Creator of "That Damn Crab" comments [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

137beth

2015-10-28, 10:21 PM

The Monstrous Crab is one of the most frequently cited examples of a monster with a poorly-assigned CR.
James Jacobs, the author of the Monstrous Crab and a current Paizo employee, commented yesterday (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1164?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#58198) on his deadly creation.
His response is more or less what you'd expect from someone speaking on-the-record about a product from their company's biggest competitor. He does acknowledge that it might be overpowered, which is one of the rare times I know of that James Jacobs has said anything he wrote had game balance issues.

Ha. I had absolutely no idea that the monstrous crab was so notorious.

1) I haven't had my head in the 3.5 CR system for over a decade, so I don't really know off the top of my head if it seems too powerful or too wimpy. Looking at its numbers and comparing them to Pathfinder's much more exact and trustworthy CR system, I would absolutely agree that it's too powerful and would suggest that folks use the Pathfinder Bestiary version of the monster. Design theory for building vermin in 3.5 was VERY different than it is today in Pathfinder, which has the advantage of having something like twenty years, at this point, of design evolution.

2) I'm proud of that web series of articles, as I am of most of my work for D&D. But as it turns out, over a decade of professional design where I'm doing this day in and day out does mean that I'm better at game design today than I was back in 2004 when that article went live. As for whether or not it lives up to my current personal quality standards? No, it doesn't, but frankly, neither does the 3.5 system itself.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-28, 10:34 PM

He's the one that wrote that ludicrously broken online vestige and (iirc) the acorn of far travel, one of the most-abused items in 3E. Not surprised at all he was the author for the crab. My first guess would've been SKR, though.

Zombulian

2015-10-28, 11:18 PM

He's the one that wrote that ludicrously broken online vestige and (iirc) the acorn of far travel, one of the most-abused items in 3E.

*seethes with rage*

animewatcha

2015-10-28, 11:44 PM

Zombulian

2015-10-28, 11:48 PM

broken online vestige?

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070718

ZamielVanWeber

2015-10-28, 11:59 PM

A legacy of bad stuff and he does not want to admit to it aside from boasting about Pathfinder? Yeah, no...

Thurbane

2015-10-28, 11:59 PM

Zanos

2015-10-29, 12:25 AM

1) I haven't had my head in the 3.5 CR system for over a decade, so I don't really know off the top of my head if it seems too powerful or too wimpy. Looking at its numbers and comparing them to Pathfinder's much more exact and trustworthy CR system, I would absolutely agree that it's too powerful and would suggest that folks use the Pathfinder Bestiary version of the monster. Design theory for building vermin in 3.5 was VERY different than it is today in Pathfinder, which has the advantage of having something like twenty years, at this point, of design evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

Vhaidara

2015-10-29, 07:35 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

Be fair, it probably is. The same way rotten milk smells much better than raw sewage.

Eldan

2015-10-29, 07:52 AM

They don't have any Adamantine Horrors or Elemental Weirds as far as I know, so they can't be as bad as GW.

Fouredged Sword

2015-10-29, 08:01 AM

That visage lets you summon from the highest level summon monster list all day every day. That is so broken I don't even know what to say.

Aharon

2015-10-29, 08:14 AM

That visage lets you summon from the highest level summon monster list all day every day. That is so broken I don't even know what to say.

That's not what makes it broken. What makes it broken that you just summon it, without duration. So off-adventure-time yields you a summoned army :smallbiggrin:

Endarire

2015-10-29, 08:16 AM

What inspired the author of Crabber (as I call him) to make that creature as-is at its CR?

Ungoded

2015-10-29, 08:20 AM

Amphetryon

2015-10-29, 08:22 AM

What inspired the author of Crabber (as I call him) to make that creature as-is at its CR?

I'd always assumed a blindfold and a dartboard were involved.

Milo v3

2015-10-29, 08:24 AM

Interesting.

Love the opportunity he shamelessly took to trash talk Pathfinder's biggest competition. :smallbiggrin:

Sad, though, that Pathfinder never really took effective steps to combat the most notoriously broken exploits and things that make Tier disparity so pronounced.

When PF first launched (and I freely admit I haven't looked at it much since then, so splats may have addressed this somewhat), it put up a lot of window dressing about "fixing balance", but mainly made small and arbitrary changes to differentiate the systems that were largely cosmetic.

Things like caster supremacy was never touched, and even only a handful of the most notoriously broken spells got any changes at all...

Admittedly, though couldn't change too much or it would damage the backwards compatibility. But they did nerf druids, shapechanging, clerics to a degree, a few touch spells, genesis is more balanced, etc. mainly spell nerfs here and there. But now they have more balanced casters that you can use in place of the tier 1's, and they have rules to limit spellcasting, options to better regulate item creation so it's not just spend resources + time = item, weaken prepared casting, have spell fumbles, a subsystem that can be given to any martial class for free that not only increases their power but also gives them options in combat and reduces ability taxes for feats, etc. etc.

Psyren

2015-10-29, 08:29 AM

Love the opportunity he shamelessly took to trash talk Pathfinder's biggest competition. :smallbiggrin:

I didn't see anything about 5e in that quote. :smallwink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

3.5 Allip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm)
PF Allip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/allip)

Yeah, I'd say he's right.

Milo v3

2015-10-29, 08:35 AM

PF is much better with CR's. For one, they removed things like dragons having CR's lower than they should because the 3e dev's thought "it's a boss monster, so it should be harder than normal for it's CR".... ignoring the point of CR in the first place. Basing CR's off math like PF does is so much better. But yes... Cr's still suck.

Vhaidara

2015-10-29, 08:55 AM

3.5 Allip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm)
PF Allip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/allip)

Yeah, I'd say he's right.

since the differences are actually kind of subtle for those speed reading the statblock
PF version has 4 more HP, 1 less AC, and deals Wis Damage instead of Drain (with a save to negate)

Psyren

2015-10-29, 09:01 AM

since the differences are actually kind of subtle for those speed reading the statblock
PF version has 4 more HP, 1 less AC, and deals Wis Damage instead of Drain (with a save to negate)

Also the wis damage from the touch can be negated with a will save instead of being automatic. And the fascinate save DC is lower, while still having the 24 hour immunity.

Vhaidara

2015-10-29, 09:03 AM

since the differences are actually kind of subtle for those speed reading the statblock
PF version has 4 more HP, 1 less AC, and deals Wis Damage instead of Drain (with a save to negate)

Also the wis damage from the touch can be negated with a will save instead of being automatic. And the fascinate save DC is lower, while still having the 24 hour immunity.

gotcha covered already Psyren

Psyren

2015-10-29, 09:08 AM

My bad, my bad. Totally skimmed that :smalltongue:

Abithrios

2015-10-29, 11:35 AM

since the differences are actually kind of subtle for those speed reading the statblock
PF version has 4 more HP, 1 less AC, and deals Wis Damage instead of Drain (with a save to negate)

Also, the 3.5 version gets 5 temporary hit points when it touches someone, so the pathfinder version probably takes less damage to defeat. That is most of the damage that a third level character does with a magic missile.

If I recall correctly, incorporeal creatures take half damage rather than having a miss chance, but I don't think that has much effect in this case.

Vhaidara

2015-10-29, 11:37 AM

Pathfinder version still gets that. And yeah, they take half damage from magic weapons instead of a 50% miss chance. Still doesn't help you if you don't have a magic weapon yet.

Psyren

2015-10-29, 11:51 AM

If I recall correctly, incorporeal creatures take half damage rather than having a miss chance, but I don't think that has much effect in this case.

It helps a little:

1) You'll always do a minimum of 1 damage rather than doing nothing on a miss.
2) Effects that trigger on a hit or on doing damage (see above), e.g. Jabbing Style or energy enchantments on your weapon, will always work.

137beth

2015-10-29, 03:45 PM

My first guess would've been SKR, though.

Hey, let's be fair! SKR magically reversed a bunch of his longest held 'beliefs' shortly after leaving Paizo. He has since done a Kickstarter for his own d20 game (Five Moons RPG) which, from the playtest, at least, goes a long way to fixing the issues inherent in 3.5 and Pathfinder. I don't think it's fair to blame SKR for all the stuff he said while at Paizo.

James Jacobs is the one who says that balance issues in the game are "a myth spread by people with agendas". He is also a staunch believer in Oberoni (i.e., any and all critisism you might have of Pathfinder are just things GMs are supposed to fix themselves). Maybe James Jacobs will reverse all of his positions if he ever leaves Paizo....or maybe not.

James Jacobs is also responsible for much of the Monster Manual II in 3.0. I don't think anyone can seriously defend the balance of that book with a straight face. As far as I know, Jacobs is mainly a fluff writer for Paizo, but he occasionally gets involved in crunch and then stuff like this happens.

This isn't a general defense of the crab or any other products/design decisions, but the Zceryll article seems to have been written by Eytan Bernstein, not James Jacobs. Unless that is an alias I am unaware of.

Huh? The article with the Monstrous Crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) says "by James Jacobs" at the top.

Zombulian

2015-10-29, 03:52 PM

Hey, let's be fair! SKR magically reversed a bunch of his longest held 'beliefs' shortly after leaving Paizo. He has since done a Kickstarter for his own d20 game (Five Moons RPG) which, from the playtest, at least, goes a long way to fixing the issues inherent in 3.5 and Pathfinder. I don't think it's fair to blame SKR for all the stuff he said while at Paizo.

James Jacobs is the one who says that balance issues in the game are "a myth spread by people with agendas". He is also a staunch believer in Oberoni (i.e., any and all critisism you might have of Pathfinder are just things GMs are supposed to fix themselves). Maybe James Jacobs will reverse all of his positions if he ever leaves Paizo....or maybe not.

James Jacobs is also responsible for much of the Monster Manual II in 3.0. I don't think anyone can seriously defend the balance of that book with a straight face. As far as I know, Jacobs is mainly a fluff writer for Paizo, but he occasionally gets involved in crunch and then stuff like this happens.

Huh? The article with the Monstrous Crab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a) says "by James Jacobs" at the top.

The Binder article not the other one.

elonin

2015-10-29, 05:02 PM

Do the CR/EL charts work closely enough that they are interchangeable? I do think its telling that for groups playing 3.5/pf interchangeably more people will tend to use PF unless there is specific cheese being sought.

I do think in general that pathfinder is a bit better balance. On the question of caster supremacy, how does the changing of the concentration rules weigh in? I've played a partial caster and realized that he'd never be good enough to risk casting in combat. It's even worse for gishes.

icefractal

2015-10-29, 05:08 PM

Better balanced in general? No.* But Pathfinder does have more accurate CRs. Not perfect, or even close, but they did at least nail down a few things - the amount of SR is generally 10+CR, high-level monsters don't have as many gaping weaknesses, no low-CR creatures full of SoDs, etc.

How PF's balance compares to 3.5 depends on what system knowledge level we're talking about.
* None, choices made entirely based on names - More balanced, probably.
* Light, some basic optimization - Better in some areas, but overall worse.
* Moderate optimization - Worse balance, unless everyone is a caster.
* Strong PO - Better balance vs monsters, but pretty much casters only.
* TO - Better, as the extremes are much less extreme.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-29, 05:57 PM

This isn't a general defense of the crab or any other products/design decisions, but the Zceryll article seems to have been written by Eytan Bernstein, not James Jacobs. Unless that is an alias I am unaware of.

While Zceryll is definitely completely broken, I was actually referring to an even more obscure vestige, The Green Lady (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2h3qh?The-Green-Lady#13).

Hey, let's be fair! SKR magically reversed a bunch of his longest held 'beliefs' shortly after leaving Paizo.

Ok, I'll be fair and admit an error here. When I said I would have guessed SKR first, it was because of his work on Savage Species, a book for playable monster characters, which is extremely broken. I figured since he wrote such a broken "monster book" it would make sense that he wrote the crab, and my assumption had nothing to do w/ all the awful things he said while working for Paizo.

But...apparently he was not an author of that book, and I was mistaken. Sorry, SKR. Still angry about your hatred of monks, but on this you're not at fault.

It's nice to know he's reversed his views since leaving, even though that's super sketchy. I did genuinely enjoy and agree with a lot of his rants about game mechanics back on his original website back in the early 2000's. Then, he just...turned bad...

ZamielVanWeber

2015-10-29, 06:13 PM

Milo v3

2015-10-29, 06:29 PM

Digression on Balance

Best description for PF's balance I've seen.

Ungoded

2015-10-29, 06:49 PM

While Zceryll is definitely completely broken, I was actually referring to an even more obscure vestige, The Green Lady (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2h3qh?The-Green-Lady#13).

Ah, yes, The Green Lady. I had forgotten all about her, tucked away on an adventure path forum thread. When someone else linked the Zceryll article, I assumed that was the broken vestige in question.

At least The Green Lady was never officially published.

Zombulian

2015-10-29, 07:07 PM

While Zceryll is definitely completely broken, I was actually referring to an even more obscure vestige, The Green Lady (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2h3qh?The-Green-Lady#13).

Mmmm gross.

Zanos

2015-10-29, 07:40 PM

Pathfinders CR system might be somewhat better, but its so fundamentally flawed that its like they cured a minor cold in a patient that has terminal cancer. They could have done a lot more, and the CR system in pathfinder still collapses immediately under the slightest bit of optimization, or if characters are poorly built. There is a very narrow scope for which it is at all accurate. It still doesn't function well, and I still have to look at each monster individually to determine whether or not a party can handle it, and some monsters are still horribly CR'd, either over or under.

Hey, let's be fair! SKR magically reversed a bunch of his longest held 'beliefs' shortly after leaving Paizo. He has since done a Kickstarter for his own d20 game (Five Moons RPG) which, from the playtest, at least, goes a long way to fixing the issues inherent in 3.5 and Pathfinder. I don't think it's fair to blame SKR for all the stuff he said while at Paizo.

James Jacobs is the one who says that balance issues in the game are "a myth spread by people with agendas". He is also a staunch believer in Oberoni (i.e., any and all critisism you might have of Pathfinder are just things GMs are supposed to fix themselves). Maybe James Jacobs will reverse all of his positions if he ever leaves Paizo....or maybe not.
My biggest beef with him is that there are entire threads where he will answer questions about game mechanics, but simultaneously claim to not be a rules guy and that its just his opinion. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if you work for a company that produces a product, you shouldn't make comments from your official account with that company about that product while also claiming to be speaking unofficially.

Milo v3

2015-10-29, 07:48 PM

My biggest beef with him is that there are entire threads where he will answer questions about game mechanics, but simultaneously claim to not be a rules guy and that its just his opinion. Maybe I'm in the minority, but if you work for a company that produces a product, you shouldn't make comments from your official account with that company about that product while also claiming to be speaking unofficially.

It's really disappointing that there is only one PF dev who even has an account for non-official stuff.

Thurbane

2015-10-29, 10:07 PM

Mmmm gross.

After only a skim, I can just imagine the problems that someone getting an at will (1/5 rounds) 1st level Wizard spell as an SLA (i.e. no XP or component cost). Wondering what some of the more broken spells one could chose are?

Also, for comparison, I believe there is a ToM vestige that give all day Turn/Rebuke (again, 1/5 rounds), but was a bit higher than a 2nd level vestige (AFB).

Zombulian

2015-10-29, 10:44 PM

After only a skim, I can just imagine the problems that someone getting an at will (1/5 rounds) 1st level Wizard spell as an SLA (i.e. no XP or component cost). Wondering what some of the more broken spells one could chose are?

Also, for comparison, I believe there is a ToM vestige that give all day Turn/Rebuke (again, 1/5 rounds), but was a bit higher than a 2nd level vestige (AFB).

I think it's the 1st lvl Wiz spell as much as you want as a level 2 vestige part.

zergling.exe

2015-10-29, 10:54 PM

I think it's the 1st lvl Wiz spell as much as you want as a level 2 vestige part.

Innate spell that you can choose everytime you rebind at level 3!

Beheld

2015-10-29, 11:24 PM

Zanos

2015-10-29, 11:57 PM

Bucky

2015-10-30, 12:09 AM

Yeah that... really isn't a big deal. Great, you can Color Spray once per fight! That's... pretty much what the Wizard was doing, except that he can do it next round if he needs to. That seems tremendously average and not at all OP.

Why choose Color Spray, when you could take an hours/level spell? Use Mount and swarm your enemies with disposable meatshields. Or keep the party back line perpetually Mage Armored. In a less combat-focused setting, take Charm Person instead and use it on everyone you meet.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 12:11 AM

There are 1st level buff spells with low duration you could keep up indefinitely with it. Having a 1st level spell 1/encounter at level 3 is pretty good even if you aren't abusing it for short duration buffs.

You are spending your entire character to do that. If you are spending your entire character to be a level 1 Wizard, or to have permanent protection from evil for the party, that is tremendously not broken.

Zanos

2015-10-30, 12:45 AM

You are spending your entire character to do that. If you are spending your entire character to be a level 1 Wizard, or to have permanent protection from evil for the party, that is tremendously not broken.
You're "spending" a 2nd level vestige to do that, actually. The other benefits of the vestige, specifically being able to use spell trigger items, is also pretty nice.

