Need some help balancing

[KingDuck]

So, I'm new at DMing, and I need some help balancing a PC. He is much more powerful than the rest of the party, solely because of his feats. This particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that." I don't want the rest of the party to go against enemies too tough, so is there any way to make the fights more challenging for him specifically? If it helps, he's a lvl 6 druid that's completely based on summoning. I would really appreciate any help I get.

[XionUnborn01]

Any more information you could give about the group and characters would help give more accurate responses. That being said, first order of business is to ask yourself if the other players are noticeably bothered by this PC. If that's the case then carry on to an OOC discussion.

First, emphasize that you're new to DMing and even experienced DMs can have trouble balancing summoners as it's on of the more powerful options in the game. Additionally, summoning makes one player's turns take longer than other people's which can reduce attentions and cause distractions or make people bored which is never good.

Also explain that all DMs are different and what he thinks a good DM shouldn't do you might disagree with. That being said, changing a feat or option a character has chosen is usually unadvised because players can feel unfairly targeted. If there's a specific feat that's making them too powerful, it can help to just tell them, "Hey, look, I messed up. I wasn't prepared to handle that feat/option/class/etc. because I'm new to DMing, I shouldn't have allowed it so please change it to more closely line up with the other PCs power level. I understand that's inconvenient but I'm just not able to account for that right now."

Honesty is your biggest ally right now. You're new, you should be given some grace to make changes or make mistakes. Just make sure to let them know that once you're more comfortable and used to the situation that you'll be glad to let them play more powerful characters.

[Dekion]

Please don't take offense...You are a "New" DM, not a "Good" DM. Don't let this person, as a player, bully you into doing things you aren't comfortable with, despite his experience as a DM, or you may give up before you become a "Good" DM. And, he is wrong, a "Good" DM does exactly what you are trying to do, make the game enjoyable for everyone as a whole.

My first suggestion would be to talk to the player, and appeal to him as a DM, and discuss your concerns with the level of difficulty for everyone aside from him with you attempting to present his character with viable challenges. As it appears you have may done that, I guess you may have to move on from that option. Concerns here would be a response that everyone else's lack of optimization/ability is not his problem, and while the truth is that it isn't, he should respect your desires to keep things simple for the sake of your level of expertise. I'm sure there are other suggestions that may help here, but I've never played with a "Good" player who fought the DM...There were other players who did, and they didn't stick around.

Second suggestion is to provide challenges based on numbers, not power, even a few summoned monsters can be bogged down in enough weaker foes. Sure, they go down easily, but each one requires effort and time, and the rest of the party is being effective too if there's enough to go around. I'm sure others can provide more insight, but the only player who ever did this with me as a DM and wasn't receptive quit because he was bored that everything was too easy for him that was a decent challenge for the rest of the group. He also was poor at anything outside of combat and it was explained in detail that combat would only be a small portion of the adventure with roleplay and social interaction being very important.

[weckar]

I sense Ashbound/Greenbound creatures in thy future.
Which, at a large stretch of levels, are entirely broken.

Heck, a DM I know actually had a player come to them with this exact kind of build and an unseelie fey strongheart halfling race - at lv 1 backed up by two flaws that did not impact the character whatsoever.
She kindly asked him to **** off.
He came back with a (only slightly) more reasonable character. But it was enough in line with the group that she let it be but kept the door open for later nerfing.

[Pugwampy]

Former DM,s can be a pain that way . The untouchable "Buddha" of the group whose word is law even if he is a player.
An overpowered DM vet is rather useful if you have only have 3 peeps and is a great example to newbs of the advantages of reading up and doing homework to fine tune your PC .

Ask him how he is helping the group ? If he says killing things then say no because he forces you to make stronger monsters .

Remind this former DM to stop DM,ing the DM . Ask him if he wants the DM seat since he "knows better."

When he gives you the "good DM" speech , tell him a good DM vet who plays should give the new kids a chance to have fun by playing a support class or filling an unwanted role . Ask him why he is not challenging himself ? With all his knowledge he could take a weak class or race and make it viable .

[Harlekin]

Hi, it's hard to give any specific advice without knowing more about your group (number of players, which classes do they play, how do they play these classes etc.).

As far as I understand your problem, your group is composed of mostly "casual" players with the exception of the "previous dm", who is more into optimizing then the rest of your group. This constellation can be a problem for experienced dms, but becomes much worse if you are new to dming.
Your problem causing player is playing a druid, which is one of the most powerful classes overall, at level 6 (where you said the player is) i would say it is the most powerful and versatile class in the game (that is my personal opinion, I don't want to start a "which class is more powerful" discussion here).

That said, in my opinion it is completly reasonable to ask your players to change mechanical aspects of their characters if they are causing balancing issues. I do it all the time. I encourage my players to try new things and tell them that they can change their character builds (feat choices, prestige classes, even base classes) anytime they want (as long as the character theme is consistent) if things don't work out for them. But I also tell them to change things when the group feels they are overpowered.

I think there are two important points, why my players are fine with this:
First it is a group decision. It's not me, who is saying "change your character, it's overpowered", it's the group. And second I do not only force the players to change their characters if they are overpowered, but also allow them to change things which seem to weak.

This is just general advice how i try to handle problems like yours, when they occur in our gaming group.
From your post, i get a slight feeling, that there might be a different problem. I can be totally wrong, but it seems a little like your problem causing player talked (tricked?) you into something you couldn't see the total scope of and is now refusing to change it. This is a completly different issue, because this is not a question of game balance but a question of being a decent person and not trying to sneak things by your dm and ruin the fun for the group. In this case I would have a serious talk with the player and tell him to cut the crap or leave my group.

[Fizban]

This particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that."
Hahahaha. Hahahahaha. Ha.

I don't want the rest of the party to go against enemies too tough, so is there any way to make the fights more challenging for him specifically? If it helps, he's a lvl 6 druid that's completely based on summoning. I would really appreciate any help I get.
You have someone trying to guilt you into allowing Greenbound/Rashemi/whatever. Hahahaha.

Crush him. If you can already tell those feats are too strong to play in the rest of the party, they gone. Done. Unless he can convince the rest of the party to power up all of their characters to match he's just gonna have to deal with it.

[weckar]

Actually Fiz, Greenbound and Rashemi don't stack (Rashemi elementals are still elementals, not animals). Were you thinking of Ashbound which stacks with FRIGGIN' EVERYTHING!?

[Zombimode]

So, I'm new at DMing, and I need some help balancing a PC. He is much more powerful than the rest of the party, solely because of his feats. This particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that." I don't want the rest of the party to go against enemies too tough, so is there any way to make the fights more challenging for him specifically? If it helps, he's a lvl 6 druid that's completely based on summoning. I would really appreciate any help I get.

Greenbound Summoning is a stupid feat.

Summoning actually doesn't even need feat support to be useful. But if a player wants to put resources into buffing their summons, there are options far more sane than Greenbound Summoning and its ilk. Augment Summoning is a perfectly viable feat.

[Mutazoia]

Well, as others have said, always try talking it out with said player first. Future sessions will go much smoother if you can get your problem child to stop bing a ball hog and play nice with others.

And then throw the "A good DM wouldn't build an OP character and ruin everybody else's fun." line at him.

If words do not work, try deeds.

People always say "don't split the party." Split the party. Get your ball hog off by himself and throw a higher level summoner at him. Use his own build against him. Use Demons if you want to be nasty. 1 high rank demon summons 1Dx mid rank demons, who each summon 1Dx lower level demons...instant infernal army in 1-2 rounds. And maul him with it. Bad. And make it obvious that the rest of the party would have been KO'd pretty quickly. And then ask him if he is going to insist on the over powered build, because this kind of thing is going to happen, A LOT, just to make things challenging for him.

[ace rooster]

Summoners have a real problem against targets that are prepared for them, particularly druid summoners. protection from evil is a first level spell, and worth picking up as a potion (at cl3?) if you are at all worried about summons. Unlike arcane summons, the vast majority of SNAs are neutral, and have no spell resistance. While throwing it on everybody would be a little harsh, don't hesitate to throw it on high value targets, or specific anti summon trolling elements (though actual trolls in this role don't need it). Consider a warrior with maxed out AC and invisibility and magic circle cast on them. They are basically a walking 20' exclusion zone for summons.

If he tries to suggest that you are targeting him in particular, point out that every druid has spontanious summons as a class feature, on top of arcane casters that can summon. Protection from Evil is basic prep for anybody that thinks they might tick off a druid, conjurer, or enchanter.

The other thing worth thinking about is that SNA gives you int 2 creatures that are technically NPCs. The player does not have direct control over them (though many groups play like that). They "attack enemies to the best of their ability", but beyond that they don't even have a favourable attitude to the druid that summoned them. The only way to control them is handle animal, which costs actions. Letting the player roll the dice and move them about is fine, but don't be afraid to say that the summoned untrained dog would not run past the orc to get to the wizard. While they may realise that protection from evil spells stop them attacking after trying, they would not understand this from watching them protect against another summon.

