Overpowered Players

[sjeshin]

I just wanted to see if I could get a friendly discussion about types of optimization. I see a lot of people say power attack is mandatory, have to have shock trooper or you are suboptimal on damage or warlocks can't do comparable damage without glaive etc... but my experiences are very different. How do you bring your shock drooper damage to bare in a forest, or on a cliff, or a rocky cave? What does your cleric do with 5 all day buffs that half of get dispelled? I feel like complaints of "opness" come from DM's not presenting challenges, and I think warlocks are rediculously good. What are some of your experiences with the "big" strategies? Does wildshape always break your game?

[SimonMoon6]

Overpowered players or overpowered characters?

I generally don't find overpowered *players* to be too much of an issue, except in those games where everybody plays as themselves. Then, you've got one guy who's smart, physically fit, and knows all the skills, while you've got another player who... exists.

[GrayDeath]

As I never LARP, overpowered Players are no problem for me.

heck I would love a D&D Game with Vin Diesel ^^


More serious: OPness, aside from real basics, heavily depends on the setup/Mission/Game.
A Player who knows how to "game" D&Ds weaknesses AND has a fully optimized Character AND is facing only regular published Adventure Challenges will dominate. Full stop.

But thats one extreme only. :)

[RoboEmperor]

How do you bring your shock drooper damage to bare in a forest, or on a cliff, or a rocky cave?

Flight.

Freedom of Movement.

You forgot leap attack.


What does your cleric do with 5 all day buffs that half of get dispelled?

Get stuff that counters dispel. There's a **** ton of them.


I think warlocks are rediculously good.

Normal ranged blasting warlocks without glaive? Serious? They do jack. I had players trash em because their damage output was phenomenally bad. 10 rounds to kill 1 guy is pathetic.

[sjeshin]

Flight.

Freedom of Movement.

You forgot leap attack.



Get stuff that counters dispel. There's a **** ton of them.



Normal ranged blasting warlocks without glaive? Serious? They do jack. I had players trash em because their damage output was phenomenally bad. 10 rounds to kill 1 guy is pathetic.

What counters dispel magic? You cant start a charge even with leap attack in rough terrain, and fly, yes that works, but again, in a forest? No straight line long enough for it? I feel like especially the leap attack build is really hard to pull off in most of the settings I have played in. How do you deal with what happens when you charge in alone and every other enemy but the one you killed attacks you? Can you give an example at say, level 10 of what you think the amount of damage a round should be?

[Dubkor]

I think it all kind of balances out anyway, depending on level with pretty minimal restrictions. The uber charger build, without a valorous weapon is capped by the mechanics, power attack for 20, do 3x on the charge and then regular on the 3 extra attacks. Let's say that they are using a great axe. That's +60, +20, +20 +20 for a max of 120. That's not that insane compared to, say, a wizard using power word kill or timestop and running amok with spells for 4 rounds or a max level druid firing out splinter.

[shawshank]

I think it all kind of balances out anyway, depending on level with pretty minimal restrictions. The uber charger build, without a valorous weapon is capped by the mechanics, power attack for 20, do 3x on the charge and then regular on the 3 extra attacks. Let's say that they are using a great axe. That's +60, +20, +20 +20 for a max of 120. That's not that insane compared to, say, a wizard using power word kill or timestop and running amok with spells for 4 rounds or a max level druid firing out splinter.

What do you mean by regular on the 3 extra attacks? Assuming pounce in the build, all the attacks are charge attacks.

[Malimar]

If everybody's at the same optimization level, you just raise or lower the challenge of the encounters to match the party's power level. The problem with OP characters only comes when one character is at a different optimization level than the others. If you can't offer an appropriate challenge one player without TPKing the others, and you can't offer an appropriate challenge to the others without the one curb-stomping it, then somebody has to change.

Luckily, the one player in my weekly group who habitually makes excessively strong characters recently quit.

[Heliomance]

What counters dispel magic?

Off the top of my head? Spellblade. Ring of (greater) counterspells. Crafted contingent spells. Celerity. Ring of spell turning. Jacking up your caster level to ridiculous heights when you first cast the buffs. For area dispels, having sacrificial low-level buffs that you don't care about getting dispelled, cast at a higher caster level than your important ones. Wings of Cover.

Give me a couple of hours to dig through books and advice threads and I could give you more, I'm sure.

[sjeshin]

Off the top of my head? Spellblade. Ring of (greater) counterspells. Crafted contingent spells. Celerity. Ring of spell turning. Jacking up your caster level to ridiculous heights when you first cast the buffs. For area dispels, having sacrificial low-level buffs that you don't care about getting dispelled, cast at a higher caster level than your important ones. Wings of Cover.

Give me a couple of hours to dig through books and advice threads and I could give you more, I'm sure.

Thes things aren't something you will have access to for most of the game. What level do you even have that kind of cash?

[Dubkor]

What do you mean by regular on the 3 extra attacks? Assuming pounce in the build, all the attacks are charge attacks.

That's not the way I've played leap attack. The extra damage is from the jump. The rest of the attacks are charge attacks but only the one landed on the jump gets the leap attack bonus.

[Dubkor]

But my math was stupid. I didn't factor in double power attack damage on a two hander.

[Goaty14]

You cant start a charge even with leap attack in rough terrain

There's a skill trick in CS that requires 5 ranks in balance. Any optimized character *must* already have 5 ranks in balance... There's probably an item that would allow charging in rough terrain too. Or flight. Never have to worry about rough terrain if you never touch it


Thes things aren't something you will have access to for most of the game. What level do you even have that kind of cash?

Sacrificial buffs come online at level 1, given you are a caster class (If you aren't, then you don't have buffs to begin with). Remember that scrolls are only 1 xp to craft, and once you hit ~ECL 5 you don't even have to bother... (I've heard that's when casters can use a spell every round). It's not even until ECL 3 (for your enemies) that you even encounter dispel (See: Arcane Turmoil). The rest of the items could be had through crafting or mid-level WBL.

[Heliomance]

Thes things aren't something you will have access to for most of the game. What level do you even have that kind of cash?

Lesser Celerity is a level 2 spell, and a move action can let you break line of sight - available from level 3. Wings of Cover is also a second level spell (though Sorcerer only). Spellblades are like 6000gp IIRC - I'm AFB, but that's doable from, what, level 5 or so? Pretty sure there's a feat that increases your caster level by 4 for the purpose of resisting dispels - that's available early.

Also, leading with a dispel isn't hugely common, especially if the buffs you have up aren't particularly obvious. If you start every encounter by lobbing a dispel at the Cleric, you the DM are metagaming and Doing It Wrong.

Also also, War Weaver says hi.

[sjeshin]

There's a skill trick in CS that requires 5 ranks in balance. Any optimized character *must* already have 5 ranks in balance... There's probably an item that would allow charging in rough terrain too. Or flight. Never have to worry about rough terrain if you never touch it



Sacrificial buffs come online at level 1, given you are a caster class (If you aren't, then you don't have buffs to begin with). Remember that scrolls are only 1 xp to craft, and once you hit ~ECL 5 you don't even have to bother... (I've heard that's when casters can use a spell every round). It's not even until ECL 3 (for your enemies) that you even encounter dispel (See: Arcane Turmoil). The rest of the items could be had through crafting or mid-level WBL.

What are sacrificial buffs? I'm not familiar with these. I also don't see how at level 5 you can cast a spell every round at level five. Crafting scrolls is still going to take 6 hours per scroll and half the cost and 1/25 in xp. I have rarely had a spot in the campaign where everyone wanted / could sit on their hands for 2 weeks while I made level 3 scrolls.

[Deophaun]

Concerning overpowered players versus characters; overpowered players do exist. They're the person that finds the one fatal flaw in any of your plans and exploits the living hell out of it. They can play a commoner 20 and break you Epic campaign. If you ever find yourself in the presence of one, just crack a beer and lean back; it's gonna be good.

What counters dispel magic?
You can just get a CL of "Nope." There's no reason to specifically counter dispel magic or any of its variants.

[sjeshin]

Concerning overpowered players versus characters; overpowered players do exist. They're the person that finds the one fatal flaw in any of your plans and exploits the living hell out of it. They can play a commoner 20 and break you Epic campaign. If you ever find yourself in the presence of one, just crack a beer and lean back; it's gonna be good.

You can just get a CL of "Nope." There's no reason to specifically counter dispel magic or any of its variants.

I am trying to understand the how part of this. This type of claim is the source of the question, not an answer.

[Fizban]

I just wanted to see if I could get a friendly discussion about types of optimization. I see a lot of people say power attack is mandatory, have to have shock trooper or you are suboptimal on damage or warlocks can't do comparable damage without glaive etc... but my experiences are very different. How do you bring your shock drooper damage to bare in a forest, or on a cliff, or a rocky cave? What does your cleric do with 5 all day buffs that half of get dispelled? I feel like complaints of "opness" come from DM's not presenting challenges, and I think warlocks are rediculously good. What are some of your experiences with the "big" strategies? Does wildshape always break your game?
If you're looking for someone to support your position, yup I'm there. I'll be the first to hammer home how Power Attack isn't the foundation of everything (I do literally have that thread going right now), that any build that prides itself on one-rounding foes has automatically disqualified itself by being overpowered by definition, that casters are only broken when you break them, and so on.

