Best ways to kill a Tier 1 caster without being one

[BeholderSlayer]

People keep harping on Foresight, and completely ignore Contact Other Plane. A wizard can contact greater deities no-fail as soon as they learn the spell, and can be perfectly prepared for anybody trying to attack them by level 15-20. You don't necessarily need Foresight up 24/7, in fact they may not need it at all (but may use it for good measure). They will know exactly when, where, and who will be threatening their existence, so all they need to do is set up the trap

Teleport through time could theoretically work, but brings up a bit of a "chicken or the egg" conundrum. If you teleport through time, does the wizard just never exist in the first place? Does the wizard exist, but disappears when he is killed/parents killed in the past? That one requires a lot of physics/event horizon theory that I don't think we want to get into in this thread.

It can also be argued that the mundane doing the time traveling is not really the "killer." By relying on another, arcane, invididual to perform the time travel it begs the question: "was a rogue/fighter/whatever responsible, or was the wizard that traveled him/her through time responsible?" I would argue the latter, and then it becomes a tier I ending the life of a tier I before they become tier I.

[Emmerask]

A sorcerer can cast the spell too, so that would fall into the lower tier killing t1 requirement

Or you could use an item to substitute for the wizard casting. You could argue the same there but then you must also argue that the swordsmith did the kill or that the caster is not responsible for the power but the one that created the spell etc.

[BeholderSlayer]

A sorcerer can cast the spell too, so that would fall into the lower tier killing t1 requirement

Or you could use an item to substitute for the wizard casting. You could argue the same there but then you must also argue that the swordsmith did the kill or that the caster is not responsible for the power but the one that created the spell etc.

True on both points.

The Teleport Through Time point also begs the question: is the goal fulfilled? Was it a tier I caster you killed? Or was it a baby/parent/whatever? The OP did reference level 15+ at the end, so does the kill count if the wizard in question is not yet level 15+?

And on the event horizon note, suppose the wizard does exist but ceases to exist when killed in the past. He will still learn of the threat to his well being through Contact Other Plane. He will ask questions until he determines he will be attacked in the past. Now that he knows about the threat, he can time travel as well to prevent it.

The above point is moot if it is decided that the wizard would not ever have existed in the first place. But then, did you kill a tier I? If he never existed, how could you have killed him?

Unless you start bringing in parallel time streams and other strange physics theory this is fairly impossible to determine.

[onthetown]

Pass your Will save to stay awake during his monologue and stab him in the middle of it.

[Radar]

True on both points.

The Teleport Through Time point also begs the question: is the goal fulfilled? Was it a tier I caster you killed? Or was it a baby/parent/whatever? The OP did reference level 15+ at the end, so does the kill count if the wizard in question is not yet level 15+?

And on the event horizon note, suppose the wizard does exist but ceases to exist when killed in the past. He will still learn of the threat to his well being through Contact Other Plane. He will ask questions until he determines he will be attacked in the past. Now that he knows about the threat, he can time travel as well to prevent it.

The above point is moot if it is decided that the wizard would not ever have existed in the first place. But then, did you kill a tier I? If he never existed, how could you have killed him?

Unless you start bringing in parallel time streams and other strange physics theory this is fairly impossible to determine.

That's the general reason, why time travel is not taken into account - D&D doesn't support paradox resolution and it's difficult to discuss such a subject even with our physics taken into account.

[ArcanistSupreme]

To be fair, heavy fort. is a +5 enhancement. It's not exactly the cheapest thing to put on your armor.
Moderate fort. is way less costly and gives a solid 75%.

Meh, there's plenty of gold to burn with level 20 WBL. Enchanting +1 bracers of armor with the ability (as per Arms and Equipment Guide) would only cost 49k. Why worry about that 25% when you can just ignore it completely?

[crizh]

A wizard can contact greater deities no-fail as soon as they learn the spell

I'm sure you have some sort of explanation for that statement for us dummies that are so stupid as to expect the rules to be the ones presented in the PHB.

[BeholderSlayer]

I'm sure you have some sort of explanation for that statement for us dummies that are so stupid as to expect the rules to be the ones presented in the PHB.

Uh, take 10. Pretty simple.

[137beth]

Uh, contact other plane, even when asking a greater deity, only gives an 88% chance of getting the true answer:| I'm not sure where taking 10 plays into it, since it is a d% roll.

