Overpowered Players

[Doctor Awkward]

That is in fact how RAW Pounce works. It makes monsters with Pounce like Lions a bit stronger, but it cuts the damage from uberchargers into ribbons. Can you show me the RAW text that says you replace the single attack with a full attack? There may be some variants of Pounce that do this, but the MM ability doesn't, and that's the version the Lion Totem Barbarian gets.

The Rules Compendium might disagree with you:

Pounce
When a creature that has this extraordinary special attack
charges, it can still make a full attack even if it charged while
restricted to a single action. All its attacks receive the +2 bonus
on attack rolls gained from charging. If it uses its attacks to
successfully start a grapple, and it has the rake ability, it can
also make rake attacks.

Even if you are correct*, in that you get a separate full attack from the single attack charging normally gets, the attack bonus explicitly applies to every single attack made that round.

Do you know of anything to suggest that the rest of your charging modifiers should not also apply to the full attack?



*The reason I continue to say "if" is on account of the specific wording of Pounce:

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

That's an oddly specific way to write that sentence, as opposed to the much less suggestive, "When a creature charges". It was written as though it were referring to the specific game-defined combat action "Charge". I also assume this is the case because the SRD hyperlinks to the combat action description of charge. This suggests to me that Pounce was intended to modify the charge action in some way-- specifically the attack made during the charge. And if the full attack is made during the charge, then all of them most certainly benefit from any charging modifiers as they are part of the same action.

[Calthropstu]

Off the top of my head? Spellblade. Ring of (greater) counterspells. Crafted contingent spells. Celerity. Ring of spell turning. Jacking up your caster level to ridiculous heights when you first cast the buffs. For area dispels, having sacrificial low-level buffs that you don't care about getting dispelled, cast at a higher caster level than your important ones. Wings of Cover.

Give me a couple of hours to dig through books and advice threads and I could give you more, I'm sure.

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

[zergling.exe]

The Rules Compendium might disagree with you:

Even if you are correct*, in that you get a separate full attack from the single attack charging normally gets, the attack bonus explicitly applies to every single attack made that round.

Do you know of anything to suggest that the rest of your charging modifiers should not also apply to the full attack?

Rules Compendium doesn't call out that they do, so while they get the +2, that's the rules specifying that it is applied. The full attack is not part of the charge and so doesn't get any charge bonuses not called out by the rules.

*The reason I continue to say "if" is on account of the specific wording of Pounce:

That's an oddly specific way to write that sentence, as opposed to the much less suggestive, "When a creature charges". It was written as though it were referring to the specific game-defined combat action "Charge". I also assume this is the case because the SRD hyperlinks to the combat action description of charge. This suggests to me that Pounce was intended to modify the charge action in some way-- specifically the attack made during the charge. And if the full attack is made during the charge, then all of them most certainly benefit from any charging modifiers as they are part of the same action.

It makes a charge, and then full attacks. You have to finish step 1 before you can follow with step 2. Thus you charge (move, attack), then do you follow-up (full attack). I don't trust anything on the hyperlink SRD, as it is not the official SRD and shortcuts were used to create hyperlinks that don't refer directly to another condition. It's been a while, but I'm fairly sure there was one that pointed to a spell simply because it had the same name as the condition being referred to.

[Zanos]

What counters dispel magic? You cant start a charge even with leap attack in rough terrain, and fly, yes that works, but again, in a forest? No straight line long enough for it? I feel like especially the leap attack build is really hard to pull off in most of the settings I have played in. How do you deal with what happens when you charge in alone and every other enemy but the one you killed attacks you? Can you give an example at say, level 10 of what you think the amount of damage a round should be?

The only real comment I have is that a character that you have to do 10 things in order to stop them from steamrolling an encounter is probably more powerful than a character you have to do 1 thing to in order to stop them from steamrolling your encounter.

Are you operating from the position that D&D 3.5 is actually balanced? You can easily disprove that by demonstrating that a wizard is better than a fighter at their own role with spells like polymorph, animate dead, summon creature, planar binding, and gate.

