Summon Monster V: You only give this one a green, and I say "only" because it has some great options.
[Chain Devil is now Kyton!]
Babau: Constant see invisibility, At will dispel magic SR17, DR10, either 2 claws & a bite or 2 attacks with a longspear [reach] & a bite.
Kyton: SR17, 4 chain [reach] attacks, plus Regeneration 2
Xill: 4 claws [all with Grab] & a bite [with paralysis]. Great Mage killer.
Dire Lion: Pounce, thats 4 claws [2 from Rake] and a bite [with Grab]
Woolly Rhinocerus: Powerful charge [4d8+18], Trample [2d6+13 DC23]
Ankylosaurus: tail [3d6+12 with Daze DC23 (or Stun on crit)]
Bralani: SR17 DR10 Ok attacks [either scimitar, slam or bow] plus At Will blur, mirror image, wind wall 2/day lightning bolt, cure serious wounds
Surely those options deserves a Blue!!
Then, if you have access to Unearthed Arcana and the Quicken Summoning alternative class feature you can summon that Dire Lion as a Standard action and let it mini-charge [and therefore Pounce and rake] during the same round!
Summon Monster V: You only give this one a green, and I say "only" because it has some great options.
They pretty much all do.
Babau:...Kyton:...Xill:...Dire Lion:...Woolly Rhinocerus:...Ankylosaurus:...Bralani:...
The Babau demon is a bit lackluster IMO, as is the Xill. The Chain Devil is OK, but low on SLA's, and the chains aren't great offensively. The Wooly Rhino, Ankylosaurus and Dire Lion all have level equivalent equals at other levels.
The Bralani is a special case, a very interesting summon, and I notice you didn't include the Bearded Devils - which cause infernal wounds - very nice.
However, I'm not seeing any particular standouts that make this Summon Monster level the equivalent for its level that for example, Summon Monster VI is. It's a good list - but not a stupendous one.
Then, if you have access to Unearthed Arcana and the Quicken Summoning alternative class feature you can summon that Dire Lion as a Standard action and let it mini-charge [and therefore Pounce and rake] during the same round!
The guide assumes core-only, so no rapid summoning variant taken to account in my ratings - however,
You should note that at SM IV - this trick works with the regular lion
At SM VI this trick works (at its apex) with the Dire Tiger.
Hardly a unique bonus for SM V.
For me, the Summon Monster levels that really stand out are III, VI and XI.
The Babau demon is a bit lackluster IMO, as is the Xill. The Chain Devil is OK, but low on SLA's, and the chains aren't great offensively. The Wooly Rhino, Ankylosaurus and Dire Lion all have level equivalent equals at other levels.
The Bralani is a special case, a very interesting summon, and I notice you didn't include the Bearded Devils - which cause infernal wounds - very nice.
However, I'm not seeing any particular standouts that make this Summon Monster level the equivalent for its level that for example, Summon Monster VI is. It's a good list - but not a stupendous one.
I agree that they're all good, but I can't really see how this level is a lull compared to the others.
I guess it depends largely on what you're up against in the encounter. A Huge dinosaur with Daze could be battleground control like no other, a Xill with 4 +13 attacks with grab and a +12 bite [all without Augment Summoning] is pretty nasty vs any Caster, and a Babau with a minimum of 9 Dispel Magic's could be extremely useful [it's got to roll high a few times!] is some situations [not exclusively combat].
I didn't really get the Bearded Devil at first, 2 bleed isn't all that wow, but I guess with the added difficulty in healing it, it will put many monster's on a timer. I think I underestimated that.
I can see lots of usefulness for the Woolly's Charge and Trample abilities.
The Kyton is a little meh unless you really need reach [my party does, see below].
Salamanda: He has some limited uses, I can see me using him if I need to unleash a few Fireballs!
With the non-core options I have taken, the Dire Lion's 5 attacks round 1 is just nasty!
The Bralani: He has some interesting abilities, but I'm not sure exactly when I'm going to want him in preference to any of the others on offer.
I should point out that the Party I'm playing the Wizard with only has one front line dude [barbarian], with a Wildshaping Druid, non-front line Cleric & ranged Bard.
