Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Domenic 05-09-07, 06:36 AM	This thread contains some house rules that several posters have contributed in an effort to combat brokenness. Although it's easy to say "I have one house rule: ask the DM" or "I have one house rule: rule 0" or "I have one house rule: don't be a jerk" or whatever, I personally would prefer to have a collection in a document somewhere that I can refer players to, so they don't build a character on the assumption that something's allowed that actually has been modified. The following is a list collected from this thread. It contains several contradictory rulings, stemming from the fact that they were contributed by different people. So, pick the ones you like, and use them in your game! Or don't, that's fine too! A few rulings are also redundant with the FAQ or customer service, but I'm including them here because they still override RAW. Contributor names are included in parenthesis. Items Thought bottle (CAr 150): The store experience function of only works to offset experience loss due to death, and not due to item crafting or spellcasting or any other such use. Furthermore, all uses of the store experience function should be run by me, to prevent abuse. (Domenic) Nightstick (LM 78): Possessing more than one nightstick does not grant more than the additional four turn/rebuke undead uses that you were granted by your first nightstick. In addition, there is a 48-hour attunement period after you first possess a nightstick before it begins to grant you the four turn/rebuke undead attempts (this is to prevent switching off the nightstick to another party member after using the granted turn/rebuke attempts). (Domenic) Power link (MoE 115): The text should be changed to read “this augment can cannot result in more power points invested than you have manifester levels.” Strand of prayer beads (DMG 267–268): the costs with removal of beads is inconsistent with the cost of the standard strand of prayer beads. For example you could own a standard strand of prayer beads with the bead of healing and bead of smiting removed (leaving only the bead of karma) for 0 gp. Change the price of the standard strand of prayer beads to 45 800 gp, the sum of its constituent beads’ prices (just as with the lesser and greater strands). (Domenic) The Sudden Stunning weapon enhancement (DMG2 261) has been updated to the Stunning Surge (MIC 44) weapon enhancement, despite the different names. (Domenic) Classes and Prestige Classes The crusader’s recovery mechanic (ToB 10) should be clarified as follows: “If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers all maneuvers (whether expended or not) become withheld, and then a new pair set of readied maneuvers is granted to you from this pool.” (Domenic, kilroo) Swordsages gain (6 + Int) × 4 skill points at first level, not (6 + Int) × 6 as is stated in ToB 16. (Domenic) The planar shepherd (FoE 105–109) does not acquire the time traits of his chosen plane when using his planar bubble ability. Furthermore, any spell-like abilities used by a wild-shaped planar shepherd with XP or expensive material components still require such components. Finally, please talk over with me your decision to play this class, and what abilities you plan to exploit: be prepared for me to say “OK, no, that’s just not cool, you can’t do that.” (Domenic) The invisible blade (CW 44–46) should have the prerequisite feats Far Shot and Point Blank Shot replaced with Weapon Finesse, as per the class’s original creator. (The class was originally a ten-level class, with the extra five levels containing ranged abilities.) (Domenic and ancalimohtar) For Fuchlucan Lyrist, you can't fricken learn Druidic language through screwy methods. The Fochlucan college doesn't want anyone who did that. They want someone who has spent time being a Druid. Take the level. (ancalimohtar) Items don't serve as prereqs except maybe on a case-by-case basis. And in those cases, items must be worn for 24/48/X hours before they apply, and if they are removed, the feat is inactive, and the PrC loses all abilities. (ancalimohtar) Races, Templates, and Monsters Any race with a level adjustment greater than +1, or with any racial hit die, and any template at all, must be approved by me before you can take it. Although generally they will be allowed, be prepared for me to say no. (Domenic) Sarrukhs don't have their stupidly thought-out ability, period. It doesn't exist. (ancalimohtar) You can't be a Dry Lich without getting to Walker in the Waste 10, (and thus the LA doesn't apply, ever). (ancalimohtar) Mineral Warrior is LA +2, or alternatively, nix the DR completely. (ancalimohtar) Savage Species is banned. If a player has a request, it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but since it's 3.0, had most of it updated to newer books, and the rest is just crap, no big loss. (ancalimohtar) Psicrystals do not advance in HD. Ever. (BloodSpill) Psicrystals do not advance in HD, but get their master's base attack bonus (CrimsonDeath) As per EPH 22, a psicrystal’s abilities are based upon the owner’s levels in psionic classes. This overrides the text in the monster description for psicrystals (EPH 207) and various prestige class text, the latter of which is a copy-and-paste error from 3.0 when psicrystals were class features of the psion class. (Domenic) A psicrystal gains HD as its master does, and thus advances in base attack bonus, feats, etc. as a construct. Note that EPH 22 states that its saving throws and skills are overridden by specific rules, so these are not derived from the hit dice advancement. (Domenic) Whisper Gnomes need to be la +1 (Zendu) Feats Arcane Thesis (PH2 74–75) can't reduce any metamagic feats with base costs above +1 to anything below +1. Additionally, it doesn't have any effect on feats with base costs +1 or below. (ancalimohtar) Arcane Thesis (PH2 74–75) only applies to a single metamagic feat per casting of the chosen spell. However, when applied with a +0 adjustment metamagic feat, the metamagicked spell does in fact take up a slot one level lower. So an empowered maximized fireball cast by a wizard with Arcane Thesis (fireball), Empower Spell, Maximize Spell, and Energy Substitution (cold) would take up a seventh-level slot (3 + 2 – 1 + 3), but a coldball cast by the same wizard would take up a second-level slot (3 + 0 – 1). (Domenic) Divine Metamagic (CD ??) doesn't allow you to spend turning attempts to apply a metamagic feat to a spell if the end result would be of a level you can't cast. (ancalimohtar) Precocious Apprentice (CAr 181) does not allow you to meet spellcasting prerequisites that require casting 2nd-level spells, due to the requirement of spells, plural. (Domenic) Precocious Apprentice, Earth Spell, and Heighten Spell cannot be used to qualify for prestige classes or feats. (ancalimohtar, GDarius) Psycarnum Infusion (MoI 40) cannot be used to invest essentia in incarnum feats more times per day than the feat normally allows. For example, infinite power point generation via Psycarnum Infusion and Azure Talent (MoI 34) is not possible, since Azure Talent only allows investiture of essentia once per day. (Domenic) Natural Bond (CAd 111) does allow a druid to take on an animal companion that would normally impose a x penalty to effective druid level at a min(0, x – 3) penalty, for example an ape at no penalty (instead of -3) or a brown bear at a -3 penalty (instead of -6). Skills Use Magic Device cannot be used to emulate higher caster level than you have hit dice. (Domenic) Maneuvers and Stances For the purposes of any maneuver that states that it affects an ally, but does not state that it affects you or an ally, you yourself are not included. So, for example, you could not use White Raven Tactics to give yourself a second turn whenever it is granted to you. (Domenic) Maneuvers and stances granted by items function identically to those granted by the relevant feat. That is, if you have any levels in a martial adept class, choose one class to add the maneuver or stance to your pool of known maneuvers; if you do not, you can use it once per encounter. (Domenic) Other Thrown objects cannot do more than 20d6 damage. (Domenic, Fwib) Shadow illusions can never be more than 100% real. Particulary if the reality is increased after a made-save. (ancalimohtar) Can't add the same ability score to the same stat more than once. Untyped bonuses don't stack. (There might be reasonable exceptions; I just don't know of any.) (ancalimohtar) Spell X is a different spell from Metamagicked Spell X. Thus, Signature Spell doesn't let you drop a spell for a metamagicked spell. Same with clerics--can't drop a spell for a metamagicked "cure spell Y." You can take Signature Spell for Specific-Metamagicked Spell X though. If that's Heighten, the specifc spell must be "Heightened (3) Silent Image" or "Heightened (5) Silent Image." Each level of Heighten makes a different spell, in other words. (ancalimohtar) Most abilities that let you learn a random new spell do not let you learn one from a school of magic you have banned. (ancalimohtar) Undead and creatures with the Evil subtype only gain "virtual taint." Their "virtual" taint score is automatically set to 1/2 their Charisma score, +1 for undead, +2 for outsiders, at conversion to undeath/birth/as appropriate. These creatures may acquire more taint later, or (in exceedingly rare cases) cleanse the taint they have acquired. In either case, Undead and evil creatures suffer the full ill effects of taint, but also gain no benefits from accruing more taint - their twisted nature only makes physcial and mental corruption worse. One cannot be made immune to taint. As a Corollary, Pure Soul and similar abilities that make one immune to taint are banned (vlad43210) Illumian sigils cannot be used to qualify for prestige classes or feats. (GDarius) Polymorphs are limited by CR and size, not HD. All of your equipment melds into your new form. Or, at your option, some items may drop at your feet. You can don equipment while in the new form, but lose all proficiencies while in this form. Keep mental stats, but not physical. You cannot cast spells, use spell-like abilities nor supernatural abilities in the new form. You get all the special abilities of the new form. You can't use the special abilities of your old form, unless they have no verbal or somatic component to them and otherwise do not rely on any organ or body part (silent still spells, spell like abilities or supernatural abilities are still not allowed). Material component: a small preserved piece of the creature to transform into. You transform into a basic creature of the same type, not the same specific creature. This is just a step above banning polymorph altogether, since it keeps people from using polymorph to fight effectively. Instead, it allows uses similar to the examples given in the spell description: using the special abilities of the creature you polymorphed into to overcome odd challenges. (Nathreet)
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 07:29 AM	Excellent idea. I tried doing this a long time ago, but people were not receptive because they whined that there was no way to get a general consensus on reasonable interpretations and house rules. But this way, it's just what you think is good. You may want to include a section, later on, on other commonly-houseruled things that you don't houserule.
