Binder with summoning vestige SGT

[Lans]

Has any one ever ran a Same game test with a binder with the summoning vestige?

[ATHATH]

By "summoning vestige", do you mean "Zceryll"?

What do you mean by the "Same game test"?

[Lans]

By "summoning vestige", do you mean "Zceryll"?

What do you mean by the "Same game test"?

Yes, and http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)

[JoshuaZ]

The Same Game type test is heavily emphasized on combat. A whole bunch of the things that Zceryll is useful for are out of combat. Incidentally, this is part (but not all of) why the Tier notion is generally more useful for understanding comparative power than the same game tests.

[weckar]

I don't quite understand it. Are you supposed to clear all those challenges in order? Is it meant to be a challenge of attrition?

[Cosi]

I think this probably depends heavily on if and how you nerf the summon monster ability, because by RAW the monsters never go away and you stomp anything that is not immune to every kind of monster you can summon.


The Same Game type test is heavily emphasized on combat. A whole bunch of the things that Zceryll is useful for are out of combat. Incidentally, this is part (but not all of) why the Tier notion is generally more useful for understanding comparative power than the same game tests.

Hogwash. Nothing stops you from putting non-combat encounters into the Same Game Test framework. The reason it doesn't have them by default is because it is supposed to be an objective measure, and there are not objective standards for what non-combat abilities characters should have. As a result, there's no good way of saying whether the character that can beat some non-combat encounter at some level or the character who can't is "balanced".

The Same Game Test is better because you get actual data. That it has limits is a function of trying to give answers that are based on the system, not a flaw in the setup. The problem the Tiers have is that they are not based on any level on data (indeed, it is difficult to see what kind of experiment you could even do to prove them), and as a result are of inherently limited value.


I don't quite understand it. Are you supposed to clear all those challenges in order? Is it meant to be a challenge of attrition?

The expectation is that you will build a single character, then run it through each challenge from full resources.

[JoshuaZ]

Hogwash. Nothing stops you from putting non-combat encounters into the Same Game Test framework. The reason it doesn't have them by default is because it is supposed to be an objective measure, and there are not objective standards for what non-combat abilities characters should have. As a result, there's no good way of saying whether the character that can beat some non-combat encounter at some level or the character who can't is "balanced".

The Same Game Test is better because you get actual data. That it has limits is a function of trying to give answers that are based on the system, not a flaw in the setup. The problem the Tiers have is that they are not based on any level on data (indeed, it is difficult to see what kind of experiment you could even do to prove them), and as a result are of inherently limited value.


Agree in part and disagree in part. The Tiers are based on the general consensus of many players playing many games and thinking about it very hard. That's not the same thing as hard data in any statistical sense, yes, but it is a mistake to think that objective data is inherently better if it isn't necessarily measuring what you want it to. I agree that nothing stops people from putting non-combat encounters in the SGT framework; my comment was on the lack of it. I do disagree on the reasoning for not having them by default. One could easily add a lit of explicit encounters with the same level of detail or more. For example, go through a trapped tomb, convince a monarch to send their army somewhere, bring someone back from the dead, heal plague victims, etc. One could assign DCs and the like to each to make them more explicit (which frankly the SGT should have by itself if it is really going to be an attempt at objective data), and then see how many one succeeds at. Yes, there won't be a perfect consensus on what to include, but if for example a wizard can handle all of your standardized out of combat encounters with little work, and if the fighter can't handle any, you have a relevant distinction. I'd take the test much more seriously if it had such a list with it and if the combat end had specific encounters rather than vague unstatted encounters.

[Psyren]

Yes, and http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)

The SGT - at least, this linked version of it, I haven't read all of them - provides faulty data because of its laser focus on the CR number of a given monster, while ignoring all of the non-quantitative "extras" it adds to each encounter to make them more difficult than that monster would otherwise be. For example, under "10th level" it includes a Fire Giant (CR 10) who is inexplicably standing on an active volcano (quite a far cry from the "warm mountains" listed in their entry) and who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice when attacked from range. That is not only very obviously favorable terrain for the Giant, it's also a level of tactical brilliance not found in the Fire Giant's entry. Whatever the final EL of that encounter is, it's certainly not 10. Similar themes are found throughout the "test." Certainly, a high-tier class of that level can ace every challenge, but the fact that a lower-tier class would struggle is not an indictment of the CR system, but rather vindication of it, except in the few cases where a given monster's CR is grossly miscalculated to begin with.

