Designing for campaign-smashing abilities

[martixy]

As always, when dealing with Tiers I go to the definitions rather than the listings.

Tier 1 is defined by campaign smashing abilities, single ability solutions, and capability to do everything at specialized+ levels
Tier 2 is defined by campaign smashing abilities, single ability solutions, and limited flexibility
Tier 3 is defined by multiple categories: Either the specialized at field, and always useful outside of field or the skilled at everything
Tier 4 is defined by multiple categories: Either the skilled at field, but often useless outside of field or the competent at everything
Tier 5 is defined by multiple categories: Either the competent at field, but useless outside of the field or barely proficient at everything

Want to avoid single party characters? Design for Tier 2 or lower.

Want to avoid campaign smashing abilities? Design for Tier 3 or lower.

Notice how Tiers 3-5 are almost identical just with different degrees (competent-specialized, useless outside-useful outside, barely proficient-skilled at all trades)? Really it is just one long continuum. Select target to taste.

Personally I prefer either (skilled & always useful, or competent) which hits between Tier 3-4 or (specialized & always useful, or skilled). This is because I don't want to leave players spectating but want the flexibility to set different campaign thematic expectations.

Forking off that other thread for the sake of continuing the train of thought of that post and below.

So... what if I was to say I want to design for ALL DA TIERS?
You see, I kind of like the idea of the powerful, reality-altering wizard.

1. What "campaign smashing abilities" would one need to be aware of?
2. Why are they broken?
3. And what design decisions could be implemented to mitigate their "campaign-smashedness"? You'll note that I'm being deliberately vague as to the possible design vectors(so as to include anything from self-contained alterations of the mechanics of the ability, to how the campaign setting is designed in ways to prevent abuse, to even an out-of-game gentleman's agreement to that effect).


Let me start with a few classic examples:


Ability
Why it is broken
How it can be fixed


Spell: Ice assassin
An extra, permanent character you can commandeer around at will.
Limiting to 1, limiting duration.


Spell: Astral projection
Removes the peril of dying(if you secure your original bodies properly) + creates sets of powerful equipment out of thin air.
Not creating massive amounts of wealth out of thin air(say by making them mundane). Increasing the chances of cutting the silver cord, though this is arguably a bad fix, as any other you-could-die-instantly-as-balance type of fix.


Spell: Shivering touch
Trivializing dragons
Not treating dragons like idiots. Countermeasures like contingencies, scintillating scales, dexterity-boosts.


Spell: Polymorph
Amphetryon: "Polymorph is often considered broken because it allows access to virtually all the combat and out-of-combat options in the game (given enough book-diving) and obviates any need for a dedicated melee Character."
Limiting available forms. For example by requiring hands-on research into whatever form the caster wishes to take on. The more useful the form, the more dangerous the research.


Spell: Teleport
Obviates overland travel and the adventures that can be had as a result. Basically makes things more boring by removing chunks of the game. On a larger scale imagine warfare in the presence of armies teleporting with impunity.
Making teleport less reliable. My current preferred solution is teleport wards for cities(and expensive permits), and the need for maps in uncivilized areas due to reasons.


Spells: Iron wall + Fabricate
Completely destroys the D&D economy.
Obviously there are factors like market satiation - you can't expect to sell a million daggers in a small town. And of course, you could make magic not create permanent items like that. You know, conservation of wealth(conservation of mass D&D style).


Spell: Planar binding
Grod_The_Giant: "lets you access all sorts of level-inappropriate powers and basically add party members on a whim."
Placing contract agreement entirely within the purview of DM fiat.


Spell: Gate
Powerful, obedient slaves
Drop the "obedient slave" bit.


Metamagic: Nightsticks + DMM
Metamagic powered by turn attempts + infinite turn attempts
I believe it was errata'd away?(People have said this is not true.) For my part, limiting use to 1 stick per cast(and counting turn/rebuke as different uses of the same ability, not separate pools) is enough of a nerf. Page 2 of this thread has more suggestions.


On an unrelated note: How do you do the fancy table styling?

[Amphetryon]

Polymorph is often considered broken because it allows access to virtually all the combat and out-of-combat options in the game (given enough book-diving) and obviates any need for a dedicated melee Character.

