Natural Bond and Single-classed Druids

[RedMage125]

So...a player of mine is making a druid, and as part of his character plan, he revealed that he intends on taking Natural Bond (from Complete Adventurer), and upgrading his wolf to an ape at level 4.

He seems to believe that Natural Bond will offset the "-3 effective level" for the ape as a pet. The way I read the feat, this does not work. Namely because it would cause his "effective druid level" to be 7, which will exceed his character level of 4.

He's on board that he has to ACTUALLY be level 4 before he can get an ape. But if he takes Natural Bond at level 3, then when he gets the ape, it will instantly use the second row on the animal companion table, because his feat offsets the "-3".

My argument stems from the fact that Natural Bond provides a boost to animal companions for druids who multiclass or Prestige. Also for Rangers (since a Ranger 6 has an effective druid level of 3, if he takes NB he adds +3 to his effective druid level, thus boosting his companion accordingly). Also, a Druid 1/Rogue3 could take Natural Bond and have a wolf with the benefits of a 4th level druid, or an Ape (with the abilities of a 1st level druid's pet). Since I know it works that way, it seems off to allow a single-classed druid to use it to eliminate the penalty of an alternate animal companion.

Two questions:
1- What is the official RAW answer on this issue? Because the way I read it, it doesn't support his claim, although I see where he gets the idea.

2- If it is legal, has anyone had a player do it, and is it too OP? Or is the extra power boost negligible?

Part of my concern with the second question is that this player is the most experienced of all the players at my table, has the mindset the most geared towards optimization, and he's playing a Tier 1 class. The 2nd most experienced guy (very experienced in the game, not much of an optimizer) is playing a Barbarian. However, the rest of the party is Cleric (moderately experienced player, not much of an optimizer), Wizard (brand new player), and Rogue (new to 3e, but played 2e back in the day, and a few sessions of 5e).

[DrMotives]

I had to read over the feat & the druid class description again to be sure, but I think you're right. The feat seems to exist only to allow multiclass druids or druids with RHD to have animal companions more competitive with their character level, it certainly seems to do nothing for single-class, zero RHD druids.

[Zanos]

RAW I believe your player is correct. Effects can be applied in the most beneficial order, so you can apply the effects of natural bond after the reduction from the alternative companions.

RAI, as always, is hard to determine, but I'm fairly sure the feat wasn't intended for single classed druids.

[Ellowryn]

That is a weird way to interpret the feat....

Anyways, for question 1: No, nor will there ever be.

For question 2: It is in no way more OP than druids naturally are. The most powerful animal companions are worth taking even without the feat, and only gain a marginal boost if they can.

With the party you have listed even without the feat the animal companion is probably going to outshine the rogue with little effort, while just the druid character himself will outperform the wizard easily unless that player is giving large amounts of help (Here is a good Wizard guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?104002-3-5e-The-Logic-Ninja-s-Guide-to-Wizards-Being-Batman)) and given the optimization difference probably the cleric too. Granted this is assuming the player goes all out with everything he does and plays the class to its full potential of course.

[Troacctid]

Your player is correct. His effective Druid level has a +3 and a -3 modifier, for a total of +0. As this does not cause his effective Druid level to be greater than his hit dice, it works just fine.

This is not especially overpowered (not more so than usual, anyway) and is generally a reasonable use of a feat slot. I've used it as a player and I've had players use it in games I've DM'd, without any problems.

Note that it would not allow you to select a higher-level companion than you normally could—it very specifically only improves "the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives." It doesn't do anything else.

[Mehangel]

After reading the feat I think I would have to side with the player.

Let me explain my train of thought.

Scenario A: Level 4 Druid with wolf companion and natural bond.

Effective Druid Level for Wolf is +0, thus his druid level and effective druid level are the same.
Natural Bond cannot increase your Effective Druid Level above character level, thus natural bond does nothing at this time.



Scenario B: Level 4 Druid with ape companion and natural bond.

Effective Druid Level for Ape is -3, thus his druid level and effective druid level are offset by 3.
Natural Bond grants a +3 effective druid level, thus increasing your effective druid level to become equal to your character level.



Because the ape gives an effective druid level penalty, the natural bond feat actually negates that penalty, and it also wouldn't increase your effective druid level to exceed your character level aswell.

[nedz]

Add three to your effective druid level for the purpose of determining the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives (see page 36 of the Player's Handbook). This bonus can never make your effective druid level exceed your character level.