Even then, people are using foresight because it tells you exactly when you will be attacked. Contact other plane, even if you DO get the correct answer, will only give you one-word answers.

[JonestheSpy]

Uh, take 10. Pretty simple.

[Head slap]

So, you don't think concentrating on maintaining contact with a resentful outer planar entity that could at any time knock you down to 8 INT for more than a month to be at all distracting, let alone threatening, hmm?

Have you ever tried that line of logic on an actual DM, perchance?

[BeholderSlayer]

[Head slap]

So, you don't think concentrating on maintaining contact with a resentful outer planar entity that could at any time knock you down to 8 INT for more than a month to be at all distracting, let alone threatening, hmm?

Have you ever tried that line of logic on an actual DM, perchance?

So, you're saying to can't take 10 on traps as a rogue, either? That's exactly what you're saying.

The idea that the action you are taking 10 on can be a distraction or the threat that disallows taking 10 is silly. In that case, kiss taking 10 on disable rolls good-bye because you are distracted by disabling the trap and it might explode, so it's a threat.

You may take 10, that's RAW, and DM rulings have no place in this discussion.

[JonestheSpy]

So, you're saying to can't take 10 on traps as a rogue, either? That's exactly what you're saying.

The idea that the action you are taking 10 on can be a distraction or the threat that disallows taking 10 is silly. In that case, kiss taking 10 on disable rolls good-bye because you are distracted by disabling the trap and it might explode, so it's a threat.

You may take 10, that's RAW, and DM rulings have no place in this discussion.

So, you're saying you've never tried this line of logic with an actual DM, gotcha.

And yeah, I have no problem saying you can't take 10 disarming traps. Opening locks, sure; traps where you might die if you mess up? Nope.

And do you really think the game designers intended that any caster with a +6 or higher bonus on the relevant ability check NEVER had to worry about negative effects from casting this spell? Oh, wait, let me guess - you don't care, because you've interpreted the spell in a way that suits your powergamer viewpoint, so nothing else matters.

[olentu]

So, you're saying you've never tried this line of logic with an actual DM, gotcha.

And yeah, I have no problem saying you can't take 10 disarming traps. Opening locks, sure; traps where you might die if you mess up? Nope.

And do you really think the game designers intended that any caster with a +6 or higher bonus on the relevant ability check NEVER had to worry about negative effects from casting this spell? Oh, wait, let me guess - you don't care, because you've interpreted the spell in a way that suits your powergamer viewpoint, so nothing else matters.

Yeah I have been able to take ten just fine on things that have a harmful penalty for failure.

I mean the designers probably meant for lots of stuff but it turned out differently.

[Killer Angel]

Meh, there's plenty of gold to burn with level 20 WBL. Enchanting +1 bracers of armor with the ability (as per Arms and Equipment Guide) would only cost 49k. Why worry about that 25% when you can just ignore it completely?

Is your point that is easy to avoid SA because at lev. 20 WBL you can easily afford such enchantment?
At lev. 20, I agree. Try to do it at lower levels.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Is your point that is easy to avoid SA because at lev. 20 WBL you can easily afford such enchantment?
At lev. 20, I agree. Try to do it at lower levels.

I thought we were discussing a level 20 caster.

If not, then yes, medium fortification would be better.

[Myth]

Or you know, spells like ironguard. Suddenly, your rogue has to find a stick to hit you with.

[Killer Angel]

I thought we were discussing a level 20 caster.

Yes, we were.
I was merely debating your point:

Check out heavyfortification. Rogues are considered tier 4 partially because it is so easy to avoid sneak attack damage.

Which seemed a more general consideration, not related to the level.
Probably it was a case of internet misunderstanding.

[137beth]

Yeah I have been able to take ten just fine on things that have a harmful penalty for failure.

I mean the designers probably meant for lots of stuff but it turned out differently.

It still doesn't matter--even if you can maintain concentration without fail, there is still only an 88% chance that the being will give you the correct answer. That is not "without fail".

[ArcanistSupreme]

Which seemed a more general consideration, not related to the level.
Probably it was a case of internet misunderstanding.

Ah. Yeah, I should have been more specific. Still, even a 25-75% chance of completely shutting down your class features that is relatively accessible in addition to all of the other stuff that is just plain immune doesn't help things.

