Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:05 AM	Arcane Thesis Compendium This is my first time even trying to create a compendium of any sort, but I'm extremely intrigued by the Arcane Thesis feat. Thus, I'd like for this thread to be a compilation of feats, spells and combinations especially suited for use in conjunction with the Arcane Thesis feat. Briefly, the Arcane Thesis feat can be found in PHB2 and grants a caster a +2 CL on a single spell, as well as reduces all metamagic used with that spell by a single level. What I'd like to do is create a list of feats, spells & builds that can greatly benefit from the use of the Arcane Thesis feat, in some capacity or other. All contributions are appreciated. Table of Contents Post 1. Abstract, Table of Contents and Links Library Post 2. Metamagic Feats Post 3. Spells Post 4. Builds Post 5. Arcane Thesis Combos Links Library I Love Arcane Thesis! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=638724) by Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:05 AM	Metamagic Feats Decreases Enhanced Spell by 1 level* Black Lore of Moil (CArc) Born of the Three Thunders (CArc) Cooperative Spell (CArc) Energy Substitution (CArc) Lord of the Uttercold (CArc) Sanctum Spell (CArc) 100% Discount (1-level increase, negated by Arcane Thesis) Blistering Spell (PHB2) Consecrate Spell (CDiv) Corrupt Spell (CDiv) Energize Spell (Libris Mortis) Enlarge Spell Extend Spell Fell Weaken (Libris Mortis) Fiery Spell (Sandstorm) Fortify Spell (+2) (CArc) Flash Frost Spell (PHB2) Nonlethal Substitution (CArc) Rapid Spell (CDiv) Retributive Spell (CMag) Sculpt Spell (CArc) Searing Spell (Sandstorm) Silent Spell Smiting Spell (PHB2) Still Spell Transdimensional Spell (CArc, CDiv) 50% Discount (2-level increase, reduced to 1-level increase by Arcane Thesis) Earthbound Spell (PHB2) Empower Spell Enervate Spell (Libris Mortis) Explosive Spell (CArc) Fell Drain (Libris Mortis) Fell Frighten (Libris Mortis) Fortify Spell (+4) (CArc) Ocular Spell (Lords of Madness) Reach Spell (CDiv) Split Ray (CArc) 33% Discount (3-level increase, reduced to 2-level increase by Arcane Thesis) Chain Spell (CArc) Delay Spell (CArc) Fell Animate (Libris Mortis) Maximize Spell Repeat Spell (CArc) Widen Spell 25% Discount (4-level increase, reduced to 3-level increase by Arcane Thesis) Energy Admixture (CArc) Quicken Spell Twin Spell (CArc) 17% Discount (6-level increase, reduced to 5-level increase by Arcane Thesis) Persistent Spell (CArc) *Due to the wording of Arcane Thesis, any spell enhanced by metamagic uses up a slot 1 less than normal, so metamagic feats use an equivalent slot actually drop the spell by 1 slot.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:06 AM	Spells Telekinesis: "The Jean Grey build (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=409126) just showcases how powerful Telekinesis can be with some free metamagics attached. Specifically, casting an Enlarged, Extended, Silent, Still Telekinesis as a 5th level spell is rather good. Add in Chain to get it to a 7th level spell, and that becomes really sick. The point is that an arcane spellcaster with Arcane Thesis: Telekinesis and enough low-cost metamagic feats really doesn't need another offensive option (except possibly Arcane Strike)." ---Originally suggested by GDarius
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:06 AM	Builds (Sorted by Alphabetical Order) If you would like a build you posted to be removed, please PM me, and I will do so. The Chameleatrix (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10331159&postcount=211) by Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer. Extended Range Telegrappler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10169776&postcount=71) by GDarius. Fire/Ray Guy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10157266&postcount=19) by dog45. Requires Dragon Magazine. Great Balls of MetaFire (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10157961&postcount=23) by Tath. Requires Dragon Magazine. Holy Super Healing! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10173837&postcount=77) by Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer. Dragon magazine optional. Hot Blooded (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10233164&postcount=151) by MegaPlex. King of Combustion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10245924&postcount=169) by chifari. Lasers of Dooooom (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10160788&postcount=33) by SavageTard. Orb of Fire Masters (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10158672&postcount=28) by Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer. Requires Dragon magazine. Shadow Illusionist = Killer Gnome (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4164591&postcount=1) by Snow Savant. Specialist Gunner (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10157104&postcount=17) by HaikenEdge. Requires Dragon magazine. SPIDOR: The Multiple-Demon-Spider-Getter (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10208459&postcount=116) by jstorrie. Sublime MetaHealer/Healy MetaBard (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10164254&postcount=52) by Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer. Requires Dragon magazine. The Walking Nuke (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10234774&postcount=158) by FromTheShadows. ANNOUNCEMENT: Unnamed build will not be added to the builds section.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:08 AM	Arcane Thesis Combos Energy Substitution (Cold) + Lord of the Uttercold: When applied to an energy spell with which you have Arcane Thesis, a spell using this combination of spells is cast with a slot two slots lower than normal. Combined with Fell Animate, this combination is ideal for necromancer builds. Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic + Arcane Thesis (Avasculate) + Easy Metamagic Twin + Easy Metamagic Quicken + Split Ray: "Split ray gives you two avasculate rays, then you double that with Twin giving you four rays. You make a touch attack with each ray, which successively reduces the target's hp's by 1/2 each time. This leads to the opponent having 1/16th of their hp with no save. Each ray also has a fort save or the target is stunned for 1 round." ---Originally posted by Tath
Zemyla 09-22-06, 11:50 AM	Black Lore of Moil and Born of the Three Thunders are both normally +0 metamagic feats.
Fingers Boggis 09-22-06, 11:55 AM	Killer Gnome type builds can make excellent use of the feat, afterall they only use one spell :) Fingers
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 12:03 PM	Black Lore of Moil and Born of the Three Thunders are both normally +0 metamagic feats. Whoops. My bad... Fixed. Killer Gnome type builds can make excellent use of the feat, afterall they only use one spell :) Can you post a build?
dog45 09-22-06, 12:27 PM	Searing Spell from Sandstorm is a +1 adjustment. I'm about to play a wizard using Arcane Thesis w/ Scorching Ray in a game. I'll post my build and other tips later.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-22-06, 12:38 PM	I'm glad to see that you have an interest in Arcane Thesis as well. I actually made a thread awhile ago trying to explore the possiblities. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=638724 I would agree with you that by the reading of the feat, 0 level metamagic modifiers would actually reduce the spell slot by 1. However, I was highly chastised by the community for holding this view as well. Similarly, someone asked Custserv about whether or not lowering the actual level of the spell was legal, and they said no. So the real question is whether the player and DM want to ignore Custserv's ruling or not. If you choose to ignore it, some interesting possibilities occur. An Elan Wizard could Arcane Thesis: Any 0 level spell and Scribe Scrolls to Actually make money and XP. Since they're immortal, they could do this forever for infinite xp. Sanctum Spell becomes a must-have feat for most builds since it lowers the slot by one for a cost of a metamagic feat. I updated my Magic Missle Monster in this thread http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10056493&postcount=28 and I'd be happy to repost it here, and also update some of my other potent Arcane Thesis builds. Another important question is whether the DM in question would allow the feat Easy metamagic from Dragon Magazine. It very simply lowers the metamagic slot modifier on one spell. A similar feat called Practical Metamagic from Races of the Dragon, unfortunately only works for Dragonblooded Spontaneous Casters. There are some good things that have come out recently though. Arcane Spellsurge can negate the need for Quicken Spell if you're a Sorceror, and the new race Silverbrow Humans from Dragon Magic lets you get a Bonus Feat and be the Dragonblooded Subtype. I'm glad you made the thread, I'll be sure to contribute. :)
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 12:39 PM	Searing Spell from Sandstorm is a +1 adjustment. I'm about to play a wizard using Arcane Thesis w/ Scorching Ray in a game. I'll post my build and other tips later. Thank you and thank you.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-22-06, 12:50 PM	Oh, and if you're trying to compile a list of Metamagic Feats, Todd in the thread I love Arcane Thesis already made a complete list, I'm sure that he wouldn't mind if you copied it. http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9203288&postcount=65
PhaedrusXY 09-22-06, 12:56 PM	Can you post a build?http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=290914
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 01:10 PM	I'm glad to see that you have an interest in Arcane Thesis as well. I actually made a thread awhile ago trying to explore the possiblities. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=638724 Thank you for posting the link; I didn't take interest in Arcane Thesis until recently, when I decided to build a human machine gun after purchasing the Dragon Compendium. I would agree with you that by the reading of the feat, 0 level metamagic modifiers would actually reduce the spell slot by 1. However, I was highly chastised by the community for holding this view as well. Similarly, someone asked Custserv about whether or not lowering the actual level of the spell was legal, and they said no. I have little regard for CustServ. By RAW, as printed in PHB2, it lowers the any metamagic enhanced spell by one slot per feat. So the real question is whether the player and DM want to ignore Custserv's ruling or not. Rule 0 allows a DM to do whatever s/he wants. If you choose to ignore it, some interesting possibilities occur. An Elan Wizard could Arcane Thesis: Any 0 level spell and Scribe Scrolls to Actually make money and XP. Since they're immortal, they could do this forever for infinite xp. You probably should post an explanation of this. I don't quite get it. Sanctum Spell becomes a must-have feat for most builds since it lowers the slot by one for a cost of a metamagic feat.Could explain this one as well (probably via PM, as to not clutter the thread with slightly off-topic posts). I updated my Magic Missle Monster in this thread http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10056493&postcount=28 and I'd be happy to repost it here, and also update some of my other potent Arcane Thesis builds. I'd be grateful if you posted it here as well. I too will be posting a Magic Missile build, although I call it the Gatler. Another important question is whether the DM in question would allow the feat Easy metamagic from Dragon Magazine. It very simply lowers the metamagic slot modifier on one spell. A similar feat called Practical Metamagic from Races of the Dragon, unfortunately only works for Dragonblooded Spontaneous Casters.You would think the spell would show up in the Dragon Compendium, but it doesn't. Maybe you could PM me the details? There are some good things that have come out recently though. Arcane Spellsurge can negate the need for Quicken Spell if you're a Sorceror, and the new race Silverbrow Humans from Dragon Magic lets you get a Bonus Feat and be the Dragonblooded Subtype. Dragon Magic, huh? Great, even more money down the drain. I'm glad you made the thread, I'll be sure to contribute. :) And I'll be glad to have your contributions. Oh, and if you're trying to compile a list of Metamagic Feats, Todd in the thread I love Arcane Thesis already made a complete list, I'm sure that he wouldn't mind if you copied it. http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9203288&postcount=65 Yeah, I'll probably post it... although I haven't posted feats that use a 4th or higher slot adjustment because I personally don't think a 25% (17% in the case of Persistent Spell) discount is really worth it, especially because, in my experience, spells that use those abuse feats generally also abuse Divine Metamagic.
Ithamar 09-22-06, 01:29 PM	Fiery Spell from Sandstorm also uses up only +1 spell slot, or +0 for Arcane Thesis. A good addition for those scorching ray / orb of fire builds.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 01:47 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=290914 Thank you. Fiery Spell from Sandstorm also uses up only +1 spell slot, or +0 for Arcane Thesis. A good addition for those scorching ray / orb of fire builds. Thank you.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 02:11 PM	Posted By: HaikenEdge Build Name: Specialist Gunner Race: Human Build Stub: UA Spellcaster 6/Force Missile Mage 5/Sacred Exorcist 1/UA Spellcaster +8 Flaws: Noncombatant Feats: 1. Combat Casting, (Enlarge Spell), (Quicken Spell), (Sanctum Spell) 3. Energy Substitution (Electricity) 5. (Born of Three Thunders) 6. Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile) 9. Arcane Mastery 12. Divine Metamagic (Quicken) 15. Arcane Thesis (Delayed Blast Fireball) 16. (Sculpt Spell) 18. Twin Spell Notable Spells Known: Magic Missile, Delayed Blast Fireball; the rest are utility spells. Notable Class Abilities & Build Characteristics Caster level: 19 Divine Metamagic (Quicken): Combined with a high charisma score for the Unearthed Arcana’s generic arcane spellcaster and plenty of nightsticks, the Specialist Gunner can quicken a lot of spells. Extra Missiles: By 11th level, the Specialist Gunner spits out seven missiles per casting of magic missile, making him akin to a living assault rifle. Elemental Coverage: With the Force Missile Mage’s Energy Missile ability, the Specialist Gunner can create magic missiles of any energy type aside from sonic; by applying the Born of Three Thunders feat, the Specialist Gunner can deal sonic damage with his magic missiles. Spell Selection: By having only two spells that deal damage, the Specialist Gunner can focus on utility spells. Such spells may include disintegrate, haste, improved invisibility, etc. Build Goals: Blow things up by specializing in two damage spells--magic missile and delayed blast fireball. Though he appears to be a pure blaster at first glance, the fact that the Gunner Specialist’s damage spells are only two in number allows him to retain numerous tricks up his sleeves. Comments: The name “Specialist Gunner” is something of a misnomer. The build actually has room for numerous utility spell that will allow the Specialist Gunner incredible versatility, as well as specialization in the build’s two favored spells. If flaws are allowed, the build suffers the least from the Noncombatant flaw, especially when combined with taking the Enlarge Spell metamagic feat, which allows the Specialist Gunner to attack and support from a distant location.
igotsmeakabob!! 09-22-06, 02:17 PM	*Due to the wording of Arcane Thesis, any spell enhanced by metamagic uses up a slot 1 less than normal, so metamagic feats use an equivalent slot actually drop the spell by 1 slot. Seriously? So if you Arcane Thesis Scorching Ray, an Energy Substituted Empowered Scorching Ray is a level 2 spell? That can't be right... are you serious?
dog45 09-22-06, 02:28 PM	Build Name: Fire/Ray Guy Race: Human (Halruaan Region) Levels: Wizard 5 / Incantrix 2 / Halruaan Elder 4 / Incantrix +8 / Halruaan Elder +1 Stats: - Int>Con>Dex>Wis>Str>Cha Character Traits: - Domain Wizard (Fire) - Trait: Spellgifted (Evocation) - Flaws: Vulnerable / Test Subject - Incantrix Prohibited School (Enchantment) Feats: (Icantrix bonus feat are marked *IB* / Halruaan Elder Adroit Casting selections are marked *AC*) Flaws - Searing Spell / Halruaan Adept Human - Iron Will 1 - Spell Thematics 3 Maximize Spell 5 Easy Metamagic: Maximize Spell 6 Arcane Thesis: Scorching Ray (*IB* Quicken Spell) 8 *AC* - Quicken Spell 9 Easy Metamagic: Quicken Spell 11 *AC* - Twin Spell 12 Twin Spell 13 *IB* Easy Metamagic: Twin Spell 15 Repeat Spell 16 *IB* Easy Metamagic: Repeat Spell 18 Fortify Spell 19 *IB* Split Ray Concept: Typical build example culled from the I Love Arcane Thesis thread. Specifics: Choose Scorching Ray as your first Signature Spell from Halruaan Elder. Now you don't need to memorize it anymore. yay! I posted a question in the simple question thread in relation to this, but it hasnt been answered. Q: If my Signature Spell is Scorching Ray can I swap out a higher level spell slot for a metamagic adjusted Scorching Ray? If so, it greatly increases your versatility. You can learn and memorize *typical* wizards spells, and still be able to burn enemies with spontaneous cast metamagicked Scorching Rays. Also, most of your attack spells are ranged touch attack spells that offer no save. So, keep your Dexterity up and be able to punch through SR. Assay Spell Resistance is a good spell, increasing your CL will help, as well as the Fortify Spell metamagic feat at higher levels. At level 19, all your metamagic costs go to +0, so you can now use your tricked out Scorching Ray as a Fortified 9th level spell to get a +14 bonus to overcome SR. If you really have to. Spellgifted (Evocation) gives +1 CL when casting Evocation spells, -1 to all other schools. The -1 CL is overcome by any +1 CL item or spell, such as Create Magic Tattoo (Sor/Wiz 2) Domain Wizard (Fire) gives a +1 CL when you cast a spell that is on your domain list, regardless of whether you cast it from your domain spell slot. Scorching Ray is the 2nd level spell for the Fire Domain. Arcane Thesis gives you a +2 CL when casting the chosen spell (Scorching Ray), plus the metamagic reducement awesomeness. Spell Thematics lets you pick one spell known per spell level to cast at +1 CL. Choose Scorching Ray. So your general no-buff CL for Scorching Ray is at +5, once you hit level 6. You can cast Spell Enhancer prior to casting SR to get another +2. Create Magic Tattoo nets another +1. CMT should be up all day, so your general bonus is now +6, +8 w/ Spell Enhancer. **Incomplete at this time** 1 burning hands ray of clumsiness ray of flame [f/e] ray of enfeeblement mage armor shield magic missile 2 create magic tattoo fireburst ray of sickness scorching ray 3 combust fireball energy vulnerability ray of exhaustion dispel magic 4 assay spell resistance spell enhancer ray deflection wall of fire 5 cone of fire 6 fireburst, greater ray of entropy ray of light summon monster VI (fire creatues only) 7 delayed blast fireball 8 incendiary cloud 9 meteor swarm (D) 5th level - Searing Spell +1 - Maximize Spell +2 6th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +3 8th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +2 9th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +1 12th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +1 - Twin Spell +2 13th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +1 - Twin Spell +1 15th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +1 - Twin Spell +1 - Repeat Spell +2 16th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +1 - Quicken Spell +1 - Twin Spell +1 - Repeat Spell +1 19th level - Searing Spell +0 - Maximize Spell +0 - Quicken Spell +0 - Twin Spell +0 - Repeat Spell +0 - Split Ray +0 Sources Used: Core / Players Handbook II / Spell Compendium / Unearthed Arcana / Players Guide to Faerun / Shining South / Sandstorm / Dragon Magazine / Complete Arcane Players Handbook II Material: - Arcane Thesis feat Sandstorm Material: - Searing Spell metamagic feat Complete Arcane Material: - Twin Spell metamagic feat - Repeat Spell metamagic feat - Split Ray metamagic feat - Fortify Spell metamagic feat UA Material: - Domain Wizard (Fire) - Flaw: Vulnerable (RP reasons, replace with flaw of your choice) - Trait: Spellgifted (Evocation) Dragon Magazine Material: - Easy Metamagic feat (Dragon #325) - Flaw: Test Subject (RP reasons, replace with flaw of your choice) Players Guide to Faerun Material: - Incantrix PrC - Spell Thematics feat Shining South Material: - Halruaan Elder PrC - Halruaan Adept feat
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 02:34 PM	Seriously? So if you Arcane Thesis Scorching Ray, an Energy Substituted Empowered Scorching Ray is a level 2 spell? That can't be right... are you serious? By RAW, yes. In the PHB2, it states that any spell enhanced by a metamagic feat uses a slot one lower than it ordinarily would when used with Arcane Thesis.
ChristopherGroves 09-22-06, 03:39 PM	Yeah, I wouldn't expect this to continue though - I smell errata. Anyway ... Fell Weaken, Libris Mortis = 1 level adjustment normally, free for nuttin' w/ Arcane Thesis
igotsmeakabob!! 09-22-06, 03:40 PM	Would that mean that an Energy Substituted Scorching Ray would be a level 1 spell?
Tath 09-22-06, 03:50 PM	Wizard5/Incantatrix10/War Mage (DL AoM) 5 Arcane Thesis (Orb of Fire) (No save, no SR) Easy Metamagic twice (Quicken/Twin) Orb of Fire (4)+Max(1)+Energy Sub (-1)+Searing (0)+Energy Admixture(2)+Twin(1)+Empower(0)+Repeat(1 )+ Quicken (1)=9th level spell 15d6 (base) + 15d6 (EA) +15d6 (Emp)= 45d6. x2 twin= 90d6+90(max)+270(war mage bonus) x2 repeat = 180d6+180+540(war)= 1,120 damage. 560 1st round, 560 2nd round. 280/280 if fire immune. Grab a Staff Familiar, and the Recharge Staff feat. Put your new uber-blasting spell in the staff which you can now recharge for free using your unused spell slots at the end of the day. Feat Progression: F) Combat Casting F) Eschew Materials H) Iron Will 1) Empower Spell (Metamagic) 3) Quicken Spell (Metamagic) 5W) Easy Metamagic (Metamagic) (Quicken) 6) Weapon Focus (ray) 6I) Energy Sub (Fire) (Metamagic) 9) Arcane Thesis (orb of fire) 9I) Energy Admixture (Fire) (Metamagic) 12) Craft Staff 12I) Twin Spell (Metamagic) 15) Recharge Staff 15I) Repeat Spell (Metamagic) 17W) Searing Spell (Metamagic) 18) Maximize Spell (Metamagic) 19W) Easy Metamagic (Metamagic) (Twin)
ChristopherGroves 09-22-06, 03:52 PM	Orb <> Ray, downside of the Orb spells.
ff6shadow 09-22-06, 03:55 PM	Yes, absolutely
Tath 09-22-06, 04:00 PM	my scorching ray version did more damage, but I didn't like all the touch attacks I had to make (orb is only 2, ray is like 16) and the ray still had to beat SR and orb didn't. another nice trick Avasculate (7) +Split Ray (0)+Twin(1) +Quicken (1) 9th level spell that lets you reduce a living target's hp to 1/16th as a swift action, no save. Good for pre-blasting.
