the high arcana i wanted was (the spell level slot it cost)
mastery of shapping (6th)
arcane reach (7th)
spell like ability:timestop (5th) and thats not counting the slot you need to make permanent
spell like ability: XXXX (5th)
mastery of elements (8th)
all that adds up to 31 levels (remember you get 45 levels for specializing) and these are all +5 level spells, i wont even touch arcane fire (9th level slot).
and most of these abilities can be duplicated with feats, extraordinary spell aim and reach spell (incantrix lowers to +1 level)
while this prc seems iconic of a high level wizard, i feel its not good at all, the cost is just to great. im thinking divine oracle is good for mi last 5 levels
Any defenders of this Prc??? that can make me see the light
[/Rant]
I feel the same way about most "gish" builds. Just be a real caster, and cast Polymorph to turn into a Hydra, or get a way to cast Divine Power. The best "gish" PrC is the Initiate of the 7fold Veils. :D
The other one I like is Spell Power. You can never have too high of a caster level, even at the expense of a 5th level spell. Even when you hit level 20, its sometimes nice to be sitting on a CL of 25 or such by the time you combine Archmage with an Orange IWIN Stone, a Ring of Arcane Might, and a couple other CL bumpers.
With the same build, I am trying to decide between adding wizard 1/fatespinner 4 (putting a level of fatespinner in early to get sleight of hand boosted for concealed spellcasting and false theurgy) or abjurant champion 5, and I just cannot decide... If the old 3rd ed feat Cosmopolitan were permitted, I'd definitely go abjurant champion.
Just letting you know.
While it is not as good as it used to be(3.0), it looks bad because you have Incantatrix which is the best arcane PrC.
Mastery of Shaping is quite good, if your party has several melee combatants.
And Extraordinary Spell Aim in real gaming is not as good as it looks on paper.
Mastery of Elements is worth it, because 3.5 Energy Substitution does not allow Sonic substitution.
While Acid is better than other energy types, it cannot compete with Sonic.
There are several similar errors in it.
The best "gish" PrC is the Initiate of the 7fold Veils.
100% agree
Divine Oracle is not bad if you have the feats to spare. How about Abjurant Champion?
divine oracle cost me 1 feat, abjurant champion is nice but aside from the concentration feat i would need another feet to get martial weapon proficiency.
if you have any levels in Master Specialist, its pretty much already paid for.
im not a huge fan of MS, but you are totaly right about SLA
The other one I like is Spell Power.
its nice but you are basicaly going to have to go witout 5th level slots
With the same build, I am trying to decide between adding wizard 1/fatespinner 4
have you considere divine oracle 5, has some handy abilities, specialy if you take spontanous divination variant
First of all, it is not wise to take all 5 lvls of Archmage. A couple is all you need.
spending 3 feats for 2 levels seems expensive, if you are already in better take as many high arcana as you can
And Extraordinary Spell Aim in real gaming is not as good as it looks on paper.
interesting can you explain????
I think I'd take, at most, 3 levels of archmage.
But yeah, many classes beat it in so many ways.
The humble Loremaster has practically no downside, and it's easier to qualify for. War Weaver is made of stealth-win. And then there are the raw power classes...
Also, loss of spell slots isn't that harsh, if your style is to use a minimal amout of slots in the first place. Also, there are relatively simple ways of gaining slots. Say, a Focused Specialist Planar Chaos Mage typically has seven, eight slots at their highest level to start with.
So there's this cool class, it's about five levels long, I'm kinda fond of it, and no one's mentioned it yet.
QFT
You have 5 levels to spare? Make everyone at your table love you, while still ruling...hard.
While most of their abilities can be duplicated (at least somewhat) with feats and/or items, you don't always have the feats and/or item slots to spare to make that happen.
That being said, I wouldn't really recommend it either except in a handful of situations, and really only as a 1-3 level dip. If you're a Sneak Attacking spellcaster, Arcane Reach adds a lot of versatility to what you can do with attack spells. With the right build, you can get >200d6 of damage out of a first level spell, which is much more effective as a ranged touch than as a touch effect. Mastery of Elements lets you switch to sonic, which is nice. And the SLA ability is trading a 5th and a 9th level slot for two 9ths.
With versatile spellcaster and/or Arcane manipulation, the spell slot cost isn't as big of a deal, just move around your slots as needed to take the spells you want that day.
I'm going to 3rd WW as an option to go for, if played correctly, it's well worth the lost CL, and it works REALLY REALLY well with an Incantatrix that knows what they are doing. I usually recommend going with only a 4 level dip in Incan for it, though, something like Wiz 5 (pick your flavor)/Incan 4/WW 5/Spellguard of Silverymoon 4/Divine Oracle 2 (or your pick, not necessarily in that order). SoS I usually try and work in sans flavor text if I can convince the DM to allow it.
seem very good if you have a a team playing party, but the 19/20 progression is bad, and the spells selection seem kinda limited, what spell are you taliking about that you can buff with???
I agree 100% and have argued as much in several threads. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to defend it, though.
Here I am.
first off it takes 3 useless feats
You and I have a different definition of useless. Generally I consider DC increases to be a good - even necessary, thing for a wizard. +1 isn't huge - but it's 5% on a saving throw - that is significant.
I agree that there is one useless feat - that any specialist wizard can get for free with a MS dip.
Heck, my current wizard would have had all the requirements even if I didn't intend to go Archmage (Spell focus Conjuration got me Augment Summoning, Spell Focus Abjuration was required for IotSV, Skill Focus was gained with a MS dip) (current wizard is a Wiz (conjurer) 3/MS 2/Malconvoker 5/IotSV 5)
the high arcana i wanted was (the spell level slot it cost)
mastery of shapping (6th)
arcane reach (7th)
spell like ability:timestop (5th) and thats not counting the slot you need to make permanent
spell like ability: XXXX (5th)
mastery of elements (8th)
all that adds up to 31 levels (remember you get 45 levels for specializing) and these are all +5 level spells, i wont even touch arcane fire (9th level slot).
Assuming the other spell like ability is also a 9th level slot - in exchange for 31 levels of spells (and you can give up those specialization slots which is nice for Focused Specialists out there) - you in turn have gained 36 levels in spells from those 2 high arcana abilities alone (if you really track spells by level totals) - so you are ahead 5 spell levels overall. So with those two choices alone you have more than paid for all 5 levels of Archmage...