I'd rather cut or modify the problematic elements than counter-optimize against them by constantly terrain blocking or spamming dispel monsters, since that restricts what I'm allowed to do. I think more than DMs failing to present challenges, the problem is DMs that fail to recognize they're the DM, and that means they're responsible for choosing what's allowed and maintaining the game. Giving people carte blanche, encouraging competitive and adversarial character building, then wondering why the game isn't balanced? That's a problem.

[Kobold Esq]

I think the issue OP notes that in his experience (and frankly in my experience), the VAST majority of players are not making super hyper tweaked optimized characters using material from 10 different books and five alternate class features. Most parties will have a few players who are totally fine playing a straight fighter because they just want to hit some goblins.

People who post here are more likely the exception, not the rule.

[sjeshin]

Concerning overpowered players versus characters; overpowered players do exist. They're the person that finds the one fatal flaw in any of your plans and exploits the living hell out of it. They can play a commoner 20 and break you Epic campaign. If you ever find yourself in the presence of one, just crack a beer and lean back; it's gonna be good.

You can just get a CL of "Nope." There's no reason to specifically counter dispel magic or any of its variants.


If you're looking for someone to support your position, yup I'm there. I'll be the first to hammer home how Power Attack isn't the foundation of everything (I do literally have that thread going right now), that any build that prides itself on one-rounding foes has automatically disqualified itself by being overpowered by definition, that casters are only broken when you break them, and so on.

I'd rather cut or modify the problematic elements than counter-optimize against them by constantly terrain blocking or spamming dispel monsters, since that restricts what I'm allowed to do. I think more than DMs failing to present challenges, the problem is DMs that fail to recognize they're the DM, and that means they're responsible for choosing what's allowed and maintaining the game. Giving people carte blanche, encouraging competitive and adversarial character building, then wondering why the game isn't balanced? That's a problem.

The only thing I am looking for is more of a real game perspective. I have never seen any of these things actually take over a game, even when used. Either they were missing a piece, or my DM jusr remembers how charge works lol. Most of the bbegs we face are intelligent spellcasters so that has something to do with it.

[Fizban]

Well, I've seen an AC tank just no-sell the worst melee threat we saw before the end of campaign, 1/2 of the party with LA buyoff races no-sell the Lich's Mass Hold Person, the same AC tank waltz through an AMF to beat up a cleric who wasn't affected by the AMF (he also strangled some trolls from within an allied Black Tentacles later on just for fun), but I'm pretty sure I was taking the cake on pure consistency of melee and AoE maximized spells.

When I was behind the screen, I got to watch the self-proclaimed (and well studied) uber-wizard constantly frustrated at having the wrong spell fall back on a Runestaff of Fireball and Lightning Bolt, while the paladin got to selectively kill whatever they wanted thanks to a flying mount. And in a different game, the simple elegance of a blaster psion just telling all the enemies to fall over.

I haven't had anyone try to go full ubercharger (not that I'd allow it), but there was the gestalt game where I built a were-serval scout that could certainly charge, but the player couldn't handle it. My own character's invulnerability didn't come up too much, but the wizard//archivist ran into problems immediately as the DM made them jump through a million hoops for a non-standard spell they didn't even want all that much.

[Deophaun]

The only thing I am looking for is more of a real game perspective. I have never seen any of these things actually take over a game, even when used.
The confusion I'm having is that your OP is not about these things not taking over the game even when used, but about them being shut down. Hence the buffs being dispelled. Past a certain point, I simply don't have to worry about that because dispel checks are capped and CL is not. That does not mean that the undispellable buffs are going to take over the game, simply because players and DMs are both intelligent creatures possessed of a shared language which they can use to discuss potential issues.

[RoboEmperor]

What counters dispel magic?

Boosting your caster level through the roof. Some cheap items boost your caster level against dispel checks only. And as someone mentioned dispel magic caps at +20 while CL does not.


You cant start a charge even with leap attack in rough terrain, and fly, yes that works, but again, in a forest? No straight line long enough for it? I feel like especially the leap attack build is really hard to pull off in most of the settings I have played in. How do you deal with what happens when you charge in alone and every other enemy but the one you killed attacks you? Can you give an example at say, level 10 of what you think the amount of damage a round should be?

If the fighter, no matter what, cannot land a charge, his spellcaster should change the environment so he can land a charge. Greater Blink lets fighters ignore trees.

In addition BFC spells like solid fog force the creatures to come to you on your terms so the ones that leave the fog are susceptible to charge.

And if the fighter is surrounded by 3 creatures who will murder him after the charge, again it's the wizard's job to ensure that doesn't happen with spells like solid fog and black tentacles.

In the level of optimization I play in, uberchargers aren't OP. Our DM doesn't drop 1 monster with high CR in an encounter because he's gonna get one-shot by the ubercharger. Instead he brings in 4 or 5 monsters all with spellcasting which means ubercharging and perfect crowd control is mandatory to survive here. But this is high-op.

in a normal game, for damage, I'd say enough damage to 2 or 3 shot a creature is the minimum required damage.

Compared to a level 10 warlock's... 5d6 damage which averages out to... 17.5 damage a round, yeah no. No where near enough damage per round.

[Yogibear41]

Warlocks aren't op, but they can be better than most people give them credit for imo, mainly as debuffers. In my experience most things that people think are op on paper don't turn out to be as op in an actual game. The campaign world isn't in a vacuum.

[shawshank]

That's not the way I've played leap attack. The extra damage is from the jump. The rest of the attacks are charge attacks but only the one landed on the jump gets the leap attack bonus.

Yeah that does not measure up consistently with things like the charge granting you a +2 to hit while charging. So are you saying you get that once too? Why does jumping matter when leap attack does not specify "the first attack"? By RAW and RAI, I believe it was meant to apply to all attacks. I can see why you would want to house-rule it otherwise. Though, I rarely take anything from martials if I have wizards/clerics/druids running around in the party.

[zergling.exe]

Yeah that does not measure up consistently with things like the charge granting you a +2 to hit while charging. So are you saying you get that once too? Why does jumping matter when leap attack does not specify "the first attack"? By RAW and RAI, I believe it was meant to apply to all attacks. I can see why you would want to house-rule it otherwise. Though, I rarely take anything from martials if I have wizards/clerics/druids running around in the party.

Here is the rules text for Pounce:
Pounce (Ex):When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

Bold for important bit, it follows the charge with a full attack. The full attack granted by pounce is not part of the charge itself, and so doesn't get any of the benefits the single attack in the charge gets.

[Yogibear41]

I've always thought leap attack should only apply to the first attack, even if you have pounce. The extra damage comes from the force of you jumping at the enemy for the first attack. I could see maybe allowing it to apply to 2 attacks if you attack with say 2 claws that are both at the same time during the leap. You are just not going to be able to swing at someone 4 times mid air before landing after jumping, anime shenanigans aside.

[Fizban]

Here is the rules text for Pounce:

Bold for important bit, it follows the charge with a full attack. The full attack granted by pounce is not part of the charge itself, and so doesn't get any of the benefits the single attack in the charge gets.
You deserve that Citizen Kane slow clap, because bwhahahahaha oh man that is so great. Indeed, its quite clear as day, the only reason the whole full attack counts as a charge is because char-op wanted it to and probably shouted down anyone who noticed that back in the day.

Beautiful.

[Doctor Awkward]

Here is the rules text for Pounce:

Bold for important bit, it follows the charge with a full attack. The full attack granted by pounce is not part of the charge itself, and so doesn't get any of the benefits the single attack in the charge gets.

Your post suggests that, when pouncing, you resolve the charge as any other character normally would-- make a single attack at a +2 with whatever other modifiers-- and then after that you get to make a full attack action.

So a character with +16 BAB and pounce would make his single attack at the end of the movement during his charge, and then follow it with the four attacks from his full attack. The first attack would be the only one that would benefit from special charging modifiers he has.


Otherwise, the full attack allowed by pounce replaces the single attack you normally make at the end of your movement during a charge... and all of them would thus benefit from charging modifiers the character might have.

[zergling.exe]

Your post suggests that, when pouncing, you resolve the charge as any other character normally would-- make a single attack at a +2 with whatever other modifiers-- and then after that you get to make a full attack action.

So a character with +16 BAB and pounce would make his single attack at the end of the movement during his charge, and then follow it with the four attacks from his full attack. The first attack would be the only one that would benefit from special charging modifiers he has.


Otherwise, the full attack allowed by pounce replaces the single attack you normally make at the end of your movement during a charge... and all of them would thus benefit from charging modifiers the character might have.

That is in fact how RAW Pounce works. It makes monsters with Pounce like Lions a bit stronger, but it cuts the damage from uberchargers into ribbons. Can you show me the RAW text that says you replace the single attack with a full attack? There may be some variants of Pounce that do this, but the MM ability doesn't, and that's the version the Lion Totem Barbarian gets.