Shivering Touch is often considered broken because - barring a specific counter - it takes Dragons from high-CR, dangerous encounters with appropriate wealth considering their lethality and turns them into loot pinatas to be one-shot killed.

[Flickerdart]

At every level, there are spells that make certain challenges trivial. Fly defeats any climbing-based challenges. Teleport defeats travel-time-restricted challenges. True seeing defeats anything based on illusions, Invisible Spell nonsense aside.

Lower tiers tend not to have access to these sorts of tools, or have access to them later. You need to decide which challenges your campaign will hold sacred before you can decide which abilities are campaign smashers.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a difference between game-breaking abilities and campaign-breaking abilities, methinks.

Polymorph is game-breaking but not campaign-breaking-- it gives the wizard too much combat power, but doesn't really add a whole lot of options outside of it.
Teleport is campaign-breaking but not game-breaking-- it doesn't add that much to the party's ability to win a fight, but it lets them instantly sidestep huge swathes of terrain, and all the plot hooks and obstacles within. Potentially months of material, bypassed with a single spell slot being used exactly as intended.
Planar Binding is game-breaking and campaign-breaking-- it lets you access all sorts of level-inappropriate powers and basically add party members on a whim.


The former need to be avoided or nerfed; the latter can be planned around... but that may or may not be a good idea, depending. Given that a few party members will get all the big spells, it's possible that some groups will get jealous that the Wizard is the only reason they seem to be making progress.

[Heliomance]

I don't see Teleport as a bad thing in need of nerfing. So it obsoletes travel time. That's not a bad thing. At high levels, distance ceases to be a meaningful obstacle. That's not something you need to "fix", it's something you need to be aware of when designing your campaigns. If the players are high level, don't put in long distances and expect them to be an obstacle inherently. Just like if all the characters can fly somehow, don't expect a chasm to be an obstacle. It's no longer a relevant problem.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't see Teleport as a bad thing in need of nerfing. So it obsoletes travel time. That's not a bad thing. At high levels, distance ceases to be a meaningful obstacle. That's not something you need to "fix", it's something you need to be aware of when designing your campaigns. If the players are high level, don't put in long distances and expect them to be an obstacle inherently. Just like if all the characters can fly somehow, don't expect a chasm to be an obstacle. It's no longer a relevant problem.
But that's the point-- it's a spell of such game-changing power that the entire campaign needs to warp around it or become invalid. I mean, personally I agree with you that it's fun to get actually powerful abilities at high levels, but you yourself are acknowledging that it's sufficiently campaign-breaking that DMs need to make it (and similar counterparts) a specific part of their planning.

[torrasque666]

But that's the point-- it's a spell of such game-changing power that the entire campaign needs to warp around it or become invalid. I mean, personally I agree with you that it's fun to get actually powerful abilities at high levels, but you yourself are acknowledging that it's sufficiently campaign-breaking that DMs need to make it (and similar counterparts) a specific part of their planning.

I see it as an excuse to put the BBEG's base in the classic-stereotypical-Dr. Evil-volcano. Scry and die doesn't work due to natural causes. The exact consequences are vauge though.

[martixy]

I don't see Teleport as a bad thing in need of nerfing. So it obsoletes travel time. That's not a bad thing. At high levels, distance ceases to be a meaningful obstacle. That's not something you need to "fix", it's something you need to be aware of when designing your campaigns. If the players are high level, don't put in long distances and expect them to be an obstacle inherently. Just like if all the characters can fly somehow, don't expect a chasm to be an obstacle. It's no longer a relevant problem.

That is correct.

As it is a major design hallmark of character advancement in D&D that levels provide not only a quantitative increase in power, but also a qualitative(by providing characters with capabilities they did not posses in previous levels), obstacles must also qualitatively change to reflect that.

However, as far running the game goes, it's simply clever DMing to leave yourself as many doors open for shepherding players through your world. This includes the possible control over how and when your players are allowed to make use of their options, including teleport.

[Flickerdart]

At high levels, distance ceases to be a meaningful obstacle.
At high level, distance ceases to be an obstacle because of teleportation. A party of level 20 fighters still needs to travel overland, unless they bribe a spellcaster. If a campaign is based on travel, teleport and friends smash it.