[Lans]

I think this probably depends heavily on if and how you nerf the summon monster ability, because by RAW the monsters never go away and you stomp anything that is not immune to every kind of monster you can summon.


I figure giving it a round/level duration like SM is reasonable.



The SGT - at least, this linked version of it, I haven't read all of them - provides faulty data because of its laser focus on the CR number of a given monster, while ignoring all of the non-quantitative "extras" it adds to each encounter to make them more difficult than that monster would otherwise be. For example, under "10th level" it includes a Fire Giant (CR 10) who is inexplicably standing on an active volcano (quite a far cry from the "warm mountains" listed in their entry) and who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice when attacked from range. That is not only very obviously favorable terrain for the Giant, it's also a level of tactical brilliance not found in the Fire Giant's entry. Whatever the final EL of that encounter is, it's certainly not 10. Similar themes are found throughout the "test." Certainly, a high-tier class of that level can ace every challenge, but the fact that a lower-tier class would struggle is not an indictment of the CR system, but rather vindication of it, except in the few cases where a given monster's CR is grossly miscalculated to begin with.

The fire giant scenario seems to be the only one that could be considered skewed, and it doesn't seem that bad

[Silva Stormrage]

The SGT - at least, this linked version of it, I haven't read all of them - provides faulty data because of its laser focus on the CR number of a given monster, while ignoring all of the non-quantitative "extras" it adds to each encounter to make them more difficult than that monster would otherwise be. For example, under "10th level" it includes a Fire Giant (CR 10) who is inexplicably standing on an active volcano (quite a far cry from the "warm mountains" listed in their entry) and who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice when attacked from range. That is not only very obviously favorable terrain for the Giant, it's also a level of tactical brilliance not found in the Fire Giant's entry. Whatever the final EL of that encounter is, it's certainly not 10. Similar themes are found throughout the "test." Certainly, a high-tier class of that level can ace every challenge, but the fact that a lower-tier class would struggle is not an indictment of the CR system, but rather vindication of it, except in the few cases where a given monster's CR is grossly miscalculated to begin with.

Fire giants are just as intelligent as regular humans... Are you telling me it's unrealistic to have a fire giant take advantage of the fact that it is immune to fire? That seems rather obvious.

The CR should be increased by favorable terrain of course but monsters acting tactically doesn't really seem to be a knock on the SGT.

[Inevitability]

The Same Game Test seems like a useful benchmark for comparing general class ability, though (the 'Why Every Class Is In Its Tier' thread used a similar system to justify its explanations). The issues are indeed, as has been said, that CR is over-emphasized, environmental factors aren't taken into account, and the test in general tends towards combat encounters.

Would a number of playgrounders be interested in jointly creating an improved list?

[Knaight]

The SGT - at least, this linked version of it, I haven't read all of them - provides faulty data because of its laser focus on the CR number of a given monster, while ignoring all of the non-quantitative "extras" it adds to each encounter to make them more difficult than that monster would otherwise be. For example, under "10th level" it includes a Fire Giant (CR 10) who is inexplicably standing on an active volcano (quite a far cry from the "warm mountains" listed in their entry) and who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice when attacked from range. That is not only very obviously favorable terrain for the Giant, it's also a level of tactical brilliance not found in the Fire Giant's entry. Whatever the final EL of that encounter is, it's certainly not 10. Similar themes are found throughout the "test." Certainly, a high-tier class of that level can ace every challenge, but the fact that a lower-tier class would struggle is not an indictment of the CR system, but rather vindication of it, except in the few cases where a given monster's CR is grossly miscalculated to begin with.

