Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Leonis472 07-21-07, 06:22 AM	Hello everyone, thanks for reading. Among my first few responses after joining the board was the following reply to a question about the spell stone shape, specifically whether it could be used offensively. This next quote is the original context for the question of this topic, and it serves as the best example I can think of for an applicable situation. Just [/I]eschew materials and you're fine for the arcane version: no messy clays to shape in six seconds. Without the feat, I don't suppose I'd allow much offensive use based on that alone. Alternatively, a spellcaster with enough time could take 10 or 20 on a sculpting craft check to make a model of fine detail, even one of appropriate sharpness for trap spikes*. It's worth it, as the duration is instantaneous. I wouldn't allow the fine detail a craft check would provide as written above to circumvent the possible failure of movable parts in the spell's description. However, I would probably halve the chance moving parts wouldn't work (to 15%) for a transmuter, and only for a transmuter. See below. In addition, I give specialist wizards—in this case transmuters—a sweeping affinity for spells of their chosen school. I've ruled in the past that specializing in a school offers great leeway in spellcasting from that school based simply on the following: "Essentially, the wizard gains exceptional mastery over a single school by neglecting the study of other schools." -the last sentence of the first paragraph in the [I]School Specialization entry at the bottom of page 57, PH3.5 What "exceptional mastery" means to you as a DM is not my call, but to me it means placing spells of a wizard's specialty school under the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Though this often means playing things by ear, I don't think specializing gives quite enough benefits for the costs, so I try to make up for it a bit.*The "trap spikes" weren't really traps that rise from the floor, but more like shaping the stone of the floor into spikes which do appropriate damage. I think a specialist wizard needs to have something like this, as my interpretation of exceptional mastery is more than just preparing one extra school spell per spell level. How is this best implemented? What are your thoughts in general? Consider the following, which I'm sure you already know: This provides a reason to specialize in a school. Specialists can neatly dodge sacrificing a school by becoming Diviners, and since divination magic is so useful a slot would probably have been used for it anyway. The wizard can then pick up the Spell Focus feat for whichever school they originally wanted to specialize in, and suddenly we've got a Diviner who's just as good as a Conjurer but with one less prohibited school. Thoughts?
runestar 07-21-07, 09:20 AM	To be honest, I am not really aware of that many useful divination spells worth filling your slots with. I would count see invis, true seeing, moment of prescience and maybe true-strike (or quickened true-strike for that 5th lv slot), but that seems pretty much it. Identify/Analyze dweomer are better off on scrolls, or you can just prepare them in your downtime. Other schools, such as conjuration, transmutation and evocation have something useful at every lv. I am not aware of that many specialist variants. Complete mage has one where you give up 1 spell slot/lv, and get 3 specialist spell slots in return. This would serve to make the memorized spells of different specialist mages more distinct. UA has those specialist variants where you trade familiar/bonus feats/spell slots for unique benefits. Some are nice, others more "eh". I suppose you could take the red wizard prc to represent the extent of your specialization. That gives it less incentive to just go divination (since you won't really benefit much from caster lv bonuses/save bonuses vs divination spells). Conversely, just about every other school has something to gain from improved caster lv at least. How unique are we looking at here?:)
Leonis472 07-21-07, 07:06 PM	It's not so much how powerful divination spells are. Outside of battle, one can name divination spells which are much more powerful, besides. No. These are the points I was trying to outline: 1.- If a wizard is going to specialize at all, he must give up two schools, and the only benefit is a higher DC and one more spell of each level from that school. 2.- I don't think that's enough, because one can become a Diviner (which has awesome outside-of-battle spells and useful in-battle ones). Often wizards prepare divination spells anyway, so if one is to prepare at least one divination spell for each level then it doesn't really matter that the extra spell slot is "school only." You have extra slots, period, if you prepare divination spells. 3.- A Diviner loses only one school. This is a huge benefit over losing two, and the "mastery" they offer flat out can be substituted by Spell Focus in whatever school one really wanted to specialize in. It's a win-win to do the above, the only downside is you must put up with "Diviner" as a class instead of, say, "Necromancer" or "Transmuter." I want to negate this by providing broad powers and leeway in casting spells, even walking the line and sometimes crossing it when it comes to what spells of one's school can do. Hope this is clearer. :) This is about regular wizards. No PrCs, no anything. General feats, sure, nothing fancy. I want tips on how a DM can help a specialist wizard specializing in the traditional way. Again, I do not think "exceptional mastery" is the miniscule benefit the regular format gives out, especially when compared to what this detour into Diviner can provide.
