Do You Get Upset When Other Players Want To Play A Tier 1 Class? [Archive]

ericgrau

2019-01-13, 03:43 PM

Definitely not. Groups I've played in are too casual to optimize "T1" that much. And those are the veterans. Rookies actually struggle to do well with them, since they're complicated. For the veterans that complication is necessary to keep the game fun. Limiting 3.5's complication when that's it's main fun feature is a horrible, horrible thing to do. Banning NI loops, limiting things like abrupt jaunt, and so on I can see. Or, 95% of the time, playing with players who don't even consider such things in the first place because they rightly see them as dumb and not merely "playing the class well". But frowning upon several classes and saying, "Hey, why are you playing that."? That's awful. Let people play what they want. At least the classes they want, even if you avoid some tricks.

I've accidentally gone overboard with sorcerers and with fighters, with basic optimization and without resorting to any popular forum splatbook tricks. I may try a thiefy or gishy class or some such next to challenge myself with something new and to keep my character's power in check. Again, without any internet super tricks. X cool splatbook feat for the concept that's similar in the power to the PHB but can't be done with the PHB, sure. XYZ power creep feats to make a comboriffic trick, no way.

Or in other words, with their limited knowledge 99% of players have to go out of their way and Google a bunch of tips and trips to break the system with "T1". It's not about needing to hold back to avoid breaking anything, it's about needing to go out of your way to break anything. And 95% of players won't even attempt to do that. Those who browse forums may be much more tempted to use what they've read before, but even then I think most don't or aren't active enough online. Or at least this is true for nearly every single person I've met. I remember one single person who was trying to abuse the system with rules that weren't actually legal, and if he had any internet help I think he would have known it wasn't legal. I've heard another talk about such people and how he avoids doing the same even though he knows how. But I haven't met a single such person myself.

noob

2019-01-13, 03:45 PM

Did you mean the other way around? It's easy to play a tier 1 class as a tier 3 one?

A tier 3 character is something like bob the wizard/monk/fighter/rogue/cleric who decides to only cast flight and fireball.
A tier 3 class is something like the crusader.
Characters are individuals and classes are stuff a character can pick.
a character that picks only levels in wizard can be tier 3 if it only ever use a very limited set of its options rather than always picking the right options(example bob could take spell mastery for taking only the fly and fireball spells then reduce in small bits its spellbook then dip it into glue to make a hat that he then wears).

GoodbyeSoberDay

2019-01-13, 03:55 PM

Fear the player more than the class. An optimizer can do more with a prep caster than a monk or the like, but he can do quite a bit with anything. One nice thing about prep casters: They're much less likely to be a one-trick pony. Those are some of the hardest characters to deal with, both as a fellow player and as a GM, because they exist in a binary state of "steamroller" or "do nothing."

As a GM I do worry about balance within the party, but again, fear the player more than the class. If a noob wants to play a cleric while an optimizer wants to make the most of the monk, great! The class disparity will tone down the actual power disparity. If I were GMing a bunch of new players, the only prep caster I'd worry about is a Druid, since it can be overpowered on accident from level 1 onward. You really can't say the same about the other prep casters about until Polymorph comes around.

Elkad

2019-01-13, 04:15 PM

I love prepared casters.

Figuring out what spells to prep is a whole mini-game every character day.
Doing it from a restricted list (and figuring how to expand that list) is another mini-game.

The only core class that really fits that is Wizard.
Archivist fits for the divine side.

So since I prefer tier1s myself (even if I limit myself to fit the party (never happens), or go GodMode so they don't notice (happens a lot)), no I'm never upset when someone else does the same. I'll be encouraging the "always a fighter" player to be a sorcadin or duskblade or warblade instead, every time.

As the DM? I encourage my party to balance itself and play towards the upper end, but if they want to play cleric, druid, wizard, archivist, sorcadin and a lone monk, I'll make it work.

Doctor Awkward

2019-01-13, 04:17 PM

Ok. I know that the tier 1 character are always the stars in the game. And they basically do just about every thing and sometimes they "showboat" their abilities a bit too much which makes the other players upset thinking that tier 1 classes is better than all other classes that's not tier 1.

This is not a system problem.

This is a player problem.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-13, 04:20 PM

This is not a system problem.

This is a player problem.

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

noob

2019-01-13, 04:20 PM

This is not a system problem.

This is a player problem.

I agree: there is many ways for a tier one player to solve all the problems while making the other party members believe they did solve the problem.

Recherché

2019-01-13, 04:35 PM

Normally I don't get upset at all about it. One time the rest of the party had agreed to keep things tier 3 or below because we felt it fit the setting better and the new person we invited in was insisting on wizard and not a particularly weak build at that. I think we were more upset at him not being willing to go along with the ground rules the rest of us had agreed on than on him wanting to play a tier 1 class per se.

ericgrau

2019-01-13, 04:39 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

If the wizard polymorphs into a wartroll, or even knows that a wartroll exists, that's mostly a player problem. If he polymorphs into a hydra, you'll find it looks nice in theory but most of his many attacks miss, do low damage even when they do hit, and his HP & AC are low. It's a minor problem that the system has 45,000 options and it's impossible to avoid a few of those messing the game up, but that's more of a feature than it is a bug.

Elkad

2019-01-13, 04:41 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

Sure, but even in a game with a single character class, someone in the group is going to be a more-optimized (I started to say better, but in this context it isn't) player and outshine another player. Sometimes grossly.

D&D (and basically every other TTRPG) is a team effort. A good team plays to their own strengths and fills party weaknesses, vs all getting in a competition to be the best at the same job.

Exception: Druid. They outshine a lot of classes completely by accident, especially at low-mid levels. Which means a new player might not even realize he's doing it.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-13, 04:42 PM

If the wizard polymorphs into a wartroll, or even knows that a wartroll exists, that's mostly a player problem.

Um, no, the fact that doing so is even possible is most definitely a system problem.

If he polymorphs into a hydra, you'll find it looks nice in theory but most of his many attacks miss, do low damage even when they do hit, and his HP & AC are low.

Assuming the Wizard doesn't use other buff spells to make his AC better, raise his STR, ect.

It's a minor problem that the system has 45,000 options and it's impossible to avoid a few of those messing the game up, but that's more of a feature than it is a bug.

Sorry, but being able to cast Planar Binding and forever obsolete the Fighter is a system bug.

stack

2019-01-13, 04:43 PM

No, because I mostly avoid playing without spheres of power, so there are no tier 1s.:smallbiggrin:

ericgrau

2019-01-13, 04:43 PM

And if a DM bans "T1"s or others shame a player for "T1"s, that's a major DM or player problem. Our group is about to switch systems next campaign purely for the extra options 3.5 has, including caster options. Not one is trying to, has, nor will break the system. Not being allowed to is a huge red flag to start looking for another D&D group.

Sorry, but being able to cast Planar Binding and forever obsolete the Fighter is a system bug.
Quote, describe or link to one game where it happened, with a core monster with equal or higher CR than the party level (and so the fighter's level). And appropriate extraplanar revenge, or avoidance of that revenge, per the spell text.

Rynjin

2019-01-13, 05:13 PM

And if a DM bans "T1"s or others shame a player for "T1"s, that's a major DM or player problem. Our group is about to switch systems next campaign purely for the extra options 3.5 has, including caster options. Not one is trying to, has, nor will break the system. Not being allowed to is a huge red flag to start looking for another D&D group.

Quote, describe or link to one game where it happened, with a core monster with equal or higher CR than the party level (and so the fighter's level). And appropriate extraplanar revenge, or avoidance of that revenge, per the spell text.

Not a Fighter, but I needed to ask my Wizard to change his True Name choice in one of my PF games because the Succubus made everybody else's (primarily the Inquisitor) social skill ranks feel pointless.

I could see a mid-op archer Fighter feeling outdone by a bound Erinyes at some CR levels though, if you want a combat example.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-13, 05:16 PM

Quote, describe or link to one game where it happened, with a core monster with equal or higher CR than the party level (and so the fighter's level). And appropriate extraplanar revenge, or avoidance of that revenge, per the spell text.

Utterly irrelevant, the ability to obsolete the Fighter with the spell still exists and the revenge clause is vague.

It's also hardly the only spell that is capable of making the Fighter cry.

Pex

2019-01-13, 05:22 PM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

You ask this like there's something wrong to do so how dare they.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2019-01-13, 05:28 PM

The core of the issue is the set of abilities and spells that access the monster manuals, such as Planar Binding and its derivatives. Deal with those abilities specifically - which I think we all agree is reasonable - and Wizard & Friends are still quite powerful but not as game-breaking.

I disagree that the choice to avoid/downplay game-breaking options is irrelevant. Gentleman's agreements are one way of dealing with borked mechanics. There's still a problem (waves to Oberoni), but it can be handled without blanket bans.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-13, 05:28 PM

Depends on what I expect them to do with it.

If I expect they're going to take its power to the extreme and/or beyond the point the GM can handle, yeah, that's a problem in the works. I'll still try to convince them to reel it back to a more reasonable level before getting mad is even a possibility though.

Generally, that's not a concern that comes up though.

Someone once said something to the effect that playing a wizard to its fullest potential takes something like a university minor's worth of study, which I believe is true. I've done that much study in this game and more. I know both how to bring the most out of a T1 and how to challenge that meaningfully and am more than happy to share this knowledge with my GMs at least up through level 16. 9th level spells really do change the game one last time before epic breaks everything.

The thing about playing non-casters is that you know going in that they intrinsically have less ability to direct the course of play unless they just buy the game changing effects that casters gain access to by simply leveling; flight, long-distance teleportation, planar access, etc. There's nothing wrong with playing with a smaller toolbox but it's unreasonable to choose that and then get aggravated at the guy who chose the bigger toolbox.

Elkad

2019-01-13, 05:36 PM

Polymorphing himself into a war troll is the less-optimal decision vs polymorphing the fighter into one, in nearly every case.

So, assuming there IS a fighter in the party, that's a player problem.

Bartmanhomer

2019-01-13, 05:41 PM

You ask this like there's something wrong to do so how dare they.

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

Selion

2019-01-13, 05:55 PM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

Why should I? Tier 1 classes are not that unbalanced if played fairly.
My favourite class is wizard, every wizard i played had only strongly thematic spells in his spellbook, so if i specialized in evocation i wouldn't use illusions if not occasionally.
Furthermore, tier 1 classes begin to be ahead after level 10, and by that level usually customized items kick in for martial classes; as a DM if i see a character is way behind the others, i'm prone to balance things with items. In my group at level 12th the character who gave me balance issues was the ranger and in the same group there were a oracle and a witch, that's because the ranger had a nice sword and the spellcasters were not optimized.
Conversely, if a player, after picking a tier 1 class, begins to select the strongest options in the manual without a clear reason his character would take them other than power playing, i may have a couple of words with him.

EDIT: I even noticed a different issue with spellcasters, they are supposed to know their stuff, if their enemies begin to use divinations and teleports they need to keep the pace

Eldariel

2019-01-13, 05:58 PM

Quote, describe or link to one game where it happened, with a core monster with equal or higher CR than the party level (and so the fighter's level). And appropriate extraplanar revenge, or avoidance of that revenge, per the spell text.

My 3-player group had a game where we started as duo of Warlock and Dervish (we ran the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but the Warlock eventually got bored of spamming Eldritch Blast, and built a Wizard/Nar Demonbinder as his replacement character. He Planar Bound a Glabrezu around level 11, won the opposed check handily and the duration was more than enough to stick around until the end of the adventure (Nar Demonbinder's whole shtick is Planar Binding so as soon as he decided on the class, the spell was at the very core of the menu). And since he had no qualms about letting the Glabrezu take souls or revel in slaughter, it wasn't even that unhappy with how it turned out so direct retribution seemed unlikely at best. My Dervish was mostly sidelined since the Glabrezu was just plain better at everything he did and had like Reverse Gravity at will. I was waiting many levels to get +1s to attack while the Demonbinder could've bound a Pit Fiend by the end of the campaign.

So, it does happen, especially when players are unaware of the fact that the spell is completely broken in the sense that it's way more powerful than anything else of equivalent level (of course, we knew afterwards). This is doubly a problem since it's demonbinding Magi are iconic and classes built around it exist so you can't just ban it or not use it easily either. Essentially there's no real way to play a balanced demonbinder type character since the spells designed for that purpose in the game completely break the game wide open, are too safe and too powerful. They explicitly let you, after a fashion, control the called creature with the Charisma-check, which is bollocks for a Conjuration and bollocks as a non-mind affecting effect in the first place. It's the same problem as with Gate; in fairy tales and older D&D alike the potential power of such acts is balanced by its innate riskiness and huge costs but 3.5 did away with the riskiness and you don't need to pay anything if you're Charismatic enough (or take your time buffing yourself and debuffing the bound creature as it powerlessly sits in the circle).

Melcar

2019-01-13, 06:10 PM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

Why would I? I usually want to play “tier 1” classes my-self!

And getting upset about my friends wants to play is not something I do! For me it’s all about the greatest fun for the greatest number of people!

I will say though that the characters should fit the campaign setting, whether that be classic adventure party, or tribal warriors!

Ok. I know that the tier 1 character are always the stars in the game. And they basically do just about every thing and sometimes they "showboat" their abilities a bit too much which makes the other players upset thinking that tier 1 classes is better than all other classes that's not tier 1.

That is solely a player problem, not a class problem! If people don’t act lake douche bags this is never a problem!

And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

No one is bothered by class choice, it’s all about how they are played... ergo a player issue!

Doctor Awkward

2019-01-13, 06:14 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

I agree: there is many ways for a tier one player to solve all the problems while making the other party members believe they did solve the problem.

Okay, let's try another approach:

Ok. I know that the tier 1 character are always the stars in the game. And they basically do just about every thing and sometimes they "showboat" their abilities a bit too much which makes the other players upset thinking that tier 1 classes is better than all other classes that's not tier 1.

False.
This is something that only occurs when a player chooses to build and run a character like this, and a DM allows it to happen.

This happens when the DM is constructing an adventure with the majority of the party in mind, and it is far below the capabilities of one of the players. If the DM scales the encounter to the one powerful player then you have the same problem as they are the only ones that can meaningfully contribute.

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If all characters in the party are equally capable and powerful then the DM would be scaling encounters around them and they would all be contributing equally.

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

Crake

2019-01-13, 06:40 PM

Someone once said something to the effect that playing a wizard to its fullest potential takes something like a university minor's worth of study, which I believe is true.

Looks down at sig Yeah, I rememeber that :smalltongue:

My 3-player group had a game where we started as duo of Warlock and Dervish (we ran the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but the Warlock eventually got bored of spamming Eldritch Blast, and built a Wizard/Nar Demonbinder as his replacement character. He Planar Bound a Glabrezu around level 11, won the opposed check handily and the duration was more than enough to stick around until the end of the adventure (Nar Demonbinder's whole shtick is Planar Binding so as soon as he decided on the class, the spell was at the very core of the menu). And since he had no qualms about letting the Glabrezu take souls or revel in slaughter, it wasn't even that unhappy with how it turned out so direct retribution seemed unlikely at best. My Dervish was mostly sidelined since the Glabrezu was just plain better at everything he did and had like Reverse Gravity at will. I was waiting many levels to get +1s to attack while the Demonbinder could've bound a Pit Fiend by the end of the campaign.

So, it does happen, especially when players are unaware of the fact that the spell is completely broken in the sense that it's way more powerful than anything else of equivalent level (of course, we knew afterwards). This is doubly a problem since it's demonbinding Magi are iconic and classes built around it exist so you can't just ban it or not use it easily either. Essentially there's no real way to play a balanced demonbinder type character since the spells designed for that purpose in the game completely break the game wide open, are too safe and too powerful. They explicitly let you, after a fashion, control the called creature with the Charisma-check, which is bollocks for a Conjuration and bollocks as a non-mind affecting effect in the first place. It's the same problem as with Gate; in fairy tales and older D&D alike the potential power of such acts is balanced by its innate riskiness and huge costs but 3.5 did away with the riskiness and you don't need to pay anything if you're Charismatic enough (or take your time buffing yourself and debuffing the bound creature as it powerlessly sits in the circle).

I'll be honest, this sounds like the spell being mishandled rather than the spell being overpowered. The glabrezu doesn't get to "take souls" just because he killed something. He takes souls by corrupting individuals and drawing them to chaotic evil, by offering them twisted wishes. Sure, he might have reveled in slaughter, but at the same time he was being jerked around by some mortal. Realistically he should have been twisting and misinterpreting every word of the binder, but that would have derailed the game. So basically the binder was taking advantage of the DM not wanting to make a whole thing out of the binder and the demon's struggle, because it would screw everyone else over.

While this might have happened accidentally on the binder's behalf, the issue was caused by the spell being mishandled by the DM, in the interest of keeping the game moving forward, at least from what I can see.

noob

2019-01-13, 07:02 PM

Okay, let's try another approach:

False.
This is something that only occurs when a player chooses to build and run a character like this, and a DM allows it to happen.

This happens when the DM is constructing an adventure with the majority of the party in mind, and it is far below the capabilities of one of the players. If the DM scales the encounter to the one powerful player then you have the same problem as they are the only ones that can meaningfully contribute.

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If all characters in the party are equally capable and powerful then the DM would be scaling encounters around them and they would all be contributing equally.

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

you interpreted my assertion wrong.
what I meant is that the wizard could give the other party members the feel that it is them(and not the wizard) that did the job.

Zanos

2019-01-13, 07:07 PM

People bother me, not classes. I find people that need to be in the spotlight all the time irritating when they play t1 characters well, because they insist on being the star constantly. But those kinds of people tend to make themselves a problem when they play weaker characters too, because they usually try anyway and then complain when they fail.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-13, 07:16 PM

noob

2019-01-13, 07:26 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-13, 07:58 PM

No.

I have met a few people like that though, and let me tell you, you shouldn't play with them. A toxic hateful scrub has more than enough problems for you to either leave the table or get him kicked. A T1 hater does NOT hate T1s only. They hate a metric **** ton of stuff that they don't want to bother learning.

You don't -have- to learn all that to make a minimally competent T1 character. Just like you can make a weapon focus barbarian, you can make a fireball wizard. You won't be playing to the classes' strengths but you will be perfectly capable of getting through published adventure modules.

Though, to be perfectly frank, 3e simply isn't a game suited to people who want to just pick a race, a class, and go. If going full wizard is too much then beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage all take a lot less thought while still being decently powerful and feeling like proper mages.

Sorcerer is about 95% as good as wizard and much easier to use in play as long as you know how to pick good spells. Mystic (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) maps pretty nicely to "cleric but easier" though favored soul is better known for the same role even if it doesn't fill it as well. Erudite drops to regular psion while druid and artificer are, unfortunately unique enough that they can't be easily replaced by a lesser class. In all cases it's just a matter of picking good spells/ powers to be competent.

Pex

2019-01-13, 08:02 PM

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

It bothers me if you steal from party members. It bothers me if you don't share important need to know information you learn with the party. It bothers me if you don't help other party members. It bothers me you help other party members but express your resentment doing so. It bothers me you help other party members but express how dumb they are for being in the mess they're in and need you to save them again. It bothers me if you purposely make an encounter go sour because you're bored just when it was about to be concluded without a fuss or combat.

I don't give a Hoover what class you play.

noob

2019-01-13, 08:06 PM

Spontaneous cloistered cleric with prcs for domain spam as well as the substitute domain spell can be close in ability to a non optimized regular cleric while not being tier 1.
So you might consider spontaneous cloistered cleric rather than mystic for your spontaneous clericking needs.

Awakeninfinity

2019-01-13, 08:28 PM

I don't worry about it because most of the players will usually do unoptimized characters. Especially one of my current fellow player's who won't take advice from anyone except from the DM...

The one that can optimize usually keep to themself in game and usually doesn't showboat.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-13, 08:33 PM

Some of the T1 haters knows all about the mechanics of the game.
Grod the Giant did make a complete revamp of dnd 3.5 to make caster classes more balanced with non caster classes(but it is really heavy modifications and it involve giving more options to most non casters and forcing the casters to be heavily specialized)

Few exceptions to the general rule. 100% of T1 haters I've met are crybaby scrubs who leeroy jenkins into combat and cry like a ***** when that strategy conflicts with my AoE spells or I kill someone with summoned creatures instead of letting him kill it. They all have absolutely no interest in learning how to play the game like properly outfitting their character with WBL that grant flight and such and instead ***** that I should prepare 100% of my spells with fly and magic weapon instead of summon monster.

You don't -have- to learn all that to make a minimally competent T1 character. Just like you can make a weapon focus barbarian, you can make a fireball wizard. You won't be playing to the classes' strengths but you will be perfectly capable of getting through published adventure modules.

Though, to be perfectly frank, 3e simply isn't a game suited to people who want to just pick a race, a class, and go. If going full wizard is too much then beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage all take a lot less thought while still being decently powerful and feeling like proper mages.

Sorcerer is about 95% as good as wizard and much easier to use in play as long as you know how to pick good spells. Mystic (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) maps pretty nicely to "cleric but easier" though favored soul is better known for the same role even if it doesn't fill it as well. Erudite drops to regular psion while druid and artificer are, unfortunately unique enough that they can't be easily replaced by a lesser class. In all cases it's just a matter of picking good spells/ powers to be competent.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to leeroy jenkins T5s who don't want to read about magic items and want to force a low-op playstyle on the whole group and calls you a T1 munchkin if you don't do as he says. Not new players playing wizards.

Cosi

2019-01-13, 08:38 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

It's both a system problem and a player problem. And it's not as simple as "jerk Wizards overshadow noble Fighters" (or the converse "jerk Fighters drag down noble Wizards"). Imbalances exist at the system level. That's quite obviously true, even to the point that you can build two characters of the same nominal level and have one be strictly more powerful than another.