Alternative Animal Companions

A druid of sufficiently high level can select her animal companion from one of the following lists, applying the indicated adjustment to the druid’s level (in parentheses) for purposes of determining the companion’s characteristics and special abilities.

It is confusing but your player is right.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by RedMage125
Because the way I read it, it doesn't support his claim….

I'd say your reading is correct.

The feat allows you to improve your effective druid level by three, but you can't use it to bring your effective level above your character level. As a single-classed druid, your player's druid level is his character level, so the feat has no effect. The choice of animal companion is irrelevant.


Originally Posted by Troacctid
Note that it would not allow you to select a higher-level companion than you normally could—it very specifically only improves "the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives." It doesn't do anything else.

And by the same token, the quoted text refers to improving specific attributes of the animal companion, rather than explicitly allowing the option to take a higher-level companion than would otherwise be available to a single-classed druid.

Note also this text from the Complete Adventurer Errata:

"If a character has multiple animal companions, the bonus granted by this feat applies to one of them."

Since 3.5 druids only have one animal companion at a time, this clearly refers to animal companions gained by multiclassing, e.g. with ranger. Obviously this text doesn't invalidate your player's reading, but it does strongly suggest the intent was for multiclass rather than single-classed druids.

Ultimately it's a DM call, but the arguments about druid level penalties seem a little too convenient to be convincing. I'd go with your gut feeling on this one.

[zergling.exe]

I'd say your reading is correct.

The feat allows you to improve your effective druid level by three, but you can't use it to bring your effective level above your character level. As a single-classed druid, your player's druid level is his character level, so the feat has no effect. The choice of animal companion is irrelevant.



And by the same token, the quoted text refers to improving specific attributes of the animal companion, rather than explicitly allowing the option to take a higher-level companion than would otherwise be available to a single-classed druid.

Note also this text from the Complete Adventurer Errata:

"If a character has multiple animal companions, the bonus granted by this feat applies to one of them."

Since 3.5 druids only have one animal companion at a time, this clearly refers to animal companions gained by multiclassing, e.g. with ranger. Obviously this text doesn't invalidate your player's reading, but it does strongly suggest the intent was for multiclass rather than single-classed druids.

Ultimately it's a DM call, but the arguments about druid level penalties seem a little too convenient to be convincing. I'd go with your gut feeling on this one.

By saying it only applies to one companion they are likely referring to the Beast Master from the same book, that gets 3 extra companions over 10 levels. I believe that Druid and Ranger (once you have the companion) levels stack for the purposes of improving it, as they are both Animal Companion.

[Troacctid]

And by the same token, the quoted text refers to improving specific attributes of the animal companion, rather than explicitly allowing the option to take a higher-level companion than would otherwise be available to a single-classed druid.
Well yeah. Of course it's by the same token. That's literally the same point that I just made.


Note also this text from the Complete Adventurer Errata:

"If a character has multiple animal companions, the bonus granted by this feat applies to one of them."

Since 3.5 druids only have one animal companion at a time, this clearly refers to animal companions gained by multiclassing, e.g. with ranger. Obviously this text doesn't invalidate your player's reading, but it does strongly suggest the intent was for multiclass rather than single-classed druids.
No, it's referring to the Beastmaster prestige class. A multiclass Druid/Ranger only gets one animal companion, so the errata is irrelevant to a multiclass character.

[eggynack]

I'd say your reading is correct.

The feat allows you to improve your effective druid level by three, but you can't use it to bring your effective level above your character level. As a single-classed druid, your player's druid level is his character level, so the feat has no effect. The choice of animal companion is irrelevant.
Your druid level, sure that's your character level. But that's not the thing at issue. What matter's is, "The druid's effective level for the purpose of determining the bonus Hit Dice, extra tricks, special abilities, and other bonuses that your animal companion receives", because that's what "effective druid level" is referring to in the text. And, by the rules, that's the level that picking up an alternate companion reduces. To that point, consider the fact that alternative companions specifically apply their penalty to, "The druid’s level (in parentheses) for purposes of determining the companion’s characteristics and special abilities," where said characteristics and special abilities are identical to those considered by the feat. It seems clear to me that the two things are considering the same stat, and that the player's reading would thus be correct.


Note also this text from the Complete Adventurer Errata:

"If a character has multiple animal companions, the bonus granted by this feat applies to one of them."