Leonis472 07-23-07, 11:06 PM	Hey again everyone. I moved this to another board to see if it would garner responses there, and I had to recap what I was meaning behind this whole thing. Maybe this'll help clear things up here too. See next post.
Leonis472 07-23-07, 11:07 PM	I think I may have pointed this out to you before; but maybe it was another "specialist thread." Specialists do not automatically get a better DC in their chosen school. They get an extra slot per level, and a bonus to Spellcraft checks in their school. Thats it.I think you did too. Your name and avatar sound and look familiar. Whoops, heh. Using only the core rules, there is nothing a specialist wizard can do that a generalist cannot do. I beg to differ: a generalist can cast from every school; a specialist cannot. The problem with this is it is all too vague and ill defined. First things: Specialists are not a “power move.” If you want to be the most powerful character in the game, and try it with a wizard, dont specialize, even as a diviner. It has to be a flavor move. I chose to play a specialist to show something about my characters personality or about his background. Thats it. More often than not, the flavor comes not from what the character can do, but what he cannot (or will not) do based on his barred schools.I don't want specializing to be a power move, not in the least. You're correct, they must be flavor moves. The problem is rather vague and ill-defined, and though I could see it clearly in my explanation I suppose it was still too within my idiom. Let me recap. Typical specializing means selecting one's favored school and losing two (or one) other schools. This "genuine" specialization is the flavor version. You gain a bonus to spellcraft for your school and an extra prepared school spell each level. The Problem: Specializing becomes a power move too easily through the Diviner. Diviners gain the same benefits as above but only lose one school. That's huge. I could become a Diviner for the extra spells, because most wizards, specialist or no, prepare at least one divination spell in each spell level. That means that the restricted spell slots are of non-effect, because most prepare the same amount of divination spells whether or not they're Diviners. The slots those spells would've taken up move to "school-only" slots and free up for every other school. For instance, say I wanted to specialize in Transmutation (I do, if I could find someone else to DM . . .). I could play a Transmuter with all the penalties of "true" specialization as a flavor move, or I could play a Diviner and only lose one school, and fill my slots as I would if I really were a Transmuter. That's what this thread is about. The Solution: If you read my first post's quote, you'll see my proposed solutions. I want to make it so if someone is genuinely specializing, they have more leeway in how the rules apply. In that post, you see that for transmuters moving parts work more of the time and that fine detail is possible, albeit not easy, all of which contradict the spell's description. The point is that Transmuters transmute better than generalist Wizards and other Specialists. What does this mean? This thread is for finding solutions for DMs to negate the "power-move variant" through Diviner. I want to keep specialization a flavor move only, and reward those who make flavor moves by adding special power in spells of their school, like tweaking numbers or allowing things not normally possible (see the stone shape example, again in the first post.) That's why PrCs are not helpful in this situation, though I have looked through Complete Mage and seen many good ideas. The main point is that I believe specialists should have benefits simply for being specialists. They shouldn't have to take feats or levels in a PrC to make up for not having power-moved in some other way, as they already pay in the form of losing an extra school.
Marcus Majarra 07-24-07, 12:04 AM	If you really want to nerf the "power-move variant" of the diviner, then simply have the diviner pay up with two schools, just like the rest of the specialists. The entire point of specializing is gaining more spell slots at the expense of diversity. It's supposed to be a sort of middle-ground between the sorcerer and the wizard.
runestar 07-24-07, 08:59 AM	Yes, but divination is supposedly the weakest of all the schools. That is why you can't ban it in 3.5, and why it was almost always chosen to be banned in 3.0 together with necromancy. If you had it ban 2 schools, there would be absolutely no incentive to choose it over the other specialist choices whatsoever.:(
Marcus Majarra 07-24-07, 12:35 PM	Actually, I think the reason specialist wizards cannot ban divination is because of read magic, a divination spell which all wizards can prepare from memory. And divination is hardly the weakest of all schools. Personally, I find evocation to be a weaker school than divination.