The SGT works best when characters pass some of the challenges and fail others, thus providing a point of comparison. It's also not intended as an indictment of the CR system.

[Psyren]

The fire giant scenario seems to be the only one that could be considered skewed, and it doesn't seem that bad

No there's way more than that. Fighting a Bebilith IN THE ABYSS, and it has surprise to boot, is definitely not EL 10 either. By RAW, the extraplanar subtype in its statblock means you're not expected to be fighting it on its home turf; if you do, that encounter is way harder than a CR 10 would account for. Similarly, 12 shadows invading an inn at night will very quickly become more than 12 unless the inn is in forgotten realms and every busboy is a retired adventurer with a magic weapon in his sock. And just what the heck is a "demonic forest?"


Fire giants are just as intelligent as regular humans... Are you telling me it's unrealistic to have a fire giant take advantage of the fact that it is immune to fire? That seems rather obvious.

The CR should be increased by favorable terrain of course but monsters acting tactically doesn't really seem to be a knock on the SGT.

I have no problem with monsters using tactics, but the difficulty number assigned to those monsters is accompanied by the tactics in their entry, and if the GM deviates from those he should be prepared to make adjustments to the expectation of what the party (let alone an individual class) can safely handle.


The SGT works best when characters pass some of the challenges and fail others, thus providing a point of comparison. It's also not intended as an indictment of the CR system.

It might not intend that, but that's exactly what it does by including a benchmark with each set of challenges. All the examples listed above are accompanied by a "tenth level" expectation - and indeed, mathematically the monsters in those challenges add up to CR 10 in most cases (haven't verified all of them.) But by ignoring all other factors, the results are skewed towards higher tier classes that can punch above their weight class easily. What it does not do, is provide an accurate picture of what a class of the benchmark level can actually handle.

[zlefin]

The Same Game Test seems like a useful benchmark for comparing general class ability, though (the 'Why Every Class Is In Its Tier' thread used a similar system to justify its explanations). The issues are indeed, as has been said, that CR is over-emphasized, environmental factors aren't taken into account, and the test in general tends towards combat encounters.

Would a number of playgrounders be interested in jointly creating an improved list?

sure, i'd be happy to work on such a project.

seems like it'll be pretty tricky to figure out proper challenge levels for things which normally aren't so clearly CR'd, but i'm sure with time something could be done.

how fleshed out are the encounters in the same game test? looking through the wiki link it looks like a very short description of each of them, rather than a much more fleshed out form some challenges mya require.

[JoshuaZ]

The Same Game Test seems like a useful benchmark for comparing general class ability, though (the 'Why Every Class Is In Its Tier' thread used a similar system to justify its explanations). The issues are indeed, as has been said, that CR is over-emphasized, environmental factors aren't taken into account, and the test in general tends towards combat encounters.

Would a number of playgrounders be interested in jointly creating an improved list?

I'd be interested.

[Lans]

No there's way more than that. Fighting a Bebilith IN THE ABYSS, and it has surprise to boot, is definitely not EL 10 either. By RAW, the extraplanar subtype in its statblock means you're not expected to be fighting it on its home turf; if you do, that encounter is way harder than a CR 10 would account for. Similarly, 12 shadows invading an inn at night will very quickly become more than 12 unless the inn is in forgotten realms and every busboy is a retired adventurer with a magic weapon in his sock. And just what the heck is a "demonic forest?"
.

What advantages does the fire giant have by being able to duck into hot liquid in response to being kited?

What difference does it make if you face a bebilith in the abyss as opposed to the prime? Also it says its hiding, not that it gets surprise.

It seems like you are reading too much into these scenarios.

[Nifft]

The Same Game Test seems like a useful benchmark for comparing general class ability, though (the 'Why Every Class Is In Its Tier' thread used a similar system to justify its explanations). The issues are indeed, as has been said, that CR is over-emphasized, environmental factors aren't taken into account, and the test in general tends towards combat encounters.

Would a number of playgrounders be interested in jointly creating an improved list?