But the problem is not really as simple as "Wizards overshadow Fighters". Yes, a competently built melee Cleric (or other melee caster build) is generally going to be better than a equally-optimized non-caster build, but that gap is (at most levels of optimization) small enough not to break anyone's game. A buffed-up CoDzilla is a better melee combatant than a Warblade, but not enough to make the Warblade irrelevant.

The biggest problem is the areas where non-casters simply don't have relevant abilities at all. When a Wizard teleports the party from one city to another, he's not "overshadowing" the Fighter. The Fighter didn't have some notionally-useful ability that wasn't as good as teleport, he had nothing. This leads to a problem where the game tends to under-emphasize non-combat problems precisely because non-casters mostly don't have any useful tools.

There is also the issue of two persistent failures of analysis in this community:

First, there's a tendency to act like the Wizard being better than the Fighter is itself evidence that the Wizard is overpowered. That's nonsense. It's like asserting that because 7 is bigger than 4, 7 is a big number. That doesn't make any sense. You have to define what it means for a number to be "big". If you're asking about the number of banks someone has robbed, 7 is a pretty big number. If you're asking about their age, it's a lot less so.

Second, there's a tendency to view the issue from the Fighter's perspective. Generally this is phrased something like "melee is the Fighter's job, the Cleric should be supporting him, you're a bad player for overshadowing him instead". This is also nonsense. The guy playing the Fighter is no more entitled to be the party beatstick than the guy playing the Cleric is. He may have less fun doing that if the Cleric is also meleeing, but presumably forcing the Cleric into a supporting role would reduce his fun, or he'd already be in that role.

Basically, people have convinced themselves that the Wizard is a problem, and that warps their thinking. I tend to blame the tiers, because they established the idea that the thing that defines Wizards is "being broken".

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

Not quite. Supporting lots of playstyles is a feature. Supporting those playstyles the way it does is a bug. The power level of a 20th level Barbarian and the power level of a 20th level Wizard are both things the game should include. But they're not the same, and presenting them as being so is a problem.

Realistically he should have been twisting and misinterpreting every word of the binder, but that would have derailed the game.

Setting aside the obvious retort that notions of "realism" are rather absurd when discussing the behavior of bound demons, that's still not a good answer. It is, as you note, quite time-consuming, and ultimately wouldn't really decrease the effectiveness of the spell, because you can write fairly iron-clad contracts. But just as we don't expect the guy playing a Fighter to have a master's knowledge of swordfighting to effectively stab goblins to death, we don't expect the guy binding demons to serve him to actually know how to write a fully specified contract. Even if you did specify that planar binding can only compel actions that are in line with some philosophical "essential nature" of the creature, there are still plenty of creatures that would be happy just murdering a bunch of people.

planar binding is a very powerful spell. Using it results in you being very powerful. Quibbling about details almost always misses the point.

Lans

2019-01-13, 11:18 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

The cleric/druid being better combatants tends to be over stated, they tend to be almost as effective in melee but have everything else going the class can do minus a few spells.

Psyren

2019-01-13, 11:53 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

Sure, but that actually HAPPENING is usually a player problem. People have been playing wizards and clerics since the game began, and most of those campaigns go off without a hitch - certainly more than forum threads about things like Simulacrum and Planar Binding would indicate.

Tvtyrant

2019-01-13, 11:59 PM

The most disruptive optimization I had a table was a low tier power charger, so not really? Most people who are invested enough to really know 3.5 also know not to rock the boat.

CactusAir

2019-01-14, 12:29 AM

The most disruptive optimization I had a table was a low tier power charger, so not really? Most people who are invested enough to really know 3.5 also know not to rock the boat.

This, basically.

If it's a tier 1 sort of game, tier 1 is great.

If it's a tier 3 sort of game, most people i hang with will bring tier 3's or at least play higher tier as support so as to not overshadow.

Honestly the biggest problem is people who insist on bringing tier 5's to a tier 2/3 game, and then complaining about everyone else.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-14, 01:11 AM

You misunderstood me. I was referring to leeroy jenkins T5s who don't want to read about magic items and want to force a low-op playstyle on the whole group and calls you a T1 munchkin if you don't do as he says. Not new players playing wizards.

This is not the game for such players. Such players will not only drag the other PCs down but force the DM to use under CRed foes in the simplest possible tactics. They need to move to a more rules-light system or get with the program.

Yogibear41

2019-01-14, 02:30 AM

Have yet to see anyone play a "god" wizard, and I doubt I ever will. I've seen a mail-man that was about as durable as a cardboard box and that probably the best wizard type I have ever seen.

Seen two competent melee clerics one being my own. Never seen a druidzilla.

So bring on the tier ones, most people just disappoint me.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-14, 02:41 AM

This is not the game for such players. Such players will not only drag the other PCs down but force the DM to use under CRed foes in the simplest possible tactics. They need to move to a more rules-light system or get with the program.

Exactly my point. If someone is a T1 hater it's a red flag that they are T5 leeroy jenkins so you should avoid playing with them immediately. When i mean hater I don't mean someone who thinks T1s are too strong and need nerfs, I'm talking about actual haters who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1.

Mordaedil

2019-01-14, 03:34 AM

We have a fairly mixed table, with 2-3 veteran tabletop players, one with almost online experience in an online environment, one more insecure player who has only played elven rangers before and one who is really new to the game but got inspired to play by Critical Role and usually plays more outlandish characters.

The last guy is the best player at the table and his characters so far have been a warforged crusader, an elemental summoner bush-wizard human, a human warforged/jaunter and now a gnome invoker.

Every instance has been unique and special and nobody feels he steals attention. The worst at the table is probably the veterans, one of whom almost always complains that he can't get into character. But none of the veterans play anything special. It has nothing really to do with the classes or characters, everything to do with the players.

King of Nowhere

2019-01-14, 03:39 AM

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

The problem with tier 1 is that you go in internet forums and read all the stuff about "making obsolete the fighter with a single spell" and you start to believe it true.
Then you play in a newbie group and find that you actually have to help the wizard contribute because she takes poor spells, she blasts for less damage than the fighter and she dies easily if focused.
You go in a mid-op party and you have a guy wanting to play a high op wizard, but soon giving up because it's overly complicated and not fun.

Really, take forum discussions with a pinch of salt. They tend to exaggerate everything

Yogibear41

2019-01-14, 03:58 AM

Exactly my point. If someone is a T1 hater it's a red flag that they are T5 leeroy jenkins so you should avoid playing with them immediately. When i mean hater I don't mean someone who thinks T1s are too strong and need nerfs, I'm talking about actual haters who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1.

Recently had a guy in one of our groups criticize me for playing "unkillable characters" meanwhile he is playing a druid /sorcerer /geomancer I forget the exact level he is. Generally speaking his contribution to combat is using a crappy spell for 2d6 damage. We are around ECL 10.......... Not to mention every time its his turn he takes 5 minutes to think of what he wants to do, before using the same old crap tactics/spells again.

Darn XP leeches......

Florian

2019-01-14, 04:20 AM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

I´m not generally upset when someone picks a T1 class. What annoys me to no end is when someone sees picking a T1 class as an excuse to break the social contract established for a given table at session zero, by either intentionally breaking the accepted-on power level or trying to alter the game in a way that is not acceptable. Beyond that, it´s rather rare to find players with enough actual system mastery and tactical ability to really get into game-breaking territory. Most struggle to keep their full caster alive in the first place.

Bartmanhomer

2019-01-14, 04:38 AM

Well I guess you all want to know what's my take in this: No it doesn't bother me at all if another player want to play a Tier 1 character and I don't really care. Play whatever character that you feel comfortable. :smile:

Crake

2019-01-14, 06:03 AM

Setting aside the obvious retort that notions of "realism" are rather absurd when discussing the behavior of bound demons, that's still not a good answer. It is, as you note, quite time-consuming, and ultimately wouldn't really decrease the effectiveness of the spell, because you can write fairly iron-clad contracts. But just as we don't expect the guy playing a Fighter to have a master's knowledge of swordfighting to effectively stab goblins to death, we don't expect the guy binding demons to serve him to actually know how to write a fully specified contract. Even if you did specify that planar binding can only compel actions that are in line with some philosophical "essential nature" of the creature, there are still plenty of creatures that would be happy just murdering a bunch of people.

planar binding is a very powerful spell. Using it results in you being very powerful. Quibbling about details almost always misses the point.

The problem isn't that the spell is powerful, the problem is that the spell is supposed to be "power for a price", but most DMs don't want to spend time dealing with the fallout of the "for a price" part, and just leave it as "power". Ideally, if the DM can't be bothered dealing with the "for a price" part, they should just ban the spell, citing that as the reason, but many DMs, especially newer ones, might not realise the issues surrounding just handwaving the "for a price" part until it's too late, only to come here and complain about how broken the spell is.

And generally, nobody likes being randomly kidnapped and forced to do another person's bidding, even if the bidding is their favourite thing. Imagine you just love painting picturesqe panoramas. Now someone kidnaps you, plonks you in front of a scenic landscape and demands you start painting or else. You'll probably do it, but you definitely won't be happy about it. Short of actually paying the creature in bribes of some sort, at which point you may as well just be hiring NPC adventurers either way, it's most likely going to be attempting to subvert your commands, and planar binding isn't exactly a finely detailed contract, it's a "compulsion to perform a service", and simply ordering it to follow your commands means each and every individual command you give can be subverted in some way, which very much does decrease the effectiveness of the spell.

Also, nitpicking realism when, in this context its quite obviously conflated with verisimilitude? Come on. That word is a pita to type out, much easier to just say realistic than verisimilitude-ish.

Florian

2019-01-14, 06:09 AM

And generally, nobody likes being randomly kidnapped and forced to do another person's bidding, even if the bidding is their favourite thing.

For whatever reason, there's this thing called Planar Ally, for when you want to deal with creatures that are already on your side/team. /derailing over

Mordaedil

2019-01-14, 06:50 AM

For whatever reason, there's this thing called Planar Ally, for when you want to deal with creatures that are already on your side/team. /derailing over
I wish the rules would explicitly state this, but I've allowed good wizards to research this spell and sorcerers to pick it as one of their spells known, if they bar planar binding from their list.

Eldariel

2019-01-14, 07:23 AM

The problem isn't that the spell is powerful, the problem is that the spell is supposed to be "power for a price", but most DMs don't want to spend time dealing with the fallout of the "for a price" part, and just leave it as "power". Ideally, if the DM can't be bothered dealing with the "for a price" part, they should just ban the spell, citing that as the reason, but many DMs, especially newer ones, might not realise the issues surrounding just handwaving the "for a price" part until it's too late, only to come here and complain about how broken the spell is.

And generally, nobody likes being randomly kidnapped and forced to do another person's bidding, even if the bidding is their favourite thing. Imagine you just love painting picturesqe panoramas. Now someone kidnaps you, plonks you in front of a scenic landscape and demands you start painting or else. You'll probably do it, but you definitely won't be happy about it. Short of actually paying the creature in bribes of some sort, at which point you may as well just be hiring NPC adventurers either way, it's most likely going to be attempting to subvert your commands, and planar binding isn't exactly a finely detailed contract, it's a "compulsion to perform a service", and simply ordering it to follow your commands means each and every individual command you give can be subverted in some way, which very much does decrease the effectiveness of the spell.

Also, nitpicking realism when, in this context its quite obviously conflated with verisimilitude? Come on. That word is a pita to type out, much easier to just say realistic than verisimilitude-ish.

Sure but at the same time, Demons are depicted as jumping at a chance of getting to the material plane to wreak havoc. If they have to put up with some guy asking them to kill and murderize and perhaps maim and desecrate a bunch of things they'd want to kill and murderize and maim and desecrate anyways, that doesn't sound too out of character for them. Particularly if said guy is perverted by these indirect actions. Cunning creatures can subvert commands to a point but not indefinitely and they're certainly under no compulsion to do so. If you paid them for their services (something the spell even has specific mechanics for) in something they care about and don't restrict them from doing things they want to do, the spell is working in their advantage as much as yours. Even forced contracts can be desirable when mutually beneficial and particularly immortal evil outsiders have little reason not to utilise those opportunities since they are intrinsically incapable of entering the material plane and that's where they have to be to do the stuff they really wanna do (corrupt/pervert mortals depending on their particular alignment).

16bearswutIdo

2019-01-14, 07:37 AM

It's fine if they want to play one of the tier 1 classes. It's not fine if they want to play a tier 1 class like a protagonist that solves every single problem. But I wouldn't say I get "upset."

Most of my players know not to break the game. Any time we've had a wizard, they've decided to specialize in one of the "worse" schools (IE. evocation, necromancy, etc). No one really plays beatstick clerics, and my one druid player is a roleplayer and not a rollplayer.

Most of our games end up somewhere near tier 3-4 in terms of power, regardless of what people pick.

Crake

2019-01-14, 08:18 AM

For whatever reason, there's this thing called Planar Ally, for when you want to deal with creatures that are already on your side/team. /derailing over

Sure, but that comes with a monetary cost, which a fighter could equally use to hire another adventurer, essentially "evening the odds". At that point it less becomes about "this spell is overpowered" and more "hiring extra dudes is overpowered". Planar ally just lets you hire dudes via interplanar craigslist.

Sure but at the same time, Demons are depicted as jumping at a chance of getting to the material plane to wreak havoc. If they have to put up with some guy asking them to kill and murderize and perhaps maim and desecrate a bunch of things they'd want to kill and murderize and maim and desecrate anyways, that doesn't sound too out of character for them. Particularly if said guy is perverted by these indirect actions. Cunning creatures can subvert commands to a point but not indefinitely and they're certainly under no compulsion to do so. If you paid them for their services (something the spell even has specific mechanics for) in something they care about and don't restrict them from doing things they want to do, the spell is working in their advantage as much as yours. Even forced contracts can be desirable when mutually beneficial and particularly immortal evil outsiders have little reason not to utilise those opportunities since they are intrinsically incapable of entering the material plane and that's where they have to be to do the stuff they really wanna do (corrupt/pervert mortals depending on their particular alignment).

I already covered that in my post, and again just above in this post. If you're paying for services, you're not doing anything anyone else can't already do by just going into town and hiring other adventurers.

stack

2019-01-14, 08:47 AM

Sure, but that comes with a monetary cost, which a fighter could equally use to hire another adventurer, essentially "evening the odds". At that point it less becomes about "this spell is overpowered" and more "hiring extra dudes is overpowered". Planar ally just lets you hire dudes via interplanar craigslist.

I now want an interplanar craigslist spell. Post general parameters and proposed payment, DM rolls to see if there are any available outsiders willing and able to take it. Sure, maybe you get a slaad when you wanted an elemental, but there is no coercion step.

umbergod

2019-01-14, 08:55 AM

No, because I'm the biggest optimizer I know, and I still regularly gimp my casters to a t2-3 power level via spell, feat and prestige class choices :p

Psyren

2019-01-14, 10:34 AM

Sure but at the same time, Demons are depicted as jumping at a chance of getting to the material plane to wreak havoc. If they have to put up with some guy asking them to kill and murderize and perhaps maim and desecrate a bunch of things they'd want to kill and murderize and maim and desecrate anyways, that doesn't sound too out of character for them.

It's not, but you're glossing over the fact that they want to maim and murderize the guy binding them every bit as much as, if not more than, the actual targets. And yes, that behavior is absolutely destructive to the demon's fun in the long-term (since it means fewer mortals willing to bring them into the material in the future) but they don't care; biting the hand that fed them is just in their nature, unless they're forcibly prevented from doing so - might makes right.

Preventing that requires a level of vigilance from the caster that almost always has some kind of repercussions in fictional portrayals.

JMS

2019-01-14, 11:13 AM

Few exceptions to the general rule. 100% of T1 haters I've met are crybaby scrubs who leeroy jenkins into combat and cry like a ***** when that strategy conflicts with my AoE spells or I kill someone with summoned creatures instead of letting him kill it. They all have absolutely no interest in learning how to play the game like properly outfitting their character with WBL that grant flight and such and instead ***** that I should prepare 100% of my spells with fly and magic weapon instead of summon monster.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to leeroy jenkins T5s who don't want to read about magic items and want to force a low-op playstyle on the whole group and calls you a T1 munchkin if you don't do as he says. Not new players playing wizards.
I would consider myself someone who dislikes T1, in part because I get into arm races with them. I happily play T3, and will recommend Grod the Giant’s work on balance (See my sig for a link), and have no problems with playing smart, or building smart (And fully acknowledge the need for smart WbL use, having built for epic games).
I just feel that I play D&D to have fun and come up with solutions to challenges, and if I run a wizard, it will be too easy for me to have fun. Of course, I do have a arms race problem with Tier ones, so... I guess I’m a bit of a munchkin who doesn’t want to be one, and avoided Tier 1 because of that.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-14, 11:23 AM

I would consider myself someone who dislikes T1, in part because I get into arm races with them. I happily play T3, and will recommend Grod the Giant’s work on balance (See my sig for a link), and have no problems with playing smart, or building smart (And fully acknowledge the need for smart WbL use, having built for epic games).
I just feel that I play D&D to have fun and come up with solutions to challenges, and if I run a wizard, it will be too easy for me to have fun. Of course, I do have a arms race problem with Tier ones, so... I guess I’m a bit of a munchkin who doesn’t want to be one, and avoided Tier 1 because of that.

I clarified later that when I meant T1 hater, I don't mean people who dislike T1s, I mean actual people who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1 class.

Jack_McSnatch

2019-01-14, 12:36 PM

No complaints from me. Wizards and priests are kind of a fantasy staple. But if I have a player whom I know will abuse their powers to the detriment of others, I generally try to do something about it. It's been said by multiple people so far and I'll echo it. There's nothing wrong with playing a class you want to play, but d&d is a team game. Everybody should be having fun and getting to use their abilities. Problems arise when a player wants to be the anime protagonist and solve every problem on their own.

GrayDeath

2019-01-14, 12:48 PM

A lot of in depth answers were already given, so let me only give a very short one, and add an anecdote.

Answer: Only if the DM said "No T 1 Classes" and someone comes to the game with one (or a T2 optimized to such a degree its indestinguishable from a T1), but that is not mainly a system but a player problem.

Anecdote: You dont need the Disparity between a batman Wizard and a Fighter for some players to get on the Jeleousy Train and wreck a group.

Almost 10 years ago our olong running group died due to what started as a fellow Wizard Player being angry at the fact that my Elven Wizard was a bit better at Magic and a better face (different System, yes, my Elf had better numbers, but he also was an almost pure Divination/Transmutation Caster in a System where Transmutation was much and Divination to a medicum amount worse than D&D, with good Combat stats, but a Quarterstaff and little else, while the jeaolus guy had a Battle Wizard in Full magical Plate armor without disadvantages AND a magical Weapon (rare) AND backing by a medium Church....so yeah...^^).
It escalated, and a year later the group crumbled (which strangely surprised everyone but that one palyer and the DM, as the other 3 palyers and I had only detected small, in our view unimportant, problems....).

So yeah, if all other things are equal, T1^Classes may be the problem, but usually they are not.

JMS

2019-01-14, 01:11 PM

I clarified later that when I meant T1 hater, I don't mean people who dislike T1s, I mean actual people who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1 class.

Sorry, my bad

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 01:16 PM

It's not, but you're glossing over the fact that they want to maim and murderize the guy binding them every bit as much as, if not more than, the actual targets. And yes, that behavior is absolutely destructive to the demon's fun in the long-term (since it means fewer mortals willing to bring them into the material in the future) but they don't care; biting the hand that fed them is just in their nature, unless they're forcibly prevented from doing so - might makes right.

Preventing that requires a level of vigilance from the caster that almost always has some kind of repercussions in fictional portrayals.

That does bring up a good question, why not bind Angels instead?

noob

2019-01-14, 01:17 PM

That does bring up a good question, why not bind Angels instead?

Because the angel would probably be helping other people somewhere else if you did not bind it.
So it is a story of ethics.
Or you could instead bind elemental which hates you too but should they try to get revenge they are in for a bad time and also it is probably easier to convince them to deal non lethal damage than demons.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 01:24 PM

Because the angel would probably be helping other people somewhere else if you did not bind it.
So it is a story of ethics.

But there are infinite angels. :smallconfused:

And summoning an Angel is a good act, since the spell gains the same subtype as the creature you bind.

Crake

2019-01-14, 01:25 PM

That does bring up a good question, why not bind Angels instead?

I dunno about you, but in my games, angels can, and have been, just as problematic as fiends sometimes. Angels don't just hang about in heaven idly, they're usually doing something, and by pulling them away you can cause them a multitude of problems, including but not limited to: arousing suspicion from the community they were stealthily protecting, because they suddenly disappeared from the middle of the town square, taking them away from a battle against evil on the planes, stopping them from saving someone who was critically injured in battle, possibly resulting in their death.

Angels don't take lightly to being randomly ripped away from what they were doing, and may well view doing so as an act of evil that needs to be punished.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 01:28 PM

I dunno about you, but in my games, angels can, and have been, just as problematic as fiends sometimes.

They're still good aligned, and if they're lawful they won't backstab you just because you annoyed them.

Angels don't take lightly to being randomly ripped away from what they were doing, and may well view doing so as an act of evil that needs to be punished.

I guess it depends why you bound them. I seriously doubt most angels are going to object to helping you slay the Dark Demon Lord of Grimdark and Skulls.

Crake

2019-01-14, 01:37 PM

They're still good aligned, and if they're lawful they won't backstab you just because you annoyed them.

I guess it depends why you bound them. I seriously doubt most angels are going to object to helping you slay the Dark Demon Lord of Grimdark and Skulls.

Backstab, probably not, but they may well be significantly more stubborn, as for helping you slay the dark demon lord of grimdark and skulls, maybe, but then, why not just planeshift to heaven and beseech the powers that be for aid, rather than yoinking them out of the blue like that. A lawful angel especially may not wish to risk their life killing the dark demon lord of grimdark and skulls because it would mean potentially leaving their post empty, which may put other's lives at risk, so they may actually see that task as unreasonable, while a chaotic good eladrin would see the very notion of being compelled into service an abhorrent act of tyranny.

