Post/Author/DateTime	Post
smrtgmp 10-11-06, 11:27 PM	So my copy of CM arrived in the mail yesterday, and I've read it cover to cover. For the most part, I love it, and overall I have very few complaints (though lightning leap is a bit too close to my "Arist's Galvanising Charge (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7929872&postcount=15)" for my tastes *grumble grumble*). However, I was downright disturbed by some of the advice provided in the fundamentals chapter. For the most part its fairly adequate, but some of it is downright horrible. First of all, I dont like the way they pidgeon-hole specialists, especially when it comes to "opposing" schools. For instance, when discussing enchantment they say "...giving up the school of necromancy is almost a foregone conclusion, since you lack the ability to affect undead minds." Of course, if you kept necromancy, that wouldn't be the case, but hey, who's counting. And nevermind that enchantment is highly save dependant, and that necromancy contains some of the best save-tankers in the game. So yeah, dump the school that helps you do what you do best. Great idea. What bothers me the most (at least in the fundamantals chapter) is the advice provided for the generalist. Under the spells to aviod heading, they had the following to say about limited wish: "This spell is a crutch for generalists who have not done their homework. With a deceptively cheap 300xp cost (compared to the wish spell), you can duplicate any [wizard] spell of 6th level or lower rather than doing your job properly. A generalist who has given all due concideration to her spells should never have use for limited wish." WTF? Are you kidding me? The versatility of limited wish is staggering, and it does a hell of a lot more than just duplicate wizard spells of 6th level or less. It also duplicates spells from other spell lists of 5th level or less (and lets not forget that adepts get heal as a 5th level spell), undoes harmful effects from several different spells, or anything else of comparable power (the published example being a whopping -7 to the targets next save). Furthermore, there is no way that any generalist can account for every conceavable encounter, which is why they tend to prepare versitile spells such as dispel magic, telekinesis, and LIMITED WISH!!!! I could stomache the bad advice if it wasn't delivered with such arogance. Quite frankly, whoever wrote that has no frigging clue what they are talking about. I'm so thrilled that they're providing advice to those who feel they need it.
Heahengel 10-12-06, 12:22 AM	When I was reading the advice about specialist restrictions, I figured that they were basing it on the fixed 2nd ed restrictions, and making up reasons for it.
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 12:38 AM	The same thing occured to me, but I'm hoping thats not the case. If it is, its just lazy.
Deep Blue 9000 10-12-06, 01:13 AM	In most DnD books, I've found the "advice" offered to be questionable at best. Although bashing the totally broken limited wish as a crutch is especially bad.
User5127 10-12-06, 09:04 AM	That bash on limited wish just further hammers down why I don't listen to WoTC when they hand out "advice" to gamers. Yes you are right! a generalist could conceivably have EVERY spell. BUT! they can only prepare at most 4 spells of that level per day (not including bonus slots). so lets see, i have 4 6th level spell, what will i memorize? Yea, versatility = you live. esspecially when you don't know what you are up against or don't have time to prepare for it (ie use divinations to find out) *sigh* "you can duplicate any [wizard] spell of 6th level or lower rather than doing your job properly. A generalist who has given all due concideration to her spells should never have use for limited wish." as DM, if my player said that to me? *SMITE* Hell, even as the party wizard, if a another player said that about my spell preparation and accused me of "not doing my job" *Disintigrate!* what arrogance! and thats AFTER you handed them the money for the book. its like spitting on you for buying the damn thing! ridiculous! my two copper at least.
WayneTheGame 10-12-06, 10:08 AM	Seriously, are you surprised? Most of WotC's advice is utter rubbish and is either totally incorrect and/or suboptimal. Not to bash them because I do like the books, but if you're going to give advice then get a writer who is also a competant gamer to write the advice!
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 10:15 AM	am I surprised they gave bad advice? no, not particularly. am I surprised that anyone would think limited wish is anything less than amazing? yes. yes I am. its badassitude should be readily apparent to even a blind, retarded midget monkey, let alone a paid designer.
Johnny_Angel 10-12-06, 10:21 AM	It's not even being a competant gamer which is the issue with the advice. The issue is that a lot of the advice is very bias and -in some areas- very insulting. I felt as though the person writing CM had very strong bias against many elements of the game. One example is how they managed to sneak in a blatant flame against sorcerors and disguised it as simply being something which Mialee The Wizard said. If you don't like an element of the game, that's fine, and there are many threads on this board which are bashes of elements of the game - that's fine too, but, if you're writing a book (as an employee of WOTC) I find it very offensive (as mentioned) that I first have to pay for your book and then have my style of play be treated as being garbage. If you like different things than I do, that's fine - different people enjoy different things; that's why there are different classes, feats, skills, and spells in the game in the first place, but I don't appreciate being flamed after I go out of my way to purchase a book. I could have just as easily spent the money on something else.
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 10:32 AM	I too was a bit taken aback when I saw said "quote." That is, until, I saw the comprable quote from Hennet (or whatever the sorcerer's name is). There is something similar from a warlock as well. Basically they all think their method is the best. How very open minded, yes?
Johnny_Angel 10-12-06, 10:34 AM	I suppose the quote wasn't the best example, and -honestly- I missed the other two quotes until now. Even so though, I still felt as though some of the "advice" was bias against certain styles of play.
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 10:39 AM	oh definately
Raven Dark 10-12-06, 12:29 PM	Its badassitude should be readily apparent to even a blind, retarded midget monkey, let alone a paid designer. You need to watch what you say yourself lest you offend people! :mad: I overlooked Limited Wish as being a sucky spell for years before coming to these boards. So I guess I was some how LESS THAN a blind, retarded midget monkey? Hostility only breeds hostility. So STFU. :P (The last part was a joke, a play on words as it were)
Wind of Darkness 10-12-06, 04:15 PM	It's not surprising at all, really. A lot of the advice that shows up in splatbooks completely contradicts common sense. I'll still get the book, and I'll use the crunchy bits however I want, and ignore the ill concieved recommendations. Still, to say such a thing about limited wish. It's not a crutch. It's "plan B". Any Wizard that is doing his job properly will go out of his way to try to cover every possible base. Since spell slots are limited, the best way to do that is to prepare spells that are as versatile as possible. Even if you know exactly what you're getting into on any given day (which is rare, even with divinations), you should still have a backup plan, because things will go wrong.
The Simbul 10-12-06, 05:58 PM	Limited Wish is the best spell of its spell level, and for its cost it is arguably the best spell in the entire Player's Handbook. There is nothing "deceptive" about its cheap cost, a party of 13th level characters will recieve 3,900XP for each 13th level encounter they defeat. In a party of three characters, that is 1,300XP each. You can afford to use the spell in every equal level encounter, and by the time you start to fall behind your friends the XP award system will bring you back up since you are now going after tougher encounters thanks to the rest of the party being 14th level. And of course that is ignoring the -7 to the targets next saving throw option, which in conjunction with quicken spell or an allied spellcaster will pretty much guarantee the monster/NPC will be defeated by the next save or die effect to hit it. It also ignores the fact that duplicated spells use the casting time of limited wish, not their natural casting time. Legend Lore on a topic that you know nothing about normally takes 2d6 weeks to cast, with Limited Wish it is a standard action, and unlike Vision, Limited Wish has no CL check and can be used for other things if by the wizard who prepared it or the sorcerer who knows it. Oh yeah, and limited wish can instantly remove a dozen or more harmful effects, without a CL check, such as feeblemind, insanity, geas, curses etc. Who is going to prepare break enchantment or remove curse in the off-chance that A) they encounter someone who curses them and B) they fail the save, when you can just as easily prepare an spell that can do all of that and more?
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 09:07 PM	You need to watch what you say yourself lest you offend people! :mad:meh. life is offensive, and offending people is an inherent part of freedom of speech. then of course there is the fact that I'm a sarcastic SoB, and about 99% of the "offensive" material that crosses my lips is meant in jest. In other words, dont take it personally. And if you do, and get offended in the process...*shrugs*...oh well. My comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular (other than the pompous so-n-so who wrote the Fundamentals chapter), let alone you. So I guess I was some how LESS THAN a blind, retarded midget monkey?Apparently so. :P But don't be discouraged...you could always run for president. :D [/sarcasm] @Simbul: well said :tiphat:
AvaronGansdell 10-12-06, 09:07 PM	ahh compleat mage...which could have been called "a few more reasons not to play a evoker" but aside from that its got some great crunch
NineInchNall 10-12-06, 09:27 PM	Wow, I was about to come and post about this very same topic. Not about the limited wish slam, but about the bad advice in general. Even a quick glance at the advice is painful. I present some highlights for your displeasure. Specialists Conjuration -- Give up Transmutation and Illusion? As a summoner? No time stop or invisibility, are you MAD? Enchantment -- smrtgmp covered this one adequately. Evocation -- Give up Conjuration? Der, teleport. :rolleyes: Illusion -- Again, give up Transmutation or Conjuration? :rolleyes: Necromancy -- Why do they want people to give up Conjuration? Why? Oh, wait, I think I know, and I'll get to it later. :mad: Transmutation -- Again with the Conjuration. :banghead: Archetypes Blaster -- I love how the Best Spells section lists greater invisibility while the Evocation section suggests giving up Illusion. :rolleyes: Booster -- A specialist Wizard cannot "enjoy the most unfettered access to arcane boosting spells." Feats: Combat Casting, huh? Riiiight. Why not pick up Skill Focus (Concentration) instead and have a comparable bonus to all Concentration checks? Spells: I'm not seeing how stoneskin is a better 4th level boost than polym ... Oh, right, that thing I'm going to get to later. Avoid magic circles because someone else might want to cast them instead of divine power/righteous might? :uh-huh: Controller -- Yeah, they went ahead and did the one thing that would be sure to tick me off: they suggested taking Mindbender. :headexplo I'm trying to figure out why an enchanter would bother with Arcane Defense when protection from/magic circle against alignment spells are so effective at stopping mind-affecting stuff, and mind blank stops such things permanently. How in the Lord's holy name is Extend Spell a bad thing? EVER? Spells: While I don't think there's anything terrible here, the omission of limited wish is rather disconcerting. Generalist -- Spells: I wish they'd stop suggesting the hold person spells; their repreated save mechanic makes them less than optimal choices. Man, I thought optimal was what being the BEST means. Again, I'm scratching my head at certain omissions: where are mind blank or any of the polymorph line? Sniper -- Spells: A sniper should never think tactically or strategically, so no charm spells? A sniper should avoid sleep!? :uh-huh: A sniper should avoid having spells that create meat shields? Strategist -- PrCs: Masters of the Unseen Hand are better at battlefield control than a full spellcaster? Art thou on crack, book? Spells: At least they mentioned time stop. Finally. Then they go and suggest eldritch doom for Warlocks and ruin the section. Summoner - As a fan of the archetype, of course I flipped to this one first. PrCs: No, book, Alienist is not a good PrC. :nonono: Bad book; bad. I also must wonder how they expect a Core + Complete Mage arcanist to make effective use of Thaumaturgist. Something to think on. Feats: Improved Familiar? 'Nuff said. Spells: Why on God's green Earth is invisibility not listed? Why is gate not listed? And do I really need someone to tell me to avoid vile death? How about a more useful bit of advice, book? Warrior -- PrCs: Well, well. They actually suggested Master Transmogrifist, despite the fact that it revels in the yumminess of polymorph. How totally out of character for this book. Feats: Then they go and ruin it by telling us to avoid Power Attack. Wassup wif that? Their suggested Eldritch Knight build would have a +15 BAB, so their presented argument is moot. Spells: Okay, here's where I started to get irritated. They suggest taking trollform over polymorph stating that its benefits "aren't worth the adjudication headaches created by this complex effect." I understand that many people have difficulties with the spell, from either a game design or simple comprehension perspective, but yeesh. Then they propose the ultimate in self-debuffs: tenser's transformation. They also suggest dragonform over shapechange, and they again denigrate the polymorph line on the sly by referring to shapechange as a challenge. And here I'm going to take a break and say what I was going to say before. Several of the pieces of advice they give, including specialists' giving up Conjuration, summoners' not picking up invisibility despite the fact that summoning doesn't break said spell's effect, generalists' avoiding limited wish like the plague, and the forced ascendancy of the polymorph subschool spells, are intended A) to make caster characters operate at less than optimality, and B) to produce or reinforce in the minds of customers the idea that certain spell lines and types are crappy. Of course they don't want a character to retain Conjuration! That would make him effective. Of course they want bizarre and ineffectual class, feat, and spell choices! That makes noncasters seem less underpowered. Grr. And if this is not the case, then what we see in the book is proof that the suboptimality of the sample characters in all these supplements is symptomatic of the designers' lack of mastery of the material. In other words, they can't make good characters. This neatly does away with the hypothesis that the sample characters are intended to be representative of the "typical" D&D game's characters. Oh, and on a similar topic, do we really need advice on how to roleplay an Abjurant Champion? Seriously, I hate the current PrC format's huge waste of space.
User5127 10-12-06, 09:52 PM	:clap: :ayyyy!: :clap: I agree with the theory that they are trying to get people to screw up their casters so that non casters seem more powerful. (Since thats OH so much easier to do than say... fix the non casters so its balanced?) most of what i read is jsut degraded flop. It's rather sad, and actually the way these books are comming out in an almost half arsed manner makes me sad. This is the same stuff that made me stop playing MTG. it was a great game until they screwed it over. repeatedly. in each expansion. *sigh* hmm... what will they get their hands on next to mutilate? I'm just keeping the good bits out of the book for my casters. I have my own two cooper thank you very much and I don't need the auther putting in his missinformed tarnished two cp. mabye the next book i'll get will make me smile again. mabye. (on a side note I bought some other books today that made me rather happy with the way they were written. mabye there are other developers out there that don't bash thier customers and actually provide sound useful advice? i can only hope)
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 10:12 PM	I noticed the thaumateurgist as well. :nonono: Then there was the spy section. Anyone mind telling me how an arcane caster needs 3 levels of cleric to qualify for divine oracle? And why oh why would a spy ever avod scry (yay, I'm Dr. Seus)? And how do you not mention the beguiler as a prime candidate for a spy? Their comments on polymorph were underhanded to say the least. And Eldritch Doom? Are you kidding me? I was also fairly amazed that they didnt reccomend chilling tentacles for a stategist warlock. How could you overlook the ability to spam the battlefield with hentai(sp?)-goodness? Whoever wrote that chapter needs to have their contract reevaluated.
ascensionblade 10-12-06, 10:50 PM	I'm definately gonna try to stay away from this book, but are any of the feats good at giving out extra spell dcs?
NineInchNall 10-12-06, 10:54 PM	The book's good (except for chapter one and the PrC format.)
AvaronGansdell 10-12-06, 11:02 PM	over all its a great book amazeing feats, decent prestige classes just the advice on building your character would have been better spent say...on diet advice for people who tend to eat lots of pizza and drink too much soda. or mabye a cooking section on quick to prepare meals for 4-6 people who are going to be up way too late.
Arvagor 10-12-06, 11:13 PM	Then there was the spy section. Anyone mind telling me how an arcane caster needs 3 levels of cleric to qualify for divine oracle?Probably by forgetting that Knowledge (religion) might be a class skill for your chosen arcane caster (wizard, bard). If you're playing an arcane class where that's not the case, then 3 levels of cleric is your quickest way to get those 8 ranks ...
