chamber, but I'm questioning that you can use the wand in that chamber while youre actively using something else. Essentially i guess the question is, can you activate a wand in a wand chamber of a shield if the shield is on your back? I'm inclined to say no, though I can't verify because I don't have Dungeonscape available to me at this time. If you can't activate a wand within a wand chamber of a shield while the shield is not in use, you shouldn't be able to activate a wand inside a wand chamber of a gauntlet when the gauntlet isn't in use. If gauntlets provided a shield bonus to AC and was treated as a shield even if you weilded a weapon, then golden. But gauntlets are weapons, and you're not actively using that gauntlet as a weapon when you are holding another weapon, so you shouldn't be able to utilize special effects of the weapon if it's not being wielded.You're using the gauntlet just as much as you'd be using a dagger or a staff. You can still make AoOs with it, and it's not like you'd be using a dagger as your primary means of attacking, unless you're a daggerspell mage, or something. You couldn't use the shield if it was on your back (unless you had a feat or class feature to that effect), but that's like if you had your gauntlet on your belt or in your backpack. But you don't; it's on your hand, ready to attack if the occasion arises. And you can still use a gauntlet to attack if you are holding a weapon in it that round, but f you're wielding a dagger in that hand and you attack with the dagger, you couldn't attack using the gauntlet until your next turn.

But there are no rules about gauntlets and casting spells with material or somatic components, as far as I know, so that wouldn't apply for those.

[AnimeTheCat]

You're using the gauntlet just as much as you'd be using a dagger or a staff. You can still make AoOs with it, and it's not like you'd be using a dagger as your primary means of attacking, unless you're a daggerspell mage, or something. You couldn't use the shield if it was on your back (unless you had a feat or class feature to that effect), but that's like if you had your gauntlet on your belt or in your backpack. But you don't; it's on your hand, ready to attack if the occasion arises. And you can still use a gauntlet to attack if you are holding a weapon in it that round, but f you're wielding a dagger in that hand and you attack with the dagger, you couldn't attack using the gauntlet until your next turn.

But there are no rules about gauntlets and casting spells with material or somatic components, as far as I know, so that wouldn't apply for those.

That's the thing though, I don't think you can use a gauntlet to make an attack if your hand is otherwise occupied. If you are not able to use a gauntlet if your hand is occupied, you shouldn't be able to use it for other things either.

The simplest solution, I think, is to just put a wand chamber in a buckler instead. Even if your hands are full, it still operates like a sheild so it doesn't have this same problem.

[Segev]

For those who are not in games where having a wand of celerity in hand is always an option, or where it doesn't enable you to cast using celerity's immediate action casting time, there's also Craft Contingent Spell, from Complete Arcane.

Everybody likes contingency, but it has tons of limitations (not the least of which being that you can have only one active at a time). A Contingent Spell is technically a magic item that just hangs on a particular person. And lacks the level limits of contingency. And can have up to, I think, the HD of the bearer hanging on them at once.

Contingent Spell: celerity. Trigger: "If I have fewer than [n+1] Contingent celerity spells active on me, and I am surprised by something that has the potential to harm, disable, or detain me." Each trigger has n equal to the number of Contingent celerity spells you will have active on you when this one is added.

You can refine the trigger to make it less hair-trigger, more hair-trigger, pickier or less picky, but the basic idea is that it goes off, giving you a standard action immediately upon some threat you didn't otherwise see coming manifesting. If you saw it coming, you're not surprised, so you can just cast celerity yourself, or cast anything else you feel is appropriate to the situation. Sure, if you're too hair-trigger with the condition, you'll have a few false starts, and that can get expensive, but unless you're really foolish about it, it'll be hard for an enemy to spring n surprises on you to trigger them all and leave you without any left.

A final fallback Contingent Spell greater teleport triggered on the same condition as the celerity spells, but "If I have no Contingent celerity spells left" instead of "fewer than n" will let you pop out if you're caught with your pants otherwise completely down. If things have gotten that bad, you don't want to stick around anyway. And, let's be honest, most of the time, a legitimate trigger of the Contingent celerity will be followed by you casting greater teleport anyway. It might not, which is why you use celerity rather than greater teleport by default (well, that, and celerity is a lower-level, and thus cheaper, spell), but it's highly likely to be your go-to response to something you were truly unprepared for catching you by surprise.

The metamagic feat Invisible Spell is a bit of a mess if you try to over-apply it; in general, if you find yourself asking "wait, does this really work like that, and does it ever become visible?" (e.g. using it on summon monster spells), you should probably just refrain to avoid giving yourself and your DM headaches. But the fairly obvious intent of it was to hide obvious manifestations, and to render invisible AoEs.

One of my favorite tricks with it is Invisible fog cloud. "Why?" you may ask, when the whole point of fog cloud is to obscure vision. Fog cloud is one of those battlefield control spells you have to work carefully around your party with, and it's good when you handle it right, but applying Invisible Spell to it does something interesting: it makes it only visible to creatures who can see the invisible. And such creatures now have their sight quite obscured by thick fog, while any creatures who lack such abilities do not.

Couple it with an invisibility or greater invisibility on your rogue or other party members, and now anyone who can't see the invisible can't see them, and anybody who CAN see the invisible sees nothing but thick, billowing clouds of fog.

You can achieve a similar trick with party coordination and silent image: Arrange a signal ahead of time to let the party know what you're really casting, and then pretend you cast fog cloud. The silent image of the fog is going to obscure the vision of anybody who doesn't know better, but your party knows (because you used the signal to tell them) that it's illusory, so they make their disbelief save with a +4 bonus. The illusory fog becomes transparent to them, letting your party see clearly while the enemies are likely blinded.

If your DM is a stickler who claims that they can FEEL the lack of fog on their skin, you may have to couple this with a dousing by create water first, which may also require a cleric's help if you can't find a way to get that spell on your own list. Note that create water can create up to its volume limit (2 gallons per CL) anywhere within range, neatly in containers, as rain, or anything. You could create it as a thin sheen of moisture on everything in the area, which would match the clammy feel of fog on skin. Or you could just create it as rain, then have the "fog" rise from the water. The creatures are already wet from the rain, so the can't feel that the fog isn't moist.

