Balancing Tiers [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Dancingdeath

2017-07-10, 07:23 PM

JNAProductions

2017-07-10, 07:33 PM

Honestly, you gotta do it on a case-by-case basis. There is no blanket fix.

Dancingdeath

2017-07-10, 07:38 PM

I agree. But since every campaign is different and players tastes vary these general rules have done me well in the past.

eggynack

2017-07-11, 02:38 AM

"A few restrictions on their most powerful features," is far and away the most important aspect of any balance fix that seeks to retain all classes in more or less their base form, and here it's wholly undefined. Moreover it's an aspect not present at all on the tier two classes, so I guess I can use whatever ridiculous tricks I can come up with, which are plentiful in nature? Looking at the lower tier adjustments, you have some gestalt, which I'd assume is using two tier five classes or is otherwise a bad combination because otherwise I don't know why you'd play tier four, and then you have this kinda nebulous LA removal aspect. Which, it could be valuable, but I have no way of evaluating it due to the unspecified LA. Is it a +1? +2? Are we talking about pixies here?

All of these adjustments have a lot of unspecified range to them, is what I'm saying. I don't even know what standard race means. It might well work for you, and hell, your changes might even work for others when known, but in this form there isn't that much utility to it. Implied by this is an incredibly detailed ban and buff list that seems like it's wholly governed by intuition that I have no access to.

Dancingdeath

2017-07-11, 05:08 AM

There general guidelines. I assume each person has a method by which to judge their own parties and decide what works for them. Don't like my ideas? That's cool. Don't use them.

Red Fel

2017-07-11, 10:29 AM

I've come up with several ways to balance tiers that are fairly effective. While there is no absolute method of complete fairness these come fairly close.

With tier one characters in the party balance has always been an issue. I don't shy away from letting players use them though. Tier ones play standard races and have a few restrictions placed on some of their more broken features. (DMM-persist and the like)

Tier twos get full use of all abilities no restrictions.

Tier threes get the same and can play more powerful races or have a template, which I ignore the level adjustment on.

Tier fours get a template/more powerful race, full access to abilities, and typically a single magic item that is a couple of levels higher than they'd usually get for their level.

Tier fives, poor tier fives. They get to gestalt with a class of my choosing, a template/more powerful race, full optimization tactics, and a useful magic item.

I don't let them start with all these features and typically sprinkle them in as they level. All characters are arguably relatively even to start and lose balance in the metagame.

My mentality here is that a DM is a force of balance as well as a storyteller. Not just the guy telling his players what they're going to hack and slash at today. Everyone's time is equally valuable and everyone is there ostensibly to have a good time. And sometimes rules need to be adjusted or ignored for the sake of logic and party cohesion. I hope this finds some value to someone and helps people have more fun.

It's a nice idea, but I think it overlooks what separates the Tiers. The Tiers are a measure of versatility - that is, the ability of a class to perform at a given task or number of tasks effectively. Races, templates, and magic items don't generally add much in the way of versatility, with a few exceptions; they just add bigger numbers.

Give you an example. Let's pit a Tier 1 alongside a Tier 5, under your model. Let's say the Tier 1 is a Human Wizard, standard features, no PrCs. Let's say the Tier 5 is a fancy race, loaded with templates and magic items, gestalt of two Tier 5 classes - let's say Fighter/Monk.

Play the Same Game Test with these two models. After the first several levels (the martial sweet spot), the Wizard - who, again, has no fancy templates or magic items or what-have-you - will have the tools to overcome or negate most challenges, while the Fighter/Monk will... be able to fight things. And maybe climb or fly.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but if your issue is balancing the Tiers, your concept doesn't address what defines the Tiers. It's not access to templates or wealth; it's the ability of one class to do anything. And your Wizards, Clerics, and Druids can still do that, even without templates or major magic items. And even with those things, your Fighters, Monks, and Paladins still can't do anything; they might be able to do one or two more things than they did before, but overall those buffs just make them better at what they could already do, which is not much.

johnbragg

2017-07-11, 11:02 AM

Give you an example. Let's pit a Tier 1 alongside a Tier 5, under your model. Let's say the Tier 1 is a Human Wizard, standard features, no PrCs. Let's say the Tier 5 is a fancy race, loaded with templates and magic items, gestalt of two Tier 5 classes - let's say Fighter/Monk.

I think the idea of gestalting is to cover for the Tier 5's weaknesses. Gestalting Fighter and Monk is fairly pointless from that perspective. So the gestalt would probably be Expert or Marshal or Scout or Adept or something that gives the Fighter or Monk something to do besides "I hit the monster." (Yes these are mostly Tier 4 classes, but the result is Tier 3-4.)

Play the Same Game Test with these two models.

Stop. You're right in terms of game design, but this is a patch, not a rebuild. The tricked-out fighter isn't designed for solo encounters, he's designed to distract the fighter-player with cool shiny things.

And even with those things, your Fighters, Monks, and Paladins still can't do anything; they might be able to do one or two more things than they did before, but overall those buffs just make them better at what they could already do, which is not much.

I think the idea is to pick gestalts, templates and items that let the Fighter do something besides swing a sword.

It's very Oberoni-reliant, but you talk to the Tier 5 player and explore what he'd like his guy to do. Maybe Expert gestalt and load up on diplomancer skills. Maybe MArshal and buff the party while he's fighting. Maybe Scout and build for spike damage. Maybe (element)-infused and add d6 (element) to all attacks. Maybe half-X and get wings.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-11, 11:02 AM

There general guidelines. I assume each person has a method by which to judge their own parties and decide what works for them. Don't like my ideas? That's cool. Don't use them.
But you've essentially given us nothing. A bit of nebulous, undefined talk of "some restrictions" and "more powerful races" and "gestalt of my choice." There's nothing to judge or comment on. "Boost the weak and nerf the strong" is intuitively obvious; it's the whys and wherefores that matter.

For comparison, here's a set with sufficient definition to be useful:
*Tier 1 classes also have a limited set of spells known/scribed-- no more than 5/class level, counting domain spells. They prepare spells off this list instead of the full class list.
*All caster classes are banned from using [Calling] spells, spells which alter the action economy, or metamagic cost reduction, and they must use the Pathfinder versions of polymorph-type spells.
*Tier 3 classes are unchanged.
*Tier 4 and 5 classes may gestalt with any other T4/5 class.

Cosi

2017-07-11, 11:17 AM

I think trying to balance the whole thing by hacking at existing classes is probably bad. There are two paradigms I see as good:

1. Pick a target power level, and write new classes for concepts not at that level.
2. Pick a target power level, and help people hack together things that fit their concept at that level.

Also, don't use JaronK's tiers, because they are dumb and bad.

Dancingdeath

2017-07-11, 02:10 PM

JNAProductions

2017-07-11, 02:19 PM

Well this has been as counterproductive as trying to Sprint through a field filled with rakes. Nevermind. Brilliant gamologist thread is accessible again. Go read that. Or continue to hate bash on something you obviously have no interest in.

We're not hating on it. We're pointing out it's incomplete.

The basic idea is fine-but you need more specifics.

Let me give you an example-there's a party with a Monk, Druid, Wizard, and Fighter. What nerfs do you give to the Druid and Wizard, and what buffs do the Fighter and Monk get?

eggynack

2017-07-11, 02:21 PM

Well this has been as counterproductive as trying to Sprint through a field filled with rakes. Nevermind. Brilliant gamologist thread is accessible again. Go read that. Or continue to hate bash on something you obviously have no interest in.
It seemed to be like everyone, including myself, was presenting rather fair and reasonable criticism. If we're wrong, then you can always tell us why, but, "You didn't actually provide anything actionable, balance-fix-wise," seems like a pretty big problem.

johnbragg

2017-07-11, 02:36 PM

Well this has been as counterproductive as trying to Sprint through a field filled with rakes. Nevermind.

Well, I found your OP entirely reasonable. But I also found the criticism that you don't specify what exactly you mean reasonable. I replied to Red Fel with some quickie ideas of how to apply what you're saying. I think you could do the same.

Brilliant gamologist thread is accessible again. Go read that.

Link?

Or continue to hate bash on something you obviously have no interest in.
Um, I didn't see that happen in this thread.

johnbragg

2017-07-11, 02:38 PM

Well this has been as counterproductive as trying to Sprint through a field filled with rakes.

Hey, sometimes there's a rake-filled field between you, the nightmare beast who's chasing you and the helicopter off the island.

Psyren

2017-07-11, 03:04 PM

Well this has been as counterproductive as trying to Sprint through a field filled with rakes. Nevermind. Brilliant gamologist thread is accessible again. Go read that. Or continue to hate bash on something you obviously have no interest in.

That is probably the funniest mental image accompanying a ragequit I've ever read :smallbiggrin:

JNAProductions

2017-07-18, 09:44 PM

So does anyone have more solid guidelines?

Lans

2017-07-19, 07:18 AM

You can just do obvious upgrades to classes, like change the marshals aura so it scales to +6 and give it a full BAB, upgrading the incarnate chassis to the clerics,

Mordaedil

2017-07-19, 07:34 AM

Don't actually think about fixing tiers too much, because if you are doing your job right things will be fine and balanced anyway?

The tiers are more handy as a guide for the DM to know what to expect, not any sort of "this is how unbalanced 3.5 edition is" statement.

It addresses one key point, which is class versatility and explains what classes might lack it. In an actual game it isn't going to come up at all, as long as you help your players with their builds and give feedback and thoughts on how to make them fit in better.

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-19, 07:34 AM

It's a nice idea, but I think it overlooks what separates the Tiers. The Tiers are a measure of versatility - that is, the ability of a class to perform at a given task or number of tasks effectively. Races, templates, and magic items don't generally add much in the way of versatility, with a few exceptions; they just add bigger numbers.

I really think that this is the heart of the tier situation. I'm all for playing fighters, Samurai, Ninja, Soulknifes, etc whenever anyone wants but those classes aren't versatile. They typically have a schtick and they do it and get increasingly less effective at it as time goes on. To balance the tiers, you'll need to find some way to exponentially increase the versatility of the lower tiered classes or exponentially decrease the versatility of the higher tier classes.

For example, a drastic reduction to the cleric, favored soul, druid would be to take away any "personal" target spells or abilities (wild shape, I'm looking at you). For the wizard, remove the spells that allow for long distance shenanigans like teleport and the like. This is a bad idea because of so many stated arguments and the fact that if you're playing at level 20, you're going to face things that can do this and you would get toasted instantly.

A drastic increase in abilities for the lower tier classes would have to be some form of at will ability that doesn't have to do with their predetermined schtick. A fighter would need to get abilities that increased their use outside of a combat role. The ninja would have to get a boost to their versatility in combat as well as when stealth is not an option. Basically, you would have to rewrite all of the classes that don't meet the versatility minimum of the wizard/sorcerer cleric/favored soul. This is also bad because, to quote the young folks these days, "A'int nobody got time for that."

I don't think there is a "Fix" persay because it's for the most part borked. What I don't really see though is a distinct problem. I don't expect a fighter to pull a fixall out of his pocket. I expect him to hit things which he can do decently reliably in the games that I've run/played in.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 08:19 AM

So does anyone have more solid guidelines?
In practice, I think versatility isn't as important as theorycrafting says it should be. The guy who picked Barbarian or Fighter probably just wants to hit things with a sword, after all; they're unlikely to mind that their skills don't apply so much during a murder mystery. Make sure there's some fighting, make sure you don't over-use monsters that shut down conventional tactics, and I wouldn't worry too much.

Similarly, I think most people playing full casters aren't going nuts with metamagic reduction, contingencies, planar bindings, and other game-breaking shennanigans. A Sorcerer with a list full of blasts, buffs, and the odd utility spell will play just fine with T3 and T4s. The same for T1s, who-- in my experience-- stick to generally the same spells anyway. It's actually kind of nice having a Cleric or something around who can easily access adventure-enabling spells like Water Breathing.

The low end is where you're likely to have the most problems-- people who want to play frankly dysfunctional classes Soulknives and Monks; people who want to play Fighters when there's a Warblade in the party, that sort of thing. For those guys, I think gestalting T4 and T5 classes (T4/T5 or T5/T5) is as good a simple fix as you'll find. A Fighter or a Marshal is kind of mediocre on its own, but a Fighter//Marshal makes a pretty decent combatant and leader. That sort of thing.

-----------

Another alternative is to simply cut out all non T3ish classes, mixing 3.5 and PF material to fill out the list, like so:

Alchemist (PF)
Bard (Upgrade spells/day and spells known progressions to match the Pathfinder version)
Binder
Crusader
Dragonfire Adept (Increase damage to 1d6/level, and learn an invocation at every level you don't learn a breath shape/effect)
Hunter (PF)
Incarnate
Inquisitor (PF; gains Trapfinding at first level)
Investigator (PF)
Magus (PF)
Psychic Rogue
Psychic Warrior
Ranger (Swift Hunter gestalt or Wildshape only)
Skald (PF)
Swordsage (gains Trapfinding at first level)
Totemist
Warblade
Warlock (upgrade to 1 invocation known/level, and damage to 1d6/level)
Warpriest (PF)

Any prestige class that grants access to spells higher than 6th level is also removed from the game.

Player's Handbook Class Equivalencies

Barbarian: Ranger (Scout gestalt), Skald, Totemist, Warblade focused on Tiger Claw
Cleric: Binder, Incarnate, Inquisitor, Warpriest
Druid: Hunter, Ranger, Totemist
Fighter: Brawler, Crusader [avoid (Su) strikes to keep a mundane flavor], Warblade
Monk: Brawler, Swordsage, Psychic Warrior
Paladin: Crusader, Warpriest
Rogue: Investigator, Psychic Rogue, Swordsage [avoid (Su) strikes to keep a mundane flavor]
Sorcerer: Dragonfire Adept, Magus (Eldrich Scion), Warlock
Wizard: Alchemist, Binder, Incarnate, Warlock

-------------

The most difficult option is to rewrite classes altogether to bring them closer together. I did a lot in my Giants and Graveyards 'brew (see my sig), but I also worked up a pretty functional 5-step upgrade that works for most things:

Double all static numerical bonuses. (That is to say things that aren't "+Charisma" or "+level")
Anything with a daily usage limit is instead changed to an HOURLY limit.
At level 6 you gain an extra move action, which updates to a standard at 12th.
You can upgrade a class' BAB one step, it's HD 2 steps, or gain 4 new class skills and skill points/level.
You automatically gain all skill tricks you qualify for, and may use them at will.