To put it shortly: Kidnapping anyone will just cause ill will and animosity, and if you think planar binding is anything other than kidnapping, you're not reading the spell correctly.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 01:43 PM

Backstab, probably not, but they may well be significantly more stubborn,

More stubborn than demons and devils?

as for helping you slay the dark demon lord of grimdark and skulls, maybe, but then, why not just planeshift to heaven and beseech the powers that be for aid, rather than yoinking them out of the blue like that.

Because you're a Wizard and Planar Binding is a 6th level spell, while Plane Shift is a 7th level one.

A lawful angel especially may not wish to risk their life killing the dark demon lord of grimdark and skulls because it would mean potentially leaving their post empty, which may put other's lives at risk, so they may actually see that task as unreasonable, while a chaotic good eladrin would see the very notion of being compelled into service an abhorrent act of tyranny.

You negotiate for their service as part of the spell.

To put it shortly: Kidnapping anyone will just cause ill will and animosity, and if you think planar binding is anything other than kidnapping, you're not reading the spell correctly.

I prefer to think of it as an exciting and unexpected career opportunity. :smallwink:

Crake

2019-01-14, 01:53 PM

More stubborn than demons and devils?

Honest, in my experience? Yes.

Because you're a Wizard and Planar Binding is a 6th level spell, while Plane Shift is a 7th level one.

If you're a wizard casting regular planar binding, you're probably not fighting the demon lord of grimdark and skulls :smalltongue:

You negotiate for their service as part of the spell.

Ever heard the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 01:58 PM

Honest, in my experience? Yes.

Weird, I would probably roleplay angels as being more reasonable if I was DMing. To each their own, I guess.

If you're a wizard casting regular planar binding, you're probably not fighting the demon lord of grimdark and skulls :smalltongue:

Hey, no one ever said he lived up to that name. :smalltongue:

Ever heard the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists"?

Who follows that advice. :smallbiggrin:

King of Nowhere

2019-01-14, 02:06 PM

Backstab, probably not, but they may well be significantly more stubborn, as for helping you slay the dark demon lord of grimdark and skulls, maybe, but then, why not just planeshift to heaven and beseech the powers that be for aid, rather than yoinking them out of the blue like that.

Which is one of the reasons I prefer to handwave the absence of angels as a "no interference" clause among the gods. Something like "I gave you spell power just so you could do yoour job without asking for help", or "if I could send my solars in the mortal plane, I would not need clerics to do my bidding". Otherwise you have to justify all the time why the various gods don't all send hordes of their high level planar minions

noob

2019-01-14, 02:07 PM

The reason why so few people decide "now I am going to plane shift to heaven to recruit angels to fight the demon lord" is that Gms does not all like to suddenly have to try to decide what heavens looks like where you land and then start finding which angels you meet and what kinds of stuff they want or are doing.
Basically you are chewing in half the progress of the campaign until either you get tons of angels because you had money and convincing words or the gm is too angry at you and no angel wants to help you to fight the ultimate final demon lord of infinitely evil evilness and poor innocent young angel torturing and in the former case it bogs down the fight and make the campaign be anti climatic unless the gm adds more demons(which slows down even more the final fight) and in the latter it slowed the campaign down for no purpose.

Which is one of the reasons I prefer to handwave the absence of angels as a "no interference" clause among the gods. Something like "I gave you spell power just so you could do yoour job without asking for help", or "if I could send my solars in the mortal plane, I would not need clerics to do my bidding". Otherwise you have to justify all the time why the various gods don't all send hordes of their high level planar minions

There is only 22 solars in the whole multiverse it is just that you are able to encounter randomly a whole lot of them because they constantly change disguises and use illusions to look as if they were at a lot of places.
Then lower angels are not here because it is actually unsafe to fight demons and devils so they go other-were and do good stuff and hope the devils and demons does the job of killing each other by themselves.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 02:09 PM

Psyren

2019-01-14, 02:11 PM

And summoning an Angel is a good act, since the spell gains the same subtype as the creature you bind.

Whoa there. By that logic, casting Holy Word in a pet shop and permanently blinding/paralyzing/slaughtering all the animals inside is a Good act too :smalltongue: In other words, there's a lot more to the morality of a given spell than its descriptor.

I'm not saying I agree that binding an angel is necessarily depriving some other spot in the universe of its goodness, just taking issue with this specific argument. My personal viewpoint is that Planar Binding should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis - angels aren't opposed to being bound by good mortals because that spell exists so mortals can cut through the celestial red tape that keeps them from otherwise "playing in the sandbox." But if you're using the spell frivolously or for personal gain, the angel may indeed take offense.

noob

2019-01-14, 02:12 PM

Well, the books have descriptions of the planes and encounter tables for each one.

It stills slows down the game especially since the description is not 100% complete.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 02:14 PM

Whoa there. By that logic, casting Holy Word in a pet shop and permanently blinding/paralyzing/slaughtering all the animals inside is a Good act too :smalltongue: In other words, there's a lot more to the morality of a given spell than its descriptor.

I'm not saying I agree that binding an angel is necessarily depriving some other spot in the universe of its goodness, just taking issue with this specific argument. My personal viewpoint is that Planar Binding should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis - angels aren't opposed to being bound by good mortals because that spell exists so mortals can cut through the celestial red tape that keeps them from otherwise "playing in the sandbox." But if you're using the spell frivolously or for personal gain, the angel may indeed take offense.

Well, let's not pretend that D&D has an especially nuanced view of morality. :smalltongue:

noob

2019-01-14, 02:15 PM

Well, let's not pretend that D&D has an especially nuanced view of morality. :smalltongue:

Those pets had it coming for their neutral style of life.
Also afterwards the pets who survived are sent to a redeemery(the merchant selling those creatures is sent to the redeemery too.)

Psyren

2019-01-14, 02:18 PM

Well, let's not pretend that D&D has an especially nuanced view of morality. :smalltongue:

It's nuanced enough for your DM to make judgments. It's then up to you if you agree with those judgments, or if you want a new DM. I don't think a board game really needs to go further than that.

PoeticallyPsyco

2019-01-14, 03:03 PM

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 03:04 PM

Seems like most people don't care much about T1 classes,

Personally speaking, I like tier 1 classes just fine. :smallsmile:

Psyren

2019-01-14, 03:46 PM

Personally speaking, I like tier 1 classes just fine. :smallsmile:

I think he meant "most people don't care much about" as in "most people don't have a problem with them being at the table". Not "I don't care for them/don't like them."

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-14, 03:47 PM

I think he meant "most people don't care much about" as in "most people don't have a problem with them being at the table". Not "I don't care for them/don't like them."

Ah, in that case, I misunderstood what he meant.

Resileaf

2019-01-14, 03:54 PM

I don't get upset by someone choosing to play a tier 1 class.
But I do have a problem when that same someone complains that someone else is playing an unoptimized character.

Crake

2019-01-14, 05:59 PM

I don't get upset by someone choosing to play a tier 1 class.
But I do have a problem when that same someone complains that someone else is playing an unoptimized character.

To be fair, outliers are a problem whether they're ahead or behind. It's one thing if the player doesn't know what they're doing and can be assisted in making a better character that fits the same fantasy, but if you deliberately make a sub-optimal character while everyone else is making reasonable characters, you're the problem in that group.

Selion

2019-01-14, 06:32 PM

To be fair, outliers are a problem whether they're ahead or behind. It's one thing if the player doesn't know what they're doing and can be assisted in making a better character that fits the same fantasy, but if you deliberately make a sub-optimal character while everyone else is making reasonable characters, you're the problem in that group.

Yep, good point. I personally don't like when someone messes too much with multi-classing to give flavor to a character. You don't need to pick levels in bard for your cleric worshipping a god of arts, domain spells and skills are usually enough to give characterization, you could as well play a high dex, high cha cleric and be effective without rejecting your PCs concept.
(BTW it depends on apl, if the adventure is a one shot 7th level bard/cleric is welcome, if it's a campaign 1 to 20 at some point you'll play a broken character)

VoltsofEight

2019-01-14, 06:46 PM

No because if there's a problem it's usually the player being "That Person" and not necessarily the class. In that case you can either talk to the person and solve it or you can't and you don't play with them anymore.

No the problem is usually on my side where I can look at the other character and see that they can do my job to relatively equal effectiveness at a cost, whatever that cost may be, and engage in the world in various ways I never really could barring DM fiat. Which isn't the best feeling.

You don't envy the class that your fellow party members are playing, you envy character it allows them to play.

Resileaf

2019-01-15, 11:20 AM

noob

2019-01-15, 11:46 AM

Look, sometimes you want to play a Dwarf paladin because it sounds fun and there is no reason a dwarf could not become one lorewise, even though their charisma is awful.

A dwarf paladin is not actually the worst pick.
You will be tough and the only thing that actually gets better with charisma is saves, the boost to attack rolls to smite and the hit points healed by lay on hands.
Having a smaller lay on hands pool is not a really big problem, the save penalty is in part compensated by the +2 to all the saves against spells that dwarves gets and the +2 to saves against poisons means that most of the stuff of the game will be not so hard to save against and the lower smite attack rolls is not a that big problem either.
On the other hand playing an half orc paladin is worse because you lose charisma and intelligence and do not get a ton of cool things like a dwarf(some people consider +2 to strength is worth a lot but at that point you are better off taking human and having a bonus feat since both of those are comparably valuable for a class as feat starved as paladin).

SLOTHRPG95

2019-01-15, 12:09 PM

A dwarf paladin is not actually the worst pick.
You will be tough and the only thing that actually gets better with charisma is saves, the boost to attack rolls to smite and the hit points healed by lay on hands.
Having a smaller lay on hands pool is not a really big problem, the save penalty is in part compensated by the +2 to all the saves against spells that dwarves gets and the +2 to saves against poisons means that most of the stuff of the game will be not so hard to save against and the lower smite attack rolls is not a that big problem either.
On the other hand playing an half orc paladin is worse because you lose charisma and intelligence and do not get a ton of cool things like a dwarf(some people consider +2 to strength is worth a lot but at that point you are better off taking human and having a bonus feat since both of those are comparably valuable for a class as feat starved as paladin).

Eh, as long as you're reasonably competent at what you do (relative to your other party members), there's no reason not to pick a particular race/class combo. Now, that's a broad statement that can mean different things in different groups, but a half-orc paladin isn't automatically toxic trash. For starters, intelligence is often already dumped by paladins, and losing a bit more doesn't really hurt that much. Also, you can just optimize a bit more than you otherwise would as (for example) a human paladin, and make up the power difference that way. You're not condemning your character just by not picking the most mechanically advantageous race for their particular class. Want your next bard to be a half-orc? Sure, go for it. I'm sure it'll be a memorable character to play.

Resileaf

2019-01-15, 12:15 PM

SLOTHRPG95

2019-01-15, 12:33 PM

Well the person I'm thinking of would just say "It's sub-optimal so it's trash". That's the kind of person that bothers me.

That sounds like a toxic player. That's just as bad as saying, "it's tier 1 so it's cheese." These are both instances of hating on someone's character because it's not the sort of character the speaker would make.

Pex

2019-01-15, 01:16 PM

Look, sometimes you want to play a Dwarf paladin because it sounds fun and there is no reason a dwarf could not become one lorewise, even though their charisma is awful.

That doesn't mean the dwarf paladin's charisma should be 8 either. Sub-optimal is not inherently a bad thing, but you need competency. If using Point Buy it doesn't cost the player anything. Using Pathfinder numbers, non dwarf paladins might pay 10 for 16 CH and 5 for 14 CO. A dwarf paladin buys the same thing and gets 14 CH 16 CO as a result because of racial modifiers. A 14 CH is decent considering the CH penalty. Using 25 Point Buy he probably bought 16 ST for a final array of ST 16 DX 10 CO 16 IN 10 WI 12 CH 14, which is not terrible for a paladin.

Resileaf

2019-01-15, 01:17 PM

That sounds like a toxic player. That's just as bad as saying, "it's tier 1 so it's cheese." These are both instances of hating on someone's character because it's not the sort of character the speaker would make.

Well he's not toxic per se.
But he's whiny.

Crake

2019-01-15, 05:22 PM

Look, sometimes you want to play a Dwarf paladin because it sounds fun and there is no reason a dwarf could not become one lorewise, even though their charisma is awful.

There are dwarf variants that don't get a cha penalty that you could play instead. "Dwarf paladin" isn't suboptimal, hell, even deliberately playing a low cha paladin isn't necessarily sub optimal, as long as you can pull your weight with decent strength, AC, and hp. It's the people who do stuff like pick fighter 20 when other people are playing tome of battle classes, and pick stuff like 10 different weapon focuses when they only use one weapon the whole game.

Quertus

2019-01-15, 08:05 PM

Wow. this thread is of much gold. Just some of the examples:

If the OP meant as a player and not as a DM, my answer is still no.

If the rest of the party is playing higher powered characters, I'll just play a more powerful character.

I also don't really care much if someone else in the party is flat-out better than my PC is.

Polymorphing himself into a war troll is the less-optimal decision vs polymorphing the fighter into one, in nearly every case.

So, assuming there IS a fighter in the party, that's a player problem.

And getting upset about my friends wants to play is not something I do! For me it’s all about the greatest fun for the greatest number of people!

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members.

People bother me, not classes. I find people that need to be in the spotlight all the time irritating

A toxic hateful scrub has more than enough problems for you to either leave the table or get him kicked. A T1 hater does NOT hate T1s only. They hate a metric **** ton of stuff that they don't want to bother learning.

It bothers me if you steal from party members. It bothers me if you don't share important need to know information you learn with the party. It bothers me if you don't help other party members. It bothers me you help other party members but express your resentment doing so. It bothers me you help other party members but express how dumb they are for being in the mess they're in and need you to save them again. It bothers me if you purposely make an encounter go sour because you're bored just when it was about to be concluded without a fuss or combat.

I don't give a Hoover what class you play.

there's a tendency to act like the Wizard being better than the Fighter is itself evidence that the Wizard is overpowered. That's nonsense. It's like asserting that because 7 is bigger than 4, 7 is a big number. That doesn't make any sense. You have to define what it means for a number to be "big". If you're asking about the number of banks someone has robbed, 7 is a pretty big number. If you're asking about their age, it's a lot less so.

Basically, people have convinced themselves that the Wizard is a problem, and that warps their thinking. I tend to blame the tiers, because they established the idea that the thing that defines Wizards is "being broken".

The most disruptive optimization I had a table was a low tier power charger, so not really? Most people who are invested enough to really know 3.5 also know not to rock the boat.

Just so many comments (these are just some of the many I saw) that make me proud of the Playground.

My general reaction to someone wanting play a tier 1 is as follows: either they know what they're doing, in which case they'll show just how well that they know the more important player skill of knowing how to play well with others, or they don't know what they're doing, in which case the character will likely die quickly. So, win?

One thing I did want to question, though:

It bothers me you help other party members but express your resentment doing so. It bothers me you help other party members but express how dumb they are for being in the mess they're in and need you to save them again.

So, I've played that character. If your party are idiots, why would it bother you that somebody is playing a character that would call them out on being idiots? If you don't call people out on their stupidity, how can they learn? How can they have character growth?

(I believe Loki has a major defining moment when Thor tells him something like, "life is change. You want to stay the god of mischief, but you could be so much more".)

Why does it bother you that PCs can resent other PCs being dumb and getting in messes again and again?

Pex

2019-01-15, 10:26 PM

One thing I did want to question, though:

So, I've played that character. If your party are idiots, why would it bother you that somebody is playing a character that would call them out on being idiots? If you don't call people out on their stupidity, how can they learn? How can they have character growth?

(I believe Loki has a major defining moment when Thor tells him something like, "life is change. You want to stay the god of mischief, but you could be so much more".)

Why does it bother you that PCs can resent other PCs being dumb and getting in messes again and again?

Who said the party was actually being idiots? It's the person doing the helping just saying they are idiots for being in the mess they're in. It could be the planned encounter the DM set up but Jerkface went lone wolf exploring an area where nothing in particular happens while the party goes to the Plot Room and face its Monster. Since they're a party member down they are having difficulty so Jerkface has to come back to "save them again".

Crake

2019-01-15, 10:33 PM

Who said the party was actually being idiots? It's the person doing the helping just saying they are idiots for being in the mess they're in. It could be the planned encounter the DM set up but Jerkface went lone wolf exploring an area where nothing in particular happens while the party goes to the Plot Room and face its Monster. Since they're a party member down they are having difficulty so Jerkface has to come back to "save them again".

To be fair, in this case, it's the party's fault for letting jerkface wander off alone.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-15, 10:44 PM

Who said the party was actually being idiots? It's the person doing the helping just saying they are idiots for being in the mess they're in. It could be the planned encounter the DM set up but Jerkface went lone wolf exploring an area where nothing in particular happens while the party goes to the Plot Room and face its Monster. Since they're a party member down they are having difficulty so Jerkface has to come back to "save them again".

I actually had a player who insisted on staying behind when the rest of the party returned to their ship.

He stayed behind. Alone. In a forest that hey knew had a dragon that was angry at him.

It ended about as well as you'd expect.

He got kidnapped by an Ethereal Doppelganger. :smallbiggrin:

Jay R

2019-01-16, 07:52 PM

It does not bother me when my friend decides that his or her character will defend mine with superior abilities. And that's what playing an optimized character means.

It does not bother me when my friend is excited about playing a specific idea, even if it costs him or her power. And that's what playing an under-powered character means.

It ... doesn't bother me when my friends want to have fun. It just doesn't.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-16, 11:52 PM

It's the people who do stuff like pick fighter 20 when other people are playing tome of battle classes

There's nothing wrong with that if you know what you're doing. Not being a warblade doesn't mean you have no access to maneuvers.

and pick stuff like 10 different weapon focuses when they only use one weapon the whole game.

That, however, is just silly.

lightningcat

2019-01-17, 12:28 AM

I have only seen one person play a Tier 1 class to its full potential. I don't think anyone will play with them anymore. So generally it is not a problem.
A slightly bigger problem has been poor players playing Tier 3 classes and complaining that they can't do anything. While in that same game I was playing a straight fighter and having fun.

Selion

2019-01-17, 04:08 AM

Seems like most people don't care much about T1 classes, so I'll play devils advocate and provide a dissenting opinion.

As a player that prefers martial and skill-monkey characters, I wouldn't say that I get upset when people want to play a T1 class, but I do often feel something like dismay that my entire build could be rendered redundant accidentally. For example, was playing a pirate themed campaign and one of my friends wanted to play druid. The group was aiming for T3 on average, but she pointed out that she was an inexperienced player and taking an un-optimized race with a level adjustment so it would probably be fine. Even while roleplaying, choosing thematic spells, and not min-maxing at all, she still regularly solved encounters of all kinds with a single first level or even 0-level spell.

An inexperienced player with an unoptimized build who was a good player (in the sense of roleplaying and being a good sport) playing a T1 class still outshone the rest of our (decently optimized) T3 party by accident, so yeah I am pretty wary of T1 classes.

Could you please be more specific about what encounters have been solved with 1-st level and 0-level spells?
I just started an adventure with a 2th level druid in a group with a cleric and tier 4 characters (fairly optimized though), I haven't done anything yet, but i have the impression that any tier 4 could destroy me easily in combat. I'm unoptimized, without an animal companion (in pathfinder you can trade AC for a cleric domain), my spell routine includes commune with birds and charm animal (that in the right situation could actually solve an encounter, but are situational at best).
BTW, even among tier 1 classes, druids have a special place. They cannot be over-optimized as a wizard could, but they don't fall with under-optimization, they are still able to do anything regardless of feats and stats.

Crake

2019-01-17, 04:42 AM

Could you please be more specific about what encounters have been solved with 1-st level and 0-level spells?
I just started an adventure with a 2th level druid in a group with a cleric and tier 4 characters (fairly optimized though), I haven't done anything yet, but i have the impression that any tier 4 could destroy me easily in combat. I'm unoptimized, without an animal companion (in pathfinder you can trade AC for a cleric domain), my spell routine includes commune with birds and charm animal (that in the right situation could actually solve an encounter, but are situational at best).
BTW, even among tier 1 classes, druids have a special place. They cannot be over-optimized as a wizard could, but they don't fall with under-optimization, they are still able to do anything regardless of feats and stats.

Any animal based encounter can be solved with charm animal, many survival based encounters involving hunger and exposure can be overcome with endure elements and goodberry, outdoor encounters can be trivialized with entangle, speak with animals can trivialize investigations where an animal happened to witness an event, and that's just off the top of my head.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 04:42 AM

Seems like most people don't care much about T1 classes, so I'll play devils advocate and provide a dissenting opinion.

As a player that prefers martial and skill-monkey characters, I wouldn't say that I get upset when people want to play a T1 class, but I do often feel something like dismay that my entire build could be rendered redundant accidentally. For example, was playing a pirate themed campaign and one of my friends wanted to play druid. The group was aiming for T3 on average, but she pointed out that she was an inexperienced player and taking an un-optimized race with a level adjustment so it would probably be fine. Even while roleplaying, choosing thematic spells, and not min-maxing at all, she still regularly solved encounters of all kinds with a single first level or even 0-level spell.

An inexperienced player with an unoptimized build who was a good player (in the sense of roleplaying and being a good sport) playing a T1 class still outshone the rest of our (decently optimized) T3 party by accident, so yeah I am pretty wary of T1 classes.

I can't help thinking that the DM may have been tossing some bones her way for being new. Of the T1s, the druid is least able to consistently step on toes of anybody but a dedicated bruiser., particularly at early levels.

I'm with Selion in wanting to see some elaboration, it you'd be so kind?

Selion

2019-01-17, 05:40 AM

Any animal based encounter can be solved with charm animal, many survival based encounters involving hunger and exposure can be overcome with endure elements and goodberry, outdoor encounters can be trivialized with entangle, speak with animals can trivialize investigations where an animal happened to witness an event, and that's just off the top of my head.

