If tier 1-3 were banned? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

PDA

View Full Version : If tier 1-3 were banned?

Pages : [1] 2

gooddragon1

2013-10-17, 01:24 AM

Story

2013-10-17, 01:28 AM

I think a Rogue would still overshadow a Commoner.

Tvtyrant

2013-10-17, 01:28 AM

It would probably become more like 4E, with needed roles that have to be filled for a party to work. I think it is just as valid as tier 3, but it would certainly change the game.

gooddragon1

2013-10-17, 01:29 AM

I think a Rogue would still overshadow a Commoner.

I think we can safely assume not many people would play a commoner.

Story

2013-10-17, 01:29 AM

Also, it's not just a matter of reducing CRs. The game just assumes you have certain abilities which are nearly impossible to get below tier 3.

You need to either rule out entire classes of monsters or give the party magic items to replicate everything.

eggynack

2013-10-17, 01:34 AM

Players would absolutely overshadow each other. Players can overshadow each other even if everything's in the same tier. Hell, I've heard tell of characters overshadowing characters of a higher tier. There's more to the game than tiers, even if tiers are a big part of it. It would definitely be easier to prevent overshadowing, because you're talking about a smaller range of power. There's still a range though, and low tier classes have a pretty powerful set of tricks, even if those tricks are quite limited.

Tvtyrant

2013-10-17, 01:34 AM

You need to either rule out entire classes of monsters or give the party magic items to replicate everything.

This is pretty trivial really. Focusing on humanoids, animals and animal-like magical beasts (what is magic about a Manticore?) deals with the entire issue. The game is already being sliced apart, might as well actually play it differently.

gooddragon1

2013-10-17, 01:37 AM

It would definitely be easier to prevent overshadowing, because you're talking about a smaller range of power. There's still a range though, and low tier classes have a pretty powerful set of tricks, even if those tricks are quite limited.

That's what I'm looking for. Also I assume people wouldn't accidentally overshadow one another as easily.

Of course I'd accommodate for the abilities that are lacking and fill them in as needed.

SciChronic

2013-10-17, 01:40 AM

overshadowing only really shows if you're 2 or more tiers above/below other members of the team. So a tier one overshadows a tier 3 much in the same way a tier 3 would overshadow a tier 5. If i was to rule out any tiers i would rule out 1 and 2.

you have to take note that classes are tiered based on that class alone, so no multi-classing or PrCs. Tier 5 classes in mid-high op are still utilized for dips, so having tiers 3-5 available is in reality a pretty good pool of classes to pick from.

gomipile

2013-10-17, 01:42 AM

I wouldn't be overshadowing anyone in any way, because I wouldn't be playing. My favorite classes are tier 3, and I can't think of much in the tier 4+ range I'd want to play, except possibly a warlock.

Also off the top of my head, all of the "party healer" options for tier 4 and below give up so much versatility that they can hardly do anything but heal. For that reason alone I wouldn't support such a game if there weren't any players who want to play a dedicated healbot and little but a dedicated healbot. At low levels you can replace a healer with items like belts of healing, but at higher levels, you need either raw healing power(healer or adept at tier 4+) or the kinds of buffs and crowd control a tier 1 or 2 divine caster has, combined with the ability to use things like wands of vigor.

I can get behind a tier 3+ game, but tier 4+ just seems unethical if you want the party to face challenges that aren't boring.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-17, 01:43 AM

I've overshadowed Sorcerers and Favored Souls with my Rogues, so obviously some characters will continue to outshine others. (Like my metaphor mix? :smallbiggrin:)

SciChronic

2013-10-17, 01:47 AM

I've overshadowed Sorcerers and Favored Souls with my Rogues, so obviously some characters will continue to outshine others. (Like my metaphor mix? :smallbiggrin:)

well the tier list assumes equal levels of optimization. In your case you optimized better than the others.

Equinox

2013-10-17, 01:49 AM

I think if tiers 1-3 were banned, D&D would look as the designers intended it to. A party would consist of:
- a Fighter (or a Barbarian, Paladin, etc) - a strong guy, who can do his thing without being overshadowed
- a Rogue, because someone has to find those traps, at the absence of a wizard with a wand of Summon Monster I
- a Warlock, to fill the same role the designers intended for the blaster wizard
- a Healer, to fill the same role the designers intended for the Cleric

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2013-10-17, 01:51 AM

hymer

2013-10-17, 02:29 AM

gooddragon1

2013-10-17, 02:37 AM

Something to be mentioned is also the feeling of being overshadowed. A cleric will tend to overshadow a fighter, but it might not feel that bad to the fighter player. Sure, the cleric has a lot of spells, but the fighter player may at least sit with the knowledge that his hp are greater, and that the cleric will be aiding the fighter with his spells.
But if you have a bunch of PCs that all walk up to things and hit them with something sharp, then it is much easier to compare levels of power. How much damage did you do? How much healing do you need after the encounter? When everyone is tier 4 or lower, people tend to be stepping on each other's toes a lot more, if only because there are far fewer modes of operation.

But it's more then just damage in combat. The healer fixes them up. The rogue takes care of traps and social situations and sneaking, the fighter does the damage, and the warlock takes care of some of the enemies defenses in combat (buff the ranged dispel to cap at 20...) and gets hits through high natural armor with touch AC attacks.

Psyren

2013-10-17, 02:42 AM

It's the monsters you should be worried about. If nobody has Stone to Flesh or Break Enchantment, that Basilisk becomes a hell of a lot more dangerous. Even something minor like a Vargouille can cause a lot of problems without the T1 toolbox handy.

gooddragon1

2013-10-17, 02:48 AM

hymer

2013-10-17, 03:01 AM

@ gooddragon1: Nevertheless, it's something to watch out for. By narrowing choices, you increase the risk of toe-stepping; the opposite of your intent. You may want to pay particular attention to the players' agreeing on what PCs to make and help guide their choices still further.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2013-10-17, 03:08 AM

I think you would be better off banning Tier 1, 5, and 6. Maybe allow them for no more than a 2-level dip, and prestige classes cannot advance the class features of a Tier 1 class.

Rubik

2013-10-17, 03:24 AM

I think you would be better off banning Tier 1, 5, and 6. Maybe allow them for no more than a 2-level dip, and prestige classes cannot advance the class features of a Tier 1 class.Well, some classes are exceptions to the rule. You CAN make a decent higher level monk with ACFs, and there's the dungeoncrasher for 6 levels, of course.

Kennisiou

2013-10-17, 03:27 AM

I have to disagree with the idea that tiers 4-6 just "don't have access" to certain things. They absolutely have access to just about everything, they're just often really bad at it unless they prestige (buffing and battlefield control in particular). At tier 4-6 you should have no problem dealing damage (barbarian, rogue, scout, ranger), healing (healer, paladin, clw wands on rogue or ranger), or Skill-monkeying (rogue, scout, ranger). Battlefield control is a bit rougher, but intimidation spec'd barbarians can do it, especially if the barbarian prestige class champion of gwynharwyf isn't banned, since they can mass-intimidate with rages using the mass staredown trick. Tripping with a spiked chain can also be used for battlefield control. Debuffing is possible with poison access as well (although it can be costly, if psionics exist that cost can be mitigated via psionic tatoos of minor creation -- 50 gp for somewhere around 3k doses of poison is a steal), and manyshotting ranger/scouts already take all but one of the requisite feats to do an excellent job of applying it.

While banning any prestige options that would put them above t4 does make some things trickier, you'll still find that you can get some random buffs/debuffs/battlefield control from PrCs like Assassin and chameleon (although building a chameleon ninja or expert probably would go against the spirit of these bans). The options to do these things still totally exist in low tiers (hell, you can build a "tier 4" Divine metamagic abuse chameleon with expert 1/paladin 4/chameleon 10). They're not as good as they are at high tiers, don't get me wrong. You're just not going to have the battlefield control of a tier one party as fast as they will have it. But to say you'll lack capabilities at all? Proper building and optimization in theirs 4-6 can get you the capability to do anything. You'll do it worse and you may need more party members to fill all of your roles, but you'll still be able to do anything.

Edit: except actually kill the tarrasque. You'll have to warp him to the elemental plane of water instead or something, and there are items that you can use to do that.

TiaC

2013-10-17, 03:35 AM

So, the classes that have access to the most of the high-tier tricks would be: Warlock, Spellthief, Lurk, and Adept probably.

Kennisiou

2013-10-17, 03:41 AM

Marshal is low-tier's main buffer and barbarian, rogue, ranger and scout all operate as low-tier's main damage dealers, with barbarian being able to outdamage blaster warlocks/adepts pretty easily while the other three all bring some other useful goodies to the table (mostly skills, but ranger/scouts manyshotting also makes them good at applying poison for debuffing). Unless I'm missing something, lurk is definitely not as effective as any of those five.

Warlock, Spellthief and Adept are all solid, though.

Edit: also, don't forget healer, since I'm pretty sure it's the only non t2 or higher class with access to resurrection.

TiaC

2013-10-17, 03:49 AM

I picked those four for being versatile, Spellthief can get all sorts of abilities form monsters that no one else has access to. If that doesn't work, they can cherry-pick the best wizard spells. Warlock can do pretty much anything, not very well, but most other tier 4s have to invest a lot into each of their tricks. The lurk is on there for expanded knowledge mainly. They have access to the greatest hits of the psion's list.

Azernak0

2013-10-17, 04:32 AM

Tiers have less to do with power than people think. A Sorcerer is much higher Tier than a Barbarian but the odds are higher that the Barbarian will deal far more damage. Tiers are more about versatility and "how easy is it to make something extremely powerful."

In this light, yes, you can easily overshadow other people. A basic Bard or Factotum are pretty much the quintessential Tier 3 classes. They can easily be overshadowed by a Fighter or Barbarian in regards to "I make that thing dead." Getting completely rid of Tiers 1-3 won't stop the ability for a player to overshadow them at something. The Rogue will always overshadow the Barbarian when it comes to sneaking/trap finding while the Barbarian is likely to always overshadow the Rogue in murder.

I think keeping Tier 3 are alright. They are generally in the classes of "really damn good at two or three things and decent at others" or "pretty good at everything." The Warblade is really great at fighting and will still get through a dinner party without using the table cloth to blow their nose, the Beguiler works amazing when it comes to skills and buffs, and Bards/Factotums do pretty much everything decently. The only time I have seen a Tier 3 really overshadow another Tier was when I was in a game with a Sword and Board Fighter with a Sword and Board Dusblade and even then it wasn't too rough.

It is only when you have a Cleric with Persist Spell or a Druid that the Fighter really goes "why the hell am I here?"

Killer Angel

2013-10-17, 06:08 AM

eggynack

2013-10-17, 06:15 AM

This is true, but it depends on the players' ability. The tier system works when players got the same level of mastery.
That said, the overshadowing would be reduced anyway.
That's the essence of my point, really. In particular, when the tier system for classes stops existing in any real sense, the game's balance just kinda defaults to the theoretical tier system for builds, or the tier system for players. The game's balance issues exist on multiple dimensions, rather than just one, so no tier restriction is going to fix everything. The issues with class balance just overshadow other issues, because the imbalance in classes is so frigging enormous. If you think about it, restricting the accessible classes from either end of the tier system necessarily reduces overshadowing, unless no one was playing classes in those tiers anyway.

Keneth

2013-10-17, 06:15 AM

Just add those to the healer spell list and it should be fine.

Adding spells to someone's spell list is how you get higher tier classes. :smalltongue:

nedz

2013-10-17, 06:23 AM

So, the classes that have access to the most of the high-tier tricks would be: Warlock, Spellthief, Lurk, and Adept probably.

I think that the Spellthief might suffer actually, what with there being fewer casters around to steal spells off.

Snowbluff

2013-10-17, 06:33 AM

Warlocks. Warlocks everywhere.

I actually played a T4 test, and it worked out alright. It was level 5, I think. I was the healer who spat acid in people's faces with soulmeld feats.

Killer Angel

2013-10-17, 06:45 AM

If you think about it, restricted the accessible classes from either end of the tier system necessarily reduces overshadowing,

makes sense.
Heck, it's the porpose of the tier system: to give a guide to avoid a theoretical power gap, so it works both ways: a Group with T1-2 is fine, and so a Group with T4-5.

Now, the question could be: it's easier to overshadow the other players in a Group T1-2, or T4-5?
IMO it depends from many factors... but in the Group T4-5, the correct choice of equipment, is vital.

Big Fau

2013-10-17, 07:13 AM

Here's the thing: Everyone would be playing Tier 3/4 characters. Not classes, characters. The Tier 5 classes can (occasionally) be buffed up to Tier 4, while the people who use Tier 4 classes would be doing what they can to jump up to Tier 3.

The Tier 6s would never see any more daylight than they already do, and people who end up in Tier 5 by mistake during character creation would still be getting overshadowed by the ones who didn't.

And then you have the Truenamer, who paradoxically overshadows everyone while still being utter (hah) garbage.

eggynack

2013-10-17, 07:19 AM

Now, the question could be: it's easier to overshadow the other players in a Group T1-2, or T4-5?
IMO it depends from many factors... but in the Group T4-5, the correct choice of equipment, is vital.
I think it's tier one and two, by a lot. A tier one character can easily play at the same power level as a tier five character. He just makes the wrong spell choices, and he's the worst character in the game, at least for the moment. Tier one characters can also play at the same level as a tier one character, for obvious reasons. By contrast, a tier five character will nearly never play at the same level as a reasonably played tier one. Those abilities just aren't there. They might hit tier three, if they really know what they're doing, but some serious cheese needs to happen to get to the upper echelons of power. Thus, the potential gap between two tier ones is about as wide as the tier system itself, while the potential gap between two tier fives is intrinsically limited by the maximum power level of a tier five.

Psyren

2013-10-17, 07:52 AM

Just add those to the healer spell list and it should be fine.

That's still a problem because the Healer really can't do anything else. Even a healbot cleric or druid can fight. So when everyone skips your boring healer class because they don't just want to be the party bandaid, that role stays unfilled and those monsters stay dangerous.

killem2

2013-10-17, 08:15 AM

Banned classes, tier this tier that. :sigh:

If there is real overstepping and overshadowing of players, a common hyperbole, it's those players you need to speak with.

If your average player is a constant viewer of these boards, their most likely a power gamer anyway, so you aren't going to stop them even with the worst of classes.

Also, sig says it best.:roy:

Talya

2013-10-17, 08:19 AM

You're much better off banning 1-2 and 5-6. 3 is the sweet spot for balance, with 4 being close enough. The big problem with what you're proposing is 5-6 are severely underpowered for the typical CRs they are supposed to face.

Not to mention that there is a wider gulf between tier 4 and tier 5 than there is between tier 3 and tier 4. The Warlock suddenly becomes a super powerhouse.

(Not that I advocate banning any classes. Options are everything. There are cases where the lowly monk is both an optimally good dip and essential to building the concept you want to build.)

Psyren

2013-10-17, 08:21 AM

Banned classes, tier this tier that. :sigh:

If there is real overstepping and overshadowing of players, a common hyperbole, it's those players you need to speak with.

Agreed with this...

If your average player is a constant viewer of these boards, their most likely a power gamer anyway, so you aren't going to stop them even with the worst of classes.

...not so much with this.

shadow_archmagi

2013-10-17, 08:33 AM

Class tier has nothing to do with a given player's system mastery. A well experienced player will outshine a newer player, regardless of what class either one is playing. Banning the high tier classes won't really solve anything. What you want to do is get the more experienced players to make characters who fill a support role and make the party stronger, while newer players use characters who are more proactive so they can feel like they're significantly contributing.

This, a thousand times this. In my current game, I've got a swordsage tripper who is effectively the party leader because despite my best efforts to let others forge the way, the newbies have no ability to keep the group coherent. The sorceress struggles to find situations where her spells (Grease and Charm Person) can be useful.

Honestly, even in my normal group, if everyone else was gestalt, and I was playing a psion or a factotum, I would probably not be outshined.

Making the classes have equal potential only matters once players reach the level of chargen-fu where they're using the full potential. In the early game, preventing people from being outshined is going to be much more about encouraging your newbies to roleplay and think critically and outside the box.

Der_DWSage

2013-10-17, 09:51 AM

I always seem too late to these conversations to offer much more than 'Yeah, what they said.'

But yeah-there would still be overshadowing, there would still be people feeling useless, and there would definitely be people still breaking the system. If tier 1-3 were banned, seems like it's time for the Dungeoncrasher Shock Trooper Fighter to show up and murder everything, leaving the poor unoptimized Ranger in the dust. The Paladin might feel a bit more important, now that his Lay On Hands ability can actually be relevant for healing, but he's still going to feel a bit put upon when non-evil things show up.

Heck, I had a level 13 (Pathfinder) Paladin in a party of 10, including two Wizards and one Cleric, and proved that he could kick the arse of most of the party members by talking with the GM and making him the final boss.

Tiers are great for describing the potential of a class-but when it comes down to the brass tacks, people get more out of system mastery, and potentially from just what gear they find.

Killer Angel

2013-10-17, 10:17 AM

I think it's tier one and two, by a lot. A tier one character can easily play at the same power level as a tier five character. He just makes the wrong spell choices, and he's the worst character in the game, at least for the moment. Tier one characters can also play at the same level as a tier one character, for obvious reasons. By contrast, a tier five character will nearly never play at the same level as a reasonably played tier one. Those abilities just aren't there. They might hit tier three, if they really know what they're doing, but some serious cheese needs to happen to get to the upper echelons of power. Thus, the potential gap between two tier ones is about as wide as the tier system itself, while the potential gap between two tier fives is intrinsically limited by the maximum power level of a tier five.

I cannot disagree, but, just to play the devil’s advocate, i could say that a T1-2 caster can fill the gap quickly, or at least with only a moderate effort, with an improvement of its spells’ choice (more difficult for a sorc).
On the other hand, a T4-5 character, with a poor selection of feats and bad equipment, is stuck in the bottom for longer.

DustyBottoms

2013-10-17, 10:55 AM

Harrow

2013-10-17, 11:50 AM

This is a common misconception about the tier system. Players don't play classes, any more than they play feats, gear, or spells. Players play characters, which are crunchy builds with a layer of fluff on top.

What I'm saying is that banning tiers of classes doesn't work because classes don't have tiers. The tier system never says they do, in fact it says the opposite. The Tier System for Classes lists where builds that use classes tend to fall, but not where they have to fall. It's not difficult to end up with a Fighter anywhere from Tier 6 to Tier 3.

Note how the tier system is laid out. It has long descriptions of what each tier represents, and then example of classes that fall into that tier. It isn't designed to affix numbers on to every class.

What would be optimal is if you could effectively ban tiers of build, with the key word being 'effectively'. A Wizard doesn't have to be tier 1 any more than a Fighter has to be tier 5.

I fully support encouraging players to make builds that are tier 4 or 5, although most people around here shoot for 3-4. But classes aren't the only thing that contribute to a build's tier, nor are they even the most important part. As long as you make sure more skilled players show restraint and the less skilled players get some guidance, you should be golden.

Ortesk

2013-10-17, 12:07 PM

Class tier has nothing to do with a given player's system mastery. A well experienced player will outshine a newer player, regardless of what class either one is playing. Banning the high tier classes won't really solve anything. What you want to do is get the more experienced players to make characters who fill a support role and make the party stronger, while newer players use characters who are more proactive so they can feel like they're significantly contributing.

This. I have outshown warblades and druids by being a monk. It comes down to who is optimizing more and what the dm is throwing at us. If you throw wave upon wave of mooks, and burn the wizards spells up, the warblade looks dam good as wizard shoots a crossbow. If you always have flying enemies, and wizard prepares 1 fly, the wizard is amazing as warblade sits. Tiers are pointless, if you get the noobs to play druids/wizards/clerics and the vets play lack luster class's, you helped some. But the vets will still outdo the noobs

nedz

2013-10-17, 12:10 PM

With tiers 4-6 only, a higher tier 4 character like a Warlock could dip into a PrC and jump upwards rapidly - there's no way a fighter, without spectacular magic items, could out-damage a hellfire warlock.

Also since warmage is tier 4, the Rainbow Warsnake would be one of the most powerful builds possible.

Well the multicoloured PrC capstone is generally reckoned to bump Warmage up beyond Tier 1, so this should still be banned under the OP's premise.

This goes for other PrCs also. Placing PrCs in Tiers is hard though a few people have tried; the end results are usually easy to place for any given build.

Snowbluff

2013-10-17, 12:14 PM

shadow_archmagi

2013-10-17, 12:43 PM

People are forgetting what tiers mean again. 'If' is a helpful qualifier, especially if you mean 'If I am talking about a situation the tier system doesn't try to classify.'

They assume similiar levels of optimization. If you have a party of similiar players who don't optimize, modifying the allowed tiers is a good way of keeping people at the same level.

I'd agree that "The tier system doesn't work in situations that it explicitly says that it doesn't work in!" is sort of a silly conversation to have, but disagree with it being helpful for completely unoptimal parties.

If the party doesn't take an interest in their build design, then the tier system will be almost totally useless, because it ranks ceilings rather than floors. The worst possible fighter still has his BAB and HD, so he'll at least be accurate and durable. The worst possible Sorcerer might only know Read Magic and Unseen Servant.

Snowbluff

2013-10-17, 12:52 PM

1) Unseen Servant is awesome. :smalltongue:

2) Tier 3 does most of the building for you. Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusder are tricky to mess up. Bards can cover skills, as can pure factotum. I'd add warmage and healer to allow more roles, but you make very few decisions or your decisions won't affect your power much.

3WhiteFox3

2013-10-17, 01:25 PM

2) Tier 3 does most of the building for you. Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusder are tricky to mess up. Bards can cover skills, as can pure factotum. I'd add warmage and healer to allow more roles, but you make very few decisions or your decisions won't affect your power much.

I'm not so sure I agree with all of the T3 classes being hard to mess up, both bards and factotums are easily screwed up by bad building. Bards rely on either a strong understanding of how to make a generalist, a Bard who doesn't do any Inspire Courage optimizing and has no clue what spells to pick is probably going to feel worthless as he doesn't really have a niche where he can shine, I've seen many bards try to hard to either be a jack-of-all-trades and completely failing, or only really being good at social conflicts.

And factotums require a lot of system mastery to really understand and be up to snuff, they have so many options that if the player picks the wrong ones, they're not going to have much luck.

JaronK

2013-10-17, 01:28 PM

If the party doesn't take an interest in their build design, then the tier system will be almost totally useless, because it ranks ceilings rather than floors. The worst possible fighter still has his BAB and HD, so he'll at least be accurate and durable. The worst possible Sorcerer might only know Read Magic and Unseen Servant.

Then again, have you ever seen a completely unoptimized Druid compared to a completely unoptimized Fighter? I have. She randomly turned into a dinosaur because dinosaurs are cool. He randomly picked up Monkey Grip because big swords are cool. Guess how well that went.

JaronK

Snowbluff

2013-10-17, 01:34 PM

Talya

2013-10-17, 01:54 PM

Then again, have you ever seen a completely unoptimized Druid compared to a completely unoptimized Fighter? I have. She randomly turned into a dinosaur because dinosaurs are cool. He randomly picked up Monkey Grip because big swords are cool. Guess how well that went.

Hahaha...I love it...

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 01:59 PM

And factotums require a lot of system mastery to really understand and be up to snuff, they have so many options that if the player picks the wrong ones, they're not going to have much luck.

Messing up a Factotum takes real skill. Sure, they have a fairly high optimization ceiling but the pure vanilla Factotum is virtually impossible to mess up.

Kennisiou

2013-10-17, 02:31 PM

I'm not so sure I agree with all of the T3 classes being hard to mess up, both bards and factotums are easily screwed up by bad building. Bards rely on either a strong understanding of how to make a generalist, a Bard who doesn't do any Inspire Courage optimizing and has no clue what spells to pick is probably going to feel worthless as he doesn't really have a niche where he can shine, I've seen many bards try to hard to either be a jack-of-all-trades and completely failing, or only really being good at social conflicts.

And factotums require a lot of system mastery to really understand and be up to snuff, they have so many options that if the player picks the wrong ones, they're not going to have much luck.

Not to mention that Swordsages have several "traps" in their potential maneuver selection/feat selection (ever see a swordsage that only takes desert wind maneuvers because "fire swords are cool"?). They are probably the only ToB class that it's possible to mess up like that, though, and even then a messed-up swordsage still has a lot of power and options that fighters and monks usually won't have.

While I mostly agree with Jaronk about the potential for "accidental power" in t1-t2 classes, that doesn't make their optimization floor any lower, it just means that getting up off the optimization floor is as simple as feeling like "well I took all the spells to make explosions at this level, all that's left is this 'solid fog' thing. May as well take it and try it out with my 'shape spell' metamagic that I use to make my fireballs not hit my friends." If the high tier player never realizes they have access to this power and keeps making bad low op choices they'll be outshone handily by the rest of the party. A counter-example to your story about the druid randomly becoming a T-Rex because "dinosaurs are cool", I've played with several druids who never used their wildshape at all because "being an animal is dumb -- people are better."

The point is that the tier list is definitely right at doing what it sets out to do: assuming equal levels of optimization it gives a good outline of the power levels of every class it shows, not fully accounting for value of classes as dips for higher tier classes or for qualifying for stronger prestige classes. What it doesn't do is show that tiers below 3rd are incapable of doing everything. It takes more optimization, larger parties, higher levels, and more money expended on magic items, but generally a fully tier four party can still handle most encounters a tier one party could unless the encounter is specifically made to require (outright require mind) access to a spell like wish or genesis in order to be solved.

Talya

2013-10-17, 02:37 PM

Furthermore, a wizard or sorcerer are not hard to completely mess up. If you play them badly, they're not just useless, they're dead. Quickly.

Druids and clerics don't tend to fall as far. If you make terrible spell selections (usually memorized so you can correct them with experience, but permanent for a sorcerer), you still have d8 hit die, 3/4 BAB, heavy armor or great class features.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 02:44 PM

Talya

2013-10-17, 02:46 PM

Wizards tend to be the weakest and strongest characters in the game. If you really play a wizard badly then your character will suck on a level that a Truenamer or CW Samurai will struggle to match, but if you know what you are doing the Wizard is better than everything but a very high OP Psion (who has every single arcane and divine spell in the game along with all powers on its Powers Known list).

I have always suspected an archivist can also compete favorably with a wizard, depending on the tendency of the DM to allow him to find scrolls that aren't on the cleric spell list.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 02:51 PM

I have always suspected an archivist can also compete favorably with a wizard, depending on the tendency of the DM to allow him to find scrolls that aren't on the cleric spell list.

