Fair enough, though the character I refer to in the story didn't summon.
The power of summoning is something I learned from another character (in a long-long-long Shackled City campaign (about 3 years so far I think) that is still going)
I never said that any of your suggestions weren't the best possible option. You said that some of your suggestions weren't the best possible option. I'm talking about times when you say "You might think X is powerful, and it is, but that would make you a glass cannon/would steal the fighter's thunder/is stupid/isn't how a wizard should be played." Whether or not I agree with you was irrelevant, I presumed, because your initial post makes it perfectly clear that you don't care what anyone else thinks about your opinions concerning game balance. Which I'm fine with. Your love for your own views on game balance may be unshakable, but you were also perfectly honest and upfront about it, and I respect that.
My point was that you frequently don't even try to assert that something is best. Half your justifications are stylistic, half are tactical, and the result is neither entirely faithful to optimization nor to rule-of-fun, but merely faithful to your own playstyle.
And I certainly didn't say that you didn't make a lot of good tactical insights. In fact, I believe I said the exact opposite. You made that bit up for me and then acted surprised when my actual post disagreed with it.
Your hostility is surprising and disappointing. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with you or your usual posting style, and I mistakenly assumed that your swashbuckling cheekiness and no-holds-barred attitude also meant that you had thick skin for your own part.
Oh well.
To be fair, Gandalf wasn't a wizard at least under the D&D perspecrtive and spellcasting in marvel depends of the individual's psyche (wich translates to CHA not intellingence, how you impose your will upon the universe).I got Dr. Strange's official stats and he isn't exepcionally intelligent. His mental stats would translate to:
INT:12
WIS:24-26
CHA:28-32He is the sorcerer supreme after all
Humbly,
YawarI'm referring to "Gandalf" and the Doctor not so much as the actual characters but as magicians who take a role beyond just spellcasting. In both cases they're active, albiet not dominant melee combatants as well.
And Strange despite the "Sorcerer" moniker is a learned master of the arcane who uses spellbooks, and gained his magic by instruction. So Wizard.. there! So I'd flip the cha and Int scores and transfer a bit back to charisma... because he's that hot. :)
Again, Marvel is a completly diferent universe from D&D. Reason- Intellingence only helps learns spells, Psyche/Charisma/Wisdom determines its power/caster level/DCs. Dr. Strange's power doesn't come from his understanding of the threads of the universe it comes from imposing his will upon the threads of the universe.
Humbly,
Yawar
Fair enough, though the character I refer to in the story didn't summon.
The power of summoning is something I learned from another character (in a long-long-long Shackled City campaign (about 3 years so far I think) that is still going)
From a player's point of view, how did you find SC? and what did the summoned critters do to turn you into a >Did I mention I like Summoning< kind of a person?
From a player's point of view, how did you find SC? and what did the summoned critters do to turn you into a >Did I mention I like Summoning< kind of a person?Fair enough, though the character I refer to in the story didn't summon.
The power of summoning is something I learned from another character (in a long-long-long Shackled City campaign (about 3 years so far I think) that is still going)
Well, more spell choices means more power, so SC was a power booster.
That said, PHBII probably had more broken spells than the entire SC.
I became a summoning person because I decided to play a dedicated summoner, just for the flavor of it. Went on the OP boards to ask advice and was told "Do not play a Wizard or Cleric - Druid or Spirit Shaman are your only choices for dedicated summoning"
So naturally I ignored their advice. The moment I read Malconvoker I knew that was what I wanted to play, and when I found rapid summoning in UA, I knew a Wizard summoner was viable.
Once I started stating out the Summons, I knew I had hit the jackpot. I wrote the Malconvoker guide, played the Malconvoker, found it exceedingly powerful, and that's basically it.
From a player's point of view, how did you find SC? and what did the summoned critters do to turn you into a >Did I mention I like Summoning< kind of a person?Fair enough, though the character I refer to in the story didn't summon.
The power of summoning is something I learned from another character (in a long-long-long Shackled City campaign (about 3 years so far I think) that is still going)
Well, more spell choices means more power, so SC was a power booster.