Since 3.5 druids only have one animal companion at a time, this clearly refers to animal companions gained by multiclassing, e.g. with ranger. Obviously this text doesn't invalidate your player's reading, but it does strongly suggest the intent was for multiclass rather than single-classed druids.
Actually, to be exact, I think it's referring to beastmaster, which was in the same book. Thus, they weren't necessarily considering this in the context of multiclassing, but were rather considering the new case applied by that very book.



Ultimately it's a DM call, but the arguments about druid level penalties seem a little too convenient to be convincing. I'd go with your gut feeling on this one.
Is it a DM call whether to allow it? Sure, I guess, but that applies to everything. Is it a DM's call whether this is the correct RAW reading? I don't think so, no. I really think this just unambiguously works as the player says.

Anyway, as for whether it's OP, I don't think it is. It's quite good, certainly, a perfectly viable druid feat, but it's not at the top tier for druid feats. It's more like the thing that you slot into your build pretty early for some nice bonuses than the thing which seriously breaks the druid. Maybe that power boost would be crazy elsewhere, but druid feats are amazing and essentially banning one feat doesn't make a huge difference to the global feat power of druids.

[RedMage125]

So far what I'm getting is that while my player's interpretation seems to be right, it IS a slight boost in power for his animal, which is normally negligible for a class that is already Tier 1. But given that none of the other players optimize much (or at all), even the fact that there are 2 other Tier 1 classes means that this druid player is likely going to overshadow one or more other players (especially the Rogue who is new to 3.5e but not new to D&D).

This player frequently DMs himself and rarely gets a chance to play. I think I'll just tell him my balance concern (mostly a concern for the fun of the other players at the table) and ask him to be mindful of it.

[Godskook]

Two questions:
1- What is the official RAW answer on this issue? Because the way I read it, it doesn't support his claim, although I see where he gets the idea.

Picking an Ape reduces your effective Druid level. Natural Bond increases your effective Druid level, but capped at your character level. Bonuses are applied in the order most beneficial. By RAW, it seems pretty clear cut, at least to me.

Especially considering that the Ape option is a core option, and thus something you should assume Natural Bond was explicitly designed around.


2- If it is legal, has anyone had a player do it, and is it too OP? Or is the extra power boost negligible?

Natural Bond isn't terrible, and there's worse things your Druid could be doing, such as picking up feats that buff his own spellcasting.


Part of my concern with the second question is that this player is the most experienced of all the players at my table, has the mindset the most geared towards optimization, and he's playing a Tier 1 class. The 2nd most experienced guy (very experienced in the game, not much of an optimizer) is playing a Barbarian. However, the rest of the party is Cleric (moderately experienced player, not much of an optimizer), Wizard (brand new player), and Rogue (new to 3e, but played 2e back in the day, and a few sessions of 5e).

If the Rogue starts to feel left behind, point him towards Swordsage in Tome of Battle, or the Rogue handbook.

If the Wizard starts to feel left behind, drop more arcane scrolls as loot and give him Treantmonk's guide to wizards.

[Pluto!]

It's an order of operations question in a case where the order of operations isn't explicit in the rules. As the DM, it's your call.

Personally, I don't like it because the animal companion is the element of the Druid that most dismissively steps on other characters' toes (ie. not only does the Grizzly Bear do the same job as the Fighter, it does the job about as well and is entirely disposable), and the generous reading exacerbates that problem.

[eggynack]

It's an order of operations question in a case where the order of operations isn't explicit in the rules. As the DM, it's your call.
The most beneficial order thing seems like it'd make it work in the player's favor, and beyond that, I'd think something intrinsic like alternative companion penalties would be applied before feats. And, also, I don't see why natural bond wouldn't continue to ask the game whether your companion would be put over-level. Even if natural bond goes first, it seems like the penalty would then be applied, and then natural bond would work fine. The bonus applies whenever it wouldn't make you go above level, and after the companion penalty is a time when that'd be true.


Personally, I don't like it because the animal companion is the element of the Druid that most dismissively steps on other characters' toes (ie. not only does the Grizzly Bear do the same job as the Fighter, it does the job about as well and is entirely disposable), and the generous reading exacerbates that problem.
That's a true thing. Might be worth not letting this in if there's a low tier melee type in the party. Still, it's worth considering what's replacing it, cause a replacement feat could easily obsolete other party members to a way greater extent, and it's further worth considering what the companion in question is. A fleshraker stands a good chance of obsoleting a mid-level fighter, but a bear, even a natural bond using bear, is less likely to do so.

