PDA

View Full Version : Wizard Survivability



J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 08:30 AM
Hola

I require some assistance with my wizard character. The problem is that he is too puny - squishy, if you prefer. And yes that is normal for a wizard, I know. I also know what the good buffs are. Thankfully, my spellbook is very complete as those come.

I should mention here that I am level 8, currently, and also the highest-level character in the group.

The thing is that the party includes a greataxe-wielding Fighter who carves up the enemies so fast that I never have time for buffs. If in the first round of combat I cast, for example, Greater Invisibility, I am only going to be mopping up the survivors (which just feels like a terrible, terrible waste of spell slots!) in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. And of course I can never get something like a Fireball off, because in the 2nd round of combat the enemies and my allies are all mixed up together. Then the one time I did not buff, a Troll got my wizard to -2 hps.

If I get a chance to really ward myself, it equals invincibility. But these are a dozen spells, which take an equal number of rounds to cast. This makes this question twofold...

First, what are the major protections? If I have to guard myself, but want to do it in one round, should I just go for Stoneskin? Greater Invisibility? Or Mirror Image?

Second, what can I do to lessen the need for buffing?
a. Magic items... the rogue is hogging most of those, but I don't know what I would need anyway. Is it worth investing in Armor Class? I don't think it will ever be as high as it should, even if I get AC items. Also the DM is not very generous as magic items go... and I don't craft. Should I?
b. Allies... as a necromancer, I used to have 4 Troll Skeletons watching me, for a while. Problem is they are gone now, and everyone hated them anyway. I can't blame them, it was taking a long time to roll attacks and stuff for all of them, same reason why we never use Summons much. Besides, they were so good at ripping people apart that they were stealing my thunder. :smalltongue:
c. Mobility... If they can't catch me, they can't hurt me, so that's like a free buff, there. Should I get a level in Barbarian and the Run feat or something? I am not above multiclassing if it means lessening the need for buffs.
d. Something else entirely? At some point I'll get Persistent Spell and the world will tremble, or just ride a zombie dragon (:smallsmile: ) and count on it for defense, but until that time? How will anyone wet his pants when the mage who walks in the room cannot yet cast Contingency? :smalltongue:

All suggestions welcome.

PS I have considered just cursing the fighter. That way the fights will last longer and I can buff and fight. But I am worried he'll kill me while I rest - so if you have any suggestions for protecting yourself while you rest, throw them in as well and I'll try that. :smallwink:

PS2 What is the meaning of going Nova? I've read it on the boards, but I am unsure what it means.

Inyssius Tor
2007-11-20, 08:36 AM
Okay: first off, I cannot thank you enough for actually posting all of the relevant information. That never happens.

Second, to "nova" is to blow a massive chunk of your resources on a single fight, instead of the 20% the game expects you to.

Third, the Logic Ninja's Guide to Wizards (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500) is required reading on these forums. It will make your character good.

Regrettably, that is all the help I can give you.

TRM
2007-11-20, 08:39 AM
c. Mobility... If they can't catch me, they can't hurt me, so that's like a free buff, there. Should I get a level in Barbarian and the Run feat or something? I am not above multiclassing if it means lessening the need for buffs.
Invest in spells such as Fly or Levitate. That'll be more effective than Run/Brb.

Ummm, uh, that's all that I can really help you with so, uh bye.

Ashdate
2007-11-20, 08:39 AM
Mage Armor and False Life are cheap the scribe, and because they last for at least an hour (three in False Life's case) it's not hard to have those well and ready before any battles.

After that, the question I think you need to ask yourself is "Do I need any more buffs?"

I mean, Greater Invisibility is great and all, but does the combat situation you're in require it? Do you need to cast Fly? Do you need to cast Mirror Image? There's plenty of powerful buffs, but buffs are pointless unless you tactically need them.

A rogue can help here, as a good scout can make sure you can cast one of your buffs BEFORE combat starts, leaving you free to shell out some hurt once the poop hits the fan.

Also, there are plenty of spells that will give your party a big edge on combat that aren't fireball. Grease, a level 1 spell, can usually take out an enemy combatant or two (Few classes have a really good ref save, and balance checks are harder to make in heavy armor...), Blindness/Deafness, even spells like Obscuring Mist and Web can help rule the battlefield as well, and they aren't completely disastrous if your fighter gets entangled.

- Eddie

J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 08:45 AM
Thanks for clarifying the Nova bit for me. :smallsmile:

I read the LogicNinja's guide a while ago, definetely helpful, I agreed with it on most things. I am reading it quickly to note the must-have buffs.


After that, the question I think you need to ask yourself is "Do I need any more buffs?"

I am thinking I might have a problem with that. I just feel squishy often.

And it's also like: Great, bonus hit points, I like it *casts*. Bonus intelligence? *casts*. Miss chance? *cast*. Alright I am ready now. Imagine if I ever bothered to buff my party.

Dausuul
2007-11-20, 08:50 AM
Um, okay. Unless it's explicitly a campaign oriented around treachery and backstabbing, cursing your fellow PCs is not cool. And even if it is, you should have a better reason than "he kills all my enemies too fast." How is this guy demolishing everything so quickly, anyway?

As an arcane caster, mobility is, as you suspected, your first line of defense. But don't waste a level on barbarian. One more level in wizard and you have access to overland flight, which means your mobility issues are solved. 9 hours a day (which should be plenty for a typical adventure) of being able to fly at a move speed of 40. Cast it in the morning and you're good to go.

In the meantime, I suggest a zombie. One zombie, made from the biggest, meanest, ugliest corpse you can find. Its orders are to follow you and attack everything that attacks you. It's only a single monster and it only gets one attack, so it shouldn't annoy the other players too much, and it has crazy hit points and solid AC to soak up punishment.

You should also keep one dimension door prepared at all times. That way, if a monster gets through to you, you can pop out and reappear a couple hundred feet away. The advantage to this is that you don't have to pre-emptively buff; you only use your escape hatch if it's actually needed. Don't forget that you can a) cast defensively and b) take a five-foot step out of the monster's reach.

Also, note that fireball is a lousy form of offense. Direct damage is useful only in a few specific situations. Go for debuffs and battlefield control instead. Slow for your enemies, haste for your allies, enervate for the big boss monsters.

Going nova: This refers to someone whose class abilities are usable on a per-day basis (like a typical caster), who recklessly burns through her daily uses of her abilities in a single encounter. Going nova on minor encounters is a common mistake among novice caster players. It can be a good tactic against boss monsters, but don't forget that sometimes what looks like the boss monster is actually just there to soak up your resources so you'll be out of spells when the real boss monster attacks.

Tyger
2007-11-20, 08:55 AM
I've found one spell, at least in the outdoor encounters, to be invaluable. Fly. Straight up about 60 feet. Immediately. First action. Or, if we have a touch of time to worry about getting ready, Haste the party first, then Fly. Haste is the one spell that my party chants for, begging me to cast. Its the shiznit for mobility, AC bonus and that extra attack on a full. Its arguably the best 3rd level spell there is. Far more impressive than Fireball and no need to worry that you are going to hit targets you don't want to hit. :)

Stoneskin is a great spell, but if you are in a position to get hit, you're already in too much trouble. Its far better used on that greataxe wielding madman who actually rus toward the enemies! :) And Greater Invisibility is fantastic, but give it to the Rogue instead. He'll thank you for the SA out the wazoo.

Generally, if you are spending time buffing yourself you are wasting your spells. What you can do for your allies is far more important.

And what about some tactics? If you do want to get a Fireball off (sub-optimal I know, but still fun!) then make sure the party knows about it. Maybe point out how a spell like that will make it easier for the warrior and rogue to move in and mop them up. All they have to do is wait until after you go, they don't miss turns. And of course, investing in feats, spells, and items that will boost your Initiative so you go first is even better.

Just a few thoughts.

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-20, 08:56 AM
It depends on the exact situation, but if there is an enemy who is not engaging/going to be engaged this round by one of the meatshields, then buff. Use Greater Invisibility, then keep casting. Otherwise, don't bother. Keep in mind, though, that buffs are situational. If the fight will be over next round, don't cast at all, it's a waste of a slot. If the fighters are not obviously dominating all their opponents, then hit as many opponents as you can with save-or-suck spells. Only buff if YOU become vulnerable to combat, where vulnerable is defined as "someone will hit me within a round of me getting my buff up".

Wolf53226
2007-11-20, 09:02 AM
Well, Mage Armor is a hour per level, so you cast it at the start of the day adventuring, and have it most of the day at 8th level. That should help and doesn't cause you to loose an action when the fighting begins. In the same thought, look for other spells your DM allows that are hours/level buffs, since you are 8th level, that's 8 hours of happiness, so you cast them right before the dungeon crawl, or after you wake up and have them the whole time you need them.

Fly would be a good first spell against things that cannot take to the air after you, and you get overland flight in a couple levels.

Fog Cloud, makes it less likely you can be hit, and if you place it right, will help you allies without really hindering them too much.

Monster Summoning, you should be able to conjure 1d3 Celestial Black Bears or some such, which would hold people back from being able to get to you.

If you are set in doing damage during combat, pick spells that effect single creatures or cones and rays as opposed to things like fireball with an area of effect, much less likely to hurt your teammates with them. Mind you, you will not be able to take out the army of Kobolds in one turn anymore, but you will be able to kill larger creatures, or at least disable them, in one turn. Leave the wanton destruction of a large group to either the fighter, or scribe a scroll of fireball just in case you ever need it.

J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 09:08 AM
Direct damage spells may not be as good, but they're fun! Plus the DM has understood this and they've had a chance to shine twice, fire-weak monsters were beating the fighter up (Mummified Ogre/White Dragon). Fire-mage-ing is great, as is an Empowered Combust to the face.

Which is part of the problem because it is a Touch Spell :smallredface:

Also, we are playing evil characters, but yes, the cursing bit was a joke :smallcool:

Iku Rex
2007-11-20, 09:11 AM
Firkraag, which books can you use?

J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 09:14 AM
Aside from the PHB/DMG, I can use Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, Libris Mortis, Draconomicon, and the Spell Compendium.

Keld Denar
2007-11-20, 09:30 AM
Soon you can nab Greater Mirror Image. Its an immediate action to cast (no wasting actions) gives you a huge miss chance (1 in 8 or so chance of gettting hit), and the images regenerate at a rate of 1 per round up to max. I'm 80% sure its a 6th level spell, so you got 3 levels to wait for it. It is one of the ultimate wizard anti-melee protections.

See if you can nab a mithril buckler +1 with deathward and energy immunity on it. This has 0 ASF, provides a +2 AC, and protects you from 1 death attack and 1 elemental damage attack per day. You can also recieve a Magic Vestaments on it from your cleric (if you have one) to get your AC a little higher. A +1 mithril chain shirt of deathward and energy immunity will double your 1/d survivability mechanisms for another 0% ASF and a +5 bonus to your AC (more with MV from the cleric).

Always always always cast False Life (hours/day). Extra temp hp are made of win. If you dont' want to do that, get the feat Minor Shapeshift (reserve feat from CMage) and learn a spell from the polymorph school (like Trollshape if polymorph is banned). As long as you don't cast it, you can refresh a pool of 15 temp hp every round as a swift action. Do this after every turn you get hit.

Follow that, and you should be pretty strong. You tend to only need one evasive spell per combat to keep you out of trouble (either fly or greater invis) so you seldom need to burn rounds casting both.

J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 09:38 AM
Minor shapeshift seems like the kind of thing for me, it's a permanent "buff". I don't have that book, but my DM has a larger collection, so it's likely he does, and may let me use it. I doubt he'll place any mithril bucklers for me, though.

Keld Denar
2007-11-20, 09:49 AM
Minor shapeshift seems like the kind of thing for me, it's a permanent "buff". I don't have that book, but my DM has a larger collection, so it's likely he does, and may let me use it. I doubt he'll place any mithril bucklers for me, though.

so drop a couple ranks into craft (armorsmith). You are a wiz with probably a high int, craft is a class skill. It doesn't take very long to get a few points in there to craft a mithril buckler and a chain shirt, if you can get your hands on the mithril. Then take craft magical arms and armor. Enchant your shield and armor with the buffs I mentioned. That way you aren't relying on random drops. Plus, crafting puts you ahead of the wealth by level curve, and the minor xp spent on it is negligable (you mentioned that you are already the highest level char in you group).

