| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| bitznarf05-10-07, 10:45 AM | My Vote: Power Attack Spiked Chain + Improved Trip. Improved trip is the only feat that not only gives you a +4 bonus, avoiding AoO, it gives you a free attack afterwards (All the other "improved" chains only give the bonus and AoO avoidance). 1. Daring Outlaw (why take rogue or swash levels when you can take both) 2. Occult Slayer, should be a roleplaying issue but everyone just takes it for the abilities power attack with two-handed-weapons the obvious one(or two)-level-dips: alienist (uhps, not open), occult slayer, ruathar (uhps, not open either), fatespinner AND FINALLY TOP OF THE LIST: RADIANT SERVANT OF MIGHTY CHEESE - not only that it grants all he goodies, it is by far the only good prestige class for clerics (ok, there are "church inquisitor" and "sacred exorcist" but "radiant servant" beats them by miles - and it is plain open) My main vote goes to Power Attack (should have capped at +5, like Combat Expertise). First runner-up: Power Attack. Should cap at +5 like Combat Expertise. Also imbalances two-handed weapon fighting over two-weapon or sword and board style. The honourable mentions are; Spiked Chain, Radiant Servant PrC, Animated Shields and finally the Travel Domain ability. Dervish Power Attack Okay, so having read through the thread up to John's post here, I'm surprised at a lot of the answers. I've clipped the ones that just seem odd to me. I mean, power attack :confused: Power Attack is nowhere near as broken as virtually any of the good (read broken) 7th or 8th level spells in the PHB. The same goes for virtually every other response on the list above. Compare each one to 7th/8th level Core spells and they are found lacking. Perhaps the reason has something to do with the different ways of looking at 'broken'. I'm using a straight Cleric or Druid (CoDzilla) as my baseline for power and working from there. In that light, things like spiked chains, power attack and dervish just don't measure up. You're saying that because one weapon style is numerically superior to another the superior one is broken? Of course some weapon styles are better than others, thats the nature of things. Thats like saying that because multiclassed fighter/X is stronger than a straight fighter, multiclassing is broken. No, it just means that straight fighter is weak. And for the people that are complaining about 'dips', what does the fact that the rest of the class isn't as good as another choice have to do with 'brokenness'. Are you looking at 'broken' as 'this class doesn't work' as opposed to 'this class puts others to shame'? One of my favourite quotes from the CharOp boards here on Wizards goes something like "these are the CharOp boards, where we consider doing 2000 damage on a charge to be inferior to a straight caster". And they are right! |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 11:11 AM | Okay, so having read through the thread up to John's post here, I'm surprised at a lot of the answers. I've clipped the ones that just seem odd to me. I mean, power attack :confused: Power Attack is nowhere near as broken as virtually any of the good (read broken) 7th or 8th level spells in the PHB. The same goes for virtually every other response on the list above. Compare each one to 7th/8th level Core spells and they are found lacking. I think a lot of people are used to seeing the results of those feats when there's a pure caster build in the neighborhood doing a lot of buffing... |
| Eric Anondson05-10-07, 12:45 PM | Compare each one to 7th/8th level Core spells and they are found lacking.Well, for one, those are 7th and 8th level spells. They don't often show up until the character is nearing retirement. Power Attack starts to get funny at the lower mid-levels with a 2-handed weapon, and with the way it synergizes with Strength-buffing builds... most folks see Power Attack all the time. People rarely, if ever, see 7th-8th level spells in action. Personally, I think superior invisibility should be banned from PC and NPC use ;) *ahem*. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 12:54 PM | Thats just the power curve in action there Eric. At low levels, yes Power Attack can seem strong (compared to some other options) when it connects. Consider though just how strong battlefield control spells are. Below level 6 a fighter can possibly take out 1 mob a round. Perhaps 2 if he has Cleave. Spells like entangle, web, glitterdust and grease can quite easily take more than one mob out of the fight. As for the 'people see Power Attack all the time' that just means that the feat is a pretty basic one, one that most fighter types take simply because to do otherwise would be sub-optimal. Does this mean the feat is broken? No, it just means the feat is essential to a lot of builds. The same way a weapon is needed (monks and druids excluded). You wouldn't go adventuring as a fighter without a weapon would you? So does that mean weapons are broken? |
| Drezden05-10-07, 01:46 PM | Huh? Power Attack can SEEM strong? Have you/Do you play with well built BDFs? Have you noticed that virtually all of the most effective melee based builds have the feat? Power Attack is incredibly strong. Of course, you seem to acknowledge this by saying it is "essential to a lot of builds." The reason it is "essential" is because it is so good. It if wasn't, it would not be essential. The fact that it is so essential shows just how powerful it is. Daren Thats just the power curve in action there Eric. At low levels, yes Power Attack can seem strong (compared to some other options) when it connects. Consider though just how strong battlefield control spells are. Below level 6 a fighter can possibly take out 1 mob a round. Perhaps 2 if he has Cleave. Spells like entangle, web, glitterdust and grease can quite easily take more than one mob out of the fight. As for the 'people see Power Attack all the time' that just means that the feat is a pretty basic one, one that most fighter types take simply because to do otherwise would be sub-optimal. Does this mean the feat is broken? No, it just means the feat is essential to a lot of builds. The same way a weapon is needed (monks and druids excluded). You wouldn't go adventuring as a fighter without a weapon would you? So does that mean weapons are broken? |
| Drezden05-10-07, 01:49 PM | I encourage you to play with well-built Spiked Chain wielders and/or Dervishs. You will see that they "measure up" to any class combo. In fact, they often dominate combats. You are talking about 2 of the very best melee paths there are. Daren [snip] Perhaps the reason has something to do with the different ways of looking at 'broken'. I'm using a straight Cleric or Druid (CoDzilla) as my baseline for power and working from there. In that light, things like spiked chains, power attack and dervish just don't measure up. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 01:49 PM | Huh? Power Attack can SEEM strong? Have you/Do you play with well built BDFs? Have you noticed that virtually all of the most effective melee based builds have the feat? Power Attack is incredibly strong. Yes I have, and yes I do. Do you consider the fact that most BDFs use a 2 handed weapon to mean that 2 handed weapons are broken? Of course, you seem to acknowledge this by saying it is "essential to a lot of builds." The reason it is "essential" is because it is so good. It if wasn't, it would not be essential. The fact that it is so essential shows just how powerful it is. Daren Actually, the more damage you do before Power Attack the less useful Power Attack is. http://www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php I encourage you to play with well-built Spiked Chain wielders and/or Dervishs. You will see that they "measure up" to any class combo. In fact, they often dominate combats. You are talking about 2 of the very best melee paths there are. Daren Compare it to well built/well played spellcaster then come talking. Like I said, the ability to do 2000 damage a round pales in comparison to high (7th+) level spells. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 01:52 PM | Most people take the stance that as levels go up, casters outpace fighters. If this is indeed true, I'm not worried about Power Attack. In fact, if you take away Power Attack or severly limit it's effectiveness you'll probably see very few fighter types at high level. As a feat, by itself, I personally think Power Attack should be strength based instead of BAB based. The notion that a small halfling with pitiful strength can put an extra 15 BAB into damage seems "off". Power, for fighters, is typically strength whereas BAB is more expertise (how well and often you hit). That being said though, given the nature of the inbalance at higher levels, I'd really hesitate to nerf a fighter's best feat any. |
| Drezden05-10-07, 01:57 PM | I play a well built/played (15th level) spellcaster and it does not pale in comparison to anything. You do (generally) have to kill the monsters. Being able to do boat loads of damage is very helpful in this regard. :) Daren Compare it to well built/well played spellcaster then come talking. Like I said, the ability to do 2000 damage a round pales in comparison to high (7th+) level spells. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 02:04 PM | I play a well built/played (15th level) spellcaster and it does not pale in comparison to anything. You do (generally) have to kill the monsters. Being able to do boat loads of damage is very helpful in this regard. :) Daren I'm not saying that people who's shtick is to hit a guy with a sword is bad thing. I'm just saying that it is not broken. Thats all. I have a Power Attacking Staggering Striking Dervish in training myself. |
| amnuxoll05-10-07, 02:13 PM | A reasonable (i.e., no twinking or powergaming) 11th level melee type in LG right now can crank out about 45 points of damage per hit using power attack and without the benefit of any buffs. Fully HALF of that damage is coming from the Power Attack feat. That, IMHO, is just too much extra damage for a single attack especially given the prevalence of spells that boost attacks or provide an additional attack with a full attack action. If you didn't get the double damage from using a two-handed weapon it wouldn't be so bad. Power Attack would remain powerful, even essential but not broken, IMHO. But as it stands, 'Sword and board' fighter builds are very rare in LG because they can't compete with two-handed weapon fighters. Similarly, Combat Expertise based fighters are also rather uncommon (though less so than sword and board). I don't *know* but I expect that when the WotC designers created Power Attack they assumed that taking a -11 penalty on your attack roll would be a foolish thing to do because your chance of actually hitting the baddie would be close to zero. And, in fact, using the just straight core rulebooks that may be so. But the addition of new spells, feats and prestige classes that allow you to mitigate or ignore the penalties of a full Power Attack (examples: Warchanter and Arcane Strike) have made that an obsolete notion. I don't know, but I assume, that the WotC designers expected that being a two-weapon fighter would have a significant negative impact on your AC. But, that's not reliably true anymore either. I can think of three ways to get it that are all available in LG. As a result, I believe that Power Attack is now too overpowered. Just for S&G, here's my proposed fix: 1. Two-handed fighters no longer get twice the damage from power attack as everyone else. They are already getting 1.5 times their strength bonus *and* the benefit of a weapon that uses a larger damage die. That is benefit enough. 2. Power Attack caps at -5/+5. 3. A new feat called Greater Power Attack grants the use up to +10/-10 (Prerequisite: Power Atttack and BAB +6). 4. Another new feat called Supreme Power Attack grants up to +15/-15 (Prerequisite: Greater Power Atttack and BAB +11) So what does this do? First, it removes the unviable bias toward two-handed fighters. Second, it makes Power Attack a feat expensive thing to do. I think the investment is still more than worth it, but it makes Power Attack a feat tree (like two-weapon fighting or mounted combat) so that a fighter who pursues this tree must truly invest himself in it rather than cherry pick it. Will it ever happen? Not bloodly likely. =) The Circle can not change rules items only ban them or allow them. Nonetheless, I remain convinced that Power Attack is the most broken Open rules item in Living Greyhawk. Perhaps the WotC folks will fix it like they fixed polymorph. :AMN: |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 02:23 PM | A reasonable (i.e., no twinking or powergaming) 11th level melee type in LG right now can crank out about 45 points of damage per hit using power attack and without the benefit of any buffs. Fully HALF of that damage is coming from the Power Attack feat. That, IMHO, is just too much extra damage for a single attack especially given the prevalence of spells that boost attacks or provide an additional attack with a full attack action. Note that we we start talking average damage across many rounds, +1 to hit equals roughly 2 extra mean damage, sometimes more, sometimes less. Power Attack with a 2 handed weapon merely fixes that ratio at 1:2. Sometimes the bonus to hit is worth more than 2 damage, sometimes less. If you didn't get the double damage from using a two-handed weapon it wouldn't be so bad. Power Attack would remain powerful, even essential but not broken, IMHO. But as it stands, 'Sword and board' fighter builds are very rare in LG because they can't compete with two-handed weapon fighters. Similarly, Combat Expertise based fighters are also rather uncommon (though less so than sword and board). So there are options that are less powerful. So what? Compare to a spellcaster then tell me that Power Attack is more broken than 7th+ level spells. By the way, I thought we were talking Core only here? Or did you mean 'Open' in the original thread? |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 02:30 PM | #1 Power Attack #2 Power Attack #3 Spiked cheese I'd like you to compare these to 7th+ level spells. If you still consider these to be more powerful to the point of being broken, so be it, but in my opinion, you a dead wrong. |
| trollbill05-10-07, 02:44 PM | I'd like you to compare these to 7th+ level spells. If you still consider these to be more powerful to the point of being broken, so be it, but in my opinion, you a dead wrong. I tend to agree that spells are more powerful than what most tricked out fighters can do. Though when you compare them you have to remember that 7th level spells are finite in their usage, while Power Attack is not. |
| Japangirl05-10-07, 02:46 PM | 7th level spell = 13th or 14th level caster. Power Attack = 1st level feat. I'm not saying Power Attack is or is not broken (though I don't think it is), but it does mean people get to play with it a lot more than 7th or 8th level spells and so they see it a lot more. Also, you can use it every round, while a caster is going to run out of high level spells really fast. Power Attack+Warchanter or Power Attack+Shocktrooper is broken, but that's the combination that's broken, not the actual Power Attack feat. Out of curiousity, other than the Holy Word chain, what 7th level spell is so ungodly powerful Bitznarf? |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 02:50 PM | I tend to agree that spells are more powerful than what most tricked out fighters can do. Though when you compare them you have to remember that 7th level spells are finite in their usage, while Power Attack is not. While this is true, if we are talking party dynamics across a whole day of adventuring, remember that the fighter is probably going to have to stop as well from lack of support from the casters. If we are talking about a single PC vs. a single encounter, nova for the win. If we are talking a single PC vs a days worth of encounters, a CoDzilla can go longer due to healing abilities. An arcane caster may have a tougher time of it, depending on the build. |
| Rerednaw05-10-07, 03:03 PM | Okay, so having read through the thread up to John's post here, I'm surprised at a lot of the answers. I've clipped the ones that just seem odd to me. I mean, power attack :confused: Power Attack is nowhere near as broken as virtually any of the good (read broken) 7th or 8th level spells in the PHB. The same goes for virtually every other response on the list above. Compare each one to 7th/8th level Core spells and they are found lacking. ... I've never considered Power Attack broken. In combination with non-core feats/classes sure. When the fighter is being buffed by others sure it can get pretty hefty. By itself I thought of PA as the main method that melee combatants get damage scaling as they level up. Similar to the way that damage spells scale as you level. When compared to the other feats then yes it is much better than many. The fact that many other feats are craptastic does not mean that PA is broken. When compared to sword and board for damage potential then yes PA is superior. Sword and board is not about damage dealing (unless you are using some exotic builds.) Just my 2 copppers. |
| MatteBlack05-10-07, 03:07 PM | I'll say this much. In a home campaign where power attack does not double up for 2hand weapons, there is a big complaint that monsters have too many HP. Power Attack may be too good but, it seems like the game is scaled for it. It is only one feat to get, that is probably why so many pick it up just in case they need to throw down really big damage numbers. It ends up being a good get for any one built to swing a sword if you can eventually add +20 damage to low armored targets. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 03:07 PM | IMO, Power Attack is to a fighter as Empower Spell is to a mage. I don't believe it's any more powerful than Empower. Power Attack done by a 15th level fighter 2 handed will add 30 points if he manages to hit. Empower done by a 15th level mage will add essentially 15d6 to his disentegrate (30d6 then add 1/2). Assuming the mage rolled average damage on his 30d6, the Empower is going to add 52 points. For those suggesting a nerf to Power Attack - to be fair, you'd need to consider nerfs to feats that help casters outpace fighters so easily in higher levels. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 03:24 PM | 7th level spell = 13th or 14th level caster. Power Attack = 1st level feat. I'm not saying Power Attack is or is not broken (though I don't think it is), but it does mean people get to play with it a lot more than 7th or 8th level spells and so they see it a lot more. Also, you can use it every round, while a caster is going to run out of high level spells really fast. Most high level fights I have seen/been involved in in LG have been over within 3-4 rounds. As a caster thats 1-2 top tier (highest-second highest spell levels) spells and a buff/utility or 2. Perhaps more with Quicken. See the Quicken vs. Sculpt thread for that. Power Attack+Warchanter or Power Attack+Shocktrooper is broken, but that's the combination that's broken, not the actual Power Attack feat. Out of curiousity, other than the Holy Word chain, what 7th level spell is so ungodly powerful Bitznarf? I'm just scanning the SRD quickly at the moment here: Control Weather, Air 7, Clr 7, Drd 7, Sor/Wiz 7 Repulsion, Clr 7, Protection 7, Sor/Wiz 6 Fire Storm, Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7 Hold Person, Mass, Sor/Wiz 7 Finger of Death, Drd 8, Sor/Wiz 7 Forcecage, Sor/Wiz 7 Otto's Irresistible Dance, Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8 And thats not even level 8 spells. I'm sure that solberg and copper_wyrmling will have some better ones and/or other non Core spells to add the the list if they so choose, they know them better than I do. |
| CdrcJsn05-10-07, 03:41 PM | Power Attack done by a 15th level fighter 2 handed will add 30 points if he manages to hit. Empower done by a 15th level mage will add essentially 15d6 to his disentegrate (30d6 then add 1/2). Assuming the mage rolled average damage on his 30d6, the Empower is going to add 52 points. Disintegrate hits once. 15th lvl fighter has a good chance of attacking and hitting 4 times. So that 30 points could conceivably be 120 extra damage per round. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 03:45 PM | And at higher levels, combats last very few rounds. Also - mages do have more than 1 spell slot. Plus, Empower is WAY more versatile. Not only can you empower damage spells, you can empower other spells like Ray of Enfeeblement knocking 15 STR off of a bad guy. So, the mage using a 3rd level spell slot seeing a raging barbarian with power attack can shrink the barbarian's effectiveness to near zero if power attack is sufficiently nerfed. After that 3rd level spell, the mage could follow up with far worse. I'd argue Empower is a much stronger feat than Power Attack. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 03:48 PM | You can also empower AoE spells which would cause the mages damage output to scale much faster than the fighters if all you are measuring is damage output for 1 round. IMHO. Empower > Power Attack |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 03:49 PM | And despite all that, direct damage is generally one of the weakest areas for a caster. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 03:50 PM | Exactly! Empower can be used for damage AND other stuff. Power Attack is just for damage. |