Rangers, Paladins, and Hexblades can gain CL=level, 0-level spell slots, and triple the normal spells/day.

Hackulator

2017-07-19, 08:21 AM

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-19, 08:24 AM

Remove ALL feats that buff casting. Casters still have all the utility they always had and a huge number of options, as well as all the "Player Agency" (god I hate that term) stuff like teleport, but they are mechanically not as strong, losing both the ability to straight buff their spells and the ability to pull off a lot of stupid combos.

Do you mean remove all metamagic too? That seems extreme and forces wizards who keep the class and their bonus feats into taking only item creation feats.

Calthropstu

2017-07-19, 08:32 AM

If you want to see balanced tiers in action, go to a wedding. The cake will have well balanced tiers.

Hackulator

2017-07-19, 08:36 AM

Do you mean remove all metamagic too? That seems extreme and forces wizards who keep the class and their bonus feats into taking only item creation feats.

Yes I mean that. Nobody needs their power level cut down more than wizards...except maybe druids who get proper ****ed by the removal of Natural Spell.

Sir_Chivalry

2017-07-19, 09:03 AM

Do you mean remove all metamagic too? That seems extreme and forces wizards who keep the class and their bonus feats into taking only item creation feats.

Well that and fighter feats, due to alternative class feature options. Perhaps tossing the wizard a few other feats they can choose might be advisable, like those feats that boost two skill checks by +2, they're more useless than nipples on a breastplate.

Red Fel

2017-07-19, 09:06 AM

Yes I mean that. Nobody needs their power level cut down more than wizards...except maybe druids who get proper ****ed by the removal of Natural Spell.

... Seriously, though? A Druid who can't cast spells while Wild Shaped into an 8-headed Cryohydra isn't exactly "proper ****ed," more like "mildly inconvenienced."

That said, what does most metamagic do? Here's a quick list of the biggies:
Spells have a different/added type (Energy Substitution, Energy Admixture, etc.)
Spells hit harder (Maximize Spell, etc.)
Spells last longer (Extend Spell, Persist Spell, etc.)
Spells are easier to cast (Silent Spell, Still Spell, etc.)
Removing metamagic feats would certainly make damaging spells and buffs less powerful, in that they would have lower numbers and durations and require more effort to cast. But here's the thing: The most game-changing spells are mostly unaffected by this "fix." Yes, Shapechange would last for a shorter time, but you only need it to last for the duration of combat, which it totally can at the level you can cast it, for you to completely dominate as, say, a Dragon. Wish and Miracle are mostly unaffected by the proposed "fix," and still let you crack the game like an egg. Likewise, we all know the tricks you can pull with Gate.

Spells like those are the ones that put Wizards at Tier 1. And a metamagic fix won't significantly impact them. It will impact things like Fireball or Enlarge Person, but that's actually counterproductive. Why? Because (1) blasting, for most casters, is an inferior use of resources anyway, and (2) buffing helps the party by acting as a force multiplier, as opposed to spells that help the Wizard alone. Your proposed "fix" only really impacts blasts and buffs, many of which aren't the big problem here.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 09:13 AM

Persistent Spell probably IS worth dropping, if nothing else. Not only does it severely screw with expectations about buff economy, the limits to "personal and fixed-range spells" makes it an inherently selfish ability.

Florian

2017-07-19, 09:16 AM

Yes I mean that. Nobody needs their power level cut down more than wizards...except maybe druids who get proper ****ed by the removal of Natural Spell.

You´re barking at the wrong tree. Meta-Magic without cost reduction is the friend of balance...

Hackulator

2017-07-19, 09:24 AM

You´re barking at the wrong tree. Meta-Magic without cost reduction is the friend of balance...

How is that, exactly?

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-19, 09:49 AM

How is that, exactly?

Metamagic without cost reductions is a friend of balance. The problem with balance isn't with metamagic, it's with the metamagic reducers. For instance, a cleric can take DMM persist. This lets them persist high level spells without changing the spell level meaning that even a 9th level spell can be persisted. Without these things you can't use the more potent metamagics on your most potent spells, thereby reducing the "brokenness" of metamagic.

The argument isn't "metamagic is broken" it's "metamagic without any/with very little cost is broken".

Cosi

2017-07-19, 09:52 AM

Grod's idea (cut out everything outside your desired balance point) is basically a good one, but it should be noted you don't have to do it at Bard level. If you wanted a game balanced around the Wizards and Dread Necromancers of the world, you could get pretty far by just declaring all casting PrCs full progression and adding some kind of support for theurges (maybe a free 1-level dip in a non-caster class). That's probably the best bang for your buck in terms of effort, diversity, and balance.

Remove ALL feats that buff casting. Casters still have all the utility they always had and a huge number of options, as well as all the "Player Agency" (god I hate that term) stuff like teleport, but they are mechanically not as strong, losing both the ability to straight buff their spells and the ability to pull off a lot of stupid combos.

Feats do far more for making casters diverse and interesting than they do for making them powerful. The game is not breaking because the Wizards spells can now last twice as long, it's breaking because those spells are e.g. polymorph. This and your hatred for PrCs are making it seem like you don't really understand how casters operate, despite your impressive hatred for them.

I do wonder what you have against player agency though. Care to explain?

Yes I mean that. Nobody needs their power level cut down more than wizards...except maybe druids who get proper ****ed by the removal of Natural Spell.

Again, A > B does not prove A is too large. "Buff Fighters" is just as valid a solution as "Nerf Wizards".

Natural Spell isn't terribly powerful. Wild Shape is, but you should make changes as close to the problem as possible (again, another issue that seems to show up a lot with you).

Natural Spell does need a change, but that's because it's in a bad place in terms of cost, not raw power. Currently, it's cheap enough that ever Druid takes it, which effectively means that it's a Druid class feature and Druids get one less feat. That state of affairs is bad. Depending on your preference, it should either be free (if you think it is an ability all Druids should have) or expensive enough to present a real trade-off (if you do not).

Persistent Spell probably IS worth dropping, if nothing else. Not only does it severely screw with expectations about buff economy, the limits to "personal and fixed-range spells" makes it an inherently selfish ability.

Persistent Spell is a problem for the same reason Epic Spellcasting is a problem -- its useless if you pay the costs you are expected to pay, but broken if you can avoid paying them. Neither of those is good.

One fix I saw was to make it (and Extend Spell) +1 metamagic feats that moved feats up one step on the duration hierarchy -- rounds/level to minutes/level, minutes/level to 10 minutes/level and so on. That eliminates the most abusive uses (Persistent one-round buffs), and makes them reasonable choices for casters to use. I think it also opened them up to all spells, and may have made some other changes.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 10:23 AM

Grod's idea (cut out everything outside your desired balance point) is basically a good one, but it should be noted you don't have to do it at Bard level. If you wanted a game balanced around the Wizards and Dread Necromancers of the world, you could get pretty far by just declaring all casting PrCs full progression and adding some kind of support for theurges (maybe a free 1-level dip in a non-caster class). That's probably the best bang for your buck in terms of effort, diversity, and balance.
I dunno about all PrCs, but yeah, you can certainly run the game at a T1/T2 level as well. Your main problem there is that non caster-heavy warrior concepts will struggle, which is the main reason I like dropping down to ~Bard level-- it's easier to fit in warriors and rogues.

Feats do far more for making casters diverse and interesting than they do for making them powerful. The game is not breaking because the Wizards spells can now last twice as long, it's breaking because those spells are e.g. polymorph.
Agreed, to an extend. Things like Uncanny Foresight should probably go die in a fire; Extend Spell and reserve feats are fine.

Natural Spell isn't terribly powerful. Wild Shape is, but you should make changes as close to the problem as possible (again, another issue that seems to show up a lot with you).

Natural Spell does need a change, but that's because it's in a bad place in terms of cost, not raw power. Currently, it's cheap enough that ever Druid takes it, which effectively means that it's a Druid class feature and Druids get one less feat. That state of affairs is bad. Depending on your preference, it should either be free (if you think it is an ability all Druids should have) or expensive enough to present a real trade-off (if you do not).
Natural Spell is a big reason why Druids are so strong, though-- it totally removes the trade-off between casting and shapeshifting. Especially with cheap items like pearls of speech, there's no incentive not to take the biggest, meanest form available and stick in it all day. Cutting it means that the Druid is suddenly a caster who always has a polymorph up their sleeve, rather than a bear who also casts spells.

Persistent Spell is a problem for the same reason Epic Spellcasting is a problem -- its useless if you pay the costs you are expected to pay, but broken if you can avoid paying them. Neither of those is good.

One fix I saw was to make it (and Extend Spell) +1 metamagic feats that moved feats up one step on the duration hierarchy -- rounds/level to minutes/level, minutes/level to 10 minutes/level and so on. That eliminates the most abusive uses (Persistent one-round buffs), and makes them reasonable choices for casters to use. I think it also opened them up to all spells, and may have made some other changes.
I quite like this, actually.

Cosi

2017-07-19, 10:34 AM

I dunno about all PrCs,

I can't think of any partial casting PrCs that would be even as good as e.g. Shadowcraft Mage or Rainbow Servant if they were full casting. Given that this paradigm would involve the acceptance of those PrCs as part of the balance target, I think this is almost all upside. If you expand it to all PrCs, there are a couple things that are either stupid (Ur-Priest becoming a theurge) or potentially dangerous (Master of Many Forms might be a PrC Druids actually take), but even then it might be worth the effort.

Your main problem there is that non caster-heavy warrior concepts will struggle, which is the main reason I like dropping down to ~Bard level-- it's easier to fit in warriors and rogues.

I mean, I guess, but that's a fairly narrow slice of concepts. There are still warriors of essentially every description, there are still melee characters, and there are still Rogue-ish types. Those characters have magic, but I think that for a group that wants to play at this level, that's a feature rather than a bug.

Agreed, to an extend. Things like Uncanny Foresight should probably go die in a fire; Extend Spell and reserve feats are fine.

Sure, in anything as large as feats, there are going to be a few things that are broken. The problem is that people tend to conflate "some of these options are broken" and "in general, these options are broken", which leads to stupidity like looking at planar binding and concluding that Wizards are broken.

Natural Spell is a big reason why Druids are so strong, though-- it totally removes the trade-off between casting and shapeshifting.

I think that trade-off is probably pretty heavily in favor of shapeshifting though. Also, fair uses of form-changing magic (and until you get Elemental Wild Shape, Wild Shape is pretty fair) are overrated by the community. A Druid is a better Fighter than a Fighter, but the Fighter already wasn't worth including in a party with a Druid, so you don't care much. The Druid still isn't especially better than e.g. a DMM Cleric or an Incantatrix.

eggynack

2017-07-19, 11:40 AM

I think that trade-off is probably pretty heavily in favor of shapeshifting though.

Not really. If you're using wild shape on an active basis, it's going to be for the purposes of direct melee combat, which seems at least somewhat, probably a lot, worse than making use of your massive array of spells. There are some seriously wonky ways to use wild shape, but a lot of it has its best parts reliant on access to spells. Immunity to magic, invisibility, and flight from will-o'-wisp form are all great abilities, but you're not getting too much out of no one being able to do anything to you if you can't do anything to them.

Also, fair uses of form-changing magic (and until you get Elemental Wild Shape, Wild Shape is pretty fair) are overrated by the community.
If this is the case, then why would the trade off be in favor of shapeshifting? And how is elemental wild shape unfair? Are you assuming access to the whole elemental type with that one? Because otherwise, forms you can get before elementals, and non-elemental forms you can get during elementals, are going to be comparable powerful or more powerful.

Psyren

2017-07-19, 11:55 AM

Natural Spell is a big reason why Druids are so strong, though-- it totally removes the trade-off between casting and shapeshifting. Especially with cheap items like pearls of speech, there's no incentive not to take the biggest, meanest form available and stick in it all day. Cutting it means that the Druid is suddenly a caster who always has a polymorph up their sleeve, rather than a bear who also casts spells.

I prefer the PF solution of nerfing shapeshifting itself. You can be a bear who casts spells, but if you focus heavily on spellcasting you're going to be a rather weak bear. Make combining the two a tradeoff rather than forbidding it completely.

Hackulator

2017-07-19, 12:06 PM

Metamagic without cost reductions is a friend of balance. The problem with balance isn't with metamagic, it's with the metamagic reducers. For instance, a cleric can take DMM persist. This lets them persist high level spells without changing the spell level meaning that even a 9th level spell can be persisted. Without these things you can't use the more potent metamagics on your most potent spells, thereby reducing the "brokenness" of metamagic.

The argument isn't "metamagic is broken" it's "metamagic without any/with very little cost is broken".

You realize that "not as powerful" and "friend of balance" are not at all the same thing. Metamagic without cost reduction is not a friend of balance it's just not as powerful. It's still an additional option for t1 caster to increase their power. In your post I quote you literally never even make an argument for metamagic promoting balance other than bolding the word without. As I sit here realizing you never even made an argument I wonder why I'm even replying but I'm too deep in so I might as well finish.

Here's the thing, there is NO WAY to balance the classes because of their fundamental designs. I am not saying my suggestion is some all purpose panacea that will fix this issue, just that it is very simple to apply and will significantly reduce power level.

Yes shapechange will still be broken, but once players are casting 9th level spells balance is so far out the window there is no fixing it without just a massive amount of DM control.

eggynack

2017-07-19, 12:19 PM

You realize that "not as powerful" and "friend of balance" are not at all the same thing. Metamagic without cost reduction is not a friend of balance it's just not as powerful. It's still an additional option for t1 caster to increase their power. In your post I quote you literally never even make an argument for metamagic promoting balance other than bolding the word without. As I sit here realizing you never even made an argument I wonder why I'm even replying but I'm too deep in so I might as well finish.

I think the argument is just that metamagic isn't all that great. These feats, assuming no cost reduction, mostly won't make casters more powerful than they were already, and they push casters in the direction of these just alright feats rather than towards feats that do other things. I pose the question to you, what is metamagic doing, precisely, that's so powerful? If the answer is simply, "It's a caster thing, so it's non-presence in the game technically reduces the power of casters despite its specific power level or nature, and therefore removing it is balance positive," then you're technically correct, but it makes the removal of metamagic kinda arbitrary. Why remove this and not, for the sake of argument, spells that whose main function is acting as light sources, like daylight and such? If the answer is limited to a couple of specific feats or a couple of interactions with specific feats (so, maybe invisible spell and quicken in the former case, and extend combined with creeping cold in the latter case, for the sake of argument), then why not simply remove those edge cases? Gotta say, if a druid is picking extend spell over the millions of crazy broken feats at their disposal, that right there is a balance friendly decision.

