Players are calling BS on Summon Marked Homunculus

[gogogome]

We just played our first 1st level game and three players, one archer rogue, one summon monster sorcerer, and one archer ranger, messaged me that Summon Marked Homunculus is absolute BS. Their reasons included: Arbalesters have +7 to hit at level 1 while they're at +4-5, they have Point Blank Shot, you can summon up to 4 at level 1, Expeditious Messenger is too good of a scout, and that their 1hour/level duration is just BS when all the other summoning spells last 1round/level.

The sorcerer that is casting summon marked homunculus is carrying an arbalester, has one riding him, and has one being carried by an expeditious messenger.

They're calling BS because you get iterative attacks at level 6, yet this sorcerer is shooting 3 shots a round at +7 and he'll be shooting 4 shots a round next level.

I explained to them that these guys don't get precise shot so they will have -4 to their attack most of the time, and enemies also have cover from his attack at -8, but then they said the sorcerer can summon expeditious messengers to carry the arbalesters above the enemies to avoid the cover penalty and be in range of point blank shot, before using their 2nd move action to fly far away, and he gets one more arbalester every level which is total BS.

How do I deal with the situation? The summon marked homunculus sorcerer isn't exactly abusing the rules as he is using those spells as intended so I don't want to do anything to him but the salt coming from these three players is very real.

[Yuki Akuma]

Summoning is, generally, pretty busted in D&D 3e-derived games. Summon Marked Homunculus is also probably the most ridiculously overpowered level 1 summoning spell in the game - it lasts for one hour per level in a system where most summons last for one round per level.

So yeah this spell is all kinda of broken, really.

I'd personally just ban the spell. It's ridiculous.

[Eldariel]

Summoning is, generally, pretty busted in D&D 3e-derived games. Summon Marked Homunculus is also probably the most ridiculously overpowered level 1 summoning spell in the game - it lasts for one hour per level in a system where most summons last for one round per level.

So yeah this spell is all kinda of broken, really.

I'd personally just ban the spell. It's ridiculous.

Or nerf it to one minute/level at best. That keeps it useful but not necessarily that overpowered...though of course it completely tramples all over Summon Monster I (but Summon Monster I isn't even usable as a 1st level spell). Arbalester is really strong for that level but falls off quick.

[zlefin]

While I'm not familiar with the spell, googling it quickly, the spell looks horribly broken. A summon lasting that long should be strictly non-combat (at least at such a low level).

sometimes you just have to ban stuff cuz it's broken; or ask the player to not use broken stuff as part of a gentleman's agreement to keep the power level equal across the party.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Summon Marked Homunculus is pretty good at level 1, but since it doesn't scale its usefulness falls rapidly as you gain in levels.
It also doesn't last all day, so if encounters are spaced out the sorcerer will have to ration his spells instead of summoning them all at once.

Really, the party should be happy for the effective covering fire while it lasts because it won't be that way for long.

As for carrying them with Expeditious Messengers, that flat-out doesn't work. EM's are diminutive and have str 1. They can't carry anything, certainly not a medium-sized light crossbow.

So i wouldn't ban anything. Level 1 isn't really balanced. Some options are just more effective at level 1 than others. It'll fix itself once they level once or twice.
A halfway decently build Crusader is an absolute beast at level 1 compared to other characters, that doesn't make them overpowered.

[RoboEmperor]

You guys are forgetting that Summon Marked Homunculus has both a feat tax and a race tax. And since it doesn't scale with level it becomes utterly worthless deadweight waste of a feat unless retraining is allowed.


As for carrying them with Expeditious Messengers, that flat-out doesn't work. EM's are diminiutive and have str 1. They can't carry anything, certainly not a medium-sized light crossbow.

It does work. A light crossbow weighs 4lbs so an Arbalester is 4lbs since it is a walking crossbow. Worst case scenario a tiny creature weighs at most 8lbs. 1str characters can carry 10lbs as a heavy load.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It does work. A light crossbow weighs 4lbs so an Arbalester is 4lbs since it is a walking crossbow. Worst case scenario a tiny creature weighs at most 8lbs. 1str characters can carry 10lbs as a heavy load.

Diminutive creatures have 1/4th the carrying capacity of a medium creature with the same strength.
Which for an Expeditious Messenger makes their max heavy load 2,5lb.

And that's before you consider that creatures with a fly speed can generally only fly with a light load or less.