That said, PHBII probably had more broken spells than the entire SC.
I became a summoning person because I decided to play a dedicated summoner, just for the flavor of it. Went on the OP boards to ask advice and was told "Do not play a Wizard or Cleric - Druid or Spirit Shaman are your only choices for dedicated summoning"
So naturally I ignored their advice. The moment I read Malconvoker I knew that was what I wanted to play, and when I found rapid summoning in UA, I knew a Wizard summoner was viable.
Once I started stating out the Summons, I knew I had hit the jackpot. I wrote the Malconvoker guide, played the Malconvoker, found it exceedingly powerful, and that's basically it.
Cool, however the SC was for Shackled City, not Spell Compendium! My mistake, I forgot about the Spell Compendium!
Oh Shackled City.
Well, that's the campaign that never ends - we are still playing it (what, 4 years later?) - though I think we're getting pretty close to finished. We are 17th level now, it's supposed to take us to 20th level by the end.
Shackled City is a pretty good campaign overall I think. Starts a bit slow, but bits of information you are getting all have relevance later in the campaign. Some battles are very easy, others quite challenging.
One thing that really sucks is that since 10th level we haven't had more than 8 hours of rest at a time, which means my 17th level character is sporting 10th level gear. Makes me glad our party is caster heavy.
That campaign seems pretty stingy with the loot. 100 map completion is a good idea. You will need every copper you can find.
I was wondering in part about the analysis of the Shadow X spells. While the percentage real is a concern of the spell, I think the actual virtue of the spell is that one spell can duplicate any and all lower level spells that you may need of either conjuration or evocation, depending on the spell. For illusionists, or sorcerors, with limited spells known, that's pretty significant, particularly if you have access to a broader spell list than just core.
Yes, depending on which spell you are duplicating, the double save is a nuisance, but if the spells duplicated are no save allowed spells, then it doesn't matter as much, and if they are utility spells, then it really doesn't matter at all.
I was wondering in part about the analysis of the Shadow X spells. While the percentage real is a concern of the spell, I think the actual virtue of the spell is that one spell can duplicate any and all lower level spells that you may need of either conjuration or evocation, depending on the spell. For illusionists, or sorcerors, with limited spells known, that's pretty significant, particularly if you have access to a broader spell list than just core.
Yes, depending on which spell you are duplicating, the double save is a nuisance, but if the spells duplicated are no save allowed spells, then it doesn't matter as much, and if they are utility spells, then it really doesn't matter at all.
The Conjuration Shadow spells are not every conjuration spell, but in fact are limited to (summoning/creation) conjuration spells.
Believe it or not, I really did go through every possibility for either spell, and as splatbooks are added, certainly these spells will improve as more options are available, for now, there are a limited number of level-appropriate viable options for each.
It depends on how much you know about what you are doing for the day.
If you don't know much having a shadow spell or two prepped isn't bad has it gives flexibility.
If you know what you are after you are generally better off with prepping exactly what you think you'll need, and leaving some slots open for later.
|
I could really use Treantmonks Ultimate Guide to the Manipulator Sorcerer (Infernal Bloodline) [for use and play in Pathfinder Societies] {20 point buy}
Love your work btw, your guides rock.
I want to play a Chelish Human Sorcerer of the Infernal Bloodline (Go Cheliax!)
Are you willing/up for the challenge?
thanks!
Telekinesis doesn't seem blue to me. The 375 pound limit doesn't move objects that are all that heavy, and also applies to the violent thrust option for enemies (1 or 2 medium sized enemies at most, probably just one, who gets spell resistance and a save). The long range combat maneuvers are more enticing, but the spell requires concentration to maintain. Aren't there better options for your Wizard's actions with a 5th level spell?
Telekinesis doesn't seem blue to me. The 375 pound limit doesn't move objects that are all that heavy, and also applies to the violent thrust option for enemies (1 or 2 medium sized enemies at most, probably just one, who gets spell resistance and a save). The long range combat maneuvers are more enticing, but the spell requires concentration to maintain. Aren't there better options for your Wizard's actions with a 5th level spell?
