Greenbound. Wtf.

[Angry Bob]

I just played a session with one in the party. The last and really only fight, which, when we walked over it, turned out was supposed to have been CR 12 vs. a party of four lvl 3-5 PCs and an NPC healstick. This one feat pretty much obviated anything anyone else in the party could ever do.

Round 1: Full-round action to summon a greenbound wolf. Wolf uses Wall of Thorns SLA, hits eight of the enemies and blocks off the other four. Druid uses free action to lol.

The entire encounter saw exactly one character actually take damage.

Part of it's the DM's fault for not actually knowing what the character was capable before the player brought it to the table, but seriously, is this supposed to be balanced? If so, please explain how. Because I'm almost spitting blood with nerd rage here.

tl;dr: GREENBOUND. WTF.

[Vizzerdrix]

What did you guys fight?

[Angry Bob]

Some critter unique to the module. I don't actually know what they were called, but they weren't that strong anyway. Still, even if they were CR 1 apiece, 12 of them mobbing us should have hurt us at least. The DM expected us to have to run.

[olentu]

I recall from somewhere that the feat was originally a +something metamagic but in the design process it presumably was changed into the current form.

[Vizzerdrix]

Yeah. that's one of those feats that the player should inform the DM in detail ahead of time exactly what it can be used to do, and what they intend to do with it. On a druid no less. I'd talk with the player and DM quick to prevent an arms race that'll only get the party killed in the cross fire.

[Teron]

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.

If I'm reading your post correctly, the wolf appeared on the same round the druid started casting? The enemies should first have had a turn to act and possibly disrupt the spell.

[molten_dragon]

A couple things here.

1. Greenbound summoning is an extremely powerful feat. It needs to be used very carefully, or not at all.

2. 12 CR 1 enemies is not CR 12, the CR system doesn't work that way. It's probably around a CR 6 or 7, if that.

[LordBlades]

Greenbound summoning, according to it's author was meant to be a +2 metamagic feat for SNA spells, but that part never made it into the printed edition of the game. In the games I play, we use it as such.

However, the feat is not as broken as it seems, it just scales a bit weirdly:

It's very powerful at low levels (DR 10/magic, and a 5th level spell, very bad 5th level spell though) but at lvl 9 it becomes a drag since it makes all your summoned animals into plants, which means they are no longer valid targets for Animal Growth (and normal creature+Animal Growth>>Greenbound creature). Somewhere between lvl 1 and 9 there is a spot where that feat is decently balanced.

[Coidzor]

Some critter unique to the module. I don't actually know what they were called, but they weren't that strong anyway. Still, even if they were CR 1 apiece, 12 of them mobbing us should have hurt us at least. The DM expected us to have to run.

That's an Encounter Level 7, 12 CR 1s. So it should've been difficult, but... that's one of the weaknesses of sending waves of weaker foes, they can get taken out by AoE effects rather handily as was just demonstrated.

If he wants to continue using such things, might consider directing him to the mob template rewrite (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129179)here.

[Psyren]

If I'm reading your post correctly, the wolf appeared on the same round the druid started casting? The enemies should first have had a turn to act and possibly disrupt the spell.

That's how it read to me too. I'd look into that.


the CR system doesn't work

FTFY :smallwink:

[Torvon]

Problem about D&D in general: people only read the 2 feat sentences. Do you know where Greenbound is from? It is supposed to be secret, super ancient forgotten lore.

Why would a character have that?

And why would a character allow such a feat?

If my level 5 druid wouldnt be allowed to take ANY feats, he would still be on par with most of the other classes ... druids are way powerful already, without super-OP feats.

[Myth]

The feat is setting specific, coming from Lost Empires of Faerun. It is also Elvish in origin. There are some serious RP barriers set in place. Also there is a better feat at higher levels - Rashemi Elemental Summoning, from the FR as well. And they are mutually exclusive.

[Akal Saris]

The feat is broken at levels 1-8, and kind of sucks from 9-20, with no real middle ground. It's poorly designed and requires a lot of book work from the PC.

Honestly, even though I'm an optimizer and I play/design summoner druids frequently, it's not a feat I would take or allow at my table without reworking it heavily.

[Prime32]

Problem about D&D in general: people only read the 2 feat sentences. Do you know where Greenbound is from? It is supposed to be secret, super ancient forgotten lore.

Why would a character have that?Because people exactly the same as everyone else don't become PCs?

And yeah, this feat is pretty infamously powerful.

EDIT:

Full-round action to summon a greenbound wolf.Not how it works. Summoning spells don't have a casting time of 1 full-round action, but 1 round. That means that the druid has to keep chanting/dancing/whatever until the start of his next turn. The wolf doesn't show up until then, and he could lose the spell if he takes damage while casting.

[Incanur]

It doesn't really suck at higher levels, it's just not as great. Not having screw around with animal growth hold significant advantages. You can summon more greenbound critters with that fifth-level slot instead. 1d4+1 plus greenbound dire wolves will still get the job done. That's 35 Str if you have Augment Summoning!

[Zaq]

Not how it works. Summoning spells don't have a casting time of 1 full-round action, but 1 round. That means that the druid has to keep chanting/dancing/whatever until the start of his next turn. The wolf doesn't show up until then, and he could lose the spell if he takes damage while casting.

While true, this doesn't make having Wall of Thorns, which is one of the best walls in the game, at level 1 (or 1d4+1 Walls of Thorns for a 3rd level slot for your entire career) any less broken.

