[3.5] "OP" Classes - Help

[Thurbane]

Hey all,

Need some help with something I find quite frustrating in my group.

Precursor: our games are pretty low-mid op, and quite often core only. They are also generally low to mid level, never going above about 11 or so.

In my recent game, I opened up a lot more classes and races - we had a Warlock and a Warblade. A couple of the group commented on how OP these characters were.

Previously, I had run a Dragon Shaman; and I'm currently running a Binder. Again, some raised eyebrows at the "OP-ness" of the classes.

I have tried to explain the concept that some classes are fairly optimized out of the box, but largely falls on deaf ears because in out low op, low-mid level games, we've never had any Batman Wizards, Cozillas or Mailmen Sorcerers.

The main beef seem to be classes with "all day" abilities. There is an ingrained belief that casters are "more balanced" because their spells are finite per day.

Without wanting to wreck the game by making a TO-type character, how can I convince them?

Along with my Binder 1, my other PC is a core-only Cleric 1 (Magic and Travel domains).

What is the best way to show them, without being a jerk, the true power of a Tier 1 caster?

Cheers - T

[eggynack]

I don't think your goal of simultaneously displaying caster power in a way that's clearly apparent and not being a jerk is a feasible one. I have the feeling that there's a spectrum, from displaying supremacy and jerkiness, to not displaying either, and you just gotta pick a point where you feel comfortable. I guess you can just be awesome and be cool about it, but there's something intrinsically jerky about any act like that that's intended to prove a point. You can also sit down for several hours and try to prove this stuff through crazy argument, but that usually doesn't work.

[Extra Anchovies]

Honestly? You don't need to. You're at a fairly low-op table. Ask the others in the group to let you give Binder a chance, and show them that it's a pretty reasonable class. Then do the same with, say, Totemist, or Swordsage, or whatever else they're overly worried about.

If they insist on a theory explanation, point out to them that if a party has two casters, the casters will probably exhaust their spells at around the same time, and then the party has to stop for the day - their spells always (or almost always) last the full day anyways, so the finite number of spells isn't of much significance.

Granted, a lot of non-core classes have higher optimization floors than most of the core classes - it's a lot easier for a Warblade to be good at their job (dealing damage) than it is for a Fighter to do the same, for example. It might be worth pointing out that the classes you consider overpowered are not the ones with higher-than-average floors but the ones with higher-than-average ceilings - a blaster wizard can run out of slots pretty quickly, but the right spell (color spray, slow, stinking cloud, web, etc) can solve an encounter without the need for any other magic.

[Troacctid]

In your group's defense, Warblades legitimately ARE overpowered at low levels, while T1 casters legitimately don't become overpowered until at least level 7 or so, so in a 1-11 campaign, they spend the majority of the campaign at an acceptable power level. (Except for Druids, who are overpowered at every level.)

You can pretty easily show that Warlocks (or at least eldritch blast) aren't overpowered by comparing their damage output with that of a reserve feat. A Wizard with the Storm Bolt or Fiery Burst reserve feat deals the same damage as a Warlock with eldritch blast, while also dealing half damage on a miss, ignoring spell resistance, and potentially hitting multiple enemies. Of course, this might just convince your group that Wizards are overpowered, but to be fair, that's kind of true, so, shrug.

[daremetoidareyo]

Play a druid. Pick unnecessary fights with obviously super tough opponents. Survive. Humble-Gloat. Repeat.

Also, if you're a binder, you are gonna hate level 4. Just gonna hate it so much. It is the worst binder level. 3 was ok, and 5 is ok, but level 4 stinks. You're just sort of - not super helpful in any one category and middling in the rest.

[ryu]

In your group's defense, Warblades legitimately ARE overpowered at low levels, while T1 casters legitimately don't become overpowered until at least level 7 or so, so in a 1-11 campaign, they spend the majority of the campaign at an acceptable power level. (Except for Druids, who are overpowered at every level.)

You can pretty easily show that Warlocks (or at least eldritch blast) aren't overpowered by comparing their damage output with that of a reserve feat. A Wizard with the Storm Bolt or Fiery Burst reserve feat deals the same damage as a Warlock with eldritch blast, while also dealing half damage on a miss, ignoring spell resistance, and potentially hitting multiple enemies. Of course, this might just convince your group that Wizards are overpowered, but to be fair, that's kind of true, so, shrug.

Wizards are only not in competition for the most powerful thing at the table at level one if they aren't putting any resources at all into being powerful at level one. An abrupt jaunting fiery burster with brutal utility and battlefield control is not something that's easy to beat at that level. I mean it's possible, and there are other classes with more native strength at tier one like druids, but wizard is no slouch on the being scary at any given level department.

[Zaq]

Wizards are only not in competition for the most powerful thing at the table at level one if they aren't putting any resources at all into being powerful at level one. An abrupt jaunting fiery burster with brutal utility and battlefield control is not something that's easy to beat at that level. I mean it's possible, and there are other classes with more native strength at tier one like druids, but wizard is no slouch on the being scary at any given level department.

