I've found that most people that complain about underpowered warrior-mages (I refuse to use the g-word), don't want a single warrior-mage class. They want a completely optimized gestalt fighter/wizard (or possibly fighter/sorcerer).
Who exactly are these people? I've been in half a dozen looong discussions on the subject and there have been virtually no requests for a full caster full fighter set up.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok guys, stay on target, stay on target...
Can anyone think of any other PFRPG only EK builds?
I think another would be Sorcerer with Demon Bloodline and toughness.
Toughness effectively boosts the HP to d8, and your strength auto increases. Your BAB will lag, but I don't know we can help that w/o prestige classing anyway. It would be spells and conjures to dish it out, and spells and HP to take it. You'd likely want to take augment summoning as your 3rd level feat, and maybe spell focus conjuration early on too.
|
I guess I think at this point you're asking for too much.
Taking quick draw and using a buckler will eliminate a good chunk of your problems.
Not armed? Cast a spell normally with your main hand. With quick draw you can be armed at a moment's notice should you wish to swing your weapon around.
Armed? If you can spare the move action sheathe your weapon. If you can't or would rather remain armed, use your buckler arm and temporarily lose the AC bonus.
You could theoretically do about the same thing with a small shield, but you'd have to use quick draw to pull it out when you weren't casting.
It's not optimal, but I get the sense you're looking for a class that doesn't and at this point cannot exist in Pathfinder (for all the reasons outlined by Paizo, whether you agree with them or not). I guess trading off AC occasionally for the ability to cast, or trading off a single move action to cast and have a weapon out is a bigger issue to you than it would be to some giving you suggestions.
Getting back to the core question, I do think the EK gish does struggle some especially around middle levels. It's pretty much limited to one build strategy (wizard 5/fighter 1/EK x)
Your point about middle levels is valid, but a Sor4/Ftr1/DD4/EKx is IMO viable, though you do have to tough it out a bit longer. Adding +4 STR, +3 Natural Armor and 2 draconic bloodline feats (improved initiative, power attack, toughness) at the cost of one more spellcaster level. You don't get the 9th level spells though :-/.
I've found that most people that complain about underpowered warrior-mages (I refuse to use the g-word), don't want a single warrior-mage class. They want a completely optimized gestalt fighter/wizard (or possibly fighter/sorcerer).Who exactly are these people? I've been in half a dozen looong discussions on the subject and there have been virtually no requests for a full caster full fighter set up.Char-op proponents that expound that a multiclass must do everything a base class can do plus everything another base class can do or you would be better off just taking one or the other.
I won't name names, but you KNOW whom I mean...
Go ahead, name names, with quotes please, because I'm betting you can't find them. Nobody has asked for a gestalt.
Some people have pointed out that as far as classes go, full BAB is given the same "weight" as full spellcasting progression, and that the two are nowhere near the same in power.
Mostly people have just pointed out the fact that Pathfinder core pretty much fails to serve for creating a Fighter/Mage type character that is capable of functioning as a Fighter/Mage across all levels, and instead offers what can be summed up as a Mage with a somewhat better BAB and the ability to use a lot of different weapons.
If I make a gish I usually aim to have them be an effective out of combat spell caster and slightly below standard combatant. To fill the roll of utility caster in a wizardless party.
A ranged fighter build can help offset the issues with weapons and armor. The feats can be useful for using ray based spells as well.
I've found that most people that complain about underpowered warrior-mages (I refuse to use the g-word), don't want a single warrior-mage class. They want a completely optimized gestalt fighter/wizard (or possibly fighter/sorcerer).Who exactly are these people? I've been in half a dozen looong discussions on the subject and there have been virtually no requests for a full caster full fighter set up.Char-op proponents that expound that a multiclass must do everything a base class can do plus everything another base class can do or you would be better off just taking one or the other.
I won't name names, but you KNOW whom I mean...
Interestingly enough I dont, usually I just write off multiclassing in general when it comes to spellcasting, so it is entirely possible i missed it. But near as i can tell those charactor op proponents usually say that the multiclass should do SOMETHING on the same power level of a single class, or you are better off taking one or the other. I do not remember anyone ever saying it should do everything both classes do or even everything one class does.