| JamesMaissen05-10-07, 03:52 PM | A reasonable (i.e., no twinking or powergaming) 11th level melee type in LG right now can crank out about 45 points of damage per hit using power attack and without the benefit of any buffs. Fully HALF of that damage is coming from the Power Attack feat. That, IMHO, is just too much extra damage for a single attack especially given the prevalence of spells that boost attacks or provide an additional attack with a full attack action. An 11th level melee full power attacking will do +22 on damage, so 23 needs to come from elsewhere for your example. So by power attacking for full you are putting your hitroll down to something like +9 or so, which unless the target has a horrible AC you are not doing yourself a favor by power attacking for full. Consider a target with an AC of 22. Without power attack you would average around 53 points of damage. Now power attacking for full you would average slightly less. Generally you want to power attack so that the fighter can hit on a roll of a 2 with their primary attack. Extra attacks at top bonus (either AOOs or haste attacks) only increase that paradigm. Power attack can be nice. It works well when the fighter is buffed, when they roll well, when the target's AC is not competative for the APL, or when some of the dynamics of the situation can be removed. It serves to keep pressure to maintain an Armor Class, and that's not a bad thing. The other pressure to do so is facing numbers of much lower level opponents (ie mooks) which doesn't occur much in LG. It's not a bad thing. It does, however, become flashy and that can be perceived as broken. Honestly things like power attack, combat expertiese and weapon finesse could just be made combat options rather than feats in my opinion. -James |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 03:55 PM | If anyone is curious about the actual math crunch for an 'optimal power attack' number, this website here does a pretty good job of giving you the numbers. It doesn't show the math (you would need the source code), but it does the crunch for you. http://www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php |
| Jay_Ibero_91105-10-07, 03:57 PM | FACT: Weaken power attack AT ALL, and fighters become nothing more than HP to stand in between casters and bad guys. |
| CdrcJsn05-10-07, 04:00 PM | I'm just scanning the SRD quickly at the moment here: Control Weather, Air 7, Clr 7, Drd 7, Sor/Wiz 7 Repulsion, Clr 7, Protection 7, Sor/Wiz 6 Fire Storm, Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7 Hold Person, Mass, Sor/Wiz 7 Finger of Death, Drd 8, Sor/Wiz 7 Forcecage, Sor/Wiz 7 Otto's Irresistible Dance, Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8 The only ones I would consider powerful in the above list is Forcecage and that has a hefty spell component price attached to it. Otto's is also powerful, but is 8th level (Bards have to be 16th level normally to cast it...SC gets it at 13). The rest is meh. Save or Die is nice but you have to hit targets with weak saves against it or it almost never works. Likewise, damaging spells can do a lot of damage for one round, but is most effective against the peons around the big bad rather than the big bad itself. Power Attacking types can do greater amounts of damage against single targets and can do it every round. The most effective spells at high levels are still the crowd control and buffing spells, not the damaging ones. Bigby's Grasping Hand is the most powerful 7th level arcane spell out there in my opinion. |
| trollbill05-10-07, 04:02 PM | Well, as has been noted, the encounter standards for LG make spell casters more powerful because they consist of a few short, tough fights a day rather than several moderate fights drawn out over the whole day like you might get in your typical home game dungeon crawl. This means the spellcasters can afford to drop their nukes in almost every combat without fear of running out of their good spells. One thing I am thankful to all the Adaptables being released for LG is that these change that curve. I played one adaptable recently where my 9th-level Sorcerer used every spell he had (including 0-levels) plus 16 scrolls! In the end, he was reduced to running around trying to use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with a UMD check of +8 and melee attacking things. I haven't run out of spells in LG since this guy was 3rd-level, and that was in another adaptable. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 04:07 PM | Likewise, damaging spells can do a lot of damage for one round, but is most effective against the peons around the big bad rather than the big bad itself. Power Attacking types can do greater amounts of damage against single targets and can do it every round. Once again I'm not saying that Power Attacking doesn't have its place, or that Power Attacking sucks. I'm saying Power Attack isn't broken. When it comes to dealing damage to a single mob, Power Attack is one of the more (if not most, I don't know) ways to do that. That doesn't make it broken. |
| CdrcJsn05-10-07, 04:19 PM | Once again I'm not saying that Power Attacking doesn't have its place, or that Power Attacking sucks. I'm saying Power Attack isn't broken. When it comes to dealing damage to a single mob, Power Attack is one of the more (if not most, I don't know) ways to do that. That doesn't make it broken. Agreed. I was just contesting your earlier claim that casters are inherently more powerful than melee types capable of doing lots of damage. I play casters mainly. Even my power attacking melee types can cast spells. It's just been my experience that no single class or role dominates play unless they are significantly higher level than the rest of the party. It's a group effort. |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 04:25 PM | I'm just scanning the SRD quickly at the moment here: Control Weather, Air 7, Clr 7, Drd 7, Sor/Wiz 7 No precise targeting, takes ages to cast, never an in-combat spell. Repulsion, Clr 7, Protection 7, Sor/Wiz 6 Okay for an NPC (although PCs have a tendency to teleport through the field): for a PC, ensuring that none of your party members can approach you is not usually a good idea. And it has a Will save to negate and allows SR. Fire Storm, Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7 Ermmm... you're kidding, right? It's d6/level. At retirement, it'll do 15d6 damage (i.e. ~50) to everyone in the area, with a Ref save for half, fire resistance applies, and SR applies. It's almost never worth the standard action (speaking as a cleric with it as a domain spell). Hold Person, Mass, Sor/Wiz 7 Nice for NPCs, terrible for PCs (who rarely fight "people"). Finger of Death, Drd 8, Sor/Wiz 7 A lot of enemies are immune to death effects, and otherwise, well, it's a Fort save to negate (more or less). The reason people take grey elf and fatespinner levels is that at high levels, most stuff you want to kill has a better-than-even chance of passing your Fort saves, and a lot of monsters are at the "fail on a 1" level. Forcecage, Sor/Wiz 7 This one is extremely powerful, but also extremely expensive. Otto's Irresistible Dance, Brd 6, Sor/Wiz 8 And this one is REALLY powerful (no save!) but does require you to touch the target, and it's mind-affecting. I'm sure that solberg and copper_wyrmling will have some better ones and/or other non Core spells to add the the list if they so choose, they know them better than I do. Actually, level 7 is the "grumble, there's only one really good Open option" level for both my cleric and my sorcerer. (For my cleric, it's Holy Word, for my sorcerer it's Limited Wish.) Level 8 isn't that brilliant for clerics either (haven't looked at it for my sorc, for obvious reasons). Levels 4 and 6, oddly enough, seem to be the real money levels for clerics - levels 4 and 5 are extremely nice for arcanes. (Level 4 cleric: Freedom of Movement, Delay Death, Death Ward, Greater Magic Weapon, Air Walk (10 minutes / level flight!), Divine Power Level 6 cleric: Heal, Harm, Heroes' Feast, Wind Walk, Find the Path, Bolt of Glory, Zealot Pact, and my cleric gets Fire Seeds as a domain spell Level 4 sorc/wiz: Evard's Black Tentacles, the orb spells, Dimension Door, Solid Fog, Enervation Level 5 sorc/wiz: Telekinesis, Mass Fly, Wall of Force, Teleport) My experience, at high levels, is that: (a) The vast majority of the time, monsters make their saves (b) Most of the time, you're fighting 1-3 monsters, not hordes This means that save-negates spells and area-effect damage spells are not particularly good. Non-save-based debuffs, damage or battlefield control is usually the way to go. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 04:25 PM | Agreed. I was just contesting your earlier claim that casters are inherently more powerful than melee types capable of doing lots of damage. I play casters mainly. Even my power attacking melee types can cast spells. It's just been my experience that no single class or role dominates play unless they are significantly higher level than the rest of the party. It's a group effort. Its 8th and 9th level when the difference becomes really apparent in my opinion. As for the 'creature might make the save' argument against save or suck spells, of course you pick on the weak save. The same way a BDF doesn't power attack much against that AC40+ beastie and does against a AC17, HP lots monster. Each method of attack has its weaknesses and its strengths, and each plays to them. You are absolutely right about the group effort idea. I just think that a caster can get along better without a BDF than a BDF can get along without a caster. |
| Rerednaw05-10-07, 04:28 PM | And at higher levels, combats last very few rounds. Also - mages do have more than 1 spell slot. Plus, Empower is WAY more versatile. Not only can you empower damage spells, you can empower other spells like Ray of Enfeeblement knocking 15 STR off of a bad guy. So, the mage using a 3rd level spell slot seeing a raging barbarian with power attack can shrink the barbarian's effectiveness to near zero if power attack is sufficiently nerfed. After that 3rd level spell, the mage could follow up with far worse. I'd argue Empower is a much stronger feat than Power Attack. For a 2 level spell bump or 3rd level slot...I'd probably be using something else. I had a sorcerer who got hit by a raging, charging barbarian with power attack...he never had a chance to get a spell off. So in that case PA > Empower. :) |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 04:29 PM | Ermmm... you're kidding, right? It's d6/level. At retirement, it'll do 15d6 damage (i.e. ~50) to everyone in the area, with a Ref save for half, fire resistance applies, and SR applies. It's almost never worth the standard action (speaking as a cleric with it as a domain spell). Opps, I was gonna drop that one from the list. It was on their initially as an already sculpted choice; sometimes dropping a boom on some mooks and avoiding the hostage is a good idea. Actually, level 7 is the "grumble, there's only one really good Open option" level for both my cleric and my sorcerer. (For my cleric, it's Holy Word, for my sorcerer it's Limited Wish.) Level 8 isn't that brilliant for clerics either (haven't looked at it for my sorc, for obvious reasons). Levels 4 and 6, oddly enough, seem to be the real money levels for clerics - levels 4 and 5 are extremely nice for arcanes. Well, I was asked 7th so I pulled 7th level spells, Otto's excluded as a 6/8 split. My experience, at high levels, is that: (a) The vast majority of the time, monsters make their saves (b) Most of the time, you're fighting 1-3 monsters, not hordes This means that save-negates spells and area-effect damage spells are not particularly good. Non-save-based debuffs, damage or battlefield control is usually the way to go. Thanks for the help :) |
| thorinXXX05-10-07, 04:29 PM | Power Attack is broken simply because it is a must have feat. How many barbarians and non archer fighters do not have the feat? That is the problem, Power Attack is not an oprion, it is mandatory. Any feat which is essintially mandatory is by definition broken. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 04:31 PM | Power Attack is broken simply because it is a must have feat. How many barbarians and non archer fighters do not have the feat? That is the problem, Power Attack is not an oprion, it is mandatory. Any feat which is essintially mandatory is by definition broken. I take it a weapon is broken then? As any archer worth their salt has a weapon. That must make it broken. How about Rapid Shot? Precise Shot? This is like saying basic training is broken because everyone should have it. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 04:34 PM | For a 2 level spell bump or 3rd level slot...I'd probably be using something else. I had a sorcerer who got hit by a raging, charging barbarian with power attack...he never had a chance to get a spell off. So in that case PA > Empower. :) Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is one of the best uses of a 3rd level slot I can think of. There are other good contenders (haste at mid levels, etc.), but eRoE is just amazing. Taking 9 to 15 str off of a badguy can be a game winner. eRoE doesn't get old - some would argue that Haste does (the whole "most high level fighters can self-haste debate"). my 2gp |
| Jay_Ibero_91105-10-07, 04:35 PM | Power Attack is broken simply because it is a must have feat. How many barbarians and non archer fighters do not have the feat? That is the problem, Power Attack is not an oprion, it is mandatory. Any feat which is essintially mandatory is by definition broken. I think the biggest problem is the definition of broken. The fact that power attack is essentially mandatory is evidence that the oposition is broken, not the feat itself. To accurately determine broken, you have to look at what the situation would be WITHOUT power attack, which is that melee types would have almost no way to do meaningful damage. |
| trollbill05-10-07, 04:36 PM | I take it a weapon is broken then? As any archer worth their salt has a weapon. That must make it broken. How about Rapid Shot? Precise Shot? This is like saying basic training is broken because everyone should have it. Well, he did only say 'feat.' But you still have a point. By his definition Point-blank Shot and Mounted Combat are broken because they are must-have feats for archers and cavalry respectively. Of course, the reason they are must have is becuase they are the base of a very useful feat tree. but then again, so is Power Attack. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 04:37 PM | Power Attack is broken simply because it is a must have feat. How many barbarians and non archer fighters do not have the feat? That is the problem, Power Attack is not an oprion, it is mandatory. Any feat which is essintially mandatory is by definition broken. I understand your motivation but disagree with your conclusion. For a fighter, armor is a must have. Is armor broken? For a fighter, a good con score is a must have. Is a good con score broken? Highly desirable != broken Highly effective != broken |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 04:44 PM | Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement is one of the best uses of a 3rd level slot I can think of. There are other good contenders (haste at mid levels, etc.), but eRoE is just amazing. Taking 9 to 15 str off of a badguy can be a game winner. eRoE doesn't get old - some would argue that Haste does (the whole "most high level fighters can self-haste debate"). Although if you pick the wrong bad guy, it just annoys them - as my sorc learned the hard way at L8 :( (She zapped a CR 14 dragon with it and rolled max: on the plus side, it made it angry enough that it provoked a bunch of AoOs from the party when it came in to Snatch her and Wingover back out over the lava. Str-8 sorcerers can't beat Huge dragons on grapple checks even when they're at -16 to their original Strength...) |
| Redfist05-10-07, 04:45 PM | Although if you pick the wrong bad guy, it just annoys them - as my sorc learned the hard way at L8 :( (She zapped a CR 14 dragon with it and rolled max: on the plus side, it made it angry enough that it provoked a bunch of AoOs from the party when it came in to Snatch her and Wingover back out over the lava.) rofl! |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 05:00 PM | Actually, level 7 is the "grumble, there's only one really good Open option" level for both my cleric and my sorcerer. (For my cleric, it's Holy Word, for my sorcerer it's Limited Wish.) Level 8 isn't that brilliant for clerics either (haven't looked at it for my sorc, for obvious reasons). Levels 4 and 6, oddly enough, seem to be the real money levels for clerics - levels 4 and 5 are extremely nice for arcanes. Summon Monster VII - summon up an Avoral - amazingly useful Summons: Heal 66-80 hp of damage. True Seeing DDoor, Dispel Magic at will - have it ferry your BDFs back and forth for full attacks. Couple of blasting options and protection options Reverse Gravity - if you don't fly, you die spell. Use with Quickened Dimensional Anchor on creatures that teleport, but don't fly. Quickened Sleet Storm - good for firing off before you toss the battlefield control spell of doom - think Prismatic Wall at an angle, descending into the storm...BDF zapper... |
| Drezden05-10-07, 05:13 PM | A summoned Avoral can not use it's Dimension Door ability. From the SRD (it is also in PHB): "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities." While I like Reverse Gravity, it is not quite "if you don't fly, you die" in many circumstances. Casters or ranged attackers can still attack and big monsters in a confined area can often still reach people on the ground. I do like the spell - it is a combat winner in many circumstances against melee based monsters that can't fly, e.g. Golems, Cadaver Collectors, etc. Daren Summon Monster VII - summon up an Avoral - amazingly useful Summons: Heal 66-80 hp of damage. True Seeing DDoor, Dispel Magic at will - have it ferry your BDFs back and forth for full attacks. Couple of blasting options and protection options Reverse Gravity - if you don't fly, you die spell. Use with Quickened Dimensional Anchor on creatures that teleport, but don't fly. Quickened Sleet Storm - good for firing off before you toss the battlefield control spell of doom - think Prismatic Wall at an angle, descending into the storm...BDF zapper... |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 05:18 PM | Summon Monster VII - summon up an Avoral - amazingly useful Summons: Heal 66-80 hp of damage. True Seeing DDoor, Dispel Magic at will - have it ferry your BDFs back and forth for full attacks. Couple of blasting options and protection options Reverse Gravity - if you don't fly, you die spell. Use with Quickened Dimensional Anchor on creatures that teleport, but don't fly. Quickened Sleet Storm - good for firing off before you toss the battlefield control spell of doom - think Prismatic Wall at an angle, descending into the storm...BDF zapper... Summoned monsters can't use teleportation abilities, so no DDoor for the avoral :( I wanted to use it as a counterspell (with dispel magic) + DDoor machine, until I realised that it can't use its DDoor because it's summoned, and you can't use spell-like abilities to counterspell :( Dispel at will is okay, but the +10 cap makes it less useful when you're playing APL 14-16. It's a good use of the spell, but I wouldn't call it gamebreaking or a proof of high-level casters' superiority, by any stretch of the imagination. Why is Reverse Gravity much better than Mass Fly? They both seem to nerf groundbound monsters pretty well. I'm not arguing L7 SLOTS aren't useful (i.e. metamagicked lower-level spells), but we're not talking about amazing high-level spells anymore, then. |
| Sieylianna05-10-07, 05:20 PM | IMO, Power Attack is to a fighter as Empower Spell is to a mage. I don't believe it's any more powerful than Empower. Allow me to point out that my wizard 4 (brb 1) has power attack and wields a great axe, but does not have empower spell. Ed |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 05:21 PM | Does your mage(gish) also have Whirling Blade? |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 05:22 PM | A summoned Avoral can not use it's Dimension Door ability. From the SRD (it is also in PHB): "A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities." Good point - lack of sleep today. The other abilities are the main ones in any case - Demi-heal on your party's fighter, then have it move off for blasting/de-buffing/spotting things with True Seeing. |
| Jay_Ibero_91105-10-07, 05:23 PM | Allow me to point out that my wizard has power attack and wields a great axe, but does not have empower spell. Ed And I'm willing to bet that he is more than just a wizard then. |