If that's not the case in your experience that's fine, plenty of people runs games with wizards and fighters side by side without problems. But you should be aware that wizard and fighter have very different skill floors, and someone with a lot of mastery over the 3.5 system can do a lot more with a wizard than a fighter.

[Doctor Awkward]

Rules Compendium doesn't call out that they do, so while they get the +2, that's the rules specifying that it is applied. The full attack is not part of the charge and so doesn't get any charge bonuses not called out by the rules.



It makes a charge, and then full attacks. You have to finish step 1 before you can follow with step 2. Thus you charge (move, attack), then do you follow-up (full attack). I don't trust anything on the hyperlink SRD, as it is not the official SRD and shortcuts were used to create hyperlinks that don't refer directly to another condition. It's been a while, but I'm fairly sure there was one that pointed to a spell simply because it had the same name as the condition being referred to.

How about a martial adept using the Pouncing Charge maneuver?

As part of initiating this maneuver,
you make a charge attack. Instead
of making a single attack at the end
of your charge, you can make a full
attack. The bonus on your attack roll
for making a charge attack applies to
all your attack rolls.

In this case, the full attack is explicitly a part of the charge, made instead of the single attack you normally get, and so each one of them would be subject to any and all modifiers.



I'm not saying that you are incorrect regarding Pounce. Just noting that it would be a little silly to treat the actual Pounce ability any differently from the maneuver that is modeled after it.

I'd also be interested in the incorrectly linked spell if you can remember it.


EDIT:

Here's something else that might be relevant:

The subject’s charge attacks deal double
damage. (The subject does not have to be
mounted or wielding a lance.) If the subject
makes more than one attack on a
charge, the double damage applies only
to the first attack.

That spell was renamed "Rhino's Rush" in the Spell Compendium, where it does pretty much exactly the same thing only with much fewer words.

If the general rule is supposed to be "make a full attack after the one attack on a charge", isn't it a little strange that the spell would be worded to imply otherwise?
Or is this spell giving itself an exception to the general rule of "full attack replaces the single attack made during a charge"?

[zergling.exe]

How about a martial adept using the Pouncing Charge maneuver?

In this case, the full attack is explicitly a part of the charge, made instead of the single attack you normally get, and so each one of them would be subject to any and all modifiers.

I'm not saying that you are incorrect regarding Pounce. Just noting that it would be a little silly to treat the actual Pounce ability any differently from the maneuver that is modeled after it.

I'd also be interested in the incorrectly linked spell if you can remember it.

As I noted earlier, there are in fact variants of Pounce that replace the attack explicitly rather than use 'follow with'. Just because something is a model doesn't mean it functions in the same way either. I think there was some regional feat in Forgotten Realms that gave a Pounce that replaced it? Snow Tiger lodge or something like that? Snow Tiger Berserker! Though it doesn't say to replace it, it specifies that the full attack is part of the charge action. So that version would in fact net all the attacks the charge bonuses.

I cannot recall what it was. I haven't touched the site at all in several years.

[Fizban]

Can you show me the RAW text that says you replace the single attack with a full attack? There may be some variants of Pounce that do this, but the MM ability doesn't, and that's the version the Lion Totem Barbarian gets.

Well the general rules for full attacking set it up so after you make your first attack, you continue into the the rest:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

So the phrasing of "follow with a full attack" can simply be read as it giving you that option despite the fact that you already charged. Rules Compendium actually lacks that text.

The Rules Compendium ruling of charge bonus on all hits of course supports charge effects on all hits, but hey if people can say the FAQ gets things wrong all the time, why can't the RC be wrong? I'd guarantee people were pushing the ubercharge ruling before RC ever came out, and if that's what the people want. . .

And as for SpC and Rhino's Rush, oh yeah there's tons of spells in there that were "simplified" in ways that make them way stronger (or made them garbage).

[Coretron03]

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

I mean, other than the fact they literally said to have spells at a CL that you dont care if they are dispelled and the fact that boosting caster level does can in fact prevent the dispelling, yeah, Greater dispel magic will get rid of buffs. Well, one of them, and it might not be one you want.

