I'm a little surprised nobody's tried a Master of Shrouds build yet, since the early entry version matures around level 5 and it's considered to be one of the more powerful caster builds (or at least summoner builds) at that level. So, I'll try my hand at it (although the build is pretty skeletal at the moment).
Burn a charge from the Wand of Invisibility ASAP, then summon a Shadow to go after it. If that one can't finish it off, summon another. Burn charges off the Cure Light wand until full health.
If I get grappled, Anklet of Translocation to get out of it (I assume it's not smart enough to pin me and cover my mouth), then Summon Monster I (either a Monstrous Spider for the Str poison or Monstrous Centipede for the Dex poison) to buy me some breathing room. Summon a Shadow (or two if necessary) to finish it off. Burn charges off the Cure wand until full health.
Anklet of Translocation to get out of the grapple (I assume it's not smart enough to pin me and cover my mouth), then throw my remaining Summon Monster spells at it.
What kind of action is it to use the Master of Shrouds' Summon Undead SLA? On one hand, an SLA is generally a standard action. On the other hand, it states that it's identical to Summon Monster spells except for what gets summoned, and Summon Monster spells have a casting time of 1 round. But on the gripping hand, Summon Monster spells have a casting time of a standard action when this character casts them. And while we're at it, what's this SLA's caster level? Is it my character level, or my Cleric caster level? I assume my Summoner domain power doesn't apply, but my Charisma modifier does so that's alright. And for another thing, what's its effective spell level, just in case I have to make Concentration checks?
Speaking of Master of Shrouds class features, does Extra Rebuking count as the Extra Turning feat? The function is identical, but it's not referred to as a bonus feat, and it's named differently.
What feats should I take? The only nonbonus feat that's set in stone is Spell Focus: Conjuration. I'm thinking Beckon the Frozen for my level 3 feat, but I could take two Flaws (probably Noncombatant and Murky-Eyed) for two more feats.
I can only ignore Somatic components for two Wizard spells per day. One of my level 1 spells known is going to be Summon Monster I. What should the other three be, and which one should I prepare? The only one I can think of that lacks a Somatic component is Benign Transposition, and I don't think that'll be especially useful on a solo run.
What schools should I drop? I'm thinking Enchantment and Evocation.
Should I be a Focused Specialist? If so, I'll probably drop Necromancy oddly enough.
What can I do about the Wraith? I don't think my Shadows can hurt it, and I'm not sure I can summon anything else that will. My character can't reliably Rebuke it, and he sure as the Nine Hells isn't fighting it himself.
Is there a better domain than Craft? If not, what Craft skill should I take Skill Focus in? Part of me wants to say Basketweaving, but I think Alchemy is probably a better idea.
I can have an undead pet up to 3 HD. Maybe two, depending on just how the True Unholy Symbol works. Any suggestions?
I'd welcome any more advice anyone might have to offer (since I've never tried to play a summoner before). That's just all I can think of right now.
Note that this build is not finished, and if someone else wants to take it off my hands and flesh it out, you're free to do so.
*If it works the way you seem to imply, then a rogue no longer attacks any flanked creature. It attempts to grapple instead (melee touch attack) and deals sneak attack much more easily. It fails the opposed grapple check after making the melee touch attack, and repeats for the next attack. See how stupid that seems?[/b][/color]
A simple touch attack (particularly a grapple attampt) does no damage, so the sneak attack would do the exact same damage as the touch attack, IE nothing. It needs to be some kind of damageing attack to get sneak attack added, a grapple attempt does not meet this requirment.
I refer you to the constant use of "extra damage" and "optimal use of her weapon"
Meyer_William wrote:
In a similar vein ... no arcane trickster is able to sneak attack with chill touch/shocking grasp/etc ...
Yes actually, they are.
..........................
It really amazes me how petty some people are getting. I'm not refering to calling Meyer out on some mistakes. This thread isn't even about melee's, It's about casters. Your all so busy fussing over how meyer did his math (not even the math itself, but what threashold to use, and you pro casters can't even agree on it (otto said 50%, Ikeren started off at 100% and is still jumping around between 60-80), and you expect Meyer to know exactly which ones right? And considering how many others have put some math down to prove their case, you'd think you'd be telling them to do it too. Your giving meyer a hard time on the math because he is the ONLY person with math to harp on, thats got to count for something... If you seriously want to give someone a hard time, how about trying the people who are posting "i cast these 3 spells and win the encounter, then move on and cast these 4 spells and move on", never having taken damage, never having a save succeed, sometimes not even having a complete build (you know the ones, the ones Ikeren claimed we're "dismissing").
