Spells: What to Ban? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-12, 09:29 PM

Greetings all: We're going to be starting a new 3.5-ish campaign with all WOTC published material and my being open to proposals from the players from other sources. Our goal is to have fun, but we're also trying to give the players a chance to optimize. I know that there is a LOT that is unbalanced about 3.X, but I want to focus this particular thread on spells. I have been playing and for a long time, but don't consider myself an expert, especially on these boards.

I'd like to talk about the pre-epic spells I'm thinking of banning. I am hoping to get your thoughts about the spells I'm thinking about as well as your thoughts about the spells I may have overlooked. My own thinking around spells that should be banned is that some spells are either too unbalanced or too poorly written and also not necessary for the game. The spells I'm thinking of tend, in my mind, to be be better removed from the game than fixed.

I know that there are vehement differences of opinion about this kind of thing; I'm hoping this won't devolve into a flame war. It's OK if you disagree with me; I'd like to hear about why you do and I'd appreciate your suggestions and viewpoint. In the end, I'm trying to get a list of spells that will work for my group, but what worked or didn't work for your group will help a lot. When this thread has made its dent, I'll start a second thread about spells that ought to be altered/fixed/revamped.

OK, here we go.

Alter Self
Astral Projection
Celerity (and Lesser and Greater)
Consumptive Field (and Greater)
Contingency
Draconic Polymorph
Embrace the Dark Chaos
Energy Transformation Field
Gate
Genesis
Guidance of the Avatar
Ice Assassin
Masochism
Planar Binding line of spells
Polymorph
Polymorph Any Object
Sadism
Shapechange
Shun the Dark Chaos
Simulacrum
Time Stop
Triadspell

I know there are many spells that absent a fix should be on this list. But these spells seem unnecessary for the game or too difficult to fix. In the end, I'll discuss this list with my players in an effort to achieve consensus. For now, I'd really appreciate your advice.

Updates

+Alter Self
+Draconic Polymorph
+Guidance of the Avatar
+Masochism
+Polymorph
+Sadism
+Simulacrum
+Shun the Dark Chaos
-Enhance Wildshape
+Energy Transformation Field
+Embrace the Dark Chaos

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-12, 09:46 PM

Before you ban anything or ask for advice you need to answer a question: What do you want to achieve by banning spells? The answer to that question dictates what you ban or alter.

Asheram

2012-11-12, 09:55 PM

A pre-emptive ban sets a tone for the campaign.
Just saying "Please, don't bring any cheese to the table" can sometimes be relaxing for all players.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-12, 10:02 PM

Before you ban anything or ask for advice you need to answer a question: What do you want to achieve by banning spells? The answer to that question dictates what you ban or alter.

My goal is to work out with my players spells that we will not be including in the game (and, eventually spells that we'll improve/fix) for the purpose of letting them optimize with some limits. The idea is to adjust the rules so that we'll have more fun, disagree less, and allow the players to role-play as they like with the guidelines set out up front. The fact that the authors of a particular WotC book thought a spell was a good idea or good for game play doesn't mean that it turned out that way. Myself, I think there are some spells that don't work as well as intended--some are worth fixing and others are better not included. In this thread, I'm trying to think though which spells belong on the latter list.

I'm not an imperious DM . . . I'm happy to get some agreement among my players. I like the idea of giving them a proposal and I'm asking the boards to help me think through my proposal so that it is as good a proposal as I can make it. For now, I want to explore what spells we won't be including.

(By the way, I see that I left Simulacrum off the list accidentally. I'll add it now.)

rockdeworld

2012-11-12, 10:06 PM

This list might help, from the Logic Ninja's guide to being Batman:

Stinky Cheese: spells that are broken, broken, broken.

Level 2:
-Alter Self: give yourself +6 natural armor, or flight, for 10 min/level with a level 2 spell? Like all the polymorph spells, way too good for its level--not so broken you probably shouldn't use it in a game, though. Combine with the Otherworldly feat for even more cheese.
-Wraithstrike: swift action, make all attacks as touch attacks that round. Ridiculously good for fighter-mages, Power Attack for huge amounts of damage. You can Persist it quite normally in an 8th level slot, or by using various kinds of cheese, and that's when it becomes *completely* broken.

Level 3:
-Shivering Touch (Frostburn): a touch attack, no save, 3d6 dex damage. 3d6! Dex damage! Wanna one-shot a dragon? NOOO problem! Add some kind of reach (Arcane Reach from Archmage, or Reach Spell metamagic) and you can do it from safety. For the love of god, don't resport to this.

Level 4:
-Polymorph: far better than any other spell of its level, and many higher-level spells. The things you can do with this are ridiculous. It's completely broken, so much so WotC has given up on trying to fix it. Just don't use it.
-Celerity (PHB II): this breaks casters worse than they're already broken. As an immediate action casting, gain a standard action, and be dazed on the next round. This means that no matter what, the wizard goes first. Combine with Time Stop to negate the disadvantage of being dazed in combat, or just use it to Teleport out of there or Dimension Door way out of reach.

Level 8:
-Polymorph Any Object: the worst of the lot. Turn yourself into a gold dragon and gain its INT score plus everything else? Come on. Most broken spell in the game.
-Greater Celerity (PHB II): as Celerity, but grants a full-round action.

Level 9:
-Shapechange: CL up to 25 HD monsters. Gain their (Su) special qualities and attacks as well as the (Ex) ones. Completely and utterly ridiculous, as a more powerful Polymorph of course must be. Don't use this.
-Disjunction: both DMs and players avoid it. Use it as a player and you fry the bad guy's loot; use it as a DM and your players lose their magic items and are very upset.
-Gate: so many abuses. So very many. For example, Gate in creatures that can cast Wish as a (Su) ability and make them give you free wishes.

As for the ones you've chosen:
Lesser Celerity - the lesser version isn't that bad, since it only grants a move action.
Contingency - there's nothing particularly broken about the spell, unlike the feat version. Banning this is like banning the Pheonix + Final Summon materia from FF7 - it's just so you can kill 'em.
Genesis - again, there's nothing particularly broken about this, provided you don't allow a creative interpretation of the spell. I, for one, wouldn't have thought that controlling the environment of the plane would allow you to create a flowing-time plane. Neither would I allow it based on your ability to control the atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. And at this level, if they want to create a plane whose atmosphere is on fire, that's still not broken.
Planar Binding line of spells - nothing wrong with the lesser version, the normal and greater version are only bad if you don't like free wishes.
Time Stop - Gives the caster extra time to buff. Not really broken after you've banned the other stuff like gate and planar binding.

Slipperychicken

2012-11-12, 10:21 PM

A pre-emptive ban sets a tone for the campaign.
Just saying "Please, don't bring any cheese to the table" can sometimes be relaxing for all players.

Seconded. If your players are even remotely reasonable, this will be enough.

And tell your players to a) Show and explain their builds and character concepts to you (including their intended playstyle and tactics) before play and b) Receive approval for any material or tactics which may be overpowered, and sketchy-seeming rulings they wish to use.

As long as your players are willing and able to maintain a balanced game, they should be good, before extensive ban-lists.

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-12, 10:45 PM

My goal is to work out with my players spells that we will not be including in the game (and, eventually spells that we'll improve/fix) for the purpose of letting them optimize with some limits. The idea is to adjust the rules so that we'll have more fun, disagree less, and allow the players to role-play as they like with the guidelines set out up front. The fact that the authors of a particular WotC book thought a spell was a good idea or good for game play doesn't mean that it turned out that way. Myself, I think there are some spells that don't work as well as intended--some are worth fixing and others are better not included. In this thread, I'm trying to think though which spells belong on the latter list.

I'm not an imperious DM . . . I'm happy to get some agreement among my players. I like the idea of giving them a proposal and I'm asking the boards to help me think through my proposal so that it is as good a proposal as I can make it. For now, I want to explore what spells we won't be including.

(By the way, I see that I left Simulacrum off the list accidentally. I'll add it now.)

That doesn't answer the question.

Do you want to ban the spells that allow you to defeat gods? The ones that give melee absolutely no chance against a caster? The ones that allow the character to avoid most challenges?

The list of spells that are truly, brokenly, powerful is short (Gate, Shapechange, Simulacrum, Ice Assassin, and Arcane Genesis is pretty much the entire list).

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-12, 10:49 PM

nedz

2012-11-12, 10:51 PM

You could go for more general bans such as:
Action economy inflation spells other than Haste are deprecated.
This because Haste helps melee, and do casters really need to cast more than 1 spell per round ? There is an argument for Gishes being able to cast and fight, but I think the various PrC class features cover that.

Also you missed Streamers.

toapat

2012-11-12, 11:11 PM

There is an argument for Gishes being able to cast and fight, but I think the various PrC class features cover that.

you would be wrong.

the only real saving grace for Gish builds is Paladin's Battle Blessing, which is hilariously broken if you allow Prestiege paladin. (<Class> Spells is not a RAW term.), as well as swift blade

Alabenson

2012-11-12, 11:54 PM

Personally, I'd add the Dark Chaos Shuffle spells to the ban list, especially if you allow normal retraining anyway.

toapat

2012-11-13, 12:00 AM

Personally, I'd add the Dark Chaos Shuffle spells to the ban list, especially if you allow normal retraining anyway.

DCFS is really only broken with elves, who get what is effectively +3-6 first level feat slots.

Even then, i doubt you can actually find enough material to replace the elven granted weapon proficiencies.

People bring up DFCS constantly. but here is the thing: Only general featslots are targetable with it.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 01:27 AM

There's a really simple houserule to fix the DCFS nonsense.

Whenever shun the dark chaos is used on a character who has been targeted with embrace the dark chaos, instead of making new selections he regains the feats he traded away with the casting of embrace the dark chaos.

Bam! The spells now work as they were most likely intended.

Deth Muncher

2012-11-13, 01:49 AM

ericgrau

2012-11-13, 01:55 AM

Hmmm, shivering touch, assay spell resistance and about 3 others I can't remember off the top of my head. Total. But most players won't even notice any of these. I'd agree with the above, just say no cheese and don't worry.

Deophaun

2012-11-13, 05:09 AM

Prestidigitation. With all the crap I've pulled using that cantrip, I wouldn't hesitate to ban it :P

Seriously, I don't like to see Planar Binding banned. I understand the reasoning for it, but I also see it as an opportunity for the DM, as well. Remember that the entity being called has its own motivations and its own history. It may have friends in high (or low) places that are not too keen on their associates being coerced into the service of mortals. Local powers might take a dim view of people that pull creatures from other planes into their mundane worlds. I'd cast planar binding as a spell that is taboo well before I went to the extent of banning it entirely.

Arcanist

2012-11-13, 06:16 AM

What should you ban?

Not a damn thing.

D&D is a Gentleman's Agreement. It's been said a thousand times, and I'll say it again.

If you're worried about people breaking a campaign before it starts, you've already got problems. Why are you worried? Do you not trust your players? If so, have they given you REASONS not to trust them? Because if that's the case, you should discuss your expectations about your game.

Quite right. Honestly if you're going to take the time to limit all of your players with a ban list you would be better of creating a system that would grant access to these players.

I use a knowledge based system on whether the player actually knows or can learn about the class.

DC knowledge (Whatever is appropriate) 10 for any feat.
DC Knowledge (") 10 + prestige class levels.
DC Knowledge (") 10 + Items market price / 1,000 for any magical item.
DC Spellcraft/Martial Lore (") 10 + Spell/Maneuver level x 2 for any spell/maneuver.

All base classes were automatically accessible as well as all Core and Clerics must devote themselves to a deity. The major problem I came across was all the book keeping. You have to keep track of all of your Wizard's Spellbooks. :smalltongue:

I don't really even have to use this system that often since I trust my players to actually play with honor. You don't often see a lot of TO at most tables these days... :smallsmile:

nedz

2012-11-13, 06:31 AM

Rejakor

2012-11-13, 07:11 AM

It should just give them weapon focus every single time.

Shun the Dark Chaos, too.

Weapon Focus for everyone!

toapat

2012-11-13, 07:59 AM

Surely embrace the dark chaos should give them a random feat ?:smallwink:

nope. Embrace is always an abyssal heritage feat

Shun, is typically assumed to not need to observe level retroactively, which it doesn't. The combo is simply about taking advantage of as many feat slots as possible when it is brought up

Arcanist

2012-11-13, 08:04 AM

It should just give them weapon focus every single time.

Shun the Dark Chaos, too.

Weapon Focus for everyone!

1st of all. I love this idea, due to the sheer amount of lulzy reaction a player would get at that

2nd. I hate this idea if I am the player :smalltongue:

nope. Embrace is always an abyssal heritage feat

Shun, is typically assumed to not need to observe level retroactively, which it doesn't. The combo is simply about taking advantage of as many feat slots as possible when it is brought up

The cleaver idea is to play an Elf. Specialize in Divination. Chaos Shuffle your Racial weapon proficiencies (which are indeed feats! PM if you disagree!) away to gain the Arcane Transfiguration feat tree. You are now a specialized wizard without being a specialized wizard! :smallbiggrin:

This also works for your weapon proficiencies from your class.

rockdeworld

2012-11-13, 08:07 AM

Not a damn thing.
+1, even over what I said before.

On a side note, I don't like ban lists, because I like making very powerful characters. For me, it's not about breaking the plot. It's just about not dying.

toapat

2012-11-13, 08:39 AM

The cleaver idea is to play an Elf. Specialize in Divination. Chaos Shuffle your Racial weapon proficiencies (which are indeed feats! PM if you disagree!) away to gain the Arcane Transfiguration feat tree. You are now a specialized wizard without being a specialized wizard! :smallbiggrin:

This also works for your weapon proficiencies from your class.

while elven weapon proficiencies are feats you are able to DCFS, granted weapon proficiencies are not feats, they occupy internal slots that can only be used for weapon proficiencies. this is why the True Dilletante isnt actually a legit build, it is DCFSing feats that dont exist.

Arcanist

2012-11-13, 08:52 AM

while elven weapon proficiencies are feats you are able to DCFS, granted weapon proficiencies are not feats, they occupy internal slots that can only be used for weapon proficiencies. this is why the True Dilletante isnt actually a legit build, it is DCFSing feats that dont exist.

I'm actually curious where you heard that :smallconfused:

The Dillentante doesn't work because it on the very thread it describes that it says and i quote

Now, retrain your race as dwarf and join the Wintervein Dwarves

Retraining your Race is impossible as you cannot retrain race... You can rebuild it of course, but I'm just being a nitpicky joker :smalltongue:

... But in all seriousness. Where did you hear that proficiency feats gained through classes are invalid targets as they are not feats :smallconfused:

toapat

2012-11-13, 09:00 AM

I'm actually curious where you heard that :smallconfused:

The Dillentante doesn't work because it on the very thread it describes that it says and i quote

Retraining your Race is impossible as you cannot retrain race... You can rebuild it of course, but I'm just being a nitpicky joker :smalltongue:

... But in all seriousness. Where did you hear that proficiency feats gained through classes are invalid targets as they are not feats :smallconfused:

Wish + reincarnation?