[RoboEmperor]

Diminutive creatures have 1/4th the carrying capacity of a medium creature with the same strength.
Which for an Expeditious Messenger makes their max heavy load 2,5lb.

And that's before you consider that creatures with a fly speed can generally only fly with a light load or less.

Huh, so I guess it doesn't work. I've been cheating in my games @_@. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Oh well, I guess I'll just have two expeditious messengers carry one arbalester.

Unless the flying creature explicitly says it can only fly under a light load (avarials), they can all fly at a heavy load.

[Yuki Akuma]

You guys are forgetting that Summon Marked Homunculus has both a feat tax and a race tax.

No I'm not.

The Mark of Making is probably the best Dragonmark to begin with, and its prerequisite race is human. It has never been a disadvantage for any build to be a human, dude.

[gogogome]

Diminutive creatures have 1/4th the carrying capacity of a medium creature with the same strength.
Which for an Expeditious Messenger makes their max heavy load 2,5lb.

And that's before you consider that creatures with a fly speed can generally only fly with a light load or less.

Ok, I'll tell the sorcerer you can't use expeditious messengers to carry arbalesters unless you double up like someonenoone11 suggested.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Unless the flying creature explicitly says it can only fly under a light load (avarials), they can all fly at a heavy load.
The other way around, really.


A creature with a fly speed can move through the air at the indicated speed if carrying no more than a light load. (Note that medium armor does not necessarily constitute a medium load.)
Since the wording here isn't quite clear enough there's also a FAQ entry clarifying it:

The entry on flight in the Monster Manual doesn't elaborate on whether carrying a medium or heavy load actually prevents flight, or it simply slows the flyer down below the indicated speed (and in the latter case, it doesn't explain by how much the creature is slowed down). Some of the monster entries do make mention of medium and heavy loads in terms of carrying capacity (griffins and spidereaters, for example). Does that mean those creatures can fly with medium or heavy loads? Is it even possible for a flying creature to get airborne at less that its listed fly speed.
You can use a fly speed only when carrying a light load or less. If your load is medium or heavy, you cannot fly; certain kinds of magical flight, such as a fly spell, don t have this restriction. Check the description of the flying effect to be sure.
A griffin or a spider-eater can carry a medium or heavy load, but it cannot fly when doing so.
Most flying creatures can get aloft at less than their full fly speeds, provided that they can maintain their minimum forward speeds (see Tactical Aerial Movement in Chapter 2 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). You also can fly when wearing medium or heavy armor if the weight of the armor (plus everything else you carry) doesn't exceed your light load rating. The armor still slows you down (page 20 in the Dungeon Master's Guide has an expanded table of reduced speeds). For example, a balor is a Large creature with a Strength score of 35. A light load for a balor is 2,128 pounds. To calculate that, we must use the tremendous Strength rule on page 163 of the Player's Handbook and find the light load rating for Strength 25 (the number between 20 and 29 that has the same 1 s digit as 35). This gives us a value of 266 pounds. Since the balor's Strength is 35, we multiply 266 by 4, which gives us 1,064 pounds. The balor is a Large biped, however, so its carrying capacity doubles (1,064 x 2 = 2,128). A balor can fly so long as it carries less than 2,128 pounds. A breastplate for a Large biped weighs 60 pounds (from Table 7 6 in the Player's Handbook), so its weight won't keep a balor from getting aloft when wearing it. Since a breastplate is medium armor, the balor's base fly speed of 90 feet is slowed to 60 feet (from the table on page 20 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). Since the balor has good maneuverability, it has no minimum forward speed and can easily fly wearing the breastplate. Even if the balor had poor maneuverability, its minimum forward speed would be 45 feet (half its base speed of 90 feet), and it still could fly at a speed of 60 when wearing the breastplate.
If a creature's base flying speed is greater than listed on the chart on page 20 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, just divide the creature's base flying speed into equal parts dividable by 10 and then add up the reduced values for those base speeds off the chart. For example, if a flying creature with a fly speed of 150 feet wears medium armor and can still get aloft, it can fly at a speed of 105 feet. (Its minimum forward speed, if it had one, would be half the base flying speed, or 75 feet.) The reduced speed of 105 feet was calculated by splitting the fly speed into 70 feet and 80 feet (70 + 80 = 150). At reduced speed, 70 feet becomes 50 feet and 80 feet becomes 55 feet (50 + 55 = 105).
Note that some creatures in the game cannot fly when wearing medium or heavy armor, no matter what their load happens to be (for example, the avariel from Races of Faerûn), so be sure to check the creature s description for any special limits on its flying ability.

