PDA

View Full Version : Does the wizard gain as much benefit from magic items as a non-spell caster?



Emperor Demonking
2008-02-03, 01:00 PM
Does a wizard gain as much bonus from defensive magic items?
Does a wizard gain as much bonus from magic items that cast spells (Helm of teleportation and the like)?

Solo
2008-02-03, 01:04 PM
The magic items save spellslots for the caster, meaning he doesn't have to waste time casting, say, Fly, or else they improve his primary casting stat, leading to more spells and higher DCs.

This is commonly believed to be deadly to an opponent.


From another thread which touches upon this same point but we are now forbidden to talk about it so I am doing it here:


Example: entire schools/attacks of magic are often negated by a single spell, which is available to all via magic items (necromancy? Death ward. Divination/enchantment? Mind blank. Evocation attacks/most other attacks? Wall of Force. All magic attacks/defenses? Antimagic field).

- Giacomo

Prismatic Sphere, Wall, and Wall of Force are all defenses that work in an AMF.

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-03, 01:07 PM
Good idea for a thread!

In another one, Solo brought up a similar question.

Here's what I wrote there:

With no magic items:
Caster > non-caster. Reason: at high levels there are some magical attacks and protections which only can get countered by magic (for instance, creatures with DR 10/magic). In fact, some magic assumes the other side also uses magic to some extent (e.g. DC and saving throws).
With magic items (intended as a balancing factor, as per DMG):
Caster = non-caster. Reason: the non-caster gains disproportionately by having access to magic, while a caster merely gets more of the same (the marginal utility for getting magic items is lower for casters than for non-casters).
Example: entire schools/attacks of magic are often negated by a single spell, which is available to all via magic items (necromancy? Death ward. Divination/enchantment? Mind blank. Evocation attacks/most other attacks? Wall of Force. All magic attacks/defenses? Antimagic field).

So basically my answer would be: the wizard does not gain as much as a non-caster from items, since most items simulate what he could already do via his spells.

- Giacomo

ZeroNumerous
2008-02-03, 01:11 PM
Except, you know.. All the crap you just mentioned can be defeated fairly easily by a wizard with his magic items.

Death Ward? Disintegrate.
Mind Blank? Disintegrate.
Wall of Force? Disintegrate.
Antimagic Field? Prismatic Wall.

(Also, I'd like to know which item gave you the ability to cast Wall of Force.)

To the OP: Yes. In fact, the wizard gains a larger benefit because he can craft so many of his own items. Heck, he can make the Candle of Invocation that destroys the world. :smallbiggrin:

Voyager_I
2008-02-03, 01:19 PM
Thankeys. I normally wouldn't care, but after what happened to the last one, you know...

I'll say this much: Magic Items definitely make non-caster much more powerful, because there are a lot of fundamental things they simply couldn't do without them. That much being said, they're still not as good as the things casters can do every day, for free. The fact that these people then get just twice as much magical stuff (which they would probably use to cover their weaknesses, not just do more of what they already can) means that they're on top just as solidly as ever.

Also, Giacomo, could we actually see a Gonk build? So far, it seems to have mastered the arts of UMD, Diplomacy, and Grappling, but the arguments would probably go better if our target was quite so amorphous.

Since we're dragging arguments anyways, I'll also point out that the Astral Projection trick I mentioned isn't really that bad in terms of gameplay. I mean, it's pretty terribly broken, yes, but the whole party benefits from it equally. Despite being grotesquely overpowered, the Wizard doesn't steal the show from anybody. My question still stands, of course, as to what happens if you decide to sell all your Astral Loot instead (doesn't even have to be on the Material Plane). Even if it only worked once, you could still just about double your WBL on the spot. Obviously, I would never attempt to do that nor allow it from one of my players, but it's worth a thought.

...and I'm really not going to take the time to defend the cross-post. I linked it as a momentary amusement with no desire to start a multi-page debate over it, and there's no need to do so anyhow because that has already happened on the original thread.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 01:19 PM
Wait, are you sure you can cast a Prismatic Wall while inside an AMF?

Emperor Demonking
2008-02-03, 01:22 PM
Wait, are you sure you can cast a Prismatic Wall while inside an AMF?

Yeah, sounds like the force cage rumour to me.

Solo
2008-02-03, 01:25 PM
Yes.

Those three spells are specifically listed as being exceptions in the AMF spell description.

And according to the Sage, Skip Williams, only the co-designer of DnD 3rd edition, spells cast in an AMF are suppressed, not dispelled.

So yeah, Prismatic Wall, Sphere, and Wall of Force all work in it.

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:31 PM
From the prismatic wall spell description:

A rod of cancellation or a mage’s disjunction spell destroys a prismatic wall, but an antimagic field fails to penetrate it.

From the prismatic sphere spell description:

This spell functions like prismatic wall, except you conjure up an immobile, opaque globe of shimmering, multicolored light that surrounds you and protects you from all forms of attack.