Technically, Fiery Burst requires 2nd level spells, so you can't have it at level 1 unless you're allowing Precocious Apprentice to qualify for it. Though Wizards are still crazy powerful at level 1.

[RoboEmperor]

I can't really offer advice. When I introduced reserve feats, every single player threw a goddamn tantrum. In another group they laughed at me. It seems your group is like tier4-5 so just ban all the classes that aren't in those tiers, show them how to optimize their guys, or force the higher tier class players to roleplay it down to their level. A BFC wizard with abrupt jaunt is truly scary, especially if he's decent with a crossbow or has a reserve feat, but a wizard who focuses on summon monster is weak but fun.

But yeah... you really can't show them how strong something is without being a jerk. Have them fight with an opposing party that possesses a proper tier 1 wizard or druid or w.e. and show them how pathetically weak warlocks are.

[ryu]

Technically, Fiery Burst requires 2nd level spells, so you can't have it at level 1 unless you're allowing Precocious Apprentice to qualify for it. Though Wizards are still crazy powerful at level 1.

It works by raw. We also have ways of getting ninths at first level.

[Extra Anchovies]

A wizard doesn't even need to use Precocious Apprentice and Fiery Burst to be strong at level 1 - I've played with wizards who ended (or virtually ended, by merit of a mostly-unconscious group of enemies) half of the encounters with a single Color Spray. That spell is insane.

[Zanos]

A wizard doesn't even need to use Precocious Apprentice and Fiery Burst to be strong at level 1 - I've played with wizards who ended (or virtually ended, by merit of a mostly-unconscious group of enemies) half of the encounters with a single Color Spray. That spell is insane.
Color spray has the disadvantage of causing your 4-8 hit points to be instantly obliterated if anything passes it's save or isn't in range. It's a 15ft cone. Don't use it against Orcs.

[ryu]

Color spray has the disadvantage of causing your 4-8 hit points to be instantly obliterated if anything passes it's save or isn't in range. It's a 15ft cone. Don't use it against Orcs.

Unless you have abrupt jaunt, in which case use it against ALL the orcs. Seriously, that spell is basically an AOE will save-or-die at level one. Short range of course, but we have ways of dealing with that.

[Zanos]

Abrupt Jaunt is the answer to every low level wizard problem.

[Thurbane]

Some good advice and opinions so far...


Also, if you're a binder, you are gonna hate level 4. Just gonna hate it so much. It is the worst binder level. 3 was ok, and 5 is ok, but level 4 stinks. You're just sort of - not super helpful in any one category and middling in the rest.

I'm a Hellbred (Body Aspect) Binder, so level 4 is two bonus feats for me. Also, I've already got Improved Binding, so I'll have access to level 3 vestiges by 3rd level. :smallsmile:

[ryu]

Abrupt Jaunt is the answer to every low level wizard problem.

Well there was this one optimization exercise involving soloing a bunch of kobolds with slings where stacking DR to the point they couldn't reliably harm me was the answer. Also fiery burst. Fiery burst for days.

[AvatarVecna]

Step 1 to playing D&D 3.5: Don't high-op your group into irrelevance just to prove a point.

Now, if you've decided to ignore Step 1, here's a relatively simple build that has the potential for early entry while also taking a great big steaming dump on the concepts of versatility and game balance: go Gnome Wizard (Illusionist) 1, using the substitution levels from Races of Stone; take Earth Sense (if you use flaws, also take Earth Spell and Heighten Spell, otherwise take them later). Reach Shadowcraft Mage 3 ASAP, and 5 if you feel like it; you probably also want to get Gnome Wizard 5 or 10 in your build, and you should consider taking levels of Master Specialist. As soon as you can, take Arcane Thesis (Silent Image) and (if you can find a way to qualify without losing wizard CLs) Versatile Spellcaster. There's some various feats through the Dragon Mags and other sources that make your shadow spells more real, so take a few if that's available, if you feel like it.

This build can be as simple as Gnome Wizard 7/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Wizard +3/Archmage 5. that particular build peaks at 15th lvl, but it's viable at all points, assuming your DM doesn't say Mind-Affecting Immunity affects Silent Image even though it's not a Mind-Affecting spell, and it really starts breaking the game into pieces once you hit level 10.

[Troacctid]

It works by raw. We also have ways of getting ninths at first level.

"By RAW," Precocious Apprentice literally doesn't function at all, since it immediately disqualifies you from its own primary benefit.

[nedz]

The main beef seem to be classes with "all day" abilities. There is an ingrained belief that casters are "more balanced" because their spells are finite per day.

Ask them how many combat rounds there are in any given day. Then point out that this how many times you can actually use those powers. Now, end some combats with one 1st level spell.

[Andezzar]

"By RAW," Precocious Apprentice literally doesn't function at all, since it immediately disqualifies you from its own primary benefit.How so? Ten characters

[Beheld]

How so? Ten characters


He's actually completely wrong, by RAW it gives you a second level spell slot that you can use to cast Heightened First level spells, but not second level spells even by his interpretation, but the point is that Precocious Apprentice allows you to cast second level spells, but at the same time says that when you can cast second level spells, it stops being what it is and just becomes an extra second level spell slot.

