I'm told that if I empower a spell on its own, I don't roll the additional dice. But if I empower a maximized spell, I roll the dice to determine the empowered part. How dumb is that.
How are you empowering a Maximized spell? A maximized spell has no variable numeric effects.
Hmmm...now that I think about it, obviously you can't empower a maximized spell, but can you maximize and empowered spell?
No way my DM would allow it, but I guess there is an argument there.
I'm told that if I empower a spell on its own, I don't roll the additional dice. But if I empower a maximized spell, I roll the dice to determine the empowered part. How dumb is that.How are you empowering a Maximized spell? A maximized spell has no variable numeric effects.
Hmmm...now that I think about it, obviously you can't empower a maximized spell, but can you maximize and empowered spell?
No way my DM would allow it, but I guess there is an argument there.
All metamagic work independently and are applied to the base spell, more or less. You don't apply them in any special order, but simultaneously. It only matters in a few cases though, like a maximized, empowered spell or an enlarged reach spell.
Basically, if base damage is 4d6, an empowered, maximized spell means:
You roll 4d6 to get base damage X.
Simultaneously:
Take X*0.5 to get empower damage.
Maximize damage = 24.
Total damage is equal to empower damage plus maximize damage, so 0.5*X + Maximize (average damage 31).
EDIT: See last paragraph of maximize spell feat.
The NPC's do hate you...they just think you suck.
She's the one who suggested blasting 4 CR 15 critters in a room. I grabbed one of the CR 15 critters I was going to do a DPR calculation with and used it as an example as to why sprinkling enemies with damage is inferior to focus-firing one down. Focus-fire, focus-fire, it dost earn the player's ire, when their balls of fire fail to mire, and their situation turns most dire.
I disagree. If I focus fire on one (by using save or dies, or scorching ray or whatever) than I may take down ONE. However, if I can deal around 100-200 damage to ALL of them in a single round with blasts, then the pouncing barbarian can finish off one, the smiting paladin another, and the fighter archer a third.
The party just took out three of the four in one round, rather than just one (without the blasts, the party could seriously harm the others, but are unlikely to finish them off).
You can't forget about the rest of the party and the things they can contribute alongside the blasts. Too many people like to look at the blaster in a vacuum. In truth, he is very rarely facing enemies alone (if he is, hopefully it isn't against four enemies of a CR equal to his level!).
All metamagic work independently and are applied to the base spell, more or less.
That's not really true and isn't stated anywhere in the rules. Only maximize and empower spell don't interact with each other, but that is specifically called out. Intensified Spell and Maximize Spell used together would yield 90 damage, for example, not 60 + 5d6.
All metamagic work independently and are applied to the base spell, more or less.That's not really true and isn't stated anywhere in the rules. Only maximize and empower spell don't interact with each other, but that is specifically called out. Intensified Spell and Maximize Spell used together would yield 90 damage, for example, not 60 + 5d6.
How would intensified and empowered work? I can't find anything to give me a solid answer. Intensified can produce a spell more damaging than a maximized (its possible, but unlikely) while even if empower only applies to the base spell, can still get you over maximize damage.
How would intensified and empowered work? I can't find anything to give me a solid answer. Intensified can produce a spell more damaging than a maximized (its possible, but unlikely) while even if empower only applies to the base spell, can still get you over maximize damage.
All metamagic work independently and are applied to the base spell, more or less.That's not really true and isn't stated anywhere in the rules. Only maximize and empower spell don't interact with each other, but that is specifically called out. Intensified Spell and Maximize Spell used together would yield 90 damage, for example, not 60 + 5d6.
They interact just fine.
Say you cast an intensified empowered fireball, for example: It would deal up to (15d6) x 1.5, or an average of 78.75 damage at CL 15th.
All metamagic stacks EXCEPT for the specific combo that is Empower Spell and Maximize Spell (which both outline that exception in their respective texts). People tend to over think things, sometimes making up rules where none exist.
That was my interpretation, but then you get a situation where maximize is doing less damage than another 3 spell slot metamagic combo. Works for me, just wanted to ask.
That was my interpretation, but then you get a situation where maximize is doing less damage than another 3 spell slot metamagic combo. Works for me, just wanted to ask.
Intensified Spell is just as powerful as empower when used on Fireball... its +1 vs +2...
