PDA

View Full Version : "Winning" spell combos in core?



Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 02:47 PM
Hi everyone,

for those who do not know me yet: I am of a rare species of DD players (and occasional DM) who believes that the core game, in particular the classes are roughly balanced over levels 1-20.

It is a time to put that belief to the test...

Normally you'll see me arguing that monk or fighter or whatever non-caster builds are able to compete also at higher levels and that they do not "suck". What would be interesting for me now would be to collect ideas and suggestions where YOU would think there are spells and/or spell combinations that will blow non-casters out of the water without a chance for them to hit back.

Several parameters:
- core only (ah, mentioned that already). So SRD, MM, PHB, DMG only.
- remember that non-caster classes can also get spells via UMD and/or items (less powerful ones, less often, but still they can...)
- For now, levels 1-16 only. This leaves out 9th level spells. This is for two reasons (and, to say it first, not because I think 9th level spells are unbalanced FOR THE CHARACTER LEVELS WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE):
1) 9th levels spells SHOULD be the most powerful spells and truly earth-shattering (see wish, miracle). The most powerful ones, though, quite often necessitate DM "fiat" or interpretation leeway which can be quite too lengthy to discuss here (for instance, gate "willing or unwilling" part or shapechange "every form you are FAMILIAR with" part, or time stop the "not affecting anyone" part - which would put into question/forbid callings like gate and summons).
2) most games will happen in levels 1-16, yet most caster uber power believers see them taking off already from level 7 or so

That is about it.

An example for typical alleged "win" combos put forward to convey the idea that non-casters will become unnessary:

"Force cage with cloudkill/solid fog with cloud kill" (including quickened dimensional lock/anchor)

My reality check could then look like:
1) First of all, although these are area spells you need to KNOW roughly where your target is. There are many ways to get concealment apart from invisbility (counterable with see invisiblity)
2) force cage can be brought down with a rod of cancellation (re-usable, since it was not used vs an item). If you choose the small version, the target may put up a long enough soild object as a free action to let the spell fail (there are various ways to do that). Solid fog is more difficult to crack, but also conceals the target from the caster and prevents all targeted spells (and the target can still move 5ft in random direction). Which can be dangerous, depending on what else you can come up with.
3) cloudkill can be easily overcome with poison immunity.

But now...it's your turn. Bring it on!:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-21, 02:56 PM
An example for typical alleged "win" combos put forward to convey the idea that non-casters will become unnessary:

"Force cage with cloudkill/solid fog with cloud kill" (including quickened dimensional lock/anchor)

My reality check could then look like:
1) First of all, although these are area spells you need to KNOW roughly where your target is. There are many ways to get concealment apart from invisbility (counterable with see invisiblity)
2) force cage can be brought down with a rod of cancellation (re-usable, since it was not used vs an item). If you choose the small version, the target may put up a long enough soild object as a free action to let the spell fail (there are various ways to do that). Solid fog is more difficult to crack, but also conceals the target from the caster and prevents all targeted spells (and the target can still move 5ft in random direction). Which can be dangerous, depending on what else you can come up with.
3) cloudkill can be easily overcome with poison immunity.


This "win" combo has actually been very thoroughly debunked right here on this forum, I don't know who it was anymore, but you'll probably find out soon enough:smallwink: .

My experience is limited, but at low levels sleep is a definite win spell, as is entangle(less so, but still) and with some more time I can probably find more.

I have a feeling this thread will be fun:smallsmile: .

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:01 PM
Looking for killer spell combos show a fundamental lack of understanding of what the problem with casters is. You don't need to combo solid fog with anything for it to be vastly more powerful than pretty much anything a physical based class will be able to do up to level 20.

Solo
2008-01-21, 03:03 PM
SG, so are you still willing to go for Talic's monk balance test? I imagine we can test the balance of core with it.



I am of a rare species of DD players (and occasional DM) who believes that the core game, in particular the classes are roughly balanced over levels 1-20.

Indeed. I know how you feel. I myself am a rare species of college student who believes that the Earth is flat and that all modern physics is wrong when predicting the shape and origins of the Earth.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 03:09 PM
Overland Flight + Greater Invisibility. The caster gets this at 9th; he can fly all day long, and scribe scrolls of Greater Invis. This means that in tough encounters, he is flying and invisible--this pretty much amounts to invulnerability at this level (and for some time yet).

(Metamagicked) Enervation + Save-or-Lose: negative levels impose saving throw penalties. Follow an Empowered Enervation up with that Imprisonment and their odds of failing go up a bunch.

Ray of Enfeeblement + Ray of Exhaustion (+ Ray of Exhaustion): multiple penalties that stack. 1d6+6 from Ray of Enfeeblement (Empower it, perhaps?), then hit them with RoE for fatigue for another -2 on a successful save, -6 on a failed one. A third RoE would impose Exhaustion regardless of save (fatigue + fatigue = exhaustion).

Ventriloquism + Silent Image can be worthwhile, I guess.

Web + Summon Swarm is pretty hardcore when it's first availible.


The thing is, most of the powerful spells in core don't require *combos*. You "combo" Glitterdust or Confusion with just standing there. Same with (arcane-reached) Irresistible Dance. Fly doesn't combo so much as it just plain keeps you safe. You don't combo Alter Self, you just enjoy the fat bonuses it grants. And so on.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 03:11 PM
SG, so are you still willing to go for Talic's monk balance test? I imagine we can test the balance of core with it.

Hmmm - I wanted to let Lord Khaine first. Imo he had a good build to show that monks are not useless at high levels.
Whether the balance of core can be shown with 20th level scenarios and builds and in a group with an arcane and divine caster is debatable - but I'm looking forward to see how that thread develops.

@counterspin: this thread is not about class balance - at least not directly so. I intend it to be about deadly spell combinations. Which I guess is interesting by itself.
As it so happens, such combos are also used as typical showcases that non-casters stand no chance, the higher the level.
Of course, even if I can demonstrate that all combos will have quite feasible countertactics, it would not completely disprove that casters could on balance be more powerful. But that is not my point. My point is to show that it is not that easy for casters. That would be a good start.

- Giacomo

Chronos
2008-01-21, 03:17 PM
OK, let's look at a combo that a specialist conjurer could pull off at 5th level:

Round 1: Web. If your opponents fail their saves, they can't move. Even if they make their saves, they still probably can't move, and even if they can, it's probably only 5 feet, and as a full-round action. Meanwhile, if you center the web a little in front of them, you also have total cover from them, so they can't do anything to you. Freedom of Movement would save you, but that won't be available to anyone but the travel-domain cleric (considered one of the strongest choices, on an already overpowered class) at level 5.

Round 2: Stinking Cloud, centered at the same spot as the web. The enemies have cover from you, too, so you can't target them directly, but you only need line of effect to the center point of the cloud, which will still affect them. It's going to take them a while to get out of the cloud, which means they need to make a lot of Fort saves or be nauseated (which, combined with the entangling from the Web, means they basically can't do anything). Poison immunity, a Necklace of Adaptation, or really high saves will help, but again, this is level 5.

Round 3: Summon Monster III to send 1d3 lemures into the cloud. Or SM II to send them in one at a time. The Web doesn't affect creatures that enter it after it's cast, and as devils, lemures are immune to poison, so they're not affected by the Stinking Cloud. The lemures then have an easy time killing your poor, near-helpless victims, who probably can't fight back effectively.

Solo
2008-01-21, 03:22 PM
Hmmm - I wanted to let Lord Khaine first. Imo he had a good build to show that monks are not useless at high levels.
Whether the balance of core can be shown with 20th level scenarios and builds and in a group with an arcane and divine caster is debatable - but I'm looking forward to see how that thread develops.


We're short on one person to run monster encounters, as you may have guessed from my sig.

And "not useless" doesn't mean the same as "useful", you know.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 03:23 PM
Yes Giacomo, I read your post, and my point is the opposite, and Solid Fog is a perfect example. A fourth level spell, with no saving throw, which has the capacity to disable multiple targets, regardless of their level or hit dice, for multiple rounds. A spell that starts off strong and never gets worse, and which is equally crippling to a 1st level fighter and a 20th level one.

And that's just one spell.

Solo
2008-01-21, 03:30 PM
Greater Prying Eyes is a good one.

They see everything!


Forecage is another good one. You lock someone up in a box until you're good and prepared to deal with them.

KIDS
2008-01-21, 03:33 PM
Any kind of metamagicked Enervation, or Ray of Enfeeblement+Ray of Exhaustion+Ray of Exhaustion (if they saved). That's just from the top off my head, for a combination far more deadly than most non-core things ever printed...

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 03:55 PM
Ah, a first customer in caster disillusionment shop. Ah, I see you are a regular...:smallwink: Come on in!:smallsmile:


Overland Flight + Greater Invisibility. The caster gets this at 9th; he can fly all day long, and scribe scrolls of Greater Invis. This means that in tough encounters, he is flying and invisible--this pretty much amounts to invulnerability at this level (and for some time yet).

Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).


(Metamagicked) Enervation + Save-or-Lose: negative levels impose saving throw penalties. Follow an Empowered Enervation up with that Imprisonment and their odds of failing go up a bunch.

Enervation instead of a truly damaging/impeding spell is normally not a good idea. If you quicken it, though, it can be good - provided you hit the target. If you want to do that in the same round with the save-or-lose spell, you can no longer cast the often required quickend true strike with it.
Actually, this whole combo is not stronger imo than what damage the non-casters can churn out in a round at that level.



Ray of Enfeeblement + Ray of Exhaustion (+ Ray of Exhaustion): multiple penalties that stack. 1d6+6 from Ray of Enfeeblement (Empower it, perhaps?), then hit them with RoE for fatigue for another -2 on a successful save, -6 on a failed one. A third RoE would impose Exhaustion regardless of save (fatigue + fatigue = exhaustion).

Hmm - those are quite good. But exhaustion will not stop a full attack, which even at a massive STR penalty can be quite devasting. And the wizard still needs to get a ALL touch attacks through (not that likely).


Ventriloquism + Silent Image can be worthwhile, I guess.

It is. Illusions are actually quite powerful when used intelligently. However, once your non-caster enemy has spellcraft and hears you cast (which is often the case in combat), they will be near useless.


Web + Summon Swarm is pretty hardcore when it's first availible.

Hmm. No. It's not.
Web is a highly useful spell. But using the 2nd FULL round to summon swarm? I dunno...
1) is it even possible to summon creatures into the same space as characters? Or into a something solid like a web (it provides cover!)? Likely not. Did not find anything spc for swarms here that overrides the summon rules. If not, the swarm has to make a save vs the web or be frozen in the square where it was summoned to
2) Even if the swarm would be able to attack in round 2, those caught in the web may simply light it, get rid of the web and the swarms thus in 1 round (at only 2d4 damage, not much from 2 2nd level spells in 2 rounds).


The thing is, most of the powerful spells in core don't require *combos*. You "combo" Glitterdust or Confusion with just standing there.

Both necessitating saves. And even if successful only giving a big advantage, not a win. That is hardly "winning" as in "likely to win".


Same with (arcane-reached) Irresistible Dance.

Now that is quite powerful - but at that level (15+), you can have plenty of counters ready for that as a non-caster (freedom of movement, for instance).


Fly doesn't combo so much as it just plain keeps you safe.

Not from missiles, as shown above. And the higher the level is, the more likely non-casters have regular access to flying as well.


You don't combo Alter Self, you just enjoy the fat bonuses it grants. And so on.

Fat bonuses? Well, you gain some stuff (like nat. AC), but you lose ALL your own racial abilities (human: bonus feat and skill ranks), and you only gain the STR, DEX and phyical qualities, but not special qualities. Plus you look like a troglodyte or whatever.
Overall, it's an OK spell for the wizard (good also for remaining icognito, more believable than disguise self due to the alteration/feel part). But not without disadvatanges, or not better than wearing a masterwork armour also providing AC bonus (available at that level).


And so on.

Looking forward to it!:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-21, 03:57 PM
Fat bonuses? Well, you gain some stuff (like nat. AC), but you lose ALL your own racial abilities (human: bonus feat and skill ranks), and you only gain the STR, DEX and phyical qualities, but not special qualities. Plus you look like a troglodyte or whatever.
Overall, it's an OK spell for the wizard (good also for remaining icognito, more believable than disguise self due to the alteration/feel part). But not without disadvatanges, or not better than wearing a masterwork armour also providing AC bonus (available at that level).

Hmmmm.....




You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself.

You retain your own ability scores. Your class and level, hit points, alignment, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses all remain the same. You retain all supernatural and spell-like special attacks and qualities of your normal form, except for those requiring a body part that the new form does not have (such as a mouth for a breath weapon or eyes for a gaze attack).

You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.

If the new form is capable of speech, you can communicate normally. You retain any spellcasting ability you had in your original form, but the new form must be able to speak intelligibly (that is, speak a language) to use verbal components and must have limbs capable of fine manipulation to use somatic or material components.

You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal.

You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities not noted above under physical qualities, such as darkvision, low-light vision, blindsense, blindsight, fast healing, regeneration, scent, and so forth.

You do not gain any supernatural special attacks, special qualities, or spell-like abilities of the new form. Your creature type and subtype (if any) remain the same regardless of your new form. You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype.

You can freely designate the new form’s minor physical qualities (such as hair color, hair texture, and skin color) within the normal ranges for a creature of that kind. The new form’s significant physical qualities (such as height, weight, and gender) are also under your control, but they must fall within the norms for the new form’s kind. You are effectively disguised as an average member of the new form’s race. If you use this spell to create a disguise, you get a +10 bonus on your Disguise check.

When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items you wore in the assumed form and can’t wear in your normal form fall off and land at your feet; any that you could wear in either form or carry in a body part common to both forms at the time of reversion are still held in the same way. Any part of the body or piece of equipment that is separated from the whole reverts to its true form.


Where are you getting


but you lose ALL your own racial abilities (human: bonus feat and skill ranks), and you only gain the STR, DEX and phyical qualities, but not special qualities. Plus you look like a troglodyte or whatever.

from? Please highlight the relevant portions of the "Alter Self"' spell description so that I may be enlightened.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 04:08 PM
@Solo: have volunteered now for running creatures- hope it's not tool late...:smallsmile:
Got alter self too powerful in my memory- you do not get the STR and DEX stuff, yet, that will happen at the polymorph level. Thanks, Solo.

@Chronos: web, stinking cloud and summon monsters I-III. I do not think that will work well, for similar reasons I already outlined commenting on Reel on, Love's idea.
But web is a good defensive spell, I'd say, buying around 1-2 rounds time which can be vital for survival (but not necessarily winning).

@counterspin: what makes you think solid fog is equally powerful at 7th level as at 20th level (when everyone can/will teleport etc.?).
Even so, similar to web, it buys you time, not more. Powerful, but no win. The problem is that all your attacks on the non-caster also have now to overcome concealment, cover etc.

- Giacomo

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-21, 04:14 PM
Eschew Materials + Major Creation. See Solo's signature for why.

Symbol of Insanity. It needs no other spell to be broken.

Polar Ray Energy-subbed to sonic and maximized from Rod + Power Word Stun quickened from Rod. Nothing has sonic protection, and Polar Ray does CL/d6 up to 25. Grand total of 160 sonic damage. Power Word Stun auto-stuns anything under 150 HP. Kill at leisure.

Create Greater Undead: Wraith. Create it inside a village and it murders all the villagers. Each death means 1 more wraith under your control.

Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape + Stone to Flesh. This one is more for fun than anything else. Sculpt extra arms for the party fighter.

Armar
2008-01-21, 04:16 PM
Ah, a first customer in caster disillusionment shop. Ah, I see you are a regular...:smallwink: Come on in!:smallsmile:

Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).

- Giacomo

I hope you remember that pinpointing someone with Listen only succeeds if you beat the DC by 20 or more, and you also get -1 penalty for every 10 feet you're from the source of the sound. Add in a -5 penalty from being distracted if you're fighting the wizard's summons. So with the wizard flying 100 feet above you, while invisible is has already a functional -30 to -35 penalty to your listen check. Since hearing somebody talk is a DC 0 task, you need to have at least +10 in Listen to get even a 5% opportunity; and that only if you are not distracted.

Hyfigh
2008-01-21, 04:23 PM
Mage's Disjunction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm) will pretty much put the kybosh on any 20th level non-caster. They will be relying on items for the effects and spells they will need to be able to handle themselves appropriately. Likely, any combo already mentioned will be plenty effective after disjunction is cast.

Solo
2008-01-21, 04:24 PM
Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape + Stone to Flesh. This one is more for fun than anything else. Sculpt extra arms for the party fighter.

I do not think that combo works.... you wouldn't give him functional arms, at the least.

Magical cosmetic surgery is not for amateur.

Counterspin
2008-01-21, 04:31 PM
The whole game is time. If you're encountering two guys that is a reasonable CR for you team, and the wizard removes one from combat for two rounds with solid fog, he's pretty much single handedly changed the fight from serious to trivial. Actions are the real currency of D&D, and anyone who so blithely ignores that fact is building his conclusions on the sand.

ZeroNumerous
2008-01-21, 04:31 PM
Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed.

First of all, no you don't. There is no possible way for you to make noise.

Second of all, how do you get "pinpointed" when a web bursts into existence around you? How do you get "pinpointed" when a demon suddenly bursts from the ground and tears into your face?


Enervation instead of a truly damaging/impeding spell is normally not a good idea. If you quicken it, though, it can be good - provided you hit the target. If you want to do that in the same round with the save-or-lose spell, you can no longer cast the often required quickend true strike with it.
Actually, this whole combo is not stronger imo than what damage the non-casters can churn out in a round at that level.

.. Uh, what? Ok, lets go with the most powerful possible touch-AC for 16th level.. 26/26/26 Wis/Dex/Int Monk 8/Duelist 8 with a ring of Deflection. That's a 29. Cute, but ultimately useless since it poses no threat to our Greater Invisible/Flying Wizard.

A much more realistic AC is the Full Plate Fighter. With his amazing 12 Dex and his Ring of Deflection +5, his Touch AC is 16. Our Elf Wizard crafts all his items, so he can afford Gloves of Dexterity +6. A base 14 DEX gives us 22 DEX. +8 from the Wizard's BAB gives us a +14 to hit with our Enervation. You fail only on a nat-1.


Hmm - those are quite good. But exhaustion will not stop a full attack, which even at a massive STR penalty can be quite devasting. And the wizard still needs to get a ALL touch attacks through (not that likely).

Uh. Try -18 Strength. Anyone but a Fighter/Barbarian is completely unable to move. The Fighter/Barbarian is down by 18 Strength and no doubt completely burdened down by his armor alone. He's a sitting duck.


It is. Illusions are actually quite powerful when used intelligently. However, once your non-caster enemy has spellcraft and hears you cast (which is often the case in combat), they will be near useless.

So Schrödinger's Non-Caster has spellcraft now?


Both necessitating saves. And even if successful only giving a big advantage, not a win. That is hardly "winning" as in "likely to win".

Blindness means total concealment. Confusion has a 80% chance of doing jack.


Now that is quite powerful - but at that level (15+), you can have plenty of counters ready for that as a non-caster (freedom of movement, for instance).

Uh.. No. You don't get freedom of movement for Otto's Irresistable Dance. You just save-or-lose.


Not from missiles, as shown above. And the higher the level is, the more likely non-casters have regular access to flying as well.

Again with Schrödinger's Non-Caster. Not everyone has UMD.

Hyfigh
2008-01-21, 04:32 PM
I hope you remember that pinpointing someone with Listen only succeeds if you beat the DC by 20 or more, and you also get -1 penalty for every 10 feet you're from the source of the sound. Add in a -5 penalty from being distracted if you're fighting the wizard's summons. So with the wizard flying 100 feet above you, while invisible is has already a functional -30 to -35 penalty to your listen check. Since hearing somebody talk is a DC 0 task, you need to have at least +10 in Listen to get even a 5% opportunity; and that only if you are not distracted.

Agreed. Also, not all spells require somatic components. Notwithstanding silent spells...

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-21, 04:35 PM
Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).


Listen DC increases +1 per 10 feet and gets another +5 because in combat you (might, not sure actually:smalltongue: ) counts as distracted and then another +20! to pinpoint, even if you move at full speed(-5)the check won't actually be that easy to make.
Also not all opponents have ranged weapons, not all warriors have listen class skill(fighters don't have it). Even if they hear you, then your still invisible so they still have a good chance of missing, making you an unfavourable target.
But your right, you'd need wind wall and shield to be completely invulnerable.

spotmarkedx
2008-01-21, 04:35 PM
Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).
First, many human types have missile weapons, but few monsters do. Even against humanoid opponents, most martial types are primarily melee opponents, not missile. I guess we are also assuming that the wizard has no friends that are in melee range while this happens.

But lets take a look at a few assumptions. Lets say I'm a wizard with greater invis + overland flight. Its my turn. I cast a spell, then move up to 20 feet. If the enemy heard me speak, then they shoot the wrong square, 0% chance to hit. If they want to hear where I move: Assume die roll of a 10 for my MS. DC modifiers to my advantage: +1/10 feet of distance, +1 for each bonus to dex (often a little better than average), +1 for each 10 feet of distance, +5 for "distracted", which is likely if there is a battle, +x for circumstances because I am not making footfalls (though my clothing and pouches and charms can move, so I don't assume perfect stealth). At long range (400'+) you need epic levels of listen to hear me (DC 50 just from take 10 and distance). At medium range (100'), I'm a midlevel rogue (DC likely around high 20's after all considerations). At short range (30'), I'm just hard for, say, fighters, or other classes that havent focused on listen (DC around20)

So, anyone that is focused on listen and has a missile weapon has a chance to hear where I am, yes. As long as I'm close in. And haven't cast, say, protection from arrows.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-21, 04:36 PM
Hmm. No. It's not.
Web is a highly useful spell. But using the 2nd FULL round to summon swarm? I dunno...
1) is it even possible to summon creatures into the same space as characters?

Yes, that is the whole point of Swarms.


(You may summon the swarm so that it shares the area of other creatures.)


Or into a something solid like a web (it provides cover!)? Likely not. Did not find anything spc for swarms here that overrides the summon rules. If not, the swarm has to make a save vs the web or be frozen in the square where it was summoned to


Only total cover blocks line of effect.

Spiryt
2008-01-21, 04:36 PM
Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).


May I ask where you get this from? I can't find it in Core, although of course I probably don't search hard enough.

Anyway, Armar's point still stands.
Even if listen check allows to know where Wizard is, this check is still near impossible one.

And even if it succed, Wizard still have total concealment (50% miss chance).

Douglas
2008-01-21, 04:43 PM
Blasphemy + an evil friend or any other means of dealing significant damage that doesn't require your standard action. Against an equal level opponent, this is an automatic no-save 1 round daze. If your opponent has not prepared specifically for this spell, he cannot strike back for a number of rounds equal to your number of 7th level or higher spell slots. If you happen to have an Orange Prism Ioun Stone, a Strand of Prayer Beads (for the Bead of Karma), or Hierophant levels with the Spell Power ability it gets worse. Especially if you have all 3. This can be defeated, but only by gaining immunity to it in advance, and if that immunity is negated you will never get the chance to get it back.

Miles Invictus
2008-01-21, 04:58 PM
Normally you'll see me arguing that monk or fighter or whatever non-caster builds are able to compete also at higher levels and that they do not "suck".

Let's go over this again:

A high-level (say...16th level) spellcaster can paralyze enemies (Hold Person, Mass), savelessly render them immobile (Irresistable Dance), savelessly sleep/stun/confuse them (Scintillating Pattern), and so on. He can do this multiple times per day. Each spell affects multiple targets and can be done from a distance.

What does the Monk get at level 16? Well, his unarmed attacks can finally penetrate DR/Adamantine, and his feather-fall-like class feature improves a bit. Granted, it's still not as good as the actual feather fall, a 1st-level spell, but it improves a little. Here's hoping your campaign takes place in AntimagicCliffTown, AdamantineLand.

What does the Fighter get? He gets a bonus feat. If he planned his character from 1st level, has access to all the splatbooks, and used one of the builds vetted by the optimization community, he might be getting something useful. Or maybe he's restricted to Core or he just didn't plan his character out, and he's picking up Mobility instead.

To summarize: The Fighter and Monk get moderate improvements to their class features. The Wizard gets more "Make anyone my bitch." These are not equal. These are not balanced. You do not get the moral high ground for claiming that they are.

You want to support the Fighter and Monk? Get your head out of the sand, admit that they are underpowered, and join the chorus that's clamoring for them to be given their due.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 04:58 PM
First of all, no you don't. There is no possible way for you to make noise.

Oh yes. There is. Your equipment rattling around you when you fly. Nowhere in the fly spell does it say "and you make no sound while moving". Move silently likewise refers to "moving", not just walking around. It's much less common, but it applies to all forms of movement.


Second of all, how do you get "pinpointed" when a web bursts into existence around you? How do you get "pinpointed" when a demon suddenly bursts from the ground and tears into your face?

Again, there is no "bursting out of the ground" or "bursting into existence" if you wish for any particular sound effects. That is entirely fluff and up to the DM. You can still pinpoint.
Here@Armar: DC 0+20=20 is all you have for pinpointing someone with listen, plus distance. Assuming that at the outset of combat with summoned creatures a casters is 100ft AVOVE the combat and a non-caster not trying to overcome the summoned creatures somehow is not realistic (and btw you get to pinpoint as a FREE ACTION, so the non-caster can do stuff against the summoned creatures or go after caster, or conceal himself etc.).



.. Uh, what? Ok, lets go with the most powerful possible touch-AC for 16th level.. 26/26/26 Wis/Dex/Int Monk 8/Duelist 8 with a ring of Deflection. That's a 29. Cute, but ultimately useless since it poses no threat to our Greater Invisible/Flying Wizard.

You forget the many dodge AC to touch AC. Expertise, and fighting defensively with tumble adds another +8, for instance. And you got the math wrong. A wonder monk/duelist of your example would have a touch AC of 39, 47 with my dodge bonuses (48 with dodge feat even). And you can even add 5 more from defense enchantment weapons (unnamed), +1 (insight from a ioun stone), and the usual +4 monk AC from his class ability with monk's belt) and possibly even more- which I cannot come up with right now. Try hitting that with a true strike even...:smallamused:
But the easiest thing, of course, at that levels is a ring of blinking and other forms of concealment, reducing rays to 50% hitting chance (no longer a "win") and targeted spells near-useless (50% vs blink, no use vs total concealment).


A much more realistic AC is the Full Plate Fighter. With his amazing 12 Dex and his Ring of Deflection +5, his Touch AC is 16. Our Elf Wizard crafts all his items, so he can afford Gloves of Dexterity +6. A base 14 DEX gives us 22 DEX. +8 from the Wizard's BAB gives us a +14 to hit with our Enervation. You fail only on a nat-1.

If you overcome the concealment or blinking or other defensive effect someone with heavy armour will have up at that high levels.


Uh. Try -18 Strength. Anyone but a Fighter/Barbarian is completely unable to move. The Fighter/Barbarian is down by 18 Strength and no doubt completely burdened down by his armor alone. He's a sitting duck.

Yes. But it takes several attacks to make that happen. Rounds, during which that character can act.


So Schrödinger's Non-Caster has spellcraft now?

Similar to the Schrödinger wizards who all have the right spells learned for a combat.:smallsmile: But seriously, in a campaign like the DD envisioned in the core rules where magic is so commonplace, you HAVE to have some access/knowledge of spells or some really great fighting style to survive at high levels.


Blindness means total concealment. Confusion has a 80% chance of doing jack.

Total concealment can be partly overcome with blind-fighting feat. And you can put up your own concealment (eversmoking bottle or horn of fog?) to level the playing field. Now confusion is a real problem when you fail the save, but as you said, not a 100% win (as opposed to true save-or-dies).


Uh.. No. You don't get freedom of movement for Otto's Irresistable Dance. You just save-or-lose.

Ah, you're right. And it's even no-save and lose :smallsmile:
However, just get a mind blank against it. Or at those levels try to keep out of close range of casters - if you cannot get to melee them on your turn.


Again with Schrödinger's Non-Caster. Not everyone has UMD.

No, not everyone (probably less than spellcraft). But other even non-UMD items will go some way to help.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 05:01 PM
The whole game is time. If you're encountering two guys that is a reasonable CR for you team, and the wizard removes one from combat for two rounds with solid fog, he's pretty much single handedly changed the fight from serious to trivial. Actions are the real currency of D&D, and anyone who so blithely ignores that fact is building his conclusions on the sand.

You do realise that non-casters can also take out one of the two guys in the round that it takes to cast the solid fog?
And normally, since many of their abilities are permanent, they do not need additional actions to trigger stunning fist, sneak attack, or 50 damage (with massive shock save).
Do not get me wrong: solid fog is good, a great battlefield control spell. But it is no "win".

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 05:04 PM
May I ask where you get this from? I can't find it in Core, although of course I probably don't search hard enough.

Anyway, Armar's point still stands.
Even if listen check allows to know where Wizard is, this check is still near impossible one.

And even if it succed, Wizard still have total concealment (50% miss chance).

- show me in the rules where flying will make you completely silent.
- the listen check is tough, but not "impossible". If you cannot hear the spellcasting enemy who created some magical effects around you, you need to "retreat and regroup", i.e. put up concealment of your own. Last time I checked, the wizard did not have listen as a class skill (although see invisibiltiy at 120ft range helps - but needs to be cast, and can thus be again heard).
- total concealment means just that: 50% miss chance. AGainst multiple missile attacks or blind-fighting melee, that is quite dangerous for the d4 wizard.

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 05:04 PM
Ah, a first customer in caster disillusionment shop. Ah, I see you are a regular...:smallwink: Come on in!:smallsmile:
Giacomo, your problem is that you never stop to think about how situational or minor some of the "counters" or "problems" you describe are. I'm beginning to think you never really PLAY D&D.

What you're doing is the exact equivalent of saying "sure, that spell does 30d6-Ref-half at level 10... but Evasion negates it completely, so it's not overpowered."


Non-casters have missile weapons and the listen skill (often as class skill. Note: even when flying, you need to do move silently checks and can only move at one-half speed. And if you cast, you get pinpointed easily). Greater invisibility lasts only rounds/level (opponent could simply hide himself and wait for buff to be over). So the normal invisibility is way preferable for a caster (of course, the pinpointing and missile weapons will still hurt you).
Non-casters have missile weapons? Really? All of them? That's funny. I imagine that humanoids might... but if they're not specifically set up to be archers (whcih is most of them), then their attack bonus with their bows is going to suck. Good luck hitting me through my miss chance and my (Alter Self-boosted) AC.
Good luck pinpointing me from that many feet away, for that matter. If I cast, they still can't *automatically* pinpoint me, plus I can cast then move.
And if the enemies are wasting all their time trying to pinpoint and shoot me... then I just won the encounter, because the rest of the party takes them *apart* while they're doing this.

The idea that a party's enemies will all start hiding from the invisible wizard is patently ridiculous. Is there even anywhere to hide? And what about the rogue, cleric, and barbarian who are stabbing them while they try it?

For the record, here's a list of core CR 10 monsters: Collosal Animated Object (can't fly, no ranged attacks), young adult Brass Dragon (can fly and breathe, but flying invisible people are still far safer than the land-locked kind), Bebilith (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Couatl (flies), 9-headed Cryohydra (can't fly, no ranged attacks) Formian Myrmarch (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Fire Giant (can't fly, only one ranged attack per round compared to three melee, and at half the AB), Clay Golem (can't fly, no ranged attacks), 11-headed Hydra (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Gargantuan monstrous scorpion (no and no), Guardian Naga (nope and yes, but at a very short range that won't reach you), 9-headed pyrohydra (no and no), Rakshasa (no and kind of--low-DC spells that target your good save and the targeted ones require line of sight.. also acid arrow, but that's not scary), Juvenile Red Dragon (yes, see Brass--and get that Resist Energy scroll ready), Noble Salamander (no and pretty much no--Fireball 1/day just isn't good enough), and juvenile White and Silver dragons.

So as we see, flight alone keeps you pretty much totally safe from the *majority* of CR 10 enemies at level 9. Add Greater Invisibility to that and even the things that do have ranged attacks pretty much can't hurt you. The Fire Giant can throw a rock at +10 AB with a 50% miss chance. That's not scary.


Enervation instead of a truly damaging/impeding spell is normally not a good idea. If you quicken it, though, it can be good - provided you hit the target. If you want to do that in the same round with the save-or-lose spell, you can no longer cast the often required quickend true strike with it.
Actually, this whole combo is not stronger imo than what damage the non-casters can churn out in a round at that level.
Are you kidding me? Enervation is freaking brilliant. Have you looked up what negative levels do? "-1 to everything per negative level", for a start.
True Strike is IN NO WAY required for spellcasters. Touch ACs are unimpressive. Quickened True Strike is used in ridiculous "100% guarantee your instant victory" challenges; I'm just showing you how the wizard is devastatingly powerful. He's fine with missing with his Enervation 5 or 10 or 15% of the time; it remains ridiculously good.
This combo is great because in two rounds you've destroyed the balor/dragon/whatever, and even if you didn't, it has,-2, -3 , -4, or -6 (a little over -4 on average) on everything and lost some HP too.


Hmm - those are quite good. But exhaustion will not stop a full attack, which even at a massive STR penalty can be quite devasting. And the wizard still needs to get a ALL touch attacks through (not that likely).
Not that likely? Yes it is! I have the list of CR 10 core monsters open, so here are their touch ACs: -1, 9, 12, 9, 9, 13, 8, 8, 9, 6, 11, 9, 12, 9, 10, 9. The golems don't count because core doesn't have rays that work on them, but as you can see, the pattern is very clear: the overwhelmingly vast majority of enemies have negligibly low touch ACs.
Let's go through the CR 9 list, too, because I get the feeling you're going to try and ignore the facts: 18 (that's the Air Elemental), 16, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 11, 14, 7, 10, 8, 7, 16, 8, 11, 9, 11, 9, 9, 8, 10, 11, 9, 8, 9, 11, 10, 11, 10.
So a *little* more variance, but still all of *three* touch ACs you can't hit on anything but a 1 with +9 or 10 AB... and it's not like you're going to be consistently missing even the touch AC of 14. +9 to hit is *very* reasonable at this level (+4 BAB, +4 dex, +1 size), then maybe you get +2 for being invisible... which also flatfoots them... oops. Besides which, don't aim rays at the air elemental, duh.

Now let's cover the "won't stop a full attack"--no, it won't. But a full attack at a -14 or 15 penalty (average of 1d6+5+6) to strength? That's going to miss a whole lot more, and do a bunch less damage on the attacks that do land. It turns the melee monster into melee mediocre, which is wiped up--no big deal.


It is. Illusions are actually quite powerful when used intelligently. However, once your non-caster enemy has spellcraft and hears you cast (which is often the case in combat), they will be near useless.
See, this is why I don't think you play D&D. Only you cross-class spellcraft. Monsters don't do it (a few take it as a class skill). Humanoids do't do it (they have better things to do). That hobgoblin shaman is going to have Spellcraft... but the warriors won't. Kill the shaman and cast away.


Hmm. No. It's not.
Web is a highly useful spell. But using the 2nd FULL round to summon swarm? I dunno...
1) is it even possible to summon creatures into the same space as characters? Or into a something solid like a web (it provides cover!)? Likely not. Did not find anything spc for swarms here that overrides the summon rules. If not, the swarm has to make a save vs the web or be frozen in the square where it was summoned to
2) Even if the swarm would be able to attack in round 2, those caught in the web may simply light it, get rid of the web and the swarms thus in 1 round (at only 2d4 damage, not much from 2 2nd level spells in 2 rounds).
OH NOES. So don't cast Web at people holding torches and flaming weapons. Gosh, that was hard! The vast majority of monsters--and, for that matter, humanoid enemies--don't have a way of producing fire at whim.
Of course you can summon a swarm into the Web. The Web is not a creature and does not count as occupying the space. You CAN summon swarms into other people's squares, thank you Silvanos, but if you couldn't you could just summon the swarm *first*. Sure, it might be pinned to the squares around your enemies but what the @#$! do you care? It deals damage just by being there.


Both necessitating saves. And even if successful only giving a big advantage, not a win. That is hardly "winning" as in "likely to win".
This is what I mean when I say you don't really play D&D. Confusion on a group of enemies means the encounter is *pretty much* over. Sure, it necessitates saves. What are the will saves of the enemies you cast this on, again? Not too good. A mob of blinded melee enemies becomes trivial for your party to clean up, and a Confusioned mob kills itself for you, and then it's just mopping up the wounded survivors. I have seen this in play time and time again; there's a reason Glitterdust is considered so strong--*it works*. Do you REALLY only ever face enemies with very high Will saves in your games?


Now that is quite powerful - but at that level (15+), you can have plenty of counters ready for that as a non-caster (freedom of movement, for instance).
Yes, you can... Mind Blank. That's pretty much it. Freedom of Movement does nothing against Irresistible Dance, since Irresistible Dance makes you *want* to do nothing but dance (so strongly that you can't resist), rather than restricting your movement.
And Mind Blank is NOT readily availible for the vast majority of your enemies. If it is, hey--that's what dispelling is for.
"Some few enemies might be immune to it because of Mind Blank" in no way makes this anything but ridiculously overpowered.


Not from missiles, as shown above. And the higher the level is, the more likely non-casters have regular access to flying as well.
Sure, except not even all humanoid enemies carry ranged weapons and most enemies aren't humanoids. Also, only having ranged weapons be able to hit you is MUCH better than having everyone be able to hit you. And the enemies have to decide whether to fire a crossbow at you for 1d10 or whether to exchange melee attacks with your friends.



Fat bonuses? Well, you gain some stuff (like nat. AC), but you lose ALL your own racial abilities (human: bonus feat and skill ranks), and you only gain the STR, DEX and phyical qualities, but not special qualities. Plus you look like a troglodyte or whatever.
Overall, it's an OK spell for the wizard (good also for remaining icognito, more believable than disguise self due to the alteration/feel part). But not without disadvatanges, or not better than wearing a masterwork armour also providing AC bonus (available at that level).
Maybe you should read the actual spell. +6 natural armor for 10 minutes/level--and a lesser rod of extend is 3k--is ridiculous for a second-level spell. You do NOT lose your racial abilities. You do NOT gain STR and DEX. And unlike armor there's no spell failure chance (mithral small shields, however, are highly recommended for casters).

And on top of that, all these things *combine*. The Overland Flying wizard is also Alter Selfed, has Mage Armor up, a +1 Mithral Small Shield, a Ring of Protection +1, an Amulet of Natural Armor +1... his AC is, what, 10, +1 size, +4 armor, +2 shield, +1 deflection, +6 Nat Armor, +1 enh. to Nat Armor... 25? That's definitely not bad. Ranged attacks from melee-primary NPCs and monsters become a lot less threatening. Throw Greater Invisibility in there and you can just ignore them. That Fire Giant's got a +10 Ab with a 50% miss chance against your 25+ AC, and he has to pinpoint your square first.
God, that sounds *so much* better than being in melee with the +20/15/10, 3d6+15 damage attack routine (and, oh crap, they have *power attack*--if I were a melee character, I'd be whimpering in fear).


You're looking at the game wrong, Giacomo. 10% chance of failure does not make something balanced, and caster "win buttons" look a lot more like Glitterdust and (arcane reach) Irresistible Dance than they do like Forcecage/Cloudkill, because Glitterdust *works* 80% of the time, and when it works the encounter goes from "hard" to "easy", and Irresistible Dance works even more often and totally negates one enemy.

You need to stop blowing things out of proportion. Dismissing "greater invisibility + flight" with "listen and ranged weapons!" is a clueless thing to do, because obviously only having to worry about creatures attacking you for less damage, at a lower AB, with a 50% miss chance, and having to pinpoint the right square first is ridiculously good... and that's even *disregarding* the fact that these creatures are going to have MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO than waste attacks futilely trying to hit you... things like defend thesmelves in melee combat.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-21, 05:12 PM
Oh yes. There is. Your equipment rattling around you when you fly. Nowhere in the fly spell does it say "and you make no sound while moving". Move silently likewise refers to "moving", not just walking around. It's much less common, but it applies to all forms of movement.

This is completely true as far as I'm concerned.



Again, there is no "bursting out of the ground" or "bursting into existence" if you wish for any particular sound effects. That is entirely fluff and up to the DM. You can still pinpoint.
Here@Armar: DC 0+20=20 is all you have for pinpointing someone with listen, plus distance. Assuming that at the outset of combat with summoned creatures a casters is 100ft AVOVE the combat and a non-caster not trying to overcome the summoned creatures somehow is not realistic (and btw you get to pinpoint as a FREE ACTION, so the non-caster can do stuff against the summoned creatures or go after caster, or conceal himself etc.).

The DC is actually 20+distance+wizards DEX+wizards d20 roll+maybe 5 for distracted-5 for moving at full speed
Edit: I somehow thought this was for moving



You forget the many dodge AC to touch AC. Expertise, and fighting defensively with tumble adds another +8, for instance. And you got the math wrong. A wonder monk/duelist of your example would have a touch AC of 39, 47 with my dodge bonuses (48 with dodge feat even). And you can even add 5 more from defense enchantment weapons (unnamed), +1 (insight from a ioun stone), and the usual +4 monk AC from his class ability with monk's belt) and possibly even more- which I cannot come up with right now. Try hitting that with a true strike even...:smallamused:
But the easiest thing, of course, at that levels is a ring of blinking and other forms of concealment, reducing rays to 50% hitting chance (no longer a "win") and targeted spells near-useless (50% vs blink, no use vs total concealment).

If your invisible you count as though your opponent has no DEX bonus to AC right? doesn't that also knock out the dodge bonus? I'm not sure if expertise and fighting defensively help, but common sense tell me they shouldn't.
blinking is good, but a ring costs 27,000 WBL=36000 at level 9.

Spiryt
2008-01-21, 05:13 PM
- the listen check is tough, but not "impossible". If you cannot hear the spellcasting enemy who created some magical effects around you, you need to "retreat and regroup", i.e. put up concealment of your own. Last time I checked, the wizard did not have listen as a class skill (although see invisibiltiy at 120ft range helps - but needs to be cast, and can thus be again heard).

It's hard to reatreat when Wizard cast Solid Fog




- total concealment means just that: 50% miss chance. AGainst multiple missile attacks or blind-fighting melee, that is quite dangerous for the d4 wizard.

- Giacomo

Yes, but still math is brutal - very small chances of having chance to attack + only 50% chance to do anything with attack (before any rolls) - suck.

And in emergency Wizard can just cast damn Wind Wall and it's end.

Collin152
2008-01-21, 05:17 PM
Ah, such wonderful counterpoints. Reel on, Love. Reel on.
*bows to the awesomeness*

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-21, 05:22 PM
If your invisible you count as though your opponent has no DEX bonus to AC right? doesn't that also knock out the dodge bonus? I'm not sure if expertise and fighting defensively help, but common sense tell me they shouldn't.

Both Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively provides dodge bonuses that you do not benefit from when denied Dex bonus to AC under normal circumstances.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 05:25 PM
Oh yes. There is. Your equipment rattling around you when you fly. Nowhere in the fly spell does it say "and you make no sound while moving". Move silently likewise refers to "moving", not just walking around. It's much less common, but it applies to all forms of movement.
Weren't you a fan of reasonable DM adjudication? Not having to make footsteps--you know, the things that give you away the most--should give a hefty circumstance bonus.


(and btw you get to pinpoint as a FREE ACTION, so the non-caster can do stuff against the summoned creatures or go after caster, or conceal himself etc.).
Lies! You get to Listen to the caster casting as a free action... but if you want to use Listen to pinpoint where he moved after, that's a move action.
There is also a +5 DC for "listener distracted" listened. I can't think of many things more distracting than an enemy trying to stab me or a demon trying to eat my face.



You forget the many dodge AC to touch AC. Expertise, and fighting defensively with tumble adds another +8, for instance. And you got the math wrong. A wonder monk/duelist of your example would have a touch AC of 39, 47 with my dodge bonuses (48 with dodge feat even). And you can even add 5 more from defense enchantment weapons (unnamed), +1 (insight from a ioun stone), and the usual +4 monk AC from his class ability with monk's belt) and possibly even more- which I cannot come up with right now. Try hitting that with a true strike even...:smallamused:
But the easiest thing, of course, at that levels is a ring of blinking and other forms of concealment, reducing rays to 50% hitting chance (no longer a "win") and targeted spells near-useless (50% vs blink, no use vs total concealment).
Your concealment is great... except that assuming that every enemy carries a ring of blinking is COMPLETELY POINTLESS. If they do, then holy crap, our party is suddenly rich beyond its wildest dreams. Besides, it's only 20% vs. blink for those who are capable of striking ethereal creatures.

"Things that add dodge AC" almost never come into play. Who *cares* about the Monk/Duelist who is fighting defensively? He's never going to be able to DO anything. You can ignore him. And that Fire Giant? It doesn't have Tumble ranks and it's not Fighting Defensively.