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 07:31 AM	Not wasting my time writing these so they can be foolproof RAW; the whole point is RAI; ought to be clear: Precocious Apprentice. Doesn't count as access to 2nd level spells. Earth Spell, Heighten Spell, Illumian Sigils and similar abilities can not be used to qualify for prestige classes or feats. Arcane Thesis can't reduce any metamagic feats with base costs above +1 to anything below +1. Additionally, it doesn't have any effect on feats with base costs +1 or below. You can't fricken learn Druidic language through screwy methods. The Fochlucan college doesn't want anyone who did that. They want someone who has spent time being a Druid. Take the level. In a similar vein, items don't serve as prereqs except maybe on a case-by-case basis. And in those cases, items must be worn for 24/48/X hours before they apply, and if they are removed, the feat is inactive, and the PrC loses all abilities. DMM doesn't allow you to spend turning attempts to apply a metamagic feat to a spell if the end result would be of a level you can't cast. (OH SNAP!) Not a houserule, actually just a real rule nobody follows: When the book says "spend 24 hours copy a scroll into a spellbook," it means it. Sit there for 24 hours, though not necessarily in one session, doing nothing but copying and taking occasional pee breaks. I love how everybody likes to talk about the comparative weakness of Sorcerors when oftentimes it's because they don't force Wizards to spend spell level x 150 gp and 24 hours per spell. I actually don't follow this (I prefer the converse, buffing the Sorc) but I can understand this way of thinking. Shadow illusions can never be more than 100% real. Particulary if the reality is increased after a made-save. Can't add the same ability score to the same stat more than once. Untyped bonuses don't stack. (There might be reasonable exceptions; I just don't know of any.) Sarrukhs don't have their stupidly thought-out ability, period. It doesn't exist. You can't be a Dry Lich without getting to Walker in the Waste 10, (and thus the LA doesn't apply, ever). Mineral Warrior is LA +2, or alternatively, nix the DR completely. Savage Species is banned. If a player has a request, it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but since it's 3.0, had most of it updated to newer books, and the rest is just crap, no big loss. Invisible blades don't have the silly prereqs. Only feats required are Weapon focus (dagger/punching dagger/kukri) and Weapon Finesse. Spell X is a different spell from Metamagicked Spell X. Thus, Signature Spell doesn't let you drop a spell for a metamagicked spell. Same with clerics--can't drop a spell for a metamagicked "cure spell Y." You can take Signature Spell for Specific-Metamagicked Spell X though. If that's Heighten, the specifc spell must be "Heightened (3) Silent Image" or "Heightened (5) Silent Image." Each level of Heighten makes a different spell, in other words. Most abilities that let you learn a random new spell do not let you learn one from a school of magic you have banned. Spellsinger banned. In fact, all PrCs in that book requires DM approval. 3.0, most stuff updated, etc., etc. I'll add in more later.
sethjohnson 05-09-07, 10:31 AM	Thought bottle (CAr 150): The store experience function of only works to offset experience loss due to death, and not due to item crafting or spellcasting or any other such use. Furthermore, all uses of the store experience function should be run by me, to prevent abuse. I think this is already fixed via the official FAQ.
vlad43210 05-09-07, 10:57 AM	Hi all! A Houserule for Taint, for darker campaigns: Undead and creatures with the Evil subtype only gain "virtual taint." Their "virtual" taint score is automatically set to 1/2 their Charisma score, +1 for undead, +2 for outsiders, at conversion to undeath/birth/as appropriate. These creatures may acquire more taint later, or (in exceedingly rare cases) cleanse the taint they have acquired. In either case, Undead and evil creatures suffer the full ill effects of taint, but also gain no benefits from accruing more taint - their twisted nature only makes physcial and mental corruption worse. One cannot be made immune to taint. As a Corollary, Pure Soul and similar abilities that make one immune to taint are banned
mercury529 05-09-07, 11:00 AM	I agree with most of Ancali's additions. I would disagree with this one: Shadow illusions can never be more than 100% real. The way I see it, channelling shadow magic into a real spell is not any different from empowering a spell. If you can empower a fireball to do more damage than it normally does, why can't you channel more shadow magic into a spell than the amount of power it normally has? The whole point of shadow spells is mind over matter. If a creature who fails his Will Save can take more damage when he believes a spell to be stronger than it really is, why can't he take less damage when he believes a spell to be weaker than it really is? And from a balance standpoint, 100%+ reality requires a creature passing their Will Save. If you make your Will Save to disbelieve easier to pass, then you are also making any additional saves associated with the spell weaker. And lowering your save generally will mean you are lowering it for all spells or at least all illusion spells.
kilroo 05-09-07, 11:04 AM	The crusader’s recovery mechanic (ToB 10) should be clarified as follows: “If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers all maneuvers (whether expended or not) become withheld, and then a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you from this pool.” Thoughts, suggestions, additions? Well, this is pretty much the latest official ruling. While you're at it you ought to make it clear that if said crusader would have more than two maneuvers granted at the beginning of combat, he gets that increased number granted when they reset. At least, I personally believe it should work that way. Not wasting my time writing these so they can be foolproof RAW; the whole point is RAI; ought to be clear: Can't add the same ability score to the same stat more than once. (There might be reasonable exceptions; I just don't know of any.) You can't be a Dry Lich without getting to Walker in the Waste 10, (and thus the LA doesn't apply, ever). Spell X is a different spell from Metamagicked Spell X. Thus, Signature Spell doesn't let you drop a spell for a metamagicked spell. Same with clerics--can't drop a spell for a metamagicked "cure spell Y." You can take Signature Spell for Specific-Metamagicked Spell X though. Spellsinger banned. In fact, all PrCs in that book requires DM approval. 3.0, most stuff updated, etc., etc. I agree with all the rest of what you said, to be honest. To these specific ones, I comment as follows, respectively: Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but if it's what I think you mean, I haven't decided whether I agree or not. (Which is not the same thing as being indifferent.) Not familiar enough with Sandstorm(?) to have a firm opinion, but sounds right. Disagree. See Dry Lich.
BloodSpill 05-09-07, 11:15 AM	Shadow illusions can never be more than 100% real. I am seconding this one. Mostly because it's stupid, but also because I can't stand being penalised for passing a saving throw. Can't add the same ability score to the same stat more than once. (There might be reasonable exceptions; I just don't know of any.) I disagree. There is nothing wrong with a monk saint. You're a monk and a saint! You're Lawful Exalted! The DM already has you by the leash. My contribution: Psicrystals do not advance in HD. Ever.
Hella_Tellah 05-09-07, 11:34 AM	I have exactly one houserule: "Don't be a tool." Works for me.
Fwib 05-09-07, 12:03 PM	The hulking hurler (CW 40–42) cannot do more than 20d6 damage with a thrown weapon.Either fix the crazy-damage-by-weight rules or ban everyone from doing more than a certain amount of damage - the problem is not with the Hurler itself.
JaronK 05-09-07, 01:29 PM	Honestly, there's no way you're going to get all the potencial abuses. Just have a rule: anything you think might be sketchy must be reviewed with the DM first for approval. That's kinda what the DM is for. JaronK
GDarius 05-09-07, 04:01 PM	Precocious Apprentice. Doesn't count as access to 2nd level spells. This seems counterintuitive to me. I've never had a problem with Precocious Apprentice. I would disallow spontaneous casters from taking it, however. If you're concerned with the early entry tricks, do remember to add a rule to the effect of "Earth Spell, Heighten Spell, Illumian Sigils and similar abilities can not be used to qualify for prestige classes or feats". Arcane Thesis can't reduce any metamagic feats with base costs above +1 to anything below +1. Additionally, it doesn't have any effect on feats with base costs +1 or below. Again, I've never had a problem. Arcane Thesis only works for one spell, so any build based on its abuse will by definition be extremely focused. If one of my players wants to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others, then yeah, I'll let them be really good at that one thing. You can't fricken learn Druidic language through screwy methods. The Fochlucan college doesn't want anyone who did that. If you mind controlled a druid and forced him to teach you, for the purpose of entering said college, they will force you to atone and learn it the regular way. The most common way I've seen to cheese entry into Fochulan Lyrist is the Ring of Evasion trick. I'd deal with that one first. I also have to point out that "The college wouldn't let you cheat" is inconsistant. This is a school that trains assassins, and allows Druids that enter to ignore oaths they made in the past. It doesn't exactly sound like a place with an emphasis on following the rules. Whether you think it's unbalancing or not, the most probable reaction from the Fochulan faculty here is "Excellent use of lateral thinking. Now, lets see if you can survive your studies." DMM doesn't allow you to spend turning attempts to apply a metamagic feat to a spell if the end result would be of a level you can't cast. (OH SNAP!) Change of pace; I agree fully. In fact, any feat (except Arcane Thesis, for the reasons above) that reduces the cost of metamagic is banned in my campaigns. And ones like DMM (that replace the cost of metamagic with something else) are amended in the way you propose. Getting free effective spell levels is the second most powerful ability in the game, IMO (first being getting free actions to cast spells with), and an enemy I come up with that uses it would most certainly be better at abusing this than anything the PCs could think of. It's better to just amend and/or ban these. Not a houserule, actually just a real rule nobody follows: When the book says "spend 24 hours copy a scroll into a spellbook," it means it. Sit there for 24 hours, though not necessarily in one session, doing nothing but copying and taking occasional pee breaks. I love how everybody likes to talk about the comparative weakness of Sorcerors when oftentimes it's because they don't force Wizards to spend spell level x 150 gp and 24 hours per spell. I actually don't follow this (I prefer the converse, buffing the Sorc) but I can understand this way of thinking. Agreed on both counts; it is a rule, but I don't use it, opting to increase the [Sorcerer, Beguiler, Warmage, Bard, Duskblade] power levels instead. Shadow illusions can never be more than 100% real. I assume this is to reduce the effectiveness of the Killer Gnome builds. You can't get reality to 100% without using Forgotten Realms stuff and Greyhawk stuff. Also, the specialization argument comes in here. (If a player wants to specialize, he can be really, really good at that one thing). Can't add the same ability score to the same stat more than once. (There might be reasonable exceptions; I just don't know of any.) Never had problems. What kind of abuse would this prevent, specifically? Sarrukhs don't have their stupidly thought-out ability, period. It doesn't exist. Meh. If I included Forgotten Realms stuff (and the Sarrukh specifically), I'd just make Pun-Pun a TN deity in the cosmology and be done with it. He can just kill anyone who tries to copy him. You can't be a Dry Lich without getting to Walker in the Waste 10, (and thus the LA doesn't apply, ever). I... don't get it. What's the problem here exactly? Mineral Warrior is LA +2, or alternatively, nix the DR completely. Ok. Savage Species is banned. If a player has a request, it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but since it's 3.0, had most of it updated to newer books, and the rest is just crap, no big loss. Aside from AEG and Book of Vile Darkness, I don't actually use 3.0 stuff, so I wouldn't know how this would impact a game. Invisible blades don't have the silly prereqs. Only feats required are Weapon focus (dagger/punching dagger/kukri) and Weapon Finesse. If this is a mechanical issue, then be consistant in boosting weak PrCs. Go ahead and punch up Arcane Archer, Mindbender 2 thru 10 and Bladesinger 2 thru 10. I prefer an alternate approach; let the players know this class sucks, then leave it as-is. If it's flavor, then, well... ok, power to ya. Spell X is a different spell from Metamagicked Spell X. Thus, Signature Spell doesn't let you drop a spell for a metamagicked spell. Same with clerics--can't drop a spell for a metamagicked "cure spell Y." You can take Signature Spell for Specific-Metamagicked Spell X though. I disagree. Further, I don't see how this is abuseable, or even unbalancing. Why the hell would a Cleric spontaneously convert a level 4 spell slot into a Maximized CLW, when she could have used the same one to cast CSW for about double the healing? Most abilities that let you learn a random new spell do not let you learn one from a school of magic you have banned. What abilities are you talking about? The only one I know of is the Recaster (which AFAIK, specifically allows this). Spellsinger banned. In fact, all PrCs in that book requires DM approval. 3.0, most stuff updated, etc., etc. Not familiar with Spellsinger, so I can't comment.