This is why it's crucial to define the campaign before naming campaign-smashing abilities. It is not impossible to create a campaign where gate and planar binding and ice assassin aren't gamebreaking.

[Extra Anchovies]

Here's an idea for fixing teleportation:

A character who can cast Teleport can't teleport to a location unless they possess a personal teleportation key linked to that spot. A personal teleportation key is a simple pendant that must be linked to both a character and a location. Linking a key to a character requires that it be worn for 24 continuous hours; after it has been linked to a character, another character can link the key to themselves by wearing it for 24 hours, which also un-links the key from the previous character. Linking a key to a location requires that the key be linked to a character, and that the character casts Teleport with the intent of linking the key to their location at the time of casting. A character can have a number of keys linked to both them and a location equal to their hit dice; attempts to link another key when the maximum has already been reached fail, with the spell slot being wasted. A character can cast Dispel Magic on a key linked to both themselves and a location to remove the location link. A linked location does not change with its environment; if you link to a rooftop and the building subsequently collapses, the link remains suspended in the air. When a key is unlinked from a character, all of its linked locations also become unlinked.

If a key is linked to both a character and a location and the key is being worn by the character, the character can cast Teleport to create the normal effects of the spell, with the target location being the exact location linked to the key. A character capable of casting both Teleport and Detect Magic can use the latter on a teleportation key to which they are linked to determine whether they are within Teleport range of the key's linked location. Arcane Sight reveals any locations that are linked to keys within the area of the spell. Break Enchantment can be cast to erase any links within a 20-foot radius of the caster, or it can be cast on a teleportation key to unlink it from a character (a key being worn gets to use its wearer's save, as normal). Analyze Dweomer can be cast on a 5-foot cube known to contain a teleport link to reveal the creator of the link and when it was created, or on a teleport key to reveal the creature to whom it is linked.

[martixy]

At high level, distance ceases to be an obstacle because of teleportation. A party of level 20 fighters still needs to travel overland, unless they bribe a spellcaster. If a campaign is based on travel, teleport and friends smash it.

This is why it's crucial to define the campaign before naming campaign-smashing abilities. It is not impossible to create a campaign where gate and planar binding and ice assassin aren't gamebreaking.

Why not?
Challenge can always be ratcheted up, and not necessarily in the straightforward add-more-monsters way.
And ice assassin, you can sensibly limit the spell in any number of ways, while still keeping it every bit as high-powered. Besides, the trope of bits of you having power over you is not at all foreign in the fantasy world, so it is not inconceivable that powerful creatures take countermeasures to protect themselves against such violations.

A party of fighters is sure to have means of teleportation via item by then. So yes, if you don't plan for it, it will smash your campaign. But having to plan for something is not an argument for its smashability potential. Not being able to plan for it is.

@Extra Anchovies: This is actually pretty decent.
Just to add another option: In my campaign there are wild magic magic and dead magic zones for reasons(and they migrate from time to time). Teleport spells have to be constructed and cast in such a way as to avoid these. Hence a large map-making industry has developed that maps these invisible obstructing volumes of space. In the most civilized areas you can acquire such a map relatively cheaply and up to date. However going outside of mapped areas is highly dangerous.
I'm basically borrowing from sci-fi, you know how hyperspace routes in some universes(Star Wars being a notable example) have to be mapped first and established routes are rather well known, but there also exist other, less well-known, perhaps shorter paths.

[Flickerdart]

Why not?
Why not what? I am saying that those spells are not campaign-breaking for all types of campaigns, only the ones that are not high powered.

[martixy]

Why not what? I am saying that those spells are not campaign-breaking for all types of campaigns, only the ones that are not high powered.

Oh... reading comprehension fail. I read that as "not possible".
Sorry. :smalleek:

[TheIronGolem]

I'm not sure if there is precedence for typing ability damage, but it seems to me that Shivering Touch could be mitigated by typing it as cold damage, which would allow resistances and immunities to apply without needing the cold subtype.

[johnbragg]

Here's an idea for fixing teleportation: MANY WORDS

Or use "Word of Recall" instead.