Finally, make sure intelligent foes take advantage of the casting time, range, and short duration. If a caster is casting a full round spell, you don't need to spellcraft what it is to know that it is probably worth disrupting. At level 6 they can only cast it out to 40', and it only lasts 6 rounds. Fog cloud, total defence, or simply running away for 30 seconds is enough to defeat a summon.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Strictly on the topic of "Good Dming" lemme give you a quick anecdote. I am currently running g LARP alongside three other people, all of them experienced when it comes to games and let me tell you we have some very different approaches to gaming. I would not say anyone is "bad" at all, just different. That being said let me give you some good DM tips:
1) Respect your players. A good game is founded on mutual respect between all the people involved in the game.
2) Have fun. The point of a game is for everyone to have fun. If for some reason you are not having fun then talk to your players. It stinks when a game implodes because the DM stopped having fun and did not tell anyone until it was too late
3) Do what is right for yourself and yout group when it comes to houserules. Just because one person says yes/no does not mean you should do it. If you really cannot handle something then nip it in the bud.
4) Communication is the key to a happy group. These is mixed in with the other but deserves it's own mention.

[Fizban]

Actually Fiz, Greenbound and Rashemi don't stack (Rashemi elementals are still elementals, not animals). Were you thinking of Ashbound which stacks with FRIGGIN' EVERYTHING!?
Who said anything about stacking? Either one is ridiculous on its own. Ashbound is just more bonuses (huge bonuses), but Greenbound and Rashemi include free spells on top of their huge bonuses.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that."

And a good player should know to optimize to the level of the rest of the party, not above it.
Druid is already one of the strongest classes in the game, and a competently played one can give any DM trouble even without any feats. Especially if the other players play weaker classes.
If he wants to play one ask him to tone it down so the other players can feel useful too. D&D is not a one-man show for him with the other players as his sidekicks and comic relief.
If he can't do that on his own you, the DM, need to ban the more powerful options to keep the game fun for the rest of the party.

There's also no shame in telling him that you're not comfortable with DMing at that level of power yet.


Who said anything about stacking? Either one is ridiculous on its own. Ashbound is just more bonuses (huge bonuses), but Greenbound and Rashemi include free spells on top of their huge bonuses.
Rashemi isn't that bad. By the level you get elementals strong enough to actually feel the effects of the feat a little extra blasting isn't breaking anything he couldn't have broken without the feat, just by summoning Oreads or Storm Elementals.

Ashbound isn't a problem either. The duration bonus is nice at low levels, but it doesn't allow you to keep your summons around for more than one fight.
The +3 hit is certainly useful, but no more powerful than Augment Summoning (which adds +2 hit +2 con).
It also ties in well with the fact that druid summons are almost entirely straight bruisers, unlike Summon Monster which is mainly valuable because of the SLAs your summons have at higher levels.

Greenbound is a problem at low levels. The extra stats, DR, Tremorsense and fast healing are bad enough, but getting a 5th level spell at level 1 is ridiculous.
I solve that problem by making it require level 9 - you're choosing between Greenbound or Animal Growth, which is about on par.

[KingDuck]

Thank you all very much. Funnily enough, he has Augment Summoning, Greenbound and ashbound. I'll talk to him, and if that doesn't work I'll alter combat to what you all advised. Again, thanks all.

[SangoProduction]

Simply say "This is a group game. Your build is much more optimized than the rest of the group, and so you really need to cool it. Rebuild the character to bring it to their level, or bring in a new character. If you can't do either, then you don't belong in this game."

[John Longarrow]

I'd make sure you know what he's summoning ahead of time and work it out so you know if there will be a problem based off of what he's using. that said there are anti-summons spells and abilities that can shut down most of these builds.

[Sacrieur]

Probably because he entered under the assumption that the rules were rules. You're ruining his enjoyment of the game because you expected everyone to be around the same level of optimization and when that didn't work out, attempting to level the playing field by unfairly discriminating against the player that was doing well.

Changing the rules for a specific player is the definition of being unfair. Changing the rules because of a specific player is not.

I DM with a simple rule in mind: if I said okay to it, even implicitly, then I have to be okay with their choice, even if I don't want/like it. Even if I think it's the most game breaking thing I've ever seen. Of course, the next rule is then "Anything you can do the DM can do better." Those things tend to be banned the next go around.

[John Longarrow]

Oh, sorry for not including some of the anti-summon stuff...

Wall of spells, fear effects, protection VS & sanctuary all tend to slow down/stop animal intelligence creatures. Ray of stupidity can also shut them down, trading a low level spell for a higher level summons, as well as any dispel-centric build. Any one with spell craft that picks up on what he's doing will also make him target #1 for their ranged attacks.

Brush up on what happens to a caster who's hit during their full round casting of a summon spell. He should pull of one before he becomes a prime target. After that he becomes the missile magnet.

NOTE: Checking out the greenbound feat, per its author it should be a metamagic that raises the spells level by 2.

Link for source (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?128424-What-have-i-missed-about-Greenbound-Summoning/page5&p=2195156&viewfull=1#post2195156)

Advise him of the errata that you found and see what he thinks.

[Troacctid]

It's actually pretty easy to balance a PC. Just max out their Balance skill. That should keep them well-balanced even on the most treacherous surfaces!

Greenbound Summoning is stupid overpowered and should not be allowed. Other feats that should not be allowed include but are not limited to Leadership, Item Familiar, Linked Power, and Persistent Spell. Ashbound and Augment Summoning are fine though.

[barakaka]

Assuming you have further problems trying to get him to tone down, you can try these tactics.


You can try having lots of mooks (small enemies) and a big guy for a bunch of your encounters. He's a druid, so he's probably converting his spells to Summon Nature's Ally, meaning he's spending a full round action for the summon. He can't cast an area spell and summon at the same time, but he wants the summon so he can take down the big guy. You're giving him the decision "do I summon something to take out the big guy? or do I take out these mooks with an area spell?"
Ambush the players. Surround them. He can't cast a spell if he's in a threatened square. He has to move, which denies him actions, makes him feel threatened, and feels like a real fight. If the party travels with him in the back, it makes sense to their enemies to take him out first. You can't do this every combat, but you should vary your tactics anyway to keep things fresh.
Have them fight in weather conditions, on horseback, in a marsh, on a cliff. These kinds of conditions force him to make concentration checks to cast his summon spells. If there's a small area that is safe, then he'll want to make his way there before casting. Again, he loses actions here.
If he's the strongest in the party, have something separate him from the party during a boss fight. The boss attacks the party, and a bunch of mooks come out of the woodwork to fight the druid. You see this in movies all the time. Enemies pay attention to the protagonists, figure out who's strong and cut them out of the picture.


All of these attempt to deny his actions. He already has to take a full round action to summon something. If his character is built on this, it means he thinks that's fun, and he may do it even when it's not optimal. He may switch tactics for a while, but he'll find that bland and boring compared to what he really wants to do; and he'll switch back when he realizes that.

You may find the rest of the players eventually optimize like he does. This could be good practice for improving your DM skill before that happens. In a way, it's easier to deal with this than a regular druid's tactic of "turn into a bird and call lightning over and over and over..."

[sleepyphoenixx]

Probably because he entered under the assumption that the rules were rules. You're ruining his enjoyment of the game because you expected everyone to be around the same level of optimization and when that didn't work out, attempting to level the playing field by unfairly discriminating against the player that was doing well.

Changing the rules for a specific player is the definition of being unfair. Changing the rules because of a specific player is not.

I DM with a simple rule in mind: if I said okay to it, even implicitly, then I have to be okay with their choice, even if I don't want/like it. Even if I think it's the most game breaking thing I've ever seen. Of course, the next rule is then "Anything you can do the DM can do better." Those things tend to be banned the next go around.

Given that the OP has mentioned he's new at DMing that's forgivable.
Also given that the guy in question is the previous DM i find it really hard to believe that he didn't know exactly how powerful Greenbound Summoning, or druids in general, are.

I'm a DM, not a babysitter. Sure, i've been doing this for a while, so i'd recognize most of the really bad stuff. Most of the time.
But i'm not obsessively checking my players character sheets for combos that break the game. I look it over for anything that stands out and then ask them to tell me if there's anything non-standard i need to know.

I think expecting your players to keep to a rough power level and not break the game isn't too much to ask.
The previous DM would definitely know the rough power level of the group.
If he chooses to disregard it - almost certainly completely aware of what he is doing, and that his DM is new - the OP is free to (hopefully metaphorically) throw the DMG at his head.
That kind of thing is basic table etiquette, at least in all the groups i've played with.