Yeah, in wildness a druid is pretty much insuperable, i know, but it's more like a class feature, i wouldn't complain that. In a trap filled dungeon a rogue would be more useful.
The issue is that an average druid can fill her slots with blasts or fight in wild shape and be useful even in a dungeon, but this doesn't happen at early levels (at least pathfinder nerfed a lot polymorph spells, so that a druid that doesn't invest in wild shaping is squishy like hell in animal form).
Investigation can be trivialized, but at high levels there are magic countermeasures and often diplomacy has less risks than enchantment.
As DM, i had a party APL 12 disguised to infiltrate to a ceremony, they could use either magical or mundane disguise. In the ceremony there were a priest with true seeing, had they chosen magic they would have discovered instantly.
BTW i won't deny there are problems, I think that around level 10 the DM should work a little to balance things with magic items, and a fair tier 1 player should give up actively the spotlight to other characters occasionally, EG using her spells to buff the group (nobody ever complained about the cleric healing the party).

Malphegor

2019-01-17, 08:20 AM

I now want an interplanar craigslist spell. Post general parameters and proposed payment, DM rolls to see if there are any available outsiders willing and able to take it. Sure, maybe you get a slaad when you wanted an elemental, but there is no coercion step.

Closest I've seen to that is the Dragon Ally spells, either in Draconomicon or Dragon Magic (they blur in my mind).

You call a dragon to your aid within certain parameters of what you can call (from memory the main one is HD), and the dragon will demand payment once the thing you desire it to do (if it agrees to it) is over. Presumably until you pay the dragon it sort of just hangs around threatening you or outright attacks you if it looks like you're not going to pay.

Wouldn't be too hard to modify that spell to be an extraplanar thing.

Quertus

2019-01-17, 09:34 AM

Who said the party was actually being idiots?

Oh, well, that's a different issue, then.

So, you don't have a problem with the "calling the party idiots for needing to be saved from their actions (again)" part, so much as the "is the one who actually caused the problem in the first place" part?

Also, I kinda agree with the snarky comment about "it's the party's fault for going off alone". If I've got a court date, and my buddies don't wait for me, and get in trouble that they knew that they wouldn't have had if I were along, I'ma call them out on their questionable behavior. Similarly, if the GM / module is the foolishly inflexible "whole party CaS balance point", where every encounter absolutely requires the whole party or else TPK, well, it's kinda dumb to force that TPK (again), isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I've seen players who seemed bound and determined to make things bad, and I've seen characters who seemed designed to be, um, if "the load" has 0 value, what do you call someone who has negative value? Anyway, I've seen characters who were bound and determined to be actively detrimental to the party.

Just wanted to clarify that that's what we're talking about, because, what I initially read you to say, I couldn't see why you'd be upset about it.

DwarvenWarCorgi

2019-01-17, 12:06 PM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

Why would anyone get angry at another player playing a powerful character? As long as they're not a spotlight hog, all it does is help the party.

My current group, I literally want to strangle one of my oldest friends. He is so far below optimal it's infuriating. It wouldn't be that bad if HE weren't the one constantly complaining about it. He's sorcerer 16. No PrCs, literally only blasting spells. Has Leadership, but is doing absolutely nothing with it, and to top it off, the entire table has been trying to get him to multiclass since level 8, and I have personally, repeatedly, done hours of reading to give him options for prcs after getting him to consider it, only to have him reneg on even considering it when I go to talk to him about it.

That's something to be mad about.

Pex

2019-01-17, 12:27 PM

Oh, well, that's a different issue, then.

So, you don't have a problem with the "calling the party idiots for needing to be saved from their actions (again)" part, so much as the "is the one who actually caused the problem in the first place" part?

Also, I kinda agree with the snarky comment about "it's the party's fault for going off alone". If I've got a court date, and my buddies don't wait for me, and get in trouble that they knew that they wouldn't have had if I were along, I'ma call them out on their questionable behavior. Similarly, if the GM / module is the foolishly inflexible "whole party CaS balance point", where every encounter absolutely requires the whole party or else TPK, well, it's kinda dumb to force that TPK (again), isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I've seen players who seemed bound and determined to make things bad, and I've seen characters who seemed designed to be, um, if "the load" has 0 value, what do you call someone who has negative value? Anyway, I've seen characters who were bound and determined to be actively detrimental to the party.

Just wanted to clarify that that's what we're talking about, because, what I initially read you to say, I couldn't see why you'd be upset about it.

If a player Honest True is about to do something stupid of course warn him and advise against it. When a DM asks "Are you sure?" the response should always be "No, never mind. I don't do that."

It's about the player's attitude. It's the player who plays the game despite the other players, not with them, who's the Jerkface Donkey Cavity with a neck I want to wring. Common symptoms are being the Lone Wolf and/or constantly passing secret notes to the DM even when his character is with the party. When he interacts with party members he's arrogant and condescending. He's quite amused by whatever complication another player has to deal with, sitting there with a smile on his face. Some won't help, some do. It's those who do who pompously declare they have to save the party again.

Particle_Man

2019-01-17, 01:24 PM

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

"Can" doesn't mean "does" though. I have played D&D and AD&D in various versions since 1980 and this overshadowing just hasn't happened in any game I have played or DM'd. Maybe I am the luckiest D&D player/DM that ever lived?

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 01:32 PM

SLOTHRPG95

2019-01-17, 02:06 PM

"Can" doesn't mean "does" though. I have played D&D and AD&D in various versions since 1980 and this overshadowing just hasn't happened in any game I have played or DM'd. Maybe I am the luckiest D&D player/DM that ever lived?

If I had to take a guess, it's that your experiences are far closer to the norm than commonly thought on this forum. I'm not saying that groups where fighters and the like always get overshadowed don't exist, but I've played in/DMed plenty of groups and I've never seen this in person.

Gnaeus

2019-01-17, 02:13 PM

I already covered that in my post, and again just above in this post. If you're paying for services, you're not doing anything anyone else can't already do by just going into town and hiring other adventurers.

Uhm. I’m going to be paying them with the soul gems from my victims which I obtain by having cacodaemons eat their souls.

So, you planar bind some cacodaemons. Order them to eat every soul you direct. Not only is this exactly what they want to do anyway, but cacodaemons are pitifully weak and not very smart. Not a threat.

Then you pay the outsiders you actually want with the harvested souls. Which is the other thing they want besides destruction.

Unless the other adventurers in town will work for stuff you harvest for free from your victims, it’s not really comparable.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 03:06 PM

"Can" doesn't mean "does" though. I have played D&D and AD&D in various versions since 1980 and this overshadowing just hasn't happened in any game I have played or DM'd. Maybe I am the luckiest D&D player/DM that ever lived?

The fact that they can still represents a problem with the system.

With the exceptions of calling spells, which are supposed to have substantial financial or RP costs associated with them, I'd argue pretty firmly against "can." You can get there on a whole suite of buffs but that represents pretty substantial investment, all in all.

Planar binding isn't even a single spell anyway; it's 3, minimum: PB itself, magic circle, and dimensional anchor.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-17, 03:44 PM

With the exceptions of calling spells, which are supposed to have substantial financial or RP costs associated with them, I'd argue pretty firmly against "can." You can get there on a whole suite of buffs but that represents pretty substantial investment, all in all.

Planar binding isn't even a single spell anyway; it's 3, minimum: PB itself, magic circle, and dimensional anchor.

Lots of creatures can't dim travel like Ravids and Steel Predators and they come with no organized comeuppance since they're basically animals. So lots of times it's 2 spells

You can also call them into a mundane trap. So it is in fact 1 spell.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 04:29 PM

Lots of creatures can't dim travel like Ravids and Steel Predators and they come with no organized comeuppance since they're basically animals. So lots of times it's 2 spells

Fair point.

You can also call them into a mundane trap. So it is in fact 1 spell.

This, however, is deliberately misreading the spell and undeniably incorrect.

Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

To create the trap, you must use a magic circle spell, focused inward. The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

"The" here is clearly marking the trap being discussed in the introductory sentence's "a trap," clarifying that it is the only, singular trap the spell is discussing. Putting a crate on a stick does not meet the spell's description.

That aside, my primary point stands, especially in light of the fact that even most creatures you can call, prior to gate, are not equal to a dedicated melee build of your level.

It is not possible to outright replace someone else in the party with a single spell outside of very particular circumstances. You can poorly ape a competently built and run PC class character with some of the most powerful and costly spells in the game; admittedly to an adequate degree, often enough; but otherwise you're spending several spells at a time, and often substantially more investment, to match a dedicated PC of another class.

Never mind the fact that buffing such dedicated characters will almost always serve better than buffing the caster to match.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 04:41 PM

That aside, my primary point stands, especially in light of the fact that even most creatures you can call, prior to gate, are not equal to a dedicated melee build of your level.

I doubt that's the case with an unoptimized Sword & Board Fighter.

It is not possible to outright replace someone else in the party with a single spell outside of very particular circumstances. You can poorly ape a competently built and run PC class character with some of the most powerful and costly spells in the game; admittedly to an adequate degree, often enough; but otherwise you're spending several spells at a time, and often substantially more investment, to match a dedicated PC of another class.

This isn't true either.

For one of the more egregious example, see Shadesteel Golems.

Never mind the fact that buffing such dedicated characters will almost always serve better than buffing the caster to match.

Druids can't really do that.

Asmotherion

2019-01-17, 05:03 PM

Why? i play them myself.

And if you do you probably have issues. it's not cool to get upset over how others choose to have their fun.

in Low OP the player is expected to play as if the class was not exactly tier 1. if i called myself a conjurer or necromancer in a low op game i'd try to limit my spell list to conjuration or necromancy spells as much as possible if only for a "Fluff" reason. i'd sacrifice a bit of my versatility but in a low op game it'd be more fun to role play. i'd also probably have access to only PHB spells (not that those alone are not enough to create a great Wizard but you do miss out a lot).

in Various Levels of Higher OP Magical items/templates/tactical maneuvers and other stuff give every character a certain amound of versatility that compensates for spells if not totally at least to a healthy amount so that everyone feels "somewhat special" instead of "the caster's meatshields".

in the end if people didn't wand to play other classes everyone would roll just Wizards/Clerics/Druids... i have yet to play in a full wizard party but it would be fun to play in i suppose (if they somehow survive past level 4).

noob

2019-01-17, 05:11 PM

Gnaeus

2019-01-17, 05:17 PM

That aside, my primary point stands, especially in light of the fact that even most creatures you can call, prior to gate, are not equal to a dedicated melee build of your level.

It is not possible to outright replace someone else in the party with a single spell outside of very particular circumstances. You can poorly ape a competently built and run PC class character with some of the most powerful and costly spells in the game; admittedly to an adequate degree, often enough; but otherwise you're spending several spells at a time, and often substantially more investment, to match a dedicated PC of another class..

You know you cast those spells the day before the adventure, right? It’s not a question of whether a hound archon or bearded devil can beat a 9th level beatstick. (And that is more of a question than it should be. The beatstick has better damage and hp, the Archon has better saves, defenses and utility. It depends a lot on what you are fighting). It’s a question of whether the 3-4 archons you call can outperform the beatstick at what you want them to do, which is mostly stand between you and your enemy (ies), and then murder them when they are incapacitated with spells. 3 5th level spells cast the day before you enter are no more expensive than one. Or more if you want to start casting 2 or 3 days early.

They are also disposable. Or interchangeable if you want to switch up what kinds of attacks and defenses they have.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 05:30 PM

I doubt that's the case with an unoptimized Sword & Board Fighter.

If you're literally picking your feats out of a hat and just keeping whatever junk the random treasure tables drop, sure. Otherwise the HD cap and lack of gear on called outsiders and elementals leaves you with awfully lackluster bruisers. Lesser dragon ally gets you pretty close but it costs.

This isn't true either.

For one of the more egregious example, see Shadesteel Golems.

How are you conjuring a shadesteel golem?

Druids can't really do that.

They're not as good at it as a cleric or wizard but they can indeed buff allies to a degree that makes them as dangerous if not moreso than the druid or his AC. A bit of cooperation in the warrior's part can make it that much better.

Even then, they're only 1/6 of the T1 classes.

D+1

2019-01-17, 05:49 PM

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)Nope. But I would have issues when other players are "upset" having already pigeon-holed MY character as "a Tier 1 Class" (with whatever nebulous and unknown crimes against their gaming serenity that entails) when they don't yet even know details of the build, much less see how I actually play that PC in an ongoing game. Fortunately that's never happened to me. But if it did I'd immediately question whether the game was going to be worth playing in because of that one player and their blind, baseless assumptions and fretting. If that's what they're like before the game has even started what will they get bent out of shape about when it does?

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 06:21 PM

If you're literally picking your feats out of a hat and just keeping whatever junk the random treasure tables drop, sure. Otherwise the HD cap and lack of gear on called outsiders and elementals leaves you with awfully lackluster bruisers. Lesser dragon ally gets you pretty close but it costs.

Like I said, unoptimized Fighters.

How are you conjuring a shadesteel golem?

Who said anything about conjuring one? You can build it.

They're not as good at it as a cleric or wizard but they can indeed buff allies to a degree

Most of the Druids buffs only work on animals or are personal

Which buffs were you thinking of?

that makes them as dangerous if not moreso than the druid or his AC. A bit of cooperation in the warrior's part can make it that much better.

Um, no.

Even then, they're only 1/6 of the T1 classes.

They still are an example of tier 1 class that can't buff others easily.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 07:53 PM

Like I said, unoptimized Fighters.

I'd argue that someone who isn't trying at all like that has no right to complain.

Who said anything about conjuring one? You can build it.

I did. My statement was about replacing other PCs with singular spells.

That said, 70k gold and 4.8k experience is a damn long way from trivial even as you close on epic level. Just meeting the CL requirement means you're trying to replace a warrior of around level 14 or higher without something like circle magic -if- you can get some assistance with the shades and energy drain requirements and are willing sink about half your WBL into it. You're flat out failing to replace a level 17 fighter unless the player is actively sabotaging his own character.

Most of the Druids buffs only work on animals or are personal

Which buffs were you thinking of?

There's a couple dozen spells that fit the criteria of druid list, buff effect, and touch range without requiring an animal target. Mostly special senses, defenses, and movement modes. Since the bruisers get their base numbers to where they need to be just fine, that's exactly the kind of buffs you're looking for.

Um, no.

Um, yes. Skin of the proteus, gold dragon blood elixir, bear warrior, primeval, and any of a number of other classes and items can give a warrior the ability to take animal form and gain the animal type, making them a valid target for animal spells. Then there's the bracelets of spell sharing (DMG2) to help with personal spells (also advisable for warriors allied with any other caster). Teamwork is your friend.

They still are an example of tier 1 class that can't buff others easily.

They're the only one other than the erudite that has any difficulty with it at all and it's precious little at that.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 08:06 PM

I'd argue that someone who isn't trying at all like that has no right to complain.

Fair enough.

I did. My statement was about replacing other PCs with singular spells.

Then make one and cast Ice Assassin to make more of them.

That said, 70k gold and 4.8k experience is a damn long way from trivial even as you close on epic level. Just meeting the CL requirement means you're trying to replace a warrior of around level 14 or higher without something like circle magic -if- you can get some assistance with the shades and energy drain requirements and are willing sink about half your WBL into it. You're flat out failing to replace a level 17 fighter unless the player is actively sabotaging his own character.

You can make the golem intelligent and give it epic feats by advancing its HD to 26 or so.

There's a couple dozen spells that fit the criteria of druid list, buff effect, and touch range without requiring an animal target. Mostly special senses, defenses, and movement modes. Since the bruisers get their base numbers to where they need to be just fine, that's exactly the kind of buffs you're looking for.

What spells are you thinking of? Can you name them?

Um, yes. Skin of the proteus, gold dragon blood elixir, bear warrior, primeval, and any of a number of other classes and items can give a warrior the ability to take animal form and gain the animal type, making them a valid target for animal spells. Then there's the bracelets of spell sharing (DMG2) to help with personal spells (also advisable for warriors allied with any other caster). Teamwork is your friend.

What you said:

that makes them as dangerous if not moreso than the druid or his AC.

That in no way shape of form makes them more dangerous than the Druid.

They're the only one other than the erudite that has any difficulty with it at all and it's precious little at that.

Why does the Erudite have trouble buffing her allies?

Crichton

2019-01-17, 08:15 PM

Why does the Erudite have trouble buffing her allies?

I assume they're referring to the Erudite's very limited number of Unique Powers per Day, which can be a hindrance on buffing those around him.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 08:19 PM

I assume they're referring to the Erudite's very limited number of Unique Powers per Day, which can be a hindrance on buffing those around him.

It's not that limited at all (except at very low levels), unless you intentionally ignore the text in favor of the table in its class description.

Crichton

2019-01-17, 08:27 PM

It's not that limited at all (except at very low levels), unless you intentionally ignore the text in favor of the table in its class description.

That's an argument that's been batted around and around here, with myself included, but it's the rare table indeed that would actually play with that obvious editing error allowed. Let's not derail this thread any further with that debate. RAW is powers per level per day, but that RAW is based on what is very clearly a copy/paste editing error, from when Erudite was imported from its Dragon magazine version. The RAI is very clearly laid out, and that interpretation is very clearly reinforced when reading the epic progression rules for the class. Suffice it to say that only the most TO-allowing tables would allow an Erudite with 11 powers per day per level.

Full disclosure, my own table splits the difference, houseruling Erudites to get 1/2INT bonus extra UPPD.

ColorBlindNinja

2019-01-17, 08:38 PM

Let's not derail this thread any further with that debate.

Very well.

tadkins

2019-01-17, 09:03 PM

I can make a promise to the next group I join that, while I will want to play a T1 class, it will not in any way be played as overpowered or annoying. The character I have planned is a blasting Witch with heavy investments in potion brewing hexes. Not the most overpowered thing in the world I think! I've always been under the belief that giving a character a focus of some sort is a good thing to help curb what makes T1 classes so infamous.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 09:24 PM

You know you cast those spells the day before the adventure, right? It’s not a question of whether a hound archon or bearded devil can beat a 9th level beatstick. (And that is more of a question than it should be. The beatstick has better damage and hp, the Archon has better saves, defenses and utility. It depends a lot on what you are fighting).

It's really, really not. The kind of zero effort melee types that CBN was discussing above would utterly crush a hound archon or bearded devil and one that's been even half way competently built and played could take them several at a time. Hell, I've built a character who literally can't use magic at all that can do that. Link (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=1592428)

It’s a question of whether the 3-4 archons you call can outperform the beatstick at what you want them to do, which is mostly stand between you and your enemy (ies), and then murder them when they are incapacitated with spells. 3 5th level spells cast the day before you enter are no more expensive than one. Or more if you want to start casting 2 or 3 days early.

If that's all you expect of the melee characters in your party then you're sorely underutilizing such classes and your DM needs to come harder at the casters with more than just raw numbers.

They are also disposable. Or interchangeable if you want to switch up what kinds of attacks and defenses they have.

Like this, for example. This is planar binding without the GM playing the RP cost the spell is supposed to carry. The spell talks about risk and reprisal and this assumes there is neither.

Then there's the lynchpin of this argument; the assumption you will get a day or more of warning about what lies ahead in the campaign. I don't know -anyone- for whom this is more than an occasional occurence, even on this forum. Without that in place, you can only call generally useful creatures and they will be consistently worse than another PC.

Let's also not forget banishment/dismissal and the fact that they exist in the form of items, including weapons, and class features along with all the means of barring passage of extraplanar creatures.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-17, 10:16 PM

Then make one and cast Ice Assassin to make more of them.

So replace a dedicated warrior with... a dedicated warrior. Did you forget the subject of the disagreement here? :smallconfused:

You can make the golem intelligent and give it epic feats by advancing its HD to 26 or so.

For even greater cost... and more investment... This is well outside of the scope of accidentally stepping on the warriors' toes, even before you consider that epic feats that a golem of limited intelligence can qualify for are more than a little lackluster.

What spells are you thinking of? Can you name them?

If you insist:

animalistic power, blindsight, burrow, cloud wings (requires flight speed), earth glide, girralon's blessing, low-light vision, mountain stance, scent, tortoise shell, touch of adamantine, aura of vitality, brilliant aura, cloud walkers, incarnum vigor... etc.

That's just touch and close range transmutations. Go through the list.

What you said:

That in no way shape of form makes them more dangerous than the Druid.

A) A polymorphed fighter is -more- dangerous than a polymorphed wizard or a wild shaped druid.

B) I said that a warrior having been given the druid's buffing effort was as or more dangerous than the druid or his AC having recieved the same effort, particularly if he takes steps to facilitate that effort and showed how he might facilitate that effort in a variety of ways.

Why does the Erudite have trouble buffing her allies?

Because very few buffing powers are not personal range. There are ways around that but they're difficult enough that they aren't likely to come up incidentally, although not super difficult all in all.

DwarvenWarCorgi

2019-01-17, 10:21 PM

What spells are you thinking of? Can you name them?

I don't know what he's thinking, but off the top of my head
Resist elements and mass RE, the basic bulls strength/eagles splendor/owls wisdom/etc and their mass versions, the vigor cycle, owls wit, girallons blessing, stoneskin, mass camouflage, pass without trace, energetic healing, snowshoes, mass snowshoes, camels tenacity, spider skin, aura of vitality, cloudwalkers, energy immunity, tortoise shell, hide from animals, eyes of the avoral, cloak of the sea.

There's lots more

Edit: saged.

Crake

2019-01-17, 10:47 PM

Uhm. I’m going to be paying them with the soul gems from my victims which I obtain by having cacodaemons eat their souls.

So, you planar bind some cacodaemons. Order them to eat every soul you direct. Not only is this exactly what they want to do anyway, but cacodaemons are pitifully weak and not very smart. Not a threat.

Then you pay the outsiders you actually want with the harvested souls. Which is the other thing they want besides destruction.