Drakken2672 07-24-07, 12:56 PM	As far as the specilist thing, If you really want to add more flair to the specilist rule allow for meta-magic feats to be applied with a 1 level less adjustment to that school only. I believe that would make a quite interesting and playable option for your specilists and also make it be two schools for divination as that bonus itself is quite hefty. Marcus, I don't know which books your reading but evocation is by far the strongest school, now as far as usefulness, I'll give you divination is quite useful but powerful? I must have missed something inbetween tongues and discern location. If you would have said enchantment was the strongest I think i could have agreed with you but looking across the spell list.... divination just kinda ranks mediocre at best.
Marcus Majarra 07-24-07, 01:15 PM	I'm looking at the PHB. Evocation is mostly a matter of damage spells, which pale in comparison to what spells of the same level can do. I pity the low-level wizards and sorcerers who stock up on magic missile, when sleep, grease, and color spray can do much more. I managed to take out three opponents with a single casting of color spray as a 1st-level sorcerer, something that no 1st-level evocation spell could've done. IMHO, the strongest schools are conjuration and transmutation, which also happen to be the most versatile. Illusion can eventually do all that evocation does, so it deserves a mention too.
Drakken2672 07-24-07, 01:22 PM	My personal opinion is conjuration and enchantment are the strongest. I do agree with you, some spells are just too valuable to a low level caster. once those levels are past then however those spells lose what the evocation of the same level have, the ability to do something. Magic missle is still good to a tenth lv caster were as sleep isn't going to do anything to the 12hd hydra (or other monster) they are fighting.
Thomar_of_Uointer 07-24-07, 01:51 PM	Unearthed Arcana already has variant specialist wizards. This basically swaps out the wizard's bonus feats for unique class features. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm
Marcus Majarra 07-24-07, 04:19 PM	Magic missle is still good to a tenth lv caster I disagree. Casting magic missile as a 10th-level caster is a waste of time to me. And while sleep will not be effective against a 12 HD hydra, grease and ray of enfeeblement will.
Torrential 07-26-07, 12:06 AM	I disagree. Casting magic missile as a 10th-level caster is a waste of time to me Unless you're using Arcane Thesis and Force Missile Mage, of course :D Back to OP: Hello everyone, thanks for reading. Among my first few responses after joining the board was the following reply to a question about the spell stone shape, specifically whether it could be used offensively. This next quote is the original context for the question of this topic, and it serves as the best example I can think of for an applicable situation. ... I think a specialist wizard needs to have something like this, as my interpretation of exceptional mastery is more than just preparing one extra school spell per spell level. How is this best implemented? What are your thoughts in general? Consider the following, which I'm sure you already know: This provides a reason to specialize in a school. Specialists can neatly dodge sacrificing a school by becoming Diviners, and since divination magic is so useful a slot would probably have been used for it anyway. The wizard can then pick up the Spell Focus feat for whichever school they originally wanted to specialize in, and suddenly we've got a Diviner who's just as good as a Conjurer but with one less prohibited school. Thoughts? Have you taken a look at the PHB II? There's a variant option for a wizard in there. Give up the familiar for a Supernatural, Immediate Action ability, a number of times / day equal to INT modifier. (Meaning... it works in AMFs... and you can use it in response to stuff happening not on your turn... both of which are awesome...) The actual ability you gain depends on your specialization (with no benefit for generalists). The list is pretty decent (and definitely flavorful). A conjurer can dimension hop 10ft, while a transmuter can give himself a swim/climb/fly speed for a round, etc. I think this goes in line well with what you're looking for. You can always waive the requirement of giving up the familiar in your games, if you want to sort of "standardize" this option for all specialized wizards...
Marcus Majarra 07-26-07, 12:20 PM	Unless you're using Arcane Thesis and Force Missile Mage, of course Damage-dealing spells are still a waste of time, in most cases. Battlefield control's where the real power's at.