BrutalMisery 10-12-06, 11:18 PM	The book is excellent in my opinon. I was wondering though...ploymorph, they are pushing further and further away from anyone using the spell, and instead having folks use the watered down verions , htese form spells. Think they will delete polymorph pretty soon? NineInchNall, what's wrong with Mindbender? I just 'cause I don't know. I am not defending it. So...be gentle. I also do not understand the importance of the school of Conjuration, though everyone here seems to. Summon Monster Spells, while good spells, don't strike me as awe inspiring. Do illuminate me, if ya would.
AvaronGansdell 10-12-06, 11:26 PM	conjuration also has the amazeing line of orb spells, teleportation/dimention door effects, some control effects like web are also nice ones, and then there is plain simple mage armor. all in all conjuration is the largest school of magic and also the most versitile single schools.
green_yawgmoth 10-12-06, 11:30 PM	So I should ignore the advice, use the fluff I like, and use the fluff if and only if I'm playing in a pure vanilla generic setting game? Sounds like par for the course for any WotC book. http://www.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 11:46 PM	NineInchNall, what's wrong with Mindbender? I just 'cause I don't know. I am not defending it. So...be gentle.I imagine his problem is that it only has 5/10 caster level progression. The 1st level is amazing (100ft telepathy + CL + 2 good saves), but beyond that its pretty lame for a caster (though a decent choice for a warlock).
smrtgmp 10-12-06, 11:48 PM	Probably by forgetting that Knowledge (religion) might be a class skill for your chosen arcane caster (wizard, bard). If you're playing an arcane class where that's not the case, then 3 levels of cleric is your quickest way to get those 8 ranks ...its just plain sloppy.
NineInchNall 10-13-06, 12:35 AM	NineInchNall, what's wrong with Mindbender? I just 'cause I don't know. I am not defending it. So...be gentle. The short and sweet of it is that beyond the first level (which is amazing and goes into nearly every arcanist build I play) the class takes away more than it gives you. There were a couple threads on the subject a while back. People tended to repeat ad nauseum that the lack of components for the class's SLAs was some huge power jump. I don't buy it. What's wrong with the Mindbender (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=588437) Epic Mindbender (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=586510) I also do not understand the importance of the school of Conjuration, though everyone here seems to. Summon Monster Spells, while good spells, don't strike me as awe inspiring. Do illuminate me, if ya would. mage armor, evard's black tentacles, dimension door, solid fog, cloudkill, planar binding, teleport, wall of X, plane shift, gate, to name just a few good reasons other than summon monster.
Venator 10-13-06, 01:41 AM	Well clearly the advice is poor, but id say that we arent the target audiance for that particular section. The points made arent any less valid though. Overall the book is great. If you're a fan of arcane casters (or casters in general) you should absolutely pick it up. The alternate class features are sweet. The PrC's are all pretty cool in their own ways. The feats are pretty awesome and go a long way to fill in the gaps arcane casters might have. Some love for non-arcane guys too. They gave Warlocks a lot of love. They gave the Wu Jen some love. They gave the Bard some love. The art is cool. The fluff is great. Spells are cool. Magic Item section is awesome. Affoardable and very useable. Overall i give it a 9 out of 10. Very solid. ps. Good to see you're back on the boards Josh.
AvaronGansdell 10-13-06, 01:58 AM	hewards fortifying sleeping bag alone is amazeing...every other day my wizard can rest and recover spells in 2 hourse instead of 9....sure. but I am really excited to try playing a druid with the elemental companion and the summon elemental feat. haveing basicly two permanat elemental buddys is a nice deal.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 02:00 AM	Well clearly the advice is poor, but id say that we arent the target audiance for that particular section. The points made arent any less valid though.I realise that that the advice wasn't intended for experienced gamers. But the fact that they would direct such horrid advice at poor unsuspecting noobs doesnt make it any better. If anything, it makes it worse. Overall i give it a 9 out of 10. Very solid.I agree with this whole-heartedly. Please note that I said I loved the book in my first post.
mrpopstar 10-13-06, 02:40 AM	I love this book! I too noticed some of the.. questionable ..advice given, but I don't feel that it was as horrific as it sounds. As has been said, we are not the target audience. Though bad, the advice does seem to steer the reader down a path of very pointed and explicit ends; avoiding all of the confusing details that come smoothly to us veterans. How funny is it that they did that thing with the specialist schools from second edition? Hehe. It is lame, yes, but I was filled with a tingly nostalgic feeling and couldn't help but grin. Of course I was beyond excitement over the bard-related goodies! MELODIC CASTING is freakin' awesome! Lyric Thaumaturge, in conjunction with the sonic descriptor spells offered in this book, is long past due. CAPTIVATING MELODY is going to be lots of fun! Finally some offensive kick from the bard's abilities, as opposed to offensive kick from the bard's ability to emulate/fill in for the offensive kick of others. The single greatest contribution of this book is in regard to specialist wizards. The esoterica are great! The prestige class, including early entry, is great! I love this book! :)
Pandaemoni 10-13-06, 02:47 AM	I'm a bit diappointed in it. It's a great book for warlocks and wu jen (though no player of mine has ever suggested wanting to play a warlock or wu jen). More Hexblade spell is good for anyone playing a hexblade, though the selection is not quite enough to sustain this book by itself. The advice is bad, but the other fluff is fine. I'm not in love with the flavor of the PRCs. Apart from the warlock content, Ultimate Magus is okay...but the whole "ultimate mastery of arcane magic" thing is something I'd expect to come across perhaps once every three to five campaigns. The Master Specialist PrC is great for those who don't use the specialist mages from Unearthed Arcana...but I do so I see Master Specialist as an underwhelming alteration of the concepts used there. The new feats are nice for flavor purposes but I didn't see anything that jumped out at me and made me exclaim "What a great idea!" The Reserve Feats are an interesting concept, I'd give them that. The new Heritage feats are bleh. Why can people taking the feats only have certain alignments? As if having a Fey ancestor 800 years prior is going to affect my personality today? What happens if the character's alignment changes? Does he lose the benefit of the feats? Also, what's with the rule new rule that you can only have one line of heritage feats? PHB2 expressly said a sorcerer could have draconic, celestial and infernal heritage feats all together, and Complete Mage overrules that. Why are they limiting my players' family trees? Just because I have black ancestors doesn't mean that I, categorically, can't have any native american ancestors...so I'm going to pretend the book does not imply otherwise. I do like the flavor of Fey Heritage and Fiendish heritage. They are interesting, but not overpowered. I rather with they had updated the elemental heritage feats from Dragon magazine (where they were crazily overpowered), as the notion of a family descended from an earth-bound Djinn or Efreet (or perhaps two warring families, each descended from one) appeals to me. The spells are okay. I skipped the ones higher than 5th level as my campaigns tend to top out at 10th. The inflammable Grease spell (Incendiary Slime) is a very nice addition at 2nd level, and there are a few others that tickle me. Nothing that would make me run out an buy this book. (Unless I were playing a bard, that is. I think that the new bardic spells are very good. If I were playing a bard the new spells might well be enough to get me to cough up the $30) The invocations and wu jen spells are good, I think, though I am not certain they are good enough to pique my players' interests in those classes.
AvaronGansdell 10-13-06, 03:06 AM	ya the specialist stuff was great. unless your a evoker. the school esoterica for evocation run from weak to useless. (cause we all know you need resistance to the opponent you just damaged with that element.) and the feat peirceing evocation is litteraly useless. if they have any energy resistance makeing 10 points of your spells damage into untyped damage wont actualy cause more damage to them unless there resistance/immunity makes them immune to the effect in which case your throwing a spell at them to do 10 damage rather than trying a diffrent element for full damage.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 03:23 AM	seriously. given all the other options out the other options out there, I cant imagine playing an evoker. They have to be some of the worst blasters around.
Heahengel 10-13-06, 03:26 AM	ya the specialist stuff was great. unless your a evoker. the school esoterica for evocation run from weak to useless. (cause we all know you need resistance to the opponent you just damaged with that element.) and the feat peirceing evocation is litteraly useless. if they have any energy resistance makeing 10 points of your spells damage into untyped damage wont actualy cause more damage to them unless there resistance/immunity makes them immune to the effect in which case your throwing a spell at them to do 10 damage rather than trying a diffrent element for full damage. That feat did seem pretty bad. The only thing I could think of is an area damage spell at creatures of mixed type. Then it allows you to do at least some damage against the resistant ones, while blasting the others. The major transmutation esoterica was worse than anything evocation got.
[GSV] Kirstar 10-13-06, 04:40 AM	so guys, is it worth ordering ?> or should I cancel my order now
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 04:52 AM	It was definately worth the 20 bucks I spent on amazon. Over all, its great. I just find the advice to be particularly bad.
Pandaemoni 10-13-06, 04:55 AM	Kirstar']so guys, is it worth ordering ?> or should I cancel my order now I'd say that if you love warlocks or wu jen, then definitely order this. Otherwise, you should go to a bookstore and peruse it first. It is 160 pages that I can boil down to 30 pages worth of things I will use (including fluff). It does have some interesting alternate class features, some interesting feats and some interesting spells, but I'm not personally sure it was worth my $30. If you have an interest in "specialist" mages, this book does have some interesting feats and a PrC...but overall not as impressive as these from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm) and in Unearthed Arcana. If you ever saw Mystic Theurge and said to yourself "if only they had a PrC that allowed advancement in two arcane spellcasting classes" then Ultimate Magus PrC is for you. YMMV, but my overall reaction is "it's no Complete Arcane."
[GSV] Kirstar 10-13-06, 09:06 AM	ultimate magus sounds nice and broken. I think I will cancel my order. I hate wu jen and think warlocks are totally broken
Raven Dark 10-13-06, 09:20 AM	Apparently so. :P But don't be discouraged...you could always run for president. :D :heehee
Raven Dark 10-13-06, 09:26 AM	Think they will delete polymorph pretty soon? God, I hope so. I can't wait for the dominion of the new polymorph subschool (seriously). I wish they would stop scurting the issue and just do away with the durned thing.
NineInchNall 10-13-06, 12:59 PM	Ugh. Yay. Spells I will never cast. Whoop-tee-fracking-doo. If they get rid of the polymorph line entirely, then no one but you will ever play a shapechanging caster. Having trouble understanding the rules for Polymorph and/or Wildshape? Check out the EASY-TO-READ POLYMORPH ERRATA THREAD for all of your informational needs! There is a reason why such a thread exists. Yeah, you want to know what that reason is? It's the same reason that there's a thread on this board right now asking how many spells a Wizard starts with. People don't bother to read the rules, and that includes spell descriptions. "Damn, I'd like to change into a horse, but I don't want to lose my HD." "Does it say you get the HD of the assumed form?" "Well, no." "Then you don't. Pay attention next time."
Pandaemoni 10-13-06, 01:06 PM	Kirstar']ultimate magus sounds nice and broken. I think I will cancel my order. I hate wu jen and think warlocks are totally broken You'd have to take a look at it. It sounds powerful, and you sure do have a lot of spells you're able to cast, but (i) it is not entirely "full casting progression" in both classes, as it stands, becoming Sorc1/Wizard4/Ultimate Magus 10 treats you as an 11th level Sorcerer and 11th level Wizard for spell casting purposes. (Though your caster level would be 15th purposes of spells effects). Many would argue that delaying access to seventh-level and eighth-level spells (which you'd have, were you a Wizard 15) is a bigger hit than the benefit of having more spells per day at that level. (ii) The class does not get all the bonus feats of going pure wizard (though it does get 2 metamagic feats). So on the whole I do not think it is unbalanced. It seems to me that the flavor of "I am master of all types of arcane magic, both spontaneous and that read from a book" is a bit dull (who cares if you learn Fireball both spontaneously and by reading it from a book? Either way, it's still Fireball) and so not something I'd expect to see a lot. In fact, I can't think of many occasions where the ability to sling both prepared sorc/wizard spells *and* spontaneous sorc/wizard spells would be that great an advantage. At least the Mystic Theurge has the benefit of a truly massive spell list and the slightly more interesting flavor "I am master all types of magic, both that of the gods and of men." One thing about the class is that it, functionally, gives you the Practiced Spellcaster feats for free for both your arcane classes...I don't think that overpowers it, but they could have chosen to leave that to be covered by feats.
Someone 10-13-06, 01:38 PM	I think this sets a dangerous precedent of the "supplemental supplement". A lot of the things they are talking about in CM assume you also have CAr. While this might be okay for campaign supplements (you need the Ebberon "core" supplement for the Ebberon MM to make more sense), I think its a really bad idea for a generic supplement. Even the MM 1-thru-whatever are more or less stand alone supplements. They're basically wanting you to pay for one book twice, with the whole "look at all this stuff we 'forgot' to put in CAr!" There, that rant's done. Now on the topic of the spurious advice, I agree they should have taken a more positive outlook. Badmouthing and/or insulting a given spell school or specific spell just smacks of juvenile ignorance. So too is reinforcing stereotypes of specialist's prohibited schools. Not to mention conj is one of, if not the best school for "no save" spells. mmm... acid arrow
JWT 10-13-06, 01:42 PM	God, I hope so. I can't wait for the dominion of the new polymorph subschool (seriously). I wish they would stop scurting the issue and just do away with the durned thing. Well, I can understand the consternation about the polymorph school (it is nigh messy and fuzzy on the details.) But, the split of the school into several sub-spells is a disaster for sorcerers. Like the split of the Symbol spells, it just removes huge chunks of versatility. And while lack of diversity is a power issus, to be sure, my biggest beef with the removal of these versatile spells is the fact that the less versatile spells make sorcerers less exciting. What's next - split limited wish into several spells by school (or sub-school)? Or maybe divide up some of the illusion spells so they can only show one type of monster? Wait - did I say that out loud? I take that back WOTC. You hear me? I didn't mean it!
Heahengel 10-13-06, 01:51 PM	So on the whole I do not think it is unbalanced. It seems to me that the flavor of "I am master of all types of arcane magic, both spontaneous and that read from a book" is a bit dull (who cares if you learn Fireball both spontaneously and by reading it from a book? Either way, it's still Fireball) and so not something I'd expect to see a lot. In fact, I can't think of many occasions where the ability to sling both prepared sorc/wizard spells *and* spontaneous sorc/wizard spells would be that great an advantage. At least the Mystic Theurge has the benefit of a truly massive spell list and the slightly more interesting flavor "I am master all types of magic, both that of the gods and of men." One thing about the class is that it, functionally, gives you the Practiced Spellcaster feats for free for both your arcane classes...I don't think that overpowers it, but they could have chosen to leave that to be covered by feats. The only thing in Ultimate Magus that looks like it might be broken is Augmented casting. I am guessing that it works out - it only affects spells of half your class level or less, and if you take more than 6 levels of Ultimate Magus you can't get 9th level spells by 20th level (at least, I can't see a configuration that gets you them). Also - I would guess that practiced spellcaster would stack with those CL bonuses (I didn't see anything that stopped them from raising your CL above your level).
mrpopstar 10-13-06, 02:08 PM	I enjoy the stacking effects of spells such as Prickling Torment and Fever Dream, as well as Painful Echoes, Deafening Blast, and Resonating Agony. These should be fun to play with. :)
Pandaemoni 10-13-06, 02:09 PM	Also - I would guess that practiced spellcaster would stack with those CL bonuses (I didn't see anything that stopped them from raising your CL above your level). There is nothing that prevents the CL increases from the class exceeding your character level, though I was assuming that Practiced Spellcaster looks at your Ultimate-Magus-enhanced caster-level before it adds any benefit. If you can stack Practiced Spellcaster on top of UM claster level increases to get "your character level +4" as your caster-level, then I might re-evaluate its brokenness. As I see it, though, it's a bit like Wild Mage. That class makes the caster level of a straight-forward Wizard/Wild Mage equal to: character level - 3 + 1d6 Practiced Spellcaster can eliminate or offset the level penalty you suffer with that class, but the most your caster level can be is character level + 3 even with Practiced Spellcaster in play. So the feat doesn't stack with the bonus.
