Alternate Class Feature for Removing Polymorph/Summoning.

[visigani]

So, the jist of it is you cannot turn into another creature... nor can you summon another creature.

In essence nothing that adopts or uses the statistics block of something else.

For transmuters, conjurors and necromancers (and rebuking clerics) what would be a suitable alternate character option?

[Fax Celestis]

Nothing. They're fine even without.

[Asrrin]

any other sorcerer other than a mailman gets completely hosed. For classes with fixed spell lists or limited spells known the flexibility offered by these spells are what keep the class at the tier they are.

If you are insistent on doing something so drastic, I would find a way to give favored souls, sorcs, and the tier 3 casters some more versatile spells or ways to change their loadout if needed.

For instance, the simple Alter Self spell for my sorc nabs me flight, swim, burrow, climb, hide, armor, and many other skills as opposed to having to know a dozen different spells to replicate those effects.

[aleucard]

Expect the Spontaneous Casters that have those in their lists to drop down at least 1 tier. The strong versatility provided by those spells really can't be obtained by other methods, and 'strong versatility' is really what makes high-tier high-tier. Prepared or 'All Spells Known' Casters aren't going to see much of a drop, but it will be noticed. If that's a desirable thing for you (much fewer ways to accidentally or even purposefully break an encounter/campaign with this, and true balance is found at T3), go for it. Just make sure to remind the caster what exactly this means on character-creation.

[Fax Celestis]

true balance is found at T3

...according to...?

[eggynack]

Eh, druids might take a hit, because you'd be wiping two of their best class features, but they'd still have their best class feature, which is casting spells. Everyone would remain where they are in terms of tiers, because being able to polymorph and summon is just a chewy chunk of chocolate at the center of the wonderful cookie that is full casting classes. If a wizard can't get their versatility through polymorph, they'll get it from somewhere else, because all full casters have a ridiculously broad spell list.

Also, conjurers and transmuters would probably remain the two most powerful schools, because they have a ton of stuff even with these losses, and wizard necromancy was based on debuffs anyway. You might want to give necromancy a buff of some kind, but you also might not want to do that, because they're wizards and screw them. Maybe clerical necromancy could pick up some wizard debuffs though, just cause making undead was a big deal for them.

[Psyren]

...according to...?

T3 is widely considered the "sweet spot" due to their ability to overcome level-appropriate challenges while lacking the game-breaking potential of higher tiers.

[eggynack]

T3 is widely considered the "sweet spot" due to their ability to overcome level-appropriate challenges while lacking the game-breaking potential of higher tiers.
I'd like to add that it gets bonus points for having the broadest range of character options. A game with all tier ones is generally just as balanced as a game with all tier threes, but a tier one game is just caster, caster, caster, caster. You can definitely pick up some versatility from there, because a caster can fill any role, but the mechanics are all rather samey. By contrast, a tier three game can have a beguiler as the caster, a factotum as the rogue (some blending on both), a warblade as the fighter, and a crusader as a pseudo-healer.

It's not perfect, but there's a huge advantage to having access to so many systems. You're mostly working off of vancian casting in tier one, and hitting stuff in the face in tier five, but in tier three you get initiators, psionics, incarnum, binding, and probably some others based on how you tier things, and how you define a "mechanic". It's not actually more balanced, because balance is relative, but it makes a solid balance point.

[Fax Celestis]

That's all well and good, but claiming that one tier is 'more balanced' than another is facetious. Tiers are balanced within each other: that is why they are tiers. As long as the game all stays within the scope of one tier (or even some neighboring tiers), you're fine. But saying that 'Tier 3 is the pinnacle of balance' is a misnomer and disingenuous. It isn't. Tier 3 has just as many problems as any other tier (barring tier 1 because of ludicrousness).

[Psyren]

There are two metrics for power in D&D:

- Intra-party power (comparing the PCs to each other)
- External power (comparing the PCs to level-appropriate challenges)

Balance within a tier falls into the first camp. A party of T1s facing T1 level challenges (i.e. challenges that, using the CR system, would be above the suggested mark) would be balanced. Putting a lower tier in that same group would be unbalanced, since their contributions would be likely irrelevant.

Balance using suggested CRs - minus a few unfortunate corner cases - falls into the second camp. Excluding things that are mislabeled like Shadows and That Damn Crab, a T3 party of level X can handle challenges of CR X; moreover, they do so without struggling like lower tiers would, but also without trivializing them like higher tiers would.


When people say "T3 is balanced" they're typically referring to the second situation, not the first.

[eggynack]

It isn't. Tier 3 has just as many problems as any other tier (barring tier 1 because of ludicrousness).
See, the rest of the stuff you said is mostly accurate, but this isn't. Tier three has the advantages I've listed, which are rather important. Tier five has far less mechanical variety than tier three does, which is a problem that tier five has that tier three doesn't have. There's some issue of preference here, but you shouldn't go claiming that all the tiers are equal.