As a matter of interest, would you go deeper into all the Summon Monster options level by level as you say you're doing with Summon Nature's Allies for your guide to Druids? I'm sure many would like your insight!
I plan to - at some point.
Certainly a more in-depth evaluation could change some of my rating results.
I'll post here when I've done that - but it won't be right away - going to finish this Druid guide first (I'm getting close) which is going to be a 3 part guide (or it would be too long).
Then I'm planning on some updates on other guides - equipment list for the Bard guide, fix up some wording that wasn't as clear as I thought on the Ranger guide etc.
We'll see about a Summon Monster in-depth evaluation afterwards...
I plan to - at some point.
Certainly a more in-depth evaluation could change some of my rating results.
I'll post here when I've done that - but it won't be right away - going to finish this Druid guide first (I'm getting close) which is going to be a 3 part guide (or it would be too long).
Then I'm planning on some updates on other guides - equipment list for the Bard guide, fix up some wording that wasn't as clear as I thought on the Ranger guide etc.
We'll see about a Summon Monster in-depth evaluation afterwards...
That all sounds good to me!
As a matter of interest, would you consider summoning 1d3 level IV's over one level V ?
That all sounds good to me!
As a matter of interest, would you consider summoning 1d3 level IV's over one level V ?
In general I hate doing that. I much prefer knowing how many creatures I'll be summoning before casting.
That said, I can't say that I wouldn't do it if the situation was correct. Generally, for melee combat forms I wouldn't suggest it (because the "To hit" numbers end up being too low), but I could see doing it.
For example, maybe summoning 1d3 magma mephits. Have one use the blinding pyrotechnics effect, another using the choking cloud pyrotechnics effect, and potentially another becoming a lava pool in a strategic location.
however, this is all wishful thinking, because when I roll 1d3 I might as well just accept that the more I need 3, the more likely I will roll a one :)
however, this is all wishful thinking, because when I roll 1d3 I might as well just accept that the more I need 3, the more likely I will roll a one :)
Sorry to hear that..., but....
Lantern archon's being the sole exception.
to what?
|
To summon more of. When I have SM IV prepared and I need ranged combatants I summon 1d3 archons. Its a risk, but they are just that awesome. Also, then I dont need to spend a slot on SM III. Later though, when I have lots of 3rd level slots I will probably just use them for the archons.
Plus with haste they become killers.
I read the guide, and I chuckled a bit, but you know, I think Treantmonk has missed one little detail about the wizard, in or out of pathfinder.
You don't have to try hard to make an effective wizard. Sure, there is a lot you can do to optimise him, but to many players this comes second fiddle to making a thematic, memorable character, and the wizard has oodles of potential for this. You can make a wizard on a theme and he's still a 'good' wizard. He still has enough flexibility and spell choice to do everything the party calls on him to do. To me, that is the most outstanding feature of the wizard.
...to many players this comes second fiddle to making a thematic, memorable character, and the wizard has oodles of potential for this.
I read this and I chuckled a bit.
What character class do you think has less or more potential than the Wizard to make a thematic, memorable character?
Reading your post you seem to imply the Wizard has some form of advantage in this regard.
More importantly, why do you need to prioritize one against the other? Why not just have both?
I like Pie, I like Whipped Cream, but liking whip cream doesn't mean I can't enjoy my pie. I just have both together.
...to many players this comes second fiddle to making a thematic, memorable character, and the wizard has oodles of potential for this.I read this and I chuckled a bit.
What character class do you think has less or more potential than the Wizard to make a thematic, memorable character?
Reading your post you seem to imply the Wizard has some form of advantage in this regard.
More importantly, why do you need to prioritize one against the other? Why not just have both?
I like Pie, I like Whipped Cream, but liking whip cream doesn't mean I can't enjoy my pie. I just have both together.
You can have both, of course. But with the wizard you are less likely to sacrifice functionality while really seriously going to town on a theme than for any other class, even the sorcerer. Myself, if I have to choose between character and optimising, I go for character every time.
