Pierce Magical Protection

[forumite]

Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.

This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats from
a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that lowered
effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go bye-bye,
see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target to roll.
They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction allows a
saving throw.

As an aside, I think Mage Slayer should have just increased the DC of
casting defensively as opposed to automatically negating it, say by 4
to negate the effect of Combat Casting Feat.

I think someone got snookered in the Fighter vs Wizard fallacy and
were upset how "everyone" says the Fighter always loses.

Gerald Katz

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat?

I was going to start a thread commenting on that, actually.

Post by forumite
While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.

Those are the most common. However, there are more, particularly if you use
Dragon, 3rd-party sources, splatbooks, etc.

Post by forumite
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats from
a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that lowered
effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go bye-bye,
see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target to roll.
They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction allows a
saving throw.

Yes, this is very sickening.

Post by forumite
As an aside, I think Mage Slayer should have just increased the DC of
casting defensively as opposed to automatically negating it, say by 4
to negate the effect of Combat Casting Feat.

I would increase it by more than that, but I agree with your point in
general.

Post by forumite
I think someone got snookered in the Fighter vs Wizard fallacy and
were upset how "everyone" says the Fighter always loses.

Apparently...

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats from
a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that lowered
effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go bye-bye,
see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target to roll.
They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction allows a
saving throw.

How often can the feat be used?

... or is it usable *always*? You just ignore all AC increases from
spells, *always*?

[Mark Blunden]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats
from a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that
lowered effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go
bye-bye, see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target
to roll. They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's
Disjunction allows a saving throw.

How often can the feat be used?
... or is it usable *always*? You just ignore all AC increases from
spells, *always*?

And what are the prerequisites?

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Mark Blunden

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats
from a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that
lowered effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go
bye-bye, see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target
to roll. They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's
Disjunction allows a saving throw.

How often can the feat be used?
... or is it usable *always*? You just ignore all AC increases from
spells, *always*?

And what are the prerequisites?

Mage Slayer (which requires 2 ranks in Spellcraft and BAB +3), Con 13.

Both feats reduce your caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities
by 4, for a total of -8 caster level.

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Mark Blunden
And what are the prerequisites?

Mage Slayer (which requires 2 ranks in Spellcraft and BAB +3), Con 13.
Both feats reduce your caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities
by 4, for a total of -8 caster level.

I saw that caster level thing about Mage Slayer earlier today on the
WotC boards and it feels kinda funny. While it might balance the feat
(or not) and I see the theme behind it (being good against magic ==
against being good at magic), but I don't think it really makes sense.
Why does knowing how to distract spellcasters hinder your own
spellcasting?

For Pierce Magical Protection, the CL penalty somehow doesn't feel as
wrong: that's supernatural anyway so it's easier to handwave: maybe
magic just "slides" from you or something, so you can't really master
it, but you can break it with your physical attacks...

What happens if you don't have enough (or any) caster levels? I assume
you can still take and use the feats. Which sets a nasty precedent, I
think. Up next, the Lumbering Brute feat: you gain +2 to attacks and +4
to damage with all melee weapons, but suffer a -10 penalty to balance
and perform (dance) checks! A penalty to something you already suck at
and don't care about isn't really a penalty.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats from
a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that lowered
effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go bye-bye,
see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target to roll.
They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction allows a
saving throw.

How often can the feat be used?

All day.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
... or is it usable *always*? You just ignore all AC increases from
spells, *always*?

It takes a standard action to attack using the feat.

[forumite]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat? While I have not counted
the number of AC buff spells in the PHB, I can think of a good number
out of the blue: Mage Armor, Shield, Shield Of Faith, Barkskin,
Protection From Foo, Holy Aura, Magic Circle Of Foo, and so on.
This one Feat not only ignore all the AC bonuses from these Feats from

Oops. Meant "AC bonuses from these spells"

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by forumite
a melee attack, if you damage the protected person at that lowered
effective AC, they automatically are all dispelled, go bye-bye,
see-ya, so sad - so sorry. No saving throw. No DC target to roll.
They are gone automatically. Even Mordenkainen's Disjunction allows a
saving throw.

How often can the feat be used?
... or is it usable *always*? You just ignore all AC increases from
spells, *always*?

Yes. Always.

For those who don't have the book yet, I'll type it here.


Pierce Magical Protection

You can overcome the magical protections of your enemies.

Prerequisites: Con 13, Mage Slayer.

Benefit: Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard
action you can make a melee attack rgar ignores any bonuses to Armor
Class granted by spells (including spell trigger items or spell
completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions.)
If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and
automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that
grant a bonus to Armor Class.

Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

Commentary from me: Yeah, like that will scare off the fighters,
barbarians, and rogues from taking this Feat.

Mage Slayer

You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time
your attacks and defenses against them expertly.

Prerequisites: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you
threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their
Concentration checks to do so.), bur they are aware that they cannot
cast defensively while being threatened by a character with thois
feat.

Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

There is also this wonderful feat:

Pierce Magical Concealment

You ignore the miss chance provided by certain magical effects

Prerequisites: Con 13, Blind-Fight, Mage Slayer.

Benefit: Your fierce contempt for magic allows you to disregard the
miss chance granted by spells or spell-like abilities such as
darkness, blur, invisibility, obscuring mist, ghostform (see page
109), and spells when used to create concealment effects (such as a
wizard using permanent image to fill a corridir with illusory fire and
smoke)_. In addition, when facing a creature protected by mirror
image, you can immediately pick out the real creture from its
figments. Your ability to ignore this miss chance granted by magical
concealment doesn't grant you any ability toignore nonmagical
concealment (so you would still have a 20% miss chance against an
invisible creature hiding in fog, for example.)

Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

Commentary from me: The Spellcraft 2 ranks is the major cost. That's
4 skill points for the warriors. Rogues are delayed three levels
because of the BAB +3 requirement. Mage Slayer comes into play at
about the same time spellcasters don't statistically have to roll to
cast defensively for any spell level if they took Spell Focus
(Concentration) and Combat Casting Feats. That kills that strategy
(i.e. Mage Slayer is really Cleric Slayer since wizards aren't wont to
be in threatening range as clerics). Pierce Magical Protection
destroys all the buff spells, including those you as the Tank of the
party got form your spellcasting buddies. Pierce Magical Concealment
destroys the rest of the buffs the other feat missed.

Someone really hates spellcasters.

Gerald Katz

[Donald Tsang]

Post by forumite
Pierce Magical Protection
You can overcome the magical protections of your enemies.
Prerequisites: Con 13, Mage Slayer.
Benefit: Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard
action you can make a melee attack rgar ignores any bonuses to Armor
Class granted by spells (including spell trigger items or spell
completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions.)
If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and
automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that
grant a bonus to Armor Class.

So, uhh, does a spell that grants a +2 Enhancement Bonus to
Natural Armor Bonus to Armor Class really "grant a bonus to Armor
Class"?

Clearly, Mage Armor grants a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class, and
Shield grants a +4 Shield Bonus to Armor Class. But if Cat's Grace
doesn't get dispelled, neither should Barkskin...

Donald

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Donald Tsang
So, uhh, does a spell that grants a +2 Enhancement Bonus to
Natural Armor Bonus to Armor Class really "grant a bonus to Armor
Class"?
Clearly, Mage Armor grants a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class, and
Shield grants a +4 Shield Bonus to Armor Class. But if Cat's Grace
doesn't get dispelled, neither should Barkskin...

Likewise for magic vestment, which grants an enhancement bonus to your
shield, not an AC bonus to you. It's pretty nasty against wizards, but a
wizard in melee range is often screwed /anyway./

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Donald Tsang

Post by forumite
Pierce Magical Protection
You can overcome the magical protections of your enemies.
Prerequisites: Con 13, Mage Slayer.
Benefit: Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard
action you can make a melee attack rgar ignores any bonuses to Armor
Class granted by spells (including spell trigger items or spell
completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions.)
If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and
automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that
grant a bonus to Armor Class.

So, uhh, does a spell that grants a +2 Enhancement Bonus to
Natural Armor Bonus to Armor Class really "grant a bonus to Armor
Class"?

Yes, it really does. An Enhancement Bonus to AC is still an Enhancement
Bonus.

Post by Donald Tsang
Clearly, Mage Armor grants a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class, and
Shield grants a +4 Shield Bonus to Armor Class. But if Cat's Grace
doesn't get dispelled, neither should Barkskin...

No. Cat's Grace provides an Enhancement Bonus to Dexterity. It does not
directly modify AC.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Donald Tsang
So, uhh, does a spell that grants a +2 Enhancement Bonus to
Natural Armor Bonus to Armor Class really "grant a bonus to Armor
Class"?

Yes, it really does. An Enhancement Bonus to AC is still an
Enhancement Bonus.