She's the one who suggested blasting 4 CR 15 critters in a room. I grabbed one of the CR 15 critters I was going to do a DPR calculation with and used it as an example as to why sprinkling enemies with damage is inferior to focus-firing one down. Focus-fire, focus-fire, it dost earn the player's ire, when their balls of fire fail to mire, and their situation turns most dire.I disagree. If I focus fire on one (by using save or dies, or scorching ray or whatever) than I may take down ONE. However, if I can deal around 100-200 damage to ALL of them in a single round with blasts, then the pouncing barbarian can finish off one, the smiting paladin another, and the fighter archer a third.
The party just took out three of the four in one round, rather than just one (without the blasts, the party could seriously harm the others, but are unlikely to finish them off).
You can't forget about the rest of the party and the things they can contribute alongside the blasts. Too many people like to look at the blaster in a vacuum. In truth, he is very rarely facing enemies alone (if he is, hopefully it isn't against four enemies of a CR equal to his level!).
Why are you assuming the monsters went last or have an unobstructed line of effect?
Why are you assuming the monsters went last or have an unobstructed line of effect?
Why are you assuming he hasn't taken the selective spell feat...
Why are you assuming he hasn't taken the selective spell feat...
Why are you assuming the monsters went last or have an unobstructed line of effect?
How is that going to help? That feat only makes sure he does not tag his fellow party members. The scenario in question already assumes no party members were hit by the AoE.
How is that going to help? That feat only makes sure he does not tag his fellow party members. The scenario in question already assumes no party members were hit by the AoE.Why are you assuming he hasn't taken the selective spell feat...
Why are you assuming the monsters went last or have an unobstructed line of effect?
Then what? It can be his turn whenever he wants in the init chain... he can just drop in his blast and if he deals 100dmg to each (even if he hits only 3 of them) he helped his group a big deal?
All metamagic stacks EXCEPT for the specific combo that is Empower Spell and Maximize Spell (which both outline that exception in their respective texts). People tend to over think things, sometimes making up rules where none exist.
Sometimes I seriously miss 3.0 blasting. Empower and Maximize DID stack, and they stacked well. Fireball 10d6 became fireball 15d6 become 15d6 maximized; so a maximized-empowered fireball always did 90 fire damage pre-save/resistances. Now it might have been because I was young a foolish then, but I never noticed a weakness for high-end blasting during this time. Maximize and Empower were just two of those feats every mage wanted, and wanted to combine.
Since when does using empower makes a 10d6 spell a 15d6 spell?
As far as i know, casting an empowered fireball, you roll 10d6 and multiply the result by a factor of 1.5. And that is not 15d6.
Well it doesn't these days. But in 3.0 it was accepted by pretty much everyone that maximize and empower stacked in full (so fireball 60->90), but it got changed in 3.5, and for some strange reason people have argued about it ever since. On a side note, in 3.5 static modifiers and the like were multiplied as well; but I'm not sure if that is the common reading in Pathfinder.
Interesting ... I generally find that blasting IS useful in a party mechanic, for weakening large numbers of foes so the focussed-damage dealers have an easier time of it.
Interesting ... I generally find that blasting IS useful in a party mechanic, for weakening large numbers of foes so the focussed-damage dealers have an easier time of it.
Thats my attitude as well.
Its useful because the BBEG gets at least some dmg making him weaker and roasting his mooks and support
Interesting ... I generally find that blasting IS useful in a party mechanic, for weakening large numbers of foes so the focussed-damage dealers have an easier time of it.Thats my attitude as well.
Its useful because the BBEG gets at least some dmg making him weaker and roasting his mooks and support
It's also a great way to get attention! Nothing says "kill me now" like a fireball to the face!
Then what? It can be his turn whenever he wants in the init chain... he can just drop in his blast and if he deals 100dmg to each (even if he hits only 3 of them) he helped his group a big deal?How is that going to help? That feat only makes sure he does not tag his fellow party members. The scenario in question already assumes no party members were hit by the AoE.Why are you assuming he hasn't taken the selective spell feat...
Why are you assuming the monsters went last or have an unobstructed line of effect?
That has nothing to do with how this conversation started though. You accused me of assuming he never had selective blast when I asked about obstacles. I am failing to get the connection here.