You can have both, of course. But with the wizard you are less likely to sacrifice functionality while really seriously going to town on a theme than for any other class, even the sorcerer. Myself, if I have to choose between character and optimising, I go for character every time.
I still don't understand why you are choosing.
You don't need to choose between them, but sometimes if you want functionality and a specific theme, then you NEED optimization.
That is true of any class - including the Wizard.
If you want a good cookie, you don't need to choose between the flavoring (whether it be chocolate chips, peanut butter, walnuts...mmmmm) and the flour. Thinking you do means a worse cookie everytime.
It also suggests you don't understand why people use flour in cookies.
The relationship between character flavor and optimization is the same. Flavor your character however you like, then use optimization to make the flavor work the way you envisioned.
You can have both, of course. But with the wizard you are less likely to sacrifice functionality while really seriously going to town on a theme than for any other class, even the sorcerer. Myself, if I have to choose between character and optimising, I go for character every time.I still don't understand why you are choosing.
Then you never will. Sorry, but if you cannot grasp what I'm talking about, no amount of talking on my part will make you. Just take it as read that this is what some players will do, and it helps them achieve a good game. I eat ice-cream because it tastes nice, not because it will help me build a body like Greek deity - in fact, it's detrimental to doing so. But I don't necessarily want a body like a Greek deity, instead I want to enjoy ice-cream.
Edit:
If you want a good cookie, you don't need to choose between the flavoring (whether it be chocolate chips, peanut butter, walnuts...mmmmm) and the flour. Thinking you do means a worse cookie everytime.
It also suggests you don't understand why people use flour in cookies.
The relationship between character flavor and optimization is the same. Flavor your character however you like, then use optimization to make the flavor work the way you envisioned.
No, not a good analogy. In fact, a really BAD analogy. Optimisation is not necessary to enjoy the game, and a lot of people don't do it. A certain level of optimisation is necessary to build a character that doesn't suck donkey-balls and get killed, however - and this I do not dispute - but once you have this minimum, the remainder is a matter of personal preference. Now given a choice between optimal and flavour, I go for flavour because that is the kind of game I enjoy. If my cookie is too sweet for you, then that's a matter of taste. My entire point about the wizard is that you can choose not to optimise with it and still have an effective wizard - it's hard to make it unworkable(unless you have an intelligence of 10 or something else really, really stupid). So if you want that flavour over optimisation option, wizard is a good choice.
You're right I won't, and apparently the vise-versa is also true.
however, I recommend googling "Stormwind Fallacy"
however, I recommend googling "Stormwind Fallacy"
Stormwind Fallacy is that optimisation and role-playing are not mutually exclusive. This is very true, they needn't be. I fail completely to understand the relevance to the current discussion. The question is not whether or not somebody CAN have fun playing an optimized character, it's that you don't always have to optimise to have fun.
The question is not whether or not somebody CAN have fun playing an optimized character, it's that you don't always have to optimise to have fun.
This doesn't make sense to me either.
Of course you don't need to optimize to have fun roleplaying.
Is that your point? You don't need to optimize to have fun roleplaying? I would have considered that self-evident all along.
Stormwind Fallacy is that optimisation and role-playing are not mutually exclusive. This is very true, they needn't be. I fail completely to understand the relevance to the current discussion.
Because our discussion in fact was NOT whether you could have fun roleplaying without optimizing. You were pretty clear in your previous posts in that regard.
You were the one who made it out that sometimes you had to choose, or to quote specifically, "given a choice between optimal and flavour"
My point (and Stormwind's) is that you can choose to roleplay or not, you can choose to optimize or not, but the choices are not interdependant. It's not a one or the other choice.
Optimisation is not necessary to enjoy the game, and a lot of people don't do it.
And this I find hard to believe. How many players have you seen make a Wizard and dump Int? That's optimization.
Treant, Contigency can only be used to release a spell targeting yourself. So are you sure you can have a web go off?
Answer: Nope.
Thanks!
Fixed.
|
|
The relationship between character flavor and optimization is the same. Flavor your character however you like, then use optimization to make the flavor work the way you envisioned.