If you are using it in combat you are wasting it... however the combat maneuvers are more in line of what you would use the spell for... or making yourself float or affecting your surroundings.
It's the sheer continued versatility of the spell that makes it blue.
Telekinesis doesn't seem blue to me. The 375 pound limit doesn't move objects that are all that heavy, and also applies to the violent thrust option for enemies (1 or 2 medium sized enemies at most, probably just one, who gets spell resistance and a save). The long range combat maneuvers are more enticing, but the spell requires concentration to maintain. Aren't there better options for your Wizard's actions with a 5th level spell?
You're forgetting the best use of telekinesis: using violent thrust to riffle off a volley of weapons totaling your telekinesis weight limit. Depending on your resources, this can vary from a case of crossbow bolts to an entire bundle of arrows of slaying to small statues. A 375 pound statue deals 15d6 damage, for example.
This ability gets deliciously fun when used by, say, many outsiders that have the ability at-will. And should such creatures take quicken spell-like ability: telekinesis, some one eats 6 of these in 3 rounds.
How's Bubba going to look after a half-dozen statues pulverize him to the tune of 90d6 ? ^_^
You're forgetting the best use of telekinesis: using violent thrust to riffle off a volley of weapons totaling your telekinesis weight limit. Depending on your resources, this can vary from a case of crossbow bolts to an entire bundle of arrows of slaying to small statues. A 375 pound statue deals 15d6 damage, for example.This ability gets deliciously fun when used by, say, many outsiders that have the ability at-will. And should such creatures take quicken spell-like ability: telekinesis, some one eats 6 of these in 3 rounds.
How's Bubba going to look after a half-dozen statues pulverize him to the tune of 90d6 ? ^_^
Crossbow bolts = 15d4, but even with the Int modifier a level 15 Wizard would likely sport around a +16 attack, this will lose out to creature AC over time (suggested CR15 monster AC = 30). Same goes for the statue for 15d6.
Arrows of Slaying, seems way too circumstantial to me.
And this guide is for Wizard options, not Outsiders who get the ability at will.
You're forgetting the best use of telekinesis: using violent thrust to riffle off a volley of weapons totaling your telekinesis weight limit. Depending on your resources, this can vary from a case of crossbow bolts to an entire bundle of arrows of slaying to small statues. A 375 pound statue deals 15d6 damage, for example.This ability gets deliciously fun when used by, say, many outsiders that have the ability at-will. And should such creatures take quicken spell-like ability: telekinesis, some one eats 6 of these in 3 rounds.
How's Bubba going to look after a half-dozen statues pulverize him to the tune of 90d6 ? ^_^
Crossbow bolts = 15d4, but even with the Int modifier a level 15 Wizard would likely sport around a +16 attack, this will lose out to creature AC over time (suggested CR15 monster AC = 30). Same goes for the statue for 15d6.
Arrows of Slaying, seems way too circumstantial to me.
And this guide is for Wizard options, not Outsiders who get the ability at will.
Ok, so the volley of crossbow bolts for the Wizard gets some back up.
quicken true strike, takes the +16 to a +36 attack roll for the statue violently thrust upon the foe. Rather unreliable to count on having such a statue around, although it is certainly possible to create such an object quickly by way of major creation. Such a statue is yours to tote around with you as you see fit for hours - at 15th level, 15 hours, easily hauled around at foot speed by a floating disk. Until some one or some thing destroys it, you have a re-usable bludgeoning implement.
Or the wizard can carry 15 flasks of what ever splash weapon suits his fancy - that +16 attack roll is now targeting a touch armor class. Energy resistance is not a guarantee, and against evil outsiders and undead holy water is the best. At 15th level a +16 touch attack dealing 30d4 as far away as 150 feet against which there is no damage reduction applicable. Note that the 150' distance is from all available vials of holy water (or other splash weapon) to the target - an enormous area of 'reach' with the added advantage of being far less obvious that one character rattling along with 15/30/45/etc vials of silverschlager.
If one is presuming 'typical' adventure path play, that volley of holy water deals, on strictly average dice, 75 hit points to many BBEGs against which they gain no saving throw nor spell resistance check for at 15th level at a cost of 375 gp for the powdered silver. 3 wands of bless water including the material component cost provides enough charges for ten of these volleys at a paltry cost of 3,375 gp (1,125 gp per wand).