Mostly people have just pointed out the fact that Pathfinder core pretty much fails to serve for creating a Fighter/Mage type character that is capable of functioning as a Fighter/Mage across all levels, and instead offers what can be summed up as a Mage with a somewhat better BAB and the ability to use a lot of different weapons.Please. "Function as a fighter at all levels" and "Function as a mage at all levels" is exactly like asking for a gestalt. And yes, PF does not offer that.
Arcane Archer is a fighter that can do wizardry things. Eldritch Knight is a wizard that can do fightery things. Neither offer both. And the Bard is not as good a fighter as the fighter and not as good a caster as the caster. Some then follow that up with "you would be better off picking one or the other". That is a very old argument from the WotC boards which still gets used even here.
If you don't like Fighter>Wizard (Fw), and you dont like Wf, and you think F>Fw and W>Wf, then what you have JUST ASKED FOR is FW, which is gestalt.
Actually what we usually ask for is that f+w = W = F. The idea that the two can combine to equal something as good as one or the other.
Have a look at the iron mage homebrew class or the super genious archon for examples.
Mostly people have just pointed out the fact that Pathfinder core pretty much fails to serve for creating a Fighter/Mage type character that is capable of functioning as a Fighter/Mage across all levels, and instead offers what can be summed up as a Mage with a somewhat better BAB and the ability to use a lot of different weapons.Please. "Function as a fighter at all levels" and "Function as a mage at all levels" is exactly like asking for a gestalt. And yes, PF does not offer that.
Arcane Archer is a fighter that can do wizardry things. Eldritch Knight is a wizard that can do fightery things. Neither offer both. And the Bard is not as good a fighter as the fighter and not as good a caster as the caster. Some then follow that up with "you would be better off picking one or the other". That is a very old argument from the WotC boards which still gets used even here.
If you don't like Fighter>Wizard (Fw), and you dont like Wf, and you think F>Fw and W>Wf, then what you have JUST ASKED FOR is FW, which is gestalt.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said Fighter/Mage across all levels, NOT Fighter+Mage across all levels. There is a distinct difference, and as you note yourself, neither the AA or EK cover the archetype; the Bard might be able to do it with a few tweaks to the spell list (and for my personal taste, elimination of the Performing and other Bard-y class features as well).
A few posts ago someone mentioned that they'd like a martial class such as the PF Ranger or Paladin, with an Arcane spell list instead of a Divine. That is what I see asked for most often. It's the option I'd prefer myself, actually.
A few posts ago someone mentioned that they'd like a martial class such as the PF Ranger or Paladin, with an Arcane spell list instead of a Divine. That is what I see asked for most often. It's the option I'd prefer myself, actually.
have you seen the iron mage homebrew class that was on these boards some time ago?
have you seen the iron mage homebrew class that was on these boards some time ago?
A few posts ago someone mentioned that they'd like a martial class such as the PF Ranger or Paladin, with an Arcane spell list instead of a Divine. That is what I see asked for most often. It's the option I'd prefer myself, actually.
Yes, I have. I'd like something similar in place of the Eldritch Knight(as advertised) or Arcane Archer PrCs please.
While I respect the work people put into homebrew stuff like that, in the end it's still a homebrew, which means unofficial, and therefore disallowed in what I imagine to be the vast majority of games.
Guys, wait for the APG. Trust me ;D
I am waiting for the APG, specifically because of hints James Jacobs dropped awhile back regarding tweaks to the Bard base class that just might turn out to fill my wishes just fine.
We'll see. If it still has any of that fruity singing and dancing stuff after it's all said and done, it can DIAF though.
Guys, wait for the APG. Trust me ;D
The Summoner and Alchemist I think do a good job in getting 2 new types of Gish, and leave you with many cases covered. They still do not have a class that decently makes an evoker-fighter though, which is what I typically see people wanting. Someone who works offensive magic spells into their normal melee attacks. That being said, I don't think I've seen a ballanced version of that in 3.5, though there is some neat homebrew out there for it.