You are right to ignore arcane fire though - it blows.
Generally, I think your choices for High Arcana are good ones - I would recommend shapechange as the other spell like ability.
and most of these abilities can be duplicated with feats, extraordinary spell aim and reach spell (incantrix lowers to +1 level)
Except then you need to take the feats (more than you think), Incantatrix, and even then you are using a spell level higher for the effect, and it's not spontaneous.
Archmage gives spontaneous use, no level increase, and requires no feat. That's alot better.
In order to duplicate the high arcana you had above you would need:
Silent spell (spell like abilities have no verbal component)
Still spell (spell like abilities have no somantic component)
Reach Spell
Extraordinary spell aim
shape spell
Energy affinity (fire)
Energy affinity (cold)
Energy affinity (electricity)
Energy affinity (acid)
Unfortunately there is no energy affinity sonic,so that can't be duplicated. (And its better than the other 4 combined - sonic resistances are extremely rare)
So if you took all those feats, you would almost be able to simulate the high arcana of 5 levels of Archmage, if you don't mind the level adjustments for metamagic, and you had all those extra feat slots, and you don't mind giving up the spontaneous use.
So, I guess I'm saying that I disagree with your original statement :D
But its just that i'm of the opinion "take my feats but don't touch my spell slots!!!!", the main point i was triying to make is that i think charging people spell slots to be able to be able to use any of the class features when they are already paying 3 not so useful feats seems excessive for a class that can be considered the staple of a high level wizard, when there are classes like IotSFV or incantatrix or even MS to a lesse degree.
but it's 5% on a saving throw - that is significant.
i dont whink 5% is significant, spell focus seems useless like alot of the PHB feats, i would at leats have it be a +2 to even consider
I agree that there is one useless feat - that any specialist wizard can get for free with a MS dip.
i really dislike MS dips, both from a RP and CharOp perspective, if im going to go MS i at the least whant 7 levels if not the 10, taking MS for just 2 levels looks very ugly in a build IMO, more so if you get into it early and miss out of the 5th level variants.
But to me in my build it makes more practical sense not to take archmage, taking a class like divine oracle frees up 1 more feat (and thats including taking the 2 faux-archmage feats) that i can get craft wondrous items with, not to mention if i went ArchMage most of my low level feats would have to go to archmage prereqs since all my high level feats are already spoken for, and since im starting at 1st level its a case of having feats now or havign archmage way later, and since if you die now you never make it to later.......
(plus my spell slots remain untouched:D )
But its just that i'm of the opinion "take my feats but don't touch my spell slots!!!!"
I hear you there. However, as I pointed out in my original response, the extra castings you gain through spell like ability can "patch" those losses. Also, since Archmage is an exclusively high level PC - you are losing spell slots at a point in time when you have a lot more spellcastings.
I notice you took Incantatrix in your build. Incantatrix is often considered the best PrC in the game - but because of the lost spell school - it is generally recommended that Focused Specialist leaves you too narrow in spell selection.
With a certain point of view, that itself can cost you one spell slot per level. Is losing the extra spellcastings of Focused Specialist worth it to take Incantatrix?
When a PrC takes spell slots, spell schools, or feats away from your build that always hurts - but a cost/benifit analysis is only fair. If Archmage gives more than it takes, in addition to full spellcaster progression, then how can it be a poor PrC? You can not define it based on what it takes alone - by those standards the alienist is a better PrC than the Incantatrix...:P
i dont whink 5% is significant, spell focus seems useless like alot of the PHB feats, i would at leats have it be a +2 to even consider
I would not call Spell Focus a stellar feat, however, those 5%'s do add up. In our current group there is a Beguiler, and he has gotten around the intristic disadvantage of having a spell list that almost exclusively targets Willpower by boosting his DC in every way imaginable.
The end result is quite impressive, as most creatures that even have primary Will saves have difficulty saving against his spells.
Spell Focus (and greater spell focus) were building blocks for that final result. Unimpressive on their own, but an essential part of the whole.
One of the main criticisms you see of the 3.5 Archmage is that Spell Power is a boost to caster level, when in 3.0 it was a boost to DC. It is not mysterious to see why the latter was considered the more valuable.
That said - lets be clear that I don't consider Spell Focus to be a top tier feat. However, I do consider it to be OK. (except for spell focus: Abjuration. A feat that is only taken for PrC qualification)
But to me in my build it makes more practical sense not to take archmage
I'm not disagreeing with you. Archmage isn't a no-brainer for all wizards, as it is simply not a great fit for all builds.
However, that doesn't make Archmage a bad PrC. Incantatrix also isn't right for all builds, but it doesn't make Incantatrix a bad PrC either.
Anyways - as it happens I also like Divine Oracle...pick up spontaneous divination at level 5 for some nice synergy. (I will point out ironically that you will essentially be getting the equivalent of Spell Focus: Divination with this PrC).
However, unfortunately - the premeire ability requires 10 levels (immunity to surprise). Qualification is easy though - and there are some OK goodies in there anyways (Uncanny dodge isn't so hot considering you will already be immune to flanking/sneak attack by that level with Elemental body. Evasion is pretty good though, and the divination bonuses are OK)
If you are looking for optimization and not keen on Archmage - 4 levels of Fatespinner is easy to get with some yummy stuff (Skip level 5). If you want that divine feel - Sacred Exorcist is a decent choice as well. Abjurant Champion is a 5 level PrC that has no downside at all - better HP/BAB/full casting, and best of all - free quickened abjuration spells.
Whisper Gnome Illusionist 5/Incanatrix 3/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Incantatrix 7.
Another thing to consider is that incantatrix also saves you spell slots, if you use your abilities to persist a spell you would use every encounter, you are saving slots by only casting it once.