| Redfist05-10-07, 05:24 PM | Allow me to point out that my wizard has power attack and wields a great axe, but does not have empower spell. Ed I'd argue that you are a meleer with some wizard levels rather than a dedicated mage. I was referring to dedicated casters. |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 05:25 PM | Good point - lack of sleep today. The other abilities are the main ones in any case - Demi-heal on your party's fighter, then have it move off for blasting/de-buffing/spotting things with True Seeing. Or I could just Heal the fighter properly, using a spell slot one level lower, and not have a superfluous celestial around when the fight ends one round later... I've prepped the spell a few times, but never ended up using it. It seems nicer for a wizard who can't usually Heal. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 05:48 PM | Summoned monsters can't use teleportation abilities, so no DDoor for the avoral :( I wanted to use it as a counterspell (with dispel magic) + DDoor machine, until I realised that it can't use its DDoor because it's summoned, and you can't use spell-like abilities to counterspell :( Dispel at will is okay, but the +10 cap makes it less useful when you're playing APL 14-16. It's a good use of the spell, but I wouldn't call it gamebreaking or a proof of high-level casters' superiority, by any stretch of the imagination. The major, major thing about Avoral is the ability to heal similar to a Paladin - you summon it right next to your tank that's taking damage, have it heal him for 80 hp of damage, then have it move off. Or to have it show up and do True Seeing at no gold cost. Either is worthwhile. Once it has done the really critical thing, then you have it move off and do other things. Let's say you're fighting an 18th level caster with your 8th level Dispel Magic. You still beat him when you roll a 20 and he rolls a 9. In other words, an 11% chance per buff of taking it down. If he has enough buffs, something will go bye-bye. I'd also rule that they can use their Dispel Magic to counterspell. They're readying to Dispel Magic someone's spell, which acts as counterspell, they're not readying to actually counterspell. Not that it would be particularly effective. Why is Reverse Gravity much better than Mass Fly? They both seem to nerf groundbound monsters pretty well. Mass Fly doesn't actually make the entire party fly at once, it makes them each able to fly nearby each other on their actions. Note what happens when the caster wins initiative and the monster then goes next...or you get a player who doesn't quite understand the 'stay within 30' of someone!' part of the spell. Reverse Gravity is also medium range. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 05:52 PM | Or I could just Heal the fighter properly, using a spell slot one level lower, and not have a superfluous celestial around when the fight ends one round later... I've prepped the spell a few times, but never ended up using it. It seems nicer for a wizard who can't usually Heal. At the cost of a Limited Wish. Same spell level with Metamagic School Focus. And the Avoral also represents an additional target. |
| Japangirl05-10-07, 06:05 PM | Actually, the DC on dispel magic checks is 11+caster level, so a level 8 character can't dispel an 18th level caster (can only get to 28, the DC is 29). Just saying . . . |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 06:12 PM | Actually, the DC on dispel magic checks is 11+caster level, so a level 8 character can't dispel an 18th level caster (can only get to 28, the DC is 29). Just saying . . . Wow, I really need sleep...baby got up 3 times last night... |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 06:37 PM | Mass Fly doesn't actually make the entire party fly at once, it makes them each able to fly nearby each other on their actions. Note what happens when the caster wins initiative and the monster then goes next...or you get a player who doesn't quite understand the 'stay within 30' of someone!' part of the spell. Reverse Gravity is also medium range. The medium range is indeed nice. Re Mass Fly... yeah, that's why I expect to still sometimes use Teleport + Featherfall once my sorc gets Mass Fly, but I know you don't think that trick works ;) Let's not start that one up again. At the cost of a Limited Wish. Same spell level with Metamagic School Focus. And the Avoral also represents an additional target. I actually have no idea what you're saying here. (I'm talking about a cleric casting Heal, which is L6, rather than using a L7 spell to summon an avoral which shows up in the second round and does a half-strength Heal.) I did say it was nicer for wizards than for clerics (or at least, that's what I meant to say). |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 06:54 PM | I actually have no idea what you're saying here. (I'm talking about a cleric casting Heal, which is L6, rather than using a L7 spell to summon an avoral which shows up in the second round and does a half-strength Heal.) I did say it was nicer for wizards than for clerics (or at least, that's what I meant to say). Ah, I thought you meant your Sorcerer was using Limited Wish vs Rapid Summon Monster VII. It is a half-strength heal(80 hp with Augment Summoning), but with Rapid Spell and Metamagic School Focus, it'll show up on the 1st round. And it is a heal at range - no need for the Wizard to expose himself to the melee monster :) |
| Jay_Ibero_91105-10-07, 06:56 PM | Ah, I thought you meant your Sorcerer was using Limited Wish vs Rapid Summon Monster VII. It is a half-strength heal(80 hp with Augment Summoning), but with Rapid Spell and Metamagic School Focus, it'll show up on the 1st round. And it is a heal at range - no need for the Wizard to expose himself to the melee monster :) Bringing feats into this, the cleric can just as easily have Divine Ward now, to Heal at range. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 07:14 PM | Bringing feats into this, the cleric can just as easily have Divine Ward now, to Heal at range. I'm not arguing that a Cleric should take this... |
| solbergb05-10-07, 08:21 PM | Most of the time if you see a fighter power attacking for a gazillion, what is going on is he has been buffed or enemy debuffed to the point or both where his positive modifiers to hit are sky high compared to his "default" mode. Battlefield control is only powerful if the party can do something to the enemy they've isolated. Usually what they do is send the fighter blender after it. Actually broken spells heroics (WAY too open ended) ray of stupidity (should have been a penalty, not damage) explosive runes (there is an "infinite runes" trick set off by min caster level dispel magic, made even more reliable with arcane mastery) wall of iron+fabricate (infinite resources trick) divine power (BAB should not be replicated by a spell, ever) illusory pit (L6, closed) antimagic field (L6, but often not desirable for those who can cast it) control winds (L6, druid or air domain only) finger of bone (l7, open and only if cast multiple times ahead of time and passed to the party archer) forcecage (L7, but expensive) planar binding (L7, closed, only if you allow binding Efreet to cast wishes) holy word/blasphemy chain (L7) polymorph any object (L8) Shapechange (L9) Gate (L9) - if you interpret it as "bring in a balor and have it obey you slavishly) I hear the "bite of" spells give too much for what they cost, but they were banned before I could get access and play with them. I'm not a fan of "quicken spell-like ability" - one feat, your most powerful SLA is now a swift action. Compare to sudden quicken or quicken spell or divine metamagic quicken for the effort to get that effect with spells. Divine spellpower should have been about 2 feats worth for what it gave. I dunno. There is lots of stuff but most of it you have to work hard enough to "break" anything that it turns out not to actually be very broken. (See "telekenesis". If I work really hard at it and stack several spells ahead of time, it can be better than a metamagicked scorching ray on some targets....) |
| _metz_05-10-07, 08:23 PM | tried to post this last night but maintenance kicked in as I was typing it up so: Ok, well I will comment on the two of my 4-5 that you don't agree with: 1. Daring Outlaw (why take rogue or swash levels when you can take both) 2. Occult Slayer, should be a roleplaying issue but everyone just takes it for the abilities Explanations: 1. Daring outlaw is a feat that seems stupid to NOT take Especially as good Rogue builds have weapon finesse. Any feat that does that seems a little out of it to me... just my personal opinion. Probably not that overpowered, but it was bugging me at the time. 2. Not enough people give good enough role playing justification for their occult slayer levels. They just take it cos its the class to take. Kinda bugs me a little is all, when characters are designed around one class so very often, and it doesn't have that much of an effect in mods to be hating magic (seriously, it should be an issue, especially if there was a wizard in the party) - there should be some serious role playing things that go along with this, but they rarely seem too... On another note, I totally agree with bitz on Power attack, how is it broken? Chy is being able to lose up to 15 (LG) on your attack for ooh... and extra 30 damage broken compared to say... a maximised orb? both are easily available at high levels, and one is easier to hit and does more damage, ignores damage reduction, and isn't reliant on a good weapon... I think whinging about power attack is one of those rare cases where a caster or something actually doesn't outperform the fighter in a combat and gets irritated by that... Fighters can do bollocks out of combat. If you say they aren't allowed to do damage either, then aren't you being a little bit ridiculous? I do however have a slight issue with weapon finesse weapons and power attack ,and the logistical issues of the spiked chain, weapon seems a bit too good, 2 Handed, Reach 10ft and threatens 5ft, and does 2d4 damage which is actually better than a d10 usually... its not the feat thats the issue... |
| Haro05-10-07, 08:38 PM | 1. Daring outlaw is a feat that seems stupid to NOT take Especially as good Rogue builds have weapon finesse. Despite the fact that I play a finesse swashbuckler/rogue type, by far the most effective rogue builds I have seen are strength based. There is a certain, legendary rogue in my neck of the woods that has retired - running combats against him was almost not worth it toward the end. I do however have a slight issue with weapon finesse weapons and power attack ,and the logistical issues of the spiked chain, weapon seems a bit too good, 2 Handed, Reach 10ft and threatens 5ft, and does 2d4 damage which is actually better than a d10 usually... its not the feat thats the issue... Agreed, however, 2d4 averages 5 points of damage, where 1d10 averages 5.5. A small difference but worth pointing out that a spiked chain does in fact average less damage than a halberd (for example). Joe |
| Mommy was an Orc05-10-07, 08:47 PM | 1. Daring outlaw is a feat that seems stupid to NOT take Especially as good Rogue builds have weapon finesse. Any feat that does that seems a little out of it to me... just my personal opinion. Probably not that overpowered, but it was bugging me at the time. Daring Outlaw actually seems to be something of a trap. It is a phenomenal Swashbuckler feat. If you already have 3 levels in it, it isn't a bad feat to take. That doesn't actually mean that taking 3 levels of Swashbuckler and taking this feat is a great idea, though unless you take a lot of Swashbuckler levels... |
| solbergb05-10-07, 08:48 PM | I don't lose sleep over combinations that aren't actually very effective. Weapon finessers are losing so much damage by not having a decent strength score they can use all the help they can get. They get to spend an extra feat to NOT get to do extra damage, just hit better. Whee. |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 09:11 PM | heroics (WAY too open ended) Agreed, although the "must meet prereqs" clause stops some of the nastier stuff, since the really scary feats tend to come at the end of a feat tree. It's the duration and spell level that make it unbalanced. (Second level and 10 minutes / level = stays up all day with a couple of castings and a lesser rod of extend, at high levels.) ray of stupidity (should have been a penalty, not damage) Agreed. It's Closed now :) explosive runes (there is an "infinite runes" trick set off by min caster level dispel magic, made even more reliable with arcane mastery) wall of iron+fabricate (infinite resources trick) Yeah, these are exploits - I'd never try to use them in a real game, too much risk of provoking GM hostility. divine power (BAB should not be replicated by a spell, ever) illusory pit (L6, closed) Illusory Pit is actually not Closed (not Open either). Mind you, the SpC version isn't as obviously ridiculous as the CA version (if you make your Will save, you're fine): I'm not sure whether I still think it should be Closed. Not sure about Divine Power. Similar spells have been around for a long time, and I think it's intentional that a cleric should be able to cast some buff spells and fight like a warrior. antimagic field (L6, but often not desirable for those who can cast it) Specifically, melee monsters (not class-levelled humanoids) who have personal antimagic fields and an Extraordinary ability that functions as Haste. I'm looking at YOU, Portal of Hate... (Year 5 Iuz metaregional) On another note, I totally agree with bitz on Power attack, how is it broken? Chy is being able to lose up to 15 (LG) on your attack for ooh... and extra 30 damage broken compared to say... a maximised orb? both are easily available at high levels, and one is easier to hit and does more damage, ignores damage reduction, and isn't reliant on a good weapon... It's because it's 30 damage / attack. When you're getting four or five attacks / round, you're adding +120-150 damage / round. I don't think most people who are saying "Power Attack is broken" are saying "there shouldn't be any feat that lets people convert attack bonus into damage", what they're saying is: - Power Attack scales by level without limit, which is inappropriate for a feat with no prerequisites. - When used with a two-handed weapon you get a 2:1 return on damage:attack-bonus, other tricks can boost this further (combat brute, favored power attack, spirited charge). Much of a melee fighter's damage at higher level comes from power attack; the 2:1 ratio gives an immense advantage to wielders of two-handed weapons. - As a result, when you compare to other fighting styles, they tend to be far more feat-expensive (needing to continue taking feats just to continue scaling with level) AND ultimately less effective than a build relying solely on two-handed power attack and a big weapon. Comparing feats to spells is really hard because feats are always-on, spells are a couple of times / day. Comparing what "someone with X feat" can do compared to "someone with Y spell" is also a bit meaningless, especially at high levels, since feats don't do damage directly, and they depend heavily on what other feats / abilities the character has. (Power Attack would really not be remotely scary on a Str-13 halfling warrior using a longsword and shield, for example. On a spirited-charging lance-wielding shocktrooper, on the other hand...) Comparing feats to feats, or basic builds using two feat trees, is somewhat easier. I think at the moment it's pretty clear that if you want to be the best melee damage-dealer you can be, you use a two-handed weapon and take Power Attack. Two-weapon-fighting, for example, chews through far more feats, and unless you're a rogue, in the end you'll still do much less damage. I think, although I'm not sure, that people are using "power attack is broken" as shorthand for this imbalance. |
| berpo05-10-07, 09:12 PM | All the orbs... they should have atleast SR so that way theses spells are not totally broken. |
| _metz_05-10-07, 09:13 PM | I would definitely like to add that unseen seer and ruathar have their issues... And Deep warden Dwarf is just too good ;) |
| solbergb05-10-07, 09:31 PM | The rap on divine power is it is one of those enabler things that tempt people to turn ANY build into a melee that has the primary advantage of the noncaster classes (fullbab). Arcane can do it too, via arcane disciple. Tenser's Transformation isn't as bad because it strips you of spellcasting when you're being a melee, similar to some of the new polymorph school spells. I can forgive tenser's transformation (plus it is a level 6 spell instead of level 4, thus can't be quickened normally, requires a 300gp material component blah blah) There isn't any feat that turns my monk into a 7th level cleric for purpose of casting, turning and domains. It irritates me. Possibly why I hate it is it dates to 2nd edition instead of first edition, and is grandfathered in much as magic missile is, even though it doesn't make sense. Clerics already fight pretty well, and I'm down with things like divine favor, visage of deity or even righteous might, which add beef onto the cleric via the power of the god, much as wildshape beefs up a druid. But BAB in my mind should be part of the build. Spells tweak attributes and size and add bonuses to-hit and damage. That's cool. They shouldn't tweak BAB - BAB is a metagame concept. To see it done right, look at Inspire Greatness - adds 2 hit dice by other means (competence bonuses to hit and temp hitpoints). Likewise I'm ok with spells that add maybe ONE feat or class ability, such as the druid spell that triggers a Rage effect without using up a daily use of rage, or the "master's touch" spell which makes you proficient with exactly ONE item for minute/level (not granting tower shield proficiency - just temporarily profiicent with the tower shield you are holding right now) I find the open-ended "I can magically do anything" aspect of heroics offensive, and also the fact that repeated castings can easily defeate most feat-tree restrictions. Don't get me started on how divine power can be used to defeat the BAB restrictions as well...I'll start building warmages with eclectic learning, rapid metamagic and arcane disciple who have melee weapon supremacy at level 18 by the time they get their second swift action...and weapon mastery all day long with sufficient lesser metamagic rods I didn't like divine insight either. It was too open ended and too raw powerful. I'm fairly ok with the PHB2 "master's touch" approach to the same concept. A +4 named bonus that only works on actions that can be completed in a round as immediate action....that's powerful but doesn't turn a schlub into an expert. It makes incompetent passable, passable competent, good great and great stellar. That's ok. |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 09:54 PM | also the fact that repeated castings can easily defeate most feat-tree restrictions. Eh... on my table, this falls under "same effect with differing results". Casting Heroics multiple times just lets you change which feat the spell is granting, it doesn't give you multiple extra feats. (From the SRD, "Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.") |
| solbergb05-10-07, 10:08 PM | Where do you come down on resist fire Tracy? I allow 5 castings of it, one for each element. Some DM's don't. The above text would seem to rule it out, however in context it is talking about things like multiple polymoprhs, where changing to a different shape obviously excludes the prior effect unless the more recent one is dispelled. I don't think that the intent of the rule is to exclude non-contradictory effects, such as having resist cold and resist fire on the same target. Similar effects aren't common, but do happen - such as embrace the wild, where you can do either scent+lowlight and blindsense+lowlight. Should two castings allow scent+blindsense+lowlight? Luckily we never have to make that judgement call, as a spell "scent" exists and is also open for everyone. Ponder it. There's room for interpretation. If you don't exclude resist energy multiple times, you really can't exclude multiple heroic uses. |
| JohnduBois05-10-07, 10:27 PM | All the orbs... they should have atleast SR so that way theses spells are not totally broken. Oh man... How could I have forgotten about cheesy orbs??? *Goes to other thread* |
| copper_wyrmling05-10-07, 10:27 PM | Brad, yeah, I'm aware of the interpretation issues. I watched the resist energy debate on Infinite Monkeys back when it happened, until it got to the point where nobody was saying anything new, just repeating their positions over and over again - given how long that lasted, I'd really rather not start it up again ;) Personally, I was sufficiently convinced by the "same effect with differing results" arguments that I don't cast multiple resist energy spells on the same target (if I did, Yolande would be stacking two types of extended energy immunity, casting them on alternate days). Just a note, "last in wins" isn't an invented rule, it comes from the quote I gave, "Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others" - the PHB provides a well-defined mechanism for this, the question is whether you feel that paragraph applies at all. It's certainly not 100% clear that either interpretation is correct (at least in my view), and I would expect some table variation - not sure how much, it's hard to tell as a player when you're assuming the more restrictive interpretation. |