As for your casters succeeding, at least 3 of them are practically the same build (otherworldly +alter self. Is that the only abuse available to low level casters? Is that the only thing that makes people believe casters are overpowered at this level?), and none of them are math'd out except what Meyer had done. I'm glad to see the addition of the master of shrouds and enchanter builds.
.............................
I've also noticed no-one has replied to my post here, I'm truly curious on the what you have to say, particularly you Otto, who has a tendency to get involved in these discussions, but always complains when I refer back to posts such as the ones I quoted. you get upset when I address opinions such as those quoted, despite the fact that they are often prevalent in the discussion you joined in on. Do you agree with those I've quoted, or do you disagree? If you agree, then say as much for once. If you disagree, then say as much for those who tend to follow you. Ether stand behind the opinion, or quit perpetuating it with your devils advocate approach against those trying to dismiss it.
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. --------------------------------------------------------- duel colourShow
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Why can't we agree on a 60 to 80% success threshold, with a success counting as a carry over -100%?
I am tired of Meyer saying "Oh, I have a 80% chance to hit, so my first 3 attacks do 80% damage each time, it dies!" And don't even get me started on a system of average damage. It doesn't represent the fact that in DND, some attacks miss and the monster gets extra rounds to do damage.
Once we have a threshold set, then I'll re-run my encounters with the new ruleset.
I am sorry you feel that way. There was some contention about the average damage model, 50% threshold was the first threshold suggested ... so I followed it. I have no desired to constantly rerun my battles using different thresholds.
By the way, statistically, the chances of three attacks at 80% all hitting is 80%*80%*80% = 51.2% -- meaning, it is the most likely thing to happen. The example with the manticore, the numbers are actually higher than that.
My method of using average damage (when the chance to hit on both sides is very high) most closely represents what should happen on average.
If you would like me to run using a different mathematical model which less closely represents what one would expect to see happen, then I fail to see what you are trying to prove?
Quote: Originally Posted by Meyer_William In a similar vein ... no arcane trickster is able to sneak attack with chill touch/shocking grasp/etc ...
Yes actually, they are.
Actually, I knew that ... I was just tossing something out that was known to be true in a negative fashion to attempt to show something. Sorry if this was misinterpetted.
Kratch wrote:
As for your casters succeeding, at least 3 of them are practically the same build (otherworldly +alter self. Is that the only abuse available to low level casters? Is that the only thing that makes people believe casters are overpowered at this level?), and none of them are math'd out except what Meyer had done. I'm glad to see the addition of the master of shrouds and enchanter builds.
Each of those two builds (enchanter/shrouds) specifically says they are not done yet -- so it stands to expect that there is nothing there yet.
Kratch wrote:
I've also noticed no-one has replied to my post here, I'm truly curious on the what you have to say, particularly you Otto, who has a tendency to get involved in these discussions, but always complains when I refer back to posts such as the ones I quoted. you get upset when I address opinions such as those quoted, despite the fact that they are often prevalent in the discussion you joined in on. Do you agree with those I've quoted, or do you disagree? If you agree, then say as much for once. If you disagree, then say as much for those who tend to follow you. Ether stand behind the opinion, or quit perpetuating it with your devils advocate approach against those trying to dismiss it.
Sorry, I don't normally reply to things that I find that I agree with. But for the record, I am finding that the conclusions drawn from what you quoted and your response to be logical.
i have been reading this thread with great interest ..... there are many good points about casters and noncasters... but what i see is this:
1)Casters are not Broken before level 6, from 1-5 they are not the strongest(Divine Casters are Stronger physically than Arcane casters due to BAB and HD and Saves)....... there are a few Spells that are very strong for thier level(Sleep, Color Spray,etc..), but that is not unbalancing.... unless you only have one encounter/day
2)casters rapidly gain power from 6-9th , they get access to powerful feats,and spells that allow them to dominate encounters..... but they still need a Party to help them out... they dont have the resources to give high output vs many encounters
3)from 10th lvl+ they can outshine many non-casters by means of thier spells, and now they have enough feats and spells to last thru many encounters... or escape most situtations
4)@15th lvl they gain access to 8th lvl spells they are truely powerful, but @17th lvl when casters gain access to 9th lvl spells, they can alter the coures of the game to fit thier own will.... now they are Broken...but thats the goal of the game , isnt it???
