Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alurim 10-15-07, 01:10 PM	Hi guys, I'm considering taking the arcane mastery feat from complete arcane. It allows you to take 10 on caster level checks. It sounded good at first but I wonder if there are so many instances where the feat would actually be worth it. What do you think? It's for a evoker lvl 10. thx
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-15-07, 01:29 PM	If you can find a way to boost your caster level a bit, like say by one or two, it's absolutely brilliant.
Nephlite 10-15-07, 01:29 PM	Hi guys, I'm considering taking the arcane mastery feat from complete arcane. It allows you to take 10 on caster level checks. It sounded good at first but I wonder if there are so many instances where the feat would actually be worth it. What do you think? It's for a evoker lvl 10. thx How many caster level checks do you make? If you rarely do: it becomes a waste of a feat. Dispel magic would benefit. Spell penetration I guess. Hmm. What else? Do you roll good or bad often? Taking 10 is good if you regularly roll low in important checks, but not if you regularly roll high.
rironin 10-15-07, 01:32 PM	I think most CR-appropriate creatures have SRs that hover around 10 + appropriate PC's caster level, though I'm not sure. Looking around though: babau - CR 6, SR 14 - Arcane Mastery at 6th level gives 16 balor - CR 20, SR 28 - AM at 20th level gives 30 glabrezu - CR 13, SR 21 - AM at 13th gives 23 hezrou - CR 11, SR 19 - AM at 11th gives 21 barbed devil - CR 11, SR 23 - AM gives 21 bearded devil - CR 5, SR 17 - AM gives 15 young adult black dragon - CR 9, SR 17 - AM gives 19 old blue dragon - CR 18, SR 27 - AM gives 28 Okay, so demon SR seems to be CR - 2, devils seem to be CR +2, dragons appear to vary. It looks like if you combined Arcane Mastery with any abilities or feats that boost caster level (Master Specialist, Reserve feats, etc) or with Spell Penetration, you would end up defeating SRs even against boss creatures (which often have CRs of 2 more than the party). Seems like a decent feat if you expect to go up against a ton of creatures with SR.
rironin 10-15-07, 01:36 PM	Dispel magic would benefit. Good point! Hadn't thought of that benefit. Aside from SR and dispelling, are there many other places that call for caster level checks?
Witch 10-15-07, 01:54 PM	Do you roll good or bad often? Taking 10 is good if you regularly roll low in important checks, but not if you regularly roll high. How is this relevant? Having rolled good or bad in the past, after all, does not entail rolling good or bad in the future. Relying on previous rolls to determine feat choice makes no sense.
Nephlite 10-15-07, 02:07 PM	How is this relevant? Having rolled good or bad in the past, after all, does not entail rolling good or bad in the future. Relying on previous rolls to determine feat choice makes no sense. But it implies you are likely to do similar in those situations. True, we can't count on that occuring often, but luck is a factor.
Witch 10-15-07, 02:09 PM	But it implies you are likely to do similar in those situations. How? True, we can't count on that occuring often, but luck is a factor. Luck is the joint name of all unexpected or unknown factors that contributed to a result. It is not a factor of its own.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-15-07, 02:23 PM	How? He just fails at statistics/logic. Why are you making him spell it out for you?
Gnarl 10-15-07, 03:20 PM	Hi guys, I'm considering taking the arcane mastery feat from complete arcane. It allows you to take 10 on caster level checks. It sounded good at first but I wonder if there are so many instances where the feat would actually be worth it. What do you think? It's for a evoker lvl 10. thx It mostly depends on the power level of your game. In a high powered game, most critters will have a higher CR than your level so the feat will be less useful. In our games, it's been fantastic. It also works on the caster level check to use high level scrolls. I know that using arcane mastery to cast a high summon monster spell was lots of fun at low levels. Whether it works on dispel magic or not is also debatable. Dispel magic says you attempt a 'dispel check' and not caster level check.
