| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 10:55 AM | Second thread up: I'll probably add more to this once the Dispel Confusion arrives (if it ever does) but the banning of Divine Spellpower needs addressing. From Britt: DMM and DSP represent two types of effects that we are trying to keep a close eye on: free metamagic applications and CL bumps. These aren't always a bad thing, but they raise immediate warning flags. Those two types of effects have caused serious problems in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. From past discussions, the claim that DSP was "broken" always centered around a very few spells, Holy Word and its other-alignment (like Blasphemy or Chaos Hammer) equivalents. In D&D, there are plenty of items that grant caster level bumps. There are ways for a Bard to bump caster level as well, and I'm sure a few things I am missing. Therefore, this sort of cheese will remain. What does DSP do? It offers a chance for characters - a limited number of times per day - to bump their caster level a few. This effect may be significant, but 99.9% of the time, it is not a major game-breaking concern. You've spent a feat to essentially get a couple hours extra duration from a spell, or bump a Magic Vestment or Greater Magic Weapon by +1 bonus, or get a couple extra dice off a spell like Flame Strike. It can possibly allow someone to reach high enough level to cast a Remove Curse and break a nasty curse for someone. This is not game-breaking. What IS game-breaking is when someone cracks off a CL 24 Holy Word. Module writers have a far easier time of it; it's fairly easy to shoehorn a HD-advanced critter with Blasphemy who can then can TPK a party at APL 12 just by casting the spell at 25+ caster level. I agree with this. The problem is not that DSP is broken (especially with Nightsticks banned from the campaign, preventing unlimited uses), the problem is that the Holy Word/Blasphemy spells are themselves broken; they require no save, they have major combat-breaking effects, and they auto-kill quite easily on a creature that is merely advanced by hit dice to give it an unreasonable caster level on a spell-like ability. DSP should stay, the Holy Word family of spells should go. They were the problem, not DSP. |
| Timlagor02-08-07, 11:04 AM | Hear! Hear! ..not that I particularly mind seeing the back of DSP but with PHB2 included it's no longer a 'gimme' ...at least not without Holy Word. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 11:10 AM | Agreed. DSP isn't broken. Holy Word is the problem. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-08-07, 11:14 AM | Agreed. Keep DPS, drop Holy Word/Blasphemy. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-07, 11:15 AM | What does DSP do? It offers a chance for characters - a limited number of times per day - to bump their caster level a few. This effect may be significant, but 99.9% of the time, it is not a major game-breaking concern. You've spent a feat to essentially get a couple hours extra duration from a spell, or bump a Magic Vestment or Greater Magic Weapon by +1 bonus, or get a couple extra dice off a spell like Flame Strike. It can possibly allow someone to reach high enough level to cast a Remove Curse and break a nasty curse for someone. DSP is too cheap. At the cost of a single feat, you get essentially: Weak Sudden Empower Weak Sudden Extend Spell Spell Penetration to Greater Spell Penetration +caster level to whatever is important about a spell that isn't covered in those. Especially at low level where it can actually count as Sudden Empower/Extend on all the spells a Cleric can cast during a day. |
| zstinger02-08-07, 11:21 AM | At the very least, the "DSP's not broken" camp has to admit that DSP has an exceptionally low opportunity cost for superior versatility that you can't get with any other single metamagic feat on its own. |
| Lupo02-08-07, 11:23 AM | DSP is too cheap. At the cost of a single feat, you get essentially: Weak Sudden Empower Weak Sudden Extend Spell Spell Penetration to Greater Spell Penetration +caster level to whatever is important about a spell that isn't covered in those. Especially at low level where it can actually count as Sudden Empower/Extend on all the spells a Cleric can cast during a day. so is the combination of "practiced spellcaster" with a "wild mage" and the FAQ on it. and at NO costs, no used up turning attempt, nothing. ciao martin m. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-08-07, 11:43 AM | so is the combination of "practiced spellcaster" with a "wild mage" and the FAQ on it. and at NO costs, no used up turning attempt, nothing. ciao martin m. Yes, but wild mage is NONC. So DSP should be NONC too... |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 11:45 AM | I'm not arguing that DSP isn't a good feat. That's why lots of Clerics were taking it. This is not a good argument for banning something. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 11:45 AM | Yes, but wild mage is NONC. So DSP should be NONC too... Fine. But it's not, it's Closed. |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-07, 11:45 AM | so is the combination of "practiced spellcaster" with a "wild mage" and the FAQ on it. and at NO costs, no used up turning attempt, nothing. ciao martin m. Divine Spellpower = 1 feat spent to average +2 caster levels(14 Charisma, +2 from Knowledge(Religion)). Available at level 1. Nicely synergizes with RSoX which requires Extra Turning. Unless you have DMM(which is Closed), you're not using up those turning attempts that easily. Wild Mage = NONC class that requires a near useless feat to get into and available at level 6. If you're not a Sorcerer getting into Wild Mage, you're not likely to have a decent charisma. If you are a Sorcerer, you have to cross-class 2 skills to get into it or spend another feat. If you don't take Practiced Spellcaster before Wild Mage, you actually have a chance of your highest level spells failing. And all that to average +1 caster level(0,0,0,1,2,3). Not in the same ballpark. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 12:36 PM | Divine Spellpower = 1 feat spent to average +2 caster levels(14 Charisma, +2 from Knowledge(Religion)). Available at level 1. Nicely synergizes with RSoX which requires Extra Turning. Unless you have DMM(which is Closed), you're not using up those turning attempts that easily. Wild Mage = NONC class that requires a near useless feat to get into and available at level 6. If you're not a Sorcerer getting into Wild Mage, you're not likely to have a decent charisma. If you are a Sorcerer, you have to cross-class 2 skills to get into it or spend another feat. If you don't take Practiced Spellcaster before Wild Mage, you actually have a chance of your highest level spells failing. And all that to average +1 caster level(0,0,0,1,2,3). Not in the same ballpark. Heh. Sacred Boost: Free Maximized healing for everyone in the party for a round. Cost: 1 turn attempt. Divine Armor: DR5/-. Cost, 1 turn attempt, swift action. Divine Fortune: +4 on a saving throw, immediate action (so you can interrupt the guy causing the save you need to make). Cost: 1 turn attempt. Divine Justice: free retributive strike for battle clerics, cost: 1 turn attempt and swift action to cast. BBEG just hit you for 1d8 +67 points? Swing away full attack on him and return the favor. Divine Ward: Spend 1 turning attempt, get free DMM: Reach Spell on an ally all day long. Sacred Purification: 1 turn attempt as a swift action, everyone gets 1d8 + CHA free healing. Auto-stabilize the entire party, buff a couple hit points, repeat ad nauseum. And that's not even half of what's available. DSP is no worse than any of these. It should remain in. |
| Britt02-08-07, 12:42 PM | Hey bob, I'm not very clear what your position is. Do you think DSP should remain in? ;) |
| Mommy was an Orc02-08-07, 12:49 PM | Heh. Sacred Boost: Free Maximized healing for everyone in the party for a round. Cost: 1 turn attempt. Divine Armor: DR5/-. Cost, 1 turn attempt, swift action. Divine Fortune: +4 on a saving throw, immediate action (so you can interrupt the guy causing the save you need to make). Cost: 1 turn attempt. Divine Justice: free retributive strike for battle clerics, cost: 1 turn attempt and swift action to cast. BBEG just hit you for 1d8 +67 points? Swing away full attack on him and return the favor. Divine Ward: Spend 1 turning attempt, get free DMM: Reach Spell on an ally all day long. Sacred Purification: 1 turn attempt as a swift action, everyone gets 1d8 + CHA free healing. Auto-stabilize the entire party, buff a couple hit points, repeat ad nauseum. And that's not even half of what's available. DSP is no worse than any of these. It should remain in. Sacred Boost is difficult to use in combat at which point Lesser Vigor is better than Maximized CLW. Divine Armor/Fortune/Divine Justice. Nice, but not amazing. I like them, but not enough to actually take them except for cool effect reasons. Divine Ward: DMM: Reach is much better when you can use it on people other than your friends. Sacred Purification: Adds hit points back to your enemies unless they're undead. I really don't see any of them as being feats that I'd take in an optimized build except for Divine Fortune. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-08-07, 12:57 PM | ON another note, Sacred Purification is closed. Also, a maximized CL 5 CLW, with Augment Healing and Sacred Healing slightly outdoes Lesser Vigor. Then Again, lesser Vigor CL 5 with augment healing is 17 hp. Maximized CLW CL5 with Augment Healing and Sacred Healing is 17 HP too, but in 2 rounds instead of one (One round if you have a cohort Sacred Boosting for you.) With decent CHA, and an extra turning or 2, Divine Armor can give you DR for every round you spend in melee. Divine Ward is very handy for a buffing and healing cleric. Sacred Radiance is great flavor-wise for a Radiant Servant. |
| Timlagor02-08-07, 12:59 PM | I think the main point here is BAN HOLY WORD AND COMPANY No one really cares about DSP :hides: |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:03 PM | Hey bob, I'm not very clear what your position is. Do you think DSP should remain in? ;) I think DSP should remain in, and since it's been proven that Holy Word/etc are broken and the "problem" in the jacked-caster-level scenario, they should be banned. I've provided suggested equivalent level alternate spells (for those domains and templates that would require one) in the Holy Word thread for you to look over. Please do so, Britt. I mean it, I want to see your take on that. It would be a far better fix than banning non-broken feats trying to "fix" broken spells. |
| Britt02-08-07, 01:06 PM | and since it's been proven that Holy Word/etc are broken and the "problem" in the jacked-caster-level scenario It has? <looks around> I am not seeing this proof anywhere. In fact, since "broken" is a subjective term, it would be nigh impossible to "prove" that something is broken. It also has not even been closed to proven that they are why we wanted to remove DSP; they aren't. They contribute, yes, but aren't THE reason. |
| Gelth02-08-07, 01:11 PM | I'd dearly love to see Holy Word et. al. gone from the campaign. With that stated, I also am glad to see DSP gone, as others have said it was a method of jacking up caster level on any spell that cares about caster level, beyond what was sensible. Compare it to Spell Penetration, for example. +2 to one school of spells, versus +1-+4 (usually +4 for many high level clerics) to any spell they want. Compare it to the Archmage level that gives a +1 to caster level. Way easier to get, no prereqs to speak of, and goes up to +4 rather than +1. Compare it to Empower. No bump to spell level, but lesser effect... but applies to any spell that cares about caster level, rather than spells that have a random variable. Now, compare it to all three at once. See how it's broken? If it gave a +1, it would be balanced, I think, because you have to spend a turning attempt. Giving +4 much of the time... no. --Penn, Ket Triad (BTW, I include the Triad thing in my sig because people have asked me to, it lets them know that Triad people actually read and respond to stuff. I'm still a player too.) |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:13 PM | It has? <looks around> I am not seeing this proof anywhere. In fact, since "broken" is a subjective term, it would be nigh impossible to "prove" that something is broken. It also has not even been closed to proven that they are why we wanted to remove DSP; they aren't. They contribute, yes, but aren't THE reason. Then give us the reason. A serious one, not a vague platitude about caster level bumps when other caster level bump abilities aren't being touched. |
| Britt02-08-07, 01:20 PM | Then give us the reason. A serious one, not a vague platitude about caster level bumps when other caster level bump abilities aren't being touched. Caster Level bumps are a problem and this particular CL bump was more problematic than others and easier to get rid of. As an example, beads of karma are also a problem, but less so. You need access, they cost 45,800 GP, and they only work for 10 minutes. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:23 PM | I'd dearly love to see Holy Word et. al. gone from the campaign. With that stated, I also am glad to see DSP gone, as others have said it was a method of jacking up caster level on any spell that cares about caster level, beyond what was sensible. I really don't see the "beyond what was sensible" there; a crack bead still does it, other caster level bump items/abilities still do it. Compare it to Spell Penetration, for example. +2 to one school of spells, versus +1-+4 (usually +4 for many high level clerics) to any spell they want. Spell Penetration is a +2 to overcome SR, period. Not "one school of spells", anything you cast. And it doesn't cost you a resource to use, it's always on 24/7. Compare it to the Archmage level that gives a +1 to caster level. Way easier to get, no prereqs to speak of, and goes up to +4 rather than +1. The Archmage has multiple options, is in a different class, gets one free High Arcana every level of Archmage, and is in a class that's been getting free Metamagic feats before this. I'm sorry, but the opportunity cost for Clerics is much, much higher than the one you're describing. No Sale. Compare it to Empower. No bump to spell level, but lesser effect... but applies to any spell that cares about caster level, rather than spells that have a random variable. And very few Cleric spells do more than a die per two levels (only ones I can think of are Searing Light and Flame Strike). That doesn't equate to a whole lot of damage, nor does it do anything like Empower does to Curing spells since Empower hits the static effects (an empowered Cure Serious at 10th level is 3d8 * 1.5 + 22). A DSP'ed Cure Serious is only 3d8 + 14. Now, compare it to all three at once. See how it's broken? Not at all. In fact, compared to any of the tree, it's seriously inferior, with the exception of your PrC example, but the PrC example has a much lower opportunity cost for the feat anyways. If it gave a +1, it would be balanced, I think, because you have to spend a turning attempt. Giving +4 much of the time... no. If it gave a mere +1, it'd likely be a joke. Also, where are you getting this "likely +4" stuff from? With a Charisma of 24 assuming you bought an 18 CHA at the start (not bloody likely), Knowledge Religion synergy, and +3 from the feat itself, that's still only a +12 on the roll. Enough to not embarass yourself, sure, but you've got an average +3 bump and not +4 and you probably don't have much else in the way of stats for buying an 18 CHA. More realistically, someone has a +9 or +10 on turning checks. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:24 PM | Caster Level bumps are a problem and this particular CL bump was more problematic than others and easier to get rid of. As an example, beads of karma are also a problem, but less so. You need access, they cost 45,800 GP, and they only work for 10 minutes. Which is more than enough time for the entirety of your daily buffs to be cast... |
| ZX67002-08-07, 01:26 PM | Will we then see the removal of stupid curses which require a 15th level caster with Remove Curse (or similar spell depending on the curse) and DSP to get up to an 18th level caster to remove? These better go hand in hand. |
| Britt02-08-07, 01:28 PM | Will we then see the removal of stupid curses which require a 15th level caster with Remove Curse (or similar spell depending on the curse) and DSP to get up to an 18th level caster to remove? These better go hand in hand. Curses are intended to be bad. Maybe the author intended the curse to be hard or impossible to get rid of? You could always request a Special Mission. |
| gomeztoo02-08-07, 01:30 PM | Or spent influence. Quite a few regions have a means to get spells cast this way. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:32 PM | Curses are intended to be bad. Maybe the author intended the curse to be hard or impossible to get rid of? You could always request a Special Mission. It was bad enough as is trying to find someone to cast them at an Interactive or something. Making it even closer to impossible doesn't make the campaign more fun. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 01:34 PM | Curses are intended to be bad. Maybe the author intended the curse to be hard or impossible to get rid of? You could always request a Special Mission. True enough. Still, getting your character to a convention and interactive just to attempt to find a caster that high with DSP to get rid of it is like a real life special mission in and of itself. Now, I could see curses being this bad if it was obtained from doing something severely stupid, like raiding a tomb that wasn't really part of the mission in the mod just because it had good loot in it. But if you're being sent to do a mission with good intentions and end up getting a curse for no other reason than just for finishing the mission, as is the case with most curses, that's a bit lame for it to be unremovable. I'd say that would be one good reason to keep DSP around. |
| Britt02-08-07, 01:35 PM | It was bad enough as is trying to find someone to cast them at an Interactive or something. Making it even closer to impossible doesn't make the campaign more fun. Curses aren't supposed to be fun. I'm not sure why everyone seems to think curses should be a benefit and/or easy to get rid of. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 01:36 PM | Or spent influence. Quite a few regions have a means to get spells cast this way. I wouldn't be able to get an 18th CL of any spell cast in my Meta-org and I have roughly 10 permanent IPs. Do you know how hard it is to find a caster capable of dropping an 18th CL anything on you in the BK? Try asking a cleric of IUZ for that favor, lol. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:38 PM | Curses aren't supposed to be fun. I'm not sure why everyone seems to think curses should be a benefit and/or easy to get rid of. "Easy"? Finding a high level character who's willing to help you out isn't "easy" by any means. Characters usually have to sit on the curses for months or worse. We have many in our area who haven't been able to get things fixed - things that make their characters nigh unplayable, not simply "not fun" curses - because the last good caster who can break curses hit 16th and retired. When the standard CL required to break a curse is 17, it sucks, Britt. It goes beyond "not fun" and makes people think of retiring or suiciding characters. I don't get why high level campaign officials are so intent on doing that to players, it drives away far more than it brings in. Yes, death happens and yes, there are min/maxers out there, but by designing the campaign to screw the min/maxers you just hurt the regular players. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:45 PM | I wouldn't be able to get an 18th CL of any spell cast in my Meta-org and I have roughly 10 permanent IPs. Do you know how hard it is to find a caster capable of dropping an 18th CL anything on you in the BK? Try asking a cleric of IUZ for that favor, lol. I know of very few other regions with that possibility either. Well, there's one I can think of but they charge you overprice, plus they'll take all your gear, go through your spellbook, cast Mind Rape on you, and any equipment/spell/feat you have that is on their banned list will be removed from your character as part of the "favor" of fixing the curse. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 01:46 PM | Finding a high level character who's willing to help you out isn't "easy" by any means. Characters usually have to sit on the curses for months or worse. We have many in our area who haven't been able to get things fixed - things that make their characters nigh unplayable, not simply "not fun" curses - because the last good caster who can break curses hit 16th and retired. I'm not going to go quite so far in defending my argument, but I will say I do know a guy who has a 14th level Barb/Ftr who is now in semi-retired mode because he has a curse which renders her a shadow of her pre-curse self, and can't find a caster able to get rid of it for her. He didn't play her at all, iirc, last year. That's an entire year of playing a character lost. If that's what mod writers are going for, then be my guest to continue with them, but I don't consider that to be enjoyment of the game. |
| jstorrie02-08-07, 01:46 PM | Regardless of whether or not DSP should go, the Holy Word series definitely should get out. It favours only high-HD NPCs (as HD often exceeds CR) and admittedly tweaked casters. 24 HD foes are not unheard of at APL 12-14, and the thought of one of them dropping a Blasphemy is gross. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:49 PM | I'm not going to go quite so far in defending my argument, but I will say I do know a guy who has a 14th level Barb/Ftr who is now in semi-retired mode because he has a curse which renders her a shadow of her pre-curse self, and can't find a caster able to get rid of it for her. He didn't play her at all, iirc, last year. That's an entire year of playing a character lost. If that's what mod writers are going for, then be my guest to continue with them, but I don't consider that to be enjoyment of the game. What really gets me is that I've heard a triad comment that they were actively trying to kill as many of the high-level PCs in their area as possible. That's not helping anyone's enjoyment of the game at all, and these sorts of curses and constant nerfing are just one of the reasons players get upset. It doesn't help the campaign to do things like this. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 01:51 PM | What really gets me is that I've heard a triad comment that they were actively trying to kill as many of the high-level PCs in their area as possible. I'm less worried about that. They can have their own agenda, my PCs are built to last. |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 01:57 PM | *starts passing out buttons for the Campaign to Ban Blasphemy / Dictum / Holy Word / Word of Chaos* On the issue of curses, you can get CL17 curse-breaking, or the Miracle that is sometimes required, via a L15 cleric of a good deity and the Greater Planar Ally spell (planetars cast spells as L17 clerics). It'll cost you a few thousand gold, but nothing too extreme. (unfortunately, my Neutral Good sacred exorcist can't do this trick, because her deity is Neutral, so instead of calling a CR17 angel the best she can manage is a birdie that shoots lightning. I don't like the LG Planar Ally rules :( ) |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 01:59 PM | I'm less worried about that. They can have their own agenda, my PCs are built to last. It's a region well known for writing autokills :( Especially in their interactives. |