| bitznarf05-10-07, 10:50 PM | It's because it's 30 damage / attack. When you're getting four or five attacks / round, you're adding +120-150 damage / round. I don't think most people who are saying "Power Attack is broken" are saying "there shouldn't be any feat that lets people convert attack bonus into damage", what they're saying is: - Power Attack scales by level without limit, which is inappropriate for a feat with no prerequisites. - When used with a two-handed weapon you get a 2:1 return on damage:attack-bonus, other tricks can boost this further (combat brute, favored power attack, spirited charge). Much of a melee fighter's damage at higher level comes from power attack; the 2:1 ratio gives an immense advantage to wielders of two-handed weapons. - As a result, when you compare to other fighting styles, they tend to be far more feat-expensive (needing to continue taking feats just to continue scaling with level) AND ultimately less effective than a build relying solely on two-handed power attack and a big weapon. Lets take a look at the math behind this for a moment. I've never actually chewed through the odds of hitting vs damage done stats, but the math isn't all that complex really. I think this post here explains it fairly well: If I have a 50% chance of hitting with my greatsword, and I do 17 points of damage on average with a hit, the expected damage for the attack is 8.5. If I increase my to-hit by +4 [say with flanking and/or a charge], I now have a 70% chance to hit, so my expected damage is now 11.9. In other words, with these numbers I will do 3.4 more damage ON AVERAGE, PER HIT, with a +4 bonus to hit, which is the same increase in expected damage as if I'd increased my bonus damage (but not my bonus +to-hit) by +6.8. Why does all that matter? Because in this example Power Attacking for 4 with a 2 handed weapon would raise the average damage down with a single swing by 0.6. Not a whole lot. Using this formula here (or a variation on it depending on circumstance) we can calculate how much damage is done on average each round. Total mean damage = AX*average damage + B(X-.25)*average damage + C(X-.50)*average damage + D(X-.75)*average damage Where X is (attack bonus/AC)--the chance of hitting--and has a minimum set to .05 and a maximum set to .95 (after calculations), A/B/C/D are the number of attacks made at a particular attack (A being primary attack, B being first iterative attack, etc.). Note that the formula doesn't deal with critical hits or nat 1s, the one in the link below does. Take a fighter with BAB 11, 26 raging Str, a +1 holy greatsword and haste. I'll add on Weapon Focus too. Sounds within the realm of the possible. Take a guess what his best Power Attack value is against AC 20. How about AC 25? 4 and 1 respectively. http://www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php?strength=26&dexterity=10&BAB=11&btohit=0&btodam=0&dr=0&w1dmg=7&w1rng=2&w1mult=2&w1enh=1&w1bonus=7&pw1=Greatsword&w2dmg=4.5&w2rng=2&w2mult=2&w2enh=0&w2bonus=0&pw2=&weaponwield=twohanded&pa=true&patype=3.5&haste=true&hastetype=3.5&focusw1=true&sneakattack=0d6&charge_mult=1&Ilove=Macy&button1=CALCULATE Against an AC 2 lower than his top 'to hit bonus' optimal power attack (4) adds 15.5 damage on average (100->115.5) Agaisnt a AC 3 high then his top to hit bonus his optimal power attack (1) is actually so negligible that it rounds to the same .5 (82.5->82.5) What I am getting at here is that without outside help (buffs, flanking, etc) Power Attack itself doesn't do a whole heck of a lot vs. some average ACs. A BDF *needs* those outside buffs for Power Attack to really shine. And at that point, whats giving the extra damage? Power Attack or the buffs? Both. You need both to get the +120-150 damage per round. |
| Dr.Cornelius05-11-07, 04:11 AM | I played one adaptable recently where my 9th-level Sorcerer used every spell he had (including 0-levels) plus 16 scrolls! In the end, he was reduced to running around trying to use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds with a UMD check of +8 and melee attacking things. I haven't run out of spells in LG since this guy was 3rd-level, and that was in another adaptable.Two words: Reserve Feat |
| Dr.Cornelius05-11-07, 05:48 AM | Note that we we start talking average damage across many rounds, +1 to hit equals roughly 2 extra mean damage, sometimes more, sometimes less. Power Attack with a 2 handed weapon merely fixes that ratio at 1:2. Sometimes the bonus to hit is worth more than 2 damage, sometimes less.Average damage per swing is only part of the story - here's why: In D&D creatures fight just as well at 1HP as at full. Reducing a creature's HP generally has no effect on its combat effectiveness. A simple example: Consider a 3rd level fighter with 18 Str wielding a greatsword. An average hit will do 7+6=13 damage. Full Power Attack damage is 7+6+6=19 damage. Now consider a foe with 15-20 HP. With average damage the fighter will take two hits to drop the foe, but a single power attack hit will likely drop it. If the fighter misses with his first power attack but hits with the second he is no worse off than if he simply hit twice. But if the fighter hits with his first power attack and drops the opponent he comes out a round ahead. Do the math - you will find that it is nearly always more effective to power attack against an opponent that can be dropped by a single PA. This effectively cancels out the PA attack penalty and is the true advantage of Power Attack. |
| Maesto05-11-07, 06:27 AM | I wrote my own program to calculate optimal power attack values by armour class, similar to the link that people have put here. Mine is in the form of an excel spreadsheet, and simply takes your attack routine and boxes with bonuses to hit and damage to add to all attacks. I was particularly interested in how to create a fighter that could reliably output 200 points of damage per round on a full attack (on average), given an armour class of around 25-30. The outcome was essentially that you couldn't do it unless your party put a lot into you. Unless your party was handing out GMW+3-5, haste, bardsong +2/3, the optimal power attack was really quite low for ACs in the mid twenties. Power attack really didn't become a big issue until the party buffs stacked up a fair way, except against really low armour classes. From what I've witnessed in games, any time you run into something that has AC 30+, the amount of damage done by fighters plummets. If only authors would see this for some of the high APL games instead of just giving critters 500 hp... |
| Maesto05-11-07, 06:47 AM | Hmm... let's add another broken rules item to the debate: PHB spells Fireseeds, Holly Berry Bombs version. The way I want this spell to work is that you lay down each bomb around the enemy camp and then go "explode!". The way it works in reality is that PCs buy a ball of string and string together 8 of these things, and give them to the frontline. Give the frontline resistance 30 to fire (or whatever it's been substituted into), and explode for 8 reflex saves for every creature within 5 feet against 1d8+caster level each. Ok fine, it looks pathetic and small, but take caster level 12, sub average damage, and you're looking at saves against 130 points of damage. Compare this to the acorn grenade variation, which does casterlevel*d6 damage, or average of 42 damage. Let's jack up the spell level to 8 and make it empowered, CL 15. Each bomb is now doing a minimum of 24 points of damage before a save, and there's 8 of these things (ie, at least 200 damage. At least 100 damage if 8 reflex saves are made). Compare this to, say, delayed blast fireball, doing 15d6 (~52 dmg before a save), or empowered disintegrate at CL 15, averaging 158 points of damage on a _failed_ save (and a measly 27 on a made save). Thoughts? |
| ezreal200105-11-07, 07:01 AM | It's hardly an option but consider the difference in spell access between divine casters such as Clerics and spontaneous casters impacts on campaign such LG. New LGCS comes out, buku new spells - what can a Cleric say but "PUDDING!" as he/she/it instantly gains access to whole bunch of new spells, meanwhile the Wizards are left to form little coiteries to sort whos learning what new spell when and in what order so that the joy can be shared optimaly (there was this spread sheet...) adn then there's the Sorcs left to sort how they can include these new items in their list of spells known some time before the next LGCS comes out. Broken - like DSP + Holyword + some other rules item for uping caster level maybe not - OTH are there a major edge for one group over another? |
| ezreal200105-11-07, 07:14 AM | Hmm... let's add another broken rules item to the debate: PHB spells Fireseeds, Holly Berry Bombs version. The way I want this spell to work is that you lay down each bomb around the enemy camp and then go "explode!". The way it works in reality is that PCs buy a ball of string and string together 8 of these things, and give them to the frontline. Give the frontline resistance 30 to fire (or whatever it's been substituted into), and explode for 8 reflex saves for every creature within 5 feet against 1d8+caster level each. Ok fine, it looks pathetic and small, but take caster level 12, sub average damage, and you're looking at saves against 130 points of damage. Compare this to the acorn grenade variation, which does casterlevel*d6 damage, or average of 42 damage. Let's jack up the spell level to 8 and make it empowered, CL 15. Each bomb is now doing a minimum of 24 points of damage before a save, and there's 8 of these things (ie, at least 200 damage. At least 100 damage if 8 reflex saves are made). Compare this to, say, delayed blast fireball, doing 15d6 (~52 dmg before a save), or empowered disintegrate at CL 15, averaging 158 points of damage on a _failed_ save (and a measly 27 on a made save). Thoughts? Its a Druid spell nuff said. Anecdote alert, there I was running a high level encounter that involved 2 Boneyards among other other nastiness, neither Sorcs could make their SR checks to Disintergate them, as began to fear for our hero. Suddenly one of the players dug a favour allowed his PC a daily use of the spell, with Caster Level equal to Character Level. Poof. Problem what problem. |
| bitznarf05-11-07, 12:01 PM | Average damage per swing is only part of the story - here's why: In D&D creatures fight just as well at 1HP as at full. Reducing a creature's HP generally has no effect on its combat effectiveness. A simple example: Consider a 3rd level fighter with 18 Str wielding a greatsword. An average hit will do 7+6=13 damage. Full Power Attack damage is 7+6+6=19 damage. Now consider a foe with 15-20 HP. With average damage the fighter will take two hits to drop the foe, but a single power attack hit will likely drop it. If the fighter misses with his first power attack but hits with the second he is no worse off than if he simply hit twice. But if the fighter hits with his first power attack and drops the opponent he comes out a round ahead. Do the math - you will find that it is nearly always more effective to power attack against an opponent that can be dropped by a single PA. This effectively cancels out the PA attack penalty and is the true advantage of Power Attack. This is still only part of the story. You have yet to take into account the rest of the party that the fighter will have around him. If in your example the fighter does enough to almost drop the mob, there is likely someone else around who can finish him off. If however, the fighter swings and misses and just says 'oh well, next round' then the other PCs are less likely to be able to drop that mob this round. These are things that are hard to apply any reasonable form of math to, and are more just judgement calls at the table. I don't really think that either of the 2 approaches to determining a power attack number make Power Attack broken. |
| Bold05-11-07, 05:12 PM | Post moved here from the Power Attack Vote thread: Fact is, if you're Power Attacking for more than 3, most often you're just shooting yourself in the foot anyway. Agreed. I was quite surprised when I ran the analysis of my two fighter-types with Power Attack and discovered that the optimal PA amount is nearly always less than 5, and usually around 0-3, depending on the opponent's AC. There are obvious exceptions--against oozes you should always PA for full--but as the enemies' ACs scale up at higher APLs and as you do more and more damage per hit (including iterative attacks), Power Attacking for too much and missing entirely can become a big issue. If you use Power Attack, do yourself a favor and run the numbers. Try Bill Kerney's calculator here: http://www.distanceeducationconsultants.com/ddcalc.php Based on your info (attack bonus, average weapon damage, number of attacks), it will calculate the optimal PA level versus different ACs. I've created a spreadsheet for each of my Power Attacking characters that breaks down the optimal PA level against a range of ACs in different situations: Full Attack, Single Attack, Full Attack (Raging), Single Attack (Raging), Full Attack (Raging + Haste), etc. And for each I include a couple extra columns with the adjustments for +2 and +4 to attack, to account for other factors (charge, flank, bless, etc.) In combat, I write every factor down on a sheet of scratch paper prior to my turn, so that I don't waste everyone's time adding up variables in my head on after I roll the dice (a huge pet peeve of mine). I can just say, "I five-foot to here, and power attack for X", roll the dice, and my attack and damage modifiers are already written down and ready to be added to the dice. Of course, there's the role-playing side of this, and personally I try to avoid metagaming. My character will PA conservatively at first, based solely on the appearance of the opponent. (Full plate and shield? Less PA. Chain shirt and two weapons? More PA.) I adjust the PA level in subsequent rounds as my character figures out if he should strive for more power, or more accuracy. |
| Samwise05-11-07, 06:03 PM | Hmm... let's add another broken rules item to the debate: PHB spells Fireseeds, Holly Berry Bombs version. The way I want this spell to work is that you lay down each bomb around the enemy camp and then go "explode!". The way it works in reality is that PCs buy a ball of string and string together 8 of these things, and give them to the frontline. Give the frontline resistance 30 to fire (or whatever it's been substituted into), and explode for 8 reflex saves for every creature within 5 feet against 1d8+caster level each. No, the way it works in reality is that you get a PC rogue supremely confident in his ability to not roll a 1 on any of his reflex saves who then auto-tumbles wherever he wants before the druid sets them off. Feh! |
| _metz_05-11-07, 06:11 PM | Sarian (rogue): "Yay I'm being useful!" |
| Japangirl05-11-07, 06:49 PM | No, the way it works in reality is that you get a PC rogue supremely confident in his ability to not roll a 1 on any of his reflex saves who then auto-tumbles wherever he wants before the druid sets them off. Feh! And you know what? It works too! :) I've offered to be a walking bomb before, but I never play with any clerics or druid who are willing to entrust my rogue with basically a bunch of grenades. Gee I wonder why . . . |
| Hariman05-11-07, 07:59 PM | About the Lesser Orbs... I don't think they're broken. They're great spells, yes they are. But not broken. They're limited to a single damage type. (Resistances and immunities abound) They have to hit the enemy. (I have missed a number of ranged touch attacks lately, so don't say that you never miss.) They're subject to globes of invulnerability. (Or similar effects.) They have no "rider" effects like the higher level orbs. AND they're limited to "Close" range. The fourth level orbs might be a lot better, but 4th level starts giving a number of really great spells. Spiked Chain Trippers REALLY push the limit for me. I have a character what will eventually decide between spiked chain and courtblade. I'll probably take courtblade for him just because it's less cheesy. All of the "Dual Class" feats (Daring Outlaw, Swift Hunter, etc) are great feats. But only if you level exclusively in the two chosen classes. And only if you want the specific bonuses the feat grants. Now, guaranteed, a Swashbuckler12/Rogue3 Daring Outlaw is going to hit more often and get hit a little less. (And survive longer.) BUT, he'll probably have to leave his search and disable device ability in the toilet. Plus, a swash rogue will still suffer "no crit uselessness". (Unless you shoehorn in a level of cleric.) And remember, you lose the uppermost abilities of both classes unless you level near exclusively in one class, save for the abilities the feats grant. (While they are good, they aren't CODzilla good.) |
| cycloptic_squirrel05-11-07, 11:15 PM | This is more of a list of things I think the campaign would be better off without. Only a few* do I consider broken though. And yes, I know that you can't seperate half the stuff from the the option it stems from, but this seemed like a good place to mention it. *Extra Rage Pious Templar's Weapon Specialization *Extraordinary Spell Aim Monks keeping most of the class features after becoming non-lawful The entire diplomacy system (something like opposed diplomacy vs. sense motive + HD perhaps?) Ruathar *Swift Fly *Sacred Scabbard (MIC version) Animated Sheilds Improved Buckler Defense (Half the shield bonus?) No TU cost for a lost animal companion (1 maybe) The frontloaded nature of Marshals, Beastmasters, and Sublime Chords Glitterdust (people would still take it if the blindness only lasted a round) Abjurant Champion (I know it's closed, it just bears repeating) *Metamagic Rods So ends my rant - for now. :P I'm sure more spells will make the list as I climb in levels. Special Mention: Maiming weapon ability - underpriced and thus a kind of broken, but really cool. At least I envision it as such, still praying for access. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the campaign and pleasantly suprised how short my personal list actually is. |
| copper_wyrmling05-11-07, 11:41 PM | This is more of a list of things I think the campaign would be better off without. Only a few* do I consider broken though. And yes, I know that you can't seperate half the stuff from the the option it stems from, but this seemed like a good place to mention it. *Extra Rage Pious Templar's Weapon Specialization *Extraordinary Spell Aim Monks keeping most of the class features after becoming non-lawful The entire diplomacy system (something like opposed diplomacy vs. sense motive + HD perhaps?) Ruathar *Swift Fly *Sacred Scabbard (MIC version) Animated Sheilds Improved Buckler Defense (Half the shield bonus?) No TU cost for a lost animal companion (1 maybe) The frontloaded nature of Marshals, Beastmasters, and Sublime Chords Glitterdust (people would still take it if the blindness only lasted a round) Abjurant Champion (I know it's closed, it just bears repeating) *Metamagic Rods So ends my rant - for now. :P I'm sure more spells will make the list as I climb in levels. Special Mention: Maiming weapon ability - underpriced and thus a kind of broken, but really cool. At least I envision it as such, still praying for access. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the campaign and pleasantly suprised how short my personal list actually is. If you removed metamagic rods, my list of items that a high-level sorcerer can use to enhance their primary role would become even shorter, and it's already pretty short :( Improved Buckler Defence is way less unbalancing than animated shields, because you pay a feat for it and you take a penalty on attacks. Also, if you want more than a +1-2 bonus you either pay a substantial amount of cash or require the party to donate a third-level spell to your buckler every day (which is not a trivial resource burn even at high levels, unless you've got a favored soul with Magic Vestment: pearls of power 3 are quite uncommon). Sorta agree re swift fly. It really does change APL 4 to have flight ability. On the other hand, at APL 4 it's a huge resource burner, even for a sorcerer. Once you get to higher levels, where you can use it more freely, it seems not so unbalancing to me (especially if GMs are ruling that you float to the ground just before the start of each turn, so you can't maintain altitude unless you find a place to perch). Why are you upset with sacred scabbard? Have you looked at the rest of the MIC? It seems to use a rather different pricing logic than most of the books that've come out so far: they want people to feel that the items in there are worth delaying purchase of stat-boosters, resistance items, weapon upgrades etc. A lot of the metamagic rods halved in price, the hawkfeather and owlfeather armor from RotW dropped dramatically in cost (i.e. from well over 20k to under 10k), there's an item that grants true seeing once / day iirc (or see invis or darkvision) for a few thousand gold, there are the wonderful runestaffs that my sorc would buy in a flash if she got access, etc. A lot of the stuff in the DMG, and in other books, is overpriced, in the sense that nobody ever buys it except for RP reasons, because it's simply not worth the money. Also, don't pray too hard for maiming. Horrible things happened to it in the MIC. |