Granted proficiencies are not feats for the purpose of DCFS because DCFS requires the targeted feat to be occupied a slot that normally could be able to contain an abyssal heritage. Granted proficiencies occupy slots that are specifically granted weapon proficiencies. Even if you can normally retrain them, you can't retrain them into anything but weapon proficiencies, because of the restrictions as defined by being "granted weapon proficiency feats". Elves are specifically stated to receive their proficiencies as bonus feats, not as granted proficiencies.

Hanuman

2012-11-13, 09:03 AM

Bannable? Any touch attack spell that deals dex damage. You'll find some in frostburn. A fourth level wizard has a minimum 50% chance of defeating an elder wurm dragon with one spell.
--The counter to this is to make Scintillating Scales a passive for most dragons instead of something that can be dispelled.

My advice is generally use pathfinder transitions whenever you can, or at least change how the spells work in your campaign.

Some spells, for instance, are very vague and need to be re-done or made more clear where as others are quite clear and need to be tweaked.

Dancing Chains Sorc/Wiz5 (BoVD) is one of my favorite spells (top 5 for sure), but it's got a nasty mixture of vague and precise terms that make it troublesome. You can take control of 1/lvl chains at range with no specifications, saves, ext which means the spell gives you control of all chains, including drawbridges or chains on a chain demon, or a chain on a spiked chain someone is holding, and technically the chains don't have to be made of anything specific. Essentially, this is an offensive animate object spell which grants you about minimum 10 objects of indeterminate width, length, speed and material that all get attacks or grapples every round, you can climb them without checks AND they are not actually alive so they don't act as creatures, 100% object with HP and hardness intact. They can also grow or retract razor-wire protrusions at-will.

My favorite tactic is setting up a cloud (any cloud will do, best is poisonous) then popping a stone wall behind it with steps to the top on the inside, murderholes to shoot through and a slit near the bottom horizontal and 1" taller than the chain's widths, then cast dancing chains and send them through. Real horrorshow and the wall can't be dispelled because it isn't magic. Meanwhile my kobalds-- I mean party members are firing blindly at them with crossbow bolts and eldritch blasts and whathaveyou.

Got runners? "GET OVER HERE!"

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-13, 09:04 AM

Thanks for all the comments so far, folks.

Some of you, I believe, misunderstand our groups motivations here. There has been no DM split. D&D is a game that uses a LOT of rules in books. Some of those rules work well in all campaigns; some work well in few. We have all be playing together for a long time in our group. As I mentioned above, there is interest this time around in optimizing, but the group also recognizes some need for constraint. AS A GROUP, we are interested in addressing a variety of aspects of the rules and I have come to the playground to ask your assistance in thinking about spells.

I understand that for some groups banning anything or not completely relying on each persons individual sense of judgment is a sign of disharmony, distrust, or worse. I do not believe that this is the case for our group. We're actually trying to get some of the infelicities out of the game up front--this time around--and while there will be things we miss and we will have to rely on the good judgment of each person, we're trying to start from a place of common ground. If this approach does not work for your group or you, that's OK. I'm really not asking for advice about whether to take the approach of banning any spells; as a group we've already agreed that this is an approach we wish to take. I'm charged with preposing both spells to ban and spells to fix and this thread is seeking advice about spells to ban.

@rockdeworld: Thanks for these thoughts on the specific spells. You make a good point about lesser celerity. Generally our group disfavors time manipulation--except for haste--and so I may have swept in too much of the celerity line. It's something worth considering. Along similar lines, Time Stop is something we don't tend to care for. A lot of abuse can happen in those rounds where only one side gets to act. With regard to Genesis, too many variables there; it seems better to remove it altogether as creating planes is not necessary for mere mortals. The game is not harmed without this spell it seems to me. As for your thoughts on Lesser Binding, I need to think about this--you make a good point.

@emperor tippy: I think I did answer your question; but I understood it differently than you did. I am not sure I have a set of themes to unfurl about which spells to remove. Rather, I thought about spells that have caused disputes over the years or that resulted in unbalancing the game. There may be themes that connect them, but it wasn't how I approached creating that list--with, perhaps, two exceptions. Our group generally disfavors time-based tricks (though Haste is just fine). Also, some of the summoning/polymorphing spells bring wishes and other kinds of almost meta-game manipulations into the game--we tend to eschew these. As I indicated above, there is agreement among the group that we should remove some spells from this next campaign (and fix others) to make fun game with as much common ground as we can muster.

(I've got to run now, I'll follow up later. Thanks for all the comments so far.)

nedz

2012-11-13, 09:16 AM

I know the Chaos Combo, but I'm not going to get draw into that debate: it just leads to flaming madness.

The problem I have with 'Gentleman's Agreements" is that I like to know where I am.
I have had the situation where I was playing a Sorcerer and planned my spell selection 4 or so levels in advance. I would pass over a spell intending to take a higher level one in its place, only to discover, much to my surprise, that the DM banned the second spell. This happened several times and left me with a poor spell set:smallmad: The DM's ban list was very unpredictable.

Arcanist

2012-11-13, 09:26 AM

Wish + reincarnation?

Those are the 2 spells your citing? Is it Reincarnating and then Wish for your original form? I'm not seeing where it says they are "granted" and not considered feats by that, but then again I didn't know feats could be considered "granted".

Granted proficiencies are not feats for the purpose of DCFS because DCFS requires the targeted feat to be occupied a slot that normally could be able to contain an abyssal heritage. Granted proficiencies occupy slots that are specifically granted weapon proficiencies. Even if you can normally retrain them, you can't retrain them into anything but weapon proficiencies, because of the restrictions as defined by being "granted weapon proficiency feats". Elves are specifically stated to receive their proficiencies as bonus feats, not as granted proficiencies.

I feel like this is the same discussion that I had with Flickerdart on the whole "retraining" racial proficiencies (which I now agree with him on that. You cannot retrain them since apparently they are not considered choices.)

Embrace the Chaos doesn't differentiate between a granted feat or a bonus feat or whatever really all that matters is.

A) It is a feat.
B) You meet all the prerequisites for the feats.
C) It is not a affecting your class qualifications.

I mean, I've never even heard of "granted" feats. Do you mind telling me where those are exactly? :smallconfused:

Man on Fire

2012-11-13, 10:04 AM

That doesn't answer the question.

Do you want to ban the spells that allow you to defeat gods? The ones that give melee absolutely no chance against a caster? The ones that allow the character to avoid most challenges?

Can I get on the boat when we're at it? I want to ban spells that lets my players have it easy way, or give them anything without any trouble whatsoever, that remove consequences of their actions. Like Atonment or any spell that can ressurect somebody - spells that are one big Get Out Of The Jail For Free card.

And I mean spells whose main and primary use is that, spells that can do it but require loads of work and creativity are okay and so i combinign spells or spells to avoid small problems - I have no problem with somebody using Alter Self to escape pursuit, or wizard combining summoning spells to rebuild a castle, but spells that let you bring dead back to life like they never died, rebuild a city in a blink of an eye or just generally make it like whatever took place never happened are out.

And list of spells that make meele hopeless against casters would be good to know too, I need to know what never give my npcs.

peacenlove

2012-11-13, 10:46 AM

Oooh Oooh please add spells/powers/mysteries with an area of effect of 1 mile or greater!
Because it is soooo fun for a DM applying the spell's effects to settlements / areas / whatever he hasn't conceived of yet. :smallmad:

Hanuman

2012-11-13, 10:48 AM

If they are insincere then atonement doesn't work.

How many thousands of gold of spell materials do your players carry? :smallconfused:

You don't need to ban a resurrection spell, just make it's components very rare.
I mean, how many backwater towns are going to be carrying around sizable diamonds anyway, let alone public-access stores in large towns.

When players can't find rarities then it adds a layer of intrigue to getting them, and as such makes them more rewarding to gain, more fun to find, and more interesting to watch them being used.

You could even make it even more special, like have it engraved and fully clasped into an adamantium holy symbol or something.

toapat

2012-11-13, 11:09 AM

*snip*

Wish to preset your race, as well as granting you the typical birth - Young Adult experiences of the race (which can grant say, drow's +2 int/wis and weapon profficiencies). then Reincarnate. that is how Retraining your race works. After all, wish's main purpose is to be the Ultimate Metamagic.

if the granted proficiencies (and a number of other class granted benefits that can be obtained from feats) can be considered to occupy feat slots, the feat slots they occupy are not valid slots for which Abyssal herritage feats can occupy, as they are not general feat slots, but specialize feat slots.

the most DCFS targets a single character, as far as i understand, can obtain, is 17, with an Elf Rogue who takes bonus feats for every rogue ability

NichG

2012-11-13, 11:10 AM

I'd like to say that I think its good to both say at the table 'please don't bring in anything too cheesy' and to have a pre-emptive ban list of the worst contenders. The reason being, some people like being able to go all-out with their builds or ideas. Having to constantly ask themselves 'is this going to far?' can take the fun out of it. If you make it clear what kinds of things are going too far, and also remove particular things that have been problematic in the past, it helps a lot there.

As far as spells to ban, hm... I'd add Masochism/Sadism to the list, due to the fact that hitpoints tend to be nonlinear with level (due to Con buff items), and so the benefit of the spells scales superlinearly. Similarly, I personally have an issue with the various spells that do things like add +20 to a skill check (Guidance of the Avatar) or 5+CL up to 15 (Divine Insight) or +30 (Glibness) and so on - I didn't ban them in my current campaign and I'm regretting it as everyone has sort of reached a glum realization that skill investment is irrelevant when one of the the party's casters can just pop Divine Insight and automatically do better than anyone at their best skill. These aren't of the 'stinky cheese' variety, just things that make other parts of the game irrelevant by their existence. They won't break the game though.

Togo

2012-11-13, 11:38 AM

Glitterdust. - it's notably better than other spells of the same level, and arguably better than similar spells a level higher.

Anything that does attribute damage (moon bolt, shivering touch etc.) If you want to keep them replace with an attribute penalty, since they generally only get bad with multiple castings, twinned etc.

Glibness is a possible contender. Whether or not the spell is broken depends a lot on how you interpret it, but ban or not, it's well worth discussing how this would work in practice.

Suddo

2012-11-13, 11:55 AM

Are you only looking for spells? I personally think, outside of maybe the list Tippy posted, no spells can compete with the brokenness of renewable spells. What do I mean, I mean automatic resetting traps of X. And it doesn't matter what it will always break the campaign. I also think eternal wands are pushing it but that's more personal preference.

As for spells, beyond shivering touch I'd say you have it well made and I do tend to agree with you that Time Magic tends to be silly. Oh and get rid of wish.

And Genesis is a spell I'd just have "gentleman" agreement that it spawns a plane with no valuable materials, no time distortion and nothing else interesting. I mean having your own interdimensional place is just cool and bringing in materials should be fine. Hell you could make it so if you bring any of the "dirt" from inside the plane outside it poofs.

Oh are you using Psionics because that's probably its own thread.

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-13, 01:10 PM

the most DCFS targets a single character, as far as i understand, can obtain, is 17, with an Elf Rogue who takes bonus feats for every rogue ability
Nope. Elf Fighter or Feat Rogue that takes Vow of Poverty at level 1 and Chaos Shuffles all feats at level 20.

toapat

2012-11-13, 01:19 PM

Nope. Elf Fighter or Feat Rogue that takes Vow of Poverty at level 1 and Chaos Shuffles all feats at level 20.

that combo doesnt work. DCFS disables exaulted feats (even though it is chaotic), and you loose the Vow of Poverty bonus feats when you loose the effects of Vow of Poverty.

you cant DCFS fighter bonus feats because you cant replace them with abyssal heritage feats. no Heritage feats have the Fighter bonus feat special (which really should have been a descriptor). If you can embrace out the fighter bonus feats, you cant shun them back in because you dont have the heritage feat to shun, because you are targetting an invalid feat slot for it.

just because it is a bonus feat slot, doesnt mean that you can DCFS it, which is why elf normal rogue with 2 flaws gets the most slots for DCFS

Gavinfoxx

2012-11-13, 01:24 PM

This is an... okay... place to start...

It's very arena-centric, though, and wasn't designed as a more standard way of banning things, and most certainly wasn't designed for a NORMAL game. So be very careful when using the banlist:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113644

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-13, 01:33 PM

that combo doesnt work. DCFS disables exaulted feats (even though it is chaotic), and you loose the Vow of Poverty bonus feats when you loose the effects of Vow of Poverty.
Wrong. Chaotic acts don't cost you exalted feats, only evil acts. Neither Embrace or Shun are evil descriptor spells.

you cant DCFS fighter bonus feats because you cant replace them with abyssal heritage feats. no Heritage feats have the Fighter bonus feat special (which really should have been a descriptor). If you can embrace out the fighter bonus feats, you cant shun them back in because you dont have the heritage feat to shun, because you are targetting an invalid feat slot for it.
Utterly incorrect. You can exchange any feat that you currently have (regardless of how you got it, what restrictions are on it, or where the feat came from) for ANY Abyssal Heritor feat that you currently qualify for.

Shun the Dark Chaos can turn ANY Abyssal Heritor feat into ANY other feat that you currently qualify for (regardless of where the feat slot came from initially).

just because it is a bonus feat slot, doesnt mean that you can DCFS it, which is why elf normal rogue with 2 flaws gets the most slots for DCFS
You are making up rules whole cloth.

If you have a feat (regardless of the feat or how you got it) then you Embrace the Dark Chaos it and turn it into any Abyssal Heritor feat that you currently meet the prerequisites for. If you have any Abyssal Heritor feat (regardless of the feat or how you got it) then you can Shun the Dark Chaos it and turn it into any other feat in the game that you currently meet the prerequisites for.

Gnaeus

2012-11-13, 02:23 PM

Enhance Wildshape]

Really? The most common way i have seen it used it to turn into bat and actually get blindsight/sense or otherwise get animal senses. Has it been being abused in your games? I'm sure there is a way to break the heck out of it, but its normal use seems quite rational to me.

dextercorvia

2012-11-13, 02:31 PM

{scrubbed}
@Arcanist: Re: why you can't DCFS class weapon proficiencies -- They aren't (unless I'm missing one somewhere) granted as feats.

@OP: (I know there is some redundancy) Streamers, Celerity and Greater, Shapechange, Arcane Fusion and Greater, and Arcane Spellsurge.

toapat

2012-11-13, 03:15 PM

@Arcanist: Re: why you can't DCFS class weapon proficiencies -- They aren't (unless I'm missing one somewhere) granted as feats.

If you were to consider them as feats, here is the thing:

You cant trade them out with Embrace, not because they are not feats, but because the prerequisite, of being a feat slot into which an Abyssal herritor feat can normally be placed, is not met. I do not believe in 3.5 though there is a living creature which has levels of <class with bonus feats here>, but lacks HD granted feats.

Rogue ability bonus feats, Elf granted profficiencies, and other unrestricted bonus feats are allowed targets for DCFS.

