| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a simple proof of concept of the Conjurer as best adventurer.
Human Conjurer
+2 Int, Weapon Proficiency: Lance
Point buy system
1st level:
Feats: Combat Expertise, Armor Proficiency (Medium)
AC: 15-25
We'll assume that he puts the +2 stat into Int because he's a wizard and not a moron. Depending on your build, we'll assume a Dex 16 and Int 20, and the rest into Con (Str, Wis and Cha are dump stats).
This means we're looking at an AC of anywhere from 15 to 24-25. We have a +2 for the Conjurer, +3 for Dex, and on any round where we get a AoO he's getting a +5. He can also wear Scale mail or Chain Mail since in the later part of any adventure since his spell-like acid dart doesn't check ASF.
Note that the warrior types at this level don't have this kind of AC.
5th level
9K wealth
Feats:
2: Open
4: Arcane Armor Training
AC: 23-28
In general, with 9K recommended treasure rolling around in your pocket, you just afford a mithral breastplate +1(7K) and a +1 natural armor amulet(2K) a little into your adventures. Its OK to not be proficient in the armor use, since the armor check penalty is -1 for a mithral breastplate and you aren't doing a lot of attacks that aren't touch attacks. You have a 5% ASF, which is not great but you can cast your Conjurer spell-likes in a pinch and you can't risk a 1 out of 20 chance of failure.
The magic enhancement or the natural armor is not really necessary, so if you can't afford it you can avoid either its not a big hit.
10th level:
49K wealth
Feats:
6: Open
8: Arcane Armor Mastery
AC: 33-36
There is no ASF on the mithral buckler +3(9K), so its a good back-up for when you can't get AoOs on people (which is often considering the new Mobility or Tumble at this level, so you might not carry a lance at all). Your mithral breastplate is +3 right now(9K), and you can afford a Ring of Protection +2(8K) and a Amulet of natural armor +2(8k). This puts your total investment at 23K. leaving you 26K for other items (probably a +4 Int item and some odds and ends). You also haven't had ASP since 8th level.
This assuming you don't polymorph into something with decent natural armor like a troglodyte or an annis, sending your AC into the roof.
Overview:
Basically, with even a moderate build and the right equipment you can keep an AC high enough to put a fighter of your level to shame. That's not even counting that with your spells you can shoot up your AC and general protections (haste, blink, etc), and you can run around being a spellslinger of the first order.
|
Armor Proficiency (Medium) has a prereq of Armor Proficiency (Light). This however does not matter because the conjurer's special ability is an armor bonus, and does not stack with worn armor. So nothing here really makes the conjurer better than any other arcanist.
Also, you gets feats on odd levels, not even ones.
Armor Proficiency (Medium) has a prereq of Armor Proficiency (Light). This however does not matter because the conjurer's special ability is an armor bonus, and does not stack with worn armor. So nothing here really makes the conjurer better than any other arcanist.
Also, you gets feats on odd levels, not even ones.
Mmmm, I had forgotten that armor used "armor bonus" as its trait. Doh!
Still, it means that heavily armored arcanists are very viable now.
Armor Proficiency (Medium) has a prereq of Armor Proficiency (Light). This however does not matter because the conjurer's special ability is an armor bonus, and does not stack with worn armor. So nothing here really makes the conjurer better than any other arcanist.
Also, you gets feats on odd levels, not even ones.
Mmmm, I had forgotten that armor used "armor bonus" as its trait. Doh!
Still, it means that heavily armored arcanists are very viable now.
Slight point - you do realize you can only use "Combat Expertise" when actually attacking with a melee weapon? From PRPG: "You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon"
You could indeed summon something, then "fight" like this, but you'd be painfully ineffective, lance or not, taking a -5 penalty in addition to a crummy base attack bonus and -1 or 0 strength mod.
Armored arcanists can certainly be effective, but hardly "best adventurer ever" :)
Still, it means that heavily armored arcanists are very viable now.Slight point - you do realize you can only use "Combat Expertise" when actually attacking with a melee weapon? From PRPG: "You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or full-attack action with a melee weapon"
You could indeed summon something, then "fight" like this, but you'd be painfully ineffective, lance or not, taking a -5 penalty in addition to a crummy base attack bonus and -1 or 0 strength mod.