I understand that but sometimes you can go a bit too far, especially with statements that hint that wizards who don't specialise ((presumably in Conjuration) "Being a generalist in Pathfinder is a practice in masochism, don't do it." ) just plain suck might be going a bit far. A person who plays a generalist is looking to play a Wizard... schooled in all aspects of magic.
A campaign that requires you to cheese monkey in order to pull your weight... is a campaign worth avoiding.
In the pathfinder version of his guide he explained his humor, which I thought was totally unnecessary.
Yet people still read everything as if it's a wiki article.
And this I find hard to believe. How many players have you seen make a Wizard and dump Int? That's optimization.
And if you look at my replies above you will see me state that a certain level of optimisation is always necessary. But say I want to play a pyromaniac wizard? sod summoning, I want to be an evoker, I want the world to burn. By your guide, this is sub-optimal ... but it's also fun.
I currently have a character in a PBP game that is a wizard ... 18 Int, but I went for generalist with a bonded item rather than a familiar. Why? because it felt more in character with the character. Sure, I could have justified a familiar, or a specialisation, I just didn't want to. Yet these are two things that are on your 'don't do this' list in big red letters. Yet my wizard is still effective, and I'm having fun. So what's the problem? I won't be having more fun by making my character more optimal, because I will have compromised my concepts and I'll know it. My character won't be more likely to survive and overcome, because the DM will just beef up the opposition.
A campaign that requires you to cheese monkey in order to pull your weight... is a campaign worth avoiding.
QFT
The relationship between character flavor and optimization is the same. Flavor your character however you like, then use optimization to make the flavor work the way you envisioned.
I understand that but sometimes you can go a bit too far, especially with statements that hint that wizards who don't specialise ((presumably in Conjuration) "Being a generalist in Pathfinder is a practice in masochism, don't do it." ) just plain suck might be going a bit far. A person who plays a generalist is looking to play a Wizard... schooled in all aspects of magic.
A campaign that requires you to cheese monkey in order to pull your weight... is a campaign worth avoiding.
My guides merely offer optimization suggestions based on my own opinion. Nothing more.
Some options do "suck" mechanically. I know the word itself creates all kinds of defensive reactions, but it's true.
That doesn't mean you should not take a generalist if that is your character's theme, but if it isn't, then you shouldn't do it if you want the optimal choice. This is how the guide should be used.
If you wish to play a generalist and wish to optimize your Wizard using my guide, then the specialization section doesn't apply (obviously) because you don't have an option in that regard. My guide is to help you pick the optimized options when and where you choose to take those options, not make your character for you.
And if you look at my replies above you will see me state that a certain level of optimisation is always necessary.
agreed.
But say I want to play a pyromaniac wizard? sod summoning, I want to be an evoker, I want the world to burn. By your guide, this is sub-optimal ... but it's also fun.
The point of the Guide isn't to tell you what to play, it is to tell you the optimized options.
You could make a 7 Int Wizard who may also be fun to play. Optimization isn't a requirement to have fun at the table.
However, it is a requirement to be an effective contributer to team challenges.
Your character, while being somewhat optimized, can effectively contribute to team challenges, it, however will contribute less effectively than a more optimized character.
When you choose sub-optimal options because they fit the character's theme, then my guide can alert you to those options being suboptimal, when otherwise you may not have been aware they were, and then help you optimize those portions of the character that you do have options for.
If in the guide I say, "Don't do it..." I am referring to those with the option, not for those without. Is that not self-evident? The Guide is about options, not removing them.
If the Guide was intended to simply give you the best Wizard character, I wouldn't need to write a guide, I could just post a character sheet with the heading, "Play this, always."
I currently have a character in a PBP game that is a wizard ... 18 Int, but I went for generalist with a bonded item rather than a familiar. Why? because it felt more in character with the character. Sure, I could have justified a familiar, or a specialisation, I just didn't want to.
This is you still not getting it. You word this statement like it is something contrary to using the Guide or anything I've said.
I notice the 18 Int - this suggests to me that you optimized in areas that didn't compromise your theme. My guide could have helped in that regard. That's what it's for.
