Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

First, Hold X is Mind-Affecting and Paralyzes, two things I'd hope any wizard would have protections against. Even if not, it doesn't stop Teleport/Door/etc, so the wizard can still get the hell out.

Hold person does prevent speech, meaning a held Wizard couldn't cast teleport or dimension door, since both have Verbal components. There are ways to bypass the component, of course, but they tend not to feature in optimised builds because the opportunity cost tends to be too high. (And, of course, because as you say, you'd expect the Wizard to avoid being held in the first place.)

Just one thought with regard to the "protect me from all harm" instruction to the summoned devil... bear in mind that such creatures both have high mental stats and are the ultimate in rules-lawyers. The most efficient way for the devil to protect the Wizard from harm is probably to take him back to Hell and keep him safely imprisoned there - the Wizard would need to phrase his request extremely carefully, or it will be abused.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Hold person does prevent speech, meaning a held Wizard couldn't cast teleport or dimension door, since both have Verbal components. There are ways to bypass the component, of course, but they tend not to feature in optimised builds because the opportunity cost tends to be too high. (And, of course, because as you say, you'd expect the Wizard to avoid being held in the first place.)
Third Eye(Freedom). Dirt cheap. Awesome.
Just one thought with regard to the "protect me from all harm" instruction to the summoned devil... bear in mind that such creatures both have high mental stats and are the ultimate in rules-lawyers. The most efficient way for the devil to protect the Wizard from harm is probably to take him back to Hell and keep him safely imprisoned there - the Wizard would need to phrase his request extremely carefully, or it will be abused.
I know, and I'm not questioning that, and, although I'd enjoy the karmic hilarity of it, I'd not and I doubt many DMs would waste time making the person write it out in extreme clarity, especially since wizards are all polyglots in fictional languages and all vastly smarter than the players. But that's a metagame problem that I'll not argue, just point out that, were I to bother spamming Planar Binding, I actually would go and write up a several page contract.
 

Hold X is Mind-Affecting and Paralyzes, two things I'd hope any wizard would have protections against.
My knowledge of 3E supplements is limited, and of PF even moreso. I mostly know those bits of core 3E that are close to AD&D.

For protections against Mind-Affecting magic I only know Mind Blank, which is quite high level; and for protection against paralysis I don't know of any effect. If I was actually GMing a game with a wizard who had such effects I would probably know about them and therefore be able to work around them.

Another option I would have thought might cause a mid-level wizard trouble is Anti-magic Field, followed by a grapple from the enemy caster's troll friend.
 

Wouldn't Silent Spell eliminate the verbal component?
But in a "storyteller" style game would the player of the wizard have many spells memorised Silently just to circumvent the possibility of a "rocks fall" style lich encounter?

And if they did, the GM who wanted to push the wizard in some particular direction would do something else. Reactive and strong GM force is at the heart of the "storyteller" approach.
 

Wouldn't Silent Spell eliminate the verbal component?

Yes, provided you had taken the feat and memorised the spell with the feat. But there are other useful things to spend those feat choices on, and it's a waste of a higher level slot on the off-chance of being held. (And a metamagic rod won't help in this instance, unless the Wizard just happens to have it in-hand when he gets held, but how likely is that?)

As I said, there are certainly ways around the Verbal component, but they tend not to appear in optimised builds. As CJ rightly notes, it's much more likely (and not much harder) to simply avoid being held in the first place.
 

Yes, provided you had taken the feat and memorised the spell with the feat. But there are other useful things to spend those feat choices on, and it's a waste of a higher level slot on the off-chance of being held.

But in a "storyteller" style game would the player of the wizard have many spells memorised Silently just to circumvent the possibility of a "rocks fall" style lich encounter?
Actually a Silent DD is good against Grapples and the Silence spell as well. It is a good choice to counter obvious threats.

And if they did, the GM who wanted to push the wizard in some particular direction would do something else. Reactive and strong GM force is at the heart of the "storyteller" approach.
What is the difference between the "storyteller" approach and railroading?
 

Again, I believe one can take 10 on COP, but if we are ruling that does not work, then I would avoid it in favor of Prying Eyes.

I agree that the question of whether you can take 10 is very much a matter of interpretation. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] makes a comment re planar binding that interpretation should favour the words included having a purpose. I both agree and acknowledge that this is a legalistic view in that each word of a statute is presumed, when interpreted by the courts, to have meaning. Legislatures and legal draftsmen, however, often make it difficult to maintain this belief…

To the broader issue, I don’t disagree that divination spells can make the location process a lot easier. My disagreement was with a presumption I don’t believe you have espoused, that divination spells can effectively provide the wizard with a fully keyed map of the dragon’s lair and its local environs.

Ultimately, the adventure in any game I’m in would have several different means by which the dragon’s lair can be located, because that was the point of having a dragon’s lair in the adventure in the first place. I do not believe, however, that the players (wizards or otherwise) can readily and conclusively pin down all of the details of that lair.

Even Aquatic Elves get longbow proficiency.

Odd – I’d envision them spending way more time underwater, and it’s pretty clear the bow doesn’t work underwater at all, I believe. As well, slashing weapons aren’t much use underwater, are they? It seems like the author just applied the standard Elf proficiencies. Either that or the abilities are intended less for a race of elves that lives underwater than a more amphibious elf, but they maintain a limited period of survival out of water, so that’s not it.

