Predictions on what V's 9th level spells will be?

[Doug Lampert]

If you can negate an enemy's turn, you may as well negate the most powerful enemy's turn. Why deny a level 9 spell when you can deny an epic spell? And as you said, Redcloak is susceptible to stuff Xykon isn't, like... sneak attacks. Probably hard to sneak attack a grasped foe.

Quite the opposite, it's hard to sneak attack with a bow, UNLESS the target is grappled, in which case every attack by everyone not in the grapple qualifies.

[danielxcutter]

True, but not terribly relevant; they have two enemies, not just one. Even without knowing the Plan, Redcloak is still an enormous threat in his own right, being a high-level cleric who is complicit in going for the Gates. So far as the Order knows, if they wipe out Xykon, then Redcloak will take the Gate for himself and rule. And again, there's the healing, where Xykon can last significantly longer with Reddy than without him.

Of course, if you really think that neutralizing Xykon takes ultimate precedence, then it would behoove the Order to have some way to stop him from casting spells, which would free up others to neutralize Redcloak.

Aaaaaaactually, I'm not sure the Spellsplinter Maneuver is going to work well enough on Xykon; undead use Charisma instead of Constitution for Concentration checks and we've seen Greg(who only has marginally better Charisma than Durkon) make the check. Xykon's Charisma is probably in the low 30s; combined with his DR, Roy's going to have to deal a lot of damage for it to really work. And that's assuming the big X doesn't have Improved Combat Casting or whatever.

[Peelee]

Aaaaaaactually, I'm not sure the Spellsplinter Maneuver is going to work well enough on Xykon; undead use Charisma instead of Constitution for Concentration checks and we've seen Greg(who only has marginally better Charisma than Durkon) make the check. Xykon's Charisma is probably in the low 30s; combined with his DR, Roy's going to have to deal a lot of damage for it to really work. And that's assuming the big X doesn't have Improved Combat Casting or whatever.

All damaging attacks inflict a Concentration check to keep the spell. Spellsplinter is introduced as a feat specifically designed to disrupt spells, indicating that it is significantly more difficult to overcome than a standard "you take X damage, factor X into the check calculation" attack. Even that aside, considering the that we've seen it introduced, seen Roy taking the time to learn it, and seen it foreshadowed working in the fight with the vampire, if it turned out to not really do much that wouldn't be terribly good storytelling.

[understatement]

And also hope Redcloak doesn't just pull out a Blasphemy and then Xykon spams Meteor Swarms.

[Goblin_Priest]

All damaging attacks inflict a Concentration check to keep the spell. Spellsplinter is introduced as a feat specifically designed to disrupt spells, indicating that it is significantly more difficult to overcome than a standard "you take X damage, factor X into the check calculation" attack. Even that aside, considering the that we've seen it introduced, seen Roy taking the time to learn it, and seen it foreshadowed working in the fight with the vampire, if it turned out to not really do much that wouldn't be terribly good storytelling.

Wasn't there a theory that the move only worked against casters casting defensively? And that Durkula chose to just tank the attack and do the concentration check instead, thus bypassing it?

[Peelee]

Wasn't there a theory that the move only worked against casters casting defensively? And that Durkula chose to just tank the attack and do the concentration check instead, thus bypassing it?

There's a theory that it's a homebrewed version of Mage Slayer, but given the "homebrew" bit (and the lack of ability to tell when one is casting defensively), that doesn't really mean much, IMO.

Also, when did Durkon get a spell through the Spellsplinter?

[Tvtyrant]

Considering how often they end up having to stave off certain defeat by defending members of the group... Prismatic Sphere. Whole party being assaulted by an army? Hide in sphere. Someone unconscious and being targeted by an evil cousin? Surround with sphere. Want to get Redcloak separated from Xykon to talk about the Snarl Plan? fly up then cast sphere. It doesn't break the genre like Wish or Shapechange, but still has myriad uses that come up almost constantly.

[Emanick]

Wasn't there a theory that the move only worked against casters casting defensively? And that Durkula chose to just tank the attack and do the concentration check instead, thus bypassing it?

While the Order is trapped in Girard’s uberspell, Xykon is astonished to see that Roy disrupted his spell despite the fact that he was casting defensively. That, of course, implies that the Spellsplinter Maneuver can work against you even when you cast defensively.