| cycloptic_squirrel05-12-07, 12:46 AM | Also, don't pray too hard for maiming. Horrible things happened to it in the MIC. KHAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!! Whimper.:( If you removed metamagic rods, my list of items that a high-level sorcerer can use to enhance their primary role would become even shorter, and it's already pretty short :( I'd have no problem if they simply allowed you to utilize the feat x/day. Then again, I've only gotten to play with the lesser extend version, so, maybe it just seems too good. It's the quicken version that worries me. Improved Buckler Defence is way less unbalancing than animated shields, because you pay a feat for it and you take a penalty on attacks. Also, if you want more than a +1-2 bonus you either pay a substantial amount of cash or require the party to donate a third-level spell to your buckler every day (which is not a trivial resource burn even at high levels, unless you've got a favored soul with Magic Vestment: pearls of power 3 are quite uncommon). Here's my beef with Improved Buckler Defense: once you get to say +3 enhancement, the difference between a full shield and a buckler seems pitiful. I'd really just like to see the traditional longsword and shield fighting style become more than just a nostalgia or theme build. I'd like it to be effective. But when you can get the main benefit from an animated shield or IBD, there seems little point. I don't necessarily think these two should be removed, just balanced with another option that benefits the sword and board guy. Feat that multiplies your shield bonus by 1.5? Reduced cost for enchanting a straight up shield? Something. Sorta agree re swift fly. It just seems more like a third level spell to me. Short duration personal fly spell - great second level. As a swift? Not the most broken, just something that's stuck out to me. That said, I love my swift fly - I think it's the primary reason my BDF concept is now a gish. Why are you upset with sacred scabbard? Have you looked at the rest of the MIC? Oh, yes, I've drooled over the MIC. Many shiny, shiny things. I distrust the augment crystals as far as game balance, but I'm willing to see how well they work. As far as the scabbard - I've always seen Bless Weapon as iconic of the paladin. Now that anyone (well any good aligned - at least they got that right) can do it, I just feel that something has been taken from the paladin for relatively little benefit to D&D as a whole. There are few items competing for the 'scabbard slot' and I think people would be just as excited for an ability of a similar level - say flaming or bane. I would have loved the item if it had been restricted to people possessing a paladin level. It really goes toward the majority of my list. I'm not sure my suggestions would improve the game tactically or balance-wise, it would just predispose it more toward themes, ideas, and characters that I envision as high fantasy. :) |
| Bold05-12-07, 01:42 PM | Ruathar I'm not sure I understand why people think the Ruather PrC (RotW) is broken. Can someone explain it to me? As far as I can tell, it's good for spellcasters since it gives you full spellcasting progression. But the benefits seem awfully meager for three levels: Elves seem to like ya' Low-light vision +2 to Search, Spot, Listen +1 on attacks/saves when outside at night 1 extra hp per level I mean, that's nice and all, but for three levels in a PrC which give you nothing else, is it really all that "broken"? Granted, the prereqs are minimal (assuming you get campaign documentation allowing you to take the PrC), but the benefits aren't nearly as substantial as other full-spellcasting PrCs like Fatespinner (for wizards) or Radiant Servant (for clerics). What am I missing? |
| cycloptic_squirrel05-12-07, 02:23 PM | I'm not sure I understand why people think the Ruather PrC (RotW) is broken. Can someone explain it to me? It in and of itself is not broken, but it removes some major hurdles to other PrCs such as Seeker of the Misty Isle, Mindbender, and any PrC that requires wierd knowledges. Usually you'd either have to delay enterence or sacrifice a spellcasting level to dip out to get the prereqs. Not to mention that a free boost to both will and reflex saves are nice. I'm also very wary of any class that gives full spellcasting to an arcane that has a hit dice larger than d4. |
| katrick05-12-07, 04:34 PM | Honestly, anyone who thinks they can do anything usefull with a Glitterdust(after APL 6),other than disperse Invis, conc, etc..., has a marvellously imaginative DM,(which should be applauded) Broken Things: Ocular Spell (three disintigrates\round)access is out there Bracers of Spell Sharing (just let your mind wander) Evolved Template (Dreadwraiths with haste for +1 EL) Feign Surprise Raging Spell(gone I know) Certs (say no more) Diplomacy(no opposed check) Luck Re-Rolls Star Metal Entropomancers(yes, we have fought one) Angels of Decay Two-Headed Rhemoirhaz Delay Death Do the baddies go to -10, i don't think so, ie broken?? Or the best yet, you, against six others approximately the same level???? katrick P.S anyone who has the luck,skill, smarts or pure genius to combine all this into one critter,contact me at triad.com.etc.....?????(the god of Irony strikes again) |
| copper_wyrmling05-12-07, 04:44 PM | Ocular Spell (three disintigrates\round)access is out there Errmmmm... three disintegrates / round? How? Full metamagic rod of quicken spell and a L15 wizard who spends two L8 slots on Ocular Disintegrate? Given that for a single L8 slot you could have Split Ray Disintegrate, I might venture to suggest that the problem here is not Ocular Spell, it's the full metamagic rod of quicken spell... Entropomancers(yes, we have fought one) Correction. Entropomancers are not broken. Giving NPCs artifacts in their equipment is broken... (although I guess being able to say "I got hit with a sphere of annihilation and survived by the grace of Nerull" is worth some bragging rights) Angels of Decay Awww, I like fighting angels of decay. But if we're chattering about broken rules options available to authors, now... - Mobs - Drowned - Shadow swarms (automatic Str damage, no save, no roll to hit) - Half-fiend template on HD-advanced creatures - Non-associated class levels - Improved Grab + Constrict at low APLs |
| katrick05-12-07, 04:59 PM | He took the Sphere with him cause it doesn't affect Entropomancers (Jor Russ\Deaths...) not sure if the second is retired but the first was an interactive. I thought the Ocular Spells were a free action, and you have two eyes, hence the third normal action or you can use the doll. When you fought the Angel did you also kill Drelnza(we did at the cost of three party members, bah they were clerics, not of Joramy) Improved Grab is the one i forgot, cause PC's can't take it, it would make Grappling monks really useful. Oh yeah i think the cost of a full Quicken Rod is a little prohibitive for most LG char's katrick |
| Eric Anondson05-12-07, 05:00 PM | Errmmmm... three disintegrates / round? How? I think it is because Ocular Spell lets the feat owner precast two disintegrates, and hold them for up to 8 hours. Then as a full-round action, discharge both disintegrates stored in the eyes with a 60-foot range each, plus a Quickened disintegrate with normal range. |
| copper_wyrmling05-12-07, 05:32 PM | He took the Sphere with him cause it doesn't affect Entropomancers (Jor Russ\Deaths...) not sure if the second is retired but the first was an interactive. I thought the Ocular Spells were a free action, and you have two eyes, hence the third normal action or you can use the doll. Firing the ocular spells (from both eyes) is a full-round action. Oh yeah i think the cost of a full Quicken Rod is a little prohibitive for most LG char's katrick My cleric has access, and might just manage it before retirement. I think it is because Ocular Spell lets the feat owner precast two disintegrates, and hold them for up to 8 hours. Then as a full-round action, discharge both disintegrates stored in the eyes with a 60-foot range each, plus a Quickened disintegrate with normal range. A quickened disintegrate is a L10 spell. You'd need a full metamagic rod of quicken spell - which is what I said, and why I suggested that the problem wasn't with Ocular Spell. |
| Jay_Ibero_91105-12-07, 05:40 PM | I think it is because Ocular Spell lets the feat owner precast two disintegrates, and hold them for up to 8 hours. Then as a full-round action, discharge both disintegrates stored in the eyes with a 60-foot range each, plus a Quickened disintegrate with normal range. Or you can accomplish the same thing with the same slot and a split ray disintigrate, except without the 8 hour time limit and needing only a standard action...Then again, combine the 2, and using a greater quicken rod...4 disintigrate rays in one round...but using 3 8th level slots... |
| jstorrie05-12-07, 09:19 PM | Starmetal? Broken? You seriously think so? |
| katrick05-13-07, 12:28 PM | i just read it up, i thought it was 2d6 and the same price as Adamantine, so not very broken at all. katrick |
| Genghis Cohen05-13-07, 12:38 PM | It in and of itself is not broken, but it removes some major hurdles to other PrCs such as Seeker of the Misty Isle, Mindbender, and any PrC that requires wierd knowledges. Usually you'd either have to delay enterence or sacrifice a spellcasting level to dip out to get the prereqs. Not to mention that a free boost to both will and reflex saves are nice. I'm also very wary of any class that gives full spellcasting to an arcane that has a hit dice larger than d4.The reason why I don't think that Ruathar is broken is because it doesn't create characters who unbalance the game. I have a wizard 6/ Ruathar 3. What did Ruathar give me? 3 more hitpoints, improved reflex saves (which will not be that important at high levels) and the ability have a high spot check. Yes, it made my wizard better. Did it cause a paradigm shift in my wizard's capabilities? Not even close. The largest advantage of Ruathar is for Seeker of the Misty Isle builds and for sorcerors. Sorcerors are screwed to begin with when it comes to prestige class options, so I just see this as letting them back into the game. It doesn't create uber-Sorcerors who break every mod. I have a Seeker of the Misty isle, and I would have liked to have had Ruathar access. If I did, I would have a Cleric 5/ Ruathar 1/ Seeker 1 now. Does such a character really unbalance the game? Personally, I'd rather have a Radiant Servant of Velveeta at a table than a Seeker of the Misty Isle with full caster level progression. |
| Sieylianna05-13-07, 12:47 PM | The largest advantage of Ruathar is for Seeker of the Misty Isle builds and for sorcerors. And favored souls. And various other spellcasting prestige classes. Seriously, anytime I'm looking at needing skills for a spellcasting build, I look at Ruathar first to see if it provides the required skills. Ed |
| Genghis Cohen05-13-07, 12:53 PM | And favored souls. And various other spellcasting prestige classes. Seriously, anytime I'm looking at needing skills for a spellcasting build, I look at Ruathar first to see if it provides the required skills. EdDo you ever wind up with a build that unbalances the game because of Ruathar? |
| trollbill05-13-07, 04:24 PM | Man, are you guys making me feel like a total waste of a character (though oddly enough I don't feel that way when I play it). Here I was, a Sorcerer with access to Ruathar and all I did with my three levels of it was get 10 ranks in Diplomacy, 5 ranks in Sense Motive, 3 extra hit points and some cool elf abilities. Heck, I can't even use the free weapon proficiency and weapon I got out of it cause I picked Bow for both and haven't had 2 hands to use them with since 6th-level. Why didn't anyone tell me before this I was supposed to make my character broken by using this class? (Albeit there was absolutely no reason for my character not to take 3 levels in Ruathar. The only thing I lose is effective levels on my familiar. Everything else is gravy.) |
| Mommy was an Orc05-13-07, 05:12 PM | Do you ever wind up with a build that unbalances the game because of Ruathar? Yes. Ruathar makes a lot of 8 Intelligence/18 primary stat caster builds with lots of PrCs possible. Cleric/Seeker of Misty Isle/Contemplatives or Sorcerer/Sacred Exorcists. Without sacrificing Concentration and giving maxxed Spot as an option. |
| King Kashue05-13-07, 05:59 PM | Honestly, anyone who thinks they can do anything usefull with a Glitterdust(after APL 6),other than disperse Invis, conc, etc..., has a marvellously imaginative DM,(which should be applauded) There's still plenty of stuff with shite will saves at APL 10+... Blind enemies are always "useful" :D |
| Genghis Cohen05-13-07, 06:10 PM | Yes. Ruathar makes a lot of 8 Intelligence/18 primary stat caster builds with lots of PrCs possible. Cleric/Seeker of Misty Isle/Contemplatives or Sorcerer/Sacred Exorcists. Without sacrificing Concentration and giving maxxed Spot as an option.I don't see making certain builds easier as unbalancing the game. I've never heard a DM say, "if you only had a Ruathar/ Seeker of the Misty Isle at the table..." On the other hand, I've heard several DMs say, "what you really needed for this mod was a RSoP because a regular cleric just can't heal enough" |
| Lupo05-13-07, 08:04 PM | I don't see making certain builds easier as unbalancing the game. I've never heard a DM say, "if you only had a Ruathar/ Seeker of the Misty Isle at the table..." On the other hand, I've heard several DMs say, "what you really needed for this mod was a RSoP because a regular cleric just can't heal enough" it isn't the healing, it is the "blast undeads to dust" that makes "radiant servants of you-name-the-cheese" so outstanding, combine this with "extra turning" to fuel a chosen travel domain . . . ciao martin m. |
| copper_wyrmling05-13-07, 09:12 PM | it isn't the healing, it is the "blast undeads to dust" that makes "radiant servants of you-name-the-cheese" so outstanding, combine this with "extra turning" to fuel a chosen travel domain . . . ciao martin m. It's the combination of the healing boosts, the extra greater turnings, the bonus domain, full spellcasting and turning advancement, good save progressions, fair BAB, full martial weapon proficiency and the various other little boosts (increase effective level of light spells, bonus to Will saves for all nearby party members, etc), combined with a lack of nasty prerequisites, that make the class ridiculous. You can ignore about half its class features and it's still a really good PrC. |
| clannagh05-13-07, 09:15 PM | it isn't the healing, it is the "blast undeads to dust" that makes "radiant servants of you-name-the-cheese" so outstanding, combine this with "extra turning" to fuel a chosen travel domain . . . ciao martin m. especially since most non-pelorite radiant servants do not get the healing just the other stuff |
| Mommy was an Orc05-14-07, 12:20 AM | I don't see making certain builds easier as unbalancing the game. I've never heard a DM say, "if you only had a Ruathar/ Seeker of the Misty Isle at the table..." On the other hand, I've heard several DMs say, "what you really needed for this mod was a RSoP because a regular cleric just can't heal enough" That's generally because people don't see someone pulling a Ruathar/Seeker build together - you need access to the PrCs and if you don't get both of them, it crashes and burns. If you do it right, you're a battlefield control/mobility sorcerer with a starting value of 18 in your primary stat, who is a full-fledged cleric and you happen to have such a high Spot score that you break ambushes. You miss out on access and you're a subpar elven cleric with too much invested in Wisdom/Charisma to do anything else. Sure, you'll be okay - pure caster build clerics with an 18 in their primary stat can't go too far off the mark - but you won't be the kind of build that makes DMs shudder. RSoP is open. That makes a huge difference. Even if they're not really that much better at healing than regular Clerics. Lesser Vigor, Insignia of Healing, and Heal are the best healing spells and RSoP doesn't affect them. A lot of people playing RSoPs know they're supposed to take Augment Healing even if they don't know why. |
| Timlagor05-14-07, 06:07 AM | How do you get that out of Seeker? You get some nice special abilities but they don't turn a Cleric into a Sorceror and you do give up a Spell Level. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-14-07, 08:35 AM | How do you get that out of Seeker? You get some nice special abilities but they don't turn a Cleric into a Sorceror and you do give up a Spell Level. They don't lose a spell level if you get into it via Ruathar. That's only at level 5 and 10 and you're not going to level 7 for the Magic Domain. Just to level 4 at max. Domain Spontaneity taken 2-3 times turns a Cleric into a Sorcerer if they have 3-4 domains. But only 2 domains at 10th isn't flexible enough for the domain sponts, Oracle isn't strong enough. Mind you, you can go Seeker and RSoX at the same time when doing this - Atroa, Nola, and Phyton all have an interesting range of domains, but Charisma suffers a little for the extra Int needed. |
| katrick05-14-07, 01:22 PM | There's still plenty of stuff with shite will saves at APL 10+... Blind enemies are always "useful" :D Sure if you Quicken one and then twin another, but then you could Dominate them, Suggest they run away or just spank them with 12d6 Scorching ray. I'm not saying it's a bad spell, just that most things you want to blind will have good Will saves; like Beholders, Evil Sorc's, etc A blind fighter can still Power Attack max and tear you a new proverbial 4 or more times per round, mathematically that means he misses once. An Evil wiz\sorc can still thump out a Cone of cold when blind and doesn't care if he hits his minions, Druids can still direct their companion, undead don't care, almost anything from the Elemental plane of Earth ignores it, a whole bunch of critters don't even have eyes. It's much more effective against a party, than for a party. Katrick |
| Japangirl05-14-07, 01:33 PM | Sure if you Quicken one and then twin another, but then you could Dominate them, Suggest they run away or just spank them with 12d6 Scorching ray. I'm not saying it's a bad spell, just that most things you want to blind will have good Will saves; like Beholders, Evil Sorc's, etc A blind fighter can still Power Attack max and tear you a new proverbial 4 or more times per round, mathematically that means he misses once. An Evil wiz\sorc can still thump out a Cone of cold when blind and doesn't care if he hits his minions, Druids can still direct their companion, undead don't care, almost anything from the Elemental plane of Earth ignores it, a whole bunch of critters don't even have eyes. It's much more effective against a party, than for a party. Katrick In my experience, sorcerors have decent but not good will saves. Glitterdust at APL 4 is amazing, but at APL 16 OMG it still works (rogues, fighters, and barbarians all have poor will saves. Wizards, sorcerors, rangers, and bards only have decent will saves). No one likes a DC 20 or 21 Will save or be blinded (assuming 26 or 28 casting stat depending on whether it's a grey elf or not). Oh yeah, did I mention no SR? You can use it on dragons, outsiders, and other nasties with really high SR without worrying about rolling an 18 on that SR check. |
| King Kashue05-14-07, 01:40 PM | A blind fighter can still Power Attack max and tear you a new proverbial 4 or more times per round, mathematically that means he misses once. Um, with four swings and a 50% miss chance, mathematically, he misses twice...:P And he's flat footed. And has a -2 penalty to his AC on top of that. And is at half move (which also means he can't 5 foot step). And no one says you need to stand next to the blind guy swinging the big axe (in fact, at my table, my sorc would be telling you, quite insistantly, to move away). Step away, and he misses all four times, since unless he's got scent/blindsense/tremorsense, he has no idea where you are and you can focus on the other enemy (the one with the good will save) while the BDF is blind for 12 rounds...:D |