Boosting Caster level against spells is still super easy though. Beads of karma can boost your caster level by 4 for all day buffs and as it only lasts ten minutes your opponent probably can’t use it. A ring of enduring lets you treat your caster level as 4 higher against dispels. Reserves of strengh let you have your buffs at 3 CL higher and the dispeller can’t duplicate that unless they want to take damage or lose their next 3 rounds. Plus, in 3.5 Greater dispel magic is limted to +20 from caster level, making it an arms race you can’t win.

[zergling.exe]

Well the general rules for full attacking set it up so after you make your first attack, you continue into the the rest:

So the phrasing of "follow with a full attack" can simply be read as it giving you that option despite the fact that you already charged. Rules Compendium actually lacks that text.

The Rules Compendium ruling of charge bonus on all hits of course supports charge effects on all hits, but hey if people can say the FAQ gets things wrong all the time, why can't the RC be wrong? I'd guarantee people were pushing the ubercharge ruling before RC ever came out, and if that's what the people want. . .

And as for SpC and Rhino's Rush, oh yeah there's tons of spells in there that were "simplified" in ways that make them way stronger (or made them garbage).

I'm still not convinced that would make the additional attacks part of the charge. See Snow Tiger Berserker for wording that explicitly makes the full attack part of the charge.

[Anthrowhale]

My understanding from RC is that the +2 to hit from a charge applies to all attacks including (for example) AOOs made during the round of the charge.

Cataloging things:

• Pounce attacks apparently (by RAW) are not a part of the charge since they "follow" the charge.
• Spirit Lion Totem: as Pounce.
• Aspect of the Werebeast: as Pounce
• Dire Charge provides the capability to full attack if you charge. "If you charge... you can make a full attack...". An attack is a part of a charge so you can't trigger the ability to full attack until after the charge attack is resolved (... and the full attack is not triggered if the charge somehow fails to complete).
• Psionic Lion's Charge as Dire Charge.
• Snow Tiger Berserker makes the full attack explicitly a part of the charge, but only works with light weapons.
• The Pouncing Charge maneuver explicitly substitutes the full attack for the normal charge attack implying that it is a part of the charge with no weapons restrictions.

I expect RAI is that all full attack charge mechanisms are meant to work the same but the RAW is straightforward enough here that a DM who wants to nerf an ubercharger has plenty of ammunition.

W.r.t. the OP, there are level 1 spells that mitigate terrain---check out "Branch to Branch" and "Unfailing Terrain".

[Darth Ultron]

I feel like complaints of "opness" come from DM's not presenting challenges,

This is generally the big optimization problem.

[Fizban]

I'm still not convinced that would make the additional attacks part of the charge. See Snow Tiger Berserker for wording that explicitly makes the full attack part of the charge.

I was agreeing with you on that- the full attack isn't part of the charge. But you can also say its not an additional full attack on top of the charge attack, because following the charge with a full attack can be read as the charge being the first attack that starts the following full attack, for no bonus attacks.

[zergling.exe]

I was agreeing with you on that- the full attack isn't part of the charge. But you can also say its not an additional full attack on top of the charge attack, because following the charge with a full attack can be read as the charge being the first attack that starts the following full attack, for no bonus attacks.

Ah, I see that now.

[sjeshin]

Boosting your caster level through the roof. Some cheap items boost your caster level against dispel checks only. And as someone mentioned dispel magic caps at +20 while CL does not.



If the fighter, no matter what, cannot land a charge, his spellcaster should change the environment so he can land a charge. Greater Blink lets fighters ignore trees.

In addition BFC spells like solid fog force the creatures to come to you on your terms so the ones that leave the fog are susceptible to charge.

And if the fighter is surrounded by 3 creatures who will murder him after the charge, again it's the wizard's job to ensure that doesn't happen with spells like solid fog and black tentacles.

