Illogical examples making fun of blasters
1. A blind CR 17 Copper Dragon is not 'taken out'. He's pissed. If he can't cure himself/teleport away until better, he can sure breathe on you or throw a Cloudkill (or Tentacles/etc.) your way. It also likely has Blindfight (maybe even Improved because of all them Greater Invisibility thieves trying to grab his loot), and can pinpoint you to attack the right squares with 25% (or 0%) miss chance. Helpful, but not limiting to a creature who should hit most everybody with every attack, and can fly to get to (and maybe Snatch) that Wizard who had the gall to blind him.
Not saying there aren't other high CR examples that can work, but that one didn't.2. Yes, wounded Storm Giants still hit like Storm Giants. But if he's doing 1/3 their h.p., he's just contributed his share of damage. If he does it again next round (which he can, Storm Giants can't intermingle well into the group, being so large. And his Fighter likely has Pro. Fire on him anyway so the blaster isn't constrained) some giants should drop because hopefully somebody else is contributing their 1/3 too. (If not, he needs a new party with at least 3 blasters...)
As for 'soloing' the giants, is that reasonable?
And at 15th level he can use a 4th level spell (Fireball + Intensified Spell (name?)) to do the 15d6. More will Save, but 4th level spells are cheap, almost offhand gestures in what may be a long day of casting. (And may be a short day, so maybe that's Empowered, and still 2 shy of his highest level spells).
But yes, the Glitterdust would be more effective here, but as the CRs increase, so does the amount of critters with extraordinary senses, hardly hampered by blindness.
Just like you'll have non-blindness spells prepared, the blaster will have non-fire spells prepared (and may just have a Polar Ray/empowered Cone of Cold which would devastate that dragon).
With your examples, I think you've supported your opposition's case more than you thought. Just saying.
P.S. I'm not that opposition.
Me? I just want peace among all magekind... ;)
Well said stuffPC's in a vacuum with statistics based on averages rarely in my experience live up to their on paper hype.
S.
Amen.
My XP too.
|
Very well, just remember that you lose 5 points for every magic item your build is dependent on. (I've decided to use Top Gear scoring here... UK style) I will be your Clarkson for this analysis.Arg...A clarkson..Kill it!!!!!
no, no, on. We should be humane to it. Put it on the Island of Clarksons with the rest of its kind. I think it's called Essex.
I have always wondered if a blast wizard was viable in a group with a controller bard....thats what we run and it works out ok. At times I wish the wizard had some control, but most of the time I want her to just do damage as I have control on the field.
Now we are only level 10 so take it for what it is, I am not a huge fan of blasties outside of all this (just dont tell my wife that).
|
Heh, I'm imagining the look on the casters face when the dragon does pass its save and Decides to end that threat there and then.
Casters need to be careful not to bring about the wrath of the big bad on something as flimsy as a omg hope this works spell. As was stated above, percentages are great on paper, but when you play them at the table, they work against you as often as not.
As Castilanno suggests, As many times as not, blasting is going to be just as effective as control.
Cheers
I play a blaster myself, Raving, (14th level Arcane Sorcerer), so I sympathize with you. However, one thing I see all the time is the apparent idea that a blaster can only blast things. Ever. That's not entirely true; I personally have a pretty good assortment of buffing spells too. The truest fact is that a spellcaster focused on blasting is better at being a party buffer than a spellcaster focused on buffing and save-or-suck spells can be at blasting. Being a blaster is a lot more feat-intensive, after all.
Anyway, there are tons of creatures with really good DR or other anti-melee abilities that I have a better time handling than my melee counterparts do, and there are plenty of creatures with really high SR whose chance of wasting my spells is simply too high for me to want to try and blast. So sometimes I blast and sometimes I buff.
If you are using things like Black Tentacles you shouldn't be screwing your melee at all. Think of it this way:
Depending on the situation and layout, it is often also possible to have the enemy/enemies at the edge of the effect. Then your party goons can charge and chop enemies that are grappled (and therefore have lowered AC's and can't attack back).
A nice combination. Give it a try.
PC's in a vacuum with statistics based on averages rarely in my experience live up to their on paper hype.
True, but this isn't the game table, this is a messageboard and we are debating theory. It's fun and interesting.
Being skeptical with what you read on the internet should be universal right?
I don't read a specific example of a blaster rolling 400 hp damage with a specific build and come to the immediate conclusion, "That settles it, I guess blasters are the most optimal wizard build."
Nor should you read my guide and come to the immediate conclusion, "Well, Treantmonk says he's played wizards for 30+ years, so his opinions must all be treated as objective fact, even though he specifically says otherwise. On that one thing, he's wrong."
Be skeptical. When I see a claim that a blaster is doing hundreds of points of damage on round 1, my first instinct is to think this is too good to be true.
Then I remember Caelics 10 commandments of practical optimization. #10: If something seems to good to be true, it probably is.
Then I find the gaps in the logic.
It usually comes down to: Energy resistance? no I didn't take that into account, let's say they have none. Saving throw? Ummm...they failed. SR? Yeah, I made that roll. Close quarters? Um, yeah, there was room to not fry the party.
It ends up being a big luck thing. Get lucky, do the damage you rolled. Get unlucky, do nothing, maybe something in between. Sort of like a fighter swinging a sword. Hit and do damage, miss and do nothing. It comes down to a die roll and luck.
That's why I play wizards instead of fighters. I'm not a fan of games of luck, I prefer strategy games. Blasting moves me back in the other direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to throw my two cents into this discussion.
Blasting can be a valid choice in many circumstances. IME, it's more effective at lower levels than at higher levels because of damage caps on spells and the way HD/hp scale.
A discussion about the "all encounters must be CR=APL or higher" mindset (see here) is also something that factors in. The more the GM varies the CR of encounters and uses larger groups (instead of a single BBEG or a small group with a CR at least equal to APL), the more valid blasting becomes.
Very well, just remember that you lose 5 points for every magic item your build is dependent on. (I've decided to use Top Gear scoring here... UK style)
In other words, your prefered playstyle is the only valid standard of comparison, not the RAW (i.e., the Wealth by Level table in the Core Rulebook). Sorry, but you don't control how people outside your table play.
All characters are magic item dependent to some extent (apart from rare exceptions like Vow of Poverty).
I fairly certain this particular topic glazed over time and time again, but the weakness of a blaster wizard is the applicability of its spells. A wizard, unlike a sorcerer, must carefully choose his or her spells before a battle including metamagic feats such as admixture, therefore that wizard must know what enemies it is going to fight ahead of time.
Versatile Evocation in the Admixture school from Advanced Player's guide gets around that issue 3 + Int mod times per day. If you want a wizard focused to some extent on blasting, an Admixture specialist is pretty much a no-brainer.
I'm not saying that blasting can't be powerful or useful, just that other methods are much more reliable.
No, what you're saying is that battlefield control/buffing/debuffing is optimal in a wider range of circumstances than straight blasting, which is not being denied here. The point Ravingdork is making is that, with a certain amount of investment, a wizard can effectively (to the extent of reliably contributing in damage generation) blast as well as buff/control/debuff.
For instance, a human wizard (Evoker/Admixture) with 20-point buy:
8 Str, 16 Dex, 12 Con, 18 Int (+2 race), 10 Wis, 10 Cha
Favored Class Bonus: +1 spell in spellbook per level (use to take 0-level spells from prohibited schools for 1st/2nd level)
1st- Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Scribe Scroll
3rd- Reach Spell
4th- +1 Int
5th- Craft Wand, Intensified Spell
7th- Persistent Spell
8th- +1 Int
9th- Improved Initiative
10th- Quickened Spell
With a good mix of blasting, buffing, controlling, and debuffing spells, this wizard can easily act as a ranged damage-dealer as well as a traditional "GOD wizard." The only "cost" is not having Spell Focus/Greater Spell Focus, so save DCs in one school will be 2 less than they might otherwise be.
1. A blind CR 17 Copper Dragon is not 'taken out'. He's pissed. If he can't cure himself/teleport away until better, he can sure breathe on you or throw a Cloudkill (or Tentacles/etc.) your way. It also likely has Blindfight (maybe even Improved because of all them Greater Invisibility thieves trying to grab his loot), and can pinpoint you to attack the right squares with 25% (or 0%) miss chance. Helpful, but not limiting to a creature who should hit most everybody with every attack, and can fly to get to (and maybe Snatch) that Wizard who had the gall to blind him.
Not saying there aren't other high CR examples that can work, but that one didn't.
I didn't pick the example fights to make a point but chose them randomly from a CR+2 encounter for an APL party. Like I said IN MY POST the Copper Dragon isn't the easiest dealt with for the god wizard and glitterdust ISN'T the best spell. That said, he only has blindSENSE for 60 feet and am assuming it's round 1 and the party is more than 60 feet out. It can't target the party with anything when it's blind. The only thing in the stock arsenal to defeat glitterdust is Dispel Magic which has a 50% chance of being removed. Or antimagic field which means you just send your fighters in and laugh. Also, no, it doesn't have blindfight because the one in the book doesn't have it. You can't move goalposts like this by arbitrarily changing the challenge to a more optimized version of the same monster. Now who is being silly.