| katrick05-14-07, 05:10 PM | In my experience, sorcerors have decent but not good will saves. Glitterdust at APL 4 is amazing, but at APL 16 OMG it still works (rogues, fighters, and barbarians all have poor will saves. Wizards, sorcerors, rangers, and bards only have decent will saves). No one likes a DC 20 or 21 Will save or be blinded (assuming 26 or 28 casting stat depending on whether it's a grey elf or not). Oh yeah, did I mention no SR? You can use it on dragons, outsiders, and other nasties with really high SR without worrying about rolling an 18 on that SR check. Sure you blind the Vrock, it continues to dance and kills half a city and throws spores and screeches you cop the lot... Apl 16 fights last three-four rounds or people start to die real quick why waste a chance\round on a second level spell when you can Power word blind. Or Forcecage it.Most 19th level sorc's, which is what you'll be fighting(APL +3) have +11 just from their class, +Vest\Cloak +Force of Will, So you'll have to wait for death or a 1 whichever comes first. And i don't ever remember fighting a rogue at APL 16, Balors, with minions I remember that one, Greater Air Elementals, I remember, Shadow Dragon I remember,but no Rogues, hence the good against a party which has eyes and multiple opponents. SR is irrelevant, it's the lack of a decent save DC cause it's a second, PWB does the same and has 5 more to the DC, and that doesn't even count the fact that remove Blindness is only a third. On a side note it wont go through a Globe unless you Heighten it(again a serious waste of a much more useful slot), Spell immunity, ring of Counterspell, etc?? We played an APL 16 table with a Wizard who loved Glitterdust, had it in every slot,Sculpted,Heightened, Transdimensional, Mega DC's etc he was completely useless,(and we fought a Bard with minions), though a luvverly chap and fun to be around. There are infinitely more useful spells to reduce the functions of a bad guy than trying to blind them with GD, especially at higher APL's katrick P.S. the fighter moves more than 5' so he can draw an Aoo and then attack that square.Listen is a Class-skill for Barb's. Thanx to the new rulings, blindness,darkness and all the other forms of you can't see me are little more than simple numbers, ie when you get hit not if.(now that's what i call broken) |
| CSHunt6805-14-07, 06:34 PM | He can then attack - ONCE. I've seen Glitterdust break more combats, at ALL APLs, than any other single spell. More, by far. |
| King Kashue05-14-07, 06:40 PM | On a side note it wont go through a Globe unless you Heighten it(again a serious waste of a much more useful slot), Spell immunity, ring of Counterspell, etc?? Spell Immunity doesn't apply, because SR doesn't apply (I've glitterdusted quite a few golems). And who's putting Glitterdust in their Ring of Counterspelling? (Your claim is that it's a mediocre spell, turning around and saying that someone's going to specifically counterspell it is illogical)... |
| King Kashue05-14-07, 06:44 PM | He can then attack - ONCE. And still at 50% mis chance, and for that he trades the AoOs against him (flatfooted and an additional -2 to dex)... |
| Japangirl05-14-07, 06:49 PM | *Most* APL 16 fights are over in 3-4 rounds max. But I've also been in fights that lasted 10-15 rounds and no one (except the bad guys) died. Blind the Vrock so it's easier for the archer with a +1 Holy Sacred Bane (Evil Outsider) bow to hit and slaughter in three arrows? Yes please. Power Word: Blind has SR, and many things at APL 16 have SR 27, 29, 30, 31, or 32. Or it could be a construct and have infinite SR. Caster level 15 means having to roll somewhere between a 12 (not so bad) and a 17 (good luck) to get the spell through. Then, of course, it only affects one target not a 10 foot spread and the target must have less than 201 HP to be affected. Many many monsters have a lot more than that, so it's a waste of a 7th level spell at that point instead of a 2nd level, potentially useful, spell. PW:B is still a very good spell, and it has obvious uses that Glitterdust isn't very good for (no-SR, low-HD, high Will save things like NPC humanoid clerics or druids, for example), but that does not make Glitterdust a bad spell either. Obviously you don't want to only memorize Glitterdusts, any more than you only want to memorize any other spell. It is an excellent spell though, especially Heightened. The ability to force a non-SR DC 25-27 Will save or be blind for 15 rounds is very very powerful. Just because things rolled well on saves does not make it a bad spell. High APLs don't feature many rogues unless they are also Assassins, but I have seen fighters and barbarians a lot. Shadow dragons at that APL have SR but not tons, so either spell requires about the same range of rolls (roll low for the dragon to fail or roll high to punch through SR). You cannot Spell Immunity Glitterdust, because Spell Immunity only works on spells with SR. You can Ring of Counterspells it, but I have never seen one counterspelled. They always seem to pick Disintegrate, Dispel Magic, or Greater Dispel Magic. Glitterdust at all APLs has been and continues to be one of the awesomest spells around in my experience. |
| GenghisBob05-15-07, 06:10 AM | I find the Broken Record of people telling me 'whats broken in the game' is more annoying then the things they whine about. I find it delectable to put them in a postion where they reach out and embrace the broken cheese to save their PCs from a death ;) Honestly, if people want to spend feats, classess and skills on Broken stuff, then they pay for it. Just dont whine to me about it. you dont have to use it. You dont have to accept delay death when your broken and bloody body is splattered on the ground. |
| Madfox1105-15-07, 08:44 AM | People complain about things being broken because they realize it can be used against them, and because it makes some PCs much stronger than others. In short, it lessens there fun. Many of the people that do really complain about broken items by the way do not ever use that particular combo. |
| Swiftbrook05-15-07, 08:53 AM | Blind the Vrock so it's easier for the archer with a +1 Holy Sacred Bane (Evil Outsider) bow to hit and slaughter in three arrows? Yes please. Yes, but that same bow is only +1 vs. Golems and wont be going past it's DR. Sure, you're fantastic against one type of critter. It's a big ocean. -Swiftbrook |
| trollbill05-15-07, 10:01 AM | Glitterdust was my Sorcerer's first 2nd-level spell and has definitely broken some encounters (though never entire mods) but it isn't nearly as effective now that I am 9th-level. Too many things just have decent Will saves and my DC is only 16 with it. Part of it has just been bad luck, but my success rate with Glitterdust in Red Hand of Doom is only around 20%. My success rate with Evard's, on the other hand, is much, much better. That's the spell that is now breaking encounters. |
| Cardinal Teplin05-15-07, 10:26 AM | A good judge of whether or not something is too good is whether or not you could imagine someone not choosing to take that option and taking something else instead. I think that power attack is too good for two-handed attackers on that basis. Try building a two-handed attacker that doesn't have it. Sucks, doesn't it? It's an entirely reasonable feat for sword and board or two weapon fighters. Now whether you think that spellcasting as a whole is too good at high level is quite another matter. Balance between fighter and spellcasters is the product of a great many different considerations. But since no _one_ 7th level spell is so good that everyone takes it, it's hard to argue that any particular spell is broken. I'd recommend bringing power attack down to match the strength bonuses. Keep light and one-handed weapons the same, and bring down two-handed weapons to 1.5 extra damage per to hit bonus lost, in line with strength bonuses. I'm less inclined to see powerattack limited in how much BAB you can trade like combat expertise and so on are. It would be a useful move to make fighters more valuable compared to other forms of warrior class, but I'd rather see longer feat chains to achieve the same effect. |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 10:30 AM | That's the spell that is now breaking encounters. Just because someone fails a Will save or Grapple check doesn't mean you've broken the encounter. Those spells did their thing, and the bad guys couldn't resist it. Using Fly to bypass an entire mod (Y3 Core Witch Hunt), that would be breaking the mod. -Matt |
| CSHunt6805-15-07, 10:31 AM | "And still at 50% mis chance, and for that he trades the AoOs against him (flatfooted and an additional -2 to dex)..." Precisely the point. I'm sorry, but seriously, anyone who thinks Glitterdust is underpowered probably just has a small sample size. ;) |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 10:32 AM | I think that power attack is too good for two-handed attackers on that basis. Try building a two-handed attacker that doesn't have it. Just because every member of a class uses a particular element does not make that element broken; it just makes it a standard. According to your definition, Mage Armor is broken because every spellcaster takes it. -Matt |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 10:40 AM | In short, it lessens there fun. If seeing another person casting Glitterdust really, truly, genuinely lessens someone's fun, then that's a personal choice. Complaining about it until it's removed (like with Alter Self, Polymorph) lessens the rest of our fun. -Matt |
| CSHunt6805-15-07, 10:42 AM | I fail to see how THAT'S not a personal choice, as well. ;) |
| bitznarf05-15-07, 10:56 AM | Just because every member of a class uses a particular element does not make that element broken; it just makes it a standard. According to your definition, Mage Armor is broken because every spellcaster takes it. -Matt [pet peeve]Not every spellcaster. I've heard of one who regularly goes around with 12 AC. But maybe that slightly off balance spellcaster is out of the norm. In any case I dislike broad statements that include *everyone* of a particular type. If it is fact such as 'all humans are mammals', fine thats fact. 'Every spellcaster takes Mage Armor' is not fact.[/pet peeve] I actually agree with the gist of your post there, just not the way you said it. |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 11:00 AM | I fail to see how THAT'S not a personal choice, as well. ;) Because it's a change in the status quo. "They" have messed with "my" game by getting things banned. Suddenly I'm forced to not use, say, Glitterdust instead of having the choice to. -Matt |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 11:02 AM | I actually agree with the gist of your post there, just not the way you said it. Yes, I was making a generalization. So did the poster I was replying to, as he stated the fact that building a 2-handed fighter without Power Attack will suck. Yes, there are corner cases, like 2-handed fighters without Power Attack and arcane casters who don't take Mage Armor. But that's beside the point. -Matt |
| JamesMaissen05-15-07, 11:03 AM | I think that power attack is too good for two-handed attackers on that basis. Try building a two-handed attacker that doesn't have it. Sucks, doesn't it? It's an entirely reasonable feat for sword and board or two weapon fighters. I'd recommend bringing power attack down to match the strength bonuses. Keep light and one-handed weapons the same, and bring down two-handed weapons to 1.5 extra damage per to hit bonus lost, in line with strength bonuses. A few things here: 1. Power attack is, indeed, a staple. Much like other major feat chains. Building an archer without the archery feats, or a mounted combat guy without those feats. A two-handed fighter sacrifices defense for raw damage. Power attack should be their staple feat, much like Combat Expertise is for a light armored cork. 2. If you think it should go to STR based then you need to UP power attack with light weapons from 0 to .5 for each point into power attack. You also need to change natural attacks in this regard. This will lower their damage on secondary natural weapons, but UP the damage gained with single primary natural weapons. That also would be a big change. Towards number 2, I would suggest that you put research into the mathematical break points that this tweak would achieve for the two-handed fighter. See how much difference this actually makes from where it is now. Also currently power attack helps in making AC worthwhile as a scale. By that I mean that every point of AC your character has can help them. As they level the range of possible ACs they could have grows, determined by their investment in it. Power Attack and fighting lots of lower level opponents are the two factors in keeping noncompetitive ACs from all being alike. It's a complex dynamic and something that should only be altered based on hard numbers rather than just perception. -James |
| katrick05-15-07, 11:12 AM | "And still at 50% mis chance, and for that he trades the AoOs against him (flatfooted and an additional -2 to dex)..." Precisely the point. I'm sorry, but seriously, anyone who thinks Glitterdust is underpowered probably just has a small sample size. ;) Blind fight?? True Strike etc, -2 off of +29 aint much to worry about. And then you Rage, Power, etc, anyone doing this already has crap AC\no Dex But i do see your point about the sample size, its not that the size is small it's that the info is skewed. In Perrenland we mostly fight undead and Aberrations etc, not usually Humanoids (at higher levels), when i read your post it made me think, most people i have seen or heard rave about glitterdust are from other regions. So perhaps it is more useful than i thought, but personally I prefer to hit big bad guys with big bad spells, like Twin orbs, Admixtured orbs etc I took Spell penetration early and haven't missed since 8th level;before that i always missed by one(funny how dice tell you stuff) katrick |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 11:18 AM | Also currently power attack helps in making AC worthwhile as a scale. By that I mean that every point of AC your character has can help them. As they level the range of possible ACs they could have grows, determined by their investment in it. Power Attack and fighting lots of lower level opponents are the two factors in keeping noncompetitive ACs from all being alike. James, you are a gentleman and a scholar! Excellent point, which after pondering it, I completely agree! Say I've got AC 19. Say my opponent has +40 to hit. Without Power Attack in the picture, it doesn't matter if I have AC 19 or AC 42; my opponent still hits me on a roll of 2. But WITH Power Attack in the picture, that AC 42 suddenly makes a difference, as the higher of an AC I have, the less my +40 to hit opponent can Power Attack for, which means the less damage I'll take when I get hit. Power Attack is what turns AC into damage reduction. For example, moving from AC 19 to AC 20 virtually translates into the opponent Power Attacking for one less to hit you, which then equals 2 points less damage per swing, assuming I'm facing an opponent using a 2-handed weapon. Have you ever gone up against a creature with Power Attack but only a Slam attack, which he gets 1-for-1 for? Doesn't that creature just seem weak, because the most he can possibly crank out is an extra 10 points or so per attack? Cure Light Wounds eclipses Power Attack in that case. False Life doubly so. Two-handed Power Attack is what punishes low ACs. It's actually pretty necessary if you think about it. -Matt |
| trollbill05-15-07, 11:28 AM | [pet peeve]Not every spellcaster. I've heard of one who regularly goes around with 12 AC. But maybe that slightly off balance spellcaster is out of the norm. In any case I dislike broad statements that include *everyone* of a particular type. If it is fact such as 'all humans are mammals', fine thats fact. 'Every spellcaster takes Mage Armor' is not fact.[/pet peeve] I actually agree with the gist of your post there, just not the way you said it. On the other hand, I don't know a single sorcerer, cleric, wizard, druid or bard that doesn't know Detect Magic. That spell must really be broken. |
| Japangirl05-15-07, 12:17 PM | Blind fight?? True Strike etc, -2 off of +29 aint much to worry about. And then you Rage, Power, etc, anyone doing this already has crap AC\no Dex But i do see your point about the sample size, its not that the size is small it's that the info is skewed. In Perrenland we mostly fight undead and Aberrations etc, not usually Humanoids (at higher levels), when i read your post it made me think, most people i have seen or heard rave about glitterdust are from other regions. So perhaps it is more useful than i thought, but personally I prefer to hit big bad guys with big bad spells, like Twin orbs, Admixtured orbs etc I took Spell penetration early and haven't missed since 8th level;before that i always missed by one(funny how dice tell you stuff) katrick Yes, when something has Blindfight glitterdust doesn't work. -2 off +29 to hit AND 50% miss chance is worth it IMO. Undead and (most) aberrations are vulnerable to becoming blinded by glitterdust; it's counterintuitive, but there you have it. We mostly fight undead and demons around here, so lack of humanoid enemies is common as well. Hitting bad guys with big bad spells is certainly a great way to play a caster, but it is not the only way. Please stop trying to say that because it doesn't work in all situations, a spell is therefore useless, or that any way of playing a caster other than a blaster is somehow inferior. There are many playstyles and many preferences, but that doesn't make one less effective than another in the grand scheme of things. |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 01:36 PM | So perhaps it is more useful than i thought, but personally I prefer to hit big bad guys with big bad spells, like Twin orbs, Admixtured orbs etc Please stop trying to say that because it doesn't work in all situations, a spell is therefore useless, or that any way of playing a caster other than a blaster is somehow inferior. There are many playstyles and many preferences, but that doesn't make one less effective than another in the grand scheme of things. Indeed. Katrick, you're comparing a second level spell to 4th level spells with metamagic feats applied, and then saying "see, the 2nd level isn't overpowered"... Of course it's not overpowered compared to a 5th or 6th level slot! Compare it to other 2nd level spells. Hell, compare it to a spell that's 2nd/3rd depending (as I already did). Blindness: 2nd (Sorc/Wiz) 3rd (Cleric) Level Spell. SR applies. Single Target. Glitterdust: 2nd Level spell, No SR, Area effect. Look at what else is there for 2nd level: Fog cloud? Web? Tasha's? Scorching Ray? Blur? Mirror Image? Nothing there is anywhere close to as potentially combat changing. It's a 3rd level spell disguised as a 2nd. Does that make it "broken"? Eh. It's more powerful than other 2nd levels, but it doesn't need to be removed or anything. But it's certainly not useless at higher levels, and it's certainly not at the same power level of most other 2nd level spells... |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 01:42 PM | Look at what else is there for 2nd level: Fog cloud? Web? Tasha's? Scorching Ray? Blur? Mirror Image? Nothing there is anywhere close to as potentially combat changing. It's a 3rd level spell disguised as a 2nd. Blindness/Deafness is a Fortitude save, thus making it useful for a different set of situations, i.e. a spellcaster. Have you ever actually used Web effectively? It can often shut down encounters better than Evard's Black Tentacles, a 4th-level spell. Have you ever incapacitated something completely with Tasha's, including making it go prone? Not even Feeblemind, a 5th-level spell, can do that. Have you ever used Scorching Ray for tons of damage? It scales up to 12d6 damage; that's more than Fireball, a 3rd-level spell. Have you ever immunized someone against sneak attacks with Blur? Typically one would need Heavy Fortification, a +5 armor/shield modifier, to do that. Have you ever had the miss chance from Mirror Image save your life? It grants more of a miss chance than Displacement, a 3rd-level spell. With the exception of maybe Fog Cloud (haven't gotten creative with that one), all those spells are as combat-changing (or sometimes moreso) than merely causing blindness in a 10' radius burst on a failed Will save. Glitterdust is situational, just like all the other spells mentioned. -Matt |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 02:06 PM | Have you ever actually used Web effectively? Have you ever incapacitated something completely with Tasha's, including making it go prone? Have you ever used Scorching Ray for tons of damage? Have you ever immunized someone against sneak attacks with Blur? Have you ever had the miss chance from Mirror Image save your life? With the exception of maybe Fog Cloud (haven't gotten creative with that one), all those spells are as combat-changing (or sometimes moreso) than merely causing blindness in a 10' radius burst on a failed Will save. -Matt No, they're really not. This isn't about "being effective", because nearly any spell can be effective. This is about prompting the conclusion "yeah, we'll call this combat". First of all, the only thing Tasha's does is make people go prone. That's the only possible effect. And "tons of damage" for scorching ray? It's an average of 14 points of damage at 3rd level, 28 at 7th, and 42 at 11th. "Tons" doesn't enter into it. If you want