Nagahydra: Am I reading this right?

[Condé]

I know, I know. Everything that comes from Serpent Kingdoms is kinda broken.

But holy molly, what where they thinking, have you seen that thing?

CR18 is pretty high, of course. It is pretty slow, it doesn't have a good AC (20 at this CR is really not good), low initiative, saves are nothing to write home about... So, what makes it special?

It's an hydra. It comes with everything that makes them good.

Attack routine:
From the start it has 7 heads, which means 7 attacks. Fine. No problem. +22 to hit, fine. 2d6+10 damage per head, okay.
So, an average of 119 damage if everthing hit.
Now let's talk about the Poison. Fortitude 24 or 1d12 Con. An average of 42 CON initial damage... Not going to talk about secondary damage because, I suppose you are already dead.

Icing on the cake, the Nagahydra has the Combat Reflexes feat, as always for hydra, meaning it can uses all its heads for AoO.

So far, it is already pretty cool, I guess. I mean, you have done nothing fancy so far. Sure it does not fly, you can kill it pretty fast and all. But, it is not over.

This thing has some spellcasting.

Nagahydras cast spells as 15th-level sorcerers, and can also cast spells from the cleric list and from the Destruction and Scalykind domains. A nagahydra can cast one spell per round per head, but all spells come from the common pool of spells available.

Then you have a list of "Typical Sorcerer Spell Known" and the save DC, which is 15... Fine. If you read it fast, you, like me, didn't notice at first the problem here...
A nagahydra can cast one spell per round per head. One spell. PER ROUND. PER HEAD.
7 spells a turn.
Action economy is important and being able to cast multiple spells by turn is considered a really strong feature. (You can do that by being a Nilshai or you can have two different initiative count if you play a Thoon Elder Brain, one for your mental actions and one for your physical actions, for example...)

Now, the **** show.

Remember the book it is from? Serpent kingdom, yes. What very well-known broken spell is in here? Venomfire.

Now try to imagine this thing with venomfire.

And it is not an hypothetical scenario, you can achieve that by being a level 18 druid or level 16 druid with a wild shape amulet and the feat Aberrant Wildshape.

You would do 2d6+10 + 16d6 + 1d12 CON damage per head. And you have 7 of them. Which mean an average of 455 points of damage per turn if you hit all your attacks.

AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING. No fancy builds, no complicated use of spells, no trick, no prestige class shenanigans... Nothing. You didn't break the game, you do not deal infinite amount of damage or create a loophole. This creature is just brain dead.

Sure if your enemy has acid immunity you won't do as much damage. Or immune to physical damage, or ability damage. And once again you do not fly and are pretty frail. But for your average player, this is really easy to achieve and completely busted. Even more busted than your classic Fleshraker + venomfire combo.
Sure it comes online way, way later and I guess you have even more broken options early on with Polymorph and all...

But after digging up some books, I was pretty proud of this "discovery" and how dumb it is for how easy it is to achieve. Sure you are using venomfire, but even then without it, the creature is pretty dope.
As a druid, at level 16 (with a wild shape amulet) or 18, you still have 7 attacks and you can potentially do 100+ and 42 CON damage in one turn.

As a creature, you still have all of this and the option to cast 7 spells a turn. The DC is not great but if you give it a better spell list then the one in the book you could pull some really busted things.



That's it. I think this thing is really busted and I didn't see many people talking about it. Maybe I'm overreacting and there is way more borken thing in the same book and in general, sure. And it depends with who you play with and all but it is, for me, a prime example of not abusing the rules but still being broken. You are not interpreting a shady rule to achieve something convoluted. This creature is just busted in itself.

Sure you have a lot of creatures who can disintegrate you, extract your brain, petrify you... But not many things can survive 42 points of CON damage. Even less playable characters.

Thank you if you have read all that. I hope I made you discover this creature. If you have some more busted creatures who are not well-known, please, share them with me, I really love to see what people came up with and I love to imagine people who designed these creatures, thinking out loud after having a look at the statblocs: "Yeah. Looks pretty balanced to me."

[Beni-Kujaku]

Don't get me wrong, this is incredibly strong. Eric L. Boyd never disappoints when it comes to creating broken untested things. And not just Serpent Kingdoms, mind you. Champions of Ruin is just as casually bad (Craven, Doomspeak, unadjusted Corrupt Spell...), and I believe we would find many more in Eric's web enhancements. But what I like even more with the nagahydra is how it came to be. The sarrukhs have created the water nagas first, then another kind of naga that would later evolve into the several kinds of nagas we know today. The water nagas saw that process of creation, and after the sarrukhs disappeared and nagas started diversifying, water nagas used this knowledge to try and reverse the process to once again create the "original" naga species. They failed and created nagahydras instead.

Here we have the sarrukhs using their almost limitless creation powers to put scaled species into existence, but always keeping them balanced and able to function as a society. Then, when less wise folks gained access to a similar power, they created ungodly powerful abominations. The nagahydra is not just a powerful creature, it's the closest we have from a canonical in-universe Pun-Pun.

[Jervis]

The nagahydra is not just a powerful creature, it's the closest we have from a canonical in-universe Pun-Pun.

This is a savable quote

[Rebel7284]

A nagahydra can cast one spell per round per head. One spell. PER ROUND. PER HEAD.


Is there any way to copy this ability? Seems handy for high level casters. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, depending on the spell selection, that much action economy is pretty silly and makes the hydra pretty overpowered if it uses the spells right.

For the melee abilities, as with most other threats at this CR, it has some extremely powerful abilities and some easily exploitable weaknesses, so it will matter a lot on how prepared the party is and what immunities they picked up.

[Thurbane]

Nagahydra, IMHO, is a great end of level monster for the appropriate level party, as it doesn't get whomped by action economy...

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Is there any way to copy this ability? Seems handy for high level casters. :smallbiggrin:Well, spellcasting is an [Ex] special attack, since it's not marked as anything else, so polymorphing into a nagahydra will get you the spellcasting but not the spells themselves, since you have to spend an hour prepping them. Still gives you multiheaded casting regardless, though.

Also, in World of Warcraft: Alliance Player's Guide, there's the Emulate Another feat, which gives you a racial trait of your choice from something in your lineage. So if you're, say, a kobold with the multiheaded creature template (from Savage Species) and a nagahydra somewhere back in your family tree...

[Condé]

Well, spellcasting is an [Ex] special attack, since it's not marked as anything else, so polymorphing into a nagahydra will get you the spellcasting but not the spells themselves, since you have to spend an hour prepping them. Still gives you multiheaded casting regardless, though.