So it immediately on taking the feat self progressed into a second level spell slot, but that means you lose the ability to cast second level spells with CL 1, so you probably can't cast second levels spells unless you have heighten.

[Andezzar]

That is incorrect. The altered mechanics only kick in when the character is able to cast 2nd level spells (plural). Before getting normal 2nd level spell slots he can only cast one 2nd level spell. Precocious Apprentice works fine by RAW.

[Beheld]

That is incorrect. The altered mechanics only kick in when the character is able to cast 2nd level spells (plural). Before getting normal 2nd level spell slots he can only cast one 2nd level spell. Precocious Apprentice works fine by RAW.

That's one (very terrible) way to interpret the condition of what counts as casting second level spells, but it is clearly not the one he is using.

I personally let level 4 Sorcerers qualify for PrCs that require casting level 2 spells, because casting one spell multiple times is often times exactly like casting multiple spells.

[Earthwalker]

Just to make sure I understand the problem correctly.

Your group is Low Optimization.
Your class choice is Mid Opimization (It has a higher floor for optimization, you can't play a low op warblade for example)

I fail to see how you showing the group high Optimization fixes the above problem.

The fix is to play the same optimization as the group.

So either

Help them optimize better on classes that have a low floor.
Show them classes with a higher floor and play them.
Change to match thier optimization level.

[ahenobarbi]

It's not going to work. (https://xkcd.com/651/) Instead you should ask them to let you play one (possibly agreeing to withdraw the character if turns out to be OP), play it reasonably (don't agree to mąkę one demonstrating maximum power of the class, that way lays Pun-pun) and everyone should be happy.

[Troacctid]

He's actually completely wrong, by RAW it gives you a second level spell slot that you can use to cast Heightened First level spells, but not second level spells even by his interpretation, but the point is that Precocious Apprentice allows you to cast second level spells, but at the same time says that when you can cast second level spells, it stops being what it is and just becomes an extra second level spell slot.

So it immediately on taking the feat self progressed into a second level spell slot, but that means you lose the ability to cast second level spells with CL 1, so you probably can't cast second levels spells unless you have heighten.
That's what I was referring to, yes. By RAW, the whole first three-quarters of the feat might as well be struck through. (I hope it was clear that I didn't mean the whole thing does nothing--obviously at the very least you'd still get +2 Spellcraft.)

Under some interpretations, you might be able to use Heighten Spell to make it work, but I'm pretty sure I've never, ever seen anyone include Heighten Spell with it, since the main appeal of it is that it supposedly enables early qualification with a single feat.


That is incorrect. The altered mechanics only kick in when the character is able to cast 2nd level spells (plural). Before getting normal 2nd level spell slots he can only cast one 2nd level spell. Precocious Apprentice works fine by RAW.
Well, good luck using it to qualify for Fiery Burst, then. (Prerequisite: Ability to cast 2nd level spells.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

Instead of optimizing your way to gamebreaking power you could just ramp it up slowly. Make better build/spell choices to give them a glimpse of the possibilities.
Show them that the classes they see as weak can actually be very effective without shoving it into their faces.

Play a Fighter. Optimize him to a point where he's competitive, but not so far that you're charging for thousands of damage every round. Get Dungeoncrasher and Pounce to make playing a fighter actually fun.

Play a Wizard. Make smart spell choices and generally be a helpful little god-wizard without making the rest of the party completely obsolete. Don't turn it into a gamebreaking abomination that uses every TO wizard trick ever conceived of.

Play a Cleric. Make smart spell choices instead of just being a healbot. Don't use Divine Metamagic (or use DMM:Quicken instead of DMM:Persist), don't stack all the buffs ever and refrain from taking a PrC, because i doubt your group is ready for the full might of CoDzilla.

All of those are doable with core-only resources. The same applies to pretty much every core class, with the possible exception of Monk.

As for all-day abilities, you can't exactly blame them. Even the designers severely overrated those until ToB, which is pretty far at the end of 3.5s lifetime.
It's pretty easy to demonstrate though. Play a caster, make smart spell choices and you simply won't run out as fast when you can end most encounters with a single spell.
Buy Pearls of Power. Even first and second level spells can be encounter enders (hello Glitterdust), so you can get a whole bunch of them.
Use wands for spells that really don't need high CL or save DCs. They should get the idea on their own, or you can point it out when you still have half your daily slots left by the time the other party casters need to rest because they blew everything on blasting or similar inefficient choices.


but a wizard who focuses on summon monster is weak but fun.
Leaving aside the fact that an optimized summoner is pretty damn strong (there are a lot of summoning boosters), this is rarely a good idea for an inexperienced player.

Not only do you really need to know what summons you have (which really requires you to accurately assess their capabilities), you'll also need to prepare their statsheets in advance to make them playable at all, which can be a lot of work.
And then you'll still slow the game down when you flood the field with minions, more so if you don't have a really solid grasp on the combat rules in general and the abilities of your summons so you can decide your actions fast.

You also have a really big chance of stepping on the toes of unoptimized melee characters, who are easily eclipsed by optimized summons. A well-built summoner is quite capable of filling both the melee and blasting roles with a single spell per encounter if he knows his monsters.