In the level of optimization I play in, uberchargers aren't OP. Our DM doesn't drop 1 monster with high CR in an encounter because he's gonna get one-shot by the ubercharger. Instead he brings in 4 or 5 monsters all with spellcasting which means ubercharging and perfect crowd control is mandatory to survive here. But this is high-op.

in a normal game, for damage, I'd say enough damage to 2 or 3 shot a creature is the minimum required damage.

Compared to a level 10 warlock's... 5d6 damage which averages out to... 17.5 damage a round, yeah no. No where near enough damage per round.

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think that, while people might overestimate save or X spells in a high-op game, since enemies are going to be higher CR/HD than normal and have better saves and immunities, it appears buffing is still underrated. I think the first time someone plays a buffer they might neglect the dispel weakness, but after that it's going to be difficult to just throw a dispeller at them and hope for the best. Allow me to explain in more detail what others have mentioned, and clarify some points:

• FWIW, while it's harder to create a truly massive buff stack in PF, it's also harder to dispel it, what with the nerfs to the dispel magic line.
• Area dispels, even if successfully landed, can only ever remove one spell from an individual buff stack, so they hardly "obliterate" anything. That's why people are talking about "sacrificial buffs," which are just low level permanent buffs like Arcane Mark that get dispelled before the rest of your stack. Hence, an area dispel that has any decent chance of dispelling one of your normal buffs will dispel an Arcane Mark instead.
• As suggested, buffing CL is something buff stackers basically have to do, at least in the mid levels when dispel checks have a chance at hitting things. This takes care of both targeted and area dispels pretty handily if you've made the requisite investments. On one Incantatrix I played, by the time I had Metamagic Effect at level 8 I also had Elder Giant Magic (+3), Reserves of Strength (+3*), Persisted Suffer the Flesh (+5**), Create Magic Tattoo (+1), and a Ring of Enduring Arcana (+4 dispel DC) for a regular dispel DC of 35, which was a bit overkill, but increasing buff CL is good by itself anyway. Later on you can get generic great items like an Orange Ioun Stone (+1) and a Bead of Karma (+4) to make it even harder.
• Buffers are often difficult to target, what with some of the buffs providing invisibility, concealment, cover, illusions, and false targets. Greater Mirror Image as an immediate action (or persisted) can turn even the most powerful dispel into a fizzle if the dispeller is not careful.
• Buffers can also be good dispellers and counterspellers if they so desire, especially since they've probably buffed their CL. Things like Battlemagic Perception or a Ring of Spell Battle can ruin any dispeller's day by free action counterspelling the dispel or redirecting it to the dispeller, respectively.
• Many of the items already listed, like a Spellblade, a Ring of Enduring Arcana, and a Ring of Counterspells, are all pretty cheap. The more expensive stuff isn't as necessary, but can be quite fun and useful. Buffers often don't need the more traditional money sink items, as they create common effects themselves, and so they can afford more esoteric uses of wealth to enhance/protect their shtick.
• There is basically one type of character who can strike fear into the hearts of buffers in the mid-game: a Psion with transparency. Without especially paranoid CL buffing as demonstrated above, the Psion can actually outpace dispel DC due to the way the power augments. A Psion 8 with Overchannel and Planar Touchstone for the Inquisition domain can manage a dispel modifier of +24, and he has the tools to actually target the buffer via Touchsight. This is why a dedicated buffer who isn't allowed to have a bunch of spell blades probably puts Dispel Psionics in his Ring of Counterspells, as opposed to one of the other dispels. Technically a Wizard can get crazy dispel checks as well, but he has to invest a lot more than two feats, one of which is generally useful, and the psion has better built in action economy to get around counterspelling.

*Ironically, the reasonable ruling on RoS that the CL cap break is limited to the bonus granted actually helps buffers, because then you can't get around dispel caps so easily.
**For special occasions like adventuring days. Also, sometimes, Terran Brandy.

[RoboEmperor]

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

Could you show your work? The only eldritch blast damage boost I know is greater chasuble of fell power and it's only 2d6 for 7d6.

Mortalbane boosts it by 2d6 5/day

Maximize and quicken are only applied 3 a day.