Also, in World of Warcraft: Alliance Player's Guide, there's the Emulate Another feat, which gives you a racial trait of your choice from something in your lineage. So if you're, say, a kobold with the multiheaded creature template (from Savage Species) and a nagahydra somewhere back in your family tree...

I was wondering that earlier... So a druid wildshaping into a nagahydra could cast 7 spells per turn? Or only with its sorcerer spell list?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I was wondering that earlier... So a druid wildshaping into a nagahydra could cast 7 spells per turn? Or only with its sorcerer spell list?You'd have to take the Aberration Blood and Aberration Wild Shape feats, or the master of many forms PrC, and have a DM that gives you the go-ahead, but I think so.

[Soranar]

The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with

Meaning you need to meet the nagahydra and survive before you can wildshape into one.

I guess an AMF would be involved to beat that thing and even then it'd be tricky

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with

Meaning you need to meet the nagahydra and survive before you can wildshape into one.

I guess an AMF would be involved to beat that thing and even then it'd be trickyDefine "familiar" by RAW. (No, not the wiz/sorc one.)

It's likely you just need enough Knowledge ranks, since you'd know quite a bit about it if you just Take 10.

[loky1109]

Well, spellcasting is an [Ex] special attack
It isn't. Nor Ex, nor Su, nor Sp. So you don't take it with polymorph or wild shape.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It isn't. Nor Ex, nor Su, nor Sp. So you don't take it with polymorph or wild shape.Oops. You're right about it not being [Ex], [Su], or [Sp].

It's [Na].

"Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

Note how "Spells" isn't marked. Thus, it defaults to [Na], which wild shape and polymorph grant you.

Sorry, I mixed up [Na] with [Ex], there.

[loky1109]

Oops. You're right about it not being [Ex], [Su], or [Sp].

It's [Na].

"Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

Note how "Spells" isn't marked. Thus, it defaults to [Na], which wild shape and polymorph grant you.

Sorry, I mixed up [Na] with [Ex], there.
No, nor Na either. No one of them.
There are so many broken swords around this topic. You can have another opinion - your right, but mine is - you can't.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Uh... I just found a way to cast infinite spells per round (up to the number you have available) in exchange for a 1 level dip (or some other way to get rage or frenzy) and a feat (plus a couple of prereq feats).

Dragon #310 has the Rage Casting feat, which allows you to cast spells and use spell items such as scrolls as free actions while raging.

So...yeah.


No, nor Na either. No one of them.
There are so many broken swords around this topic. You can have another opinion - your right, but mine is - you can't.Err, RAW specifically says, and I even quoted it.

[GeoffWatson]

Uh... I just found a way to cast infinite spells per round (up to the number you have available) in exchange for a 1 level dip (or some other way to get rage or frenzy) and a feat (plus a couple of prereq feats).

Dragon #310 has the Rage Casting feat, which allows you to cast spells and use spell items such as scrolls as free actions while raging.

So...yeah.

Err, RAW specifically says, and I even quoted it.

The spells have to be free actions already (eg Quickened).


Rage Casting
Type: General
Source: Dragon #310

Your rage does not prevent you from casting certain spells.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 1st-level spells, Combat Casting, Quicken Spell, Concentration 5 ranks, ability to rage or frenzy.
Benefit: When raging, you can cast spells that you can cast as a free action. This includes spells that have been quickened with the Quicken Spell feat. You can also activate magic items by spell trigger, spell completion, or command word.
Normal: The barbarian's rage ability prohibits spellcasting. When raging, a barbarian cannot cast spells or use a magic item activated by a spell trigger, spell completion, or command word.

[Anthrowhale]

I believe (?) the Nagahydra only has 5 spells?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The spells have to be free actions already (eg Quickened).


Rage Casting
Type: General
Source: Dragon #310

Your rage does not prevent you from casting certain spells.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast 1st-level spells, Combat Casting, Quicken Spell, Concentration 5 ranks, ability to rage or frenzy.
Benefit: When raging, you can cast spells that you can cast as a free action. This includes spells that have been quickened with the Quicken Spell feat. You can also activate magic items by spell trigger, spell completion, or command word.
Normal: The barbarian's rage ability prohibits spellcasting. When raging, a barbarian cannot cast spells or use a magic item activated by a spell trigger, spell completion, or command word.But Quickened spells are swift actions, yeah? So the feat allows you to cast spells while raging as free actions, regardless of their previous casting time.

[InvisibleBison]

But Quickened spells are swift actions, yeah? So the feat allows you to cast spells while raging as free actions, regardless of their previous casting time.

That feat was published in August 2003, which I'm pretty sure is before swift actions were a thing. At the time, quickened spells were a free action that could only be done once per round. Since they've subsequently been updated to be swift actions, I think this feat should be updated as well. Otherwise, it doesn't actually do anything, because there aren't any spells that can be cast as free actions.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

there aren't any spells that can be cast as free actions.It allows you to cast spells you could normally as free actions while in a rage, which is what the feat says.

[Beni-Kujaku]

It allows you to cast spells you could normally as free actions while in a rage, which is what the feat says.

It's not "When raging‚ you can cast [spells that you could normally cast] as a free action"‚ it's "When raging‚ you can cast [ spells that you could normally cast as a free action]". The feat doesn't change the casting time. Please try to read feats in good conscience and not try to find loopholes due to how english can have ambiguous wording‚ thank you. The nagahydra doesn't cast as a free action‚ it just casts several spells as a standard. And Quicken doesn't reduce the casting time to a free action anymore so as of 3.5‚ that feat is useless (except with the reasonable fix of including swift and immediate action‚ or using the next sentence to include Quickened spells anyway even if they are now swift).

[danielxcutter]

I'm confused though - Serpent Kingdoms says that nagahydras have five heads, not seven?

That being said, this doesn't really change the fact that it's crazy strong for its CR. For reference, a Sorcerer who casts a Twinned Arcane Fusion and a Greater Arcane Fusion while under Arcane Spellsurge is effectively casting a 7th-level spell, three 4th-level spells, and two 1st-level spells. A nagahydra is capable of casting all but one of the 1st-levels without needing Arcane Spellsurge up. And it's got enough slots to easily cast more potent spells than that as well.

Sure, that'll burn through its spell slots faster than Tome of Magic does through headache medication, but nagahydras are also pretty smart. Smart enough to know that it's better to burn through most of their high-level slots and live to see another day than being conservative and dying.

