It's superior, but the others are perfectly respectable for certain builds. Specialists need Spell Substitution less than universal wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's very nice, but it's also a big chunk of time, and is taking the place of restoring your focus points. Flexible metamagic, or extra familiar abilities- those are more passive effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Picking this has been my big struggle with the wizard actually. As much as I want the swapability, unwanted a badass familiar too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really taking the place of restoring your focus points?
The example is "a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic of the illusion school": so unless both the spell you're trading and the new spell fall under your school, I'd say no.
Is spending an extra 10 minutes to solve a noncombat problem that big a deal short of extreme time pressure?
How would we know? You're asking the question in a vacuum, so maybe?
It is the superior thesis, nobody has said otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the premise of something being dominant or not based on ? Has there been time for a “meta” to be established ?
I disagree, I think the strongest long-term thesis is Spell Blending.
As has been pointed out in other threads, buff/debuff spells have been reduced in power significantly. Damage spells need to be in the highest available slots.
Sure, there's always stuff you can prepare in lower level slots, but as you level up, it will be less and less relevant, thus the ability to gain even a few higher level slots is worth its weight in gold. And I'm not even necessarily talking getting the highest level slots, but removing 2 1st level slots to gain a 3rd level slot will be very useful when you're level 14-15.
Overall, I think all 4 thesis are useful and will find good ways to use them. It's more of "what you want to do with your wizard" and less "this is the rule-em-all thesis".
For the weakest, I'd go with the Metamagic one because there is so few really good metamagic feats available now it's easy enough to pick them up via class feats anyway.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The example is "a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic of the illusion school": so unless both the spell you're trading and the new spell fall under your school, I'd say no.What I am saying is, short of some grave hurry, why not spend the extra 10 minutes to prepare the right spell to solve some noncombat problem?
Someone else probably solved it with skills in the interim.
Someone else probably solved it with skills in the interim.The example is "a wizard of the illusionist school might be able to Refocus while attempting to Identify Magic of the illusion school": so unless both the spell you're trading and the new spell fall under your school, I'd say no.What I am saying is, short of some grave hurry, why not spend the extra 10 minutes to prepare the right spell to solve some noncombat problem?
I was replying to "Is it really taking the place of restoring your focus points?" Colette Brunel ithat it IS taking the place or you're taking 20 min to do both.
On your reply, I'm pretty much with Xenocrat's reply: unless the whole party has a reason to take a 10 min nap before every fight/encounter/skill check just so the wizard can prep JUST the right spell, I'm not seeing it: you'd be asking for 10 min that no one else needs and that not going to fly in a lot of games and will result in the problem solved while the wizard is still flipping through books out in the hall...
I do not know. It does not seem especially outrageous to go, "I would like to take ten minutes to prepare an Invisibility Sphere spell, so that all of us have a much better chance of sneaking past," or, "I would like to spend ten minutes preparing a Clairaudience spell, which is a much safer and more reliable way to eavesdrop for that information we need."
Invisibility doesn’t help that much with succeeding at stealth anymore. It lets you try, but doesn’t give a bonus to success.
I do not know. It does not seem especially outrageous to go, "I would like to take ten minutes to prepare an Invisibility Sphere spell, so that all of us have a much better chance of sneaking past," or, "I would like to spend ten minutes preparing a Clairaudience spell, which is a much safer and more reliable way to eavesdrop for that information we need."Invisibility doesn’t help that much with succeeding at stealth anymore. It lets you try, but doesn’t give a bonus to success.
Yep: Sneak skill "If you’re undetected by a creature <snip> any critical failure you roll on a check to Sneak, you get a failure instead." That's pretty much it... Not nat 20, but crit failure immunity.
EDIT: "Failure: A telltale sound or other sign gives your position away, though you still remain unseen."
As to your point though, In that time a familiar or rogue might have already found out what you would have by the time you get that Clairaudience [it's only 500' away and only someplace you can guess the location] or using Follow the Leader, everyone would have already made it through sneaking 9 min ago...
Will some parties not care about an extra 10 min? sure, but I wouldn't go into a game assuming that's the case.
Invisibility makes you start off as undetected, which is better than relying on Stealth to establish and sustain that.
So you cast a spell and the ONLY thing it does is makes sure that the first 10' of sneak is undetected? Color me unimpressed. [Stride up to half your Speed and make check] I guess it's fine if you only HAD to sneak 10'... :P
Follow the Leader exists, but why not use it on top of an Invisibility Sphere, given the ten minutes to prepare?
Because they can finish the scouting in 2 min and have 8 min left? And as I pointed out, it's only 10' of benefit... If we're going 100' and we NEEDED that automatic first 10', I'm REALLY worried about our chances on the next 9 checks.
To my understanding, with Invisibility, you stay undetected unless someone specifically Seeks you.
If this is incorrect, I would gladly take the correction.
"At the end of your movement, the GM rolls your Stealth check in secret and compares the result to the Perception DC of each creature you were hidden from or undetected by at the start of your movement."
Now when invisibility writes "This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead (page 466)" that's right UNTIL you move, then you go and look up sneak: "If you’re undetected by a creature and it’s impossible for that creature to observe you (for a typical creature, this includes when you’re invisible, the observer is blinded, or you’re in darkness and the creature can’t see in darkness), for any critical failure you roll on a check to Sneak, you get a failure instead. You also continue to be undetected if you lose cover or greater cover against or are no longer concealed from such a creature." "Failure: A telltale sound or other sign gives your position away, though you still remain unseen."
EDIT: Failed sneak removes Unnoticed, letting people know you're there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, invisibility is less "you succeed at Stealth now", and more "you will always at least be hidden from people relying on visual senses". It's not a bonus, but a base level of success.
And let's not scoff at hidden, which is both an action economy boost (you no longer have to Hide, you can go straight to Sneaking) and a defensive boost (a flat 50% chance for effects to miss you).
Invisibility is still a very strong option.
It's useful, but if your goal is to remain Unnoticed it doesn't help at all. The scenario was "prepare an Invisibility Sphere spell, so that all of us have a much better chance of sneaking past" which it doesn't help with in the least as a failure "gives your position away". They don't know your square but they know you're there. Now if the situation was "prepare an Invisibility Sphere spell, so that all of us have a much better chance of setting up an ambush" I'd agree.