[OldTrees1]

Here's an idea for fixing teleportation:
-snip-

Related but less/more restrictive options:
Teleportation uses a connection between a key and a lock. The lock is an item placed at the location and designates what qualifies as a key. Afterwards any number of keys can be made without needing access to the lock and they will all allow teleportation to the lock (even if the lock has been moved).

This expands it beyond word of recall but adds the concern about if the lock gets moved.

[Cosi]

I recommend looking over this list (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=1156&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) for more broken stuff.


Shivering touch

shivering touch is emblematic of a larger problem: ability damage is broken. Most sources of ability damage deal something less than ten points of damage, which is not a particularly meaningful penalty (-5, usually to stuff you don't really care about like Intimidate or Knowledge). But if you deal more damage than someone has in their score, you win. This is not balanced.


Polymorph

Limiting available forms. For example by requiring hands-on research into whatever form the caster wishes to take on. The more useful the form, the more dangerous the research.

If it is broken to turn into a Slyph (or whatever), that doesn't stop being broken if it is hard to do. The spell needs to be rewritten from the ground up.


Teleport

teleport does two things. It lets you ignore overland journeys (fine) and it lets you layer up short term buffs to gain an insurmountable advantage when attacking (less fine).

If you're going to rework travel magic, I'd do something like this:

5th - teleport: As current, but a 10 minute casting time that shows a visual warning on the other end.
5th - word of recall: As current.
5th - plane shift: As current.

7th - greater teleport: As current.
7th - greater plane shift: As current.
7th - gate: Travel only.

Then maybe add 9th level spells that work as a swift action, or something.


Iron wall + Fabricate

None of the infinite wealth tricks are broken. What's broken is being able to turn more gold into more power. That doesn't just mean that flesh to salt or wall of iron is broken, it means that golden cities or diamond castles or black onyx mountains are broken. As those are places I would very much like to adventure, the game demands a shift away from "Infinite Gold == Infinite Power" paradigm.


Planar binding

Placing contract agreement entirely within the purview of DM fiat.

You know what sounds terrible? Having my personal ability to negotiate contracts implicate the amount of power my character has. Don't do this. Like, at all.


Gate

You missed the Free Vacation: No Save trick (use gate to call your enemy, then force him to do nothing while you beat him down). Your fix mitigates it, but letting the attacker choose both time and place of engagement warps high level play strongly in favor of offense.


On an unrelated note: How do you do the fancy table styling?

Not a huge fan.


*snip - teleport fix*

I don't like this. teleport is a 5th level spell, the province of people who can (according to the CR rules) expect to defeat entire armies. Asking people of that power level to unlock cities like they're playing freakin' Pokemon is stupid. Getting to go to new places easily is 0% of what is a problem with teleport.

[martixy]

Sorry what?

Very little of this makes sense.

Ability damage that would reduce Intimidate is Cha damage. 10 points or so would be devastating to a Cha-based caster. Same with Knowledge, Int damage and Int casters.

Shivering touch is meant to be a dragon killer. Dragons are simply not meant to be susceptible to the spell as easily as walking to it and pressing "I win" however.

Sylphs are small fey-ish outsider from MM2, is that what you are referring to? Besides, as mentioned, polymorph is hardly campaign breaking, just a strong combat option. And if whatever OP form the caster has was acquired in a meaningful way, I'd consider that okay.

And by definition, infinite loops are broken, no matter what they are - be it raw resources, infinite wishes or stats. Polymorph btw, also falls in this category - just because you can change your shape, doesn't mean you suddenly know about everything you could ever conceivably change into(which amounts to a sort of omniscience limited to that area of knowledge).

On your remark of Planar Binding, I don't get it? Even in the vanilla version the DM has control over a potential bonus to the Cha check of the character. I was merely suggesting expanding that to penalties as well.

Gate stipulates that unique creatures are under no compulsion to step through. Which can reasonably be extrapolated to mean you can't call specific creatures.

I'll take a look at that other thread, which at a cursory glance at least seems to mention something we missed here: Broken classes - like incantrix and the like.