Summoners are fun, but the only time i'd really suggest playing one is if you know enough to keep your disruption of the game minimal and you're not making another PC obsolete in the process.

[Andezzar]

That's one (very terrible) way to interpret the condition of what counts as casting second level spells, but it is clearly not the one he is using.

I personally let level 4 Sorcerers qualify for PrCs that require casting level 2 spells, because casting one spell multiple times is often times exactly like casting multiple spells.Precocious Apprentice does not let the character cast one spell multiple times. It lets the character cast one spell once. At any given moment he can only cast that spell once. Perhaps a sorcerer has only one known spell of appropriate level but he can cast that spell multiple times. That is casting spells.


Well, good luck using it to qualify for Fiery Burst, then. (Prerequisite: Ability to cast 2nd level spells.)At level one, yeah that is out. Do note that the prerequisite requires the ability to cast multiple spells (of any type) whereas usage of the feat requires only one fire spell of sufficient level.

[Beheld]

Precocious Apprentice does not let the character cast one spell multiple times. It lets the character cast one spell once. At any given moment he can only cast that spell once. Perhaps a sorcerer has only one known spell of appropriate level but he can cast that spell multiple times. That is casting spells.

Really, man that sucks, and here I thought that when a level 1 Wizard rested and prepared spells the next day his feat allowed him to cast his Precocious Apprentice spell again.

But now you are telling me that after you cast it one time, you can never prepare it again ever and the feat ceases to have effect. And I'm sure you have a rules citation for that...

[Andezzar]

No, but the character only has one slot to use and one spell to fill the slot with. So at any given moment he can only cast one spell. A character who has at least two appropriate slots can cast either the spell in the one slot or the spell in the other, it does not matter if the slots are filled with the same spell. So he can always cast spells.

[Beheld]

No, but the character only has one slot to use and one spell to fill the slot with. So at any given moment he can only cast one spell. A character who has at least two appropriate slots can cast either the spell in the one slot or the spell in the other, it does not matter if the slots are filled with the same spell. So he can always cast spells.

I see, so it's level 3 Wizards that can't cast second level spells under your pathetically transparent attempt to houserule this one thing by coming up with convoluted attempts to interpret the rules.

Look, a sorcerer or wizard, of any level, can only cast one spell at a given time. He can't cast multiple spells at the same time, regardless of slots, so as soon as you point to the part of the pre-req that says "must be able to cast spells in the same 9 hour period" I will be right on board refusing to allow level 3 Wizards to qualify for PrCs and feats that use that as a requirement. But until then, I have to recognize that a Wizard that casts a level 2 spell, and then casts another level 2 spell, no matter if it is in the next round or 9 hours later, has casted level 2 spells.

[SangoProduction]

That is incorrect. The altered mechanics only kick in when the character is able to cast 2nd level spells (plural). Before getting normal 2nd level spell slots he can only cast one 2nd level spell. Precocious Apprentice works fine by RAW.

I've got 0 spells. OMG! Plural!

[Andezzar]

I see, so it's level 3 Wizards that can't cast second level spells under your pathetically transparent attempt to houserule this one thing by coming up with convoluted attempts to interpret the rules.Yes, a level three wizard with INT 12 or 13 cannot cast multiple 2nd level spells (without items). When has that ever happened?


Look, a sorcerer or wizard, of any level, can only cast one spell at a given time. He can't cast multiple spells at the same time, regardless of slots, so as soon as you point to the part of the pre-req that says "must be able to cast spells in the same 9 hour period" I will be right on board refusing to allow level 3 Wizards to qualify for PrCs and feats that use that as a requirement. But until then, I have to recognize that a Wizard that casts a level 2 spell, and then casts another level 2 spell, no matter if it is in the next round or 9 hours later, has casted level 2 spells.Until the wizard casts one spell or the other he is able to cast two different spells (i.e. the spell in one slot or the spell in the other slot, they are not one and the same). A wizard 1 with Precocious Apprentice never has that option. So he at best is able to cast one spell.

If you go with the interpretation it does not matter if he cannot cast the spell now, he will be able to do it later, why do you see that prerequisite as a restriction at all? Any character (even those with no casting ability whatsoever) will be able to cast those spells eventually (as soon as they acquire the required casting).

A real world analogue. Say you know how to throw darts. If you do not have any darts (spell slots), you are not able to throw darts (cast spells). If you only have one dart (spell slot), you aren't able to throw darts (cast spells) either, you are only able to throw one dart (cast one spell). If you have multiple darts (spell slots) you are able to throw darts (cast spells).

@SangoProduction: Good one.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Not only is this thread not about Precocious Apprentice, there's pages upon pages of arguments about it and how it does or doesn't qualify you for reserve feats/early entry/whatever already. People are never going to agree on it.

Do we really need to dig it up again?

[Beheld]

A real world analogue. Say you know how to throw darts. If you do not have any darts (spell slots), you are not able to throw darts (cast spells). If you only have one dart (spell slot), you aren't able to throw darts (cast spells) either, you are only able to throw one dart (cast one spell). If you have multiple darts (spell slots) you are able to throw darts (cast spells).