Yes, that seems interesting.

[Psyren]

What advantages does the fire giant have by being able to duck into hot liquid in response to being kited?

Blocking line of effect/sight means it is effectively immune to attack. The PCs cannot follow it in there without immunities of their own. Volcanoes also come packaged with other hazards (heat, smoke, heights, drowning) - this gives certain classes disadvantages that have nothing to do with the creature's printed CR, and thus belies the benchmark given in the Test.


What difference does it make if you face a bebilith in the abyss as opposed to the prime? Also it says its hiding, not that it gets surprise.

Putting aside any direct knowledge it might have of the area, as a demon, it is immune to all the harmful planar effects of the Abyss. The specific ones the party would have to deal with would depend on the layer they're on, but the Bebilith would ignore them all regardless.


It seems like you are reading too much into these scenarios.

Whereas I feel that you're not reading enough. The CR of these creatures does not include all these extras. Quite literally in the Bebilith's case, as per the Monster Manual definition of "extraplanar."

[Cosi]

For example, under "10th level" it includes a Fire Giant (CR 10) who is inexplicably standing on an active volcano (quite a far cry from the "warm mountains" listed in their entry) and who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice when attacked from range.

Yes, volcanoes are notorious for being cold plains.


Fire giants are just as intelligent as regular humans... Are you telling me it's unrealistic to have a fire giant take advantage of the fact that it is immune to fire? That seems rather obvious.

No, Psyren is just starting from a different position. You have to remember that Psyren's arguments all implicitly assume that the designers are always right about everything, so if something would make the designers wrong (if, for example, the designers did not balance classes successfully), there has to be a reason that isn't true.

The reality is exactly backwards from what Psyren is saying. If monsters didn't get those conditions, the EL would be lowered because they could not use their abilities.


CR is over-emphasized

Not sure what you mean. CR is, notionally and to a very high degree practically, an indicator of level-appropriateness. As such, it is a natural choice for seeing if characters are level appropriate.


environmental factors aren't taken into account

Yes they are.


and the test in general tends towards combat encounters.

It has to, otherwise you can't claim to be benchmarking anything useful. What is a "10th level non-combat encounter"?


No there's way more than that. Fighting a Bebilith IN THE ABYSS, and it has surprise to boot, is definitely not EL 10 either. By RAW, the extraplanar subtype in its statblock means you're not expected to be fighting it on its home turf; if you do, that encounter is way harder than a CR 10 would account for.

So you encounter it on a plane with the same traits that is not the Abyss. Yay, it has the extraplanar subtype!


Similarly, 12 shadows invading an inn at night will very quickly become more than 12 unless the inn is in forgotten realms and every busboy is a retired adventurer with a magic weapon in his sock.

You know that "create more creatures with your abilities" is explicitly called out as something that does not change EL, right?


And just what the heck is a "demonic forest?"

A forest with cool fluff.


I have no problem with monsters using tactics, but the difficulty number assigned to those monsters is accompanied by the tactics in their entry, and if the GM deviates from those he should be prepared to make adjustments to the expectation of what the party (let alone an individual class) can safely handle.

Yes, remember that if a new book releases tactics for a monster that didn't have them, it retroactively changes CR. The tactics entries are examples, not rules.

[weckar]

It has to, otherwise you can't claim to be benchmarking anything useful. What is a "10th level non-combat encounter"?
Negotiations, locks, traps, chases, athletic events, infiltrations, long-term environmental survival, general stealth, navigation, retrieving a runaway dinosaur, correct identification of a series of potions

[Cosi]

Negotiations, locks, traps, chases, athletic events, infiltrations, long-term environmental survival, general stealth, navigation, retrieving a runaway dinosaur, correct identification of a series of potions

Okay, what makes those 10th level and not 9th level?

[Red Fel]

Okay, what makes those 10th level and not 9th level?

Requirements, difficulty of challenge, number of checks, consequences of failure? Just to name a few.

[Inevitability]

Okay, what makes those 10th level and not 9th level?