to do a comparison, don't just use your "optimal hypothetical situation", do a real comparison. Don't just cherry pick a nice example and call it a day. The ability to change combat given specific circumstances is not the same as the ability to change nearly any combat. Glitterdust: +Area Affect +Their Offensive capabilities by at least 50% +Their Defensive capabilites +Their Movement by 50% and prevents 5 foot steps. +Makes them flatfooted and sneakable. +Cannot cast any spells that require line of sight. +No SR In short, it reduces all their tactics...And does so without any negative side effects to your abilities. Web: +Area effect +Reduces Movement by 50% and prevents 5 foot steps +Reduces their offense by 10-20% +Reduces their defense by 10% +Requires concentration rolls on somatic spells. +No SR. -Gives them cover (which negates their defensive penalty, and is actually a net bonus to them), can grant total cover -Requires specific terrain (anchor points) -Prevents your party from effectively meleeing Tasha's: +4 to hit while prone +Lose their action. (Can be great against a single opponent). -Only affects one target -Doesn't make them helpless or sneakable. -Doesn't affect animal intelligence -Grants +4 bonus to any creature different than caster -SR applies Scorching Ray: -SR Applies -Requires to hit rolls -Does an average of 28 points at 7th level (assuming both hit) to one opponent, for one round. Blur: +20% reduction in opponent's offense only against one person +Makes someone unsneakable +Buff (which always works) -Only protects one person -Sneak attacking opponents not common. Mirror image +Variable reduction in defense +Buff -Can only protect caster -Ablative, and can quickly lose effectiveness against capable opponents. If you think Tasha's or Mirror image are more "combat-changing" than glitterdust, then you and I have vastly different concepts of combat tactics and advantage. |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 02:20 PM | Oh, you added clever anecdotal evidence while I was posting... Have you ever actually used Web effectively? It can often shut down encounters better than Evard's Black Tentacles, a 4th-level spell. Often? What's the precise numerical equivalent of "often"? It needs anchors and provides your opponents cover. Have you ever incapacitated something completely with Tasha's, including making it go prone? Not even Feeblemind, a 5th-level spell, can do that. Why even make such a useless comparison? The two spells do completely different thing. Why not compare it to disintigrate or Summon monster VII? Neither of those make someone go prone either. It makes people go prone. They lose their actions. Great against a single opponent However, tons of things are immune, and most will be at +4 to their save (Including feebleminded foes, they're immune to tasha's.) Have you ever used Scorching Ray for tons of damage? It scales up to 12d6 damage; that's more than Fireball, a 3rd-level spell. Yeah, it does an average of 42 points at 11th level. And it only does it to one opponent, and only if you hit. Have you ever immunized someone against sneak attacks with Blur? Typically one would need Heavy Fortification, a +5 armor/shield modifier, to do that. Another useless comparison. There are literally dozens of other comparisons that are far less dramatic than your "ZOMG +5 ability!!!11". Deeper Darkness for instance, a 3nd level spell that lasts days. And honestly, how often do you need to negate sneak attacks. Now compare that to how often it's an advantage for an opponent to be blind. Have you ever had the miss chance from Mirror Image save your life? It grants more of a miss chance than Displacement, a 3rd-level spell. Your math is a wee bit wonky, especially since displacement doesn't lose it's effectiveness every time the bad guy misses...And with displacement, if they hit you, they don't lose their miss chance on their next swings. And displacement can't be countered by a 1st level spell (magic missile pops most/all the images). Yes, they're all nice spells. But your anecdotal comparisons and optimal situations are irrelevant to the discussion (anecdotal evidence is considered a logical fallacy for a reason)...We're not talking about "what spell or ability is most effective in a given situation?", we're talking about "what spell or ability is broadly effective to a degree that equivalent abilities aren't?" Single examples cannot refute broad trends... |
| CSHunt6805-15-07, 02:37 PM | Because it's a change in the status quo. "They" have messed with "my" game by getting things banned. Suddenly I'm forced to not use, say, Glitterdust instead of having the choice to. -Matt It's exactly a reflection of your argument. One can apparently CHOOSE to be bothered by someone's activities or not. I can CHOOSE not to be bothered by someone cheesing out their character and spoiling everyone's fun, just as I can CHOOSE not to be bothered by Circle decisions affecting my PC's fun. Potayto, potawto. |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 03:06 PM | We're not talking about "what spell or ability is most effective in a given situation?", we're talking about "what spell or ability is broadly effective to a degree that equivalent abilities aren't?" And Glitterdust is not universally effective, either! You don't encounter things with low will saves that don't have alternative senses that happen to be in a tight cluster all the time! I'm willing to chalk this one up to "we play differently," and leave it at that. What does stand, in fact, is that there's no need to complain about how broken it is because of your personal choices regarding the correct situations for Glitterdust. As for your shots at my examples of how the right spell fits the right situation, there's no need to go over them. -Matt |
| CSHunt6805-15-07, 03:10 PM | I thought this was a discussion about what rules were "broken" or not? If you choose to interpret it as "complaining" and "likely to get the circle to ban it", that's your choice. ;) I think Glitterdust is so overtly effective in so many situations, it's broken. Give it SR, and it becomes reasonable - still probably almost universally taken, but not broken. |
| katrick05-15-07, 03:12 PM | Kashue, i wasn't saying GD was broken or not i was saying it wasn't my choice for a high level attack spell, and asked why others thought it was, which has changed my mind about the spell but it's still not my choice for high level attack.(defense, diversion,illumination, sure)sculpt and widen it and you can have fun) I don't like having to rely on a scale which doesn't scale well IMO, saves on big critters can get well above a d20 + abilities roll, whereas SR and ranged touch attacks are much more acheivable within that scale, grapple for chars doesn't scale well either, i'm sure there are others. The comparison was using the time of the action taken to achieve results, not the spells in question, for the same amount of time you could cast an 8th level spell or a 2nd I know which one i choose to use for the time available.You could do damage and kill the critter or try to disable it and have the fight go longer, again i know what i would choose.(these choices have nothing to do with any particular spell or spell level, its an efficiency coefficient) On another note, Scorching ray can hit up to three opponents,four if you split it and with Admix can hit 24d6 ie same as Disintigrate and same level with no save. katrick |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 03:50 PM | And Glitterdust is not universally effective, either! You don't encounter things with low will saves that don't have alternative senses that happen to be in a tight cluster all the time! Or you could, you know, address what I actually wrote, instead of strawmanning up a response target (especially since you quoted the section you're failing to address)... I never said it was universally effective, so you "proving" it isn't means nothing. We're not talking about "what spell or ability is most effective in a given situation?", we're talking about "what spell or ability is broadly effective to a degree that equivalent abilities aren't?" Single examples cannot refute broad trends... Broadly effective to a degree that equivalent abilities aren't. As I said, you've come up with great single examples...However, single examples are useless when addressing broad trends. I'm willing to chalk this one up to "we play differently," and leave it at that. What does stand, in fact, is that there's no need to complain about how broken it is because of your personal choices regarding the correct situations for Glitterdust. I'm not saying it's broken (and I haven't at any point), I'm saying that it's more powerful in comparison to equivalent abilities. And it has nothing to do with "my personal choices", it's about the spell abilities themselves. As for your shots at my examples of how the right spell fits the right situation, there's no need to go over them. And evidently no need to address the abilities of the spells themselves, right? Because that would actually be addressing the issue at hand...wouldn't want to do that, now would you? Using anecdotal evidence to disprove general claims is a logical fallacy. That's what you're trying to do. Me pointing that out is not about "personal playing style", in fact it has nothing to do with play at all, but about how you're constructing your claims... |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 03:55 PM | Kashue, i wasn't saying GD was broken or not i was saying it wasn't my choice for a high level attack spell, and asked why others thought it was, which has changed my mind about the spell but it's still not my choice for high level attack. But no one is saying it's an optimal choice, so why take issue with something no one has said? :D People have said it's still quite effective at higher levels, something few 2nd level spells can say. On another note, Scorching ray can hit up to three opponents,four if you split it and with Admix can hit 24d6 ie same as Disintigrate and same level with no save. katrick And it's a 6th level spell at that point. Doing the same damage as another 6th level spell seems reasonable. Though it's important to note, disintegrate only does 24d6 at 12th caster level. It continues to go up, whereas scorching ray does not. And while there's no save against scorching ray, energy resistance and immunity does apply. Nothing I know of has "Immunity: Disintegration" ;) |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 04:10 PM | And evidently no need to address the abilities of the spells themselves, right? No, there isn't. I posted what I did to pull out of arguing the effectiveness of Tasha's Hideous Laughter in a thread called "Most Broken Rules Options Debate," that's why. Call it a victory if you want. -Matt |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 04:21 PM | No, there isn't. I posted what I did to pull out of arguing the effectiveness of Tasha's Hideous Laughter in a thread called "Most Broken Rules Options Debate," that's why. And you were the one who said Tasha's is roughly equivalent to Glitterdust, and thus Glitterdust isn't overpowered for a 2nd level spell... You were "pulling out" of a argument you chose to make... Call it a victory if you want. "Victory" would be you actually supporting your claims and addressing your own argument...Not having you make a claim and then say "I'm not getting into this"... The claim of "I don't want to get into a debate" rings a bit hollow in a thread titled "Most Broken Rules Options Debate"... |
| Mattastrophic05-15-07, 04:28 PM | The claim of "I don't want to get into a debate" rings a bit hollow in a thread titled "Most Broken Rules Options Debate"... Hey, I already said "you win," geez, man. -Matt |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 04:38 PM | Hey, I already said "you win," geez, man. -Matt I could give a crap about "winning" (you're the one defining it like that, not me, mate)... I just wanted you to actually back up your claims with something substantive...Evidently that's not going to happen. :rolleyes: |
| JamesMaissen05-15-07, 04:40 PM | Web: +Area effect +Reduces Movement by 50% and prevents 5 foot steps +Reduces their offense by 10-20% +Reduces their defense by 10% +Requires concentration rolls on somatic spells. +No SR. -Gives them cover (which negates their defensive penalty, and is actually a net bonus to them), can grant total cover -Requires specific terrain (anchor points) -Prevents your party from effectively meleeing If you think Tasha's or Mirror image are more "combat-changing" than glitterdust, then you and I have vastly different concepts of combat tactics and advantage. Umm a web requires a strength check to move in.. evard's and entangle merely reduce movement by 50%. The total cover can be an asset as well. The same targetting defense that blindness gives total cover gives as well. Likewise things with blindsense or blindsight arent proof against it. The main thing for web is that it locks things down even if they make the save. This is it's great strength. Things can make the glitterdust will save, a web will lock them down without them getting one regardless of their level. Tasha's is nice in that it stops one opponent's entire actions. Blinded opponents can attempt to disengage or do nontargeted actions. Is Glitterdust strong? Hell yes! All things being equal and weighing in conditions of use it may be the strongest offensive 2nd level spell in the PhB. Other things can rival it in scope, especially when their conditions arise or when glitterdust is less than helpful. There are other spells that likewise feel heavy for the level at which they occur. And at the same time some spells are light for their level. It's not a science as 3.5's tweaking of spells plainly shows. -James |
| King Kashue05-15-07, 05:04 PM | Is Glitterdust strong? Hell yes! All things being equal and weighing in conditions of use it may be the strongest offensive 2nd level spell in the PhB. Which was my only point. Strongest in a specific situation is irrelevant. Oh, we're underwater? Well, water breathing is clearly the most powerful spell ever!!! :D It's about broad effectiveness, ceteris paribus. Not just what works best in a narrowly defined hypothetical. A tangential way of viewing it's effectiveness is that people generally have to figure out situations in which it doesn't work, rather than situations in which it's great. That's a good test for any ability. |
| DarkGoldfish05-15-07, 05:29 PM | On the topic of broken...what about hexblades? they apear to be the reverse of broken, to the point where it seems something has to be done for them! I love the concept of them, and the original creator went on a rant about how they ended up underpowered...I personaly think it would rock if the RPGA alowed a few varient rules to give them a fighting chance. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-15-07, 06:27 PM | On the topic of broken...what about hexblades? they apear to be the reverse of broken, to the point where it seems something has to be done for them! I love the concept of them, and the original creator went on a rant about how they ended up underpowered...I personaly think it would rock if the RPGA alowed a few varient rules to give them a fighting chance. They're weak, but they're not especially hard to make iconic, either. A Half-Elf Barbarian 1/Hexblade 8/Fighter 1/Outcast Champion 5 is pretty solid. |
| Hariman05-15-07, 07:18 PM | They're weak, but they're not especially hard to make iconic, either. A Half-Elf Barbarian 1/Hexblade 8/Fighter 1/Outcast Champion 5 is pretty solid. Or a single level dip for marshal. Or a couple levels of Knight. Admittedly, if you get access, the Dark Companion alternate class ability is much better than a familiar. (Unless you go for Improved Familiar.) As for Power Attack being broken, if you really have that opinion and want to "solve" it by limiting regular power attack to -5 and adding improved power attack: Don't cap Improved Power Attack at 10. Improved Combat Expertise is only limited by your base attack bonus, so Improved Power Attack should be the same. Capping Improved Power Attack at -10 is an artificial limit on damage that will affect the game and it goes against the precedent set by Improved Combat Expertise. Hariman PS: Hexblades require that you choose ONE thing to do. Like Archery or chain tripping. And if you don't stick with Hexblade, your curse becomes irrelevant. |
| Genghis Cohen05-15-07, 07:53 PM | That's generally because people don't see someone pulling a Ruathar/Seeker build together - you need access to the PrCs and if you don't get both of them, it crashes and burns. If you do it right, you're a battlefield control/mobility sorcerer with a starting value of 18 in your primary stat, who is a full-fledged cleric and you happen to have such a high Spot score that you break ambushes. You miss out on access and you're a subpar elven cleric with too much invested in Wisdom/Charisma to do anything else. Sure, you'll be okay - pure caster build clerics with an 18 in their primary stat can't go too far off the mark - but you won't be the kind of build that makes DMs shudder. RSoP is open. That makes a huge difference. Even if they're not really that much better at healing than regular Clerics. Lesser Vigor, Insignia of Healing, and Heal are the best healing spells and RSoP doesn't affect them. A lot of people playing RSoPs know they're supposed to take Augment Healing even if they don't know why.If people don't see many of these builds because of access reasons. then its not unbalancing the campaign. As far as wicked high spot checks with the ability for battlefield control, that's a druid. A solid druid build will always be more powerful than a cleric/ruathar/seeker. |
| Genghis Cohen05-15-07, 07:54 PM | They don't lose a spell level if you get into it via Ruathar. That's only at level 5 and 10 and you're not going to level 7 for the Magic Domain. Just to level 4 at max. Domain Spontaneity taken 2-3 times turns a Cleric into a Sorcerer if they have 3-4 domains. But only 2 domains at 10th isn't flexible enough for the domain sponts, Oracle isn't strong enough. Mind you, you can go Seeker and RSoX at the same time when doing this - Atroa, Nola, and Phyton all have an interesting range of domains, but Charisma suffers a little for the extra Int needed.Seeker of the Misty Isle is a full caster progression prestige class. The table in CD is overruled by the text for the prestige class. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-15-07, 08:32 PM | Seeker of the Misty Isle is a full caster progression prestige class. The table in CD is overruled by the text for the prestige class. Expect Table Variation. |
| Genghis Cohen05-15-07, 08:46 PM | Expect Table Variation.I don't know of a single RPGA judge who would rule that tables overrule text for a book that already has released eratta. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-15-07, 08:47 PM | If people don't see many of these builds because of access reasons. then its not unbalancing the campaign. The problem is planning it out, not achieving it. I'd feel pretty comfortable making my killer cleric build as I suspect I could easily make the access work. As far as wicked high spot checks with the ability for battlefield control, that's a druid. A solid druid build will always be more powerful than a cleric/ruathar/seeker. Not likely. Druids are powerful, but the Seeker build I refer to acts like a Sorcerer with Cleric spell progression and a lot of the top-tier Wizard spells. DDooring 2 tweaked Barbarian builds right next to the monster as an example, then the next round DDooring them out right after they attack. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-15-07, 09:05 PM | I don't know of a single RPGA judge who would rule that tables overrule text for a book that already has released eratta. read rainbow servant (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgchardiscussion/message/15214) Rainbow Servant and Seeker of the Misty Isle have identical text to table problems and there's bokelightbringer saying table variation is common...if you haven't found table variation, you're not asking your judges what their ruling is... |
| bitznarf05-15-07, 09:13 PM | On the same note (which has *nothing* to do with the topic of the thread) foreign language versions of the book have corrected the text vs table error in Rainbow Servant to match that of the table. And in LG we use the most recent printing. I don't know about Seeker however. |
| Genghis Cohen05-15-07, 09:16 PM | Not likely. Druids are powerful, but the Seeker build I refer to acts like a Sorcerer with Cleric spell progression and a lot of the top-tier Wizard spells. DDooring 2 tweaked Barbarian builds right next to the monster as an example, then the next round DDooring them out right after they attack.If that's the high-point of the build, (and my seeker is one level away from d-door and domain spontaneity (travel,)) the druid wins. You can't count on two barbarians at a table. In LG there is always table variation, which is just one more reason why druids are so strong. Druids are versatile. Druids have animal companions which only fall behind on apl just as they are able to summon air elementals with high DCs for whirlwind. Druids can control the battlefield in a wide range of ways. Seekers don't have any true battlefield control spells in that they can't alter the terrain, unless they have the Plant domain which I'll retrain into for my seeker. When playing at APL, my non-min/maxed druid will control the battlefield better than a min/maxed cleric/ruathar/seeker any day of the week. At 10th level he's also better at Spot (+29 with Raptor's Sight and Eyes of the Eagle) and Listen (+24 with Listening Lorecall) than any seeker build possible that doesn't neuter its most optimal strengths to try to match this. |