Torrential 07-27-07, 12:31 AM	Damage-dealing spells are still a waste of time, in most cases. Battlefield control's where the real power's at. Bah! Who cares about power... when you're a 10th caster level kickin' *** with Magic Missile? :cool:
Arrowstorm 07-27-07, 03:25 PM	Yeah, Drakken you are right. Define 'battlefield control' Marcus. Just how big are these combats you are in? Arrowstorm favorite quote "It's okay to eat fish cause they don't have any feelings." Nirvana
Marcus Majarra 07-27-07, 04:31 PM	Define 'battlefield control' Marcus. Just how big are these combats you are in? Battlefield control means limiting or controling your opponents' actions in the battlefield. It can apply to each and every combat and is hands down the most effective way at dealing with combat for many reasons: 1) Dealing damage to an opponent doesn't keep it from doing anything it would normally do. 2) Disabling an opponent means that opponent is no longer an issue with this combat. This is how you win battles. You don't win when you deal damage to your opponents. You win when your opponents can no longer harm you. 3) There are many ways of disabling your opponents through battlefield control. The guidelines to keep in mind are: • Killing/destroying them through damage. While this seems to tactic of choice for you guys, it's actually the worst there is, for a spellcaster. You see, while characters who primarily rely on melee and ranged combat have little choice in how they choose to dispose of their opponents (damage is usually their only option), spellcasters have access to an incredible amount of different ways to accomplish the same ends. Unless you're pretty sure you're going to deal enough damage with your spell to eliminate the threat of one or more opponents, you're better off using a different spell. • Limiting mobility. This is one of the best tactics to use against primarily melee opponents. They rely on being next to you to be dangerous, so the best thing you can do to them is to constantly keep them away from you. Grease is a most popular spell in this field, especially against opponents with low Dex and heavy armor. While the opponents are stuck trying to bypass the spell, they're not harming you, and you have the freedom to attack them at range, a field in which they're harmless. • Limiting ability. This is the tactic of choice against opponents who can harm you from a distance. Basically, your goal when using this tactic is to keep your opponent from using his abilities as a whole. It's best used against archer types and enemy spellcasters. Evard's black tentacles and telekinesis are good examples of battlefield control spells that limit ability. The enemy caster will be no good against you if he's busy trying to grapple his way out of the evard's black tentacles. • Save-or-Die effects. This tactic encourages the use of spells that eliminate the threat of an opponent altogether with a failed saving throw. They're a bit of a gamble, but they're the most effective spells when the save is failed. The aforementioned color spray is very effective in this field as it covers multiple targets. With a single casting, I managed to paralyze three opponents for multiple rounds (in addition to other effects from the spell), more than enough time for the party melee types to go and perform a coup-de-grace on them. • Keeping the opponent occupied. This tactic, favored by summoners, is centered on the idea that if you can force your opponent to waste more actions than you do, you'll win the battle. Summoners enjoy this tactic because every action used against a summoned creature is an action that in no way penalizes your party. The trick in making this tactic cost-effective lies in getting your opponent to waste more actions than you do in attempting to cause this all.
Leonis472 07-27-07, 11:08 PM	If you really want to nerf the "power-move variant" of the diviner, then simply have the diviner pay up with two schools, just like the rest of the specialists. The entire point of specializing is gaining more spell slots at the expense of diversity. It's supposed to be a sort of middle-ground between the sorcerer and the wizard.Thank you all for responding, and especially you Marcus. Reading your posts was delightful, you'd responded to comments exactly as I would have, comments such as Evocation being the strongest school and the impossibility of banning Divination when read magic is so fundamental and can be prepared from memory. I thought of this solution too, and will probably go with it, as it is the easiest. No one ever specializes in Divination anyway, but a sly player might try to exploit it and I don't really want that to happen. As another poster had said, specialization is a flavor move, not a power move. I completely agree, and to protect that I need solutions that work, even small incentives that are delightful bonuses to my players. For instance, check the stone shape example at the beginning of this post. As far as the specilist thing, If you really want to add more flair to the specilist rule allow for meta-magic feats to be applied with a 1 level less adjustment to that school only. I believe that would make a quite interesting and playable option for your specilists and also make it be two schools for divination as that bonus itself is quite hefty.Even better, perhaps. It adds that spice that only breaking the rules can allow, and the fact that everyone knows its for the better is all the more savory with this suggestion. Thanks. :) Unearthed Arcana already has variant specialist wizards. This basically swaps out the wizard's bonus feats for unique class features. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htmThis is what I ran into on the Classes and Prestige Classes board. What I'm looking for here is house rule fodder. Reference my reply to this next response: Have you taken a look at the PHB II? There's a variant option for a wizard in there. Give up the familiar for a Supernatural, Immediate Action ability, a number of times / day equal to INT modifier. (Meaning... it works in AMFs... and you can use it in response to stuff happening not on your turn... both of which are awesome...) The actual ability you gain depends on your specialization (with no benefit for generalists). The list is pretty decent (and definitely flavorful). A conjurer can dimension hop 10ft, while a transmuter can give himself a swim/climb/fly speed for a round, etc. I think this goes in line well with what you're looking for. You can always waive the requirement of giving up the familiar in your games, if you want to sort of "standardize" this option for all specialized wizards...Thank you for responding, and yes, I've seen and like the variants in PHBII and elsewhere. Specifically what I'm looking for is a house rule which negates the power-move variant outlined in earlier posts. Also, this is a telling reference: The main point is that I believe specialists should have benefits simply for being specialists. [...]The actual character, a specialist wizard, should get a benefit related to the school of her specialization for no other reason than that they specialized. The suggestion of having Diviners ban two schools is looking the most attractive now, coupled with the suggestion to apply metamagic feats at a negative one adjustment. The reason is that whatever benefits I give to specialists who are not Diviners I would also have to give to those who are Diviners, and the whole reason I'm looking into to this is to level the field in case anyone wants to sully the "flavor move" that specialization is by power-moving through Divination.
Leonis472 07-27-07, 11:24 PM	Give up the familiar for a Supernatural, Immediate Action ability, a number of times / day equal to INT modifier. (Meaning... it works in AMFs... and you can use it in response to stuff happening not on your turn... both of which are awesome...) Actually, supernatural abilities do not function in antimagic fields. As a triviality, even turning undead is a supernatural ability, one which will not function in areas where mortal magic is suppressed or negated. What you're thinking of is an extraordinary ability, and the entry for specialist wizards says that "you gain a spell-like ability" by taking the offered variant. That sentence begins a paragraph, and strangely at the end of that same paragraph is this sentence, "This is an extraordinary ability." I tend to rule that they're the latter, as they're relatively weak and should be extraordinary, seeing as you pay a hefty cost for them in your familiar.
Torrential 07-28-07, 01:59 AM	Actually, supernatural abilities do not function in antimagic fields Ack! You're right... I meant to say Extraordinary Ability... not Supernatural Ability... (had to crack open the PHBII again just to make sure... the Wizard variant is an Ex, no a Su... hence, castable in AMF.) Caught me making a n00b mistake :weep:
Marcus Majarra 07-28-07, 12:12 PM	Thank you all for responding, and especially you Marcus. Reading your posts was delightful, you'd responded to comments exactly as I would have, comments such as Evocation being the strongest school and the impossibility of banning Divination when read magic is so fundamental and can be prepared from memory. Much obliged. :-)
Drakken2672 07-28-07, 05:35 PM	Marcus, I know you are very well versed in the rules and obviously an apt player. However you seem to lack any real gaming experience. all of your spell combo's and examples barely range out of what a 5th lvl wizard can cast. I still don't see how someone can even deny that multiple time stops with quickened spells delayed blast fireballs (energy subbed of course, to exploit weakness) multiple celerities and multiple other AOE dmg effects just destroy your "Color Spray works on everything arguement". I just don't see where your ideas and tactics have any basis beyond a 5th lvl campaign and inexperienced DM running a c ampaign for people who bought the book last week.