The subject immediately gains one Abyssal heritor feat for which it qualifies, chosen by you at the time of casting.
If the subject does not qualify for the designated feat, the spell fails.

There wouldnt be a line about not qualifying if there was not some restriction on the spell. The line, is there specifically to reinforce the fact that the granted feat is being granted as though it was a normal HD granted feat.

Seharvepernfan

2012-11-13, 03:18 PM

If you're having magic problems, I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems, but my sig ain't one.

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-13, 03:28 PM

If you were to consider them as feats, here is the thing:

You cant trade them out with Embrace, not because they are not feats, but because the prerequisite, of being a feat slot into which an Abyssal herritor feat can normally be placed, is not met. I do not believe in 3.5 though there is a living creature which has levels of <class with bonus feats here>, but lacks HD granted feats.
Um no. Elf actually grants the feats, everything else simply grants the same benefits as the feats but not the feats themselves. Embrace does not require that the feat being replaced could have instead been an Abyssal Herritor feat.

There wouldnt be a line about not qualifying if there was not some restriction on the spell. The line, is there specifically to reinforce the fact that the granted feat is being granted as though it was a normal HD granted feat.
No, the only thing necessary to qualify for a feat is to meet the feats prerequisites. That is all.

Arcanist

2012-11-13, 04:27 PM

Thank you Tippy.

@Arcanist: Re: why you can't DCFS class weapon proficiencies -- They aren't (unless I'm missing one somewhere) granted as feats.

No, thats not what I'm questioning. I'm asking where he is getting the terms "Occupied" and "Granted" feat, because for some reason I can't find them in any book :smallconfused:

The Redwolf

2012-11-13, 04:39 PM

toapat

2012-11-13, 05:00 PM

I have a question since you guys mentioned wishing and reincarnating. Is it a given use of the wish spell to give you back the body you had before death or is that something the DM could mess with? I've been wondering about that for a while and I thought I saw somewhere that it was an approved one, but I couldn't figure out where or why...

That is a perfectly legitimate use of wish

It is also a completely terrible one. The point of Wish+Reincarnate is to not be screwed by terrible racial physical atteribute modifiers. Wishing in the standard life experience for the race in question, is optional typically/

Tippy, i said if as in relation to granted/class, not racial, weapon proficiency. Elf proficiencies are non-locked feat slots, and can be traded sucessfully with DCFS, fighter feats cant be traded without wish. Which is honestly faster, if not as XP cheap

Venger

2012-11-13, 06:21 PM

And list of spells that make meele hopeless against casters would be good to know too, I need to know what never give my npcs.

ironguard, greater ironguard, and ghostform are the biggest offenders. if you want people to have fun playing melee in your game, do not

Glitterdust. - it's notably better than other spells of the same level, and arguably better than similar spells a level higher.

Anything that does attribute damage (moon bolt, shivering touch etc.) If you want to keep them replace with an attribute penalty, since they generally only get bad with multiple castings, twinned etc.

Glibness is a possible contender. Whether or not the spell is broken depends a lot on how you interpret it, but ban or not, it's well worth discussing how this would work in practice.

blindness is easy to gain immunity to (undead, construct) and many monsters, even from level 1 have other senses (scent, tremorsence, blindsense, blindsight) so glitterdust isn't exactly a game-breaker. anything that you really want to use it against is probably immune anyway.

absolutely disagree with "anything that deals ability damage" that's just not really needed. tell me "poison" is gamebreaking for its level honestly.

I think you may have a point if you're in a low to low-mid op game about spells that deal ability damage even if you make the save (the only reason people get so upset about moon bolt, even though it only deals str damage, the ability that it hurst least for losing, especially for monsters, many of which are str machines) or if you have psionics, ego whip, which, targeting cha, is much more dangerous, or ray of stupidity for spells, since it bonks int, which many monsters are lacking, which has no save at all.

glibness has potential for hilarity, but requires some good roleplaying and planning. the chief argument against it is that it's nonmagical so doesn't allow a save and doesn't detect as magic. anything immune to mind affecting gets a pass, which is most of the hard monsters. what do you mean about "how you interpret it" ? do you mean like what's hard to believe and what's unbelievable for the DC mod?

1st of all. I love this idea, due to the sheer amount of lulzy reaction a player would get at that

2nd. I hate this idea if I am the player :smalltongue:

The cleaver idea is to play an Elf. Specialize in Divination. Chaos Shuffle your Racial weapon proficiencies (which are indeed feats! PM if you disagree!) away to gain the Arcane Transfiguration feat tree. You are now a specialized wizard without being a specialized wizard! :smallbiggrin:

This also works for your weapon proficiencies from your class.

you can't do all that at first level, though, as the second 2 in the tree require specialist wiz 5 and 10 respectively. that many levels of wizard to gt your 1 banned school back is something of a bitter pill to swallow.

Emperor Tippy

2012-11-13, 07:10 PM

Tippy, i said if as in relation to granted/class, not racial, weapon proficiency. Elf proficiencies are non-locked feat slots, and can be traded sucessfully with DCFS, fighter feats cant be traded without wish. Which is honestly faster, if not as XP cheap

There is no such thing as a "locked" or "non-locked" feat slot.

You can't Chaos Shuffle most racial or class proficiencies because you don't gain a feat (you gain the same benefits that the feat(s) provide but not the feats themselves) but if you have a feat (regardless of how you got it, what it is, or anything else) then you can turn it into any Abyssal Heritor feat that you currently meet the prerequisites for with Embrace the Dark Chaos. You can then trade that Abyssal Heritor feat for any other feat that you currently qualify for.

A fighter's bonus feats can be Shuffled because you actually receive the feat. A fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies can not be Shuffled because you do not have the feats.

Alabenson

2012-11-13, 07:19 PM

Honestly, this arguement is one of the major reasons that the Dark Chaos Shuffle spells are among the very few that I outright ban.
Assuming that you allow feat retraining, the DCS has virtually no non-cheesy functions.

Slipperychicken

2012-11-13, 07:32 PM

Assuming that you allow feat retraining, the DCS has virtually no non-cheesy functions.

Same goes for Psychic Reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm). If that power is in the world (and you can just get a Psion to manifest it on you), there is really no reason to allow DCS.

EDIT: Does Psychic Reformation require that the character have qualified for the (new) feats/skills at the level it's changing, or just at the time of manifesting? If qualifications only matter at time of manifesting, characters could get feats which they wouldn't otherwise have qualified for.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-13, 07:40 PM

OK, so I just looked up "Embrace the Dark Chaos" and "Shun the Dark Chaos". From what I can tell the combo is broken and should be prevented. Seems the easiest thing to do is ban one of them, say, Shun the Dark Chaos and the problem is solved.

toapat

2012-11-13, 07:43 PM

There is no such thing as a "locked" or "non-locked" feat slot.

You can't Chaos Shuffle most racial or class proficiencies because you don't gain a feat (you gain the same benefits that the feat(s) provide but not the feats themselves) but if you have a feat (regardless of how you got it, what it is, or anything else) then you can turn it into any Abyssal Heritor feat that you currently meet the prerequisites for with Embrace the Dark Chaos. You can then trade that Abyssal Heritor feat for any other feat that you currently qualify for.

A fighter's bonus feats can be Shuffled because you actually receive the feat. A fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies can not be Shuffled because you do not have the feats.

Yes, you can target any feat with Embrace

Getting the Abyssal Heritor feat though, is only true if the feat slot is a general feat slot. Fighters, Featrogues, Wizards, and most every other class that gets free feats, other then ranger, get featslots which can not receive the Heritor feat. Im using locked/unlocked as shorthand for general use or specific use featslots, not as terminology.

The reason the line for disqualification is there is specifically so that Poison Claws (the other ones that require an Abyssal Heritor feat do not say they require a separate feat like poison claws, and dont invalidate themselves when shuffled into the previous feat's slot) cant overwrite one of its prerequisite 2 Abyssal heritor feats. Thing is, it is not worded specifically for that, and so that rule applies to all 12. Feat slots, while they are typically just write it down and forget, still retain their type when used, although class granted feats are an edge case where the rules are not specific enough asto whether they are irreplaceable or not, as retraining only covers character choice replacements.

Change one class feature option to another legal one. The new option must represent a choice that you could have made at the same level as you made the original choice. Also, the new choice cant make any of your later choices illegal--though it might automatically change class feature accuired later if they are based on initial choice

Bolded is where im correct, strike-through is where the spell specifically overrides this

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 07:48 PM

Yes, you can target any feat with Embrace

Getting the Abyssal Heritor feat though, is only true if the feat slot is a general feat slot. Fighters, Featrogues, Wizards, and most every other class that gets free feats, other then ranger, get featslots which can not receive the Heritor feat. Im using locked/unlocked as shorthand for general use or specific use featslots, not as terminology.

The reason the line for disqualification is there is specifically so that Poison Claws (the other ones that require an Abyssal Heritor feat do not say they require a separate feat like poison claws, and dont invalidate themselves when shuffled into the previous feat's slot) cant overwrite one of its prerequisite 2 Abyssal heritor feats. Thing is, it is not worded specifically for that, and so that rule applies to all 12. Feat slots, while they are typically just write it down and forget, still retain their type when used, although class granted feats are an edge case where the rules are not specific enough asto whether they are irreplaceable or not, as retraining only covers character choice replacements.

Bolded is where im correct, strike-through is where the spell specifically overrides this

Your quote has absolutely nothing to do with either of the dark chaos spells. It's a completely seperate mechanic that has no bearing on this little aside you've gotten into.

nedz

2012-11-13, 07:51 PM

toapat

2012-11-13, 07:53 PM

What you guys are debating is a well known TO trick, which requires you to mis-read the rules. Basically whilst you can spend a feat on a weapon proficiency, this does not mean that a weapon proficiency is the same as a feat. I forget the name of this particular logical fallacy, but it is also very well known. Mathematically: A includes B does not imply that B includes A.

actually, we already agreed class granted proficiencies dont count, but elf proficiencies do.

Hes arguing that fighter feats are valid targets for heritage feats from Embrace the dark chaos (which they arent, nor are exaulted bonus feats, or featrogue feats, or wizard feats)

interestingly, if you work backwards through ranger, all of their combat feats are valid targets though.

Your quote has absolutely nothing to do with either of the dark chaos spells. It's a completely seperate mechanic that has no bearing on this little aside you've gotten into.

Those are the replacement rules. being under a subsection for rebuilding characters at level up doesnt change that.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 08:08 PM

actually, we already agreed class granted proficiencies dont count, but elf proficiencies do.

Hes arguing that fighter feats are valid targets for heritage feats from Embrace the dark chaos (which they arent, nor are exaulted bonus feats, or featrogue feats, or wizard feats)

interestingly, if you work backwards through ranger, all of their combat feats are valid targets though.

Those are the replacement rules. being under a subsection for rebuilding characters at level up doesnt change that.

Since the retraining rules are completely optional, and the default is that there are no replacement rules; yeah, it kinda does change things.

toapat

2012-11-13, 08:26 PM

Since the retraining rules are completely optional, and the default is that there are no replacement rules; yeah, it kinda does change things.

The retraining rules are only a confirmation of part of the rules. While they are not themselves mandatory rules, they clarify certain internal conditions of the game. Those being that feat slots retain their type, list restrictions*, and level after being expended.

I may not be using the proper terms, granted. these are rather difficult terms to understand what they may have been called

*Only relevant part of the DCFS argument

Kazyan

2012-11-13, 08:35 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 08:41 PM

The retraining rules are only a confirmation of part of the rules. While they are not themselves mandatory rules, they clarify certain internal conditions of the game. Those being that feat slots retain their type, list restrictions*, and level after being expended.

I may not be using the proper terms, granted. these are rather difficult terms to understand what they may have been called

*Only relevant part of the DCFS argument

The bolded statement is flat-out false. There are no non-optional, default rules for replacing feats (or any other character building choice); because by the default rules changing such choices is impossible. The default rule is that these things are set in stone. It was only the later introduction of a set of optional retraining rules, as well as a set of spells and powers in completely unrelated sources that this became possible. All of these options are specific exceptions to the general rule that feats can't be changed, none of which takes precedent over any of the others.

toapat

2012-11-13, 09:07 PM

toapat, properties of feat slots are sort of a mental construct we use to understand building characters better. However, if you have Improved Grapple, and do not go into the retraining rules the game does not care if it's a Monk bonus feat, Fighter bonus feat, or general HD feat. The feat is just a feat until something starts mucking with the feat's source.

Ebrace the Dark Chaos does not talk about the feat's source in any way. It turns a feat you currently have into an Abyssal Heritor feat you qualify for at the moment. If you got Improved Grapple from Fighter levels, the spell would have the exact some effect as if you had gotten Improved Grapple from reaching level 9. Memory of the source is not preserved in this new Abyssal Heritor feat--why would it? The game doesn't deal with the source of a feat until you use the retraining rules.

*Kelb reading the entire thing wrong*

The properties of feat slots are mostly, when used for character building, only used temporarily. Out of mind and out of sight, does not mean it doesnt exist.

while retraining itself is the only thing that confirms it, nothing in Core itself actually says that feat slots lose their properties once expended, filled, or whatever the term for using one is.

DCFS does care about qualifying for a feat though. In core this is a grey area, with no confirmation asto memory of the properties of Feat slots, the PHB2 clearly shows that, yes, feat slots do retain their properties. the vague line of Embrace that says if you do not qualify for the heritor, then the spell fails, was specifically written for Poison claws. But was left general or rewritten to be more general so that, as a result, the feat does care asto whether feat slots retain their properties

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 09:34 PM

The properties of feat slots are mostly, when used for character building, only used temporarily. Out of mind and out of sight, does not mean it doesnt exist.

while retraining itself is the only thing that confirms it, nothing in Core itself actually says that feat slots lose their properties once expended, filled, or whatever the term for using one is.

DCFS does care about qualifying for a feat though. In core this is a grey area, with no confirmation asto memory of the properties of Feat slots, the PHB2 clearly shows that, yes, feat slots do retain their properties. the vague line of Embrace that says if you do not qualify for the heritor, then the spell fails, was specifically written for Poison claws. But was left general or rewritten to be more general so that, as a result, the feat does care asto whether feat slots retain their properties

There are no "feat slots" to have properties. You're just making stuff up wholesale now.

You get feats at 1st and every 3rd level and whenever some specific item* says you do. Some of those specific items* ask you to select from a subset of all feats rather than allowing you to choose any feat you like, and some simply give you a specific feat, but none of them give you "feat slots" or add any new prerequisites to the feat you choose (though some do allow you to waive the existing requirements of a feat).

*"item" in this case doesn't mean magic item but rather is being used in the context of rules items; clauses and paragraphs within the rules text of various feats, class-features, and indeed even a few magic items.

What you're saying may make a certain amount of sense from a logical standpoint, but it doesn't have a RAW leg to stand on.

toapat

2012-11-13, 09:52 PM

There are no "feat slots" to have properties. You're just making stuff up wholesale now.

Feats occupy a slot, the name of that slot has no definition or name in the glossary, but it has properties of its own. these properties are typically the result of class features defining what can go into them.