EDIT: 3,375 gp generating 750 hit points of damage in 10 combat rounds is a fairly sound investment for a wizard. Especially since that investment is likely to be spread across the entire party. I can live with that. ^_^
If you are using it in combat you are wasting it... however the combat maneuvers are more in line of what you would use the spell for... or making yourself float or affecting your surroundings.It's the sheer continued versatility of the spell that makes it blue.
The combat maneuvers may be the best use for the spell, but with the Concentration requirement, how many of your Wizard's rounds of actions do you want to spend on MAYBE grappling/tripping/etc. a CR appropriate critter?
It may very well be somewhat versatile, but it doesn't deal damage reliably, it doesn't perform combat maneuvers on more than one enemy, it doesn't move anything really heavy, floating is something you should already be capable of....it is versatile, just not in a good way for a 5th level spell slot.
I'm not saying it has no use, but I don't think it's a blue choice for a Wizard's 5th level slot.
Ok, so the volley of crossbow bolts for the Wizard gets some back up.quicken true strike, takes the +16 to a +36 attack roll for the entire volley that ignores concealment by way of telekinesis violent thrust.
efficient quiver stores 16 javelins. Damage output now matches that of the statue. Said stash of javelins does not need to be in the wizard's quiver, only one within range.
Or the wizard can carry 15 flasks of what ever splash weapon suits his fancy - that +16 attack roll is now targeting a touch armor class. Energy resistance is not a guarantee, and against evil outsiders and undead holy water is the best. At 15th level a +16 touch attack dealing 30d4 as far away as 150 feet against which there is no damage reduction applicable.
If one is presuming 'typical' adventure path play, that volley of holy water deals, on strictly average dice, 75 hit points to many BBEGs...
Quicken True Strike = 5th level spell slot to increase 1 attack roll. But you're making 15 attack rolls with a volley, so better go with the statue. Then you're using 1 feat, 1 more spell memorized, and another 5th level spell slot to be marginally effective. That's not efficient, or blue.
I like the flask/holy water idea much more. Somewhat circumstantial, and still a Blast type of useage, but useful given the circumstance. But I don't think that deserves a blue rating either.
EDIT: You're not seriously suggesting the Wizard has prepared 10 uses of Telekinesis are you?
The nice part is it is also useful for party placement --
I can bullrush the fighter into position for a full attack too -- or slide the rogue over for flanking. Is my party member needing healing but too far from the cleric? I can move him as well. Since I'm a party member they can choose to fail against my spells.
Yes it's a concentration action but when combined with my other options for lowering those saves and CMD with Rays of enfeeblement, rays of exhaustion and the like I don't really have to try as hard as before either. It's a great follow up spell and with it's mid level range I can generally afford the slot more than I can for higher level spells. It is "selective fire" in ways that many area of effect spells aren't, and especially useful on a ring of telekinesis when I don't have to waste the spell slot.
Am I going to prep it at level 9? Probably not, but by level 11 it is a contender for my list and by level 13 it is on it if I don't have a ring of it already.
Ok, so the volley of crossbow bolts for the Wizard gets some back up.quicken true strike, takes the +16 to a +36 attack roll for the entire volley that ignores concealment by way of telekinesis violent thrust.
efficient quiver stores 16 javelins. Damage output now matches that of the statue. Said stash of javelins does not need to be in the wizard's quiver, only one within range.
Or the wizard can carry 15 flasks of what ever splash weapon suits his fancy - that +16 attack roll is now targeting a touch armor class. Energy resistance is not a guarantee, and against evil outsiders and undead holy water is the best. At 15th level a +16 touch attack dealing 30d4 as far away as 150 feet against which there is no damage reduction applicable.
If one is presuming 'typical' adventure path play, that volley of holy water deals, on strictly average dice, 75 hit points to many BBEGs...