Always remember that SR is almost as painful to a GOD wizard as it is to a blaster. Most CC spells are either going to hurt your party as well (fogs and such) or be SR-able. So while SR is easier to factor into a DPR calculator for a blaster than it is to figure out the effectiveness of a save-or-be-hosed spell, it definitely crimps GOD style too.
Once again the God wizard does not rely on CC, even if it is in his repertoire. He has a variety of tricks. The blasting wizard relies heavily on blasting so the SR is going to hurt more.
I think AF's blasting wizard is not really a blaster in the terms that most of us think of one. It is really more like a god wizard that put a little more focus into blasting than most would. If you use the "typical" blaster then all you have managed to do is do more damage, but still lack the versatility that those who play god wizards desire.
All wizards have a variety of tricks, it's what wizards do. Blasters are versatile casters who focus more on damage but can do everything else, where GOD wizards are versatile casters who focus more on CC and buffing/debuffing but can do everything else. Any wizard who only does blasting is going to fare just as poorly as a wizard who has no damage spells.
Always remember that SR is almost as painful to a GOD wizard as it is to a blaster. Most CC spells are either going to hurt your party as well (fogs and such) or be SR-able. So while SR is easier to factor into a DPR calculator for a blaster than it is to figure out the effectiveness of a save-or-be-hosed spell, it definitely crimps GOD style too.
Once again the God wizard does not rely on CC, even if it is in his repertoire. He has a variety of tricks. The blasting wizard relies heavily on blasting so the SR is going to hurt more.
I think AF's blasting wizard is not really a blaster in the terms that most of us think of one. It is really more like a god wizard that put a little more focus into blasting than most would. If you use the "typical" blaster then all you have managed to do is do more damage, but still lack the versatility that those who play god wizards desire.
I am not saying blasters can focus only on blasting, but it takes up a large percentage of their spells for most players.
Of course if you focus the amount of feats that many blasters do into blasting then it makes sense that it should take up a lot of your spell list. If I sink 4 or more feats into one strategy then I should use it a lot. If I don't plan to use it a lot then I should not be putting that much into it.
What i am seeing are some interesting builds at a really high level
But i don't know how the wizard is going to survive from level 1 to 14.
I would like that to be addressed, as it seems the low levels the wizard would just be Sucks to be alive.
Level 1 to 4 would be awsome.
You're going to survive using the same tricks you've always used as a wizard. When you do a blasting build, you're upping your blast damage capacity. That's about it.
You don't lose other options. I still use walls, fogs, and other spell types. Just so happens when I want to blast, I can hit real hard.
When you choose spells as a standard wizard, you choose spells that work regardless of spell resistance. You also choose spells that work against different saves and in different circumstances.
You don't stop doing this because you've made a blaster build. The advantage of a blaster build is that when you want to, or need to, do damage, you hit a lot harder than non-blaster builds. There is no real way for a wizard that isn't built for blasting to increase their damage, while a blasting build wizard can still make effective use of many, many of the battlefield control, buffing, and debuffing spells.
That's the part of the discussion that isn't really being emphasized because it is too heavily weighted towards the blaster. You lose almost none of your versatility focusing on blasting.
Haste is tossed out as one of the best damage boosting party spells in the game. And that is very true. A blasting wizard uses haste as well as a non-blaster. You can even take Persistent Spell in a blaster build. The only two feats that are generally required to boost your blasting build are Empower Spell and Quicken Spell. One of them a feat everyone usually takes anyway. The primary power of a blaster build comes from the sorcerer bloodlines for a one level dip. Which is easily made up for with either a trait or a magic item like an Orange Prism Ioun Stone.
The blaster is in reality more of a hybrid wizard with slightly more focus on blasting due to being much more effective at it. That's why I estimated that a blaster build can be highly effective, equally so to a control wizard, in 70 to 80% of encounters. The other 20% might feature some element to lessen their effectiveness like high SR, energy resistances, terrain problems like being in a town, or the like.
You want to be a wizard that can do more damage, make a blaster. You want to focus on manipulation, you can do that as well. You have the option for both to be highly effective options now.
