PDA

View Full Version : You have chosen... poorly



Dhavaer
2007-09-16, 06:11 AM
What spells, maneuvers, items, or the like have you found that are simply awful, either because there's something better that's easier to get or because they're just that bad?

Off the top of my head are Exorcism of Steel (the 3rd level Iron Heart strike) and Greater Divine Surge (8th level Devoted Spirit strike).

Exorcism because it's bad: -4 to damage, doesn't do any damage itself, and there's a save for half effect. Not remotely worth a readied maneuver slot. Probably not worth it if it was 1st level; you could be using Steel Wind or Sapphire Nightmare Blade.

GDS because it actively hurts you: it takes longer to initiate than normal Divine Surge, does less damage, and makes you flatfooted. This for something 4 levels higher. I won't even discuss the Con damage thing.

So, what do you find shockingly bad?

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-16, 06:16 AM
Glamered armor. Why buy glamered armor when a hat of disguise is cheaper and does more?

Jannex
2007-09-16, 06:21 AM
Glamered armor. Why buy glamered armor when a hat of disguise is cheaper and does more?

To save on an item slot, I guess?

Reel On, Love
2007-09-16, 06:30 AM
GDS because it actively hurts you: it takes longer to initiate than normal Divine Surge, does less damage, and makes you flatfooted. This for something 4 levels higher. I won't even discuss the Con damage thing.

So, what do you find shockingly bad?

You're kidding, right? You can burn CON for, what, +2d8 damage per point? Go through 14 CON (out of 18-20ish) and that's 28d8, plus the 6d8 base maneuver damage for 34d8, plus normal damage, and +14 to hit, meaning you're pretty much guaranteed to connect.
BAM! They're dead. Your party goes through 7ish charges of a Wand of Lesser Restoration after. Or the cleric just casts Heal and wipes all the CON damage out... which he can do even if the enemy survives somehow.

Heck, assuming there are enemies left, you can follow up with Strike of Righteous Vitality, and Heal *yourself*.

Greater Divine Surge isn't awful, it's verging on overpowered.

Morty
2007-09-16, 06:50 AM
On the top of my head, Shield spell. Unless in very specific circumstances, Mage Armor is just plainly better- it grants the same AC bonus, but lasts for hours/level instead of minute/level.

Skjaldbakka
2007-09-16, 07:02 AM
On the top of my head, Shield spell. Unless in very specific circumstances, Mage Armor is just plainly better- it grants the same AC bonus, but lasts for hours/level instead of minute/level.

psst. . . I'll let you in on a secret. Shield and Mage Armor, not shield OR mage armor.

Captain van der Decken
2007-09-16, 07:09 AM
You're kidding, right? You can burn CON for, what, +2d8 damage per point? Go through 14 CON (out of 18-20ish) and that's 28d8, plus the 6d8 base maneuver damage for 34d8, plus normal damage, and +14 to hit, meaning you're pretty much guaranteed to connect.
BAM! They're dead. Your party goes through 7ish charges of a Wand of Lesser Restoration after. Or the cleric just casts Heal and wipes all the CON damage out... which he can do even if the enemy survives somehow.

Heck, assuming there are enemies left, you can follow up with Strike of Righteous Vitality, and Heal *yourself*.

Greater Divine Surge isn't awful, it's verging on overpowered.

Yeah. Especially with the Devoted Spirit Legacy weapon - swift action restoration. Burn all but 1 of your con, kill something really big, get all that con straight back again. Or just have the cleric just ready an action.

Being flatfooted usually isn't a problem, anyway (especially for a high-con Crusader), unless you're fighting several rogue-type characters.

Nebo_
2007-09-16, 07:10 AM
On the top of my head, Shield spell. Unless in very specific circumstances, Mage Armor is just plainly better- it grants the same AC bonus, but lasts for hours/level instead of minute/level.

Yes, but they stack. Who doesn't want another +4 AC?

Flaming Sphere always struck me as lack lustre; 2d6 fire damage, reflex negates? I'll pass, give me a scorching ray.

Morty
2007-09-16, 07:16 AM
psst. . . I'll let you in on a secret. Shield and Mage Armor, not shield OR mage armor.

Yes. But if you have to choose between two spells, and low-level wizard have, due to not having enough spell slots for both, Mage Armor is just plain better.


Yes, but they stack. Who doesn't want another +4 AC?

See above.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-16, 07:18 AM
I found that pretty much all of the feats that give +2 to a bunch of skills, or +3 to a single skill, or +2 to a saving throw, or +3 hit points, are generally not worth it, because there are far better feats to take, and in the long run those bonuses are insignificant.

Regarding spells... For wizards they may be ok because more spells never hurt, but for bards and sorcs with their spell limits, these are bad choices:
Hold portal. Detect undead. Burning hands. Magic aura. Animate rope. Erase. Magic weapon. Arcane lock. Obscure object. Darkness. Magic mouth. Misdirection. Phantom trap. Darkvision. Pyrotechnics.

PlatinumJester
2007-09-16, 08:15 AM
Detect Undead - yay I can tell if something is a zombie.
Combat Casting - it's called Skill Focus: Concentration.

The Glyphstone
2007-09-16, 08:28 AM
The Samurai base class out of CW?

PlatinumJester
2007-09-16, 08:37 AM
The Samurai base class out of CW?

Oh hell yes. Why not just be a Fighter with Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation etc in bastard sword or play a Warblade who specialises in Diamond Mind Maneuvers and use battle of wills every encounter.

de-trick
2007-09-16, 08:39 AM
great cleave by the time you get it you won't be able to kill things in 1 hit

2 weapon fighting a -minus to attack and half str for off hand

any amour ARMOR PROFICIENCY feats if your class does not have it you should not try wearing it

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-16, 09:08 AM
any amour ARMOR PROFICIENCY feats if your class does not have it you should not try wearing it
Heck, levels are cheaper than feats. You get 20 levels in the same time you get only 7 feats. Dip into Fighter if you really need the proficiency.

Silkenfist
2007-09-16, 09:49 AM
Yes. But if you have to choose between two spells, and low-level wizard have, due to not having enough spell slots for both, Mage Armor is just plain better.

Maybe...but

1. there are some classes that have access to Armor Proficiency and are able to cast Arcane spells. They can wear Light Armor and cast Shield on top of it.

2. Your entire point is void anyway. Even if 1) wasn't valid, Shield would still be inferior only in the same sense that Greater Skill Focus is worse than Skill Focus. You use it only if you have already Mage Armor, but if you already have Mage Armor, it further enhances the effect.

goat
2007-09-16, 10:16 AM
I found that pretty much all of the feats that give +2 to a bunch of skills, or +3 to a single skill, or +2 to a saving throw, or +3 hit points, are generally not worth it, because there are far better feats to take, and in the long run those bonuses are insignificant.

For some types of low level skill-monkey (such as those built around using one specific skill very well), those feats are near-requirements, especially any that go against a contested roll (bluff, sleight of hand), and anything you need working first time, every time, like UMD and tumble. For anyone trying to play a Truenamer, Skill focus (truenaming) is an essential to have any chance at success.

Dhavaer
2007-09-16, 10:23 AM
Skill Focus (concentration) is invaluable to a Diamond Mind adept.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-16, 10:35 AM
Yes, but they stack. Who doesn't want another +4 AC?

Flaming Sphere always struck me as lack lustre; 2d6 fire damage, reflex negates? I'll pass, give me a scorching ray.

Yes, but assuming you attack every roud with it: that is 2d6 /round.
Reflex negate sucks, but hey it can attack next round.

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-16, 10:54 AM
I actually like Arcane Lock. Especially if you get it made into an at will item. It's kinda expensive (12,000 GP) but it can be worth it if you can get someone to make it at cost (6,000 GP).

As you move through a dungeon or castle you Arcane Lock every door behind you. And it's always nice to keep a little Dust of Locking around, 300 GP for a use activated 1 time use item of Arcane Lock.

Morty
2007-09-16, 11:00 AM
1. there are some classes that have access to Armor Proficiency and are able to cast Arcane spells. They can wear Light Armor and cast Shield on top of it.

I belive I covered that in "specific cases" part.


2. Your entire point is void anyway. Even if 1) wasn't valid, Shield would still be inferior only in the same sense that Greater Skill Focus is worse than Skill Focus. You use it only if you have already Mage Armor, but if you already have Mage Armor, it further enhances the effect.

You have to take Skill Focus in order to take Greater Skill Focus, while Shield and Mage Armor are equal spells.

Silkenfist
2007-09-16, 11:20 AM
I belive I covered that in "specific cases" part.
OK, this is where I give up. Whatever scenario I present you, you will add it to the "list of specific cases" So far the list of "very specific circumstances" as you called it, extends to:

1. Arcane casters with Armor Proficiency
2. Casters who want additional +4 on top
I'll add 3: Creating a potion for your Melee friend.

But yeah...you are right. Except for these ridiculously specific circumstances you are right. I'll leave it at that.

bugsysservant
2007-09-16, 11:23 AM
Um, floating disk? Has anyone ever used that spell? Mount is a better spell, and a light horse can carry up to 175 lbs. and still move 40 ft.

Morty
2007-09-16, 11:29 AM
1. Arcane casters with Armor Proficiency

Duskblades, Bards and Hexblades. None of whom, I might add, get any of these two spells. Oh right, Beguilers get Mage Armor. But they don't get Shield.


2. Casters who want additional +4 on top

Yes, as addition to Mage Armor, Shield is useful. But if you want one spell to raise AC, and spell slots don't grow on trees, Mage Armor is just plain better.


I'll add 3: Creating a potion for your Melee friend.


That's one case where Shield might actually be better.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-16, 11:33 AM
For some types of low level skill-monkey (such as those built around using one specific skill very well), those feats are near-requirements, especially any that go against a contested roll (bluff, sleight of hand)

Truenaming and concentrations are sensible exceptions. For skill monkeys, the operative word is "low level". By the time you reach level four or five, you're going to wish you had spent all (both) of your feats on things that remain useful on higher levels. I would say that if a character is not reliant on skills, the +2 is going to be irrelevant; whereas if the character is reliant on skills, the +2 is insignificant. You get way, way more skill points than feats; spending one feat for 3 or 4 skill points is a waste.

Mike_G
2007-09-16, 11:58 AM
Truenaming and concentrations are sensible exceptions. For skill monkeys, the operative word is "low level". By the time you reach level four or five, you're going to wish you had spent all (both) of your feats on things that remain useful on higher levels. I would say that if a character is not reliant on skills, the +2 is going to be irrelevant; whereas if the character is reliant on skills, the +2 is insignificant. You get way, way more skill points than feats; spending one feat for 3 or 4 skill points is a waste.

I think this is very campaign specific. If you are playing a skillmonkey, and rely on a few skills constantly, Skill Focus or one of the "+2 to two skills" feats can be worth it. That's as good a bonus as +4 or +6 to the relevant stat. And that bonus never goes away, so it's not really wasted at high level. Beating a Beholder's Spot check is not easy, even for a suitably high level Rogue, sometimes it does come down to winning or losing by a point or two.

In straightforward, combat oriented campaigns, skills matter much less and I see your point. In stealth, investigation or political campaigns, this can be vital.

I still say it's a better use of a feat than Toughness.

JackMage666
2007-09-16, 12:04 PM
Duskblades, Bards and Hexblades. None of whom, I might add, get any of these two spells. Oh right, Beguilers get Mage Armor. But they don't get Shield.

And Beguilers also get Light Armor Proficiency, if I remember correctly, and Mage Armor gets useless after a Chain Shirt. You also forgot Warmages, Dread Necromancers, and any Caster with a level of Spelltheif who took the feat that allows Light Armor.

Actually, come to think of it, Wizards, Sorcerers, ad Wu Jen are the only ones who don't get to wear armor. It seems a greater majority of arcane casters get to now. Also, any of these classes regret Mage Armor as soon as they get a +1 Twighlight Mithral Shirt, or until they take a level of Spelltheif and the proper feat.

Oh, and Battle Sorcerer, from UA, is effectively a Sorcerer who gets Light Armor as well.

However, it's kinda hard to find a Shield that gives +4 AC. Tower Shields do, but they're big an bulky. You'd need a +3 Light Shield, or a +2 Heavy Shield to get that, which are both out of reach for low level players.

Again, though, regret comes when the player can afford a +3 Mithral Buckler, though that comes considerably more expensive than a +1 Twighlight Mithral Shirt (or just a +1 Chain Shirt, if you can wear light armor.)

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-16, 12:06 PM
Flaming Sphere always struck me as lack lustre; 2d6 fire damage, reflex negates? I'll pass, give me a scorching ray.
First, I don't think any classes get both. If you want to deal damage as a Druid before getting wildshape, you're probably casting this. There's also the fact that it lasts multiple rounds as mentioned above.

Also on the Shield vs. Mage Armor debate: it's a lot easier to get a magical armor bonus from an item (Bracers of Armor), which wouldn't stack with MA, than it is to get a shield bonus. To my knowledge, the only way to get the latter is through a custom item, and whether you can get it is therefore 100% DM dependent.

The point is, Shield stacks with core items and is therefore more useful at higher levels than Mage Armor. Mage Armor is probably still more useful at lower levels.

Magi_Ring_O
2007-09-16, 12:09 PM
Um, floating disk? Has anyone ever used that spell? Mount is a better spell, and a light horse can carry up to 175 lbs. and still move 40 ft.

What if you want to get over a floor that is made of metal and burning hot, or electrified. Using floating disk, you can skip it easily. With mount, your horse gets fried. Also, the horse doesn't come with a pack saddle.

Deepblue706
2007-09-16, 12:10 PM
On the top of my head, Shield spell. Unless in very specific circumstances, Mage Armor is just plainly better- it grants the same AC bonus, but lasts for hours/level instead of minute/level.

Shield is rather good for a Gish, especially an Abjurant Champion, who uses a two-handed weapon. Other than that usage, though, I agree Mage Armor is significantly better.

Morty
2007-09-16, 12:13 PM
And Beguilers also get Light Armor Proficiency, if I remember correctly, and Mage Armor gets useless after a Chain Shirt. You also forgot Warmages, Dread Necromancers, and any Caster with a level of Spelltheif who took the feat that allows Light Armor.


Warmages don't get Shield. I'm unfamiliar with Dread Necromancers. Spellthieves actually can cast it, but that's one class.


Actually, come to think of it, Wizards, Sorcerers, ad Wu Jen are the only ones who don't get to wear armor. It seems a greater majority of arcane casters get to now. Also, any of these classes regret Mage Armor as soon as they get a +1 Twighlight Mithral Shirt, or until they take a level of Spelltheif and the proper feat.

Oh, and Battle Sorcerer, from UA, is effectively a Sorcerer who gets Light Armor as well.

But these three classes(Wizard, Sorcerer and Wu Jen) need AC-boosting spells, while armor-wearing arcanists can just get an armor and use spells for other purposes.

The_Werebear
2007-09-16, 12:41 PM
Mage's Disjunction
If you use it, you destroy all your loot.

Hold Portal
Just bar the door instead.

Crushing Despair
This would be ok normally, but the spells right next to it are Charm Monster and Confusion.

Antimagic Field
Useful, yes. But consider the fact that you are at least an 11th level mage who just turned yourself into an 11th level commoner.