Weird because I've played entire games of darts with a single dart.

[Telonius]

Back to Thurbane's original question.

The "all day ability" thing can seem like much more of a big deal if your group is used to either very low-level play (where people do have a tendency to run out of spells), or used to lots of encounters per day (again, a tendency to actually run out of spells). Yes, this isn't a problem for a properly-prepared Wizard who teleports to a timeless plane or spends half the day inside his Rope Trick. But that's really not what we're talking about here: a low-op group concerned about something being able to zap enemies essentially forever.

I'd suggest not comparing it to the Wizard. Compare it to the Fighter. Fighter's class features also never run out. Unless it gets sundered, he doesn't run out of sword. Then compare the damage possibilities. Fighter starts off with a Greatsword. He has Strength 18. Each hit is dealing 2d6+6 damage; an average of 13 damage per hit at level 1, even before he takes Weapon Specialization. (I know, terrible feat, but it's a low-op core-only group; I'd bet their party Fighter has it).

Warlock doesn't get this high of an average until Level 7, when he gets his fourth d6 of Eldritch Blast for an average of 14 per hit. By then the Fighter has Specialization and is hitting for an average of 15 per hit (not counting any bonuses to damage if the weapon is magic, or if he has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or Power Attack, or anything else). Since he has two attacks, he might be dealing 30 points per round. But Warlock is stuck doing lower damage, with not very much that can be done to increase it (that doesn't involve Hellfire Warlock, a Warlock's Scepter, or that Chasuble thing whose name escapes me).

If they're more concerned about the other utility stuff (like Baleful Utterance, Fell Flight, and company) that's a little harder to quantify.

[ATHATH]

Color spray has the disadvantage of causing your 4-8 hit points to be instantly obliterated if anything passes it's save or isn't in range. It's a 15ft cone. Don't use it against Orcs.
I know that this is off topic, but Color Spray is a [Pattern] spell, which means that it affects all who can SEE the cone, not just those within it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd suggest not comparing it to the Wizard. Compare it to the Fighter. Fighter's class features also never run out. Unless it gets sundered, he doesn't run out of sword. Then compare the damage possibilities. Fighter starts off with a Greatsword. He has Strength 18. Each hit is dealing 2d6+6 damage; an average of 13 damage per hit at level 1, even before he takes Weapon Specialization. (I know, terrible feat, but it's a low-op core-only group; I'd bet their party Fighter has it).
Pretty much this. On the other hand, it's also worth noting that some classes start much stronger than they wind up. Looking at what you have...

Warlock: This one is a bit confusing, since their damage generally looks and feels crap. What invocations were used? I can see Hideous Blow looking scary at low levels, maybe also Summon Swarm, Beguiling Influence (twice the bonus of anyone else!) and maybe a mis-interpreted Baleful Utterance.
Warblade: Well, duh. The Warblade has a crazy high floor, and is a strong competitor for most powerful low-level class out there. Avoid ToB in this group at all costs, unless you make everyone playing a melee use them.
Dragon Shaman: I can see the issue at very low levels. Ish. You're only a point of BAB behind a proper fighter, your damage might well be higher with Energy Shield or Power, you can heal people all day long, an at-will SLA... it gets comparatively weaker the longer you go, but it has a decent floor for the first few levels.
Binder: Did you take Improved Binding? That probably didn't help. A Binder 1 with Malphas is a way better Rogue than the Rogue; with Savnok you're an amazing tank, Leraje potentially makes you a better archer than the Ranger... the vestiges aren't terribly strong, but they are compared to a build with very little meaningful investment. Plus, you know, levels 1-3ish are a high point.

I recommend looking carefully at your class' low-level abilities, not just their place on a tier list. Which can be frustrating, I know. But...

The fixed-list casters... I'd avoid, honestly-- they look like Sorcerers with more spells known and class features.
Factotum would probably work, though you should avoid Iajutsu Focus. They're very versatile, but they don't have a strong offensive option, which might help.
...I'd have said Warlock, but apparently at-will stuff is scary, so...
A Scout, maybe? They're pretty comparable to the Rogue-- assuming your Rogues get sneak attack with any semblance of reliability.
Hexblade should be alright.
Spellthief... depends on starting level, I guess. The first level or two they'll certainly look like Rogue plus, before they start falling behind on Sneak Attack damage.
Marshal, Ninja, Swashbuckler, Soulknife, Knight... I wouldn't expect any problems.

[Beheld]

I know that this is off topic, but Color Spray is a [Pattern] spell, which means that it affects all who can SEE the cone, not just those within it.

No it doesn't. First off, it has the effects in the spell description including:


Each creature within the cone is affected according to its Hit Dice.

2 HD or less
The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round. (Only living creatures are knocked unconscious.)

3 or 4 HD
The creature is blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round.

5 or more HD
The creature is stunned for 1 round.

So even if it did "affect" people who see it, all the text about what happens to creatures inside the cone doesn't apply.