So your first round of damage is... 108 damage (impressive).
Your 2nd round of damage is... 54 + (average of 9d6) = 54 + 31.5 = 85.5 damage (impressive)
Your 3rd round of damage is (average of 9d6) + (average of 7d6) = 31.5 + 24.5 = 56 damage (acceptable)
Your 4th round of damage is (average of 7d6) = 24.5 damage (worthless)

And you can't add any form of eldritch shape or essence when you're doing this. Compare this to a 10th level sorcerer optimizing Lesser Orb of Fire who can throw a twin maximized repeating lesser orb of fire 3 times a day dealing 160 damage each, or twinned maximized lesser orb of fire 6 times dealing 80 damage each time after that, and maximized repeating lesser orb of fire dealing 80 damage each time 7 times after that.

Your optimized warlock craps out after 3 rounds of combat while this sorcerer is good for 16 rounds of combat.

And then there's arcane spell surge and arcane fusion.

As others said, Warlock's power is in either glaive blasting or debuffs. Not his ranged EB damage.

[InvisibleBison]

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

In addition to someonenoone11's points, I'd like to point out the following:

9d6: Average 31.5, maximum 54.
2d6+50: Average 57, maximum 62.

I'd call that the latter numbers outdoing the former.

[Deophaun]

[*] There is basically one type of character who can strike fear into the hearts of buffers in the mid-game: a Psion with transparency.

Or a DM that knows about dweomer vortex. But these are rare.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

I am a DM who deals with "OP" characters a lot, as well as a player, though we do tend to have characters optimized in different ways than what people say to do for various builds. We do a mix of D&D and pathfinder, and we have been using things from some other sources like d20 future (namely me for the mutations)
Like my little brother who always builds the hardest hitting player (not always brute strength, spells too) has regularly done about 200 damage a hit. (Yeah try gearing campaigns around dealing with that). He even figured out how to cast 80 fireballs in 1 observable round (timestop).
Another player builds very feat heavy archers, he ends up with a rather good archer that does some significant damage with bows. He also uses a lot of strange equipment and/or feats that makes it so he's almost never useless.
The last player loves to go critical hits along with being rather tanky. Usually using strongarm bracers and wielding a large scimitar and kukri. He's probably the least "optimized" but he ends up being one of the hardest to kill of the group, lots of health and lots of damage.
I tend to build very strange characters. Like I've got this catfolk ninja who can use the jump spell at will, and has a pretty good speed when he has all his buffs up. Well through the ninja you can high jump REALLY easy at level 10. Like hight equal to roll or something like that. I found the feat roof jumper which adds damage if you fall more than 10 ft onto an opponent with an attack. I think it was he can jump something like 60 ft without rolling, I'd have to double check the math. But that mixed with the greater vanishing trick from ninja, leads to some pretty decent damage. He deals with the fall damage by the landing ability on armor and catspaw boots (the boots reduce all fall dame dice he ever takes to auto 1's) so the most damage he'll ever take from a fall onto normal ground is 14 (max fall damage is 20d6 landing treats it as 60 ft less and boots make them all 1's)

These aren't the only characters that our group builds that are "op" but they are the ones that come to mind. Also I should note that we do use the advanced race guide to make races, we've built a world and we've been adding new races to it. Usually the race gets play tested before actually put into the world, so that tends to add into our characters' overpower.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Or a DM that knows about dweomer vortex. But these are rare.

Good pull! I didn't know that existed, but it doesn't surprise me that FR fluff writers once again had no clue what game balance was. In any event, that's another great reason to cast a bunch of low level long-lasting spells on yourself, like Magic Mouth or Magic Aura, to eat up the Vortex effect.

[Heliomance]

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.
Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.
Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.
Jacking up your caster level is obvious.
Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.
Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

[Doctor Awkward]

I expect RAI is that all full attack charge mechanisms are meant to work the same but the RAW is straightforward enough here that a DM who wants to nerf an ubercharger has plenty of ammunition.

The problem here is treating these methods differently in the name of almighty RAW is counterproductive.

If the DM wants to rule at his table that only the first attack on a pounce benefits from charging modifiers that's his prerogative.