Wire 09-22-06, 04:11 PM	The Scorching Ray fixation seems a bit over-valued. Somebody mentioned it earlier ... the real power play (and multi-utilitarian usage) for Arcane Thesis is Silent Image cast by a Killer Gnome Shadow Mage. Complete with all the appropriate +1 Metamagic Feats attached (Silent, Still, Transdimensional, etc.). It suddenly becomes the spell that can do anything. Kill, battlefield control, manuever, transport, create, transform, etc. A Beguiler Killer Gnome can do all this from the shadows. Making him the ultimate threat that cannot be detected while he wreaks imposes his will upon the world around him. :devil:
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-22-06, 05:01 PM	Orb of Fire Masters The following 3 builds I will present will show various risk vs. gain ways of using Arcane Thesis with Orb of Fire. I'll present them in order of what I consider to be most optimized to least, but even the others have their niches too, when it comes to pure unadulterated damage, they take the plate home. :D Orb of Fire Enthusiast Class: Wizard 5/Incantarix 10/Wizard6-10 Race: Human Feat Progression: 1: Iron Will, Maximize Spell 3: Easy Metamagic:Maximize Spell 5: Twin Spell 6: Easy Metamagic:Twin Spell, Energy Substitution:Fire 9: Arcane Thesis:Orb of Fire, Energy Admixture:Fire 12:Easy Metamagic:Energy Admixture:Fire, Fiery Spell 15:Searing Spell, Chain Spell 18:Easy Metamagic:Chain Spell 20:Repeat or Quicken Spell Spell Level: 4 (Base) +1 (Fiery) +1 (Searing) +1 (Empower) +1 (Maximize) +1 (Chain Spell) +2 (Energy Admixture:Fire) +2 (Twinned) =13-7=Level 6 Slot Fire Orb: 15d6 damage (base) +15 (Fiery Spell) Admixtured 30d6+30 damage, Maximized:210 damage, Empowered:315 damage, Twinned:630 damage. Fire Orb does 630 to the main target and 20 nearby creatures can make 2 reflex saves. If they make it, 1/4(or no damage with evasion). If they fail, 1/2(or 1/4 if they have greater evasion. If they fail both, they would take 315 damage. if they made both they'd take 157 damage(assuming evasion not present). Also, everyone hit has to make 2 fortitude saves or become dazed for 1 round. Fire Wand Enthusiast Wizard 5/ Incantarix 10/ Harluaan Elder 4/Wu Jen 1 1 flaw 1: Craft Wand, Two-Weapon Fighting, Double Wand Wielder 3: Iron Will 5: Twin Spell 6:Easy Metamagic: Twin Spell, Fiery Spell 9: Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, Searing Spell 12: Harluuan Adept, Energy Sub. Fire 15: Spell Thematics, Energy Admix. Fire 18: Easy Metamagic:Energy Admix. Fire 20: Empower Spell For Levels 16 and 19 respectively you choose Energy Admix. Fire and Twin Spell to benefit from Adroit Casting which further reduces the metamagic cost by one. Easy Metamagic reduces it by one, Adroit casting reduces it by one, Arcane Thesis Reduces it by one, and improved metamagic reduces it by one. Thus these 2 +4 modifiers end up being +0 with this character 15d6+15 x2 x2 x1.5 =405 avg. damage you’re shooting 2 of these, it’s really 810 damage using 2 wands and 3 charges. Have a Rod of Maximize Spell and Quicken Spell, and you could cast another spell and do another 630 damage for the round. The advantage of this is that you’re shooting Orbs of fire out of your wands and they start with 50 charges each, although your off-hand wand will use up an extra charge. Fire Wand Enthusiast Ver. 2 Wizard 5/ Incantarix 10/ Wizard 6-10 1: Craft Wand, Two-Weapon Fighting 3: Iron Will 5: Twin Spell 6: Double Wand Wielder, Searing Spell 9: Arcane Thesis: Orb of Fire, Fiery Spell 12: Energy Sub. Fire, Energy Admix: Fire 15: Twin Spell, Chain Spell 18: Quicken Spell 20: Repeat Spell This Incantarix completes blows his/her wand charges for awesome effect. 15d6 damage (base)+15 Fiery x2 energy admix. x2 twin, x1.5 empower, maximized 630 avg. damage, but of course two wands are used so you can get up to 1260 damage with a full round action. Then cast a wand with quickened for an additional 630 damage to bring it up to 1890 damage with Full Round + Swift Action Remember of course that these could be repeated. So you could end up with 3,780 damage on the second round Also, up to 20 targets per Orb of fire within 30 feet get to make two reflex saves to avoid damage. and anyone who gets hit also has to make a fort save or be dazed. The charges used would be (1 or 2 base) +2 Twin +0 Searing +0 Fiery +2 Energy Admix +1 Chain +2 Quickened +1 repeat So that would be 9 charges used with the main wand and 10 charges used with the secondary wand. So after 5 rounds you'd need to switch wands :D Orb of Fire is one of my favorite spells since it ignores Spell resistance and only gets a saving throw to avoid being dazed (not for damage). Thus, with searing spell, you can employ this spell against ANY creature in the game. Golems, Demi-Liches, Gods, you name it. The best hope that they can have is being Fire Immune and taking Half Damage. The first build is able to keep on dishing out Orbs of fire as long as they have spell slots. They average Wizard would have at least 5 slots available for level 6 spells, and 15 for spell slots 6 through nine. If you add in Rings of Wizardry or Scrolls into the mix, then you can use this spell fairly consistently throughout your day. The second build reduces the slot modifiers from his/her metamagic feats enough so that Orb of Fire is still a 4th level spell and can be made into a wand. The main wand only uses up one charge and the secondary wand only uses up 2. So for 25 rounds you're good to go without switching. THe third build uses the Metamagic Spell Trigger ability from Incantarix, he/she makes a wand of orb of fire and then blows many charges to increase the metamagic effects. The main wand takes 9 charges and the secondary 10 to do this. Thus for 5 rounds you'll do a heck of a lot of damage before needing to swich. Something to keep in mind for the second and third builds is that a 4th caster level 15 wand takes 22,500 gold to create, but if you're in a one shot or a campaign where you have oodles of money to waste, then that could be very effective for you.
Dragon3 09-22-06, 05:23 PM	Can we used unfettered heroism spells to have unlimited casting of arcane thesis spells? Somehow I like unlimited uses. :)
Slyver 09-22-06, 06:34 PM	*Due to the wording of Arcane Thesis, any spell enhanced by metamagic uses up a slot 1 less than normal, so metamagic feats use an equivalent slot actually drop the spell by 1 slot. Show of hands for everyone who believes this is RAI. The interpretation of actually gaining negative modifiers from applying metamagic feats to a spell is akin to actually thinking the designers intended to create God from fifth level kobolds (not A god, THE God, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent). Do what you want, post it as a theoretical addendum, but don't tout it as cannonical when you know full well that they didn't intend to break the game with one otherwise very nifty feat. According to your interpretation I can, with my incantatrix, shadowmage cast my 120% real Blistering, Consecrated, corrupt, energized, enlarged, extended... ...Ocular, Reached, Split, Chained, Delayed, Maximized, Repeated, Widened Shades in a ninth level spell slot. Give me a break. Making a compenduim for good spells or good builds to use with arcane thesis is a very good idea. But if you are going to do it, do it with the interpretation that the majority of people adhere to, and not the one you know is not RAI and is most certainly broken, RAW be damned. Slyver
Hyfigh 09-22-06, 06:52 PM	OK, thats great Slyver. RAI as we all know fly's less often on the Op boards than RAW. It has been stated quite a few times already on this very thread that they could care less what the RAI is or what CustServ says. They are interpretting the rule this way, which is indeed RAW. What makes the point drive home a little more, they have the right to. And the fact that their interpretation follows RAW says that their interpretation could even be considered a valid rule, RAI or not... (Please dont take this as an attack, I am simply trying to quell an arguements about this specific subject on the thread before they start. Wrong thread for those arguements).
Slyver 09-22-06, 07:09 PM	Wrong thread for those arguements. Whats the right one? This is intended to be a compendium. To make a good one, i.e. one that people will use as a reference, is the only way to make one. What this means is, this is not a place to be putting interpretations that the majority of people who come here looking for assistance won't use unless you want to include it as a footnote or minor part for completeness. My main purpose is to suggest that a real compendium is made so that we can have one for reference because I think it is a good idea. Slyver
SavageTard 09-22-06, 09:53 PM	If you are working with the interpretation that +0 LA metamagics actually lower the spell level, I would suggest looking a bit higher for a spell to use... Human Wiz10/Inc10 1: Iron Will, Sanctum Spell 3: ESub (Electricity) 6: Arcane Thesis: Sorching Ray, EAdm (Electricity) 9: Snowcasting, Esub(Cold) 12: Lord of the Uttercold, Empower Spell 15: Maximize Spell, Twin Spell 18: Born of the 3 Thunders 20: Split Ray Let's see what we can do here... Scorching Ray {Level 2, 12d6 fire} ESub(Ele) {Level 1, 12d6 electric} Split Ray {Level 1, 16d6 electric} EAdm(Ele) {Level 3, 32d6 electric} Born of the 3 Thunders {Level 2, 16d6 electric, 16d6 Sonic} Snowcasting, LotU { Level 1, 8d6 electric, 8d6 sonic, 8d6 Cold, 8d6 negative} Empower {Level 1, 8d6+4d6 electric, 8d6+4d6 sonic, 8d6+4d6 Cold, 8d6+4d6 negative} Maximize {Level 2, 48+4d6 electric, 48+4d6 sonic, 48+4d6 Cold, 48+4d6 negative} Sanctum {Level 1, 48+4d6 electric, 48+4d6 sonic, 48+4d6 Cold, 48+4d6 negative} Twin {Level 3, 96+8d6 electric, 96+8d6 sonic, 96+8d6 Cold, 96+8d6 negative} So for a third level Spell slot we have total damage of: 96*4 + 32d6 --> 384 + 32d6 The 32d6 should average about 99 damage,for a total of 483 from a third level slot. Not too shabby, I would say. Too bad we can't apply multiple admixtures since thats where the damage can get huge. Another Possible build would use The same build except for swapping out Arcane Thesis: Scorching Ray for Arcane Thesis: Disintegrate. Disintegrate {Level 6, 40d6 non-elemental damage} Snowcast {Level 6, 40d6 cold damage} Lord of the Uttercold {Level 5, 40d6 cold/Negative damage} Esub(ele) {Level 4, 40d6 Electricity damage} Sanctum {Level 3, 40d6 Electricity damage} Split Ray {Level 3, 80d6 Electricity damage} Born of the 3 Thunders {Level 2, 80d6 Electricity/Sonic damage} Empower {Level 2, 80d6+40d6 Electricity/Sonic damage} OK, even at this point, we are doing an average of 363 damage with our second level spell. But, lets keep going: Maximize {Level 3, 480+40d6 Electricity/Sonic damage(average ~603)} EAdm (ele) {Level 5, 960+80d6 Ele/Sonic damage (average ~1200)} Twin {Level 7, 1920+160d6 Ele/Sonic damage (average ~2400)} Conclusion: I'll take Disintegrate. One of my builds from Bill's old Arcane Thesis thread. Just for kicks, lets call the second build Laser of DOOOOM.
Slyver 09-22-06, 10:09 PM	See above. QED Lets make something people can actually use. Slyver
Tleilaxu_Ghola 09-22-06, 10:51 PM	That's a tough row to how on these boards, Slyver. Your logic is flawed, as it is riddled with hyperbole. The OP is free to publish whatever he choose, so long as it is within the CoC.
Dragon3 09-22-06, 11:00 PM	Question, how about shadowcraft illusion? I see all these killer shadowcraft builds.
Slyver 09-22-06, 11:04 PM	It isn't actually logic, everything I have stated is opinion based on observation. All of the compendiums that are actually used as reference material (see the optimization library) do not use rules interpretation that the vast majority of the board population disagrees with. They simply do not make it. Ones that incorporate different views do work, but they don't focus on the less popular and obviously broken interpretations, they simply use them as minor points. They focus instead on the views that are generally accepted in order to create a reference that can be used by the majority. That is what is helpful. Builds and ideas that exploit the rules (against majority assessment) are not compendiums but rather threads that say "look at how I can break the game with this rediculous loophole that somehow made it through editing" (see pun-pun). Slyver
Tleilaxu_Ghola 09-22-06, 11:12 PM	Bottom line: you gotta prove that the rule is indeed questionable, before you can decry its use as questionable. Until you prove that using arcane thesis to lower the spell slot is questionable (or not inline with the RAW) you're just blowing smoke. The logic error that you are committing is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc). Essentially you're saying that because it produces broken results when combined with other tricks it must therefore be broken. This is not necessarily true in all cases. Besides, this term "broken" is so subjective that it's use is meaningless.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:27 PM	Just got off work and I'm a bit tired, so bear with me a little for late replies and such. Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer: Thank you for your builds. I've added them to the Builds section. Tath & SavageTard: I'd appreciate it if you'd both at least name the build you've posted; I don't want to just post a "Class XXX #/Class YYY #/Class ZZZ #" under the Builds section. Tath: Thank you for the combo. Can you elaborate as to how the combo works? From my understanding, Avasculate is a 7th level spell, so, unless you're doing something you didn't list in the combo, I'm not getting it. Slyver: Unless you are either (A) the original designer of the feat or (B) a mindreader who has read the designer's mind, don't even bring up Rules as Intended. For you to even assume you know anybody's intention besides your own is pretentious at best, and pompous and downright arrogant at worse. Therefore, for the sake of arguments, please stick with RAW. You can rule however you want in your own campaigns, but in this thread, until there is official errata that says otherwise, the version of the feat printed in PHB2 stands as written. Tleilaxu_Ghola: Thank you for fighting my battle for me while I was out. Your contributions are welcome any time.
igotsmeakabob!! 09-22-06, 11:36 PM	Has anyone actually asked Customer Service? I know that they make mistakes, but it'd still be nice to have.
HaikenEdge 09-22-06, 11:38 PM	Has anyone actually asked Customer Service? I know that they make mistakes, but it'd still be nice to have. Yeah, I think they have. Not sure on this one. If they did, I think CustServ ruled the opposite of the RAW interpretation. However, seeing that CustServ is neither the original designer nor mindreaders, I do not follow their rulings. The only rulings I follow for optimization purposes are material as printed & official errata.
Dolomite 09-22-06, 11:57 PM	Bottom line: you gotta prove that the rule is indeed questionable, before you can decry its use as questionable. Until you prove that using arcane thesis to lower the spell slot is questionable (or not inline with the RAW) you're just blowing smoke. The logic error that you are committing is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc). Essentially you're saying that because it produces broken results when combined with other tricks it must therefore be broken. This is not necessarily true in all cases. Besides, this term "broken" is so subjective that it's use is meaningless. No its not. I read every page of that arguement((the Orginal Discusssion on Acrane Thesis)) and that was one of the dumbest discussions I ever read. A compendium is supposed to be a repository that most people can agree on and use, just like the one you created for ToB. Good lord most of us here can't even agree that this thing works the way the OP is trying to fly with, so why bother trying to make a compendium that with one eratta it will get smacked down, never mind that a LOT of DM's would laugh you out of the room for suggesting what he is.
Tath 09-22-06, 11:59 PM	Tath: Thank you for the combo. Can you elaborate as to how the combo works? From my understanding, Avasculate is a 7th level spell, so, unless you're doing something you didn't list in the combo, I'm not getting it. Avaculate is a 7th level spell that halves the target's current hp with no save. Incantatrix's improved metamagic + Arcane Thesis (Avasculate) + Easy Metamagic Twin is required. Add Easy Metamagic Quicken to make is a 9th level quickened version. Avasculate(7) + Split Ray (0) + Twin (1) + Quicken (1)=9th level spell. Split ray gives you two avasculate rays, then you double that with Twin giving you four rays. You make a touch attack with each ray, which successively reduces the target's hp's by 1/2 each time. This leads to the opponent having 1/16th of their hp with no save. Each ray also has a fort save or the target is stunned for 1 round. Oh and I call the orb of fire build "Great Balls of MetaFire"
Tleilaxu_Ghola 09-23-06, 12:06 AM	No its not. I read every page of that arguement((the Orginal Discusssion on Acrane Thesis)) and that was one of the dumbest discussions I ever read. A compendium is supposed to be a repository that most people can agree on and use, just like the one you created for ToB. Good lord most of us here can't even agree that this thing works the way the OP is trying to fly with, so why bother trying to make a compendium that with one eratta it will get smacked down, never mind that a LOT of DM's would laugh you out of the room for suggesting what he is. You gotta an interpretation that opposes the OP's? Post and present your support. Vague hand waving gets us nowhere. Your perception of the average DM is not the same as mine. I could make many such "counter" arguments and they would all be as equally meaningless. As it stands the OP is using a very literal interpretation of the RAW. Arcane thesis lets you reduce the spell slot adjustment by 1 for any metamagic feats applied to the spell. This means that +0 Adjustments should become -1 adjustments. It's a simple application of basic math and contains only one assumption: spell level adjustments are a member of the set of integer numbers. RAI, brokennes, intent, blah, blah. All are merely empty words without supporting evidence.
GDarius 09-23-06, 12:15 AM	I can't believe I'm the first one to suggest Telekinesis for a good spell to pair with arcane thesis. Throw in some Master of the Unseen Hand, and it gets all kinds of crazy. I don't have any builds of my own, but this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=409126) and this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=585725&page=1) have impressed me.
HaikenEdge 09-23-06, 12:20 AM	Avaculate is a 7th level spell that halves the target's current hp with no save. Incantatrix's improved metamagic + Arcane Thesis (Avasculate) + Easy Metamagic Twin is required. Add Easy Metamagic Quicken to make is a 9th level quickened version. Avasculate(7) + Split Ray (0) + Twin (1) + Quicken (1)=9th level spell. Split ray gives you two avasculate rays, then you double that with Twin giving you four rays. You make a touch attack with each ray, which successively reduces the target's hp's by 1/2 each time. This leads to the opponent having 1/16th of their hp with no save. Each ray also has a fort save or the target is stunned for 1 round. Oh and I call the orb of fire build "Great Balls of MetaFire" Man, that is one long combo... I'll type it up and add it tomorrow; my mind's about to close down. I can't believe I'm the first one to suggest Telekinesis for a good spell to pair with arcane thesis. Throw in some Master of the Unseen Hand, and it gets all kinds of crazy. I don't have any builds of my own, but this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=409126) and this one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=585725&page=1) have impressed me. Actually, I think you're the first person to explicitly suggest a spell at all. Aside from the Master of the Unseen Hand, any reasons why Telekinesis is a good spell to Thesis? And neither of those builds use Arcane Thesis, and thus do not qualify for the compendium as written. Speaking of which, can somebody do a write-up for the Killer Gnome build with a stub that actually uses Arcane Thesis? As written, Snow Savant's build doesn't seem to include much (or maybe I'm just too tired).
Slyver 09-23-06, 12:58 AM	It's a simple application of basic math and contains only one assumption: spell level adjustments are a member of the set of integer numbers. Very well. To the best of my knowledge, all additive or multiplicitive feats or abilities in DnD math to date have used the set N0. If true, that would make this assumption unprecedented. From there, the question can be asked, was it the intention of this feat to set new precedence and subsequently cause it to be very easy to break the game (which we are proving right now if we assume that doing a prescribed amount of damage for minimal effort does in fact break the game), or was it assumed by the editor that it was implicit based on what has gone before. Can we answer that question? We can try. Slyver
Fingers Boggis 09-23-06, 08:02 AM	Speaking of which, can somebody do a write-up for the Killer Gnome build with a stub that actually uses Arcane Thesis? As written, Snow Savant's build doesn't seem to include much (or maybe I'm just too tired). The second Shadow Craft thread has a section on feat suggestions, it can be found http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=655556 there(one day I'll figure out how to put "here" as the hyperlink) If you take Gnome Illusionist 5/Shadow Adept 1/Shadowcrafter 9/Shadowcraft Mage 5 for the iconic build and then get signature spell and arcane thesis in there you get to spontaneously cast minor image with all the arcane thesis goodness. The reason it shines is that the Shadowcraft mage uses only one spell for offensive work so you get the benefits of arcane thesis for almost any offensive spell you like. On top of that you only have to memorise utility spells due to signature goodness. Tasty! Fingers
Chaos116882 09-23-06, 08:06 AM	my question to customer service provided the answer it reduces the total level by 1 and not each metamagic feat's level adjustment by 1....more conflicting results with customer service...no suprise
Fingers Boggis 09-23-06, 08:09 AM	Very well. To the best of my knowledge, all additive or multiplicitive feats or abilities in DnD math to date have used the set N0. If true, that would make this assumption unprecedented. From there, the question can be asked, was it the intention of this feat to set new precedence and subsequently cause it to be very easy to break the game (which we are proving right now if we assume that doing a prescribed amount of damage for minimal effort does in fact break the game), or was it assumed by the editor that it was implicit based on what has gone before. Can we answer that question? We can try. Slyver I hate number theory, I do condensed matter. I'll leave number theory to the mathmeticians!