Quicken True Strike = 5th level spell slot to increase 1 attack roll. But you're making 15 attack rolls with a volley, so better go with the statue. Then you're using 1 feat, 1 more spell memorized, and another 5th level spell slot to be marginally effective. That's not efficient, or blue.
I like the flask/holy water idea much more. Somewhat circumstantial, and still a Blast type of useage, but useful given the circumstance. But I don't think that deserves a blue rating either.
Fair enough on the Quicken Spell and extra 5th level spell slot. The holy water as a "blast" criteria - as I understand them - does not suffer the primary criticisms of "blasting": SR, saving throws, energy resistance/protection/immunity - holy water via telekinesis bypasses all three of these. I don't know of any other way at 15th level for a wizard to generate that kind of nearly-guaranteed damage with a single spell against a single target.
Whether or not it deserves a blue rating is still subject to Treantmonk's discretion though. :)
EDIT: (10 prepared telekinesis spells) No, not at any one time, although it is very possible to do so with a scroll. However, over the course of a day or two or three of intense adventuring, 10 of these can easily have been gone through.
The nice part is it is also useful for party placement --
I can bullrush the fighter into position for a full attack too -- or slide the rogue over for flanking. Is my party member needing healing but too far from the cleric? I can move him as well. Since I'm a party member they can choose to fail against my spells.
Yes it's a concentration action but when combined with my other options for lowering those saves and CMD with Rays of enfeeblement, rays of exhaustion and the like I don't really have to try as hard as before either. It's a great follow up spell and with it's mid level range I can generally afford the slot more than I can for higher level spells. It is "selective fire" in ways that many area of effect spells aren't, and especially useful on a ring of telekinesis when I don't have to waste the spell slot.
Am I going to prep it at level 9? Probably not, but by level 11 it is a contender for my list and by level 13 it is on it if I don't have a ring of it already.
Now here's a use I can sink my teeth into, and additional points for creativity! But for a 'follow up' spell that you'd rather have on a ring, that's green, not blue.
Well Robert my use is green... and Turin's is green... and you can still do both either/or each round and switch up as needed.
Well Robert my use is green... and Turin's is green... and you can still do both either/or each round and switch up as needed.
The best ring of telekinesis is CL 15th and costs 150k gp - worth every copper piece of it, in my opinion.
[offtopic] Happy New Year, fellow obsessive gamers! [/offtopic]
And you've convinced me of its utility! As a green spell. Thanks for the ideas and the spirited discussion! Happy New Year!
And you've convinced me of its utility! As a green spell. Thanks for the ideas and the spirited discussion! Happy New Year!
^_^ I'll buy that for a (virtual) dollar! Glad to have pointed out a few things in tandem with Abraham Spalding. :)
Now here's a use I can sink my teeth into, and additional points for creativity! But for a 'follow up' spell that you'd rather have on a ring, that's green, not blue.
Hmmm...I'll think about the ranking.
|
|
Quick question(s) regarding violent thrust attacks using hurled objects.
What are people's thoughts on whether range increment penalties should apply?
Since you are required to make an attack roll to hit the target, should you suffer the increment penalty based upon the distance from the position from where the hurled object(s) originate and where they strike the target?
This would also theoretically limit the maximum distance the hurled objects could travel (5 range increments and independent of the spells range) from point of origin to target. If you don't cap the distance then you run into the scenario of the sustained force usage only allowing for movement of 20'/round while allowing the violent thrust to potentially move the same object up to 1000' in a single round.
Cheers
PS and Happy New Year to all!
Quick question(s) regarding violent thrust attacks using hurled objects.
What are people's thoughts on whether range increment penalties should apply?
Since you are required to make an attack roll to hit the target, should you suffer the increment penalty based upon the distance from the position from where the hurled object(s) originate and where they strike the target?
This would also theoretically limit the maximum distance the hurled objects could travel (5 range increments and independent of the spells range) from point of origin to target. If you don't cap the distance then you run into the scenario of the sustained force usage only allowing for movement of 20'/round while allowing the violent thrust to potentially move the same object up to 1000' in a single round.
Cheers
PS and Happy New Year to all!
The spell has a range limit (bolded below.)