Unless the other adventurers in town will work for stuff you harvest for free from your victims, it’s not really comparable.

Have you actually read how the cacodaemon's ability works? It's flimsy as hell. Firstly it's only usable 1/day, so you have to be picky about which souls you trap, secondly, the souls are trapped in a very flimsy recepticle, and can be easily resurrected with, at most, a DC14 caster level check, which anyone casting resurrection automatically passes anyway, so the soul is not secure at all. Then theres the part about a fiend eating the gem to condemn it to a lower plane, but it actually says nothing about the soul becoming the property of that fiend, so you either have: a soul trapped in a flimsy gem that might be broken at any moment (unlike a proper soul binding spell) or you can condemn the soul to the lower planes, but have no ownership over it. Either way, that's a really terrible form of payment, because it's so unstable.

Cosi

2019-01-18, 07:39 PM

With the exceptions of calling spells, which are supposed to have substantial financial or RP costs associated with them, I'd argue pretty firmly against "can." You can get there on a whole suite of buffs but that represents pretty substantial investment, all in all.

Unless that investment is "all your spell slots, and also all the spell slots a Fighter would expect people to use buffing him", the Fighter is still a net loss. Opportunity cost matters.

Florian

2019-01-18, 10:45 PM

Unless that investment is "all your spell slots, and also all the spell slots a Fighter would expect people to use buffing him", the Fighter is still a net loss. Opportunity cost matters.

In 3.5E, maybe. In PF? A clear nope, especially when your enemy is a Fighter or Barbarian.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-18, 11:13 PM

Unless that investment is "all your spell slots, and also all the spell slots a Fighter would expect people to use buffing him", the Fighter is still a net loss. Opportunity cost matters.

The argument was about accidentally replacing warrior classes with single spells. Any investment beyond a single spell makes my point a valid one.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-18, 11:19 PM

This, however, is deliberately misreading the spell and undeniably incorrect.

4th—Dimensional Anchor: This spell is instrumental in preventing creatures that are summoned using the planar binding spells from escaping with teleportation or dimensional
shifting abilities. Any summoner planning to use a planar binding spell would be wise to learn an appropriate magic circle spell to strengthen the trap as well.

Magic Circle is Optional therefore you can create traps for planar binding without magic circle therefore you can use mundane traps.

Like this, for example. This is planar binding without the GM playing the RP cost the spell is supposed to carry. The spell talks about risk and reprisal and this assumes there is neither.

Some creatures are barely more intelligent than animals so there are no RP cost other than the initial coercion which isn't a problem because they're barely above animals. See Ravids and Steel Predators.

For even greater cost... and more investment... This is well outside of the scope of accidentally stepping on the warriors' toes, even before you consider that epic feats that a golem of limited intelligence can qualify for are more than a little lackluster.

I disagree. I made a max hd Hellfire Golem with perfect two weapon fighting and Gloves of Endless Javelins. All the feats that let me shoot infinite distance without any penalties had Dex requirements. He could deal 200 damage a round at infinite range.

I could have made him ubercharge too which would be an ubercharger that one shots everything WITHOUT being a glass cannon because golems are durable as ****.

Pex

2019-01-18, 11:35 PM

In 3.5E, maybe. In PF? A clear nope, especially when your enemy is a Fighter or Barbarian.

The 3E Fighter is quite capable of handling himself in combat and casting a buff spell on him is worth the spell slot.

Cosi

2019-01-18, 11:44 PM

In 3.5E, maybe. In PF? A clear nope, especially when your enemy is a Fighter or Barbarian.

Baffling as always. A literal reading of this post would seem to suggest that you believe opportunity costs don't matter in PF, which is farcical. I assume that's not what you meant, so you should probably restate whatever you do mean in a way that is not absurd.

The argument was about accidentally replacing warrior classes with single spells. Any investment beyond a single spell makes my point a valid one.

And my point is that's besides the point. The comparison point isn't "one spell slot" but "one slot in the party". The single spell question is a distraction, and the fact that you can make any kind of argument for it is damning enough.

Florian

2019-01-18, 11:56 PM

The 3E Fighter is quite capable of handling himself in combat and casting a buff spell on him is worth the spell slot.

The point was about the existence of spells that can replace an entire class. 3.0E/3.5E is insofar deeply flawed, as the basic monster design is based on the concept of it being able to be a challenge to a party of 4, then there exist spells/class features that allow access to exactly those in various ways. Which is basically insane.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-19, 01:25 AM

Magic Circle is Optional therefore you can create traps for planar binding without magic circle therefore you can use mundane traps.

There are lots of errors like this in the game. The advice you've highlighted here is just that; advice. The author giving it made a mistake in the belief that PB even -can- be cast without first setting the magic circle trap. In any case, it's not rules text and even if it were the spell description itself would be the primary source. The spell description says you have to have a magic circle, period.

Some creatures are barely more intelligent than animals so there are no RP cost other than the initial coercion which isn't a problem because they're barely above animals. See Ravids and Steel Predators.

Such creatures are also extremely limited in what they can do.

Take the Ravid from your example; it explicitly refuses to fight on its own if it can avoid it and can't direct its animated objects tactically even before you consider the fact that you need objects for it to animate; another non-trivial investment unless you want to roll the proverbial dice on what objects will be present. It's also remarkably vulnerable to getting ganked with its 16 hp when you're level 9+.

A steel predator is in pretty much every way inferior to a level 13 warrior and actively seeks to destroy loot. You can't even actually bind the thing without telepathy since you can't make an agreement without some means of communicating with it. Its own ability to speak terran doesn't mitigate its native deafness.

I disagree. I made a max hd Hellfire Golem with perfect two weapon fighting and Gloves of Endless Javelins. All the feats that let me shoot infinite distance without any penalties had Dex requirements. He could deal 200 damage a round at infinite range.

Houserules often cause issues when they aren't thought through like that. There are no provisions within the rules for making a hellfire golem of advanced HD or for selecting its feats. The latter is forgivable enough but the cost of a HFG of 20 HD is immense. A 60 HD version should be out of reach of any non-epic caster if the GM is being anything approaching reasonable with assigning a cost to the extra HD.

I could have made him ubercharge too which would be an ubercharger that one shots everything WITHOUT being a glass cannon because golems are durable as ****.

They're not substantially tougher than warriors of the same CR and obscenely expensive. The magic immunity property is pretty solid but not really difficult to go around.

And my point is that's besides the point. The comparison point isn't "one spell slot" but "one slot in the party". The single spell question is a distraction, and the fact that you can make any kind of argument for it is damning enough.

If you want to argue opportunity cost above all other considerations, there's no choice for anyone but pun-pun. If you want somebody to stick pointy things in the bad guys, a dedicated warrior is a rock-solid choice as long as you know how to build and play one.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 01:44 AM

Take the Ravid from your example; it explicitly refuses to fight on its own if it can avoid it and can't direct its animated objects tactically even before you consider the fact that you need objects for it to animate; another non-trivial investment unless you want to roll the proverbial dice on what objects will be present. It's also remarkably vulnerable to getting ganked with its 16 hp when you're level 9+.

You make a gargantuan statue that's hollow inside with stone shape or fabricate and park the ravid inside there. Stone is free. It can't do advanced tactics because it's stupid but that's what your brain is for. Being inside the hollow gargantuan statue you need a teleporting or ethereal enemy to gank the ravid and even then the Gargantuan Animated Object can probably kill whatever is inside it by pounding its intruder with its walls or ceiling. Look at the official art for an animated object, metal is very bendy while animated.

GAO is terrible at damage but unbeatable in grapple.

A steel predator is in pretty much every way inferior to a level 13 warrior and actively seeks to destroy loot. You can't even actually bind the thing without telepathy since you can't make an agreement without some means of communicating with it. Its own ability to speak terran doesn't mitigate its native deafness.

You can use paper instead of words to communicate. But I personally use a Spined Devil as a telepathy telephone. As to whether mundanes are stronger than steel predators, I guess that depends. An optimized mundane is probably better but the steel predator is very strong out of the box with its sonic breath and pounce. Not to mention high ac and DR and the fact that it uses natural weapons. Girallon's Blessing on a pounce creature is truly devastating. And the most important tidbit here is that you can bind more than one.

Houserules often cause issues when they aren't thought through like that. There are no provisions within the rules for making a hellfire golem of advanced HD or for selecting its feats. The latter is forgivable enough but the cost of a HFG of 20 HD is immense. A 60 HD version should be out of reach of any non-epic caster if the GM is being anything approaching reasonable with assigning a cost to the extra HD.

All golems' advancement hd costs 5,000gp per hd and 50,000gp per size increase. It's not a house rule. It is expensive though I'll give you that but cost reducers can really go a long way into capsizing the cost. Standard Extraordinary Artisan + Magical Artisan is a 43.75% cost reduction.

They're not substantially tougher than warriors of the same CR and obscenely expensive. The magic immunity property is pretty solid but not really difficult to go around.

My point was a barbarian capsizing his ac for his ubercharge can get ganked without BFC support, where as a golem capsizing his ac for his ubercharge can laugh off any damage flung his way due to his DR and spell immunity.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-19, 03:43 AM

You make a gargantuan statue that's hollow inside with stone shape or fabricate and park the ravid inside there. Stone is free. It can't do advanced tactics because it's stupid but that's what your brain is for. Being inside the hollow gargantuan statue you need a teleporting or ethereal enemy to gank the ravid and even then the Gargantuan Animated Object can probably kill whatever is inside it by pounding its intruder with its walls or ceiling. Look at the official art for an animated object, metal is very bendy while animated.

Stone is not free. If it was there'd be no cost for the body of a stone golem.

The inside of a sealed room leaves the ravid completely unable to guide the AO. If it's not sealed, the ravid is vulnerable.

Space constraints are also an issue.

End of the day, you've got a mindless animated object out of your LPB, at best, or a dumb one with a glaring weak spot, at worst. Actually casting animate objects will at least let you control the thing directly.

GAO is terrible at damage but unbeatable in grapple

Still gotta hit the touch attack to get a grip and you're stuck grabbing one at a time without improved grab.

You can use paper instead of words to communicate. But I personally use a Spined Devil as a telepathy telephone. As to whether mundanes are stronger than steel predators, I guess that depends. An optimized mundane is probably better but the steel predator is very strong out of the box with its sonic breath and pounce. Not to mention high ac and DR and the fact that it uses natural weapons. Girallon's Blessing on a pounce creature is truly devastating. And the most important tidbit here is that you can bind more than one.

The NPC example fighter in the DMG straight-up matches it in the sheer numbers game. With 18,500gp still on the table. Out of the NPC gear value table on pg 127. Never mind optimized, a minimally competent warrior build is going to be better.

All golems' advancement hd costs 5,000gp per hd and 50,000gp per size increase. It's not a house rule. It is expensive though I'll give you that but cost reducers can really go a long way into capsizing the cost. Standard Extraordinary Artisan + Magical Artisan is a 43.75% cost reduction.

Found it. My mistake. Gonna have to chalk that one up to being a hole in the system, I suppose. Can't help thinking there're better ways to spend a quarter million gold and most of a level.

My point was a barbarian capsizing his ac for his ubercharge can get ganked without BFC support, where as a golem capsizing his ac for his ubercharge can laugh off any damage flung his way due to his DR and spell immunity.

DR helps but only so much. There're a lot of ways around it too. The 3.5 nerf to magic immunity really tanked its utility too.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 04:28 AM

Stone is not free. If it was there'd be no cost for the body of a stone golem.

Stone Golem's body is stone of exceptional quality. If you're saying that a statue can't be made from random dungeon walls/floors with a stone shape or fabricate then...

The inside of a sealed room leaves the ravid completely unable to guide the AO. If it's not sealed, the ravid is vulnerable.

As long as the viewing window is smaller than 1ftx1ft then nobody has line effect to the ravid. But it does leave him vulnerable to gas based attacks like cloud kill.

The NPC example fighter in the DMG straight-up matches it in the sheer numbers game. With 18,500gp still on the table. Out of the NPC gear value table on pg 127. Never mind optimized, a minimally competent warrior build is going to be better.

2d6+7 + 2d4+3 x 2 1d6+3 x 2 = 14 + 8 x 2 + 6.5 x 2 = 43 damage on a pounce.
With Girallon's blessing, 43 + 1d4+7 x 4 + 2d4+10 = 43 + 9.5 x 4 + 15 = 96 damage on a pounce.
With a few persistable spells like Righteous Wrath of the Faithful and Blessings of the righteous... There are 10 attacks made in a pounce here with Girallon's Blessing. So +3 damage to each attack and +1d6 damage to each attack stacks up to +65 damage for 161 damage on a pounce. And RWotF gives an additional attack so add 2d6+7+3+3.5 = 20.5 damage on top of that to a total of 181.5 damage on a pounce. Bull's Strength is another +22 damage so that's 203.5 damage on a pounce.

NOW that's just my build. I have no idea how many buff spells a Spellcaster not dedicated to minionmancy is gonna throw on the Steel Predator. But it's safe to say at least that they're gonna throw one buff on it and Girallon's Blessing alone boosts pounce damage to 96. Of course, any amount of DR, even DR 5, is gonna capsize that damage and Mundanes are capable of wielding DR penetrating weapons while the Steel Predator can't because it can't afford that Necklace of Natural Weapons because the cost of that necklace multiplies with each additional natural weapon it needs to affect. We have 10 natural weapons here so a +1 transmuting necklace of natural weapons is gonna cost 180,000gp.

It also has 12d6 sonic breath attack, but it targets fort save so... the deafness could cripple a spellcaster.

Found it. My mistake. Gonna have to chalk that one up to being a hole in the system, I suppose. Can't help thinking there're better ways to spend a quarter million gold and most of a level.

101,000 (base) + 100,000 (40hd) + 50,000 (size) = 251,000gp
251,000gp x 0.75 x 0.75 = 141,187.5gp

Considering this is either my Force Javelin thrower that one shots Balors at infinite distance, or an ubercharger, i don't think it's money wasted. Of course this is irrelevant because this is an endgame thing so I don't think it's an argument for mundanes being replaced or whatnot. Not to mention the down time you need to make this. But I was just pointing out Golems with Intelligence is something to be feared.

DR helps but only so much. There're a lot of ways around it too. The 3.5 nerf to magic immunity really tanked its utility too.

DR15/adamantine and good, I don't think there's a lot that can overcome that. And technically, TECHNICALLY speaking the 3.5 nerf to magic immunity doesn't apply to Hellfire Golems because its update booklet didn't say it did. Though I do agree that any reasonable DM will house rule all 3.0 spell immunities to the 3.5 one.

Cosi

2019-01-19, 08:53 AM

If you want somebody to stick pointy things in the bad guys, a dedicated warrior is a rock-solid choice as long as you know how to build and play one.

I agree. DMM Clerics or Swifblades are totally acceptable builds. They perform well in combat, don't demand support from other characters they can't reciprocate, and provide meaningful utility outside combat.

Gnaeus

2019-01-19, 09:23 AM

It's really, really not. The kind of zero effort melee types that CBN was discussing above would utterly crush a hound archon or bearded devil and one that's been even half way competently built and played could take them several at a time. Hell, I've built a character who literally can't use magic at all that can do that.

Hell, I’ve built a multiclassed warblade which can beat your core summons that you picked off a list. Yes, I believe you have. Now try it with the monk NPC from the DMG. I don’t think people are seriously arguing that the problem with Tier 1s is that they casually replace warblades. (Although, I would still argue that the planar binding line can fill the same party role as your WB. Not perhaps as well, but competently). The problem is when someone just watched princess bride and really wants to play a swashbuckler.

Like this, for example. This is planar binding without the GM playing the RP cost the spell is supposed to carry. The spell talks about risk and reprisal and this assumes there is neither.

When I read the spell, I see one line. “The creature might later seek revenge”. You seem to take that as “the creature will hunt you down”. I read it as “if you make it do things it strongly dislikes, like opposing its alignment, it can seek revenge”.

So first, you can’t have it both ways. If they aren’t even equal to a fighter 9, I’m not worried about them seeking revenge.

Second, let’s just look at the PFSRD for the 6 HD creatures I might summon.

None of them has plane shift or the like (except the nightmare. So don’t summon them unless you can convince them that you are super evil and a valid partner in destruction, which since you are at least wizard 9 you likely can).
The good option, the archon, I’m probably using if I’m a good caster fighting evil enemies. Which they like doing. Yeah, it might be mad that I called it from whatever it was doing. But you think it’s going to plan an extraplanar trip to murder a good aligned caster for asking it to fight evil stuff?
The half fiend Minotaur is just a damage stick. I’m not at all afraid that a Minotaur in Hades doesn’t like me.
The devil isn’t very smart. So yes, while he could in theory convince some other Devil to send him primeside to hunt you down (despite the fact that you likely paid him in souls and told him to kill things he wanted to kill), I’m pretty doubtful he could pull it off.
The shadow mastiff is even dumber and can’t talk.
The Barghest May be a threat.

So, when using Lesser Planar Binding, of core options, if you summon Janni, Nightmare or Barghest, be nice to them.

And honestly, so what if they do? You’re a murderhobo. If they decide to kill you, when they find a way back to the material, likely years later, they are either free exp or just a speed bump. Because you are leveling faster than a shadow mastiff.

Then there's the lynchpin of this argument; the assumption you will get a day or more of warning about what lies ahead in the campaign. I don't know -anyone- for whom this is more than an occasional occurence, even on this forum. Without that in place, you can only call generally useful creatures and they will be consistently worse than another PC.

Highly campaign dependent I agree. I don’t think OP said whether they were in a sandbox or on a set path. I’ve been in a lot of games where we treckked across country to fight the ogres or hunted for the red dragon lair.

Also, the generally useful creatures are consistently better than low tier PCs that are not far more optimized than “take a core spell and cast it”.

Let's also not forget banishment/dismissal and the fact that they exist in the form of items, including weapons, and class features along with all the means of barring passage of extraplanar creatures.

Sure. Then let’s also talk about the dozens of Will saves which can incapacitate your fighter or turn him against the party, or about the fact that I probably have better Will saves than most beatstick. Are the bad guys more likely to have a bow of banishment or human bane? Cause I’ve seen a lot of (P.C. race) bane items, and very few items that can stop my summons. I’ve had multiple occasions just in the last campaign where my DM got an evil smile, told me to make a spellcraft check and a will save for my X, I explained to him that that spell was for humanoids only, and he sighed and targeted the Barbarian instead.

Gnaeus

2019-01-19, 10:30 AM

Have you actually read how the cacodaemon's ability works? It's flimsy as hell. Firstly it's only usable 1/day, so you have to be picky about which souls you trap, secondly, the souls are trapped in a very flimsy recepticle, and can be easily resurrected with, at most, a DC14 caster level check, which anyone casting resurrection automatically passes anyway, so the soul is not secure at all. Then theres the part about a fiend eating the gem to condemn it to a lower plane, but it actually says nothing about the soul becoming the property of that fiend, so you either have: a soul trapped in a flimsy gem that might be broken at any moment (unlike a proper soul binding spell) or you can condemn the soul to the lower planes, but have no ownership over it. Either way, that's a really terrible form of payment, because it's so unstable.

Once per day per cacodaemon. I can summon as many as I want. They are no threat. I can call 10, or 20. The section on the soul trade clearly states that cacodaemons are the most common method of turning souls into trade goods. So it is the best way of paying evil outsiders, because the game says it is.

I had one evil and paranoid caster who built a soul gem farm, and on any days when he didn’t have anything better to do he would just bind some outsiders, hand them a mess of soul gems, and get them to sign a (more complicated) contract saying they would never harm him if they happened across him in the future, then release them.

Quertus

2019-01-19, 10:55 AM

If a player Honest True is about to do something stupid of course warn him and advise against it. When a DM asks "Are you sure?" the response should always be "No, never mind. I don't do that."

It's about the player's attitude. It's the player who plays the game despite the other players, not with them, who's the Jerkface Donkey Cavity with a neck I want to wring. Common symptoms are being the Lone Wolf and/or constantly passing secret notes to the DM even when his character is with the party. When he interacts with party members he's arrogant and condescending. He's quite amused by whatever complication another player has to deal with, sitting there with a smile on his face. Some won't help, some do. It's those who do who pompously declare they have to save the party again.

Usually, when someone complains about a problem player, my response is something like, "I know that guy. He's fine, so long as...". But, in this case, I'll agree, what you're describing is a ****.

EDIT: also, responding to "are you sure?" with "yes" is usually foolish, but it sounds like you're saying that it makes the player a ****. Care to explain?

If you want somebody to stick pointy things in the bad guys, a dedicated warrior is a rock-solid choice as long as you know how to build and play one.

I speak from personal experience when I say that a well-built Fighter or Monk will totally outperform a tactically inept academia mage.

You can use paper instead of words to communicate.

Brilliant. But suboptimal. Use a stick (free) and dirt (free) to avoid paying the cost for paper and quill & ink.

Stone is not free.

Stronghold Builder's guidebook - and most boulders and dungeon walls - tend to disagree.

I All golems' advancement hd costs 5,000gp per hd and 50,000gp per size increase. It's not a house rule. It is expensive though I'll give you that but cost reducers can really go a long way into capsizing the cost. Standard Extraordinary Artisan + Magical Artisan is a 43.75% cost reduction.

Found it. My mistake. Gonna have to chalk that one up to being a hole in the system, I suppose. Can't help thinking there're better ways to spend a quarter million gold and most of a level.

Where is this rule? Also, all constructs, or just all golems?

-----

@RoboEmperor - there are two "wear this to get magical natural attacks" items - one is priced by number of attacks, the other isn't. Perhaps the other one would suit your needs better?

Cosi

2019-01-19, 11:07 AM

I don’t think people are seriously arguing that the problem with Tier 1s is that they casually replace warblades.