Im totally in love with the spontaneous divination+versatile spellcaster combo and wonder how well it will mix with Focused Specialist. But i think is it worth it to trade for example 2 5th level slots for a 6th level spell???, i can see this working as a school focused wizard when im only casting spells from outside my school some off the time but im trying to play a sorta generalist and -1 generalist slot kinda hurts a bit even if you get +2 school slots.
so if i was gonna go focused specialist i would totally have to drop incantrix and i really want to play a incantatrix and 4 schools is just to much. But maybe illusion since im already taking craft contingency do you think i can get away with that??? or divination focused specialist :P
Whisper Gnome Illusionist 5/Incanatrix 3/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Incantatrix 7.
I never got why everyone always immediately jumps to Whisper Gnome with ScM builds...Sure, Whisper Gnomes are better than their vanillia relatives 9/10 times, but this is the one where regular Gnomes strike back. If you look closely, Whisper Gnomes lose their bretherens +1 save DC to all Illusions. Since save boosters are hard to come by, this +1 untyped bonus is golden. That alone is worth trading slightly better stat modifiers and 10' of land speed.
1- Improved Initiative, (?)
3- Extend Spell
6- Leadership
9- (?)
12- Quicken Spell
15- (?)
Looks like either Spell Penetration of Spell Focus is going in once the essential Improved Init, Leadership, Extend, and Quicken are placed. Now I'm no doubter of the usefulness of Spell Penetration, especially Core-only, but it seems to me that one could get some decent mileage out of Spell Focus (Conjuration) and Grease/Glitterdust/Stinking Cloud. There are some uses for the second Spell Focus too, Illusion for that Major Image or Enchantment for the Suggestions, Charms, and Dominates.
That done, hey, maybe Improved Counterspell / Mastery of Counterspelling would be fun... and I'd certainly be willing to trade a 5th and a 9th slot for two Time Stops per day as a SLA.
With more sources, depending on which exactly were allowed, I agree. Archmage is often not worth it.
Eh, if you have any levels in Master Specialist, its pretty much already paid for.
This
same thing if you go innate of the seven fold veils.
Also archmage is nice for a chain dispelling/counterspelling expert.
But most of the time it isn't worth the extra feats.
------
Also don't forget the spells you are sacrificing can be of any type as long as they meet the spell level and it is arcane. Thus you can give up one of your focused specialist slots, instead of one of your general slots, thus not decreasing flexibility.
For things such as Shapechange or Timestop it is well worth it.
I never got why everyone always immediately jumps to Whisper Gnome with ScM builds...Sure, Whisper Gnomes are better than their vanillia relatives 9/10 times, but this is the one where regular Gnomes strike back. If you look closely, Whisper Gnomes lose their bretherens +1 save DC to all Illusions. Since save boosters are hard to come by, this +1 untyped bonus is golden. That alone is worth trading slightly better stat modifiers and 10' of land speed.
I think it's because in many cases, the [Shadow] spells actually become 'more real' should the target succeed on their disbelief roll. If they believe the illusion of the effective 12th level SMIX, it's got normal hitpoints and does normal damage, if they don't it has 180% hitpoints and does 1.8x damage. You want them to disbelieve, so that they see the very real shadow monster behind the mask.
I think it's because in many cases, the [Shadow] spells actually become 'more real' should the target succeed on their disbelief roll. If they believe the illusion of the effective 12th level SMIX, it's got normal hitpoints and does normal damage, if they don't it has 180% hitpoints and does 1.8x damage. You want them to disbelieve, so that they see the very real shadow monster behind the mask.
This assumes that a) you're willing to be king of Cheese Mountain and b) your DM is somewhat gullible and not-to-be-trusted with sharp or stabby objects.
I have read the many and tortured arguments in favor of >100% effectiveness to shadowed evocations only when your opponent makes his save, and I have to admit, they require you to both twist and abandon logic in the same theory. If quasi-reality is separate-but-equal to reality from an efficacy point of view, then 140% quasi-reality has a 140% effect regardless of whether your target saves. The saving throw only impacts the component of the spell that isn't (quasi) real. There is no save vs. freight train. No matter how much you believe the train isn't real, it still has the exact same effect on your flesh. Unless you're Neo... and you're not.
I sentence you to a semester in Remedial Theoretical Made-Up-Stuff 101.
It's no more nonsensical than the other 10,000 impossible things that magic allows you to do. Nor is it any more convoluted than the 1,000s of other TO/CO things we recommend on a daily basis.
Even if you ignore the rule and go with all [Shadow] spells having more than 100% regardless of saves, then the save doesn't matter either, and the original argument is moot, since the save is immaterial to the effectiveness of the spell.
You don't make your save, and see reality, it's a colossal paragon pseudonatural winged mind flayer.
you make your save and it's Cthulhu.
Immolate, think of it this way:
You don't make your save, and see reality, it's a colossal paragon pseudonatural winged mind flayer.
you make your save and it's Cthulhu.
TruST US itS CerTAINLY HIM EITTtthennrrr waay!!
You're casting a fifth-level spell using a fifth-level spell slot. Sounds balanced doesn't it? DM's tend to sign off on stuff that sounds basically reasonable. Few people can really appreciate just how powerful the ability to make a lot of your spell slots spontaneous really is. Throw out the Vancian limits, the need to learn the spells or write them in your book. But it's a subtle power, and DM's aren't as turned off by subtle powers, even when they're quite game-altering.
I don't believe many worthwhile DM's will allow >100% effectiveness on shadow magic. That they can understand easily. So your fake shadowy magic stuff is more real than the actual thing? Nah, I don't think so. That would make you significantly more powerful than other wizards your level and hey, didn't you ban evocation? I think a character concept audit is in order Mister K. Gnome.
If a GM lets it in, and the player has explained it in detail, maybe with some solid baseline comparisons, what more can a guy do?
:D
If you don't like the rules, noone's saying you have to play under them, Immolate.
I've run campaigns where I certainly wouldn't allow such hoojoo to fly. But I've also run campaigns where I've said to my characters something along the lines of, "bring anything even remotely playable to the table, you'll be going up against stuff twice your CR." I've also said, "play whatever interests you, but try and balance it amongst the group, I'll adjust my mobs/tactics to your power level." That doesn't make me, or anyone else that chooses to allow it a poor DM.
It's almost impossible not to get over 100% effectiveness at some point with an SCM build. Even without ANY cheese whatsoever beyond the 5 levels in the PrC, you'll be hitting 110% with a 9th level slot. If you take any feats, or other PrC's that synergize, you'll be over 150% on those 9ths without realizing it.