Random Sanity

2017-07-19, 12:19 PM

Hackulator

2017-07-19, 12:31 PM

I think the argument is just that metamagic isn't all that great. These feats, assuming no cost reduction, mostly won't make casters more powerful than they were already, and they push casters in the direction of these just alright feats rather than towards feats that do other things. I pose the question to you, what is metamagic doing, precisely, that's so powerful? If the answer is simply, "It's a caster thing, so it's non-presence in the game technically reduces the power of casters despite its specific power level or nature, and therefore removing it is balance positive," then you're technically correct, but it makes the removal of metamagic kinda arbitrary. Why remove this and not, for the sake of argument, spells that whose main function is acting as light sources, like daylight and such? If the answer is limited to a couple of specific feats or a couple of interactions with specific feats (so, maybe invisible spell and quicken in the former case, and extend combined with creeping cold in the latter case, for the sake of argument), then why not simply remove those edge cases? Gotta say, if a druid is picking extend spell over the millions of crazy broken feats at their disposal, that right there is a balance friendly decision.

Ok first of all, in my original post I said ANY feat that buffs casting. Metamagic is just part of that. The poins is that it is an EASY change which is easy and simple to implement and CLEARLY reduces caster power. Not that it's some perfect fix. Nobody here has the design mojo to fix this issue without reworking the entire system. I am simply suggesting something that can be done simply to SOMEWHAT alleviate the issue. If you want to go through all the spell lists and remove the truly problematic spells you can do that but its a lot more work and if you actually removed enough spells to balance the classes wizard would basically only have a few evocation spells lol.

Metamagic with cost reduction is free power. Metamagic without cost reduction is a tradeoff - you get a bigger effect on a low-level spell at the cost of using a much more valuable spell slot.

The argument is right there, you just refused to read it.

Ok that wasn't said in the post I responded to so clearly, the argument was NOT there. Please feel free to reread the post

Second off, the ability to alter your magic is clearly powerful. The ability to take a tradeoff when it is useful and not make it other times is powerful. Therefore, adding that to a class that is already more powerful than most others is not in any way good for balance. It's not as BAD for balance as purely making the spell powerful for free, but "not as bad" and "good" do not mean the same thing.

Zanos

2017-07-19, 12:36 PM

In practice, I think versatility isn't as important as theorycrafting says it should be. The guy who picked Barbarian or Fighter probably just wants to hit things with a sword, after all; they're unlikely to mind that their skills don't apply so much during a murder mystery. Make sure there's some fighting, make sure you don't over-use monsters that shut down conventional tactics, and I wouldn't worry too much.
This has generally been my experience. The Barbarian and Fighter don't really care that they can't teleport or raise the dead because they signed up to hit stuff with their sword, and the most popular T1 builds are pretty party friendly anyway. The problems arise when people want to play classes that don't really function all that well as you mentioned, and when people create builds with the only purpose of getting super high numbers and intentionally stepping on others toes. If you have a rogue in the party and the wizard makes a point to prepare a bunch of knock spells, the wizards player probably is a jerk.

I usually only play games with people I know are cool dudes so I don't run in to this too often, but it's not uncommon in roll20 games to see people intentionally steal the spotlight from other characters at every opportunities because they're selfish.

Cosi

2017-07-19, 12:37 PM

If this is the case, then why would the trade off be in favor of shapeshifting?

Because I'm stupid, and I said "in favor of" when I meant "against".

And how is elemental wild shape unfair? Are you assuming access to the whole elemental type with that one?

Yup. It, or at least the PHB version, does some really dumb stuff. It's possible that it doesn't now, but I'm not digging through the dozen different sources I need to figure out how exactly this piece of the polymorph rules is broken. There's a rundown of the issues I'm talking about here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=739).

You realize that "not as powerful" and "friend of balance" are not at all the same thing. Metamagic without cost reduction is not a friend of balance it's just not as powerful. It's still an additional option for t1 caster to increase their power.

Is there a 2nd level spell you'd use 8th level slots for if you had to do that to use Persistent Spell?

Here's the thing, there is NO WAY to balance the classes because of their fundamental designs. I am not saying my suggestion is some all purpose panacea that will fix this issue, just that it is very simple to apply and will significantly reduce power level.

This seems like a pretty serious claim, with basically no evidence. What makes you think you can't balance classes?

Of course, you are once again hung up on "balanced" and "weaker" as synonyms, which is wrong. Full casters are balanced against each other. If you give people the tools to play any concept they want as a full caster, you have achieved balance, even though characters are more powerful.

JNAProductions

2017-07-19, 12:45 PM

Divine Favor is nice for a Gish build. And that's a level 1 spell.

But, while nice, it's hardly broken.

eggynack

2017-07-19, 12:53 PM

Ok first of all, in my original post I said ANY feat that buffs casting. Metamagic is just part of that. The poins is that it is an EASY change which is easy and simple to implement and CLEARLY reduces caster power.
Still mostly not druid negative, actually. You're basically just specifically hitting summoning feats there, maybe initiate feats. And the core questions at hand are whether you're reducing caster power all that significantly, and whether a lot of the changes are particularly balance positive or actually mostly balance neutral. So, for example, I would call removing empower spell, absent metamagic reduction, balance neutral.

Not that it's some perfect fix. Nobody here has the design mojo to fix this issue without reworking the entire system. I am simply suggesting something that can be done simply to SOMEWHAT alleviate the issue.
My big problems with this fix are that it is, first, pretty unimpactful, and second, really annoying. To the first point, feats seem pretty low order in most cases for wizards. You're hitting metamagic feats, which, again, aren't that big a deal, metamagic reducers, which are a big deal, craft contingent, which is amazing, and then a bunch of reasonable but low impact stuff. Reserve feats? Spell focus? Arcane disciple? What are we doing here? Druids, again, can just satisfy themselves with utterly broken wild shape oriented feats and perfectly reasonable animal companion feats. Clerics, I'm not that sure on, but I doubt you're changing that much after you hit DMM, initiate of mystra, and a couple of other borked items. Which would be kinda okay, because even a slight balance adjustment is a balance adjustment, but lacking any meaningful feats whatsoever is annoying. I guess wizards just take a lot of crafting stuff and improved initiative? It's not a particularly fun thing to do, putting something that may as well be weapon focus on your feat list. And is this supposed to be arbitrarily banning various prestige classes? If so, are you sure you're hitting the right ones? A couple heavy hitters get taken out, but something like mindbender is fine.

Second off, the ability to alter your magic is clearly powerful. The ability to take a tradeoff when it is useful and not make it other times is powerful. Therefore, adding that to a class that is already more powerful than most others is not in any way good for balance. It's not as BAD for balance as purely making the spell powerful for free, but "not as bad" and "good" do not mean the same thing.
Is it powerful? Is making fireball a sixth level spell to widen it powerful? Is anything involving enlarge spell powerful? Extend spell is one of the better ones, and even that is mostly just doing decent things, and can be easily replaced by metamagic rods that I can only assume are still present in the game. A few spellcasting feats are quite good. Most are not.

Edit:
Because I'm stupid, and I said "in favor of" when I meant "against".
Thought that was possible, but I saw some stuff seemingly in favor of form changing stuff as powerful in a broad sense. Anyway, in that case, then I'll note again, in the inverse direction, that a lot of the utility of wild shape comes from how it augments casting, not from the intrinsic power of these forms. Wild shape is how druids fly, for example. It's where they get a lot of their AC and initiative, and where they get fancy vision modes and non-flight movement modes. It's where they get a lot of weird stuff when plant forms come online. And that's just off of basic wild shape.

Yup. It, or at least the PHB version, does some really dumb stuff. It's possible that it doesn't now, but I'm not digging through the dozen different sources I need to figure out how exactly this piece of the polymorph rules is broken. There's a rundown of the issues I'm talking about here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=739).
I've generally been pretty unconvinced that elemental wild shape expands out to the whole type, as opposed to to those four creatures (and their size variants). Pretty sure I have some form of the argument in the FAQ section of my handbook, and I remember making a more extensive argument recently that I should probably look for. The gist is that it's an ambiguous thing, and the surrounding context implies the non-type reading. Also, that thread seems out of date. A lot of it looks like it's premised on wild shape's reliance on polymorph, and wild shape is no longer a polymorph variant. All that being said, yeah, if you assume elemental wild shape grants broad type access, then it's going to be significantly more powerful than standard wild shape options, though most of its uses are probably not more powerful than wild shape with form adding feats.

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-19, 01:28 PM

You realize that "not as powerful" and "friend of balance" are not at all the same thing. Metamagic without cost reduction is not a friend of balance it's just not as powerful. It's still an additional option for t1 caster to increase their power. In your post I quote you literally never even make an argument for metamagic promoting balance other than bolding the word without. As I sit here realizing you never even made an argument I wonder why I'm even replying but I'm too deep in so I might as well finish.

Here's the thing, there is NO WAY to balance the classes because of their fundamental designs. I am not saying my suggestion is some all purpose panacea that will fix this issue, just that it is very simple to apply and will significantly reduce power level.

Yes shapechange will still be broken, but once players are casting 9th level spells balance is so far out the window there is no fixing it without just a massive amount of DM control.

Which is easier to balance, free power or power at a cost? Power at a cost right? That makes metamagic without cost reduction a friend to balance because it makes it easier to balance if you feel it's necessary to take any action at all. That's what other people have been saying is that with the current cost, persistent spell is not worth it. There are better level 8 spells that you can cast than a persisted level 2 buff spell. The T1 caster that uses a level 9 spell slot for a persisted level 3 spell is going to get utterly gutted by a spellcaster using level 9 spells. Its just not a good use of your high level spell slots.

If you take out all of the feats that boost spells you're not really knocking anybody's power down, you're just inconveniencing them. And even then, you may not be doing that.

Cosi

2017-07-19, 01:31 PM

Divine Favor is nice for a Gish build. And that's a level 1 spell.

But, while nice, it's hardly broken.

I mean, it's fine, but would you really rather have it over e.g. holy word?

So, for example, I would call removing empower spell, absent

Absent... the rest of this paragraph?

craft contingent, which is amazing,

I'm pretty sure Hackulator misses Craft Contingent Spell, because it doesn't enhance spellcasting per se. Also, I'm pretty sure at the power level where people stack crafted contingent spells, they're pulling them out of SLA wish, not crafting them.

Thought that was possible, but I saw some stuff seemingly in favor of form changing stuff as powerful in a broad sense.

Form changing cheese is powerful, because it will always be possible to find something in an MM that will be broken when stapled onto your character. Particularly seeing as 3e polymorph is badly implemented (for example, HD limits are dumb). But if you just turn into a bear and punch people in the face, it's not really better than evard's black tentacles or something.

I've generally been pretty unconvinced that elemental wild shape expands out to the whole type, as opposed to to those four creatures (and their size variants). Pretty sure I have some form of the argument in the FAQ section of my handbook, and I remember making a more extensive argument recently that I should probably look for. The gist is that it's an ambiguous thing, and the surrounding context implies the non-type reading.

What context do you see as implying the non-type reading? The big thing that leaps out to me is granting SLAs when "normal" elementals have no SLAs. I could accept that being an editing error if there's mechanical evidence somewhere, but if we're going off context that seems like a pretty big hint that Elemental Wild Shape is supposed to turn you into any element (subject to size, HD, and subtype restrictions).

Also, that thread seems out of date. A lot of it looks like it's premised on wild shape's reliance on polymorph, and wild shape is no longer a polymorph variant.

Well that's the other issue, right? You don't know what Wild Shape does, because knowing what Wild Shape does requires you to have read three different books, the accompanying errata, any other sources (e.g. FAQ, website, Sage) that you consider value, and then had a bunch of rules debates about inheritance. I agree that some of the specific arguments are no longer valid (for example, IIRC the template thing no longer works), but the overall point -- the rules for form changing magic are borked not just on power, but also on complexity, grounds still holds.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 01:38 PM

What context do you see as implying the non-type reading? The big thing that leaps out to me is granting SLAs when "normal" elementals have no SLAs. I could accept that being an editing error if there's mechanical evidence somewhere, but if we're going off context that seems like a pretty big hint that Elemental Wild Shape is supposed to turn you into any element (subject to size, HD, and subtype restrictions)
"Small, Medium, or Large elemental (air, earth, fire, or water)," probably? As opposed to the earlier "all creatures with the animal type" and "a plant creature." Getting SLAs is weird no matter how you slice it, though-- none of the other [Elemental] creatures in the MM1 have SLAs at all, as far as I can tell.

eggynack

2017-07-19, 01:50 PM

Absent... the rest of this paragraph?
Really should stop arbitrarily flouncing about from argument section to argument section as the mood strikes me. But I won't, because it's the best thing apart from this thing where random sections get cut off. Fixed, in any case. I'm thankful this isn't one of those times where I have literally no idea where I was going with a sentence, and have to end up deleting it entirely.

I'm pretty sure Hackulator misses Craft Contingent Spell, because it doesn't enhance spellcasting per se. Also, I'm pretty sure at the power level where people stack crafted contingent spells, they're pulling them out of SLA wish, not crafting them.
Maybe? The rule is pretty vague.

What context do you see as implying the non-type reading? The big thing that leaps out to me is granting SLAs when "normal" elementals have no SLAs. I could accept that being an editing error if there's mechanical evidence somewhere, but if we're going off context that seems like a pretty big hint that Elemental Wild Shape is supposed to turn you into any element (subject to size, HD, and subtype restrictions).
Just found what I think is my most recent post on the subject hereabouts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526801-Good-elemental-forms-for-Druid-s).

Well that's the other issue, right? You don't know what Wild Shape does, because knowing what Wild Shape does requires you to have read three different books, the accompanying errata, any other sources (e.g. FAQ, website, Sage) that you consider value, and then had a bunch of rules debates about inheritance. I agree that some of the specific arguments are no longer valid (for example, IIRC the template thing no longer works), but the overall point -- the rules for form changing magic are borked not just on power, but also on complexity, grounds still holds.
Yeah, form changing be weird. So many of the totally unresolvable things in the game are form changing related.

Cosi

2017-07-19, 02:03 PM

"Small, Medium, or Large elemental (air, earth, fire, or water),"

A Thoqqua is a Medium elemental with the earth (and fire) type(s). That meets all of the criteria listed. If anything, the use of the same parenthetical notation as subtypes normally use is an indicator we're talking about all elementals. If it was just the Air Elemental and similar, it would/could say "Small, Medium, or Large Air, Earth, Fire, or Water elemental".