If you overcome the concealment or blinking or other defensive effect someone with heavy armour will have up at that high levels.
At high levels I'm blinking too (so I can hit ethereal creatures) and can see invisibility. Read the Blink spell: those two factors cut the miss chance down to *zero*. And it's not Ray of Enfeeblement anymore.
A Ring of Blinking is 30k. At what level, exactly, does this start being a factor? And, again, why on earth does every opponent have one, and how rich is the party as a result?


Yes. But it takes several attacks to make that happen. Rounds, during which that character can act.
Sure, it takes 2 some of the time, 3 some of the time. Quicken, naturally or via rods, reduces that to 1-2. How does this make the ability to pretty much ruin a melee character's melee ability and make non-melee characters barely able to move balanced by the fact that it takes two rounds to do that?


Similar to the Schrödinger wizards who all have the right spells learned for a combat.:smallsmile: But seriously, in a campaign like the DD envisioned in the core rules where magic is so commonplace, you HAVE to have some access/knowledge of spells or some really great fighting style to survive at high levels.
People are mentioning the same spells over and over. Could it POSSIBLY BE that wizards CONSISTENTLY prepare Overland Flight, Greater Invisibility, Solid Fog (actually, that one's from scrolls), Irresistible Dance, and Alter Self? I guess it could! Shock! Horror!


Total concealment can be partly overcome with blind-fighting feat. And you can put up your own concealment (eversmoking bottle or horn of fog?) to level the playing field. Now confusion is a real problem when you fail the save, but as you said, not a 100% win (as opposed to true save-or-dies).
Yes... the blind-fight feat. Which WHAT percentage of the enemies a party fights has, again?
Never mention the eversmoking bottle again. The myth of it being viable in Real D&D has been totally shattered. It doesn't work with your party, and it certainly doesn't make sense for monsters. And why would every enemy be carrying a horn of fog, again?
Also, blindfight doesn't change the fact that you've got -2 to AC and are denied your DEX bonus too. That's part of what makes mopping up Glitterdusted enemies so easy.


Ah, you're right. And it's even no-save and lose :smallsmile:
However, just get a mind blank against it. Or at those levels try to keep out of close range of casters - if you cannot get to melee them on your turn.
"Just get a mind blank against it". This is the twisted logic of Giacomo's D&D. Irresistible Dance is perfectly balanced... because you can get a Mind Blank against it. Well, that's OK, then. Some few enemies will be Mind Blanked, so the spell's fine.
Oh, wait, no. Your mind blank is dispellable, you can't "just get" one (it has a duration, you know--where are you getting it *from* every single day while you're out adventuring in a dungeon or the elemental plane of cheese or whereever?), and the vast majority of monsters don't have it.
For the record, rod-quickened Greater Dispel followed by the Dance is another one of those combos.

A party fighting, say, a Titan is going be taking heavy damage, getting their weapons sundered, etc... unless the wizard hits it with Arcane Reached Irresistible Dance. Then, they just kill it while it dances. The encounter went from hard to easy. SR 32 isn't a big deal at level 20, when you're getting 20, +1 from the Orange Ioun Stone, +4 from Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration (what else are you gonna take? Most core metamagics suck, you just want, like, Empower and Quicken), +2 from the Robe of the Archmagi, for beating it on a 5 or higher. So you have a 75% chance (20% failure via SR, 5% for a nat-one on the touch attack) to automatically win the fight for your party. Each round.

But somehow, that's balanced with the monk, who... is going to spend that round activating his RIng of Blinking, and will then start doing negligible damage and trying to Stun the Titan.
Mm-hmm.

(A blinking enemy, incidentally, hurts everyone in the party equally badly. But the casters have ways of dealing with that; the others don't.)

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 05:29 PM
@hyfigh: disjunction is 9th level, which I tried to exclude so far. But just for you - respond with an AMF and move next to wizard (remember, disjunction has quite a close range only). And, as I outlined, there may be DM fiat involved in case an artefact gets destroyed (albeit a rare occurance). Plus, normally not the non-casters are buffed, but the spellcasters (so they should fear the disjunction more). Items can be preserved with good will saves.


Eschew Materials + Major Creation. See Solo's signature for why.

Why? Create as much stuff as you like, where is the win here? You cannot exceed your wbl, anyhow - whether you gain it from a dragon's hoard, you steal it, you trade it, you magic it up or win it.


Symbol of Insanity. It needs no other spell to be broken.

Only mind blank will stop it. AND it allows a save. AND it is static (Xykon's hilarious use nonwithstanding...). Not that impressive at those levels.


Polar Ray Energy-subbed to sonic and maximized from Rod + Power Word Stun quickened from Rod. Nothing has sonic protection, and Polar Ray does CL/d6 up to 25. Grand total of 160 sonic damage. Power Word Stun auto-stuns anything under 150 HP. Kill at leisure.

Silence centered on non-casters will be up occasionally (stealth, or to obstruct spellcasters), negating the sonic damage completely. Where again is the energy-subbing from in core? A prestige class would be highly specific, but certainly doable.
Even so, a blink effect or concealment cuts the ray attack to 50% success (provided in a concealment case the caster can pinpoint).
Power Word stun happens at levels where some already have either the hps to survive it or have SR.
And even if successful barely, 1d4 rounds are not "kill at leasure". You have to move in first, and then initiate a full-round action coup de grace. So if you rolled a "1" on the stunning part, you're in trouble as a caster.


Create Greater Undead: Wraith. Create it inside a village and it murders all the villagers. Each death means 1 more wraith under your control.

Nope. No loop here. You need to CONTROL your created undead first, so you need to be a neutral or evil cleric and it counts thus towards your controlled undead total. Such creatures are powerful to have around, but not without (social) drawbacks.


Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape + Stone to Flesh. This one is more for fun than anything else. Sculpt extra arms for the party fighter.

Yep, great fun. Typical save-or die, targeting the best save of the fighter to boost. And targeted, too (so stopped by total concealment). Fun. No win. Next.

- Giacomo

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-21, 05:38 PM
Why? Create as much stuff as you like, where is the win here? You cannot exceed your wbl, anyhow - whether you gain it from a dragon's hoard, you steal it, you trade it, you magic it up or win it.


Something tells me you didn't read the link.

Chronos
2008-01-21, 05:42 PM
2) Even if the swarm would be able to attack in round 2, those caught in the web may simply light it, get rid of the web and the swarms thus in 1 round (at only 2d4 damage, not much from 2 2nd level spells in 2 rounds).OK, so at the start of the next round, we're right back where we were at the beginning of combat, except my enemies have taken 2d4 damage and I'm unscathed. Any lemures I might have summoned, incidentally, are also unscathed, since they're immune to fire.

Meanwhile, I must say that I find Giacomo's arguments extremely amusing. Here, he's arguing that a fighter with cross-class ranks in Listen can negate the advantage a wizard gains from the Invisibility spell. In other threads, though, he's argued that a potion of invisibility is enough to allow a fighter to surprise a balor, despite the balor having a higher Listen than a fighter can ever get (and Spot, and Hide and Move Silently, and continual Detect Invisibility, and Deeper Darkness at will).

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 05:42 PM
OK, Reel on Love, just for you (I'm tired and will go to bed now, so more tomorrow).

I guess you have a big misunderstanding here. Look what this thread is about. It is NOT about "how do casters and non-casters compare when they go up vgs CR 9 and 10" creatures". It is "what spell combos are there that could knock non-casters out". Spell combos. Not monsters vs spell casters.

If we wish to compare how casters and non-casters fare vs the core monsters, you can 1) start a new thread and 2) be sure that this will result in some really embarassing results for you. Non-casters unable to take on the monsters of their appropriate CR? Not able to contribute? That fallacy was already shot down by me (literally) when I showed last year in my first post on this board that a core level 20 fighter can blow away a balor without much difficulty and survive an assult by a balor, too.
Similarly, I would never suggest that casters are not able to overcome monsters for their CR.

That should answer already most of the issues you brought up. Ah, the ring of blinking I brought up for issues raised relating to levels 15+ where I thought a blinking effect (3rd level spell) would not be too uncommon even for non-casters to have.
You see, it is not that EVERY non-caster will have a ring of blinking. EVERY non-caster is, however, increasingly likely with rising levels to have means to resist magic/defend against it. Be it ring of blinking, invisibility, hide, horn of fog, eversmoking bottle, darkness, whatever.

- Giacomo

EDIT: as for why I would not allow a 3rd-level spell to make move silently skill redundant, check my sig. (and before someone shouts "Silence":smallsmile: -as in the spell-, that one is not negating move silently skill, since it is 15ft radius and will reveal you when you try to sneak past someone. That, plus the fly spell giving you already one of the coveted enhancements in the game for good duration).
EDIT2: true, Lord Silvanos, the dodge AC bonuses are lost when flat-footed. Some non-casters get uncanny dodge, though, and all non-casting classes can get it via non-casting prestige classes.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-21, 05:43 PM
Why? Create as much stuff as you like, where is the win here? You cannot exceed your wbl, anyhow - whether you gain it from a dragon's hoard, you steal it, you trade it, you magic it up or win it.

See Solo's sig, please read what people are saying. Also, why can't you exceed your WBL, first they're guidelines second, you're not supposed to get a load of cash when you level, it a gradual process, so you must exceed WBL.



Yep, great fun. Typical save-or die, targeting the best save of the fighter to boost. And targeted, too (so stopped by total concealment). Fun. No win. Next.

- Giacomo

Totally irrelevant to something that's supposed to be a "buff".

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 05:45 PM
Why? Create as much stuff as you like, where is the win here? You cannot exceed your wbl, anyhow - whether you gain it from a dragon's hoard, you steal it, you trade it, you magic it up or win it.
Except when you create (ignoring antimatter) massive quantities of Black Lotus Poison as an *attack*.


Silence centered on non-casters will be up occasionally (stealth, or to obstruct spellcasters), negating the sonic damage completely.
What? No, it won't! THIS HAS LITERALLY NEVER, EVER HAPPENED. Nobody has ever had their high-level Sonic spell negated by silence, even once, in a game of D&D. You just made it up, and it is absolutely freaking ridiculous. Who the hell uses Silence? The disadvantages (which include ALERTING PEOPLE TO YOUR PRESENCE if you get too close to then, when you're trying to sneak by) ensure it barely ever gets cast, and never at high levels. It has certainly never negated a Sonic spell in the history of D&D.
This is what I mean. "Well, there's a 0.0001% chance of the target being silenced... so the sonic ray is JUST FINE!"
Man, you must play the lottery a whole LOT.

spotmarkedx
2008-01-21, 05:56 PM
First, many human types have missile weapons, but few monsters do. Even against humanoid opponents, most martial types are primarily melee opponents, not missile. I guess we are also assuming that the wizard has no friends that are in melee range while this happens.

But lets take a look at a few assumptions. Lets say I'm a wizard with greater invis + overland flight. Its my turn. I cast a spell, then move up to 20 feet. If the enemy heard me speak, then they shoot the wrong square, 0% chance to hit. If they want to hear where I move: Assume die roll of a 10 for my MS. DC modifiers to my advantage: +1/10 feet of distance, +1 for each bonus to dex (often a little better than average), +1 for each 10 feet of distance, +5 for "distracted", which is likely if there is a battle, +x for circumstances because I am not making footfalls (though my clothing and pouches and charms can move, so I don't assume perfect stealth). At long range (400'+) you need epic levels of listen to hear me (DC 50 just from take 10 and distance). At medium range (100'), I'm a midlevel rogue (DC likely around high 20's after all considerations). At short range (30'), I'm just hard for, say, fighters, or other classes that havent focused on listen (DC around20)

So, anyone that is focused on listen and has a missile weapon has a chance to hear where I am, yes. As long as I'm close in. And haven't cast, say, protection from arrows.I totally forgot to add the +20 DC to pinpoint.

Okay, Sir Giacomo, let's set up a situation. You have a non-caster, I've got the invisible flying wizard. Assume that there is no circumstance bonus for flying to stealth. Range is 30'. I'm flying 10' up. You go first and ready an action to shoot me if you hear me. I go and cast a spell. To pinpoint me your DC is 24 assuming no other combat (bad assumption). Doable, but not guaranteed. Then, you have a 50% miss chance. So before we even get to to hit vs. AC, you're less than even odds. So, say I get off... a summon. If you ready to attack me, then I just let the summon beat you up, or I cast so that the summon gets an attack of opportunity when you use that missile weapon on me. You have less than even odds to hit me. If you attack the summon, I cast and then move, making your pinpoint DC much harder (on the realm of epic even at close range per above, except add 20 to all those numbers).

And the problem with this is that the monsters rarely if ever even have this option. Missile weapons or air speeds plus incredible listen checks? Flying creatures usually have good listen, yes, but there are a host of nasty ground-pounders that can do little-to-nothing against this combo.

I also don't like how quickly you wave away a -14-15 or so to strength and assume that the fighter-type is getting his full attacks. Even assuming a strength of 26 (18 Str, 2-3 raises, +6 stat item), we're down to the range of "power attack may no longer be an option at all" for the fighter. Personally, I'
ve only seen ray of enfeeblement used, not both, and it still took encounters from "hard" to "cakewalk"

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 05:56 PM
See Solo's sig, please read what people are saying. Also, why can't you exceed your WBL, first they're guidelines second, you're not supposed to get a load of cash when you level, it a gradual process, so you must exceed WBL.

Ah, sorry to Solo - that is really a good one! Laughed a lot for a good sleep...:smallcool:
WBL are guidelines, true. But the DMG advises you strongly to follow them for balance reasons.

- Giacomo

PS: @Reel on, Love: you are arguing like a Sith again. :smallbiggrin: When I say that silence could counter a sonic ray and may not be up that rarely, it does not mean it is ALWAYS up. Still, it is maybe up more often than an energy/changed polar ray, I daresay....
The main obstacle for the ray even to hit is the usual concealment/touch AC to overcome (plus SR). At the levels that the ray is cast, you can expect those to be up often enough on non-casters to not guarantee a win with a 25d6 damage spell (ah, btw, only 15-16d6 damage spell at the respective levels). Basically the original post on the polar ray went to lengths to even overcome a more frequent cold damage protection at that levels.

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 05:57 PM
OK, Reel on Love, just for you (I'm tired and will go to bed now, so more tomorrow).

I guess you have a big misunderstanding here. Look what this thread is about. It is NOT about "how do casters and non-casters compare when they go up vgs CR 9 and 10" creatures". It is "what spell combos are there that could knock non-casters out". Spell combos. Not monsters vs spell casters.
In that case, this thread is totally pointless, since getting into yet another "gosh, how do casters and non-casters do against each other"? is pointless.

But monsters are non-spellcasters, and this thread's premises are completely unrelated to D&D. Even if you were totally right, you're basically saying "Superman isn't more powerful than Made Out Of Kryptonite Man, because he couldn't beat him in a boxing match".


If we wish to compare how casters and non-casters fare vs the core monsters, you can 1) start a new thread and 2) be sure that this will result in some really embarassing results for you. Non-casters unable to take on the monsters of their appropriate CR? Not able to contribute? That fallacy was already shot down by me (literally) when I showed last year in my first post on this board that a core level 20 fighter can blow away a balor without much difficulty and survive an assult by a balor, too.[
No. You showed that a core level 20 fighter (NOT a level, say, 16 fighter, who doesn't have 760,000 gp) who gets to SURPRISE a balor who is just sitting in the middle of an empty field can kill it. And the fighter wasn't even filling the typical fighter role (melee brute), he was built entirely and completely for this specific task. Unsurprisingly, that didn't impress many people.


Similarly, I would never suggest that casters are not able to overcome monsters for their CR.
The point is ease. A fire giant attacks a flying caster with +10 rocks; he attacks melee characters with +20/15/10 melee attacks that do a lot more damage... especially with power attack. And maybe he sunders their stuff. Obviously, a highly optimized party will be able to take on . But this is why people say casters are overpowered: not because they have a 100% chance of single-handedly beating a single noncaster designed specifically to fight them, but because they wade through the enemies a party faces in a campaign so easily. See the example with the Titan. Your level 20 fighter designed specifically for shooting a Balor to death, with a sitting-duck enemy and a surprise round, can manage to kill him.
My level 15 wizard--and pretty much any decent level 15 wizard--reaches out and touches someone, and then the fight ends. This does not take 760,000 gp worth of gear. This does not take a sitting-duck enemy in an empty field in a surprise round.
You really don't see the disparity there?

The most powerful level 20 character in a showdown is the one who blows his wealth on Candles of Invocation and on bargaining with Solars for long-term service. At that point, your class doesn't even matter, because you're not a character, you're a whole bunch of freaking Solars. Then those Solars proceed to wipe your 20th level blinking eversmoking-bottled noncaster out of existence, and make the 20th level caster crap his pants and teleport/plane-shift away and spend his spells on protecting himself against magical location so they can't find him. From then on, he lives his life in luxury in a Magnificent Mansion cast inside a Private Sanctum on the moon, Mind Blanked and Nondetectioned.
Which is a damn sight better than complete destruction


That should answer already most of the issues you brought up. Ah, the ring of blinking I brought up for issues raised relating to levels 15+ where I thought a blinking effect (3rd level spell) would not be too uncommon even for non-casters to have.
You see, it is not that EVERY non-caster will have a ring of blinking. EVERY non-caster is, however, increasingly likely with rising levels to have means to resist magic/defend against it. Be it ring of blinking, invisibility, hide, horn of fog, eversmoking bottle, darkness, whatever.
All of which do crap-all to make him a viable adventurer. His blinking and fog still won't let him beat a caster, and if he sits blinking inside a fog as part of an adventuring party they are kicking him out as soon as they're done killing the things he isn't helping them killed.


When you say that Silence could counter a Sonic Ray, you say that despite the fact that IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and why the hell would you even bring something so completely unlikely up?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-21, 06:03 PM
Sure, there were plenty more to argue with here but everyone seems to be doing a fine job so I'm just going to reply to this one.


Nope. No loop here. You need to CONTROL your created undead first, so you need to be a neutral or evil cleric and it counts thus towards your controlled undead total.

Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm)

You only need to create and command one of them. Then all the rest follow that ones orders. Every few days, you reup the spell.


Such creatures are powerful to have around, but not without (social) drawbacks.


So, the drawback of an infinite army of wraiths, the one that makes it mechanically balanced, is that the character will be unpopular?

Also, if commanding a wraith is a bit much there are always Shadows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm).

Ninja Chocobo
2008-01-21, 06:11 PM
EDIT2: true, Lord Silvanos, the dodge AC bonuses are lost when flat-footed. Some non-casters get uncanny dodge, though, and all non-casting classes can get it via non-casting prestige classes.

Because EVERY non-caster goes into Shadowdancer, Assassin or Dwarven Defender.


Why? Create as much stuff as you like, where is the win here? You cannot exceed your wbl, anyhow - whether you gain it from a dragon's hoard, you steal it, you trade it, you magic it up or win it.

The win here comes from creating a chunk of Anti-Osmium that annihilates a sizable portion of the Material Plane.

Irreverent Fool
2008-01-21, 06:13 PM
...If you happen to have an Orange Prism Ioun Stone...

You can have multiple, so it can be much worse...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-21, 06:16 PM
You can have multiple, so it can be much worse...

They would not stack, so it would be expensive redundancy.

Chronos
2008-01-21, 06:19 PM
What? No, it won't! THIS HAS LITERALLY NEVER, EVER HAPPENED. Nobody has ever had their high-level Sonic spell negated by silence, even once, in a game of D&D. You just made it up, and it is absolutely freaking ridiculous. Who the hell uses Silence? The disadvantages (which include ALERTING PEOPLE TO YOUR PRESENCE if you get too close to then, when you're trying to sneak by) ensure it barely ever gets cast, and never at high levels. It has certainly never negated a Sonic spell in the history of D&D.You mean you've never cast Silence on the end of a 14-foot-long rope? I've never specifically seen it negate a sonic attack (mostly due to sonic attacks being so rare), but I've often had a Silence spell cast on a sneaky character. It also has uses when you're not trying to sneak: It significantly hampers any spellcaster in its area, for instance.

Now, Silence is still uncommon enough that an energy shifted damage spell will probably get through. But it's not a 100% guarantee.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 06:21 PM
EDIT: just a quick one after having brushed my teeth,...:smallbiggrin:



Okay, Sir Giacomo, let's set up a situation. You have a non-caster, I've got the invisible flying wizard. Assume that there is no circumstance bonus for flying to stealth. Range is 30'. I'm flying 10' up. You go first and ready an action to shoot me if you hear me.
I go and cast a spell. To pinpoint me your DC is 24 assuming no other combat (bad assumption). Doable, but not guaranteed. Then, you have a 50% miss chance. So before we even get to to hit vs. AC, you're less than even odds.

Yep. To hit the wizard. So far no win at all yet for the wizard, just very likely escaping defeat.


So, say I get off... a summon.

You cast for a full round within 30ft of a non-spellcaster with a missile weapon? This does not sound too good. What if that archer has manyshot? What if he has several attacks? What if he has a bow with the seeking ability or a cheap potion of see invisibiltiy?
Note, though, that even if the non-caster hit, the caster has a good chance to survive and also to get the spell through (with concentration check).


If you ready to attack me, then I just let the summon beat you up,

Unlikely from the creatures summoned for the respective level vs non-caster pcs.
Monster opponents may get impaired, though. But if they are tough enough to provide a challenge to a 4-member party with a wizard, then the wizard will take out one of the creatures with his summons, the cleric will take it out while buffed in melee, the fighter in melee/ranged, the rogue with sneak. Four opponents down. And the wizard had "invisibiltiy and flying" for his armour. What is the problem?


or I cast so that the summon gets an attack of opportunity when you use that missile weapon on me.

Yes. If the archer is static. I somehow doubt that. You can always ready a shot and still move.


You have less than even odds to hit me. If you attack the summon, I cast and then move, making your pinpoint DC much harder (on the realm of epic even at close range per above, except add 20 to all those numbers).

Yes, those are good tactics.


And the problem with this is that the monsters rarely if ever even have this option. Missile weapons or air speeds plus incredible listen checks? Flying creatures usually have good listen, yes, but there are a host of nasty ground-pounders that can do little-to-nothing against this combo.

Neither can they do much against ranged non-caster fighters, I daresay then. If flying and a method to conceal yourself is all that is needed to overcome the CR, then your DM is doing something wrong. Flying and invisbility may not always be up. Enemies may have dispel magic at their disposal. And not always will your opponents be monsters.


I also don't like how quickly you wave away a -14-15 or so to strength and assume that the fighter-type is getting his full attacks. Even assuming a strength of 26 (18 Str, 2-3 raises, +6 stat item), we're down to the range of "power attack may no longer be an option at all" for the fighter. Personally, I'
ve only seen ray of enfeeblement used, not both, and it still took encounters from "hard" to "cakewalk"

I would not "wave away" -14/-15 STR penalties, but I see that they need some conditions to all take effect on their opponent. Many monster opponents will still have enough STR to be a lethal threat to the caster. Again, if your DM lets one spell always win despite
1) having to overcome touch AC
2) having to face an opponent not doing something threatening on its/his turn
3) having to face an opponent living in a world with magic and thus trying with simple strategies to foil magic (like concealment)
then maybe I can show here that it should not be so easy.

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2008-01-21, 06:29 PM
Giacomo, the point isn't that, say, Ray of Enfeeblement + Ray of Exhaustion always wins. The point is that it makes the party win, very consistently. You're ignoring the fact that if you're fighting an agile enemy with concealment, the Wizard isn't going to *cast* Ray of Enfeeblement.

The GM can throw an opponent who's not vulnerable to rays... but then that opponent also needs a good Will save. And a good Fort save. And flight. And so on. (At this point, we're pretty much limited to dragons who cast Scintillating Scales to turn their NA into Deflection bonuses and have concealment.)
Similarily, flight + invisibility isn't a "never take damage again" combo.. but it does keep the caster *very* safe in the majority of situations. And for those where it doesn't, there are other options.

Nobody's suggesting that their wizards run rampant smashing campaigns left and right and are never challenged--just that they contribute significantly more than their allies.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 06:37 PM
Ach, couldn't resist...


But this is why people say casters are overpowered: not because they have a 100% chance of single-handedly beating a single noncaster designed specifically to fight them, but because they wade through the enemies a party faces in a campaign so easily. See the example with the Titan. Your level 20 fighter designed specifically for shooting a Balor to death, with a sitting-duck enemy and a surprise round, can manage to kill him.
My level 15 wizard--and pretty much any decent level 15 wizard--reaches out and touches someone, and then the fight ends. This does not take 760,000 gp worth of gear. This does not take a sitting-duck enemy in an empty field in a surprise round.
You really don't see the disparity there?

How is a level 15 core wizard guaranteed to take out a balor by touching it? How will he even get close enough to touch attack it? Please explain. Then maybe that is the deadly combo I am looking for.


The most powerful level 20 character in a showdown is the one who blows his wealth on Candles of Invocation and on bargaining with Solars for long-term service. At that point, your class doesn't even matter, because you're not a character, you're a whole bunch of freaking Solars. Then those Solars proceed to wipe your 20th level blinking eversmoking-bottled noncaster out of existence, and make the 20th level caster crap his pants and teleport/plane-shift away and spend his spells on protecting himself against magical location so they can't find him. From then on, he lives his life in luxury in a Magnificent Mansion cast inside a Private Sanctum on the moon, Mind Blanked and Nondetectioned.
Which is a damn sight better than complete destruction

Hmmm - does this boil down to saying that the gate spell is imbalanced or what? As far as I recall, you are among those who support the broken notion of the gate spell, while I brought it back to reality several times already. Why not just follow my interpretation instead and then enjoy class balance bliss, instead of maintaining gate is broken and then get angry about class imbalance? It would be so easy.


All of which do crap-all to make him a viable adventurer. His blinking and fog still won't let him beat a caster, and if he sits blinking inside a fog as part of an adventuring party they are kicking him out as soon as they're done killing the things he isn't helping them killed.

?? You mean having means up that obstruct the majority of the caster's methods to defeat a non-caster is NOT making him a viable adventurer? That sounds strange. Similarly, why should a group kick out a team member who with his concealment and blink tactics soaks up/foils many enemy attacks?

- Giacomo

mostlyharmful
2008-01-21, 06:39 PM
I have to go with Overland Flight + Greater Invisibility (with a ring of Invis tacked on to go between encounters)- If you want to be untouchable a WindWall will make just about anything laughable.

I also like Teleport, Wall of Thorns, Ghostform and Planeshift for making a noncasters life miserable.:smallsmile:


By mid level any caster has dozens of slots and similarly dozens of good choices to put in them. SoS, SoL, SoD, Buffs, info gathering, transport, debuffs, Battlefield Control. There's just no way a noncaster can anticipate all of them, and no way to comprehensively defend against all of them. And if they try it eats their resources, both Gp and skill points, without providing anything like the protection that a full casting class can.

Just about any spell with a save can be cranked by a dedicated caster to exceed any CR appropriate defense. With enough long term buffs in place before they get into danger zones combined with their own WBL investments that can be put solely into defensive items a caster can have layers apon layers of defensive measures, well beyound what a noncaster can drum up. When a situation gets out of control casters have evasive measures (teleport, Ghostform, Contingency, Invis, etc...) that can save their asses at a fraction of the level that noncasters can pay other casters to provide them.

So I'm a level 9 Wiz. In my tower. hundreds of miles away. I decide to go adventuring and kill a noncaster. My first job is to scry the hell out of the area beforehand, maybe throw in some ledgendlores and some reasearch in my huge library with my big knowledge skills. After I know a whole lot about what I'll be facing I cast Overland Flight, Mage armour and any other long term buffs I know and activate my ring of Invis. Then I teleport to my destination and smoke the noncaster from hundreds of yards away under Improved Invis.

The above obviously being a highly specific type of event but it only gets worse as you level up. It's not outside the realms of possibility to get a scroll of Genesis at mid level. Then your caster has a perfectly safe Zone to fall back to. I know that drags in 9th level spells but a one off scroll isn't exatly demanding. And even without it a caster can hang out in impossible to reach places except by magic. The point is that once a caster can control the time and place and circumstances of an encounter they've efectively won and that happens pretty early on in DnD if they're allowed full reign to be paranoid and secretive and aren't allways ruched by the metaplot.

So anyway. Rant concluded. that was just in response to some of the "feedback" giacomo provided to those who responded with specific spells.

The problem with providing a list of "win Button" spells is that each one individually can be argued against/ protected from/ etc... with specific builds, skill point allocations, items, on and on. But they can't alllllllll be. and a caster has a lot more dirty tricks to play and money to burn than a noncaster that tries to duplicate them with UMD.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-21, 06:42 PM
Blasphemy + an evil friend or any other means of dealing significant damage that doesn't require your standard action. Against an equal level opponent, this is an automatic no-save 1 round daze. If your opponent has not prepared specifically for this spell, he cannot strike back for a number of rounds equal to your number of 7th level or higher spell slots. If you happen to have an Orange Prism Ioun Stone, a Strand of Prayer Beads (for the Bead of Karma), or Hierophant levels with the Spell Power ability it gets worse. Especially if you have all 3. This can be defeated, but only by gaining immunity to it in advance, and if that immunity is negated you will never get the chance to get it back.

Almost overlooked that so far most powerful entry. Before going to bed: yes, the holy word spell family is quite tough to overcome. Will think on that until tomorrow.

- Giacomo

Saph
2008-01-21, 06:52 PM
This "win" combo has actually been very thoroughly debunked right here on this forum, I don't know who it was anymore, but you'll probably find out soon enough:smallwink:

It was me. :) Here's the thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61295).

It hasn't come up very often since then, so I guess people have moved on to other things. Personally, I usually don't think in terms of spell combos unless I'm playing at quite high levels - I prefer spells like glitterdust that can turn a battle all on their own. I find Murphy's Law tends to throw a wrench into any plan that requires more than one full-round action to complete.

Annnd, we now return to your regularly scheduled argument. :P

- Saph

spotmarkedx
2008-01-21, 07:28 PM
EDIT: just a quick one after having brushed my teeth,...:smallbiggrin:


Yep. To hit the wizard. So far no win at all yet for the wizard, just very likely escaping defeat.


You cast for a full round within 30ft of a non-spellcaster with a missile weapon? This does not sound too good. What if that archer has manyshot? What if he has several attacks? What if he has a bow with the seeking ability or a cheap potion of see invisibiltiy?So, likely an archer. Melee fighter? Hasn't spent the feats on getting manyshot. Doesn't have the listen to regularly make the check anyway. Monks? May have the listen, but somehow I doubt they have much in the way of missile attack. We're down to rangers, archer scouts and archer rogues? Seeking only helps if you know the square I'm in. So still only the scout types.

Don't forget, it you're readying you don't get "multiple attacks". If you're not readying, then your listen DCs are nigh impossible as shown above.


Note, though, that even if the non-caster hit, the caster has a good chance to survive and also to get the spell through (with concentration check).Agreed, I forgot that part of it.


Unlikely from the creatures summoned for the respective level vs non-caster pcs.So, your answer is that ... the summon doing uncontested damage is unlikely to kill the fighter type? You make a move action (maybe in the right direction, maybe not) and ready, let the monster do damage to you? Assuming I'm, say, 10th level, I give myself 7 rounds to double move and not cast. I'm now 280 feet from where I was, I've done uncontested damage to you, and now you are at -28 to your hear skill check instead of -4. Good luck with that DC 53 listen check. (20 +28 +5 from the distraction of getting attacked) I still have a couple rounds on the summon, and can cast two or three spells before it disappears.


Monster opponents may get impaired, though. But if they are tough enough to provide a challenge to a 4-member party with a wizard, then the wizard will take out one of the creatures with his summons, the cleric will take it out while buffed in melee, the fighter in melee/ranged, the rogue with sneak. Four opponents down. And the wizard had "invisibiltiy and flying" for his armour. What is the problem?Ah, party mechanics. Ok what is the problem? In theory a group of the 4 iconic PCs should be able to have about equal "spotlight" time, and equal danger for the play to be balanced, yes? The wizard's opponent can't find him, so it beats up the fighter instead. Not "equal" danger to me. Also, I apologize about bringing group dynamic into the equation vs monsters. I missed the post where you reiterated that you weren't looking for a comparison of PC vs. monster.

Yes. If the archer is static. I somehow doubt that. You can always ready a shot and still move.And the summon moves and attacks. Then the wizard casts their spell. If the archer isn't static, neither is the summon.


Yes, those are good tactics.
Thank you. :smallbiggrin:


Neither can they do much against ranged non-caster fighters, I daresay then. If flying and a method to conceal yourself is all that is needed to overcome the CR, then your DM is doing something wrong. Flying and invisbility may not always be up. Enemies may have dispel magic at their disposal. And not always will your opponents be monsters.So your answer is to throw out 50% of the monster manual because of this combination?

...


I would not "wave away" -14/-15 STR penalties, but I see that they need some conditions to all take effect on their opponent. Many monster opponents will still have enough STR to be a lethal threat to the caster. Again, if your DM lets one spell always win despite
1) having to overcome touch AC
2) having to face an opponent not doing something threatening on its/his turn
3) having to face an opponent living in a world with magic and thus trying with simple strategies to foil magic (like concealment)
then maybe I can show here that it should not be so easy.
Hm. Perhaps "wave away" isn't the right term? Its just when you say:

Hmm - those are quite good. But exhaustion will not stop a full attack, which even at a massive STR penalty can be quite devasting. And the wizard still needs to get a ALL touch attacks through (not that likely).It seems as if you are saying a -14 or -15 penalty to strength is insignificant to a fighter's ability to be "devastating". -7 to hit, loss of power attack (+ related feats) and -7 to 10 damage is significant to a midlevel fighter. What fighter build are we talking about here?

Ninja Chocobo
2008-01-21, 07:40 PM
Hmmm - does this boil down to saying that the gate spell is imbalanced or what? As far as I recall, you are among those who support the broken notion of the gate spell, while I brought it back to reality several times already. Why not just follow my interpretation instead and then enjoy class balance bliss, instead of maintaining gate is broken and then get angry about class imbalance? It would be so easy.

No. He's talking about gear.


?? You mean having means up that obstruct the majority of the caster's methods to defeat a non-caster is NOT making him a viable adventurer? That sounds strange. Similarly, why should a group kick out a team member who with his concealment and blink tactics soaks up/foils many enemy attacks?

If a person is using both concealment (assuming from an Eversmoking Bottle or somesuch) and blinking, he is not contributing to the fight. He could be 'soaking up the attacks', if only the enemy would bother attacking him, when there's another three characters nearby without said protection.


It seems as if you are saying a -14 or -15 penalty to strength is insignificant to a fighter's ability to be "devastating". -7 to hit, loss of power attack (+ related feats) and -7 to 10 damage is significant to a midlevel fighter. What fighter build are we talking about here?

Don't forget his sudden inability to move in his heavy armour, or draw his Composite Longbow.

Voyager_I
2008-01-21, 08:11 PM
Grease/Improved Invisibility + Friendly Rogue = Fun (especially since it only takes a 1 Level dip to be able to do it yourself, and you aren't missing anything with that 20th level of Rogue. Not necessarily optimal, but fun.)

Also, as a mostly impartial observer who hasn't seen this argument played out so royally before, I would just like to point out how phenomenally one sided this argument is. Two guesses who's winning...

Swooper
2008-01-21, 08:36 PM
I find this thread freaking hilarious.

Nebo_
2008-01-21, 09:22 PM
I find this thread freaking hilarious.

Me too. After all of this Sir Giacomo just doesn't seem to get it. It's very frustrating.

vrellum
2008-01-21, 10:15 PM
EDIT:

You cast for a full round within 30ft of a non-spellcaster with a missile weapon? This does not sound too good. What if that archer has manyshot? What if he has several attacks? What if he has a bow with the seeking ability or a cheap potion of see invisibiltiy?


potions of see invisibility do not exist.

Do you want a combo that is always guaranteed to win? Because that won't happen. There will always be some possible way out, such as you example with silence. So if you want guaranteed to win, then the thread should stop now. However, if you want things that make the combat much easier and allow casters to dominate an encounter then you've already got a bunch of answers.

Voyager_I
2008-01-21, 11:20 PM
Not that it really needs to be said, but even supposing an opponent sunk all their wealth, feats and character progression into making themselves immune to a particular Wizard tactic, and the Wizard in question has for some reason prepared only spells that work with that trick, the Wizard can fly away and memorize new spells much more easily than their enemy can replace all of their feats, equipment and prestige classes.

Also, I can't decide what's funniest; Reel on, Love's deconstruction of all Giacomo's arguments with razor sharp walls of spiky logic, or the fact that Giacomo appears to be contented with pretending they don't exist because there isn't really any rebuttal to be made...

Talic
2008-01-22, 01:16 AM
Giacomo, it's not that there's any one "death combo" that wizards/clerics have.

It's that they can scry on you for months, determining the one flaw in your armor, the one chink, and then they are versatile enough to ruthlessly exploit it.

Trap the Soul is a non-death effect that works on anyone, anytime, anywhere. All they must do is touch the gem. Illusions work great for that, as well as engineering a situation where they must touch it.

Rods of Quicken and maximize with Enervation, coupled with improved invisibility and contingencied translocation hops, for those without death ward.

Plane shift somewhere out of the way, like the abyss, if you have no means of planar travel.

Mind Fog + Domination effect, for those with low will saves.

And all of this... ALL OF IT, can be done by your clone if your first attempt fails.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-22, 01:23 AM
And all of this... ALL OF IT, can be done by your clone if your first attempt fails.

Oh, it's so much worse than that.

It can all be done by your Astral Projection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/astralProjection.htm), from scrolls and staff charges which aren't actually expended since they are projected duplicates.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 01:30 AM
Giacomo simply doesn't understand how tactical combat works. All this harping on "show me the win" just shows that he has no understanding, or indeed knowledge, of wolfpacking, the most elementary tactic available in any game. *Shrug* Moving on.

Solo
2008-01-22, 02:00 AM
I believe we are done here.

Talic
2008-01-22, 02:01 AM
Oh, it's so much worse than that.

It can all be done by your Astral Projection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/astralProjection.htm), from scrolls and staff charges which aren't actually expended since they are projected duplicates.

That's the first attempt.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-22, 02:07 AM
Good morning everyone,


Giacomo, it's not that there's any one "death combo" that wizards/clerics have.

Yes, that slowly emerges from this thread (and I overlooked Saph's great thread devoted only to one such combos). My point is that there are many more uncertainties than many would believe, which make winning by spellcasting a much riskier business. It's not "easy" for spellcasters to cut through encounters, or the DM is doing something wrong.
I'll try to show it by commenting the examples you gave.


It's that they can scry on you for months, determining the one flaw in your armor, the one chink, and then they are versatile enough to ruthlessly exploit it.

Yes, intelligence (in both senses of the word) is a great advantage of wizard casters. And other casters (only in one sense of the word) who have research spells at their disposal. But those spells do have their limits. For instance, scrying allows saves (with bonuses the less you initially know about your opponent). You may repeatedly scry a creature, but it may react to these research attempts with whatever is at its disposal (including contacting an npc spellcaster for advice). High-level scrying can be thwarted by mind blank (which may often not be available, though). And even if you know enough, you can try to teleport next to that creature...only...that creature may have moved on its turn.
Meanwhile, it should not be forgotten that many non-casters have ways to shadow a caster or non-casters as well for months, spotting their vulnerabilites.


Trap the Soul is a non-death effect that works on anyone, anytime, anywhere. All they must do is touch the gem. Illusions work great for that, as well as engineering a situation where they must touch it.

Now THAT is a good combo. But VERY expensive and also not that certain (you have to err on the upsdide for there are only very few methods to determine the HD of a target creature). For instance, at those levels opponents may have access to a true seeing effect.
Non-casters at that level can simply use their version of trap the soul: full attack and do 200 damage.


Rods of Quicken and maximize with Enervation, coupled with improved invisibility and contingencied translocation hops, for those without death ward.

Contingency is tricky and clever opponents/circumstancers can trigger it without it having its full effect. Enervation thus boosted (to 7th level slots) can be countered easily with lower-level death ward effects (which may be also up due as help vs undead).
Again, even in the many cases where the combo will work, non-casters could also do similarly effective stuff at lvl 13 and above.


Plane shift somewhere out of the way, like the abyss, if you have no means of planar travel.

To the abyss of all places? But OK, yes. But there are many other ways to evade combat/flee by that level, available to non-casters and casters. And non-casters may planar travel by buying npc spellcasting or with items.


Mind Fog + Domination effect, for those with low will saves.

2 actions, during which a lot can happen. And domination is worded actually in such a way as to make it quite dangerous to use in combat. The affected creature will ALWAYS get another save at +2 whenever something goes against its nature (like attacking friends, doing stuff opposed to alignment etc.). Domination can be helpful, but it has its limit. Added to that, a simple protection from xx spell stops it.


And all of this... ALL OF IT, can be done by your clone if your first attempt fails.

The clone is also a good tactics at high levels, but it costs quite an amount and it takes long (2d4 months) to even create. Non-casters can also have it via npc casting (which does not add that much cost to it).

On to other posters...



If a person is using both concealment (assuming from an Eversmoking Bottle or somesuch) and blinking, he is not contributing to the fight. He could be 'soaking up the attacks', if only the enemy would bother attacking him, when there's another three characters nearby without said protection.

Wait...is this now your reaction to a character with eversmoking bottle and blinking? Or to a character with flying and invisibility up?:smallbiggrin:
*Double standard alarm gives of resounding warning*


Don't forget his sudden inability to move in his heavy armour, or draw his Composite Longbow.

I must say that the rays are good attacks. Once they hit and work (and I showed that that is not guaranteed, due to touch AC and possible concealment effects), they will have the effects you outline. Meanwhile, in the time the caster is using to cast said rays, a non-caster in his party could do similarly damaging stuff to opponents, and a non-caster as opponent (even a monster) could also do something. You lose 1d6+1 STR per round, before metamagicking (putting the whole thing into different encounter levels).


potions of see invisibility do not exist.

Not in the randomly generated potion list. But you can have any 1-3 lvl spell with a target as a potion. It may have been ruled somewhere in FAQ that you can only make a potion of a spell that can be cast on someone else. In which case you could get a see invisibility wand with UMD.
Anyhow, the main objection that I would accept is that see invisibility is quite rare to have up - at least you would have to take a standard action to activate it if a non-caster realises an invisible, threatening caster is around.


Do you want a combo that is always guaranteed to win? Because that won't happen. There will always be some possible way out, such as you example with silence. So if you want guaranteed to win, then the thread should stop now. However, if you want things that make the combat much easier and allow casters to dominate an encounter then you've already got a bunch of answers.

Will go to work now, post tonight and tomorrow more.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-22, 02:09 AM
Wait...is this now your reaction to a character with eversmoking bottle and blinking? Or to a character with flying and invisibility up?
*Double standard alarm gives of resounding warning*

A flying and invisible caster will be raining magical death upon his foes.

I call that contributing.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-22, 02:14 AM
Giacomo, the real problem is that there is literally thousands of viable powerhouse spell combos in core alone, and no way to reliably defend against all of them. Yes, you can protect from 4 combos and prepare for a few others, but a wizard can usually tell that you are doing that, and will use one of the other other methods of winning that he has. At 10th level, a wizard has appx. 29 spells. (18int, specialized) Most tactics here so far are 2 or 3 spell combos. Which means he has between 10 and 15 different methods of dealing with an encounter. Nothing will be immune to all of them, and it is generally easy to tell what they are prepared for. (enemy has a bow, wings, class with good saves, torch, etc.) And if no tactic works, teleport allows an escape. No other class can do all of that.

Talic
2008-01-22, 02:20 AM
Except when you create (ignoring antimatter) massive quantities of Black Lotus Poison as an *attack*.


What? No, it won't! THIS HAS LITERALLY NEVER, EVER HAPPENED. Nobody has ever had their high-level Sonic spell negated by silence, even once, in a game of D&D. You just made it up, and it is absolutely freaking ridiculous. Who the hell uses Silence? The disadvantages (which include ALERTING PEOPLE TO YOUR PRESENCE if you get too close to then, when you're trying to sneak by) ensure it barely ever gets cast, and never at high levels. It has certainly never negated a Sonic spell in the history of D&D.
This is what I mean. "Well, there's a 0.0001% chance of the target being silenced... so the sonic ray is JUST FINE!"
Man, you must play the lottery a whole LOT.

Actually, I have done this before. The wizard knew he'd be up against a High level Bard with a high DC anti-casting song, and a wizard that loved sonic damage. So, he put himself in a silence bubble, and memorized everything with the silent spell feat.

So that's once, in my 17 years of D&D.

leperkhaun
2008-01-22, 02:20 AM
im fond of reverse gravity, prismatic wall, dispell reverse gravity. Its rather easy to get around it, but its fun to do.

leperkhaun
2008-01-22, 02:21 AM
im fond of reverse gravity, prismatic wall, dispell reverse gravity. Its rather easy to get around it, but its fun to do.

Voyager_I
2008-01-22, 02:30 AM
So, it took a whole three pages to reach the "Beat magic by using magic!!!" (Except it requires valuable skill points and a UMD check, and the caster still has more scrolls than you because he can make them himself at half the cost) stage of the argument?