From the wall of force spell description:

The wall cannot move, it is immune to damage of all kinds, and it is unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic.

From the antimagic field spell description:

Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).

From the Rules Compendium:

A wall of force, prismatic wall, or prismatic sphere isn't affected by antimagic.

What rumor?

Emperor Demonking
2008-02-03, 01:33 PM
Do any of those spells actually help in an antimagic field?

You know the rumor.

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:34 PM
Define "help" in this context. I don't follow.

Emperor Demonking
2008-02-03, 01:36 PM
Do any of those spells make anything easier or better for the wizard?

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 01:36 PM
But all that sounds like moving an AMF into the range of a prismatic sphere/wall or wall of force. What if the wizard is already in an AMF? Can he still cast those?

I only ask so persistently because I know that my DM would say I couldn't, and would make these same arguments.

Solo
2008-02-03, 01:37 PM
Well, my Sorcerer in the Monk Balance Test... for you, Giacamo used it to separate the party from two Clay golems in order to establish a safe zone from which they could go forth and attack the golems.

I could have also sniped at the golems from behind the Wall of Forge (there were gaps between the wall of the room and the sides of the Wall of Force ) until they went berserk and killed each other, or lured them to me and cast Prismatic Sphere as they ran up to attack me, which is a rather unpleasant experience to experience.


Edit:

Rules of the Game - Skip Williams (ie, the co-creator of DnD 3rd edition) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a)

When a spellcaster is inside an antimagic area, any spells she casts are suppressed. Such spells don't actually fail unless their durations are instantaneous.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.
[...]
Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).

QED

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-03, 01:39 PM
But all that sounds like moving an AMF into the range of a prismatic sphere/wall or wall of force. What if the wizard is already in an AMF? Can he still cast those?

I only ask so persistently because I know that my DM would say I couldn't, and would make these same arguments.Short answer? No idea. I would say you can't, because of how the spells seem to work, but the RAW is fuzzy on the subject and people debate it for pages in some other threads here and never come to an agreement. Ask the DM, but don't hold out hope.

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:40 PM
Can't it keep him safe, especially in AMFs, where he otherwise wouldn't be?

Can't it also split up enemy groups and slow their assault, or do anything else a regular wall could do?

I'm stunned by the obviousness of the question and I'm unsure if that's what you're really asking.



But all that sounds like moving an AMF into the range of a prismatic sphere/wall or wall of force. What if the wizard is already in an AMF? Can he still cast those?

I only ask so persistently because I know that my DM would say I couldn't, and would make these same arguments.

Yeah, it's not an easy thing to argue for. But it looks like, technically, there is nothing preventing people from casting within the AMF. It only suppresses the effects of that casting. And in most cases that's enough to stop, or delay, the spell's effects.

But those 3 spells don't get suspended...so it's hard to figure out how they could fail.

Still, that would make a worthwhile houserule...except that it would prevent casters from using defensive buffs while inside and just exiting the field to make them active...which may or may not actually be the intention of the AMF.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 01:40 PM
Edit:

Rules of the Game - Skip Williams (ie, the co-creator of DnD 3rd edition) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a)


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm


QED

Cool, thanks. That answers it then.

Though I still bet the DM in question would throw it out.

Solo
2008-02-03, 01:41 PM
Short answer? No idea. I would say you can't, because of how the spells seem to work, but the RAW is fuzzy on the subject and people debate it for pages in some other threads here and never come to an agreement. Ask the DM, but don't hold out hope.


If the co-creator of 3rd edition says that spells are suppressed by AMF, and the spell description says that a certain spell is not affected by AMF, what is the logical conclusion?

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:42 PM
Edit:

Rules of the Game - Skip Williams (ie, the co-creator of DnD 3rd edition) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050503a)


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm


QED


Yep, but Skip HAS made mistakes before. And his rulings aren't enough for everybody.

Still, he usually knows what he's talking about and I normally follow his suggestions with regards to rule interpretation.

Solo
2008-02-03, 01:43 PM
Agreed.

Skip is probably a better source of advice than a guy you met on an Internet forum.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 01:44 PM
Yeah, but he could still overrule it.

Theli
2008-02-03, 01:49 PM
*shrugs* Then you have a new houserule in your campaign. It's not the end of the world.


A new DM of mine is houseruling that defenders always win ties on any roll... Which is weird and kinda awkward for me...especially when I know exactly when it isn't supposed to be the case...but he says that's the way he has always done it and isn't willing to change. So I deal and I'm not about to quit the campaign over it...

sonofzeal
2008-02-03, 01:57 PM
Back on target...

I agree that Non-Casters gain far more than Casters do for the same gold value. However, Casters have full access to wands and scrolls (which are far far cheaper than the alternatives), and can often craft what they need for half price (or rather, 70% price if they don't want to lose xp). Unless the Non-Casters have a dedicated Crafter working for them, and a high UMD skill, the Caster comes out way too far ahead.

Assuming dedicated Crafters exist for everyone, I'd say...


Non-Casters < UMD-ers = Casters.