Unless using tricks to get arcane spells made divine, an Archivist can get close but can't quite get over the final hump.

Definitely the most powerful divine casting class but just not quite a match for the wizard. A wizard can reselect his entire list of prepared spells as a swift action at level 17+ if he really wants to; and that is a capability that the Archivist just can't replicate.

Kennisiou

2013-10-17, 02:56 PM

Fates

2013-10-17, 03:04 PM

You would need to limited PRCs as well. An expert who goes into Ur-Priest will overshadow a party of T4's two or three levels in, and warmage/rainbow servant 10 would be even more powerful than usual. I'd suggest banning "+2" PrCs, and possibly "+1" as well.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 03:04 PM

I was under the impression that artificer and psi-artificer could also both go toe-to-toe with wizard in terms of power level, or even beyond. Is that not the case? (or is psi-artificer included in your "high-op psion" clause?)
Kinda sorta. An Artificer has to make items to do much of anything, which is a weakness that the wizard doesn't have.

The weaknesses of an Artificer compared to a Wizard are relatively small and often trivial but they do exist.

Talya

2013-10-17, 03:07 PM

Unless using tricks to get arcane spells made divine, an Archivist can get close but can't quite get over the final hump.

I think the vast majority of really nice core arcane spells show up on a domain somewhere, don't they?

johnbragg

2013-10-17, 03:20 PM

Wizards tend to be the weakest and strongest characters in the game. If you really play a wizard badly then your character will suck....

I don't think this is true, at least for any relevant definition of "suck". A few days ago, I wrote up a Sorcerer 10 based on "would this spell, based on the SRD description, qualify me to be in the Justice LEague." So he had Sleep and Charm and True STrike and Unseen Servant, and Invisibility and Web and Detect Thoughts and Command Undead, and Lightning Bolt and HAste and Fly, and Polymorph and Ice Storm, and Teleport or Telekinesis or Dominate PErson.

That spell list isn't very optimized, but it certainly doesn't suck.

A wizard is going to have more spells to pick from. I don't think you can make a wizard suck by accident.

Knaight

2013-10-17, 03:28 PM

Banned classes, tier this tier that. :sigh:

If there is real overstepping and overshadowing of players, a common hyperbole, it's those players you need to speak with.

Also, sig says it best.:roy:

I weep for all the GM's and players who come here for help and instead get taught how to be prejudice towards classes. D&D is supposed to be a game that plunges you into a world of imagination and instead people around the world are standing around a table arguing over "tiers".

That is what D&D is supposed to be, yes. It works much better at that when you know how the system works, and part of how the system works is that there is very high variability in what the classes can do. This isn't necessarily a problem, but they are presented as if they are all roughly equivalent in holistic capability, if specialized differently. The tier system is nothing more than a presentation of how they actually line up in capability, and as such is a useful tool.

In the context of this particular thread, the goal is a world of imagination. It's a world of imagination in which the protagonists are limited in their capabilities, reasonably specialized, and generally roughly equivalent in capability and influence overall, but not within their specialization. This thread is clarification on how to use the D&D rules set for that particular imaginative world.

Frankly, the anti-tier position seems to be one where something can't be analyzed, as if that would somehow ruin it. It's basically the same position that says that you shouldn't look at books from a literary critique perspective, as if that somehow undermines the joy of reading. If anything, it is even more perverse in this context. D&D is a toolbox, different parts of it are useful for different sorts of games, and understanding how it works improves the ability to use it to make fun games. The anti-tier position is like claiming that whittling and woodworking for fun is supposed to be about creativity, the joy of working with wood, and the enjoyment of eventually having something you made - so how dare you compare how effective different carving tools are for different tasks.

It's not even all that different than looking at different games in aggregate, understanding what they are good at, and thus being able to choose from them. If I want to GM a game in the magical dystopian future, where players play freelance criminals involved in the conflict between massive corporations, I could use D&D. Or, I could understand that that particular setting is really not where D&D shines, and use Shadowrun instead. Similarly, if I want some sort of low fantasy involving hard-scrabbling heroes in a world just beyond the mundane, well, maybe I shouldn't use the wizard class. Though I personally would favor not D&D for that entirely.

Psyren

2013-10-17, 03:33 PM

Kinda sorta. An Artificer has to make items to do much of anything, which is a weakness that the wizard doesn't have.

In exchange for that weakness though, they get a lot of strengths - spells from every list (Cleric, Wu Jen, Trapsmith etc.), WBL breakage, trapfinding, take 10 on UMD, every crafting feat for free etc. And Psionic Artificers are even worse thanks to MiC.

Harrow

2013-10-17, 03:33 PM

I don't think this is true, at least for any relevant definition of "suck". A few days ago, I wrote up a Sorcerer 10 based on "would this spell, based on the SRD description, qualify me to be in the Justice LEague." So he had Sleep and Charm and True STrike and Unseen Servant, and Invisibility and Web and Detect Thoughts and Command Undead, and Lightning Bolt and HAste and Fly, and Polymorph and Ice Storm, and Teleport or Telekinesis or Dominate PErson.

That spell list isn't very optimized, but it certainly doesn't suck.

A wizard is going to have more spells to pick from. I don't think you can make a wizard suck by accident.

The problem is in the use of the spells at a tactical level. The worst a Truenamer can do is waste actions failing Truespeech checks, a Wizard can use Fog Cloud to grant everyone, including the enemy, concealment to protect themselves and suddenly the party rogue isn't having fun anymore.

Talya

2013-10-17, 03:47 PM

A wizard is going to have more spells to pick from. I don't think you can make a wizard suck by accident.

The wizard is going to suck by accident until you figure out how to use the spells you have. They have very few spell slots at low levels and only get to pick a couple spells for use.

Worse yet, at least at low levels, you run out of spells long before your daily encounters are up. At level 1, you only have relevant spells for 2 of your 4 encounters. After that you're shooting a crossbow.

nedz

2013-10-17, 03:58 PM

molten_dragon

2013-10-17, 05:22 PM

Would players still overshadow one another? Would it be easier to prevent overshadowing? Ignore magic items and pretend they can be created as needed. Kind of like low magic but really more like low power. Would monster CR's have to be lowered too?

Yes, players would still overshadow one another. Eliminating tiers 1-3 would do very little to fix that problem actually, since it's far more about the players, the playstyles they like, and how good they are at optimizing, than it is about the classes available.

ahenobarbi

2013-10-17, 05:42 PM

I don't think that's a good idea. Talk to your players to build characters to desired power level. Because reaching you stated goal by talking seems simple. Reaching it by establishing rules is very hard.

A wizard can reselect his entire list of prepared spells as a swift action at level 17+ if he really wants to; and that is a capability that the Archivist just can't replicate.

Care to share the trick :?

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 06:00 PM

Care to share the trick :?

Greater Rod of Quicken or Sudden Quicken Wish to replicate Spell Engine.

If you are willing to spend a standard action and already have Shapechange up then you can go Zodar -> Wish.

Or you can use a Scroll of Quickened Wish.

bekeleven

2013-10-17, 06:30 PM

The wizard is going to suck by accident until you figure out how to use the spells you have. They have very few spell slots at low levels and only get to pick a couple spells for use.

Worse yet, at least at low levels, you run out of spells long before your daily encounters are up. At level 1, you only have relevant spells for 2 of your 4 encounters. After that you're shooting a crossbow.

Player > Build > Class.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-17, 08:12 PM

I think the vast majority of really nice core arcane spells show up on a domain somewhere, don't they?
Well, there are quite a few spells available through domains which don't appear on the regular Cleric spell list. Here are the spells with links:

Armor of Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/armorOfDarkness.htm): Shroud grants deflection bonus, darkvision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#darkvision), and other effects.
Blacklight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/blacklight.htm): Create an aura of total darkness.
Bolt of Glory (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/boltOfGlory.htm): Positive energy ray deals extra damage to evil outsiders and undead.
Bolts of Bedevilment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/boltsOfBedevilment.htm): One ray/round, dazes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed) 1d3 rounds.
Crown of Glory (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/crownOfGlory.htm): You gain +4 Charisma and inspire your allies.
Hardening (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/hardening.htm)M: Increases hardness of target by 1 per 2 levels.
Maddening Scream (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/maddeningScream.htmm): Subject has -4 AC, no shield, Reflex save on 20 only.
Surelife (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/surelife.htm): Protects caster from specified natural death.
Touch of Madness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/touchOfMadness.htm): Dazes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed) touched target for 1 round/level.
True Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/trueCreation.htm)X: As major creation, but permanent.
Melf's Acid Arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidArrow.htm): Ranged touch attack; 2d4 damage for 1 round + 1 round/3 levels.
Acid Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm): Fog deals acid damage.
Alarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alarm.htm): Wards an area for 2 hours/level.
Alter Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alterSelf.htm): Assume form of a similar creature.
Analyze Dweomer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/analyzeDweomer.htm)F: Reveals magical aspects of subject.
Animal Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalGrowth.htm)&dagger;: One animal/2 levels doubles in size.
Animal Shapes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalShapes.htm)&dagger;: One ally/level polymorphs into chosen animal.
Animal Shapes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalShapes.htm): One ally/level polymorphs into chosen animal.
Animal Trance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animalTrance.htm)&dagger;: Fascinates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fascinated) 2d6 HD of animals.
Animate Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animatePlants.htm): One or more trees animate and fight for you.
Animate Rope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateRope.htm): Makes a rope move at your command.
Antipathy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antipathy.htm): Object or location affected by spell repels certain creatures.
Arcane Sight, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneSightGreater.htm): As arcane sight, but also reveals magic effects on creatures and objects.
Baleful Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/balefulPolymorph.htm): Transforms subject into harmless animal.
Barkskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm): Grants +2 (or higher) enhancement to natural armor.
Evard's Black Tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm): Tentacles grapple all within 15' spread.
Bless Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blessWeapon.htm): Weapon strikes true against evil foes.
Blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blight.htm): Withers one plant or deals 1d6/level damage to plant creatures.
Blur (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blur.htm): Attacks miss 20% of the time.
Burning Hands (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/burningHands.htm): 1d4/level fire damage (max 5d4).
Call Lightning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/callLightning.htm): Calls down lightning bolts (3d6 per bolt) from sky.
Call Lightning Storm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/callLightningStorm.htm): As call lightning, but 5d6 damage per bolt.
Calm Animals (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/calmAnimals.htm): Calms (2d4 + level) HD of animals.
Cat's Grace (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/catsGrace.htm): Subject gains +4 to DEX for 1 min./level.
Cat's Grace, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/catsGraceMass.htm): As cat's grace, affects one subject/level.
Chain Lightning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chainLightning.htm): 1d6/level damage; 1 secondary bolt/level each deals half damage.
Chaos Hammer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chaosHammer.htm): Damages and staggers lawful creatures.
Charm Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmMonster.htm): Makes monster believe it is your ally.
Charm Monster, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmMonsterMass.htm): As charm monster, but all within 30'.
Charm Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm): Makes one person your friend.
Chill Metal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillMetal.htm): Cold metal damages those who touch it.
Chill Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/chillTouch.htm): One touch/level deals 1d6 damage and possibly 1 STR damage.
Circle of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/circleOfDeath.htm): Kills 1d4/level HD of creatures.
Clairaudience/Clairvoyance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm): Hear or see at a distance for 1 minute/level.
Bigby's Clenched Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clenchedFist.htm): Large hand provides cover, pushes or attacks your foes.
Command, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandGreater.htm): As command, but affects one subject/level.
Command Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandPlants.htm): Sway the actions of one or more plant creatures.
Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm): Undead creature obeys your commands.
Commune with Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/communeWithNature.htm): Learn about terrain for 1 mile/level.
Cone of Cold (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/coneOfCold.htm): 1d6/level cold damage.
Confusion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm): Subjects behave oddly for 1 round/level.
Confusion, Lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusionLesser.htm): One creature acts randomly for one round.
Contingency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm)F: Sets trigger condition for another spell.
Control Plants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlPlants.htm): Control actions of one or more plant creatures.
Control Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm): Undead don't attack you while under your command.
Control Winds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlWinds.htm): Change wind direction and speed.
Creeping Doom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/creepingDoom.htm)*: Swarms of centipedes attack at your command.
Creeping Doom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/creepingDoom.htm): Swarms of centipedes attack at your command.
Crushing Despair (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/crushingDespair.htm): Subjects take -2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and checks.
Bigby's Crushing Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/crushingHand.htm): Large hand provides cover, pushes, or crushes your foes.
Deep Slumber (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deepSlumber.htm): Puts 10 HD of creatures to sleep.
Demand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/demand.htm): As sending, plus you can send suggestion.
Detect Scrying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectScrying.htm): Alerts you of magical eavesdropping.
Detect Secret Doors (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectSecretDoors.htm): Reveals hidden doors within 60'.
Detect Thoughts (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectThoughts.htm): Allows "listening" to surface thoughts.
Dimension Door (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensionDoor.htm): Teleports you short distance.
Disguise Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disguiseSelf.htm): Changes your appearance.
Disguise Self (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disguiseSelf.htm): Disguise own appearance.
Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm): Makes one creature or object vanish.
Displacement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/displacement.htm): Attacks miss subject 50%.
Disrupt Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disruptUndead.htm): Deals 1d6 damage to one undead.
Dominate Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominateAnimal.htm): Subject animal obeys silent mental commands.
Dominate Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominateMonster.htm): As dominate person, but any creature.
Dominate Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm): Controls humanoid telepathically.
Dream (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dream.htm): Sends message to anyone sleeping.
Elemental Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/elementalSwarm.htm): Summons multiple elementals (Air only).
Elemental Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/elementalSwarm.htm): Summons multiple elementals (Earth only).
Elemental Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/elementalSwarm.htm): Summons multiple elementals (Fire only).
Elemental Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/elementalSwarm.htm): Summons multiple elementals (Water only).
Enervation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enervation.htm): Subject gains 1d4 negative levels.
Enlarge Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm): Humanoid creature doubles in size.
Entangle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/entangle.htm): Plants entangle everyone in 40' radius.
Erase (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm): Mundane or magical writing vanishes.
Expeditious Retreat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/expeditiousRetreat.htm): Your speed increases by 30'.
Explosive Runes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/explosiveRunes.htm): Deals 6d6 damage when read.
Eyebite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/eyebite.htm): Target becomes panicked (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#panicked), sickened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#sickened), and comatose.
Fabricate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fabricate.htm): Transforms raw materials into finished items.
Faerie Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/faerieFire.htm): Outlines subject with light, canceling blur, concealment, and the like.
False Vision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/falseVision.htm)M: Fools scrying with an illusion.
Fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fear.htm): Subjects within cone flee for 1 round/level.
Feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm): Subject's INT and CHA drop to 1.
Finger of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm): Kills one subject.
Fire Seeds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireSeeds.htm): Acorns and Berries become grenades and bombs.
Fire Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireShield.htm): Creatures attacking you take fire damage, you're protected form heat or cold.
Fire Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireShield.htm): Creatures attacking you take fire damage; you're protected from heat or cold.
Fire Trap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm)M: Opened object deals 1d4 damage +1/level.
Flesh to Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm): Turns subject creature into statue.
Fly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm): Subject flies at speed of 60'
Fog Cloud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fogCloud.htm): Fog obscures vision.
Forcecage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm)M: Cube or cage of force imprisons all inside.
Foresight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm): "Sixth sense" warns of impending danger.
Freedom (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedom.htm): Releases creature from imprisonment.
Otiluke's Freezing Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freezingSphere.htm): Freezes water or deals cold damage.
Gaseous Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gaseousForm.htm): Subject becomes insubstantial and can fly slowly.
Glibness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glibness.htm): Gain +30 on Bluff checks, and your lies can escape magical discernment.
Globe of Invulnerability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/globeOfInvulnerability.htm): As lesser globe of invulnerability, plus 4th-level spell effects.
Goodberry (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/goodberry.htm): 2d4 berries each cure 1 hp (max 8 hp/24 hours).
Good Hope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/goodHope.htm): Subjects gain +2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and checks.
Bigby's Grasping Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/graspingHand.htm): Large hand provides cover, pushes or grapples.
Grease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm): Makes 10' square or one object slippery.
Guards and Wards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/guardsAndWards.htm): Array of magical effects protects area.
Gust of Wind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gustOfWind.htm): Blows away or knocks down smaller creatures.
Hallucinatory Terrain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hallucinatoryTerrain.htm): Makes one type of terrain appear like another (field into forest, or the like).
Halt Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haltUndead.htm): Immobilizes undead for 1 round/level.
Haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm): One creature/level moves faster, +1 on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves.
Heat Metal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heatMetal.htm): Make metal so hot it damages those who touch it.
Heroism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroism.htm): Gives +2 bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks.
Heroism, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroismGreater.htm): Gives +4 bonus on attacks, saves, skill checks; immunity to fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#frightened); temporary hp.
Tasha's Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hideousLaughter.htm): Subject loses actions for one round/level.
Hold Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holdAnimal.htm): Paralyzes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) one animal for 1 round/level.
Hold Monster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holdMonster.htm): As hold person, but any creature.
Holy Smite (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySmite.htm): Damages and blinds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) evil creatures.
Holy Sword (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holySword.htm): Weapon becomes +5, deals +2d6 damage against evil.
Hypnotism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hypnotism.htm): Fascinates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fascinated) 2d4 HD of creatures.
Ice Storm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/iceStorm.htm): Hail deals 5d6 damage in cylinder 40' across.
Identify (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/identify.htm): Determines properties of magic item.
Imprisonment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imprisonment.htm): Entombs subject beneath the earth.
Incendiary Cloud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/incendiaryCloud.htm): Cloud deals 4d6 fire damage/round.
Insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/insanity.htm): Subject suffers continuous confusion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#confused).
Instant Summons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm): Prepared object appears in your hand.
Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm): Subject is invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) for 1 minute/level or until it attacks.
Iron Body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ironBody.htm): Your body becomes living iron.
Otto's Irresistible Dance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/irresistibleDance.htm): Forces subject to dance.
Keen Edge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/keenEdge.htm): Doubles normal weapon's threat range.
Knock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/knock.htm): Opens locked or magically sealed door.
Legend Lore (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm)MF: Learn tales about a person, place, or thing.
Legend Lore (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/legendLore.htm)MF: Lets you learn tales about a person, place, or thing.
Limited Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/limitedWish.htm)X: Alters reality—within spell limits.
Liveoak (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/liveoak.htm): Oak becomes treant guardian.
Longstrider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/longstrider.htm): Increases your speed.
Mage Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageArmor.htm): Gives subject +4 armor bonus.
Mordenkainen's Disjunction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesDisjunction.htm): Dispels magic, disenchants magic items.
Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesFaithfulHound.htm): Phantom dog can attack, guard.
Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesMagnificentMansion.htm)F: Door leads to extradimensional mansion.
Nystul's Magic Aura (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicAura.htm): Alters object's magic aura.
Magic Fang (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm): One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1 on attack and damage rolls.
Magic Fang, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFangGreater.htm): One natural weapon of subject creature gets +1/4 levels on attack and damage rolls (max +5).
Magic Jar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm)F: Enables possession of another creature.
Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm): 1d4+1 damage; +1 missile/2 levels above 1st (max 5).
Major Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/majorCreation.htm): As minor creation, plus stone and metal.
Maze (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/maze.htm): Traps subject in extradimensional maze.
Message (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/message.htm): Whispered conversation at a distance.
Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm): Subject is immune to mental/emotional magic and scrying.
Mind Fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindFog.htm): Subjects in fog get -10 to Wisdom and Will checks.
Minor Creation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/minorCreation.htm): Creates one cloth or wood object.
Minor Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/minorImage.htm): As silent image, plus some sound.
Mislead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mislead.htm): Turns you invisible (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#invisible) and creates illusory double.
Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mnemonicEnhancer.htm)F: Prepares extra spells or retains one just cast.
Modify Memory (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/modifyMemory.htm): Changes 5 minutes of subject's memories.
Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm): You gain insight bonus on single attack roll, check, or save.
Move Earth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/moveEarth.htm): Dig trenches and build walls.
Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nightmare.htm): Sends vision dealing 1d10 damage, fatigue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued).
Nondetection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/nondetection.htm)M: Hides subject from divination, scrying.
Order's Wrath (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ordersWrath.htm): Damages and dazes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed) chaotic creatures.
Passwall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/passwall.htm): Creates passage through wood or stone wall.
Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm)X: Makes certain spells permanent.
Permanent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanentImage.htm)M: Includes sight, sound, and smell.
Persistent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/persistentImage.htm): As major image, but no concentration required.
Phantasmal Killer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm): Fearsome illusion kills subject or deals 3d6 damage.
Phantom Steed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm)*: Magic horse appears for 1 hour/level.
Phase Door (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phaseDoor.htm): Creates an invisible passage through wood or stone.
Planar Binding (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBinding.htm): As lesser planar binding, but up to 12 HD.
Planar Binding, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingGreater.htm): As lesser planar binding, but up to 18 HD.
Planar Binding, Lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm): Traps extraplanar creature of 6 HD or less until it performs a task.
Plant Growth (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/plantGrowth.htm): Grows vegetation, improves crops.
Polar Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polarRay.htm): Ranged touch attack deals 1d6/level cold damage.
Polymorph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm): Gives one willing subject a new form.
Polymorph Any Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorphAnyObject.htm): Changes any subject into anything else.
Power Word Blind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordBlind.htm): Blinds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) creature with 200 hp or less.
Power Word Kill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordKill.htm): Kills one creature with 100 hp or less.
Power Word Stun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordStun.htm): Stuns (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) creature with 150 hp or less.
Prismatic Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticSphere.htm): As prismatic wall, but surrounds on all sides.
Produce Flame (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/produceFlame.htm): 1d6 damage +1/level, touch or thrown.
Project Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/projectImage.htm): Illusory double can talk and cast spells.
Protection from Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromSpells.htm)MF: Confers +8 resistance bonus.
Prying Eyes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyes.htm): 1d4 +1/level floating eyes scout for you.
Rage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rage.htm): Subjects gain +2 to STR and CON, +1 on Will saves, -2 to AC.
Ray of Enfeeblement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm): Ray deals 1d6 +1/2 levels STR penalty.
Ray of Exhaustion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfExhaustion.htm): Ray makes subject exhausted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted).
Reduce Person, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePersonMass.htm): Reduces several creatures.
Riencarnate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reincarnate.htm): Brings dead subject back to life in random body.
Repel Metal or Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/repelMetalOrStone.htm): Pushes away metal and stone.
Repel Wood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/repelWood.htm): Pushes away wooden objects.
Repulsion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/repulsion.htm): Creatures can't approach you.
Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm): Force globe protects but traps one subject.
Reverse Gravity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reverseGravity.htm): Objects and creatures fall upward..
Rusting Grasp (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rustingGrasp.htm): Your touch corrodes iron and alloys.
Scare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scare.htm): Panics creatures of less than 6 HD.
Scintillating Pattern (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scintillatingPattern.htm): Twisting colors confuse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#confused), stun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned), or render unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious).
Screen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/screen.htm): Illusion hides area from vision, scrying.
Leomund's Secret Chest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/secretChest.htm)F: Hides expensive chest on Ethereal Plane; you can retrieve it at will.
Secret Page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/secretPage.htm): Changes one page to hide its real content.
Leomund's Secure Shelter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/secureShelter.htm): Creates sturdy cottage.
See Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm): Reveals invisible creatures or objects.
Sequester (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sequester.htm): Subject is invisible to sight and scrying; renders creature comatose.
Shades (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shades.htm): As shadow conjuration, but up to 8th level and 80% real.
Shadow Conjuration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowConjuration.htm): Mimics conjuration below 4th level, but only 20% real.
Shadow Conjuration, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowConjurationGreater.htm): As shadow conjuration, but up to 6th level and 60% real.
Shadow Evocation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowEvocation.htm): Mimics evocation below 5th level, but only 20% real.
Shadow Evocation, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowEvocationGreater.htm): As shadow evocation, but up to 7th level and 60% real.
Shadow Walk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowWalk.htm): Step into shadow to travel rapidly.
Shambler (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shambler.htm): Summons 1d4+2 shambling mounds to fight for you.
Shapechange (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shapechange.htm)F: Transforms you into any creature, and change forms once per round.
Shout (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shout.htm): Deafens (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#deafened) all within cone and deals 5d6 sonic damage.
Shout, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shoutGreater.htm): Devastating yell deals 10d6 sonic damage; stuns (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) creatures, damages objects.
Shrink Item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shrinkItem.htm): Object shrinks to one-sixteenth size.
Silent Image (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/silentImage.htm): Creates minor illusion of your design.
Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm)MX: Creates partially real double of a creature.
Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm): Puts 4 HD of creatures into magical slumber.
Sleet Storm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleetStorm.htm): Hampers vision and movement.
Slow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/slow.htm): One subject/level takes only one action/round, -2 to AC, -2 on attack rolls.
Snare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/snare.htm): Creates a magic booby trap.
Soften Earth and Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/softenEarthAndStone.htm): Turns stone to clay or dirt to sand or mud.
Song of Discord (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/songOfDiscord.htm): Forces targets to attack each other.
Spell Turning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spellTurning.htm): Reflect 1d4+6 spell levels back at caster.
Spider Climb (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiderClimb.htm): Grants ability to walk on walls and ceilings.
Spike Stones (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spikeStones.htm): Creatures in area take 1d8 damage, may be slowed.
Stoneskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneskin.htm)M: Ignore 10 points of damage per attack.
Stone Tell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneTell.htm): Talk to natural or worked stone.
Stone to Flesh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneToFlesh.htm): Restores petrified creatures.
Suggestion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm): Compels subject to follow stated course of action.
Suggestion, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestionMass.htm): As suggestion, plus one/level subjects.
Summon Nature's Ally IV (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyIV.htm)*: Calls creature to fight.
Summon Nature's Ally IX (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyIX.htm)*: Summons creature to fight.
Summon Nature's Ally IX (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyIX.htm): Summons creature to fight.
Summon Nature's Ally VIII (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyVIII.htm)*: Calls creature to fight.
Summon Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonSwarm.htm): Summons swarm of bats, rats, or spiders.
Sunbeam (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sunbeam.htm): Beam blinds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) and deals 4d6 damage.
Sunburst (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sunburst.htm): Blinds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded) all within 80', deals 6d6 damage.
Sympathy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sympathy.htm)M: Object or location attracts certain creatures.
Telekinesis (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telekinesis.htm): Moves object, attacks creature, or hurls object or creature.
Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telekineticSphere.htm): As Otiluke's resilient sphere, but you move sphere telekinetically.
Rary's Telepathic Bond (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telepathicBond.htm): Link lets allies communicate.
Teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm): Instantly transports you as far as 100 miles/level.
Teleportation Circle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportationCircle.htm): Circle teleports any creature inside to designated spot.
Teleport, Greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportGreater.htm): As teleport, but no range limit and no off-target arrival.
Teleport Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleportObject.htm): As teleport, but affects a touched object.
Time Stop (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm): You act freely for 1d4+1 rounds.
Touch of Fatigue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/touchOfFatigue.htm): Touch attack fatigues subject.
Touch of Idiocy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/touchOfIdiocy.htm): Subject takes 1d6-point penalty to INT, WIS, and CHA.
Tenser's Transformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transformation.htm)M: You gain combat bonuses.
Transmute Metal to Wood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteMetalToWood.htm): Metal within 40' becomes wood.
Transmute Rock to Mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm): Transforms two 10' cubes per level.
Trap the Soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm)MF: Imprisons subject within gem (works on ghosts only).
Trap the Soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm)MF: Imprisons subject within gem.
Tree Stride (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/treeStride.htm): Step from one tree to another far away.
True Strike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueStrike.htm): +20 on your next attack roll.
Unholy Blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm): Damages and sickens (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#sickened) good creatures.
Unseen Servant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unseenServant.htm): Invisible force obeys your commands.
Vampiric Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vampiricTouch.htm): Touch deals 1d6/2 levels damage; caster gains damage as hp.
Vision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vision.htm)MX: As legend lore, but quicker and strenuous.
Wail of the Banshee (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wailOfTheBanshee.htm): Kills one creature/level.
Wall of Force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm): Wall is immune to damage.
Wall of Ice (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIce.htm): Ice plane creates wall with 15 hp +1/level, or hemisphere can trap creatures inside.
Wall of Iron (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfIron.htm)M: 30 hp/4 levels; can topple onto foes.
Wall of Thorns (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfThorns.htm): Thorns damage anyone who tries to pass by.
Waves of Exhaustion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wavesOfExhaustion.htm): Several subjects become exhausted (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#exhausted).
Waves of Fatigue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wavesOfFatigue.htm): Several targets become fatigued (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued).
Web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm): Fills 20'-radius spread with sticky spiderwebs.
Weird (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/weird.htm): As phantasmal killer, but affects all within 30'.
Whirlwind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/whirlwind.htm): Cyclone deals damage and can pick up creatures.
Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)X: As limited wish, but with fewer limits.
Wood Shape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/woodShape.htm): Rearranges wooden objects to suit you.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-17, 08:13 PM