Feats arent even in the game as terminology either.

dextercorvia

2012-11-13, 09:59 PM

toapat

2012-11-13, 10:12 PM

Citation needed.

Has it occurred to you that you are the only one arguing for this position?

Fighter Bonus feats and p192-193 of PHB2, i already showed that. And the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) doesnt have anything on feats

Half of the RAW problems come from the fact that 3rd and 3.5 were rough drafts with either dreadful Dawizards or short sighted designers.

Whatever the exact term is for whatever a feat is purchased with, that temporary token used to purchase the feat is not lost. Wizards hasnt disclosed or erratad what this specific thing is.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 10:19 PM

Feats occupy a slot, the name of that slot has no definition or name in the glossary, but it has properties of its own. these properties are typically the result of class features defining what can go into them.

Feats arent even in the game as terminology either.

Again, this just isn't true.

Feats are most definitely a defined game term. They've got an entire chapter in the PHB dedicated specifically to defining them. If there were any kind of feat slots or feat points to be considered it would've been explicitly spelled out somewhere.

For a point of contrast, skillpoints were clearly defined as how one aquires skill ranks, they were also defined as being irrecoverable after being spent.

You're arguing for something you want to be true, and probably should be true, but simply isn't true.

There is no trade, there is no expense, you just get the feats at the designated times.

Btw, there're a number of things that aren't defined in the glossary that are still recognized game terms. Feats are just one.

toapat

2012-11-13, 10:40 PM

somewhere.

too bad we dont have whatever could be called the Source Papers (the intermediary stuff between the coke and 3rd).

Feats, although ill agree the glossary is unrelyable as it is hosted by the publisher, who also witch hunted its own product, arent in the glossary, PHB or WotC. its a chapter defining one of the 3 universal systems of D20

dextercorvia

2012-11-13, 10:54 PM

Fighter Bonus feats and p192-193 of PHB2, i already showed that. And the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) doesnt have anything on feats

Half of the RAW problems come from the fact that 3rd and 3.5 were rough drafts with either dreadful Dawizards or short sighted designers.

Whatever the exact term is for whatever a feat is purchased with, that temporary token used to purchase the feat is not lost. Wizards hasnt disclosed or erratad what this specific thing is.

Being in the glossary is not what makes something a defined game term.

Show me in fighter bonus feats where it says that there are feat slots, or tokens, or whatever you are trying to call them. Also show me that the feats 'remember' where they came from. Finally show me how the additional restrictions on feat choice at the time of selection becomes part of the 'prerequisites' as you asserted earlier.

The PHII does not apply to this, because that is rules for retraining feats. DCFS is not retraining.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 11:12 PM

Wall of text, incoming.

A feat is a special feature that either gives your character a new capability or improves one that he or she already has. [Copyrighted material containing an example] Unlike a skill, a feat has no ranks. A character either has a feat or does not.

Acquiring Feats
Unlike skills feats are not bought with points. A player simply chooses them for his or her character. [Level based feat schedule and comment about some classes and humans getting bonus feats, that does not include any language pertaining the notion of feat slots or points]

Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level sat which he or she gains the prerequisite. [Example containing copyrighted material]

A character can't use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. [Example containing copyrighted material]

Emphasis mine.

How the heck much more definition do you need? Except for the redacted portions that's what the book says, word-for-word.

Note that it includes language that specifically denies there being any expenditures of any kind to aquire your feats. Also note that the prerequisite section says nothing about bonus feats having extra prerequisites based on the fact they're bonus feats.

There is no specific language anywhere that disallows the DCFS's functioning exactly as everyone but you is saying it does. Your quote from PHB2 is invalid for being a seperate system from both normal character advancement and the magic system that contains the DCFS. It's not a clarification, it's a variant that's not available to all players and isn't assumed to be in play by anything in FC1.

Simply put, magic does it better, just like it always has.

toapat

2012-11-13, 11:16 PM

The PHII does not apply to this, because that is rules for retraining feats. DCFS is not retraining.

1: If there is a term for what feats occupy, it has no name for it ingame. Slot is being used for convenience of speach.
2: The PHB2 retraining is specifically where we find that feats have knowledge of ALL of their "slot's" properties. What attributes you had at that level, skill ranks, class levels, and source of the feat. The memory of the source is what is important, because that is what shuts down DCFSing things such as Fighter bonus feats. Because Embrace itself has to check* whether the to be changed "feat slot" is able to accept the Abyssal Heritor feat, it cant just shove out your 11 extraneous weapon focus feats. Once the feat removes the chosen weapon focus, The "Feat slot" is no longer a valid target for an Abyssal Heritor feat, and as a result, the spell fails.

*
The subject immediately gains one Abyssal heritor feat for which it qualifies, chosen by you at the time of casting.
If the subject does not qualify for the designated feat, the spell fails.
This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses.

The bolded line is supposed to be a cover for poison claws. It is worded more generally and so applies to all 12+ feats. More specifically, this Line is either superfluous fluff or RAW, and it is worded in the way of rules, not fluff. The line conflicts with the first line, in that the target already qualifies for the prerequisites of the heritor feat. But there is one thing they may not qualify for, and that is providing a suitable feat expenditure.

@Kelb: you bolded the parts which define feats as separate from skills. (IMO the entire PHB is fluff counteracting the delivery of the rules.) How do you partially learn a spell? how do you partially take a level? Not all systems in DnD are progressive in the same manner.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-13, 11:30 PM

And there's the "the rules that say I'm wrong aren't really rules" argument.

I think we're done here.

GilesTheCleric

2012-11-13, 11:49 PM

toapat

2012-11-14, 12:15 AM

And there's the "the rules that say I'm wrong aren't really rules" argument.

I think we're done here.

no, you quoted exposition detailing the differences between skills and feats. Honestly the exposition takes away from that section of the rulebook. Alot. but the entire feats chapter was written without logic.

ok, so feats are not bought with points. They are bought with missing term. how do you get missing term? by leveling up. How do you level up? by using experience points. oh, wait, feats are obtained using points.

I dont know why someone would think the skills system could be mistaken for the feats system, why they would go through the effort to write what is a summary that provides no explanation to the reader, or the choices of the editors.

Rejakor

2012-11-14, 12:19 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-14, 12:26 AM

no, you quoted exposition detailing the differences between skills and feats. Honestly the exposition takes away from that section of the rulebook. Alot. but the entire feats chapter was written without logic.

ok, so feats are not bought with points. They are bought with missing term. how do you get missing term? by leveling up. How do you level up? by using experience points. oh, wait, feats are obtained using points.

I dont know why someone would think the skills system could be mistaken for the feats system, why they would go through the effort to write what is a summary that provides no explanation to the reader, or the choices of the editors.

How is the phrase "feats are not bought with points" any kind of ambiguous.

Moreover, where is it even implied anywhere that these phantom "slots" of yours even exist at all.

If that's how you phrase it to understand it that's fine, but it's not part of the rules anywhere.

The quote I posted even says in plain english that a "Player simply chooses them (feats) for her character, " with no mention of any kind of slot or point or expenditure of any kind.

toapat

2012-11-14, 12:35 AM

So, I just looked at the fighter bonus feats entry in the fighter class, and the short addendum in the feats section of the PHB, and I looked at the feat retraining rules (which ARE optional rules btw), and nowhere does it mention 'feat slots' or anything similar.

The retraining rules mention 'feat choices', i.e. that you chose a feat at a certain level, but the act of choosing is not some sort of 'token' or.. anything else.

Do you have any proof in the rules text for your argument?

Fighter bonus feats create "featslots" that have restrictions.
normally these restrictions are ignored after the feat is chosen because you are not typically forced to scan whether you have a feat in a place that it doesnt belong (such as what DCFS does).

No where in the core/srd rules does it say these restrictions are maintained or removed afterwards.
the Feat retraining rules specify that these bonus feats retain their restrictions, for the sake of potentially retraining the feats.

When you use Embrace the dark chaos on a fighter bonus feat, the abyssal heritor feat scans to see if it is performing a legal action, but the action embrace the dark chaos is performing is no longer legal because of restrictions on the "featslot" being replaced.

*snip*

"Feats are not bought with points" isnt ambiguous. It is wrong, because they are obtained through leveling up.

saying that you just choose a feat is like saying you can have floating skill points at level up. you cant, because the rules require you to expend them at level up.

to word it without feat slots:

A feat which has the (what should be a descriptor) special: "Fighter Bonus Feat" may occupy a Feat granted by levels of Fighter. No Abyssal Heritor Feat has the special: A fighter may select this as his bonus feat. Because the restriction is not met, the feat can not take the "slot" of the feat to be replaced.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-14, 12:44 AM

Fighter bonus feats create "featslots" that have restrictions.
normally these restrictions are ignored after the feat is chosen because you are not typically forced to scan whether you have a feat in a place that it doesnt belong (such as what DCFS does).

No where in the core/srd rules does it say these restrictions are maintained or removed afterwards.
the Feat retraining rules specify that these bonus feats retain their restrictions, for the sake of potentially retraining the feats.

When you use Embrace the dark chaos on a fighter bonus feat, the abyssal heritor feat scans to see if it is performing a legal action, but the action embrace the dark chaos is performing is no longer legal because of restrictions on the "featslot" being replaced.

You still haven't shown anything that even suggests, much less proves, the existence of these feat-slots of yours. Until you do, there doesn't need to be anything regarding restrictions or allowances for them because they don't exist.

The retraining rules still have nothing to do with embrace/shun the dark chaos, since you've provided absolutely no evidence to link them other than a completely unsubstantiated "I say this is how it works."

You have to prove that feat-slots exist before you can base any further argument on them. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

I realize that I'm starting to sound a little antagonistic at this point, so I'll point out that this post isn't "you're wrong, just stop talking," it's me pointing out that you're not following any substantiated logic.

It's true that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in many cases, but an exception based rules system isn't one of those places. In this discussion, the absence of evidence very much -is- the evidence of absence.

Rejakor

2012-11-14, 12:52 AM

The text of the fighter bonus feat entry in the fighter class in the PHB makes no mention of 'feat slots'. It says that you are granted one feat at the appropriate levels by the ability, but that feat must be chosen from a specific list.

I don't see where 'slots' come into it. They aren't mentioned, and all it says is that this bonus feat comes with caveats on what can be chosen above and beyond the normal pre-requisites of feats. Thus, i'm going to have to ask again if you have any proof for the existence of 'feat-slots' from the rules text.

Roland St. Jude

2012-11-14, 01:38 AM

Sheriff: Please take this off-topic discussion to a different thread. Or better yet, let it drop.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-14, 08:32 AM

Really? The most common way i have seen it used it to turn into bat and actually get blindsight/sense or otherwise get animal senses. Has it been being abused in your games? I'm sure there is a way to break the heck out of it, but its normal use seems quite rational to me.

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.

With respect to Shivering Touch, I think this is a useful, flavorful spell that can be "fixed" rather than banned.

I'm not sure whether/how Wraithstrike is broken. Can someone make the case either way? Or can it be fixed rather than banned?

LordBlades

2012-11-14, 09:05 AM

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit

I'm not sure whether/how Wraithstrike is broken. Can someone make the case either way? Or can it be fixed rather than banned?

Wraithstrike (especially persisted) bypasses a significant number of components in AC (armor, natural armor, shield etc.) and that bothers some people. IMO it's not broken per se, as there are a whole lot other ways to make powerful characters that make AC irrelevant (casters rarely roll vs. AC, and you can boost your to-hit enough so that AC no longer matters anyway). Most people that consider Wraithstrike broken seem to have a problem with trivializing AC (which is a valid complain), but that's a much wider problem that's unlikely to be solved with banning Wraithstrike alone.

Gnaeus

2012-11-14, 09:35 AM

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.?

Druids are Tier 1, to be sure. But the Druids are powerful enough argument could be just as easily used with clerics and wizards and on any decent spell.

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit
.

Thanks Blades, I had forgotten that one. I agree, that one sucks in a low/mid op group. I still don't think it is worth banning the spell, only a caveat that it should be used responsibly, or at most adding a sentence to the spell that it only confers certain types of ex abilities, like senses and skill buffs.

If I were worried about Wildshape, I would ban some of the related feats, or Venomfire. Not Enhance WS.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-14, 09:37 AM

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit

Perfect example. I think this is enough of a reason. Enhance Wildshape is not a necessary spell. I have no problem seeing it go, but see below.

Wraithstrike (especially persisted) bypasses a significant number of components in AC (armor, natural armor, shield etc.) and that bothers some people. IMO it's not broken per se, as there are a whole lot other ways to make powerful characters that make AC irrelevant (casters rarely roll vs. AC, and you can boost your to-hit enough so that AC no longer matters anyway). Most people that consider Wraithstrike broken seem to have a problem with trivializing AC (which is a valid complain), but that's a much wider problem that's unlikely to be solved with banning Wraithstrike alone.

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

If I were worried about Wildshape, I would ban some of the related feats, or Venomfire. Not Enhance WS.

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

Are you only looking for spells? I personally think, outside of maybe the list Tippy posted, no spells can compete with the brokenness of renewable spells. What do I mean, I mean automatic resetting traps of X. And it doesn't matter what it will always break the campaign. I also think eternal wands are pushing it but that's more personal preference. I wasn't quite sure what you meant by renewable spells.

peacenlove

2012-11-14, 09:48 AM

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

May I suggest adding strength too or instead of dexterity to Touch armor class? Even with a feat with a level prerequisite (so as not to see untouchable half orc barbarians from level 1).

Gnaeus

2012-11-14, 09:48 AM

Perfect example. I think this is enough of a reason. Enhance Wildshape is not a necessary spell. I have no problem seeing it go, but see below..

I think having a druid that can turn into a dog and get scent or into a bat to go somewhere dark is necessary flavor, but YMMV.

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

Then just ban it. The other uses are worthless. If it doesn't give EX abilities, they are better with a wildling clasp.

toapat

2012-11-14, 09:49 AM

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

banning? no. Any 1 of the three major druid choices, is only so powerful. getting Natural Spell, Enhance Wild Shape, and (third one im derping on) together are what put druid way over in power. restrict a druid from using all 3 together and you limit alot of their power. planar shepherd is outright banned though.

LordBlades

2012-11-14, 09:50 AM

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

Only thing I can think of if you want to lower it's power is make it work like Brilliant Energy (ignore armor and shield, but not natural armor, and can't harm constructs&undead). It's still strong but less so, and it discourages persisting it until you have used CoP and asked if you would fight any constructs and undead that day.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-14, 09:59 AM

Looking at your list there, you missed shivering touch, and contingency doesn't belong on there. You should also include the lower end polymorph subschool effects.

Shivering touch is written poorly enough that it demands interpretation, this leaves it ripe for abuse. Just nix it and save yourself an argument.

I agree that Shivering Touch is a mess. But I think it can be fixed rather than nixed. It's interesting enough as a spell.