I think UMD-ers catch up to Casters here, because they're generally much stronger classes before spellcasting is applied, and can hence get better results out of the limited casting that UMD can give them. Easy example - compare a Rogue under Nightstalker's (or Tensor's) Transformation, compared to a Wizard under the same. Yes it balances out for many of the Wizard's weaknesses, but the Rogue is still solidly ahead. This is not to say that the Rogue is overall better than the Wizard, just that the limited casting that UMD provides can level the playing field if used intelligently.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 01:57 PM
Yeah, not really. Anyhow, that's a bit off topic by now.

I think that the wizard gets as much benefit from magic items. As was said, he won't have to use spell slots on effects, and also doesn't have to put ranks in UMD for a lot of wands and scrolls.

Jack_Simth
2008-02-03, 02:05 PM
(Also, I'd like to know which item gave you the ability to cast Wall of Force.)

There's a couple of different ways to get it, Core - hire an NPC to cast it into a Ring of Spell Storing, UMD off a scroll, or use a Cube of Force (well, okay - technically it gives you forcecage ... but Disintegrate doesn't stop it, just drains it).

Kurald Galain
2008-02-03, 03:16 PM
Does a wizard gain as much bonus from defensive magic items?
Does a wizard gain as much bonus from magic items that cast spells (Helm of teleportation and the like)?

Well, yes. A cloak of protection grants +4 to saving throws doesn't say that it only grants +3 to wizards.

Obviously you're not going to equip wizards with magical swords and such, but there are a bunch of very useful items made especially for casters. Rods of metamagic and pearls of power come to mind.

If X > Y, it follows that X + M > Y + M.

Theli
2008-02-03, 03:23 PM
But x y and m are sets, with unique interactions, rather than discrete values. There is no way that you can mathematically prove that assertion. :D

Your grade school algebra fails you!

Sir Giacomo
2008-02-03, 04:18 PM
If the co-creator of 3rd edition says that spells are suppressed by AMF, and the spell description says that a certain spell is not affected by AMF, what is the logical conclusion?

The problem is that the connection between the suppressing part and the exception is not quite so straightforward. The exception APPEARS to be an exception to the rule that all spells IN EXISTENCE get suppressed, and only an EXISTING wall of force, prismatic sphere and wall get suppressed.

Now, Lord Silvanos has PMed to me some good insights that according to the new Rules Compendium (which I have not bought/read), the impression is strongly conveyed that AMF no longer blocks line of effect, which would mean that
- you can cast WoF, prismatic sphere in- and outside of the AMF and
- you can cast all other spells freely in an AMF, as long as it does not affect the area of the AMF.

Rules Compendium is not the core rules, but can be interpreted as rules update, or RAW.

Essence: it's up to your DM to decide. In any case, the rules compendium interpretation would make casters stronger since one of their banes (AMF) has been severely nerfed. The only intuition why designers would do that would be that they felt that casters were too much endangered by AMF before.

- Giacomo

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-03, 04:57 PM
The only intuition why designers would do that would be that they felt that casters were too much endangered by AMF before.

- Giacomo

No, it's not.
For one thing, they could have realized an Absolute Field of Spellcasters Can't Do Anything is bad for the game just as any X Can't Do Anything effect (i.e. the same reason Penetrating Strike appeared as an alternate class feature for rogues, allowing them to get half sneak attack on constructs/undead).

For another, the Rules Compendium severely nerfs spellcasters' abuses of AMFs. For example, consider a Fighter 1/Wizard/Eldritch Knight/Archmage, a basic core "gish". He can use Mastery of Shaping to put a hole in the Antimagic Field around himself. That means all of his items and buffs still work. But any enemy he's within a square or two of? They're in the AMF. That means their items, buffs, and supernatural abilities DON'T work. The gish has an ENORMOUS advantage, because he retains all of his items and buffs. He's also safe from enemy spells (which can't target him, because the AMF blocks their line of effect, even though his square isn't affected by it).
Shaping the AMF can be done outside of core, too, via a number of methods, such as the Extraordinary Spell Aim feat.

With the Rules Compendium text, being in a shaped AMF is no longer a nigh-complete defense against spells that still lets you keep all of your spells and items.


Edit: also, the wizard benefits from items just as much as the noncaster. What the non-caster spends on basic necessities (like flight), the wizard can spend on enhancements to his abilities (like metamagic rods), consumables, and so on.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-02-03, 04:58 PM
... the impression is strongly conveyed that AMF no longer blocks line of effect

"Strongly conveyed" is an understatement. :smallwink:


... an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect.


Rules Compendium is not the core rules, but can be interpreted as rules update, or RAW.


It is RAW by definition; Rules that were written.
The RC states that it overrides all previous rules so it is errata/rules update/clarification.


Essence: it's up to your DM to decide.

To house rule or not to house rule, that is always the question.


The only intuition why designers would do that would be that they felt that casters were too much endangered by AMF before.


