Pyramid Vs. Column Building - C.Casters

Draven

Draven

Count
Since there's roughly 0% chance I'm going to remain an Earth Caster in the new system, I've been trying to figure out which way I'd build a C-Caster in 2.0.

Ultimately, with the change in how Wands are calculated, there's certainly a greater argument for a Pyramid build. I'm looking for discussion on this.

A Pyramid to one 9th is 95 build, meaning that 100 Build would net you either a 4 Column (36 spells) or a Pyramid with a bonus 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell (99 Build) (48 Spells).

-3 9ths, -2 8ths, -1 7th, +1 5th, +2 4th, +4 3rd, +5 2nd, +6 1st.

This could be most very efficient for Meditate, as the lower tiers would become more valuable.

I feel that there's a significant damage drop-off, but I feel there's also a considerable upswing in CCs and support-casting.

Thoughts?
 
It is my suspicion that with the launch of 2.0 the demand for formal magic will decrease. From what I've seen the use of formal magic is becoming more encouraging of manipulation of ones battle magic. I don't find most of these additions to be particularly incensing, but I do admit empowered magic storm and lesser magic storm does look pretty hot and if you're going down the road of pure damage it might even be the better option.

If we're looking at CC and support casting though almost all of the stuff you really need if found on the bottom half of the pyramid. In my experience quantity of spells usually outweighs quality of spells. I'd rather pin 8 guys and web 5 than pin 4 and web 4. This may of course change with the launch of 2.0 and the overall fewer amount of spells on the field, but that cant be said for sure.

TLDR: I'm probably going to get a pyramid too.
 
Ragnarok said:
It is my suspicion that with the launch of 2.0 the demand for formal magic will decrease. From what I've seen the use of formal magic is becoming more encouraging of manipulation of ones battle magic. I don't find most of these additions to be particularly incensing, but I do admit empowered magic storm and lesser magic storm does look pretty hot and if you're going down the road of pure damage it might even be the better option.

If we're looking at CC and support casting though almost all of the stuff you really need if found on the bottom half of the pyramid. In my experience quantity of spells usually outweighs quality of spells. I'd rather pin 8 guys and web 5 than pin 4 and web 4. This may of course change with the launch of 2.0 and the overall fewer amount of spells on the field, but that cant be said for sure.

TLDR: I'm probably going to get a pyramid too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, full disclosure, my current theory build at 30th level (by the time new rules actually come around, I'll be either at or in excess of 30th level) gives me either a 9 column or a Pyramid to 5 9ths. I was originally going with only 15 Formal, but with Storm Augmentation, I decided to bump it up to 20. Storm Augmentation is supa sexy, and I want it, and I figure that I'm going to get use out of it whether I go columns or pyramids.

Edit: The only thing I think I'll really miss out on, CC-wise, are Charminates. But we have a few MWEs out here...might work out in my benefit if I can't pack too many of them. ;)
 
The flaw with pyramid building is that it loses its luster as you increase in build. Using the simplest comparison, a 9-base pyramid vs a 4-column, you have spent roughly the same amount of build (95 vs. 100) for 9 extra spells (45 vs. 36).

But, due to the way that pyramid/column building rules work, that 9 spell difference never grows. A 10-base pyramid costs roughly the same as a 5-column (120 vs. 125 build) and still only has 9 extra spells (54 vs. 45). And as you gain levels, the gap remains at exactly 9 spells total, which is increasingly a smaller percentage. When you are talking about a 9-column (like you did in your example), the 5 build difference in cost is negligible and so is the 9 spell difference in total spells, especially when those extra 9 spells are notably less efficient.

Also, because of how the new rules work with memorizing lower level spells in higher level slots (I can't even begin to say how happy this makes me), I think that pyramids further prove to be a poor choice, unless you really love casting nothing but 1st and 2nd levels spells. The most practical example I can think of is Spell Shield. I expect this spell will be as popular as ever (probably more so). With a pyramid, you get one more 5th level slot and then lose 6 potential memorization slots for it.

I'd love it if true pyramids continued to maintain the 25% advantage in spells that they have at 9th/10th level, but I am not sure how to mechanically do that (except maybe to introduce some sort of cumulative surcharge on 9th level spells, similar to how profs increase in cost).

-MS
 
I call it a 12 spell difference over a 9 spell difference, because of that extra build, but I getcha.

Thing is, with Pyramid formulation, you become -heavily- focused on Binding/Summoned Force offense, which I think may be worth the trade. Bind and Slow may not have the KO power of Prison, but it's pretty close. Very few things are immune to either, but in the event I'm fighting something that is, I've got Wands and some Evo burst damage to deal with it.

Seriously, for C casting, I genuinely believe the best spells are 5th and below. Confine is great, not necessary. Dispel is amazing. Prison is amazing, but I think it's actually a better defensive spell than an offensive one.
 
Though, now I'm considering going columns with extra Formal, just for that sweet, sweet Storm Augment.

Ugh. Dang it, Mike.
 