HaikenEdge 09-23-06, 09:50 AM	Very well. To the best of my knowledge, all additive or multiplicitive feats or abilities in DnD math to date have used the set N0. If true, that would make this assumption unprecedented. From there, the question can be asked, was it the intention of this feat to set new precedence and subsequently cause it to be very easy to break the game (which we are proving right now if we assume that doing a prescribed amount of damage for minimal effort does in fact break the game), or was it assumed by the editor that it was implicit based on what has gone before. Can we answer that question? We can try. Slyver Read my post. We discuss RAW in this thread, not RAI. If you want to discuss RAI, do it in another thread. Otherwise, you getting off-topic. Like I mentioned before, assuming intentions is pretentious; the only thing we have to go on is what's printed.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 11:34 AM	Sublime MetaHealer/Healy MetaBard The following two prospects I'll present will show that with the right build, you can make a better healer than a cleric Class:Wizard5/Incantarix4/Bard1/Sublime Chord 1/Incantarix5-10/Sublime Chord 2-4 Feat Progression: 1: Reach Spell 3: Iron Will 5: Twin Spell 6: Easy Metamagic: Twin Spell, Chain Spell 9: Easy Metamagic:Chain Spell, Maximize Spell 12: Easy Metamagic: Maximize Spell 14: Chain Spell 15: Arcane Thesis: Cure Critical Wounds 17: Split Ray 18: Empower spell 4 Base +0 Reach +1 Twin +0 Chain +0 Maximize +0 Split Ray +0 Empower = Level 5 Slot Healing 4d8+20 (base),Maximized 52, Empowered 78, Twinned 156, Split Ray 312 healing So what we have is Cure Critical Wounds turned into a Ray, and then Split into two rays. Each one of these rays can target someone within 30 feet. and, after they hit that person, you can have up to 20 people within 30 feetbenefit from the healing as well (they can make reflex saves to dodge the healing if they really want) So, If you shoot 2 rays at the same group of people, up to 20 allies can be healed 312 damage! The great thing about this build is that you can still be decent with everything else. Consider casting Arcane Spellsurge to make this spell cast as a swift action, and then you could proceed the rest of the round pwning your enemies with polymorphed forms or something. Also you could be a human and/or replace your last level with Wu Jen for 2 more feats. You could get Extend spell and Persistent spell for buffing goodness, you could also choose repeat spell, and do all this fun on the next round as well Bard7/Incantarix10/Bard8-10 Feat Progression: 1: Reach Spell 3: Iron Will 6: Arcane Thesis:Cure Moderate Wounds 8: Twin Spell 9: Easy or Practical Metamagic:Twin Spell 11: Maximize Spell 12: Easy or Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell 14: Empower Spell 15: Chain Spell 17: Split Ray 18: Easy or Practical Metamagic:Chain Spell Spell Level: 2 (Base) +0 (Reach) +0 (Empower) +0 (Chain) +0 (Maximize) +1 (Twinned)+0 (Split Ray)=Level 3 Slot Cure Critical Wounds: 2d8+10 (base), Maximized:26, Empowered:39, Twinned:78 healing, Split Ray: 156 Healing The Spell is now shot as a ray at a range of 30 feet which is also split into another ray with a range of 30 feet. If a ray hits, it heals 78 damage and can hit up to 20 other allies. If both rays are aimed at the same people, up to 20 allies healed 156 damage The last 3 levels of bard could be replaced with Sublime Chord, similarly Human could be chosen as a race for an extra feat. This tactic is also especially potent towards undead. Note: if for some reason Easy Metamagic is not allowed, you can very easily just have your race be a Dragonblooded or Human with the Dragon Heritage feat. Silverbrow Human (Dragon Magic) is the best however, as they are dragonblooded and get a bonus feat as well.
GDarius 09-23-06, 01:06 PM	Actually, I think you're the first person to explicitly suggest a spell at all. Aside from the Master of the Unseen Hand, any reasons why Telekinesis is a good spell to Thesis? And neither of those builds use Arcane Thesis, and thus do not qualify for the compendium as written. The Jean Grey build just showcases how powerful Telekinesis can be with some free metamagics attached. Specifically, casting an Enlarged, Extended, Silent, Still Telekinesis as a 5th level spell is rather good. Add in Chain to get it to a 7th level spell, and that becomes really sick. The point is that an arcane spellcaster with Arcane Thesis: Telekinesis and enough low-cost metamagic feats really doesn't need another offensive option (except possibly Arcane Strike). If you remove MotUH from the equation, its versatility goes down because you can't use one casting to dominate an encounter, but the same low-cost metamagic tactics still work, and the +2 CL bonus still gives you a higher effective BAB, higher weight allowance for Violent Thrust, an extra 80 ft of range and 2 extra rounds of duration.
Dragon3 09-23-06, 01:46 PM	Would unfettered heroism spell allow me to cast that telekinesis spell unlimited times?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 02:01 PM	^ What you're looking for is this right here http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=565966 You can cast any spell you want ulimited times a day :D
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 03:16 PM	Similar build as dog45 post 19 of this thread, scorching ray one (I used his build as a baseline). But it uses orb of fire instead of scorching ray, and some other small modifications, and in my mind is slightly better. We are using orb of fire, since there is no save for damage (save for the daze effect), no sr (thus it affects golems and such). For the school to give up with Incantatrix, do evocation (since you have damage spells in the bag with this build and orb is conjuration), and for the must have evocations spells you can always use shadow evocation. If you must have evocation give up enchantment or illusion. Energy Admixture Orb of Fire Wizard 5/Incantatrix 2/Halruan Elder 2/Incantatrix +8/Halruan Elder +2 Human 1st Iron Will, Halruann Adept (Human Bonus) Flaws Fiery Spell, Searing Spell 3rd Empower Spell 5th Maximize Spell (Wizard Bonus) 6th Easy Metamagic Maximize, Quicken Spell (Incantatrix Bonus) 7th Androit Casting (Quicken Spell) 8th Signature Spell (Orb of Fire) 9th Arcane Thesis (Orb of Fire) 11th Twin Spell (Incantatrix Bonus) 12th Easy Metamagic Quicken 14th Energy Substitution Sonic (Incantatrix Bonus) 15th Easy Metamagic Twin Spell 17th Energy Admixture Sonic (Incantatrix Bonus) 18th Easy Metamagic Energy Admixture Sonic 19th Androit Casting (Twin) 20th Signature Spell (Your Pick) 15d6=90(Maxmize)*1.5(Empower)=(135+15(Fi ery Spell))*2(Twin)+135(Energy Admixture)*2(Twin)=570 (300+270) damage (300) which is fire, 150 which affects fire immunes, 270 of which is sonic. All from a 5th level slot. 4+Maximize (0)+Empower (0)+Quicken (0)+Fiery (0)+Searing (0)+Twin (0)+Energy Admixture (1)=5th level You get double this a round since you can quicken for free, thus two castings of it. Chain version Wizard 5/Incantatrix 2/Halruan Elder 2/Incantatrix +8/Halruan Elder +2 1st Iron Will, Halruann Adept (Human Bonus) Flaws Fiery Spell, Searing Spell 3rd Empower Spell 5th Maximize Spell (Wizard Bonus) 6th Easy Metamagic Maximize, Quicken Spell (Incantatrix Bonus) 7th Androit Casting (Quicken Spell) 8th Signature Spell (Orb of Fire) 9th Arcane Thesis (Orb of Fire) 11th Twin Spell (Incantatrix Bonus) 12th Easy Metamagic Quicken 14th Chain Spell (Incantatrix Bonus) 15th Easy Metamagic Twin Spell 17th Open Metamagic Feat (Incantatrix Bonus) 18th Easy Metamagic Chain 19th Androit Casting (Twin) 20th Signature Spell (Your Pick) With this route you will be doing 300 damage Fire to the main target, 150 affects fire immunes, 150 damage is then targeted at caster level different targets, 75 which affects fire immunes. All from a 4th level spell slot. Note some people disagree if orb of fire is a legimate spell for chain spell. If you believe such a thing, then don’t play this build. 4+Maximize (0)+Empower (0)+Quicken (0)+Fiery (0)+Searing (0)+Twin (0)+Chain (0)=4th level You get double this a round since you can quicken for free, thus two castings of it. Note you might not want Empower since you can replicate it with a metamagic rod, thus freeing a feet. Fiery Spell is also another one you might want to consider about replacing since it only adds 15 damage (30 if twin) Might want to grab Extend and Persistent, or get some survivability feats such as craft contingent spell. This build is mostly an outline not a perfect one. Also seriously get a wand of your orb of fire. It only takes 1 charge to do all this starting lvl 18. The benefits of these two builds, is that even though other builds may get more damage, you still are a great wizard, with a quicken spell that is only a +1 metamagic adjustment for all your spells (+0 for arcane thesis), and +1 metamagic adjustment for twin (Quicken true strike is a 2nd level spell). Additionally you don’t have to prepare any orbs of fire, due to your signature spell of Halruan elder. Just spontaneously convert a slot if you need it. Plus its only a 4th level slot. A wizard with 34 Int at level 20, has 7 4th level, 6 5th level, 6 6th level, 6 7th level, 6 8th level, 5 9th level, run out of 4th level slots, start using 5th level and so on.. This build doesn’t mature into an awesome damage machine until later on, but you are still a very capable wizard/Incantatrix until then. You are just a great wizard, who is also great at damage spells. You don’t need the insane damage some of the other builds give you are already doing enough, you can kill a titan in one round (370 Hps) and most other high cr level creatures such as dragons dragons (most dragons have less than 600 hps) you can do this with the Chain Spell build, let alone the Energy Admixture one. Note you can do the same build with orb of cold instead of fire. Just replace searing spell with piercing cold. Instead of dazing your opponent you will blind them though.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 09-23-06, 03:59 PM	Very well. To the best of my knowledge, all additive or multiplicitive feats or abilities in DnD math to date have used the set N0. If true, that would make this assumption unprecedented. From there, the question can be asked, was it the intention of this feat to set new precedence and subsequently cause it to be very easy to break the game (which we are proving right now if we assume that doing a prescribed amount of damage for minimal effort does in fact break the game), or was it assumed by the editor that it was implicit based on what has gone before. Can we answer that question? We can try. Slyver Not true, there are such a thing as negative modifiers for skills and hit points. Sanctum Spell even allows for negative spell level adjustments. So the precedence is there to support the use of negative numbers in D&D.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 04:22 PM	just a small note, Phoenix00. Technically they took away sonic substitution in 3.5. Although, I'd personally have no problem with it if I were DM. You might want to note that in your build if you still want to use it. It's very tempting to use flaws in my builds, and they undoubtedly would make a build stronger, I just worry that it would be less useful to Players since I don't know any DMs that allow flaws. I similarly think I'll try to make a build which uses Practical Metamagic Instead of Easy Metamagic, since there'll undoubtedly be some DMs who won't allow any Dragon material (even decent) whatsoever.
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 04:39 PM	Its the same build if you use practical metamagic instead of easy metamagic. You are just a sorcerer insead of a wizard thus dealing with a delayed progression for spells and prcs, and you have to knock off one feat due to losing your wizard bonus metamagic feat. You don't need sonic you can pick any other energy, I just picked sonic for there is less immunities. You can pick lighting or cold if you want to instead. Energy Admixture is just there so you double your damage, at the cost of two metamagic feats and a +1 spell level. If you don't use flaws, just drop fiery spell and empower spell. You lose 30 damage and will have to use metamagic rods, but its no significant change, just a little more gp out of your pocket, and 30 less damage (which is trival compared to what you are doing).
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 05:15 PM	Actually fiery is more significant. it's +15 base, +30 Twinned, +60 Admixtured, +90 Empowered. If you're going to be casting this spell twice that's 180 damage. That extra feat and Regular Progression can be live or die for the effectiveness. Try redoing the Orb of Fire without Flaws and with a Sorceror Instead. You will notice that there's a reasonable difference in effictiveness. But, I'm also saying all of this in general and to myself as well :D
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 05:42 PM	15 base, 30 twin I agree with. And based off a reread of pg 78 Complete arcane you are right about Energy Admixture. You can't use empower on this number for its All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half. . So you only get 60 additional damage if you go the energy admixture route. 30+15 per target for the chained route. 120 and 60+30 if you quickened and use it twice a round. Of course the sorcerer is slightly weaker than the wizard route. But it is still quite a powerful sorcerer build. It just isn't as powerful as the wizard route.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 05:46 PM	True, but remember, the extra fire damage is based off of the extra dice damage. Thus a base spell has 15d6, a Twinned 30d6 and an Admixtured 60d6. Empowered adds 30d6 damage. which in turn means 30 extra damage from Fiery Spell :)
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 05:53 PM	But the extra dice damage isn't a variable amount, its just a +1 per dice. This isn't a variable number, and thus isn't empowered. It is similar to how magic missle works when empowered.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 06:12 PM	You know, I've always considered the amount of damage to be variable. If your caster level is 5, a fireball does 5d6, if your caster level is 10, a fireball does 10d6. Looking at empower spell, it says that its variable effects are increased by one half. the dice from fireball must be a variable since your caster level could be different things. I'm looking at the example they use with empower spell and magic missle. One magic missle normally does 1d4+1 and so an empowered magic missle would just do 1d4+1 +1d4+1/2 The dice that magic missle does aren't variable since a magic missle can only ever do 1d4+1 dice of damage no matter what. The only thing that changes is the amount of missles which is unrelated to variable numeric #s. I'm just trying to think this through
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 06:41 PM	Caster Level isn't variable, it is a set ammount. The d6 is the variable. Proof of this is the descripition of maximize spell. It uses almost identical text as empower, with relating to variable, numeric effects, only difference is that its maximized instead of 1.5. What is the maximun caster level? Seriously. Empower only 1.5* the variable numerical effects. In effect when you are empowering a fireball at caster level 6. It isn't 9d6, it is (6d6)*1.5. Normall you will get identical results with this, but when you start having damages such as 6d6+6 and empower it, it will be 6d6*1.5+6. not (6d6+6)*1.5
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-23-06, 06:53 PM	Alright, :P I'm big enough to admit when I failed. I'll have to review the damage of my builds a little later. Aw well, thanks for staying and discussing.
Slyver 09-23-06, 08:05 PM	Empower only 1.5* the variable numerical effects. In effect when you are empowering a fireball at caster level 6. It isn't 9d6, it is (6d6)*1.5. Normall you will get identical results with this, but when you start having damages such as 6d6+6 and empower it, it will be 6d6*1.5+6. not (6d6+6)*1.5 This is not necessarily true. Both (6d6) + 6 and (6d6 + 6) are variable numeric effects. For a simpler example, both (1d4)+1 (read in pseudo-code: rand[1,4]+1) and (1d4+1) (read in pseudo-code: rand[1,4]) would count as variable numeric effects. In the first case rand[1,4]+1 means randomly choose one element from the set containing the four elements {1, 2, 3, 4} and then add 1 to it. In the second case it means randomly choose one element from the set containing the four elements {2, 3, 4, 5}. The end resultant sets are identical, as are the probabilities that each event will occur. However, the "variable numeric effects" or initial sets are different. Without proper parenthetical outlining it is impossible to tell which was originally intended. Perhaps there is a default parenthesis layout in mathematics that I am unaware of, but I know of no branch of probability or combinatorics that uses the symbols 1d4 or 6d6. Slyver
Phoenix00 09-23-06, 09:31 PM	Nice try Slyver 1d6 is a variable effect +1 is a non variable effect. 1d6+1 is the combination of a variable and non variable (constant) effect. The total sum isn't a variable effect. Empower only works for variable effects. It multiplies the variable effects by 1.5 before the calculation of the final sum. This is the Rules as Written. Your arguement slyver is the the designers intended instead of writting 1d4+1, they really meant a random number 2-7 (they just wrote the rules badly, but its self evident they meant 2-5). The set of random number 2-5 could be arrived by two methods rand[1,4]+1 a combination of a variable and a nonvariable or rand[2,5] a pure variable event. That since we can't be for sure what the designers intended it could be either method. Well dnd works by RAW, not RAI, unless DM fiat. Additionally since we can't ascertain the RAI, DM fiat is just that DM fiat, it isn't a resitution to RAI. As for the case of fiery spell. Here is the relevant text for the calculation of damage (I am not including the text that doesn't deal with damage due to it not being OGL) ... Benefit:A fiery spell deals an extra 1 point of fire damage for each die of damage the spell deals....For example if a 9th-level wizard with this feat cast a fiery fireball, the fireball deals 9d6+9 points of damage... It it is clear that fiery spell goes with what I said before, its the combination of a variable effect (in this case Caster Level*d6 because its fireball)+A Constant which is 1*the damage die (In this case it would be caster level for caster level =damage die with fireball) Now can we please get back to building builds that utilize arcane thesis, or finding new good spells for it?
Slyver 09-23-06, 10:19 PM	Nice try Slyver 1d6 is a variable effect +1 is a non variable effect. 1d6+1 is the combination of a variable and non variable (constant) effect. The total sum isn't a variable effect. This is an assumption, your interpretation of RAW. The operands of the function "d" are not clearly defined. Empower only works for variable effects. It multiplies the variable effects by 1.5 before the calculation of the final sum. This is the Rules as Written. Your arguement slyver is the the designers intended instead of writting 1d4+1, they really meant a random number 2-7 (they just wrote the rules badly, but its self evident they meant 2-5). The set of random number 2-5 could be arrived by two methods rand[1,4]+1 a combination of a variable and a nonvariable or rand[2,5] a pure variable event. That since we can't be for sure what the designers intended it could be either method. Well dnd works by RAW, not RAI, unless DM fiat. Additionally since we can't ascertain the RAI, DM fiat is just that DM fiat, it isn't a resitution to RAI. Not quite. The RAW is, plain and simple, ambiguous. Without the parenthesis either initial set is equally likely because both require parenthesis (or some other indicator) in order to be clear, i.e. 1d6+1 is not necessarily = (1d6+1) nor (1d6) +1 but is = to one of them. There is no way to know which one without parenthesis being put in. In other words, the symbol 1d6+1 can not exist as a definition of a set because of its inherent ambiguity. This causes any interpretation to automatically be an attempt to discern RAI. Slyver
Tleilaxu_Ghola 09-23-06, 11:31 PM	Undeniably, 1d6+1 ∈ [2,7]. If we define "variable" to mean that the number falls within a range, instead of being represented by an exact figure, then the expression D = 1d6+1 is variable on the range [2,7]. Empower increases both the upper and lower bounds of that set: [3, 10.5] is now the new range for each D. Roll a 15 sided die to find the value of D and add 3 to the number to place it within the variable range. Conclusion: Slyver is right.
GDarius 09-24-06, 01:30 AM	Ok, I had a few minutes to burn. Here's a build: Build Name: Extended Range Telegrappler (E.R.T.) Race: Human Build Stub: Wizard (Transmuter) 6/ Red Wizard 10/ Master of the Unseen Hand 4 Abilities: INT > CON > DEX the rest really don't even matter. Feats: 1 - Extend Spell, Enlarge Spell (H), Scribe Scroll (W) 2 - 3 - Still Spell 4 - 5 - Silent Spell(W) 6 - Practiced Spellcaster 7 - 8 - 9 - Arcane Thesis: Telekinesis 10 - 11 - 12 - Arcane Mastery 13 - 14 - 15 - Extraordinary Concentration 16 - 17 - Improved Caster Level, Versatile Telekinesis 18 - Chain Spell, Telekinetic Wielder, Sustained Concentration 19 - Full Attack Telekinesis 20 - Improved Violent Thrust, Telekinetic Flight When all's said and done, you have a CL of 25, and access to 8th level spells. Sounds good, not great, but hear me out. You have a CL of 31 when using Telekinesis (16 Wizard + 5 Arcane Spell Power + 4 Practiced Spellcaster + 4 Improved Caster Level + 2 Arcane Thesis), which means an effective BAB of 31, giving you 7 attacks per round. Assuming an INT of 34, that's an attack routine of +43/+38/+33/+28/+23/+18/+13. Now, thanks to a combination of Arcane Thesis and MotUH, your range on Telekinesis is (400 + (31 * 40)) = 1 640 ft. Adding Enlarge Spell pushes your horrible rape radius out to 3 280 ft (or 656 squares). Also, all castings of Telekinesis are Extended, Still and Silent while staying level 5 spells. Now, using Chain Spell with MotUH's level 3 ability, you can use a level 7 slot to make the above full attack routine against 21 creatures in range, or animate 21 weapons to attack them for you. Combining Sustained Concentration and Extraordinary Concentration lets you do the above as a swift action. Keep in mind that all of this is assuming the character's only items are a Headband of Intellect +6 and a +5 Tome of Clear Thought. A 20th level character could probably find ways to boost CL further, and get more stat bonuses/attacks/range. You wanna know what the best part is though? Books used: DMG, PHB, PHB 2, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane. Orb spells are nice, and Fighters have a more personal touch, but when you absolutely need to punch someone in the crotch from a mile away, accept no substitutes. Further Options: 1. Changing the mix to Wizard 7/ Red Wizard 10/ MotUH 3 loses you one point of Telekinetic BAB (and therefore one attack), but lets you net 9th level spells. This version can also pull some crazyness with Repeat Spell (like using a 9th level spell slot to throw 31 people into 31 other people, and then doing it again next round.) 2. Changing the build to something like Fighter 1/Wizard 5/ Spellsword 1/ MotUH 3/ Eldrich Knight 10 sacrifices caster levels for a higher BAB, letting you serve as a gish. You'd also want to pick up Arcane Strike. 3. If you're playing in Forgotten Realms, change the build to Wizard 6/ Incantatrix 10/ MotUH 4. Also, be sure to work Signature Spell in there somewhere. This option lets you pull Chain Spell crazyness with 6th level spell slots instead of 7th, and Chain + Repeat spell with 7th level slots instead of 9th. Twin Spell also becomes a viable option. You lose an attack, and 5 effective caster levels, but the Incantatrix bonuses are worth it.