AvaronGansdell 10-13-06, 03:03 PM	read the FAQ it goes over practiced spellcaster in detail. basicly you apply it however its most beneficial to you. so in this case you apply it first then the increase you get from ultimate magus. over all I like this book much better than compleat arcane which to me seemed like a great book for bards but had very little for wizards who dont want to be super specialized or loose casting levels. but really if you want broken in this book cheak out abjurant champion. a 10th level elven wizard or sorcerer can easily qualify and its great for any gish build. freely extended abjuration spells and free quickening of abjuration spells up to 1/2 your class level full bab d10 hd..and full caster...only 5 levels though.
NineInchNall 10-13-06, 03:04 PM	I think this sets a dangerous precedent of the "supplemental supplement". A lot of the things they are talking about in CM assume you also have CAr. While this might be okay for campaign supplements (you need the Ebberon "core" supplement for the Ebberon MM to make more sense), I think its a really bad idea for a generic supplement. Even the MM 1-thru-whatever are more or less stand alone supplements. They're basically wanting you to pay for one book twice, with the whole "look at all this stuff we 'forgot' to put in CAr!" Actually, I'm quite happy to see a supplement that contains material that builds upon material from other supplements. A good number of classes remain undeveloped due to not receiving any support in further supplements. It's not like the book is only useful to someone who has Complete Arcane, as most of the stuff is pretty standard. but really if you want broken in this book cheak out abjurant champion. a 10th level elven wizard or sorcerer can easily qualify and its great for any gish build. freely extended abjuration spells and free quickening of abjuration spells up to 1/2 your class level full bab d10 hd..and full caster...only 5 levels though. I don't really see this as overpowered so much as encouraging an unarmored gish concept, something not really supported by any of the gish classes besides this one. Maybe I'm getting more lenient in my class balance nazism due to having played a Tome of Battle character for three levels only to have the book banned for being too overpowered. This was despite the fact that my character took the spotlight only once over the course of those three levels and was designed to give up personal effectiveness to increase that of his allies. :banghead:
Roland the Crownbreaker 10-13-06, 03:13 PM	Actually, I was severely disappointed after reading the Lyric Thaumaturge through. In exchange for losing progression on songs (while you may still get numbers, the level based benefits stop) and bardic Knowledge you gain 6 spells known and 6 spell slots, plus a song type and a bonus feat. At least the Sublime Chord gave full nine level spellcasting in exchange for losing out on what the music could do. As far as wondering where the bad advice came from, you did catch the name Skip Williams on the cover, didn't you?
mrpopstar 10-13-06, 05:49 PM	Roland the Crownbreaker: Actually, I was severely disappointed after reading the Lyric Thaumaturge through. In exchange for losing progression on songs (while you may still get numbers, the level based benefits stop) and bardic Knowledge you gain 6 spells known and 6 spell slots, plus a song type and a bonus feat. At least the Sublime Chord gave full nine level spellcasting in exchange for losing out on what the music could do.Six spells known and six spell slots is a lot for an innate spellcaster! Especially considering that those spells known are selected from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Also, trading off higher level bardic music effects such as Inspire Greatness and Inspire Heroics for sonic based offensive capability is well worth it; considering that sonic resistance is the least common resistance in the game (by far). It all depends on what you're after in terms of character concept. Just off the top of my head, a Bard 8/Lyric Thaumaturge 5 could use the Sonic Might bardic music effect in conjunction with the Channeled Sound Blast spell and deal 10d10 + 5d6 points of sonic damage in a 60-foot-radius spread and permanently deafen all creatures that fail a Fort save! If said bard had selected MELODIC CASTING as a feat he could do this without breaking concentration on his Inspire Courage, which is +2 previous to considering any amount of possible music buffs available to a bard of this level. That's hot! I'm not saying that this is the end-all of prestige classes, but it's definitely cool. :) As far as wondering where the bad advice came from, you did catch the name Skip Williams on the cover, didn't you?Hehe. :)
Osedox 10-13-06, 06:23 PM	(though lightning leap is a bit too close to my "Arist's Galvanising Charge" for my tastes *grumble grumble*).Ha, I noticed that as well, and wondered if they had been poaching the boards for material. I like the book particularly the Abjurant Champion and Enlightened Spirit, they are both PrCs that I could actualy see using in a somewhat normal character. They need to edit the AC tho so that its abilities work with Mage Armor, because it is Conjuration, which others have always mentioned. Arcane Fusion flat out rocks, and Crystaline Memories is so f***ing bad assed that I have to have it. Some others that seemed cool at a glance were Dimension Jumper, Channeled Lifetheft, Adamantium Wings, Coat of Arms, and Steal Summoning.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 06:39 PM	Kirstar']ultimate magus sounds nice and broken. I think I will cancel my order. I hate wu jen and think warlocks are totally brokenOK. First of all, there is only a few pages of wu gen and warlock stuff. Most everything is aimed at the wizard or sorcerer. Ultimate magus is no more broken than mystic theurge (which is hardly broken). And the warlock? Broken? Wow. Might I ask why?
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 06:46 PM	Actually, I'm quite happy to see a supplement that contains material that builds upon material from other supplements. A good number of classes remain undeveloped due to not receiving any support in further supplements. It's not like the book is only useful to someone who has Complete Arcane, as most of the stuff is pretty standard.I whole-heartedly agree, though I can see why some wouldn't. Maybe I'm getting more lenient in my class balance nazism due to having played a Tome of Battle character for three levels only to have the book banned for being too overpowered. This was despite the fact that my character took the spotlight only once over the course of those three levels and was designed to give up personal effectiveness to increase that of his allies. :banghead:I feel your pain. Some DMs follow their initial knee-jerk reaction and stick with it regardless of contradictory evidence.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 06:47 PM	I enjoy the stacking effects of spells such as Prickling Torment and Fever Dream, as well as Painful Echoes, Deafening Blast, and Resonating Agony. These should be fun to play with. :) yeah, that was really cool.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 06:51 PM	As far as wondering where the bad advice came from, you did catch the name Skip Williams on the cover, didn't you?HA! Too true. I was also wondering who this "Penny Williams" is. Is she Skip's wife? And if so, does she have any qualifications beyond a wedding ring? But I suppose such speculation is unfair.
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 06:57 PM	Ha, I noticed that as well, and wondered if they had been poaching the boards for material.Guess we'll never know. But I'd be willing to bet Dragon would no longer publish my version (in which they had previously expressed interest). They need to edit the AC tho so that its abilities work with Mage Armor, because it is Conjuration, which others have always mentioned.I caught this as well, and already house-ruled it to affect all spells that provide an armor or shield bonus rather than limiting it to abjuration spells. I mean, come on. They used mage armor as an example of spells that would be affected, and the sample character gets a +9 from his mage armor spell. Sloppy sloppy sloppy.
mrpopstar 10-13-06, 07:10 PM	smrtgmp: yeah, that was really cool.It would be even cooler if they would follow the same thread of thought and bang out a few spells that stack on top of core favorites from the PHB. Cooler still, they would break up the spells among different spell lists so that we could see some team-ups between druids and bards or wizards and clerics. Then we'd have more team-style character building. Not too much of that though. I like laying on stacking effects all by my lonesome. Who doesn't? :)
Heahengel 10-13-06, 07:14 PM	I caught this as well, and already house-ruled it to affect all spells that provide an armor or shield bonus rather than limiting it to abjuration spells. I mean, come on. They used mage armor as an example of spells that would be affected, and the sample character gets a +9 from his mage armor spell. Sloppy sloppy sloppy. That reminds me (this is somewhat off topic, but I think another example of them doing something like this): I was making an NPC recently and I wanted to take advantage of Imbue Summoning from the PHBII. One of the examples they mention is Bull's Strength, and thats basically what I was planning to do - but wouldn't that not stack with the equivalent enhancement bonus from Augment Summoning (a prereq for that feat)? Edit: Thanks for the quick answer smrtgmp. [indent]It would be even cooler if they would follow the same thread of thought and bang out a few spells that stack on top of core favorites from the PHB.Didn't they essentially do that with the new enfeeblement spell that would essentially stack with RoEnfeeblement?
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 07:16 PM	you are correct. the two wouldnt stack. @mrpopstar: oooh. I like the sound of that (cross-class synergystic spells).
AvaronGansdell 10-13-06, 10:14 PM	I was actualy thinking of mixing them up. a bard6/lyric4/sublime cord10
smrtgmp 10-13-06, 10:32 PM	I dont know that I would take sublime chord past 2nd level. I think I'd rather add something that progressed teh CL of another class, such as virtuoso. You would still get most of the benefits of SC (including the advanced spell progression)but you would pick up several more goodies in the process.
Tenebrous_Sage 10-14-06, 02:20 AM	...all in all conjuration is the largest school of magic and also the most versitile single schools.Transmutation is a little larger (the last time I bothered counting) but Conjuration is certainly one of the most overall useful schools in the game.
Archangel62 10-14-06, 02:21 AM	Kirstar']ultimate magus sounds nice and broken. I think I will cancel my order. I hate wu jen and think warlocks are totally broken Wow...I'd hate to see what you think of clerics or druids since they can kick the crap out of a warlock easily...then again so could a full casting wizard. Ultimate Magus could actually be fairly interesting and let's please try SEEING ONE IN ACTION before we condemn.
green_yawgmoth 10-14-06, 02:40 AM	Kirstar'] I think warlocks are totally broken :rofl: I never get tired of hearing this, because it's so dumb, yet so telling. It tells me you have never once played a warlock, or at least never played one in a proper game. And by "proper game", just so we don't get into that argument, I mean 'a game in which the DM takes into account the race/class choice of each PC so that each player has to both work together and is challenged." But I would really like to hear straight from the horse's mouth why you, specifically, think the warlock is "broken". I'd wager it has something to do with either the "at-will SLAs" (most of which either suck, augment something much like a feat would, or mimic a spell which may as well be at-will for an equivalent caster) or the DR/cold iron (which is weaker than a barbarian's DR since it can be defeated, yet barely exceeds the number value). http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
mrpopstar 10-14-06, 03:48 AM	Heahengel: Didn't they essentially do that with the new enfeeblement spell that would essentially stack with RoEnfeeblement?Are you referring to the Escalating Enfeeblement spell? It pointedly states at the end of the spell's description that the effects of the spell do not stack with the effects of Ray of Enfeeblement. :) smrtgmp: oooh. I like the sound of that (cross-class synergystic spells).Mm-hmm! In retrospect, the innocence of it would be raped rather quickly. The concept is a multiclass-min/maxer's wetdream (which would probably find heinous abuse on the CharOp Boards). Mystic Theurges and Artificers would also gain a significant power-up. The idea does make Use Magic Device a bit more colorful. All of those wand-wielder feats would come into heavy use. :)
Heahengel 10-14-06, 03:54 AM	Are you referring to the Escalating Enfeeblement spell? It pointedly states at the end of the spell's description that the effects of the spell do not stack with the effects of Ray of Enfeeblement. :) True, but I meant it effectively stacks because its effect gets stronger when the target has been prehit with RoEnfeeblement. It stacks with other stuff too, but I think from the name it is meant mostly to work with that. I thought it looked interesting, and I agree that it would be nice to have more like that. (Mmm, ray of enfeelbement backed up by an empowered escalating enfeeblement). I have no idea how useful that would be, but it might work well occasionally.
Prak, the Mad 10-14-06, 04:06 AM	could someone post these quotes from Mialee, Hennet and Morthos? I missed them just flipping through the book at B&N and am curious as to their nature. OASN: did anyone else think the "Survivor's account of (whatever nightmare spell)" was kinda stupid and cheesy, while admittedly intriguing in it's interpretation of the rogue's fear?
mrpopstar 10-14-06, 04:11 AM	Heahengel: True, but I meant it effectively stacks because its effect gets stronger when the target has been prehit with RoEnfeeblement. It stacks with other stuff too, but I think from the name it is meant mostly to work with that. I thought it looked interesting, and I agree that it would be nice to have more like that. (Mmm, ray of enfeelbement backed up by an empowered escalating enfeeblement). I have no idea how useful that would be, but it might work well occasionally.I see what you are saying. In all actuality, this spell stacks with a great many spells. Any spell effect that causes fatigue, exhaustion, or penalizes/damages/drains Str, Dex, or Con, sets the target of Escalating Enfeeblement up for a nasty Str penalty. I'm most interested in blatant statements of "if the subject under the effect of this spell is also affected by X spell or Y spell, the two spells interact to create a greater effect. See X spell and/or Y spell for details." :)
Heahengel 10-14-06, 04:23 AM	Mrpopstar: I agree those look interesting. I haven't seen any but the Mialee quote. It was right at the end of the feat section or something quite noticeable like that. The rogue one was nice, but it felt a bit out of place. Also it might have been better to talk about a more emblematic spell, rather than one introduced in the book.
mrpopstar 10-14-06, 04:26 AM	Prak, the Mad: could someone post these quotes from Mialee, Hennet and Morthos? I missed them just flipping through the book at B&N and am curious as to their nature.Without infringing on copyright laws; Morthos talked smack about sorcerer heritage, Mialee emasculated sorcerery in comparison to wizardry, and Hennet metaphorically stated that wizards were delusional in their masterful outlook. Frankly, I enjoyed every minute of it. The quotes reminded me of the Planescape setting material from 2E. There were always different quotes from notable (and nameless) people littered about the Planescape books. It was always fun to gain a little insight into the perspective of fictional others. :) OASN: did anyone else think the "Survivor's account of (whatever nightmare spell)" was kinda stupid and cheesy, while admittedly intriguing in it's interpretation of the rogue's fear?I adore fluffy stuff like that! I'm such a good consumer. :)
smrtgmp 10-14-06, 04:45 AM	the quotes: Sorcerer? Bah. Anyone can pick up brush and paint, call themselves an artist even. But only through years of dedication and study can you create a true materpiece. A sorcerer is like a child with paints, barely understanding what they are doing. I have mastered the art. I care little for where my power comes from. I control it. It is mine to do with waht I will. Test me and I will leave you a broken shell of your former self so that you may yet live to regret your foolishness." Power? Wizards know nothing of power. Yes, they have their rituals and books, but take that away and what remains? They only use magic. I am magic. Take from me and you will only invoke my wrath. Then, and only then will you see real power.
mrpopstar 10-14-06, 04:45 AM	I honestly fail to see how one might take offense to the flaming taking place within this book. All of the bias was flavoring. The bad-mouthing of other specialty schools under the description of a specialty school gives tasty insight into the different ways specialists view each other. Wizards lippin' about sorcerers shite-talkin' about warlocks slanderin' wizards is only natural. It deepens the game and helps define each of the different classes. I love how sorcerers are the red-headed stepchild of spellcasters; I didn't view them as such previously. I enjoy how each specialist views his specialty as most 'special'. Wizards are still prep-school snobs. No one has much to say about wu jens because, um, who cares? Actually, my favorite thing is that no one runs their mouth about bards. Everyone knows what happens when you upset the popular/influential kids with the biggest mouths of all. Hehe. :)
vardock 10-14-06, 10:19 AM	here is my opinion about this book. the advice is mixed. some of it is very good and some it crap. the feats/spells/classes/items were all very good. I espically liked the warlock prestige classes, since there were few worth taking before (green star adapt was the only thing I would ever consider takeing before). I also found the origins of the warlock section to be very good.
