Cadfan said:
He didn't mention Eyebite's other big advantage. It attacks a different Defense than Eldritch Blast. The versatility that provides would make it worthwhile even if it didn't make you Invisible versus your target.
Yup. It's the number one rule for 3.5E spellslingers--make sure you have an array of spells to target each saving throw, so you can attack the enemy's weak point.
I do wonder if picking the "right defense" in 4E will be like 3.5E. My approach in 3.5E is to target the Will save for anything that looks dumb; the Fort save for anything that looks fragile and smart; and the Reflex save for anything that looks tough and smart. So, for example, ogre -> Will save, mind flayer -> Fort save, ogre mage -> Reflex save. I find this works pretty reliably.
I must also admit to using some general metagame knowledge about creature types (e.g., outsiders have strong saves across the board and SR into the bargain, dragons have ungodly Fort and Will saves but are weak on Reflex, undead have crap Fort saves but are immune to almost everything that calls for them, et cetera), though I try to avoid using any knowledge of a creature's specific stats.
In 4E, creature type will probably be a much less reliable guide. However, you make the attack roll instead of the monster rolling a saving throw. That means it will be relatively easy to "nail down" a monster's defenses through observation, just as it was usually possible to nail down a monster's AC within a couple of rounds in earlier editions. You have a +5 bonus on a Will attack, you roll a 14 on the first round and hit, roll an 11 on the second round and miss? The monster's Will defense is somewhere between 17 and 19.
So you can probably figure out without too much trouble what the best spell is, and then apply that insight to other such monsters. On the other hand, the existence of 2-4 variants per monster means such insights will not be foolproof...
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