Thrincold 05-09-07, 04:17 PM	I only have two house rules. 1) Everything must be approved by the DM. 2) If I have seen it on the Theoretical Op boards, you will likely be asked not to come back to my game. That tends to cover just about everything.
Nathreet 05-09-07, 04:49 PM	How's this: Polymorphs are limited by CR and size, not HD. All of your equipment melds into your new form. Or, at your option, some items may drop at your feet. You can don equipment while in the new form, but lose all proficiencies while in this form. Keep mental stats, but not physical. You cannot cast spells, use spell-like abilities nor supernatural abilities in the new form. You get all the special abilities of the new form. You can't use the special abilities of your old form, unless they have no verbal or somatic component to them and otherwise do not rely on any organ or body part (silent still spells, spell like abilities or supernatural abilities are still not allowed). Material component: a small preserved piece of the creature to transform into. You transform into a basic creature of the same type, not the same specific creature. This is just a step above banning polymorph altogether, since it keeps people from using polymorph to fight effectively. Instead, it allows uses similar to the examples given in the spell description: using the special abilities of the creature you polymorphed into to overcome odd challenges.
CrimsonDeath 05-09-07, 04:59 PM	My contribution: Psicrystals do not advance in HD. Ever. I only agree if psicrystals get to use their masters' base attack bonus. Otherwise, an Epic psicrystal is still swinging at a -5.
Lacyon 05-09-07, 05:06 PM	Polymorphs are limited by CR and size, not HD. All of your equipment melds into your new form. Or, at your option, some items may drop at your feet. You can don equipment while in the new form, but lose all proficiencies while in this form. Keep mental stats, but not physical. You cannot cast spells, use spell-like abilities nor supernatural abilities in the new form. You get all the special abilities of the new form. You can't use the special abilities of your old form, unless they have no verbal or somatic component to them and otherwise do not rely on any organ or body part (silent still spells, spell like abilities or supernatural abilities are still not allowed). Material component: a small preserved piece of the creature to transform into. You transform into a basic creature of the same type, not the same specific creature. This reminds me of a revelation I had about how screwed-up Polymorph (and similar effects) really are: the caster is limited by hit dice (and hit dice alone) when choosing what creature to become, yet he gains none of creature's traits that are associated with hit dice whatsoever! Seriously. If polymorph is going to be anything close to balanced and still be as open-ended as it currently is, the limit needs to be LA-based instead of HD-based. Which would also have the benefit (assuming, due to temporary insanity, that the LA system is roughly balanced) of allowing a balanced way to polymorph into templated creatures (make sure the total LA is within your limit). -Lacyon
Zendu 05-09-07, 05:57 PM	looking good. Whisper Gnomes need to be la +1 and you can reach 100% reality with just RoS shadow caster
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 06:59 PM	This seems counterintuitive to me. I've never had a problem with Precocious Apprentice. I would disallow spontaneous casters from taking it, however. If you're concerned with the early entry tricks, do remember to add a rule to the effect of "Earth Spell, Heighten Spell, Illumian Sigils and similar abilities can not be used to qualify for prestige classes or feats".Agreed. I'll add them. Again, I've never had a problem. Arcane Thesis only works for one spell, so any build based on its abuse will by definition be extremely focused.It's used abusively. Search the threads. If one of my players wants to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all others, then yeah, I'll let them be really good at that one thing.Even if that ONE thing is "breaking the game"? Even "one" of those is too many. It's not fun for the other players and it's not fun for the DM. The most common way I've seen to cheese entry into Fochulan Lyrist is the Ring of Evasion trick. I'd deal with that one first. I also have to point out that "The college wouldn't let you cheat" is inconsistant. This is a school that trains assassins, and allows Druids that enter to ignore oaths they made in the past. It doesn't exactly sound like a place with an emphasis on following the rules. Whether you think it's unbalancing or not, the most probable reaction from the Fochulan faculty here is "Excellent use of lateral thinking. Now, lets see if you can survive your studies."Agreed on items giving prereqs. But I disagree about the College. Read the flavor text. It's meant to be for druids. Everything points towards a RAI reading to be only meant for people with druid levels. They just thought they'd be cute and put the "ONLY DRUID LEVELS WORK" into a stupid "Speak Druidic" requirement. It's meant to keep the "Spells" requirement line looking nice and clean, but I really think they should have just said, "requires Druid 1, Bard 1, Evasion, and skills." I assume this is to reduce the effectiveness of the Killer Gnome builds. You can't get reality to 100% without using Forgotten Realms stuff and Greyhawk stuff.So? General D&D books ("Greyhawk," nominally) are non-setting-specific. I don't think anyone here believes it's cheese to combine Shadowcraft Mage with Shadowcrafter. I do, however think it's silly to punish someone for failing a save, like someone else said above. It's just wonky with respect to the rules, doesn't carry the spirit of the game. Never had problems. What kind of abuse would this prevent, specifically?Characters with INT x3 to damage--Bonuses don't stack with themselves. In this case, INT to damage is untyped, but it still doesn't stack with itself. If a class gave INT x 3 to damage, (like STR to damage when PAing from FB) then that's fine. But these are three instances of "INT to damage," which I don't think ought to stack. Meh. If I included Forgotten Realms stuff (and the Sarrukh specifically), I'd just make Pun-Pun a TN deity in the cosmology and be done with it. He can just kill anyone who tries to copy him.That's cute to say, but how many people would do something so silly to their setting? I mean, if you hold repeat campaigns in the same setting, you would canonize that kind of stupidity? I... don't get it. What's the problem here exactly?To prevent disputes over the text. It's written badly, you see. Only way it says to become a Dry Lich is to make these phylacteryish things, and the only way to make them is as a Walker 10. But then it gives the template an LA +5. Dumb. Aside from AEG and Book of Vile Darkness, I don't actually use 3.0 stuff, so I wouldn't know how this would impact a game.Anthropomorphic [insert stupid animal], Tauric, Insectile (last I checked it didn't give attacks, but I think people figured out a way for it to), Feral, that spell that gives Pounce, Incarnate Construct (so, so dumb), multiheaded, Illithid Savant, Emaciated Spawn, and so on and so forth. Terrible book. Great idea, I wish they would re-make it, but terrible, terrible balance considerations. If this is a mechanical issue, then be consistant in boosting weak PrCs. Go ahead and punch up Arcane Archer, Mindbender 2 thru 10 and Bladesinger 2 thru 10. I prefer an alternate approach; let the players know this class sucks, then leave it as-is. If it's flavor, then, well... ok, power to ya.It's neither. It's because of an editing flaw. See: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=139190 I disagree. Further, I don't see how this is abuseable, or even unbalancing. Why the hell would a Cleric spontaneously convert a level 4 spell slot into a Maximized CLW, when she could have used the same one to cast CSW for about double the healing?I think we should make a new rule on this thread. If you don't know why someone else wants to nerf a seemingly innocuous interpretation of the rules, ask them to link you to an abuse. Don't just assume they're being a jerk DM and preemptively nerfing everything in sight. In this case, it's to prevent Shadowcraft gnomes from no longer even memorizing heightened silent images, but dropping any prepared spell for a better conj/evoc spell. Oh, and the cleric bit in there is to be consistent. To those keeping score, yes, that's two nerfs to the Shadowcraft gnome. No, I have nothing against them, except a lot of experience. I'm playing my second one right now, in fact. I was one of the original contributors on Snow's old thread, and I really love the build. I just don't think sticking in wonky interpretations of the rules to break it is good for anyone, least of all the people that want to play the build that only has solid, good, defendable interpretations of the rules. What abilities are you talking about? The only one I know of is the Recaster (which AFAIK, specifically allows this).That dragon mage class, some feats, and one or two more classes. Don't remember off the top of my head. Anyone else know? [QUOTENot familiar with Spellsinger, so I can't comment.[/QUOTE]It's bad.
mercury529 05-09-07, 07:04 PM	So? General D&D books ("Greyhawk," nominally) are non-setting-specific. I don't think anyone here believes it's cheese to combine Shadowcraft Mage with Shadowcrafter. I do, however think it's silly to punish someone for failing a save, like someone else said above. It's just wonky with respect to the rules, doesn't carry the spirit of the game. The mechanic is fully inkeeping with the rules. The mind is capable of modifying how much damage you take. Why would the mind only be capable of dealing more damage and not preventing it? There are other situations where failing a save is worse than passing them. If you pass the Fort Save on a Phantasmal Killer, and you have immunity to death effects, you are worse off for it.