I think the vast majority of really nice core arcane spells show up on a domain somewhere, don't they?
Well, there are quite a few spells available through domains which don't appear on the regular Cleric spell list. Here are the spells without links:

Abyssal Frenzy, Mass: As abyssal frenzy, but 1 creature/level.
Abyssal RiftM: Opens a rift in the ground, damaging creatures and structures.
Aerial Alacrity: +30' fly speed, +1 AC and Reflex saves while flying, maneuverability improves by one category.
Airy Water: Turn normal water into a breathable substance; negate underwater movement and melee attack penalties.
Analyze Portal: Find a nearby portal and discover its properties.
Animate City: City stuctures attack, slow down enemies.
Anyspell, Greater: Prepare any arcane spell up to 5th level.
Anyspell: Prepare any arcane spell up to 2nd level.
Arc of Lightning: Line of electricity arcs between two creatures (1d6/level damage).
Aspect of the Deity, Greater: As lesser aspect, but gain wings, enhanced ability scores, and various resistances and immunities.
Aspect of the Deity: As lesser aspect, but you get celestial qualities.
Avascular Mass: Reduce foe to half hp and stun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) foe for 1 round by purging blood vessels, which can trap creatures in 20' radius from the victim.
Avasculate: Reduce foe to half hp and stun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) foe for 1 round by purging blood vessels.
Awaken SandF: A region of sand forms into a Huge, sentient creature.
Awaken UndeadX: Grant sentience to otherwise mindless undead.
Beckoning Call: Lures target creature closer to you.
Bestow WoundM: Transfer 1 hp/level of wounds to another.
Binding Winds: Air prevents subject from moving, hinders ranged attacks.
Bite of the King: Swallow enemies whole.
Blackwater Taint: Desecrate water, deal 1d6/2 levels negative energy damage, bestow a negative level.
Blackwater Tentacle: Create blackwater tentacle that attacks your foe.
Blast of Force: Ray deals 1d6 damage/ two caster levels (max 5d6).
Blast of Sand: Cone deals 1d6 damage/level.
Blinding Beauty: You become as beautiful as a nymph, and can blind humanoids who look at you.
Blink, Improved: As blink, but safer and with more control.
Blizzard: Temperature drops and powerful blizzard reduces visibility to zero.
Cheat: Caster rerolls when determining the success of a game of chance.
Chill of the Grave: Ray causes cold damage.
Choose Destiny: Gain two chances for success on every action.
City Lights: Absorb nearby light to release as blinding flare.
City Stride: Teleport between two cities.
City's Might: Gain enhancements to STR and CON, damage reduction, while in city.
Clarity of Mind: +4 bonus on saves against mind-affecting spells and abilities, allows reroll of concealment miss chance.
Cloak of Bravery, Greater: You and your allies become immune to fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#frightened) and get +2 bonus on attacks.
Cloak of Dark Power: Cloak protects subject from effects of sunlight.
Cloudwalkers: Subjects can fly outdoors at speed of 60'.
Commune with City: Learn about city.
Construct Energy Ward, Greater: Construct gains immunity to specified energy type.
Construct Essence, Lesser: Grants a living construct qualities of the construct type.
Construct Essence, Mass Lesser: Grants many living constructs qualities of the construct type.
Control Deathless: Deathless don't attack you while under your command.
Create DeathlessM:[/B] Create undying soldier.
Create Greater DeathlessM:[/B] Create undying councilor.
Create Trap: Creates a CR 1 trap.
Curse of Lycanthropy: Causes temporary lycanthropy in subject.
Dance of the Unicorn: Purifying mist washes the air clean of smoke, dust, and poisons.
Dark Tide: Infuse water over a large area with negative energy, causing weakness and 1d6 damage/hour.
Darkbolt: Multiple bolts deal 2d8 damage and daze (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed) creatures.
Death Hail: Summons a storm of death hail.
Demon Wings: You can fly at your land speed.
Demoncall: Grants +10 profane bonus on one Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (the planes), or Knowledge (religion) check.
Demonflesh: Grants +1 natural armor/5 caster levels.
Depthsurge: Water slam deals 2d6 + caster level damage to all within 20' radius, pushes targets back, sinks ships.
Desert BindingM: Imprisons creature as sand in an hourglass or wind in the waste.
Detoxify: Neutralize poison in 30' radius.
Devil's Ego: Gain +4 to CHA and change type to outsider for 1 min./level.
Dispelling Screen, Greater: Targeted dispel magic on any creatures and unattended items, +20 max on caster level check.
Distilled JoyF: Create ambrosia.
Doom of the Seas: Summons a fiendish kraken under your command.
Doppelganger Transformation: You gain physical and mental bonuses.
Dragon AllyX: As lesser dragon ally, but up to 15 HD. Suggestion, Mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestionMass.htm): As suggestion, plus one/level subjects.
Dream Sight: Your spirit can hear and see at a distance for 1 min./level.
Empyreal Ecstasy: Targets immune to pain and mind-influencing effects, and take half damage from melee and ranged attacks; –4 to skill checks.
Enduring Flight: Carry medium loads at full fly speed; flight duration is doubled.
Entice Gift: Subject gives caster what it's holding.
Eternity of Torture: Target is rendered helpless, ageless, and has all ability scores except for CON drop to 0.
Eyes of the King: Summon fiendish dire bats.
Fangs of the Vampire King: Grow vampire fangs.
Fantastic Machine, Greater: Creates a machine to perform multiple tasks.
Fantastic Machine: Creates a machine to perform a single simple task.
Field of Ghouls: Transform dying creatures into ghouls.
Fins to Feet: Transforms tails and fins into legs and feet.
Fires of Purity: Subject bursts into magical flame, becoming a dangerous weapon.
Force Shapechange: Forces shapechangers into natural form.
GembombM: Gem becomes a bomb that deals 1d8 force damage/2 levels.
Ghoul Gauntlet: Convert Victim to a ghoul under your control.
Ghoul Gesture: Ray paralyzes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) target.
Ghoul Glyph: Glyph wards area, paralyzes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) victims.
Ghoul Light: Light provides turn resistance.
Glimpse of Eternity: Target takes 1d6 nonlethal damage/level and is confused (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#confused).
Gnome Blight: Cloud of itchy debilitating pollen sickens living creatures.
Halt Deathless: Immobilizes deathless for 1 round/level.
Heavenly Lightning Storm: Arcs of radiant lightning deal 5d6 damage to one target per level.
Heavenly Lightning: Arcs of radiant lightning deal 3d6 damage to one target per two caster levels.
Hellfire Storm: Explosion of infernal fire deals 1d8 damage/level in 20' radius.
Hellfire: Explosion of infernal fire deals 1d8 damage/2 levels in 10' radius.
Hero's Blade: Channel the spirit of a great hero into a melee weapon.
Illusion Purge: Dispels illusions within 5'/level.
Impede Sun's Brilliance: Diminishes the heat and light of the sun in an area.
Involuntary Shapeshifting: If able to do so, target creature must change shape.
Iron ConstructM: Construct gains DR 15/adamantine and takes half damage from acid and fire.
Ironguard: Subject becomes immune to all metal.
Liquid Pain: Extracts one dose of liquid pain from tortured victim.
Maelstrom: Water vortex traps and damages creatures and objects.
Mantle of Pure Spite: Gain a cumulative DR 1/— and a cumulative +1 bonus on attacks, damage, and AC each time a foe strikes you.
Mastery of the Sky: Gain +2 on attack rolls and damage rolls while airborne; maneuverability becomes perfect; foes incur penalties against you.
Maw of Stone: Animates cavern opening or chamber.
Maw of Stone: Deals 1d6/two levels cold damage in a 10' radius.
Megalodon Empowerment: Gain scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent), water breathing, swim speed for 1 hour/level.
Mephit Mob*: Summons multiple mephits.
Monstrous Thrall: As true domination, but permanent and affects any creature.
Moon Blade: Creates sword that does 1d8 damage +1/2 levels, scrambles magic.
Moon Path: Creates invisible stair or bridge.
Moonbeam: Forces lycanthropes to regain human shape.
Moonfire: Cone of light damages creatures, reveals hidden things, negates electricity damage.
Obedient Avalanche: Snowy avalanche crushes and buries your foes.
Oozepuppet: You can telekinetically control target ooze.
Otyugh Swarm: Creates 3d4 otyughs or 1d3+1 Huge otyughs.
Parching Touch: One touch/level deals 1d6 damage and possibly 1 CON damage.
Pavilion of Grandeur: A feast and a great pavilion are created.
Phantasmal Thief: Creates an unseen force that steals from others.
Plague of Rats: Summons horde of rats.
Pox: Deals 1d4 CON drain to one creature/level.
Pressure Sphere: Water pressure deals 4d6 damage to submerged targets.
Probe Thoughts: Read subject's memories, one question/round.
Quickswim: Your swim speed increases by 10'.
Raptor's Sight: Gain +5 on Spot checks; range increment penalty halved.
Repair Critical Damage: Repairs 4d8 + 1/level damage (max +20) for a construct.
Repair Light Damage: Repairs 1d8 + 1/level damage (max +5) to a construct.
Repel Ectoplasm: As repel wood, but affecting only ectoplasm.
Revive Undead:[/B] Restores undeath to undead that was destroyed up to 1 day/level ago.
Rhino's Rush: Next charge deals double damage.
Rooftop Strider: Move across uneven surfaces with ease.
Sanctuary, Mass: One creature/level can't be attacked, and can't attack.
Scales of the Sealord: Add 10' to swim speed or gain swim speed of 15'; add natural armor bonus +1/3 levels.
Scourge: Inflicts a disease that must be magically cured, one subject/level.
Siren's Call: Compel one creature/2 levels to submerse itself.
Skin of the Cactus: Grants natural armor, thorns, and resistance to dehydration.
Skyline Runner: You can walk normally on any city surface.
Snow Walk: Increase your speed and walk effortlessly on top of snow without leaving tracks or scent.
Snowsight: Normal vision in winter weather conditions.
Soul LinkM: Grants target a boon, allows monitoring, and establishes a telepathic link that enhances enchantments.
Spider Curse: Turn humanoid subject into a drider.
Spider Shapes: Polymorph one creature/level into monstrous spider.
Spiderform: Polymorph into drider or Large spider.
Spirit Steed: Channels an ancient spirit into your steed, increasing its speed and granting other benefits.
StarmantleM: Cloak of stars destroys nonmagical weapons on contact and allows wearer a DC 15 Reflex save to reduce damage from magic weapons by half.
Sticky Fingers: Grants you a +10 bonus on Sleight of Hand checks.
Stone ConstructM: Construct gains DR 10/adamantine.
Stone Sphere: 5' diameter stone sphere rolls over your enemies.
Stone Spiders: Transform pebbles into monstrous spider constructs.
Summon Desert Ally IX: Calls dustform creature to fight.
Summon Devoted Roc: Summons powerful roc to serve you.
Summon Dire Hawk: Summons dire hawk to serve you.
Summon Warforged Champion:: Summons a mighty warforged titan.
Sunstroke: Target takes 2d6 nonlethal damage and is fatigued (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#fatigued).
Telepathic Bond, Lesser: Link with subject within 30' for 10 minutes/level.
Tormenting Thirst: Subject is overwhelmed by thirst.
Total Repair: Repairs 10/level damage to a construct.
Transformation of the Deeps: Grant water breathing, darkvision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#darkvision), and pressure immunity to one creature/3 levels.
Transmute Rock to Lava: Transforms one 10' cube with subsequent fire damage and effects.
Treasure Scent: Allows you to detect and follow valuable materials by scent.
True Domination: As dominate person, but save at -4.
True Seeing, Mass: As true seeing, but affects multiple creatures.
Unbinding: Frees everyone in range from spells that constrain or bind.
Unearthly Beauty: As blinding beauty, but creatures must save or die.
Unearthly Heat: Target is subjected to unearthly heat for 1 round/level.
Urban Shield: City grants cover to you, not to enemies.
Valiant Fury: +4 STR, CON; +2 Will saves; extra attack.
Vision of Entropy: Confronts target with a vision of the Abyss that causes increasing fear.
Vitrify: Melts sand into glass.
Voice of the Dragon: +10 on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks; can use one suggestion.
Warp Destiny: Reverse failed save or hit in combat.
Waste Strider: Move through waste without penalties.
Waterspout: Waterspout you control picks up and damages foes.
Wave of Pain: Stuns all within cone for 1 round/2 levels.
Weighed in the Balance: Harms or heals creatures within 30' of you.
Whirlwind of Teeth: Creates moving 5'/level cylinder that deals 1d8 damage/2 levels each round.
Whirlwind, Greater: As whirlwind, but larger and more destructive.
Winding Alleys: Trap foe in phantasmal maze.
Wither Limb: Cause enemy's limbs to wither.
Withering Palm: Touch attack deals 1 point STR and 1 point CON damage per two caster levels.
Word of Balance: Kills, paralyzes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed), weakens, or nauseates (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#nauseated) nonneutrsl cratures.
Wrack: Blinds subject and renders it helpless for 1 round/level, then –2 on attacks, saves, and checks for 3d10 minutes.
Zeal: You move through foes to attack the enemy you want.
Zealot PactX: You automatically gain combat bonuses when you attack someone of opposite alignment.

3Power

2013-10-17, 10:44 PM

Greater Rod of Quicken or Sudden Quicken Wish to replicate Spell Engine.

If you are willing to spend a standard action and already have Shapechange up then you can go Zodar -> Wish.

Or you can use a Scroll of Quickened Wish.
Some much needed context:
Sudden Quicken requires 6 feats.
Spell Engine only allows you to reprepare the spells you haven't cast yet.
Wish costs 5000 XP
Gaining access to wish via shapechanges assumes your DM is braindead.

The tier system is nothing more than a presentation of how they actually line up in capability, and as such is a useful tool.The only thing it is useful for is starting stupid arguments on the internet by people who take it too seriously. I mean, banning classes? WIZARD ONLY NO ITEMS FINAL DESTINATION, ALSO WIZARD KNOWS WHAT HE'S FACING AHEAD OF TIME AND CAN TAKE 15 MINUTE BREAKS WHENEVER HE WANTS.

You don't need a tier list to know that spellcasters tend to overshadow the mundanes. You also don't need a tier list to compensate for it, through adventure design and well chosen magic items.

eggynack

2013-10-17, 10:53 PM

You don't need a tier list to know that spellcasters tend to overshadow the mundanes. You also don't need a tier list to compensate for it, through adventure design and well chosen magic items.
Maybe you don't, at least partially because you know stuff about the system, and possibly partially because of the tier system itself. How about you start a thread about how obvious it is that spellcasters overshadow mundanes, and see how universal the agreement is.

Knaight

2013-10-17, 11:00 PM

You don't need a tier list to know that spellcasters tend to overshadow the mundanes. You also don't need a tier list to compensate for it, through adventure design and well chosen magic items.

When you are completely new at the game, it's helpful. D&D 3.x doesn't seem particularly complicated to anyone here anymore, but that's largely because we're used to it. It still has a good 300 pages of core rules, of which any given player probably needs to know at least 150. For the DM, you're pushing 1000, without even using anything non-core. There are also a whole bunch of acronyms in use, the potential for highly unfamiliar terminology, etc. It's not that easy to just tell how things end up balanced when you're new, particularly when the game is lying through its teeth pretending that things actually are. You're assuming a decent level of system mastery that will be beyond early, casual play, and certainly beyond early, casual play for a new DM who hasn't played before. Having a list that spells it out is thus pretty helpful - particularly as careful magic item balancing is also likely beyond a new GM. After all, even stuff like the Apparatus of Kwalish looks interesting and useful at a first glance.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-17, 11:06 PM

Some much needed context:
Sudden Quicken requires 6 feats.
So what. I said that is one way to do it, not the way that I would choose to do it.

Spell Engine only allows you to reprepare the spells you haven't cast yet.
I never said that it was a method to regain expended spell slots (there are other ways to do that), I said it was a way to repick all of your prepared spell list as a swift action; which is exactly what it does. It makes "Schrodinger's Wizard" something that a wizard can actually be.

Wish costs 5000 XP
And a CR 20 encounter at ECL 17+ will give you anywhere from 15,300 to 6,000 XP. There is also a Thought Bottle (not that I recommend it), using a Scroll of Quickened Wish gained via an XP free Wish, using a Craft Contingent spell to do the same thing, and a number of other methods.

Gaining access to wish via shapechanges assumes your DM is braindead.
No, it assumes that you DM follows the rules of the game and doesn't arbitrarily restrict players. There is nothing at all in the process that requires DM adjudication or input, every step in the process is clearly rules legal.

----
And frankly, eating a 5,000 XP cost to be a Schrodinger Wizard that is perfectly built for a given challenge or situation is a cheap price for the huge advantage provided even if you don't need it 99% of the time.

3Power

2013-10-17, 11:47 PM

When you are completely new at the game, it's helpful. D&D 3.x doesn't seem particularly complicated to anyone here anymore, but that's largely because we're used to it. It still has a good 300 pages of core rules, of which any given player probably needs to know at least 150. For the DM, you're pushing 1000, without even using anything non-core. There are also a whole bunch of acronyms in use, the potential for highly unfamiliar terminology, etc. It's not that easy to just tell how things end up balanced when you're new, particularly when the game is lying through its teeth pretending that things actually are. You're assuming a decent level of system mastery that will be beyond early, casual play, and certainly beyond early, casual play for a new DM who hasn't played before. Having a list that spells it out is thus pretty helpful - particularly as careful magic item balancing is also likely beyond a new GM. After all, even stuff like the Apparatus of Kwalish looks interesting and useful at a first glance.
It's endearing how the tier supporters switch between whether it's intended for new players or for powergamers as it pleases them. I mean, it "assumes optimization" but now we're describing a situation where a bunch of noobs are playing a game.

I never said that it was a method to regain expended spell slots (there are other ways to do that), I said it was a way to repick all of your prepared spell list as a swift action; which is exactly what it does. Yes, but to the average person the distinction was not made clear. "Repick your spells" is terribly vague.

And a CR 20 encounter at ECL 17+ will give you anywhere from 15,300 to 6,000 XP. No. It will give the party that amount. You would get 1/4th of that (assuming a 4 person party), so you would obtain 3825 XP if you were level 17, for beating an encounter with a CR 3 levels higher than is appropriate. Furthermore, such an encounter would be described as "Very difficult" and should only comprise about 15% of the encounters in a given session, or 1 encounter, given the default seven encounters a session. The "average" encounter for a level 17 party would grant each member 1275 XP each. So it would take four of those encounters, or half a session, to gain enough XP to cast Wish once.

No, it assumes that you DM follows the rules of the game and doesn't arbitrarily restrict players. There is nothing at all in the process that requires DM adjudication or input, every step in the process is clearly rules legal. Sorry, but a level 9 spell being able to be duplicated without an XP penalty by another level 9 spell is an obvious rules oversight. The DM is perfectly justified in ruling this exploit unusable, as described on page 6 on the DM guide under adjudicating.

Talya

2013-10-17, 11:59 PM

tier supporters

There's no such thing as "Tier supporters" and people who don't support them. There are simply people who understand the game balance, and people who don't. Tiers are just information, nothing more. They are reasonably accurate as JaronK framed them, nothing is particularly out of place. One can have a friendly debate as to the exact placement of a particular class, but the concept is sound, and you won't go wrong if you evaluate the capabilities of any class using it.

The "tier system" is not a set of rules, it's not something you support or utilize in a game. It is simply information. You can accept the information or ignore it, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change that it's an accurate portrayal of class balance within the game.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-18, 12:02 AM

Yes, but to the average person the distinction was not made clear. "Repick your spells" is terribly vague.
Meh.

No. It will give the party that amount. You would get 1/4th of that (assuming a 4 person party), so you would obtain 3825 XP if you were level 17, for beating an encounter with a CR 3 levels higher than is appropriate. Furthermore, such an encounter would be described as "Very difficult" and should only comprise about 15% of the encounters in a given session, or 1 encounter, given the default seven encounters a session. The "average" encounter for a level 17 party would grant each member 1275 XP each. So it would take four of those encounters, or half a session, to gain enough XP to cast Wish once.
Who said anything about a party?

Sorry, but a level 9 spell being able to be duplicated without an XP penalty by another level 9 spell is an obvious rules oversight.
Except it isn't a rules oversight. The rules are filled with clear cut legal methods to bypass XP costs. Core alone has half a dozen or so ways to get Wish without having to pay the XP cost.

The DM is perfectly justified in ruling this exploit unusable, as described on page 6 on the DM guide under adjudicating.
Houesrules, and thus an irrelevance.

3Power

2013-10-18, 12:27 AM

Who said anything about a party?So do you just play D&D by yourself then? That would certainly explain why your DM is such a pushover.

Except it isn't a rules oversight. Unfortunately, it is. Sorry. :smallfrown:

The rules are filled with clear cut legal methods to bypass XP costs. Unfortunately, unless they are intended as such, they run into the same problems as shapechange. Loopholes may be legal, that doesn't mean new laws can't be passed to address them. That's one of the reasons this game has a DM.

Core alone has half a dozen or so ways to get Wish without having to pay the XP cost. I would be happy to explain to you why any and all of them are invalid.

Houesrules, and thus an irrelevance. Perhaps to you, in your one person game. I think you'll find they're quite prevalent out in the real world though.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 12:37 AM

Unfortunately, it is. Sorry. :smallfrown:
Can you prove it? I really don't think you can. You can think it's a rules oversight all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

Perhaps to you, in your one person game. I think you'll find they're quite prevalent out in the real world though.
Houserules are only relevant if we're talking about a single specific game. We're talking about the general rules, so you can't assume any particular house rule.

3Power

2013-10-18, 12:48 AM

Can you prove it? I really don't think you can. You can think it's a rules oversight all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Haha, that's cute.

Two nine level spells. Wish and Shapechange. Wish costs 5000 XP. Shapechange costs no XP and does the same thing as Wish plus a whole lot more. The only reason Shapechange does the same thing as wish is because of an obscure way in which it's used.

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me wizards of the coast INTENDED Shapechange to obsolete a spell of the same level?

I think it's an oversight because all logic points to it being an oversight. If you disagree, provide opposing logic. Why would wizards do things this way?

We're talking about the general rules, so you can't assume any particular house rule. And this is why these tiers discussions are BS. Because you can assume any exploit you want, but you can't assume any fix.

bekeleven

2013-10-18, 01:11 AM

Two nine level spells. Wish and Shapechange. Wish costs 5000 XP. Shapechange costs no XP and does the same thing as Wish plus a whole lot more. The only reason Shapechange does the same thing as wish is because of an obscure way in which it's used.

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me wizards of the coast INTENDED Shapechange to obsolete a spell of the same level?
No... but can you honestly look me in the eye and say that they intended things like touch of idiocy OHKOing animals, 95% of the enchantment school being voided by a first level spell, blaster wizards being ineffectual, Monks and CW Samurai being unable to do anything but flail around, or the shadow spells to be so incredibly abuseable? Did they intend for pun-pun, the omniscifier, the jumplemancer or the arsplemancer for that matter? Did they intend for a level 6 wizard to solo the tarrasque? The truenamer?

If you say "It's obviously not intended so everyone should assume that it's houseruled away", you've effectively destroyed 90% of the game - including all tier1 and tier2 classes, monks 5 ways from sunday; most spells above 4th levels; most BFC spells; most rocket-tag spells that target a sword&board fighter's bad saves; the schools of evocation, illusion, enchantment, and large parts of transmutation; truenaming; grapple rules; template rules, most templates; at least half of all nontrivial prestige classes; all sample NPCs; druids effectively using wild shape; most exalted feats; unarmed and natural weapon rules; bodily needs such as suffocation, drowning, hunger and thirst; Etc. Etc. Etc...

So basically what you're saying is "everyone should know we're not playing D&D."

