# Complete Arcane - What's in it!!



## MerricB (Nov 12, 2004)

I've seen a couple of posts that indicate people already have copies of Complete Arcane.

So: What's in it? What are the prestige classes? What is the Warlock like?

Here are some of the answers, based on this thread, compiled into topics.

*New Classes*

*Warlock*
Charisma stat used for Invocations.

Alignment: Any Chaotic, or any evil

Most of the invocations aren't screamingly powerful, replicating(for the most part) spells of levels 1-4. There're a few exceptions, but it seems very balanced. And, looking them over, it seems that quite a few have built in limitations. Sure, a Warlock can use Charm Monster all he wants. But he can only keep one being charmed at once. Very nifty.

*Wu-Jen*
_Is the new Wu-Jen exactly like the 3.0 Oriental Adventures version?_
Sudden action is replaced with Watchful Spirit (Reroll instead of bonus), and he gains a special ability known as Elemental Mastery. Otherwise, it's much the same.

*Prestige Classes*

*Alienist* - T&B
It's been tweaked a bit, but it's essentially the same.

*Elemental Savant* - T&B
Energy Focus is in(total increase of +2 to DCs).


*Enlightened Fist* - new
PreReqs: Arcane caster lvl 3rd, Concentration at 8, Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft at 5, Combat Casting, Improved Unarmed strike and stunning fist. And it's very cool, allowing some rather nice spellcasting and monkish abilities.

*Fatespinner* - T&B
changed mechanics for the Fatespinner. More streamlined, but less flexible.

*Master Transmogrifist* - new
assumes the shapes of imaginary creatures

*Sublime Chord* - new
It looked as if they were similar to most other bard PrC's. I know one ability was to do a perform check and use a bardic music to do like 10d6 fire. 

13 ranks in K:Arcana and Listen, 10 ranks in Perform, 6 in Profession(Astrologer) and Spell craft. Third level spellcasting ability and Bardic music. It provides bonus spells of level 4-9, like the Nar Demonbinder.

*Feats*
_*Sudden Metamagic*_ feats (Sudden Mazimize requires any metamagic feat. Sudden quicken.. Requires Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Studden Still.)

*Spell like ability feats* give access to three level 0 or level 1 spells, all once per day. Such as *Night Haunt* giving you Prestidigation, Mage Hand and Unseen Servant.

*Twin Spell*
*Repeat Spell*

*Black Lore of Moil* (Metamagic). It adds xd6 damage to Necromancy spells, where X is determined by the spell's level. Instead of using up a higher level spellslot, it uses up an expensive material component that costs 25gp per d6 of added damage. It seems like a neat approach to metamagic.

*Draconic Breathweapon*: Burn a spell slot for an attack that does 2d6 per level of the spell.

*Magic Items*
* Vests of Resistance
* Metamagic Rods (Substitution, Cooperation, and Sculpting)
* Lesser Sculpting Rod = 5,400 gp
* Lesser Subsitution Rod = 2,700 gp

*Other Stuff*

*Spell Duels*
It's much like a 'formal' pistol duel. You show on time, there's some rigamerole, then you both start shooting. The duel ends with one participant yielding, dead or unable to continue.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 12, 2004)

For more information on the contents of Complete Arcane, check this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=336573

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 12, 2004)

*Prestige Classes*
* Acolyte of the Skin [T&B]
* Alienist [T&B]
* Argent Savant - new - (5 level class that pumps up spells with the Force Descriptor)
* Blood Magus [T&B]
* Effigy Master - new - (Focuses on crafting a type of construct. Even lets you kind of use one for a familiar)
* Elemental Savant [T&B?]
* Enlightened fist - new - (Does for Mages and Monks what Mystic Theurge does for Clerics and Mages)
* Fatespinner [T&B]
* Geometer - new - (5 level class that uses symbols to bolster magic, such as using them in place of verbal components)
* Green Star Adept - new
* Initiate of the Sevenfol Veil - new - (I'm not even sure where to begin describing this one..)
* Mage of the Arcane Order [T&B]
* Master Transmogrifist - [PGtF, delayed?] - (Lets you abuse transformation spells, gaining special capabilities with Favored forms. Even lets you make 'imaginary forms' to change into)
* Mindbender [T&B]
* Seeker of the Song - new - (No spellcasting, but 10 new forms of bardic music)
* Sublime Chord - new - (A bard PrC with 3 new songs and a lot of bonus spells from levels 4-9)
* Suel Arcanamach - new - (Cut rate fighter mage)
* Wayfarer Guide [T&B] - (Enhances teleportation magic)
* Wild Mage - new - (Wild magic. Randomly bolstered caster level, control of chance based magic items, duplicating a rod of wonder, and generally ******* off normal mages)

That's based on the list on the Wizards' board - I'm guessing at the sources; corrections appreciated. (My copy of T&B has just gone walkabout...)

Cheers!


----------



## Wycen (Nov 12, 2004)

Here is the online art gallery: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20041112b&page=1


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 12, 2004)

Definitely looks like CA has the least number of PrCls in the Complete line.


----------



## Gez (Nov 12, 2004)

With the DMG reprinting the Arcane Trickster, and the Spellsword and Bladesinger in Complete Warrior, and the classes from _Magic of Faerûn_ being redone in the _Player's Guide to Faerûn_, it didn't leave much room for reprints.

The Candle Caster is the only T&B class that didn't got a 3.5 treatment.

BTW, about the Wu-Jen, "elemental mastery" isn't a new ability, it's something they got since the OA errata.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 12, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Sudden Quicken - Requires Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Studden Still.)



Hahahahahahahaha!


> *Spell like ability feats* give access to three level 0 or level 1 spells, all once per day. Such as *Night Haunt* giving you Prestidigation, Mage Hand and Unseen Servant.



Alright, this is a must-have feat for me.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 12, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> With the DMG reprinting the Arcane Trickster, and the Spellsword and Bladesinger in Complete Warrior, and the classes from _Magic of Faerûn_ being redone in the _Player's Guide to Faerûn_, it didn't leave much room for reprints.




If I count them right, there are 19 PrCl in CArc, 8 of which reprinted and 11 new ones.

In CWar there were almost 40, of which about half were new ones.
In CDiv there were more than 20, of which less than half were new.

That obviously doesn't necessarily mean a lot. For example, CWar had several classes covering the same idea (the vengeful stalker, the caster in armor, the royal knight...).

Anyway, CArc may actually have the least reprinted classes and the most new classes!

I was actually expecting more since arcane magic usually provides more possibilities therefore ideas of PrCls, but there are really very many already out.



			
				Gez said:
			
		

> The Candle Caster is the only T&B class that didn't got a 3.5 treatment.




Some PrCls from T&B were also done in Libris Mortis right? Well the Candle Caster was of course my favourite from T&B, but I suppose no one else liked it   It doesn't probably need a reprint however, it should work fine in 3.5.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 12, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Feats*
> _*Sudden Metamagic*_ feats (Sudden Mazimize requires any metamagic feat. Sudden quicken.. Requires Quicken Spell, Sudden Empower, Sudden Extend, Sudden Maximize, Sudden Silent, Studden Still.)




Do you actually mean the book says this? Must be a typo, because it really makes little sense. Both the feats.


----------



## hong (Nov 12, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Black Lore of Moil* (Metamagic). It adds xd6 damage to Necromancy spells, where X is determined by the spell's level. Instead of using up a higher level spellslot, it uses up an expensive material component that costs 25gp per d6 of added damage. It seems like a neat approach to metamagic.




Ooh. Ooh ooh ooh. Yum yum!



> *Draconic Breathweapon*: Burn a spell slot for an attack that does 2d6 per level of the spell.




Does it have to be a breath weapon? I'm thinking you could use this mechanic to represent any generic "blast" damage. Might make half the boom spells out there obsolete....


----------



## philreed (Nov 12, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Black Lore of Moil* (Metamagic). It adds xd6 damage to Necromancy spells, where X is determined by the spell's level. Instead of using up a higher level spellslot, it uses up an expensive material component that costs 25gp per d6 of added damage. It seems like a neat approach to metamagic.




I got pretty much the same effect in my PDFs of spell components -- and without using a feat slot. About how many feats in the book are variants of this idea?

I'll have to pick this up tomorrow while I'm out.

<CHEAP PLUG>

101 Arcane Spell Components

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=318

</CHEAP PLUG>


----------



## Chun-tzu (Nov 12, 2004)

> With the DMG reprinting the Arcane Trickster, and the Spellsword and Bladesinger in Complete Warrior, and the classes from _Magic of Faerûn_ being redone in the _Player's Guide to Faerûn_, it didn't leave much room for reprints.




PGF had updated PrCs from FRCS, but most of the _Magic of Faerun_ prestige classes have not been updated to 3.5.

From _Magic of Faerun_:
- Gnome Artificer
- Guild Wizard of Waterdeep
- Harper Mage (arguably extraneous, as the updated Harper Scout advances in spellcasting instead of having its own spell list, and so is more suitable for spellasters)
- Harper Priest (also arguably extraneous)
- Incantatrix - this one _is_ updated in PGF
- Mage Killer
- Master Alchemist
- Mystic Wanderer
- Spelldancer
- Spellfire Channeler
- War Wizard of Cormyr

I think if they wanted to put in more PrCs, they could have easily (barring space considerations, of course). It looks like they chose to put in other material instead.


----------



## ivocaliban (Nov 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Definitely looks like CA has the least number of PrCls in the Complete line.




This is probably to make room for a massive spell list.


----------



## fredramsey (Nov 12, 2004)

So far I like 2 things from CA:

1. The Warlock - Still not sure if this is balanced as a PC class, but, man, what a good villian!

2. The enormous number of spells. Lots of gems there.


----------



## Psion (Nov 12, 2004)

I was impatient so bought it at MSRP at the FLGS (along with Sharn.)

The warlock - not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Though I must say, the archetype I most immediately associate it with may not be the most flattering -- the blast tossing wizards from cartoons (like _Swan Princess_) and Barbie movies (_Swan Lake_ and _Rapunzel_) (Parents of young girls will know of what I speak.) For me it shares the same difficulty that the hexblade does - nice class, worth playing or running, but might take some trouble to fit in unless you are very haphazard with classes.)

The misnamed the energy savant again, I see (translation: I have always thought the energy/element correspondance with equivalences like earth=acid was bent.)

Nice to see for the _most part_ most PrC pay for their special abilities with spellcasting levels now. Sad to see that some slipped throgh the cracks.

Wild mage has the flavor of the old class, but wild magic effects are still best handled by _Wild Spellcraft_ IMO.

I was hopeful, after seeing the initiate of the Sevenfold Veil and seeing the Spells & Magic book that spells like _Seven Eyes_ would make it back. No such luck.

Matthew Cavatta as the "chapter header" artist works for me, but Lukacs works as well. Whoever they had who did some earlier works (Exalted Deeds, etc.) wasn't working for me. Still miss Swekel.

In the realms of color art, I still _wouldn't_ miss Crabapple.

It's nice to see Phillipi made it to the WotC stable of freelancers. His stuff in AEG's _Mercenaries_ and Green Ronin's _Assassin's Handbook_ was awesome.

I see the orb spells lost their multiple target functionality. Probably so they could justify the higher cap, but since they split the damage, I don't see the point. I'll probably stick with the dividable aspect of the old spells.

Nice to see that overwrought pleas of boosting the spell level on Energy Substition fell on deaf ears.

Giant size. Cool. Too bad it's not a wizard spell. It may become one IMC...

Um, my baby just took a bite out of one page. Gotta go.


----------



## JPL (Nov 12, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I was impatient so bought it at MSRP at the FLGS (along with Sharn.)
> 
> The warlock - not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Though I must say, the archetype I most immediately associate it with may not be the most flattering -- the blast tossing wizards from cartoons (like _Swan Princess_) and Barbie movies (_Swan Lake_ and _Rapunzel_) (Parents of young girls will know of what I speak.) For me it shares the same difficulty that the hexblade does - nice class, worth playing or running, but might take some trouble to fit in unless you are very haphazard with classes.)




I'm still a little confused about what archetype they're trying to emulate here.  Someone who gets powers from his bloodline?  Isn't that a sorceror?  How does the flavor text explain this guy?


----------



## JPL (Nov 12, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I was impatient so bought it at MSRP at the FLGS (along with Sharn.)
> 
> The warlock - not as bad as I thought it was going to be. Though I must say, the archetype I most immediately associate it with may not be the most flattering -- the blast tossing wizards from cartoons (like _Swan Princess_) and Barbie movies (_Swan Lake_ and _Rapunzel_) (Parents of young girls will know of what I speak.) For me it shares the same difficulty that the hexblade does - nice class, worth playing or running, but might take some trouble to fit in unless you are very haphazard with classes.)




I'm still a little confused about what archetype they're trying to emulate here.  Someone who gets powers from his bloodline?  Isn't that a sorceror?  How does the flavor text explain this guy?


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Nov 12, 2004)

OMG, warlocks are teh r00l.  I'm a bit worried about the eldritch bolt ability though, but I haven't read the abilities word for word yet, just speed-read 'em.

As for how the warlock is different than the sorcerer...

"Born of a supernatural bloodline, a warlock seeks to master the perilous magic that suffuses his soul.  Unlike sorcerers or wizards, who approach arane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing more than an effort of will."

In other words, warlocks don't cast spells; they have spell-like abilities.  This is importaint because it means they can't apply metamagic feats to their invocations (though they can use feats like Quicken Spell-Like Ability and the such).

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is the fact that they gain damage resistance (x/cold iron, 1/cold iron starting at level 3 and going up to 5/cold iron at level 19) and they eventually get a short-duration fast healing (1, 2 and 4 at levels 8, 13 and 18, respectively).  

WIthout taking a feat to give them more Invocations (there's one right here in Complete Arcane that lets them do just that), they max out at 12 tricks at level 20.

They have a very darkish tone to them.  Definitely give off a "bad guy" vibe.

Eldritch Blast, the power I'm kinda worried about, is apparently useable at will and, at level 20, deals 9d6 damage.  As a ranged touch attack.  Some of the invocations modify this blast (such as Eldritch Cone, which turns it into a cone attack).