JaronK 05-09-07, 07:08 PM	True. Shadow magic already uses a Placebo affect to increase damage based on what the mind thinks is going on, so the extra reality makes sense. And Whispergnomes really don't need to be LA+1. They make good rogues, sure, but rogues aren't an overpowered class anyway. They're worse as Shadowcraft Mages (+1 Illusion DCs is much better, and the Cha penalty can hurt). Humans are better if you're playing the power classes. JaronK
Zendu 05-09-07, 07:09 PM	The most common way I've seen to cheese entry into Fochulan Lyrist is the Ring of Evasion trick. I'd deal with that one first. I also have to point out that "The college wouldn't let you cheat" is inconsistant. This is a school that trains assassins, and allows Druids that enter to ignore oaths they made in the past. It doesn't exactly sound like a place with an emphasis on following the rules. Whether you think it's unbalancing or not, the most probable reaction from the Fochulan faculty here is "Excellent use of lateral thinking. Now, lets see if you can survive your studies." NEVER NEVER EVER EVER justify RULES with ROLEPLAYING, just look at true neutral!
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 07:22 PM	The mechanic is fully inkeeping with the rules. The mind is capable of modifying how much damage you take. Why would the mind only be capable of dealing more damage and not preventing it? There are other situations where failing a save is worse than passing them. If you pass the Fort Save on a Phantasmal Killer, and you have immunity to death effects, you are worse off for it.Um, that's not even comparable. Phantasmal Killer punishes you with a different mechanic if you save. If you happen to have immunity to the worse punishment, and don't have immunity to the lesser punishment, then obviously it would be better to fail. Shadow illusions' effects are the same mechanic whether you save or fail. This is a rules-explanation. More importantly, your flavor argument makes no sense. It's not about whether it's POSSIBLE to take more damage because of your mind. It's about what yields what, pseudo-magicko-scientifically. Shadow is real stuff from the Plane of Shadow. It hurts. A 50% reality fireball does 100% on a failed save because the mind perceives real fire, and thus the spell does 100%--50% from the shadowstuff, and 50% from the remainder which is dealt by the mind to itself to make up for what damage it expects to be done. It does 50% on a made save because the mind realizes it's only made up of shadow, and lets all the shadow do real damage--which amounts to all that's the shadow is able to do, which is 50%. On a 150% reality fireball, it's made up of 150% of what a real fireball is made up of, except its all shadowstuff. So how could failing a save (I think I'm only going to take 100%!) preventing the shadowstuff from doing what its meant to do? That is the flavor argument.
mercury529 05-09-07, 07:39 PM	Um, that's not even comparable. Phantasmal Killer punishes you with a different mechanic if you save. If you happen to have immunity to the worse punishment, and don't have immunity to the lesser punishment, then obviously it would be better to fail. I do, however think it's silly to punish someone for failing a save, like someone else said above. You are punishing them for passing a save with the Phantasmal Killer example. Your opinion made no distinction between different mechanics. More importantly, your flavor argument makes no sense. It's not about whether it's POSSIBLE to take more damage because of your mind. It's about what yields what, pseudo-magicko-scientifically. Shadow is real stuff from the Plane of Shadow. It hurts. A 50% reality fireball does 100% on a failed save because the mind perceives real fire, and thus the spell does 100%--50% from the shadowstuff, and 50% from the remainder which is dealt by the mind to itself to make up for what damage it expects to be done. It does 50% on a made save because the mind realizes it's only made up of shadow, and lets all the shadow do real damage--which amounts to all that's the shadow is able to do, which is 50%. On a 150% reality fireball, it's made up of 150% of what a real fireball is made up of, except its all shadowstuff. So how could failing a save (I think I'm only going to take 100%!) preventing the shadowstuff from doing what its meant to do? That is the flavor argument. So it makes perfect scientific sense that your mind can inflict damage to you, but it is completely a ludicrous claim that your mind can be tricked into expecting less damage and thus negate some of it? I think that's kind of silly. What's more, there are actual scientific studies done in real life that suggest that injured individuals feel less pain and heal more quickly when they underestimate the extent of their injuries. The mind is capable of doing incredible things. That is the whole point of the Illusion spells. But regardless, if we use your interpretation of what is reasonable, the more consistent interpretation would be that you take 150% regardless if you pass your save. Channeling more Shadow energy into a spell is comparable to empowering a spell. How can your arbitrarily cap it? All it represents is how much "shadow stuff" you put into the spell.
GDarius 05-09-07, 07:45 PM	The most common way I've seen to cheese entry into Fochulan Lyrist is the Ring of Evasion trick. I'd deal with that one first. I also have to point out that "The college wouldn't let you cheat" is inconsistant. This is a school that trains assassins, and allows Druids that enter to ignore oaths they made in the past. It doesn't exactly sound like a place with an emphasis on following the rules. Whether you think it's unbalancing or not, the most probable reaction from the Fochulan faculty here is "Excellent use of lateral thinking. Now, lets see if you can survive your studies." NEVER NEVER EVER EVER justify RULES with ROLEPLAYING, just look at true neutral! Sigh. I brought up the flavor point because someone had made a comment to the effect of "Well, the college wouldn't let you enter if you just knew Druidic, but weren't a Druid. They'd totally expel you and make you take the extra level". If you're not going to justify the rules with roleplaying, then at least don't knock them down with the same.
Nathreet 05-09-07, 07:50 PM	This reminds me of a revelation I had about how screwed-up Polymorph (and similar effects) really are: the caster is limited by hit dice (and hit dice alone) when choosing what creature to become, yet he gains none of creature's traits that are associated with hit dice whatsoever! Seriously. If polymorph is going to be anything close to balanced and still be as open-ended as it currently is, the limit needs to be LA-based instead of HD-based. Which would also have the benefit (assuming, due to temporary insanity, that the LA system is roughly balanced) of allowing a balanced way to polymorph into templated creatures (make sure the total LA is within your limit). -Lacyon That would be the way to go if you allowed polymorph with templated creatures. But actually I added the material component to prevent that. Or, actually, to make sure the player had encountered the creature before so he can't try to pull something too crazy... unless his DM does it first. The added bonus is that the DM has the CR of the crazy monster all ready to go - no game interruptions trying to figure it out. I suppose I should specifically state a size and/or gp value for the material component, to prevent eschew material components on anything except mundane animals.
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 08:08 PM	You are punishing them for passing a save with the Phantasmal Killer example. Your opinion made no distinction between different mechanics.[QUOTE]Please don't build a straw-man argument. I made a clarification in my second post. Clearly we need to simplify what we mean when we say things, in real life, right? Or otherwise we would have to list every single exception every time we made a claim about the world. Once again, don't build straw-man arguments. [QUOTE]So it makes perfect scientific sense that your mind can inflict damage to you, but it is completely a ludicrous claim that your mind can be tricked into expecting less damage and thus negate some of it? I think that's kind of silly.Did you even read the part of my post you quoted? I offered a pseudo-magicko-scientific explanation wherein your mind inflicts extra damage to you when you fail a save, because you BELIEVE you ought to take that damage. Your mind cannot take away damage that is real. And that includes fire, shadow, electrical, holy, slashing, whatever. You try taking away fireball damage with a will save. Go ahead. IT DOESN'T WORK. What's more, there are actual scientific studies done in real life that suggest that injured individuals feel less pain and heal more quickly when they underestimate the extent of their injuries. The mind is capable of doing incredible things. That is the whole point of the Illusion spells.No, that is not. Psychosomatic effects is not what shadowstuff is. Shadowstuff is REAL. Only the extra damage that your mind makes up is psychosomatic. But regardless, if we use your interpretation of what is reasonable, the more consistent interpretation would be that you take 150% regardless if you pass your save. Channeling more Shadow energy into a spell is comparable to empowering a spell. How can your arbitrarily cap it? All it represents is how much "shadow stuff" you put into the spell.I may not have made this clear earlier, so I apologize, but my major gripe is wonky game mechanics that don't make sense. Making a save ought to be better than the alternative (if I don't mention the caveat previously discussed, will you hold it against me?). Disallowing more than 100% damage is a separate issue that I'm betting would be difficult to discuss with you, but which I also firmly believe. This is why I have not brought it up. Again, these are my suggestions for house rules. Everybody's should be added to the master list, and whoever reads the thread can decide for himself whether they want even the most agreed-upon houserule.
GDarius 05-09-07, 08:24 PM	It's used abusively. Search the threads. I've seen them. Specifically, I've seen the Arcane Thesis Build Compendium thread (and contributed to it). The only abusive stuff there was from the people who were stacking +0 metamagic feats onto spells to reduce their level with Arcane Thesis. I personally cap it at +0 (otherwise it just gets stupid), but the cool part about Arcane Thesis is that it specifically omits the "to a limit of +1" that most similar feats have. Even if that ONE thing is "breaking the game"? Even "one" of those is too many. It's not fun for the other players and it's not fun for the DM. I fail to see how Arcane Thesis breaks the game unless you allow it to reduce spell levels. In any case, what I meant was "If a player of mine chooses to focus on an aspect of his/her character (such as stealth, the use of Telekinesis, the use of Shadow Image, the use of the Basket Weaving skill, etc.) to the exclusion of all others, then I think they should be rewarded by being very good at that one thing." But I disagree about the College. Read the flavor text. It's meant to be for druids. Everything points towards a RAI reading to be only meant for people with druid levels. Finally, all applicants must first study the lore of the druids, learning the ways of growth and the hidden secrets of nature. That sounds like it should actually be a Knowledge: Nature prereq, not an actual druid level (this is reflected in the Knowledge: Nature 7 requirement). What I find odd is This class is a fusion of the Druid and Badrd base classes. Perhaps the most famous of the bardic colleges serves as a beacon of learning and diplomacy... The flavor of this class doesn't mention Rogue anywhere. Furhther, there's an emphasis on Bard over Druid in all the flavor stuff I can find. If you could point me to the areas that say "this should be a druid-only class", I would appreciate it, but I haven't found them. That's cute to say, but how many people would do something so silly to their setting? I mean, if you hold repeat campaigns in the same setting, you would canonize that kind of stupidity? Yes. It was fun. It's neither. It's because of an editing flaw. See: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=139190 I see. I was unaware of this. I think we should make a new rule on this thread. If you don't know why someone else wants to nerf a seemingly innocuous interpretation of the rules, ask them to link you to an abuse. Don't just assume they're being a jerk DM and preemptively nerfing everything in sight. In this case, it's to prevent Shadowcraft gnomes from no longer even memorizing heightened silent images, but dropping any prepared spell for a better conj/evoc spell. Oh, and the cleric bit in there is to be consistent. To those keeping score, yes, that's two nerfs to the Shadowcraft gnome. No, I have nothing against them, except a lot of experience. I'm playing my second one right now, in fact. I was one of the original contributors on Snow's old thread, and I really love the build. I just don't think sticking in wonky interpretations of the rules to break it is good for anyone, least of all the people that want to play the build that only has solid, good, defendable interpretations of the rules. I thought that's what it was; I still fail to see how it unbalances the game that a Shadowcraft Gnome can spontaneously cast heightened Silent Images, or how it's a "wonky" interpretation of the rules. Unless you're allowing the Miracle cheese, a Killer Gnome is just a really versatile spellcaster. EDIT: Sorry it took me that long to reply.