HaikenEdge 09-24-06, 10:01 AM	GDarius & Phoenix00: Look, I don't mean to come off sounding ungrateful, but I'm tired and irritated, and what is up with posting builds without naming them? Please give them names. ANNOUNCEMENT: Unnamed build will not be added to the builds section.
SavageTard 09-24-06, 10:57 AM	Feel free to call my build Lasers of Dooooom or something like that. :-D
GDarius 09-24-06, 11:11 AM	GDarius & Phoenix00: Look, I don't mean to come off sounding ungrateful, but I'm tired and irritated, and what is up with posting builds without naming them? Please give them names. Apologies. This has been remedied.
HaikenEdge 09-24-06, 11:32 AM	Thanks to GDarius & SavageTard. Builds have been added to the builds post. Sorry if I come off as irrate.
GDarius 09-24-06, 12:17 PM	Sorry if I come off as irrate. S'alright, it happens.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-24-06, 03:41 PM	Holy Super Healing! The following two builds I present will make Clerics even more jealous than with a similar thread I made before. The first one is the Wizard version, and the second one is the Sorceror version. The second build uses Practical Metamagic, and the first uses Easy Metamagic. However, Easy Metamagic is not necessary to the build, it's just used to lower spell slots. So, if your DM has a problem with this Dragon feat, just blow an extra wand charge and you'll be fine. (note to Haiken, lablel it as Dragon: optional or something simlar). Race: Human or one with a bonus feat Class: Wizard 5/Incantarix 5/ Wyrm Wizard 2/ Incantarix 6-10/Wyrm Wizard 3/Wizard 6 (or PRC 1)/Wu Jen 1 Feat Progression 1: Sanctum Spell, Two-Weapon Fighting 3: Iron Will 5: Craft Wand 6: Dual-Wand Wielder, Chain Spell 9: Easy Metamagic: Chain Spell, Reach Spell 12: Arcane Thesis: Heal 14: Repeat Spell 15: Easy Metamagic: Repeat Spell 17: Split Ray 18: Empower Spell 20: Twin Spell Levels 1-11 this caster generally just crafts wands and blasts people with Dual-Wand Wielder. At 12th levelhe picks up the Spell Research Ability from Wyrm Wizard to add the 5th level spell "Heal" to his spells list. And, he subsequently chooses Arcane Thesis for it, and makes it into a wand. Normally wands can only be made for spells up to 4th level, however, since he has arcane thesis: heal, applying Sanctum spell makes Heal a 4th level spell. So, he makes Heal into a Wand, and becomes a potent healer. Remember of course though, he's also a level 5 incantarix at the time and can burn extra charges for metamagic effects. Here's a summary of what he can accomplish at level 12 Heal 120 Damage with a 4th level slot. Can use two wands and 3 Charges to cast heal twice healing 240 damage. Use 1 extra charge for reach spell, and 1 for Chain Spell. He could heal at a distance of 30 feat, and up to 12 allies would also be healed 120 damage (you could target undead if you wanted as well). If you used your other wand. You could heal all these people an additional 120 points. For a total of 240 damage healed! Even better, you could probably make one offensive wand, and use your healing wand the same round as double wand wielder. Fireball your friends and enemiesand subsequently apologize by healing them all :D At level 17 is when you really start being awesome. Your 4th level slot heals 150 damage for up to 17 allies within 30 feet and another ray that heals 150 damage for up to 17 allies within 30 feet for a total of 300 damage, and repeats the next round to heal them all over again. for another total damage healed of 300 If you really wanted to be sick, you could dual wand wield this for 3 charges, and do the same thing twice for effectively 600 damage on the first round and the second. At level 18, it gets better since you add Empower to the mix. You naturally heal 225 damage twice in two rays for a total of 450, dual-wieleding heals 900 damage At level 20, you could be even worse if you chose. You could blow off 2 slots for Twin spell and double everything presented so far already for 1,800 damage for two rounds. You could grab a Metamagic rod of Quicken and pay fora 6th level slot with Twin Spell for an extra 900 damage. So, you could heal up to 2700 damage up to 20 allies if you wanted to. And, that's just crazy! Race: Silver Brow Human (Dragon Magic) Class: Sorceror 6/Incantarix 4/ Wyrm Wizard 2/ Incantarix 5-10/Wyrm Wizard 3/Wu Jen 1 Feat Progression 1: Chain Spell, Two-Weapon Fighting 3: Iron Will 6: Craft Wand, 7: Sanctum Spell 9: Practical Metamagic: Chain Spell 10: Reach Spell 12: Arcane Thesis: Heal 15: Dual-Wand Wielder, Split Ray 18: Repeat Spell, Practical Metamagic: Repeat Spell 20: Empower Spell This can be a pretty fun build to play. The biggest disadvantage is that it only minorly kicks in at 12th level and really kicks in at 15th. At level 15 you could heal 150 damage with 2 rays up to 15 allies. for 300 healing total for a level 7 slot. Or you could just blow 3 extra charges in your wand for the same effect. Using two wands and blowing the charges, you could heal 600 damage. At level 18....You.....Start....Pwning Now, your heal spell takes up a level 4 slot again. It'll heal 150 damage twice for up to 18 allies and will now be repeated on the next round! You could dual wand wield this for 3 charges, and if you had a rod of quicken, you could do even more. That'd be 600 healed from dual wielding +300 from quickened for a total of 900 damage healed for 3 charges and a level 4 slot. At level 20 your healing increases to 225 twice for 450 for two rounds for a 4th level slot Dual-Wand Wield and get a rod of quicken. For 3 charges and a quicken you could heal 1350. Add in twin and it'd be even more. Remember also, that Arcane Spell Surge is available to you now. It turns Full-Round spells into standard actions and standard action spells into swift actions. So, just cast your metamagiced heal as a standard action, and then cast a regular spell as a Swift Action. Next round, your heal spell is repeated, so you just dual-wand wield two other wands (preferably Orb of Fire or the like) and blast your enemies to death. And, then just cast a regular spell as a swift action. Needlesstosay this is a very powerful combo. You can heal yourself every turn, and do massive damage every turn with your wands. The wizard build really shines at level 12 since he finally gets to see the fruits of the feats he spent. At level 17 his 10th incantarix level kicks in and he really starts to shine. The sorceror build is slower. His build can cast heal at level 12, but can only do the mass heal capability at level 15. But at level 15 he is strong and can cause some good havoc. At level 18 he really starts kickin it. Being able to apply nearly all his metamagic feats for a 4th level slot or 1 charge. Notes: Arcane Spellsurge (Dragon Magic spell) is extremely potent. turning Full-Round spells into standard actions means that the sorceror build can cast his high powered repeat heal, cast a regular spell, and the next round, have the heal spell kick in again, and use a full-round action to dual-wand and a Standard Action turned into swift to cast a another regular spell. This allows the Wizard to Dual-Wand Wield, and then subsequently cast another spell (metamagiced or not) with the leftover swift action. Things to Remember While these two builds focus on Heal, they can still use any wand they like and blow charges to increase metamagic effects. Similarly, they're still 10th level incantarix's and all their metamagic modifiers are reduced by one as well. You would be particuarly potent if you had one of the Incantarix/Harluaan Elder builds that crafts wands as your buddy. They could give you a couple of their wands, and you could heal the first round and dual-wand fire orb the next round, and so on and so forth. Together, you'd do ridiculous damage, heal every turn, and make the DM go :eek:
HaikenEdge 09-24-06, 04:54 PM	Interesting build for sure there, Bill; I've added it to the builds post. However, you'll want to work on the feats progression some, since Craft Wand requires CL 5. Anyways, I prefer Haik over Haiken when shortening my handle; the latter sounds like a bit awkward when used without the "Edge" suffix.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-24-06, 05:33 PM	Thanks Haik for the tip. For some reason I never noticed the Caster Level Req. :confused: It's all good though. Thank goodness for the Wizard's 5th level feat. The Sorceror build has to delay Dual-Wand Wielder til 15th, but on the other hand, it kind of helps it since now he can cast a heal spell and heal all his party members at 12th. You know, it would be so much fun to play in a campaign full of Incantarix's. I could have the Sorc Incantarix Heal Everyone like crazy while simultaneously blasting the heck out of everything else. Have the Wizard/Harluaan Elder/Incantarix make wands to blast the heck out of stuff and give to the Sorc. And, make a third Persisting Incantarix to persist the buffs of all the other ones. Wow, just wow :D We'd have to watch out for Anti-Magic Field builds though of course.
GDarius 09-24-06, 05:35 PM	At level 18, it gets better since you add Empower to the mix. You naturally heal 225 damage twice in two rays for a total of 450, dual-wieleding heals 900 damage. Pretty sweet non-Cleric healing. I'm reasonably sure that Empower Spell doesn't work with Heal though, as it has no variable, numeric effects.
HaikenEdge 09-24-06, 11:01 PM	GDarius would be right on that one. I haven't read through the build, being busy with homework and all. However, I get the gist of what it can do and it's completely freaky in an odd way; maybe Wizards & Sorcerers, when properly PrC'ed can outdo an Artificer at something. From my understanding, the Artificer can never learn Arcane Thesis.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-24-06, 11:25 PM	Well, if I'm right about or at least, if my view on Fiery spell and Empower spell as espoused is legitimate, then I could be right about this one as well. Just because it's in 10 healing increments and not d6s doesn't mean that it's not a variable. it's 10 healing per caster level. Your caster level can change. If you had negative levels, your caster level would decrease, and it could effect the healing capacity of this spell. Anywho, I could still be wrong anyway. If you don't agree that Empower spell works with heal, that's fine. In the example he showed, it just heal 600 damage instead of 900. As far as the point of my builds. The idea is that he casts Heal, is healed, and blasts with 2 spells. The next turn he's healed again, and blasts with 3 spells. The next turn he casts heal, is healed, and blasts with 2 spells, ect. ect. You can do severe amounts of damage, and severe amounts o f healing. You could even Repeat your offensive spells for more craziness. I love those builds :D Edit: I think that Artificers in versatility, early and long-term use, ect. still pwn this build. The only advantage this build has over an Artificer I think, is 1. This build can Dual-Wand Wield AND cast a Spell. Whereas artificers can only dual-wand wield. 2. This build blows less wand charges than an Artificer would.
GDarius 09-25-06, 02:58 AM	Some musings on Arcane Thesis: In the long term - 1. It works well with spells that get a lot out of Caster Level (ex. Telekinesis, which gives you effective BAB, range, and to a lesser extent, weight and number of targets all based off CL). 2. It works well on spells that scale well (so Arcane Thesis: Burning Hands is in no way a good idea, unless you know you won't be going past level 3). Ideally, this means we're applying it to a spell that decides its effect purely through CL (without a cap), that does some sort of energy damage (so that the +0 level metamagics can be most effectively used) and that can be Chained. Alternatly, we could apply it to a spell that scales well because the things it attacks don't change significantly. For instance something that deals ability damage, or gives negative levels. Enervation may be a good choice. Combined with one other metamagic level reducers, this means that you can cast an Enlarged, Maximized, Empowered Enervation as a level 5 spell. Not too shabby. In the short term - It works well on short duration spells that determine duration via CL (because the +2 CL increases that duration, and Extend Spell can now be applied for free). So a low-level mage could probably get decent mileage out of Arcane Thesis: Summon Monster [whatever]. Ugh... It's too late for me to think clearly. I'll give this some consideration in the morning.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-25-06, 09:53 AM	That's why Arcane Thesis goes so great for Shadow Evocation and Shadow Conjuration. Since those spells can substitute for either Summoning or damage. Arcane Thesis works especially well if your DM allows the PHB2 retraining rules. At 6th level get Arcane Thesis whatever, at 9th change it, and so on and so forth. Retraining can make higher level Arcane Thesis builds more applicable.
Dragon3 09-25-06, 05:15 PM	Innate Spell. It cost 8 spell slots to use so how can we abuse this with arcane thesis? Unlimited at will spell-like ability is nifty. We'll want spells with no SR and no save if possible.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-25-06, 05:41 PM	The problem with Innate Spell is its very definition. 8 levels higher To make it viable you'd really need to take Improved Spell Capacity at least 3 times or more depending on your Arcane Thesis build. Unfortunately, I think it's a very small benefit for the cost. In most campaigns you won't need to cast that spell that much, and if you needed to cast a lot, you could just use your wands as well. The only use for it that I would see if you wanted to destroy the world and everyone on it, which can be crazy in of itself :eek:
GDarius 09-25-06, 05:57 PM	Just because it's in 10 healing increments and not d6s doesn't mean that it's not a variable. it's 10 healing per caster level. Your caster level can change. If you had negative levels, your caster level would decrease, and it could effect the healing capacity of this spell. Anywho, I could still be wrong anyway. Sorry, I didn't catch this earlier. I disagree with the position because if you accept that "Changes by level" equals "Variable", then an extension of the logic means that Empower Spell also affects the range and duration of the spell. (Long range means 800 ft + 40 ft/ CL, so it changes with level. Durations are frequently expressed as X / Caster Level where "X" is rounds, minutes, hours, etc.) I'm reasonably sure that this isn't the way it's supposed to work.
Phoenix00 09-25-06, 06:09 PM	According to Customer Service Fiery Spell is not a variable effect. Its Customer Service, so take it what you will. Reference Number is 060925-000044 Sorry HaikenEdge, for not naming my builds. I am going to edit and add more comments to them later on (soon though). I will also write up the sorcerer version of the builds.
Hesparex 09-25-06, 06:15 PM	Instead of hiding behind math (which is ludicrous to even think so much thought went into the game mechanics for DnD). Perhaps the argument should focus on the practicality of the applications. See RAW is a nice thing to quote however most Customer Serv decisions are based off of interpretations of RAW by the individual's reading. Such parsing because of the inaacuracy of the english language actually becomes (Rules as I wish to read them). By RAW nothing bad happens to a character in the dead status except for the loss of a soul. Nowhere within the condition of "DEAD" are there ANY game mechanic rules stating loss of movement or ability to take actions. Furthermore there is a decided lack of criteria for what earns you experience points except some vague wording. So claiming "RAW" is a very slippery proposition because it can quickly render the game meaningless
Arctigear 09-25-06, 06:44 PM	Could Energy Substitution be taken 4 times, each with a different energy descriptor, and then be applied 4 times to any energy based spell, reducing its spell level by 4? For example a normaly fifth level Cone of cold would become an energy substituted cold>fire,fire>electricity,electricity>acid,acid>cold 1st level spell? You could really make a human machine gun with the Force missile mage's energy missile ability and some abuse use of repeating, twinned spells with easy/practical metamagic. All you need is a lot of feats.
dog45 09-25-06, 06:58 PM	Just had an idea while going through the Nanobot thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=458721&page=1&pp=30). Why not use Arcane Thesis to pimp your nano-powering ability? I've always preferred the use of Unseen Servants for my nanobots, but any of the other nano-powering spells would benefit. Hmm. I'll work on this.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-25-06, 07:25 PM	Could Energy Substitution be taken 4 times, each with a different energy descriptor, and then be applied 4 times to any energy based spell, reducing its spell level by 4? For example a normaly fifth level Cone of cold would become an energy substituted cold>fire,fire>electricity,electricity>acid,acid>cold 1st level spell? You could really make a human machine gun with the Force missile mage's energy missile ability and some abuse use of repeating, twinned spells with easy/practical metamagic. All you need is a lot of feats. I actually asked CustServ this question awhile ago. They said that you can't apply the same Metamagic Feat twice to the same spell. Thus you couldn't apply Energy Admixture twice or Energy Substitution twice since they count for the same feat. However, I don't agree that they're the same feat per se, and if we're going to ignore custserv, by all means, then yes you can! In fact, I think another build is due!
HaikenEdge 09-25-06, 11:12 PM	However, I don't agree that they're the same feat per se, and if we're going to ignore custserv, by all means, then yes you can! We're only ignoring CustServ if they are contradicting RAW. We don't ignore CustServ only when it benefits us, but when they contradict RAW, even when their interpretation is more favorable.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-25-06, 11:43 PM	Well by RAW there's no state such as death, ect. ect. If we asked custserv about death and they said that you couldn't do anything, would we say "We ignore this because it's not RAW?" Obviously an Empowered Empowered Spell would be adding the same metamagic feat twice but a Substituted Fire Substituted Electricty would? I think they made them from the same feat for ease of use. Rather than having for different Feats Electric Substitution: You can replace any energy damage with Electricty damage instead. Fire Substitution: You can replace any energy damage with Electricty damage instead. ect. I guess you could argue it either way. Similarly, I think there may be a basis. Say you wanted a fireball to do Sonic damage and Negative Energy Damage. You'd apply Energy Sub. Cold and then Lord of the Uttercold for the Negative energy, and then apply Energy Sub. Electricity for the remaining cold damage, and then Born of Three Thunders to turn half of the Electric damage into sonic damage. So you end up with a 1/4 sonic, 1/4 electric, 1/2 negative energy spell. I don't see why this shouldn't be possible.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 12:19 AM	Well by RAW there's no state such as death, ect. ect. If we asked custserv about death and they said that you couldn't do anything, would we say "We ignore this because it's not RAW?" I don't want to move this thread off-topic, so I'll PM you about this part. I guess you could argue it either way. Similarly, I think there may be a basis. Say you wanted a fireball to do Sonic damage and Negative Energy Damage. You'd apply Energy Sub. Cold and then Lord of the Uttercold for the Negative energy, and then apply Energy Sub. Electricity for the remaining cold damage, and then Born of Three Thunders to turn half of the Electric damage into sonic damage. So you end up with a 1/4 sonic, 1/4 electric, 1/2 negative energy spell. I don't see why this shouldn't be possible. Well, if you were to apply the Energy Substitution (Electricity) to a Spell that's already been affected by Energy Substitution (Cold), it would change the [Cold] descriptor to [Electricity]. Therefore, since the spell no longer as the [Cold] descriptor, the Lord of the Uttercold feat would no longer function on the spell. The feat doesn't allow you to replace part of the damage; it forces you to replace the spell's original energy type with the one with which you have the Energy Substitution feat.
RicercarA6 09-26-06, 03:20 AM	Fell Weaken (Libris Mortis) is a +1 level metamagic feat. Should be in the 100 % discount list.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 09:28 AM	Coulda sworn I had it in there... must have been because I used some stupid cut and paste by mouse drag and forgot to hold down Ctrl... stupid Haik... Anyways, thanks for the catch.
Hyfigh 09-26-06, 11:52 AM	I thought the way Energy Admixture was worded allowed for multiple energy types through applying the feat multiple times... Maybe I am thinking of one of the old 3.0 splat books.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 12:06 PM	According to the wording of the feat, which simply says you can add the energy in addition, I would say that, by RAW, you can admixture multiple types of energy to the same spell, but it would cost an addition +4 level each admixture (or +3 with Arcane Thesis).
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-26-06, 01:26 PM	Well, if you were to apply the Energy Substitution (Electricity) to a Spell that's already been affected by Energy Substitution (Cold), it would change the [Cold] descriptor to [Electricity]. Therefore, since the spell no longer as the [Cold] descriptor, the Lord of the Uttercold feat would no longer function on the spell. The feat doesn't allow you to replace part of the damage; it forces you to replace the spell's original energy type with the one with which you have the Energy Substitution feat. Ah, but here's the thing though. What if you started with a Cone of Cold? You apply Lord of the Uttercold and now it deals half cold half negative energy. And then you apply energy sub. Electricity and it's now half Electric and half negative and then apply Born of three thunders, it's now 1/4 electric 1/4 sonic 1/2 negative energy It shouldn't matter what beginning energy type you start out with. You should be able to get your 1/4 electric 1/4 sonic 1/2 negative energy whether it started out as a fireball, cone of cold, or acid orb. And just for reference, Energy Sub. only replaces the subtype and thus the (Acid, Electric, Cold, Fire, Sonic) damage. So yes, I do believe that you can apply Energy Sub. multiple times for different energy types as well as Energy Admixture.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 02:03 PM	Ah, but here's the thing though. What if you started with a Cone of Cold? You apply Lord of the Uttercold and now it deals half cold half negative energy. So far, this works. And then you apply energy sub. Electricity and it's now half Electric and half cold and then apply Born of three thunders, it's now 1/4 electric 1/4 sonic 1/2 negative energyThe moment you apply Electricity sub, the spell is no longer a cold spell, and therefore, the Lord of the Uttercold feat can no longer apply to it. It shouldn't matter what beginning energy type you start out with. You should be able to get your 1/4 electric 1/4 sonic 1/2 negative energy whether it started out as a fireball, cone of cold, or acid orb.The problem with what you're proposing is that Energy Substitution replaces the energy descriptor of a spell with another energy type. That is, the spell loses its original descriptor, which is then replaced the new one. You Cone of Cold would become a Cone of Electricity, and would have the (electricity) descriptor, not the (cold) descriptor; therefore, you wouldn't be able to apply Lord of the Uttercold to it. Even if you did apply Lord of the Uttercold first, the feat would not convert any damage to negative energy, since the spell doesn't deal cold damage in the first place. Rather, the spell deals nothing but electricity damage, and Lord of the Uttercold doesn't apply to electricity damage. You couldn't pull off the proposed trick even using Energy Admixture. Lord of the Uttercold specifically states that it turns half the damage into cold and the other half negative energy. Even if you added admixture, you'd still end up with half cold and half negative energy. At least that's how I read RAW. Likewise, half the damage dealt by a Born of Three Thunders spell is sonic, the other half being electricity; again, there isn't anything that says you can only split the electricity damage, but rather, the damage of the entire spell. And just for reference, Energy Sub. only replaces the subtype and thus the (Acid, Electric, Cold, Fire, Sonic) damage. So yes, I do believe that you can apply Energy Sub. multiple times for different energy types as well as Energy Admixture. You can appy Energy Substitution multiple times, but only the last application would matter, since it completely converts a spell to that energy type.