In order? The attitudes and influence of the NPCs involved, the DC of the lock, the DCs to notice and disable those traps (as well as their effects), the obstacles encountered in chases and speed of those chased, the skill checks involved in the athletic events, the mundane and magical detection systems involved in those infiltrations, the harshness of the environment (there's quite a difference between a lush forest and a frigid abyssal wasteland), the perception capabilities of those you're trying not to get noticed by, the difficulty of navigation (again, many factors can affect this), the strength and stealthiness of the dinosaur, the difficulty to analyze the potions and consequence of drinking the wrong ones.

I mean, I might as well ask why a Fire Giant is a CR 10 encounter, and not a CR 9 one.

[Cosi]

Requirements, difficulty of challenge, number of checks, consequences of failure? Just to name a few.

The point is that there aren't established (in the game) standards for those things. The point of the SGT is to measure classes against the game's expectations of them, and show that some classes are over or underpowered not just in comparison to other classes, but in comparison to the game itself. You could establish standards for those things, but that would be operating in a fundamentally different way from the SGT as it exists.

[Red Fel]

The point is that there aren't established (in the game) standards for those things. The point of the SGT is to measure classes against the game's expectations of them, and show that some classes are over or underpowered not just in comparison to other classes, but in comparison to the game itself. You could establish standards for those things, but that would be operating in a fundamentally different way from the SGT as it exists.

There are for some. For example, traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm) have a stated CR, and there exists a method for calculating the CR of homebrewed traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#designingATrap), and a tool for calculating the CR of an encounter (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) based on the party and traps involved.

Really, then, many non-combat encounters can be extrapolated from that, by comparing the difficulty of the encounter, and the impact of failure. For instance, the CR of a social encounter where multiple checks must be made and the consequence of failure is imprisonment can be compared with the CR of a room involving a series of traps where the consequence of failure is similarly being removed from the action (i.e. a pit trap or paralyzing poison).

[Lans]

Blocking line of effect/sight means it is effectively immune to attack. The PCs cannot follow it in there without immunities of their own. Volcanoes also come packaged with other hazards (heat, smoke, heights, drowning) - this gives certain classes disadvantages that have nothing to do with the creature's printed CR, and thus belies the benchmark given in the Test.



Putting aside any direct knowledge it might have of the area, as a demon, it is immune to all the harmful planar effects of the Abyss. The specific ones the party would have to deal with would depend on the layer they're on, but the Bebilith would ignore them all regardless.



Whereas I feel that you're not reading enough. The CR of these creatures does not include all these extras. Quite literally in the Bebilith's case, as per the Monster Manual definition of "extraplanar."

I guess it depends on how the encounter is designed, I can see the volcano going either way on whether it has other hazards readily present Same as with the abyss. I'm pretty sure there are layers that don't give penalties or bonuses. It seemed to me that the intention was just to give a bit of flavor with the encounters so it wasn't on a flat featureless plane, but it isn't clear if that was the intention.

[Psyren]

I guess it depends on how the encounter is designed, I can see the volcano going either way on whether it has other hazards readily present.

A volcano isn't hazard enough? :smalltongue:


It seemed to me that the intention was just to give a bit of flavor with the encounters so it wasn't on a flat featureless plane, but it isn't clear if that was the intention.

Flavor might have been the intent, but those circumstances have mechanical impact, so it's lazy of the framer(s) to simply ignore them. If they're not going to actually take the extra step of figuring out the various repercussions of their own scenarios, they shouldn't be benchmarking them like that to begin with. Instead, have moderately optimized characters of various class levels try each of them (again, with all repercussions taken into account) and find out the minimum level each can clear it at.

This SGT also conspicuously fails to include any encounters that might inconvenience a spellcaster (especially a non-Schrodinger one) even slightly more than a martial. Where is the SGT scenario for monsters that make a habit of dispelling or eating magic buffs? Fights that take place in distracting conditions like a rainstorm or howling gale? Where is the trapped/locked hallway containing magic sensors, or where the traps all need to be disabled quietly?