And the default statblock doesn't bother, but they also have access to Cleric spells. Between its own fast healing, and buffing and healing spells from both lists, it's going to be quite easy to supplement its defenses considerably higher than the default AC 20 and 174 hit points. Even with the Sorcerer list alone, there's plenty of room for improvement - such as borrowing spells that dragons commonly use, like Scintillating Scales for example.(Honestly, you could go Core only Sorcerer/Wizard spells and still make a considerably better list than the default. No, I'm not even talking about gamebreakers like Polymorph.)

Oh, and advancing these things by just one HD makes them go up to Gargantuan. So yeah, these things get ridiculous fast.

Obviously, if you actually plan on using one then you should really keep in mind what the PCs can do. You don't even need to change their spell list for them to avoid what I like to call Tarrasque Syndrome, and there are plenty of spells that can be used to protect against common PC tactics like Scintillating Scales or Death Ward. But you should also really remember not to go too overboard - nobody likes getting their Wizard deleted on turn one because they got hit by a Wave of Exhaustion and four Disintegrates.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, nor Na either. No one of them.
There are so many broken swords around this topic. You can have another opinion - your right, but mine is - you can't.




So...yeah.

Err, RAW specifically says, and I even quoted it.

If you want to go down the rabbit hole called: What are "spells"?

Spells are by RAW SU abilities.

1) Spells can't be a Natural Ability, because it is not part of you body.

2) They can't be EX since Spells are magical and EX are not.

3) It can't be SLAs, since those already refer to spells. A spell is not "spell-like" it is a spell. Thus doesn't fit here either

4) Which leaves SU are sole possible and correct option. Since spells are magical effects that are not "spell-like" (see above).

Note that any relevant SU rule gets trumped by more specific Spell rules. But that doesn't change that the sole correct designation is SU (due to being magical non spell-like abilities).

_____________________________________

Nagahydra's are very similar in their power like Beholder Mages. Thus they make stronger encounters. But it still remains a Rocket_tag game due to low HP scaling in 3.5 and dozens of insta-death options/threats at higher levels..
Even if you give em minions, the PCs will still focus them down within the first or second round. The BM might even have the upper hand due to his Antimagic Cone ability.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Nagahydra's are very similar in their power like Beholder Mages. Thus they make stronger encounters. But it still remains a Rocket_tag game due to low HP scaling in 3.5 and dozens of insta-death options/threats at higher levels..
Even if you give em minions, the PCs will still focus them down within the first or second round. The BM might even have the upper hand due to his Antimagic Cone ability.

This is why your first 4 spells should be defense instead of offense (I assume Mind Blank was cast in the morning, Death Ward and Permeable Form may be interesting. Permeable Form is especially good since it protects you for one round and you don't have to dismiss it in your next round). The nagahydra is intelligent enough to know that if they just focus the wizard they will get killed the second round. The 5th spell should be a wide debuffing spell or a summoning spell so that your opponents have something else to do instead of directly attacking you. You can start rocket tag in the second round. It is also pretty useful to cast 4 spells then teleport away. The next round, you teleport in, cast 3 spells and teleport out. Being able to cast 5 spells per round is the ultimate scry and die strategy. Because you're a sorcerer, and this magic is in your scales, not cribbed off of "Magic for Dummies", and you can keep casting the same friggin' spell at them until they roll over and die. You can even buff yourself for a round in case they start preparing actions to attack you when you appear.

The Beholder Mage is less obviously going to abuse this since it has to prepare spells. Also, it doesn't have antimagic, it's in the prerequisites for the class

[InvisibleBison]

Spells are by RAW SU abilities.

No, spellcasting is pretty clearly a natural ability. The rules say (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities) "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like", and spellcasting is never so designated, so it has to be natural.


1) Spells can't be a Natural Ability, because it is not part of you body.

Not so. The rules say natural abilities "includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature", but it doesn't say that only such abilities are natural abilities.

[Tzardok]

I think it makes the most sense to treat spellcasting as its own category. It's clearly neither natural nor exceptional, it doesn't work the way supernatural abilities work, and spell-like, well,...

I'd like to add the Shadowcaster's mysteries as a proof. A mystery is first cast as a spell, on higher levels as a spell-like ability and on the highest as a supernatural ability. If spells were natural abilities, it would say "it is used as a natural ability". But it says "it is cast as a spell". Furthermore, natural abilities aren't affected by anti-magic fields. Spellcasting is.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Beholder Mage is less obviously going to abuse this since it has to prepare spells. Also, it doesn't have antimagic, it's in the prerequisites for the class
You missed that BM is a spontaneous caster (while he can learn all spells like wizards), while I missed that they sacrifice their central eye. Let's call it even xD


No, spellcasting is pretty clearly a natural ability. The rules say (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities) "Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like", and spellcasting is never so designated, so it has to be natural.



Not so. The rules say natural abilities "includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature", but it doesn't say that only such abilities are natural abilities.
The designation of the abilities happens due to the definition. Not from friendly reminders put into "( )". And the use of any kind of friendly reminders in 3.5 is inconsistent (see the reminder that you may not stack "size" changing effects. Not all abilities have the reminder, but all operate due to the same general rule for stacking (which is the main reason why it doesn stack)).

Just because there is no friendly reminder for your, doesn't change how the categories have been defined. And the DM has to follow that definition. And only if something doesn't fit the definitions of EX, SLA, SU, then it is a NA.
The definitions are not there for you to ignore em. The definitions (helps the DM to) designate the abilities into the right categories:

NA: non magical; non special
EX: non magical; special (means has some kind of requirements, thus not available for anybody)
SLA: magical and works similar to spell XXX
SU: magical and doesn't represent a spell

Each category explains how it can be distinguished by the other categories without any overlapping.
Any other general interpretation only causes inconsistency and overlapping (and thus dysfunctional) categories.
Exceptions may still exist (if an ability calls out explicitly, that belongs to X while this may not be the general designation by the definitions).


I think it makes the most sense to treat spellcasting as its own category. It's clearly neither natural nor exceptional, it doesn't work the way supernatural abilities work, and spell-like, well,...

I'd like to add the Shadowcaster's mysteries as a proof. A mystery is first cast as a spell, on higher levels as a spell-like ability and on the highest as a supernatural ability. If spells were natural abilities, it would say "it is used as a natural ability". But it says "it is cast as a spell". Furthermore, natural abilities aren't affected by anti-magic fields. Spellcasting is.
Creating a new "category" would the the rules in the Special Ability section and thus would be homebrew and not RAW.

If "spells" are designated into SU, nothing changes mechanically. Anything important is trumped by more specific spell rules. It's just the sole logically correct category imho. And it sole becomes relevant for high TO RAW abuse, nothing else.

Spells are magical but don't refer to a single spell to function, like SLA do. Thus the sole remaining option is SU.