Create Undead (arcane)
Congratulations. You just raised a bloodthirsty monster from the dead that isn't under your control. Better hope you get that Command Undead off successfully before it eats you.

Polymorph/Shapechange
Actually really good spells, but your DM will force you to eat your own dice if you use them.. So, bad news all around.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-09-16, 12:47 PM
First, I don't think any classes get both. If you want to deal damage as a Druid before getting wildshape, you're probably casting this. There's also the fact that it lasts multiple rounds as mentioned above.

Sor/Wiz get both flaming sphere and scorching ray. You need to direct the sphere every round as a move action and it does 2d6 with a save to negate. Scorching ray does 4d6 per ray, with more rays as you gain levels. It doesn't allow a save, just a touch attack to hit. It's obvious which one is better. Druid can also use Flame Blade or Produce Flame for damage; it will probably do more.

skywalker
2007-09-16, 12:52 PM
Um, floating disk? Has anyone ever used that spell? Mount is a better spell, and a light horse can carry up to 175 lbs. and still move 40 ft.

Once upon a time, my party was shipwrecked in freezing arctic water with a load of cargo and mules to pull it. Since we were shipwrecked 30-40 ft from shore, we put a mule on the (lvl 8) sorcerer's floating disk, then we "attacked it" with long staff, which the DM ruled we could use the staff to hold the charge of a touch spell(the duskblade class feature) and dimension hopped it to the shore. Repeat. It was awesome. Then, when our mules were stolen/died in the middle of the night(can't remember which) we wound up stacking all the cargo the disk could carry onto the disk, and our little sorcerer(he was a halfling, IIRC) rode the damned thing all the way to the stronghold. Then, when the party was beset by steam mephits(which have a blinding attack, total lulz, let me tell ya) and the entire party was blinded save for my duskblade, I ended up throwing all party members on the disk and carrying the halfling(because the disc follows you) towards the end of this bridge we were on. That was lulz, too.

So, you see, floating disk is one of those spells that are horribly situational, but a swift thinking arcanist can get a lot of unique usage of it.

Also, same guy cast flaming sphere a lot, and that spell is like a poor-man's battlefield control. Put it between you and the orcs and suddenly they don't want to charge the squishy caster.

Falrin
2007-09-16, 12:54 PM
Flaming Sphere is only usefull when defending a portal. Cast the thing in the only 5*5 spot in front of the fighter. A 2d6 Fire shield. Also it's a nice "counter caster" spell. Keep it on the enemy caster and force that concentration. But hey, you can also be invsible/glitterdust/mirror image.

Peregrine
2007-09-16, 01:19 PM
I found that pretty much all of the feats that give +2 to a bunch of skills, or +3 to a single skill, or +2 to a saving throw, or +3 hit points, are generally not worth it, because there are far better feats to take, and in the long run those bonuses are insignificant.

I don't know... even at 20th level, +2 to a weak save is still a 33% boost (over the base save, a high or low ability score may change this).

Toughness is widely acknowledged as awful, yes.

Skill Focus can be valuable for certain skills. And several prestige classes and other nice options require it. From a game design point of view, a weak feat is actually a good thing in this regard. (It still doesn't save Toughness. It's a prereq for Dwarven Defender? Woohoo.) Similarly for the +2/+2 feats, which also all have nice roleplaying possibilities. They all have names that suggest character description.

And let me just say, never underestimate the value of even a +1 bonus in the right place. Weapon Focus will very often do more to up your mean damage output than Improved Critical will.


Regarding spells... For wizards they may be ok because more spells never hurt, but for bards and sorcs with their spell limits, these are bad choices:
Hold portal. Detect undead. Burning hands. Magic aura. Animate rope. Erase. Magic weapon. Arcane lock. Obscure object. Darkness. Magic mouth. Misdirection. Phantom trap. Darkvision. Pyrotechnics.

Well, yeah, wizards always make better utility casters than sorcerers. But on the flipside, Heighten Spell is not a very good choice for wizards, whereas it's moderately awesome for sorcerers. (A wizard will usually have something better to do with a higher spell slot than merely bump up the save on a lower-level spell. A sorcerer doesn't always have that luxury.)

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 01:36 PM
On the top of my head, Shield spell. Unless in very specific circumstances, Mage Armor is just plainly better- it grants the same AC bonus, but lasts for hours/level instead of minute/level.

...But Shield is a Shield bonus, instead of an armor bonus, and is thus awesome. I use Shield all the time because it's awesome.

Stacking bonuses are always really useful, especially when they're as big as +4.


You're kidding, right? You can burn CON for, what, +2d8 damage per point? Go through 14 CON (out of 18-20ish) and that's 28d8, plus the 6d8 base maneuver damage for 34d8, plus normal damage, and +14 to hit, meaning you're pretty much guaranteed to connect.
BAM! They're dead. Your party goes through 7ish charges of a Wand of Lesser Restoration after. Or the cleric just casts Heal and wipes all the CON damage out... which he can do even if the enemy survives somehow.

Heck, assuming there are enemies left, you can follow up with Strike of Righteous Vitality, and Heal *yourself*.

Greater Divine Surge isn't awful, it's verging on overpowered.

I agree. GDS doesn't seem bad in any way to me. That'd be like saying Blade of Blood was bad.

Morty
2007-09-16, 01:42 PM
...But Shield is a Shield bonus, instead of an armor bonus, and is thus awesome. I use Shield all the time because it's awesome.

Stacking bonuses are always really useful, especially when they're as big as +4.

I'm well aware of the fact that Shield grants Shield bonus which is useful sometimes. It's just I don't consider it enough to make up for the fact that Mage Armor lasts 60x longer.
As the point of fact, I use Shield instead of Mage Armor with my current wizard character. But that's only because I banned Conjuration.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 01:44 PM
I'm well aware of the fact that Shield grants Shield bonus which is useful sometimes. It's just I don't consider it enough to make up for the fact that Mage Armor lasts 60x longer.

Of course it makes up for it, because you use them *both.* Also, Shield bonuses are more valuable than armor, because you can totally wear +4 light armor with +0% ASF.

It's not useful just "sometimes." It's useful every time you get a chance to buff. Having +8 AC (Or +10 if you throw in Protection from X too) is nothing to sneeze at using level 1 slots or 12.5gp scrolls. I use it every time I get into a pre-emptive fight with anything that poses an actual threat.


As the point of fact, I use Shield instead of Mage Armor with my current wizard character. But that's only because I banned Conjuration.

The error in your thinking here is that you're using the word "instead." You either are using Mage Armor and Shield at low levels, or you're just using Shield, because Mage Armor actually becomes far less useful after level 5 (because you totally can easily afford kickass armor that doesn't give you any penalties as a mage by then, or use Greater Mage Armor for a +6) and Shield retains its usefulness much longer.

Morty
2007-09-16, 01:50 PM
Of course it makes up for it, because you use them *both.* Also, Shield bonuses are more valuable than armor, because you can totally wear +4 light armor with +0% ASF.

Of course you can use them both. But if I were to choose between thse two spells, Mage Armor seems just plain better. As for Shield bonuses being better than armor bonuses- that I belive doesn't come up until higher levels when you can afford mithral Twilight chain shirts reliably.


It's not useful just "sometimes." It's useful every time you get a chance to buff. I don't know about you, but I rather like level 1 Wizards to have 23 AC in a fight that matters.

Point is, when you buff yourself with Mage Armor, you have +4 AC for much longer than Shield.


The error in your thinking here is that you're using the word "instead." You either are using Mage Armor and Shield at low levels, or you're just using Shield, because Mage Armor actually becomes far less useful after level 5 and Shield retains its usefulness much longer.

Twilight Mithral chainshirt costs around 5000 gp. That's quite a lot, more than half of 5th lev. character's WBL.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 01:52 PM
Of course you can use them both. But if I were to choose between thse two spells, Mage Armor seems just plain better. It's not, past very low level. Also, this is a thread about terrible choices, like Tenser's Floating Disk or Cone of Cold. Not actually great choices that you might occasionally favor a different option on.


Twilight Mithral chainshirt costs around 5000 gp. That's quite a lot, more than half of 5th lev. character's WBL.

But you can still afford it. Additionally, there are plenty of ways for Arcane Spellcasters to be able to cast in light armor without ASF, though those things usually cost a feat or are a class feature or something. For them, Mage Armor's doin' *nothing*.

Morty
2007-09-16, 01:53 PM
It's not, past very low level. Also, this is a thread about terrible, terrible choices, like Tenser's Floating Disk or Cone of Cold. Not actually good choices, that situationally have a better option available.

Well, fair enough. Guess there're a lot more uses of Shield that I was aware of.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 01:57 PM
Well, fair enough. Guess there're a lot more uses of Shield that I was aware of.

Why Shield is good:

1) Duration of 1 min / level is solid. Even a level 1 scroll will be good enough as a pre-emptive buff to last a whole, long fight.
2) Shield Bonus is better than Armor Bonus, because many arcane casters (from battle sorcerors to master spellthief multiclassers) can get armor, and you can just buy light armor with no ASF.
3) Shield bonus *stacks* with armor bonus, so you can get a +8 for having both.
4) You block magic missiles as an extra treat. This actually means very little, because magic missiles are kinda sucky.

Mage Armor has a longer duration and the same bonus, but the type isn't as good, but also, you want to have both, because you want to *stack* AC bonuses. That's the difference between having an okay AC and having a great AC.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 02:04 PM
Some stuff that is so awful no one ever takes it:

Blight: Level 5 wiz, level 4 druid. Spend a mid-high level spell slot to do up to 15d6 damage to a single target, which must be of the plant type, and on top of that it's TOUCH range. *Don't* do that kind of damage to every type of enemy, in an area, at range. Nope. Can't do that. Touch range, small damage, single target, single enemy type. :smalltongue:

Eyebite: A level 6 spell, nerfed to heck and back for 3.5 until it was so horrible no one would ever use it. Cast it, and you can try to make someone make a fort save or *gasp!* be SICKENED. For a sixth level spell. If you're casting a 6th level spell, and someone's failing a fort save? They should be DYING! Are you feeling the suckage yet?

themunck
2007-09-16, 02:12 PM
Some stuff that is so awful no one ever takes it:

Blight: Level 5 wiz, level 4 druid. Spend a mid-high level spell slot to do up to 15d6 damage to a single target, which must be of the plant type, and on top of that it's TOUCH range. *Don't* do that kind of damage to every type of enemy, in an area, at range. Nope. Can't do that. Touch range, small damage, single target, single enemy type. :smalltongue:

Eyebite: A level 6 spell, nerfed to heck and back for 3.5 until it was so horrible no one would ever use it. Cast it, and you can try to make someone make a fort save or *gasp!* be SICKENED. For a sixth level spell. If you're casting a 6th level spell, and someone's failing a fort save? They should be DYING! Are you feeling the suckage yet?

Indeed. This is suposed be the the same power as disintegrate?

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-16, 02:19 PM
Yeah, those spells just aren't good. In any way. Ever.

horseboy
2007-09-16, 02:45 PM
Flaming Sphere is only usefull when defending a portal. Cast the thing in the only 5*5 spot in front of the fighter. A 2d6 Fire shield. Also it's a nice "counter caster" spell. Keep it on the enemy caster and force that concentration. But hey, you can also be invsible/glitterdust/mirror image.
The only other time I could think of would be if you were out of stinking cloud and there were some goblins/kobolds hiding behind cover with missile weapons. You send it past the cover then come back to either force them out or burn.

Leon
2007-09-16, 02:50 PM
I actually like Arcane Lock. Especially if you get it made into an at will item. It's kinda expensive (12,000 GP) but it can be worth it if you can get someone to make it at cost (6,000 GP).

As you move through a dungeon or castle you Arcane Lock every door behind you. And it's always nice to keep a little Dust of Locking around, 300 GP for a use activated 1 time use item of Arcane Lock.

Gives Lockdown a whole new meaning


First, I don't think any classes get both. If you want to deal damage as a Druid before getting wildshape, you're probably casting this. There's also the fact that it lasts multiple rounds as mentioned above.


I'd Rather Produce Flame or Flame Blade, lasts longer, no save and is more controlable (my druid need not worry about what that ball of flame is setting fire to)

Kaelik
2007-09-16, 04:28 PM
Why Shield is good:

1) Duration of 1 min / level is solid. Even a level 1 scroll will be good enough as a pre-emptive buff to last a whole, long fight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it duration of 1 round per level?

John Campbell
2007-09-16, 04:38 PM
Of course you can use them both. But if I were to choose between thse two spells, Mage Armor seems just plain better. As for Shield bonuses being better than armor bonuses- that I belive doesn't come up until higher levels when you can afford mithral Twilight chain shirts reliably.
Or as soon as you find those +1 bracers of armor in a treasure drop. Shield stacks with them; mage armor overlaps them. That doesn't make mage armor useless, until you hit the +4 bracers, but it does mean that shield is giving you a better bonus.


Point is, when you buff yourself with Mage Armor, you have +4 AC for much longer than Shield.
Or +3... or +2... or +nothing... and shield is still giving you that +4. Only for minutes at a time, yes, but that's almost invariably an entire fight. Mage armor has the advantage that you can cast it well beforehand, but by the time it becomes a "cast it in the morning and forget about it" spell, it's been partially or completely replaced by other items that provide continuous armor bonuses.


Twilight Mithral chainshirt costs around 5000 gp. That's quite a lot, more than half of 5th lev. character's WBL.
+1 bracers of armor are only 1000 gp, and, IME, turn up in loot fairly often.

This "special case" covers every arcane caster I've ever seen. And my DM doesn't even allow twilight armor.

My current PC never bothered with bracers of armor, I'll admit. But I am something of a special case. I'm using Runesmith cheese to be able to cast in heavy armor without arcane spell failure. Mage armor doesn't stack with my +2 adamantine full plate. Shield does. I could use a real shield too, I suppose, but then I wouldn't have both hands free to handle my greataxe.

horseboy
2007-09-16, 04:44 PM
Or +3... or +2... or +nothing... and shield is still giving you that +4. Only for minutes at a time, yes, but that's almost invariably an entire fight. Mage armor has the advantage that you can cast it well beforehand, but by the time it becomes a "cast it in the morning and forget about it" spell, it's been partially or completely replaced by other items that provide continuous armor bonuses.


Can I ask a question about this? Why does your tank suck so bad that wizards need +8 to armour? (Shield + Mage armour) At low levels those 2 are a chuck of your spells/day and slightly higher you can fly.

ocato
2007-09-16, 04:47 PM
In my recent research into rogues (rogue/scout is what I settled on), I find that TWF is definately a bad idea. Some people like it, but I can't for the life of me make two weapons feasibly strong enough to equate one better weapon, monetarily or otherwise. I mean, I can't even hit with the second weapon and get skirmish dice added to my sneak dice, so why even bother? I could spend all that money on better +dex item, better weapon, and just hit with one weapon for crazy d6s and hit more often doing so. That's my opinion on TWF, its probably better for other builds, but I'll pass.

Droodle
2007-09-16, 04:47 PM
Can I ask a question about this? Why does your tank suck so bad that wizards need +8 to armour? (Shield + Mage armour) At low levels those 2 are a chuck of your spells/day and slightly higher you can fly.Archers? Enemies who run right past the tank to attack the caster? Ambushes?

ocato
2007-09-16, 04:54 PM
Can I ask a question about this? Why does your tank suck so bad that wizards need +8 to armour? (Shield + Mage armour) At low levels those 2 are a chuck of your spells/day and slightly higher you can fly.