Jaxgaret 10-15-07, 03:28 PM	Luck is the joint name of all unexpected or unknown factors that contributed to a result. It is not a factor of its own. He just fails at statistics/logic. Why are you making him spell it out for you? While I agree with both of you in a rational, logical, general sense, as an accredited Dice Jesus I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that luck is simply random. On the issue of whether or not Arcane Mastery is a good feat: I was considering taking this for my Warmage character recently, but decided that Spell Penetration would be a better investment. My reasoning for this was thus: firstly, the Arcane Mastery feat itself effects a small downpower - the average d20 roll is 10.5, whereas this feat reduces your roll to a 10. Secondly, I realized that the monsters that Arcane Mastery would help defeating most is monsters with lower SR - in other words, weaker monsters. For the truly powerful monsters with high SRs, Spell Penetration is IMO a much better choice - I would rather be better at defeating strong monsters rather than at mopping up mooks. I would personally only take Arcane Mastery if it were judged to work with Dispels and I was playing a Counterspeller, or if I had already accrued many different methods for increasing my SR penetration (SP, GSP, perhaps some class ability to increase SR penetration) and I wanted to auto-succeed against even the toughest SR nuts to crack.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-15-07, 03:48 PM	While I agree with both of you in a rational, logical, general sense, as an accredited Dice Jesus I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that luck is simply random. But it is man. You just look luckier then your mates because you have that kind of attitude, people tend to remember your good rolls and forget your bad rolls. It's all in how you carry yourself.
Jaxgaret 10-15-07, 04:01 PM	But it is man. You just look luckier then your mates because you have that kind of attitude, people tend to remember your good rolls and forget your bad rolls. It's all in how you carry yourself. Part of it is attitude and confidence, I'm sure. But there is also the part of me that once called six dice rolls in a row, in this method: "I'm going to roll at least an 8 now. At least a 9 now. At least a 10 now. Lower than a 7 now. Lower than a 6 now. Lower than a 5 now." And got them all right. I was 'on' that day. I could just feel it. I don't have it every day, of course. I know you'll think that the above is just me posturing on the intarwebs, though, so I understand that you'll be skeptical of my claim.
Witch 10-15-07, 04:13 PM	It's sort of the exact same reason why I don't believe Uri Geller. Even though he's not just some guy from the internet.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 10-15-07, 04:17 PM	Part of it is attitude and confidence, I'm sure. But there is also the part of me that once called six dice rolls in a row, in this method: "I'm going to roll at least an 8 now. At least a 9 now. At least a 10 now. Lower than a 7 now. Lower than a 6 now. Lower than a 5 now." And got them all right. I was 'on' that day. I could just feel it. I don't have it every day, of course. I know you'll think that the above is just me posturing on the intarwebs, though, so I understand that you'll be skeptical of my claim. I've had things like that happen to me. Back when I still rolled for stats, I actually rolled three sets in a row totaling at 54 points or more. The DM finally accepted that I'd simply be playing a beast. It was a dwarven Fighter and I rolled max Hp for him every single level. I played him for a few months and reached ninth level. It was kinda scary. Even so, it was just luck. It's been a few years since then though, now I don't roll for HP, don't roll for stats and know better then to play straight fighters.
Jaxgaret 10-15-07, 06:25 PM	It's sort of the exact same reason why I don't believe Uri Geller. Even though he's not just some guy from the internet. Heck, I would be too. If I didn't do it myself I wouldn't believe it. Thankfully I have a witness of that particular instance (IRL, he doesn't post on these boards). I've had things like that happen to me. Back when I still rolled for stats, I actually rolled three sets in a row totaling at 54 points or more. But were you calling those rolls? I tend to roll high too, but that's not what I consider part of being a Dice Jesus - actually calling rolls is. It's been a few years since then though, now I don't roll for HP, don't roll for stats and know better then to play straight fighters. For fairness' and simplicity's sake, I don't roll for any stats and I take average HP as well.
rironin 10-15-07, 07:34 PM	Part of it is attitude and confidence, I'm sure. But there is also the part of me that once called six dice rolls in a row, in this method: "I'm going to roll at least an 8 now. At least a 9 now. At least a 10 now. Lower than a 7 now. Lower than a 6 now. Lower than a 5 now." And got them all right. I was 'on' that day. I could just feel it. I don't have it every day, of course. I know you'll think that the above is just me posturing on the intarwebs, though, so I understand that you'll be skeptical of my claim.I may not be as good at math as I think (so correct me if I'm wrong, everyone who is), but those calls you made weren't really that amazing, since you were calling fairly large ranges. I think the chances of doing what you did are: (12/20)(11/20)(10/20)(6/20)(5/20)(4/20) = 0.2475 % Yes, it's a small percentage, but consider the chances of calling two d20 rolls in a row ("I'm going to roll a 20! I did! Now I'm going to roll a 20 on the confirmation roll!"): (1/20)(1/20) = 0.25 % Your six-dice calling streak was really only about as unlikely as rolling two 20s in a row. Now that doesn't happen very often, but I bet everyone's seen it happen - whether they called it or not doesn't really make a difference (Anyone who's rolled two 20s when attacking obviously wanted to roll two 20s). Very lucky, yes. Deific? Not really...