That is not the only possible reason they could have. It could also be that they wanted the rules to be more clear or that this was also RAI. Who knows?


On topic, it is quite obvious that the marginal benefit of gaining access to magical items is higher for non-casters than it is for casters. (A hungry man will enjoy a piece of bread much more than you will after you have just eaten a 7 course meal.)

However, this observation does not change the (im)balance of the classes.

Voyager_I
2008-02-03, 06:50 PM
Non-Casters < UMD-ers = Casters.

I think UMD-ers catch up to Casters here, because they're generally much stronger classes before spellcasting is applied, and can hence get better results out of the limited casting that UMD can give them. Easy example - compare a Rogue under Nightstalker's (or Tensor's) Transformation, compared to a Wizard under the same. Yes it balances out for many of the Wizard's weaknesses, but the Rogue is still solidly ahead. This is not to say that the Rogue is overall better than the Wizard, just that the limited casting that UMD provides can level the playing field if used intelligently.

Do Wizards ever actually cast Tenser's Transformation? Assuming one party is being played somewhat intelligently and the other is catering to its greatest weaknesses doesn't make a very fair comparison.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-03, 07:03 PM
Also, Giacomo, could we actually see a Gonk build? So far, it seems to have mastered the arts of UMD, Diplomacy, and Grappling, but the arguments would probably go better if our target was quite so amorphous.

I reiterate this claim - people have written definitive batman wizards, so it's only fair that the smooth talking, magical device deceiving brawler who is also enlightened should have his time in the spotlight. Although, I prefer the term 'giacomonk' - I don't know why, but I keep misreading 'gonk' as something rather offensive.


Do Wizards ever actually cast Tenser's Transformation? Assuming one party is being played somewhat intelligently and the other is catering to its greatest weaknesses doesn't make a very fair comparison.

As far as I've seen, I've never actually encountered Tenser's transformation, and only seen Nightstalker's, what, twice? It's the loss of spells that kills it for me, combined with the high spell level, expensive material component ... aah, who am I fooling, it's a poor spell. Look at all the other stuff you could be doing at that level.

Also, you couldALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

Solo
2008-02-03, 07:12 PM
So, SG, would you care to present to us a core monk guide, 32 point buy, and tell us how to work it?

(Note: Make it like TLN's Guide, and post it in its' own thread.)

dawiz007
2008-02-03, 07:16 PM
IMHO wizards useing UMD gives them more options...for example (figurativ speach ofcourse) i wouldnt like to take evocation spells in my slots if i play an ilusionist ... but i do need a Fireball in some situations ....
useing wands and scepters as extra ways to get around is always usefull :smallbiggrin:

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-03, 07:35 PM
So, SG, would you care to present to us a core monk guide, 32 point buy, and tell us how to work it?

(Note: Make it like TLN's Guide, and post it in its' own thread.)

Given the unworkability of purchasing large amounts of wands at various levels, I'd be interested to see how he spends his WBL at various levels. Or how he grapples, given that Giacomo has said he favores DEX/WIS monks over STR monks (which have their own drawbacks).

Voyager_I
2008-02-03, 07:55 PM
As far as I've seen, I've never actually encountered Tenser's transformation, and only seen Nightstalker's, what, twice? It's the loss of spells that kills it for me, combined with the high spell level, expensive material component ... aah, who am I fooling, it's a poor spell. Look at all the other stuff you could be doing at that level.

Also, you couldALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

Reading Tenser's Transformation is an exercise in disappointment...

...Wowza!!! With a single spell, my pansy finger-wiggler can fight just like the meatcake!!!

...except with a d4 hit die, no combat feats, no relevant equipment, and a few bonuses that don't nearly begin to compensate by the level you're getting the spell...and you lose all your spell casting. Oops. Maybe I'll stick to Summon Monster.

To be fair, I don't really think spells like Tenser's Transformation and Divine Power should exist to begin with, at least not as personal buffs. The casters are already better than the Fighter at almost everything, the last thing they need are spells that make him completely obsolete. At least Wizards was kind enough to make TT useless.


Hypnotoad doesn't use Tenser's Transformation, and neither should you (because he commands it).

Starbuck_II
2008-02-03, 08:11 PM
Hypnotoad doesn't use Tenser's Transformation, and neither should you (because he commands it).

It is a good buff for a scroll for non-wizards:
Like a Warlock, he doesn't have spellcasting. So he gains double his hps, more bab, etc.

BTW: I've never noticed looking at Warlock but he can summon swarm as a standard action, but limited to concentration duration. (that is aside) Anyhoo, Hypnotoad for president!

sonofzeal
2008-02-03, 08:59 PM
Do Wizards ever actually cast Tenser's Transformation? Assuming one party is being played somewhat intelligently and the other is catering to its greatest weaknesses doesn't make a very fair comparison.
I used that because it was the easiest and most obvious example, not because I think TT/NT are awesome spells. That they suck for a Wizard is obvious, but when UMD'd by a Rogue, they can be brutal.

