Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gaiden" data-source="post: 1359879" data-attributes="member: 103">Thanks for the feedback Seule.  I agree with you about avoiding SR.  I did not know that the spells you mentioned weren't affected by SR.  IIRC, the majority of spells that ignore SR are those that create something or some effect that then effects a creature or summons something directly.  Most of those spells are Evocation or Conjuration spells - at least ones that are attack spells (as opposed to utility or defensive).  Conjuration spells coexist nicely with a 3.0 shadow adept necromancer, enchanter, or illuisionist.  However, evocation spells are all penalized using shadow magic.  Moreover, a 3.5 specialist has to choose two opposition schools: evocation and transmutation or conjuration seem like natural choices.  Conjuration and evocation are particularly favorable given the illusionist's shadow spells.  Of course, I'd like to hear opinions on school specialization between 3.0 and 3.5.  Personally, I feel even with the changes the schools are not at all balanced.  Divination is a perfect example.  Granted, divination spells are useful, but what wizard in their right mind would give up two other schools to specialize in it.  The only thing that is saving conjuration are the inclusion of transportation spells.  And I fail to see how necromancy is any better than before.  What the inclusion of ray of exhaustion and a few other choice spells suddenly warrants selecting two opposition schools?Anyway, enough with the rant.  Presuming I go 3.0 specialization and I choose evocation, I certainly could take some of those spells from the conjuration school.  However, all of the benefits of the shadow adept PrC are associated with the suggested specialists' schools above.  I included shadow conjuration and shadow evocation as spells but of course, they apply SR even if their doubled spell does not.  I will strongly consider them as options.  Thanks for the advice.  On the note of buffing, the character works independently.  (All the more reason for summon spells, I know <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).  However, if you look at the spell selection, one avenue of attacking is to grapple the phaerimm.  Yes I did say grapple the large creature with 4 arms and a bite attack only usable in the grapple.  The reason for this is the tremendous number of ways to reduce the phaerimm's str.  Phaerimm are not very strong to begin with and gaining levels as sorcerers doesn't help much.  Sure they may have things like enlarge person, bull's strength, or tensor's transformation, but those spells are unlikely at best.  More than likely, given a phaerimm's abhorence of melee, those are the last spells a phaerimm will know, nevermind have on as current buffs.  A successful ray of exhaustion and/or ray of enfeeblement combined with enlarge and claws of darkness will end a phaerimm's arrogance real quick.  Their average 13 str will be reduced by half.  Their grapple bonus of +8+1/2 sorc level is going to be more like +2+1/2 sorc level.  With a decent str, enlarge person and another MoF spell (5th level grants +4 competence bonus to grapple among other things - is for shar worshipers) the sorcerer should have something like a +13+str mod).  Moreover, the claws slow a creature involved in a grapple, they are touch attacks (so can be used, as natural weapons, as a melee attack instead of a grapple check) and can be combined with chill touch.  Finally, kiss of the vampire can allow a combined enervating or vampiric touch attack along with the standard attack from claws and chill touch.One intersting thing about phaerimm is that all of their spells known as a sorcerer are considered spell like abilities so have no components.  Otherwise silence would be the way to go.  Even spell like abilities require concentration checks when grappled though.On the ioun stone, this debate is going on in another thread<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1359644#post1359644" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1359644#post1359644</a>As far as I knew that rule of unnamed bonuses stacking only applied to spells with my evidence as defending weapons in 3.0 (which may have changed to 3.5).</blockquote>

Verification