Appropriately enough, playing a "GitP Wizard" takes a great deal of intelligence and analysis on the spot. However, I find that I am, unsurprisingly, not as brilliant as my Int 24 mid-level wizard, and that I often kick myself after the fact for things I should have done or could have done better because I didn't think of them in the moment.

For this reason, for practical play, you should think of one or two go-to tricks you plan to use to ensure your survival and to be your primary battle tactics. Keep your party in mind in devising the latter, and work with them on what they can do, then look for spells that can complement that. If the rogue can turn invisible, the Invisible fog cloud trick is a great one. If your fighter is a grappler or an area denial specialist, you can use enlarge person instead of the much more expensive black tentacles to get a much more controllable BFC effect.

This also is key, even if your wizard actually has the deeper, nastier, more overpowering tricks, to being a good player: work with your party, and hold back, casting spells as needed to make them awesome. Only pull out the stops and demonstrate what you really can do if things are turning grim. Not only does this let the other players have the spotlight as much as possible and keep them having fun, but it also concerves resources you don't need to spend, leaving you ready for things when the party is otherwise overwhelmed or exhausted. The expectation will be that this was costly, or something you can only do once per day (at most); if this isn't true, don't let on. But it will make your moments of awesome stand out, and let you save the day when necessary without stepping on anybody's toes. And likely ensures you CAN save the day when things have gotten bad.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

That's the thing though, I don't think you can use a gauntlet to make an attack if your hand is otherwise occupied. If you are not able to use a gauntlet if your hand is occupied, you shouldn't be able to use it for other things either.Can you not punch someone if you're holding a knife in your fist? I can. I'm not sure why my wizard couldn't, either.

I can't punch someone and stab them with a knife at the same time, using the same hand, though.


The simplest solution, I think, is to just put a wand chamber in a buckler instead. Even if your hands are full, it still operates like a sheild so it doesn't have this same problem.Bucklers give you an armor check penalty and arcane spell failure, and they penalize your melee attack rolls, as well.

Gauntlets don't do any of that.

[AnimeTheCat]

Can you not punch someone if you're holding a knife in your fist? I can. I'm not sure why my wizard couldn't, either.

I can't punch someone and stab them with a knife at the same time, using the same hand, though.

Bucklers give you an armor check penalty and arcane spell failure, and they penalize your melee attack rolls, as well.

Gauntlets don't do any of that.

regardless of what you can or can't do in real life what do the rules say, if the rules say anything, about what you can or can't do when your hand is occupied. If you can punch with your hand occupied, then why do you need to use a free action to let go of a 2-handed weapon in order to use a spiked gauntlet to attack? Either way, whether it's one or two handed weapons, you hand is occupied thus removing your ability to use the gauntlet as a weapon.

Bucklers *can* give you armor check penalties and arcane spell failure chance, but simply making it out of mithral negates that entirely. Additionally, you only get a melee attack roll penalty if you're attacking with an offhand weapon in your shield arm. A mithral buckler on one arm still frees you up to use that hand for somatic components, lets you have your wand chamber without raising the question of whether you can activate that wand while your hand is full, and lets you still wield a weapon in your primary hand.

[Mad Bishop]

Lots of youngin's in this post, because nobody has brought up the iconic GiantITP Wizard Guide-

3-5e-The-Logic-Ninja-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-Batman

Please respect our forums rules on thread necromancy.

This is the end-all be-all for what a GiantITP Wizard is and should be. The specifics to 3.5 are very dated, but the principles are just as valid in 5e as they were back then. Be the Goddamn Batman.

This was a fantastic read. I wonder if there is a similar Guide for Pathfinder and or 5E. Anyone know of one?

[Haldir]

This was a fantastic read. I wonder if there is a similar Guide for Pathfinder and or 5E. Anyone know of one?

You won't find much similar for 5e because the system is much more balanced and thoughtful, and doesn't lend itself to this level of optimization. But you can still apply logicninjas principles to the game- Favor control, action economy, and buffs over damage.

You should definitely check out a fella called TreantMonk. He did a "God Wizard Guide" for either Pathfinder or 3.5, and he also did a complete breakdown of all the spell levels for 5th edition and gave them a good thorough discussion in a youtube web series.

[Biggus]

In this case, it wasn't me being silly. I've never seen the Rules Compendium, and my DM has never mentioned it. I was applying the only rule I knew.

But even with this rule, a wand of celerity seems rarely useful, since there is no value in it unless it's already in your hand (unless the RC states that you can draw it and cast a spell with it as an immediate action).

A contingency plan that requires me to already be holding the wand isn't a contingency; it's the main plan.

[This discussion has had one effect - I just ordered a Rules Compendium.]

I wasn't meaning to call you silly, sorry if it came across that way. I only meant that the insistence by some of the people who do have the RC that it can't update rules based on a a technicality seems silly to me.

As for things like the Wand of Celerity, there's an item in the MiC called a Casting Glove which enables you to activate a stored item as if it was in your hand. At 20,000GP it's not cheap, but I consider it a must-have for high-level characters.

[MisterKaws]

I wasn't meaning to call you silly, sorry if it came across that way. I only meant that the insistence by some of the people who do have the RC that it can't update rules based on a a technicality seems silly to me.

As for things like the Wand of Celerity, there's an item in the MiC called a Casting Glove which enables you to activate a stored item as if it was in your hand. At 20,000GP it's not cheap, but I consider it a must-have for high-level characters.

It's kind of good in some aspects, but also very bad in others. For example, according to RC, a spontaneously cast Twin Chill Touch can hit up to 40 times, and since it's a full-round action, you can use Sneak Attack on each of the 40 attacks, all of them rolling for touch AC, which means they probably hit.