Hyfigh 09-26-06, 02:04 PM	Interesting Bill, and that brings up a new question for me... Can you Energy Sub, then Admix, then Sub the the energy that you had admixed? Example: fireball + energy sub to sonic (-1 spell level) Energy Admix fire (+4 spell level) + energy sub to cold (-1 spell level) I know CustServ (blah) said you can't apply it twice, but in this instance the second application is an entirely different (though the same) effect. This would net a total of +2 spell levels and double the damage of the ball spell. Add in things like Uttercold and Three Thunders and we may have something here...
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 02:11 PM	Interesting Bill, and that brings up a new question for me... Can you Energy Sub, then Admix, then Sub the the energy that you had admixed? Example: fireball + energy sub to sonic (-1 spell level)Sonic isn't an option for sub. Energy Admix fire (+4 spell level) + energy sub to cold (-1 spell level) Yes, you can do this. You can also Admix Fire to a non-substituted Fireball. Or Admix Acid to an Acidball. Or Admix Cold to a Coldball. I know CustServ (blah) said you can't apply it twice, but in this instance the second application is an entirely different (though the same) effect. This would net a total of +2 spell levels and double the damage of the ball spell. Add in things like Uttercold and Three Thunders and we may have something here...I don't see anything in RAW that says you can't apply Energy Subs of different kind to a spell, unless they're all considered the same feat. However, if they were, then shouldn't a single Energy Sub feat allow you to sub whatever energy type you choose?
Hyfigh 09-26-06, 02:31 PM	Sonic isn't an option for sub. Oops, sorry. I don't have my books so shooting from the hip. Replace that with any element though as it is only an example of the point I was trying to make. Yes, you can do this. You can also Admix Fire to a non-substituted Fireball. Or Admix Acid to an Acidball. Or Admix Cold to a Coldball. I do understand that, I was simply trying to make my example clear by using different energy types in order to not confuse people. I'm trying to point out that you could energy sub the 'fire' portion of the original fireball, then energy sub the admixed portion as well. Now if this functions the way I am thinking it would require the application of the Energy Sub feat (which was what I was trying to point out). However, if they were, then shouldn't a single Energy Sub feat allow you to sub whatever energy type you choose? Personally, I say no. The wording of the feat expresses choosing a single element. This is why I was suggesting that it requires two applications of the feat to affect the original spell then the admixed portion.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 03:46 PM	I do understand that, I was simply trying to make my example clear by using different energy types in order to not confuse people. I'm trying to point out that you could energy sub the 'fire' portion of the original fireball, then energy sub the admixed portion as well. Now if this functions the way I am thinking it would require the application of the Energy Sub feat (which was what I was trying to point out).By RAW, you can't. By RAW, you can only sub the spell's original energy content; if you were to attempt to apply Energy Sub after applying Energy Admixture, you'd end up subbing the entire contents of the spell. Nowhere in the description of the feat does it say you can sub out part of the spell's energy type. Personally, I say no. The wording of the feat expresses choosing a single element. This is why I was suggesting that it requires two applications of the feat to affect the original spell then the admixed portion. I disagree. The RAW of admixture states that you add an equal proportion of energy; however, the RAW of Energy Sub explicitly states that, if a spell as an energy descriptor, the feat changes the energy type to the type you selected with Energy Sub instead. Therefore, you don't need to apply them separately, but you also can't affect the spell as if it were two portions.
Hyfigh 09-26-06, 04:01 PM	Good call Haik. Again, I don't have my books as I'm at work so forgive my ignorance.
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 04:25 PM	Not a problem. I make mistakes too. Besides, I love to argue, if only for the sake of arguing... It's a bad habit of mine.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-26-06, 04:34 PM	So far, this works. The moment you apply Electricity sub, the spell is no longer a cold spell, and therefore, the Lord of the Uttercold feat can no longer apply to it. The problem with what you're proposing is that Energy Substitution replaces the energy descriptor of a spell with another energy type. That is, the spell loses its original descriptor, which is then replaced the new one. You Cone of Cold would become a Cone of Electricity, and would have the (electricity) descriptor, not the (cold) descriptor; therefore, you wouldn't be able to apply Lord of the Uttercold to it. Even if you did apply Lord of the Uttercold first, the feat would not convert any damage to negative energy, since the spell doesn't deal cold damage in the first place. Rather, the spell deals nothing but electricity damage, and Lord of the Uttercold doesn't apply to electricity damage. You couldn't pull off the proposed trick even using Energy Admixture. Lord of the Uttercold specifically states that it turns half the damage into cold and the other half negative energy. Even if you added admixture, you'd still end up with half cold and half negative energy. At least that's how I read RAW. Likewise, half the damage dealt by a Born of Three Thunders spell is sonic, the other half being electricity; again, there isn't anything that says you can only split the electricity damage, but rather, the damage of the entire spell. You can appy Energy Substitution multiple times, but only the last application would matter, since it completely converts a spell to that energy type. I'm of the opinion that you can add metamagic feats in the order of your choice, and that the effects and requirements of the previous metamagic feats. Say you apply Lord of the Uttercold to Cone of Cold. Now it does half cold and half negative. Now you apply Energy Admix: Fire to it. You should now get one cone of cold's worth of cold and negative and another of Fire. It's counter-intuitive to say that the effects of Lord of the Uttercold spill over to the Admixed Fire damage. The same thing I would say of an Admixed Cold and Admixed Electricty Spell. Apply Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders. These feats should affect their own respective energy types and not overtake the entire feat. Try and apply Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders at the same time with your interpretation. The Universe Implodes!:eek:
FeanorCursed 09-26-06, 04:37 PM	Sonic isn't an option for sub. Srd: Energy Substitution [Metamagic] Prerequisites: Any other metamagic feat, Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks. Benefit:You choose one type of energy: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. When employing a spell with the acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic designator, you can modify the spell to use your chosen type of energy instead. The altered spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal level. The altered spell works normally in all respects except the type of damage dealt. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the feat applies to a different type of energy. I know CustServ (blah) said you can't apply it twice, but in this instance the second application is an entirely different (though the same) effect. This would net a total of +2 spell levels and double the damage of the ball spell. Add in things like Uttercold and Three Thunders and we may have something here... Srd: Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-26-06, 04:43 PM	^ As far as the second part goes. Yes, you can't apply the same metamagic feat twice. The real question is though, are Energy Sub: Fire, and Energy Sub: Cold the same metamagic feat?
Tath 09-26-06, 04:46 PM	I would say they aren't. After all, if they were the same feat then how come my Energy Sub Cold feat won't let me sub fire, electricity, or acid for more versatility? edit: nvm
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 05:13 PM	FeanorCursed: Funny. SRD Energy Substitution allows Sonic, but CArc Energy Sub does not. The question is, which one is more current, and therefore the official version? I'm of the opinion that you can add metamagic feats in the order of your choice, and that the effects and requirements of the previous metamagic feats. I agree with this. Say you apply Lord of the Uttercold to Cone of Cold. Now it does half cold and half negative. Now you apply Energy Admix: Fire to it. You should now get one cone of cold's worth of cold and negative and another of Fire. It's counter-intuitive to say that the effects of Lord of the Uttercold spill over to the Admixed Fire damage. I also agree with this. The same thing I would say of an Admixed Cold and Admixed Electricty Spell. Apply Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders. These feats should affect their own respective energy types and not overtake the entire feat. Try and apply Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders at the same time with your interpretation. The Universe Implodes!:eek: This is where I disagree. You're not casting two different spells, but one spell with different energy types. Therein lies the problem. Let's say you start with a Cold spell. You can apply Lord of the Uttercold to it, because it's a cold spell. You can also admix electricity to it. However, the moment you apply Born of Three Thunders, you have problems. RAW states explicitly that, when you apply Born of Three Thunders to a spell with the electricity or sonic descriptor, half its damage is sonic, and the other half is electricity. Nowhere in the feat description does it say anything about converting half the electricity/sonic damage into sonic/electricity or vice versa; it converts the entire spell to half electricity and half sonic, period. Simply put, due to the wording of the feats, Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders do not stack (both convert the spell to do half damage of one type, and half the other, rather than convert half the energy type into another type). Basically, you gain the effect of whichever feat you apply last, since neither feat causes you to lose a descriptor. Strangely, this leads to an interesting combination: Apply all 4 Energy Sub feats (ending with cold or electricity) to gain a -4 spell level adjustment to an energy spell; then, apply Energy Admix of the other energy type (cold or electricity) feat for free, then apply both Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders in whichever order is more beneficial (half cold/half negative energy vs half electricity/half sonic) to gain an additional -2 level adjustment for a total of a -3 adjustment to a spell... Then, Fireball out of a 0-th level slot, dealing double damage, half of which is in a different energy type than the other half... Or better yet, Meteor Swarm from a 6th level slot.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-26-06, 05:57 PM	This is where I disagree. You're not casting two different spells, but one spell with different energy types. Therein lies the problem. Let's say you start with a Cold spell. You can apply Lord of the Uttercold to it, because it's a cold spell. You can also admix electricity to it. However, the moment you apply Born of Three Thunders, you have problems. RAW states explicitly that, when you apply Born of Three Thunders to a spell with the electricity or sonic descriptor, half its damage is sonic, and the other half is electricity. Nowhere in the feat description does it say anything about converting half the electricity/sonic damage into sonic/electricity or vice versa; it converts the entire spell to half electricity and half sonic, period. Simply put, due to the wording of the feats, Lord of the Uttercold and Born of Three Thunders do not stack (both convert the spell to do half damage of one type, and half the other, rather than convert half the energy type into another type). Basically, you gain the effect of whichever feat you apply last, since neither feat causes you to lose a descriptor. I can agree with this in part. I don't see why Lord of the Uttercold would 'go away' or 'be invalid' if you suddenly applied Energy Sub. Whatever. You applied Lord of the Uttercold when it was valid, and then (in my opinion) the stipulation of being a cold descriptor spell isn't worried about anymore. You met the requirements, and it doesn't matter if the spell has the electric descriptor now, Lord of the Uttercold changed the spell. Metamagic feats don't stay with the spell, they don't sit there ready to leave if something contradicts them. The spell does half cold half negative, end of story, now we're changing the descriptor. The spell doesn't suddenly lose its negative energy it should keep it. Let me illustrate this another way. Take a look at the Feat Elven Spell Lore from PHB2. This lets you prepare your chosen spell with any energy type. Lets say you prepared an Uttercold spell, and you want to prepare it instead with Sonic Damage. THe Lord of the Uttercold doesn't go away, it's still a Lord of the Uttercold Spell, you've simply overriden its usefulness similarly if you made an Fire Substituted spell, and used Elven Spell lore to Acid instead. That's my basic idea though, just because the prereq. of Lord of the Uttercold, ect. isn't met anymore doesn't mean that it goes away. You're free to change the energy descriptor as much as you wish. That's my opinion anway. Similarly, if we go by your opinion, we enter a paradox. It says in Complete Arcane Half the damage done by an uttercold spell is cold damage and the other half is negative energy damage You can declare that spell to be a spell of three thunders, with half its damage dealt as electricity damage and half dealt as sonic damage If you go by the first statement, the spell does half cold and half negative energy, but wait, it's also a three thunders, so now it does half electric and half sonic. Ah crap, it's still an uttercold spell, so it does half cold and half negative energy, darn but it's still a three thunders spell so it does half electric and half sonic........ Do you see the problem here?
HaikenEdge 09-26-06, 06:32 PM	I can agree with this in part. I don't see why Lord of the Uttercold would 'go away' or 'be invalid' if you suddenly applied Energy Sub. Whatever. You applied Lord of the Uttercold when it was valid, and then (in my opinion) the stipulation of being a cold descriptor spell isn't worried about anymore. You met the requirements, and it doesn't matter if the spell has the electric descriptor now, Lord of the Uttercold changed the spell. Metamagic feats don't stay with the spell, they don't sit there ready to leave if something contradicts them. The spell does half cold half negative, end of story, now we're changing the descriptor. The spell doesn't suddenly lose its negative energy it should keep it. Very well. I can see how this approach to metamagic is logical as well. Let me illustrate this another way. Take a look at the Feat Elven Spell Lore from PHB2. This lets you prepare your chosen spell with any energy type. Lets say you prepared an Uttercold spell, and you want to prepare it instead with Sonic Damage. THe Lord of the Uttercold doesn't go away, it's still a Lord of the Uttercold Spell, you've simply overriden its usefulness similarly if you made an Fire Substituted spell, and used Elven Spell lore to Acid instead.So, then we're in agreement that applying Energy Sub basically replaces all the energy types used in the spell? That's my basic idea though, just because the prereq. of Lord of the Uttercold, ect. isn't met anymore doesn't mean that it goes away. You're free to change the energy descriptor as much as you wish.I agree with this. I'm just saying that, since it's no longer dealing cold damage due to Energy substitution, the Lord of the Uttercold feat applied no longer functions. If you go by the first statement, the spell does half cold and half negative energy, but wait, it's also a three thunders, so now it does half electric and half sonic. Ah crap, it's still an uttercold spell, so it does half cold and half negative energy, darn but it's still a three thunders spell so it does half electric and half sonic........ Do you see the problem here?Actually, I ran into this problem as well. My understanding is that the last metamagic feat applied has the final say; therefore, if you apply Lord of the Uttercold first and Born of Three Thunders, you end up dealing half electricity and half sonic, since, because it was applied last, it overrides all previously applied metamagic feats that have similar effects. It's something like playing MtG. Let's say you play a red sorcery (choosing a spell). While the spell is on the stack, you cast an instant that changes the color to blue (applying the first metamagic feat). After the first instant is resolved, you think better of it and play a second instant (applying the metamagic feat), this time using it to change the original red sorcery, now a blue sorcery, into a white spell. When the sorcery finally resolves, it is a white spell. Similarly, let's say we have a fireball that already has Energy Sub (cold) and Energy Admixture (Electricity) applied to it (the red sorcery). If you apply Born of Three Thunders to the spell, it changes it so that half the damage dealt is electricity and the other half sonic (converted into a blue spell). Then, you decided to change it into an Uttercold spell (changing the now-blue sorcery to white); the newly applied metamagic feat overwrites the previously applied conditions, and the spell instead deals half cold damage and half negative energy damage.
Starman IX 09-27-06, 09:13 PM	Which goes goes first, the Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic or Arcane Thesis? Would Empowered Energy Drain fly (first Improved then Arcane) or not?
jstorrie 09-27-06, 11:12 PM	For crazy summoning - note that there are a few different ways to do this to the same effect, including using Thrall of Demorgogon's Dual Actions or Thaumaturgist's Contingent Conjuration, but I'll stick with Incantatrix for CO tradition's sake: Human 1 Wizard Scribe Scroll, Malign Spell Focus, Evil Brand 2 Wizard 3 Wizard Sacrificial Mastery 4 Wizard 5 Wizard Spell Focus: Conjuration 6 Demonologist Iron Will 7 Demonologist 8 Demonologist 9 Demonologist Greater Spell Focus: Conjuration 10 Demonologist 11 Demonologist 12 Nar Demonbinder Extend Spell 13 Incantatrix Repeat Spell 14 Incantatrix 15 Incantatrix Augment Summoning 16 Incantatrix Imbued Summoning 17 Incantatrix 18 Incantatrix Arcane Thesis: Summon Monster VI 19 Incantatrix Quicken Spell 20 Incantatrix Not that you, of course, couldn't pull these sort of theatrics with Time Stop, I guess, but this character can at CL19 cast a repeat extended imbued summon monster vi followed by an instant-metamagic-quickened repeat extended imbued summon monster vi in one round to summon two summon monster ix monsters with third-level buffs applied, followed by two more buffed monsters of the same types in the next round. You could just Time Stop and start gating in Balors, I guess, but this has got some panache to it, especially if you are sneakily summoning in, like, four invisible colossal fiendish monstrous spiders, or whatever. That could get some grappling done, or something.
HaikenEdge 09-28-06, 10:25 AM	Which goes goes first, the Incantatrix's Improved Metamagic or Arcane Thesis? Would Empowered Energy Drain fly (first Improved then Arcane) or not? I'm pretty sure it would. However, I'm not sure about this. jstorrie: Can we get a name on that build?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-28-06, 11:29 AM	Improved Metamagic changes the metamagic modifier for anything. This counts even when you haven't prepared or cast a spell with that metamagic feat. Now, you prepare a spell, and it happens to be the one affected by arcane thesis. It goes down by one. :) So yes, Arcane Thesis is applied first.
Epicweaver 09-28-06, 01:01 PM	There any more feasible non-Dragon magazine versions of the arcane thesis missiler/orb... maybe in sorceror and wizard builds?
FeanorCursed 09-28-06, 03:22 PM	The real question is though, are Energy Sub: Fire, and Energy Sub: Cold the same metamagic feat? Yes. If not so, it would be written: Energy subs. Fire benefit: blablabla Energy subs. Cold Benefit: blablabla So, they are all the same feat. At least in my opinion.
jstorrie 09-28-06, 03:57 PM	I'm pretty sure it would. However, I'm not sure about this. jstorrie: Can we get a name on that build? Sure, ah... SPIDOR: The Multiple-Demon-Spider-Getter How's that?
HaikenEdge 09-28-06, 04:00 PM	I won't argue intentions with you, since I hate RAI arguments, but I'll pose a question. If two metamagic feats have completely different effects, would they be considered the same feat if they were listed under the same label, simply because there was a desire to save space?
jstorrie 09-28-06, 04:03 PM	HaikenEdge, the precedent for Energy Sub being only one feat despite having different applications is found with Weapon Focus. Weapon Focus: Longsword and Weapon Focus: Greatsword are both still Weapon Focus. Thus if you have some ability that lets you apply Weapon Focus to more than one weapon, so two instances of the feat overlap (not something a sane builder would waste time with, of course) they do not stack because they are the same source. Similarly you cannot Energy Sub something twice because even if you've taken the feat multiple times with different energy types it's still the same feat.
HaikenEdge 09-28-06, 04:10 PM	HaikenEdge, the precedent for Energy Sub being only one feat despite having different applications is found with Weapon Focus. Weapon Focus: Longsword and Weapon Focus: Greatsword are both still Weapon Focus. Thus if you have some ability that lets you apply Weapon Focus to more than one weapon, so two instances of the feat overlap (not something a sane builder would waste time with, of course) they do not stack because they are the same source.So what happens if I try to slap two Energy Subs on a spell I've taken Arcane Thesis for? -2 level or -1? Similarly you cannot Energy Sub something twice because even if you've taken the feat multiple times with different energy types it's still the same feat.Nor can you energy Admixture x2, I guess.
jstorrie 09-28-06, 04:22 PM	Nothing special happens if you try to slap two Energy Subs on a spell because you cannot apply the same metamagic feat more than once to any particular spell. The first one works, the second one fails.
igotsmeakabob!! 09-28-06, 04:31 PM	I wasn't aware that you could Empower a spell twice.
HaikenEdge 09-28-06, 04:34 PM	I wasn't aware that you could Empower a spell twice. Yeah, you're right. Of course, there was an interpretation that Energy Sub was separate feats, but it's fine if it isn't. Just less abuse.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-28-06, 04:51 PM	Where's the precedent that a Weapon that counted as a longsword and Greatsword couldn't be affected by both Weapon Focuses?
igotsmeakabob!! 09-28-06, 04:53 PM	I can see where you're coming from Haiken, but I don't agree with it RAW-wise. But then again, thats just my opinion.
Starman IX 09-28-06, 04:57 PM	Look at it this way: Greatbow is supposed to share feats with Longbow. If someone took Weapon Focus (Greatbow) and Weapon Focus (Longbow), would you let it stack?
GDarius 09-28-06, 05:01 PM	Look at it this way: Greatbow is supposed to share feats with Longbow. If someone took Weapon Focus (Greatbow) and Weapon Focus (Longbow), would you let it stack? I'd just point out that this player just used two feats to give himself +2 to attack with a single type of weapon. I'm pretty sure he'd reconsider. I get the feeling you meant something else by the question though, and no, strictly by the rules these two Weapon Focuses wouldn't stack.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-28-06, 05:15 PM	Weapon Focus [General] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1. Benefit You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. Special:You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats. He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon. Here's the thing though, Yes it says its effects don't stack. However, that's the same line that's said in every feat that you take multiple times to apply to different things. Yes, it's effects don't stack since obviously you're getting a +1 bonus to one weapon and a +1 bonus to another. I think the line "its effects don't stack" refers to this line of thinking. And therefore, if you had a weapon that was a longsword and a greatsword, then yes, you'd get +2 Secondly, this is weapon focus. Metamagic is something different. Weapon Focus has the specific wording "it's effects don't stack" Metamagic feats only have "The same feat can't be applied multiple times." So this can still be argued. And, I believe that yes you can apply Energy Sub. Multiple Times.