[SirNibbles]

So, I'm new at DMing, and I need some help balancing a PC. He is much more powerful than the rest of the party, solely because of his feats. This particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that." I don't want the rest of the party to go against enemies too tough, so is there any way to make the fights more challenging for him specifically? If it helps, he's a lvl 6 druid that's completely based on summoning. I would really appreciate any help I get.

When you are preparing for a campaign, you should meet individually with each player ahead of time and get their planned build from them (for at least a few levels beyond the starting level). This will allow you to make sure nobody has a stupidly overpowered build (especially using some obscure homebrew) and make sure that everyone will be able to participate in some meaningful way. Also, you won't have to tell a character after he reaches level 12 that the build he's planning is too strong and you're going to ban/nerf certain aspects.

[flappeercraft]

I would recommend to make an encounter that directly counters him or just have something to limit his power like protection from evil, steal summoning spell, someone that can do AOE damage reliably, etc

[John Longarrow]

6th level party... Hmmm... Interesting encounter to toss at them;

Pixie (CR 4) who's first HD is warlock.

Add two more levels of warlock so they are a CR 6.

Pixie (flying, invisible) hits ONE target with their 2d6 blast (standard action) then moves 30 (move action) while staying 20' in the air. Pixie is out here to avenge the death of several animals its found slaughtered.

NOTE: Let the party fight a bear (was protecting her cubs) and a pair of wolves first... Give the pixie a good reason to take out the fell humans who are despoiling nature!

None of the animals that SNA can pull up will have an easy time engaging the pixie and flyers will be of limited use against a decent AC, invisible, ranged combatant with decent DR and SR.

[ace rooster]

6th level party... Hmmm... Interesting encounter to toss at them;

Pixie (CR 4) who's first HD is warlock.

Add two more levels of warlock so they are a CR 6.

Pixie (flying, invisible) hits ONE target with their 2d6 blast (standard action) then moves 30 (move action) while staying 20' in the air. Pixie is out here to avenge the death of several animals its found slaughtered.

NOTE: Let the party fight a bear (was protecting her cubs) and a pair of wolves first... Give the pixie a good reason to take out the fell humans who are despoiling nature!

None of the animals that SNA can pull up will have an easy time engaging the pixie and flyers will be of limited use against a decent AC, invisible, ranged combatant with decent DR and SR.

Fairie fire disagrees. Add on a giant eagle and the pixie is in trouble, even with it's defences. It only has about 17 HP, and the claws are doing 1d6+9, so do some damage, but more importantly the eagle is intelligent and has good AC, and so can be told to grapple the pixie. Being 20' up doesn't sound so clever if you have 17hp and are facing falling damage, but the main objective is getting it on the ground, vulnerable to a crocodile or direwolf that is better at chomping through DR.

The druid can deal with this just fine. If I'm honest though, the biggest problem with this encounter is that it is very all or nothing. If a party member cannot get big hits, or has a silver weapon, they can do very little. If they can damage the pixie, they will kill it in a round. See invisibility and 2 acid arrows kill it pretty reliably at a range of 600', for example.

I do like the setup. It does somewhat depend on the druid not druiding correctly though. This is usually the case, but it seems bad to rely on it.

I'm not sure you have your CR right. I think you add 1 for the first level of warlock as well, and don't get anything back from trading in the dice of fey. Given that 4HD of fey only boost CR by 1, and you are also giving max first HD and the elite array, it seems off to think that the CR would be unchanged. Not particularly important though, as CR is a guideline anyway.


Now that I have read through the greenbound template, I am beginning to see the issue. Them being fantastic in combat is one thing, but having at will entangle is probably worse. It turns SNA from a close range effect that can be waited out into a long range horror that has insane chasedown and zone control. It also makes the standard protection spells have limited value. Throwing on tremorsense to deal with fog/invisibility/illusions is just the icing.

Definitely insist on +2 metamagic. It is still very strong.

Oh, and I would enforce the ashbound anti-arcane fluff. Free double duration is quite big, if the enemy intends to wait out summons.

Edit: Greenbound doesn't modify giant eagles. :smallredface:

[John Longarrow]

Was not thinking elite array. Pixie gets fantastic stats off the bat.

Giant eagle is good, but it needs to find the invisible combatant first. If the pixies's 3rd level feat is hover, it can hide at +4 (size) +4 (18 dex) +40 (not moving) -20 (sniping) for a +28 bonus. Giant eagle is +15 on a spot so it does have a decent chance to spot the pixie after one shot (about 1 in 3), but it is by no means assured of finding the pixie. Plus the eagle has to keep moving since it only flies as Good.

That also means the Druid needs to figure out and formulate the same plan you came up with, plus needs to get the eagle adjacent to the pixie. -1 for each 10 feet on a spot check means the pixie should have a range of 250 on their blast and keep 100 to 150 feet between them and their targets. That would let them shoot and move with a +18 to +23 hide without having to be stationary.

I'm really hoping other members of the party can and do act in a manner useful for fighting an invisible opponent. That is the real reason to use something like this. Its not about killing the party off, its about making the other party members more useful! If only one character is useful in combat because they are the only one able to bring the pain, the rest of the players feel left out. If everyone has something they can contribute in different fights everyone has a reason to be in the party. This is one of those fights where the druid SHOULD be left high and dry. This is the time for the caster with see invisible, or the warlock with see the unseen, or that high spot ranger to shine while the druid gets to sit on the sidelines and play defense.

Plus if the party has someone who tries talking or surrendering (instead of just fighting) this could be turned into a RP encounter! :D

[Troacctid]

Entangle? Try Wall of Thorns, a 5th level spell that you can now cast out of a 1st level slot via Summon Nature's Ally I.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'm really hoping other members of the party can and do act in a manner useful for fighting an invisible opponent. That is the real reason to use something like this. Its not about killing the party off, its about making the other party members more useful! If only one character is useful in combat because they are the only one able to bring the pain, the rest of the players feel left out. If everyone has something they can contribute in different fights everyone has a reason to be in the party. This is one of those fights where the druid SHOULD be left high and dry. This is the time for the caster with see invisible, or the warlock with see the unseen, or that high spot ranger to shine while the druid gets to sit on the sidelines and play defense.
You're acting like the druid has SNA prepared in all his spell slots, and nothing else. Which is clearly wrong, because he most likely doesn't have SNA prepared at all when he casts it spontaneously.
Even if you prepare tactics specifically against summons he's still a druid. He doesn't have to summon. The fact that he's summoning focused just means he can prepare more situational and utility spells.

Greenbound Summoning means he doesn't even need to prepare BFC, because his summons do that too. Not only Entangle, which is one of the strongest low-level BFCs, but also Wall of Thorns.
He also has Listen + Spot as class skills, enough skill points to max at least one of them and probably the highest wisdom in the party. And using listen is far more likely to succeed than spot.
He can Wild Shape into the form of Desmodu Hunting Bat (no Blindsense yet but +8 to spot/listen) or cast Blindsight if he has it prepared.
Or he could just summon a small Storm Elemental and have it blast the pixie out of the sky, because SNA does AoE damage too.

Let's leave aside the fact that trying to deal with the problem of a player being far too optimized for the table in-game is probably the wrong approach.
Druids are tier 1 for a reason. There are very few situations they don't have a response for. An invisible, flying ranged attacker is certainly not one of them.

[John Longarrow]

You're acting like the druid has SNA prepared in all his spell slots, and nothing else. Which is clearly wrong, because he most likely doesn't have SNA prepared at all when he casts it spontaneously.
Even if you prepare tactics specifically against summons he's still a druid. He doesn't have to summon. The fact that he's summoning focused just means he can prepare more situational and utility spells.

Greenbound Summoning means he doesn't even need to prepare BFC, because his summons do that too. Not only Entangle, which is one of the strongest low-level BFCs, but also Wall of Thorns.
He also has Listen + Spot as class skills, enough skill points to max at least one of them and probably the highest wisdom in the party. And using listen is far more likely to succeed than spot.
He can Wild Shape into the form of Desmodu Hunting Bat (no Blindsense yet but +8 to spot/listen) or cast Blindsight if he has it prepared.
Or he could just summon a small Storm Elemental and have it blast the pixie out of the sky, because SNA does AoE damage too.

Let's leave aside the fact that trying to deal with the problem of a player being far too optimized for the table in-game is probably the wrong approach.
Druids are tier 1 for a reason. There are very few situations they don't have a response for. An invisible, flying ranged attacker is certainly not one of them.

I think the giant eagle mentioned before would have a better spot/listen.. Still not going to find something that can pull a +48 (+1 per 10 feet) to hide without ranks in hide though. Same with AOE going against something that can shoot and move 30' from original location.

I think your missing that a highly mobile ranged combatant that can avoid ground effects will force the party to counter with ranged combat, something a Tier-1 druid isn't optimized for...