No, I'm not. I don't assume the use of the Settlement rules, nor have I bothered to use them. I was referring to the core rules, where there is a limit to the value of magic items. See the Magic Items chapter of your core rulebook, or scroll down to Purchasing Magic Items and have a look for yourself. The default assumption is that you can find most anyting that you want (at least a 75% chance) up to 16,000 gp in a metropolis; but no higher.While it is entirely possible that there may be someone within the city who has the requisite knowledge, feats, and ability to craft greater magic items, you have entered into the realm of GM-fiat and plot-dependency, as the NPC may desire favors or greater than average payment given the demand.
This is one of the reasons I generally assume I can acquire up to a +2 weapon, +3 armor, +4 resistance item, +4 stat items, +2 deflection, +2 natural, +3 shield, etc. I carry around a lot of stuff like cold-iron, mithral, and adamantine weapons. I'm a big fan of different types of arrows, potions, wands, and other consumables. Honestly, the game really seems to benefit from this built-in limitation, since 9/10 times you can acquire most all your stat modifiers via long-duration buffs.
That's core now. We'll I'll be, we were still using the 3.5 rules for item purchasing. I'll have to re-read that section in the Core Rulebook.
I think I gave AF credit for myself and Maddigan's conversation.
...just making a correction to a previous post.
edit:Maddigan you need to emphasize your ideals on blasting. Due to your defense of the blasting myself and others have/still are assuming you play blasters like most people. Most of us don't even see your blaster as a blaster.
I'm told that if I empower a spell on its own, I don't roll the additional dice. But if I empower a maximized spell, I roll the dice to determine the empowered part. How dumb is that.How are you empowering a Maximized spell? A maximized spell has no variable numeric effects.
Hmmm...now that I think about it, obviously you can't empower a maximized spell, but can you maximize and empowered spell?
No way my DM would allow it, but I guess there is an argument there.
That's what I read the ruling was. If you stack an Empower and a Maximize on a spell, you roll the damage first to see how much you get from the empower then add it to the Maximize.
Maybe it's changed. It's not on the FAQ. But I was reading the boards for how Maximize and Empower work together and found that ruling.
Here is the official ruling. Not sure you'll like Maximize even with this ruling (I don't), but at least you can show it to your DM if you come up with a use.
I think I gave AF credit for myself and Maddigan's conversation.
...just making a correction to a previous post.
edit:Maddigan you need to emphasize your ideals on blasting. Due to your defense of the blasting myself and others have/still are assuming you play blasters like most people. Most of us don't even see your blaster as a blaster.
Ok, Wraithstrike. I see that many view blasters as the Big Stupid Fighter version of the wizard.
It's also a great way to get attention! Nothing says "kill me now" like a fireball to the face!Interesting ... I generally find that blasting IS useful in a party mechanic, for weakening large numbers of foes so the focussed-damage dealers have an easier time of it.Thats my attitude as well.
Its useful because the BBEG gets at least some dmg making him weaker and roasting his mooks and support
Whats the difference between trying to deal some Str damage, trying to make all his friends grappled and dealing damage?
In every case the wizard is dangerous, has d6 and only cloth.
That has nothing to do with how this conversation started though. You accused me of assuming he never had selective blast when I asked about obstacles. I am failing to get the connection here.
Thats why I wondered. Your comment made it look like a fireball was only usable before the enemies or your teammates acted...
Just like he had no selective feat.Not even with rays it would matter when its your turn here...
It's also a great way to get attention! Nothing says "kill me now" like a fireball to the face!Interesting ... I generally find that blasting IS useful in a party mechanic, for weakening large numbers of foes so the focussed-damage dealers have an easier time of it.Thats my attitude as well.
Its useful because the BBEG gets at least some dmg making him weaker and roasting his mooks and supportWhats the difference between trying to deal some Str damage, trying to make all his friends grappled and dealing damage?
In every case the wizard is dangerous, has d6 and only cloth.
That has nothing to do with how this conversation started though. You accused me of assuming he never had selective blast when I asked about obstacles. I am failing to get the connection here.Thats why I wondered. Your comment made it look like a fireball was only usable before the enemies or your teammates acted...
Just like he had no selective feat.Not even with rays it would matter when its your turn here...
Ok. I see what happened. The obstruction I spoke of was not affecting the caster. It was affecting the damage dealers(pallys, fighters, and so on) running up to the enemy and/or already conveniently place, allowing them to whack the bad guys with a full attack as if opponents that smart would just allow someone to waltz up to them. The archer that was mentioned would probably get his full attack in though depending on how the GM ran the game.