[Saintheart]

That's not surprising. How could you have sex with the thread?

...On second thought, I don't want to know.

The question clearly needs its own thread and permission to utilise all sources including Dragon magazine.

[Crake]

You won't find much similar for 5e because the system is much more balanced and thoughtful, and doesn't lend itself to this level of optimization. But you can still apply logicninjas principles to the game- Favor control, action economy, and buffs over damage.

You should definitely check out a fella called TreantMonk. He did a "God Wizard Guide" for either Pathfinder or 3.5, and he also did a complete breakdown of all the spell levels for 5th edition and gave them a good thorough discussion in a youtube web series.

Hah, good one.

[StevenC21]

He's right though.

5e is bad as we all agree.

But 3.5e is one of the WORST balanced of the "popular-ish or more popular" systems.

[Jay R]

I wasn't meaning to call you silly, sorry if it came across that way. I only meant that the insistence by some of the people who do have the RC that it can't update rules based on a a technicality seems silly to me.

Oh, no problem; I wasn't offended. I was just trying to correct the misapprehension that I assumed that the DMG overruled the Rules Compendium. The truth is I never considered that question, since I hadn't heard of the RC.


As for things like the Wand of Celerity, there's an item in the MiC called a Casting Glove which enables you to activate a stored item as if it was in your hand. At 20,000GP it's not cheap, but I consider it a must-have for high-level characters.

Possibly. But in that case, the requirement isn't a Wand of Celerity, but a Wand of Celerity and a Casting Glove.

I repeat -- I'm new to 3.5e, and trying to learn more. This thread in general, and the answers to my question in particular, have been very helpful. Thanks to all of you.

[Eldariel]

Oh, no problem; I wasn't offended. I was just trying to correct the misapprehension that I assumed that the DMG overruled the Rules Compendium. The truth is I never considered that question, since I hadn't heard of the RC.



Possibly. But in that case, the requirement isn't a Wand of Celerity, but a Wand of Celerity and a Casting Glove.

I repeat -- I'm new to 3.5e, and trying to learn more. This thread in general, and the answers to my question in particular, have been very helpful. Thanks to all of you.

Wand Chamber (Dungeonscape) is generally a good choice to this end.

[MisterKaws]

Wand Chamber (Dungeonscape) is generally a good choice to this end.

Make it a Casting Gauntlet instead and equip the Wand Chamber into the gauntlet itself?

[Haldir]

He's right though.

5e is bad as we all agree.

But 3.5e is one of the WORST balanced of the "popular-ish or more popular" systems.

Personally you couldn't pay me enough money to run a game of 3.P ever again, so no, I do not agree. 5e is perfect for me. But you can't say anything positive about 5e on this part of the forums without someone getting insecure and mad, even if it's true.

But that's neither here nor there- the original question was whether you will find something similar to LogicNinjas for the more popular and more widely-played 5e system. TreantMonks God Wizard Guide for 5e is as close as you'll get.

[DdarkED]

Personally you couldn't pay me enough money to run a game of 3.P ever again, so no, I do not agree. 5e is perfect for me. But you can't say anything positive about 5e on this part of the forums without someone getting insecure and mad, even if it's true.

But that's neither here nor there- the original question was whether you will find something similar to LogicNinjas for the more popular and more widely-played 5e system. TreantMonks God Wizard Guide for 5e is as close as you'll get.

hyperbole? i couldnt pay you 1 trillion dollars to run a 1 shot 3.p game? thats silly at best and untrue at worst.

[Haldir]

hyperbole? i couldnt pay you 1 trillion dollars to run a 1 shot 3.p game? thats silly at best and untrue at worst.

Obviously.

Maybe if they were all new players who didn't have any of the terrible habits I always see in 3.P graduates. And there was a trillion dollars in it. They'd have to be brand new tho, I seriously doubt I could take anyone who started in 5e back to that mess - "all right guys, get ready to do 25 math equations just to get through the round!"

(That was exaggeration, obviously but not by much)

[Segev]

Obviously.

Maybe if they were all new players who didn't have any of the terrible habits I always see in 3.P graduates. And there was a trillion dollars in it. They'd have to be brand new tho, I seriously doubt I could take anyone who started in 5e back to that mess - "all right guys, get ready to do 25 math equations just to get through the round!"

(That was exaggeration, obviously but not by much)

I happen to like both 3.PF and 5e, and will happily play in games of either. :smallcool:

[StevenC21]

I loathe 5e. It's a pale facade of "D&D".

There's almost no options, and their awful archetypes system is boring and lacks real depth.

Spellcasters don't have enough slots.

The rules are babyish and far too simple.

Beatsticks are still worthless dead weight.

You need magic items like 3e... But now you can only equip a few thanks to the "attunement" system.

"Bounded accuracy" isn't any better than what 3e does. People seem to just looooooove it, but all it means is smaller numbers and now goblins can kill your PC at level 20. How amazing & thoughtful.

It's like they took 3e and watered it down to be suitable for 5 year olds. I truly have no understanding of why anyone would willingly play such a drab, boring system.

[Heliomance]

Yeah, that's one of those RAW/RAI arguments that keep coming up: the Rules Compendium is clearly intended to update the rules it changes, but as they forgot to say "this book overrules previous versions of the rules" technically it doesn't. In this case taking the strict RAW interpretation seems pretty silly to me, but YMMV.

Try did actually, the Rules Compendium explicitly says it takes precedence over the PHB. Some people try to claim that it doesn't have the authority to do that, but that is a thoroughly specious argument.

[AnimeTheCat]

Try did actually, the Rules Compendium explicitly says it takes precedence over the PHB. Some people try to claim that it doesn't have the authority to do that, but that is a thoroughly specious argument.

True... right there in the in the introduction it specifically states that it is intended to take precedence over any core rule book. Never noticed that myself the, just kind of assumed it.

[MisterKaws]

I loathe 5e. It's a pale facade of "D&D".

There's almost no options, and their awful archetypes system is boring and lacks real depth.