Also, based on the metric of sticking a new character into an already existent game, tier three characters actually are more balanced than the other tiers. Assuming that we ignore tier six for a moment, any given game will only include classes within a two tier range of our character. If you bring a factotum into a party with a cleric and a fighter, the factotum is unlikely to be overshadowed by the cleric, and is unlikely to overshadow the fighter, at least not to a significant degree. Tier four becomes equally balanced if we include tier six, but games with tier one classes are far more common than games with tier six classes, at least by my understanding of common gameplay. Tier three is balanced with tier three, but it is also more balanced with tier five than tier one is. It's a thing which absolutely must be considered when talking about balance.

[Fax Celestis]

See, the rest of the stuff you said is mostly accurate, but this isn't. Tier three has the advantages I've listed, which are rather important. Tier five has far less mechanical variety than tier three does, which is a problem that tier five has that tier three doesn't have. There's some issue of preference here, but you shouldn't go claiming that all the tiers are equal.I didn't say they were equal or had the same problems, I said they had the same amount of problems.

Tier 3's biggest problem is that most of it exists in splats, which many DMs are loath to even consider using. Comparatively, Tier 2 and Tier 1's issues stem mostly from being 'core material', but still requiring a heaping helping of restraint to prevent making the rest of your party redundant.

[eggynack]

I didn't say they were equal or had the same problems, I said they had the same amount of problems.

Tier 3's biggest problem is that most of it exists in splats, which many DMs are loath to even consider using. Comparatively, Tier 2 and Tier 1's issues stem mostly from being 'core material', but still requiring a heaping helping of restraint to prevent making the rest of your party redundant.
That's not really the same amount of problems at all. Like, tier two has only one core class, compared to an equal number from tier three. If you add psionics, you add a class to both sides, and it makes no difference. Thus, this is a problem that is equally held across the two tiers. Tier two has additional problems on top of that, many of which are far more grave, so tier two has more problems than tier three. Additionally, quantity is a ridiculous measure for how problematic something is. You can't just pair things off one to one like that and call them equal.

[Fax Celestis]

And you can't just designate one tier as 'the best tier'. So we're both being ridiculous here.

What objectively makes tier 3 a better tier than the others other than your personal game style preferences?

[eggynack]

And you can't just designate one tier as 'the best tier'. So we're both being ridiculous here.

What objectively makes tier 3 a better tier than the others other than your personal game style preferences?
I just gave a good amount of reasons why I think it's better. That's really all I can do, when you get right down to it. I also gave plenty of reasons why it could be considered the most balanced tier. There's no such thing as "objectively better", and I never said that there was. I was only saying the things I was saying, and I don't think any of those things were ridiculous.

[Psyren]

And you can't just designate one tier as 'the best tier'. So we're both being ridiculous here.

What objectively makes tier 3 a better tier than the others other than your personal game style preferences?

I answered that question above. The only objective comparison D&D really has is the CR system. It's not perfect but that is ultimately its purpose, and various other artifacts (e.g. adventure modules and monster PC rules) are based on it.

[Fax Celestis]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. No tier is better in a vacuum. Tiers are tools put together to help one make a game that is playable and enjoyable for all involved. If the entire group aspires to tier 2, then that is the best tier. If the entire group decides tier 4 is their sweet spot, that is the best tier.

There is no objectively "better" tier, only subjective. My objections above were to (not you, admittedly) the assertion that 'tier 3 is the best tier', when there's really no reason that's the case.

[visigani]

Fourteen responses in... no one has actually answered my question other than to say none.

[eggynack]

Fourteen responses in... no one has actually answered my question other than to say none.
Well, the answer is "none". Polymorph is a broken spell attached to a broken class. I've honestly always liked summoning, but losing it isn't going to push people away from the class. The ACF for losing these things should read something like, "Lose: polymorph and summoning. Gain: Being a tier one class." If you really want, you can toss them one of the familiar based ACF's. Abrupt jaunt is probably fine for summoning, though I don't think the transmutation options are as good. Familiars are less powerful than these spells, so you can't go too far off course.

[Psyren]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. No tier is better in a vacuum. Tiers are tools put together to help one make a game that is playable and enjoyable for all involved. If the entire group aspires to tier 2, then that is the best tier. If the entire group decides tier 4 is their sweet spot, that is the best tier.

There is no objectively "better" tier, only subjective. My objections above were to (not you, admittedly) the assertion that 'tier 3 is the best tier', when there's really no reason that's the case.

I get what you're saying, but there actually is an objective comparison tool in D&D - the CR system, which says that "a group comprised of characters at X level should be reasonably challenged by an encounter of CR (X)/(X+1)/(X+2)." Again, it's got plenty of errors, but being an objective yardstick is its purpose nonetheless.

For cases where the CR system isn't borked, T1 and T2 can blow this out of the water, taking on CRs 3,4, even 5 above their level. T4 and T5 tend to struggle even with equal CRs, and often need the odds tweaked in their favor such that they are actually facing CRs below their level. T3 meanwhile tend to come in performance-wise where the system intended them to.