| Britt02-08-07, 02:05 PM | Bob, that's a mischaracterization of the comments. The comments, I'm pretty sure, were that we all (BK Triad + me) think that high level LG should be deadly. Getting to a high level shouldn't be guaranteed. Mortality rates in general should increase as your level increases, so that only the elite make it to the highest levels. And there are not autokills in the interactives. The ones you are probably talking about were more the result of PC actions, and they had plenty of opportunities to get away. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 02:07 PM | And there are not autokills in the interactives. The ones you are probably talking about were more the result of PC actions, and they had plenty of opportunities to get away. Not always, but I overall agree with you here. Bad decisions make for deaths much more than anything the monsters actually do, imo. Or bad die rolling, which always happens from time to time. |
| dkay80702-08-07, 02:14 PM | What I'm seeing in this thread is a number of different arguments mixed together. Combining them isn't strengthening one or the other. It's plainly obvious that people want DSP to remain OPEN. What I'm unclear about is whether people truly feel that Holy Word/Blasphemy should become CLOSED, or if they are using them as scapegoats in their argument to keep DSP OPEN. It has been stated by Britt that Holy Word/Blasphemy etc. are NOT the reason that DSP is broken, but that they contribute to a larger sum of reasons why it is being moved to the CLOSED list. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to continue using them as a scapegoat or an "allowable sacrifice" to convince a particular audience to reconsider DSP. It's clear that DSP and Holy Word/Blasphemy combined is too powerful. The question is: is either too powerful on its own? This is the discussion that needs to occur. My opinion: 1. DSP - It provides an easy means by which to achieve a number of extremely powerful benefits at very low cost. We all knew it had to go for a while and it's about time it has. I don't thank any number of petitions or complaints are going to change anyone's mind on that one. 2. Holy Word/Blasphemy and the other two - These spells are staples of 3.5. Yes, they are powerful effects but they're also 7th level divine spells. Their effects if the caster is only a few HD above his targets are not even dabateable as "broken," so we can skip that. If the caster of a Blasphemy is 5-10 HD above his targets, then they all get paralyzed. Okay, that's pretty rough. This should only happen at much higher APLs where the party is well-prepared for such an occurrence - a readied counterspell, a contingency, freedom of movement spells (they last 10 minutes per level). If a party isn't prepared for something like that, they have no business playing at that APL. The concern here seems to be creatures with far too many HD dropping Blasphemies for auto-kills. I think that this has become an unwritten rule in mod-writing. It no longer happens except for extreme situations (Evard did it to us when we fought her at the conclusion of the 5-year Bissel plot arc). If anyone has complaints with this, then a better solution would be to retire your character before you get to that high level of play. DMs have many ways of abusing the CR rules to create unbeatable encounters. We've all seen them in the past and I will gladly state that it rarely, if ever happens these days. If Holy Word and Blasphemy become CLOSED, then it would create a precedent to do the same to anything with the potential of CR abuse. The line must be drawn somewhere. |
| Azerin02-08-07, 02:15 PM | Yah I'm not all informed on the whole "traid vs. player" thing these days, but I agree its holy word that's broken, not divine spell power. While it is a class-specific good feat, it is no more useful to a turning cleric then power attack is to a two-handed fighter or percise shot is to an archer. It can be used with some broken combos (mostly holy word), but then so can many other feats and/or class abilities. As much as it hurts, kudos on removing DMM, i've been abusing it for years, in disbelief that it was still available. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 02:18 PM | Bob, that's a mischaracterization of the comments. The comments, I'm pretty sure, were that we all (BK Triad + me) think that high level LG should be deadly. Getting to a high level shouldn't be guaranteed. Mortality rates in general should increase as your level increases, so that only the elite make it to the highest levels. And there are not autokills in the interactives. The ones you are probably talking about were more the result of PC actions, and they had plenty of opportunities to get away. Not speaking of you or the BK triad, Britt. |
| Timlagor02-08-07, 02:18 PM | Most people HATE Holy Word &co. and want them banned. I hope that's clear enough for you dk. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 02:19 PM | I disagree with the statement that DSP provides a number of "extremely powerful benefits". I think it provides a number of "useful" benefits. To classify weak "empower" and weak "extend" as "extremely powerful benefits" just doesn't coincide with my translation of those words. DSP provides a number of "very useful" benefits, which together might constitute a SINGLE "very powerful benefit", but I'm not sure I'd even agree with that. It's at least arguable, as opposed to your characterization. This is at the cost of a single Feat, which is not a trivial or "low cost" expenditure, and has a hard daily cap. |
| Britt02-08-07, 02:21 PM | Not speaking of you or the BK triad, Britt. Oops, sorry for the confusion then :) |
| Gelth02-08-07, 02:24 PM | I disagree with the statement that DSP provides a number of "extremely powerful benefits". I think it provides a number of "useful" benefits. To classify weak "empower" and weak "extend" as "extremely powerful benefits" just doesn't coincide with my translation of those words. DSP provides a number of "very useful" benefits, which together might constitute a SINGLE "very powerful benefit", but I'm not sure I'd even agree with that. It's at least arguable, as opposed to your characterization. This is at the cost of a single Feat, which is not a trivial or "low cost" expenditure, and has a hard daily cap. Weak Empower. Weak Extend. Overpowered Spell Penetration. Little opportunity cost. One feat and one turning attempt per use, not a huge deal. Individually, each of the first two are not a problem. Combined with the third, and all the other uses, as well as all the other ways of bumping caster level, problem. --Penn, Ket Triad |
| dkay80702-08-07, 02:25 PM | Most people HATE Holy Word &co. and want them banned. I hope that's clear enough for you dk. Then start a new thread called LGCS 597: Holy Word &co. Don't complain about them in the thread called: LGCS 597: Divine Spellpower |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 02:34 PM | Weak Empower. Weak Extend. Overpowered Spell Penetration. Little opportunity cost. One feat and one turning attempt per use, not a huge deal. Individually, each of the first two are not a problem. Combined with the third, and all the other uses, as well as all the other ways of bumping caster level, problem. --Penn, Ket Triad I think the opportunity cost isn't trivial. Clerics have neither unlimited Feats nor unlimited Turning Attempts (thanks to the recent ban on Nightsticks - a good idea, and should have solved things - and, as far as that goes, should they even be banned now?). Why does throwing in Greater Spell Penetration onto a weakly Empowered and weakly Extended Clerical spell all of a sudden break things? (And please don't say Holy Word. ;) ...) I don't buy it. I remain unconvinced that this is that big a deal. As far as that last point goes, just make caster level bumps not stack. I have yet to see DSP break anything. It's useful. No more useful (probably a lot less) than a Sculpted Grease or Glitterdust. My Cleric used it practically exclusively (possibly _entirely_ exclusively, but I can't recall every time I used it) on buffs and heals, and none of those were crazy. I'm not seeing it. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 02:38 PM | Weak Empower. Weak Extend. Overpowered Spell Penetration. Little opportunity cost. One feat and one turning attempt per use, not a huge deal. Individually, each of the first two are not a problem. Combined with the third, and all the other uses, as well as all the other ways of bumping caster level, problem. --Penn, Ket Triad "Little opportunity cost" - a Cleric, over their entire build, doesn't get the many feats that other builds do. The simple opportunity cost of one feat is quite much for them. For a Fighter, the opportunity cost of Power Attack is what, 1/15 of their feats? For a Wizard, the opportunity cost of a feat is 1/9 of their feats. For a Cleric, the opportunity cost 1/6 of their possible available feats. If they take Extra Turning, that's the opportunity cost of yet another feat. If not, they don't have all that many uses per day. I don't consider 1/6 of your available feat options "Little opportunity cost" in any fashion. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 02:38 PM | Then start a new thread called LGCS 597: Holy Word &co. Don't complain about them in the thread called: LGCS 597: Divine Spellpower There already is a thread for that. |
| dkay80702-08-07, 02:44 PM | I think the opportunity cost isn't trivial. Clerics have neither unlimited Feats nor unlimited Turning Attempts (thanks to the recent ban on Nightsticks - a good idea, and should have solved things - and, as far as that goes, should they even be banned now?). Why does throwing in Greater Spell Penetration onto a weakly Empowered and weakly Extended Clerical spell all of a sudden break things? (And please don't say Holy Word. ;) ...) I don't buy it. I remain unconvinced that this is that big a deal. As far as that last point goes, just make caster level bumps not stack. I have yet to see DSP break anything. It's useful. No more useful (probably a lot less) than a Sculpted Grease or Glitterdust. My Cleric used it practically exclusively (possibly _entirely_ exclusively, but I can't recall every time I used it) on buffs and heals, and none of those were crazy. I'm not seeing it. You make a good point. However, the fact remains caster level bumps here and there stack up to be too much and there are currently far too many methods by which a cleric can increase caster level. DSP is the MAIN way in which this can be done - no argument there I presume. It's also the easiest way to get the biggest caster level bump. Let me point out that it's often not how the benign majority uses an ability that drives the Circle to ban it - it's the baleful minority (sad attempt at using D&D descriptors). Most people use DSP to get some healing bumps, or +1 more on a magic vestment or GMW. Maybe a little extra juice to crack SR. While those are great abilities, you're right... they're not unbelievable broken (though I would argue that even those benefits are enough). However, when a 10th level Cleric is getting Caster Level 20, we have a major problem (DSP, Karma Beads, Harmonic Chorus, Hymn of Praise). I won't start on Holy Word or Blasphemy, let's just leave what a cleric at caster level 20 can do up to the imagination, even if for buffing alone. |
| Gelth02-08-07, 02:49 PM | ... I remain unconvinced that this is that big a deal. As far as that last point goes, just make caster level bumps not stack. ... Believe you me, that was my first suggestion, a couple years ago. Unfortunately, that's a rules change, which LG has to have really good justification to do. Just not allowing the worst offenders, however, follows the procedures we already have in place, and changes the game in the smallest possible way. If caster level bumps didn't stack, then DSP wouldn't be as much of a problem. They do though, we have no choice about it, so DSP has to go. --Penn, Ket Triad |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 02:59 PM | I think the opportunity cost isn't trivial. Clerics have neither unlimited Feats nor unlimited Turning Attempts (thanks to the recent ban on Nightsticks - a good idea, and should have solved things - and, as far as that goes, should they even be banned now?). Why does throwing in Greater Spell Penetration onto a weakly Empowered and weakly Extended Clerical spell all of a sudden break things? (And please don't say Holy Word. ;) ...) I don't buy it. I remain unconvinced that this is that big a deal. As far as that last point goes, just make caster level bumps not stack. I have yet to see DSP break anything. It's useful. No more useful (probably a lot less) than a Sculpted Grease or Glitterdust. My Cleric used it practically exclusively (possibly _entirely_ exclusively, but I can't recall every time I used it) on buffs and heals, and none of those were crazy. I'm not seeing it. I saw it used: -To bump CL11 Flamestrikes to CL15, doing 15d6 damage instead of 11d6 (i.e. pretty much sudden empower) -To augment Dismissal spells, effectively increasing the save DC by 4 and giving +4 to overcome SR -On a variety of offensive spells, to give Greater Spell Penetration -To remove nasty curses -To increase the number of targets for a Wind Walk spell -To increase the bonus on Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon -As a nice side effect, when used on buffs it makes them significantly harder to dispel, although I didn't see anyone use it purely for this reason For one feat, it really was pretty amazingly good. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 03:17 PM | You make a good point. However, the fact remains caster level bumps here and there stack up to be too much and there are currently far too many methods by which a cleric can increase caster level. DSP is the MAIN way in which this can be done - no argument there I presume. It's also the easiest way to get the biggest caster level bump. Let me point out that it's often not how the benign majority uses an ability that drives the Circle to ban it - it's the baleful minority (sad attempt at using D&D descriptors). Most people use DSP to get some healing bumps, or +1 more on a magic vestment or GMW. Maybe a little extra juice to crack SR. While those are great abilities, you're right... they're not unbelievable broken (though I would argue that even those benefits are enough). However, when a 10th level Cleric is getting Caster Level 20, we have a major problem (DSP, Karma Beads, Harmonic Chorus, Hymn of Praise). I won't start on Holy Word or Blasphemy, let's just leave what a cleric at caster level 20 can do up to the imagination, even if for buffing alone. Let's see. I'm pulling up my spell list... 10th level Cleric, ok, so they have 9th level spells... I'll be nice and give you 11th level instead, for 6th level spells. Lessee here: at 6th level, what's really affected by that: - A couple extra dice for Cometfall - A little extra Bolt of Glory damage - A couple extra HP (not a great use for this at all) on Heroes Feast. - Extra rounds on Vigorous Circle (an out-of-combat spell anyways) - An extra couple dice on Blade Barrier - A few extra subjects for mass buff spells... and if you have that many people in the party something's already wrong. - An extra 30-40 points on a Heal. - +20 on Greater Dispel Magic. At 5th level? - High level Atonement/Remove Curse. Woohoo. All that means is it might actually work. - Extra rounds on Blistering Radiance... and if combat lasts that long, you're already screwed. - A couple extra Commune questions. - Extra rounds on Summon Monster... again, by this point, you shouldn't worry about that because combat is long over. - more rounds on Greater Vigor. Whee. - An extra few points on Cure/Inflict. - An extra +1 or (in your extreme extreme example) +2 on Magic Vestment or Magic Weapon. Woohoo, 2 extra AC against somehting that has +Ungodly to hit anyways. Starting to get the picture? In your example - extreme though it is - DSP's not counting for more than 30-40% of the bonus granted, and even then most of the spells are already topping out by their restrictions, because 5th level and lower spells stop at +15 point bonus and so does most of the 6th level stuff. It's not "broken" or even a problem. The only problematic spells pop up at 7th level, but we should deal with that by facing the fact that those spells themselves are a fundamental problem rather than by attacking the DSP which is a very minor - and optional - part of the "power combo." |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 03:23 PM | I saw it used: -To bump CL11 Flamestrikes to CL15, doing 15d6 damage instead of 11d6 (i.e. pretty much sudden empower) 15d6 is not "sudden empower." Empower is damage times 1.5. Your example is not only less damage, it's further roll-dependent. -To augment Dismissal spells, effectively increasing the save DC by 4 and giving +4 to overcome SR Against critters who probably only vanish on a roll of 1 otherwise, or not at all. -On a variety of offensive spells, to give Greater Spell Penetration And your point? Someone with Spell Penetration/Greater can do that with every spell they have, 30+ times a day. -To remove nasty curses And this is a bad thing how? -To increase the number of targets for a Wind Walk spell Ooh, a whole extra target? How UNGODLY BROKEN... lmao. -To increase the bonus on Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon Yeah, because a +1 to armor class is that much... -As a nice side effect, when used on buffs it makes them significantly harder to dispel, although I didn't see anyone use it purely for this reason And your point being? For one feat, it really was pretty amazingly good. And didn't do all those things in the same day unless someone either had nightsticks (which aren't around anymore) or else spent extra feats on Extra Turning... gee, a full 1/3 of their feats as opportunity cost for that? I'd say that's a pretty fair trade. |
| MatteBlack02-08-07, 03:36 PM | My take on it is that DSP is a bit overpowered for its cost. Perhaps if the requirements or cost to get it were higher, there would be no debate here as clerics would need to give up something more to have it. Lee |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 03:39 PM | However, when a 10th level Cleric is getting Caster Level 20, we have a major problem (DSP, Karma Beads, Harmonic Chorus, Hymn of Praise). I won't start on Holy Word or Blasphemy, let's just leave what a cleric at caster level 20 can do up to the imagination, even if for buffing alone. So, as I mentioned in my post, just make caster level bumps not stackable. Simple. (Edit: Though, now having read Penn's post, perhaps not quite so simple. Anyway, I've had my twelve cents. I agree that DSP is nicely powered. That's why so many Clerics had it. And that's why so many Bards have Inspirational Boost, and so many Sorcerors have Glitterdust, and so many melee combatants have Power Attack. I do not agree that it was game-breaking, or even remotely so, without being in combination with other game options which are almost certainly, on their own, more overpowered. I appreciate the opportunity to vent in here, and appreciate the efforts of all the Circle and Triad members to keep things running as best they can.) |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 03:45 PM | My take on it is that DSP is a bit overpowered for its cost. Perhaps if the requirements or cost to get it were higher, there would be no debate here as clerics would need to give up something more to have it. Lee In order to have a decent number of turn attempts per day, they have to take Extra Turning. Hello, is 1/3 of your feats not enough "requirement"? |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 03:56 PM | 15d6 is not "sudden empower." Empower is damage times 1.5. Your example is not only less damage, it's further roll-dependent. Okay. Average damage without the feat is 38.5. Average damage with +4 CL is 52.5. Average damage with sudden empower is 57.75. Like I said, "pretty much" - it has about 3/4 the effect of sudden empower, adding around 15 damage on average as opposed to about 19. And the 15d6 is in fact less variable: more dice = smaller variation from the mean, but that's neither a strictly good nor strictly bad thing. Against critters who probably only vanish on a roll of 1 otherwise, or not at all. In reference to dismissal: against a glabrezu at APL 12 (from a cleric with Wis 22 including stat-boosters, which seems about average, and no feats devoted to it), it's the difference between "they fail on an 8 or lower" and "they fail on a 12 or lower". One way is a 40% chance of failure, the other is 60%. Multiplying the failure chance by 1.5 (or increasing the absolute number by 20%), for no extra action or spell level cost, is rather nice (twice as good as Spell Focus + Greater Spell Focus), especially since you also get +4 to defeat its SR. And your point? Someone with Spell Penetration/Greater can do that with every spell they have, 30+ times a day. When was the last time you saw a high-level caster cast 30+ offensive spells in a day? I've never seen it. My characters might cast five or six spells where SR is important, on a long day. And actually that particular cleric also had Spell Pen + Greater Spell Pen, and was a sacred exorcist: vs evil outsiders she was at about CL+10 on her SR checks ;) I don't think that's typical though. Ooh, a whole extra target? How UNGODLY BROKEN... lmao. When you're L12 in a six-person party, then yeah, there is a noticeable difference between being able to transport the whole party and the whole party minus one. (Wind Walk is an overland transport spell: you cast it to get long distances very quickly). In that case, it made the difference between "I cast two Wind Walks" and "I cast one Wind Walk and have another L6 slot available". Yeah, because a +1 to armor class is that much... So, would you take a feat that gave you +1 AC, +1 to attacks, and +1 damage, and allowed you to also grant these benefits to your party members? And your point being? Regarding dispels? It's a benefit of the feat (and one that tends to be underestimated: I watched a cleric laugh off a kaleidoscopic doom from a high-level initiate of the sevenfold veil because her buffs were all too high-CL to dispel). Of course, it also makes your (greater) dispels rather scarier. My argument is that while a feat to do ONE of these things would be fine, a feat that does all of them at once is probably a bit over the top. And didn't do all those things in the same day unless someone either had nightsticks (which aren't around anymore) or else spent extra feats on Extra Turning... gee, a full 1/3 of their feats as opportunity cost for that? I'd say that's a pretty fair trade. Obviously you don't break curses every day, it's something you have available for contingencies (at least, my L15 cleric certainly doesn't prep Remove Curse most of the time). So... starting Cha 14, crafted cloak +4 => seven turn attempts / day, you use one attempt on windwalk, two to give the frontline fighter augmented magic vestment and GMW, and you have four left to kick up your offensive spells, or five if you didn't need to windwalk anywhere (which is most of the time). I've seen very few clerics who regularly cast more than four offensive spells in a day (e.g. bolt of glory, flamestrike, dismissal, greater dispel). |