Well, D&D isn't WOW, so the fighter can't do a whole lot to force attacks except by getting right in their face and hoping the DM doesn't metagame the 6 int orc into knowing Wizards are potentially more dangerous despite the wizard having yet to do much except make himself light up a little.

horseboy
2007-09-16, 04:57 PM
Ah, so it's a "Not understanding tactics problem" gottcha.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-09-16, 05:01 PM
In my recent research into rogues (rogue/scout is what I settled on), I find that TWF is definately a bad idea. Some people like it, but I can't for the life of me make two weapons feasibly strong enough to equate one better weapon, monetarily or otherwise. I mean, I can't even hit with the second weapon and get skirmish dice added to my sneak dice, so why even bother? I could spend all that money on better +dex item, better weapon, and just hit with one weapon for crazy d6s and hit more often doing so. That's my opinion on TWF, its probably better for other builds, but I'll pass.

Well, Rogue/Scout was your mistake. You get less extra damage than rogues do, and your bonus damage sources conflict. You have to move to get the skirmish damage, but you want to full attack to get the sneak attack damage more often. You should've picked one or the other and stuck to it.
TWF is good for rogues more than almost anyone, since they have sneak attack. TWF is only worthwhile with bonus damage on each hit... which rogues get.


Can I ask a question about this? Why does your tank suck so bad that wizards need +8 to armour? (Shield + Mage armour) At low levels those 2 are a chuck of your spells/day and slightly higher you can fly.
"Suck so bad" equates to "any tank that didn't take a reach weapon and Stand Still and manage to put himself in the way of every enemy"? At lower levels, the wizard will get attacked. At higher ones... it'll still occasionally happen. Mage Armor lasts you the day for one spell slot; after that, you cast Shield when you need AC.
And a wand of Shield is just 750 gp.


Indeed. This is suposed be the the same power as disintegrate?

Disintegrate, incidentally, sucks. It has a save AND a ranged touch attack AND is SR-Yes, and it doesn't even *guarantee* that you kill them if it works.

As for Eyebite... yeah, it's pretty bad. Not entirely useless, though. Share it with your familiar; it can use its actions for the gaze attacks, and sickened enemies get a -2 to saving throws which you can take advantage of.
Freezing Glare (I think it's called) in Frostburn is vastly better, though.

Droodle
2007-09-16, 05:06 PM
Well, Rogue/Scout was your mistake. You get less extra damage than rogues do, and your bonus damage sources conflict. You have to move to get the skirmish damage, but you want to full attack to get the sneak attack damage more often. You should've picked one or the other and stuck to it.Swift Ambusher fixes that problem quite handily, actually.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-16, 05:06 PM
I don't know... even at 20th level, +2 to a weak save is still a 33% boost
No, it's a 10% boost, because you're rolling on 1d20. And there's an entire line of feats that lets you use, say, your int modifier to will saves, or your cha modifier to ref saves, et cetera. +2 to a save is not bad to have, but my point is that there are always better feats to take.

I really like the "+2/+2 skill" feats, actually, precisely because they have good flavor. The problem with 3E is that if you want a certain option or presclass later on, it often has so many prerequisites that you end up not having any skill points left for flavor use. I'm told 4E changes this.

ocato
2007-09-16, 05:41 PM
Well, Swift Ambusher and Improved Skirmish lets me tumble back, move in, and effectively double my sneak attack (and get a wad of AC) with a single attack if I'm flanking or whatever other fun thing is going on. If I dual wielded, I might double my sneak attack by hitting twice, but I get no AC bonus, and will hit with both attacks less. Especially since the budget for a +4 item only allows for duel-wielding a +3 and a +2 item, so I could hit a lot more often if I'm putting my money into one weapon instead of splitting it up. So I can hit more often for double sneak, or hit less often for either double sneak or regular sneak. I guess I'd prefer the single weapon for the rogue/scout. If I was just going rogue though, I can see TWF being okay. I just prefer to be a rogue/scout.

John Campbell
2007-09-16, 06:26 PM
Ah, so it's a "Not understanding tactics problem" gottcha.

Apparently, but not on my part.

skywalker
2007-09-16, 06:34 PM
The only other time I could think of would be if you were out of stinking cloud and there were some goblins/kobolds hiding behind cover with missile weapons. You send it past the cover then come back to either force them out or burn.

Ah, not exactly. You burn through the cover, and then hit them with it.

Annarrkkii
2007-09-16, 06:38 PM
I find that there's nothing wrong with casting Mage Armor every morning when you rise, and carrying a pair of Shield scrolls behind your belt, in case you find yourself with some prep time before a battle. But in general, yes, Mage Armor is the superior spell, though primarily because of Duration.

Of course, the newer mage armor spells they introduced into the game with Complete Arcane (I THINK that was the book), are actually a pretty hefty step up, as well, despite the reduced duration.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 06:43 PM
+2/+2 feats and skill focuses are much stronger for cross-class skills. Unfortunately, customarily you have someone pumping anything important as a class skill and covering the job that way. Stealthy may be worth a look even so, in the right sort of campaign.

Flaming Sphere could be fairly useful for a limited point buy mage. Between a reflex save and a touch attack, I'll take the reflex save against goblins, kobolds, and such. On a 25 point 18 int/14 con/11 dex? Spending a move action each turn to burn someone with the ball of fire (reflex DC 16 to negate), for three turns on a single spell, and a standard action to drop a double-shotted magic missile, or daze, or if conserving spells to grab +4 AC with total defense, is not a bad deal for a level 3 wizard.

Collin152
2007-09-16, 06:52 PM
Disintegrate, incidentally, sucks. It has a save AND a ranged touch attack AND is SR-Yes, and it doesn't even *guarantee* that you kill them if it works.


I weep for you. Next!

AKA_Bait
2007-09-16, 07:22 PM
Disintegrate, incidentally, sucks. It has a save AND a ranged touch attack AND is SR-Yes, and it doesn't even *guarantee* that you kill them if it works.


Also, it sucks because you lose their loot.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 07:33 PM
Fox's Cunning, Mass.

Any other mass buff spell I can more or less imagine a use for, though they aren't necessarily things the party is going to be doing. Barring a swarm of wizards (or maybe warblades and swashbucklers...) mass-buffing intelligence is not going to do much for you.


Eyebite, incidentally, is a great spell. For bad guys, specifically, or 'good' guys who've decided to intimidate some of their lessers. With a glare, you send a rather tough person fleeing in terror, or cause most people to faint straight away. You can hit 3-4 targets. The effects persist for about 2 hours. And no one dies, which is pretty exotic for people exposed to 6th level offensive magic. Essentially, this is part of the suite of spells that help a level 11+ wizard pass themself off as a demigod. Demographics say that one in 6 large towns has a level 9 cleric, same for druid, none have a level 9 wizard. Avoid those towns, and any other magic users bounce off a globe of invulnerability, and repulsion keeps any thuggish sorts who may be feeling heroic from getting in the way while you demonstrate your power. Hope that in a minute or two when the defenses fail you're either done monologuing and gone or have convinced them that you're invincible...

Leon
2007-09-16, 07:34 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it duration of 1 round per level?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm - in all its glory

Gerrtt
2007-09-16, 07:34 PM
First, I don't think any classes get both. If you want to deal damage as a Druid before getting wildshape, you're probably casting this. There's also the fact that it lasts multiple rounds as mentioned above.

Also on the Shield vs. Mage Armor debate: it's a lot easier to get a magical armor bonus from an item (Bracers of Armor), which wouldn't stack with MA, than it is to get a shield bonus. To my knowledge, the only way to get the latter is through a custom item, and whether you can get it is therefore 100% DM dependent.

The point is, Shield stacks with core items and is therefore more useful at higher levels than Mage Armor. Mage Armor is probably still more useful at lower levels.

Wizards and Sorcerers get both.

Don't forget that shield will protect you from magic missiles, so it has a use besides just giving AC.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-16, 07:35 PM
(Upon posting I realized that I was an entire page behind, but this goes in anyway)

Two Weapon Fighting is pretty good for a rogue and Swift Ambusher can be pretty good for an archer (not until higher levels though), but I can see how combining them would be... well, disappointing.

Sure Strike, I think it is in the PHBII, is worse than Wraithstrike in nearly every case (but Wraithstrike is cheating so that one makes some sense).

excrtd
2007-09-16, 07:36 PM
Also, it sucks because you lose their loot.

The SRD says "Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected."

Douglas
2007-09-16, 07:36 PM
Also, it sucks because you lose their loot.
Maybe in earlier editions, but not in 3.5.

Leon
2007-09-16, 07:41 PM
Disintegrate, incidentally, sucks. It has a save AND a ranged touch attack AND is SR-Yes, and it doesn't even *guarantee* that you kill them if it works.


and the ability to just remove a 10ft cube of a object isnt cool?

AKA_Bait
2007-09-16, 07:42 PM
The SRD says "Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected."

Erm. Hum... where the heck did my brain get that from. I retract my earlier statement.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-09-16, 08:06 PM
and the ability to just remove a 10ft cube of a object isnt cool?

Not for a sixth level spell, it's not.

Hurlbut
2007-09-16, 08:10 PM
Not for a sixth level spell, it's not.Well unless it's a lich's phylactery then it's fun :smallbiggrin:

Tengu
2007-09-16, 08:15 PM
You do realize that TLN listed Disintegrate as one of the few damage spells that are actually worthwhile?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-09-16, 08:20 PM
You do realize that TLN listed Disintegrate as one of the few damage spells that are actually worthwhile?

So? That guide was very good, but it wasn't right about absolutely everything. Disintegrate just isn't very good; I mean, Flesh to Stone guarantees that you've taken them out, so it's a guaranteed Disintegrate without the ranged touch attack.

Leon
2007-09-16, 08:22 PM
ok it has a save and and has SR to beat - Not everything has SR and not everything has a good Fort, its still a darned useful spell, its a regular in my sixth level choices

it has the Utility function over other Full bore blaster spells

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-16, 08:42 PM
So? That guide was very good, but it wasn't right about absolutely everything. Disintegrate just isn't very good; I mean, Flesh to Stone guarantees that you've taken them out, so it's a guaranteed Disintegrate without the ranged touch attack.
It occurs to me that not all enemies are made of flesh.

Other than that, there does seem to be a power imbalance that 5d6 on a save does little to counteract.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-09-16, 08:42 PM
ok it has a save and and has SR to beat - Not everything has SR and not everything has a good Fort, its still a darned useful spell, its a regular in my sixth level choices

it has the Utility function over other Full bore blaster spells

Fortitude is the most common save. The point is, if you're targeting something with a weak Fort save, Flesh to Stone (if it applies) or Baleful Polymorph or one of a number of splatbook spells of Disintegrate's level are better, because you don't have the chance of missing the ranged touch attack.

It's good against undead, I guess.

It has utility other damage spells don't, but other damage spells do a lot more than 5d6 on a failed save (Empowered Orb of Acid, for example--oh, and it's SR-No to boot), and Shatter gives a lot of the utility that Disintegrate does.

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-16, 08:47 PM
Should you scribe Disintegrate if you are a wizard who hasn't banned evocation? Sure. It has it's uses and can be a fairly nice utility/construction spell with some combat applications.

Should a Sorcerer take it? Not really.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-09-16, 08:49 PM
Should you scribe Disintegrate if you are a wizard who hasn't banned evocation? Sure. It has it's uses and can be a fairly nice utility/construction spell with some combat applications.

Should a Sorcerer take it? Not really.

Disintegrate is a Transmutation spell...

Leon
2007-09-16, 08:54 PM
Fortitude is the most common save. The point is, if you're targeting something with a weak Fort save, Flesh to Stone (if it applies) or Baleful Polymorph or one of a number of splatbook spells of Disintegrate's level are better, because you don't have the chance of missing the ranged touch attack.


i 'll agree on that, Baleful Polymorph is a "always" included spell as opposed to a often for Disintergrate

A Toad is always the animal of choice and i call it Buffo Hex instyead of baleful polymorph

Emperor Tippy
2007-09-16, 08:55 PM
Disintegrate is a Transmutation spell...

...
I feel really stupid right now. To much time without sleep.

Nota Biene
2007-09-16, 09:10 PM
...
I feel really stupid right now. To much time without sleep.

Don't feel too bad, Tip. That disintegrate is a transmutation effect makes no sense to me, at least. "Ha! I will 'transform' you into DUST by... dealing you damage! Stop looking at me like that! Evocation sucks!"

Dhavaer
2007-09-16, 09:14 PM
Don't feel too bad, Tip. That disintegrate is a transmutation effect makes no sense to me, at least. "Ha! I will 'transform' you into DUST by... dealing you damage! Stop looking at me like that! Evocation sucks!"

I think it's more dealing damage by transforming into dust.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-16, 09:16 PM
Don't feel too bad, Tip. That disintegrate is a transmutation effect makes no sense to me, at least. "Ha! I will 'transform' you into DUST by... dealing you damage! Stop looking at me like that! Evocation sucks!"
You got it backwards. You deal damage by turning bits of 'em to dust.

Leon
2007-09-16, 09:20 PM
Along the lines of Baleful Teleport, deals damage by porting parts of you away

Peregrine
2007-09-16, 10:30 PM
No, it's a 10% boost, because you're rolling on 1d20. And there's an entire line of feats that lets you use, say, your int modifier to will saves, or your cha modifier to ref saves, et cetera. +2 to a save is not bad to have, but my point is that there are always better feats to take.

Well, you're giving a percentage of the roll, disregarding the base save bonus and the ability modifier. I'm giving a percentage of the base save. At 20th level (straight classed), your weak saves have a base save bonus of +6. An extra +2 isn't bad, though it may be in comparison with some of the other feats you mention (non-core though they be). And Iron Will, in particular, I've seen further used as a prerequisite for various things.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-16, 10:54 PM
At 20th level (straight classed), your weak saves have a base save bonus of +6. An extra +2 isn't bad, though it may be in comparison with some of the other feats you mention (non-core though they be).
But that doesn't tell you anything about how effective the change actually is. It's comprable to giving two bucks to a guy with only one dollar and saying, "Hey, you're so much richer now! I just tripled your wealth!" You get a better picture of effectiveness by seeing how much it affects your chance of success. And Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude only raise your chance of success by 10%. (That is, a 20% chance becomes 30% and so on.)

In even more practical terms, CR 20 creatures tend to have special ability DCs around 30. Going by the NPC tables in the DMG, you can expect a 20th-level character's poor save to be around +10. That's a 5% chance of success. A save-booster feat makes this "jump" to a less-than-impressive 15% chance of success.

Of course, if we're talking about a monster with a a stronger-than average DC ability—i.e. DC 33+, the feat won't actually change the chance of success, as the character will still only succeed on a natural 20.

I suppose one saving grace is that it is pretty easy to out-optimize the sample NPCs in the DMG.

Chronos
2007-09-16, 11:25 PM
Stone to Flesh. It made some sense in 3.0, before they gave wizards Break Enchantment. But now? You've got a lower-level spell which does the same thing and more. Both have a chance of failure, but if Break Enchantment fails, you just try again tomorrow. If Stone to Flesh fails, the poor shlub you're depetrifying dies.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-16, 11:32 PM
That's actually among the least useful uses of stone to flesh. It's better to use it on things like stone walls to make them easily breakable, stones in the middle of wastelands when hungry, primary columns or key stones in structures you'd like to destroy, or the ground or walls on mountains if you need a sudden hiding place and there isn't one nearby.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-09-16, 11:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it duration of 1 round per level?