But saying, "this is strict RAW so here's how all these different methods are treated", is the same trap that Pathfinder fell into with its various spell nerfs: nerfing a spell doesn't actually do anything to affect a spellcaster's overall level of power if there is still at least one spell that also lets him win at the same level.

It's the same thing here. If there are still ways to get obscene ubercharger damage in your game then you haven't actually nerfed the concept of uberchargers. You've just made them less interesting because there are fewer options the player will want to use.

Aside from the fact that I think it's very important to consider obvious intent when adjudicating the rules as written, it's really pointless to subject all of these different methods to different rules. Just decide up front how charging modifiers interact with pounce at your games.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you want to nerf uberchargers just ban Valorous weapons and Leap Attack. And Spirited Charge if they want to use mounted combat.
That'll keep the numbers lower without involving a back-and-forth RAW discussion.
That's your prerogative as a DM and it's a lot more respectable than trying to pull up a RAW interpretation that supports your goal of "chargers should do less damage" by doing a lot of squinting, going over rules text with a fine-toothed comb and coming up with the most asinine rules interpretation that you can somehow justify, if only to yourself.

Blocking charging is a stopgap measure and - aside from the fact that it'll seem ridiculously contrived after a while if it happens every encounter - only works if your player doesn't know the counters.
There are items, feats and skill tricks that let you get around that even if you can't just fly. And you only need 10ft distance to charge, which is possible in most environments.

Keep in mind that that won't suddenly make a non-glaive warlock do competitive damage.
People complain about TWF and blasting, but with some effort you can still do respectable damage with those too, it just requires more effort than "take Power Attack and charge".
Respectable meaning "kill a CR-appropriate opponent in 1 round" because that's not just possible for uberchargers, it's possible for every class that can remotely claim the title of damage dealer. If you build for it.

Using "caster who didn't actually build to be good at blasting" or "fighter with nothing giving a damage bonus except baseline strength, using sword & board" as a baseline for a damage dealer is just unrealistic.
If someone wants to do damage you expect them to actually build to be good at doing damage, not actively sabotage themselves.

Of course you can ban some of those options too if you want lower damage in your game, but at the absolute least your baseline for damage should be "TWF rogue doing a full attack sneak attack".
It's easy because the damage is built into the class and TWF is a no-brainer for it. You have to actively try to be less optimized. That's the absolute baseline low-op measuring stick, for me at least.
Because if that's still too much you have to start nerfing the base class, and at that point you might as well look for a different game.
If you're below that you're just not competitive in damage, it's that simple.

[Deophaun]

Good pull! I didn't know that existed, but it doesn't surprise me that FR fluff writers once again had no clue what game balance was. In any event, that's another great reason to cast a bunch of low level long-lasting spells on yourself, like Magic Mouth or Magic Aura, to eat up the Vortex effect.

That is the problem with magic users: defense can always outclass offense. You can throw reciprocal gyre into the mix, but there are ways around that, too.

There comes a point where the only solution is to sit down with the players and have a talk about power levels.

[Deadline]

And you can't add any form of eldritch shape or essence when you're doing this.

This is important. By level 10, SR is a thing, and you don't have Vitriolic Blast yet.

The main benefit of the Warlock as a blaster isn't doing competitive levels of damage (it's a sub-par blaster, even when optimized), it's that it can do it all day. Which is only really great in very specific circumstances.

A Warlock is much better used as Battlefield Control, or Utility. Blasting is a thing it can do, but it fares worse than real spellcasters or dedicated melee damage dealers.

[Calthropstu]

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.
Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.
Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.
Jacking up your caster level is obvious.
Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.
Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

Actually, that contingent spell would flat fail. An area doesn't target you.

Contingent spell: when one of my spells would be in an area affected by an effect that could dispel it, dimension door me to the nearest open space outside the dispel effect might do the trick, but it would be quite dangerous as well, and could well remove you completely from battle for a round if "the nearest empty space unaffected" happens to be on the other side of a wall or on another floor... potentially agroing another combat.