...I guess I should be pleasantly surprised.

Talic
2008-01-22, 02:57 AM
Good morning everyone,



Yes, that slowly emerges from this thread (and I overlooked Saph's great thread devoted only to one such combos). My point is that there are many more uncertainties than many would believe, which make winning by spellcasting a much riskier business. It's not "easy" for spellcasters to cut through encounters, or the DM is doing something wrong.
I'll try to show it by commenting the examples you gave.

But that is the entire argument for the strength of casters. Their versatility. And yes, when a caster reaches level 17+, it's hard for a DM to do everything right.


Yes, intelligence (in both senses of the word) is a great advantage of wizard casters. And other casters (only in one sense of the word) who have research spells at their disposal. But those spells do have their limits. For instance, scrying allows saves (with bonuses the less you initially know about your opponent). You may repeatedly scry a creature, but it may react to these research attempts with whatever is at its disposal (including contacting an npc spellcaster for advice). High-level scrying can be thwarted by mind blank (which may often not be available, though). And even if you know enough, you can try to teleport next to that creature...only...that creature may have moved on its turn.
Meanwhile, it should not be forgotten that many non-casters have ways to shadow a caster or non-casters as well for months, spotting their vulnerabilites.

True. And the wizard has access to most of those as well. After all, who has true seeing active when trading in the market district? A normal invisibility, coupled with a decent move silent, and a busy street, and you've got a tail. Disguise Self with Alter Self, and there's a bum. Dominate with orders to report. The list goes on.


Now THAT is a good combo. But VERY expensive and also not that certain (you have to err on the upsdide for there are only very few methods to determine the HD of a target creature). For instance, at those levels opponents may have access to a true seeing effect.
Non-casters at that level can simply use their version of trap the soul: full attack and do 200 damage.

Ah, but that's hardly guaranteed, especially when you have so many ways to stop a full attack. A 10' Dimension door, Wall of force, fly, destroy the weapon (targeted sonic spells FTW there), not being seen in the first place... And Trap the Soul, meanwhile entails NO caster risk. None. The caster can be in Tahiti, sipping a Mai-Tai, when you touch the gem of doom.



Contingency is tricky and clever opponents/circumstancers can trigger it without it having its full effect. Enervation thus boosted (to 7th level slots) can be countered easily with lower-level death ward effects (which may be also up due as help vs undead).

Possible, yes. But then the wizard delays his transport in until it's not. Or he uses another tactic. Yes, tricky opponents can thwart Contingency. IF they know it's up. AND they know the exact nature of the contingency.


Again, even in the many cases where the combo will work, non-casters could also do similarly effective stuff at lvl 13 and above.

Such as? Quantify your claim please.


To the abyss of all places? But OK, yes. But there are many other ways to evade combat/flee by that level, available to non-casters and casters. And non-casters may planar travel by buying npc spellcasting or with items.

But if you didn't have it when you were shifted, you won't be able to buy it. And if you didn't have the item, then you're... well, not in a good way. Alternate fun times are the Elemental Plane of Fire or the Negative Energy Plane. Or the Positive Energy Plane. Exploding from healing is fun too.


2 actions, during which a lot can happen. And domination is worded actually in such a way as to make it quite dangerous to use in combat. The affected creature will ALWAYS get another save at +2 whenever something goes against its nature (like attacking friends, doing stuff opposed to alignment etc.). Domination can be helpful, but it has its limit. Added to that, a simple protection from xx spell stops it.

Mind fog is 2nd level. Quicken, or a rod of quicken. And Commanding the Dominated character to do any of the following, based on his nature:

"go immediately and steal the gem from the display at the jewelry store"(remember trap the soul above??)
"restrain your cleric companion on charges of slaying a good goblin, who was attempting to thwart the evil goblin village" (that works for most lawful types)
"walk away"
"I've imprisoned a child in a well, filling with water, in the center of town. She will begin drowning any minute now. Go save her." (that'll handle the goodly ones)

There are more, of course, the list is nowhere near exhaustive, and none of it is required to be TRUE. Protection stops it, if they had it up, or someone else bails them out. Rare on the first count, and no longer non-caster on the second. Also, If you immediately command them to kill a friend, they get a new save, with a +2 bonus, and still a -10 penalty from mind fog. Possible. Not likely. Even if a protection is up, there are other Will save spells that work just as well, including death effects, illusions, enchantments, and several others. How many will that non-caster protect against? Not all.


The clone is also a good tactics at high levels, but it costs quite an amount and it takes long (2d4 months) to even create. Non-casters can also have it via npc casting (which does not add that much cost to it).

But any 18+ caster worth his salt will have one. Very, VERY few NPC's will. In fact, in my 17 years of D&D, I've never seen it done to a non-caster. Anyone?

Point is, if you have Death Ward up, and you've maxed your spot, and sense motive, and mind blank, and ring of blinking, and everything else you've suggested, you're not gonna be doing much else. If you are, then the wizard has blink+true seeing, combined with greater invisibility, and a Disjunction to take that house of cards down. Follow up with a greater dispelling, and it's a non-caster with a bunch of masterwork gear.

Greyen
2008-01-22, 05:52 AM
Here's a spell combo for you, easily available to most casters.

Transmute Rock to mud...creates a large area up to 5 feet deep in mud. Yes, there are limits but hear me out here.

Quickened Dispel Magic in Transmute. In TRtM it states very clearly that it can be dispelled. Thusly trapping any hapless folks chest deep or over their heads in Stone. Yes it allows a ref save, but you will still get most of the party, as rarely do fighters, clerics, or mages have decent ref saves.

Then you just telekinesis max weight rocks on top of them. Dead, or effectively so.

I have used this combo to great effect a few times in the past.

Ninja Chocobo
2008-01-22, 06:41 AM
Wait...is this now your reaction to a character with eversmoking bottle and blinking? Or to a character with flying and invisibility up?:smallbiggrin:
*Double standard alarm gives of resounding warning*


A flying and invisible caster will be raining magical death upon his foes.

I call that contributing.

He's (trying to) attack me, I should be the one who gets to refute him!


To the abyss of all places? But OK, yes. But there are many other ways to evade combat/flee by that level, available to non-casters and casters. And non-casters may planar travel by buying npc spellcasting or with items.

The cost of NPC spellcasting does not include paying them to travel halfway around the multiverse with you.


I must say that the rays are good attacks. Once they hit and work (and I showed that that is not guaranteed, due to touch AC and possible concealment effects), they will have the effects you outline. Meanwhile, in the time the caster is using to cast said rays, a non-caster in his party could do similarly damaging stuff to opponents, and a non-caster as opponent (even a monster) could also do something.

You're invisible. That means your enemies are denied their Dex bonus, unless they've got Uncanny Dodge, which not many classes have. This also tends to rule out Dodge bonuses. That generally leaves most enemies with a Touch AC of around ten. Fifteen if we're being generous.

Talic
2008-01-22, 06:44 AM
The cost of NPC spellcasting does not include paying them to travel halfway around the multiverse with you.

He's (trying to) attack me, I should be the one who gets to refute him! :smallbiggrin:

lord_khaine
2008-01-22, 06:45 AM
The win here comes from creating a chunk of Anti-Osmium that annihilates a sizable portion of the Material Plane.


i do disagree about this part here, unless someone has a decent explenation for how you can create antimatter with a spell designet to create matter.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 07:07 AM
Me too. After all of this Sir Giacomo just doesn't seem to get it. It's very frustrating.


Giacomo simply doesn't understand how tactical combat works. All this harping on "show me the win" just shows that he has no understanding, or indeed knowledge, of wolfpacking, the most elementary tactic available in any game.

QFT both, and unsurprisingly so. This thread is simply another exercise in pointless rhetoric, schroedinger characters, and misunderstanding the laws of probability.

Yes, it is that easy for spellcasters to brush aside encounters. Even at level 1 - something as simple as a sleep spell easily forces a DC 15, possibly higher, saving throw to avoid losing. That has good odds of instantly ending any encounter at that level.

"But it doesn't always work" is a very poor argument against something that works most of the time, aside from being vacuous in a game where, by design, nothing always works. "But this generic tactic doesn't work if the opponents are employing a highly specific and unlikely countertactic" is nothing but ludicrous.

Solo
2008-01-22, 09:51 AM
i do disagree about this part here, unless someone has a decent explenation for how you can create antimatter with a spell designet to create matter.

A wizard did it. :smallsmile:




Antimatter is merely matter with the charges on the electrons, protons, and neutrons of the matter reversed.

An anti-electron is positively charged, an anti-proton is negatively charged, and an anti-neutron is.... neutral, but composed of anti-quarks rather than quarks.

Douglas
2008-01-22, 11:00 AM
Not in the randomly generated potion list. But you can have any 1-3 lvl spell with a target as a potion. It may have been ruled somewhere in FAQ that you can only make a potion of a spell that can be cast on someone else. In which case you could get a see invisibility wand with UMD.
Nope, you don't even have to go to the FAQ for that. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingPotions) This rule is also on page 286 of the DMG.

lord_khaine
2008-01-22, 11:05 AM
Antimatter is merely matter with the charges on the electrons, protons, and neutrons of the matter reversed.

An anti-electron is positively charged, an anti-proton is negatively charged, and an anti-neutron is.... neutral, but composed of anti-quarks rather than quarks.

yeah i know what antimatter is, thats why i disagree about it being possibel to make with a spell that creates matter.

kamikasei
2008-01-22, 11:15 AM
yeah i know what antimatter is, thats why i disagree about it being possibel to make with a spell that creates matter.

Antimatter is a form of matter. It's not un-matter or non-matter, it's just matter, which happens to react badly with the sort most common around here.

Unless you want to argue that things slow down when hit with negative energy spells, because you're adding a negative amount to their kinetic energy :smallwink:

spotmarkedx
2008-01-22, 12:05 PM
Of course the creation of anti-osmium, even if theoretically allowed, will be stepped on by any competent DM. Osmium? Discovered in the 1800's. Antimatter? First theorized in... the 1920's I think? Somehow I don't think a fantasy medieval society has the knowledge to even attempt this.

I know anyone talking about it wouldn't actually use this in the game, but my point is that in a thread designed to talk about actual spell combos, this is at best a tangental side issue.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-22, 12:24 PM
So, I have a question. Try not to mock me, even if you think I'm wrong, which I might be. I think you're all potentially better than that. In theory, I totally agree that spellcasters rock. But I find these theoretical discussions do not often adequately cover what often happens in an actual D&D game.

Sure, magical flight is awesome. But not necessarily in your standard-issue 10'x10'x10' dungeon. If the Wizard fails their Spot check, they'll just fly into a higher part of the gelatinous cube.

Is every game going to take place in a 10'x10'x10' dungeon? No. But nor is every game going to take place outside in an open space where a spellcaster is going to be able to take full advantage of that, or many of his other spells.

Plus, lots of monsters fly, especially high level ones. If your wizard starts flying around to avoid trouble, it's a stupid GM who just sits there and says, "Oh, damn, you're the only person in the ENTIRE WORLD who can fly. Guess I'm screwed."

Invisibility's great, but as a GM or player, I don't forget reasonable uses of See Invisibility, Dust of Appearance, Faerie Fire, etc. Or monsters who, say, have the Scent ability, and/or Blindsense.

Stuff like Solid Fog is VERY dependent on the playing field you're using. If you're in that 10x10x10 foot hallway, there's a good chance you could end up screwing over your own party with a spell like that.

A good GM is going to make use of perfectly sensible things like concealment and even, yes, competent enemy spellcasters and mage-hunter type classes.... he could even use the occasional anti-magic field and wild magic zone to shake things up. Not to mention terrain, nearby innocent creatures who heroes don't want to get caught in crossfire, etc.

I know Sir Giacomo is asking about spellcasters versus other classes, but if you ask me, that scenario is his only true mistake. D&D just is not designed for two PCs to go at each other in a blank open space, arena style. It's designed for people to adventure through ruins and caves and enchanted forests, with just about every foe imaginable going after them. There is plenty of things in the ruleset to keep spellcasters at bay and in those situations meleers and the like will shine; of course there will be situations that are vice versa as well. But in the end, what balances the game is that there is setting and context to put the players in--and the situation is never ideal.

Solo
2008-01-22, 12:25 PM
Of course the creation of anti-osmium, even if theoretically allowed, will be stepped on by any competent DM. Osmium? Discovered in the 1800's. Antimatter? First theorized in... the 1920's I think? Somehow I don't think a fantasy medieval society has the knowledge to even attempt this.

I know anyone talking about it wouldn't actually use this in the game, but my point is that in a thread designed to talk about actual spell combos, this is at best a tangental side issue.

Travel to an alternate Prime Material in which they have discovered antimatter, through use of a 1/day wondrous item that opens up portals to other plans.


In fact, someone could make a TV show about that.:smallamused:


But I find these theoretical discussions do not often adequately cover what often happens in an actual D&D game.

This is why they are called theoretical discussions.



Plus, lots of monsters fly, especially high level ones. If your wizard starts flying around to avoid trouble, it's a stupid GM who just sits there and says, "Oh, damn, you're the only person in the ENTIRE WORLD who can fly. Guess I'm screwed."

Invisibility's great, but as a GM or player, I don't forget reasonable uses of See Invisibility, Dust of Appearance, Faerie Fire, etc. Or monsters who, say, have the Scent ability, and/or Blindsense.

Stuff like Solid Fog is VERY dependent on the playing field you're using. If you're in that 10x10x10 foot hallway, there's a good chance you could end up screwing over your own party with a spell like that.

In these situations, the spellcaster would not cast Fly, Invisiblity, or Solid Fog. They would adapt their tactics to suit the combat enviornment. No one's saying you have to cast Solid Fog, for example, just that it would be a great tactic in an open combat situation.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 12:42 PM
Sure, magical flight is awesome. But not necessarily in your standard-issue 10'x10'x10' dungeon. If the Wizard fails their Spot check, they'll just fly into a higher part of the gelatinous cube.

The point is that, if something is (argued to be) a good strategy, then "it doesn't always work" is not a good counterargument, and neither are "other people can use it too" or "the DM can create an opponent to explicitly nullify this strategy".

Flying, invis, solid fog, and a number of other wizard spells are going to be very effective more often than not - and nobody's forcing you to use them in the situations where they're not. Unless, of course, the DM is being a jerk and specifically has all his monsters blink, fly, and detect invisible all the time for no reason.

Every tactic has a countertactic - D&D is designed that way. However, if the tactic is usually powerful and versatile, and the countertactic is rare, implausible, expensive, and/or just plain poor strategy when not explicitly used as counter (and mind you, nearly all of Giacomo's propositions fall in all four of these category), the first tactic is solid and powerful.

DeathQuaker
2008-01-22, 12:51 PM
The point is that, if something is (argued to be) a good strategy, then "it doesn't always work" is not a good counterargument, and neither are "other people can use it too" or "the DM can create an opponent to explicitly nullify this strategy".

I guess what confuses me is the way many of these strategies seem to be touted as constant/instant wins, when, simply because the way the game works, they are not.

Sure, they're good strategies. But they don't mean that the class with access to said strategies can't be beaten, which seems to be the attitude often conveyed, here and in similar discussions.

As far as I'm concerned, most of this "strategizing" comes down as often useless in practice. And therefore I don't see the point of it. But since I don't see the point of it, I'll shut up now. :smallsmile:

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-22, 12:58 PM
I know Sir Giacomo is asking about spellcasters versus other classes, but if you ask me, that scenario is his only true mistake.

I think you may be able to find one or two other mistakes if you really try. :smallamused:



D&D just is not designed for two PCs to go at each other in a blank open space, arena style. It's designed for people to adventure through ruins and caves and enchanted forests, with just about every foe imaginable going after them.

You make the game sound so fun and thrilling. :smallsmile:

Solo
2008-01-22, 01:00 PM
I guess what confuses me is the way many of these strategies seem to be touted as constant/instant wins, when, simply because the way the game works, they are not.

Sure, they're good strategies. But they don't mean that the class with access to said strategies can't be beaten, which seems to be the attitude often conveyed, here and in similar discussions.

As far as I'm concerned, most of this "strategizing" comes down as often useless in practice. And therefore I don't see the point of it. But since I don't see the point of it, I'll shut up now. :smallsmile:

There's no such thing as an insta-win, unless you go for Pun Pun, bu tthe fact that casters can get so many good strategies from simply preparing their spells says something.

Chronos
2008-01-22, 01:02 PM
Plus, lots of monsters fly, especially high level ones. If your wizard starts flying around to avoid trouble, it's a stupid GM who just sits there and says, "Oh, damn, you're the only person in the ENTIRE WORLD who can fly. Guess I'm screwed."There are two cases here:

1: The enemies can't fly. In this case, if the character can fly, then the enemies are screwed. If the character can't fly, then it's a fair fight.

2: The enemies can fly. In this case, if the character can't fly, then the character is screwed. If the character can fly, then it's a fair fight.

In either case, it's a heck of a lot better for the character if he can fly. And spellcasters can fly a lot easier than non-spellcasters can (at a lower level, at a lower cost, and without filling item slots). So being able to fly is an advantage for spellcasters.

Counterspin
2008-01-22, 01:03 PM
And no one ever brings up that as powerful as wizards are in duels, they are even more powerful in a group, because a group will often fight more than one enemy, and so many wizard spells are area affect.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-22, 01:22 PM
I guess what confuses me is the way many of these strategies seem to be touted as constant/instant wins, when, simply because the way the game works, they are not.
The common term is "save-or-lose", not "constant/instant win". A SOL spell means the enemy loses unless he makes a surprisingly difficult save. A variation is for the wizard to make a surprisingly easy attack roll. People are well aware that this doesn't always work, but nine times out of ten is pretty awesome.



Sure, they're good strategies. But they don't mean that the class with access to said strategies can't be beaten,
No, people are saying that the spellcasting four (sorc/wiz/cleric/druid) are by far the strongest classes in core ("people" essentially meaning "nearly everybody on D&D forums all over the internet"). That doesn't mean they can't be beaten (although it's kind of hard to beat them except with another spellcaster), but it does mean that they're not balanced to the rest of the classes. Despite claims to the contrary, WOTC is entirely aware of this, and has been trying to compensate for it e.g. by writing 3.5E, as well as a variety of prestige classes, and ultimately the Tome of Battle.

And yes, those situations do occur in practice, except that (1) most campaigns are between level 5 and 10, at which point it's not nearly as noticeable as in higher levels, (2) not all players play that way, or mind if others do, and (3) good DMs will compensate for it, and as a result people who play with a good DM might never notice.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-01-22, 01:39 PM
Here's something nasty for the cleric...

at 2nd level:

Hold Person. Will save or effectively dead. This is able to be done at 3rd level. This will stop a charging barbarian dead in his tracks. Or any average CL 3 encounter, for that matter.

Silence. If you use it right, no save. Combo it with the Wizard's Web spell, or Druid's Entangle, then drop the silence next to them during the same round. Shuts casters down. Hard.

For a level 3 encounter, absolutely devistating.

Then at higher levels:

Flight + Wind Wall. Wind Wall = can't be attacked by missiles. So, in effect, immune to non-magic attacks. Win button.

Feeblemind. Touch or screwed. Arcane casters in particular have a problem saving. Use Reach Spell to go out ot 30' with it for more insanity.

Dimension Door. Also known as 'you can't hit me', particularly when paired with Fly.

Probably the most under-used combo: Dispel Magic can be used to disable a magical device (like a Rod of Negation so your Forcecage will stick)

Solo
2008-01-22, 02:18 PM
Isn't Feeblemind an instantaneous range attack?

Voyager_I
2008-01-22, 02:29 PM
So when exactly is it inviable to cast Glitterdust, Sleep, or one of any number of ray spells against the aforementioned laughable touch AC's? Even if they only work 80% of the time and can be defended against instead of being "I R WINNOR!!!", it's not like the Wizard can't just, say, cast a different spell or use the exact same again next turn. A non-caster, through the use of expensive magical items, skills which are highly situational and probably cross-class (your Paladin gets 2 + Int skill points per level, has too many ability concerns to pump Int, and pretty much has to put ranks in ride. Somehow, I doubt he'll be cross-classing Spellcraft), and wasting precious, precious feats, can potentially defend themselves against one type of spell. A wizard can have several different types of spells prepared, ready to be used multiple times per day on the off chance they miss a touch attack or someone makes a saving throw...

Hyfigh
2008-01-22, 02:53 PM
I'm really loving that Giacomo's counter to nearly every situation has been on some level of using magic.

When it really boils down to it non-casters largely only have one way to finish a combat encounter; hit point damage. Some non-casters can be built to deal tremendous amounts of hit point damage per round, and even per hit. The problem is, when a character is built in this fashion, they won't be doing anything else. The counter-point from the caster comes from the already-shown-in-this-very-thread line up of different ways to finish an encouter without having to chew through oodles of hit points.

There are other roles non-casters can try to fill:

Battlefield control- I've seen built and played some pretty outstanding battlefield controlling noncasters. They were great at what they did. They suffered the same issue as the high hit-point damage dealer, though. For the life of the character, that was all he was good for. He wasn't even truly reasonable at dealing hit-point damage.
--The caster did that, and deals with the quick encounter stopping tactics.

Healing- Not really the department of any non-caster. I'm sure with items, they can do just fine. I still ask, though, what using items proves? You can do anything with enough items.
--Casters can easily fill this job. Perhaps the wizard will require more creativity, but at least they can fill that gap without expending the groups resources.

Skill Monkey- I'll give this one to non-casters in an indirect fashion. Skill monkeys can fill a few rolls including trapper, and diplomancer. Having a good skill selection and the ability to still be able to handle ones-self in combat isn't unheard of. The reason I say indirectly is because casters can match skill monkeys.
--Full casters can fill this role readily. Especially being able to utilize spells to cover many of the skills.

I can think of much more available that is influential to the overall gameplay.

---Note the most important thing about all of this is that each roll that non-casters can fill the caster can fill without specialization. This is truly detrimental to the non-casters because they need to specialize in a particular field to be worthwhile in that field. This leaves little to no room for the non-caster to fill any other role. Again, the caster can do all of these without requiring any specific build design.

Giacomo, why is it so hard to understand that your counters to these combos are incredibly situational and that the caster doesn't probably have, but definitely has more than just that combo to bring into play? Also, why do you think that because a non-caster can possibly buy magic items, created by a spellcaster, the non-caster is suddenly as powerful as a caster who can do it without the aid of the item?

Saph
2008-01-22, 03:02 PM
So when exactly is it inviable to cast Glitterdust, Sleep, or one of any number of ray spells against the aforementioned laughable touch AC's?

In my experience, the most common reason for not being able to use ray spells effectively is that the enemy I want to target is a) in melee b) on the other side of one of my party members or c) both. (If we're in the aforementioned 10' x 10' dungeon corridor, say.) If c), that's a -8 penalty to the attack and a chance of hitting my ally if I miss.

I think DeathQuaker's got a point here.

- Saph

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-22, 03:05 PM
If c), that's a -8 penalty to the attack and a chance of hitting my ally if I miss.


The risk of hitting your ally was removed in 3.5 unless they are grappling.

spotmarkedx
2008-01-22, 03:20 PM
Travel to an alternate Prime Material in which they have discovered antimatter, through use of a 1/day wondrous item that opens up portals to other plans.Nicely sidestepping my point, which was "I doubt you would actually ever even consider using this in play, just as you would never consider playing pun-pun. Why even bring it up in this discussion?"

CASTLEMIKE
2008-01-22, 03:26 PM
The level 6 Planar Ally spell to call a Efretti or Noble Djinni for Wishes preferably by a Thaumaturgist - 1+ since not all spellcasting has to happen in the middle of combat.

The level 4 Leser Planar Ally spell to call a Movanic Deva from the Fiend Folio for a Raise Dead or Cummune and many other spell like abilities.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-01-22, 03:28 PM
Double post edit

Solo
2008-01-22, 03:47 PM
Nicely sidestepping my point, which was "I doubt you would actually ever even consider using this in play, just as you would never consider playing pun-pun. Why even bring it up in this discussion?"

Looks like someone failed their Knowledge: TV shows check and their Detect Sarcasm roll.

spotmarkedx
2008-01-22, 03:49 PM
Looks like someone failed their Knowledge: TV shows check and their Detect Sarcasm roll.Apparently :smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2008-01-22, 05:34 PM
Probably the most under-used combo: Dispel Magic can be used to disable a magical device (like a Rod of Negation so your Forcecage will stick)

Drawback is dispel magic only supresses it for a few rounds.

Citizen Jenkins
2008-01-22, 06:39 PM
I have to admit that I enjoy these little arguments when they spring up because they keep coming back to the same point: that spellcasters are significantly more powerful than noncasters but hardly unbeatable. Sadly, that's something increasingly lost on these boards as the "wizards win" theme keeps popping up in various discussions. Not "wizards win a majority of the time" but "wizards win everything, ever."

I don't want to be mean but I'd like to bring up the following as an example. It came up on a recent topic and symbolizes exactly the kind of "wizards win" mentality that these threads (whatever their other faults) help to combat.

CR 17 is precisely the level, 13th level PCs are expected to be able to beat using all their daily abilities and rolling averages. A 13th level party of 4 IS CR 17, so it'd be an equal fight, except they probably have better equipment than the Monolith. And then there's the whole thing that the Monolith isn't a caster. PCs probably have some. Unless the summoner intervenes, the Monolith is toast, since casters>non-casters. Send 2 Monoliths with buffs and they'll be in for trouble though. But yea, PC Wizard and Cleric (or Sorcerer and Druid or whatever) could easily deal with Monoliths using Reflex Save or Sucks or focusing on the Will-saves (every spell is 50/50 encounter ender while he Monolith needs a crapton of hits to get through the PC HP). Even the fighters wouldn't be useless, actually, since Monolith's AC is worthless and a simple Power Attack/Shock Trooper could easily cut Monolith's HP to half in one round on level 13, or even just straight kill it, DR or not.
Let's ignore the insane Ref saves that most elemental monoliths have, or the immunities that elementals traits give, or the disgusting offensive abilities the monoliths have, or the fact that the best Save-DC the wizard could reasonably throw is DC 26 (26 Int+level 7 spell+1 for specialization or other random boost) against creatures whose lowest save is usually +16. My question is: when did it become assumed that a surprised wizard (or any spellcaster) should be able to easily deal with a monster that the DMG puts right between "will kill somebody" and "will kill everybody" and that it would take two of these things, buffed, to give him trouble? Somehow the equation "casters>non-casters" has grown to mean that any caster, regardless of situation or the power of the two combatants, will win.

I know that's not what many of the people in this discussion are advocating but that's what keeps leaking out. I think that's why these debates keep ending the same way. Giacomo came out challenging people who keep referring to "wizards automatically win" combos. The (for the most part) responsible wizard advocates replied with "sure they don't win all the time but they do win the majority of the time" argument and both sides went home more or less happy. Sir Giacomo has once again gotten people to agree that wizards don't automatically win and the wizards advocates have once again proven that wizards are generally more powerful. It would be ships crossing in the night except for Sir Giacomo's almost OCD need to respond to every point raised, which gives the appearance that the arguments are meeting each other when I really don't think they are.

(To be clear, Sir Giacomo has said some odd things in other threads which I do not support. I do think the effect of this particular semi-regular thread is benign but that's all I'll commit to here.)

PS. I've never understood the widespread hostility to the (I believe this is the term now) Giacomo monk and his massive ranks in UMD. The most common objection is that "No one plays that way!" which seems odd because the Giacomo monk lives in the same disturbed theoretical universe as the paranoid Batman wizard and Tippy's invincible army of Shadesteel Golems. No one plays that way. I also find it odd because from an optimization standpoint, at the higher levels where magic becomes ubiquitous, why wouldn't a fighter take it? I've never understood where another rank of ride (with it's mostly set DCs) would ever be as valuable as the ability to get in on the magic game that almost everyone else is playing at that point. Sure, no one would actually play that way but wizards don't sleep twenty three hours a day either.

Jerthanis
2008-01-22, 06:41 PM
I'm a little confused, is this a thread about caster balance, or about favorite spell-combos?

Personally, I kind of like Mirror Image or it's Greater version combined with Displacement. If you get past the 50% miss chance, there's a 7/8ths chance you hit an image anyway. With this, a caster can almost stand next to a melee machine and be okay for a couple rounds.

I really like Telekinesis with Shrink Object. Technically you could use Shrink object on colossal crossbow bolts, carry them around with you and shoot them all at people for 3d6 per bolt, and you can shoot one per level up to 15th dealing 45d6 damage if you can hit AC consistently. My preference is to just shrink normal sized Longswords or Greatswords, because I think tossing dozens of swords looks cooler than shooting what are essentially fence posts at people. Telekinesis is also a really good utility spell, since you can lift very heavy things with it for short periods of time, or could throw someone off a cliff if the situation allowed for it.

I like Sudden Empowered Enervations. I prefer Sudden Empower because I feel like your spell slots should be filled with save-based spells for the most part, and then the highest level you can swing. I hate putting Enervation effects at the same level I could be giving them Save-or-decorate my garden (Flesh to Stone) or Save-or-Everyone does what I say (Mass Suggestion), especially since I can't think of any spells other than Enervation worth Empowering. You can also Sudden Empower an Enervation at 7th level instead of having to wait until 11th to normal empower it.

Spiritual Weapon is really awesome, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked, but it's a low level force effect damage spell that will continue to hurt its target continuously without extra effort on your part. After a while it ends up becoming less useful, but it stays good for quite a while considering it's only a level 2 spell.

Alright, those are all my favorite spells or spell combos, if we're also talking about class balance here... casters can probably do more at high levels, it's true. However, it's not really THAT hard to come up with things for the Fighter type to butcher. The game is really about fun, and most people generally aren't really THAT competitive about who's contributing the most to the party. If the Fighter annihilates a half dozen mooks with a single sword-slash like he's Guts from Berserk or something, he'll still feel like he's contributing even if he has to suck up a Wizard's Fly spell to keep up with the demon prince. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are indeed overbalanced, and could be fixed to be more in line with the rest... but it's not like playing a Fighter is not still fun in a group with a wizard as long as you accept that your job is basically as an executioner, to put down all the foes everyone is too busy for.

Besides, doesn't everyone play levels 1-9ish anyway? There's barely any fighter/caster imbalance in those levels anyhow.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-22, 06:54 PM
Besides, doesn't everyone play levels 1-9ish anyway? There's barely any fighter/caster imbalance in those levels anyhow.

I like 11 to 15 myself, high enough to have arange of options and powers but low enough to not shake any world they happen to be in. I'm sure other people have their own spreads of prefferance. Personally I can't stand the really high levels and the really low levels are just rediculous, getting challenged by a house cat in a fight isn't my idea of a credible Game Engine

Patashu
2008-01-22, 07:03 PM
I don't think you can make antimatter in D&D. For one, it's never mentioned in any D&D book, ever, and since fantasy =/= real life there's no reason to assume that atomic theory and chemistry function the same in D&D as in reality.

Even if you could, what's the DC on knowing that antimatter exists? 50?

Rutee
2008-01-22, 07:07 PM
By RAW, you can make Antimatter. What you're referring to is a GM's very, very good reason to stop it.

Solo
2008-01-22, 07:16 PM
PS. I've never understood the widespread hostility to the (I believe this is the term now) Giacomo monk and his massive ranks in UMD. The most common objection is that "No one plays that way!" which seems odd because the Giacomo monk lives in the same disturbed theoretical universe as the paranoid Batman wizard and Tippy's invincible army of Shadesteel Golems. No one plays that way. I also find it odd because from an optimization standpoint, at the higher levels where magic becomes ubiquitous, why wouldn't a fighter take it? I've never understood where another rank of ride (with it's mostly set DCs) would ever be as valuable as the ability to get in on the magic game that almost everyone else is playing at that point. Sure, no one would actually play that way but wizards don't sleep twenty three hours a day either.

The thing is, the UMD monk succeeds through the use of non-class features, which annoys people, as SG claims that monks are balanced because a monk can "keep up" with optimizing UMD.

Collin152
2008-01-22, 07:17 PM
If I read it correctly, by RAW that spell only creates Vegetable matter, Crystal matter, Metallic matter, and Gemstones.
So, still, for matter Vegetable, Cyrstalline and Mineral, it is the very apex of a versatile spell.
Or something like that. I'm no good with beats and rythm.

valadil
2008-01-22, 07:20 PM
To the OP, yes most nasty spell combos can be countered by something. But there are very few characters who are going to have that something for each and every possible spell combo a wizard can throw.

You pointed out that proof against poison blocks cloudkill. Let's expand on that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but proof against poison comes with an item. As such it uses up an item slot. Each character has 12 item slots. Throw in 7 feats too. That's 19 things he can block (yes I realize there will also be class abilities like evasion, but if any character actually used all their item and feat slots for defense against wizards, the character would be resilient without actually being capable of achieving anything). A wizard at level 16 has 32 spells a day. That's more spells than the defensive guy can block. Sooner or later something is going to get through.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are defenses to each spell, but the wizard has a whole lot more spells available than any one character will have defenses. A well played wizard isn't necessarily the one who has the highest save DCs or the most damaging fireball. It's the one who can figure out where a character isn't defended and have something prepared for to exploit that character.

--

Back to the original topic, a combo I'm rather fond of is mass reduce person and black tentacles. I used that combo as GM during a boss fight for my all rogue game. I don't think any players actually cried, but I could be mistaken.

Collin152
2008-01-22, 07:30 PM
Items form a shoddy defence, given that dispel magic can take them out long enough for you to land a hit past those defenses.

vrellum
2008-01-22, 08:13 PM
By RAW, you can make Antimatter. What you're referring to is a GM's very, very good reason to stop it.

Actually, at best (for the antimatter summoners), RAW are silent on this issue. No where does it say you can create antimatter, and no where does it say that you cannot. RAW are also silent on the existence of antimatter. So if you wish to house-rule that major creation or a similar spell can create antimatter and blow up the world, that is your decision, it is not RAW.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-23, 06:15 AM
that spellcasters are significantly more powerful than noncasters but hardly unbeatable. Sadly, that's something increasingly lost on these boards as the "wizards win" theme keeps popping up in various discussions. Not "wizards win a majority of the time" but "wizards win everything, ever."
This is what is known as a straw man fallacy. If the point was to prove that "wizards can be beaten", then you have nothing to prove, because nobody actually believes otherwise.



Giacomo came out challenging people who keep referring to "wizards automatically win" combos.
Actually, no, he didn't. He was asking for, and I quote, "spells and/or spell combinations that will blow non-casters out of the water without a chance for them to hit back".
Then people pointed out obvious examples, like the first-level Sleep spell, and SG responded by disagreeing with pretty much all of them, with mostly fatuous arguments that generally boil down to misunderstanding the rules, or "they don't always work". He also hasn't "gotten people to agree" because pretty much everybody still disagrees with him.



PS. I've never understood the widespread hostility to the (I believe this is the term now) Giacomo monk and his massive ranks in UMD.
A number of reasons.
First, this so-called monk doesn't actually use any of his monk abilities, so in effect he's proven that this monk is as strong as an expert (who, incidentally, has a better UMD score since it's his class skill).
Second, the build tends to rely on polymorph, leadership, diplomancy and other things considered broken by everybody (including WOTC!) except SG.
Third, because of illogical selections of stats, skills and feats, this build is almost completely ineffective until he finally reaches the level where he can reliably make his UMD tests.
Fourth, it assumes that the rest of the party will constantly be casting buffs on him, instead of doing something productive of their own accord, like taking down enemies.
And fifth, because the build assumes it is acceptable to deliberately cripple the rest of the party, to balance the odds between their effectiveness and his lack thereof.
As you can see, that's a pretty large list of things wrong with that suggestion.



The most common objection is that "No one plays that way!" which seems odd because the Giacomo monk lives in the same disturbed theoretical universe as
The point is that people do play ordinary wizards and ordinary clerics, and you don't need to cheese out a wizard to make it powerful (clerics are even worse because they automatically know every spell on their class list).
And if you need a highly unlikely and infeasible build to counter a common build, that implies that the common build is unbalanced (i.e. that casters are stronger than non-casters). Which, again, is something that pretty much everybody agrees with except for SG.

Ceaon
2008-01-23, 11:38 AM
with whatever is at its disposal (including contacting an npc spellcaster for advice).

That npc spellcaster is dominated or just a friend of the scryer. The warrior gets dominated himself because he is told to 'drop his will save for an anti-scrying spell'.

Or, the warrior is protected from scrying by the npc and has to let the npc cast this protection every so often... which either costs money or means the warrior is the favorite warrior of a very helpful npc.
While the scryer just moves on to teleporting to the npc spellcaster and telling him to stop helping the warrior. He agrees or disagrees, they fight, scryer wins.
Maybe the npc spellcaster is stronger than the scryer. In that case, HE wins. Not the warrior, who is powerless and unable to even detect or identify the scryer.

Or, the warrior buys an anti-scrying item. He loses money, the caster doesn't.
The wizard now knows where the warrior lives and prepares any of his most deadly spells to surprise the warrior.

The warrior, who thinks he is save, is found dead in his mommy's house the day after, his body selfmutilated out of disgrace of losing so easily.

Roderick_BR
2008-01-23, 12:29 PM
Or, the warrior buys an anti-scrying item. He loses money, the caster doesn't.
The wizard now knows where the warrior lives and prepares any of his most deadly spells to surprise the warrior.
How?

And a nitpick, I don't think you can order someone to "drop his will save".

Everything else is fair play. Except the "npc spellcaster being friend of the caster". The warrior can have a npc spellcaster friend too, so that doesn't count as a power of the caster.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-23, 12:38 PM
How?

And a nitpick, I don't think you can order someone to "drop his will save".

Everything else is fair play. Except the "npc spellcaster being friend of the caster". The warrior can have a npc spellcaster friend too, so that doesn't count as a power of the caster.

For the record, spellcasters who want a Dominated buddy can layer like 50 Dominate spells on him, using most of their 5th+ level spell slots for a week or so. That way as soon as the "buddy" breaks free of one with a Will save, he immediately has to break free of the next one, too, and so on (multiple copies of a spell basically sit there and don't do anything--but if the original disappears, via dismissal, dispel, or saving throw, the next copy "in line" is active).

Voyager_I
2008-01-23, 03:14 PM
You can voluntarily fail your saves. The wizard just has to phrase it in a manner that doesn't make it sound "obviously self-destructive." Bluff checks are always an option...

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-23, 06:12 PM
Hi again,

sorry- real life workload this week is a bit much, so I will only jump in, then replying more in detail over the weekend. I'll also try then to summarise the spell combos so far, where I see exaggerations in the effects some caster believers apparently WISH them to have but are not backed up the rules, and then even if they are powerful, the typical non-caster protections against them (may be useful both for DMs and players as tactical ideas, apart from any abstract balance discussions which we lead here). Probably I'll constantly expand the spell combo list in the OP for future reference - the thread by Saph devoted to debunk the forcecage combo belief was a good start, but considering the many responses here I think there should be a more comprehensive list..

Apart from that just trying to stem the most recent wrongness imo in the posts; pls try to understand that it will take time for me to answer most of your comments (some I may overlook, pls just point me to them if you still wish to have an answer).

First of all, Reel on, Love and Voyager_I: a correction of the dominate effect.
Dominate will not allow you to bluff someone into "lowering" the save. A save is a save is a save. It is instinctive. So it definitely goes against your nature to fail a save.
Multiple castings of the dominate will simply result in a corresponding number of more saves. Say, you laid 100 dominates on a poor fighter. You order him to lower the save for another dominate, he gets a saving throw +2 because it goes against his nature, and gets that save vs ALL other dominates as well.
IT MAY BE that as a DM I would allow some bluff check for tricking a dominated character into believing a benefitting spell is cast on him, with a bluff check (and the dominated character may recognise the spell via spellcraft). But that would be deviating from the spell description which specifically outlineds a certain skill check (the sense motive for others), but did not include any skill-way to circumvent the subject trying to resist the control (note: the victim of the spell does NOT believe the caster is a good friend, so the bluff may only be allowed on a charmed, but not a dominated creature in the first place).

Now, I'll try to correct some imo wrong notions of Kurald Galain trying to respond to the imo justified wondering of CitizenJenkins about where the hate vs the "Giacomo monk" comes from (or short Giamonk, as it has been already marketed by the caster power fraction :smallsmile: ). It is not really part of this thread, so I'll keep it as short as possible (EDIT: OK, it seems I failed...:smallwink: ).



First, this so-called monk doesn't actually use any of his monk abilities, so in effect he's proven that this monk is as strong as an expert (who, incidentally, has a better UMD score since it's his class skill).

No, of course the Giamonk goes beyond that. You see, Giamonk only UMDs the stuff that SYNERGISES well with his class abilities or stuff where he is simply the best: Move, no. of attacks, grapple. SYNERGY with class abilities. Something the expert cannot even hope to achieve since, outside skill choice and skill points, he has no class ability. And everytime you say a monk is only in power like an expert, you will get less and less believable in even discussing this theme.


Second, the build tends to rely on polymorph, leadership, diplomancy and other things considered broken by everybody (including WOTC!) except SG.

The monk has so many class abilities and so many UMD synergies, polymorph, leadership and diplomacy are not even necessary. And polymoprh broken? OK, then you need to ban a druid's wildshape as well. And all of a sudden the monk's strongest (not winning, but strongest) contender for No.1 grappler disappears.
He can make USE of leadership (benefits a non-caster disproportionately more than a caster in terms of buffing/helping outside adventures), and diplomacy is only broken when you do not really read through the WHOLE skill description (like the part on how long and what level you need to diplomance someone from hostile to friendly. It's also funny how people believe diplomacy will create a permanent status.)


Third, because of illogical selections of stats, skills and feats, this build is almost completely ineffective until he finally reaches the level where he can reliably make his UMD tests.

Illogical? Maybe for your monk perception: a strange unarmed guy always going melee and full attacking ("oh noes, a monk cannot flurry as a standard actcion, so he is useless"). Not for a monk build designed to take out casters.
Some spells can be cast outside combat, just re-try as often as needed until the UMD check succeeds at lower levels.


Fourth, it assumes that the rest of the party will constantly be casting buffs on him, instead of doing something productive of their own accord, like taking down enemies.

UMD makes a monk less dependent on outside buffs - in those cases he REALLY needs them (note: a caster will have to have buffs up more often for defense, due to less "natural" defenses than the monk).
Expecting casters in the group to buff the monk with part of their spells is something I took as a normal case in a group game, some posters here (including you) apparently not.


And fifth, because the build assumes it is acceptable to deliberately cripple the rest of the party, to balance the odds between their effectiveness and his lack thereof.

Yes, I know. The moment a caster conceals himself to reduce enemy attacks it means "enounters get ridiculously easy".
The moment a non-caster does that, it is "cripple the rest of the party". Double standard alarm ringing strongest so far in this thread, grats!

Ah, and concerning this (prior) comment of yours...


Actually, no, he didn't. He was asking for, and I quote, "spells and/or spell combinations that will blow non-casters out of the water without a chance for them to hit back".
Then people pointed out obvious examples, like the first-level Sleep spell, and SG responded by disagreeing with pretty much all of them, with mostly fatuous arguments that generally boil down to misunderstanding the rules, or "they don't always work". He also hasn't "gotten people to agree" because pretty much everybody still disagrees with him.

Well, at the start of this thread (until the posts got too many to answer all of them for the time being) I imo disproved in a number of cases that there were no "obvious examples". Sleep? Blowing non-casters out of the water? You must be joking.
The main point is this: there is imo a majority in this thread (who opposes me on many issues, but not this one) who say that there apparently are no winning combos in core (which actually means I already reached part of the goal of this thread).

and on your final one...


The point is that people do play ordinary wizards and ordinary clerics, and you don't need to cheese out a wizard to make it powerful (clerics are even worse because they automatically know every spell on their class list).
And if you need a highly unlikely and infeasible build to counter a common build, that implies that the common build is unbalanced (i.e. that casters are stronger than non-casters). Which, again, is something that pretty much everybody agrees with except for SG.

It's hard to change long-formed or preset ways, apparently. These boards (and others) are taken so firmly in the grip of caster uber-ness that I get the impression they are completely blind to seeing what the core rules already offer to thwart excesses of caster power.

And, contrary to many wrong interpretations of what I have said, the non-casters do not always have to use magic to find anti-magic tactics. And, btw, everyone has access to magic in this game - it's a fantasy game! The categories are "casters" and "non-casters" not "magic-haves" and "magic have-nots".
Similarly, many maintain that I put up only highly specialised countermeasures (when in fact in this thread this is rarely the case), but at the same time they assume that a wizard will use all of these highly specialised attacking combos with his so and so many spells per day. But what then about his defenses? A 5th level caster using fly and invisbility (so TWO! spells for one encounter DEFENSE only) has already lost quite some firepower.
What about the time to cast all these spells?
And what of the general countertactics of non-casters:
- blocking line of effect (example: cover)
- blocking line of sight (concealment)
- blocking material component (stealing, sundering)
- blocking somatic component (grappling)
- blocking vocal component (pinning, silence spell)
- blocking duration (superior move, wait till buffs are over)
- forcing concentration checks with attacks (ready attack, ranged or melee)
- blocking spell recovery (stealth, ambush, steal/sunder spellbook, focus, or symbol)
- tricking into wrong spell preparation (vs non-spontaneous casters) or wrong targeting (decoys)

These are only the general countermeasures. So much stuff can already go wrong before a spell actually gets cast (and then has to overcome the usual touch AC, saves and SR). And most of these general measures do not even depend on magic. AND they are available to your low touch AC CR 9-10 monsters, Reel on, Love. I do not know which game you are playing but in one of your posts above you conveyed the impression that you believe all CR 9-10 monsters are laughable for a wizard of the same level using ray attacks. I can only hope I understood that wrong.