[Eldariel]

Long ago, someone decided to make a potent feat for ancient Druidic order that would, for the cost of two spell levels, enhance the simple creatures of nature with druidic powers capable of weaving vines and calling thorns like each were a Druid itself. Wizards of the Coast saw this power, and it was good. But amidst the chaos in their office, someone decided that as the jack-of-all-trades, Druid can't help but be underpowered.

So they took this opportunity to fix the power differential and removed the two point adjustment, effectively allowing Druids to spend a feat for the ability to summon more Druids with their summoning spells that also happen to be thrice as strong combatants as the original creature; as Druids are wont to be. And thus, Greenbound Summoning was born. Do not wield this power lightly lest you invoke the wrath of a thousand Beholder Mages.


Long story short, somebody ****ed up bad and the +2 metamagic cost was omitted leaving us with what amounts to similar power as the Dragonsblood Pool Kobold Sorcerers, with zero trickery and just one simple feat. Though don't forget that the Druid needs means to communicate with the creatures; it is unclear whether this requires Speaks with Plants, knowledge of Sylvan or just whatever means you could use to communicate with the original creature.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and even with the +2 level, getting Wall of Thorns from level 3 slots and having a creature leftover (casting Entangles, among others, or grappling things with its Friggin' Massive™ bonuses) is just sick.

[ShriekingDrake]

This thread made me look up Greenbound Summoning again. It really is quite powerful, even if you add the levels as suggested above.

One thing I noticed when reading the description of the template stuck out to me that I'd never considered before. Greenbound creatures get damage reduction 10/magic and slashing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that they have damage reduction 10/magic AND 10/slashing? Or does it mean that in order not to block the ten points, the attack must be both magical and be slashing?

[Elfstone]

Its the third option you didn't say.
Magic OR slashing.

[ShriekingDrake]

Its the third option you didn't say.
Magic OR slashing.

Actually, that's the same as my first option, at least as I tried to distinguish it (though I can see where I may not have been as clear as I might have been). Be that as it may, why do you come to this conclusion?

[FishAreWet]

Why would you possible read 'and' as 'or'? A weapon but deal both Magical and Slashing damage to bypass the damage reduction. This rule is in the freakin Monster Manuel.

[Flickerdart]

Indeed, it is quite clearly "10/magic and slashing" both in the template itself and in the sample monster.

[Siosilvar]

One thing I noticed when reading the description of the template stuck out to me that I'd never considered before. Greenbound creatures get damage reduction 10/magic and slashing. What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that they have damage reduction 10/magic AND 10/slashing? Or does it mean that in order not to block the ten points, the attack must be both magical and be slashing?

Both of those options are identical, seeing as you (usually) only apply the highest DR unless otherwise stated.

The second one is more literally correct, though.

[ShriekingDrake]

Despite the unnecessary and obnoxious comments and tone from one of you, I appreciate the edification. As is often the case in the rules, that there are multiple ways to interpret the language. I'll check the monster manual as someone suggested.

But note the SRD says "A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction. A weapon must be both types to overcome this damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction." At the moment, despite the vitriol my question has spurned, I'm still looking to confirm whether to interpret "10/magic and slashing" as disjunctive (as some have suggested) or conjunctive, as the plain reading of the language seems to suggest.

[molten_dragon]

It's very powerful at low levels (DR 10/magic, and a 5th level spell, very bad 5th level spell though) but at lvl 9 it becomes a drag since it makes all your summoned animals into plants, which means they are no longer valid targets for Animal Growth (and normal creature+Animal Growth>>Greenbound creature). Somewhere between lvl 1 and 9 there is a spot where that feat is decently balanced.

Actually, that's not really true. Greenbound can easily compete with animal growth. Greenbound creatures can't do quite as much damage as animal growthed ones, but they're quite a bit tougher. And they can cast entangle at will.

[Reynard]

Despite the unnecessary and obnoxious comments and tone from one of you, I appreciate the edification. As is often the case in the rules, that there are multiple ways to interpret the language. I'll check the monster manual as someone suggested.

But note the SRD says "A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction. A weapon must be both types to overcome this damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction." At the moment, despite the vitriol my question has spurned, I'm still looking to confirm whether to interpret "10/magic and slashing" as disjunctive (as some have suggested) or conjunctive, as the plain reading of the language seems to suggest.

The bolded part clears it up, doesn't it?

[ShriekingDrake]

Agreed. That's how I read it.

[Siosilvar]

Despite the unnecessary and obnoxious comments and tone from one of you, I appreciate the edification. As is often the case in the rules, that there are multiple ways to interpret the language. I'll check the monster manual as someone suggested.

But note the SRD says "A few other creatures require combinations of different types of attacks to overcome their damage reduction. A weapon must be both types to overcome this damage reduction. A weapon that is only one type is still subject to damage reduction." At the moment, despite the vitriol my question has spurned, I'm still looking to confirm whether to interpret "10/magic and slashing" as disjunctive (as some have suggested) or conjunctive, as the plain reading of the language seems to suggest.

10/X and Y means the weapon needs to be both X and Y to overcome the DR.

10/X or Y means the weapon needs to be one or the other.

[ShriekingDrake]

10/X and Y means the weapon needs to be both X and Y to overcome the DR.

10/X or Y means the weapon needs to be one or the other.

Agreed. Thanks.