Contigency is a personal range spell with a focus (hi there sleight of hand) and you can only have one in effect at a time. The broken uses for contingency you always here about are uses of the craft contingent spell feat, not the spell. I find it cumbersome to manage this spell. It's like the problem with wishes, people end up using a lot of time arguing of nuances. (I suppose this is an argument for getting rid of wishes). I admit that I put Contingency on the list with some reticence. I'd be interested in more opinions on this one.[/quote]

The entire polymorph subschool is problematic. Just nix anything that doesn't call out a specific form and/or isn't very specific about what the new form gives you. This should include polymorph and alter self at the very least. So, are you suggesting to get rid of Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph (and Alter Self?)?

On a personal note, I don't think the planar binding line or gate really belong up there either (because forcing wishes can only end poorly. Read; the death of your character at best, and his total annihilation from the planes of reality at worst) but mileages vary on this group so I won't make a big fuss over it unless someone wants a discussion. I agree that wishes are a problem, but I think there are other issues as well . . . the ability to access spells of a higher level via Planar Binding spells, for instance. There are a variety of ways to get specific/named creatures to come to your aid and that predictability seems better. I suppose one thing to consider is listing possible creatures from which to choose or limiting--the way Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally do--the summoned creatures can act.

Otherwise, that looks about right to me. You might consider Wraith-strike, depending on the overall power level you're shooting for. It's a bit busted at the lower levels of power but at high-octane it's just a staple.
Thanks

Venger

2012-11-14, 11:33 AM

banning? no. Any 1 of the three major druid choices, is only so powerful. getting Natural Spell, Enhance Wild Shape, and (third one im derping on) together are what put druid way over in power. restrict a druid from using all 3 together and you limit alot of their power. planar shepherd is outright banned though.

what third thing? could you describe it a little bit? what does it do? is it a spell like enhance wild shape, or is it a feat like natural spell?

Kazyan

2012-11-14, 11:45 AM

what third thing? could you describe it a little bit? what does it do? is it a spell like enhance wild shape, or is it a feat like natural spell?

Probably Venomfire. CLd6 acid damage on natural attacks, if the target has a natural poison. Typically cast on Fleshakers so that a druid can deposit a pallet truck of six-sided dice onto the table.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-14, 12:11 PM

Probably Venomfire. CLd6 acid damage on natural attacks, if the target has a natural poison. Typically cast on Fleshakers so that a druid can deposit a pallet truck of six-sided dice onto the table.

Are you suggesting that Venomfire should be banned? I was thinking of capping the damage.

toapat

2012-11-14, 12:16 PM

Are you suggesting that Venomfire should be banned? I was thinking of capping the damage.

no. i may have forgotten to say that entirely:

basically, any one of the 3 you can have. but taking one bans the other 2.

also, i think it is bite of the lycanthrope, not venomfire

Venger

2012-11-14, 12:25 PM

I don't know if you're running a strictly no-evil campaign or not, but from the perspective of a player cleric, I can say that many of the spells with an [evil] descriptor are things that seem too powerful for their level. Particularly things from the BoVD, which gives save-or-dies much earlier than non-[evil] spells, as well as a number of spells with hefty ability drain or damage, again at fairly low levels. Removing (at least some) [evil] spells seems reasonable to me if the party is N to G.

Any of the Quest/Geas spells seem like they might be a bit unbalancing in the hands of PCs as well.

Here's a quick list of some divine spells that I feel are especially over-powered for their level (I don't know anything about arcane spells).

0: slash tongue (BoVD)

huh? 1 damage, minor debuff, fortneg. what? just about on par with inflict minor.

1: heartache (BoVD)

daze without the hd cap. seems powerful, but is balanced by both being a 1st so having a low dc, and being mind-affecting, so unusable on a lot of enemies.

seething eyebane (BoVD)

extremely situational, pissant damage, and a "corrupt spell" which means that it deals a big fat chunk of ability damage to you (in this case 1d6 con) when you cast it. pretty hardcore for a 1st level spell. the best spell in the world to cast on beholders if you can get them to fail the fort save (not hard between poor fort saves and bad con, especially if you debuff con/saves)

2: fangs of the vampire king (BoVD)
gives a bite. what's the big deal? spirit worm's been dealing con for a level already at this point

investiture of the X (BoVD, all of these spells)

2 things:
1) these spells are not that powerful
2) they're not in bovd, but the fiendish codices.

lahm's finger darts (BoVD)

no argument here, this spell is awesome. no-save dex damage. the go-to if your dm bans shivering touch.

necrotic cyst (BoVD, and all of its related spells)
again, no argument here, the cyst spells are very powerful, buto once more, these spells are not in bovd, but libris mortis

3: clutch of orcus (BoVD)

huh? this spell sucks. 1d3 hp damage per round as a 3rd level spell? the paralyzation seems cool, but it requires you to burn your standard every single turn in order to keep them that way plus they get a save every round o end the effect. good if you have a rogue in your party and the enemy has a poor will save, but not on par for a 3rd level spell (3rd level spells include things like haste, slow, fireball, and lightning bolt. does this seem as powerful as any of those?) plus it only works on humanoids. the spc (spell compendium) boosts the damage to 1d12/round which is still awful, but then changes the dc to fort, removing any chance of you being able to use it successfully

I guess if you used the bovd version against a target with a poor will while under the effect of sonorous hum (autoconcentrates on your spells for you) it might be worth it, but even then it's a poor return on your investment

love's pain (BoVD)
part of a devastating one-two punch of mindrape/love's pain. make a target love person x, cast love's pain on them, kill him. if it had an addendum in there about mind control magic not being allowed to change who this person loves, it'd be fine, but as is, you're right, it's pretty op

ROTTING CURSE OF URFESTRA (BoVD - definitely get rid of this one)
not that bad. 1d6 con won't kill anybody at this level, plus it only deals damage 1/hour. break enchantment is a 3rd and most people have a scroll or two of it handy. plus it's a corrupt spell, so you're taking 1d6 con to give them 1d6 con. that's a terrible deal, since they may have lost just as much con as you, but you're also down a 3rd lvl spell slot, so you're coming out behind.

wrack (BoVD)
humanoid only makes this pretty limited.

4: infernal transformation, lesser (BoVD, and all of the related spells)

this spell isn't in bovd. I'm afraid I don't remember where it is, but you're not gaining anything except beard attacks. you don't get any sqs or anything, so it's behind other spells of the same level (not just polymorph, everything's behind that) but even things like trollshape or that spell that turns you into a bulette

yochlol's blessing (DotU)

you gain tentacles. uhhhh, so? the damage sucks. you could deal more with lower level summons at this point. plus you have to be a drow to cast it.

5: beblith blessing (DotU)

again, all you get is some crappy natural attacks, which claws of the beast has been giving since level 1, if you love clawing people with spells instead of doing magic on them. you don't get any of the good stuff from bebelith like its reach, so this is a terrible use of a 5th (5th is when normal death effects come online, notably slay living)

heartclutch (BoVD)

slay living, but at close range, plus you have to infect yourself with soul rot to cast it which can be probelmatic to say the least. seems like a bad trade. a rod of reach can do the same thing without getting you sick.

morality undone (BoVD)

strike one: mind-affecting. many things immune

what exactly about this spell makes you feel it's overpowered? it sure is fun, but I wouldnt' call it overpowered.it doesn't really do anything at all.

6+: things are pretty balanced by this point. But save-or-die before 6 seems ridiculous in my opinion.
I appreciate your candor in admitting you don't know much about arcane spells. on the one hand, some evil spells are indeed some of the strongest in the game (mindrape, anyone?) most of them (especially the ones in bovd) are not very strong.

the normal level for SoD effects is 5, so bovd isn't breaking any molds there.

geas/lesser geas again are not powerful. a good rule is, the more descriptors something has, the less powerful it is. it's mind-affecting (can't use it against many foes) a compulsion (many foes have bonuses or immunities) and language dependent (so they have to understand you) the lesser version has an HD cap of 7, and allows a will save, so it's not breaking any games. the regular, saveless version is pretty badass, but due to all the drawbacks of the spell, it's not exactly rare that you'll find enemies you can't use it on

Probably Venomfire. CLd6 acid damage on natural attacks, if the target has a natural poison. Typically cast on Fleshakers so that a druid can deposit a pallet truck of six-sided dice onto the table.

my favorite target (though less optimal obviously) for venomfire is the guardian naga (with either aberration wild shape or momf 6+ on the table)
while it has only 1 attack on the table, its poison deals 1d10 con and it can spit it as a touch attack at a range of 20 feet without you having to take that dumb feat chain.

what's better than venomfire? venomfire without even having to get into melee range!

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-14, 12:40 PM

I'd like to say that I think its good to both say at the table 'please don't bring in anything too cheesy' and to have a pre-emptive ban list of the worst contenders. The reason being, some people like being able to go all-out with their builds or ideas. Having to constantly ask themselves 'is this going to far?' can take the fun out of it. If you make it clear what kinds of things are going too far, and also remove particular things that have been problematic in the past, it helps a lot there.

I agree.

As far as spells to ban, hm... I'd add Masochism/Sadism to the list, due to the fact that hitpoints tend to be nonlinear with level (due to Con buff items), and so the benefit of the spells scales superlinearly.

Can you expand on this a bit more. I am not seeing where these spells should be banned.

Similarly, I personally have an issue with the various spells that do things like add +20 to a skill check (Guidance of the Avatar)
I agree here.

or 5+CL up to 15 (Divine Insight) or +30 (Glibness) and so on - I didn't ban them in my current campaign and I'm regretting it as everyone has sort of reached a glum realization that skill investment is irrelevant when one of the the party's casters can just pop Divine Insight and automatically do better than anyone at their best skill.[/quote]
I think these can be fixed rather than banned, don't you think?

Venger

2012-11-14, 01:43 PM

I agree.

Can you expand on this a bit more. I am not seeing where these spells should be banned.

I agree here.

or 5+CL up to 15 (Divine Insight) or +30 (Glibness) and so on - I didn't ban them in my current campaign and I'm regretting it as everyone has sort of reached a glum realization that skill investment is irrelevant when one of the the party's casters can just pop Divine Insight and automatically do better than anyone at their best skill.
I think these can be fixed rather than banned, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

with things like delay death and/or forced share pain on the table, sadism and masochism alike can deal functionally infinite damage and allow you to receive functionally infinite damage. this means the bonuses they give are similarly functionally infinite. it's the basic idea behind the omniscifier, the only thing that can kill punpun.

I'd disagree with spells that boost skills. they still eat up your slots, and every time you cast guidance of the avatar or divine insight, that's a barkskin or a blur or alter self or whatever you could have cast going down the drain. in my group, we prefer to let skillful characters do the skill things so the spellcasters can do stuff that can't be repilcated with skills. opportunity cost, in other words.

Flickerdart

2012-11-14, 02:32 PM

Arcanist

2012-11-14, 03:09 PM

As a blanket ban, anything that's Save: No and SR: No is generally bad juju. Touch attacks are notoriously easy to land (and get easier as levels go up due to bigger monsters), so they're not going to stop the ability from working. These are very popular spells to stack metamagic on, so you might want to add something like "metamagic that normally adds levels to a spell always increases a spell's level by at least 1 even if a class ability applies it for free or feats would reduce it to less than 1, and 0-cost metamagic cannot have any reducers applied to it".

I'm curious what the party would do against a Golem or other creature with Spell Immunity. I mean sure that blanket really does patch a lot of destructive and cheesy spells, but it also puts the Caster players at a serious disadvantage against say a Flesh Golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm#fleshGolem) or any Golem in particular. They have to either have some seriously forethought on the game or have the Uncanny Forethought feat. Just an observation on this though.

Additionally, you should add some sort of "only affects effects of an equal or lower level than this" clause to the blanket protection spells (Mind Blank, True Seeing) to avoid making the Illusion and Enchantment schools useless. If the caster wants to truly be immune to the schools, they ought to Heighten the spell and use a slot that matters.

This. This. Dear god this. Mind Blank should not make the caster immune to Epic Divination spells :smallannoyed:

Flickerdart

2012-11-14, 03:21 PM

I'm curious what the party would do against a Golem or other creature with Spell Immunity.
Summons, illusions, buffing the melee, battlefield control, Save but no SR debuffs like Glitterdust...

Arcanist

2012-11-14, 03:28 PM

Summons, illusions, buffing the melee, battlefield control, Save but no SR debuffs like Glitterdust...

Summons, Buffing, Battlefield control and Glitterdust like spells are all clear and crystal, but don't they just have immunity to all mind-affecting effects? :smallconfused:

Regardless of this my question has been answered. :smallsmile:

toapat

2012-11-14, 03:40 PM

it's the basic idea behind the omniscifier, the only thing that can kill punpun.

Mort is the concept with which you kill punpun

part of punpun's ascension is the omnificer trick.

TuggyNE

2012-11-14, 04:50 PM

Thanks Blades, I had forgotten that one. I agree, that one sucks in a low/mid op group. I still don't think it is worth banning the spell, only a caveat that it should be used responsibly, or at most adding a sentence to the spell that it only confers certain types of ex abilities, like senses and skill buffs.

I don't think wraithstrike is so bad unless it's Persisted, which is more a strike against the one-size-fits-all nature of Persist. (Shameless plug: I homebrewed a fix that improves that.)

Summons, Buffing, Battlefield control and Glitterdust like spells are all clear and crystal, but don't they just have immunity to all mind-affecting effects? :smallconfused:

Most illusions are not mind-affecting, and mindless creatures have no special protection against them (they may even be more vulnerable, depending on their programming/instincts, since they lack the reasoning to guess an effect is illusionary).

NichG

2012-11-14, 06:27 PM

With respect to Masochism, Sadism:

Can you expand on this a bit more. I am not seeing where these spells should be banned.

Well this is a campaign scale thing. Yes, they are implicated in infinite combos, but putting that aside you can still end up with scaling problems. For one thing, they contribute to the 'magic makes skills useless by giving much bigger bonuses than non-magic sources' problem even at low level.

So Sadism: Say you just have someone who casts this and then smacks a tree for 5d6 damage with a reserve feat or something - on average thats not a really big deal - +1 to saves/attacks/whatever. However now lets say you have someone who fireballs a group of 10 kobolds, each for 5d6 damage. Now thats a +10 to saves/attacks/skill checks (the relevant one here). Lets say you instead fireball 100 kobolds. Thats now a +100 to same. Thus, the scaling can get a bit strange if you take the time to round up some victims (thematically appropriate for evil I guess, but I consider the ability to get a +100 to things at 5th level to be a bit beyond the pale for most campaigns). If you have really exploitive players, it won't be kobolds, it will be a bag of rats (or some non-vermin thing that the DM can't simply say is a swarm). If you make it 'max damage to one target' it helps a bit but I'm still leery of the uncapped nature of it.

Masochism has slightly different problems, as you can use tricks to basically put off or ignore damage while still taking it for the purposes of Masochism: Delay Death and Indomitability are good examples. Even we avoid the obviously cheesy uses and just ask how Masochism scales with level, its kind of different than spells like it due to being nonlinear. And thats because HP is nonlinear with level.