You could argue that Roy is trapped in an illusion and thus willfully misinterprets how the feat works in order to suit his fantasy, but I don’t think that’s a very strong argument. It makes more sense to assume that everything that happened in the illusion was at least possible from the characters’ points of view.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

when did Durkon get a spell through the Spellsplinter?

Greg did.

Grey Wolf

[mikelibrarian]

Varsuvius doesn't know that Redcloak's Red Cloak is an artifact, so wouldn't target it. I could see V picking that spell for use on the phylactery.

Using Freedom in the way described would be awesome, but I don't think it works that way, and as it remedies something that happened in Start of darkness, none of the PCs would know to use it.

[Goblin_Priest]

While the Order is trapped in Girard’s uberspell, Xykon is astonished to see that Roy disrupted his spell despite the fact that he was casting defensively. That, of course, implies that the Spellsplinter Maneuver can work against you even when you cast defensively.

You could argue that Roy is trapped in an illusion and thus willfully misinterprets how the feat works in order to suit his fantasy, but I don’t think that’s a very strong argument. It makes more sense to assume that everything that happened in the illusion was at least possible from the characters’ points of view.

Well, it's his dream world, so everything that could happen right, did happen right. If there was a fail chance "IRL", it wouldn't have in the dream world.

[Emanick]

Well, it's his dream world, so everything that could happen right, did happen right. If there was a fail chance "IRL", it wouldn't have in the dream world.

: How did you do that?? I was casting defensively!
: He prevented you from doing so by timing his strike to perfectly coincide with the apex of magical energy.

It certainly sounds like the Spellsplinter Maneuver's explicit function is to prevent someone from avoiding the possibility of spell failure by casting defensively (and for any epic-level sorcerers who put max ranks into Concentration, failing such a check should be impossible). This can't be proven, of course, but I think it's a good standing assumption to make unless evidence that it is false arises.

[Kish]

Suppose, hypothetically, that the Spellsplinter Maneuver was a different name for the Mage Slayer feat, which makes it so that any spellcaster attempting to cast defensively in the threatened area of the person with the feat will auto-fail, but doesn't stop someone from casting normally and sucking up the attack of opportunity, if they can make the Concentration check to not lose their spell from the damage.

In this hypothesis, Roy's fantasy version of Xykon was either so stupid, or paying so little attention, that he tried to do something he could easily have observed he couldn't do (the Mage Slayer feat does inform anyone near the person with it that they can't cast defensively). Greg, of course, cast non-defensively and made his Concentration check to cast Harm.

It seems to be consistent with what's on the page, and it leaves the Spellsplinter Maneuver still useful, but vastly less useful against Xykon (who doesn't fight like an idiot outside of Roy's fantasies) than it was in the illusion.

[Goblin_Priest]

: How did you do that?? I was casting defensively!
: He prevented you from doing so by timing his strike to perfectly coincide with the apex of magical energy.

It certainly sounds like the Spellsplinter Maneuver's explicit function is to prevent someone from avoiding the possibility of spell failure by casting defensively (and for any epic-level sorcerers who put max ranks into Concentration, failing such a check should be impossible). This can't be proven, of course, but I think it's a good standing assumption to make unless evidence that it is false arises.

Yea, but nothing about that says "the maneuver is an automatic success".

Could be something along the lines of "When a threatened caster attempts to cast a spell defensively, you get a free attack of opportunity. If it lands, instead of dealing damage, you disrupt the spell". If it's something like this, then you still need 1) available attacks of opportunity and 2) to beat the opponent's AC.

Nothing shows that this is how it works, either, but if there was limits to the ability, I'm guessing that the fantasy illusion probably wouldn't be where we should expect to find them.

[Emanick]

Yea, but nothing about that says "the maneuver is an automatic success".

Could be something along the lines of "When a threatened caster attempts to cast a spell defensively, you get a free attack of opportunity. If it lands, instead of dealing damage, you disrupt the spell". If it's something like this, then you still need 1) available attacks of opportunity and 2) to beat the opponent's AC.

Nothing shows that this is how it works, either, but if there was limits to the ability, I'm guessing that the fantasy illusion probably wouldn't be where we should expect to find them.