Alternatively, find some dwarves. Then grind faction with the dwarves by killing orcs (racial enemies). Cash in some faction to get the mith gear crafted for you. Then its a custom fit, and chicks dig guys in designer armor.

Saph
2007-11-20, 09:53 AM
You're discovering what I call the "Catch-22 problem" of arcane buffs. Arcane defensive spells are very powerful and can make you almost invincible if you have enough up. However, they take several rounds to cast. So if you have a spare round or two at the beginning of a fight, you're safe.

However, because wizards depend so much on preparation, the really dangerous fights for a wizard are almost always the ones where you're caught by surprise and don't have a spare round or two to cast buffs. So if you have time to cast the buffs you usually don't really need them, and if you really need them you usually don't have time to cast them. Catch-22.

Solutions:

1) If the party fighters are going to wipe out the encounter in two or three rounds, you don't need to do much in the first place. A good way to handle not-so-threatening battles is just to cast haste in the first round, then sit back and buff your nails while the fighters shred the enemies. They'll do way more damage than you could.

2) Look for buffs that have a 10 minute/level or hour/level duration, and cast those when you enter a dungeon or danger area. They should last most of the important time.

3) For buffs with a 1 minute/level duration, you have to be more savvy. If you're good, you can learn to anticipate combats and cast them just before (such as before the party break down a door with noise on the other side). This isn't reliable, however.

4) Look for buffs/defensive spells that can be cast as immediate actions. This lets you react to attacks. Unfortunately most of the best ones are in the PHB II, which you don't have access to.

5) Rely on the rest of the party to block off enemies from hitting you. If you can depend on them to shield you, you can spend your actions on casting offensive and party buff spells like haste, making everyone much more effective.

6) If all else fails: just spend the first round of every dangerous-looking battle casting a defensive spell. The last resort option.

- Saph

Ganurath
2007-11-20, 10:02 AM
Magic Items: Take Craft Feats. You already have Scribe Scroll due to being a wizard, so I'd probably go with Craft Wondrous next so you can make ability buff items, bracers of armor, and so on. Don't be afraid to sell junk to fund your crafting something better. If you're a necromancer, however, I'd advise you invest in black onyx for animate dead spells.

Allies: Animate a Large creature as a skeleton, preferably one able to hold a shield since it can't have armor, then set up a saddle inside the ribcage for you to ride in. You get cover, an all-around meatshield, and possibly improved speed. Also note: Animal swarms can have the skeleton template applied to them as well.

Mobility: See the ogre rider trick in allies, with an afterthought of how you can provide the skeleton with the mobility buff spells while you reap the benefit. A lovely item for a quick escape is the escaping panic button from CoSc, which is a one-shot 30 ft dimension door as a swift action for 750 a pop, pun intended. They're wondrous items, too, which adds incentive to the above craft feat.

Something Else: Don't invest in Persistent Spell unless you plan on doing an Arcane Thesis (CoMa) on Burning Blood (CoAr.) I'd actually suggest working toward the Geometer PrC in CoAr, if only to get the Book of Geometry (every spell only requires 1 page, which combos insanely with Boccob's Blessed Book.)

Iku Rex
2007-11-20, 10:04 AM
Soon you can nab Greater Mirror Image. Its an immediate action to cast (no wasting actions) gives you a huge miss chance (1 in 8 or so chance of gettting hit), and the images regenerate at a rate of 1 per round up to max. I'm 80% sure its a 6th level spell, so you got 3 levels to wait for it. It is one of the ultimate wizard anti-melee protections.It's level 4.

Heart of stone earth (CMag, lv 4) is almost as good, as it gets you temporary hit points and lets you activate a 1 round/level stoneskin effect as an immediate swift action.

Keld Denar
2007-11-20, 10:08 AM
It's level 4.

Heart of stone (CMag, lv 4) is almost as good, as it gets you temporary hit points and lets you activate a 1 round/level stoneskin effect as an immediate action.

CURSE YOU 20% CHANCE OF BEING WRONG! CURSE YOU PROBABILITY!

So, yeah, get Greater Mirror Image and/or the above posted spell. They will keep you pretty safe from most things that want to inflict the stabbity on you.

Ganurath
2007-11-20, 10:12 AM
It's level 4.

Heart of stone (CMag, lv 4) is almost as good, as it gets you temporary hit points and lets you activate a 1 round/level stoneskin effect as an immediate action.I'm looking at Heart of Stone in Complete Arcane, and it says L8. Did it get updated or something? Preferably updated to something that isn't nightmarishly awful and an insult to necromancy?

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-20, 10:16 AM
Well, the problem is you're making a mistake with your casting philosophy. Buff spells that last less than 10 minutes/level shouldn't be cast on yaself, unless you know a big fight is coming. It's much better to kill enemies than be pimp and uberzorz. Now, that said, there's two spells that are almost buffs, in the sense that they make your opponents look so puny you look really strong. Those two are grease and solid fog. Grease, because it allows for a ton of sneak attacks and reduced AC unless your target has 5 balance ranks. And NO ONE ever bothers much on balance. Solid fog, because it pretty much stops monsters stoppy for 4 or 5 rounds, if cast right, and it has no save. With it, you can THEN have enough time to buff up, as the mobbies come out of the fog. I'd recommend you get it, it'll save you tons of trouble.

Saph
2007-11-20, 10:42 AM
CURSE YOU 20% CHANCE OF BEING WRONG! CURSE YOU PROBABILITY!

So, yeah, get Greater Mirror Image and/or the above posted spell. They will keep you pretty safe from most things that want to inflict the stabbity on you.

While GMI and Heart of Earth are both excellent spells, neither one's available to the OP. They come from PHB II and Complete Mage, which aren't among the books he listed.

- Saph

Wolfwood2
2007-11-20, 10:45 AM
I'm looking at Heart of Stone in Complete Arcane, and it says L8. Did it get updated or something? Preferably updated to something that isn't nightmarishly awful and an insult to necromancy?

I think he meant to say "Heart of Earth", not Heart of Stone. Completely different spell.

Heart of Earth is one of four elementally aligned "Heart of" spells, each of which gives you an hour/level minor benefit which you can trade in for a round/level major benefit in a combat situation. They're levels 2, 3, 4, and 5. Additionally, if you have any 2 "Heart of" spells up at once, you get light fortification; all four up at once and you get heavy fortification.

Iku Rex
2007-11-20, 11:15 AM
I think he meant to say "Heart of Earth", not Heart of Stone. Completely different spell.That's it.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-20, 11:33 AM
Cast both False life and Heart of Eart for fouble the Temp hps goodness.
I cast all the heart spells they last all day (by level 12) that there is little reason not too. Other than the spell slots used up.
I like to think the Heavy Fortifiation effet makes me Captain Planet, :smallcool:


Pluds, Casting 4th level Heart of Earth is cheaper than 4th Stoneskin (which costs money).

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-20, 04:54 PM
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~sirjon/secretsauce/handdrawn/batman.jpg
The Black Wizard sez...

The best defense is enemy specific, really. Play to your enemy's strengths and weaknesses as often as possible. And don't forget, one of the wizard's strengths is battlefield control. Controlling the flow of a battle can end up being much more effective than a higher AC. But, a good wizard is always prepared (and paranoid!), so you want to have constant defenses up just in case.


First, what are the major protections? Greater Mirror Image is perhaps one of the most potent Immediate Action protective spells at your level (barring the supercheesy options). As an immediate action, it allows you to reduce your enemy's chance of hitting you by a very large percentage (even getting upwards of 80% later). This spell can be found in the PHB II. Greater Invisibility, Fly, and the like will simply block out many enemies from being able to reach you, and Displacement (which stacks with Mirror Image!) will make you a far less desirable target. However, don't forget that some of the best protections are not merely self-buffs! If you Solid Fog an enemy, and he can't get to you, that's some killer protection right there. Another major protection is SCOUTING. Seriously. Get out there and do some recon, or put up some divinations, and give yourself a round or two to buff whenever possible.

Second, what can I do to lessen the need for buffing?
Put on a +1 Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt if you don't want to cast Greater Mage Armor. Put on a similarly ASF-less buckler if you don't want to be bothered by casting Shield. Get a solid dexterity. Use Swift or Immediate defensive buffs where you can (like Energy Aegis or Deflect) while using your standards to lock down the enemy or kill him. If you can't reach the enemy for whatever reason, take the opportunity to buff yourself or others.


c. Mobility... If they can't catch me, they can't hurt me, so that's like a free buff, there. Should I get a level in Barbarian and the Run feat or something? I am not above multiclassing if it means lessening the need for buffs. You want Mobility? Take a gander at Fly or Phantom Steed! Run is bad because it wastes your actions, and ultimately hitting an enemy is better than running away in such a mundane fashion. A level in Barbarian isn't going to get you anywhere.


The thing is that the party includes a greataxe-wielding Fighter who carves up the enemies so fast that I never have time for buffs. As a wizard, I rarely ever use buffs in actual combat rounds, save for swift or immediate ones. You should be blasting enemies to heck and back in rounds one and two, and then you can generally just lay back and let your Fighter friend mop up the rest of the mess when the fight is basically won. And by blasting, I don't mean Fireball. Also, don't forget that some buffs are also attacks. For example, take a look at Blinding Color Surge in PHB II. Invisibility and blinding a foe for the price of a second level spell slot!


d. Something else entirely? At some point I'll get Persistent Spell and the world will tremble Persistent Spell is cheesy. I would recommend against introducing that kind of thing to your game.

___

Anyways, your main mistake is that you're trying to buff in combat with all your actions. You don't do that. You remove threats in combat. If it has a duration in minutes or more, odds are you shouldn't have to cast it in combat.

Temp
2007-11-20, 05:20 PM
The Phantom Steed spell deserves repetition. It has an incredible duration, a land speed of 20ft/CL (capped at 240) and it has movement options that increase with level (CL 8th--ignores some difficult terrain, 10th--waterwalk, 12th--airwalk, 14th--flight)

greenknight
2007-11-20, 06:06 PM
As a wizard, I rarely ever use buffs in actual combat rounds, save for swift or immediate ones. You should be blasting enemies to heck and back in rounds one and two, and then you can generally just lay back and let your Fighter friend mop up the rest of the mess when the fight is basically won. And by blasting, I don't mean Fireball. Also, don't forget that some buffs are also attacks. For example, take a look at Blinding Color Surge in PHB II. Invisibility and blinding a foe for the price of a second level spell slot!

This is a pretty good philosophy for a Wizard. Make your enemies weak, and then let your allies finish them off. Nearly all the Batman Wizard builds focus on that, for good reason. If you really want to finish off a foe yourself (rather than your pets or allies) it's probably best to be a Cleric, IMO. They're much less squishy, and they get some powerful self-boosts. Although they only really come into their own around level 10, which is a bit higher than the OP's current character.


Persistent Spell is cheesy. I would recommend against introducing that kind of thing to your game.

I disagree, unless you pair it with something like Divine Metamagic (Complete Divine). As written, it requires a spell slot six levels higher than the original spell to persist it, which if anything is a bit weak, IMO. It's only when you can significantly reduce the spell slot cost that the feat becomes hideously broken.

J.Gellert
2007-11-20, 06:34 PM
Good stuff. I think I need not worry so much about buffs after all, and rely on my allies for defense. If it feels like it's going to be a round wasted, I'll just say no. In addition, I will animate one big thing as well, for bodyguard duty.

Phantom steed is absolutely cool and fits the character's theme very much. It doesn't fight, so no time wasted on its actions.