Jaxgaret 10-15-07, 08:19 PM	I may not be as good at math as I think (so correct me if I'm wrong, everyone who is), but those calls you made weren't really that amazing, since you were calling fairly large ranges. I think the chances of doing what you did are: (12/20)(11/20)(10/20)(6/20)(5/20)(4/20) = 0.2475 % Yes, it's a small percentage, but consider the chances of calling two d20 rolls in a row ("I'm going to roll a 20! I did! Now I'm going to roll a 20 on the confirmation roll!"): (1/20)(1/20) = 0.25 % Your six-dice calling streak was really only about as unlikely as rolling two 20s in a row. Now that doesn't happen very often, but I bet everyone's seen it happen - whether they called it or not doesn't really make a difference (Anyone who's rolled two 20s when attacking obviously wanted to roll two 20s). Very lucky, yes. Deific? Not really... I'm sorry, I was rolling 2d6 each time, not a d20. I was playing in a Blood Bowl league at the time, this was after the game. The percentage chance of that occurring is ~ .037%, or about 1 in 2688. That's approximately equivalent to calling two nat 20s in a row and then an 18+ on the third d20 roll. I would hardly describe it as deific though. Dice Jesus is just a colloquialism.
Suspect_Unusual 10-15-07, 08:38 PM	If your DM doesn't allow you to willfully fail a caster level check, it's a useful trick to auto-fail a dispel caster check for, say, Explosive Runes...
runestar 10-15-07, 09:07 PM	It is definitely worth it, IMO. This feat basically means you will never fail a caster lv check vs sr against foes with sr = your caster lv +10 or less. You can argue that the chances of failing is quite low, but this feat turns a low chance of failure into none at all.:)
Bopple 10-15-07, 10:11 PM	In my experience, it's not all that good. 1. Taking 10 in dispel check(assuming the feat is intended for this use) means your CL must be higher than that of your opponent. OK. That's good, if you have a means to measure CL of the opponent precisely. Furthermore, if you are facing a mage with lower CL, you'd better cast offensive spells to help your allies or to control the battlefield, rather than waste a precious combatround on dispelling low-level defensive spells of the enemy mage. 2. Outsiders and dragons are the main targets. But most dm's use them as a BBEG or a lieutenant at least, rather than a minion. That means usually they have higher CR or optimized than normal. 3. With the introduction of CL boosting or SR penetrating abilities, dm's tend to increase SR by a couple, these days. If you don't happen to have one of such abilities, under that kind of dm, you are screwed. If you are in an outsider-heavy campaign, it's a must-have, I'd say. But if you don't face outsiders very often(eg. once a day), it's not worth it, in my opinion.