[RoboEmperor]

The other way around, really.


Since the wording here isn't quite clear enough there's also a FAQ entry clarifying it:

Huh, found the quote in the MMI. It really does give a general rule for flight. So it will take 6 expeditious messengers to carry one arbalester. Time to start writing an apology letter to my table @_@. Oh well, at least I only did it for 1 encounter.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Huh, found the quote in the MMI. It really does give a general rule for flight. So it will take 6 expeditious messengers to carry one arbalester. Time to start writing an apology letter to my table @_@. Oh well, at least I only did it for 1 encounter.

How exactly are six EM's supposed to carry an Arbalester?
Their carrying capacity may allow it, but the logistics of 6 separate creatures trying to carry one would make it at least very difficult if not impossible to effectively maneuver in combat.

As a DM i'd allow that kind of thing to airlift someone up a ledge or over a chasm - simple, straight-line movement - but in combat? No way.

[gogogome]

The other way around, really.


Since the wording here isn't quite clear enough there's also a FAQ entry clarifying it:

Thanks for showing me my mistake. So Arbalesters cannot avoid the being in cover penalty.

I think the thread is taking a wrong turn. I'm looking for ways to deal with these three player's salt instead of the player summoning the homunculi because he's using the spell as intended and the spell is in a 3.5 book. So I'm not nerfing or banning anything.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Thanks for showing me my mistake. So Arbalesters cannot avoid the being in cover penalty.

I think the thread is taking a wrong turn. I'm looking for ways to deal with these three player's salt instead of the player summoning the homunculi because he's using the spell as intended and the spell is in a 3.5 book. So I'm not nerfing or banning anything.

Well as i said, it's really only a problem at levels 1-2. Summoned Arbalesters don't scale. Other classes are similarly "overpowered" if you only look at level 1.
In short, tell them to suck it up and wait until they level once or twice.

[Deophaun]

How exactly are six EM's supposed to carry an Arbalester?
It could be carried by an African EM.

[sorcererlover]

Well as i said, it's really only a problem at levels 1-2. Summoned Arbalesters don't scale. Other classes are similarly "overpowered" if you only look at level 1.
In short, tell them to suck it up and wait until they level once or twice.

At what level would a summoner sorcerer, archer rogue, or archer ranger start out damaging the army of arbalestes?

[sleepyphoenixx]

At what level would a summoner sorcerer, archer rogue, or archer ranger start out damaging the army of arbalestes?

The archers as soon as they pick up Rapid Shot probably, so about level 3? Depends on how they're built.
The summoner sorcerer at about the same time, really. Basically as soon as Summon Monster lasts long enough to be useful.
Once AC and enemy HD start going up summoned Arbalesters drop off fast in usefulness since you can't improve them. They always do only 1d8 damage on a +7 to hit.

They'll also die as soon as enemies get AoE attacks since they have crappy saves and only 5hp.

[sorcererlover]

The archers as soon as they pick up Rapid Shot probably, so about level 3? Depends on how they're built.
The summoner sorcerer at about the same time, really. Basically as soon as Summon Monster lasts long enough to be useful.
Once AC and enemy HD start going up summoned Arbalesters drop off fast in usefulness since you can't improve them. They always do only 1d8 damage on a +7 to hit.

They'll also die as soon as enemies get AoE attacks since they have crappy saves and only 5hp.

But he gets 1 arbalester a level, or 2. Rapid Shot lets you shoot twice at -2 while the sorcerer is going to have 5 arbalesters shooting at +7. At 4th level hes gonna have 9 shots a round. Assuming there's a way around that 10ft arbalester movement like floating disks or mount.

[zlefin]

Thanks for showing me my mistake. So Arbalesters cannot avoid the being in cover penalty.

I think the thread is taking a wrong turn. I'm looking for ways to deal with these three player's salt instead of the player summoning the homunculi because he's using the spell as intended and the spell is in a 3.5 book. So I'm not nerfing or banning anything.

it's well known and well proven that 3.5 has some balance problems. It's a game, it's meant to be fun; if things are ruining the fun of the game for some people, then something has to change.
refusing to fix known problems isn't a good method.