[ZeroNumerous]

So, you don't think concentrating on maintaining contact with a resentful outer planar entity that could at any time knock you down to 8 INT for more than a month to be at all distracting, let alone threatening, hmm?

To be honest? No, no I don't.

Because if you're contacting any deity that isn't Boccob, the god of knowing things, to know something then you're doing it wrong. And it would be ridiculously ludicrously out of character for Boccob to refuse to pass on any kind of knowledge, or to care enough to backhand you for contacting him.

[Sewercop]

Why even talk about sneak attack when the rogue have no means of reaching the caster? Who cares.
When you have abillities and spells better than entire classes you just do not care about them. You can probably make items better than an 20 lvl rogue.
Try to take down teoretical wizards? Seriously...

What about a kobold ur-priest? Druid planar shepard?Gnome shadow mage?initiate of mystra?Iotsfv? The list of broken s¤%t are to too long...

Edit: And yeah, contact other plane are that Broken\Good. If people actually botherd to read links presented they would get a grasp of how it works.

[BeholderSlayer]

So, you're saying you've never tried this line of logic with an actual DM, gotcha.

And yeah, I have no problem saying you can't take 10 disarming traps. Opening locks, sure; traps where you might die if you mess up? Nope.

And do you really think the game designers intended that any caster with a +6 or higher bonus on the relevant ability check NEVER had to worry about negative effects from casting this spell? Oh, wait, let me guess - you don't care, because you've interpreted the spell in a way that suits your powergamer viewpoint, so nothing else matters.

The conditions fit the requirements for taking 10. Thus, you may take 10. Saying a rogue can't take 10 on a trap that may kill him is disingenuous. The activity may be stressful, but it is in no way distracting or threatening. It makes no sense whatsoever to claim that the activity on which you are taking 10 can be the distraction or threat that disqualifies you from taking 10. It's the same as saying "no, you can't take 10 on a spot check because if you don't pass, you might get attacked."

Yes, that's exactly what I think the designers intended, or the wouldn't have made it an INT check. Sorcerers attempting to use the spell still must likely make a successful roll. Wizards, on the other hand, do not. The spell was designed to be used, not ignored completely (which you seem to insist).

This is not interpretation, this is the exact RAW. I happen to BE an actual DM, and this is how I encourage players to use the spell if they have the actual brains to look at it and realize how useful it is. It doesn't break the game wide open because NPC spellcasters have ways to get around it.

Even the 88% chance is of no matter, because a theoretical wizard would be able to ask so many questions that they can always ask about the accuracy of any question.

[Gametime]

So, you're saying you've never tried this line of logic with an actual DM, gotcha.

Out of curiosity, if someone said "Yes, I've used the spell this way and my DM had no problem with it," would you consider that acceptable proof for this being a valid interpretation of the spell? Or would you insist that that's a silly ruling, even if some DMs do allow it?

I'm just trying to get a feel for whether it's any DMs allowing it, or most DMs allowing it, or your DMs allowing it that is the basis of your criteria for "reasonable interpretations," since we clearly can't find common ground in what the spells actually say.

And do you really think the game designers intended that any caster with a +6 or higher bonus on the relevant ability check NEVER had to worry about negative effects from casting this spell? Oh, wait, let me guess - you don't care, because you've interpreted the spell in a way that suits your powergamer viewpoint, so nothing else matters.

I don't think the designers intended to make druids as incredibly versatile as they are, or to make ten-foot ladders far more cost-effective than ten-foot poles. That doesn't change the fact that they are.

Also, it seems unnecessarily confrontational to dismiss someone's objections out of hand because obviously they wouldn't disagree with you unless they were a powergamer twisting and manipulating the rules for their own selfish powergaming ends.

[crizh]

While I disagree with almost everything these guys have said and have given up arguing with them on several topics because they are just ignoring pertinent counter-points and focusing on elements they think they can attempt to refute, which is just the worst form of rhetoric, I can't disagree with them about taking ten on this INT check.

If failure is a risk you cannot take twenty but you have to be actively being distracted to not be able to take ten.

You can explicitly take ten on a climb check where failure means certain death right up until someone starts taking pot shots at you.

----

Can you ask the same question twice with Contact Other Plane?

Hell no.

That whole table is a waste of ink otherwise.