Violent Thrust: Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
And that range would be flat. A 10th level Wizard simply can't use the ability to throw the objects beyond 100 ft. (Though the objects can be anywhere within range of the spell)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell has a range limit (bolded below.)
Violent Thrust: Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
Right. Missed that part. That takes care of the max range then.
Do you think there should be range penalties though? It seems reasonable that it would be harder to hit a target (or easier for the target to avoid) if said target is 100' from the hurled objects starting point, as opposed to 20' away.
It is probably not overpowered without the range penalties so maybe this is a non-issue.
Thanks for responding.
Cheers
The spell has a range limit (bolded below.)
Violent Thrust: Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
Right. Missed that part. That takes care of the max range then.
Do you think there should be range penalties though? It seems reasonable that it would be harder to hit a target (or easier for the target to avoid) if said target is 100' from the hurled objects starting point, as opposed to 20' away.
It is probably not overpowered without the range penalties so maybe this is a non-issue.
Thanks for responding.
Cheers
I would say not really - the range is respectable, but our Optimized Telekinetic Wizard has perhaps a +14 attack bonus at 10th level, higher with unaccounted for buffs. Penalizing that bonus with range penalties is a bit much in game terms. :)
The spell has a range limit (bolded below.)
Violent Thrust: Alternatively, the spell energy can be spent in a single round. You can hurl one object or creature per caster level (maximum 15) that are within range and all within 10 feet of each other toward any target within 10 feet per level of all the objects. You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
Right. Missed that part. That takes care of the max range then.
Do you think there should be range penalties though? It seems reasonable that it would be harder to hit a target (or easier for the target to avoid) if said target is 100' from the hurled objects starting point, as opposed to 20' away.
It is probably not overpowered without the range penalties so maybe this is a non-issue.
Thanks for responding.
Cheers
Not really, telekinesis moves objects with your mind, so I can see some corrections in-flight, more of a guided missile than an arrow.
I can't imagine NOT having dispel magic as a top 3rd level spell choice. Sure, it's not the debuff spell it was before, but it's success scales nicely at higher levels, and it can really pull your entire party out of some difficult situations (by dispelling the opposition's battlefield control and debuff spells). It's also of low enough level to make it a decent option for the Quicken feat at high levels. Gotta be at least Green (definitely Blue for Sorcerers) given it's applicability to so many situations.
I can't imagine NOT having dispel magic as a top 3rd level spell choice. Sure, it's not the debuff spell it was before, but it's success scales nicely at higher levels, and it can really pull your entire party out of some difficult situations (by dispelling the opposition's battlefield control and debuff spells). It's also of low enough level to make it a decent option for the Quicken feat at high levels. Gotta be at least Green (definitely Blue for Sorcerers) given it's applicability to so many situations.
Looking at it it has exactly 2 utility options:
Possibly remove one enemy effect.Attempt to counterspell one spell.
Neither of those is that good really, the main thing being that both are reactionary.
Being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, since a Wiz has to prepare spells ahead of time. For a Sorc I can see it, because it does a decent job of covering for a multitude of situations and a Sorc isn't wasting a spell slot to have it ready.
As a Wiz I'd just make a scroll or two and use those if it really comes up, but generally focus on spells that have more options or are guaranteed useful.
Looking at it it has exactly 2 utility options:
Possibly remove one enemy effect.
Attempt to counterspell one spell.Neither of those is that good really, the main thing being that both are reactionary.
Being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, since a Wiz has to prepare spells ahead of time. For a Sorc I can see it, because it does a decent job of covering for a multitude of situations and a Sorc isn't wasting a spell slot to have it ready.
As a Wiz I'd just make a scroll or two and use those if it really comes up, but generally focus on spells that have more options or are guaranteed useful.
I agree, being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, but s#!t happens, doesn't it? And dispel magic is the anti-s#!t happens spell. (I'd never use it to counterspell anyway. I'm talking about dispelling that end's an ongoing spell's duration - like those Summon Monsters that TreantMonk is so fond of!)
I agree, being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, but s#!t happens, doesn't it? And dispel magic is the anti-s#!t happens spell. (I'd never use it to counterspell anyway. I'm talking about dispelling that end's an ongoing spell's duration - like those Summon Monsters that TreantMonk is so fond of!)