There isn't a truly good way to deal with people being justifiably salty at something that's somewhat OP. Normally you should address this via session 0.

At any rate, to address such the salt I'd say to simply find different groups to play with, so people can be in appropriate groups for their taste.

also, are the players merely objecting to their expectation of the homonc being overpowreed, or has it been proven in practice to be very strong? if they haven't seen it in action yet, you can mollify them for a bit by requesting they wait until they've seen it in game before judging.

[thethird]

The arbalasters dont summon ammo, make the sorcerer track and carry it, at first level crossbow bolts can get expensive (and heavy for a not str focused character) pretty fast.

[Kish]

Thanks for showing me my mistake. So Arbalesters cannot avoid the being in cover penalty.

I think the thread is taking a wrong turn. I'm looking for ways to deal with these three player's salt instead of the player summoning the homunculi because he's using the spell as intended and the spell is in a 3.5 book. So I'm not nerfing or banning anything.
Then I suggest you tell your players that you will not nerf or ban anything that is in an official 3.5 book. Whether they find that a comprehensible decision or not, you will then be on the same page with regard to assumptions for the game.

Disclaimer: This may result in all your players coming up with builds that are close to invincible, particularly if any of them thinks to come look at some of the munchkinry on this forum.

[magicalmagicman]

Then I suggest you tell your players that you will not nerf or ban anything that is in an official 3.5 book. Whether they find that a comprehensible decision or not, you will then be on the same page with regard to assumptions for the game.

Disclaimer: This may result in all your players coming up with builds that are close to invincible, particularly if any of them thinks to come look at some of the munchkinry on this forum.

I think there's a difference between using an unintended combination of cross-book class features and spells to break the game, and using a spell as intended out of the box with no interactions with anything, even from stuff from its own book.

[Anthrowhale]

Just to reiterate what was said earlier: the arbalesters are easily nerfed by spreading out encounters over many hours. Pointing this out to the other players and having that happen sometimes seems like a relatively simple approach to dealing with the issue.

[Zaq]

I don't see what the whole "doesn't scale" argument is referring to. It scales exactly the same way that Summon Monster I scales, only better: duration. SM1 doesn't summon stronger and stronger monsters with higher CL, either. Few, if any, summon spells do (Astral Construct is another story). It's not like the character is choosing to be defined by Summon Marked Homunculus for their whole career (if they were trying to rely primarily on it at, like, level 7, that would be a different problem, and the lack of scaling would indeed be a concern), and the fact of the matter is that it's reported to be OP right now in the actual game in question.

The response to an OP thing, of course, is pretty much the same in this case as in every other case: talk to your group. See what they're feeling. You know that at least a few of the players are finding the spell to be problematic. If the caster of the spell is among them and agrees that it's too much, then just have them stop casting the spell so much and have it become, at most, a last-ditch tactic for when things are really bad. If the caster of the spell thinks that everything is fine but the rest of the group objects, run the actual numbers to see if things are as bad as stated (which it sounds like you're already doing), and then work out a compromise based on the numbers in a manner that everyone finds tolerable. (If the complainant isn't being reasonable, you still need to discuss that with them and with the group; hopefully that isn't too much of the problem here.)

You might be justified in nerfing the spell or even in banning it entirely if the group as a whole thinks that it's just too much, though of course you should pretty much always give the player whose toy you took away the chance to freely retrain the relevant parts of their character into something less problematic.

I generally don't like nerfing stuff and avoid it whenever possible, but the whole point is to have fun, and if someone's ruining someone else's fun, you've gotta make a good-faith effort to address that in one way or another. What's OP in one game may not be OP in the next.

[sleepyphoenixx]

But he gets 1 arbalester a level, or 2. Rapid Shot lets you shoot twice at -2 while the sorcerer is going to have 5 arbalesters shooting at +7. At 4th level hes gonna have 9 shots a round. Assuming there's a way around that 10ft arbalester movement like floating disks or mount.

The Arbalesters don't last all day until long after they've become obsolete. The 3rd level sorcerer will have to ration his spells unless all the days encounters happen in a 3 hour span.
Rapid Shot lasts all day, and a dedicated archer will also get some extra damage on top of his weapons base damage. An Arbalester always does 1d8 damage, that's it.