MazrimTaim 10-14-06, 05:40 PM	I just bought the book, my initial thoughts are that it had terrible advice (but I had the benefit of reading this thread before I bought it, so that wasn't a surprise), I like the crunch in it, though. Things I liked Ultimate Magus (I've been waiting for a PrC that makes sorcerer/wizard workable) Unseen Star (I liked the look of this PrC, especially for rogue/wizards, you get sneak attack bonus damage + levels in a spellcasting class? Me likee) Abjurant Champion (not the greatest, but I like the versatility of it, and martial arcanist is pretty cool. I'll have to think of some builds that involve it. Basically, your base attack bonus becomes your caster level) I thought the Magic Items chapter was pretty well done, very affordable. My favorite items have to be the Rod of Many Wands and Heward's Fortifying Bedroll. I flipped through the spells, and generally liked what I saw. Things I didn't like The waste of space that is the new PrC format. I don't really want advice on how to roleplay my Ultimate Magus, or how to use him tactically. The whole first chapter. Even the advice in Tome and Blood wasn't as bad as this.
MazrimTaim 10-14-06, 05:53 PM	I also find the Master Specialist is great, especially for illusionists. At 4th level you get a +2 to the DC of Illusion spells that have "will disbelief" and at level 10 you cast any illusion spell as stilled, silent, and eschewed without an increase to the caster level or casting time. Pretty neat to me. I still don't like specialist wizards, but if I did play one, a Gnome Illusionist 5/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Master Specialist 10 might be fun. :D
Tempest Stormwind 10-14-06, 06:34 PM	Ultimate Magus (I've been waiting for a PrC that makes sorcerer/wizard workable) Funny you should mention that. Ultimate Magus actually is LEAST optimal with a sor/wiz combo. Bard or one of the warmage-like classes (beguiler in particular) is the way to go. Thanks to the Shadowcraft Mage and the Sublime Chord, there's no reason to play a sorcerer anymore (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=716563) outside of RP. The final nail in his coffin, ironically, was Versatile Spellcaster, from Races of the Dragon. (Note that this is just the tip of the iceberg; we're working on the later bits. I've yet to find a problem with this, mechanically; it does seem to work. Later work is being done in the SCM handbook, specifically here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10347144&postcount=231).) I can't comment on the rest of the book, as I don't own it and likely never will (mages do NOT need another bump, in my opinion, and seeing Skip's name on the cover was a kick to the nuts). But I can speak on the UM.
MazrimTaim 10-14-06, 07:14 PM	Yeah, and Mialee's quote about Sorcery towards the end of the book pretty much told me what Wizards thought of them. There's only so much they can do for sorcerers. Considering the class has the most dead levels in the game. :mad:
Mouseferatu 10-14-06, 07:45 PM	Yeah, and Mialee's quote about Sorcery towards the end of the book pretty much told me what Wizards thought of them. Um, you know there's a similar quote from Hennet (the sorcerer), talking smack about wizards, elsewhere in the book, right?
green_yawgmoth 10-15-06, 01:23 AM	Um, you know there's a similar quote from Hennet (the sorcerer), talking smack about wizards, elsewhere in the book, right? It's a fairly well-known fact (yes, fact) that Skip Williams hates sorcerers. The only other explanation of his actions, both in "discussion" (quotes for sarcasm) and in his print is that he's a functioning retard with no concept of balance or equivalence. I'd believe both in concert, to be truthful. No one could actually say that getting to pick new spells whenever you can get 15 minutes, double skill points and class skills, five bonus feats, and getting to learn new spell levels a full level earlier (2 levels if you consider that a sorcerer doesn't get >1 spell to put in that slot until he gets a new level) is equal to +2 spell slots per spell level (although sometimes only 1 extra) without having serious damage to their reasoning centers. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Mouseferatu 10-15-06, 01:48 AM	It's a fairly well-known fact (yes, fact) that Skip Williams hates sorcerers. The only other explanation of his actions, both in "discussion" (quotes for sarcasm) and in his print is that he's a functioning retard with no concept of balance or equivalence. I'd believe both in concert, to be truthful. No one could actually say that getting to pick new spells whenever you can get 15 minutes, double skill points and class skills, five bonus feats, and getting to learn new spell levels a full level earlier (2 levels if you consider that a sorcerer doesn't get >1 spell to put in that slot until he gets a new level) is equal to +2 spell slots per spell level (although sometimes only 1 extra) without having serious damage to their reasoning centers. Even assuming it's true that Skip dislikes sorcerers--and I'm simply going to ignore your other implications, since I've found Skip a very reasonable and intelligent person to work with--that doesn't change the fact that the book has no inherent bias toward sorcerers. The "smack" spoken about sorcerers by Mialee is matched by Hennet talking about wizards, and the book's other material--spells, feats, etc.--is more or less equally useful for both.
mrpopstar 10-15-06, 03:00 AM	green_yawgmoth: It's a fairly well-known fact (yes, fact) that Skip Williams hates sorcerers. The only other explanation of his actions, both in "discussion" (quotes for sarcasm) and in his print is that he's a functioning retard with no concept of balance or equivalence. I'd believe both in concert, to be truthful. No one could actually say that getting to pick new spells whenever you can get 15 minutes, double skill points and class skills, five bonus feats, and getting to learn new spell levels a full level earlier (2 levels if you consider that a sorcerer doesn't get >1 spell to put in that slot until he gets a new level) is equal to +2 spell slots per spell level (although sometimes only 1 extra) without having serious damage to their reasoning centers.This post has much more to say about you than it does about Skip. :)
mrpopstar 10-15-06, 03:02 AM	I hope all of the upcoming 'Complete' releases are as good as this one. :)
Uulbaan 10-15-06, 08:56 AM	What do you think about the feat Residual Magic [Tactical] in Complete Mage?
mrpopstar 10-15-06, 05:58 PM	Uulbaan: What do you think about the feat Residual Magic [Tactical] in Complete Mage?I think it is awesome! In the hands of a caster utilizing CRAFT WAND or Scribe Scroll, the benefit of this feat is tactical genius. Purchasing CL 1 magic items/scrolls of spells known/prepared who's effects stack with level is also an intelligent way of enjoying the benefit of this feat. A high-level caster with this feat who casts Magic Missile and follows with a wand of Magic Missile CL 1 is producing powerful effects at maximum efficiency. Also, the Lingering Metamagic benefit is great! Cheap metamagic is always enjoyed! I think this feat is wonderfully inventive and has a great many applicable uses. :)
Talchar 10-15-06, 10:55 PM	For the most part I ignore the advice and flavor elements. Its basically filler. Once question - while its clear that the intent of this book is a focus on the arcane, is there any reason why a cleric/druid cannot use the reserve feats?
AvaronGansdell 10-15-06, 10:57 PM	nopr heck thw elemental summoning one is just asking for a druid to use it.
Prak, the Mad 10-16-06, 02:49 AM	the quotes: thanks,I saw the mialee and morthos quotes last time I looked through the book, but missed hennet's. and might I just say, Hennet just became a bit more hot in my mind... just when I didn't think he could...
mrpopstar 10-16-06, 03:46 AM	Talchar: For the most part I ignore the advice and flavor elements. Its basically filler. Once question - while its clear that the intent of this book is a focus on the arcane, is there any reason why a cleric/druid cannot use the reserve feats?There is no stipulation that the reserve feats are unavailable to divine casters, therefore I see no reason why a cleric and/or druid may not enjoy the benefit of selecting them. :) Avaron Gansdell: nopr heck thw elemental summoning one is just asking for a druid to use it.Quite flavorful for a druid, yes. :) Prak, the Mad: and might I just say, Hennet just became a bit more hot in my mind... just when I didn't think he could...'Hot' like you think he's sexy, 'hot' like you think he's cool, 'hot' like he's absurd, or 'hot' like he's an arse? :)
Thane26425 10-16-06, 05:47 AM	The Second Edition Complete Wizard's Handbook was probably better, but then all of those handbooks were superior to the 3.5 analogs that have been published. Complete Divine can't hold a candle for information about Paladins to the Complete Paladin's handbook. I still use the Wizard Handbook as a reference in 3.5. WoTC should have read all of those and just updated them to 3.5 and that really wasn't necessary for most of the book. All they would have to do is update PrCs, skills and add feats. The rest of the "How to play this character" material is still good as is. Most of the new 3.5 books seem to be mostly fluff. They are full of PrCs and feats that no one is ever going to take since most of them are junk. The same pretty much goes for the spells and items too, while the play advice is terrible. But yes, a sniper mage can use sleep. Very effective at low level to thin the odds and the blaster can use charm at those frequent times when a fireball just wouldn't do (think when sneaking around or you need a live prisoner).
mrpopstar 10-16-06, 03:10 PM	Than26425: The Second Edition Complete Wizard's Handbook was probably better, but then all of those handbooks were superior to the 3.5 analogs that have been published. Complete Divine can't hold a candle for information about Paladins to the Complete Paladin's handbook. I still use the Wizard Handbook as a reference in 3.5. WoTC should have read all of those and just updated them to 3.5 and that really wasn't necessary for most of the book. All they would have to do is update PrCs, skills and add feats. The rest of the "How to play this character" material is still good as is.I concur that all of the 2E Handbooks were awesome! However, there are more updates required than you propose. There are spells that have changed school, strengths and weaknesses to each school that are more pertinent in the current edition, etc. Also, the 2E Handbooks are antiquated in their approach. The D&D player of today is a more edgy, 'cool' play-style competitor. Newcomers are more interested in fast-paced action with a dark/horror/noir feel. 2E was high-fantasy, epic-style storytelling. Most of the teens sitting at tables today become quickly disinterested with stories of musty tomes, pointy-hat-topped wizards, and the like. Ultimately, we must cater to them; they are keeping the game alive. :) Most of the new 3.5 books seem to be mostly fluff. They are full of PrCs and feats that no one is ever going to take since most of them are junk. The same pretty much goes for the spells and items too, while the play advice is terrible.A quick glance at the CharOp boards will surely change your attitude in reference to the feats, spells, and PrCs that occur to you as 'junk'. You may not enjoy them, but the aforementioned consumers who are maintaining the life of the game we love are quite enamored with them. Also, it has been previously stated that the play advice may not be optimal; though it serves a purpose in leading players to a lucid, explicit end that eases gameplay. The advice is not intended for people who already have an understanding of the game mechanic. :)
solbergb 10-16-06, 03:34 PM	The advice is not intended for people who already have an understanding of the game mechanic. :) Maybe not but it would be nice if they actually gave useful advice, instead of perpetuating misinformation. Sorcerers are not blasters. Nor are any other arcane casters unless you build them that way, and it's about the least efficient way to build one unless your party is completely inept at damage dealing. SOME damage dealing spells are important to have, because removing an enemy with raw damage is sometimes the best action you can take (if he actually gets removed, instead of just being damaged and annoyed). Loading up on them to the exclusion of other things is foolish. Combat casting is not a useful feat unless you already have skill focus concentration AND have no access feats such as steady concentration that are just better OR if you are using it to qualify for a PRC. I'd like just once a thoughtful exposition on the difference between wizards and sorcerers (the tatcical vs strategic flexibility, the importance of consumables and the differences in consumables chosen by each class, the fact that both need scrolls at low levels to fill their role, the fact that spells known+metamagic is where the power comes with a sorc, whereas top tier slots are where the power comes with a wiz, etc) The little quotes though, are cute and pretty much how I see a lot of wizards and sorcs roleplayed. My telekenetic sorceress Olivia's quote along those lines would be: "No I do NOT have dragon blood, nor have any of my ancestors slept with anything unsavory. My people has a tradition of magic independent of outsiders (including so-called gods) or magical beasts, and I have merely mastered and adapted a handful of spells from that tradition to nontraditional uses. Wizards who parrot the same old spells from the same dusty tomes, consider material components necessary and state that those spell ranges and areas are immutable are just as blinkered as the sorcerers whose grandmother stepped out on her husband with some polymorphed lothario and woke up able to set things on fire two generations later. True mastery of magic takes time, but it isn't work if you pick the spells that make you happy, that are fun for you. It also isn't something you lose once you master it although you can wear out your magical potential temporarily if you push the limits." (Olivia also eats like a horse and is like 5' tall and 100lb soaking wet....her routine use of magic for everyday tasks consumes a lot of energy. Her cohort is from the same tradition, only with a bardic slant, and she also is tiny, skinny and eats like a half-orc...) Etc.