| Timlagor02-08-07, 03:57 PM | I have yet to see DSP break anything. It's useful. No more useful (probably a lot less) than a Sculpted Grease or Glitterdust. SHHHhh! |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 04:15 PM | In reference to dismissal: against a glabrezu at APL 12 (from a cleric with Wis 22 including stat-boosters, which seems about average, and no feats devoted to it), it's the difference between "they fail on an 8 or lower" and "they fail on a 12 or lower". One way is a 40% chance of failure, the other is 60%. Multiplying the failure chance by 1.5 (or increasing the absolute number by 20%), for no extra action or spell level cost, is rather nice (twice as good as Spell Focus + Greater Spell Focus), especially since you also get +4 to defeat its SR. For an expenditure of a rather large percentage of the feats available to a Cleric? Cost for value gained. Not broken. When was the last time you saw a high-level caster cast 30+ offensive spells in a day? I've never seen it. My characters might cast five or six spells where SR is important, on a long day. Me. Last month. Oh, and just FYI, unless you're getting Extra Turning and doing nothing but DSP your combat spells, you're not getting that effect every single time. And actually that particular cleric also had Spell Pen + Greater Spell Pen, and was a sacred exorcist: vs evil outsiders she was at about CL+10 on her SR checks ;) I don't think that's typical though. No, it's not. And you quoting extreme examples doesn't change the fact that DSP itself is not broken. When you're L12 in a six-person party, then yeah, there is a noticeable difference between being able to transport the whole party and the whole party minus one. (Wind Walk is an overland transport spell: you cast it to get long distances very quickly). In that case, it made the difference between "I cast two Wind Walks" and "I cast one Wind Walk and have another L6 slot available". And I presume you had time to sit down and memorize for the day anyways, so it wouldn't really have mattered all that much. So, would you take a feat that gave you +1 AC, +1 to attacks, and +1 damage, and allowed you to also grant these benefits to your party members? Ever been a Bard? Ever cast Haste? LMAO you're silly. Spell slots are a lot less opportunity cost than feat slots, and for the effect you are talking about, you have to burn two spells and two turn attempts for every single character you want to affect; I can do it all with one 3rd-level spell and no feat needed. Regarding dispels? It's a benefit of the feat (and one that tends to be underestimated: I watched a cleric laugh off a kaleidoscopic doom from a high-level initiate of the sevenfold veil because her buffs were all too high-CL to dispel). Of course, it also makes your (greater) dispels rather scarier. My argument is that while a feat to do ONE of these things would be fine, a feat that does all of them at once is probably a bit over the top. And Greater Dispel next to worthless the moment supernatural abilities or spell-like abilities pop up (you can't counterspell a spell-like). Obviously you don't break curses every day, it's something you have available for contingencies (at least, my L15 cleric certainly doesn't prep Remove Curse most of the time). So... starting Cha 14, crafted cloak +4 => seven turn attempts / day, you use one attempt on windwalk, two to give the frontline fighter augmented magic vestment and GMW, and you have four left to kick up your offensive spells, or five if you didn't need to windwalk anywhere (which is most of the time). I've seen very few clerics who regularly cast more than four offensive spells in a day (e.g. bolt of glory, flamestrike, dismissal, greater dispel). Oh, you don't get to stop there. The Mage wants a Magic Vestments. So does the Rogue. The Rogue also wants a +5 weapon for better sneak when he TWF's. Before you know it, you've burned through half your 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells just buffing the party. Zilchus help you if you don't have Magic Vestment as a domain spell to soak some of the need, too. Most people I know who have DSP burn everything but 1 or 2 turn attempts on their buffs, because that's what the party usually wants. And they still lob 6-7 offensive spells per combat, depending on how hurt the tank is getting. Get over it. It's not broken and shouldn't be removed. |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 04:52 PM | For an expenditure of a rather large percentage of the feats available to a Cleric? Cost for value gained. Not broken. For ONE feat, with no prerequisites. Me. Last month. Oh, and just FYI, unless you're getting Extra Turning and doing nothing but DSP your combat spells, you're not getting that effect every single time. Wow. 30 offensive spells / day. I'm impressed :) That's almost as many noncantrip slots as my sorcerer has, and the only time she's even come close to burning through them all was when she burned every spell below L4 on utility and mobility spells. No, it's not. And you quoting extreme examples doesn't change the fact that DSP itself is not broken. I mentioned that cleric as a side note (noting that DSP is also completely stackable with the things that people have claimed it replaces). My main point dealt with a cleric with starting Wis 15-16 who bumped Wisdom, bought a +4 periapt by L12, and had no other relevant feats. Against a glabrezu, Divine Spell Power then has the effect I stated (double the effect of Spell Focus + Greater Spell Focus, failure chance drops from 60% to 40%). And I presume you had time to sit down and memorize for the day anyways, so it wouldn't really have mattered all that much. i.e., casting one Wind Walk instead of two meant that she had another L6 slot free to prepare Heroes' Feast / Banishment (she had three in total, not sure what she would've dropped if we'd needed two Wind Walks), and yeah, that DID matter. Ever been a Bard? Ever cast Haste? LMAO you're silly. Spell slots are a lot less opportunity cost than feat slots, and for the effect you are talking about, you have to burn two spells and two turn attempts for every single character you want to affect; I can do it all with one 3rd-level spell and no feat needed. Sure, but the buffs don't take combat actions, and they stack with Haste :) Your argument is like saying that Melee Weapon Mastery is a pointless feat because a bard with bardsong + inspirational boost can spend a standard action and a bardsong to give equal numeric benefits to the whole party, and they can do it at L2. (My sorc casts Haste, my cleric has Boots of Speed. I know how it works.) And Greater Dispel next to worthless the moment supernatural abilities or spell-like abilities pop up (you can't counterspell a spell-like). Correct. You do still see actual spellcasting at high APL, though. I'm not saying that in every single game you will use greater dispel, dismissal, lots of damage spells, and wind walk! The feat does however provide a very substantial boost to a very wide range of spells, so you can augment your spellcasting as required by the situation at hand. It's very versatile, and a lot of the options are equivalent to one or more feats on their own. Oh, you don't get to stop there. The Mage wants a Magic Vestments. So does the Rogue. The Rogue also wants a +5 weapon for better sneak when he TWF's. Before you know it, you've burned through half your 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells just buffing the party. Zilchus help you if you don't have Magic Vestment as a domain spell to soak some of the need, too. *shrugs* If the cleric chooses to do that, that's their choice, and then they won't be spending the turn attempts on offensive spells unless they took Extra Turning (say, to qualify for Radiant Servant of Pelor: it's one of the most common cleric feats imx). That's a matter of their choice though: the offensive option isn't invalidated just because some clerics choose not to use it. Most people I know who have DSP burn everything but 1 or 2 turn attempts on their buffs, because that's what the party usually wants. And they still lob 6-7 offensive spells per combat, depending on how hurt the tank is getting. Hmmm... that's just not my experience of it, but I guess our play experience differs. Most combats I've seen recently with my L15 cleric last 1-2 rounds: there's not time for more than one big boom spell. I think a couple have lasted 5-6 rounds, but in those at least some rounds are normally "we buff and rely on distance or high armor class to protect us". Get over it. It's not broken and shouldn't be removed. I don't need to get over it, since it's on the Closed list and I doubt it'll be changing. I'm just trying to present some of the possible reasons for the ban, based on my own experience (I wasn't in on the official discussion of course, I may or may not be covering the reasons that the Circle considered). Before the LGCS draft was released, I felt much the same way I do now: that it was very close to the top of the power scale for feats, but that in the absence of Holy Word / Blasphemy it wasn't actually game-breaking, just extremely good, and maybe too good for a single feat with no prereqs. |
| solbergb02-08-07, 05:05 PM | Yeh...I've seen some clerics use it for buffs, but I've mostly seen clerics reserve enough turning attempts to use it liberally in combat. I've seen it as low as level 3 to boost spiritual weapons and as high as level 15 to boost hit-die dependent spells, and everything inbetween. I've also playtested clerics with it and without it, experimenting with builds. The clerics with it were universally more powerful, especially in the level ranges where they are casting spells that are 3-4 levels from their cap or a significant breakpoint. |
| Azerin02-08-07, 05:17 PM | I've also playtested clerics with it and without it, experimenting with builds. The clerics with it were universally more powerful, especially in the level ranges where they are casting spells that are 3-4 levels from their cap or a significant breakpoint. Like, say, as powerful as a fighter with power attack vs a fighter without power attack? or a sorc with scult vs a sorc without sculpt? I'd like to point out, most clerics don't have enough turning attempts for the dazzling displays of magic mentioned above... most clerics will have 10 or 15 turn atttempts at most, which, considering everyone wants an armor or shield buffed, counts heavily against their actual ability to use it in combat to heighten spells, or worse, actually turn undead. |
| uncawes02-08-07, 05:26 PM | I think DSP should remain in, and since it's been proven that Holy Word/etc are broken and the "problem" in the jacked-caster-level scenario, they should be banned. I've provided suggested equivalent level alternate spells (for those domains and templates that would require one) in the Holy Word thread for you to look over. Please do so, Britt. I mean it, I want to see your take on that. It would be a far better fix than banning non-broken feats trying to "fix" broken spells. Proof? What proof? The only "proof" I've seen is people posting "it's wrong, don't do it." The examples are all one-sided - no surprise there. As a DM who runs 150 to 200 tables a year, I've seen lots of examples of both DSP and DMM being used to "break" a module. I'm glad to see them gone. Remember, they're gone for the bad guys too. Here's my take on the whole thing: The Circle get to hear about a lot more of what goes on in this campaign than the triads do. Stuff filters up to them from all over the campaign. The triads get to hear about a lot more of what goes on in this campaign that the players do. Stuff filters up to them from all over their(meta)region. If the Circle, and the triads, have decided behind closed doors that these feats are not appropriate for this campaign, it's probably due to seeing more abuses of it than we mere mortals get to see. Why did the Circle not give us examples to shut the complainers up? Two reasons. One - it wouldn't necessarily shut everyone up, since you can always come up with some lamebrained example to demonstrate why your argument is the right one. Two - they're not required to explain their decisions to the masses. Now, you may not like "two", but that's how it is. In the end, you, and every other person playing LG, has the ultimate power of sanction. You can quit playing. But please, either way, quit whining. You've had your say, you've been told "no". Build a bridge. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 05:27 PM | Yeh...I've seen some clerics use it for buffs, but I've mostly seen clerics reserve enough turning attempts to use it liberally in combat. I've seen it as low as level 3 to boost spiritual weapons and as high as level 15 to boost hit-die dependent spells, and everything inbetween. I've also playtested clerics with it and without it, experimenting with builds. The clerics with it were universally more powerful, especially in the level ranges where they are casting spells that are 3-4 levels from their cap or a significant breakpoint. Like a Fighter with Power Attack vs a Fighter with Combat Expertise? Like a Rogue with an 18 Int versus a Rogue with 18 Dex and Tactile Trapsmith? Like a Druid with Natural Spell vs a Druid without? Like a Theurge who takes Practiced Spellcaster vs one who doesn't? Like a Cleric who converts to Cure spells versus one who converts to Inflict? Like a Wizard who focuses on Metamagic feats versus a Wizard who takes point blank shot, precise shot, etc? Every class has good things and options, some of which are taken more often than others. I know plenty of Cleric builds that would be hurt by taking Divine Spellpower, because they have a better use for that 1/6 of their feat pool. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 05:32 PM | Proof? What proof? The only "proof" I've seen is people posting "it's wrong, don't do it." The examples are all one-sided - no surprise there. As a DM who runs 150 to 200 tables a year, I've seen lots of examples of both DSP and DMM being used to "break" a module. I'm glad to see them gone. Remember, they're gone for the bad guys too. The mere fact that multiple triads have made public statements/threats that they will, if they catch players using Holy Word or Dictum or Word of Chaos, write a creature into their modules/interactives that uses high CL Blasphemy (and doesn't even need DSP since it'll be by hit dice) just to attack those players, shows how broken those spells truly are. There is a public admission by multiple triads, the admission that a state of "cold war" with regard to those spells exists, that those spells are broken. This is a fact. DSP doesn't hurt the campaign. Those spells do. The Circle hit the wrong thing with the whacking hammer. |
| solbergb02-08-07, 05:53 PM | Like a Fighter with Power Attack vs a Fighter with Combat Expertise? Like a Rogue with an 18 Int versus a Rogue with 18 Dex and Tactile Trapsmith? etc No. Rather like a cleric who took greater spell pen and divine metamgic empower+nightsticks vs one who took any other single feat. And that doesn't even cover the CL boost on several spells pushing past breakpoints on GMW/Magic Vestment and level dependent effects like dispel, banishment, dismissal and holy word. It's actually better than power attack for a fighter. Which is saying a lot. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 06:00 PM | No. Rather like a cleric who took greater spell pen and divine metamgic empower+nightsticks vs one who took any other single feat. Nightsticks are gone for a REASON. They were legitimately the problem. And that doesn't even cover the CL boost on several spells pushing past breakpoints on GMW/Magic Vestment and level dependent effects like dispel, banishment, dismissal and holy word. It's actually better than power attack for a fighter. Which is saying a lot. No, it's not. Not remotely. |
| Britt02-08-07, 06:02 PM | Bob, you need to start differentiating between "a" and "the". Just because something is "a" problem doesn't mean that it is "the" problem. "The" indicates that once you solve that problem, there are no other problems. You keep using "the problem" to indicate that nothing else is a problem, which is not a given. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 06:07 PM | Bob, you need to start differentiating between "a" and "the". Just because something is "a" problem doesn't mean that it is "the" problem. "The" indicates that once you solve that problem, there are no other problems. You keep using "the problem" to indicate that nothing else is a problem, which is not a given. I've been through every single claimed "problem" with Divine Spellpower. None of them are either (A) anywhere near game-breaking or (B) solved by removing Divine Spellpower from the campaign. The underlying causes of THE problems still remain even with DSP gone. And every time this comes up, the first thing mentioned is the "cold war" between multiple triads/regions regarding player usage of Holy Word. Why it is you train your sights on Divine Spellpower rather than dealing with the real problem of a very broken spell just amazes me. As regards Nightsticks, they were bannd because they were broken and causing problems. Were they still in, they would probably be causing new problems with all the new Divine feats. Divine Spellpower is no worse than any of the other Divine feats, save perhaps for Divine Metamagic. And I've already stated that I can see why DMM went, given that Sudden feats are NONC and DMM could be used for the same effect. |
| Britt02-08-07, 06:11 PM | Why it is you train your sights on Divine Spellpower rather than dealing with the real problem of a very broken spell just amazes me. Except, as I've noted multiple times before, those spells are not THE problem with DSP. "A" major problem with DSP is that it gives CL bumps and we worry about anything that does that. It's not an automatic disqualifier, but it raises flags. In this case, we deemed that it is too much of a problem. And just because we felt that DSP was a problem doesn't mean that we think the spells you mention are just fine or that we're ignoring them. We are discussing them as a separate issue. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 06:13 PM | It's actually better than power attack for a fighter. Which is saying a lot. Off topic, but I disagree. DSP can raise caster level to +4, or 4d6 on the most damaging of spells, up to +5 on a GMW or MV, and other similar small benefits. Power Attack can go up to 15 in LG, or 30 damage extra per attack when two handing something. More of course with a crit. I really don't think that it's remotely close. Power Attack, imo, should be broken up into Power Attack, Improved Power Attack, Greater Power Attack and Superior (whatever the next adjective is) Power Attack, with PA being up to 5, Improved up to 10, Greater up to 15 and Superior up to 20. Of course the prereqs would be the one prior. Damage ramps up too quickly imo with the way it is currently for fighter types. This would also give a benefit for actually taking Fighter to high levels to get the extra feats in order to get them. Of course this will never happen in 3.5, but it'd be nice. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 06:19 PM | Except, as I've noted multiple times before, those spells are not THE problem with DSP. "A" major problem with DSP is that it gives CL bumps and we worry about anything that does that. It's not an automatic disqualifier, but it raises flags. In this case, we deemed that it is too much of a problem. And just because we felt that DSP was a problem doesn't mean that we think the spells you mention are just fine or that we're ignoring them. We are discussing them as a separate issue. See comment re: Evercrack and World of Warcrack, Britt. The requirement of CL 17, when that was actually attainable, to bust curses and things was not that bad. Players could still find other players to help fix curses eventually. When things dropped to 15, the only recourse was to switch to ways to get caster level bumps. If you are dead-set against CL bumps, which usually have a very minor effect, then we have a problem, because you've targeted one that only works for a class that doesn't have nearly the powerful spells Wizards do, while leaving in plenty of options for Wizards. I have yet to see DSP cause a "problem." It's not a default feat choice for Clerics by any means, and it's existed in the campaign for two years now without major issue beyond the Holy Word stuff. I suppose I can just take one of the other broken feats you've allowed in, or swap a couple feats around, dig up my old access, and convert into a Maximized Rod-making Wunderkind. I don't think you REALLY want me to do that, but there are plenty of options for me to make some retaliatory cheese here that's far worse than DSP ever could be. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 06:24 PM | Off topic, but I disagree. DSP can raise caster level to +4, or 4d6 on the most damaging of spells, up to +5 on a GMW or MV, and other similar small benefits. 4d6 = average 14 damage, max 24. The actual "bump" on GMV or MV is only +1 max, to hit that magical +5 number you already have to be a level 16 caster some other way. Power Attack can go up to 15 in LG, or 30 damage extra per attack when two handing something. More of course with a crit. I really don't think that it's remotely close... Damage ramps up too quickly imo with the way it is currently for fighter types. Especially on a fighter doing 3-4 attacks per round or equivalent damage easily with buff spells and things like Charging Improved Lance Crit or Inspire Recklessness. But let's not let logic or math get in the way of falsely claiming DSP is "a problem." |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 06:36 PM | Britt: re this: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11430533&postcount=46 Please do the same. List "problems" A through Z where applicable with DSP. |
| Japangirl02-08-07, 06:50 PM | See comment re: Evercrack and World of Warcrack, Britt. The requirement of CL 17, when that was actually attainable, to bust curses and things was not that bad. Players could still find other players to help fix curses eventually. When things dropped to 15, the only recourse was to switch to ways to get caster level bumps. If you are dead-set against CL bumps, which usually have a very minor effect, then we have a problem, because you've targeted one that only works for a class that doesn't have nearly the powerful spells Wizards do, while leaving in plenty of options for Wizards. I have yet to see DSP cause a "problem." It's not a default feat choice for Clerics by any means, and it's existed in the campaign for two years now without major issue beyond the Holy Word stuff. I suppose I can just take one of the other broken feats you've allowed in, or swap a couple feats around, dig up my old access, and convert into a Maximized Rod-making Wunderkind. I don't think you REALLY want me to do that, but there are plenty of options for me to make some retaliatory cheese here that's far worse than DSP ever could be. This isn't a dare you to be cheesey, or let's make Bob mad and thus cheese out the system situation. Yes, there are multiple very powerful/cheesey cleric builds out there, and many of the people on these boards could come up with them fairly easily. The point is that DSP, regardless of whether it is broken or not, is now Closed, and I do not think that is going to change. Your complaints have been aired, and some are valid, but please try to keep this civil. |
| Divine Dwarf02-08-07, 06:54 PM | I'm less worried about that. They can have their own agenda, my PCs are built to last. I really can't say how unencouraging that kind of remark is. the reason I like D&D is it is a collaborative game. the table wins, everyone wins. while I am a powergamer munchkin myself, and my PCs are "built to last" as well, the point was a good one: a high HD creature, let's say 1/2 fiend who gets Blasphemy as a spell-like, that sucks for PCs. No, it's not ok, mr. tough guy. the point is that people make fun characters to role-play with, and some of us power-gamers get stuck with these RPers at conventions, unless every game you play is with the "A-team" of your hand-picked buddies, so you can prove you're up to the challenge, then you'll eventually have to face reality. Don't make this magic the gathering, where your deck is SUPERIOR to mine. the point here is with Unholy toughness and a 30 Charisma undead would have 1200 hit points. with unholy grace and a 30 charisma undead would make all saves. a 24 HD monster with blasphemy will kill, parlayze, blind, etc. most characters. that's not fun, and no matter how "built to last" characters are, it misses the point. A spell that kills you with no save is the problem. not DSP feat. period. |