The problem isn't really replacing martials in combat at all. I mean, you can totally do that, and even in-combat a caster is going to perform better than any comparably-optimized non-caster, but the real problem is out of combat. Because that gap is much starker. In combat, an Ubercharger is a meaningful threat. Not as powerful or as difficult to counter or as <any positive quality> as a caster, but the fact that if it manages to tag you it does enough damage to kill you unless you're immune makes it a threat that can't be ignored. Outside combat, the overwhelming majority of martial characters might as well not exist. Even a Warblade's utility options are something like "use mountain hammer to break things good", "Diplomacy, but worse than a Beguiler", and "that stance that grants scent". That's the big problem.

When I read the spell, I see one line. “The creature might later seek revenge”. You seem to take that as “the creature will hunt you down”. I read it as “if you make it do things it strongly dislikes, like opposing its alignment, it can seek revenge”.

Also, the whole "seek revenge" thing is kind of dumb as a balancing mechanism. You cast planar binding, and you bind a couple of monsters that win some fights for you. The problem (at least, the problem we're discussing here) is that you stole the spotlight from the Fighter. Okay, so what's the downside? Oh, later there's a fight that is caused and defined entirely by your actions? And that's supposed to fix the problem of you getting too much spotlight time?

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 11:16 AM

Brilliant. But suboptimal. Use a stick (free) and dirt (free) to avoid paying the cost for paper and quill & ink.

You're not gonna planar bind on dirt cause wind moves the dirt and disturbs the circle.

Where is this rule? Also, all constructs, or just all golems?

It's in the golem entry in the monster manual
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/golem.htm
At the very top there are general rules for all golems. Under construction it states the general rule for advancing hd is 5,000gp per hd. It's just golems though. Homunculi for example cost 2,000gp per hd. If a construct has unlisted advancement hd then you're outta luck. Gotta house rule.

@RoboEmperor - there are two "wear this to get magical natural attacks" items - one is priced by number of attacks, the other isn't. Perhaps the other one would suit your needs better?

You're gonna have to give me more than that because the Necklace of Natural Weapons is the only one I know of and it's in savage species.

Powerdork

2019-01-19, 11:25 AM

You're gonna have to give me more than that because the Necklace of Natural Weapons is the only one I know of and it's in savage species.

DMG 246 (Wondrous Items). It's under A.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 11:30 AM

DMG 246 (Wondrous Items). It's under A.

Thanks but that one is just enhancement bonus, not weapon properties like transmuting.

The only affordable way seems to be UMDing a scroll of Natural Weapon Augmentation.

Florian

2019-01-19, 03:38 PM

Gotta love RoboEmperor. Totally answered the question why some tables are loath of T1 classes, as they come associated with certain players, behavior and discussions.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-19, 04:26 PM

Stone Golem's body is stone of exceptional quality. If you're saying that a statue can't be made from random dungeon walls/floors with a stone shape or fabricate then...

You're not getting a gargantuan object out of a block of stone 4.5ft on a side; what you can actually produce with a CL9 fabricate.

Quertus should've read his SBG more carefully. Hewn stone is not at all free. A stronghold space of average size made with stone walls both exterior and interior has 6600 cubic feet of stone making up its structure. At 6k for the price that's 0.91 gp per cubic foot. The free "unworked stone" entry is for empty caverns that need only minor touching up.

As long as the viewing window is smaller than 1ftx1ft then nobody has line effect to the ravid. But it does leave him vulnerable to gas based attacks like cloud kill.

Phasing arrow, burrowing power, improved precise shot, brilliant energy; all options off the top of my head for hitting it. Three of those are rare enough that it's probably the GM countering you but improved precise shot is pretty common. Accuracy matters to archers. That said, normal ranged attacks can still hit it, they're just rolling against a target with improved cover.

2d6+7 + 2d4+3 x 2 1d6+3 x 2 = 14 + 8 x 2 + 6.5 x 2 = 43 damage on a pounce.
With Girallon's blessing, 43 + 1d4+7 x 4 + 2d4+10 = 43 + 9.5 x 4 + 15 = 96 damage on a pounce.
With a few persistable spells like Righteous Wrath of the Faithful and Blessings of the righteous... There are 10 attacks made in a pounce here with Girallon's Blessing. So +3 damage to each attack and +1d6 damage to each attack stacks up to +65 damage for 161 damage on a pounce. And RWotF gives an additional attack so add 2d6+7+3+3.5 = 20.5 damage on top of that to a total of 181.5 damage on a pounce. Bull's Strength is another +22 damage so that's 203.5 damage on a pounce.

NOW that's just my build. I have no idea how many buff spells a Spellcaster not dedicated to minionmancy is gonna throw on the Steel Predator. But it's safe to say at least that they're gonna throw one buff on it and Girallon's Blessing alone boosts pounce damage to 96. Of course, any amount of DR, even DR 5, is gonna capsize that damage and Mundanes are capable of wielding DR penetrating weapons while the Steel Predator can't because it can't afford that Necklace of Natural Weapons because the cost of that necklace multiplies with each additional natural weapon it needs to affect. We have 10 natural weapons here so a +1 transmuting necklace of natural weapons is gonna cost 180,000gp.

It also has 12d6 sonic breath attack, but it targets fort save so... the deafness could cripple a spellcaster.

All this can be applied to a warrior character and two of your buffs require going off-list.

DR15/adamantine and good, I don't think there's a lot that can overcome that.

Aside from just hitting hard enough to not care, there are energy attacks, the shadow striking weapon property, actually having a weapon that counts as adamantine and good, and a few others. A hellfire golem is close enough to being a fiend that you're definitely going to draw the attention of a few hero types.

And technically, TECHNICALLY speaking the 3.5 nerf to magic immunity doesn't apply to Hellfire Golems because its update booklet didn't say it did. Though I do agree that any reasonable DM will house rule all 3.0 spell immunities to the 3.5 one.

Obvious oversight is obvious to the point it's not really worth discussing.

Hell, I’ve built a multiclassed warblade which can beat your core summons that you picked off a list. Yes, I believe you have. Now try it with the monk NPC from the DMG. I don’t think people are seriously arguing that the problem with Tier 1s is that they casually replace warblades. (Although, I would still argue that the planar binding line can fill the same party role as your WB. Not perhaps as well, but competently). The problem is when someone just watched princess bride and really wants to play a swashbuckler.

You didn't click the link or you -really- didn't grasp what you were looking at. That's a karsite forsaker build. He literally cannot use magic at all, even as items, and is still more dangerous than a pair of hounds or barbazu. The one level warblade dip is just to grab a couple maneuvers.

When I read the spell, I see one line. “The creature might later seek revenge”. You seem to take that as “the creature will hunt you down”. I read it as “if you make it do things it strongly dislikes, like opposing its alignment, it can seek revenge”.

So first, you can’t have it both ways. If they aren’t even equal to a fighter 9, I’m not worried about them seeking revenge.

The weakest choices aren't much of a threat to either you or your enemies. The stronger choices, while still poor beat-sticks, tend to be part of larger societies on the outer planes with their own goals and motives that you're interfering with every time you snatch one.

Second, let’s just look at the PFSRD for the 6 HD creatures I might summon.

None of them has plane shift or the like (except the nightmare. So don’t summon them unless you can convince them that you are super evil and a valid partner in destruction, which since you are at least wizard 9 you likely can).
The good option, the archon, I’m probably using if I’m a good caster fighting evil enemies. Which they like doing. Yeah, it might be mad that I called it from whatever it was doing. But you think it’s going to plan an extraplanar trip to murder a good aligned caster for asking it to fight evil stuff?
The half fiend Minotaur is just a damage stick. I’m not at all afraid that a Minotaur in Hades doesn’t like me.
The devil isn’t very smart. So yes, while he could in theory convince some other Devil to send him primeside to hunt you down (despite the fact that you likely paid him in souls and told him to kill things he wanted to kill), I’m pretty doubtful he could pull it off.
The shadow mastiff is even dumber and can’t talk.
The Barghest May be a threat.

Now how many of those is actually worth a damn to call? The nightmare can help you get off the material plane, if that's something you want, but the rest are all mediocre beaters and not much else. It doesn't get better as you go down the list to even lower HD.

I'm running on original 3e, btw. Not a fan of the changes Paizo made for PF.

So, when using Lesser Planar Binding, of core options, if you summon Janni, Nightmare or Barghest, be nice to them.

And honestly, so what if they do? You’re a murderhobo. If they decide to kill you, when they find a way back to the material, likely years later, they are either free exp or just a speed bump. Because you are leveling faster than a shadow mastiff.

The presumption that it'll take years is exactly that; a presumption. That it'll even be the same creature and not an associate is a presumption on your part as well. Justifying a return visit is trivial, particularly for the evil types. The point remains, the spell involves conjuring an NPC to do your bidding and isn't supposed to be something for nothing.

Highly campaign dependent I agree. I don’t think OP said whether they were in a sandbox or on a set path. I’ve been in a lot of games where we trekked across country to fight the ogres or hunted for the red dragon lair.

Red herrings and unexpected obstacles are things.

Also, the generally useful creatures are consistently better than low tier PCs that are not far more optimized than “take a core spell and cast it”.

I very, very seriously doubt this. The beaters are on a par with the NPC examples of warrior classes. That's bare minimum competence.

To describe calling spells by saying "take a core spell and cast it" is pretty disingenuous too. There are dozens of valid creatures to select, many of whom have their own special abilities with esoteric rules of their own. They're the most complex spells in the game.

Sure. Then let’s also talk about the dozens of Will saves which can incapacitate your fighter or turn him against the party, or about the fact that I probably have better Will saves than most beatstick. Are the bad guys more likely to have a bow of banishment or human bane? Cause I’ve seen a lot of (P.C. race) bane items, and very few items that can stop my summons. I’ve had multiple occasions just in the last campaign where my DM got an evil smile, told me to make a spellcraft check and a will save for my X, I explained to him that that spell was for humanoids only, and he sighed and targeted the Barbarian instead.

The hound archon has a 2 point advantage in his will saves over the NPC fighter 9 in the DMG. Not all PC races are humanoid.

If I might make a guess? Your GM, like most, isn't great about having important places or peoples warded against magical intrusions and manipulations. For all the PC use of magic that gets bandied about on forums like this, you almost never hear about their counters. Almost everything a caster can do has a direct counter that comes online at the same level and appears a few levels later in the form of magic items. SBG's wondrous architecture really does wonders for this problem too.

If a GM sees outsiders as something rare (not sure why he would with summons being a core option and fiend-folio existing) then of course the defenses and counters for the same will also be rare. That's a campaign design flaw, not a game design flaw.

Ruethgar

2019-01-19, 06:21 PM

Eh, I build my characters to be able to scale up with greater use of resources. If the rest of the party ends up being T1 superpowers, I can at least often ramp up to T2/3 from my normal approximate of T4. Find it a bit less fun from the challenge perspective, but it’s doesn't change much for me and I don’t get upset about it.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 08:03 PM

You're not getting a gargantuan object out of a block of stone 4.5ft on a side; what you can actually produce with a CL9 fabricate.

Rejkars have at-will fabricate. Infinite amount of unseen crafters can collaborate on the statue. And there's no reason the statue has to be one piece. The statue may take time to build but is 100% free.

Phasing arrow, burrowing power, improved precise shot, brilliant energy; all options off the top of my head for hitting it. Three of those are rare enough that it's probably the GM countering you but improved precise shot is pretty common. Accuracy matters to archers. That said, normal ranged attacks can still hit it, they're just rolling against a target with improved cover.

Pretty sure a tiny viewing slit is total cover.

All this can be applied to a warrior character and two of your buffs require going off-list.

I play a demonic domain cleric so don't know what you mean by going off-list.

Girallon's Blessing cannot be used with manufactured weapons so no it can't be applied to a warrior character using a weapon.

RWotF and BotR give a ton of damage to creatures with high number of attacks per round but is lackluster with someone with only attacks a few times a round.

You should do your calculations on your so called warriors to prove that they do in fact out damage the steel predator with the buffs, or different buffs. They just gotta be either long duration or like up to 2-3 short durations max.

But again, my character is a dedicated minionmancer so should be treated as a mundane rather than a spellcaster and the steel predator should have less buffs.

edit:No reason why the Ravid wouldn't be countered. GAO is not exactly subtle. But they do need to figure out it's a ravid and not a permanency spell.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-19, 10:00 PM

Rejkars have at-will fabricate. Infinite amount of unseen crafters can collaborate on the statue. And there's no reason the statue has to be one piece. The statue may take time to build but is 100% free.

So with one of your two 5th level spells, you're going to call a creature to shape the blocks. Then you're going to cast, what, 6~ish unseen servants for 9 days to get up to about 54. Those blocks are going to weigh more than 5400 pounds and you still have to be able to make the relevant craft checks to make the parts to assemble.

Pretty sure a tiny viewing slit is total cover.

I'm pretty sure it's improved cover and that three of the four things I mentioned don't care.

I play a demonic domain cleric so don't know what you mean by going off-list.

... Then where did you get planar binding? If you're using planar ally then you're eating a gp cost with every casting unless you can convince the creature to waive it and your control is far from absolute.

Girallon's Blessing cannot be used with manufactured weapons so no it can't be applied to a warrior character using a weapon.

SS says every hand after the first adds half-again the character's strength to damage rolls. A greatsword fighter can hit for 2d6 +2.5* his strength.

I don't know where you got the idea the extra arms can't be used with a manufactured weapon.

Your math's off, btw. The most recent printing of girralon's blessing says you get two extra arms not four and the steel predator already has two claws on its fore-legs.

RWotF and BofR give a ton of damage to creatures with high number of attacks per round but is lackluster with someone with only attacks a few times a round.

Nothing says the fighter can't just stow his weapon and use the claws from girralon's blessing if the caster makes them the better option through further buffs. That, of course, presumes a two-handed fighter rather than a twf or multiweapon fighting build. A simple thri-kreen ranger can be an absolute blender.

You should do your calculations on your so called warriors to prove that they do in fact out damage the steel predator with the buffs, or different buffs. They just gotta be either long duration or like up to 2-3 short durations max.

But again, my character is a dedicated minionmancer so should be treated as a mundane rather than a spellcaster.

Seriously?

Barb 13 with a greataxe.

BAB 13
STR 21
G. Rage +6 str
Gauntlets of ogre str +2 str
+2 greataxe

Total AB is +24
PA for 5 to get the same to-hit as the predator.

So that's 3 attacks at 1d12 +13 str +2 weapon enhancement, +10 PA for 31.5 *3 or 94.5 damage.

Lion spirit totem gives him the same pounce ability.

Now imagine if somebody was actually trying. The barb isn't even tied up in a grapple if the enemy survives the onslaught.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-19, 10:49 PM

So with one of your two 5th level spells, you're going to call a creature to shape the blocks. Then you're going to cast, what, 6~ish unseen servants for 9 days to get up to about 54. Those blocks are going to weigh more than 5400 pounds and you still have to be able to make the relevant craft checks to make the parts to assemble.

Wtf. You use one or the other not both. I have no idea why you think creating a crude statue is such an expensive and difficult task. You either spam at-will fabricate and get the job done in a minute or you use unseen crafters over a day or two. The gargantuan statue is free and super easy to acquire. End of story. And all done in downtime.

I'm pretty sure it's improved cover and that three of the four things I mentioned don't care.

So you're saying a slit too small for an arrow to shoot through is improved cover? And yes, three of the four things you mentioned don't care. There's nothing wrong with those so I didn't mention them. Because you're right about them ganking the ravid.

... Then where did you get planar binding? If you're using planar ally then you're eating a gp cost with every casting unless you can convince the creature to waive it and your control is far from absolute.

Demonic Domain has planar binding as domain spells.

I don't know where you got the idea the extra arms can't be used with a manufactured weapon.

A creature cannot use normal weapons and the claw attacks in the same round, and the subject does not gain additional claw attacks from a high base attack bonus.

Your math's off, btw. The most recent printing of girralon's blessing says you get two extra arms not four and the steel predator already has two claws on its fore-legs.

The creature gains four claw attacks

If you read the spell description, even worms with no arms get 4 claw attacks from the 2 new arms. There is simply no condition in the spell that says you get anything less than 4 claw attacks.

Nothing says the fighter can't just stow his weapon and use the claws from girralon's blessing if the caster makes them the better option through further buffs. That, of course, presumes a two-handed fighter rather than a twf or multiweapon fighting build. A simple thri-kreen ranger can be an absolute blender.

4 claws are always worse than iterative attacks with two-handed power attack. The only reason it works with monsters is because they already have multiple natural weapons and they have a stupidly high str score. With monsters Girallon's Blessing more than doubles their damage but with humanoids they gotta choose between weapon or claws so it's far from amazing on them. I don't know about SS rules so I'm gonna have to look into that.

Seriously?

Barb 13 with a greataxe.

BAB 13
STR 21
G. Rage +6 str
Gauntlets of ogre str +2 str
+2 greataxe

Total AB is +24
PA for 5 to get the same to-hit as the predator.

So that's 3 attacks at 1d12 +13 str +2 weapon enhancement, +10 PA for 31.5 *3 or 94.5 damage.

Lion spirit totem gives him the same pounce ability.

Now imagine if somebody was actually trying. The barb isn't even tied up in a grapple if the enemy survives the onslaught.

I thought you were talking about a warrior and not a barbarian. In any case I think the point was not that which was better, but whether the two were in the same league, at which point the guy who said spellcasters can replace mundanes with a spell is right. Wasn't that what we were debating? Sorry, I forget. I remember jumping into the conversation when you said mundanes > PB.

I was explaining to you that a supported PB monster is powerful, not a joke that is on par with a warrior.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-20, 12:31 AM

Wtf. You use one or the other not both. I have no idea why you think creating a crude statue is such an expensive and difficult task. You either spam at-will fabricate and get the job done in a minute or you use unseen crafters over a day or two. The gargantuan statue is free and super easy to acquire. End of story. And all done in downtime.

Just because you or your DM wants to gloss over the details doesn't make it right.

Fabricate makes -one- finished product. The rejkar's fabricate makes even smaller bits than yours; a cube ~3.7 ft on a side. Somebody's got to put the parts together. Seeing as a rejkar is basically a goat, they're right out and they lack the ranks in craft sculpting/ masonry/ whatever to actually make bits that fit together well.

That leaves you or your unseen crafters and the not insubstantial weight of the stone. The crafters need their tools and you need a price to roll the craft checks against. Fortunately, you have one based on the price of stone I showed you.

So you're saying a slit too small for an arrow to shoot through is improved cover? And yes, three of the four things you mentioned don't care. There's nothing wrong with those so I didn't mention them. Because you're right about them ganking the ravid.

One too small to get an arrow through is one two small to meaningfully see through. Glassteel is a thing. Good thing you've got the ranks in masonry to set a window properly, eh? :smallamused:

Demonic Domain has planar binding as domain spells

That's what I get for using an online source instead of the print, I suppose. :smallredface:

A creature cannot use normal weapons and the claw attacks in the same round, and the subject does not gain additional claw attacks from a high base attack bonus.

You can't use the claws and manufactured weapons in the same full attack. Nothing stops you from putting the extra hands on weapons and putting them to use.

If you read the spell description, even worms with no arms get 4 claw attacks from the 2 new arms. There is simply no condition in the spell that says you get anything less than 4 claw attacks

You're now arguing that reason doesn't matter. May as well play a CRPG at that point.

4 claws are always worse than iterative attacks with two-handed power attack. The only reason it works with monsters is because they already have multiple natural weapons and they have a stupidly high str score. With monsters Girallon's Blessing more than doubles their damage but with humanoids they gotta choose between weapon or claws so it's far from amazing on them. I don't know about SS rules so I'm gonna have to look into that.

If the party buffer has given you a bunch of effects that add damage on a hit, more hits can pass the utility of a few big hits. A standard ranger 13 on the twf style has just as many attacks as the steel predator so it's not as though the punches-in-bunches approach is monster exclusive.

I thought you were talking about a warrior and not a barbarian. In any case I think the point was not that which was better, but whether the two were in the same league, at which point the guy who said spellcasters can replace mundanes with a spell is right. Wasn't that what we were debating? Sorry, I forget. I remember jumping into the conversation when you said mundanes > PB.

I was explaining to you that a supported PB monster is powerful, not a joke that is on par with a warrior.

That's a communication hiccup then. I was talking about classes and builds that focus on using weapons; warriors. Who, other than a GM, would play an NPC class warrior?

That said, an elite array NPC warrior loses 4 points off the attack bonus above and still hits for 46.5 on average with his three attacks before PA. That looks an awful lot like par to me.

Pex

2019-01-20, 12:35 AM

EDIT: also, responding to "are you sure?" with "yes" is usually foolish, but it sounds like you're saying that it makes the player a ****. Care to explain?

You misunderstood. I'm saying in this instance if a player is really about to do something stupid (or already did it) and telling him so I'm not counting the person telling him as being the Jerkface. Jerkface says players are being stupid when they're not; they just happen to be in a situation Jerkface decides to help them get out of.

Gnaeus

2019-01-20, 12:54 AM

You didn't click the link or you -really- didn't grasp what you were looking at. That's a karsite forsaker build. He literally cannot use magic at all, even as items, and is still more dangerous than a pair of hounds or barbazu. The one level warblade dip is just to grab a couple maneuvers.

When I click on the link I see paragon 2, foresaker 4, warbla..... but regardless of the formatting error. It’s an optimized build using multiple non core sources using multiple magic substitutes so you can use a PRC that prohibits magic without drawbacks. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

The weakest choices aren't much of a threat to either you or your enemies. The stronger choices, while still poor beat-sticks, tend to be part of larger societies on the outer planes with their own goals and motives that you're interfering with every time you snatch one.

Now how many of those is actually worth a damn to call? The nightmare can help you get off the material plane, if that's something you want, but the rest are all mediocre beaters and not much else. It doesn't get better as you go down the list to even lower HD.