Looking at it it has exactly 2 utility options:
Possibly remove one enemy effect.
Attempt to counterspell one spell.Neither of those is that good really, the main thing being that both are reactionary.
Being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, since a Wiz has to prepare spells ahead of time. For a Sorc I can see it, because it does a decent job of covering for a multitude of situations and a Sorc isn't wasting a spell slot to have it ready.
As a Wiz I'd just make a scroll or two and use those if it really comes up, but generally focus on spells that have more options or are guaranteed useful.
Well, that really depends on if you can count on facing spellcasters each and every day.
Personally I'd make do with a few scrolls for when it came up, but I wouldn't bother preparing it unless I knew I was going to need it. There's just so many 3rd level spells that are so much better.
I agree, being reactionary is a bad place to be for a Wiz, but s#!t happens, doesn't it? And dispel magic is the anti-s#!t happens spell. (I'd never use it to counterspell anyway. I'm talking about dispelling that end's an ongoing spell's duration - like those Summon Monsters that TreantMonk is so fond of!)
Yet even in those cases - dispel magic is often (usually) not your best spell to deal with the problem.
Consider two wizards:
Wizard A cast a summon spell
Wizard B cast a summon spell and has it engage the other summon
- the two summons square off - effectively negataed.
Now consider agains:
Wizard A cast a summon spell
Wizard B cast Dispel Magic
Now there is approximately a 50% chance that the spells will negate each other, and approximately a 50% chance that Wizard B's spell is wasted. The advantage is now squarely with Wizard A.
I use summoning since you mentioned it in the example - although casting times complicate it a bit more than shown in the example I've given - but you get the point right? If you prefer:
Wizard A casts cloudkill
Wizard B casts Gust of Wind or Dispel Magic
If I'm in Wizard B's party - I sure hope it's gust of wind he casts.
The main problem is that with Dispel - there is a very significant probability (averaging around 50%) that the spell does NOTHING. That means you are relying on luck to be effective. One of the great advantages of playing a wizard is by choosing the right spells, you can reduce the effect of luck tactically.
Yet even in those cases - dispel magic is often (usually) not your best spell to deal with the problem.Consider two wizards:
Wizard A cast a summon spell
Wizard B cast a summon spell and has it engage the other summon
- the two summons square off - effectively negataed.
Now consider agains:
Wizard A cast a summon spell
Wizard B cast Dispel Magic
Now there is approximately a 50% chance that the spells will negate each other, and approximately a 50% chance that Wizard B's spell is wasted. The advantage is now squarely with Wizard A.
I use summoning since you mentioned it in the example - although casting times complicate it a bit more than shown in the example I've given - but you get the point right? If you prefer:
Wizard A casts cloudkill
Wizard B casts Gust of Wind or Dispel Magic
If I'm in Wizard B's party - I sure hope it's gust of wind he casts.
The main problem is that with Dispel - there is a very significant probability (averaging around 50%) that the spell does NOTHING. That means you are relying on luck to be effective. One of the great advantages of playing a wizard is by choosing the right spells, you can reduce the effect of luck tactically.
I'll concede that the failure rate offsets its utility in many instances, and that can be the kiss of death for its use by a Wizard (a one-shot caster). But I like a 50% chance against Summon, Cloudkill, Tentacles for a 3rd level slot as opposed to the more efficient Gust of Wind that does nothing against many of the spells you may encounter. Choosing the right spells is one of the cruxes of the Wizard's God ranking (and if you nail it, you win). Dispel gives you a 50% chance to counter when you haven't selected perfectly (and my prescience remains on the fritz, unfortunately). Glass half full analysis, anyway....
Do you always encounter a spellcaster? No, just almost always, or a magical trap.
I'll also admit to having a fondness for Sorcerer builds, the spammability changes the evaluation on certain spells (dispel magic being paramount as to its utility AND spammability for a Sorc). This may also color my evaluation of the spell.
And TreantMonk's Wizard guide has to be my number ONE visited area on the entire Pathfinder site! Thanks again!