Last off-topic post in this thread from me, I swear
I've long since learned to never make this promise.
If you don't like the rules, noone's saying you have to play under them, Immolate.
I couldn't agree more. Of course we must all draw the line somewhere. Pun Pun is perfectly legal by the rules - but there is a general consensus that infinite loops destroy your game.
However, then we get into other forms of Theoretical optimization. Your next paragraph said it well - "Bring anything remotely playable to the table..." - This of course allows anything that doesn't exploit infinite loops. Nanobot using effigy masters abound...
This is the difference of course between TO and PO. PO is geared towards stuff that pretty much all campaigns would allow, while TO is largely just to see what you can do with the rules. In other words, for many of us (I think most, though that would be a guess), TO is a thought-exercise only, while PO is what we bring to the gaming table.
Although clearly some DM's say exactly what you said above (and I know this is anecdotal) - in 28 years of playing D&D - I have never heard a DM say that in a game I've played in. Whether it was disallowing Ninja's in 1e (Saving throw vs. damage - yeah!) - right to disallowing Persistant Draconic Polymorphs and Polymorph any Object in 3.5, my DM's have always drawn the line a bit closer.
It's almost impossible not to get over 100% effectiveness at some point with an SCM build. Even without ANY cheese whatsoever beyond the 5 levels in the PrC
So these are the two sentences that got me involved (reluctantly).
I think this largely depends how you define cheese - but personally, I would define it as using tricks that the game designers likely never intended or foresaw to make something more powerful than it was intended to be.
Sound about right?
Then using Heightened Spell with Silent Image to circumvent the limitation on level that would otherwise exist is certainly cheese.
I think the evidence is stacked upon the designers never considering heightened spell when designing this ability.
If the game designers intended the use of Heightened Spell - I think it almost certainly would have been mentioned in the PrC description. Furthermore, they would not have wasted Ink on providing Minor, Major, Persistant, and Programmed Image as options for Shadow Illusion since they are entirely pointless if you are just heightening silent image.
and nobody better say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - because, yeah, it is.
So I really don't know how you would get over 100% without cheese. I would think it would go:
Silent Image: 10% (30% after Powerful Shadow Magic)
Minor Image: 20% (to 40%)
Major Image: 30% (to 50%)
Persistant Image: 50% (to 70%)
Programmed Image: 60% (to 80%)
Duplicating a maximum spell level of 5th using Programmed Image.
Shades itself would be 100% real after powerful shadow magic - but this would be the apex, and a 9th level spell to duplicate 8th level or lower.
Is this not how the PrC was intended to work? If so, then isn't finding a trick to circumvent these limitations cheese?
I promise this is the last time playing devil's advocate on this thread
I guess my point is this:
If you don't like the rules, noone's saying you have to play under them
Does anyone play under the rules completely? We all "fix" the rules to some degree - what that degree is varies from table to table - and to my knowledge there is no "standard" place to draw the line...so your statement applies just as much to you as your intended target...
[...]
I think this largely depends how you define cheese - but personally, I would define it as using tricks that the game designers likely never intended or foresaw to make something more powerful than it was intended to be.
Sound about right?
Then using Heightened Spell with Silent Image to circumvent the limitation on level that would otherwise exist is certainly cheese.
[...]
As you know, I hold you in very high respect. I'm not advocating RAW legalism. I just wonder how far things go with that definition of cheese. Is a pejorative subcategory really valid if it encompasses the vast majority of what whole classes and archetypes revolve around?
Not to pull a reducto ad absurdum, but by this logic, wither whence the main line caster at all? Surely they couldn't have intended the power curves for wizards and fighters to be so different......
I have a shadowcraft mage in one of my games right now, and other than a couple of wild saves where the player pulled the party out of the line of fire, it's been relatively unremarkable in a lot of respects. I have a gentleperson's agreement with her that if she doesn't start casting maw of chaos using slot emulation tricks, I won't start casting maw of chaos.
As you know, I hold you in very high respect.
I know that, and I don't see civil debate as a form of disrespect. Disrespect would involve ignoring my posts as irrelavent. Pointing out disagreement is in fact evidence of respect IMO.
If I thought everyone would just ignore my posts...I wouldn't make them. ;)
I just wonder how far things go with that definition of cheese.
Well - although I suppose the wording could be interpreted different ways - I guess it comes down to 2 criteria if you break it down:
1) Requires a "trick" the game designers didn't intend or foresee
2) The trick makes the character more powerful than it was intended
Obviously, in order for criteria 2 to be met, criteria 1 must be met first, otherwise, there is no "trick" to measure the power of.
Not to pull a reducto ad absurdum, but by this logic, wither whence the main line caster at all? Surely they couldn't have intended the power curves for wizards and fighters to be so different......
So basically you are saying that since the power curve between casters/non casters is likely larger than the designers intended (which I expect it is) - then casters would fit my definition of "cheese"
However - I would point out that playing a caster does not require a "trick" that the game designers didn't intend or foresee. Criteria "1" is not met - and therefore criteria "2" has nothing to be measured against. Therefore, my definition of "cheese" does not apply.
For example: Evard's black tentacles is a very powerful spell. The designers perhaps did not foresee how powerful it really was. However, criteria "1" is not met. Evard's works exactly how the designers intended - it just happens to be really, really effective.
Next example: Using 2H power attack with heedless charge and leap atttack (with maybe some FB for fun). Did the designers expect this lethal combo which makes charging builds the almost exclusive optimized melee build? Probably not. Criteria 1 is met. Does the trick make the Shock Trooper feat more powerful than the designers intended? I would expect the 90%+ take rate of this feat for optimized meleers would make a big "yes". Therefore, by my definition, using leap attack in conjunction with 2H power attack and heedless charge is "cheesy".
No DM I've played with in 3.5 has prohibited this combo (because, as you mention, non-spellcasters already have some ground to make up). However, that just happens to be where we draw the line. I think it's well aknowledged in our group though that this tactic is "cheesy", especially since pretty much every fighter-type in our group has used it for the last several campaigns...