But barkskin does not grant an enhancement bonus /to AC/ -- just like
cat's grace.

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Donald Tsang
Clearly, Mage Armor grants a +4 Armor Bonus to Armor Class, and
Shield grants a +4 Shield Bonus to Armor Class. But if Cat's Grace
doesn't get dispelled, neither should Barkskin...

No. Cat's Grace provides an Enhancement Bonus to Dexterity. It does not
directly modify AC.

They both work the same way, indirectly boosting AC.

[Presto]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Donald Tsang
So, uhh, does a spell that grants a +2 Enhancement Bonus to
Natural Armor Bonus to Armor Class really "grant a bonus to Armor
Class"?

Yes, it really does. An Enhancement Bonus to AC is still an
Enhancement Bonus.

But barkskin does not grant an enhancement bonus /to AC/ -- just like
cat's grace.

From the SRD:

"Barkskin toughens a creature's skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement
bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus
increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5
at caster level 12th."

The natural Armor Bonus gained by Barkskin is part and parcel with the
creature's Armor Class. There is no other effect bestowed by barkskin.

Cat's Grace, on the other hand, grants a bonus to a creature's Dexterity
Score, which does affect a creature's AC, but only indirectly. It affects
other things as well, such as Reflex Saves, Dexterity checks, and Skill
checks for skills based on Dex.

I'd conclude from this that Barkskin would be affected by this feat just as
Mage Armor or Shield of Faith would.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Presto

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
But barkskin does not grant an enhancement bonus /to AC/ -- just like
cat's grace.

"Barkskin toughens a creature's skin. The effect grants a +2
enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus ...."

That confirms what I wrote. It doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it
gives a bonus to natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

Post by Presto
The natural Armor Bonus gained by Barkskin is part and parcel with the
creature's Armor Class.

It contributes to a creature's armor class. It is not, however, Armor
Class. For example, barkskin would stack with a (direct) enhancement
bonus to AC. That's because barkskin is /not a bonus to AC./

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Presto

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
But barkskin does not grant an enhancement bonus /to AC/ -- just like
cat's grace.

"Barkskin toughens a creature's skin. The effect grants a +2
enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus ...."

That confirms what I wrote. It doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it
gives a bonus to natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

By that logic, it does not affect Mage Armor either, since Mage Armor gives
you an armor bonus, thereby indirectly improving AC. Is says that it
ignores "any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells." Is Barkskin a spell
that gives a bonus to AC? Yes. Cat's Grace, on the other hand, does not
give any bonus to AC.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Presto
The natural Armor Bonus gained by Barkskin is part and parcel with the
creature's Armor Class.

It contributes to a creature's armor class. It is not, however, Armor
Class.

Name a spell that just effects Armor Class and you will have a leg to stand
on.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it gives a bonus to
natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

By that logic, it does not affect Mage Armor either, since Mage Armor
gives you an armor bonus, thereby indirectly improving AC. [It] says
that it ignores "any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells."

Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the
subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus /to AC/."

Barkskin: "The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus /to the creature's
existing natural armor bonus./"

Note how the first gives a bonus to AC, and the second gives a bonus to
something else. Note how barkskin would stack with an enhancement bonus
to AC.

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] contributes to a creature's armor class. It is not,
however, Armor Class.

Name a spell that just effects Armor Class and you will have a leg to
stand on.

Mage armor, as quoted above.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it gives a bonus to
natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

By that logic, it does not affect Mage Armor either, since Mage Armor
gives you an armor bonus, thereby indirectly improving AC. [It] says
that it ignores "any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells."

Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the
subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus /to AC/."
Barkskin: "The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus /to the creature's
existing natural armor bonus./"
Note how the first gives a bonus to AC, and the second gives a bonus to
something else. Note how barkskin would stack with an enhancement bonus
to AC.

FWIW, I agree with Bradd on this one.

Expand the model a little. Enhancement bonuses to armor enhance the
armor bonus of the armor, they do not provide an enhancement bonus to
the wearer of the armor. If they provided an enhancement bonus to the
wearer, then the enhancement bonuses for armor and shield shouldn't
stack.

Consider now a spell that provides an enhancement bonus to worn armor
(analogous to /magic weapon/). The character does not have an improved
AC directly because of the spell, but because the spell improved the
armor bonus of armor he was wearing.

Similarly, barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to the creature's
natural armor. It should behave exactly the same way as an enhancement
bonus on armor.

/mage armor/, OTOH, puts a barrier of force around the recipient. This
directly affects AC.

FWIW, if I were to keep this feat -- it's unlikely -- I would probably
change the wording so it affects only those things that provide a force
or deflection bonus to armor class. I don't have the original wording
handy (book's upstairs) or I'd rewrite it.

I don't know if force bonus is in 3.5. IMC I long ago split 'armor'
bonus into 'armor', 'shield', and 'force'; armor and shield stack with
each other, but neither stacks with force.


Keith

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Keith Davies
Consider now a spell that provides an enhancement bonus to worn armor
(analogous to /magic weapon/). The character does not have an improved
AC directly because of the spell, but because the spell improved the
armor bonus of armor he was wearing.

That's the /magic vestment/ spell.

Post by Keith Davies
Similarly, barkskin provides an enhancement bonus to the creature's
natural armor. It should behave exactly the same way as an enhancement
bonus on armor.

Exactly.

Post by Keith Davies
I don't know if force bonus is in 3.5.

Not that I recall.

[Mark Blunden]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it gives a bonus to
natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

By that logic, it does not affect Mage Armor either, since Mage Armor
gives you an armor bonus, thereby indirectly improving AC. [It] says
that it ignores "any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells."

Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the
subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus /to AC/."
Barkskin: "The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus /to the creature's
existing natural armor bonus./"
Note how the first gives a bonus to AC, and the second gives a bonus
to something else. Note how barkskin would stack with an enhancement
bonus to AC.

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] contributes to a creature's armor class. It is not,
however, Armor Class.

Name a spell that just effects Armor Class and you will have a leg to
stand on.

Mage armor, as quoted above.

It's purely a semantic distinction to ensure that the Natural Armour bonus
the spell provides avoids the "same-type bonuses don't stack" rule for
creatures who already have natural armour. The spell provides a bonus which
increases the subject's armour class.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Mark Blunden

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] doesn't give a bonus to Armor Class; it gives a bonus to
natural armor, thereby /indirectly/ improving AC.

By that logic, it does not affect Mage Armor either, since Mage Armor
gives you an armor bonus, thereby indirectly improving AC. [It] says
that it ignores "any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells."

Mage armor: "An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the
subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus /to AC/."
Barkskin: "The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus /to the creature's
existing natural armor bonus./"
Note how the first gives a bonus to AC, and the second gives a bonus
to something else. Note how barkskin would stack with an enhancement
bonus to AC.

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] contributes to a creature's armor class. It is not,
however, Armor Class.

Name a spell that just effects Armor Class and you will have a leg to
stand on.

Mage armor, as quoted above.

It's purely a semantic distinction to ensure that the Natural Armour bonus
the spell provides avoids the "same-type bonuses don't stack" rule for
creatures who already have natural armour. The spell provides a bonus which
increases the subject's armour class.

That is exactly how I see it.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

[Barkskin] provides a bonus which increases the subject's armour class.

That is exactly how I see it.

Mage armor gives you armor. Shield gives you armor. The feat clearly
pierces both spells.

Cat's grace enhances your agility. Magic vestment enhances your worn
armor. Barkskin enhances your natural armor. All of these indirectly
improve your AC. The latter two don't give you armor; they make your
existing armor better.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Mark Blunden
It's purely a semantic distinction to ensure that the Natural Armour
bonus the spell provides avoids the "same-type bonuses don't stack"
rule for creatures who already have natural armour. The spell provides
a bonus which increases the subject's armour class.

So does cat's grace. I don't see any way to apply the feat to barkskin
and magic vestment that doesn't also pull in cat's grace. They all
improve armor class. By the way, do you think the feat should pierce
magic vestment?

[Spinner]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Mark Blunden
It's purely a semantic distinction to ensure that the Natural Armour
bonus the spell provides avoids the "same-type bonuses don't stack"
rule for creatures who already have natural armour. The spell provides
a bonus which increases the subject's armour class.

So does cat's grace. I don't see any way to apply the feat to barkskin
and magic vestment that doesn't also pull in cat's grace. They all
improve armor class. By the way, do you think the feat should pierce
magic vestment?
--

Sorry, to me it's perfectly obvious that Bradd's right here. The only
reason Cat's Grace feels different is that the bonus it provides gives you
other stuff as well (reflex save, skill bonus, etc.) because it's boosting
dexterity. But boosting a nat armor bonus doesn't really do anything other
than ultimately boosting AC. But as written, Barkskin does not provide a
bonus to AC, it just improves nat armor -- exactly the same as magic
vestment.