ShneekeyTheLost

2015-10-30, 01:14 AM

I'm... a bit confused here.

That Damn Crab was an exercise in template-stacking and why it is unbalanced. It was never designed or intended to be something to be used in any reasonable game. The entire purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate just how broken template-stacking was. The official statement was... it looks like it was written by someone other than the original author. Heck, if nothing else, he should've gone 'see? This is why 3.5 is bad, because you can do stuff like this in 3.5 but not in PF', which would've gone over WAY better. Yanno, if it was actually true.

I'm betting on some pre-defined press release that was handed to him to issue.

LudicSavant

2015-10-30, 01:25 AM

3.5 Allip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm)
PF Allip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/allip)

Yeah, I'd say he's right.

So, they added more hp, increased its attack bonus, reduced its AC by 1, reduced the DC of the will save on Babble by 1, and gave it a critical ability drain effect? :smallconfused:

Oh, and the touch attack is now wis damage and has a save.

squiggit

2015-10-30, 01:26 AM

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 02:44 AM

What? No. Monstrous Crab is from an article called The Lost Coast: Monsters of the Tides as part of a series called Far Corners of the World. Nothing to do with template stacking. The monstrous crab doesn't even have any templates applied to it in the first place.

Correct.

Link to archived version: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a

Monstrous Crab
Large Vermin (Aquatic)
Hit Dice: 7d8+35 (66 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), swim 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 19 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +8 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 17
Base Attack/Grapple: +5/+19
Attack: Claw +10 melee (1d8+9)
Full Attack: 2 claws +10 melee (1d8+9)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Constrict 1d8+9, improved grab, powerful claws
Special Qualities: Amphibious, darkvision 60 ft., vermin traits
Saves: Fort +10, Ref +4, Will +2
Abilities: Str 22, Dex 14, Con 21, Int --, Wis 10, Cha 2
Skills: --
Feats: --
Environment: Temperate coastal
Organization: Solitary, pair, or swarm (6-10)
Challenge Rating: 3 :smalleek:
Treasure: None
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: 8-10 HD (Large), 11-21 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: --

This massive creature scuttles about with surprising speed and grace for its size. Its shell is brightly colored in shades of deep orange to bone white, and its twin claws are both sharp and large enough to behead a horse with one slice.

Monstrous crabs are scavengers, and they feed upon the reeking bodies of dead sea creatures that wash up on shore. Despite this, they aren't above attacking still-living creatures upon sight, since monstrous crabs are always hungry.

Combat

A monstrous crab is straightforward in combat. It lumbers forth toward the nearest target and attacks with its claws. Once a monstrous crab has a morsel or creature in each claw, it retreats into the water to feed. Creatures held in its claws when it does so soon drown if they can't breathe water.

Constrict (Ex): With a successful grapple check, a monstrous crab can crush a grabbed opponent, dealing 1d8+9 points of bludgeoning damage.

Improved Grab (Ex): If a monstrous crab hits an opponent that is at least one size category smaller than itself with a claw attack, it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it gets a hold, it also constricts on the same round.

Powerful Claws (Ex): A monstrous crab always applies 1.5 times its Strength modifier to damage inflicted with its claws. Additionally, it gains a +4 racial bonus on grapple checks.

Vermin Traits: A monstrous crab is immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). It also has darkvision (60-foot range).

http://i65.tinypic.com/8vptvc.jpg

Gnorman

2015-10-30, 05:17 AM

Yup, TDC is just a case of someone designing something very poorly, and then not having the decency to own up to their mistake in good faith. Jacobs' statement comes off as ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst - I'm not exactly sure what about "vermin design theory" has changed so drastically in the last twenty years, but I doubt that Pathfinder has struck upon some kind of vermin design nirvana. It's not really rocket science to determine that a creature with 66 HP, a +10 attack bonus, two attacks per round at 1d8+9 damage, and a +19 grapple modifier is going to wreck level 3 characters with, charitably, 30-40 HP and grapple modifiers of maaaaaybe, at max, +7.

Florian

2015-10-30, 06:18 AM

"vermin design theory"

I think that there's actually an easy answer to this one, which also tends to explain a lot about TDC:
The way the original creature type "vermin" was designed (Mindless, no feats and skills) had the inbuild flaw that it was under-cr'd from the start, so designers compensated by adding more HD than usual, mostly in the range of CR*2,5 or some such.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 06:22 AM

You're "spending" a 2nd level vestige to do that, actually. The other benefits of the vestige, specifically being able to use spell trigger items, is also pretty nice.

At all the levels you even remotely care, that is your entire character. I mean, great, you can also use spell trigger items that you don't have or are a waste of money if you do have. But it still is the case that you are a level 3 character who is capable of 1) Using a Color Spray once per combat, 2) Nothing else, unless they are undead, in which case you can turn them. That is super unimpressive.

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 06:33 AM

At all the levels you even remotely care, that is your entire character. I mean, great, you can also use spell trigger items that you don't have or are a waste of money if you do have. But it still is the case that you are a level 3 character who is capable of 1) Using a Color Spray once per combat, 2) Nothing else, unless they are undead, in which case you can turn them. That is super unimpressive.

You're thinking very small. Color Spray is a poor example of the spell you could use this with. Long duration buffs on a whole army, for example, would be a better use. Or obviating spells with expensive components. True, the 1st level limit puts a definite clamp on this ability, but you're dismissing it's abuse potential far too easily.

Also, those turn/rebuke attempts can be used for things like fuelling devotion feats, sacred feats etc.. Healing Devotion? Unlimited healing all day long. Not that unlimted out of combat healing is very broken, but it's not bad for a trick a human Binder can pull off at first level.

Deophaun

2015-10-30, 06:47 AM

Hmm... most broken 1st level spell I can think of for the Green Lady is magecraft. In an 8-hour day, you can have 960 crafters aiding each other for an average of around +960 to a craft check (more if you bother to invest skill points in craft and haven't dumped intelligence), which with DC scaling can give you 9,216gp worth of crafting on your first day.

So, at level 1 you don't go adventuring: you're the guy who hires the PCs to do your adventuring for you while you break WBL over your knee.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 06:57 AM

You're thinking very small. Color Spray is a poor example of the spell you could use this with. Long duration buffs on a whole army, for example, would be a better use. Or obviating spells with expensive components. True, the 1st level limit puts a definite clamp on this ability, but you're dismissing it's abuse potential far too easily.

If you have an army of people you are casting a 1st level buff on then you are in the party level 5-10 zone, and then they all die to a single creature with aoe damage.

Hmm... most broken 1st level spell I can think of for the Green Lady is magecraft. In an 8-hour day, you can have 960 crafters aiding each other for an average of around +960 to a craft check (more if you bother to invest skill points in craft and haven't dumped intelligence), which with DC scaling can give you 9,216gp worth of crafting on your first day.

So, at level 1 you don't go adventuring: you're the guy who hires the PCs to do your adventuring for you while you break WBL over your knee.

You could also just be an elan and use the regular craft skill for 3000 years and then buy all the gear you want. Being able to break WBL if your DM doesn't give you any encounters is not a problem with the Green Lady.

Deophaun

2015-10-30, 07:09 AM

You could also just be an elan and use the regular craft skill for 3000 years and then buy all the gear you want. Being able to break WBL if your DM doesn't give you any encounters is not a problem with the Green Lady.
The DM is perfectly free to give encounters. They don't stop magecraft, which is fire and forget. In a standard adventuring day, you're assumed to have 8 hours of actual adventuring, 8 hours of downtime, and 8 hours of sleep.

The point is, adventuring is now a poor use of the binder's time. Meanwhile, for your elan, 3000 years of adventuring is infinitely better than 3000 years of crafting. The former turns him into a demigod, while the later barely covers his living expenses.

Besides, your starting wealth is, RAW, your starting wealth. An elan who starts the game after spending 3000 years crafting has no more resources than a wet-behind-the-ears Azurin binder.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 07:26 AM

The DM is perfectly free to give encounters. They don't stop magecraft, which is fire and forget. In a standard adventuring day, you're assumed to have 8 hours of actual adventuring, 8 hours of downtime, and 8 hours of sleep.

Great, so you are a level 1-3 character, and your combat contribution is to be a Warrior... Not really impressed. Also, you definitely start making way less than that, because you have to have the materials. Also, I'm reading that spell, and it does not appear to allow you to craft any faster than you normally do, based on the second sentence about weeks.

Also you have to have the materials needed to craft, so you basically can't do this while adventuring. Also the Green Lady only exists in Greyhawk, and magecraft only exists in Ebberron, so you can't even do that.

The point is, adventuring is now a poor use of the binder's time. Meanwhile, for your elan, 3000 years of adventuring is infinitely better than 3000 years of crafting. The former turns him into a demigod, while the later barely covers his living expenses.

3000 years of crafting gets you money greatly in excess of your WBL, and is thus asymmetric power. 3000 years of adventuring does not.

Besides, your starting wealth is, RAW, your starting wealth. An elan who starts the game after spending 3000 years crafting has no more resources than a wet-behind-the-ears Azurin binder.

You start the game, and then declare that you spend 3000 years crafting after the game starts. And like magic, you have all the moneys.

Vhaidara

2015-10-30, 07:39 AM

You start the game, and then declare that you spend 3000 years crafting after the game starts. And like magic, you have all the moneys.

You forgot something though: The rest of your not Elan party members go forth and adventure while you go sit on the couch and played Call of Duty. Because you're spending the next three thousand years not playing the game. And, at least with every table I've played at, you're probably not getting invited back next campaign.

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 07:46 AM

Is Beheld actually the GitP forum name of a certain Paizo designer? :smalltongue:

Deophaun

2015-10-30, 07:46 AM

Great, so you are a level 1-3 character, and your combat contribution is to be a Warrior... Not really impressed. Also, you definitely start making way less than that, because you have to have the materials. Also, I'm reading that spell, and it does not appear to allow you to craft any faster than you normally do, based on the second sentence about weeks.
First, I'm not sure why you think I'm crafting any faster than normal. The general rules allow you to craft either in weeks, with your check representing silver, or days, with your check representing copper.

Second: this is just an example of its capabilities. At level 1, it has practical constraints. At level 8, when all the magecrafters can automatically hit the DC 10 to aid another while using improvised tools, not so much. At that point, you're grossing 331,240 gp every week with a single 8-hour day's work. You don't need the Green Lady bound while you're off slaying damsels and rescuing dragons. But, now that you have all that money, you are absolutely swimming in spell trigger items, so maybe it's not a bad choice.

3000 years of crafting gets you money greatly in excess of your WBL, and is thus asymmetric power. 3000 years of adventuring does not.
That requires the elan to know he is a character within a game, and thus is metagame thinking. Otherwise, power is power. The binder, meanwhile, does not need to break the fourth wall in order to reach the conclusion that bounding off into mysterious dungeons to find lost treasure is a less profitable venture than setting up a workshop.

Plus, and this is important: the binder can do both. Oh, and your elan is still a peasant, not saving nearly as much gold as you think.

You start the game, and then declare that you spend 3000 years crafting after the game starts. And like magic, you have all the moneys.
Great, so your elan stays behind while the other characters start the adventure. Would you like to roll a new one? We'll get back to your character when the campaign world has progressed 3,000 years. You fellow adventurers will have attained immortality and have more money than your elan could ever dream to craft, but at least all of the elan's power will be "asymmetric."

Beheld

2015-10-30, 07:57 AM

First, I'm not sure why you think I'm crafting any faster than normal. The general rules allow you to craft either in weeks, with your check representing silver, or days, with your check representing copper.

Second: this is just an example of its capabilities. At level 1, it has practical constraints. At level 8, when all the magecrafters can automatically hit the DC 10 to aid another while using improvised tools, not so much. At that point, you're grossing 331,240 gp every week with a single 8-hour day's work. You don't need the Green Lady bound while you're off slaying damsels and rescuing dragons. But, now that you have all that money, you are absolutely swimming in spell trigger items, so maybe it's not a bad choice.

Did you read the spell before you started posting? Are you talking about some completely different magecraft spell?

The only Magecraft spell I know is Eberron only, and therefore cannot be used by someone binding the Green Lady in the first place, and secondly, it gives a +5 competence bonus on the check for you when you craft, it doesn't create something that crafts for you while you do other things.

Is Beheld actually the GitP forum name of a certain Paizo designer? :smalltongue:

Please don't insult me like that :frown:

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 08:01 AM

Please don't insult me like that :frown:

No offence intended, it was a very tongue-in-cheek remark.

You do seem to be defending this vestige rather vigorously though. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you think our analysis of it being too good for it's level is way off the mark?

Deophaun

2015-10-30, 08:02 AM

Did you read the spell before you started posting? Are you talking about some completely different magecraft spell?

I'm sorry. My mistake. I'm thinking unseen crafter... which is level 2... arggg. That will tell me to post without sleep. :smallbiggrin:

Chronos

2015-10-30, 08:06 AM

Quoth SchneekyTheLost:

I'm... a bit confused here.

That Damn Crab was an exercise in template-stacking and why it is unbalanced.
No, you're thinking of That Pseudonatural Paragon Damned Crab, which is not nearly as interesting, and probably a lot closer to its actual CR. It's a very powerful creature (thanks to the addition of two epic templates), and which for the same reason has a very high CR. If anything, it's probably under-CRed at that point, since it'd be helpless against any spellcaster of that level.

That Damned Crab, without any modifiers, is just the base creature, which is a CR 3 monster that's guaranteed to end any encounter with a level 3 party by killing two party members. By level 5, you might have a chance, if your casters have the right spells.

Jormengand

2015-10-30, 08:07 AM

Beheld

2015-10-30, 08:12 AM

No offence intended, it was a very tongue-in-cheek remark.

I wasn't offended, just funning right back.

You do seem to be defending this vestige rather vigorously though. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you think our analysis of it being too good for it's level is way off the mark?

I think that this vestige is very very very far from too good for it's level. A single level 1 spell every 5 rounds is basically no more powerful than what a Wizard is doing at level 1, and less powerful than level 3, Spell Triggers items is a nice addon to a character at higher levels, but at low levels you don't have the spell trigger items to make that worthwhile, turn undead is extremely minor, and the identify ability is less good than just having detect magic at will, since detect magic at will can allow you to identify items with a spellcraft check of DC item CL+10, so lower DC, and takes less time.

The only use I can even think of that makes this character in any way able to do anything that you can't do better by just taking levels in Wizard is to take Enlarge Person, and grow your party, and that assumes you have a party of people that actually benefit from it, and are adventuring where being big isn't a drawback of its own.

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 08:14 AM

So what I'm getting out of this is "The green lady is overpowered if you theoretically optimise and proceed to ignore the fact that magecraft doesn't do what you think it does", which is true of pretty much every other application of magecraft in the entire universe.

I don't have time to pore through every every 1st level Wizards spell in all the books right now, but 1/5 rounds as an SLA has abuse potential, outside of the spells already mentioned.

I'm sure some of the better TO gurus could break it pretty badly.

Yes, this vestige is not-too-bad if you play it in the the same vein as healbot clerics or blaster wizards. It's only when you get creative that it becomes a problem.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 08:21 AM

I don't have time to pore through every every 1st level Wizards spell in all the books right now, but 1/5 rounds as an SLA has abuse potential, outside of the spells already mentioned.

I'm sure some of the better TO gurus could break it pretty badly.

Yes, this vestige is not-too-bad if you play it in the the same vein as healbot clerics or blaster wizards. It's only when you get creative that it becomes a problem.

It's a first level spell, there is no creativity that could possibly make it a problem. As demonstrated by the fact that no one has yet come up with a better use than Color Spray.

Florian

2015-10-30, 08:24 AM

Well, Summon Minor Monster is always an option and you could flood a dungeon with squirels or somesuch.

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 08:25 AM

It's a first level spell, there is no creativity that could possibly make it a problem. As demonstrated by the fact that no one has yet come up with a better use than Color Spray.

You're the one who keeps quoting Color Spray as the "best" usage, unless I've missed anything?

It's 12:25am where I am, but if I get time tomorrow, I will go looking for some spells that could be problematic.

I'm also certain someone will beat me to it by the time I get up in the morning, however...

Jormengand

2015-10-30, 08:26 AM

Yes, this vestige is not-too-bad if you play it in the the same vein as healbot clerics or blaster wizards. It's only when you get creative that it becomes a problem.

That is indeed what I just said. If you equip a truenamer with an item of polymorph and bracers of the blast barrier they become stupidly OP, but that doesn't mean that truenamers are stupidly OP in their own right.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 08:42 AM

You're the one who keeps quoting Color Spray as the "best" usage, unless I've missed anything?

Since no one else has presented a legal choice that is even remotely as good, I'm going to stick with that until someone does.

Well, Summon Minor Monster is always an option and you could flood a dungeon with squirels or somesuch.

Duration of one round per level, so the first casting ends before you can even cast again.

Starbuck_II

2015-10-30, 09:20 AM

It's a first level spell, there is no creativity that could possibly make it a problem. As demonstrated by the fact that no one has yet come up with a better use than Color Spray.