mercury529 05-09-07, 08:33 PM	Please don't build a straw-man argument. I made a clarification in my second post. Clearly we need to simplify what we mean when we say things, in real life, right? Or otherwise we would have to list every single exception every time we made a claim about the world. Once again, don't build straw-man arguments. Which second post are you referring to? Your claim was " I do, however think it's silly to punish someone for failing a save, like someone else said above.". The Phantasmal Killer example does exactly that. I saw nothing in any of your posts above that should modify how I read that statement until AFTER I made my comment. And of course it is ridiculous to call my example non-comparable when you are changing the statement after I make my comment. Did you even read the part of my post you quoted? I offered a pseudo-magicko-scientific explanation wherein your mind inflicts extra damage to you when you fail a save, because you BELIEVE you ought to take that damage. Your mind cannot take away damage that is real. And that includes fire, shadow, electrical, holy, slashing, whatever. You try taking away fireball damage with a will save. Go ahead. IT DOESN'T WORK. Yes I read your statement. When you fail your save, your mind also BELIEVES that you are getting hit by a normal Fireball spell and expects to take less damage, so you take less damage. I think it is an unfounded claim to state that the mind is capable of inflicting physical damage to you but is completely unable to negate physical damage to you. No, that is not. Psychosomatic effects is not what shadowstuff is. Shadowstuff is REAL. Only the extra damage that your mind makes up is psychosomatic. And I will ask the same question of you: did you even read the post you were responding to? I was not saying there are studies that say people are capable of inflicting pain and damage on themselves mentally. I am saying there are studies that say people are capable of LESSENING real pain and damage on themselves mentally. There is real world support for my claim above that the mind is both capable of inflicting and lessening pain/damage when it is convinced about something. I may not have made this clear earlier, so I apologize, but my major gripe is wonky game mechanics that don't make sense. Making a save ought to be better than the alternative (if I don't mention the caveat previously discussed, will you hold it against me?). Of course I will hold it against you ;). I am a vindictive SOB haha. There are other examples where that is the case as well. There are plenty of wonky mechanics in the game. I really don't like singling out one, especially when I believe there are explanations that are perfectly reasonable within the game world and mechanics. Disallowing more than 100% damage is a separate issue that I'm betting would be difficult to discuss with you, but which I also firmly believe. This is why I have not brought it up. Probably safer if we do not discuss it. Like I said, I think it is somewhat ridiculous to cap how much shadow stuff can be channeled into a spell. The amount of reality in a spell is nothing more than how much shadow stuff you put into it. If you can enhance a normal spell with additional real damage with empower spell, why can't you do the same with shadow power? Again, these are my suggestions for house rules. Everybody's should be added to the master list, and whoever reads the thread can decide for himself whether they want even the most agreed-upon houserule. I can see where you are coming from with this. But this thread is about avoiding brokenness with house rules. I guess I fail to see how this breaks the game. Dealing damage is one of the weakest options available to a caster. Dealing additional damage only on passed saves (that are difficult to begin with) just doesn't seem broken to me. There are much better ways to get increased damage than that.
Domenic 05-09-07, 08:34 PM	Hey all, Great contributions! I think I'll add them all to the top thread. Of course, we're going to be disagreeing---they're house rules, after all! I, personally, agree with some of the ones posted and disagree with others. I might even get into the arguments soon :). But I do want us all to keep things friendly, so if at some point it seems like everything sayable has been said, and you both still disagree, just move on---it's OK :). I think this point has probably been reached with the shadow illusion thing, and it's been a pretty educational debate---but I don't know if there's much more to add than "did you even read what I wrote above?!? Pay attention, I was right then and am right now!" Hehe :-P. Of course, don't let me stop you if there's something truly new to be added to the debate!
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 09:47 PM	I've seen them. Specifically, I've seen the Arcane Thesis Build Compendium thread (and contributed to it). The only abusive stuff there was from the people who were stacking +0 metamagic feats onto spells to reduce their level with Arcane Thesis. I personally cap it at +0 (otherwise it just gets stupid), but the cool part about Arcane Thesis is that it specifically omits the "to a limit of +1" that most similar feats have. I fail to see how Arcane Thesis breaks the game unless you allow it to reduce spell levels. That's the abusive part. You could change the limit at +1 to a limit at +0; as a player, I would still play in your game. But if you allow negatives, that's where I draw the line. I think we are in agreement on this point. In any case, what I meant was "If a player of mine chooses to focus on an aspect of his/her character (such as stealth, the use of Telekinesis, the use of Shadow Image, the use of the Basket Weaving skill, etc.) to the exclusion of all others, then I think they should be rewarded by being very good at that one thing."I agree to an extent, but what if you allowed a character to be good at this one thing, but that one thing was so versatile it let you do ridiculous things? Shadowcraft Mages fit this bill very nicely. That sounds like it should actually be a Knowledge: Nature prereq, not an actual druid level (this is reflected in the Knowledge: Nature 7 requirement). What I find odd is The flavor of this class doesn't mention Rogue anywhere. Furhther, there's an emphasis on Bard over Druid in all the flavor stuff I can find. If you could point me to the areas that say "this should be a druid-only class", I would appreciate it, but I haven't found them.You quoted it yourself. The class is meant to progress druid spellcasting, you need to have spent time learning the ways of druids (I would call that Druid levels--any old Wizard can get Knowledge: nature), and the flavor text mentions its an amalgamation of druid and bard. How does that not require both? I agree Evasion is weird, but I think houseruling that goes beyond keeping things in check, and begins to be houseruling for the sake of houseruling. I thought that's what it was; I still fail to see how it unbalances the game that a Shadowcraft Gnome can spontaneously cast heightened Silent Images, or how it's a "wonky" interpretation of the rules. Unless you're allowing the Miracle cheese, a Killer Gnome is just a really versatile spellcaster.It definitely unbalances the game. Again, I've played it twice (the first time without allowing spontaneously-heightened silent images), and it's powerful, versatile, has tons of excellent skills, and anything else you want. It's THE most powerful build centered around wizard casting, for many, if not most campaigns.
mercury529 05-09-07, 09:57 PM	It definitely unbalances the game. Again, I've played it twice (the first time without allowing spontaneously-heightened silent images), and it's powerful, versatile, has tons of excellent skills, and anything else you want. It's THE most powerful build centered around wizard casting, for many, if not most campaigns. General consensus on the ScM handbook was that the best ScM build was a ScM Incantatrix hybrid build. Including Shadowcaster (the means by which shadow illusions exceed 100% significantly) in the ScM build is considered a weaker build. Similarly use of Signature Spell with the ScM was widely considered to be an inferior build to other ScM builds. Admittedly I contributed significantly to both of these topics, but feel free to browse the ScM handbook and see what proof I offered for the superiority of the builds that don't use Shadowcaster or Signature Spell. I would also argue that in pure game-breaking dominance, an Incantratrix build offers far more potential with its ridiculous number of persistable spells that are not limited by augmented spell level. I would also argue that the Iot7V-Master Specialist builds often brought up here is a more potent late game build than the ScM. The ScM is a very potent and versatile caster. Limiting % reality does very little to address your objection with the class, especially when there are much better builds for the ScM than ones center on maximizing reality %.
ancalimohtar 05-09-07, 10:11 PM	Which second post are you referring to? Your claim was " I do, however think it's silly to punish someone for failing a save, like someone else said above.". The Phantasmal Killer example does exactly that. I saw nothing in any of your posts above that should modify how I read that statement until AFTER I made my comment. And of course it is ridiculous to call my example non-comparable when you are changing the statement after I make my comment.That's exactly what I meant. To draw an example I made in a different thread: If someone says "Never punch a cop" are you going to argue with him when the cop turns out to actually be a zombie cop? Or are you going to accept that clearly, he was just being reasonable, because he doesn't want to, on a daily basis,have to list every single exception every time we made a claim about the world? Yes I read your statement. When you fail your save, your mind also BELIEVES that you are getting hit by a normal Fireball spell and expects to take less damage, so you take less damage. I think it is an unfounded claim to state that the mind is capable of inflicting physical damage to you but is completely unable to negate physical damage to you.Ok, I hate to have to spell it out, but I feel it is necessary: Shadowstuff from the plane of Shadow is real. Fire in a fireball spell is real. Real spells do real damage. Real damage is not reducible with a will save. 50% Shadow illusion spells are composed of shadowstuff. The amount of shadowstuff (in some meaningful way) is 50% of what the real version has. When you fail a save, you take all the real damage from the shadowstuff (of course), and also your mind deals damage to itself to make up for the discrepancy between what it expects and what it gets from the shadowstuff. When you make a save, you only take REAL damage. Real damage comes from, in this case, the shadowstuff. You take 50% damage. 150% shadow illusion spells are composed of shadowstuff. The amount of shadowstuff (in some meaningful way) is 150% of what the real version has. When you fail a save, you take all the real damage from the shadowstuff (of course), and also your mind expects less damage than what it gets, EXCEPT YOU CANNOT REDUCE REAL DAMAGE WITH A WILL SAVE (see section 1 above) When you make a save, you only take REAL damage. You take 150% damage. And I will ask the same question of you: did you even read the post you were responding to? I was not saying there are studies that say people are capable of inflicting pain and damage on themselves mentally. I am saying there are studies that say people are capable of LESSENING real pain and damage on themselves mentally. There is real world support for my claim above that the mind is both capable of inflicting and lessening pain/damage when it is convinced about something.I read it, and I hinted that I had done a good amount of research (mostly for psychology coursework) in psychosomatic effects. And then I ignored it, because it has NOTHING to do with D&D. This is not science, or social science. This is pseudo-magicko-science, as I've stated multiple times already. Of course I will hold it against you ;). I am a vindictive SOB haha. There are other examples where that is the case as well. There are plenty of wonky mechanics in the game. I really don't like singling out one, especially when I believe there are explanations that are perfectly reasonable within the game world and mechanics.Nobody's singling out one. That post of mine has a dozen others. The whole point of this thread is to find as many as possible. Probably safer if we do not discuss it. Like I said, I think it is somewhat ridiculous to cap how much shadow stuff can be channeled into a spell. The amount of reality in a spell is nothing more than how much shadow stuff you put into it. If you can enhance a normal spell with additional real damage with empower spell, why can't you do the same with shadow power?Because you're not empowering it. You're not just spending a level 8 slot to change a heightened silent image into a polar ray. You're spending a level 7 slot to get a polar ray, AND getting 30% or more to damage? How is that the same as empowering a polar ray, which would take up a level NINE slot? I can see where you are coming from with this. But this thread is about avoiding brokenness with house rules. I guess I fail to see how this breaks the game. Dealing damage is one of the weakest options available to a caster. Dealing additional damage only on passed saves (that are difficult to begin with) just doesn't seem broken to me. There are much better ways to get increased damage than that.Dealing damage with regular spells is situational. Dealing massive damage with super beefed up screwy spells abusing badly written feats--that's a great way to ruin a play session, if not a campaign. And that's one situation this thread is meant to prevent.