HP goes linearly with level if you consider fixed Con, but at higher levels a +2, then a +4, then a +6 Con item become standard. Improved Toughness is also not a terrible feat choice if you're otherwise squishy, and you have access to things like False Life or other temp hp sources (or, if you hadn't already banned it, Polymorph). So basically, unlike other spells that give numerical buffs to attacks, saves, and skills, Masochism scales faster than linear and has no cap (whereas most such spells scale linearly up to a cap then stop). Depending on the nature of your campaign, this may not become a problem by the time you're done (if you're doing Lv7-13, you probably won't see someone break it). But at high level play it can become a bit silly. Sadism is probably worse in all cases except the infinite combos though.

As far as the resource balance of skill-boosting spells, I think its a matter of taste. My group certainly hasn't 'let skillful characters do it to save spells', because the Divine Insight guy can hit a higher check than anyone else in the party on the one or two things he wants to each day. So when its important, they default to him. Thankfully, he basically called the skill monkey role for his character near the beginning of the campaign, so it wasn't a nasty surprise for people and doesn't overlap other roles too much. I did think to ban Guidance of the Avatar, which basically does what Divine Insight does but better, and stacks with it. A command-word at will Guidance of the Avatar item would be 10800gp, compared to 40000gp for an item that gave you a +20 to a single skill.

Furthermore, the skill buff spells get much worse during downtime - e.g., the party wants to research a question so the party's cleric loads up on +35 to a Knowledge check from spells alone, asks the question, and the party does nothing for a day. It doesn't 'break' the game, but it has a big impact on how it is played

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-14, 07:00 PM

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.
I don't do druids for the most part, so no comment here.

With respect to Shivering Touch, I think this is a useful, flavorful spell that can be "fixed" rather than banned. I only suggested banning it because it -has- to be fixed to be useable. As is it's A) confusing and B) can easily be interpreted as ridiculously powerful. I'd suggest making the dex damage into a non-stacking penalty, or removing the duration and making it a one-cast, one-touch spell.

I'm not sure whether/how Wraithstrike is broken. Can someone make the case either way? Or can it be fixed rather than banned?
It's not broken on its own, but it can be combined with some pretty standard optimization tricks (notably DMM persist) to get out of hand pretty quickly. If you want AC to still be a thing, cut it off from persist. One-cast, one-touch makes a lot of spells much more reasonable.

I agree that Shivering Touch is a mess. But I think it can be fixed rather than nixed. It's interesting enough as a spell. See above.

I find it cumbersome to manage this spell. It's like the problem with wishes, people end up using a lot of time arguing of nuances. (I suppose this is an argument for getting rid of wishes). I admit that I put Contingency on the list with some reticence. I'd be interested in more opinions on this one.
Contingency does require DM adjudication, so I could see where you wouldn't want to deal with the headache. But with the worst offender for combination (celerity) off the table, it's not likely to be strung together with anything that would be too hard to call. YMMV.

So, are you suggesting to get rid of Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph (and Alter Self?)? Polymorph and alter self, yes. Baleful polymorph's probably okay, it's just an ordinary save-or-die really.

I agree that wishes are a problem, but I think there are other issues as well . . . the ability to access spells of a higher level via Planar Binding spells, for instance. There are a variety of ways to get specific/named creatures to come to your aid and that predictability seems better. I suppose one thing to consider is listing possible creatures from which to choose or limiting--the way Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally do--the summoned creatures can act. The thing about planar binding is that unless the DM is obscenely forgiving, logic dictates that trying to circumvent making a reasonable deal with the called outsider should end in very bad things. If a player is willing to strike a bargain, usually involving a sum of gold or a favor, to get a higher level spell effect, why not let him? He could just try and find a scroll after all. I see calling spells as player generated plot-hooks more than abusable spells. Of course, it's not at all against the RAW or the spirit of the rules to simply say no to called creatures granting wishes. The planar binding spells have a clause in them that says plainly that the called creature will never accept a completely unreasonable offer. I can go into the details of why gate won't work for wishes either upon request.

On wishes; this one's easy. If you don't cast it yourself you have to deal with the possibility of miscommunication with the entity granting the wish even if you're going for the safe-list. If you cast it yourself for anything that's not on the safelist. You're knowingly opening yourself up to the DM going "Lol, no. Instead you get this horribly twisted wish." If you're not burning 5k experience on a safe-list effect, you're taking your life into your own hands and hoping you don't get screwed. (protip: keep the request reasonable and a good DM will be less likely to screw you over.)

GilesTheCleric

2012-11-14, 11:59 PM

*snip*

geas/lesser geas again are not powerful. a good rule is, the more descriptors something has, the less powerful it is. it's mind-affecting (can't use it against many foes) a compulsion (many foes have bonuses or immunities) and language dependent (so they have to understand you) the lesser version has an HD cap of 7, and allows a will save, so it's not breaking any games. the regular, saveless version is pretty badass, but due to all the drawbacks of the spell, it's not exactly rare that you'll find enemies you can't use it on

*snip*

Perhaps you're right about lesser geas, but it seems to me that any Bbeg (or anyone with significance in the world) could be seriously messed with via Geas, Familial Geas, Undying Geas, etc. If it lands on the Bbeg themselves, then the whole plot arc could be ruined.

Thank you for the analysis of the spells I chose; I probably should have put some reasons in the initial post. I'd like to support my choice of a few of them, but I'll bow to your greater knowledge of game balance as a whole (like comparable arcane spells at similar levels) rather than my focus on just what's on the cleric spell list. Of course, the OP will make choices based upon his own opinions.

Slash Tongue: Exactly. It makes Inflict Minor obsolete except for spontaneous casting.

Urfestra: Without any form of protection or mitigating spell, this means certain death after only a single spell (so SoD) at 3rd.

Blessings: 8 tentacle attacks screams "precision damage" to me (I believe they have 10 or 15 reach, as well, which is nice for AoO). At 7th level, a rogue might have a max of four or five attacks (moderately COed).

Morality Undone: Alignment change? That has all sorts of repercussions (matching deity, PrCs, etc), but especially hefty RP ones. I remember getting even just a little taint on one of my clerics was pretty bad, but this is the whole deal.

Many of the mind-affecting spells seem powerful to me, I think, because I'm used to fighting humanoids rather than dungeon-crawling, so it's easy to pick which spell to use depending whether the opponent is a magic-user, rogue, or fighter.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-15, 10:12 AM

I understand your caution about these spells, but they haven't crossed the threshold for me. I may not be reading carefully enough.

Alabenson

2012-11-15, 12:23 PM

On wishes; this one's easy. If you don't cast it yourself you have to deal with the possibility of miscommunication with the entity granting the wish even if you're going for the safe-list. If you cast it yourself for anything that's not on the safelist. You're knowingly opening yourself up to the DM going "Lol, no. Instead you get this horribly twisted wish." If you're not burning 5k experience on a safe-list effect, you're taking your life into your own hands and hoping you don't get screwed. (protip: keep the request reasonable and a good DM will be less likely to screw you over.)

One thing to add to this: most of the outsiders likely to be called for wish granting duties are evil. As in, puppy-kicking, baby-eating, will-screw-you-over-for-lulz evil. As a DM, I'd see it as my duty to screw with any PC who attempts to force such an entity to grant wishes for them.

Rejakor

2012-11-15, 01:09 PM

The problem with gating or binding wish-granting outsiders is that they can grant wishes. And they've been doing it, for each other and themselves, for a hell of a lot longer than the character has existed.

So.. yeah. Kn: Planes check tells you it's a BAD idea to go hitting up some noble efreet for wishes, and then the player still does it? Say hi to the blinged out circle magicked epic magic wielding, tricked out to high hell and back efreeti hit squad that comes after him.

Solely for the purposes of torturing him horrifically for all eternity.

Because if they wanted to, they could just wish away his existence - not like he's backed up with contingencies and alternate timeline astral seeds like they are to defend against that sort of thing.

Venger

2012-11-15, 01:38 PM

Perhaps you're right about lesser geas, but it seems to me that any Bbeg (or anyone with significance in the world) could be seriously messed with via Geas, Familial Geas, Undying Geas, etc. If it lands on the Bbeg themselves, then the whole plot arc could be ruined.

this is a possibility, but you need to be able to get into close range, need to not be silenced, and all the other limiting factors, I think your PCs should have a hard time using it on your final boss.

Thank you for the analysis of the spells I chose; I probably should have put some reasons in the initial post. I'd like to support my choice of a few of them, but I'll bow to your greater knowledge of game balance as a whole (like comparable arcane spells at similar levels) rather than my focus on just what's on the cleric spell list. Of course, the OP will make choices based upon his own opinions.
you're quite welcome. once more, I appreciate your candor, saying you don't know about a subject is the best way to learn new things about it, so people will know what you need to be informed about.

how long have you been playing, out of curiosity? I just ask because I havent' seen you on the board much, but that obviously doesn't have bearing on your experience in the game

Slash Tongue: Exactly. It makes Inflict Minor obsolete except for spontaneous casting.

well, it's still a fortneg lvl 0 spell, so there's a very low chance of this spell actually doing anything at all, like inflict minor, and making inflict minor obsolete is... not that big a deal. you could say the same thing of acid splash or sonic snap or whatever. they have no saves at all. some spells are better than others.

Urfestra: Without any form of protection or mitigating spell, this means certain death after only a single spell (so SoD) at 3rd.

well, that's just the sort of rock/paper/scissors effect of the game. if the person has the general trump card, break enchantement, handy (if you're familiar with the cleric list, you know it's almost never a bad idea to have a scroll or two of it handy) then it's not a huge deal if they can retreat. if they don't get away from combat and you just use it as a quick debuff to con... then you are not using your resources well.

in a "hit and run" type circumstance where you, for example, sneak into a bar, bump the target discreetly with conceal spellcasting, and then gtfo, it would be reasonable to assume the target (if he has money) may try restoration or something, get it checked out since it doesn't fix the problem, mebbe get spellcrafted, and see that BE is the way to get rid of it and shake it off.

and if you just cast it in a combat where you end up killing the targt a few rounds later, then... it's not offering any advantage over a spell that just deals normal con daamage (and only 1d6 at that) plus it's forcing you to take 1d6 con yourself.

Blessings: 8 tentacle attacks screams "precision damage" to me (I believe they have 10 or 15 reach, as well, which is nice for AoO). At 7th level, a rogue might have a max of four or five attacks (moderately COed).

so, you'd need to have enough spellcasting to cast the investiture spells (7 lvls, 9 lvls plus) plus sa/sudden strike? who on earth does that? (black flame zealots aside) if you're spreading yourself thin like that, you won't be that good at either of these things. and if you're just buffing the rogue with it, then who cares? rogues, like fighters, need help in the form of support from spells.

Morality Undone: Alignment change? That has all sorts of repercussions (matching deity, PrCs, etc), but especially hefty RP ones. I remember getting even just a little taint on one of my clerics was pretty bad, but this is the whole deal.

this really depends on how much your DM cares about alignment and how important s/he makes it in your game. if your target is a pally/cleric and your DM is strict about rules and stuff like that, then yeah. RP obviously is a part of the game lots of people enjoy (me too, more than numbers) and it's a very fun tool, but I wouldn't really say it's overpowered.

remember, it's only 10 minutes/lvl, so even if you fail your save, you'll shake it off. plus, mind affecting.

Many of the mind-affecting spells seem powerful to me, I think, because I'm used to fighting humanoids rather than dungeon-crawling, so it's easy to pick which spell to use depending whether the opponent is a magic-user, rogue, or fighter.

mind affecting spells are just not that good because they don't affect large swaths of the enemies that you'll be facing. every enchantment spell is mind-affecting, which is why it's commonly picked as a banned school by specialist wizards.

if your DM does all-humanoid npcs with class levels instead of monsters, then you'll obviously get more milage out of it than someone in a theoretical "default" game will.

when giving advice on mechanics, I just play the odds, because I can't know what a dm will be like. what I mean is, that as you move up in levels, nonhumanoid types, including undead, constructs, and some aberrations are immune to mind-affecting affects.

if that's the case and you fight mostly humanoidss with class levels, mind-affecting stuff gets a fair amount of punch back, but it still has a number of limiting factors.

GilesTheCleric

2012-11-15, 02:48 PM

*snip*
how long have you been playing, out of curiosity? I just ask because I havent' seen you on the board much, but that obviously doesn't have bearing on your experience in the game
*snip*
if your DM does all-humanoid npcs with class levels instead of monsters, then you'll obviously get more milage out of it than someone in a theoretical "default" game will.

when giving advice on mechanics, I just play the odds, because I can't know what a dm will be like. what I mean is, that as you move up in levels, nonhumanoid types, including undead, constructs, and some aberrations are immune to mind-affecting affects.

if that's the case and you fight mostly humanoidss with class levels, mind-affecting stuff gets a fair amount of punch back, but it still has a number of limiting factors.

I started with the introduction of 3.5. I've played a little straight AD&D and some homebrewed AD&D, but all of my experience is really 3.5/3.0.

Morality Undone: I missed that it was 10min/lvl. That does indeed make it less potent - thank you for pointing that out.

Yochlol Blessing: This has a range of close, so it's a nice spell to use on the rogue to potentially double his damage output assuming he only has 4 attacks at 7th level (w/ 4d6 SA). It seems like a pretty worthwhile buff to me - going from ≈60 average damage on a full attack to ≈120. With Blood Wind (SC), the rogue doesn't even need to be adjacent so long as the SA conditions are met (Grease/Ice Slick is an easy way of course).

Ah, I now understand your reasoning on mechanics - this is probably the reason why we disagree on the strength of some spells. My outlook is one of expectation and advance knowledge: what the party knows about the opponent before the encounter, and vice-versa. In this model of power balance, I assume that any spells are only going to be prepared/used when they have a reasonable chance of working, and so compare all spells with the assumption that they are all equally likely to be successfully cast. Incidentally, my favourite spells are divination spells.

I do agree that it's definitely better to prepare for anything when playing with a new DM. In the context of this thread, it sounds like the players and the DM (OP) already have a good idea of what to expect, so that does change the spells that we might suggest.

@ OP: On this topic, how are your games generally run? I'm very much used to playing in towns/cities, doing politicking, subterfuge, and RP/diplomacy and thus encountering many more humanoids, so all of my suggestions are given in that context.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-15, 03:13 PM

@ OP: On this topic, how are your games generally run? I'm very much used to playing in towns/cities, doing politicking, subterfuge, and RP/diplomacy and thus encountering many more humanoids, so all of my suggestions are given in that context.

My plan for this particular adventure is a 1-20 scavenger hunt type of adventure, which will have the players traveling to remote places in different climates and settings. They'll change venue about every 1.5 levels. As they progress, they will have the opportunity to unlock an ancient mystery or completely overlook the mystery (or lose its trail mid-stream) while they pursue adventure. There will be roughly fourteen chapters in this adventure, each of which will have its own contribution to the overall puzzle as well as its own story with a "climax" or crowning experience. During the course of this adventure, the players will, undoubtedly lose levels--it's just that type of adventure. That said, there will be opportunities for serious roleplaying, small group tactics, large group tactics, logical puzzles, and using what the party has learned previously to assist them later in the game. There will be circumstances where my players may be tricked into doing the "wrong" things or where they have the opportunity to be lucky.