----------



## JPL (Nov 12, 2004)

Well, it's mechanically different from the sorcerer, but seems almost identical conceptually.

Having said that...it sounds cool, especially if you can customize to account for different bloodlines.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Nov 12, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Do you actually mean the book says this? Must be a typo, because it really makes little sense. Both the feats.




That's how they're written in The Miniatures Handbook.  Didn't make a lot of sense to me, either.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm still bugged by the fact they only put in one new spellcaster.  The warmage and the wu-jen are found in other publications.  They should've made the Wild Mage a base class and added another original ones.  

rant rant rant..


----------



## Wikidogre (Nov 12, 2004)

So for I like the book, but i must say I am little disappointed with 2 feats, if I remember correctly Energy Substitution and Admixture allowed you to choose Sonic energy in T&B. But they seem to have removed that option in CA.
I could be wrong, My copy of T&B is in a differant state right now.

Thanks


----------



## bluegodjanus (Nov 12, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> Wild mage has the flavor of the old class, but wild magic effects are still best handled by _Wild Spellcraft_ IMO.




That is a great book. Rodinn's Rhyming Doom is the best spell ever written.


----------



## Iku Rex (Nov 12, 2004)

[Copy-pasted from WotC's boards - I'm hoping some friendly soul here will answer my questions. Pretty please?]

(Questions based on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105a&page=3 )

I'm wondering how spells and prestige classes from T&B have changed. Especially _ghostform_ (it's 7th level now, but aside from that.)

I'd also really like to hear more about the Master Transmogrifist, and the spells Fist of Stone, Duelward and Superior Invisibility.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 12, 2004)

JPL said:
			
		

> I'm still a little confused about what archetype they're trying to emulate here.



Not every class emulates an archetype. The cleric, for example.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 12, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Black Lore of Moil* (Metamagic). It adds xd6 damage to Necromancy spells, where X is determined by the spell's level. Instead of using up a higher level spellslot, it uses up an expensive material component that costs 25gp per d6 of added damage. It seems like a neat approach to metamagic.



Sounds a lot like the spell templates in Arcana Unearthed. Take the right feat, and you can add templates to spells on the fly, most of the time expending a not too expensive material component or costing two spell slots.


----------



## Vecna (Nov 13, 2004)

Could someone please tell me which PrC get full spellcasting progression, which half and which have their own spell list (or no progression at all)?
And maybe some more details about Initiate of the Sevenfol Veil and Master Transmogrifist?


----------



## Henrix (Nov 13, 2004)

Wikidogre said:
			
		

> So for I like the book, but i must say I am little disappointed with 2 feats, if I remember correctly Energy Substitution and Admixture allowed you to choose Sonic energy in T&B. But they seem to have removed that option in CA.




But that's a good change! Substituting energy for sonic was the way to abuse the feat earlier.

Sonic is more powerful than the other forms of energy because very few creatures have resistance to it.


Is _Ghostform_ a 7th level spell in CA? It is 8th in Libris mortis!


----------



## Vecna (Nov 13, 2004)

Henrix said:
			
		

> But that's a good change! Substituting energy for sonic was the way to abuse the feat earlier.
> 
> Sonic is more powerful than the other forms of energy because very few creatures have resistance to it.




Now the most powerful energy is Cold, thank to the Piercing Cold feat...


----------



## Squire James (Nov 13, 2004)

If the Piercing Cold feat is ruled valid, I don't think it's unbalanced to allow similar feats for the other four elements (even Sonic, since that would actually make the feat a little weaker).

I'd probably allow elemental substitution (sonic) or (force) if the feat also drops damage by a die level (10d6 -> 10d4).  While force is resisted less than sonic, there are things like Brooch of Shielding or the Shield spell that completely negates force effects.


----------



## Henrix (Nov 13, 2004)

Squire James said:
			
		

> While force is resisted less than sonic, there are things like Brooch of Shielding or the Shield spell that completely negates force effects.




_Brooches of Shielding_ and _Shield_ spells only stop Magic Missiles, not force effects in general. They are of no use against, say, Bigby's Crushing Hand. Energy substitution (Force) would be a real bad idea!


----------



## Wikidogre (Nov 13, 2004)

Henrix said:
			
		

> But that's a good change! Substituting energy for sonic was the way to abuse the feat earlier.
> 
> Sonic is more powerful than the other forms of energy because very few creatures have resistance to it.




DUH!!!!  
--
I understand that aspect, but I did like the choice to do so.
I just felt it was fine the way it was.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 13, 2004)

*always felt anyway if to allow Wild magic you need something other than "official' sources to do it right.* I really need to get me a copy of Wild Spellcraft. I know I liked Chaos Magic...but wild magic = way cooler than chaos magic. At least on a few points.

*PLEASE tell me they didn't use anything SKR suggested for Wild Magic. Cause that sucked.*


----------



## Psion (Nov 13, 2004)

Vecna said:
			
		

> Could someone please tell me which PrC get full spellcasting progression, which half and which have their own spell list (or no progression at all)?




Full progression:
Alienist
Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil
Mage of the Arcane Order
Wild Mage

Wierd progression:
Sublime chord (4-9th level progression only, may use wizard or bard spells)

Own progression:
Suel Arcanamach (uses some schools from sor/wiz spell list)

No progression:
Seeker of the Song.



> And maybe some more details about Initiate of the Sevenfol Veil and Master Transmogrifist?




Initiate of the Sevenfold veil = Prismatic mage. Can create wards and walls, and has other abjuration bonuses. Apparently, the thought is that its abilities are paid for by a crappy feat prerequisites (spell focus and greater spell focus in abjuration, which usually don't have a save DC in the first place, and skill focus spellcraft). Kaleidoscopic doom is their final power, inflicts ward like effects on a targeted dispel magic's target for each effect dispelled.

Transmogrifist - someone described it pretty well upthread.


----------



## Psion (Nov 13, 2004)

DungeonmasterCal said:
			
		

> I'm still bugged by the fact they only put in one new spellcaster.  The warmage and the wu-jen are found in other publications.  They should've made the Wild Mage a base class and added another original ones.




I think, given the description of the wild mage back in Tome of Magic, that a prestige class makes much more sense. It went on about how the method was due to people experimenting in magic. That sounds like something an experience mage would make credible progress on, not something you would start out as.


----------



## Psion (Nov 13, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *PLEASE tell me they didn't use anything SKR suggested for Wild Magic. Cause that sucked.*




If you were to take the tome of magic and parse out the old wild mage's qualities into a class, it would look a lot like what they came up with. (e.g., the ability to chose randomized magic results, a random deviation of casting levels, etc. Though it's simplified. There is no level nor even any negative map; the wild mage PERMANENTLY subtracts 3 from their casting level, but then adds 1d6 to each casting, eliminating the negative math and any sign of a table.)


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Nov 13, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think, given the description of the wild mage back in Tome of Magic, that a prestige class makes much more sense. It went on about how the method was due to people experimenting in magic. That sounds like something an experience mage would make credible progress on, not something you would start out as.




That's true.  I think it could also be the result of someone who "just couldn't get it right."


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 13, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Draconic Breathweapon*: Burn a spell slot for an attack that does 2d6 per level of the spell.



Well, it's official. I'm going to be completely unreasonable about my desire to play a kobold wizard now.


----------



## Marshall (Nov 13, 2004)

You have to be a Sorceror to take the Draconic Feats....


----------



## Trainz (Nov 13, 2004)

I'm generally happy with the book. Granted, I won't use 75% of it's contents, but what I will use is worth it. My favs:

Spells:

-Unluck (4th Wiz): that is now a must have spell for my arcanists. For one round per level the critter must basically reroll all his dice and take the worst result. Granted, spell res and will save apply, but if they're missed, it will be such a joy to see the DM go "CRITICAL ! Oh wait... no... never mind...". The fact that it's a Divination spell, NOT a mind affecting or somesuch, means that most critters with a will save score will be affected.
-Orb of Fire (4th Wiz): also sweet spell. No save, no spell res, max 15d6. And if a fort save is missed, dazed for one round. Sweet.
-Resist Energy, Mass (4th Wiz, 3rd Cleric): This is an awesome spell. Blue Dragon attacking ? After the cleric's init, EVERYONE laughs at his breath weapon.

My friend complained that the 4th level arcane spells weren't much. I told him that from now on, the sorceror will be hard pressed in choosing his 4th level spell.

Feats:

A lot of repeats from previously published stuff, but it's nice to see them all nice and lined up in a 3.5 book.

-The Draconic feats are quite cool for sorcerors. I'm already considering taking Draconic Heritage and Draconic Flight. Basically it means that in my first round, I can cast a spell AND take off to get out of reach of melee critters. For me, in the game I currently play, the first round was always tough, often casting Improved Invisibility for defense followed by an offensive spell in the next round. That quite often weakened our offensive, and the players sometimes convinced me to forego my defense to attack right away... my sorc bought the farm in the last game.
-Return of Persistent Spell. The cost is now a slot 6 levels higher, so it means that if your cleric wants _shield of faith_ AND _divine favor_ up at all times, well he's going to burn _two_ 7th level spell slots. I think that's a price quite high enough.
-A bunch of Sudden feats (Sudden Empower, Sudden Maximize...). Basically it lets you automatically apply the feat to the spell at no extra cost, but only once per day. Worth it ? I think not. Sudden Quicken has *6* feat prerequesites, so I don't think we will see it picked that much.
-Arcane Preparation. Lets spontaneous casters prepare in advance metamagicked spells with no restrictions. Very nice. It's not clear if this allows the sorceror to pick up Quicken though...

Prestige Classes:

Meh. I'm not a super fan of prestige classes, so it's very hard to please me. At first glance there doesn't seem to be any Frenzied Berserkers or Servants of Pelor, so it's a good start. The two PrC's that made me go "Heh... cool!" are:

-Wild Mage (10 level PrC): I have not seen the previous 3rd or 3.5 edition versions, but this one looked very fun. 

-Fatespinner (5 level PrC): That is one cool PrC. Over 5 levels you only loose one level of your basic arcane casting, so the cost is minor. What it does gain, however, is giggle inducing.  He gains really just 4 powers, and each of them usable only once per day, but very rougly you can reroll one of your dice, make a FRIEND or FOE reroll one of their dice, give a FRIEND or FOE a +10 or -10 on their next saving throw, and add up to +5 to any die roll you make before making it. All these at the cost of one casting level, count me in !

New Classes:

(*) I must say, I don't think the warlock will see much use IMC. It's nice to cast these spells at will, but a 20th level warlock only has *4* evocations. Four. He definitely got the shaft on that one. And his eldritch bolt maxes at 9d6 at 20th level, which is negated by spell resistance. A 16th level sorceror can easilly inflict 30d6 (Orb of Fire, Twined), NO spell resistance. The critters at those levels will laugh at my measly 9d6. Thanks but no thanks.

The Warmage OTOH easilly replaces the sorceror as arcane artillery. Very strong in that field. ALL his spells are offensive, but he knows ALL of them as soon as he reaches a new spell level, and can spontaneously cast any of them. Think of any offensive spell in the player handbook (AND complete arcane), there's a good 90% chance that he has it. Better hit die, nice supplemental abilities nicely spread out throughout the 20 levels. The drawback: those spells that a sorceror often learns (identify, false life, slow, dispel magic, invisibility...), he can't cast them, so if your party depends on you for the basic arcane spells, they'll be giving you funny looks. And I don't mean funny ah ah.

So, that's with my first quick read of the book. I might be mistaken about the warlock after I study it more, but I'm not holding my breath.


(*) Edit: I was wrong about the Warlock. at 20th level, he knows 12 invocations, and thus kicks major arse. Sorry for the wrong analysis. And at second glance, he does more than 9d6 with his blasts, he can actually *add* other effects to just the 9d6.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 13, 2004)

> I must say, I don't think the warlock will see much use IMC. It's nice to cast these spells at will, but a 20th level warlock only has 4 evocations. Four.




Twelve, actually. Although I can see how the table could be easily misread to make you _think_ it was four. That table's phrased very poorly, a mark off of an otherwise _excellent_ class write-up.

Go back and look. The "invocations known" numbers go up every few levels. The warlock has 12 of 'em at 20th level.

They only called out "New invocation" in the table at those levels where the _type_ of invocation the warlock can gain--least, lesser, greater, or dark--goes up. But those aren't the only levels at which they gain invocations; just the levels where they can pick up a new category of them.


----------



## Eremite (Nov 13, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> (snip) In the realms of color art, I still _wouldn't_ miss Crabapple. (snip)




Likewise. Really, his stuff is so bad that he needs to change his name again: drop the B, insert a P. Unkind? Yes. Accurate? Absolutely.


----------



## Trainz (Nov 13, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Twelve, actually. Although I can see how the table could be easily misread to make you _think_ it was four. That table's phrased very poorly, a mark off of an otherwise _excellent_ class write-up.
> 
> Go back and look. The "invocations known" numbers go up every few levels. The warlock has 12 of 'em at 20th level.
> 
> They only called out "New invocation" in the table at those levels where the _type_ of invocation the warlock can gain--least, lesser, greater, or dark--goes up. But those aren't the only levels at which they gain invocations; just the levels where they can pick up a new category of them.




Wow. Ok. Was I in the left field.

For my defense, the text on invocations on page 7 and the table on page 8 (I obviously didn't see the column on that table that says Invocations Known) aren't clear at all.

Well, that takes care of the major beef I had with this book. It's even better than I thought in my first analysys.

Yup. Good book.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 13, 2004)

Marshall said:
			
		

> You have to be a Sorceror to take the Draconic Feats....



Do you have to apply them to the sorcerer spells, though?


----------



## Marshall (Nov 14, 2004)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Do you have to apply them to the sorcerer spells, though?




They generally dont apply to spells so its moot. But I guess a SOR1/WIZX would get to use Draconic Flight even if he cast a WIZ spell. Woohoo!  :\


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 14, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> The Warmage OTOH easilly replaces the sorceror as arcane artillery. Very strong in that field. ALL his spells are offensive, but he knows ALL of them as soon as he reaches a new spell level, and can spontaneously cast any of them. Think of any offensive spell in the player handbook (AND complete arcane), there's a good 90% chance that he has it. Better hit die, nice supplemental abilities nicely spread out throughout the 20 levels. The drawback: those spells that a sorceror often learns (identify, false life, slow, dispel magic, invisibility...), he can't cast them, so if your party depends on you for the basic arcane spells, they'll be giving you funny looks. And I don't mean funny ah ah.