In fact, that's just asking for death against a diviner because they can set up a nasty ambush using dispel magic.

Greater counterspell ring I have never seen so... eh?
The celerity ones I am guessing is a contingent add-on? Yeah, that would work. ****ty contingency though, and given the costs involved highly impractical. Most use "when something would kill me" as their contingent condition instead of "when something would minorly inconvenience me."

[Anthrowhale]

The problem here is treating these methods differently in the name of almighty RAW is counterproductive.

I actually don't think uberchargers are particularly overpowered. They have a limited competency which has some significant drawbacks. Against a bunch of mooks with ranged or reach weapons they are weak by default since Shock Trooper dumps their AC and their attack only kills one mook.

The primary reason to impose RAW here is just one of texture. It's a richer world if there are multiple kinds of pounce. Furthermore, there's an obvious implication that a snow tiger berserker polymorphed into a lion and taking the dire charge feat can get off 3 full attacks in or immediately after a charge.

[Deadline]

The celerity ones I am guessing is a contingent add-on? Yeah, that would work. ****ty contingency though, and given the costs involved highly impractical. Most use "when something would kill me" as their contingent condition instead of "when something would minorly inconvenience me."

The Celerity spells are in the PHB 2, and are immediate actions.

And at higher levels of optimization, "when something would kill me" and "when something would minorly inconvenience me" are functionally the same, assuming you are equating dispelling buffs with "minor inconvenience."

Edit - Ring of Counterspells is in DMG, the Greater one is in the Magic Item Compendium. The Ring of Spellbattle is in Complete Arcane.

[RoboEmperor]

I actually don't think uberchargers are particularly overpowered. They have a limited competency which has some significant drawbacks. Against a bunch of mooks with ranged or reach weapons they are weak by default since Shock Trooper dumps their AC and their attack only kills one mook.

The primary reason to impose RAW here is just one of texture. It's a richer world if there are multiple kinds of pounce. Furthermore, there's an obvious implication that a snow tiger berserker polymorphed into a lion and taking the dire charge feat can get off 3 full attacks in or immediately after a charge.

1 monster encounters - Uberchargers OP as hell. They end the encounter before the monster gets to even act.
1+ monster encounters - Uberchargers make no real difference.

It does force the DM to remove 1 monster encounters from the game, and DMs who love playing boss monsters are gonna hate uberchargers.

[Crake]

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Lets see shall we?

Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.

How do you know you're the target of the dispel until you've been hit by it? You can have it trigger upon casting, but then they can just choose to dispel someone else, or just drop an area dispel on your whole party. Unless everyone has it, then the whole party disappears when someone casts dispel magic, hey, easy win for the bad guys, they only had to cast one spell and got full XP for defeating the encounter. Also you're wasting 2,800gp per crafted contingency here. Let's also not forget that contingent spells can be dispelled, and jacking up THEIR caster level isn't so easy.

Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.

Read the specifics of the text: "Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell). In this case, you gain a +8 bonus to AC (if applicable) and a +4 bonus on Reflex saves." Unfortunately +8 to AC and +4 to reflex saves doesn't do much against an area dispel. Sure he can't target you directly, but he can certainly throw an area one at you.

Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.

Ring of greater counterspells only counters spells being targetted at you. An area dispel does cast on you, it's cast on an area. It cannot counterspell fireball anymore than it can counter an area dispel.

Jacking up your caster level is obvious.

If you're going to spend a significant chunk of your wealth by level to jack up your buffs, you may as well be buying magic items at that point. You're rarely going to be hitting the dispel CL cap unless you're playing a super high level game, and even then, there are ways to surpass it with things like dispel chords and the inquisition domain. I'd call that an even game there.

Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.

The irony of celerity is of course that you cast celerity, then the enemy sees you casting celerity and casts celerity themselves. And now they act before you in the celerity line, and get their dispel off. Celerity is a 0 sum game.

Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

Ring of spell battle indeed works fine, but it's eating up a chunk of your wbl. It also needs the enemy to be within 60ft to function, while dispel's range starts at 150ft.