And that's really the big one. Weapon base damage stops being relevant really fast, with the vast majority of a players damage coming from bonus damage - sneak attack, strength bonus, weapon enhancements, feats like Shadow Blade and Power Attack and so on.
Those 1d8 shots are great at level 1, but when enemies start having around 25-30hp or more an average damage of 4,5 just doesn't cut it, even if you get several shots of it per round.


I don't see what the whole "doesn't scale" argument is referring to. It scales exactly the same way that Summon Monster I scales, only better: duration. SM1 doesn't summon stronger and stronger monsters with higher CL, either. Few, if any, summon spells do (Astral Construct is another story). It's not like the character is choosing to be defined by Summon Marked Homunculus for their whole career (if they were trying to rely primarily on it at, like, level 7, that would be a different problem, and the lack of scaling would indeed be a concern), and the fact of the matter is that it's reported to be OP right now in the actual game in question.
SM1 doesn't scale, which is why nobody uses it at higher levels for anything beyond triggering traps. There is no Summon Marked Homunculus 2.
And as has been mentioned several times now 1 hour/day is not "all day" until long after SMH stops being a valid combat choice.
A 1d8 attack at +7 is good at level 1, but it's hardly overpowered. Sure, it's a higher AB than most players will have (by 1-2 points, the horror). On the other hand it's probably less damage than most PCs would be doing since most of them will get bonus damage from strength or sneak attack, even at level 1. It's also on a time-limited frame with 5hp.

The given scenario of "the sorcerer runs around with 4/5/6 Arbalesters" just isn't realistic unless the encounters are structured to allow that tactic. If they are space out encounters more, problem solved.


You might be justified in nerfing the spell or even in banning it entirely if the group as a whole thinks that it's just too much, though of course you should pretty much always give the player whose toy you took away the chance to freely retrain the relevant parts of their character into something less problematic.
If 1d8 damage at +7 to hit is too much for level 1 you'll also have to ban halfling rogues with throwing weapons. And all three ToB classes. And Barbarians. And a whole lot of other things.

That aside, the way i see it BFC would still be the more effective tactic unless we're talking about the very specific scenario of a bunch of encounters spaced out enough to make shorter duration spells ineffective but not too long to run out SMH's duration.
The other players are just pissy because they're not the best at doing damage, by a tiny margin. If that's enough to reach for the nerfbat the game won't last long (or be much fun).

[Deophaun]

SM1 doesn't scale, which is why nobody uses it at higher levels for anything beyond triggering traps.
1) SMI can be just as effective against a CR1 trap as it can against a CR10.
2) SMI provides cheap beacons for benign transposition.
3) Fiendish hawks are fast, literate, and make excellent smartbombs when equipped with explosive runes.
4) If you cannot solve a problem with celestial monkeys, you just aren't using enough of them.

Edit: Also want to say that I find the "1 hour/level is not all day" argument to be amusing when other discussions have talked about how 1 min/level is perfectly fine for clearing an entire dungeon.

[sleepyphoenixx]

2) SMI provides cheap beacons for benign transposition.
Yeah, if you have time to summon them and they survive long enough until you actually need that BT. So not often.


3) Fiendish hawks are fast, literate, and make excellent smartbombs when equipped with explosive runes.
6d6 reflex half isn't exactly big damage for a 3rd level spell. Or unique. And most others don't need a level 1 summon to deliver them, requiring move actions to hand them over.
It sounds nice in theory, but it's not a viable combat tactic.

Unless you're operating under the ruling that one casting of Explosive Runes detonating also triggers any others in the area (it doesn't by RAW, that's specific to dispel and the Erase spell).


Edit: Also want to say that I find the "1 hour/level is not all day" argument to be amusing when other discussions have talked about how 1 min/level is perfectly fine for clearing an entire dungeon.
That'd have to be a very short dungeon, especially at level 1. :smallconfused:

[Kish]

Those other discussions generally hinge on the ridiculously permissive DM beloved of theoretical optimizers, whose answer to, "It's been 15 minutes and we're out of spells, so we're camping for the next 23 hours and 45 minutes" is "Why sure! Nothing relevant will happen while you're camping!"

[Deophaun]

Yeah, if you have time to summon them and they survive long enough until you actually need that BT. So not often.
Need to cross rapids? Need to get to the top of a cliff? Need to effect a prison break?