I have not finished my outline of the adventure, yet and I'm still working on the maps and details about the scope of creatures in this world. But I'll be ready by the end of March, when we're supposed to begin. (We're in the midst of another adventure right now where I'm a player, but I am planning early.)

Venger

2012-11-15, 03:21 PM

I started with the introduction of 3.5. I've played a little straight AD&D and some homebrewed AD&D, but all of my experience is really 3.5/3.0.

Morality Undone: I missed that it was 10min/lvl. That does indeed make it less potent - thank you for pointing that out.

Yochlol Blessing: This has a range of close, so it's a nice spell to use on the rogue to potentially double his damage output assuming he only has 4 attacks at 7th level (w/ 4d6 SA). It seems like a pretty worthwhile buff to me - going from ≈60 average damage on a full attack to ≈120. With Blood Wind (SC), the rogue doesn't even need to be adjacent so long as the SA conditions are met (Grease/Ice Slick is an easy way of course).

it can certainly help a lot, but it's heavy on spells, so it won't become your team's rocket launcher

Ah, I now understand your reasoning on mechanics - this is probably the reason why we disagree on the strength of some spells. My outlook is one of expectation and advance knowledge: what the party knows about the opponent before the encounter, and vice-versa. In this model of power balance, I assume that any spells are only going to be prepared/used when they have a reasonable chance of working, and so compare all spells with the assumption that they are all equally likely to be successfully cast. Incidentally, my favourite spells are divination spells.

well, it's not that I disagree with you, per se. in your sort of game, your assessment is rather correct. it's just, the kind of game you are playing is not the default, since for the most part, it's understood that PCs will be primarily fighting monsters.

if advance knowledge (studying, knowledge checks, divination, recurring rival party, etc)

if you're going to get ample opportunity to know what you'll be fighting in advance and won't be caught off guard, and can thus restrict preparing things like mind-affecting stuff when you're against undead, then the spells will never be whipped out when they'd be useless, so they are indeed much better in this sort of game.

I do agree that it's definitely better to prepare for anything when playing with a new DM. In the context of this thread, it sounds like the players and the DM (OP) already have a good idea of what to expect, so that does change the spells that we might suggest.

@ OP: On this topic, how are your games generally run? I'm very much used to playing in towns/cities, doing politicking, subterfuge, and RP/diplomacy and thus encountering many more humanoids, so all of my suggestions are given in that context.

good question. it does of course depend n your sort of game. since most people had been talking about combat, I was mostly talking about combat and monster fighting, but the love's pain trick still breaks a social game.

Venusaur

2012-11-15, 04:42 PM

Summons, Buffing, Battlefield control and Glitterdust like spells are all clear and crystal, but don't they just have immunity to all mind-affecting effects? :smallconfused:

Regardless of this my question has been answered. :smallsmile:

Many illusions don't have mind-affecting tags, like the whole silent image chain.

Draz74

2012-11-15, 04:50 PM

Is it just me, or has Streamers somehow not been mentioned yet in this thread?

Venger

2012-11-15, 04:52 PM

Many illusions don't have mind-affecting tags, like the whole silent image chain.

indeed. the ____ image line is actually great against mindless foes because they tend to have abysmal wisdom scores and poor will saves. in the unlikely event you actually fight an ooze, for example, it's very easy to trick with a major image.

Is it just me, or has Streamers somehow not been mentioned yet in this thread?

Also you missed Streamers.

@OP: (I know there is some redundancy) Streamers, Celerity and Greater, Shapechange, Arcane Fusion and Greater, and Arcane Spellsurge.

it's just you :smalltongue:

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-15, 05:13 PM

Is it just me, or has Streamers somehow not been mentioned yet in this thread?

I agree that Streamers as written is a mess. I think it can be fixed, rather than nixed. Don't you think?

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-18, 08:26 AM

What about Polymorph and Alter Self? Is it better to fix or nix these? I have assumed that they can be fixed. But I may be mistaken.

nedz

2012-11-18, 09:32 AM

What about Polymorph and Alter Self? Is it better to fix or nix these? I have assumed that they can be fixed. But I may be mistaken.

Many have tried to fix these, I haven't seen a fix I like as yet.
Alterself is not too bad, unless the caster manages to become non-humaniod, at which point it can get silly.

Rejakor

2012-11-18, 09:53 AM

Polymorphing is a staple of fantasy literature. Removing the ability for wizards to become animals or fantastical creatures removes a lot of the tropes or abilities of fantasy wizards from the class entirely.

There are a number of polymorph 'fixes' floating around, but honestly, most of them are terrible. I include under this wotc's various rewrites of the polymorph rules and wotc/paizo's 'one form per spell' 'fix'.

A relatively simple fix that helps immensely is making it based on CR, and not on HD. Some creatures are ungodly vicious for their HD, and while CR isn't perfect it's certainly better.

Another avenue that you can take is to simply specify maximum bonuses the polymorph spell can provide in terms of strength and natural armour and size increases and all the rest of it, and assign them a type. This doesn't necessarily mean that a wizard can't turn into a war troll and hulk out, he just can't turn into a war troll and then cast bite of the X and have the strength score of an elder titan.

My favourite fix is the Tome fix, i.e. Frank's idea, where if you polymorph, you get all the facets of the new creature - you just don't get the effects of spells or your spellcasting while you are in that form. You essentially count as that creature in all ways, and it functions from CR, so you turn into something that is as powerful as you, but different, and don't get to do the thing that breaks polymorph - which is combine the powerful spellcasting of the wizard with the powerful melee abilities of a brute monster (or some crazy supernatural effect).

Draz74

2012-11-18, 12:46 PM

it's just you :smalltongue:
Oh, good. My faith in the Playground is restored. :smallamused:

What about Polymorph and Alter Self? Is it better to fix or nix these? I have assumed that they can be fixed. But I may be mistaken.
Fixing them completely is surprisingly hard. But there's a super-easy fix that makes them nicely balanced instead of OVERPOWERED, except in a few corner cases (such as an Outsider using Alter Self to become a Dwarven Ancestor, or a Polymorph user using the ban-worthy Savage Species feat that picks up [Su] abilities from the polymorphed form).

Ready to hear this fix? OK:
Alter Self is now a Level 4 spell.
Polymorph is now a Level 7 (or 8?) spell.
Voila.

My favourite fix is the Tome fix, i.e. Frank's idea, where if you polymorph, you get all the facets of the new creature - you just don't get the effects of spells or your spellcasting while you are in that form. You essentially count as that creature in all ways, and it functions from CR, so you turn into something that is as powerful as you, but different, and don't get to do the thing that breaks polymorph - which is combine the powerful spellcasting of the wizard with the powerful melee abilities of a brute monster (or some crazy supernatural effect).

Basically the route that 5e is taking so far, incidentally.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-18, 07:36 PM

What about Polymorph and Alter Self? Is it better to fix or nix these? I have assumed that they can be fixed. But I may be mistaken.

You might be able to save alter self, but polymorph is just too open ended to really be workable. There are plenty of spells that can give you a specific shape that are reasonably balanced to replace it with.

Alter self can be improved, IMO, by changeing the target line to "you (humanoids only)". If you can't change your dragonwrought kobold sorcerer into an actual true dragon (let's not start that debate again, please) of the same HD, or your aasimar wizard into a freakin' angel, it makes the spell much more reasonable.

TuggyNE

2012-11-18, 07:40 PM

Alter self can be improved, IMO, by changeing the target line to "you (humanoids only)". If you can't change your dragonwrought kobold sorcerer into an actual true dragon (let's not start that debate again, please) of the same HD, or your aasimar wizard into a freakin' angel, it makes the spell much more reasonable.

True, but then it seems weird, and needs renaming to alter person, since it's useless to casters of any other type.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-18, 07:42 PM

True, but then it seems weird, and needs renaming to alter person, since it's useless to casters of any other type.

I'm okay with that.

Flickerdart

2012-11-18, 07:55 PM

Alter self can be improved, IMO, by changeing the target line to "you (humanoids only)". If you can't change your dragonwrought kobold sorcerer into an actual true dragon (let's not start that debate again, please) of the same HD, or your aasimar wizard into a freakin' angel, it makes the spell much more reasonable.
Even the weakest angel is far out of scope for the spell, and even if you could find a low level one to shift into, pretty much all you'd get is their flight...which you can get as a humanoid (off Raptoran) quite easily anyway.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-18, 08:39 PM

Even the weakest angel is far out of scope for the spell, and even if you could find a low level one to shift into, pretty much all you'd get is their flight...which you can get as a humanoid (off Raptoran) quite easily anyway.

It was an example off the top of my head.

The point was that types other than humanoid often have very nice options for alter self that, while RAW legal, fall outside of what I suspect many people would consider RAI, and make the spell somewhat overpowered besides.

nedz

2012-11-18, 09:41 PM

Alter self can be improved, IMO, by changeing the target line to "you (humanoids only)". If you can't change your dragonwrought kobold sorcerer into an actual true dragon (let's not start that debate again, please) of the same HD, or your aasimar wizard into a freakin' angel, it makes the spell much more reasonable.

I like this, but I don't think it's necessary. If a PC acquires a reputation for really being a Dragon or Angel (whatever) then they will attract unwanted attention. This cost could easily outweigh the advantage. It's hard to keep these tricks completely secret.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-18, 09:47 PM

I like this, but I don't think it's necessary. If a PC acquires a reputation for really being a Dragon or Angel (whatever) then they will attract unwanted attention. This cost could easily outweigh the advantage. It's hard to keep these tricks completely secret.

At the same time, that reputation creates a new advantage, in being able to catch those who take it to be true completely by suprise. The only thing more powerful than information is misinformation. :smallwink:

Flickerdart

2012-11-18, 09:59 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-18, 10:36 PM

You failed to make that point, then. What are some actually overpowered options for quirky races that are worth giving up one or more feats (compared to a Human) and the slot to cast Alter Self?

Fist, I said humanoid, not human. The giving up a feat doesn't follow, because you were going to be doing that anyway, no matter which non-human race you chose. Unless you're saying the only race worth playing is human.

Just off the top of my head and using the SRD for a quick reference, an aasimar can alter-self into the form of an air-mephit for the decrease in size (good for a caster) and 60ft fly speed with perfect maneuverability. This is effectively part of the boost from reduce person, plus better than what you get from fly, and for 10 times the duration of either. Thats one second level slot for an outright better effect than one 1st and one 3rd level slot. Works just as well for a tiefling.

A warforged could transform himself into an animated object giving himself a hardness score for 10min/level. An ability that's outright better than damage reduction and energy resistance because it's effectively the two combined with no bypass on the damage reduction and resistance to all types of energy. He also gets boosts to, and possibly extra, movement modes depending on the exact object. As an object, he may even get energy damages reduced by a fraction before applying hardness, depending on how the DM rules it. (don't count on that last bit, this demonstration's already got DM's eyeing the spell suspiciously)

A necropolitan could alter-self into an incorporeal creature, such as a shadow. (I think, I don't have the polymorph subschool sidebar in front of me.)

All three of these are reasonable (not to mention common) racial choices in their own right. Adding alter-self cheese on top is just gravy.

Draz74

2012-11-18, 10:57 PM

You failed to make that point, then. What are some actually overpowered options for quirky races that are worth giving up one or more feats (compared to a Human) and the slot to cast Alter Self?

Like I mentioned earlier ... Dwarf Ancestor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3). Natural Armor +18, anyone?

Telok

2012-11-19, 04:47 AM

Like I mentioned earlier ... Dwarf Ancestor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3). Natural Armor +18, anyone?

The Assume Supernatural Ability feat can be a problem since an Alter Self caster can start taking it at level 3.

Monstrous Humanoid: Centaur [large and 50 base move], Sea Hag [Evil Eye save or die]
Aberration: Choker [two standard actions each round], Ethereal Filcher [CL15 Ethereal Jaunt]
Outsider: Xorn [+12 NatAC, three arms], Ravid [CL20 free action Animate Object], Lantern Archon [CL14 Greater Teleport at will]

If someone has a gish build that includes Alter Self and Assume Supernatural Ability you can be sure of at least mild shenanigans. Elan characters are especially bad with the choker's Quickness ability.

Edit Edit: I realized that I counted only [Ex] abilities in the above statement. I have since changed them to the [Su] abilities that the feat actually gives. Although some special defenses are not called out as [Ex] or [Su].

nedz

2012-11-19, 05:09 AM

At the same time, that reputation creates a new advantage, in being able to catch those who take it to be true completely by suprise. The only thing more powerful than information is misinformation. :smallwink:

True, but it can work both ways. More like to lead to misconceptions, which could create some interesting plot twists :smallamused:

Rejakor

2012-11-19, 06:05 AM

It was an example off the top of my head.

The point was that types other than humanoid often have very nice options for alter self that, while RAW legal, fall outside of what I suspect many people would consider RAI, and make the spell somewhat overpowered besides.

There's like, 3 things that you can change into that actually help you, using weird [Type]s and Alter Self.

As an outsider, you can use one of the low-HD forms that have good natural armour, because outsiders all are crazily natural armoured for some reason. The famous example is Ancestor Dwarf, but there are others if for example you're not in a game that has ancestor dwarves in it.

You can change into something with better flight than a raptoran or avariel. Yawn. Or better swim speed than an aquatic elf. Double yawn.

In all the monster manuals and other books, there is probably something that has less than 5 HD and an Ex ability that does something good (as opposed to crap like Stench and Pounce, that is not actually that good).

The only real problem there is using natural AC to get a high armour class for minutes/level. If someone wants to spend their race or a feat, in order to be a wizard with a high AC, i'm actually okay with that.

But if you're worried about it, just cap the nat armour available to half CL. Problem solved forever.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-19, 11:23 AM

The discussion here seems to suggest that Polymorph (as well as Draconic Polymorph) and Alter Self should be nixed.

nedz

2012-11-19, 11:29 AM

The discussion here seems to suggest that Polymorph (as well as Draconic Polymorph) and Alter Self should be nixed.

The problem with polymorph is that it extends your spell book by 6 monster manuals+whatever else you can find on the web. Some of the options are OP.

Venger

2012-11-19, 11:39 AM

The discussion here seems to suggest that Polymorph (as well as Draconic Polymorph) and Alter Self should be nixed.

a possible solution: make the caster "prepare" monsters in advance. cutting down on versatility somewhat helps make up for the spell's power

so he doesn't prepare polymorph, he prepares "polymorph: guardian naga"

Rejakor

2012-11-19, 12:14 PM

It depends on the kind of game you run.

If you run a traditional roles cleric is a healer wizard shoots fireballs fighter has weapon focus and rogue sneaks and uses two daggers group, polymorph, even with the 'you and the monster are separate things, you don't get spells or buffs you cast earlier, you just get the monster's stats' thing, polymorph could theoretically outpower the group. That said, if you have someone digging for OP monsters and using polymorph in a group like that, you ALREADY have a problem.