He is correct Shield 1 minute a level page 278 PHB.

Solo
2007-09-16, 11:45 PM
That's actually among the least useful uses of stone to flesh. It's better to use it on things like stone walls to make them easily breakable, stones in the middle of wastelands when hungry, primary columns or key stones in structures you'd like to destroy, or the ground or walls on mountains if you need a sudden hiding place and there isn't one nearby.

But what kind of meat would it be? If its "not kosher", like human flesh, I don't think you could eat it.... and if it bleeds, just imagine digging through that to make a layer... the gross factor is off the scales.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-16, 11:46 PM
Cook it, then Prestidigitation. It's my secret sauce.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-17, 04:06 AM
Stone to Flesh. It made some sense in 3.0, before they gave wizards Break Enchantment.

Actually, Stone to Flesh is just a leftover artifact from the days where many spells were considered "reversible". In 2E, you could cast a number of spells backwards - like Enlarge/Reduce, or Protect from Fire/Protect from Cold. That you can turn boulders into food is really a joke. Practical at times, but a joke nonetheless.

Leon
2007-09-17, 04:36 AM
That you can turn boulders into food is really a joke. Practical at times, but a joke nonetheless.

"Holly: Emergency back-up supply. We're on the dog's milk."

Irreverent Fool
2007-09-17, 08:00 AM
Yes. But if you have to choose between two spells, and low-level wizard have, due to not having enough spell slots for both, Mage Armor is just plain better.



See above.

And then you dump the first handful of gold you can on the first wizard you can to purchase a scroll of the other and write it into your book. Problem solved. :D

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 08:09 AM
That's actually among the least useful uses of stone to flesh. It's better to use it on things like stone walls to make them easily breakable, stones in the middle of wastelands when hungry, primary columns or key stones in structures you'd like to destroy, or the ground or walls on mountains if you need a sudden hiding place and there isn't one nearby.
Practical. But sounds kinda messy.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-17, 10:33 AM
Practical. But sounds kinda messy.

If you hid in a big gooey pile flesh... wouldn't you be subject to suffocation/drowning rules?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-17, 10:46 AM
If you hid in a big gooey pile flesh... wouldn't you be subject to suffocation/drowning rules?
Bring a bottle of air.

Or, like me, be an Air Genasi. We don't breathe! :smallbiggrin:

Jack Mann
2007-09-17, 02:55 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure break enchantment works here, actually. Since it's a spell that can't be dispelled, it would need to be fifth level or lower for break enchantment to reverse the effects. Stone to flesh is a level six spell. So, it's possible that flesh to stone is needed after all.

Jade_Tarem
2007-09-17, 05:20 PM
I'd always thought of disintigrate as a tool/weapon, much the same way as one may think of a wrecking ball. You can use it as a powerful but unweildy weapon, but the thing it does best is put holes in otherwise hole-proof things.

Chronos
2007-09-17, 06:04 PM
Hmm. I'm not sure break enchantment works here, actually.Hm, you may be right. In 3.0, the spell text specifically said "Break Enchantment can even reverse an instantaneous effect, such as Flesh to Stone", but that last clause isn't in the 3.5 SRD (is it in the printed book?). Just don't tell Celia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0070.html).

And I'm well aware of Stone to Flesh's history as a 2nd-edition reversible spell. But just because it was useful then (especially since both directions of a reversible spell were in some ways the same spell), doesn't make it useful now.

Cruiser1
2007-09-17, 07:56 PM
Fox's Cunning, Mass.
Barring a swarm of wizards (or maybe warblades and swashbucklers...) mass-buffing intelligence is not going to do much for you.I agree this spell's use is situational, and probably better out of combat. The +4 INT that Fox's Cunning gives you means +2 to all INT based skills. If the party is trying to figure out what to do next to further the storyline, cast this before everyone rolls their all-important Knowledge checks. That may not seem like much, but if it prevents you from spending several sessions running around on a wild goose chase, it's as good as one of the powerful divination spells (remember Knowledge checks are "try again: no").

Leon
2007-09-18, 02:51 AM
I'd always thought of disintigrate as a tool/weapon, much the same way as one may think of a wrecking ball. You can use it as a powerful but unweildy weapon, but the thing it does best is put holes in otherwise hole-proof things.

and doesnt leave much mess, just a little dust

horseboy
2007-09-18, 11:58 AM
Ah, not exactly. You burn through the cover, and then hit them with it.

I was thinking more them hiding behind dragons teeth. Where they had solid, interlocking cover from one direction. You yo-yo it past them, then hit them in the direction where there's no cover to protect them.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-18, 01:12 PM
The PHB does include a specific mention of break enchantment defeating flesh to stone. Despite this being contradicted. Possibly they meant the restriction on effecting spells immune to dispel magic to only refer to non-instantaneous spells?

Drider
2007-09-18, 04:27 PM
The last 16 lvls of fighter

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-18, 04:29 PM
Possibly they meant the restriction on effecting spells immune to dispel magic to only refer to non-instantaneous spells?
Assuming the PHB example text which is absent from the SRD is meant to be such an indicator, I would have to agree. Their example "immune to dispel magic" spell is bestow curse which falls in that category.

Talanic
2007-09-18, 05:02 PM
I have to step in to support those save bonuses. Not all of the game is focused on being level 20; some of it is supposed to support you at lower levels.

What percent does Iron Will help your (weak) will save at level 10? 5? Mathematically, it's not really worth it at 20, I admit, but at lower levels it can save your butt.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-18, 05:09 PM
What percent does Iron Will help your (weak) will save at level 10? 5? Mathematically, it's not really worth it at 20, I admit, but at lower levels it can save your butt.
And what happens after you gain enough experience to reach higher levels?

Sure, not every game reaches level 20. But the concept of advancement is one of the key foundations of the game. The elements of the game should support that.

Zherog
2007-09-18, 05:12 PM
And what happens after you gain enough experience to reach higher levels.

You use the retraining rules to replace it. :smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2007-09-18, 05:19 PM
What percent does Iron Will help your (weak) will save at level 10? 5? Mathematically, it's not really worth it at 20, I admit, but at lower levels it can save your butt.

Ten percent.

I admit I've used that +3 hit points feat on a level-one caster once because he was really fragile otherwise, but I still wouldn't take a save bonus feat if the alternative was Cleave, or Spell Focus, or Weapon Finesse.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-18, 05:23 PM
You use the retraining rules to replace it. :smallwink:
Noncore. Not necessarily used in all campaigns.

And here's a thought:

Feats are more expensive than class levels. Even a human fighter recieves fewer feats than levels by 20th level. Therefore, feats are more special than class levels.

It is commonly accepted that there should be a reason to stick with any given base class for a whole twenty levels. Assume we accept this concept. Since feats are more special than class levels, shouldn't it likewise be important that every feat have incentive to be kept throughout the character's career?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-18, 05:30 PM
Noncore. Not necessarily used in all campaigns.

And here's a thought:

Feats are more expensive than class levels. Even a human fighter recieves fewer feats than levels by 20th level. Therefore, feats are more special than class levels.

It is commonly accepted that there should be a reason to stick with any given base class for a whole twenty levels. Assume we accept this concept. Since feats are more special than class levels, shouldn't it likewise be important that every feat have incentive to be kept throughout the character's career?

They should, yes.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 01:41 AM
Noncore. Not necessarily used in all campaigns. And core is used in all campaigns? :smallconfused:


They should, yes.

I agree. Feats should continue to be useful.

Anyways, on topic, many feats suck. REALLY hard.

Here's a few:

1) Jack of All Trades: This does absolutely nothing useful. At all. You just spent a bloody feat to be able to use "trained only" skills untrained... with 0 ranks. So now, you can try and fail. For the cost of a feat. Hoo-freakin'-ray.

2) Toughness: You just got 3 hp. The only place this gets any use at all is level 1, and it's not even particularly good then. Seriously. WTF.

3) Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack: Take 9 levels to get +1 to AC vs *one* foe, +4 vs AoOs while moving (at a point when you could probably easily get tumble every time), and then finally a halfway decent ability after getting two awful feats that's just not worth it. Ew.

4) Exotic Weapon Proficiency: With a scant few exceptions (spiked chain), this is never worth it. The upgrade from 1d8 to 1d10 of a longsword to a bastard sword is a crap deal. Heck, a lot of Exotic weapons aren't even as good as martial ones.

5) Research and Investigator: These probably should just be expanded uses of existing skills. I mean seriously... WTF? A guy with 15 ranks in Knowledge has no ability to research without a feat? How'd he get all that knowledge? Anyways, you're using up a valuable feat slot to just be able to do something you totally should be able to do without a feat.

6) That Gorram Mind Flayer Feat From Complete Psionic: You can't even use it, because the description doesn't give all the necessary information. Yay. :smallannoyed:


Oh yeah, and if Blight and Eyebite weren't enough crappy spells for you... here's...

1) Daylight: This thing is like Light (except a little bit brighter), except it's level 3 for some reason that no one really understands. It doesn't even actually count as sunlight, so it's not even useful against vampires or anything.

2) Fire Trap: Okay... it's level 2 for druids, and level *4* for Wizards. That's right, folks, you too can waste a half pound of gold dust and a 4th level spell slot to ward your favorite lockbox with a trap that deals... get this... 1d4+caster level fire damage with a reflex save for half! It's not like there's a lower level spell that deals more damage in this exact same situation, and has additional utility on top of it... and it's definitely not called Explosive Runes.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-19, 03:24 AM
3) Mnemonic Enhancer: Okay, it's a 4th level spell that'll let you... prepare a 3rd level spell. And costs 50 gp to add insult to injury. Oh, but wait, you can retain a spell! Just... not during a fight or any time you're doing anything that takes any time, cuz this has a 10 minute casting time.
50 GP focus, not material component. That's trivial at level 7. And you're really missing the use of that spell...

Cast it in the evening. Prepare three levels worth of low-level spells for each fourth+ level slot you have available (and each Pearl of Power IV charge you've got left over, or whatever else you've got in your pockets). For the next 24 hours, you have those spells plus your full normal complement prepped in the morning. Not a trivial edge for a level 7-8 wizard, if they can find the time to set it up.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 04:47 AM
1) Daylight: This thing is like Light (except a little bit brighter), except it's level 3 for some reason that no one really understands.
It's an artifact from prior editions. It used to be called "continual light", and be permanent. Unsurprisingly, this led to people using it as street lightning in their cities, and so forth, which got to enough of a ridiculous level that WOTC changed it.

2E has a number of other mostly useless spells, such as
*Fool's Gold (an illusion that made the kind of 'faerie gold' that disappears after awhile, ONLY the material component was more expensive than the amount of gold you got)
*Glorious Transmutation (a spell that, like the philosopher's stone of legend, transmutes a bunch of lead into gold, ONLY the spell is ninth level, by which time money is not an issue, and the cost of getting the spell and its components is actually more than the amount of gold you'd get)
*Affect Normal Fires (apart from this spell's stupid name, it's two effects of causing smoke, putting out a fire, or some damaging burst only work if there's an actual fire nearby, and are easily reproduced by better spells)
*Confuse Languages (the inverse of comprehend languages; it's fun but doesn't do anything useful)
*Forest's Fiery Constrictor (not a bad spell, but the existence of a wizard named "forest" is weird, moreso since he uses fire spells)
*There/Not There (a very weird spell that causes 50% of the present people, at random, to not perceive and pass through a particular object; not useless per se but highly unpredictable)
*Turn Boulder to Pebble (a fourth-level spell; "pebble to boulder" was a flavorful damaging spell, but its inverse makes very little sense)

Awetugiw
2007-09-19, 05:51 AM
3) Mnemonic Enhancer: Okay, it's a 4th level spell that'll let you... prepare a 3rd level spell. And costs 50 gp to add insult to injury. Oh, but wait, you can retain a spell! Just... not during a fight or any time you're doing anything that takes any time, cuz this has a 10 minute casting time.

Actually, if Complete Adventurer is allowed, Mnemonic Enhancer can be pretty good at higher levels. Once you have, say, level 6 spells that one level 4 spell less ain't going to hurt much anymore. However, you do get 3 more level 1 slots to use for swift spells.

Is it really, really great? No. But if you want to be able to cast a swift spell every round in combat is isn't that bad either. Basically, this is a "useful in some situations, useless in most" spell.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 06:02 AM
Actually, if Complete Adventurer is allowed, Mnemonic Enhancer can be pretty good at higher levels. Once you have, say, level 6 spells that one level 4 spell less ain't going to hurt much anymore. However, you do get 3 more level 1 slots to use for swift spells.

Is it really, really great? No. But if you want to be able to cast a swift spell every round in combat is isn't that bad either. Basically, this is a "useful in some situations, useless in most" spell.

By the time you're casting level 6 spells, you're casting a swift spell every round of combat if there's 4 encounters a day, and having spell slots left over. Additionally, at *best* you are getting a paltry two extra 1st level spell castings for the cost of that 4th level slot (at level 11!). Instead of, say, a 4th level swift action spell.

How is that supposed to be "pretty good"?

Awetugiw
2007-09-19, 06:25 AM
Well... Suppose one has a specialist wizard, with enough int to have 2 bonus spells for levels 1 and 2, where the most interesting swift spells are.

That gives 7 level 1, and 7 level 2 spells. That's 14 spells in those levels. Since you'll also want some non-swift spells (invis, for example, you'll probably want 2-3 of those) , and maybe some out-of-encounter swift spells (Instantaneous Search and Locksmith), 8 slots used for swift spells is quite a lot. That's 2 per encounter. Now, with Mnemonic Enhancer, I can have about 11 swift spells, almost 3 per encounter.

I could of course just use my higher level spell slots for lower level swift spells with metamagic feats (extend is pretty cool), but that does cost feats, and is less effective in terms of spell levels than Mnemonic Enhancer.

Better than anything else you've ever seen? Definitely not. Occasionally worthwhile? Yes.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 06:30 AM
That gives 7 level 1, and 7 level 2 spells. That's 14 spells in those levels. Since you'll also want some non-swift spells (invis, for example, you'll probably want 2-3 of those) , and maybe some out-of-encounter swift spells (Instantaneous Search and Locksmith), 8 slots used for swift spells is quite a lot. That's 2 per encounter. Now, with Mnemonic Enhancer, I can have about 11 swift spells, almost 3 per encounter. Except you're using level 1 spells in combat for some reason (and apparently want to have more than 2 level 1 spells per encounter), when everyone else is using level 3-6 spells because they're smart enough to realize that Hesitate and Celerity and Greater Mirror Image are better deals than... Instant Search. People are going to tear your face off, dance on your corpse, and laugh, unless your DM is coddling you. And you're counting 2 per encounter without noting that you also have level 3, level 4, level 5, and level 6 spells which you *should* be using to cast swift spells during encounters. If you're almost always using level 1 swift spells at level *11*, then odds are there's something seriously wrong with your tactics.