Sounds like PHBII has some interesting stuff in it. I never really thought it'd be worth it, seeing I already have PHBI and all :smalltongue:

I doubt I'll be able to befriend any dwarven clans in our current campaign, but who knows. I can think of a thieves' guild who could smuggle some mithril, or at least a dexterity-boosting item (current Dex is 14). I have found many scrolls, but as far as magic items go, I only have a +1 Flaming Longsword and the fitting Scabbard that gives +2 Int, and a Cloak of Resistance +1.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-20, 07:05 PM
This is a pretty good philosophy for a Wizard. Make your enemies weak, and then let your allies finish them off. Nearly all the Batman Wizard builds focus on that, for good reason. If you really want to finish off a foe yourself (rather than your pets or allies) it's probably best to be a Cleric, IMO. They're much less squishy, and they get some powerful self-boosts. Although they only really come into their own around level 10, which is a bit higher than the OP's current character.
I rather like finishing people off, so with my last wizard I went Rogue 1 / Wizard 5 / Unseen Seer 10 / Arcane Trickster 4. My final attack routine was something like Hunter's Eye (shared to familiar), Avasculate, two elemental Orbs (one from me, one from familiar), and two clouds of knives (One from me, one from familiar), each with a good +16d6 or so sneak attack on them (or +8d6 from the familiar). Since Avasculate cut down an enemy's health to half with no save... that meant I was looking at 96d6+10 damage on a guy who had only half their hp left, AND forcing them to make 3 saves against status effects (stunning, and whatever two I picked for acid orbs). And I didn't even use any 9th level spells, or Celerity, or Ocular spell, or Persistent Spell, or Craven or anything fancy/cheesy like that. I also took Spontaneous Divination to cast all divination spells spontaneously (Complete Champion), and I hung out invisible pretty much all day so that I'd always get the jump on suckers. I also took Elder Giant Magic and a few other things to boost my caster level to make long term buffs last even longer and be even better. And I hung out invisible and silenced almost all day every day. So basically, I went first, and I killed an enemy when I did so, unless he had more than 800 hp. And made all his saves. And if anyone did look scary to me... well, I always did keep my 9th level spells in reserve... :smallwink:

Oh, and yes, it worked from low level too. At level 2, I could do 9d6 damage with a familiar-shared Light of Lunia spell. Or I could Color Spray, Sleep, or Enlarge the party's orc with an axe (tm). And of course, I brought two Rogue-esque skill monkies to the table (Familiars share your skill ranks!). It only got better from there.


I disagree, unless you pair it with something like Divine Metamagic (Complete Divine). As written, it requires a spell slot six levels higher than the original spell to persist it, which if anything is a bit weak, IMO. It's only when you can significantly reduce the spell slot cost that the feat becomes hideously broken.

There are SO many things that lower your metamagic... and you either ban all of them, or you ban Persistent Spell. Besides, Persisent/Wraithstrike or Persistent/Hunter's Eye and similar cheese is still amazing at 8th level.

Kaelik
2007-11-20, 07:25 PM
I rather like finishing people off, so with my last wizard I went Rogue 1 / Wizard 5 / Unseen Seer 10 / Arcane Trickster 4.*lots of other stuff*

That's fine and all, but you really screwed up there. What you should have done was grab a level of Spellthief instead. Take Master Spellthief from Complete Scoundrel and ever time you SAed a caster you could take one of their spells, which you can do plenty if you are already cloud of knifing. You'd also have a higher caster level then this build, and you'd be able to cast in light armor.

deadseashoals
2007-11-20, 07:31 PM
The thing is that the party includes a greataxe-wielding Fighter who carves up the enemies so fast that I never have time for buffs. If in the first round of combat I cast, for example, Greater Invisibility, I am only going to be mopping up the survivors (which just feels like a terrible, terrible waste of spell slots!) in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. And of course I can never get something like a Fireball off, because in the 2nd round of combat the enemies and my allies are all mixed up together. Then the one time I did not buff, a Troll got my wizard to -2 hps.

If I get a chance to really ward myself, it equals invincibility. But these are a dozen spells, which take an equal number of rounds to cast. This makes this question twofold...

First, what are the major protections? If I have to guard myself, but want to do it in one round, should I just go for Stoneskin? Greater Invisibility? Or Mirror Image?

Prepare greater mirror image (PHB2) - it's like mirror image, but it can be cast as an immediate action, and you regenerate one image per round. No action cost to you. If you have an action to burn at your level, cast EITHER mirror image OR fly OR greater invisibility. If you choose the right one to counter your enemies, you'll be difficult enough to harm that they usually won't want to do it, or risk giving your fighter free shots at them.


Second, what can I do to lessen the need for buffing?

Pre-buff. Cast mage armor and alter self for +10 AC. Cast resist energy if you know that a particular kind of energy damage is going to come up. That, combined with your small selection of minute/level and round/level protective buffs should ensure that you won't get jumped too badly.

Now, with the rest of your slots, focus on debilitating your opponents. Then they can't hurt you. Ray of enfeeblement (or even empowered), glitterdust, web, ray of exhaustion, evard's black tentacles, and enervation are all spells that would be good for you, and a lot of them are necromancy spells to boot.

Also, always stand in the back. That's just as important as all the other crap. Standing in the back is really great.

nerulean
2007-11-20, 07:44 PM
Battlefield control (Grease, Solid fog and the like) are great spells for feeling like you are actually doing something to help the party defeat an encounter while not robbing the fighter of his ability to hit things and, more importantly, keeping yourself from getting hit.

It's also worth mentioning that if the wizard is getting pummelled, it is not necessarily the wizard's failing. Possibly those who should be meatshielding you are failing in that particular part of the job description. Calmly suggest occasionally that if Sir Smashalot sticks near you for a round or two, you can handle this fight. He'll be much more willing to do this if you don't outright kill his enemies and steal his glory, so battlefield control pops up as useful again.

Yet another use is that it might train your group to think a little bit more tactically, thus getting the tanks to protect you eventually without you even having to ask. No, a melée combatant's job is not to protect the wizard, but if the wizard is never getting a chance to do anything then maybe it's time for the tough guys to step away from the spotlight for an encounter.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-20, 08:12 PM
That's fine and all, but you really screwed up there. No, I didn't. In fact, when I put this character up on the CharOp boards, your suggestion was put up and quickly shot down by others.
What you should have done was grab a level of Spellthief instead. Take Master Spellthief from Complete Scoundrel and ever time you SAed a caster you could take one of their spells, which you can do plenty if you are already cloud of knifing. You'd also have a higher caster level then this build, and you'd be able to cast in light armor.

This doesn't actually work like you think it does.

First problem: Your suggestion requires that I get an additional feat (I still have to get Practiced Spellcaster) which I cannot take until level SIX. I need to cast second level spells, and due to that first spellthief level I can't do that until level 4. Dang. And for those first five levels, you know what I get out of spellthief? Nothin'. Remember, we're talking about a character you actually want to play here. Practical builds need to work at every level you will play them, and I started at level 2.

Second problem: Contrary to your belief, your suggestion doesn't help my caster level at all. My caster level is already equal to my character level thanks to Practiced Spellcaster, and Master Spellthief doesn't raise your caster level past your character level. If I remove Practiced Spellcaster, my caster level becomes my level -4, or -3 if I take Master Spellthief. Caster Level -3 is not cool. And it's not higher than -0, which is what I have.

Third problem: I get much less skill points and class skills early on, making it more difficult to qualify for Unseen Seer and making me less of a kickass skill monkey. Ouch.

Fourth problem: Steal Spell isn't incredibly good. I have to give up some SA dice, and I get spells which are selected at random, unless I actually somehow know what the person can cast. You also probably won't have the material component (yes, stolen spells require those!) if you don't have the spell you just stole, so you can't cast it. Laaaame. If you could use it to power your own spells, that might be worth it, but the reality is that Master Spellthief doesn't let you do that. Oh, and you know what the REAL clincher to make it suck is? It doesn't let you count as a higher level spellthief for anything except the level of spells you can steal. It doesn't affect your storage cap. There's STILL a cap based on your spellthief level. That means if I have one level of spellthief, I can still only steal first level spells. In order to steal 9th level spells, you'd need to have 9 levels of spellthief, and even then you could only steal one at a time. OOPS. That sure makes the feat suck, doesn't it? Seeing as, you know, it means that it doesn't actually let you steal spells better than a spell thief 1.

Fifth problem: Who really cares about being able to cast in Light Armor? Seriously, does it actually make any difference for more than, say, one or two levels after you take it? (after I suffer through several levels where I lose out on the benefits of Rogue in order to get that feat) The other feats I got to choose from at sixth level gave me better abilities for the duration of the game than a nil bonus to AC and random spells that aren't particularly useful to me.

Basically, it's not a good choice. There are way cooler feats out there. ALL I get out of Master Spellcaster is the ability to cast in Light armor and steal 1st level spells. That's IT. And I give up all the benefits of a first level of Rogue to get there. OUCH. That's... really screwed up.

Please, think things over before you accuse people of "really screwing up." If you examined the practical ramifications of what you suggested, I'm sure you would have realized where it was wrong before I had to write this whole long thing to correct you. :smallsmile:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-20, 08:16 PM
Not powerful at high levels? If you took a pair of levels in rogue for the ACF Precision strike, everyone would fear you.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-20, 09:22 PM
It's also worth mentioning that if the wizard is getting pummelled, it is not necessarily the wizard's failing. Possibly those who should be meatshielding you are failing in that particular part of the job description. Calmly suggest occasionally that if Sir Smashalot sticks near you for a round or two, you can handle this fight. He'll be much more willing to do this if you don't outright kill his enemies and steal his glory, so battlefield control pops up as useful again.

If the wizards idea of "helping" was giving himself self-buffs with his standard actions in the middle of a combat (like the OP seemed to be doing), it would be tactically dubious to waste my own contributions (actually hitting and killing things, by the OP's reports) to stand in front of the wizard and hope enemies can't get around all 5 feet of me (after all, OP is buffin' himself, not his buddies) to kill him.

Seriously. If you aren't taking out enemies or performing some other vital role as a wizard, and someone has to protect you, you're a liability. There is NO REASON for the party to give you a cut of the loot equal to the Fighter who just cut everything down in those two rounds you foolishly spent casting Shield and Stoneskin on yourself. You contribute like a follower, you should get paid like a follower, and people should care about protecting you like you were a follower. Also, if the Wizard is putting out the hurt, and you are actually protecting him effectively, his survival IS your glory as a tank. He ain't stealin' nothin'.

Of course, many Fighters in D&D are crappy tanks. That is to say, many neglect to acquire abilities that allow them to keep the hurt off their allies. Don't just assume that they should all be tanks. Quite a few could better be described as Strikers.

Kaelik
2007-11-20, 10:10 PM
No, I didn't. In fact, when I put this character up on the CharOp boards, your suggestion was put up and quickly shot down by others. Logic Ninja was there for it (he's the one who told me to give my raven eye lasers from a permanent custom ray of frost item so that I could always benefit from shared Hunter's Eyes even without using Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability. And that's exactly what I did). You guys like him, right? :smallwink:

Ah yes, Name dropping, your favorite tactic. Right up there with talking about how everyone on this forum worships at the altar of Logic Ninja.

I don't though, showed up here long after he was gone, and though I do hang out on Char-Op sometimes, he doesn't really stand out as much there. If I had to worship at someone's altar it would be Franks, but luckily I don't.


This doesn't actually work like you think it does. And you don't get a higher caster level, because Master Spellthief doesn't raise your caster level higher than your character level. In fact, if I spent a feat on Master Spellthief instead of Practiced Spellcaster, then my caster level would be LOWER than it was, because you lose caster level for non-divination spells with Unseen Seer.

Ah yes, the part of your build where you mentioned that you took Practiced Spellcaster. Where was that again? Oh right, not here. Guess I fail the omniscience test.


This idea was posited by Fax Celestis in a thread I put up when I was building this character, and quickly shot down because it just doesn't work like you two think it does.

Unlike you, some people don't base everything on what other people say. I actually got that idea from reading the books. But I can see how that would be a surprise to you.


First problem: Your suggestion requires that I get an additional feat (I still have to get Practiced Spellcaster) which I cannot take until level SIX. I need to cast second level spells, and due to that first spellthief level I can't do that until level 4. Dang. And for those first five levels, you know what I get out of spellthief? Nothin'. Remember, we're talking about a character you actually want to play here. Practical builds need to work at every level you will play them, and I started at level 2.

And how exactly is Spellthief 1/Wizard 1 less practical then Rogue 1/Wizard 1? 8 skill points and some skills you don't need as class skills? And if you didn't start with Rogue, then what's to stop Wizard 5/Spellthief 1? Far more practical then Rogue anything.

And my favorite part is this "I need to cast second level spells, and due to that first spellthief level I can't do that until level 4." You almost make it sound like a level of Rogue somehow advances casting.


Second problem: Contrary to your belief, your suggestion doesn't help my caster level at all. My caster level is already equal to my character level thanks to Practiced Spellcaster. If I remove Practiced Spellcaster, my caster level becomes my level -4, or -3 if I take Master Spellthief. Caster Level -3 is not cool. And it's not higher than -0, which is what I have.