If the pixie had a way to avoid being grappled it wouldn't need to be invisible to still make it a difficult fight for a party relying on the druid. I'm looking for something that requires the rest of the party to be involved.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I think the giant eagle mentioned before would have a better spot/listen.. Still not going to find something that can pull a +48 (+1 per 10 feet) to hide without ranks in hide though. Same with AOE going against something that can shoot and move 30' from original location.

I think your missing that a highly mobile ranged combatant that can avoid ground effects will force the party to counter with ranged combat, something a Tier-1 druid isn't optimized for...

If the pixie had a way to avoid being grappled it wouldn't need to be invisible to still make it a difficult fight for a party relying on the druid. I'm looking for something that requires the rest of the party to be involved.
Summoners are actually decent enough at ranged combat, funnily enough.
Storm Elementals blast everything in a 60ft radius. They also have 40ft (perfect) flight, Air Mastery, a 2d6, 120ft lightning line and a free-action 1d4 shock for short range. The small ones are kind of wimpy, but pixies aren't exactly durable.

And trying to use spot is exactly the wrong tactic, and the giant eagle the wrong summon. If you need a summon to find the pixie i'd suggest the Giant Owl with its +17 to listen instead.
Or SNA 2 for the Dire Bat with 40ft Blindsense.
You don't need to beat a pixies invisibility-and-size-boosted hide check if you have high listen, you just need to beat the far lower move silently which is what, +10 for a 3HD pixie? Maybe +12 with elite array?
A 6th level druid should have 9 ranks + 4 wisdom + 8 racial from Desmodu Hunting Bat (which is probably the optimized druids standard form at that level), so +21. That's not really a problem.


As you can see that pixie isn't nearly as well hidden as you think it is, and that's if the druid is human and unbuffed. Some races get higher listen.
And i'd be surprised if the druid hasn't prepared at least one Faerie Fire, because there isn't that much else to spend his first level slots on. I certainly keep one prepared when i don't need my 1st level spells for BFC anymore.

[ace rooster]

Was not thinking elite array. Pixie gets fantastic stats off the bat.

Giant eagle is good, but it needs to find the invisible combatant first. If the pixies's 3rd level feat is hover, it can hide at +4 (size) +4 (18 dex) +40 (not moving) -20 (sniping) for a +28 bonus. Giant eagle is +15 on a spot so it does have a decent chance to spot the pixie after one shot (about 1 in 3), but it is by no means assured of finding the pixie. Plus the eagle has to keep moving since it only flies as Good.

That also means the Druid needs to figure out and formulate the same plan you came up with, plus needs to get the eagle adjacent to the pixie. -1 for each 10 feet on a spot check means the pixie should have a range of 250 on their blast and keep 100 to 150 feet between them and their targets. That would let them shoot and move with a +18 to +23 hide without having to be stationary.

I'm really hoping other members of the party can and do act in a manner useful for fighting an invisible opponent. That is the real reason to use something like this. Its not about killing the party off, its about making the other party members more useful! If only one character is useful in combat because they are the only one able to bring the pain, the rest of the players feel left out. If everyone has something they can contribute in different fights everyone has a reason to be in the party. This is one of those fights where the druid SHOULD be left high and dry. This is the time for the caster with see invisible, or the warlock with see the unseen, or that high spot ranger to shine while the druid gets to sit on the sidelines and play defense.

Plus if the party has someone who tries talking or surrendering (instead of just fighting) this could be turned into a RP encounter! :D

Elite array comes with taking a PC class.

The point wasn't that the eagle finds it (though as you point out, there is a chance it would). Fairie fire readied on any sign of the pixie reveals it for all your summons, and the rest of the party. I don't see fairie fire as being a strange spell for them to have prepared, simply because it benefits their summons so much. A wand of it is not out of the question. The giant eagle is because the pixie can't outrun it (incidently, it probably can outrun the rest of the party).

I see what you are trying to do, but the druid is really not high and dry here.

[barakaka]

Having one pixie flying at range isn't going to make the melee tank's day any better either though. A mix of flying and grounded troops could be fine however. An archer firing through a window could have a similar effect. A warlock on a ledge, casting eldritch blasts at the party.

If the enemy learns of the druid's tactics, have a mook hold his turn to attack the druid when he's casting a summon spell. The attack will force him to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Storms and weather also interfere, as I said in my previous post. If the druid has wild shape, then he's probably grounded, while the ranged players in the group can have fun.

Just don't ruin the druid's day by specifically countering him and making him feel useless because of what you're doing. You want a balance of fun in the room. Maybe make a boss that only one of the other players can defeat. If you've got a melee brute in the party, separate the rest of the group from him and let him solo the boss (be careful not to kill him though).

[exelsisxax]

Fight on a forbiddance that just halts planar events. Now he's got no summons at all, and the rest of the party can go do their thing. When the session is over, get him alone, and ask if that bothered him at all.

Then do it in every fight until he realizes that's what he's doing to the rest of the party, but worse.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho you should just polish up your weapons and everything should be fine.

"so you need help with balance?" - Grease will help the summons with some balance checks out ;)

Dispels, Circle of Protection, Antimagic Field, there are plenty of methods to deal with summons.

Or try to prevent him from casting his summons at all. Start the fight with some method of silencing him for a few rounds. This will give the others some time to shine and the summoner can clean up the leftovers.

Sneack Attack Ambush: Flank him right at the start when possible. This should lock him out and put him into a position where he is the one in need of help.

"focus the caster", we all know why, NPCs should know too ;)
even with summons, he will be more focused on surviving, than focusing on other important targets on the field.

[Stealth Marmot]

SThis particular player was a previous DM, and any attempt I make at changing a feat or something he says "A good DM shouldn't do that."

After he says that once, you tell him to stop it. If he does it again, you show him the door.

That is disrespectful.

That said, I have taken a look at the feats in question.

Greenbound Summoning: IMPORTANT! This feat was originally meant to be a metamagic feat with a +2 to spell level adjustment, but the book went to print with it as a regular feat. Google it, the author explicitly wanted it to be metamagic.

If the player doesn't like that version of the feat, refund it and tell him that you will not allow an oversight to allow +8 LA templates on summoned creatures.

Ashbound Summoning: FLAG ON THE PLAY!

There is an inherent problem here. Greenbound is Forgotten Realms. Ashbound is Eberron.

You obviously can't be in both settings at once and my money is on you are in NEITHER.

Your player is munchkinning. HARD.

Tell him both the feats are thrown out and tell him if he doesn't knock that crap off, he won't be welcome at the table.

This guy needs to know you will NOT put up with this sort of thing.

[Zombimode]

There is an inherent problem here. Greenbound is Forgotten Realms. Ashbound is Eberron.

You obviously can't be in both settings at once and my money is on you are in NEITHER.

I totally agree with you. But the last time I brought it up I was yelled at by what felt like the entire forum.

[Fizban]

You obviously can't be in both settings at once and my money is on you are in NEITHER.
But didn't you know? All feats were printed perfectly as intended, you're supposed to play them exactly as written. And combining everything from every book for maximum power is literally the whole point of the game, the designers said so!

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you're going to play the "but they're feats from different settings" card you certainly can, but you'll have to do it for all players, not just the druid.
And a list of allowed/banned books is generally agreed on before campaign start. There's certainly enough campaigns that allow both as sources, and that's largely fine.

Because Ashbound doesn't actually do all that much right now. Sure, +3 hit, woohoo. Double duration isn't that big a deal at level 6 either. The feat is fine. It's a more offensively focused Augment Summoning. Feats are supposed to make you better at something, and a +15% chance to hit and ability to actually use summons at low levels is not gamebreaking.

Greenbound is part of the problem, because Greenbound is ridiculous at level 1. It's less so at level 9, when it competes with Animal Growth, but that doesn't help low-level balance.
If you're going to take that up simply tell him to replace it and that he can re-take it at level 9 if he still wants it. If he complains a simple "i expected better from you" should suffice, because he damn well knows how ridiculous it is.

But the main problem is that he's playing at a way higher optimization level than the rest of the party. The specifics are irrelevant. That's the underlying issue here, and if you don't fix it he'll just continue with a different tactic.


Imho you should just polish up your weapons and everything should be fine.

...

Dear gods, he's a - supposedly opimized - druid, not a badly build wizard. We're also talking level 6 here, so keep that in mind when suggesting counters.
He doesn't need to summon, and if he does it's likely as a standard action (Chronocharm of the Uncaring Archmage, 500gp). He could take no feats except for Natural Spell and he'd still not fall to those tactics.

He's very very likely starting the fight in Wild Shape, obviously. That's what druids do as soon as they get Natural Spell. Either something flying (Desmodu Hunting Bat) or a potent close-combat form (Fleshraker).
His AC is at least 20, unbuffed, in either form. So good luck on focusing him with anything. He's either out of range or a far harder target than you're implying.
And all that's assuming he didn't take Aberration Wild Shape, because those get worse, even at level 6.