Spellcasters don't have enough slots.

The rules are babyish and far too simple.

Beatsticks are still worthless dead weight.

You need magic items like 3e... But now you can only equip a few thanks to the "attunement" system.

"Bounded accuracy" isn't any better than what 3e does. People seem to just looooooove it, but all it means is smaller numbers and now goblins can kill your PC at level 20. How amazing & thoughtful.

It's like they took 3e and watered it down to be suitable for 5 year olds. I truly have no understanding of why anyone would willingly play such a drab, boring system.

I can't sig you cause it's too big. So I favorited your post instead. :)

[StevenC21]

I am honored.

[Segev]

I loathe 5e. It's a pale facade of "D&D".

There's almost no options, and their awful archetypes system is boring and lacks real depth.

Spellcasters don't have enough slots.

The rules are babyish and far too simple.

Beatsticks are still worthless dead weight.

You need magic items like 3e... But now you can only equip a few thanks to the "attunement" system.

"Bounded accuracy" isn't any better than what 3e does. People seem to just looooooove it, but all it means is smaller numbers and now goblins can kill your PC at level 20. How amazing & thoughtful.

It's like they took 3e and watered it down to be suitable for 5 year olds. I truly have no understanding of why anyone would willingly play such a drab, boring system.

Having played both, and running a 5e game now, I can say that your impressions are false. I like both systems. Fortunately, you don't have to play 5e. This, however, is not an edition-wars thread, so 5e-bashing is a bit off-topic. Otherwise, I'd go into detail about what I like about both and how they differ.

In both 5e and 3e, though, BFC is one of the big things to make the Batman wizard. Which tends to be GitP Forum's favored way of wizarding.

[StevenC21]

I played 5e for three years.

It was my first D&D experience. I had literally zero presuppositions about what D&D was.

But I hated it. I played for three years and never enjoyed it.

I have enjoyed every 3e game I've played and DMed. And they have had the same DMs.

[Biggus]

It's kind of good in some aspects, but also very bad in others. For example, according to RC, a spontaneously cast Twin Chill Touch can hit up to 40 times, and since it's a full-round action, you can use Sneak Attack on each of the 40 attacks, all of them rolling for touch AC, which means they probably hit.

I wasn't trying to argue that you should automatically take the RC's ruling on everything, quite the opposite: my point was that to take a totally strict and literal reading of RAW in all cases makes the game unplayable, and so I find it silly when people insist that doing so is the "correct" way to play the game. One of the main reasons having a DM is necessary is to adjudicate on rules which don't work or don't make sense.


Try did actually, the Rules Compendium explicitly says it takes precedence over the PHB. Some people try to claim that it doesn't have the authority to do that, but that is a thoroughly specious argument.

So it does, how did I miss that?

I agree it's a thoroughly specious argument, the official errata says that only it can overrule the core rulebooks, but nowhere does it say that the errata overrules other books when they say otherwise.

[Mad Bishop]

This, however, is not an edition-wars thread, so 5e-bashing is a bit off-topic. Otherwise, I'd go into detail about what I like about both and how they differ.

I wouldn't worry too much about being off-topic. There are, like, three different discussions going on in this one thread. There is an argument over whether a wand chamber can be used in a gauntlet, which edition was best, cool wizard guides, and I am sure I have missed one as well. =D

[King of Nowhere]

This shouldn't work, should it? Activating a wand is a standard action, so even though Celerity is an immediate action, casting it from a wand is a standard action. So you could only use it when you have a standard action, which you use up in order to gain ...

... a standard action.

I'm fairly new to 3.5e, so I'm quite probably wrong. If I am, please explain why; I'm trying to learn more.


Damn, true. I always forget this limitation.

Okay, a Runestaff with celerity on it.:smallamused:

As per Rules Compendium page 9, activating a scroll/spell trigger takes as much time as the spell's casting time. It only defaults to a standard action when not replicating a spell or if otherwise stated by the spell.

Oh well, that's where I misremembered it from, then. Though there's always the problem with Rules Compendium being secondary source to the primary core books and all that, but I think that rule is fine to use.

Yeah, that's one of those RAW/RAI arguments that keep coming up: the Rules Compendium is clearly intended to update the rules it changes, but as they forgot to say "this book overrules previous versions of the rules" technically it doesn't. In this case taking the strict RAW interpretation seems pretty silly to me, but YMMV.

this and subsequent exchange also shows another part of playing a wizard the gitp way: you have to spend an inordinate amount of time debating the rules minutiae and how they allow you to perform your latest sheanigans.





This also is key, even if your wizard actually has the deeper, nastier, more overpowering tricks, to being a good player: work with your party, and hold back, casting spells as needed to make them awesome. Only pull out the stops and demonstrate what you really can do if things are turning grim. Not only does this let the other players have the spotlight as much as possible and keep them having fun, but it also concerves resources you don't need to spend, leaving you ready for things when the party is otherwise overwhelmed or exhausted. The expectation will be that this was costly, or something you can only do once per day (at most); if this isn't true, don't let on. But it will make your moments of awesome stand out, and let you save the day when necessary without stepping on anybody's toes. And likely ensures you CAN save the day when things have gotten bad.

now, now, let's not be silly here. we're talking on how to play a wizard the way the heavy optimizers are tellling you to play, not how to play a functional wizard at your table. and optimizing heavily includes showing off to your fellow players :smalltongue:


Personally you couldn't pay me enough money to run a game of 3.P ever again, so no, I do not agree. 5e is perfect for me. But you can't say anything positive about 5e on this part of the forums without someone getting insecure and mad, even if it's true.

But that's neither here nor there- the original question was whether you will find something similar to LogicNinjas for the more popular and more widely-played 5e system. TreantMonks God Wizard Guide for 5e is as close as you'll get.

You must have had some terrible players. everyone i ever knew settled for some lower optimization level and was happy with it. and if they weren't happpy with it, i'd forbid their toys anyway.

by the way, OP, this is yet another way to play a gitp-sanctioned wizard: while playing, engage in harsh debates on the superiority of a certian ediitiion over the others.