Sines 10-16-06, 04:28 PM	What the? Dark / Horror / Noir feel? If you want that, go play World of Darkness or Call of Cthulu (Of which I play both). When I play D&D I want my elves, dwarves, zombies, bar fights, half crazed wizards, extra-planar demons, ect... I'm sorry, D&D is a high fantasy game (I can think of no other game/literature where magic is as powerful as it is in D&D) and if you try to make the core of D&D something else, thats just silly. Nothing wrong with making a horror oriented game, lookie the Heroes of Horror book. I just don't think that D&D should change its basic nature. I want my secrets in ancient tomes, my weapons bathed in a magical glow, and my wizards in pointy hats.
mrpopstar 10-16-06, 05:42 PM	solbergb: Maybe not but it would be nice if they actually gave useful advice, instead of perpetuating misinformation.I didn't say I agreed with and/or supported the information offered. I'm simply stating that the information is not intended for a reader who is adept enough to recognize it as advice suitable for novice-level gameplay. :) Sorcerers are not blasters. Nor are any other arcane casters unless you build them that way, and it's about the least efficient way to build one unless your party is completely inept at damage dealing. SOME damage dealing spells are important to have, because removing an enemy with raw damage is sometimes the best action you can take (if he actually gets removed, instead of just being damaged and annoyed). Loading up on them to the exclusion of other things is foolish. Combat casting is not a useful feat unless you already have skill focus concentration AND have no access feats such as steady concentration that are just better OR if you are using it to qualify for a PRC. I'd like just once a thoughtful exposition on the difference between wizards and sorcerers (the tatcical vs strategic flexibility, the importance of consumables and the differences in consumables chosen by each class, the fact that both need scrolls at low levels to fill their role, the fact that spells known+metamagic is where the power comes with a sorc, whereas top tier slots are where the power comes with a wiz, etc)I totally agree that it would be nice to be handed a conspectus on building seriously heavy-hitting characters. Something along the lines of Complete Munchkin would be great. However, it is not what has been offered. Yes, the information is sub-par outside of a linear-view, focused, low/mid-level build. The reality is that most players are either newbies or lack dedicated interest requisite to character optimization and most campaigns fizzle around mid levels. I am not directing my next sentiment to you in particular* but, come on, we get it. It has been stated (in this thread as well as numerous others popping up) that the advice offered within this book (or any other produced of late) is not appropriate for those who understand the effectiveness of efficiency in character optimization. Insisting upon stating it over and over does nothing but exemplify one's bitterness. If one doesn't like something, one is best served by dismissing it as opposed to taking the time involved in logging on and posting their sentiments time and again and ruining the experience for everyone else. That is a bitter person. Bitter, bitter, bitter. :) *Actually that sentiment is not directed to you in any way. I know enough of you through our interaction on the boards and I don't consider you to be bitter. You just inspired my sharing of the sentiment. The little quotes though, are cute and pretty much how I see a lot of wizards and sorcs roleplayed. My telekenetic sorceress Olivia's quote along those lines would be: "No I do NOT have dragon blood, nor have any of my ancestors slept with anything unsavory. My people has a tradition of magic independent of outsiders (including so-called gods) or magical beasts, and I have merely mastered and adapted a handful of spells from that tradition to nontraditional uses. Wizards who parrot the same old spells from the same dusty tomes, consider material components necessary and state that those spell ranges and areas are immutable are just as blinkered as the sorcerers whose grandmother stepped out on her husband with some polymorphed lothario and woke up able to set things on fire two generations later. True mastery of magic takes time, but it isn't work if you pick the spells that make you happy, that are fun for you. It also isn't something you lose once you master it although you can wear out your magical potential temporarily if you push the limits." (Olivia also eats like a horse and is like 5' tall and 100lb soaking wet....her routine use of magic for everyday tasks consumes a lot of energy. Her cohort is from the same tradition, only with a bardic slant, and she also is tiny, skinny and eats like a half-orc...)I love Olivia! :) Sines: What the? Dark / Horror / Noir feel?The joyous support of the Eberron campaign material evidences the taste of modern gamers. Eberron is coined a 'dark pulp/noir action, adventure, and intrigue' setting. There are more examples. The very fact that the money, time, and resources required to produce a book was expended on the creation, marketing, and game-support of Heroes of Horror gives insight into the kind of game people are playing. Ravenloft is also oft referred to in gaming circles. WOTC has enjoyed its success by supplying demand. :) If you want that, go play World of Darkness or Call of Cthulu (Of which I play both). When I play D&D I want my elves, dwarves, zombies, bar fights, half crazed wizards, extra-planar demons, ect...Given that the game of D&D is a personal expression of creativity, pertinent to a group of gamer's interests, one is more than justified in desiring a D&D game riddled with dark mystery, horrific villainy, and film-noir cinematic storytelling. :) I'm sorry, D&D is a high fantasy game (I can think of no other game/literature where magic is as powerful as it is in D&D) and if you try to make the core of D&D something else, thats just silly. Nothing wrong with making a horror oriented game, lookie the Heroes of Horror book. I just don't think that D&D should change its basic nature. I want my secrets in ancient tomes, my weapons bathed in a magical glow, and my wizards in pointy hats.Arguably the 'core' of D&D is roleplaying, fun, and fantasy. Fantasy includes any amount of extravagant expression of imagination and is in no way curtailed by the boundaries of old-school gameplay. D&D still contains elves, dwarves, zombies, bar-fights, half-crazed wizards, extra-planar demons, etc; only now these elements are described and interacted with in darker, more horrific, pulp-action, cinematic ways. This does not change the basic nature of a group of friends gathered around a table rolling dice and pretending to be pointy-eared guys with magic swords. :)
Prak, the Mad 10-16-06, 05:53 PM	Prak, the Mad: 'Hot' like you think he's sexy, 'hot' like you think he's cool, 'hot' like he's absurd, or 'hot' like he's an arse? :) #s 1, 2 & 4... :D
Thane26425 10-16-06, 06:22 PM	Blaster mages are ok, but they have a very limited supply of "ammo", unless they use lots of scrolls and wands, and that is something any mage could take the time to do. The main point of magic is its flexibility. There is usually more than one way to solve a problem beyond just chucking in a fireball. But if you want damage, try a fighter/mage with a ranged weapon focus. Set them up in a defensive position with an enchanted weapon of their choice and a wand of True Strikes to supplement their prepared selection of Bone and Fire Arrows and Haste and you've got a dangerous opponent on your hands. The only other game that comes close to having such powerful combat magic is Shadowrun. As far as fighting and buffing go, the magic system is great and any mage can cast healing spells. But as far as utility goes, it lags behind D&D. The GURPS magic system is probably the weakest, especially in combat since it takes time to power up most damaging spells and they aren't that impressive anyway.
solbergb 10-16-06, 06:24 PM	I'm not asking for a primer on building good characters. I'd settle for advice that isn't actively bad. I'd wistfully also like someone to tell those newbies and novices something about the way the classes actually behave in a real game and what's different between them, why you might choose one over another. It's especially bad in wiz vs sor because the two fill the same role, but do it very differently...at least as differently as monk and barbarian fill the light infantry role. But that's just an example. A ranger vs rogue vs scout discussion might be cool, or archer ranger vs archer fighter, or weapon spec fighter vs barbarian or tactical fighter vs monk. But they never seem to do that. Instead they just repeat the PHB flavor stuff again, as if the campaign stayed at level 1 forever.
mrpopstar 10-17-06, 12:44 AM	Prak, the Mad: #s 1, 2 & 4...Too funny! :) Solbergb: I'm not asking for a primer on building good characters. I'd settle for advice that isn't actively bad.Fair and justified. :) I'd wistfully also like someone to tell those newbies and novices something about the way the classes actually behave in a real game and what's different between them, why you might choose one over another.Complete Understanding. :) It's especially bad in wiz vs sor because the two fill the same role, but do it very differently...at least as differently as monk and barbarian fill the light infantry role. But that's just an example. A ranger vs rogue vs scout discussion might be cool, or archer ranger vs archer fighter, or weapon spec fighter vs barbarian or tactical fighter vs monk.I wholeheartedly agree. Add in things like healer vs cleric, comparative analysis of two-handed vs two-weapon vs weapon'n'shield fighters, how to select feats and skills in order to produce an ultimate desired outcome as opposed to making selections pertinent to your current level's capability, what to actually do with the bard, team building, etc. :) But they never seem to do that. Instead they just repeat the PHB flavor stuff again, as if the campaign stayed at level 1 forever.Clever insight. :)
AvaronGansdell 10-17-06, 01:29 AM	well many years ago there was a subtle move in the wizarding community to swap from the pointy hats to a more subtle fez. but given a large portion of the more powerful wizards faceing a thining hair line the motion was squashed and the pointed hats remain. ofcourse its a little known fact that wizards of today fail to realize. Most modern wizard fastion states that a robe is the prefered clothing of the up and comeing wizard now this habit started several millenium ago when one of the greatest wizards of his day. who also had a great love of womans gowns was caught unprepared and forced to battle a dragon in his new dress. Upon seeing this his apprentices and the schollars of the area belived it to be all the lates fastion among arch mages and thus today the robe has made itself a staple of the wizarding wardrobe.
Archangel62 10-17-06, 02:22 AM	well many years ago there was a subtle move in the wizarding community to swap from the pointy hats to a more subtle fez. but given a large portion of the more powerful wizards faceing a thining hair line the motion was squashed and the pointed hats remain. ofcourse its a little known fact that wizards of today fail to realize. Most modern wizard fastion states that a robe is the prefered clothing of the up and comeing wizard now this habit started several millenium ago when one of the greatest wizards of his day. who also had a great love of womans gowns was caught unprepared and forced to battle a dragon in his new dress. Upon seeing this his apprentices and the schollars of the area belived it to be all the lates fastion among arch mages and thus today the robe has made itself a staple of the wizarding wardrobe. As a side note that seems frighteningly likely. Anyhow, I think that one of the big things is that it does sorta feel like they were trying to sabotage casters. Biggest reason being that they can make it look better since their design is the reccomended format and thus 'fits' better.
User5127 10-18-06, 12:07 AM	bah, they're probably just to darn lazy to fix the problems with non-caster classes that lag behind at higher levels. so they give out bad advice hoping that the new players will think its valid and then at higher levels they'll be on par with non-casters because they gimped their characters into suck mode. *sigh* and i agree with the whole comparative discussion stuff. THAT i'd love to read. but its probably be the same drivvle that you see hennet and mialee wiz at each other. exceppt it'd be with redger and another fighter type: "my two weapon fighting is sooo much better that sword and sheild. that guy is a pansy and has to hide because he can't fight" "my sword and shiel is soo much better because i can use the sheild to defend myself and be more tactical, while that other guy just hammers away like an idiot until he kills something." yea. i can almost read it now.. great. -.-
BlueLikeYou 10-18-06, 12:30 AM	Hmmm....I just started looking through the spells in this book and noticed there's one called "Critical Strike". There was a spell of that name in the Spell Compendium as well, but the effects aren't really the same at all. I wonder if this is supposed to replace the one in Spell Compendium, or they just used the same name.
mrpopstar 10-18-06, 12:58 PM	BlueLikeYou: Hmmm....I just started looking through the spells in this book and noticed there's one called "Critical Strike". There was a spell of that name in the Spell Compendium as well, but the effects aren't really the same at all. I wonder if this is supposed to replace the one in Spell Compendium, or they just used the same name.I noticed the same thing. Curious, isn't it? :) User5127: yea. i can almost read it now.. great. -.-It would tickle me to witness all of D&D's iconic fighters quibbling like school girls. :)
SpiderMines 10-18-06, 05:39 PM	Good thread, I feel I'm learning some alternate (or even prominent) views on the subjects addressed in the book. I do think some of the posts are a little harsh, but some harshness is probably called for. As an aside, your signature caught my attention. I have some comments. 1. The Tom's, etc. one is good. 2. The next one I have a problem with. I don't think there is enough agreement on what is fair game for that or not. Some say one way, some the other. Mostly they agree with what you have, I'll give you that. But logically it makes moer sense to be consistent and put the apostrophe after all "acronyms" to account for all future and obscure misunderstands the non-apostrohphe version gives us. The PMs versus PM's example is a good one. 3. The cannot vs. can not argument is interesting, but I'd like to see examples (too lazy to look it up). 4. No comment on that one; it is clear. http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/acronyms.html http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=499296 * Form the possessive of all singular nouns, even those ending in s, with 's. Ex: Tom's, Thomas's, boss's, James's. * Form the plural of acronyms and numbers with s, as in CDs, DVDs, 1960s, DMs, etc. The exception to this is acronyms ending in s, which are pluralized as in MLSes, CISes, etc. * "Can not" should be written as "cannot" for clarity. While technically correct, "can not" is ambiguous in practical use. * "To loose" means "to let go of or to free."
Jhaelen 10-18-06, 07:59 PM	Hmmm....I just started looking through the spells in this book and noticed there's one called "Critical Strike". There was a spell of that name in the Spell Compendium as well, but the effects aren't really the same at all. I wonder if this is supposed to replace the one in Spell Compendium, or they just used the same name.I doubt it. PHBII also had a spell with the same name as one from a previous source with completely different effects. I guess, this just shows, that the designers find it increasingly difficult to find good names and/or keep all existing spells in mind ;)
Archangel62 10-19-06, 01:25 AM	I doubt it. PHBII also had a spell with the same name as one from a previous source with completely different effects. I guess, this just shows, that the designers find it increasingly difficult to find good names and/or keep all existing spells in mind ;) Not to mention that there are now two versions of sacred healing.
NineInchNall 10-19-06, 03:13 AM	2. The next one I have a problem with. I don't think there is enough agreement on what is fair game for that or not. Some say one way, some the other. Mostly they agree with what you have, I'll give you that. But logically it makes moer sense to be consistent and put the apostrophe after all "acronyms" to account for all future and obscure misunderstands the non-apostrohphe version gives us. The PMs versus PM's example is a good one. It is always incorrect to pluralize via 's. Endo story. To pluralize in that manner is to cause ambiguity between your intended meaning and the possible (and quite correct) interpretation of possession. A current example is from the Penguin Handbook (http://wps.ablongman.com/long_faigley_penguinhb_1/0,7325,506336-,00.html): Abbreviations and acronyms may be pluralized and made possessive. Follow these steps for punctuating these forms correctly. Check the function of the abbreviation or acronym. Is it being used as a plural noun, as a singular possessive noun, or as a plural possessive noun? Use s, 's, or s' depending on how the form is being used. Example: Recordable DVDs are now more widely available. DVDs is the plural form of DVD, so the writer has correctly added just an s, with no apostrophe. Example: A recordable DVD's compatibility with different types of players may vary. DVD's is the singular possessive form of DVD, so the writer has correctly added 's. In the following example, the abbreviation is being used as a plural possessive, so s' needs to be added. Example: Most DVDs' recording times are between four and six hours. Remember: Punctuate an abbreviation or acronym according to its function: s for plural, 's for singular possessive, and s' for plural possessive. The thing about which I am surprised is that es is an invalid ending. Well, shucks. It's nice to learn something new. I was always a bit leery of that usage anyway, and now my suspicions are confirmed. :D And now back to your regularly scheduled whining about game designers who A) have no concept of how to play effective characters and B) have ulterior agendas in their writing.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-19-06, 04:50 PM	There is nothing "deceptive" about its cheap cost, a party of 13th level characters will recieve 3,900XP for each 13th level encounter they defeat. In a party of three characters, that is 1,300XP each. You can afford to use the spell in every equal level encounter, and by the time you start to fall behind your friends the XP award system will bring you back up since you are now going after tougher encounters thanks to the rest of the party being 14th level. For a "standard" party of 4 characters at 13.33 EL-equivalent encounters per level, using Limited Wish will clobber 25-30% of a 15th-level character's earned experience. When everyone else hits 16th level, he'll still be 3,500xp away. Being a level down nets you 1700xp per CR 16 encounter until you catch up, or 1400xp if you're still using Limited Wish, meaning the character will hit 16th level after 3 encounters, and will be down 2,900xp. The rest of the party will gain 1,200xp per encounter, meaning they'll hit 17th level after 10 more encounters, at which point the caster will be behind 5,900xp. At 16th level vs. CR 17, he'll be pulling in 1,500xp per encounter (adjusted for using Limited Wish) vs. 1,300xp for everyone else, so he'll be behind for 5 encounters, and will claw his way back up to 4,900xp behind. Basically, using Limited Wish every encounter will make the character fall further and further behind, even with the XP boost for being a lower level. That xp boost is not an all-encompassing panacea that makes the consequences of burning xp go away. And of course that is ignoring the -7 to the targets next saving throw option, which in conjunction with quicken spell or an allied spellcaster will pretty much guarantee the monster/NPC will be defeated by the next save or die effect to hit it. Using Limited Wish + Quicken is only a net -3 to the save vs. using Heighten, so that's only very marginally worth 300xp and a 7th-level spell. An exception is with a metamagic rod of Quicken, but those are 170,000gp each for spells of that level and represent a substantial opportunity cost. Tag-teaming Limited Wish + save-or-die from another party member is a great idea, but if it lower's the target's save to a level where it will "pretty much guarantee the monster/NPC will be defeated", then the odds are that simply casting two save-or-die spells will have a similar effect, without the 300xp cost. Limited Wish is a good spell, certainly, but it is not as uber-good as you suggest. (FWIW)
solbergb 10-19-06, 06:15 PM	Generally limited wish is best when it saves the xp loss and cash loss to the party caused by a character death. Even if only one in five uses truly saves somebody, it's paid for itself.
smrtgmp 10-19-06, 07:12 PM	Using Limited Wish + Quicken is only a net -3 to the save vs. using Heighten, so that's only very marginally worth 300xp and a 7th-level spell.How do you figure? Reducing the targets save is above and beyond anything else you might do, including heighten. Tag-teaming Limited Wish + save-or-die from another party member is a great idea, but if it lower's the target's save to a level where it will "pretty much guarantee the monster/NPC will be defeated", then the odds are that simply casting two save-or-die spells will have a similar effect, without the 300xp cost.I disagree. If a sans-saves tanker save-or-die has very little chance of success, then following it up with a 2nd one probably wont yield great results. But a -7 can make a huge difference. Someone who would normally only fail on a 3 or less will now fail on a 10 or less. Thats a massive swing in your favor.