And this list does not even include low-cost, low-magic anti-caster nasties like eversmoking bottle (the party may hold its breath inside, but not the enemy spell user trying to cast a spell), AMF, silence or a nice touch of idiocy (pay more to get it maximised or empowered; and before you ask: yes. non-casters can use rods of metagmagic, too).

Please, all of you who believe in absolute caster superiority: reconsider. Why do you always assume lame duck non-caster opponents and monsters who have no clue what magic is and what it will do in a world full of it?

But more on the weekend.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-23, 06:37 PM
Please, all of you who believe in absolute caster superiority: reconsider. Why do you always assume lame duck non-caster opponents and monsters who have no clue what magic is and what it will do in a world full of it?

Whom are you addressing? I have not seen anyone advocating absolute caster superiority, just simple caster superiority.

I think I know what's wrong here, SG. You're arguing against people who don't exist!

Collin152
2008-01-23, 07:07 PM
Plus, Caster versus Caster is like Godzilla versus Godzila, or Shiva versus Shiva, or Merlin against Merlin.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-23, 07:14 PM
OK, Solo, just for you: what I said also should be enough to consider even the notion of non-absolute superiority...:smallbiggrin:

Ah, and before going again to bed, this one needs answering, because it is so utterly wrong, so full of nit-picking to fit some strange perception of the rules, and so wrongly applauded as "logic" and "awesome", that it needs bringing back to reality.



For the record, here's a list of core CR 10 monsters: Collosal Animated Object (can't fly, no ranged attacks), young adult Brass Dragon (can fly and breathe, but flying invisible people are still far safer than the land-locked kind), Bebilith (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Couatl (flies), 9-headed Cryohydra (can't fly, no ranged attacks) Formian Myrmarch (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Fire Giant (can't fly, only one ranged attack per round compared to three melee, and at half the AB), Clay Golem (can't fly, no ranged attacks), 11-headed Hydra (can't fly, no ranged attacks), Gargantuan monstrous scorpion (no and no), Guardian Naga (nope and yes, but at a very short range that won't reach you), 9-headed pyrohydra (no and no), Rakshasa (no and kind of--low-DC spells that target your good save and the targeted ones require line of sight.. also acid arrow, but that's not scary), Juvenile Red Dragon (yes, see Brass--and get that Resist Energy scroll ready), Noble Salamander (no and pretty much no--Fireball 1/day just isn't good enough), and juvenile White and Silver dragons.

So as we see, flight alone keeps you pretty much totally safe from the *majority* of CR 10 enemies at level 9. Add Greater Invisibility to that and even the things that do have ranged attacks pretty much can't hurt you. The Fire Giant can throw a rock at +10 AB with a 50% miss chance. That's not scary.

Are you kidding me? Enervation is freaking brilliant. Have you looked up what negative levels do? "-1 to everything per negative level", for a start.
True Strike is IN NO WAY required for spellcasters. Touch ACs are unimpressive. Quickened True Strike is used in ridiculous "100% guarantee your instant victory" challenges; I'm just showing you how the wizard is devastatingly powerful. He's fine with missing with his Enervation 5 or 10 or 15% of the time; it remains ridiculously good.
This combo is great because in two rounds you've destroyed the balor/dragon/whatever, and even if you didn't, it has,-2, -3 , -4, or -6 (a little over -4 on average) on everything and lost some HP too.


Not that likely? Yes it is! I have the list of CR 10 core monsters open, so here are their touch ACs: -1, 9, 12, 9, 9, 13, 8, 8, 9, 6, 11, 9, 12, 9, 10, 9. The golems don't count because core doesn't have rays that work on them, but as you can see, the pattern is very clear: the overwhelmingly vast majority of enemies have negligibly low touch ACs.
Let's go through the CR 9 list, too, because I get the feeling you're going to try and ignore the facts: 18 (that's the Air Elemental), 16, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 11, 14, 7, 10, 8, 7, 16, 8, 11, 9, 11, 9, 9, 8, 10, 11, 9, 8, 9, 11, 10, 11, 10.
So a *little* more variance, but still all of *three* touch ACs you can't hit on anything but a 1 with +9 or 10 AB... and it's not like you're going to be consistently missing even the touch AC of 14. +9 to hit is *very* reasonable at this level (+4 BAB, +4 dex, +1 size), then maybe you get +2 for being invisible... which also flatfoots them... oops. Besides which, don't aim rays at the air elemental, duh.


Now, letussee. I had a look at the monsters you listed, so far I checked the CR 9-10 monsters alphabetically to letter G (your great fire giant example). And then I gave up, because I saw no more need.
You see, apparently you have never fought monsters played according to what they should do by your DM (and as a DM likely have ignored everything beside the "touch AC" entry). No wonder you believe these monsters are waiting to be served on a platter for a fly/invisibiltiy/ray attack combo (with STR reduction, to boost!).

Here they are...in alphabetical order...
Colossal animated object - construct traits, Nuff said,.
Avoral - touch AC 16, flying, SR 25, true seeing, plus spells (for boosting that touch AC, not that it is necessary...)
Couatl - etheral jaunt, flying, Sorc 9 spells.
Delver - STR 27 (good luck reducing that), burrowing speed and init+5 (meaning it will surprise the wizard in a dungeon where it lairs.)
Bebelith - STR 28 (see Delver). plane shift, Hide +16
Vrock - STR 23, SR 17...hey, we may finally get one who COULD fall victim to your "great" combo. But, ah wait - it has spells: mirror image. Bye-bye ray. Ah, and listen +24 CAN pinpoint the wizard, do not worry.
Bone Devil - STr 21, SR 21, greater teleport at will, fly, invisibility, mirror image. Oh yeah!
Triceratops - Hey, this one finally fits the alleged monster CR9-10 description "stupid, non-flying on the ground.". Unfortunately, it has STR 30. Good luck "ray of enfeebling" that. In the 3 rounds it takes you, the non-casters have smashed back into jurassic age where it belongs. But thanks for reducing its attacking potential.
Dire Shark - one of the few animals in CR 9+. Underwater. Not that caster-friendly. And not that common (ah, and the water blocks line of effect for those wizards on a ship).
Young adultish dragons - high STR again, but here the wizard MAY get a shot with his rays. Provided the dragon does not fly out of range and tries a longer-range spell from there.
Dragon turtle. Underwater, even higher STR than the shark. Next.
Elementals: all high STR, Air and fire less so (but with high initiative so they will probably get at the wizard first...)
Formian Myrmoch - SR 25, +8 initiative, spot/listen +18, spell-like abiliites.
Fire Giant! Your great example. Unfortunately, it also has big STR and is no match for non-casters at lvl 9-10, either.

Rays of Enervation might work vs the high-STR opponents, but since the only thing they do is -4 at best to everything to high-HD creatures, it is not that much of a killer spell, either.

Quite a lot of these high-level creatures have flying ability, too. The *majority* may not have flying, but many other ways to attack even a flying wizard. Overland flight is slower than normal fly, and this could well mean a monster with reach and good move (high jump) WILL reach a wizard in a dungeon setting.
And most importantly, they have means to try to actually surprise the wizard instead of the other way round (both in dungeons and outdoors). And even at lvl9-10 the wizard cannot be invisible all the time without a ring of invisiblity. And some of the creatures have scent, tremorsense, blindsense, what have you to overcome invisiblity in one way or another.

So, no "easy" moving (or even soloing) for the wizard in typical monster encounters. And when it comes to opponent npcs characters with even only npc equipment, your are fast moving into territory of missile weapons, spells etc. which all will make life quite challenging for any caster. As it should be.

- Giacomo

Emperor Tippy
2008-01-23, 07:22 PM
Whom are you addressing? I have not seen anyone advocating absolute caster superiority, just simple caster superiority.

I think I know what's wrong here, SG. You're arguing against people who don't exist!

I will argue absolute caster superiority starting at ECL 21.

------
Casters beat non casters not because of any specific thing they can do being overpowered but because they have a large set of things that they can do, all of which are very powerful.

The wizard can cast force cage and effectively defeat any non teleporting, large or smaller, non disintegrating, non rod of cancellation creature in 1 round.

The fighter can hit any creature hard enough to force save for massive damage or outright killing it fairly easily.

Both the wizard and fighter can end the fight in 1 round easily.

Now the problem is that the wizard has more than just forcecage. He can cast Irresistible Dance instead. Or dominate. Or Imprisonment. Or Finger of Death. Etc. And if the wizard is facing a creature that he can't beat he can cast teleport and run away to fight another day.

Now the fighter can still just hit stuff with his sword, or maybe his bow. And he can't just disappear to the other side of the world if the fight is going badly for him.

Even still this could be balanced if the fighter had better defense than the caster. But he doesn't.

The wizard can use Mind Blank, Invisibility/Greater Invisibility, Shapechange, Time Stop, Protection from X, Magnificent Mansion, Foresight, Freedom of Movement, etc.

The fighter can't get any of those from class features. And to get Mind Blank, Freedom of Movement, and Invisibility from items will cost him a quarter of his body slots and over a quarter of his level 20 WBL. He can never get Shapechange and turn into a golem to become immune to all magic.


So why people say casters beat non casters isn't because of any 1 spell or even combination of spells. It is because the wizard gets a dozen different ways to accomplish his goal, all of which are roughly equal but with different strengths and weaknesses, while the fighter gets 1 or 2 ways to accomplish his goal.

Frosty
2008-01-23, 07:25 PM
Skill Monkey- I'll give this one to non-casters in an indirect fashion. Skill monkeys can fill a few rolls including trapper, and diplomancer. Having a good skill selection and the ability to still be able to handle ones-self in combat isn't unheard of. The reason I say indirectly is because casters can match skill monkeys.
--Full casters can fill this role readily. Especially being able to utilize spells to cover many of the skills.

Actually, some fullcasters don't even need to utilize spells to fill this role. Namely: Having Knock is nice, but Beguilers don't need it to completely replace the Rogue.

FinalJustice
2008-01-23, 07:42 PM
Sir_Giacomo, have you ever looked at this matter from an RP perspective. At least in my experience, when people want to make a fighter, they want to make swords/axe/bow/whateverman, that fights his life by his sword, not by taking woodsticks out of his magical bag and blowing himself up when he fails a UMD check. Same for monks, people usually want to do a guy who can keep up with the fighter in combat, unarmed and unarmored, just by perfecting his body to inhuman levels, not a bunnyhoper who spends half combat jumping from-here-to-there using all sorts of wooden sticks to transform into a monster that blinks out of the material plane and all that jazz.

The wands and scrolls, at least IMHO, are in the common imaginative of the world as spellcaster's stuff. When you say that casters and noncasters keep on par by the noncasters using wands and scrolls, you're, in fact, admitting the system is unable to deal with noncasters, since they have to mimic spellcasters using spellcaster's tools, and when one wants to play a man who devotes to the perfection of his own body and uses it to fight his foes, they have the option of becoming harry potter monk or being half-assed-effective caster's bitches. This is hardly a balanced system, because in your perfectly balanced core system, people should be able to keep on par with each other resorting to their own stuff, at least the 'four basic roles' should.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-01-23, 07:44 PM
Actually, Enervation sucks against high str opponents. Those are the ones with typically lousy will saves you can Hold Person or it's larger cousins.

Enervation is used in the following ways:

1) Combo with save or loose spells. Every negative level drops all saves by one. An average of 2.5 negative levels a shot really drops saves from 'no problem' to 'aw crap' really quick.

2) Hit something with a LOT of negative levels to kill it. Granted, this takes a lot, and generally requires something like Empowered Twin Ray Enervation to crank out enough negative levels to do it, but it can be done.

3) Nerf casters

Additionally, a spellcaster loses one spell or spell slot from his or her highest available level. Negative levels stack.
So that Coutal would not be casting much of anything after a couple of hits of Enervation

4) Nerf spell-like abilities

and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities).
Drop Caster Level to 0, and it can't be used. This can hardcore nerf otherwise dangerous opponents. Like, say, that Bone Devil. Drop his Caster Level down to about third and he won't be able to use any of his SLA's.

Also, you have a typo on the Bone Devil's SLA list...


At will—greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), dimensional anchor, fly, invisibility (self only), major image (DC 15), wall of ice. Caster level 12th. The save DC is Charisma-based.

It's Major Image, not Mirror Image.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-23, 08:00 PM
First of all, Reel on, Love and Voyager_I: a correction of the dominate effect.
Dominate will not allow you to bluff someone into "lowering" the save. A save is a save is a save. It is instinctive. So it definitely goes against your nature to fail a save. I suppose that means your monk has to save against the enlarge person you are so fond of then?
Multiple castings of the dominate will simply result in a corresponding number of more saves. Say, you laid 100 dominates on a poor fighter. You order him to lower the save for another dominate, he gets a saving throw +2 because it goes against his nature, and gets that save vs ALL other dominates as well.No, you just repeatedly cast it, he fails his save against the casting enough that when you order him to do something against his nature he has to save, then save, then save another 50 times to throw off all effects. This is a good way of making sure he never leaves your control, as at the end of each day you use every possible slot to make him dominated even more.
No, of course the Giamonk goes beyond that. You see, Giamonk only UMDs the stuff that SYNERGISES well with his class abilities or stuff where he is simply the best: Move, no. of attacks, grapple. SYNERGY with class abilities. Something the expert cannot even hope to achieve since, outside skill choice and skill points, he has no class ability. And everytime you say a monk is only in power like an expert, you will get less and less believable in even discussing this theme.Your monk has spot, listen, sense motive, UMD, diplomacy, tumble, and jump. That takes an 18 int, and would be much more powerful as an expert who can get UMD at a higher score than 11.
The monk has so many class abilities and so many UMD synergies, polymorph, leadership and diplomacy are not even necessary. And polymoprh broken? OK, then you need to ban a druid's wildshape as well. And all of a sudden the monk's strongest (not winning, but strongest) contender for No.1 grappler disappears.WotC has banned polymorph from all official games and recommended that DMs do the same. That's why it should be banned here. They have done no such thing with Wildshape, though they probably should.
Diplomacy is only broken when you do not really read through the WHOLE skill description (like the part on how long and what level you need to diplomance someone from hostile to friendly. It's also funny how people believe diplomacy will create a permanent status.)An expert half-elf 20 with the negotiator feat and with 5 ranks in bluff, Knowledge(N&R), Sense Motive, and a 14 cha can turn someone from hostile(attacks on sight) to friendly(offers advice) as a full-round action with a roll of 10 or greater. Put 3 of those in a party and the BBEG just became your ally. And there is nothing in RAW about a time limit, which is all we consider here.
Illogical? Maybe for your monk perception: a strange unarmed guy always going melee and full attacking ("oh noes, a monk cannot flurry as a standard actcion, so he is useless"). Not for a monk build designed to take out casters.Who freedom of movement out of your grapple and fly out of reach.
Some spells can be cast outside combat, just re-try as often as needed until the UMD check succeeds at lower levels.Have you read the costs of a wand? All that will do is burn slots to emulate something the caster can do for free(with spells) or far easier (most wands require no UMD check for a caster, plus they have far more skill points to burn).
UMD makes a monk less dependent on outside buffs - in those cases he REALLY needs them (note: a caster will have to have buffs up more often for defense, due to less "natural" defenses than the monk).Expecting casters in the group to buff the monk with part of their spells is something I took as a normal case in a group game, some posters here (including you) apparently not.My spellslots go to whatever will be the most use. If my allies need buffs, I'll give it to them, but no more than a couple, because I put most of my focus on DEFEATING the enemy, not making the poor monk effective. Yeah, I'll toss a mass enlarge onto the cleric, fighter, and monk, but after that all my rounds are going to be battlefield control, because they should be effective after 2 buffs (mine and cleric's). If they aren't, then too bad because the battle will probably be over faster if I throw out a stinking cloud rather than a Bear's Endurance.
Yes, I know. The moment a caster conceals himself to reduce enemy attacks it means "enounters get ridiculously easy".
The moment a non-caster does that, it is "cripple the rest of the party". Double standard alarm ringing strongest so far in this thread, grats!The caster is still effective while concealed. The instant a fighter attacks he's pinpointed by the enemy, which means he is less effective while concealed. And I think the "crippling" came from your use of an Eversmoking Bottle, which blinds your allies.
Well, at the start of this thread (until the posts got too many to answer all of them for the time being) I imo disproved in a number of cases that there were no "obvious examples". Sleep? Blowing non-casters out of the water? You must be joking.The saving throw on sleep means that most opponents at first level will need to roll a 14 to survive. Show me another class that can do that to all enemies with one turn.
The main point is this: there is imo a majority in this thread (who opposes me on many issues, but not this one) who say that there apparently are no winning combos in core (which actually means I already reached part of the goal of this thread).We say there is no "auto-win" combo. Think back to when you were 6, playing rock-paper-scissors, and one jerk pulled dynamite. The next person pulled superman. There is no insta-win. However, there is probable win, which is what most of these combos are, and no enemy will be immune to all of them. A wizard has about 20 methods of attack. A monk has one.(3 depending on how you define attack) Guess which is easier to defend against.
It's hard to change long-formed or preset ways, apparently. These boards (and others) are taken so firmly in the grip of caster uber-ness that I get the impression they are completely blind to seeing what the core rules already offer to thwart excesses of caster power.Your methods of thwarting always involve one-use items, defenses that make you suffer more than your opponent, and protections that are expensive and whose only viable use is that situation.
Similarly, many maintain that I put up only highly specialised countermeasures (when in fact in this thread this is rarely the case), but at the same time they assume that a wizard will use all of these highly specialized attacking combos with his so and so many spells per day. But what then about his defenses? A 5th level caster using fly and invisibility (so TWO! spells for one encounter DEFENSE only) has already lost quite some firepower.Phantom steed. It flies at later levels and is perfect for most combat, as it lets you be faster than the monk. Only if they can fly do you use the second spell, especially since Phantom steed is cast pre-combat.
What about the time to cast all these spells?Normally it's 2 rounds of casting to kill enemies, which is better than the 4 rounds of buffs you monk uses.
And what of the general countertactics of non-casters:
- blocking line of effect (example: cover)
- blocking line of sight (concealment)Move. And that affects non-casters more, since cover against the sky is hard to find.
- blocking material component (stealing, sundering)I have 3 pouches, and only take a move action to replace it. If you want to steal from me, I really hope you like explosive runes.
- blocking somatic component (grappling)
Freedom of Movement, or Dimension Door and a concentration check with a low DC.
-blocking vocal component (pinning, silence spell)pinning doesn't interfere with verbal components, and a 3,000 gp item will negate silence.
- blocking duration (superior move, wait till buffs are over)Your party will love that, especially when the wizard can dimension door better than you can run, or he has a Phantom Steed with a speed of 20*caster level that lasts for hours.
- forcing concentration checks with attacks (ready attack, ranged or melee)Concentration checks should be automatic for any caster by about level 10, and if you ready an action you can't full attack.
- blocking spell recovery (stealth, ambush, steal/sunder spellbook, focus, or symbol)Divine casters can get a tattoo of their holy symbol, arcane casters have 2 spellbooks, and if you are interrupted while sleeping on a nightly basis the party might cry foul, especially if they are in a Rope Trick each night.
- tricking into wrong spell preparation (vs non-spontaneous casters) or wrong targeting (decoys)Which is why a wizard preps a variety, and the usual decoys are all spells.
These are only the general countermeasures. So much stuff can already go wrong before a spell actually gets cast (and then has to overcome the usual touch AC, saves and SR). And most of these general measures do not even depend on magic. AND they are available to your low touch AC CR 9-10 monsters, Reel on, Love. I do not know which game you are playing but in one of your posts above you conveyed the impression that you believe all CR 9-10 monsters are laughable for a wizard of the same level using ray attacks. I can only hope I understood that wrong.No, you understood it right, rays are hideously overpowered. You just need to accept that.
And this list does not even include low-cost, low-magic anti-caster nasties like eversmoking bottle (the party may hold its breath inside, but not the enemy spell user trying to cast a spell),No, they wouldn't. I really don't suggest this as a viable tactic, given how bad it is to your party.
AMFWhich ruins the magic items you love, while the caster just chooses spells that work inside there.
silenceBeaten already
a nice touch of idiocy (pay more to get it maximised or empowered; and before you ask: yes. non-casters can use rods of metagmagic, too).and how is that not a caster winning? All you've done is spend money on something you could get cheaper as a caster(through item creation).
Please, all of you who believe in absolute monk superiority: reconsider. Why do you always assume lame duck caster opponents and monsters who have no clue what magic items are and what they will do in a world full of them?

Patashu
2008-01-23, 08:01 PM
By RAW, you can make Antimatter. What you're referring to is a GM's very, very good reason to stop it.
Doesn't something have to be possible to make it?

Otherwise I can make a cubic meter of unobtanium which is impossible to destroy ever and automatically wins the game.

That said, until there's proof that antimatter exists in the D&D setting by RAW you shouldn't be able to make it.

Collin152
2008-01-23, 08:03 PM
stuff about Monsters in the CR 9-10 range
- Giacomo

One teensy little thing you should realize: If the monster has a strength that we can't drop (We don't really need it to get to 0, anyways), a wizard has a myriad of other options that don't involve its strength score at all. Honestly, a wizard has the tools to deal with enough problems (assuming it carrys scrolls), that you can't just point out a few things without any explanation.


Of course, I can't read your posts without thinking of Solo's retorts. You have read them thoroughly, right?

Draz74
2008-01-23, 08:14 PM
With an 8th Level Spell Slot (or 6th level if you got Arcane Thesis on it), a Split Empowered Enervation on one target can do an average of 7 negative levels for one standard action.

That's 35 damage (not impressive at 15th level, but hey ... at least you're already out-doing Magic Missile!). And if the target is a caster, they've just lost their 7 best spells (if they chose spells intelligently) and taken a -7 Caster Level penalty. They also take -7 to attack, which is arguably a decent effect all by itself as it shuts them down as a competitive melee brute (you had Good BAB? congrats, now you have worse attack bonuses than a Rogue).

They also take -7 to all skill checks and ability checks (e.g. Tripping you), which is not normally too powerful in combat, but it works if you're against a Swordsage who depends on Jump Check Tiger Claw maneuvers, Sense Motive Setting Sun Maneuvers, and Concentration Diamond Mind Maneuvers. Or maybe you'll just make the Shadowdancer fail his next Hide check. No complaints here.

But best of all, -7 to all saves. No, that doesn't mean you won. But if your party (or the -7 penalty to attack rolls) can buy you one more round of combat, there's a very good chance that your Hold Monster spell or Disintegrate spell the next round will work.

Yeah. Metamagic + Enervation + any Save-or-Suck is a Winning combo.

Oh sure, there are exceptions, like Undead. But on the other hand, I haven't really even started "twinking out" this strategy. Try a Chained Split Empowered Enervation spell (Level 8 spell with Arcane Thesis) to do the above effect to a whole group of foes. Oh, and the same round you can do a Quickened Chained Enervation as a 9th-level spell. And don't get me started on using Metamagic Rods or the Incantrix PrC to make all this metamagic easier.

And if all that fails (vs. Undead)? No problem. Yeah, you used up several of your higher-level spell slots and most of your Feats on this strategy, but you've still got a ton of spell slots filled with a variety of backup spells.

Solo
2008-01-23, 08:25 PM
Of course, I can't read your posts without thinking of Solo's retorts.

I can't either. :smallamused:

Starbuck_II
2008-01-23, 08:50 PM
Triceratops - Hey, this one finally fits the alleged monster CR9-10 description "stupid, non-flying on the ground.". Unfortunately, it has STR 30. Good luck "ray of enfeebling" that. In the 3 rounds it takes you, the non-casters have smashed back into jurassic age where it belongs. But thanks for reducing its attacking potential.


Draw scroll of Ray of Stupidity and comatose the T-rex~! Wizards should always have the "someday needed" scrolls.

Citizen Jenkins
2008-01-23, 08:56 PM
For Kurald Galain:
I am curious how many examples I would be required to provide before you would reconsider your "straw man" remark. I did provide an example of the kind of commentary which I consider harmful on these boards but I am hesitant to provide further examples. I would basically be holding various posters up for mockery, which besides being just plain mean is unlikely to endear me to people around here. If you haven't seen numerous posts similar to the one I quoted here, I can only comment that we have had very different reading experiences. If you can't take my arguments seriously without further quotation, however, please tell me how many I would need to provide for you to take me seriously.

As for the other accusation, that no one said wizards are unbeatable, I can see where that idea might have arose from quotes such as "wizards win everything, ever" but within the context and especially the example provided I felt I was quite clear that what I was arguing against was not the "unbeatable wizard" but the "wizard who is so strong that he can easily defeat much stronger monsters he is unprepared for". If you feel it needed to point out that no one argues that there are absolutely unbeatable casters, then point agreed and lets move on. I will content myself here with referring to the concept that wizards are so powerful that they should be able to easily defeat creatures of significantly higher CRs regardless of preparation.

I think we're running into difficulties agreeing on what constitutes an over powered spell or wizard. Sleep certainly is a powerful spell but it would hardly allow a level 1 Wizard to easily defeat a CR 4 or 5 creature. As for "casters blowing non-casters out of the water without a chance to strike back", I have no problem with using this definition in place of "wizards automatically win", since it still ties into the serious problem on these boards that I've been discussing. It doesn't terribly matter for my argumentation, although I could see drawing a distinction on linguistic grounds, whether wizards are "winning" against much stronger creatures or "blowing them out of the water without a chance to strike back".

On the Giamonk, I would first like to divorce most of Kurald Galain's counterarguments from this discussion by referring back to the part in my original post where I state that Sir Giacomo has made some other odd arguments and I do not take it upon my self to defend those statements. I am referring here to monks, fighters, and other non-casters who take UMD as a cross-class skill, most commonly called the Giamonk. If you (Kurald) think that some specific aspect still deserves discussion I'd love to hear it but I'd rather focus here on the counterargument both you and Solo used and seems to be the core of the case against the Giamonk.

At it's core, I find the argument that a monk with UMD is essentially the same as an expert (or any NPC class) with UMD. This strikes me as terribly odd, since I can't possibly see how Flight be as valuable to an Expert as a Fighter, who can use it both defensively and offensively. Even spells as simple as Enervation are much more valuable in a higher-BAB Ranger's hands than in an Expert's. At it's simplest, non-caster's can get much more value out of a wide variety of spells than an expert, or even a wizard, can. The classic of this example is a Rogue who can cast Invisibility, since he receives almost all the same benefits from it that a Wizard would while also getting a convenient aid to sneak attacks and the spell synergizes much better with his Move Silent skill.

As for the argument that it isn't a class ability, I'm not sure what to say except that it is. They can acquire it legally through the rules and it certainly makes sense that people would seek some basic knowledge about magic in a world where earth-shattering enchantments can be copied for the price of a good horse. The basis of this argument seems based on the same kind of thinking that fighters must hit things with swords because that's what they do and have always done, just like wizards throw fireballs at everything and clerics focus on healing because that's what they've always done. If the rules grant someone an ability which leads to a dramatically different and more effective character, even if it's not what the designers foresaw, why should they not take advantage of it as long as it does not destroy game balance?

Finally, Kurald, I think you and I have very different views of what the majority of players play. A wizard throwing magic missiles or a cleric casting healing spells is not overpowered and the concepts of focusing on high DC attack or battlefield control spells strike me as something limited to this and a few other optimization-focused boards. I'd go further but I think it might derail this thread. If you're interested in pursuing this, open up a new thread and I'll happily meet you there.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-01-23, 08:59 PM
Pish, vs undead is even easier. Pull out your Radiant Servant of Cheeze and Greater Turning them into ash. At level 10, I was able to reliabally turn over 35 HD of undead (glory domain from dipping Warpriest), and with the phylactery of Undead Turning, I was able to comfortabally turn 16HD (and equivelant) undead. That means I can turn a 10 HD Vampire (A CR 12 encounter, by the way), a Dread Wraith (CR 11 encounter), and if I got lucky, I could turn a Mummy Lord (CR 15).

Wizards aren't supposed to roll Undead. That's what your CoDzilla is for.

Ellimistd
2008-01-23, 09:34 PM
ok, i skipped about half the thread in a hurry, so I don't really know what everyone's talking about. It seems to me though, that is is a debate about weather or not a caster (particularly wizard) can beat a non-caster (particularly fighter) So my suggestion is: instead of all this "10d6 damage and immobility for 3 rounds" or whatever, responded to by "amulet of blink" or whatever, go and fight it. Yes, take the models, put 'em on a grid, roll the dice. and to avoid "batman wizard" pre-planning the fight, have the fights in a dungeon and outside, toss a wild creature in there, have the wizard face a rogue, maybe a monk or barbarian with the same spells.

Oh, and try a sorc instead of a wizard a bit. If a guy with a giant sword is about to kill you, you don't have time to read for an hour:smallwink:

Reel On, Love
2008-01-23, 09:38 PM
The monk has so many class abilities and so many UMD synergies, polymorph, leadership and diplomacy are not even necessary. And polymoprh broken? OK, then you need to ban a druid's wildshape as well. And all of a sudden the monk's strongest (not winning, but strongest) contender for No.1 grappler disappears.
That's not true.
At level 7, Polymorph gives you, like, 30 STR, +15 NA, Huge size... or it can give you other bonuses and flight. Or burrowing. Or etc.
How is this appropriate for a fourth level spell?!

Wild Shape isn't broken. It's overpowered, sure, but it's not the problem: a druid who has Wild Shape and his animal companion and can't cast spells isn't a top-tier class or even a remote contender; in fact, he's pretty weak. For the record, I wholeheartedly recommend the Shapeshift variant from the PHB II (preset bonuses, with forms you can flavor how you want; no casting while shifted, but shifting is a swift action; loses animal companion too). The problem with the druid isn't the Wild Shape--it's that he gets Wild Shape AND the companion AND spellcasting. The Druid would still be the best grappler, though, in the form of his summoned buffed animals. Animal-Growthed Augment-Summoning-ed Dire Bear? Out-grapple *that*. What's more, grappling isn't a very good tactic for a character to focus on in general.


He can make USE of leadership (benefits a non-caster disproportionately more than a caster in terms of buffing/helping outside adventures), and diplomacy is only broken when you do not really read through the WHOLE skill description (like the part on how long and what level you need to diplomance someone from hostile to friendly. It's also funny how people believe diplomacy will create a permanent status.)
Leadership is entirely beside the point, as it's basically meant for incomplete parties. It also won't benefit the monk more than anyone else--a monk plus a wizard who is buffing the monk is much less powerful than a wizard plus a cleric or druid... especially since the wizard is wasting spell slots and actions buffing the monk.

The monk has no special UMD synergies. Polymorph benefits everyone, this has been shown over and over. Mirror Image benefits everyone. Divine Power benefits everyone with 3/4 BAB, and Rogues most of all. &etc.


Illogical? Maybe for your monk perception: a strange unarmed guy always going melee and full attacking ("oh noes, a monk cannot flurry as a standard actcion, so he is useless"). Not for a monk build designed to take out casters.
Some spells can be cast outside combat, just re-try as often as needed until the UMD check succeeds at lower levels.
A monk "designed to take out casters" will probably be able to do it, since the vast majority of opponents, casters included, are unoptimized. But what's he gonna do the other 90% of the time? The monk you describe can NOT go into combat without spending multiple rounds buffing, and those buffs are *expensive*. When can the monk first afford his 21,000 gp wand and several 10,000 and 4,500 gp wands? What regular gear is he neglecting? You've never answered that.


UMD makes a monk less dependent on outside buffs - in those cases he REALLY needs them (note: a caster will have to have buffs up more often for defense, due to less "natural" defenses than the monk).
Expecting casters in the group to buff the monk with part of their spells is something I took as a normal case in a group game, some posters here (including you) apparently not.
Excpecting casters to waste combat actions and endanger the party is not OK. You can assume some buffs: I have no problem casting, say, Greater Magic Weapon on the monk; nor do I have a problem casting Haste on the entire party (in fact, at level 6, I love it). I do have a problem spending multiple rounds and many spell slots buffing the monk so he can do the job, instead of actively defeating the enemies. THIS IS NOT A SPECIAL CASE. This is how people play. No one wants to be your personal buff-bot, Giacomo, because it is neither fun nor effective.


Yes, I know. The moment a caster conceals himself to reduce enemy attacks it means "enounters get ridiculously easy".
The moment a non-caster does that, it is "cripple the rest of the party". Double standard alarm ringing strongest so far in this thread, grats!
No, because a caster's concealment doesn't freakin' choke and blind his allies! Duh!


, many maintain that I put up only highly specialised countermeasures (when in fact in this thread this is rarely the case), but at the same time they assume that a wizard will use all of these highly specialised attacking combos with his so and so many spells per day. But what then about his defenses? A 5th level caster using fly and invisbility (so TWO! spells for one encounter DEFENSE only) has already lost quite some firepower.
You put up *ridiculously* specialized countermeasures, that involve things like "waiting ten rounds" (by then, the rest of the party has finished the encounter).
Assuming a wizard will use Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion, Glitterdust, Mirror Image, &etc is no big deal, because those are powerful spells (and popular because of that power). "Cast Overland Flight at the start of the day" IS NOT a "highly specialized" combo.
A 5th level caster isn't using Fly and Invisibility. In a dangerous encounter, he might use Fly, probably from a scroll. Otherwise, he might be using Mirror Image, Haste, and Glitterdust, or Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion.


What about the time to cast all these spells?
And what of the general countertactics of non-casters:
- blocking line of effect (example: cover)
- blocking line of sight (concealment)
How are you doing that? How do monsters do this? It's not easy, and it wastes your actions. If you're spending all of your time making sure the caster can't get you, something else will.


- blocking material component (stealing, sundering)
- blocking somatic component (grappling)
- blocking vocal component (pinning, silence spell)
Yeeeeah. Good luck. Material component pouches are cheap and can have full cover from everything, moving out of a Silence spell is easy, and while grappling is theoretically effective, it's certainly *expected*, with contingencies made and plans taken, and it stops working entirely after a certain point.


- blocking duration (superior move, wait till buffs are over)
"It's a spellcaster! Let's run away in different directions until his buffs go down!" Do your D&D games really happen that way? What happens when the caster kills people as they're running away?


- forcing concentration checks with attacks (ready attack, ranged or melee)
- blocking spell recovery (stealth, ambush, steal/sunder spellbook, focus, or symbol)
- tricking into wrong spell preparation (vs non-spontaneous casters) or wrong targeting (decoys)
Forcing concentration checks other than Casting Defensively is HARD, and the wizard expects it. Ambushing makes things harder on the entire party and isn't an anti-caster tactic. Stealing/sundering the caster's spellbook pretty much doesn't happen, because seriously--WHO has both means and motive? You have NEVER explained how the wizard's spellbook is supposed to mysteriously disappear multiple times during a campaign. Anyone who can lift the wizard's spellbook out of his Bag of Holding can just slit his throat in his sleep.
Tricking casters into preparing specific spells is next to impossible.


These are only the general countermeasures. So much stuff can already go wrong before a spell actually gets cast (and then has to overcome the usual touch AC, saves and SR). And most of these general measures do not even depend on magic. AND they are available to your low touch AC CR 9-10 monsters, Reel on, Love. I do not know which game you are playing but in one of your posts above you conveyed the impression that you believe all CR 9-10 monsters are laughable for a wizard of the same level using ray attacks. I can only hope I understood that wrong.
Please, tell me how the animated object is going to gain cover and concealment from my spells and interrupt my casting.
These tactics are availible to a *very few* monsters... and if they're doing all that, then the party is whacking them to death.


And this list does not even include low-cost, low-magic anti-caster nasties like eversmoking bottle (the party may hold its breath inside, but not the enemy spell user trying to cast a spell), AMF, silence or a nice touch of idiocy (pay more to get it maximised or empowered; and before you ask: yes. non-casters can use rods of metagmagic, too).
The eversmoking bottle is perhaps the worst idea you've ever had, and no party would use it. They hold their breath and can't talk, are blind and can't see the enemy, and generally just got nerfed.


Please, all of you who believe in absolute caster superiority: reconsider. Why do you always assume lame duck non-caster opponents and monsters who have no clue what magic is and what it will do in a world full of it?

But more on the weekend.

- Giacomo
I assume that opponents do not spend 90% of their effort or time plotting ways to deal with spellcasters, because this would be completely irrational on their part. I assume that opponents do not spend 90% of their combat time/actions trying to deal with the party wizard, because if they do then that wins the party the fight. I think that casters are by far the biggest contributors in a party because I see it happen time and time again. Let's face it, Giacomo--a group of four without a wizard is going to have a MUCH harder time fighting that Fire Giant, Bone Devil, Animated Object, whatever, than a group of four without a monk or a fighter.



Now, letussee. I had a look at the monsters you listed, so far I checked the CR 9-10 monsters alphabetically to letter G (your great fire giant example). And then I gave up, because I saw no more need.You see, apparently you have never fought monsters played according to what they should do by your DM (and as a DM likely have ignored everything beside the "touch AC" entry). No wonder you believe these monsters are waiting to be served on a platter for a fly/invisibiltiy/ray attack combo (with STR reduction, to boost!).
The touch ACs were listed in response to your determined insistence that *rays have a high chance of missing*. They don't. Touch ACs are almost always very low, and miss chances are *rare* in enemies. Nor is Ray of Enfeeblement the answer to every situation--the touch ACs are for ranged touch attacks in general. Ray of Enfeeblement is best used against melee-heavy opponenets, especially ones who are either humanoid (gear) or have many attacks (saves lots of damage/hits).


Here they are...in alphabetical order...
Colossal animated object - construct traits, Nuff said,.
Okay, construct traits, great. There's a ton of things constructs aren't immune to, like Glitterdust, Slow, &etc, and the Overland Flying wizard can pelt it with them from 100% safety.


Avoral - touch AC 16, flying, SR 25, true seeing, plus spells (for boosting that touch AC, not that it is necessary...)
Couatl - etheral jaunt, flying, Sorc 9 spells.
That touch AC isn't going to prevent more than 25% or so of rays. The Avoral isn't a common enemy (good alignment), and they only have True Seeing *while concentrating*.
An Avoral is likely to open a fight with Blur, for defense... which does nothing to protect its +8 Will save. A level 9 caster has DCs of about 20, 21. A couple of spells and it's likely to be toast.
Black Tentacles is also a viable solution.

The Couatl is a spellcaster himself. Spellcasters make tough fights for anyone, including spellcasters. We all know this.


Delver - STR 27 (good luck reducing that), burrowing speed and init+5 (meaning it will surprise the wizard in a dungeon where it lairs.)

Bebelith - STR 28 (see Delver). plane shift, Hide +16
Okay, STR 27. So what? If the party's actively fighting it, Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is going to drain 12 of that on average. Is it still much of a melee threat with +11 attacks for 1d6+2+2d6 acid? No. If the cavern has a 15' ceiling, then flight keeps the caster safe even if it burrows under him--but it prefers to fight from its tunnel, meaning it'll engage melee characters.

The enfeeblement/exhaustion tactic makes the Bebilith pretty pathetic in melee, too. I'd go with a couple of Will-save spells, though; it'll fail one.
If it Plane Shifts away to save itself, the party's defeated it. Great.


Vrock - STR 23, SR 17...hey, we may finally get one who COULD fall victim to your "great" combo. But, ah wait - it has spells: mirror image. Bye-bye ray. Ah, and listen +24 CAN pinpoint the wizard, do not worry.
Bone Devil - STr 21, SR 21, greater teleport at will, fly, invisibility, mirror image. Oh yeah!
Okay, it casts mirror image and pinpoints. The rest of the party gets the mirror image down through the normal course of battle... and that Ray of Enfeeblement really messes up its attack routine; Vrocks have low AB.

Bone Devils, I freely admit, are really tough for their CR (because they teleport and fly, are invisible, and have mirror image). I've faced one in Red Hand of Doom, and it failed a save that took it out of the fight, although it took it two rounds. But, hey--guess how much the rest of the party did to it beforehand (hint: the cleric landed a Dimensional Anchor, and that's pretty much it).


Triceratops - Hey, this one finally fits the alleged monster CR9-10 description "stupid, non-flying on the ground.". Unfortunately, it has STR 30. Good luck "ray of enfeebling" that. In the 3 rounds it takes you, the non-casters have smashed back into jurassic age where it belongs. But thanks for reducing its attacking potential.
What 3 rounds? Ray of Enfeeblement hits in 1, reducing its combat prowess and helping save a bunch of damage via a 1st-level slot. Empowered RoE if I really want to drain it... but I'd just use Glitterdust or another Will-save. You go for the *biggest* weakness.


Dire Shark - one of the few animals in CR 9+. Underwater. Not that caster-friendly. And not that common (ah, and the water blocks line of effect for those wizards on a ship).
Yeah, I've never encountered one of these, ever. Do they ever get used?


Young adultish dragons - high STR again, but here the wizard MAY get a shot with his rays. Provided the dragon does not fly out of range and tries a longer-range spell from there.
Spells? These dragons? C'mon. The usual thing is to ready rays vs. the dragon being in range. Dragons are dangerous, though, so it's better.


Elementals: all high STR, Air and fire less so (but with high initiative so they will probably get at the wizard first...)
I'm not sure why you think high STR opponents are BAD to Enfeeble. They're GOOD to enfeeble, because it prevents them from hitting allies.


Formian Myrmoch - SR 25, +8 initiative, spot/listen +18, spell-like abiliites.
Fire Giant! Your great example. Unfortunately, it also has big STR and is no match for non-casters at lvl 9-10, either.
Oh, I'm sure the non-casters can kill a Fire Giant at level 9. But how much damage do they take while they're doing it? As a melee character, I do not like to melee Fire Giants when they aren't, say, any two of Blinded, Slowed, and Enfeebled.

Come to think, I've never fought a Formian Myrmarch, either. I'd cast Haste and another buff or two on the party and let them kill it; no point in wasting spells penetrating SR and its Will save.


Rays of Enervation might work vs the high-STR opponents, but since the only thing they do is -4 at best to everything to high-HD creatures, it is not that much of a killer spell, either.
Enervation isn't a killer *yet*. At higher levels, empowered enervation makes the creature a lot less of a threat *and* makes it even more succeptible to save-or-lose spells.


Quite a lot of these high-level creatures have flying ability, too. The *majority* may not have flying, but many other ways to attack even a flying wizard. Overland flight is slower than normal fly, and this could well mean a monster with reach and good move (high jump) WILL reach a wizard in a dungeon setting.
Why are you casually dismissing soemthing that keeps the wizard COMPLETELY SAFE from even *half* of encounters and helps out a lot during the rest? (What monster will jump to make one attack on the wizard rather than full-attack the nearby fighter or rogue or cleric?)


And most importantly, they have means to try to actually surprise the wizard instead of the other way round (both in dungeons and outdoors). And even at lvl9-10 the wizard cannot be invisible all the time without a ring of invisiblity. And some of the creatures have scent, tremorsense, blindsense, what have you to overcome invisiblity in one way or another.
What the heck kind of games do you play? In my games, usually neither the PCs nor their enemies surprise each other--the vast majority of battles begin as the two parties discover each other and Roll Initiative.
Discovering the wizard doesn't mean killing the wizard. Many--no, *most*--of the above monsters are pretty much nonthreatening in usual circumstances. The Bone Devil, Myrmarch, and dragons are the toughest, but the dragons threaten the wizard less than anyone else *if* he's got protection from their breath (this is why we carry scrolls of resist/prot. from elements). He's also got by far the best chance of bringing a dragon down (same for the Bone Devil, which is a very tough melee brute with at-will wall-of-ice battlefield control, but not for the Myrmarch), since it's much more likely for the dragon to fail a critical save than to get killed in melee.


So, no "easy" moving (or even soloing) for the wizard in typical monster encounters. And when it comes to opponent npcs characters with even only npc equipment, your are fast moving into territory of missile weapons, spells etc. which all will make life quite challenging for any caster. As it should be.

- Giacomo
Of course a level 9 wizard can't easily solo CR 10 (for a party of four!) monsters. He sure does a whole damn lot, and the party would miss him more than anyone else except maybe the cleric (depending on the cleric).

NPCs--and humanoid enemies in general--make the wizard EXTRA-shine, with their comparatively low saves, vulnerability to almost all tactics (ray of enfeeblement + ray of exhaustion? Great. Confusion? Great. Glitterdust? Great. &etc.
NPCs would have to go *way* out of their way to specialize in protecting themselves from spellcasters/attacking spellcasters... and by doing so, they make themselves very vulnerable to the rest of the party.