In regards to Shadowcaster: it calls out when which ability counts as what and trumps any general rules (no matter how you want to interpret the general rules). Thus, it doesn't help us here in any way sadly..

[loky1109]

I think it makes the most sense to treat spellcasting as its own category. It's clearly neither natural nor exceptional, it doesn't work the way supernatural abilities work, and spell-like, well,...
Two teas for this gentleman!

[Kalkra]

Where does it say that Polymorph grants natural abilities? Maybe I missed something obvious, I'm in a hurry and was just skimming things.

[InvisibleBison]

The designation of the abilities happens due to the definition. Not from friendly reminders put into "( )".

Do you have a source for that, or are you once again making up rules and claiming they're official?



The definitions are not there for you to ignore em.

Then why are you ignoring the definition of natural ability? Said definition, I remind you, is "those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like".

[icefractal]

Not going to argue the exact wording, because that's a rabbit-hole which has been been traveled at length before, but spellcasting from class levels is logically the same "type" of ability as skills and (non-bonus) feats.

In retrospect, many problems could have been avoided by using tags rather than exclusive categories. So an ability could be [natural] [su] or [learned] [su]. Maybe even a split of [form] / [spirit] / [learned], with the middle category being things like inherent SLAs.

[loky1109]

Then why are you ignoring the definition of natural ability? Said definition, I remind you, is "those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like".

If you are right and all abilities without any () wording are natural... Well, I have one two "natural abilities" for you.


Wand of Orcus The weapon that Orcus wields functions as a +6 unholy anarchic heavy mace. If the wand touches any nonoutsider, or any outsider with less than 15 HD, the target must succeed on a DC 25 Fortitude save or be instantly slain. This is a necromantic death effect. The wand also confers a +5 deflection bonus to the Armor Class of its wielder.


Triple Flail Yeenoghu wields a unique triple-headed +3 adamantine heavy flail. Each time he scores a hit with this item, roll 1d3 to see how many of the heads hit the target. A hit with the flail deals the same amount of damage no matter how many heads strike. If more than one head hits the same target, the victim must succeed on a DC 32 Will save or be confused for 2d4 rounds. If all three hit, the target must also make a successful DC 32 Fortitude save or be paralyzed for 1d4 rounds. Only Yeenoghu can use the weapon to confuse and paralyze targets. The save DCs are Strength-based.

Don't look so "natural" as for me.
I think list "Spell-Like", "Supernatural", "Extraordinary", and "Natural" isn't full and comprehensive.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If you are right and all abilities without any () wording are natural... Well, I have one two "natural abilities" for you.

Don't look so "natural" as for me.
I think list "Spell-Like", "Supernatural", "Extraordinary", and "Natural" isn't full and comprehensive.Well, they're physical objects that are also abilities, so they're about as "natural" as such things are allowed to be.

[loky1109]

Well, they're physical objects that are also abilities, so they're about as "natural" as such things are allowed to be.

If I polymorphed into Aspect of Orcus will I have Wand of Orcus (weaker version*)?


Wand of Orcus The weapon that the aspect of Orcus wields is as a far weaker version of the original wand of Orcus, but formidable nonetheless. It functions as a +1 Large heavy mace that is unholy in the aspect of Orcus’s hands. Any living creature with less than 15 HD that is critically struck by the wand must make a DC 20 Fortitude save or be instantly slain. This is a necromantic death effect.
(Fiendish Codex I Web Enhancement (https://web.archive.org/web/20161031220917/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060609b))

[InvisibleBison]

If you are right and all abilities without any () wording are natural... Well, I have one two "natural abilities" for you.





Don't look so "natural" as for me.
I think list "Spell-Like", "Supernatural", "Extraordinary", and "Natural" isn't full and comprehensive.

I agree, having equipment be considered a natural ability that you could gain by polymorphing into a creature is silly. But there's no guarantee that the rules can't be silly, so this isn't a particularly good argument against a given reading of the rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Do you have a source for that, or are you once again making up rules and claiming they're official?




Then why are you ignoring the definition of natural ability? Said definition, I remind you, is "those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like".
Sorry, but the burden of proof that "(NA); (EX); (SLA); (SU)" are the sole way that abilities are designated is on you. The text doesn't reflect anywhere this statement.

Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
The "()" are not part of the rule. They are just as I said, inconsistent friendly reminders. Or in a few special cases to reflect a "specific trumps general" situation to show that this ability doesn't follow the general rules.

I can return your argument: (just because it is fitting. not bad intention here ;) )
"Do you have a source for that, or are you once again making up rules and claim that they are official?"
While your interpretation also relies on reading the categories (NA in your chase), you chose to ignore all other definitions but NA. Why should an ability be designated into a category while the definition of another category is more fitting (unless it's a specific trumps general situation)?

And btw, names/titles don't make any rules. Just because e.g. the tile is "Extraordinary Abilities (EX)" don't make the rule that all EX abilities have (EX). Take feats as example. BoED (IIRC) says that most feats (not all) are EX, while the feats in the book are all (SU). Most feats lack any "()" but here we have rules (which also get quoted in the FAQ) explicitly showing that abilities still follow the definition of those categories and not some stupid "()".. markers.


Not going to argue the exact wording, because that's a rabbit-hole which has been been traveled at length before, but spellcasting from class levels is logically the same "type" of ability as skills and (non-bonus) feats.

In retrospect, many problems could have been avoided by using tags rather than exclusive categories. So an ability could be [natural] [su] or [learned] [su]. Maybe even a split of [form] / [spirit] / [learned], with the middle category being things like inherent SLAs.

I agree, some category groups in 3.5 could have been much better differentiated/defined.
E.g. Having Types & Subtypes is a good idea. But then you have "undead" as type which is imho wrong. Undead would have been much better as subtype. Same with the "monstrous ..." tag. And it would have been much better if more sub-/types could be qualified for (like the Extraplanar subtype). E.g. warshaper's "Morphic Weapons" changes you to look less humanoid, thus you get the "monstrous" subtype and so on. But yeah, that's just me wish-thinking..^^

____________
Imho "Abilities" have 4 distinct categories that don't overlap (at least not how interpret the rule text). It's sole the use of "designated" in the NA text that causes so much confusion (and dysfunction if you read to much into it). The question is, do you prefer an interpretation that creates 4 distinct categories or do you wanna read "()" into text where it doesn't say and create a hole bunch of dysfunctions. Your choice.