Which is it? Do you waste a feat Master Spellthief thus hurting your build? Or is the lower Caster level? You can't argue that both are disadvantages (well you can, but it's a false dichotomy since only one could actually apply to your character.)


Fourth problem: Steal Spell isn't incredibly good...

I never said it was incredibly good, only that it was a benefit greater then nothing. And technically I only implied that.


(after I suffer through several levels where I lose out on the benefits of Rogue in order to get that feat) The other feats I got to choose from at sixth level gave me better abilities for the duration of the game than a nil bonus to AC and random spells that aren't particularly useful to me.

"The benefits of rogue?" Again? 8 skill points. You lose out on 8 skill points. That's not a huge loss. And of course, this is the part where you pretend you are wasting a feat, even though earlier you were losing caster level, which is it?


And I give up all the benefits of a first level of Rogue to get there.

Ode to 8 skill points. That's what, the fourth time you've mentioned them?


Please, think before you accuse people of "really screwing up." I know exactly what I'm doing.

Of course you do. You're doing what other people tell you to do. Mr. "I deal with real optimizers, not like this board."

[Scrubbed]

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-20, 11:46 PM
Ah yes, Name dropping, your favorite tactic. Right up there with talking about how everyone on this forum worships at the altar of Logic Ninja. Wow, flames and red herrings. If you'll look, I actually gave 5 very good reasons why taking spellthief and Master Spellthief just plain sucks. It lets you steal one random level one spell that you may or may not be able to cast if you sacrifice some of your sneak attack damage. And lets you wear light armor and not increase your caster level. Yeah, I really screwed up by not taking it.


Ah yes, the part of your build where you mentioned that you took Practiced Spellcaster. Where was that again? Oh right, not here. Guess I fail the omniscience test. ...Did I say that I did NOT have Practiced Spellcaster? Why would you assume that I had not taken a viable alternative? All you're saying here is that you made an insulting claim that I "really screwed up" without having any of the necessary information to make that claim. Furthermore, Practiced Spellcaster is a standby of every Unseen Seer build, due to their caster level penalties, so it would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to think that I had picked that feat up.


Unlike you, some people don't base everything on what other people say. I actually got that idea from reading the books. But I can see how that would be a surprise to you. More flaming... and I really wonder where you think that I get my ideas from what other people say. I'm sure I would be far more "agreeable" if that were the case.


And how exactly is Spellthief 1/Wizard 1 less practical then Rogue 1/Wizard 1? 8 skill points and some skills you don't need as class skills? And if you didn't start with Rogue, then what's to stop Wizard 5/Spellthief 1? Far more practical then Rogue anything. Benefit of Rogue 1: More class skills and 16 extra skill points at level 1. Good Reflex Save. Benefit of Spellthief 1: Steal random level 1 spells that you may or may not be able to cast. Good Will Save.

Edit: I made an error. For some reason, I was thinking Spellthieves got 4 points instead of the 6 they actually get. So it's 8 skill points, not 16. Point still stands.


And my favorite part is this "I need to cast second level spells, and due to that first spellthief level I can't do that until level 4." You almost make it sound like a level of Rogue somehow advances casting. In what way do I suggest that? A rogue obviously does not require the Master Spellthief feat.


Which is it? Do you waste a feat Master Spellthief thus hurting your build? Or is the lower Caster level? You can't argue that both are disadvantages (well you can, but it's a false dichotomy since only one could actually apply to your character.) ...I'm not sure you realize what a false dichotomy is. Master Spellthief hurts the build, and does not help your caster level in any way, and thus you still need to take Practiced Spellcaster in order to restore your caster level to full when taking Unseen Seer.


I never said it was incredibly good, only that it was a benefit greater then nothing. And technically I only implied that. Actually, you claimed that I "really screwed up" by not taking it. Even though it's actually worse than nothing, since it takes up a valuable feat slot as well as sacrificing 16 of my skill points and some of the class skills I care about for the miniscule reward of casting in light armor and having a lame ability to steal random 1st level spells and maybe cast them by giving up all the sneak attack damage I have at low levels.


"The benefits of rogue?" Again? 8 skill points. You lose out on 8 skill points. That's not a huge loss. And of course, this is the part where you pretend you are wasting a feat, even though earlier you were losing caster level, which is it? More accurately, you lose out on 16 skill points at first level and a feat for taking Spellthief 1 and Master Spellthief. And yes, the build loses 4 caster levels (though only one spellcaster level) for non-divination spells which ideally should be made up for with Practiced Spellcaster. Master Spellthief does not solve the caster level problem.


Of course you do. You're doing what other people tell you to do. Mr. "I deal with real optimizers, not like this board." Actually, the only thing I did with this build that was suggested by others was making the custom item for my familiar at Logic Ninja's suggestion, and that's quite minor (doesn't contribute to the main strategy at all. It just helps give some extra output in fights that aren't important enough to spend the extra spell slots on making my familiar cast spells). So... basically you're just making up unjustified accusations. Also, namecalling is flaming.

Edit: If you would like, I can bring up the original post for you, and you will see that the unedited first post mentions every single feature I originally planned to take, and then show you how the final character I came up with. It's nearly exactly the same, thus demonstrating that I'm not just "doing what others told me to do." Not like you have any basis for that accusation to begin with.



EDIT: I forgot your third favorite tactic, editing. Err... you realize people can see when these posts were made, right? My post was not edited after you posted, or even shortly before you posted. It was last edited about 50 minutes before you posted. Not sure who you're trying to fool.

Above, you can see it plainly. Last edited by OneWinged4ngel : Yesterday at 09:19 PM.

And your post? Yesterday, 10:10 PM

Looks like another false accusation, easily disproved by simple presentation of facts.

Kaelik
2007-11-21, 01:44 AM
Err... you realize people can see when these posts were made, right? My post was not edited after you posted, or even shortly before you posted. It was last edited about 50 minutes before you posted. Not sure who you're trying to fool.

Above, you can see it plainly. Last edited by OneWinged4ngel : Yesterday at 09:19 PM.

And your post? Yesterday, 10:10 PM

Looks like another false accusation, easily disproved by simple presentation of facts.

And yet somehow I managed to quote large parts of your post that were edited away. Unless you are going to claim that you didn't say those things.

It's almost as if I quoted your post, and then had something else come up that prevented me from completing my response in a timely manner. But that's crazy.

Besides that, how is my "accusation" that you edited your post disproven by when you edited your post? You did edit and remove a large part of your post, you'll notice I replied to quite a bit of it, because I read (and quoted) your previous version.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-21, 03:10 AM
Just a couple of things I'd like to reiterate. Invest in defensive items, invest in items that up your HP's. Your AC may never be high enough, but it can be high. Remember power attack, the higher your AC, the less power attack you get hit with. Also, a higher AC could make iteratives miss. Although I will admit that in a few levels if things are still full attacking you something is seriously wrong. The higher your HP's, the less the odds you will go down. Seriously, with a high enough con score you can build a wizard that is not to significantly behind the fighter in HP's. Zombie meat shields are good, especially if you the party isn't keeping the enemy's off of you (they should be). In Lieu of that, a summon spell can do the same thing. Anyway, a great save or suck spell that I haven't seen mentioned that is still effective for you (and one I consider worth heightening) is slow. Slow reduces the wizard to being able to cast or move, it takes away the archers and TWF'ers advantage of lots of attacks a round, even denying the average tank his itterative (and at higher levels his second and third itteratives) can be absolutely devastating. Slow breaks combats. Another great one these guys have neglected to mention is Evards Black Tentacles. This works really well if your tank has an absolutely huge grapple score (you can enlarge him to help with this). Evards on the enemy archers/wizards combined with a super strong enlarged tank=tank fighting immobile, flat footed foes that can't do anything requiring somantic components, or even fight back. You've basically handed him the fight on a silver platter at that point. If your tank isn't a frenzied berserker, it can still be used to disable the casters till he can get to them, at which time you dispell the evards and gang up on the them.

Your problem is your thinking of ways to stop the enemy's once they're in your face. The correct way to play a wizard, is to stop them a safe distance away, and let them sit their till your friendly neighborhood fighter/rogue combo comes by to clean out the trash. If your fighter guy is as effective as you say he is (it means your DM's doing something wrong, but that's another point entirely) if you put up a few barriers to your enemy getting to you, he should clean them up before they do.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-21, 03:11 AM
Besides that, how is my "accusation" that you edited your post disproven by when you edited your post?

Because you accused me of using a "tactic," implying a lowbrow flamewar tactic, and the lowbrow flamewar tactic "editing after the fact to claim you said something else" cannot be committed unless it is, indeed, after the fact. Unless you think I'm either a time traveler or a far more skilled hacker than I actually am who would actually bother to waste such resources for such a mundane and ultimately pointless purpose. And editing for pretty much any other reason is perfectly acceptable board conduct (there's a reason the bloody button is there, you know). Like pretty much all your other accusations, from accusing me of basing my argument on name dropping (clearly disproved by seeing the whole danged argument right there) to accusing me of basing my opinions only off of what others say (easily disproved, though not quite so immediately and directly as the others, by looking at my comments in the past, which not only commonly go against the groupthink, but occasionally have set the groupthink in motion by originating the ideas), it's purely baseless slander, and I should hope that you'll be kind enough to stop derailing this thread with unprovoked flames.

greenknight
2007-11-21, 03:18 AM
There are SO many things that lower your metamagic... and you either ban all of them, or you ban Persistent Spell.

It's probably better in the long run to ban all of them, since once you start lowering the spell slot cost of metamagic effects you can very quickly break lots of metamagic feats.


Besides, Persisent/Wraithstrike or Persistent/Hunter's Eye and similar cheese is still amazing at 8th level.

If you're able to cast 8th level Arcane spells and you have access to non-Core material (both of which would need to be true in order to persist wrathstrike or hunter's eye), then you probably have heaps of touch and ranged touch attack spells available to you already, and plenty more which don't require an attack roll at all. So I doubt you'd get all that much real benefit from a persistant Wraithstrike (unlike melee based builds which can't cast those touch and ranged touch spells).

Hunter's Eye is more of a problem, since the sneak attack damage stacks with spell damage and any sneak attack damage your character already does. But again, by the time you can cast 8th level Arcane spells, you already have a whole bunch of save-or-lose and even-a-save-won't-help type spells available to you. And some of them even affect multiple foes with a single casting. So you can choose to do damage, which might eliminate one foe, or you can choose a spell which has a fair chance of eliminating several several foes at once. There's also plenty of creatures immune to sneak attacks, and against them you've wasted your 8th level spell slot.

BTW, when you mention stuff like this, would you please include your sources? I already knew where Persistant Spell comes from (Complete Arcane), and I had a fair idea where to find Wraithstrike (Complete Adventurer), but it took me a while to locate Hunter's Eye (PHB II). Not everyone is familiar with the same stuff you are.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-21, 03:22 AM
It's probably better in the long run to ban all of them, since once you start lowering the spell slot cost of metamagic effects you can very quickly break lots of metamagic feats. That's pretty harsh. What will the poor artificer think when you tell him he can't use some of his central class features? :smallfrown:


If you're able to cast 8th level Arcane spells and you have access to non-Core material (both of which would need to be true in order to persist wrathstrike or hunter's eye) Of course you need non-core material. Persistent spell is non-core. If you have persistent spell, you have non-core material.
then you probably have heaps of touch and ranged touch attack spells available to you already, and plenty more which don't require an attack roll at all. So I doubt you'd get all that much real benefit from a persistant Wraithstrike (unlike melee based builds which can't cast those touch and ranged touch spells). Sure you would. Make a melee mage. Enjoy wraithstrike. It's there for melee mages. Of course you won't use it with things that are already touch attacks. :smalltongue:


Hunter's Eye is more of a problem, since the sneak attack damage stacks with spell damage and any sneak attack damage your character already does. But again, by the time you can cast 8th level Arcane spells, you already have a whole bunch of save-or-lose and even-a-save-won't-help type spells available to you. And some of them even affect multiple foes with a single casting. So you can choose to do damage, which might eliminate one foe Hey, if 800 damage with no save won't eliminate a foe, well... you're probably in trouble.
or you can choose a spell which has a fair chance of eliminating several several foes at once. There's also plenty of creatures immune to sneak attacks, and against them you've wasted your 8th level spell slot. You mean if ALL that you EVER go up against are immune to them, and you have no methods of breaking through their resistances, which you almost always do since you freed up that swift slot with your persistent goody, then you've used up *one* level 8 spell. I know that if Persistent Spell were allowed, (and I allowed myself to use it. That is to say, I would warn the DM what I was capable of doing with it and see if he wanted that sort of power level in his game) I would have used Persistent Hunter's Eye in my aforementioned build pretty much every day.