Always remember that SR is almost as painful to a GOD wizard as it is to a blaster.
No it's not. You either don't understand what a "god" wizard is, or have a poor understanding of "god" wizard spells. More than happy to back this up though.
This one I can prove. I'm ready to make a positive claim. Challenge time!
You give me a level and an Int score likely for a Wizard of that level. (for number of bonus memorizations)
I will fill every memorization slot that wizard has (conjuration specialist) with a spell I recommend in my Wizard guide. They will have 0 memorization slots not filled.
Not a single one of those spells will be affected by spell resistance. Spell penetration, greater spell penetration will be completely irrelevant with this spell selection.
Note that my wizard guide contains a list of spells from the main book only, but that's easily enough. Not concerned a bit.
Go ahead. Give me a level and Int score. I'm taking my daughter swimming today, so may not get a response right away, but I'll respond within 24 hours.
I think dazing spell is too good honestly. Right now I'm thinking a blaster wizard is a controller wizard.
Agreed 100%. Honestly, while I am now looking at blasting spells, it's not for the damage, it's for dazing spell. Since virtually nothing is immune to it (dazing spell is not mind-affecting, for example) it's basically "save or lose your turn for X turns" which is crazy amazing. I've even been figuring out how to do it without spell resistance (acid arrow is a great example and could daze golems all day long with their poopy saves).
When I think of blasting wizards, I think of wizards that blow crap up. The proverbial A-Bomb in the party. These don't really do that from what I've seen, but the addition of dazing means they are controlling with blast spells, and in many cases it seems they might be doing so more ruthlessly than many traditional control spells do (since being dazed for multiple rounds is a HORRIBLE debuff).
Always remember that SR is almost as painful to a GOD wizard as it is to a blaster.No it's not. You either don't understand what a "god" wizard is, or have a poor understanding of "god" wizard spells. More than happy to back this up though.
This one I can prove. I'm ready to make a positive claim. Challenge time!
You give me a level and an Int score likely for a Wizard of that level. (for number of bonus memorizations)
I will fill every memorization slot that wizard has (conjuration specialist) with a spell I recommend in my Wizard guide. They will have 0 memorization slots not filled.
Not a single one of those spells will be affected by spell resistance. Spell penetration, greater spell penetration will be completely irrelevant with this spell selection.
Note that my wizard guide contains a list of spells from the main book only, but that's easily enough. Not concerned a bit.
Go ahead. Give me a level and Int score. I'm taking my daughter swimming today, so may not get a response right away, but I'll respond within 24 hours.
I wouldn't touch this challenge with a ten foot pole. Even with Core there are a bunch of powerful spells that require no check against spell resistance to empower a party and control a battlefield.
I've spent time pouring over the APG and UM finding the spells in there that completely bypass SR. That's why I find caustic eruption such a potent spell to build a conjuration based blaster around.
I think dazing spell is too good honestly. Right now I'm thinking a blaster wizard is a controller wizard.Agreed 100%. Honestly, while I am now looking at blasting spells, it's not for the damage, it's for dazing spell. Since virtually nothing is immune to it (dazing spell is not mind-affecting, for example) it's basically "save or lose your turn for X turns" which is crazy amazing. I've even been figuring out how to do it without spell resistance (acid arrow is a great example and could daze golems all day long with their poopy saves).
When I think of blasting wizards, I think of wizards that blow crap up. The proverbial A-Bomb in the party. These don't really do that from what I've seen, but the addition of dazing means they are controlling with blast spells, and in many cases it seems they might be doing so more ruthlessly than many traditional control spells do (since being dazed for multiple rounds is a HORRIBLE debuff).
Check out caustic eruption for higher level. Probably need a dazing rod to pull it off unless you build to use that spell. But it is a murderous blasting spell if used with dazing spell.
What about the pit line of spells? If you were to doing dazing spell with a pit spell couldn't you keep a target endlessly dazed while getting chewed apart in a pit?
Always remember that SR is almost as painful to a GOD wizard as it is to a blaster.No it's not. You either don't understand what a "god" wizard is, or have a poor understanding of "god" wizard spells. More than happy to back this up though.
This one I can prove. I'm ready to make a positive claim. Challenge time!