[loky1109]

Imho "Abilities" have 4 distinct categories that don't overlap

My point is that innate spellcasting doesn't fall in any of this four categories

[MaxiDuRaritry]

My point is that innate spellcasting doesn't fall in any of this four categoriesAnd yet those are four of the the only five available (with the other being "psi-like"), and it's definitely not that one. It has to either be one or be part of one, and since it's not marked, it defaults to [Na], since that's the catch-all that everything that isn't the other four is put into, no exceptions.

Unless you know of a category that the rest of us don't?

[loky1109]

Unless you know of a category that the rest of us don't?
This category names "out of all categories".

[Gruftzwerg]

My point is that innate spellcasting doesn't fall in any of this four categories

Why not? It's magical and doesn't refer to a single spell. Thus it qualifies for the definition of SU. As said, any relevant rule gets trumped by more specific spell rules. Unless you are trying to pull off some high lvl theoretical optimization it won't matter in 99,9999% of the games that spells are SU.

My question is, which rule enables you to ignore the defined categories? Definitions are rules. You need to apply em when it fits. And spells fit into SU as said above.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

This category names "out of all categories".I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

[Gruftzwerg]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Something like "untyped" I assumed.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Something like "untyped" I assumed.Nah, it defaults to [Na], according to the RAW I quoted.

[InvisibleBison]

Sorry, but the burden of proof that "(NA); (EX); (SLA); (SU)" are the sole way that abilities are designated is on you. The text doesn't reflect anywhere this statement.

I wouldn't say they're the sole way that abilities are designated as being one sort or another. For example, psionic feats are designated as being supernatural abilities in another method. But for most abilities, the parenthetical label after the ability name is the only way for determining what sort of ability it is. There's certainly nothing in the definition of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities that could be used to determine which category a given ability falls into.


The "()" are not part of the rule. They are just as I said, inconsistent friendly reminders. Or in a few special cases to reflect a "specific trumps general" situation to show that this ability doesn't follow the general rules.

Again, I must ask: Do you have a source for this? This assertion is the core of your argument and you haven't provided any reason for me to think that it is correct. You can't simply assert that the rules are as you claim them to be; you have to either prove your case by quoting - not simply paraphrasing or summarizing, but actually quoting - the rules, or make it clear that you're just talking about your interpretation of the rules and allow that others don't have to follow it.


I can return your argument: (just because it is fitting. not bad intention here ;) )
"Do you have a source for that, or are you once again making up rules and claim that they are official?"

Yes, it's found right here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities), the same section of the rules we've been working with throughout this discussion.


While your interpretation also relies on reading the categories (NA in your chase), you chose to ignore all other definitions but NA. Why should an ability be designated into a category while the definition of another category is more fitting (unless it's a specific trumps general situation)?

I ignore the other definitions because only natural abilities provides an actual rule for determining when an ability is natural. Looking at the definition of, say, supernatural abilities is useless for determining whether or not a given ability is supernatural, because nowhere in said definition is there a method for making that determination. The only way to tell what kind of ability something is is to look at what label it is given, either in the parenthetical notes that you baselessly dismiss or elsewhere in the text.

[bekeleven]

My recollections from a previous 30-page thread on this debate:

1. RAW is ambiguous in a way that makes it clear this was not a question the developers were actively considering.

2. Read certain ways, spells might be (Ex), (Na), or arguably even (Su).

3. The game functions best if spells are grouped into their own category, because that makes them off-limits to all of these various polymorph-school spells.

Gun to my head, the evidence tells me that spells are RAW (Ex), but again, they landed there by developer inattention rather than intent. And you're best off just saying "I don't care where they are, you're not getting them with shapechange."

...

So, how about them hydras, eh?

[Gruftzwerg]

I wouldn't say they're the sole way that abilities are designated as being one sort or another. For example, psionic feats are designated as being supernatural abilities in another method. But for most abilities, the parenthetical label after the ability name is the only way for determining what sort of ability it is. There's certainly nothing in the definition of spell-like, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities that could be used to determine which category a given ability falls into.



Again, I must ask: Do you have a source for this? This assertion is the core of your argument and you haven't provided any reason for me to think that it is correct. You can't simply assert that the rules are as you claim them to be; you have to either prove your case by quoting - not simply paraphrasing or summarizing, but actually quoting - the rules, or make it clear that you're just talking about your interpretation of the rules and allow that others don't have to follow it.
..
As I said, you are arguing that "designated" only refers to "(NA); (EX); (SLA); (SU)", while the rule text talks about:

... designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.
You have to show me the rule that "designated" only refers to "( )". Further, you rely on the definition of NA while ignoring the definition of all other categories at the same time (I demand equality here^^). Because you demand that only "( )" can designate an ability.

But the reality is, that the definitions of those categories give you the mechanical information what fits into em and that designates em into the categories.
The mechanical information for designating em boils down to:

(EX): non-magical (1) and needs some kind of requirement (2)

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical (1), though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training (2).


(SLA): refers to a single spell and thus magical (3)

Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name (3). A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described(4).
(4) explains that specific exceptions may exist = Specific trumps general (just explaining the obvious, thus again just a friendly reminder and not the actual rule that causes this.. it's the Primary Source Rule that dictates this..)


(SU): a magical ability (5) and doesn't refer to a single spell as SLA do.

Supernatural abilities are magical (5) and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.


(NA): abilities that come from your physical nature (body/-parts) (6) and those that don't fit into the other categories (7)

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature (6). Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like (7).


Important Note:
This is the order (NA as last!) presented in the PHB (book>SRD), which leaves a total other (contextual) impression imho than the SRD. If you read NA first, your assumption has at least a RAI base imho. But if you put it last in line of all other "definitions", it becomes obvious to me that "designated" is referring to the "definitions" of those mentioned categories and not some "( )" that the actual rule text never mentions at all. (IIRC PHB page 180)

[danielxcutter]

Y’know, I’ve heard about rules-lawyering but I don’t think I’ve seen it this literally before.

[InvisibleBison]

But the reality is, that the definitions of those categories give you the mechanical information what fits into em and that designates em into the categories.

No, they don't. The rules mean what they say they mean. You can't just make things up and declare them to be part of the rules. The rules don't say that you can deduce from context what kind of ability an ability is, therefore you can't do that. The only way to know what kind of ability something is is to look at what the rules say it is. Anything else is houseruling.

[Gruftzwerg]

Y’know, I’ve heard about rules-lawyering but I don’t think I’ve seen it this literally before.

Nah, this is nothing. IIRC the all-time-high is still DWK (true dragons or not?) reaching over 50 pages of rule discussions..^^
But Special Abilities and the Primary Source Rule are also topics (PSR) where we still lack a common ground of ruling.
The PSR is intended to solve rule issues, but since it is debated itself this causes a lot of chaos in "other discussions" whenever it comes up/applies.