5)without ToB, non-casters will have trouble keeping up with the power gains a caster gets. at low levels they will be stronger physically, especially for Melee combat.... but there are other non-combat encounters that favor casters(detection/info gathering, stealth, Diplomatic, Transport, etc...)
just for the record.... i think that :
Meyer_William PhaedrusXY Tshern Kratch CrimsonDeath Ikeren zarzak Otto the Bugbear amalcon
as well as the many other posters have contributed good ideas and Builds.... i like this thread
i dont think Casters are Broken at Low levels, without ToB, it is difficult for Non-casters to keep up with casters at higher levels.....except in situtations where Magic is negated or cant be used, then skills prove thier worth
If this doesn't work we can switch his prepared spells around so he uses Touch of Idiocy instead (move out Blinding Color Surge for it). The snake's int will automatically drop to 0, making it helpless. The manticore can now kill it at will.
This is an example of metagaming. Remember, you do not know what your opponents are (except for the dragon) unless you show how you come across that knowledge.
zarzak wrote:
The party continues along, until they come upon the wraith. Combat ensues. Finklebottom wins initiative again (that darn +12). Looks like all of Finklebottom's worries about the undead were right, and he's very happy he prepared that Command Undead spell.
What worries did Finklebottom have vs undead and why? Does he normally prepare this?
zarzak wrote:
Ooook. Now the big guy. Finklebottom wins initiative. Here is where I need some help. Finklebottom's first step is to cast Yoke of Mercy on the Dragon. Due to Potent Enchantment the HD limit is caster level + 7; or 12 in our case. So it works. DC is 18. The dragon's will save is +7, so it has a better chance of working than not working.
DC18 vs Save of +7 means an 11 -- or 50% chance of saving.
zarzak wrote:
The dragon has 10 DEX. Shivering Touch does 3d6. Thats an average 9 DEX damage (or drain or whatever it is). We need it to be 1 more to work FOR SURE. Unfortunately finklebottom can't afford any empower/maximize items. Anyone have any ideas? If we do it after the yoke the dragon's touch AC is screwed and the wraith will not have much of a problem hitting the thing for lovely CON damage. + ray of enfeeblement will hurt it more.
Does a knowledge arcana check tell you the monsters dex score? If so, then this is valid tactics. If not, then this is metagaming.
zarzak wrote:
Heighten spell allows us to prepare a heightened Command Undead in a 3rd level slot (replaces Deep Slumber). The Command Undead then has a +1 to DC, so over a 50% chance of working on the wraith. We replace the 2nd lvl slot it occupied with Touch of Idiocy to use against the serpent, allowing the manticore an easy kill. +it makes sense character development wise, as now he would be able to take persistent spell later on in his career.
Is this normal tactics? Or is this metagaming. Remember, you do not know your opponents.
This is an example of metagaming. Remember, you do not know what your opponents are (except for the dragon) unless you show how you come across that knowledge.
Good point
Meyer_William wrote:
What worries did Finklebottom have vs undead and why? Does he normally prepare this?
Finklebottom is very aware that the undead are resistant to a big chunk of his spells, so he'll usually have something special prepared just in case. One doesn't get to his point in his career without being prepared.
Meyer_William wrote:
This is an example of metagaming. Remember, you do not know what your opponents are (except for the dragon) unless you show how you come across that knowledge.
Good point
Meyer_William wrote:
DC18 vs Save of +7 means an 11 -- or 50% chance of saving.
Thanks
Meyer_William wrote:
Does a knowledge arcana check tell you the monsters dex score? If so, then this is valid tactics. If not, then this is metagaming.
It depends on how high the check is, I think? I think you could definitely get something like "this creature is not very dextrous" with a middling check.
Meyer_William wrote:
Is this normal tactics? Or is this metagaming. Remember, you do not know your opponents.
Adding Heighten spell into the build I think makes for a more 'normal' wizard build, simply because its something a lot of people will be picking over a feat like "blooded". As for the spell selection, the touch of idiocy thing might be a bit meta. heightened command undead probably isn't though, because Finklebottom will want to be sure it works if he runs into anything yucky.