The only exceptions tend to be gishes and the like, who want to use Wraithstrike (can't get two of that with Mnemonic Enhancer), or the roguely spells (golemstrike, gravestrike, sniper shot, Hunter's Eye for Unseen Seers). Still, they're generally not going to need more than 10 of those, and higher level spells are going to still be awesome for them.



I could of course just use my higher level spell slots for lower level swift spells with metamagic feats (extend is pretty cool), but that does cost feats, and is less effective in terms of spell levels than Mnemonic Enhancer.

Huh? You can *always* prepare lower level spells in higher level slots. It doesn't require feats. It never has. People just do it quite rarely, because spells tend to get *exponentially* more powerful by level.


Better than anything else you've ever seen? Definitely not. Occasionally worthwhile? Yes.

You still haven't said how it's occasionally worthwhile. How is it occasionally worthwhile to sacrifice Greater Mirror Image for 3 Instantaneous Searches? Or Cloudkill for Magic Missiles and Color Sprays? Especially when you can have a wand of Instantaneous Search that is so cheap, it's practically negligible to your overall character wealth at that level? (Not that I've ever actually found the need to use Instantaneous Search more than like... once per campaign...) Especially when you can't use it to get *any* in-combat versatility or use, because it takes 10 minutes to cast? Especially when you can keep slots open and prepare whatever you want "spontaneously" with the kind of time it takes to cast the enhancer?

I mean, the situation you described as "occasionally worthwhile" looks to me like "gimping your character." You always want to use your most potent spells in combat (i.e. don't cast level 1 spells at level 11), unless the combat is terribly easy, in which case it doesn't even matter if you cast or not... your Fighter lackey or whatever can clean up the mooks.

On the other hand...


50 GP focus, not material component. That's trivial at level 7. And you're really missing the use of that spell...

Cast it in the evening. Prepare three levels worth of low-level spells for each fourth+ level slot you have available (and each Pearl of Power IV charge you've got left over, or whatever else you've got in your pockets). For the next 24 hours, you have those spells plus your full normal complement prepped in the morning. Not a trivial edge for a level 7-8 wizard, if they can find the time to set it up.

That's a far, far better argument. I hadn't thought of that. In fact, I'm wondering why I hadn't heard of it before, because that seems almost too good to be true. After a quick perusal of the preparation rules, though, I can't see anything to contradict it. So... removin' it from the list.

Awetugiw
2007-09-19, 07:05 AM
"I cast Critical Strike. Now my arcane trickster full sneak-attacks the enemy."
"I cast extended Golem strike. I Full sneak-attack the construct. I cast Wraithstrike, and full sneak-attack the construct with touch attacks."

If you're casting level 1 or 2 spells with your standard action? Sure, you're not doing the best you can at that level. That's what swift spells are for.

(And, yes, you can always prepare spells in higher level slots. But that's even more ineffective than Mnemonic Enhancer. And even that is occasionally useful.)

And, considering that activating a wand is a standard action, I'd prefer to memorize my instant search, not cast it from a wand.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 07:13 AM
"I cast Critical Strike. Now my arcane trickster full sneak-attacks the enemy."
"I cast extended Golem strike. I Full sneak-attack the construct. I cast Wraithstrike, and full sneak-attack the construct with touch attacks."
Uhm... yeah. I know how to do that. I'm playing a Rogue/Wizard right now. What's your point? Extended Golem Strike and Wraithstrike are level 2, so you're not getting more than one of those with Mnemonic Enhancer. And Critical Strike isn't exactly amazing enough that I want to use it more than 7 times per day. In fact, I don't really find it amazing enough to want to use two times per day...

Anyways, when I'm going to go off with a rogue/wizard, I'm going to want to cast Extended Hunter's Eye and Cloud of Knives while invisible, have Imbue Familiar with Spell Ability up, and then sneak attack with a quickened spell, a good ray, an attack from the familiar, and an attack from the cloud of knives. If the enemy somehow survives, he'll use Immediate Greater Mirror Image with that 4th level spell slot he didn't spend on Mnemonic Enhancer to get Critical Strikes and Instant Searches to survive himself (or Celerity to just wipe them out, if we wanted to talk about a real optimized game). None of that involves level 1 spells. And it'll wipe out your Critical Striking guy at level 11, because the critical striking guy is getting +1d6 to his sneak attacks and I'm getting +4d6 (on 4 spell attacks which all have higher base damage, which are all already touches, and some which force saves against bad effects to top them off). Even takes less time, since your guy is going to be sneak attacking with 2 or so attacks in *melee* with wraithstrike. And that means you need to set up for a full attack. And put yourself in mortal danger. Yowch.


And, considering that activating a wand is a standard action, I'd prefer to memorize my instant search, not cast it from a wand.
You said it was out of combat. That means it doesn't *matter* how fast the casting is.

Additionally... wands are generally assumed to take the amount of time it takes to actually cast the spell. There's a lot of misconceptions about this, because of the general clause here:


Spell Trigger

Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Contradicted by the primary source for wands, here:


Activation

Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

And the fact that it's left ambiguous about swift and immediate actions because those didn't actually exist when core was written. When core was written, there actually wasn't a such thing as a spell with a casting time was shorter than Standard action, hence "if it takes a longer time." Instead of "if it takes a different time."

Dhavaer
2007-09-19, 07:32 AM
When core was written, there actually wasn't a such thing as a spell with a casting time was shorter than Standard action, hence "if it takes a longer time." Instead of "if it takes a different time."

There was feather fall.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 07:34 AM
There was feather fall.

Hmm, I don't even remember what the original text said for that. The SRD says it's an immediate action. And I've not actually taken out my PHB in just about forever, because the SRD is infinitely more handy >_>

Dhavaer
2007-09-19, 07:37 AM
Hmm, I don't even remember what the original text said for that. The SRD says it's an immediate action. And I've not actually taken out my PHB in just about forever, because the SRD is infinitely more handy >_>

It was a free action, with a note saying it could be cast even when it wasn't your turn.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 07:39 AM
And core is used in all campaigns? :smallconfused:
It's the default assumption for pretty much all D&D discussions unless specified otherwise. The alternative being a free-for-all with no common ground whatsoever where no one knows what the heck the other person is talking about.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 07:41 AM
It's the default assumption for pretty much all D&D discussions unless specified otherwise. The alternative being a free-for-all with no common ground whatsoever where no one knows what the heck the other person is talking about.

And here we thought the RAW was the typical common ground where I came from. Not "The sourcebooks I arbitrarily feel are most important, whether you use them and all their rules in your game or not. And all the other books totally don't matter in any way, and are practically the same thing as houserules!"

"Sure, Polymorph got replaced by something far more reasonable, but that's not our common ground, because that's not in core! Every DM's gotta be assumed to be using the broken version!"

"Sure, there are rules for that type of terrain in Sandstorm, but they're not in the DMG!"

Cmon. That's silly. And the alternative is, you know, not going "BUT THAT'S NOT CORE!" every time someone mentions any supplement. That's hardly a "crazy free-for-all." In fact, it's considerably more civil...

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 07:52 AM
And here we thought the RAW was the typical common ground where I came from. Not "The sourcebooks I arbitrarily feel are most important, whether you use them and all their rules in your game or not. And all the other books totally don't matter in any way, and are practically the same thing as houserules!"

"Sure, Polymorph got replaced by something far more reasonable, but that's not our common ground, because that's not in core! Every DM's gotta be assumed to be using the broken version!"

"Sure, there are rules for that type of terrain in Sandstorm, but they're not in the DMG!"

Cmon. That's silly. And the alternative is, you know, not going "BUT THAT'S NOT CORE!" every time someone mentions any supplement. That's hardly a "crazy free-for-all." In fact, it's considerably more civil...

Wow, straw man massacre you've got going on here.

Generally, it's asked that people present what books they can use at the beginning. Otherwise, it's good to assume core only until they say otherwise, because everyone should have access of some sort to the core rules.

NO ONE is saying that people can't talk about non-core material, just that it should never be assumed.

There is no reason to believe everyone out there has sandstorm. So while you can suggest looking there for certain terrain, it would be annoying as heck to tell people that they should use terrain in that book when they don't have it.

A crazy free for all is exactly what it would be if we had to take into account every book Wotc has ever published, every third party addition, and all the homebrew material we have access to on the site. Nobody has successfully kept track of more than one of those, that I'm aware of.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 08:02 AM
Wow, straw man massacre you've got going on here. Really? Howso? He was responding to my response to him saying "noncore!! Not used in all games!!" as a response, saying that core's the common frame of reference... and thus implying through those two posts that he thinks that's the common frame of reference that needs to be used. I then proceeded to ridicule that idea with silly quotes. :smallwink:


Generally, it's asked that people present what books they can use at the beginning. Otherwise, it's good to assume core only until they say otherwise, because everyone should have access of some sort to the core rules.

NO ONE is saying that people can't talk about non-core material, just that it should never be assumed.

There is no reason to believe everyone out there has sandstorm. So while you can suggest looking there for certain terrain, it would be annoying as heck to tell people that they should use terrain in that book when they don't have it.

A crazy free for all is exactly what it would be if we had to take into account every book Wotc has ever published, every third party addition, and all the homebrew material we have access to on the site. Nobody has successfully kept track of more than one of those, that I'm aware of.

Excuse me? He was coming back against my comment to a guy who said "Noncore!! Not used in all games!!" as a response to someone's comment, which was "Oh, and core is in all games?"

I think someone's crying straw man without reading the whole discussion...

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 08:07 AM
Excuse me? He was coming back against my comment to a guy who said "Noncore!! Not used in all games!!" as a response to someone's comment, which was "Oh, and core is in all games?"

I think someone's crying straw man without reading the whole discussion...

I think you're not thinking too hard.

He said that a variant rule, which is not presented in any of the core books, and which is indeed not used in the vast majority of campaigns, should not be assumed when deciding whether something should be used.

If it isn't in the core books, you shouldn't assume that it applies to everyone.

That's the same point I was making.

Everything else you said had nothing to do with it, you made them up to prove something wrong other than what the point was. Thus, strawmen. Hint: if no one has said something you're arguing against, it's a strawman argument.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 08:09 AM
I think you're not thinking too hard.

He said that a variant rule, which is not presented in any of the core books, and which is indeed not used in the vast majority of campaigns, should not be assumed when deciding whether something should be used.

If it isn't in the core books, you shouldn't assume that it applies to everyone.

That's the same point I was making.

Everything else you said had nothing to do with it, you made them up to prove something wrong other than what the point was. Thus, strawmen. Hint: if no one has said something you're arguing against, it's a strawman argument.

I know what a straw man argument is, thanks. He said that core only was the "common point of reference that everyone should use," and further implied (from my point of view, at least) that you should not give suggestions from other sourcebooks with the "Noncore!" comment. I disagreed with that notion.

Even if there was, by chance, a miscommunication, that is *no* excuse for you to insult my intelligence. That's actually against the rules for this forum.



He said that a variant rule, which is not presented in any of the core books, and which is indeed not used in the vast majority of campaigns, should not be assumed when deciding whether something should be used. *Actually,* all I saw was "Noncore! Not used in all games!" Nothing about it being a variant rule. TBQH, I didn't even read what the relevant rule *was.* I was questioning the logic of decrying it on the basis of being noncore, not on the basis of it being a variant rule (indeed, that wasn't the basis that was given.) Indeed, all I saw was someone shouting "But that's not core!" as soon as someone mentioned something from another source.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 08:19 AM
And here we thought the RAW was the typical common ground where I came from.
RAW from what? RAW refers to the "rules as written" from any given set of rules. You can have RAW from D&D 3.5 PHB or World of Darkness. Likewise you can have RAW from Monopoly or Yahtzee. "RAW" on its own does not define any sort of common ground.


Not "The sourcebooks I arbitrarily feel are most important, whether you use them and all their rules in your game or not. And all the other books totally don't matter in any way, and are practically the same thing as houserules!"
The only thing arbitrary about it is that you can be 100% sure anyone that plays D&D has access to Core (it's in the freely available SRD, man!). You cannot make any guarantees about any other material.


"Sure, there are rules for that type of terrain in Sandstorm, but they're not in the DMG!"
I don't have Sandstorm. Can't really partake in a discussion that requires familiarity with the book. Please let me know if you wish to discuss Sandstorm in advance so I do not waste my time. Sandstorm is not ground you have in common with me. Thank you.


*Actually,* all I saw was "Noncore! Not used in all games!" Nothing about it being a variant rule. TBQH, I didn't even read what the relevant rule *was.*
Way to look at the context! :smallyuk:

Believe it or not, the core/non-core distinction is important in many games and in discussions for many of the reasons outlined above. Yes, sometimes it is an exceedingly arbitrary limit. But other times it's not. That's why context is necessary.

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 08:26 AM
I think someone's crying straw man without reading the whole discussion...


TBQH, I didn't even read what the relevant rule *was.*

You just keep on talkin' there, buddy.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 08:28 AM
RAW from what? RAW refers to the "rules as written" from any given set of rules. You can have RAW from D&D 3.5 PHB or World of Darkness. Likewise you can have RAW from Monopoly or Yahtzee. "RAW" on its own does not define any sort of common ground. I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant, since I'm referring to the way the term "RAW" is typically used in the D&D 3.5e online community: 3.5 D&D rules from official sources.


The only thing arbitrary about it is that you can be 100% sure anyone that plays D&D has access to Core (it's in the freely available SRD, man!). You cannot make any guarantees about any other material. Fair enough. Then again, I see people shouting that things that are in the SRD aren't core, and thus somehow invalid comments.


I don't have Sandstorm. Can't really partake in a discussion that requires familiarity with the book. Please let me know if you wish to discuss Sandstorm in advance so I do not waste my time. Sandstorm is not ground you have in common with me. Thank you. Ah, so if someone says "Hey, this strategy works well if you use this ability from this book..." then you'll say "Hey! Too bad! It's noncore!" as your response?

Sure, you might not want to use Sandstorm, or may not be able to. Does that mean you should attack anyone who makes a suggestion using material for it?



Way to look at the context! :smallyuk:

Believe it or not, the core/non-core distinction is important in many games and in discussions for many of the reasons outlined above. Yes, sometimes it is an exceedingly arbitrary limit. But other times it's not. That's why context is necessary.

Context I see: "The +2 save feats are more useful if you use this option from this book." "But it's not core!! You can't use that!!"

Knowing what that option actually is hardly seems relevant to the point I was expressing. Incidentally, focusing on an irrelevant point would be a Red Herring, a logical fallacy just like the straw man argument.


You just keep on talkin' there, buddy.

There's actually no contradiction or hypocrisy in that (which, incidentally, you would have realized if, as I suggested, you read the whole discussion before making these accusations). The discussion didn't actually mention what the relevant rule did. To read what the relevant rule was, I would have to actually go and crack open a PHB II and look it up, not read the discussion. It just said "retraining rules." I fully read the discussion before responding. That doesn't seem to stop you from making baseless personal attacks, though...

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 08:37 AM
Context I see: "The +2 save feats are more useful if you use this option from this book." "But it's not core!! You can't use that!!"

Knowing what that option actually is hardly seems relevant to the point I was expressing. Incidentally, focusing on an irrelevant point would be a Red Herring, a logical fallacy just like the straw man argument.


There's no contradiction or hypocrisy in that. The discussion didn't actually mention what the relevant rule did. It just said "retraining rules."

The retraining rules are a variant way of playing the game from the PHB 2.