Let's go on: clay golem--flight is safety, and so's invisibility. Hell, a clever *SIlent Image* is going to work wonders, and Solid Fog is great here as always.
11-Headed Hydra: melee characters dread getting close to it. Spellcasters cast Glitterudst and Ray of Enfeeblement... from safety... so they can mop it up.
Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion: Glitterdust, yet again. Follow up with Ray of Enfeeblement to really take the wind out of its sails.
Guardian Naga: spellcasting makes this much tougher than it is otherwise, but the wizard is going to be the one with See Invisibility to locate it, and can hit its weak Fortitude save.
9-headed Pyrohydra: see above. Wizard also not in range of dangerous breath weapons.
Rakshasa: direct spells aren't a good idea due to SR, but what can it really *do*? Prot. from Evil for the fighter, Haste on the party, let'em slice it apart.
Other dragons: again, wizards are the safest as long as they have energy resist, and the most likely to bring the things down. Black Tentacles is also going to do quite a number on'em.
Noble Salamander: a couple of tries will get through its saves; Ray of Enfeeblement is good here, especially Empowered.
CR 9 gives us a list with even more Things The Wizard Won't Have Much Trouble With, and CR 11 is a lot like CR 10--the Dread Wraith is overpowered for the CR and a challenge for everyone, the Elder Air Elemental will actually be tougher for the wizard than others. The Barbed Devil, with its grappling and fear aura, makes melee-ers cry a lot more than casters, but (as with most mid-level Outsiders) a tougher than usual opponent for everyone. Ray of Enfeeblement is *great* against the Hezrou demon. I've never even seen the Retriever before; those rays are scary--but its +8 ranged touch is much less of a threat to the Mirror-Image-castin' wizard than the melee characters. Disintegrate would really shine here.

ronnyfire
2008-01-24, 12:51 AM
Reel On, Love.. i think you may have just won this discussion... if your huge posts dont show Sir Giacomo.. i duno what will..

Voyager_I
2008-01-24, 01:12 AM
Giacomo, pointing out that some monsters are somewhat resistant to some spells is not a strong argument, even overlooking the fact that all Wizards can be reasonably expected to have more than one type of spell prepared. Heck, even Evokers should know better than to prepare all fire spells...

Chronicled
2008-01-24, 01:23 AM
Speaking of touch spells, here's a link showing the abysmal progression of touch ACs (on average) compared to regular ACs and saves: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=8968092&postcount=10. (It's part of a handbook for building Psions).

For the people who don't feel like reading through the post (although I'd prefer you did before arguing it) here's the relevant graphs showing the average saves/ACs/SRs for each CR's set of monsters. As you can see, targeting your enemies' touch ACs will usually prove fruitful; obviously this won't always be the case, but part of the beauty of being a full caster is being able to adapt your attacks on the fly.

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/4003/savessriu4.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5527/touchnormalacro0.jpg

Talic
2008-01-24, 01:25 AM
Prior to casting dominate:
"Sir Meatstick Fighter the third, I'm laying an enchantment upon you to make you stronger. Don't resist it." - Bluff vs. Sense Motive.

Then cast dominate. If bluff is successful, then unless it is against that fighter's nature to accept magical aid, then he gets no save.

Giacomo, nothing states that a wizard can't LIE to trick other characters. He can misrepresent situations to make them SEEM ok.

I mean, look at today's OOTS, the dominate save can be tricked by a lie... Heck, that one was even pretty obvious, as Thanh knew that Shojo was dead. "Against a character's nature" must be directly contrary to what someone stands for.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-24, 01:36 AM
I have fought a Dire Shark before, and let me tell you, unless the entire party has freedom of movement (we had assumed that we would only need water breathing) those things will give ANY class nightmares.

If a wizard needed to confront one, he would (after casting freedom of movement and water breathing before jumping in the water) hit said Dire Shark with one of any number of silent metamagiced spells targeting said shark's weak will save.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-24, 01:43 AM
If a wizard needed to confront one, he would (after casting freedom of movement and water breathing before jumping in the water) hit said Dire Shark with one of any number of silent metamagiced spells targeting said shark's weak will save.

Actually, he'd use Forcecage to create a tank half-full of water, and then summon a dire bear into the tank.

Then that question could be settled.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 01:54 AM
At it's core, I find the argument that a monk with UMD is essentially the same as an expert (or any NPC class) with UMD. This strikes me as terribly odd, since I can't possibly see how Flight be as valuable to an Expert as a Fighter, who can use it both defensively and offensively. Even spells as simple as Enervation are much more valuable in a higher-BAB Ranger's hands than in an Expert's. At it's simplest, non-caster's can get much more value out of a wide variety of spells than an expert, or even a wizard, can. The classic of this example is a Rogue who can cast Invisibility, since he receives almost all the same benefits from it that a Wizard would while also getting a convenient aid to sneak attacks and the spell synergizes much better with his Move Silent skill.

As for the argument that it isn't a class ability, I'm not sure what to say except that it is. They can acquire it legally through the rules and it certainly makes sense that people would seek some basic knowledge about magic in a world where earth-shattering enchantments can be copied for the price of a good horse. The basis of this argument seems based on the same kind of thinking that fighters must hit things with swords because that's what they do and have always done, just like wizards throw fireballs at everything and clerics focus on healing because that's what they've always done. If the rules grant someone an ability which leads to a dramatically different and more effective character, even if it's not what the designers foresaw, why should they not take advantage of it as long as it does not destroy game balance?A first-level bard with a wand of invisibility, a wand of silence, 5x dust of sneezing and choking, and a greataxe can kill just about anything he puts his mind to killing. Granted, that breaks WBL, but it is well within WBL for a level 10, and can solo many of the builds here. That is never pulled out, because an expert 20 can do it better, and it proves nothing about the CLASS. Giacamo builds item lists, not characters, and usually unrealistic ones.That is what we object to.

Citizen Jenkins
2008-01-24, 05:09 AM
A first-level bard with a wand of invisibility, a wand of silence, 5x dust of sneezing and choking, and a greataxe can kill just about anything he puts his mind to killing. Granted, that breaks WBL, but it is well within WBL for a level 10, and can solo many of the builds here. That is never pulled out, because an expert 20 can do it better, and it proves nothing about the CLASS. Giacamo builds item lists, not characters, and usually unrealistic ones.That is what we object to.

I don't particularly see how this is applicable. I'm not talking about breaking WBL, nor am I talking about situational, if devastating, item combinations. Sure, anybody with the appropriate wealth can pull off this combo but this doesn't really relate to the idea that a PC non-caster can greatly increase his effectiveness at much lower cost than you are indicating through the use of UMD.

Allow me to put this in some context. Consider a 13th level fighter. Among the 11 CR13 creatures in the MM, five of them have significant spellcasting or spell-like abilities (Beholder, Ghaele Elandrin, Glabrezu Demon, Lich, and Mummy Lord) , four of them have some level of magic to aid them (Celestial Charger, Storm Giants, Gelugon Devil, and Death Slaad), and only two have no form of magic (Iron Golem, 12-headed Pyro/Cryo Hydra). Compared to the challenges the fighter faced at level 1, the world is now saturated in magic and this trend of increasing magical ability amongst his opponents will only increase. Meanwhile, the casters are now ascending to earth-shattering magic and even the partial casters like Bards and Paladins can throw 3rd level spells. In such a magic-heavy world, why must the fighter or the monk be held away from magic when everyone else (including the monsters) has access to it?

In this world, our theoretical fighter faces a choice. The difference between a +3 weapon and a +4 weapon is roughly 14,000 gold. For the cost of a +1 enhancement to his weapon and skill points he points he honestly has little use for, he could buy a wide variety of scrolls and wands that he could use to increase his effectiveness. I think, and I doubt I would find many arguments, that a fighter with 14,000 gold worth of usable scrolls is more valuable than a fighter with a slightly better weapon and more ranks in the Ride or Intimidate skill.

Nor is he buying scrolls in terms of "tricks" but simply to enhance his natural abilities. A scroll of Invisibility in the hands of a Expert will not bring victory but in the hands of a Shock Trooper who is having difficulty landing charges against prepared targets it can end the battle. An Enlarge Person spell does little for a UMD commoner but wonders for a Reaping Mauler. See Invisibility may allow an expert to prepare another scroll to blow the threat away but a bow specialist already has the means to kill his opponent, he just needed a way to see him. Quite honestly, an Expert built around UMD would probably do his best to replicate the strategies of the Wizard, since he possess no other significant abilities. Non-casters, however, possess many other important abilities and the scrolls the magic items they select will not be based around replicating the wizard's tactics but of enhancing their own. At it's simplest, a UMD Expert is merely a wizard light where a UMD fighter is an enhanced fighter.

Let me make one final argument. I would like to compare a UMD fighter to a Duskblade (a class widely considered stronger). Before considering spellcasting, the UMD fighter can claim a wealth of feats, higher hit dice, and use of heavier armor while the Duskblade can claim a better Will save, significantly more gold, a stronger selection of skill points, and does not have to sink skill points into UMD. In terms of magic a Duskblade has the advantage of being able to cast spells as swift actions and the ability to use touch spells more easily in close combat. Both these advantages balence against the broad versatility in scrolls and options that a UMD fighter can possess. Without trying to argue for superiority either way, why is the Duskblade's use of magic celebrated while the UMD fighter's is decried?

At it's core, when non-casters use UMD to enhance their own abilities (relatively cheaply) while NPCS use UMD to mimic caster tactics (expensively) and live in a magic soaked world where virtually all monsters and PCs have access to some level of magic (including other classes considered "meatshields" like Paladins), why is the use of UMD as an alternative to class-based casting abilities considered so horrible?

Talic
2008-01-24, 06:36 AM
In this world, our theoretical fighter faces a choice. The difference between a +3 weapon and a +4 weapon is roughly 14,000 gold. For the cost of a +1 enhancement to his weapon and skill points he points he honestly has little use for, he could buy a wide variety of scrolls and wands that he could use to increase his effectiveness. I think, and I doubt I would find many arguments, that a fighter with 14,000 gold worth of usable scrolls is more valuable than a fighter with a slightly better weapon and more ranks in the Ride or Intimidate skill.

Well, if he must mimic a caster level, a requisite int score, and the like, then likely a fighter with a better weapon (or better yet, a weapon ability that allows him to deal with additional threats, such as ghost touch), is better than 14,000 gp worth of level 0-1 scrolls... Considering how hard it is to mimic all of that, the fighter may well find it more effective to have the weapon.


Nor is he buying scrolls in terms of "tricks" but simply to enhance his natural abilities. A scroll of Invisibility in the hands of a Expert will not bring victory but in the hands of a Shock Trooper who is having difficulty landing charges against prepared targets it can end the battle. An Enlarge Person spell does little for a UMD commoner but wonders for a Reaping Mauler. See Invisibility may allow an expert to prepare another scroll to blow the threat away but a bow specialist already has the means to kill his opponent, he just needed a way to see him. Quite honestly, an Expert built around UMD would probably do his best to replicate the strategies of the Wizard, since he possess no other significant abilities. Non-casters, however, possess many other important abilities and the scrolls the magic items they select will not be based around replicating the wizard's tactics but of enhancing their own. At it's simplest, a UMD Expert is merely a wizard light where a UMD fighter is an enhanced fighter.

Above, True strike would be a better option for the Shock trooper, and a level 20 expert could certainly qualify for the shock trooper tree, with but a few WBL magic items... But he doesn't, and with the savings, can afford scrolls enough to be a Wizard lite... Which is still stronger than even an enhanced fighter. The archer example... Yes, the archer can target, subject to the 60' range of see invis. The expert will drop a save or lose on round 2 and 3. Perhaps a more powerful ranged touch spell. In any case, teh wizard lite will usually end the fight sooner with those tactics. Why? Because they're better than the best fighter type tactic he can do.


Let me make one final argument. I would like to compare a UMD fighter to a Duskblade (a class widely considered stronger). Before considering spellcasting, the UMD fighter can claim a wealth of feats, higher hit dice, and use of heavier armor while the Duskblade can claim a better Will save, significantly more gold, a stronger selection of skill points, and does not have to sink skill points into UMD. In terms of magic a Duskblade has the advantage of being able to cast spells as swift actions and the ability to use touch spells more easily in close combat. Both these advantages balence against the broad versatility in scrolls and options that a UMD fighter can possess. Without trying to argue for superiority either way, why is the Duskblade's use of magic celebrated while the UMD fighter's is decried?

Because fluff meets mechanics? Because most duskblades have those features, and most fighters don't?


At it's core, when non-casters use UMD to enhance their own abilities (relatively cheaply) while NPCS use UMD to mimic caster tactics (expensively) and live in a magic soaked world where virtually all monsters and PCs have access to some level of magic (including other classes considered "meatshields" like Paladins), why is the use of UMD as an alternative to class-based casting abilities considered so horrible?
Because it's being used as a "all the time" counter to a specific threat. However, in all reality, it IS the exception, not the rule. This is a novel character concept, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in a game, but it IS a unique and non-standard build idea, and shouldn't be argued as if it were a standard one.

horseboy
2008-01-24, 12:55 PM
So, I have a question. Try not to mock me, even if you think I'm wrong, which I might be. I think you're all potentially better than that. In theory, I totally agree that spellcasters rock. But I find these theoretical discussions do not often adequately cover what often happens in an actual D&D game.

Well, my buddy's rage mage duel wields Wands of Enfeeblement.


At it's core, when non-casters use UMD to enhance their own abilities (relatively cheaply) while NPCS use UMD to mimic caster tactics (expensively) and live in a magic soaked world where virtually all monsters and PCs have access to some level of magic (including other classes considered "meatshields" like Paladins), why is the use of UMD as an alternative to class-based casting abilities considered so horrible?
Mainly because it's so munchkin. In order to be able to use a wand half the time, you've got to dedicate 10 levels worth of skill points into UMD. If your character is going to focus that much on magic, you may as well just take a 3 level dip in cleric, get your spells to ALWAYS work, and a much better will save. Then you're not a fighter anymore, your a fighter/cleric. It's a clear "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" moment.

Solo
2008-01-24, 01:29 PM
View Post
At it's core, when non-casters use UMD to enhance their own abilities (relatively cheaply) while NPCS use UMD to mimic caster tactics (expensively) and live in a magic soaked world where virtually all monsters and PCs have access to some level of magic (including other classes considered "meatshields" like Paladins), why is the use of UMD as an alternative to class-based casting abilities considered so horrible?

Ye Olde Magik Shoppe just keeps churning out an infinite amount of magic items for all those UMD mimics, eh?

AKA_Bait
2008-01-24, 01:42 PM
Ye Olde Magik Shoppe just keeps churning out an infinite amount of magic items for all those UMD mimics, eh?

Nah. The party wizard keeps making them, because he feels bad that he outshines the rest of the group.

Ganurath
2008-01-24, 01:43 PM
Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape + Stone to Flesh = Joan Rivers Syndrome

mostlyharmful
2008-01-24, 02:29 PM
Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape + Stone to Flesh = Joan Rivers Syndrome

Just flesh to stone. After that the combo is mostly about rubbing their noses in it. Which I can respect but the core power of the combo is a single SoL effect. Plus I'm in favour of Flesh to stone then building a rockery with it's smashed up bits myself.:smallsmile:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 02:38 PM
I prefer the combo someone posted here a while back for killing someone so that (depending on the DM) even wish would take 2 castings to bring them back, and clones were useless. Flesh to stone, stone to mud, purify food and drink, drink him, and then let it out of your system. By RAW, he's still alive, and therefore can only be brought back by a reversal of each effect individually, followed by a true resurrection. Good for that recurring BBEG that just won't DIE.:smallfurious:

Ganurath
2008-01-24, 02:54 PM
Just flesh to stone. After that the combo is mostly about rubbing their noses in it. Which I can respect but the core power of the combo is a single SoL effect. Plus I'm in favour of Flesh to stone then building a rockery with it's smashed up bits myself.:smallsmile:Actually, that combo is to be used on people you like, at least enough that you don't want to use lethal force.

Hyfigh
2008-01-24, 03:27 PM
Actually, some fullcasters don't even need to utilize spells to fill this role. Namely: Having Knock is nice, but Beguilers don't need it to completely replace the Rogue.

Agreed. I was simply emphasizing that with spells included, they can be even more effective than they already are (which competes with the best skill monkeys).

Citizen Jenkins
2008-01-24, 04:46 PM
Ye Olde Magik Shoppe just keeps churning out an infinite amount of magic items for all those UMD mimics, eh?

Apparently, I mean it's the one with uncountable tomes of magical power for wizards to copy out of (for relatively nothing) along with all those wands, rods, and staffs for wizards who prefer not to use their feats on item creation. Not to mention strange and exotic arcane components. Yeah, the D&D economy makes no sense but there are much worse (and more inexplicable) parts of it than an abundance of low-mid levels scrolls out there, especially considering that every wizard in the world in need of money can produce them while much fewer wizards have both the caster levels and the feats to produce all the other magical items out there.

On a grander scale, it seems many people object to the UMD Fighter/Giamonk on the grounds that no one plays that way and no one discusses it. It seems odd to me that the Batman wizard is considered common while most people (especially new posters here) seem to play Magic Missile wizards and healer clerics. On a simple point here, the Logic Ninja posted his famous guide here in September of 2006, about 15 months ago. Although a few people probably did play proto-Batmans or at least focused on Save-or-Lose spells before the guide, should no one have discussed Batman-style wizards either before or after the guide because it simply wasn't common. Every concept starts somewhere before it's common knowledge, even common concepts like Clericzilla and Batman. And once again, the UMD Fighter/Giamonk live in the same theoretical universe as the rest of the character builds that we consider common here but are fairly rare in the overall gamer world. If we were truly to argue in terms of what people play, we would be holding fighters up against Magic Missile and Fireball instead of Sleep, Grease, and Glitterdust.

On a few more specific points, I have no interest in matching a UMD fighter against a UMD expert here since that wasn't the point I was arguing and I fear I'm coming close to derailing this thread already. My argument was that they use UMD in different fashions based on their other abilities and so a UMD Fighter is not the same as a UMD Expert, which Talic seems to agree with. I also find the argument that a Fighter is specifically disadvantaged by needing to buff other scores to use magic odd, since that's the same for Duskblades, Hexblades, Psychic Warriors, and virtually all other Gish-type builds. Nor is it that the Fighter suffers much from the lost skill points, since he has little else of value to spend them on. On the topic of a +1 enhancement, most Fighters have more problems landing blows than dealing enough damage. In short, it's much more important to a Fighter to use Invisibility or Flight to be able to hit his opponent than for the Fighter to hit him for 230 damage instead of 200.

On the point of fluff, I wasn't aware that Fighters actually had fluff. Their entry is incredibly vague on what they are, besides that they kill things. At higher levels, if monsters are getting in on the magic game and parties are adventuring over lakes of fire on an Elemental plane, what sort of Fighter wouldn't want to be able to use the same weaponry all his enemies are using? Besides, what sort of Fighter would accept boots that grant him flying but steadfastly refuse to use an item which would allow him to duplicate the same effect for much cheaper, besides an illiterate one? From the Fighter's point of view, magic is a weapon just like a bow or a mount: just another way of attacking his opponents. Why should he draw an arbitrary distinction between one set of weapons and another?

Solo
2008-01-24, 04:59 PM
On a grander scale, it seems many people object to the UMD Fighter/Giamonk on the grounds that

it takes a huge expenditure of resources, planning, and optimization to keep up, which somehow makes it "balanced" against a class that optimizes by simply choosing the right spells (two of which it gets per level) every time it levels up.

Or buys new spells to replace ineffective ones and re-tools by the next day.


Play a UMD Fighter all you want, but don't claim that makes the class "balanced".

Someone will be along shortly to tell you why you are wrong.

horseboy
2008-01-24, 05:03 PM
Every concept starts somewhere before it's common knowledge, even common concepts like Clericzilla and Batman. And once again, the UMD Fighter/Giamonk live in the same theoretical universe as the rest of the character builds that we consider common here but are fairly rare in the overall gamer world. If we were truly to argue in terms of what people play, we would be holding fighters up against Magic Missile and Fireball instead of Sleep, Grease, and Glitterdust.The difference here is that Clericzilla and Batman are actually effective, UMD fighter is not.


On a few more specific points, I have no interest in matching a UMD fighter against a UMD expert here since that wasn't the point I was arguing and I fear I'm coming close to derailing this thread already. My argument was that they use UMD in different fashions based on their other abilities and so a UMD Fighter is not the same as a UMD Expert, which Talic seems to agree with. I also find the argument that a Fighter is specifically disadvantaged by needing to buff other scores to use magic odd, since that's the same for Duskblades, Hexblades, Psychic Warriors, and virtually all other Gish-type builds. Nor is it that the Fighter suffers much from the lost skill points, since he has little else of value to spend them on. On the topic of a +1 enhancement, most Fighters have more problems landing blows than dealing enough damage. In short, it's much more important to a Fighter to use Invisibility or Flight to be able to hit his opponent than for the Fighter to hit him for 230 damage instead of 200.Should I have to point out that those aren't fighters, those are gishes.


On the point of fluff, I wasn't aware that Fighters actually had fluff. Their entry is incredibly vague on what they are, besides that they kill things. At higher levels, if monsters are getting in on the magic game and parties are adventuring over lakes of fire on an Elemental plane, what sort of Fighter wouldn't want to be able to use the same weaponry all his enemies are using? Besides, what sort of Fighter would accept boots that grant him flying but steadfastly refuse to use an item which would allow him to duplicate the same effect for much cheaper, besides an illiterate one? From the Fighter's point of view, magic is a weapon just like a bow or a mount: just another way of attacking his opponents. Why should he draw an arbitrary distinction between one set of weapons and another?Because they're not good at this weapon. This weapon is eludes them. If they want to learn this weapon, then it's actually much easier just to take a couple of levels in Cleric, or God forbid Druid.

Solo
2008-01-24, 05:07 PM
I must be future psychic.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 05:09 PM
And I actually play batman, when the party can handle it, though I prefer the philosophy on the WotC forum guide. You are GOD. Let the party feel like they won the battle, you know you did all the real work. Makes everyone feel good. But yes, Batman does get used in play more than the other builds posted, because it takes less work. That's why Druids are broken, it's not that they are more effective than a leaping charger, it's that they take one feat, invest in 2 stats, and pick good shapes and a companion who doesn't suck, and they win. It's 5 decisions to optimize, decisions that many n00b players take instinctively. Wizards take int on the part of the player to play right, druids take common sense, fighters are the only ones who need metagaming to play effectively. That shouldn't happen. And when you add in that wizards are still generally more powerful in most situations than the builds that are supposed to challenge them,it's generally unbalanced.

Patashu
2008-01-24, 05:18 PM
I wonder if a wizard/sorc can emulate a fighter better than the fighter can emulate a wizard...

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-24, 05:33 PM
Grapple Wizard. 'Nuff Said.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-24, 06:05 PM
That's why Druids are broken, it's not that they are more effective than a leaping charger, it's that they take one feat, invest in 2 stats, and pick good shapes and a companion who doesn't suck, and they win. It's 5 decisions to optimize, decisions that many n00b players take instinctively.

It's worse than that. Druid becomes broken with just Natural Spell, the only core Druid only feat, the feat that first timers take just because it's druid only.... After that it's simply a matter of choosing what spells/forms you use that day and what animal companion you call up, all of which are changable in 24hours. That's it. one feat and it's borked.:smallyuk: You can even get hold of Wis boosting items so you don't even need a decent wisdom to have a broken druid.

Ganurath
2008-01-24, 06:12 PM
It's worse than that. Druid becomes broken with just Natural Spell, the only core Druid only feat, the feat that first timers take just because it's druid only.... After that it's simply a matter of choosing what spells/forms you use that day and what animal companion you call up, all of which are changable in 24hours. That's it. one feat and it's borked.:smallyuk: You can even get hold of Wis boosting items so you don't even need a decent wisdom to have a broken druid.And that's not even looking at the spells that are exclusive to Druids.

DM: "The army is approaching the villages. How do you want to village to prepare?"
Fighter: "I'll coordinate the militia within the wall."
Rogue: "I'll set up ambushes."
Wizard: "I'll dish out mass buffs."
Druid: "I'll cast Control Wind and blow the invading army halfway across the continent."
DM, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard: "..."

Woot Spitum
2008-01-24, 08:02 PM
I've played blaster and batman wizards, and let me tell you, once you've tried batman, you'll never want to go back to blasting again. Blasting is an exercise in futility. Batman wins encounters. The decision is not hard.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-24, 08:11 PM
And that's not even looking at the spells that are exclusive to Druids.

DM: "The army is approaching the villages. How do you want to village to prepare?"
Fighter: "I'll coordinate the militia within the wall."
Rogue: "I'll set up ambushes."
Wizard: "I'll dish out mass buffs."
Druid: "I'll cast Control Wind and blow the invading army halfway across the continent."
DM, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard: "..."

Whoever thought that one was a good spell to add in was a friggn moron.:smalltongue: Druids get all the best Anti-army spells.

Chronos
2008-01-24, 08:59 PM
The other real problem with a druid is that they have no weaknesses. They're strong at low levels, thanks mostly to their animal companion. You probably can't sneak up on them, since they prioritize Wis and have Listen and Spot as class skills (and enough skill points to afford them). You can't mess with their equipment (sunder, Shatter, sleight of hand, etc.), since it's usually melded into their wildshape form. Their spell list includes save-or-sucks, buffs, transportation, planning divinations, summons, healing, and the few blasts which are actually effective. They can fight effectively in melee. They get decent hit points. The two most important saves are good ones for them (both in level progression, and in likely best ability scores). They maybe can't do some things as well as other classes, but there's nowhere that they're weak.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-24, 09:03 PM
The other real problem with a druid is that they have no weaknesses. They're strong at low levels, thanks mostly to their animal companion.
But not just. A druid who *doesn't* neglect his physical stats can flank with his companion just fine, using Shillelagh, and Entangle is a best-of-class debuff--especially for a low-level party wanting to avoid melee. Outside of corse, they have things like Sunstroke, which deals 2d6 nonlethal (killer at level one) *and* has a Fort save vs. fatigue.

But, yeah, you're right.

Voyager_I
2008-01-24, 09:13 PM
Put briefly, nobody likes UMD Tanks because you have to take very specific builds that don't mesh with what people imagine when they think "Epic Fighter", and still are't as effective as most caster builds. The price for not doing this or some painfully specific build off the CharOp boards is ineffectiveness. They want to be like Aragorn, only better, not some lame version of Gandalf.


Simply put, players want their fighter to wield swords, not wands. The fact that not doing this makes them automatically suck is imbalanced.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-24, 09:17 PM
Put briefly, nobody likes UMD Tanks because you have to take very specific builds that don't mesh with what people imagine when they think "Epic Fighter", and still isn't as effective as most caster builds. The price for not doing this or some painfully specific build off the CharOp boards is ineffectiveness. They want to be like Aragorn, only better, not some lame version of Gandalf.


Simply put, players want their fighter to wield swords, not wands. The fact that not doing this makes them automatically suck is imbalanced.

Also, because they're aware of the *cost* of stuff. Not only are you taking Skill Focus(UMD), but you're buying a Circlet of Persuasion (5400)... then you're getting, say, a Wand of Mirror Image (4500). At what level, precisely, is this affordable? What aren't you buying instead? 4000 gp lets you make your armor +2 or +2 to a stat or all saves! And a wand of Divine Power costs 21,000 GP--that's 21,000 you'll have to pay multiple times, and that comes instead of normal gear. It's not "pocket change" at any level except 19 and 20; even at 15 it's a tenth of your *total wealth*. At level 10, total character wealth is 49,000!
Good luck getting the cash in one lump sum, too; you'll be underequipped for a while because you've been saving.

In other words, even with something like a level 2 wand, this strategy kicks in not particularily early.... and until then, you've been spending skill points, a feat, and maybe gold (Circlet of Persuasion) to no real benefit.

No wonder people don't really do this.

Talic
2008-01-25, 02:27 AM
On a few more specific points, I have no interest in matching a UMD fighter against a UMD expert here since that wasn't the point I was arguing and I fear I'm coming close to derailing this thread already. My argument was that they use UMD in different fashions based on their other abilities and so a UMD Fighter is not the same as a UMD Expert, which Talic seems to agree with.

Wrong. The fighter has extra abilities. The expert does not. The expert uses diet-wizard strategy. It's more effective than fighter enhanced strategy.

Why then, would the fighter even try to use the fighter enhance strategy, when he can use the diet wizard strategy also, and ignore his abilities? Well, a better attack roll means that he'll have a slightly easier time nailing those touch ac's. And a worse UMD means he'll have to tough it out as a standard fighter a lot longer.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-25, 05:36 AM
If you haven't seen numerous posts similar to the one I quoted here, I can only comment that we have had very different reading experiences. If you can't take my arguments seriously without further quotation, however, please tell me how many I would need to provide for you to take me seriously.
I am taking your arguments seriously. However, my point is that there aren't actually people on this forum who believe casters always win; merely that casters are superior (or far superior) to non-casters. I'm sure that people sometimes use phrasings like "casters can defeat anything", but I would call that simple hyperbole, or a figure of speech. So yes, point agreed and lets move on.



I think we're running into difficulties agreeing on what constitutes an over powered spell or wizard. Sleep certainly is a powerful spell but it would hardly allow a level 1 Wizard to easily defeat a CR 4 or 5 creature.
Not that Sleep is overpowered per se, but why wouldn't it, exactly? Many CR 4 creatures lack good will saving throws. Okay, Sleep doesn't work on 5 HD critters, but there's similar spells (e.g. Deep Slumber) that do. But I think we're mostly in agreement here, too - my point is that wizards (and to a lesser extent, clerics) have access to numerous save-or-lose, save-or-suck, and save-or-die spells, and that such spells tend to be extremely effective. Once more, this is something of which WOTC is well aware.



On the Giamonk, I would first like to divorce most of Kurald Galain's counterarguments from this discussion by referring back to the part in my original post where I state that Sir Giacomo has made some other odd arguments and I do not take it upon my self to defend those statements.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I was simply responding to your "I don't understand why people object to the gonk" by explaining why people do. It is obvious that pretty much everybody on the forums agrees that the gonk is a ludicrous build and not even remotely viable. Other people in this thread have already done a good job of thoroughly debunking SG's claims.



At it's core, I find the argument that a monk with UMD is essentially the same as an expert (or any NPC class) with UMD. This strikes me as terribly odd,
Two points. First, while it's correct the expert can't use a flight + swordfighting combo as well as the fighter, he has better combos available, like flight + a save-or-lose spell. That, frankly, is stronger offense. Second, UMD really is not a class ability, but a character ability (since it's not dependent on class; arguably, it is a class ability for those who have the skill on their class list). While it may certainly make sense for characters to take up UMD (because it is arguably the strongest skill in the game), this is something all classes can do, so it's not relevant when discussing the differences between classes.

Aside from that, many players fall in one of two categories: those who build their character on a class, and those who build it on a concept. Those building on class tend to play to the class's strengths. With the high DCs for UMD, you'll basically need a good charisma, many skill points, and/or enough spare feats to take skill focus, to pull it off before level 18 or so. The monk has none of those, in effect making it the worst contender for doing UMD. For instance, the gonk relies mostly on int and cha - but this seriously impedes its combat prowess, which relies on str, dex, con and wis. This makes it thoroughly unplayable below 18th level or so, and below 50- or 60-point buy.
Those building on concept, tend to use the class that best reflects, or best works with, that concept. Now if your concept is a "straight" mostly-non-magical meleeer (e.g. Conan, Aragorn), you're not going to take UMD period. Otoh, if your concept is a character that enhances his fighting prowess with magic, you're not going to play a monk.

All this is demonstrated by the fact that the easiest way to make the silly gonk build playable and effective, is by replacing all its monk levels by rogue. Or, for that matter, barbarian, or even warlock.

I don't think we're all that much in disagreement wrt what people actually play. I'm well aware that people play blaster mages and healy clerics, both of which can be fun roles. However, people also play controller wizards and melee clerics, although they rarely optimize them as much as is suggested on the charop boards. But, those concepts are still viable, easy to build, and fun to play without heavy optimization.

However, I think we can also agree on the fact that absolutely nobody ever plays a gonk.

Talic
2008-01-25, 05:54 AM
Two points. First, while it's correct the expert can't use a flight + swordfighting combo as well as the fighter, he has better combos available, like flight + a save-or-lose spell. That, frankly, is stronger offense.

In all fairness, since scrolls rely on the minimum stat required to cast a spell, and do not allow increases to DC based on high ability scores, feats, or class abilities, Saving throws for Save-or-lose spells will be too low to reliably handle mid-high level threats. Best bet with such a character is ranged touch attacks for powerful effects, such as enervation, and the like.

Citizen Jenkins
2008-01-25, 06:20 AM
Before moving on to new arguments, I'd like to explain why most of you will be receiving replies. Either:
1. I don't really see a new argument, merely a repetition of a point I've already responded too. A good example is the arguments over gold. I've already posted how a fighter's true power come from his feats instead of weapon bonus and so it's much more important to focus your gold on UMD abilities which allow you to land your still-devastating blows rather than pay ever spiraling amount for fairly miniscule weapon enhancements. I don't really see a response to it and so can't really do anything more than restate the point I made.
2. You seem to be drawing me off into an argument I've neither made nor have interest in. For example, I have no idea how druids came up in an argument originally about a) wizard spell combos and b) the over-hyped concept of wizards that many posters on these boards possess (from my original post here referring to a surprised 13th level wizard being easily able of besting a CR17 Elemental Monolith, a point which has generally gone both unaddressed and unrefuted.) I will again refer to the portion of my original post where I state that Sir Giacomo has made (to my mind) odd arguments in his posts elsewhere and I do not have the desire to defend his positions in other threads. I am specifically referring here to what I consider the odd hostility towards various non-casters who make use of UMD.

Now to address the new argument from Talic.
I'd like to illustrate three advantages a UMD Fighter will have over a UMD Expert to prove the case for Fighter Enhancement over Diet-Wizard tactics.
1. The option of not using his UMD skill. In many cases a UMD Fighter would benefit from using his UMD scrolls, especially in situations where the battlefield situation is not suited to his preferred form of combat. In others, however, the battlefield will conform to the Fighter's preferences, the opposition may be relatively weak and meant only to consume the parties more limited resources, or other situations where the Fighter is capable of dealing with the threat without expending scrolls. A UMD Expert cannot, the only way he can contribute is through the use of his limited magical resources, making each battle a drain on his resources.
2. In terms of cost, the scrolls to enhance a fighter and allow him to adjust to the battle field conditions are significantly cheaper than the high-powered scrolls that a UMD expert requires. For example, the three spells I've listed most often as an aid to Fighters are See Invisibility, Invisibility, and Flight, all of which are 2nd-3rd level spells with scrolls costing between 150-375 gold. Compare that to a UMD Expert who is using 5th level scrolls at 1000 gold a piece or 7th level scrolls at more than twice that.
3. Finally, effectiveness. Continuing with the example of the Shock Trooper, a fairly unoptimized 13th level Fighter executing his combo can reasonably expect to inflict 100+ damage on his opponent, which will either kill his opponent outright or inflict enough damage that finishing them off becomes trivial. A UMD Expert, on the other hand, suffers from the problem that his scrolls are not crafted by optimized Wizards but instead by either the NPCs provided in the DMG or whatever the DM decides to grant. Meaning that even the heaviest firepower, like a Finger of Death, will have a significantly lower save DC and lower caster level than an equivalent Wizard. That Finger of Death, at 2k a pop and with a Fortitude DC of 22, is not terribly threatening to a Gelugon, a Storm Giant, a Glabrezu, or the majority of the CR13 mentioned previously. Assuming the best for the UMD Expert, however, the monster is dead either way. An argument concerning whether the monster died of HP damage or a failed save, dead is dead as long as both can consistently pull it off.

Finally, on the topic of why wizards are superior to non-casters (although that's not the topic under discussion), I am familiar with the caster tactic of striking where the opponent has no or minimal defense and can recognize the wisdom behind it. I don't consider that the true strength of casters, however. It is rather their ability to deliver these attacks consistently in a wide variety of situations and to shape the battlefield to their liking. Save-or-Dies and the like are powerful weapons but a wizard who casted nothing but those would be little more than a glass cannon.

Edit: I appear to have been ninja'd by Kurald Galain's post but given the time I will have to wait until tomorrow to respond. My apologies.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-25, 06:54 AM
The problem with cross-classing UMD is that your build isn't viable until high levels. At level 10, you have 6 ranks and it has taken up half your skill points. You will be able to use a wand 30% of the time, the rest of the time it fails. Scrolls are even harder, though if you have also cross-classed spellcraft also it's a bit easier, but that takes all of your skillpoints to do by level 10. My builds are generally viable at every level, while a UMD beast like this isn't. It can't swim, ride, or climb, all of which are useful and encouraged by the fighter class, and it's not even all that good at UMD. Yes, by level 20, it has a 3 skills all at useful levels, but even then it's UMD wand fails 45% of the time. A +6cha item reduces that to 30%, a failure rate that I view as problematic when you still have to buy every charge. Is it possible to build a good fighter that can UMD? Yes. Will they still be a fighter? Maybe. But the real question is, would anyone even try, outside of theory? No. The wizard builds posted here actually get used, most of the time. I doubt the gonk or the UMD fighter ever do. People who want to play a UMD-whore are better off as rogues. At level 5, the cross-class UMD is succeeding 20%, at 10 30%, at 15 45%. None of those are viable in a combat situation, where actions are the only thing that matters, and 2 attempts aren't a good idea. If a build only works at level 20, it doesn't work.

Talic
2008-01-25, 07:14 AM
Now to address the new argument from Talic.
I'd like to illustrate three advantages a UMD Fighter will have over a UMD Expert to prove the case for Fighter Enhancement over Diet-Wizard tactics.
1. The option of not using his UMD skill. In many cases a UMD Fighter would benefit from using his UMD scrolls, especially in situations where the battlefield situation is not suited to his preferred form of combat. In others, however, the battlefield will conform to the Fighter's preferences, the opposition may be relatively weak and meant only to consume the parties more limited resources, or other situations where the Fighter is capable of dealing with the threat without expending scrolls. A UMD Expert cannot, the only way he can contribute is through the use of his limited magical resources, making each battle a drain on his resources.

In such situations where the fighter need not use expendable resources, the Expert likely will need not use many. Further, in a party setting, if the threat level is that low, likely, the UMD expert would need do pretty much nothing, other than perhaps provide a flanking bonus, along with modest sneak attack damage from the sneak attack NPC feats. Thus, the NPC can still contribute somewhat in the less-important fights. Though I fail to see how showing that the fighter can handle non-clutch situations efficiently shows an increased effectiveness. :smallwink:


2. In terms of cost, the scrolls to enhance a fighter and allow him to adjust to the battle field conditions are significantly cheaper than the high-powered scrolls that a UMD expert requires. For example, the three spells I've listed most often as an aid to Fighters are See Invisibility, Invisibility, and Flight, all of which are 2nd-3rd level spells with scrolls costing between 150-375 gold. Compare that to a UMD Expert who is using 5th level scrolls at 1000 gold a piece or 7th level scrolls at more than twice that.

Or, possibly, 2nd and 3rd level spells, combined with Metamagic rods for added effect. Further, those higher level scrolls are more likely to end a fight than the less likely melee attack (as compared to the much easier to hit touch AC). In addition, the expert's greater reliance on spells will drive him to more cost efficient options that the fighter won't use, such as wands. This will further mitigate resource loss.


3. Finally, effectiveness. Continuing with the example of the Shock Trooper, a fairly unoptimized 13th level Fighter executing his combo can reasonably expect to inflict 100+ damage on his opponent, which will either kill his opponent outright or inflict enough damage that finishing them off becomes trivial. A UMD Expert, on the other hand, suffers from the problem that his scrolls are not crafted by optimized Wizards but instead by either the NPCs provided in the DMG or whatever the DM decides to grant. Meaning that even the heaviest firepower, like a Finger of Death, will have a significantly lower save DC and lower caster level than an equivalent Wizard. That Finger of Death, at 2k a pop and with a Fortitude DC of 22, is not terribly threatening to a Gelugon, a Storm Giant, a Glabrezu, or the majority of the CR13 mentioned previously. Assuming the best for the UMD Expert, however, the monster is dead either way. An argument concerning whether the monster died of HP damage or a failed save, dead is dead as long as both can consistently pull it off.

I find it interesting that you compare a Fort save spell to mostly monsters with strong Fort saves. Again, Enervation, Ray of Fatigue, Ray of Exhaustion, and such are much better choices, as they make the fight signifigantly less lethal. You're matching a spell improperly, which would make even a fullcast wizard seem weak (and I think we all know, the opposite is true).


Finally, on the topic of why wizards are superior to non-casters (although that's not the topic under discussion), I am familiar with the caster tactic of striking where the opponent has no or minimal defense and can recognize the wisdom behind it. I don't consider that the true strength of casters, however. It is rather their ability to deliver these attacks consistently in a wide variety of situations and to shape the battlefield to their liking. Save-or-Dies and the like are powerful weapons but a wizard who casted nothing but those would be little more than a glass cannon.

Well, I would think it's obvious that a class with powerful abilities wouldn't be strong if it couldn't get them on target. Nobody disagrees that the wizard is versatile, able to provide a lethal threat to nearly all enemies within his CR range, in a variety of situations, while protecting himself and his party. That's why fullcasters are at the top of the power curve. Save or lose spells are a major weapon in that arsenal, along with threat reducers, such as enervate, and battlefield shaping spells, such as wall and sphere spells.

This doesn't change the fact that wizard tactics, on the whole are generally more effective than fighter tactics. There are few feats that make a fighter with UMD more effective in his use of UMD than someone utilizing followup spells through UMD to finish the fight faster. More resources, certainly, no arguement. But more effective too. The only real arguement I can see is whether or not the effectiveness is worth the cost. In the important situations, it's hard to see where that answer could be no. And a minor drop in effectiveness in the less important fights, the ones that don't require the resources, is that a fair tradeoff? It's a close arguement either way, which alone is enough to debate the effectiveness of the Gonk or G-fighter build... That it is even comparable to the NPC classes.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-25, 10:29 AM
The problem with cross-classing UMD is that your build isn't viable until high levels. At level 10, you have 6 ranks and it has taken up half your skill points.
Precisely.



On a simple point here, the Logic Ninja posted his famous guide here in September of 2006, about 15 months ago. Although a few people probably did play proto-Batmans or at least focused on Save-or-Lose spells before the guide, should no one have discussed Batman-style wizards either before or after the guide because it simply wasn't common.
This, quite simply, is false. Things like the Ubercharger, or master tripper, or pun-pun, or the gonk, are highly specific builds that work in one highly specific way. On the other hand, while the term "being batman" is catchy, all the Logic Ninja's guide to is describe a philosophy (that buff/debuff spells are effective) and list recommendations for spells. Before that, as early as second edition, there were nine kinds of wizards: the generic one, and the eight specialists. One of these (the invoker) focuses on blasting; four focus on buffs/debuffs (enchanter/abjurer/necromancer/transmuter) and two focus on battlefield control (illusionist/conjurer). So it is clearly false that people only played blaster mages before the Logic Ninja; the non-damage-dealing enchanter was a viable option as early as fifteen years ago. It's simply the result of 3E shifts in mechanics that blasting isn't all that effective any more.

The notion behind CoDzilla and Batman is that you don't need to optimize a cleric or wizard in order to be highly effective. This is completely in juxtaposition with the gonk, who needs to be highly optimized to be only mildly effective. You actually have to try to make a cleric build that doesn't work, whereas it's very easy to make a monk build that doesn't contribute.


I also find the argument that a Fighter is specifically disadvantaged by needing to buff other scores to use magic odd, since that's the same for Duskblades
You are correct that the fighter doesn't have to sacrifice much in order to gain UMD (even if the campaign will likely be over before he raises his score to a workable level). However, the gonk does; that means that the UMD fighter is already better than the gonk. Furthermore, note that the fighter is the second-weakest PC class in core (the weakest being the monk, of course) and that in terms of UMD, every other class does it better - because of Cha synergy, more skill points, or even having UMD as a class skill. So, as with the gonk but slightly less so, the way to make the UMD fighter more viable is by replacing all his fighter levels with rogue, barbarian, or warlock. This is why the gonk is such a silly and nonsensical concept.


On the topic of a +1 enhancement, most Fighters have more problems landing blows than dealing enough damage.
That is completely false. Fighter routinely burn BAB points on power attack to improve their damage at the cost of their to-hit chance. Unless you meant that it's only rarely possible to make a full attack, which isn't all that easy to resolve with low-level scrolls.


On the point of fluff, I wasn't aware that Fighters actually had fluff.
Of course they do. They have any number of archetypes in literature, mythology, or movies. Nearly none of which, incidentally, ever use magic of any sort.

The economy is silly, no argument there. That, incidentally, is by itself an argument in favor of the classes who are not all that dependent on magical equipment - which would be the full casters.