As opposed to the earlier "all creatures with the animal type" and "a plant creature."

I do think there are restrictions in play even under the "whole type" interpretation, which account for the linguistic difference. For example, a Druid would not be able to transform into a Chraal, even though it is an elemental, because it does not have the Air, Earth, Fire, or Water subtypes. She would be able to transform into an Immoth, because it does have at least one of the listed subtypes.

Getting SLAs is weird no matter how you slice it, though-- none of the other [Elemental] creatures in the MM1 have SLAs at all, as far as I can tell.

Getting SLAs makes sense in the context of the "whole type" interpretation when you remember that, as of the publication of the 3.5 PHB, there were elementals with SLAs. For example, the aforementioned Immoth has an Ice Runes SLA that Druids would gain upon transforming into one, and being in the MM2 it existed prior to the publication of the Druid (and, by extension, its Elemental Wild Shape ability). It also makes sense for forward compatibility reasons if you think you will someday print elementals with SLAs.

I'm just going to reply to the post eggynack linked, because it seems to be the primary point of disagreement now:

For one thing, those four elementals are rather uniquely given this big "elementals" header, a sort of descriptor that rarely sees use elsewhere in the game as a whole.

This doesn't seem like anything to me. Can planar binding only summon the four primary elementals?

In particular, if the description in wild shape refers to elementals as a type, then we must expect, say, SNA IV, which allows the summoning of "Elemental, Medium (any)", to go by type as well. Why would we interpret these differently?

I don't agree. Elemental (fire) is a valid type for a creature to have. Elemental (any) is not. Therefore, we can say that contextually, Wild Shape's is a type requirement, rather than a specific creature.

I also think that any argument for "only the Elementals header" needs to address why the ability grants SLAs, given that none of those elementals possess those, and Wild Shape itself does not grant them. Why is the ability going out of its way to say something that has no mechanical relevance?

Florian

2017-07-19, 02:29 PM

Well that's the other issue, right? You don't know what Wild Shape does, because knowing what Wild Shape does requires you to have read three different books, the accompanying errata, any other sources (e.g. FAQ, website, Sage) that you consider value, and then had a bunch of rules debates about inheritance. I agree that some of the specific arguments are no longer valid (for example, IIRC the template thing no longer works), but the overall point -- the rules for form changing magic are borked not just on power, but also on complexity, grounds still holds.

That more or less sums up what went wrong in 3E. Most spells that are considered to be "broken" don´t work on their own but need to reference secondary sources like the MM and that in turn uses rules that are designed around CR, not around the same rules used for generating and advancing PCs. One character shaping into a monster that is supposed to be a challenge for a party of four? Early access to spells because they´re a SLA on a monster?

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 02:41 PM

eggynack

2017-07-19, 02:54 PM

This doesn't seem like anything to me. Can planar binding only summon the four primary elementals?

Fair, though there's also inverse context there based on the presence of outsider, which is clearly being presented as a type.

I don't agree. Elemental (fire) is a valid type for a creature to have. Elemental (any) is not. Therefore, we can say that contextually, Wild Shape's is a type requirement, rather than a specific creature.
(any) isn't calling on any particular game term. After all, it's not pointing to any explicit quality of these four elementals either. It's clearly saying you can get anything that fits this elemental term. Are you really contending that "elemental" can't refer to the type in that context because it has (any) after it? That this parenthetical itself implies the header somehow? I really don't see it. Of note here is the fact that, while elemental (air) is a valid type/subtype object, elemental (air, earth, fire, or water) is technically not one.

I also think that any argument for "only the Elementals header" needs to address why the ability grants SLAs, given that none of those elementals possess those, and Wild Shape itself does not grant them. Why is the ability going out of its way to say something that has no mechanical relevance?
There is, as far as I can tell, no elemental in the MM, header or no, that has an SLA. We could argue that, in the type context, they were leaving themselves open for other creatures of the elemental type in other books, but, by the same token, maybe they were planning to add elementals explicitly given clearance for this ability. As you noted above, there are some in previous books, but I think we could still imagine these additions to the list. Or, y'know, it's just extraneous text. Weird, but not precisely unique, I don't think. Actually, I think there might be such a situation here. Is there an elemental, printed prior to the monster manual, that is not of the air, earth, fire, or water subtypes? I think they're even incredibly rare after the MM. If we're to assume this as subtype, then said text is itself extraneous.

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-19, 03:04 PM

There is, as far as I can tell, no elemental in the MM, header or no, that has an SLA. We could argue that, in the type context, they were leaving themselves open for other creatures of the elemental type in other books, but, by the same token, maybe they were planning to add elementals explicitly given clearance for this ability. As you noted above, there are some in previous books, but I think we could still imagine these additions to the list. Or, y'know, it's just extraneous text. Weird, but not precisely unique, I don't think. Actually, I think there might be such a situation here. Is there an elemental, printed prior to the monster manual, that is not of the air, earth, fire, or water subtypes? I think they're even incredibly rare after the MM. If we're to assume this as subtype, then said text is itself extraneous.

This doesn't seem like anything to me. Can planar binding only summon the four primary elementals?
I don't agree. Elemental (fire) is a valid type for a creature to have. Elemental (any) is not. Therefore, we can say that contextually, Wild Shape's is a type requirement, rather than a specific creature.
I also think that any argument for "only the Elementals header" needs to address why the ability grants SLAs, given that none of those elementals possess those, and Wild Shape itself does not grant them. Why is the ability going out of its way to say something that has no mechanical relevance?

I actually think that maybe the druid's ability text where it says:

"At 16th level, a druid becomes able to use wild shape to change into a Small, Medium, or Large elemental (air, earth, fire, or water) once per day. These elemental forms are in addition to her normal wild shape usage. In addition to the normal effects of wild shape, the druid gains all the elemental’s extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. She also gains the elemental’s feats for as long as she maintains the wild shape, but she retains her own creature type."
Is actually making a contradiction specifically to the wild shape ability itself. Wild Shape functions like the Alternate Form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm) special ability. That being said one of the key points of alternate form is:

The creature retains the spell-like abilities and supernatural attacks of its old form (except for breath weapons and gaze attacks). It does not gain the spell-like abilities or attacks of its new form.
Now, this is most likely to mean that it is an exception to how Alternate Form works rather to an invitation to use anything with the elemental type and the (fire, water, earth, or air) subtypes. I think that the ability is letting you change in to one of the primary elementals rather than any elemental type creature.

To use Planar Binding as an example, Lesser Planar Binding states that it targets any elemental or outsider of 6HD or less. It doesn't apply any further restriction, just elemental or outsider. I would say that allows the summoning of any creature with the Elemental or Outsider type, regardless of subtype.

Beheld

2017-07-19, 03:07 PM

That more or less sums up what went wrong in 3E. Most spells that are considered to be "broken" don´t work on their own but need to reference secondary sources like the MM and that in turn uses rules that are designed around CR, not around the same rules used for generating and advancing PCs. One character shaping into a monster that is supposed to be a challenge for a party of four? Early access to spells because they´re a SLA on a monster?

That... is not accurate at all.

If Planar Binding only let you summon NPC Wizards/Fighters/whatever of the same CR as monsters, it would still be uh, infinitely broken, because the entire point is that you can Bind and incredibly large legion of monsters with CR greater than you.

The biggest problems with most broken things about some specific Wizard spells are that they are written with a cost you don't have to pay. If you paid a 6th level slot for an ally for on fight, that would be a reasonable spell, maybe specifically summoning a Glabrezu is too much, because those things have lower HD than their CR, but you could easily use Planar Binding in not broken ways at that cost.

The problem is you don't pay any cost, because you Call a monster, get a service, then wait for tomorrow to fight with the monster and the spell slot. Likewise Dominate Monster, Charm + Diplomacy, Animate Dead, Create Undead, ect. They are balanced based on paying a cost that doesn't exist. Same for Wish item creation, another broken thing, only unbalanced because you avoid the cost.

The main other problem, somewhat overlapping, is when the cost is paid in the wrong currency, IE HD limits on Planar Binding and Polymorph, when the relevant consideration is CR.

Any kind of open ended MM sort is of course the third problem, but not because "CR and monsters are too strong" but because monsters are lots of different monsters, and you can find the one that is broken with an open pull. It would be almost as broken, if not more, to be able to steal a class of abilities from any PC classes and add them to your own with a 4th level spell. That's just because there is a lot of content that wasn't written on the assumption you would be PC class X and also PC class Y, both level 10, at level 10. If you dragged some subset of abilities from a level 10 PC class, you would just find the PC class that makes that ability broken.

Psyren

2017-07-19, 05:15 PM

Yeah. Even at best, they're an order of magnitude more flexible than anything else. Possibly the single best simple-balance-suggestion I've ever seen is "ban all spells and abilities that make you open a monster manual."

It's works great as a balance suggestion, sure, but it's also rather boring. I'd prefer a solution that lets me trim my hair without slicing off my head.

Cosi

2017-07-19, 05:26 PM

(any) isn't calling on any particular game term. After all, it's not pointing to any explicit quality of these four elementals either. It's clearly saying you can get anything that fits this elemental term. Are you really contending that "elemental" can't refer to the type in that context because it has (any) after it?

Sort of. I'm contending that there are (at least) two ways of turning a sentence like this into a list of creatures. You can read it as an explicit list of creatures, or you can read it as a series of requirements creatures must fill.

There's no problem with parsing the Druid's Elemental Wild Shape in the second way. Creatures can have a size that is small, medium, or large. Creatures can have a type that is elemental. Creatures can have a subtype that is from the list "Air, Earth, Fire, or Water". Creatures that meet all those restrictions is a meaningful set.

But "any" is not a type. There are no creatures which have a type, size, or HD of "any". As such, there is not a valid parsing of "any" as a property to be fulfilled, and we interpret the sentence as a listing -- any creature with the name "small elemental".

I think additional evidence of this can be found in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5. (My copy of) the 3.0 PHB lists the types without a parenthesis, as if they were part of a creatures name rather than subtypes, and doesn't explicitly list SLAs as received. It seems to me, that when looked at as a whole, the transition to giving SLAs and a subtype-ish listing indicates that Druids are intended to get non-standard elemental forms.

There is, as far as I can tell, no elemental in the MM, header or no, that has an SLA.

But there were, at the time of the 3.5 PHB's publication, such elementals to be found elsewhere in the rules. For example, I've mentioned the Immoth, which predates the 3.5 Druid, has an SLA, and is a valid target for Elemental Wild Shape under the permissive interpretation.

We could argue that, in the type context, they were leaving themselves open for other creatures of the elemental type in other books, but, by the same token, maybe they were planning to add elementals explicitly given clearance for this ability.

I think the second hypothesis fails to stand up to Occam's Razor. It seems far simpler to assume they were accounting for the possibility of an open ended ability encountering new use-cases (particularly when some already existed) than that they were assuming a constraint based on some fairly subtle language would later be overridden, particularly when we consider the 3.0 -> 3.5 changes that made the ability fall more obviously on the open side.

Or, y'know, it's just extraneous text. Weird, but not precisely unique, I don't think.

I agree that it's possible, but it seems to me that "maybe the designers weren't careful enough" theory still supports the more open interpretation. Your primary argument seems to me to rest on an incongruity with the text of summon nature's ally. If we are weighting such incongruities, shouldn't we place heavier weight on one in the ability itself?

Additionally, the restrictive reading raises an additional inconsistency. If we mean the same creatures for summon natures ally and Elemental Wild Shape, why is different language used?

Actually, I think there might be such a situation here. Is there an elemental, printed prior to the monster manual, that is not of the air, earth, fire, or water subtypes?

Certainly, there are elementals prior to the 3.5 PHB with other types -- the Immoth is one such, having the Air, Cold and Water subtypes. I can find no examples of the specific case you're asking for, though there may be some, as the listings for "Elemental" in the creatures by type listings of the MM2 and Fiend Folio only cover the primary types and I haven't bothered searching the entire books.

Now, this is most likely to mean that it is an exception to how Alternate Form works rather to an invitation to use anything with the elemental type and the (fire, water, earth, or air) subtypes. I think that the ability is letting you change in to one of the primary elementals rather than any elemental type creature.

But under the restrictive reading, there are no valid forms with SLAs for you to gain. Why add an exception that doesn't do anything? There seems to be very little hard evidence in either direction, and the strongest soft evidence is point towards a loose interpretation.

To use Planar Binding as an example, Lesser Planar Binding states that it targets any elemental or outsider of 6HD or less. It doesn't apply any further restriction, just elemental or outsider. I would say that allows the summoning of any creature with the Elemental or Outsider type, regardless of subtype.

But as you say, it does apply a further restriction -- the hit die restriction. Is this not analogous to the interpretation of Elemental Wild Shape which applies a hit die restriction, a size restriction, and a subtype restriction? Which of those is not a valid restriction to lay upon possible elemental forms?

The main other problem, somewhat overlapping, is when the cost is paid in the wrong currency, IE HD limits on Planar Binding and Polymorph, when the relevant consideration is CR.

I think it's fair to call this, to some degree, MM dumpster diving. Your hypothetical (planar binding for classed NPCs only) wouldn't encounter this issue, because for PC classes HD == CR.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-19, 06:50 PM

As for the elemental question... I agree that it's ambiguous enough to be an "ask your DM" question. Personally, I'm not inclined to give the people writing the PHB much credit, especially for high-level stuff. I'm almost certain they weren't thinking too much about future releases, given the sort of creep such open-ended abilities wound up getting; I'm not thinking they put too much thought into how stuff would interact with old 3.0 material, either. The fact that they called out sizes and types makes me think they're referring to the (very commonly used) monsters identified by such, but... while I'm not certain that was the intent, I'm 100% certain that the section wasn't written carefully enough that close reading will get you any closer.

*Fun fact: as far as I can tell, the Chraal from MM3 is the only Elemental without the Water, Earth, Wind Air, or Fire subtype. It's [Cold].

It's works great as a balance suggestion, sure, but it's also rather boring. I'd prefer a solution that lets me trim my hair without slicing off my head.
Eh. Back-porting shapeshifting stuff from Pathfinder handles half of it. Summon Monster/Nature's Ally is fine if you don't expand the lists, though you could certainly imagine a more Astral Construct-y version of it working nicely too. Planar Ally/Binding is probably too much, though.