Your chances of getting an accurate answer to a particular question are those given in the table regardless of how many times you ask it or how you re-parse it.

Will I be attacked tomorrow?

and

Was that last answer true?

Are the same question because they attempt to elicit the same piece of information.

A high level caster just has to suck it up and live with 12% uncertainty in his life.

----

Even then, abusing CoP is just another pattern that can be exploited.

If you can use Metafaculty or Hypercognition to know when the mage is casting CoP you drop an attack on his ass just as he makes the INT check.

That's a good 10-15% chance of losing all Arcane casting for a month. You'd probably only have to do that half a dozen times before you got lucky.

[JonestheSpy]

Yes, that's exactly what I think the designers intended, or the wouldn't have made it an INT check. Sorcerers attempting to use the spell still must likely make a successful roll. Wizards, on the other hand, do not. The spell was designed to be used, not ignored completely (which you seem to insist).

Okay, this is obviously a useless conversation, but I do feel compelled to point out one thing. Believing that spell was designed to involve risk is not the same as saying it should be ignored. I don't think the spell was designed with the idea that wizards of a certain level could just cast it every morning before breakfast to get the gods to help them organize their day. But you obviously do, so you have fun with that.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Will I be attacked tomorrow?
and
Was that last answer true?

Are the same question because they attempt to elicit the same piece of information.

While agree that should probably be some degree of uncertainty, I disagree with this statement. Although they are essentially asking for the same information, semantically they are most certainly not. And as half of RAW is based on semantics, I'm going to say that would be a legal follow up.

[137beth]

While agree that should probably be some degree of uncertainty, I disagree with this statement. Although they are essentially asking for the same information, semantically they are most certainly not. And as half of RAW is based on semantics, I'm going to say that would be a legal follow up.

Even you can ask the same question twice, that still means there is a (12^2)/10000=1.44% chance of both answers being wrong. Unless you have somehow managed to change the laws of math so that 98.56=100, then asking the same question twice still doesn't guarantee you will get the correct answer:|
That's not even considering the fact that if you get one answer "yes", and one "no", you still don't know which one is true, so you in fact have less than a 98.56% chance of "knowing" the answer.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Even you can ask the same question twice, that still means there is a (12^2)/10000=1.44% chance of both answers being wrong. Unless you have somehow managed to change the laws of math so that 98.56=100, then asking the same question twice still doesn't guarantee you will get the correct answer:|
That's not even considering the fact that if you get one answer "yes", and one "no", you still don't know which one is true, so you in fact have less than a 98.56% chance of "knowing" the answer.

Which I would say is further support in favor of allowing this interpretation. You still have some degree of uncertainty, which makes it (slightly) more fair.

[crizh]

My entire point was that I don't think the semantics are relevant here.

You get one question per two caster levels. Those aren't two questions, they are the same question asked twice. I could ask the question once in every language that I know. Each would be semantically completely different but would nevertheless all be the same question.

The hubris involved in thinking that you can simply re-phrase the question to pull the wool over the eyes of a Greater Deity is staggering.

As has been pointed out the probabilities of getting the correct answer change with each repeat. They rise to essentially 100% immediately, you get 4 questions at the first level you can cast the spell.

If the mechanics render the table meaningless why bother printing the table?

Now that I think about it all of the negative results are either that the Deity in question doesn't know the answers or deliberately intends to deceive the questioner. Why would any of those things change in under a minute?

[ArcanistSupreme]

My entire point was that I don't think the semantics are relevant here.

You get one question per two caster levels. Those aren't two questions, they are the same question asked twice. I could ask the question once in every language that I know. Each would be semantically completely different but would nevertheless all be the same question.

The hubris involved in thinking that you can simply re-phrase the question to pull the wool over the eyes of a Greater Deity is staggering.

As has been pointed out the probabilities of getting the correct answer change with each repeat. They rise to essentially 100% immediately, you get 4 questions at the first level you can cast the spell.

If the mechanics render the table meaningless why bother printing the table?

Now that I think about it all of the negative results are either that the Deity in question doesn't know the answers or deliberately intends to deceive the questioner. Why would any of those things change in under a minute?

"Were you telling the truth?"=/="Will I be attacked today?" Or any other specific question with a yes or no answer, for that matter.

"Were you telling the truth?" is not a valid substitute for any specific question at all, and as such is a distinctly different question.