Lafing Cat 09-28-06, 06:00 PM	The feat Energy Substitution isn't written with a varible in the name. Despite the fact the people write Energy Sub (Fire) The feat they have taken is actually just Energy Substition. The feat specifies that when you choose it, you *also* choose an energy type, but thats seperate from your choice of feat. If taking the Feat Energy Substition and then choosing (Fire) was a different feat than taking the feat Energy Substitution and then chosing (Cold), the line that says "You may select this feat more than once" wouldn't be there, because you'd be selecting different feats. (or the line would possibly say, "you may select more than one of these feats"; plural) So house rule it away if you can, and have the inclination, but the rules are pretty much crystal clear that Energy Substition is the same feat, regardless of the choice of energy you make when you take it. Ditto with Admixture.
jstorrie 09-28-06, 06:09 PM	That's exaclty what I meant about Weapon Focus: "Weapon Focus: Longsword" is not actually a feat - Weapon Focus is, and an instance of Weapon Focus may have Longsword selected as its function, but multiple copies of Weapon Focus for one PC are still all the same feat, just with different targets. This is why Weapon Focus: Longbow and Weapon Focus: Greatbow wouldn't give +2: they're both the feat Weapon Focus, and bonuses from the same source don't stack. Along similar but subtly different lines, Energy Sub: Fire and Energy Sub: Cold are still actually just Energy Substitution, the same feat. And the same metamagic feat cannot be applied more than once to a spell.
Dragon3 09-29-06, 12:21 PM	I hadn't realized there was a 3.5 incanatrix, ok revised build. 6 Beguiler/10 incanatrix/4 MotUH. I abused arcane thesis, incanatrix improved metamagic and instant metamagic to achieve a chained, still, silent, extended and expanded TK. As a side note any arcane spells of 1 - 5th level can be stilled, silent, extended, and expanded for free. That's an incredible amount of power for any spellcaster. 1 Beguiler Quicken Spell, Iron Will 2 Beguiler 3 Beguiler Practiced Spellcaster 4 Beguiler 5 Beguiler Still Spell 6 Beguiler Arcane Discipline Spell Domain 7 Incanatrix Silent Spell 8 Incanatrix - class feature of Cooperative metamagic 9 Incanatrix - class feature of metamagic effect, Innate Spell 10 Incanatrix Chain Spell 11 Incanatrix - class feature of metamagic spell trigger 12 Incanatrix - class feature of seize concentration, Craft Wand 13 Incanatrix - class feature of instant metamagic 1/day, Expand Spell 14 Incanatrix - class feature of snatch spell 15 Incanatrix - class feature of instant metamagic 2/day, Craft Staff 16 Incanatrix - class feature of improved metamagic, Extend Spell 17 MotUH 18 MotUH Arcane Thesis - Telekinesis 19 MotUH 20 MotUH Ok I like this build better due to the metamagic abilities and I squeezed in practiced spellcaster so CL of Telekinesis is 16 + 4 + 4 + 2 = 26 Quicken was needed for innate. The 2 craft feats was needed for metamagic spell trigger. Hmm no chained TK possible. Telekinesis took up a 6th level slot due to Spell domain. Silent, Still, Extend, Expand, chained, innate and arcane thesis take up 5 slots higher. Drop chain and that drop to 4 slot higher. I can use a rod of chaining but that's 3/day. The other alternative is to use wizard. Telekinesis then go to 5th slot and the build has 8 level slot available. Hmm since I got craft staff I can use a staff of telekinesis. If I drop innate, I can drop the spell down to a 3rd level slots
HaikenEdge 09-29-06, 12:33 PM	Dragon3: The build doesn't exactly work, or at least not the way you posted it. An innate spell requires a slot 8 (!) levels higher, something that you don't have access to as a 9th level caster. At best, you could take Arcane Thesis at 9th if you went Wizard, since I don't know of any domains that offer Telekinesis as a spell. Even with Cooperative Spell & Sanctum Spell, the best you can do is drop Telekinesis to a 3rd level slot, and to innate that, you'd need a 11th level slot; to innate it, you'd need two additional metamagic feats that use slots of the same level, and energy sub won't work, since Telekinesis isn't an energy spell. However, your innate spell idea's given me some ideas of my own.
Dragon3 09-29-06, 12:40 PM	That's why I use the instant metamagic feature of the incanatrix. I can use it 2 times per day and once is all you need. Best part is that it does not take up any additional slots. What's sick is that my higher level up to 8th level spells can now be extended, still, silent and expanded for free and then instant metamagic make innate free. Chains cant be done unless I'm willing to drop 2 slots on it. I'm unsure if I can apply innate and chain if I got instant metamagic 2/day.
HaikenEdge 09-29-06, 01:27 PM	That's why I use the instant metamagic feature of the incanatrix. I can use it 2 times per day and once is all you need. Best part is that it does not take up any additional slots. What's sick is that my higher level up to 8th level spells can now be extended, still, silent and expanded for free and then instant metamagic make innate free. Chains cant be done unless I'm willing to drop 2 slots on it. I'm unsure if I can apply innate and chain if I got instant metamagic 2/day. Can you go into more details with this?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-29-06, 01:29 PM	Innate Spell isn't a metamagic feat (or at least isn't anymore). It simply takes up 8 slots higher, and you have to cough up that cost. Instant Metamagic is nice, but isn't as good as you're thinking. It's generally more useful for Persistent Spell.
Dragon3 09-29-06, 01:33 PM	Damm I missed that part. Ok to edit my build drat.
Dragon3 09-29-06, 02:07 PM	I rebuilt it without innate. I note that I'm using greater anyspell of the Spell domain to get Telekinesis. That get put in a 6th level domain slot. Yes I had to scrap the innate idea. I could use instant metamagic to add chain if I could figure out how to get 2 more slots down. Arcane thesis is a great help on this front. I get -4 for the 4 metamagic feats, 0 for chain since I'm using instant metamagic so that is 8-4=4 slots higher. I have 8 level slots so I need 2 more slots. Dragon3: The build doesn't exactly work, or at least not the way you posted it. An innate spell requires a slot 8 (!) levels higher, something that you don't have access to as a 9th level caster. At best, you could take Arcane Thesis at 9th if you went Wizard, since I don't know of any domains that offer Telekinesis as a spell. Even with Cooperative Spell & Sanctum Spell, the best you can do is drop Telekinesis to a 3rd level slot, and to innate that, you'd need a 11th level slot; to innate it, you'd need two additional metamagic feats that use slots of the same level, and energy sub won't work, since Telekinesis isn't an energy spell. However, your innate spell idea's given me some ideas of my own.
HaikenEdge 09-29-06, 02:22 PM	Posted By: HaikenEdge Build Name: Spray of Drain Race: Human Build Stub: Wizard 5/Incantrix 10/Mage of the Arcane Order 2/Force Missile Mage 3 Flaws: Noncombatant, Shaky Feats: 1. Combat Casting, (Iron Will), (Scribe Scroll), (Silent Spell), (Still Spell) 3. Quicken Spell 5. (Empower Spell) 6. Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile), (Energy Substitution [Cold]) 9. Arcane Mastery, (Lord of the Uttercold) 12. Cooperative Spell, (Sanctum Spell) 15. Corrupt Spell, (Twin Spell) 17. (Fell Drain) 18. Innate Spell (see below) Notable Spells Known: Magic Missile. The remainder of the spells known can be whatever tickles your fancy. Notable Class Abilities & Build Characteristics Caster level: 19 Extra Missiles: Whenever this build throws out magic missiles, it scores an additional missile. Although a single missile doesn't seem like much, it can be powerful. Elemental Coverage: With the Force Missile Mage’s Energy Missile ability, the Specialist Gunner can create magic missiles of any energy type aside from sonic; by applying the Born of Three Thunders feat, the Specialist Gunner can deal sonic damage with his magic missiles. Spell Selection: By having only one spells that deal damage, the build can focus on a brevy utility spells. Such spells may include disintegrate, haste, improved invisibility, etc. Fell Drain: If the enhanced spell deals damage, its victim suffers 1 negative level, no save, that lasts a number of rounds equal to your CL. Metamagic Abilities: The 10th level Incantrix ability reduces all metamagic feats by 1 level, to a minimum of a +1 level slot; combined with Arcane Thesis, feats that normally use a +2 level are effectively free. Innate Spell: Innate spell the following (feats applied in order): Quickened (+2), Twinned (+2), Empowered (+0), Fortified [+4] (+0), Fell Drained (+0), Sanctum (-1), Cooperative (-1), Energy Substitution [Cold] (-1), Uttercold (-1), Corrupt (+0) magic missile. Build Goals: A true magic missile specialist, this build's intention is the optimize Arcane Thesis, the Incantrix 10th level ability and Innate Spell together. It's only weakness? Globes of invulnerability. So I guess Dispel Magic and it's bigger brother will be a must! Comments: I'm not sure if I can apply metamagic to a spell before making it innate (I don't see why not; it is, after all, still a spell). However, this combination allows, as a swift action, the firing of 12 missiles, each dealing half evil damage, a quarter cold and a quarter negative energy damage; in addition, any targets that takes damage from at least one missile suffers a level of level drain. Since the SLA comes out as a swift action due to quicken spell applied to the spell originally, the build is still free to do whatever it wishes with the remaining full-round.
Dragon3 09-29-06, 02:30 PM	Build Stub:7 wu jen/10 incanatrix/3 MotUH 1 Wu jen Quicken Spell, Iron Will, Still Spell 2 Wu jen 3 Wu jen Practiced Spellcaster 4 Wu jen 5 Wu jen 6 Wu jen Free feat 7 Incanatrix Silent Spell 8 Incanatrix - class feature of Cooperative metamagic 9 Incanatrix - class feature of metamagic effect, Innate Spell 10 Incanatrix Chain Spell 11 Incanatrix - class feature of metamagic spell trigger 12 Incanatrix - class feature of seize concentration, Craft Wand 13 Incanatrix - class feature of instant metamagic 1/day, Expand Spell 14 Incanatrix - class feature of snatch spell 15 Incanatrix - class feature of instant metamagic 2/day, Craft Staff 16 Incanatrix - class feature of improved metamagic, Extend Spell 17 Wu jen 18 MotUH Arcane Thesis - Telekinesis 19 MotUH 20 MotUH Ok I like this build better due to the metamagic abilities and I squeezed in practiced spellcaster so CL of Telekinesis is 17 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 25 Quicken was needed for innate. The 2 craft feats was needed for metamagic spell trigger. Silent, Still, Extend, Expand, chained,innate and arcane thesis take up 5 slots higher. Drop chain and that drop to 4 slot higher. I can use a rod of chaining but that's 3/day. I decide to use instant metamagic to make chain free. Now I have a silent, still, extended, expanded, chained, innate and arcane thesis TK that take up a 9th level slot. You get free still, silent, extend and expand on any spells. No chain on the arcane spells unless you are willing to apply 2 slots for that.
SavageTard 09-29-06, 08:18 PM	How about this one... The Wight-o-Matic 3000 Human Wiz 10/Incantatrix 10 (like every other build) 1: Iron Will, Sanctum Spell 3: ESub(Cold) 5: Empower Spell 6: Arcane Thesis: Enervation, Fortify Spell 9: Lord of the Uttercold, Maximize spell 12: Split Ray, Twin Spell 15: ESub(Ele), Snowcasting 18: Born of the 3 Thunders 20: Chain Spell (for Mass Enervation Goodness.) Enervation {level 4, -1d4} Snowcast Enervation {level 4, -1d4 (cold)} Maximized {level 5, -4 (cold)} Lord of the Uttercold {Level 4, -4 (cold, negative)} Empowered {Level 4, -5 (cold, negative)} assuming low roll Split Ray {Level 4, -10 (cold, negative)} Twin {Level 6, -20 (cold, negative)} ESub(ele) {Level 5, -20 (ele, negative)} Born of the 3 Thunders {Level 4, -20 (ele, sonic, negative)} Sanctum Spell {Level 3, -20 (ele, sonic, negative)} Fortify Spell {Level 3, -20 (ele, sonic, negative), +4 Spell Penetration} OPTIONAL: Chain Spell: {Level 4, -20 (ele, sonic, negative), +4 Spell Penetration} With a better roll for empower, it is -24 levels instead. And, with Chain, this could affect up to 21 targets... so a 4th level slot could give a total of -504 levels. Sweeet. I'm not sure whether I like this or Disintegrate better.
jstorrie 09-29-06, 09:18 PM	Doesn't Lord of the Uttercold only work on spells with the [cold] descriptor? No dice if you sub away [cold] for [electricity].
bob_the_great 09-29-06, 10:52 PM	I stopped reading halfway through page 2. I just want to say that I was psyched to see the thread title as I was curious if people had done some useful math or come up with some good spell and metamagic combinations or something. Instead this thread is absolutely 100% useless. The feat obviously reduces the spell level by 1, reguardless how many metamagics are applied. It is also painfully obvious that you cannot just apply a +0 metamagic and lower a spell's level. All this talk about RAW and "you have to prove that the RAW is wrong" or whatever is idiotic posturing. Anyone with a brain can reason this out and the honus is on you to explain to those of us with a brain why we should ignore all reason and intelligence. "Because the rule is written poorly and reads this way" is not a good reason. Whatever. Flame me. Ignore me and learn nothing. I just want to point out that rather than accomplish anything useful or game-applicable this thread was wasted on the best way to break the game if you read a rule too literally and your DM has no spine.
jstorrie 09-29-06, 11:58 PM	You spelled 'onus' wrong.
Dragon3 09-30-06, 12:00 AM	Add incarnum and watch your eyes bulge. Take Psycarnum Infusion, Midnight Metamagic and Improved Essentia Capacity. Net result is that you get free 5 slots of metamagic when a psionic focus is expended on Midnight Metamagic. Rinse and repeat. Add incanatrix instant metamagic and the -1 metamagic cost. You could load up on the high slots metamagic feats, reduce each by one due to incanatrix, apply a free metamagic from instant metamagic, and then apply 5 slots off from Midnight metamagic. We haven't even touched arcane thesis yet. All this is very feat intensive yes. Let take persistent as an example. Load up on the good metamagic feats. Take one off per feat due to incanatrix. Apply persistent for free due to instant metamagic. Granted 2/day. But let assume you want all applicable spells persistent ok persistent is now 5 slots. Since we want lots of persistent spells we won't consider arcane thesis. Well midnight metamagic can make persistent free for every applicable spells. I suggest getting feats to make regaining focus fast. Now if you have a favorite spell, arcane thesis will reduce persistent to 4 if applicable to the spell and make the other metamagic smaller by one. I suggest using instant metamagic on persistent and use midnight metamagic on the other feats. Innate isnt a metamagic feat so none of this apply.
HaikenEdge 09-30-06, 12:18 AM	I stopped reading halfway through page 2. I just want to say that I was psyched to see the thread title as I was curious if people had done some useful math or come up with some good spell and metamagic combinations or something. Instead this thread is absolutely 100% useless. The feat obviously reduces the spell level by 1, reguardless how many metamagics are applied. It is also painfully obvious that you cannot just apply a +0 metamagic and lower a spell's level. All this talk about RAW and "you have to prove that the RAW is wrong" or whatever is idiotic posturing. Anyone with a brain can reason this out and the honus is on you to explain to those of us with a brain why we should ignore all reason and intelligence. "Because the rule is written poorly and reads this way" is not a good reason. Whatever. Flame me. Ignore me and learn nothing. I just want to point out that rather than accomplish anything useful or game-applicable this thread was wasted on the best way to break the game if you read a rule too literally and your DM has no spine. Welcome to the CO boards. Please keep your flaming to a minimum. Implying that all posters in this thread, other than yourself, have no brain seems to be... well, I'd say insulting, except your ranting is making me laugh. As the starter of this thread, I feel it's my duty to reply to you. However, it seems to me that you've taken a self-righteous position, decided your position is correct, and that every other position is invalid, and you're not open for debate. Again, I will say that I can't argue intentions, since I'm neither the original designer of the feat nor a mindreader, but, here on CO boards, my understanding is that, until errata, RAW counts. There's no need to prove RAW wrong. If you're not arguing RAW, you're arguing RAI, and RAI isn't an argument you should argue, for reasons I mentioned before in the thread, prior to half-way through the second page. Any DM can rule any which way, with little rhyme or reason. A DM could rule all metamagic feats are free, double price, or outright banned. Another DM could rule that magic is too powerful and thus completely removed from the campaign in favor of psionics. A DM could rule any combo abused to heck is grounds for instant TPK. But that's Rule 0, and that's basically generally arbitrary stuff. If you think Arcane Thesis is broken, then don't use it. Or use your own interpretation of it. But please don't come into this thread acting all high-and-mighty and rant about the idiocy you see. It's pretentious and confrontational on your part, and something that's generally not well-received. Just keep in mind, don't flame or troll; both are grounds for banning.
SavageTard 09-30-06, 09:20 AM	Doesn't Lord of the Uttercold only work on spells with the [cold] descriptor? No dice if you sub away [cold] for [electricity]. Thats what Snowcast is for... it adds the cold descriptor. Problem solved. :) And if your concerned about that part of it... sub out the neg energy part instead. or something.
MegaPlex 09-30-06, 08:37 PM	Arcane Thesis is great for when you cast one spell often and want to apply Metamagic feats to it. Even if you get enough metamagic feats before 6th level, you usualy don't have enough spell levels to effectivly use Arcane Thesis to it's fullest. With this in mind, I wanted to create a spell caster that started with one strong blaster spell each level that could be a candidate for the Arcane Thesis feat at higher levels. This build depends on two feats from Players Guide to Faerun, the Bloodline of Fire (regional feat available only at 1st level to Human(Calimshan) or Planetouched(Calimshan)) and the Spell Thematics feat. Bloodline of Fire adds +2 caster level to all spells with the Fire Descriptor. Spell Thematics adds +1 caster level to one spell you select at each spell level (1st level spell, 2nd level spell, 3rd level spell, etc). With those restrictions, you need to carefully select one "blaster" spell each level for maximum return. I'd recommend the following: 1st level: Orb of Fire, Lesser (cmparc) -- Ranged Touch, No Save, No SR, 1d8/2 levels, 5d8 max 2nd level: Scorching Ray (phb) -- Ranged Touch, No Save, Yes SR, 1 ray/4 levels at 4d6, max 3 rays 3rd level: Fireball (phb) -- 20' spread, Reflex half, Yes SR, 1d6/level, max 10d6 4th level: Orb of Fire (cmparc) -- Ranged Touch, No Save, No SR, 1d6/level, max 15d6, Fort save or Dazed 5th level: Firebrand (MoF or Spell Compendium) -- 5' spread/level, Reflex Save, Yes SR, 1d6/level, max 15d6 6th level: Acid Storm with ESub(fire) (PGtF or Spell Compendium) -- 20' cylinder, Reflex half, Yes SR, 1d8/level, max 15d8 With those two feats you will be casting those spells at +3 caster level, so here is a breakdown of damage at each level: Orb of Fire, Lesser 1st: 2d8 2nd: 3d8 4th: 4d8 Scorching Ray 3rd: 1@4d6 4th: 2@4d6 8th: 3@4d6 Fireball 5th: 8d6 6th: 9d6 7th: 10d6 Orb of Fire 7th: 10d6 8th: 11d6 9th: 12d6 10th: 13d6 11th: 14d6 12th: 15d6 Firebrand -- can only effect a target once per casting 9th: 12@12d6 10th: 13@13d6 11th: 14@14d6 12th: 15@15d6 Acid Storm -- with Energy Substitution (Fire) 11th: 14d8 12th: 15d8 Because you only have to select one "blaster" spell each level, you can focus the rest of your spells on the Buff/Utility variety, which makes this a very party friendly build. I'd recommend at least 4 levels of Mage of the Arcane Order to allow any access to 1st-6th level spells Humand Wizard 5 / MotAO 4 / Incantrix 10 / +1 spell caster PrC Where you choose to pick up Arcane Thesis and which spell you choose to apply it to are up to your play style and what level of Metamagic feats you can afford to add to it. EDIT (added in a full build): The following build uses: Complete Arcane, Players Guide to Faerun and PHB II Build name: Hot Blooded Race: Human (Calishan) Levels: Wizard 5 / MotAO 4 / Incantrix 10 / Fatespinner 1 Stats: Int > Dex > Cox > Wis > Cha > Str Be sure to keep Dex high enough to hit with Ranged Touch attacks Feats: H) Bloodline of Fire (PGtF) 1) Spell Thematics (PGtF) 1W) Scribe Scoll 3) Empower Spell 5W) Cooperative Spell 6) Sculpt Spell 7motao) Energy Substitution (Cold) 9) Iron Will 10I) Quicken Spell 12) Arcane Thesis (Orb of Fire) 13I) Energy Admixture (Cold) 15) Maximize Spell 16I) Twin Spell 18) Lord of the Uttercold 19I) Enlarge Spell Concept Start strong, stay strong. At 1st level you are casting 2d8 fire orbs at the bad guys and each level jump brings more power. If you used only your 1st level spells as damage spells, by 6th level each one would do 5d8 damage. When you hit your stride at 13th level, you can cast ESub (Cold), EAdmix(Cold+Fire), Enlarged, Empowerd orbs of fire/cold at (15d6*1.5)+(15d6*1.5) and it only gets better from there on out.
JiCi 09-30-06, 09:23 PM	Man, you guys are crazy; I've never seen such complex spellcaster builds in my life. Quite impressive... and brain-busting at the same time. But I'm afraid I just found all of your builds' Achilles's heel: If you're playing in an Eberron setting with Eberron books only (or other campaign settings), you cannot use the Incantatrix PrC, and thus bye bye Arcane Thesis builds. I'm not that good at building spellcaster progressions, but I have a challenge for you guys: Can you build a similar progression without Incantatrix levels ? It sounds weird, but it would greatly help those who cannot afford to use Faerun books for their setting. Thanks in advance. EDIT: HaikenEdge, you're gonna have to explain to me something: just how does disintegrate make a utility spell ?
jstorrie 09-30-06, 09:50 PM	Disintegrate makes a utility spell because it's very effective on locks, doors, walls, floor, ceilings, etc.