You give me a level and an Int score likely for a Wizard of that level. (for number of bonus memorizations)
I will fill every memorization slot that wizard has (conjuration specialist) with a spell I recommend in my Wizard guide. They will have 0 memorization slots not filled.
Not a single one of those spells will be affected by spell resistance. Spell penetration, greater spell penetration will be completely irrelevant with this spell selection.
Note that my wizard guide contains a list of spells from the main book only, but that's easily enough. Not concerned a bit.
Go ahead. Give me a level and Int score. I'm taking my daughter swimming today, so may not get a response right away, but I'll respond within 24 hours.
I wouldn't touch this challenge with a ten foot pole. Even with Core there are a bunch of powerful spells that require no check against spell resistance to empower a party and control a battlefield.
I've spent time pouring over the APG and UM finding the spells in there that completely bypass SR. That's why I find caustic eruption such a potent spell to build a conjuration based blaster around.
Looks like you weren't alone.
You're right though, it would have been exceedingly easy.
For the record, I would have no problem recommending caustic eruption. 20d6 max damage, decent range, huge AOE, continuing damage on following rounds, no SR.
As far as pure blasts go, it's probably as good as it gets.
You're right though, it would have been exceedingly easy.
Easy or not, I would like to see it done.
Good as they are, wizards don't always have something for every occasion. I guess that's why they get crossbows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right though, it would have been exceedingly easy.Easy or not, I would like to see it done.
Tried. Results are below. Obviously not as easy as I thought, but the sheer number of memorizations that a level 20 wizard with maxed Int can get caught me off guard.
Level 20, 36 Int. (40 Int if I lowballed it.)
Not sure, never played a 20th level Wizard before (our campaigns always end before that).
20 starting Int, +5 stat increases, +6 Enhancement, +5 Inherent=36
36 seems like the maximum possible. Am I missing something? I don't know.
Treantmonk, here is a build archetype that I'd love to see you fill with awesome god-wizard spells and the like.
Not sure if I understand your request.
Alright, first off, based on a 20th level wizard with a 36 Int, I am not able to satisfy the request. Did my best. Failed. Simply, when I went through how many memorizations a wizard with that level and that Int had, I just don't recommend enough spells in my guide to fill it up.
Out of 65 required spell memorizations, I found 61 appropriate recommended spells in my guide, none of which are significantly impacted by spell resistance.
As it happens, I only recommend 99 spells in my guide total. When I looked at the bonus spells granted by a 36 Int, I knew there just weren't enough spells.
As it happens, I think I pretty much put every spell that doesn't worry about SR on the list, so of the 99, 61 aren't affected by SR. That's over 60%, so hopefully that proves the point I was trying to make, even though I failed the challenge. (The point was that there was a claim that a "god" wizard has to worry about SR just as much as a Blaster wizard)
I say significantly, because there are some spells listed where under specific circumstance, an SR check does occur. If I use Wish to simulate a fireball for example, there is an SR check. Normally PF evil is used for mind control protection, but if instead it is being used to protect against the natural attacks of a summoned monster, an SR roll is needed. Basically, if I figured that the spell wouldn't normally need an SR roll, then it was OK.
OK 20th level wizard (conjurer) 36 Int. The challenge is to fill every memorization slot with a spell that does not need to penetrate spell resistance, and every spell must be one I recommend in my Wizard guide.
I didn't mention this earlier, but obviously I cannot memorize the same spell more than once. Each spell obviously must be recommended in the "god" wizard guide, which to date, only covers the main book.
First off, here are the targets, and then what I was able to achieve:
1: 9* - 9
2: 8* - 8
3: 8* - 8
4: 8* - 5 X (Missed by 3)
5: 8* - 8
6: 7* - 7
7: 7* - 7
8: 7* - 6 X (Missed by 1)
9: 7* - 7
* Includes 1 conjuration specialization memorization.