If you didn't optimize in the other areas, then you aren't contributing to the team in challenges, which may be fun for you in roleplaying, but may be less fun for other characters who enjoy the tactical aspect of the game in addition to the roleplaying one.
Optimization (and this guide) allow you both your character's theme and contributing effectively by giving you a guide in choosing options where you have them.
Yet these are two things that are on your 'don't do this' list in big red letters.
See above regarding "options"
Yet my wizard is still effective, and I'm having fun. So what's the problem?
What do you mean by "where's the problem?" I don't remember telling anyone how much they needed to optimize. I have no stake at all in your game. My guide offers optimization techniques for those who want them.
Some players just want the mechanics to create an effective character, and create the "character" of those mechanics through the roleplaying experience.
Others (such as you presumably), see the mechanics as part of the roleplaying experience, and that's fine, but optimization techniques are still valuable (or perhaps more necessary than ever) in those options you still have.
My guide is for both these groups.
Of course there is a 3rd group. That is the group that believes that gimping their character is "good roleplaying", and leap to this defense when they act as a determent in team challenges which causes other players characters to die, and reduce their fun.
This guide is not for the last group.
I won't be having more fun by making my character more optimal, because I will have compromised my concepts and I'll know it.
Not necessarily. Is EVERY aspect of your character integral to the theme? Does your theme absolutely castrate any options or choices on your part?
If not, then there is always the option to optimize more without compromising anything.
My character won't be more likely to survive and overcome, because the DM will just beef up the opposition.
This may be true of your DM. However, many DM's use the CR system. A large percentage of those are using published adventure paths.
These mechanics don't care about how important making a "bookish" Barbarian was to your character concept.
The Best DM's out there will alter CR's based on the abilities of the party, but trust me, a lot of DM's play this stuff as written. If all DM's were willing to go to that kind of effort, published adventure paths wouldn't sell nearly so well.
And it's not just your survivability at stake. D&D is a team game.
A campaign that requires you to cheese monkey in order to pull your weight... is a campaign worth avoiding.
"cheese" normally refers to theoretical optimization (using "tricks" to achieve ends not intended by the rules)
You won't find "cheese" in any of my guides, as I am a devotee of practical optimization, so the point is irrelevant on this thread unless you have some other definition of "cheese".
The point of the Guide isn't to tell you what to play, it is to tell you the optimized options.
I understand, and it's good at this. The problem is, the way it's presented is not: "X is the best optimal option, Y actually isn't, it's more work and less payout." It's more: "X is cool and brilliant. Do Y only if you really enjoy cutting your limbs off with a rusty hacksaw." I appreciate the humour, but it doesn't make the best impression.
And this I find hard to believe. How many players have you seen make a Wizard and dump Int? That's optimization.And if you look at my replies above you will see me state that a certain level of optimisation is always necessary. But say I want to play a pyromaniac wizard? sod summoning, I want to be an evoker, I want the world to burn. By your guide, this is sub-optimal ... but it's also fun.
It is sub-optimal. That doesn't mean you throw it in the trash can and walk away. It means you are going to have a tougher time contributing to the group so you are MORE in need of optimization than a conjurer.
Treants guide doesn't talk about evokers much because he isn't interested in playing them. Much of the stuff he's listed is still relevant but it needs some alteration.
|
|
The point of the Guide isn't to tell you what to play, it is to tell you the optimized options.I understand, and it's good at this. The problem is, the way it's presented is not: "X is the best optimal option, Y actually isn't, it's more work and less payout." It's more: "X is cool and brilliant. Do Y only if you really enjoy cutting your limbs off with a rusty hacksaw." I appreciate the humour, but it doesn't make the best impression.
Seriously. You are driving me nuts. It is all tongue in cheek. I much prefer a guide that also entertains me to a statistical analysis and comparison.
As its a given (stated obviously in the guide) that wizards are supreme. Even if you don't optimise them in every regard .. hell even if you play a generalist who for story reasons limits yourself as if your an evoker (without the bonuses) assuming you take some good spells etc you will match most other characters. Thats sort of the point with the wizard.
A ranger who specialises in 2 weapons (hand axes) and chooses plants and slimes and animals as his enemies and dessert as terrain is going to be hampered in effective combat. A wizard who shoots himself in the foot for roleplaying can still survive just fine.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you!