More specifically what you are (knowingly or not) referring to is the Magic Overview description of Pattern which reads:


Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

Now, if that said "and" then all patterns would effect those who see it. But since it is describing a set of spells, and saying two different things separated by "or" it follows that some of the spells do one thing, and others do others, just like all the other Magic overview descriptions that use "or."


A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Do all Glamers do all of those things? If not, then why do you think all Patterns do the things separated by "or"?

[ATHATH]

No it doesn't. First off, it has the effects in the spell description including:



So even if it did "affect" people who see it, all the text about what happens to creatures inside the cone doesn't apply.

More specifically what you are (knowingly or not) referring to is the Magic Overview description of Pattern which reads:



Now, if that said "and" then all patterns would effect those who see it. But since it is describing a set of spells, and saying two different things separated by "or" it follows that some of the spells do one thing, and others do others, just like all the other Magic overview descriptions that use "or."



Do all Glamers do all of those things? If not, then why do you think all Patterns do the things separated by "or"?
Oh. Thanks for setting me straight there.

[Thurbane]

Just to make sure I understand the problem correctly.

Your group is Low Optimization.
Your class choice is Mid Opimization (It has a higher floor for optimization, you can't play a low op warblade for example)

I fail to see how you showing the group high Optimization fixes the above problem.

The fix is to play the same optimization as the group.

So either

Help them optimize better on classes that have a low floor.
Show them classes with a higher floor and play them.
Change to match thier optimization level.
The "problem" is that I want to challenge my group's assumptions on what constitutes an OP class. Not just for myself - I'm playing a Binder right now, but the assumption was aimed previously at players of a Warblade and Warlock.

I agree showing them a truly broken Tier 1 would likely harm the fun of the game, so I'm hesitant to do it, but after exhausting rational debate, not sure how else to go about it. I'm trying not to be selfish, but the limits out group puts on classes they perceive as OP adversely affect the range of classes all of us get to play.

Another example I haven't mentioned is Beguilers - they have an outright ban under most DMs in my group.


Instead of optimizing your way to gamebreaking power you could just ramp it up slowly. Make better build/spell choices to give them a glimpse of the possibilities.
Show them that the classes they see as weak can actually be very effective without shoving it into their faces.

Play a Fighter. Optimize him to a point where he's competitive, but not so far that you're charging for thousands of damage every round. Get Dungeoncrasher and Pounce to make playing a fighter actually fun.

Fun fact - another player in my group played a tripping based Fighter with a SPiked Chain. Spiked CHains are now all but banned. :smalleek:


Play a Cleric. Make smart spell choices instead of just being a healbot. Don't use Divine Metamagic (or use DMM:Quicken instead of DMM:Persist), don't stack all the buffs ever and refrain from taking a PrC, because i doubt your group is ready for the full might of CoDzilla.

Currently playing a Cleric, with restriction that it's core-only. I can (and intend to) play spell choices intelligently, as opposed to just being a healbot. :smallsmile:


Not only is this thread not about Precocious Apprentice, there's pages upon pages of arguments about it and how it does or doesn't qualify you for reserve feats/early entry/whatever already. People are never going to agree on it.

Do we really need to dig it up again?

Thank you! http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


Back to Thurbane's original question.

The "all day ability" thing can seem like much more of a big deal if your group is used to either very low-level play (where people do have a tendency to run out of spells), or used to lots of encounters per day (again, a tendency to actually run out of spells). Yes, this isn't a problem for a properly-prepared Wizard who teleports to a timeless plane or spends half the day inside his Rope Trick. But that's really not what we're talking about here: a low-op group concerned about something being able to zap enemies essentially forever.

I'd suggest not comparing it to the Wizard. Compare it to the Fighter. Fighter's class features also never run out. Unless it gets sundered, he doesn't run out of sword. Then compare the damage possibilities. Fighter starts off with a Greatsword. He has Strength 18. Each hit is dealing 2d6+6 damage; an average of 13 damage per hit at level 1, even before he takes Weapon Specialization. (I know, terrible feat, but it's a low-op core-only group; I'd bet their party Fighter has it).
Good points. Side note: some DMs in our group have modified Power Attack as they believe it to be OP in and of itself.

Warlock doesn't get this high of an average until Level 7, when he gets his fourth d6 of Eldritch Blast for an average of 14 per hit. By then the Fighter has Specialization and is hitting for an average of 15 per hit (not counting any bonuses to damage if the weapon is magic, or if he has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or Power Attack, or anything else). Since he has two attacks, he might be dealing 30 points per round. But Warlock is stuck doing lower damage, with not very much that can be done to increase it (that doesn't involve Hellfire Warlock, a Warlock's Scepter, or that Chasuble thing whose name escapes me).

If they're more concerned about the other utility stuff (like Baleful Utterance, Fell Flight, and company) that's a little harder to quantify.

Primary perceived issue is with damage potential, but once Fell FLight kicked in, the outrage was off the charts. I asked the player involved not to talk Walk Unseen because I knew the other players would be upset, but when he took Fell Flight, I didn't want to ask him to nerf the character any more.

Pretty much this. On the other hand, it's also worth noting that some classes start much stronger than they wind up. Looking at what you have...