People mentioned multiple spells, you aren't listening.
Remember caster level is Binder level so this improves.
Sleep, Colorspray, Mount, Enlarge Person, Grease, Reduce Person, Mage Armor, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Protection from evil, Charm Person, Ray of enfeeblement, repair Light damage (if construct like Warforged in party), Orb of X, Death's call (for Swarms), Resinous tar, Bestow Wound, Summon X 1

Burning Blood deals 4/rd (decent damage amount for 1st level): Granted while it doesn't kill them they get a bonus to hit/dam.

A Tad Insane

2015-10-30, 09:43 AM

In regards to the green lady;
Remember, you're not just getting a first level spell you can cast all day, but also +2 charisma for 24 hours and endless turn undeads, all on your first level binder. And, more importantly, what else would you want to bind?
Sure, you could say "a wizard could do it better", but do we really need a reminder on this board about that*?

*On any day that isn't mon(k)day, that is

Jormengand

2015-10-30, 09:50 AM

People mentioned multiple spells, you aren't listening.
Remember caster level is Binder level so this improves.
Sleep, Colorspray, Mount, Enlarge Person, Grease, Reduce Person, Mage Armor, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Protection from evil, Charm Person, Ray of enfeeblement, repair Light damage (if construct like Warforged in party), Orb of X, Death's call (for Swarms), Resinous tar, Bestow Wound, Summon X 1

Burning Blood deals 4/rd (decent damage amount for 1st level): Granted while it doesn't kill them they get a bonus to hit/dam.

Besides abusing mount to flood the dungeon with infinite horses, none of these seem amazingly abusable. I mean, charm person at will is nice, but truenamers are laughing at your vague attempts at at-will healing abilities and a +4 to AC could more easily be obtained by... wearing armour?

Ungoded

2015-10-30, 09:53 AM

I can't, off the top of my head, think of a particular 1st level spell that is going to be a game-breaker (for my games, other gamers' experiences may vary) as a 1/5rd SLA, even at 1st level. Some are more powerful choices than others, particularly those with out-of-combat use, but nothing immediately comes to mind that will ruin a campaign.

Of course, there are a lot of 1st level spells that I can't think of off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are also uses for the spells I can think of that I haven't considered.

However, even if there aren't any game-breaking uses that can result from having a 1st level spell as a 1/5rd SLA, I don't like the decision to leave it completely open. I feel pretty safe in the assumption that James did not look at every 1st level spell available in official sources and consider their abusability as 1/5rd SLA's. It just seems like a better decision to give the binder a particular spell, or a list of 1st level spells to choose from, that had been considered for abusability.

Letting the binder choose from a large (all 1st level spells published) list with the potential to grow (new spells published) just seems like a very short-sighted decision. Why open it to even the potential for abuse when it would be so easy to restrict the list?

Aharon

2015-10-30, 10:13 AM

@Green Lady Discussion
I'm not completely sure, but I think multiple castings of Light of Lunia overlap, so you can have 12 instances up at the same time at first level, for decent damage.

I'm not sure on how discharging works, either - the spell only states that you can choose to expend some or all of the light as a ray, but doesn't explicitly state what action it is. A sane reading would be that this requires a standard action or attack action, but without more information, it could also be a free action, allowing you to nova for up to 24d6 damage, which wouldn't be only decent, but on the powerful end of things.

Other than that, intentionally or unintentionally, the ability is a bit limited by not allowing arcane 1st level spells, but only spells on the wizard spell-list. Getting Dispel Magic or Haste via Trapsmith and similar shenanigans would make this vestige undoubtedly overpowered.

Abithrios

2015-10-30, 10:56 AM

Besides abusing mount to flood the dungeon with infinite horses, none of these seem amazingly abusable. I mean, charm person at will is nice, but truenamers are laughing at your vague attempts at at-will healing abilities and a +4 to AC could more easily be obtained by... wearing armour?

A level one sorcerer can already flood the dungeon with like four horses. That would probably be helpful abusable if your DM lets you use them in combat.

I can't, off the top of my head, think of a particular 1st level spell that is going to be a game-breaker (for my games, other gamers' experiences may vary) as a 1/5rd SLA, even at 1st level. Some are more powerful choices than others, particularly those with out-of-combat use, but nothing immediately comes to mind that will ruin a campaign.

Of course, there are a lot of 1st level spells that I can't think of off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are also uses for the spells I can think of that I haven't considered.

However, even if there aren't any game-breaking uses that can result from having a 1st level spell as a 1/5rd SLA, I don't like the decision to leave it completely open. I feel pretty safe in the assumption that James did not look at every 1st level spell available in official sources and consider their abusability as 1/5rd SLA's. It just seems like a better decision to give the binder a particular spell, or a list of 1st level spells to choose from, that had been considered for abusability.

Letting the binder choose from a large (all 1st level spells published) list with the potential to grow (new spells published) just seems like a very short-sighted decision. Why open it to even the potential for abuse when it would be so easy to restrict the list?

This is pretty much where I am at on this. It seems like if you use this as a low level binder, it's your only class feature for the day. If you have to fight that day, you only have one casting per fight, so you are not any better off than the sorcerer in a four encounter day, who has more flexibility with their second spell known. Sure, they can't change their spells out the next day, but still, you are spending as much as 80% of the time pretending to be a mundane (not even a martial).

Enlarge person could be nice, but you would not be the one to benefit the most-you would probably want to cast in on the barbarian, and I definitely think that if you are being a team player, you should get better tools than more selfish builds.

If you choose an out of combat skill, it might be more abusable, but you better not have to fight that day, because you have no active class features unless you are fighting undead.

Sure, you can use items to cast spells, but that isn't exactly the best thing at low level. You simply don't have the money to buy lots of such items.

If you use this at higher levels, your first level spell is even less cool.

Flickerdart

2015-10-30, 11:03 AM

Well, let's take a look at ye olde Wizard spell list. First of all, there are hundreds of 1st level wizard spells, so if nothing else, this vestige grants tremendous versatility to a low-level party. I will ignore the use case Jacobs himself presented (Improved Binding) as well as Improved Bind Vestige to get this on any class, and only look at what a 3rd level binder can do, as well as usefulness in the long term. I'm also not terribly concerned about scenarios where you're buffing a hundred guys, and I won't be including already mentioned spells.

alarm: Not an everyday thing, but at 2 hours/level, a binder can alarm a massive area, and keep track of intruders' precise locations.
alibi: Fool everybody you meet into thinking they've met you before. Don't be a stranger!
ancient knowledge: +5 on every Knowledge check you make, and you count as trained if you have one of a couple of feats. There are a bunch more spells like this that grant +5 to a few things, such as friendly face for social skills.
combat readiness: +1/CL initiative boost for your entire team, up to +6.
create trap: These last for 12 hours, and you can make so many. They're CR1 traps, but you're a level 3 dude.
ebon eyes: Darkvision for the party.
extract drug: Loads and loads of drugs.
eyes of the avoral: +8 to Spot for the party. This is effectively +14 for one guy (+8 on him, and +2 from each of the other 3 party members finally being able to use Aid Another reliably).
mighty wallop: Not quite as potent as its big brother, boosting all your party's weapons by a size category contributes reasonably well to damage.
power word pain: Remember this guy? It's still plenty good at level 3.
summon monster I: Suicide badgers into traps, use them for flanking, scouting, etc.
lesser spider form: Turn into a spider with all its abilities, gain temporary HP.
sticky floor: Set up hours/level entangling traps.

There are definitely a couple of useful day-to-day abilities - summon monster I, power word pain, lesser spider form, combat readiness - but the greatest power of this vestige seems to be setting up traps ahead of time.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 11:12 AM

ComaVision

2015-10-30, 11:14 AM

Dusk Eclipse

2015-10-30, 11:37 AM

Go Cha heavy and pick up some divine feats, IIRC there was one that added cha mod as damage.

nedz

2015-10-30, 12:00 PM

Well, as I read the Green Lady Vestige: you only get 1 TU per 5 rounds. This limits the Devotion feat abuse a little since many of them require more than 1 TU per activation. Travel Devotion would be awesome for instance, extra Move action every round, but that takes 3 x TU per activation.

Because most of them last 1 minute you could keep two up most of the time.

The ones you could use are

Destruction Devotion - cumulative AC reduction
Earth Devotion - Terrain modification as an immediate action, also +5 sacred or profane on Balance, Climb, and Jump checks
Evil Devotion - mass DR /Good, as an immediate action
Good Devotion - mass DR /Evil, as an immediate action
Healing Devotion - infinite fast healing
Strength Devotion - all your melle attacks gain the adamantine property, also gain a slam attack or +2 damage on your existing natural attacks
Sun Devotion - +1 / level damage against undead, also it's a torch

Flickerdart

2015-10-30, 12:16 PM

The problem is that choosing to do any of those things at all just makes you into an NPC Warrior class + that for the day. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to be a level 3 Warrior.
You're much better off than a level 3 warrior:

You get unlimited turning, which can indefinitely power Devotion feats that require 1 use to activate, such as: Healing (fast healing all day), Strength (slam attack & bypass hardness), Destruction (reduce target's AC every time you hit), Earth (ignore difficult terrain and get skill bonuses, or create difficult/damaging terrain).
You can use wands and scrolls and stuff.
You have a better Will save and a superior skill list.
You get a Pact Augmentation.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 12:24 PM

You're much better off than a level 3 warrior:

You get unlimited turning, which can indefinitely power Devotion feats that require 1 use to activate, such as: Healing (fast healing all day), Strength (slam attack & bypass hardness), Destruction (reduce target's AC every time you hit), Earth (ignore difficult terrain and get skill bonuses, or create difficult/damaging terrain).
You can use wands and scrolls and stuff.
You have a better Will save and a superior skill list.
You get a Pact Augmentation.

1) Yes, if you spend feats on devotion feats, for your character that is never going to bind this vestige in combat after level 5, you can totally use a couple.
2) You can only use them if you have them, and at level 3, you basically don't. Nor are they particularly good in combat.
3) I did say in combat.
4) Warriors have full BAB, you don't. At level 3 Pact Augmentation cancels that out exactly.

I'm not saying that you are better of killing yourself than playing that character, I am saying that character is so far south of overpowered that if he was in a party with a Druid/Wizard/Rogue he might genuinely realize that he is the weakest character and feel bad about it.

Flickerdart

2015-10-30, 12:30 PM

ZamielVanWeber

2015-10-30, 12:33 PM

Will saves are tremendously useful in combat.

And Pact Augmentation can cancel out the BAB, but it can also do a bunch of other things. That's the binder's power - he can be a different person every day to meet new challenges, whereas your warrior is always a warrior.

Also the ability to reliably activate a wand or staff in combat only improves with level and opens up a world of in and out of combat options.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 12:40 PM

Will saves are tremendously useful in combat.

Yeah, was referring to the skill list, not the will save, see previous comment.

And Pact Augmentation can cancel out the BAB, but it can also do a bunch of other things. That's the binder's power - he can be a different person every day to meet new challenges, whereas your warrior is always a warrior.

Yes, it can do a bunch of other equally tiny and meaningless things. You can get an extremely minor bonus to a few things so small you might never notice it. Soul Binding is the binder's power to rebuild their character into being a less good X than X, not Pact Augmentation, and so when you spend your Soul Binding on this vestige, and choose a noncombat spell, you are a Warrior in combat. Yeah, you might have higher will save, and one extremely tiny bonus to something. As I said before, no one cares. I'm not saying that you are better of killing yourself than playing that character, I am saying that character is so far south of overpowered that if he was in a party with a Druid/Wizard/Rogue he might genuinely realize that he is the weakest character and feel bad about it.

Florian

2015-10-30, 12:50 PM

Duration of one round per level, so the first casting ends before you can even cast again.

You know I was pulling your leg by chosing that specific spell?

Beheld

2015-10-30, 12:57 PM

You know I was pulling your leg by chosing that specific spell?

Obviously I did not :smile:

137beth

2015-10-30, 07:00 PM

If you want really bad CR assignments, take a look at the things Paizo added to the core rules. For example, a Skeletal Champion (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/skeletalChampion.html#skeletal-champion) has a CR one higher than a normal skeleton of its HD, but it retains all the abilities of the base creature! So, for example, a 10th level NPC who becomes a skeletal champion retains all of their class features, gains the undead type traits, and as its CR reduced to 6! A 17th level wizard skeletal champion retains full casting but is only CR 8:smalleek: I think I can safely say that skeletal champion is far more overpowered than any online vestiges.
The issue is that the normal skeleton template is balanced with the assumption that it removes all of the base creature's abilities. The skeletal champion template doesn't, so it has no chance of ever being accurate unless it takes the base creature's overall power (and not just HD) into account. Every other template in the game accomplishes this task by modifying the base creature's CR, and not basing the templated creature's CR solely on its hit-dice. Turns out Paizo missed the memo on how almost all templates in the game are supposed to work:smallconfused:

On the other extreme, the advanced template (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monsterAdvancement.html) is a +1 CR, but does almost nothing to make the monster more threatening. And the stripped out all the actual useful guidelines for advancing monsters:smallsigh:

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 07:22 PM

Duration of one round per level, so the first casting ends before you can even cast again.

Mount would be better, as someone already pointed out.

For sheer mass, being able to generate 114,000 lbs. of horse meat in an hour is hard to beat for a 1st level spell.

The problem is that choosing to do any of those things at all just makes you into an NPC Warrior class + that for the day. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to be a level 3 Warrior.

Well, also an unlimited healer for the investment of the Healing Devotion feat. Fast healing 1 to yourself for 1 minute as a swift action, or fast healing 1 to another for a minute as a full round action. Nicely gets around the need for stocking up on Wands of CLW/Vigor. The fast healing gets better as you level up.

And speaking of Wands/WBL, you're also a Wand-slinger. Eternal Wands if you don't want to keep replacing them after 50 uses.

And a floating +2 on Cha.

Yes, not groundbreaking, but certainly not "A Warrior with one SLA" as you keep portraying it.

Also, with one very common feat for a Binder, you can be doing this at level 1...

Beheld

2015-10-30, 07:40 PM

Well, also an unlimited healer for the investment of the Healing Devotion feat. Fast healing 1 to yourself for 1 minute as a swift action, or fast healing 1 to another for a minute as a full round action. Nicely gets around the need for stocking up on Wands of CLW/Vigor. The fast healing gets better as you level up.

I don't make a habit of taking feats that become useless by level 5.

And speaking of Wands/WBL, you're also a Wand-slinger. Eternal Wands if you don't want to keep replacing them after 50 uses.

Which at level 1-3 is zero eternal wands! And at level 5-7 is you picking this instead of a useful vestige.

Thurbane

2015-10-30, 07:45 PM

You are selectively responding to certain points raised by people, and totally ignoring others - I'm not sure if this means you agree with the points raised, or are just ignoring them as you have no counterpoint?

I think you've made your stance abundantly clear (there is no conceivable way to exploit any of this vestiges abilities). I believe I have made mine clear, as well (you're not going to break the game with it like you would with Pun Pun, but it could be problematic in some people's games). Feel free to disagree.

I'll try not to waste your time or mine any further in this thread.

Beheld

2015-10-30, 09:14 PM

You are selectively responding to certain points raised by people, and totally ignoring others - I'm not sure if this means you agree with the points raised, or are just ignoring them as you have no counterpoint?

Everyone has been selectively responding to mine, I'm not sure why I'm the only person who isn't allowed to do that. For example, I didn't restate my position on 3e wish, because I stated a position on how Wish works, and she ignored 75% of my position to comment on one part of it with a flat contradiction with no support, why would I waste my time reposting the exact thing I just said.

I didn't respond to your example of mount, because who cares, it is mount. You can summon tons of horses, and the result is that you have tons of horses that can serve as your mount. If you have the handle animal skill (or more likely, have a Druid with the handle animal skill) he or you can spend move actions to push a single mount to attack someone. And still no one cares. It is a great trapfinder if the DM makes really stupid traps that don't make sense. But you are giving up the ability to be anything better than a Warrior in combat for this extremely trivial utility.

If you think that is overpowered, you are wrong. The end.

I think you've made your stance abundantly clear (there is no conceivable way to exploit any of this vestiges abilities).

Please don't lie. It isn't nice.

I believe I have made mine clear, as well (you're not going to break the game with it like you would with Pun Pun, but it could be problematic in some people's games). Feel free to disagree.

As I said, you aren't going to break the game at all, and you have to give up being a real character in combat at all in order to get even the marginal utility that you can get out of the vestige. So when people say that this vestige is "broken" and "OP" I genuinely wonder what game they are playing.

Ssalarn

2015-10-30, 09:25 PM

But...apparently he was not an author of that book, and I was mistaken. Sorry, SKR. Still angry about your hatred of monks, but on this you're not at fault.

That's another common misconception. SKR's job included being the forum community voice for the team. He said, in the same thread literally right after passing along the monk ruling that set the forums on fire, that he turned to Jason Buhlman, who was in charge of updating the monk from 3.5-PF in the first place, and asked him what he meant when he wrote it, and then passed that on.

Milo v3

2015-10-30, 11:08 PM

That's another common misconception. SKR's job included being the forum community voice for the team. He said, in the same thread literally right after passing along the monk ruling that set the forums on fire, that he turned to Jason Buhlman, who was in charge of updating the monk from 3.5-PF in the first place, and asked him what he meant when he wrote it, and then passed that on.