[emeraldstreak]

I guess it depends on how the encounter is designed, I can see the volcano going either way on whether it has other hazards readily present Same as with the abyss. I'm pretty sure there are layers that don't give penalties or bonuses. It seemed to me that the intention was just to give a bit of flavor with the encounters so it wasn't on a flat featureless plane, but it isn't clear if that was the intention.

Regardless, favorable circumstances for the monsters raise the CR of an encounter.


As for SGT attempts in the past, their main weakness by far is how underoptimized the PCs who try to brave them are.

[Lans]

A volcano isn't hazard enough? :smalltongue:
I don't think it is by itself, if the air temperature isn't high enough and if the terrain isn't terrible where it matters, then it shouldn't raise the EL of the encounter. If the fire giant ducks into the lava in response to being kited, you know what happens? A couple minutes pass, the fire giant goes up for air, takes an arrow to the face and repeat.



Flavor might have been the intent, but those circumstances have mechanical impact, so it's lazy of the framer(s) to simply ignore them. If they're not going to actually take the extra step of figuring out the various repercussions of their own scenarios, they shouldn't be benchmarking them like that to begin with. Instead, have moderately optimized characters of various class levels try each of them (again, with all repercussions taken into account) and find out the minimum level each can clear it at.
I don't see any reprecussions for those scenarios that are innate to those scenarios. The bebilith might be on a layer of the abyss that gives it an advantage, but its not stated in the scenario so it could just as likely not, and I you haven't stated the advantages of it loosing its extraplanar subtype gives it. I mean it what, can't be banished? That seems pretty corner case to me.


This SGT also conspicuously fails to include any encounters that might inconvenience a spellcaster (especially a non-Schrodinger one) even slightly more than a martial. Where is the SGT scenario for monsters that make a habit of dispelling or eating magic buffs? Fights that take place in distracting conditions like a rainstorm or howling gale? Where is the trapped/locked hallway containing magic sensors, or where the traps all need to be disabled quietly?

That is an issue, but its something that can rectified or looked into.


Regardless, favorable circumstances for the monsters raise the CR of an encounter.


As for SGT attempts in the past, their main weakness by far is how underoptimized the PCs who try to brave them are.

Like I said before the encounters can be such a way to not give favorable circumstances, and they could of been to provide pcs cover for hide and the like and I imagine the pcs being run are above average at least

[Cosi]

Really, then, many non-combat encounters can be extrapolated from that, by comparing the difficulty of the encounter, and the impact of failure.

I suppose, but I think you have to admit that doing that is a whole lot looser than "a CR 10 monster is a 10th level combat encounter because that is what it is defined as being".


A volcano isn't hazard enough? :smalltongue:

Well, is it not a warm mountain? Because I thought we were supposed to give creatures the things in their entries.


This SGT also conspicuously fails to include any encounters that might inconvenience a spellcaster (especially a non-Schrodinger one) even slightly more than a martial.

The SGT also doesn't include encounters that are targeted against martials. Martials bat under par not because they are being targeted by the encounters (frankly, a bunch of encounters where you are assumed to be able to force the enemy to battle is covering a lot of the weaknesses martials have), but because they are underpowered. The SGT is a sampling of EL 10 (or 5 or 15) encounters. Which ones are biased against martials exactly?


Regardless, favorable circumstances for the monsters raise the CR of an encounter.

True, but hardly relevant. Particularly because not getting to use their abilities lowers the EL of monsters.


As for SGT attempts in the past, their main weakness by far is how underoptimized the PCs who try to brave them are.

If you allow unlimited optimization, the Commoner 10/10s any encounter you care to name. If your test's output is "the Commoner is broken beyond belief", it doesn't work. There has to be a limit somewhere, and the limits the SGT uses seem reasonable to me.

[emeraldstreak]

If you allow unlimited optimization, the Commoner 10/10s any encounter you care to name. If your test's output is "the Commoner is broken beyond belief", it doesn't work. There has to be a limit somewhere, and the limits the SGT uses seem reasonable to me.