Of course - this definition of "cheese" was pulled out of my butt in the moment, and certainly not tested - but can you find a case of something that fits the criteria, but would not be considered "cheesy" by somewhat modest standards?
I've long since learned to never make this promise.
okay, you got me...once more into the breach.
Although clearly some DM's say exactly what you said above (and I know this is anecdotal) - in 28 years of playing D&D - I have never heard a DM say that in a game I've played in. Whether it was disallowing Ninja's in 1e (Saving throw vs. damage - yeah!) - right to disallowing Persistant Draconic Polymorphs and Polymorph any Object in 3.5, my DM's have always drawn the line a bit closer.
Most of my DM's have a lot more inter-game experience, both as players and GMs, than I think is 'the norm'. After you've ran/played the insanity that is Rifts, MERP, Exalted, and/or Mage it's a lot easier to accept some insanity in DnD. Under one DM, a fellow player once played (though initially unwillingly) a plant...Not a plant creature mind you, a completely immovable and otherwise inert plant, all he could do is detect the presence or absence of light. It get's weird, quite often, so we're generally a lot less rigid on balance issues.
So these are the two sentences that got me involved (reluctantly).
I think this largely depends how you define cheese - but personally, I would define it as using tricks that the game designers likely never intended or foresaw to make something more powerful than it was intended to be.
To me, 'Cheese' is anything that when played to it's fullness makes the trivial under normal circumstances.
Then using Heightened Spell with Silent Image to circumvent the limitation on level that would otherwise exist is certainly cheese.
I don't, personally, consider that cheese. That's basic bottom of the barrel min-maxing. Cheese is when you combine it with Enhanced Shadow Reality and Shadowcaster levels, and Earth Spell, and Sanctum Spell, etc ad nauseum. Using any one of those tricks could get you over 100% without being, to me, cheesey. But that's all opinion, muddied by the waters of my experiences/personality/preferences.
Does anyone play under the rules completely? We all "fix" the rules to some degree - what that degree is varies from table to table - and to my knowledge there is no "standard" place to draw the line...so your statement applies just as much to you as your intended target...
I agree. I draw the line in my own games differently than any other DM I play for. I even draw it differently from campaign to campaign.
Not to pull a reducto ad absurdum, but by this logic, wither whence the main line caster at all? Surely they couldn't have intended the power curves for wizards and fighters to be so different......
Not to get even further off topic, but I am of the opinion that they absolutely intended for wizards/casters to be more powerful than fighters. If not consciously, then at least subconsciously.
Historically, the people that design DnD are the nerdy bookworms of the world (Yes, I am aware of how much of a gross over simplification that is, but go with me). In every edition of DnD (at least that I've played), the smart and saavy classes have always been more powerful (especially in the end game) than the BSF's of the world. It's always amused me that the 'Jocks' of the game, tend to be the easiest to play and tend to dominate early on, but suck later, while the 'nerds' of the game, tend to have difficulties early on, but own the world later.
I have a gentleperson's agreement with her that if she doesn't start casting maw of chaos using slot emulation tricks, I won't start casting maw of chaos.
I use that kind of rule all the time. My standing Rule 0 is, beware how far you try and take your character's power, for anything you find that's possible, I can do myself with 10 NPC's. I always check myself as a player the same way.
Sure I technically 'could' make 100s of 1000s of gold a day casting wall of salt, but that just means someone bigger is going to come a long and steal it if I try.
Well - although I suppose the wording could be interpreted different ways - I guess it comes down to 2 criteria if you break it down:
1) Requires a "trick" the game designers didn't intend or foresee
2) The trick makes the character more powerful than it was intended
Obviously, in order for criteria 2 to be met, criteria 1 must be met first, otherwise, there is no "trick" to measure the power of.
I still think that is too broad of a definition. Doing the math and figuring out that your group does more damage by casting haste in one round than you could get out of a Fireball spell isn't cheese regardless of whether or not the designers intended or forsaw that spell doing that much damage.
For example: Evard's black tentacles is a very powerful spell. The designers perhaps did not foresee how powerful it really was. However, criteria "1" is not met. Evard's works exactly how the designers intended - it just happens to be really, really effective.
Oops, I guess I should have read further down before typing. I do think you are making an assumption of intent on the part of the designers here, though.
The guy that designed Evard's may not be the same guy that designed grappling rules. He may not have even known or really understood them. He may not have therefore recognized, much less intended, the spell to work the way it does.
(that is just as much an assumption on my part, mind you)
Next example: Using 2H power attack with heedless charge and leap atttack (with maybe some FB for fun). Did the designers expect this lethal combo which makes charging builds the almost exclusive optimized melee build? Probably not. Criteria 1 is met. Does the trick make the Shock Trooper feat more powerful than the designers intended? I would expect the 90%+ take rate of this feat for optimized meleers would make a big "yes". Therefore, by my definition, using leap attack in conjunction with 2H power attack and heedless charge is "cheesy".
Combine it with Battle Jump, a Lance (with all the charge/crit modifiers), and Exemplar 'diplomancy', and I'd say it's cheesy. Until then, you're just killing folks that don't know how/can't stop you.
Of course - this definition of "cheese" was pulled out of my butt in the moment, and certainly not tested - but can you find a case of something that fits the criteria, but would not be considered "cheesy" by somewhat modest standards?
Maybe my standards are not modest. I tend to play under fast and loose DM's, and I tend to 'hand craft' my encounters to match the abilities of my players and their PC's, but I think your definition is too strict.
To me, cheese is when you intentionally read the rules with your eyes half-open to stretch the factual text to allow you to do something you want to do rather than something you need to do. It's a representation of intent on the part of the player (or person designing the build) to do as much as is possible within a very liberal reading of the rules. It's not finding a loophole and exploiting it, it's finding every loophole that applies and stringing them all together in such a way that it costs you effectively nothing to do it that way.
I know that, and I don't see civil debate as a form of disrespect. Disrespect would involve ignoring my posts as irrelavent. Pointing out disagreement is in fact evidence of respect IMO.
I just like to make sure.
I'm actually really delighted to be having a reasoned debate about this. Should we take it to its own thread?