[Cosi]

Ability damage that would reduce Intimidate is Cha damage. 10 points or so would be devastating to a Cha-based caster. Same with Knowledge, Int damage and Int casters.

Let's talk actual spells for a second. Specifically, ray of stupidity. It deals a pile of INT damage, but that pile is not very big (it averages 3 points). That kills animals, but it only drops a Wizard's DCs by 1 point. Ten points is a big deal if you're hitting the casting statistic if the caster doesn't have stuff that is stat independent if the caster isn't also a Dragon or something.


Sylphs are small fey from MM2, is that what you are referring to? Besides, as mentioned, polymorph is hardly campaign breaking, just a strong combat option. And if whatever OP form the caster has was acquired in a meaningful way, I'd consider that okay.

IDK if that's the specific creature, it's a reference to the argument that you can alter self into something with casting, polymorph into something with better casting, then shapechange into a Solar.

And yes, polymorph (more shapechange, but polymorph to a degree) is broken. There are all sorts of abilities it is not balanced for PCs to have, and using various spells in combination lets you do broken things with inheritance.


And by definition, infinite loops are broken, no matter what they are - be it raw resources, infinite wishes or stats.

Infinite loops are broken if you can turn whatever you have an infinite amount of into breaking the game. Imagine that the only stuff you could buy with gold was the mundane equipment in the PHB. Having infinite gold wouldn't do anything particularly broken.


On your remark of Planar Binding, I don't get it? Even in the vanilla version the DM has control over a potential bonus to the Cha check of the character. I was merely suggesting expanding that to penalties as well.

My reading of it was that the DM was supposed to negotiate a contract with you. That's stupid. If the DM is just going to give CHA penalties to broken things, that seems like too soft of a fix. If you're going to leave it to the DM to decide what to nerf, why bother having an explicit nerf at all?


Gate stipulates that unique creatures are under no compulsion to step through. Which can reasonably be extrapolated to mean you can't call specific creatures.

I don't think there's a compelling case that "unique" and "specific" are interchangeable in this context.

[Beheld]

I don't think there's a compelling case that "unique" and "specific" are interchangeable in this context.

More specifically, there is no compelling case at all because they are almost explicitly not the same thing, since the rules specifically say that when you Call Bob The Fighter you can pull him through unwillingly, why on earth would you choose to interpret "unique" to contradict that already existing rule:

"By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling."

"Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord."

So what, does sentence 1 say you can pull Bob the Fighter through and sentence 2 says you can't? Or does it actually mean what it says, that you can pull Bob through, and that "unique being" means something totally different.

[Arael666]

[/tr]

Metamagic: Nightsticks + DMM
Metamagic powered by turn attempts + infinite turn attempts
I believe it was errata'd away?




There is nothing about Nightsticks in the Libris Mortis errata, so it's the abuse is still RAW legal.

On fixing it, they are ridiculously overpowered if you follow RAW and allow them to be stacked NI, although, nerfing them to the point of "only one per person" is too excessive imho. My personal opinion is that they should be treated as metamagic rods, that is, you need to hold the rod to use the turn undead charges they have, and you can't use more than one rod at the same time.

Thus, a cleric who has 8 turn undead uses in his normal turning pool could grab one nightstick, spend 7 turn atempts (4 in the rod, 3 of his normal pool) and persist a spell, grab another nightstick and spend another 7 turn atempts (again, 4 in the rod, 3 of his normal pool) and persist another spell, then he would have 2 remaining turn atempts in his normal pool by the end of the persist chain. That way, grabing another nightstick won't help him at all, since he will never achieve the 7 turn atempts necessary because his normal turning pool is now at 2 (2+4 from the rod equals 6 turn attempts).

[daremetoidareyo]

Freedom of movement destroys grappling. Utterly and forever. You can carve out grappling creatures from what the spell effects.

[Beheld]

My personal opinion is that they should be treated as metamagic rods, that is, you need to hold the rod to use the turn undead charges they have, and you can't use more than one rod at the same time.