See also (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy)

Coidzor

2013-10-18, 01:39 AM

The only thing it is useful for is starting stupid arguments on the internet by people who take it too seriously. I mean, banning classes?

I suppose that arguments on the internet are one of the more recurring themes surrounding the tier system yes, though it's more people who hate the tier system and wish it had never been created than people merely taking it too seriously in my frame of reference. :smallconfused:

As for banning classes, people do it all the time for reasons as mundane as not having reliable access to the book it was published in. It's really not something to get worked up over and take personal umbrage at the idea that people would do so. :smallconfused: Admittedly, here it seems like the particular idea needs more workshopping.

WIZARD ONLY NO ITEMS FINAL DESTINATION, ALSO WIZARD KNOWS WHAT HE'S FACING AHEAD OF TIME AND CAN TAKE 15 MINUTE BREAKS WHENEVER HE WANTS.

Well, yeah, you get a well built enough wizard and they can do anything, barring DM Fiat.

You don't need a tier list to know that spellcasters tend to overshadow the mundanes. You also don't need a tier list to compensate for it, through adventure design and well chosen magic items.

So... despite knowing it to be the case, you object to having it as a reference material and as a judge of where they stand relative to one another with more specificity than "spellcasters rule, mundanes drool?" Why? :smallconfused:

Also, I have witnessed many threads and conversations in person, and participated in a few myself, wherein the quadratic wizard/linear warrior schema had to be explained to people, so it's not instantaneous, universal knowledge or anything like that. People can get weird gaps in their knowledge too, despite having been involved with something for years.

So do you just play D&D by yourself then? That would certainly explain why your DM is such a pushover.

More that said Wizard does not particularly *need* a party as I understand the example.

3Power

2013-10-18, 02:48 AM

So basically what you're saying is "everyone should know we're not playing D&D."What? No.

I'm saying you cannot automatically assume that a DM will sit back and let you abuse obvious exploits.

As for banning classes, people do it all the time for reasons as mundane as not having reliable access to the book it was published in. It's really not something to get worked up over and take personal umbrage at the idea that people would do so. Admittedly, here it seems like the particular idea needs more workshopping. Don't pretend that the proposed banning going on here is about book availability.

Well, yeah, you get a well built enough wizard and they can do anything, barring DM Fiat.Exactly. Some people forget the last part.

So... despite knowing it to be the case, you object to having it as a reference material and as a judge of where they stand relative to one another with more specificity than "spellcasters rule, mundanes drool?" Why? I have no problem with Tier Lists as a thought exercise.
I have a problem with tier lists as a religion. I have problems with people advising other people to ban classes or somesuch as a shortcut to dealing with perceived balance issues. Part of good adventure building is finding ways to get each member of the party to shine. If one member is overshadowing the rest of the party, then you need to change the type of challenges.

Coidzor

2013-10-18, 03:12 AM

Don't pretend that the proposed banning going on here is about book availability.

:smallconfused::smallannoyed: Good thing I'm not, and was responding directly to your expressed outrage at the idea of banning classes itself rather than this specific context of banning classes.

As for what's going on here, the OP ran a hypothetical by the boards and for the most part was informed that it didn't address the issue that the OP was apparently actually concerned about, at least, from what I've observed in this thread aside from the odd derail and tangent such as this one.

Exactly. Some people forget the last part.

Some, but not really all that many from what I gather, it's just not discussed very often, as there's no real way to discuss it beyond specific games, "X DM Fiatted Y way," which, while potentially interesting in the micro doesn't have any general bearing. Beyond observing that there are fairly popular houserules on a matter, I suppose.

I have no problem with Tier Lists as a thought exercise.

Well, you certainly had me fooled, then.

I have a problem with tier lists as a religion.

What does this mean? What does this even mean?

I have problems with people advising other people to ban classes or somesuch as a shortcut to dealing with perceived balance issues. Part of good adventure building is finding ways to get each member of the party to shine. If one member is overshadowing the rest of the party, then you need to change the type of challenges.

Are we reading two different threads? Where it was directly addressed, posters pointed out that this wasn't going to really accomplish the proposed objective of preventing people from overshadowing one another rather than supporting it for that reason.

The other reason to potentially limit or nudge people from playing wildly disparate tiers is less overshadowing and more ability to contribute and how straightforward it is to find ways to get party members to shine, the gentleman's agreement only going so far when you've got someone planar binding in the same party as someone who is trying to use a bog standard fighter to trip the tarrasque. As kludgey as it is to limit access to the different ballgame of Tiers 1 and 2, there's even greater potential for kludge in what the DM has to do in order to juggle those wildly different levels and natures of ability.

Also, I believe you're either well into Oberoni territory or skirting pretty damn close, and just accusing those who have run into issues of incompetence for having run into issues where you claim there's only a mistaken perception of issues seems unhelpful at best, and I'm not really seeing any alternative there, aside from trying to take a position of knowing another's situation better than they themselves know it. Granted, this becomes more confusing because you imply that balance issues don't exist while also acknowledging the disparity between classes as a tool set.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-18, 05:17 AM

If you are willing to spend a standard action and already have Shapechange up then you can go Zodar -> Wish.
What makes you think that would work?
Wish (Su): Once per year, a zodar can alter reality as if it had just cast a wish spell as a sorcerer of the same level as its Hit Dice.
If you're assuming the form of a Zodar and then getting a Wish right away, you're not matching the "once per year" restriction. If you assume the form of a Zodar for a year and then get a Wish, you are.

LordBlades

2013-10-18, 05:31 AM

If one member is overshadowing the rest of the party, then you need to change the type of challenges.

Often not an option.

If party member A can do X things, and party member b can do Y things, where not only Y>X but also Y includes same or better versions of all of X, there isn't really anything you can do to avoid overshadowing, as every challenge party member A can solve, party member B can do the same or better.

gomipile

2013-10-18, 06:07 AM

What makes you think that would work?
If you're assuming the form of a Zodar and then getting a Wish right away, you're not matching the "once per year" restriction. If you assume the form of a Zodar for a year and then get a Wish, you are.

Can an item with charges per day be used less than 24 hours after it is created? What about an item with charges per week? Nearly every game system I have seen with cooldowns on some actions has the cooldown follow an action rather than precede it. Is D20 explicitly different in this respect?

Killer Angel

2013-10-18, 06:21 AM

Unfortunately, unless they are intended as such, they run into the same problems as shapechange. Loopholes may be legal, that doesn't mean new laws can't be passed to address them. That's one of the reasons this game has a DM.

When we discuss TO, loopholes are legal.
When we discuss PO (like now), loopholes may be legal, or not: the decision is up to the DM, but you cannot pretend that your PoV is the same for all the other people. We have different ideas on the issue "this is where i put a limit to RAW".
But RAW is the common ground, so Tippy works on that.

Souhiro

2013-10-18, 06:48 AM

If Tier 1-3 were Banned, then THE DM would need to cut off most of things he could throw at the PCs.

The CR is orientative: a single scout of goblins with poisoned arrows, jumping from tree to tree could severely cripple a team of 4 medium-high Axe-wielding barbarians, who couldn't get them into melee! (And I'm pretty sure they did cripple the barbarians from time to time)

Thus, in high levels, the game expect that the group would have access to a few Summons to shield themselves, some Dissintegrates and Fireballs to hurt the enemy, or HEALs to control the damages. Without that, a CR 14 dragon could be a CR 18 or more.

Fighting a Drow would be absurdly difficult: You need to have somebody throwing powder to reveal the drow, while the rest of the party tries to hit him, instead of having a Tier-1 Wizars (or Tier-2 Sorc) to cast Glitterdust.

And don't try to fight The Tarrasque. You don't get access to Wish or Miracle. Oh, you have a scroll and the bard is going to UMD? let's pray that he won't botch the most important roll in the game, or we'll get an anticlimax

Curmudgeon

2013-10-18, 07:14 AM

Can an item with charges per day be used less than 24 hours after it is created?
Some; others have attunement requirements. A Ring of Sustenance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#sustenance) won't do anything until it's been worn continuously for a week, which is plenty of time to die from thirst first.

Talya

2013-10-18, 07:27 AM

I think Gomipile has the right idea, Curmudgeon. "Once a year" does not in the slightest imply you have to wait a year to use it. It generally would mean once you've used it, you have to wait a year to use it. It's possibly "once per calendar year" ... meaning you could use it in December, then again in January, but couldn't use it again till the following January. But with most settings not even having defined calendars, I'd say the first definition is more likely.

DigoDragon

2013-10-18, 07:50 AM

One of my local friends is in a core-only D&D 3.5 game where wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids are banned. That's most of Tier 1-2 right there. The challenges are higher with the lack of main spellcasters and splat books, but they have done fine to survive thus far.

I think their heavy casters are a ranger and a paladin.

Emmerask

2013-10-18, 07:55 AM

I think you would be better off banning Tier 1, 5, and 6. Maybe allow them for no more than a 2-level dip, and prestige classes cannot advance the class features of a Tier 1 class.

any reason why you would not ban tier2 if you ban tier 1?

The only difference between the two is that T1 has 100 ways to solve a situation while the t2 has only 4 *... ie something that is not really noticeable in actual gameplay since in most cases only one solution is implemented anyway :smallwink:

* both these numbers are chosen randomly and are only there to show that t1 has more solution, the important part is that both t1 and t2 have in build solutions for every situation, in actual gameplay therefore there is no difference between the two tiers.

nedz

2013-10-18, 08:02 AM

What makes you think that would work?
If you're assuming the form of a Zodar and then getting a Wish right away, you're not matching the "once per year" restriction. If you assume the form of a Zodar for a year and then get a Wish, you are.
Just jump into your pocket plane with x5,256,000 time. One round later and you're golden

any reason why you would not ban tier2 if you ban tier 1?

The only difference between the two is that T1 has 100 ways to solve a situation while the t2 has only 4... ie something that is not really noticeable in actual gameplay since in most cases only one solution is implemented anyway :smallwink:

Yes — if you wanted to remove prepared casters.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 09:32 AM

Haha, that's cute.

Two nine level spells. Wish and Shapechange. Wish costs 5000 XP. Shapechange costs no XP and does the same thing as Wish plus a whole lot more. The only reason Shapechange does the same thing as wish is because of an obscure way in which it's used.

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me wizards of the coast INTENDED Shapechange to obsolete a spell of the same level?

I think it's an oversight because all logic points to it being an oversight. If you disagree, provide opposing logic. Why would wizards do things this way?
I dunno. It's not really up to me to say why they made the decisions they made, just like it's not up to you. Maybe they were trying to give people some reasons to gain system mastery by putting little tricks like that into the game. Maybe they decided that some spells can be more powerful than other spells of the same level on a strict basis. Can you give me any justification for the fact that SNA VI can summon an oread, which gives access to earthquake, an 8th level spell? It's not like that SLA isn't just an absolute part of the creature, nor is it like the creature isn't just an absolute part of the SNA, so it was an obvious intention.

For another example, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that wizards intended druids to obsolete monks of the same character level? If not, then druids should logically be nerfed or banned within your logical construct, which seems to be a thing that you're opposed to. Thus, your logic is internally inconsistent.

And this is why these tiers discussions are BS. Because you can assume any exploit you want, but you can't assume any fix.
The rules are what they are. For any homebrew fix, there exists an equal and opposite fix that could also be assumed. The tier system mostly just assumes that we play the game that we're playing, rather than the one that exists in your head. Using shapechange to get wishes doesn't really have an impact on tier, so it's irrelevant to tier discussion.

Edit: Ooh, just came up with another reason. Shapechange is a transmutation spell, which means that a certain percentage of wizards might not have access to it. Wish is a universal spell, which means that all wizards have access to it. Shapechange is the reward you get for not banning the school, so it deserves to be more powerful. The fact that no one bans transmutation anyway is irrelevant, because we absolutely can't assume that the designers had a perfect understanding of the game's balance.

gomipile

2013-10-18, 10:27 AM

Some; others have attunement requirements. A Ring of Sustenance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#sustenance) won't do anything until it's been worn continuously for a week, which is plenty of time to die from thirst first.

The Ring of Sustenance explicitly says this. Does the zodar's rules text similarly explicitly say that a zodar must have been a zodar for a full year before using its Wish-replicating ability for the first time?

Zonasiy

2013-10-18, 11:06 AM

Talya

2013-10-18, 11:37 AM

Assuming you can shapechange into a zodar and immediately use wish, would you have to wait a year before being able to do it again? Does shapechange refresh the cooldown on abilities, or do cooldowns follow you through your changes?

And what happens if you shapechange into a different zodar?

You know, by RAW, this works. And while 3Power needs to embrace the Oberoni Principle, I want to say, there's no way I'd allow it in a game.

However, by the time the game gets to level 9 spells, it's already so broken that it does not matter. This exploit isn't even as powerful as what several core spells are obviously meant to do.

Lans

2013-10-18, 01:15 PM

And what happens if you shapechange into a different zodar?

Arguably you are still a zodar that has used the ability within 1 year and have to wait.

I think you would be better off banning Tier 1, 5, and 6. Maybe allow them for no more than a 2-level dip, and prestige classes cannot advance the class features of a Tier 1 class.

You can also give bonuses to the lower tiers to get them in the 3-4 range pretty easily. Its really hard to get them into the 1/2 range.

3Power

2013-10-18, 02:48 PM

What does this mean? What does this even mean?To put it simply, it means people take tiers way, way too seriously.

The other reason to potentially limit or nudge people from playing wildly disparate tiers is less overshadowing and more ability to contribute and how straightforward it is to find ways to get party members to shine,Pretty sure they're the exact same thing.

Also, I believe you're either well into Oberoni territory or skirting pretty damn close No, the oberoni fallacy is about claiming there was never a problem with a given rule in the first place because it can simply be rule zeroed. If you reread the article that was linked, you will see that actually rule zeroing an issue, or suggesting it be rule zeroed, is not a fallacy. The fallacy lies in claiming there was never a problem to begin with.

Suggesting that a DM take steps to ensure each player gets a chance to shine and not be completely obsoleted by another player in the same group as opposed to a blanket ban on certain classes is not a fallacy.

Now, if I was claiming that there is no tendency for some classes to overshadow one another since the DM prevents that, then that would be a fallacy in the same vein as Oberoni.

Understand? I am not denying the problem, I am criticizing the proposed solution.

If party member A can do X things, and party member b can do Y things, where not only Y>X but also Y includes same or better versions of all of X, there isn't really anything you can do to avoid overshadowing, as every challenge party member A can solve, party member B can do the same or better. One thing I've noticed about magic is that there is always some kind of limitation, be it time, uses per day, ability to be dispelled... etc. When you design an encounter to make an overshadowed player shine, find a way to make the magic option less appealing. Also, just because B can do same or better things than A, it doesn't mean they should. A wizard shouldn't be turning himself into a melee combat machine if there's a fighter in a party, nor should he be stocking up on knocks if he's a wizard when there's a rogue in the party. The wizard is better off doing things the others specifically can't, and if the player is purposefully encroaching on other players' territory then it's a good idea to have a word with said player.

When we discuss TO, loopholes are legal.
When we discuss PO (like now), loopholes may be legal, or not: the decision is up to the DM, but you cannot pretend that your PoV is the same for all the other people. We have different ideas on the issue "this is where i put a limit to RAW".
But RAW is the common ground, so Tippy works on that. I am not familiar with TO and PO as abbreviations, so holding off on responding to that for now. That said, am I aware that PoV varies, but there has to be a certain level of common sense. Everyone who uses Shapechange-Wish knows it's an abuse whether they pretend otherwise or not, and thus it stands to reason that by default it would be disallowed by an average DM.

I dunno. It's not really up to me to say why they made the decisions they made, just like it's not up to you. Maybe they were trying to give people some reasons to gain system mastery by putting little tricks like that into the game. Maybe they decided that some spells can be more powerful than other spells of the same level on a strict basis. Or maybe they didn't keep the polymorph family and rules for supernatural abilities in mind when designing monsters. Sorry, but the lack of forethought that went into polymorph in D&D 3rd edition is well documented. Also, your proposed reasons violate occam's razor horrendously.

For another example, can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that wizards intended druids to obsolete monks of the same character level? If not, then druids should logically be nerfed or banned within your logical construct, which seems to be a thing that you're opposed to. Thus, your logic is internally inconsistent. Druids don't obsolete monks of the same character level, they have... no abilities in common, except the ability to wield a quarterstaff. Don't get confused, we're talking about obvious rule exploits, not balance issues here. If the Druid was somehow able to gain every one of the monk's class abilities through some questionably legal process, then maybe it would apply, but the Druid's class abilities being arguably better than the monk's does not. Surpassing and obsoleting are not the same thing.

Using shapechange to get wishes doesn't really have an impact on tier, so it's irrelevant to tier discussion.I agree, but people who support wizard as top tier have been seen using it as justification.

nedz

2013-10-18, 02:53 PM

TO is Theoretical Optimisation
PO is Practical Optimisation.

TO is not meant to be used in real games, it's all about exploring the ruleset.
PO can be used in real games.

johnbragg

2013-10-18, 02:57 PM

TO is Theoretical Optimisation
PO is Practical Optimisation.

TO is not meant to be used in real games, it's all about exploring the ruleset.
PO can be used in real games.

Thanks, I assumed it was Total Optimization (full scale Tippyverse, exploit RAW flaws at will) and PO was Partial Optimization (your DM will probably not allow PunPun exploits, but stacking wishes and miracles and splatbook-diving is fine.)

LordBlades

2013-10-18, 03:52 PM

Druids don't obsolete monks of the same character level, they have... no abilities in common, except the ability to wield a quarterstaff. Don't get confused, we're talking about obvious rule exploits, not balance issues here. If the Druid was somehow able to gain every one of the monk's class abilities through some questionably legal process, then maybe it would apply, but the Druid's class abilities being arguably better than the monk's does not. Surpassing and obsoleting are not the same thing.

It's called a Monk's Belt. Name one thing a Monk can do that a Druid (with or without Monk's Belt)can't do better

ahenobarbi

2013-10-18, 04:00 PM

It's called a Monk's Belt. Name one thing a Monk can do that a Druid (with or without Monk's Belt)can't do better

Evasion :smallcool:

Der_DWSage

2013-10-18, 04:02 PM

To put it simply, it means people take tiers way, way too seriously.

...

Druids don't obsolete monks of the same character level, they have... no abilities in common, except the ability to wield a quarterstaff. Don't get confused, we're talking about obvious rule exploits, not balance issues here. If the Druid was somehow able to gain every one of the monk's class abilities through some questionably legal process, then maybe it would apply, but the Druid's class abilities being arguably better than the monk's does not. Surpassing and obsoleting are not the same thing.

The former I've seen quite a bit myself-but generally from people that absolutely hate the tier system. Others that embrace tend to look at it as a measuring stick, go 'Yeah, a Wizard could invalidate that entire encounter, especially if he could (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm)somehow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm)know (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm)what (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyesGreater.htm)was (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm)coming. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#divination) If you disagree with the tier system, most people are up for debate-except for the fact that it's come up about fifty times already, and little changes. Those that disagree, disagree. Those (like myself) who see it as a mostly-accurate measuring stick have their opinion unchanged. Complaining about it will change nothing, trust me.

But as for the latter part of your post? Hoo boy. Let's have some fun. A Monk can...

Move quickly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Do massive damage with his bare hands (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Get multiple attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#animalCompanion) (A stretch, this one, but as a Monk never gets more than two extra attacks compared to a full BAB fighter...)

Fall without harm, if he's near a wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Speak (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm)to everything (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape), whether it has a language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneTell.htm) or not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithPlants.htm)

Grapple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Stun things with a blow

Heal himself a rather small amount (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm)

Use short range teleportation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transportViaPlants.htm)

Has (rather vexing) Spell Resistance

Go Ethereal

Kill things with a Fortitude Save. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm)

...So I've missed three things, without even leaving core. In addition to the fact that a Druid can, in fact, become a bear-riding bear who shoots bears out of his mouth. Would you like to try again with a less off-the-cuff comment? At best, you're getting that Druids aren't as good at grappling until level 5, and then all bets are off. To counter that, you have that Druids have the same BAB and HD, an extra set of attacks in the form of its animal companion, far less Multiple Attribute Dependency, the ability to wear armor, a comparable skill list, and you know, the ability to do all those things Monks can't, like counter flight, magic immunities, the ability to change their skillset on a 24 hour basis, far less dependency on magical items...

Evasion :smallcool:

...And that comes in ring form. Thank you, come again.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 05:19 PM

Or maybe they didn't keep the polymorph family and rules for supernatural abilities in mind when designing monsters. Sorry, but the lack of forethought that went into polymorph in D&D 3rd edition is well documented. Also, your proposed reasons violate occam's razor horrendously.
Exactly. Maybe. Maybe isn't proof, and neither is occam's razor. I asked for proof, not your opinion. You were saying that this was an absolute thing, and it absolutely isn't. Also, my spell schools argument seemed like an actually reasonable one. Anyone can wish, but only a transmuter can wish for free.

Druids don't obsolete monks of the same character level, they have... no abilities in common, except the ability to wield a quarterstaff. Don't get confused, we're talking about obvious rule exploits, not balance issues here. If the Druid was somehow able to gain every one of the monk's class abilities through some questionably legal process, then maybe it would apply, but the Druid's class abilities being arguably better than the monk's does not. Surpassing and obsoleting are not the same thing.
They have a ton in common. Their chassis is identical outside of a single save, and their animal companion can often fight just as well as a monk. As Der_DWSage points out, you can copy most of the odd monk abilities with simple spells. Wizards tend to just be superior to monks. Druids actively obsolete them in every way that matters, because a druid can generally outcombat a monk. Also, In any case, this isn't a rules exploit. You can become a zodar, and zodars have this ability. It's like a one step plan.

The former I've seen quite a bit myself-but generally from people that absolutely hate the tier system. Others that embrace tend to look at it as a measuring stick, go 'Yeah, a Wizard could invalidate that entire encounter, especially if he could (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divination.htm)somehow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contactOtherPlane.htm)know (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm)what (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/pryingEyesGreater.htm)was (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scryingGreater.htm)coming. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#divination) If you disagree with the tier system, most people are up for debate-except for the fact that it's come up about fifty times already, and little changes. Those that disagree, disagree. Those (like myself) who see it as a mostly-accurate measuring stick have their opinion unchanged. Complaining about it will change nothing, trust me.

But as for the latter part of your post? Hoo boy. Let's have some fun. A Monk can...

Move quickly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Do massive damage with his bare hands (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Get multiple attacks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#animalCompanion) (A stretch, this one, but as a Monk never gets more than two extra attacks compared to a full BAB fighter...)

Fall without harm, if he's near a wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Speak (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithAnimals.htm)to everything (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape), whether it has a language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneTell.htm) or not (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithPlants.htm)

Grapple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape)

Stun things with a blow

Heal himself a rather small amount (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm)

Use short range teleportation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transportViaPlants.htm)

Has (rather vexing) Spell Resistance

Go Ethereal

Kill things with a Fortitude Save. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm)

If we talk out of core, druids can go ethereal with phantom stag from SpC 157. There's also a pile of stun effects, and I'm sure there's a way to get spell resistance. Don't have a quick example though. Also, I would go with heart of air for the slow fall, and baleful polymorph for the fortitude save or die. The former is a more exact fit, and the latter is a worse fit, but a better spell.

Der_DWSage

2013-10-18, 05:32 PM

eggynack

2013-10-18, 05:38 PM

Good points all around Eggy, but I generally stay in core as much as I can. (The majority of GMs in my past have generally been 'Core, maybe Complete' in regards to books allowed, so I stick with what I have experience with.)
Fair enough, but I've been spending most of my time lately reading a ridiculous number of druid spells, and I've gotta use that knowledge somehow. Like, apparently fireward (SpC, 94) can stop an orb of fire completely. I didn't even know orbs of fire could be stopped completely like that. The spell is craptacular, but it's cool that it exists.

Karnith

2013-10-18, 05:49 PM

Just for reference, Druids can go ethereal in core by shapechanging into a Nightmare (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nightmare.htm). And even though it takes a 9th-level spell, they still get it before monks get Empty Body.

nedz

2013-10-18, 06:26 PM

Is there anything a Monk can do that a Druid's Animal Companion can't ?

Talya

2013-10-18, 06:32 PM

Is there anything a Monk can do that a Druid's Animal Companion can't ?

I know that's sarcasm, but no matter how one takes it, it might mislead them.

In general, there are plenty of things that a monk can do that an animal companion cannot. However, in a toe-to-toe brawl, a well chosen animal companion will probably win most of the time until fairly high levels. And there are a few things the animal companion can do early on that the monk cannot.

3Power

2013-10-18, 07:22 PM

...So I've missed three things, without even leaving core. You also missed the point.

Don't get confused, we're talking about obvious rule exploits, not balance issues here. If the Druid was somehow able to gain every one of the monk's class abilities through some questionably legal process, then maybe it would apply, but the Druid's class abilities being arguably better than the monk's does not. Surpassing and obsoleting are not the same thing.
Yes, the druid can do many things the monk can but he doesn't do things the exact same way, now does he?

Allow me to clarify.

If the druid had as class features:
Flurry of blows
Unarmed Strike
Evasion (improved)
Still mind
Ki strike
slow fall
Purity of body
Wholeness of body
Improved evasion
Diamond body
Abundant step
Diamond soul
Quivering palm
Timeless body
tongue of the sun and moon
Empty body
Perfect self

...In addition to all his druid class abilities, then yes, he would obsolete the monk. Merely being able to do comparable things through entirely different means does not obsolete the monk. It may surpass the monk, but not obsolete it.

Shapechange being able to invoke Wish exactly as it is, minus the huge XP cost, is a case where something is being obsoleted. For another example, the Fighter completely obsoletes the warrior, since they have the same BAB and save progression, except the fighter has a bigger hit die and a whole bunch of Bonus Feats. But that's ok, because the warrior isn't intended as a player class.

So uh, congrats on putting your foot in your mouth and completely misunderstanding the situation. Moving on.

Exactly. Maybe. Maybe isn't proof, and neither is occam's razor. I asked for proof, not your opinion. You were saying that this was an absolute thing, and it absolutely isn't. Also, my spell schools argument seemed like an actually reasonable one. Anyone can wish, but only a transmuter can wish for free. Still violates Occam. And you strike me as a person who would stick true to your delusions even if WOTC representatives knocked on your door and explained to you directly that it was an oversight. So, godspeed.

