1. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

EDIT: Wall of fire does not synergize with sculpt spells in the way I though. Pretty much anything I say here is pointless. Just in case anyone is about to read this post.

Originally Posted by Bobthewizard
I just looked up AOE placement on different forums and some people require it to start at a grid line intersection and exclude squares in the corners, which would change my math, but the overall idea is the same.
It wont make much of a difference. Once we settle on a non-concentration knock back effect, I think we would probably make it as big as possible while but while also being able to push enemies outside of it (so that they can still take the damage if they decide to engage us). This way, it will have enough space for any allies that might want to take cover, and well cover as much area as we can. So, once we know what knock back effect we are using, figuring out the dimensions for whatever style of placement will be easy.

For example, if we are using thunderwave (I am searching if there is any better), we could have the ring be as big as 20' in diameter and still throw anything out of it (and it wont matter if we are placing the center on an intersection or in the middle of a square), while also covering as much area as possible.

Originally Posted by Bobthewizard
You could definitely make it bigger and would cover more overall squares if you did. So let's say we use the full 20' diameter. You would exclude 9 squares in the middle and then it would go 3 squares out form there. So it would cover a total of 72 squares, 9x9 for 81 less the 9 excluded.

The small radius just excludes the fewest number of squares in the middle, but especially if it's around you and you're not in melee yet, a larger circle could be useful. Just be careful because that could give the enemy a safe square to stand in and attack you. With only one safe square, you occupy it and anyone trying to attack you has to stand in the wall.
It's risk vs reward. For most enemies, I would be willing to be targeted with some attacks (cause we'll have good AC and shield too; I would have taken resilient con already for a concentration check of either +5 or +6 at character level 8) so that I can use a push back effect and deal to them some good damage. Though as you said, this depends on initiative and surprise (how quickly we can set it up), and later on enemy behavior.

Originally Posted by Bobthewizard
I think the thing to keep in mind for wall of fire is if you make the circle up to a 20' diameter and then point it out, it covers a pretty good area.
And with a knock back effect we could effectively count the inside of the ring as part of the danger area. Which really makes me think how WoF compares to SR, since it's effective AoE wont be that smaller.

When we cast sickening radiance we want to eat our minature, and we have to go into convoluted ways (that after second thought, they might not even work well due o action economy, or in some cases at all) like relying on sth like a dimension door or a rope trick to get our pc somewhere not only safe, but somewhere that does not ruin our strategy (cause being outside of SR and having enemies chase us really kills the point of using SR). But with wall of fire this problem is solved (cause with a knock back effect we are treating the area inside the ring as effectively danger zone for the enemy, assuming the knockback was successful of course). WoF creates that desired spot inside on the inside of the ring.

And that's only the part about how we use these spells if the enemies choose to rush us (or how we use these spells after the enemies rushed us). What are we doing if the enemies decide not to rush us? We can use WoF defensively by gaining concealment from the enemies (which will work better the greater our ranged superiority is compared to the enemy's). Or we could attempt to be aggressive and use it after we or an ally restricts movement somehow. And in this last case, WoF works exactly the same like sickening radiance. Better even, as the restrained enemies will roll the saves with disadvantage against WoF, but normally against SR. Not to mention that shapewise WoF is more versatile.

It's essentially a SR with extra uses (more reliable tactics wise), but with a less reliable damage type. I don't think the duration of SR is something that important (it's a very nice side benefit), and the AoE's are not that different (and while WoF's AoE will be slightly smaller, its shape is more versatile so that kind of makes up for it). I am wondering if we should keep sickening radiance, mainly for the less resisted damage type.

2. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

Thank you again, LudicSavant, you math skills are VERY useful and so are your graphs and explanations. And thank you, Corran and Bobthewizard for your help with spell selection.

Originally Posted by Corsair14
As a DM I would hate you in game and would have to start using tactics that would endanger less uber optimized characters, plus higher MR monsters. Now granted, the vast majority of campaigns wouldn't last long enough for you to hit those higher levels and the lower level stuff would not be OP either. Just something to think about and to ask your DM and group if that's the direction they want to go in.
Personally, I enjoy combat more than roleplay but I would never disrupt anyone else's enjoyment--it's a team game and it's supposed to be fun. I engage in rp and build a good backstory for my characters, but I let others stay in the spotlight during exploration and rp--combat is where I like to shine. It just so happens that my DM's try to kill me so I benefit from optimizing. While I can appreciate characters with flaws that provide good rp quirks and focusing on rp instead of combat, I personally enjoy overcoming obstacles meant to kill us.

I don't know if you've played it or even know what game I'm referring to (*cough* you drink from a chalice of blood that can kill you *cough*), but there is a fight in there that you are meant to lose or give up on. It's when you are infiltrating a rich lord's estate to rescue someone. I found great satisfaction in defying the odds and killing everyone, and looting their bodies afterwards LOL.

3. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

1 level of death cleric is a nice addition to the evokers as well. In addition to normal level 1 cleric stuff the double target within 5 feet on toll the dead is a huge DPS boost, esp with the potent cantrip

4. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

I do have a question about ASI/Feat progression. The Nuclear Wizard gets 4 ASI/Feats. I've chosen to play a Half-Elf with 8 14 13 16 12 14. I know for a fact that I want 2 Int ASI's, Resilient: Con, and War Caster. Which order should I take them in?

At level 4 Wizard, I was thinking either Resilient: Con or War Caster since I won't get Empowered Evocations until later anyway and then take the ASI at level 8 Wizard, followed by either the ASI or Resilient: Con and then whatever I haven't taken after that. I've read that War Caster (advantage on Con saves) obviously scales better with higher starting Con and overshadows Resilient until the proficiency bonus increases. What do you think? What is the most advantageous feat progression for this character?

5. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

Relevant to your current interests: Treantmonk's Elementalist Blaster Build (Part 1)

Enjoy

6. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

Disappointing realization: Wall of fire doesn't work with sculpt spells as I though. It only forces a save on the round you cast it. So allies cannot pass through it or stand close to the harmful side of it without taking damage. Shame...

@Expected: Do you or your DM care so much about casting components rules so that you might need warcaster when you are already holding an arcane focus on one hand? If so, do you think it would be a problem to drop your arcane focus on the ground (as a free action) or to seethe your focus when you'll have to cast a spell with somatic but no material components, with your reaction or action/bonus action respectively? Meaning, what action would it take (and would there be other consequences) to pick your focus from the ground, or if you would be afraid to have your focus stolen or not get its bonus to casting if it's a magic item. If every answer to the above is yes, then you need warcaster. You are probably still going to grab resilient con as your last feat, so you would need to bump your con to at least 14 (or 15, if you hate the idea of having an odd con at a level you may never reach).

If any of the answers to the above is no, then you would only need warcaster if you plan to play your character close to the enemies (personally I wouldn't, even if there is some potential in that; but you may have no choice, you may be part of a small party, or of a party without any other melee characters suited for that). In this last case, I'd say that you need both warcaster and resilient, and that you need them early (much like a typical cleric would). And if you do, then the best way to go about it imo is to pick a variant human, so that you can have both feats by character level 5.

In any case, if you are picking warcaster, it's best to pick it early.

Personally, if I really didn't have to take warcaster as per any of my reasons above, I would avoid it, and I would go with resilient con, then with int bumps, and with lucky as my late pick.

7. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

If I did choose Variant Human, can you give me an example of an ability score array using point-buy? If possible I'd like to maximize the scores (using +1's for 13 and up) and keep either an even score array or 1 odd score with Resilient.

Also, I was planning on donning medium armor and a shield with no weapon and using a component pouch. I would like to get a Wand of the War Mage or Staff of Power later and wield it with the shield (hence the need for War Caster). Is advantage and + proficiency useful for concentration checks for Wizards? I don't plan to be on the frontline, but I will probably be heavily focused on.

If I decide to keep War Caster, I will definitely do so early on.

8. ## Re: A Few Questions About the Evoker Wizard (Nuclear Wizard)

Originally Posted by Expected
Thank you again, LudicSavant, you math skills are VERY useful and so are your graphs and explanations.

Originally Posted by Expected
If I did choose Variant Human, can you give me an example of an ability score array using point-buy?
Probably something like 8/14/13/16/9/14 (with the 13 getting bumped to a 14 by Res:Con).

Originally Posted by Expected
At level 4 Wizard, I was thinking either Resilient: Con or War Caster since I won't get Empowered Evocations until later anyway and then take the ASI at level 8 Wizard, followed by either the ASI or Resilient: Con and then whatever I haven't taken after that. I've read that War Caster (advantage on Con saves) obviously scales better with higher starting Con and overshadows Resilient until the proficiency bonus increases. What do you think? What is the most advantageous feat progression for this character?
Regarding your Half-Elf, War Caster w/13 Con will give you 84% chance to make DC 10 Concentration saves at level 5 with no outside boosts (plus its other bullet points), and Res(Con) w/14 Con will give you 80% chance (plus working on other Constitution saves and boosting your hit points). Unless you have need of War Caster's other bullet points I'd say the odd Constitution score gives Res(Con) an edge.

Historically my NWs have boosted Int first, but I'd say that's up to preference and playstyle. I have no strong feelings about whether you take Int or a concentration-booster feat first.

Originally Posted by Expected
Also, I was planning on donning medium armor and a shield with no weapon and using a component pouch. I would like to get a Wand of the War Mage or Staff of Power later and wield it with the shield (hence the need for War Caster).
Wand of the War Mage is kind of meh for its rarity/attunement slot, because your important spells generally don't use attack rolls anyways. Staff of Power on the other hand is extremely strong.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•