6d6 reflex half isn't exactly big damage for a 3rd level spell. Or unique. And most others don't need a level 1 summon to deliver them, requiring move actions to hand them over.
It sounds nice in theory, but it's not a viable combat tactic.
6d6x1.5+Level drain x However many birds.

Killed a level 21 Druid at level 7 with them, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless you're operating under the ruling that one casting of Explosive Runes detonating also triggers any others in the area (it doesn't by RAW, that's specific to dispel and the Erase spell).
The opposite, actually. This is the only non-DM reliant way to trigger multiple explosive runes in a single round.

That'd have to be a very short dungeon, especially at level 1. :smallconfused:
Confuses me, too. But an hour/level is viable to clear even at level 1.

[ExLibrisMortis]

6d6 reflex half isn't exactly big damage for a 3rd level spell. Or unique. And most others don't need a level 1 summon to deliver them, requiring move actions to hand them over.
Creatures next to the runes (close enough to read) take 6d6 damage, no save. You can prep explosive runes on scrap paper ahead of time, on days you have third-level slots remaining. The birds use a move action to pick up on their first turn, no additional action is taken by the caster. You don't need explosive runes to trigger itself, fiendish hawks can actually read explosive runes.

Get 1d4+1 fiendish hawks (SMIII), get 1d4+1 explosive runes, and you have Deophaun's smart bombs. Expected damage 12d6 to 30d6 force, no save, with a few days' prep. Basically the D&D equivalent of drone-bombing.

(Thanks for the trick, Deophaun!)

[sleepyphoenixx]

Creatures next to the runes (close enough to read) take 6d6 damage, no save. You can prep explosive runes on scrap paper ahead of time, on days you have third-level slots remaining. The birds use a move action to pick up on their first turn, no additional action is taken by the caster. You don't need explosive runes to trigger itself, fiendish hawks can actually read explosive runes.

Get 1d4+1 fiendish hawks (SMIII), get 1d4+1 explosive runes, and you have Deophaun's smart bombs. Expected damage 12d6 to 30d6 force, no save, with a few days' prep. Basically the D&D equivalent of drone-bombing.

(Thanks for the trick, Deophaun!)
I know how Explosive Runes works, thank you. I'm just disagreeing on the "close enough to read" part unless you plan to have your hawks land on your targets head.
Remember that in combat movement is assumed, so they're not holding still. Unless a player has a really good argument or the enemy triggers the runes themselves i'm going with save for half.

I'm also disagreeing on the "no action on the casters part is needed" part unless your Explosive Runes notes are already on the ground ready for pick up.
Otherwise in most cases drawing an item (like a pre-prepared note with ER) is a move action.
I suppose you could attach them to your clothing somewhere, but then you'd better hope nobody accidentally reads them or that the hawks don't tear them when they grab them since they'd necessarily have to rip them off.

You're also not using SM1 with this, which is what started the argument. Because summoning the hawks one by one with SM1 is simply too slow for most situations.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Unless a player has a really good argument or the enemy triggers the runes themselves i'm going with save for half.
Fiendish hawks are Tiny. They can enter a Medium opponent's square (have to, in fact) and activate the runes. No save!


I'm also disagreeing on the "no action on the casters part is needed" part unless your Explosive Runes notes are already on the ground ready for pick up.
I was thinking a staff with charms of some kind, tied on with thin string, and inscribing the runes on the insides of the charms. Looks really awesome, too.


You're also not using SM1 with this, which is what started the argument. Because summoning the hawks one by one with SM1 is simply too slow for most situations.
It's good for blowing up things at a distance (grab + move 60' on the first round, 240' per round after that, 60' move + activation on final round), even with SMI. A solid opening strike, not a reactive tactic. If fiendish hawks can do this, expeditious messengers are much better at it (much longer duration, smaller, much faster). An expeditious messenger can move through chimneys at 100' per round, for example.


SMI is a support spell, useful for flanking and blocking in combat, and trapfinding out of combat. At higher levels, it scales in duration, and that improves its function, but it is not useful as damaging spell.
The same is true of summon marked homunculus, except that its initial duration and the ranged attack are such that you can get multiple attacks out of one and have multiple, making it useful as direct damage. At higher levels, it mutates into a pure support spell, and remains useful for a long time (CL 8+: summon a dedicated wright: save 7 hours of item crafting with a first-level slot).