I chalk it up to writer laziness in cut & paste of standard elf abilities as we write up another half dozen elven subraces. Looking at their w/u, “A lizardfolk is automatically proficient with simple weapons and shields.” I believe that makes bow users unusual.

In any case, would it be reasonable to agree that, in a game where the appropriate response to “the dragon’s keen sense of smell detects the invisible wizard creeping into his lair” is “dragons do not have scent included in their writeup, so that cannot happen”, the bow wielding lizardfolk are equally impossible? That’s not the game I play, and I suspect it’s not the game you’re playing, so the only point that bow-wielding lizardfolk would concern me is if the outlier guards/scouts/hunting parties all had javelins, but once we planned an attack based on that level of armament, suddenly the other lizardfok had bows.

I am uncertain why the Wizard is in the water or swamp in the first place if he can cast Fly on himself. Remember, Fighters obey the laws of physics, Wizards rewrite them.

I imagine you could cast a Fly spell, then Teleport above the village.

Depends on his time requirements. One minute per level is a “full combat” spell, but not that long for reconnoitering. Overland Flight is long term, but its maneuverability imposes that stall speed, so the wizard loses the ability to hover and has to constantly move, meaning a greater risk of detection even if invisible as he moves back and forth through the swampy areas.

If the Wizard has cast Fly on himself, his invisible body is still floating in the air sans further command from the Wizard. Alternatively, he could position his body in a tree, perhaps?

You know, I never considered what happens if a flying wizard stops taking actions. If he “cannot act”, does he fall (presumably at the slowed rate as a Fly spell ends) or hover? Which one requires he use an action? Is that clarified anywhere?

Regardless, it would require Fly, not Overland Flight. He could certainly be invisible up there and be within the 100’ or more range to use his Magic Jar. Be a bad time for the dragon to fly in through his airspace, but that’s not far off the previous javelin users discovering the bow just in time for our attack.

Teleport eliminates the need to physically haul something through the swamp. Stop thinking like a fighter.

OK, let me ensure I understand the proposition. First, the wizard secretes his invisible body somewhere it’s not easily stumbled upon, but within (say) 100’ of the lizardfolk village. Then he Magic Jars into a Lizardfolk (presumably selecting an area where there are only two life forces that could be lizardfolk, and selecting one, ideally one with a 4+ HD advantage over the other, being the finest differentiation he can make). Assuming that works out (and I don’t like the Lizard targets odds of making the save), we now have a wizard in a lizardfolk body who attempts to take down the second lizard quickly, without attracting more attention to himself. He’s a L10 or so wizard, and likely arranged to ambush a 2 HD standard Lizard who is taken by surprise, so that should be practical.

What now? He’s in the Lizard body. Does he drag the prisoner back to his body (easier said than done if he’s using that hover in place trick, and likely to attract attention if he has to drag the fellow through the village)? Does he end the Magic Jar and hope his now vacated host doesn’t raise the alarm? He’ll have to vacate eventually. Does his Lizard host teleport him back to his host body so he can then teleport out after ending the magic jar? Does the GM notice that “You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature (carrying gear or objects up to its maximum load) or its equivalent (see below) per three caster levels.”, emphasis added, and question the willingness of the KO’d lizardperson? Does he accept a KO’d Lizardperson is really more an object, and if so does it fall within “You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn’t exceed your maximum load.”, emphasis added? Lizardfolk weigh 200 lb plus.


Overall, I’d say it can be done. I don’t think it’s foolproof or trivial in its simplicity, though.

I would argue that is a decision best left to the party as it depends on the party composition. A charging fighter might not appreciate being right next to the dragon as much as, say, a lockdown fighter.

I doubt either wants the dragon to fall ON him.

Umm, first off, since when are lizard folk "semi-aquatic"? They don't even have a swim speed.

Looking at the writeup closer, they are noted as trying to force foes into the water where they have an advantage, but that advantage seems to be limited to an extended ability to hold their breath. They get the same swim speed everyone else does (poor guys lost most of their aquatic advantages!).

Secondly, just because it nicely dovetails with this thread:

The latest OOTS strip pretty much nails the thread

Best quote: Haley: Oh yeah... Wizard.


I looked for an update several times yesterday, too! Of course, spells and relative character power in OOTS is exactly what is required for plot and/or humour, and typically links to gamer tropes, whether correct or incorrect, but definitely the same issue going on here.

Why is the Cleric out of spells, and the Fighter the one holding the line?
 

Yes, by simply determining you're not worth my time. You're wrong, obviously, hilariously so, since you have problems with the mere concept of "facts," no amount of reason will get through. In other words, you're not worth my time, and I'll do you the favor of taking that post as your concession.

Sounds good - I’ll take the above post as your concession and we can all move on. My, wasn’t that productive!
 

Yes, by simply determining you're not worth my time. You're wrong, obviously, hilariously so, since you have problems with the mere concept of "facts," no amount of reason will get through. In other words, you're not worth my time, and I'll do you the favor of taking that post as your concession.


That's enough.

Folks, continue for the next week as if CJ here wasn't part of the party. Sorry for the intrusion.
 

Remove ads

Top