| Genghis Cohen05-15-07, 09:20 PM | read rainbow servant (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgchardiscussion/message/15214) Rainbow Servant and Seeker of the Misty Isle have identical text to table problems and there's bokelightbringer saying table variation is common...if you haven't found table variation, you're not asking your judges what their ruling is...I just read it and he was not posting from experience about the progression issue. Also, the judges opinion on this issue is irrelevant. Text overrules charts. Judges are not allowed to house rule RPGA events. |
| bitznarf05-15-07, 09:26 PM | Once again, we are no longer 'judges', we are GMs. And in the most recent printing of Rainbow Servant the text now matches the table, giving the class 7/10 progression I do believe. I imagine that a similar thing has been done to the Seeker but I am not positive. |
| JamesMaissen05-15-07, 09:46 PM | Not likely. Druids are powerful, but the Seeker build I refer to acts like a Sorcerer with Cleric spell progression and a lot of the top-tier Wizard spells. DDooring 2 tweaked Barbarian builds right next to the monster as an example, then the next round DDooring them out right after they attack. So how does this compare to a cleric/church inquisitor? Doesn't seem all that much stronger on the surface of things. And DDoor drops are all nice and all, but you can do that with a pure cleric, so I'm not sure how it gets so augmented by things here. -James |
| Mommy was an Orc05-16-07, 10:14 AM | So how does this compare to a cleric/church inquisitor? Doesn't seem all that much stronger on the surface of things. And DDoor drops are all nice and all, but you can do that with a pure cleric, so I'm not sure how it gets so augmented by things here. -James In general, the deities in Deities document don't have quite the right domains for a 'Mystic Theurge' - Boccob as an example has Trickery, Magic, and Force as pretty good domains. Add Travel onto that and you've got yourself someone capable of acting as the party arcane. You don't need that many domain spontaneities or even extra turning - a 14 Charisma/Cloak and Pearls will take care of that once you have 2 domain sponts - you're only going to need to spontaneously cast so many times a day. Wall of Force, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Force Cage, DDoor, Teleport, Confusion, Invisibility, Identify, Magic Missle, Anti-Magic Field(as a 6th, not 8th level spell and gained at 11th), etc...wouldn't you be happy to see a Sorcerer sit down at your table with those spells and a range of carefully picked cleric spells? And with a 50% chance of casting a level of spells that Sorcerers can't quite cast yet - he casts Wall of Force spontaneously when the Sorcerer can't cast it yet. But you need 2 predominantly arcane domains, a strong 3rd and a decent 4th domain to fill your slots out. And there needs to be not a lot of overlap. Adding Travel no matter who your deity really helps out. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-16-07, 10:57 AM | I just read it and he was not posting from experience about the progression issue. Also, the judges opinion on this issue is irrelevant. Text overrules charts. Judges are not allowed to house rule RPGA events. Bokelightbringer is speaking from experience. You don't actually have to play a particular character to see what happens at tables or hear people ask questions. Ask CustServ - they'll tell you that's an exception to the text vs charts rules. And we're allowed to use them to clarify rules...it is both Spirit and RAW, and if you notice, Spirit of the Rules comes before RAW. And what you're doing is clearly against the Spirit of the Rules(exact same edit error is made 3 times in a row and the text in the spell section is boilerplate - someone forgot to edit the spell section) It also got fixed in the foreign language versions, so latest printed principle also applies here. |
| Timlagor05-17-07, 02:43 AM | I just read it and he was not posting from experience about the progression issue. Also, the judges opinion on this issue is irrelevant. Text overrules charts. Judges are not allowed to house rule RPGA events. I'm pretty sure this made it to Errata eventually. |
| Genghis Cohen05-17-07, 09:20 PM | Bokelightbringer is speaking from experience. You don't actually have to play a particular character to see what happens at tables or hear people ask questions. Ask CustServ - they'll tell you that's an exception to the text vs charts rules. And we're allowed to use them to clarify rules...it is both Spirit and RAW, and if you notice, Spirit of the Rules comes before RAW. And what you're doing is clearly against the Spirit of the Rules(exact same edit error is made 3 times in a row and the text in the spell section is boilerplate - someone forgot to edit the spell section) It also got fixed in the foreign language versions, so latest printed principle also applies here.Assertations that what I'm doing is against the Spirit of the Rules is false and a rather petty ad hominem attack. This is not a case of a light weapon doing d43 damage. You'll need to actually prove that a book, whith existing eratta, should not be RAW. I did ask customer service yesterday. They do not back you up on this being an exception. In all fairness, they didn't back up my view either. Here's what I wrote: Hello, In Complete Divine, Seeker of the Misty Isle is a full caster progression class in the text, but not in the chart. D&D rules are normally that text overrules charts. Which is correct? My response was this: Russell, Thanks for the heads up on this errata issue! We’ll be working diligently with the good folks that make the game to develop a temporary solution that fixes this problem. Hopefully it will be available for viewing using our online knowledge base within the next few days. Until then it is up to your Dungeon Master to determine how he/she wants this to work in their campaign. Keep checking back to our online knowledge base for further updates. Also, I'd like to see proof of a foreign language edition rewriting the Seeker of the Misty Isle exists. If it does, I'd like asurances from WotC that this wasn't the work of a lazy translator deciding that transliterating a chart was easier than producing a legitimate translation. |
| Genghis Cohen05-17-07, 09:21 PM | I'm pretty sure this made it to Errata eventually.There is errata for Complete Divine and no change to Seeker of the Misty Isle is in it. |
| Mommy was an Orc05-17-07, 10:41 PM | Assertations that what I'm doing is against the Spirit of the Rules is false and a rather petty ad hominem attack. This is not a case of a light weapon doing d43 damage. Sure it is. You've got 3 prestige classes all in a row that have charts that conflict with their spell text(Rainbow Servant, Sacred Fist, and Seeker of the Misty Isle). They're all listed as being moderate spellcasting in Table 2-1 on page 20 of Complete Divine as opposed to being full progression. And it isn't as if you're referring to text that has been edited - it is boilerplate with the only edit being the name of the PrC. Take it as a personal attack if you like, but that doesn't change my opinion that the designers clearly did not intend for those PrCs to be full progression and obviously so. That's what the spirit of the rules entail - do I think the designers clearly intended for you not to get full progression? Yes, I do. I did ask customer service yesterday. They do not back you up on this being an exception. In all fairness, they didn't back up my view either. They are doing a major errata upgrade according to Enworld, so hopefully they'll finally be getting around to fixing things. They've known about this for 2 years now, so you're not the first person informing them of this... |
| Timlagor05-18-07, 05:21 AM | Also, I'd like to see proof of a foreign language edition rewriting the Seeker of the Misty Isle exists. If it does, I'd like asurances from WotC that this wasn't the work of a lazy translator deciding that transliterating a chart was easier than producing a legitimate translation. You're welcome to get hold of a copy of a foreign version any time you're abroad; don't know how you expect anyone else to prove it to you. It couldn't be a lazy translator because it lazyness would have made them simply copy the text from the other PrC as happened originally. (there are still PrCs that do have that text you know) |
| katrick05-18-07, 01:39 PM | You're welcome to get hold of a copy of a foreign version any time you're abroad; don't know how you expect anyone else to prove it to you. It couldn't be a lazy translator because it lazyness would have made them simply copy the text from the other PrC as happened originally. (there are still PrCs that do have that text you know) How hard is it to cut and paste a table?? One would assume that the only difference in translation would be the words themselves; ie the table would be exactly the same(+1 in German is +1 in english and strangely enough in arabic, as they invented the number system everyone uses), the words would be slightly different eg syntax, sentence construction etc. Leading to the thought that therefore table overrides text.Not my opinion, i never spent that much effort on it. And i chose maths at uni so i didn't have to do essays. katrick |
| Samwise05-18-07, 02:25 PM | You're welcome to get hold of a copy of a foreign version any time you're abroad; don't know how you expect anyone else to prove it to you. If you expect to use a rule at a table, you should provide that rule, without a need for translation. I can understand a DM saying it is in the errata even if they don't have the errata, but this is clearly not in the errata. The requirement is to have the currect recognized version. That doesn't include a theoretical foreign language translation that someone may have heard about. I do not believe the RPGA rules require people to buy every foreign language translation of a book just to check if anything was changed. That prestige class currently exists and is sanctioned from only one source. That source has text contradicting the table. The official errata says that unless specifically stated otherwise, the text trumps the table. The table is not given precendence in the errata. The text wins. |
| Drezden05-18-07, 02:45 PM | I'm not sure the text even conflicts with the table. Is everyone referring to the text in CD that says you add your levels in the Prestige Class (Seeker, Rainbow & Sacred Fist) to your baseclass level to determine spellcasting? That, does seem to be the only "text" that could be used. One can reasonably argue that the text is just inapplicable on the levels (as spelled out on the table) where you do not get +1 spellcasting. Considering some of the other arguments I have heard in DnD rules debates, this argument is not too farfetched. In any event, and I have been saying this more than normal, I agree with Andy (MwAO). It is pretty clear that CD did not intend to give those pretige classes full spell progression. The table explictly states that and the description of them as moderate spellcasting (instead of strong) earlier in the chapter backs that up. Relying on the general text in the prestige class description seems much shakier and against the intent of the PC class. I would be wary of it. You really could get table variation. Russ, I might let you do it, but I would certainly ban Andy from trying it. :) LOL - just kidding. Honestly, I don't know if I would knock down someone's spell progression or not - but I could defintely seeing some DMs doing it. Daren That prestige class currently exists and is sanctioned from only one source. That source has text contradicting the table. The official errata says that unless specifically stated otherwise, the text trumps the table. The table is not given precendence in the errata. The text wins. |
| Timlagor05-18-07, 06:10 PM | 1) it's pretty hard to cut and paste a table from a book onto an internet board 2) it's the text that's relevant 3) it wouldn't constitute proof by any measure I ever heard of anyway I believe the original CD text says something like "you gain spells every level as if you had gained a level of the spellcasting class" |
| Genghis Cohen05-24-07, 01:15 PM | Sure it is. You've got 3 prestige classes all in a row that have charts that conflict with their spell text(Rainbow Servant, Sacred Fist, and Seeker of the Misty Isle). They're all listed as being moderate spellcasting in Table 2-1 on page 20 of Complete Divine as opposed to being full progression.That's proof of sloppy editing, and nothing more, until errata is issued to state otherwise. And it isn't as if you're referring to text that has been edited - it is boilerplate with the only edit being the name of the PrC. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Take it as a personal attack if you like, but that doesn't change my opinion that the designers clearly did not intend for those PrCs to be full progression and obviously so.Andy, I probably misread the full context of that sentence, so we'll just say that I was wrong about an ad hominem attack. You're opinion may eventually prove to be correct with future errata, but until that happens, there is an exteremely clear and absolute rule in D&D: text overrules tables. That's what the spirit of the rules entail - do I think the designers clearly intended for you not to get full progression? Yes, I do.You are entitled to believe that this is the designers' intention, but there is no currently available proof to support that view. In a home campaign, you would be perfectly entitled to exercise that view. In a living campaign, overruling absolute rules based on an interpretation of the intent of the authors is a very slippery slope. If a rule is unbalanced, as written, a DM should request that the Circle place it on the Closed List. Otherwise, as I see it, that DM is acting as judge, jury and executioner. They are doing a major errata upgrade according to Enworld, so hopefully they'll finally be getting around to fixing things. They've known about this for 2 years now, so you're not the first person informing them of this...Lets hope that they get to this quick. I'll have no problem if the errata states that SotMI is not a full cater progression class. |
| Genghis Cohen05-24-07, 01:23 PM | I'm not sure the text even conflicts with the table. Is everyone referring to the text in CD that says you add your levels in the Prestige Class (Seeker, Rainbow & Sacred Fist) to your baseclass level to determine spellcasting? That, does seem to be the only "text" that could be used. One can reasonably argue that the text is just inapplicable on the levels (as spelled out on the table) where you do not get +1 spellcasting. Considering some of the other arguments I have heard in DnD rules debates, this argument is not too farfetched. In any event, and I have been saying this more than normal, I agree with Andy (MwAO). It is pretty clear that CD did not intend to give those pretige classes full spell progression. The table explictly states that and the description of them as moderate spellcasting (instead of strong) earlier in the chapter backs that up. Relying on the general text in the prestige class description seems much shakier and against the intent of the PC class. I would be wary of it. You really could get table variation. Russ, I might let you do it, but I would certainly ban Andy from trying it. :) LOL - just kidding. Honestly, I don't know if I would knock down someone's spell progression or not - but I could defintely seeing some DMs doing it. DarenDaren, You should know better than I that there's a difference between evidence and proof. If you're looking for proof to support the view that SotMI is no a full caster progression class, it is not available. Evidence for either view obviously exists. The larger issue is that there is an absolute rule that states that text overrules tables. In a living campaign, there needs to be an extremely compelling reason to violate this rule. Ruling that the fifth and tenth levels of this class should not advance caster progression is not, in my view, any where close to being sufficiently compelling. When you factor in that this is a living campaign, and that exercising such judgement can cause harm to the campaign, its really not worth it. We're not talking about d43 damage or Blood Spiked Charger. We're talking about something that could reasonably exist based on the existing prestige classes in CD, as well as other WotC books. Russ... |
| solbergb05-24-07, 02:50 PM | . You are entitled to believe that this is the designers' intention, but there is no currently available proof to support that view. Actualy I find the fact that the more recent printings have text match the table, not table matching text to be pretty compelling. We are not automatons, even in a living campaign. If you, as a player, take a chance in your build on an ambiguous rule, you are taking the chance of losing those abilities at some tables. (and yes, it IS ambiguous, it's been argued about since the book was published. Text trumps table vs intent as expressed by later publications of the book. It's a toss-up because most of us don't have those versions if we're not in Europe. Expect in Europe, at least, to NOT have those caster levels). We all know that WOTC hates writing eratta and that they hardly ever do it and even when they do, they still miss self-contradictory stuff within books from time to time. You can't eliminate table variation by slavish adherence to text, because these books aren't written as computer code - they're written sloppy, assuming a DM will apply some common sense when they screw up the editing. In all situations where the text supports multiple interpretations OR when the text seems to violate intent (as derived from independent sources, which vary) we WILL get table variation in LG. It really doesn't hurt the game that much, unless you base your whole character concept on a rule that a significant number of GM's rule differently from how you think it should be ruled. Just as you should not choose a character concept that doesn't make sense as a Living Greyhawk adventurer, it is wise to not make central to a build anything that experiences significant table variation, unless you are every bit as happy with the character when the less favorable interpretation is the ruling. |
| rexfelis05-31-07, 12:07 AM | So there are options that are less powerful. So what? Compare to a spellcaster then tell me that Power Attack is more broken than 7th+ level spells. Feats should be compared to other feats before you consider their power vs high level spells that are supposed to be powerful. Many combat feats only add a couple to a few extra points of damage and these feats have significant pre-reqs or are very situational when this damage applies. Power Attack is superior to all of these feats in several ways. There is an attack bonus penalty but the damage is not situational. You can deal power attack damage to almost every creature in the game. Power Attack does not have a steep pre-requisite. Power Attack can do far more damage than other combat damage feats. As far as high level D&D spells being powerful: My view is that monsters are supposed to get extremely dangerous once their CRs exceed 13 or so, and often a few CRs before that they can be very dangerous. If you fight these monsters on an equal-footing slug-fest, even with power attack, the high CR encounters/monsters would destroy the heroes most of the time. Powerful Magic Spells (more than feats, skills, or items) are what make extremely dangerous encounters survivable. I beleive that is an intentional design decision. Monsters can often have the same items, skills and feats that our heroes can, but they don't often have the same magical spell potential. The spells often let our heroes be heroic rather than monster fodder. I think the D&D spell system, along with the d20 mechanics & character classes, are the most important defining characteristics of D&D. If you were to significantly weaken the magic spells it would not be D&D any more. Some people don't like the magic escalation at high levels, but I think that is more of a lack of confidence in authors/DMs to continually challenge them with a fun game where the outcome is not too dependant on the outcome of a single die, such as an initiative roll. It is very hard to write good encounters for high level play and different players like varying amounts of challenge, so it is easy to find players that often feel over-challenged and then wish to blame the D&D spell system. |