Commoner wins on generic stuff available to everyone, not on class features. Methinks the point of SGT is to test class features, but that still requires characters that have said features properly optimized.

[Lans]

Somethings are obviously broken, like candles of invocation, but there are things in more of a grey area like using scrolls of animate dead and shrink item. The SGT also favors 1/day abilities pretty heavily.

But its useful to look at both high and low op characters.

[Cosi]

Commoner wins on generic stuff available to everyone, not on class features. Methinks the point of SGT is to test class features, but that still requires characters that have said features properly optimized.

And where exactly is the line between "class feature" and "not a class feature"? Is it a Wizard class feature to buy a scroll, put it in your spellbook, and later cast that spell? Is it a Druid class feature to buy a scroll, then use the scroll? Is it a Rogue class feature to buy a scroll then use UMD to use that scroll? Is it a Beguiler ability to buy a Knowstone and use UMD to activate it? Is it a Fighter class feature to buy a scroll and use cross-class UMD to use that scroll? Is it an Incarnate class feature to buy a scroll and use cross-class UMD boosted by mage's spectacles to use that scroll?

[Lans]

And where exactly is the line between "class feature" and "not a class feature"? Is it a Wizard class feature to buy a scroll, put it in your spellbook, and later cast that spell? Is it a Druid class feature to buy a scroll, then use the scroll? Is it a Rogue class feature to buy a scroll then use UMD to use that scroll? Is it a Beguiler ability to buy a Knowstone and use UMD to activate it? Is it a Fighter class feature to buy a scroll and use cross-class UMD to use that scroll? Is it an Incarnate class feature to buy a scroll and use cross-class UMD boosted by mage's spectacles to use that scroll?

I think the answer should be yes, but if a spell lets you break the game with 1 scroll of it, it should be restricted. Planar binding for wishes being banned, but planar binding that bow demon for an archer is more acceptable

[Zeb]

who submerges himself in lava at a moment's notice


unrealistic to have a fire giant take advantage of the fact that it is immune to fire


What advantages does the fire giant have by being able to duck into hot liquid in response to being kited?

This really bugs me so I want to give a response from a geologist:
"Lava is way more dense than you are. It’s rock; making a rock liquid doesn’t make it stop being rock. It’ll be less dense, but not by any appreciable amount for this answer. Mario games have it right on the money that you won’t sink to the bottom like a lot of media portrays. Lava is not hot water. It’s not even particularly fluid; it’s so viscous that you can rest objects on top of it and watch them burn. There are videos out there of people doing this. If you are fireproof and somehow manage to sink into it, it will be very slowly and after a good while, and you are not moving a muscle once you do. You’ll be stuck in a bunch of rock for good."

The closest real world analogy would be trying to swim in freshly poured concrete.


On topic, while same game test shouldn't happen in a vacuum things that can be taken advantage of by clever players or DM's without a direct relation to class skills or features don't make for a balanced test. I lure the fullplate wearing undead out into the storm so he gets stuck in the mud is all player side. Whereas I use the goad class ability and my high balance tumble/balance skill as well as superior speed until it becomes bogged down and i bypass the encounter is a reflection of class abilities.

[Knaight]

This really bugs me so I want to give a response from a geologist:
"Lava is way more dense than you are. It’s rock; making a rock liquid doesn’t make it stop being rock. It’ll be less dense, but not by any appreciable amount for this answer. Mario games have it right on the money that you won’t sink to the bottom like a lot of media portrays. Lava is not hot water. It’s not even particularly fluid; it’s so viscous that you can rest objects on top of it and watch them burn. There are videos out there of people doing this. If you are fireproof and somehow manage to sink into it, it will be very slowly and after a good while, and you are not moving a muscle once you do. You’ll be stuck in a bunch of rock for good."

This is both undeniably true and common knowledge (although the actual extent of the viscosity is such that it's hard to intuitively understand when used to more conventional liquids) - but in the context of D&D it's pretty well established that lava acts more like hot red water. Those full immersion in lava rules are there for a reason.