Yep.  He's the guy who's going to be tossing fireballs and other such things and then whistling any other time.  I think the Warmage is a 5th man class; you don't take it until you have your utility caster in the party.

Brad


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Nov 14, 2004)

Eremite said:
			
		

> Likewise. Really, his stuff is so bad that he needs to change his name again: drop the B, insert a P. Unkind? Yes. Accurate? Absolutely.




<Snicker..snort>  Crapapple... <wipes eyes>

I'm sure Mr. Crabapple is a wonderful man in person, but I truly dislike his art work  Wizards seems to be using the low bidders on art work these days.


----------



## Gez (Nov 14, 2004)

About Energy Substitution: Sonic, I've always felt there was quite a simple way to prevent the abuse of wizards stocking up _Melf's sonic arrows_ and _sonicballs_.

They are called Trolls, Cryohydra, and so on. While very few monsters have a resistance to sonics, very few have a weakness to it as well. I don't know a single regenerating monster for which sonic damage are lethal.


----------



## Felon (Nov 14, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Warlock*
> Charisma stat used for Invocations.
> 
> Alignment: Any Chaotic, or any evil
> ...




Part of me is excited about the class, and part of me is concerned. As the DMG points out, D&D is largely a game of resource management, so creating a character who possesses unlimited uses of abilities certainly has the potential to seriously affect the nature of the game. 

I wish I could have faith that the designers took my concerns into account. But in the designer interview Rich Baker provides the following rationale for why unlimited uses of abilities are no big deal: 

"The thinking here is that in most D&D games, your characters are probably going to be in only 15 to 20 rounds of combat between rests and spell recoveries. So after your spellcaster has a total daily spell allocation of 20 spells or more (say, around 5th level), his real limit is the number of actions he gets per day -- the number of specific opportunities he has to cast a spell. So the warlock is still bound to the same ultimate limit that any moderate-level wizard deals with. "

Am I the only who thinks that's bollocks? I can't believe someone with his experience in the industry wouldn't see the various flaws with that rationale. For one thing, the players don't know for an absolute certainty that they're only going to fight 15 or 20 rounds per day, and that uncertainty alone prevents abuse. There's a reason why a ring of inivisibility is an item of a much higher order than a wand of invisibility, despite the latter item's high number of charges. Even the minor possibility that the wand will run out of charges at an inopportune moment gives most PC's pause about using it up frivolously. 

A related but even greater flaw with Rich's arguement: a spellcaster is *not* merely limited by his number of actions between rest periods. Sure, after 5th-level or so a sorcerer is rarely without a spell to cast, but he is certainly limited by the fact that he only gets a few uses of his primo stuff. Using Merric's quoted example above, an 8th or 9th-level level sorc probably won't go around casting _charm monster_ with casual abandon for risk of having squandered it when he really needs it. A 6th-level warlock can do just that though, and he likely _will_ simply because it's his best schtick. So as a DM, you've got to ask yourself how many encounters you're willing to let _charm monster_ bypass? Is 1 out 5 acceptable? 1 out of 4? Please contrarians (and you know who you are    ) please mull it over before you issue your glib response. 

Then there's an even bigger problem with the linchpin of Rich's reasoning, the erroneous assertion that the inconvenience of spending resources is inevitably outweighed by the limit of combat rounds that are squeezed into a day. That is by no means a tautology. _Charm monster_ has plenty of uses (and abuses) outside of an initiative count, as do many of the other warlock invocations. 

For instance, the spell _fly_ was shortened in duration to 1/min level specifically to keep PC's earthbound outside of combat. A mage has to burn a 5th-level spell to fly for long stretches. But again, starting at 6th-level a warlock can choose an invocation that lets him perma-fly. That bypasses any number of obstacles outside of combat rounds, and within combat, he doesn't even spend any of his combat rounds maintaining the flight ability anyway (so the Rich rationale fails on 2 fronts). Let's face it, if the DM initiates an encounter in the outdoors and the opponents are prinicipally earthbound and melee-oriented, as many, many, MANY wilderness monsters are, then that's going to be a cakewalk. Everyone just back off and let the warlock blast it to death. The warlock's certainly never in danger. So again, an ability with unlimited uses will result in players bypassing many common typese of encounters without expending any resources. 

The warlock's a pretty neat class, but DM's don't fall for Baker's line: unlimited uses of potent abilities can be lead to extreme abuse, regardless of whether or not there are only 15 or 20 rounds of combat per day.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 15, 2004)

Felon I wouldn't worry about it too much.  Sure his reasoning is a bit flawed but the class doesn't seem to be.  It can go all day casting spells sure but its primo stuff is generally very sub par compared to an equal leveled wizard.  The problems can crop up with the limited list of non combat spells like fly all of which get a 24 hour duration presumedly because you could go cast it again anyways.  It adds a wierd level of versatility but again I don't think its overpowered, an item can bve crafted to give similar abilities and there still a bit less impresive than what the wiz/sor will be doing by that level though not as much so as the attack spells.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 15, 2004)

*is probably using Warlocks more as NPCs than PC classes.* 

In any case not worried about power abuse. I live in such a world anyway!


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 15, 2004)

while overall I give this book a good grade there are a couple items that cheese me off.

1st off good things gemoter class rock on I loved this class from spells and magic, chain spell, energy substitution, split ray, sudden metamagic, warlock, warmage, wu-jen(even if the alst 2 are reprints), spell imbued undead and lots more.

Things that cheese me off.  Various feats that seem to be cut and pasted from T&B without any of the big flaws virtually everyone noted being fixed.  For example Delay spell kind of cool but it's foolishly still at +3 spell levels.  This would be a weak+1 spell level feat at +3 it just sucks.

Can't remember its name but the prestige class that binds a demon skin to your body still has a 5 lost spell levels.  Oh zippy I can once a day do this and that and I get some minor resists to a couple elements that can be coppied by a fiarly cheap magic item.  About the only solid thing is what you gain at 10th level which is the DR of 10/good.  Heck if you could shoot the fire beams out of your eyes at will it would still not be worth the loss of 5 spell levels.  Over 10 levels they should of gained at least 7 spell levels maybe 8.  Most prestice classes they seemed to figure out that the loss of a spell level is a bigger cost than they initially thought in 3e but they seem to forget that here.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 15, 2004)

Acolyte of the Skin. I've seen better evil based Pr-classes but it's decent compared to others.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 15, 2004)

Actually, I think you're underestimating the value of Delay Spell. That's a _potent_ ability. It's good for stealth, for sneak attacks, for leverage in negotiation, for combat tactics, for hitting a creature hard all at once... Frankly, I don't think it's overpriced at all.

More to the point, it follows the precedent of _fireball_ and _delayed blast fireball_.


----------



## Fedifensor (Nov 15, 2004)

*Eldritch Blast versus Bolt of Fire*



			
				Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Eldritch Blast, the power I'm kinda worried about, is apparently useable at will and, at level 20, deals 9d6 damage.  As a ranged touch attack.  Some of the invocations modify this blast (such as Eldritch Cone, which turns it into a cone attack).




A 5th level Psychic Warrior/10th level Pyrokineticist can fire a 10d6 fire bolt(ranged touch attack) every round.  If they have Psychic Meditation and Greater Psionic Shot, they can dish out a 14d6 bolt every round.  I can't comment further until I see Complete Arcane, but the Eldritch Blast doesn't seem horribly out of line.


----------



## hong (Nov 15, 2004)

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> A 5th level Psychic Warrior/10th level Pyrokineticist can fire a 10d6 fire bolt(ranged touch attack) every round.  If they have Psychic Meditation and Greater Psionic Shot, they can dish out a 14d6 bolt every round.  I can't comment further until I see Complete Arcane, but the Eldritch Blast doesn't seem horribly out of line.



 A 20th level barbarian with Power Attack and haste gets 5 attacks, each doing on the order of 40 points of damage.

A 20th level archer with Rapid Shot and haste gets 6 attacks, each doing on the order of 25 points of damage.

10d6 per round is peanuts....


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> More to the point, it follows the precedent of _fireball_ and _delayed blast fireball_.




Or rather it would if the spell DC was also raised by 3 points, and the damage cap heightened, and the spell's level (rather than mere actual slot) was also raised, for purpose of bypassing things like _minor globes of invulnerability_...


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

The warlock does not appear to be a powerhouse class as far I've read--although having said that, the very fact that his abilities have unlimited uses means that a player just has that one broken power that he can exploit ad infinitum.

Even putting the issue of raw power aside, I do think it's easy to see how a character that can only do a few cool things, but can employ them an unlimited number of times lends itself to a lot of tedious combats. If a warlock picks the "chilling tentacles" invocation, for instance, are you content to see every battlefield become a mass of 20-foot spreads full of writhing tentacles? Again, even a sorcerer who only has a few 4th-level spells, and one of them being Evard's black tentacles, isn't likely to have that effect on every combat. 

I think the class overall is pretty cool, but some of the invocations either shouldn't have been added, or should have been bumped up in their grade, or should have a more significant limitation on their usage.


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

Totally at-will powers, while they do not necessarily have an impact on the game balance for the PCs, will have an impact on the world through NPCs.

They can have disastrous economical impacts. It's a bit like those spawning undead, in arena-fight they aren't unbalanced, but they hurt the suspension of disbelief something fierce when taken to their logical extreme.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

> The misnamed the energy savant again, I see (translation: I have always thought the energy/element correspondance with equivalences like earth=acid was bent.)




I agree about the bending   but I think it's probably late to change it. Also there are 5 energy types (force in theory not being an energy type, negative/positive could be tho) and 4 traditional elements, and there is no obvious association. I would myself prefer to see Air with Sonic, and perhaps Water with Acid (although I would even like better if Acid was not part of the game at all, it just strikes me at somewhat anacronistic!), but I can't figure out what Earth could be   



> In the realms of color art, I still _wouldn't_ miss Crabapple.




Right. I'm sorry for him/her but the characters are too... junky   



> Nice to see that overwrought pleas of boosting the spell level on Energy Substition fell on deaf ears.




Do you mean it's still +0? IMHO that wasn't bad. It has been actually a full-worth feat in our games, but not so powerful to suggest house ruling on our part.

At +0 it's moderately useful for a Wizard and pretty good for a Sorcerer, what was the problem with it?



> Giant size. Cool. Too bad it's not a wizard spell. It may become one IMC...




Is it sorcerer-only? That sounds really weird  :\


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Nov 15, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> A 20th level barbarian with Power Attack and haste gets 5 attacks, each doing on the order of 40 points of damage.
> 
> A 20th level archer with Rapid Shot and haste gets 6 attacks, each doing on the order of 25 points of damage.
> 
> 10d6 per round is peanuts....




Yeah, after reassessing my initial statement, I concur with these conclusions.    

Part of the issue was that my brain decided to kick out the "a spell-like ability is a standard action" thing.  I had an image of a warlock with 4 attacks dishing out 36d6 damage in a round...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2004)

Well, one of my friends picked up this puppy and boy is he happy with it. We've already started using some of the spells in the game and so far it's working out well.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

This feat from today's preview seems TOO GOOD imo...




> Collegiate Wizard
> 
> You have undergone extensive training in a formal school for wizards.
> 
> ...


----------



## hong (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This feat from today's preview seems TOO GOOD imo...



 It would depend on how easy the DM is in terms of allowing access to new spells. If the DM is a tightwad, then it's great. If you can be fairly confident of eventually getting all the spells you want, it's not so great.

Of course, one can always sidestep such considerations, by the simple act of banning wizards.


----------



## Fingers Boggis (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This feat from today's preview seems TOO GOOD imo...




Id tend to agree, but how many wizard colleges do you have in your world? how many alumni can each of those colleges realistically have? Whilst I'll be allowing the feat factors such as these will reduce the number of players taking it in my campaign (the only wizards are those sanctioned by the government after a huge magical war, any unauthorised arcane casters are hunted down and killed)

Fingers


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

> In the realms of color art, I still _wouldn't_ miss Crabapple.




I miss his absence. 



> Also there are 5 energy types (force in theory not being an energy type, negative/positive could be tho) and 4 traditional elements, and there is no obvious association. I would myself prefer to see Air with Sonic, and perhaps Water with Acid (although I would even like better if Acid was not part of the game at all, it just strikes me at somewhat anacronistic!), but I can't figure out what Earth could be




Me, personally, I have simplified things a bit, element is a synonym of energy, and there are 13 energies.

Air
Cold
Corrosion (often called Acid, but this is a misnomer, as bases are elements of corrosion too)
Darkness
Earth
Electricity
Entropy (Negative Energy)
Fire
Force
Light
Sound
Vitality (positive energy)
Water

It is theorized, by firm believed of the Rules of Fours, that there are three other energies, undiscovered to this day, because they are subtler, more ephemeral. Proposed energies include sentience (mental energy, the spiritual equivalent of positive energy, the energy manipulated by psionicists in their psychic magic), belief, emotions... Other claim the primordial alignments (order, chaos, balance) should be added. Still other claims that the elements of wood, flesh and void should be considered. And you have people thinking that the feminine and masculine principle deserve this honor. Bleak figures claim the three other elements are curse, disease, and poison. It's all very blurry past the thirteen acknowledged elements.

Anyway, to cut the IMC fluff stuff, I've found that considering energies and elements to be the same thing solves problem. Of course, you need to accept you're going to have "air damage" (caused by wind and pressure), water damage (pressure again), earth damage (crushing, pelting, etc.)...

For those who wonder what "light damage" could be, I refer you to the Lantern Archon's attack.
_Light Ray (Ex): A lantern archon’s light rays have a range of 30 feet. This attack overcomes damage reduction of any type._
Of course it does, since it's an energy -- energy aren't affected by damage reduction.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> It would depend on how easy the DM is in terms of allowing access to new spells. If the DM is a tightwad, then it's great. If you can be fairly confident of eventually getting all the spells you want, it's not so great.