[Godskook]

It's an order of operations question in a case where the order of operations isn't explicit in the rules. As the DM, it's your call.

Personally, I don't like it because the animal companion is the element of the Druid that most dismissively steps on other characters' toes (ie. not only does the Grizzly Bear do the same job as the Fighter, it does the job about as well and is entirely disposable), and the generous reading exacerbates that problem.

FAQ sets precedent that as a general rule, you apply modifiers in the most beneficial order. That's as close to an official ruling as we're really going to get, I think.

[Pluto!]

What's the source on the "most beneficial order" rule? I don't want to dig my heels into any positions until I consult the source on this ruling, but truth be told, I've never actually seen that clause in the rules.

[eggynack]

Either way, my last argument on the point seems sound. Natural bond applies whenever it wouldn't do this thing, and it wouldn't do this thing after the penalty, so it applies. Order doesn't matter overmuch because it's a continuous effect. It's not like this is an empower+maximize thing, where order determines a single number instantaneously. If natural bond ever stops applying in a case like this, it never stops applying.

Edit: I also don't see why you can't just consider the two simultaneously. It seems like the system would prefer that when possible, and it's very possible here.

[Necroticplague]

The player is right. The Alternative Companions provide a penalty to your effective druid level for the benefits they gain. Natural bond increases your effective druid level for the benefits companions gain, up to a maximum of your level. These two cancel out.

I've had players do this before. The benefit is decent, but not very overpowering. Honestly, I'd say it's about as powerful as a feat should be.

[eggynack]

Here's another argument for my claimed ordering. Penalty and then natural bond is actually just the order that things happen. The process associated with the animal companion is that you pick a companion, and then you ritual for 24 hours, and then the companion is yours. From the moment the selection happens, you already have an effective druid level relative to that companion, because the associated number is a fact of nature. However, natural bond only applies to your animal companion, and the companion is only yours after 24 hours are up and it's right in front of you. Thus, the penalty happens either long before the bonus, or soon before it, on approach. By this line of reasoning, the order of simultaneous effects is irrelevant because the effects are not simultaneous.

[Malroth]

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, allow the player to take the feat but then have the party continually harassed by the animal companions of enemy druids wild shaped into a sparrow a Kilometer away, since they're a class feature not the acutal encounter then there's no loot and no xp if they "win".

[eggynack]

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, allow the player to take the feat but then have the party continually harassed by the animal companions of enemy druids wild shaped into a sparrow a Kilometer away, since they're a class feature not the acutal encounter then there's no loot and no xp if they "win".
I don't really see what distant druid harassment, as a thing for the gander, has to do with natural bond use, as a thing for the goose. They seem completely unrelated, given that the theoretical druid enemy could just be three levels higher, or have a beastmaster dip in there somewhere, and have the same effect as if they used natural bond.

[Troacctid]

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, allow the player to take the feat but then have the party continually harassed by the animal companions of enemy druids wild shaped into a sparrow a Kilometer away, since they're a class feature not the acutal encounter then there's no loot and no xp if they "win".

That's a bit passive-aggressive, don't you think?

[Malroth]

If an option is sufficiently powerful that there is no reason that somebody would refuse to take it, then pretty much everybody should take it.

And yes it is passive agressive, the best kind of agressive.

[Necroticplague]

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, allow the player to take the feat but then have the party continually harassed by the animal companions of enemy druids wild shaped into a sparrow a Kilometer away, since they're a class feature not the acutal encounter then there's no loot and no xp if they "win".

That has nothing to do with Natural Bond. That is abusing the expendability of animal companions, and can be done even without natural bond.

[eggynack]

If an option is sufficiently powerful that there is no reason that somebody would refuse to take it, then pretty much everybody should take it.

And yes it is passive agressive, the best kind of agressive.
But the enemy druid could still do this before this rule was applied to natural bond. The two have nothing to do with each other. Now, just having an enemy druid attack in standard Exp granting fashion, and having them use natural bond in this way, that's fair game. But this? It has nothing to do with it.

[Kraken]

By RAW I think the player is correct. There's no way to know RAI, but I would lean slightly, only slightly, against your player's intentions being RAI. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the possibility of a single classed druid using it came up during development, and the developer consensus was, 'eh, sure.' In terms of what this does to a druid's overall power, there are way scarier feats they could be taking, I would characterize natural bond utilized in this fashion as a mid-range power option for a druid. In other situations it could even be a weak use of a feat, but its hard to imagine even the most optimal uses of natural bond coming even close to feats like natural spell, aberration wild shape, or greenbound summoning. 'Bigger numbers' feats like natural bond will always get left in the dust to the true game changers.