Armored arcanists can certainly be effective, but hardly "best adventurer ever" :)
When you take an AoO with the reach weapon, for the rest of the round you can get the Expertise bonus.
Since you actually have a really good AC, you can mix it up in combat and just let things attack you, then you move back, and they'll do it again next turn.
He can also wear Scale mail or Chain Mail since in the later part of any adventure since his spell-like acid dart doesn't check ASF.
Where are you getting that idea that spell-like abilities are not affected by Arcane Spell Failure?
Unless I missed something, ASF applies to spells and spell like abilities.
Supernatural is the one not affected by ASF.
|
From the srd:
Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
I was under the impression that attacks of opportunity don't count as 'the attack action' or 'an attack action' but I might be misremembering something from the d&d faq. Time to go download it.
|
|
Well I'm not sure how well it applies, but the faq seems to be of the opinion that an attack action is a standard action.
Page 40 of the faq. "It is true that no category of actions is called “attack
actions” in the D&D game, but there is an action called
attack—it’s the first action described under Standard Actions
on page 139 in the Player’s Handbook."
Page 26:
The Shot on the Run and Spring Attack feats only let you use
an attack action (that is, a specific kind of standard action)(emphasis mine) in
conjunction with their allowed movement, not any kind of
standard action.
*idle musing*
If an attack of opportunity counts as 'an attack action' then you might be able to use spring attack.
From the srd:
Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
Hmmm, not being familiar with that website, that would explain why I was not following.
How "official" is that website? I did look in my players, DMs and Monster manuals, and nowhere does it say that spell-like abilities are not affected by ASF.
From the srd:
Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.Hmmm, not being familiar with that website, that would explain why I was not following.
How "official" is that website? I did look in my players, DMs and Monster manuals, and nowhere does it say that spell-like abilities are not affected by ASF.
I too was a bit surprised by this but checking the SRD from the wizards site against D20 org's version it would appear that:
"Spell-Like Abilities: Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures are actually sorcerers of a sort. They cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. In fact, an individual creature could have some spell-like abilities and also cast other spells as a sorcerer."
and the DMG does NOT include all that stuff about being a completely mental ability without components (DMG Pg 289)...
that's just really helpful...
<edited for clarity>
|
Something I've yet to understand about about 3.4e RAW:
A spell-like ability has no somatic, verbal, or material components; it only requires a mental action on the part of the caster.
Yet it provokes an attack or opportunity, just like a regularly cast spell.
That must be *quite* the mental action.
-Skeld
From the srd:
Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.Hmmm, not being familiar with that website, that would explain why I was not following.
How "official" is that website? I did look in my players, DMs and Monster manuals, and nowhere does it say that spell-like abilities are not affected by ASF.
Check your Players Handbook, in the armor section, under Arcane Spell Failure. ASF only applies to spells with Somatic components, so spells like blindness can be cast without ASF.
I was aware that ASF didn't affect spells that have no somatic components.
I just had not seen the update to the rules that say that spell-like abilities were not affected by ASF.
Tis a moot point for the specialist school 1st level powers, as they all seem to be supernatural anyways.
and the DMG does NOT include all that stuff about being a completely mental ability without components (DMG Pg 289)...that's just really helpful...
Found it in the Glossary section of the Monster Manual under Special Abilities/Spell-Like Pg 315. The text here is greatly expanded and adds the important clarifications.
Would have been nice if the DMG actually pointed to this rather leave you the impression that the text provided was full and complete.
We'll assume that he puts the +2 stat into Int because he's a wizard and not a moron.
Its statements like this that make me hate optimisers.
Actually, their are perfectly valid character concepts for sub optimium or failing wizards. Just because, for you, the holy grail is character efficiancy, don't assume it is for every one.
We'll assume that he puts the +2 stat into Int because he's a wizard and not a moron.Its statements like this that make me hate optimizers.
Actually, their are perfectly valid character concepts for sub optimum or failing wizards. Just because, for you, the holy grail is character efficiency, don't assume it is for every one.
Dude, just no.