And there are tons of abilities who lack an obvious "( )" tag, which always start these discussion.

Sometime we are just repeating the same arguments, sometimes those are improved and if we get really lucky, we may even solve some long time rule riddles. We have solved a few (mostly minor) rule mysteries here over the years. (e.g we had a lot of improvement with the riding/mounted combat rules the last year imho)

And it can be really enjoyable too (as long as all are friendly. thankfully the discussions are all really friendly here =)



No, they don't. The rules mean what they say they mean. You can't just make things up and declare them to be part of the rules. The rules don't say that you can deduce from context what kind of ability an ability is, therefore you can't do that. The only way to know what kind of ability something is is to look at what the rules say it is. Anything else is houseruling.

We have general rules for defined keywords. And with each keyword we have to make use of its rules whenever:
1) it (the keyword) is mentioned in rule text
2) when the situation (mechanically) qualifies for the keyword

We have been given mechanical infos what qualifies for each category and those may not be ignored. They aren't there just for show. And I still don't see any evidence presented that "designated" is referring to the "( )" marker. As said, the actual rule text spells the keywords out and doesn't refer to the use of "( )". So you can't assume that these are part of the rules by RAW (RAI you may have a fair point here).

Ignoring the definitions (as indicator when they apply) is like saying "that you may ignore the Primary Source Rule because no other rule says that it has to apply now".

The definitions are rule mechanics that always apply when the situation demands it and not sole when you have been friendly reminded of it.

I hope that clears up some things (wishful thinking.. I know..^^)

[Condé]

My recollections from a previous 30-page thread on this debate:

1. RAW is ambiguous in a way that makes it clear this was not a question the developers were actively considering.

2. Read certain ways, spells might be (Ex), (Na), or arguably even (Su).

3. The game functions best if spells are grouped into their own category, because that makes them off-limits to all of these various polymorph-school spells.

Gun to my head, the evidence tells me that spells are RAW (Ex), but again, they landed there by developer inattention rather than intent. And you're best off just saying "I don't care where they are, you're not getting them with shapechange."

...

So, how about them hydras, eh?

Yeah, I think this is "safer" to just say no to spells. I never considered a character being able to get the spellcasting abilities of monster by shapeshifting/wildshaping/polymorph/whatever. It is already way too strong, you don't really need more.

As a DM and a player I tend to try to avoid abusing shady rules. There is already so much things to abuse without having to interpret anything.

[danielxcutter]

There's already so much crazy in this monster, you don't need that reading in order to get some incredibly ridiculous benefits from it.

[InvisibleBison]

We have been given mechanical infos what qualifies for each category

Debating with you is extremely frustrating, because you always ignore the actual point of contention and simply act as if we all agreed with your interpretation of the rules. I do not agree with you that the text in the description of spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities can be used to determine what sort of ability an ability is. Unless you are able to provide some explanation for why I should change my mind, this conversation can't proceed in a useful direction.

[Pezzo]

The monster manual groups spellcasting in the creatures special attacks, undefined, therefore natural and usable in an antimagic field (my guess here is that you lose the spell and nothing happens).
Polymorph does not give you the benefits of 8 hours of sleep:
"Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further)"
So a polymorphed creature could gain the spellcasting ability, but would have no prepared spells or spellslots.

[Gruftzwerg]

Debating with you is extremely frustrating, because you always ignore the actual point of contention and simply act as if we all agreed with your interpretation of the rules. I do not agree with you that the text in the description of spell-like, supernatural, and extraordinary abilities can be used to determine what sort of ability an ability is. Unless you are able to provide some explanation for why I should change my mind, this conversation can't proceed in a useful direction.

Sorry, but it is/was not my intention to "act as if all agreed". Dunno where I did leave this impression but I will try to chose my wording more carefully. No ill intentions here.

You may disagree, sure. But I don't see how you are backing up your argument?

I (tried to) provided you how definitions/rules work with the example of the Primary Source Rule. It first provides information when it applies and then gives rule machanics to proceed. The PSR is always checking (in the background) for situations where it applies. There is no need for any other rule to mention the PSR to enable it first. It's always active.

Same here. The rules for Special Abilities are always active and check for any situation where they apply by the category definitions.
Imho the definitions provide enough mechanical info to differentiate all categories without any overlapping = 0 dysfunctions caused (I've shown this in a previous post).

If I would apply your logic to the PSR, it would never apply. This is why imho the definitions of each special ability category is always checking for situations where it applies. It doesn't need any "( )" to notify you that the rules apply.

It would be great to have a textual evidence that "designated" is referring to "( )". That would be more specific than the general rules that would apply for the defined categories. But so far, I haven't seen any proof for that. Thus imho by RAW the definitions always apply when the mechanics demand it.

[loky1109]

It doesn't need any "( )" to notify you that the rules apply.

It doesn't, if we talk in general, but in monsters' stat block it does. Monsters' innate spellcasting isn't (Su) because it hasn't (Su). No matter, how it looks. If in some monster stat block I'll see Improved grapple (Sp) this Improved grapple will be spell-like. If I'll see True strike or Summon Monster with (Ex) it'll be Extraordinarily.

You can discuss about class spellcasting ability, is it supernatural or extraordinary, yes, but monsters' definitely isn't non of both.

[InvisibleBison]

Sorry, but it is/was not my intention to "act as if all agreed". Dunno where I did leave this impression but I will try to chose my wording more carefully. No ill intentions here.

The foundation of your argument, at least as I see it, is that the rules about special ability types found here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities) provide a rubric for determining what sort of ability an ability is. I have repeatedly said that I don't agree with this idea, as I don't see any support for it in the text. You have repeatedly ignored my objections and acted as if the truth of your idea was self-evident.



You may disagree, sure. But I don't see how you are backing up your argument?

[...]

It would be great to have a textual evidence that "designated" is referring to "( )".

"A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)." (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#specialAttacksAndSpecialQualities)



<Some stuff about the primary source rule>

The primary source rule is irrelevant to this discussion. It only applies when there's a disagreement between two rules, and no such disagreement exists here.

[Gruftzwerg]

The foundation of your argument, at least as I see it, is that the rules about special ability types found here (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#specialAbilities) provide a rubric for determining what sort of ability an ability is. I have repeatedly said that I don't agree with this idea, as I don't see any support for it in the text. You have repeatedly ignored my objections and acted as if the truth of your idea was self-evident.

Yeah, you disagree. But you haven't give me any hint so far where you disagree and only talk about that you disagree.
I have explained the mechanic mentioned (imho) for each category. If you disagree with any that, than show me where and why.