Style Request:
I enjoy your guides and I am sometimes left a little confused if I have the latest one.
Can I suggest the titles shorten a little to Treatmonk's "X". After all I read it mostly as how you would make an "X".
I'd appreciate a revision number prominently on the first page too - and maybe in the download name?
Pretty Please?
With DM bribing pizza on it?
Sigurd
X is cool and brilliant. Do Y only if you really enjoy cutting your limbs off with a rusty hacksaw
I like that. Mind if I use it?
Wait, are you saying I SHOULDN'T use that kind of wording???
Hopefully not, I was looking forward to putting that into a guide.
Abusive optimisers empower themselves 'to win' at the cost of the game, others fun, their ability to practice problem solving and tactics as their just using standard 'best options' nevermind them damaging the DMs sanity and so the campaigns longevity.
This is not optimization nor does it have anything to do with optimization.
There are two types of optimization. Practical (intended for use in gameplay) and Theoretical (not intended to be used in gameplay).
What you describe here isn't optimization, it's "Power gaming".
Style Request:
I enjoy your guides and I am sometimes left a little confused if I have the latest one.
Can I suggest the titles shorten a little to Treatmonk's "X". After all I read it mostly as how you would make an "X".
I'd appreciate a revision number prominently on the first page too - and maybe in the download name?
Pretty Please?
With DM bribing pizza on it?
Sigurd
Revision numbers? Ugh...I would prefer to avoid that...these really aren't official publications after all.
Ugh...I'll consider it.
X is cool and brilliant. Do Y only if you really enjoy cutting your limbs off with a rusty hacksawI like that. Mind if I use it?
Wait, are you saying I SHOULDN'T use that kind of wording???
Hopefully not, I was looking forward to putting that into a guide.
Oh go on then ... I'm only saying wording like that should come with a warning ...
Abusive optimisers empower themselves 'to win' at the cost of the game, others fun, their ability to practice problem solving and tactics as their just using standard 'best options' nevermind them damaging the DMs sanity and so the campaigns longevity.
What you describe here isn't optimization, it's "Power gaming".
I agree - it's what gives optimizers a bad name.
Revision numbers? Ugh...I would prefer to avoid that...these really aren't official publications after all.
Ugh...I'll consider it.
Google Docs lets me download the file. I am curious about changes but not enough to download and compare every week. Numbers don't have to be perfect but if its a substantive change I'd like to know and I think others might appreciate saving the bandwidth.
Numbers are much easier than a list of changes by date :)
I think a date to signify the last update, also might work.
Oh go on then ... I'm only saying wording like that should come with a warning ...
First - thanks! You've got style!
Secondly - read my first post (The Hypothetically Asked Questions):
Why do you tell me not to blast? I have fun blasting!
I'm not telling you what to do. I'm giving recommendations. I blast too sometimes with my Wizards. Do what makes you happy by all means.
Then read the guide. How about the first paragraph?
A note about style: First off should be my note about style, hopefully before all the players of other classes out there get all upset. Throughout this guide my tongue is planted squarely in my cheek, and yes, I can be a cheeky monkey. Also, this is by and large an opinion paper, so I will be expressing opinion regularly. I will be expressing it strongly, but yes, you are entitled to disagree.
If you do, by all means let me know in the comments and we can have a discussion if you desire. In the comments section you
will find me far less opinionated than you find the style of this guide.
This guide is written from the point of view of a wizard, but not just any wizard, a snobbish bookworm, "I am the greatest" wizard.
Treantmonk himself plays other classes too. Wizard is my favorite, but I really do...honest.
So is your point that I gave too many warnings? Or did you just miss them all? ;)
Google Docs lets me download the file. I am curious about changes but not enough to download and compare every week. Numbers don't have to be perfect but if its a substantive change I'd like to know and I think others might appreciate saving the bandwidth.
Numbers are much easier than a list of changes by date :)
What if I start the document with a "last revision on: 12//06/09" entry?
A last revision date is fine too - just make it obvious from the first page of google docs.