Uhm, all of them are. The Shadow Mastiff has an at will AOE panic attack that you can make yourself immune to easily. It’s an encounter breaker. The Archon, Minotaur and Devil are all equal to tier 5s. The mino casts darkness. The archon can polymorph and provides constant magic circle v evil. Janni can become invisible. Barghest has a nice set of spell likes. The nightmare is basically just a mount, but it’s a really good mount for the difficulty. Most of them are faster than your fighter. Many have utility powers like telepathy or Truespeach. Most can fly at will. Most have energy immunities/resistances which you may be able to leverage against what you are fighting and all of which you can leverage with your picked spells (the bearded devil, for example, probably cares a lot less where you place your fireball than your fighter does.) Most have better skills than the Barbarian. (The Barghest can even operate as a passable party face. +11 on all social skills). And that’s just the 6hd creatures on the lesser PB list.

And you are truly grasping at straws for the revenge thing. Despite the spell working all the time for NPCs. Despite any number of examples in the published adventures. You feel like you have to grasp at one line saying that creatures may seek revenge and turn that into (if you summon a chaotic evil beatstick and have it do what it likes to do, it will go home and somehow persuade more powerful, more intelligent creatures to punish you on its behalf). No ones coming for you if you call a shadow mastiff or a Minotaur. Pretending that my lawful good celestial bloodline Sorcerer is risking divine retribution when he calls and bargains with an angel to help him fight evil is pretty absurd. You can’t logically get there from the spell.

I'm running on original 3e, btw. Not a fan of the changes Paizo made for PF.

PF is kindly enough to make a chart with all the core stuff on it. If you want to make a 3.5 list I don’t mind using that.

I very, very seriously doubt this. The beaters are on a par with the NPC examples of warrior classes. That's bare minimum competence.

Well, first, that’s not true. They all beat the heck out of the DMG monk. Pretty much on par with the fighter or Barbarian although fighter would need a buff or 2 to be comparable to the Minotaur. And of course, they have better out of combat utility than the beatstick.

But even then you are wrong. The fighter could be taking sword and board or TWF instead of 2h, which would make the comparison much worse for him. And again, that’s 1 for 1. A more relevant comparison would be 3 for 1.

To describe calling spells by saying "take a core spell and cast it" is pretty disingenuous too. There are dozens of valid creatures to select, many of whom have their own special abilities with esoteric rules of their own. They're the most complex spells in the game.

Nope. I pick a core spell and then I have a nice list of options. They are all linked together in the PFSRD. And most of them are decent and best of all, if I pick one that sucks I don’t summon it again.

hound archon has a 2 point advantage in his will saves over the NPC fighter 9 in the DMG. Not all PC races are humanoid.

All the P.C. races in the PHB that a low op character is likely to take are humanoid. Also, hound archon has permanent magic circle v evil.

I might make a guess? Your GM, like most, isn't great about having important places or peoples warded against magical intrusions and manipulations. For all the PC use of magic that gets bandied about on forums like this, you almost never hear about their counters. Almost everything a caster can do has a direct counter that comes online at the same level and appears a few levels later in the form of magic items. SBG's wondrous architecture really does wonders for this problem too.

If a GM sees outsiders as something rare (not sure why he would with summons being a core option and fiend-folio existing) then of course the defenses and counters for the same will also be rare. That's a campaign design flaw, not a game design flaw.

We’re running an adventure path. He’s just cranking the hp and tweaking the builds. And most creatures short of the highest levels don’t have access to those magics. I can only think of one published adventure (WLD) where this spell doesn’t dominate. Don’t use it in Ravenloft. Now, my high op game does have hard counters to it. But it has 20 pages of houserules and clamps PCs pretty tightly to the high T4-low T2 range so it isn’t very relevant.

But that aside. If you have to redesign your game specifically to make one spell not dominate it, the argument is done. That spell is too powerful. Just like if you have to redesign the game to make the monk or fighter viable, those classes are too weak.

RoboEmperor

2019-01-20, 01:47 AM

Just because you or your DM wants to gloss over the details doesn't make it right.

Fabricate makes -one- finished product. The rejkar's fabricate makes even smaller bits than yours; a cube ~3.7 ft on a side. Somebody's got to put the parts together. Seeing as a rejkar is basically a goat, they're right out and they lack the ranks in craft sculpting/ masonry/ whatever to actually make bits that fit together well.

That leaves you or your unseen crafters and the not insubstantial weight of the stone. The crafters need their tools and you need a price to roll the craft checks against. Fortunately, you have one based on the price of stone I showed you.

Assembly is done with the Ravid. The animated parts assemble themselves.
When I use Unseen Crafter I do use stronghold builder's guide's 2500gp for a gargantuan stone object to determine time it takes to craft.

One too small to get an arrow through is one two small to meaningfully see through. Glassteel is a thing. Good thing you've got the ranks in masonry to set a window properly, eh? :smallamused:

I could use glass steel but I disagree that a tiny slit is too small to meaningfully see through. Check out the viewports WWI tanks had. No bullet ever entered it, only shrapnels of bullets so saying an arrow is gonna shoot through that is ludicrous. Besides I can also make it a screen instead of a slit.

You can't use the claws and manufactured weapons in the same full attack. Nothing stops you from putting the extra hands on weapons and putting them to use.

I'm gonna need a source for this because Polymorph and the like says you can't use the extra appendages for more weapon attacks a round. I always thought this was a general rule. If it's not then I guess you're right.

You're now arguing that reason doesn't matter. May as well play a CRPG at that point.

There's no reason why the two new clawed hands can't make two attacks in a round each. They went through so much trouble to point out worms only get 2 arms instead of 4, so why wouldn't they mention that worms only get 2 claw attacks instead of 4? The spell is a flat +4 claw attacks regardless of what creature it is cast on.

If the party buffer has given you a bunch of effects that add damage on a hit, more hits can pass the utility of a few big hits. A standard ranger 13 on the twf style has just as many attacks as the steel predator so it's not as though the punches-in-bunches approach is monster exclusive.

My argument was Girallon's Blessing boosts monsters' DPR like crazy while not for weapon wielders and weapon wielders lack a crazy buff like Girallon's Blessing. If it turns out you can use weapons with each arm then I stand corrected.

That's a communication hiccup then. I was talking about classes and builds that focus on using weapons; warriors. Who, other than a GM, would play an NPC class warrior?

Someone trying to make a point.

That said, an elite array NPC warrior loses 4 points off the attack bonus above and still hits for 46.5 on average with his three attacks before PA. That looks an awful lot like par to me.

Naked damage, sure, but you can't ignore the 15 DR and the fact that the SP can sunder any weapon that can overcome said DR. SP is unkillable by a warrior so not on par.

I will say a properly built, optimized, and equipped mundane is probably superior to any creature bindable with PB and GPB for damage mostly because the monsters' feat selection is atrocious and two-handed power attack is really that good. But a properly buffed monster is strong enough to handle all CR appropriate encounters.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-01-20, 04:57 AM

When I click on the link I see paragon 2, foresaker 4, warbla..... but regardless of the formatting error. It’s an optimized build using multiple non core sources using multiple magic substitutes so you can use a PRC that prohibits magic without drawbacks. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

You can scroll the class line to see the whole thing. It's human paragon 2/ Forsaker 4/ warblade 1 and the character has a +1 LA. It uses exactly one very expensive, very limited magic substitute and a graft. After that it's all mundane gear selection.

Calling it optimized is hilarious though. The classes do precious little for it and it's cut off from the primary source of power within the system. It was an exercise in making the absolute most out of non-magical gear. It's playing the game with a proverbial arm tied behind your back and a broken leg.

Uhm, all of them are. The Shadow Mastiff has an at will AOE panic attack that you can make yourself immune to easily. It’s an encounter breaker. The Archon, Minotaur and Devil are all equal to tier 5s. The mino casts darkness. The archon can polymorph and provides constant magic circle v evil. Janni can become invisible. Barghest has a nice set of spell likes. The nightmare is basically just a mount, but it’s a really good mount for the difficulty. Most of them are faster than your fighter. Many have utility powers like telepathy or Truespeach. Most can fly at will. Most have energy immunities/resistances which you may be able to leverage against what you are fighting and all of which you can leverage with your picked spells (the bearded devil, for example, probably cares a lot less where you place your fireball than your fighter does.) Most have better skills than the Barbarian. (The Barghest can even operate as a passable party face. +11 on all social skills). And that’s just the 6hd creatures on the lesser PB list.

I'll take my deliberately handicapped warrior over any of those. He doesn't have any special utility powers like telepathy or magic circle but he's the equal of any of them in a fight. Bonus points; I really should advance him a level for the comparison to be a proper one. LPB comes online at 9 and he's only ECL 8. Picking up a glider (A&EG) or a hippogriff with the extra gold that level would entail would have him airborne.

And you are truly grasping at straws for the revenge thing. Despite the spell working all the time for NPCs. Despite any number of examples in the published adventures. You feel like you have to grasp at one line saying that creatures may seek revenge and turn that into (if you summon a chaotic evil beatstick and have it do what it likes to do, it will go home and somehow persuade more powerful, more intelligent creatures to punish you on its behalf). No ones coming for you if you call a shadow mastiff or a Minotaur. Pretending that my lawful good celestial bloodline Sorcerer is risking divine retribution when he calls and bargains with an angel to help him fight evil is pretty absurd. You can’t logically get there from the spell.

Observing that your character isn't the center of the cosmos is grasping at straws? Sure, okay.

I'm not arguing that every use of PB should entail a side-quest. Just that abuse of the spell because it doesn't have an overt cost associated with it can and should be handled. Your celestial blooded sorcerer is more likely to get a stern talking-to or perhaps a geas for treating the outside as his personal pool of servants than to be straight-up ganked. If you're really egregious about it then -maybe- you get an aleax knocking on your door to "invite" you into a deity's presence to explain your behavior.

PF is kindly enough to make a chart with all the core stuff on it. If you want to make a 3.5 list I don’t mind using that.

That still doesn't alleviate the fact you have to actually know the creatures to call forth the most appropriate one for the task you would assign. Even the list presented in the Pfsrd is far from exhaustive of PFs options for the spell.

Well, first, that’s not true. They all beat the heck out of the DMG monk. Pretty much on par with the fighter or Barbarian although fighter would need a buff or 2 to be comparable to the Minotaur. And of course, they have better out of combat utility than the beatstick.

I can only guess you're looking at the level 6 NPC examples. That's not the appropriate point of comparison. LPB comes online at 9 so they're comparing to a level 9 PC; the party member they're ostensibly obviating. The lvl 9 monk on DMG 119 is more durable than the creatures you can call and does passably if not great in damage. A fairly minor retooling to make it a PC would put it very firmly ahead. The actual full BAB classes are already ahead and would blow the conjured creatures out of the water after being made into PCs.

But even then you are wrong. The fighter could be taking sword and board or TWF instead of 2h, which would make the comparison much worse for him. And again, that’s 1 for 1. A more relevant comparison would be 3 for 1.

Okay let's try it. NPC fighter vs minotau:

The NPC fighter is a sword and board fighter. Since he has a to-hit of 13, BAB 9, and a +1 weapon you've got 3 more points to account. These characters are supposed to have been built on the elite array so str 17 (base 15 +2 level bumps) covers that.

Let's call it a longsword. That's 1d8 +4 on a hit or about 8.5 damage per hit. He hits the minotaur in a 4 for his primary and 9 for his iterative. The full attack will average (.85*8.5)+(.6*8.5)=12.325 damage per round. Most likely he will drop the first minotaur inside 5 rounds.

The minotaur's axe averages 19.5 damage, the give does 7.5 and the gore does 6.5. Primary hits on 12 and everything else on 17. Maximizing damage means primary, iterative, bite or (.45*19.5)+(.2*19.5)+(.2*7.5)=14.175 damage per round. That's just over 5 rounds to drop the fighter.

So in the worst case scenario for the fighter; in which he's under-geared, uses the least optimal combat style, and ignores tactics for a slug-fest; he just squeaks out a victory on sheer numbers.

Nope. I pick a core spell and then I have a nice list of options. They are all linked together in the PFSRD. And most of them are decent and best of all, if I pick one that sucks I don’t summon it again.

A player as low-op as you're suggesting would shy away from a spell that explicitly tells you it's dangerous and conjures up a creature you don't have full control over.

All the P.C. races in the PHB that a low op character is likely to take are humanoid. Also, hound archon has permanent magic circle v evil.

And? This was never about the lowest of low-op total newbs. The fact is there are quite a few non-humanoid PC races and magic circle is not mindblank.

We’re running an adventure path. He’s just cranking the hp and tweaking the builds. And most creatures short of the highest levels don’t have access to those magics. I can only think of one published adventure (WLD) where this spell doesn’t dominate. Don’t use it in Ravenloft. Now, my high op game does have hard counters to it. But it has 20 pages of houserules and clamps PCs pretty tightly to the high T4-low T2 range so it isn’t very relevant.

As I thought then. He gives no thought to such things at all, presumably trusting in module writers to have already done so. That's a bad plan.

That only high level characters can muster defense against magical assault is ludicrous. The resources can be a bit scattered but they're there.

Of course, we seem to be playing different games too. If PF axed a lot of the useful stuff and you can't import it from 3e then I suppose that would make things shakier.

But that aside. If you have to redesign your game specifically to make one spell not dominate it, the argument is done. That spell is too powerful. Just like if you have to redesign the game to make the monk or fighter viable, those classes are too weak.

You're not adapting your game to planar binding. You're building the world with the understanding that outsiders are a thing and a potentially dire threat; same as you do for enchantment magic, undead, etc and so on. Wondrous architecture really helps here but long term warding spells are also good.

skunk3

2019-01-20, 06:01 AM

magicalmagicman

2019-01-20, 09:16 AM

I'd like to point out that if a creature needs a ton of buff spells to compete with mundanes, then it probably is true that mundanes are better than planar binding and as a result a better target for buffs like Kelb said.

Because judging from what RoboEmperor said, creature's can't compete with mundanes' damage output without Girallon's Blessing. In the steel predator example he gave 95 damage out of the 200 is from Girallon's Blessing.

Quertus

2019-01-20, 09:43 AM

I'm gonna need a source for this because Polymorph and the like says you can't use the extra appendages for more weapon attacks a round. I always thought this was a general rule. If it's not then I guess you're right.

IIRC, you can just add extra limbs onto the weapon for extra damage. I think Savage Species is one source of that rule (citation, anyone?). Unfortunately, IIRC, Savage Species also had rules for things like 6-handed weapons. So, the Fighter would need a custom sword, designed to be gripped with that many hands, but then yes, they could benefit from the extra arms.

Also, I seem to be missing plot on context a lot of times trying to follow your discussions, so this may be as silly as my dirt idea (which still works to communicate outside that specific scenario).

I don't get upset when players want to play a tier 1 class but I get annoyed when that is ALL they will play, and I get annoyed when they intentionally try to make a character that will hog the spotlight in terms of overall 'power' in every game they play. I'm in a game right now with one player who is so absurdly OP compared to everyone else that even if we all tried to gang up on him and kill him (hypothetically) I HIGHLY doubt that we would be able to... and we're all gestalt.

Do you get annoyed when all someone will play is Fighters?

Is it "power" or "contribution" that is the real issue here?

Lastly, why don't the rest of you just scale up closer to where the other player is? (Yes, obviously, it's easier to ask the one outlier to scale back towards the party, and that's what I'd recommend doing, but my question stands.)

RoboEmperor

2019-01-20, 11:01 AM

Hyperversum

2019-01-20, 12:43 PM

Why should I? Everything depends on the party.

In one party where I play I am Swordsage/Ranger, there is a Knight, a Warlock and a Wizard Bonded Summoner. The Wizard COULD be a man army, but this doesn't mean that he is gonna be such.
If he was a Incantatrix-Master Specialist Conjurer to abuse Orb of Fire probably the DM should have told him that his Power level could have been problematic.

Meanwhile, in another party I play a Malconvoker-Archivist, there is a Necromancer specialized in Enervation, a Warblade and a Cavalier (this PC joined after the others), and a new player is entering with that kind of Wizard I said above. In this party, he isn't a problem.
Everything depends on that. But again, the game is about FUN. So I wouldn't ever say a player that he can't play a wizard, I would simply ask him to not pp much.

DarkSoul

2019-01-20, 02:17 PM

I don't remember the page, but multi-handed weapons add +1/2 strength modifier per hand beyond two.

Florian

2019-01-20, 05:29 PM

Do you get annoyed when all someone will play is Fighters?

Is it "power" or "contribution" that is the real issue here?

Lastly, why don't the rest of you just scale up closer to where the other player is? (Yes, obviously, it's easier to ask the one outlier to scale back towards the party, and that's what I'd recommend doing, but my question stands.)

Oh, that's tricky.

Before we talk about power, we need to talk about what "contribution" means in this context, especially when it comes to encounters and challenges, as is common in D&D/PF.

For example, when I'm creating adventures, I avoid to create stuff in such a way that they hinge on the party possessing certain abilities, class features or spells. If something special is needed, I tend to provide it as part of the overall scenario design. For example, if I create something where it will be necessary to travel to Hell and talk with a certain Devil, I will provide a fixed portal that can be used or have an NPC Cleric of Asmodeus at hand that can and will provide Plane Shift as an easy service.

That means it is basically enough to be competent at killing creatures (and taking their stuff), with two or three maxed-out skills and a bit of WBLmancy being fully adequate to handle the rest that comes up. (I also use a lot of PF sub-systems, so certain aspects of gameplay differ from Core only).

What I don´t do is create roadblocks in such a way that you either need a special skill or using magic to pass. (For example, friendly NPC are friendly, you don't need to hit them with the Diplomacy hammer to get something done)

Quertus

2019-01-20, 07:21 PM

Oh, that's tricky.

Before we talk about power, we need to talk about what "contribution" means in this context, especially when it comes to encounters and challenges, as is common in D&D/PF.

For example, when I'm creating adventures, I avoid to create stuff in such a way that they hinge on the party possessing certain abilities, class features or spells. If something special is needed, I tend to provide it as part of the overall scenario design. For example, if I create something where it will be necessary to travel to Hell and talk with a certain Devil, I will provide a fixed portal that can be used or have an NPC Cleric of Asmodeus at hand that can and will provide Plane Shift as an easy service.

That means it is basically enough to be competent at killing creatures (and taking their stuff), with two or three maxed-out skills and a bit of WBLmancy being fully adequate to handle the rest that comes up. (I also use a lot of PF sub-systems, so certain aspects of gameplay differ from Core only).

What I don´t do is create roadblocks in such a way that you either need a special skill or using magic to pass. (For example, friendly NPC are friendly, you don't need to hit them with the Diplomacy hammer to get something done)

So, I recognize as I write this that it will probably sound more adversarial than I intend. So let me start with saying that this is good design advice, and it's a pity that more GMs don't do this.

That having been said...

What if this isn't the GM's plan?

What if the Dragon kidnapped the Princess, and, instead of telling the expected story, one of the players decided that Asmodeus would probably give them aid against the dragon in exchange for a) a toehold in the world, and b) the character's soul (he was looking to go Warlock next level anyway).

So, here, going to Hell isn't required by the GM's story, so it's not something he can necessarily plan for, but it is required by the players' story.

Anyway, point being, if you're not on the rails too tight, there's plenty of room for characters' capabilities to matter.

Good thing, too, because Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, would feel pretty useless in a game that only cares about combat capabilities. :smallwink:

... OK, he'd feel more useless. :smalltongue:

And Quertus is a great example of high power, low contribution. Armus, my "Commoner with items", OTOH, is historically low power, high contribution.

Thus my attempt to tease the two apart.

-----

So, imagine if, in your game, your SO was the one to suggest finding a portal, was the one with the skills get to the portal, the one with the item needed to open the portal, and the one with the clout necessary to talk to Asmodeus. Can you imagine your group believing that something was amiss, even - or especially - if your SO didn't have the most "power"?

skunk3

2019-01-20, 08:43 PM

IIRC, you can just add extra limbs onto the weapon for extra damage. I think Savage Species is one source of that rule (citation, anyone?). Unfortunately, IIRC, Savage Species also had rules for things like 6-handed weapons. So, the Fighter would need a custom sword, designed to be gripped with that many hands, but then yes, they could benefit from the extra arms.

Also, I seem to be missing plot on context a lot of times trying to follow your discussions, so this may be as silly as my dirt idea (which still works to communicate outside that specific scenario).

Do you get annoyed when all someone will play is Fighters?

Is it "power" or "contribution" that is the real issue here?

Lastly, why don't the rest of you just scale up closer to where the other player is? (Yes, obviously, it's easier to ask the one outlier to scale back towards the party, and that's what I'd recommend doing, but my question stands.)
I've never met anyone who will ONLY play fighters, and even if I had, I wouldn't be annoyed by it because fighters aren't even close to a tier 1 class.

Power is the issue here. I am talking about PC's that can practically solo encounters and everyone else in the group is basically just filler. It's especially bad when they are based around some kind of wizard build because they can also easily be skill monkeys as well, meaning that they can excel both in and out of combat.

As far as the rest of us scaling up to where the other player is, well it's not that simple. We already have ideas for what our characters are going to be personality-wise and mechanically. We could also re-plan our builds but we're in the low teens already and pretty much have our builds decided upon all the way through 20 and beyond, as this campaign will go into epic. The PC I am referring to in that campaign was designed from the very start to be as OP as possible, which isn't too hard given a gestalt game, but the real kicker is that for whatever reason our DM seems to be fine with people taking levels in two prestige classes at the same time instead of being limited to taking one level in a base class and one level in a prestige class each time we level. I didn't even know that the DM would let us do that until after our first session and I already had my character made and planned out and didn't feel like starting over. I don't know the exact nature of his build but I do know that it has Dweomerkeeper and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in it... so that alone should tell you the character is ridiculous in combat, especially since that PC is functioning as a gish, thunder lancing ****, buffing and having numerous immunities via spells and magic items, as well as a near untouchable AC. The guy is basically making a PC as unkillable as possible. As I said, I doubt that the rest of us could even kill him in combat before he would kill us. His initiative rolls are almost always higher than mine and I'm playing a pixie with super high DEX and I have improved initiative, so he would likely go first out of all of us. The guy has basically shored up every weakness with his character either via spells or items. For now it's not too bad but I can tell that as we go higher and higher in level the rest of us are going to basically be worthless in comparison.