Florian

2017-07-20, 02:08 AM

Personally, I'm not inclined to give the people writing the PHB much credit, especially for high-level stuff. I'm almost certain they weren't thinking too much about future releases, given the sort of creep such open-ended abilities wound up getting;

Eh. Back-porting shapeshifting stuff from Pathfinder handles half of it. Summon Monster/Nature's Ally is fine if you don't expand the lists, though you could certainly imagine a more Astral Construct-y version of it working nicely too. Planar Ally/Binding is probably too much, though.

I think it often gets overlooked that 3E mainly is an update and direct continuation of AD&D 2nd. Everything that was open-ended back then stayed open-ended during the transition. The main difference is between then "closed" design of AD&D (ThAC0 tables) and the "open" nature of d20.

It helps keeping in mind that it actually should have been "AD&D 3rd", but that name got dropped because there wasn't a real (non-advanced) "D&D" in production for ages.
All of this explains a lot about the Core design decisions. This is not a new game, but a continuation of an existing game with another game engine/system "under the hood", aiming to help legacy players making the switch.

On a related note, one can find a lot of the AD&D legacy thinking, especially when it comes to "to Hit" (not BAB) and AC (yeah, it _is_ a closed system..), as well as the annoying tendency to use Commoner 1 as the metric for balance and world building.

You´re right. The PF update to shifting, it now working closer to acquiring a template, is a good one, some with using a basic "Companion" class and applying templates (Horse, Drake, Eidolon, Phantom...) is conceptually more in line with d20 should work, it would have needed a broader mechanic that also covers Calling and Summoning the same way - Your Astral Construct with a quick-to-apply template would have done the trick.

Gnaeus

2017-07-20, 05:41 AM

In this case I think that people are underestimating the low tiers in play. I honestly don't think a half troll fighter//soulknife with a free useful item is really going to be crushed by a Druid or Wizard in an average play group. Yeah, Druid can pretty easily outfighter a fighter from a level playing field. But a strong non core race or template is hardly a level playing field. And the fighter gets some real advantage from gestalt & item in terms of WBL. Fighter should be able to easily engage in combat encounters that threaten the Druid, and has better access to WBLmancy, skills, psionic feats etc that help out of combat. I don't think I'd feel bad playing a paladin//monk marrulurk with a free displacer cloak in a party with a wizard and a Druid until the high teens, maybe until 9s come on line.

It does depend a lot on the relative optimization and optimization level of the players, which hasn't been mentioned much. We aren't playing in a vacuum, and we are looking at tiers as if every wizard has, not a planar bound pet, but a planar bound army, which is pretty abnormal in my play experience.

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-20, 09:07 AM

But under the restrictive reading, there are no valid forms with SLAs for you to gain. Why add an exception that doesn't do anything? There seems to be very little hard evidence in either direction, and the strongest soft evidence is point towards a loose interpretation.

Well, I wasn't going from a restrictive reading aspect, I was looking at it from a contextual one. The sentence starts with "It's like wild shape except" and the it goes on to point out the direct contradictions to what wild shape normally allows, namely supernatural, extraordinary, and spell like abilities where you would normally only gain the extraordinary special attacks. I think, looking at it from the context of the sentence, that they were simply calling out the differences between elemental wild shape and the alter form special ability it's based off of.

Cosi

2017-07-20, 12:28 PM

Well, I wasn't going from a restrictive reading aspect, I was looking at it from a contextual one. The sentence starts with "It's like wild shape except" and the it goes on to point out the direct contradictions to what wild shape normally allows, namely supernatural, extraordinary, and spell like abilities where you would normally only gain the extraordinary special attacks. I think, looking at it from the context of the sentence, that they were simply calling out the differences between elemental wild shape and the alter form special ability it's based off of.

I think you're missing the point.

None of the "normal" elementals have any SLAs. But the ability is explicitly modified to give you SLAs. Why would you make this modification if you did not expect the ability to give you access to forms with SLAs?

Sacrieur

2017-07-20, 12:35 PM

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-20, 12:35 PM

I think you're missing the point.

None of the "normal" elementals have any SLAs. But the ability is explicitly modified to give you SLAs. Why would you make this modification if you did not expect the ability to give you access to forms with SLAs?

While yes, it does say you get the SLAs, it also says you get the supernatural abilities too which is something you don't normally get with Alternate Form (Wild Shape). If the text did not exist, you would not get the Vortex ability of the water elemental.

I'm suggesting that, instead of saying you get all abilities of the elemental, they stated that you get all of X, Y, and Z abilities of the elemental where X and Y are typically not gained from Wild Shape.

I do understand what you're saying. You're asking why would they say something if they didn't want you to use it. All I'm saying is that, maybe they're just making a blanket exception to the abilities portion of the Alternate Form special ability and it's less about singling out Spell-Like Abilities.

Gnaeus

2017-07-20, 12:39 PM

You'll never balance the tiers. You can eliminate some of the more over the top god-like spells (like wish) and boost some of the lower tiers, but they'll never be truly balanced. There's just too much for a simple fix to correct.

And we couldn't even all agree on where the tiers are. And I suspect we probably have at least 3 functional definitions of what "balance" means.

But we can make them playable in the same party at a fixed optimization point. Which is probably good enough for most of us.

Cosi

2017-07-20, 12:44 PM

You'll never balance the tiers. You can eliminate some of the more over the top god-like spells (like wish) and boost some of the lower tiers, but they'll never be truly balanced. There's just too much for a simple fix to correct.

wish is not broken. Casting wish out of your spell slots is honestly a pretty bad deal, all things considered. It takes a lot of dumpster diving before the best 8th level spell for this exact situation is better than the general best 9th level spell, let alone 5,000 XP better. wish is only broken due to the specific interaction between creating magic items with it and how costs for SLAs work. It's also somewhat dangerous if you replicate spells with long casting times or costly components, but that's more on spell emulation (the same issues arise with e.g. shadow conjuration and major creation).

While yes, it does say you get the SLAs, it also says you get the supernatural abilities too which is something you don't normally get with Alternate Form (Wild Shape). If the text did not exist, you would not get the Vortex ability of the water elemental.

Okay, sure. I get that. But you do understand that they could give you the Supernatural Abilities and not the SLAs, right? That is within their power to do, and the fact that they did not do it should provide an indication that they thought the ability gave access to forms with SLAs which means non-standard elementals.

All I'm saying is that, maybe they're just making a blanket exception to the abilities portion of the Alternate Form special ability and it's less about singling out Spell-Like Abilities.

Interesting, this is another case where looking at 3.0 -> 3.5 changes provides good evidence for the open position. In 3.0, the text is "special abilities" or some such, which would apply to all abilities and make perfect sense for an ability that only worked on standard elementals. But 3.5 changed to explicitly grant SLAs, something which doesn't make sense for the "only normal elementals" interpretation.

eggynack

2017-07-20, 12:53 PM

But "any" is not a type. There are no creatures which have a type, size, or HD of "any". As such, there is not a valid parsing of "any" as a property to be fulfilled, and we interpret the sentence as a listing -- any creature with the name "small elemental".
This is the place where you really lose me. Any isn't a property to be fulfilled. It's saying that there is no restricting property, and you can thus make use of any one of them. Why would I read that text as being name restricted because of the simple lack of a restriction? Yes, that text is not a type/subtype binary, but it's not even going for that, or for the name oriented reading. The reading that elemental is a type and you can be anything of that type, or that elemental is a name and you can be anything of that name, are equally valid. They are, in fact, seemingly identically valid as that reading as applied to elemental wild shape. In the case of summoning, "any" does not have any specified rules meaning as regards either the name or the type, and so it has no particular value in discerning between the two things. In the case of wild shape, (air, earth, fire, and water) has a specified rules meaning as regards both the name and the type, and so it has, again, no particular discernment value. The parenthetical is thus somewhat meaningless in differentiating these two pieces of text.

I think the second hypothesis fails to stand up to Occam's Razor. It seems far simpler to assume they were accounting for the possibility of an open ended ability encountering new use-cases (particularly when some already existed) than that they were assuming a constraint based on some fairly subtle language would later be overridden, particularly when we consider the 3.0 -> 3.5 changes that made the ability fall more obviously on the open side.
It does seem unlikely, yeah. I don't think the small ability that gets expanded is super unique though, so it's not an impossibility.

I agree that it's possible, but it seems to me that "maybe the designers weren't careful enough" theory still supports the more open interpretation. Your primary argument seems to me to rest on an incongruity with the text of summon nature's ally. If we are weighting such incongruities, shouldn't we place heavier weight on one in the ability itself?
If that were the only quality of the incongruity, where said incongruity is rules-wise? Sure, I'd weight the one within the ability more heavily. But we're talking about two very different types and scales of incongruity. Including SLA's in elemental wild shape requires only that they forgot what abilities elementals got, or that they just wanted the whole list for flavor reasons (wow, you're really becoming that elemental right there), or that they were planning to expand the ability in some fashion, or just any old thing. As I said, extraneous text happens. This SNA thing? It would represent a much larger incongruity. If SNA refers to the elementals in this other way, then the whole structure of that section of text makes no sense on any level. Not because it's kinda weird, but because it would mean breaking some basic rules of game design in the form of, "You can cast fireball as a third level spell, or you can cast fireball as a fourth level spell." And, while there are some tiny distinctions in the wording of these two abilities, I don't think it's possible to extend those distinctions out into a difference between their operation in this sense.

Additionally, the restrictive reading raises an additional inconsistency. If we mean the same creatures for summon natures ally and Elemental Wild Shape, why is different language used?
This inconsistency seems especially minor. They forgot they had the same kinda situation elsewhere, or it was a different writer. I don't think anyone would accuse the game's writers of being consistent in this way, or in most any way really. This perspective is especially valid because, as I note in the first section of this post, it's not like one version is all that different from the other rules-wise. You would have it be that they, say, wrote elemental wild shape, put this subtype or naming parenthetical in, and then they sat down to thoughtfully differentiate this other text rules-wise, thinking deeply about how to get it to pinpoint these particular elementals but not those over there, and they just wrote "elemental (any)". No asterisk or footnote or anything. It's just such bad rules text if we are to assume they were trying to be really careful.

Certainly, there are elementals prior to the 3.5 PHB with other types -- the Immoth is one such, having the Air, Cold and Water subtypes. I can find no examples of the specific case you're asking for, though there may be some, as the listings for "Elemental" in the creatures by type listings of the MM2 and Fiend Folio only cover the primary types and I haven't bothered searching the entire books.

That doesn't seem to be a counterexample. Immoth is still of the air subtype, and it thus seems like you can select them on that basis. The only counterexample I know of offhand is the tome of magic's shadow elemental.

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-20, 12:53 PM

I get both sides, and I'm not really arguing for either one. I'm just trying to reason through it. Personally, the ability comes online too late to really be of use anyway in my games because we rarely get that high of level.

Cosi

2017-07-20, 05:41 PM

This is the place where you really lose me. Any isn't a property to be fulfilled. It's saying that there is no restricting property, and you can thus make use of any one of them.

No, a lack of a restricting property is saying there's no restricting property. If you wanted to say that you could turn into any creature that was a small elemental, you would say "Elemental, small". Saying (any) implies something about how the phrase is to be parsed -- namely, as a list of creatures.

Including SLA's in elemental wild shape requires only that they forgot what abilities elementals got, or that they just wanted the whole list for flavor reasons (wow, you're really becoming that elemental right there), or that they were planning to expand the ability in some fashion, or just any old thing.

Flavor reasons seems weak, and expansion seems inherently less likely (as previously mentioned).

Saying that they forgot the abilities doesn't really make sense to me when considered in light of the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition.

...gains all the elemental's special abilities...

...gains all the elemental's extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities...

There was existing language used in the 3.0 version of the ability in question that made no reference to SLAs. If the intention was to simply give people all the abilities elementals got, why was that perfectly satisfactory language not used? Why make an active change to language that doesn't make any sense under the closed paradigm, if the closed paradigm was how the ability worked?

A similar argument can be made for the transition to the more subtype-esque parenthetical listing of air, earth, fire, and water.

I don't think it's possible to extend those distinctions out into a difference between their operation in this sense.

I think that's absolutely possible. Consider an example from programming. Here are two statements:

1. A (take the variable A, and do nothing to it)
2. A | 0 (take the variable A, and bitwise OR it with 0 -- this has no effect)

The effects of these statements are identical, as both will not change the value of A. However, the second statement makes an assertion about A -- that it is some type for which bitwise OR is defined (for example, bitwise OR is generally not defined for strings, so in the second example A could not be a string). Similarly, the use of (any) doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on how elemental, small should be understood. With or without it, "any of the small elementals from the Elementals heading" is a valid reading. But because "any" is not a valid type, its inclusion makes the reading where the line is set derived from type invalid.

You would have it be that they, say, wrote elemental wild shape, put this subtype or naming parenthetical in, and then they sat down to thoughtfully differentiate this other text rules-wise, thinking deeply about how to get it to pinpoint these particular elementals but not those over there, and they just wrote "elemental (any)".

But by the same token, the other view requires you to assume that they thought sufficiently about the similarities between Elemental Wild Shape and summon nature's ally monster listings for them to intend the same thing with different language, but that they didn't check to see if the valid targets had the abilities listed. And that they bothered to update from general language to language that specifically referenced an ability that was not available to gain.

That doesn't seem to be a counterexample. Immoth is still of the air subtype, and it thus seems like you can select them on that basis. The only counterexample I know of offhand is the tome of magic's shadow elemental.

I'm not sure what point you were getting at with this line of argument.

eggynack

2017-07-20, 08:37 PM

No, a lack of a restricting property is saying there's no restricting property. If you wanted to say that you could turn into any creature that was a small elemental, you would say "Elemental, small". Saying (any) implies something about how the phrase is to be parsed -- namely, as a list of creatures.
I don't think so. To me, it mostly just implies that you get any of something. I mean, technically speaking, this alternate reading is also a list of creatures. Said list is just all creatures of the elemental type. And I don't think it's remotely arguable that the game's writing heavily prioritized concision.

Flavor reasons seems weak, and expansion seems inherently less likely (as previously mentioned).

Saying that they forgot the abilities doesn't really make sense to me when considered in light of the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition.

There was existing language used in the 3.0 version of the ability in question that made no reference to SLAs. If the intention was to simply give people all the abilities elementals got, why was that perfectly satisfactory language not used? Why make an active change to language that doesn't make any sense under the closed paradigm, if the closed paradigm was how the ability worked?