Or, take Ray spells - they're blasting, but popular (especially Disintegrate), and casters routinely use them in session. However, a Rogue is far more accurate with it, and if he's at all clever he's also getting all his Sneak Attack on that, whether or not they fail their save.

Or, take the lowly Disguise Self - few casters ever have the Bluff scores to really put this to good use, but a decent Rogue with a scroll can pass themself off as almost anyone.

Or, take all the other non Sorc/Wiz spells that rock hardcore - few Casters ever invest in UMD (not a class skill, too few skillpoints), and I've yet to see a Wizard with a wand of CLW, or a social-Sorc with a scroll of Glibness.





My point is that Wizards and Sorcs, by focusing on magic, are necessarily less able to use it in a fully synergistic way than a non-magic character with UMD, who has a bucketload of non-magical class abilities that they can use in conjunction with their skills to get better benefit than a straight Wiz could. Yes, yes, Batman wins with time to prepare, but an intelligent UMD Rogue is, imo, just as dangerous.

Now, a UMD Rogue is not the same as a Wizard. He's simultaneously weaker in the low access to the best spells and the poor DCs available to him, and better in his access to EVERY spell list, better hp, better bab, better skillpoints, and FAR better actual class abilities (I've yet to be convinced that familiars are as gamebreaking as some claim without massive cheese). A UMD-Rogue is not Batman, and should not attempt to play as Batman. However, when played correctly, he is a Rogue's Rogue, capable of approaching the platonic ideal of Rogueitude. Played wisely, a UMD-Rogue should be able to shake hands as an equal with any Batman.

Solo
2008-02-03, 09:12 PM
Or, take the lowly Disguise Self - few casters ever have the Bluff scores to really put this to good use, but a decent Rogue with a scroll can pass themself off as almost anyone.


Wizards bluff people by casting Dominate Person.

sonofzeal
2008-02-03, 09:42 PM
Wizards bluff people by casting Dominate Person.
Which requires waving your hands and "speaking loudly", so unless you've got a Stilled, Silent Dominate Person prepared (a 7th lvl spell, so only available at high level and a large expenditure of resources either way), you've just alerted every single person in the room that you're trying to magically compel someone. Either way, you then have to pray that {a} there's no anti-compulsion effects in play, {b} they fail their save (and anyone worth Dominating is going to have at least something for their Will save), and {c} you can take on everyone else in the room who may not appreciate your rampant violation of their coworker/aquantance/boss/king's free will.

Compare that to Bluff, which can be cheaply boosted with a Tattoo or powerstone of Conceal Thoughts or scroll of Glibness, costs no resources to use (except the aforementioned buffs, which all have excellent durations), gives no outward sign of its use, functions just fine within Magic Circles and AMFs, and doesn't show up like a Christmas tree on fire to anyone with Detect Magic up.

Golly, I wonder which one I'd prefer to use? =O

Solo
2008-02-03, 10:32 PM
You can't cast while invisible?


And obviously, if he were in a room of people, he wouldn't use a spell that targeted a single person.

He'd use something like Mass Charm Person:smalltongue:

Indon
2008-02-03, 10:51 PM
I'd like to bring a different perspective to this discussion, by asserting that any reasonably optimized wizard gains significant benefit from almost no magical items.

Obviously, the Wizard gains next to nothing from magical weapons and armor - the only things that can offer the reasonably optimized Wizard anything are items such as Luck blades.

From there, there are mobility-enhancing items. However, since the Wizard has extended any mobility-enhancers he wishes on himself at the start of the day, he gains almost nothing from such items - anything that can dispel his persistent buffs, after all, will also supress or destroy his magical items.

The reasonably optimized Wizard will never be the target of an attack or spell effect (and certainly won't be surprised), and as such, he gains nothing from defensive capability increasers such as cloaks of resistance.

As for stat enhancers, the Wizard has no need for any stat except Intelligence (Programmed Amnesia and/or Dominate Monster substitute for any application of Charisma, if you're wondering), and provided only that the Wizard has enough slots to cast all the spells he needs in between conjuring his Mansions, he gets no significant benefit from Intelligence either, as he can win almost any encounter with no-save spells and can overcome almost any SR.

Wands and non-artifact Staves save the Wizard time but otherwise give him nothing he can not already do - in fact, for most spells it would be less expensive for the Wizard to simply learn the spell in question than to buy it on an item.

I would thus conclude that the sole magic item the reasonably optimized Wizard gets any appreciable benefit from is the Metamagic Rod. Primarily, the Metamagic Rod of Quicken Spell, as the Wizard has taken as feats any other metamagic which he will use, and uses the rod specifically for spells of a level too high for him to Quicken naturally. Metamagic Rods of Maximize Spell are also valuable, as they can be used with Time Stop.

Edit: I'm speaking non-core, of course, as Assay Spell Resistance is not a core spell which would make Intelligence for save-no-SR spells more important.

sonofzeal
2008-02-03, 10:52 PM
You can't cast while invisible?