Warlock: This one is a bit confusing, since their damage generally looks and feels crap. What invocations were used? I can see Hideous Blow looking scary at low levels, maybe also Summon Swarm, Beguiling Influence (twice the bonus of anyone else!) and maybe a mis-interpreted Baleful Utterance.
Warblade: Well, duh. The Warblade has a crazy high floor, and is a strong competitor for most powerful low-level class out there. Avoid ToB in this group at all costs, unless you make everyone playing a melee use them.
Dragon Shaman: I can see the issue at very low levels. Ish. You're only a point of BAB behind a proper fighter, your damage might well be higher with Energy Shield or Power, you can heal people all day long, an at-will SLA... it gets comparatively weaker the longer you go, but it has a decent floor for the first few levels.
Binder: Did you take Improved Binding? That probably didn't help. A Binder 1 with Malphas is a way better Rogue than the Rogue; with Savnok you're an amazing tank, Leraje potentially makes you a better archer than the Ranger... the vestiges aren't terribly strong, but they are compared to a build with very little meaningful investment. Plus, you know, levels 1-3ish are a high point.

The Warlock invocation that caused the most issue early on was Baleful Utterance - the ability to shatter weapons was seen as OP. As previously noted, the main beef was ranged damage output (several commented that to deal damage like that, you should be getting in close and exposing yourself to risk). It also didn't help that the player rolled ridiculously well for his ability scores (witnessed it firsthand - pretty much best character rolls I've ever seen on 4d6b3).

My Binder does have Improved Binding, but I've not actually bound a level 2 vestige yet. Naberius was viewed with suspicion for COmmand 1/5 rounds, and Amon was labelled OP for the ability to breather fire for 1d6/level every 5 rounds.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Fun fact - another player in my group played a tripping based Fighter with a SPiked Chain. Spiked CHains are now all but banned. :smalleek:
...
My Binder does have Improved Binding, but I've not actually bound a level 2 vestige yet. Naberius was viewed with suspicion for COmmand 1/5 rounds, and Amon was labelled OP for the ability to breather fire for 1d6/level every 5 rounds.
What the HELL kind of characters are seen as "balanced?"

[Hecuba]

Have you considered a ranger with a straight archery focus? Archery can be tedious, but your damage output should be respectable: they may not notice until you point it out, which can help underline you case.

[Andezzar]

What the HELL kind of characters are seen as "balanced?"Probably clerics, wizards and commoners.


Have you considered a ranger with a straight archery focus? Archery can be tedious, but your damage output should be respectable: they may not notice until you point it out, which can help underline you case.Respectable damage with archery? I guess that depends on your definition of respectable.

[sleepyphoenixx]

What the HELL kind of characters are seen as "balanced?"

This. If your players actively resist any improvement over what they see as "the normal power level" you're pretty much screwed.

You can't play a clever new take on the old classes, because it's overpowered munchkinry and promptly banned.
You can't play one of the fun lower-tier non-core classes, because having weak abilities at will is also overpowered munchkinry (and promptly banned).
You can see the trend here: anything that isn't like what they're used to is overpowered munchkinry - see above.

From what it sounds like i wouldn't be surprised if playing a cleric with smart spell choices ends with bitter accusations of "not playing your class right", "being selfish" and essentially being bullied into either healbotting or playing something else.
Extrapolate for a non-blaster wizard, a bard that's actually competent or whatever other class you choose to play in an optimized manner.

I'm not telling you not to try. I don't know your group, so i may be totally off base here. But i've seen that kind of mentality before, and there really isn't much you can do about it if your group will stomp on any attempt to break the mold.

[Thurbane]

What the HELL kind of characters are seen as "balanced?"

Probably clerics, wizards and commoners.

You're not far off the mark...we played a game where the party was Goblin Beguiler (due to a bad reincarnate, started off as Grey Elf), Deep Dwarf Monk, Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Druid and Human Dragon Shaman (me). It was EttRoG, so we started at around 8th and went to 11th or 12th from memory.

The characters deemed most OP were the Beguiler ("he has a spell for everything!"), the Dragon Shaman ("what, acid breath every 1d4 rounds all day???") and the Monk ("that high movement rate and Stunning Fist are just encounter enders!"). The player of the Druid nearly is really low op, and his most common tactic in battle was to summon an Elemental. He barely wild shaped at all. Even the Fighter was looked upon suspiciously after a Power Attack fueled crit with a greataxe in the first session...

[nedz]

That's quite a smorgasbord of, supposedly, OP classes. It might be interesting to turn this around and ask which classes are seen as not OP ? This might reveal a common pattern in the ones which are seen in that light.

[LentilNinja]

If the DM is okay with your character choice, don't bother trying to convince anyone. Just play the character and let them see for themselves.

Otherwise, when convincing DMs/players that my character isn't OP I make up an encounter where my character fights a monster, then a midpowered class (lets just say Swordsage for example) fights the same monster. I once had a DM weary of my Rogue/Swashbuckler build being too much damage, so I showed him the DPR of a Scout/Ranger of the same level. That settled that debate fairly quickly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're not far off the mark...we played a game where the party was Goblin Beguiler (due to a bad reincarnate, started off as Grey Elf), Deep Dwarf Monk, Dwarf Fighter, Halfling Druid and Human Dragon Shaman (me). It was EttRoG, so we started at around 8th and went to 11th or 12th from memory.