Summon marked homunculus is definitely a stronger spell than SMI, and I don't see why it would scale any worse than other summoning spells. It just changes its primary function.

[blackwindbears]

Thanks for showing me my mistake. So Arbalesters cannot avoid the being in cover penalty.

I think the thread is taking a wrong turn. I'm looking for ways to deal with these three player's salt instead of the player summoning the homunculi because he's using the spell as intended and the spell is in a 3.5 book. So I'm not nerfing or banning anything.

Generally it's a bad idea to use campaign specific books outside of the campaign setting. You'd be perfectly reasonable to allow all *generic* 3.5 books.


We just played our first 1st level game and three players, one archer rogue, one summon monster sorcerer, and one archer ranger, messaged me that Summon Marked Homunculus is absolute BS. Their reasons included: Arbalesters have +7 to hit at level 1 while they're at +4-5, they have Point Blank Shot, you can summon up to 4 at level 1, Expeditious Messenger is too good of a scout, and that their 1hour/level duration is just BS when all the other summoning spells last 1round/level.

The sorcerer that is casting summon marked homunculus is carrying an arbalester, has one riding him, and has one being carried by an expeditious messenger.

They're calling BS because you get iterative attacks at level 6, yet this sorcerer is shooting 3 shots a round at +7 and he'll be shooting 4 shots a round next level.

I explained to them that these guys don't get precise shot so they will have -4 to their attack most of the time, and enemies also have cover from his attack at -8, but then they said the sorcerer can summon expeditious messengers to carry the arbalesters above the enemies to avoid the cover penalty and be in range of point blank shot, before using their 2nd move action to fly far away, and he gets one more arbalester every level which is total BS.

How do I deal with the situation? The summon marked homunculus sorcerer isn't exactly abusing the rules as he is using those spells as intended so I don't want to do anything to him but the salt coming from these three players is very real.

First off, never ever allow retraining of a feat tax.

Second, why does he have so many arbalesters? Doesn't he have like 4 spells per day?
Are you certain expeditious messenger can carry all these arbalesters?

Also, villains should probably preferentially target the crossbow nest wandering around.

I would rule that a carried arbalester loses its dex bonus to ac.

Dispel magic makes him lose all of his spells per day at once, what are they fighting? If I was fighting them I'd acquire a scroll as fast as I could.

But the one thing that needs to happen is you need to talk to him and explain that the power level is out of line. There will be in game consequences for this, but give him a chance to disarm on his own.

(Also, why would all of the four fights per day happen in the one hour he has all those arbalesters up?)

Edit: Really you should only be setting up encounters for him to do this one encounter per day. If they decide to shove more encounters into the hour those should be in addition to the default 4. Spending a few encounters doing nothing will encourage him to spread this out.

One of them per encounter is far more reasonable.

[PunBlake]

How exactly are six EM's supposed to carry an Arbalester?

It could be carried by an African EM.
This got me. :smallbiggrin:

OP, the way to fix "the salt" without nerfing is the same way you fix every game balance problem in D&D: redesign.

Option 1: Change your encounters. Change timing for spell duration. Ambush. Have a monster run away to warn his compatriots of the summoned death robot(s) and have those allies take cover / prepare defenses. A well-used scroll of Shatter can bust a construct. Silence or readied archers can stop a spell from being cast in the first place. Maybe an Armor Crystal of Arrow Deflection (MIC) for a boss? These are just the low-hanging fruit. As a DM, you always design encounters to fit the group you have, and you have every right to tweak any modules you're running. Your goal is to make things fun for everyone, and that means challenging for everyone.

Option 2: Hold a design forum. Talk to your whole group at once (with you being a moderator and only allowing one person to talk at once) about the fact that no one but the caster likes this spell as written and redesign it based on everyone's input, including the caster. This isn't nerfing; it's making a house-rule to increase fun. You could always drop the attack bonus on the summoned arbalester and have it scale slightly with caster level.

Option 3: Why not both?

Option 4: The dreaded talk. Tell your caster one-on-one that SMH is reducing enjoyment for the rest of the table and ask that he choose a different spell known or use it less. I don't like this one, but it is a valid solution.

[gogogome]

I am running Age of Worms which is designed for players to Nova since the encounters are significantly more difficult than a standard AP. There were three wolves, one advanced, as first level encounter, a swarm of beetles as a 2nd encounter, surprise ray of sleep 3rd encounter, and an underwater fight against a ghoul with paralysis on touch. So spreading the encounters out over the day is not an option as the AP does not support that.