1: Grease*(1), Mage armor(2), Unseen servant(3), Mount(4), Obscuring Mist(5), Silent Image(6), Enlarge person(7), Feather fall(8), protection from evil(9)
2: Glitterdust*(1), Web(2), Resist energy(3), Minor image(4), Mirror image(5), Levitate(6), Rope trick(7), Flaming sphere(8)
3: Phantom steed*(1), sleet storm(2), Summon MIII(3), Tiny hut(4), Haste(5), fly(6), G magic weapon(7), Magic Circle against E (8)
4: Black tentacles*(1), Dimension door(2), Summon monster IV(3), Arcane eye(4), Stone shape(5)
5: Wall of stone*(1), Teleport(2), Summon Monster V(3), Telepathic bond (4), Wall of force(5), Persistent image(6), Overland flight(7), Transmute rock to mud(8)
6: Summon monster VI*(1), Antimagic field(2), greater dispel magic(3), Programmed image(4), form of the dragon 1(5)
7: Summon monster VII*(1), Teleport,greater(2), Mage's magnificent mansion(3), Spell turning(4), Arcane sight(5), Giant form(6), Greater polymorph(7)
8: Greater planar Binding*(1), Prismatic wall(2), moment of prescience(3), form of the dragon III(4), Polymorph any object(5),Clone(6)
9: Summon Monster IX*(1),Prismatic sphere(2), Mage's disjunction(3), Shapechange(4), Timestop(5), Wish(6), Astral projection(7)
* required conjuration memorization
Anyways, decided to post the list despite not meeting the challenge, hopefully it makes the point that the "god" wizard recommended spell list doesn't need to worry about SR as much as a "blasting" centered wizard.
Also I should note that the above is NOT my recommended memorizations for your wizard. In actuality you want to take spells that are the most appropriate for your level, and in many cases you do want circumstantial spells memorized, and you will want multiple memorizations of the same spell. Furthermore, you don't want to completely exclude spells that are blocked by SR. It's just good to have plenty that aren't.
|
Dear Treantmonk:
I saw that you like to use your fam to use smocksticks and tangal bags
At 20/50 gold a pop is that Really wroth it?
Or woul getting a wand be better?
Also
What do u think of Useing it as mataral comp for spells?
EX:
Alchemical Power Components
These sticky pouches can make a troublesome spell even worse.
Black Tentacles (M): For each tanglefoot bag used as a power component, you may reroll the tentacles’ grapple check against one creature of your choice.
Thanks
Dear Treantmonk:
I saw that you like to use your fam to use smocksticks and tangal bags
At 20/50 gold a pop is that Really wroth it?
Or woul getting a wand be better?
Also
What do u think of Useing it as mataral comp for spells?
EX:Alchemical Power Components
These sticky pouches can make a troublesome spell even worse.
Black Tentacles (M): For each tanglefoot bag used as a power component, you may reroll the tentacles’ grapple check against one creature of your choice.
Thanks
Second question first: If your DM uses the rules for APC's, then it is a good deal. I wouldn't use one every time I cast the spell, but for important battles absolutely.
First question: By the time I'm 7th level, usually I can craft my own alchemical items, so we are really talking about 7gp/17gp.
Smokesticks are more reliable than wands. Your familiar will be using UMD, which just is never more than 95% reliable. With a smokestick, you take the luck out of the equation. Even for 20gp, that's worth it. I don't use them every battle, but probably every session. If you work it out, that's just not that much gold.
Tanglefoot bags are almost broken-good at low levels, and at high levels you are still getting the entangled condition, which is a perfectly good debuff (and there is still a chance of sticking most critters in place). They are getting more expensive though, so when possible I'll use a net instead for the same condition. That said, it's always worth having a few tanglefoot bags in your familiar's haversack.
With a familiar it is never alchemical items or wands. It's alchemical items and wands.
Smokesticks are more reliable than wands. Your familiar will be using UMD, which just is never more than 95% reliable.
Why only 95% reliable? Unless I missed something or a change, with skills, there is no failure on a "1".
Smokesticks are more reliable than wands. Your familiar will be using UMD, which just is never more than 95% reliable.Why only 95% reliable? Unless I missed something or a change, with skills, there is no failure on a "1".
UMD is an exception to the rule. Natural 1 always fails with UMD, and you can't try to activate the same device for 24 hours.
UMD is an exception to the rule. Natural 1 always fails with UMD, and you can't try to activate the same device for 24 hours.Smokesticks are more reliable than wands. Your familiar will be using UMD, which just is never more than 95% reliable.Why only 95% reliable? Unless I missed something or a change, with skills, there is no failure on a "1".
I always read the "try again" section to mean that if you fail and it is a "1", then you cannot try to use it again for 24 hours. To my knowledge, that hasn't changed from 1st printing to 4th printing.
Is there a FAQ or Errata that I am missing?