Also, if it teleports away that's retreating and we have defeated the challenge. You don't have to kill a monster to defeat the challenge.And at 15th level he can use a 4th level spell (Fireball + Intensified Spell (name?)) to do the 15d6. More will Save, but 4th level spells are cheap, almost offhand gestures in what may be a long day of casting. (And may be a short day, so maybe that's Empowered, and still 2 shy of his highest level spells).
But yes, the Glitterdust would be more effective here, but as the CRs increase, so does the amount of critters with extraordinary senses, hardly hampered by blindness.
Just like you'll have non-blindness spells prepared, the blaster will have non-fire spells prepared (and may just have a Polar Ray/empowered Cone of Cold which would devastate that dragon).With your examples, I think you've supported your opposition's case more than you thought. Just...
No, I said Delayed Blast Fireball, a 7th level spell. Did you not read my post at all sir? Plenty of low level creatures have enhanced senses as well, it has very little to do with level. I was not positing Glitterdust as the be all end all of spells, just a very prototypical debuffing spell.
With my examples, enemies chosen at random, with every advantage given to the blaster, you still have to change the rules in order to make it more useful than casting a 2nd level non-blasting spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance, a human wizard (Evoker/Admixture) with 20-point buy:
8 Str, 16 Dex, 12 Con, 18 Int (+2 race), 10 Wis, 10 Cha
Favored Class Bonus: +1 spell in spellbook per level (use to take 0-level spells from prohibited schools for 1st/2nd level)
1st- Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Scribe Scroll
3rd- Reach Spell
4th- +1 Int
5th- Craft Wand, Intensified Spell
7th- Persistent Spell
8th- +1 Int
9th- Improved Initiative
10th- Quickened Spell
Damn, man. Between this and your work in the Goblin's thread you're bloody efficient at throwing these statblocks together (and a saint for sharing them). Props to you, once again.
.
This is a really great thread. I thought I'd chime in and say me and my 9th level sorcerer wholeheartedly agree with RDs sentiments. I'm actually running off of the pregen for Seoni in this game, as I had to throw something together last minute (and I couldnt justify a draconic or elemental(primal) bloodline when I did my touching up, so I'm missing that little damage kick). In short, I'm far from optimised. But my bloodline and spell focus give my enchantment spells a decent boost with a one feat investment.
Blasting makes up a good 50% of my spellcasting. I have a metamagic rod of empower (my first rod ever) and I love every second of using it. With a minimal feat investment, my lightning bolts (so chosen because of small maps and minimizing friendly fire) are dealing a sizeable chunk of the groups damage.
The rest? I kick off with GMW for an ally and Overland flight, which generally last a whole adventuring day. The rest goes to wall spells from my staff of obstacles, confusion, charm monster, slow and glitterdust. (Oh. and dimension door. Thank god for dimension door)
In a small party or on the defensive, I find blasting makes a big difference. Our GM's habit of constant surprise rounds and being very shaky on prep time. Makes battlefield control very difficult. It isn't always the best option on the defensive (though I'm gradually learning when to make it count). Besides, the big damn monsters we're fighting (such as the old 3.5 rhemoraz, which has a special place in our hearts as the cheeziest polymorph option ever).
The real perk though, is the satisfaction of baiting those manticores into a perfect little line and letting loose. Blasting is fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love blaster builds, if only because they make for an interesting challenge; how do you make it viable? However, I love adding a bit of control in there; Dazing Spell (and perhaps Lingering Spell, if you can make good use of it) makes for a fun trick for your Wizard.
...
So here's my take on a blaster build:
Wizard 1-20 (Evoker, Admixture School)
-Hopefully with a good knowledge check, you'll be able to identify which elements are ineffective against that creature and adapt the energy type to the one that works each and every time with Versatile Evocation.
Elf (Spell Penetration and the favored class option of increasing the number of times you can use Versatile Evocation)
Familiar: Compsognathus (Grants +4 to Initiative; you probably can't grab Improved Initiative with this build, this familiar helps with that.)
Traits: Warrior of Old (+2 Initiative)
Magical Lineage (Fireball? Or Cold Ice Strike, if you don't mind the wait) - Probably? Perhaps instead go for a universally useful trait like Focused Mind for the +2 concentration.
This build will be using Greater Spell Specialization for spontaneous casting, so you shouldn't need to actually prepare blasts. Prepare standard non-blast spells, or situationally awesome spells and convert to blasts (and eventually Dazing Blasts!) as needed.
Wiz - Scribe Scroll
1st - Spell Focus (Evocation)
3rd - Spell Specialization
5th - Greater Spell Specialization
Bonus 5th - Piercing Spell (Target gets -5 SR; use it when you run into it!)
7th - Spell Specialization (Increase versatility by choosing two blast spells of different levels, different elements, different shapes, etc.)
9th - Greater Spell Focus (Evocation)
Bonus 10th - Persistent Spell
11th - Dazing Spell
BE AWARE! Here's where you get 6th level spells and perhaps the most overpowered spell I've ever seen: Cold Ice Strike. Almost makes me want to give up on metamagic; it has the DC of a 6th level spell, 60 ft cone, up to 15d6 damage and can be cast as a SWIFT action. I decided against taking quicken, almost solely because of this spell. (Rods of quicken help too.)
13th - Intensified Spell (So much more efficient than Empower Spell, for where it works. Burning Hands becomes 10d6, Fireball for 15d6, all for a +1 in level)
15th - Spell Perfection (Your favorite blast!)
Bonus 15th - Selective Spell (Worried about hitting friends? Worry no more.)
17th - Spell Specialization (More versatility)
19th - Toughness (Just 'cause?)
Bonus 20th - Immortality (Just 'cause? I got lazy toward the end.)
...
So this build hopes to address many of the weaknesses of blasting:
1. Energy resistance - Either choose one of the spells you have with Spell Specialization, or use admixture to get whatever element you need.
2. Spell Resistance - Being an elf and having Piercing Spell hopefully covers this. Perhaps eventually Orange Ioun Stone and Robe of the Archmagi can further mitigate this. (Or if your GM is kind, ask if you can get just the Spell Penetration portion of the Robe. As treantmonk says, it's not a great item.)
3. DCs - Spell Focus, Greater Spell Focus, Persistent Spell... (And Spell Perfection doubling the bonuses for that spell) Hopefully that will increase your chances enough for your blasts to consistently hit.
...
Also, as someone mentioned earlier, being able to research your own spells can be quite a boon. If by 11th level you have Cold Ice Strike and your own homebrew blast as your two specialized spells, they could make for a deadly combination. ...but hopefully this serves as an outline for effective blasting. :3
...
That isn't to say this is the be all and all blaster build. This is all postulation on what might be effective in my experience with the game. You may rightfully disagree with the order I took my feats, or which ones I should be taking at all. Perhaps you see metamagic like Piercing and Selective as candidates for metamagic rods. You might be right. I just like to have an abundance of +1 metamagic so I can adjust each spell level slightly.
EDIT: Almost forgot! If you have access to preparation rituals for your spellbook, this might be handy, although potentially dangerous.
Harmful Surge (Su) You can maximize a spell, but doing so damages you. Spend this boon effect as a free action when you cast a wizard evocation spell. When you do, you can treat that spell as if it were cast with the Maximize Spell metamagic feat, but you take 1d4 points of damage × the level of the spell that you are maximizing. The damage you take cannot be reduced in any way.
...or...
Rime Bite (Su) You infuse your spell with a biting cold that few can withstand. Spend this boon as a free action when you cast a spell with the cold descriptor. Any damage from that spell ignores all resistance to cold, but does not ignore immunity to cold.
Cold Ice Strike is being errata'd to a 30-foot or 60-foot line (can't recall which).
The Dork is the one who brought this up, I suggest that we allow him the opportunity to create the build to meet the challenge I set.
Let's say we keep it to the bounds of PFS...a 12th level cap then?
I'm not trying to give an opinion one way or another on how a low-mid level blaster wizard compares to one focusing primarily on debuffs and controls, but this is a take I just whipped up on a PFS blaster wizard trying to be useful at all PFS levels. I'll leave the comparison to other wizards of equal level to individual readers.
Gnome evoker, Qadira faction
S-8, D-14, C-14, I-18, W-10, CH-9
pyromaniac alternate race trait
Traits: magical lineage (burning hands), eastern mysteries
Feats:
1 - spell focus (evocation), spell specialization (burning hands*)
3 - intensified spell
5 - greater spell specialization, empower spell
7 - greater spell focus (evocation)
9 - elemental focus (fire)
10 - dazing spell
11 - greater elemental focus (fire)
*through at least lv 6-8, possibly switch at 6/8/10/12 depending on build performance
Items to get: a couple elemental metamagic rods (to circumvent fire resistances), lingering metamagic rod (to help add control element to blasts), alchemical items for power foci (per Adventurer's Armory)
Spells are going to be a mix so you can control when needed, blast when appropriate. While I like to laugh at burning hands as much as the next person, it'll do decent damage and able to be spontaneously cast starting at lvl 5 so you can have more control/utility spells prepped. (Dmg for lvls 1-5 is 4d4/5d4+1/6d4+1/7d4+2/8d4+2 or 12d4+2 empowered to a 3rd-lvl spell.) The goal is to be dishing out as much damage as you can even while performing other functions; if another battlefield control is at the table for the session you can really focus on damage, but you need to be just as versatile as any other wizard to tailor your prep to the party and adventure path.
what you're saying is that battlefield control/buffing/debuffing is optimal in a wider range of circumstances than straight blasting, which is not being denied here.