Talya

2013-10-18, 07:37 PM

...In addition to all his druid class abilities, then yes, he would obsolete the monk. Merely being able to do comparable things through entirely different means does not obsolete the monk. It may surpass the monk, but not obsolete it.

Forgive me, but this is nonsense. This is akin to saying that the internal combustion engine did not obsolete the coal-fired steam engine as a means of locomotion, because they used different means to do the same thing.

The druid's means of doing those things is superior to the monk's means of doing those same things. In fact, the monk class serves absolutely no purpose (with the possible exception of Tippy's ranged scout) whatsoever that isn't better handled by other classes. It's sad, but the monk design is very hard for a DM to overcome without (A) SERIOUSLY buffing the monk with giant pile of class revisions or (B) nerfing every other class (even the lowly fighter) into the dirt. The monk was built obsolete out of the box.

Snowbluff

2013-10-18, 07:48 PM

Agreeing with Talya here.

I was just having an argument about this, too. One of my friends didn't think I ever disagree with 3.5 players... :smalltongue:

The Trickster

2013-10-18, 07:51 PM

Forgive me, but this is nonsense. This is akin to saying that the internal combustion engine did not obsolete the coal-fired steam engine as a means of locomotion, because they used different means to do the same thing.

Talya, please get out of my head. I was going to say the EXACT same thing, even the same example. Very creepy. :smalltongue:

The druid's means of doing those things is superior to the monk's means of doing those same things. In fact, the monk class serves absolutely no purpose (with the possible exception of Tippy's ranged scout) whatsoever that isn't better handled by other classes. It's sad, but the monk design is very hard for a DM to overcome without (A) SERIOUSLY buffing the monk with giant pile of class revisions or (B) nerfing every other class (even the lowly fighter) into the dirt. The monk was built obsolete out of the box.

You can also do (C) Put the party in situations where only the monk can truly shine, like being put in a situation where your party needs to win a naked fist fight or something, in an area with no magic or magic abilities.

Edit: I just realized how dumb plan (C) sounds. Nevermind. :smalltongue:

3Power

2013-10-18, 07:59 PM

Forgive me, but this is nonsense. This is akin to saying that the internal combustion engine did not obsolete the coal-fired steam engine as a means of locomotion, because they used different means to do the same thing.You're getting bogged down in semantics and aren't understanding the point.

The druid's means of doing those things is superior to the monk's means of doing those same things. Except they aren't the same things. The monk just has fast movement. The druid needs to turn into something else to get fast movement. On the surface they may accomplish the same thing, but in an antimagic field the monk is still moving as fast as always. Understand? Same result, different cause.

Look I feel like people aren't getting this so let me repeat it one more time: This is about situations where you have two things, A and B, which are EXACTLY THE SAME. except that B is just better in every way. Wild shape doesn't function in antimagic field and there are limits on it per day, so it is not better than the monk's fast movement ability in every way. The shapechange/wish exploit is better than wish in every way. The fighter is better than the warrior in every way. The druid may be able to do various things better than the monk, but they are not better in every way, since that ignores any situation where a druid's abilities or way of doing things would be impractical.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 08:30 PM

Look I feel like people aren't getting this so let me repeat it one more time: This is about situations where you have two things, A and B, which are EXACTLY THE SAME. except that B is just better in every way. Wild shape doesn't function in antimagic field and there are limits on it per day, so it is not better than the monk's fast movement ability in every way. The shapechange/wish exploit is better than wish in every way. The fighter is better than the warrior in every way. The druid may be able to do various things better than the monk, but they are not better in every way, since that ignores any situation where a druid's abilities or way of doing things would be impractical.
Actually, they're not exactly the same. As I've mentioned repeatedly, wish is a universal spell. Spells from particular schools are sometimes better at doing a particular thing than spells from different schools. Also, wish has an XP component, but many usages of it lack a GP component, while shapechange has a GP cost on its focus. Thus, different. Also, if you have wish prepared, you can cast it as a standard action in any situation. If you only have shapechange prepared, rather than cast beforehand, you take two standard actions to do the same thing. If you cast it beforehand, you risk being dispelled. It's not a big deal for out of combat uses, but it's of slight import if you're trying to use the spell to copy other spells in combat. If you want to prove this is an oversight, you need to prove it's an oversight. You can't just gesture at the spell and say that it probably is one.

nedz

2013-10-18, 09:14 PM

I know that's sarcasm, but no matter how one takes it, it might mislead them.

In general, there are plenty of things that a monk can do that an animal companion cannot. However, in a toe-to-toe brawl, a well chosen animal companion will probably win most of the time until fairly high levels. And there are a few things the animal companion can do early on that the monk cannot.

Well I thought about not blueing the sentence but really the comparison is too open ended: Apples and Oranges.

I do wonder though what tier an Animal Companion is, if taken by itself ?
I guess there are a range of values, depending upon the type.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 09:23 PM

I do wonder though what tier an Animal Companion is, if taken by itself ?
I guess there are a range of values, depending upon the type.
I'd say 5'ish. An animal companion isn't generally stronger than a fighter, and even if it is at some levels, it isn't at all levels. The animal companion has some versatility if it knows what it has to do in advance, because it can presumably switch itself out for other animal companions. Actually, come to think of it, and advanced animal companion would be able to switch out its feats too, thus gaining a bit of combat versatility. Not all that much, but a little. Anyway, because of that, I wouldn't call it tier 4, and I also wouldn't call it tier six, because animal companions can do some cool stuff. I don't know if natural bond counts, or if it gets factored in, but it could be relevant. It's never clear in these estimates how much the druid's doings get factored in, and you end up with someone using the druid's feats, and some using a bit of his wealth, and some using some of his magic, and it's all rather muddled.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-18, 09:24 PM

@3power
What makes you think that XP free Wish's aren't intended?

After all core alone gives no less than 6 different general ways to get XP free or reduced Wish's in core alone.

Go outside of core and that number jumps by at least an order of magnitude.

Only unprepared casters eat major XP costs for spells. That is the penalty for needing the spell right then.

nedz

2013-10-18, 09:35 PM

I'd say 5'ish. An animal companion isn't generally stronger than a fighter, and even if it is at some levels, it isn't at all levels. The animal companion has some versatility if it knows what it has to do in advance, because it can presumably switch itself out for other animal companions. Actually, come to think of it, and advanced animal companion would be able to switch out its feats too, thus gaining a bit of combat versatility. Not all that much, but a little. Anyway, because of that, I wouldn't call it tier 4, and I also wouldn't call it tier six, because animal companions can do some cool stuff. I don't know if natural bond counts, or if it gets factored in, but it could be relevant. It's never clear in these estimates how much the druid's doings get factored in, and you end up with someone using the druid's feats, and some using a bit of his wealth, and some using some of his magic, and it's all rather muddled.

The question is probably too open, without considering the various options independently. Some of them can fly or burrow or swim, but no AC can do all. The main advantage of them being a Druid class feature, other than, obviously, the Druid, is that they are disposable. If the Druid doesn't have the right companion today, or it dies, then he can get a new one in 24 hours, at no cost.

Talya

2013-10-18, 09:38 PM

The druid may be able to do various things better than the monk, but they are not better in every way, since that ignores any situation where a druid's abilities or way of doing things would be impractical.

The are either no such situations, or the situations are so obscure and contrived that they will never actually occur in play. There is no scenario where a monk would be a mechanically better option as a party member than a druid, ever.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 09:44 PM

The question is probably too open, without considering the various options independently. Some of them can fly or burrow or swim, but no AC can do all. The main advantage of them being a Druid class feature, other than, obviously, the Druid, is that they are disposable. If the Druid doesn't have the right companion today, or it dies, then he can get a new one in 24 hours, at no cost.
That is rather interesting as well. So, in addition to the upside of being able to change up combat mechanics and feats within 24 hours, the animal companion also has some kinda true resurrection effect that's permanently on. There's some stuff working against them though, like that they don't get efficient access to some of the more interesting combat maneuvers, and that they have low BAB. I could name more stuff, but I honestly can't see them being enough better than a basic fighter to justify tier four. Fleshrakers are pretty sweet though.
'

Talya

2013-10-18, 09:58 PM

That is rather interesting as well. So, in addition to the upside of being able to change up combat mechanics and feats within 24 hours, the animal companion also has some kinda true resurrection effect that's permanently on. There's some stuff working against them though, like that they don't get efficient access to some of the more interesting combat maneuvers, and that they have low BAB. I could name more stuff, but I honestly can't see them being enough better than a basic fighter to justify tier four. Fleshrakers are pretty sweet though.
'

With the right options...an Exalted Companion - Celestial Fleshraker. Since it's got more than animal intelligence and is good aligned, it can take Vow of Poverty.

Now, I know Vow of Poverty is not a great feat for any player character.

I believe, however, it's a spectacular feat for an animal companion...

(Not that this factors into druid balance, other than showing options.)

eggynack

2013-10-18, 10:09 PM

With the right options...an Exalted Companion - Celestial Fleshraker. Since it's got more than animal intelligence and is good aligned, it can take Vow of Poverty.

Now, I know Vow of Poverty is not a great feat for any player character.

I believe, however, it's a spectacular feat for an animal companion...

(Not that this factors into druid balance, other than showing options.)
Ooh, that does sound sweet. You wouldn't even have to go too far out of your way, because exalted companion comes free on a lion of talisid, and that's one of the few good (literally) druid PrC's. Nifty.

Snowbluff

2013-10-18, 11:03 PM

I had a Fleshraker with VoP and Touch of Golden Ice named Friar Tuck.

You're getting bogged down in semantics and aren't understanding the point. Could you explain something to me?

Except they aren't the same things. The monk just has fast movement. The druid needs to turn into something else to get fast movement. On the surface they may accomplish the same thing, but in an antimagic field the monk is still moving as fast as always. Understand? Same result, different cause.

Look I feel like people aren't getting this so let me repeat it one more time: This is about situations where you have two things, A and B, which are EXACTLY THE SAME. except that B is just better in every way. Wild shape doesn't function in antimagic field and there are limits on it per day, so it is not better than the monk's fast movement ability in every way. The shapechange/wish exploit is better than wish in every way. The fighter is better than the warrior in every way. The druid may be able to do various things better than the monk, but they are not better in every way, since that ignores any situation where a druid's abilities or way of doing things would be impractical.

How is this not getting bogged down in semantics?

3Power

2013-10-18, 11:23 PM

What makes you think that XP free Wish's aren't intended? I have a brain.

After all core alone gives no less than 6 different general ways to get XP free or reduced Wish's in core alone.Then list them, big man. I said I'd demonstrate why each and every one of them would not pass a competent DM.

Only unprepared casters eat major XP costs for spells. That is the penalty for needing the spell right then. Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD.

The are either no such situations, or the situations are so obscure and contrived that they will never actually occur in play. There is no scenario where a monk would be a mechanically better option as a party member than a druid, ever. You are still missing the point, and are insistent on pursuing this tangent despite all my efforts. Ignoring you now.

How is this not getting bogged down in semantics? I... dunno? How is a cat not a dog?

Rubik

2013-10-18, 11:24 PM

I... dunno? How is a cat not a dog?Problem is, it's a dog in a dog-suit pretending to be a cat. Doesn't work.

eggynack

2013-10-18, 11:30 PM

I have a brain.

There's no reason to be rude, and doubly no reason to act like you've automatically won an argument when you've said very little to prove your points. As is, I've presented a good number of ways that shapechange is different from wish, and thus not a party to your "strictly better" claim, and you've addressed approximately zero of them.

Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD.
And so I say again, prove it.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-18, 11:37 PM

I have a brain.
That isn't special. It is one of the defining traits of animals. It doesn't prove anything.

Then list them, big man. I said I'd demonstrate why each and every one of them would not pass a competent DM.
Gate, to Gate in a Solar, Pit Fiend, or Efreeti and order it to use its Wish SLA for your benefit. Costs a fifth the XP of a straight Wish.

Planar Binding and Greater Planar Binding to bind an Efreeti.

Simulacrum to produce a copy of a Solar or Efreeti.

Astral Projection to produce free, usable, copies of Rings of Three Wishes or Scrolls of Wish.

Shapechange to get Astral Projection via Nightmare.

Dominate Monster to force a Wish capable caster to cast Wish for you or produce Scrolls of Wish.

Candle of Invocation.

Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD.
That is your opinion, not the opinion of the rules for the game.

LordBlades

2013-10-18, 11:44 PM

Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD.

Open Complete Arcane and read Thought Bottle. Easy (and obviously intended way) to greatly mitigate costs of XP-intensive spells. So either the authors:

a) Intended to include more or less convoluted ways to mitigate (or eliminate) spell XP costs, as a means of rewarding system mastery (see Monte Cook's Ivory Tower Game Design article)

b) Were a lot more oblivious to the implications of rules than they seem

I personally vote for b, but whatever floats your boat.

gomipile

2013-10-19, 12:19 AM

Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD.

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. In core, you have the Candle of Invocation. Going outside core, there are obvious methods such as the Dweomerkeeper's Supernatural Spell.

If Wish were intended to have a penalty, PERIOD, then the XP would be payed by the recipient of the wish. As it is, in core and beyond there are creatures capable of using Wish with no XP penalty, therefore allowing wish to potentially be used to benefit the party without the party having to pay the XP cost associated with an arcane casting of Wish.

In a more pedestrian manner, most of these methods are little different from finding a level 17+ wizard and buying/bartering/blackmailing/ransoming/etc. a casting of Wish from her.

Story

2013-10-19, 12:20 AM

You can also give bonuses to the lower tiers to get them in the 3-4 range pretty easily. Its really hard to get them into the 1/2 range.

Our rogue just dipped a level of Cleric and went DMM Chameleon. I think it works pretty well, especially since the full casters aren't deliberately trying to overshadow anyone.

With the right options...an Exalted Companion - Celestial Fleshraker. Since it's got more than animal intelligence and is good aligned, it can take Vow of Poverty.

Not sure if this has been debated before, but how can it stay exalted while using poison?

I said I'd demonstrate why each and every one of them would not pass a competent DM.

The thing is that Tippy's DM is much more permissive then most. Every group has their own playstyle. In some campaigns, you have Wizards stopping time and turning themselves into giant living planets, in others everyone is playing a commoner.

The tier system is designed to be relevant to the broadest range of common optimization levels, but it doesn't pretend to apply under every set of houserules.

3Power

2013-10-19, 12:30 AM

Gate, to Gate in a Solar, Pit Fiend, or Efreeti and order it to use its Wish SLA for your benefit. Costs a fifth the XP of a straight Wish. Gate is a ninth level spell, same as shapechange, the same argument applies.

Planar Binding and Greater Planar Binding to bind an Efreeti.These are lower than level 9, and thus even more ludicrous.

Simulacrum to produce a copy of a Solar or Efreeti.Level 7. Also, you would need a piece of the creature in question.

Astral Projection to produce free, usable, copies of Rings of Three Wishes or Scrolls of Wish.Any method of effectively doubling your wealth by level at will is clearly unintended. The formation of new equipment on a new plane is simply to provide a justification to allow astral travelers to use their stuff on other planes, not as an infinite pokeball bug.

Shapechange to get Astral Projection via Nightmare.
Does that really count? It's just two of the others combined.

Dominate Monster to force a Wish capable caster to cast Wish for you or produce Scrolls of Wish.Acceptable, because someone is still floating the XP cost. Granted, whoever is being dominated can only make so many wishes before he runs out of usable XP for that level, and it's up to the DM to determine how much XP said dominated wizard has. Dominating a solar or the like is also acceptable, because said solar gets a will save and is thus not automatically subservient to you.

Candle of Invocation.So... gate. If this counts as a separate method I'm surprised you didn't list "scroll of gate."

That is your opinion, not the opinion of the rules for the game. The rules don't have an opinion. They do, however, have a clearly discernible intent.

Open Complete Arcane and read Thought Bottle. Easy (and obviously intended way) to greatly mitigate costs of XP-intensive spells. So either the authors:

a) Intended to include more or less convoluted ways to mitigate (or eliminate) spell XP costs, as a means of rewarding system mastery (see Monte Cook's Ivory Tower Game Design article)

b) Were a lot more oblivious to the implications of rules than they seem

I personally vote for b, but whatever floats your boat. Pretty sure that bottle only works when you've actually lost a level. You can't spam it for free wishes.

If Wish were intended to have a penalty, PERIOD, then the XP would be payed by the recipient of the wish. As it is, in core and beyond there are creatures capable of using Wish with no XP penalty, therefore allowing wish to potentially be used to benefit the party without the party having to pay the XP cost associated with an arcane casting of Wish. The reason said creatures are able to cast wish without an XP penalty is because the creatures don't have XP.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 12:38 AM

Stuff
Your arguments here are all highly tautological. They're all just, "Getting wish without an XP cost is unacceptable because getting wish without an XP cost is unacceptable." You need some sort of source external from the point you're trying to make, like something saying that getting wish without an XP cost is unacceptable. You say there's a clearly discernible intent. That is completely impossible to prove, and your arguments hold no water. Also, if wish were absolutely intended to require an XP cost no matter what, then the ring of three wishes wouldn't exist.

3Power

2013-10-19, 12:43 AM

Also, if wish were absolutely intended to require an XP cost no matter what, then the ring of three wishes wouldn't exist.It costs 15,918 XP to make a ring of three wishes.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 12:47 AM

It costs 15,918 XP to make a ring of three wishes.
Not to buy one. Also, you can wish for a ring of three wishes, which effectively means infinite wishes, and which also effectively means nigh infinitely low XP costed wishes (as the number of wishes approaches infinity, and the cost remains fixed), which can be reasonably added to the list of methods of mitigating wish cost.

3Power

2013-10-19, 12:55 AM

Not to buy one. Also, you can wish for a ring of three wishes, which effectively means infinite wishes, and which also effectively means nigh infinitely low XP costed wishes (as the number of wishes approaches infinity, and the cost remains fixed), which can be reasonably added to the list of methods of mitigating wish cost.

The XP cost for the creation is factored into the market price, as described under Magic Item Basics.

Also:

When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP. So using wish to wish for a ring of three wishes costs 38386 XP, plus the 5000 XP just to cast the wish in the first place.

I think you need to start checking your facts.

LordBlades

2013-10-19, 12:57 AM

The rules don't have an opinion. They do, however, have a clearly discernible intent.

Over which you can't claim authority unless you are the designer in question. Your opinion of the intent of the rules is just as valid as anyone else's

Pretty sure that bottle only works when you've actually lost a level. You can't spam it for free wishes.

Actually, you can. The text says it can be used to offset level loss (not it can ONLY be used to offset level loss) and then goes on to detail the exact in game effect: 'When the user's experience has been stored within the bottle, he can subsequently access the bottle to restore his XP total to exactly what it was when it was last stored, negating any levels lost in the interim' etc. No if's and buts and no clause that you need to have lost a level to use it.

also, regarding Wish

Noble Djinn

Some djinn (1% of the total population) are noble. A noble djinni can grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only) who captures it. Noble djinn perform no other services and, upon granting the third wish, are free of their servitude. Noble djinn are as strong as efreet, with 10 Hit Dice.

So capture a noble djinn>get 3 wishes free of XP cost. Are you going to claim this wasn't intended either?

eggynack

2013-10-19, 12:58 AM

The XP cost for the creation is factored into the market price, as described under Magic Item Basics.

Also:
So using wish to wish for a ring of three wishes costs 38386 XP

I think you need to start checking your facts.
My facts are perfectly fine. Did I say that the XP cost wasn't factored in to the price? No, I don't think I did. I said that you don't necessarily have to pay an XP cost for wishes, which is one of the claims you made. A claim, I might add, that I just proved false, thus indicating the need for fact checking on your part.

3Power

2013-10-19, 01:21 AM

My facts are perfectly fine. Did I say that the XP cost wasn't factored in to the price? No, I don't think I did. I said that you don't necessarily have to pay an XP cost for wishes, which is one of the claims you made. A claim, I might add, that I just proved false, thus indicating the need for fact checking on your part.
Wrong again. I claimed an XP cost needed to get paid. Whoever made that ring paid the XP cost and then factored it into the price. When you bought it, you paid the XP cost in gold instead. It still got paid.

Actually, you can. The text says it can be used to offset level loss (not it can ONLY be used to offset level loss) and then goes on to detail the exact in game effect: 'When the user's experience has been stored within the bottle, he can subsequently access the bottle to restore his XP total to exactly what it was when it was last stored, negating any levels lost in the interim' etc. No if's and buts and no clause that you need to have lost a level to use it.Sorry, the wording is a little vague, but the intent was clear. No competent DM would allow it to be used in this way.

So capture a noble djinn>get 3 wishes free of XP cost. Are you going to claim this wasn't intended either?Nope. But notice how by default there is no way to gain access to a noble djinn without a DM's say.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 01:29 AM

Wrong again. I claimed an XP cost needed to get paid. Whoever made that ring paid the XP cost and then factored it into the price. When you bought it, you paid the XP cost in gold instead. It still got paid.
Actually, you said, "Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD." Fortunately, shapechange does have a penalty, in the form of the focus cost. In any case, I've made many reasonable arguments, and you've just kinda said that you're right and that everyone's wrong without providing any evidence, and were rather condescending about it to boot. If you don't actually want to provide any proof that you're right (spoiler alert: you won't find any, because there obviously isn't any), then I'm just going to declare myself the winner. Huzzah for me, and shapechange granting wishes may be completely intentional.

LordBlades

2013-10-19, 01:31 AM

Sorry, the wording is a little vague, but the intent was clear. No competent DM would allow it to be used in this way.

There's nothing vague in 'it restores your xp to what it was when you stored it'. Once again, your opinions about what a competent DM would allow or not are just that: opinion, not fact.

I also happen to know plenty competent DMs that allow bypassing Wish xp costs.

Nope. But notice how by default there is no way to gain access to a noble djinn without a DM's say.

By RAW there is a non-zero number of noble djinni int he world (1% of all djinni). Are you really claiming a 17th level wizard would have any issue tracking down and trapping a 10 HD creature with a total Will save of +9? If so, please tell us more about the game you're talking about, because it certainly isn't D&D 3.5.

Flickerdart

2013-10-19, 01:50 AM

I don't know of anyone who actually pays the cost of wish, given its severity. It's one of those "don't cast this spell, let's find some patsy to do it for us" spells that are usually used by NPCs anyway, like identify. And you don't really want your PCs casting it anyway, because they'll figure out some foolproof wording that you can't mess with as much as you'd like.

3Power

2013-10-19, 01:56 AM

Actually, you said, "Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD."Yep, and when you buy a ring of three wishes, said penalty is paid in gold.

There's nothing vague in 'it restores your xp to what it was when you stored it'Which is a single line taken out of context. Notably, the first line of the item description is "A thought bottle can be used to restore level loss as a restoration spell can, but is effective against level loss that even restoration can't undo." Level loss restoration is the topic of that entire usage paragraph , with the XP storing and resetting being the method by which it is done. If it was intended to restore XP expended by magic item creation or spells with an XP component, why was no mention made of either use even once despite level restoration being mentioned repeatedly?

Common sense dude. The fact that under the incorrect usage it effectively negates any XP cost in the game up to and including Epic spells with unbelievably huge XP costs should be a clue that it was not intended to be used that way.

bekeleven

2013-10-19, 02:08 AM

Yep, and when you buy a ring of three wishes, said penalty is paid in gold.

Which is a single line taken out of context. Notably, the first line of the item description is "A thought bottle can be used to restore level loss as a restoration spell can, but is effective against level loss that even restoration can't undo." Level loss restoration is the topic of that entire usage paragraph , with the XP storing and resetting being the method by which it is done. If it was intended to restore XP expended by magic item creation or spells with an XP component, why was no mention made of either use even once despite level restoration being mentioned repeatedly?

Common sense dude. The fact that under the incorrect usage it effectively negates any XP cost in the game up to and including Epic spells with unbelievably huge XP costs should be a clue that it was not intended to be used that way.

So the correct usage of the thought bottle is cast tons of wishes, cast tons of epic spells, coup de gras self, trigger contingent resurrection, thought bottle up to original XP?

I guess the 5000 GP of diamonds does count as a price... Unless you evade that too.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 02:08 AM

Yep, and when you buy a ring of three wishes, said penalty is paid in gold.

Yep, and when you cast shapechange, the cost is paid in gold as well. Thus, shapechange is not strictly better than wish, so your claim of strict betterness is one lacking in accuracy, both for that reason, and for other reasons I've listed.

3Power

2013-10-19, 02:17 AM

Yep, and when you cast shapechange, the cost is paid in gold as well. Thus, shapechange is not strictly better than wish, so your claim of strict betterness is one lacking in accuracy, both for that reason, and for other reasons I've listed.Shapechange costs only 1500 gp, which is still 3500 gp short of the converted XP cost for wish. It's also much less restrictive. So no, you are still completely wrong.
If shapechange cost 6500 gp to cast, then maybe they would be equivalent. That would be the bare minimum though, as it assumes that XP and GP really do have equivalent value in all cases.

So the correct usage of the thought bottle is cast tons of wishes, cast tons of epic spells, coup de gras self, trigger contingent resurrection, thought bottle up to original XP?
The correct usage of thought bottle is to undo level loss. The DM should take care that said item is not abused.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 02:21 AM

Shapechange costs only 1500 gp, which is still 3500 gp short of the converted XP cost for wish. It's also much less restrictive. So no, you are still completely wrong.
If shapechange cost 6500 gp to cast, then maybe they would be equivalent. That would be the bare minimum though, as it assumes that XP and GP really do have equivalent value in all cases.

Actually, by my recollection, XP is valued about five times as much as an equivalent amount of GP. However, we're not arguing about better here, as you made clear when you said that druids didn't qualify for this discussion. We're arguing about strictly better. That means better in all conceivable situations, and in all possible ways. Your argument's premise is that shapechange is strictly better than wish. It is not. It is only regularly better, but we already knew that.

Killer Angel

2013-10-19, 03:01 AM

I am not familiar with TO and PO as abbreviations, so holding off on responding to that for now.

Sorry, I tend to forget not all of us are familiar to certain acronyms. Well, Nedz already answered.

Wrong again. I claimed an XP cost needed to get paid. Whoever made that ring paid the XP cost and then factored it into the price. When you bought it, you paid the XP cost in gold instead. It still got paid.

It's got paid by someone else.
You could pretend the system is balanced: you pay with gold the privilege to don't spend xps.
You can even sustain that, in the end, you will "pay" a Solar gating for wish, 'cause the solar will remember you and won't be happy about it.
But the fact is that is clearly within the rules, to have whishes at disposal without paying xps for them.
It's up to the DM how to deal with it.