I've already posted how a fighter's true power come from his feats instead of weapon bonus and so it's much more important to focus your gold on UMD abilities
The answer to that is math. Other than in arena matches, the fighter is better off buying magical weapons or armor (not with minuscule enchantments, but with special effects like fortification) than to buy highly expensive expendables for which he has a good chance of failing his activation roll.


I have no idea how druids came up in an argument originally about a) wizard spell combos
The thread is about spell combos, not just wizard spell combos. And as above, it does not take a highly optimized build for a wizard to be effective.


1. The option of not using his UMD skill.
Yes, when not using umd, the umd fighter is more effective than the expert (but the gonk really isn't). Note that this usually applies when the encounter isn't that tough or important to begin with. However, when using umd, the expert is more effective than either. Furthermore, it begs the question why you're making an umd fighter if the intent is not to use umd.


2. In terms of cost, the scrolls to enhance a fighter and allow him to adjust to the battle field conditions are significantly cheaper than the high-powered scrolls that a UMD expert requires.
In that case, the fighter is better off drinking potions. Even for low-level spells, scrolls still require a DC 22+ umd check to activate. To do that effectively, you need a score of 17 (+3 skill focus, +2 spellcraft synergy, +4 charisma bonus, +9 ranks needed, approx level 15). So what are you going to do until that level?


3. Finally, effectiveness. Continuing with the example of the Shock Trooper, a fairly unoptimized 13th level Fighter
Now you're setting a double standard. If you wish to talk about only the "regular" blaster mages, then yes, a shock trooper is a rather highly optimized fighter.
Aside from that, his combo is significantly hampered by requiring additional rounds to buff himself with scrolls.


Meaning that even the heaviest firepower, like a Finger of Death, will have a significantly lower save DC and lower caster level than an equivalent Wizard.
Not really, because that spell is rather high level. Besides, an umd expert would use wands (cheaper), not scrolls, and target a fort-save spell against something with a poor fort save.


Save-or-Dies and the like are powerful weapons but a wizard who casted nothing but those would be little more than a glass cannon.
That's why the wizard will also cast some self-buffs to protect himself. That isn't all that hard for him, either.

Voyager_I
2008-01-25, 03:35 PM
Why Nobody Likes UMD Fighters and Gonks, Continued

What you're essentially doing is turning the melee classes into Gishes. If I wanted to play a Gish, then I wouldn't be taking levels in Fighter or Monk to begin with (unless I wanted to PRC into Eldricht Knight or some such). I don't want to contort my Fighter into some kind of wannabe Gish that still isn't as good as a Duskblade, I want to play someone that runs up to bad things and hits them with a sword. However, if I do that without Overwhelming Shock Trooper Psionic Lion's Leaping Charge Power Attacking for enough damage to sunder a small celestial body, I can only hope that someone debuffs/disables the monster before I'm making Swim checks in gastric acid.

Even if the UMD builds didn't suck, they still don't fix the problem that Fighters and Monks can't actually play effectively like Fighters and Monks. If I want a Gish, I will actually go play one, because Gish classes exist already and can do what you're trying to and be better at it without completely ruining themselves for any other purpose.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 03:51 PM
Hi, starting a (lengthy and probably unrewarding task) to answer some of the posts....(although not much time tonight...)


One teensy little thing you should realize: If the monster has a strength that we can't drop (We don't really need it to get to 0, anyways), a wizard has a myriad of other options that don't involve its strength score at all. Honestly, a wizard has the tools to deal with enough problems (assuming it carrys scrolls), that you can't just point out a few things without any explanation.


Yes- that is a way to discuss things (irony here).
You see, the only thing I did was to prove that fly/invsibility/ray of enfeeblement combo is NOT the powerful tactics Reel on, Love was potraying with loads of rules errors. What I wrote about the monsters' ways (ALL monsters ways) around that combo of course does not pertain to solid fog, tentacles or lightning bolt or whatever. They will then use different methods. Both sides will never be able to be prepared for all contingencies.



Of course, I can't read your posts without thinking of Solo's retorts. You have read them thoroughly, right?

Care to mention which of Solo's great retorts? I cannot think of any. They were funny, but not really adding anything new.

- Giacomo

Collin152
2008-01-26, 03:58 PM
I'd point them out, but seeing as you've already either resonded to them in a flippant manner or explicitly ignored them, I think I'll save my time.
Also, how kind of you to add "Great" to the decription of the responses, that shows a lot of respect for the Wise One.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-26, 04:07 PM
You see, the only thing I did was to prove that fly/invsibility/ray of enfeeblement combo is NOT the powerful tactics Reel on, Love was potraying with loads of rules errors. What I wrote about the monsters' ways (ALL monsters ways) around that combo of course does not pertain to solid fog, tentacles or lightning bolt or whatever. They will then use different methods. Both sides will never be able to be prepared for all contingencies.
Actually, you didn't. All you did was suggest, basically, that every monster would have concealment. Because apparently in your Counter-D&D, it's not just all the players who carry horns of fog and eversmoking bottles, it's the monsters, too.
You dismissed overland flight because it only keeps you safe from "most" monsters. WHY are you dismissing a spell that keeps you pretty much totally safe from even HALF the challenges in the book?! Especially when it's still an advantage against others, and even more so when coupled with Greater Invisibility?

You dismissed Ray of Enfeeblement because you seem to think that losing 8, 10, or 14 STR somehow doesn't matter if you have an STR of 28. It does; it makes them almost a melee nonthreat.

Ray of Enfeeblement + Ray of Exhaustion, or just Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, *is* powerful. It's *great* against humanoids, and it's very good against big brute monsters. It's obviously not the thing to target a mirror-imaged Avoral with. But a third level spell slot to hit 9 touch AC and take their AB down by 7 and their damage by as much without a save?

Maybe you live in a world where everything is protected against rays, Giacomo, but the rest of us play actual D&D, where concealment isn't *common*.

You are also the ONLY one who suggested that Ray of Enfeeblement *specifically* was a tactic vs. everything. The thing I was pointing out with touch ACs is that they are very low, and the wizard's odds of missing them are by and large 5%. Ray of Enfeeblement is NOT D&D's only ranged touch attack. But *you* said that rays would miss a lot. I pointed out that touch ACs don't back this up. And your response was that... a few of the monsters you picked (which happened to include the part of the list with the outsiders) have Mirror Image, and others have high STR (even though you *want* to use the spell on high-STR enemies as well as low). I think I showed quite sufficiently how it works just fine on most of the part of the list you picked, and on most of the rest of it too.

If the creature is an Avoral with Mirror Image up, obviously you don't use Ray of Enfeeblement... but if you prepared Ray of Enfeeblement, odds are you *will* get a chance to use it, and it *will* be effective.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-26, 04:23 PM
Hi, starting a (lengthy and probably unrewarding task) to answer some of the posts....(although not much time tonight...)

Well, actually, you're not saying anything that hasn't been thoroughly disproven already, and you're ignoring several salient points that show the errors in your earlier reasoning.

Do you actually play this way or are you just doing this for the sake of argument?

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 05:15 PM
OK, I'll try a go by going through stoopitallkid's comments bit by bit. Wonder if that helps...

I suppose that means your monk has to save against the enlarge person you are so fond of then?

Nope. You can always lower your save VOLUNTARILY. Something I feel will not happen while under dominate (a compulsion effect). You MAY try a bluff on a charmed/strongly diplomacie'd creature, but it is tricky.

No, you just repeatedly cast it, he fails his save against the casting enough that when you order him to do something against his nature he has to save, then save, then save another 50 times to throw off all effects. This is a good way of making sure he never leaves your control, as at the end of each day you use every possible slot to make him dominated even more.

Nope. You trigger the new saving throw condition, it applies to all. No loophole here, sorry. And when in doubt about whether a spell should be interpreted stretching like crazy to get it all-powerful, check Vik's comment in my sig.

Your monk has spot, listen, sense motive, UMD, diplomacy, tumble, and jump. That takes an 18 int, and would be much more powerful as an expert who can get UMD at a higher score than 11.

You do not even know "my monk", because I have not posted it yet. I only did some specific ones for certain settings - but also here: the 12th level duel one that once caused Reel on Love a headache certainly had no 18 INT and still all skills she needed. And the 20th/15th level dragonhunter also had all necessary skills with INT 14).

And an 18 INT would mean 8 skill points per level, which would net you more skills than those you listed (add human as race to get even higher). So if you want so desperately to prove me wrong, at least get this math correct. Plus, you hardly max out ALL skills (for instance, jump only up to 5 ranks, maybe also sense motive for a synergy bonus to diplomacy, and tumble only up to make 15 to avoid AoO a certain check).

And one more time: the expert is NOT "much more powerful" only because he can take UMD as a class skill. UMD allows you do get certain spells that synergise greatly with respective non-caster classes class abilities. Unfortunately, the expert does not have many of those (only skills, and less than the monk at that, with only 2 pts more/lvl).


WotC has banned polymorph from all official games and recommended that DMs do the same. That's why it should be banned here. They have done no such thing with Wildshape, though they probably should.

Where have they said so? If it is "banned from all official games" why then is it still part of the SRD available on the WoTC? The only thing I can imagine here is they got panicked by all these wrong perceptions on what polymorph does to the game. And yes, if they ban polymorph, they should also do that with wildshape.

An expert half-elf 20 with the negotiator feat and with 5 ranks in bluff, Knowledge(N&R), Sense Motive, and a 14 cha can turn someone from hostile(attacks on sight) to friendly(offers advice) as a full-round action with a roll of 10 or greater. Put 3 of those in a party and the BBEG just became your ally. And there is nothing in RAW about a time limit, which is all we consider here.

You see, what happens after the npc is turned friendly? (let us assume for a moment that a hostile creature will give you ONE FULL ROUND to get it to that status. It can prevent you from speaking, or kill you in that round for instance).
Is this status then permanent, as in "will never change"? No. The npc behaves normally as originally designed by the DM and will also react accordingly to what the pc does. Friendly or even helpful will yield you no durable ally. The creature may sell you items or spells at reduced price, do spellcasting for you for free even (lower-level ones certainly), but it will not change its ways to suit you completely.
AND to make it even a 1-round action to diplomacy someone, you have to have quite a high level. At those levels, people do worse things with their opponents than make them "friendly", I can tell you.

But you know actually WHY caster supporters hate diplomacy and UMD so much? Because it shows them magic is not as special as they wish it to be.

Who freedom of movement out of your grapple and fly out of reach.

Sigh. That is quite tough to achieve. If you have it on your spell list AND prepared (or still left over) you may try to cast it IF in the grapple you are not pinned. You may also have cast it before, but it may be over when you get attacked with a grapple.
For those without grapple on their spell list (sorcerer and wizard), a ring of freedom of movement can help from level 15 (assuming 1/4 of your wealth can be devoted to a single item, and the sorcerer or wizard cannot produce it themselves). And at THOSE levels, AMF tactics monks or grapplers will make such countermeasures highly risky at best to rely on.

Have you read the costs of a wand? All that will do is burn slots to emulate something the caster can do for free(with spells) or far easier (most wands require no UMD check for a caster, plus they have far more skill points to burn).

Yes, casters in the group will/should buff for free their comrades. However, believe it or not, this is widely denied on these boards. For those cases, UMD and wands help already.
Then, they help to generally have a backup buff available in case the casters in the group have cast all their spells.
Then,they hep in cases when the non-caster is on his/her own.
And finally, they help for the great personal range buffs llike shield, divine power or mirror image and the king of them all, AMF.

And they do not cost that much, those wands. You can buy fractions of them (as per DMG). So you can basically get an enlarge effect for only 15 gp. The monk can get a couple of dozen at 2nd level. Great, eh?


My spellslots go to whatever will be the most use. If my allies need buffs, I'll give it to them, but no more than a couple, because I put most of my focus on DEFEATING the enemy, not making the poor monk effective. Yeah, I'll toss a mass enlarge onto the cleric, fighter, and monk, but after that all my rounds are going to be battlefield control, because they should be effective after 2 buffs (mine and cleric's). If they aren't, then too bad because the battle will probably be over faster if I throw out a stinking cloud rather than a Bear's Endurance.

Ah, I see, you are also one of those feeling bad about buffing your fellow non-casters. You shoudl try it more often. You will like it. In another thread devoting to show how the monk fares at 20th level compared to other non-casters, the caster fellows in the monk/barbarian group played by Solo and Rachel Lorelei started off the adventure by casting greater magic weapon, magic vestment (x3) and mind blanks. Not bad, eh?

The caster is still effective while concealed. The instant a fighter attacks he's pinpointed by the enemy, which means he is less effective while concealed. And I think the "crippling" came from your use of an Eversmoking Bottle, which blinds your allies.

Why can a fighter, say a fighter with a bow and manyshot (shoot, move silently) or a monk with flyby attack (move silently, stun, move silently) be pinpointed better than a caster (and, btw, only the bard as a caster has move silently as a class skill)? Please explain.

And for you as well an explanation how the bottle thing works: It's similar to a fireball. When do you think a caster will cast a fireball? When the enemy has closed in to melee with your friends? Or before that? You found the answer?
Great. It is the same thing with the bottle. You activate it WHEN IT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE ENEMY, NOT FOR YOU!
Examples
- enemy ambushes you. You need total concealment up quick
- you ambush/attack enemy. Your casters buff up the group before, stay outside smoke area, you activate the bottle, everyone holds breath, you blind fight the enemy into oblivion. Those who stagger outside the smoke will get sniped by the casters with readied spells.
etc.

The saving throw on sleep means that most opponents at first level will need to roll a 14 to survive. Show me another class that can do that to all enemies with one turn.

Lettusseee..
- the babarian with cleave can down with no save two enemies/round (per ROUND, and not just one round. Works also vs the 1st level classic undead: skeletons)
- the rapid shot ranger/fighter can down two opponents per round from a longer range than the sleep spell
- any combat reflex/spiked chain non-caster will do equal to the sleep spell in that one round, and better in all others of the day.
- the grappling monk cannot down more than one per round, yes, but he will be quite deadly about that one opponent. Plus, his spot/listen/ms/hide combo is so much higher than that of the wizard/sorcerer that he'll get a suprirse action (partial charge?) more often
- the rogue can also try the rapid shot route (if human) or set up area traps.

Do not get me wrong: Sleep is good. But it is not earth-shaking at 1st level, and gets progressively weaker at higher levels.


We say there is no "auto-win" combo. Think back to when you were 6, playing rock-paper-scissors, and one jerk pulled dynamite. The next person pulled superman. There is no insta-win. However, there is probable win, which is what most of these combos are, and no enemy will be immune to all of them. A wizard has about 20 methods of attack. A monk has one.(3 depending on how you define attack) Guess which is easier to defend against.

Well, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the spells/combos listed so far do not convince me. Which brings down even the "probable" win scenarios to the realm of the realistic.
The wizard has not 20 methods of attack, he has ONE! It is called "magic". At higher levels, when he/she gets the real strong stuff, there is AMF to grind all that great versatility into nothingness.
The monk, meanwhile, has a good mixture of combat, skills, AND magic available via items. The wizard has no such thing. He is not Mr. Versatile, he is a specialist. And specialists are vulnerable (if that d4 hit thing did not already tell us something).

Your methods of thwarting always involve one-use items, defenses that make you suffer more than your opponent, and protections that are expensive and whose only viable use is that situation.

Wands are not "one-use", but they have charges. Most of the really useful ones are 1st-2nd level effects which, over a whole adventureing career, will not cost that much. And some permanent cheap items like the eversmoking bottle or boots of haste will be available much more often.
And this "make you suffer more than your opponent" thing is a new extension of "the bottle is stupid because your allies will suffer". Where do you get these polemic notions from, I wonder?

Phantom steed. It flies at later levels and is perfect for most combat, as it lets you be faster than the monk. Only if they can fly do you use the second spell, especially since Phantom steed is cast pre-combat.

Phantom steed? COME ON, you are joking, are you? At later levels its survival chance is a fraction of a round (you realise it can be just destroyed with its meagre hit points, don't you?).
Personally I like a shadow conjured phantom steed because you can cast it then as a standard action (and mount it already in the same round). But it is much less useful in combat than the usual fly magic.

Normally it's 2 rounds of casting to kill enemies, which is better than the 4 rounds of buffs you monk uses.

The four rounds was for buffing a 15h level monk to take on an ancient white dragon (CR 18!) to geta very good chance at winning. In normal adventuring life, buffing for enlarge will be all that is necessary. And you can get buffs of that kind yourself (not counting your party wizard) for 200 (!) encounters for just 3,000 gold.

Move. And that affects non-casters more, since cover against the sky is hard to find.

That is your answer to get line of sight and line of effect vs a creature trying to get up one or the other against a caster? Move? Well, it might work, but dodgy at best (for instance, you cannot "move around" smoked, fogged, dark areas. Or around doors and walls).
And cover against the sky? You mean: buildings? Dungeons? Trees? Those kind of things that are extremely rare in adventures?
Incredible.

I have 3 pouches, and only take a move action to replace it. If you want to steal from me, I really hope you like explosive runes.

Vs 3 pouches, 3 attacks are enough for sundering, I guess? And drawing and item provokes an AoO (or you have a handy haversack, but that might be the first item to bite the dust vs strong sunders). A quickdraw feat may save you, though (not vs readied attacks, though).
And on stealing: you can only protect readable stuff with explosive runes, so your material components are still fair game. And btw rogues can find and disable the runes.

Freedom of Movement, or Dimension Door and a concentration check with a low DC.

Not usable in a pin.

pinning doesn't interfere with verbal components, and a 3,000 gp item will negate silence.

Yes, you can prevent someone from speaking while in a pin, so verbal components are blocked. You can get the appropriate silent/still feats to overcome component blocks, though, but that eats your precious metagic feats up (and you would love to also get item creation feats and spell penetration etc.).
And what item is that which negates silence? I mean, an item that you can activate without a command word?

Your party will love that, especially when the wizard can dimension door better than you can run, or he has a Phantom Steed with a speed of 20*caster level that lasts for hours.

Well, the party WILL love the tactics to wait until the enemy caster buffs are over, because it will benefit THEM ALL (even the party caster). The phantom steeds is one of the longest-running spells in the game, so it should still be around.
If you meant, though, that it is the enemy caster who has the phantom steed up, tell the fighter/ranger to shoot it. Then THAT buff is over quite quickly...:smallsmile: Ah, and dimension door is not a buff.

Concentration checks should be automatic for any caster by about level 10, and if you ready an action you can't full attack.

Yes. Your point being?
When you go against a caster and hit him with a standard action, that action can do enough damage to both spoil the caster's spell AND his meagre hit points.
But disrupting spells by damage/readied action/AoO is more for lower levels, that is correct.


Divine casters can get a tattoo of their holy symbol, arcane casters have 2 spellbooks, and if you are interrupted while sleeping on a nightly basis the party might cry foul, especially if they are in a Rope Trick each night.

Tattoo as holy symbol? Not in core.
2 spellbooks just reduces the chance of losing all by 50%, but it is certainly a good tactics (if an expensive one)
And the party should never be interrupted on a "nightly" basis. But there should always be a risk (a risk big enough to, say, occupy spell slots and nightwatches to take precautions).

Which is why a wizard preps a variety, and the usual decoys are all spells.

Yes, they usual are. And the some low-level illusions can be (again) used by all. For instance, a pipe of sounding can do wonders when sight is impaired.
And a wizard preparing a variety means actually only a certain propotion of his already limited spells will be applicable in the course of the day. This is exactly what I keep posting here about.

No, you understood it right, rays are hideously overpowered. You just need to accept that.

You mean- you still believe this even after I have in detail proven it to be wrong? Well, can't be help, can it?

No, they wouldn't. I really don't suggest this as a viable tactic, given how bad it is to your party.

Why do you think that? Are you just repeating what others have said (and which already I have proven is not the case)?
Again:
-a bottle in a normal iconic group CAN cause problems - but if used wisely can already be immensely helpful there.
-a bottle used in a group which is prepared in its strategy and tactics for that device is devastating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo
AMF

Which ruins the magic items you love, while the caster just chooses spells that work inside there.

You do not understand how AMF works. Read the spell again. You cannot cast inside the AMF which is what it is all about. Not even insta-conjurations or calling effects. Called creatures can enter it from the outside after being called from outside the AMF, but no spellcasting inside.

[Silence]-Beaten already

Maybe, if you care to explain what the 3,000 item is to overcome silence?

and how is that not a caster winning? All you've done is spend money on something you could get cheaper as a caster(through item creation).
Please, all of you who believe in absolute monk superiority: reconsider. Why do you always assume lame duck caster opponents and monsters who have no clue what magic items are and what they will do in a world full of them?

No, it is the other way round, and I am baffled without end why noone admits that: non-casters are expected to stand around like lame ducks, and they are supposed to get even lamer the higher the level. Oh, the caster is casting irrestistable dance on me...awwwww....I lose...
Yes, spells are available way more easily to casters, but they are available TO ALL!!!!!!
And some spells simply are not as good in casters' hands as they are when non-casters use them (best example: AMF).

Some post further up wondered whether RP-wise my whole approach would be OK for those who love to play the simple fighter, wading into melee or a paladin heroically charging the bad demon without swinging some wands before.
Actually, I also like these other ways to play non-casters more. If I want to paly an Arthurian knight, I do not wand to work magics to stay competitive vs the foes. If I want to play a dashing musketeer, I would find it odd if that musketeer swallows an enlarge potion before to get reach vs the Cardinal's guard.
But that is not what my whole point and this debate is about. The debate is about: are casters and non-casters balanced by the RAW? And they are the way this system works.

And the moment you want to play those non-magic wielding non-casters, you and your DM will have to HOUSERULE this highfantasy-based system to keep the balance. For instance, you want to get rid of polymorphed fighters? OK, ban all morph spells/effects and make up for it for the classes who lose most (i.e. the monk and the druid).
You do not want to have spells emulating class abilities (i.e. no invisibility, silence, climb spell effects)? Well, then you have to give the casters more non-spell abilities (like better hp, medium armour or some such) to compensate.

Basically, it is all very easy.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 05:18 PM
I'd point them out, but seeing as you've already either resonded to them in a flippant manner or explicitly ignored them, I think I'll save my time.
Also, how kind of you to add "Great" to the decription of the responses, that shows a lot of respect for the Wise One.

Strange. Weren't you the one who upped the ante by saying "retort" instead of "answers" or "comments"?
And you do remember that Solo was primarly adding funny remarks (like creating matter doing millions of damage as proof of spell power) to the thread instead of really contributing, don't you?

But I actually admire Solo's posts very much - so the "great" was not that appropriate, truly. "Great" in ironic sense withdrawn. Hope Solo accepts the apology.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-26, 05:23 PM
Actually, you didn't. All you did was suggest, basically, that every monster would have concealment. Because apparently in your Counter-D&D, it's not just all the players who carry horns of fog and eversmoking bottles, it's the monsters, too.
.....

Pls, Reel On, Love. Admit that you have been wrong on that thing. You basically argued that a wizard/sorcerer with the aforementioned spells can easily overcome ALL of those monsters because they have a low touch AC.
I then showed you what they can do (without any items, so pls add no more wrongness to what you already posted) and summarised what stuff they can do to a wizard who uses such tactics. We may widely differ on class balance in general, but at least we should no longer discuss that thing which is so clear imo.

A creature with STR 12-16 is still a threat- to a wizard. But debuffing that creature is a great way to show how the wizard (doing the debuffing) and the noncaster (say, a monk) can work together: wizard debuffs, monk grapples with much better chances.

- Giacomo

PS: will go to bed now

Voyager_I
2008-01-26, 05:51 PM
A creature with STR 12-16 is still a threat- to a wizard. But debuffing that creature is a great way to show how the wizard (doing the debuffing) and the noncaster (say, a monk) can work together: wizard debuffs, monk grapples with much better chances.



Funny to hear you say that, because I'm pretty sure that's what everybody has been saying the entire effing time! The part you overlook, of course, is that the Monk basically can't do anything on its own except die, while the Wizard can reluctantly spend a few extra spell slots to get the job done if he doesn't have any meatsticks to beat the gimped monster to death for him.

Also, just to keep a running tally, you've now invoked the ever-annoying "You can balance magic with Magic!!!" argument and the Oberoni Fallacy. You would realize how non-trivial it is to manually rebalance all the core classes against each other if you had any comprehension of how serious the problem actually is.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-26, 05:52 PM
Pls, Reel On, Love. Admit that you have been wrong on that thing.

Have you heard the one about the kettle?

Nebo_
2008-01-26, 06:12 PM
Well, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the spells/combos listed so far do not convince me. Which brings down even the "probable" win scenarios to the realm of the realistic.
The wizard has not 20 methods of attack, he has ONE! It is called "magic". At higher levels, when he/she gets the real strong stuff, there is AMF to grind all that great versatility into nothingness.
The monk, meanwhile, has a good mixture of combat, skills, AND magic available via items. The wizard has no such thing. He is not Mr. Versatile, he is a specialist. And specialists are vulnerable (if that d4 hit thing did not already tell us something).

This is possibly one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Ever.

You're not convinced of these spell combos because you flat out refuse to even consider them as viable, even when they are obviously powerful and effective. I'd like to know what you think does work in D&D. It certainly can't be a monk who relies on the charity of casters (who are apparently impotent) to do anything right.

How can you generalise all of the spells on the Wiz/Sor list into one attack mode. (They don't just attack, by the way, their defense and utility are incredible). Wizards are versatile. You can't try to disprove that by dumping every spell into your box called 'Magic' and complaining that they only have one thing going for them. So, pray tell, what is this specialist specialised in? (Don't say magic, you'll make yourself look more of a fool.)

Kurald Galain
2008-01-26, 06:25 PM
I'd like to know what you think does work in D&D. It certainly can't be a monk who relies on the charity of casters (who are apparently impotent) to do anything right.

Careful analysis shows that SG stops responding to people who ask if he actually plays the way he suggests in his posts. Occam's Razor therefore suggests that, like everybody else in the forums, he doesn't play that way either.

Other than that, he's simply repeating things he's said a dozen times before, and that were disproven a dozen times before. If there's a point to that, it eludes me.

Voyager_I
2008-01-26, 06:27 PM
Careful analysis shows that SG stops responding to people who ask if he actually plays the way he suggests in his posts. Occam's Razor therefore suggests that, like everybody else in the forums, he doesn't play that way either.

Other than that, he's simply repeating things he's said a dozen times before, and that were disproven a dozen times before. If there's a point to that, it eludes me.

To be fair, he is quite adept at pretending most of what Solo said never actually happened.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-26, 06:39 PM
Other than that, he's simply repeating things he's said a dozen times before, and that were disproven a dozen times before. If there's a point to that, it eludes me.

... and much hilarity ensues every time. :smallamused:

Collin152
2008-01-26, 06:45 PM
Strange. Weren't you the one who upped the ante by saying "retort" instead of "answers" or "comments"?
And you do remember that Solo was primarly adding funny remarks (like creating matter doing millions of damage as proof of spell power) to the thread instead of really contributing, don't you?

But I actually admire Solo's posts very much - so the "great" was not that appropriate, truly. "Great" in ironic sense withdrawn. Hope Solo accepts the apology.

- Giacomo

So... is that how we define retort now?
re·tort (r-tôrt)
v. re·tort·ed, re·tort·ing, re·torts
v.tr.
1.
a. To reply, especially to answer in a quick, caustic, or witty manner. See Synonyms at answer.
b. To present a counterargument to.
2. To return in kind; pay back.
v.intr.
1. To make a reply, especially a quick, caustic, or witty one.
2. To present a counterargument.
3. To return like for like; retaliate.
n.
1. A quick incisive reply, especially one that turns the first speaker's words to his or her own disadvantage.
2. The act or an instance of retorting.

Doesn't seem any "Greater" than resonse to me, and it is more fitting. Some men do it straightfoward, Solo does it in style.

horseboy
2008-01-26, 06:51 PM
To be fair, he is quite adept at pretending most of what Solo said never actually happened.

Or that every time he brings up Polymorph and we link the many places where WotC has ban it. Next thread "They've never said that! Where do they say that?" Personally I think he's just a lonely guy who craves attention, but will settle for abuse.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-26, 07:13 PM
Ah, I see, you are also one of those feeling bad about buffing your fellow non-casters. You shoudl try it more often. You will like it. In another thread devoting to show how the monk fares at 20th level compared to other non-casters, the caster fellows in the monk/barbarian group played by Solo and Rachel Lorelei started off the adventure by casting greater magic weapon, magic vestment (x3) and mind blanks. Not bad, eh?
I think you missed the point--those are hours-duration spells. I'm surprised Solo spent three slots on Mind Blank, but it lasts 24 hours and he has plenty of spells/day.
In combat, casting Bear's Endurance on you instead of Glitterdust or Stinking Cloud or etc. on the enemy would be a bad decision, and you can't expect it.


And for you as well an explanation how the bottle thing works: It's similar to a fireball. When do you think a caster will cast a fireball? When the enemy has closed in to melee with your friends? Or before that? You found the answer?
Great. It is the same thing with the bottle. You activate it WHEN IT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE ENEMY, NOT FOR YOU!
Examples
- enemy ambushes you. You need total concealment up quick
- you ambush/attack enemy. Your casters buff up the group before, stay outside smoke area, you activate the bottle, everyone holds breath, you blind fight the enemy into oblivion. Those who stagger outside the smoke will get sniped by the casters with readied spells.
etc.
This is just silly. Choking and blinding your allies while they're being jumped by enemies is a terrible idea. Your casters likely can't stay outside the smoke area if they want to contribute, and if they don't, your fight is much harder. This also relies on everyone taking Blind-Fight, i.e. suiting their build to fit your specific item.
The smoke bottle is of no use in real games, and I think you know this, because you consistently avoid the question of whether you play this way.


Lettusseee..
- the babarian with cleave can down with no save two enemies/round (per ROUND, and not just one round. Works also vs the 1st level classic undead: skeletons)
With an AB of, let's say, +4, against ACs of, say, 15, needing the first attack to hit and kill so he can cleave, a second enemy to be in range of his attack, and to hit on the second attack, too, his odds aren't exactly good. Meanwhile, -1 Will save creatures have have an 80% chance of failing vs. Sleep/Color Spray; +1 Will save have a 70%


Well, unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the spells/combos listed so far do not convince me. Which brings down even the "probable" win scenarios to the realm of the realistic.
The wizard has not 20 methods of attack, he has ONE! It is called "magic". At higher levels, when he/she gets the real strong stuff, there is AMF to grind all that great versatility into nothingness.
And how often do Antimagic Fields show up in your games?


The monk, meanwhile, has a good mixture of combat, skills, AND magic available via items. The wizard has no such thing. He is not Mr. Versatile, he is a specialist. And specialists are vulnerable (if that d4 hit thing did not already tell us something).
Actually, your monk relies on his magic for combat, and even for some of his skills. Real monks, in the meantime, don't have a good mixture of things, because they are bad at them.


The four rounds was for buffing a 15h level monk to take on an ancient white dragon (CR 18!) to geta very good chance at winning. In normal adventuring life, buffing for enlarge will be all that is necessary. And you can get buffs of that kind yourself (not counting your party wizard) for 200 (!) encounters for just 3,000 gold.
The monk you presented would be utterly slaughtered in combat if his only buff was Enlarge Person.
Meanwhile, a fifteenth level wizard would just hit the dragon with an Irresistible Dance via Arcane Reach. He would not need to be designed to take on that particular challenge, nor. The most difficult part would be getting within spell range, and that isn't so hard.


Well, the party WILL love the tactics to wait until the enemy caster buffs are over
I'm going to join the ranks of the people asking what on earth kind of games you play. Can you give me even a couple of situations from your games where retreating from the middle of combat and waiting, then rejoining combat, was an actual, viable strategy? That seems completely ridiculous. If a fight starts and there's a spellcaster involved, spending your actions running away will just get you disabled or killed. That's even the case against other enemies, who will follow the party, attacking them.
Technically, an enemy such as a demon/devil could use this tactic, since they have Teleport at will, but the party would quickly adjust to deal with this.


And the party should never be interrupted on a "nightly" basis. But there should always be a risk (a risk big enough to, say, occupy spell slots and nightwatches to take precautions).
You have been asked to explain WHO would take the wizard's spellbook (without, say, slitting his throat, if they can take something from his Bag of Holding in the night), or how they get past watches and into the Rope Trick (which the party sets). You've never been able to justify this. Your talk about parties getting disrupted has absolutely no basis in gameplay.


No, you understood it right, rays are hideously overpowered. You just need to accept that.

You mean- you still believe this even after I have in detail proven it to be wrong? Well, can't be help, can it?
Giacomo, all you've proven is that a few monsters have Mirror Image as a spell like ability. Your most common argument against Ray of Enfeeblement, which was a single ray, was the creature has a high strength, which is self-defeating.


-a bottle in a normal iconic group CAN cause problems - but if used wisely can already be immensely helpful there.
No, it can't. If you'd tried to use one during a game, you'd have learned this.


-a bottle used in a group which is prepared in its strategy and tactics for that device is devastating.
Any group focusing on exploiting a single tactic is devastating when that tactic works (see, for example, stacking fear effects--inflicting multiple Shakens makes enemies cower or run away; you can design a party to be more or less guaranteed to reduce all fear-effect-vulnerable enemies. You can not expect other people to make their characters to *your* specifications!


And the moment you want to play those non-magic wielding non-casters, you and your DM will have to HOUSERULE this highfantasy-based system to keep the balance. For instance, you want to get rid of polymorphed fighters? OK, ban all morph spells/effects and make up for it for the classes who lose most (i.e. the monk and the druid).
You've been shown over and over how polymorph benefits everyone, not the monk particularily. You should stop saying things like this.
"High fantasy" is not the same as "everyone uses scrolls and wands, and devotes build resources to doing so". You know very well that the classes are meant to be balanced without spending resources (both wealth and character types) on cross-classing Use Magic Device to useful levels, even assuming that you were right about it balancing them--which you aren't.
I'm going to quote Reel On, Love, here, because you've avoided questions like this long enough:


, because they're aware of the *cost* of stuff. Not only are you taking Skill Focus(UMD), but you're buying a Circlet of Persuasion (5400)... then you're getting, say, a Wand of Mirror Image (4500). At what level, precisely, is this affordable? What aren't you buying instead? 4000 gp lets you make your armor +2 or +2 to a stat or all saves! And a wand of Divine Power costs 21,000 GP--that's 21,000 you'll have to pay multiple times, and that comes instead of normal gear. It's not "pocket change" at any level except 19 and 20; even at 15 it's a tenth of your *total wealth*. At level 10, total character wealth is 49,000!
Making a 20th level character with cross-classed Use Magic Device and useful wands is easy. Making a 15th level character like that is easy. Making a 10th level character like that is very difficult, because you are giving up important equipment for your consumables. Starting at a level from 1 to 5 like that? Good luck! Especially since you'll be spending more on consumables than the higher-level versions, due to using them as you go, and you'll be wasting actions trying to activate them.

Animefunkmaster
2008-01-26, 07:18 PM
I would like to throw out some things the noncaster will have trouble with.

Acid Fog: No save, no SR, can't take 5 foot steps, speed reduced to 5 feet, prevents ranged weapon attacks, -2 to melee attack/damage, 2d6 acid damage to him and his gear per round.

Control Wind: Create a tornadoe that, depending on size: screws and deals damage, screws and deals less damage, or just screws (we are talking gargantuan and colossal here). Granted the above effects have a fort save of 30, which is fairly substantial at this level. But included in the spell without a DC: Ranged attacks and listen checks impossible (so good combo with the invisible flying caster) and this lasts 10 minutes per level.

Anything with swarms screws the non caster.

Animate Dead. A zombie hydra or two should be more than enough.

Simulacrum a few solars.

The issue here isn't can a noncaster keep up with a caster. The issue here is can magical gear and skill checks balance out the caster and the noncaster.

Woot Spitum
2008-01-26, 07:47 PM
All I want to know is if these killer spell combos aren't a good idea because there are ways to counter them, what makes buffing the melee dudes a "winning" strategy? What makes it suitable for most, all, or even some encounters? What makes buffing uncounterable? And if it can be countered why should I choose it over the rest of these strategies? Does buffing really take down enemies faster? Can I get some examples of how the buffed fighter or monk takes down all these monsters previously mentioned in the thread more reliably than our spellcasters?

Okay, so I want to know a lot. Sue me.:smalltongue:

Collin152
2008-01-26, 07:53 PM
Let's try reverse tactics. Melee guy gets buffed. Caster uses fly. Hypothetical melle guy also hasa bow with uber gear. Caster uses windwall. What does noncaster do?

Reel On, Love
2008-01-26, 08:07 PM
Pls, Reel On, Love. Admit that you have been wrong on that thing. You basically argued that a wizard/sorcerer with the aforementioned spells can easily overcome ALL of those monsters because they have a low touch AC.
Maybe you don't selectively respond to arguments, you've just got a terrible memory.
YOU SAID that wizards would have trouble landing ray attacks.
I pointed out that touch ACs are trivial to hit.
Then you went through the list and looked at Ray of Enfeeblement *specifically* (and wrongly, see below). The only thing you've really shown that makes landing rays hard is Mirror Image as an SLA. That's great. It's also not common, and the images can and do go down--it's just a matter of timing.


I then showed you what they can do (without any items, so pls add no more wrongness to what you already posted) and summarised what stuff they can do to a wizard who uses such tactics. We may widely differ on class balance in general, but at least we should no longer discuss that thing which is so clear imo.
No, you didn't. You said "this creature has high strength so Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't work well" a bunch of times. Oh, wait, that's what the Ray of Enfeeblement is FOR! Duh!
The Bone Devil, Avoral, and Formian Myrmarch are the only ones you mentioned where Ray of Enfeeblement really would be ineffective.


A creature with STR 12-16 is still a threat- to a wizard. But debuffing that creature is a great way to show how the wizard (doing the debuffing) and the noncaster (say, a monk) can work together:

wizard debuffs, monk grapples with much better chances.

- Giacomo

PS: will go to bed now
I thought you liked high-DEX, high-WIS monks? Your monks would have a very low STR. Their grapple check won't be able to consistently beat a Huge creature's with lots of hit dice, even enlarged. Grappling is a bad PC tactic... especially considering how vulnerable a grappling, high-STR monk is.

Yes, Ray of Enfeeblement IS a "party-friendly" spell. That's because the wizard isn't going to use solo tactics unless he has to *be* solo. Solo tactics could involve charmed or dominated or summoned meatshields, for the record, so the Ray of Enfeeblement thing still works, but here's the point: meleeing a high-STR brute without a wizard debuffing it is MUCH WORSE than meleeing a high-STR brute without a monk trying to grapple or stun it or whatever the monk is doing.

But, no, a creature with STR 12-16 is NOT much of a threat to a wizard, because the wizard is flying. Remember the flight? Remember how it keeps him safe from the majority of those enemies, who can't fly?
You still haven't answered: WHY are you dismissing the power of a spell which keeps you totally safe from even HALF the threats you face, much less more? Oh, and remember the invisibility? Somehow, I don't think the wizard is very worried.

Even without that, though, the wizard's AC should be comparable to the other characters'. Oh, and good luck full attacking him. And he can reach for a defensive scroll if he really needs to.

horseboy
2008-01-26, 08:34 PM
All I want to know is if these killer spell combos aren't a good idea because there are ways to counter them, what makes buffing the melee dudes a "winning" strategy? What makes it suitable for most, all, or even some encounters? What makes buffing uncounterable? And if it can be countered why should I choose it over the rest of these strategies? Does buffing really take down enemies faster? Can I get some examples of how the buffed fighter or monk takes down all these monsters previously mentioned in the thread more reliably than our spellcasters?

Okay, so I want to know a lot. Sue me.:smalltongue:
Especially given all the AMF fields and rods of absorption that are running around in Gia's D&D.

Lokey
2008-01-26, 08:42 PM
Acid Fog: No save, no SR, can't take 5 foot steps, speed reduced to 5 feet, prevents ranged weapon attacks, -2 to melee attack/damage, 2d6 acid damage to him and his gear per round.
I think it's just ambiguously worded, and that there is errata or clarification on it. So it's not going to melt the free command activated Anti-Magic Field item all non-casters are assumed to have in these threads ;)

Solo
2008-01-26, 08:53 PM
And you do remember that Solo was primarly adding funny remarks (like creating matter doing millions of damage as proof of spell power) to the thread instead of really contributing, don't you?

Making a point with funny comments counts as contributing.



But I actually admire Solo's posts very much - so the "great" was not that appropriate, truly. "Great" in ironic sense withdrawn. Hope Solo accepts the apology.


Mr. Giacomo, I accept your surrender.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-26, 10:23 PM
Making a point with funny comments counts as contributing.



Mr. Giacomo, I accept your surrender.

Damnit Solo, you just won again. :smallamused:

Solo
2008-01-27, 01:41 AM
Shall I stop and leave some win for the rest of you?:smallamused:

horseboy
2008-01-27, 01:43 AM
Bah, so long as there is conflict, there is win.

Solo
2008-01-27, 01:45 AM
Win, you see, is a naturally occurring, renewable resource spawned from a chemical process that involves the butting of heads.

The Win is then harvested, processed, and distilled for use by the general population.

Voyager_I
2008-01-27, 02:20 AM
Actually, I'd have to vote that Love won this thread. Repeatedly.

Solo did good too, though.

Jacob Orlove
2008-01-27, 04:00 AM
I'm going to quote Reel On, Love, here, because you've avoided questions like this long enough:


, because they're aware of the *cost* of stuff. Not only are you taking Skill Focus(UMD), but you're buying a Circlet of Persuasion (5400)... then you're getting, say, a Wand of Mirror Image (4500). At what level, precisely, is this affordable? What aren't you buying instead? 4000 gp lets you make your armor +2 or +2 to a stat or all saves! And a wand of Divine Power costs 21,000 GP--that's 21,000 you'll have to pay multiple times, and that comes instead of normal gear. It's not "pocket change" at any level except 19 and 20; even at 15 it's a tenth of your *total wealth*. At level 10, total character wealth is 49,000!
Making a 20th level character with cross-classed Use Magic Device and useful wands is easy. Making a 15th level character like that is easy. Making a 10th level character like that is very difficult, because you are giving up important equipment for your consumables. Starting at a level from 1 to 5 like that? Good luck! Especially since you'll be spending more on consumables than the higher-level versions, due to using them as you go, and you'll be wasting actions trying to activate them.
Actually, he did answer this: he's abusing the magic item creation guidelines:

And they do not cost that much, those wands. You can buy fractions of them (as per DMG). So you can basically get an enlarge effect for only 15 gp. The monk can get a couple of dozen at 2nd level. Great, eh?
Instead of UMDing up scrolls of Enlarge (at 25 gp each), he's UMDing single charge wands of Enlarge at 15 gp each. Incidentally, that drops the UMD DC from 21 to 20 as an added bonus. Similarly, he avoids spending 21,000 gp on a 50-charge Wand of Divine Power by buying one charge at a time.

Do you want to know why he always evades questions about using these techniques in actual play? Because no GM on earth is going to allow that kind of nonsense.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 04:07 AM
Actually, I'd have to vote that Love won this thread. Repeatedly.

Solo did good too, though.
Well, you know what they say... love is all you need.


Actually, he did answer this: he's abusing the magic item creation guidelines:

Instead of UMDing up scrolls of Enlarge (at 25 gp each), he's UMDing single charge wands of Enlarge at 15 gp each. Incidentally, that drops the UMD DC from 21 to 20 as an added bonus. Similarly, he avoids spending 21,000 gp on a 50-charge Wand of Divine Power by buying one charge at a time.

Do you want to know why he always evades questions about using these techniques in actual play? Because no GM on earth is going to allow that kind of nonsense.

Oh. Well, he's out of luck, then, because you CAN'T actually buy single-charge wands. You buy wands with 50 charges or not at all. You can *find* used wands, and sell them, but not just purchase them on the market.
Yeah, I agree... Giacomo has never actually tried to play his monk build, or he'd be intimately familiar with the pitfalls of having to spend cash-money and rounds, and/or blind and choke your party, to contribute in combat.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 04:28 AM
Do you want to know why he always evades questions about using these techniques in actual play? Because no GM on earth is going to allow that kind of nonsense.

Really? You mean a GM who at the same time would allow the casters in his game to use fly and invisibility and rays and then making their wins consistently probable? Wow, great game you are playing there (and this time great is not meant in an ironic manner).

To respond all these claims that I never likely play with this kind of stuff:
- in the games I play in rarely, if ever, do the non-casters use wands or UMD.
- AMF rarely ever comes up, but whole areas with increasing difficulty to cast magic, possibly
- the reason why these games then are still balanced are as follows: my GMs usually play the opponents in a way that they realise what spell tactics are out there and how to thwart said spells. They also take care that the WBL is observed.