[Doctor Awkward]

That is in fact how RAW Pounce works. It makes monsters with Pounce like Lions a bit stronger, but it cuts the damage from uberchargers into ribbons. Can you show me the RAW text that says you replace the single attack with a full attack? There may be some variants of Pounce that do this, but the MM ability doesn't, and that's the version the Lion Totem Barbarian gets.

The Rules Compendium might disagree with you:


Pounce
When a creature that has this extraordinary special attack
charges, it can still make a full attack even if it charged while
restricted to a single action. All its attacks receive the +2 bonus
on attack rolls gained from charging. If it uses its attacks to
successfully start a grapple, and it has the rake ability, it can
also make rake attacks.

Even if you are correct*, in that you get a separate full attack from the single attack charging normally gets, the attack bonus explicitly applies to every single attack made that round.

Do you know of anything to suggest that the rest of your charging modifiers should not also apply to the full attack?



*The reason I continue to say "if" is on account of the specific wording of Pounce:

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.
That's an oddly specific way to write that sentence, as opposed to the much less suggestive, "When a creature charges". It was written as though it were referring to the specific game-defined combat action "Charge". I also assume this is the case because the SRD hyperlinks to the combat action description of charge. This suggests to me that Pounce was intended to modify the charge action in some way-- specifically the attack made during the charge. And if the full attack is made during the charge, then all of them most certainly benefit from any charging modifiers as they are part of the same action.

[Calthropstu]

Off the top of my head? Spellblade. Ring of (greater) counterspells. Crafted contingent spells. Celerity. Ring of spell turning. Jacking up your caster level to ridiculous heights when you first cast the buffs. For area dispels, having sacrificial low-level buffs that you don't care about getting dispelled, cast at a higher caster level than your important ones. Wings of Cover.

Give me a couple of hours to dig through books and advice threads and I could give you more, I'm sure.

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

[zergling.exe]

The Rules Compendium might disagree with you:

Even if you are correct*, in that you get a separate full attack from the single attack charging normally gets, the attack bonus explicitly applies to every single attack made that round.

Do you know of anything to suggest that the rest of your charging modifiers should not also apply to the full attack?

Rules Compendium doesn't call out that they do, so while they get the +2, that's the rules specifying that it is applied. The full attack is not part of the charge and so doesn't get any charge bonuses not called out by the rules.


*The reason I continue to say "if" is on account of the specific wording of Pounce:

That's an oddly specific way to write that sentence, as opposed to the much less suggestive, "When a creature charges". It was written as though it were referring to the specific game-defined combat action "Charge". I also assume this is the case because the SRD hyperlinks to the combat action description of charge. This suggests to me that Pounce was intended to modify the charge action in some way-- specifically the attack made during the charge. And if the full attack is made during the charge, then all of them most certainly benefit from any charging modifiers as they are part of the same action.

It makes a charge, and then full attacks. You have to finish step 1 before you can follow with step 2. Thus you charge (move, attack), then do you follow-up (full attack). I don't trust anything on the hyperlink SRD, as it is not the official SRD and shortcuts were used to create hyperlinks that don't refer directly to another condition. It's been a while, but I'm fairly sure there was one that pointed to a spell simply because it had the same name as the condition being referred to.

[Zanos]

What counters dispel magic? You cant start a charge even with leap attack in rough terrain, and fly, yes that works, but again, in a forest? No straight line long enough for it? I feel like especially the leap attack build is really hard to pull off in most of the settings I have played in. How do you deal with what happens when you charge in alone and every other enemy but the one you killed attacks you? Can you give an example at say, level 10 of what you think the amount of damage a round should be?
The only real comment I have is that a character that you have to do 10 things in order to stop them from steamrolling an encounter is probably more powerful than a character you have to do 1 thing to in order to stop them from steamrolling your encounter.

Are you operating from the position that D&D 3.5 is actually balanced? You can easily disprove that by demonstrating that a wizard is better than a fighter at their own role with spells like polymorph, animate dead, summon creature, planar binding, and gate.

If that's not the case in your experience that's fine, plenty of people runs games with wizards and fighters side by side without problems. But you should be aware that wizard and fighter have very different skill floors, and someone with a lot of mastery over the 3.5 system can do a lot more with a wizard than a fighter.

[Doctor Awkward]

Rules Compendium doesn't call out that they do, so while they get the +2, that's the rules specifying that it is applied. The full attack is not part of the charge and so doesn't get any charge bonuses not called out by the rules.



It makes a charge, and then full attacks. You have to finish step 1 before you can follow with step 2. Thus you charge (move, attack), then do you follow-up (full attack). I don't trust anything on the hyperlink SRD, as it is not the official SRD and shortcuts were used to create hyperlinks that don't refer directly to another condition. It's been a while, but I'm fairly sure there was one that pointed to a spell simply because it had the same name as the condition being referred to.


How about a martial adept using the Pouncing Charge maneuver?


As part of initiating this maneuver,
you make a charge attack. Instead
of making a single attack at the end
of your charge, you can make a full
attack. The bonus on your attack roll
for making a charge attack applies to
all your attack rolls.

In this case, the full attack is explicitly a part of the charge, made instead of the single attack you normally get, and so each one of them would be subject to any and all modifiers.



I'm not saying that you are incorrect regarding Pounce. Just noting that it would be a little silly to treat the actual Pounce ability any differently from the maneuver that is modeled after it.

I'd also be interested in the incorrectly linked spell if you can remember it.


EDIT:

Here's something else that might be relevant:


The subject’s charge attacks deal double
damage. (The subject does not have to be
mounted or wielding a lance.) If the subject
makes more than one attack on a
charge, the double damage applies only
to the first attack.

That spell was renamed "Rhino's Rush" in the Spell Compendium, where it does pretty much exactly the same thing only with much fewer words.

If the general rule is supposed to be "make a full attack after the one attack on a charge", isn't it a little strange that the spell would be worded to imply otherwise?
Or is this spell giving itself an exception to the general rule of "full attack replaces the single attack made during a charge"?

[zergling.exe]

How about a martial adept using the Pouncing Charge maneuver?

In this case, the full attack is explicitly a part of the charge, made instead of the single attack you normally get, and so each one of them would be subject to any and all modifiers.

I'm not saying that you are incorrect regarding Pounce. Just noting that it would be a little silly to treat the actual Pounce ability any differently from the maneuver that is modeled after it.

I'd also be interested in the incorrectly linked spell if you can remember it.

As I noted earlier, there are in fact variants of Pounce that replace the attack explicitly rather than use 'follow with'. Just because something is a model doesn't mean it functions in the same way either. I think there was some regional feat in Forgotten Realms that gave a Pounce that replaced it? Snow Tiger lodge or something like that? Snow Tiger Berserker! Though it doesn't say to replace it, it specifies that the full attack is part of the charge action. So that version would in fact net all the attacks the charge bonuses.

I cannot recall what it was. I haven't touched the site at all in several years.

[Fizban]

Can you show me the RAW text that says you replace the single attack with a full attack? There may be some variants of Pounce that do this, but the MM ability doesn't, and that's the version the Lion Totem Barbarian gets.
Well the general rules for full attacking set it up so after you make your first attack, you continue into the the rest:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
So the phrasing of "follow with a full attack" can simply be read as it giving you that option despite the fact that you already charged. Rules Compendium actually lacks that text.

The Rules Compendium ruling of charge bonus on all hits of course supports charge effects on all hits, but hey if people can say the FAQ gets things wrong all the time, why can't the RC be wrong? I'd guarantee people were pushing the ubercharge ruling before RC ever came out, and if that's what the people want. . .

And as for SpC and Rhino's Rush, oh yeah there's tons of spells in there that were "simplified" in ways that make them way stronger (or made them garbage).

[Coretron03]

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

I mean, other than the fact they literally said to have spells at a CL that you dont care if they are dispelled and the fact that boosting caster level does can in fact prevent the dispelling, yeah, Greater dispel magic will get rid of buffs. Well, one of them, and it might not be one you want.

Boosting Caster level against spells is still super easy though. Beads of karma can boost your caster level by 4 for all day buffs and as it only lasts ten minutes your opponent probably can’t use it. A ring of enduring lets you treat your caster level as 4 higher against dispels. Reserves of strengh let you have your buffs at 3 CL higher and the dispeller can’t duplicate that unless they want to take damage or lose their next 3 rounds. Plus, in 3.5 Greater dispel magic is limted to +20 from caster level, making it an arms race you can’t win.

[zergling.exe]

Well the general rules for full attacking set it up so after you make your first attack, you continue into the the rest:

So the phrasing of "follow with a full attack" can simply be read as it giving you that option despite the fact that you already charged. Rules Compendium actually lacks that text.

The Rules Compendium ruling of charge bonus on all hits of course supports charge effects on all hits, but hey if people can say the FAQ gets things wrong all the time, why can't the RC be wrong? I'd guarantee people were pushing the ubercharge ruling before RC ever came out, and if that's what the people want. . .