Really?
If you get a good blaster build, like some of the aforementioned sorcerer blaster builds, then blasting all the time often IS the best thing you can do in a fight. It will kill all the on-par CR enemies ~75% of the time in a single round. If not, it often puts their HP within one round of your other party members turning them into giblets.
What am I missing?
As Lyrax put bit in another thread (dealing with the sorcerer):
Is there life after fireball? Yes. Fireball isn't a bad spell; it's fun to cast and it actually does a fair amount of damage. Being such a prominent icon of D&D it actually has the dubious honor of being both overrated and underrated, simultaneously. There are lots of spells you can take instead. Haste, as has been pointed out, is an excellent buff spell that actually helps control the battlefield simultaneously. Stinking cloud and tiny hut create terrain, and stinking cloud has the additional bonus of making enemies puke their guts out. Very satisfying. But even if you start dealing more direct damage, there's a lot more than fireball. Magic missile, scorching ray, shocking grasp, and vampiric touch are all way fun to cast and they can really put the hurt on bad guys. Not even direct damage should be as simple as "I cast fireball. Again. For the fifth time. This fight."
"fireball has the dubious honor of being both overrated and underrated, simultaneously". I would say that's true for most blast spells.
I've seen fireball killing all enemies in a fight just in one blast. I've seen it many times in actual game play. I've also seen fireball not even hurting a single enemy when used badly.
I'm a little confused.
Treantmonk's guide and most of his arguments are about wizards.
The title of this thread specifically refers to wizards.
Most (or at least many) of the arguments in favor of blasting say "Check out this Sorcerer blaster build".
Sorcerers aren't wizards. There's a very different mechanic and mindset to building them. Sorcerer controllers (is that a thing?) are going to be at a huge disadvantage compared to wizard controllers.
Apart from elephant in the room (spellbook), one advantage I can think of is the wizard's bonded object. My Elf Conjurer has a Ring of Sustenance as his. Having access to any spell in the book saved my (and my party's) bacon on more than one occasion. Sorry, TM, but I disagree with you there - to me, the danger of losing it is worth the risk, and way more valuable than a familiar...
... although I must admit that I never tried having one...
...and anyway, a spellbook is a thing you could lose, or could get stolen, or separated from, and that doesn't make me wanna scrap the whole thing and go play Sorcerers.
I guess what I'm saying is that an amped-up, .44 Magnum high octane glass cannon Sorcerer makes a lot more sense to me than a blaster Wizard.
I also notice that I never see anyone saying: "I had an optimized battlefield controller wizard, and she sucked. That's why I switched over to blasting."
Are we talking blasting as an AoE, or blasting as a targeted spell? Those are two very different tactics.
With 3.5 stuff, a Force Missile Mage build is killer.
Traits: Magical lineage, Magical spell (-1 Metamagic to MM, +1 Caster Level)
Human, Arcane Sorc. Levels 6-10 are Force Missile Mage.
1- Improved Init, Energize Spell (3.5, +50% vs Undead, +1level)- swap later for Maximize?)
3- Empower Spell
5- combat Caster (for FMM)
7 - Arcane Thesis (Magic Missile)
9- Energize spell, PF (+5 levels to damage determination, = +2 missiles at CL 11 and 13)
11 - Twin Spell
12-(sorc)Born of the Three Thunders (swap Combat Caster for sorc feat)
13 - Admixture Spell (Can apply to magic missiles since sub damage)
15 - Spell Perfection (Magic Missile)
17 - Metamagic spell (magic missile)
18 - Still Spell (free, sorc)
19 - Improved Counterspell
Force Missile mages give you:
+2 Missiles
-1 over all caster level, +2 CL with M. Missiles
Your Shield spells are all quickened, +1 Shield spell/day.
Your magic missile spells are immune to Shield spells.
You take -5 damage per magic missile.
You can change the missile damage from force to any element.
You end up with the following:
+4 (6) caster level for Magic Missles (+1 Trait, +1 Class, +2 Arcane Thesis (doubled at 15))
You cast 9 missiles per spell, maxing out at CL 13 (+1 missile at 7th, +2 Missile at 9th from Force missile mage) which you have at level 9.
All Metacosts for feats applied to MM are reduced by 1 (while spell perfection would reduce this by 2, I choose to ignore this.) Trait reduces the total by 1, Metamagic spell reduces this by 1 (2).
From a level 1 slot, you can cast a Stilled Energized (3.5) Energized (PF) Twinned Magic Missile at level 11. That's 18 Missiles.
from a level 2 slot, you can Empower it, for 27 missiles in damage (81 avg dmg).
From a level 3 slot, you can maximize it for 90 damage.
From a level 4 slot you can Admixture it for 36 Missiles.
From a level 5 slot, you can add Empower again for 54 Missiles of damage. That's avg 189 dmg, folks.
From Level 6 slot, --Dunno. Maximize does less then Empower here.
From Level 7 Slot, Three Thunders it for 72 Missiles.
From a level 8 Slot, Empower it for = 108 missiles. 378 avg dmg.
From a level 9 Slot, dunno again.
If you have the acid sheathe spell and orient damage to acid, (or elemental variants of same), you get +1/die of damage. Thus from a level 8 Slot, if you have a Rod of Freezing Spell (+1/die cold dmg), a Cold Elemental sheathe, you'd do a base 594 pts dmg to your target, +50% if a fire creature, or 891 points to, say, a Red Dragon.
Note, this is all force OR elemental damage. You can align it to any element you like.
if you have metamagic rods, they only need to be Lesser rods, because these are all level 1 spells meta'd up. You are best getting rid of Empower and Maximize from your feats known and adding Quicken and Burst Spell (5' radius burst when hits targets, 1/2 dmg to anyone nearby, Reflex save) so you can double your Magic Missile as an AoE.
800 points of damage basically is an 'I Win' button if you press it. Your only weakness will be Spell Resistance, but you have +4 to the roll at level 7 and +6 at level 16.
If you let spell perfection double Arcane thesis metamagic reduction, this gets nasty fast. Metamagic of +2 Cost or less are free, the first +4 is free by Spell Perfection, the second +4 is free by Metamagic Spell, Three Thunders is reduced to a cost of +1 by trait , Quicken is reduced to +2, and Maximize to +1.
You could basically shove a Stilled Energized Twinned Three Thunders Admixed Empowered Maximized Magic Missile cast with Elemental Sheathe and a Metamagic Rod of whatever out of a 3rd level slot, a quickened version of same out of a 5th level slot.
And your damage would be:
9 Missiles (5 base, +2 FMM, +2 Energized).
x2 for Twin
x2 for Three Thunders
x2 for Admixed
+50% for Empower
Maxed for Maximize
+1/die for Elemental Sheathing
= 72 missiles x 6/die = 372 base, +50% of 3-6 per die, or another 162.
And you can do it with A WORD.
So, don't double arcane thesis metamagic reduction, please!
And this leaves all your 6th + level slots open for other fun stuff.
What really makes it all go is that 3.5 has access to 3 feats that each double damage (Twin Spell, Admixture, Three Thunders) and Arcane Thesis, which helps immensely with MM costs. Spell Perfection on top of that is just unreal.
====Aelryinth
what you're saying is that battlefield control/buffing/debuffing is optimal in a wider range of circumstances than straight blasting, which is not being denied here.Really?
If you get a good blaster build, like some of the aforementioned sorcerer blaster builds, then blasting all the time often IS the best thing you can do in a fight. It will kill all the on-par CR enemies ~75% of the time in a single round. If not, it often puts their HP within one round of your other party members turning them into giblets.What am I missing?
The level of specialization required to get a blaster to the point of doing that level of damage. If the blaster can consistently do damage equal to 50-75+% of an opponent's hp in one round, then blasting is more "reliable" (in that the blaster is always getting in damage) than most of the all-or-nothing SoD/SoS spells (many of which are also completely countered by common buffs like death ward, freedom of movement, and magic circle against [alignment]) until you start running into high elemental resistances/immunities. SoD/SoS is more "optimal" in that, when it's successful, it prevents the enemy from acting/acting at full efficiency, which straight damage doesn't do (until they drop to 0 hp or below).
However, getting that level of damage requires a lot of investment in feats and/or equipment. Such characters seem to end up a lot like the focused archer or melee types: very effective (in come cases overwhelmingly so) within their specialty, but mediocre or worse outside of it. Also, because of the focus on a limited number of spells, sorcerers (with the ability to spontaneously apply metamagic feats and pick which spells to use at the time of casting) tend to make better blasters than wizards.
Of course, the same could be said of the specialized SoD/SoS casters, too (focusing on getting save DCs as high as possible). It just requires a bit less investment to get to that point.