Leonis472 07-29-07, 06:40 AM	Drakken, I thought both your ideas and Marcus's were clever, but happened to be agreeing more with Marcus overall, hence the portion of my post praising him. I do disagree with some of your overall thinking, though certainly not all, and I believe the following quote betrays you: My personal opinion is conjuration and enchantment are the strongest. The purpose of game design is for balance, so no one class eclipses entirely any other, let alone allowing any class feature being useless within a class. The designers are working—literally working—to prove this statement wrong. Since they know that nearly all specialist wizards must give up two schools, they must strive for balance between all schools so that the greatest variety can be achieved, and so that specializing remains a flavor move. Imagine if they did pour most of spellcasting's strength into those two schools, and in some home somewhere someone chooses to ban them. What a fix they're in! You've given some clear examples which side with your argument, such as magic missile against sleep, the former of which increases in power and deals force damage—useful against incorporeal creatures—the latter of which neither powers up nor proves even more useful to any specific creature type. Though this example clearly supports you, it is too one-sided to be long believed. There are many other examples which will erode your foundation, and any DnD gamer who pays attention to the dynamics of arcane magic will soon realize the balance between the schools. In addition, the Transdimensional Spell feat outperforms the usefulness of force spells against the incorporeal, and stronger evocation spells such as shard storm further propel magic missile into the margins. I also find it interesting that immediately after you praise conjuration and enchantment you show us that evocation’s magic missile trumps enchantment's sleep. :P
Marcus Majarra 07-29-07, 10:49 PM	Marcus, I know you are very well versed in the rules and obviously an apt player. However you seem to lack any real gaming experience. all of your spell combo's and examples barely range out of what a 5th lvl wizard can cast. I still don't see how someone can even deny that multiple time stops with quickened spells delayed blast fireballs (energy subbed of course, to exploit weakness) multiple celerities and multiple other AOE dmg effects just destroy your "Color Spray works on everything arguement". I just don't see where your ideas and tactics have any basis beyond a 5th lvl campaign and inexperienced DM running a c ampaign for people who bought the book last week. The reason you don't see this is because you're not even considering what options you can use beyond the level of the example I was using. It's not because the examples I'm using are for low-level adventures that battlefield control doesn't exist beyond fifth level. It's of no surprise that you're adeptly claiming that time stop, delayed blast fireball, celerity, and Quicken Spell will outshine color spray: all of these options outlevel color spray. The thing is: battlefield control exists at all levels of magic, and at all levels of play. If you want a demonstration of this, you're free to provide me any example of what you consider to be effective spellcasting through damage-dealing, and I'll show you a better way to be effective without resorting to spells that deal damage, at the same level of spellcasting. For example, let's consider delayed blast fireball. The best you can expect from this spell is 20d6 points of damage, with a save for half damage, in a 20-foot radius. On average, it'll deal 70 points of damage to opponents that fail the save and 35 to those who succeed. And this is at 20th-level of casting. It's not very impressive against opponents in your typical encounters of level 18 to 24. Using a spell slot of the same level, you can do much more: • Finger of death will kill a single creature on a failed save. If the save succeeds, it'll deal 30 points of damage on average, which is pretty close to what you get with a successful save against the delayed blast fireball. If you reduce the caster level down to 13th (the bare minimum for both spells), finger of death will actually deal more damage (23), on average, than delayed blast fireball (22), if saves are succeeded. • Power word blind will completely disable a spellcaster with no save, pure and simple. You can't choose targets for your spells without line of sight. • Forcecage can remove multiple opponents from combat, also without a save. This spell works against opponents of all kinds, too (barring those with teleportation abilities). As a matter of fact, this spell will last at least 26 hours, making a single casting more than a guarantee that the combat will be over in your favor. Alone, this is worth the hefty material component it requires. • Another good example of a spell for area control without saves is reverse gravity. This spell can always cover an area at least equal to that of delayed blast fireball, and removes opponents from the field of battle at an alarming speed (multiple hundred feet per round, making even long-range spells useless). As if this wasn't enough, the caster can even choose to end the spell prematurely, and cause his opponents to take up to 20d6 points of falling damage, again with no save. This damage is always dealt to the creature, regardless of damage reduction or energy resistance. What's more, you can achieve this damage figure even at 13th-level of casting, whereas delayed blast fireball caps at 13d6 at that point.