Stop putting words in my mouth.I did not mean "you" as in yourself. It was supposed to be a more generic "this group of people". My apologies. I missed that in the proofread.
And I have a problem with the f + w = F = W, since it is very much up to debate if indeed F = W. If, as the tier proponents postulate, F=3 and W=1, f+w=2, which I think works. This would be W>(f+w)>F.
Not a problem, I was reading as being a bit more direct than was intended.
F=3, f+w=2, and W=1 is close to acceptable to me, but F=2, f=w=2, and W=2 would be much better, definitely. Unfortunately, when speaking specifically about say, the EK, there are a number of issues. Mostly that at levels 1-6 W=3 and F=1 or 2, and at levels 14-20 F=3 and W=1, and when you play an EK you need to take the T3 for 1-6, then you get to play as a T3-4 for a couple of levels, and then the game is half over. You basically get to be a Wizard during the worst levels for being a Wizard, then you get to trade down, and all you get in return is access to Weapon Specialization (and a half dozen other Feats) and a slightly better BAB.
|
|
Well, what PF offers and what PF will allow are entirely different subjects...
PF offers backwards compatibility, which allows a lot! See? One subject. ;)
I was part of a group that used gestalt rules. Not one Gish was ever even thought of. Unless you count Paladin/Bard. But he was so awesome he made his allies awesome.
I actually plan to play a F2/W6/EK10 for the upcoming Kingmaker AP. I see no problem with the basic build. Having to use a swift action to use the arcane armor feats is what I don't get. I get to spend 1 or 2 feats and then lose the chance to use a quickened spell when I use them. If I spend feats to wear armor that should be it. I would love to wear armor with my EK build but I am not sure I will be able to.
F=3, f+w=2, and W=1 is close to acceptable to me, but F=2, f=w=2, and W=2 would be much better, definitely. Unfortunately, when speaking specifically about say, the EK, there are a number of issues. Mostly that at levels 1-6 W=3 and F=1 or 2, and at levels 14-20 F=3 and W=1, and when you play an EK you need to take the T3 for 1-6, then you get to play as a T3-4 for a couple of levels, and then the game is half over. You basically get to be a Wizard during the worst levels for being a Wizard, then you get to trade down, and all you get in return is access to Weapon Specialization (and a half dozen other Feats) and a slightly better BAB.Yes, a very fair criticism of the EK as-is. I would prefer to see it reversed (Prereq BAB+5, 1st lvl arcane spells).
I'd like to see a more balanced +3BAB with 2nd level spells.
For what little it's worth, I'd love to see an arcane fighter built along the same lines as the inquisitor. Limited casting (6th level max) but spells at different levels giving them access to some higher level magics. Spell list focused on blasting and buffing, with some limited utility (mostly transportation magic).Peter, again I'll point you to the Pathfinder Database. Ha! Got a link. Try here.
Not exactly what I was after. Too plain and lacking synergy. That is in every way worse than the EK.
Couldn't you get in then with just 6 levels of Wiz? Or 4 wiz, 1 ftr?I'd like to see a more balanced +3BAB with 2nd level spells.F=3, f+w=2, and W=1 is close to acceptable to me, but F=2, f=w=2, and W=2 would be much better, definitely. Unfortunately, when speaking specifically about say, the EK, there are a number of issues. Mostly that at levels 1-6 W=3 and F=1 or 2, and at levels 14-20 F=3 and W=1, and when you play an EK you need to take the T3 for 1-6, then you get to play as a T3-4 for a couple of levels, and then the game is half over. You basically get to be a Wizard during the worst levels for being a Wizard, then you get to trade down, and all you get in return is access to Weapon Specialization (and a half dozen other Feats) and a slightly better BAB.Yes, a very fair criticism of the EK as-is. I would prefer to see it reversed (Prereq BAB+5, 1st lvl arcane spells).
Yes to the 4W/1F, no to the 6W due to the All Martial Weapons prereq, making it a bit less restrictive and allowing more variety for entry builds is not a bad thing, is it? As it stands right now it's pretty much 5W/1(martial class) or bust. Although if you absolutely must stick to the PrC at 7th that could be changed to +4BAB and 2nd level spells, allowing entry as a 4W/2F or 3F/3W.
|
Couldn't you get in then with just 6 levels of Wiz? Or 4 wiz, 1 ftr?I'd like to see a more balanced +3BAB with 2nd level spells.