Spinner

[Mark Blunden]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Mark Blunden
It's purely a semantic distinction to ensure that the Natural Armour
bonus the spell provides avoids the "same-type bonuses don't stack"
rule for creatures who already have natural armour. The spell
provides a bonus which increases the subject's armour class.

So does cat's grace. I don't see any way to apply the feat to barkskin
and magic vestment that doesn't also pull in cat's grace. They all
improve armor class. By the way, do you think the feat should pierce
magic vestment?

I don't think the feat *should* exist at all, but the way it's worded leaves
room for interpretation. I think it would be a close call as to whether it
takes down Barkskin, closer than for Cat's Grace as the bonus from Cat's
Grace is somewhat situational (flat-footedness or heavy armour negates it).
But I don't have sufficient interest in the feat to expend anymore time on
maintaining this position - call it as you see it.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by forumite
Commentary from me: The Spellcraft 2 ranks is the major cost. That's
4 skill points for the warriors. Rogues are delayed three levels
because of the BAB +3 requirement. Mage Slayer comes into play at
about the same time spellcasters don't statistically have to roll to
cast defensively for any spell level if they took Spell Focus
(Concentration) and Combat Casting Feats. That kills that strategy
(i.e. Mage Slayer is really Cleric Slayer since wizards aren't wont to
be in threatening range as clerics). Pierce Magical Protection
destroys all the buff spells, including those you as the Tank of the
party got form your spellcasting buddies. Pierce Magical Concealment
destroys the rest of the buffs the other feat missed.

Displacement isn't explictly mentioned, but would seem to be dead,
which leaves Blink as about the only defence that still works (it's
not concealment). Actually Stoneskin still does too - it's not an AC
add. Not that this will matterwhen the attacker is trying for an AC in
the low teens.

[Justisaur]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by forumite
Commentary from me: The Spellcraft 2 ranks is the major cost.

That's

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by forumite
4 skill points for the warriors. Rogues are delayed three levels
because of the BAB +3 requirement. Mage Slayer comes into play at
about the same time spellcasters don't statistically have to roll to
cast defensively for any spell level if they took Spell Focus
(Concentration) and Combat Casting Feats. That kills that strategy
(i.e. Mage Slayer is really Cleric Slayer since wizards aren't wont to
be in threatening range as clerics). Pierce Magical Protection
destroys all the buff spells, including those you as the Tank of the
party got form your spellcasting buddies. Pierce Magical

Concealment

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by forumite
destroys the rest of the buffs the other feat missed.

Displacement isn't explictly mentioned, but would seem to be dead,
which leaves Blink as about the only defence that still works (it's
not concealment). Actually Stoneskin still does too - it's not an AC
add. Not that this will matterwhen the attacker is trying for an AC in
the low teens.

Blink is actually partially concealment if you read through the
description, but it would still give a 20% miss chance IIRC.
- Justisaur

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Justisaur
Blink is actually partially concealment if you read through the
description, but it would still give a 20% miss chance IIRC.

I meant the 20% chance, having forgotten that normally you get a 50%
chance.

[Dave Butler]

forumite <***@netzero.com> wrote:
[re: Feat from _Complete Arcane_]

Post by forumite
For those who don't have the book yet, I'll type it here.

[snip]

Post by forumite
If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and
automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that
grant a bonus to Armor Class.

Cool. This kills /haste/, in case nobody noticed. Also, does "all that
opponent's spells [etc.]" include ones he's cast on someone else?
Certainly, /dispel magic/ implies that a spell 'belongs' -- as it were --
to the original caster, regardless of the actual recipient.

Poorly worded and balanced, AFAICT.

Post by forumite
Commentary from me: The Spellcraft 2 ranks is the major cost. That's
4 skill points for the warriors.

I rather suspect that those would be spent at first level; the cost would
seem higher if the feat were unknown at character creation, and had to
have the points spent over a couple of levels.

[Phil Pettifer]

Post by Dave Butler
Also, does "all that
opponent's spells [etc.]" include ones he's cast on someone else?
Certainly, /dispel magic/ implies that a spell 'belongs' -- as it were --
to the original caster, regardless of the actual recipient.

Surely you mean that the other way around - it's the recipient you
need to target with Dispel Magic, not the original caster.

Post by Dave Butler
Poorly worded and balanced, AFAICT.

Not brilliantly worded - I'm thinking it won't work on Barkskin, Cat's
Grace, etc. but I'm not convinced there won't be errata or a sage
ruling at some point declaring it does :)

The balance is certainly not a problem IMO - unless you're suggesting
it's underpowered, which personally I think it is. It's an OK (but not
great) feat for an NPC but it's a poor one for a PC unless you're
_constantly_ fighting NPC spellcasters (rather than monsters) IMO.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Phil Pettifer

Also, does "all that opponent's spells [etc.]" include ones he's cast
on someone else? Certainly, /dispel magic/ implies that a spell
'belongs' -- as it were -- to the original caster, regardless of the
actual recipient.

Surely you mean that the other way around - it's the recipient you
need to target with Dispel Magic, not the original caster.

No, he's correct. You use the spell "ownership" to set the caster level
check, so it refers to the original caster, not the target.

Post by Phil Pettifer
The balance is certainly not a problem IMO - unless you're suggesting
it's underpowered, which personally I think it is. It's an OK (but not
great) feat for an NPC but it's a poor one for a PC unless you're
_constantly_ fighting NPC spellcasters (rather than monsters) IMO.

I know I had trouble getting attackers within melee range of PC wizards,
and the feat isn't nearly as effective against other targets (unless it
works on barkskin and magic vestment).

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Phil Pettifer
The balance is certainly not a problem IMO - unless you're suggesting
it's underpowered, which personally I think it is. It's an OK (but not
great) feat for an NPC but it's a poor one for a PC unless you're
_constantly_ fighting NPC spellcasters (rather than monsters) IMO.

I know I had trouble getting attackers within melee range of PC wizards,

Dim door! Dim door!

WRT to the original topic, it looks like the people who wrote Complete
Arcane are hellbent on turning what would have made a pretty good prestige
class into a bunch of dumb feats.

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by Hong Ooi

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Phil Pettifer
The balance is certainly not a problem IMO - unless you're suggesting
it's underpowered, which personally I think it is. It's an OK (but not
great) feat for an NPC but it's a poor one for a PC unless you're
_constantly_ fighting NPC spellcasters (rather than monsters) IMO.

I know I had trouble getting attackers within melee range of PC wizards,

Dim door! Dim door!
WRT to the original topic, it looks like the people who wrote Complete
Arcane are hellbent on turning what would have made a pretty good prestige
class into a bunch of dumb feats.

That's exactly what I thought.

There's this neat idea (ANTI-WIZARD DISPELLING STRIKE!1!) that's too
specific and too powerful to be a feat, and instead of doing the obvious
thing and elaborating it into a PrC, what do they do?

They make it into a feat anyway, but add a silly drawback which really
isn't one, that only makes sense in a most abstract manner (good anti-
magic means anti good magic).

Considering what feats represent and how they work in D&D, why the hell
does training to disrupt spellcasters hinder your own magic any more
than training how to dodge stuff, or how deliver crushing blows, or how
to use a greataxe, or any of the other things modeled by feats?

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by Hong Ooi
WRT to the original topic, it looks like the people who wrote Complete
Arcane are hellbent on turning what would have made a pretty good prestige
class into a bunch of dumb feats.

That's exactly what I thought.

AOL.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Considering what feats represent and how they work in D&D, why the hell
does training to disrupt spellcasters hinder your own magic any more
than training how to dodge stuff, or how deliver crushing blows, or how
to use a greataxe, or any of the other things modeled by feats?

They referred in the description to the character's "great disdain" for magic.
I don't buy the explanation (I plan on following Hong's strategy and outright
ban the feat) but at least they tried to justify it.

[Mark Blunden]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Considering what feats represent and how they work in D&D, why the
hell does training to disrupt spellcasters hinder your own magic any
more than training how to dodge stuff, or how deliver crushing
blows, or how to use a greataxe, or any of the other things modeled
by feats?

They referred in the description to the character's "great disdain"
for magic. I don't buy the explanation (I plan on following Hong's
strategy and outright ban the feat) but at least they tried to
justify it.

In which case, the feat should have a prerequisite of "must have a great
disdain for magic". As it stands, a character with this feat would be a
lousy spellcaster, but could still quite happily be friends and
co-party-member with one, use magic items without restriction, and accept
buffs and healing from the party spellcasters.

[~consul]

Post by Jasin Zujovic

Post by Hong Ooi
WRT to the original topic, it looks like the people who wrote Complete
Arcane are hellbent on turning what would have made a pretty good prestige
class into a bunch of dumb feats.

That's exactly what I thought.