And as for SpC and Rhino's Rush, oh yeah there's tons of spells in there that were "simplified" in ways that make them way stronger (or made them garbage).

I'm still not convinced that would make the additional attacks part of the charge. See Snow Tiger Berserker for wording that explicitly makes the full attack part of the charge.

[Anthrowhale]

My understanding from RC is that the +2 to hit from a charge applies to all attacks including (for example) AOOs made during the round of the charge.

Cataloging things:

Pounce (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#pounce) attacks apparently (by RAW) are not a part of the charge since they "follow" the charge.
Spirit Lion Totem: as Pounce.
Aspect of the Werebeast: as Pounce
Dire Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#direCharge) provides the capability to full attack if you charge. "If you charge... you can make a full attack...". An attack is a part of a charge so you can't trigger the ability to full attack until after the charge attack is resolved (... and the full attack is not triggered if the charge somehow fails to complete).
Psionic Lion's Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psionicLionsCharge.htm) as Dire Charge.
Snow Tiger Berserker makes the full attack explicitly a part of the charge, but only works with light weapons.
The Pouncing Charge maneuver explicitly substitutes the full attack for the normal charge attack implying that it is a part of the charge with no weapons restrictions.


I expect RAI is that all full attack charge mechanisms are meant to work the same but the RAW is straightforward enough here that a DM who wants to nerf an ubercharger has plenty of ammunition.

W.r.t. the OP, there are level 1 spells that mitigate terrain---check out "Branch to Branch" and "Unfailing Terrain".

[Darth Ultron]

I feel like complaints of "opness" come from DM's not presenting challenges,

This is generally the big optimization problem.

[Fizban]

I'm still not convinced that would make the additional attacks part of the charge. See Snow Tiger Berserker for wording that explicitly makes the full attack part of the charge.
I was agreeing with you on that- the full attack isn't part of the charge. But you can also say its not an additional full attack on top of the charge attack, because following the charge with a full attack can be read as the charge being the first attack that starts the following full attack, for no bonus attacks.

[zergling.exe]

I was agreeing with you on that- the full attack isn't part of the charge. But you can also say its not an additional full attack on top of the charge attack, because following the charge with a full attack can be read as the charge being the first attack that starts the following full attack, for no bonus attacks.

Ah, I see that now.

[sjeshin]

Boosting your caster level through the roof. Some cheap items boost your caster level against dispel checks only. And as someone mentioned dispel magic caps at +20 while CL does not.



If the fighter, no matter what, cannot land a charge, his spellcaster should change the environment so he can land a charge. Greater Blink lets fighters ignore trees.

In addition BFC spells like solid fog force the creatures to come to you on your terms so the ones that leave the fog are susceptible to charge.

And if the fighter is surrounded by 3 creatures who will murder him after the charge, again it's the wizard's job to ensure that doesn't happen with spells like solid fog and black tentacles.

In the level of optimization I play in, uberchargers aren't OP. Our DM doesn't drop 1 monster with high CR in an encounter because he's gonna get one-shot by the ubercharger. Instead he brings in 4 or 5 monsters all with spellcasting which means ubercharging and perfect crowd control is mandatory to survive here. But this is high-op.

in a normal game, for damage, I'd say enough damage to 2 or 3 shot a creature is the minimum required damage.

Compared to a level 10 warlock's... 5d6 damage which averages out to... 17.5 damage a round, yeah no. No where near enough damage per round.

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think that, while people might overestimate save or X spells in a high-op game, since enemies are going to be higher CR/HD than normal and have better saves and immunities, it appears buffing is still underrated. I think the first time someone plays a buffer they might neglect the dispel weakness, but after that it's going to be difficult to just throw a dispeller at them and hope for the best. Allow me to explain in more detail what others have mentioned, and clarify some points:


FWIW, while it's harder to create a truly massive buff stack in PF, it's also harder to dispel it, what with the nerfs to the dispel magic line.
Area dispels, even if successfully landed, can only ever remove one spell from an individual buff stack, so they hardly "obliterate" anything. That's why people are talking about "sacrificial buffs," which are just low level permanent buffs like Arcane Mark that get dispelled before the rest of your stack. Hence, an area dispel that has any decent chance of dispelling one of your normal buffs will dispel an Arcane Mark instead.
As suggested, buffing CL is something buff stackers basically have to do, at least in the mid levels when dispel checks have a chance at hitting things. This takes care of both targeted and area dispels pretty handily if you've made the requisite investments. On one Incantatrix I played, by the time I had Metamagic Effect at level 8 I also had Elder Giant Magic (+3), Reserves of Strength (+3*), Persisted Suffer the Flesh (+5**), Create Magic Tattoo (+1), and a Ring of Enduring Arcana (+4 dispel DC) for a regular dispel DC of 35, which was a bit overkill, but increasing buff CL is good by itself anyway. Later on you can get generic great items like an Orange Ioun Stone (+1) and a Bead of Karma (+4) to make it even harder.
Buffers are often difficult to target, what with some of the buffs providing invisibility, concealment, cover, illusions, and false targets. Greater Mirror Image as an immediate action (or persisted) can turn even the most powerful dispel into a fizzle if the dispeller is not careful.
Buffers can also be good dispellers and counterspellers if they so desire, especially since they've probably buffed their CL. Things like Battlemagic Perception or a Ring of Spell Battle can ruin any dispeller's day by free action counterspelling the dispel or redirecting it to the dispeller, respectively.
Many of the items already listed, like a Spellblade, a Ring of Enduring Arcana, and a Ring of Counterspells, are all pretty cheap. The more expensive stuff isn't as necessary, but can be quite fun and useful. Buffers often don't need the more traditional money sink items, as they create common effects themselves, and so they can afford more esoteric uses of wealth to enhance/protect their shtick.
There is basically one type of character who can strike fear into the hearts of buffers in the mid-game: a Psion with transparency. Without especially paranoid CL buffing as demonstrated above, the Psion can actually outpace dispel DC due to the way the power augments. A Psion 8 with Overchannel and Planar Touchstone for the Inquisition domain can manage a dispel modifier of +24, and he has the tools to actually target the buffer via Touchsight. This is why a dedicated buffer who isn't allowed to have a bunch of spell blades probably puts Dispel Psionics in his Ring of Counterspells, as opposed to one of the other dispels. Technically a Wizard can get crazy dispel checks as well, but he has to invest a lot more than two feats, one of which is generally useful, and the psion has better built in action economy to get around counterspelling.


*Ironically, the reasonable ruling on RoS that the CL cap break is limited to the bonus granted actually helps buffers, because then you can't get around dispel caps so easily.
**For special occasions like adventuring days. Also, sometimes, Terran Brandy.

[RoboEmperor]

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

Could you show your work? The only eldritch blast damage boost I know is greater chasuble of fell power and it's only 2d6 for 7d6.

Mortalbane boosts it by 2d6 5/day

Maximize and quicken are only applied 3 a day.

So your first round of damage is... 108 damage (impressive).
Your 2nd round of damage is... 54 + (average of 9d6) = 54 + 31.5 = 85.5 damage (impressive)
Your 3rd round of damage is (average of 9d6) + (average of 7d6) = 31.5 + 24.5 = 56 damage (acceptable)
Your 4th round of damage is (average of 7d6) = 24.5 damage (worthless)

And you can't add any form of eldritch shape or essence when you're doing this. Compare this to a 10th level sorcerer optimizing Lesser Orb of Fire who can throw a twin maximized repeating lesser orb of fire 3 times a day dealing 160 damage each, or twinned maximized lesser orb of fire 6 times dealing 80 damage each time after that, and maximized repeating lesser orb of fire dealing 80 damage each time 7 times after that.

Your optimized warlock craps out after 3 rounds of combat while this sorcerer is good for 16 rounds of combat.

And then there's arcane spell surge and arcane fusion.

As others said, Warlock's power is in either glaive blasting or debuffs. Not his ranged EB damage.

[InvisibleBison]

See this is another baseless claim... where did you get 5d6 for a level 10 warlock? You are literally assuming no optimization at all, and not actually being level 10? With items it is easily 8 or 9d6, can be maximized, mortalbaned, quickened, and hits touch ac. Everyone saying "warlocks dont do damage" is apparently uninformed. 2d6+50 from an ubercharger doesnt really outdo that. Not to mention virteolic blast at 11... idk what math people are doing.

In addition to someonenoone11's points, I'd like to point out the following:

9d6: Average 31.5, maximum 54.
2d6+50: Average 57, maximum 62.

I'd call that the latter numbers outdoing the former.