Yes, a very fair criticism of the EK as-is. I would prefer to see it reversed (Prereq BAB+5, 1st lvl arcane spells).
I'd rather see it as +8-10 BAB and 1st level arcane spells. That way a fighter could start picking it up at any time after a certain point, and a wizard couldn't just hop on whenever his BAB got high enough.
I'd rather see it as +8-10 BAB and 1st level arcane spells. That way a fighter could start picking it up at any time after a certain point, and a wizard couldn't just hop on whenever his BAB got high enough.Couldn't you get in then with just 6 levels of Wiz? Or 4 wiz, 1 ftr?I'd like to see a more balanced +3BAB with 2nd level spells.
Yes, a very fair criticism of the EK as-is. I would prefer to see it reversed (Prereq BAB+5, 1st lvl arcane spells).
We already have that version in the form of the Arcane Archer, which has it's own issues, but certainly manages to fill the role of a ranged fighter who has a few arcane tricks up his sleeve.
Edit: also, I wasn't at any point considering dropping the "All Martial Weapon proficiencies" prerequisite, sorry for not making that clear. That prereq alone keeps a Wizard from hopping aboard.
I actually plan to play a F2/W6/EK10 for the upcoming Kingmaker AP. I see no problem with the basic build. Having to use a swift action to use the arcane armor feats is what I don't get. I get to spend 1 or 2 feats and then lose the chance to use a quickened spell when I use them. If I spend feats to wear armor that should be it. I would love to wear armor with my EK build but I am not sure I will be able to.
I've been playing an eldritch knight, with quicken spell and armor. You're only going to have a few quickened spells, and those at the upper levels (13+). Taking a 10%, or even 15-20%, spell failure when casting them isn't that big an issue, from my experience. I recall failing once, growled, and moved on.
As for requirements... it looks like this would work fairly well:
BAB 3, Spell level 3 would work
BAB 4, Spell level 2 would work.
BAB 5, Spell level 1... I guess that would work. I suppose Arcane Archer is BAB 6, Spell level 1, for 3/4 advancement + more class features.
I think the first two are best, and would prefer the 2nd as default (since it really allows either).
As long as you don't have to a heavy shield in hand you never have to drop your weapon to cast a spell if your GM is not letting you chose your weapon as the focus. A light shield can carry a weapon, but it does not let you USE a weapon. Even two handed swords can technically be carried in the same hand as a light shield, leaving your left with a hand open for casting.
I am waiting for the APG, specifically because of hints James Jacobs dropped awhile back regarding tweaks to the Bard base class that just might turn out to fill my wishes just fine.
I recall those hints. Sounded very very intriguing
To carry a TH weapon and cast, re-wielding your weapon is effectively the same as drawing it...either you have Quick Draw or you spend a move action. Releasing a hand is a free action...re-acquiring the weapon is not. You carry a TH weapon MUCH differently in one hand then in two.
==Aelryinth
To carry a TH weapon and cast, re-wielding your weapon is effectively the same as drawing it...either you have Quick Draw or you spend a move action. Releasing a hand is a free action...re-acquiring the weapon is not. You carry a TH weapon MUCH differently in one hand then in two.
==Aelryinth
What.
Dude, they're not saying you drop the weapon. They're saying you just let go for a bit.
Holding something with two hands instead of one isn't a move action. I can't even imagine how that would work. You'd have to be the slowest creature alive to take a move action just to grip more with one hand.
|
|
Hi
I've got an Arcanist/Martial concept in the PFS campaign - Half Orc Sorc/Paladin (going Dragon Disciple)
OK - not full caster, but enough spells to support his combat abilities. Eventually going to use his natural weapons with Smite Evil to pull down the baddies. (2 Claws, Bite, 2 Wing attacks, Tail Sweep, all with Smite bonuses, Bite & Tail both get 1 1/2 Str dam bonus)
Was going Sorc 1/Pal 4/Dragon Discp xxxx, until I found out couldn't use Magical Knack. Now taking Sorc/Pal 2/Sorc.. /Drag Discp so I can get the Arcane Armour at 5th.