I don't have the book yet, but from the descriptions, it does seem to be
pretty anti-mage to me. A bit too much, as it doesn't let a mage any sort
of recourse against it. I'd give them the saving throw or some other way of
negating it, if they are of high enough levels, something maybe like a
limitation on what other magic stuff that they use. (Something real, not
like the -4 spell caster level they mention for the feat user, unless is
also means that say, a cure spell is -4 caster level is applied to them, so
that _every_ spell is -4, not just the stuff that hurts them.

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Considering what feats represent and how they work in D&D, why the hell
does training to disrupt spellcasters hinder your own magic any more
than training how to dodge stuff, or how deliver crushing blows, or how
to use a greataxe, or any of the other things modeled by feats?

Perhaps I don't know how you mean your statement above about how feats work
or their purpose or intention. Feats let folks do a lot of extraordinary
things, actions beyond just something that would take a lot of training or
skill, but stuff (some of it) that seem to tap into 'worldly' or 'divine
fiat' powers. At least to my reading. But what they had in spirit,
something to stop mages, seems understandable for me. The concept of
someone who has so much a hard-on against a mage, would sort of give off
the anti-magic aura that the feat listed seem to give them, works. They
just need to balance it with the other feats and skill available.

So on an additional random thought question, what do you feel that feats
represent, if the question isn't too off tangent from the theme of the
current thread?

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by ~consul

Post by Jasin Zujovic
Considering what feats represent and how they work in D&D, why the hell
does training to disrupt spellcasters hinder your own magic any more
than training how to dodge stuff, or how deliver crushing blows, or how
to use a greataxe, or any of the other things modeled by feats?

Perhaps I don't know how you mean your statement above about how feats work
or their purpose or intention. Feats let folks do a lot of extraordinary
things, actions beyond just something that would take a lot of training or
skill, but stuff (some of it) that seem to tap into 'worldly' or 'divine
fiat' powers. At least to my reading. But what they had in spirit,
something to stop mages, seems understandable for me. The concept of
someone who has so much a hard-on against a mage, would sort of give off
the anti-magic aura that the feat listed seem to give them, works.
They just need to balance it with the other feats and skill available.

Which should be done by making it worth one feat, not making it worth a
feat and a half and adding half a feat's worth of penalties.

For one thing, such balancing rarely works, because it only really
restricts the "target audience" for the feat, and not it's power in the
hands of the people who do take it.

Imagine a feat, call it Creepy Voice, that gives you +10 to intimidate,
but -20 to perform (sing). Is it balanced? I think not, because the
"penalty" doesn't diminish the usefulness of the feat, it just makes it
so that people who care about perform (sing) don't take it.

This is especially true since D&D encourages teamwork and niches. -4 to
caster level? Well, just let someone else be the caster, then.

Post by ~consul
So on an additional random thought question, what do you feel that feats
represent, if the question isn't too off tangent from the theme of the
current thread?

Well, feats. Heroic feats your character can pull off.

Dodging better than most people. Turning undead better than most people
(with the same training and experience). Firing off evocations that are
harder to avoid.

Not being *worse* at spellcasting than most people with the same
training and experience. If you want to be worse at spellcasting, don't
take spellcaster levels.


I think Mage Slayer is broken in two ways. First, it's too powerful and
too... overriding... since it flat out disallows the threatened caster
to cast defensively instead of making it more difficult. Second, it
comes with a penalty which, while it plays on the same theme as the
feat, doesn't really necessarily follow from the feat's benefits
themselves.

A good Mage Slayer feat would raise the DC to avoid AoOs from the mage
slayer and/or raise the DC to avoid being disrupted if hit by the mage
slayer by 5 or 10, and carry no penalty for the character who has the
feat. Or something like that.

[Mornir]

Post by Jasin Zujovic
A good Mage Slayer feat would raise the DC to avoid AoOs from the mage
slayer and/or raise the DC to avoid being disrupted if hit by the mage
slayer by 5 or 10, and carry no penalty for the character who has the
feat. Or something like that.

I agree with this. I'm thinking of changing Mage Slayer.
Instead of ... what it does, it will give a +1/2BAB DC to all
Concentration Checks to cast defensively, and give you a +2 bonus to
hit spellcasters. Or something like that. Still playing with ideas.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Mornir

Post by Jasin Zujovic
A good Mage Slayer feat would raise the DC to avoid AoOs from the mage
slayer and/or raise the DC to avoid being disrupted if hit by the mage
slayer by 5 or 10, and carry no penalty for the character who has the
feat. Or something like that.

I agree with this. I'm thinking of changing Mage Slayer.
Instead of ... what it does, it will give a +1/2BAB DC to all
Concentration Checks to cast defensively, and give you a +2 bonus to
hit spellcasters. Or something like that. Still playing with ideas.

Since all these feats strike me as prestige class abilities in search of a
good home, I'm thinking of changing over the witch hunter's [OA] bonus
feats to these. In all cases, ditch the caster level penalty.

4th level: Mage Slayer -- Skill checks to cast defensively in your
threatened area take a -2 penalty for each witch hunter level you have.
Replaces Power Attack.

6th level: Pierce Magic Concealment -- As current ability, usable 1
round/witch hunter level/day, activate as free action. Replaces Cleave.

10th level: Pierce Magic Protection -- 1/day, make melee touch attack that
dispels all active spells and spell-like abilities that grant bonuses to AC
(whether directly or indirectly). Caster level checks must be rolled to
dispel, with your caster level = 2 x witch hunter levels.

Reasonable?

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Jasin Zujovic
I think Mage Slayer is broken in two ways. First, it's too powerful and
too... overriding... since it flat out disallows the threatened caster
to cast defensively instead of making it more difficult.

That is exactly the reason why a Ring of Free Action is broken vs.
Grappling.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Jasin Zujovic
I think Mage Slayer is broken in two ways. First, it's too powerful and
too... overriding... since it flat out disallows the threatened caster
to cast defensively instead of making it more difficult.

That is exactly the reason why a Ring of Free Action is broken vs.
Grappling.

I think freedom vs grappling is worse; at least there are easy
workarounds for Mage Slayer (e.g., taking a step before casting).

[tussock]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Jasin Zujovic
I think Mage Slayer is broken in two ways. First, it's too powerful and
too... overriding... since it flat out disallows the threatened caster
to cast defensively instead of making it more difficult.

That is exactly the reason why a Ring of Free Action is broken vs.
Grappling.

As an idea for a house rule, how does +20 to escape artist checks
sound? You can be grappled, but will just step out of it on your turn.
It'd also help to get out of ropes, and squeeze through gaps, which is
somewhat missing from this spell anyway.

+20 is comparable to the Jump spell (+20 at CL 3, shorter
duration), and is the standard DC modifier for "impossible" tasks. Might
need an adjustment to the ring price.

[Spinner]

Post by tussock

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Jasin Zujovic
I think Mage Slayer is broken in two ways. First, it's too powerful and
too... overriding... since it flat out disallows the threatened caster
to cast defensively instead of making it more difficult.

That is exactly the reason why a Ring of Free Action is broken vs.
Grappling.

As an idea for a house rule, how does +20 to escape artist checks
sound? You can be grappled, but will just step out of it on your turn.
It'd also help to get out of ropes, and squeeze through gaps, which is
somewhat missing from this spell anyway.
+20 is comparable to the Jump spell (+20 at CL 3, shorter
duration), and is the standard DC modifier for "impossible" tasks. Might
need an adjustment to the ring price.

I like that one.

Spinner

[Phil Pettifer]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Phil Pettifer

Also, does "all that opponent's spells [etc.]" include ones he's cast
on someone else? Certainly, /dispel magic/ implies that a spell
'belongs' -- as it were -- to the original caster, regardless of the
actual recipient.

Surely you mean that the other way around - it's the recipient you
need to target with Dispel Magic, not the original caster.

No, he's correct. You use the spell "ownership" to set the caster level
check, so it refers to the original caster, not the target.

Ah yes, sorry, I misunderstood what he was saying.

In that case I guess it's worded even more poorly than I first thought
as surely it dispels the spells / spell effects that the target is
under the effect of (as per Dispel Magic), rather than those they've
cast e.g. The Mage Armour they cast on the party Monk (who is now in
the next town over) five and a half hours ago!

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I know I had trouble getting attackers within melee range of PC wizards,
and the feat isn't nearly as effective against other targets (unless it
works on barkskin and magic vestment).

I agree. It's not that great at all.

[Marshall]

Post by forumite
Mage Slayer
You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time
your attacks and defenses against them expertly.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you
threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their
Concentration checks to do so.), bur they are aware that they cannot
cast defensively while being threatened by a character with thois
feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

Wanna know whats worse?

pg 192 Complete Arcane...
Improved Combat Casting(Epic)
Prereq : Combat Casting, Conc 25
Benefit : You gain a bonus equal to 1/2 your caster level on Concentration
checks made to *cast a spell* or use a spell like ability while *on the
defensive* or while you are grappling or pinned.