But the feat alone let you have basically double the normal amount of spells for free and as soon as you level up. Even if your DM lets you buy scrolls of any possible spell for copying, it still seems a very good advantage to me!

I know it's a completely unfair comparison, but in T&B a single extra spell known (and up to 1 level less than your highest) costed a feat. The feat was obviously intended for sorcerers and very little worth for a wizard, but now this is at the other extreme IMHO.

I may be wrong but to me it sounds like spontaneous casters keep getting more and more the shorter stick (see metamagic)... and it didn't seem to me that people thought wizards were worse than sorcerers, right?   Or are the new sorcerer-only feats very good? What is there in Complete Arcane to help the Sorcerer get more known spells for instance?


----------



## Vecna (Nov 15, 2004)

Fingers Boggis said:
			
		

> Id tend to agree, but how many wizard colleges do you have in your world? how many alumni can each of those colleges realistically have?




It's not a requirement to be a student of a college.
Just Int 13 and Wizard 1.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

Fingers Boggis said:
			
		

> Id tend to agree, but how many wizard colleges do you have in your world? how many alumni can each of those colleges realistically have? Whilst I'll be allowing the feat factors such as these will reduce the number of players taking it in my campaign (the only wizards are those sanctioned by the government after a huge magical war, any unauthorised arcane casters are hunted down and killed)




Yeah I know, DM can just not allow these feats... but it's like saying "we publish these stuff, if it's not good / too good, gaming groups can simply ignore it" or even "buy these basket of fruit, the rotten fruit have the special feature that you throw them away if you don't like them"  

I don't in fact know what the rest of the chapter says, it looks like there could be a strong tie with the organization (sort of "prestige feats" idea, but no new mechanics). Putting aside the dangerous subject of balancing game features with roleplay requirements, this is a first-level-only feat; how can you tell a player that she can't take the feat just because she wants to have this character background? Isn't it actually very much fitting with the most common wizard archetype to have been trained at a school of magic?


----------



## Taren Seeker (Nov 15, 2004)

Here's an odd bit: Split Ray is now +2 spell levels, but it no longer splits the damage dealt and you can focus both rays on one target.

Enervation as a 6th level spell that does 2d4 neg levels, or Scorching Ray as a 4th level spell that does 24d6 at 11th caster level. I haven't checked the new ray spells in CA yet.

Suddenly Split Ray is far superior to Empower for ray spells. 

Anyways, I'm liking this book, almost as much as CW. The Seeker of Songs actually makes me want to play a Bard   . It helps that the PrC reflects some changes I had been looking to make, namely making his songs more "magical" and dropping spellcasting. I am somewhat disappointed that so many spells are Wu Jen only though. (to answer another poster, Giant Size is Wu Jen only)

Edited to add how much I like some of the feats, like the new Mage Slayer line and the Cold/Neg energy one. Lord of Utter cold or something.


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I agree about the bending   but I think it's probably late to change it.




Really? I haven't seen too many references to it post T&B... until now. Indeed, they have the energons (was it Planar HB or FF?) and didn't force the square pegness of their energy into the round holeness of the four elements. They seemed to be shying away from that association to me.



> Is it sorcerer-only? That sounds really weird  :\




It's Wu Jen only.

See what kinds of problems adding new core classes causes, guys.


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

That feat is just, like Boccob's Blessed Book, WotC designers realizing that the spellbook scribing cost is totally illogical. And, in the old tradition of the "multige classes" (you know, arcane trickster, mystic theurge, etc.), rather than fixing the problem, they're proposing patches.


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

They already halved spell scribing costs.

I really don't find the feat that objectionable. Wizards should have, AFAIAC, a wide variety of spells.


----------



## green slime (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This feat from today's preview seems TOO GOOD imo...




I already use something similar. Not a biggy if you ask me. In what way do you see it as being overpowered? Really, the wizard cannot prepare more spells. Just has a slightly larger repetoire. It costs a feat. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Here's an odd bit: Split Ray is now +2 spell levels, but it no longer splits the damage dealt and you can focus both rays on one target.




Oh no...   So basically it's almost like Twin Spell, but you can apply it only to rays? +2 only instead of +4 for Twin Spell? That seems IMHO a bad design mistake. How does it match with all the times that wizards' authors toned down a feat (or actually increased the slot cost for a metamagic feat, see Persistent Spell) exactly because the feat was abusable with a few specific spells?


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Here's an odd bit: Split Ray is now +2 spell levels, but it no longer splits the damage dealt and you can focus both rays on one target. Enervation as a 6th level spell that does 2d4 neg levels, or Scorching Ray as a 4th level spell that does 24d6 at 11th caster level. I haven't checked the new ray spells in CA yet.




I thought split ray only provided one extra ray per spell. To do 24d6, it would need to provide three.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

green slime said:
			
		

> I already use something similar. Not a biggy if you ask me. In what way do you see it as being overpowered? Really, the wizard cannot prepare more spells. Just has a slightly larger repetoire. It costs a feat. Seems fair to me.




41 more spells a "slightly larger repertoire"?


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I may be wrong but to me it sounds like spontaneous casters keep getting more and more the shorter stick (see metamagic)... and it didn't seem to me that people thought wizards were worse than sorcerers, right?




It seemed to me that some people didn't and some people did. Sorcerers can still cast any spell a wizard can from a spell-activation item. 

I agree though that spending a feat to get only one extra spell is a bit lame.


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> It's Wu Jen only.
> 
> See what kinds of problems adding new core classes causes, guys.




Yup. That's why I use only four spell list. Esoteric, spiritual, telluric, theurgic; for arcane, psionic, divine (natural) and divine (religion).  

It is much better that way. Because it's not just base classes, it's true also with any prestige classes with their own spell-list (assassin, blackguard, a lot of the DotF ones...).

With four magic types, the eight schools, and the various descriptors, I give classes a definition-based spell list rather than an enumeration-based spell list, and all works better. It makes it easier to plug in or out new material.


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Yeah, after reassessing my initial statement, I concur with these conclusions.     Part of the issue was that my brain decided to kick out the "a spell-like ability is a standard action" thing.  I had an image of a warlock with 4 attacks dishing out 36d6 damage in a round...




Oh, so you basically thought they were capable of *rogue* damage, eh?   

Yeah, that would be broken.


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 41 more spells a "slightly larger repertoire"?




41? Oh, I see. You're taking this hypothetical wizard all the way to 20th level. In that case, yes, 41 is only slightly larger, as that 20th-level Wiz will easily be affluent enough to obtain most of those 41 spells on his own.

Learning 2 extra spells per level sounds about right. Certainly any less wouldn't be worth a feat.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Nov 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> I thought split ray only provided one extra ray per spell. To do 24d6, it would need to provide three.



 Yup good catch. Scorching would get an extra ray at 4d6.

However single ray spells like Disintegrate and Enervation are cruel and unusual with this feat. Which is good for disintegrate since it really hasn't been the same since 3.5


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> With four magic types, the eight schools, and the various descriptors, I give classes a definition-based spell list rather than an enumeration-based spell list, and all works better. It makes it easier to plug in or out new material.




It sounds like you would dig AU if you don't play it.


----------



## Taren Seeker (Nov 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Oh, so you basically thought they were capable of *rogue* damage, eh?
> 
> Yeah, that would be broken.



 Well, Rogue damage as a touch attack, only defensible by SR and not needing any special conditions...yah that would be broken.

If I misjudged the level of sarcasm in your post then please ignore


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

On this split ray thing:

Isn't the conversion similar to the step between, say, scorching ray and fireball? Similar basic damage, but applied to more targets.

What breaks it, IMO, is being able to target both rays on the same target.


----------



## Vecna (Nov 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 41? Oh, I see. You're taking this hypothetical wizard all the way to 20th level. In that case, yes, 41 is only slightly larger, as that 20th-level Wiz will easily be affluent enough to obtain most of those 41 spells on his own.
> 
> Learning 2 extra spells per level sounds about right. Certainly any less wouldn't be worth a feat.




So for you worthy = broken?
Tell me some worthy feat then.

You double your spell known for free (gold and effort).
Some people say that the Wizard doesn't actually know many more spells than a Sorcerer because writing spells costs money, and for you isn't even an issue the money save?


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Well, Rogue damage as a touch attack, only defensible by SR and not needing any special conditions...yah that would be broken. If I misjudged the level of sarcasm in your post then please ignore




Oh, I was being fairly facetious, but truth is I'd still favor the rogue at that point. He's getting all that sneak attack damage in addition to whatever damage his attacks inflict otherwise, and can probably manage to ramp up to 5 melee attacks per round at that level (with TWF chain), which tops 36d6 handily.

Of course, a high-level warlock is going to have turned his ray into an AoE of some sort. Multiple AoE's in a round would be pretty sick.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 15, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> 41? Oh, I see. You're taking this hypothetical wizard all the way to 20th level. In that case, yes, 41 is only slightly larger, as that 20th-level Wiz will easily be affluent enough to obtain most of those 41 spells on his own.
> 
> Learning 2 extra spells per level sounds about right. Certainly any less wouldn't be worth a feat.




OTOH, would you think that a feat which doubled (or even give +50%) the spells casts per day by a Sorcerer would not be too much?


----------



## Vecna (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> OTOH, would you think that a feat which doubled (or even give +50%) the spells casts per day by a Sorcerer would not be too much?




By the reasoning behind the Warlock invocation at will (you however cast a fixed number of spells per day) it wouldn't be *so* broken, just very strong.
A feat that doubles a sorcerer spells *known* would be another matter...


----------



## Felon (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> OTOH, would you think that a feat which doubled (or even give +50%) the spells casts per day by a Sorcerer would not be too much?




Yes, that would be too much. It's not the same, by a long shot. The number of spells a sorcerer can cast per day is designed to have a defnitive limit. The number of spells a wizard can possibly learn is designed to have no hard cap. 

In the end, this feat pretty much just saves the wizard some money on going out and buying the spell off the market. If anything, it's weak.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 15, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> OTOH, would you think that a feat which doubled (or even give +50%) the spells casts per day by a Sorcerer would not be too much?



 It sounds like you don't value the 'cast on the fly' ability as much as I tend to.  The wizard suffers from a classic dilemma...."_Do I need it, today?_"  When plenty of prep time is available, the wizard has a distinct advantage.  In an unknown situation, he has associated meta-game costs with selecting the right spell at the right time.  Will he need that Feather Fall, or will it turn out to be a wasted spell?  The sorceror has no such problems...he either has the spell appropriate to the situation or he doesn't.

 This becomes more pronounced at higher levels.  The sorceror becomes very connected to his chosen role, and the Warlock would be no different.  At high levels, combats are won or lost fairly quickly, and even if you have three hundred spells at your disposal, you still only get so many combat actions.  Being able to throw an Evard's Black Tentacles every round isn't that impressive, when the other guy is flying, shapechanged into a gold dragon, has 6 mirror images, blurred, has Immunity to Spells running and six more defensive spells...and then he starts throwing down the meteor swarms, maximized empowered sonic fireballs and so forth.  Meanwhile, the +5 keen holy greatsword wielding paladin is smiting the bad guy using full power attack while hasted, scoring three crits in his first round.  And so on.

 The point is that at high level combat, being able to repetitiously shoot off lower level powers isn't all that strong.  A 10d6 bolt isn't terribly impressive when the paladin just caused two massive damage saves, and did a total of over 250+ of damage in one round.  

 41 extra spells over the course of 20 levels?  Not that exciting.  Unless the DM is extremely stingy with spells, that feat (like, say Toughness) becomes less useful over time.  Scribing time is a more significant cost than purchasing or finding the scroll, at high levels.  It's a nice feat...but it's hardly a game breaker.  Giving a sorceror 2x more slots however, is huge.  Sorcerors almost always choose from a very tight list of spells to optimize their concept (enchanter, artillery, etc.), so extra slots is a direct contribution to how stingy they need to be with their spells.  I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with extra slots for a sorceror, but 50% more?  I think that's too strong, personally.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 15, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you're underestimating the value of Delay Spell. That's a _potent_ ability. It's good for stealth, for sneak attacks, for leverage in negotiation, for combat tactics, for hitting a creature hard all at once... Frankly, I don't think it's overpriced at all.
> 
> More to the point, it follows the precedent of _fireball_ and _delayed blast fireball_.




Actually no it just sucks.  1-5 rounds isn't enough time to help much with any of the above, and with a +3 spell level modifier it makes all spells that do damage suck big because the damage cap will be way behind the curve as will save DCs.  Someone did a poll on feats during 3e can't rememeber the post names but something like someone rate this feat:delay spell.  They did it for almost every feat and delay spell got like 2 out of 10 overall.  It had a few people rating it well, but the vast majority of people gave it a 1-2.  And the 2s were kind of pity 2s becuase its a cool concept.


----------



## Marshall (Nov 15, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> This becomes more pronounced at higher levels.  The sorceror becomes very connected to his chosen role, and the Warlock would be no different.  At high levels, combats are won or lost fairly quickly, and even if you have three hundred spells at your disposal, you still only get so many combat actions.  Being able to throw an Evard's Black Tentacles every round isn't that impressive, when the other guy is flying, shapechanged into a gold dragon, has 6 mirror images, blurred, has Immunity to Spells running and six more defensive spells...and then he starts throwing down the meteor swarms, maximized empowered sonic fireballs and so forth.




And the Warlock hits him with a Reaving Dispel and suddenly has all those spells for himself...

The one thing CA did was make it a VERY bad idea to run around with a bunch of spells up. Makes ya wonder why they tinkered with Persistant, one or two times being killed by your own spells will put an end to that idea.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 15, 2004)

Taren Seeker said:
			
		

> Here's an odd bit: Split Ray is now +2 spell levels, but it no longer splits the damage dealt and you can focus both rays on one target.
> 
> Enervation as a 6th level spell that does 2d4 neg levels, or Scorching Ray as a 4th level spell that does 24d6 at 11th caster level. I haven't checked the new ray spells in CA yet.
> 
> Suddenly Split Ray is far superior to Empower for ray spells.