The argument that just because a feat is useful, under specific circumstances that will not apply to most games, that it is a useful feat, is a very bad argument.

Shalahar was pointing out that because the variant was not even a variant of the core rules, that it was mainly irrelevant.

You're twisting his words to make it seem like he's saying all non-core material has this problem.

Edit:

There's actually no contradiction or hypocrisy in that (which, incidentally, you would have realized if, as I suggested, you read the whole discussion before making these accusations). The discussion didn't actually mention what the relevant rule did. To read what the relevant rule was, I would have to actually go and crack open a PHB II and look it up, not read the discussion. It just said "retraining rules." I fully read the discussion before responding. That doesn't seem to stop you from making baseless personal attacks, though...

You just stated you didn't read a relevant portion of the text.

And you're assuming I didn't read the discussion. I did. Before posting the first time. Stop flaming me for not doing so.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 08:46 AM
The argument that just because a feat is useful, under specific circumstances that will not apply to most games, that it is a useful feat, is a very bad argument. The argument I saw was that...
1) It was useful at certain levels and...
2) Though it's not useful at higher levels, the ability to retrain would make it more viable in games that run up to higher levels.

The response I saw was "Well that's not core." Which either implies that the whole contribution is somehow moot on the premise that it's not core, or the comment was actually totally without any meaning.


You're twisting his words to make it seem like he's saying all non-core material has this problem.

The only words I saw were "Noncore! Not everyone uses it!" I didn't twist any of those words. All this stuff about variants? I didn't see any of that in that post. The only one twisting words is the one who is saying that he said "well, it's a variant from a noncore sourcebook and unlikely to be used in many games, and as a result this won't be the case for many players." That's not what was said.


You just stated you didn't read a relevant portion of the text. No, I said I didn't read a RULE from a RULEBOOK that was REFERENCED in the discussion. I never said that I didn't read a portion of the discussion (and indeed, I read the discussion in its entirety.)


Stop flaming me for not doing so.

Geez, more of the accusations! I never flamed you.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 08:50 AM
I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant, since I'm referring to the way the term "RAW" is typically used in the D&D 3.5e online community: 3.5 D&D rules from official sources.
RAW means the rules from whichever books are under discussion. You cannot not have a debate on RAW 3.5 D&D rules from Sandstorm and consider it common ground, as I demonstrated.


Ah, so if someone says "Hey, this strategy works well if you use this ability from this book..." then you'll say "Hey! Too bad! It's noncore!" as your response?
If I'm playing in a campaign that has been arbitrarily restricted to core only, yes. Otherwise, it's "Too bad. I don't have that book," or, "Too bad. I have that book, but we aren't playing with that particular rule," or, "I'll have to check that out."


Sure, you might not want to use Sandstorm, or may not be able to. Does that mean you should attack anyone who makes a suggestion using material for it?
Who's attacking?


Context I see: "The +2 save feats are more useful if you use this option from this book." "But it's not core!! You can't use that!!"
That's the strawman.

I never said, "You can't use that." I said, "Not necessarily used in all campaigns." In other words: Not everyone has it as an available option.

Iron Will is not likely to be on any campaign's restricted list. (One of the reasons for this is that's it's Core.) So the problems with the feat have the potential to come into play in almost any campaign. However, the suggested solution is nowhere near as ubiquitous. (One of the reasons for that is that it is non-core.) Therefore, it is not a solution that gauranteed to be available.


Knowing what that option actually is hardly seems relevant to the point I was expressing. Incidentally, focusing on an irrelevant point would be a Red Herring, a logical fallacy just like the straw man argument.
Comment about it being noncore was support for the main point about availability. And it certainly holds sufficient relevance to the point of availability.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 08:52 AM
I said, "Not necessarily used in all campaigns." In other words: Not everyone has it as an available option.

I know. And I said "Oh, and core isn't the same way?'

Core isn't necessarily used in all campaigns. Not everyone has Polymorph as an available option. Some DMs say it's overpowered and don't use it. Not everyone has the Monk as an available option. Some think its flavor is somehow unfitting. Not everyone has vancian spellcasters as an available option, because people wholly replaced the spellcasting system.

I was pointing out, in that first response, that the fact that it's noncore doesn't make it "not available in everyone's campaigns" because core isn't available in everyone's campaigns either.

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 08:55 AM
(which, incidentally, you would have realized if, as I suggested, you read the whole discussion before making these accusations)



I think someone's crying straw man without reading the whole discussion...

I PMed you already on exactly why, in the forum rules, this is flaming. An accusation that happens to be true is something you need to deal with.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 08:56 AM
The only words I saw were "Noncore! Not everyone uses it!" I didn't twist any of those words. All this stuff about variants? I didn't see any of that in that post. The only one twisting words is the one who is saying that he said "well, it's a variant from a noncore sourcebook and unlikely to be used in many games, and as a result this won't be the case for many players." That's not what was said.
My post was two sentence fragments. Hardly a rigorous logical argument. It's okay to read between the lines in such a case.

Not everything has to be stated explicitly.


I know. And I said "Oh, and core isn't the same way?'

Core isn't necessarily used in all campaigns. Not everyone has Polymorph as an available option. Some DMs say it's overpowered and don't use it. Not everyone has the Monk as an available option. Some think its flavor is somehow unfitting. Not everyone has vancian spellcasters as an available option, because people wholly replaced the spellcasting system.
And if this is the case, it incumbent for those people discussing a campaign from such an angle to specify such variants and house rules. Until then, the default assumption is Core Only.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:06 AM
2) Toughness: You just got 3 hp. The only place this gets any use at all is level 1, and it's not even particularly good then. Seriously. WTF.

This is another feat that goes from "horribly sucktastic" to "meh" if you use the retraining rules. In that scenario, it's not a bad choice for a wizard or sorcerer, since it'll almost double their hit points. But, of course, after about 2nd level or so it becomes a waste of ink on your character sheet.


3) Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack: Take 9 levels to get +1 to AC vs *one* foe, +4 vs AoOs while moving (at a point when you could probably easily get tumble every time), and then finally a halfway decent ability after getting two awful feats that's just not worth it. Ew.

Remember, however, that Tumble is at half speed (unless you want to increase the DC by 10). I mean, don't get me wrong. Dodge and Mobility are really sucky 98% of the time; but if you need to use your full movement distance, the +4 from Mobility can in fact be nice.

The only time Dodge is a vaguely worthwhile feat is if your DM regularly has you fighting one monster/bad guy at a time. I've actually houseruled that Dodge applies to everybody, and still nobody takes it. It's that bad.

Spring Attack is a nice trick to have up your sleeve, especially if you have a speed greater than 30', but yeah - the costs of getting it are prohibitive.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 09:08 AM
And if this is the case, it incumbent for those people discussing a campaign from such an angle to specify such variants and house rules. Until then, the default assumption is Core Only.

This is exactly what I was arguing against. The official rules for 3.5e actually includes all official WotC sourcebooks. It's not generally considered a houserule to add them in. Heck, errata and clarifications for elements of core rules are being printed in supplements! Saying that you should always assume that people will use those (and crying out against any suggestions that use any other source) seems completely silly to me. "Well, yeah, you mentioned that clarification of the weaponlike spells and sneak attacks rules in Complete Arcane, but that's noncore" sounds just as silly to me as "Well, yeah, you mentioned that this strategy would work better if you used this rule variant with it, but that's noncore."


Spring Attack is a nice trick to have up your sleeve, especially if you have a speed greater than 30', but yeah - the costs of getting it are prohibitive.

Spring attack would actually probably be a decent feat if it didn't have two crappy feats as prerequisities.

Artemician
2007-09-19, 09:12 AM
This is exactly what I was arguing against. The official rules for 3.5e actually includes all official WotC sourcebooks. It's not generally considered a houserule to add them in. Saying that you should always assume that people will use those (and crying out against any suggestions that use any other source) seems completely silly to me.

That is correct. The Opening post specifically mentions mechanics from the Tome of Battle, a decidedly non-core sourcebook, so I fail to see why the discussion should only be restrained to Core.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:16 AM
The retraining rules are a variant way of playing the game from the PHB 2.

The argument that just because a feat is useful, under specific circumstances that will not apply to most games, that it is a useful feat, is a very bad argument.

Wow. That's so far from what I said about the save modifier feats combined with the retraining rules it's not even funny. Let's rehash, eh?

Premise: Save bonus feats accomplish the rare scientific phenomena of sucking and blowing at the same time.

Now, I generally agree with that premise. A +2 to a save is a lousy way to spend such a limited resource as a feat slot.

However... IF your game uses the retraining rules from PHB2, then those feats are a pretty decent way to use a feat slot early in your adventuring career, but you need to replace it as soon as possible.


Spring attack would actually probably be a decent feat if it didn't have two crappy feats as prerequisities.

Yep, I agree. Heck, you might be able to convince me it'd be decent with one sucky pre-req. Probably not, but maybe.

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 09:17 AM
That is correct. The Opening post specifically mentions mechanics from the Tome of Battle, a decidedly non-core sourcebook, so I fail to see why the discussion should only be restrained to Core.

It ain't.

Never was.

But the availability of something in tome of battle does not represent it being available for everyone. Pointing out that it does not is not an attempt to restrain the conversation to core only.

A rule that requires an entire game variant is conspicuously less useful. Core rule variants, or those found in the SRD, have a greater chance of being used, as more people have access to them.




Edit:

Zherog, you stated that retraining was what you did when you gained enough experience to make the gains pointless.

If you had said "If you have the retraining rules available, they are more useful" that would have been a much different way of going about the same thing. But Shalahar's retort that those aren't available to everybody was a pretty reasonable response to a matter-of-fact suggestion like yours. Bluntness along with bluntness.

Then What's-his-face decided to go on a crusade against Shalahar's use of the phrase 'not in core' and it all spiraled out of control.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:20 AM
It's an artifact from prior editions. It used to be called "continual light", and be permanent. Unsurprisingly, this led to people using it as street lightning in their cities, and so forth, which got to enough of a ridiculous level that WOTC changed it.

Continual light still exists, though it's called continual flame. It's a 3rd level cleric spell and 2nd level sorcerer/wizard spell. It's what gets used to make an everburning torch. It's also what gets used to make the street lights in the Eberron campaign setting, I believe.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 09:20 AM
However... IF your game uses the retraining rules from PHB2, then those feats are a pretty decent way to use a feat slot early in your adventuring career, but you need to replace it as soon as possible.
Of course, not being one to take my own advice about everything needing to be explicit, I chose to point out that implicit "IF" rather than just let others read between the lines. Of course, it seems my attempt to do so, like the +2 to a save feats, also managed to suck and blow at the same time.

Silly me.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:23 AM
Of course, it seems my attempt to do so, like the +2 to a save feats, also managed to suck and blow at the same time.


Nah. You gotta be really bad to qualify for suckage and blowage at the same time.

:biggrin:

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 09:27 AM
Nah. You gotta be really bad to qualify for suckage and blowage at the same time.

:biggrin:
Thanks. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

So, if it only did one, which was it? (Or did it actually do neither and my perceptions are all just screwed up, thanks to that whirlwind?)

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:33 AM
Nah, you don't want Whirlwind Attack. That's another feat with too many pre-reqs that suck, and the trick it lets you pull off isn't that great to begin with.

Oh, wait...

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 09:36 AM
Nah, you don't want Whirlwind Attack. That's another feat with too many pre-reqs that suck, and the trick it lets you pull off isn't that great to begin with.

Oh, wait...

Incidentally, you can get Whirlwind Attack as a +1 enhancement on your sword. It's in the Magic Item Compendium.

/random tangent.

Artemician
2007-09-19, 09:38 AM
Zherog, you stated that retraining was what you did when you gained enough experience to make the gains pointless.

If you had said "If you have the retraining rules available, they are more useful" that would have been a much different way of going about the same thing. But Shalahar's retort that those aren't available to everybody was a pretty reasonable response to a matter-of-fact suggestion like yours. Bluntness along with bluntness.

Then What's-his-face decided to go on a crusade against Shalahar's use of the phrase 'not in core' and it all spiraled out of control.

You know.. I thought it was a pretty civil discussion up to the point where people started accusing each other of using straw men.

Zherog had stated that certain feats would be worth taking if retraining rules from the PHB II were used.

You use the retraining rules to replace it. :smallwink:

Shalahr then said that the variant was non-core, and thus not necessarily used in many campaigns.

Noncore. Not necessarily used in all campaigns.

OW4 took it to mean that he meant for Core to be used as a common frame of reference for rules discussion, and ridiculed this assumption.

Shalahr then clarified that he did not mean that Core should be used as a common ground, rather that the availability of the option would affect how good the feat was.

All in all, I felt it was a perfectly reasonable and civil discussion.

Zincorium
2007-09-19, 09:43 AM
@Artemician: This is all I was talking about, and I wasn't trying to be vicious about it. Last I checked, sarcasm is still allowed on the boards.


And here we thought the RAW was the typical common ground where I came from. Not "The sourcebooks I arbitrarily feel are most important, whether you use them and all their rules in your game or not. And all the other books totally don't matter in any way, and are practically the same thing as houserules!"

"Sure, Polymorph got replaced by something far more reasonable, but that's not our common ground, because that's not in core! Every DM's gotta be assumed to be using the broken version!"

"Sure, there are rules for that type of terrain in Sandstorm, but they're not in the DMG!"

Cmon. That's silly. And the alternative is, you know, not going "BUT THAT'S NOT CORE!" every time someone mentions any supplement. That's hardly a "crazy free-for-all." In fact, it's considerably more civil...

All these arguments are things nobody has claimed. So, yeah, they seemed fairly strawlike to me, and I was attempting to turn the conversation around.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:48 AM
Incidentally, you can get Whirlwind Attack as a +1 enhancement on your sword. It's in the Magic Item Compendium.

/random tangent.

Huh. Interesting. Without reading the ability (I don't have MIC), it sounds like it'd be worth that price. But there's no way Whirlwind Attack is worth four feats, two of which are quite poor choices.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 09:55 AM
Huh. Interesting. Without reading the ability (I don't have MIC), it sounds like it'd be worth that price. But there's no way Whirlwind Attack is worth four feats, two of which are quite poor choices.

While true, this is also very ironic. When 3E first came out, Whirlwind Attack was considered the best thing since slicing bread, and people were comparing builds based on how soon they could reach this level of awesomeness, considering the fighter a powerful class since he could do it soonest.

Zherog
2007-09-19, 09:59 AM
Whirlwind attack was, indeed, quite good in 3.0. Then, "bag of rats" came along. WotC responded by changing Whirlwind Attack, and their changes took it from being a good feat with an abusable loophole to a really sucky feat without the abusable loophole.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 10:43 AM
Whirlwind attack was, indeed, quite good in 3.0. Then, "bag of rats" came along. WotC responded by changing Whirlwind Attack, and their changes took it from being a good feat with an abusable loophole to a really sucky feat without the abusable loophole.

You mean this: When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities? It's the only change I could find, and it indeed blocks the abusive combo with Great Cleave and a bag of rats (that's what you mean, isn't it?) Why does this make the feat really sucky? Because you can't Haste or Dual wield?

Zherog
2007-09-19, 10:55 AM
You mean this: When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities? It's the only change I could find, and it indeed blocks the abusive combo with Great Cleave and a bag of rats (that's what you mean, isn't it?)