Oh, if that's the original wording, then the new wording makes total sense to me. They just kinda explicitly converted the old text into a new, more explicit, formatting. Simply put, they wanted to say all the things the ability does, and they didn't see cause to change the ability, so they included SLA's while they were listing stuff anyway.

A similar argument can be made for the transition to the more subtype-esque parenthetical listing of air, earth, fire, and water.

I think that's absolutely possible. Consider an example from programming. Here are two statements:

1. A (take the variable A, and do nothing to it)
2. A | 0 (take the variable A, and bitwise OR it with 0 -- this has no effect)

The effects of these statements are identical, as both will not change the value of A. However, the second statement makes an assertion about A -- that it is some type for which bitwise OR is defined (for example, bitwise OR is generally not defined for strings, so in the second example A could not be a string). Similarly, the use of (any) doesn't necessarily have a direct effect on how elemental, small should be understood. With or without it, "any of the small elementals from the Elementals heading" is a valid reading. But because "any" is not a valid type, its inclusion makes the reading where the line is set derived from type invalid.

Right, but it doesn't do that. Following elemental with (any) does not, in any sense, invalidate the reading that elemental is referring to the type. It doesn't matter that (any) isn't a subtype, because the alternate reading fully suits the text. Any is defined for type. Because you can have any of a type.

But by the same token, the other view requires you to assume that they thought sufficiently about the similarities between Elemental Wild Shape and summon nature's ally monster listings for them to intend the same thing with different language, but that they didn't check to see if the valid targets had the abilities listed. And that they bothered to update from general language to language that specifically referenced an ability that was not available to gain.
It's not precisely like that. The argument from SNA is partially that this is a thing they sometimes mean when they talk about elementals like this, and that it's thus logical to conclude they meant it that way the other time. It's not about them looking at one piece of language, and using subtly different language elsewhere for the same purpose. It's about them sometimes thinking, "These four elementals," and writing, "Elementals," with little clarifying language. It's also partially from an external perspective, that, if you think the wild shape thing is the case by the rules, then the natural logical conclusion is that this summoning thing is also the case by the rules, which has some absurd implications.

I'm not sure what point you were getting at with this line of argument.
Did I lose track of something? I thought I was all like, "There exists no elemental from the monster manual or before that would be excluded by this text," and you were like, "Immoth would be excluded," and I said, "Doesn't look like it. The only creature I can think of that would be excluded is the shadow elemental, which is from a later source."

VisitingDaGulag

2017-07-21, 01:20 AM

You'll never balance the tiers. You can eliminate some of the more over the top god-like spells (like wish) and boost some of the lower tiers, but they'll never be truly balanced. There's just too much for a simple fix to correct.You could get them so no two classes are a full 2 tiers apart. That's close enough for most all but the most hardcore PvP. Doing it elegantly does require fixing all the other broken aspects of the game (which has been done). Otherwise you'd have to try to do things like fix Thought Bottle from inside classes chassis, and that's not realistic.

I do like it when an OP disappears after the first page though. Maybe someone finally optimized a psion in one of his campaigns and he realized a free LA or bending of WBL didn't cut it.

Gnaeus

2017-07-21, 06:00 AM

You could get them so no two classes are a full 2 tiers apart. That's close enough for most all but the most hardcore PvP. Doing it elegantly does require fixing all the other broken aspects of the game (which has been done). Otherwise you'd have to try to do things like fix Thought Bottle from inside classes chassis, and that's not realistic.

I do like it when an OP disappears after the first page though. Maybe someone finally optimized a psion in one of his campaigns and he realized a free LA or bending of WBL didn't cut it.

Im not certain OP hasn't. It's hard to be precise without having specifics of how he gestalts, templates, and gears. But a gravetouched ghoul fighter//ninja with a free flight item looks like a pretty strong T3 to me, and compared with a T1 with the most abusive powers sawed off I think it's within 2 tiers based on how we recon things, and certainly well within the normal range for build and play style.

Dancingdeath

2017-07-21, 06:56 AM

AnimeTheCat

2017-07-21, 07:02 AM

You guys get so bogged down in the minutia of the rules and stress so much over exact, literal interpretations that it's like you're playing and entirely different game than I am. I swear if a player at my table tried to to pull some of the shenanigans you guys talk about on here his character sheet would get ripped up then and there and he could either make a less godlike character or see himself out the door. And challenging a DM on the rules is never a great idea. You may win on little things but if it's something that has a large in game effect then the DM likely has a good reason to play things the way he has.

If you guys are just engaging in theory craft that's one thing, but I suspect you're not.

If you're talking about Eggynack and Cosi, they aren't so much theory crafting and more discussing the finer details and limits of what Wild Shape does for you. At least, that's what I gathered from reading their threads.

Sacrieur

2017-07-21, 07:12 AM

And we couldn't even all agree on where the tiers are. And I suspect we probably have at least 3 functional definitions of what "balance" means.

But we can make them playable in the same party at a fixed optimization point. Which is probably good enough for most of us.

Quibbling over whether you can make you TH fighter effective at hitting something is a discussion eclipsed by the fact wizards/sorcerers are better at solving challenges if they want to be. How you classify them isn't really relevant except to show just how large of a gap there actually is.

wish is not broken. Casting wish out of your spell slots is honestly a pretty bad deal, all things considered. It takes a lot of dumpster diving before the best 8th level spell for this exact situation is better than the general best 9th level spell, let alone 5,000 XP better. wish is only broken due to the specific interaction between creating magic items with it and how costs for SLAs work. It's also somewhat dangerous if you replicate spells with long casting times or costly components, but that's more on spell emulation (the same issues arise with e.g. shadow conjuration and major creation).

I wish people would quit defending wish. Its main problems are that it gives the wizard the ability to cast any spell 6th level or lower, spells not in the wizard's spellbook, resurrection, and a potential limitless scope. Regardless of what it costs, the spell itself is a "get out of jail free" card that insures that no matter what position the wizard is in, he has a way to get out of it by just casting this one spell. It's the quintessential example of everything wrong with casting.

And any serious wizard wouldn't worry about the xp cost, and in pathfinder all xp components are gp cost.

Being allowed to ignore a class's only limitation and say, "just cast anything you want" is broken regardless of the cost.

Mordaedil

2017-07-21, 07:19 AM

5000 xp is like 1/8th the requirement to level from level 20 to 21, so saying it's a negligable cost is either disingenuous or really cynical.

Sacrieur

2017-07-21, 07:36 AM

5000 xp is like 1/8th the requirement to level from level 20 to 21, so saying it's a negligable cost is either disingenuous or really cynical.

You're free to quote me where I said that.

JNAProductions

2017-07-21, 07:37 AM

You guys get so bogged down in the minutia of the rules and stress so much over exact, literal interpretations that it's like you're playing and entirely different game than I am. I swear if a player at my table tried to to pull some of the shenanigans you guys talk about on here his character sheet would get ripped up then and there and he could either make a less godlike character or see himself out the door. And challenging a DM on the rules is never a great idea. You may win on little things but if it's something that has a large in game effect then the DM likely has a good reason to play things the way he has.

If you guys are just engaging in theory craft that's one thing, but I suspect you're not.

Hey, it's the OP!

OP, do you have any more specific guidelines to suggest?

Florian

2017-07-21, 08:03 AM

You guys get so bogged down in the minutia of the rules and stress so much over exact, literal interpretations that it's like you're playing and entirely different game than I am. I swear if a player at my table tried to to pull some of the shenanigans you guys talk about on here his character sheet would get ripped up then and there and he could either make a less godlike character or see himself out the door. And challenging a DM on the rules is never a great idea. You may win on little things but if it's something that has a large in game effect then the DM likely has a good reason to play things the way he has.

If you guys are just engaging in theory craft that's one thing, but I suspect you're not.

Relax, watch and learn.

The GitP crowd offers one of the purest examples on a certain stance on gaming. Understand this and understand how and why that differs from other stances and you actually learn something.
(It´s funny that a lot of apparently bright people don´t manage to understand that there actually are different stances...)

Zanos

2017-07-21, 09:08 AM

You're free to quote me where I said that.
Is this bait?

Regardless of what it costs, the spell itself is a "get out of jail free" card that insures that no matter what position the wizard is in, he has a way to get out of it by just casting this one spell. It's the quintessential example of everything wrong with casting.

And any serious wizard wouldn't worry about the xp cost, and in pathfinder all xp components are gp cost.

Being allowed to ignore a class's only limitation and say, "just cast anything you want" is broken regardless of the cost.

And yeah, most problems that can be solved with wish can be solved with another 9th level spell without burning a ton of XP/Gold.

Lans

2017-07-21, 09:58 AM

You could get them so no two classes are a full 2 tiers apart. That's close enough for most all but the most hardcore PvP.

This is what me and my friends think, we aim for high 4-low 2. Raising things to a high 4 is easy, you can just shove more of what a class already gets onto it and you get their

for example if we give extra skills to low tiers, 4 for 5 and lower, and 2 for 4. The tier 5s also get 2 skills of there choice. This is where we start and it gives a tiny boost accross the board.

From there lets look at the bottom of tier 5/top of 6 the soulknife.

up the psychic strike damage to increase 1/2 levels, give it full BAB, up its weapon so it goes to +10, and can be a greatsword or pole arm, give it multithrow quicker, and I think you get there.

Beheld

2017-07-21, 10:41 AM

Relax, watch and learn.

The GitP crowd offers one of the purest examples on a certain stance on gaming. Understand this and understand how and why that differs from other stances and you actually learn something.
(It´s funny that a lot of apparently bright people don´t manage to understand that there actually are different stances...)

It's funny that you say this, because I think the exact same thing, but I suspect that our ideas of what the GitP crowd stance is are completely different, and perhaps diametrically opposite.

zergling.exe

2017-07-21, 10:49 AM

Is this bait?

And yeah, most problems that can be solved with wish can be solved with another 9th level spell without burning a ton of XP/Gold.

I don't see anything that says the cost is negligible, just that it is inconsequential.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 10:52 AM

I don't see anything that says the cost is negligible, just that it is inconsequential.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negligible

Funny how words be doing that, meaning the same thing and all.

zergling.exe

2017-07-21, 11:06 AM

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negligible

Funny how words be doing that, meaning the same thing and all.

I suppose that's what I get for assuming a word containing consequence would have something to do with consequences.

Sacrieur

2017-07-21, 11:10 AM

Is this bait?

And yeah, most problems that can be solved with wish can be solved with another 9th level spell without burning a ton of XP/Gold.

None of the bolded text mean what I was attributed to saying. "regardless of xp cost" doesn't mean "xp cost is negligible". It means ignoring the xp cost. Painting me as saying something I haven't is disingenuous.

You could cast wish only once in the course of the entire game and it wouldn't change the problems it has. At no point does the cost of a spell have anything to do with the scope of a spell, except to determine how many times it can be cast.

No reasonable person would ever cast a spell where the cost outweighs the benefit. "It's bad because it's expensive." is an irrelevant line of reasoning. It's easy to see how this spell could pose a problem if it comes down to "cast this spell or die" or any number of scenarios where you would be losing something of value worth more than 5k xp. It limits the challenges a player could face because anytime anything of serious value is at risk, the wizard can snap his fingers and get out of it for a fairly low price.

In pathfinder, there is no xp cost, so at that point the spell becomes more applicable to a wider number of situations.

I'm speaking from experience. I've seen this spell used and used it myself. I've solved encounters with less effort than it should have, which typically leads to an amount of xp that makes up for the cost. And lets not forget that you can pay other people to cast level 9 spells for you, wish included.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 11:27 AM

None of the bolded text mean what I was attributed to saying. "regardless of xp cost" doesn't mean "xp cost is negligible". It means ignoring the xp cost. Painting me as saying something I haven't is disingenuous.
You are literally saying that the cost for wish isn't important.

Being allowed to ignore a class's only limitation and say, "just cast anything you want" is broken regardless of the cost.

"Regardless of cost" means that wish would be broken if it chopped both your arms off and fed all your children to devils.

You could cast wish only once in the course of the entire game and it wouldn't change the problems it has. At no point does the cost of a spell have anything to do with the scope of a spell, except to determine how many times it can be cast.
Cost has a lot to do with the power of a spell. If you could only complete a spell by killing yourself, you probably would be reluctant to use it.

No reasonable person would ever cast a spell where the cost outweighs the benefit.
Yeah. In some situations, the costs do outweigh the benefit. Wish is situational. You know what spells aren't? Most other 9ths. Or rather, the situations where using them is cost effective are so prevalent that they're almost always worth preparing.

"It's bad because it's expensive." is an irrelevant line of reasoning.
I never said wish was bad. I said it wasn't overpowered. And expense is definitely relevant. 300k magic items are better than 30k magic items. 9th level spells are better than 8th level spells. 9th level spells that costs 5,000 xp are more versatile than 9th level spells that cost 0 xp.

It's easy to see how this spell could pose a problem if it comes down to "cast this spell or die" or any number of scenarios where you would be losing something of value worth more than 5k xp. It limits the challenges a player could face because anytime anything of serious value is at risk, the wizard can snap his fingers and get out of it for a fairly low price.
Yeah, serious risk to 17th level characters, who have access to true resurrection, astral seed, clone, contingency, and the like. Characters don't really suffer permanent harm unless their souls are eaten by grues at high levels.

The only situation that wish lets you escape from than a plane shift or teleport wouldn't is being trapped in a dimensionally locked area, in which case you pay 5k xp for the privilege of teleporting. Or you could have just prepared disjunction.

In pathfinder, there is no xp cost, so at that point the spell becomes more applicable to a wider number of situations.
25k gold is a non-trivial cost.

I'm speaking from experience. I've seen this spell used and used it myself. I've solved encounters with less effort than it should have, which typically leads to an amount of xp that makes up for the cost.
That's fallacious. Opportunity costs exist, both for XP and the spell slot you had wish in.

And let's not forget that you can pay other people to cast level 9 spells for you, wish included.
That doesn't really factor into your complaint that wish is OP because of it's versatility unless you cart 17th level wizards around to cast wish for you.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on miracle.

Cosi

2017-07-21, 11:29 AM

I don't think so. To me, it mostly just implies that you get any of something. I mean, technically speaking, this alternate reading is also a list of creatures. Said list is just all creatures of the elemental type. And I don't think it's remotely arguable that the game's writing heavily prioritized concision.

Look at it from the other direction. Suppose the people writing summon nature's ally really did want to make it possible to summon any creature which was small and an elemental. What should they have written? It seems to me the logical answer is "small elemental" or "elemental, small". But that can't be the answer, because we've said that the Druid's listing of a set of attributes means a list of creatures.