Something I find interesting is that Mark Seifter is getting praise rather than hate in his role as the mouth-piece of the Dev's.

Vhaidara

2015-10-30, 11:51 PM

Something I find interesting is that Mark Seifter is getting praise rather than hate in his role as the mouth-piece of the Dev's.

Afaict, that's because he was one of us first.

Psyren

2015-10-31, 10:13 AM

So, they added more hp, increased its attack bonus, reduced its AC by 1, reduced the DC of the will save on Babble by 1, and gave it a critical ability drain effect? :smallconfused:

Oh, and the touch attack is now wis damage and has a save.

Er, yes - even without considering the changes to incorporeal creatures in general, they nerfed it enough in PF to make CR 3 far more reasonable than the 3.5 version. What's so confusing about that? :smallconfused:

LudicSavant

2015-10-31, 10:49 AM

Er, yes - even without considering the changes to incorporeal creatures in general, they nerfed it enough in PF to make CR 3 far more reasonable than the 3.5 version. What's so confusing about that? :smallconfused:

Nothing is confusing about that. The post just hadn't mentioned any reasons, so I did.

Vhaidara

2015-10-31, 11:00 AM

Nothing is confusing about that. The post just hadn't mentioned any reasons, so I did.

I summed up the differences in the next post.

Chronos

2015-10-31, 01:06 PM

On the Green Lady, consider this: There are builds that use Tenebrous, a 5th-level vestige, just for the Turn Undead ability. That's generally considered his best ability, and opens up a wide variety of options. The Green Lady gives the exact same ability, on a vestige you can use at character level 1 (assuming you take Improved Binding, but a binder not taking that is like a druid not taking Natural Spell).

A human with Improved Binding and Healing Devotion who binds the Green Lady isn't just doing the same thing the sorcerer is doing (spamming some first-level spell); he's also doing the same thing the cleric is doing (fighting with a little bit of armor, a d8, and a morningstar, healing, and turning undead if you meet any). Except that unlike the first-level sorcerer or cleric, he can use that spell and that healing as much as he wants, which at first level, really does make a huge difference.

Suppose that he does take Color Spray as his spell. He's already better off than the wizard or sorcerer. The only reason that a wizard doesn't always use color spray is that a lot of things are immune to it. But at first level, what are you fighting that's immune to Color Spray? Most likely skeletons and zombies... and you can deal with those, too. Oh, and the wizard also won't always use Color Spray, because she only has limited spell slots (which run out pretty quick at first level), and the binder doesn't.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 01:46 PM

A human with Improved Binding and Healing Devotion who binds the Green Lady isn't just doing the same thing the sorcerer is doing (spamming some first-level spell); he's also doing the same thing the cleric is doing (fighting with a little bit of armor, a d8, and a morningstar, healing, and turning undead if you meet any). Except that unlike the first-level sorcerer or cleric, he can use that spell and that healing as much as he wants, which at first level, really does make a huge difference.

As far as level 1 characters go, if you are never going to be higher than level 1, the Binder is still not broken, but is one of the best level 1 characters around by using color spray once per fight and bringing healing. Like a slightly better Dread Necromancer. But, and this is the important point, still not overpowered in any way. And of course, you have to commit yourself to a very specific build that sucks later on. I mean you can spend a feat on infinite out of combat healing for the party, but that feat immediately becomes useless when you are level 5-9, and possibly later. I mean, we could talk about how all Wizard's take Precocious Apprentice at level 1 for Scorching Ray, but we don't, because that feat is terrible if you aren't level 1-2.

Suppose that he does take Color Spray as his spell. He's already better off than the wizard or sorcerer. The only reason that a wizard doesn't always use color spray is that a lot of things are immune to it. But at first level, what are you fighting that's immune to Color Spray? Most likely skeletons and zombies... and you can deal with those, too. Oh, and the wizard also won't always use Color Spray, because she only has limited spell slots (which run out pretty quick at first level), and the binder doesn't.

A Wizard at level 1 has at least 3, maybe 4 color sprays just as a generalist. Specialists or Domain Wizards or Elven Generalists could easily have more. Since you will probably have four or fewer fights per day, you already use one per fight. Now, whether you are more likely to have a 5th fight in day, or to face a tough opponent who makes you want to use a second spell in that fight more often, probably comes down to DM whim. You can certainly make a level 1 Binder who is better than a Wizard that isn't built for level 1, and is instead building to be good late game.

Although, FYI, not that Wizards are better against them (well they are if they are gnome illusionists or know in advance they are likely, because Silent Image), but there are assorted enemies like Animated Constructs and Vermin that are immune to color spray and not subject to turn undead either.

Vhaidara

2015-10-31, 01:54 PM

I mean, we could talk about how all Wizard's take Precocious Apprentice at level 1 for Scorching Ray, but we don't, because that feat is terrible if you aren't level 1-2.

It's actually one of the most powerful feats a wizard can take. Because you use it for something like Glitterdust, and then springboard early entry off of it

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-31, 02:10 PM

Tenebrous binders are a thing. It's not just Devotion feats; there are plenty of nice Divine feats too. When the level 1 spell starts to pale, just switch to Tenebrous and keep using the feat(s). And there are plenty of level 1 spells that remain useful for a long time-- things like Identify, Enlarge Person, Charm Person, Silent Image, Benign Transportation, Nerveskitter, Blockade, or Wall of Smoke are good for quite a while. Oh, but you don't need Identify-- you can do it with a Spellcraft check. And an untyped bonus to one of your most important stats, and using wands and staves... And you only need a level and a feat to get it.

It's not gamebreaking, sure. But it's also substantially better than anything else you can get at the time. If you left off the turning or the spell, it would be quite good. When you allow both? Fantastic.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 02:40 PM

It's actually one of the most powerful feats a wizard can take. Because you use it for something like Glitterdust, and then springboard early entry off of it

Name three classes you can enter earlier because you took that feat. Bonus Round: tell me how many of those involve you giving up Wizard Caster Levels either to get in, or during the class.

Tenebrous binders are a thing. It's not just Devotion feats; there are plenty of nice Divine feats too. When the level 1 spell starts to pale, just switch to Tenebrous and keep using the feat(s). And there are plenty of level 1 spells that remain useful for a long time-- things like Identify, Enlarge Person, Charm Person, Silent Image, Benign Transportation, Nerveskitter, Blockade, or Wall of Smoke are good for quite a while.

Before level 8 you get one vestige. Why are you wasting your one vestige getting you something that doesn't help you face level appropriate encounters?

Also, the level 1 spell starts to pale at level 3, when your ability to Color Spray once per fight is pretty crap next to the ability to Glitterdust and Color Spray each fight. It is basically worthless at level 5 when you can bind Tenebrous, and then you are a warrior who carries a stone with Deeper Darkness cast on it, and has turn undead uses. And you are... not even remotely overpowered.

Oh, but you don't need Identify-- you can do it with a Spellcraft check.

Anyone who can cast Detect Magic can identify items with a spellcraft check 10 points lower than the spellcraft check a Green Lady binder uses, and faster too.

using wands and staves... And you only need a level and a feat to get it.

You also... can't do it at level 1, because you don't have those items. Or are you advocating that people spend a class level at level 10 or something, losing caster levels in order to get the ability to pretend to be a level 1 Wizard?

But it's also substantially better than anything else you can get at the time.

Substantially better than anything else a Binder can get at that time is usually still not worth playing, the fact that this one is worth playing at level 1 is an extremely minor accomplishment in not writing garbage, which doesn't make it broken or OP.

Faily

2015-10-31, 02:47 PM

Wait, what? Endless Turnings?

... Allow me to let my Cleric dip into this for unlimited spells with the Retrieve Spell Divine Feat.

Chronos

2015-10-31, 02:47 PM

Actually, a Green Lady binder would be very likely to see more than four encounters per day. Most parties, the reason you stop seeing encounters is because you run out of some key resource, and then look for some safe place to camp for the night, and pray that it's safe enough because if not you're going to face a surprise encounter right when you're depleted. But if you're still at full, you just keep going. And what resources are you going to run out of with that character? After every encounter, you get your spell back, you get your Turn Undead back, and you and the rest of your party all get your HP back. In short, put that guy in the typical first-level party, and they never need to stop. That's worth a lot.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 02:51 PM

nedz

2015-10-31, 02:53 PM

Name three classes you can enter earlier because you took that feat. Bonus Round: tell me how many of those involve you giving up Wizard Caster Levels either to get in, or during the class.

Wizard 1 / Cleric 3 / Mystic Theurge 10
You lose 1 Cleric level and 3 Wizard levels

Wizard 1 / Warlock 3 / Eldritch Theurge 10
You lose 1 Warlock level and 3 Wizard levels

Sorcerer 4 / Wizard 1 / Ultimate Magus 10
You lose 1 Sorcerer level and 4 Wizard levels - though there are exploits

ZamielVanWeber

2015-10-31, 02:57 PM

And so long as no one else in the party has any expendable resources, that is . . . The ability to not have to rest between days until you hit level 3 and you can't hope to bear encounters with any regularity anymore.

Except at 3 the cheapest wands are starting to come online. You also seem to be ignoring how extremely well this vestige ages. Enlarge Person never grows old and unrestricted access to arcane staves and wands is nice. Normally that can only go to mid level Warlocks and higher level Artificer (aside from the people who can normally use them). Access is nice.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 03:10 PM

Except at 3 the cheapest wands are starting to come online. You also seem to be ignoring how extremely well this vestige ages. Enlarge Person never grows old and unrestricted access to arcane staves and wands is nice. Normally that can only go to mid level Warlocks and higher level Artificer (aside from the people who can normally use them). Access is nice.

1) If you are wasting money on wands at level 3 then you are wasting money.
2) The vestige ages poorly. Enlarge Person grows old so fast that even level 20 characters would still be able to cast it as a first level spell, because it makes you big, which is a disadvantage as often as an advantage, and gives you +0 to attack and +1 to damage. So basically less than what Divine Favor does.
3) You don't get unrestricted access to arcane staves and wands, you get the same access as a Wizard of your level. Which is to say, a level 1 Wizard. You could carry around a level 1 Wizard and get pretty much the same effect, burning through money and getting just as much use. Because a level 1 Wizard can already activate every wand or staff you could, and if your plan is to pay real money for the ability to wish you were a Wizard instead of a Binder, may I suggest being a Wizard.
4) You are doing that instead of taking a high level vestige that could give you actual level appropriate abilities. Why :(

Wizard 1 / Cleric 3 / Mystic Theurge 10
You lose 1 Cleric level and 3 Wizard levels

Wizard 1 / Warlock 3 / Eldritch Theurge 10
You lose 1 Warlock level and 3 Wizard levels

Sorcerer 4 / Wizard 1 / Ultimate Magus 10
You lose 1 Sorcerer level and 4 Wizard levels - though there are exploits

So basically, you can't think of a single Wizard prestige class that this would allow entry into at all.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-10-31, 03:45 PM

1) This is strict opinion and one I have never found to be true. The ability to cast situational spells on the fly is nice.
2) Enlarge Person doubles your threat range. Combined with a reach weapon this extends your reach to 20 feet, which gives you an edge on huge (tall) and gargantuan (long) creatures. That is 99% of the reason it is good.
3) Spell trigger items require the spell to be on your spell list to activate without a check. A 1st level wizard has every wizard spell on his spell list. Therefore a 1st level binder can activate any wand or stave containing wizard spells. Also by your logic you should not play a binder at all. Wizards are ultimately better than any vestige anyways so what point is it to play a binder?

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-31, 03:50 PM

Name three classes you can enter earlier because you took that feat. Bonus Round: tell me how many of those involve you giving up Wizard Caster Levels either to get in, or during the class.
Yeah, shame you can't switch it out from day to day or anything.

Also, the level 1 spell starts to pale at level 3, when your ability to Color Spray once per fight is pretty crap next to the ability to Glitterdust and Color Spray each fight. It is basically worthless at level 5 when you can bind Tenebrous, and then you are a warrior who carries a stone with Deeper Darkness cast on it, and has turn undead uses. And you are... not even remotely overpowered.
The...wizard will still be using those level 1 spells a fair deal at level 3, what with having maybe 2-3 level 2 spells.

Anyone who can cast Detect Magic can identify items with a spellcraft check 10 points lower than the spellcraft check a Green Lady binder uses, and faster too.
Not in 3.5 you can't. By RAW you need a spell with a pricey material component.

2) The vestige ages poorly. Enlarge Person grows old so fast that even level 20 characters would still be able to cast it as a first level spell, because it makes you big, which is a disadvantage as often as an advantage, and gives you +0 to attack and +1 to damage. So basically less than what Divine Favor does.
But it makes you large, which makes it easier to use combat maneuvers like tripping (and in some cases makes it possible to use 'em) and gives you reach. But that's not the only good option, as I covered in my post. How about Nerveskitter, for +5 initiative for everyone, every fight? How about at-will Charm Person? How about Silent Image? Those are all still great options at level 3. And level 5, honestly.

So basically, you can't think of a single Wizard prestige class that this would allow entry into at all.
Anima Mage with only a single Wizard dip. With flaws you can be in by level 3, with only a single lost caster or binding level.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 03:58 PM

2) Enlarge Person doubles your threat range. Combined with a reach weapon this extends your reach to 20 feet, which gives you an edge on huge (tall) and gargantuan (long) creatures. That is 99% of the reason it is good.

Yes, on the other hand, not being able to walk down 5ft wide corridors, without squeezing is a huge pain, to say nothing of small creatures harassing you using tunnels that you can't even fit through at all. Hence, "bad as often as it is good."

3) Spell trigger items require the spell to be on your spell list to activate without a check. A 1st level wizard has every wizard spell on his spell list. Therefore a 1st level binder can activate any wand or stave containing wizard spells. Also by your logic you should not play a binder at all. Wizards are ultimately better than any vestige anyways so what point is it to play a binder?

a) Yes that was my point. You are talking about how great it is and how well it ages, to have a level 1 Wizard follow you around. I am not impressed.
b) If your plan to meaningfully interact with encounters is to use a staff during every encounter, then you should set your money on fire and play a Wizard, and you will look exactly the same. That is my point. It isn't about being better, it is about emulating a Wizard. If you are going to do something different from a Wizard, you might have a reason to play a Binder, but relying on staves to cast spells that a Wizard can cast without burning money is not that.

Although, to be clear, if you claim something is OP, if it is something a Wizard can do, it should probably be something that is OP when a Wizard does it, instead of a minor feature so small that entire characters have never used it.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 04:10 PM

Yeah, shame you can't switch it out from day to day or anything.

You can't switch out a feat spent one Healing Devotion every day either. It just sits there, unusable and wasted when you don't bind the vestige that is only even above average at level 1, or the not very good one at level 5.

The...wizard will still be using those level 1 spells a fair deal at level 3, what with having maybe 2-3 level 2 spells.

The Wizard will still be using those spells in addition to his 3-6 Second level spells. Which means he will be casting two spells each fight, instead of one, and therefore, the one spell once per fight as your sum total contribution to the fight will start to pale.

Not in 3.5 you can't. By RAW you need a spell with a pricey material component.

Yes in 3.5 you can. By RAW you can identify a magic item by detecting magic at it, and beating a DC of CL+10.

But that's not the only good option, as I covered in my post. How about Nerveskitter, for +5 initiative for everyone, every fight? How about at-will Charm Person? How about Silent Image? Those are all still great options at level 3. And level 5, honestly.

Nerveskitter gives +5 to one person, not everyone in the party, and see next sentence. Charm Person and Silent Image are not worthless, but if you are level 3 or level 5, you are only able to bind one vestige. So if you bind this vestige, then your combat contribution is to be a level 1 Wizard, or a Warrior. At level 3 and 5, that is unacceptable.

Anima Mage with only a single Wizard dip. With flaws you can be in by level 3, with only a single lost caster or binding level.

So... no advance entry at all? A level 3 Wizard can get into Anima Mage without flaws, why would he want to activate flaws so that he can waste a feat on Precocious Apprentice so he can lose a CL, and get in at the same time?

Zanos

2015-10-31, 04:42 PM

Not in 3.5 you can't. By RAW you need a spell with a pricey material component.
Maybe one for the obscure rules thread.

Spellcraft: A character using the detect magic spell can attempt a Spellcraft check to determine the school of magic associated with the item’s powers. If the character exceeds the DC for this check by 10 or more, the character magically divines the item’s functions, its means of activation, and the number of charges remaining.

Florian

2015-10-31, 05:02 PM

Just posting something that is related to the original topic: Has anyone tryed to get an early entry on gained controll of TDC, like regular summoning or animal companion?

ExLibrisMortis

2015-10-31, 05:06 PM

So... no advance entry at all? A level 3 Wizard can get into Anima Mage without flaws, why would he want to activate flaws so that he can waste a feat on Precocious Apprentice so he can lose a CL, and get in at the same time?
Because that way the wizard can actually advance their soul binding, and get extra good stuff out of Anima Mage?