Prob not what the OP wanted, but hey, it's a Martial/Caster thing that just might work! (I hope) lol
Cheers
Paul H
|
Reasonable DM...yes...by the rules...no. And the issue is I have a by the rules DM...and a fairly strict one at that.If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.
the rules say the bonded item must be wielded. That is then clarified to mean 'in hand'. One hand on a two handed weapon is wielded and in hand. Prove me wrong.
There is a difference between a rules purist and a rules nazi. your GM needs to look at the obvious intent of the rules and not hyperfocus on semantics.
|
|
Reasonable DM...yes...by the rules...no. And the issue is I have a by the rules DM...and a fairly strict one at that.If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.
the rules say the bonded item must be wielded. That is then clarified to mean 'in hand'. One hand on a two handed weapon is wielded and in hand. Prove me wrong.
There is a difference between a rules purist and a rules nazi. your GM needs to look at the obvious intent of the rules and not hyperfocus on semantics.
I actually agree with him on this point actually...that wielded is NOT the same as in hand. You can keep a longsword in hand with a small shield...but you can not wield a longsword in the hand with a small shield for example. Of course this does make bonding two handed weapons or staffs utterly STUPID...but that is an issue that paizo should fix via errata to either change wielded to in hand or the better option of say weapons, staffs and wands bounded can act as somatic components. Which would actually make bounded option slightly better because lets face it, bound items suck compared to the absolute no loss that the familiar chooser gets. You can even choose to not waste gold on a new familiar if you so choose and have it be a non-issue. Familiar loss should suffer the same con check as the item IMHO. In anycase, rules you THINK should work a certain way does not make it so. This is a very RAW oriented DM and group...so the whole houseruling is not gonna happen in this game.
For MY game that I am DMing, yeah I am so changing it so bound weapons, staffs and wands can act as somatic components when wielded...and familiar loss makes you do the same con checks. Also give the familiar the option to cast one spell known per day...kinda like the item...but the familar casts it...yes it gives you an extra action...but familars are squishy. I´m also gonna say that the ring or amulet can not be enchanted...else they will become the default item of choice for binding. You want that security...your gonna have to give up an item slot to do it. Ha...there make them hard choices now...muhahaha.
|
Not sure if you're joking or not, but making one type of bound item not able to be enchanted but allowing others seems kinda arbitrary. After all, the only benefits are 1: Enchant without feat and 2: One extra spontaneous spell per day. That's it. Not telling you how to DM, but giving a benefit to one choice while punishing the other choice is just bad houseruling.
|
|
Not sure if you're joking or not, but making one type of bound item not able to be enchanted but allowing others seems kinda arbitrary. After all, the only benefits are 1: Enchant without feat and 2: One extra spontaneous spell per day. That's it. Not telling you how to DM, but giving a benefit to one choice while punishing the other choice is just bad houseruling.
Ring and amulets are nearly impossible to destroy and impossible to disarm. The others are quite easy to get fubared over with. If you allow the rings and amulets to be enchanted, they will be a 100% superior choice...period. There is NO downside compared to the alternatives so I´m giving one. Then again, sunder and disarm happens a lot in my games...and familiar do die. If you don´t disarm and sunder and you protect the familiar like some sacred holy relics in your game...yeah then it is punishing the ring and amulet...but I don´t, so for the security those two choices provide, I´m making the cost an item slot. Well I may take away the extra spell instead...not so sure yet. But the rings and amulets definitely needs a downside.
You can wield a weapon in the same hand as a small shield. You just can't attack with it.
And again, seriously, it's not like you're throwing your sword at the ground here. You're letting go for a few seconds.