So we have a level 3 feat that completely negates an Epic feat and, BTW, is
better than the Epic version of itself. Spellcasting Harrier, which didnt
get changed.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by forumite
Pierce Magical Protection

Looks very bad for wizards. Has some weird side quirks; for example, it
would negate the AC bonus from /reduce person/ as written. Can't tell
whether it's supposed to affect spells like /barkskin/ or buffs cast on
other people; if not, it's only slightly annoying for divine casters and
irrelevant to everyone else.

The main mitigating factor is that most wizards are screwed /anyway/ if
you can get within melee range, IME. It's a good reason to invest in
summoning and more advanced barriers.

Post by forumite
Mage Slayer

I think the Will bonus is over the top, but I'm not sure. Negating
defensive casting is very nice but also very situation-specific; hard to
say whether it's too good.

Post by forumite
Pierce Magical Concealment

Very nice for rogues. Concealment foils sneak attack.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:54:50 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
The main mitigating factor is that most wizards are screwed /anyway/ if
you can get within melee range, IME. It's a good reason to invest in
summoning and more advanced barriers.

Except it's possible to not be utterly stuffed in melee - by buffing
the crap out of your AC, etc. - this set of feats just f**ked the
mage's last line of defence. Worse, for wizards, he probably did your
AC in for the whole damned day - you'd better hope you have plenty of
unused Pearls of Power.

Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

They're likely to be death to a number of warrior-mage builds, whoch
seems harsh, as they've never been known for over-powering games.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Very nice for rogues. Concealment foils sneak attack.

More dead mages.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
The main mitigating factor is that most wizards are screwed /anyway/ if
you can get within melee range, IME. It's a good reason to invest in
summoning and more advanced barriers.

Except it's possible to not be utterly stuffed in melee - by buffing
the crap out of your AC, etc. - this set of feats just f**ked the
mage's last line of defence.

It gets much easier once you discover grappling. Especially when it's
Ashardalon's improved grab attack. Ouch.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Worse, for wizards, he probably did your AC in for the whole damned day ....

See above. True Resurrection ruins your whole week! (OK, Ashardalon
didn't actually kill the wizard, because I foolishly used the -20 grab
option.)

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

Agreed on the former, unsure about the latter. Spotlight time is
spotlight time; the inconsistency of it all bothers me more than the
power.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:54:41 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
It gets much easier once you discover grappling. Especially when it's
Ashardalon's improved grab attack. Ouch.

Ring of Free Action.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Agreed on the former, unsure about the latter. Spotlight time is
spotlight time; the inconsistency of it all bothers me more than the
power.

I just have this feeling they'll be like a save-or-die attack that you
only get to use every third session.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

It gets much easier [to gank wizards] once you discover grappling.
Especially when it's Ashardalon's improved grab attack. Ouch.

Ring of Free Action.

Hey, no fun!

[forumite]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:54:50 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
The main mitigating factor is that most wizards are screwed /anyway/ if
you can get within melee range, IME. It's a good reason to invest in
summoning and more advanced barriers.

Except it's possible to not be utterly stuffed in melee - by buffing
the crap out of your AC, etc. - this set of feats just f**ked the
mage's last line of defence. Worse, for wizards, he probably did your
AC in for the whole damned day - you'd better hope you have plenty of
unused Pearls of Power.
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

I'm not so convinced that a Feat that doesn't get used "often" is
enough of a balance against what it can do when it is actually used.

Gerald Katz

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by forumite

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

I'm not so convinced that a Feat that doesn't get used "often" is
enough of a balance against what it can do when it is actually used.

I'm not either. That's why I'm concerned over them. BTW, what's the
rest of the book like? I was seriously considering getting it, as I'm
playing a high-level Loremaster right now, but if it's full of stuff
like these feats I'll not bother.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by forumite

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

I'm not so convinced that a Feat that doesn't get used "often" is
enough of a balance against what it can do when it is actually used.

I'm not either. That's why I'm concerned over them. BTW, what's the
rest of the book like? I was seriously considering getting it, as I'm
playing a high-level Loremaster right now, but if it's full of stuff
like these feats I'll not bother.

It is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells, decent feats, decent
Prestige Classes. The monster section is good. Still, is seems to be the
weakest of the new books to my eyes.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:35 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus
It is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells, decent feats, decent
Prestige Classes. The monster section is good. Still, is seems to be the
weakest of the new books to my eyes.

Hmm. I was underwhelmed by the other two (to the point I haven't
bought them yet), so that's not good news.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:21:35 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus
It is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells, decent feats, decent
Prestige Classes. The monster section is good. Still, is seems to be the
weakest of the new books to my eyes.

Hmm. I was underwhelmed by the other two (to the point I haven't
bought them yet), so that's not good news.

I would avoid it, then, quite frankly.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

[Complete Arcane] is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells,
decent feats, decent Prestige Classes. The monster section is good.
Still, is seems to be the weakest of the new books to my eyes.

I've only had time to browse it, but already I've found some stuff I
really like, especially the suggestions for alternate magic item forms
(which I already do to some extent) and some of the spells. I especially
liked /reaving dispel/ -- great alternative to disjunction -- and /giant
size,/ which has a great illustration. Too bad the latter is only for wu
jen and the former still has a caster level cap.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

[Complete Arcane] is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells,
decent feats, decent Prestige Classes. The monster section is good.
Still, is seems to be the weakest of the new books to my eyes.

I've only had time to browse it, but already I've found some stuff I
really like, especially the suggestions for alternate magic item forms
(which I already do to some extent) and some of the spells. I especially
liked /reaving dispel/ -- great alternative to disjunction -- and /giant
size,/ which has a great illustration. Too bad the latter is only for wu
jen and the former still has a caster level cap.

The variant magic item forms, I've almost always used those. Most 'new'
forms of magic have different magic items available, though they may be
superficially similar to existing ones.

For instance, rune magics IMC offer something called a rune stick:

. may be used 'like a potion' by breaking it. It has the effect it
was enchanted with, etc. A rune stick of healing, when broken,
could apply whatever healing spell is stored in the rune stick to
the breaker.

. may be used by someone who knows runes something like a one-charge,
single-spell staff. He may be able to change the parameters of the
spell (cast the healing spell on someone else, rather than himself),
and may cast it at his casting level if desired.

I forget the cost multiplier I put on these; they only came up as NPC
items since no PCs learned rune magics.


Keith

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

[Complete Arcane] is a pretty decent book. It has some cool spells,
decent feats, decent Prestige Classes. The monster section is good.
Still, is seems to be the weakest of the new books to my eyes.

I've only had time to browse it, but already I've found some stuff I
really like, especially the suggestions for alternate magic item forms
(which I already do to some extent)

I already do this, and really did not find much use for the suggestions.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
and some of the spells.

Agreed on that.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I especially liked /reaving dispel/ -- great alternative to disjunction

I thought this spell was a fucking travesty. A *ninth* level Dispel Magic,
and it *still* has a level cap? Greater Dispel has a cap of +20, while
Reaving Dispel has a cap of +25. This simply is not worth it.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
-- and /giant size,/ which has a great illustration.

Agreed.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Too bad the latter is only for wu jen

There really should be something like this for Wizards.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
and the former still has a caster level cap.

That makes the spell a waste, in my opinion.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
I especially liked /reaving dispel/ -- great alternative to disjunction

I thought this spell was a fucking travesty. A *ninth* level Dispel
Magic, and it *still* has a level cap? Greater Dispel has a cap of
+20, while Reaving Dispel has a cap of +25. This simply is not worth
it.

I definitely think the game needs a capless dispel, and I agree that a
9th-level dispel should have no cap. In my last campaign, we made
capless dispel 8th level, because disjunction was clearly better (if a
bit situational).

I wouldn't go so far as to call reaving dispel a travesty, but it would
be better without the cap, and I'll suggest that change if we ever get
close to using it. It would fit in perfectly above our (non-reaving)
8th-level dispel and alongside disjunction.

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
-- and /giant size,/ which has a great illustration.

Agreed.

I probably wouldn't have even noticed it otherwise, but because of the
illustration I automatically liked the spell. Great job, whoever painted
it -- great composition, with a touch of levity.

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Too bad the latter is only for wu jen

There really should be something like this for Wizards.

Definitely.

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
and the former still has a caster level cap.

That makes the spell a waste, in my opinion.

Nah, just an obvious candidate for fixing. I think it's a /great/ spell,
except for the cap, and the fix is obvious.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
-- and /giant size,/ which has a great illustration.

[...]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Nah, just an obvious candidate for fixing. I think it's a /great/ spell,
except for the cap, and the fix is obvious.

Is giant size the same as in OA?

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

The OA spell doesn't affect weapons or magic items, which makes it less
attractive than it might otherwise be.

[Malachias Invictus]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:09:05 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

The OA spell doesn't affect weapons or magic items, which makes it less
attractive than it might otherwise be.