Sure, I never suggested that it would make disrupting spells an automatic success. I think Kish's guess as to how it works is probably pretty good.

I think I may have misread your initial post, to be honest, since it's not at all what I remember. That's what I get for posting right before bedtime.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

the Mage Slayer feat does inform anyone near the person with it that they can't cast defensively

It does? How? (IC-wise, I mean)

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

IC-wise, something like, "You realize from the way the greatsword fighter is standing that you cannot cast defensively while this close to him."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

IC-wise, something like, "You realize from the way the greatsword fighter is standing that you cannot cast defensively while this close to him."

...

Well, that's just weird. One, because that seems to require a great deal of martial knowledge from people who spend a lot of time in non-martial learning. But mostly because, in general, I thought feats don't give themselves away? At least, I don't recall ever being given a breakdown of what feats my enemies possessed until they bit me in the behind. What makes this feat so special that it is given away before the fighter even has a chance to use it?

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

...

Well, that's just weird. One, because that seems to require a great deal of martial knowledge from people who spend a lot of time in non-martial learning. But mostly because, in general, I thought feats don't give themselves away? At least, I don't recall ever being given a breakdown of what feats my enemies possessed until they bit me in the behind. What makes this feat so special that it is given away before the fighter even has a chance to use it?

Grey Wolf

Because its purpose is "your enemies can't cast defensively against you, but must automatically provoke an attack of opportunity every time they cast a spell within your threatened area," which is already huge. Not "your enemies can't cast defensively against you and will automatically fizzle at least one spell, and may or may not realize why their casting defensively is strangely not working" which would be vastly more powerful.

This webcomic has an illustration of how it can work in practice.

Edited: To be clear, Mage Slayer is a passive feat, mechanically speaking. Not "you hit them and they can't cast defensively"--strictly "you exude an aura of you-can't-cast-defensively."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because its purpose is "your enemies can't cast defensively against you, but must automatically provoke an attack of opportunity every time they cast a spell within your threatened area," which is already huge. Not "your enemies can't cast defensively against you and will automatically fizzle at least one spell, and may or may not realize why their casting defensively is strangely not working" which would be vastly more powerful.

This webcomic has an illustration of how it can work in practice.

OK, please bear with my haven't-played in-over-a-decade ignorance, but I seem to recall that a fighter in close combat with a wizard already has the upper hand? Getting an extra attack in the wizard's turn is adding insult to injury, rather than a game changer. Also, is there something that prevents the wizard from taking a 5-foot step away from the fighter and literally sidestep any danger? I suppose there are spells they might want to cast that are touch-ranged, but we are getting into niche territory, aren't we?

I suppose the real issue here is that I really don't see how this feat is that much of a huge deal.

(Sorry, I tried your link, but flash is blocked at work. All I could see is a block of text talking about a shield bash thing)

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

At that link is an example of a character answering one of your questions by combining Mage Slayer (your enemies can't cast defensively) with the Thicket of Blades stance from Tome of Battle (taking a five-foot step in your threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity; Thicket of Blades also specifies that everyone who observes the user knows that five-foot steps are now dangerous). More prosaically and core-specific to deal with five-foot steps, there are also spiked chains (turn everywhere within 10 feet of the wielder into their threatened area).

Beyond that, there are battlefield configurations that prevent a spellcaster from casually taking a five-foot step. If you've got them pinned against a wall, so they can go right or left but either will still leave them in your threatened area unless you go more than five feet, it's one example--but the comic offers another; if Roy had had the Mage Slayer feat (whether that's the feat he learned later in the afterlife or not), he would have gotten an attack of opportunity every time Xykon cast a spell while they were on the zombie dragon, since Xykon wasn't five-footing away from him until later, when Xykon fled. In the illusion, of course, Xykon easily could have just stepped back, which might be why Roy's subconscious supplied Xykon acting like he had no idea the restriction was there.

[xroads]

Chain Contingency would definitely make sense.

I can definitely see this as being V's choice. Especially with the threat of fiends yanking V out at inconvenient moments.

Assuming V did choose Chain Contingency, I wonder what kind of spells V could chain? Hmmm... Time Stop maybe?

It's been awhile since I've played 3.5, so my memory of spells options is a bit limited.