Dragon3 09-30-06, 09:54 PM	I'm not getting this? :confused: Eberron actually has some suggested adaptation to other settings and also some prestige classes has been suggested in Eberron sourcebooks. Man, you guys are crazy; I've never seen such complex spellcaster builds in my life. Quite impressive... and brain-busting at the same time. But I'm afraid I just found all of your builds' Achilles's heel: If you're playing in an Eberron setting with Eberron books only (or other campaign settings), you cannot use the Incantatrix PrC, and thus bye bye Arcane Thesis builds. I'm not that good at building spellcaster progressions, but I have a challenge for you guys: Can you build a similar progression without Incantatrix levels ? It sounds weird, but it would greatly help those who cannot afford to use Faerun books for their setting. Thanks in advance. EDIT: HaikenEdge, you're gonna have to explain to me something: just how does disintegrate make a utility spell ?
HaikenEdge 09-30-06, 10:34 PM	Man, you guys are crazy; I've never seen such complex spellcaster builds in my life. Quite impressive... and brain-busting at the same time. But I'm afraid I just found all of your builds' Achilles's heel: If you're playing in an Eberron setting with Eberron books only (or other campaign settings), you cannot use the Incantatrix PrC, and thus bye bye Arcane Thesis builds. I'm not that good at building spellcaster progressions, but I have a challenge for you guys: Can you build a similar progression without Incantatrix levels ? It sounds weird, but it would greatly help those who cannot afford to use Faerun books for their setting. Thanks in advance. My original Specialist Blaster doesn't require Incantrix, but uses Force Missile Mage. EDIT: HaikenEdge, you're gonna have to explain to me something: just how does disintegrate make a utility spell ? As mentioned by jstorrie, you can disintegrate non-creatures, and thus the spell has non-combat applications. It's akin the shatter, except it also does damage to non-crystalline creatures.
Dragon3 09-30-06, 10:36 PM	One problem SR. Can't disintegrate all those pesty golems with magic immunity. Any metamagic to strip off SR?
GenerallyUnique 09-30-06, 11:24 PM	I just had an idea. Since these Arcane Thesis builds focus on using the same spell, over and over and over, with the only different being metamagic enhancements, it might be a good idea to add the Spell Rehersal tactical feat from Races of the Dragon. It really helps builds where the intent is to repeatedly cast the same spell as with the Magic Missile Machine Gunner, etc.
FromTheShadows 10-01-06, 12:15 AM	Be forewarned; this build is simply a thought experiment. I have a more powerful, actual usable version in mind (if you can call it usable; it finds a way to dodge the artifact requirement of AftS), but this will do for now. Build Name: The Walking Nuke Silverbrow Human Sorcerer 20 Uses variant from the PHBII to trade familiar for easier metamagicing. Feats: Level 1: Explosive Spell, Snowcasting Level 3: Energy Substitution (electricity) Level 6: Empower Spell Level 9: Born of the Three Thunders Level 12: Practical Metamagic (Empower Spell) Level 15: Practical Metamagic (Explosive Spell) Level 18: Arcane Thesis (Apocalypse from the Sky) Our sorcerer meets with a hapless target atop a mountain, grabs a handful of snow, and casts a Born of the Three Thunders Explosive Apocalypse from the Sky. The hapless target fails both saves from BoTT, and is promptly blasted into the horizon. At a caster level of 20, AftS has an area of 200 miles; exactly the distance that the hapless target must be moved to get out of the spell’s area, which equates to 1,056,000 feet. Since Explosive spell deals 1d6 damage per 10 feet moved, the hapless target takes 158,400d6 damage (thanks to Empower Spell). Unfortunately, since our sorcerer is also standing within and can be affected by AftS, he is moved 1,056,005 feet to the outside of the spell and takes exactly the same amount of damage since the build lacks a way to preclude itself from the spell’s area. The improved version of this build will appear soon, in a thread of its own.
JiCi 10-01-06, 07:42 AM	My original Specialist Blaster doesn't require Incantrix, but uses Force Missile Mage.Oh yeah... sorry about that. As mentioned by jstorrie, you can disintegrate non-creatures, and thus the spell has non-combat applications. It's akin the shatter, except it also does damage to non-crystalline creatures.Yeah good point. Build Name: The Walking Nuke Silverbrow Human Sorcerer 20Ouch... Huh... don't you need another spell to cast vile spells ? I don't think an evil alignment is enough, though I could be wrong.
Dragon3 10-01-06, 10:05 AM	You could use Extraordinary Spell Aim to exclude yourself.
FromTheShadows 10-01-06, 10:52 AM	You could use Extraordinary Spell Aim to exclude yourself. Yeah, that's what I was looking for. Unfortunately, the theoretical build lacks enough feats to get that. I also forgot to multiply the damage by 1.5 from Empower Spell.
HaikenEdge 10-01-06, 11:27 AM	One problem SR. Can't disintegrate all those pesty golems with magic immunity. Any metamagic to strip off SR? Disintegrate the ground under them! MegaPlex & FromTheShadows: Thanks for the builds. They've been added to the builds page.
Dragon3 10-01-06, 11:30 AM	Hmm I got to see if there's any flying golems in the various monster manuals.
dog45 10-01-06, 12:03 PM	Build Name: The Walking Nuke Silverbrow Human Sorcerer 20 What's Silverbrow and what book is it from? Other than that, this is an awesome idea. But, do it as an Ur-Priest instead maybe. Destroy civilizations at level 14. yay. You'd have to find a PrC that advances your casting and grants a bonus feat at its first level, and take that as your 14th level. that way you can take Arcane Thesis and apply it to AftS. edit: also, do you really need it empowered? talk about overkill. ;)
Dragon3 10-01-06, 01:01 PM	Yea replace it with Extraordinary Spell Aim and not die from it.
FromTheShadows 10-01-06, 02:00 PM	I'l try and hammer out a few questions now. Huh... don't you need another spell to cast vile spells ? I don't think an evil alignment is enough, though I could be wrong. I'm not even sure if you need to be evil to cast a corrupt spell; the only restriction I can find is the corruption cost. (Which should be able to be avoided by being a necropolitan.) Yea replace it with Extraordinary Spell Aim and not die from it. Aw, come on; as-is, I believe I have the CO record for most feet moved in a round now. :D (We're talking about 12,000 miles per hour here.) I'll work on an alternative version with some nastier gimmicks thrown in. (For instance, as a Personal range spell, there should be a way to make AftS persistant. Unfortunately, the build I have in mind doesn't use arcane spells, as there is only one way I can think of to dodge the artifact requirement...) What's Silverbrow and what book is it from? Silverbrow Human is a race found in Dragon Magic. I took it to get the Dragonborn subtype without wasting a feat on Draconic Heritage.
itliaf 10-01-06, 03:13 PM	The feat obviously reduces the spell level by 1, regardless how many metamagics are applied. It is also painfully obvious that you cannot just apply a +0 metamagic and lower a spell's level. RAW When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. For example, an empowered thesis spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual slot (rather than two levels higher). Energy Substitution (acid) is a metamagic feat, and so, by the first sentence of RAW, a scorching ray subsituted to acid uses up a 1st level spell slot. So it is painfully (or at least frustratingly) obvious that you actually can apply a metamagic feat to lower the thesis spell's level, RAW. However, were I to apply two metamagic feats to a spell, the enhanced spell, a still, silent, scorching ray, would take up a slot one level lower than normal. The spell doesn't become unenhanced simply because a second has been applied. The spell is in enhanced by metamagic, or it is not enhanced by metamagic. In a similar way, a character with an ioun stone granting him an insight bonus to his strength who was then enlarged, gaining a size bonus to his strength, would have enhanced strength. Saying that his strength was "doubly enhanced" or "enhanced in two different manners" is more specific, but doesn't make "his strength was enhanced by magic" any less true. The rules aren't especially vague on the matter, as long as one is willing to accept a fairly standard definition of the word "enhanced." Allow me to clarify the two ways I am seeing RAW interpreted (call it what you like, if "broken" is subjective, than so is anyone's perception of the words they read on a page). 2. RAIWHTW (rules as I would have them written) When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. A spell cannot be made to take up a slot lower than its original, unmodified by metamagic, level in this manner. Multiple metamagic feats may be applied, but the spell only uses up a slot one level lower than normal. For example, a silent, still, empowered thesis spell would take up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual slot (rather than four levels higher). 3. RARBHE (Rules as read by HaikenEdge) When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal for each metamagic feat applied. This even applies to metamagic feats that do not adjust a spell's level in the first place. For example, a silent, empowered spell would take up a spell one level higher than its actual slot (rather than three levels higher). Okay then. The RARBHE have primacy here, perhaps you should make that clear in the OP, for those of us who have read them some different way. Be they RAI, RAIWHTW, or even RAW. I really am pulling for RARBHE to win out when the errata is released. ;)
HaikenEdge 10-01-06, 03:49 PM	RAW When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. For example, an empowered thesis spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual slot (rather than two levels higher). Energy Substitution (acid) is a metamagic feat, and so, by the first sentence of RAW, a scorching ray subsituted to acid uses up a 1st level spell slot. So it is painfully (or at least frustratingly) obvious that you actually can apply a metamagic feat to lower the thesis spell's level, RAW. However, were I to apply two metamagic feats to a spell, the enhanced spell, a still, silent, scorching ray, would take up a slot one level lower than normal. The spell doesn't become unenhanced simply because a second has been applied. The spell is in enhanced by metamagic, or it is not enhanced by metamagic. In a similar way, a character with an ioun stone granting him an insight bonus to his strength who was then enlarged, gaining a size bonus to his strength, would have enhanced strength. Saying that his strength was "doubly enhanced" or "enhanced in two different manners" is more specific, but doesn't make "his strength was enhanced by magic" any less true. The rules aren't especially vague on the matter, as long as one is willing to accept a fairly standard definition of the word "enhanced." Allow me to clarify the two ways I am seeing RAW interpreted (call it what you like, if "broken" is subjective, than so is anyone's perception of the words they read on a page). 2. RAIWHTW (rules as I would have them written) When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. A spell cannot be made to take up a slot lower than its original, unmodified by metamagic, level in this manner. Multiple metamagic feats may be applied, but the spell only uses up a slot one level lower than normal. For example, a silent, still, empowered thesis spell would take up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual slot (rather than four levels higher). 3. RARBHE (Rules as read by HaikenEdge) When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal for each metamagic feat applied. This even applies to metamagic feats that do not adjust a spell's level in the first place. For example, a silent, empowered spell would take up a spell one level higher than its actual slot (rather than three levels higher). Okay then. The RARBHE have primacy here, perhaps you should make that clear in the OP, for those of us who have read them some different way. Be they RAI, RAIWHTW, or even RAW. I really am pulling for RARBHE to win out when the errata is released. ;) I disagree with your interpretation. Let me explain. Let's say you take Arcane Thesis (Fireball). By RAW, when you apply a metamagic feat, you use a slot one level lower than usual. So, if you apply Sanctum Spell to the spell, it would use a 2nd level slot. Now, we have a Sanctum Fireball, which, in its essense is still a Fireball spell. Therefore, when I apply Still Spell, I am still applying it to a Fireball spell, regardless of whatever other metamagic have been used to enhance the spell. The text of the feat, as you've so aptly posted, says the following: When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal.Note that the text explicitly states "When you apply a metamagic feat" and not "When you apply metamagic feats"; due the word choice used by the designers, it applies to each individual metamagic feat, except for Heighten Spell, applied, since metamagic feats are applied individually. The problem isn't my interpretation of the feat; it's the editor's poor word choice. Therefore, since I am applying Still Spell to a Fireball spell, it uses a slot one lower than normal. Now, if you want to argue that a Sanctum Fireball is not a Fireball, then I would argue that any spell with a metamagic feat applied to it is no longer the original spell, and thus cannot use the original spell description, wherever it's written. The feat could simply be fixed (from your perspective) if you changed a single sentence, as I outlined above in my word choice argument.
chifari 10-02-06, 10:49 AM	Title: The King of Combustion Race: Human Build Stub: Warblade 1/Wizard 6/Ruathar 3/Jade Phoenix Mage 10 BAB: +16 Fort: +12 Ref: +9 (* +1 from Warblade) Will: +11 Spellcasting: 9th level spells, CL 17 Maneuvers: 8th level maneuvers, IL 15 Progression: Warblade 1/Wizard 1-5/Jade Phoenix Mage 1-5/Wizard 6/Ruathar 3/Jade Phoenix Mage 6-10 Class Features: 1. Battle Clarity (Reflex saves), Weapon Aptitude 2. Conjuration PHB2 Immediate Magic: Abrupt Jaunt 7. Arcane Wrath, Rite of Waking 11. Empowering Strike 14. Word of Friendship, Gift of the Elves 15. Low-light Vision, Elfwise 16. Star Blessing, Avandor's Grace 16. Jade Phoenix Master 18. Quickening Strike 20. Emerald Immolation Feats: 1. Power Attack, Empower Spell 2. (Scribe Scroll) 3. Smiting Spell 6. Arcane Thesis: Combust, (Maximize Spell) 9. Arcane Strike 12. Twin Spell 15. Searing Spell 18. Martial Study: Bounding Assault Maneuvers: 1. Moment of Perfect Mind (DM), Sapphire Nightmare Blade (DM), Steel Wind (IH) 7. Burning Blade (DW) 9. Searing Blade (DW) 11. Searing Charge (DW) 17. Desert Tempest (DW) 18. Bounding Assault (DM) 19. Inferno Blade (DW) Heroics: Avalanche of Blades, Diamond Nightmare Blade, etc. Stances: 1. Punishing Stance (IH) 8. Mystic Phoenix Stance (JPM) 11. Martial Spirit (DS) 16. Firebird Stance (JPM) Notable Class Abiltiies The idea of this build is to abuse the touch spell Combust via Arcane Thesis. A quick look at combust progression: 2nd: Smiting Searing Combust (10d8) 3rd: Empowered Smiting Searing Combust (15d8) 4th: Maximized Smiting Searing Combust (80) 5th: Empowered Maximized Smiting Searing Combust (120) 6th: Empowered Twinned Smiting Searing Combust (30d8) 7th: Maximized Twinned Smiting Searing Combust (160) 8th: Empowered Maximized Twinned Smiting Searing Combust (240) Store empowered searing combusts in a spell storing weapon, as well as casting large combusts into your weapon via smiting spell. With Heroics, you can take Martial Study as your fighter bonus feat to obtain Avalanche of Blades or Diamond Nightmare Blade at high levels. The build has many of the standard Gish tactics, such as Wraithstrike+Arcane Strike, Arcane Strike+Desert Tempest, etc. At low levels, the build uses Punishing Stance to boost its damage, relying on the Immediate Magic variant (conjuration) Abrupt Jaunt to teleport away from attacks. Fist of Stone makes an excellent spell at low levels, as it provides you with a second attack with which to gain +1d6 from Punishing Stance. Enlarge Person also works well when combined with Steel Wind (greater chance of threatening 2 opponents). Once the build hits 8th level, Mystic Phoenix Stance takes over, providing much needed AC, DR, and an arcane caster level. Combust begins to play a larger role, since it is cast at +3 CL (2 Arcane Thesis + 1 Mystic Phoenix Stance). Also at 8th level, the IL hits 5, and Heroics should be used to grab Iron Heart Surge via Martial Study. Otherwise, the build plays like a typical Gish. It suffers from ASF, but grab Mithril Twilight Chain Shirt, cast Shield and Dragonskin, and the AC should be fine.
iconoplast 10-02-06, 03:27 PM	You know what's cooler than Wraithstrike + Power Attack + Diamond mind? Wraithstrike + Power Attack + Arcane Strike + Avalanche of Blows. It's so good I'm considering dropping three caster levels to go shapeshifter -> MMForms 2 so I can wild shape into a War Troll and still pull the trick off. But, you know... it's hard to say goodbye to ninth level spells.
Dragon3 10-02-06, 03:31 PM	Hmm you can go shapeshifter and 2 MoMF. That'll get ya some giant forms.
chifari 10-02-06, 06:59 PM	You know what's cooler than Wraithstrike + Power Attack + Diamond mind? Wraithstrike + Power Attack + Arcane Strike + Avalanche of Blows. It's so good I'm considering dropping three caster levels to go shapeshifter -> MMForms 2 so I can wild shape into a War Troll and still pull the trick off. But, you know... it's hard to say goodbye to ninth level spells. Yeah, with my build, you could cast Heroics to get Avalanche of Blades or Diamond Nightmare Blade (either one). Diamond Nightmare Blade is more useful when you power attack/leap attack/charge in and swing once. Avalanche is pwnage when you can full attack.
JiCi 10-03-06, 09:41 PM	Huh guys ? I just read another topic about Arcane Thesis, and they found, but couldn't post, a link to the CustServ about that Arcane Thesis cannot lower the spell level below the spell's actual level. Could anyone confirm this ?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-03-06, 09:47 PM	Yes, Custserv has indeed said that. However, if read the first beginning posts. You will note that we will be ignoring Custserv responses that contradict the RAW of Arcane Thesis. :D I find it very funny that this one issue brings up such huge comments, and people complain about it. Yet, very very few of any the builds we've discussed abuse that mechanic at all.
Dragon3 10-03-06, 10:15 PM	I have a question. Can a geomancer use arcane thesis on divine spells? Remember he can mix and match spellcasting parameters.
JiCi 10-04-06, 08:09 AM	Yes, Custserv has indeed said that. However, if read the first beginning posts. You will note that we will be ignoring Custserv responses that contradict the RAW of Arcane Thesis. :D I find it very funny that this one issue brings up such huge comments, and people complain about it. Yet, very very few of any the builds we've discussed abuse that mechanic at all.I wasn't really complaining; I was just checking if the RAW actually stated that problem.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-04-06, 08:42 AM	Ah, I apologize. Yes, the feat itself makes no allusion to +0 minimum. Thus when custserv or someone else says that Arcane Thesis applies a +0 minimum they are instituting their own house rule :)
HaikenEdge 10-04-06, 10:39 AM	Sorry for being inactive for a couple of days; a few projects just pile up on me, so I couldn't get around to the WotC boards.. chifari: Thank you for you contribution. The builds page has been updated with a link to your post.
monkey3 10-04-06, 02:16 PM	Ah, I apologize. Yes, the feat itself makes no allusion to +0 minimum. Thus when custserv or someone else says that Arcane Thesis applies a +0 minimum they are instituting their own house rule :) I will have to disagree. Custserv by definition is not a houserule. If you want to disagree with a rule interpretation of custserv, and go your own way, then YOU are instituting a houserule. Which is fine by me, but DnD has enough cheese in it (VoP, loops, etc) allowed by the rules, that I do not need to add in houseruled Arcane Thesis cheese to it. Let’s just take a step back, and objectively look at Arcane Thesis. As clarified by custserv, Arcane Thesis is still an above average feat. Do we need to muddy its glory by adding what clearly the original authors did not intend?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-04-06, 03:04 PM	Here's the funniest thing though, I find myself often defending this feature, yet I rarely ever use it in a build, and I usually Do Not Want To either. Yes, it is Custserv's interpretation that it is +0 minimum, however this interpretation is not supported by the text of the feat. But really, I don't care! :king: It's not important to me. The only Real Abuse of Arcane Thesis is Making -1st level scrolls and Wands. And even I'll admit that I wouldn't allow that in my game. Anywho, if it's possible to drop this, let's drop this. This has been argued oh so many times :cookie:
HaikenEdge 10-04-06, 03:51 PM	I will have to disagree. Custserv by definition is not a houserule. If you want to disagree with a rule interpretation of custserv, and go your own way, then YOU are instituting a houserule. Which is fine by me, but DnD has enough cheese in it (VoP, loops, etc) allowed by the rules, that I do not need to add in houseruled Arcane Thesis cheese to it. Let’s just take a step back, and objectively look at Arcane Thesis. As clarified by custserv, Arcane Thesis is still an above average feat. Do we need to muddy its glory by adding what clearly the original authors did not intend? CustServe does nothing but argue intent, which I say cannot be argued. Therefore, their interpretation is invalid, since they're interpreting the intent of the feat, and not the text.
carnivore 10-04-06, 03:57 PM	HaikenEdge .... great thread...havent finished reading it yet, but will get to it :D
HaikenEdge 10-04-06, 04:20 PM	HaikenEdge .... great thread...havent finished reading it yet, but will get to it :D It's too bad that half the thread is random garbage of people who are disputing RAW. Don't get me wrong; I'd never play these builds and most of them won't even ever see play, but RAW is RAW, and, disputing it over intention is something I can't abide... Since when did the human race on Earth become the origin for a species of mind readers?