That is what I meant, yes.


Why does this make the feat really sucky? Because you can't Haste or Dual wield?

Haste (or a speed weapon) and TWF are part of it, yeah. But, actually, Cleave is part of it too. By itself, Cleaving off a Whirlwind isn't the worst thing in the world, honestly. The abuse was the "bag of rats" - that is, the player introducing artificial enemies into the combat so as to maximize the number of attacks taken against a "BBEG."

Whirlwind is a very situational feat. In order to make it worthwhile, you need to put your character into a dangerous position - that is, you need to be surrounded by the enemy. To make it even more situational, you probably want to be surrounded by more enemies than you can normally attack.

There were plenty of ways to fix "bag of rats" type Whirlwind-Cleave combo. It's my opinion that WotC's solution (prevent Cleaving - and everything else) was the most heavy-handed potential solution.

John Campbell
2007-09-19, 11:31 AM
Additionally... wands are generally assumed to take the amount of time it takes to actually cast the spell.

That's an... interesting assumption.

Especially in conjunction with a rant about "rules as written".

OneWinged4ngel
2007-09-19, 12:46 PM
That's an... interesting assumption.

Especially in conjunction with a rant about "rules as written".

That's an... interesting way of making an argument. Especially because you're not giving anything remotely like a refutation... just outright proclaiming that it's against the "rules-as-you-interpret-them."

Anyways, I feel this answers where I'm coming from pretty well.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3211956&postcount=5
The relevant quote is...
However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

I've always used this original rule. I'm trying to track down the "later source" errata mentioned in that linked thread, though (This time, I actually haven't heard of this errata, which is fairly surprising to me. Inconveniently, they don't seem to mention where I can find it in the thread). Then again, if Complete Mage or whatever counts against that, then that just goes to show that core only isn't exactly the default assumption you're using. :smallwink:

Anywho, even if it turns out that it is contradicted by a newer source, I can assure you I'll probably be keeping that as a houserule. Why?

Considering that the spells like gravestrike and swift expeditious retreat are balanced with the swift casting time already figured in, it severely underpowers items that hold them if you force them to be used as a standard action. In fact, it underpowers them so much that no one in their right mind would still use them.

Edit: Well, here we go: after searchin' a bit, I found that Spell Compendium, page 4 says that swift action spells are standard anyways. However, it doesn't say that this overrules the primary source, as someone in that thread seemed to have posited... So, really, as far as I can see, you could go either way.

Keld Denar
2007-09-19, 01:04 PM
Well... Suppose one has a specialist wizard, with enough int to have 2 bonus spells for levels 1 and 2, where the most interesting swift spells are.

That gives 7 level 1, and 7 level 2 spells. That's 14 spells in those levels. Since you'll also want some non-swift spells (invis, for example, you'll probably want 2-3 of those) , and maybe some out-of-encounter swift spells (Instantaneous Search and Locksmith), 8 slots used for swift spells is quite a lot. That's 2 per encounter. Now, with Mnemonic Enhancer, I can have about 11 swift spells, almost 3 per encounter.

Better than anything else you've ever seen? Definitely not. Occasionally worthwhile? Yes.

There is NOTHING that Mnemonic Enhancer can do that 3000 gp on 3x pearl of power(PoP)1s or 5000 gp on 1x PoP2 and 1x PoP1 can't do as long as you are talking about multiple encounters per day. And there are are a TON of useful 1st level spells to be casting every day, and every encounter that make PoP1s worth every penny. No Wiz worth his salt should have fewer than 10 PoP1s on him at anytime past level 7.

Ectoplasmic Armor - All day +9 AC vs incorp touch attacks...share with your party
Benign Transposition - swap places with your familiar (or the party fighter and your familiar) for various battlefield tactical advantages
Nerveskitter - +5 init bonus at the start of every battle. YES PLZ!

Lots of good stuff to use often enough, even at high levels. Worth 1000 gp? Yes! Worth a 4th level spell slot? NO!

RNE is one of the worst spells in the game. Hands down.

Larrin
2007-09-19, 01:50 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3211956&postcount=5
The relevant quote is...
However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

I've always used this original rule. I'm trying to track down the "later source" errata mentioned in that linked thread, though (This time, I actually haven't heard of this errata, which is fairly surprising to me. Inconveniently, they don't seem to mention where I can find it in the thread). Then again, if Complete Mage or whatever counts against that, then that just goes to show that core only isn't exactly the default assumption you're using. :smallwink:



The item description of a wand does specifically state otherwise:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm


Activation

Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

*shrug* I never knew untill i looked just now....

John Campbell
2007-09-19, 02:41 PM
As Larrin says.

You already quoted the rule that your assumption violates. You've now stated that another rules source confirms that your reading of the original rule is wrong. I'm not making an argument here. What would be the point? You've done a fine job of making it for me.

Tormsskull
2007-09-19, 03:46 PM
I can't believe I just wasted all that time reading about someone using a strawman, but no maybe they didn't, and all the explanations that went along with it.

Back to the topic at hand:

While I generally consider the +2/+2 to skills to be average (as in, not awesome), I definitely wouldn't consider them worthy of being listed in the "total suckage" list.

I think that 3.0 half-elves were in the "total suckage" list, and 3.5 half-elves aren't much better.

TimeWizard
2007-09-19, 04:45 PM
Poorly chosen? That gold cup jive. C'mon, Jesus was poor. And that chick was total- oh, oh you meant D&D.

Any skill that starts with Profession or Perform, save only in the context of a) Pre-requisites b) Flavor. The former of which is rare and the latter of which never seems to be done correctly.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-19, 06:30 PM
great cleave by the time you get it you won't be able to kill things in 1 hit.Sure you will:
Four gnolls constitute an EL 4 encounter, each of which a 4th level fighter can easily dispatch in a single hit.
Four bugbears constitute an EL 6 encounter, while a 6th level barbarian is more than capable of dealing 16 hp of damage per attack.
A dozen trolls constitutes a CR 12 encounter; if your 12th level tank can't find the means to dish out 63 hp against AC 16 targets, you may need to reexamine other aspects of your build.

For tougher opponents than that, the feat works best in combination with a softening maneuver. Luck doesn't hurt either (critical hits), but you don't need to rely on it.


any amour ARMOR PROFICIENCY feats if your class does not have it you should not try wearing itTell that to anyone opting or forced to play an adept.

Sure, it's very much in the non-STANDARD category, but it's core. :smallwink:

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-19, 07:46 PM
A dozen trolls constitutes a CR 12 encounter; if your 12th level tank can't find the means to dish out 63 hp against AC 16 targets, you may need to reexamine other aspects of your build.
I was under the impression that general advice holds that the EL pattern breaks apart after eight or so creatures are added to the mix.

Can't find the exact reference though. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

Tehnar
2007-09-20, 10:16 AM
Few disagreements here:

Dodge: by itself its meh, but its a prerequisite. And 1 AC is not that bad.

Mobility: 4AC is good. Especialy when you are playing a high AC class with high speed. You will provoke AoOs from moving because sometimes you cant tumble (climbing up a ladder) and not all people can get tumble. A player with a sword and board fighter with combat expertise used this feat to a great advantage in a cramped room with a lot of ogre zombies. Basicly the zombies could hit him only on a natural 20 with mobility, so he deliberatly provoked AoOs from zombies by moving, thus allowing other party members more freedom to move around.


Proffesion, perform, craft and skill enhancing feats are meant to be flavor. And I take some craft proffesion or random athletic skill (such as swim) with any of my character. Why? Because it makes them more fun to play. Other players will remember Kubo the assasin, who killed the duke and his court with supremly prepared (yey proffesion cooking check 32) roasted pig glazed with honey garlic and poison then Krush the half orc barbarian with maxed jump and climb skills (and nothing else).

Mnemonic enhancer:I found this more usefull for a lower lvl wizard (7-10). While it is a 4th lvl slot, most of the time you need to be versatile. Our party wizard used this when he needed another dispell that he had allready cast, or another fireball, or to indentify stuff we just found instead of waiting a day, to get past a locked door that the rogue couldnt open, and recall dozens of specialty spells that are usually not remembered but needed later on (and sometimes there arent scrolls, wands and other consumables in endless supplies). This is a spell that looks bad on paper but works really well in game.




P.S. yes toughness sucks.

tannish2
2007-09-20, 11:51 AM
but... what about the feat that gives you a familiar? (dont remember what book) ?

ocato
2007-09-20, 12:59 PM
I retract my TWF disdain while concerning the rogue/scout idea. Two Weapon Pounce gives it a bit more bite.

Chronos
2007-09-20, 03:29 PM
I just remembered another one: The Healing domain. Not only are all of the domain's spells on the cleric list anyway, but most of them are spells that you can cast spontaneously. You should never need to use domain slots for healing. Nor does the granted power really give you anything worthwhile: It just means that some of your healing spells will heal a little bit more damage than otherwise. But even at best (at first level, casting a Cure Light Wounds), it's still only an 18% increase, and for a Cure Critical Wounds, say, it's a 4% increase or less.

Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).

ocato
2007-09-20, 03:33 PM
I just remembered another one: The Healing domain. Not only are all of the domain's spells on the cleric list anyway, but most of them are spells that you can cast spontaneously. You should never need to use domain slots for healing. Nor does the granted power really give you anything worthwhile: It just means that some of your healing spells will heal a little bit more damage than otherwise. But even at best (at first level, casting a Cure Light Wounds), it's still only an 18% increase, and for a Cure Critical Wounds, say, it's a 4% increase or less.

Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).

Radiant Servant of Pelor. Take a look, I want to say Complete Divine.

skywalker
2007-09-20, 03:33 PM
Whirlwind is a very situational feat. In order to make it worthwhile, you need to put your character into a dangerous position - that is, you need to be surrounded by the enemy. To make it even more situational, you probably want to be surrounded by more enemies than you can normally attack.


I knew a guy who played a minotaur fighter(let's ignore the sub-optimality of this) in a high level game. He took EWP:Spiked Chain and whirlwind attack and all the feats leading up to it(let's ignore the sub-optimality of this).

He spent most of his gold on a brilliant energy spiked chain(let's ignore this one too, please?)

The rest of the party was two monks(I realize now, this story is sounding worse and worse).

All this was made worthwhile by the fact that at a point in an encounter with multiple bad guys in heavy armor, the minotaur walked into the middle of the battlefield and whirlwind attacked everyone(including allies) with his brilliant energy spiked chain. The beauty of this is that none of a monk's AC is made up of non-living matter.

Kaelik
2007-09-20, 04:54 PM
The beauty of this is that none of a monk's AC is made up of non-living matter.

The other beauty is that you can choose not to attack them.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-20, 04:59 PM
I just remembered another one: The Healing domain. Not only are all of the domain's spells on the cleric list anyway, but most of them are spells that you can cast spontaneously. You should never need to use domain slots for healing. Nor does the granted power really give you anything worthwhile: It just means that some of your healing spells will heal a little bit more damage than otherwise. But even at best (at first level, casting a Cure Light Wounds), it's still only an 18% increase, and for a Cure Critical Wounds, say, it's a 4% increase or less.

Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).

Also, try the Domain Sorceror variant in CCham. Healing is a good choice there, since you can now be a spontaneous arcane healer with a CL boost on healing spells, and you get all the healing spells as spells known.

skywalker
2007-09-20, 05:04 PM
The other beauty is that you can choose not to attack them.

Yes, but that's a little bit counter-realistic with a spiked chain, now isn't it? I mean, if you make a whirlwind attack with a spiked chain, clearly you're just whipping the thing around over your head. There's no way to select the targets.

Leon
2007-09-20, 05:15 PM
Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).

Not everything needs to conform with the overated sense of what is optimal or not

Reel On, Love
2007-09-20, 05:28 PM
Not everything needs to conform with the overated sense of what is optimal or not

Aw yeah. Fight the power. Stick it to The Man.

Fizban
2007-09-20, 06:15 PM
Also, try the Domain Sorceror variant in CCham. Healing is a good choice there, since you can now be a spontaneous arcane healer with a CL boost on healing spells, and you get all the healing spells as spells known.

I disagree. The way I read it, you just get to cast each spell once per day, it said nothing about getting it as a spell known.

And even if you do get it as a spell known, still, you only get to cast it 1/day.

If I messed something up please tell me, cause I would much prefer to learn them and cast them as much as I want.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-20, 06:56 PM
Not everything needs to conform with the overated sense of what is optimal or not
There's sub-optimal, and then there's total and complete suckage.

The Healing domain is closer to the latter.

Leon
2007-09-20, 07:29 PM
There's sub-optimal, and then there's total and complete suckage.

The Healing domain is closer to the latter.

Maybe in your view, but not to others.

our cleric in DarkSun has Healing and Water and seems to be happy with them - even has a quite good standing in the Healing Domain Afiliation.
I think you'd find that they would wholeheratedly disagree on your views as to the effectiveness of the domain

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-20, 08:22 PM
I never said you couldn't be happy taking the domain. Just realize you get far more useful spells and abilities from—well from pretty much any other domain.

You can't tell me Healing really balances out against most other domains. Other domains give a far more significant granted power, spells not on the cleric list, cleric spells at an earlier level, or some combination of the previous things. How does the Healing domain stack against that?

We're talking actual utility here. Not whether it's a good character choice.

ocato
2007-09-20, 08:26 PM
Again, check out the Radiant Servant of Pelor PrC. By having the healing domain, you get a bunch of free metamagic feats attached too your heals that make them quite sexy.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-20, 08:29 PM
Doesn't make the Domain itself good.

And not an appropriate PrC for all clerics with the Healing Domain.

ocato
2007-09-20, 08:37 PM
No, but the PrC is good enough, at least for me, to make the Healing domain a less of a poor choice. I just personally see it as "moderate" on the Crap to Gold scale.

Kaelik
2007-09-20, 08:59 PM
No matter how good the Radiant Servant is it would not make the Healing domain more or less justifiable since the RSoP does not require the Healing domain to enter.

Edea
2007-09-20, 09:02 PM
The Master of Masks prestige class. It is total and complete ****. I want to find whoever wrote that and have a serious talk about writing up prestige classes, if only to belay my violent spewing of eternally consuming fire upon their person.

Collin152
2007-09-20, 09:41 PM
The Master of Masks prestige class. It is total and complete ****. I want to find whoever wrote that and have a serious talk about writing up prestige classes, if only to belay my violent spewing of eternally consuming fire upon their person.

Sounds familliar, that one. What's its schtick? Wheres it found? Are the masks cool looking? Are they metaphorical?

ocato
2007-09-20, 09:42 PM
No matter how good the Radiant Servant is it would not make the Healing domain more or less justifiable since the RSoP does not require the Healing domain to enter.

No, but the metamagic applications require the healing domain.

Edea
2007-09-20, 09:49 PM
Sounds familliar, that one. What's its schtick? Wheres it found? Are the masks cool looking? Are they metaphorical?

Let's put it this way: No skill list to speak of, loses six caster levels, gets only half BAB, gets only a d6 hit die, and all of its class abilities revolve around masks that have nothing to do with improving the Master of Masks class.

Basically it's the Chameleon PrC with its balls cut off.

Collin152
2007-09-20, 10:04 PM
Let's put it this way: No skill list to speak of, loses six caster levels, gets only half BAB, gets only a d6 hit die, and all of its class abilities revolve around masks that have nothing to do with improving the Master of Masks class.