IMO, the wizard is a campaign mechanic. The more types of effective tools they have in their toolbox, the more problems they can fix, instead of falling into "if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
Because it's easy to distort a question by throwing gold pieces at it. Class abilities should impact more on the situation than dependence on magic mart. It's also meant to encourage building a build with as few magic items as possible.Very well, just remember that you lose 5 points for every magic item your build is dependent on. (I've decided to use Top Gear scoring here... UK style)In other words, your prefered playstyle is the only valid standard of comparison, not the RAW (i.e., the Wealth by Level table in the Core Rulebook). Sorry, but you don't control how people outside your table play.
Playstyle does not trump RAW outside of your table.
Sorcerers aren't wizards. There's a very different mechanic and mindset to building them. Sorcerer controllers (is that a thing?) are going to be at a huge disadvantage compared to wizard controllers.
Gnome sorcerers with the Fey bloodline make very effective controllers.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
... although I must admit that I never tried having one...
You really should. It's off topic, so I won't dwell, but even if you aren't worried about losing your bonded item, you should still consider getting a familiar instead because a familiar is that good.
Of course, once you decide to get a familiar, suddenly there are "right and wrong" choices. Don't pick your familiar for the little mechanical advantage they give you, pick them for the familiar itself.
At level 1, generally a monkey is going to be your ultimate choice. Like all familiars, the monkey is small and sneaky, making him a nice little scout, however, the main reason for him are those little hands. The monkey doesn't have enough strength to do a lot of things (and is tiny sized), but he can drop smoke sticks, or caltrops, or marbles, or any number of things. For example - that enemy Barbarian just might charge you, but you wanted to glitterdust those other guys bunched together. You glitterdust, and your familiar drops some caltrops between you and the Barbarian. Charge averted.
The real advantage comes at level 7. At that point you take the Improved Familiar feat and get yourself a Mephit. My current caster has a dust mephit, and that thing is USEFUL. It is like an extra full round action every round. Make sure your UMD is maxed out, because the familiar gets your ranks in all skills.
Mephits have a few minor SLA's, but some of them are useful even at high levels. Also, they are small size (so can use any equipment a halfling or gnome could use) and have fly 50' (perfect), so their maneuverability is great. They get to the party member they want, when they want, and as I'll show, that's massive.
One campaign I play in we are playing Age of Worms (converted to Pathfinder), if you haven't played it, it's deadly. I'm playing a 15th level Witch, with a Dust Mephit familiar. The wizard familiar could work the same in practice.
In one battle my Mephit raised an illusionary wall of ice in the middle of the battle. It separated all the enemy casters from the melee for 2 rounds. That was a wand of silent image, and the mephit was the one doing the concentrating, not my character.
In one battle, the enemy hit us with a fear spell and the Ranger failed his save. Before his next action, the Mephit had used his remove fear wand to remove the effect.
In another battle our party fighter had succumbed to a suggestion spell. Before he could drink the cool water in the fountain (that was worse than poisoned), the Mephit had a protection from evil spell on the fighter, giving him that necessary second saving throw.
In yet another battle, party members were getting infested with worms. A dedicated healing skill attempt could remove the affect (otherwise, you turn into this worm zombie thing). The mephit used my (maxed out healing) healing rank (the mephit is better than me because it has a better wisdom) to remove the infestations while I continued to fight.
Often the Mephit is a healer. He has a wand of lesser restoration it uses to restore ability drain effects.
In another Battle, the Mephit used a wind wall (one of its SLA's) to block enemy archers attacks.
In many battles, the Mephit has nothing to do, so he throws his small sized net or a tanglefoot bag at enemies. Either creates a no saving throw entangled effect. That's 1/2 movement and -4 Dexterity to one opponent per round. That's if I have nothing better to do. In many cases, this strategy is essential to keep my main character away from would-be melee opponents.
The mephit is the ultimate scout in the party. He can use Blur as an SLA, which gives partial concealment. Mechanically, partial concealment is as good as Hide in Plain Sight (since concealment is what you need to hide). The Mephit has a massive stealth score as well. I can scry on him without a spell (as per the familiar advancement) which is very handy.
A bunch of neat stuff about the advantages of familiars
I keep getting tempted to check that box instead, but I love having access to that bonded object spell. More honestly I think I would say I dread not having access to it. For the fringe situation that seems to come up ever session where there is a perfect spell for the scheme that just hatched in mind that pivots around having memorized arcane lock or share language or many other spells that wouldn't make it onto the standard list but fit exquisitely into the current situation.
x2 for Twin
x2 for Three Thunders
x2 for AdmixedIsn't the general rule of multipliers to combine into a single multiplier, in both 3.5e and PF? That would make this x4 (i.e. x2 + x2 + x2 = x2 + x1 + x1 = x4 or 36 missiles) not x8 or 72 missiles as you have used?
S.
Yes that is a general rule.
That applies to weapon attacks.
outside of empower and maximize, all metamagic feats stack normally atop one another, in the order you generally choose.
so, it is indeed x2, x2, x2. Twin Spell and Admixture actually create NEW SPELLS tacked onto the old ones...you're actually throwing four bundles of the original spells. Three Thunders just adds 1/2 each lightning and sonic damage.
So, you're not just multiplying damage. It's more akin to creating new spells beside the old ones, sharing in all effects.
Pathfinder is MUCH more careful with this, of course. A successful blaster build is a button-push...there IS nothing better to do then kill your opponent. MM builds make it come down to SR and PERHAPS Spell Immunity. There are only two effects which stack damage in PF, and they do so very strangely.
and for the naysayers...note, the rest of his spells are WIDE OPEN. The blaster sorc can easily choose a secondary function of summoning and/or battlefield control without any trouble, and so can the blaster wizard. Remember, the primary power with full casters is the SPELL LIST, not the feats behind it. As long as he doesn't want to do double duty with save or die spells, the blaster is completely golden.
==Aelryinth
Ravingdork is making a lot of good points.He's been beating this drum a lot. There does seem to be a disconnect regarding blasters. Treantmonk's guide is a good writeup although I think he is too hard on blasters. His attitude towards blasting seems rather dismissive.
One thing I would like to see is a guide for blasters. Ravingdork insists that people misunderstand what makes them work. I'd like to see exactly what he means.
My favorite character right now is a blaster wizard. He's almost hitting his teens and from what I read I am getting worried about his performance later on.
So as not to derail...
...
I didn't pick the example fights to make a point but chose them randomly from a CR+2 encounter for an APL party. Like I said IN MY POST the Copper Dragon isn't the easiest dealt with for the god wizard and glitterdust ISN'T the best spell. That said, he only has blindSENSE for 60 feet and am assuming it's round 1 and the party is more than 60 feet out. It can't target the party with anything when it's blind. The only thing in the stock arsenal to defeat glitterdust is Dispel Magic which has a 50% chance of being removed. Or antimagic field which means you just send your fighters in and laugh. Also, no, it doesn't have blindfight because the one in the book doesn't have it. You can't move goalposts like this by arbitrarily changing the challenge to a more optimized version of the same monster. Now who is being silly.
Also, if it teleports away that's retreating and we have defeated the challenge. You don't have to kill a monster to defeat the challenge.And at 15th level he can use a 4th level spell (Fireball + Intensified Spell (name?)) to do the 15d6. More will Save, but 4th level spells are cheap, almost offhand gestures in what may be a long day of casting. (And may be a short day, so maybe that's Empowered, and still 2 shy of his highest level spells).
But yes, the Glitterdust would be more
Well, first, I know it's BlindSENSE which is why he's targeting squares and has a miss chance (as mentioned, or are you the one not reading?).
(Sorry, but saying I didn't read your post made me grumpy. Over it.)With Blindsense, it can target, its targets just have full concealment.
Two, your CR 17 example dragon didn't have to be the Bestiary version. To say after the fact that we have to use those spells/feats (and not ones we'd give our dragons) surprised me, though I see why you'd assume that and we both made uncommunicated assumptions there.
We'll use that dragon as is.
But the assumption that it's over 60' away...not likely with such a sneaky-thinking dragon, Int 22, Per 32. But distance also secondary.
Three, Glitterdust is a 2nd level spell, but you Heightened it way high and made it Persistent. So, no, you can't count it as a 2nd level spell. It's just one of those few spells capable of spanning many levels and remaining effective, but you had to buff it to make it work against your example critter.
Four, I traded out Delayed Blast Fireball. It was your choice, and after reading, I lowered the choice, got the same base damage, and was quite happy trading the Save change for the slot change.
Five, Fighters would laugh at the dragon in an Anti-Magic Field? Really? If you rule the Fighters get their magic, okay, you win, maybe they're all Enlarged and have reach weapons. (It'd still be bloody though.)
But if they have to enter the sphere, they are so royally screwed (and unhealable) that it IS funny. The dragon has flight, can stick to walls (even w/o magic), and has reach (15' w/ bite), so it doesn't need to face your Fighters fairly, or maybe it focuses on squishies. It relies very little on magic, while your whole party relies on it a lot. And the Bestiary Dragon trips and disarms, perhaps breaking those now non-magical items in the Anti-Magic Field (one round, tops). Heck, from the scant number of buffs (as opposed to most dragons), Anti-Magic Field may be its 'go-to' tactic.