He likely has the highest perception skills in the party. Because wisdom is his primary stat, spot/listen are class skills and many forms offer a racial bonus on one or both of them.
Good luck sneaking up on him, because you'll need it.

He also has an animal companion, which at the levels we're talking about can go toe-to-toe with any CR appropriate melee enemy. And who also likely has spot/listen and probably scent.
We're talking optimized druid, so it's almost certainly a Fleshraker. Probably with Venomfire, because if i had to choose a 3rd level spell at 6th without regard for balance that's what it'd be.
Not only will it cover his flanks, it's also likely to go first.

Bottom line is that he can likely deal with any level-appropriate challenge, but that's not the main problem.
You're making the game all about him. That's completely counterproductive.
The goal is to have the party contribute roughly equally, and having every encounter specifically designed to counter the druid turns it from "the band of heroes" into "superdruid and sidekicks".
Few people like playing sidekick. Nobody likes being forced to play sidekick.

You can't meet the druid player on his terms for that. He's T1 and apparently knows what he's doing.
He'll take what you dish out unless you start blatantly cheating to get him, and get all the spotlight time he wants.
He's the hero of the game, facing impossible odds and coming out the winner. Or being unfairly discriminated against by the bad and biased DM because he's just that awesome and wins at D&D.
All the while the other players see themselves being relegated to clean up and mook control. An afterthought.
That kind of thing is incredibly frustrating and leads to your players fiddling with their phones instead of paying attention or just not coming to the next session.

This is something you need to solve OOC. Some classes need to be downplayed by an experienced player in a group of newbies. Druids are pretty much on top of the list.

[Hogsy]

The answer is fairly simple, as others have pointed out. Repeat after me.

OOC problems are ought to be solved OOC.
IC problems are ought to be solved IC.

If he knows what a good dm would and would not do, then you should inform him what a good player would and would not do. One of the main things a good player would not do is optimize his character to oblivion and back, while playing a T1 class, in a game of freaking newbies! Don't be afraid to stick up for yourself in order to keep the game healthy. Just say no. Express that you are not comfortable with his current playstyle. Don't let him guilt trip you into allowing whatever he wants. You are the DM this time around, not him. If he wanted, he should have DMd instead.

[Fizban]

If you're going to play the "but they're feats from different settings" card you certainly can, but you'll have to do it for all players, not just the druid.
Non-caster builds rarely need to mix settings, or rather, rarely have reason to.

Because Ashbound doesn't actually do all that much right now. Sure, +3 hit, woohoo. Double duration isn't that big a deal at level 6 either. The feat is fine. It's a more offensively focused Augment Summoning. Feats are supposed to make you better at something, and a +15% chance to hit and ability to actually use summons at low levels is not gamebreaking.
How about taking a look at the attack bonuses on summoned creatures, and the fact that you're almost assuredly (and the player in question was confirmed to be) stacking it on top of Augment Summoning, when one of the main balancing factors of summoned creatures is that their attack bonuses are limited. Then consider how many prestige classes make extended summoning a vaunted class feature. Double duration is not required to offset the cl 1 problem: the summoning domain's +2 cl is actually the superior solution, for 3 rounds at 1st level when you need it instead of a a free application of something that's supposed to have multiple costs.

Greenbound is part of the problem, because Greenbound is ridiculous at level 1. It's less so at level 9, when it competes with Animal Growth, but that doesn't help low-level balance.
You do realize Animal Growth is a 5th level spell, since you're mentions level 9 specifically. You're trying to argue that a 5th level spell added to every casting of another type of spell for free, at no slot or action cost, is ever not completely ridiculous.

But the main problem is that he's playing at a way higher optimization level than the rest of the party. The specifics are irrelevant. That's the underlying issue here, and if you don't fix it he'll just continue with a different tactic.
Specifics are always relevant, even if only to put on the list of things you've banned as the player refuses to get the point. It tells you a lot about what to expect: he's trying to stack overpowered feats from multiple settings, which indicates he has no respect for the numbers involved or the fact that material from divergent sources shouldn't be combined. And to be clear, banning something is an OOC fix: you've told the player outside of play that it's not allowed. There are very few character build aspects you can fix "in-game," which is pretty much limited to people with codes of conduct and items.

[sleepyphoenixx]

How about taking a look at the attack bonuses on summoned creatures, and the fact that you're almost assuredly (and the player in question was confirmed to be) stacking it on top of Augment Summoning, when one of the main balancing factors of summoned creatures is that their attack bonuses are limited. Then consider how many prestige classes make extended summoning a vaunted class feature. Double duration is not required to offset the cl 1 problem: the summoning domain's +2 cl is actually the superior solution, for 3 rounds at 1st level when you need it instead of a a free application of something that's supposed to have multiple costs.
The main balancing factor of summons is that they're generally low CR for the spell level you get them at. If your summons don't hit they're not worth summoning.

You also need to specify which summons you're talking about. Because for the higher levels of Summon Monster you're getting far more out of the monsters SLAs, their AB being largely uninteresting unless you specifically summon for that quality. They also get completely different feats and classes to improve them - druids generally don't get the Summoning domain, for example, especially not at level 1.
And duration is rarely a serious balancing concern. If your fights at level 6 take more than 6 rounds you're certainly not optimizing, and them lasting 12 rounds won't let them carry over to the next fight.

If you actually want to use summons as beatsticks against CR-appropriate enemies, as is proper for a summoning-focused character, you need to take feats to improve their attack.
Because otherwise they won't hit anything. And summons doing what they're supposed to - doing damage - if they're your main mode of attack isn't a problem either.

And again, your feats making you better at what you're focusing on is what they're supposed to do. It's no different from a fighter taking Power Attack and Leap Attack.

You do realize Animal Growth is a 5th level spell, since you're mentions level 9 specifically. You're trying to argue that a 5th level spell added to every casting of another type of spell for free, at no slot or action cost, is ever not completely ridiculous.
Of course i'm arguing that. Take a look at the summoning lists sometime (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255219-The-Summoner-s-Desk-Reference-D-amp-D-3-5), a lot of them get SLAs. Especially the Summon Monster list, which gets the really crazy SLAs.
Commune? Ethereal Jaunt? True Seeing? Raise Dead? SM9 summons full-fledged 12th level wizards and clerics. SNA is actually tame in that regard, with the few it gets generally being relatively weak and coming rather late.
There are exceptions too. Notably Oreads (a SNA 6 summon) get Earthquake (an 8th level spell) natively, among an array of other powerful SLAs.

Wall of Thorns is perfectly in line with what Summon Monster gets natively, and you're actually paying a feat for it, unlike the other casters. It's just too early at level 1.
The other druid summoning feat, Rashemi Elemental Summoning, doesn't get nearly the same amount of flak. Why? Because by the time you actually get to summon elementals with enough HD to make it hurt the SLAs aren't nearly as powerful.

Specifics are always relevant, even if only to put on the list of things you've banned as the player refuses to get the point. It tells you a lot about what to expect: he's trying to stack overpowered feats from multiple settings, which indicates he has no respect for the numbers involved or the fact that material from divergent sources shouldn't be combined. And to be clear, banning something is an OOC fix: you've told the player outside of play that it's not allowed. There are very few character build aspects you can fix "in-game," which is pretty much limited to people with codes of conduct and items.
Again, there is nothing wrong with taking feats from different settings. Fluff is mutable, and more options = more fun for a lot of people.
There isn't even anything wrong in general with taking the best feats you can - you're supposed to do that. You want to play a powerful character after all, not a wimp.

The problem is that his optimization level is too high above the rest of the group. That's all. He could do the same with Aberration Wild Shape. Or just good spell selection.
If the other players take similarly powerful options and the DM builds the encounters to match there is no problem.
We call this high optimization.

[Fizban]

The main balancing factor of summons is that they're generally low CR for the spell level you get them at. If your summons don't hit they're not worth summoning.
You do realize that "low CR" is literally just a different way of saying the same thing, right? And that the summon lists aren't organized by CR anyway?

And again, your feats making you better at what you're focusing on is what they're supposed to do. It's no different from a fighter taking Power Attack and Leap Attack.
You're comparing a standard core feat and a slight boost to that feat under specific circumstances to a feat which makes far more drastic alterations, it's a rather false equivalence. But let's embrace it shall we? What say I make a feat that gives anyone a 1st level spell at will, a 5th level buff that can't be dispelled and stacks with everything, and a 4th level spell 1/day for giggles, all for the cost of a single feat. If you try to tell me with a straight face you wouldn't say its broken, I'll laugh you out of the room myself.