That's the way it should be IMO.  If it wasn't much better than empower at ray spells you'd just take empower.  Without the ability to target the same foe it shouldn't be more than +1 spell level and maybe even not that.  Sometimes the designers seem to forget with metamagic that it should be a benefit to apply the feat since it cost you a feat luckly here they didn't.  

If its no better than a spell from the level its adjusted to just cast a spell of that level instead of wasting a feat and preparing a weaker spell modified to a new level.  Some feats might not give a power boost but give some fairly unique ability but unless its signifigant it shouldn't modify the level.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 15, 2004)

Marshall said:
			
		

> And the Warlock hits him with a Reaving Dispel and suddenly has all those spells for himself...
> 
> The one thing CA did was make it a VERY bad idea to run around with a bunch of spells up. Makes ya wonder why they tinkered with Persistant, one or two times being killed by your own spells will put an end to that idea.




I'm guessing because they must of done some research that showed most campaigns used non spellcasting mosnters as the primary foe.  Me I never had any problems with persistent or long duration spells but in my games dispels fly frequently enough that a persistant spell almost is a wate of a high level spell.

I definetly think they went with overkill in reducing durations and persistent at +6 spell levels it can only apply to 0-3rd level spells and at the earliest for any real spells(1st level) the earliest you can do it is at 13th level.  Heck even the better 3e shield isn't worth a 7th level slot, and the 3.5 shield is a joke as a 7th level slot.  A couple of the divine spells may be on the weak side at +6 levels but not a joke but I haven't seen persistent since this change initially shown in FR.

I still go back to if they wanted to change it they should of revamped it from the ground up.  I'd of made it a +2 spell level feat that bumped up the time category 1 level. from rounds to minutes, minutes to 10 mintues, 10 mintues to hours, hours to a flat 24 hours.  And I make this an exception to the rule and allow it to be applied multiple times to the same spell.


----------



## qstor (Nov 15, 2004)

whats the preqs for Seeker of the Song?

thanks

Mike


----------



## Dalamar (Nov 15, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> 41 extra spells over the course of 20 levels?  Not that exciting.  Unless the DM is extremely stingy with spells, that feat (like, say Toughness) becomes less useful over time.



So what you are saying, is that it's okay to have a feat that gives you a bare minimum of almost 68,000gp (the cost to buy scrolls of the highest possible level for the extra spells known, not taking into account any costs to scribe said spells into your spellbook, which would rocket the costs up if Boccob's Blessed Book didn't exist) and saves you weeks of scribing time is balanced?

Not that I think accumulating those spells known is that bad in and of itself since it happens gradually instead of all at once, and I know for certain that most of the PC wizards that I'll see in the games I play won't have the feat. But if there isn't a feat that lets sorcerers increase either their spells per day (since spells/day is the sorc's job, while spells known is the wiz's job) significantly, the wizards will have a much more powerful feat to choose.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 15, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> So what you are saying, is that it's okay to have a feat that gives you a bare minimum of almost 68,000gp (the cost to buy scrolls of the highest possible level for the extra spells known, not taking into account any costs to scribe said spells into your spellbook, which would rocket the costs up if Boccob's Blessed Book didn't exist) and saves you weeks of scribing time is balanced?



 Yes, that's what I'm saying, all right.  Especially since you've chosen the highest possible cost, which I don't think is accurate to actual game play.  That presupposes a DM who NEVER gives scrolls as treasure to compare against.  And when you consider that a 20th level character has something on the odds of 750,000gp of equipment....well, 68,000 gp's worth isn't really all that impressive...especially over 20 levels.  Never mind that the wizard subsumes additional cost and vulnerability with this feat.  He still has a spellbook, after all.  The sorceror risks nothing with his choices: the mage could loose everything.



			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> But if there isn't a feat that lets sorcerers increase either their spells per day (since spells/day is the sorc's job, while spells known is the wiz's job) significantly, the wizards will have a much more powerful feat to choose.



 Well, there being inadequate feats for a sorceror is another question altogether.  I'm with you on that.  But I wasn't arguing for relatively love for one versus the other...merely that the feat isn't as enormously powerful as it sounds.  Having more choices per day is less valuable, generally speaking, than having more chances per day.  Not drastically less valuable, but less valuable nonetheless.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2004)

One thing this feat that gives you 2 extra spells would be really good for is AEG's World's Largest Dungeon. It could make playing a mage a heck of a lot more viable.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 15, 2004)

I don't know. If you add up the total gain, you end up with about 19,800gp over 20 levels with the bulk of it coming at the highest levels (7,200 in levels 17-20). That's significant, but hardly game-breaking in a game where 20th level characters are expected to have 760,000gp in equipment and other stuff. A feat like Craft Wondrous Item can be expected to save that amount of gold even if you only crafted two good items ever.

The only really significant benefit to the feat is access and I don't think that's too far out of line. Your wizard can only prepare a base of four spells per day per level--maximum. (Which, coincidentally, is what he normally receives). More than that rapidly reaches the realm of diminishing returns.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> This feat from today's preview seems TOO GOOD imo...


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> So what you are saying, is that it's okay to have a feat that gives you a bare minimum of almost 68,000gp (the cost to buy scrolls of the highest possible level for the extra spells known, not taking into account any costs to scribe said spells into your spellbook, which would rocket the costs up if Boccob's Blessed Book didn't exist) and saves you weeks of scribing time is balanced?




What's the value of a spellbook compared to the value of a scroll? Because scrolls do more than give you a spell to put into your book; they give you a means to cast spells beyond your current slots (in numbers and levels.) Your assessment of the cost is off.

Further, the value of spellbooks is not factored into treasure values, since all NPC wizards will have the normal equipment alotment PLUS a spellbook.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 15, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you're underestimating the value of Delay Spell. That's a _potent_ ability. It's good for stealth, for sneak attacks, for leverage in negotiation, for combat tactics, for hitting a creature hard all at once... Frankly, I don't think it's overpriced at all.
> 
> More to the point, it follows the precedent of _fireball_ and _delayed blast fireball_.




Actually, I think about the only thing Delay spell is good for is the scry-buff-teleport routine.

You layer a bunch of offensive spells to go off the round you teleport in and then have a delayed teleport ready to take you out. Total time in area: 1 round. Total number of offensive spells used: (4 delayed spells from previous rounds, 1 contingent, 1 normal, 1 quickened plus several more from your familiar (via imbue with spell ability)).

But that's about all it's good for.


----------



## Trainz (Nov 15, 2004)

I have heard that there is a feat in a dragon magazine (that might have been a feat preview of CA) that lowers the cost of a single metamagic feat by one level... can anyone enlighten me on that, because I have the CA and there is no such feat in it.

Ktnx.


----------



## Gez (Nov 15, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Actually, I think about the only thing Delay spell is good for is the scry-buff-teleport routine.
> 
> You layer a bunch of offensive spells to go off the round you teleport in and then have a delayed teleport ready to take you out. Total time in area: 1 round. Total number of offensive spells used: (4 delayed spells from previous rounds, 1 contingent, 1 normal, 1 quickened plus several more from your familiar (via imbue with spell ability)).




I don't have ComArc, and a sleeping cat on my lap prevents me from reaching Tome & Blood, but aren't all parameters of a delayed spell set at the time you cast it, not at the time it goes off? Meaning the _delayed teleport_ would work (since you can give the parameters before you attack, you can even set a _teleport_ spell to teleports you just right where you are), as would a delayed offensive spell that would go off after you leave the battlefield; but that's all.

If you're in your sanctum, and you cast _delayed fireballs_, and teleports out, the spell effects won't travel with you. You'll just manage to lay waste to your own lab. Congratulations!


----------



## Dalamar (Nov 15, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> What's the value of a spellbook compared to the value of a scroll? Because scrolls do more than give you a spell to put into your book; they give you a means to cast spells beyond your current slots (in numbers and levels.) Your assessment of the cost is off.



It isn't, technically, since you would have to buy that scroll to scribe it into your spellbook, or find some other way of learning the spell, which usually entails some kind of a cost. But since they're only scribable, we could say they're half as valuable. Which still leaves over 33,000gp. That's close to the price of a +6 stat enhancer, and a bit over the price of a +3 weapon. And it still isn't taking into account any costs for scribing spells into your spellbook (100gp per spell level, which would be 4,100gp if you took all the bonus spells as 1st level spells and didn't have a Boccob's Blessed Book). If you're like that guy who mostly plays wizards in our group and intend to know all the spells from the PHB plus assorted spells from other source books, you're saving a big darn pile of gold with this feat.
Besides, nothing says that a Wizard can't choose learn the same spell multiple times if they wanted to for some wierd reason. Tadah! Instant free duplicate spellbook that you can give to somebody for safe keeping while you're off adventuring with your original spellbook. Or if you normally keep an 'adventuring spellbook', you now have two copies of your spellbook to be stored in two different safe places, for the cost of a feat. And if you're an item crafter, you're just going to love being able to pick those 'only need the spell for this one item' spells for free instead paying gp for it. 

People also always raise the point that there isn't unlimited time for item crafting when the balance between sorcerers and wizards is debated. Well, this feat just bought you 41 days for item crafting, with a wider array of possible items to boot.

Still, the feat isn't too much out of the whack in general feat balance since it must be taken at 1st level, when most characters can only take one feat (when the feat, by the way, technically doubles the wizard's wealth). But it is still a powerfull feat. 







			
				WizardDru said:
			
		

> The sorceror risks nothing with his choices: the mage could loose everything.



So if I made a feat that gave sorcerers a spell book with the normal wizard progression, but they still needed to memorize spells each day the same amount they would normally know, it would be balanced since they could lose everything too? 
How often in a standard campaign does a wizard loose their spellbook? I bet about as often as the paladin's Holy Avenger gets sundered. That is, very rarely.


----------



## Felon (Nov 16, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> So what you are saying, is that it's okay to have a feat that gives you a bare minimum of almost 68,000gp (the cost to buy scrolls of the highest possible level for the extra spells known, not taking into account any costs to scribe said spells into your spellbook, which would rocket the costs up if Boccob's Blessed Book didn't exist) and saves you weeks of scribing time is balanced?




I don't know where you're getting that projection from, but if you're doing what Li did and basing it on what a wizard has to spend over the course of 20 levels, then 68k is chicken feed. That'd be pocket change for the 20th-level wiz even if he DID have to spend it all at once.

Of course, the reality that should sink in once people stop to think here is this money generally isn't spent because a PC wizard harvests the better spells from the spellbooks of NPC wizards the party kills. 



> But if there isn't a feat that lets sorcerers increase either their spells per day (since spells/day is the sorc's job, while spells known is the wiz's job) significantly, the wizards will have a much more powerful feat to choose.




If spells/day were really a sorc's job, that would be a sorry job indeed, since as has been pointed out with the warlock rationale, that becomes progressively less and less of a factor. A sorc's job is flexibility on the spur of the moment through spontaneous casting, whereas a wizard's is flexibility when preparing ahead of time, thanks to his vast repetoire.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 16, 2004)

When wizards find spellbooks, do they add numerous spells to their own spellbook?

If the answer is yes, then wizards in your game already have access to a wide variety of spells and the benefit of this feat is marginalized.

If the answer is no then wizards in your game find that the value of extra spells isn't worth the cost.  In which case the value of this feat is obviously marginalized.

Either way, the feat is decent, but not by any means overpowered.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 16, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

>



At most, for your 9th level spells, that's going to save
2*9*50gp = 900gp

Then for scribing:
2*9*100gp = 900gp

For a grand total of 1800gp.

Oooo. How terrible. A 17th level character saves themselves 1800gp.

Any wizard who's interested in lots of spells known picks up a blessed book anyway.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 16, 2004)

Dalamar said:
			
		

> It isn't, technically, since you would have to buy that scroll to scribe it into your spellbook, or find some other way of learning the spell, which usually entails some kind of a cost. But since they're only scribable, we could say they're half as valuable. Which still leaves over 33,000gp. That's close to the price of a +6 stat enhancer, and a bit over the price of a +3 weapon.




Well, if you want to do it the stupid way, yes.

Alternately you could just pay the PHB recommended 50gp per spell level to copy from someone else.

That means that over the course of 20 levels, including scribing costs (which only idiots pay), you end up saving
32,400 gp.

If you've got a brain, and picked up a blessed book, then you've saved a measly 10,800gp.

As for time? I'm pretty sure that you end up with a pathetic 40 days extra. Over 20 levels. I mean sure, if you're DM's a total jerk about time, then that might actually matter. Mind you, you're probably better off forgetting about being an effective wizard in that scenario.

And, of course, if you really wanted, you could always just get your ranks in spellcraft and not BOTHER copying spells from acquired spellbooks - and just use them as is.

The feat is nice, but it's by no means the powerhouse you think it is.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 16, 2004)

Utterly random thought...

I like PG: Wizards, Bards and Sorcerers.

And Anteas' Whip of Devastation will flay away any other 7th level spell!  

Anyway back to your regular posting.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 16, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Utterly random thought...
> 
> I like PG: Wizards, Bards and Sorcerers.
> 
> ...




Nightfall, what's that book like?  It's one I've wanted to check out, but all they ever have at my hobby store is the one for fighters/barbarians etc., and the one for paladins/clerics/monks.

Any good spells, prestige classes, etc.?

Banshee


----------



## Darthjaye (Nov 16, 2004)

Hey guys was wondering if anyone else has run into this problem.  My group and I played this weekend and ran into a interesting discussion.  It centers around rules proposed in the complete arcane.  It says under their entry for Point Blank Shot, Ranged Spell Specialization, and Touch Spell Specialization  that they add to a spells attack and/or damage.  But then it says on page 85 that "all such spells deal damage as spells, not weapons, so Strength modifiers to damage and magical effects that increase weapon damage (such as the bard's inspire courage ability and the prayer spell) don't increase damage from a weaponlike spell." 
      Does this really gel with respects to effects from other spells or creature abilities.  That is to ask for example if a Trogyldyte were to hit you with it's musk ability or a ghoul touch were to affect a spellcaster would he then take negative's to his damage with spells like Melf's Acid Arrow, Burning Hands, or any other similiar spells which have to target to do damage?  I can see the minus to attack but would there be a minus to damage too?