It will kill a PC every round, if the PC doesn't have magic up (150 or so h.p./round with PA, crits more often than it misses, no Con bonuses for PC, no Breath of Life...). How many Fighters are you sending in to match that (w/o magic and vs. AC 39)?
Heck it may decide to land its Anti-Magicked bigness next to your caster and trip. Then what?
Six, even 60'+ away, it knows where you were. Blindness doesn't stop it from casting AoEs or breathing. It only needs line of effect and a general direction unless specifically targeting people/objects. Move action (even half-speed, 100') gets it within 60' anyway.
Seven, with its illusions and battlefield control spells and Per, it's unlikely there'd be such a clean conflict. (Which supports neither of us, really, but I felt was pertinent if you're casting your highest slots on round 1, before determining if it's real. Of course, if you started the fight, you'd come in with True Seeing I'd think)
Eight, it can TP away tactically, with zero intention of retreating long-term, and you have not overcome it. It has only prolonged the fight on its terms. There are many examples in published adventures of BBEGs doing this, retreating to rooms, healing up, etc. Of course, since it can cast Wall of Stone at will, it can do that instead until it recovers. (Mind you, I'd likely have it Anti-Magic instead so there's less buffing time for enemy, unless the enemy already has short-term buffs running (Spellcraft +32), then I'd wait them out.)
Nine, Yes, Anti-Magic gets messy with such a big caster. It is a 15'x15' creature in a 20' radius spell, but it can shift the spell's center so the Fighter's in that extra 5', except at certain corners, but then it may be worth squeezing so the Fighter has to move around him, unless the Fighter just got tripped, then...
And a messy battle gets even messier...
(I don't think there's a PF FAQ on this. Since part of him does poke out, I suppose it could breathe when it recharged, depending on where he centered his casting. Awkward, and a bit cheesy, and probably best left out of this debate.)
TEN, BUT, that dragon is not 'taken out'.
And that's what the debate was about.
And I think it'll even kill somebody. :P
Which is why you don't attack the whimsical ones!!! :)
The Giants, on the other hand, would be neutralized. (Though their Per +27 will help them hit the right square for the 50% chance, so they'll go down swinging.)
You have something against CG creatures? :)
Anyway, good fun.
@Robert Carter: Blasters look cooler doin' their thing. :)
You may want to rethink combat management style (IRL, not in game tactics) to get faster play. You'll get in more RPing and more battles, more fun.
Try roleplayingtips.com for some suggestions.
My default is six seconds/person to declare AND roll (or preroll if they knew what they wanted to do). They can think on other peoples' turns.
Exceptions if the last action threw a curve at them/altered playing field, it's a particularly tough battle, or they're newbies, but otherwise doable for a majority of conflicts. Cuts time spent down dramatically.
Letting people only talk tactics on their turn/in character helps too. Ends a lot of tabletalk, and I found the players get BETTER at working like a commando strike force, as they get more involved in the play, know their routines.
Some of the better players run initiative for me, moving cards around as Delay or Ready moves the order around, or, in really complex battles, they track spell durations for me.
Are the battles perfectly executed? No, but we get to have more of them and move the plot along further, which is well worth the trade.
My favorite character right now is a blaster wizard. He's almost hitting his teens and from what I read I am getting worried about his performance later on.
All casters have to worry. Knowledge skills become more and more important as immunities/resistances multiply. (And GOLEMS!)
Just another reason to be multifaceted.
I've read a number of threads where people state that blasters are underpowered because their damage can't keep up with hit dice progressions.
This has been proven false a number of times when a blaster is built properly.
Having lost that round, many "blaster-haters" decry such builds as being FAR too focused and requiring FAR too many resources, a point they believe to be in their favor since other spellcasting styles (summoning God-wizarding, battlefield control, buffing/debuffing, save or die, etc.) require far less investment--in fact, almost none at all.
Well, I'm here to show that, such people have lost that argument as well for the very reason they think it won them their argument:
If I can build an effective blaster with with an intense amount of investment...and can build a summoning, save or die, buffing/debuffing, battlefield controlling, god-wizard with little to no investment...than it stands to reason that I should be able to do both at once with the same character, shouldn't it?
After all, save or dies work well, so long as I have decent save DCs (which I will as I have only one primary ability score), summoning is amazing all by itself, battlefield control only requires knowledge on how best to use it, buffing/debuffing are usually automatically successful, etc.
However, a wizard who doesn't build for blasting CAN'T blast worth a damn.
Which do you think is better? A god-wizard? Or a god-wizard that can also blast really, really well? Logic (and the tier system) dictates that the versatile spellcaster capable of doing more is the more powerful character.
Still, I'll let you decide for yourselves.
Disclaimer: I have not read past this post.
Your builds tend to ignore other rules/recommendations such as WBL on occasion, and have a really high point buy. They also very specialized. A blasting wizard takes up too many feats so I still don't stand by it unless you post a build that proves otherwise.
Your builds tend to ignore other rules/recommendations such as WBL on occasion, and have a really high point buy. They also very specialized. A blasting wizard takes up too many feats so I still don't stand by it unless you post a build that proves otherwise.
My characters often are designed as you say. However, my mathematical builds generally aren't. The blaster sorcerers that I've built, in particular, only require one high ability score and few magic items to do their job. Even if you track down my builds and show that I used high ability scores and had a bit more gear, the design concept nevertheless holds strong.
In other words, redesigning it to your standards would still yield similar results.
I'm a little confused.
Treantmonk's guide and most of his arguments are about wizards.
The title of this thread specifically refers to wizards.
Most (or at least many) of the arguments in favor of blasting say "Check out this Sorcerer blaster build".
Sorcerers aren't wizards.
No, but evocation is still evocation.
Can blast spell be useful? Yes, even Treantmonk says that.Should you use them all the time? No.
I think both Ravingdork and Treantmonk are both wrong.
Ravingdork is wrong in every Wizard should be a blaster.
Treantmonk is wrong in " blasting is something you do after you've ensured tactical advantage in the combat." Why? Because sometimes blasting is ensuring tactical advantage in the combat. Sometimes Fireball first and then haste is a better option. And sometimes one fireball can kill all or almost all enemies in just vone blast.
I do however agree that blast spells are usually less useful at higher levels.
I have to say, when I want to play a wizard/sorcerer type, I WANT to be a Blaster. It's because when I play D&D, I don't play D&D to play D&D... I try to have a "cinematic" experience. I want to do something similar to what movie and comic book wizards do. Which is blast the S^%& out of their enemies, more often than not, dispel stuff, or banish them, or ward them... cast illusions from time to time. But I'm not much interested in battlefield control "god wizard" tactics. Basically, if it's cool, and dramatic... I want it.
So start watching movies and reading comic books with more interesting (and effective) wizards. Gandalf never really blasts anybody (though he does make his staff light up a few times; he's more into summoning moth messengers and eagles to fly him out of Isengard.
In Conan the Barbarian, the Wizard of the Mounds never blasts anybody. Instead he raises Conan from the dead (or keeps him from dying, your choice). In the sequel he gets in a wizard's duel that consists entirely of telekinetically getting a door to shut. A door that the enemy wizard wants open so that his troops can get in and kill Conan's crew. If that isn't the definition of control magic, I don't know what is.
The magic of the evil wizard Blackwolf (Wizards, 1977) seems to consist entirely of an overwhelming cause fear spell that projects images of Nazis to paralyze the elf armies.
Galen from Dragonslayer uses a magic amulet to levitate objects, (including the rocks to the dragon's cave) forge a magic weapon, uses a shield made out of dragon scales (made by his girlfriend, but still two great uses of item creation) to go dragon hunting like a gish, and then brings his master back from the dead. Who, incidentally, scried the future, got himself killed on purpose, got himself resurrected, and then used Control Weather and Control Winds to get the dragon in place, then shot it with lightning bolts to get its attention so that he could get snatched up and uses Detonate to destroy the beast. And then his apprentice Summons a Mount. Minimal blasting to great effect? Yes. Two wizards standing and pointing wands at each other while cartoon proton streams bash into each other and I fall asleep? No.
Merlin (1980 Excalibur version) never blasts anybody. Instead he summons "the dragon" to breath a magic mist that Uther can ride on, and a Disguise Other spell to make Uther look like the Duke of Cornwall so he can [bloop!] his hot wife. Later he's bound in an icy prison by the evil Sorceress Morgana, who then uses a Disguise Self to take the place of Arthur's wife and [bloop!] her brother. Then she give birth to an inbred son, whom she crafts magic armor for, and then makes a career out of hypnotizing/fascinating the grail knights before they can finish their quest. Still trapped in his crystal prison, Merlin manages to create an astral projection of himself to speak to Arthur in his darkest hour and later tricks Morgana into summoning an obscuring mist (which benefits Arthur's forces); this expends her spell slots for the day, and her Youthful Appearance spell runs out, which in turn makes her inbred son kill her because she's suddenly become an old crone. He also can see the future (sort of), summons the Lady of the Lake, may or may not have forged Excalibur, builds Camelot, and generally knows a lot of druidy, Knowledge Nature, Knowledge Arcana stuff. This is probably the best cinematic depiction of wizarding that I know of, and it was done without CGI (which I suspect is the source of most of the "blasting magic" you're talking about), Stop Motion, or animation of any kind. Instead some simple camera tricks and atmosphere get the job done beautifully, making it really... magical.