| MatteBlack02-08-07, 07:05 PM | In order to have a decent number of turn attempts per day, they have to take Extra Turning. Hello, is 1/3 of your feats not enough "requirement"? Yes, that is pretty much my point. Especially when you consider how the feat improves exponentially with a high charisma. The fact is it is completely usuable to great effect without extra turning and if you consider some of the domain powers, it is 1 feat of 8 or 9. Lee |
| ZX67002-08-07, 07:05 PM | I really can't say how unencouraging that kind of remark is. Sorry you feel that way. I'm not a powergamer or, for the most part, a min/maxer. I could go into my character builds, because they are far from spectacular, but I'll spare you the waste of time, lol. I think you are mistaking what I am trying to say. Basically, I've made my builds, either accidentally or purposely, to be survivable (minus my bard, but boy is he fun to play). Now, they won't survive everything, but they have a good chance to get by some things they otherwise shouldn't. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 07:09 PM | Yes, that is pretty much my point. Especially when you consider how the feat improves exponentially with a high charisma. The fact is it is completely usuable to great effect without extra turning and if you consider some of the domain powers, it is 1 feat of 8 or 9. Lee "Exponentially"??? You get 1 more turn attempt per day for every +1 charisma bonus. A 36,000GP item can give you +3 turn attempts... once, because it doesn't stack. Burning two of your three stat bumps can give you... one turn attempt. I fail to see how this goes up "exponentially." As for the domain powers, are you kidding? Spell Focus or Weapon Focus are that powerful? Not to mention that the majority that aren't a "you get X feat" are once-per-day stuff. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 07:16 PM | Yes, that is pretty much my point. Especially when you consider how the feat improves exponentially with a high charisma. The fact is it is completely usuable to great effect without extra turning and if you consider some of the domain powers, it is 1 feat of 8 or 9. Lee I don't think you know what "exponentially" means. Let's try to reign in the rhetoric, shall we? And do the math right - even _human_ clerics don't get "8 or 9" Feats. And to those telling people to "quit whining", just go away. Please. Now. |
| ZX67002-08-07, 07:24 PM | And do the math right - even _human_ clerics don't get "8 or 9" Feats. They were counting Domain abilities as feats. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 07:29 PM | It's not a very accurate statement, as only a TINY handful of Domains grant actual Feats as abilities. |
| Timlagor02-08-07, 07:37 PM | I think his point was that increased charisma also increases CL bump each time. (still not exponential) EDIT: tell me you wouldn't spend a Feat on the Travel Domain ability. |
| MatteBlack02-08-07, 07:38 PM | "Exponentially"??? You get 1 more turn attempt per day for every +1 charisma bonus. A 36,000GP item can give you +3 turn attempts... once, because it doesn't stack. Burning two of your three stat bumps can give you... one turn attempt. I fail to see how this goes up "exponentially.". The feat improves "exponentially" because an increase in charisma increases how often you can use it and how effective it is. It is a common problem with turning feats because generally, their effect is based on charisma as well as how often they are usable per day. What might be a completely balanced feat for a 14 charisma can be over powering when Charisma gets up over 20. As for the domain powers, are you kidding? Spell Focus or Weapon Focus are that powerful? Not to mention that the majority that aren't a "you get X feat" are once-per-day stuff. Domain powers may give bonuses that duplicate actual feats. If you are going to inflate figures don't be surprise if someone posts the deflated versions of them. They may not be the most powerful ones but they are feats and that was the whole point of my original post. DSP is alot more powerful than most feats. Do the math how you like but, it's not a particularly sacrificial feat choice to take. DSP can move the game beyond its scaled level. It's why it is as popular as it is and probably why it was singled out. |
| Evanta02-08-07, 08:36 PM | Well my cleric was set-up to make good use of Divine Spellpower's uses. I had Glory Domain (+2), with my CHA (+1), synergy bonus (+2), as well as the (+3) from the feat itself, was already +8. I figure powergamers clerics might make this a +9 (CHA 14). Sacred Exorcist's Consencrate aura would make this a +13 to a turning check. Add a Eagle's Splendor, or Cloak of CHA +4, this would be a +15. People can get +4 CL levels with a roll of 5+. (and be decent UD turners incidently). I also took extra turning, which if powergamed a little (with cloak of CHA) would give you 12 uses of the feat on average. My current cleric had 8 turns, uses it to buff magic circle w/ a rod of extend to make it last for 2-3 combats, spiritual hammers and searing lights that have a much more decent chance of breaking the SR and doing a little additional damage, making sure Divine Favor grants me the max of +3 to hit and damage, etc. A important use would be to buff my resist elements to get resistance 20 to acid in RHoD vs. a upcoming green dragon, where before that I would only get resistance 10. I can see why they banned Divine Spellpower. I seriously hope the retooling can alter a lot more than just my feats, as I would never have touched the Glory domain otherwise. My cleric as it stands w/o divine spellpower would be a poorly optimized turner. Sigh.. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 08:44 PM | Well my cleric was set-up to make good use of Divine Spellpower's uses. I had Glory Domain (+2), with my CHA (+1), synergy bonus (+2), as well as the (+3) from the feat itself, was already +8. I figure powergamers clerics might make this a +9 (CHA 14). Sacred Exorcist's Consencrate aura would make this a +13 to a turning check. Add a Eagle's Splendor, or Cloak of CHA +4, this would be a +15. People can get +4 CL levels with a roll of 5+. (and be decent UD turners incidently). I also took extra turning, which if powergamed a little (with cloak of CHA) would give you 12 uses of the feat on average. My current cleric had 8 turns, uses it to buff magic circle w/ a rod of extend to make it last for 2-3 combats, spiritual hammers and searing lights that have a much more decent chance of breaking the SR and doing a little additional damage, making sure Divine Favor grants me the max of +3 to hit and damage, etc. A important use would be to buff my resist elements to get resistance 20 to acid in RHoD vs. a upcoming green dragon, where before that I would only get resistance 10. I can see why they banned Divine Spellpower. I seriously hope the retooling can alter a lot more than just my feats, as I would never have touched the Glory domain otherwise. My cleric as it stands w/o divine spellpower would be a poorly optimized turner. Sigh.. You'd need a 7 on the die to make the 22 necessary for a +4 according to the roll, actually. And do any of those things really make you all that much more powerful? I don't think they do. No worse than taking other feats like Extra Rage, or Power Attack, or Improved Toughness (shudder). Once again, it's the casters who get attacked. |
| uncawes02-08-07, 08:54 PM | This is "an" example of how DSP can be broken. Holy Word does not put in an appearance. Take a part of six, 5th level PCs. Make it a more or less vanilla party - one FTR, one CLR, one ROG, one WIZ, and a RGR(Archer) and a DRD to round it out. Figure they're all more or less focused on their primary role, but not necessarily min/maxed. Give the WIZ an Amulet of Health +2 for those extra hit points. The FTR has 44 hp, the CLR has 33, the ROG 27, the WIZ 26, the RGR 38 and the DRD 33. This party is at APL 6 - they don't have a choice. And if you've never seen six 5th's at the one table, I sure have. At APL 6, the author of the mod can put in an EL 9 encounter without the triad and/or Circle raising a sweat. So, here's the EL 9 encounter. Evil human CLR 9. His feats: Quicken Spell (he won't use this - it's the prereq for what follows), Sudden Empower, Sudden Maximise, Improved Initiative, Divine Spell Power. As he's an NPC, survival to the next mod isn't important, so he can be min/maxed to get the job done. Scenario: the party has gathered around a prone figure on the ground (or a chest that's been opened so no worry about traps). They're all nice and close together. Our evil cleric wins initiative (let's not worry about surprise) and casts a Flame Strike, using his Sudden Maximise and Sudden Empower. He does 69 points of damage (that's assuming average for the empowered bit). Even if everyone makes their save, the CLR, WIZ and DRD are unconscious. If the ROG fails, he's unconscious too. Bad, but not unwinnable - even though the CLR could be as far as 190 feet away. At least the RGR has a chance to ready an arrow for the next spell, with the possibility of a crit to give the bad guy something to think about. Now let's have that same situation, but with DSP added in. The evil guy has his CHA maxed out to 20, and has a +4 cloak (that's the party treasure if they win), so he's at +7 on the check. He rolls a 15 (let's give him the Luck domain so he gets two chances to make the 15) and gets +4 to caster level for the Flame Strike. What was 69 points of damage, save for 34, is now 100 points of damage, save for 50. Even if they make their reflex saves, the CLR, the WIZ, the DRD and the RGR are _DEAD_. The FTR is also troubled by having to make a Fort save vs massive damage - which being a FTR shouldn't be a drama unless he rolls a "1". Only the ROG is safe, because of evasion. But, if the ROG didn't save, he's _DEAD_ too. Add to this the range of up to 190 feet away, and it's plain that even if the FTR and/or Rogue decide to close to melee, our cleric gets at least one more round to hit whoever is left with some other nasty spell to finish them off. Like, say, Wrack on the Rogue when the distance is close enough, then just coup de grace him once the Fighter's been dealt with. And some spontaneous inflicts to finish off the Fighter, or maybe just the standard Cleric crossbow. The Fighter isn't too healthy, the bad guy is on full health. In either case, the Druid's animal companion won't do anything in this combat because it's buddy is either dead or dying and it has no instructions. Yes, you could come up with lots of parties that won't be this badly affected. And I could come up with lots more that will be that badly off, or worse. That's not the point I'm making. The point is that what was a tough combat for a party within APL has become a deadly combat, all by the addition of the DSP feat. The focus on why taking it out is bad has been on Holy Word (my example of why it's bad doesn't use it) and on what PCs can do with it (my example shows what an NPC can do with it). What none of the doomsayers seem to grasp is that if the good guys can't use it, neither can the bad guys. It doesn't have the little dagger that says authors are allowed to use it. I'll be glad to not be facing that 9th level Cleric with any of my PCs at APL 6. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 09:06 PM | Or, you could say that it's that bad with the "addition of the" Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximize. :rolleyes: |
| uncawes02-08-07, 09:15 PM | Or, you could say that it's that bad with the "addition of the" Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximize. :rolleyes: You could. But I've not seen anyone asking for those two feats to move to the Closed list.:evillaugh |
| garyjohnson02-08-07, 09:22 PM | This is "an" example of how DSP can be broken. Holy Word does not put in an appearance. ... Take a part of six, 5th level PCs. ... The FTR has 44 hp, the CLR has 33, the ROG 27, the WIZ 26, the RGR 38 and the DRD 33. ... At APL 6, the author of the mod can put in an EL 9 encounter without the triad and/or Circle raising a sweat. So, here's the EL 9 encounter. Evil human CLR 9. His feats: Quicken Spell (he won't use this - it's the prereq for what follows), Sudden Empower, Sudden Maximise, Improved Initiative, Divine Spell Power. As he's an NPC, survival to the next mod isn't important, so he can be min/maxed to get the job done. "Get the job done" doesn't describe it - he's a 5th level PC killing machine! :bigeyes: Our evil cleric wins initiative (let's not worry about surprise) and casts a Flame Strike, using his Sudden Maximise and Sudden Empower. He does 69 points of damage (that's assuming average for the empowered bit). Even if everyone makes their save, the CLR, WIZ and DRD are unconscious. And anyone who fails their save is dead. That's enough to convince me the encounter is already overpowered because of the Sudden Foo feats and the advantageous set-up (which seems to me to bump the EL up to 10 or 11, but YMMV - certainly I've seen a lot of variation on this in past scenarios) - for me, the DSP just makes a bad thing worse. :surrender Cheers, (scared for his PCs) Gary Johnson |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 09:25 PM | But I've not seen anyone asking for those two feats to move to the Closed list. Actually, they've already mentioned them. But, again, useful contributions from you. You should look a bit closer. :evillaugh: |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 09:36 PM | uncawes is a master of the straw man argument, it seems. Boy, he really set that straw man up and knocked it down but good. Time to take his "argument" apart anyways. This is "an" example of how DSP can be broken. Holy Word does not put in an appearance. Take a part of six, 5th level PCs. Make it a more or less vanilla party - one FTR, one CLR, one ROG, one WIZ, and a RGR(Archer) and a DRD to round it out. Figure they're all more or less focused on their primary role, but not necessarily min/maxed. Give the WIZ an Amulet of Health +2 for those extra hit points. The FTR has 44 hp, the CLR has 33, the ROG 27, the WIZ 26, the RGR 38 and the DRD 33. This party is at APL 6 - they don't have a choice. Sure they do. If they don't think they are up for the challenge, then they can wait for another day when they have a better party makeup, or one guy can sit out, or someone can switch to a lower level character to allow them to make lower APL. And if you've never seen six 5th's at the one table, I sure have. Been there, done that. T-shirt size is Large. At APL 6, the author of the mod can put in an EL 9 encounter without the triad and/or Circle raising a sweat. Except for this little thing called "playtesting", which we do specifically because there are many ways to cheese out an encounter without technically touching the EL rules. So, here's the EL 9 encounter. Evil human CLR 9. His feats: Quicken Spell (he won't use this - it's the prereq for what follows), Sudden Empower, Sudden Maximise, Improved Initiative, Divine Spell Power. As he's an NPC, survival to the next mod isn't important, so he can be min/maxed to get the job done. Which is a general problem of mod authorship anyways, but moving on... Scenario: the party has gathered around a prone figure on the ground (or a chest that's been opened so no worry about traps). They're all nice and close together. Our evil cleric wins initiative (let's not worry about surprise) and casts a Flame Strike, using his Sudden Maximise and Sudden Empower. Really; our 25-point-build evil cleric with at best a 14 Dex and Improved Initiative beats the entire party? Possible, but not entirely likely. That right there already sounds like a bad thing for the party. And the party's really just standing there not paying attention to anything else? If the mod writer is building something like this in, that already is an EL-affecting situation, or else they deserve spot/listen and the works to know what's going on. He does 69 points of damage (that's assuming average for the empowered bit).You've just shown why Sudden feats were treated with such trepidation by the Circle, for the same reason that DMM is being removed. The fact that you loaded down a bad guy with two NONC feats already is a warning signal on this combat. Even if everyone makes their save, the CLR, WIZ and DRD are unconscious. And? A Wiz9 with a Sudden Empowered Fireball does the same. Seems to me like Sudden Empower is the problem in this combat. If the ROG fails, he's unconscious too. Bad, but not unwinnable - even though the CLR could be as far as 190 feet away. At least the RGR has a chance to ready an arrow for the next spell, with the possibility of a crit to give the bad guy something to think about. If the CLR is 190 feet away, then this fills the idea of an "Ambush" and that should be figured into the EL already... so this exercise is already invalid. But moving along... Now let's have that same situation, but with DSP added in. The evil guy has his CHA maxed out to 20, and has a +4 cloak (that's the party treasure if they win), so he's at +7 on the check. He rolls a 15 (let's give him the Luck domain so he gets two chances to make the 15) and gets +4 to caster level for the Flame Strike. What was 69 points of damage, save for 34, is now 100 points of damage, save for 50. Now let's look at this realistically. Assuming a 25-point build (I'm being generous here, usually Elite Array for enemies is a +1 CR right there), I suppose you started him with a 15 WIS and a 14 CHA, and dumped his 4th and 8th level stat bumps into CHA. Seems the most logical. So his saving throw for the spell is... 10+5+2, grand total of 17. Not exactly overwhelming here, though plausible for some characters to miss. Second of all, you've built an entire encounter based on bad assumptions about things not affecting the CR. You have terrain unfavorable to the PC's, a deliberate ambush setup tilting the CR, and you've got a NPC specifically designed to blow his entire wad on one firing-off in what is essentially a box-text surprise round. This is already foul before you put DSP into it, so your "example" is already null and void. It wouldn't have passed playtest even before DSP. Plus, you don't mention what other feat could be put into here instead of Divine Spellpower, to compare it to, essentially gimping your previous Cleric NPC for one feat in order to further fit your utter strawman BS example. Realistically why don't I just take your first example and give it a twist; we'll trade out his feat and give him Quicken spell and have him finish off the party by dropping a second spell like, oh, Quickened Entangle (give him Plant domain for twigs and giggles there). Or Death domain to Quickened Cause Fear on whoever's still standing, or even just walk up and touch them to death next round. And that's just what's available in the PHB domains. Your "example" doesn't work. Yes, DSP makes the situation worse, because adding a feat that sees usage in an all-in-one-round blast will ALWAYS make the situation worse. You set up an autokill anyways, so the debate on your "example" is pointless, neither of these would ever come anywhere close to getting out of playtest. The point is that what was a tough combat for a party within APL has become a deadly combat, all by the addition of the DSP feat. No, that's not the point at all. You set up a rigged test by setting up a situation where the players are deliberately underpowered and know going in that they are so and probably shouldn't try to do it; you then set up an autokill encounter involving a badguy who blew two Sudden feats on the same max-level spell in an autosurprise round, which is way beyond EL even by objective means. This wouldn't pass the smell test, much less see playtest, unless someone in the editing process critically failed their Save VS Incompetence. Then, you claimed that adding DSP on top of an all-in-one-round combo is "worse" than not adding it. Well, adding a quickened damage spell, or a quickened environmental spell, or anything else is "worse" than not adding a quickened damage spell, too. So your argument is already faulty on that point as well. The focus on why taking it out is bad has been on Holy Word (my example of why it's bad doesn't use it) and on what PCs can do with it (my example shows what an NPC can do with it). No, your example is a completely nonapplicable, dishonest, rigged embarassment of the system. What none of the doomsayers seem to grasp is that if the good guys can't use it, neither can the bad guys. It doesn't have the little dagger that says authors are allowed to use it. I think they both should, players and writers alike. We have playtest for a reason. It's not DSP that makes the encounter you drew up broken, because it was far beyond broken before DSP got anywhere near it. |
| uncawes02-08-07, 10:08 PM | Bob, if you think playtesting finds (let alone fixes) all potential problems, you're way off the mark. And if you think my example (which was perfectly valid, all your ranting to the contrary) doesn't hold up, I suggest you read any mod written by Chris Chesher. Start with Tiger in Ahlissa for examples of broken encounters that very definitely made it through the playtest, the edit, the review, and all the other stages. And were technically legal encounters. If the best you can do is say something like "your argument doesn't hold up" whenever someone dares to disagree with you, it must be pretty boring being right all the time. |
| cycloptic_squirrel02-08-07, 10:22 PM | This is "an" example of how DSP can be broken. Holy Word does not put in an appearance. ...nasty, broken combat where the author deserves a stern talking to. Failing that taken to the nearest ditch and beaten... I'll be glad to not be facing that 9th level Cleric with any of my PCs at APL 6. Wow. I really hope authors have moved past this (though I know some haven't). This combat is neither interesting nor fun. A few select might enjoy it, pending survivial, but we have a)deadly, b)under ELed, and c)no warning/escape opportunity. Anyway, my two cents: cent 1 - DSP: I like it. I wish it were in, but can understand if it won't make it. cent 2 - Holy Word et. al. : these scare me. Without reliable caster boosts (which shouldn't be reliable) I'm not sure I'd memorize them. That means that the only time I'll probably see them in action is a high HD creature vs. me. It's not the lack of a save, it's not it scales with level, it's the combination. I've seen too many overpowered mods to trust a strange author not to use it unless approriate. |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 10:31 PM | cent 2 - Holy Word et. al. : these scare me. Without reliable caster boosts (which shouldn't be reliable) I'm not sure I'd memorize them. That means that the only time I'll probably see them in action is a high HD creature vs. me. It's not the lack of a save, it's not it scales with level, it's the combination. I've seen too many overpowered mods to trust a strange author not to use it unless approriate. I do memorize Holy Word without CL boosts, unless I'm playing down (I don't think this violates the truce, I don't mind NPCs using Blasphemy if it's less than five levels above the APL). It works well for cleaning up combats containing lots of mooks: they only need to be one level lower than you to be blinded with no save. Honestly... there's not that much else for clerics to do with their L7 slots :( I'd still be very very happy to see it go. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 10:31 PM | Wow. I really hope authors have moved past this (though I know some haven't). This combat is neither interesting nor fun. A few select might enjoy it, pending survivial, but we have a)deadly, b)under ELed, and c)no warning/escape opportunity. Look at it seriously. 5th level spell plus maximize (3-lev bump) plus empower (2-lev bump): that's technically a level 10 spell he's lighting off, in an APL 6 mod. What he wrote has nothing to do with Divine Spellpower being broken but it's sure as heck a reason that Sudden feats are messed up. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 10:35 PM | Bob, if you think playtesting finds (let alone fixes) all potential problems, you're way off the mark. And if you think my example (which was perfectly valid, all your ranting to the contrary) doesn't hold up, I suggest you read any mod written by Chris Chesher. Start with Tiger in Ahlissa for examples of broken encounters that very definitely made it through the playtest, the edit, the review, and all the other stages. And were technically legal encounters. Been there, done that. YOU stuck a level 10 spell into an APL 6 encounter, with unfavorable terrain and autosurprise, for your "example." YOU further tried to tilt the scales by not substituting an appropriate feat for Divine Spellpower, making a false comparison. It's obvious that Divine Spellpower didn't contribute half as much as either Sudden Empower or Sudden Maximize to the deadliness of that encounter, so you proved MY point; Divine Spellpower isn't broken and shouldn't be removed. |