An 8th-level binder, or a binder 1/wizard 1/anima mage 7, can bind two vestiges, say the Green Lady and Tenebrous, and have two turn attempts at once. Of course, perhaps this not ideal, but it will fuel more powerful devotion feats. In that sense, the Green Lady scales well, because there's always some synergy - turn attempts, UMD, first-level spells all have great versatility.

Zombulian

2015-10-31, 05:09 PM

Wait, what? Endless Turnings?

... Allow me to let my Cleric dip into this for unlimited spells with the Retrieve Spell Divine Feat.

Just btw, that would only work for level 0 spells because you only get 1 TU per 5 rounds.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 05:22 PM

Just posting something that is related to the original topic: Has anyone tryed to get an early entry on gained controll of TDC, like regular summoning or animal companion?

I do feel a bit bad about the fact that a thread about a really funny subject got derailed by talking about a not at all funny vestige.

Because that way the wizard can actually advance their soul binding, and get extra good stuff out of Anima Mage?

You can advance binding without taking any Binder levels as a Wizard 3/Anima Mage X.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-10-31, 06:08 PM

You can advance binding without taking any Binder levels as a Wizard 3/Anima Mage X.
Anima Mage doesn't grant the Soul Binding (Su) ability, it just improves it, if you already have it. Bind Vestige also does not provide Soul Binding (Su). That means - at the very least - that you can only get the specific abilities granted by the Bind Vestige feat, on page 74, not all vestiges, and not all abilities. At worst, you have to conclude that the soul binding bonus you get requires that you have soul binding in the first place, so the stacking fails entirely. Either way, you're not going to fully advance binding without a level of binder.

Thurbane

2015-10-31, 06:14 PM

Faily

2015-10-31, 07:32 PM

Just btw, that would only work for level 0 spells because you only get 1 TU per 5 rounds.

My hopes have been crushed.

:smallwink:

Still incredibly useful. Unlimited uses of Sacred Purification (PHB2) or other Divine Feats that does something similar.

... I don't think as GM I would allow something like that, but each table to their own. XD Our table doesn't approve of TDC either after our run-in with them in Savage Tide. We were not surprised when we learned that it was quite the notorious monster.

Troacctid

2015-10-31, 08:07 PM

Our table doesn't approve of TDC either after our run-in with them in Savage Tide. We were not surprised when we learned that it was quite the notorious monster.

Isn't Savage Tide a PF module? The PF monstrous crab isn't overpowered at all, IIRC.

Faily

2015-10-31, 08:21 PM

Isn't Savage Tide a PF module? The PF monstrous crab isn't overpowered at all, IIRC.

We ran it as 3.5, and the adventure-paths appeared in Dungeon before being compiled to a full-on campaign. James Jacobs is also the author of the dreadful part that features TDC... which earned so much hate from us (mind you, we hated Savage Tide so much we quit it around level 13 or so, as we had just had it with that **** :smalltongue: ).

Note: Google-searching seems to indicate it was indeed released as 3.5 and not as PF.

Troacctid

2015-10-31, 08:24 PM

We ran it as 3.5, and the adventure-paths appeared in Dungeon before being compiled to a full-on campaign. James Jacobs is also the author of the dreadful part that features TDC... which earned so much hate from us (mind you, we hated Savage Tide so much we quit it around level 13 or so, as we had just had it with that **** :smalltongue: ).

Note: Google-searching seems to indicate it was indeed released as 3.5 and not as PF.

Oh, so it was. In 2006, though--that would be after Stormwrack updated the monstrous crab.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 09:23 PM

Anima Mage doesn't grant the Soul Binding (Su) ability, it just improves it, if you already have it. Bind Vestige also does not provide Soul Binding (Su).

The ability granted by Anima Mage "Soul Binding Bonus" states: "At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class." Since it is patently true that a Wizard 3 who took a level in Binder level would have the soul binding ability of a level 1 Binder, it follows that taking a level in Anima Mage grants Soul Binding. It does not state that it only improves the Soul Binding you already have (like all caster progression PrCs including Anima Mage) instead it specifically states "as if you had taken a level of Binder" with no requirement that you already have Soul Binding.

ryu

2015-10-31, 09:56 PM

The ability granted by Anima Mage "Soul Binding Bonus" states: "At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class." Since it is patently true that a Wizard 3 who took a level in Binder level would have the soul binding ability of a level 1 Binder, it follows that taking a level in Anima Mage grants Soul Binding. It does not state that it only improves the Soul Binding you already have (like all caster progression PrCs including Anima Mage) instead it specifically states "as if you had taken a level of Binder" with no requirement that you already have Soul Binding.

Operative word being IMPROVES. It has to exist first.

nedz

2015-10-31, 09:59 PM

Whether or not you can use Anima Mage as a self-progressing source of Binding using only the Binding Feats to qualify (i.e. no Binder levels) is a fairly hotly debated issue.

I've seen pretty compelling arguments from both sides of the fence.

So it's down to the DM then. At least the Wizard 1 / Binder 3, with Precocious Apprentice, is beyond argument — barring house-rules.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 10:33 PM

Operative word being IMPROVES. It has to exist first.

As I literally just stated in the post you quoted, it specifically states how it improves soul binding, and that is by giving you the soul binding of a binder of your Binder level + Anima Mage level. IE, one. It doesn't say "it improves the soul binding you already have" it states that it improves your soul binding as if you have taken a Binder level. So you are improved to have the Binding of a Binder 1. Your belief that it can't improve soul binding you don't have is unsupported by the rules, the rules state how you improve soul binding, and the rules allow for that improvement to occur even if you don't have any.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-10-31, 10:41 PM

As I literally just stated in the post you quoted, it specifically states how it improves soul binding, and that is by giving you the soul binding of a binder of your Binder level + Anima Mage level. IE, one. It doesn't say "it improves the soul binding you already have" it states that it improves your soul binding as if you have taken a Binder level. So you are improved to have the Binding of a Binder 1. Your belief that it can't improve soul binding you don't have is unsupported by the rules, the rules state how you improve soul binding, and the rules allow for that improvement to occur even if you don't have any.
If we allow that - which we may not want to do, but for the sake of argument - you'd also lose your Bind Vestige feat, on account of that being binding ability that is replaced when becoming a binder (hence part of 'improving your binding'). Now you have to take Improved Binding first thing, because you no longer qualify for your next level of Anima Mage - you can only bind first-level vestiges. However, you can't take that feat until 6th level at the earliest, so there goes your early entry (and you're out of a feat, too).

Beheld

2015-10-31, 10:54 PM

If we allow that - which we may not want to do, but for the sake of argument - you'd also lose your Bind Vestige feat, on account of that being binding ability that is replaced when becoming a binder (hence part of 'improving your binding'). Now you have to take Improved Binding first thing, because you no longer qualify for your next level of Anima Mage - you can only bind first-level vestiges. However, you can't take that feat until 6th level at the earliest, so there goes your early entry (and you're out of a feat, too).

You can only qualify for Anima Mage at all by taking both Bind Vestige and Improved Binding (Or the garbage Improved Bind Vestige Feat, but if you are going Anima Mage, you wouldn't do that), so when you are a Binder 1, you already have Improved Binding, and therefore continue to qualify.

Also, you don't lose PrCs from not meeting requirements unless they say you do, example of why: Ur-Priest.

ryu

2015-10-31, 10:57 PM

As I literally just stated in the post you quoted, it specifically states how it improves soul binding, and that is by giving you the soul binding of a binder of your Binder level + Anima Mage level. IE, one. It doesn't say "it improves the soul binding you already have" it states that it improves your soul binding as if you have taken a Binder level. So you are improved to have the Binding of a Binder 1. Your belief that it can't improve soul binding you don't have is unsupported by the rules, the rules state how you improve soul binding, and the rules allow for that improvement to occur even if you don't have any.

Stating the quantification of the benefit is meaningless if you don't qualify for it to begin with. There are more than enough methods to obtain deific power in this game at any level without relying on shaky wordings of any sort.

Beheld

2015-10-31, 11:00 PM

Stating the quantification of the benefit is meaningless if you don't qualify for it to begin with. There are more than enough methods to obtain deific power in this game at any level without relying on shaky wordings of any sort.

You do qualify for it, that is the point. There are zero parts of the Anima Mage that require you to have soul binding to advance your soul binding.

nedz

2015-10-31, 11:04 PM

Also, you don't lose PrCs from not meeting requirements unless they say you do, example of why: Ur-Priest.

Schroedinger Prestige Classes are a rules dysfunction which means that they require a house-rule to fix. 3.5 is not short of rules like this. You do lose PrCs from not meeting requirements unless your DM says you don't.

ryu

2015-10-31, 11:04 PM

You do qualify for it, that is the point. There are zero parts of the Anima Mage that require you to have soul binding to advance your soul binding.

Except for the word improves. In order to improve an ability it must first exist even if the improvement is stated to be similar to something that would gain the ability in the first place. This is how English works as demonstrated by the majority of the thread.

legomaster00156

2015-10-31, 11:20 PM

1/5 of this thread is about the original topic. The other 4/5 is the Green Lady. This forum is amazing.

Beheld

2015-11-01, 12:03 AM

Schroedinger Prestige Classes are a rules dysfunction which means that they require a house-rule to fix. 3.5 is not short of rules like this. You do lose PrCs from not meeting requirements unless your DM says you don't.

You would have to point to an actual rule to claim that those are the rules. However the actual DMG rules state:

"If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class."

Which in fact makes it clear that you do not need to continue qualifying for Prestige classes.

Except for the word improves. In order to improve an ability it must first exist even if the improvement is stated to be similar to something that would gain the ability in the first place. This is how English works as demonstrated by the majority of the thread.

No, in order to improve the ability you read the words that directly follow the word improves. It says "your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class." That is all one sentence, you can't just choose to ignore the entire rest of that sentence which tells you how to improve the ability. And the rules that it actually has, right in that same sentence, allow for it to be improved even if you don't have it.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-11-01, 12:11 AM

The ability does say that entire thing. However it specifically says improve. You are saying adding one to a non-number yields a number. Nowhere do the rules say that. Adding one to zero would certainly yield 1, but you have no levels in binder, not zero level in binder.

Also the rules for the awkwardness with PrCs losing benefits when you lose qualifications are in Complete Warrior and I wanna say Arcane? I am AFB and do not remember what the second book is.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-11-01, 12:38 AM

1/5 of this thread is about the original topic. The other 4/5 is the Green Lady. This forum is amazing.

More specifically, it's every other poster in the thread arguing against a single person super-positive that a vestige you can get at level 1 that gives you the infinite turn undead abuse of tenebrous and other features better than tenebrous is somehow not broken. :smallfrown:

Sorry I mentioned it....

Beheld

2015-11-01, 01:01 AM

Adding one to zero would certainly yield 1, but you have no levels in binder, not zero level in binder.

This sentence alone makes my argument for me. You are clearly just arguing for a result if you can claim that having zero levels in binder is not the same thing as having zero levels in binder.

Also the rules for the awkwardness with PrCs losing benefits when you lose qualifications are in Complete Warrior and I wanna say Arcane? I am AFB and do not remember what the second book is.

1) The primary source for PrC rules is the DMG. Complete Warrior has a section on meeting prestige class requirements, but because of the nature of primary source, it only applies to Complete Warrior PrCs.
2) In fact, those rules are printed under the subheading "The Martial Prestige Class" a section which repeatedly refers to "these classes" IE, the ones presented in the book, as opposed to the ones in the DMG (or ones posted in subsequent books), such as Dragon Disciple, so even absent the primary source rule, applying that to other books might fail.
3) The reference in Complete Arcane is even more clearly directed at the book itself, coming after the statement "Most of the classes in this book have stringent requirements."

zergling.exe

2015-11-01, 01:53 AM

This sentence alone makes my argument for me. You are clearly just arguing for a result if you can claim that having zero levels in binder is not the same thing as having zero levels in binder.

If what you say is true, once any of your classes reaches level 2, you would begin taking multiclass penalties (unless it is a favored class), as you would have more than one level difference between classes. This would result from having 0 levels in every class except ones you have leveled (including prestige classes you don't even qualify for).

Reading it in that way creates many more problems with the way classes in DnD work. :smallannoyed:

edit: Reading through the multiclass section again, that would mean if a character ever took a nonfavored class to level 2, they would immediately be unable to level up ever again. Or they would lose levels by gaining negative xp from their -4000%+ xp penalty.

Beheld

2015-11-01, 04:09 AM

If what you say is true, once any of your classes reaches level 2, you would begin taking multiclass penalties (unless it is a favored class), as you would have more than one level difference between classes. This would result from having 0 levels in every class except ones you have leveled (including prestige classes you don't even qualify for).

1) I don't see off hand any particular problem with having zero levels in PrCs that you don't have any levels in.

2) Regarding multiclass XP penalties, I'm not so sure that is an issue:

"If any two of your multiclass character’s classes are two or more levels apart," "A multiclass character who attains a new level either increases one of his or her current class levels by one or picks up a new class at 1st level."

So even though you have zero levels in a class, it would still not be considered one of your "character classes" Saying that having zero levels in a character class means it is not one of your character classes doesn't mean you suddenly stop having zero class levels in the class.

Borne out of course by explicit examples, such as "Suppose he then attains 12th level and adds 1st level as fighter to his classes, becoming a 9th-level rogue/2nd-level illusionist/1st-level fighter. He then takes a –20% XP penalty on future XP he earns because his fighter level is so much lower than his rogue level."

Thurbane

2015-11-01, 04:11 AM

More specifically, it's every other poster in the thread arguing against a single person super-positive that a vestige you can get at level 1 that gives you the infinite turn undead abuse of tenebrous and other features better than tenebrous is somehow not broken. :smallfrown:

Sorry I mentioned it....

I feel you pain - I regret carrying on the arguments about the vestige as long as I did.

nedz

2015-11-01, 06:49 AM

1) The primary source for PrC rules is the DMG. Complete Warrior has a section on meeting prestige class requirements, but because of the nature of primary source, it only applies to Complete Warrior PrCs.
2) In fact, those rules are printed under the subheading "The Martial Prestige Class" a section which repeatedly refers to "these classes" IE, the ones presented in the book, as opposed to the ones in the DMG (or ones posted in subsequent books), such as Dragon Disciple, so even absent the primary source rule, applying that to other books might fail.
3) The reference in Complete Arcane is even more clearly directed at the book itself, coming after the statement "Most of the classes in this book have stringent requirements."
This is long debated: about half the internet agrees with you, and about half disagrees. This means it's another DM call.

I feel you pain - I regret carrying on the arguments about the vestige as long as I did.
Yes — I keep telling myself to just ignore said poster. I suspect we are going to get the Group Think fallacy soon.

Necroticplague

2015-11-01, 07:18 AM

Name three classes you can enter earlier because you took that feat. Bonus Round: tell me how many of those involve you giving up Wizard Caster Levels either to get in, or during the class.

Rainbow Servant.
Mystic Theurge.
Shadow Adept.
None of them require losing a drop of Wizard casting (assuming Mystic Theurge is entered using Southern Magician).

AvatarVecna

2015-11-01, 07:41 AM

1/5 of this thread is about the original topic. The other 4/5 is the Green Lady. This forum is amazing.

There's a sigged quote from the Giant from where he closed a derailed thread. It goes something like "firstly, I'd like to admit I'm impressed; this thread derailed far enough and long enough to circle all the way back around to OotS". It's wonderful.

Can't remember whose signature it is, though.

paranoidbox

2015-11-01, 07:53 AM

I, for one, welcome our Green Lady overlords.

No, seriously, I'm a little bummed now that Tome of Magic is not on our approved list of books, because I would so find a way to bind the Green Lady just for the amazing perks. Consider me convinced, everyone-who-is-not-Beheld!

Jormengand

2015-11-01, 08:13 AM

Adding one to zero would certainly yield 1, but you have no levels in binder, not zero level in binder.

My factotum with 14 charisma took the Lesser Utterance of the Evolving Mind feat. What's the save DC (10+CHA+TrN level)?

Florian

2015-11-01, 08:14 AM

Nah.

I'd only be convinced if The Green Lady would enable a character to summon TDC on level 1 every 5 rounds.

Everything below that kind of feat would be unworthy of notice.

Starbuck_II

2015-11-01, 08:39 AM

Nah.

I'd only be convinced if The Green Lady would enable a character to summon TDC on level 1 every 5 rounds.

Everything below that kind of feat would be unworthy of notice.

Someone should invent That Damn Spell. It summons TDC.
Spell level 2nd?

That Damn Spell.
Level:
Sor/Wiz 2, Barbarian 3, Vile 1

Components: V, S, F/BF

Casting Time: 1 round

Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Effect: One That Damn Crab

Duration: 1 round/level (D)

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: No

This spell summons a That Damn Crab. It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. There is a 10% chance the Crab is summoned confused for 1d4 rounds, thereby attacking any target in reach.
Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them.

When you use a summoning spell to summon an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

Arcane Focus: A tiny bag and a small (not necessarily lit) candle.
Barbarian Focus: A Blood thirsty Cry of havoc.
Special: As a Corruption (Vile 1), you take 1d6 Str damage when the crab appears. Also 20% chance it attacks the caster before attacking the enemies. It is not confused when summoned a vile spell; it just doesn't like you sometimes. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack you, to only attack enemies, or to perform other actions relating to not killing you.