------
The build still needs more ways to boost DC. I'll think about the grey elf thing. I don't know about the generalist sublevel though; I lose a spell slot at every level except 3rd, I think? If Finklebottom travelled in a party I'd do it, but since he's alone he really needs those slots. Anyways, I'll take a look.
Happily. Note that the 50%/+100 threshold is what many of us used in the other gauntlet threads. That's why I picked it. If it's used evenly across the board, as it's been done for so many other board battles, just go with it again. For everybody. Evenly.
Which, coincidentally enough -- happened.
Which is amazing, as this is at night -- and both it and I have the same darkvision range (60') -- so, it attacks me -- when it cannot see me.
Nighttime. Gotcha.
I posted this in an earlier post -- I misadded my hps (6+6.5+6.5+5.5+5.5+3.5 = 33)
I just went to the first post and followed the link to your character. It says 29 hit points. Perhaps that should have been changed to avoid confusion like this? Instead of one post with incorrect information and then some post later, buried in a big thread, where you say you've corrected it.
Nope. I am consistant. It full volleyed vs the other characters, it would full volley vs me as well -- except, I am in MELEE ... which the Monster Manual says it tries to enter ... it does not say "retreats from melee to send more volleys of spikes"
Now -- be honest. If I did not have Fire Riposte ... would the tactics that I am having the manticore use be valid? It legitimately expects to kill me on its attacks.
Now that it's been established that it has to start at 60 ft., which I didn't notice in the post I quoted, it is in melee and it is in charge range on round 2.
In a similar vein ... no arcane trickster is able to sneak attack with chill touch/shocking grasp/etc ...
Bollocks. You're trying to apply one set of rules to another circumstance.
A rogue/caster is flanking and uses a spell to deliver a melee touch attack spell. That attack deals damage. That attack gets to deal sneak attack dice as well.
A rogue is flanking and uses a melee touch attack to initiate a grapple. By your ruling of fire riposte, that melee touch attack gets to add sneak attack dice, because, as you emphasized, it's a "melee touch attack".
You're attempting to claim that fire riposte is working like a touch spell, except it never says anything about dealing weapon damage. Instead, it describes making a melee touch attack, just like initiative a grapple does, and from that you're extrapolating that it supposed to be adding other damage. And you're doing this while not even adding weapon damage to it either.
In short, it just don't work that way.
But hey. I'm willing to see what the sage/custserv has to say on the matter and go with that ruling.
Kratch wrote:
It really amazes me how petty some people are getting. I'm not refering to calling Meyer out on some mistakes. This thread isn't even about melee's, It's about casters. Your all so busy fussing over how meyer did his math (not even the math itself, but what threashold to use, and you pro casters can't even agree on it (otto said 50%, Ikeren started off at 100% and is still jumping around between 60-80), and you expect Meyer to know exactly which ones right?
No. And that's why I don't support Ikeren's suggestion. He can't nail down a number. In addition, like I said, the 50%/150%/etc. threshold was used extensively in the gauntlet without fuss. I thought someone pointed out why that was the best threshold to use, but those threads are LONG and I can't find that single post now.
And considering how many others have put some math down to prove their case, you'd think you'd be telling them to do it too.
That's up to the anti-casters to do.
Your giving meyer a hard time on the math because he is the ONLY person with math to harp on, thats got to count for something ...
He has on the beginning fights, and that does count for something. Everyone should show that math all the time.
I've also noticed no-one has replied to my post here, I'm truly curious on the what you have to say, particularly you Otto, who has a tendency to get involved in these discussions, but always complains when I refer back to posts such as the ones I quoted.
Because you, Kratch, have a tendency to keep picking at something regardless if that person or the discussion has altered or moved on; even if it's changed to a more reasonable pitch.
If it starts as "casters are uber-powerful at all levels and own non-casters", then it progresses to people instead saying "casters look about equal to non-casters at low levels", you bring up really old posts showing the first statement in an attempt to get the argument back to that slant.
Just calling like I see it.
I don't respond to those links you provided because I've never said caster > non-caster at level 1-7. I happen to not agree with Meyer, et. al. that non-caster > caster at those levels. Rather, and I do believe I've said this, caster = non-caster at those levels (I'd probably make the cut-off 1-6, but 7 is close enough for me).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
So, multiquote is busted for me again. I was going to respond to more posts, but I guess I'll have to wait until lunchtime to do so now.