Of course i'm arguing that. Take a look at the summoning lists sometime (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255219-The-Summoner-s-Desk-Reference-D-amp-D-3-5), a lot of them get SLAs. Especially the Summon Monster list, which gets the really crazy SLAs.
Commune? Ethereal Jaunt? True Seeing? Raise Dead? SM9 summons full-fledged 12th level wizards and clerics. SNA is actually tame in that regard, with the few it gets generally being relatively weak and coming rather late.
You know, I'm pretty sure by now I've done as much cross-comparison on SNA/SM/various other things as any handbook writer, if not more-I wouldn't be surprised if I had a better understanding on account of not muddying the waters with extended SM nonsense. Regardless, you seem to have missed the memo: SNA is already the superior spell for combat numbers (and well known for it), while SM is intentionally weaker in that area to account for those SLAs. So congratulations on noticing that SM has better SLAs on purpose? I suggest a more thorough reading of creatures themselves rather than color coded lists.

You're also comparing the list of "literally every creature that someone decided to allow on a summon list at the same time, including 3.0 monsters* " to "literally every feat someone once wrote for summoning at the same time," yay? You've completely dodged your own point, that Greenbound is equivalent to a free Animal Growth (at no slot or action cost) on top of every SNA, by trying to compare it to the SLA focused spell line which pays for those SLAs in lower numbers and doesn't get to ignore their casting times. You're saying that because SM has SLAs, SNA should have not only its inherently better stats but also stats equivalent to buffing them with extra spells. You make no sense, twice.

The funny thing is, I specifically removed mention of the SLAs to focus on the fact that the numbers on Greenbound are already broken. The fact that you're completely ignored the numbers to focus on the SLAs only proves how out of touch you are with anything not maximized to your preference.

*To which you will respond "wah, 3.5 update," to which I will respond that there is a significant difference between a monster hit with an update booklet and it's properly updated reprint in a later monster manual. You can say it's RAW all you want, but people who are paying attention know perfectly well that an update booklet has even less quality control then the notoriously shaky books themselves.. In fact the 3.0 summons were far more powerful and had more spell access, so it should be blindingly obvious that the summon level of something printed 3.0 won't match 3.5.

The other druid summoning feat, Rashemi Elemental Summoning, doesn't get nearly the same amount of flak. Why? Because by the time you actually get to summon elementals with enough HD to make it hurt the SLAs aren't nearly as powerful.
So your point is that Greenbound is okay because Rashemi is only slightly less broken? Except you're wrong, because its actually far less broken: Orglash gives +2 AC, +2 hp/HD via con, a small amount of cold damage on hit, and the Cone of Cold. Most people focus on the Cone because it's the only major offensive abiilty, with the rest being defenses. Thomil similarly grants +2 AC, +2 hp/HD via con, DR/magic, SR, and an engulf attack which isn't any more impressive than a bear or scorpion's improved grab. So no, it's not just the SLAs or wait on elementals that make Rashemi weaker, it's also the fact that the entire rest of the templates are weaker, mostly defense oriented, and that there's no quote from the author saying you are actually using it wrong.

Again, there is nothing wrong with taking feats from different settings. Fluff is mutable, and more options = more fun for a lot of people.
Always putting words in my mouth, it's funny how the moment you suggest banning something or paying attention to sources people start assuming you're some sort of anti-option zealot. As if banning one feat means you're anti-fun. And when did I say anything about fluff? Oh silly me, I forgot that the only difference between settings is fluff and mechanically they're all designed to match perfectly with no overlap or unexpected problems.

The problem is that his optimization level is too high above the rest of the group. That's all. He could do the same with Aberration Wild Shape. Or just good spell selection.
And the more your optimization relies on blatantly ignoring intent, weather overtly stated or inferred, the fewer legs it has to stand on. Not that I expect anyone to actually admit it.

If the other players take similarly powerful options and the DM builds the encounters to match there is no problem.
Which they aren't and don't want to do, which means there is a problem, though while your previous line suggested the char-op'r was at at fault, this line clearly turns it around and makes it the table's fault. Which it is not. The problem is not "just" that this player is optimizing too much, the problem is that when informed of the problem they tried to guilt trip the DM into letting them get away with it. The problem is that this person thinks just because it was in a book it must be allowed even at the expense of the other players.

We call this high optimization.
I just like how pretentious this line is, the classic phrasing from on high (easily recognized by anyone who's used it), as if high-op is by definition better and there's an exclusive club only for people who can do it. Which is to be expected on a forum full of people who've spent years honing their craft, naturally, I've just gotten rather sick of it. I prefer the enlightened path, where instead of paying lip service to the idea that there are multiple grades of optimization while clearly advocating maximum power at all times, I actually argue based on the assumptions of the system, the clear intent of the writers, and expectations that make the game flow naturally rather than breaking it and then forcing it to work in spite of that. I call it, "Thinking for myself instead of blindly following RAW."

And with plenty of newbies still appearing regularly I feel quite justified poking holes in the high-op-only mentality that appears the second anyone even suggests that might not be okay. Just because your op is RAW doesn't mean it's right. If you're going to say that someone's on the wrong optimization level you'd best be following the majority of the group.

In regards to summoning, I look at the core spells and feat and go "Huh, so that's what the game expects of summoning," rather than assume combining everything from every book will just magically work. Which means I can accept that Greenbound was never meant to be free, that auto-extend never should have been a single feat let alone one with extra bonuses, and even if the people writing bonuses which stack with Augment Summoning thought they were okay that doesn't mean they actually are.

[sleepyphoenixx]

...
You know, for someone who complains several times that i'm putting words in your mouth you're making quite a few unfounded accusations yourself.

I actually argue based on the assumptions of the system, the clear intent of the writers, and expectations that make the game flow naturally rather than breaking it and then forcing it to work in spite of that.
The problem with that is that everyone has their own opinion on what the system assumes, what the writers "clearly" intended and what constitutes "the game flowing naturally".
In short: you're houseruling. And that's fine, and i'm not handing down high-handed, pretentious optimizer pity here. Just in case you were wondering.
But it's a poor basis for discussing game mechanics with people you've never played a game with.

You can disagree with my assessment of Greenbound Summoning being fine at higher levels, that's fine too.
Though i will note that few people actually take the feat at high levels and favor Rashemi Elemental Summoning, which should be telling enough on its own.
It can't be that much less powerful or people would still take GBS even at high levels.

And the more your optimization relies on blatantly ignoring intent, weather overtly stated or inferred, the fewer legs it has to stand on. Not that I expect anyone to actually admit it.
There is no right way to play D&D. Just the right way to play at your table.
Your degree of optimization doesn't need any "legs to stand on" as long as it works for your group. That applies equally to low and high optimization, and everything in between.

Which they aren't and don't want to do, which means there is a problem, though while your previous line suggested the char-op'r was at at fault, this line clearly turns it around and makes it the table's fault. Which it is not. The problem is not "just" that this player is optimizing too much, the problem is that when informed of the problem they tried to guilt trip the DM into letting them get away with it. The problem is that this person thinks just because it was in a book it must be allowed even at the expense of the other players.
Yes, which i have already said several times. Though the bolded line is completely unnecessary and was certainly not my intent. There was no judgement of the relative merits of low vs high op in my post.
I refer simply to the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with optimizing, as long as your table keeps having fun. Which usually means doing the same.

But the fact remains that's it's not the players feat choices that are at fault, it's his attitude.
A druid doesn't need powerful feats to dominate a low-op party, and banning them doesn't do anything for the OP unless he gets the player to correct his attitude.


In regards to summoning, I look at the core spells and feat and go "Huh, so that's what the game expects of summoning," rather than assume combining everything from every book will just magically work.
You're not seriously advocating that people should use core as the basis for balance, are you? Or is that just for specific cases like summoning? Because it certainly doesn't apply in general.

Which means I can accept that Greenbound was never meant to be free, that auto-extend never should have been a single feat let alone one with extra bonuses,
There's several "free" metamagic feats. Born of Three Thunders, Lord of the Uttercold, Black Lore of Moil and Rashemi Elemental Summoning, for example.
Paladins get Quicken for a feat. On all their spells, not just a subset.
PGtE has several feats that do the exact same thing as Ashbound - apply a metamagic feat to a specific subset of spells.
Prophecy's Shaper adds free Empower. Metamagic Song or DMM don't even need mentioning.
And that's not counting the tons of prestige classes that get free whatever-metamagic as a feature.

It's clearly not as highly prized an ability as you claim, and extend is certainly rather tame in the grand scheme of things.

and even if the people writing bonuses which stack with Augment Summoning thought they were okay that doesn't mean they actually are.
Oh? Does that not fall under "the assumptions of the system" and "the clear intent of the writers"? Or do those also only apply when it suits you?