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 16, 2004)

Everyone can just manage to demonstrate by numbers that his opinion is the right one: it's enough to base one's reasoning on the best situation, infinite spell sources or zero spell sources, depending which opinion you are supporting. One could say that a feat which gives a +1 enh to charisma every 3 levels to a sorcerer is weak, because you can do the same with cloaks of charisma and it's only 36kgp, around 5% of your expected wealth at very high levels.

All I know is that I've always been fond of wizards and there is no other feat than this, which I would have taken at 1st level if this feat had been available before.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 16, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Everyone can just manage to demonstrate by numbers that his opinion is the right one: it's enough to base one's reasoning on the best situation, infinite spell sources or zero spell sources, depending which opinion you are supporting. One could say that a feat which gives a +1 enh to charisma every 3 levels to a sorcerer is weak, because you can do the same with cloaks of charisma and it's only 36kgp, around 5% of your expected wealth at very high levels.



 One _could_ say that, but one _could _also call that a straw man, since it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The main issue was that Dalamar felt that this feat resulted in, essentially, 68,000 free gold.  Several folks have disagreed with those numbers.

 It's a good feat, I think that's generally agreed upon.  However, I don't think you'll get universal agreement that a wizard would always take this feat.  Many would, but others would not.  At 1st level, for example, a +1 to your DC is much more valuable than having two additional free spells when you turn 2nd level.  As with most "_but by 20th level_" analyses, the breakdown assumes a vacuum of pure numbers, and not practical adventuring, which is what many of the numbers above are addressing.  



			
				Dalamar said:
			
		

> So if I made a feat that gave sorcerers a spell book with the normal wizard progression, but they still needed to memorize spells each day the same amount they would normally know, it would be balanced since they could lose everything too?
> How often in a standard campaign does a wizard loose their spellbook? I bet about as often as the paladin's Holy Avenger gets sundered. That is, very rarely.



 I'm not sure what you're saying here...that you would create a feat that turned a sorceror into a wizard?  Sorcerors get more spell slots in return for their lack of spell choice.  A feat like you describe, forcing them to memorize their spells would essentially make them wizards with a slightly different skill list and more spell slots.  Does it remove their choice to choose spontaneous spellcasting? Are their spell choices still limited?  You've given too few details to make any sort of an analysis, or why anyone would take it.

 Most of the applications you mention make a bunch of assumptions that center around ignoring the various workarounds provided in the system for wizards to have an easier time of scribing, and also assumes that the only way to get said spells is from purchase at market price.  Treasure, fellow party members and serveral magic items make this an easier task.  You also make the mistake of producing lump numbers for the gp value.  You're using the 'at 20th level' number...but it's not a cash check for 33,000 gp (assuming you accept that number), but more like 1650 per level.  A free stat item at 20th level is not the same thing as a Belt of Giant Strength at 5th or 10th, and it's not a fair comparison, I think.

 Assuming a character makes extra spellbooks on the cheap, as you describe, what is the practical ingame effect of this?  Having two, ten or thirty extra spellbooks is effectively the same.  You're still not casting more than one spell a round, and you're not getting more damage, a higher DC, better spell penetration, added effects or anything else to your spells.  It's not found money.  Just like you make the assumption that someone would normally only pay for certain spells, since they're only for crafting.  I might buy that for Boccob's book, but not for Boots of Speed.  

 Again, I agree it's a good feat.  I just don't see it as being particularly powerful or unbalancing.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 16, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> One _could_ say that, but one _could _also call that a straw man, since it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.




Yeah ok, I was just talking absurd here...   The other guy was assuming one would have to buy each spells from scrolls, but you were talking like you can always find a wizard who lets you copy any spell you need for the minimum price. I just wanted to point out that both were having extreme circumstances on their mind.

I have played only a couple of wizards myself so far, but also when I saw them played by others the spells-to-scribe availability was pretty low. Obviously that's only my experience, but it's only based from it that I was kinda shocked by reading this feat   As I recall, no wizards I've seen in our games had scribed more spells from scrolls than the ones they got for free, that's why my reaction. Also, when it was me to play wizard I was always craving for more spells all the time, and always copying new scrolls into the spellbook, I would have spent a feat for even just 2-3 new spells but that's because IMXP it's very hard to find exactly the spells I wanted to learn. Of course, in a campaign with scrolls shops or similar it would be very different.



> It's a good feat, I think that's generally agreed upon.  However, I don't think you'll get universal agreement that a wizard would always take this feat.  Many would, but others would not.




Ok... I must be overreacting then, but honestly I would never miss this feat if I was playing a new wizard again! Or actually I might miss in on purpose because I'm in the mood of not going too far these days


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 16, 2004)

Also, I confess I tend to think about numbers too much sometimes. And the though of +100% to something which is already a good number (well, at least compared to the sorcerer) seemed excessive to me.


----------



## green slime (Nov 16, 2004)

I think it is a good feat, because I too, like to hoard spells. But it isn't a required feat, by a long shot.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 16, 2004)

Some of the spells surprised me like energy immunity stayed at a 24 hour duration, with the duration dropping overkill in 3.5 I was caught off guard by this.(minor complaint that they kept wiz/sor worse at this than cleric/druids but of course clerics have to be better at everything, I'm waiting for 4e when clerics can cast ever spell wizards can just better and earlier)

lighting arc 4th level for druids yeah continue breaking those caps for those druids meanwhile the wizard for the same spell sticks to the caps even though these kind of spells are supposed to be the wiz/sor strong suit.

wall of bones wu-jen only it used to be a wiz/sor spell

ice knife same deal

transfix same deal but reversed it used to be a wu-jen spell and now its a wiz/sor spell.  Also dang lasts for hours and you get your second save every hour, and anyone walking into the area later gets nailed as well kind of makes mass hold person sucky.(it should be better since it is a full round cast time but I'm not sure it should be that much better)

About the only wu-jen only spells I like as wu-jen only are the spirit ones other than that I'm usuually wondering why a wiz/sor can't do it as well.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 16, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Yeah ok, I was just talking absurd here...   The other guy was assuming one would have to buy each spells from scrolls, but you were talking like you can always find a wizard who lets you copy any spell you need for the minimum price. I just wanted to point out that both were having extreme circumstances on their mind.



50gp per level is hardly a low price for something which has essentially NO COST TO MANUFACTURE. It's pure profit. Ask yourself - would my wizard allow other wizards to read his spellbook for that price? Darn straight.

As to finding wizards with those spells? The basic demographic rules say there are plenty of wizards, and if you want the spell, chances are someone else finds it useful too.


> I have played only a couple of wizards myself so far, but also when I saw them played by others the spells-to-scribe availability was pretty low. Obviously that's only my experience, but it's only based from it that I was kinda shocked by reading this feat   As I recall, no wizards I've seen in our games had scribed more spells from scrolls than the ones they got for free, that's why my reaction.



If you, and they, place such a low value on spells known that you can't be bothered to scribe new ones, then why is the feat of any value at all?


> Also, when it was me to play wizard I was always craving for more spells all the time, and always copying new scrolls into the spellbook, I would have spent a feat for even just 2-3 new spells but that's because IMXP it's very hard to find exactly the spells I wanted to learn. Of course, in a campaign with scrolls shops or similar it would be very different.



If it's that difficult, your DM is being a jerk, and it's HIS fault the feat is so good.

Or rather - he's deliberately running a game where you may as well be a sorceror for all the good being a wizard does you.

Wizards are EXPECTED to get lots of extra spells put in their spellbooks.


> Ok... I must be overreacting then, but honestly I would never miss this feat if I was playing a new wizard again! Or actually I might miss in on purpose because I'm in the mood of not going too far these days



2 more spells known per level is too far? You've been DM-whipped.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 17, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Yeah ok, I was just talking absurd here...   The other guy was assuming one would have to buy each spells from scrolls, but you were talking like you can always find a wizard who lets you copy any spell you need for the minimum price. I just wanted to point out that both were having extreme circumstances on their mind.



If you can find a wizard who's willing to sell you a scroll of a spell (which costs him gold and XP to create for each other wizard who wants one), it's a fair bet that he'd be willing to let you look at his backup spellbook as well (which costs 50 gp per level, and can be reused).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 17, 2004)

I agree with everyone who's said Collegiate Wizard is a good feat but not overpowered. It's one I'd think of taking but it isn't essential. Not in the same league as Improved Initiative, Empower Spell or Craft Wondrous Item IMO.

Of course its usefulness varies a lot depending on the availability of scrolls and opportunities to copy new spells in your game. The stingier the GM, the better the feat is.

I'm playing a wizard in our current game. The GM is quite stingy so CW would probably have been worth taking over a couple of the feats I did choose. 

As others have said a wizard will go for the two best spells at every level anyway, so getting four just means you get your 3rd and 4th picks too. Though that decision can sometimes be pretty tight (especially for the 4th level spells).


----------



## coyote6 (Nov 17, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> But the feat alone let you have basically double the normal amount of spells for free and as soon as you level up. Even if your DM lets you buy scrolls of any possible spell for copying, it still seems a very good advantage to me!




There are new rules in Complete Adventurer; one particular rule is titled "Mastering a Foreign Spellbook" -- take one week +1 day/spell, and make a Spellcraft check (DC 25+highest level spell), and you master that spellbook -- you know all the spells in it, you don't have to copy them into another book (if you do, it's presumably the same as copying from your book -- half cost), and you can prepare from that book without any problems.

So, as soon as a wizard gets a good enough Spellcraft check, and gets some other wizard's spellbook, he'll get all sorts of spells, for free. No gold, no feat -- just time and a skill check.

Also, regarding scrolls -- don't forget that, per the PH, most "wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level x50 gp." That's cheaper (a lot cheaper, at higher levels) than buying scrolls, and you just have to make friends with some NPC wizards. 



> I may be wrong but to me it sounds like spontaneous casters keep getting more and more the shorter stick (see metamagic)... and it didn't seem to me that people thought wizards were worse than sorcerers, right?   Or are the new sorcerer-only feats very good? What is there in Complete Arcane to help the Sorcerer get more known spells for instance?




The Extra Spell feat is in CA, too.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Nightfall, what's that book like? It's one I've wanted to check out, but all they ever have at my hobby store is the one for fighters/barbarians etc., and the one for paladins/clerics/monks.
> 
> Any good spells, prestige classes, etc.?
> 
> Banshee



Well two I wrote for it (spell wise) are nice. Anteas' Whip of Devastation (SL answer to Khelban's Warding whip. But with more damage potential), and Durlock's Withering Pox. (My own favorite, as I've loved the idea of Lich Ogre Magi, and this spell is great for taking down low con score individuals with poor Fort saves and making some very nasty undead in the process (ghouls but hey 4th level!  )

Pr-class wise, Blessed of Mesos is by far the best sorcerer pr-class, as it will turn your "hey look at the spells I cast" sorcerer into "I am the POWER!" Blessed of Mesos. The Bardic Pr-classes are decent, Keeper of the Epics is nice. Wizard wise, I favor Moonwitch but it's also a decent Cleric Pr-class. 

Feats, well you got a lot of general feats, but for sorcerers, there's Scion feats (not exactly uber powerful but for a handful of spells that you can have a +1 caster level increase, it's not bad. Plus it's darn flavorful in my view.) 

You also get indepth look at how wizardy is viewed by wizards and their "art", Socery and their "craft" and the Bards and their ability to sing. (Oh yeah, 3.5 bards, don't generate heat either as one option.)


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 17, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> If you, and they, place such a low value on spells known that you can't be bothered to scribe new ones, then why is the feat of any value at all?




Actually, it's not what I was meaning to say... I meant to say that we scribe quite few spells because we find few spells to copy to the spellbook (and when I'm a Wizard, I copy all scrolls I can find). We have played many published adventures however, so it's not just our homebrew ones with this low rate.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 17, 2004)

This is very interesting:



			
				coyote6 said:
			
		

> There are new rules in Complete Adventurer; one particular rule is titled "Mastering a Foreign Spellbook" -- take one week +1 day/spell, and make a Spellcraft check (DC 25+highest level spell), and you master that spellbook -- you know all the spells in it, you don't have to copy them into another book (if you do, it's presumably the same as copying from your book -- half cost), and you can prepare from that book without any problems.
> 
> So, as soon as a wizard gets a good enough Spellcraft check, and gets some other wizard's spellbook, he'll get all sorts of spells, for free. No gold, no feat -- just time and a skill check.




So it sounds like these are intended changes around the Wizard class. Altogether with the 3.5 reduced cost to scribe, it significantly changes the wizard class (doesn't completely change it, I just mean it's a sensible change, not a detail IMHO). I wonder why this wasn't in the revised PHB tho, it seems very important to me...

[QUOTE/]The Extra Spell feat is in CA, too.[/QUOTE]

Any change? Since it's for Sorcerers, I guess it still has the limit of up to one level less the maximum you can cast.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 17, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> > The Extra Spell feat is in CA, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dunno about CA, but the psionic version (Expanded Knowledge) has the "one level less" limit. However, it also has the advantage that you can get powers normally unavailable to you - it would be cool if the sorcerer version allowed you to get cleric/druid spells.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 17, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not what I was meaning to say... I meant to say that we scribe quite few spells because we find few spells to copy to the spellbook (and when I'm a Wizard, I copy all scrolls I can find).



Ahhh, I see.


> We have played many published adventures however, so it's not just our homebrew ones with this low rate.




That's because most adventures assume that when you're out of the dungeon, it's an easy thing to find spells to scribe. You want a spell? You pays yer money and gets it.

Giving them out in treasure is just a way of saying "look guys, this is wizard only treasure, alright?". So it's not commonly done without good reason.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Nov 18, 2004)

_Somewhere in the darkness, a tiny twig snaps and Anabstercorian throws a hissy fit._



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> Pr-class wise, Blessed of Mesos is by far the best sorcerer pr-class, as it will turn your "hey look at the spells I cast" sorcerer into "I am the POWER!" Blessed of Mesos.




*The Blessed of Mesos is the most broken prestige class I have ever seen.*  Yes, I've seen it in play.  I PLAYED it.  I eventually discarded the class out of sheer disgust and guilt, even at the cost of being declared a hated enemy of all worshippers of Mesos.