I k
Well - although I suppose the wording could be interpreted different ways - I guess it comes down to 2 criteria if you break it down:
1) Requires a "trick" the game designers didn't intend or foresee
2) The trick makes the character more powerful than it was intended
If you are speaking of criteria, you are not actually making a definition, but creating a Standard by which one can measure if cheese exists. Unfortunately, we cannot know what the game designers intended or foresaw. In addition, criteria #2 simply repeats criteria #1 (assuming the "intended" refers, again, to the intentionality of design team). In fact, the entire Standard by which cheese is measured is in comparison to the intentions and foresight of the design team -- which is to say that a definition of cheese is "Use of a method by which a character outperforms the intentions and foresight of the design team." Such a definition of cheese is hardly pejorative, but has the further issue of being a subjective comparison based on an unmeasurable Standard that has no real bearing in function.
If the definition is going to be subjective, it should at least be subjective on a variable that matters, like the roleplaying group -- those most likely to be affected by and to identify the cheese. Cheese, therefore, is relative to the roleplaying group, rather than some unknown "Standard of the Game Designers' Intentions and Foresight".
The exasperation of the other players might then be an indicator of the cheese in a particular character. (Importantly, this is a median of the players' exasperation, as there is usually someone who insists on playing a samurai/aristocrat who will be exasperated by any functional character. See also "Totem Pole Theory", there is always someone at the bottom.) Low levels of cheese are almost undetectable, but high levels are cause of much more exasperation than a linear trend might indicate. In addition, the tendency of a player to advertise his cheese and to have his or her character step into another character's role, or munchkinism, plays another large role in the measurement of the other players' exasperation. As a working formula, relative cheese can be measured in the formula exasperation equals munchkinism times cheese^2, or E=MC^2. This is the General Theory of Relativistic Cheese.
okay, you got me...
You could have responded that OBVIOUSLY you were being sarcastic... ;)
Most of my DM's have a lot more inter-game experience, both as players and GMs, than I think is 'the norm'. After you've ran/played the insanity that is Rifts, MERP, Exalted, and/or Mage it's a lot easier to accept some insanity in DnD
It's got to be more than that - I've played all of the above plus many, many more - and yeah, those that the insanity was just too ridiculous (of the ones you mentioned - Rifts and Mage definitely! Rifts of course is famous for throwing any kind of illusion of balance out the window - and in Mage of course you can do pretty much anything...oh - but it's all about the story :P ) we dropped.
Ones where the insanity was an easy fix (Like a tweak of the initiative system in Twighlight 2000 2e for example - or that alien invasion game that used the same mechanics - the name escapes me. Or simply banning cybernetics in Alternity.) we made those fixes to continue playability without forcing certain character choices on everyone to be viable.
MERP I didn't find insane from an optimization point of view - as all characters had low life expectancy with that crazy critical hit system.
Anyways - my point is that playing other game systems hasn't really moved the bar for us.
To me, 'Cheese' is anything that when played to it's fullness makes the trivial under normal circumstances
OK - I feel stupid - but I need you to explain what this means.
I agree. I draw the line in my own games differently than any other DM I play for. I even draw it differently from campaign to campaign.
Then we agree on my main point.
Dr_Rocktopus
Should we take it to its own thread?
It doesn't matter to me - I think the initial question has been resolved...so we're derailing what I think is a dead thread...
OfficeRonin
If you are speaking of criteria, you are not actually making a definition, but creating a Standard by which one can measure if cheese exists.
True.
Unfortunately, we cannot know what the game designers intended or foresaw
I knew someone would say this. All I can say in response is that you are correct - but sometimes we have a pretty good idea...
Cheese, therefore, is relative to the roleplaying group, rather than some unknown "Standard of the Game Designers' Intentions and Foresight".
Or the roleplaying groups opinions on the game designers intentions...
In other words - if my DM doesn't think that the designers intended for heightened spell to be used with Silent Image with regards to Shadowcraft Mages - then he calls it cheese.
So, in that regards, the game designers actual intentions aren't really needed - only what is believed to be their intentions by given DM.
Of course, that means that what is "cheese" would vary from person to person - which we know it does anyways.
As a working formula, relative cheese can be measured in the formula exasperation equals munchkinism times cheese^2
OK! OK! - I'll stop trying to define cheese!!!! (Other than it is tasty on just about everything. What is that? Chocolate tastes great - but I wouldn't want it on my potatoes, or melted on top of a chicken breast - but cheese? MMMMMMMMMM...)I knew someone would say this. All I can say in response is that you are correct - but sometimes we have a pretty good idea...
In other limited cases, we cannot even conceive of what they were thinking without going completely insane, brains dripping out our ears as the color from out of space fills our eyes.
I'm prepared to side with you on this one. The intent of the designers may be impossible to divine. That is, in my mind, irrelevant. What matters is the needs of the players and the judgment of the gamemaster about how the game should be shaped. The simple fact of the matter is that not all campaign worlds place the same demands on players.
When introduced to the shadowcraft mage, my players were trapped in the smoking ruins of Neverwinter after a world-shattering mummy invasion and a planar overlay to boot. I think, in that situation, some spare big guns lying around are totally fine.
I knew someone would say this. All I can say in response is that you are correct - but sometimes we have a pretty good idea...
I thought you would know, and was thinking you were baiting a trap -- I just wanted to see the trap work!
I guess I never cared what the designers had in mind. By the time I have consumed enough alcohol to bring myself intellectually in-line with the people who have recently created 4th Ed, my thoughts inevitably stray from the mysteries of D+D and toward the mystery of "what's under that skirt?" :P My feeling is, once I bought the book, the game became mine. If the game I am running is no good, it's my fault -- whether I follow some vision of the game designers' intentions or not. That's the "responsibility" parallel to the power of rule 0.
One part of the E=MC^2 that bears mention is the "M". If you are not stepping on other people's toes, and not being too vocal about your power, even an otherwise "cheesey" build will cause minimal exasparation. If your incantatrix is buffing up the BSF, and helping the cleric buff, there is minimal "E". A druid who summons a bunch of unicorns to heal while still doing his D-zilla thing is not all that cheesey, but has a high "M" value, leading to exasperation on the part of the cleric. I was thinking about that in a possible incantatrix/malconvoker build where the malconvoker would persist and buff high level summons. While certainly having a high "C" value, that would also be replacing the melee-types, and yield a high "M" value, and, therefore, a very high "E" value.