Oh, if that's the original wording, then the new wording makes total sense to me. They just kinda explicitly converted the old text into a new, more explicit, formatting. Simply put, they wanted to say all the things the ability does, and they didn't see cause to change the ability, so they included SLA's while they were listing stuff anyway.

But it was already specific. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), a creature's special abilities are:

A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.

The terms have the same meaning. The only thing that is "more explicit" about the new wording is that it explicitly says you get a kind of ability the elementals you say this ability is talking about do not actually have. You're claiming that they decided to clarify the ability because they thought it was confusing, so they clarified it into something that is not consistent with your interpretation, but they simultaneously tried to retain consistency with an entirely separate ability.

Right, but it doesn't do that. Following elemental with (any) does not, in any sense, invalidate the reading that elemental is referring to the type. It doesn't matter that (any) isn't a subtype, because the alternate reading fully suits the text. Any is defined for type. Because you can have any of a type.

Yes it does. Any is not a type. The correct way of representing "any type is valid" is to not put a type. In much the same way that an Elemental with any feats or STR score is valid because no limitation is placed upon those characteristics.

Did I lose track of something? I thought I was all like, "There exists no elemental from the monster manual or before that would be excluded by this text," and you were like, "Immoth would be excluded," and I said, "Doesn't look like it. The only creature I can think of that would be excluded is the shadow elemental, which is from a later source."

All sorts of elementals are excluded by that text. For example, huge elementals (before 20th) or fine elementals. Maybe no elementals are excluded by the subtype, but again, forwards compatibility. The existence of the Immoth clearly demonstrates the possibility of future elementals that do not meet the requirement.

You guys get so bogged down in the minutia of the rules and stress so much over exact, literal interpretations that it's like you're playing and entirely different game than I am. I swear if a player at my table tried to to pull some of the shenanigans you guys talk about on here his character sheet would get ripped up then and there and he could either make a less godlike character or see himself out the door.

This is a terrible way to DM. Responding to rules disputes by attacking your players is awful, and you should feel bad for suggesting it as a course of action.

I wish people would quit defending wish. Its main problems are that it gives the wizard the ability to cast any spell 6th level or lower, spells not in the wizard's spellbook, resurrection, and a potential limitless scope.

Worrying that wish allows you to cast your choice of 6th level spell seems rather odd. wish costs 5,000 XP to use. Per the spellcasting services table in the PHB, a 6th level spell at caster level 20 costs (60 * 20 =) 1,200 GP. At the typical rate of conversion (1 XP = 5 GP) a caster using wish is paying a (5 * 5,000 - 1200 =) 23,800 GP premium for getting the spell now, not to mention the 9th level spell slot he's blowing.

The cost is also limiting for casting spells out of your spellbook. It's possible that the best 8th level spell is better than the average 9th level spell, but is it 5,000 XP better?

Worrying that a 17th level character can raise the dead seems dumb. A 17th level character's cohort's cohort's cohort's cohort could be a 9th level Cleric totally able to raise the dead.

I don't know what your complaint about "limitless scope" is supposed to mean.

Florian

2017-07-21, 11:29 AM

It's funny that you say this, because I think the exact same thing, but I suspect that our ideas of what the GitP crowd stance is are completely different, and perhaps diametrically opposite.

*Raises bottle of beer for a toast*

As long as we can see that "fun" has different sources and what or how that sources are fueled, things are good. It might surprise you, but I do actually respect your opinion as you can name and identify your source for it. I don´t have to share it, but it still helps talking about it. So, cheers.

Edit: Regarding recent discussions, what you should do is work on seeing other view points, not necessarily accepting them. Another interpretation of the truth is not automatically a "lie".

Dancingdeath

2017-07-21, 11:48 AM

Relax, watch and learn.

The GitP crowd offers one of the purest examples on a certain stance on gaming. Understand this and understand how and why that differs from other stances and you actually learn something.
(It´s funny that a lot of apparently bright people don´t manage to understand that there actually are different stances...)

I understand that other viewpoints on gaming exist. Many besides mine are perfectly valid. Getting bogged down in rules to this degree would seem to end any fun there is to be had from the game. At least it would for me.

Red Fel

2017-07-21, 12:19 PM

I understand that other viewpoints on gaming exist. Many besides mine are perfectly valid. Getting bogged down in rules to this degree would seem to end any fun there is to be had from the game. At least it would for me.

Ah, but that's the beauty of it.

It's like a group of people who go to the same movie for wildly different reasons. This one goes for pure escapism - he doesn't care as long as it's distracting. This one goes for the story, and will viciously attack any plot holes she can find. This one goes because he tries to predict the Oscar votes. This one goes because she's a film student or aspiring director and enjoys dissecting visual art, camera angles, close-ups, transitions, and so forth. This one is just a fan of this one actor, and will see any film with that star.

They're all seeing the same film. But they're getting entirely different experiences out of it.

So, too, with the game. Some people are playing it just for fun, or to hang out with friends. Others for the power trip of being a level 17 Druid or slaughtering Orcs or what have you. Others enjoy the RP aspect, creating an evolving, organic narrative around the characters. And still others enjoy the theoretical side, creating strange builds and concepts from obscure or dysfunctional rules.

They're all playing the same game. But they're getting entirely different experiences out of it.

Gnaeus

2017-07-21, 12:43 PM

Quibbling over whether you can make you TH fighter effective at hitting something is a discussion eclipsed by the fact wizards/sorcerers are better at solving challenges if they want to be. How you classify them isn't really relevant except to show just how large of a gap there actually is..

It is very relevant to the goal of balance.
You seem to be suggesting that balance is overall ability to solve challenges by yourself.

I would counter that balance can also be meaningfully measured in spotlight time, and while the wizards ability to teleport across a continent is not necessarily sexier than the fighter//ninja's ability to find and disarm magical traps. And of course the wizard can do that ALSO, but not without spending resources better directed elsewhere. The gestalts raw melee ability should likely exceed a persist cleric, a wild shaped Druid, a polymorphed wizard, a summons, or a skeleton. Short of massive planar binding abuse with multiple bound allies, which would be the kind of thing I would expect OP to saw off, a templated gestalt with bonus gear should have niches they can competently fill even in a T1 party. Niches they can fill well enough that it doesn't require suspension of disbelief that the cleric will invite them along, give them a share of the treasure, and pick daily spells to solve the subset of likely encounters that the gestalt can't innately handle with its fixed abilities. They can play in the same party, with everyone contributing, with everyone taking spotlight time. That's a very viable balance definition even if the fighter can't scry or teleport or the T1s could figure out a way to resolve traps without a trapfinder.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-21, 12:46 PM

I understand that other viewpoints on gaming exist. Many besides mine are perfectly valid. Getting bogged down in rules to this degree would seem to end any fun there is to be had from the game. At least it would for me.
It's also worth noting that talking about the rules here is a different experience from actually playing the game-- and both are activities with a variety of different styles. The fact that Cosi and eggynack enjoy close-reading rules text doesn't mean that they'll be rules-lawyers at the table; the fact that they enjoy finding quirks and exploits doesn't mean that they'll show up to your game with an inappropriately strong character.

-------

To skew back towards the topic, while I like gestalt as a balance technique for problematically-weak and dysfunctionally-weak classes*, I'm not a big fan of templates or high LA races as a balancing mechanism. The equation changes a bit if you're starting at a higher level, but generally such a strategy provides a flat, one-time bump in power. You start off impractically good at fighting, then slowly fade as all the static numerical boosts you got from being a Half-Minotaur Mineral Warrior become smaller and smaller relative to everything else. It's... well, it's trying to balance a linear warrior with a quadratic wizard by adding 10 to one side-- you adjust the starting point, but the quadratic equation still pulls ahead quickly.

*Which, I think, are a somewhat different terms than "low-tier," which covers quite a few different categories:

There are things like the Barbarian, which are quite functional but a bit too one-track.
There are things like the Ranger, which really just lack that extra bit of oomph they need to keep up with stronger classes.
There are things like the Soulknife, that just... don't give you things worth having.
There are things like the Monk, where the basic chassis is flawed enough that optimization is all about fighting with the basic mechanics.

So it's important to know what we're talking about, and to tailor specific solutions to specific flaws-- an option that gives more power will do good things for the Ranger, but will probably break the Barbarian.

Zanos

2017-07-21, 12:53 PM

It's also worth noting that talking about the rules here is a different experience from actually playing the game-- and both are activities with a variety of different styles. The fact that Cosi and eggynack enjoy close-reading rules text doesn't mean that they'll be rules-lawyers at the table; the fact that they enjoy finding quirks and exploits doesn't mean that they'll show up to your game with an inappropriately strong character.
To be fair, I don't think I'd play at a table where the DM smacked me down when he was wrong about a rule and not intentionally house ruling.

RoboEmperor

2017-07-21, 01:13 PM

How would you deal with uberchargers? By your restrictions, they have none. In fact a Tier 4 ubercharger by your rules would get astronomically stronger.

The best answer is 0 balance and ask players not to break the game. In my experience, trying to balance d&d completely ruins the game, because 99.9999% of the time DMs are noobs and scrubs. They don't know what they're doing, they change everything to fit their limited understanding of the game (Monks are OP!), and they do it poorly too, on the fly, ruining player's builds.

Tier 1s and 2s are only broken if they intentionally try to break the game. I could tell you the countless amount of sorcerers I played with who were virtually dead weight in the party because they went non-orb blaster without metamagic reducers. Everytime they landed a spell on a creature, it was a hail mary hallelujah because of SR, and even then damage was subpar because you know, hp scales exponentially with levels.

A player bringing in TO stuff is actually a noob who just looked stuff up online and you just gotta show him how his munchkiness trivializes everything in the game and makes it boring, or kick him if he refuses to change.

The reason you have to do it on a case-by-case basis is because sometimes munchkinery is the only way to make a player's unique character viable because it's so weak but... unique.

Gnaeus

2017-07-21, 01:19 PM

To skew back towards the topic, while I like gestalt as a balance technique for problematically-weak and dysfunctionally-weak classes*, I'm not a big fan of templates or high LA races as a balancing mechanism. The equation changes a bit if you're starting at a higher level, but generally such a strategy provides a flat, one-time bump in power. You start off impractically good at fighting, then slowly fade as all the static numerical boosts you got from being a Half-Minotaur Mineral Warrior become smaller and smaller relative to everything else. It's... well, it's trying to balance a linear warrior with a quadratic wizard by adding 10 to one side-- you adjust the starting point, but the quadratic equation still pulls ahead quickly.

*Which, I think, are a somewhat different terms than "low-tier," which covers quite a few different categories:

There are things like the Barbarian, which are quite functional but a bit too one-track.
There are things like the Ranger, which really just lack that extra bit of oomph they need to keep up with stronger classes.
There are things like the Soulknife, that just... don't give you things worth having.
There are things like the Monk, where the basic chassis is flawed enough that optimization is all about fighting with the basic mechanics.

So it's important to know what we're talking about, and to tailor specific solutions to specific flaws-- an option that gives more power will do good things for the Ranger, but will probably break the Barbarian.

Well, I think OP said that he was gradually introducing some of the low tier bonuses, although he didn't clarify exactly how.

I also think the templates or something similar are important to address MAD/SAD issues. It might not be so much "adding 10 to 1 side" as making sure that you can swing enough dex/con to fight, int/wis/dex for skills, cha for lay on hands/smites, wis for spells, etc. If you want Paladin//monk to be a thing, any stat below 14 functionally means you are crossing class abilities off your list.

How would you deal with uberchargers? By your restrictions, they have none. In fact a Tier 4 ubercharger by your rules would get astronomically stronger.

The best answer is 0 balance and ask players not to break the game. In my experience, trying to balance d&d completely ruins the game, because 99.9999% of the time DMs are noobs and scrubs. They don't know what they're doing, they change everything to fit their limited understanding of the game (Monks are OP!), and they do it poorly too, on the fly, ruining player's builds.

Tier 1s and 2s are only broken if they intentionally try to break the game. I could tell you the countless amount of sorcerers I played with who were virtually dead weight in the party because they went non-orb blaster without metamagic reducers.

How you deal with uberchargers has everything to do with what the other folks at the table have. If there is a high op T1/2 at the table, you point the charger towards the best feats and give them gear to support their build. If your wizard is casting magic missile, that's not a good idea. General concensus is that player skill>build>class. If the wizard is one-shotting enemies with no save spells, let the ubercharger have his fun

eggynack

2017-07-21, 01:47 PM

Look at it from the other direction. Suppose the people writing summon nature's ally really did want to make it possible to summon any creature which was small and an elemental. What should they have written? It seems to me the logical answer is "small elemental" or "elemental, small". But that can't be the answer, because we've said that the Druid's listing of a set of attributes means a list of creatures.
Assuming the designers know about the problem? I'd just put in a footnote that says, "Any small creature of the elemental type." It's a mode of rules construction that wouldn't even be original to this exact set of tables.

But it was already specific. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm), a creature's special abilities are:

The terms have the same meaning. The only thing that is "more explicit" about the new wording is that it explicitly says you get a kind of ability the elementals you say this ability is talking about do not actually have. You're claiming that they decided to clarify the ability because they thought it was confusing, so they clarified it into something that is not consistent with your interpretation, but they simultaneously tried to retain consistency with an entirely separate ability.
But it's not that inconsistent. There's no oddity that's produced by the presence of those words. Sure, it'd be pointing at creatures that don't have the ability, but it's also setting things up so you don't have to look throughout the books to determine exactly what this ability does.

Yes it does. Any is not a type. The correct way of representing "any type is valid" is to not put a type. In much the same way that an Elemental with any feats or STR score is valid because no limitation is placed upon those characteristics.
That is a correct way of representing "any type is valid". Putting an (any) there is another correct way of representing that, especially because summoning generally calls out a single creature rather than a class of creatures.

All sorts of elementals are excluded by that text. For example, huge elementals (before 20th) or fine elementals. Maybe no elementals are excluded by the subtype, but again, forwards compatibility. The existence of the Immoth clearly demonstrates the possibility of future elementals that do not meet the requirement.
The size text clearly excludes stuff. The subtype text might not, making it redundant at that point in time. I don't think immoth demonstrates that possibility, because it matches up with the subtype text just fine. The or doesn't seem to be exclusive.

Separately, can't seem to find a copy of the 3.0 PHB anywhere. Is the original elemental wild shape constructed in such a way that it could also be read as granting broad type access to elementals? If so, then improved elemental wild shape seems to imply that it doesn't grant that access, thus implying further that 3.5 elemental wild shape doesn't grant that access either.