[Haldir]

You must have had some terrible players. everyone i ever knew settled for some lower optimization level and was happy with it. and if they weren't happpy with it, i'd forbid their toys anyway.


Yes friend, I have. And it's not the optimization that's the problem- it's the culture. The rules lawyering and arguing with the DM. The people I've run into who favor 3.P are into it for the roll-play, not the roleplay. That's just not my bag.

(yes, I'm familiar with the Stormwind fallacy. I know my account says 2011, but I've been here since '04 until I lost an old yahoo email account, please don't lecture me)

I was once a great fan of 3.5, make no mistake. I thought that it was the best way to let everyone play what they want. But in terms of narrative you can play anything that 3.P can do in 5e without needing an entire library of crap to do it, hence my graduation to a more rules-light system with easier rounds.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes friend, I have. And it's not the optimization that's the problem- it's the culture. The rules lawyering and arguing with the DM.

in all my groups we always accepted the DM's judgment. there is some arguing first, but everyone presents their case and accept that the DM has the last word. and that consistency over previous ruling and plot points is more important than strict rule adherence.

then again, all my groups started as friends taking up roleplaying. sometimes two people didn't know at first as friends of friends were called, but everyone who ever joined one of my tables had always been a personal friend of at least a couple other players.

I understand that is not how most groups form, and that it is a highly favorable situation.
and i prefer 3.x played on those premises to everything else, because you can still get all the complexity and details of 3.5, but you can also toss it out of the window when you need and no one complains.

again, I feel sorry for your predicament.

[Haldir]

in all my groups we always accepted the DM's judgment. there is some arguing first, but everyone presents their case and accept that the DM has the last word. and that consistency over previous ruling and plot points is more important than strict rule adherence.

then again, all my groups started as friends taking up roleplaying. sometimes two people didn't know at first as friends of friends were called, but everyone who ever joined one of my tables had always been a personal friend of at least a couple other players.

I understand that is not how most groups form, and that it is a highly favorable situation.
and i prefer 3.x played on those premises to everything else, because you can still get all the complexity and details of 3.5, but you can also toss it out of the window when you need and no one complains.

again, I feel sorry for your predicament.

The straw that broke the camels back was when an entire game had broken down because one player told another player they were using an ability wrong (don't even remember which one, there's so much sh*t in pathfinder.) After we got that sorted out the next round I described an enemy using the hilt of his weapon to attack in the grapple, and since Longswords don't have a Bludgeoning damage, they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

It dawned on me very suddenly that these people were more interested in what paragraphs of mechanics say than a narrative. Based on this threads digression into what paragraphs upon paragraphs of mechanics actually say, I'd wager they weren't too far off from the average 3.P player, and I was done.

[AnimeTheCat]

I wouldn't worry too much about being off-topic. There are, like, three different discussions going on in this one thread. There is an argument over whether a wand chamber can be used in a gauntlet, which edition was best, cool wizard guides, and I am sure I have missed one as well. =D

My statement was never whether you could put a wand chamber in a gauntlet, gauntlets are weapons and therefore valid targets for the weapon modification. My statement was specifically being able to use said wand chamber when the hand with that gauntlet is occupied. If you cant use the weapon or shield normally, I dont think you can use any features of the weapon or shield. When you wield a weapon in the hand you have a gauntlet on, I dont think you can use that gauntlet as a weapon since your hand is occupied. Since you cant use the gauntlet, you cant use the wand chamber. It is effectively the same as not being able to use the wand chamber in a sheathed weapon or a stowed shield. Definitely not contesting whether a gauntlet is a valid target for a wand chamber, just whether its able to be used when the hand it is equipped to is occupied.

[Mad Bishop]

My statement was never whether you could put a wand chamber in a gauntlet, gauntlets are weapons and therefore valid targets for the weapon modification. My statement was specifically being able to use said wand chamber when the hand with that gauntlet is occupied. If you cant use the weapon or shield normally, I dont think you can use any features of the weapon or shield. When you wield a weapon in the hand you have a gauntlet on, I dont think you can use that gauntlet as a weapon since your hand is occupied. Since you cant use the gauntlet, you cant use the wand chamber. It is effectively the same as not being able to use the wand chamber in a sheathed weapon or a stowed shield. Definitely not contesting whether a gauntlet is a valid target for a wand chamber, just whether its able to be used when the hand it is equipped to is occupied.

You have completely missed the point of my statement. All I can say at this point is "Cool story, bro".

[AnimeTheCat]

You have completely missed the point of my statement. All I can say at this point is "Cool story, bro".

and you completely misrepresented what I stated earlier in the thread, so I felt compelled to correct you as it's truly not appropriate for someone to falsely claim something that can be proven otherwise. you said, "There is an argument over whether a wand chamber can be used in a gauntlet" which is incorrect. There was a discussion over the use of a wand chamber in a gauntlet while the hand wearing said gauntlet is occupied by another weapon or object. I'm just making sure you keep your facts straight.

[Segev]

I played 5e for three years.

It was my first D&D experience. I had literally zero presuppositions about what D&D was.

But I hated it. I played for three years and never enjoyed it.

I have enjoyed every 3e game I've played and DMed. And they have had the same DMs.

I hope it doesn't come off as inviting bashing, but I am curious what, if anything, you specifically found unpleasant in your experience in 5e. It's quite possible to hate one thing and love another, but given your unique perspective on order of exposure, I just wonder what the differences were that made you love 3.PF and hate 5e.

[StevenC21]

Mostly, what I've said above.

D&D 5e was my first TTRPG. I found it very shallow. There were few character options and it seemed to me that you really couldn't develop a character the way you might want, simply due to that lack of actual mechanical options. I've never been a fan of Homebrew. In all my years, I've never seen a good Homebrew race/class/anything. I'm sure they're out there, but the point is that I don't accept Homebrew as a substitute for 1st party content.