Not only that, there's no theme to it beyond, "I'm so powerful!"  There's no way to balance it without removing everything that makes it a Blessed of Mesos.  It is broken, marrow-deep.  It's twinkery pollutes it like Mesos' essense pollutes Sharn.  It.  Is.  Unbalanced.

PLEASE STOP SINGING ITS PRAISES!


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 18, 2004)

Wow...some one needs a time out. 

(Has played one too and allowed one.) I even got a Ring of Mesos when I played. But believe me I wasn't as cheesed running a Blessed of Mesos than I was running it.

Guilt is bad but not as bad to using BoM as a plot device.


----------



## Koewn (Nov 18, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Actually, I think about the only thing Delay spell is good for is the scry-buff-teleport routine.




What about for Time Stop? I didn't catch the actual effect of the feat anywhere, but if it turns anything into a Delayed Blast Fireball, basically...depending on what the level adjustment is.

Koewn


----------



## Gez (Nov 18, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Its twinkery pollutes it like Mesos' essense pollutes Sharn.




Wow! This time, they were serious about banishing the Titans, if they sent Mesos' essence to Eberron!

Maybe it explains the prevalence of magic in that world, though...


----------



## Geoff Watson (Nov 18, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> _Somewhere in the darkness, a tiny twig snaps and Anabstercorian throws a hissy fit._
> 
> PLEASE STOP SINGING ITS PRAISES!




It's from Scarred Lands. Nightfall is unreasonably biased, so ignore him.

Geoff.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> That's because most adventures assume that when you're out of the dungeon, it's an easy thing to find spells to scribe. You want a spell? You pays yer money and gets it.
> 
> Giving them out in treasure is just a way of saying "look guys, this is wizard only treasure, alright?". So it's not commonly done without good reason.



 I think you meant to say "Wizard, Sorceror, Rogue and Bard and some clerics (depending) treasure" right?  

 I mean, it isn't really much different from saying that a magic bastard sword is "fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger only treasure", potentially.  Not all treasure is going to be equally useful....which is why lots of it often gets sold.


----------



## ARandomGod (Nov 18, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> ...If its no better than a spell from the level its adjusted to just cast a spell of that level instead of wasting a feat and preparing a weaker spell modified to a new level.  ...




This I have to agree with... Of course, I generally agree with it the opposite way, in that I think that metamagic feats as written are good only for the sorc's out there. As, for a sorc, each metamagic feat (that adds at least one level) effectively doubles the sorc's spells known, which is pretty good for a sorc. However a mage simply shouldn't use metamagic feats. It's not worth it. You want an empowered fireball? Research a fireball of that higher level. Easily does the same amount of damage AND is a higher level. 

However 2d4 level drain is already a spell... a ninth level spell. Interesting.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 18, 2004)

Koewn said:
			
		

> What about for Time Stop? I didn't catch the actual effect of the feat anywhere, but if it turns anything into a Delayed Blast Fireball, basically...depending on what the level adjustment is.
> 
> Koewn




yeah cause a feat whoose only purpose is to work well with time stop is such a great feat.   

The LA is +3 spell levels which makes it useless.  Lets look at the only delayed spell I can think of as an example delayed balst fireball 7th level powerful spell and all.  What's its damage cap 20d6, whats the damage cap for a 7th level area of effect spell hey 20d6.  Noe elts see I want to delay a spell lets make its end result a 7th level spell that makes it a 4th level spell hm damage cap on a area of effect 4th level spell 10d6 oooh scary at those levels.  Even at a +0 level adjustment it wouldn't be that great of a feat.  Useful sure but last time I checked feats were supposed to be useful.

Chain spell for damaging spells falls into the same trap.  For damaging spells a +3 la kicks it up too many levels so because of damage caps and weaker DCs it turns the spell into a weak spell and a feat shouldn't turn your spells into weak spells it was supposed to be a benefit to take it.  Chain spell luckily has a saving grace of working on spells like greater magic weapon all the more important with todays golf bag syndrome being so prevailent.  If they had got off their butts and redisgned it instead of cut and pasting it, they would of either split in into 2 feats or had differing La based on the type of spell.  Damaging effects+1La, all other effects+3 spell levels.  Still a decent feat just for the save or dies and GMW but the fact that they didn't fix the damage part means they served us up a heaping bowl of crap with a side order of sucker(otherwise known as why did you trust us to do our jobs instead of just taking the easy way out)


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 18, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It sounds like you don't value the 'cast on the fly' ability as much as I tend to.  The wizard suffers from a classic dilemma...."_Do I need it, today?_"  When plenty of prep time is available, the wizard has a distinct advantage.  In an unknown situation, he has associated meta-game costs with selecting the right spell at the right time.  Will he need that Feather Fall, or will it turn out to be a wasted spell?  The sorceror has no such problems...he either has the spell appropriate to the situation or he doesn't.
> 
> This becomes more pronounced at higher levels.






			
				Felon said:
			
		

> If spells/day were really a sorc's job, that would be a sorry job indeed, since as has been pointed out with the warlock rationale, that becomes progressively less and less of a factor. A sorc's job is flexibility on the spur of the moment through spontaneous casting, whereas a wizard's is flexibility when preparing ahead of time, thanks to his vast repetoire.






			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're saying here...that you would create a feat that turned a sorceror into a wizard?  Sorcerors get more spell slots in return for their lack of spell choice.  A feat like you describe, forcing them to memorize their spells would essentially make them wizards with a slightly different skill list and more spell slots.




Allow me to pass along one of my favorite and most useful arcane spellcaster combinations (assuming the prerequisites stayed the same in Complete Arcane)...

Build a 5th level (or 6th level for non-humans) Sorcerer with 8 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), the Arcane Preparation feat, Cooperative Spell feat and any other Metamagic feat.  Now take the Mage of the Arcane Order prestige class.

You pick your most useful combat spells for your Sorcerer's known spells.  Since all your daily slots are spontaneous slots and are always 'unprepared', you can take a full-round action to drop a utility spell (assuming it's available in the pool) from the Spellpool into them at anytime.  You gain the utmost in versatility, and become perhaps the best universal wizard available, while retaining combat capability.

The disadvantage is that, with this combination, the two feats required to meet the prerequisites for the prestige class, Arcane Preparation nd Cooperative Spell, are nearly useless.  Is it worth it?  Under most circumstances, I think so.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2004)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Allow me to pass along one of my favorite and most useful arcane spellcaster combinations (assuming the prerequisites stayed the same in Complete Arcane)...



 They didn't, but the MoAo is actually easier to access, now.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> Build a 5th level (or 6th level for non-humans) Sorcerer with 8 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), the Arcane Preparation feat, Cooperative Spell feat and any other Metamagic feat. Now take the Mage of the Arcane Order prestige class.
> 
> You pick your most useful combat spells for your Sorcerer's known spells. Since all your daily slots are spontaneous slots and are always 'unprepared', you can take a full-round action to drop a utility spell (assuming it's available in the pool) from the Spellpool into them at anytime. You gain the utmost in versatility, and become perhaps the best universal wizard available, while retaining combat capability.
> 
> The disadvantage is that, with this combination, the two feats required to meet the prerequisites for the prestige class, Arcane Preparation nd Cooperative Spell, are nearly useless. Is it worth it? Under most circumstances, I think so.



 The best universal wizard available?  A good one, yes, but the best?  Not really.  The wizard still has a better spell selection and gets higher levels spells, sooner.   Getting 1/2 your levels in spell capacity is not exactly giant.  It's a good combination, though.

 However, if you're trying to say that he dedicates all his slots to the spellpool...well, it didn't work that way before, and it doesn't work that way, now.  He's still limited by his class level and MoAo level.  A 9th level sorceror/3 level MoAo still only gets 6 spell levels out of the pool.  At 12th level, a bonus 6th level spell is nice, but not amazing.  The big bonus for the sorceror is that he can pull from ANY spell in the pool, not just his meager collection.  However, he's also got to pay it back, but that's easier for a sorceror than a wizard.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Nov 18, 2004)

Actually, Arcane Prep is a very good feat for sorcerers as long as they also get Quicken Spell somewhere down the line. Being able to actually use Quicken Spell is very very good for sorcerers.



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> The disadvantage is that, with this combination, the two feats required to meet the prerequisites for the prestige class, Arcane Preparation nd Cooperative Spell, are nearly useless.  Is it worth it?  Under most circumstances, I think so.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 18, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> However, if you're trying to say that he dedicates all his slots to the spellpool...well, it didn't work that way before, and it doesn't work that way, now.  He's still limited by his class level and MoAo level.  A 9th level sorceror/3 level MoAo still only gets 6 spell levels out of the pool.  At 12th level, a bonus 6th level spell is nice, but not amazing.




But I thought that limit only applied to how far into debt you could go...

I'd have to double check my T&B, which I have available at the moment, but I thought you could run up Spellpool credit by dumping spells into the Spellpool after your dept is paid off.  Just toss a few spells in everyday to get a buffer of Spellpool levels.

Anyway...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> The big bonus for the sorceror is that he can pull from ANY spell in the pool, not just his meager collection.  However, he's also got to pay it back, but that's easier for a sorceror than a wizard.




This was precisely the point I was trying to make.  The combination let you cast all those powerful spells you need lots of during combat, but stills gives you the option to use the occasional, but very useful, non-combat spell that many wizards are loath to 'waste' a prepared spell slot on.

Back to the topic...

I'm really looking forward to picking up this book, and I'm glad to see some of my favorite PrCs, feats and spells made the cut alongside the new material.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2004)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> I'd have to double check my T&B, which I have available at the moment, but I thought you could run up Spellpool credit by dumping spells into the Spellpool after your dept is paid off. Just toss a few spells in everyday to get a buffer of Spellpool levels.



 I could easily be wrong, but I thought there was a limit to how much you could pull out of the spell pool.  I have the CA right here, and the spell pool section there is explicit in the limits of taking out.  You have a limit equal to half your total root arcane+MOAO levels.  You need to pay it back within a short fixed time, or lose all priveleges entirely.



			
				PBartender said:
			
		

> This was precisely the point I was trying to make. The combination let you cast all those powerful spells you need lots of during combat, but stills gives you the option to use the occasional, but very useful, non-combat spell that many wizards are loath to 'waste' a prepared spell slot on.



 Oh, don't get me wrong: it's a good combo.  It's just not the ultimate spellcaster, is all.  It's actually a pretty clever idea.  

Either way, I'm quite fond of the book.  I think it, like T&B before it, is the best of the class books, so far.  Hopefully WotC doesn't follow the same pattern with the following books, though.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 18, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> (Has played one too and allowed one.) I even got a Ring of Mesos when I played. But believe me I wasn't as cheesed running a Blessed of Mesos than I was running it.
> 
> Guilt is bad but not as bad to using BoM as a plot device.




Eh? Please rephrase. I didn't understand any of that. And not just because I've no idea what a blessed of mesos/ring of mesos does...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I think you meant to say "Wizard, Sorceror, Rogue and Bard and some clerics (depending) treasure" right?
> 
> I mean, it isn't really much different from saying that a magic bastard sword is "fighter, paladin, barbarian and ranger only treasure", potentially.  Not all treasure is going to be equally useful....which is why lots of it often gets sold.




I was referring to spells as part of a spellbook actually, which is where you get your really big haul of copyable spells (and you should almost never scribe from a scroll - just get someone to show you their copy...)

A magic bastard sword is of use to anyone with martial weapon proficiency, and can still be used by anyone even without it. A spellbook containing level 6 spells is only of use to someone with 11 levels of wizard casting available...


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 19, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> It's from Scarred Lands. Nightfall is unreasonably biased, so ignore him.
> 
> Geoff.



Not necessarily unreasonable, but I will admit bias. 

And yes you folks can ignore me if you wish. So far though few have been able to shut me off.

Gez,

Eh. I figured Mesos spread himself across the multiverse when he when boom/sunder. 

Sae,

I played a Sorcerer/Blessed of Mesos. I got a ring of Mesos before I even hit 8th level which is when you generally qualify for Blessed of Mesos. Ring of Mesos acts like a more powerful ring of wizardry but it increases the number of spells 1st through 4th. I felt dirty doing so since the power of the Blessed of Mesos, (as one of its special abilities) grants me MORE Known spells than just blowing feats for Extra slots, based on my Cha Score. (However because of the requirements for the class, I still have to burn available slots for my Scion Feat which is what powers the Blessed of Mesos). So combined with that, I could, in theory, out blast a War Mage or even a Warlock. And that's not even counting the fact I get at 5th level of the class, the ability to counterspell just rolling opposed Spellcraft versus some other spellcaster (any spellcaster's) Concentration check. (DC is my Spellcraft roll.) Oh and I also can cast using Concentration checks and a pool of points that allow me to freely cast (without taking a full round action), any metamagic feat I know. (Same is true of the ring but the combined might is very cool nonetheless.)

HOWEVER, when I ran a Scarred Lands game with a PC  using Blessed of Mesos, it was quite fun. I had his blood "sing' alot and have effects akin to "spellfire" in terms of it was reactive to many different magic effects and/or blood memories. Overall I didn't see him blast away much of anything. (Course I'm not STUPID enough to let him see them coming but still!) 

So while I felt guilty for PLAYING a Blessed of Mesos, I had 0 compunction about having one in my Scarred Lands game. And I still don't.


----------



## coyote6 (Nov 19, 2004)

Re: Spellpool -- in both T&B and CA (and whatever book the Waterdeep version appeared  in, too, IIRC), a mage can't draw more total levels of spells from the Spellpool per day than half their caster level. So, the Wiz6/MotAO4 can draw up to 5 levels of spells per day -- five 1st level, 1 5th, a 2nd & a 3rd, or whatever.

Now, in T&B, a spellcaster could dump spells in the Spellpool ahead of time, and thus run up a Spellpool "credit". In CA, you aren't allowed to build up credit, and they specify the time limit between drawing on the Spellpool and paying back the debt (IIRC, a day per class level) -- past that, and you lose access to the Spellpool until you're paid up. Run a debt for more than a year, and you're kicked out.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 19, 2004)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Not necessarily unreasonable, but I will admit bias.
> 
> And yes you folks can ignore me if you wish. So far though few have been able to shut me off.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the info Nightfall.  I'll have to see if I can see a copy in one of my local stores.  I just found a new one recently, so I'll check them out.