[Jasdoif]

...

Well, that's just weird. One, because that seems to require a great deal of martial knowledge from people who spend a lot of time in non-martial learning. But mostly because, in general, I thought feats don't give themselves away? At least, I don't recall ever being given a breakdown of what feats my enemies possessed until they bit me in the behind. What makes this feat so special that it is given away before the fighter even has a chance to use it?

Grey Wolf

Because its purpose is "your enemies can't cast defensively against you, but must automatically provoke an attack of opportunity every time they cast a spell within your threatened area," which is already huge. Not "your enemies can't cast defensively against you and will automatically fizzle at least one spell, and may or may not realize why their casting defensively is strangely not working" which would be vastly more powerful.

This webcomic has an illustration of how it can work in practice.

Edited: To be clear, Mage Slayer is a passive feat, mechanically speaking. Not "you hit them and they can't cast defensively"--strictly "you exude an aura of you-can't-cast-defensively."

To expand a bit, Mage Slayer's description is "You have studied the ways and weaknesses of spellcasters and can time your attacks and defenses against them expertly", and the text says the caster will automatically fail any Concentration checks they choose to make to cast defensively (which results in the spell failing); presumably, in the abstracted-away threat-posturing between rounds, you're showing that your aim can anticipate and thwart the dodging and weaving of casting defensively.

Also, I will note that Mage Slayer's cousin aunt, Spellcasting Harrier, is an epic feat that gives a caster no indication that you get an attack of opportunity when they cast defensively, and even gives a +4 bonus on the attack roll.

[Goblin_Priest]

About a grappling hand, I just remembered: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html

Xykon's immune now.

[zimmerwald1915]

About a grappling hand, I just remembered: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1041.html

Xykon's immune now.

Crushing hand didn't bother Xykon much even before he got his new boots. Which is what makes it a good spell to take, narratively speaking. It will not affect anything in any substantial way.

[danielxcutter]

Crushing hand didn't bother Xykon much even before he got his new boots. Which is what makes it a good spell to take, narratively speaking. It will not affect anything in any substantial way.

I don't really think making V more-or-less irrelevant is that good in narrative terms, especially since V already has more than a few restraining bolts(two calls from the IFCC, the Big X being nigh-immune to most of their spells, etc.) and most of the other members aside from Durkon are seriously gimped against Xykon compared to, say, an epic-leveled version of Redcloak - since against a CE sorcerer lich, no Sneak Attack, DR blocks lots of damage from slashing and piercing, cold immunity, Anarchic only works on lawful creatures plus undead are immune to crits... that kind of stuff.

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't really think making V more-or-less irrelevant is that good in narrative terms, especially since V already has more than a few restraining bolts(two calls from the IFCC, the Big X being nigh-immune to most of their spells, etc.) and most of the other members aside from Durkon are seriously gimped against Xykon compared to, say, an epic-leveled version of Redcloak - since against a CE sorcerer lich, no Sneak Attack, DR blocks lots of damage from slashing and piercing, cold immunity, Anarchic only works on lawful creatures plus undead are immune to crits... that kind of stuff.

Yes, and? There's a reason the planning Book 1 was to buff Roy to high heaven and send him to basically solo Xykon. So will it be again.

[Kish]

Yes, and? There's a reason the planning Book 1 was to buff Roy to high heaven and send him to basically solo Xykon.

Sure; the plan was made by Roy and his massive ego.

So will it be again.

This presumes Roy hasn't and won't move past any of his ego issues. Which I realize is to be expected from you, but you should be equally unsurprised that it finds little traction.

[zimmerwald1915]

This presumes Roy hasn't and won't move past any of his ego issues.

Whereas you're presuming that it isn't a tactically sound plan that a reasonable team might pursue on its merits. As danielxcutter has observed, the Order hasn't got many other options, since most of its members are incapable of contributing to a confrontation with Xykon (minions notwithstanding) otherwise than by buffing Roy.

[Kish]

Whereas you're presuming that it isn't a tactically sound plan that a reasonable team might pursue on its merits.

Whether it is or not is, I think, completely irrelevant; if Rich writes a climactic final battle with Xykon, it will involve the Order as an ensemble cast, not spotlight Roy and ignore the other members.