You don't really need to see the "magic" happening. It's the effect that counts.
In our next installment we shall discuss Julian Sands' Warlock (1989), and how all the stuff he did before he learned blasting was much more interesting.
Your builds tend to ignore other rules/recommendations such as WBL on occasion, and have a really high point buy. They also very specialized. A blasting wizard takes up too many feats so I still don't stand by it unless you post a build that proves otherwise.My characters often are designed as you say. However, my mathematical builds generally aren't. The blaster sorcerers that I've built, in particular, only require one high ability score and few magic items to do their job. Even if you track down my builds and show that I used high ability scores and had a bit more gear, the design concept nevertheless holds strong.
In other words, redesigning it to your standards would still yield similar results.
Reducing the numbers would reduce the effectiveness, and as to the sorcerers it depends on what the job is. My point is not that blasting can't be done well. My point is the same as the others. You can't throw all those feats into blasting and get the same amount of versatility as you can if you don't throw all those feats into blasting. Things like crafting, toughness, improved init and so on get lost in the shuffle.
First of all, I love playing casters and tried many different routes. From Summoning my own army, blasting, illusions and SoS/ SoD. In the end, it really depends on how the game is being ran by your DM.
That said, I like blasting and find it highly fun and rewarding. Blasters are the high rollers in my book and go for broke. My experiences deem you need to be somewhat mid level, usually 7 for my liking, to start seeing the pay off. You need to know what feats work for a majority of your spells you want to blast with and when to get them. You also need to know what items to grab to boost your spells without cost. I always find Intensified Spell, Heighten Spell and Empower Spell in my "staple" metamagic feats I take.
Heighten Spell: Increases the DC save to my spells that are going to be lagging behind my best spells.
Intensified Spell: Increases the damage cap on my favorite spells and combos well with...
Empower Spell: +50% more dice! Even if I'm using a classic Fireball spell at lvl 9, using Empower Spell on it my dice pool went from 9d6 to 13d6 (rounding down.) Average DC for this spell is going to be 15, but my average damage on a single target should be 39~ (assuming I roll 3 on all dice), could be as low as 13 or as high as 78 on failed saves.
God-Wizards are cool and viable, but so can a blaster. If anything, blasters need to think and plan more because of the challenges they face. When should you throw a Fireball opposed to Haste? Black Tentacles or Enervation (I see this spell a mix of blast and become sucky.) Shocking Grasp at the right time vs Color Spray hitting many targets. Sometimes straight up damage is just better and funner then sitting back and buffing or debuffing. As a blaster you HAVE to know when you can jump into the fray and destroy something or cast that SoS/SoD/Control/Summon to support indirectly. If you can't or find it hard to know when and how to blast, you might want to re-frame from doing a blaster caster or ask around for advice.
Though I can keep on going, it's late. If anything, talk to your group and get some tactics going if you want to play a blaster caster. Every time I make my DM's look at me funny when I tell them dumb numbers for damage, it gives me joy. I like mages in all forms of games because I like big numbers and Pathfinder/D&D is no exception. Can you doing something else like God-Wizardish and be better, it really depends on who you ask and whats going on in your game.
Guys - build and show - don't just talk.
@Castilliano
Here goes.
1)He can target squares within 60. Not farther. Notice that I said they are further than 60 away. It's a fair assumption that combat is engaged at >30 feet distance for something that takes up 15x15 space, and move takes you out of its blindsense range.
2)If I say let's use Balor as our target, and I'm talking about a custom balor that I designed that is immune to everything, then we can't even really argue about it because we don't agree on terms. If I say X, unless I stipulate some variation of X, it means stock X.
3/4)You kind of prove my point. What "blasting" spells of 8th level do anything other than "do x damage"? The spell you use is inconsequential because they are all just re-skinning of the same spell. Different areas, different shapes, different damage types, same effect.
5)Yes, fighters would laugh at a blind dragon in an anti-magic field. Bows. Your argument is invalid. Assuming this is a single dragon fight, wizard goes first and g-dusts. Dragon does something, either teleporting away thus giving both parties time to prep (who wins the prep battle? oh yeah...) or removes his debuff. If he is unable to press whatever advantage he might have round 1 he's going to be toast by round 2. If we're talking about a party of 4 here. A non-optimized fighter with a spare +6 strength composite long bow and Deadly Aim will still dish out 35-40 points of damage in a round from 100+feet away. We could argue this point forever, but bows win attrition fights.
6)Blindness prevents targeting with AoEs. You target a vertex. Which you can't do when blind. At least that's the way it's played at our table which makes a lot of sense to me. Excep for AoEs that emanate from your person, like a breath weapon. Also, as per blindness, if that dragon moved it would need to make an acrobatics check or fall prone. RAW. 55% chance of failure. Its breath weapon is a line of acid, and only about 60 dmg at that. Maybe hitting one person with a trivial amount of damage? Not its best move.
The rest of it is just goalpost moving and disagreeing on rules of engagement with said creature. Seriously though, I could pick a better spell and a better situation. You are arguing as though these scenarios were evenly matched, I challenge you to reverse the tables and see how things work out. My point being that WITH A SUBPAR SPELL and in a position of disadvantage, the god wizard has a 50% chance, at worst, of pulling his weight and significantly changing the face of the fight. In a very advantageous situation, where the enemy has a bad reflex save and is not immune to the energy type you have prepped and is grouped in the right way for the spell you have, yadda yadda. THEN and only then the blaster does the same amount of damage that a fighter will do if he doesn't roll 1s. In the end, because everyone and their mother can do it, damage is not an optimal specialization IF you can do anything else. Most casters can, ergo casters should not specialize in blasting but take it up as a hobby/through spell trigger items, etc.
For example:
Magical lineage, Spell Focus, GSF, EF, GEF, Scorching Ray,
If you are maximizing - I'm Dazing.We're both going against the same reflex saves. When they fail yours - they take damage and get to act .
When they fail mine, they are out of the game for [spell level rounds].
Yes, dazing spell is great. But when did that become exclusive to control wizards? Lay off of it.
If you wish to argue about taking out mooks a tentacle spell will take them out of the game (with no feat investment) just as well as your mega uber blaster mage.
But RD is not arguing that fireball is a better spell than black tentacles. He is arguing that wizards need not cast blast or control spells exclusively, which people seem to be vehemently opposed to.
Look at Treantmonk's work with bards. His bards are built for combat. They're made so they can dish out an adequate amount of hurt when the need arises, because the spell list holds itself up with fantastic spells like Glitterdust and Slow WITHOUT THE FEAT INVESTMENT.
Why should the same not be true of wizards? If we focus not on survivability and utility, but on bringing our spell damage up to respectable levels, we then have a wealth of viable options in combat. Sure, survivability and utiltiy are important, but the wizard spell list has a lot of tools to combat this, as do our party members.
Sure, there'll come a time when we'll wish we had toughness, certainly. But at least our evokers will go out with a bang.
If you want to argue about handling environmental hazards - needing to cast utility spells - on these spells your specialization - all the work you've invested into optimizing blasting - is doing nothing. Intensify does nothing when you have to cast mass fly.
And Spell Focus Conjuration and Toughness do? Lay off of it. Both builds are working with the same spell list. This is what RD is arguing.
So generally speaking, you want a wizard to optimize his total performance. So generally speaking I would rate improved initiative or improved familiar better than things that give you extra casting levels.
But I'm happy to help you prove your point. I suggest a little competition. I'll design 12 CR 14 encounters. You and Treant monk both create a wizard. Upload the wizards - and we'll run through the encounters. And lets see who wins.
Each of you will be part of a part of 3 fighters and a cleric. The fighters will do 75 dmg per round. The cleric will cure 50 pts of damage per round. Fighters will have 150 hp AC 30.
Cleric will have 120 Hp and ac 30. One round of buffing/healing between every round.
Hrm. Colour me interested. I say depending on the encounters and the positioning, the wizard that's contributing to the parties total damage (rather than leaving his party members to pick up the slack) with a mix of solid control magic and dazing spell will come out on top.
Human Diviner11
S 7 I 20 W 7 Con 12 Dex 18 Ch 7Magical Lineage: Magic Missile, Reactionary
Feats: Improved Init, Spell Focus, GSF, Elemental Spell, Familiar evolution, Dazing Spell,
quicken, EF, GEF, heightenInit: +4 from Dex, +4 from Compsognathus, +5 from Diviner, +2 from Reactionary. Ie., +15, or 13 more than your gnome.
Gear: lesser quickening Rod. Wand of Summon X
I have a familiar with tentacles, able to activate items. Plus a quickened action and a regular each turn.