Under this wielding madness, no wizard could ever use a staff because oh god it's two handed that means my hands are glued to it forever!
|
|
WELL, the weapons start off as Masterwork for free if you're starting at level 1, can be enchanted earlier, and directly improve your combat prowess. Also, have you seen how hard it is to sunder magical weapons (and actually do damage)? Amulets can only be made into a handful of magic items, and rings/amulets almost purely defensive. You're forcing a choice on players by making the other choices sub-optimal, when as they are it is balanced. Of course, the real factor is if your players agree with you or not. If they prefer the weapon/wand/staff and would never think of getting a defensive item, then awesome, everybody's happy. But if someone was thinking of taking the Ring as an arcane bond and you told them not to bother because of the nerfs you're talking about hitting it with, then there's an unhappy player.
Like I said, they already have a downside- Defensive verses offensive, there are many more viable options for weapons, and weapons can be enchanted earlier than rings.
Also, Amulets and Rings can be sundered just like a weapon can.
Oh, and before I forget- A staff can be wielded in one hand. It is a double weapon, and double weapons can be wielded in one hand, but if you do you can only attack with one end.
|
|
Under this wielding madness, no wizard could ever use a staff because oh god it's two handed that means my hands are glued to it forever!
Yes I do realize this and this is utterly STUPID...but that is what it says. And no you can´t wield a weapon in the hand with a small shield...but you can carry it. Nor can you wield a two handed sword in one hand. I would LOVE an errata of this...but that is what is written.
|
|
Also, Amulets and Rings can be sundered just like a weapon can.
Oh, and before I forget- A staff can be wielded in one hand. It is a double weapon, and double weapons can be wielded in one hand, but if you do you can only attack with one end.
Yes amulets and rings can be sundered...but how often does THAT come up vs doing so to a weapon or wand or staff. The enhancement bonuses now do make it harder to sunder very highly enchanted weapons true...but not impossible. Especially since it is one of the first 4 items on the list of things that take damage when you roll a 1. Where as the ring and amulet is quite far down on the list. And rings and amulets can not be disarmed...period.
And where do you read that a double weapon is used in one hand when you attack with just one head? It says you can choose to attack with one head (to avoid the TWF penalties)...but nowhere does it says it changes the number of hands required.
|
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
It's in the weapons section, where it describes double weapons
Also, if you're the DM, you decide what get's sundered, so saying "how often does that happen" is a moot point. If you want to sunder their bonded item, it's going to happen. Also, you can get a Locked Gauntlet for your main hand to avoid Disarms, and use a buckler in your off hand. Any time you cast a spell you lose the Shield Bonus to AC, but that's a decent trade-off.
|
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.It's in the weapons section, where it describes double weapons
I just read it...you read it again and tell me where it says you can use the weapon in one hand...all it says is you can choose to only use one side.
|
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
EDIT: Also, consider that a ring will be occupying a slot at no real benefit up until you can enchant it at 7th level anyways, and the only good amulet for a very long time is the Amulet of Natural Armor
|
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
God damn it...I missed the entire last line on that page...hey so the staff is once again viable...that still doesn´t help the great sword tho. I actually quite like this rules change in PF. Thanks for bonking this one over my head.
|
|
Well, the Greatsword may not be a viable option in core, but that's just because you need a free hand. I think Longsword/buckler is a great option, IMO, especially since your AC will most likely be lacking due to being restricted to mostly lighter/mithral armor. Pick Longsword/bastard sword as your bonded item and get a locked gauntlet for that hand.
EDIT: Then, get Arcane Strike for any round that you want to attack and Arcane Armor Training for any round you want to cast spells and you're fine.
|
|
The locked gauntlets help against disarming...rings and amulets prevent it entirely. Having only 1 ring or no amulets til level 7 is no big deal since your money generally can be spent elsewhere pretty easily at those levels. Sundering offensive tools in hand happens pretty often...sundering a ring or amulets that may or may not be an arcane bound item...yeah, unless the DM is being a jerk is less likely. Here´s the thing, with RAW, you would be insane to pick bonded item over a familiar from a purely mechanical stand point...and then option of items is rings and amulets, then weapons, then staffs, then wand. You´d have to be a fairly hardcore harry potter fan to choose wand...come to think of it the wand choice could use a bit of a boost.... Basically I want optimizer guide writers to go humm...when they write their guides...not go pick this because it is infinitely superior...which the familiar option is currently...and the ring and amulet choices for items.