If you disagree with the idea in general, you are treating definitions not equal.

I'll try again to showcase it with the PSR:
The PSR defines what becomes the primary source. There is no need for any other rule to call out that possibility. You need to check constantly for situations to apply the rule.

The same way, the overall "Special Abilities" rules are always checking for its subcategories (NA; EX; SLA; SU). There is no need for any ability to call out that possibility.

I'm just doing the same here. Nothing new. If you can apply the PSR correct, you should be able to understand my point here. If you disagree, you need to tell me more than just that you disagree. I can't read your mind to get the details. It would helpful to be a bit more specific ;)



"A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su)." (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#specialAttacksAndSpecialQualities)

Yeah and I still don't see any evidence that "( )" is the sole way that abilities are "designated" and that a absence of "( )" is evidence enough to see em as "undesignated" (or to fall back to NA).



The primary source rule is irrelevant to this discussion. It only applies when there's a disagreement between two rules, and no such disagreement exists here.
This implies to me that you didn't bother to read the argument. I just showed what you do when using the PSR (checking for Primary Sources) and demand the same for Special Abilities which has 4 defined categories (checking for the 4 categories with the help of their distinct definitions.)

[loky1109]

I have explained the mechanic mentioned (imho) for each category.
It doesn't matter. For monsters matters only bracket descriptor.
More. Things what you name description don't matter.
You talk: if something is magic in nature (doesn't work in AMF and so), it can be (ex). It isn't right. Right is: if something is (ex) it isn't magic in nature. Extraordinary teleportation? Not magical. Extraordinary spellcasting? Not magical. Extraordinary Wish? Not magical. No matter how ability looks, you can't base on this "look" to determine magic it is or not. You go from wrong direction.


Yeah and I still don't see any evidence that "( )" is the sole way that abilities are "designated" and that a absence of "( )" is evidence enough to see em as "undesignated" (or to fall back to NA).
We have no other ways. We can't just look at ability and say is it Ex, Su, or Sp. Nothing in its description can help us. Common sense isn't answer. There isn't place for it. We talk about non real things what work in totally unknown rule field. In most cases there aren't any other evidences, but bracket tag only.

There we have deal not with natural Laws, which we can research and identify how them works. We have deal with non-ideal and non-full rules written by humans (many humans!). There are mistakes, there are nonsenses, there are direct contradictions. Don't try to use common sense here.

[Ramza00]

I do not see what is the big deal with this monster as a CR18 threat.

It is effectively several monsters that share the same stat blot. It can cast 5 spells per round, the highest being 7th level. Well guess what an enemy CR13 Wizard, Druid, or Cleric can do that as well. Pretty much you are trading one target with Hp, Fort and Will Saves, Initiative etc instead of 3 to 5 enemy spellcasters depending on how the DM builds them. Like are they single class, or do they wildshape, or do they have some Gish levels, monster hd, etc.

It is slower than dirt initiative wise, has no defensive abilities besides combat reflexes, and the highest save is a Will Save of 17. It is quite easy to take down. Sure it is offensive power house but other CR18 are actually more specialized in many ways, this is just a powerhouse with like 3 different offensive ways and not even the best at these things for a CR18 monster.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

At least it's not a single-digit CR creature with access to 9th level spells.

And yes, those are things that exist.

[danielxcutter]

First of all, you grossly underestimate the power of action economy.

Second, those base stats and abilities can easily be supplemented with its own spells. Even the default statblock has Fly.

Third, you can't pick off each one by one, and you can't use AoE attacks to amplify your damage output against it. It's not stupid enough to let Sunder-happy martials get in its faces either.

Fourth, and most important, this gets very crazy very fast the more you adjust its spells and feat list.

[InvisibleBison]

Yeah, you disagree. But you haven't give me any hint so far where you disagree and only talk about that you disagree.

I have repeatedly explained why I disagree with you: I don't see anything in the text that supports your interpretation. I can't provide a citation to back up my opinion, because I can't cite the absence of text.


I have explained the mechanic mentioned (imho) for each category.

No, you have not. You have said that you believe a mechanic exists. You have not provided any textual evidence to back up this assertion.


If you disagree with the idea in general, you are treating definitions not equal.

I am not "treating definitions not equal" by disagreeing with your idea. I am denying that one of these alleged definitions is in fact a definition. This is, incidentally, a perfect example of what I said earlier about you acting as if I agreed with you even when I don't.


I'll try again to showcase it with the PSR:

I don't know why you bring the primary source rule into every discussion. It's really not that important a rule. It only applies in the three situations outlined in the start of the errata files. It definitely doesn't apply to a situation where A) there is no contradiction between multiple sources and B) All sources occur within the Monster Manual.



Yeah and I still don't see any evidence that "( )" is the sole way that abilities are "designated" and that a absence of "( )" is evidence enough to see em as "undesignated" (or to fall back to NA).

Again, I am not and never have been saying that the parentheses are the only way of designating an ability. I simply have been saying that they are a way of designating an ability.

[Condé]

First of all, you grossly underestimate the power of action economy.

Second, those base stats and abilities can easily be supplemented with its own spells. Even the default statblock has Fly.

Third, you can't pick off each one by one, and you can't use AoE attacks to amplify your damage output against it. It's not stupid enough to let Sunder-happy martials get in its faces either.

Fourth, and most important, this gets very crazy very fast the more you adjust its spells and feat list.

Totally agree.

Its initiative is indeed pretty low and it does not have great defense, it has already been pointed out. But if you don't kill it fast, I wouldn't be surprised if several unprepared PC (Because you never really know what and when you're going to fight) would die in like... 1 turn. Or maybe 2.


At least it's not a single-digit CR creature with access to 9th level spells.

And yes, those are things that exist.

I'd be curious to know which creature you talking about. I know there a monster somewhere with Implosion at will, but don't rememb

[danielxcutter]

Pretty sure at least one of the Clockwork Horrors have Disjunction as one of their SLAs. And they're all considerably under CR 17+.

I don't remember if any of them were single-digit CR though.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'd be curious to know which creature you talking about. I know there a monster somewhere with Implosion at will, but don't remembAdamantine clockwork horror, MMII, CR 9.

Spell-Like Abilities: At will—disintegrate, implosion, Mordenkainen’s disjunction. Caster level 14th; save DC 15 + spell level.

[Ramza00]

Totally agree.

Its initiative is indeed pretty low and it does not have great defense, it has already been pointed out. But if you don't kill it fast, I wouldn't be surprised if several unprepared PC (Because you never really know what and when you're going to fight) would die in like... 1 turn. Or maybe 2.