BTW, when you mention stuff like this, would you please include your sources? I already knew where Persistant Spell comes from (Complete Arcane), and I had a fair idea where to find Wraithstrike (Complete Adventurer), but it took me a while to locate Hunter's Eye (PHB II). Not everyone is familiar with the same stuff you are. Sorry, I usually think to include sources, but sometimes I forget with the more commonly discussed spells/feats/etc.

greenknight
2007-11-21, 03:47 AM
That's pretty harsh. What will the poor artificer think when you tell him he can't use some of his central class features? :smallfrown:

He can take comfort from the fact that he's already far too overpowered even without them thanks to his Craft Reserve, other bonus Feats (including the Feats he needs to use that Craft Reserve) and full spellcasting (infusions).


Make a melee mage. Enjoy wraithstrike. It's there for melee mages. Of course you won't use it with things that are already touch attacks. :smalltongue:

Please DO! Every round you spend attacking with melee weapons is one more round you aren't casting those save-or-lose type spells.


Hey, if 800 damage with no save won't eliminate a foe, well... you're probably in trouble.

Sure. But is that 800 damage all from Hunter's Eye? Somehow, I think that Hunter's Eye isn't contributing all that much to that damage total....

Armads
2007-11-21, 04:25 AM
Please DO! Every round you spend attacking with melee weapons is one more round you aren't casting those save-or-lose type spells.

It's meant for gishes of doom. Besides, if a gish can power attack for max and hit with all his attacks (and he will, because it's a touch attack), it's about the same effect as a save-or-lose.

greenknight
2007-11-21, 04:50 AM
It's meant for gishes of doom.

Show me a Gish build which can do as well with melee attacks as a good Batman Wizard build.

EDIT: That's an Arcane based Gish build which can cast 8th level Arcane spells. A Divine based Gish is a totally different story.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-21, 08:21 AM
Sure. But is that 800 damage all from Hunter's Eye? Somehow, I think that Hunter's Eye isn't contributing all that much to that damage total....

IIRC, Hunter's Eye got up to 8d6... so... with 5 attacks benefitting, that's 40d6 damage. Remember that half of that supposed 800 damage comes from the fact that Avasculate cuts your hp in half. Hunter's Eye just accounts for ~140 of the remaining damage. Oh, and of course, it takes one round to set up the combo if you don't have it persisted, because you need to use an extended hunter's eye the round before in order to make use of your swift in the later round (remember, not usin' Celerity or anything of that sort). Due to the fact that enemies usually don't see me until AFTER I eviscerate them (as is the case with all good roguely folk), this isn't usually too much of a problem, but of course it's still a problem.


Please DO! Every round you spend attacking with melee weapons is one more round you aren't casting those save-or-lose type spells. Don't forget that high damage attacks ARE save or dies. Your save is your hp and AC. It gives just one more "weak save area" to be exploited. Sure, that monster might have all great saves and plenty of immunities, but if it has a poor touch AC (many do), then you can floor it. Remember, just because you ADDED the option of melee doesn't mean you LOST the option of spells. You can still use the save or dies when appropriate.

Also, if your DMs are like (some of) mine, they'll use everything the PCs can use. That means that the dragons are full attacking with full PAed and buffed touch attacks with stellar attack bonuses and ignoring miss chances, and that WILL kill your character more reliably than a DC 40 death effect. And have a touch AC of 50+ themselves thanks to a level 2 spell called Shimmering Scales from Spell Compendium. /dragonsscareme


Show me a Gish build which can do as well with melee attacks as a good Batman Wizard build.

EDIT: That's an Arcane based Gish build which can cast 8th level Arcane spells. A Divine based Gish is a totally different story.

You realize that an optimized gish build at high levels pretty much IS a Batman Wizard (it's got 9th level spells all the same), with melee thrown in as a bonus, right? Gishes are pretty crazy once they're in full swing. Of course, they usually start out sucking. Unlike the Duskblade, which starts out bringing more dice to the table than the rest of the party, but then kinda just fades out after that.

Saph
2007-11-21, 10:00 AM
Also, if your DMs are like (some of) mine, they'll use everything the PCs can use. That means that the dragons are full attacking with full PAed and buffed touch attacks with stellar attack bonuses and ignoring miss chances, and that WILL kill your character more reliably than a DC 40 death effect. And have a touch AC of 50+ themselves thanks to a level 2 spell called Shimmering Scales from Spell Compendium.

Scintillating Scales. It's a nice spell. Not much use for PCs, but great for DMs, as it turns a dragon's huge NA bonus into a deflection bonus instead. Very nasty if the party's arcane casters were counting on their ray or touch spells. I didn't know other DMs used that trick too. :P

- Saph

Keld Denar
2007-11-21, 10:43 AM
Scintillating Scales. It's a nice spell. Not much use for PCs, but great for DMs, as it turns a dragon's huge NA bonus into a deflection bonus instead. Very nasty if the party's arcane casters were counting on their ray or touch spells. I didn't know other DMs used that trick too. :P

- Saph

Oh, ME ME ME!

Another good dragon spell is Blade of Blood. Dragons with ranged touch attacks 4tw!

Iku Rex
2007-11-21, 11:14 AM
Oh, ME ME ME!

Another good dragon spell is Blade of Blood. Dragons with ranged touch attacks 4tw!I think you mean blood wind (SpC, Clr/Sor/Wiz 1). (Though it doesn't give you ranged touch attacks.)

Keld Denar
2007-11-21, 11:30 AM
Man, I gotta stop posting before I've had my 3rd cup of coffee in the morning...looks like I'm somewhere around 0 for 3.

greenknight
2007-11-21, 08:05 PM
IIRC, Hunter's Eye got up to 8d6... so... with 5 attacks benefitting, that's 40d6 damage.

Is that 5 attacks in a single round? If you're using spells, I'd like to know how you're doing that.


Remember that half of that supposed 800 damage comes from the fact that Avasculate cuts your hp in half. Hunter's Eye just accounts for ~140 of the remaining damage.

Right. Avasculate counts for half the damage on it's own - that's 400hp. Other stuff counts for 260 of that 800. So using your maths, that's 660 damage without Hunter's Eye. There's not much which can survive that either. The biggest amount of damage here is from Avasculate. That one 7th level spell is doing almost 3x the extra damage you used a Feat and an 8th level spell slot to obtain (although I admit, Avasculate is a hideously broken spell).


It gives just one more "weak save area" to be exploited. Sure, that monster might have all great saves and plenty of immunities, but if it has a poor touch AC (many do), then you can floor it. Remember, just because you ADDED the option of melee doesn't mean you LOST the option of spells. You can still use the save or dies when appropriate.

You have lost the option of casting spells on the round you go melee, unless you're casting those spells as a free/swift/immediate action.


You realize that an optimized gish build at high levels pretty much IS a Batman Wizard (it's got 9th level spells all the same), with melee thrown in as a bonus, right?

I'd like to see the build. Most Arcane Gish builds I've seen use Eldritch Knight, which usually requires one non-spellcaster level to get the martial weapon proficiency, and another lost spell level on the 1st PrC class level. And if the character takes 10 levels of that PrC, it's 10 levels which the Batman can take on a PrC(s) which gives more benefit to spellcasters.

The build you described (Rogue 1 / Wizard 5 / Unseen Seer 10 / Arcane Trickster 4) is much better, but even with that the vast majority of your damage is coming from spells. Any damage you're doing from regular attacks (ie, without casting a spell) is just a footnote compared to that. And your BAB is only +11 at 20th level, which is a bit low for a true Gish build.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 01:11 AM
Is that 5 attacks in a single round? If you're using spells, I'd like to know how you're doing that.

-Cloud of Knives (PHB II) -- Free action
-Cloud of Knives shared to familiar -- Free Action
-Avasculate (Spell Compendium) -- Standard Action
-Quickened Orb of Whatever -- Swift action
-Orb of Whatever cast be familiar using Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability (Spell Compendium) -- standard action taken by my familiar.

Since I share the Hunter's Eye buff to my familiar, his attacks also benefit from it. Thus, 5 attacks. If I didn't place limits on myself and optimized out the wazoo, I would have far more attacks than this. Check out things like Ocular Spell (Lords of Madness) or Celerity (PHB II) for a quick start on raising those attacks into the double digits. Remember, folks, Wizards can nova REALLY hard. Their limits are pretty much those you set for yourself, or the limits of your own knowledge of the rules.


Right. Avasculate counts for half the damage on it's own - that's 400hp. Other stuff counts for 260 of that 800. So using your maths, that's 660 damage without Hunter's Eye. There's not much which can survive that either. The biggest amount of damage here is from Avasculate. That one 7th level spell is doing almost 3x the extra damage you used a Feat and an 8th level spell slot to obtain (although I admit, Avasculate is a hideously broken spell). Nitpick: Avasculate's damage isn't "the biggest" because it's subjective. It basically doubles the killing power of all the other damage done. Doesn't do 400 damage in its own right... it just means that if you manage to do 400 damage, you'll take down an 800 hp guy.

Anywho, lessee... Orb is 15d6, Orb is 15d6, two Cloud of Knives attacks is 2d6+10, and Avasculate is 1/2 total hp. The base sneak attack of the character was assumed to be 8d6 (May not be perfectly accurate, I'll have to check on that). And that applies to three attacks. So... that makes for 24d6 (sneak attack) + 30d6 (orbs) + 1/2 total (Avasculate) + 2d6 + 10 (Cloud of Knives). Then you add 40d6 for Hunter's Eye. That makes for a grand total of 96d6 + 10 damage, on an enemy that is sufferring from three save or suck effects, and has just had his hp cut in half. 96d6+10 averages out to 346. Double that for 692. Not exactly 800. I was estimating. Anyways, if I threw in the Craven feat, that'd add 60 damage right there. But I thought that Craven was just too good.

Anyways, since Avasculate effectively doubles the damage from everything else for the purpose of determining whether you're doing enough damage to kill something, we can say that that 40d6 is actually worth 80d6. So that 140 damage from Hunter's Eye has an actual killin' potential of 280 in that combo, which is a fair chunk of that 692. If I get more attacks, then Hunter's Eye only gets better. WITHOUT Hunter's Eye, my killin' potential drops down to 412 hp. (206 average damage on something with its hp cut in half)

There's a notable difference between 400 and 700. And hey, if you're going overboard? That damage from Hunter's Eye means you can *save* spell slots.


You have lost the option of casting spells on the round you go melee, unless you're casting those spells as a free/swift/immediate action.
That's like saying you lost the option of using a fort save or die when you decide to go after their will save with your spell. Yes, when you take an action, that means you didn't take another action instead of that one that you took. Not exactly a revelation. You care about having options when you're in the decision-making process, not after the act has been committed. Having the option to go melee is a good thing, just like having the ability to target both will or fort saves.


The build you described (Rogue 1 / Wizard 5 / Unseen Seer 10 / Arcane Trickster 4) is much better, but even with that the vast majority of your damage is coming from spells. Persistent Hunter's Eye is good enough that I would almost never NOT use an 8th level slot for it (assuming you banned metamagic rods and everything). At the very least, it means that I can do 33d6+1d3 (average 117) damage from ranged touch attacks per round all day every day (thanks to my familiar's eyebeams :smallbiggrin: and my own Acidic Splatter reserve feat from Complete Mage). 16d6 (average 56) of that is coming from Hunter's Eye. The "Fighter Lasts All Day but Wizard Doesn't" idea can bite it. :smallwink:


Scintillating Scales. It's a nice spell. Not much use for PCs, but great for DMs, as it turns a dragon's huge NA bonus into a deflection bonus instead. Very nasty if the party's arcane casters were counting on their ray or touch spells. I didn't know other DMs used that trick too. :P

- Saph

Oh man, Scintillating scales is only the beginning of the horrible things your DM can do to you with dragons. And the worst part is, they're CRed 2-4 lower than they should be, so even if you do somehow manage not to give the red cavern lair of doom a new coat of paint straight from your organs, you're going to get gypped on the treasure (if the DM is following the guidelines presented in the books). And thank you for the correction on the name.