That's my biggest gripe. There are many others. Such as the lack of an epic levelling system.

[AnimeTheCat]

Based on this threads digression into what paragraphs upon paragraphs of mechanics actually say, I'd wager they weren't too far off from the average 3.P player, and I was done.

The primary reason forums and discussions so heavily harp on the finest points of the rules has less to do with how the game is played and more to do with the fact that it's the only quotable common ground.

For example, if I say that my group is using power attack and leap attack together with frenzied berserker and then just leave it at that, I'm stating that I am using it as is specifically mechanically written. I may, however, just be adding another multiple to the power attack return for each and left it at that. If I dont specifically spell out how I'm using each rule, there is no common ground to refer back to. The rules serve as that common ground, hence why so many people harp so heavily on RAW. There are an equal number of people (if not more) who more than happily reference RAI or state the way they're using certain mechanics and rules, especially those known to be problematic or particularly dysfunctional.

All of this, of course, is my opinion. Any time I bring a rule on a mechanic, ability, or feature in to question, I'm not trying to start an argument, rather I'm trying to make sure that the method being used is known, and also trying to ensure anyone trying to learn can see what is the official rule vs what is RAI or broadly houseruled. Again, my opinion based off of my experience.

[King of Nowhere]

Based on this threads digression into what paragraphs upon paragraphs of mechanics actually say, I'd wager they weren't too far off from the average 3.P player, and I was done.

Do not confuse the participants to this forum with the average players.

In fact, do not confuse the nitpickers in this forum with the rest of the forum population. in most threads that devolve in endless rule quoting, you can see that the thread started reasonable, and then some people started the raw war, and then other people stopped posting, either because they already wrote what they wanted to write, or because the thread has been derailed.

there is also the fact that at a table there is a DM who is supposed to have the last word and be the final judge of rules adjudication. Here nobody is a final judge, and so people keep arguing.

though I am often apalled at how my arguments for RAI or verosimilitude are often brushed away, so there is a strong RAW mentality here anyway. People who are more interested on the roleplaying also are more likely to post in the roleplay subforum, not in the 3.x subforum.

regardless, I am one of the least knowledgeable of RAW in this forum, but I am the authority at all my tables; even when I am a player, the DM ask me what the rules say on the matter, though we all made clear that's not binding. So, that's how different is my playing environment from gitp.

But finally, I have to say that "there are less rules so people won't have ground to nitpick" is not a good way to ship 5e. to me, it sounds like "we're taking the cool toys away because you're too immature and irresponsible to use them". It really does feel like wotc is treating their customers like 5-year-old children when presented that way.
Dude, I'm 32; I am considered capable of driving a car, that could kill several people if mishandled, but I am not considered capable of playing a complex game without misbehaving???

[KellKheraptis]

Re: attacking with the hilt - the rules do cover that in the section on non-lethal damage with an otherwise lethal weapon.

Re: OP - It's been asked before, but how far down this rabbit hole do you REALLY want to go? Escrow 5+ actions that you can blow on a move action? Caster level high enough to control abominations or fling Apocalypse from the Sky with a radius the size of a planet? TK an entire army at another army?

Let me know how far onto the dark side you wish to travel >:-)

[Lorddenorstrus]

I can't sig you cause it's too big. So I favorited your post instead. :)

Did the same, 10/10 post.

[Endarire]

This discussion has happened before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413141-playing-a-optimized-paranoid-wizard-vs-earn-a-academic-minor).

[Haldir]

Do not confuse the participants to this forum with the average players.

Yeah, that's been the refrain here for almost 20 years now. "Just because WE argue and fight about everything doesn't mean the system lends toward it!" Which would be just dandy, if I didn't also experience the same thing from everyone else I've met who also favors 3.P.



"there are less rules so people won't have ground to nitpick" is not a good way to ship 5e.

This is not an accurate representation of my point, friend. My point is that in my experience the people who complain about a simpler system care more about mechanics and prioritize mechanics-as-narrative. I don't need libraries full of mechanics to tell the stories I want, nor do I feel in any way restricted by the 5e system in creating characters, because I am an original adherent of the Stormwind Fallacy- Those things are seperate and distinct, and if you need special mechanics to make special characters, thats a fault on your creativity, not the system.


Re: attacking with the hilt - the rules do cover that in the section on non-lethal damage with an otherwise lethal weapon.


I love this. My original point is that I got fed up with people bickering about dumb rules and I wanted them to focus more on their characters....

.. and you reply with "but there are RULES for what they were bickering about."

Just completely whiffed that one. Lol

[Mad Bishop]

Do not confuse the participants to this forum with the average players.

In fact, do not confuse the nitpickers in this forum with the rest of the forum population. in most threads that devolve in endless rule quoting, you can see that the thread started reasonable, and then some people started the raw war, and then other people stopped posting, either because they already wrote what they wanted to write, or because the thread has been derailed.

These forums do seem to bring out the most argumentative, self-righteous, and pedantic of all players, this is certain.


Re: OP - It's been asked before, but how far down this rabbit hole do you REALLY want to go? Escrow 5+ actions that you can blow on a move action? Caster level high enough to control abominations or fling Apocalypse from the Sky with a radius the size of a planet? TK an entire army at another army?

Let me know how far onto the dark side you wish to travel >:-)

All the way! I love reading about tricks, loopholes, and exploits when it comes to magic and wizards. I probably won't use the vast majority of them (especially the most egregious of the lot) on my players as they already struggle to deal with a properly played, but not exploitative, evil control wizard. Bring on the dark side!

[rrwoods]

Yeah, that's been the refrain here for almost 20 years now. "Just because WE argue and fight about everything doesn't mean the system lends toward it!" Which would be just dandy, if I didn't also experience the same thing from everyone else I've met who also favors 3.P.