mercury529 05-09-07, 11:26 PM	I read it, and I hinted that I had done a good amount of research (mostly for psychology coursework) in psychosomatic effects. And then I ignored it, because it has NOTHING to do with D&D. This is not science, or social science. This is pseudo-magicko-science, as I've stated multiple times already. "Pseudo-magicko-science" has the capability to do things that in real life are for all intents and purposes impossible. In real life, there is a phemenon where a person who effectively "fails a Will Save" and is led to believe their wounds are less damaging than they actually are, recover more quickly, feel less pain, and suffer fewer consequences. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to think the same is possible in a world where people conjure fire by reading from a book? There are multiple ways you could attempt to justify why you take damage from illusion spells. Your way is certainly not the only one, and there are reasonable explanations for why someone could take less damage from a failed save as I explained above. Nobody's singling out one. That post of mine has a dozen others. The whole point of this thread is to find as many as possible. So you would contend that if you are immune to death effects, you take no damage from a failed Fort Save against Phantasmal Killer? Because you're not empowering it. You're not just spending a level 8 slot to change a heightened silent image into a polar ray. You're spending a level 7 slot to get a polar ray, AND getting 30% or more to damage? How is that the same as empowering a polar ray, which would take up a level NINE slot? And how did you get the ability to get more damage from it? You took additional levels in a class that explicitly granted the capability (ScM or Shadowcaster). Or you took a feat that specifically boosted it (Enhanced Shadow Reality I believe). So it's reasonable that there is a feat out there that can make any spell with variable effects 1.5 times more potent, and it is completely unreasonable that someone who took class levels or another feat to gain a similar ability that functions on a small subset of spells under very specific circumstances should benefit from it? You are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is kind of silly to say that a Wizard who took empower spell can channel more power into a spell, but an ScM who has 20% extra shadow stuff in his spells can't benefit from more than 100%. Dealing damage with regular spells is situational. Dealing massive damage with super beefed up screwy spells abusing badly written feats--that's a great way to ruin a play session, if not a campaign. And that's one situation this thread is meant to prevent. Super beefed up screwy spells? You do realize even the ScM builds that allocate a ton of feats and class levels to maximizing shadow reality, only cap out at about 160% right? You do realize Empower does 150% on its own? And it doesn't require 12 class levels and multiple feats to obtain. And of course, the extra damage only applies when someone passes their save. So if your spell DC is high, you aren't even benefitting. If the spell DC is low, you just made their chances of passing a Reflex save much better. Simply put, if you are an ScM who is focusing all your efforts and resources on maximizing direct damage spells via increased shadow reality, you are not nearly as powerful as a well built ScM. If your ScM is casting damage spells, odds are you are doing something very wrong. With the multitude of spells available to an ScM, odds are there is a much better solution than dealing direct damage. And as I already explained, if you think an ScM who has increased damage Shadow Illusions is too potent, just be very happy he weakened himself by taking levels in Shadowcaster instead of the much more powerful alternatives available to him.
catharz 05-10-07, 12:40 AM	The single most broken item in the game is the Candle of Invocation. That's a good first thing to ban. Also, check out the 'alternate SRD' (misnomer) link in my sig.
ancalimohtar 05-10-07, 01:37 AM	*snip* There are multiple ways you could attempt to justify why you take damage from illusion spells. Your way is certainly not the only one, and there are reasonable explanations for why someone could take less damage from a failed save as I explained above.Exactly. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Read this again: Again, these are my suggestions for house rules. Everybody's should be added to the master list, and whoever reads the thread can decide for himself whether they want even the most agreed-upon houserule. And how did you get the ability to get more damage from it? You took additional levels in a class that explicitly granted the capability (ScM or Shadowcaster). Or you took a feat that specifically boosted it (Enhanced Shadow Reality I believe). So it's reasonable that there is a feat out there that can make any spell with variable effects 1.5 times more potent, and it is completely unreasonable that someone who took class levels or another feat to gain a similar ability that functions on a small subset of spells under very specific circumstances should benefit from it? You are entitled to your own opinion, but I think it is kind of silly to say that a Wizard who took empower spell can channel more power into a spell, but an ScM who has 20% extra shadow stuff in his spells can't benefit from more than 100%. Super beefed up screwy spells? You do realize even the ScM builds that allocate a ton of feats and class levels to maximizing shadow reality, only cap out at about 160% right? You do realize Empower does 150% on its own? And it doesn't require 12 class levels and multiple feats to obtain. And of course, the extra damage only applies when someone passes their save. So if your spell DC is high, you aren't even benefitting. If the spell DC is low, you just made their chances of passing a Reflex save much better. Simply put, if you are an ScM who is focusing all your efforts and resources on maximizing direct damage spells via increased shadow reality, you are not nearly as powerful as a well built ScM. If your ScM is casting damage spells, odds are you are doing something very wrong. With the multitude of spells available to an ScM, odds are there is a much better solution than dealing direct damage. And as I already explained, if you think an ScM who has increased damage Shadow Illusions is too potent, just be very happy he weakened himself by taking levels in Shadowcaster instead of the much more powerful alternatives available to him.How many games have you played either as a Shadowcraft gnome or as a DM with a player who knows how to play the build? I've been in arguments like this before. It gets nowhere. The only thing I have to say is: the mind-boggling versatility in spellcasting, the ridiculously high save DCs, the un-resistable spells, and all the other completely awesome stuff in the build make it the most powerful all-around wizard-based primary caster build for many--I would say most, but I can't be sure--campaigns. I believe, as a DM, that giving it more than 100% reality is unjustified for at least three reasons. One, I don't think the writers had it in mind. RAI and all that. Two, I don't think it makes as much sense from a pseudo-magicko-scientific (i.e., roleplaying/flavor) point of view. And three, I don't think it's a good move, balance-wise. My goal has been, the entire time, to argue why my house rule can be justified, not whether yours can be. I think I have done that, and so I am done. That's it. I'm done with this topic. Can we talk about other houserules now?
GDarius 05-10-07, 03:37 AM	I agree to an extent, but what if you allowed a character to be good at this one thing, but that one thing was so versatile it let you do ridiculous things? Shadowcraft Mages fit this bill very nicely. Many things hypothetically fit that bill. I find it highly suspect that a Shadowcraft Mage (even with the FR crap thrown in) would unbalance a party any more than any well-built mage, unless the DM was allowing the Arcane Disciple > Miracle cheese. Point of fact, other than theoretical builds, I don't think anything has that kind of raw power. You quoted it yourself. The class is meant to progress druid spellcasting, you need to have spent time learning the ways of druids (I would call that Druid levels--any old Wizard can get Knowledge: nature), and the flavor text mentions its an amalgamation of druid and bard. How does that not require both? I agree Evasion is weird, but I think houseruling that goes beyond keeping things in check, and begins to be houseruling for the sake of houseruling. Learning "druid lore" and "the growth and patterns of nature" is hardly a call for Druid levels. Knowledge: Nature suffices for part of it, and the Druidic language qualifies as "druidic lore". Strictly speaking, yeah, all a character would need to do is invest some skill ranks and go Mind Control a Druid. The flavor text does mention amalgamation of Druid and Bard. Once. The rest of the time, it's making references to "diplomatic relations", "bardic traditions" and "bardic academy". Taking the flavor text into account, I really don't find it a stretch that FocLyr is meant to be a primarily Bard PrC, with divine casting tossed in for versatility. Anyway, how exactly is Bard 4/ Rogue 4/ Ur-Priest 2/ Fochulan Lyrist 10 any more unbalanced than Bard 4/ Rogue 3/ Druid 1/ Ur-Priest 2/ FocLyr 10? The difference is literally 1 point of BAB (dropping it to 16) and 4 skill points. If you're against the Evil thing (even though neither the flavor nor the rules forbid it), then Bard 4/ Rogue 3/ Druid 1/ Apostle of Peace 2/ FocLyr 8 provides a decidedly good, and "diplomatic" alternative. I don't see how the Fochulan Faculty could argue with such a candidate. It definitely unbalances the game. Again, I've played it twice (the first time without allowing spontaneously-heightened silent images), and it's powerful, versatile, has tons of excellent skills, and anything else you want. It's THE most powerful build centered around wizard casting, for many, if not most campaigns. This is one piece of anecdotal evidence, coming from a person that seems to have a bit of a bias. I'm not prepared to concede the point on the basis of that, especially since one of my players has tried a Beguiler-based Killer Gnome build (twice, in fact), with decidedly balanced results. To the OP: Another houserule you might consider is amending the Dweomerkeeper's "Supernatural Spell" ability such that if the spell being emulated has a costly material or XP component, it must still be paid on casting.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 05-10-07, 03:44 AM	This thread does not belong here, in my opinion. It belongs on the house rule board.