I'm a little unsure of the Blessed of Mesos, but I think I can make up my opinion after seeing it.

I did flip through the book at one point, and saw a prestige class that seemed to be for sorcerers with celestial bloodlines, that looked interesting, but I can't remember what it did.

Banshee


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Nov 19, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> The other guy was assuming one would have to buy each spells from scrolls, but you were talking like you can always find a wizard who lets you copy any spell you need for the minimum price. I just wanted to point out that both were having extreme circumstances on their mind.




Actually, I usually can copy any spell I need for no cost other than the scribing costs.  My GM is fairly good about this; it mostly consists of hunting down another mage and offering to trade access to spells of equal level.  They're theoretically worth the same, after all, so -- no money exchanged.  The only problem is availability.

By the way, I don't think the feat is overpowered.  As, I think, Andy Collins said at one point -- anything that you can get your players to spend on something that does not have an immediate combat benefit is a good thing.  Feats fall into this category.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Nov 20, 2004)

Trainz said:
			
		

> -Resist Energy, Mass (4th Wiz, 3rd Cleric): This is an awesome spell. Blue Dragon attacking ? After the cleric's init, EVERYONE laughs at his breath weapon.



3rd level for cleric?  Wow, even though the normal version is 2nd level?  Does it work the same except for affecting something like 1 character per level?  That seems extreme to jump from regular as a 2nd level spell to mass at 3rd!


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 20, 2004)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I did flip through the book at one point, and saw a prestige class that seemed to be for sorcerers with celestial bloodlines, that looked interesting, but I can't remember what it did.
> 
> Banshee



That would be Angel blooded using the Child of Heavens Scion feat. It basically allows the arcane spellcaster to start casting some divine spells as well as change into a slightly less powerful half celestial. 

I always let people make up their own mind even if I'm biased.  In any event I do think comparative wise, PG: Wizards, Bards and Sorcerers is very good but probably not on par in some respects as Complete Arcane. Same is true with Complete Warrior versus PG: Fighters and Barbarians. (Though I completely dug the Totem feats.) I did however favor PG: Clerics and Druids over Complete Divine, but that's just because it was more thorough. 

Just some comments on that really.


----------



## beaver1024 (Nov 20, 2004)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> 3rd level for cleric?  Wow, even though the normal version is 2nd level?  Does it work the same except for affecting something like 1 character per level?  That seems extreme to jump from regular as a 2nd level spell to mass at 3rd!




Because the cleric spell list is so underpowered compared to the arcane spell list that it needs beefing up.


----------



## Trainz (Nov 20, 2004)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> Because the cleric spell list is so underpowered compared to the arcane spell list that it needs beefing up.




I'm assuming that was irony...

I just love the cleric. The base cleric is cool, the CD cleric is cooler, and now the CD-CA cleric is coolest !

That said, as long as not everyone in the team wants to play a cleric, I think the class is still not THAT overpowered.


----------



## Gort (Nov 20, 2004)

Yeah, but if you were an evil supervillain nerd and tied up a bunch of veteran D&Ders and said, "Okay, we're going to play D&D, but if your character dies, I'll shoot you!" you'll end up with a team entirely made out of clerics and druids.

Just cause people don't necessarily want to play a religious nut or a nature boy does not stop those two classes from being the most powerful.


----------



## beaver1024 (Nov 20, 2004)

Gort said:
			
		

> Yeah, but if you were an evil supervillain nerd ....




Would the evil super villain nerd be running Linux with plans of world domination through the Internet? *snort*


----------



## ARandomGod (Nov 23, 2004)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> Re: Spellpool -- in both T&B and CA (and whatever book the Waterdeep version appeared  in, too, IIRC), a mage can't draw more total levels of spells from the Spellpool per day than half their caster level. So, the Wiz6/MotAO4 can draw up to 5 levels of spells per day -- five 1st level, 1 5th, a 2nd & a 3rd, or whatever.
> 
> Now, in T&B, a spellcaster could dump spells in the Spellpool ahead of time, and thus run up a Spellpool "credit". In CA, you aren't allowed to build up credit, and they specify the time limit between drawing on the Spellpool and paying back the debt (IIRC, a day per class level) -- past that, and you lose access to the Spellpool until you're paid up. Run a debt for more than a year, and you're kicked out.




Well, obviously the way to go there is to play a T&BMotA, and never a BAMotA.

MmmMm. Letters.


----------



## Lodow MoBo (Nov 23, 2004)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> There are new rules in Complete Adventurer; one particular rule is titled "Mastering a Foreign Spellbook" -- take one week +1 day/spell, and make a Spellcraft check (DC 25+highest level spell), and you master that spellbook -- you know all the spells in it, you don't have to copy them into another book (if you do, it's presumably the same as copying from your book -- half cost), and you can prepare from that book without any problems.




Standard PHB Spellcraft rule:
Learn a Spell from a spellbook or scroll :dc15 + spell level (8 hours)
Prepare a Spell from a borrowed spell book : dc 15 + spell level (no extra time)

Any 6th lvl wizard should handle this by taking 10
9 ranks + 3 int +10 = 22


----------



## Gez (Nov 23, 2004)

The "spellbook mastering" rule was also in Magic of Faerûn.

In it, it took one tenday (FR weeks are tenday, and lasts for, what a surprise, ten days) +1 day per spell. The spellcraft DC is the same (25+highest spell level). It seems the rule hasn't changed, except for the change from one tenday to one week.

Incidentally, in the same book is the Guild Wizard of Waterdeep, the other Spellpool class. The biggest difference between MoF spellpool and T&B spellpool as written was the Spell Availability rule. "The percentage chance that a desired spell is available in any given 24-hour period is equal to 65% minus 5% per level of the spell." T&B was later errated to use this rule as well.

Does the CA version of spellpool use still that rule?

Finally, if you aren't allowed anymore to build spellpool credit, then how can the magical reservoir even be filled? Imagine a bank from where you -- or anyone else in the world -- could only borrow money (in coins and banknotes), and repay your debt the same way (with 0 interest rate). You would _not_ be able to borrow any money, for the bank's coffers would be empty. No one having ever been allowed to put in a credit, there would be no cash to borrow at all. Not now, not ever.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 23, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Finally, if you aren't allowed anymore to build spellpool credit, then how can the magical reservoir even be filled? Imagine a bank from where you -- or anyone else in the world -- could only borrow money (in coins and banknotes), and repay your debt the same way (with 0 interest rate). You would _not_ be able to borrow any money, for the bank's coffers would be empty. No one having ever been allowed to put in a credit, there would be no cash to borrow at all. Not now, not ever.




Mmm... good point!   

There must be someone else in the Arcane Order who fills the spellpool beforehand.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2004)

There's probably a big crystal in the Arcane Guild infused with spell patterns and energy, from which the spells are drawn. 

Cheers!


----------



## hong (Nov 23, 2004)

Gez said:
			
		

> Finally, if you aren't allowed anymore to build spellpool credit, then how can the magical reservoir even be filled?




Offstage.


Hong "it's all done with mirrors" Ooi


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 23, 2004)

Lodow MoBo said:
			
		

> Standard PHB Spellcraft rule:
> Learn a Spell from a spellbook or scroll :dc15 + spell level (8 hours)
> Prepare a Spell from a borrowed spell book : dc 15 + spell level (no extra time)
> 
> ...



Just a note. The second rule (preparing from a borrowed spellbook) only applies to spells which you've already scribed into your own spellbook. It sucks, and it's nonsensical, but there it is.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Nov 23, 2004)

Where's that rule, Saev?


----------



## MDSnowman (Nov 24, 2004)

Not bad, I think I'll actually like this one. 

Oh yeah and anyone who thinks half the Prestige Classes in Complete Warrior were new better pick up some back issues of Dragon. The total lack of new things in a book that big was one of the big let downs to me.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 25, 2004)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Where's that rule, Saev?




"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above)."

The key phrase is that you can use the rule to prepare a spell you already know and have recorded in your own spellbook.

This is present in the SRD.

If someone wants to check an actual PHB, great. I'd be really relieved to find that this rule is in error.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 25, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> "A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above)."
> 
> The key phrase is that you can use the rule to prepare a spell you already know and have recorded in your own spellbook.
> 
> ...



 No difference in the PHB. That's how it works.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 25, 2004)

MDSnowman said:
			
		

> Not bad, I think I'll actually like this one.
> 
> Oh yeah and anyone who thinks half the Prestige Classes in Complete Warrior were new better pick up some back issues of Dragon. The total lack of new things in a book that big was one of the big let downs to me.




Well, I see the Complete series as being mainly a compilation of material. It also represents a big revision of material, and that's something I want - the classes in Dragon magazine are rarely as polished as those that appear in the Complete books.

CA fixed up a lot of PrC from Tome & Blood - which was very ragged round the edges.

Cheers!


----------



## Pants (Nov 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> CA fixed up a lot of PrC from Tome & Blood - which was very ragged round the edges.
> 
> Cheers!



Indeed, though, I still really like it.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 25, 2004)

By the way, is it true that the CArc also has monsters???

Does anyone else feel like WotC is recently trying to publish books which contain both player's and master's material?

In a way, it makes sense to arrange books by subject (arcane stuff -> Complete Arcane ; cold stuff -> Frostburn ; undead stuff -> Libris Mortis) so that one can buy a single book which focuses on a specific theme to improve/strengthen that theme in their games.

OTOH, it's also a clever way to increase sales, IMO. However I liked how previous books were either more player-oriented or DM-oriented. For me, the fact that players weren't (sometimes) going to have the same books as the DM, meant that the DM was somewhat safer...


----------



## shilsen (Nov 25, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> OTOH, it's also a clever way to increase sales, IMO. However I liked how previous books were either more player-oriented or DM-oriented. For me, the fact that players weren't (sometimes) going to have the same books as the DM, meant that the DM was somewhat safer...




No, no - you're missing all the fun possibilities! For example, this is what usually happens when DM and players both have access to the same book, which has DM-oriented and player-oriented material.

Step 1: DM tells players, "Remember, just because the book says things work in a particular way doesn't mean it works that way in my campaign".

Step 2: PCs encounter something which the players have read about in the book.

Step 3: Players struggle briefly to forget their OOC knowledge and remember Step 1.

Step 4: Players fail their Will saves, have their PCs act on OOC knowledge, and find out that the DM didn't lie in Step 1, as the PCs suffer horrible, flaming destruction.

Step 5: DM sleeps happily at night, cooing to himself in his sleep.

See - fun all around


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 25, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> No, no - you're missing all the fun possibilities! For example, this is what usually happens when DM and players both have access to the same book, which has DM-oriented and player-oriented material.
> 
> Step 1: DM tells players, "Remember, just because the book says things work in a particular way doesn't mean it works that way in my campaign".




Aha! That explains why so many "stupid DM!" threads recently


----------



## Staffan (Nov 25, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> By the way, is it true that the CArc also has monsters???



A few, yes. These are mostly monsters related to the other stuff in the book.

Effigy Creature - template that makes a clockwork construct version of a monster (there's a PrC devoted to these).
Elemental Grue - 3 HD evil elementals.
Elemental Monolith - REALLY big (Gargantuan, 36 HD) elementals (There's a 9th level spell that summons one).
Pseudonatural Creature - template for Creatures From Beyond (used with Alienists).
Spellstitched Creature - template for magically boosted undead.

Haven't read enough to know if the grues and spellstitched are directly related to anything else in the book.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 25, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Well, I see the Complete series as being mainly a compilation of material. It also represents a big revision of material, and that's something I want - the classes in Dragon magazine are rarely as polished as those that appear in the Complete books.
> 
> CA fixed up a lot of PrC from Tome & Blood - which was very ragged round the edges.
> 
> Cheers!




I see a dead horse that needs tenderising.  Yeah it would of been great if they had fixed up the feats as well like delay spell.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 25, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I see a dead horse that needs tenderising.  Yeah it would of been great if they had fixed up the feats as well like delay spell.




I'm sure they look at the feats... it just that they didn't agree with your idea on the balancing of the feat. 

Cheers!


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Nov 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I'm sure they look at the feats... it just that they didn't agree with your idea on the balancing of the feat.
> 
> Cheers!




I'd like to think they didn't look because if they did they wouldn't be a toys'r'us I mean that would mean they are really, really, really bad at balancing things.  +3 spell levels on delay is flat out lame.  And besides there have been enough example sof pure cut and paste jobs in previous products that I think its fairly likely they did it here as well.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 26, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I'd like to think they didn't look because if they did they wouldn't be a toys'r'us I mean that would mean they are really, really, really bad at balancing things.  +3 spell levels on delay is flat out lame.  And besides there have been enough example sof pure cut and paste jobs in previous products that I think its fairly likely they did it here as well.




Certainly there have been "cut n paste" jobs - but I think all of the material was reviewed. (Even the Geomancer, which I know has been derided for leaving Scry in the skill list, actually had Wilderness Lore updated to Survival!)

I do think they will be conservative with some abilities. Delay Spell could be such a swingy ability. Thankfully it isn't in the other direction. Overpowered is much more of a problem than underpowered.

Complete Arcane actually has a lot of updated material in it, so to find Delay Spell wasn't changed is interesting.

Cheers!


----------



## Eremite (Nov 26, 2004)

I just picked this up and, so far, have really enjoyed it. It seems to be the best of the Complete books thus far, IMO.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 26, 2004)

Eremite said:
			
		

> I just picked this up and, so far, have really enjoyed it. It seems to be the best of the Complete books thus far, IMO.




I think it's very good - but I like the Complete Warrior better. It's odd. Even though I prefer playing Wizards and Bards over other classes, I just find the combat options and feats in CW to be really great for my games. 

Cheers!


----------



## Eremite (Nov 26, 2004)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I think it's very good - but I like the Complete Warrior better. It's odd. Even though I prefer playing Wizards and Bards over other classes, I just find the combat options and feats in CW to be really great for my games.
> 
> Cheers!




I liked CW a lot as well because of the combat options and feats as well. I think it was the sheer creativity of the new warlock class that won me over to CA (and I think I'm leaning toward Rich Baker being one of my favourite designers).


----------