This one does.

[Hong Ooi]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:30:04 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:09:05 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

The OA spell doesn't affect weapons or magic items, which makes it less
attractive than it might otherwise be.

This one does.

Er, hm. Wow!

[Hong Ooi]

Post by Hong Ooi
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:30:04 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:09:05 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

The OA spell doesn't affect weapons or magic items, which makes it less
attractive than it might otherwise be.

This one does.

Er, hm. Wow!

... question on giant size. The ability adjustments for Dex and Con don't
match what you'd actually get if you manually upsized a Medium creature to
Huge/Gargantuan/Colossal. Doing it the MM route [p.291], going M -> H gets
you -4 Dex and +8 Con, but the spell description says -2 Dex and +4 Con.
Which should it be?

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Hong Ooi
... question on giant size. The ability adjustments for Dex and Con don't
match what you'd actually get if you manually upsized a Medium creature to
Huge/Gargantuan/Colossal. Doing it the MM route [p.291], going M -> H gets
you -4 Dex and +8 Con, but the spell description says -2 Dex and +4 Con.
Which should it be?

I figure that the specific spell rule overrides the general rule (just
as it does for enlarge person and reduce person).

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by Bradd W. Szonye

Post by Hong Ooi
Is giant size the same as in OA?

It lets you turn huge, gargantuan, or colossal, depending on caster
level. (Larger sizes are optional; you can stop at huge if you want.)
It's a personal spell. Only wu jen can take it. I don't remember the
specifics beyond that.

Eh. I posted my question before I read the whole thread.

Sounds pretty much the same as the one in OA, BTW.

[Jasin Zujovic]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
-- and /giant size,/ which has a great illustration.

Agreed.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Too bad the latter is only for wu jen

There really should be something like this for Wizards.

How different is it from the giant size in OA?

[forumite]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by forumite

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.

I'm not so convinced that a Feat that doesn't get used "often" is
enough of a balance against what it can do when it is actually used.

I'm not either. That's why I'm concerned over them. BTW, what's the
rest of the book like? I was seriously considering getting it, as I'm
playing a high-level Loremaster right now, but if it's full of stuff
like these feats I'll not bother.

The rest I liked. There are new prestige classes with interesting
themes, such as one based upon Prismatic Spray/Wall/Sphere and two
based on songs that are great improvements of Song & Silence's
Virtuoso. As a personal joy, there are lots of the old 2E Tome &
Magic stuff in there as well in spells and the magic items. I think I
even saw a 2E Wizard's Handbook spell or two.

Gerald Katz

[Dormammu]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:54:50 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
The main mitigating factor is that most wizards are screwed /anyway/ if
you can get within melee range, IME. It's a good reason to invest in
summoning and more advanced barriers.

Except it's possible to not be utterly stuffed in melee - by buffing
the crap out of your AC, etc. - this set of feats just f**ked the
mage's last line of defence. Worse, for wizards, he probably did your
AC in for the whole damned day - you'd better hope you have plenty of
unused Pearls of Power.
Overall I think they're too specialised, resulting in them being
useless most of the time, and over-powered when they are of any use at
all.
They're likely to be death to a number of warrior-mage builds, whoch
seems harsh, as they've never been known for over-powering games.

Post by Bradd W. Szonye
Very nice for rogues. Concealment foils sneak attack.

More dead mages.

The test is to have an NPC use this feat against a mage PC and then ask
the mage PC's player if they think it's balanced.

[Wyrin]

Post by forumite
Pierce Magical Protection
You can overcome the magical protections of your enemies.
Prerequisites: Con 13, Mage Slayer.
Benefit: Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard
action you can make a melee attack rgar ignores any bonuses to Armor
Class granted by spells (including spell trigger items or spell
completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions.)
If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and
automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that
grant a bonus to Armor Class.

...and I guess that would include Polymorph amongst all the others
that have been listed? Jeez. With a save mechanic built in it might be
interesting...maybe...

Would prefer something more like:
When power attacking/sneak attacking, you have a certain chance of
bypassing/rupturing the magic (BAB vs 10+spell level? Bonus for amount
power attacking, or number of sneak attack dice?)

[Donald Tsang]

Post by forumite
Mage Slayer
You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time
your attacks and defenses against them expertly.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on Will saving throws. Spellcasters you
threaten may not cast defensively (they automatically fail their
Concentration checks to do so.), bur they are aware that they cannot
cast defensively while being threatened by a character with thois
feat.
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

Could one take the "Practiced Spellcaster" feat to offset this special
penalty, at least with respect to one spellcasting class?

Donald

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Donald Tsang

Post by forumite
Special: Taking this feat reduces your caster level for all your
spells and spell-like abilities by 4.

Could one take the "Practiced Spellcaster" feat to offset this special
penalty, at least with respect to one spellcasting class?

That seems reasonable.

[Laszlo]

Post by forumite
Would someone please explain to me why Pierce Magical Protection Feat
from Complete Arcane is not a broken Feat?

Don't have Complete Arcane yet, so can't comment on this. It does seem
broken.

Post by forumite
As an aside, I think Mage Slayer should have just increased the DC of
casting defensively as opposed to automatically negating it, say by 4
to negate the effect of Combat Casting Feat.

Agreed, especially since it also gives a +1 to Will saves... worth
half a feat in itself. hough I think +4 is probably too low; I'd make
it give a penalty of maybe half the fighter's BAB, possibly even half
his attack roll for AoOs in that round.

Post by forumite
I think someone got snookered in the Fighter vs Wizard fallacy and
were upset how "everyone" says the Fighter always loses.

There's a saying: "If the DM ain't cryin', your Wizard ain't tryin'!"
It's no fallacy.

I'm willing to bet that those who say the Wizard isn't broken

1) Have incompetent players playing mages. (Or perhaps competent
players who just aren't interested in min/maxing.)
2) Don't run high-level campaigns
3) Cripple mages by introducing house-rules, or banning Core stuff.

Mages are weak up to about level 5, balanced up to level 10 or so,
and powerful but tolerable up to level 15. After that, they're
ridiculously difficult to challenge. Assuming, once again, a
competent player and no crippling house-rules.

Post by forumite
Gerald Katz

Laszlo

[tussock]

Post by Laszlo

Post by forumite
I think someone got snookered in the Fighter vs Wizard fallacy and
were upset how "everyone" says the Fighter always loses.

There's a saying: "If the DM ain't cryin', your Wizard ain't tryin'!"
It's no fallacy.

Wizards pale in comparison to Druids.

Post by Laszlo
I'm willing to bet that those who say the Wizard isn't broken

<snip: isn't good with wizards, or gimps them>

Anyone who thinks wizards are too good isn't playing the other
classes to thier strengths.

Post by Laszlo
Mages are weak up to about level 5, balanced up to level 10 or so,
and powerful but tolerable up to level 15. After that, they're
ridiculously difficult to challenge.

With the right gear, any class can do anything in high level DnD.
To use your own line of argument, have you gimped the magic item system
somehow, or do your players refuse to make use of it?

The only other thing that really powers up Mages is too few fights
per day, or a predictable order of battle (easy fight, massed mooks,
boss, repeat). When to spend your best spells can be highly
unpredictable in some games.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by tussock

Post by Laszlo

Post by forumite
I think someone got snookered in the Fighter vs Wizard fallacy and
were upset how "everyone" says the Fighter always loses.

There's a saying: "If the DM ain't cryin', your Wizard ain't tryin'!"
It's no fallacy.

Wizards pale in comparison to Druids.

You must be smoking crack. What is your justification for this statement?

Post by tussock

Post by Laszlo
I'm willing to bet that those who say the Wizard isn't broken

<snip: isn't good with wizards, or gimps them>
Anyone who thinks wizards are too good isn't playing the other classes
to thier strengths.

I would not say that they are *too* good, but they are up there.

Post by tussock

Post by Laszlo
Mages are weak up to about level 5, balanced up to level 10 or so,
and powerful but tolerable up to level 15. After that, they're
ridiculously difficult to challenge.

With the right gear, any class can do anything in high level DnD. To
use your own line of argument, have you gimped the magic item system
somehow, or do your players refuse to make use of it?

Of course, the magic item system almost always heavily favors the Wizard as
well.

Post by tussock
The only other thing that really powers up Mages is too few fights per
day, or a predictable order of battle (easy fight, massed mooks, boss,
repeat). When to spend your best spells can be highly unpredictable in
some games.

That is a very good point.

[Bradd W. Szonye]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by tussock
Wizards pale in comparison to Druids.

You must be smoking crack. What is your justification for this statement?

Druid defenses are stronger and more combat efficient: They have better
saving throws, reinforced by a high Wisdom Score. Druid AC is easily
higher and more combat-efficient than a wizard's (magic armor, magic
shield, and barkskin, none of which wastes a combat tempo).