Thus, a cleric who has 8 turn undead uses in his normal turning pool could grab one nightstick, spend 7 turn atempts (4 in the rod, 3 of his normal pool) and persist a spell, grab another nightstick and spend another 7 turn atempts (again, 4 in the rod, 3 of his normal pool) and persist another spell, then he would have 2 remaining turn atempts in his normal pool by the end of the persist chain. That way, grabing another nightstick won't help him at all, since he will never achieve the 7 turn atempts necessary because his normal turning pool is now at 2 (2+4 from the rod equals 6 turn attempts).

Then you just have a Dread Necro 1/Cleric X who just uses each rod to persist a spell, and is right back to persisting as many spell as he has rods (and then doing something with leftovers and his own).

[Arael666]

Then you just have a Dread Necro 1/Cleric X who just uses each rod to persist a spell, and is right back to persisting as many spell as he has rods (and then doing something with leftovers and his own).

Even if we were talking about someone with 24 charisma, that would add up to 20 turn undead pools, or 6 persisted spells. An incantatrix with 20 int could persist 8 spells a day.

[Beheld]

Even if we were talking about someone with 24 charisma, that would add up to 20 turn undead pools, or 6 persisted spells. An incantatrix with 20 int could persist 8 spells a day.

No, if that was someone with 8 Charisma they would be able to Persist up to infinity spells per day, because they can Persist one spell per nightstick.

[Arael666]

No, if that was someone with 8 Charisma they would be able to Persist up to infinity spells per day, because they can Persist one spell per nightstick.

How so? please care to explain, because if he can't get infinite 3 turn undead a turn in his normal pool, I don't see a way to persist infinity spells.

[Beheld]

how so? Please care to explain, because if he can't get infinite 3 turn undead a turn in his normal pool, i don't see a way to persist infinity spells.

Each rod grants 8 turn attempts. 7 turn attempts persist spell. Each rod persists 1 spell without any turn attempts in pool.

EDIT: Awh.. You can't hear me. I tried shouting at you, since clearly the problem is you are deaf, but it didn't work because the forum has an auto uncaps function.

[Flickerdart]

each rod grants 8 turn attempts. 7 turn attempts persist spell. Each rod persists 1 spell without any turn attempt in pool.
Nightsticks grant 4 turn attempts, I thought.

[Beheld]

nightsticks grant 4 turn attempts, i thought.


then you just have a dread necro 1/cleric x who just uses each rod to persist a spell, and is right back to persisting as many spell as he has rods (and then doing something with leftovers and his own).

words go here

[Arael666]

Each rod grants 8 turn attempts. 7 turn attempts persist spell. Each rod persists 1 spell without any turn attempts in pool.

EDIT: Awh.. You can't hear me. I tried shouting at you, since clearly the problem is you are deaf, but it didn't work because the forum has an auto uncaps function.


Nightsticks grant 4 turn attempts, I thought.

Exactly, page 78 of libris mortis, 4 turn undead. I even stated that in my example.

[Arael666]

Then you just have a Dread Necro 1/Cleric X who just uses each rod to persist a spell, and is right back to persisting as many spell as he has rods (and then doing something with leftovers and his own).

If you're implying using more than one rod a time, you completely missed my point:


My personal opinion is that they should be treated as metamagic rods, that is, you need to hold the rod to use the turn undead charges they have, and you can't use more than one rod at the same time.

[Beheld]

Exactly, page 78 of libris mortis, 4 turn undead. I even stated that in my example.

And I stated in my example that you would be a Dread Necro 1/Cleric X who can persist as many spells as he wants.


If you're implying using more than one rod a time, you completely missed my point:

BLARGARGALKJHLKJSHDFLKJSAHDKLJFHLKSJHDF WARTLKJDHflkjsahhk?


asdljkfhasdhfljkashbdfklasbjkdlfghjaklisdfhjklasdh flkashdf?>


There did that magically transform into the words I've been saying this whole time? No? Still didn't... Okay. I'll just knife myself in the eye as punishment for trying to communicate.

[Arael666]

Look, I'm not a native english speaker, some phrases that are clear as water to you might be a bit challenging for me to understand, though google translator helps a lot, and you still missed my point, I clearly stated that the character could only use one nightstick at a time, thus your argument of him using 2 to persist should be invalid.