[Hurnn]

I have to agree that your player is correct, but it is mostly irrelevant depending on how high your campaign goes.

So at lvl 4 he will trade an advanced riding dog for an equally advanced ape and yes it is a massive upgrade, and again at 7 I assume he will grab the brown bear but then what? The companions really start to fall off in relevance as anything other than a meat shield in a couple levels. Sure at low level it's super good, mid to high level it's almost a wasted feat.

[tyckspoon]

What's the source on the "most beneficial order" rule? I don't want to dig my heels into any positions until I consult the source on this ruling, but truth be told, I've never actually seen that clause in the rules.

It's not in the rules. Order of operations/order of application of effects has a huge effect on how things.. Well, operate, and outside of a few very specific callouts like the Maximize/Empower interaction the rules don't say anything about it. IIRC the most beneficial order standard is advice from either the FAQ or a Sage Advice article that most players adopted. You need some kind of standard to address that particular hole, may as well use the one that lets people enjoy their characters' abilities.
(Memory says it was stated in regards to what happens if you have both vulnerability and resistance took an energy type.)

[LTwerewolf]

I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander, allow the player to take the feat but then have the party continually harassed by the animal companions of enemy druids wild shaped into a sparrow a Kilometer away, since they're a class feature not the acutal encounter then there's no loot and no xp if they "win".

All I see here is "you have the audacity to try to take a feat that actually helps your character?!? POWER GAMER MUST BE PUNISHED!" This is poor dming.

[RedMage125]

OK, so, just to settle this...

I've decided that, as my policy is to adhere to RAW, only using adjudication where the RAW are vague or unclear, I've decided to allow my player to use Natural Bond.

I'm running Age of Worms, which is a pre-published module, and simply adding monsters/NPCs to fights or dropping more scrolls for the wizard aren't really "fixes" that I care to pursue. But since the possibility of the Rogue being out shined by the ape is a possibility, given the experience level of my players, I have spoken with the druid player (who also frequently DMs) and told him of my balance concerns, especially as it relates to the fun that other players (less optimized than he) will have at the table. I have asked him to be mindful that he doesn't let his animal companion hog so much spotlight that other, less experienced players will feel useless. He's on board.

[Godskook]

OK, so, just to settle this...

I've decided that, as my policy is to adhere to RAW, only using adjudication where the RAW are vague or unclear, I've decided to allow my player to use Natural Bond.

I'm running Age of Worms, which is a pre-published module, and simply adding monsters/NPCs to fights or dropping more scrolls for the wizard aren't really "fixes" that I care to pursue. But since the possibility of the Rogue being out shined by the ape is a possibility, given the experience level of my players, I have spoken with the druid player (who also frequently DMs) and told him of my balance concerns, especially as it relates to the fun that other players (less optimized than he) will have at the table. I have asked him to be mindful that he doesn't let his animal companion hog so much spotlight that other, less experienced players will feel useless. He's on board.

1.I think you're being overall very reasonable in this situation, so good on you.

2.Uhm....


as my policy is to adhere to RAW, only using adjudication where the RAW are vague or unclear

This is a bad policy. It doesn't bite you in the ass here, but it can. RAW is an atrocious thing that can ludicrousness such as drown-healing. Personally, I prefer RAW when adjudicating random interactions, but I'm perfectly willing to say stuff like "no, you may not have a spell that does 3d6 dex damage as a touch attack", even though the RAW says my PC can have it. I want dragons to be impressive, and the ability to paralyze one without a save with a single low-mid-level spell is not something I'd let into any game I ever run.


I'm running Age of Worms, which is a pre-published module, and simply adding monsters/NPCs to fights or dropping more scrolls for the wizard aren't really "fixes" that I care to pursue.

3.Why? I'm reasonably curious as to why that'd be a problem.

[LTwerewolf]

but I'm perfectly willing to say stuff like "no, you may not have a spell that does 3d6 dex damage as a touch attack", even though the RAW says my PC can have it. I want dragons to be impressive, and the ability to paralyze one without a save with a single low-mid-level spell is not something I'd let into any game I ever run.