ancalimohtar 05-10-07, 06:21 AM	Why do people care so much about where a thread ought to go? I never understood this. It may just be the common traits among D&D gamers, always trying to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules. Functionally, this thread concerns exploits and cheese found on this board, with this community; the best respondents and primary audience are posters who frequent this board; this thread belongs here, I contend.
ancalimohtar 05-10-07, 06:25 AM	Many things hypothetically fit that bill. I find it highly suspect that a Shadowcraft Mage (even with the FR crap thrown in) would unbalance a party any more than any well-built mage, unless the DM was allowing the Arcane Disciple > Miracle cheese. Point of fact, other than theoretical builds, I don't think anything has that kind of raw power.Done talking about this. See above post. Learning "druid lore" and "the growth and patterns of nature" is hardly a call for Druid levels. Knowledge: Nature suffices for part of it, and the Druidic language qualifies as "druidic lore". Strictly speaking, yeah, all a character would need to do is invest some skill ranks and go Mind Control a Druid. The flavor text does mention amalgamation of Druid and Bard. Once. The rest of the time, it's making references to "diplomatic relations", "bardic traditions" and "bardic academy". Taking the flavor text into account, I really don't find it a stretch that FocLyr is meant to be a primarily Bard PrC, with divine casting tossed in for versatility. Anyway, how exactly is Bard 4/ Rogue 4/ Ur-Priest 2/ Fochulan Lyrist 10 any more unbalanced than Bard 4/ Rogue 3/ Druid 1/ Ur-Priest 2/ FocLyr 10? The difference is literally 1 point of BAB (dropping it to 16) and 4 skill points. If you're against the Evil thing (even though neither the flavor nor the rules forbid it), then Bard 4/ Rogue 3/ Druid 1/ Apostle of Peace 2/ FocLyr 8 provides a decidedly good, and "diplomatic" alternative. I don't see how the Fochulan Faculty could argue with such a candidate.I'm not sure what your point is. I'm getting tired of arguing about opinions on a houseruling thread. Really tired. This is one piece of anecdotal evidence, coming from a person that seems to have a bit of a bias. I'm not prepared to concede the point on the basis of that, especially since one of my players has tried a Beguiler-based Killer Gnome build (twice, in fact), with decidedly balanced results.Done with it. To the OP: Another houserule you might consider is amending the Dweomerkeeper's "Supernatural Spell" ability such that if the spell being emulated has a costly material or XP component, it must still be paid on casting.Agreed.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 05-10-07, 06:32 AM	Why do people care so much about where a thread ought to go? I never understood this. It may just be the common traits among D&D gamers, always trying to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules. Functionally, this thread concerns exploits and cheese found on this board, with this community; the best respondents and primary audience are posters who frequent this board; this thread belongs here, I contend. Having skimmed the OP's list of house rules I see one glaring thing: house rules. This is a thread discussing purely house rules, it has nothing to do with optimizing them... in fact it's all about de-optimizing certain tricks by nerfing them with some house rule. Unearthed Arcana and house rules board sounds like a good fit for a thread about house rules, no? Lets see if I can say house rule one more time in describing a thread entitled "Avoiding brokenness with house rules." Ahhh... there we go.
WizO_Autumn 05-10-07, 09:47 AM	New house rules should indeed be posted in the house rule board. But, the theoretical optimization board has been known to review house rules for broken-ness (or find ways to break them). So as long as this thread is about the latter, it can belong there. Discussing new house rules though do belong on the House Rule board.
Zendu 05-10-07, 10:58 AM	I disagree, just because it has house rules doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on that forum. The people from this board are more interested in RAW and balance, not to mention more likely to spot inaccurate rules. This thread also mentions spells, classes, and feats, by that logic it could go into any of those boards. As far as continuing this thread, i submit we put shadowmagic into the 'later' pile so we can actually get some rules done. I think white raven tactics should be rewritten to say YOU or your allies, just to clear up the confusion.
Domenic 05-10-07, 12:51 PM	I think white raven tactics should be rewritten to say YOU or your allies, just to clear up the confusion. Heh, my house rule was actually rewriting it to be "your allies but NOT you." Otherwise it's pretty close to Time Stands Still, no?
Fwib 05-10-07, 01:52 PM	Definitely this thread should be here on Theoretical Optimisation, since the thread is all about "House Rules to undo egregious Theoretical Optimisation" rather than "In my game, there are no elves."
ancalimohtar 05-10-07, 03:44 PM	Now that we've established that it DOES belong here, what's this about shadowmagic?
Domenic 05-10-07, 07:42 PM	So, question: is the candle of invocation fixable, or should I just ban it entirely? It seems terrifyingly powerful, for only 8.4K! How did that get into the SRD?
The_Mad_Linguist 05-10-07, 08:00 PM	Um, that's not even comparable. Phantasmal Killer punishes you with a different mechanic if you save. If you happen to have immunity to the worse punishment, and don't have immunity to the lesser punishment, then obviously it would be better to fail. Shadow illusions' effects are the same mechanic whether you save or fail. This is a rules-explanation. More importantly, your flavor argument makes no sense. It's not about whether it's POSSIBLE to take more damage because of your mind. It's about what yields what, pseudo-magicko-scientifically. Shadow is real stuff from the Plane of Shadow. It hurts. A 50% reality fireball does 100% on a failed save because the mind perceives real fire, and thus the spell does 100%--50% from the shadowstuff, and 50% from the remainder which is dealt by the mind to itself to make up for what damage it expects to be done. It does 50% on a made save because the mind realizes it's only made up of shadow, and lets all the shadow do real damage--which amounts to all that's the shadow is able to do, which is 50%. On a 150% reality fireball, it's made up of 150% of what a real fireball is made up of, except its all shadowstuff. So how could failing a save (I think I'm only going to take 100%!) preventing the shadowstuff from doing what its meant to do? That is the flavor argument. When I go to the doctor's office and get a shot, I turn my head so as not to see the needle. I say to myself, "it's just a needle. It's just a regular shot." And it doesn't hurt that bad because it's just a shot. Now....when I see the reality of the situation, that the needle is GIGANTIC, when I see the needle for what it is...the shot hurts like hell. When the 15th level fighter gets hit by a fireball he says to himself "This sucks, but it's just a fireball, been through enough of those." (aka he fails to see the reality...fails his saving throw vs. the illusion) But when he sees the reality (makes his save vs. the illusion) he goes "DAMN! That ball of crackling, ebon shadow is gonna suck!" And the shot....errr....the spell hurts more. That answer your question?
ancalimohtar 05-11-07, 02:58 AM	That answer your question?My goal has been, the entire time, to argue why my house rule can be justified, not whether yours can be. I think I have done that, and so I am done. That's it. I'm done with this topic.That answer your question?
Psionx 05-11-07, 04:06 AM	I dislike this thread. On an alternate note, candles of invocation cannot be created by any other means than crafting them and creatures summoned by a candle of invocation cannot summon other creatures. Thats not too bad really and it should kill most of the abuse. I love optimization, especially theoretical optimization and the cheesy brokenness that issues forth from this forum (I just gave a suggestion because I can't say "I dislike this thread" or "this thread is a pile of ****" without giving some useful input (That would be spam).)
ReaderOfPosts 05-11-07, 08:56 AM	A few concerns: Agree with Whisper Gnome remaining +0 LA. When dealing with characters trying to break the game, the human's extra feat is far more unbalancing than everything the whisper gnome gets (And rogues are hardly unbalanced). I think signature spell is balanced by the fact that you need to use the full round action for applying metamagic to a spontaneously cast spell. No nerf required (and I also disagree on principle with nerfing something merely to chase after one class) Shadowcraft Mage may not emulate spells with an experience component. Dweomerkeeper's must pay experience for their spell-like abilities. All races that grant spellcasting based on hitdice instead grant spellcasting based on racial hitdice+ half hitdice from other sources. (stopping races like Phaerim and sylph that give spellcasting based on hitdice) Find your favorite diplomacy house-rules and use those. There's a lot of ways to make diplomacy work: the way they're written is not one of them. The real problem with trying to balance the rules with houserules is so much of a well optimized character is combination. Is Leap Attack unbalanced? How about with a mount? How about with lions charge or some other pounce mechanism? There's no real way to ban the combination that makes a lancer deadly: you just have to trust players not to abuse it.
The Rizz 05-12-07, 02:48 AM	Just thought I'd comment about the idea that this thread shouldn't be here... This thread should definitely be here -- this forum is about ways to create way-too-powerful combinations, and a way to fix these combinations in your game is also appropriate as an extension thereof. I also like this thread because, while you can find many of these house rules on the House Rules board, or in the particular TO/CO threads dealing with a particular abuse, it's really nice to have them all indexed in one place. That said, I want to make a suggestion to the OP for a slight reformatting of the index/compendium at the beginning of this thread: After each rule, list a quick reason for it being there ... i.e., "no thrown object can do more than 20d6 damage (Hulking Hurler)", and link the reason to the thread that explains it.