Due to the minimal amount of additional spells its a tough decision. Personally as the number of wand charges and static wand damage is no longer reliant on the casters number of columns, I would entertain a pyramid if for nothing other than more weapon shields/Evo 5 bolts as defense poppers. Also due to the fact that we are likely to see an increase locally in casters under the new system I would imagine based upon the scaling I have currently seen that we are likely to see more spell defenses in Seattle/Oregon. Personally I have added Alchemy to my C-caster build to be able to utilize weakness, but my earth caster template is definitely a pyramid (for the opposite reasons, more ranged pickup spells, mixed with meditate seems like a great combination) .
 
I agree with Mike, unless we will be able to go as wide as we want. Now that would be completely different.
 
A.mungo said:
Personally I have added Alchemy to my C-caster build to be able to utilize weakness, but my earth caster template is definitely a pyramid (for the opposite reasons, more ranged pickup spells, mixed with meditate seems like a great combination) .
Click to expand...

I -haaaaate- juggling packets, but this is legit (especially for adding. I'll probably carry a book of scrolls on me.

If I went E-Templar, I think I'd do a teardrop to 2 9ths (Rebirth/Earth Storm), but that wouldn't be necessary. A pyramid for Templars is certainly significantly cheaper than a 4 column, I expect (though I haven't cost it out). I considered going E-Templar, but my planned secondary is a martialist (either Fighter or Bursty-Scout), and I'd rather keep the playstyles different.
 
So, plotting out Formal, I think I'm going the 8 column/28 Formal route, because I'm able to prep 4 Cloaks, 2 Banes, 5 Storm Augments (unless limited?) 2 Augmented Dispels, and 6 HM floating for Saturday night replacements. While the 9 Column/20 Formal route seems deeper, Storm Augment is just something I want All The Time.

It's just so pretty.

That being said, I think both Pyramid and Column builds can be awesome, so I feel that's indicative of a pretty solid decision to tie wands to Build Spent, rather than 9ths.
 
I apologize in advance for the theorycraft here, but I just had a (IMO) brilliant idea for how to make pyramid building legitimately compete with column building.

Adjust the pyramid rules thusly:

***
You are permitted to have multiple pyramids in your primary school (celestial or earth). However, you may only have at most one pyramid that doesn't have a 9th level spell.
***

This would allow someone who wanted breadth over depth to have two 9-base pyramids at 190 build (for example), thus having 90 spells compared to the 72 spells that a column builder would get for 200 build (slightly better than 25% improvement). Furthermore, the caster would get a quick burst of extra spells when starting the new pyramid, offering a solid temptation compared to the slow toil of building up the original pyramid.

This rule would also allow the column caster to create a small secondary pyramid (say, like a 5-base) to supplement a standard column build.

Finally, because only one pyramid, at most, can not have a 9th level spell, you don't have to worry about abuse of players just building a line of 1-dot pyramids for 200 spells at 200 build.

Again, sorry for the theorycraft, but I think this does an excellent job of maintaining parity between pyramid building and column building (which is currently sorely lacking).

-MS
 
Last edited:
Draven said:
That being said, I think both Pyramid and Column builds can be awesome, so I feel that's indicative of a pretty solid decision to tie wands to Build Spent, rather than 9ths.
Click to expand...

I always wanted to tie wand damage to 1st level spells (in some way). I figured that would reward pyramid building with wand damage and column building with high magic, creating an interesting choice for celestial casters.

-MS
 
mikestrauss said:
I apologize in advance for the theorycraft here, but I just had a (IMO) brilliant idea for how to make pyramid building legitimately compete with column building.

Adjust the pyramid rules thusly:

***
You are permitted to have multiple pyramids in your primary school (celestial or earth). However, you may only have at most one pyramid that doesn't have a 9th level spell.
***

This would someone who wanted breadth over depth to have two 9-base pyramids at 190 build (for example), thus having 90 spells compared to the 72 spells that a column builder would get for 200 build (slightly better than 25% improvement). Furthermore, the caster would get a quick burst of extra spells when starting the new pyramid, offering a solid temptation compared to the slow toil of building up the original pyramid.

This rule would also allow the column caster to create a small secondary pyramid (say, like a 5-base) to supplement a standard column build.

Finally, because only one pyramid, at most, can not have a 9th level spell, you don't have to worry about abuse of players just building a line of 1-dot pyramids for 200 spells at 200 build.

Again, sorry for the theorycraft, but I think this does an excellent job of maintaining parity between pyramid building and column building (which is currently sorely lacking).

-MS
Click to expand...

-thinks-

I like it, though based on my earlier assessment (the power of 5th level spells and lower, comparative to upper level spells), I'd almost be concerned it would make pyramid casters -too- powerful in sheer KO force.

I'd want to theorycraft it out a bit more to try and create scenarios akin to fluidclassing (only with shifting spells from columns to pyramids) to see if there'd be any Logistical nightmares.
 
I'd have to agree with Mike. The multiple pyramid route further balances out casting and allows for more customization for what you want to cast. If you indeed want to focus on only 1st and 2nds, this allows that without it being overpowered. Conversely, you could have one pyramid and one column. This would give you more freedom and less pressure picking between more spells vs. higher level spells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top