And obviously, if he were in a room of people, he wouldn't use a spell that targeted a single person.

He'd use something like Mass Charm Person:smalltongue:
You're still talking about a method that is FAR more resource intensive, and significantly less reliable in virtually every way, than a decently optimized Bluff check. Yes, yes, a sufficiently high level Wizard has options. We KNOW that. But by any possible measure I can think of, Bluff is the superior option. A Wizard trying to play party face is even worse than a Wizard trying to play Direct Damage Dealer via Evocation Specialty. It works, more or less, but it's hardly a good use of anybody's time or effort.

Solo
2008-02-03, 11:12 PM
Fun though.



*Jedi Mind Trick*

Chronos
2008-02-03, 11:40 PM
Played wisely, a UMD-Rogue should be able to shake hands as an equal with any Batman.If by "shake hands", you mean "reach into the wizard's pocket to help himself to a bunch of spell-component gems while he's busy studying his spellbook", then yes. I hope you didn't mean that the rogue is letting the wizard know of his existence.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-04, 01:48 AM
Using "Suggested Wealth by Level Guidelines" with a feat like Craft Wondrous Item and Scribe Scroll the wizard PC should actually gain more benefit in a leveling up non build game since PCs generally level imperfectly in game and the wizard can optimize and tailor his magic more effectively than most other PCs without crafting feats or spellcasting along with getting more magic and more powerful magic. Magic items allow a wizard more options tailoring their spell lists actually allowing them to deal with more encounters.

Really clear at low levels where most PCs need to buy a potion for a arcane spell effect in game that is usually double the cost of a scroll's market price which the wizard can make for half market price and a little experience. The wizard basically gets the same spell effect at a quarter the cost (more savings if he uses custom magic crafting rules for the 10% and 30% discounts) plus the other PC gets a one shot arcane spell effect while the wizard may have memorized the spell so he doesn't even need to use his scroll.

The Headbands of Intellect Cl8, +2, +4, +6 are 4,000 gp, 16,000 gp, and 36,000 gp market price.

If the PCs don't find a +2 headband adventuring the wizard can make a +2 Headband of Intellect for 2,000 gp at level 8 (Earlier like level 5 or so if he hires a Level 8 spellcaster to assist him).

The wizard can upgrade it to +4 for another 6,000 gp if he has the funds since the PC is crafting it himself at level 8 or 9.

The wizard can upgrade it again to +6 for 10,000 gp around level 11 when SWbL is 66,000 gp and possibly earlier.

Normally priced at 36,000 gp it would be level 14 before it would be acquired with SWbL of 150,000gp. When a normal PC could have 1 major stat buffing item the wizard can have 2 (+6 to con) or a few lesser stat buffing itmes for the rare occassion he takes a hit in game it shouldn't drop him.

sonofzeal
2008-02-04, 10:16 AM
Fun though.



*Jedi Mind Trick*
Personal preference. I prefer playing character that aren't just "well I'm a wizard so I win", but I can see how the Jedi Mind Trick is attractive too.


If by "shake hands", you mean "reach into the wizard's pocket to help himself to a bunch of spell-component gems while he's busy studying his spellbook", then yes. I hope you didn't mean that the rogue is letting the wizard know of his existence.
Well yes, obviously the handshake was more metaphorical. Better yet - Wizards are sound sleepers, so just pilfer his spellbook while he's asleep. Shouldn't be too hard to beat the search/disable DC of whatever warding he uses, since they're based purely on spell level without reference to other DC-raising things.


Normally priced at 36,000 gp it would be level 14 before it would be acquired with SWbL of 150,000gp. When a normal PC could have 1 major stat buffing item the wizard can have 2 (+6 to con) or a few lesser stat buffing itmes for the rare occassion he takes a hit in game it shouldn't drop him.
This only applies if the Wizard is a jackass and doesn't craft for his companions too, in which case he's making enemies of the people who are risking their lives tanking for him and healing him. This is so un-Batman it's not even funny.

Indon
2008-02-04, 11:08 AM
When a normal PC could have 1 major stat buffing item the wizard can have 2 (+6 to con) or a few lesser stat buffing itmes for the rare occassion he takes a hit in game it shouldn't drop him.

Which is all fine and dandy, but since the reasonably optimized Wizard is a full caster, his caster levels (which are obtained via XP) are better than any magic item (actual usefulness of those items for the Wizard aside) - and thus, making almost any magic item in the long run disadvantages the Wizard, even if the item is for his sole use.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-04, 12:11 PM
Which is all fine and dandy, but since the reasonably optimized Wizard is a full caster, his caster levels (which are obtained via XP) are better than any magic item (actual usefulness of those items for the Wizard aside) - and thus, making almost any magic item in the long run disadvantages the Wizard, even if the item is for his sole use.

Wherever did you get that silly idea? There are several highly useful items a wizard can craft (e.g. metamagic rods), not to mention basic stuff like saving throw bonuses which are always useful for everybody. It is simply absurd that "making items disadvantages the wizard", he'll even gain more XP per encounter if he's slightly behind the rest of the group (because he spent XP on crafting).