3Power

2013-10-19, 03:01 AM

Actually, by my recollection, XP is valued about five times as much as an equivalent amount of GP. However, we're not arguing about better here, as you made clear when you said that druids didn't qualify for this discussion. We're arguing about strictly better. That means better in all conceivable situations, and in all possible ways. Your argument's premise is that shapechange is strictly better than wish. It is not. It is only regularly better, but we already knew that.
Whatever dude. You stopped being coherent five posts ago.

AuraTwilight

2013-10-19, 03:08 AM

He's perfectly coherent, you just disagree with what he's saying. There's a difference.

Now can you please back up your argument without attacking the character of your debate opponents? It only makes you look intellectually dishonest and incapable of supporting your points.

...Which implies that you're in the wrong and you know it.

3Power

2013-10-19, 03:23 AM

He's perfectly coherent, you just disagree with what he's saying. There's a difference.
No, I really have no idea what he's even saying anymore. "better" "Strictly better" "Regular better"

Shapechange is better than Wish in every way, since it can do anything wish does, to a T, and a whole bunch more besides, while costing less. That's why it's broken, that's why a DM is perfectly justified in disallowing the abuse that lets it do that. End of story, end of debate.

Now can you please back up your argument without attacking the character of your debate opponents? It only makes you look intellectually dishonest and incapable of supporting your points.Says Mr. "I'm gonna butt into a conversation I have no part in just to whine at how they go about it." Take a look into a mirror before you judge other people.

...Which implies that you're in the wrong and you know it.
Unfortunately whether someone is right or wrong has nothing to do with how an argument is presented. How's the view from your high horse?

eggynack

2013-10-19, 03:28 AM

Whatever dude. You stopped being coherent five posts ago.
It'd be nice if you could tell me what about my argument is invalid, instead of just insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you. The difference between our sides, I'm beginning to suspect, is that my side is backed up by logic, and actual game examples, and your side is backed up by opinions and feelings. If you want to play your games in a particular way, that's perfectly fine, but the place where you diverge from truth is where you claim that everyone should or must play in that same way, or else be in possession of an invalid perspective. It's an incredibly limited way to look at the game, and it causes your arguments to be riddled with bias. Thus, I would claim that it is you who is incoherent.

Forrestfire

2013-10-19, 03:35 AM

eggynack

2013-10-19, 03:37 AM

No, I really have no idea what he's even saying anymore. "better" "Strictly better" "Regular better"

Shapechange is better than Wish in every way, since it can do anything wish does, to a T, and a whole bunch more besides, while costing less. That's why it's broken, that's why a DM is perfectly justified in disallowing the abuse that lets it do that. End of story, end of debate.
Strictly better means that one thing is always and universally better than another thing. By a broader definition, it means that you'd always and universally be correct in taking the strictly better thing. For example, the theoretical spell ultra-fireball, which is fireball with an extra d6, is strictly better than fireball. Sure, you risk dealing your own team extra damage, but there's really no conceivable situation where you'd prefer to cast fireball.

On the other side is better. Better means just what it sounds like, which is that the better thing is something you'd generally prefer to have, or would almost always prefer to have, but not to the extent of it being universally better. For example, the theoretical spell super ultra-fireball, which is fireball with twice the damage, but an extra spell level, is only better. If you want a spell of a lower level, you would prefer to have fireball, even if super ultra-fireball is much more powerful. On a similar note, a druid is better than a monk, because by most conceivable metrics the druid is much more powerful at every level.

Now, we come to shapechange versus wish. Your contention was that shapechange is strictly better, so it would make no sense for both spells to be at the same level. However, if wish can be considered better in any situation or circumstance, then it would make some sense for shapechange to be intended to work in this manner, because there exists a tradeoff. I've pointed out several such situations, which you have done nothing to address. Thus, shapechange is only better, rather than strictly better, so your argument is proven false, unless you have an actually reasonable counterargument.

Edit: At the very least you could refrain from saying that the debate is over before addressing my arguments. It is somewhat annoying, given that the debate is clearly not over, because you haven't even offered a rebuttal. However, if your point is that the debate is over because I have won, I am in general agreement. That would be a very reasonable thing for you to say.

The Trickster

2013-10-19, 03:47 AM

Says Mr. "I'm gonna butt into a conversation I have no part in just to whine at how they go about it." Take a look into a mirror before you judge other people.

This is a public forum. Everyone can have a part of this conversation. Heck, everyone here is part of the conversation.

If you don't like that, then I suggest private messaging instead of posting.

I don't play with anyone who uses thought bottles, or anyone who using Gate/Shapechange shenanigans to gain more wishes or whatever. But I am well aware that some DM's do allow these rules. Perhaps they want a higher powered game or something. It isn't my place to tell them that they are an incompetent DM for allowing such powerful options. I would say that it isn't your place either.

3Power

2013-10-19, 04:01 AM

So... like a druid is to a monk? Why are you people so hung up on this? No, not like a druid is to a monk at all. Do you understand the difference between cause and effect?

A door needs to be open, and both A and B can open it. A kicks the door down, B unlocks it. B's way is arguably better than A's, but that doesn't mean that B could kick a door down like A if he wanted to.

Druids can kill bad guys. Monks can kill bad guys. Druids can probably kill bad guys better than Monks can. It still doesn't mean that a Druid is a Monk with extra abilities. They have little to no abilities in common. They can achieve similar effects, but the causes are completely different. A fighter does better than a warrior BY DEFAULT because a fighter is nothing more than a warrior with feats and a bigger hit die. Shapechange is broken because it can invoke wish at a lesser cost than actually casting wish. I cannot explain this any clearer.

Now, we come to shapechange versus wish. Your contention was that shapechange is strictly better, so it would make no sense for both spells to be at the same level. However, if wish can be considered better in any situation or circumstance, then it would make some sense for shapechange to be intended to work in this manner, because there exists a tradeoff. I've pointed out several such situations, which you have done nothing to address. Thus, shapechange is only better, rather than strictly better, so your argument is proven false, unless you have an actually reasonable counterargument. My counterargument was occam's razor, and you still have not explained how any of your explanations were simpler than the polymorph spells merely being horribly designed.

This is a public forum. Everyone can have a part of this conversation.Then be a part of the conversation, don't whine at the posters.

I don't play with anyone who uses thought bottles, or anyone who using Gate/Shapechange shenanigans to gain more wishes or whatever. But I am well aware that some DM's do allow these rules. Perhaps they want a higher powered game or something. It isn't my place to tell them that they are an incompetent DM for allowing such powerful options. I would say that it isn't your place either. If they want that kind of stupidly overpowered game they can have that kind of stupidly overpowered game. Implying such a game is the default is over-powerfully stupid.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 04:08 AM

My counterargument was occam's razor, and you still have not explained how any of your explanations were simpler than the polymorph spells merely being horribly designed.
Occam's razor, unfortunately, doesn't really qualify as a complete argument. The simplest answer often being the best doesn't equate to the simplest answer always being the best, and the fact that you've been speaking in absolutes this whole time means that you need the latter to justify your claims. Occam's razor can not give us an answer. It can only lead us to one, and you need to fill in the logic when you get there. Additionally, your answer isn't all that much simpler than mine. My answer is, the things in the books were intended to be as they are, and none of us has the authority to presume any different. Not all that complex. Also, my argument from spell school isn't too complicated either.

3Power

2013-10-19, 04:30 AM

My answer is, the things in the books were intended to be as they are, and none of us has the authority to presume any different. Unfortunately, the mere existence of errata disproves this, to say nothing of the truenamer.

Anyway, I don't have a fancy name for it but I'm pretty sure automatically assuming "It's not a bug, it's a feature," is a fallacy of some kind.

Also, my argument from spell school isn't too complicated either. It isn't so much complicated as hopelessly naive. I mean, "this exploit was intentionally put in the game to reward players who didn't ban transmutation." There's no reason WHY they would do that, and if there's no logic behind it, it violates occam's, since "oversight" is a much better explanation. If you actually want to play this card, provide a valid reason why they would make things this way.

gomipile

2013-10-19, 04:36 AM

Yep, and when you buy a ring of three wishes, said penalty is paid in gold.

Which is a single line taken out of context. Notably, the first line of the item description is "A thought bottle can be used to restore level loss as a restoration spell can, but is effective against level loss that even restoration can't undo." Level loss restoration is the topic of that entire usage paragraph , with the XP storing and resetting being the method by which it is done. If it was intended to restore XP expended by magic item creation or spells with an XP component, why was no mention made of either use even once despite level restoration being mentioned repeatedly?

Common sense dude. The fact that under the incorrect usage it effectively negates any XP cost in the game up to and including Epic spells with unbelievably huge XP costs should be a clue that it was not intended to be used that way.

You've now expanded the definition of "penalty" so much as to make your initial statement meaningless. Every spell has a "penalty" in that it costs resources to cast. Every spell can be paid for from an NPC spellcaster if the DM allows.

You have diluted your argument to the point that now you can't draw a clear distinction between Wish and other spells based upon the premises you have adopted in this debate.

So, what was the OP of this thread about again?

LordBlades

2013-10-19, 04:40 AM

It isn't so much complicated as hopelessly naive. I mean, "this exploit was intentionally put in the game to reward players who didn't ban transmutation." There's no reason WHY they would do that, and if there's no logic behind it, it violates occam's, since "oversight" is a much better explanation. If you actually want to play this card, provide a valid reason why they would make things this way.

Google 'Ivory Tower Game Design' by Monte Cook (on phone so can't link). It basically says they included trap options deliberately to reward system mastery.

Many pepole call bull**** on it (better say 'we totally meant to do that' rather than 'we screwed up') but it's an explicit designer statement.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 04:40 AM

Unfortunately, the mere existence of errata disproves this, to say nothing of the truenamer.
No, the mere existence of errata lends credence to my views, as shapechange was never errata'd, and neither was the zodar.

Anyway, I don't have a fancy name for it but I'm pretty sure automatically assuming "It's not a bug, it's a feature," is a fallacy of some kind.
I'm pretty sure it's not one. It's just what it is.

It isn't so much complicated as hopelessly naive. I mean, "this exploit was intentionally put in the game to reward players who didn't ban transmutation." There's no reason WHY they would do that, and if there's no logic behind it, it violates occam's, since "oversight" is a much better explanation. If you actually want to play this card, provide a valid reason why they would make things this way.
The reason is right there in your comment. They made shapechange incredibly powerful in order to reward players who didn't ban transmutation. Spells from a specific school should be more powerful than spells that are accessible by everyone, because from the designer's perspective a good number of people (I dunno, a fifth? Assuming every school is banned an equal number of specialists, but accounting for generalists and divination specialists. Maybe a sixth) are going to ban transmutation. Either that, or they did it that way to reflect the cost of the focus, or because it could take more actions in combat to use shapechange for this purpose. These explanations aren't necessarily better than yours, but you insist that your explanation is the only one, and it is not. I don't presume to speak for the designers of the game, and neither should you.

3Power

2013-10-19, 05:11 AM

You've now expanded the definition of "penalty" so much as to make your initial statement meaningless. Every spell has a "penalty" in that it costs resources to cast. Every spell can be paid for from an NPC spellcaster if the DM allows.

You have diluted your argument to the point that now you can't draw a clear distinction between Wish and other spells based upon the premises you have adopted in this debate.Excuse you. The XP cost of the three wish spells required to make a ring of three wishes is part of the price for said ring. Whether it's paid in gold or paid in XP it's still paid for, unlike the various exploits being described.

No, the mere existence of errata lends credence to my views, as shapechange was never errata'd, and neither was the zodar. Truenamer was never errata'd either. You cannot deny a problem simply because it was never fixed. Perhaps they knew about the exploit but were content with the fact that most DMs would not allow it, in which case, they are guilty of that fallacy mentioned earlier.

The reason is right there in your comment. They made shapechange incredibly powerful in order to reward players who didn't ban transmutation. Spells from a specific school should be more powerful than spells that are accessible by everyone, because from the designer's perspective a good number of people (I dunno, a fifth? Assuming every school is banned an equal number of specialists, but accounting for generalists and divination specialists. Maybe a sixth) are going to ban transmutation. Either that, or they did it that way to reflect the cost of the focus, or because it could take more actions in combat to use shapechange for this purpose. These explanations aren't necessarily better than yours, but you insist that your explanation is the only one, and it is not. I don't presume to speak for the designers of the game, and neither should you. My explanation is based on the facts of the game and how they are demonstrably unbalanced. Your explanation is based on assurances that they probably had a reason. This makes my explanation, wait for it...

"Strictly better" than yours, since it's backed up with facts.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 05:17 AM

Truenamer was never errata'd either. You cannot deny a problem simply because it was never fixed. Perhaps they knew about the exploit but were content with the fact that most DMs would not allow it, in which case, they are guilty of that fallacy mentioned earlier.
It's not proof that I'm correct, but it's a point in my favor. Most importantly, the fact that errata doesn't help your side, because it means that if there was an oversight, they never recognized it in the years they had available to do so. Also, you didn't really have an actual fallacy for me to be guilty of earlier, so you definitely don't have one now.

My explanation is based on the facts of the game and how they are demonstrably unbalanced. Your explanation is based on assurances that they probably had a reason. This makes my explanation, wait for it...

"Strictly better" than yours, since it's backed up with facts.
An absolutely ridiculous number of things in the game are demonstrably imbalanced. My arguments are additionally backed up by far more evidence than yours, especially because your entire argument is just that low cost wishing is a bad thing, so any instance of it in the game is a bad thing. Seriously, Tippy mentioned a ton of ways to get low cost wishes, and your argument against all of them working was just that they were a method of getting low cost wishes, which was the entire point.

Edit: Also, you should probably stop insulting my arguing ability. I'm pretty sure that every poster here, aside from you, has thus far agreed with my position. This doesn't necessarily make me correct, but it does mean that my points were likely made in a more adept manner.

AuraTwilight

2013-10-19, 05:35 AM

Then be a part of the conversation, don't whine at the posters.

Maybe I would be, if your first response to my presence wasn't to bite my head off like I was a problem.

By the way, way to assault me personally instead of responding to me like an adult. You just proved the single and only point I've made thus far in the thread.

Excuse you. The XP cost of the three wish spells required to make a ring of three wishes is part of the price for said ring. Whether it's paid in gold or paid in XP it's still paid for, unlike the various exploits being described.

Except it's irrelevant because if you go with the "Bind a Solar" scenario, they can keep churning out as many Ring of Three Wishes at you want, essentially. It's not your XP going down the drain.

BTW, earlier you said that NPCs and monsters "don't have XP", so nevermind I guess those Ring of Three Wishes are objectively free in every sense of the word! Whoopee!

Truenamer was never errata'd either. You cannot deny a problem simply because it was never fixed. Perhaps they knew about the exploit but were content with the fact that most DMs would not allow it, in which case, they are guilty of that fallacy mentioned earlier.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Perhaps I'm a typing elephant. You can't prove otherwise, can you? You can make all the arguments in the world about what the developers intended but the fact of the matter is outside of their comments we don't know and will never know, and given that their statements show extremely poor understanding of the function of their own game, well, Eggynack's argument is more logically sound and consistent with the facts.

Like, seriously, have you seen Sean K. Reynold's Feat Points system? Holy hell.

My explanation is based on the facts of the game and how they are demonstrably unbalanced. Your explanation is based on assurances that they probably had a reason. This makes my explanation, wait for it...

"Strictly better" than yours, since it's backed up with facts.

Except this isn't the case. Your argument boils down to "Yea the books say Y but the developers clearly mean X."

Except even if X is the common-sense, logical interpretation of the rules, and even if X is better for the game, the developers have demonstrated extreme lapses in common sense, basic understanding of what is good for the game, and has essentially bungled 3.5 for most of it's life. And since the game is effectively dead and will never be so again, anything not errata'd or fixed officially is, as far as could possibly matter from an objective standpoint, the 'intended' rules, if for no other reason than by sheer oversight and utter incompetence.

Now, are you going to back up a single world you've said with anything besides attacking other people's characters or "I'm right because I said so?"

bekeleven

2013-10-19, 05:37 AM

Anyway, I don't have a fancy name for it but I'm pretty sure automatically assuming "It's not a bug, it's a feature," is a fallacy of some kind
I'm pretty sure it's not one. It's just what it is.

This is the intentional fallacy (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289889/intentional-fallacy). See also: weak intentionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent#Weak_Intentionalism).

Keep in mind, of course, that bringing in literary criticism techniques makes any debate so mired in semantics that nobody cares to partake except for university professors.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-19, 05:47 AM

Seriously, Tippy mentioned a ton of ways to get low cost wishes, and your argument against all of them working was just that they were a method of getting low cost wishes, which was the entire point.
This discussion is getting a little bit heated, considering none of these are guaranteed to work in any case. Every creature-based wish (Shapechange, Gate) can simply be removed from the game by a DM electing to use the option specified on page 8 of Monster Manual:
The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the player characters. There is no stipulation that players will get all of what's specified in particular creature entries; neither Shapechange nor Gate include any monster information. Since that DM option is prominently displayed before any creature writeup, it's hubris for any player to assume these work. It's up to each DM.

Talya

2013-10-19, 06:45 AM

Every creature-based wish (Shapechange, Gate) can simply be removed from the game by a DM electing to use the option specified on page 8 of Monster Manual:

That's dangerously close to an Oberoni Fallacy. "That might not happen because the DM is allowed to change it!" The DM is allowed to change anything...

Not sure if this has been debated before, but how can it stay exalted while using poison?

Funny thing about that. I'm not going to source them right now, but as I recall:

(1) Animals using their natural abilities are never evil.
(2) Despite the occasional reference in BoED, poison is not automatically evil. Notice as an example that the poison spell lacks the [evil] descriptor.
(3) The reason BoED calls out Poison as evil (and that whole section is fluff) is that it causes "unnecessary suffering." This greatly depends on the poison, and often, the opposite is true. A death by dagger can take hours. That same death by poisoned dagger can take seconds. Poison can actually prevent suffering by several means - accelerating death, dulling the senses, removing consciousness, etc.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-19, 07:23 AM

That's dangerously close to an Oberoni Fallacy. "That might not happen because the DM is allowed to change it!" The DM is allowed to change anything...
I think there's an important distinction here. Players should expect the rules to be consistent in the game. However, the data — what creatures exist in a particular game, and their exact properties — are separate from those rules. How a Spell-like ability works should be a constant. But whether creature X exists and has Spell-like ability Y is a function of the setting the individual DM populates.

Talya

2013-10-19, 07:29 AM

I think there's an important distinction here. Players should expect the rules to be consistent in the game. However, the data — what creatures exist in a particular game, and their exact properties — are separate from those rules. How a Spell-like ability works should be a constant. But whether creature X exists and has Spell-like ability Y is a function of the setting the individual DM populates.

Still, in the default D&D setting, in addition to any specific published settings, some creatures have wishes.

Lans

2013-10-19, 11:38 AM

Actually, you said, "Wish is intended to have a penalty, PERIOD." Fortunately, shapechange does have a penalty, in the form of the focus cost

It also has an action economy cost vs just using the wish spell, wish severely cuts down its utility in that regard.

Google 'Ivory Tower Game Design' by Monte Cook (on phone so can't link). It basically says they included trap options deliberately to reward system mastery.

Many pepole call bull**** on it (better say 'we totally meant to do that' rather than 'we screwed up') but it's an explicit designer statement.

If you can track down late 2nd edition/ early 3rd they even go over this with fighters being better at fighting than barbarians and toughness being a trap choice for noobs.

Truenamer was never errata'd either. You cannot deny a problem simply because it was never fixed. Perhaps they knew about the exploit but were content with the fact that most DMs would not allow it, in which case, they are guilty of that fallacy mentioned earlier.

. Truenamer may not of been errated, butTruenaming was, to be worse

Coidzor

2013-10-19, 11:57 AM

This discussion is getting a little bit heated, considering none of these are guaranteed to work in any case. Every creature-based wish (Shapechange, Gate) can simply be removed from the game by a DM electing to use the option specified on page 8 of Monster Manual: There is no stipulation that players will get all of what's specified in particular creature entries; neither Shapechange nor Gate include any monster information. Since that DM option is prominently displayed before any creature writeup, it's hubris for any player to assume these work. It's up to each DM.

Tomayto, tomahto. You say hubris, others say forum conventions to not discuss houserules unless that's either the topic at hand or there's specific houserules in play.

It makes online arguments even more pointless than usual if one starts to play the game of Schrodinger's DM. :smallconfused:

Snowbluff

2013-10-19, 12:34 PM

Tomayto, tomahto. I don't know about you, but I spell it "tomato.":smalltongue:

It makes online arguments even more pointless than usual if one starts to play the game of Schrodinger's DM. :smallconfused:

Agreed. Stuff gets crazy. This sort of thing is why I prefer not to rule as RAI.

3Power

2013-10-19, 02:22 PM

An absolutely ridiculous number of things in the game are demonstrably imbalanced. My arguments are additionally backed up by far more evidence than yours, I've backed my argument up with math. A should be approximately equal to B, but A= A+B > B. you've done nothing but claim "someone probably had a reason."

Seriously, Tippy mentioned a ton of ways to get low cost wishes, and your argument against all of them working was just that they were a method of getting low cost wishes, which was the entire point.
No, Tippy mentioned a bunch of way to bypass Wish XP costs, they were invalid because they all involved obvious abuses, save for Dominate Monster being used as intended.

Edit: Also, you should probably stop insulting my arguing ability. I'm pretty sure that every poster here, aside from you, has thus far agreed with my position. This doesn't necessarily make me correct, but it does mean that my points were likely made in a more adept manner.
No, you're the only person currently arguing that the shapechange exploit is anything but. Some have argued that they have DMs that allow it, but that's not the same as denying its status as an exploit.

Except it's irrelevant because if you go with the "Bind a Solar" scenario, they can keep churning out as many Ring of Three Wishes at you want, essentially. It's not your XP going down the drain.Nobody's is. That's why it's an exploit.

BTW, earlier you said that NPCs and monsters "don't have XP", so nevermind I guess those Ring of Three Wishes are objectively free in every sense of the word! Whoopee!It's free because it's a supernatural ability. Players aren't intended to gain unlimited access to high XP cost spells as a supernatural ability.

It also has an action economy cost vs just using the wish spell, wish severely cuts down its utility in that regard. If Shapechange is cast ahead of time, which it logically would be given it's minimum of 2.8 hours duration at level 17, said economy is meaningless. You could switch to say, solar as a free action.

If you're going to grasp at straws, then a much better argument for you guys to be making at this point is that the person casting the spell needs to be "familiar with" the creature in question to shapechange into it, which is the kind of vague fluffy flavor text the powergamers tend to ignore. That still leaves us with Gate as an issue, unless you assume that the character, not the player has to know what a solar is first. But yeah, if you want to argue that a Wizard needs to succeed on a DC 33 Knowledge(The planes) check to know what a solar is before they can gate or shapechange into one, and a DC 48 check to know that they have wish then maybe the XP cost stops looking so bad because of the skill point investment required to get to that point.

This is the intentional fallacy. See also: weak intentionalism.Thank you.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-19, 02:42 PM

No, Tippy mentioned a bunch of way to bypass Wish XP costs, they were invalid because they all involved obvious abuses, save for Dominate Monster being used as intended.
None of them are "obvious abuses". Every single one of them is explicitly rules legal, there is no ambiguity or fuzzy reading or interpreting involved.

And this isn't a one off thing that you could argue was simply overlooked. This is multiple abilities spread across multiple schools of magic and multiple levels with multiple advantages and disadvantages for each method.

Occam's razor; either the writers of the game should be held to have no idea what they are doing or they intended for their to be ways to negate or mitigate Wish XP costs. The more reasonable position is the second one.

No, you're the only person currently arguing that the shapechange exploit is anything but. Some have argued that they have DMs that allow it, but that's not the same as denying its status as an exploit.

Nobody's is. That's why it's an exploit.
Magic is all about the exploit. It's what magic does. It's the way that the magic system is designed from the ground up to work. Wizards cheat; it's pretty much the motto for magic.

Players aren't intended to gain unlimited access to high XP cost spells as a supernatural ability.
Prove this statement. You are making statements as if you wrote D&D 3.5

If Shapechange is cast ahead of time, which it logically would be given it's minimum of 2.8 hours duration at level 17, said economy is meaningless. You could switch to say, solar as a free action.
You can't Shapechange into a Solar and use its Wish ability.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 03:48 PM

I've backed my argument up with math. A should be approximately equal to B, but A= A+B > B. you've done nothing but claim "someone probably had a reason."
No, I've said "Someone might have had a reason, and here are some of the possible ones."

No, Tippy mentioned a bunch of way to bypass Wish XP costs, they were invalid because they all involved obvious abuses, save for Dominate Monster being used as intended.
Your only evidence that they are abuses is that they do something that you don't want them to do. You need something external from the effect being created to make your point, as I mentioned earlier.

Nobody's is. That's why it's an exploit.
It's free because it's a supernatural ability. Players aren't intended to gain unlimited access to high XP cost spells as a supernatural ability.
What makes you think that? Shapechange explicitly grants supernatural abilities, supernatural abilities lack XP costs, and some supernatural abilities normally have XP costs. It's one of the main effects of the spell, in other words.

If Shapechange is cast ahead of time, which it logically would be given it's minimum of 2.8 hours duration at level 17, said economy is meaningless. You could switch to say, solar as a free action.
Well, then it can be dispelled in combat, while wish can not be. Therefore, you're stuck with spending two actions, or facing a separate issue. The separate issue isn't the biggest one, but it's an issue nonetheless.

Thank you.
You do realize that you're the one guilty of that fallacy, right? You're saying that this absolutely wasn't the author's intent, so we should interpret the book in a different way by making house rules to fit that intent. I'm arguing against that fallacy, by pointing out that we know nothing of the author's intent, and making assumptions about it is pointless. I am making no assumptions about the author's intent at all, and neither am I using that assumption to guide my interpretation. I'm merely pointing out ways in which your fallacious assumptions could be mistaken.

bekeleven

2013-10-19, 04:34 PM

This is the intentional fallacy. See also: weak intentionalism. Thank you.
The reason I said not to involve literary criticism in this discussion is because your argument falls under the same fallacy.