[Deophaun]

There is basically one type of character who can strike fear into the hearts of buffers in the mid-game: a Psion with transparency.
Or a DM that knows about dweomer vortex. But these are rare.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

I am a DM who deals with "OP" characters a lot, as well as a player, though we do tend to have characters optimized in different ways than what people say to do for various builds. We do a mix of D&D and pathfinder, and we have been using things from some other sources like d20 future (namely me for the mutations)
Like my little brother who always builds the hardest hitting player (not always brute strength, spells too) has regularly done about 200 damage a hit. (Yeah try gearing campaigns around dealing with that). He even figured out how to cast 80 fireballs in 1 observable round (timestop).
Another player builds very feat heavy archers, he ends up with a rather good archer that does some significant damage with bows. He also uses a lot of strange equipment and/or feats that makes it so he's almost never useless.
The last player loves to go critical hits along with being rather tanky. Usually using strongarm bracers and wielding a large scimitar and kukri. He's probably the least "optimized" but he ends up being one of the hardest to kill of the group, lots of health and lots of damage.
I tend to build very strange characters. Like I've got this catfolk ninja who can use the jump spell at will, and has a pretty good speed when he has all his buffs up. Well through the ninja you can high jump REALLY easy at level 10. Like hight equal to roll or something like that. I found the feat roof jumper which adds damage if you fall more than 10 ft onto an opponent with an attack. I think it was he can jump something like 60 ft without rolling, I'd have to double check the math. But that mixed with the greater vanishing trick from ninja, leads to some pretty decent damage. He deals with the fall damage by the landing ability on armor and catspaw boots (the boots reduce all fall dame dice he ever takes to auto 1's) so the most damage he'll ever take from a fall onto normal ground is 14 (max fall damage is 20d6 landing treats it as 60 ft less and boots make them all 1's)

These aren't the only characters that our group builds that are "op" but they are the ones that come to mind. Also I should note that we do use the advanced race guide to make races, we've built a world and we've been adding new races to it. Usually the race gets play tested before actually put into the world, so that tends to add into our characters' overpower.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Or a DM that knows about dweomer vortex. But these are rare.Good pull! I didn't know that existed, but it doesn't surprise me that FR fluff writers once again had no clue what game balance was. In any event, that's another great reason to cast a bunch of low level long-lasting spells on yourself, like Magic Mouth or Magic Aura, to eat up the Vortex effect.

[Heliomance]

None of those actually work on an area dispel. An area greater dispel will obliterate those.

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.
Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.
Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.
Jacking up your caster level is obvious.
Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.
Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

[Doctor Awkward]

I expect RAI is that all full attack charge mechanisms are meant to work the same but the RAW is straightforward enough here that a DM who wants to nerf an ubercharger has plenty of ammunition.

The problem here is treating these methods differently in the name of almighty RAW is counterproductive.

If the DM wants to rule at his table that only the first attack on a pounce benefits from charging modifiers that's his prerogative.

But saying, "this is strict RAW so here's how all these different methods are treated", is the same trap that Pathfinder fell into with its various spell nerfs: nerfing a spell doesn't actually do anything to affect a spellcaster's overall level of power if there is still at least one spell that also lets him win at the same level.

It's the same thing here. If there are still ways to get obscene ubercharger damage in your game then you haven't actually nerfed the concept of uberchargers. You've just made them less interesting because there are fewer options the player will want to use.

Aside from the fact that I think it's very important to consider obvious intent when adjudicating the rules as written, it's really pointless to subject all of these different methods to different rules. Just decide up front how charging modifiers interact with pounce at your games.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you want to nerf uberchargers just ban Valorous weapons and Leap Attack. And Spirited Charge if they want to use mounted combat.
That'll keep the numbers lower without involving a back-and-forth RAW discussion.
That's your prerogative as a DM and it's a lot more respectable than trying to pull up a RAW interpretation that supports your goal of "chargers should do less damage" by doing a lot of squinting, going over rules text with a fine-toothed comb and coming up with the most asinine rules interpretation that you can somehow justify, if only to yourself.

Blocking charging is a stopgap measure and - aside from the fact that it'll seem ridiculously contrived after a while if it happens every encounter - only works if your player doesn't know the counters.
There are items, feats and skill tricks that let you get around that even if you can't just fly. And you only need 10ft distance to charge, which is possible in most environments.

Keep in mind that that won't suddenly make a non-glaive warlock do competitive damage.
People complain about TWF and blasting, but with some effort you can still do respectable damage with those too, it just requires more effort than "take Power Attack and charge".
Respectable meaning "kill a CR-appropriate opponent in 1 round" because that's not just possible for uberchargers, it's possible for every class that can remotely claim the title of damage dealer. If you build for it.

Using "caster who didn't actually build to be good at blasting" or "fighter with nothing giving a damage bonus except baseline strength, using sword & board" as a baseline for a damage dealer is just unrealistic.
If someone wants to do damage you expect them to actually build to be good at doing damage, not actively sabotage themselves.

Of course you can ban some of those options too if you want lower damage in your game, but at the absolute least your baseline for damage should be "TWF rogue doing a full attack sneak attack".
It's easy because the damage is built into the class and TWF is a no-brainer for it. You have to actively try to be less optimized. That's the absolute baseline low-op measuring stick, for me at least.
Because if that's still too much you have to start nerfing the base class, and at that point you might as well look for a different game.
If you're below that you're just not competitive in damage, it's that simple.

[Deophaun]

Good pull! I didn't know that existed, but it doesn't surprise me that FR fluff writers once again had no clue what game balance was. In any event, that's another great reason to cast a bunch of low level long-lasting spells on yourself, like Magic Mouth or Magic Aura, to eat up the Vortex effect.
That is the problem with magic users: defense can always outclass offense. You can throw reciprocal gyre into the mix, but there are ways around that, too.

There comes a point where the only solution is to sit down with the players and have a talk about power levels.

[Deadline]

And you can't add any form of eldritch shape or essence when you're doing this.

This is important. By level 10, SR is a thing, and you don't have Vitriolic Blast yet.

The main benefit of the Warlock as a blaster isn't doing competitive levels of damage (it's a sub-par blaster, even when optimized), it's that it can do it all day. Which is only really great in very specific circumstances.

A Warlock is much better used as Battlefield Control, or Utility. Blasting is a thing it can do, but it fares worse than real spellcasters or dedicated melee damage dealers.

[Calthropstu]

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.
Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.
Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.
Jacking up your caster level is obvious.
Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.
Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

Actually, that contingent spell would flat fail. An area doesn't target you.

Contingent spell: when one of my spells would be in an area affected by an effect that could dispel it, dimension door me to the nearest open space outside the dispel effect might do the trick, but it would be quite dangerous as well, and could well remove you completely from battle for a round if "the nearest empty space unaffected" happens to be on the other side of a wall or on another floor... potentially agroing another combat.

In fact, that's just asking for death against a diviner because they can set up a nasty ambush using dispel magic.

Greater counterspell ring I have never seen so... eh?
The celerity ones I am guessing is a contingent add-on? Yeah, that would work. ****ty contingency though, and given the costs involved highly impractical. Most use "when something would kill me" as their contingent condition instead of "when something would minorly inconvenience me."

[Anthrowhale]

The problem here is treating these methods differently in the name of almighty RAW is counterproductive.

I actually don't think uberchargers are particularly overpowered. They have a limited competency which has some significant drawbacks. Against a bunch of mooks with ranged or reach weapons they are weak by default since Shock Trooper dumps their AC and their attack only kills one mook.

The primary reason to impose RAW here is just one of texture. It's a richer world if there are multiple kinds of pounce. Furthermore, there's an obvious implication that a snow tiger berserker polymorphed into a lion and taking the dire charge feat can get off 3 full attacks in or immediately after a charge.

[Deadline]

The celerity ones I am guessing is a contingent add-on? Yeah, that would work. ****ty contingency though, and given the costs involved highly impractical. Most use "when something would kill me" as their contingent condition instead of "when something would minorly inconvenience me."

The Celerity spells are in the PHB 2, and are immediate actions.

And at higher levels of optimization, "when something would kill me" and "when something would minorly inconvenience me" are functionally the same, assuming you are equating dispelling buffs with "minor inconvenience."

Edit - Ring of Counterspells is in DMG, the Greater one is in the Magic Item Compendium. The Ring of Spellbattle is in Complete Arcane.

[RoboEmperor]

I actually don't think uberchargers are particularly overpowered. They have a limited competency which has some significant drawbacks. Against a bunch of mooks with ranged or reach weapons they are weak by default since Shock Trooper dumps their AC and their attack only kills one mook.

The primary reason to impose RAW here is just one of texture. It's a richer world if there are multiple kinds of pounce. Furthermore, there's an obvious implication that a snow tiger berserker polymorphed into a lion and taking the dire charge feat can get off 3 full attacks in or immediately after a charge.

1 monster encounters - Uberchargers OP as hell. They end the encounter before the monster gets to even act.
1+ monster encounters - Uberchargers make no real difference.

It does force the DM to remove 1 monster encounters from the game, and DMs who love playing boss monsters are gonna hate uberchargers.

[Crake]

Actually, area dispel only bypasses spellblade and probably ring of spell turning. Sacrificial buffs only protect against area dispel (as a targetted dispel doesn't stop after stripping one buff) but all the others work fine against both types.

Lets see shall we?


Contingent spell: "When I would be the target of a dispel, DDoor me out of the way" works fine.