Miles Invictus
2008-02-04, 01:09 PM
Crafting is a useful ability for wizards; it frees up spell slots, creates effects that cannot be easily replicated in spells, and saves actions.

If you're equipped with a Headband of Intellect and a Cape of the Mountebank, you have saved yourself an action and two spell slots -- you don't need to cast Fox's Cunning, which saves you an action and a second-level spell slot, and you get a free daily use of Dimension Door, which saves you a fourth-level spell slot.

If you scribe a few scrolls or craft a few wands for spells you don't use that much, you don't need to prepare those spells. Equally important, you can cast those spells without counting against your spells per day!

Crafting serves a dual purpose -- it allows the creation of rare items, and it allows items to be procured at a reduced cost. If you're conservative in what you craft, you'll be better off for doing it. For example, a 5th-level wizard with a wand of Fireball is going to make a better blaster than a 6th-level wizard with no wand. A 19th-level wizard who has crafted lots of metamagic rods is going to be better off than a 20th-level wizard who has spent more money on a few rods.

Indon
2008-02-04, 01:22 PM
Wherever did you get that silly idea? There are several highly useful items a wizard can craft (e.g. metamagic rods), not to mention basic stuff like saving throw bonuses which are always useful for everybody.
And the Wizard can buy those. Gold is less valuable to the Wizard than his caster levels are, and thus crafting is irrelevant for him.


It is simply absurd that "making items disadvantages the wizard", he'll even gain more XP per encounter if he's slightly behind the rest of the group (because he spent XP on crafting).

He'll gain more XP per encounter because he is behind, and falling behind is precisely the problem. Given the choice between not being behind and having one or two slightly cheaper magic items, having more caster levels is better every time.

Note that this does not apply as much for Sor/Wiz casters who have class abilities centered around crafting (such as the Artificer).

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-04, 02:38 PM
That 'experience is a river' thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=695040) is relevant to your interests, I believe.

I <3 Artificers.

Chronos
2008-02-04, 04:34 PM
It is simply absurd that "making items disadvantages the wizard", he'll even gain more XP per encounter if he's slightly behind the rest of the group (because he spent XP on crafting).The problem is that XP costs are a mechanic which doesn't actually work out right in practice. The way that the XP award system works, it's almost impossible to get more than one level behind the rest of your party, as long as you're not burning XP on each and every encounter. Long-term investments of XP like Genesis planes and magic items are very quickly paid back, so that the typical pattern is that the wizard levels up a single adventure after everyone else. It can even happen that the wizard ends up with more XP than everyone else, if a large chunk of experience is awarded all at once.

Devils_Advocate
2008-02-04, 05:21 PM
To borrow from Skinnybones: The Most Improved Player award may be highly coveted, to the point that some consider it even more of an honor than the Most Valuable Player award, but after awhile, you start to notice that the kid chosen as MVP almost never also gets the Most Improved Player award. In fact, the Most Improved Player is usually closer to the opposite of most valuable. Probably because it's a lot easier to go from completely smell-o to just really stinky than to go from really good to astoundingly great. The best players don't really have all that much room for improvement.

So not only is it arguable whether non-casters benefit more from magic items than casters, but "Non-casters benefit significantly more from magic items than casters" doesn't really imply "Magic items balance non-casters with casters". The implication works the other way around: If magic items balance non-casters with casters, then non-casters benefit more from magic items.

Anyway, do we all pretty much agree that classes that get don't spellcasting or some equivalent ability and don't have UMD as a class skill are usually underpowered?


Personal preference. I prefer playing character that aren't just "well I'm a wizard so I win", but I can see how the Jedi Mind Trick is attractive too.
Telepaths are sort of the best of both worlds for this, since they get the Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sense Motive skills plus awesome mind control powers. Expending your psionic focus makes it a cinch to suppress a power's display; far more convenient than having to Still and Silence a spell. Though the display likely isn't as obvious and immediately traceable to you as spell components are, anyway. Then there's the flexibility and spontaneity of powers compared to spells...

4E isn't going to change mind control into more of a psion thing than a wizard thing, 'cuz it already is. :smallamused: Though the difference will probably be even bigger; they seem to like the idea of more distinct niches.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-04, 06:54 PM
This only applies if the Wizard is a jackass and doesn't craft for his companions too, in which case he's making enemies of the people who are risking their lives tanking for him and healing him. This is so un-Batman it's not even funny.

I disagree, I believe the wizard should aid the party but should not bear the burden of paying all the experience point costs to maximize the other party members in game to the point it really begins affecting his leveling significantly.

First from many of the builds I see wizards and parties don't focus on crafting in builds because most are set at 190,000 exp and 760,000 gp SWbL.

Second every party having a wizard in the party is not a given as there are plenty of games with people happy to play a Beguiler or Sorcerer or Favored Soul and not worry about all the record keeping particularly with a DM who closely monitors the PCs in and out of game.