Cosi

2019-01-20, 10:00 PM

I don't get upset when players want to play a tier 1 class but I get annoyed when that is ALL they will play, and I get annoyed when they intentionally try to make a character that will hog the spotlight in terms of overall 'power' in every game they play. I'm in a game right now with one player who is so absurdly OP compared to everyone else that even if we all tried to gang up on him and kill him (hypothetically) I HIGHLY doubt that we would be able to... and we're all gestalt.

None of the options those characters are using are options you couldn't use. If your entire party of gestalt characters can't beat one guy's (even Gestalt) caster, on some level that's as much a result of you not optimizing as him optimizing, unless he's doing something absolutely insane like rolling with a couple dozen castings of planar binding at a time.

I'd like to point out that if a creature needs a ton of buff spells to compete with mundanes, then it probably is true that mundanes are better than planar binding and as a result a better target for buffs like Kelb said.

No. Because mundanes are more expensive than planar binding. planar binding is as powerful as it is because the cost of using it is basically zero. You cast a spell on Monday, then recover your spell slots on Tuesday, then go on an adventure with a full complement of spell slots and also a Half-Fiend Minotaur or whatever. And yes, that is very broken. Because planar binding is very broken, and when you assert that mundanes are competitive with it, you are asserting that they are competitive with something that is very broken.

The cost of having a demon pet with planar binding is that you had to learn planar binding (and maybe a couple of spell to facilitate the binding). That's a cost, but it's pretty minor unless you're a Sorcerer and it's far from prohibitive even then. Comparatively, the cost of recruiting a Fighter or a Warblade is that you don't recruit another Wizard or Druid instead. So instead of the zero spell slots planar binding charges you for a beatstick, you lose an entire character's worth of spell slots. Even if you throw four or five buffs on the Steel Predator you're still winning, because mundane characters are worthless leeches on party resources.

For example, when I'm creating adventures, I avoid to create stuff in such a way that they hinge on the party possessing certain abilities, class features or spells. If something special is needed, I tend to provide it as part of the overall scenario design. For example, if I create something where it will be necessary to travel to Hell and talk with a certain Devil, I will provide a fixed portal that can be used or have an NPC Cleric of Asmodeus at hand that can and will provide Plane Shift as an easy service.

Which is to say you make having those abilities irrelevant. If the problem of "get to another plane" is going to be solved whether or not the party has plane shift, the guy who picked Cleric because he thinks plane shift is cool is going to be denied the opportunity to use an ability he intentionally picked out because he enjoys it. This is the fundamental problem with martial characters. Because they don't have relevant non-combat abilities, every adventure either implicitly excludes them, or is set up in a way that the abilities (or lack thereof) of the characters don't influence the outcome.

It's especially bad when they are based around some kind of wizard build because they can also easily be skill monkeys as well, meaning that they can excel both in and out of combat.

I still don't understand the notion that it's somehow desirable for people to not contribute in certain situations, which is the implicit premise of posts like this. Why is the paradigm where you either rock in-combat and suck out-of-combat or vice versa better than the paradigm where you rock in both?

We already have ideas for what our characters are going to be personality-wise and mechanically.

So does he. It's not his fault his ideas are better than your ideas, that's a result of the rules. Telling him he can't have the fun he wants because you want incompatible fun is just as much (if not more) of a problem as him overshadowing you.

Quertus

2019-01-20, 10:42 PM

I've never met anyone who will ONLY play fighters, and even if I had, I wouldn't be annoyed by it because fighters aren't even close to a tier 1 class.

Power is the issue here. I am talking about PC's that can practically solo encounters and everyone else in the group is basically just filler. It's especially bad when they are based around some kind of wizard build because they can also easily be skill monkeys as well, meaning that they can excel both in and out of combat.

As far as the rest of us scaling up to where the other player is, well it's not that simple. We already have ideas for what our characters are going to be personality-wise and mechanically. We could also re-plan our builds but we're in the low teens already and pretty much have our builds decided upon all the way through 20 and beyond, as this campaign will go into epic. The PC I am referring to in that campaign was designed from the very start to be as OP as possible, which isn't too hard given a gestalt game, but the real kicker is that for whatever reason our DM seems to be fine with people taking levels in two prestige classes at the same time instead of being limited to taking one level in a base class and one level in a prestige class each time we level. I didn't even know that the DM would let us do that until after our first session and I already had my character made and planned out and didn't feel like starting over. I don't know the exact nature of his build but I do know that it has Dweomerkeeper and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil in it... so that alone should tell you the character is ridiculous in combat, especially since that PC is functioning as a gish, thunder lancing ****, buffing and having numerous immunities via spells and magic items, as well as a near untouchable AC. The guy is basically making a PC as unkillable as possible. As I said, I doubt that the rest of us could even kill him in combat before he would kill us. His initiative rolls are almost always higher than mine and I'm playing a pixie with super high DEX and I have improved initiative, so he would likely go first out of all of us. The guy has basically shored up every weakness with his character either via spells or items. For now it's not too bad but I can tell that as we go higher and higher in level the rest of us are going to basically be worthless in comparison.

So does he. It's not his fault his ideas are better than your ideas, that's a result of the rules. Telling him he can't have the fun he wants because you want incompatible fun is just as much (if not more) of a problem as him overshadowing you.

So, I agree that he is inherently as entitled to his 7 veils gestalt as the pixie & company are to their characters. The problem is, they aren't within the same balance range.

Balance to the module, and to the group.

In this case, if there is a problem, I'd say it's on the one outlier to match the group.

However.

It should also be on the group to bat at that level in some game, so that he can play the character he wants play,

Or

It's on the group to widen their power range to allow both the characters that they like, and the characters that he likes.

In other words, while I'm ostensibly on the side of the skunk pixie, I think that learning that there's a potential problem 1st session and responding "well, we could fix this, but, shrug, we've already grown attached to these characters that we haven't played" is rather short-sighted.

-----

Also, I've met plenty of people who only play x, where x might be Fighters, or Elves, or murderhobos, or any number of other things. Understanding their range is, IMO, important for planning a functional party.

Which is to say you make having those abilities irrelevant. If the problem of "get to another plane" is going to be solved whether or not the party has plane shift, the guy who picked Cleric because he thinks plane shift is cool is going to be denied the opportunity to use an ability he intentionally picked out because he enjoys it. This is the fundamental problem with martial characters. Because they don't have relevant non-combat abilities, every adventure either implicitly excludes them, or is set up in a way that the abilities (or lack thereof) of the characters don't influence the outcome.

I read that more favorable, and believed that the Cleric could feel awesome for having Plane Shift, either because a) the existing portal wouldn't come up if he just shifted the party there, or b) sure, the portal exists, but it's inconvenient, and Plane Shift is better.

But you're right - done wrong, that style would negate the value of player choices.

I still don't understand the notion that it's somehow desirable for people to not contribute in certain situations, which is the implicit premise of posts like this. Why is the paradigm where you either rock in-combat and suck out-of-combat or vice versa better than the paradigm where you rock in both?

It makes balance easier.

Your Tier 1 Wizard can rule their area, so long as my tier 5 character can shine in their niche without you stepping on their toes.

I'd say I'm not a fan, but, really, Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named? His niche is "understanding magic", with "information gathering", "senses", and, to a lesser degree, "knowledge" and "logistics" as additional roles where he can shine. Outside that, while he theoretically may be able to function, he is highly unlikely to ever step on anyone's toes.

Perhaps I should create a thread about this at some point, but I believe that most things, characters should "contribute". A few things, they should "shine". And a few things, maybe they "don't contribute" (perhaps because someone else is shining & soloing, or perhaps because it's their flaw).

Defining very narrow niches where your character will "shine" (see Quertus' "understand magic") facilitates this style of gameplay.

Defining your character as "in combat" or "out of combat" is arguably the most trivial attempt at niche protection, to give everyone the chance to contribute, let alone shine.

magicalmagicman

2019-01-21, 03:23 AM

No. Because mundanes are more expensive than planar binding. planar binding is as powerful as it is because the cost of using it is basically zero. You cast a spell on Monday, then recover your spell slots on Tuesday, then go on an adventure with a full complement of spell slots and also a Half-Fiend Minotaur or whatever. And yes, that is very broken. Because planar binding is very broken, and when you assert that mundanes are competitive with it, you are asserting that they are competitive with something that is very broken.

The cost of having a demon pet with planar binding is that you had to learn planar binding (and maybe a couple of spell to facilitate the binding). That's a cost, but it's pretty minor unless you're a Sorcerer and it's far from prohibitive even then. Comparatively, the cost of recruiting a Fighter or a Warblade is that you don't recruit another Wizard or Druid instead. So instead of the zero spell slots planar binding charges you for a beatstick, you lose an entire character's worth of spell slots. Even if you throw four or five buffs on the Steel Predator you're still winning, because mundane characters are worthless leeches on party resources.

No. Mundanes are cheaper. If you have a mundane player on your party there is literally no way you can turn him into a spellcaster. Whether you like it or not that mundane is gonna be in your party. So the question is do you buff him or spend resources on a planar binding and buff it?

skunk3

2019-01-21, 06:07 AM

Sure, us other players could have made characters to be more on par with that one PC but we didn't think that it was going to be necessary given what we were told of the campaign, and also certain bits of information (such as being able to take levels in two prestige classes at once) were made clear to some players and not others. The problem isn't that I or others in my group aren't capable of throwing together good build ideas (we're all pretty well versed in 3.5) and that the other guy is superior to us somehow... the problem is that the guy set out to basically make a demigod from the start, knowing that the rest of us weren't playing characters even close in terms of power, and I believe that he is the only guy taking advantage of the DM's foolish allowance of taking two PrC's at once. I haven't said anything to the DM or the player yet but if it ends up becoming more and more of an issue I will. On top of all of this, this player as a person is very much the kind of player who likes to talk a lot and make rolls, so even though I am the sneaky one in our group with good social skills, he somehow can make rolls nearly as good as mine because of always having the perfect spell on hand to cast, which is another issue I find slightly troubling. That character has everything... ridiculous AC, ridiculous saves, tons of skills, lots of self buffs, various immunities, et al. There's basically nothing that character can't do, and do reasonably well. It's not that I expect every PC in a group to excel at one thing and be worthless otherwise, but generally speaking everyone should have their niche and specialty and feel like they contribute. The problem in the group I am talking about is that it sometimes doesn't feel that way... instead it feels like we're a bunch of mortals in a party alongside a god, and I know that as the game goes on the DM will be forced to make encounters harder and harder to challenge that PC, which will absolutely crush the rest of us.

Aaaaaanyway, the whole point of my original post is that I just wanted to say that I've known lots of people who ONLY play tier ones, and others who will play various classes but they will use every little bit of optimization advice they can find and basically just copy+paste some build they found in a forum or webpage somewhere. I will frequently design characters that are sub-optimal mechanically but they have their own style and uniqueness.

Cosi

2019-01-21, 07:55 AM

In this case, if there is a problem, I'd say it's on the one outlier to match the group.

I disagree with this. It's clear (from what I can tell) that no balance expectation was established. Punishing one guy for reading a different balance point is unfair, and it's far more likely that the changes that would need to be made to move him down are fundamentally disruptive to his character than that the changes that would need to be made to move others up are. I obviously don't know the specifics of the game, but in general it's not too hard for the DM to figure out some suite of buffs he could offer that would make the other characters more effective. From what I can tell, the complaint skunk is making seems to be that he is getting out-Rogued, so the obvious solution seems like the DM giving him some thematically appropriate Fae Nobility template/custom PrC/whatever that makes him even better at Rogue-ing (this, incidentally, is one of the places that 3e's increased formalization of sources of mechanical power causes problems).

I read that more favorable, and believed that the Cleric could feel awesome for having Plane Shift, either because a) the existing portal wouldn't come up if he just shifted the party there, or b) sure, the portal exists, but it's inconvenient, and Plane Shift is better.

I mean, that's (IMHO) still missing the point of why plane shift exists. It's not just supposed to be a faster alternative to NPC plane shift, it's supposed to open up new vistas of player agency. My fundamental problem with Florian's approach is that he's decided to solve the problem of mundanes only having low level non-combat powers by declaring that every non-combat problem must reduce to a low level one, which means that the high level powers casters do have are no more meaningful than low level ones.

It makes balance easier.

But at the cost of decreasing player engagement, and making competence less relevant. If you don't have a useful ability, you might as well not be there. And if other people don't have potentially useful abilities, the specifics of your ability don't matter. I think it's useful to look at combat. There's almost no character that is flat useless in any particular combat scenario, but there's still definitely variability and niche protection in combat.

No. Mundanes are cheaper. If you have a mundane player on your party there is literally no way you can turn him into a spellcaster. Whether you like it or not that mundane is gonna be in your party. So the question is do you buff him or spend resources on a planar binding and buff it?

If we accept this logic, the relative cost doesn't matter. If the mundane player will play a mundane regardless of how effective that is, you are well within your rights to declare that you are going to play a summoner who buffs their summons regardless of how effective that is. Once again, the justifications for the effectiveness of mundanes very often only make sense if you accept that playing a mundane is somehow more legitimate than whatever things are overshadowing mundanes.

Sure, us other players could have made characters to be more on par with that one PC but we didn't think that it was going to be necessary given what we were told of the campaign, and also certain bits of information (such as being able to take levels in two prestige classes at once) were made clear to some players and not others.

It seems like the problem is a lack of communication, not the particular player who happened to get different information than you.

the problem is that the guy set out to basically make a demigod from the start, knowing that the rest of us weren't playing characters even close in terms of power, and I believe that he is the only guy taking advantage of the DM's foolish allowance of taking two PrC's at once.

It seems like you're reading motivations in where they aren't justified. Are you sure he intentionally made a character to be more powerful than yours, rather than just having a concept that was more powerful than yours? Phrasing it as "taking advantage of" the DM's ruling also seems unnecessarily adversarial. The DM said he could take two PrCs, and he did. That's only a problem if you think the DM somehow didn't really mean for him to take the second PrC.

I will frequently design characters that are sub-optimal mechanically but they have their own style and uniqueness.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But optimized characters can also have their own style and uniqueness.

skunk3

2019-01-21, 08:36 AM

It seems like the problem is a lack of communication, not the particular player who happened to get different information than you.

It seems like you're reading motivations in where they aren't justified. Are you sure he intentionally made a character to be more powerful than yours, rather than just having a concept that was more powerful than yours? Phrasing it as "taking advantage of" the DM's ruling also seems unnecessarily adversarial. The DM said he could take two PrCs, and he did. That's only a problem if you think the DM somehow didn't really mean for him to take the second PrC.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But optimized characters can also have their own style and uniqueness.

No. I feel like I'm not being clear because you're not seeming to understand what I'm saying. There isn't a lack of communication overall. There was only a lack of communication towards the beginning.

Also, I think that my take regarding motivations is absolutely justified. It's not a matter of having a character more powerful than my own - I'm not one of those guys who has to be the godliest at the table. The matter is that his character is more powerful than all of our characters combined because he's using uber powerful prestige classes, base classes (archivist and wizard) and all your typical optimization tricks and carefully considered feat selections that take the silliness even further. So basically this character is going to have 9th level cleric and wizard spellcasting, plus the various goodies that come from Archivist, including the ability to stun an enemy by simply making a high enough knowledge check (which is no problem whatsoever for that character) as a free action, a certain number of times per day. (Dread Secret - which also has no save that I know of, which not only bolsters his action economy but can neutralize even scary foes.) On top of all of that you have all the Dweomerkeeper madness, which is probably the most powerful PrC in the entire game... and then also 7 levels in IOTSFV, which is crazy powerful itself. Also, keep in mind that I don't know his entire build... I'm sure there's other levels in various PrCs and possibly base classes on top of everything else I mentioned.

So yeah, like I said, the guy intentionally set out to make the most unkillable badass that he could from the start, even knowing that the game description didn't necessarily call for that degree of power or optimization and knowing that the rest of the party aren't going to be nearly that powerful. My gripe doesn't necessarily stem from the fact that I feel powerless in comparison (I'm not petty and egotistical like that), my gripe stems from the fact that there's going to be virtually nothing that ANY of the rest of the party can do that he cannot do, and probably better. We're basically just cannon fodder.

And yes, optimized characters can have their own style and uniqueness but here the term "optimized" means something a bit different than what is usually thrown around here on these forums. For example, I think that a fighter who specializes in feinting and disarming foes is vastly cooler and more flavorful than a generic ubercharger or reach/trip monkey, even though they are mechanically superior. There's a lot of feats, prestige classes, weapons, items and other selections that are cool and flavorful but often passed over by optimizers because they don't squeeze out numbers as high as the more tried and true optimization choices. I'm just using fighters as an example here, but the point I'm making applies to any class.

Anyway, I'm not even mad about the situation per se, just slightly annoyed. I prefer groups in which every PC has a clear niche in which they lend utility to the group as a whole and everyone feels like useful part of a machine... not groups in which one person powergames and optimizes to a degree much higher than the rest of the players and totally overshadows them.

Mechalich

2019-01-21, 08:52 AM

I disagree with this. It's clear (from what I can tell) that no balance expectation was established. Punishing one guy for reading a different balance point is unfair, and it's far more likely that the changes that would need to be made to move him down are fundamentally disruptive to his character than that the changes that would need to be made to move others up are.

I think this is unlikely to be true, especially if the GM is running a published module or bases their adventures of the difficulty level presented in published modules. The reality is that the 3.X D&D/PF metagame has a balance point somewhere in the Tier 3 range, with fairly low optimization. Even moderately optimized Tier 1's are fully capable of blowing through published material in a way that not only make people playing characters of lower efficacy feel irrelevant, but may also massively disrupt the GM's plans. That matters, because modifying one PC to match the expectation of dozens or even hundreds of encounters (combat and non-combat) is orders of magnitude easier than doing the reverse. At the end of the day, the characters need to be balanced to the game that exists, not the other way around, because the GM is almost certainly already carrying the lion's share of the workload.

Now, the GM should absolutely try to establish a balance expectation prior to gameplay, but this doesn't always work, especially when the general rules complexity of D&D and the nature of the internet make it possible for a player to pull a build off the internet without having any idea how powerful it actually is, in part because there are certain game elements, which much more likely to be available to Tier 1 characters, that truly are broken and basing a build around those concepts will result in an overpowered character even without a massive amount of system mastery. Planar binding comes up in discussion of this nature a lot because it clearly is one of them. Now there are also certain concepts that are dramatically under-powered and will prevent a character from reaching the necessary balance point to contribute and a GM should try to steer players away from these. Unfortunately these are harder to spot, in part because the game was designed with trap options built in for some ludicrous reason.

Quertus

2019-01-21, 11:03 AM

So, where's to start? Eh, I'll hit things at random.

-----

I see no issue with allowing gestalt characters to take 2 prestige classes at once. Sure, it's not RAW for the original gestalt rules, but a) neither is tristalt; b) it makes character creation easier; c) lots of tables play that way.

-----

I don't assign any fault to the outlier when I say that it is on them to match the group. That is, it is the responsibility of the group (primarily the GM) to establish the group's (and module's) balance range (both size and location). To break that down, it is the group's responsibility to communicate the size of the balance range that they are comfortable with, and the GM, who ostensibly knows the content, has the burden of communicating where that balance range lies.

It sounds like this communication hasn't happened.

Had the size of the table's range been communicated, a good player would have realized a) that the party was in a larger range, and b) his 7 veils character was an outlier.

Had the location of the range been communicated, some or all of the players would have realized that their characters were outside that range (depending on the location of the range), if they had the player skills to make such realizations.

-----

But, sure, I suppose that it could be less disruptive to their character concepts to let the rest of the party quest for artifacts that would give them a sufficient power boost to be on par with Mr 7 veils.

But, then again, some people are picky, and want their power to come from themselves, not from their gear.

Me, I was always a fan of Green Lantern / Quasar.

-----

I'm busy making characters for 7-year-olds - I certainly don't impune lack of build skill.

What does concern me is seeing a potential problem (session 1, right?), having numerous tools to fix it, and choosing to do nothing.

So, again, personally, I'd (make sure that the GM (and group?) would be cool with a weaker party and) ask 7 veils if he'd care to tone it back to the level of the rest of the party.

If he's as stuck on his character as you are, I'd (ask the GM to change characters / use rebuild rules or) use Leadership etc to be fielding similar levels of power.

Or, as I said above, ask the GM if y'all can quest for some artifacts that would balance out the party.

Doing nothing just... I dunno. Feels like intentional hate-mongering? Like you want to be a victim? Or maybe I'm just a ****, who doesn't get that being walked on is "polite".

Similarly, I'd poke the GM for his failure to communicate. The GM is the interface to the game, the eyes and ears of the PCs. If he cannot even communicate the rules of the game, that speaks poorly of his GM skills.

-----

How did 7 veils know that y'all weren't even close in power, but y'all didn't know that? :smallconfused:

-----

Being a bunch of mortals playing alongside a god can be fun. I should know, I was a sentient potted plant in that party. :smalltongue:

Having characters with "their own style and uniqueness" is a great trait for such a game.

-----

"My fundamental problem with Florian's approach is that he's decided to solve the problem of mundanes only having low level non-combat powers by declaring that every non-combat problem must reduce to a low level one"

... That's basic math. Calculus reduces to gradeschool math, it's just longer and more arduous that way. Nobody bothers solving differential equations with algebra, they use the most advanced tools available. That they technically could solve them with gradeschool math in no way makes advanced math less cool.

I'm not seeing "we could walk there" making Teleport (or cars, or any other advanced form of transportation) any less cool.