Basically it's the Chameleon PrC with its balls cut off.

But what if it was a girl Presige Class?

Chronos
2007-09-20, 10:06 PM
I don't have many books, so I didn't know about Radiant Servant of Pelor, and forgot about Domain Sorcerer (which I read about for another build here). So yeah, there are situations where the Healing domain is good. Still, it says something when a class feature is only useful for some other class.

And while the Healing domain could be good flavor for a cleric, a domain is an awfully big sacrifice. I'll almost always choose a skill or two for flavor purposes, and occasionally even a feat, but a domain? You only get two; best to make them count.

Edea
2007-09-20, 10:07 PM
Probably ugly as all hells, I mean she's wearing all those masks for a reason.

skywalker
2007-09-20, 11:49 PM
I never said you couldn't be happy taking the domain. Just realize you get far more useful spells and abilities from—well from pretty much any other domain.

What about the "planning" domain? I have no idea whether it is actually good or not, I have no idea where it is, but I have heard of it, and I have no idea what its power might be, but it seems like a good candidate for a worse domain than healing.

Dhavaer
2007-09-20, 11:56 PM
What about the "planning" domain? I have no idea whether it is actually good or not, I have no idea where it is, but I have heard of it, and I have no idea what its power might be, but it seems like a good candidate for a worse domain than healing.

Planning is awesome. Extend Spell as a bonus feat, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Heroes' Feast, Greater Scrying, Discern Location and Time Stop as spells. Combine with Travel and you have a cleric who can do the 'scry and die' tactic.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-21, 12:09 AM
Again, check out the Radiant Servant of Pelor PrC. By having the healing domain, you get a bunch of free metamagic feats attached too your heals that make them quite sexy.
It's not at all clear that you need the healing domain to use those abilities (A domain spell means a spell on the domain list!). If you interpret that you do, they become mostly trivial unless you add the otherwise absurd Domain Spontaneity (healing) feat. One cure spell casting per day per level, using your domain slot, isn't a big deal even with free empowered maximize.

Guancyto
2007-09-21, 12:46 AM
Healing's a suboptimal but okayish domain for a negative energy cleric.

Now if only there were evil deities that sported healing domains...

Kurald Galain
2007-09-21, 02:59 AM
Sounds familliar, that one. What's its schtick? Wheres it found? Are the masks cool looking? Are they metaphorical?

Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=3).

It's not a bad presclass per se, you just shouldn't see it as intended for wizards, but more as intended for rogues. I've seen it used in a few cheese builds, anyway, and it can be used to dodge some prereqs on other presclasses.

However, flavor-wise it is absolutely horrid and really doesn't make any sense. Putting on a mask that resembles a high priest does not make you capable of magical healing. It's a very weird class and definitely cheesy.

Now that I think of it, we haven't seen many poor or pointless presclasses in this thread yet... allow me to nominate the Arcane Archer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/arcaneArcher.htm).

Awetugiw
2007-09-21, 04:41 AM
Actually, I think an Arcane Archer will generally be more effective than a Horizon Walker (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/horizonWalker.html)...

The healing domain... Well, since it does give Heal, it is actually a pretty decent choice for Arcane Disciple. Give up a feat to cast heal, and a couple of other spells. As a cleric it probably isn't the most optimal choice, no.

Reel On, Love
2007-09-21, 04:58 AM
Dude, Horizon Walker is great for core meleers, at least to 7. Dimension Door every 1d4 rounds? Tremorsense? Plus skill boosts that help you keep your skills up.

Starsinger
2007-09-21, 05:35 AM
Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).
Jozan has the Healing domain because like his Dark Master (Pelor) he's Evil...

As far as the point of the thread... I nominate Bear Warrior. I honestly think you'd be better off with Druid if you want to be a savage person who transforms into bears. Or atleast Druid/Barbarian.

Awetugiw
2007-09-21, 05:43 AM
Except that at that time you've gotten 5 levels worth of only good fort save, d8 hit die, and no class feature to speak of. (+4 to some skills is nice, but not something you'll take a class for. A conditional +1 to hit and damage? Yeah, on route to being overpowered tight now!)

Not to mention you'll need endurance and knowledge geography +8 to enter. Even as a ranger, that's 8 skill points. As other melee classes, just don't start.

I mean, sure, D-door once per 1d4 rounds isn't bad. But don't forget that it does cost you a round you should have been using to full-attack or charge. It's a nice ability, but not worth 6 levels in a prestige class.

Starsinger
2007-09-21, 05:48 AM
Except that at that time you've gotten 5 levels worth of only good fort save, d8 hit die, and no class feature to speak of. (+4 to some skills is nice, but not something you'll take a class for. A conditional +1 to hit and damage? Yeah, on route to being overpowered tight now!)

Not to mention you'll need endurance and knowledge geography +8 to enter. Even as a ranger, that's 8 skill points. As other melee classes, just don't start.

I mean, sure, D-door once per 1d4 rounds isn't bad. But don't forget that it does cost you a round you should have been using to full-attack or charge. It's a nice ability, but not worth 6 levels in a prestige class.

But Horizon walker is good for barbarians to become immune to fatigue, ya? Atleast so I've heard.

Awetugiw
2007-09-21, 05:54 AM
Well, you'll need at least one level of ranger. Otherwise the Knowledge(geography) +8 will cost you 16 skill points, not to mention 13 levels.

And, well, even then you're just negating something you'll probably rarely encounter anyway. Rage will usually last through an encounter. In the rare occasions that it doesn't, hey, -2 to str and dex is bad, but not disastrous either. Only problem might be the no running or charging thing. Personally, I wouldn't be worried enough about fatigue to take a level in Horizon Walker.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-21, 07:17 AM
It's not at all clear that you need the healing domain to use those abilities (A domain spell means a spell on the domain list!).
That's how I'm inclined to read it.

Though, of course, the term "cleric spell" is always used to mean "spell cast from a cleric slot," "Sorcerer Spell" is always used to mean "spell cast from a sorcerer slot," and so forth. A Sorcerer Cleric with some ability that only affects Sorcerer spells doesn't get any benefit from casting protection from evil from one of his or her Cleric slots, for example.

Unfortunately, I don't have a logical explanation for why "domain spell" should be an exception to this wording. Mostly a gut thing.


However, flavor-wise it is absolutely horrid and really doesn't make any sense. Putting on a mask that resembles a high priest does not make you capable of magical healing.
It does if it's a supernatural (i.e. magical) mask. Which, by the way, it is.

Ulzgoroth
2007-09-21, 07:35 AM
That's how I'm inclined to read it.

Though, of course, the term "cleric spell" is always used to mean "spell cast from a cleric slot," "Sorcerer Spell" is always used to mean "spell cast from a sorcerer slot," and so forth. A Sorcerer Cleric with some ability that only affects Sorcerer spells doesn't get any benefit from casting protection from evil from one of his or her sorcerer slots, for example.

Unfortunately, I don't have a logical explanation for why "domain spell" should be an exception to this wording. Mostly a gut thing.

Er, if I'm competent to read, your example is self-contradictory. That 'protection from evil' is being cast from a sorcerer spell slot, but isn't being counted as a sorcerer spell because it isn't off the sorcerer list, yes? (Except that it is on the sorcerer list, come to think...I'm confused.)

My own favored tidbit at present is:
"If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list (page 183), a cleric can prepare it only in his domain spell slot." (PHB, p32)
This seems to use being a domain spell as distinct from being in a domain slot.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-21, 07:52 AM
Er, if I'm competent to read, your example is self-contradictory. That 'protection from evil' is being cast from a sorcerer spell slot, but isn't being counted as a sorcerer spell because it isn't off the sorcerer list, yes? (Except that it is on the sorcerer list, come to think...I'm confused.)
Oops. Tried to write the example one way and then switched midstream, creating something that tastes faintly of gibberish. I'll edit it now.

Thanks for the heads up.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-21, 08:14 AM
It does if it's a supernatural (i.e. magical) mask. Which, by the way, it is.

But "A wizard did it" is still not an explanation. Good fantasy settings have a system of magic (and/or psionics and/or divinity) that is internally consistent in a way that makes sense. An ability like this breaks that consistency. Saying "well, it's magic" is just a cop-out, and an approach usually only taken by low-quality fantasy writers who can't keep their plot straight and need a deus ex machina.

Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device.

Saph
2007-09-21, 08:25 AM
Well, you'll need at least one level of ranger. Otherwise the Knowledge(geography) +8 will cost you 16 skill points, not to mention 13 levels.

And, well, even then you're just negating something you'll probably rarely encounter anyway. Rage will usually last through an encounter. In the rare occasions that it doesn't, hey, -2 to str and dex is bad, but not disastrous either. Only problem might be the no running or charging thing. Personally, I wouldn't be worried enough about fatigue to take a level in Horizon Walker.

I'd say Horizon Walker's a pretty good PrC. Dimension Door at will is very, very useful, and so is Tremorsense (negate invisibility, negate darkness, negate blinding - those are three big weaknesses of fighter types). Getting darkvision, bonuses to several nice skills, and fire and cold resistance 20 doesn't suck, either.

And it's got among the easiest entry requirements of any prestige class - 8 ranks in Knowledge (geography), and Endurance, which sucks, but which you have already if you're a ranger, so at least this way you feel like you're getting something for it, right? Not an uber PrC by any means, but not a bad one either.

- Saph

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-21, 08:42 AM
But "A wizard did it" is still not an explanation. Good fantasy settings have a system of magic (and/or psionics and/or divinity) that is internally consistent in a way that makes sense. An ability like this breaks that consistency. Saying "well, it's magic" is just a cop-out, and an approach usually only taken by low-quality fantasy writers who can't keep their plot straight and need a deus ex machina.
Well, unfortunately, that's what you get with D&D. The in character explanation for how magic—and even supernatural abilities which go beyond simple magic—is purposefully left nebulous in order for players and DMs to fill in the details with whatever works for their campaign.

And I'm not seeing what the master of masks ability is supposed to be contradicting anyway. It's a magical mask, not really much different from any other magical item that grants its user special abilities.


Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device.
That's been known to happen. But I fail to see how that's the case with Master of Masks any more than it is with the rest of the D&D system.


Tremorsense (negate invisibility, negate darkness, negate blinding - those are three big weaknesses of fighter types)
Uh, you sense their location. Doesn't negate the concealment.

And creatures that fly or attack from more than 30 ft. away still have the advantage.

In short, it's a weakened version of blindsense.

Saph
2007-09-21, 08:56 AM
Uh, you sense their location. Doesn't negate the concealment.

Doesn't it? I've never known for sure - the SRD entry is vague. It specifies for blindsight/blindsense, but for tremorsense it just says "You sense their location" without saying whether you still get the 50% miss chance or not.

- Saph

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-21, 09:08 AM
Doesn't it? I've never known for sure - the SRD entry is vague. It specifies for blindsight/blindsense, but for tremorsense it just says "You sense their location" without saying whether you still get the 50% miss chance or not.
It does require reading outside the tremorsense rules, unfortunately. It becomes more clear when you go into the general concealment rules that specify pinpointing a concealed creature and ignoring it's miss chance are two very different things. That's how it works with Spot. That's how it works with Listen. That's how it works with Blindsense. There's no indication it works any differently with Tremorsense. And the Tremorsense ability description only makes note of sensing locations.

Yeah, it would help if they were more explicit.

Keld Denar
2007-09-21, 09:12 AM
I just remembered another one: The Healing domain. Not only are all of the domain's spells on the cleric list anyway, but most of them are spells that you can cast spontaneously. You should never need to use domain slots for healing. Nor does the granted power really give you anything worthwhile: It just means that some of your healing spells will heal a little bit more damage than otherwise. But even at best (at first level, casting a Cure Light Wounds), it's still only an 18% increase, and for a Cure Critical Wounds, say, it's a 4% increase or less.

Jozan was a schuck for choosing Healing and Good (the alignment domains are also underpowered, though not as bad as Healing).

Radiant Servent makes Healing domain somewhat better. Dropping a 1d8 + 40ish mass cure light is nothing to scoff at, it basically just undid the big nuke the bad guy just hit you with. Still, there ARE better domains out there. Purification gets recitation at 3rd level, instead of 4th. Thats pretty good. Glory domain gets bolt of glory, a single target touch nuke that does Xd12!!!!! to evil outsiders. That is the great axe to the wizards greatsword of disintegrate (2Xd6 per level). Glory also makes turning even better. I've seen a 15th level RSoP with glory and some other magic item buffs DUST 24 HD undead. BAM! combat over.

And don't be knocking good. +1 caster levels are amazing, especially if you can stack them from seperate sources. Grab an orange ioun, beads of karma, divine spell power, and have a bard cast Hymn of Praise on you, and your caster level goes up by 10-12. Now cast Holy Word, and anything that is about your level gets autogibed, no save, no sr. Anything that is up to 5 levels higher than you is so crippled it should wish itself dead. Just hope your party is all good, or you might have to follow up with a couple of raise deads. Plus, good domain is the only way to get access to holy smite, a 4th level shaped glitterdust with sub par to decent damage (depending on subtype of enemy) tacked on for free. Holy smite is the spell you need to cast to craft a weapon with the Holy(+2) upgrade, which is generally a great weapon modifier.

To add something to this thread? SHINING BLADE OF HERONIUS!!!!

ok, its a full BAB class. That's all it's got going for it. A certain number of times per day, you can add buffs to your weapon (shock, holy, holy+shock, brilliant energy) as a STANDARD ACTION that lasts ROUNDS equal to your cha mod. Even with a 30 cha, that's only 10 rounds, and you used a STANDARD FREAKING ACTION to get it. If it was a free or swift action, it might at least be a meh ability, but coupled with the fact that its a STANDARD ACTION!!!!! and the class does not advance ANY of the other standard paladin class features (lay on hands, smite, mount abilities, casting) makes it absolutely worthless.

Leon
2007-09-21, 10:23 AM
The Storm Disciple: damm cool name , damm stupid class

Chronos
2007-09-21, 04:03 PM
And don't be knocking good. +1 caster levels are amazing, especially if you can stack them from seperate sources. Grab an orange ioun, beads of karma, divine spell power, and have a bard cast Hymn of Praise on you, and your caster level goes up by 10-12. Now cast Holy Word, and anything that is about your level gets autogibed, no save, no sr. Anything that is up to 5 levels higher than you is so crippled it should wish itself dead. Just hope your party is all good, or you might have to follow up with a couple of raise deads. Plus, good domain is the only way to get access to holy smite, a 4th level shaped glitterdust with sub par to decent damage (depending on subtype of enemy) tacked on for free. Holy smite is the spell you need to cast to craft a weapon with the Holy(+2) upgrade, which is generally a great weapon modifier.On the other hand, cast that same Holy Word without the Good domain, and your caster level would go up by 9-11. And there are so few Good spells: Holy Word is about the only thing which would benefit. Well, OK, you might get a slight damage boost on your Holy Smite, and any good creatures you summon will last an extra round. Speaking of Holy Smite, the blinding is OK, but I wouldn't consider it worth a 4th-level spell, and the damage is pretty pathetic. It's fine for an outsider which has it at will and is wading into an army of mooks, but otherwise you could probably accomplish more with other spells. Overall, the Good domain isn't worthless (it's a darned sight better than no domain at all), but compared to what other domains can give you, it just doesn't stack up.