And with plenty of newbies still appearing regularly I feel quite justified poking holes in the high-op-only mentality that appears the second anyone even suggests that might not be okay. Just because your op is RAW doesn't mean it's right. If you're going to say that someone's on the wrong optimization level you'd best be following the majority of the group.
I'm not saying any optimization level is wrong. Just that some levels are not appropriate for some groups. It's only logical that the player who's better at optimizing is the one to adjust to the group.

Though i question where you find "the high-op-only mentality" that is apparently so prevalent that it requires your righteous crusade.
I've generally made the experience that most people here are quite conscious of optimizing to the level of the group and leaving the high-power content to groups suited for it and the high-cheese content for theoretical discussions.

[exelsisxax]

Both of you should cut the thread derailment and flaming.

[Mutazoia]

Both of you should cut the thread derailment and flaming.

Beware, lest ye get introuble for vigilante posting.

Back on topic though:

Has the OP talked with the problem player yet? If so what was the verdict?

[Fizban]

You know, for someone who complains several times that i'm putting words in your mouth you're making quite a few unfounded accusations yourself.
Gotta make sure you're paying attention. A little obvious hypocrisy makes excellent bait, if they don't jump on it you know you're wasting your time :smallwink:

But it's a poor basis for discussing game mechanics with people you've never played a game with.
Except it's not. Which is more useful: assuming everyone is pushing everything to the limit all the time, or starting at "average." Which there is, but I'm not rehashing the entire thing right here.

Though i will note that few people actually take the feat at high levels and favor Rashemi Elemental Summoning, which should be telling enough on its own.
It can't be that much less powerful or people would still take GBS even at high levels.
Not very telling, its the obvious result when elementals overtake animals and people making high-op builds and high-levels trim everything that isn't perfect at the level they're building.

There is no right way to play D&D. Just the right way to play at your table.
Your degree of optimization doesn't need any "legs to stand on" as long as it works for your group. That applies equally to low and high optimization, and everything in between.
To continue my broken metaphor, you don't need legs to stand on if the DM agrees you can levitate. The point is that RAW is no shield when your DM tells you your build is of inappropriate power level. Followed by the general assumption that most tables are not high-op and that's not where the discussion should start. Especially when the DM has already said they think something is overpowered, saying a bunch of other things are overpowered is missing the point.

But the fact remains that's it's not the players feat choices that are at fault, it's his attitude.
A druid doesn't need powerful feats to dominate a low-op party, and banning them doesn't do anything for the OP unless he gets the player to correct his attitude.
I need a name for this fallacy, "In for a penny in for a pound?" Just because it's overpowered without the feats doesn't mean the feats don't make him stronger. The feats are a problem, separate and in addition to the base class.

You're not seriously advocating that people should use core as the basis for balance, are you? Or is that just for specific cases like summoning? Because it certainly doesn't apply in general.
I spent multiple pages trying to get. . . eggynack I think it was, to understand it, but it seemed to be useless. Essentially you have to accept that 1: CR is not broken, 2: PC power level is defined relative to their foes, which have given CRs, while PCs are variable, and thus 3: you can use the many books full of printed monsters with functional CRs to define when a character is over (or severely under) powered. If you're not using core monsters and instead only monsters from later, higher powered books, then obviously you'll have a higher power curve, but if you're using core summon spells you've automatically opted in to the base MM's balance level. Furthermore the core summon spells make up the vast majority of their field, and have a lot more thought put into them than most people realize, so messing with them is pretty significant.

There's several "free" metamagic feats. Born of Three Thunders, Lord of the Uttercold, Black Lore of Moil and Rashemi Elemental Summoning, for example.
Paladins get Quicken for a feat. On all their spells, not just a subset.
Did you not catch the part where the original author of the feat has specifically said it was meant to be a +2 level adjusment and not free? If your response is, "but RAW," then you don't actually have a response.

PGtE has several feats that do the exact same thing as Ashbound - apply a metamagic feat to a specific subset of spells.
Prophecy's Shaper adds free Empower. Metamagic Song or DMM don't even need mentioning.
And that's not counting the tons of prestige classes that get free whatever-metamagic as a feature.
None of which matter, because they have nothing to do with the balance of the game. If you're using non-core material you obviously need to relax core balance restrictions, which means you switch to monsters. You've already said you think summoned creatures require buffs in order to be useful, which is not true, so your evaluation is already in question. Born of the Three Thunders, the narrow Battle Blessing, and the kings of free metamagic are not reasonable balance points, they are specifically high-op balance points.

Its clearly not as highly prized an ability as you claim, and extend is certainly rather tame in the grand scheme of things.
It's also not a throwaway ability you throw on as only half of the feat.

Oh? Does that not fall under "the assumptions of the system" and "the clear intent of the writers"? Or do those also only apply when it suits you?
Your interpretation of "assumptions of the system" is at fault. That's core/monster based balance and understanding that most books are written in a vaccuum. Indeed, it is likely the writers intended Ashbound and Augment Summoning to stack, but that doesn't mean the rest of the system accounts for it. Both are important and apply at all times, but evaluating balance is literally the opposite of RAW-only so you can't expect a rule you can follow like RAW. The writers of Ashbound clearly thought summoning needed a huge boost, but they were wrong and so unless you've got a high-op game it's overpowered.

I'm not saying any optimization level is wrong. Just that some levels are not appropriate for some groups. It's only logical that the player who's better at optimizing is the one to adjust to the group.
Quite, I recognize the turnaround was unintended.

Though i question where you find "the high-op-only mentality" that is apparently so prevalent that it requires your righteous crusade.
I've generally made the experience that most people here are quite conscious of optimizing to the level of the group and leaving the high-power content to groups suited for it and the high-cheese content for theoretical discussions.
There can be no answer to that question aside from "lots of past threads." It only takes one hardcore optimizer dropping into a thread and pushing their agenda to turn the whole tone. A dozen people can chime in with "yup, he's overpowered nerf him for the rest of the group," but one person throwing around lots of jargon and details can make themselves sound like the expert and overwhelm the message. This is where the lip-service comes in, since few indeed will actually try to say low-op is bad, but when someone said low-op is okay followed by a bunch of advice obviously from a high-op perspective, it's not the right advice. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of the lip-service problem, but it's common enough.

Both of you should cut the thread derailment and flaming.
We are having a heated discussion about game balance, specifically regarding the enhancement of summoning spells. That is literally the topic of the thread.

[Mutazoia]

We are having a heated discussion about game balance, specifically regarding the enhancement of summoning spells. That is literally the topic of the thread.

Technically, the topic of the thread is "One of my players built a summoner that over powers the rest of the party, how do I fix it?" not "What are all the possible permutations for powering up summoners and their advantages/drawbacks?"

[sleepyphoenixx]

Which is more useful: assuming everyone is pushing everything to the limit all the time, or starting at "average."
That's the thing, there is no universal "average". Every table has their own average.

I need a name for this fallacy, "In for a penny in for a pound?" Just because it's overpowered without the feats doesn't mean the feats don't make him stronger. The feats are a problem, separate and in addition to the base class.
The feats are part of the problem, but my point was that banning them won't solve the OPs issue.
They're an indicator of what's wrong - the player in question not keeping things to the level of the table.
Sure, banning them won't hurt. But if you don't fix the underlying problem you'll be spending the first hour of your sessions discussing new bans instead of playing, because there's always going to be something. I've been there, it's not fun.

I spent multiple pages trying to get. . . eggynack I think it was, to understand it, but it seemed to be useless. Essentially you have to accept that 1: CR is not broken
That's were i think you're wrong. There's just too much variance in monsters of the same CR, even in core, to accept it as a viable standard of measurement.

Did you not catch the part where the original author of the feat has specifically said it was meant to be a +2 level adjusment and not free? If your response is, "but RAW," then you don't actually have a response.
I've seen the post in question, but we'll have to disagree on this one too. If "but (someone involved in the game) said on a forum somewhere" is the end of all arguments you'll also have to accept the FAQ rulings.
Which are notorious for frequently contradicting themselves or forgetting parts of the rules.

And even the games designers have their own optimization level. Which is unlikely to be the same as the one at any given table, so their opinions value for any given tables balance varies quite a bit.

None of which matter, because they have nothing to do with the balance of the game. If you're using non-core material you obviously need to relax core balance restrictions, which means you switch to monsters. You've already said you think summoned creatures require buffs in order to be useful, which is not true, so your evaluation is already in question. Born of the Three Thunders, the narrow Battle Blessing, and the kings of free metamagic are not reasonable balance points, they are specifically high-op balance points.
I think we're having a fundamentally different understanding of what is balanced.

I regard a beatstick summon that frequently has a less than 50% chance to hit an equal-CR enemy as not useful enough, if summoning is your primary focus.
Note that this is fine as a baseline. If you want to be a summoner invest in summoning feats. That's what they're for.
But missing half your attacks is not useful when you spend 1 round casting time and one of your highest level spells on it.