Drakken2672 07-30-07, 04:42 PM	The reason you don't see this is because you're not even considering what options you can use beyond the level of the example I was using. It's not because the examples I'm using are for low-level adventures that battlefield control doesn't exist beyond fifth level. It's of no surprise that you're adeptly claiming that time stop, delayed blast fireball, celerity, and Quicken Spell will outshine color spray: all of these options outlevel color spray.. I'm not considering options beyond that level, I must have missed where the 2nd level wizard got time stop at. [/QUOTE] • Finger of death will kill a single creature on a failed save. If the save succeeds, it'll deal 30 points of damage on average, which is pretty close to what you get with a successful save against the delayed blast fireball. If you reduce the caster level down to 13th (the bare minimum for both spells), finger of death will actually deal more damage (23), on average, than delayed blast fireball (22), if saves are succeeded.[/QUOTE] Though finger of death is a good spell you seem to leave out it's major downfalls. 1.) its a fort save which means that it has about a 75% chance of not working against those equal or challenging CRs out of any of the monster manuals. 2.) Close range, like anyone wants to be close as a mage. 3.) The creatures / NPCs that will do the most damage to a party where this is a staple spell, it won't work on. A nomadic horde of barbarians would eat this mage alive. (Obviously not something that you'd prep if aware however) [/QUOTE] • Power word blind will completely disable a spellcaster with no save, pure and simple. You can't choose targets for your spells without line of sight.[/QUOTE] Maybe my interpretation of the rules is incorrect, but I think you can still drop an AOE on a spot based on a listen check yelled directions from a team mate or heck even guess on battle sounds. Who hasn't ground zero'd a nuke to finish a fight that wasn't going the greatest. I don't see how a 50% miss chance when targetting a square could really be that bad. [/QUOTE] • Forcecage can remove multiple opponents from combat, also without a save. This spell works against opponents of all kinds, too (barring those with teleportation abilities). As a matter of fact, this spell will last at least 26 hours, making a single casting more than a guarantee that the combat will be over in your favor. Alone, this is worth the hefty material component it requires..[/QUOTE] Forcecage (Evocation) one of my favorite spells for single target removal. The flip side is the 1500gp of ruby dust that is wasted when the big hulking frenzied berserkers rogue buddy with a readied action SAs you as you cast. [/QUOTE] • Another good example of a spell for area control without saves is reverse gravity. This spell can always cover an area at least equal to that of delayed blast fireball, and removes opponents from the field of battle at an alarming speed (multiple hundred feet per round, making even long-range spells useless). As if this wasn't enough, the caster can even choose to end the spell prematurely, and cause his opponents to take up to 20d6 points of falling damage, again with no save. This damage is always dealt to the creature, regardless of damage reduction or energy resistance. What's more, you can achieve this damage figure even at 13th-level of casting, whereas delayed blast fireball caps at 13d6 at that point.[/QUOTE] I have nothing bad to say about this it's a great choice not only for mass combats but also for solitary encounters. Now my turn would only seem fair to allow you an equal chance to poke back. Basing again 13th lvl (7th circle spells) and also PHB only because the fun could only get worse outside of that. Storyline killer - Geas: hey you lvl 50 fighter go get me a sandwich from the next town over. ya he may beat you up pretty bad BUT if he doesn't go get you a sandwich he dies. -Wall of X : anything that lets you change lines of fire, abilities to charge, or funnel an oncoming hordes to a small pass, flawless. -Dominate: same as hold person, or any other single target spell EXCEPT now he is killing people for you. It has more than just a singular use. -Wall of Iron: Reason why I point this out seperately is because its fun to drop on people. And what a better way to cause a moral check than having hordes of underlings squished by a wall. -Hold Person, Mass: no need for details on this. Now for the evocation aspect. staying again with the PHB only. Delayed blast fireball, with a contingency fireball set to same target. dual reflex good damage ofcourse assuming energy subbed for max efficency. Throw in a bestow curse to give that bonus -6 to dex and -4 to saves. Chain lightning with contingency fireball (chain missle but thats spell compendium) good area and great effect again same situations from above. This last one is single target or many but has multiple variants. twin spell scorching ray (24d6) quickened scorching (12d6) and celerity (not during your round maybe right as that mage tries to cast) 12d6 more. also energy subbed to overcome the resistances (know vulnerabilities is so nice) but 48d6 in one round not even goin outside the main book seems to point out a decent arguement. Outside the main phb, you have evasculate (spelling?) does 50% hp dmg and of course at 15th level you get twinspell dalamars lightning lance and that is 78d6 just by itself.