Fire off a quickened dazing magic missile. Followup with a dazing heightend scorching ray.
etc.Compared to your gnome: my DC is 1 better, my init is TONS better. I get more actions a round (familiar) - I can affect fire immune as well as not suffer diminshed effect vs incorporeal, fire resistent. And I can easily choose to affect will or reflex saves. And +1 to hit with my rays. Better AC & touch ac....
Thought I'd chime in here and say that I really dig this blaster build. I'm not just saying that because I feel like I'm picking on you. I'm very excited about dazing spell. I'm planning on taking it as my 10th level bonus feat. Huge thanks to whoever put that on the table.
Now... back to your regularly scheduled programming. (Because I run the risk of having this post deleted for calling it a poop-tempest.)
I've read a number of threads where people state that blasters are underpowered because their damage can't keep up with hit dice progressions.
This has been proven false a number of times when a blaster is built properly.
Having lost that round, many "blaster-haters" decry such builds as being FAR too focused and requiring FAR too many resources, a point they believe to be in their favor since other spellcasting styles (summoning God-wizarding, battlefield control, buffing/debuffing, save or die, etc.) require far less investment--in fact, almost none at all.
Well, I'm here to show that, such people have lost that argument as well for the very reason they think it won them their argument:
If I can build an effective blaster with with an intense amount of investment...and can build a summoning, save or die, buffing/debuffing, battlefield controlling, god-wizard with little to no investment...than it stands to reason that I should be able to do both at once with the same character, shouldn't it?
After all, save or dies work well, so long as I have decent save DCs (which I will as I have only one primary ability score), summoning is amazing all by itself, battlefield control only requires knowledge on how best to use it, buffing/debuffing are usually automatically successful, etc.
However, a wizard who doesn't build for blasting CAN'T blast worth a damn.
Which do you think is better? A god-wizard? Or a god-wizard that can also blast really, really well? Logic (and the tier system) dictates that the versatile spellcaster capable of doing more is the more powerful character.
Still, I'll let you decide for yourselves.
You're right. You don't need huge investments to be an effective controller/god wizard, and arguably need lower casting stats since many of your better spells will be party buffs or have no saving throws, or have secondary effects on successful saves (cloudkill for example is still a cloud and deals con damage even on a successful save, and combos disgustingly well with the cleric's animated undead).
However, this means that your typical god-wizard can dip into other things. Improved Initiative, a spell focus or two, greater spell penetration, augment summoning, save-boosters, etc. They also have a more varied spell list.
See, if I'm a 5th level wizard, I can comfortably have 3 third level spells per day (1 base, 1 school, 1 bonus). I could go haste, stinking cloud, sleet storm. I could instead drop a fireball in there, but the 17.5 damage on a failed save isn't going to mean much unless there's a crapload of little weenie enemies all bunched up neatly in a pile, and in that case stinking cloud works great. Even without that, stinking cloud can block line of sight, screw over other casters, and deny actions to anyone who fails.
I recently was running a revised version of the Red Hand of Doom, a 3.5 Adventure Path published by WotC which was written (at least in part) by James Jacobs (many of you will recognize his name from the Paizo staff). I converted it to Pathfinder, and ran it for a group that included an some characters above the recommended level, and for a party larger than 4 players (it was more like 7).
There is a hobgoblin ambush fairly early in the game (like veeeeery early) in the game. One of the hobgoblins has access to Summon Monster III and started popping it during the surprise round (begin casting->finish casting) and summoned a Dretch. The dretch belched a caster level 2, DC 13, stinking cloud on the party.
About half the party failed and was incapped for about 4 rounds, since they were screwed the first round, and the nausea remained for another 3 rounds afterwords. One of the warriors ran out of the cloud and killed the dretch, and then got harried by arrows. Even with the dretch dead, with that single casting of stinking cloud, half the party was entirely useless for half the battle.
On the 2nd round, one of the hobgoblins used a wand of entangle and threw the players into a mess. Suddenly they were trapped in a gigantic area of effect with difficult terrain, a large portion of that area was stinking cloud, and several of them got rooted to the ground when they biffed their DC 11 Reflex save. Even those who didn't biff it had some difficulty getting out of the 40ft radius entangle with reduced movement speed.
Even though the group had been bunched up nice and neat, fireball wouldn't have done squat. However, the stinking cloud and entangle threw them into utter chaos for about 5 rounds, while their enemies shot arrows at them (fortunately my players are smart and many of them who couldn't move out of the entangle used total defense actions to mitigate incoming pain).
Such tactics worked amazingly because 1) with that one spell 1/2 the hobgoblins enemies were nullified for 3-4 rounds. 2) with that one spell, a full-attack was taken on the summoned dretch instead of closing with the hobgoblin archers. 3) The hobgoblin archers got to keep taking pot-shots at them while they were entangled at 1d8+2, and could focus-fire them down as they came out of the stinking cloud.
Waaaaaaaaaay more effective than having just dropped a fireball on their heads, even twice. 17.5 damage on a failed save could have been healed by the party's pacifistic cleric pretty quick like (3d6 to everyone within the area would likely heal anyone who made their save and almost heal anyone who didn't). However, the pacifistic healer didn't get to do any healing 'cause she was rooted and blind.
==========
So why doesn't every wizard blast AND battle control? Because for every blast spell you prepare you have one less spell to buff or control. For every investment you make to try and deal enough damage that it's worth it, you could have grabbed something that makes you better in more situations. Why would I want Empower Spell and sack levels for a low-save DC blast spell when Spell Focus (Transmutation) increases the save DCs of my Slow, Baleful Polymorph, and Flesh to Stone spells?
Also, while it's true some creatures are immune to certain control spells, not preparing blast spells means its more likely they're not immune to something else you have. Got sleet storm, stinking cloud, slow, and haste prepped? Come up against enemy mages or archers or whatever? Stinking cloud. Undead immune to stinking cloud? Cast 2nd level Command Undead or drop a Slow or Haste. Archers getting you down? Throw up a Silent Image wall and gain total concealment.
Blasting has its place in the battlefield wizard's arsenal, but it's not actually for dealing tons of damage. Instead, it's for dealing moderately strong damage with little way of avoiding it, as a counterspell. 17.5 damage from a lightning bolt isn't very impressive when a 8 HD creature has 52 HP or better. It's pretty damn impressive when you're talking Concentration checks though.
Ok, so round 1, you haste the party, stink your enemies, abuse everything with pornographic tentacles, drop sleep storms, wind walls, slow everyone to a crawl, and so forth. What do you do on round 2? Ready an action to cast a spell if you see someone casting a spell you don't like. Ok, so some enemy magician decides to cast a spell, you ID it with a Spellcraft check, and spend a 1st level magic missile to deal 3d4+3 points of force damage (that's a minimum of 6, but an average of 10.5) and force a concentration check DC 16-25 plus spell level or biff the spell. At 5th level, DC 16-25 can be pretty rough. At 10th level, a single maximized lightning bolt (via a rod perhaps) is DC 40 minimum.
So do I think that control wizards have a place for blasting? Absolutely. Do I think it's for killing enemies? Not a bit.
Also, most will tell you that blasting was more effective in previous editions as well; since enemies had less HP. That's true, but in my opinion it still wasn't super amazing. Find a copy of Baldur's Gate I & II. They're PC games which use the 2E system. In BG I, the Sleep spell is your best friend because it trivializes the hordes of low-HD poor-saving enemies you encounter through much of the game. In BG II, stuff like Haste, Slow, Stinking Cloud, Cloudkill, Horror, and similar spells are vastly superior in terms of achieving victory over encounters than throwing around damaging effects.
Also in those games, higher level spells take longer to cast than lower level spells, and taking damage while casting will interrupt the spell. Guess what my strategy for dealing with pesky mages was? Yep, magic missile. Bam, 5d4+5 damage, your doomsday spell is gone and you're severely wounded (less HP in that game). Heck, magic missile tended to trump Fireball and Lightning Bolt virtually everytime I actually wanted to just deal damage (but that's why I kept fighters, rangers, and paladins, and their weapon specialization around). Magic missile was also great for wiping out mirror images and stone/ironskins.
That applies to weapon attacks.
outside of empower and maximize, all metamagic feats stack normally atop one another, in the order you generally choose.
so, it is indeed x2, x2, x2. Twin Spell and Admixture actually create NEW SPELLS tacked onto the old ones...you're actually throwing four bundles of the original spells. Three Thunders just adds 1/2 each lightning and sonic damage.
So, you're not just multiplying damage. It's more akin to creating new spells beside the old ones, sharing in all effects.
Pathfinder is MUCH more careful with this, of course. A successful blaster build is a button-push...there IS nothing better to do then kill your opponent. MM builds make it come down to SR and PERHAPS Spell Immunity. There are only two effects which stack damage in PF, and they do so very strangely.
and for the naysayers...note, the rest of his spells are WIDE OPEN. The blaster sorc can easily choose a secondary function of summoning and/or battlefield control without any trouble, and so can the blaster wizard. Remember, the primary power with full casters is the SPELL LIST, not the feats behind it. As long as he doesn't want to do double duty with save or die spells, the blaster is completely golden.
==Aelryinth
How exactly does making a 3.5 wizard damage build show anything?
