Talk:Master Invoker (3.5e Prestige Class)

Invoke Rating!
I like this! My only question is if it's actually wizard, since I often hear warlocks are a fair example of rogue level, and this seems to be an even trade per level rather than a significant power up. But I will leave that question for others, good job! -- Eiji-kun 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a slight power-up, but not enough to get to wizard level on its own, especially since these levels do not stack with warlock levels for highest invocation level attainable. Anyways, the chart and the text differ on when a character gets an Improved Invocation.  --Havvy 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem to give higher level invocations (or at least it seems to imply), for example level 6th has Invocation (Least, Lesser, Greater). I'd imagine at that point you can pick greater invocations.  Unless you mean like "If I'm a Warlock 20, and take this class, I start back out with Least and Lesser only to choose from" in which case I can see what you meant.  Probably cleaner just to say "This class advances your invocations and their level", whatever your progression currently is.


 * I agree on the rogue level too. -- Eiji-kun 02:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * People seem to think warlock is rogue-level. It really isn't. Chained Nauseating Blast. If an AoE that only targets foes and forces move-actions-only for one minute (not turn, minute) at a time isn't wizard-level, I'm not really sure what is. --Ghostwheel 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Chained Nauseating Blast is fairly high level for the Warlock and is ultimately very much a one trick pony.  Like the titular rogue it has one trick is does well with such a build (sneak attack/chained debuff), but it shuts down around certain fairly common types (or just outright immunity).  That and, well, it's a fairly high level tactic too.  To compare, wizards can AoE shut people down for "the rest of battle" with Fear or, at lower levels, Color Spray.  And I think the level a particularly good tactic comes at is just as important as the power of the tactic itself. -- Eiji-kun 09:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why you're wrong. tl;dr - You don't have to be at the highest level of wizard-level to be wizard-level. --Ghostwheel 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing there that indicates why he's wrong, it's just you defining something in a way that he might not agree with and then drawing inferences from yourself. I don't agree with that definition of wizard level, and don't think the class is wizard level as a result. One ability that makes enemies unable to fight back does not wizard level make IMO. It's not going to make them extra super awesome at encounters on average, just pretty good on average. There are too many things that it's not useful against (undead, constructs, plants, things with specific immunities) or things that it is going to have reduced effectiveness against (creatures with high related saves) for it to push them up into awesome land, and they don't have significant other stuff to fall back on to push them up into awesome land. So I'd call it high rogue if optimized properly, but not wizard, and you'd have to address my position on average encounter utility or lack of additional awesome powers to get me to change that opinion. - Tarkisflux Talk 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Undead, yes. Constructs, yes. Plants? No. And nothing that I can think of has specific immunity to the Nauseated condition. This isn't even with any optimizing, and you know that generally SAD characters (like warlocks) pump one stat up and if it's their primary DC-decider, it usually outperforms equal-level enemies as far as their saves go. As for not having any other things to fall back on--of course they do. Since when did Black Tentacles stop being a wizard-level ability? Or the ability to blind people (albeit for one round, but you do it over and over and over and...) This is without optimizing for feats, for multiclassing, or for much else. Just picking decent invocations--hey, wait, kinda like a psion chooses decent spells and is known as wizard-level. And don't get me started on UMD as a way to dominate the battlefield as another thing to fall back on, especially with their class abilities that center on that specific skill. A half-decently built warlock can take virtually any rogue-level combatant to school without much danger to himself. Between this and all his other tricks, I'd say that's damn well wizard-level. --Ghostwheel 03:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh, thought plants (and a couple other types that also aren't actually, just finished looking) were immune. My mistake, that makes it more useful than I thought.
 * I'm well aware of your feelings on UMD, so it's nice that it doesn't matter in this case because it's shared with the rogue that you're suggesting he would destroy and we can drop it from the comparison. The rest of that is pretty fair, and is a reasonable argument that Warlocks aren't rogue level rather than a bullet point, namely 'with proper ability selection they have multiple save or suck / die abilities that target multiple saves and don't happen too late in the game to be meaningful'. Plot powers would be nice on top of that (for me anyway), but that's my bar for low-wizard level. Thanks. I'll leave the arguing to Eiji and Havvy now ;-) - Tarkisflux Talk 04:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My intent when making this was for your warlock levels and levels in this PrC to stack for the purposes of determining most all aspects of learning and utilizing invocations. A warlock who enters this PrC at level 5, for example, should progress normally for the category of invocations gained. I'm reading over some of the suggestions here and editing the PrC now. Also, my DM was suggesting 1/2 progression for EB damage and DR, since without them a Warlock using this PrC has almost no combat capabilities. Thoughts and comments on this change would be greatly welcomed. Konkon


 * Yeah...it's kind of useful for warlocks to have damage that at least hints at being useful. Though the DR is pitiful at all levels, and is a wash on whether you want to include it or not. --Havvy 23:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)