Kaelik
2007-11-22, 02:04 AM
you're going to get gypped on the treasure (if the DM is following the guidelines presented in the books). And thank you for the correction on the name.

I don't think you are gipped on treasure though. If they follow the rules in the books, Dragons get triple standard treasure. So even if they are under CRed, you still get a fair sum of treasure.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 03:24 AM
I don't think you are gipped on treasure though. If they follow the rules in the books, Dragons get triple standard treasure. So even if they are under CRed, you still get a fair sum of treasure.

When I say "Treasure," I think of the reward gained from defeating an encounter, and that includes XP, which you don't get triple standard for. Sorry for not being more clear on that.

Also, I don't have my books with me right now, so I can't check the figures. Would you mind looking in the DMG for me and telling us the difference between CR 16 standard loot and CR 20?

greenknight
2007-11-22, 04:06 AM
Then you add 40d6 for Hunter's Eye.

Which works out to be approx 140 hp damage, which you mentioned earlier.


Anyways, since Avasculate effectively doubles the damage from everything else for the purpose of determining whether you're doing enough damage to kill something, we can say that that 40d6 is actually worth 80d6.

Casting Avasculate causes it's own damage, and doesn't modify the damage of any other spell or effect (except that it might stun the foe, allowing you to get the sneak attack damage in). So Hunter's Eye is still only contributing approx 140 damage to the total, not 280.

Furthermore, Hunter's Eye does have it's limitations, just like all sneak attacks. You can't use it if the foe is immune, you need to be at short range (<30'), and the foe needs to be flatfooted (or something similar). In other words, it's very situational. Your build can often catch a foe flatfooted, but what if you don't? Suddenly, all that sneak attack damage is gone.


That's like saying you lost the option of using a fort save or die when you decide to go after their will save with your spell. Yes, when you take an action, that means you didn't take another action instead of that one that you took.

So the choice is: fort save or die, will save or die, physical attack. And unless the foe has very low hitpoints, generally the spells have the best chance of taking the foe out.


Persistent Hunter's Eye is good enough that I would almost never NOT use an 8th level slot for it (assuming you banned metamagic rods and everything). At the very least, it means that I can do 33d6+1d3 (average 117) damage from ranged touch attacks per round all day every day (thanks to my familiar's eyebeams :smallbiggrin: and my own Acidic Splatter reserve feat from Complete Mage).

Provided the foe is still flatfooted, isn't immune to sneak attacks, doesn't Greater Dispel Magic (or Mage's Disjunction) you, and doesn't have a Rod of Absorbtion and... Oh well, you probably know even more counters to this tactic than I do.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 04:36 AM
Casting Avasculate causes it's own damage, and doesn't modify the damage of any other spell or effect (except that it might stun the foe, allowing you to get the sneak attack damage in). So Hunter's Eye is still only contributing approx 140 damage to the total, not 280. I don't think you're quite following the idea here, sir. Avasculate alone can NEVER kill something. It can only halve its hp. When determining if you can kill something in one round, the way the math works out is that the use of Avasculate at the start of the combo doubles the hit point total that you can bring down *from other damage.* If you do not have the Hunter's Eye damage, the max hp you can take down in one shot is lessened by 280, not 140 as you suggested in your argument. That's where your math is wrong.

Perhaps a direct comparison would help illustrate it better for you.

With Hunter's Eye:
Average damage from non-Avasculate sources: 346. Max hp an enemy can have to be brought down to zero by the combo: 692.

Without Hunter's Eye:
Average damage from non-Avasculate source: 206. Max hp an enemy can have to be brought down to zero hp by the combo: 412.

This means that the addition of Hunter's Eye lets you take down something with 280 more hp, not something with 140 more hp like you suggested. Your math is wrong. Mine is right. Halving an opponent's hp is exactly the same thing as doubling the effectiveness of direct damage sources, and this is mathematically true. Provable, solvable, demonstrable.

As a result, your idea that taking Hunter's Eye out of the equation when you're taking down an 800 hp enemy (with the original assumption that you dealt 800 damage) will still let you take down a 660 hp enemy is false. The potential enemies you could take down immediately with the combo would be reduced to those with 520 hp or less, and 280 less is a significant chunk.



Provided the foe is still flatfooted, isn't immune to sneak attacks, doesn't Greater Dispel Magic (or Mage's Disjunction) you, and doesn't have a Rod of Absorbtion and... Oh well, you probably know even more counters to this tactic than I do.

Dude, you get the jump on a guy to use sneak attack. Also, if I'm using persistent spell, that means that I'm already getting to sneak attack constructs and the like unless someone gets a dispel off on me. And also, a guy doesn't necessarily have to be flat footed to be sneak attacked. And further, obviously you're not going to use a reserve feat attack on a guy wielding Mordenkainen's Disjunction at you. When you are unlucky enough to go up against such a foe, you want to be hitting him as hard as you can with your best magey stuff, so that he doesn't get a chance to hit you as hard as he can with his best magey stuff. Because the guy who hits the other guy first with his best magey stuff tends to win, and the other guy tends to get screwed. And finally... yes, I know quite a few counters, but they're more reliant on detection than the line of thought you're going down. The way to stop a Rogue (or Rogue Mage) is to see him coming. If you don't see him coming, then you're in trouble, because then it's too late to use that dispel.

The existence of counters does not, however, mean that it's balanced. It just means that it's not broken beyond any means of redemption. Everything's supposed to have counters, even if it's really, really good. If I did 100 damage with my melee attacks at level 1, there would be plenty of counters. That doesn't mean that such a feat is balanced. Of course, where you want to draw the line on what you feel is acceptable or not is entirely up to you. I personally prefer a level that doesn't include Persistent Spell. This has the handy advantages of not encouraging me to disallow every metamagic reducer ever, as well as not allowing the sort of "I've got all my buffs, and if you don't dispel them then too bad sucka" gameplay that it fosters at higher levels (there are enough problems to worry about at high levels without adding more). And of course, dispels take a valuable action in combat, and persistent buffs don't (you use those long before combat starts, or ideally before you even start resting to prepare spells. That way you don't waste those 8th level slots or anything. Even without abusing time or anything, you can still get 16 hours left on the deal after your 8 hours of rest.) Remember, when you spend your action dispelling my buffs, even if you succeed... if you don't kill me or disable me, I'll just blast off a spell or spell combo that will end you that DOESN'T involve persistent spell, and you'll be dead. Thus, unless you have to take down some sweet defensive spells I've got up or something that you need to get through, you might want to think twice before using that action on a dispel.

Really, the thing with Persistent Spell is that it just makes such combos easier. We already have a Permanency spell. Persistent Spell is just like that, except that it removes the limits (and has no XP costs or anything), and that sort of lack of limits is exactly the difference between Polymorph and Trollform.

EDIT: Oh yeah, another thing I just thought of. Since Hunter's Eye would be a long term buff thanks to Persistent Spell, I can up the caster level by 3 with Elder Giant Magic (Secrets of Xen'drik) at no real cost to myself! And that means that it adds more damage for me and my familiar.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 04:55 AM
((Graaaarrrgh, Double Post!))

greenknight
2007-11-22, 07:43 AM
I don't think you're quite following the idea here, sir. Avasculate alone can NEVER kill something.

Nor can Harm in 3.0e. It just brings the subject down to 1d4HP (no save). Does that mean the quickened follow up spell (which provides the actual kill) is really responsible for ALL the damage?


When determining if you can kill something in one round, the way the math works out is that the use of Avasculate at the start of the combo doubles the hit point total that you can bring down *from other damage.*

You're attributing Avasculate's damage to other effects. 40d6 damage does not suddenly become 80d6 damage because you cast that spell.


Perhaps a direct comparison would help illustrate it better for you.

With Hunter's Eye:
Average damage from non-Avasculate sources: 346. Max hp an enemy can have to be brought down to zero by the combo: 692.

Without Hunter's Eye:
Average damage from non-Avasculate source: 206. Max hp an enemy can have to be brought down to zero hp by the combo: 412.

Perhaps we should take another look at that data:

Foe starts with 692hp.
Cast Avasculate, reduce foe's HP to 346.
206 damage from non-Avasculate source (without Hunter's Eye) reduces foe's HP to 140.

Not surprisingly, the difference is 140 HP, the exact amount of damage Hunter's Eye produces, not 280 (average of 80d6) as you've been saying.


Halving an opponent's hp is exactly the same thing as doubling the effectiveness of direct damage sources, and this is mathematically true. Provable, solvable, demonstrable.

The result is the same, but the path is different. Avasculate does not double the damage done by other spells and effects, it's a direct damage source in it's own right.


As a result, your idea that taking Hunter's Eye out of the equation when you're taking down an 800 hp enemy (with the original assumption that you dealt 800 damage) will still let you take down a 660 hp enemy is false.

This is a straw man argument. I always agreed that Hunter's Eye did an extra 140HP damage in your example. And that can make a difference between a living foe and a dead one. However, it's much less than the damage you've done from other sources. Again, referring to your example where the foe has 692HP to begin with. You've done 346 damage with Avasculate, so it's the biggest single source of damage. Then you've done another 206 damage from other sources, putting that in the #2 slot. Finally you've got another 140 damage from Hunter's Eye, which is the least damaging effect. Those are your figures, not mine.


Dude, you get the jump on a guy to use sneak attack.

You'd pretty much have to with this idea, although I agree your character does have a pretty decent chance of success with it.


Also, if I'm using persistent spell, that means that I'm already getting to sneak attack constructs and the like

It does not, unless you've been persisting more than Hunter's Eye. So far, you've mentioned persisting Hunter's Eye and Wraithstrike, but neither of those allow sneak attacks against creatures immune to them. If you've got something else persisted which allows you to sneak attack those creatures, you should specify what you've done (remembering that I've already said that everything which reduces the spell slot cost of metamagic should be banned).


And also, a guy doesn't necessarily have to be flat footed to be sneak attacked.

That's not entirely necessary, I agree. Which is why I said "the foe needs to be flatfooted (or something similar)" a few paragraphs earlier in my post. You could flank, but it's usually not such a good idea to cast spells so close to a foe, or the foe could be stunned/paralyzed/helpless etc from something which happened earlier. Consider my use of the term "flatfooted" to be just a shorthand for all the many conditions a creature could have which would make it vulnerable to sneak attacks.


And further, obviously you're not going to use a reserve feat attack on a guy wielding Mordenkainen's Disjunction at you. When you are unlucky enough to go up against such a foe, you want to be hitting him as hard as you can with your best magey stuff, so that he doesn't get a chance to hit you as hard as he can with his best magey stuff.

Exactly. Gishing is fine for B grade foes, you can use pretty much anything against them, but when a real challenge comes along, you'd better have some top draw stuff to pull out or you're toast.


Remember, when you spend your action dispelling my buffs, even if you succeed... if you don't kill me or disable me, I'll just blast off a spell or spell combo that will end you that DOESN'T involve persistent spell, and you'll be dead.

What makes you think your foe won't have buffs or other counters to stop your spell combo? It works both ways, you know. Sometimes the smart play is to dispel the buffs and then move in with your killer combo.


EDIT: Oh yeah, another thing I just thought of. Since Hunter's Eye would be a long term buff thanks to Persistent Spell, I can up the caster level by 3 with Elder Giant Magic (Secrets of Xen'drik) at no real cost to myself! And that means that it adds more damage for me and my familiar.

I was already counting that. If you couldn't boost your caster level that way, I doubt you'd have been able to get it to level 24, which you'd need for 8d6 damage. This does point out a significant flaw in the design of Hunter's Eye though - it needs to have some limit on the maximum number of sneak attack dice it can give.

J.Gellert
2007-11-22, 08:18 AM
Ah-ha.

Hm.

Arrright.

Not that it matters much on the above discussion, but I'd hate to "cheat" my DM with 800+ damage attacks. I used to have a very nasty way of killing things by stacking Strength damage, and I cut that out myself last session.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 04:55 PM
Then you've done another 206 damage from other sources From 4 other sources, actually. You just combined FOUR spell effects in order to make the argument that Hunter's Eye is the least damaging spell effect. Silliness much?
putting that in the #2 slot. Finally you've got another 140 damage from Hunter's Eye, which is the least damaging effect. Actually, that would be in the number two slot. Cloud of Knives, Cloud of Knives, Orb of Whatever, and Orb of Whatever each do less damage individually. And, if the enemy has less than 280 hp, then Hunter's Eye is in the #1 slot. Remember, Avasculate's damage is completely subjective.