Khadmus 05-29-07, 05:05 PM	:bump:
sonofzeal 05-30-07, 02:20 AM	I don't actually play by all of these, but they do block some serious exploits. 1) Grey elves are banned, as are any other LA+0 race with a bonus to any mental stat (far too big an advantage for spellcasters). 2) Faeries Mysteries Initiate is banned (wizards should not have more hp than barbarians). 3) Wildshaping into a templated creature is banned (there's at least two that don't change type to "magical beast", and using them makes an already-overpowered class nearly unstoppable in a normal game). 4) Having a templated animal companion is banned (see #3). 5) Wearing fullplate and/or using a tower shield while not proficient is banned (non-proficiency penalty only applies to attack rolls, and some characters can totally bypass that). 6) Incarnate Construct is banned (as are any other -LA templates). 7) By no means can any character ever take more than two full rounds of actions inside a single round, except in cases where the text clearly intends this to happen. 8) Spells/powers that raise your BAB don't (they make levelling in martial classes next to worthless). 9) The Dread Necromancer's Charnal Touch and Negative Energy Burst can't be used for healing undead (I once had a DN with the "Tomb-Tainted Soul" feat in my campaign, and it got out of hand) 10) Bags of Devowering can't be used as offensive weapons.
ancalimohtar 05-30-07, 04:36 AM	I don't actually play by all of these, but they do block some serious exploits. 1) Grey elves are banned, as are any other LA+0 race with a bonus to any mental stat (far too big an advantage for spellcasters).That's pretty harsh, since it doesn't really result in anything being "broken." (Thread title.) 2) Faeries Mysteries Initiate is banned (wizards should not have more hp than barbarians).Dragon material is taken by most people here as "allowable on a per-case basis" rather than "allowed unless specifically banned," which I think is what this thread is for. 3) Wildshaping into a templated creature is banned (there's at least two that don't change type to "magical beast", and using them makes an already-overpowered class nearly unstoppable in a normal game).You can't do this anyway. And if someone tried to argue you can, then your houserule is right on. 4) Having a templated animal companion is banned (see #3).Personally, I don't feel a need to flat-out ban this, but because the druid has to actually find his animal companion as a regular animal out and about, as a DM you have control over what templated animals are available. 5) Wearing fullplate and/or using a tower shield while not proficient is banned (non-proficiency penalty only applies to attack rolls, and some characters can totally bypass that).I don't think the consequences of that can really be considered "broken." 6) Incarnate Construct is banned (as are any other -LA templates).Agreed. 7) By no means can any character ever take more than two full rounds of actions inside a single round, except in cases where the text clearly intends this to happen.So, a character can't do X if it's cheating, but he can do it when it's legal. :twitch: :twitch: 8) Spells/powers that raise your BAB don't (they make levelling in martial classes next to worthless).Hmm. 9) The Dread Necromancer's Charnal Touch and Negative Energy Burst can't be used for healing undead (I once had a DN with the "Tomb-Tainted Soul" feat in my campaign, and it got out of hand) 10) Bags of Devowering can't be used as offensive weapons.Not familiar.
sonofzeal 05-30-07, 02:22 PM	I was approaching this thread less as preventing truely obscene abuses (which can be done on a case-by-case basis anyway) and more from an angle of improving game balance to keep one player from significantly overshadowing all the others. The Grey Elf thing is a little harsh, but does significantly impact game balance. If you go to the Core Coliseum board (haven for powergamers everywhere), last time I checked the Grey Elf is the single most popular race for mid-to-high level characters. I've never seen the rule on preventing wildshape into templated animals, as long as they're still animals. If there IS one that I haven't seen, I welcome it. As to animal companions, in the groups I'm in you can usually have free reign with companions at the point of character creation, which is where this rule would apply. The armor thing is another example of something that significantly impares game balance. I made a wizard once who used this trick and ended up with noticably more AC than the Dwarven Defender, although it took some effort. Manifesters can do it practically for free, which is an overwhelming advantage over arcanists if you allow it. Unless you're going to throw out all of Psionics as broken already, this is a necessary step towards balancing it IMO. As to multiple actions in a round... there are a number of (I believe) unintended ways to spam actions, and I wanted to prevent that. Time Warp is specifically intended to bypass this, but combining Affinity Field and Synchronisity is abusable, and I'm sure there's other (possibly more limited) examples. As to the Dread Necromancer... "Tomb-Tainted Soul" is a feat that lets you be healed by negative energy. The Dread Necromancer's Charnal Touch is an at-will ability that does small amounts of negative energy damage, so when combined it basically adds up to unlimited free healing, and Negative Energy Burst has the same problem except all at once instead of spread out over time. Bags of Devowering is like a Bag of Holding except it'll try and pull things in, and anything that goes in will never come back out. Technically a cursed item, but abusable for a character with good grapple checks - to heck with doing gradual Grapple Damage, just shove their head into this bag and hold them there for a round or two!
The_Mad_Linguist 05-30-07, 04:25 PM	Bags of Devowering is like a Bag of Holding except it'll try and pull things in, and anything that goes in will never come back out. Technically a cursed item, but abusable for a character with good grapple checks - to heck with doing gradual Grapple Damage, just shove their head into this bag and hold them there for a round or two! Just make them make a strength check to avoid being pulled in too. Solves that without making it completely useless.
pauln6 06-15-07, 08:41 AM	So it makes perfect scientific sense that your mind can inflict damage to you, but it is completely a ludicrous claim that your mind can be tricked into expecting less damage and thus negate some of it? I think that's kind of silly. What's more, there are actual scientific studies done in real life that suggest that injured individuals feel less pain and heal more quickly when they underestimate the extent of their injuries. The mind is capable of doing incredible things. That is the whole point of the Illusion spells. But regardless, if we use your interpretation of what is reasonable, the more consistent interpretation would be that you take 150% regardless if you pass your save. Channeling more Shadow energy into a spell is comparable to empowering a spell. How can your arbitrarily cap it? All it represents is how much "shadow stuff" you put into the spell. Hmm - I'm far from convinced that trying to apply logic or real world science to D&D rules should EVER be allowed! On the Plane of Shadow, a Shades spell is 100% real. That is as good as it gets. A spell made of 100% shadow inflicts 100% damage whether you save or not. You can't have a spell made of 120% shadow using these feats because that is not what the Feats are doing. It is the spell you are mimicing that inflicts the damage not the shadowstuff itself i.e. the shaodwstuff is simply being drawn in to produce a 100% real spell. Now it is true that you can empower spells, but that involves channelling more energy at greater cost. An Empowered spell is more difficult to revise so if you want more damage, just empower your shadow spell accordingly. It seems wrong to suggest that you can empower spells without the increased cost unless the description expressly states this. I haven't checked the source material but I would also assume that none of these shadow boosting effects will stack unless expressly stated in the feat/class ability) since they all do the same thing in the same way i.e. by drawing a larger amount of shadowstuff into the spell. This is a well established rule. Personally I would go as far as to rule that no shadow spell can inflict more than 90% dmage on the Prime Material and restrict 100% damage to Shade spells cast on the Plane of Shadow. Thus, even on the Plane of Shadow the extra 20% would not stack, limiting to Shadow (40%), Greater Shadow (80%) and Shades (100% on Plane of Shadow and 90% everywhere else). But I concede that there is nothing in the rules to justify the 90% cap - it's just my own personal feeling - and my character uses shadow magic so I'm stitching myself up here. I would probably allow Shadowcraft mages to boost Shades above 100% using their class abilities only (I think they get +40% at some stage) since it is a high level spell, the class abilities DO stack, and they would have to be high level to get the 40%, and it is comparable to allowing certain classes to spntaneously use metamagic feats. That would be the only exception and still makes them pretty tough.
JaronK 06-24-07, 12:59 PM	9) The Dread Necromancer's Charnal Touch and Negative Energy Burst can't be used for healing undead (I once had a DN with the "Tomb-Tainted Soul" feat in my campaign, and it got out of hand) I'm surprised to see this one. The whole point of that ability is to heal undead... unlimited healing for the DN himself isn't honestly too bad either. The amount of healing is very small (1+1/4 levels), so it's useless in combat, and out of combat healing isn't usually a problem anyway. Unlimited healing already exists elsewhere (Crusaders, Binders), except those can heal living targets, which is usually far more useful. I can hardly see how the Dread Necromancer, which isn't really that strong of a class anyway, needs to have one of their signature abilities nerfed when it doesn't actually help mid combat. JaronK
sonofzeal 06-24-07, 05:38 PM	I'm surprised to see this one. The whole point of that ability is to heal undead... unlimited healing for the DN himself isn't honestly too bad either. The amount of healing is very small (1+1/4 levels), so it's useless in combat, and out of combat healing isn't usually a problem anyway. Unlimited healing already exists elsewhere (Crusaders, Binders), except those can heal living targets, which is usually far more useful. I can hardly see how the Dread Necromancer, which isn't really that strong of a class anyway, needs to have one of their signature abilities nerfed when it doesn't actually help mid combat. JaronK I don't have Tome of Battle, and I'm not very familiar with Tome of Magic, but the problem I have with Charnal Touch is that it's available for unlimited healing straight from level 1, with absolutely no cost attached. A single level of DN lets an undead character, or one with Tomb-Tainted Soul, heal himself and all similar allies for free after every combat. That's why Fast Healing is so valuable - not because it's tremendously useful inside of combat, but because you can guarantee that you'll enter every combat at full health, while other characters have to hoard up their healing and ration it out if they want to get through the adventure in one piece. And it only becomes worse when the DN starts getting an army of undead going.
JaronK 06-24-07, 10:49 PM	I don't have Tome of Battle, and I'm not very familiar with Tome of Magic, but the problem I have with Charnal Touch is that it's available for unlimited healing straight from level 1, with absolutely no cost attached. A single level of DN lets an undead character, or one with Tomb-Tainted Soul, heal himself and all similar allies for free after every combat. That's why Fast Healing is so valuable - not because it's tremendously useful inside of combat, but because you can guarantee that you'll enter every combat at full health, while other characters have to hoard up their healing and ration it out if they want to get through the adventure in one piece. And it only becomes worse when the DN starts getting an army of undead going. Well, there is a cost attached if you want it from level 1... namely the cost of one feat. And it's not quite as good as fast healing, since you have to use an attack action to use it, thereby wasting actions in combat. Crusaders, by the way, get the ability to heal any ally by 2 hit points per attack when in one of their first level stances, and they can hit any opponent with unarmed strikes to heal them this way... which is much more powerful (it works in combat too). Binders can bind Buer starting at around level 3 I think (it might be 5) to heal any ally by 1d8+ something or other hitpoints once every five rounds. Again, much more useful. I dunno. It seems like just arbitrarily nerfing an intended part of a middle of the pack class, since it's obvious that the ability is supposed to be useful for healing (it's even got special rules for the purpose). JaronK