There, noiw the Green Lady may allow you to summon it. Beware, as a vile spell it might kill you.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-11-01, 03:35 PM

My factotum with 14 charisma took the Lesser Utterance of the Evolving Mind feat. What's the save DC (10+CHA+TrN level)?

Null. The game is trying to calculate based on a non-value when is has no rule to use to determine what to do with class based non-values. However we can safely house rule it to be 12, since we know what is intended.

It was already pointed one way the game would hiccup if you had 0 levels in a class instead of a non-value and there are more than that

Troacctid

2015-11-01, 03:43 PM

Null. The game is trying to calculate based on a non-value when is has no rule to use to determine what to do with class based non-values. However we can safely house rule it to be 12, since we know what is intended.

It was already pointed one way the game would hiccup if you had 0 levels in a class instead of a non-value and there are more than that

The game asks how many Truenamer levels you have. The answer it gets is "Zero." So there you go. I don't see the problem.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-11-01, 03:52 PM

The game asks how many Truenamer levels you have. The answer it gets is "Zero." So there you go. I don't see the problem.
It starts to cause problems with things like orange ioun stones + classes that combine caster levels. What's your Wu Jen caster level? Well, zero, since I have zero levels in Wu Jen - but then, the stone can boost it to 1, and then something like Sublime Chord can take advantage of that. It's safer - and equally viable - to rule that it's null.

Troacctid

2015-11-01, 04:03 PM

It starts to cause problems with things like orange ioun stones + classes that combine caster levels. What's your Wu Jen caster level? Well, zero, since I have zero levels in Wu Jen - but then, the stone can boost it to 1, and then something like Sublime Chord can take advantage of that. It's safer - and equally viable - to rule that it's null.

How can Sublime Chord take advantage of that?

Ssalarn

2015-11-01, 06:00 PM

This sentence alone makes my argument for me. You are clearly just arguing for a result if you can claim that having zero levels in binder is not the same thing as having zero levels in binder.

Not to needlessly perpetuate the insanity, but, the game does differentiate between "no or none" and "zero". Paladins and Rangers, for example, have very clear mechanical distinctions for how their spellcasting works depending on whether they have no spells, or zero spells. If they have no spells, then they have no spells, and that's pretty much that. If they have zero spells, then things that add to their total number of spells, such as a high casting modifier, will give them additional spells.

To say the same thing another way- a 3rd level Ranger who has no spells is not a caster and (without some specific exception) cannot cast or prepare spells regardless of his Wisdom score. A 4th level Ranger who has zero spells is a spellcaster with a caster level and the ability to add additional spells to that zero, dependent on his Wisdom score.

So from a game mechanics perspective, "no/none" and "zero" are definitely not the same thing.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-11-01, 06:11 PM

How can Sublime Chord take advantage of that?
Ah, my apologies, it's different - if you equate 'no levels in wizard' to 'zero levels in wizard', Sublime Chord acts up, by making your caster level for any arcane class in which you have no levels, equal to your bard (say) + Sublime Chord level. The exact wording is: "A sublime chord’s caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class". That is, a bard 10/sublime chord 10 has CL 20 in all arcane spellcasting classes. Yathrinshee stacks all your caster levels for necromancy spells, for instance (arcane and divine), so a bard 1/cleric 3/wizard 3/yathrinshee 1/sublime chord 10 (I'm not sure about the exact requirements, but you can stack these prestige classes, you just have to be a female drow) gets a caster level for necromancy spells equal to (10 (SC) + 3 (wizard) + 4 (Practiced Spellcaster)) * [number of arcane spellcasting classes], plus the cleric CL 3.

Sublime Chord is also the basis of The Word, which does dip a bazillion caster classes, exactly for the reason that you can't add 10 SC levels to 'no levels'.

Troacctid

2015-11-01, 06:35 PM

Ah, my apologies, it's different - if you equate 'no levels in wizard' to 'zero levels in wizard', Sublime Chord acts up, by making your caster level for any arcane class in which you have no levels, equal to your bard (say) + Sublime Chord level. The exact wording is: "A sublime chord’s caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class". That is, a bard 10/sublime chord 10 has CL 20 in all arcane spellcasting classes. Yathrinshee stacks all your caster levels for necromancy spells, for instance (arcane and divine), so a bard 1/cleric 3/wizard 3/yathrinshee 1/sublime chord 10 (I'm not sure about the exact requirements, but you can stack these prestige classes, you just have to be a female drow) gets a caster level for necromancy spells equal to (10 (SC) + 3 (wizard) + 4 (Practiced Spellcaster)) * [number of arcane spellcasting classes], plus the cleric CL 3.

Sublime Chord is also the basis of The Word, which does dip a bazillion caster classes, exactly for the reason that you can't add 10 SC levels to 'no levels'.

There's no benefit to having CL 20 for spells you cast as a Wu Jen if you can't cast spells as a Wu Jen. And Yathrinshee doesn't stack CL with Sublime Chord in any useful way.

Chronos

2015-11-01, 08:55 PM

Great work, Starbuck II. Now we just need "Summon Bigger Crab".

zergling.exe

2015-11-01, 08:58 PM

Great work, Starbuck II. Now we just need "Summon Bigger Crab".

Followed by "Summon Bigger Fish".

paranoidbox

2015-11-01, 09:33 PM

Followed by "Summon Bigger Fish".

Followed by "Summon Bigger Boat".

Beheld

2015-11-01, 09:37 PM

There's no benefit to having CL 20 for spells you cast as a Wu Jen if you can't cast spells as a Wu Jen. And Yathrinshee doesn't stack CL with Sublime Chord in any useful way.

The benefit would be if you had one level of Sublime Chord, and you had Ur-Priest, because having CL in Wu Jen, (and every other casting class you didn't take levels in) would give you CL for Ur-Priest.

Troacctid

2015-11-01, 10:02 PM

The benefit would be if you had one level of Sublime Chord, and you had Ur-Priest, because having CL in Wu Jen, (and every other casting class you didn't take levels in) would give you CL for Ur-Priest.

No it wouldn't. Ur-Priest cares about class levels, not caster levels.

Starbuck_II

2015-11-01, 10:03 PM

Followed by "Summon Bigger Boat".

That is most effective vs Cthulhu. It sends him back down to take a nap for another hundred years till stars are right again.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-11-01, 10:07 PM

There's no benefit to having CL 20 for spells you cast as a Wu Jen if you can't cast spells as a Wu Jen. And Yathrinshee doesn't stack CL with Sublime Chord in any useful way.
It stacks all your caster levels for necromancy spells, no matter from what class. With just dread necromancer, wizard, sorcerer, warmage, duskblade, wu jen, sha'ir, death master, and bard, you have CL 9 * 17 for your necromancy spells. Those are just the classes that I think have necromancy spells, which is not even a prerequisite for stacking the levels - go ahead with the beguiler and every arcane PrC ever.

So basically, by taking a level Yathrinshee and a level Sublime Chord on top of some 5-level base class with Practiced Spellcaster, you get a caster level for necromancy - the whole school - of ten times the number of arcane spellcasting classes that exist, which must be in the dozens, counting PrCs. Caster level 500 at level 11 is pretty broken, even if it's not likely to fly at a table, or very impressive in TO. Of course, that's only if you allow no levels = 0 levels, which I'd rather not.

Beheld

2015-11-01, 10:38 PM

No it wouldn't. Ur-Priest cares about class levels, not caster levels.

Levels in Spellcasting Classes is Caster Level, this is literally the entire premise on which the Word is based. If you want to see arguments to that effect, you can read these (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=7059&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) threads (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54934&view=next), but I don't care enough to argue the point, or read those threads to find the argument and copy paste it, and I don't think you do either, so if you don't believe me, let's just agree to disagree.

Ssalarn

2015-11-01, 10:50 PM

It stacks all your caster levels for necromancy spells, no matter from what class. With just dread necromancer, wizard, sorcerer, warmage, duskblade, wu jen, sha'ir, death master, and bard, you have CL 9 * 17 for your necromancy spells. Those are just the classes that I think have necromancy spells, which is not even a prerequisite for stacking the levels - go ahead with the beguiler and every arcane PrC ever.

So basically, by taking a level Yathrinshee and a level Sublime Chord on top of some 5-level base class with Practiced Spellcaster, you get a caster level for necromancy - the whole school - of ten times the number of arcane spellcasting classes that exist, which must be in the dozens, counting PrCs. Caster level 500 at level 11 is pretty broken, even if it's not likely to fly at a table, or very impressive in TO. Of course, that's only if you allow no levels = 0 levels, which I'd rather not.

As I mentioned earlier, the game does differentiate between "none" and "zero", and generally speaking, zero is a defined value when it's relevant. I haven't seen a specific ruling from a relevant source, but I always treat "none" as a null value that can't be added to unless something else speifically says otherwise. Most of the instances I can think of where it would be relevant take the time to say something to call out the relevant value, like Monk's Robes which treat a monk's class level as 5 levels higher, and specifically note how characters without monk levels are treated.

137beth

2015-11-02, 12:16 AM

1/5 of this thread is about the original topic. The other 4/5 is the Green Lady. This forum is amazing.

Eh, don't feel bad about it. An argument about something else that is overpowered by the same author is about as close to on-topic as I could have hoped for this many posts in:smallbiggrin:

Taelas

2015-11-02, 04:01 AM

Another aspect of the "no/none" and "zero" not being equal is found in ability scores. A character with a non-ability in a score adds 0 to any check he makes that rely on it, giving him the same numeric value as one with a score of 10, but a character with a score of 0 is straight-up helpless (or dead).

Thurbane

2015-11-02, 04:03 AM

The whole side argument in this thread reminds me of pigeons and chess boards, but for the sake of forum rules, I'll try to hold my tongue.

Psyren

2015-11-02, 09:09 AM

The whole side argument in this thread reminds me of pigeons and chess boards, but for the sake of forum rules, I'll try to hold my tongue.

I've had both Beheld and Deophaun on my ignore list for months now. I can't read half the thread, but the half I can see is a pretty good reminder as to why, if I needed one.

atemu1234

2015-11-02, 09:14 AM

Eh, don't feel bad about it. An argument about something else that is overpowered by the same author is about as close to on-topic as I could have hoped for this many posts in:smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I've seen more thread derailments in my time here than threads staying on topic, but this is alright as far as these things go.

I've had both Beheld and Deophaun on my ignore list for months now. I can't read half the thread, but the half I can see is a pretty good reminder as to why, if I needed one.

Huh. Blocking people who bug me never really crossed my mind. I still won't, but it's nice to have a reminder I can.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:26 AM

The whole side argument in this thread reminds me of pigeons and chess boards, but for the sake of forum rules, I'll try to hold my tongue.

Oh look, a contentless post for you to passively aggressively condescend to people, those are rare, I only see them in every single thread you post in.

I've had both Beheld and Deophaun on my ignore list for months now. I can't read half the thread, but the half I can see is a pretty good reminder as to why, if I needed one.

If you've had me on ignore for months, then you have had me on ignore for at least a year, because I recently posted in this sub-forum for the first time in a over a year. But still, good to get advance notice about these things, it saves me the trouble of wasting my time correcting your incredibly bad arguments about spell text.

atemu1234

2015-11-02, 09:28 AM

Oh look, a contentless post for you to passively aggressively condescend to people, those are rare, I only see them in every single thread you post in.

Oh look, a contentless comment to condescend to someone about a condescending contentless comment. Contentlessception, as it were. :smalltongue:

If you've had me on ignore for months, then you have had me on ignore for at least a year, because I recently posted in this sub-forum for the first time in a over a year. But still, good to get advance notice about these things, it saves me the trouble of wasting my time correcting your incredibly bad arguments about spell text.

(You do realize he can't hear you, right?)

Faily

2015-11-02, 09:36 AM

you can read these (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=7059&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) threads (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=54934&view=next)

I think I lost some Sanity Rolls trying to make sense of those threads... which basically just boil down to a ****storm with a of group people saying "it totally works like this, [insert explicit insult]" and the other group saying "no it works like this, [insert explicit retort]", with one of the sides being rather liberal in their interpretation of certain rules.

atemu1234

2015-11-02, 09:41 AM

I think I lost some Sanity Rolls trying to make sense of those threads... which basically just boil down to a ****storm with a of group people saying "it totally works like this, [insert explicit insult]" and the other group saying "no it works like this, [insert explicit retort]", with one of the sides being rather liberal in their interpretation of certain rules.

Expecting agreement from a group of forumites here is like expecting a Border Collie to master nuclear physics. It just doesn't happen.

These threads are really a proof of but one thing: the rules are broken, and you should do what fits best for your game.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:52 AM

I think I lost some Sanity Rolls trying to make sense of those threads... which basically just boil down to a ****storm with a of group people saying "it totally works like this, [insert explicit insult]" and the other group saying "no it works like this, [insert explicit retort]", with one of the sides being rather liberal in their interpretation of certain rules.

I read those threads over a year ago and decided that I think that Ur-Priest CL scales with Arcane Caster Level based on my understand on the rules at the time. I then promptly forgot all about why I decided that, because it doesn't matter even a little bit, because no one is ever going to play an Ur-Priest in a non abusive way ever at any point, much less an Ur-Priest with Sublime Chord, so it isn't worth reanalyzing. I could be wrong, but since it will never come up in any game ever.

Faily

2015-11-02, 10:05 AM

Expecting agreement from a group of forumites here is like expecting a Border Collie to master nuclear physics. It just doesn't happen.

These threads are really a proof of but one thing: the rules are broken, and you should do what fits best for your game.

Also why "theoretical" optimization is fun and interesting from time to time, just not at the gaming table. For most people, that is. :smalltongue:

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 10:33 AM

Null. The game is trying to calculate based on a non-value when is has no rule to use to determine what to do with class based non-values.

My fighter just got uttered at by an angry factotum. He has a +4 bonus to the relevant saving throw. What does he need to get to pass?

Rijan_Sai

2015-11-02, 12:53 PM

*This is only my own opinon on the subject, and should be taken as such. Always seek the advice of your DM on any and all rules-related questions at your gaming table

Another aspect of the "no/none" and "zero" not being equal is found in ability scores. A character with a non-ability in a score adds 0 to any check he makes that rely on it, giving him the same numeric value as one with a score of 10, but a character with a score of 0 is straight-up helpless (or dead).
^This. Starting with the SRD on nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities):

Nonabilities
Some creatures lack certain ability scores. These creatures do not have an ability score of 0—they lack the ability altogether. The modifier for a nonability is +0. Other effects of nonabilities are detailed below.
Having zero levels in a given class would give you "Class level -" as opposed to "Class level 0." It is a nonability in the class, or "nonclass."
Any calculations asking for a class level would have an effective modifier of "+0."

My fighter just got uttered at by an angry factotum. He has a +4 bonus to the relevant saving throw. What does he need to get to pass?
Using the above as reference, the correct answer would be "8."
The DC is (10+CHA+TrN), the given values were CHA 14, TrN 0. Or DC (10+2+0) =12. The modifier for the save is given as "+4."
Since one must only equal the DC to pass the save, mathmatically speaking: 4+8=12.

Edit: Forgot the second part...
Re: Anima Mage
Adding AM binding "improvement" onto non-existant Binder levels, is like putting a Headband of Intellect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect) onto a zombie (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/zombie.htm):

Headband of Intellect
This device is a light cord with a small gem set so that it rests upon the forehead of the wearer. The headband adds to the wearer’s Intelligence score in the form of an enhancement bonus of +2, +4, or +6. This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.

Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, fox’s cunning; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6).
You're not adding 2, 4 or 6 onto 0, (which would give a score of 2, 4 or 6 to an otherwise unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged) character,) but instead attempting to add 2, 4 or 6 to a non-existant value, resulting in continued non-existance.

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 12:59 PM

Having zero levels in a given class would give you "Class level -" as opposed to "Class level 0." It is a nonability in the class, or "nonclass."
Any calculations asking for a class level would have an effective modifier of "+0."

Class level is not an ability score.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-11-02, 01:01 PM

Class level is not an ability score.

In that case the save is neither passed nor failed. The DC is not calculated so you have nothing to compare it against.

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 01:07 PM

In that case the save is neither passed nor failed. The DC is not calculated so you have nothing to compare it against.

What are the consequences of neither passing nor failing your save against an utterance?

Psyren

2015-11-02, 01:11 PM

What are the consequences of neither passing nor failing your save against an utterance?

It would depend on the wording of the specific utterance, just like it would depend on that of a specific spell. Most spells use language like "X happens, and Y happens if the target succeeds on their save"; therefore syntactically, neither passing nor failing would actually cause X to happen (since that is the default) and effectively act as if you'd failed. Most utterances don't have saves at all, but for the ones that do, they would act like spells do.

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 01:17 PM

It would depend on the wording of the specific utterance, just like it would depend on that of a specific spell. Most spells use language like "X happens, and Y happens if the target succeeds on their save"; therefore syntactically, neither passing nor failing would actually cause X to happen (since that is the default) and effectively act as if you'd failed. Most utterances don't have saves at all, but for the ones that do, they would act like spells do.