This entire discussion is attempting to divine author intent and, through it, decide how to treat edge cases in game rules.

intentional fallacy, term used in 20th-century literary criticism to describe the problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming the intent or purpose of the artist who created it.
TLDR: The fallacy is in the premise of the discussion. By discussing this, you're both tacitly accepting it.

This is why literary criticism is scaaaary stuff.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 04:41 PM

TLDR: The fallacy is in the premise of the discussion. By discussing this, you're both tacitly accepting it.
Actually, I'm really not. The main point of my argument is that it is impossible to determine authorial intent, and I'm giving as many differing interpretations of the intent as possible to do that. I am not assuming the intent of the author at all.

Flickerdart

2013-10-19, 05:09 PM

Authoral intent is irrelevant in artistic discussion because of a complex variety of reasons, none of which apply to a ruleset, because art and tabletop rules serve completely different purposes.

3Power

2013-10-19, 05:18 PM

None of them are "obvious abuses". Every single one of them is explicitly rules legal, there is no ambiguity or fuzzy reading or interpreting involved.How does your wizard know Creature X can cast wish? By raw, you need to succeed on a relevant knowledge check equal to 10 + it's HD simply to know a creature exists. In order to know the things it's capable of you need to beat this check by 5 per thing, and the convention established by the knowledge table in the later books is that the spell like/supernatural abilities are always the last thing to be revealed. This means you generally have to beat the DC by 15 or 20 to even become aware of this ability. Nothing in Gate/Shapechange specifically grants you complete and total knowledge of every creature in the universe, and just because you gain supernatural abilities as a result of shapechange, it doesn't mean you gain the knowledge that you have those abilities.

The long and short of it is that you need to make anywhere from a 40 to 50 DC to even know wish is a capability for a given creature.

A 17th level wizard that maxes knowledge(planes) would have 20 skill ranks. Assuming 28 intelligence (18 start, 4 ability score increases, +6 headband of intellect) that gives him +29 to his check. That still has a 55% chance of not revealing the wish ability of an efreet, and it doesn't even reach 50.

Oh and the astral projection has plenty of ambiguity. Nothing explicitly says that the charges in the new equipment formed on the other plane aren't expended back on the material plane.

Occam's razor; either the writers of the game should be held to have no idea what they are doing or they intended for their to be ways to negate or mitigate Wish XP costs. The more reasonable position is the second one.A spell doing everything another of the same level does at a lesser penalty being intentional is not more reasonable than it being an oversight.

Magic is all about the exploit. It's what magic does. It's the way that the magic system is designed from the ground up to work. Wizards cheat; it's pretty much the motto for magic.Magic cheating reality is one thing. Players cheating magic is another.

Prove this statement. You are making statements as if you wrote D&D 3.5You can't keep saying "Prove it!" as a way to avoid using your common sense. It can be logically assumed that game balance is something that the writers of D&D were striving for, even if they fell short. A blatant exploit like shapechange-wish is blatantly unbalanced, QED, it was unintentional.

No, I've said "Someone might have had a reason, and here are some of the possible ones."They're the exact same thing.

Your only evidence that they are abuses is that they do something that you don't want them to do. You need something external from the effect being created to make your point, as I mentioned earlier.
At this point you are just ignoring me. From the beginning I have held up the fact that wish and shapechange are the same level, despite one doing everything the other does, to the point of one directly invoking the other, minus cost, as evidence of an abuse. It has nothing to do with what I want.

Look, let's try citing precedence:
Wish (LVL9) can:
Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
... In exchange for 5000 XP

Limited Wish (LVL7) can:
Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Duplicate any other spell of 4th level or lower, even if it’s of a prohibited school.
... In exchange for 300 XP

Miracle (LVL9) can:
Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower (including spells to which you have access because of your domains).
Duplicate any other spell of 7th level or lower.
...In exchange for being a cleric.

Shades (LVL9) can:
mimic sorcerer and wizard conjuration spells of 8th level or lower.
...In exchange for being 80% real

Greater Shadow Conjuration (LVL7) can:
mimic sorcerer and wizard conjuration spells of 6th level or lower.
...In exchange for being 60% real

Shadow Conjuration (LVL4)can:
mimic sorcerer and wizard conjuration spells of 3rd level or lower.
...In exchange for being 20% real

Greater Shadow Evocation (LVL8) can:
mimic sorcerer and wizard evocation spells of 7th level or lower.
...In exchange for being 60% real

Shadow Evocation (LVL5) can:
mimic sorcerer and wizard evocation spells of 4th level or lower.
...In exchange for being 20% real
So 8 spells off the top of my head that duplicate other spells exactly.

What do these spells have in common? All of them are at least one spell level higher than the spell they can duplicate, and each of them has at least one additional penalty. (And yes, being a cleric counts. Cleric spells are generally weaker than Wizard spells of the same level.)

So with this being the precedent, why would wizards break it in half by intentionally including a spell with, through an obscure usage, not only duplicates a spell of the same level exactly, but also removes the penalty associated with using said spell?

What makes you think that? Shapechange explicitly grants supernatural abilities, supernatural abilities lack XP costs, and some supernatural abilities normally have XP costs. It's one of the main effects of the spell, in other words. The reason Supernatural abilities have no XP cost is because monsters don't have XP. It would be asinine to be playing a monster as a DM and to have to subtract XP from your monster ever time it used wish. The reason Shapechange grants supernatural abilities is because shapechange is supposed to let you actually become a monster, body and soul, rather than just becoming i's shape. (which is ironic given the spell's name.) It's so you can change into a dragon and actually use its breath weapon. The reason for supernatural abilities not costing XP and the reason for shapechange granting supernatural abilities are completely different.

Well, then it can be dispelled in combat, while wish can not be. Therefore, you're stuck with spending two actions, or facing a separate issue. The separate issue isn't the biggest one, but it's an issue nonetheless.
The cost disparity between the two spells remains the prominent issue. Also, you could use dispel magic to counterspell anything duplicated by wish.

You do realize that you're the one guilty of that fallacy, right? Except I have math and precedence to back me up, while you are stuck with baseless "possibilities."

eggynack

2013-10-19, 05:35 PM

You can't keep saying "Prove it!" as a way to avoid using your common sense. It can be logically assumed that game balance is something that the writers of D&D were striving for, even if they fell short. A blatant exploit like shapechange-wish is blatantly unbalanced, QED, it was unintentional.
To this, I also say "prove it". Prove that the creators of the game intended for the game to be balanced, because there are many who disagree with you. For one thing, that article about ivory tower game design clearly indicates that the game was built to have non-obvious options that are better than the other obvious options.

They're the exact same thing.
No, they're not. I'm not saying that someone had a reason. I'm saying that they might have, and more importantly, that you can't disprove that. In any case, if your intent is to invoke that fallacy, then you lose the argument immediately and automatically. Your claims are intrinsically dependent on interpretation of intent, while mine can just as easily stand on plainly visible RAW.

So with this being the precedent, why would wizards break it in half by intentionally including a spell with, through an obscure usage, not only duplicates a spell of the same level exactly, but also removes the penalty associated with using said spell?
Because they wanted shapechange to be more powerful than other 9th level spells. Because they wanted to reward system mastery. Because they thought the tradeoffs, spell school, GP cost, and action cost, were enough. Because whatever. It's not my place to determine why they did something. You have the burden of proof here, and you have none.

The reason Supernatural abilities have no XP cost is because monsters don't have XP. It would be asinine to be playing a monster as a DM and to have to subtract XP from your monster ever time it used wish. The reason Shapechange grants supernatural abilities is because shapechange is supposed to let you actually become a monster, body and soul, rather than just becoming i's shape. (which is ironic given the spell's name.) It's so you can change into a dragon and actually use its breath weapon. The reason for supernatural abilities not costing XP and the reason for shapechange granting supernatural abilities are completely different.
How do you know that? Seriously, your interpretation is a potentially accurate one, but it's still just an interpretation. Maybe they intended shapechange to give you free spells, to reflect the sheer degree to which you're becoming a monster.

The cost disparity between the two spells remains the prominent issue. Also, you could use dispel magic to counterspell anything duplicated by wish.
Counterspelling is somewhat more action intensive than dispel, and more importantly, it's a different thing. Thus, different costs, rather than higher costs.

Except I have math and precedence to back me up, while you are stuck with baseless "possibilities."
I don't know why you keep talking about math, as if it's a thing you're using for anything in this discussion. As for precedence, other spells also let you freely copy expensive spells, so that's precedence for your arguments to be untrue. Even if your claim that you need this massive knowledge check to acquire this specific knowledge is true, acquiring that kind of knowledge is still pretty easy. Guidance of the avatar is a thing that exists, for example. Moreover, these spells require more knowledge to work, but shapechange is higher level, so there's another tradeoff, in comparison to the planar binding option. In other words, your precedence only holds when you're copying the spell directly, while acquiring the spell indirectly, like in this case, has the opposite precedence.

3Power

2013-10-19, 05:59 PM

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-19, 06:06 PM

I love how after finally spelling out the precedence for you your response is to ignore it.

Anyway, let's get meta. You appear to be laboring under the delusion that if you somehow force a stalemate by getting me to admit that "no one really knows" you somehow win this argument. You don't. The fact of the matter is, there is a correct answer to the question of whether the shapechange-wish exploit was intentional or not, and like any answer, it is possible to guess correct. Thus, to claim that "there is no answer because we will never know for sure" is to lose by default, since it violates the idea that it is possible to arrive at the correct answer through reasoning.

Now, if you are willing to actually debate this issue, I will gladly do so. But if your position is going to continue to be that reasoning is pointless. Well then, you lose.

Good Game.

Shapechange -> Zodar -> Wish was probably not intentional. That being said, mitigating XP costs for Wish was almost certainly intentional seeing as core alone has a number of methods of doing just that

Your argument is that cheap Wish's was unintentional and all of the evidence in support of that position that you have offered is "it's an exploit" and "it's not fair or balanced".

It should be fairly obvious why your argument isn't getting much acceptance.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 06:08 PM

I love how after finally spelling out the precedence for you your response is to ignore it.
You only mentioned certain spells, and those copy wish directly. The planar binding line also copies wish, in a manner more similar to that of shapechange (because it's indirect), and it lacks a cost on the scale of wish. Foom, precedence.

Anyway, let's get meta. You appear to be laboring under the delusion that if you somehow force a stalemate by getting me to admit that "no one really knows" you somehow win this argument. You don't. The fact of the matter is, there is a correct answer to the question of whether the shapechange-wish exploit was intentional or not, and like any answer, it is possible to guess correct. Thus, to claim that "there is no answer because we will never know for sure" is to lose by default, since it violates the idea that it is possible to arrive at the correct answer through reasoning.

Now, if you are willing to actually debate this issue, I will gladly do so. But if your position is going to continue to be that reasoning is pointless. Well then, you lose.
What are you talking about? Your stance has always been, "Shapechange granting wish is absolutely an oversight, and there's no other possibility." Mine has always been, "There's a possibility that it isn't an oversight, and you have no proof that your view is an absolutely accurate one." Thus, if no one really knows what the developer intended, I am correct. That's where I started, and if it's where we're ending, I have won the argument. My side is intrinsically easier to argue, and requires far less evidence. There might be a correct answer as to whether shapechange is an oversight or not. However, you have to prove that it absolutely is one, rather than that it probably is one, to prove your original claim. You have thus far failed in this.

3Power

2013-10-19, 06:31 PM

No response to the knowledge skill checks, ok then.

Shapechange -> Zodar -> Wish was probably not intentional. That being said, mitigating XP costs for Wish was almost certainly intentional seeing as core alone has a number of methods of doing just thatOh please. It has exactly two methods that you've provided: Wish as a supernatural/spell-like ability and the item duping.

Your argument is that cheap Wish's was unintentional and all of the evidence in support of that position that you have offered is "it's an exploit" and "it's not fair or balanced"
How is demonstrating exactly how it's unbalanced not sufficient support for an argument?

It should be fairly obvious why your argument isn't getting much acceptance.Because power-gamers don't like giving up their power. "How dare my wizard be limited by the boundaries of common sense!"

Snip
You can't win an argument without first taking a side. Good Game.
You Lose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4)

eggynack

2013-10-19, 06:40 PM

You can't win an argument without first taking a side. Good Game.
You Lose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4)
I don't see what part of this is so hard to understand for you. Your side is that this thing is absolutely and completely true. My side is that it is not absolutely and completely true. The side I am on doesn't require absolutes in the same way yours does. If there's a chance that this thing was intended, then I am correct. There is a chance that this thing was intended, so I am correct.

How is demonstrating exactly how it's unbalanced not sufficient support for an argument?
Something being imbalanced is not sufficient, because so many things in this game are already imbalanced, just as part of the nature of the game. Also, as is indicated by the article about ivory tower game design, it's highly possible that much of the imbalance of the game was intentional. Knowing that you can shapechange into a zodar for free wishes requires pretty deep system understanding, so it fits under the ivory tower game design philosophy.

Emperor Tippy

2013-10-19, 06:46 PM

Oh please. It has exactly two methods that you've provided: Wish as a supernatural/spell-like ability and the item duping.
So now you are arguing that it was unintentional when Solar's (as one example) were given Wish as a 1/day spell like ability? Or that it was unintentional that Spell like abilities lack XP components?

How is demonstrating exactly how it's unbalanced not sufficient support for an argument?
Because that presupposes that D&D 3.5 is supposed to be fair or balanced. It explicitly is not. As out right stated by Monte Cook, who's name is one of three on the back of the 3.5 PHB.

3.5 is an RPG where some options are explicitly outright better than other options, where balance is explicitly not a concern, where fairness is explicitly not relevant.

Because power-gamers don't like giving up their power. "How dare my wizard be limited by the boundaries of common sense!"
Your position has no actual rules support and goes directly against statements made by one of the three primary minds behind 3.5 core.

3Power

2013-10-19, 06:48 PM

I don't see what part of this is so hard to understand for you. Your side is that this thing is absolutely and completely true. My side is that it is not absolutely and completely true. The side I am on doesn't require absolutes in the same way yours does. If there's a chance that this thing was intended, then I am correct. There is a chance that this thing was intended, so I am correct.That something is potentially correct is a given in any argument, including mine. Just because it is presented as the truth doesn't change that, nor does it make your argument any more correct than mine.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 06:50 PM

That something is potentially correct is a given in any argument, including mine. Just because it is presented as the truth doesn't change that.
Not really. There're plenty of arguments, especially when dealing with rules issues, where you can work in absolutes. This isn't one of those times. You said that this thing was absolutely an oversight, with no room for error. You were wrong. If you wish to revise that to something like, "I think that this was an oversight," or, "This is probably an oversight," you will have a much firmer stance in this argument.

3Power

2013-10-19, 07:17 PM

f you wish to revise that to something like, "I think that this was an oversight," or, "This is probably an oversight," you will have a much firmer stance in this argument. Again, this is implied. You are hung up on semantics. I am not indulging you any further.

So now you are arguing that it was unintentional when Solar's (as one example) were given Wish as a 1/day spell like ability? Or that it was unintentional that Spell like abilities lack XP components?Wishes for Solars are intentional. Spell like abilities not having XP components is intentional. What is not intentional is spellcasters gaining access to wish as a spell like ability without paying an appropriate cost.

Oh by the way, if gaining access to wish as a spell like ability is intentional, why is it that the simplest way to do it - taking a level in archmage and selecting spell-like ability (wish) as a high arcana - incurs an XP cost anyway?

ryu

2013-10-19, 07:26 PM

Again, this is implied. You are hung up on semantics. I am not indulging you any further.

Wishes for Solars are intentional. Spell like abilities not having XP components is intentional. What is not intentional is spellcasters gaining access to wish as a spell like ability without paying an appropriate cost.

Oh by the way, if gaining access to wish as a spell like ability is intentional, why is it that the simplest way to do it - taking a level in archmage and selecting spell-like ability (wish) as a high arcana - incurs an XP cost anyway?

Not quite. Very often you CAN argue in absolutes when dealing with absolutes like rules and such. In that situation that wording is completely proper, and you need imply nothing. When dealing with interpretation in absolutes though? Unless you have documented evidence of the auther(s) stating that they hold the intention you're arguing as absolute you lose automatically, because your statement of absolutes cannot be proven outright.

nedz

2013-10-19, 07:29 PM

Again, this is implied. You are hung up on semantics. I am not indulging you any further.

Wishes for Solars are intentional. Spell like abilities not having XP components is intentional. What is not intentional is spellcasters gaining access to wish as a spell like ability without paying an appropriate cost.

Oh by the way, if gaining access to wish as a spell like ability is intentional, why is it that the simplest way to do it - taking a level in archmage and selecting spell-like ability (wish) as a high arcana - incurs an XP cost anyway?

I think that if you were to argue that such things were Broken or Should be Rule 0'd or Houseruled out etc. then you might find more people agreeing with you. Arguing that they are not RAW: not so much.

3Power

2013-10-19, 07:37 PM

Not quite. Very often you CAN argue in absolutes when dealing with absolutes like rules and such. In that situation that wording is completely proper, and you need imply nothing. When dealing with interpretation in absolutes though? Unless you have documented evidence of the auther(s) stating that they hold the intention you're arguing as absolute you lose automatically, because your statement of absolutes cannot be proven outright.
I swear you people argue more about arguing than you do about the rules sometimes. Must get tedious.

I think that if you were to argue that such things were Broken or Should be Rule 0'd or Houseruled out etc. then you might find more people agreeing with you. Arguing that they are not RAW: not so much. I don't think I ever argued they weren't RAW. At most I claimed that most would houserule it on sight.

ryu

2013-10-19, 07:40 PM

I swear you people argue more about arguing than you do about the rules sometimes. Must get tedious.

I don't think I ever argued they weren't RAW. At most I claimed that most would houserule it on sight.

Because arguing also has rules! It's no different than pointing out that someone is doing something not permissible within RAW at a standard table. As this is clearly a game of arguing, it's only natural to point where and how someone is breaking a rule.

eggynack

2013-10-19, 08:50 PM

Again, this is implied. You are hung up on semantics. I am not indulging you any further.

It wasn't implied. At all. You said that people who thought different were just absolutely wrong. Then I said that you have no evidence for your side, and you claimed that your point was self evident. Can I take this to mean that you agree with me, and that your interpretation isn't definitely the correct one? Cause that seems to be the direction things are headed. Either way, you might want to take this as a lesson of some kind. The way you say things, and the words you use, often matter just as much as what you're trying to say. You've basically spent your whole time in this discussion acting as abrasive and condescending as you can towards anyone who disagrees with you, which is generally a poor tactic if you're trying to bring those people to your side.

AuraTwilight

2013-10-19, 09:24 PM

I swear you people argue more about arguing than you do about the rules sometimes. Must get tedious.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/structure.html

The proper rules and formats of good arguments have been the subject of academic and philosophical study literally since the days of Aristotle and Plato. Now, can you actually meet the standards of a logically self-consistent argument, or at the very least go a single post without insulting someone?

Because as far as you've been willing to show, I have no reason to believe you can't.

ryu

2013-10-19, 09:33 PM

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/structure.html

The proper rules and formats of good arguments have been the subject of academic and philosophical study literally since the days of Aristotle and Plato. Now, can you actually meet the standards of a logically self-consistent argument, or at the very least go a single post without insulting someone?

Because as far as you've been willing to show, I have no reason to believe you can't.

Double negative. You think he can?

AuraTwilight

2013-10-19, 09:42 PM

Er, the intent was "I have no reason to believe you can't go one post without insulting someone."

English is my third language, does that make more sense?

eggynack

2013-10-19, 09:47 PM

Er, the intent was "I have no reason to believe you can't go one post without insulting someone."

English is my third language, does that make more sense?
The thing you said this time is the same as the thing you said the first time, which might be the thing you intended to say. You're saying that he does have the capacity to not insult people, right? It would be reasonable for you to say either one, which I think is what's causing the confusion.

ryu

2013-10-19, 09:48 PM

Er, the intent was "I have no reason to believe you can't go one post without insulting someone."

English is my third language, does that make more sense?

It's cool bro. Happens to all of us. The way I read that was that the thing you mentioned first is what's going to be referred to as the main goal, although your way works on a technical level. It's one of those things that's a bit of an assumed rule in the language that people learn as they grow up. I made many similar mistakes during first-year Spanish.

Irk

2013-10-19, 10:48 PM

How does your wizard know Creature X can cast wish? By raw, you need to succeed on a relevant knowledge check equal to 10 + it's HD simply to know a creature exists. In order to know the things it's capable of you need to beat this check by 5 per thing, and the convention established by the knowledge table in the later books is that the spell like/supernatural abilities are always the last thing to be revealed. This means you generally have to beat the DC by 15 or 20 to even become aware of this ability. Nothing in Gate/Shapechange specifically grants you complete and total knowledge of every creature in the universe, and just because you gain supernatural abilities as a result of shapechange, it doesn't mean you gain the knowledge that you have those abilities.

The long and short of it is that you need to make anywhere from a 40 to 50 DC to even know wish is a capability for a given creature.

A 17th level wizard that maxes knowledge(planes) would have 20 skill ranks. Assuming 28 intelligence (18 start, 4 ability score increases, +6 headband of intellect) that gives him +29 to his check. That still has a 55% chance of not revealing the wish ability of an efreet, and it doesn't even reach 50.

Item familiar: +20
Max ranks: +20
Item: +10
Total is obviously +50
This required hardly any effort AT ALL to come up with. Therefore, this point is irrelevant, since you can reach DC 50.
tomes, headbands, tools, there are a million ways to do this. Honestly, you may have SOME good points, but you've overextended yourself in this argument I quoted above.

3Power

2013-10-20, 01:01 AM

The proper rules and formats of good arguments have been the subject of academic and philosophical study literally since the days of Aristotle and Plato. Now, can you actually meet the standards of a logically self-consistent argument, or at the very least go a single post without insulting someone?

Because as far as you've been willing to show, I have no reason to believe you can't.Do you have a purpose here besides whining at me?

Item familiar: +20
Max ranks: +20
Item: +10
Total is obviously +50
This required hardly any effort AT ALL to come up with. Therefore, this point is irrelevant, since you can reach DC 50.
tomes, headbands, tools, there are a million ways to do this. Honestly, you may have SOME good points, but you've overextended yourself in this argument I quoted above.
When I googled item familiar, it led me to the srd page for "Variant Magic" listed alongside such things as "spell points." I think diving into UA Variant rules is a little iffy. If there are a million ways to do this, try doing it without that.

ryu

2013-10-20, 01:04 AM

Do you have a purpose here besides whining at me?

When I googled item familiar, it led me to the srd page for "Variant Magic" listed alongside such things as "spell points." I think diving into UA Variant rules is a little iffy. If there are a million ways to do this, try doing it without that.

Do you have a purpose here besides being openly abrasive to everyone you talk to regardless of their conduct towards you?

eggynack

2013-10-20, 01:07 AM

Do you have a purpose here besides whining at me?
I think the purpose was to get you to try not alienating the very people you're attempting to convince with condescension and insults. It's rather annoying, and from your perspective, somewhat self defeating.

When I googled item familiar, it led me to the srd page for "Variant Magic" listed alongside such things as "spell points." I think diving into UA Variant rules is a little iffy. If there are a million ways to do this, try doing it without that.
Some sort of item, wand, or plain old hired caster with guidance of the avatar (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20010504a) will get you most of the way on its own. It doesn't take all that much work to go from that to the DC's you're looking for.

Flickerdart

2013-10-20, 01:20 AM

18 starting Intelligence, +4 from ability score increases, +6 from headband, +4 Tome gives us an Intelligence of 32, or a +11 modifier. 20 skill ranks gets 31. His familiar can Aid Another, for 33. Custom items would make this trivial, so let's stick with a regular masterwork tool, for 35. Then the wizard takes 10, for a result of 45.

20 gets us that noble djinn or efreet exist, and something about them. Thus, we get 6 pieces of useful information about the creature in total. While both species indeed have many abilities, the wishes they grant are by far the most powerful and iconic, and I would find it very difficult indeed to imagine anyone learning about genies and not having "it grants wishes" come up as basically the first thing when trying to recall what they can do. You might have the same luck arguing that a Knowledge check against a red dragon won't come up with "they breathe fire" or a Knowledge check against an illithid will neglect to mention that they eat brains.

Irk

2013-10-20, 02:06 AM

When I googled item familiar, it led me to the srd page for "Variant Magic" listed alongside such things as "spell points." I think diving into UA Variant rules is a little iffy. If there are a million ways to do this, try doing it without that.

Item +10
Guidance of the avatar +20
skill ranks +20

or
Item +10
wieldskill +10
skill ranks +20
Exemplar 1 for take 10

or
wieldskill +10
Guidance of the avatar +20
skill ranks +20

or
Fortunes friend +17
skill ranks +20
skill focus +3
exemplar/item take 10/+10

I honestly think that you do have SOME good points, but when I say something I actually mean it. Item familiars are just slightly more convenient, but totally unnecessary for getting +50 to a skill check. This is not hard, and again, I think you have some good points, but you REALLY need to stop overextending, you are trying to prove too many things because too many people are disagreeing with you. I do not think you are right, and I do think that you are insulting many people as has already been discussed, but more importantly, I am proving myself with actual tangible facts rather than vaguely established assumptions.

You assume the creators wanted game balance, but the truth is that the game is such a malleable system that in then end, the DM and the players can choose exactly how they want to play. Everything that people have been mentioning is valid according to the game because the game is meant to be a foundation for one's imagination to build upon. IT provides rules that can be interpreted in any way to have the most fun possible. It's not a question of whether or not perceived 'flaws' are an issue, I don't really see any, I kinda like it the way it is actually, it is a question of what lets you have fun. I'm going to be running a campaign shortly, and I will enforce one rule: fractional, from UA, which I think makes more sense. I will expect optimized characters, but you know what? Nobody will bring pun pun or d2 crusaders to the table because they won't have fun. No one has fun at that level of optimization. I don't mean free wishes, that's fine. However, nobody enjoys infinite damage, since that just negates the purpose of the game. If a player enjoys optimizing, I want them to enjoy my game, so I allow them to optimize. What do I do? I then give them a challenge and make sure that there optimization gets a chance to shine, because that is fun for them. If you are a good DM (not saying I'm great, that would be pretentious), you also don't have to worry about imbalance, as there are simple ways to make sure that everyone can have fun as well, even with their completely unoptimized character. I trust that people I play with will make a character that they can have fun with. And you know what? at the end of the day, that's all that really matters, isn't it. I DARE you to argue that the purpose of Dungeons and Dragons is NOT to have fun.

anyway, back to my original point, Item familiars are not necessary as a demonstrated above, in accordance with your request.

gomipile

2013-10-20, 03:25 AM

Irk

2013-10-20, 03:40 AM

I would definitely agree with that, excellent way of putting it, I think. Personally, I'm fond of fractional, but like you said, it's kinda a house rule, albeit, IMO a good one.

eggynack

2013-10-20, 03:44 AM

Unearthed Arcana rules occupy a space between official and houserules. What i have seen generally on these forums is that any rules in UA which aren't system changes, and thus can stand by themselves, are treated as equivalent to anything from any other official supplement. Item familiars fall into that category.
There's a lot of room between official and houserules, and I generally think that UA stuff falls more towards the former. It's like core > not core > UA > dragon > third party > homebrew. Something like that, anyways. UA might actually be in between core and not core, given that it exists in the d20 SRD, and so is broadly accessible. Third party might just equal homebrew too.

bekeleven

2013-10-20, 04:19 AM

There's a lot of room between official and houserules, and I generally think that UA stuff falls more towards the former. It's like core > not core > UA > dragon > third party > homebrew. Something like that, anyways. UA might actually be in between core and not core, given that it exists in the d20 SRD, and so is broadly accessible. Third party might just equal homebrew too.