I just went to the first post and followed the link to your character. It says 29 hit points. Perhaps that should have been changed to avoid confusion like this? Instead of one post with incorrect information and then some post later, buried in a big thread, where you say you've corrected it.
Good point -- I will repost the corrected character, and update post 1 to show the location of each.
Otto the Bugbear wrote:
Bollocks. You're trying to apply one set of rules to another circumstance.
A rogue/caster is flanking and uses a spell to deliver a melee touch attack spell. That attack deals damage. That attack gets to deal sneak attack dice as well.
A rogue is flanking and uses a melee touch attack to initiate a grapple. By your ruling of fire riposte, that melee touch attack gets to add sneak attack dice, because, as you emphasized, it's a "melee touch attack".
You're attempting to claim that fire riposte is working like a touch spell, except it never says anything about dealing weapon damage. Instead, it describes making a melee touch attack, just like initiative a grapple does, and from that you're extrapolating that it supposed to be adding other damage. And you're doing this while not even adding weapon damage to it either.
In short, it just don't work that way.
But hey. I'm willing to see what the sage/custserv has to say on the matter and go with that ruling.
In one (shocking grasp) you have a melee touch attack that deals damage. In the other (fire riposte) you have a melee touch attack that deals damage.
But yes, it should be interesting to see what response you get from cust serv
Otto the Bugbear wrote:
No. And that's why I don't support Ikeren's suggestion. He can't nail down a number. In addition, like I said, the 50%/150%/etc. threshold was used extensively in the gauntlet without fuss. I thought someone pointed out why that was the best threshold to use, but those threads are LONG and I can't find that single post now.
However, some of us used weighted averages as we thought (think) that they are more fair, especially since it is easily possible to include crititical hits in the form of slightly more damage. Using the thresholds it will be almost impossible to ever crit, even with extended crit range.
Otto the Bugbear wrote:
If it starts as "casters are uber-powerful at all levels and own non-casters", then it progresses to people instead saying "casters look about equal to non-casters at low levels", you bring up really old posts showing the first statement in an attempt to get the argument back to that slant.
Just calling like I see it.
I don't respond to those links you provided because I've never said caster > non-caster at level 1-7. I happen to not agree with Meyer, et. al. that non-caster > caster at those levels. Rather, and I do believe I've said this, caster = non-caster at those levels (I'd probably make the cut-off 1-6, but 7 is close enough for me).
If, before these threads, casters > melee (all levels), and currently, casters = melee (low levels only) ... I think progress is being made.
I completely agree that at this stage of the game, based on this thread and the mini-encounter posts so far, noncasters are not shown to be greater than casters at present. Plus, there is only one noncaster build. I do know of 1-2 builds right now that are being worked on by people other than myself, and look forward to their being posted.
Otto the Bugbear wrote:
So, multiquote is busted for me again. I was going to respond to more posts, but I guess I'll have to wait until lunchtime to do so now.
Four levels of non-tob + 1 level of Tob = Initiator level 3 -- which is enough for a level two manuever
This might be true if Warblades had access to Desert Wind maneuvers. Your Swordsage IL is still 5/2 = 2. Not high enough for level 2 Desert Wind maneuvers. So no Fire Riposte.
There is no way the manticore would stop and trade full attacks with you in mid-air. It has a "clumsy" flight rating, meaning it must maintain forward velocity. I think it is much more probable that it would either use fly-by attack, or if it suddenly went from full hp to 5 hp or whatever, it most certainly would launch another spike volley and move away instead, avoiding melee with you. I think you still have to take a move-equivalent action to re-orient yourself from a "prone" position, even while flying. Just because you have a flying movement rate doesn't mean changing from prone to standing becomes a free action. Up the Hill skill trick specifically applies to moving up a "steep slope" or "stairs", it probably doesn't even apply to flying movement which has its own rules about how fast and at what angle a creature can ascend. There are numerous problems with your tactics here, and you die to the Manticore.
As, for the rug room, we don't really have a tactical map, but I doubt the room would be precisely large enough to fit the rug with no additional space. If you can't make it back to the door in 30-40 feet, the rug could charge. Also, you need 5 ranks in jump to buy your skill tricks, might want to add that to the character sheet when you revise it.