Great! I guess I'll just make a factotum who abuses Quickened irresistible extended reversed temporal twist for great justice!

Or we could realise that having zero levels in something does in fact mean that you have zero levels in it. If you have no levels in truenamer, and you gain 1 level in truenamer, you end up at 1, meaning that you must have started at zero. The Giant quote in your signature seems pretty relevant here, actually! Let's choose the sane reading, rather than arguing that something is broken because you chose to read the rules in a way that doesn't make any sense!

zergling.exe

2015-11-02, 01:21 PM

Great! I guess I'll just make a factotum who abuses Quickened irresistible extended reversed temporal twist for great justice!

Or we could realise that having zero levels in something does in fact mean that you have zero levels in it. If you have no levels in truenamer, and you gain 1 level in truenamer, you end up at 1, meaning that you must have started at zero. The Giant quote in your signature seems pretty relevant here, actually! Let's choose the sane reading, rather than arguing that something is broken because you chose to read the rules in a way that doesn't make any sense!

The argument started on a wizard trying to qualify for Anima Mage without any levels in binder through the feat that allows you to bind vestiges. Would this work and advance binding?

Deadline

2015-11-02, 01:21 PM

Or we could realise that having zero levels in something does in fact mean that you have zero levels in it. If you have no levels in truenamer, and you gain 1 level in truenamer, you end up at 1, meaning that you must have started at zero. The Giant quote in your signature seems pretty relevant here, actually! Let's choose the sane reading, rather than arguing that something is broken because you chose to read the rules in a way that doesn't make any sense!

Well, there's that whole "it's broken no matter which way you read it" problem. In some cases, treating a non-value as 0 works, and in others, it really doesn't.

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 01:24 PM

zergling.exe

2015-11-02, 01:32 PM

Of course it would. The language is clear enough on that point.

Would you let a character advance wizard/cleric casting through a prestige class if a feat allowed you to allowed you to qualify for the class, by giving you the ability to cast as a x level wizard/cleric or even prepare and cast 2 third level spells?

Anlashok

2015-11-02, 01:36 PM

Of course it would. The language is clear enough on that point.

You can definitely enter anima mage.

But I'm pretty sure you don't advance your binding with it.

Anima mage explicitly enhances the soul binding class feature and the feat bind vestige doesn't give you the soul binding class feature. It doesn't even have a "treated as though" clause.

In fact it has quite the opposite and explicitly makes it clear that you don't have soul binding.

So since you don't have soul binding, nothing is advanced.

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 01:38 PM

Would you let a character advance wizard/cleric casting through a prestige class if a feat allowed you to allowed you to qualify for the class, by giving you the ability to cast as a x level wizard/cleric or even prepare and cast 2 third level spells?

If the class said so, sure. Most prestige classes are specific in saying they advance a spellcasting class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level, but in the case of, say, Stalker of Kharash, then yeah, you clearly gain Ranger casting.

Zanos

2015-11-02, 01:47 PM

Great! I guess I'll just make a factotum who abuses Quickened irresistible extended reversed temporal twist for great justice!

Or we could realise that having zero levels in something does in fact mean that you have zero levels in it. If you have no levels in truenamer, and you gain 1 level in truenamer, you end up at 1, meaning that you must have started at zero. The Giant quote in your signature seems pretty relevant here, actually! Let's choose the sane reading, rather than arguing that something is broken because you chose to read the rules in a way that doesn't make any sense!
Treating as 0 and a non-entity both cause problems, as with the afforementioned Sublime Chord with an Orange Ioun Gaining a number of caster levels equal to the number of published arcane casters.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-11-02, 01:49 PM

Treating as 0 and a non-entity both cause problems, as with the afforementioned Sublime Chord with an Orange Ioun Gaining a number of caster levels equal to the number of published arcane casters.

OR having 0 levels in all monster classes, which prevents you from leveling in any class.

Rijan_Sai

2015-11-02, 01:50 PM

The argument started on a wizard trying to qualify for Anima Mage without any levels in binder through the feat that allows you to bind vestiges. Would this work and advance binding?
Of course it would. The language is clear enough on that point.

How do you figure? Anima Mage without Binder requires the feat "Bind Vestige," which has the folowing disclamer*:

Characters who have the ability to bind vestiges through other means (such as the soul binding class feature) cannot take this feat...

While Anima Mage states*:

At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class.

The feat requires you to not have soul binding, while the class improves upon it. I reference back to (the edited in portion of) my previous post, about putting a Headband of Intellect on a zombie (though any mindless creature would work for this point.) There is nothing there to improve upon, and Anima Mage does not, in and of itself, grant soul binding.

*Claims fair use, with limited rules text.

Edit: Ninja'd. The point still stands, though.

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 01:55 PM

Sure it does. As if you'd gained a level of Binder. Says so right in the ability. If you had to have a Binder level already, it would say that, like with Gnome Paragon.

Obviously you lose the benefit of the feat, but that was always a given.

Treating as 0 and a non-entity both cause problems, as with the afforementioned Sublime Chord with an Orange Ioun Gaining a number of caster levels equal to the number of published arcane casters.
Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here. You're still only picking one class to stack CL with.

OR having 0 levels in all monster classes, which prevents you from leveling in any class.
Only if you're a monster character using a monster class that you have not yet completed. If you're not using a monster class, no such restriction applies.

Psyren

2015-11-02, 02:12 PM

Great! I guess I'll just make a factotum who abuses Quickened irresistible extended reversed temporal twist for great justice!

Isn't irresistible spell third-party? And how are you applying it to utterances? And what does anything in here have to do with the thread topic?

Rijan_Sai

2015-11-02, 02:19 PM

Sure it does. As if you'd gained a level of Binder. Says so right in the ability. If you had to have a Binder level already, it would say that, like with Gnome Paragon.

Obviously you lose the benefit of the feat, but that was always a given.

Actually, it says "...your soul binding ability improves...", indicating that you had a soul binding ability to begin with. Heck, the name of the class feature itself is "Soul Binding Bonus." If it were just "Soul Binding," I would be (slightly) more inclined to agree with you.
(Again, it's like trying to add an enhancement bonus to a mindless creature (INT -); there's nothing there to enhance. Otherwise, Fox's Cunning becomes much closer to the more powerful Awaken Undead, by giving a zombie an INT score.)

I can only assume at this point that the only reason it doesn't have a clause similar to "as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class level." is because there are no other classes that grant Soul Binding (as opposed to the multitudes that are considered arcane spellcasting.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TDC is a horrible, horrible, Evil thing to do to a third level party...I must remember to include a nest (or whatever a group of crabs is called) the next time my party travels near the ocean. :smalltongue:

ComaVision

2015-11-02, 02:23 PM

TDC is a horrible, horrible, Evil thing to do to a third level party...I must remember to include a nest (or whatever a group of crabs is called) the next time my party travels near the ocean. :smalltongue:

It's a cast. A cast of TDC :smallbiggrin:

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 02:44 PM

Actually, it says "...your soul binding ability improves...", indicating that you had a soul binding ability to begin with. Heck, the name of the class feature itself is "Soul Binding Bonus." If it were just "Soul Binding," I would be (slightly) more inclined to agree with you.
(Again, it's like trying to add an enhancement bonus to a mindless creature (INT -); there's nothing there to enhance. Otherwise, Fox's Cunning becomes much closer to the more powerful Awaken Undead, by giving a zombie an INT score.)

I can only assume at this point that the only reason it doesn't have a clause similar to "as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class level." is because there are no other classes that grant Soul Binding (as opposed to the multitudes that are considered arcane spellcasting.)

Yes, your soul binding improves as if you'd taken a level of Binder. So you gain the soul binding of a 1st level Binder. If you multiclass as a Binder, your soul binding improves from nonexistent to EBL 1 in the same way. I really don't see what nonabilities have to do with this; I don't recall anything in the nonability rules that would apply them to anything other than ability scores.

nedz

2015-11-02, 03:07 PM

What are the consequences of neither passing nor failing your save against an utterance?

You get attacked by a Giant Crab, TPK, roll new characters.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 03:42 PM

Yes, your soul binding improves as if you'd taken a level of Binder. So you gain the soul binding of a 1st level Binder. If you multiclass as a Binder, your soul binding improves from nonexistent to EBL 1 in the same way. I really don't see what nonabilities have to do with this; I don't recall anything in the nonability rules that would apply them to anything other than ability scores.

But you don't understand! If the Wizard can get access to 10 levels of Binder without losing Caster level, and that isn't overpowered, then we have to admit that Binder isn't a very powerful class! It's not fair when people use early entry tricks get abilities that aren't even very powerful because I don't want to play that character so no one else should be allowed to!

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 03:54 PM

Isn't irresistible spell third-party? And how are you applying it to utterances? And what does anything in here have to do with the thread topic?

Well, because they're not entitled to a save, it may as well be irresistible.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-11-02, 03:56 PM

Well, because they're not entitled to a save, it may as well be irresistible.

They are entitled to a save, the rules just hiccup when they roll it. A natural 20 would still save because it is an automatic success. Think of it more as massively heightened.

atemu1234

2015-11-02, 04:02 PM

They are entitled to a save, the rules just hiccup when they roll it. A natural 20 would still save because it is an automatic success. Think of it more as massively heightened.

[NI] Heightened.

Jormengand

2015-11-02, 04:16 PM

They are entitled to a save, the rules just hiccup when they roll it. A natural 20 would still save because it is an automatic success. Think of it more as massively heightened.

Only heightening it doesn't actually change the save DC, of course, which is a pity because the garbler trick would be even more amusing if it did.

Thurbane

2015-11-02, 05:18 PM

I've had both Beheld and Deophaun on my ignore list for months now. I can't read half the thread, but the half I can see is a pretty good reminder as to why, if I needed one.

I've never put anyone on ignore, but I must admit, this thread made me consider it.

Oh look, a contentless post for you to passively aggressively condescend to people, those are rare, I only see them in every single thread you post in.

Really? Erm, OK, whatever you say. I always thought I was relatively polite and not overly snarky vast majority of the time, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

The argument started on a wizard trying to qualify for Anima Mage without any levels in binder through the feat that allows you to bind vestiges. Would this work and advance binding?

I've seen plenty of arguments that due to the (poor) wording of anima mage, it actually would work.

Zombulian

2015-11-02, 05:52 PM

But you don't understand! If the Wizard can get access to 10 levels of Binder without losing Caster level, and that isn't overpowered, then we have to admit that Binder isn't a very powerful class! It's not fair when people use early entry tricks get abilities that aren't even very powerful because I don't want to play that character so no one else should be allowed to!

Wait. What do you even want out of this argument at this point? Are you just stuck in a phase of early-optimizer nihilism where you've realized that casters are better than everyone so you may as well never play anything else?
Most people get over that and get back to playing the classes they like anyway, just be patient.

ryu

2015-11-02, 06:35 PM

Beheld

2015-11-02, 07:32 PM

Wait. What do you even want out of this argument at this point? Are you just stuck in a phase of early-optimizer nihilism where you've realized that casters are better than everyone so you may as well never play anything else?
Most people get over that and get back to playing the classes they like anyway, just be patient.

Well since casters were the only classes I actually enjoyed playing, I just started writing my own classes years ago, but at this point, I would love if people admitted that the Green Lady Binder isn't overpowered, and is basically just a really good level Vestige (that is level 2, but what you going to do) that basically makes them about equal to a mildly optimized Wizard, but that the vestige scales very poorly as you level.

I also wouldn't mind it people agreed that anima mage adding to your binder level increased your binder level from zero to 1. I would settle for people no longer deceptively misquoting the anima mage entry be deliberately omitting from the quote the part that follows the word improve by specifically telling you how to improve it, and then actually address the arguments made, IE, 0+1=1, instead of hammering on about how you have to have soul binding for it to be improved in direct contradiction to what the anima mage ability actually says.

Obviously, some people have in fact done that last part, but then some people have not.

Chronos

2015-11-02, 07:50 PM

P.F.

2015-11-02, 08:04 PM

It's a 2nd-level vestige that gives you the same ability as one of the better fifth-level vestiges, while also giving you another ability that, at low levels, by itself makes you about equal to a wizard (which is already one of the stronger classes). How can that be considered anything but overpowered?

It's a second-level vestige which by itself makes you about equal to a first level sorcerer, and has the same ability as one of the better fifth-level vestiges. It's only overpowered in the sense that it's better than the other low-level options; in other words, it's the Color Spray of vestiges. And, like Color Spray, by the time you reach levels 5-7, you'll probably want to pick something else.

Zombulian

2015-11-02, 08:11 PM

It's a second-level vestige which by itself makes you about equal to a first level sorcerer, and has the same ability as one of the better fifth-level vestiges. It's only overpowered in the sense that it's better than the other low-level options; in other words, it's the Color Spray of vestiges. And, like Color Spray, by the time you reach levels 5-7, you'll probably want to pick something else.

Wouldn't that mean it's overpowered then? My general idea of overpowered is when I see an option that makes me go "Hm, well I'd be an idiot to pick anything else." This argument applies to Color Spray, and thus it applies to the vestige as well.

ryu

2015-11-02, 08:26 PM

Wouldn't that mean it's overpowered then? My general idea of overpowered is when I see an option that makes me go "Hm, well I'd be an idiot to pick anything else." This argument applies to Color Spray, and thus it applies to the vestige as well.

This is especially true when the respec of option is something you can change daily. Options that aren't as powerful later in the game don't so much care about that so long as they're powerful early and easily replaced.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 08:40 PM

Wouldn't that mean it's overpowered then? My general idea of overpowered is when I see an option that makes me go "Hm, well I'd be an idiot to pick anything else." This argument applies to Color Spray, and thus it applies to the vestige as well.

If your version of overpowered is "The things that allow PCs to beat level appropriate encounters exactly as often as they are supposed to" then I don't want to play in your games. I like beating the monsters exactly as often as you are supposed to, it is a lot better than the alternatives: 1) Losing, 2) Only playing against weak pathetic opposition that makes me feel bad.

This is especially true when the respec of option is something you can change daily. Options that aren't as powerful later in the game don't so much care about that so long as they're powerful early and easily replaced.

Well since the ability that people are crowing about being so goddam amazing requires a feat to be spent to do anything meaningful at all, it isn't being respeqed. You have spent permanent resources on pretending to be a cleric without spells but with more turn undead attempts, and nothing else, until level 8 at least, and then to still dedicated half your resources to that for even more levels. So either you commit to the idea that turn undead attempts are worth your entire class features until level 8, and then worth half your class features after level 8 for a while, or you light a feat on fire and burn it to the ground.

And I'm sorry, no, turn undead attempts are not that good, simulating a couple level 1 wands over eight levels and maybe doing some other stuff with more feats only even seems worth the time of day by the standards of a class that everyone admits is just worse than every full casting class, and every class in Tome of Battle.

Infinite out of combat healing for the party is the end all and be all of level 1 tricks, but it is the standard assumption at level 5.

ryu

2015-11-02, 08:47 PM

If your version of overpowered is "The things that allow PCs to beat level appropriate encounters exactly as often as they are supposed to" then I don't want to play in your games. I like beating the monsters exactly as often as you are supposed to, it is a lot better than the alternatives: 1) Losing, 2) Only playing against weak pathetic opposition that makes me feel bad.

Well since the ability that people are crowing about being so goddam amazing requires a feat to be spent to do anything meaningful at all, it isn't being respeqed. You have spent permanent resources on pretending to be a cleric without spells but with more turn undead attempts, and nothing else, until level 8 at least, and then to still dedicated half your resources to that for even more levels. So either you commit to the idea that turn undead attempts are worth your entire class features until level 8, and then worth half your class features after level 8 for a while, or you light a feat on fire and burn it to the ground.

And I'm sorry, no, turn undead attempts are not that good, simulating a couple level 1 wands over eight levels and maybe doing some other stuff with more feats only even seems worth the time of day by the standards of a class that everyone admits is just worse than every full casting class, and every class in Tome of Battle.

Infinite out of combat healing for the party is the end all and be all of level 1 tricks, but it is the standard assumption at level 5.

Feats are far from permanent. They can be respeced in a matter of rounds for free at high level with no DM approval needed outside of the basic functions of spells. At low levels it takes more time, but it's still totally doable.

Also you know what else is demonstrably worse than every fullcasting class? Literally everything not part of that group. That's not an argument.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 08:56 PM

Feats are far from permanent. They can be respeced in a matter of rounds for free at high level with no DM approval needed outside of the basic functions of spells. At low levels it takes more time, but it's still totally doable.

Also you know what else is demonstrably worse than every fullcasting class? Literally everything not part of that group. That's not an argument.

Except the monster you have to fight, you know the ones that you are supposed to be able to beat but can't. Those things. Like I said in the post you quoted, if your version of OP is all the things that compete at the level they are supposed to, then I want to be OP, because the other options are losing and fighting piss easy well below CR opposition (or having the opposition play like titanic idiots to condescend to my ****ty character).

ryu

2015-11-02, 09:01 PM

Except the monster you have to fight, you know the ones that you are supposed to be able to beat but can't. Those things. Like I said in the post you quoted, if your version of OP is all the things that compete at the level they are supposed to, then I want to be OP, because the other options are losing and fighting piss easy well below CR opposition (or having the opposition play like titanic idiots to condescend to my ****ty character).