| Britt02-08-07, 10:39 PM | It's obvious that Divine Spellpower didn't contribute half as much as either Sudden Empower or Sudden Maximize to the deadliness of that encounter, so you proved MY point; Divine Spellpower isn't broken and shouldn't be removed. What?!? That doesn't follow at all. |
| CSHunt6802-08-07, 10:40 PM | That post doesn't prove anything, either. It's utterly transparent, as pointed out. |
| cycloptic_squirrel02-08-07, 10:56 PM | Look at it seriously. 5th level spell plus maximize (3-lev bump) plus empower (2-lev bump): that's technically a level 10 spell he's lighting off, in an APL 6 mod. What he wrote has nothing to do with Divine Spellpower being broken but it's sure as heck a reason that Sudden feats are messed up. I thought I was looking at it seriously... :confused: |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 11:05 PM | What?!? That doesn't follow at all. Britt, Look seriously at this. The spell being cast: Flame Strike. 9d6 at APL 6. Average roll, 32 pts. Maximized, 54 pts. Empowered, half-again roll. Empowered average roll, 48 points. Empowered Maximized on average roll: 70 points. Divine Spellpower with a high roll: +4d6. Average roll, 14 pts. Maximized roll, 24 points. Maximized Empowered average roll, 31 points. To get that DSP to 4th level, requires roll of 15 on a d20. Creator ensured this with domain ability (Luck domain). Contributions: Spell: 9d6 base DSP: 4d6, but not really. You have to credit the domain ability with assist of 2d6 for ensuring +4 CL, because otherwise an average roll (11) is only +2 caster level as per the turning table. Sudden Empower: adds 1/2 of 9d6 plus 1/2 of 4d6; avg 22 points added. Sudden Maximize: contribution is maximization of 9d6 plus maximization of 4d6, or 32 points. What role has DSP played in this whole thing? DSP is not contributing a free 5-level slot bump to the caster's highest daily spell. Even without DSP, this is a crazy cracked-out encounter that does an average of 71 points in a single blast with a spell that most casters couldn't even memorize because it's an epic-level slot. It does this to the entire party, at APL 6, probably outright kills anything with a d4 hit dice (even if it makes its save) just for playing the mod - and that's before DSP is even calculated in. And as I stated, if you remove DSP but then replace it with something like Quicken, you can make the encounter just as broken (TPK/no possible win) fairly easily. The problem here is absolutely not DSP, which of its own accord contributed only 2d6. The problem is that we have someone cracking out an NPC spellcaster to burn every single bit of his resources on one shot, in an encounter that the writer already screwed up the EL rules on, specifically to be deadly to PC's. As someone else put it, "he's a 5th level PC killing machine!" Do players occasionally make builds like this? Sure. Take a Wizard, give him five Fatespinner levels, and watch him lob Quickened Truestrike Disintegrate for instakill on most NPC's. Is any one portion of that combination broken? Absolutely not, he's burning up his resources to do it. The same is true for DSP. It's not broken, and every scenario where people claim it to be a "problem" inevitably comes down to either their including something else that is already broken as-is in the equation, or doing like uncawes did and unfairly tilting the scale by comparing DSP to "not using DSP" instead of comparing DSP to using another useful feat like Quicken. |
| Britt02-08-07, 11:20 PM | First, I am looking at it seriously. Don't presume to think that I wouldn't be looking seriously at something I just spent the past two months working on. Second, here is what you are effectively trying to say: 1. Oreos, Candy Bars, and Chocolate Milk have sugar in them. 2. Oreos and Candy Bars have sugar in them. 3. Therefore, Chocolate Milk doesn't have sugar. That's ridiculous and doesn't follow at all. Whether Sudden Metamagic feats are broken doesn't prove anything about DSP. |
| copper_wyrmling02-08-07, 11:34 PM | Britt, Look seriously at this. <snipped> The same is true for DSP. It's not broken, and every scenario where people claim it to be a "problem" inevitably comes down to either their including something else that is already broken as-is in the equation, or doing like uncawes did and unfairly tilting the scale by comparing DSP to "not using DSP" instead of comparing DSP to using another useful feat like Quicken. The problem is with your argument that "because there are (debatably) worse things than DSP in this scenario, DSP itself must be balanced". That's a fairly giant leap of logic. ("Because the APL 8 party was TPK'ed by the CL13 Blasphemy trap, the pouncing assassin with wraithstrike and leap attack can't be overpowered, because the party was dead before he got a chance to charge them.") The Sudden feats are once/day. It's known that they're anomalously powerful on NPCs, who almost always, only ever fight one combat/day. In contrast, I don't think Divine Power is as powerful as an NPC feat as it is for PCs, barring abuse of the Holy-Word-type spells. One of its great strengths is the fact that you can use it so many times / day, and NPCs don't really get to demonstrate that: also Greater Spell Penetration is kind of pointless against PCs. To reiterate my position: there's a difference between "game-breaking" and "too good for its cost". Divine Spellpower (and / or other CL boosts, but DSP is the easiest to obtain) + Holy Word can be game-breaking, it reduces combats to "I play my I-Win card". There is not really any environment I can think of where being able to cast Holy Word at character level +10 or higher is an appropriate ability that won't distort the game (sure, there are ways to stop it, but if every wizard is walking around with Contingency: Silence read off a scroll using UMD, then something is probably wrong). Divine Spellpower on its own, imo, is not game-breaking, but it is too good for its cost. I and others have explained why we feel this way, earlier in this thread: it's a feat with no prerequisites which, in Living Greyhawk play (i.e. usually no more than three encounters / day, often less) is functionally equivalent to Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and a better version of Sudden Empower (about 3/4 as effective for flamestrike, depending on level, and stronger for low-level spells like searing light; more importantly, it has 5x as many uses), and the feat also allows additional further options (buffing with Magic Vestment / GMW / resist energy / barkskin, getting the whole party with spells like wind walk or teleport that have one target / three levels, boosting heavily CL-dependent spells like dismissal and greater dispel magic). I haven't seen this argument countered, except by people claiming they cast 30 offensive spells/day, and that a cleric must use all their turn attempts on buffing the party. The latter simply isn't true (some clerics may do it, but that's purely a matter of personal choice), and the former seems kinda unbelievable to me, given that I play a sorcerer with 36 non-cantrip spells/day and so I know exactly how hard it is to go through them all. If you believe that my analysis is unfair, please explain why (and without just saying "It's Not Like That!" with no explanation). If you think that it's fair but the feat is still balanced, please explain why, and maybe give some examples of other feats that you would consider to be of equal power and utility to DSP (for a cleric). |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-08-07, 11:35 PM | What?!? That doesn't follow at all. First, I am looking at it seriously. Don't presume to think that I wouldn't be looking seriously at something I just spent the past two months working on. Second, here is what you are effectively trying to say: 1. Oreos, Candy Bars, and Chocolate Milk have sugar in them. 2. Oreos and Candy Bars have sugar in them. 3. Therefore, Chocolate Milk doesn't have sugar. That's ridiculous and doesn't follow at all. Whether Sudden Metamagic feats are broken doesn't prove anything about DSP. Then show me an example where DSP is the actual problem. There are feats that are far more problematic in LG, feats that are Open access already, than DSP. At this point, you just put a strawman argument up above, and that's not valid, and you ought to know better. I catalogued DSP's effect on a number of spells, at 5th and 6th level, in another spot on the thread. The most DSP itself can ever add to a spell is 4d6 damage, +4 vs spell resistance, or a slight increase in duration. These effects are not broken. A look down the 7th level spell list reveals the same. In fact, the only spells at 7th level with any problem at all are - tadaah - HOLY WORD AND COMPANY. Your best response so far has been a vague platitude about how you are "leery" of caster level increases. So what? They've existed through the campaign so far. The problems with them - with the exception of what was posted above which is so ridiculous it's not even worth considering as a valid argument - all centered around what happened when they got near Holy Word/Dictum/etc. But it's entirely possible to cheese out and make Holy Word/Dictum/etc into deathtraps without having Divine Spellpower anywhere near the equation. Divine Spellpower isn't either "a" OR "the" problem, those spells are THE problem. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 12:15 AM | faulty strawman argument by copper wyrmling deleted The Sudden feats are once/day. It's known that they're anomalously powerful on NPCs, who almost always, only ever fight one combat/day. In contrast, I don't think Divine Power is as powerful as an NPC feat as it is for PCs, barring abuse of the Holy-Word-type spells. One of its great strengths is the fact that you can use it so many times / day, and NPCs don't really get to demonstrate that: also Greater Spell Penetration is kind of pointless against PCs. I know plenty of PC's who cast Spell Resistance on themselves, so don't kid yourself there. "So many times/day", huh? Only if you burn feats for Extra Turning. [/quote]To reiterate my position: there's a difference between "game-breaking" and "too good for its cost". Divine Spellpower (and / or other CL boosts, but DSP is the easiest to obtain) + Holy Word can be game-breaking, it reduces combats to "I play my I-Win card".[/quote] Half a dozen things or more plus Holy Word/Dictum/etc are "I play my I-win card." That's because Holy Word/Dictum/etc are broken. Next! There is not really any environment I can think of where being able to cast Holy Word at character level +10 or higher is an appropriate ability that won't distort the game (sure, there are ways to stop it, but if every wizard is walking around with Contingency: Silence read off a scroll using UMD, then something is probably wrong). Again, this is because Holy Word itself is broken... Divine Spellpower on its own, imo, is not game-breaking, but it is too good for its cost. I and others have explained why we feel this way, earlier in this thread: And been debunked, but I'll do so again, sure. it's a feat with no prerequisites Clerics get no bonus feats, zip, nada, zilch. To slap yet another requirement onto their feats is insane, because a level 15 Cleric only has six feats to work with. If Clerics got a free feat or three like Wizards, Fighters, or some other ability ANYWHERE in their build, you'd have an argument. Hell, even sorcerors get a Familiar. Clerics get one thing, "Turn Undead", an ability which by WotC's own admission in design documents is supposed to expire by 8th level at latest because an appropriate-CR undead baddie is going to have an unturnable amount of hit dice even before Turn Resistance is applied. Divine feats give a Cleric something to work with. And the fact that they only work on Cleric spells is itself a limiter, preventing classes like Druid, Healer, and Favored Soul from being able to work with them. That makes the requirement, and usage, of Turn Attempts a pretty good prerequisite. which, in Living Greyhawk play (i.e. usually no more than three encounters / day, often less) is functionally equivalent to Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Roll 20 every time or something? I sure hope so. "Functionally equivalent to Spell Penetration", perhaps. Greater? No. And again, there is a limit on how many of these can be cast per day, there is no such limit for those who actually take Spell Penetration. and a better version of Sudden Empower (about 3/4 as effective for flamestrike, depending on level, and stronger for low-level spells like searing light; more importantly, it has 5x as many uses) Your calculations may or may not be correct, depending on the build. "3/4 as effective for flamestrike" - lessee, average roll (assuming massive bonuses) leaves a +3 caster level, adds 1/4 dice to a 12th level caster or 1/3 dice to a 9th (but as 9th, as shown by the earlier stuff, average will likely be only 2-level bump)... Nope! Not NEARLY "3/4 as effective for flamestrike." Perhaps "half as effective for flamestrike." and the feat also allows additional further options (buffing with Magic Vestment / GMW / resist energy / barkskin BZZZZAP! Cannot be cast on Barkskin, please fix query. Magic Vestment/GMW: it can only bump by 1 tier. Resist Energy: can slightly increase the value. These are not inconsequential, but not meaningless nor overpowering, which is precisely the effect that a Divine feat is supposed to have. getting the whole party with spells like wind walk or teleport that have one target / three levels, boosting heavily CL-dependent spells like dismissal and greater dispel magic). There are other ways to do it. TURN ATTEMPTS ARE RESOURCES. How hard is it for you to understand this? "Heavily CL-dependent spells like dismissal and greater dispel magic" - dismissal can have a +4 to its save, max. That is not overpowering. It helps, perhaps, but it's all-or-nothing anyways on Dismissal. A Cleric/Fatespinner can do similar things to it, and would without hesitation. Greater Dispel Magic competes with a lot of other spells. Is it good? Yes. But you trade that spell off for offensive spells, or utility spells, or curing - need I mention that Heal is on the same tier? I haven't seen this argument countered, except by people claiming they cast 30 offensive spells/day, Oh, I don't cast 30 OFFENSIVE spells per day. But I can easily surpass 30 spells per day in buffs and offensive/combat spells combined. And Divine Spellpower gets to affect a pretty small minority of them. and that a cleric must use all their turn attempts on buffing the party. Again, stop trying to twist my words. A cleric in my region will PROBABLY use the vast majority of their turn attempts buffing the party. Then again, cast 5 buff spells and you've used over half your allotment, and you've used up two just on yourself. Some of our battle clerics might not, but we don't have a lot of them around currently, and most of our battle clerics would rather take something like Heavy Armor Optimization or the new Divine feat to spend their 3-4 turn attempts per day in exchange for DR5/-. The latter simply isn't true (some clerics may do it, but that's purely a matter of personal choice), and the former seems kinda unbelievable to me, given that I play a sorcerer with 36 non-cantrip spells/day and so I know exactly how hard it is to go through them all. Spells per day for a my Cleric at level 13: 1st level 7+1 2nd level 6+1 3rd level 5+1 4th level 5+1 5th level 4+1 6th level 3+1 7th level 1+1 Total number of spells: 38. Are all of them combat? No. Are all buff? No. Do they all get used? For the most part, yes. How many can I affect with Divine Spellpower? SIX. If you believe that my analysis is unfair, please explain why (and without just saying "It's Not Like That!" with no explanation). If you think that it's fair but the feat is still balanced, please explain why, and maybe give some examples of other feats that you would consider to be of equal power and utility to DSP (for a cleric). Your analysis is unfair. See above. Feats I consider of equal worth for Cleric: Quicken Spell Divine Armor: turn attempt = DR5/-. Sacred Boost (spend turn attempts for maximized cure spells) Rapid Spell: Clerics get Summon Monster too, can also help spells like Enlarge Person Glorious Weapons - 1 turn attempt = Mass Align Weapon Sacred Healing (CD) DOMAIN SPONTANEITY. That's just a start, I haven't gone through half the list yet. |
| bitznarf02-09-07, 12:27 AM | Feats I consider of equal worth for Cleric: Quicken Spell Divine Armor: turn attempt = DR5/-. Sacred Boost (spend turn attempts for maximized cure spells) Rapid Spell: Clerics get Summon Monster too, can also help spells like Enlarge Person Glorious Weapons - 1 turn attempt = Mass Align Weapon Sacred Healing (CD) DOMAIN SPONTANEITY. That's just a start, I haven't gone through half the list yet. While I appreciate a stab at answering copper_wyrmling's question, these are currently all subjective opinions; perhaps you could quantify them in some way to give a comparative analysis that means something. :twocents: |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 12:41 AM | Sure, I'll give you some quantification. Quicken Spell - This gives you spells as Swift Actions. Two spells per round. Even if one of them is just a Deific Vengeance, or other lower-level damage spell, it's important. Divine Armor: Anything that can give you DR5/- is not to be sneezed at. Sacred Boost (spend turn attempts for maximized cure spells) - For curing spells and Mass Curing spells alike, this is a very powerful feat. When there is another divine caster in the party - second cleric, druid, favored soul, bard, or even Arcane Disciple caster - it can not only buff you, but them. Sacred Boost both has in-combat benefits with proper party organization and out-of-combat benefits in the preservation/conservation of healing spells for later usage. Rapid Spell: Clerics get Summon Monster too, and it can also help spells like Enlarge Person or anything else with a 1-turn or longer caster time. Memorizing a Rapid Restoration or Rapid Lesser Restoration can make them possible to cast in combat situations. Glorious Weapons: you can use a turn attempt to mimic the effect of a high level spell, Mass Align Weapon. That is worthwhile. Sacred Healing (CD): Spending a turn attempt gives the entire party Fast Healing 3. Again, for preservation of resources, this is good. DOMAIN SPONTANEITY. Many domains offer up spells Clerics normally don't have access to, or spells that they would like to use again and again but not worry about memorizing. With Domain Spontaneity, one turn attempt can convert any memorized spell into a spell of the domain you made spontaneous. Tune up with a domain like Liberation (freedom of movement, greater dispel magic) or Luck (protection from energy, freedom of movement, Mislead) or any other useful domain of your choice. Of course, it takes Turn attempts, so it directly competes with DSP for Scarce Resources. Every one of these is every bit as useful, and powerful, as Divine Spellpower and is equally as good a choice. |
| JamesMaissen02-09-07, 12:42 AM | That's ridiculous and doesn't follow at all. Whether Sudden Metamagic feats are broken doesn't prove anything about DSP. That's very true and I agree (and applaud you on that) however one other poster was claiming an example of why DSP was unbalanced. That was what was being attacked there. In it he gave an NPC too much wealth for his level, a domain that increased his chance of getting the purported result to about 50%, and in the end contributed as much to the damage as Sudden Empower. This is not going into where he put the party in a 10' radius to be surprised at distance by an APL + 3 caster. Now I'm not a big fan of the sudden feats for NPCs as they get made into one shot wonders. I'm also not the biggest fan of DSP, however people are assuming that it translates into 'spend one turn attempt, get +4 CL for a spell' and that's simply not the case. It requires a strong commitment to CHA and thus to turning for the character. This in turn limits PrC choices and abilities. They are realistic costs that should not be discounted. Assuming that someone will always roll a 10 or higher is not something that should be done lightly either. Some of the strongest feats imho are the ones that let you take 10 on certain checks (perhaps because I roll for crap most of the time). Anyway, I would like to mention that I do think that CL requirements for curses be monitored more closely. Caster level 17 to remove is fine for some curses, but that seems to be the norm rather than something special and that seems wrong, especially if it's thrown into low APLs. It can get to the point where you may need to make a Curses log for characters... -James |
| bitznarf02-09-07, 12:47 AM | Every one of these is every bit as useful, and powerful, as Divine Spellpower and is equally as good a choice. While you have made a valiant effort at stating why each is good, you didn't actually compare any of these to the effects of DSP, you merely stated what is good about each one. |
| zstinger02-09-07, 12:56 AM | I tend to agree with few of Bob's points though I do not necessarily agree with the style. I also agree with some on these boards who point that that arguments are better appreciated if presented in a balanced and civil manner. Clerics get one thing, "Turn Undead", an ability which by WotC's own admission in design documents is supposed to expire by 8th level at latest because an appropriate-CR undead baddie is going to have an unturnable amount of hit dice even before Turn Resistance is applied. This seems to imply that Turn Undead attempts in the original form are useless for practical use after level 8. If they are useless anyway, expending turn attempts for a metamagic spontaneously would be an extremely low opportunity cost. There are other ways to do it. TURN ATTEMPTS ARE RESOURCES. How hard is it for you to understand this? Then he goes on to argue how Turn attempts are resources? Resources in the case of DSP? That's like taking a false leap of logic. Of course he may not mean it this way but this is just how I interpret the lopsided arguments. |