If you run a group that does even slight optimization, a wizard turning into a War Troll, without buffs or spellcasting, at level 12, is perfectly balanced.

If you use polymorph as written, and allow it to be combined with spells and buffs, then most low-op parties are going to feel crappy compared to the buffed polymorphed wizard. It's too powerful for mid-op, but won't necessarily overpower the party. The place and time for polymorph as written is high op, so a party where the druid is a fleshraker with venomfire, and the rogue is a flask swift ambusher with travel devotion, and the cleric is a codzilla, would be the place for a polymorphed wizard duder.

That said, again, a relatively easy fix of making it be EITHER have buffs and spells OR be polymorphed makes polymorph perfectly fine for most groups.

Alter Self takes high op to actually be more powerful than it should be (ancestor dwarf etc), otherwise the most it does is give a +5 bonus to natural armour for being a troglodyte, which, given Mirror Image is also a second level spell, is fine.

Polymorph Any Object, though, is broken as ****. Even if you disallow the permanent duration, it's still broken as ****. It should not be in any game, as it gives you the su, sp, and ex of ANY creature you ever want.

Shapechange is roughly similar, but meh, it's a 9th level spell.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-20, 04:47 PM

I've been looking at fixes intermittently throughout the day. I am not seeing a way through polymorph, draconic polymorph, and alter self. I think I'm ditching them. There are a number of of spells that allow transformations but these seem too abusable to me.

Am I missing anything else?

eggs

2012-11-20, 05:08 PM

There are a number of of spells that allow transformations but these seem too amusable to me.
Well I've definitely never seen shapeshifts used in a way that didn't amuse somebody. :smalltongue:

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-20, 05:45 PM

Well I've definitely never seen shapeshifts used in a way that didn't amuse somebody. :smalltongue:

Whoops. Fixed that.

Melcar

2012-11-21, 06:20 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-21, 06:40 AM

I have godt to say, that I wholly disagree in the fact of banning. I think, that the more options, be them more or less powerful, ads to the whole experience. I would say, that the spells in question could be rare or very hard to optain.

Further, I would not include my players in this. I would let them find out what happened, when theygot to a level they actually could cast the sayd spell. Just tell them, that they should not be locked to what the books said, but experience the realms as you describe them. And then you simply put into play the spells you like and how you like them. But be warned. Banning is for me no way to go. More is for me more!

This doesn't really work for maintaining even a semblance of game-balance, if your players are either reasonably experienced or, worse, if they frequent boards like this one.

Removing some of the most exploitable elements of the game before they become a problem can save a DM a lot of headache.

I can understand a desire to keep banning to a minimum, but there are some things that a DM just has to outright say no to.

Melcar

2012-11-21, 08:52 AM

Kazyan

2012-11-21, 09:04 AM

Try getting the things you want to ban to work for you, not against you. Only the imagination sets the boundaries. Bannings is the "easy" way out!

This works when you're writing a novel *sideyes at current 29715 words of literary Wonder Bread*, but in an RPG, the players have a lot of control. Some classes will have game-twisters, and some won't, but you won't be able to do much about it if a conflict arises between players because of it. Some things really should be fixed.

nedz

2012-11-21, 10:31 AM

If you must ban, then ban in secret. That was my point. And also. Try getting the things you want to ban to work for you, not against you. Only the imagination sets the boundaries. Bannings is the "easy" way out!

I have ever onl banned one thing, and thats the monk class, since it just didnt fit the setting.

But ofc. do what ever works for you and your game!

I dislike banning things too, but stealth banning is much worse.

Much better to be upfront so that everyone knows where they stand.

For instance I'm playing a Sorcerer in one game with a DM who bans things for seemingly arbitrary reasons. I didn't pick up Fly because a refluffed version of Flight of the Dragon would fit the character better and be more flexible. I come to take my 1st 4th level spell and discover that FotD is banned: I then have to wait another level to pick up Fly :smallmad:
There have been numerous instances of this and it is very annoying.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-21, 03:28 PM

That's the idea. I know that there will always be opportunities for dashed expectations or miscommunication or unbalance. That said, getting out some ground rules is helpful. The fact that WoTC wrote a rule doesn't make it a good rule or a rule that works for any given campaign.

I am trying to get the wisdom of the boards here about spells I should consider nixing (as opposed to fixing). There will be things we keep that are unbalanced, for instance, Natural Spell. We like the flavor and will keep it. There are other ways to address the imbalance among classes. But we are working now to nix and fix spells, feats, magic items, and some other aspects of the game.

I do appreciate the concerns about banning too much or even banning at all. But we, as a group, are comfortable banning. I'd welcome specific critiques about the spells I've listed in the first post or spells I should be considering that are not there.

lord_khaine

2012-11-21, 04:22 PM

I do appreciate the concerns about banning too much or even banning at all. But we, as a group, are comfortable banning. I'd welcome specific critiques about the spells I've listed in the first post or spells I should be considering that are not there.

looking though your list of spells, then i would again suggest against removing alter self and polymorp completely, as long as you just limit what books you can take shapes from it isnt going to run completely out of control (compare the stats of a wartroll and a regular troll, one of those is going to break the game, the other will just let the wizard have a bit of fun bullying some regular orcs for a change of pace)

Else i dont think you should be banning contingency, its one of the few decent evocation spells, and if you just place some solid guidelines for what kind of things that are able to trigger it, then i dont think its going to be a problem either.

As for planar binding, then i dont think this spell should be banned either, it would instead be enough to add a bit of consequences from more powerfull outsiders towards wizards who use the spell in bad faith, and kills or magicaly enslave what they have called.

regarding enchanced wildshape im not sure whats it doing on this list, but i cant see any reason to ban it.

On the other hand i dont see any mentioning of Evards black tentacles, and thats a spell i certainly think deserves a bit of closer attention.

PetterTomBos

2012-11-21, 04:33 PM

In my campaign I almost ban spells that duplicate class features or skills completely. What I say is that the spell gives a bonus instead of duplicating what others could do. This is usually done on the fly, and fleshed out later if the PC's learn/use the spell extensively.

Spider climb: +4 to climb checks, no matter how the surface is tilted it is not worse than climbing the same surface vertically.

Knock: bonus to open lock, open lock take 15, or an open lock check of 15.

Find traps: you can find traps with DC = 22.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-21, 08:47 PM

If anyone's interested in a more fleshed out discussion of planar binding, we've got a rather solid discussion going in another thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261694) Start on post 25.

That discussion pertains specifically to using PB to get wishes, but the info would move reasonably well to any other motivation for the spells' use.

ShriekingDrake

2012-11-22, 11:39 AM

looking though your list of spells, then i would again suggest against removing alter self and polymorp completely, as long as you just limit what books you can take shapes from it isnt going to run completely out of control (compare the stats of a wartroll and a regular troll, one of those is going to break the game, the other will just let the wizard have a bit of fun bullying some regular orcs for a change of pace) So I take it, you'd say that neither of these spells would need to be banned if we just limited the possible form/shape to core? Would others agree with this?

Else i dont think you should be banning contingency, its one of the few decent evocation spells, and if you just place some solid guidelines for what kind of things that are able to trigger it, then i dont think its going to be a problem either. What kind of limits would you have in mind? I've had a difficult coming up with criteria that work. I'd put contingency back into fix pile if I had a sense of how to get there.

As for planar binding, then i dont think this spell should be banned either, it would instead be enough to add a bit of consequences from more powerfull outsiders towards wizards who use the spell in bad faith, and kills or magicaly enslave what they have called. Take a look at Kelb Panthera's link above. I think this is a hard spell to control. And I think that ruling that the outsider your player has conjured has turned against him, while legitimate, can cause friction. It just strikes me that this line of spells is more trouble than it is worth.

regarding enchanced wildshape im not sure whats it doing on this list, but i cant see any reason to ban it. I don't think this spell is necessary, as druids are powerful enough. That said, I'm considering putting this on the fix list and just getting rid of advancing the plant form and addition of special abilities.

On the other hand i dont see any mentioning of Evards black tentacles, and thats a spell i certainly think deserves a bit of closer attention.

Evard's can be fixed.

nedz

2012-11-22, 11:52 AM

So I take it, you'd say that neither of these spells would need to be banned if we just limited the possible form/shape to core? Would others agree with this?
Look at the Bite of the spells from SpC

Evard's can be fixed.
I wasn't aware that there was a problem with this spell ?
Just what fix are you proposing ?

NichG

2012-11-22, 04:37 PM

Draz74

2012-11-22, 07:35 PM

Wings of Cover is a good one to add to the list. At high level, I could see a Sorcerer just using Heighten Spell and burning most of his lower level slots to cast this as needed to avoid nearly any attack.

It's powerful, but it's arguably not too powerful for the same reason your described strategy doesn't actually work: you only get one immediate action per round.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-11-26, 02:54 PM

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-07, 11:10 PM

FWIW, I think the planar binding line works just fine if used as intended. It's when a player tries to get something for nothing and/or abuses the called outsider that it becomes a problem.

It's a player generated plot-hook if used well and a nightmarish headache if used poorly or abusively.

I can certainly understand banning it to avoid the latter.

I don't disagree with this. But I want to avoid the nightmarish headache. It might be too conservative to do so, but I don't think we lose something essential by banning it. That said, I could still be convinced otherwise.

NichG

2012-12-07, 11:44 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-08, 12:54 AM

The main problem with the Planar Binding fix of assuming certain things about outsider behavior is that its basically a stealth nerf. A player might come in with the expectation that the spell works one way and then get slapped by the equivalent of 'rocks fall, everyone dies' as a million outsiders converge on them and crush them for their hubris, but that doesn't really make for good gaming.

For me though I'd just remove the ability to compel behavior from all of the outsider summoning spells, make it clear to players that you have to pre-negotiate the spell with the summoned being, and that you can get the same one each time so that pre-negotiation is actually useful.

It's only a stealth nerf if you don't tell the player about it when they pick up a calling spell.

The binding line are noteables in the way of significantly impacting -any- campaign they take place in and should, consequently, be something for which a good DM watches. Allowing a player to select one of the planar binding spells without comment is bad DM'ing, IMO, unless you've already had a discussion on the nature of such things as a matter of discussing your shared hobby. Even then a quick reminder of said conversation would be a good way to err on the side of caution.

The same is true, albeit to a much lesser extent, to planar ally and; to an even lesser, but still noteable extent; certain spells of the enchantment school.

Also of note; there's a clause in the planar binding spells that prevents you from compelling the called creature without making -some- kind of deal.
Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Emphasis mine.

Since the DM runs the called creature (who is an NPC, remember) it's up to his discression to determine what's reasonable.

ShriekingDrake

2013-01-29, 09:08 PM

I'm still tinkering with this list. I'll likely remove Enhance Wildshape, as it isn't broken--even though I think its not necessary to have this spell.

Pickford

2013-01-30, 01:42 AM

ShriekingDrake

2013-02-03, 11:03 AM

I had a substitute GM who wanted to ban entire classes of spells (divination) and I discovered in the first game would liberally engage in the disfunction of "every NPC has permanent true seeing".

I think it really just taught me to avoid spells that can be gibbed by fiat.

It's a good point, if I understand it. In the end, what's banned for the party should be banned for the DM. It's why I haven't removed Miracle, Wish, and Limited Wish. Admittedly, I think they are risky spells that must be used sparingly, by all.

Pickford

2013-02-04, 09:45 AM

peacenlove

2013-02-04, 10:35 AM

Incidentally, if you really are disturbed by some spells, just enforce the actual rules as written for casting spells and you'll rapidly discover how balanced it is.

Ex: A standard wizard (no frills) would need 3 spellbooks just to write down the spells they get from leveling to 20th. That's 9 lbs of gear they basically 'have' to carry around with them to prepare for a day of adventuring. Then check out the spell components, the better spells routinely require you to have gems worth several thousand gp or the like. Spells generally do require more preparation and money input than is noticed. Making someone with a default strength of 8 carry all that crap seems a just balancing act. (They still have to lug it even if they don't actually prepare the spell, i.e. if they want to be 'able' to cast most anything they're going to be trucking around ....well...a truck worth of materials. Nevermind the weight of gear.

Invisible (tenser's) floating disk disagrees. A dominated (insert dumb minion) is commanded to disagree.

Also
Overland fly = shuts down melee all day long, no component worth noting
(Greater) Teleport = makes random encounters vanish and completely changes play dynamics, no component worth noting
Summon (anything) = most versatile spell sans shadow conjuration, no component worth noting
Polymorph any object = okay I lied. Do anything. Become anything. Permanently.
No component worth noting.
Wish = Remember all those crafting feats those foolish arcane casters took? Yeah the fools :smallsigh: 5000 xp which are converted to the desired item as a standard action.
See a pattern? I could go on really...

EDIT: Lastly all wizards buy / steal / murder in order to obtain this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#blessedBook) for their spell book needs

Synovia

2013-02-04, 10:50 AM

I have had the situation where I was playing a Sorcerer and planned my spell selection 4 or so levels in advance. I would pass over a spell intending to take a higher level one in its place, only to discover, much to my surprise, that the DM banned the second spell. This happened several times and left me with a poor spell set:smallmad: The DM's ban list was very unpredictable.

This. The idea of a gentleman's agreemant in such a rules-bound game is absurd. There's no way two people (let alone a DM and 4+ players) are going to have the same idea of what is OK and what is not.

Giving people a framework to work in makes everyone's lives easier.

Pickford

2013-02-04, 02:07 PM

Invisible (tenser's) floating disk disagrees. A dominated (insert dumb minion) is commanded to disagree.

I kind of like the dominate [monster; person] idea. Tenser's would let you down (literally) as soon as you teleport, dimension door, or fly. So you'd have to burn scrolls on this I suppose, or waste slots in casting it.

Also
Overland fly = shuts down melee all day long, no component worth noting

When outdoors...granted most melee would be able to shoot you with arrows here, or go stand under a tree preventing you from targetting them with spells, but sure...in an open field, not bad.

(Greater) Teleport = makes random encounters vanish and completely changes play dynamics, no component worth noting

Yep, I'd take it too. The point is that some spells require spell components/foci weigh something and cost something.

Polymorph any object = okay I lied. Do anything. Become anything. Permanently. No component worth noting.

Yeah and have it's int too, so if you pick wrong you are a squirrel. Forever. No component worth noting?? It requires 'smoke'. So you have to light a torch or start a fire first which isn't exactly the first thing a mage is doing in combat.

Wish = Remember all those crafting feats those foolish arcane casters took? Yeah the fools :smallsigh: 5000 xp which are converted to the desired item as a standard action.
See a pattern? I could go on really...

You actually pay 2x the xp cost + 5,000xp for anything magic...so you're not exactly getting a leg up on the normal crafting route. Sure, it's one spell instead of having to have already memorized all the others...but still.

Edit: Yeah the Blessed book is good...but you'd still have to carry around the books until you get the 10k for it...that's alot to spend until you're just tripping over treasure.