Slight derailment, but my problem with this is that people seem to only play dragons without any magical items or defensive spells. If shivering touch is a thing in the world, every dragon that's not a complete moron knows they can be susceptible to it (even silvers and whites if energy substitution is a thing). They are going to have things to combat spells that can completely defeat them in one try. If you want dragons to be impressive, try giving them the items they would have. They have triple wealth for a reason, and it's not just so players can have it. These are not creatures where it is appropriate to random roll loot.

[Godskook]

Slight derailment, but my problem with this is that people seem to only play dragons without any magical items or defensive spells. If shivering touch is a thing in the world, every dragon that's not a complete moron knows they can be susceptible to it (even silvers and whites if energy substitution is a thing). They are going to have things to combat spells that can completely defeat them in one try. If you want dragons to be impressive, try giving them the items they would have. They have triple wealth for a reason, and it's not just so players can have it. These are not creatures where it is appropriate to random roll loot.

1.A CR 9 Dragon(the highest reasonable dragon a lvl 5 Wizard should ever see) has 13kgp. What exactly are you buying for 13kgp? And don't say consumables. We're talking a dragon with a treasure hoard here, not a conspiracy theorist with a tinfoil hat. Opulence is important. Really, this CR 9 Dragon should be able to very very little of that 13kgp on his defense against Shivering touch, especially since he should reasonably be able to buy defenses against, y'know, the entire party too. Probably only has about 1kgp to spend on this hypothetical defense. Anymore cost than that and my answer is simple: Shivering touch is blatantly overpowered because of how much of a Dragon's hoard it takes to combat it. (Keep in mind, the CR 5, 6, 7, and 8 Dragons need to deal with this Wizard too)

2.I feel like this falls under a corollary of Oberoni's Fallacy. Just because I can counter-optimize against something that's broken doesn't mean that thing isn't broken as hell.

3.Dragons are neither the only nor the best reason for removing Shivering Touch from 3.5, they just happen to be the most obvious. Seriously that spell is bonkers.

(To save you time:

A.Ring of counterspells is only half a solution, but its a very reasonable half-solution. The problem is the other half. Very few non-Dragons will know scintillating scales, making it very difficult to plausibly load the ring. No, the CR 9 Dragon can't do that, he can't cast 2nd level spells yet. Its also still nearly a 3rd of his full hoard spent on not solving the problem.

B.2nd level+ spells are all out carte blanche. The Dragon can't cast them naturally and I'm not counting consumables as being worthy solutions. All the spells I'm aware of that protect against this are 2nd+.

C.Spellblades are 8k. Crafting it would be too much, even, even though the Dragon doesn't have the CL to even come close to crafting it)

[LTwerewolf]

Rod of bodily restoration is pretty cheap, and any dragon that has a hoard has minions to use such a thing on them. 3100 gold for the ability to fight back after being paralyzed 3 times.

It's not really the oberoni fallacy. The argument is that it's overpowered because there's no viable counter at its level. The counter argument is that there's a viable counter at its level.

"but bnut but but but you're using minions that's not fair!" Dragon's don't always have to fight fair, and it should be expected that minions are going to be a thing, even for young dragons. They're not stupid. They understand their weaknesses and plan for them. If they are incapable of planning for their weaknesses, they're still around bigger dragons that can protect them.

[zergling.exe]

Rod of bodily restoration is pretty cheap, and any dragon that has a hoard has minions to use such a thing on them. 3100 gold for the ability to fight back after being paralyzed 3 times.

It's not really the oberoni fallacy. The argument is that it's overpowered because there's no viable counter at its level. The counter argument is that there's a viable counter at its level.

"but bnut but but but you're using minions that's not fair!" Dragon's don't always have to fight fair, and it should be expected that minions are going to be a thing, even for young dragons. They're not stupid. They understand their weaknesses and plan for them. If they are incapable of planning for their weaknesses, they're still around bigger dragons that can protect them.

Dragon's LOVE thier wealth, and magic items are only worth half their market price to dragons (though they would likely part with it at regular price), so any magic items they need take up large parts of that wealth, on top of the fact that their hordes tend to be actually fairly small already (volume wise). So do they prepare for adventurers, or try to gain more prestige among dragons?

[Godskook]

Rod of bodily restoration is pretty cheap, and any dragon that has a hoard has minions to use such a thing on them. 3100 gold for the ability to fight back after being paralyzed 3 times.

1.That's -expensive- for a CR 9 Dragon.

2.Let's be clear, this gives you -1- use per day against Shivering Touch(3d6 vs. 8 healing) mid-combat. Not 3.

3.It only works on a bad Shivering Touch roll and blows your turn. Combined, that means it doesn't work, strategically.