| copper_wyrmling02-09-07, 01:34 AM | (Regarding my "faulty strawman argument", I was responding to the same post that had Britt criticizing your logic, not anything else you said more recently. You stated that if the encounter was overwhelming with sudden empower + sudden maximize + divine spellpower, and most of the pain came from the sudden feats, then that proved divine spellpower was not broken - or at least, that was what it sounded like.) "So many times/day", huh? Only if you burn feats for Extra Turning. Compared to the Sudden feats (which was the issue at hand, since you wanted to compare Divine Spellpower to the Sudden feats on an NPC who fights one combat ever), 5-6 times/day is "many". Half a dozen things or more plus Holy Word/Dictum/etc are "I play my I-win card." That's because Holy Word/Dictum/etc are broken. Next! I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I was contrasting something that I do think is gamebreaking (Holy Word + any number of things, of which DSP is the easiest to obtain - I even SAID that), with the non-gamebreaking but still powerful applications of DSP. The reason I was doing that was that it seemed that people were arguing mostly that "divine spellpower without holy word is not game-breaking": I agree with that, but there's a difference between "game-breaking" and "too good for its cost", and the latter is still a valid reason to ban something. Clerics get no bonus feats, zip, nada, zilch. To slap yet another requirement onto their feats is insane, because a level 15 Cleric only has six feats to work with. If Clerics got a free feat or three like Wizards, Fighters, or some other ability ANYWHERE in their build, you'd have an argument. Hell, even sorcerors get a Familiar. Clerics get one thing, "Turn Undead", an ability which by WotC's own admission in design documents is supposed to expire by 8th level at latest because an appropriate-CR undead baddie is going to have an unturnable amount of hit dice even before Turn Resistance is applied. Clerics get domain powers. Some domain powers ARE feats, albeit these are generally considered among the weaker powers. Why are familiars relevant? Why is the progression of a cleric's undead turning relevant? We're not talking about balance of class features, we're talking about how easy it is to obtain certain benefits. Divine Spellpower can be taken at first level by any cleric: there is no cost beyond the feat slot. As such, it should not have the same level of power as a (cleric) feat that requires multiple prerequisite feats to obtain. (Which is why I believed DMM was actually less powerful than DSP in most cases: it required far more feat investment.) We may be talking past each other here. Divine feats give a Cleric something to work with. And the fact that they only work on Cleric spells is itself a limiter, preventing classes like Druid, Healer, and Favored Soul from being able to work with them. That makes the requirement, and usage, of Turn Attempts a pretty good prerequisite. Actually, they work on divine spells of any sort. A druid, healer or favored soul who picks up turning (e.g. from a level of cleric or from sacred exorcist) can use the feat on spells from their class list. But that also is not relevant to whether the feat is balanced for clerics. Roll 20 every time or something? I sure hope so. "Functionally equivalent to Spell Penetration", perhaps. Greater? No. And again, there is a limit on how many of these can be cast per day, there is no such limit for those who actually take Spell Penetration. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed towards high APL, because that's where I've seen the feat in effect. solbergb has seen it at all APLs, so I trust his judgement that it's equally powerful early on (smaller chance of getting a very high bonus, but +2-3 CL means a lot more when you're only L2). Here's a simple L12 build: Investments: starting Cha 14, Glory domain, cloak of charisma +4, Divine Spell Power feat Classes: cleric 7 / sacred exorcist 5 Bonus on DSP check: +4 (Cha) +2 (Knowledge (Religion)) +2 (Glory) +3 (Consecrate aura) +3 (DSP) = +14 That's a 65% chance of getting a +4 bonus to CL, 15% chance of +3, 15% chance of +2, 5% chance of +1. Average bonus is +3.4, rather closer to Greater Spell Pen than Spell Pen. Feat can be used 7 times/day At L2, the same character would have +9 on the check (+2 Cha +2 Knowledge (Religion) +2 Glory +3 DSP), for an average bonus of +2.5, and could use it five times/day. Your calculations may or may not be correct, depending on the build. "3/4 as effective for flamestrike" - lessee, average roll (assuming massive bonuses) leaves a +3 caster level, adds 1/4 dice to a 12th level caster or 1/3 dice to a 9th (but as 9th, as shown by the earlier stuff, average will likely be only 2-level bump)... Nope! Not NEARLY "3/4 as effective for flamestrike." Perhaps "half as effective for flamestrike." I am assuming a certain investment in making the feat work: you can't say that a feat is low-powered because you can put it in a build that doesn't take advantage of it (for example, if you give Power Attack to a rogue using an urgrosh with Str 13, a very good feat will look absolutely pathetic). If you take away the Consecrate aura above, they still get +4 on a roll of 11 or higher. If you give them some nice item access, like a circlet of persuasion or a sceptre of obedience, and it goes up again. (Or take a marshal / bard cohort, or have a marshal in the party with motivate charisma: that has a host of other benefits and incidentally makes it really easy to hit the +4.) There are plenty of ways to boost it, and what I did above is very basic. "3/4 as effective for flamestrike" was based on a L11 caster, I did the calculation earlier in this thread (I think it would come out slightly better for a L9). At L12... harm? fire seeds (depending on domain)? bolt of glory? BZZZZAP! Cannot be cast on Barkskin, please fix query. Barkskin is a L2 Plant domain spell. Magic Vestment/GMW: it can only bump by 1 tier. Resist Energy: can slightly increase the value. These are not inconsequential, but not meaningless nor overpowering, which is precisely the effect that a Divine feat is supposed to have. Resist Energy can bump from 10 to 20 or 20 to 30, which is a bit more than "slightly". It's not any ONE of these options that are overpowered. It's the ability to do ALL of them, depending on what you need at the time. There are other ways to do it. TURN ATTEMPTS ARE RESOURCES. How hard is it for you to understand this? As the player of a L15 cleric who up until last level had full turning, who owns a lyre of the restful soul and phylactery of undead turning, and who would've had a +14 bonus on her DSP check despite having base charisma 8 (and is regretting not taking it now that it looks like DSP people get a free retraining with all the new feats available)... yeah, I understand how turn attempts work. (Note: if a cloak +4 is too expensive, then carrying scrolls of eagle's splendor helps, since per the FAQ even temporary Cha bonuses give you extra turn attempts.) And I've played with clerics who use DSP, and I've watched how much of an issue it is for them, and the answer is usually Not A Lot. "Heavily CL-dependent spells like dismissal and greater dispel magic" - dismissal can have a +4 to its save, max. That is not overpowering. It helps, perhaps, but it's all-or-nothing anyways on Dismissal. A Cleric/Fatespinner can do similar things to it, and would without hesitation. I don't know many clerics who cast fourth-level arcane spells :P And again, a fatespinner invests four levels to be able to add +4 to a save once/day, and a lot of people think the PrC is too powerful for its prerequisites. Oh, I don't cast 30 OFFENSIVE spells per day. But I can easily surpass 30 spells per day in buffs and offensive/combat spells combined. And Divine Spellpower gets to affect a pretty small minority of them. Okay. Checking earlier in this thread, I asked "When was the last time you saw a high-level caster cast 30+ offensive spells in a day?" and you replied "Me. Last month." (post 62) Sorry if I misunderstood that :rolleyes: Again, stop trying to twist my words. A cleric in my region will PROBABLY use the vast majority of their turn attempts buffing the party. Then again, cast 5 buff spells and you've used over half your allotment, and you've used up two just on yourself. Some of our battle clerics might not, but we don't have a lot of them around currently, and most of our battle clerics would rather take something like Heavy Armor Optimization or the new Divine feat to spend their 3-4 turn attempts per day in exchange for DR5/-. Sorry... I can understand the new divine feat being attractive (my PH2 doesn't get here until tomorrow, so I'm not familiar with all those), but Heavy Armor Optimization? They'd take an always-on +1 AC over being able to trade a turn attempt for +1 AC from Spellpowered Magic Vestment, plus the other benefits of the feat? Am I remembering HAO wrong? Total number of spells: 38. Are all of them combat? No. Are all buff? No. Do they all get used? For the most part, yes. How many can I affect with Divine Spellpower? SIX. How many can you benefit from Spell Pen + Greater Spell Pen on? If less than six, in what ways are Spell Pen and Greater Spell Pen (two feats) significantly better than Divine Spell Power (one feat)? And that's just one example of how it can be used. But anyway, I'm very sleepy and going for now - other people are already commenting on feats, so I'll see what people have said tomorrow morning. Night! |
| Azerin02-09-07, 01:58 AM | Britt said, in another post, Whether the spells are "broken" is only a small part of the argument for whether they should be in the campaign. I'm actually curious to know the arguement for why DSP is out of the campaign, as I don't recall it creating giant issues (outside of the holy word problem). It didn't complicate things, it just made them a little better statistically. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 08:58 AM | Compared to the Sudden feats (which was the issue at hand, since you wanted to compare Divine Spellpower to the Sudden feats on an NPC who fights one combat ever), 5-6 times/day is "many". And compared to the "All-day" nature of other feats, 5-6 times/day is "few." I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I was contrasting something that I do think is gamebreaking (Holy Word + any number of things, of which DSP is the easiest to obtain - I even SAID that), with the non-gamebreaking but still powerful applications of DSP. The reason I was doing that was that it seemed that people were arguing mostly that "divine spellpower without holy word is not game-breaking": I agree with that, but there's a difference between "game-breaking" and "too good for its cost", and the latter is still a valid reason to ban something. Then we need to ban the Sudden feats. And Power Attack. And we need to ban Improved Toughness, because it obsoletes Toughness. And we need to get rid of Energy Substitution completely and every other 0-level metamagic feat. And on, and on, and on. "Because it's better than other things in certain situations" is not a reason to ban something, Copper. Not ever. "Too good for its cost" is simply not the case. Clerics get domain powers. Some domain powers ARE feats, albeit these are generally considered among the weaker powers. Why are familiars relevant? Because a Familiar is a cheap way to get Reach distance on spells (having the familiar Deliver Touch), a cheap way for a Wizard to have a high Spot/Listen score even without spending his own skill points, a cheap way to create doubled-up effects with shared attack spells, and so on. A Familiar in the mid to late game is a VERY powerful class feature. Why is the progression of a cleric's undead turning relevant? Because the main reason Divine feats were created was to give Clerics something to do with a class feature that WotC has admitted in design documents does not scale with the game and becomes worthless. We're not talking about balance of class features, we're talking about how easy it is to obtain certain benefits. Divine Spellpower can be taken at first level by any cleric: there is no cost beyond the feat slot. There's the opportunity cost of being a Cleric itself, and that's their ONLY feat. As a first-level cleric, let's check that spell list out for a second: yep, the most it can do is add an average of 2 points to a cure spell (Augment Healing anyone?), a couple points of damage to an Inflict spell (which is an evil act just to cast now), an extra subject or two for Remove Fear, a couple more points for Lesser Vigor (again, Augment Healing will do just the same), or perhaps it'll add enough rounds for a Summon Monster I to be usable. None of these are game-breaking effects. Even if they can be used on most of the Cleric's spells per day at that level, what is your point? There are plenty of feats that are better at low level than high, better at high than low, or remain pretty steady throughout. If anything, you've just produced a pretty good case that DSP is better at low levels than high, which means that it isn't that big a deal anyways. As such, it should not have the same level of power as a (cleric) feat that requires multiple prerequisite feats to obtain. (Which is why I believed DMM was actually less powerful than DSP in most cases: it required far more feat investment.) We may be talking past each other here. And it doesn't have the same level of power as a "cleric feat" that requires multiple prerequisite feats to obtain. So your bit there is moot. Actually, they work on divine spells of any sort. A druid, healer or favored soul who picks up turning (e.g. from a level of cleric or from sacred exorcist) can use the feat on spells from their class list. But that also is not relevant to whether the feat is balanced for clerics. Opportunity cost of Lost Caster Levels. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed towards high APL, because that's where I've seen the feat in effect. solbergb has seen it at all APLs, so I trust his judgement that it's equally powerful early on (smaller chance of getting a very high bonus, but +2-3 CL means a lot more when you're only L2). Here's a simple L12 build: I've seen enough of solbergb's posts not to trust his judgement on this. If he can give me a good example that isn't already broken, then I'll consider it. So far he's just shouted "Holy Word" a lot. Investments: starting Cha 14, Glory domain, cloak of charisma +4, Divine Spell Power feat Classes: cleric 7 / sacred exorcist 5 Bonus on DSP check: +4 (Cha) +2 (Knowledge (Religion)) +2 (Glory) +3 (Consecrate aura) +3 (DSP) = +14 That's a 65% chance of getting a +4 bonus to CL, 15% chance of +3, 15% chance of +2, 5% chance of +1. Average bonus is +3.4, rather closer to Greater Spell Pen than Spell Pen. Feat can be used 7 times/day You're also 12th level, and didn't mention what other feats you have taken. At L2, the same character would have +9 on the check (+2 Cha +2 Knowledge (Religion) +2 Glory +3 DSP), for an average bonus of +2.5, and could use it five times/day. Again, look at the spell list. At that level, even a +4 bonus on the caster level of his available spells doesn't do all that much, because of the spells available to him. I am assuming a certain investment in making the feat work: you can't say that a feat is low-powered because you can put it in a build that doesn't take advantage of it (for example, if you give Power Attack to a rogue using an urgrosh with Str 13, a very good feat will look absolutely pathetic). If you take away the Consecrate aura above, they still get +4 on a roll of 11 or higher. If you give them some nice item access, like a circlet of persuasion or a sceptre of obedience, and it goes up again. (Or take a marshal / bard cohort, or have a marshal in the party with motivate charisma: that has a host of other benefits and incidentally makes it really easy to hit the +4.) There are plenty of ways to boost it, and what I did above is very basic. Agreed, but what you created is nowhere near "broken" or even "too good for the investment made." You spent the choice of a domain, when you have plenty of other reasonable domain choices for different builds. You spent points in CHA that you wouldn't need for other cleric builds. You spent points and feats getting into a prestige class that you're not accounting for. The "investment cost" that you claim for DSP isn't just the DSP, it's the other things you spent to make it work, just like a fighter who only got Power Attack becomes scarier when they get their hands on a Keen weapon or Improved/Power Critical. "3/4 as effective for flamestrike" was based on a L11 caster, I did the calculation earlier in this thread (I think it would come out slightly better for a L9). At L12... harm? fire seeds (depending on domain)? bolt of glory? Harm - could possibly add 30 points to a CL 12 Harm. Not gamebreaking. Bolt of Glory - max 7d6 unless you're evil outsider/undead, in which case 15d6. Not remotely game-breaking. Fire Seeds - even on a single seed, can only add 4 dice. Not game-breaking. Look, 90% of the stuff on the list you're referring to caps at level 15 anyways. Divine Spellpower gets diminishing returns at that point, which is another reason it's not as powerful as you're trying to claim. Useful? Yes. Powerful? No. And definitely not "too good for its cost."[/quote] Barkskin is a L2 Plant domain spell. starts at +2, +1 point per 3 levels above 3rd, max +5 at 12th. DSP lacks meaning to this spell at high levels, and at low levels is at best a +1 bump. There's the anomaly that it can give a 5th level caster a +4 barkskin (+2 bonus) but that's still requiring a good roll and not going to happen reliably. Resist Energy can bump from 10 to 20 or 20 to 30, which is a bit more than "slightly". It's not any ONE of these options that are overpowered. It's the ability to do ALL of them, depending on what you need at the time. By that logic, tactical feats should be all gotten rid of. Utility in the game is to be shunned. Oh, and we need to ban Glitterdust. And Grease. And Evard's. And pretty much anything that isn't useful in anything but the most narrow of circumstances. The ability to put small effects to a variety of spells is utility, and it's still not "too good for its cost." As the player of a L15 cleric who up until last level had full turning, who owns a lyre of the restful soul and phylactery of undead turning, and who would've had a +14 bonus on her DSP check despite having base charisma 8 (and is regretting not taking it now that it looks like DSP people get a free retraining with all the new feats available)... yeah, I understand how turn attempts work. (Note: if a cloak +4 is too expensive, then carrying scrolls of eagle's splendor helps, since per the FAQ even temporary Cha bonuses give you extra turn attempts.) And I've played with clerics who use DSP, and I've watched how much of an issue it is for them, and the answer is usually Not A Lot. And if you build a character for it, then your opportunity cost isn't "one feat", it's the skill points associated with any PrC you took, any feats you took to make it better, the domain choice you made, and the money spent on associated items. This is not a small cost. The Fighter who gets Bracers of Quick Strike, or Boots of Speed, gets more powerful on their Power Attack. The same applies for a feat that increases their to-hit, or the acquisition of a +X weapon, or anything else. The opportunity cost for them isn't just Power Attack (though PA is admittedly broken by doing 2-for-1 on double handed swings), it's the feats and equipment they put in to making their to-hit high enough that PA connects regularly. In one sentence you say the "opportunity cost" is just one feat, in the next you say "but when you add X and Y and Q and F and and and". You're arguing dishonestly. I don't know many clerics who cast fourth-level arcane spells :P I know plenty of Clerics who cast 4th level Cleric spells PBBBBT. Dismissal is CLR4, WIZ/SOR5. And again, a fatespinner invests four levels to be able to add +4 to a save once/day, and a lot of people think the PrC is too powerful for its prerequisites. And you can enter it at 8th level, not really a problem. 5 skill points into a profession skill that never comes up isn't something to sneeze at, either. Sorry... I can understand the new divine feat being attractive (my PH2 doesn't get here until tomorrow, so I'm not familiar with all those), but Heavy Armor Optimization? They'd take an always-on +1 AC over being able to trade a turn attempt for +1 AC from Spellpowered Magic Vestment, plus the other benefits of the feat? Am I remembering HAO wrong? Most fighting clerics I know already have armor high enough that that Magic Vestment spell isn't stacking with it properly. And they'd certainly take it for other reasons, not the least of which is again the fact that it is ALWAYS ON. We've seen enough CL 20 Greater Dispelling Screens, and Antimagic Fields, to be wary of our buffs staying up properly. Maybe your triad are wimps in that regard. Don't punish my area for it. How many can you benefit from Spell Pen + Greater Spell Pen on? If less than six, in what ways are Spell Pen and Greater Spell Pen (two feats) significantly better than Divine Spell Power (one feat)? And that's just one example of how it can be used. Generally it'd be 8 or 9. Our combats tend to be around 5 rounds apiece, and at least 2 in a day. Your argument isn't holding up. Again, you're arguing dishonestly by claiming the "opportunity cost" is only one feat, and then adding in other things but not adding them to the opportunity cost. If you add Extra Turning, your opportunity cost became two feats. If you add a domain to help it, then you've made that domain selection (1/2 of the available options for the Cleric) part of the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of the spell, 1/6 of a Cleric's possible feats, is already pretty high compared to classes that get a ton of abilities, free feats, and bonus feats as they go up in level. The effect upon it at lower level is mitigated by the fact that the spell choices just aren't there; sure, a mage could be sick if you gave him +2 or +3 caster level at level 1, but a mage can't go anywhere near this feat, and the cleric spell list isn't anywhere near the same power as the mage spell list, nor do its spells get the same kind of benefit a mage would. It's not "too good for its cost" in any way. |
| dkay80702-09-07, 09:11 AM | The FTR is also troubled by having to make a Fort save vs massive damage - which being a FTR shouldn't be a drama unless he rolls a "1". Well thought-out scenario that illustrates your point well. However... 1. Massive damage doesn't apply to effects that are not actual "attacks." 2. A 5th level fighter usually doesn't have +13 to his fort save. |