Thanks, that really is more convenient. Consider it a compliment - the price of fame.
I almost forget instead of the color coding how about using the stars for all future guides. Colors I can lose track of, but you don't have to be a genius to remember the more stars the better.
I almost forget instead of the color coding how about using the stars for all future guides. Colors I can lose track of, but you don't have to be a genius to remember the more stars the better.
Also it should be translated into Farsi, Mandarin and Esperanto. I DEMAND THIS IMMEDIATELY!
I almost forget instead of the color coding how about using the stars for all future guides. Colors I can lose track of, but you don't have to be a genius to remember the more stars the better.Also it should be translated into Farsi, Mandarin and Esperanto. I DEMAND THIS IMMEDIATELY!
Don't forget Swahili and Aramaic and Modern Standard Chinese.
But we're not difficult.... Take your time...
Maximize Spell: For the 3 levels this adds to the spell, there is almost no spell I think maximize spell is worth it for.
Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray (I suppose I'm one of the people who "mistakenly" think it's a really good spell ;-) )... 12d6 on a touch attack at level 11 isn't bad at all and gives you something to put those 5th level slots to use in. Heck, I'd even advocate an Empowered, Maximized Scorching Ray, personally... and back in 3.5 with Archmage you could turn it into a Sonic Ray or any other energy type you desired at no cost. 18d6 sonic damage (maximized to 108) with no save is stellar (and better than a Delayed Blast Fireball) in my opinion. I really hope they bring the AM back.
|
|
Maximize Spell: For the 3 levels this adds to the spell, there is almost no spell I think maximize spell is worth it for.Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray (I suppose I'm one of the people who "mistakenly" think it's a really good spell ;-) )... 12d6 on a touch attack at level 11 isn't bad at all and gives you something to put those 5th level slots to use in. Heck, I'd even advocate an Empowered, Maximized Scorching Ray, personally... and back in 3.5 with Archmage you could turn it into a Sonic Ray or any other energy type you desired at no cost. 18d6 sonic damage (maximized to 108) with no save is stellar (and better than a Delayed Blast Fireball) in my opinion. I really hope they bring the AM back.
A couple of things I don't like about it.
-Fire damage (Resistance/Immunity very common)
-SR
-The spell sounds better than it is when you read the total damage, but Fire Resistance is applied for every ray.
-4d6 is only 14 damage on average, so with resistance its commonly 4 or nothing.
If you can change it to another element and boost the damage a lot then maybe its decent.
And on the topic of 5th level slots, I don't like blasting but lets just compare 2 blast spells. Lets say that Scorching ray is at its peak when you are level 7, since after that resistances get crazy.
So Maximised Scorching Ray is 24 damage to 2 targets.
Empowered Fireball is 37 damage to every target in the radius. There is of course reflex saves to factor in, but as long as there are more than two enemies this is generally a better idea.
I almost forget instead of the color coding how about using the stars for all future guides. Colors I can lose track of, but you don't have to be a genius to remember the more stars the better.Also it should be translated into Farsi, Mandarin and Esperanto. I DEMAND THIS IMMEDIATELY!
*Scurries and sweats* OK, OK!
I'm guessing a simple translation program wouldn't work (since they are imperfect).
I've enrolled myself in language classes...
:P
Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray, Scorching Ray (I suppose I'm one of the people who "mistakenly" think it's a really good spell ;-) )... 12d6 on a touch attack at level 11 isn't bad at all and gives you something to put those 5th level slots to use in. Heck, I'd even advocate an Empowered, Maximized Scorching Ray, personally...
12d6 on a ranged touch attack at level 11 is so-so.
That's 42 damage on average (assuming you hit and there is no fire resistance)
Check out my Druid guide - a 5th level Druid can dwarf that damage every round without casting spells or worrying about fire resistance.
If you empower the Scorching Ray - then you are going to be doing comparible damage to a 5th level Druid for a couple rounds.
An 11th level Druid would laugh.
Great damage dealers Wizards are not.
Use Battlefield control, Buffing or Debuffing instead - or if you must do damage to contribute, summon a Bearded Devil - satisfaction guaranteed!