I want to point out something that can help in pathfinder with Dispel Magic compared to 3.5...
By knowing what the spell is you can dispel it by its save throw instead of its caster level.
Depending on the level and spell this might be easier than simply dispelling the caster level.
Consider a level 20 wizard. Normally dispelling his spells will mean a DC 31 check. However if you know what the spell is you could choose to dispel it by save throw. Now maximum DC for a save throw is 34... that's harder for a ninth level spell... however for a sixth level or lower spell its the same DC or lower. If you trying to knock out his cloudkill the DC of 30 is easier than the DC of 31.
That maximum DC include spell focus and greater spell focus by the way... without those you start on a DC of 32... so an eighth level spell is the same DC and a seventh or lower is easier to dispel by save throw.
I want to point out something that can help in pathfinder with Dispel Magic compared to 3.5...
By knowing what the spell is you can dispel it by its save throw instead of its caster level.
Depending on the level and spell this might be easier than simply dispelling the caster level.
Consider a level 20 wizard. Normally dispelling his spells will mean a DC 31 check. However if you know what the spell is you could choose to dispel it by save throw. Now maximum DC for a save throw is 34... that's harder for a ninth level spell... however for a sixth level or lower spell its the same DC or lower. If you trying to knock out his cloudkill the DC of 30 is easier than the DC of 31.
That maximum DC include spell focus and greater spell focus by the way... without those you start on a DC of 32... so an eighth level spell is the same DC and a seventh or lower is easier to dispel by save throw.
Wow. I hadn't noticed that (I'd assumed the DC to refer to the caster level dispel check DC). Seems to suggest that for targeting a specific spell effect, you use a save DC dispel check if it has one (what do you do if it doesn't have a save DC? calculate one or use the caster level check?). Not sure that's what the designers intended, but I like it for how it scales (easier to dispel lower level spells, harder for higher level/focused spells).
It doesn't seem to suggest it -- it flat out says it. Since it's a completely new line it seems like they wanted it there. The save DC is spell level and stat based so it's not like it's hard to figure out.
It doesn't seem to suggest it -- it flat out says it. Since it's a completely new line it seems like they wanted it there. The save DC is spell level and stat based so it's not like it's hard to figure out.
Still vague. Says 'the DC of that spell', but fails to identify the save DC or the caster level check DC of that spell. I can assume it is the spell's save DC, but the caster level check DC is introduced in the dispel magic's explanatory text, thereby introducing another type of spell DC for the disppeller to overcome to confuse us with.
It doesn't seem to suggest it -- it flat out says it. Since it's a completely new line it seems like they wanted it there. The save DC is spell level and stat based so it's not like it's hard to figure out.Still vague. Says 'the DC of that spell', but fails to identify the save DC or the caster level check DC of that spell. I can assume it is the spell's save DC, but the caster level check DC is introduced in the dispel magic's explanatory text, thereby introducing another type of spell DC for the disppeller to overcome to confuse us with.
I have to agree with this interpretation. The previous paragraph refers to the caster level check to dispel a spell as a "DC", so it stands to reason the following paragraph refers to that DC unless specified otherwise (which it isn't)
I'll concede that the failure rate offsets its utility in many instances, and that can be the kiss of death for its use by a Wizard (a one-shot caster). But I like a 50% chance against Summon, Cloudkill, Tentacles for a 3rd level slot as opposed to the more efficient Gust of Wind that does nothing against many of the spells you may encounter. Choosing the right spells is one of the cruxes of the Wizard's God ranking (and if you nail it, you win). Dispel gives you a 50% chance to counter when you haven't selected perfectly (and my prescience remains on the fritz, unfortunately). Glass half full analysis, anyway....
If you have a widely varied memorization list, and concentrate on versatile spells (and summons - note that some summoned creatures have gust of wind and other handy spells), then, although you don't always have the best spell for the situation, you can probably have a spell that works more than 50% of the time.
I agree that the spell would be worth more to a sorcerer who can't have the wide variety of memorized spells.
With Dispel Magic you can choose to target the saving throw DC instead of the caster level DC if you know what the spell is.