SpawnOfMorgoth 10-04-06, 07:36 PM	I don't think either side can convince the other in the back and forth argument that has been going on the cust serv/RAW ranting. I am glad to see that it has calmed down, and hope it stays that way. In oder to prevent re-opening the can of worms, though, it might be nice to clearly state if proposed builds are using the conservative (+0 minimum adjustment cap) ruling or the more liberal interpretation (no cap). It is usually clear if we can see the math worked out in your meta-magic calculations (those negative ticks are a dead give-away ;) ), but if you only show a final spell level please state the method to which your build complies. Thanx all, and great thread BTW.
carnivore 10-05-06, 09:07 AM	It's too bad that half the thread is random garbage of people who are disputing RAW. Don't get me wrong; I'd never play these builds and most of them won't even ever see play, but RAW is RAW, and, disputing it over intention is something I can't abide... Since when did the human race on Earth become the origin for a species of mind readers? :rofl: good point :D
Traevanon 10-06-06, 08:28 AM	I don't think either side can convince the other in the back and forth argument that has been going on the cust serv/RAW ranting. I am glad to see that it has calmed down, and hope it stays that way. In oder to prevent re-opening the can of worms, though, it might be nice to clearly state if proposed builds are using the conservative (+0 minimum adjustment cap) ruling or the more liberal interpretation (no cap). It is usually clear if we can see the math worked out in your meta-magic calculations (those negative ticks are a dead give-away ;) ), but if you only show a final spell level please state the method to which your build complies. Thanx all, and great thread BTW. Likely none of the builds are going to use the +0 minimum, because they would fail to top the previous builds listed, which is really what this thread is about. "Look at my build, it does 100 damage" "Look at My build, it does 200 damage" "Look at MY build, it does 300 damage" "Look At MY Build, it does 400 damage" "LOOK AT MY BUILD, IT DOES 500 DAMAGE!!!" "look at my build, it does 50 damage, but the others cheat and mine doesnt cheat like those guys and... yeah, I know... nevermind." Tongue-in-cheek as always, of course. :hides:
Dragon3 10-06-06, 09:11 AM	Actually the reserve feats may be a serious contender from complete mage. At will SU ability if you have a slot available. Take Electric Bolt. If you have an electric spell prepared or have a slot available, you can do 1d6/spell level electric bolt as a standard action all the time all day. If the TK guys get into a clash with the reserve guys, take them out fast lol. At least chained TK is a big help, aint no chained reserve feat though I'll note the electric bolt is in a line.
GDarius 10-06-06, 09:38 AM	Likely none of the builds are going to use the +0 minimum, because they would fail to top the previous builds listed, which is really what this thread is about. Actually, mine does. I also restrict the base build to Core + Completes (plus PHB 2, obviously). The most liberal interpretation I make is that Arcane Thesis applies to each MM feat that's applied to a spell, and this isn't even required (though Silent and Still spell become less useful if you rule that the reduction happens just once per spell). While I'm here: sweet build, FromTheShadows. That would make one hell of a BBEG.
HaikenEdge 10-06-06, 10:35 AM	Why the heck did I just get the feeling that the Reserve feats are treading on the feet of the Warlocks, almost enough to make them scream in rage?
Dragon3 10-06-06, 11:55 AM	Well seem the reserve feats are general feats not metamagic I believe. Be hard to dip in more than say 3. Warlock can get 12 invocations. But reserve feats are SU so load up and whale on that golem.
Dragon3 10-06-06, 01:45 PM	I'm using the no cap interpretation. I want to throw in an alternative method to incanatrix. Namely Midnight metamagic and psycarnum infusion. We have the following 4 metamagic feats, Still, Silent, Extend and Enlarge. We also have Chain Spell and Innate Spell. Innate is not a metamagic feat. We also have arcane thesis. What I propose is to use midnight metamagic on Telekinesis. The feat state the spell gain the effect of that metamagic without changing it level. So we apply the 4 metamagic feat to this by expending a focus. I'm not seeing anything that'll stop me from applying chain now to the new TK spell by expending another focus. If true we now have 5 metamagic feats on TK without a change to its level. If not we have 4 metamagic feat on TK and now need to use a rod of chaining 3/day. Now we use arcane thesis on TK which is still 5th level which have 5 metamagic feat on it and apply innate. Innate is 8 slots so now we have an arcane thesis TK 3 slots higher for 5 metamagic is used on it. Now we got Innate TK in a 8th level slot This got to be a record now, the previous was a 9th level slot. Without innate that arcane thesis TK would be a 0th level cantrip. Boggle.
monkey3 10-06-06, 04:43 PM	Here’s my last statement on the subject. I am not feeling guilty about dragging this out, as this reply is only my second statement (and last) on the topic, and many others have had more than two posts. We have all been in CO long enough to know the unwritten rules. We follow: 1) RAW 2) Where there is a dispute in RAW we follow custserv 3) We ignore anyone’s house ruled build. What the “nocap” people are saying is that there is no dispute. And if there is no dispute, they will follow RAW. Well, the sheer number of comments on this thread alone is proof that there is dispute. And where there is dispute you HAVE to follow custserv. If not, you are breaking precedence. There is no choice here. Just look at the number of cases where people have disagreed with custserv. There are countless of them, and they are different for different people. When you feel strongly you make your own house rule and go your own way. But as per precedence no build that goes against the edicts of custserv has been allowed on CO without getting the added “unofficial” asterisk. I noticed no “nocap” people commented on my last paragraph, so I will repeat it: “Let’s just take a step back, and objectively look at Arcane Thesis. As clarified by custserv, Arcane Thesis is still an above average feat. Do we need to muddy its glory by adding what clearly the original authors did not intend?”
HaikenEdge 10-07-06, 11:25 AM	Here’s my last statement on the subject. I am not feeling guilty about dragging this out, as this reply is only my second statement (and last) on the topic, and many others have had more than two posts. We have all been in CO long enough to know the unwritten rules. We follow: 1) RAW 2) Where there is a dispute in RAW we follow custserv 3) We ignore anyone’s house ruled build. What the “nocap” people are saying is that there is no dispute. And if there is no dispute, they will follow RAW. Well, the sheer number of comments on this thread alone is proof that there is dispute. And where there is dispute you HAVE to follow custserv. If not, you are breaking precedence. There is no choice here. Just look at the number of cases where people have disagreed with custserv. There are countless of them, and they are different for different people. When you feel strongly you make your own house rule and go your own way. But as per precedence no build that goes against the edicts of custserv has been allowed on CO without getting the added “unofficial” asterisk.The problem with what you're suggesting is that there is no RAW dispute. The dispute is RAI alone; claiming RAI is RAW is a statement I will not abide with. No matter the intention, the written word is what we've got to go on; otherwise, I could say that fireball was never intended to have a damage cap, and get away with that if I could just trick CustServe to agree with me. Bottom line is, arguments of intention have no place in this thread. Claiming to argue RAW while really arguing RAI is a flimsy sham. I noticed no “nocap” people commented on my last paragraph, so I will repeat it: “Let’s just take a step back, and objectively look at Arcane Thesis. As clarified by custserv, Arcane Thesis is still an above average feat. Do we need to muddy its glory by adding what clearly the original authors did not intend?” Take a step back from what you're writing. Look at your last sentence. You're talking intention. Are you a mind-reader?
Traevanon 10-08-06, 09:53 AM	@Haiken: I find it a bit arrogant that you continue to claim that you are not interpreting the text as well. The real implication is that optimizers have the right of interpretation in the most liberal way as it applies to them, any other less liberal interpretation is wrong. This is why 99% of these tricks dont work in real play. In real play a player chooses a feat, power, class ability, spell or other rule, interprets it in a way he feels his DM will accept. The DM generally then approves the interpretation by not disputing it when it comes into play. However, the DM is free to dispute it and interpret the rule in a less liberal manner if he feels it is intended in a different way, unbalanced, a typo, or for any other reason. The only recourse a player has to override the DM is the threat of leaving the table or bogging down play with a filibuster. As long as the explanation for the DMs interpretation is reasonable the player is expected to accept it. So (here is the part where I get to the point): Saying that the below text of Arcane Thesis means that you subtract 1 from the numerical value of all metamagic feats applied to the chosen spell is an interpretation. You may feel that its the right or wrong interpretation, but claiming that your reading is not an interpretation while other player's reading's are is arrogant and wrong."When you apply a metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a slot one level lower than normal."The text is ambiguous. It would be best to admit that at least, rather than persist in the opinion that only your interpretation is right.
HaikenEdge 10-08-06, 11:48 AM	@Haiken: I find it a bit arrogant that you continue to claim that you are not interpreting the text as well. The real implication is that optimizers have the right of interpretation in the most liberal way as it applies to them, any other less liberal interpretation is wrong. The difference is, I don't claim to interpret intention. I only interpret what is written. And if I come off as arrogant, it's my perenial lack of sleep and my irritation of people arguing RAI that's doing that. This is why 99% of these tricks dont work in real play. In real play a player chooses a feat, power, class ability, spell or other rule, interprets it in a way he feels his DM will accept. The DM generally then approves the interpretation by not disputing it when it comes into play. However, the DM is free to dispute it and interpret the rule in a less liberal manner if he feels it is intended in a different way, unbalanced, a typo, or for any other reason. Agreed that most of these builds won't see play. Then again, I don't like the Vancian system anyways, and psionics so much better, so this is nothing more than mental exercise to me. The only recourse a player has to override the DM is the threat of leaving the table or bogging down play with a filibuster. As long as the explanation for the DMs interpretation is reasonable the player is expected to accept it.Agreed. But, at the moment, there's no universal DM, so we're just supplying whatever a liberal DM might accept. Remember, just because a DM can Rule 0 doesn't make it any less broken. So (here is the part where I get to the point): Saying that the below text of Arcane Thesis means that you subtract 1 from the numerical value of all metamagic feats applied to the chosen spell is an interpretation. You may feel that its the right or wrong interpretation, but claiming that your reading is not an interpretation while other player's reading's are is arrogant and wrong.The text is ambiguous. It would be best to admit that at least, rather than persist in the opinion that only your interpretation is right. There is no ambiguity in the text. Let me break the text down for you. "When you [the player] apply a [one] metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell [taken with Arcane Thesis], the enhanced spell uses up a slot one level lower than normal."Emphasis and inserts (in brackets) mine. What does this mean? When the player applies one metamagic feat other than heightened spell to a spell with which the Arcane Thesis feat is taken, the spell slot is one lower than normal. Note that this applies to one feat. Therefore, when you apply a second feat, you are again applying one feat the spell, and thus the effect of Arcane Thesis applies again. That is what I see is the literal interpretation of the feat. Is there a different one?
Traevanon 10-08-06, 03:58 PM	Absolutely there are several other interpretations: This is yours: First I apply Maximize to a spell, use my feat and get a discount, then I use it again for Widen, another discount, then silent, then still, then energy substitution. Alternate#1: I cast a spell with Maximize, Widen, Silent, Still and Energy Substitution, then I apply my feat and get a reduction of 1 level. Alternate #2: The feat suggests that only one metamagic feat can be applied to any given spell, which is contrary to other primary sources. I sure there are many other interpretations. Just as its not invalid to read the text and determine that it obviously wasnt intended to imply that spells can only have one metamagic feat applied to them, it is equally valid to assume that an interpretation of the feat that could be used to reduce even a 9th level spell to a Cantrip is incorrect. Such an interpretation (yours) is so out of scale with every other feat in the game as to be obviously wrong to an objective and reasonable observer.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-08-06, 04:03 PM	HaikenEdge is just repeating the interpretation of Customer Service. That's what gives his interpretation more weight.
HaikenEdge 10-08-06, 04:12 PM	HaikenEdge is just repeating the interpretation of Customer Service. That's what gives his interpretation more weight. The f***?! I didn't even know how CustServ ruled. Not that I care, really. Absolutely there are several other interpretations: This is yours: First I apply Maximize to a spell, use my feat and get a discount, then I use it again for Widen, another discount, then silent, then still, then energy substitution.Das right. Alternate#1: I cast a spell with Maximize, Widen, Silent, Still and Energy Substitution, then I apply my feat and get a reduction of 1 level.And then you're ignoring the text, which says that, when you apply "a metamagic feat" to the spell, you get a discount, not when you apply "metamagic feats". Alternate #2: The feat suggests that only one metamagic feat can be applied to any given spell, which is contrary to other primary sources.Nope. Under the SRD in the feats section, it's made clear that maximize spell & empower spell can be used together, and therefore, other metamagic feats can be combined. I sure there are many other interpretations. Of course. They're interpretations. Everybody's entitled to one. Just as its not invalid to read the text and determine that it obviously wasnt intended to imply that spells can only have one metamagic feat applied to them, it is equally valid to assume that an interpretation of the feat that could be used to reduce even a 9th level spell to a Cantrip is incorrect.Assume? Assuming makes an a** out of u and me, and now you're assuming that I'm arguing intent, which I'm not. Using multiple metamagic feats on a single spell has prescedent, as I mentioned before. I don't assume anything; I just take the text as it's written and run with it. Of course I know that's probably not the original intent of the designers, but I'm no psychic mind reader. Such an interpretation (yours) is so out of scale with every other feat in the game as to be obviously wrong to an objective and reasonable observer.Objective and reasonable? By their very nature, human beings are subjective and irrational creatures. Therefore, there is no such thing as an objective and reasonable observer. People can attempt to be perfectly objective and reasonable, but it's not possible to achieve.
Stickboy2323 10-08-06, 08:50 PM	Quote: "When you [the player] apply a [one] metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell to that spell [taken with Arcane Thesis], the enhanced spell uses up a slot one level lower than normal." Emphasis and inserts (in brackets) mine. Exactly. You proved yourself wrong I think. When you apply "a [one]" metamagic feat other than Heighten Spell the benefit of Arcane Thesis kicks in. There's nothing in the text that says what happens when you apply a second metamagic feat. Why? Because Arcane Thesis only applies to "a [one]" metamagic feat. I would still agree that a literal RAW interpertation of the text woulld allow a +0 level adjustmet metamagic feat to reduce the spell slot used even if I know for myself that that is probably not what the designers intended for the feat to do. I'll say this as well. While this thread has been awfully entertaining to read I think it's time to let the debate die. There are two, maybe more, sides and all believe that they are right and the others are wrong. RAW vs RAI debates are about as useful as CustServe rulings. No one is going to change their mind so what's the point in continuing. Also, add Purify spell to the list of +1 spells. I don't remember seeing it on the list. Sure it's similar to Consecrate Spell but the ability to scale up your damage dice for free is nice.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-08-06, 09:44 PM	I don't think Haik has proven himself wrong. He has already addressed your point. But yes, I agree. This debate needs to stop; it's gone on far too long.
Dragon3 10-08-06, 10:55 PM	Arcane thesis aint the only way to squeeze lot of metamagic on. Psycarnum infusion, midnight metamagic and expanded essentia capacity can squeeze 5 slots on for free for any spells. Throw in divine soultouch and you can use nightsticks at greater savings since 5 slots got saved. Allow metamagic eq such as rod of chaining 3/day and your typical spell can have an incredible number of metamagic on it. Sanctum actually give you a level as well beside slot. Now consider metamagic spell trigger from complete mage. You get to apply all this to spell trigger items.
Traevanon 10-08-06, 11:34 PM	Assume? Assuming makes an a** out of u and me, and now you're assuming that I'm arguing intent, which I'm not. Using multiple metamagic feats on a single spell has prescedent, as I mentioned before. I don't assume anything; I just take the text as it's written and run with it. Of course I know that's probably not the original intent of the designers, but I'm no psychic mind reader.Its not intent that needs to be argued to prove this point. In precedent, feats have a certain range of levels of character power that they grant, either alone or in combination, which you are purposefully ignoring. Creatures of a given level have a certain range of hitpoints, and combats against them are meant to require a certain level of resources. Again, this is another precedent that a spell / feat combo that allows you to do several hundred damage with a low level slot breaks.Objective and reasonable? By their very nature, human beings are subjective and irrational creatures. Therefore, there is no such thing as an objective and reasonable observer. People can attempt to be perfectly objective and reasonable, but it's not possible to achieve.I didnt mention anything about being *perfectly* objective and reasonable. Anyhow, all I want is for you to stop being hypocritical. Go ahead and play theoretical math and language games all you like, just try not to belittle those that argue the opposing view.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-09-06, 12:14 AM	Its not intent that needs to be argued to prove this point. In precedent, feats have a certain range of levels of character power that they grant, either alone or in combination, which you are purposefully ignoring. Creatures of a given level have a certain range of hitpoints, and combats against them are meant to require a certain level of resources. Again, this is another precedent that a spell / feat combo that allows you to do several hundred damage with a low level slot breaks.I didnt mention anything about being *perfectly* objective and reasonable. :confused: Have you seen some of the damages that Psions can pull off? Have you seen some of the damages that Artificers can pull off? Precedent if anything, would say that this is supported. Anyhow, all I want is for you to stop being hypocritical. Go ahead and play theoretical math and language games all you like, just try not to belittle those that argue the opposing view. I'm not really seeing the hypocrisy. Haik has already proven many a time why this interpretation is the most logical to go by. If people want to go by different ones that is ok, but by a strict reading of the text Haik's is the correct one. Ignore the fact that some people will not like that interpretation. That is alright. Yes, we've made publicly that we'll post builds using the trick. How many of them use it? A VERY VERY VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE! It doesn't freaking matter! This whole argument is about that fact! Most of these builds won't see play. Some of the fun of Arcane Thesis is just seeing how high the mathematical game can go. I can't vouch for how fun level by level these builds would be. And most of these builds will fufill their trick at level 18 or 19. It's ok.
HaikenEdge 10-09-06, 10:30 AM	I think this debate on RAW for Arcane Thesis needs to stop. I've addressed all the points already; since we humans cannot be objective and rational creatures, there's no point in continuing. From now on, keep the arguments out of this thread. This thread is dedicated to the strict reading of Arcane Thesis.
Dragon3 10-09-06, 12:38 PM	If you use midnight metamagic to make some metamagic free on the arcane thesis, can arcane thesis give you the -1 cost on the arcane thesis spell? I was seeking an alternative to incanatrix. Some builds don't have room to fix incanatrix in.
SavageTard 10-09-06, 02:08 PM	I have a question. Can a geomancer use arcane thesis on divine spells? Remember he can mix and match spellcasting parameters. You know, I would really like to see the answer to this question too. I think there might be some interesting build possibilities if Geomancers can do this.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-09-06, 02:32 PM	I agree there completely. Geomancer is worth looking into. Another thing that I have completely neglected is the Combination of Psycarnum Infusion, and Midnight Metamagic. This seriously needs to be looked at along with Arcane Thesis.
Lyinginbedmon 10-10-06, 10:29 AM	Our sorcerer meets with a hapless target atop a mountain, grabs a handful of snow, and casts a Born of the Three Thunders Explosive Apocalypse from the Sky. The hapless target fails both saves from BoTT, and is promptly blasted into the horizon. At a caster level of 20, AftS has an area of 200 miles; exactly the distance that the hapless target must be moved to get out of the spell’s area, which equates to 1,056,000 feet. Since Explosive spell deals 1d6 damage per 10 feet moved, the hapless target takes 158,400d6 damage (thanks to Empower Spell). Unfortunately, since our sorcerer is also standing within and can be affected by AftS, he is moved 1,056,005 feet to the outside of the spell and takes exactly the same amount of damage since the build lacks a way to preclude itself from the spell’s area. The improved version of this build will appear soon, in a thread of its own. Nice build and all, but doesn't AFTS have a 1 day casting time?
monkey3 10-10-06, 10:48 AM	Nice build and all, but doesn't AFTS have a 1 day casting time? And a material component of "one artifact" :eek:
iconoplast 10-11-06, 02:17 PM	Design Goal: Arcane Thesis & Divine Metamagic Build Stub: Rogue 3/Monk 1/Human Paragon 1/Chameleon 2/Ur Priest 2/Virtuoso 1/Sublime Chord 1/Mystic Theurge 1/Geomancer 8 Feats: Able Learner Iron Will Spell Focus (Evil) Metamagic School (Evil) or Arcane Thesis Corrupt Spell Divine Metamagic ... which leaves 1 slot open for a Metamagic Feat. There must be a better way.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-11-06, 05:42 PM	Well, I crafted this a bit ago. It's a good thinking point. This sorceror Changes what his Arcane Thesi is each day. And each day he crafts a different wand from that Arcane Thesis. It yields some interesting results, and the build can be tweaked somewhat. You could replace Craft Wand with Craft Scepter (LEoF), or any applicable Item Creation feat. The Chameleatrix Sorceror 6/ Incantarix 10/ Chameleon 2/ Sorceror 7-8 Race: SilverBrow Human 1: Able Learner, Iron Will 3: Repeat Spell 6: Practical Metamagic: Repeat Spell 7: Maximize Spell 9: Practical Metamagic: Maximize Spell 10: Chain Spell 12: Practical Metamagic: Chain Spell 13: Extend Spell 15: Persistent Spell 16: Reach Spell 18: Craft Wand
HaikenEdge 10-11-06, 08:22 PM	Interesting build, Bill. I assume that Dragon mags aren't used?
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 10-11-06, 09:02 PM	Nope, no Dragon Magazine Whatsoever. Although if you did you use it, you could squeeze one more feat out of there since you'd be a Wizard.
FromTheShadows 10-11-06, 10:16 PM	Nice build and all, but doesn't AFTS have a 1 day casting time? And a material component of "one artifact" :eek: Yes, that'd be why I mentioned that the build was, for the most part, nothing but a thought experiment. The only real, effective way that AftS could be reliably optimized would be through the use of Dweomerkeeper (to kill the artifact requirement) and Divine Metamagic or something similar (to tack on the feats). The casting time has me lost on a solution, though. (Too long for a Quicken Rod, and there's no Quicken Supernatural Ability feat in the ToM.)
Bellinator 01-08-07, 10:28 PM	So, how does the Sage ruling rankle you all? The "I love Arcane Thesis" thread is out of control, so I thought I would ask here.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 01-08-07, 10:41 PM	It doesn't really. :) The last page and the next to the last page of I love Arcane Thesis brought some new light to the issue. It all comes down to the word Normal. I also tried to prove how Arcane Thesis works by precedent.