Arrowstorm 07-31-07, 08:35 AM	Dead is dead Marcus. Straight damage spells can outright kill your opponent eliminating the worry they will get up and come back after you. Also, amazingly enough, damage spells stack with straight damage dealt by the other players allowing the entire party to drop the enemy faster. And how about those touch attacks? There are a lot of damage spells that need only a touch attack, eliminating the concern about a save. I always love a gaurantee of effect, unlike many spells with a save. And some spells don't even worry about spell resistance, once again a big plus. Even spells casters can nail most touch ACs. Arrowstorm
Marcus Majarra 07-31-07, 12:17 PM	Though finger of death is a good spell you seem to leave out it's major downfalls. 1.) its a fort save which means that it has about a 75% chance of not working against those equal or challenging CRs out of any of the monster manuals. 2.) Close range, like anyone wants to be close as a mage. 3.) The creatures / NPCs that will do the most damage to a party where this is a staple spell, it won't work on. A nomadic horde of barbarians would eat this mage alive. (Obviously not something that you'd prep if aware however) 1. 75% is an overstatement. Not that many creature types enjoy good fortitude saves. My rough estimate would be that it'll be useful against 50% of creatures. 2. Close range is still at least 55 feet, at the minimum level of casting. It's not like we're casting at 3rd-level, you know. 3. Of course, you shouldn't use this spell against multiple targets or against physically strong opponents. This spell is used to target the physically weak and remove them from the encounter permanently. Damage can be cured easily. Curing death is expensive. Maybe my interpretation of the rules is incorrect, but I think you can still drop an AOE on a spot based on a listen check yelled directions from a team mate or heck even guess on battle sounds. Who hasn't ground zero'd a nuke to finish a fight that wasn't going the greatest. I don't see how a 50% miss chance when targetting a square could really be that bad. You need line of sight to use any spell that has a target entry. If you're blind, you lose line of sight. As for area effects, while they're reasonably accessible to the caster, I wouldn't find it reasonable for them to use them safely. If anything, area effects become a liability for the caster's party. Now for the evocation aspect. staying again with the PHB only. Delayed blast fireball, with a contingency fireball set to same target. dual reflex good damage ofcourse assuming energy subbed for max efficency. Throw in a bestow curse to give that bonus -6 to dex and -4 to saves. Chain lightning with contingency fireball (chain missle but thats spell compendium) good area and great effect again same situations from above. This last one is single target or many but has multiple variants. twin spell scorching ray (24d6) quickened scorching (12d6) and celerity (not during your round maybe right as that mage tries to cast) 12d6 more. also energy subbed to overcome the resistances (know vulnerabilities is so nice) but 48d6 in one round not even goin outside the main book seems to point out a decent arguement. Outside the main phb, you have evasculate (spelling?) does 50% hp dmg and of course at 15th level you get twinspell dalamars lightning lance and that is 78d6 just by itself. While I praise your efforts to promote damage dealers (BTW, you brought up some good examples of battlefield control spells, too), I must impress upon you the realization that the evocation examples you provided, while they're probably as close as you can get to effective damage-dealing, are not cost-effective. What you're doing, in these scenarios, is showing that you can burn more spells for power in order to achieve the same end. The truth is, in order for damage to be effective, you need to burn a lot more resources than you would using battlefield control. This is why battlefield control is superior to damage dealing. Dead is dead Marcus. Straight damage spells can outright kill your opponent eliminating the worry they will get up and come back after you. And if damage-dealing spells had a way to consistently guarantee this, I would agree. You need to have your opponent die through damage to justify dealing damage in the first place. Why? Because if you can damage the opponent enough to take it down, then you might as well use another means to do it. Other party members don't have a choice as to how they take out opponents. Spellcasters do. Also, amazingly enough, damage spells stack with straight damage dealt by the other players allowing the entire party to drop the enemy faster. True as that maybe, is it really fast enough? What if you don't deal enough damage and your party members get screwed? Now, you'll not only be busy with a live and dangerous opponent, but you'll also have to be looking out for your party members (efficiently wasting more party resources in healing and defense). And how about those touch attacks? There are a lot of damage spells that need only a touch attack, eliminating the concern about a save. I always love a gaurantee of effect, unlike many spells with a save. And some spells don't even worry about spell resistance, once again a big plus. Even spells casters can nail most touch ACs. Well of course, spells that don't allow for saves are a safer investment. Keep in mind that battlefield control spells don't always involve saves. Evard's black tentacles, reverse gravity, and forcecage don't allow for saves, and they'll dispose of opponents much faster than damage-dealing spells.