Now, in these theoretical discussions here I start to realise that some of you do not ever play with spellcasters
- having a risk that they will regain spells in the morning (i,e, your casters never get attacked during the night or disrupted in spellcasting)
- getting their gear stolen occasionally
- have drawbacks from the outside source of their spells (say, religious taboos and order for divine casters)

So, trying to convey to you the balance in the core rules I pinpoint ALL stuff that I see in the rules that can be used to balance things. If magic runs unimpeded in your games and thus non-casters OF COURSE are more and more behind the more magic is around (i.e. the higher the level) I show you the easiest way to get magic available for ALL.

Still, you deny these suggestions I make to you. We can all stay in our respective houseruled campaigns, because - frankly - there will never be a game system with rules to suit us all. But then pls stop from maintaining that the core rules are not balanced. They are, for a very specific kind of high-fantasy setting.
The only problem you have is with what it entails in DD 3.5 to make those rules create balance between casters and non-casters.
It involves
- making "ex-Sections" for classes matter
- making spells not refresh automatically
- following the wbl guidelines
- making the spellcasting obstacles (all that I outlined above) count and occasionally let them be used by opponents of the party
- making magic items and npc casting available as per the rules (which is tantamount to: yes, casters will get their coveted metamagic wands exactly how they like them and yes, non-casters will get eversmoking bottles, horns of fog, or that particular xy weapon which they want to have for their build)
- making full use of UMD to at least get quite cheaply ALL 1-4 level spells available for all classes by around 13-15th level.
- allowing diplomacy to exist and get access to npc spellcasting easy
- allowing leadershipto exist and get access to npc spellcasting even easier

Now, most of this stuff, I ALSO DO NOT LIKE IN MY GAMES.
For instance
- I think it stupid to follow wbl guidelines and let the players (or a DM allowing) buying items on markets and stuff-
- UMD and wands make for good innovations for non-casters, but apart from rogues and maybe monks and some specialised fighters I would not think it fits into most players' perceptions of how their non-casters shoudl work.
- leadership (actually, similar to animal companions, paladins mounts and familiars) add to burden the game because they make the group larger. So I would only think it good as background, in between adventures stuff
- "ex-sections" stuff is worded in a binary way, and I would use more gradual "punishments" for offending casters, and with much more RP stuff.

However. The Moment I deviate from the original rules I MUST DO SOMETHING in order to preserve the balance. And that is a big challenge. But what I should not do is what many of you suppose, i.e.
"In our games casters are so uber. (Core) Rules are so broken"
- Giacomo points out the reasons why, i.e. obvious deviations from the RAW -
"MEEEH, What games are YOU playing, Gia, incredible. We play by RAW."

Hope that answers a bit. Now I'll try to return to what this thread was originally about and check the spells/combos made so far and put them in a list with my comments.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 04:39 AM
Trying to correct a potential misunderstanding...


This is possibly one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Ever.

You're not convinced of these spell combos because you flat out refuse to even consider them as viable, even when they are obviously powerful and effective. I'd like to know what you think does work in D&D. It certainly can't be a monk who relies on the charity of casters (who are apparently impotent) to do anything right.

How can you generalise all of the spells on the Wiz/Sor list into one attack mode. (They don't just attack, by the way, their defense and utility are incredible). Wizards are versatile. You can't try to disprove that by dumping every spell into your box called 'Magic' and complaining that they only have one thing going for them. So, pray tell, what is this specialist specialised in? (Don't say magic, you'll make yourself look more of a fool.)

I am not convinced that these spell combos will generate probable wins consistently. But they can still be great at times, and at others not. Much like the stuff non-casters wield. The monk is not more dependent on charity than his d4 hit point partner in the group needing every protection possible, in particular at lower levels. Do not bring up "charity" here. It is a group game.

You will nowhere see me maintaining casters are WEAK. They are not. They are mightily impressive. And some spellls/combos are just great. But they are not giving you pure win, as Solo would put it.:smallsmile:

Casters, in particular sorcerer and wizard are specialised in casting spells. That is their big class ability. And there are methods in the game to completely obstruct that. In the arms race to whether that can happen or not, though, said casters again have countermeasures and so on. Read: balance.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 04:43 AM
Shall I stop and leave some win for the rest of you?:smallamused:

Actually, Solo in a way HAS won this thread - since regardless of the side, his posts are always highly entertaining for all and lighten up the mood.

So pls also my suggestions: no more "fool", "wise one" or whatever remarks into my direction, and I'll also try to be more objective. It's a game, after all :smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 05:22 AM
Actually, I'd have to vote that Love won this thread. Repeatedly.

Solo did good too, though.

We can give an Internet to both of them :smallbiggrin:



Instead of UMDing up scrolls of Enlarge (at 25 gp each), he's UMDing single charge wands of Enlarge at 15 gp each. Incidentally, that drops the UMD DC from 21 to 20 as an added bonus. Similarly, he avoids spending 21,000 gp on a 50-charge Wand of Divine Power by buying one charge at a time.
He's probably paying for that by buying ladders, chopping them into pieces, and selling the resulting ten-foot-poles at a profit.
(oh, and 21,000 divided by 50 does not equal 15 anyway)



Now, in these theoretical discussions here I start to realise that some of you do not ever play with spellcasters
Lisa: I think you're overreacting.
Homer: I think you're UNDERreacting!
Lisa: This session is over.
Homer: This session is UNDER!
Lisa: Good bye.
Homer: BAD bye!



Now, most of this stuff, I ALSO DO NOT LIKE IN MY GAMES.
But you were the one who was saying core was so exquisitely balanced all the time - now you're saying that you don't actually mean that, and that you dislike most of the chances you are suggesting. Ah, the irony.

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 05:54 AM
I'm surprised to see this. This is a much more honest post than what you usually make.


Really? You mean a GM who at the same time would allow the casters in his game to use fly and invisibility and rays and then making their wins consistently probable? Wow, great game you are playing there (and this time great is not meant in an ironic manner).
Here's your problem, Giacomo: because you don't play much D&D, and certainly not the kind you talk about, you are confusing things the rules clearly describe with things the rules allow the possibiltiy of.
Yes, a GM allows the casters in his game to use Overland Flight and Greater Invisibility. Those are spells they can select and cast. There are no rules issues, and it is totally reasonable. Meanwhile, buying 1-charge wands is NOT allowed by the rules, and is NOT reasonable (there would be absolutely no reason for scrolls below 5th level to exist). Similarily, playing a melee character who can't melee remotely adequately and therefore sits fights out until he can afford his buffs, which he needs to use to contribute, is NOT reasonable.


To respond all these claims that I never likely play with this kind of stuff:
- in the games I play in rarely, if ever, do the non-casters use wands or UMD.
- AMF rarely ever comes up, but whole areas with increasing difficulty to cast magic, possibly
- the reason why these games then are still balanced are as follows: my GMs usually play the opponents in a way that they realise what spell tactics are out there and how to thwart said spells. They also take care that the WBL is observed.
Your lack of play experience with what you're talking about is a problem, because the things you describe as necessary for balance just can't happen in a reasonable game. Not many monsters have concealment. Not many monsters focus on the spellcaster and nothing else. This is also true of NPCs.


Now, in these theoretical discussions here I start to realise that some of you do not ever play with spellcasters
- having a risk that they will regain spells in the morning (i,e, your casters never get attacked during the night or disrupted in spellcasting)
That's not true. There is a risk, which the party actively works to minimize, whether by not camping in the middle of Beholder Field, by setting watches, or by using Rope Trick... but you go wrong by assuming some risk equals this happening on a consistent basis. The DM can't just announce "okay, right about dawn an enemy attacks" when it's not reasonable for an enemy to do so. Once the party has Rope Trick, it's hard enough justifying it happening even *once*, and he certainly can't reasonably make it happen very *often*. What's more, players might have few spells for that one encounter, but that's true of the 4th encounter of a day, too; they are going to get their spells back at the first possibility, and because they contribute so much, the whole party will do their best to make this happen.


- getting their gear stolen occasionally
Barring a divine focus (which you can just *make* out of some wood) and a spellbook (I'll discuss that in a bit), there are next to *no* situations

As for the spellbook, you've been asked over and over again to provide a situation in which it makes sense for the wizard's spellbook to disappear multiple times in a campaign. I'm not saying it's always impossible, but there are next to NO situations in which it's reasonable for someone to find the wizard's rope trick, get into it despite the rope being pulled up (and if the party makes sure there are 8 medium-sized-creature equivalents... bring an animal companion/mount/etc... in the Trick, they'd have to dispel it to get at the people inside... which means they'd need to be capable of dispelling, another requirement, and one which WAKES THE WIZARD UP as he falls out), steal the wizard's spellbook out of his Bag of Holding/Handy Haversack (presumably, that's where he keeps it), and leave with it. Anybody who has the motive to do that is going to also have the motive to *coup de grace the wizard* and take his stuff, and then repeat to the rest of the party.
So, tell me... what the heck kind of enemy has both means AND motive to do that to the party (who wander hither and yon on their own schedule, to boot)?

We're left with, pretty much, "thrown in prison without your stuff" scenarios, which functions pretty poorly after a certain level ("and it's an adamantine prison! And it's Dimension Locked! And in a dead magic zone! and...") and may never be both reasonable and possible (the party will win the fight or escape) at the same time. Some DMs are fond of those, but they really don't come up more than once in a campaign--it's not reasonable for them to. And if you do that, a party without a wizard's spells is severely crippled, since they can't (say) Glitterdust the Hill Giant. The party won't be able to face appropriate challenges until the spell book is gotten back, which means that it will be gotten back in fairly short order (since that'll be the party's first priority, and it won't make any sense for the DM to not let them).At worst, the wizard spends a bunch of money getting a new book, and he traps/disguises/etc that one.


- have drawbacks from the outside source of their spells (say, religious taboos and order for divine casters)
"Religious taboos and order" are NOT rules in the way that the Overland Flight and Greater Invisibility spells are. There is an enormous difference between the wizard casting Overland Flight and the cleric being told that he's not allowed to do X and Y (when the rules say no such thing). This is not "adhering to RAW". This is "screwing over divine casters in an attempt to balance them, and a bad way to try and impose balance to boot".


So, trying to convey to you the balance in the core rules I pinpoint ALL stuff that I see in the rules that can be used to balance things. If magic runs unimpeded in your games and thus non-casters OF COURSE are more and more behind the more magic is around (i.e. the higher the level) I show you the easiest way to get magic available for ALL.
The problem here is that you blow things out of proportion. You handwave away Overland Flight keeping one totally safe from MORE THAN HALF of one's encounters. At the same time, you insist that the (highly infrequent, unlikely) situations in which the party is woken at dawn or in which the wizard's spellbook disappears are a consistent source of balance. This is manifestly ridiculous, and is the reason people don't take you very seriously. Make more posts like this one, and fewer in which you display zero awareness of likelihood.


Still, you deny these suggestions I make to you. We can all stay in our respective houseruled campaigns, because - frankly - there will never be a game system with rules to suit us all. But then pls stop from maintaining that the core rules are not balanced. They are, for a very specific kind of high-fantasy setting.
No, they are not. The Ex-Cleric section is not a rules balance for clerics, because there are no rules for making clerics lose their spellcasting on a regular basis. In fact, this is incredibly unlikely to occur. This is what I mean by the rules *allowing* for something, vs. the rules clearly describing something. The rules are very clear: a wizard can select Overland Flight when he levels up. He can prepare it, cast it, and it will last X hours. The section on Ex-Clerics simply says that it's possible. It does not balance clerics in any way, and you should quit pretending that it does.


The only problem you have is with what it entails in DD 3.5 to make those rules create balance between casters and non-casters.
It involves
- making "ex-Sections" for classes matter
- making spells not refresh automatically
I've already covered why "the party regularly fails to recover its spells" is completely and utterly unfeasible for any kind of game that makes sense, above.

The rules *allow for the possibility* of ex-[classes]. This is very different from telling you when and how it happens, and it is VERY different from it being a functional balance tool. Using it means you basically decide that one of your characters is denied his class abilities, and you do it WITHOUT any good reason, since the cleric sure isn't going to actively violate his religion (in fact, he might worship a cause, or worship a god without being part of a church hierarchy, and not even have strict rules).

Besides which, "win 80% of the time, lose 20% of the time" is not balance... and nor is it a good game. Plus, it hurts the whole party, not just the spellcasters: if the cleric can't spellcast, who heals the fighter?


- following the wbl guidelines
This is true. Without WBL, casters win even harder. It's also assumed in balance discussions.


- making the spellcasting obstacles (all that I outlined above) count and occasionally let them be used by opponents of the party
The problem here is that it is very difficult to do this in a reasonable way. Sure, if 90% of monsters and NPCs had concealment, rays wouldn't be so effective... but they don't, and there's no reasonable way to give it to them (every humanoid enemy carries a potion of displacement, which they chug as soon as the encounter starts?)--not to mention that it hurts non-casters just as much or more (the casters just use non-ranged-touch spells).


- making magic items and npc casting available as per the rules (which is tantamount to: yes, casters will get their coveted metamagic wands exactly how they like them and yes, non-casters will get eversmoking bottles, horns of fog, or that particular xy weapon which they want to have for their build)
The rules say that IN POPULATION CENTERS, you can find NPCs and purchase spellcasting services. I've covered this repeatedly with you: this doesn't mean you can consistently buy buffs while adventuring, especially when you consider that only hours/level buffs will stick with you even through the *day*.
Yes, casters get metamagic rods or whatever other specific items they want to buy. Yes, non-casters get specific items and particular weapons. Them's the rules. That's assumed.
But just because the non-caster CAN buy an eversmoking bottle DOES NOT make it a good idea: you really need to leave this alone, since it's been hammered into the ground, over and over, that a real party is hampered by one, not helped, even if you try to use it to your advantage (which you'd being doing rarely; "we're ambushed!" isn't a common occurence); no real party would stand for it, and you yourself have admitted you don't use it in your games. The Horn of Fog isn't going to be helping you through encounters. It might mean you sit out the encounter inside your fog.


- making full use of UMD to at least get quite cheaply ALL 1-4 level spells available for all classes by around 13-15th level.
I've explained, in detail, why this isn't the case. It's NOT cheap! It costs feats (Magical Training, Skill Focus: UMD) and lots of gold: again, that Circlet of Persuasion and single Wand of Mirror Image are 9,900 gp together. That's a +2 armor, a +2 stat booster, and then a +1 Cloak of Resistance and leftover cash! There is no way it's reasonable for a character to opt for the former over the latter. What's more, you don't start getting *5000 gp to spend at once* for some time.
At level 13, you have 66,000 gp. You can NOT reasonably afford a Wand of Divine Power. If you can afford a Wand of Mirror Image, you'll have eaten through two or three of them already.
Also, at level 13, your UMD check is 8 (ranks) + 2 (MW tool) + 3 (Circlet) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Magical Training), + let's generously say 2 from CHA at best (and that's almost certainly assuming a +2 cloak *and* being optimistic about rolls/point buy). You can activate wands consistently, but 4th-level scrolls are NOT a good idea to whip out in combat (also, they're expensive). And to do this, *you've spent two feats, an item, and didn't max out another skill*. Since this doesn't pay off until you can both afford and use magic items consistently, you've been sinking skill points and feats into UMD for *no* return for quite some time. That makes already-subpar classes even *worse*.
I hope that clearly showed you why your "use UMD to become great!" idea just plain doesn't work in real games... but I doubt it, because you've totally ignored such explanations before.

There's also buff time. The cleric can cast Divine Power or Righteous Might plus Quickened Divine Favor and be set. If you need to cast Divine Power and Mirror Image, say, that's two rounds already.

And, no, single-charge wands are NOT allowed by the rules.


- allowing diplomacy to exist and get access to npc spellcasting easy
- allowing leadershipto exist and get access to npc spellcasting even easier
Diplomacy does not get you Free Stuff. Diplomacy makes people Indifferent or Friendly towards you. Spellcasting services cost good money, you don't get them for free.
Leadership is very open-ended: the DM is under no obligation to give you the cohort you want. If he builds a cohort specifically to keep you effective, that is DM Fiat keeping you up to par (much like giving you better items than the rest of the party, something very common with monks). If he lets you build your own cohort, a monk + a spellcaster who spends his combat actions buffing him is going to be even FURTHER behind a spellcaster + ANOTHER spellcaster, since buffing the monk is LESS effective than other things a spellcaster can do with his combat actions.


However. The Moment I deviate from the original rules I MUST DO SOMETHING in order to preserve the balance. And that is a big challenge. But what I should not do is what many of you suppose, i.e.
"In our games casters are so uber. (Core) Rules are so broken"
- Giacomo points out the reasons why, i.e. obvious deviations from the RAW -
"MEEEH, What games are YOU playing, Gia, incredible. We play by RAW."
Giacomo, the Rules As Written do NOT say that the party will be interrupted every X, or that clerics will spend every 1 in Y sessions deprived of spells, or that the Wizard's spellbook will go missing Z times per campaign. Making all that happen is no more following the RAW than making a dragon 10 points of CR above the party's level come and eat them: it's POSSIBLE by the rules, but that's it. And the dragon makes a LOT more sense than some of the things you've suggested. Your arguments are EXACTLY equivalent to saying that the game is balanced because the DM can have a super-powered monster or NPC come and kill any overpowered character.

Stop pretending that the rules try to balance spellcaster power by making them "fall" or lose their spellbooks on a regular basis. The rules do NOT say that, they just say that it *can* happen. It happens very rarely, because it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE for it to happen more often.
The core rules are NOT balanced by spellcasters being regularly denied spells, because the party does NOT get interrupted every other morning, because they're in their Rope Trick, which the rules explictly DO let the wizard learn and cast every day.
The monk can NOT pay 10*CL*Spell Level to buy buffs just before jumping into each combat, and the very concept is ridiculous (and not in the SLIGHTEST supported by the Spellcasting Services rules, which mean that in a city of appropriate size, you can pay a spellcaster to prepare a spell next time he does that and he'll cast it for that price). Meanwhile, the wizard CAN be flying all day, because that is what the text of the spell he can learn lets him do.




I am not convinced that these spell combos will generate probable wins consistently. But they can still be great at times, and at others not. Much like the stuff non-casters wield.
Except that that's NOT TRUE. Noncasters struggle to be useful. A wizard can disable hill giants as a matter of course; a Fighter has to struggle to make it through combats with non-disabled hill giants.


The monk is not more dependent on charity than his d4 hit point partner in the group needing every protection possible, in particular at lower levels. Do not bring up "charity" here. It is a group game.
Giacomo, you've been told and told how the wizard provides his own protection from level, like, THREE, on.
What's more, at the low levels, the other characters don't protect the wizard: they CAN'T. They HAVE NO WAY prevent monsters from attacking the wizard except killing them, which they're trying for anyway.

If your monk needs my spellcaster to spend not only spell slots out of combat, but multiple actions IN combat, to spport him? That's charity. "It's a group game" DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU to my character's combat actions being used for *your* benefit, rather than *the whole group's* (i.e. disabling enemies).


You will nowhere see me maintaining casters are WEAK. They are not. They are mightily impressive. And some spellls/combos are just great. But they are not giving you pure win, as Solo would put it.:smallsmile:
Oh, really? Take a party of 5: Fighter/Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Cleric-or-Druid, Wizard.
Try facing two or three Trolls or Hill Giants (which would make the party level 5 or 7, respectively, facing a tough-ish challenge, by the CRs) without the wizard.
Now try facing them without the monk.
Do you REALLY, HONESTLY think that both will be equally difficult? (Hint: think about Glitterdust and Haste, for example... or Confusion).

In a real game, the caster would blind the enemies with a Glitterdust on his very first round, second at the latest (will saves +3 and +4 respectively). The monk would... what? Do minor damage? Try to stun and fail? Take a bunch of damage?


Casters, in particular sorcerer and wizard are specialised in casting spells. That is their big class ability. And there are methods in the game to completely obstruct that. In the arms race to whether that can happen or not, though, said casters again have countermeasures and so on. Read: balance.

- Giacomo
No, it's NOT balance, because caster countermeasures are so strong and non-caster measures to obstruct that are so specific and (in a game that makes any coherent sense) uncommon.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 06:19 AM
Out of the many posts, I'll try to answer Rachel Lorelei's most recent one. I guess all caster supporters will be in line with most of what she says...

I think you missed the point--those are hours-duration spells. I'm surprised Solo spent three slots on Mind Blank, but it lasts 24 hours and he has plenty of spells/day.
In combat, casting Bear's Endurance on you instead of Glitterdust or Stinking Cloud or etc. on the enemy would be a bad decision, and you can't expect it.

That depends on the situation. But yes, at lower levels buffing the party would be less of an option. At those lower levels casters will need to devote more of their spells also for their own defense.
Solo did completely right with the mind blank stuff. At high levels, it blocks so much (and you have no moral bonus buffs that would be likewise blocked) that it is great to distribute richly on the party to be completely protected on that side for the day (barring dispel magics, of course).

This is just silly. Choking and blinding your allies while they're being jumped by enemies is a terrible idea. Your casters likely can't stay outside the smoke area if they want to contribute, and if they don't, your fight is much harder. This also relies on everyone taking Blind-Fight, i.e. suiting their build to fit your specific item.
The smoke bottle is of no use in real games, and I think you know this, because you consistently avoid the question of whether you play this way.

Why is it of no use? Heck, you can also use a pyrotechnics spells directly. In modern settings, smoke bombs are used as SWAT tactics. In medieval settings, smoke bombs were used by ninjas (allegedly). Smoke was used in medieval/antique battles to conceal troop movements. And yet you all maintain it should not be used for combat in DD 3.5. "Silly"? Why?
The smoke is no problem for non-casters because they can hold their breath easily. Your own party casters can also be used to/be prepared for the effect. As I said, they could stay outside, use a fly spell to get up (out of the melee way of the ground), use silenced spells to continue holding their breath etc.
Concealment will mean in an ambush that what your opponent wants to rain on you (spells, missiles) gets cut quite substantiallly. And you change the setting from the enemy's preference to at least a level playing field. Why not use this tactics, then?
Plus, you can also use smokesticks, or horn of fog, or darkness or whatever other concealment method is out there. The eversmoking bottle is simply the most effective, though.

With an AB of, let's say, +4, against ACs of, say, 15, needing the first attack to hit and kill so he can cleave, a second enemy to be in range of his attack, and to hit on the second attack, too, his odds aren't exactly good. Meanwhile, -1 Will save creatures have have an 80% chance of failing vs. Sleep/Color Spray; +1 Will save have a 70%

AB of +4 at 1st level for a typical barbarian charger is a bit small number, don't you think?:smallamused:
+3 STR, +2 STR raged, +1 BAB, +2 charge adds up to +8 in my book. If the barbarian went first from an 40ft away hiding place (meaning a -4 to the spot check of the opponent), he can do a partial charge and hit first, while the opponent loses the DEX bonus. The damage with a greatsword in that case is 2d6+7. That should down 2 creatures level 1 characters typically face with cleave.
And the best part: the barbarian (and the other non-casters) can do that same trick again as often as needed for the rest of the combat, while the caster likely only has 2 sleeps prepared at best (one of his spells went to mage armour or similar protection). And even without rage, the barbarian would then still be MUCH stronger in combat than the wizard with his second sleep spell.
Nope. Noone would argue caster uberness at 1st level, I think. Not even Reel on, Love or Kurald Galain. So let's finish this part of the discussion, shall we?

And how often do Antimagic Fields show up in your games?

Rarely, if ever. (see post above). It may also have to do with the fact that I play games of levels 12-20 much more rarely than those of level 1-11 (probably in line with the majority of the posters here).

Actually, your monk relies on his magic for combat, and even for some of his skills. Real monks, in the meantime, don't have a good mixture of things, because they are bad at them.

You mean: real monks are those that should be made weaker and left to be so? No. If a class can be improved by some new ideas, why not make use of them? There was a similar development for casters, where evocation-damage spells often was the bread and butter until the logicninja guide changed that - imo too comprehensively and in a one-side way.

The monk you presented would be utterly slaughtered in combat if his only buff was Enlarge Person.

Why exactly? I mean, against what creatures or opponents? You see, a 15th level monk would normally face CR 15 (not CR 18!) creatures TOGETHER with the rest of the group. Who would - as you admitted and showed by now - at those levels certainly occasionally put long-term buffs on the monk. With the usual permanent items, a monk of that level could survive quite well and contribute nicely to the party with just one round of enlarge buff.
And repeatedly using the monk 15th level I posted in the thread of Talic is not fair imo. I used it to show how a core monk at lower level than CR 18 can overcome an ancient white was highly specialised to show you the theoretic possibilities. It is not that fair to maintain that such a monk would be what I would play for the usual adventuring life at that level. (ah and btw, for those who wonder, yes, that level 15 monk was able to take on an ancient white. He was awesome. The monk's belt alone on a level 15 monk combined with improved natural strike and an enlarge effect - that you can make permanent for a buff if you like - is incredible. In combination with the full flurry attacks it cranked the damage output to the low 300s per round, NOT counting two stunning fist and one quivering palm and massive damage saves).

Meanwhile, a fifteenth level wizard would just hit the dragon with an Irresistible Dance via Arcane Reach. He would not need to be designed to take on that particular challenge, nor. The most difficult part would be getting within spell range, and that isn't so hard.

He would not? Well, for a start, using some of your own objections to a monk in said thread, and adding some of my own
- how will the wizard cast the spell with vocal component if he is using silence around him so that the wizard will not hear him come close? (as the monk has done). Silent spell is not available for that 8th level slot, so at least a greater metamagic rod of silent spell for 24,500 should be taken.
- how will he get a dragon who is burrowing?
- The SR 27 do not appear non-trivial to me for a 15th level caster, even with the two spell penetration feats and an ioun stone. On a caster level check roll of 1-6 on d20, the spell would fail.
- in case the dragon wins initiative, it will put up possibly a mirror image or the typical freezing fog which conceals (I know, it is a rare occurance for some posters here :smallamused: , but in this case it can happen to thwart the spellcaster easily)
- how can you maintain that taking a certain prestige class with certain prerequisites (eating up 3 not that great feats, for instance!, totaling it to 5 already with the spell penetration feats) and a certain high arcana power is not "designed to take on that particular challenge".
- I do not know what you think will happen when a dragon in an ice cave starts to dance irresistbly for 1d4+1 rounds, but I have the feeling that it could be dangerous for the wizard standing there. So you would need to put up protection vs icicles and debris falling down on you:smallsmile:

Do not get me wrong: I am sure there are some more methods (like getting a luck blace for re-rolling the spell resistance check) that a lvl 15 caster can also have a good chance for overcoming the dragon. But it is not that easy - you will also have to optimise, buff and enjoy a specific setting to make it - as the monk or other classes. Balance, once again.

I'm going to join the ranks of the people asking what on earth kind of games you play. Can you give me even a couple of situations from your games where retreating from the middle of combat and waiting, then rejoining combat, was an actual, viable strategy? That seems completely ridiculous. If a fight starts and there's a spellcaster involved, spending your actions running away will just get you disabled or killed. That's even the case against other enemies, who will follow the party, attacking them.
Technically, an enemy such as a demon/devil could use this tactic, since they have Teleport at will, but the party would quickly adjust to deal with this.

A lot of the creatures you encounter are faster than the slowest member of the adventuring group. So fleeing is a good option. I wonder in turn: what games are you playing, Rachel Lorelei? Your monsters/opponents in combat NEVER trying to flee? Even in computer games they sometimes try to flee when overpowered.
Similarly, there is the saying for adventuring groups "those who run away live to fight another day". Heck, there is the typical suggestion of caster uberness supporters that the group should leave the dungeon/adventure setting when they are low in their spellpower and RETREAT.
So what is the big issue here?
I outlined already in a post above what in my games would normally happen. But you can bet that buffs running out (for reasons including opponents running away on both sides and coming back later) or spellcasters having prepared the wrong spells happens OFTEN.

You have been asked to explain WHO would take the wizard's spellbook (without, say, slitting his throat, if they can take something from his Bag of Holding in the night), or how they get past watches and into the Rope Trick (which the party sets). You've never been able to justify this. Your talk about parties getting disrupted has absolutely no basis in gameplay.

Who has asked that? But anyhow, here is the answer:
A thief would steal a wizard's spellbook, which is a quite a nice treasure. That thief does not even need to try to get it in the night, but pick pocketing is entirely OK (you can lift all small objects or smaller, and a spellbook or even bag of holding certainly is not medium-sized).
Thieving is so commonplace in fantasy settings and literture, there is even an entire class devoted to it :smallsmile: (OK, rogue was called "thief" in earlier editions only).
Why should I "never be able to justify this".
Plus: the rope trick, to make the spellcaster completely safe and give him the time to learn needs to be up for 9 hours. So that would make it a 9th level caster. By that level, though, enemies with dispel magic are also getting more common.
Once again: I would never say this happens all nights, or even most nights, or even quite often. This should turn up just occasionally to keep risk in the game. Or it gets boring fast. Why do you think the rope trick spell was designed in the first place? Because the party would never be attacked during the night?

Giacomo, all you've proven is that a few monsters have Mirror Image as a spell like ability. Your most common argument against Ray of Enfeeblement, which was a single ray, was the creature has a high strength, which is self-defeating.

Pls Rachel Lorelei. Read again what I posted above. You cannot maintain that the only thing I had to object to the ray of enfeeblement/ray of exhaustion on CR 9-10 monsters cast from a flying, invisible caster was "mirror image". In fact, only one or two such monsters had it.
I also listed: SR, invisibiltiy, burrowing, underwater (bad environement for land-based casters), high STR (so it takes more castings of the rays while the monster does-nothing?), flying ability, teleporting, plane shift, general spellcasting, high hide/spot/listen/move silently (putting the creature ahead of the wizard in the typical "who-surprises-who"-game), tremorsense, blindsense etc. ALL of the creatures had a quite obvious way to make life challenging for a caster with said combo.

No, it can't. If you'd tried to use one during a game, you'd have learned this.

No, you can. If you'd try to use one [eversmoking bottle] during a game in an intelligent way, you'll learn this.

Any group focusing on exploiting a single tactic is devastating when that tactic works (see, for example, stacking fear effects--inflicting multiple Shakens makes enemies cower or run away; you can design a party to be more or less guaranteed to reduce all fear-effect-vulnerable enemies. You can not expect other people to make their characters to *your* specifications!

No, I cannot do that. But do you really think I would take the eversmoking bottle in a group with players who hate the item? No. But then I would ask them what else the group should do to protect vs ambushes and enemy casters. And then the characters would be built/level up/get items accordingly.
Similarly, would a group like to have the caster player always scouting ahead with the fly/invsibility combo and putting himself at risk out of which the party would need to bail him out? Again, no.

You've been shown over and over how polymorph benefits everyone, not the monk particularily. You should stop saying things like this.

I will continue saying it until you realise that the classes who are specialised in non-weapon combat (like the druid and the monk) benefit most from a morphing ability into creatures that enhance unarmed combat.
- the rogue will have his hide ability reduced. The great hydra for x more sneak attacks (note that the monk can also use the head attacks for stun etc.) has two drawbacks: one is the slow move (most opponents will simply move out of the way of the rogue) and all of the rogue's gadgets like a cloak of elvenkind, his higher DEX, as well as the boots of speed no longer are available for him. So he will need to get more buffs like fly and invisiblity to even stay competitive. Polymorph, except into something like a pixie, is a terribly useless thing for a rogue.
- the fighter normally has weapons like the spiked chain to shine. Which will be useless when turned into a large/huge creature. Plus, many fighters also specialise in ranged attacks. Those will likewise be useless in most morphed forms (and reduce the high DEX).
- the barbarian ranks 2nd behind monk and druid, since the raging abiltiy is preserved. Still, many are charger builds making great benefit out of two-handed weapons with power attack. That will not work in a morphed form (or you need to get an extra huge TH-weaopon, which has no enhancement bonuses, though)
- the cleric loses his armour, the wizard and sorcerer all lose their good DEX (key for initiative) and may get impaired in their spellcasting. And the main point of morph actually is that it enhances unarmend melee combat. What crazy arcane caster is going into unarmed melee combat, I wonder?

"High fantasy" is not the same as "everyone uses scrolls and wands, and devotes build resources to doing so". You know very well that the classes are meant to be balanced without spending resources (both wealth and character types) on cross-classing Use Magic Device to useful levels, even assuming that you were right about it balancing them--which you aren't.

How do you know what "high fantasy" is? For the purpose of the DD 3.5, it is what they put in the RAW. And everyone can use UMD. Why criticising using wands and scrolls, but thinking it highly atmospheric when non-casters drink potions and use rings of spell storing or other permanent items allowing to cast spells?
Plus, you can also build a great non-caster without resorting to UMD with some key magic items. Rod of cancellation comes to mind, or eversmoking bottle. Or boots of flying or haste or teleportation. Or intelligent items providing you with spellcraft, dimension doors and haste. UMD adds great versatility, but you pay for it as a non-caster with overall less permanent items, and you need to tweak some of your feats and skill points to it. Again, balance. What is the problem here?

I'm going to quote Reel On, Love, here, because you've avoided questions like this long enough:

Originally Posted by Reel On, Love
, because they're aware of the *cost* of stuff. Not only are you taking Skill Focus(UMD), but you're buying a Circlet of Persuasion (5400)... then you're getting, say, a Wand of Mirror Image (4500). At what level, precisely, is this affordable? What aren't you buying instead? 4000 gp lets you make your armor +2 or +2 to a stat or all saves! And a wand of Divine Power costs 21,000 GP--that's 21,000 you'll have to pay multiple times, and that comes instead of normal gear. It's not "pocket change" at any level except 19 and 20; even at 15 it's a tenth of your *total wealth*. At level 10, total character wealth is 49,000!

Have I avoided answering this so far or have you avoiding reading my many replies to this question in many threads?
You can get wands with less charges - hence the 15gp per 1st level effect if needed. By third level, you can thus get spell effects up to fourth level already - though I would not normally do that or encourage as a DM. But definitely at the lower levels up to level 3 you cannot even get a cloak of resistance +1 if you observe the wbl guidelines (meaning not more than 1/4 of your wealth getting devoted to a single item). So you are confined to masterwork items and charged/one-use stuff mostly, anyhow.
PS: Circlet of persuasion is 4,500, not 5,400. Available thus from around lvl 7, when the non-caster may need also to get up some magic effects to protect vs the 4th level biggies solid fog, enervation and black tentacles (notice how often casters take those spells? Are they "broken" then? And polymorph not? But that just as an aside...think on it).
And one more thing: do you think it fair to tear apart my equipment suggestions on the one hand as "not affordable/not all at once" and at the same time say nothing about the caster supporter suggestions who think ALL arcane casters have fly, improved invisibiltiy, XY ray, solid fog, tentacles, overland flight, teleport, etc spells ALWAYS available for the encounter?


Making a 20th level character with cross-classed Use Magic Device and useful wands is easy. Making a 15th level character like that is easy. Making a 10th level character like that is very difficult, because you are giving up important equipment for your consumables. Starting at a level from 1 to 5 like that? Good luck! Especially since you'll be spending more on consumables than the higher-level versions, due to using them as you go, and you'll be wasting actions trying to activate them.

Rachel Lorelei, do you really think you read and accept what I write? In the white dragon challenge thread you first said "20th level character-too much equipment dependent, do a 15th level one to take on the ancient white dragon."
This then I did.
And you still maintain the equipment is too dominant in my builds? Why?
Starting at level 1-5 the non-casters are so powerful in their non-spell abilities that they do not even NEED that many items to stay competitive with casters. But some reduced charge wands or even potions or fellow caster buffs can put them from the respectable to the awesome. At those levels.
Probalby in the mid levels of 7-11, the casters may enjoy a (temporary) overall advantage since they get the big spells faster than the non-casters can maybe put up protection against (because great defensive stuff like ring of blinking, boots of flying, or even eversmoking bottle are available only from levels 13, 11 or 8 respectively). But a wand with reduced charges of blinking or invisibility or mirror image can help the non-casters survive in those rare critical moments.
What gets you so angry about these suggestions, I wonder?

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 06:38 AM
I'll let RL handle this, I've done my bit for the night, but two quick notes:

That depends on the situation. But yes, at lower levels buffing the party would be less of an option. At those lower levels casters will need to devote more of their spells also for their own defense.
Solo did completely right with the mind blank stuff. At high levels, it blocks so much (and you have no moral bonus buffs that would be likewise blocked) that it is great to distribute richly on the party to be completely protected on that side for the day (barring dispel magics, of course).
The only situation in which buffing with *in-combat actions* is definitely the most effective course of action is golems... at least, after the caster's dropped a Solid Fog first.
You can never rely on in-combat actions being used to buff you, because buffing allies is usually is an inefficient use of combat time (barring stuff like throwing a Prot from Evil on the dominated fighter) and even if it wasn't, there would be more effective allies to buff than you.


You can get wands with less charges - hence the 15gp per 1st level effect if needed.
Prove it. I used to pull this crap when I was getting started in D&D, right up until it was pointed out that "partially charged wands" are not actually items listed for sale anywhere. You're going to have to back this one up very well (and not just "the DM can make it possible, since sometimes other people sell wands with one charge"), especially since your whole build seems to depend on it.

And, oh, yeah, good luck UMDing those 1-charge wands at level 3 anyway.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 07:33 AM
Well, Reel on, Love, posts most objections, so I'll answer his most recent post.

Maybe something first...


Or that every time he brings up Polymorph and we link the many places where WotC has ban it. Next thread "They've never said that! Where do they say that?" Personally I think he's just a lonely guy who craves attention, but will settle for abuse.

...and the post by Reel on, Love responding to my above outlining my style of play....

I'm surprised to see this. This is a much more honest post than what you usually make.

Do you see the discrepancy? Actually the post by horseboy above is not entirely within the forum rules, I daresay (but I would accept an apology).
And being of a different opinion is NOT dishonest. Bringing up massive examples of monsters focusing on only ONE aspect (touch AC) to make a point that rays are uber is dishonest imo, in particular not admitting that you have been wrong in this respect (what you have said to the defense of your odd examples has been "...but the wizard can do OTHER spells to still win". Which actualyl still proves my point: the ray/invisibiltiy/fly combo is not the consistently probable win vs CR 9-10 creatures you wish them to be.

Let us get on with what you said...

Here's your problem, Giacomo: because you don't play much D&D, and certainly not the kind you talk about, you are confusing things the rules clearly describe with things the rules allow the possibiltiy of.
Yes, a GM allows the casters in his game to use Overland Flight and Greater Invisibility. Those are spells they can select and cast. There are no rules issues, and it is totally reasonable. Meanwhile, buying 1-charge wands is NOT allowed by the rules, and is NOT reasonable (there would be absolutely no reason for scrolls below 5th level to exist).

Read DMG p. 199 on "creating PCs above 1st level", Section "Charged Magic Items": "...A player may select a partially used magic item for part of his character's starting gear."

Similarily, playing a melee character who can't melee remotely adequately and therefore sits fights out until he can afford his buffs, which he needs to use to contribute, is NOT reasonable.

You mean out of the options
- stand around to let the enemy have the buffed advantage is superior to
- move away and hide until enemy buffs are over?
Why out of those options, would you choose the unreasonable one? How would you behave in real life? Would you attack the opponent who currently has some temporary advantags (say, he is there with his friends) or would you run away until the situation is more advantageous for you?

Your lack of play experience with what you're talking about is a problem, because the things you describe as necessary for balance just can't happen in a reasonable game. Not many monsters have concealment. Not many monsters focus on the spellcaster and nothing else. This is also true of NPCs.

And while I admit that I hardly ever use AMF both as player or DM, I can see its goodness in theoretical high-level play. But you apparently, with all your experience of casters, have apparently never met anyone who sets the game to remain a challenge for casters.
If casters are dangerous and can end combat potentially in 1 round, do you think intelligent monsters (and most of the CR9-10 creatures are) will go after the fighter or after the spell caster first? What makes you think your game where a caster is never opposed apparently and never needs to worry about spellcaster drawbacks, that that game is REASONABLE?
Meanwhile, I pointed to so many parts in the rules which you have so far ignored, and still you refuse to see the obvious problems about your interpretation of the game.


That's not true. There is a risk, which the party actively works to minimize, whether by not camping in the middle of Beholder Field, by setting watches, or by using Rope Trick... but you go wrong by assuming some risk equals this happening on a consistent basis. The DM can't just announce "okay, right about dawn an enemy attacks" when it's not reasonable for an enemy to do so. Once the party has Rope Trick, it's hard enough justifying it happening even *once*, and he certainly can't reasonably make it happen very *often*. What's more, players might have few spells for that one encounter, but that's true of the 4th encounter of a day, too; they are going to get their spells back at the first possibility, and because they contribute so much, the whole party will do their best to make this happen.

Hmmm- somehow we differ with the definitions of "risk" and whether a 2nd-level spells should forever prevent surprises for the party at night.
And yes, a party will try to protect the spellcasters to let them regain the spells. Yet somehow, posters including you here will say that casters are preferable to non-casters. Why?


Barring a divine focus (which you can just *make* out of some wood) and a spellbook (I'll discuss that in a bit), there are next to *no* situations

As for the spellbook, you've been asked over and over again to provide a situation in which it makes sense for the wizard's spellbook to disappear multiple times in a campaign. I'm not saying it's always impossible, but there are next to NO situations in which it's reasonable for someone to find the wizard's rope trick, get into it despite the rope being pulled up (and if the party makes sure there are 8 medium-sized-creature equivalents... bring an animal companion/mount/etc... in the Trick, they'd have to dispel it to get at the people inside... which means they'd need to be capable of dispelling, another requirement, and one which WAKES THE WIZARD UP as he falls out), steal the wizard's spellbook out of his Bag of Holding/Handy Haversack (presumably, that's where he keeps it), and leave with it. Anybody who has the motive to do that is going to also have the motive to *coup de grace the wizard* and take his stuff, and then repeat to the rest of the party.
So, tell me... what the heck kind of enemy has both means AND motive to do that to the party (who wander hither and yon on their own schedule, to boot)?

Npc spellcasters coveting the wizard's spellbook and realising their potential have the motivation. Stealing is easier than coup de gracing someone (which will also make noise, alerting the rest of the party to your action).
Vs the rope trick, I already outlined elsewhere that an enemy shadowing the group to their lair will be able to report that to the BBEG who with dispel magic/minion with dispel magic then can dispel the rope trick and deliver the party, prone, with falling damage, unprepared to enemy attack and/or capture. Why do you think this is so highly unrealistic in a campaign where your opponents
- can be stealthy and
- also have access to magic.

We're left with, pretty much, "thrown in prison without your stuff" scenarios, which functions pretty poorly after a certain level ("and it's an adamantine prison! And it's Dimension Locked! And in a dead magic zone! and...") and may never be both reasonable and possible (the party will win the fight or escape) at the same time. Some DMs are fond of those, but they really don't come up more than once in a campaign--it's not reasonable for them to. And if you do that, a party without a wizard's spells is severely crippled, since they can't (say) Glitterdust the Hill Giant. The party won't be able to face appropriate challenges until the spell book is gotten back, which means that it will be gotten back in fairly short order (since that'll be the party's first priority, and it won't make any sense for the DM to not let them).At worst, the wizard spends a bunch of money getting a new book, and he traps/disguises/etc that one.

And now YOU are forcing the party to do what your character wants/needs to do? And you go through the roof against the eversmoking bottle tactic? Oh my....double standard alarm ringing again.
But yes, similar to a party adjusting for smoke tactics, the group should help protect/get back a spellbook. The party can overwhelm the hill giant without the glitterdust, but spells of the wizard sure add to their performance, so much is true.
And the capture scenarios do not need adamantine/dimension locked walls at those levels. Binding and gagging the wizard does the trick nicely. (he MIGHT have learned a silenced dimdoor, though, and in those cases - grats!).
You see, I would REWARD as a DM the caster player who devotes resources to protect his stuff and his tactics and his defenses. But this still means he has to do all of this and thus reduce his offensive stuff and other items available. Again, balance.

"Religious taboos and order" are NOT rules in the way that the Overland Flight and Greater Invisibility spells are. There is an enormous difference between the wizard casting Overland Flight and the cleric being told that he's not allowed to do X and Y (when the rules say no such thing). This is not "adhering to RAW". This is "screwing over divine casters in an attempt to balance them, and a bad way to try and impose balance to boot".

The rules say such a thing, read the "ex-sections". The problem is that it needs to be defined by both player and DM what it means BEFORE play. Adn that is difficult. But ignoring it altogether to have it easy means you have no longer a balanced game. Caster supporters often convey me the impression that they hate everything that obstructs them from doing their great magic and call it "unfair".
Yet you'll never see this kind of behaviour from players of non-casters who, yes, occasionally DO miss with their attacks, will suffer damage, get poisoned for failing to disarm a trap etc.
Why, I wonder.

The problem here is that you blow things out of proportion. You handwave away Overland Flight keeping one totally safe from MORE THAN HALF of one's encounters. At the same time, you insist that the (highly infrequent, unlikely) situations in which the party is woken at dawn or in which the wizard's spellbook disappears are a consistent source of balance. This is manifestly ridiculous, and is the reason people don't take you very seriously. Make more posts like this one, and fewer in which you display zero awareness of likelihood.