In any case, I am glad you liked my formula!
I was thinking about that in a possible incantatrix/malconvoker build where the malconvoker would persist and buff high level summons.
Persisting a 1 round/level summons (x2 for being a Malconvoker) probably not a great idea. (Since the summons itself is not persistable)
In addition - you WANT your summons to have low AC and appear easy targets to the enemy. Every attack on a summoned creature is win for me and my group.
You could persist and buff a Planar binded creature - but really - since they don't benifit from Infernal Fury or Augment Summoning - they are more about the SLA's anyways.
Sorry - you said the "M" word.
Am I derailing the derailment of this thread? :D
pithica
okay, you got me...
You could have responded that OBVIOUSLY you were being sarcastic... ;)
Wow, I didn't realize how long my response was. That'll teach me.
It's got to be more than that - I've played all of the above plus many, many more - and yeah, those that the insanity was just too ridiculous (of the ones you mentioned - Rifts and Mage definitely! Rifts of course is famous for throwing any kind of illusion of balance out the window - and in Mage of course you can do pretty much anything...oh - but it's all about the story :P ) we dropped.
That was partially intended to be tongue and cheek. I'm sure lots of groups played Mage very 'normally', my friends always ended up mauraders. That's probably just a personality thing.
OK - I feel stupid - but I need you to explain what this means.
I would if I could. I wrote the first half of that sentence about an hour before the 2nd half, and didn't have the patience to go back and double-check what I was trying to say.
I think I was trying to say that a trick doesn't become cheesy, to me, until every other trick that works (and I hate this word) 'synergisticly' with that trick is also employed AND until that trivializes the content the DM is putting before the group (and/or the contribution(s) of the other party members).
Then we agree on my main point.
I wasn't really debating, at least, I wasn't trying to.
Chocolate tastes really good on french fries. I've also used bitter chocolate as part of a dry rub for barbecue.
Thou shall not disparage chocolate's infinite powers. This is the 6th commandment.
I think I was trying to say that a trick doesn't become cheesy, to me, until every other trick that works (and I hate this word) 'synergisticly' with that trick is also employed AND until that trivializes the content the DM is putting before the group (and/or the contribution(s) of the other party members).
On the other side, a perfectly normal EBT, when it becomes available at level 7, will trivialize many many EL7-10 encounters, especially multiple foe encounters. Its just one spell, no combo, not unforseen circumstances, nothing but what is written on the page. Yet its pretty much an autolose vs anything medium sized or smaller that doesn't have maxed out ranks in Escape Artist. Even most large creatures will fail regularly enough to make the spell castworth against them. I'm just saying, just because it trivializes a vast number of encounters, does that make it cheesy?
Chocolate tastes really good on french fries. I've also used bitter chocolate as part of a dry rub for barbecue.
Thou shall not disparage chocolate's infinite powers. This is the 6th commandment.
Ah, but would you put cheese on ice cream? It is there that chocolate is king!
On the other side, a perfectly normal EBT, when it becomes available at level 7, will trivialize many many EL7-10 encounters, especially multiple foe encounters. Its just one spell, no combo, not unforseen circumstances, nothing but what is written on the page. Yet its pretty much an autolose vs anything medium sized or smaller that doesn't have maxed out ranks in Escape Artist. Even most large creatures will fail regularly enough to make the spell castworth against them. I'm just saying, just because it trivializes a vast number of encounters, does that make it cheesy?
Only if you used it every fight. I think.
Hell, at this point, I don't even know what my own opinion is any more.
Ah, but would you put cheese on ice cream? It is there that chocolate is king!
Cheesecake Icecream is the bomb, so I would.
Ah, but would you put cheese on ice cream? It is there that chocolate is king!
I would put ice cream on cheesecake
Of course, I would also put chocolate on cheesecake - or simply have chocolate cheesecake.
Chocolate tastes really good on french fries.
However, I would prefer Poutine (Cheese curds and gravy on fries - or a heart attack in a bowl)
Spell Focus seemed meh until I made a Conjurer and realized most my offensive spells were Conjurations. I took SF: Conj when I hit 9 last session and the extra 1 DC may matter.
However, I would prefer Poutine (Cheese curds and gravy on fries - or a heart attack in a bowl)
Why not the California treat... Carne Asada Nacho Fries!
http://mattbites.com/2009/04/20/carne-asada-fries-bong-not-included/
Next you're going to say that chocolate and chilli doesn't go together.
:P
High lv SCMs are even more fun if you use the recharge magic variant. Miracle every 2-7 rounds? Yes please. :D
Well, it is not a wise decision to allow Shadow Evocation to copy divine evocation spells, though there are certain ways to circumvent arcane/divine barrier in splatbooks.
Moreover, Shadow Evocation is probably meant for the evocation spells in Sor/Wiz spell list only, not every single evocation spell of every single mage in the world.
Well, it is not a wise decision to allow Shadow Evocation to copy divine evocation spells, though there are certain ways to circumvent arcane/divine barrier in splatbooks.
Moreover, Shadow Evocation is probably meant for the evocation spells in Sor/Wiz spell list only, not every single evocation spell of every single mage in the world.
It is limited to Sor/Wiz. The Shadow Miracle trick he's referencing involves putting Miracle into your Wizard class list. (Debatable whether it works, though.)
Why not the California treat... Carne Asada Nacho Fries!
http://mattbites.com/2009/04/20/carne-asada-fries-bong-not-included/
Yum! However, being Canadian - poutine gets bonus points.
Next you're going to say that chocolate and chilli doesn't go together.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.Is it worth it for a sorcerer? Clearly, much of the time the answer is no- but what if Incantatrix were banned? In certain feat-starved environments, such as Core-only, Archmage starts to look better and better; particularly for the human sorcerer. Let's see...
1- Improved Initiative, (?)
3- Extend Spell
6- Leadership
9- (?)
12- Quicken Spell
15- (?)
Quicken Spell is useless for a Core sorcerer. But on the other hand, Quicken Spell-Like Ability is a Core feat...
Quicken Spell is useless for a Core sorcerer. But on the other hand, Quicken Spell-Like Ability is a Core feat...