[blackwindbears]

I am running Age of Worms which is designed for players to Nova since the encounters are significantly more difficult than a standard AP. There were three wolves, one advanced, as first level encounter, a swarm of beetles as a 2nd encounter, surprise ray of sleep 3rd encounter, and an underwater fight against a ghoul with paralysis on touch. So spreading the encounters out over the day is not an option as the AP does not support that.

Well then, there is your problem. Whispering cairn was released a year before Dragonmarked was. In no sense was this adventure balanced with the ability that is creating problems in mind.

Thus you need to revise age of worms to add more random encounters or limit players to sourcebooks released during the period your adventure path was balanced for.

Also, I ran Whispering Cairn for my group and don't remember any sort of nova requirements. Let me look at my notes later and see if there's anything that can help.

Edit: At the very least the acid beetles couldn't be killed by the homunculi. They're immune to weapon damage. How did the party end up dealing with them?

[Deophaun]

Well then, there is your problem. Whispering cairn was released a year before Dragonmarked was. In no sense was this adventure balanced with the ability that is creating problems in mind.
This is silly. "Sorry guys, we can't have small dungeons anymore because there's a spell that tosses out a turret that lasts an hour/level that is mildly competitive with a 1st-level archer. All low level encounters must now be spaced out over the course of a week."

Considering that the arbalester does jack all against some of the worst that the Cairn has to offer (swarms, traps, and the thing(s) they haven't gotten to yet) and that the battlefields aren't exactly in open terrain where range is a whole issue, I'd say it's accidentally balanced pretty well.

But OMG wolves aren't balanced for it. BAN!

[RoboEmperor]

Edit: At the very least the acid beetles couldn't be killed by the homunculi. They're immune to weapon damage. How did the party end up dealing with them?

Homunculi blow up when they die doing 1d6 damage to everything around them.

[blackwindbears]

This is silly. "Sorry guys, we can't have small dungeons anymore because there's a spell that tosses out a turret that lasts an hour/level that is mildly competitive with a 1st-level archer. All low level encounters must now be spaced out over the course of a week."

Considering that the arbalester does jack all against some of the worst that the Cairn has to offer (swarms, traps, and the thing(s) they haven't gotten to yet) and that the battlefields aren't exactly in open terrain where range is a whole issue, I'd say it's accidentally balanced pretty well.

But OMG wolves aren't balanced for it. BAN!

He's got a party full of people unhappy about it, the spell is wildly out of line with similar spells, your plan is ignore the players?

[Deophaun]

He's got a party full of people unhappy about it, the spell is wildly out of line with similar spells, your plan is ignore the players?
We went from "The Cairn is not balanced to handle a spell that puts arrows into things" to "the players are unhappy!"

I will take this massive move of the goalposts as an admission that you realize your initial complaint was, indeed, silly.

This issue is that the party has two "put arrows into things" guys, and the wizard is stepping on both the "put arrows into things" guys' toes.

It's not that the Cairn isn't balanced around it.

[blackwindbears]

We went from "The Cairn is not balanced to handle a spell that puts arrows into things" to "the players are unhappy!"

I will take this massive move of the goalposts as an admission that you realize your initial complaint was, indeed, silly.

This issue is that the party has two "put arrows into things" guys, and the wizard is stepping on both the "put arrows into things" guys' toes.

It's not that the Cairn isn't balanced around it.

That was in OP's post. D&D is balanced around the assumption of 4 encounters per day. It does look like the cairn shouldn't have much of a problem with this which is why I asked for more detail.

I don't find you wildly exaggerating what I'm saying to be particularly useful ("mildly competing with an Archer" (3x as many actions at a higher attack bonus's :eyeroll:), "space encounters out over a week"), do you?

[RoboEmperor]

How exactly are six EM's supposed to carry an Arbalester?
Their carrying capacity may allow it, but the logistics of 6 separate creatures trying to carry one would make it at least very difficult if not impossible to effectively maneuver in combat.

As a DM i'd allow that kind of thing to airlift someone up a ledge or over a chasm - simple, straight-line movement - but in combat? No way.

The creatures all have telepathy with its creator so coordination should be easy as long as it's straightforward and not sudden sharp jerks.