Here's the breakdown:

Orb of Whatever: 15d6 damage.
Orb of Whatever 2: 15d6 damage.
Cloud of Knives: 1d6+5 damage.
Cloud of Knives 2: 1d6+5 damage.
Sneak Attack (Not from Hunter's Eye): 24d6 damage.
Avasculate: Variable damage.
Hunter's Eye: 40d6 damage.

Also, again, that number would actually be raised to 45d6 damage due to the fact that Persistent Spell allows me to throw Elder Giant Magic into the combo. With this considered, you need to be attacking an enemy with *at least* 315 hp in order for Avasculate to be the number one slot reliably, and otherwise Hunter's Eye takes the number one slot.

It's really simple math, man.


I was already counting that. If you couldn't boost your caster level that way, I doubt you'd have been able to get it to level 24, which you'd need for 8d6 damage. This does point out a significant flaw in the design of Hunter's Eye though - it needs to have some limit on the maximum number of sneak attack dice it can give.

Are you KIDDING me? 24 is a modest estimate for my base caster level at level 20. I get +3 caster level on divinations just by virtue of being an Unseen Seer. Just throw in an ioun stone and it's 24. If I wanted to, I could pump the CL higher (thus allowing me to get 8d6 earlier than level 20). Elder Giant Magic means that I'm going to be pumping it to at least 27.

I really don't see why you're so obsessed with trying to discredit the value of the addition of 40+d6 damage from *one buff.* It's silly. 40+d6 extra damage from *one buff* is totally freakin' awesome, especially if it makes you able to take down guys with 280 more hp than you would normally be able to. Especially if that buff lasts all day and takes no actions during combat, whereas before the combo required a one-round setup. That's a big improvement, and almost certainly worth the feat.


It does not, unless you've been persisting more than Hunter's Eye. So far, you've mentioned persisting Hunter's Eye and Wraithstrike, but neither of those allow sneak attacks against creatures immune to them. Dude, of course you're persisting more than Hunter's Eye. That's what you DO when you have Persistent Spell. You make all the buffs you can permanent. If you're level 20, and you DON'T reduce the metamagic adjustment in any way, you gather all the level 1, 2, and maybe 3 spells you can the day before if you have any slots available and buff yourself. This is particularly good for the short-term swift action spells. You know, like Deflect or Golemstrike or Wraithstrike or Hunter's Eye or Swift Fly or Critical Strike.

More than anything, though, Persistent Spell feels like a mechanic that was made to be abused, and doesn't really add anything interesting or fun to the game (IMO), and so it's not something I like to include.

Kaelik
2007-11-22, 05:53 PM
When I say "Treasure," I think of the reward gained from defeating an encounter, and that includes XP, which you don't get triple standard for. Sorry for not being more clear on that.

Ah yes, I see what you mean, including XP you are worse for wear on some of the most under- CRed encounters.


Also, I don't have my books with me right now, so I can't check the figures. Would you mind looking in the DMG for me and telling us the difference between CR 16 standard loot and CR 20?

28,000 for 16
80,000 for 20

So when the Dragons aren't too under CRed (maybe 18 instead of 20) you come out ahead, but for the really under CRed ones you still end up with more money, but less XP. (Well less XP all the time, but sometimes the extra gold makes up for it.)

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-22, 05:59 PM
28,000 for 16
80,000 for 20

So when the Dragons aren't too under CRed (maybe 18 instead of 20) you come out ahead, but for the really under CRed ones you still end up with more money, but less XP. (Well less XP all the time, but sometimes the extra gold makes up for it.)

So, a bit more money, and a lot less XP. And you have to pay for the resurrections. You just fought a DRAGON, the creatures designed specifically with letting the DM show the players how big his **** is in mind (ie, it has the hidden [Awesome] template). And if the DM was following the CR guidelines, where it's something like CR = Level + 4 for a challenging boss encounter... and you're actually fighting something more like CR = Level + 7 (particularly if you're using things like Dragon Magic or Spell Compendium's dragon spells which are specifically designed to make dragons even more badass)...

Resurrections cost you ten grand. Well, there goes the dragon hoard. And the XP you got too little of anyways.

Like I said, it seems like you're a bit under-rewarded for facing the game's namesake.

greenknight
2007-11-23, 04:50 AM
Also, again, that number would actually be raised to 45d6 damage due to the fact that Persistent Spell allows me to throw Elder Giant Magic into the combo. With this considered, you need to be attacking an enemy with *at least* 315 hp in order for Avasculate to be the number one slot reliably, and otherwise Hunter's Eye takes the number one slot.

It's really simple math, man.

Again, is the problem with Persistant Spell, or with the person who designed Hunter's Eye? All spells should have a damage cap, and here you have demonstrated how you can get this 2nd level spell to do 45d6 damage in a single round. Or more, depending on just how high you can get your caster level. The spell designer either forgot to include a cap (3d6 seems reasonable), or ignored it. Either way, it's a poorly designed spell. Applying a metamagic effect to a poorly designed spell might magnify the problem, but you should assign blame where it's due.

On that note, your entire combo consists of poorly designed spells which really shouldn't have been published in their stated form. Avasculate is capable of doing far more damage than the 70hp average the DMG recommends for a single target 7th level Arcane spell (or even the 120 damage you'd get if you maximized each die), it doesn't allow a save vs the damage effect (although it does require a ranged touch attack), and it has the potential to stun for 1 round as a kicker. Really poor spell design.

Cloud of Knives is mostly ok, but again you've shown where the problem is. Releasing each knife should be a swift action, not a free one. Again, it's poor game design, although this is probably the best designed of the spells you've listed.

People have been discussing the design problems of the Orb spells since just about the time they came out. For those who are unaware of them, they are 4th level spells which do up to 15d6 damage (no save, but requiring a ranged touch attack). That's right at the top of the DMG's recommended maximum damage for a 4th level spell, but if that were all they did, then they might just scrape by as being balanced. But they also require a saving throw to avoid some additional debilitating effect, and they ignore SR. Once again, a good example of terrible spell design.


I really don't see why you're so obsessed with trying to discredit the value of the addition of 40+d6 damage from *one buff.*

Because the flaw isn't with Persistant Spell, it's with Hunter's Eye. And even then it has drawbacks.


Dude, of course you're persisting more than Hunter's Eye. That's what you DO when you have Persistent Spell. You make all the buffs you can permanent.

If you're level 20, and you DON'T reduce the metamagic adjustment in any way, you gather all the level 1, 2, and maybe 3 spells you can the day before if you have any slots available and buff yourself. This is particularly good for the short-term swift action spells. You know, like Deflect or Golemstrike or Wraithstrike or Hunter's Eye or Swift Fly or Critical Strike.

Are you really going to trade all your 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spells to Persist spells which were originally 0 - 3rd level? That's your choice, I guess, although provided you aren't persisting those spells which are obvious examples of poor spell design, I don't think it's a good idea.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-23, 05:40 AM
Again, is the problem with Persistant Spell, or with the person who designed Hunter's Eye? All spells should have a damage cap, and here you have demonstrated how you can get this 2nd level spell to do 45d6 damage in a single round. Actually, it has to be an 8th level spell to do that. Unless you cut down the metamagic cost of Persistent Spell. Otherwise, it'd take up the round's swift action. And wouldn't get Elder Giant Magic applied. Oh, but you can still save your swift action by extending it, but that means it takes a one round setup.


Because the flaw isn't with Persistant Spell, it's with Hunter's Eye. And even then it has drawbacks.


Again, is the problem with Persistant Spell, or with the person who designed Hunter's Eye?

You gotta be kidding me with blaming the poor guy who made Hunter's Eye. It's totally innocent in its original purpose.

A level 2 swift spell for rangers that lasts one round that has power scale based on 1/3 caster level. You're telling me that that's where the design problem is. NOT that it's with the ability to acquire a divination spell from any list that an Unseen Seer gets. NOT that it's the metamagic spells that modify it and allow the combo. Oh no, you blame the level 2 swift action ranger spell that lasts one round that has its power scale based on 1/3 caster level as the source of the problem. I'm sorry, but I feel you're giving this designer a bad rap undeservedly. Especially since one of those elements I mentioned that make it more useful (in fact, the one that makes it possible for my Unseen Seer to even use the spell) didn't even exist when he wrote it.

Sure, I guess it would be more foolproof if it had a damage cap, but I don't think he had a whole lot of cause to think that the Ranger's caster level would get up to 27 or expect that wizards would be taking it.


Cloud of Knives is mostly ok, but again you've shown where the problem is. Releasing each knife should be a swift action, not a free one. Again, it's poor game design, although this is probably the best designed of the spells you've listed. If releasing a knife was a swift action, Cloud of Knives would be pretty much useless...


Are you really going to trade all your 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spells to Persist spells which were originally 0 - 3rd level? That's your choice, I guess, although provided you aren't persisting those spells which are obvious examples of poor spell design, I don't think it's a good idea.

YES, because it has next to zero consequences if you do it right before you sleep, like I already mentioned. I just keep enough slots so that I can handle being surprised in the night where I'm in my extraplanar, nigh-unreachable sleeping spot.


People have been discussing the design problems of the Orb spells since just about the time they came out. For those who are unaware of them, they are 4th level spells which do up to 15d6 damage (no save, but requiring a ranged touch attack) ...You're complaining about the damage of the orbs? It's not their damage that people usually complain about, and definitely not the fact that they don't require a save to do damage (all of the ray spells are like that, really). Switch out the orb spells for any other 15d6 or so damage ranged attack spell under 5th level. The orbs are pretty much the least crucial and most often varied part of the spell. It might as well say "pick a damaging ray that you can quicken and one that you can make your familiar use with Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability." Pick whatever you want to use. You can even get more damage out of the deal. The status effects of the orb spells are pretty much just a bonus that kicks in if I somehow fail my original gambit (death by first strike in round one, which is a common goal for rogues and wizards alike). And I already houserule that they're subject to SR, so that part doesn't even matter to me. And I gave up Enchantment instead of Evocation (largely for RP reasons, actually), so the fact that it's conjuration and not evocation doesn't matter to me either. It's not like normal SR ever blocks anything anyways, or as if I'd use this combo against golems. So... you can pretty much replace it with any other ranged attack spell. Use a 2nd level scorching ray for all I care.

For those who don't know: People usually complain about the orb spells primarily because they do not allow SR and that it kinda makes Evocation feel bad since they're in Conjuration and just about as good as an evocation spell, except with no SR allowed. DAMAGE is definitely not the issue. 15d6 isn't exactly abnormal for a 4th level spell damage cap. :smalltongue:


it doesn't allow a save vs the damage effect (although it does require a ranged touch attack) ...You realize that they're all like that, right? Rays (ranged touch attacks) rarely ever require saves vs the damage, and when they do they're... well, they're disintegrate. That's the only one I can think of at the moment.

___

And again, I'm not quite sure why you're so set with trying to say Persistent Spell is balanced but everything that is good with it isn't. Quite frankly, I'm not particularly excited about getting into an argument where the entire basis for the opposition's position is "everything you ever choose to use is broken." If I used a barrage of save or dies, or god forbid a simple casting of Otto's Irresistable Dance (no save, just win), or effective battlefield control, you'd be just as able to call that unbalanced too. And heck, those things require less effort than the combo I posited. I used that combo because I actually felt like doing direct damage as a mage for a change. Which I actually mentioned way back when I first mentioned this as pretty much a sidenote in the conversation.

I didn't use Persistent Spell, I didn't Polymorph into a Kelvezu, I didn't use Celerity, I didn't use Ocular Spell, I didn't use a quarter of the tactics I know that could make this thing so much better. Still, there's no winning when someone says "well, I think this is balanced because anything you use with it to get good results is unbalanced." Heck, without orb spells, avasculate, or cloud of knives, I still get plenty of damage out of using Persistent Spell and Hunter's Eye! I get 117 average damage per attack with a lowly RESERVE FEAT ATTACK without expending any other spell slots! And obviously that gets much better if I go for a melee-focused unseen seer instead of the multiple-spells focused one I went with primarily in the interest of character flavor. The martial one would also benefit from Persistent Wraith Strike, and would probably get more than 5 attacks and thus get more damage out of Hunter's Eye / Sneak Attack. No avasculate or anything.