Third it is not a given that all PC casters take another crafting feat besides Scribe Scroll (Some PCs even trade it out in a variant) because plenty of DMS enforce and closely monitor the experience point penalty for crafting in game.

Fourth in a 4 man level 20 party each PC is supposed to have 760,000 gp of suggested wealth by level without spending any feats on crafting feats which is over 3,000,000 gp of mostly magical gear.

IMO Craft Wondrous Item is the best single crafting feat to take but that is just my opinion.

Fifth it costs a PC crafter time 1 day per 1,000 gp or less per magical item unless another feat is modifying that normally with a personal 5% experience point of the total gp price in crafting. IMO the beneficiary of the magic item being crafted should be paying that experience point cost but that is not a given in all games. Time that could be spent researching new spells or in other pursuits during down time instead of extra book keeping.

Sixth Consider that 3 million suggested wealth by level in a 4 man party and how wealth is accrued in game.

If the PCs can't use it they sell it for 50% market usually having to buy something they want at full market price.

Seventh take a premise that all the wealth acquired and used to advance to L20 in game. Lets use 6 million gp in wealth as a number that is acquired in game and at some point 1 million gp is normally retained, 4 million is usually sold at half price for 2 million gp to buy more magic items for the PCs and 1 million in "temporary" and one shot magic items is used advancing (Things like +5 Tomes of Clear Thought at 175,000 gp) that is partially replenished in game.

Now the party has 2,000,000 gp lets say half 1,000,000 gp since it could easily be more is spent crafting or enhancing party Wondrous magic items which translates to 2,000,000 gp market and 100,000 experience points. L20 is 190,000 experience points.

Lastly if your party has a crafter doing that much crafting under the existing crafting rules he should be lagging the party by several levels figure L17 or 18 as most DMs tend to cut them some slack when everyone else is L20. Even with more experience gained for being lower level and lagging the party, parties don't normally level up perfectly in game in my experience. There are plenty of adventures and games where the other party members level besides the crafter (Unless he is an ECS Artificer) due to using the crafting experience rules.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-02-04, 07:26 PM
Which is all fine and dandy, but since the reasonably optimized Wizard is a full caster, his caster levels (which are obtained via XP) are better than any magic item (actual usefulness of those items for the Wizard aside) - and thus, making almost any magic item in the long run disadvantages the Wizard, even if the item is for his sole use.

I almost completely disagree.

Is it better to enhance the wizard's intelligence with Foxes Cunning or a Headband of Intellect in game?

It depends on the DM and the individual game if it is better for the wizard PC to cast 5 personal Wishes (-25,000 exp), acquire a Tome of Clear Thought or get them from an outsider (DM) in game to buff intelligence.

Does your wizard PC enhance his other attributes? The typical wizard has 1D4 HD so say 52 base hit points at L20 before any constitution modifiers. Not very many if the wizard makes a single mistake in the middle of a combat.

Using the the default array for a standard lets cap constitution at 14 for any standard core race except a Dwarf who gets a 16 and a Elf who gets 12. I acknowledge that occassionally a player can roll better than the default array or 25 to 32 point buy (sometimes not counting the practice rolls warming up the dice) it can not be done consistently with good dice IMO.

If there is no danger of a PC wizard taking damage in game it is an unusal game since the DM isn't really challenging the wizard player PC IMO. Usually as simple as having the NPC wizards use similar tactics, having the BBEG adopt simple basic tactics or slightly changing up the encounters taking "player knowledge" away from the PC.

sonofzeal
2008-02-04, 07:39 PM
I disagree, I believe the wizard should aid the party but should not bear the burden of paying all the experience point costs to maximize the other party members in game to the point it really begins affecting his leveling significantly.
You bring up quite a number of very reasonable points. However, I think you're missing good alternatives.

First, I fully expect players to finance their own gear. In this case, the PC pays the gold and the Wizard does the crafting. This fosters goodwill in the party and makes everyone stronger equally, which in turn benefits the Wizard and is right in the spirit of Batman.

Second, there is an official rule that says you can "pay off" the xp loss with 5 gp for every 1 xp that would normally be required. This means you end up paying 70% instead of 50% of the item cost, but lose no xp. What I often do is have the other PCs pay the wizard 75% of the cost to simplify calculations, with the extra 5% as a tip to compensate him for his time and effort.

Under this setup, everyone wins - the PCs get the same value for their gold that the Wizard can, and the Wizard gets a little extra money and a stronger party with which to play Batman. The only requirement is a DM who provides IC time for crafting, and most DMs I've had are generous if it's philanthropic.

Yahzi
2008-02-04, 08:47 PM
So basically my answer would be: the wizard does not gain as much as a non-caster from items, since most items simulate what he could already do via his spells.
I do believe Sir Giacomo has produced the logically sound answer.

As surprising as that might be... :smallwink:

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

He's right: the mage gets more of what he already has, but the fighter gets stuff he doesn't have.