Wow... +1 to Archmage. Ok, it has its uses. This would be a good combo even for a wizard/archmage. Quickened Timestop in core without spending a crapton on a Metamagic Rod? Yes, please. I think some of those rods can also work on SLAs, per Complete Arcane. So you could have a Quickened, Maximized Timestop... in a core game...
Wow... +1 to Archmage. Ok, it has its uses. This would be a good combo even for a wizard/archmage. Quickened Timestop in core without spending a crapton on a Metamagic Rod? Yes, please. I think some of those rods can also work on SLAs, per Complete Arcane. So you could have a Quickened, Maximized Timestop... in a core game...
Not so fast -- Quicken Spell-like Ability isn't quite that good. A 20th level caster can only quicken a level 6 spell-like ability, for instance.
Not so fast -- Quicken Spell-like Ability isn't quite that good. A 20th level caster can only quicken a level 6 spell-like ability, for instance.
Oops. Forgot that. :embarrass
Hmm... it doesn't mention anything about the SLA being limited to spells that have a normal casting time of 1 standard action, I notice. So you could do this with a Contingency SLA, and be able to recast a new one twice per day as a free action whenever your first one gets triggered. :D You also wouldn't need the expensive focus.
I'm sure there are better uses for this, though. Like Geas. :P Oh yeah, I'm definitely warming up to the Archmage.
Oops. Forgot that. :embarrass
Hmm... it doesn't mention anything about the SLA being limited to spells that have a normal casting time of 1 standard action, I notice.
Notice harder, next time... :P
"In addition, a spell-like ability that duplicates a spell with a casting time greater than 1 full round cannot be quickened."
A few good core spells would include teleport, polymorph, enervation, and telekinesis.
It is limited to Sor/Wiz. The Shadow Miracle trick he's referencing involves putting Miracle into your Wizard class list. (Debatable whether it works, though.)
I know what he is refering to.
The thing is, your personal spell list has nothing to do with shadow magic.
For example, a specialist wizard barring evocation can still duplicate evocation spells.
Actually, that is one of the most important uses of shadow magic.
to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower.
As you can see, it says, "a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell".
Basically, it should mean a spell in generic/fixed/printed 'Sor/Wiz' list.
If not, it means any spell castable by any sorcerer or wizard, can be copied.
It does not have to be in your personal spell list.
Considering the fact that divine spells can be easily cast as arcane spells through various means(splatbook options, dragons, and etc), then virtually any divine spell can be copied.
Do you really believe that is the intent of 'a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell'?
As you can see, it says, "a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell".Basically, it should mean a spell in generic/fixed/printed 'Sor/Wiz' list.
If not, it means any spell castable by any sorcerer or wizard, can be copied.
It does not have to be in your personal spell list.
Considering the fact that divine spells can be easily cast as arcane spells through various means(splatbook options, dragons, and etc), then virtually any divine spell can be copied.
Do you really believe that is the intent of 'a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell'?
No. It means any spell you can cast as a wizard or sorcerer. An important difference that I must highlight.
As in, any spell that you could cast as a sorcerer or a wizard, but not, say, with the other side of your gestalt build. I think your current list matters, unless you want to tell me that a paladin spell is always and only a paladin spell. That causes fun and silly things in turn.
I am, in other words, suggesting that the best reading is the most sensible one RAW, while accepting that this reading still produces excessions and compensating for them. No one expects the miracle trick to work. It's RAW legality, however, is beyond meaningful reproach.
We build, all of us, even the most mild-mannered, on top of a large and shaky frame work.
It means any spell you can cast as a wizard or sorcerer. An important difference that I must highlight.
Huh. Please enlighten me where does it say, 'your' sorcerer or wizard spell list.
I'll re-quote SRD;
a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell
It is a blanket statement that covers every sorcerer or wizard evocation spell, not your personal repertoire.
And again, as I said above, if you select evocation as your prohibited school, you cannot cast evocation spells.
It is a blanket statement that covers every sorcerer or wizard evocation spell, not your personal repertoire.
This is exactly the reason why I personally don't think that Shadow Miracles (via ScM) are legal. Just because the spell is on YOUR spell list, and you happen to be a wizard or sorcerer, doesn't mean its on THE wiz/sorc spell list. I mean, if thats the case, you wouldn't even ever have to take Arcane Disciple (Luck), because somewhere out there is a Bob Teh Weezard who took Arcane Disciple (Luck) and has Miracle written down in his book o' tricks. If Bob has it on his list, it MUST be a wiz/sorc spell, right? WRONG. Just like you can't use Greater Shadow Evocation to duplicate Holy Smite, you can't use Shadow Illusion (ScMs featured ability) to cast Miracle.
And now queue the rabid ScM fanclub to tell me I'm wrong take me away in a little black wagon labeled as the Department of Gnomeland Security. Thats my take on RAW, and honestly, I think anything that makes that class LESS overpowered is a good thing, considering the fact that most DMs won't even consider it playable WITHOUT Shadow Miracles...
Although I will disagree with the poster I quoted about not being able to cast evocations with Shadow Evocation when you've banned evocation. The WHOLE POINT of the spell is for Illusionists to gain back a few of the spells they've lost, albeit at dramatically reduced effectiveness. Again, just because your personal list doesn't contain any evocations because you banned the school, doesn't mean that they aren't still on THE wiz/sorc list.
If you have any doubts, look in the book. If it says Wiz/Sorc X in the spells stat block, then its on the wiz/sorc list. If not, then its not, and you can't copy it with Shadow Evocation or Shadow Illusion or any similar ability. At least thats the way I interpret the finality of the word THE in the spells discription. THE, not YOUR.
I think we're not unreasonable. I understand your perspective, certainly.:D
When you take arcane disciple (healing) then you can cast the Cleric Heal spell as an arcane spell for example.
It however, does not make the Heal spell a wizard/Sorcerer spell. It merely allows your wizard to cast it as if it was (not even really that since arcane disciple puts special restrictions on these spells).
Just because there are ways to add spells to your list doesn't make them standard spells of that list IMO.
Gah...so much pent up frustration all this time because of that. Just think of all of the mental anguish you guys could have prevented!!! THINK OF IT!!!