This is not an accurate representation of my point, friend. My point is that in my experience the people who complain about a simpler system care more about mechanics and prioritize mechanics-as-narrative. I don't need libraries full of mechanics to tell the stories I want, nor do I feel in any way restricted by the 5e system in creating characters, because I am an original adherent of the Stormwind Fallacy- Those things are seperate and distinct, and if you need special mechanics to make special characters, thats a fault on your creativity, not the system.



I love this. My original point is that I got fed up with people bickering about dumb rules and I wanted them to focus more on their characters....

.. and you reply with "but there are RULES for what they were bickering about."

Just completely whiffed that one. Lol

What I’m getting is “3.5 isn’t my kind of game, 5e is my kind of game”.

EDIT: This is especially emphasized by your statement of “I don’t need libraries of mechanics to *tell the stories I want*”, because to me that statement indicates you have a story you want to tell rather than a world you want to have your players live in. That’s not a judgment of value of either approach, just a statement of what appears to be the case.

[Jay R]

As near as I can tell from this thread, the approved GitP way to play a 3.5 wizard is to argue about things that have no bearing on the current subject.

Well, I can’t deny it.

[Ventruenox]

Mödley Crüe: Just a reminder - Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:

- Belittling people who care more about roleplaying than mechanics.

- Belittling people who care more about mechanics than roleplaying.

- Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently.

[Quertus]

"all right guys, get ready to do 25 math equations just to get through the round!"

… does 5e not have HP, attack rolls, damage rolls? How does 3e have more math in a round?


"Bounded accuracy" isn't any better than what 3e does. People seem to just looooooove it, but all it means is smaller numbers and now goblins can kill your PC at level 20. How amazing & thoughtful.

It's like they took 3e and watered it down to be suitable for 5 year olds. I truly have no understanding of why anyone would willingly play such a drab, boring system.

But 3e was already suitable for 7-year-olds! :smallwink:

And it's very important that pathetic peons post a threat to the mighty - unless it's the PCs using that to their advantage, and using a small army to wipe out some powerful boss monster. :smallannoyed:


Yes friend, I have. And it's not the optimization that's the problem- it's the culture. The rules lawyering and arguing with the DM. The people I've run into who favor 3.P are into it for the roll-play, not the roleplay. That's just not my bag.

(yes, I'm familiar with the Stormwind fallacy. I know my account says 2011, but I've been here since '04 until I lost an old yahoo email account, please don't lecture me)

I was once a great fan of 3.5, make no mistake. I thought that it was the best way to let everyone play what they want. But in terms of narrative you can play anything that 3.P can do in 5e without needing an entire library of crap to do it, hence my graduation to a more rules-light system with easier rounds.

I can role-play and have/follow the rules.

Why cannot you have a narrative and have/follow the rules?

-----

Really, given your willingness, per the Psion hate thread, to make as many custom spells as it takes to make a Psion as a Sorcerer, I suspect that your players either didn't understand or didn't appreciate the value in your "rules loose" style.


regardless, I am one of the least knowledgeable of RAW in this forum, but I am the authority at all my tables; even when I am a player, the DM ask me what the rules say on the matter, though we all made clear that's not binding. So, that's how different is my playing environment from gitp.

IME, most of the healthiest tables, the GM can and will ask other players the rules.

[JNAProductions]

… does 5e not have HP, attack rolls, damage rolls? How does 3e have more math in a round?

Just commenting on this, but I've heard of people using spreadsheets to keep track of their 3.P bonuses, from flanking, spells, abilities, and everything else.

In 5E, you have your bonus to-hit (changes only on level-up or upon finding new equipment), [dis]advantage, and maybe +1d4 from Bless or -1d4 from Bane (the latter being a LOT less common).

Whereas in 3.5...

I have BAB 20/15/10/5, and a bunch of mostly static modifiers. Say they total to +15, for 35/30/25/20. Then...

Did I charge? +2 to attack
Am I Power Attacking? -X (max of BAB) to attack
Bless? +1 to attack
True Strike? +20 to attack, usable on next attack only
Divine Favor? +1 to +3 to attack
Doomed? -2 to attack
Aid? +1 to attack, doesn't stack with Bless
Bull's Strength? +2 to attack, unless I have a +2 item of Strength, in which case it's +1, or I probably have a +4 or better item of Strength, in which case it does nothing and probably wasn't cast
Prayer? +1 to attack, doesn't stack with Divine Favor

That's nine potential variable bonuses from one basic combat action, a basic combat feat, and 1st-3rd level SRD Cleric spells.

Edit: And True Strike, which I just remembered and didn't look up.

[MisterKaws]

Snip Obvious stuff snip

Yeah. Saying 3.5 doesn't have as much math is definitely a lie, especially since most classes in 5 don't have to roll even half as many dice per round.

Yet, sometimes, that's one of the funniest parts of it. Throwing that pile of d6 heavy enough to serve as a blunt weapon and then counting it all. I get it that it's tiring, but it does feel nice once in a while.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah. Saying 3.5 doesn't have as much math is definitely a lie, especially since most classes in 5 don't have to roll even half as many dice per round.

Yet, sometimes, that's one of the funniest parts of it. Throwing that pile of d6 heavy enough to serve as a blunt weapon and then counting it all. I get it that it's tiring, but it does feel nice once in a while.

Oh, sure. I get that kick from 40k, myself.

But 5E is, in general, a simpler, more intuitive system. I vastly prefer DMing it to 3.5, and generally enjoy playing it more as well. 3.5 is for when I want wild shenanigans completely ungrounded from any semblance of reality or good sense-5E is for general play. (For me, at least. I know some people know 3.5 like the back of their hand, and can build a character with their eyes closed, but I didn't get that deep into it.)

[King of Nowhere]

Just commenting on this, but I've heard of people using spreadsheets to keep track of their 3.P bonuses, from flanking, spells, abilities, and everything else.

In 5E, you have your bonus to-hit (changes only on level-up or upon finding new equipment), [dis]advantage, and maybe +1d4 from Bless or -1d4 from Bane (the latter being a LOT less common).

Whereas in 3.5...