4.Minions -are- Oberoni Fallacy.


It's not really the oberoni fallacy.

I was specifically not talking about the Oberoni Fallacy itself, but a hypothetical corollary that I described there.


The argument is that it's overpowered because there's no viable counter at its level.

That's not the argument. That's -never- been my argument. Shivering Touch is a broken spell at level 20 as much as it is at level 5. It warps the entire game around around itself as a first-order optimal strategy whenever it exists. Yes it has counters, but generic D&D strategy shouldn't be "well, first, do you have protection against that 1 spell from Frostburn?"


The counter argument is that there's a viable counter at its level.

You've yet to show this is the case. I've already outlined viable at the price tag of ~1-2kgp, and your only solution costs too much.


"but bnut but but but you're using minions that's not fair!" Dragon's don't always have to fight fair, and it should be expected that minions are going to be a thing, even for young dragons. They're not stupid. They understand their weaknesses and plan for them. If they are incapable of planning for their weaknesses, they're still around bigger dragons that can protect them.

How is the dragon getting minions? If by rule 0, that's Oberoni. If by hiring them, that's consumable spending, which is unreasonable. And no, there's no bigger Dragons available, partially because we're at max CR already, partially because that's back to Oberoni, and finally because if we're solving the problem at CR 9 with a CR 11+ monster, we didn't solve the problem at CR 9.

[LTwerewolf]

It's not that expensive, and it's still 3x per day. The dragon need not replenish themselves back to full dexterity in order to continue fighting. A single use gets them from paralyzed to murder machine. I'm rather uninterested in CR, as it has always been a terrible way to judge encounters and you're the first I've seen argue otherwise. There is always a bigger dragon and there are always friends. Why is it ok for other creatures to travel in packs but not dragons? Just like every other creature they can travel in groups too. It's not the only no save just suck spell in the game, but for some reason it gets far more hate. Where are the minions coming from? They're kobolds, who worship said evil dragon like a god and do not need to be paid.

For your CR5 wizard their best chance is to get the spell off as soon as possible. That means no setup. Your CR9 dragon is a young adult black dragon with 19 SR, which requires a 14 or higher on their caster level check to even affect the dragon (that's a 35% chance). After that there's still a ~38% chance to roll under the required 10 dexterity damage in order to paralyze them. The likelihood of success here is far from guaranteed. If you make the argument that you can stack other effects to lessen the dragon's SR, you must also make the argument that the dragon can increase their SR to a relatively equal degree.

In order to guarantee bypassing the spell resistance, the wizard needs to cast another spell first. This gives the dragon ample opportunity to react as needed. Flight is an easy option, since even with reach spell via feat or item the range is only 30, though flight does not give the opportunity to counter attack. Rather, this If they're indoors, there should be lair traps to prevent this type of thing as it is. Self resetting traps should be expected and are drawn out as being normal in dragon lairs. Not having them is playing a dragon wrong. That's also not rule 0ing anything away, that's playing the dragon as they're intended.

Also, you seem to be confused as to what the oberoni fallacy is. there's no rule 0ing the problem away, and there's no house rule that's making it go away. It's using the resources available to make it not a problem. Do you not like that things can possibly revolve around a low level spell? Sure, that's fair. Does that immediately make it the most horrible brokenness known to anyone ever forever and I hate buttscotch? No, no it doesn't. It's powerful for what it does. With enough preparation to specifically defeat an opponent, the players should have a good chance to defeat that opponent. If it involves this spell, it probably also involves using other things as well to ensure that it actually works. When you're combining spell effects, that's not an individual spell being overpowered, that's a spell combination being overpowered.

It also seems like the biggest argument against this spell is because dragons, because it's possible to shut them down in one spell. Other spells, like command undead vs mindless undead (one example of many), go further in this regard, but no one seems to care because they're not dragons. Touch of idiocy completely ruins animals and hydra. There aren't many people saying those are the worst things ever. 1d6vs3d6 doesn't matter when it's the same result, just as with the mailman 3000 damage versus 2000 damage makes no difference because either way the monster is just as dead.

[HurinTheCursed]

Dragons don't pay for minions, they make promesses of wealth, power by sticking with them or intimidate and make promesses of pain and death by not doing it. Even if they paid mercenaries for nothing, their hoard would replenished so that adventurers find the triple hoard as expected !

Regarding the OP, I believe you made the better choice.