Alurim 10-16-07, 02:41 PM	well thx for your many replies guys the campaign is not that heavy on outsiders, it's quite subtle with a lot of mind-games and backstabbing. So far, my mage has faced demons (or devils, can't remember) only once, the rest was a variety of undead and human baddies I'm still undecided frankly, I'll talk with the DM on whether or not it'd be useful for 'things' to come :) thx
RobbyPants 10-16-07, 03:20 PM	Do you roll good or bad often? Taking 10 is good if you regularly roll low in important checks, but not if you regularly roll high. In theory that shouldn't matter, as past events have no bearing on future ones when concerning things like dice rolls. If you roll 100 1's on a d20 back to back, you still only have a 5% chance to roll a 1 on the next roll. Of course, if in practice he routinely rolls poorly/well, it would suggest that the dice or the method of rolling are not producing an even distribution on each number (i.e. loaded dice or cheating). :P
Nephlite 10-16-07, 04:08 PM	In theory that shouldn't matter, as past events have no bearing on future ones when concerning things like dice rolls. If you roll 100 1's on a d20 back to back, you still only have a 5% chance to roll a 1 on the next roll. Of course, if in practice he routinely rolls poorly/well, it would suggest that the dice or the method of rolling are not producing an even distribution on each number (i.e. loaded dice or cheating). :P True, but (I took that roll 100 test): my average is 11.24. So I roll 11 on average. I got 1, 124 /# rolls (100)=11.24
RobbyPants 10-16-07, 04:46 PM	True, but (I took that roll 100 test): my average is 11.24. So I roll 11 on average. I got 1, 124 /# rolls (100)=11.24 How many times did you take the test? :P
solbergb 10-16-07, 04:51 PM	Depends on what you fight. If you're fighting a lot of minion-type enemies, whose spellcasting levels and SR tend to be under your "take 10" it's fantastic. If you mostly fight foes that cast higher level spells than you can and when they have SR it's too high for your "take 10" it's worthless. (ditto if you NEVER seem to fight spellcasting or SR-owning enemies) You can push the limits of what is a "minion" with feats, equipment and spells that raise caster level. Clerics have the most (divine spellpower, bead of karma, purification domain, inquisition domain), bards are the best at raising other's caster levels (harmonic chorus, hymn of praise) and wizards have a few unique spells (there are some swift action L4 spells that bump caster level a bit) but everybody has some tools along these lines, including: orange ioun stone spell penetration, greater spell penetration assay resistance (clerics and sor/wiz) In general, it's best on a cleric that is already good at dispelling and/or punching through spell resistance. It makes "good at" into "a sure thing". One use that nobody has mentioned is wild magic or impeded magic zones. These require relatively easy caster checks that usually can be made with a take 10...much nicer than failing 1/3 to 1/4 of your spells.
Broken vacuum 10-17-07, 07:34 AM	In general, it's best on a cleric that is already good at dispelling and/or punching through spell resistance. It makes "good at" into "a sure thing". I was under the impression that you needed to be able to cast arcane spells or have spell-like abilities to take Arcane Mastery. Might make it a bit harder for clerics to access it.
runestar 10-17-07, 09:18 AM	I admit that it does require a little bit of metagaming knowledge to use effectively. For example, say you are facing a foe with a sr = your caster lv + 9. Thus, you need to roll 10 or better to beat it. In this case, why take the risk of rolling low, when you can take 10 using arcane mastery and remove any uncertainty from the result altogether. Alternatively, you could always opt to take 10 on your first caster lv check. If you succeed, continue to take 10 all the way, as this means that you will always succeed. If you fail (implying that you need to roll 11 or better), then opt to roll normally instead.:)
solbergb 10-17-07, 11:42 AM	I was under the impression that you needed to be able to cast arcane spells or have spell-like abilities to take Arcane Mastery. Might make it a bit harder for clerics to access it. gnome clerics? I don't remember the prereqs. But there are ways around it. There are those complete arcane feats that give minor spell-like abilities too.
Broken vacuum 10-17-07, 03:50 PM	gnome clerics? I don't remember the prereqs. But there are ways around it. There are those complete arcane feats that give minor spell-like abilities too. Well, yes there are ways around it, but for most clerics it means that it is a two feat investment and therefore rather expensive.
solbergb 10-17-07, 07:43 PM	Well yeah, but on the clerics that are going for sacred exorcist or church inquisitor or otherwise are invested in winning caster level checks, it'll do more for them than most other feats at their speciality. If the cleric isn't doing those domains/feats/PRC's/spells, they're not interested in the feat anyway. If they are, it's a better feat for them than it is for an arcanist, as the arcanist doesn't have the caster level boosting options and has no "+4 to dispel check" type options.
Broken vacuum 10-18-07, 05:56 AM	Well yeah, but on the clerics that are going for sacred exorcist or church inquisitor or otherwise are invested in winning caster level checks, it'll do more for them than most other feats at their speciality. And they may also be required to invest two feats to get it as opposed to one. Exchanging Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration for Arcane Mastery is not a given. I am not saying that it is never a good choice, but it is by no means a no-brainer. If the cleric isn't doing those domains/feats/PRC's/spells, they're not interested in the feat anyway. If they are, it's a better feat for them than it is for an arcanist, as the arcanist doesn't have the caster level boosting options and has no "+4 to dispel check" type options. As far as I know, the feat is not really applicable to dispel checks.
solbergb 10-18-07, 02:51 PM	dispel checks are one of the primary uses. Dispel check mechanic is a caster level check. If you can beat the caster level of the other guy with take 10 you strip ALL of his spells, not just half of them. You tend to get inquisitor domain AND spell mastery, or greater spell pen AND spell mastery depending on your need. If it is still an either/or situation, you tend to take the other thing, not spell mastery. First you nail down some kind of caster level advantage on a take 10. Then you make it "stick" with arcane mastery.