I have BAB 20/15/10/5, and a bunch of mostly static modifiers. Say they total to +15, for 35/30/25/20. Then...

Did I charge? +2 to attack
Am I Power Attacking? -X (max of BAB) to attack
Bless? +1 to attack
True Strike? +20 to attack, usable on next attack only
Divine Favor? +1 to +3 to attack
Doomed? -2 to attack
Aid? +1 to attack, doesn't stack with Bless
Bull's Strength? +2 to attack, unless I have a +2 item of Strength, in which case it's +1, or I probably have a +4 or better item of Strength, in which case it does nothing and probably wasn't cast
Prayer? +1 to attack, doesn't stack with Divine Favor

That's nine potential variable bonuses from one basic combat action, a basic combat feat, and 1st-3rd level SRD Cleric spells.

Edit: And True Strike, which I just remembered and didn't look up.

I'd ask sorry for sidetracking the thread, if it wasn't already sidetracked enough:
does 5e have no buff spells? no combat modifiers? no ways to increase your odds besides the basic, fixed ones? Well, of course it's simpler, but not in a way I like




Yet, sometimes, that's one of the funniest parts of it. Throwing that pile of d6 heavy enough to serve as a blunt weapon and then counting it all. I get it that it's tiring, but it does feel nice once in a while.

One of my players likes to throw piles of dice. she plays a wizard and always goes for spells that deal a huge pile of d6.

So I gave her a custom item that lets her add some more d6 to that :smallcool:

[Lorddenorstrus]

For the actual point of the thread, the problem is there's varying levels of broken. Achieving infinite feats with the Chaos Shuffle, or Infinite well most things is the upper end. It's where things have broken into not functioning and that's the "broken" end of TO that is the rabbit hole we don't go down. That's just the extreme end of game breaking.. I recall.. was it Khepri a hivemind with N+1 for anything that was a numerical modifier. The problem is deciding for each individual table what is the difference between breaking or not. Some tables can handle more than others, mostly due to skill level at playing. Some consider an optimized Mailman Sorc broken, others don't. For a more practical optimization end, that can still be played on most tables Treantmonks Wizard guide should handle specific spell selection and a section on PrCs for what abilities to get.

If you're super interested in the rabbithole of infinity and broken crap. Click the Sig I have on Illiteracy. It links back to a really old thread, dude was making illegal character builds and after 2 50+ page threads got banned. There should be several explanations on actually functional broken stuff inbetween the half naked guy pictures said poster was spamming *shrug*

[Yael]

Recall. D&D is at its core about having fun with friends.

Yet still, the most heavy discussions and fights with my friends have come from a D&D game. I guess it's part of it.

Play safe from another plane, or you could do some nukes with vile spells or something.

[rrwoods]

does 5e have no buff spells? no combat modifiers? no ways to increase your odds besides the basic, fixed ones? Well, of course it's simpler, but not in a way I like

Almost every buff in 5e grants advantage on a roll rather than a numerical bonus, and multiple advantages don’t stack.

[StevenC21]

That sucks.

[KellKheraptis]

@Haldir - Quite certain I got the point - just pointing out that it wasn't overlooked when PF was developed.

@OP - Here's a start: Wiz 3/War Weaver 5/Uncanny Trickster 5/Shadowcraft Mage 4/Incantatrix 3
Early entry via Sanctum Spell trick. Arcane Spell Thesis (Silent Image), Arcane Disciple (any domain with Miracle), then pile on the metamagic. You will have more than enough greater effect shadow miracles to end anything. Ensure you have a contingency (or contingencies) to never be caught flat-footed (such as using Incantatrix's Metamagic Effect to render a Foresight persistent and extended) and then operate only as an astral projection within a Planar Bubble to a ridiculous time trait plane, such as Dal-Quor. You'll get multiple (read:10+) turns to their one off an immediate action they cannot prevent.

Also invest resources into regular and transdimensional touchsight, mindsight, and lifesight. If it exists, you will know it's there.

Get a Node using Node Genesis, and then grow it as often as possible, using a demiplane with a crazy time trait if possible to save grow time. This will add spells you have access to (minor) and massive amounts of free metamagic/CL/both to every spell you cast (HUGE). Can you say cantrip shadow miracle?

Oh, and those mass shadow miracles can be put into the tapestry with Ocular Spell if need be.

Ask the party how they feel about having the regeneration of a troll with none of the drawback in the form of a sun giant for the BSF and a girallion for the rogue (complete with Heroics or Mirror Move to snag every multiattack/MWF feat needed to bring a 4/6 arm sneak attack to bear). There's also always Team Solar, and you pull it off even easier.

Since you have Sanctum Spell, make a sanctum! It can be turned into a source of even more free metamagic.

And if all else fails, Apocalypse from the Sky is a spread and an Evocation. Casting it from shadowstuff lets you ignore the annoying artifact requirement - when in doubt, Frieza the planet from the sky. You have the capability to crank caster level to the stratosphere, and even the default radius will carve out a chunk of crust into the mantle, wrecking the planet.

Check out Doc Roc's War Weaver guide. It took LogicNinja and Treatmonk's guides and cranked them up to 11.

[Anthrowhale]

... operate only as an astral projection ...

Do note that until you have 25HD, Greater Spirit Binding can be used to effectively enslave you. The good news is that it's SR:Yes and Will:Neg, but a sufficiently resourceful adversary can probably break through those defenses.

[Remuko]

Yet still, the most heavy discussions and fights with my friends have come from a D&D game. I guess it's part of it.

Play safe from another plane, or you could do some nukes with vile spells or something.

Because of your first line I thought the second line was you sarcastically suggesting to Play D&D from another plane at first lol

[KellKheraptis]

Do note that until you have 25HD, Greater Spirit Binding can be used to effectively enslave you. The good news is that it's SR:Yes and Will:Neg, but a sufficiently resourceful adversary can probably break through those defenses.

Moot point with a contingency for it and explicit spell immunity from one of a dozen sources. And you would be seeing this well in advance if you're CoPing properly.