| Southernskies02-09-07, 09:11 AM | Now I'm not a big fan of the sudden feats for NPCs as they get made into one shot wonders. I'm also not the biggest fan of DSP, however people are assuming that it translates into 'spend one turn attempt, get +4 CL for a spell' and that's simply not the case. -James This is getting off topic a little, but I have seen both Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximise added to a "supporting" wizard in an encounter I wrote (ie: 2 levels lower than the main BBEG). Luckily for me, the editor that threw it in is lazy and didn't add the feat info to the Appendix, otherwise the encounter easily turned into a bloodbath where it should have been a "flavour" encounter. As a result the only tables that suffered from it, the DM owned CA and knew what the feats actually did. The strong DSP builds I see on PCs can easily get a minimum +3 level turning and usually use it for long-term buff spells such as GMW/Magical Vestments etc. They skimp on magical weapons/armour as the DSP-enhanced spells are better and free, and that means they can buy more Wondrous Items to break adventures with. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 09:22 AM | This is getting off topic a little, but I have seen both Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximise added to a "supporting" wizard in an encounter I wrote (ie: 2 levels lower than the main BBEG). Luckily for me, the editor that threw it in is lazy and didn't add the feat info to the Appendix, otherwise the encounter easily turned into a bloodbath where it should have been a "flavour" encounter. As a result the only tables that suffered from it, the DM owned CA and knew what the feats actually did. Well, that's a great argument for banning the Sudden feats until WotC erratas them with the words "applying a Sudden feat to a spell is considered a Swift (or even Immediate, why not, it still stops people from doubling or tripling them up on a single casting) action." The strong DSP builds I see on PCs can easily get a minimum +3 level turning At the expenditure of a large amount of gold and an opportunity cost of domains and 2-3 feats, sure. and usually use it for long-term buff spells such as GMW/Magical Vestments etc. They skimp on magical weapons/armour as the DSP-enhanced spells are better and free, and that means they can buy more Wondrous Items to break adventures with. My Sorceror runs around buck-naked and uses a ring of invisibility, +4 Ring of Protection, +6 Gloves of Dex, Greater Mage Armor, and Contingent Greater Invisibility to protect himself while crafting wondrous items all the time and never has to spend an action in combat to buff his AC. He didn't have to spend a single feat to get there. What's your point? DSP is not anywhere near "broken." If I invest 2/3 of my available feats, I'd better be getting at least +2 to my armor class if that's what I'm investing in. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 09:59 AM | It's not a very accurate statement, as only a TINY handful of Domains grant actual Feats as abilities. I agree. I don't think they can relate. Domains, like a druid's Wild Shape, a rogue's evasion, or a barbarian's rage, are nothing more than a class ability. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 10:31 AM | You could. But I've not seen anyone asking for those two feats to move to the Closed list.:evillaugh I wouldn't mind it. Without affecting the level of the spell, I'd say they could be on the list of stuff up for discussion. |
| MatteBlack02-09-07, 10:35 AM | Obviously, there are two sides of thought on how balanced DSP is but, is the game any really going to miss it? Sure, its nice to more easily overcome the NPCs but, it seems like the overall effect of the feat is to lower game scaling. It doesn't make the story unfolding at the table any more interesting. Maybe you could argue that when properly RP'd its cool to see cleric dig a bit deeper to cast that important spell but, once he is doing that 10 or so times a day, the uniqueness and drama sort of pales. Its bad for the clerics who have/had it and feel their character cannot be adapted to work with out it but, if your character hinges on one feat, that seems like an overly tweaked and shallow character. I see DSP's removal as a sensible one due to my opinion that it creates some noted problems and really offers little to the game. I'll leave the scaling to the authors and DMs and hope my cleric friends enjoy having that feat back to redploy. Support to keep DSP in the game here seems split at best. It appears that it's removal is largely a made decision that is going to happen that I happen to agree with. I encourage you all to leave this dead horse and take your considerable rhetorical skills to more effective use elsewhere. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 10:35 AM | I do memorize Holy Word without CL boosts, unless I'm playing down Wouldn't that be a bit of metagaming? |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 10:38 AM | Support to keep DSP in the game here seems split at best. It appears that it's removal is largely a made decision that is going to happen that I happen to agree with. I encourage you all to leave this dead horse and take your considerable rhetorical skills to more effective use elsewhere. And I encourage you to back off. It's not broken, and this is just the usual Circle/WotC hatred for casters attacking them again. Nobody - not Britt, not anyone else - has been able to show a single way that DSP creates a "problem" that isn't the result of something else that is already problematic or broken. DSP's not either "a" or "the" problem, period, and it shouldn't be removed. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 10:54 AM | Hey Bob. I just thought I'd chime in and give you, hopefully, a somewhat different opinion on DSP that you can argue against. (It seems a lot of the arguements you're having to dispel aren't the most thought out). Divine Spellpower is an imbalanced feat because not only is it powerful, it's amazingly versatile in it's power. Scenario 1: I'm playing a 6th level Cleric of Heironeus with the Inquisition and Glory Domain. I bought a 14 CHA, have a Cloak +2(First large purchase) and have 5 ranks in Knowledge: Religion. This gives me a +10 on my turning check for DSP. Last encounter of the APL 6 mod, a 9th level wizard completely buffed (Stupid Alarm spells *shakes fist*). First round I toss a Dispel Magic. On an average roll of 11 I get caster level +3, with a +4 on a 12, so lets assume 3. My spell goes off at caster level 9 (45% chance of being 10) and I get a targetted Dispel at 1d20+13. This means I have a 70% chance to Dispel a spell cast by a caster three levels above me, increasing by 5% with a slightly above average dice roll and another 5% every time I get closer to his level (90% with a 12 on the die and equal base caster level) Scenario 2: Same cleric, level 9, but this time he's buffing. (Assuming CL +3) First & Second Spell: 2 Magic Vestments - +3 Bonus Third Spell: Greater Magic Weapon - +3 Bonus Fourth Spell: Resist Energy - 30 Resistance Fifth Spell: Shield of Faith - +4 Bonus Sixth Spell: Divine Favor - +4 Bonus Spell Immunity: 3 Spells Obviously Divine Favor would have to be cast first round of combat, but in this day the cleric gets these benefits from DSP. +3 AC (+1 extra to shield, +1 extra to Armor, +1 extra to deflection) +2 Hit and damage (+1 extra from GMW, +1 extra from Divine Favor) 10 Extra Resist to an energy type Immune to 1 spell Scenario 3: Same cleric but he's level 7 this time. Our cleric feels like going on the offense. Assuming still CL+3 for DSP Deific Vengeance: 3d6 -> 5d6 Searing Light: 3d8 -> 5d8 Holy Smite: 3d8-> 5d8 (Domain Spell) Spiritual Weapon: +1 damage per swing. Inflict Mod-Inflict Critical: +3 damage per spell. Dismissal: +3 to the DC All of these have SR, which you get +3 on obviously. These different scenarios are all the same cleric, with a Core Deity with Domain choices that supplement his build. The only feat required is DSP, but Extra Turning helps him get more of the buffs/nukes off. I hope you get my meaning that the feat is just too ridiculous, and it gets even crazier with prayer beads of karma, which I also think should be Closed access. |
| Azerin02-09-07, 01:30 PM | Support to keep DSP in the game here seems split at best. It appears that it's removal is largely a made decision that is going to happen that I happen to agree with. I encourage you all to leave this dead horse and take your considerable rhetorical skills to more effective use elsewhere. I can assure you, if power attack was under debate, there'd be a similar number of love / hate arguements, as that is as powerful (if not more) then DSP. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 01:45 PM | Hey Bob. I just thought I'd chime in and give you, hopefully, a somewhat different opinion on DSP that you can argue against. (It seems a lot of the arguements you're having to dispel aren't the most thought out). That's because DSP isn't imbalanced. Divine Spellpower is an imbalanced feat because not only is it powerful, it's amazingly versatile in it's power. By that logic, every versatile spell and feat should be banned. Contingency, Grease, Glitterdust, heck, we might as well throw the whole feat and magic system out, they're too "versatile." Scenario 1: I'm playing a 6th level Cleric of Heironeus with the Inquisition and Glory Domain. I bought a 14 CHA, have a Cloak +2(First large purchase) and have 5 ranks in Knowledge: Religion. This gives me a +10 on my turning check for DSP. Last encounter of the APL 6 mod, a 9th level wizard completely buffed (Stupid Alarm spells *shakes fist*). First round I toss a Dispel Magic. On an average roll of 11 I get caster level +3, with a +4 on a 12, so lets assume 3. My spell goes off at caster level 9 (45% chance of being 10) and I get a targetted Dispel at 1d20+13. This means I have a 70% chance to Dispel a spell cast by a caster three levels above me, increasing by 5% with a slightly above average dice roll and another 5% every time I get closer to his level (90% with a 12 on the die and equal base caster level) And the opportunity cost for this build: DSP feat (A full 1/3 of your feat slots at this level) Every one of your domain choices One of your turning attempts for the day (and you only get 6). DSP was your choice. Does it help? A bit. Is it overpowering in this case? No. Even without DSP, you still have a 55% chance of popping all his spells. Your hysterical "OMG I have a 70% chance" isn't all that impressive when you realize that DSP's not adding all that much to the equation. Without DSP, you don't need Glory domain (unless you're shooting for a turning class anyways), so let's see what else ol' paladin has to offer: War domain gives you TWO free feats (martial weapon proficiency, Weapon Focus) plus a kick-butt spell list; give those Domain Spontaneity instead and you're crazy powerful. Nobility domain gives you an option like Bard Song and similar spells. Good and Law domain are both powerful too. Further, your calculation is faulty. Dispel's max bonus is 10. If you were equal level with the mage, then you could only bump your bonus from +13 to +14 anyways. Scenario 2: Same cleric, level 9, but this time he's buffing. (Assuming CL +3) Um, your last cleric was only level 6... First & Second Spell: 2 Magic Vestments - +3 Bonus Third Spell: Greater Magic Weapon - +3 Bonus Fourth Spell: Resist Energy - 30 Resistance Fifth Spell: Shield of Faith - +4 Bonus Sixth Spell: Divine Favor - +4 Bonus Spell Immunity: 3 Spells Obviously Divine Favor would have to be cast first round of combat, but in this day the cleric gets these benefits from DSP. +3 AC (+1 extra to shield, +1 extra to Armor, +1 extra to deflection) +2 Hit and damage (+1 extra from GMW, +1 extra from Divine Favor) 10 Extra Resist to an energy type Immune to 1 spell Ok, you already cheated for starters, you ran out of turn attempts before getting to combat, unless you've also spent a feat for Extra Turning (meaning you would have spent a full 1/2 of your available spell slots for this benefit). How do you know what energy type is coming? Or are you just guessing? Shield of Faith is 1 min/level. Theoretically possible you know it's coming that soon, but if you do, chances are the other guy is prepping too. And as a combat cleric, I can tell you right now, you could easily swap out for War domain again; this would give you 2 free feats (Martial weapon prof, Weapon Focus) which is the equivalent of a +5 to hit or some better ratio of hit/damage (say possibly +2 to hit +6 to damage) if you have Power Attack, which could easily replace DSP in this build. And you'd still have a feat left, so why not go with Divine Armor for DR 5/-? You can't even GET DR 5/- with Divine Spellpower. Scenario 3: Same cleric but he's level 7 this time. Our cleric feels like going on the offense. Assuming still CL+3 for DSP Deific Vengeance: 3d6 -> 5d6 Searing Light: 3d8 -> 5d8 Holy Smite: 3d8-> 5d8 (Domain Spell) Spiritual Weapon: +1 damage per swing. Inflict Mod-Inflict Critical: +3 damage per spell. Dismissal: +3 to the DC All of these have SR, which you get +3 on obviously. And you didn't cast a single buff spell in the morning, eh? These different scenarios are all the same cleric, with a Core Deity with Domain choices that supplement his build. At a different level each time, with different spell choices. < sarcasm > Hey, I have an idea. Let's get rid of magic entirely. It's "obviously broken" and "way too powerful" because just by picking different spells each day, someone can be versatile, and we can't have versatility in the game, oh no, versatility is evil! < /sarcasm > The only feat required is DSP, but Extra Turning helps him get more of the buffs/nukes off. At a cost (at respective levels and presuming Extra Turning) of: 6th level - 2/3 his feat slots, both domain choices 7th level - 2/3 his feat slots, one domain choice 9th level - 1/2 his feat slots, one domain choice I hope you get my meaning that the feat is just too ridiculous, and it gets even crazier with prayer beads of karma, which I also think should be Closed access. I get that you tried the same thing the others tried, trying to tilt the argument by arguing "DSP is better than not having anything at all therefore it's broken." But clearly, that's not the case. You lose. |
| dkay80702-09-07, 01:46 PM | I can assure you, if power attack was under debate, there'd be a similar number of love / hate arguements, as that is as powerful (if not more) then DSP. I would argue that there would be even more arguments regarding power attack and I do agree that it is as powerful if not more than DSP. However, power attack is a core aspect of D&D, while DSP is not. Eliminating power attack would have significant implications for the entire game system and the way it has been designed. Eliminating DSP has no such implications. It's as easy as saying "no more DSP." |
| MatteBlack02-09-07, 01:48 PM | I can assure you, if power attack was under debate, there'd be a similar number of love / hate arguements, as that is as powerful (if not more) then DSP. You are probably right but, I assert that monster HPs and damage output is scaled for what Power Attack does while DSP pushes caster levels beyond what the game is designed and scaled for in a number of instances. Like most of the core rules, it was better integrated into the game system and removing it would imbalance PC/NPC damage trading. Removing DSP causes spells to work as originally designed. But, yes, there would be an uproar. |
| Sieylianna02-09-07, 01:48 PM | 1. Massive damage doesn't apply to effects that are not actual "attacks." Yes, massive damage does apply to spell effects. Ed |
| ZX67002-09-07, 01:48 PM | First round I toss a Dispel Magic. On an average roll of 11 I get caster level +3, with a +4 on a 12, so lets assume 3. My spell goes off at caster level 9 (45% chance of being 10) and I get a targetted Dispel at 1d20+13. You mean d20+10. You said dispel, not greater dispel, which maxes at 10. :) Not so unbalanced in that case afterall. Scenario 2: Same cleric, level 9, but this time he's buffing. (Assuming CL +3) First & Second Spell: 2 Magic Vestments - +3 Bonus Third Spell: Greater Magic Weapon - +3 Bonus Fourth Spell: Resist Energy - 30 Resistance Fifth Spell: Shield of Faith - +4 Bonus Sixth Spell: Divine Favor - +4 Bonus Spell Immunity: 3 Spells Obviously Divine Favor would have to be cast first round of combat, but in this day the cleric gets these benefits from DSP. +3 AC (+1 extra to shield, +1 extra to Armor, +1 extra to deflection) +2 Hit and damage (+1 extra from GMW, +1 extra from Divine Favor) 10 Extra Resist to an energy type Immune to 1 spell If a cleric is going to be burning all of these resources, he's also burning a ton of healing resources in the process. And that's all on himself only. You know the other people on the table are asking for buffs as well. That's 7 spells alone without taking into account buffs for others. Also, when you say an extra 10 to resist, that's only of one type. He could easily choose the wrong type if it's cast outside of combat which would be no help. Scenario 3: Same cleric but he's level 7 this time. Our cleric feels like going on the offense. Assuming still CL+3 for DSP Deific Vengeance: 3d6 -> 5d6 Searing Light: 3d8 -> 5d8 Holy Smite: 3d8-> 5d8 (Domain Spell) Spiritual Weapon: +1 damage per swing. Inflict Mod-Inflict Critical: +3 damage per spell. Dismissal: +3 to the DC All of these have SR, which you get +3 on obviously. Why the need to switch the cleric's level around each time to try and prove a point? I am not going to look at all of these, but is it because it gives the best boost at each level you're choosing? Meaning that on other levels they don't? So not all of this can be done at the same time? Meaning it's limited on something depending on the level? Balance. I particularly don't care about DSP being Closed or not myself, as I never use it and would most likely never play a cleric, but I also don't see it being so gamebreaking that it would need to be taken out, either. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 01:53 PM | I would argue that there would be even more arguments regarding power attack and I do agree that it is as powerful if not more than DSP. However, power attack is a core aspect of D&D, while DSP is not. Eliminating power attack would have significant implications for the entire game system and the way it has been designed. Eliminating DSP has no such implications. It's as easy as saying "no more DSP." I don't think PA needs to be removed, but a rebalance would be nice. I posted (from a DM who runs a home campaign I am in) my suggestion above. |
| Azerin02-09-07, 01:56 PM | I get that you tried the same thing the others tried, trying to tilt the argument by arguing "DSP is better than not having anything at all therefore it's broken." But clearly, that's not the case. You lose. Without insulting anyone, Bob is right here... DSP is as versatile and as powerful as most other standard class spells or feats. I keep using power attack as I can't stand it when some raging tank comes up and does 100+ damage per hit; but let us not forget sculpted glitterdusts, karmic strike, Evard's, and all of the other wonderful things that just make it hard to DM to a group. DSP isn't even an effect the DM has to deal with... its just yet another +1. While it is clearly as powerful as some of the other classes' features, Britt has yet to explain why it was banned, as he has said brokenness is not the main factor in banning something; and while it may or may not be broken (or as broken, I should say), it definately is not something that slows a fight down. The only issue is Holy Word, and I've already created a 1 round way to get a 24th level holy word without DSP, so clearly that's not going to help... and everyone pro-DSP is willing to have holy word removed, as its not a fun spell. |
| Britt02-09-07, 02:05 PM | While it is clearly as powerful as some of the other classes' features, Britt has yet to explain why it was banned, as he has said brokenness is not the main factor in banning something; and while it may or may not be broken (or as broken, I should say), it definately is not something that slows a fight down. The only issue is Holy Word, and I've already created a 1 round way to get a 24th level holy word without DSP, so clearly that's not going to help... and everyone pro-DSP is willing to have holy word removed, as its not a fun spell. Actually, I said brokenness wasn't the reason on the poly spells. Brokenness is a primary concern for DSP; primarily the CL bump. CL bumps are a problem in the Circle's opinion and we pay close attention to them. They have rippling effects across a whole lot of aspects. We thought those ripples were too large for DSP. As a comparison, look at the CL bump Heritage feats and what all you have to do to get a +1 CL bump with those. That should show you why DSP is a problem in that most people that have it get a guaranteed +4 CL bump everytime. |
| MatteBlack02-09-07, 02:10 PM | ...DSP isn't even an effect the DM has to deal with... its just yet another +1. ...it definately is not something that slows a fight down... Its not much of a drag especially because most of its users are fairly on the ball as I have seen it but, technically, DSP requires an additional declaration, die roll, check on the turning chart and spell level adjustment each time it is used. When used repeatedly in a game it does take a bit of time that should be moderated by the DM. I don't think the time factor is a reason for removing it but let's, at least, admit it does exist. Lee |
| Anthraxus02-09-07, 02:13 PM | That should show you why DSP is a problem in that most people that have it get a guaranteed +4 CL bump everytime. Yeah, a generally hit-able +4 Vs Spell Resistance, Vs dispel checks, and up to 4 extra dice of damage on a spell is pretty tempting. I wouldn't really consider it broken- I've got the feat for my main PC, and I've noticed alot of other clerics seem to have it too... a bit on the powerful side. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 02:14 PM | That should show you why DSP is a problem in that most people that have it get a guaranteed +4 CL bump everytime. Britt, that's an unjustifiable statement. I know by the math that that isn't the case. If you have some evidence to the contrary, provide it, and it'd better be good. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 02:15 PM | Its not much of a drag especially because most of its users are fairly on the ball as I have seen it but, technically, DSP requires an additional declaration, die roll, check on the turning chart and spell level adjustment each time it is used. When used repeatedly in a game it does take a bit of time that should be moderated by the DM. I don't think the time factor is a reason for removing it but let's, at least, admit it does exist. Lee If you noticed, the turning chart is right there on the official LG character sheet. You declare, roll a d20, and check. Takes all of 5 seconds. Compare that to a fighter who changes his PA value every single round, and that's nothing. It doesn't exist, at least not in any worse factor than any other feat that you have to decide whether to use it or not. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 02:24 PM | Yeah, a generally hit-able +4 Vs Spell Resistance, Vs dispel checks, and up to 4 extra dice of damage on a spell is pretty tempting. I wouldn't really consider it broken- I've got the feat for my main PC, and I've noticed alot of other clerics seem to have it too... a bit on the powerful side. No worse than any other common feat. "Quicken spell" is "a bit too powerful"; it lets you get off two spells a round. "Maximize spell" is "a bit too powerful"; it lets you guarantee high damage. "Power Attack" is too powerful, no questions asked, and I don't think you will find many who disagree at all. Every class has a few feats that "most" people in the class take. That happens because of how D&D is built and particularly how LG is built - there are a few feats that I'd use in a home game (Great Cleave comes to mind) that you'd never take in LG because the opportunity to use them is nixed by the 3-fight formula for mods. Likewise, a Barbarian may take Extra Rage, but he won't take Extra Rage if he's gone straight Barbarian and has two Rages per day, because the chances of 3 fights in one day are next to nothing. If the Circle wants to ban DSP, I'll go ahead and make something even more overly broken and powerful from what's left. I don't want to. DSP fits the one character I have with it just fine. But if they want to ban non-broken feats while adding new and obviously broken feats and "rules options" to the campaign, I can show them the error of their ways by character creation. |