Their attack spells aren't as efficient, with the notable exception of
/flamestrike,/ which is terrific for taking out single foes in close
quarters (common in set-piece fights). They have excellent crowd control
offense, however, especially /entangle/ and its higher-level variants.
But best for crowd control is a wildshape form with Improved Grab; it's
like having unlimited /hold person./ With Natural Spell, the druid can
easily take out one foe with a grapple (making easy meat for a rogue
buddy), and still cast spells on subsequent turns.

I don't have enough experience to judge whether it's better than a
wizard overall, but there certainly are relative advantages.

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by tussock
The only other thing that really powers up Mages is too few fights
per day, or a predictable order of battle (easy fight, massed mooks,
boss, repeat). When to spend your best spells can be highly
unpredictable in some games.

That is a very good point.

Yes, wizards are incredibly effective in that situation. Druids are
better suited to endurance trials, because their best stuff doesn't run
out as quickly.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by tussock
Anyone who thinks wizards are too good isn't playing the other
classes to thier strengths.

IMO wizards have too few spells per day, given that they have to
'pre-load' them. They're okay if you only need full-power for one
encounter per day and you know what you're up against, but if either
of those things isn't true wizards aren't that flash. They have no
fall-back if their spells aren't up to it, unlike most other classes,
so if you're unsure what you're up against you end up preparing
generic spells, and then you're justa not very good sorcerer.

Sorcerers like variety and flexibility as individuals, so they are
either no better, or boring (in terms of capability).

I think, were I designing a campaign today, I'd throw out the sorcerer
and let wizards cast spontaneously.

[Laszlo]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by tussock
Anyone who thinks wizards are too good isn't playing the other
classes to thier strengths.

IMO wizards have too few spells per day, given that they have to
'pre-load' them.

This is only true at the lower levels. Also, only if the wizards in
question aren't aware of that whole "Scribe Scroll" thingy. Not
to mention Pearls of Power, wands, and staves.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
They're okay if you only need full-power for one
encounter per day and you know what you're up against, but if either
of those things isn't true wizards aren't that flash. They have no
fall-back if their spells aren't up to it, unlike most other classes,
so if you're unsure what you're up against you end up preparing
generic spells, and then you're justa not very good sorcerer.

Unless you have scrolls. And, oh look! Scribe Scrolls just happens to
be a bonus feat!

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Sorcerers like variety and flexibility as individuals, so they are
either no better, or boring (in terms of capability).
I think, were I designing a campaign today, I'd throw out the sorcerer
and let wizards cast spontaneously.

HAHAHAHAHA...

Laszlo

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Laszlo
This is only true at the lower levels. Also, only if the wizards in
question aren't aware of that whole "Scribe Scroll" thingy. Not
to mention Pearls of Power, wands, and staves.

Pearls of Power are expensive (and don't go all the way up the spell
list), and there are lots of demands on a high level wizards cash.
Scrolls and wands are useless of offence at high levels due to
piss-poor save DCs, and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not
include the really high level stuff).

My complaints are mainly about high level - at low levels there's less
difference between the top end and the bottom end spells.

Post by Laszlo
Unless you have scrolls. And, oh look! Scribe Scrolls just happens to
be a bonus feat!

See above. Also that costs time and money. Wizards are the only class
in the game that needs extensive down-time to operate at full
effectiveness (the others only need enough for any commissioned items
to be made), and the need for all those scrolls just makes this worse.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo
This is only true at the lower levels. Also, only if the wizards in
question aren't aware of that whole "Scribe Scroll" thingy. Not
to mention Pearls of Power, wands, and staves.

Pearls of Power are expensive

Not really.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
(and don't go all the way up the spell list),

What do you mean, "all the way up the spell list"?

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and there are lots of demands on a high level wizards cash.
Scrolls and wands are useless of offence at high levels due to
piss-poor save DCs,

That's why you use them for non-attack spells,
freeing up your spell slots (and pearls of power)
for offensive spells.

Scrolls are absolutely *perfect* for infrequently
used utility spells. And wands are great for the
frequently used ones.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not
include the really high level stuff).
My complaints are mainly about high level - at low levels there's less
difference between the top end and the bottom end spells.

Post by Laszlo
Unless you have scrolls. And, oh look! Scribe Scrolls just happens to
be a bonus feat!

See above. Also that costs time and money. Wizards are the only class
in the game that needs extensive down-time to operate at full
effectiveness (the others only need enough for any commissioned items
to be made), and the need for all those scrolls just makes this worse.

Agreed, but this is only a concern if you have a
lame DM who doesn't insure plenty of downtime.

FWIW, I wish the design team had never come up
with the sorcerer class and instead figured out
a way to make spontaneous-casting wizards work,
but I can't agree with you that wizards "as is"
are at all weak or unbalanced.

-Bluto

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:15:04 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky
What do you mean, "all the way up the spell list"?

For some reason I thought they stopped at 6th level. And while not
expensive singly the price adds up and they are competing with all the
defensive gear, and extra spells (unless you commonly knock over
wizards, and they tend to have very variable spellbook contents).

Post by Senator Blutarsky
That's why you use them for non-attack spells,
freeing up your spell slots (and pearls of power)
for offensive spells.

That's nice. It still means you're out of big bang spells after one or
two major encounters. It's worse if you don't know what those will
involve, too - there's a very real chance that one or more of your
choices will be useless, and unlike a cleric you can't dump it for
healing. Aside from any other issues that encourages player to not
experiment, but to take the vanilla spells that have wide use (direct
damage, one-shot take out spells, etc.) I've seen quite a number of
wizards who could've been more profitably designed as sorcerers
because their range of common spells was that narrow.

Post by Senator Blutarsky
Agreed, but this is only a concern if you have a
lame DM who doesn't insure plenty of downtime.

You still get players griping about it in some (many?) groups.

BTW (this is not directed at anyone in particular - just an
observation over the past few years), I notice that when DMs shat on
the 3.0 ranger (and to a lesser extent the v3.5 version) by not
providing favoured enemies that was 'poor design'. When DMs shit on
wizards by keeping down-time tight that's 'poor DMing'. Why the
difference?

Post by Senator Blutarsky
FWIW, I wish the design team had never come up
with the sorcerer class and instead figured out
a way to make spontaneous-casting wizards work,
but I can't agree with you that wizards "as is"
are at all weak or unbalanced.

They are the only class that relies on dwon-time for a major part of
its abilities to work.

They are the only class that relies on good prep and intelligence to
function at more than a minimal level. Clerics get good HD, decent
weapons and armour, and can dump spells for healing. Druids have lots
of special abilities that don't need prep. A wizard's special ability
is their spellcasting. The only mitigant for this is lots of
consumable items - and they compete directly with the PoP and extra
spells that make wizard worth while.

Wizards may not be underpowered, but the fact that they function very
differently from every other class certainly makes their balance
easier to mess with, and makes it more suspect in the first place,
IMO.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:15:04 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky
That's why you use them for non-attack spells,
freeing up your spell slots (and pearls of power)
for offensive spells.

That's nice. It still means you're out of big bang spells after one or
two major encounters.

This has simply not been my experience. YMMV.

<snip>

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW (this is not directed at anyone in particular - just an
observation over the past few years), I notice that when DMs shat on
the 3.0 ranger (and to a lesser extent the v3.5 version) by not
providing favoured enemies that was 'poor design'. When DMs shit on
wizards by keeping down-time tight that's 'poor DMing'. Why the
difference?

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking
about, so I can't answer the question. I don't
recall ever hearing that the ranger's favored
enemy ability was poorly designed (except for
the 3.0 version not being useful vs. enemies
like "undead" who weren't subject to critical
hits, but that's been corrected now).

Anyone else want to take a crack at this one?

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Senator Blutarsky
FWIW, I wish the design team had never come up
with the sorcerer class and instead figured out
a way to make spontaneous-casting wizards work,
but I can't agree with you that wizards "as is"
are at all weak or unbalanced.

They are the only class that relies on dwon-time for a major part of
its abilities to work.

Again, I agree...but this is only a concern *if*
you have a lame DM who doesn't provide downtime!
(And if you do, you have bigger problems than
your wizards being underpowered!)

Post by Rupert Boleyn
They are the only class that relies on good prep and intelligence to
function at more than a minimal level.

Again, true...but as long as you *do* prepare well
and exercise some intelligence, they're fine.

Rogues are the only class that rely on flanking
and flat-footed opponents to function at more than
a minimal level, but I don't hear many people
claiming that they're underpowered.

If you use their abilities properly, all of the
3.5 classes are remarkably well balanced, IMO.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Wizards may not be underpowered, but the fact that they function very
differently from every other class certainly makes their balance
easier to mess with, and makes it more suspect in the first place,
IMO.

I don't know that I agree with you, but I won't
argue the point, either.