How do you know you're the target of the dispel until you've been hit by it? You can have it trigger upon casting, but then they can just choose to dispel someone else, or just drop an area dispel on your whole party. Unless everyone has it, then the whole party disappears when someone casts dispel magic, hey, easy win for the bad guys, they only had to cast one spell and got full XP for defeating the encounter. Also you're wasting 2,800gp per crafted contingency here. Let's also not forget that contingent spells can be dispelled, and jacking up THEIR caster level isn't so easy.


Wings of Cover breaks line of effect (bursts don't affect creatures with full cover) - you're fine.

Read the specifics of the text: "Your foe could choose to attack the area in which you have taken cover with an area attack (such as a fireball spell). In this case, you gain a +8 bonus to AC (if applicable) and a +4 bonus on Reflex saves." Unfortunately +8 to AC and +4 to reflex saves doesn't do much against an area dispel. Sure he can't target you directly, but he can certainly throw an area one at you.


Ring of (greater) counterspells lets you counter the spell as it gets cast - you're fine.

Ring of greater counterspells only counters spells being targetted at you. An area dispel does cast on you, it's cast on an area. It cannot counterspell fireball anymore than it can counter an area dispel.


Jacking up your caster level is obvious.

If you're going to spend a significant chunk of your wealth by level to jack up your buffs, you may as well be buying magic items at that point. You're rarely going to be hitting the dispel CL cap unless you're playing a super high level game, and even then, there are ways to surpass it with things like dispel chords and the inquisition domain. I'd call that an even game there.


Lesser Celerity lets you take a move action to get behind cover. Celerity lets you take a standard action, which means you can cast a spell, and if that doesn't let you dodge a Dispel Magic you're doing it wrong.

The irony of celerity is of course that you cast celerity, then the enemy sees you casting celerity and casts celerity themselves. And now they act before you in the celerity line, and get their dispel off. Celerity is a 0 sum game.


Ring of Spell-Battle probably works fine.

Ring of spell battle indeed works fine, but it's eating up a chunk of your wbl. It also needs the enemy to be within 60ft to function, while dispel's range starts at 150ft.

[RoboEmperor]

What's with all these people complaining about area dispels? Area dispels dispel at most ONE buff. DMM:Persist Clerics have an ungodly amount of buffs and losing one is absolutely no big deal.

Wasting a turn to dispel one of many buffs is a win for the cleric.

[Calthropstu]

What's with all these people complaining about area dispels? Area dispels dispel at most ONE buff. DMM:Persist Clerics have an ungodly amount of buffs and losing one is absolutely no big deal.

Wasting a turn to dispel one of many buffs is a win for the cleric.

True enough. Actually, the best way to disable such buffs is to force them (or trick them) to move through a dispel wall dispelling everything at once.

[Zanos]

True enough. Actually, the best way to disable such buffs is to force them (or trick them) to move through a dispel wall dispelling everything at once.
Wall of dispel caps at +10, and as far as I know there isn't a greater version. Considering you get it at CL 9, it doesn't stay viable for a super long time.

Rod of Chaining + (Greater) Dispel Magic works, IIRC.

But now we're just optimizing stuff to try to beat an optimizer, in any party where one guy is more optimized than the other party members, there's going to be problems whether the DM can provide appropriate challenges to the optimizer or not.

EDIT: There is a greater version, but it's an 8th level spell.

[Zombulian]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas.

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork. The most problematic "powergamers" are oftentimes those who have just recently discovered this concept of optimization and show up with some sort of uber-character meanwhile their party-mates are taking Toughness as their 6th level feat.

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.

[Zanos]

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.
I don't think they're terrible, since you can get great picks like at will flight, +6 to conversation skills, at will black tentacles+, animate dead with a free timed version, etc. But if you take them as a primary blaster I think you're going to be disappointed. They're usually aren't enough combat rounds in the day to make doing 5d6 at will better than 10d6 in an AoE eight times a day.

[Deophaun]

If you're going to spend a significant chunk of your wealth by level to jack up your buffs, you may as well be buying magic items at that point.
I dunno about you, but my characters generally start buying magic items at level 2.

You're rarely going to be hitting the dispel CL cap unless you're playing a super high level game, and even then, there are ways to surpass it with things like dispel chords and the inquisition domain. I'd call that an even game there.
This is poor reasoning.
A) Boosting CL affects more than just dispel chance. It affects duration and often the strength of the effect as well which are reason enough to pursue CL increases.
B) Even if you don't completely protect from dispelling with a CL boost, you still reduce the chance of the dispel from taking effect, making it worth while to build protection a little at a time. The more protection you have, the less desirable it is for your enemy to spend an action in combat hoping to get past it.
C) Aside from dispelling cords, which are limited use and provide a modest boost to dispell checks, things that go over the cap are heavily build dependent, requiring not just feats but levels.
D) No matter what you do, the cap still exists. There's no way to break it, only to raise it to keep dispelling relevant for a few more levels for those who specialize.
E) Enemy resources spent on boosting dispel checks just to keep up are resources they aren't spending elsewhere. Meanwhile, see point A.

[Calthropstu]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas.

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork. The most problematic "powergamers" are oftentimes those who have just recently discovered this concept of optimization and show up with some sort of uber-character meanwhile their party-mates are taking Toughness as their 6th level feat.

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.

This. I have never run into problems with major over-optimization, and the few people I know who have run into it executed banhammers quite quickly.

I know how to hit pretty hard with a melee character, and I know how to support my allies and disable my enemies with spells.

My powerful summoner oracle I made for the mythic campaign I was in had extreme offense, but almost no defense. He died more than once, and I was ok with that.

The only time I am liable to complain is when the gm instagibs almost the entire party with something stupid (like a 10th lvl spell equivalent scroll...)

[RoboEmperor]

I personally believe warlocks are superior to sorcerers once they hit that level where they can craft any item in the game (imbue item at level 12). It turns them into lesser artificers and lesser artificers are tier1.

With PrCs like divine crusaders CL9 scrolls of gate and miracle is possible.

Through this every out of combat TO shenanigan is available to the warlock.

Mind Switch + Astral Seed + Gate to do a race change with any creature in the game either through transparency rules and miracle or wishing for those items and UPD.

Infinite wealth shenanigans and ambrosia/liquid pain

etc etc

[Crake]

I dunno about you, but my characters generally start buying magic items at level 2.

I meant, instead of spending wealth by level on protecting your buffs, you just buy magic items to achieve the same effect.


This is poor reasoning.
A) Boosting CL affects more than just dispel chance. It affects duration and often the strength of the effect as well which are reason enough to pursue CL increases.
B) Even if you don't completely protect from dispelling with a CL boost, you still reduce the chance of the dispel from taking effect, making it worth while to build protection a little at a time. The more protection you have, the less desirable it is for your enemy to spend an action in combat hoping to get past it.
C) Aside from dispelling cords, which are limited use and provide a modest boost to dispell checks, things that go over the cap are heavily build dependent, requiring not just feats but levels.
D) No matter what you do, the cap still exists. There's no way to break it, only to raise it to keep dispelling relevant for a few more levels for those who specialize.
E) Enemy resources spent on boosting dispel checks just to keep up are resources they aren't spending elsewhere. Meanwhile, see point A.

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark? My point isn't that you aren't boosting your CL, my point is your boosts can be mirrored by the dispel's boosts unless you're going above CL20.
B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.
C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.
D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.
E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.

[Heliomance]

But it's far more likely that a buff-focused cleric is going to have spent significant resources on making their buffs hard to dispel than it is that a random enemy is going to have spent significant amounts of resources on dispelling better.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark? My point isn't that you aren't boosting your CL, my point is your boosts can be mirrored by the dispel's boosts unless you're going above CL20.
B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.
C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.
D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.
E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.

You're right that in most games CL isn't buffed high enough stop a dedicated dispelling build (though it's certainly possible).
I disagree on the point that boosting CL is a 0 sum argument though, since boosting CL does a lot more than just protect your buffs.
Plenty of buffs scale with CL even if you don't take into account the offensive benefits.
Depending on what you paid for your CL increase that can be worth a lot more than getting similar buffs on items for the same cost even if you disregard the better protection against dispels, especially if it's buffs that affect the whole party.

[Deophaun]

I meant, instead of spending wealth by level on protecting your buffs, you just buy magic items to achieve the same effect.
If I spent money on magic items to achieve the same effect I can get from a CL-boosted armor of darkness, I'm looking at epic pricing.

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark?
That's actually where I start looking to get my CL boosted above 20. Reserves of Strength, magic tattoo, bead of karma, even death knell. Totally doable. And then I fear dispels, so I spend some on a ring of enduring arcana and I've got an additional 13 to my CL.

B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.
And if they don't, they automatically fail. Which they won't, because boosting CL is easier.

C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point.
You don't need to Persist buffs to have them up all the time, so I don't see your point. Don't get me wrong, persist is great if you're looking at buffs that last 1 round or 1 minute a level, but you can make a nice CoDzilla limiting yourself to 10 min or hour/level spells.

Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17.
+8 is less than +13. You are not a threat.