Broken vacuum 10-19-07, 06:16 AM	dispel checks are one of the primary uses. Dispel check mechanic is a caster level check. Dispel checks are, however, always referenced to as 'dispel checks' and never caster level checks and they do differ very slightly (you do not have caps on caster level checks). I am perfectly open to a rule that proves me wrong, but for the moment I am of the opinion that that particular use of Arcane Mastery is supported by neither intention nor formulation of the rules. It is not that it is an unreasonable rule, but I certainly do not see it as an obvious one. For myself I do not think that the feat needs the boost. You tend to get inquisitor domain AND spell mastery, or greater spell pen AND spell mastery depending on your need. If it is still an either/or situation, you tend to take the other thing, not spell mastery. Which is kind of what I have been saying. Clerics do not have that many feats to play around with. Most clerics will have to invest 4 feats into getting Arcane Mastery and Greater Spell Penetration and I have seen lots of clerics that could not really afford that.
rironin 10-19-07, 12:10 PM	I am perfectly open to a rule that proves me wrong, but for the moment I am of the opinion that that particular use of Arcane Mastery is supported by neither intention nor formulation of the rules.I tried to find some precedent, and I agree - I couldn't find anything that really nailed it down. If I had to purely guess, I would say that dispel checks were not intended to be included in the benefits for this feat. Still, it's a very tough call to make, given the definition of dispel checks. Aside from the cap, and the name (which they repeated over and over in the spell description to avoid having to say "caster level check with a cap of 10," it seems), it is what it is. I don't know which side of the fence I'd be on - would probably depend on the player, the type of game we were playing, and the intended uses for the feat.
solbergb 10-19-07, 12:17 PM	If you read it as dispel checks don't apply, the feat is much weaker and less likely to be "worth it". I see where you're coming from, looking at the actual text. I've just never seen anyone rule that way, given that the dispel mechanic IS a caster level check (d20+caster level) and the only thing different from other checks is how the target DC is calculated (11+enemy caster level instead of a fixed thing like spell resistance or 15+spell level like wild magic)
rironin 10-19-07, 04:27 PM	If you read it as dispel checks don't apply, the feat is much weaker and less likely to be "worth it". I see where you're coming from, looking at the actual text. I've just never seen anyone rule that way, given that the dispel mechanic IS a caster level check (d20+caster level) and the only thing different from other checks is how the target DC is calculated (11+enemy caster level instead of a fixed thing like spell resistance or 15+spell level like wild magic)It's true that a caster level check is d20 + caster level, but in D&D, that doesn't necessarily make it a 'caster level check'. Usually they come out and explicitly state it, such as with Initiative: "An initiative check is a Dexterity check." They didn't actually do this with dispel magic. It's splitting hairs, I know, but also consider spells like mage's sword (in the SRD, at least - in the PHB it's Mordenkainen's):Its attack bonus is equal to your caster level + your Int bonus or your Cha bonus...The above is not a caster level check, of course. It's an attack bonus, for an attack roll. But I think that if you used the definition for 'caster level check' one must use to conclude that a dispel check is a caster level check, you would also end up concluding that the attacks made by mage's sword are also caster level checks: You roll a d20. You add your caster level. You add other modifiers. In the case of mage's sword, you add your ability modifier and a +3 bonus. In the case of dispel magic, the only built-in modifier is the cap at +10, although I believe there are feats, abilities or items that give bonuses on your dispel checks - I just can't find them... anyone? This list applies to mage's sword's attack rolls just as much as to dispel checks. The name "dispel check" makes it sound a lot more like a caster level check than the name "attack roll", but that similarity is purely semantic. It could have been called "dispel roll" just as easily, and I don't think it being called a "check" means it should inherit the meaning of 'caster level check'. When you get down to it, there isn't much difference between the two; but I think everyone would agree that mage's sword isn't meant to benefit from the feat. I think that because of that ambiguity, one generally only considers a certain roll or check to belong to some other group of rolls or checks if it's explicitly stated, as with Initiative. The above argument has nothing to do with balance or making the feat too good or not good enough, of course. Never having used it, I myself have no idea :)