[Beheld]

Look, I'm not a native english speaker, some phrases that are clear as water to you might be a bit challenging for me to understand, though google translator helps a lot, and you still missed my point, I clearly stated that the character could only use one nightstick at a time, thus your argument of him using 2 to persist should be invalid.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................


Each rod grants 8 turn attempts. 7 turn attempts persist spell. Each rod persists 1 spell without any turn attempts in pool.


No, if that was someone with 8 Charisma they would be able to Persist up to infinity spells per day, because they can Persist one spell per nightstick.

[Arael666]

A nighstick does not grant 4 more turn attempts per turning pool, it grants 4 turn attempts period. You could be dread necro/cleric/Death Delver and have 3 separate turning pools, you'd still get just 4 turn attempts per nightstick. Now I get what you've been trying to say, and no, I don't think it was that clear at all.

[Beheld]

A nighstick does not grant 4 more turn attempts per turning pool, it grants 4 turn attempts period.


Anyone who possesses the rod and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day.

If you are able to turn undead, you gain 4 more turning attempts, if you are able to rebuke, you gain 4 more rebuke attempts. If you are able to both, you get 4 of each.

[Arael666]

If you are able to turn undead, you gain 4 more turning attempts, if you are able to rebuke, you gain 4 more rebuke attempts. If you are able to both, you get 4 of each.

That is true. Then my fix will have to include a "you only get 4 turn attemps OR rebukes per nightstick".

[martixy]

More specifically, there is no compelling case at all because they are almost explicitly not the same thing, since the rules specifically say that when you Call Bob The Fighter you can pull him through unwillingly, why on earth would you choose to interpret "unique" to contradict that already existing rule:

"By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling."

"Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord."

So what, does sentence 1 say you can pull Bob the Fighter through and sentence 2 says you can't? Or does it actually mean what it says, that you can pull Bob through, and that "unique being" means something totally different.

Oh, that is awesome. And completely and entirely true.

You know, I've been reading The Dresden Files recently, and only just am I realizing how much of the general wizardly trivia applies in the D&D universe. Just that nobody remembers it, then calls it broken, cuz they didn't.
Don't let powerful mages get pieces of you, don't give out your name willy-nilly. All demons are out to get ya.

Though I may have an advantage since most of my players have also read the books.

On the nightsticks, divorcing turning and rebuking is an amusing nitpick. One I'm not sure I buy. Or at least I don't wanna. :)

And I could have sworn there was some kind of official errata or superseding source or something that fixed the nighsticks. Huh...

[Cosi]

I think a fix something like this probably works for Nightsticks:

You no longer have separate pools for turning/rebuking. You have one pool, which gets bigger if you get more kinds of turning (maybe have each extra kind grant a fixed bonus to avoid attribute double dipping). You can spend turn attempts from that pool to power whatever stuff you have going on that costs turn attempts. If you're a Dread Necromancer, that's rebuking. If you're a good Cleric, that's turning. If you have the Fire Domain, your pool powers your fire rebuking and water turning. And so on for divine feats or the Sun domain's uber-turning or RKV swifts.

Nightsticks grant four turn attempts each, but those turn attempts are their own pool. So if you have a Nightstick and DMM: Persist, it doesn't get you anywhere. But if you have DMM: Empower or whatever, you can do that.

Honestly though, I think you might just need to do something about Persist. Anything that makes it free is broken, and I'm not completely convinced Nightsticks + DMM are broken outside it (maybe DMM: Quicken or DMM: Twin?).

[martixy]

I'm fine with the sensible variant of one stick at a time + count turn/rebuke as different modes of same ability, resulting in a single pool of charges, that can fuel 2 similar class features.

[Cosi]

I'm fine with the sensible variant of one stick at a time + count turn/rebuke as different modes of same ability, resulting in a single pool of charges, that can fuel 2 similar class features.

If Nightsticks actually go into your pool, that lets you use DMM: Persist massively more, even if you're limited to one at a time. Consider someone with a turning pool of 21 charges. If Nightsticks are separate charges, they can use DMM: Persist three times per day. If Nightsticks go into the pool, they can use DMM: Persist seven times per day. Those are both less than the "infinity" you get if you can use Nightsticks in concert (or count multiple types of turning), but one is more than twice the other.