D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.
I didn't know 13 was between 4 and 8. This bloody Common Core math...

But the higher the level you are, the more openings there are for boosting CL. You are still spending resources just to ensure your one trick maybe keeps pace. That's a losing proposition. You're going to want to start looking to retrain those feats.

E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.
Yeah. I spent resources making sure everyone in my party has a +5 enhancement to their weapon and armor. Which then is money I did not have to spend enhancing my weapon or armor. You, meanwhile, spent a lot of resources to still fail 100% of the time.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.
We're talking about dispel. I've already provided means elsewhere for ignoring CL checks at much lower levels.

[Deadline]

But it's far more likely that a buff-focused cleric is going to have spent significant resources on making their buffs hard to dispel than it is that a random enemy is going to have spent significant amounts of resources on dispelling better.

This. And before we go too far down the rabbit hole, I don't think anyone is suggesting that in an arms race, the Player wins. It's pretty clear that in that situation, the DM wins. Whether that win comes in the form of arbitrary "you lose" rulings, or simply amping the resources on an enemy to the point where it may as well be "you lose" doesn't really matter. I will go out on what to me looks like a very sturdy limb and say that a DM going out of their way to no-sell player actions is doing themselves and their players a dis-service, just as a player trying to break a game that isn't explicitly high-op is. Ignoring both of those extremes, the DM is going to try to present challenges for players, and players are going to find ways to mitigate bad stuff from happening.

The problems arise when DM's think that "challenge" means taking away the tools the players have (agency, abilities, or what have you), and when players think "mitigate" means "negate" or create "auto-win" options out of RAW arguments. And mostly those two happen because the responsible party is lazy, or lacks the ability to adapt.

If you play with the intent to have fun and help your fellows around the table have fun (and they do the same), you'll probably never run into a problem. Most of the "practical optimization" advice given around here at least seems to be based entirely on educating someone who may not know how a thing works. They aren't devils trying to ruin your games. Telling someone that two weapon fighting without damage boosters isn't as good as using a two-handed weapon isn't some big secret, but can come as a shock to newer players who mistakenly thought "two weapons means twice the damage!"

With regards to TO, well that's mostly just entertaining thought experiments. My hat is off to any table who can make a game work with TO.

[Crake]

You're right that in most games CL isn't buffed high enough stop a dedicated dispelling build (though it's certainly possible).
I disagree on the point that boosting CL is a 0 sum argument though, since boosting CL does a lot more than just protect your buffs.
Plenty of buffs scale with CL even if you don't take into account the offensive benefits.
Depending on what you paid for your CL increase that can be worth a lot more than getting similar buffs on items for the same cost even if you disregard the better protection against dispels, especially if it's buffs that affect the whole party.

If the spells are dispelled in the first round of combat, then the CL boosts provided no benefit other than making it harder for the dispeller to dispel them, so i'd say yes, it's a 0 sum game. Obviously, if you're using the CL boosts in combat, that's a different story, but the scenario here is a DMM persist buffer, who used his CL boosts at the start of the day.

[Zanos]

C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.
For what it's worth you can get a +4 from a Ring of Enduring Arcana(6k) and a +5 from Dispelling Buffer, although some would have to check me for the best way to get a 6th level psion power. Those are increases to the DC to dispel, not caster level boosts.

[Crake]

+8 is less than +13. You are not a threat.

So you're comparing literally a 1000gp minor item to your selection of spells, feats and wbl? +8 is where a dispeller starts. Karma bead alone brings it up to +12 for a fraction of what you've spent. Death knell and magic tattoo are from two different classes, so that's either not a thing, or you're spending extra character resources to access both of them, but even so, either are an option for a dispeller as well. To cover the last step to get +14 over your +13 for an automatic dispel, you take your pick, feats items, class features. Of course, anything before +13 doesn't mean an automatic fail, it simply means not an automatic success.


I didn't know 13 was between 4 and 8. This bloody Common Core math...

Yes, because everyone plays the game the same way you do, you must be the status quo, right?


For what it's worth you can get a +4 from a Ring of Enduring Arcana(6k) and a +5 from Dispelling Buffer, although some would have to check me for the best way to get a 6th level psion power. Those are increases to the DC to dispel, not caster level boosts.

Ring of enduring arcana certainly is an annoying hurdle for a dispeller, but when you think about it, all it does is being the process of evening the playing field. My whole point though, was that the CL level on dispel magic rarely comes into play, simply because the +8 a dispeller can get also isn't a CL boost, which means it goes above the cap. You go from needing to merely beat CL20, to needing to beat CL 28. Ring of enduring arcana ESSENTIALLY brings that back down to 24.

[Coretron03]

Yes, beads of karma. That Item that only lasts 10 minutes and requires a standard action to activate. I’m sure that will benefit the guy who has to activate it before/in combat to get use out of it, rather than the guy who casts all of his to-be dispelled spells at the start of the day that could happen to take less than ten minutes :smalltongue:.

[Zanos]

Ring of enduring arcana certainly is an annoying hurdle for a dispeller, but when you think about it, all it does is being the process of evening the playing field. My whole point though, was that the CL level on dispel magic rarely comes into play, simply because the +8 a dispeller can get also isn't a CL boost, which means it goes above the cap. You go from needing to merely beat CL20, to needing to beat CL 28. Ring of enduring arcana ESSENTIALLY brings that back down to 24.
I also think there's a core disadvantage to dispelling in that buffs are usually cast in relative safety at the beginning of the day, so you're free to blow situational CL boosters on them, which is more difficult to do in the middle of combat. I'm not saying you can't make a dedicated dispeller that's pretty good, but I think the math is going to lean towards the defender if both people are optimizing.

[Deophaun]

So you're comparing literally a 1000gp minor item to your selection of spells, feats and wbl? +8 is where a dispeller starts.
What item is 1000 gp and gives you a +8? You're being ridiculous now.

Karma bead alone brings it up to +12 for a fraction of what you've spent.
Coretron03 successfully mocked this. Same for death knell. Or do you frequently ritually sacrifice livestock six seconds before a battle? I have characters that do that at the start of every day. I find it very appropriate for the religions of your run-of-the-mill D&D setting.

To cover the last step to get +14 over your +13 for an automatic dispel, you take your pick, feats items, class features. Of course, anything before +13 doesn't mean an automatic fail, it simply means not an automatic success.
If you're taking 10 on your check, it's an automatic fail. And taking 10 is the whole point of Arcane Mastery. Which is why it's actually a bad feat: If you've specialized in dispelling, you don't really need it against those who haven't taken precautions against it, and if you do run up against people who have taken precautions, you fail. Taking 10 is for when you know you will succeed, which in this case you cannot.

Yes, because everyone plays the game the same way you do, you must be the status quo, right?
You said 4-8 at most.. Your words, not mine. Your other category was people with +40.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That is the problem with magic users: defense can always outclass offense. You can throw reciprocal gyre into the mix, but there are ways around that, too.

There comes a point where the only solution is to sit down with the players and have a talk about power levels.That is definitely true, and not at all limited to buffers, but the nice thing about buffers is that they can mitigate interparty balance issues by helping everyone. The DMM cleric might be a powerhouse, but if he persists Recitation/Righteous Wrath of the Faithful/Vigorous Circle along with his personal buffs, the DM can still find an encounter that challenges everyone without murdering some, and he doesn't even have to contrive metagame counters.

Regarding the benefits of CL, here are some arcane spells that especially benefit from CL boosting:

Any hrs/level or 10 minutes/level buff is helped tremendously by increasing buffing CL
Skin of the Steel Dragon grants SR dependent on CL
Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Mighty Wallop enhance weapons based on CL
Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability grants a CL-dependent number of spells to transfer to one's familiar, which is important for an incantatrix without a caster buddy
Loresong provides CL-dependent skill boost
Ferocity of Sanguine Rage provides CL-dependent damage boost for gishes
Otiluke's Suppressing Field uses CL to set a DC to no-sell types of spells, like a Spell Resistance that doesn't care about the SR:No tag. Technically you can use this to prevent dispels as well, if you have selective spell or don't mind never casting abjurations.
And as mentioned, Clerics have plenty of numeric CL-based buffs right in core.

Here are some ways that buffers find it easier to boost buff CL over in-combat CL:

Bead of Karma, as mentioned, is easier to use out of combat
Elder Giant Magic
Reserves of Strength is at least slightly easier to use out of combat, since you can deal with stun or heal the damage over time without trouble
Terran Brandy
Death Knell
For that spell that just must be high CL, there's also Spell Enhancer.

Psions, Dweomer Vortex users, and Adamantine Horrors aside, the dedicated dispeller is both far more niche in application and ends up falling behind dedicated buffers anyway due to the buffer's downtime advantages. It's a bit of trouble to dedicate some feats and items to protecting against dispel, but when you make buffing your shtick you tend to provide benefits that far outstrip all of your WBL put together. Should a regular wizard take Elder Giant Magic just so his few hrs/level buffs stay up and his Greater Magic Weapon probably gives another +1? Probably not. But a persister should take every opportunity to increase buffing CL.