I'd say that after non-core WotC you have WotC Licensed (Dragon + licensed campaign setting work like Dragonlance), followed by 2.5 Party (like Dreamscarred Press - work by WotC writers), then 3rd party and homebrew fall into some giant ad-hoc kludge of ideas, many flavorful and balanced better than WotC ever dreamed of, many... not. For instance, you'll hear some good stuff about Green Ronin every once in a while on these boards. You will hear some... interesting stuff about AEG.

AuraTwilight

2013-10-20, 04:19 AM

Do you have a purpose here besides whining at me?

Do you have a purpose here besides whining, period?

eggynack

2013-10-20, 04:24 AM

I'd say that after non-core WotC you have WotC Licensed (Dragon + licensed campaign setting work like Dragonlance), followed by 2.5 Party (like Dreamscarred Press - work by WotC writers), then 3rd party and homebrew fall into some giant ad-hoc kludge of ideas, many flavorful and balanced better than WotC ever dreamed of, many... not. For instance, you'll hear some good stuff about Green Ronin every once in a while on these boards. You will hear some... interesting stuff about AEG.
That's a pretty fair assessment. I hadn't really considered the possibility of something like a 2.5 party source, but it makes sense as an idea. You can get pretty narrow with these delineations if you try hard enough. I'd figure that the place to start would be in the non-core section, because you could say something like SpC>completes>sandstorm type stuff>setting specific stuff>>>serpent kingdoms. I don't think anyone's ever going to come to a perfect agreement as to how such a list would look though.

Killer Angel

2013-10-20, 05:30 AM

Wishes for Solars are intentional. Spell like abilities not having XP components is intentional. What is not intentional is spellcasters gaining access to wish as a spell like ability without paying an appropriate cost.

To gate and command a creature with SLA is intentional too.
The DM can say "no", but the simple fact that a DM must specify that you can't do what the spell says, means that the rules give you that possibility.
"it wan't intended in that way", is a mere hypotesis.

Well then, you lose.

Good Game.

To declare a thing, doesn't make it true.

LordBlades

2013-10-20, 05:38 AM

nedz

2013-10-20, 05:52 AM

Double negative. You think he can?

Double negatives are a grammatical convention in many languages, just not modern English.

eggynack

2013-10-20, 05:57 AM

Double negatives are a grammatical convention in many languages, just not modern English.
It has its moments in modern English too. I'm particularly fond of litotes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes). However, I don't think this was an issue of syntax, so much as one of regular confusion. The intent of that part of the post was unclear from context, and double negatives, while occasionally a valid rhetorical form, are often confusing.

Chained Birds

2013-10-20, 03:29 PM

....

-------

I wouldn't mind playing in a tier 4-6 game. While some monsters may be removed due to several factors that most tier 4-6 can't compete with, it would make some of the weaker monsters more threatening and require more game effort to defeat.

I guess I'd DM the game like I would DM a E6 game, as the power ceiling for my creatures should be around this area. Hmm, though I might have to go through Magic Items to see if they would exist in this sort of would, considering level 7-9, or even 5-9 spells, may be extremely rare thus making the items equally rare.

The Viscount

2013-10-21, 11:47 PM

Tier 4-6 would certainly be interesting, but after a little while playing it one might want to readjust the tiers. Warmage stands out to me as a particular example of a very borderline 4 that seems a 3 to me. With Eclectic Learning and the few BFC spells it has, Warmage might do some real damage in this sort of game.
I'd love to play a Savant in a Tier 4-6 game. Getting a bit of everything makes you feel more useful when everyone is so limited.

@3PowerYou mentioned that simple means of changing a spell to SLA, hierophant or archmage, both keep an xp cost on it. Do you consider using supernatural transformation on this too obscure a source and abusive an exploit?

If so, (and I know people hate it when it is brought up) what about Dweomerkeeper? It allows you to go from spell to Su with no cost. This seems very straightforward, and it is conceivable someone would use it on wish.

Marlowe

2013-10-22, 01:20 AM

3Power, please stop. You seem to understand the rules pretty well, but you've missed the point that the game isn't as well-ruled as you think. And more importantly; you're essentially just shouting that "My subjective intrepretation of the game is an objective truth and anyone who disagrees is a fool" over and over again.

The reason this forum and others like it is still so active years after the game went out of print is because nobody really knows how to play this game "properly". There is no "proper" way to play D&D 3.5. There are some rules, some of which make sense. There are ways to build more effective characters than others. And then there are things like a pick is useless for cutting stone, because it does piercing damage.

There are too many things in the rules that make no sense for anyone to say what is and isn't possible.

You are making the number one fallacy in this hobby in assuming your way of playing is the only one. And insulting the people that are trying to tell you otherwise. You are saying something is impossible. You've had a number of people tell you otherwise and all you've done is scream "That's wrong and stupid because I say so!"

Please stop. You could do so much better than this.

Anyway; the initial thread interested me (my group tends to play mainly martials, which tends to mean the few spellcasters are dominating hugely after the first few levels) so I got interested in building an Adept as a substitute Cleric. "Spontaneous Healer" helps. And it's pretty easy for an Adept to get into Divine Oracle. But could someone explain why the Adept spell list doesn't feature "Dispel Magic"?

Kennisiou

2013-10-22, 01:30 AM

Anyway; the initial thread interested me (my group tends to play mainly martials, which tends to mean the few spellcasters are dominating hugely after the first few levels) so I got interested in building an Adept as a substitute Cleric. "Spontaneous Healer" helps. And it's pretty easy for an Adept to get into Divine Oracle. But could someone explain why the Adept spell list doesn't feature "Dispel Magic"?

If I had to guess I'd say it's because the NPC classes weren't really meant to go toe-to-toe with the PC classes. They seemed to be more things you were supposed to include in the world for fluff than things you were meant to actually gamerule and play out. Dispel Magic seems like it would be more of an anti-villain or anti-PC tool than anything else, whereas most of the rest of the Adept spell list you could see as being the sort of thing a hedgemage/mini-cleric would just use to help keep a town running smoothly or occasionally protect it from threats.

Or it could be that the NPC classes didn't really get much oversight because they weren't expected to really see play.

eggynack

2013-10-22, 01:35 AM

Marlowe

2013-10-22, 01:40 AM

Of course if you're going for lower-tier Cleric substitute then Earth Shugenja going into Sacred Exorcist is better; but outside the scope of this thread.

Of course, some don't like like the Shugenja's Japanese fluff. Even if they are just generic elementalists in a mechanical sense.

3Power

2013-10-22, 05:23 PM

Thus, we get 6 pieces of useful information about the creature in total. While both species indeed have many abilities, the wishes they grant are by far the most powerful and iconic, and I would find it very difficult indeed to imagine anyone learning about genies and not having "it grants wishes" come up as basically the first thing when trying to recall what they can do.Again, the established practice is for the spell-like abilities to be the last thing revealed. Wish is a spell like ability, QED, it is revealed last. Also, the genie method of getting wishes is a very complicated affair. They are specifically mentioned as giving wishes only when captured, which applies pretty much only to a magic circle/planar binding combo, not gate/planar ally. Said aforementioned combo gives the DM full control over how the wishes are granted, and allow for nice literal-genie shenanigans.

Also:

His familiar can Aid Another, for 33. Custom items would make this trivial, so let's stick with a regular masterwork tool, for 35. Then the wizard takes 10, for a result of 45.

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone.
Also, I have no specific rule for it, but no mundane tool is capable of granting a bonus on knowledge checks. I mean, come on.

Guidance of the avatar +20
wieldskill +10

Yeah... here's the thing: These are spells, both of which affect a single skill. In order to actually make use of them you would have to cast them before you actually needed to make use of that skill. The moment a character sees a monster, he either knows what he's seeing or he doesn't. He can't walk into a room, see a solar, and go "Oh wait, let me cast this spell before I know if I know what that is." And he couldn't use it after he sees something either since knowledge doesn't allow a retry. If you cast it and HAPPENED to need to make use of knowledge(the planes) while it was active, hey, good for you. But using any sort of temporary magic to intentionally allow you to determine whether you know something is impossible.
Also, both grant competence bonuses, so they don't stack.

On a related note, I wouldn't allow either bonus to apply to knowledge period, because after all, where does the knowledge come from?

Exemplar 1 for take 10
While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, you are giving up a spellcasting level.

Fortunes friend +17
Class level, not character level. Taking a one level dip in Fortune's Friend would allow you to get +1 on that skill, in exchange for a level of spellcasting. Also, it's a swift action, so see guidance of the avatar and wieldskill above.

Also, maxing an item familiar to +20 requires the wizard to sacrifice 60 skill points. While a wizard with 18 INT still has enough to max concentration or spellcraft, wouldn't both of those be considered BETTER choices for a item familiar than knowledge (planes)? Surely uninterrupted spellcasting and early epic spellcasting are better choices?

Also, that item better be nigh indestructible,

If so, (and I know people hate it when it is brought up) what about Dweomerkeeper? It allows you to go from spell to Su with no cost. This seems very straightforward, and it is conceivable someone would use it on wish.
This is partially balanced by 1, giving up a level of spellcasting and 2, Having to take an item creation feat, and make an item, which in addition to it's cost sort of assumes the character in question is constantly making items and is therefore somewhat behind on XP already.
That said, I still think it's an oversight.

Talya

2013-10-22, 05:31 PM

This is partially balanced by 1, giving up a level of spellcasting and 2, Having to take an item creation feat, and make an item, which in addition to it's cost sort of assumes the character in question is constantly making items and is therefore somewhat behind on XP already.
That said, I still think it's an oversight.

Experience is a river. If you're behind, you tend to get more.

Irk

2013-10-22, 06:17 PM

Also, I have no specific rule for it, but no mundane tool is capable of granting a bonus on knowledge checks. I mean, come on.

Yeah... here's the thing: These are spells, both of which affect a single skill. In order to actually make use of them you would have to cast them before you actually needed to make use of that skill. The moment a character sees a monster, he either knows what he's seeing or he doesn't. He can't walk into a room, see a solar, and go "Oh wait, let me cast this spell before I know if I know what that is." And he couldn't use it after he sees something either since knowledge doesn't allow a retry. If you cast it and HAPPENED to need to make use of knowledge(the planes) while it was active, hey, good for you. But using any sort of temporary magic to intentionally allow you to determine whether you know something is impossible.
Also, both grant competence bonuses, so they don't stack.

On a related note, I wouldn't allow either bonus to apply to knowledge period, because after all, where does the knowledge come from?

While there's nothing inherently wrong with this, you are giving up a spellcasting level.

Class level, not character level. Taking a one level dip in Fortune's Friend would allow you to get +1 on that skill, in exchange for a level of spellcasting. Also, it's a swift action, so see guidance of the avatar and wieldskill above.

Also, maxing an item familiar to +20 requires the wizard to sacrifice 60 skill points. While a wizard with 18 INT still has enough to max concentration or spellcraft, wouldn't both of those be considered BETTER choices for a item familiar than knowledge (planes)? Surely uninterrupted spellcasting and early epic spellcasting are better choices?

Also, that item better be nigh indestructible,

This is partially balanced by 1, giving up a level of spellcasting and 2, Having to take an item creation feat, and make an item, which in addition to it's cost sort of assumes the character in question is constantly making items and is therefore somewhat behind on XP already.
That said, I still think it's an oversight.

as for the specific item: a book
oops, overlooked bonus stacking, your right
As for the spells, they last until discharged, and you not allowing them is your personal choice. In response, I would say something like 'you're drawing upon a vast pool of arcane knowledge'. or whatever, because applying a spell that grants a bonus on skill checks to knowledge is nowhere near an iffy interpretation. In that case, where does the ability to perform any augmented skill from this spell come from. Magic, that's where.
The take 10 of exemplar is actually useful in various situations, so its it's not a complete waste. Especially isn't considering it'll bring you to ultimate power and whatever.
Fortune's friend, yeah you're right again, man I;m screwing up a lot here.

so lets look at it like this
Guidance of the avatar +20
Skill ranks +20
intelligence modifier: +10 (18 + 4 (levels) +5(tome) +3(headband) = 30)
ALWAYS hit a 50, no problem, no rules interpretation at all. If you are planning on summoning something, it is assumed you cast guidance beforehand in order to make sure you know what you are getting yourself in to.

So yeah, it can be done without difficulty.

Flickerdart

2013-10-22, 07:04 PM

Again, the established practice is for the spell-like abilities to be the last thing revealed. Wish is a spell like ability, QED, it is revealed last. Also, the genie method of getting wishes is a very complicated affair. They are specifically mentioned as giving wishes only when captured, which applies pretty much only to a magic circle/planar binding combo, not gate/planar ally. Said aforementioned combo gives the DM full control over how the wishes are granted, and allow for nice literal-genie shenanigans.

That doesn't actually counter my point. "Established practice" is irrelevant. Ask anyone about genies and "grants wishes" is the first (and sometimes only) thing they'll tell you.

Also, I have no specific rule for it, but no mundane tool is capable of granting a bonus on knowledge checks. I mean, come on.
You do realize there are a TON of perfectly mundane ways of aiding memory with physical objects, right?

3Power

2013-10-22, 07:37 PM

as for the specific item: a book
Books contain knowledge, they don't help you know things at the moment it becomes relevant.

As for the spells, they last until discharged, and you not allowing them is your personal choice. In response, I would say something like 'you're drawing upon a vast pool of arcane knowledge'. or whatever, because applying a spell that grants a bonus on skill checks to knowledge is nowhere near an iffy interpretation. In that case, where does the ability to perform any augmented skill from this spell come from. Magic, that's where.
It's still impossible to intentionally use either spell to gain a bonus on a knowledge check you know is coming. You see a ledge or a cliff, then you know a climb or jump check is coming. You see a solar, the knowledge is rolled that moment, no opportunity to cast a spell first.

If you are planning on summoning something, it is assumed you cast guidance beforehand in order to make sure you know what you are getting yourself in to.
The moment you think "what monsters do I know that I can summon?" the knowledge check is rolled. It is impossible to boost your knowledge in this manner without knowing that you are going to need to know something.

Put another way, it is impossible to know you need to know something without first knowing what it is you need to know.

I should also point out that guidance is a divine spell, so this requires either a cleric to go along with you or for you to burn a limited wish on this.

bekeleven

2013-10-22, 09:51 PM

Books contain knowledge, they don't help you know things at the moment it becomes relevant.So, think of it ahead of time?

The moment you think "what monsters do I know that I can summon?" the knowledge check is rolled. It is impossible to boost your knowledge in this manner without knowing that you are going to need to know something. So someone with 25 int can't think "I wonder what I'm going to summon tomorrow!"

Lans

2013-10-22, 10:57 PM

There was an adventure run where t4 and below adventurers were run against highly optimized and rule questionable monsters that were also on the t4 scale. They failed like on 3 completely separate occasions.

LordBlades

2013-10-22, 11:39 PM

Again, the established practice is for the spell-like abilities to be the last thing revealed. Wish is a spell like ability, QED, it is revealed last.

Established practice wherevand by whom?

This is partially balanced by 1, giving up a level of spellcasting and 2, Having to take an item creation feat, and make an item, which in addition to it's cost sort of assumes the character in question is constantly making items and is therefore somewhat behind on XP already.
That said, I still think it's an oversight.

Do you realize that there's several ways to get into Dweomerkeeper as straight cleric, right?

Snowbluff

2013-10-22, 11:47 PM

I've always thought of masterwork knowledge items like cheat sheets. Some small writing on a piece of cloth/paper attached to a bracer (+1 Ringsword Spellblade Defending Spike Gauntlet with Wand Chamber) or something in use. :smalltongue:

3Power

2013-10-22, 11:54 PM

Established practice wherevand by whom?

Crack open a later monster manual. Or go look up "know your enemy" in the D&D archives.

Do you realize that there's several ways to get into Dweomerkeeper as straight cleric, right?
Clerics can't cast wish, so it's not really relevant is it?

The Viscount

2013-10-23, 12:11 AM

They cast miracle, the divine equivalent.

Flickerdart

2013-10-23, 12:11 AM

Clerics can't cast wish, so it's not really relevant is it?
Envy domain, SpC.

3Power

2013-10-23, 12:44 AM

They cast miracle, the divine equivalent.
Which doesn't cost XP for the mundane uses, and the super powerful miracles (or wishes) are subject to DM oversight, not a guarantee.

Envy domain, SpC. Hooray, he can cast 8th level wizard spells now.

DarkSonic1337

2013-10-23, 01:02 PM

The moment you think "what monsters do I know that I can summon?" the knowledge check is rolled. It is impossible to boost your knowledge in this manner without knowing that you are going to need to know something.

Put another way, it is impossible to know you need to know something without first knowing what it is you need to know.

I should also point out that guidance is a divine spell, so this requires either a cleric to go along with you or for you to burn a limited wish on this.

Actually this is fairly easy to justify in game.

The moment you think "hmm I want to summon something," you use the spells to boost your knowledge check. This is to gain insight into what kinds of things exist through magical assistance, no different than a factotum using his inspiration to gain temporary insight on the same knowledge check. It is not YOUR knowledge that you are using, it is the spell's energy pulling information from the universe to assist you.

Irk

2013-10-23, 03:45 PM

Actually this is fairly easy to justify in game.

The moment you think "hmm I want to summon something," you use the spells to boost your knowledge check. This is to gain insight into what kinds of things exist through magical assistance, no different than a factotum using his inspiration to gain temporary insight on the same knowledge check. It is not YOUR knowledge that you are using, it is the spell's energy pulling information from the universe to assist you.

Thank You.

3Power, so you're are saying that a player can not cast a spell to increase the bonus on a knowledge check because the check is made as soon as they wonder something? Does this mean that knowledge is entirely based on the character's personal knowledge, in your opinion?

I don't want to be disgustingly contentious, It would just be easier to make my point if you could sum up exactly how you interpret the rules surrounding the knowledge skill. It seems kind of as if you hold role playing above all else, because otherwise you would not forbid players from acquiring items with an effect permitted by the rules for thematic reasons (masterwork item), or stop them from casting a spell then making a check, which is also perfectly permitted. The only reason to ignore these rules would be for roleplaying value, but I could be, and probably am, entirely wrong about your take on the rules.

Killer Angel

2013-10-24, 06:18 AM

Books contain knowledge, they don't help you know things at the moment it becomes relevant.

"It exists, but i don't like it, so I rule 0 that it doesn't do the things it was built for".
Yeah. :smallsigh:

Kennisiou

2013-10-24, 10:38 AM

Books contain knowledge, they don't help you know things at the moment it becomes relevant.

Huh, you know, I wonder if there's a word that rhymes with "thesaurus" but means "encyclopedia." I'd look up that knowledge that I don't have in the rhyming dictionary I got to help with a poetry course I took in college, but apparently since the book doesn't help me know a thing the moment it becomes relevant (ie right now as I'm making this post) apparently I can't consult the book's index to see where that information would be and quickly look it up.

In other news, what? Are we just pretending books are not in fact capable of expanding your knowledge base through quick reference now? Are we also pretending that you can't use prior knowledge to enhance your ability to use books, hence making your previous knowledge score make sense on the roll to see if using the book to find the info works (ie, need to find info on the thing you're facing, have a book about knowledge arcana, pretty sure based on your +10 knowledge check that the thing's some sort of dragon so your roll with the +2 modifier is now a measure of how easily you apply your prior knowledge with the aid of your masterwork tool to see if you can figure out what this dragon's breath weapon is).

Killer Angel

2013-10-24, 12:00 PM

The moment you think "what monsters do I know that I can summon?" the knowledge check is rolled. It is impossible to boost your knowledge in this manner without knowing that you are going to need to know something.

Nope.
"I want to summon something with burrow and fire resistance".
You could make a simple knowledge check, OR you can boost your skill looking at your "handy manual of extrapalanar creatures", OR you can cast "Guidance of the Avatar" that lets you recall useful pieces of informations that once you'd read without bothering too much.

3Power

2013-10-25, 12:47 AM

3Power, so you're are saying that a player can not cast a spell to increase the bonus on a knowledge check because the check is made as soon as they wonder something? Does this mean that knowledge is entirely based on the character's personal knowledge, in your opinion?Forget opinion. By RAW, when you use knowledge to identify a monster you are specifically recalling or remembering information previously learned.

You never magically gain knowledge from the universe, any boost to your knowledge score just increases the chances of remembering some minutia. It's impossible to remember something you never learned. It's why characters without the right knowledge skill automatically fail any check with a DC greater than 10.

Huh, you know, I wonder if there's a word that rhymes with "thesaurus" but means "encyclopedia." I'd look up that knowledge that I don't have in the rhyming dictionary I got to help with a poetry course I took in college, but apparently since the book doesn't help me know a thing the moment it becomes relevant (ie right now as I'm making this post) apparently I can't consult the book's index to see where that information would be and quickly look it up.Of course you could, but you'd be doing it after you already failed your knowledge check. Whether or not that book contains that information has nothing to do with whether you knew said information off hand. In such a case, the DM would either tell you. "The book contains/doesn't contain the information you're looking for, or he'd roll a die to determine it.

"I want to summon something with burrow and fire resistance".At which point the DM looks for said creatures, rolls your knowledge, and tells you which ones you know.

Understand, the moment what you know becomes relevant, knowledge is rolled. It's impossible to boost your knowledge score before what you know becomes relevant except through serendipity.

LordBlades

2013-10-25, 02:52 AM

Forget opinion. By RAW, when you use knowledge to identify a monster you are specifically recalling or remembering information previously learned.

You never magically gain knowledge from the universe, any boost to your knowledge score just increases the chances of remembering some minutia. It's impossible to remember something you never learned. It's why characters without the right knowledge skill automatically fail any check with a DC greater than 10.

Of course you could, but you'd be doing it after you already failed your knowledge check. Whether or not that book contains that information has nothing to do with whether you knew said information off hand. In such a case, the DM would either tell you. "The book contains/doesn't contain the information you're looking for, or he'd roll a die to determine it.

At which point the DM looks for said creatures, rolls your knowledge, and tells you which ones you know.

Understand, the moment what you know becomes relevant, knowledge is rolled. It's impossible to boost your knowledge score before what you know becomes relevant except through serendipity.

From the text of Complete Champion, the spell Lore of the Gods:

Your mind opens to the secrets of the cosmos and briefly touches the omniscience of the gods.
You gain a +5 insight bonus on all Knowledge checks.
At any point before the duration expires, you can make a check with a Knowledge skill in which you have no ranks, or retry a Knowledge check you have previously failed.
The +5 insight bonus still applies in both of those cases, but utilizing this option reduces the spell's remaining duration to 1 minute/level.
If you worship a deity who grants access to the Knowledge domain, the bonus is +10 rather than +5—even if you did not choose that domain.

So, what this spell does:

1) specifically allows you to boost your Knowledge score beforehand (since it gives a bonus specifically to Knowledge checks)

2) allows you to 'remember' things you never learned (by making a check with a Knowledge in which you have no ranks or re-rolling a failed check)

3)allows you to 'gain knowledge from the universe' (the exact phrase 'Your mind opens to the secrets of the cosmos and briefly touches the omniscience of the gods.')

All three things which, if I recall correctly from the post I quoted, you claim are not possible by RAW.

eggynack

2013-10-25, 02:55 AM

All three things which, if I recall correctly from the post I quoted, you claim are not possible by RAW.
Well, it could potentially only be possible in this one specific case. However, it's possible in this one specific case. Let's just use lore of the gods. We're already using a cleric spell, so tricky item use isn't outside our wheelhouse. That spell is pretty sweet, by the by.

Edit: The personal range thing might be tricky, but a custom item of some kind could do it, and of course a cleric could do it.

Double edit: Or a wand, with some UMD boosting. That's probably the way, actually.

LordBlades

2013-10-25, 03:06 AM

Well, it could potentially only be possible in this one specific case. However, it's possible in this one specific case. Let's just use lore of the gods. We're already using a cleric spell, so tricky item use isn't outside our wheelhouse. That spell is pretty sweet, by the by.

Edit: The personal range thing might be tricky, but a custom item of some kind could do it, and of course a cleric could do it.

Double edit: Or a wand, with some UMD boosting. That's probably the way, actually.

You're partially right. Re-rolling Knowledge checks and making checks without ranks is a case of 'specific overrides general'.

In regard to boosting Knowledge checks by magic, 3Power claims it should be impossible, but there's no clear RAW on the matter. If we assume that his interpretation is correct, a spell that boosts Knowledge checks specifically does nothing. The fact that a spell exists is IMO prof that the designers don't share 3Power's opinion on that matter.

eggynack

2013-10-25, 03:10 AM

You're partially right. Re-rolling Knowledge checks and making checks without ranks is a case of 'specific overrides general'.

In regard to boosting Knowledge checks by magic, 3Power claims it should be impossible, but there's no clear RAW on the matter. If we assume that his interpretation is correct, a spell that boosts Knowledge checks specifically does nothing. The fact that a spell exists is IMO prof that the designers don't share 3Power's opinion on that matter.
Yeah, that does make some sense. Presumably, when you're being guided by the avatar, you're obtaining enough knowledge of whatever it is you're obtaining knowledge about to justify a new knowledge roll, or to do better on an upcoming one. The knowledge skill, and how it works with regards to stuff like this, has always been rather hazy.