[ArcturusV]

Eh. I wouldn't worry TOO much about Rebuking Clerics. They can still pick up enemy undead under their command if they need it. And clerics being, well, Clerics, have a lot of things they can do other than summon celestials/fiends or animate undead. So I'd say Clerics don't really need to be touched. Most of their raw power doesn't come from being a Minion Master anyways, it comes from being a Master Buff/Debuff machine and a Master Fortune Teller. I MIGHT allow Miracle to overcome that restriction, as a specific exception like "You can use a miracle to summon up (X weak creatures related to your god) or 1 more powerful creature related to your God for Y rounds." Just because if you're favored enough to pop a miracle in someone? Your God is probably just fine loaning you an Archon or a Devil for a bit.

Necromancer Wizards and related classes? Hmm... I might give them some sort of ACF that would let them effectively do Grafts of a sort, or other alterations to living beings. Something like "You may take any spell that targets a dead creature/undead creature and turn it into a ritual spell which takes 8 hours to cast. This may now target a living creature." or something. I have a vague idea about doing things like using an Animate Undead to partially "zombify" someone giving them something like a ding to Int, but the Zombie DR and D12 HD. Eh... I'd have to look over spell lists but the idea kinda excites me.

Transmuters and Conjurers? I probably wouldn't give them any compensation, as others have said. The reason being that Transmutation and Conjuration were two schools that already have a lot of stuff shoehorned into them beyond just Changing Shapes and Summoning Stuff. It seems as they printed more spells they just instantly tossed anything they could even attempt to stretch into those schools into those schools. In the end, they'd still be viable but with a different focus.

Druids are the one I see needing the most work. I mean the entire druid engine is more or less built on changing shapes and summoning. That's what they do. It's about 90% of their effective options.

I'd consider replacing Wildshape with an Animal Aspect ability. Say something like "you take on the spiritual aspect of an animal, you gain one ability from it". The idea being instead of turning into a bear and suddenly having Bearstats, you might take on the Aspect of a Wolf and get a free Improved Trip and/or Scent. Or you take on the Bat Aspect and get Blindsense out to 60'. Or you take on the Housecat Aspect and get a free Charm Person SLA...

I'd probably replace their Summon _____ and ability to spontaneously Summon ______ with some Evocation style stuff. It's fun stuff for a druid, but rarely used. So allow them to do things like spontaneously pick blastery like Fire Seeds, Flame Strike, etc. It's not AS useful as Summoning, of course. But sometimes just being able to pull out a spontaneously converted Xd6 damage can be useful.

[eggynack]

Druids are the one I see needing the most work. I mean the entire druid engine is more or less built on changing shapes and summoning. That's what they do. It's about 90% of their effective options.
I wouldn't go that far. Getting rid of those two facets of a druid makes a big difference, but the druid list is pretty broad, so they can manage. I'd say that it's closer to 70%, at most.


I'd consider replacing Wildshape with an Animal Aspect ability. Say something like "you take on the spiritual aspect of an animal, you gain one ability from it". The idea being instead of turning into a bear and suddenly having Bearstats, you might take on the Aspect of a Wolf and get a free Improved Trip and/or Scent. Or you take on the Bat Aspect and get Blindsense out to 60'. Or you take on the Housecat Aspect and get a free Charm Person SLA...
You could always just use aspect of nature from UA, because that's rather close to what you're talking about. There's also shapeshift from PHB II. I'm not a fan of either, but it's conveniently existent.

[ArcturusV]

Ah. Yeah, I don't have UA, so there's probably a lot in there I haven't seen. I was just spitballing some ideas.

[Fax Celestis]

Druids are the one I see needing the most work. I mean the entire druid engine is more or less built on changing shapes and summoning. That's what they do. It's about 90% of their effective options.

I wouldn't say that at all. Druids are excellent blasters, controllers, and buffers. Most of those buff spells you use on summons also can apply to your allies or yourself. I mean, let me just rattle off some spells from memory: splinterbolt, flame strike, flame blade, snake's swiftness, mass snake's swiftness, wall of smoke, blinding spittle, girallon's blessing, animalistic power, vortex of teeth, entangle, sudden stalagmite, path of frost, sandblast, salt ray, ice lance...

[eggynack]

I wouldn't say that at all. Druids are excellent blasters, controllers, and buffers. Most of those buff spells you use on summons also can apply to your allies or yourself. I mean, let me just rattle off some spells from memory: splinterbolt, flame strike, flame blade, snake's swiftness, mass snake's swiftness, wall of smoke, blinding spittle, girallon's blessing, animalistic power, vortex of teeth, entangle, sudden stalagmite, path of frost, sandblast, salt ray, ice lance...
... Impeding stones, flesh to salt, kelpstrand, heart of water, primal instinct, stone shape, sleet storm, (greater) luminous armor, wall of thorns, desiccate, bite of the were X, animal growth, dispel magic, spore field...

Druids are sweet.

[ArcturusV]

Oh, I love me my druids. I was just referring to effective as in "yeah, I could Flame Strike... or I could summon up something that does more damage, soaks up more damage, and controls the battlefield with it's bulk" sort of effectiveness. But yeah, I know they can do other things. Just... it's the summoning and shapeshifting that really adds the fuel to the fire. One of those things where it's a matter of efficiency. Least most of the time that I see at the table.