How does an overlight flight keep you safe from MORE THAN HALF of one's encounters? You do realise that part of those enounters happens in confined spaces (dungeons)?
The RISK that something happens during night or relearning spells is a consistent source of balance (forcing, for instance, to prepare a 2nd level slot to rope trick or even several as a decoy vs ambushers; or getting several spellbooks for precious gold instead of a rod of uberness to have a backup). And this is not manifestly ridiculous, you only try to portray it that way so that you avoid admitting being wrong to ignore all these drawbacks.


No, they are not. The Ex-Cleric section is not a rules balance for clerics, because there are no rules for making clerics lose their spellcasting on a regular basis. In fact, this is incredibly unlikely to occur. This is what I mean by the rules *allowing* for something, vs. the rules clearly describing something. The rules are very clear: a wizard can select Overland Flight when he levels up. He can prepare it, cast it, and it will last X hours. The section on Ex-Clerics simply says that it's possible. It does not balance clerics in any way, and you should quit pretending that it does.

It does not balance if you ignore it. Once you devote some effort into it, it can balance nicely. If -as I do- you do not like the binary part of it, you can also get a gradual decline of powers for offending divine casters.
But still, not liking the drawback is a far cry from maintaining it does not exist.


I've already covered why "the party regularly fails to recover its spells" is completely and utterly unfeasible for any kind of game that makes sense, above.

So we keep our different opinions on this, it appears.

The rules *allow for the possibility* of ex-[classes]. This is very different from telling you when and how it happens, and it is VERY different from it being a functional balance tool. Using it means you basically decide that one of your characters is denied his class abilities, and you do it WITHOUT any good reason, since the cleric sure isn't going to actively violate his religion (in fact, he might worship a cause, or worship a god without being part of a church hierarchy, and not even have strict rules).

Repitition of above.

Besides which, "win 80% of the time, lose 20% of the time" is not balance... and nor is it a good game. Plus, it hurts the whole party, not just the spellcasters: if the cleric can't spellcast, who heals the fighter?

A healing skill check can help, and resting. And items. Plus, if the fighter has run into an insanity symbol and is now carried to the next high spellcaster npc to remove the effect, who then protects the casters?


This is true. Without WBL, casters win even harder. It's also assumed in balance discussions.

At long last, an area where we agree! Hooray!:smallsmile:


The problem here is that it is very difficult to do this in a reasonable way. Sure, if 90% of monsters and NPCs had concealment, rays wouldn't be so effective... but they don't, and there's no reasonable way to give it to them (every humanoid enemy carries a potion of displacement, which they chug as soon as the encounter starts?)--not to mention that it hurts non-casters just as much or more (the casters just use non-ranged-touch spells).

Again, concealment is not the only stuff that the CR 9-10 monsters outlined have to counter rays. And I did not even include cheap items that MIGHT help conceal them.
And casters going into melee for touch against said monsters are even more at risk and negate BOTH their flying and invisibiltiy advantage this way.


The rules say that IN POPULATION CENTERS, you can find NPCs and purchase spellcasting services. I've covered this repeatedly with you: this doesn't mean you can consistently buy buffs while adventuring, especially when you consider that only hours/level buffs will stick with you even through the *day*.

Which is way the wands are so handy. That, and fellow pc caster buffs. In city adventures (quite a common kind of adventure), though, you can also tap the npc resources for buffs. I have covered this repeatedly with you, and still you ignore all these possibilites.

Yes, casters get metamagic rods or whatever other specific items they want to buy. Yes, non-casters get specific items and particular weapons. Them's the rules. That's assumed.

Another area where we agree! Great!

But just because the non-caster CAN buy an eversmoking bottle DOES NOT make it a good idea: you really need to leave this alone, since it's been hammered into the ground, over and over, that a real party is hampered by one, not helped, even if you try to use it to your advantage (which you'd being doing rarely; "we're ambushed!" isn't a common occurence); no real party would stand for it, and you yourself have admitted you don't use it in your games. The Horn of Fog isn't going to be helping you through encounters. It might mean you sit out the encounter inside your fog.

See my response to Rachel Lorelei's similar objection above. My only explanation why so many go through the roof with this bottle thing is that it obstructs so many nice spell combos and attacks, it mightly annoys caster supporters. So it must be put into the worst light possible and things llike "bad for party play" gets invented. When in fact it can be one of the best group tactics basis ever.


I've explained, in detail, why this isn't the case. It's NOT cheap! It costs feats (Magical Training, Skill Focus: UMD) and lots of gold: again, that Circlet of Persuasion and single Wand of Mirror Image are 9,900 gp together. That's a +2 armor, a +2 stat booster, and then a +1 Cloak of Resistance and leftover cash! There is no way it's reasonable for a character to opt for the former over the latter. What's more, you don't start getting *5000 gp to spend at once* for some time.

See what I responded to Rachel Lorelei on this issue. And the rule section I posted above. You can get wands with less charges. And yes, the ressources to be goog at UMD are deviating ressources from other parts of the character. It is that way in a balanced game.

At level 13, you have 66,000 gp. You can NOT reasonably afford a Wand of Divine Power. If you can afford a Wand of Mirror Image, you'll have eaten through two or three of them already.
Also, at level 13, your UMD check is 8 (ranks) + 2 (MW tool) + 3 (Circlet) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Magical Training), + let's generously say 2 from CHA at best (and that's almost certainly assuming a +2 cloak *and* being optimistic about rolls/point buy). You can activate wands consistently, but 4th-level scrolls are NOT a good idea to whip out in combat (also, they're expensive). And to do this, *you've spent two feats, an item, and didn't max out another skill*. Since this doesn't pay off until you can both afford and use magic items consistently, you've been sinking skill points and feats into UMD for *no* return for quite some time. That makes already-subpar classes even *worse*.
I hope that clearly showed you why your "use UMD to become great!" idea just plain doesn't work in real games... but I doubt it, because you've totally ignored such explanations before.

Because your explanations are flawed, as I showed already with the charged items availabilits part.
Two feats, and 1/6th or 1/7th of your skill points with a human INT 14 monk are part of your resources, but not really that much, considering what you get. And a circlet that also boosts your diplomacy skill? Hey, why not?
Why should you even use more expensive level 4 scrolls when you by level 11 (not 13 with a CHR +2 that you assumed) can cast all (as in ALL!) spells of 1-4 level from wands? And without AoO, at that?
PS: thanks for the masterwork tool idea, that will make UMD even more viable than I thought.:smallbiggrin:

There's also buff time. The cleric can cast Divine Power or Righteous Might plus Quickened Divine Favor and be set. If you need to cast Divine Power and Mirror Image, say, that's two rounds already.

You realise the cleric has that quickend divine favor to even have a chance to get into the realm of a non-caster in combat? (hint: sneak attack, stunning fist, combat control feats, rage). And only for a short while, devoting his top level slots for this?
And the moment the UMD non-caster also has mirror image up, that is mightily superior to the divine favor thing.


And, no, single-charge wands are NOT allowed by the rules.

Yes, they are. (see above)


Diplomacy does not get you Free Stuff. Diplomacy makes people Indifferent or Friendly towards you. Spellcasting services cost good money, you don't get them for free.

You forgot (probably intentionally) the entry "helpful". This will get you stuff for free - or said npc is not helping. "Protect, back up, heal, aid". "Will take risks to help you". Casting one of your (automatically regained next day :smallamused: ) spells is defenitely no big risk.

Leadership is very open-ended: the DM is under no obligation to give you the cohort you want. If he builds a cohort specifically to keep you effective, that is DM Fiat keeping you up to par (much like giving you better items than the rest of the party, something very common with monks). If he lets you build your own cohort, a monk + a spellcaster who spends his combat actions buffing him is going to be even FURTHER behind a spellcaster + ANOTHER spellcaster, since buffing the monk is LESS effective than other things a spellcaster can do with his combat actions.

Well HERE actually you are correct. There is NO guarantee that via leadership a non-caster will get a caster. It is more likely than a caster getting a caster with a certain kind of spells that complement his, though. Depends on the setting. And as I mentioned above, I would also usually play without leadership, but would think up something in this houseruled game to compensate non-casters for that one way less to access spells for free.

Giacomo, the Rules As Written do NOT say that the party will be interrupted every X, or that clerics will spend every 1 in Y sessions deprived of spells, or that the Wizard's spellbook will go missing Z times per campaign. Making all that happen is no more following the RAW than making a dragon 10 points of CR above the party's level come and eat them: it's POSSIBLE by the rules, but that's it. And the dragon makes a LOT more sense than some of the things you've suggested. Your arguments are EXACTLY equivalent to saying that the game is balanced because the DM can have a super-powered monster or NPC come and kill any overpowered character.

Not super-powered. Just the stuff that is in their stat block is enough. If it is POSSIBLE by the rules, it CAN come up. And this possibility should be handled in such a way that the balance is preserved. Otherwise, it would be also POSSIBLE to always let SR-monsters attack the party. That would be very boring for the spellcasters.

Stop pretending that the rules try to balance spellcaster power by making them "fall" or lose their spellbooks on a regular basis. The rules do NOT say that, they just say that it *can* happen. It happens very rarely, because it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE for it to happen more often.

Sigh. Again. Not a REGULAR basis, but the RISK should be there. This is vastly different.

The core rules are NOT balanced by spellcasters being regularly denied spells, because the party does NOT get interrupted every other morning, because they're in their Rope Trick, which the rules explictly DO let the wizard learn and cast every day.

There should be a RISK that that happens. Else all the rules stuff to avoid/reduce that risk (rope trickl, spell mastery, atonement, MMM, etc) would be useless. Do you think the designers put in useless rules? (not referring to the drowning etc. stuff here :smallbiggrin: )

The monk can NOT pay 10*CL*Spell Level to buy buffs just before jumping into each combat, and the very concept is ridiculous (and not in the SLIGHTEST supported by the Spellcasting Services rules, which mean that in a city of appropriate size, you can pay a spellcaster to prepare a spell next time he does that and he'll cast it for that price). Meanwhile, the wizard CAN be flying all day, because that is what the text of the spell he can learn lets him do.

The monk is NOT doing that before EACH combat, oh Sith lord :smallsmile: . There are pc casters for buffing, some combats will not necessitate even an enlarge spell etc. 50 charges can be enough for a whole adventuring career in some cases, 100 charges in most.

Except that that's NOT TRUE. Noncasters struggle to be useful. A wizard can disable hill giants as a matter of course; a Fighter has to struggle to make it through combats with non-disabled hill giants.

You mean the archer fighter? Nope. Or the enlarged spiked chain wielder with bigger reach? No trouble. Even without UMD.


Giacomo, you've been told and told how the wizard provides his own protection from level, like, THREE, on.

How, again? What 24 hour duration full protection buffs are available at 3rd level? Please explain.

What's more, at the low levels, the other characters don't protect the wizard: they CAN'T. They HAVE NO WAY prevent monsters from attacking the wizard except killing them, which they're trying for anyway.

? So?
And you can protect casters by standing in front of them (providing soft cover, +4 to AC vs missile attacks, and forcing meleers to go around you, possibly triggering AoO).

If your monk needs my spellcaster to spend not only spell slots out of combat, but multiple actions IN combat, to spport him? That's charity. "It's a group game" DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU to my character's combat actions being used for *your* benefit, rather than *the whole group's* (i.e. disabling enemies).

OK, than stand there by your self or fly by yourself in a group, then. Have fun. In particular at lower levels (what did you think the breakpoint is for caster safety? 3rd?)

Oh, really? Take a party of 5: Fighter/Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, Cleric-or-Druid, Wizard.
Try facing two or three Trolls or Hill Giants (which would make the party level 5 or 7, respectively, facing a tough-ish challenge, by the CRs) without the wizard.
Now try facing them without the monk.
Do you REALLY, HONESTLY think that both will be equally difficult? (Hint: think about Glitterdust and Haste, for example... or Confusion).

Hmmm. Big melee creatures are not the speciality of the monk, but I guess both would be able to contribute, or let us say: both would contribute in the area of 20% to defeating those creatures. If the wizard goes nova with massive spells, those will be missing in the next encounter (when all of the monk's abilities are still up).

In a real game, the caster would blind the enemies with a Glitterdust on his very first round, second at the latest (will saves +3 and +4 respectively). The monk would... what? Do minor damage? Try to stun and fail? Take a bunch of damage?

The monk (probably enlarged vs those creatures) could grapple one and thus take it out of combat. With a mirror image up, he could try to avoid being hit until the stun works and the rogue makes mincemeat out of the creature (not that this has not happened before, since the monk can position himself greatly as a flanker).
The monk can also lure away one of the monsters with his great move.
All of this (apart from the stunning) will not eat up his resources per day.

No, it's NOT balance, because caster countermeasures are so strong and non-caster measures to obstruct that are so specific and (in a game that makes any coherent sense) uncommon.

The measures are not specific. Read my above post again where I outlined all the many ways to obstruct before a non-caster (monster or otherwise) even USES magic items and UMD.
What will finally make you change your mind? How many times will I have to disprove your points, one by one?

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love
2008-01-27, 07:59 AM
Before I do anything else:




Read DMG p. 199 on "creating PCs above 1st level", Section "Charged Magic Items": "...A player may select a partially used magic item for part of his character's starting gear."

How can you POSSIBLY be reading a section on CREATING PCs above first level, which allows yout to select a partially used item for part of his starting gear, as meaning that partially charged wands are availible for sale during play?!
I can't believe you're actually pulling this. Did you even read the text? Did you just hypnotize yourself into accepting that it's somehow relevent?

IF YOU'RE MAKING A CHARACTER THAT'S STARTING AT LEVEL X, he can have a partially charged item (because this represents a FULLY charged item that your character bought in the past and has used some of).
This has NO relevance on the fact that your character can't buy partially charged wands in play.

Try again, Giacomo. Try something that doesn't specifically state it works only in a specific case that we're not talking about. Given how absolutely critical this is to your case, you need it to be true.
But it's not. If it were, everybody would know about it and be doing it.

Now, a few of the quicker points, and the rest tomorrow once I wake up:


See what I responded to Rachel Lorelei on this issue. And the rule section I posted above. You can get wands with less charges. And yes, the ressources to be goog at UMD are deviating ressources from other parts of the character. It is that way in a balanced game.
The rule section you posted above HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH buying partially charged items IN GAME! Why would you do that? Why would you even TRY to claim it does? What next--"a bear craps in the woods, therefore I can buy partially charged wands?"

You casually dismiss "deviatint resources" without account for just HOW MUCH it does so. It deprives you of majorly necessary gear. You can't just buy a 4,500 gp wand as soon as your WBL is, say, 19,000 gp... because you need other items first.


Two feats, and 1/6th or 1/7th of your skill points with a human INT 14 monk are part of your resources, but not really that much, considering what you get. And a circlet that also boosts your diplomacy skill? Hey, why not?
Why should you even use more expensive level 4 scrolls when you by level 11 (not 13 with a CHR +2 that you assumed) can cast all (as in ALL!) spells of 1-4 level from wands? And without AoO, at that?
PS: thanks for the masterwork tool idea, that will make UMD even more viable than I thought.:smallbiggrin:
Two feats aren't much? Really? Funny, wasn't your monk taking, I don't know, Improved Grapple, or something?


Not super-powered. Just the stuff that is in their stat block is enough. If it is POSSIBLE by the rules, it CAN come up. And this possibility should be handled in such a way that the balance is preserved. Otherwise, it would be also POSSIBLE to always let SR-monsters attack the party. That would be very boring for the spellcasters.
Now you're getting it. It's POSSIBLE that the party fights nothing but golems.
That doesn't mean the rules say it happens. In exactly the same way, it's POSSIBLE that the cleric stops getting his spells.. but that doesn't mean the rules say it happens, much less often.


Sigh. Again. Not a REGULAR basis, but the RISK should be there. This is vastly different.
Okay, so HOW big is this risk? How often should it happen per campaign? And how does that risk balance things out?


There should be a RISK that that happens. Else all the rules stuff to avoid/reduce that risk (rope trickl, spell mastery, atonement, MMM, etc) would be useless. Do you think the designers put in useless rules? (not referring to the drowning etc. stuff here :smallbiggrin: )

[quote]The monk is NOT doing that before EACH combat, oh Sith lord :smallsmile: . There are pc casters for buffing, some combats will not necessitate even an enlarge spell etc. 50 charges can be enough for a whole adventuring career in some cases, 100 charges in most.
No, it can't. At four encounters an adventuring day, 50 charge is 12.5 days.
PC casters WILL NOT be using their in-combat actions for short-term buffs, you've been told this over and over.
Your UMD monk HAS to use buffs to be remotely effective in combat.


You mean the archer fighter? Nope. Or the enlarged spiked chain wielder with bigger reach? No trouble. Even without UMD.
Both are going to take very heavy damage, and quite probably lose their weapons (imp. Sunder). That's trouble.


The monk (probably enlarged vs those creatures) could grapple one and thus take it out of combat. With a mirror image up, he could try to avoid being hit until the stun works and the rogue makes mincemeat out of the creature (not that this has not happened before, since the monk can position himself greatly as a flanker).
The hill giants have +20 grapple. HOW is your level 7 monk grappling them consistently, especially since you've stated repeatedly that your monk has DEX and WIS prioritized? Even Enlarged, you have, what, +12 to grapple? You won't get them into a grapple, and if you do it's trivial for them to break free.
Their +12 Fortitude saves make Stunning Fist (DC, what, 15? 16?) a losing proposition. You have 7/day. By the time it lands (first put Mirror Image up... maybe that even takes 2 rounds, you failed the UMD check)...


The monk can also lure away one of the monsters with his great move.
All of this (apart from the stunning) will not eat up his resources per day.
No, he can't. It's not going to chase him when there are immediate threats and/or targets for squishin' close at hand.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-27, 08:39 AM
Before I do anything else:

How can you POSSIBLY be reading a section on CREATING PCs above first level, which allows yout to select a partially used item for part of his starting gear, as meaning that partially charged wands are availible for sale during play?!
I can't believe you're actually pulling this. Did you even read the text? Did you just hypnotize yourself into accepting that it's somehow relevent?


Just a quick reply, not time enough for more right now.
Why going through the roof with this? Is it so hard to be shown wrong?

You can get partially items with less than full charges IN PLAY. There is no rule to suggest otherwise. Monsters/opponents will often have already used up part of their items when they encounter the pcs (use the rules for creating highler level pcs then).

There is nothing in the rules that there is only a market for FULLY charged wands. Where is that rule?

Normally we post characters here of higher level. We often start play at higher levels. In all those instances already, the rule I quoted applies. So it is already part of the game.

There is nothing to suggest in the rules that this rule all of a sudden should not apply to characters going all the way from levels 1-20. Why should they not be able to buy a non-full charge wand in towns? Why? What would be the reasoning behind it?

And I am not sure, Reel on Love, whether I am the first to think of it. You apparently have not. Accept that, pls.
I vaguely remember characters using it in the core coliseum, and I also saw it in actual gameplay.

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-01-27, 09:52 AM
Actually the post by horseboy above is not entirely within the forum rules, I daresayAnd you break forum rules by pointing this out. and I break forum rules by pointing that out. Not only that, but I break them again by pointing out that I break them. Oh what a twisted web we weave.:smallbiggrin:
And being of a different opinion is NOT dishonest. Bringing up massive examples of monsters focusing on only ONE aspect (touch AC) to make a point that rays are uber is dishonest imoMassive examples. Focusing on the limiting aspect of rays. Dishonest. I'm not following your reasoning there.
In particular not admitting that you have been wrong in this respect (what you have said to the defense of your odd examples has been "...but the wizard can do OTHER spells to still win". Which actually still proves my point: the ray/invisibility/fly combo is not the consistently probable win vs CR 9-10 creatures you wish them to be.No, but wizards are. If they have one strategy, and you block it, they change. You change again, so do they. They have more strategies than you do defenses. Good luck.
Read DMG p. 199 on "creating PCs above 1st level", Section "Charged Magic Items": "...A player may select a partially used magic item for part of his character's starting gear."Where do you find this? I don't see wands with partial charges listed anywhere with a price. And in-game, where do you find them? We joke about "Magic-Mart", do you visit "Magic Good-will"?
You mean out of the options
- stand around to let the enemy have the buffed advantage is superior to
- move away and hide until enemy buffs are over?
Why out of those options, would you choose the unreasonable one? How would you behave in real life? Would you attack the opponent who currently has some temporary advantags (say, he is there with his friends) or would you run away until the situation is more advantageous for you?The enemy is faster than you, most of the time. Or at the least, he is faster than the fighter or the dwarf. I doubt they would appreciate your strategy.
If casters are dangerous and can end combat potentially in 1 round, do you think intelligent monsters (and most of the CR9-10 creatures are) will go after the fighter or after the spell caster first?Read up on balance. It doesn't mean "the DM nerfs the most powerful player". If the fighter is only good because enemies ignore him, he's not good. Likewise, if the caster is only weak because the NPC's attack him and ignore his allies, he's not weak.

Hmmm- somehow we differ with the definitions of "risk" and whether a 2nd-level spells should forever prevent surprises for the party at night.
Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes.
...
The window is present on the Material Plane, but it’s invisible, and even creatures that can see the window can’t see through it.How do you propose the enemies find and attack that? Even if they do find it, a few lengths of rope insure they can't enter. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to use it this way.
Npc spellcasters coveting the wizard's spellbook and realizing their potential have the motivation. Stealing is easier than coup de gracing someone (which will also make noise, alerting the rest of the party to your action).Do they also take the fighter's +x sword, which is probably worth more? And the various amulets and enchanted armor everyone has? Because most spellbooks cost 5,000 when full, and the other gear is more valuable.
Vs the rope trick, I already outlined elsewhere that an enemy shadowing the group to their lairAnd the rogue with spot and listen doesn't notice?
will be able to report that to the BBEG who with dispel magicCool, we don't have to fight through the rest of his lair, he came to us!
then can dispel the rope trickIf he makes the check, which gets harder as levels increase, but is by no means guaranteed, especially when he has few slots.
and deliver the party, prone, with falling damageFrom 5 feet?
unprepared to enemy attack and/or captureHow is this different from an ambush, especially since the party is now awake and didn't just get CdG'd in their sleep for a TPK.
Why do you think this is so highly unrealistic in a campaign where your opponents
- can be stealthy and
- also have access to magic.They have better things to do?
And now YOU are forcing the party to do what your character wants/needs to do? And you go through the roof against the eversmoking bottle tactic? Oh my....double standard alarm ringing again.
Retrieve a 5,000gp item(a la starmetal) or just buy a new one. How is that forcing when it comes out of the wizards money? Especially when the party would do the same for the fighter's sword.
But yes, similar to a party adjusting for smoke tactics, the group should help protect/get back a spellbook. The party can overwhelm the hill giant without the glitterdust, but spells of the wizard sure add to their performance, so much is true.Finally you admit it.
And the capture scenarios do not need adamantine/dimension locked walls at those levels. Binding and gagging the wizard does the trick nicely. (he MIGHT have learned a silenced dimdoor, though, and in those cases - grats!).At those levels, taking 20 might allow you to spit out the gag. If not, then everyone in the party is useless except the rogue. Once he frees the wizard, though, they're all free. Hell, a bluff check to get a guard to remove the gag can't be too hard(choking, sick?), and then D. Door to escape.
You see, I would REWARD as a DM the caster player who devotes resources to protect his stuff and his tactics and his defenses. But this still means he has to do all of this and thus reduce his offensive stuff and other items available. Again, balance.Most protective stuff everyone ignores because it's a bookkeeping nightmare. It's done once, and lasts till it's needed. 3 component pouches, explosive runes on a couple of random scrolls, and noone will mess with your stuff. It's not balance, it's just annoying.
The rules say such a thing, read the "ex-sections". The problem is that it needs to be defined by both player and DM what it means BEFORE play. And that is difficult. But ignoring it altogether to have it easy means you have no longer a balanced game. Caster supporters often convey me the impression that they hate everything that obstructs them from doing their great magic and call it "unfair".No, but once you discuss it, it shouldn't come up. If the player is halfway smart, he shouldn't fall, just by being cautious. If you as a GM put him in a situation where he falls either way, you're a jerk.
Yet you'll never see this kind of behaviour from players of non-casters who, yes, occasionally DO miss with their attacks, will suffer damage, get poisoned for failing to disarm a trap etc.
Why, I wonder.Because those follow the RAW, while "invisible book-stealers who only track you" are a bit outside of that. The second time someone came up in the middle of the night to steal my spellbook, I'd track down the thieves guild and get it stolen back, just so I could find out how they work.
How does an overland flight keep you safe from MORE THAN HALF of one's encounters? You do realize that part of those encounters happens in confined spaces (dungeons)?At which point the Wizard simply stands behind the druid, who turns into a bear, fills the corridor while the wizard casts spells past him. Or heck, web to stop all enemies in that situation.
The RISK that something happens during night or relearning spells is a consistent source of balance (forcing, for instance, to prepare a 2nd level slot to rope trick or even several as a decoy vs ambushersAgain, how is this less safe than just sleeping in the open? And it isn't much of a waste, when most wizards just make a wand of it and call it a day.
or getting several spellbooksfor precious gold15 gp each
It does not balance if you ignore it. Once you devote some effort into it, it can balance nicely. If -as I do- you do not like the binary part of it, you can also get a gradual decline of powers for offending divine casters.
But still, not liking the drawback is a far cry from maintaining it does not exist.How do you propose a player who is careful and attempts to follow his deity lose powers?
A healing skill check can helpWho puts points in heal, past enough to stabilize someone?
and restingThey better do that a lot to make back normal health.
And itemsExpensive and limited.
Plus, if the fighter has run into an insanity symbol and is now carried to the next high spellcaster npc to remove the effect, who then protects the casters?Precisely why destroying the casters isn't balance.
Again, concealment is not the only stuff that the CR 9-10 monsters outlined have to counter rays. And I did not even include cheap items that MIGHT help conceal them.
And casters going into melee for touch against said monsters are even more at risk and negate BOTH their flying and invisibility advantage this way.Arcane reach(always good at level 10) or spectral hand.
Which is way the wands are so handy.Not for the buffs you want, which are usually pretty high level
That, and fellow pc caster buffs.Not during combat, when I generally buff for a max of 2 rounds. Less if I can skip the round of personal buffing. Any more than that and I'll be wasting rounds and letting my enemies hurt my allies more.
In city adventures (quite a common kind of adventure), though, you can also tap the npc resources for buffs.NOT DURING COMBAT.
See my response to Rachel Lorelei's similar objection above. My only explanation why so many go through the roof with this bottle thing is that it obstructs so many nice spell combos and attacks, it mightily annoys caster supporters. So it must be put into the worst light possible and things like "bad for party play" gets invented. When in fact it can be one of the best group tactics basis ever.Yes, because blinding your party is a good idea so often.
See what I responded to Rachel Lorelei on this issue. And the rule section I posted above. You can get wands with less charges.Not really, no.
And yes, the resources to be good at UMD are deviating resources from other parts of the character. It is that way in a balanced game.Except the characters you build are only good for one-offs. They would never have reached the level they're at without burning through most of their WBL. And probably dying because they lack resources other people have at the same level.

Two feats, and 1/6th or 1/7th of your skill points with a human INT 14 monk are part of your resources, but not really that much, considering what you get.Then how are you building your improved grappling stunning monk?
And a circlet that also boosts your diplomacy skill? Hey, why not?You can't spend money you don't have. You aren't the US gov.
Why should you even use more expensive level 4 scrolls when you by level 11 (not 13 with a CHR +2 that you assumed) can cast all (as in ALL!) spells of 1-4 level from wands? And without AoO, at that?You can't cast them reliably in combat. You were missing it every couple times up until the last level, which makes combat useless. (no wizard takes even a 5% chance of spell failure, why do you?
You forgot (probably intentionally) the entry "helpful". This will get you stuff for free - or said npc is not helping. "Protect, back up, heal, aid". "Will take risks to help you". Casting one of your (automatically regained next day :smallamused: ) spells is defenitely no big risk.Again, how do you do this in combat, and why is he following you to the evil lair in the first place?
Sigh. Again. Not a REGULAR basis, but the RISK should be there. This is vastly different.Giacomo, I can render my spellbook untouchable with about 100gp. It will take no work and only spells cast during my downtime. I'll probably throw in a spare blank book, too, just to confuse people. This would be boring and not fun, and it would eliminate the risk. That doesn't=balance.
OK, than stand there by your self or fly by yourself in a group, then. Have fun.The wizard survives and is effective. The druid survives and is effective. The cleric survives and is effective. The monk avoids death. Which one do you thin the group appreciates more?
In particular at lower levels (what did you think the breakpoint is for caster safety? 3rd?)That's the breakpoint for everyone, until then you die or live at the hands of the dice.
Hmmm. Big melee creatures are not the specialty of the monk, but I guess both would be able to contribute, or let us say: both would contribute in the area of 20% to defeating those creatures. If the wizard goes nova with massive spells, those will be missing in the next encounter (when all of the monk's abilities are still up).At level 7, a wiz casts glitterdus maybe twice, hastes the fighter, then sit's back and looks cool. Hardly "nova", but he definitely was the winner of the battle.
The monk (probably enlarged vs those creatures) could grapple one and thus take it out of combat.With low str and +5bab? Not likely.
With a mirror image up, he could try to avoid being hit until the stun works and the rogue makes mincemeat out of the creature (not that this has not happened before, since the monk can position himself greatly as a flanker).Stun is a fort save, and you get it 7 times a day. If you use all of them, he still has a 15% chance of not being stunned. And btw, it probably killed the rogue about 4 turns ago, and he's rolling up a beguiler to make you his trapmonkey.
The monk can also lure away one of the monsters with his great move.Why would it chase you? You always say monsters should be played intelligently, this is a perfect example of you saying they're dumb.
All of this (apart from the stunning) will not eat up his resources per day.But it will eat up teammates HP. They tend to dislike that.

Ganurath
2008-01-27, 10:02 AM
In an effort to get the thread back on topic so that I don't have to read any more of those walls of text than I have, a Floating Disc grants the party immunity to pits and floor trigger traps in the mid to late levels.

FinalJustice
2008-01-27, 10:58 AM
Still, you deny these suggestions I make to you. We can all stay in our respective houseruled campaigns, because - frankly - there will never be a game system with rules to suit us all. But then pls stop from maintaining that the core rules are not balanced. They are, for a very specific kind of high-fantasy setting.
The only problem you have is with what it entails in DD 3.5 to make those rules create balance between casters and non-casters.
It involves
- making "ex-Sections" for classes matter
- making spells not refresh automatically
- following the wbl guidelines
- making the spellcasting obstacles (all that I outlined above) count and occasionally let them be used by opponents of the party
- making magic items and npc casting available as per the rules (which is tantamount to: yes, casters will get their coveted metamagic wands exactly how they like them and yes, non-casters will get eversmoking bottles, horns of fog, or that particular xy weapon which they want to have for their build)
- making full use of UMD to at least get quite cheaply ALL 1-4 level spells available for all classes by around 13-15th level.
- allowing diplomacy to exist and get access to npc spellcasting easy
- allowing leadershipto exist and get access to npc spellcasting even easier

Now, most of this stuff, I ALSO DO NOT LIKE IN MY GAMES.
For instance
- I think it stupid to follow wbl guidelines and let the players (or a DM allowing) buying items on markets and stuff-
- UMD and wands make for good innovations for non-casters, but apart from rogues and maybe monks and some specialised fighters I would not think it fits into most players' perceptions of how their non-casters shoudl work.
- leadership (actually, similar to animal companions, paladins mounts and familiars) add to burden the game because they make the group larger. So I would only think it good as background, in between adventures stuff
- "ex-sections" stuff is worded in a binary way, and I would use more gradual "punishments" for offending casters, and with much more RP stuff.

However. The Moment I deviate from the original rules I MUST DO SOMETHING in order to preserve the balance. And that is a big challenge. But what I should not do is what many of you suppose, i.e.
"In our games casters are so uber. (Core) Rules are so broken"
- Giacomo points out the reasons why, i.e. obvious deviations from the RAW -
"MEEEH, What games are YOU playing, Gia, incredible. We play by RAW."

Hope that answers a bit. Now I'll try to return to what this thread was originally about and check the spells/combos made so far and put them in a list with my comments.

- Giacomo

Has it ever come to your mind that, were noncasters using wands, scrolls and all that jazz really part of the game as it should be played, system wise, every noncaster would have UMD as a class skill, and not just skillmonkeys?! I call nonsense on this.
Do the following, open one of your books and take a good look at NPCs noncasters, search for your wands on fighters. Yeah, they don't have it, not even the epic ones. So don't come say 'Harry Potter Fighters are the way the system should be played, if you want to play otherwise, houserule'. The system presents its noncasters as we imagine it, without wooden sticks out of their *sses. And you, admitting you need houseruling to play non-Harry-Potter noncasters, admits magic is unbalanced and one needs to mimic it by spending loads of money in wooden sticks. And I repeat my point, if you can do your casters as you imagine them, but need to tweak your noncasters to keep them on par, even deviating from what you imagine, this is NOT a balanced system.

And I have another point. If you need to cripple casters with annoying stuff like ambushes every week, spellbook thieves in every city and etc... to make it balanced, yeah, you can lower spellcasters power, and fun. And, if these guys rob spellbooks, they rob +5 longswords of doom. There are also plenty of monsters with improved disarm/sunder/rust/whatever that eat magic weapons for breakfast. You should use them, and if you don't, your fighters are overpowered. Let's see the fun of a game where one will spend a whole day without casting effectively because a nightly random battle disrupted their sleep, where spellbooks are robbed on a monthly basis and weapons are broken on a weekly basis. There's a limit for the number of spares a fighter can carry without the annoying encumbrance, and magic weapons are one of the most expensive resources in the game. But the rules says you must break them, break them all. You call balance, I call annoyance.

Annarrkkii
2008-01-27, 11:13 AM
...I completely fail to see how buying copious amounts of magic items or relying on beguiled NPC casters to follow you around in a train and rain multi-thousand-gp buffs on you before combat is an argument against the power of the party spellcaster. You're spending vast sums of money to replicate the powers he gets for free, and, ultimately, all those powers are just coming from other spellcasters. If you're relying on NPC casters for buffs over your party wizard, you're just thumbing your nose at him and impoverishing yourself.

Basically, the fact of the matter is that, without the magic a spellcaster provides, a party cannot consistently win past level 15. 10, maybe. Whether the the source of this magic comes from wasting all your money on magic item effects that a party spellcaster could replicate freely, or from dumping your party's precious WBL into NPC spells, you're just changing your dependency from a PC wizard to a non-PC one (the one that made you your items, or the one that cast the spells for your party). A level 15 party without any spellcasters is in a lot of trouble and a lot of debt, and is challenged constantly by even-CR encounters.

A party of all spellcasters has some definite weaknesses (getting caught in AMFs and the like), but save an assortment of specific, anti-caster situations, they're not going to be troubled by much, especially if they diversify. A cleric, a wizard, a sorcerer, and a druid are going to be ridiculous. The biggest thing they're going to miss is not their monk or their meatshield, but a rogue, for his skill capacity. Knock, Detect Snares, Charm and similar spells can cover a rogue's slot reasonably well, but not nearly as completely as wildshape, summons, Righteous Might, and the like are able to cover the tank's role. A barbarian, a fighter, a monk, and a rogue... not so much.

Also, no wizard worth anything is going to be ambushed at night—even if he camps in the Monster Field. ALARM, a first-level spell, can keep you save, and Rope Trick is far from state-of-the-art. You can have a Secure Shelter up surrounded by an an extra Alarm spell, a Mage's Faithful Hound, and Guards and Wards, if you're feeling unsubtle, though Rope Trick and Alarm should be good enough for most situations. Hell, if you are in the Beholder Field, throw up a Wall of Stone (with some downward-angled slots for air but not AMF cones to be let in), and your entire compound can't even be touched by the Beholder's eye-cone, and all it takes to get out the next morning is a cautious Stone Shape. Of course, that would be silly. Why waste spells building a fortress, or even camp in the Beholder Field at all when you can just Teleport home for a cozy night in the inn, maybe Charm some wenches, and Greater Teleport everybody back to the exact same spot the next day.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 11:21 AM
Why going through the roof with this? Is it so hard to be shown wrong?
Since you've been persistenly shown wrong in this thread and numerous others, I'm sure you can answer that question for yourself.



There is nothing in the rules that there is only a market for FULLY charged wands. Where is that rule?
Yes, it makes sense for partially-charged wands to be available, but no, according to RAW you cannot actually buy them. So in essence, you're ignoring the rules-as-written, in favor of something that makes sense.

In general, replacing rules with common sense is a good thing. BUT, there are three problems here.
* First, you are now houseruling, whereas in the past have been fiercely opposed to houseruling.
* Second, if you want an economy to make sense, you must admit that the whole "buy any item you want in any city" doesn't make sense either (and for that matter, neither does WBL), so you're instead stuck with "magic items are available only when and where the DM, or adventure module, says they are".
* And third, if a wand with 50 charges costs $20000, the price per charge is $400, or about thirty times more than you claim it does, and that's not even accounting for "volume discount".

You can't just cherry pick and claim that "common sense" only applies if it's to your advantage, and the RAW (or some obscure loophole therein) applies otherwise. So your post fails big time. Again.

Worira
2008-01-27, 11:49 AM
A wand of enlarge costs 750 gp. Please stop saying it costs 21k.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 12:00 PM
A wand of enlarge costs 750 gp. Please stop saying it costs 21k.

I never said it did. That would be the wand of polymorph, which is also essential to the gonk build.

Worira
2008-01-27, 12:03 PM
Except that no one claimed a one-charge wand of polymorph costs 15 gp.

Also:

How do you know what "high fantasy" is? For the purpose of the DD 3.5, it is what they put in the RAW.

DnD is not high fantasy. It's pretty much the definition of sword and sorcery.

Dark Tira
2008-01-27, 12:04 PM
A wand of enlarge costs 750 gp. Please stop saying it costs 21k.

Actually, the 21k is in reference to a wand of Divine Power. The actual cost of the wand isn't really the point of contention either it's the number of charges.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-27, 12:13 PM
Actually, the 21k is in reference to a wand of Divine Power. The actual cost of the wand isn't really the point of contention either it's the number of charges.

Plus, applying house rules while insisting that other people may not apply house rules, and applying "common sense" only when it's to your advantage, RAW otherwise.

Falrin
2008-01-27, 12:25 PM
Interesting thread to say the least.

But I have a small proposition to make. let's say somebody with a small grasp of how optimization works (in other words, not me) make up a wizard LvL 10. Nothing fancy. Just think up a spell-list which includes as many "winning spell combo's" for as many different situations possible and look at how he would handle most CR 10's with that list.


Also a question for Gia:

Is it balanced to play superman? I mean the real one with the red S and
stretchy blue suit. I can't slap on stats, but inhuman STR, incredibly fly speed and complete negation of al damage seem a good start.

I, and probaby many others, would concider this guy to be gamebreaking at alsmost any LvL. But you state he is a balanced character from CR 1.

"I did?"

You did.

Because it seems to be the DM's task to have every single enemy carry at least 3 pounds of kryptonite. Even that angry housecat.

It doesn't matter that he can own most encounters all by himself, the DM can (and should) stop him with all means possible.

That's what you state for the wizard.

That's not Core Balance. That's balance imposed by the DM, wich you'l find in any "top 100 bad DM threads". Ripping of every nights rest, stealing every spellbook, having an AMF everywhere, ...

Animefunkmaster
2008-01-27, 12:32 PM
I think it's just ambiguously worded, and that there is errata or clarification on it. So it's not going to melt the free command activated Anti-Magic Field item all non-casters are assumed to have in these threads ;)

I don't think it is ambiguously worded at all.


the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it.

Now various gear will have hardness, so it isn't a mages disjunction, but it certainly affects items and with enough time can destroy something useful (scrolls, potions, ect).

Worira
2008-01-27, 02:19 PM
Actually, the 21k is in reference to a wand of Divine Power. The actual cost of the wand isn't really the point of contention either it's the number of charges.

Again, no one claimed that a one-charge wand of divine power would cost 15 gp.

Solo
2008-01-27, 02:20 PM
I think you missed the point--those are hours-duration spells. I'm surprised Solo spent three slots on Mind Blank, but it lasts 24 hours and he has plenty of spells/day.

The other level 8 spells I have are Greater Prying Eyes (rendered useless) and Greater Shadow Evocation.

I find it acceptable to have two spell slots left for the day, as I don't think I will need more than two castings of GSE.


SG, I know I've pointed this out before, but you were probably pursuing your heretical and deviant ways by answering other forum posters first. (:smallwink: )

For every spell/spell combo, there is a counter measure.

However, by high level, a wizard will have not only memorized several potent spells and spell combos, but also have scrolls of others in reserve. Thus, he will be able to cover a diverse set of bases.

Meanwhile, the Fighter pokes things with a sharp stick.

Occasionally, he does it with a magical sharp stick.

Dark Tira
2008-01-27, 02:21 PM
Again, no one claimed that a one-charge wand of divine power would cost 15 gp.

Never said they did, just like no one claimed a wand of enlarge was 21,000g.

Found the apparently confusing quote:


Instead of UMDing up scrolls of Enlarge (at 25 gp each), he's UMDing single charge wands of Enlarge at 15 gp each. Incidentally, that drops the UMD DC from 21 to 20 as an added bonus. Similarly, he avoids spending 21,000 gp on a 50-charge Wand of Divine Power by buying one charge at a time.


Note it's the Wand of Enlarge being noted at 15gp a charge and the Wand of Divine Power being noted as costing 21,000gp. Now let us drop the subject and bask in the glory of the wisdom of Solo.

Worira
2008-01-27, 02:34 PM
Never said they did, just like no one claimed a wand of enlarge was 21,000g.



Instead of UMDing up scrolls of Enlarge (at 25 gp each), he's UMDing single charge wands of Enlarge at 15 gp each. Incidentally, that drops the UMD DC from 21 to 20 as an added bonus. Similarly, he avoids spending 21,000 gp on a 50-charge Wand of Divine Power by buying one charge at a time.



He's probably paying for that by buying ladders, chopping them into pieces, and selling the resulting ten-foot-poles at a profit.
(oh, and 21,000 divided by 50 does not equal 15 anyway)



Do you just have no reading comprehension at all?

Voyager_I
2008-01-27, 02:39 PM
So, not only does the proud city of Capitolia have a branch of "Magi-Mart", it also has


Honest Carl's Pre-Owned Wands
Unlimited 1-Charge Wands of Everything You Could Ever Want!!! BIG DISCOUNTS!!!

Also, even if we're going to follow this route, let's not forget that the Wizard can do it better than you, because he can make his own stuff at half the cost.

Now to address a few other points...

I'm pretty sure if Wizards expected everyone to make extensive use of Wands and Scrolls, maybe they would have, you know, made it a class skill for all of those two skill point, charisma secondary, heavily item dependent classes you think they intended it for? They couldn't even use the skill at all in 3.0, so I think it's pretty safe to say the skill wasn't designed to give noncasting classes a chance.

Everyone knows caster don't win the game at Level one, and nobody is saying that. Everyone has a decent chance to contribute at that point (although playing a Monk still probably isn't a good idea).

You do realize that having opponents, encounters, and major plot events centered around denying the caster his abilities essentially concedes your point, right? How do you think the Fighter would fare if his Sword was constantly being Sundered, his enemies always had the exact type of DR he can't penetrate, and were always flying so he can't reach him (the fact that all of these are much, much more likely to happen than the caster getting his spell book constantly stolen notwithstanding). Of course, nobody, not even YOU even begins thinks about going that far out of their way to mitigate the effects of Fighters, because they don't even begin to warrant that kind of attention.

Dark Tira
2008-01-27, 02:42 PM
Do you just have no reading comprehension at all?

One one of us is lacking in that department. Perhaps you could actually pull up the quote where someone said a wand of enlarge cost 21000gp.

Worira
2008-01-27, 02:49 PM
Kurald is, in the quote above, claiming either that wands of enlarge cost 21k, or that Giacomo claims that a one-charge wand of divine power costs 15 gp. It doesn't matter which it is, neither is correct.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-27, 02:52 PM
Of course, nobody, not even YOU even begins thinks about going that far out of their way to mitigate the effects of Fighters, because they don't even begin to warrant that kind of attention.

Wait a sec. Does that mean that I am the only one that starts every encounter by letting a pair of constitution tweaked Rust Monsters with the winged template loose on the party? :smallamused:

Dark Tira
2008-01-27, 02:54 PM
You mean this one?


He's probably paying for that by buying ladders, chopping them into pieces, and selling the resulting ten-foot-poles at a profit.
(oh, and 21,000 divided by 50 does not equal 15 anyway)


All I see is factually correct information given perhaps out of a misunderstanding of a previous quote, yet still gives no assertion to the price of a wand of enlarge.

Voyager_I
2008-01-27, 02:58 PM
You're both responding to different information. Nothing to get pissy over.

Roland St. Jude
2008-01-27, 03:09 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Insulting others' reading comprehension, intelligence, and the like are prohibited as flaming. This thread is locked for review, but given the overall decline into people just sniping and pushing each others' buttons, it's unlikely to be back.