You guys get so bogged down in the minutia of the rules and stress so much over exact, literal interpretations that it's like you're playing and entirely different game than I am. I swear if a player at my table tried to to pull some of the shenanigans you guys talk about on here his character sheet would get ripped up then and there and he could either make a less godlike character or see himself out the door. And challenging a DM on the rules is never a great idea. You may win on little things but if it's something that has a large in game effect then the DM likely has a good reason to play things the way he has.

If you guys are just engaging in theory craft that's one thing, but I suspect you're not.
Jeez, this isn't even really a literal rules reading argument. The essential premise here is that the text is fundamentally ambiguous and cannot be cleanly resolved in either direction, and we're thus searching for RAI oriented context clues to figure out the best reading. And, meanwhile, Cosi's supposed exact literal shenanigans inducing plan is to use an ability that's typically type centered in a way that's type centered, which is a straightforward and intuitive reading of the text. My counterargument is, hey, there's reason to think it's not that. The shenanigans reducing argument here is, in some senses, less intuitive and more minutia bogging than the shenanigans inducing plan. Engaging in theory craft, therefore, is arguably power reducing here.

I understand that other viewpoints on gaming exist. Many besides mine are perfectly valid. Getting bogged down in rules to this degree would seem to end any fun there is to be had from the game. At least it would for me.
This argument is decently fun. Bit on the wonky side, as is anything intent oriented, but definitely better than something grounded in pure semantic analysis (like, say, an IHS argument).

zergling.exe

2017-07-21, 02:02 PM

Separately, can't seem to find a copy of the 3.0 PHB anywhere. Is the original elemental wild shape constructed in such a way that it could also be read as granting broad type access to elementals? If so, then improved elemental wild shape seems to imply that it doesn't grant that access, thus implying further that 3.5 elemental wild shape doesn't grant that access either.

3.0 SRD (http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/) says:
Small, Medium-size, or Large air, earth, fire, or water elemental once per day.
So it would appear to be RAI that it's just the Elementals and not elementals, but a poor wording change opened an ambiguity.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-21, 02:23 PM

I also think the templates or something similar are important to address MAD/SAD issues. It might not be so much "adding 10 to 1 side" as making sure that you can swing enough dex/con to fight, int/wis/dex for skills, cha for lay on hands/smites, wis for spells, etc. If you want Paladin//monk to be a thing, any stat below 14 functionally means you are crossing class abilities off your list.
Using higher/lower point-buy, depending on tier, is certainly a functional idea. Probably moreso than templates-- it helps with MAD without pushing any one score into unexpectedly-high terrain.

Gnaeus

2017-07-21, 02:55 PM

Using higher/lower point-buy, depending on tier, is certainly a functional idea. Probably moreso than templates-- it helps with MAD without pushing any one score into unexpectedly-high terrain.

That works also. Although you probably also want to be considering things like sensory or movement modes or immunities. In an example I used earlier, I think Fighter//Ninja gravetouched ghoul is a strong T3. Its paralysis compares favorably with mid level strikes, and its innate immunities compensate for save replacing maneuvers and stuff like IHS. Without it, I think the TOB classes just surpass the 2 T5s at high level. I also mentioned Paladin//Monk marrulurk. The stats are important, yes, but a little fire resistance, stealth/perception bonuses, a couple of sneak attack dice and heightened hearing just below the level of blindsense really help him do his basic job at a level of competence that make the wizard not want to replace him, and push him above the bottom of T3/top T4. In that case you are fighting for the scout niche, and you are fighting against a Druid who can steal blindsight from a Desmodu bat.

Certainly that's too strong at L1. And I can see how you might want to restrict the templates that are nothing but a huge strength boost. But I really think templates or advanced races really go a long way towards pushing you to that high 3 sweet spot where you aren't holding the wizards luggage.

Probably not strictly necessary, if you are already opening the door to giving the T5//T5 some kind of legacy item or letting him borrow specialist gear from an organization or whatever other method OP plans to use to give certain characters items above normal WBL. But I think it's the easiest way to go.

eggynack

2017-07-21, 03:05 PM

3.0 SRD (http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/) says:
So it would appear to be RAI that it's just the Elementals and not elementals, but a poor wording change opened an ambiguity.
Interesting. Not precisely the argument I was angling towards initially, but it does seem pretty clear that the 3.0 version of the ability only referred to these four creatures and their various sizes. The 3.5 version changed the text a bit, making it seem to be using subtypes, but there's nothing truly structurally different such that we'd think they're trying to seriously change things. They mostly just kinda put the elements in a parenthesis instead of outside of one. I'd be inclined to think this is support for my position, but I'm always a little skeptical when either form of the text is supposedly supporting my conclusion.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-07-21, 04:50 PM

That works also. Although you probably also want to be considering things like sensory or movement modes or immunities. In an example I used earlier, I think Fighter//Ninja gravetouched ghoul is a strong T3. Its paralysis compares favorably with mid level strikes, and its innate immunities compensate for save replacing maneuvers and stuff like IHS. Without it, I think the TOB classes just surpass the 2 T5s at high level. I also mentioned Paladin//Monk marrulurk. The stats are important, yes, but a little fire resistance, stealth/perception bonuses, a couple of sneak attack dice and heightened hearing just below the level of blindsense really help him do his basic job at a level of competence that make the wizard not want to replace him, and push him above the bottom of T3/top T4. In that case you are fighting for the scout niche, and you are fighting against a Druid who can steal blindsight from a Desmodu bat.

Certainly that's too strong at L1. And I can see how you might want to restrict the templates that are nothing but a huge strength boost. But I really think templates or advanced races really go a long way towards pushing you to that high 3 sweet spot where you aren't holding the wizards luggage.

Probably not strictly necessary, if you are already opening the door to giving the T5//T5 some kind of legacy item or letting him borrow specialist gear from an organization or whatever other method OP plans to use to give certain characters items above normal WBL. But I think it's the easiest way to go.
I don't think that's necessary, though. Once you have basic functioning class features, the added senses and stuff are just unnecessary gravy. Fighter//Ninja is already a reasonably solid character, with plenty of combat punch (the Fighter's full BAB and feats, plus Sudden Strike, which is made easier by having feats to burn on things like Flick of the Wrist), plenty of skills, decent mundane skill boosts, and pretty good stealth now that you're not so dependent on burning ki in combat. Paladin//Monk is not terrible either, and with Serenity and Intuitive Strike or Weapon Finesse your MADness is improved-- you get a good chassis, spellcasting, bonus feats, a mount buddy t... I mean, I think you can stick most T5 classes together with another T5 and maybe a feat and/or ACF or two and get a solidly T4 result, even if it's just through chassis.

Fighter//Anything skill-based works alright
Monk//Swashbuckler is my favorite at a quick glance-- grab Kung-Fu Genius and your MAD goes way down (Because of free Weapon Finesse and Int to damage), full BAB means Flurry is actually useful, you've got plenty of skill points because you're focusing on Int, and Invisible Fist and Arcane Stunt provide some neat tricks.
Ninja//Fighter
Soulknife//... okay, maybe a point here, because Soulknife is arguably T6
Paladin//Expert gets a good mount to fight with, some good spells in splats, and plenty of skills; I'd call it reasonable. Divine Mind//Paladin might work too; the thematics generally line up, and you wind up doubling down on a lot of things-- double Turning via ACF, double minions via ACF, double late-game spellcasting, and with a full BAB you can turn the attack aura straight into extra power attack damage.
Knight//Paladin is thematic and not a bad combination, for all that your skills continue to suck. The Paladin gets an solid mount and some spells to support it, while the Knight gets mounted combat feats and ally-protection abilities to keep it alive. Or heck, just Knight//Expert with Wild Cohort.
Divine Mind//Paladin, like I mentioned. Or maybe Divine Mind//Monk; you can line up some good ACFs here, use your aura to keep your to-hit reasonable, play with divine feats, use the Freedom Mantle powers to teleport around the battlefield.

Or better yet, go T4/T5; I think a splash of Fighter or Expert will fix up most T4 classes nicely.

Gnaeus

2017-07-22, 08:16 AM

I don't think that's necessary, though. Once you have basic functioning class features, the added senses and stuff are just unnecessary gravy. Fighter//Ninja is already a reasonably solid character, with plenty of combat punch (the Fighter's full BAB and feats, plus Sudden Strike, which is made easier by having feats to burn on things like Flick of the Wrist), plenty of skills, decent mundane skill boosts, and pretty good stealth now that you're not so dependent on burning ki in combat. Paladin//Monk is not terrible either, and with Serenity and Intuitive Strike or Weapon Finesse your MADness is improved-- you get a good chassis, spellcasting, bonus feats, a mount buddy t... I mean, I think you can stick most T5 classes together with another T5 and maybe a feat and/or ACF or two and get a solidly T4 result, even if it's just through chassis.

Fighter//Anything skill-based works alright
Monk//Swashbuckler is my favorite at a quick glance-- grab Kung-Fu Genius and your MAD goes way down (Because of free Weapon Finesse and Int to damage), full BAB means Flurry is actually useful, you've got plenty of skill points because you're focusing on Int, and Invisible Fist and Arcane Stunt provide some neat tricks.
Ninja//Fighter
Soulknife//... okay, maybe a point here, because Soulknife is arguably T6
Paladin//Expert gets a good mount to fight with, some good spells in splats, and plenty of skills; I'd call it reasonable. Divine Mind//Paladin might work too; the thematics generally line up, and you wind up doubling down on a lot of things-- double Turning via ACF, double minions via ACF, double late-game spellcasting, and with a full BAB you can turn the attack aura straight into extra power attack damage.
Knight//Paladin is thematic and not a bad combination, for all that your skills continue to suck. The Paladin gets an solid mount and some spells to support it, while the Knight gets mounted combat feats and ally-protection abilities to keep it alive. Or heck, just Knight//Expert with Wild Cohort.
Divine Mind//Paladin, like I mentioned. Or maybe Divine Mind//Monk; you can line up some good ACFs here, use your aura to keep your to-hit reasonable, play with divine feats, use the Freedom Mantle powers to teleport around the battlefield.

Or better yet, go T4/T5; I think a splash of Fighter or Expert will fix up most T4 classes nicely.

The question is, necessary for what. My group disallows T1s and mostly plays on a T3 level. I agree that t5 gestalts alone tend to be solid T4, which works for us. But if you talking about competing with fully functional T2s and T1s with all but the most abusive tricks that's not going to get you there. Ninja//fighter is a reasonably solid character. That's why I suggested it. As you say, a solidly T4 result. But it's not as good as a TOB class, let alone a full caster. And it can't likely defend its niches against them.

Cosi

2017-07-22, 11:18 AM

But it's not that inconsistent. There's no oddity that's produced by the presence of those words. Sure, it'd be pointing at creatures that don't have the ability, but it's also setting things up so you don't have to look throughout the books to determine exactly what this ability does.

Okay, but why not clarify the ability to only Su and Ex? There's no functional difference, and no inconsistency. The only thing the presence of the SLA allowance does is make the ability inconsistent with the "only Elementals" reading.

That is a correct way of representing "any type is valid". Putting an (any) there is another correct way of representing that, especially because summoning generally calls out a single creature rather than a class of creatures.

Actually, I think this is evidence for the other position. Summoning generally calls out specific creatures. Therefore, when presented with an ambiguous case on a summoning ability, we should prefer the interpretation that is consistent with a list of specific creatures. Conversely, wild shape generally refers to categories of creatures defined by traits such as size and type. Therefore, when presented with an ambiguous case of a wild shape ability, we should prefer the interpretation that is consistent with a category of creatures.

The size text clearly excludes stuff. The subtype text might not, making it redundant at that point in time. I don't think immoth demonstrates that possibility, because it matches up with the subtype text just fine. The or doesn't seem to be exclusive.

The immoth is an elemental with a type not on the list. It does have types on the list, but it doesn't take a lot of thought to see that now that we have elementals with types not on the list, there might be elementals with only types not on the list later.

Separately, can't seem to find a copy of the 3.0 PHB anywhere. Is the original elemental wild shape constructed in such a way that it could also be read as granting broad type access to elementals? If so, then improved elemental wild shape seems to imply that it doesn't grant that access, thus implying further that 3.5 elemental wild shape doesn't grant that access either.

Why did you not lead with Improved Elemental Wild Shape? That's way more of a knockout punch than everything else you've said up to this point. Although there's a huge WTF where Improve Elemental Wild Shape gives you only Ex and Su abilities, which means that the ability that gives you forms with no SLAs grants SLAs and the ability that gives you forms with SLAs grants no SLAs.

That said, I'm inclined to prefer an interpretation based on the text of the ability itself, even if that has weird interactions with non-ability sources. The idea that our understanding of the behavior of Wild Shape should be based on feats that modify the ability seems like a stretch to me, even if those abilities are fairly clearly inconsistent with the "all elementals" position*. Also, the feat is copied directly from a 3.0 source, and modifications were made to the ability in the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition that made it dramatically more congruent with the "all elementals" interpretation, so the feat is to some degree an artifact of a time when a different position was winning.

(For a somewhat similar topic, consider the Verdant Lord, a PrC that can be entered ten levels later in 3.5 than 3.0 because the name of the spell it requires was swapped with a different spell.)

*: The implications of this sort of thing for parsing the rules are particularly heinous. There could be a feat anywhere that says anything about some ability that implies we've been using it wrong. Imagine, for example, a feat that claimed to remove a 10 point cap on Power Attack. As we understand it, no cap exists, but if we prefer external sources, we end up having to do a great deal of work to have confidence in how abilities behave.

Interesting. Not precisely the argument I was angling towards initially, but it does seem pretty clear that the 3.0 version of the ability only referred to these four creatures and their various sizes. The 3.5 version changed the text a bit, making it seem to be using subtypes, but there's nothing truly structurally different such that we'd think they're trying to seriously change things.

I disagree. The 3.5 version made two changes that did not substantively clarify things from the "only Elementals" perspective, but make the ability much more consistent with the "all elementals" perspective -- the change to parenthesis, and the change to a listing that includes SLAs. The reasoning you've provided for making these changes from the "only Elementals" perspective seems quite weak.

I agree that, in a vacuum, these aren't especially important choices of language, but I think the fact that they were explicitly changed is strong evidence that the ability was intended to function for all elementals. Particularly, I have a hard time seeing how you could be paying enough attention to make the SLA change, but not realize that of the twelve valid targets, none possessed any actual SLAs.