Wizards who use Summoning are cool and brilliant. Fire Scorching Rays only if you really enjoy cutting your limbs off with a rusty hacksaw
(That is a great line! Full credit to Dabbler!)
I almost forget instead of the color coding how about using the stars for all future guides. Colors I can lose track of, but you don't have to be a genius to remember the more stars the better.Also it should be translated into Farsi, Mandarin and Esperanto. I DEMAND THIS IMMEDIATELY!Don't forget Swahili and Aramaic and Modern Standard Chinese.
But we're not difficult.... Take your time...
What about binary?
Use Battlefield control, Buffing or Debuffing instead - or if you must do damage to contribute, summon a Bearded Devil - satisfaction guaranteed!
You're obsessed with Bearded Devils!
Quicken Spell: Can you tell me when this Feat gets good? I ask because although I understand that the principle of casting 2 spells a round is cool and groovy, even with this Feat I still have a headache deciding when you use it!
I'm level 9. Focussed Specialist Conjurer going with Summoning more than Clouds. I have a lesser Rod of Metamagic Sculpt as most of my Sculpt-able spells are 3rd level and lower [Grease, Cloud of Bewilderment, Glitterdust, Web, Fireball, Sleet Storm & Stinking Cloud]
I have the following Feats: Scribble Scroll, Spell Focus Conjuration, Augment Summoning, Cloudy Conjuration, Metamagic School Focus Conjuration, Sudden Maximize & obviously Quicken Spell.
I look at my spell options at 5th level [Summon Monster V & Teleport] and I ask myself "Do I want a Quickened Glitterdust/Cloud of Bewilderment/Web or another Summon Monster V"? Summon Monster V always looks better! Maybe I could change that to a Quickened Magic Missile... Hmmm, nope still isn't looking a better option!
Ok, so with Metamagic School Focus Conjuration I get Quicken conjuration spells [up to 3/day] for +3 levels rather than 4 [I also have Rapid Summoning alternative class feature from UA]. This means that I could have a Quickened Grease, lesser Orb of Acid, Mage Armour or Wall of Smoke in place of a 4th level spell, and on paper that looks great.
However, which of those would you prefer Quickened, compared to an extra Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Resilient Sphere or Summon Monster IV?? Here again, the 4th level spells all look more attractive than the Quickened 1st level ones.
Just to add to this head-twist is that I need to pick another Metamagic Feat next level and I've no idea what to choose.
So far I've got...
Sudden Enlarge [to be able to Summon a dude next to (or within charging, pouncing & rake range) of the BBEG or lesser Boss could be useful, I'm sure I'll find a way to use it each day]
or,
Imbue Summoning [This needs the free-ness that Metamagic School Focus to make it any good but that means not using it on Quickening anything.
Extend... well I could get a Rod, and my Summons last longer than normal because I have the Summoner’s Charm ability.
So my head goes round and round and I don't seem to be able to decide what to prepare, or what Feat to take next! Quicken Spell is great, everyone says it is, but when..?? Any insight/help or comments would be gladly received!
Quicken Spell, for me, is useful at 9th level and up, primarily to quicken true strike. This really comes into its own at 11th level when you have disintegrate, although there are other touch attacks that can also be paired to lethal effect with a quickened true strike.
As far as quicken summon monster I, that has its theoretical uses - although summon monster V is a far better use of that precious 5th level spell slot for the Conjuration specialist Wizard.
Other uses of quicken are rather situational:
- quicken glitterdust to back up your character's (hopefully permanent) see invisibility.
- quicken grease to help your fighter buddy out of the maw of the Big Chomping Critter (or yourself)
- quicken shield to go with your regular mage armor when you're ambushed - assuming you survive the surprise round
- quicken magic missile to back up a regular magic missile, because all you've got to deal with those pesky incorporeal creatures is magic missile, especially since the Conjurer cannot in PRPG summon anything able to directly attack incorporeal creatures to full effect until Summon Monster V - *if* the baddies are Ethereal (xill), otherwise you're waiting for Summon Monster VI when you can summon a shadow demon - and if you're not too picky about endangering your character's moral compass.