As for BotTT, BB and Metamagic Song being high op, i think we'll have to disagree there too. They're decent feats, to differing degrees, but nothing more.
DMM i'll give you, mostly because of DMM:Persist.

It's also not a throwaway ability you throw on as only half of the feat.
What then would be an appropriate price to pay for a seriously limited duration extender that's rarely all that useful? Because in most cases fights don't last long enough to really make the double duration count, unless you're very low level. And even at high levels, 2 minutes longer won't keep your summons around until the next fight.
You'll really have to explain to me what's so incredibly valuable about that, because i really don't see it.
I won't deny that it's useful, but that's mainly at really low levels. Where you can't really afford to pay anything more than a feat, because that's all you have.


Your interpretation of "assumptions of the system" is at fault. That's core/monster based balance and understanding that most books are written in a vaccuum. Indeed, it is likely the writers intended Ashbound and Augment Summoning to stack, but that doesn't mean the rest of the system accounts for it. Both are important and apply at all times, but evaluating balance is literally the opposite of RAW-only so you can't expect a rule you can follow like RAW. The writers of Ashbound clearly thought summoning needed a huge boost, but they were wrong and so unless you've got a high-op game it's overpowered
Yeah, no. A +3 bonus to hit is not overpowered, not even with a free extend that rarely comes into play. Unless your standard for balance is Weapon Focus or Dodge.
Which are generally agreed to be trash. If that's what you're expecting of "balanced" feats we're pretty much talking about different games.
As i explained above, making your summons hit somewhat reliably is pretty much a requirement for playing a focused summoner, at least in my opinion.
This ties into the "making the players feel useful" part of the game. Your main combat contribution missing half the time or more is not fun. It's frustrating.

Technically, the topic of the thread is "One of my players built a summoner that over powers the rest of the party, how do I fix it?" not "What are all the possible permutations for powering up summoners and their advantages/drawbacks?"
And we're discussing how balanced summoning feats are and how useful banning the summoning feats would be for the OP to rein in his problem player.
And apparently what balance is, which is admittedly a bit of a tangent.

[ace rooster]

The writers of Ashbound clearly thought summoning needed a huge boost, but they were wrong and so unless you've got a high-op game it's overpowered.


I don't think they did. They wanted their setting to have an antagonist druid faction that had particularly powerful summons that were more useful from a lower level (particularly against PCs). The fluff requirement is very PC unfriendly outside of an ashbound campaign, which makes me think they did not intend it to end up in the hands of PCs at all. In this case the fluff requirement is important, and ignoring it buffs the feat significantly.

It is a symptom of PC NPC symmetry. The DM build's the NPCs to the same crunch rules as the PCs. This makes it very hard for NPCs to be given powerful options (that are not broken because the DM will put fluffy conditions on it) without also giving players things that can be turned into stinky cheese (players will not play by the same rules with regard to setting). In this case the ashbound NPCs are not going to dumpster dive to also get greenbound if it boosts their power above that of the campaign.

As a DM I would rule a limit of 1 'theme' feat type per character, and also hold players to some of the spirit of the theme in extreme cases like ashbound. While I might allow both ashbound and greenbound in a setting, I would probably disallow the combination.


Another implication of making greenbound a metamagic is that I don't think you can apply metamagic to a spontaneous spell, so they could not spontaneously convert spells into greenbound summons. Not sure about this though, so if anyone knows better please chime in.


One important thing I feel should be added is not to feel too bound by your own decisions. Reversing a decision is generally a sign of a mistake, but is often the best choice when you have made a mistake (you will, because everybody does). Once you get over the awkwardness of "well that didn't work", you will find it easier to try things and find something that does.

[Fizban]

There's just too much variance in monsters of the same CR, even in core, to accept it as a viable standard of measurement.
Yet another thread, but you're the first person to actually claim a wide variance in core rather than whining about outliers. If we had that thread I'm pretty sure your wide variance would still fall under outliers.

I've seen the post in question, but we'll have to disagree on this one too. If "but (someone involved in the game) said on a forum somewhere" is the end of all arguments you'll also have to accept the FAQ rulings.
Which are notorious for frequently contradicting themselves or forgetting parts of the rules.
Only if you refuse to use proper judgement rather than a binary yes/no only view of entire books of material. Actually that's a funny point: the same people who say you can't just ban whole books also say you should blatantly refuse the similarly large category of anything that's not a book. Until they want an article.

I regard a beatstick summon that frequently has a less than 50% chance to hit an equal-CR enemy as not useful enough, if summoning is your primary focus.
Note that this is fine as a baseline. If you want to be a summoner invest in summoning feats. That's what they're for.
But missing half your attacks is not useful when you spend 1 round casting time and one of your highest level spells on it.
Because you aren't looking at anything other than DPS, but more importantly you also don't seem to know that monster ACs are usually quite low and that SNA attack bonuses are already quite sufficient. Summoning also provides battlefield control through bodies on the field without so much as a single maneuver roll, and is worth hp by soaking attacks.

What then would be an appropriate price to pay for a seriously limited duration extender that's rarely all that useful? Because in most cases fights don't last long enough to really make the double duration count, unless you're very low level. And even at high levels, 2 minutes longer won't keep your summons around until the next fight.
If you think an extra minute isn't enough time to rush up to the next fight in a dungeon I don't think you've ever been in a dungeon.

Yeah, no. A +3 bonus to hit is not overpowered, not even with a free extend that rarely comes into play. Unless your standard for balance is Weapon Focus or Dodge.
Have you actually examined that statement? You just said that comparing a feat which gives a flat bonus to other feats which give flat bonuses is invalid. It clearly doesn't matter what the bonus or duration is, since in your mind summoned creatures are automatically allowed any amount of bonus or duration. You're also relying on the usual "look at only the individual pieces and ignore the whole" technique. Ashbound by itself would be perfectly fine, as is Augment Summoning. Using both at once is where it gets sketchy, but you can't have it both ways: if the writer intended them to be combined you can't claim the feat is balanced on it's own and just ignore the rest of the build.

As i explained above, making your summons hit somewhat reliably is pretty much a requirement for playing a focused summoner, at least in my opinion.
This ties into the "making the players feel useful" part of the game.
See above re: I don't think you actually know the stats of the summons and CR appropriate foes you're complaining about.

And apparently what balance is, which is admittedly a bit of a tangent.
It is always an adjacent topic. If I didn't bring it up myself you'd have gone there eventually after I said you were wrong enough, probably with the same Weapon Focus/Dodge comment you already used. Or I can bring it up, abbreviate the arguments I've already had, recognize that the other poster will never get it, and move on.

[Stealth Marmot]

Ashbound by itself would be perfectly fine, as is Augment Summoning. Using both at once is where it gets sketchy,

Augment Summoning is powerful but has a feat requirement that is one of the more useless feats around,so it really is TWO feats. That's the real reason Ashbound, to me, is pretty overpowered, because it has no pre-requisites other than fluff.

If the fluff is enforced however, as written, the character would be borderline unplayable since they could not and would not travel or associate with wizards, sorcerers, bards, warlocks, or any other arcane caster.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Because you aren't looking at anything other than DPS, but more importantly you also don't seem to know that monster ACs are usually quite low and that SNA attack bonuses are already quite sufficient. Summoning also provides battlefield control through bodies on the field without so much as a single maneuver roll, and is worth hp by soaking attacks.
I'm talking about summons from experience both as a spellcaster using summoning spells baseline, a focused summoner and a DM for both of those.
The whole BFC/meatshield angle is fine if you're just dumping a spell of your highest level onto the field for it. Mostly for the SLAs, not the combat ability. But if summoning is your build focus that's not enough.


If you think an extra minute isn't enough time to rush up to the next fight in a dungeon I don't think you've ever been in a dungeon.
Most dungeons don't have back to back fights. Most games don't consist entirely of dungeons. And if a new group of enemies was just around the corner why are there two separate fights?
It could be different in your games, but that's how it is in mine.


Have you actually examined that statement? You just said that comparing a feat which gives a flat bonus to other feats which give flat bonuses is invalid.
Leaving aside you putting words in my mouth again, i'm comparing to two feats who are generally accepted as weak, only good for prerequisites and not worth taking even in core-only.
"Useless feat tax" is not a balancing standard for feats i subscribe to.


See above re: I don't think you actually know the stats of the summons and CR appropriate foes you're complaining about.
If you actually knew the stats of summons and CR appropriate enemies as well as you claim you'd know that baseline summons don't really have high hit chances. 50-60% is about normal.


It is always an adjacent topic. If I didn't bring it up myself you'd have gone there eventually after I said you were wrong enough, probably with the same Weapon Focus/Dodge comment you already used. Or I can bring it up, abbreviate the arguments I've already had, recognize that the other poster will never get it, and move on.
Yes, i believe we've said all there is to say on the topic. We'll just have to agree to disagree, because at this point we're talking in circles.