You can quite easily kill monsters far above CR with a binder regardless. Further the CR system doesn't assume that individual party members are supposed to nullify entire equal CR encounters. Doing regularly with incredibly high chance of success such that the rest of your party doesn't need to even be there? That's OP by the common definition, and why my group hasn't fought an encounter lower than four CR above us in years.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:09 PM

You can quite easily kill monsters far above CR with a binder regardless. Further the CR system doesn't assume that individual party members are supposed to nullify entire equal CR encounters. Doing regularly with incredibly high chance of success such that the rest of your party doesn't need to even be there? That's OP by the common definition, and why my group hasn't fought an encounter lower than four CR above us in years.

I am skeptical that you are using monsters to their abilities.

ryu

2015-11-02, 09:20 PM

I am skeptical that you are using monsters to their abilities.

Oh but we are. Thing is we play casters because we prefer that level of power and complexity. It also helps that things that aren't casters tend to be over CRed and things that are are under CRed. You know what's a common level one wizard build? Fiery bursting abrupt jaunter picking lots of battlefield control and disabling spells. Practical effect of that character at level one? The first five times you try to harm me per day you automatically fail. If you get close to me you take 2d6 fire damage without save or any spent resources on my end. If you stay away from me I start denying you actions with spells. That's just one party member of either four or five.

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-02, 09:27 PM

Man, I love 3.5/PF, but I think at the point that the most powerful class needs the powers of yet another class to be competitive something has gone horribly wrong.

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 09:31 PM

There really aren't a lot of 1st level spells that are overpowered even when usable at will. I mean, I allow custom command-word items of 1st level spells at the guideline price of 1800 gp, and probably the best ones I've seen are Master's Touch, Swift Expeditious Retreat, and Cure Light Wounds? (There was also Towering Oak, but I just priced that one as an enhancement bonus to Strength and a competence bonus to Intimidate, so I'm not counting it.) Master's Touch is a nice one, granted, if you fight with weapons, but it's hardly the best thing you can be doing.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:33 PM

Man, I love 3.5/PF, but I think at the point that the most powerful class needs the powers of yet another class to be competitive something has gone horribly wrong.

No one needs Anima Mage to keep up, but if a Wizard wants to spend 2 feats and their Prestige class levels on AnimaMage instead of Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Sacred Exorcist, I'll let them.

Oh but we are. Thing is we play casters because we prefer that level of power and complexity. It also helps that things that aren't casters tend to be over CRed and things that are are under CRed. You know what's a common level one wizard build? Fiery bursting abrupt jaunter picking lots of battlefield control and disabling spells. Practical effect of that character at level one? The first five times you try to harm me per day you automatically fail. If you get close to me you take 2d6 fire damage without save or any spent resources on my end. If you stay away from me I start denying you actions with spells. That's just one party member of either four or five.

Given that a Ravid is a valid encounter for that party, I'm not too impressed.

Do you expect to retrain your feats when you hit level 3?

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-02, 09:40 PM

No one needs Anima Mage to keep up, but if a Wizard wants to spend 2 feats and their Prestige class levels on AnimaMage instead of Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Sacred Exorcist, I'll let them.

And that's your houserule. But I don't think it's entirely necessary to read the Anima Mage ability like that for the game to function, or for wizards to be powerful. That'd probably add to a nice high powered game, but that's not my cup of tea, personally.

Are there anymore examples of James Jacob's work, by the way? I'd love to read about them as I don't know the ins and outs of the system.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:47 PM

And that's your houserule. But I don't think it's entirely necessary to read the Anima Mage ability like that for the game to function, or for wizards to be powerful. That'd probably add to a nice high powered game, but that's not my cup of tea, personally.

It isn't a houserule.

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-02, 09:50 PM

It isn't a houserule.

Then it's your interpretation of the rules. Either way, it works for some people and not for others, and not everyone reads it that way. If you are fighting very powerful monsters and are playing in the Tippy-verse, then it makes more sense to rule that way.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 09:55 PM

Then it's your interpretation of the rules. Either way, it works for some people and not for others, and not everyone reads it that way. If you are fighting very powerful monsters and are playing in the Tippy-verse, then it makes more sense to rule that way.

"Very Powerful Monsters" are the Core MM at CR appropriate points. If you aren't facing those, then what justification do you have for saying your characters are balanced for the game.

ryu

2015-11-02, 09:56 PM

No one needs Anima Mage to keep up, but if a Wizard wants to spend 2 feats and their Prestige class levels on AnimaMage instead of Master Specialist/Incantatrix/Sacred Exorcist, I'll let them.

Given that a Ravid is a valid encounter for that party, I'm not too impressed.

Do you expect to retrain your feats when you hit level 3?

Finding an obscure creature from an entirely different plane that's a caster with permanent flight, that wanders aimlessly, and is tailored specifically to fight the only thing mentioned despite being obviously more powerful than other creatures common at that CR. Nice. It still isn't a threat. You wanna know why? It only fights in self defense, and thus doesn't do anything unless we provoke it first. Care try again this time in good faith and with a creature that actually poses a threat?

Vhaidara

2015-11-02, 10:12 PM

"Very Powerful Monsters" are the Core MM at CR appropriate points. If you aren't facing those, then what justification do you have for saying your characters are balanced for the game.

You mean things like the Shadow and Allip, that are almost automatically TPKs to most third level parties (who expect to fight 4 equally strength encounters a day), not to mention the first and second level parties (2 and 3, respectively)? Or the Tarrasque, that big block of tofu that can regularly be killed by said CR 3 creatures with absolutely no difficulty?

Also, I forgot, so to the playground: What was the lowest level build we found that killed Big T without using monsters (basically, I'm ruling out Madness T-Killer)

Beheld

2015-11-02, 10:26 PM

Finding an obscure creature from an entirely different plane that's a caster with permanent flight, that wanders aimlessly, and is tailored specifically to fight the only thing mentioned despite being obviously more powerful than other creatures common at that CR. Nice. It still isn't a threat. You wanna know why? It only fights in self defense, and thus doesn't do anything unless we provoke it first. Care try again this time in good faith and with a creature that actually poses a threat?

Yes, I definitely tailored that encounter specifically to your proposed character and didn't suggest it because it was literally the very first entry on a list I made yesterday and posted yesterday. Also, see that whole thing where it flies around animating objects that then kill the townspeople or castlepeople and they employ adventurers to help? If you don't stop the killings, then you are not helping and you don't get paid.

But sure let's move to encounter 2 on the list, a Basilisk deep in a burrow that has something you need. After you fail to understand the rules for this encounter and complain that it is tailored to destroy your specific character, and is "obviously more powerful than everything else at it's CR" we can move on to the third thing on the list while you refuse to answer my question about retraining your precocious apprentice feat again.

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-02, 10:34 PM

ryu

2015-11-02, 10:46 PM

Yes, I definitely tailored that encounter specifically to your proposed character and didn't suggest it because it was literally the very first entry on a list I made yesterday and posted yesterday. Also, see that whole thing where it flies around animating objects that then kill the townspeople or castlepeople and they employ adventurers to help? If you don't stop the killings, then you are not helping and you don't get paid.

But sure let's move to encounter 2 on the list, a Basilisk deep in a burrow that has something you need. After you fail to understand the rules for this encounter and complain that it is tailored to destroy your specific character, and is "obviously more powerful than everything else at it's CR" we can move on to the third thing on the list while you refuse to answer my question about retraining your precocious apprentice feat again.

First off the reason I called that on the last one is that it was fire immune, flying, and capable of animating minions to kill with without getting into easy attack range. I'm sure you can hardly see how that is a hard counter to what you were told.

Second yes that Basilisk is entirely reasonable. It has a twenty foot move speed, moderate health, a lack of any ranged attack higher than thirty feet, and is without minions. It also isn't flat immune to a common damage type and flying. Now then the question is whether that's a quest based monster that someone wanted dead, or just something found while traveling. If the former it dies fairly efficiently to ranged attacks probably from moderately cheap bows and the odd cleric spell. If the latter it dies to being BFCed in place before being pelted with less expensive ranged attacks. The difference between the two is that in the former we knew it was coming.

Also no I have no plan to retrain until level ten or so. Unlimited reserve feat damage has good utility for a while.

ben-zayb

2015-11-02, 10:53 PM

I think a better answer is that the CR system is broken, which TDC sorta proves. It's better to not rely on it and know how certain powers will act with the party, else your players will need high powered characters to compete.This. It is so broken that a written CR40+ encounter can be turned into a RAW legal CR10+ encounter, with barely any drawbacks at all. If that wasn't clue enough that something went wrong in the dev's side at some point, I dunno what is.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 10:59 PM

First off the reason I called that on the last one is that it was fire immune, flying, and capable of animating minions to kill with without getting into easy attack range. I'm sure you can hardly see how that is a hard counter to what you were told.

Honestly, I didn't even recall that they are fire immune, I just assumed they would be around corners and more than 20ft away, and you would not be able to use your reserve feat 95% of the time. Like I said, I'm going on a list that I wrote yesterday for a separate poster.

Second yes that Basilisk is entirely reasonable. It has a twenty foot move speed, moderate health, a lack of any ranged attack higher than thirty feet, and is without minions. It also isn't flat immune to a common damage type and flying. Now then the question is whether that's a quest based monster that someone wanted dead, or just something found while traveling. If the former it dies fairly efficiently to ranged attacks probably from moderately cheap bows and the odd cleric spell. If the latter it dies to being BFCed in place before being pelted with less expensive ranged attacks. The difference between the two is that in the former we knew it was coming.

Not familiar with the concept of a burrow, are you?

Also no I have no plan to retrain until level ten or so. Unlimited reserve feat damage has good utility for a while.

Asked about Precocious Apprentice, not Reserve Feat.

ryu

2015-11-02, 11:09 PM

Honestly, I didn't even recall that they are fire immune, I just assumed they would be around corners and more than 20ft away, and you would not be able to use your reserve feat 95% of the time. Like I said, I'm going on a list that I wrote yesterday for a separate poster.

Not familiar with the concept of a burrow, are you?

Asked about Precocious Apprentice, not Reserve Feat.

Oh it just wants to stay in its burrow and won't be coaxed out? There's lots of fun answers to that. My personal favorite for a desert based setting is using cantrip created water to weaken the walls enough for a cave-in. Assuming it doesn't come out on its own we can just wait for it to suffocate from a safe distance.

Precocious apprentice is still an extra second level slot and a free spell learned. While not as tasty as reserve feat those are still somewhat useful throughout early levels. Not necessary to retrain until at least midgame.

Faily

2015-11-02, 11:12 PM

I think a better answer is that the CR system is broken, which TDC sorta proves. It's better to not rely on it and know how certain powers will act with the party, else your players will need high powered characters to compete.

Does this mean the thread has gone so far off-topic now that it has derailed itself back to the topic? :smallbiggrin:

Honest Tiefling

2015-11-02, 11:13 PM

Does this mean the thread has gone so far off-topic now that it has derailed itself back to the topic? :smallbiggrin:

Well, I'm trying my best here! Sadly no one has funny James Jacob stories. I am saddened that I will not see more along the lines of the Most Damnable of Crabs.

Troacctid

2015-11-02, 11:16 PM

Precocious apprentice is still an extra second level slot and a free spell learned. While not as tasty as reserve feat those are still somewhat useful throughout early levels. Not necessary to retrain until at least midgame.

It's not an extra spell learned--you have to add it to your spellbook (or take it as a known spell) normally.

ryu

2015-11-02, 11:16 PM

Does this mean the thread has gone so far off-topic now that it has derailed itself back to the topic? :smallbiggrin:

Why yes yes it does. Tangents are sometimes just tangents. You'll notice that even in the context of a derail we were still discussing green lady and badly CRed monsters for most of that.

Edit: Not a free spell learned? Eh one extra level two spell in the book isn't expensive.

Deophaun

2015-11-02, 11:33 PM

The first five times you try to harm me per day you automatically fail.
That's not how abrupt jaunt works. Creature A goes to attack you. You abrupt jaunt as an immediate action. Abrupt jaunt happens before the attack takes place. Creature A, now having not attacked, can reselect targets which, if it still has movement or is a ranged attack (or spell), can still be you.

In order for something to outright spoil an attack, it needs to sever the connection between the attack roll and the damage roll; the general rule is if the attack hits, you deal damage. So, even if you can time the jaunt to happen between the attack roll and the damage roll, you are basically quantumly entangled with whatever hit you, and you get spooky damage at a distance even if you are now a galaxy and several planes of existence removed from the attack.

There are very, very few things in the game that can rewrite history and flat out spoil an attack. Abrupt jaunt is not one of them.

ryu

2015-11-02, 11:38 PM

Deophaun

2015-11-02, 11:47 PM

Cute. You'll find that interpretation to be really rather rare based on previous experience on this forum.
You'll find "interpretation" is RAW. Previous experience on this forum is, whenever someone goes off half-cocked and bothers to look up the rules for immediate actions as well as attack rolls and damage, they concede that abrupt jaunt does not work that way.

ryu

2015-11-02, 11:53 PM

Ssalarn

2015-11-02, 11:54 PM

That's not how abrupt jaunt works. Creature A goes to attack you. You abrupt jaunt as an immediate action. Abrupt jaunt happens before the attack takes place. Creature A, now having not attacked, can reselect targets which, if it still has movement or is a ranged attack (or spell), can still be you.

In order for something to outright spoil an attack, it needs to sever the connection between the attack roll and the damage roll; the general rule is if the attack hits, you deal damage. So, even if you can time the jaunt to happen between the attack roll and the damage roll, you are basically quantumly entangled with whatever hit you, and you get spooky damage at a distance even if you are now a galaxy and several planes of existence removed from the attack.

There are very, very few things in the game that can rewrite history and flat out spoil an attack. Abrupt jaunt is not one of them.

Spent a fair chunk of time researching this on the internet, doesn't seem to be any conclusive answer and certainly no "official" answer I could find, but the general consensus seems to refute this interpretation.
The "at any time" clause of immediate actions does seem to indicate that it's perfectly reasonable to say "Fighter A attacks you" and then have the wizard respond "Right before his blade would connect, I teleport away with abrupt jaunt". The fighter has still taken the action, because the wizard didn't activate his abrupt jaunt until the action was initiated.

Beheld

2015-11-02, 11:57 PM

You'll find "interpretation" is RAW. Previous experience on this forum is, whenever someone goes off half-cocked and bothers to look up the rules for immediate actions as well as attack rolls and damage, they concede that abrupt jaunt does not work that way.

Having just recently watched and participated in this argument on another forum, and having explicitly gone over the rule immediate action rules (although in that case, in relation to wings of cover, the relevant facts do not change) I'll come down on the side of, Abrupt Jaunt totally does in fact allow you to dodge attacks. Certainly melee attacks are really easy, since it is rare at best for someone to begin a melee attack when they can also hit others.

For the record, I don't believe that Ryu is claiming that he can wait for an attack roll, see if it hits his AC, and then if it hits his AC only then use Abrupt Jaunt, if he is in fact claiming that, I would then disagree.

Deophaun

2015-11-03, 12:03 AM

Not in any of the several arguments I've had about this in the past it hasn't. It usually comes down to the fact that immediate actions can be declared at any time even interrupting other actions during other people's turns. This includes directly after the declaration of any form of attack but before any dice are rolled.
That's fine. Declare away. But declarations don't commit you to anything. Dice rolls do. Without the d20 clattering on the table, there has been no attack:

Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it indicates whether, over several attempts in the round, you managed to connect solidly.
And if the attack hits, it deals damage. Period. There is no further check to see if you are still a valid target.

If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage. Roll the appropriate damage for your weapon (see Table 7–5: Weapon, page 116). Damage is deducted from the target’s current hit points. If the opponent’s hit points drop to 0 or lower, he’s in bad shape (see Injury and Death, page 145).
There is nothing in this that abrupt jaunt causes to fail. It either happens before the attack roll, in which case there hasn't even been an attempt made, or after, in which case it doesn't spare you from any damage that attack would have caused.

ryu

2015-11-03, 12:04 AM

Having just recently watched and participated in this argument on another forum, and having explicitly gone over the rule immediate action rules (although in that case, in relation to wings of cover, the relevant facts do not change) I'll come down on the side of, Abrupt Jaunt totally does in fact allow you to dodge attacks. Certainly melee attacks are really easy, since it is rare at best for someone to begin a melee attack when they can also hit others.

For the record, I don't believe that Ryu is claiming that he can wait for an attack roll, see if it hits his AC, and then if it hits his AC only then use Abrupt Jaunt, if he is in fact claiming that, I would then disagree.

Nope. I wait for declaration of actions. I do this mainly because I refuse to stand any shaky interpretation, and total immunity to the first five attacks of the day at level one is plenty.

Edit: You'll also note the existence of actions that require no rolls. You can't hit me if I'm outside your swing range before you even swing the sword.