By now it should be common knowledge that 3.5 ended up very broken, because of all the prestige classes and wierd feats. I would go out on a limb and claim that u can enhance every build to insane levels by just finding that broken 3.5 stuff. So besides a "that is a it cool, but oh wait its 3.5", and a "yes this is backward compatible and all, but very few games actually alow that" reactions, i cant see the point in showing that he can do 900 damage.
Things
Nice post. I've just got my paws on Red Hand of Doom and am really keen to run it. Along with most of paizo's AP backcatalogue and a 2E game, so it may be on hold for a while. At risk of running OT here, did you run this game in Golarion?
If low level mooks can let loose these same save or dies thats more or less proving the point RD is trying to make. Of these dip feats I find augment summoning would be the only one I'd miss, and even blaster wizards could be able to find the feats to take it anyway (with an added boost to web, glitterdust and cloud spells.)
Regarding the spell slot issue, I always found this a weakness of the wizard class as a whole, no matter what you fill those slots with. This is why I favour sorcerers. That said, a blaster wizard need only prepare enough blasts to make a difference. With a (cheaper) ring of wizardry thanks to my bonded item, an open spell slot, coupled with a high int/cha, I find I can throw around as many lightning bolts and magic missiles as I please without suffering for it, and I'd say I'm doing a damn sight better than if I prefered AoE save-or-suck spells exclusively.
While you address the problem with immunities to blast spells and then... list the variety of control spells that the wizard should be taking on the side. I don't think it's a real issue. A caster can always find something to do, in my experience.
I really dig that use of magic missile. I'm surprised how much I'm falling back on it with my wizard. It's really a lot more solid than I ever gave it credit.
Also thanks for the history lesson. As a relatively young player I really dig these throwbacks to first/second edition. I'm always glad to see some of that.
@Castilliano
Here goes.
1)He can target squares within 60. Not farther. Notice that I said they are further than 60 away. It's a fair assumption that combat is engaged at >30 feet distance for something that takes up 15x15 space, and move takes you out of its blindsense range.
2)If I say let's use Balor as our target, and I'm talking about a custom balor that I designed that is immune to everything, then we can't even really argue about it because we don't agree on terms. If I say X, unless I stipulate some variation of X, it means stock X.
3/4)You kind of prove my point. What "blasting" spells of 8th level do anything other than "do x damage"? The spell you use is inconsequential because they are all just re-skinning of the same spell. Different areas, different shapes, different damage types, same effect.
5)Yes, fighters would laugh at a blind dragon in an anti-magic field. Bows. Your argument is invalid. Assuming this is a single dragon fight, wizard goes first and g-dusts. Dragon does something, either teleporting away thus giving both parties time to prep (who wins the prep battle? oh yeah...) or removes his debuff. If he is unable to press whatever advantage he might have round 1 he's going to be toast by round 2. If we're talking about a party of 4 here. A non-optimized fighter with a spare +6 strength composite long bow and Deadly Aim will still dish out 35-40 points of damage in a round from 100+feet away. We could argue this point forever, but bows win attrition fights.
6)Blindness prevents targeting with AoEs. You target a vertex. Which you can't do when blind. At least that's the way it's played at our table which makes a lot of sense to me. Excep for AoEs that emanate from your person, like a breath weapon. Also, as per blindness, if that dragon moved it would need to make an acrobatics check or fall prone. RAW. 55% chance of failure. Its breath weapon is a line of acid, and only about 60 dmg at that. Maybe hitting one person with a trivial amount of damage? Not its best move.The rest of...
Wow, you really don't get my posts, do you?
Things you missed...I'm not arguing for blasting, but for versatility. (Changing the spell level to 4th didn't make it better or reinforce the blaster argument, just less expensive, to downgrade the waste portrayed with the Delayed Blast Fireball.)
I'm not 'against' your controller position, only the dragon example.
And I'm not arguing the party won't win, I'm arguing the dragon wasn't 'taken out' with one spell.
I don't consider any true dragons default (or any other creature with a variable spell list). I seldom use the given spell lists, which is why I was SURPRISED (not indignant/not disappointed), but of course agreed to use it once it was clear. Bringing up an Uber-Balor was sensational fluff, out of proportion.
I already mentioned the party would win the buffing battle, so when you point out, with sarcasm, how they'd win the buffing battle...well, you can figure out how that looks.
In mentioning the dragon's options, you failed to mention that it can both debuff (with Anti-Magic Field) and MOVE, perhaps for temporary cover, perhaps to go right above the spellcaster.
Also, you forgot it can Wall of Stone instead of TP, perhaps splitting the party, then perhaps TPing himself to hit an isolated part of the party.
Anyway, some rules clarifications...
(As I do have the Rules Turning spell up to throw them back)
Moving 100' (out of 200'), the dragon doesn't make an Acrobatics check, even blinded, even without blindsense, which it does have.
110', yes, then roll, RAW for blindness, except I'd rule BLINDsense let's you get around BLIND since it lets you 'locate' (RAW) things. But I didn't even ask for the 200' I'd interpret the rules as allowing, just the non-Blindsense basics of half speed.
100' should close in on the Fighter in one round, who he can remember the direction of, who he can 'locate' (same RAW) once within 60'. Not much bow action, even if Fighter started with bow out (and took that archer feat). (Melee Fighter: BAB 15, Dex 4, Weapon 3, still needs a 17 to hit AC 39, (15 with Blindness). Use Deadly Aim, make it 19. Even with some Fighter bonuses into bows (would he?), he's not doing too well (20ish per hit with DA, but hitting hardly ever, needs more buffs even to become a factor.)
(BUT I defer that you win that the dragon couldn't do the fly/reach/Vital Strike route very well, unless he takes out the healer, which would be impossible without FAs. Case made on that tactic. Other tactics remain.)
Blindness doesn't stop you from throwing an AoE any more than it stops a blind archer from shooting poorly at that same vertice.
With blindsense, the dragon can locate the rest of the party and throw an AoE in the midst, assuming it isn't one of the false AoEs where you're targeting people within a distance of one another, but an actual targeting of the area. If you're saying it needs to hit a vertice, then give him the 50% miss chance (the dragon can 'locate' the vertice), but if he misses, what would that mean in this context? The spell went over there, right? But then...fizzled?
(Again, not the preferred tactic, but possible)
(non-dragon rhetorical sidebar: Are you saying a fireball wouldn't burst if thrown into darkness? Are you saying a blind spellcaster can't say "80' or so, kinda that way" and fire an AoE spell off? (I don't let blinded players actually look at the Battlemat, so it keeps this to a minimum. But to say they can't, it doesn't seem true.)
Back on track:
His breath does 70 ave. BTW, and since he can locate the PCs, he should be able to line up on two of them at minimum, not one 'maybe'. (Not the preferred tactic, but there if he only gets a standard action.)
Polar Ray, for one, is an 8th level blaster spell that does have secondary effects. As does 4th level Ice Storm. (This is NOT part of MY argument, you asked for examples.)
End rules clarifications
and back to main point:
The dragon is not 'taken out.' Yes, your caster contributed with his "subpar" (but high slot) spell, but that wasn't your argument. You even expounded on how a non-factor that dragon became. You didn't dare anybody to have a blaster match that effectiveness, you gave the blaster a different scenario. So by asking to reverse positions, you're the one 'moving the goalposts'.
What you did end up proving is that you can take advantage of action economy by making the dragon use his turn de-debuffing. Party composition has much influence on if that's better then blasting or not. (1/10-1/5 Dragon's h.p., maybe)
And yes, I can change the tactics of the dragon, as it has an Int 22, and I don't (though I keep putting points in it). That's not moving the goalposts, nor the rules of engagement. The option of the dragon engaging in melee with Anti-Magic up has always been there, I'm just extrapolating the outcome.
Note: in game, I'd have prepped for running this dragon, while this post, I'm writing it on the fly.
So when I say it can do 150+ damage to any PC it Full Attacks in its Anti-Magic Field, and you choose to ignore and not counter that, then I can say "The dragon's a threat still."
Dragon casts Anti-Magic Field (can now move 200'), goes behind cover, returns to trip a PC on next turn.
Or Dragon casts Anti-Magic Field, has no cover, goes high, Fighter hits him a few times (maybe). Dragon engages with any PC on round 2, using Disarm or Trip with Combat Expertise, making certain to place Fighter in Field.
Even if trip fails and Fighter rolls well and chews him bad (100+damage even without magic, to be generous, THF, not sword & board). Next round, Fighter takes 150 damage. Does he have that much without Con bonuses/buffs? He'd better because I was already letting rolls go his way. Even with aid from party members doing another 100+, the dragon's about to kill somebody.
Fight goes on, party likely wins, but that dragon was a factor, and using average rolls above, (successfully tripping or the fighter missing AC 45 dragon (w/ CE) more often than not), the dragon kills a few people.
Yes, you could do better, make a better example. Which is exactly what my first response said...because this argument, to me, has always been about the example, not the blaster-controller argument.
Give dragons their due. Go take out a Marilith or something...
Anyway, I think I'm done here. I'll read any response you have, but probably won't go as in depth again.
Cheers.