Shatteredtower 10-20-06, 02:23 AM	Thats a massive swing in your favor.Except when it's a moot point, however, such as when it's overkill (target would have failed save anyway) or entirely ineffective (target still succeeds on save or is otherwise immune to your spell effect). Is it still worth the 300 xp gamble? In do or die cases, yes. For encounters only a level above the party average, I'm not so sure.
Archangel62 10-20-06, 05:25 AM	I think part of the issue too is that WotC is afraid of making a true summoner booster class. The main reason is that by doing it they'd probably overpower it because of the already great power of conjuration. Maybe there is something for it in Codex of the abyss but I don't own it as it doesn't currently interest me.
Sonofapreacherman 10-20-06, 08:14 AM	I was pointed to this thread from another message board after revealing that I helped work on the first Chapter. I won't pretend to have read all the posts here, but what I can tell you is... • I have to take complete responsibility for limited wish. I never realized the full potential of that spell (until recently). • Every one of my archetype suggestions that included the polymorph spell were removed. • My warrior archetype included Power Attack as a good feat choice. Not sure why it was flipped into the "feats to avoid" section. • I'm a fan of the geomancer with Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell, or the booster bard with Metamagic Song and Persistent Spell. It seems both suggestions were removed. • There's little pieces of advice here and there that appear to be different, but I'd have to comb through both documents to nail them all down. To be honest, I don't plan on doing that. :D • Based on the finished illustrations, my art orders seem pretty accurate. :) I already revealed elsewhere that I was asked to help work on this chapter at the last minute (due to a genuine emergency suffered by another writer). I didn't write everything so I'm not qualified to answer all your questions. What I can say is that my writing was edited in places, which is expected (despite the last minute deadline). Some of my advice was kept, some was not. The individual school descriptions read the way I remember them, but those aren't geared towards advice. Aside from that, there's not much else to add. Freelance writers are given strict format guidelines, even in an advice chapter. I'm sure the editors at Wizards had their reasons for changing the material in places, but I'm not privy to their thoughts. This might not be the answer people were looking for, but there's not much to tell. I hope that helps. Kolja
Radagast 10-20-06, 12:16 PM	Hmm... given how all the references to Polymorph were removed, that seems to add more weight to the theory that Polymorph is eventually going to be removed from the game...
Lina_Inverse 10-20-06, 12:39 PM	For a "standard" party of 4 characters at 13.33 EL-equivalent encounters per level, using Limited Wish will clobber 25-30% of a 15th-level character's earned experience. When everyone else hits 16th level, he'll still be 3,500xp away. Being a level down nets you 1700xp per CR 16 encounter until you catch up, or 1400xp if you're still using Limited Wish, meaning the character will hit 16th level after 3 encounters, and will be down 2,900xp. The rest of the party will gain 1,200xp per encounter, meaning they'll hit 17th level after 10 more encounters, at which point the caster will be behind 5,900xp. At 16th level vs. CR 17, he'll be pulling in 1,500xp per encounter (adjusted for using Limited Wish) vs. 1,300xp for everyone else, so he'll be behind for 5 encounters, and will claw his way back up to 4,900xp behind. Basically, using Limited Wish every encounter will make the character fall further and further behind, even with the XP boost for being a lower level. That xp boost is not an all-encompassing panacea that makes the consequences of burning xp go away. Thing is, every caster is already on the EXP gravy train, 300exp off your gravy every couple of encounters when it will stop a death or wipe isnt a big deal at all.
Harliquinn 10-20-06, 12:52 PM	So my copy of CM arrived in the mail yesterday, and I've read it cover to cover. For the most part, I love it, and overall I have very few complaints (though lightning leap is a bit too close to my "Arist's Galvanising Charge (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7929872&postcount=15)" for my tastes *grumble grumble*). I'm guessing here that the Lightning Leap was just a counterpart to the Firebreath version in (I think) Dragon Magic.
NineInchNall 10-20-06, 03:30 PM	• Every one of my archetype suggestions that included the polymorph spell were removed. Ah, now the truth comes out. Le sigh. At least we know that the real suggestions were overruled in favor of poop. :) • My warrior archetype included Power Attack as a good feat choice. Not sure why it was flipped into the "feats to avoid" section. I think it might be a symptom of what I mentioned earlier: an attempt to make casters less effective by giving craptastic advice. • I'm a fan of the geomancer with Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell, or the booster bard with Metamagic Song and Persistent Spell. It seems both suggestions were removed. :eek: Yowza. Yet more support for my theory. • There's little pieces of advice here and there that appear to be different, but I'd have to comb through both documents to nail them all down. To be honest, I don't plan on doing that. :D Understandable, my man. • Based on the finished illustrations, my art orders seem pretty accurate. :) Well, at least there's that. :) Aside from that, there's not much else to add. Freelance writers are given strict format guidelines, even in an advice chapter. I'm sure the editors at Wizards had their reasons for changing the material in places, but I'm not privy to their thoughts. This might not be the answer people were looking for, but there's not much to tell. I hope that helps. Kolja That helps a lot, Kolja; it's always great to hear directly from the authors, especially when there's a potential stink like this. Thanks a lot.
Elrinade 10-20-06, 03:44 PM	I just got back from the local bookstore and while I was their I paged through CM. The crunchy stuff are AMAZING!!! I like the archetypes but the advice. Why wouldnt a controller want to extend ones Dominate Person! I dont know about you but I would LOVE to have my ogre slave's domination last 1 month :-P. All in all I cant wait for it to come in the mail!
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-20-06, 04:09 PM	Thing is, every caster is already on the EXP gravy train, 300exp off your gravy every couple of encounters when it will stop a death or wipe isnt a big deal at all. a) Not everybody plays the way you do, so "every caster" won't be doing what you would be. b) Using Limited Wish every so often is quite reasonable, and I certainly wasn't saying otherwise. The claim was made that using it every encounter would make no appreciable difference to xp, so that was the claim I was disputing.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-20-06, 04:23 PM	How do you figure? Reducing the targets save is above and beyond anything else you might do, including heighten. Quicken means the spell takes a slot that's 4 levels higher than it should be; ergo, Heightening the spell into a slot 4 levels higher will raise the DC by 4, cutting the effective difference down to only -3. Or you could just cast a higher-level spell and get the raised DC and mostly likely a better effect to boot. (There are ways to Quicken the Limited Wish, of course, or to get Quicken on the other spell without using the normal feat, but those are typically less common than the PHB feat, and generally have opportunity costs of their own, such as the high gp cost I mentioned.) Tag-teaming Limited Wish + save-or-die from another party member is a great idea, but if it lower's the target's save to a level where it will "pretty much guarantee the monster/NPC will be defeated", then the odds are that simply casting two save-or-die spells will have a similar effect, without the 300xp cost. I disagree. If a sans-saves tanker save-or-die has very little chance of success, then following it up with a 2nd one probably wont yield great results. But a -7 can make a huge difference. Someone who would normally only fail on a 3 or less will now fail on a 10 or less. Thats a massive swing in your favor. You are disagreeing about a different scenario. The original claim was about a scenario where that -7 to save made the spell "pretty much guaranteed"; i.e., a very poor chance of saving. In that case, the target must have already had a mediocre-at-best chance of making the save, meaning that casting two spells would offer an excellent chance of success. For example, suppose the target saves on a 10+. Limited Wish will reduce that save to 17+ -- 20% -- whereas simply casting 2 spells would result in a 25-30% chance. Not as good, but not costing 300xp, either. You have a good point about this other scenario where the target has a very high save, but I tend to find that at the levels where Limited Wish is readily available, very few monsters have saves so high that they'll shrug off the casters' spells on a 3+; indeed, it's pretty rare for the creature's lower saves to even be as good as 10+. Perhaps you play a very different style of game, though.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-20-06, 04:32 PM	• Every one of my archetype suggestions that included the polymorph spell were removed. • I'm a fan of the geomancer with Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell, or the booster bard with Metamagic Song and Persistent Spell. It seems both suggestions were removed. Discussions on this board have suggested that there's a substantial number of gamers who do use these kinds of tactics, but also a substantial number who do not. It may be that WotC didn't want to appear to favour the former style of play by putting combos considered by many to be "broken" into official examples. That doesn't mean they necessarily consider such combos "wrong", of course; there are a variety of possible reasons why the main designers might choose to intentionally avoid those combos, and the one I've suggested is just one I personally consider likely.
smrtgmp 10-20-06, 05:13 PM	I'm guessing here that the Lightning Leap was just a counterpart to the Firebreath version in (I think) Dragon Magic.Yeah, that was too close for my liking as well, but at least it was different enough not to look like a flagrant rip-off. Prior to writing that spell, I had never seen a combination of DD and teleport (not to say one didn't exist).
smrtgmp 10-20-06, 05:20 PM	• I have to take complete responsibility for limited wish. I never realized the full potential of that spell (until recently).Well, we all make mistakes. The fact that you'll own up to your speaks volumes about your character. :) • Every one of my archetype suggestions that included the polymorph spell were removed.Interesting. Maybe those conspiracy theorists aren't so crazy after all...
smrtgmp 10-20-06, 05:28 PM	Quicken means the spell takes a slot that's 4 levels higher than it should be; ergo, Heightening the spell into a slot 4 levels higher will raise the DC by 4, cutting the effective difference down to only -3.I dislike this comparison. You're assuming that its possible to heighten a spell to that extent. It often isn't. Its a lot easier to quicken without paying the cost than it is to heighten. Or you could just cast a higher-level spell and get the raised DC and mostly likely a better effect to boot.Unless you CANT cast a higher level spell. Effectively increasing the DC of a spell by 7 is exceedingly difficult. It can be done, but its highly feat intensive. (There are ways to Quicken the Limited Wish, of course, or to get Quicken on the other spell without using the normal feat, but those are typically less common than the PHB feat, and generally have opportunity costs of their own, such as the high gp cost I mentioned.)Yes, the GP cost is high. But what else is a full caster going to spend their money on? Metamagic Rods are friggin awesome, and always a solid investment. Its not as if you couldn't use the rod for anything else. You are disagreeing about a different scenario.:embarrass Woops! So I am. My appologies for the confusion. :D
Jhaelen 10-20-06, 05:52 PM	• Every one of my archetype suggestions that included the polymorph spell were removed.I already suspected something like this might be the reason for the advice on shunning 'polymorph' in favour of the new monomorph spells. Thanks for sharing this bit of information! I'd just wish they didn't try to sneak this into their supplements like this. I guess, the official way to get rid of 'polymorph' (et.al.) will be to completely ignore it's existence in any future publications (at least until 4th ed.). Luckily I've been able to ban the spell from my campaign before it became an issue. What I'd like to see to replace the old 'polymorph' spell is a spell that allows the caster to change into several different shapes based on the caster's level - similar to what they did with the Shapeshift ability for druids in PHBII to replace Wildshape.
User5127 10-20-06, 06:04 PM	i agree with the money part. i mean a full caster is NOT going to have to buy that shiny +5 adamantine fullplate and the +5 vorpral Greatsword. so he has money out his arse. so to speak. and a meta magic rod is a good place to put it (note i exagerate when i mention the +5 stuff up there... so yea)
Samwise 10-20-06, 06:59 PM	A thought: Maybe so many things seems broken because the advice given in Complete Mage represents the "default" level of use or expectation of use of the various spells and feats. Build a character that weakly, and nothing is overpowered! The problems only show up when people start doing a number on the system to find all the mega-combos. Why they don't just try to upgrade the design and play abilities of everyone with the advice instead of trying to do it with gimmicks is beyond me.
Sonofapreacherman 10-20-06, 07:06 PM	That helps a lot, Kolja; it's always great to hear directly from the authors, especially when there's a potential stink like this. I'm sure there was a very good reason for the changes, possibly related to future material, but don't quote me on that. As an off-sight freelancer, I'm really not in the loop. :D Be assured of this much, Wizards won't change anything that the majority of people expressly love. The topic of "what the player's want" is constantly on their minds. The in-house designers are highly literate people (which isn't me trying to gain favor with them). I know some of those people personally and they read the boards. The best way to get their attention is by being articulate, concise and yet thorough. At least, that's how I started working for the Wizards. :cool:
NineInchNall 10-20-06, 07:35 PM	I think a lot of us have expressed a liking for many of the things that get knocked by a good number of the rest of the gaming community. I suspect that the problem is that many people have different thematic expectations that influence their analysis of the game's mechanical aspects. The polymorph hubbub is a rather good example of this. I have certain expectations for the game that lead me to conclude that the spell is balanced for what I want from the game. Others judge the spell using a differing set of criteria, and hence they have differing opinions of the spell line. I like to think that I have a decent comprehension of game balance, and I know that certain other people with whom I often disagree do too, so the only thing that can explain such disagreements is differing, for lack of a better term, D&D ideology.
Sonofapreacherman 10-20-06, 09:04 PM	I have certain expectations for the game that lead me to conclude that the spell is balanced for what I want from the game. Others judge the spell using a differing set of criteria, and hence they have differing opinions of the spell line. I think you hit it. There is a very large degree of arbitrary "approaches" to the game, none of which are right or wrong, but all of which consequently influence how "game balance" is measured after that point. I think we can safely assume that Wizards of the Coast uses their "iconic" characters to measure game balance, which they knowingly admit are not optimized. From what I have heard of their in-house games, the designers definitely know how to "trick out" their characters. What they publish, however, is designed more for the general public, which includes seasoned veterans, entry-level newbies, and everybody in between.
NineInchNall 10-21-06, 07:33 PM	I guess that people were expecting something more from "the definitive treatise on arcane magic," something more in depth like this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9424704&postcount=1), this (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D486266), this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5436939&postcount=104), or this (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D416446). You know?