| Britt02-09-07, 02:32 PM | If the Circle wants to ban DSP, I'll go ahead and make something even more overly broken and powerful from what's left. I don't want to. DSP fits the one character I have with it just fine. But if they want to ban non-broken feats while adding new and obviously broken feats and "rules options" to the campaign, I can show them the error of their ways by character creation. Ohs noes! Your threats of creating cheesy characters have prompted me to give up all forms of independent thought! < /end sarcasm> Yeah, right. Rules abuse happens and will happen. We can't stop that. We can remove the items we feel are overpowered and we will continue to do so, no matter what your threats are. And no, DSP does not really eat up much time, at least in my experience. The primary concern is the level bump. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 02:34 PM | Ohs noes! Your threats of creating cheesy characters have prompted me to give up all forms of independent thought! < /end sarcasm> Yeah, right. Rules abuse happens and will happen. We can't stop that. We can remove the items we feel are overpowered and we will continue to do so, no matter what your threats are. And no, DSP does not really eat up much time, at least in my experience. The primary concern is the level bump. Yeah, how WILL you ever abuse the players if they still have ways to get rid of the character-breaking curses... |
| Britt02-09-07, 02:40 PM | Ok, I admit it! I've been lying this whole time. I am a charlatan! The real reason we got rid of DSP was because players were having too much fun. I mean, being able to use a feat to do really cool stuff AND get rid of curses? That's a double punch of fun! They get to have fun and get rid of anti-fun, and we just can't have that! Let me know if you find anything else that lets players have fun so we can Close it, too. |
| Azerin02-09-07, 02:45 PM | And no, DSP does not really eat up much time, at least in my experience. The primary concern is the level bump. Thanks for the explanation, Britt. You know as well as we do that removing DSP won’t stop the cheesers from cheesing, and even if it is removed I’d still like to see Holy Word / Blasphemy removed, as I think they are plainly unfair. That being said, as a guy who DM’s a fair amount, I so greatly fear the many other time consuming methods people are going to use instead of DSP that I just don’t want to see it removed. Not to mention that it gives the way-too-few clerics (at least in my area) a reason to gloat, as most clerics that I’ve encountered already feel like they are second class players from the lack of damage they deal until higher levels. Taking DSP away will greatly underpower clerics, and then there will be less of them, and then it will be harder to form a stable table; that’s about all the reasoning I have on the subject. I hope that sways the circle if it is indeed swayable on the subject. |
| Britt02-09-07, 02:52 PM | I don't think clerics being underpowered is a concern at all. With the nerf to druids, I think clerics are hands down the most powerful class in the game. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 02:55 PM | Ok, I admit it! I've been lying this whole time. I am a charlatan! The real reason we got rid of DSP was because players were having too much fun. I mean, being able to use a feat to do really cool stuff AND get rid of curses? That's a double punch of fun! They get to have fun and get rid of anti-fun, and we just can't have that! Let me know if you find anything else that lets players have fun so we can Close it, too. LOL. That's funny. Anyhow, bob, I don't understand how you can think it's acceptable to post some of the responses you've posted. Such as: "If you have some evidence to the contrary, provide it, and it'd better be good." "And I encourage you to back off. It's not broken, and this is just the usual Circle/WotC hatred for casters attacking them again." "Get over it. It's not broken and doesn't need to be banned." Come on man, that's no way to speak to other people. Lighten up a bit. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 02:56 PM | I don't think clerics being underpowered is a concern at all. With the nerf to druids, I think clerics are hands down the most powerful class in the game. I would agree. Druids were extremely powerful there for a while, and while I dislike some of the changes to them, I can certainly understand the reason behind them. Clerics are certainly among the most powerful with that change, though. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:13 PM | If you can't understand that having +3-4 Caster level to 5 spells a day for 1 feat is imbalanced, especially when you can add another feat to give you 4 more spells per day at +3-4 Caster level, you're a lost cause. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:20 PM | If you can't understand that having +3-4 Caster level to 5 spells a day for 1 feat is imbalanced, especially when you can add another feat to give you 4 more spells per day at +3-4 Caster level, you're a lost cause. You are assuming a lot to say it'll always be +3-4. If you are using, say, a certain domain, + items, + skills, + extra points in a stat to get your +3-4, that's a lot more than 'just one feat.' If you are going to argue that it's unbalanced, at least be truthful. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:26 PM | You are assuming a lot to say it'll always be +3-4. If you are using, say, a certain domain, + items, + skills, + extra points in a stat to get your +3-4, that's a lot more than 'just one feat.' If you are going to argue that it's unbalanced, at least be truthful. Here's a clarification If you have Divine Spellpower, then you're probably at least +7 to the check (14 CHA, Knowledge: Religion Synergy), making it an average of +2 with a 45% chance of at least +3 and a 30% chance of +4. If you have a Cloak of Charisma +2 or the Glory domain the average is bumped to +3 with a 35% chance of +4 with a cloak or 40% chance of +4 with glory. If you have the glory domain and a cloak +4 the average is bumped to +4. I think that math is right |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:31 PM | Here's a clarification If you have Divine Spellpower, then you're probably at least +7 to the check (14 CHA, Knowledge: Religion Synergy), making it an average of +2. If you have a Cloak of Charisma at least +2 or the Glory domain the average is bumped to +3. If you have the glory domain and a cloak +4 the average is bumped to +4. With the average roll of a d20 being 11, you mean in your example above that it's actually 5 spells of 0 (on a roll of 1) to 4. Thanks for clarifying. :D Edit: Yeah, I am getting a total of +11 to the check, with an average of 22, or +4. But, in addition to 'just the feat,' it was also a 16k item, 5 skill points, a domain requiring a certain group of deities, and 6-10 char build points. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 03:32 PM | Here's a clarification If you have Divine Spellpower, then you're probably at least +7 to the check (14 CHA, Knowledge: Religion Synergy), making it an average of +2 with a 45% chance of at least +3 and a 30% chance of +4. If you have a Cloak of Charisma +2 or the Glory domain the average is bumped to +3 with a 35% chance of +4 with a cloak or 40% chance of +4 with glory. If you have the glory domain and a cloak +4 the average is bumped to +4. I think that math is right That math is MAYBE possible if you are a Radiant Servant. Most clerics are not. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:33 PM | They're called averages for a reason, and yeah I'm using 11 instead of 10.5 so if you wan't you can reduce all the percentages by 2.5. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:34 PM | I don't see why it's impossible if you aren't a radiant servant. I know lots of 14 charisma clerics, and I know a good amount of clerics with the Glory domain. |
| MatteBlack02-09-07, 03:34 PM | If you noticed, the turning chart is right there on the official LG character sheet. You declare, roll a d20, and check. Takes all of 5 seconds. Compare that to a fighter who changes his PA value every single round, and that's nothing. It doesn't exist, at least not in any worse factor than any other feat that you have to decide whether to use it or not. Bob? Did you read my post for more than things to argue? I said DSP took little time and pointed where that small but, existant, amount of time is derived from. Again, most of the time DSP is used it takes very little time up and I very much doubt it's removal is based on it. It adds a few small steps to spell casting when employed. I am really beginning to think you are more interested in arguing than seeing "the right thing done". As previously with your "1/3 of a clerics total feats" figure, I saw details being stated they were decidedly skewed and sought to counter them. TO RECAP: DSP takes some additional time to employ, despite Azerin's comments otherwise. I do not feel this is why DSP has or should be removed. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:36 PM | I don't see why it's impossible if you aren't a radiant servant. I know lots of 14 charisma clerics, and I know a good amount of clerics with the Glory domain. I'm not agreeing that it's not possible without being a Rad Serv. They aren't the only ones who can do this stuff. I mean, another what, 3k for a circlet of persuasion can bump this up to a +14, right? Or is that not usable with a turn check? I can't remember. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:36 PM | You act like the item, skill points, domain, deity, and build points serve no other purpose than to divine spellpower. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:40 PM | You act like the item, skill points, domain, deity, and build points serve no other purpose than to divine spellpower. All but the Skill points on clerics are usually reserved for turning...or DSP. Of course you get some spells, like Bolt of Glory, and such, but you'd get certain spells from any other domain too. So yeah, most are very situational without having DSP. How many Glory domain clerics will be created now without DSP, I wonder? |
| Azerin02-09-07, 03:42 PM | I don't think clerics being underpowered is a concern at all. With the nerf to druids, I think clerics are hands down the most powerful class in the game. A well-played, well-built cleric is the most powerful class in the game. I can't tell you how many clerics I've seen with Augment Healing, Sacred Cleansing, Combat Casting and other "Less-then-optimal" feats; who's only worthy feat was in fact Divine Spell Power. Without it, they'd be cruddy clerics, and they'd feel like cruddy clerics because they (thankfully) don't understand how to powergame. And DSP helps them not kill their party, as many modules are written for a well built party. |
| Bob_the_Theurge02-09-07, 03:42 PM | All but the Skill points on clerics are usually reserved for turning...or DSP. Of course you get some spells, like Bolt of Glory, and such, but you'd get certain spells from any other domain too. So yeah, most are very situational without having DSP. How many Glory domain clerics will be created now without DSP, I wonder? Depends. How many Liches in your neck of the woods? |
| bitznarf02-09-07, 03:43 PM | I am really beginning to think you are more interested in arguing than seeing "the right thing done". As previously with your "1/3 of a clerics total feats" figure, I saw details being stated they were decidedly skewed and sought to counter them. No! Really? |
| Franco Un-American02-09-07, 03:43 PM | At least 1.:) My turning cleric is grabbing Glory next level. It's not bad for melee clerics either, the 5th level domain spell is nice. Now if only A circlet of persuasion didn't take the same slot as my phylactery of undead turning. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-09-07, 03:47 PM | All but the Skill points on clerics are usually reserved for turning...or DSP. Of course you get some spells, like Bolt of Glory, and such, but you'd get certain spells from any other domain too. So yeah, most are very situational without having DSP. How many Glory domain clerics will be created now without DSP, I wonder? Glory's domain ability is really good and it's a way to get holy smite without the "Good" domain which I like. People will still be using turning checks for other stuff, probably sacred healing, domain spontaneity, or that DR 5/- one so Charisma won't turn into a dump stat. |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:47 PM | At least 1.:) My turning cleric is grabbing Glory next level. It's not bad for melee clerics either, the 5th level domain spell is nice. Now if only A circlet of persuasion didn't take the same slot as my phylactery of undead turning. Getting it next level? Extra domain or something? And yeah, poor turning clerics, that's a tough decision right there. :( |
| ZX67002-09-07, 03:51 PM | Glory's domain ability is really good and it's a way to get holy smite without the "Good" domain which I like. People will still be using turning checks for other stuff, probably sacred healing, domain spontaneity, or that DR 5/- one so Charisma won't turn into a dump stat. True, it's not a dump stat, but you could go a different way without DSP too. Don't forget stuff like Divine Vigor for the movement speed and temp HPs too, always a good one! |
| Franco Un-American02-09-07, 03:52 PM | RSoP 5th level.:D And don't give me those looks, this PC is older than Complete Divine. And I don't do so bad. Between my phylactery and Improved Turning (there were literally no good feats at 1st level for this character under the 3LR), I'm going at base +5. Unfortunately, Zeif doesn't exactly have many undead wandering about to be dusted. |
| JamesMaissen02-09-07, 05:21 PM | RSoP 5th level.:D And don't give me those looks, this PC is older than Complete Divine. And I don't do so bad. Between my phylactery and Improved Turning (there were literally no good feats at 1st level for this character under the 3LR), I'm going at base +5. Unfortunately, Zeif doesn't exactly have many undead wandering about to be dusted. Which was one of the nicer things about DSP, it gave something for someone really invested in turning to use that investment when undead weren't showing up. Glory is a medicore domain when one is not concerned with turning. The holy sword is nice, but not really an issue most of the time. Righteous might and other cleric buffs compete in rounds available for buffing. Consider top flight domains like travel and the cost of a domain towards this is large. If the granted power was, for example, 'buffing spells have +1 CL' it would not seem insanely out of whack AND the +2 to turn checks combined with DSP does far LESS than this. Again DSP is a feat that synergizes well with a turning invested cleric. The circlet of persuasion does strongly compete with the phylactery for head slot in this regard. Likewise a cloak of charisma is not a decent cloak slot choice for a cleric (though opening up vests does take some pressure off the slot) as there are many other wonderful things that can go there. Turning is the only benefit that it gives and if you are talking about DSP being an option for that character then it's at the point where it doesn't give that big a swing in the chance to effect a higher HD. The cost to the character to achieve the high end results of this feat are very high and need to be understood. Likewise just because a 10+ may give a result is by NO means what you should treat the result as. Skill mastery for rogues is one of their best abilities and PrCs that grant similar abiltiies are very strong for them. Feats like Steady Concentration and Arcane Mastery are VERY powerful for this reason. No the problem with DSP is that it's flashy. It highlights the problem with the Holy Word spells because PCs can do it (as opposed to badguys) and because it lets them brag and the like. -James |
| Timlagor02-09-07, 10:14 PM | A well-played, well-built cleric is the most powerful class in the game. I can't tell you how many clerics I've seen with Augment Healing, Sacred Cleansing, Combat Casting and other "Less-then-optimal" feats; who's only worthy feat was in fact Divine Spell Power. Without it, they'd be cruddy clerics, and they'd feel like cruddy clerics because they (thankfully) don't understand how to powergame. And DSP helps them not kill their party, as many modules are written for a well built party. Augment Healing is great (not broken like DSP :P but still great). Doesn't Sacred Cleansing requireds Sacred Healing which you didn't list? |
| LCJJohnson02-12-07, 12:46 AM | RSoP 5th level.:D And don't give me those looks, this PC is older than Complete Divine. And I don't do so bad. Between my phylactery and Improved Turning (there were literally no good feats at 1st level for this character under the 3LR), I'm going at base +5. Unfortunately, Zeif doesn't exactly have many undead wandering about to be dusted. A missive arrives for Zeif. When opened it reads: Dear Zeif, You are cordially invited to visit the Bandit Kingdoms of the Iuz Border States. We promise to save some undead for you. Do you have any personal favorites? In the highly unlikely event that we encounter a temporary shortage of undead we will keep in reserve a number of evil outsiders for you to use your Holy Sword upon. Citizens of the Bandit Kingdoms, where the PTB prefer Animate Dead over Raise Dead |
| copper_wyrmling02-12-07, 01:16 AM | A missive arrives for Zeif. When opened it reads: Dear Zeif, You are cordially invited to visit the Bandit Kingdoms of the Iuz Border States. We promise to save some undead for you. Do you have any personal favorites? In the highly unlikely event that we encounter a temporary shortage of undead we will keep in reserve a number of evil outsiders for you to use your Holy Sword upon. Citizens of the Bandit Kingdoms, where the PTB prefer Animate Dead over Raise Dead Can I come too? Please? I have this phylactery of undead turning, lyre of the restful soul and turning-enhancing favor all lying in the corner gathering dust... I haven't blown up any annoying demigod-manifestations in MONTHS! Oh and my favorites are angels of decay, thank you for asking. Hordes of zombies are always good as well, you can roast marshmallows on the walls of fire when you're finished watching the mindless undead march to their fiery destruction. Evil outsiders are fine as well: I find Bolt of Glory and a Holy staff solve most problems in that regard. (Except for that marilith general of the Blood-Red Skies, who always makes me feel totally outclassed in negotiations... hmmmph.) Copper aka Yolande Morgenrood, L15 High Priestess of Joramy and Sacred Exorcist of Perrenland, who really wants to get back to the Iuz metaregion where her "Dark Taint", "Greater Notice of the Witch Queen", "Ire of the Greater Boneheart", "Enmity of the Boneshadow" and assorted other disfavors may actually mean something... |
| Southernskies02-12-07, 01:49 AM | Here's a clarification If you have Divine Spellpower, then you're probably at least +7 to the check (14 CHA, Knowledge: Religion Synergy), making it an average of +2 with a 45% chance of at least +3 and a 30% chance of +4. If you have a Cloak of Charisma +2 or the Glory domain the average is bumped to +3 with a 35% chance of +4 with a cloak or 40% chance of +4 with glory. If you have the glory domain and a cloak +4 the average is bumped to +4. I think that math is right Right, but also on the very low side. +4; CHA 18 (14 stat + cloak or eagle's splendor +2; 5 ranks in Knowledge (Religion) +3; Circlet of Persuasion +6; consecrate (cast in your deities temple) +2; glory domain That's +18 right there, and there are a few other items that boost it further (I have seen +22 turning check with only a base CHA 14 before). Except for the Glory domain, all this can be done at 3rd level. |
| LCJJohnson02-12-07, 01:53 AM | P.S. - Bring friends. ;) |
| copper_wyrmling02-12-07, 01:58 AM | P.S. - Bring friends. ;) :cloud9: I have got to visit the BK... :fight!: :devil: |
| Evanta02-12-07, 02:03 AM | You act like the item, skill points, domain, deity, and build points serve no other purpose than to divine spellpower. Um, ya, pretty much they don't serve a purpose that is worth burning a domain, a other-wise only so-so diety, and Extra Turning feats on. :D I can live w/o divine spellpower, but just 1 free retrain is not enough! |
| LCJJohnson02-12-07, 02:01 PM | Right, but also on the very low side. +4; CHA 18 (14 stat + cloak or eagle's splendor +2; 5 ranks in Knowledge (Religion) +3; Circlet of Persuasion +6; consecrate (cast in your deities temple) +2; glory domain That's +18 right there, and there are a few other items that boost it further (I have seen +22 turning check with only a base CHA 14 before). Except for the Glory domain, all this can be done at 3rd level. *sigh* DSP was the PCs way of keeping up in the PC/NPC arms race, as the NPCs can achieve the exact same thing (caster level +4) on every single spell without DSP or Extra Turning or having to invest in multiple stats. All you need is a CR2, 4HD creature for whom the spellcasting class is non-associated (MM 294) and give it Practiced Spellcaster. Such a creature would only need to boost one stat (not both WIS and CHA), and the stat would go directly to boosting its save DCs, which CHA does not do for a cleric. So, your 3rd level, 3 HD cleric who has paid through the nose to be able to cast a number of CL7 spells equal to his/her # of turn checks could face, for example, a CR7 Young Redcap (MMIII 138) cleric (or sorcerer) 7 with Practiced Spellcaster who casts every single spell at CL11. Or maybe two of them with 5 spellcasting levels for CL9 spells. BTDT Remember Ulfar! |
| ZX67002-12-07, 06:03 PM | +6; consecrate (cast in your deities temple) Not to be picky, but except under the most rare circumstances for only a total of 4-5 deities, this is an impossibility in the Bandit Kingdoms. Those who openly worship anyone but Iuz is more often than not killed on the spot, and there certainly aren't any temples that are easy to access in his lands. |
| Franco Un-American02-12-07, 06:22 PM | A missive arrives for Zeif. When opened it reads: Dear Zeif, You are cordially invited to visit the Bandit Kingdoms of the Iuz Border States. We promise to save some undead for you. Do you have any personal favorites? In the highly unlikely event that we encounter a temporary shortage of undead we will keep in reserve a number of evil outsiders for you to use your Holy Sword upon. Citizens of the Bandit Kingdoms, where the PTB prefer Animate Dead over Raise Dead A gold-embossed letter sealed with the symbol of Al-Asran arrives in fast reply. I thank you very much for your most generous offer. If I can find respite from a certain unwanted pregnancy (no, you don't want to know), then I shall be most glad to travel to your esteemed lands. The priesthood of Mouqol does get rather tiring here. -Tinwe Linto, high priest and chief missionary of Al-Asran in the Sultanate of Zeif. |
| WizO_Shadow02-12-07, 11:54 PM | This is my friendly post. This is where I toss out an I/You language friendly lesson. Even if it is known, its not being followed and that's leading to very bad things like breaking of the CoC. This is the best way I can think of to break down the I/You language without boring you to tears. I/You not being properly used: I think your nuts. Just because you think that your gaming scenario results are what the Triads should listen to doesn't mean that the entire setup is going to listen to how you run your games. You're not a holy supreme being. You do not dictate the rules. Go back and read up where you belong and it's not at my gaming table! I/You being properly used:. I can see the results that came about at the gaming table however I'm not sure that the same results will be acquired if the test were run more times through. I disagree with your findings and believe that the Triads are trying even if I disagree with what they are doing as well. With the number crunching the way it is, any situation can be abused to where one character is more powerful than the others and finds ways to do dramatic things. The point might lie with the type of playing that the player wants to do and less with the rules. Now, before anyone rips apart those two examples, they were meant to be presented as examples of I/You language being used constructively and destructively. Yeah, they sound cheesy. Don't care. One way will get you warnings with eventual banning and the other way won't. Start posting responsibly and respectfully. WizO_Shadow RPG Boards Team |