Anyways, here's what I think:

-Persistent Spell is a very abusable feat by its nature, particularly assuming the rules as written.
-If you ban everything that lets you lower metamagic feat cost, Persistent Spell is more manageable, and can't even be used until much higher levels. However, this has the unfortunate side effect of, you know, banning all those things (some of which are fairly cool, and in the case of the artificer pretty central to his existence) instead of one feat that I believe doesn't add much to the fun of the game.
-Even with all such things banned, it is still highly useful for certain builds, particularly gishes and others who benefit a good deal from the 1 round low level swift buffs. Wraith Strike and Hunter's Eye are favorites from the level 1-3 arcane category. If you disallow these spells, that's obviously less of a problem.
-Persistent Spell introduces elements that I am not particularly happy with, involving more setup when you go to sleep the night before, more of a buildup of all day buffs (there are enough /hour ones already), and so forth. I don't feel it's something that adds to the enjoyment of the game, and I've yet to play with someone who disagreed with that.

Any problems with that? Can we stop derailing this thread based on an argument stemming from something I mentioned as an aside and get back to wizard survivability? There's no point in arguing when it devolves to "this is balanced because everything else that's good when used with it is unbalanced." First it was metamagic reducers of every stripe, and now it's the swift buffs and whatever they augment. I find it much easier to call one feat unbalanced than all those other things, but I guess to each his own.

Edit: P.S.: WotC spell damage cap guidelines? I remember when they first put those out in 3.0 and they said Magic Missile was pretty much the best level 1 spell, and perhaps even overpowered. Ugh. Do we REALLY need to bring up these things? "WotC said so" is rarely a good basis for saying something is balanced.

greenknight
2007-11-23, 07:19 AM
Actually, it has to be an 8th level spell to do that.

Not really. Since it works off caster level, the key is to increase that somehow. For example, by UMDing a scroll of Greater Consumptive Field and then using summoned 1HD creatures to power it.


You gotta be kidding me with blaming the poor guy who made Hunter's Eye. It's totally innocent in its original purpose.

Nonsense. It needs a damage cap.


A level 2 swift spell for rangers that lasts one round that has power scale based on 1/3 caster level.

And what happens when the caster level gets really, really high? You've obviously considered that because you're taking advantage of it with your build. But the spell designer didn't take that into account. It's poor spell design, simple as that.


NOT that it's with the ability to acquire a divination spell from any list that an Unseen Seer gets.

I don't even need to go that far. Heard of Miracle?


If releasing a knife was a swift action, Cloud of Knives would be totally useless.

Why? It's only a 2nd level spell, it lasts for several rounds, and it allows you to do a bit of extra damage without spending a move, standard or full action. Mind you, I've re-read the spell description, and since it's not you making the attack, the knives don't get any sneak attack damage, so it's not all that bad.


...You're complaining about the damage of the orbs?

I'll just quote myself here:

That's right at the top of the DMG's recommended maximum damage for a 4th level spell, but if that were all they did, then they might just scrape by as being balanced

This is me complaining about the damage???


You don't seem to realize the reason people dispute their effectiveness.

.....


For those who don't know: People usually complain about the orb spells primarily because they do not allow SR and that it kinda makes Evocation feel bad since they're in Conjuration and just about as good as an evocation spell, except with no SR allowed.

Gee, that sounds a like something I mentioned. Allow me to quote myself again:

But they also require a saving throw to avoid some additional debilitating effect, and they ignore SR.

So I didn't mention the school as an issue. But you aren't seriously trying to tell me you misinterpreted that or missed reading it somehow? Both of those quotes came from the same paragraph I mentioned the Orbs, after all.


Oh, and need I even mention the silliness that you're talking about "DMG recommendation caps for damage?" Dude, WotC originally said that Magic Missile was the best 1st level spell

Dude, I don't care. The DMG outlined those damage caps, and most spells do generally follow them. It's something spell designers should consider, especially if they're employed by WotC.


Still, there's no winning when someone says "well, I think this is balanced because anything you use with it to get good results is unbalanced."

You're the one who is going on about maths. What's so hard to understand about WotC's damage caps, which are published in the DMG?


-Persistent Spell is a very abusable feat by its nature, particularly assuming the rules as written.

Using the RAW, and in particular if you lower the spell cost and/or use already abusive spells, I agree.


If you ban everything that lets you lower metamagic feat cost, Persistent Spell is more manageable, and can't even be used until much higher levels.

Agreed.


Even so, it is still highly useful for certain builds, particularly gishes and others who benefit a good deal from the 1 round low level swift buffs.

Agreed, especially if you use it with abusive spells. But then again, it's a Feat and a high level spell slot, so it should provide a useful benefit.


Persistent Spell introduces elements that I am not particularly comfortable with, involving more setup when you go to sleep the night before, more of a buildup of all day buffs (there are enough /hour ones already), and so forth.

You've made a valid point here, although it only becomes a major problem if the spellcaster spends one full day in protection and then another out doing business. Still, Persistant Spell might need to be modified so that the character can only use it shortly after the first time spells are prepared for the day in order to prevent this.


Persistent Spell has no limits as to what it can apply to.

Are we back to reducing the spell slot cost of Persistent Spell? Because otherwise this is pure nonsense. There are restrictions on the kind of spell which it can be applied to in the spell description. The level adjustment alone means it can be applied to only 0 - 3rd level spells unless you go Epic, and many of those don't qualify because of the Feat's other requirements. You could increase the number of spells you can apply it to by adding Reach Spell (EDIT: Complete Divine), but that trick only applies to 0 and 1st level spells.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-23, 07:30 AM
Not really. Since it works off caster level, the key is to increase that somehow. For example, by UMDing a scroll of Greater Consumptive Field and then using summoned 1HD creatures to power it. Oh man, now I get to call something you're using broken! Consumptive field is cheddar of the likes of polymorph (or worse!), unless my 4:28 am addled mind is thinking of something else (About that: Thanks again, insomnia. *Shakes fist at the intangible nemesis.* Can't even sleep after Thanksgiving dinner. It's ridiculous, I tell ya!)


Why? It's only a 2nd level spell, it lasts for several rounds, and it allows you to do a bit of extra damage without spending a move, standard or full action. Mind you, I've re-read the spell description, and since it's not you making the attack, the knives don't get any sneak attack damage, so it's not all that bad. ...Wait, what? How is it not you making the attack? This is the first I've heard that idea suggested, and I've seen the spell used in a number of builds in rules-lawyer-central (CharOp boards) without noticing any objections. And... looking at the spell again, I'm not sure where you're getting this impression.


I'll just quote myself here:

That's right at the top of the DMG's recommended maximum damage for a 4th level spell, but if that were all they did, then they might just scrape by as being balanced

This is me complaining about the damage??? You're complaining about its use in the combo, and since the only part that's relevant for accomplishing the goal of killing the however-many-hundred hp enemy right off the bat is the 15d6 damage... if you're not complaining about the damage, there's not much of a point to complainin'.


Gee, that sounds a like something I mentioned. Allow me to quote myself again:

But they also require a saving throw to avoid some additional debilitating effect, and they ignore SR. Yes, I know you mentioned it. I was mentioning for the benefit of those who don't know (as I said in the post itself).


So I didn't mention the school as an issue. But you aren't seriously trying to tell me you misinterpreted that or missed reading it somehow? Both of those quotes came from the same paragraph I mentioned the Orbs, after all. Nope, didn't miss that. And I never claimed you mentioned a school as an issue. I pre-empted a potential argument.


You're the one who is going on about maths. What's so hard to understand about WotC's damage caps, which are published in the DMG? ...Now you're just insulting me, and it's completely unjustified. You're talking about damage caps for something that doesn't use the standard method of delivering damage (as opposed to a set number of dice, it halves an enemy's hp). Obviously doesn't apply in the same way, since it works in a completely different fashion than the spells the guidelines are for. Further, balance is based on how something *actually* works, not how closely it conforms to some guideline. Saying "It's not balanced because it doesn't follow this written guideline" is not a valid argument, because that is irrelevant to actual balance. Balance is actually based on how an option in the game compares with other options. If a guideline said that 1st level spells shouldn't be better than Burning Hands, and Burning Hands was your upper bound for how effective things should be, that wouldn't mean diddly squat as to whether or not a spell you made was generally balanced against what's actually there (much of which is better than Burning Hands). The impact of the guidelines on whether something is actually balanced or not is exactly nil.


You've made a valid point here, although it only becomes a major problem if the spellcaster spends one full day in protection and then another out doing business. You don't have downtime between adventures? Spells left over at the end of the day every so often? None of that? Ever?


Are we back to reducing the spell slot cost of Persistent Spell? Because otherwise this is pure nonsense. There are restrictions on the kind of spell which it can be applied to in the spell description. The level adjustment alone means it can be applied to only 0 - 3rd level spells unless you go Epic, and many of those don't qualify because of the Feat's other requirements. You could increase the number of spells you can apply it to by adding Reach Spell (EDIT: Complete Divine), but that trick only applies to 0 and 1st level spells.

Hah, you responded to that bit even as I realized my mistake and edited it out, apparently. Yes, it is pure and total nonsense. That's not my actual opinion, that's a mistake that I'm going to blame on my insomnia. Ignore that and read the other main points. :smalltongue:

greenknight
2007-11-23, 08:24 AM
Oh man, now I get to call something you're using broken! Consumptive field is cheddar of the likes of polymorph (or worse!)

Oh I agree - completely, totally, 100% it's broken. Just like Hunter's Eye is broken if you don't have a damage cap. It's just a matter of degree of brokenness.... (whistles innocently)


How is it not you making the attack?

Read the spell description: "you release one of these knives"

Notice how that doesn't say "attack with"? The picture in the book even shows the knives floating around the caster, not held by the caster or physically attached in any way.

Further on: "This is a ranged attack which uses an attack bonus equal to your caster level + your key ability modifier."

It's not even using your attack bonus! In other words, it's attacking at your direction, but it's certainly not you attacking, any more than it's you who is attacking when you summon a monster.


You're complaining about its use in the combo

Did I really say that? (checks) Nope, I didn't. Again, let me quote myself:

On that note, your entire combo consists of poorly designed spells which really shouldn't have been published in their stated form.

I think that speaks for itself, really. The spells are poorly designed in their stated form, with or without your combo.


Yes, I know you mentioned it. I was mentioning for the benefit of those who don't know (as I said in the post itself).

I call BS on that one. In your original post (which I quoted) you wrote:


You don't seem to realize the reason people dispute their effectiveness.

You did later edit that out, but it was there when I began replying to your post, and that was what I was responding to.


...Now you're just insulting me, and it's completely unjustified. You're talking about damage caps for something that doesn't use the standard method of delivering damage (as opposed to a set number of dice, it halves an enemy's hp).

You mean something like 3.5e Harm? Except that does have a damage cap, and it allows a save. Compared to Avasculate, which has no damage cap, no save (vs the damage) and has the potential to stun for 1 round as a kicker?


Further, balance is based on how something *actually* works, not how closely it conforms to some guideline.

So now we judge balance without any guidelines? How does that work, exactly?


You don't have downtime between adventures? Spells left over at the end of the day every so often? None of that? Ever?

Allow me to quote myself again:

You've made a valid point here

I continue on to further describe the situation, and provide a fix to Persistent Spell to eliminate the situation. Why did you make this comment?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-23, 03:39 PM
So now we judge balance without any guidelines? How does that work, exactly? How it always has. You judge balance based on what something's actual merits and capabilities are when compared with other available options. Therefore, if you're going to say "7th level spell X is overpowered" you need to demonstrate that it's actually out of league with the other 7th level spells that are good enough that they see use. Guidelines from WotC have NEVER been a good basis for balance of any kind, whether they're telling us that Strength bonuses are way better than all the other ones and make half-orcs good or that magic missile is the best 1st level spell. All that guidelines are is "what WotC thinks." What WotC thinks doesn't actually have any impact on how the game *actually is.* WotC can THINK that wizards are blasters who will be best served using Fireball, but that doesn't make them right just because they're "official."