Dire Celestial Bonobo 10-21-06, 08:34 PM	Yes, the GP cost is high. But what else is a full caster going to spend their money on? Metamagic Rods are friggin awesome, and always a solid investment. Its not as if you couldn't use the rod for anything else. True, but it represents a substantial opportunity cost, and at 170,000gp the Rod isn't really available at all until the highest few levels. Even at 17th level, it's half a character's equipment budget, making it (IMHO) too many eggs in one basket for most spellcasters. Some casters will have one, certainly -- or some other way to Quicken better than they can Heighten -- and that's certainly a fair point; I'm just suggesting that a great many of the casters who have access to Limited Wish won't have such options, making the spell less generally-powerful than the combo suggests. Woops! So I am. My appologies for the confusion. :D I think this is the first time in quite a while I've had such a graceful response to that point. You, sir, rock. :)
smrtgmp 10-25-06, 01:24 AM	True, but it represents a substantial opportunity cost, and at 170,000gp the Rod isn't really available at all until the highest few levels. Even at 17th level, it's half a character's equipment budget, making it (IMHO) too many eggs in one basket for most spellcasters.A valid point. Its not uncommon for me to pick up Craft Rod as a wizard, so I tend to make my own, but thats hardly a given when it comes to most characters. I think this is the first time in quite a while I've had such a graceful response to that point. You, sir, rock. :)I try to avoid sticking to an argument when I was clearly wrong or mistaken about the foundation of the argument to begin with. :)
Thane26425 10-25-06, 08:04 AM	I just bought this book over the weekend too. It isn't as bad as I thought it would be and might be one of the better 3.5 books. The descriptions of the wizard types was a little confused, like the one that recommended aiming for archmage but then said the spell focus feat should be avoided, and some of the others seemed strained. The sniper, for example, never mentioned True Strike or the arrow enchancing spells. Some of the news spells were decent and some of the feats were interesting as well. Now mages are facing the same problem as fighters: so many feats but relatively few slots, especially if one takes a PrC.
Samwise 10-25-06, 11:49 AM	For spells: Heart of Stone gives Stoneskin with no material cost and a longer ready to trigger time, even if the immediate duration is less. Arcane Turmoil is a targeted dispel magic that can also strip a spell slot. It is only short range, but it is also a 2nd level spell. Given that 95% of the uses of dispel magic are targeted at short range, the stripping of a spell slot is pure gravy. At least they aren't as bad as Power Word Pain.
bitnine 01-15-07, 02:19 PM	Hmm... given how all the references to Polymorph were removed, that seems to add more weight to the theory that Polymorph is eventually going to be removed from the game...Eh, we might see something like this: First off, more singleform spells with a unified descriptor. Polymorph, Lesser Transmutation Level: Sor/wiz 4 When casting this spell, choose a spell from your class list with the mighty morphing descriptor of 3rd level or lower. This spell totally functions like that spell. That's right, I still reference another spell. But I do it once. And I do it cleanly. And mebbe I expand a bit with additional spells from books, but I'm close to iconic polymorph, and you ain't going to wrangle more than a 3rd level spell appropriate benefit, with the boost of being the best one for the situation. Okay, the spell description could read differently, but you get the drift.
ArcTan 01-15-07, 04:40 PM	as DM, if my player said that to me? *SMITE* Hell, even as the party wizard, if a another player said that about my spell preparation and accused me of "not doing my job" *Disintigrate!* what arrogance! and thats AFTER you handed them the money for the book. its like spitting on you for buying the damn thing! ridiculous! ...Wait, why would a DM have a list of prepared spells that a player could even see? Also, limited wish technically doesn't just duplicate spells, it also duplicates any effect "on the order" of a spell. What this means is up to DM fiat, but it obviously is intended to give you a lot more flexibility than just what exists on spell lists.
ArcTan 01-15-07, 04:50 PM	The book is excellent in my opinon. I was wondering though...ploymorph, they are pushing further and further away from anyone using the spell, and instead having folks use the watered down verions , htese form spells. Think they will delete polymorph pretty soon? They more or less have deleted it. The famous polymorph errata basically said they were removing any and all official links to polymorph from the rest of the game (the druid's Wild Shape, all monster SLA lists, etc.) and told you not to use it because the spell was hopelessly broken. Apparently the fact that the errata didn't delete the spell outright was some kind of compromise. You'll notice that no matter how broken is, WotC never deletes anything -- polymorph was basically confirmation that even when something is so broken that WotC really wants to delete it, they have a policy against it -- and so can only try to "break polymorph's stranglehold over the rest of the game" rather than outright getting rid of it. FWIW, I personally recommend not taking polymorph because any smart DM will smack you on the head for doing so, or else nerf it to the degree that you really would rather have a spell like trollform.
ArcTan 01-15-07, 04:52 PM	conjuration also has the amazeing line of orb spells, teleportation/dimention door effects, some control effects like web are also nice ones, and then there is plain simple mage armor. all in all conjuration is the largest school of magic and also the most versitile single schools. It's the orb spells that clinch it, since they basically make evocation obsolete. 86 the orbs and give the dimension door and teleport tree back to evocation, and the schools will look a lot more balanced.
ArcTan 01-15-07, 05:09 PM	Eh, we might see something like this: First off, more singleform spells with a unified descriptor. Polymorph, Lesser Transmutation Level: Sor/wiz 4 When casting this spell, choose a spell from your class list with the mighty morphing descriptor of 3rd level or lower. This spell totally functions like that spell. That's right, I still reference another spell. But I do it once. And I do it cleanly. And mebbe I expand a bit with additional spells from books, but I'm close to iconic polymorph, and you ain't going to wrangle more than a 3rd level spell appropriate benefit, with the boost of being the best one for the situation. Okay, the spell description could read differently, but you get the drift. That's actually a really good idea. It even makes the name "polymorph" make more sense. Perhaps a good name for this spell would be manyform (to match trollform or dragonform, which is just "polymorph" translated from Greek into Anglo-Saxon). Actually, I like the idea of a spell called "anyform" that lets you use any "form" spell up to a certain level (which still allows for a lot of versatility but still restricts forms to forms that have been explicitly designed to be usable, not the old "break out the Monster Manual and treat it as a spellbook" nonsense). "Manyform" would be a tasty 9th-level version of shapechange that let you switch from any form spell to another at will every round for as long as the spell lasted -- still quite powerful and leading to broken combos, but without the ridiculousness of what you can do with the existing shapechange. (I like how the spell description specifically implies you can turn into something incorporeal, fly inside someone's stomach, then turn into something Huge and explode it. Over and over again.)
spectralphoenix 01-16-07, 02:14 AM	Perhaps a "new" Polymorph could function like the Summon Monster series, with each version having a progressively more powerful list of available monsters (or the ability to use one from a lower-level selection.) I dislike the -form spells, since they lack the versatility of Polymorph, but at the same time I realize it's more or less impossible to provide an airtight set of rules to cover a spell that lets you turn into any creature in any book. Like the Summon Monster series, books with new monsters could have guidelines for adding the new creatures to the lists, so you wouldn't have to miss out on them.
NineInchNall 01-16-07, 10:22 AM	The new polymorph subschool spells suck outright. As spectralphoenix mentioned, they lack the versatility that is the hallmark of polymorph, but they make an even more egregious mistake: they force you to give up everything that defines your character. This has two effects. First, this means that for the duration of the spell, the player is not playing his character; playing one's own character is half the point of D&D. Second, the forms that the spells allow one to assume are less threatening than the spellcaster using them; e.g., dragonform (or whatever the one in PHB2 is called) turns you into a CR 18 critter that is missing a significant portion of its abilities, which basically means you become a CR 15 critter. :yuck: For all their problems, I'll take polymorph and shapechange over this drivel any day of the week.
TheCarrionCrawler 01-16-07, 02:47 PM	For all their problems, I'll take polymorph and shapechange over this drivel any day of the week. Count me in as well. :thumbsup:
OneWinged4ngel 01-16-07, 06:44 PM	Quite frankly, whoever wrote that has no frigging clue what they are talking about. I've rather come to expect that of the particular writer of that section, whom I believe is the same one responsible for many of the "With Class" articles, also rather notorious for rather lackluster quality (correct me if I'm wrong). Then again, WotC has a tendency to give rather shoddy mechanical advice compared to, say, many of the human resources on these boards. I guess that people were expecting something more from "the definitive treatise on arcane magic," something more in depth like this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9424704&postcount=1), this (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D486266), this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5436939&postcount=104), or this (http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D416446). You know? When was the last time WotC wrote something like that up? If such quality work was common in new books, I might be more willing to shell out the cash nescessary for their purchase.
NineInchNall 01-16-07, 10:21 PM	When was the last time WotC wrote something like that up? If such quality work was common in new books, I might be more willing to shell out the cash nescessary for their purchase. QFEMFT
journeyman777 01-17-07, 04:52 AM	I LIKE the advice. I'll understand if you all :headexplo :ghosted: now. I was incredibly pleased to see advice that had more to do with the mentality of the various specialists and archtypes than with min/maxing. I love the blatant willingness to give up powerful schools based on philosophical reasons. I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that polymorph got the Nuke treatment. I disagree on some of the feats, but that is more a matter of my play style. Mostly, I love that all of it was oriented straight at the kind of guys who have just learned the system and want to play an arcanist. In short, I think many of you have missed the entire point. Book advice is meant for a standard game. Reasonable assumption says that the standard game uses characters that actually have have trouble with things their CR and simply will never beat things 8 CR above. Characters built to boards standards of optimization can often handle CRs 2-4 above their lv with the potential to drop creatures double their CR with a nova. That can completely screw up game balance for any DM actually relying on the CR in the book. On another rather reviled addition: I am actually quite enthusiastic about the form spells (finally, a way to play a shapeshifting wizard that doesn't halt the game every time combat starts). I seriously hate polymorph. The broken power, the mechanics nightmare, and the unbounded nature of it I can handle. I just hate it because every time I see it used, one of two things happens. 1. The session effectively ends for the night as the player spends the next hour or so finding the perfect form and figuring out exactly how it affects his stats, abilities, and equipment. 2. The player has a very short list of forms he likes with the alterations to his stats already written up and ready for play. The form spells basically give the same kind of benefit as option 2, while completely avoiding the insane bookkeeping and time loss involved with option 1. Hell, yeah! Bring on the form series. Yep, I'm quite pleased with my CM.
smrtgmp 01-17-07, 07:29 AM	It's the orb spells that clinch it, since they basically make evocation obsolete.oh god not this again. 86 the orbs and give the dimension door and teleport tree back to evocation, and the schools will look a lot more balanced.dim door and teleport were never a part of evocation. IIRC they were transmutation.
Votan 01-17-07, 09:27 AM	oh god not this again. dim door and teleport were never a part of evocation. IIRC they were transmutation. Yes -- regarding Dim Door and Teleport. In terms of the orb Spells, it is never a good idea to make it possible to completely substitute the best elements of a school when you have specialization. Orbs are not uniformly better than evocation attack spells (no, they are not) but they are a competitive substitution. This is okay so long as conjuration doesn't become simply better than evocation in every way. These days contingency is the major sacrifice for losing evocation and that seems . . . unfortunate.
Roxlimn 01-17-07, 11:45 AM	Speaking as one who's tried working on the Polymorph spell with a number of solutions, I have to say that I like this new tack they're taking with the monomorph spells. Morph spells are exceedingly difficult to adjudicate except on an individually tested basis, and until they test each form, each and every form has to be assumed to be potentially broken. Unlike Summon spells, which simply add more combatants to the situation, morph spells actually change the caster into something else. While this removes him from contributing to the sitch with spells, it also affords him all the protections and movements and sizes of his new form, as well as any natural or magical repeatable attacks his new form might have. Summoning a hellhound won't allow your Mage to survive a 20 HD fireball, but turning into one would. Given the current benchmark for the monomorph spells, bitnine's suggested Lesser Polymorph is actually exceedingly strong. Given what I would consider the basics for morph spells of low level, the proposed spell could at once give you the option to choose flight, resistances of your choice, strength and size of your choice, land speed or burrow speed, substantial elemental or physical attacks of exactly the right kind, disguise, senses of the right kind, and so on. Giving Wizards access to such tactical versatility in a single spell hurts Sorcerers more than fracturing the spells into different things Wizards must learn and prepare separately. Of course, Sorcerers also suffer in lacking the strategic flexibility the spell ought to provide, but relatively speaking, they lose less in the bargain. One might argue for Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer, but that spell only allows the Wizard to instantly prepare any spell he already knows, not any spell on his list. Currently, I think the best way to simulatea 4th level polymorph is to make it exactly the same as the basic Druid Wild Shape ability, which the reference 2e Polymorph spell actually strongly resembles. I'm not altogether certain that even this is a balanced 4th level spell, since animals are movement, escape, and disguise at once. Not being able to blast your enemies apart isn't much of a penalty if you're not intending on doing so anyway. The new monomorph spells only suck in relation to Polymorph and Shapechange because those spells are so powerful to begin with. Compared with other spells, the monomorphs are more or less okay, if a little weak. Is morphing into a Red Dragon a bad deal for a high level Wizard? It depends. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. There are situations that call for a large body and flight and it's not always good to appear as a powerful Wizard of whatever race. The mere appearance of a Red Dragon is sometimes all the effect that is necessary. The point of spells is that you call them when you need them, and that you use the right spell for the right occasion. Using CR to adjudicate the efficacy of a monster in PC hands is no way to judge anything. ECL and CR are not at all the same thing. It may just be that I'm an old timer who remembers the old Polymorph, but the 2e version was nowhere near the broken power of the current styles, and I kind of miss that kind of usage. When was the last time anyone used Polymorph as a disguise? That is probably one of the most iconic usages of form-changing in stories (which is why Wizards turn into mice and cats and seagulls) and no one currently uses them that way. If they form changing spells were reduced in power to the level where they could last for hours, then that would be a step in the right direction.
NineInchNall 01-17-07, 12:08 PM	Giving Wizards access to such tactical versatility in a single spell hurts Sorcerers more than fracturing the spells into different things Wizards must learn and prepare separately. Of course, Sorcerers also suffer in lacking the strategic flexibility the spell ought to provide, but relatively speaking, they lose less in the bargain. Shenanigans. Requiring Sorcerers to learn multiple spells is much harsher than doing the same for Wizards. The Sorcerer's limited spells known require minimizing overlap and redundancy, which are created inevitably by taking multiple monomorph spells. Each monomorph spell chosen lessens the Sorcerer's flexibility and overall utility to the party, while the same cannot be said of the Wizard, who only bothers to prepare the monomorph spell he currently likes best. Is morphing into a Red Dragon a bad deal for a high level Wizard? It depends. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. There are situations that call for a large body and flight and it's not always good to appear as a powerful Wizard of whatever race. The mere appearance of a Red Dragon is sometimes all the effect that is necessary. It's always a bad deal compared to the other things that a high level Wizard is capable of. There's jack that a huge red dragon can do that a Wizard can't do better (aside from the dragon's fort save). For a large body and flight, a Wizard could use any number of lower level spells. For the mere appearance of a red dragon, the Wizard can use illusions. For combat effectiveness, the Wizard would be a fool to cast dragonshape rather than any other spell. Hell, identify might help out more. Okay, that's hyperbole, but seriously. The high level buff spells in core generally just aren't as useful as the overtly offensive spells or the battlefield control spells. The only ones that remain a pleasant alternative to things like charm/dominate monster, solid fog, and weird are the polymorph line. Furthermore, you're using edge conditions to argue for general utility? Tsk, tsk, tsk, Rox. You know better than that. Compared to other buff options, the monomorphs fall short, and I'm not talking about the polymorph line, either. The point of spells is that you call them when you need them, and that you use the right spell for the right occasion. Using CR to adjudicate the efficacy of a monster in PC hands is no way to judge anything. ECL and CR are not at all the same thing. Right. ECL measures effectiveness over the course of an adventure or a campaign factoring in both combat and out-of-combat efficacy. CR only measures single-fight efficacy. Hence, the Wizard who goes from CR 20 to CR 16-17 is reducing his combat effectiveness for the single fight during which he takes the form. Since the spell's duration is suitable only for combat, there's only one thing to take from this: combat. It may just be that I'm an old timer who remembers the old Polymorph, but the 2e version was nowhere near the broken power of the current styles, and I kind of miss that kind of usage. When was the last time anyone used Polymorph as a disguise? Generally only with PaO, since the normal duration of polymorph is too short for infiltration purposes. That is probably one of the most iconic usages of form-changing in stories (which is why Wizards turn into mice and cats and seagulls) and no one currently uses them that way. If they form changing spells were reduced in power to the level where they could last for hours, then that would be a step in the right direction. Or ... You could have a low level, long duration spell that turns one only into non-combat forms and into any non-combat form for hours at a time. And for God's sake, don't take away my feats and class features. That's just dumb. "Oh, I'm a dragon now, so I lose my Skill Focus (Spellcraft)." :rolleyes:
bitnine 01-17-07, 02:48 PM	Giving Wizards access to such tactical versatility in a single spell hurts Sorcerers more than fracturing the spells into different things Wizards must learn and prepare separately.Maybe I'm missing something here, but... I don't get it. Edit: 'Cause seriously, as a sorcerer? I'd want that spell. I'd want it hard. That jerk the wizard has been carrying about form scrolls and leaving a 3rd level spell slot empty to fill with utility form du jour, and he's able to learn a bunch of the low level ones for some gold. He's been lording his gravy over me for long enough! Yeah, I got to wait 'till 8th level, but then I've got a spell that gives me the on the spot utility formy goodness. I dunno if it's worth a spell known right away, but eventually, I'll probably pick up lesser polymorph.