[jdizzlean]

I think the issue OP notes that in his experience (and frankly in my experience), the VAST majority of players are not making super hyper tweaked optimized characters using material from 10 different books and five alternate class features. Most parties will have a few players who are totally fine playing a straight fighter because they just want to hit some goblins.

People who post here are more likely the exception, not the rule.


Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas. or fighter vs wiz

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork.

on this board, during competitions, building, judging, or just discussing, i'll usually research the ever living poo out of things to try and come up with, or understand what is being done.

in the game I play in, i might try to throw something in now and again, but it's not important to be the OMG best guy at the table.

point of fact, at my table, i probably know the very least about D&D despite having played it for going on 25 years now. I imagine most everyone on this board is probably pretty close to the same if they actually play in a game w/ people instead of just post about it on this forum.

[Menzath]

Some neat gems in here. Like how their are the various versions of pounce, you can have two different types, one that changes the single attack to a full attack, and another that let's you full attack after your pounce attack.
Of course the various dispelling and counter dispelling tricks.

But as far as PC's being to OP... A player only has as much power as a DM let's them attain.
Wether purposefully or out of neglect/naivety it is still up to the DM to balance gameplay accordingly, even of it means tunning prewritten campaigns.

And I like bfc warlocks, I mean, black tentacles and wall of force at will, with craft anything support.

[icefractal]

In the realm of theory vs practice -
It's common knowledge on here that magic like divinations, teleportation, etc disrupt a GMs plans much more than merely dealing enough damage to one-shot any foe. And thus, a GM who allows the former shouldn't raise an eyebrow at the latter.

IMO, no, not at all. While /IC/ it's certainly a bigger change to rework the BBEGs whole plan than for some monsters to have different stats, that's not the case OOC at all. The former I can do with mostly just thinking about it, occasionally checking the rules for something, and it can happen when I'm commuting or taking a walk. The latter is a lot of work custom-building foes, and requires dedicated time at home.

Also, it's hard to handle ubercharger-level damage except by negating it entirely (multiple foes only works vs certain types, it won't hinder an uber-shooter for instance). And for many characters, that means making them mostly useless for the fight.

And yes, I /could/ handle this by just thinking of fights as very short affairs that aren't a big part of gameplay, like making Survival checks or something; I wouldn't necessarily mind that. Problem is that most people who sign up for D&D do care about the fights.

[Doctor Awkward]

Some neat gems in here. Like how their are the various versions of pounce, you can have two different types, one that changes the single attack to a full attack, and another that let's you full attack after your pounce attack.

I would definitely take those assertions with a heavy dose of salt.

So far as any reasonable DM is concerned, there is definitely only one version of pounce, because the intent is obvious enough from the description what is supposed to be happening: instead of a single attack on a charge, you make a full attack action, all of which is part of the same charge action.

Contrary to popular opinion, mildly ambiguous wording is not, and never has been, license to ignore obvious intent. And common sense has always mattered when adjudicating the rules as written.

I didn't say this earlier because I really have no interest in derailing this thread by arguing as such, nor am I invested enough in such a debate to start a brand new thread my self.

[icefractal]

So far as any reasonable DM is concerned, there is definitely only one version of pounce, because the intent is obvious enough from the description what is supposed to be happening: instead of a single attack on a charge, you make a full attack action, all of which is part of the same charge action.Bit of an assumption there. Going only by the MM version, "one charge attack plus a non-charge full attack" seems like the more obvious reading. And conceptually, it seems like as good or better of a fit. So I'm not sure why I'd "obviously" want to use something else instead.

[jdizzlean]

what pretty much no one will ever admit, because they are all trying to change your mind, is that in D&D, EVERY DM is right, all the time.

so all the various opinions about things in this or any thread are all valid, just not as valid in each individual's mind as their opinion.

[JNAProductions]

what pretty much no one will ever admit, because they are all trying to change your mind, is that in D&D, EVERY DM is right, all the time.

so all the various opinions about things in this or any thread are all valid, just not as valid in each individual's mind as their opinion.

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.

[frogglesmash]

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.

Your example is a statement of fact, not opinions. Opinions have no intrinsic validity, instead their validity is derived from integrity of the premises they're based on. The exception being purely subjective opinions.

[Crake]

What item is 1000 gp and gives you a +8? You're being ridiculous now.

+4 from inquisition domain (obtainable with a feat for non-clerics), +2 from elven spell lore, and +2 from a 1,000gp item, dispelling cord. Adds up to +8 there.


If you're taking 10 on your check, it's an automatic fail. And taking 10 is the whole point of Arcane Mastery. Which is why it's actually a bad feat: If you've specialized in dispelling, you don't really need it against those who haven't taken precautions against it, and if you do run up against people who have taken precautions, you fail. Taking 10 is for when you know you will succeed, which in this case you cannot.

Except when you fail the roll against the first buff with arcane master you can just roll for the next buff to be dispelled. You don't have to take 10 or roll for EVERY buff the enemy has, that's how pathfinder dispel magic works, one roll against all buffs.

[jdizzlean]

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.


I find it funny in a community that so heavily relies on RAW and RAI that you ignore both.

DMG, page 5:


The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and
leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the
game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun.

so every DM is correct whether you like it or not. We're not talking shades of correct, or right vs wrong correct, or it's the blue plate special of correct. in that game, in that world, the DM is law, and therefor correct.

whether through argumentation or otherwise you manage to change that ruling, the DM is still infallible.

[frogglesmash]

so every DM is correct whether you like it or not. We're not talking shades of correct, or right vs wrong correct, or it's the blue plate special of correct. in that game, in that world, the DM is law, and therefor correct.

whether through argumentation or otherwise you manage to change that ruling, the DM is still infallible.
Rule 0 is not infallibility, and the use of rule 0 does not change RAW or RAI. Rule zero allows the DM to ignore RAW and RAI if they so choose and as such is not very relevant in discussions about RAW and RAI.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I guess I should start reinterpreting the times I was GM and I mis-remembered what the book said, or I was internally inconsistent, or I made an arithmetic error. It's not that humans make mistakes, and I am human; I was right all along! Except if I misinterpreted those events when I was a GM, that means I made a mistake as a GM, and now I've gone cross eyed.

Any DM who reads too much into that passage will fail to be a "master of ... the fun."

[Deophaun]

+4 from inquisition domain (obtainable with a feat for non-clerics), +2 from elven spell lore, and +2 from a 1,000gp item, dispelling cord. Adds up to +8 there.
Oh, so it's ok for you to use feats, but it's not ok for me. As I said: you're being silly.

Except when you fail the roll against the first buff with arcane master you can just roll for the next buff to be dispelled. You don't have to take 10 or roll for EVERY buff the enemy has, that's how pathfinder dispel magic works, one roll against all buffs.
My confusion is that you have the feats to waste on something completely useless, so I thought we were doing Pathfinder.

[Zanos]

whether through argumentation or otherwise you manage to change that ruling, the DM is still infallible.
The DM is only as "infallible" as his players will tolerate. Can't exactly run a game if nobody will suffer your ego.

[sleepyphoenixx]

My confusion is that you have the feats to waste on something completely useless, so I thought we were doing Pathfinder.

I'd hardly call improving your dispelling to essentially be guaranteed something completely useless. The most dangerous enemies in the game are those that use magic after all.
That's especially true if you combine it with Divine Defiance to also use your improved dispels to counterspell (as an immediate action).
Not to mention you can get the Inquisition domain essentially for free if you have the right alignment (Church Inquisitor).

And lets not forget that a dedicated dispeller is still a full caster, so spending 2-3 feats on being really good at it doesn't exactly cripple them against enemies that aren't bothered by dispel/counterspell.

I've used casters like that against my players more than once and it always gives them trouble. Because in most games players don't actually boost their CL high enough to be immune to it.

[Calthropstu]

I'd hardly call improving your dispelling to essentially be guaranteed something completely useless. The most dangerous enemies in the game are those that use magic after all.
That's especially true if you combine it with Divine Defiance to also use your improved dispels to counterspell (as an immediate action).
Not to mention you can get the Inquisition domain essentially for free if you have the right alignment (Church Inquisitor).

And lets not forget that a dedicated dispeller is still a full caster, so spending 2-3 feats on being really good at it doesn't exactly cripple them against enemies that aren't bothered by dispel/counterspell.

I've used casters like that against my players more than once and it always gives them trouble. Because in most games players don't actually boost their CL high enough to be immune to it.

Yeah, the most successful party I ever played in had a dispel specialist. To be fair, he was also good at other things, but when action economy is on your side, being able to negate the other side's entire turn is huge.

So throwing a small group together with a counterspell master will definitely be a challenge to any magic heavy party.

[Crake]

Oh, so it's ok for you to use feats, but it's not ok for me. As I said: you're being silly.

My confusion is that you have the feats to waste on something completely useless, so I thought we were doing Pathfinder.

When did say you couldn't use feats? Feat for feat though, you need 3 to set up DMM persist, so I picked 3 feats as well for dispelling.