By RAW, it seemed uncertain but legitimate.
It didn't seem unbalanced and as far as druids go, it could be a lot worse for making the party feel useless, the replacement feat could have been more powerful.
In that case, it seems better to allow the player to have his fun.

I won't even advice to be careful of ubermounts and similar stuff. Multiclassing isn't even more game breaking than full druid can be.

[Ellowryn]

LTwerewolf, Godskook, i think you guys are arguing with a bad example. Dragons are notoriously over CR'd so they make a bad metric to measure power.

The reason Shivering Touch isn't really broken is because two types of creatures, and one subtype (Cold), are just flat out immune to the spell. This is Constructs and Undead, and undead are some of the most common types of enemies to face in any game. Granted it is quite possible to playing in a campaign where these two types of creatures are absent, but that just means that that particular campaign plays to the spells strengths as opposed to a spell being overpowered regardless.

[Boci]

LTwerewolf, Godskook, i think you guys are arguing with a bad example. Dragons are notoriously over CR'd so they make a bad metric to measure power.

The reason Shivering Touch isn't really broken is because two types of creatures, and one subtype (Cold), are just flat out immune to the spell. This is Constructs and Undead, and undead are some of the most common types of enemies to face in any game. Granted it is quite possible to playing in a campaign where these two types of creatures are absent, but that just means that that particular campaign plays to the spells strengths as opposed to a spell being overpowered regardless.

What? No.

Very few spells in D&D are good against every opponents, and "cold subtype, undead and constructs" isn't that bad as far as creatures a spell won't work. Many have far longer lists. Improved Invisibility is useless against anyone with blindsight, sense invisibility, touchsight or any other number extra senses. Even a high perception can potentially neuter it. That doesn't make it a bad spell, and shivering fights ability to end fights against dragon, humanoids, giants, monstrous creatures, ect makes it an overpowered spell.

[Pluto!]

Why are we going down this rabbit hole just to say that RAW has problems?

[eggynack]

Why are we going down this rabbit hole just to say that RAW has problems?
Do you mean the shivering touch hole or the natural bond hole? Cause in the latter case, I'd contend that this isn't an especially problematic rabbit hole.

[Pluto!]

as my policy is to adhere to RAW, only using adjudication where the RAW are vague or unclearThis is a bad policy. It doesn't bite you in the ass here, but it can. RAW is an atrocious thing that can ludicrousness such as drown-healing.
^This point, which I don't think is controversial.

A DM benefits by intervening on certain rules and options, and saying "No, I don't want things to work that way" or "That is more powerful than I want in my game." Ideally those decisions are made ahead of time so that they don't disrupt player tactics and plans, but drawing lines, selecting content and making decisions which may diverge from the printed work are good things, and can help keep games going smoothly and enjoyably for everyone at the table.

But now we have a half page of posts about how strong Shivering Touch is and how much DMs should game their Dragons around the existence of that spell, which is going way out into left field for the sake of nitpicking an example supporting a point that itself is uncontroversial to the point of obviousness.

[ace rooster]

Hmm, I'd always read it the other way. The druid animal companion entry uses the phrase "effective druid level" once, and this is only as the test for whether the player can take particular animal companions. On the other hand the ranger entry uses the phrase 3 times, and explicitly defines what it is. Given that the feat appears in complete adventurer, I had taken it as intended for a way for rangers to boost their animal companion rather than another treat for druids.

[RedMage125]

This is a bad policy. It doesn't bite you in the ass here, but it can. RAW is an atrocious thing that can ludicrousness such as drown-healing. Personally, I prefer RAW when adjudicating random interactions, but I'm perfectly willing to say stuff like "no, you may not have a spell that does 3d6 dex damage as a touch attack", even though the RAW says my PC can have it. I want dragons to be impressive, and the ability to paralyze one without a save with a single low-mid-level spell is not something I'd let into any game I ever run.


That policy does not mean I ALLOW all material, as long as it's RAW. Spells, for example, from the PHB and the Complete Books are allowed. Spells from other sources must be vetted by me, or are just not in the campaign.

So...no, that policy is not a problem.

[HurinTheCursed]

My DM did the same as you. Finally, since martials were too limited for their feats, he allowed all sources as long as it's kept RAW. Fortunately, our characters have more interestings tricks and became funnier to play, however this also allowed venomfire...

I tend to believe some classes are so overpowered compared to others that limiting them to core will still make useless other classes even with all official material available.
IMHO, the problem does not come from the source book as much as from the source class and its balance relative to other classes.