Shatteredtower 01-17-07, 10:03 PM	The new polymorph subschool spells suck outright.Not as an idea. I'm just unhappy with the implementation. I can live with them affecting only the caster (and familiar), but find the durations too low. Likewise, the idea that you need to learn a knew spell for each spell known does hurt a sorcerer in my estimation. However, I do feel that some forms merit the use of a higher level spell slot. ...they force you to give up everything that defines your character.No, they most certainly do not. Your character is not defined by class abilities. Your character is defined by personality traits and whatever resources are available to your character at a given moment. Your character is still your character if struck blind, poisoned to the point of immobility, or panicked; a change of form is just another set of circumstances in which many of your class abilities aren't accessible to you. You still have the resources of your allies. If your 8th level sorcerer is still nothing more than any other troll or displacer beast in such a case, your team might not be properly taking advantage of the options open to them. You can't cast spells, and you can't use spell completion or spell trigger items. These are significant drawbacks to the spell, ones that merit a significant increase in duration: 10 minutes/level is not excessive when you're giving up the ability to combine spellcasting with a more durable (or better adapted) form. Nevertheless, you are trading only a portion of your party's resources -- not quite 1/4, especially if you've been burning magic prior to the transformation -- in for other options. You might be able to do them more effectively with higher level spells or with several lower level spells, but those are now options you can save to combine with the given monomorph. That's nothing you couldn't get with polymorph, true, which just indicates to me how excessive that one spell was in some ways. (It was still inadequate in others that have not been fixed with the monomorph options, it's true. I'll come back to that.) Morph spells are exceedingly difficult to adjudicate except on an individually tested basis, and until they test each form, each and every form has to be assumed to be potentially broken.I concur in regard to the observation about form testing. I don't know that it should necessitate further pigeon-holing of a sorcerer's abilities, though. There's jack that a huge red dragon can do that a Wizard can't do better (aside from the dragon's fort save).How many spells increase carrying capacity, wall-shattering capacity, hit point totals, and provide a self-renewing equivalent to cone of cold for the duration of the spell. (Yes, I know it's a weak 5th level spell, and 5th level spell-like abilities are not that impressive at 17th+ level, especially those causing direct damage. It's not that bad.) Not the best damage reduction, it's true, and you've become Touch AC Target #1, but you're generally off the chart for grappling checks. Dragons normally don't use them, but that doesn't mean you won't. If every BBEG or Lackey 1st Class can laugh this off, something isn't right. Let's not forget that any wizard with a familiar has the option of getting two red dragons, though it does limit mobility somewhat. If the spell is cast as a touch spell on the familiar (an option you can't employ with any other creature), you've still got all of your wizardly resources, the support of a party -- and one ally that is considerably more powerful than it was just a few seconds earlier. Also remember that while you lose your array of magical trinkets in dragon form, you do not lose the benefit of any spells you cast upon yourself or had cast upon you. You can set up a contingency to trigger when you change form (or change to a specific form, if you prefer) -- not the ideal use of contingency, but worth noting as a quick two for one. The benefits of Craft Contingent Spell are just a bit better, though they do make the process expensive. Of course, if you're working with a familiar, so much the better: while Tenser's transformation isn't doing you much good, it's a quick way to boost your transformed familiar -- plus, if you happen to have a huge greatsword handy (and if your buddy can use it, you might), said familiar is now proficient with it and can combine those three attacks per round nicely with a bite and wing buffets. Hence, the Wizard who goes from CR 20 to CR 17 is reducing his combat effectiveness for the single fight during which he takes the form.Not quite accurate, as your 20th level PC wizard is too overequipped to count as CR 20. Likewise, an adult red dragon with the resources of a 17th+ level party (even an NPC party) for backup is not a CR 15 encounter. I'd have no qualms about the polymorph spell being split up, especially when you consider how many forms one can still acquire with limited wish once this is done, if sorcerers could expand their repetoire of forms without having to sacrifice additional spell slots. In my opinion, it's enough to make them sacrifice the funds required to research another monomorph spell, having it applied against the recommended funds available to a given caster. You still need to use the appropriate spell level for a given form. I believe that a sorcerer (or bard) should be able to research spells from the chain of any spell known to take them above the usual limit of spells they can know (as long as the recommended wealth guidelines are observed), though I can see how the idea may not sit well with a lot of people. I do think that even if this method is not adopted for all spell chains, however, it should be strongly considered for at least the polymorph subschool if one opts to replace polymorph and related spells with the single-form spells model.
smrtgmp 01-18-07, 10:17 AM	Orbs are not uniformly better than evocation attack spells (no, they are not) but they are a competitive substitution.Assuming you fight only a single enemy at a time and have nothing better to do with your action than an umimpressive amount of damage.
Roxlimn 01-19-07, 08:04 AM	Regarding the splitting of spell effects: NineInchNail says: Shenanigans. Requiring Sorcerers to learn multiple spells is much harsher than doing the same for Wizards. The Sorcerer's limited spells known require minimizing overlap and redundancy, which are created inevitably by taking multiple monomorph spells. Each monomorph spell chosen lessens the Sorcerer's flexibility and overall utility to the party, while the same cannot be said of the Wizard, who only bothers to prepare the monomorph spell he currently likes best. bitnine says: Edit: 'Cause seriously, as a sorcerer? I'd want that spell. I'd want it hard. That jerk the wizard has been carrying about form scrolls and leaving a 3rd level spell slot empty to fill with utility form du jour, and he's able to learn a bunch of the low level ones for some gold. He's been lording his gravy over me for long enough! Yeah, I got to wait 'till 8th level, but then I've got a spell that gives me the on the spot utility formy goodness. I dunno if it's worth a spell known right away, but eventually, I'll probably pick up lesser polymorph. Yes, multiple purpose spells are great for a Sorcerer, but there's a point at which a multiple purpose spell's tactical versatility overlaps with a Sorcerer's own natural tactical versatility. With the use of Scrolls, a Wizard can pack as many polyform change spells as he needs, and each one is many spells in one. While learning is steeper for the Sorcerer, the preparation is steeper for a Wizard. Having to prepare lots of multiple monoform spells hits on his capability to prepare multiple whatever-else spells, and it's not like his scroll reserve is infinite. Those multiple monoform spells are taking up spells that could be more appropriate for particular situations. Hell-hound form or Resist Energy? Cone of Cold or Winter Wolf form? Being the strategist that he is, a Wizard's forte is bringing on the absolute best spell for the situation that is called for, and changing form to do something relatively cheap isn't particularly efficient as far as he's concerned. Make no mistake, even a monomorph spell IS a multiple function spell - it's just not a multiple function spell without a drawback. A Wizard might use a monomorph spell to access a menu of capabilities to increase his tactical flexibility, but the same also increases a Sorcerer's strategic bag of tricks. He can access Hell Hound form for fire protection, or the breath weapon, or the disguise, or to protect his items, or the extra hitpoints, or to carry more stuff. Monomorph spells are remarkably versatile in themselves. The increase in tactical versatility in Polymorph, IMO, favors the Wizard more than the strategic increase in the Sorcerer's repertoire. He can, after all, use Summon Monster spells for many of the same functions at advantage. More importantly, a monomorph spell is manageable. Regardless of which spellcaster is favored, monomorph spells are better for the game. NineInchNail says: Okay, that's hyperbole, but seriously. The high level buff spells in core generally just aren't as useful as the overtly offensive spells or the battlefield control spells. The only ones that remain a pleasant alternative to things like charm/dominate monster, solid fog, and weird are the polymorph line. Furthermore, you're using edge conditions to argue for general utility? Tsk, tsk, tsk, Rox. You know better than that. Compared to other buff options, the monomorphs fall short, and I'm not talking about the polymorph line, either. The entire problem is that you're viewing the Polymorph and Monomorph spells as general buffing spells. That's the unfortunate POV that gives us this crap 1 round/level duration. ShatteredTower expounds on the many uses that a Dragonform spell can be used for - it's not nearly as narrow as a compulsion spell, so it shouldn't be as effective in terms of brute power. Monomorph spells are disguises, movement, protections, attacks, and misceallaneous special functions spells in one. Would you rate a Fireball that also granted you flight and Fire Immunity as a more powerful spell? Sure you would. Dragonform may not be quite as effective in eliminating single enemies but I'm kind of glad that that's the case. It makes the point that this isn't what this class of spell is primarily for. Right. ECL measures effectiveness over the course of an adventure or a campaign factoring in both combat and out-of-combat efficacy. CR only measures single-fight efficacy. Hence, the Wizard who goes from CR 20 to CR 16-17 is reducing his combat effectiveness for the single fight during which he takes the form. Since the spell's duration is suitable only for combat, there's only one thing to take from this: combat. An 18th level spellcaster's Dragonform lasts almost 2 minutes. That's long enough for a variety of combat actions that don't involve eliminating single enemy targets, and you don't need to expend other spells while doing so. I would say that it's absolutely on par with Summoning a Leonal (and then bunkering down or helping others), or with Shades, or Meteor Swarm. It's no Shapechange, but I think that that's plenty obvious enough. 2 minutes of disguise or movement is also pretty decent, if not spectacular. Of course, you can use lower level spells to do the same, but then you'd have to be preparing or learning these lower level spells to do the job. Calling in more resources to trounce a spell doesn't make sense. Cone of Cold, Power Word Kill, Summon Monster, and Major Image together are also stronger than Meteor Swarm. Or ... You could have a low level, long duration spell that turns one only into non-combat forms and into any non-combat form for hours at a time. It's superfluous. Any alternate form can potentially be leveraged into an advantage in combat, even a mouse or a wren. Being able to transform into a large variety of such forms for hours at a time is crazy strong. I know because I used the 2e Polymorph to unbelievably great effect, and it doesn't involve any direct buffing combat advantage whatsoever. It didn't even include any senses from the form your adopted. Delienating between "combat" and "noncombat" forms exposes the design to unforseen effective combat usages of supposedly "noncombat" forms, and to chump "combat" forms that prove to be rather less than advertised. Thus, there's no point to making form spells in that manner. You rate the form, then you make it into a spell. If a number of forms are weak enough, the bundle of them may be combined into a single high enough level spell. I imagine that 5th level is high enough to allow for all mundane animal shapes for hours at a time, although I'm not altogether sure about that. And for God's sake, don't take away my feats and class features. That's just dumb. "Oh, I'm a dragon now, so I lose my Skill Focus (Spellcraft)." I think that's it's a reasonable gamist compromise in order to smoothen gameplay and avoid rule disputes. We take all kinds of silly stuff for granted just so the game runs. This is magic. We ought to be really be much more forgiving. For reference, the Mages of Earthsea really do gradually forget their wisdom when they assume forms other than their own, which is why they try not to do so very often or for very long. ShatteredTower: Not as an idea. I'm just unhappy with the implementation. I can live with them affecting only the caster (and familiar), but find the durations too low. Likewise, the idea that you need to learn a knew spell for each spell known does hurt a sorcerer in my estimation. However, I do feel that some forms merit the use of a higher level spell slot. I find likewise. It's incredibly difficult to portray a variety of really very classic Wizardly tales in 3.5e D&D because of this. Belgariad could turn into a Wolf for indefinite periods of time, and Ged from Earthsea as well. Schmendrick from The Last Unicorn changed shape as well. I'd glad for the lower level power from these spells because they could presage a move to justifiably balanced but significantly longer durations. No, they most certainly do not. Your character is not defined by class abilities. Your character is defined by personality traits and whatever resources are available to your character at a given moment. I agree. Moreover, the form change itself being a power of the character in question, IS a definition of who he is and what he does. I concur in regard to the observation about form testing. I don't know that it should necessitate further pigeon-holing of a sorcerer's abilities, though. The change should take place within the Sorcerer, not with the form change spells. The class has similar issues with Summon Monster spells, any limited level-effectiveness spell, and elemental energy damage spells. With the Sorcerer concept gradually moving into things like the Beguiler and the Warmage, I'd happily accept a Master Changer class that included a bevy of monoform change spells in his repertoire, with options to increase them from further publications.
WhiteknightMage 01-19-07, 08:23 AM	Anyone else notce the Wu Jen elemental mastery (Air)?:rofl:
sigma999 01-25-07, 02:49 AM	Well, I skimmed the book and mostly got snagged on the [Reserve] feats and blaster info (which, as written previously in this thread, could use some more cooks in the kitchen). The pictures were nice. Can't really remember much else about it. -_-
Nephlite 01-25-07, 02:13 PM	Eh, we might see something like this: First off, more singleform spells with a unified descriptor. Polymorph, Lesser Transmutation Level: Sor/wiz 4 When casting this spell, choose a spell from your class list with the mighty morphing descriptor of 3rd level or lower. This spell totally functions like that spell. That's right, I still reference another spell. But I do it once. And I do it cleanly. And mebbe I expand a bit with additional spells from books, but I'm close to iconic polymorph, and you ain't going to wrangle more than a 3rd level spell appropriate benefit, with the boost of being the best one for the situation. Okay, the spell description could read differently, but you get the drift. I personally love the way you wrote the spell discription.
Kursk 01-25-07, 05:54 PM	However, I was downright disturbed by some of the advice provided in the fundamentals chapter. For the most part its fairly adequate, but some of it is downright horrible. God! Most people on this board know the game better than whoever is writing this crap. Keeps reminding me why I don't shell out $ for this stuff though. I guess that's on the bright side...
bekeleven 06-04-07, 03:13 PM	the book says Divine Oracle is in complete Arcane. Guess what? it's in DIVINE.