The characters deemed most OP were the Beguiler ("he has a spell for everything!"), the Dragon Shaman ("what, acid breath every 1d4 rounds all day???") and the Monk ("that high movement rate and Stunning Fist are just encounter enders!"). The player of the Druid nearly is really low op, and his most common tactic in battle was to summon an Elemental. He barely wild shaped at all. Even the Fighter was looked upon suspiciously after a Power Attack fueled crit with a greataxe in the first session...
So, what, competence is forbidden? Are you playing Kobolds Ate My Baby? Is your group just turning on each other as soon as you do something useful? MORE THAN HALF YOUR PARTY IS APPARENTLY OVERPOWERED.

My only real suggestion: offer to DM an "epic heroes" game or something along those lines, and provide pre-gens at what normal groups would call a decent power level. Make sure the sheets are written such that it will be easy to use that power-- make some alternate sheets for the Wild Shape character, write out spell descriptions for the casters, and so on. Let the players see what it feels like to play a character who can get stuff done, while still facing challenging encounters. (Have them overcome a couple actually level-appropriate encounters, then one that's more normal for this group). Hopefully you can teach them that "overpowered" characters can still be fun.


If the DM is okay with your character choice, don't bother trying to convince anyone. Just play the character and let them see for themselves.
The problem with this is that it sounds like it's not a perception problem-- it's that when the game actually starts, being able to do stuff is seen as problematic. A fighter does good damage? Overpowered! A Dragon Shaman breathes acid? Overpowered! A Beguiler casts more than one or two spells? Overpowered! Hell, the Monk running is apparently overpowered.

[Segev]

Short-form advice: Play a Batman wizard. Specifically, focus on the "your allies are your favorite spell" aspect. Buff them. Empower them. Hold their foes still so they can kill them. You will demonstrate the power of the class without overshadowing them.

[Andezzar]

Short-form advice: Play a Batman wizard. Specifically, focus on the "your allies are your favorite spell" aspect. Buff them. Empower them. Hold their foes still so they can kill them. You will demonstrate the power of the class without overshadowing them.That pretty much depends on perception. Looking at that situation can garner responses ranging from: "That wizard is OP, the rest is merely doing mop up duty for him." to "Come on, pull your weight, wizard. You didn't do any damage."

[Cosi]

That pretty much depends on perception. Looking at that situation can garner responses ranging from: "That wizard is OP, the rest is merely doing mop up duty for him." to "Come on, pull your weight, wizard. You didn't do any damage."

That's why you blow a feat on Fiery Burst so that you can plink away at enemies when the fight is locked down. Drop haste or black tentacles or cloudkill first round, then follow up with your mediocre at-will. Probably take Mage of the Arcane Order so that you can periodically pull out that one life-saving spell you need. Then sit back and let the group do the work.

[Segev]

That pretty much depends on perception. Looking at that situation can garner responses ranging from: "That wizard is OP, the rest is merely doing mop up duty for him." to "Come on, pull your weight, wizard. You didn't do any damage."


That's why you blow a feat on Fiery Burst so that you can plink away at enemies when the fight is locked down. Drop haste or black tentacles or cloudkill first round, then follow up with your mediocre at-will. Probably take Mage of the Arcane Order so that you can periodically pull out that one life-saving spell you need. Then sit back and let the group do the work.

This, but also, if you're doing it right, the initial reaction will be "pull your weight," and then you change things up to blast for a bit, depriving them of their buffs. They'll probably notice that they're not doing as much as you are, now. And are less effective than before. And that their "failure" to "pull their weight" is actually increasing the risk and time the fights take.

That's when you discuss it with them as non-condescendingly as you can, explaining that you prefer to buff them, because they are more efficient damage-dealers with your buffs than you are with blasting. Most of the time.

[gadren]

My recommendation is to find a different group.

[Thurbane]

My recommendation is to find a different group.

Not really an option, the group includes my fiance and some friends of around 25 years. :smalltongue:

I think part of the problem, at least with some of the old school guys, is that they considered pretty much everything in 3.X OP to our AD&D days...I feel that even the newer players (those who hadn't played D&D before 3.5) have had some of this attitude rub off on them.

I like the idea of running some kind of one-shot, where I give the players a bunch of pregenerated, optimized characters to play. Even better if I can keep it to core only, since splat books are viewed as a source of power-creep.

[gadren]

Not really an option, the group includes my fiance and some friends of around 25 years. :smalltongue:

I think part of the problem, at least with some of the old school guys, is that they considered pretty much everything in 3.X OP to our AD&D days...I feel that even the newer players (those who hadn't played D&D before 3.5) have had some of this attitude rub off on them.


Is your fiancé one of the grognards? I've got friends of 20+ years who I love but wouldn't play a tabletop RPG with anymore. We're still friends, we just do other stuff, and I and my wife game with people who are actually fun to play with. If my wife wanted to play with them she's welcome to, but I'm not going to torture myself.