-Bluto

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:42:42 GMT, Senator Blutarsky

Post by Senator Blutarsky

Post by Rupert Boleyn
They are the only class that relies on good prep and intelligence to
function at more than a minimal level.

Again, true...but as long as you *do* prepare well
and exercise some intelligence, they're fine.

The other kind of intelligence (as well). If you can't find out what
you're up against for some reason, the chances are the wizard is going
to suck.

Post by Senator Blutarsky
Rogues are the only class that rely on flanking
and flat-footed opponents to function at more than
a minimal level, but I don't hear many people
claiming that they're underpowered.

That's something that can be arranged in combat (the latter, at
least). It doesn't rely on careful prep and intel work. And I do hear
complaints about rogue WRT to adventures with lots of critical-proof
foes.

[Laszlo]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo
This is only true at the lower levels. Also, only if the wizards in
question aren't aware of that whole "Scribe Scroll" thingy. Not
to mention Pearls of Power, wands, and staves.

Pearls of Power are expensive (and don't go all the way up the spell
list), and there are lots of demands on a high level wizards cash.
Scrolls and wands are useless of offence at high levels due to
piss-poor save DCs,

First of all, not all spells grant saves. Waves of Exhaustion is a
good offensive one, for instance. And there are plenty of defensive,
summoning, and utility spells that can be put on scrolls, allowing
the Wizard to focus on memorizing spells where DC matters.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not include the
really high level stuff).

From the SRD:

"Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand,
which is limited to spells of 4th level or lower"

They _are_ expensive, if you put a lot of crap into them. If you
just include one or two well-chosen spells, though, then not so
much.

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo
Unless you have scrolls. And, oh look! Scribe Scrolls just happens to
be a bonus feat!

See above. Also that costs time and money.

They're really cheap and quick to scribe.

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Wizards are the only class in the game that needs extensive down-time
to operate at full effectiveness (the others only need enough for any
commissioned items to be made), and the need for all those scrolls
just makes this worse.

Wizards can craft scrolls (and any other magic item) just fine while
adventuring.

Laszlo

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not include the
really high level stuff).

"Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand,
which is limited to spells of 4th level or lower"
They _are_ expensive, if you put a lot of crap into them. If you
just include one or two well-chosen spells, though, then not so
much.

Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
See above. Also that costs time and money.

They're really cheap and quick to scribe.

At one scroll a day, maximum. Not that quick.

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Wizards are the only class in the game that needs extensive down-time
to operate at full effectiveness (the others only need enough for any
commissioned items to be made), and the need for all those scrolls
just makes this worse.

Wizards can craft scrolls (and any other magic item) just fine while
adventuring.

Not really.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not include the
really high level stuff).

"Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand,
which is limited to spells of 4th level or lower"
They _are_ expensive, if you put a lot of crap into them. If you
just include one or two well-chosen spells, though, then not so
much.

Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Why not?

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
See above. Also that costs time and money.

They're really cheap and quick to scribe.

At one scroll a day, maximum. Not that quick.

While that seems to be the default, most groups seem to go for the option of
allowing 1,000 gold pieces worth of scribing a day.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:01:49 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Why not?

Compare the feat descriptions for item creation in the PH. Wands,
potions, and scrolls all have a set formula for their cost listed, in
the PH as a standard rule. Arms and Armour, Rods, Staves, Wondrous
Items, and Rings do not - they tell you you can make them if you meet
the prerequisites for a particular item, and to see the DMG.

The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

Post by Malachias Invictus
While that seems to be the default, most groups seem to go for the option of
allowing 1,000 gold pieces worth of scribing a day.

That's nice, but it's not a core rule.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:01:49 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Why not?

Compare the feat descriptions for item creation in the PH. Wands,
potions, and scrolls all have a set formula for their cost listed, in
the PH as a standard rule. Arms and Armour, Rods, Staves, Wondrous
Items, and Rings do not - they tell you you can make them if you meet
the prerequisites for a particular item, and to see the DMG.
The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

I disagree. There is a set formula for their creation. There is no reason
for a GM to deviate from it.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:04:02 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

I disagree. There is a set formula for their creation. There is no reason
for a GM to deviate from it.

Do you feel the same way about wondrous items? The wording for their
feat is the same as that for staves.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:16:11 +1300, Rupert Boleyn

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:04:02 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

I disagree. There is a set formula for their creation. There is no reason
for a GM to deviate from it.

Do you feel the same way about wondrous items? The wording for their
feat is the same as that for staves.

I forgot the other part: DMG, p.243 "Unlike wands, which can contain a
wide variety of spells, each staff is of a certain kind and holds
specific spells."

BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

[Geoff Watson]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:16:11 +1300, Rupert Boleyn

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:04:02 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

I disagree. There is a set formula for their creation. There is no reason
for a GM to deviate from it.

Do you feel the same way about wondrous items? The wording for their
feat is the same as that for staves.

I forgot the other part: DMG, p.243 "Unlike wands, which can contain a
wide variety of spells, each staff is of a certain kind and holds
specific spells."
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

Geoff.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:40:45 +1100, "Geoff Watson"

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

So I did. Ooops. However, it's still a good buy - better than a CL8
wand.

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:40:45 +1100, "Geoff Watson"

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

So I did. Ooops. However, it's still a good buy - better than a CL8
wand.

It should be *exactly* the same as a CL8 Wand.

[Donald Tsang]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

So I did. Ooops. However, it's still a good buy - better than a CL8
wand.

It should be *exactly* the same as a CL8 Wand.

At the same price, Staves are better than wands in several ways (Caster
Level and Save DCs to name two).

Donald

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Donald Tsang

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

So I did. Ooops. However, it's still a good buy - better than a CL8
wand.

It should be *exactly* the same as a CL8 Wand.

At the same price, Staves are better than wands in several ways (Caster
Level and Save DCs to name two).

However, Staves seem to require more than one spell on them, which can make
them a bit inefficient (in exchange for flexibility, of course).

[Donald Tsang]

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Donald Tsang

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Geoff Watson

Post by Rupert Boleyn
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball
will be very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and
fire 8d6 (minimum) fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting
stat], whichever is better. Compare with a CL5th wand of
fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for 5d6, DC14 (both never
improve) fireballs.

It only seems good because you used creation cost for the staff and
buying cost for the wand.

So I did. Ooops. However, it's still a good buy - better than a CL8
wand.

It should be *exactly* the same as a CL8 Wand.

At the same price, Staves are better than wands in several ways (Caster
Level and Save DCs to name two).

However, Staves seem to require more than one spell on them, which can make
them a bit inefficient (in exchange for flexibility, of course).

You might look at the initial posit: "if open slather on staves is okay"...

Donald

[Malachias Invictus]

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:16:11 +1300, Rupert Boleyn

Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:04:02 GMT, "Malachias Invictus"

Post by Malachias Invictus

Post by Rupert Boleyn
The DMG also discusses staves in the same way as it does rods and
wondrous items, not as wands. This makes non-DMG staff construction
the same as that for a non-standard wondrous item - subject to DM
intervention, R&D, and so on. Staves are not just multi-purpose wands.

I disagree. There is a set formula for their creation. There is no reason
for a GM to deviate from it.

Do you feel the same way about wondrous items? The wording for their
feat is the same as that for staves.

I forgot the other part: DMG, p.243 "Unlike wands, which can contain a
wide variety of spells, each staff is of a certain kind and holds
specific spells."
BTW, if open slather on staves is okay, staves of fireball will be
very popular. They'd cost 375 x 3 x 8 = 9000gp, and fire 8d6 (minimum)
fireballs with DC14 or the 13+[casting stat], whichever is better.
Compare with a CL5th wand of fireball at 750 x 3 x 5 = 11,250gp for
5d6, DC14 (both never improve) fireballs.

...and the wand would get 50 shots, vs the staff's 25.

[Keith Davies]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Laszlo

Post by Rupert Boleyn
and staves are horribly expensive (and tend to not include the
really high level stuff).

"Furthermore, a staff can hold a spell of any level, unlike a wand,
which is limited to spells of 4th level or lower"
They _are_ expensive, if you put a lot of crap into them. If you
just include one or two well-chosen spells, though, then not so
much.

Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Why not? There are rules present for designing and pricing a magic
staff, there's no particular reason people would be limited to those
publshed.

As a rule I prefer them to have some sort of theme, but even that isn't
required.


Keith

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:50:22 GMT, Keith Davies

Post by Keith Davies

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Pity that you don't get to just make 'em how you like, eh?

Why not? There are rules present for designing and pricing a magic
staff, there's no particular reason people would be limited to those
publshed.
As a rule I prefer them to have some sort of theme, but even that isn't
required.

However, this is all under explict DM oversight. That's rather
different from wands, potions, and scrolls, where you just pay the
time, gp, and XP, and have yourself a nice wand/potion/scroll at the
end. Staves are more like charged wondrous items than mutli-spell
wands.