I am not disagreeing this is a CR18 monster, just pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Of course it can kill a pc it is a CR18 monster, but if I recall my DMG1 rules correctly 3 CR15 monsters , 4 CR14, or 6 CR13 monsters should also be similar level of threat and they too have action economies that can over realm an unlucky PC and make a party feel threat. It feels scary for the nagahydra for it casts 5 spells in the same action cluster, but with such low initiative 5 spellcasters will produce a more consistent response for the monster is slow and sure all those spells at the same time is bursty in a shotgun fashion but going first and shaping the encounter in a god like fashion would produce more consistent results while still producing threat.

———

Consider this (since we are talking rebuilding feats and spells crafting similar new monsters is a similar level of rebuilding)

Off the top of my head, a rough draft and not a firmly polished encounter

3.0 CR Tome Dragon Wyrmling HD 3 which casts a 3rd level Sorcerer
1.0 CR One HD / level of Sorcerer for the Familiar, and now 4 levels of Sorcerer casting and thus 2nd level spells
1.5 CR Non Associated levels of Druid, for a total of 3 HD / levels of Druid with 2nd level of Druid and Trackless Step class feature
10 CR with 10 levels of Arcane Hierophant.

So by my count for 15.5 CR we have a
14th level Sorcerer Spells, also all Conjuration, Divination Spells, and Knowledge Domain spells as free spells known in addition to the 1/2/3/4/4/5/5 layout
13th level Druid Spells
13th level Wild Shape
13th level Animal Companion with 11th level Familiar abilities most importantly 11 Int. Natural Bond Feat allows you to have a 16th level AC such as a T-Rex with 18 HD before polymorphing.

Throw in an imbue familiar with spell like ability, arcane fusion, wings of cover, dragon wildshape feat, alternate form feat (the baby Wyrmling tome dragon is a precocious little sly thing. Has an inferiority complex with its size and age but wildshape fixes that he is premorphed into a medium dragon of any race, or is posing as a humanoid under cover), draconic polymorph your familiar animal companion into a nastier form, etc.

So this is the main enemy a CR15.5, add a second one and we have CR 17.5 encounter. Add a third one tome dragon who only has 8 levels of Arcane Hierophant and this is still a CR18 encounter.

Oh this is not counting loredrake for I forgot, but I also wanted to max out with 7th level spells for that is what a Nagahydra has. 8th level spells is Greater Arcane Fusion territory.

———

My point here is CR18 monsters should be scary. Even if the party can kill them easily if the dice rolls is are in their favor, if the monster goes first there should be risk of death to 1 PC. Nagahydra like all CR18 monsters should create this fear.

[danielxcutter]

Well, a lot of supposedly CR 18+ monsters are considerably less scary than this thing. Also it's incredibly ridiculous when used as a Polymorph form.

[sreservoir]

It's not "When raging‚ you can cast [spells that you could normally cast] as a free action"‚ it's "When raging‚ you can cast [ spells that you could normally cast as a free action]". The feat doesn't change the casting time. Please try to read feats in good conscience and not try to find loopholes due to how english can have ambiguous wording‚ thank you. The nagahydra doesn't cast as a free action‚ it just casts several spells as a standard. And Quicken doesn't reduce the casting time to a free action anymore so as of 3.5‚ that feat is useless (except with the reasonable fix of including swift and immediate action‚ or using the next sentence to include Quickened spells anyway even if they are now swift).

That fix is supposed to be baked into the definition of swift actions:

You may take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

How this interacts with specifically checking a spell's casting time is ... up to interpretation, technically, but I think there's an obvious resolution most of us can arrive at.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I am not disagreeing this is a CR18 monster, just pointing out its strengths and weaknesses. Of course it can kill a pc it is a CR18 monster

CR 18: three Tome Dragon Wyrmling Arcane Hierophant with new feats

My point here is CR18 monsters should be scary. Even if the party can kill them easily if the dice rolls is are in their favor, if the monster goes first there should be risk of death to 1 PC. Nagahydra like all CR18 monsters should create this fear.

Your example is a true dragon, which are notoriously under-CR'd, and Tome dragons even more, with specific feats and class levels. And I still don't think they're quite as scary as a nagahydra, since the nagahydra has the ability to buff itself with Personal or single target touch spells much more easily than a bunch of lower level casters, and isn't as weak to AoE. Honestly, between a nagahydra and a balor (the prime example of a "regular" CR 20 monster), which would you rather face with a level 18 party?

[danielxcutter]

Your example is a true dragon, which are notoriously under-CR'd, and Tome dragons even more, with specific feats and class levels. And I still don't think they're quite as scary as a nagahydra, since the nagahydra has the ability to buff itself with Personal or single target touch spells much more easily than a bunch of lower level casters, and isn't as weak to AoE. Honestly, between a nagahydra and a balor (the prime example of a "regular" CR 20 monster), which would you rather face with a level 18 party?

Depends on the party. It's probably a lot easier to specifically prepare against the balor though.

[Ramza00]

Your example is a true dragon, which are notoriously under-CR'd, and Tome dragons even more, with specific feats and class levels. And I still don't think they're quite as scary as a nagahydra, since the nagahydra has the ability to buff itself with Personal or single target touch spells much more easily than a bunch of lower level casters, and isn't as weak to AoE. Honestly, between a nagahydra and a balor (the prime example of a "regular" CR 20 monster), which would you rather face with a level 18 party?

I picked the tome dragon so the DM would not have to prepare spells since it has all conjuration sorcerer spells already prepared.

The raw mechanics works with any form of arcane hierophant. I picked Druid for it has wildshape so you can go the frozen wildshape route for your own hydra, or the dragon wildshape for a bruiser form without using 8th level spells. But if we are doing 8th level spells, Polymorph Any Object is right there.

Likewise a single class wizard can always do the imbue familiar with spell ability trick, main spells, and quicken spells by itself. Likewise if we are doing cr 16 single class sorcerer (once again 8th level spells) the sorcerer can do greater arcane fusion.

————

There are dozens of ways to make similar action economy CR18 encounters, how I did it was nothing special, just like the Nagahydra is nothing special. I picked the form I picked out of ease of use and a partial aesthetic mimicry. With wildshape or shapechanging magic one can replicate many of the attributes of a nagahydra for the hydra exists. Aka stealing many of the hydra toys via mimicking it’s form.

Lastly the protection from AoE with one body means it is weaker against save or suck spells, and just suck spells that require no save. CR18 is Rocket tag and initiative is everything and this monster is slow, even if he has great action economy when it is finally its own turn.

Edit: One last thing sure the Balor is nice and scary but to me the Angel, Planetar which is CR16 is a 9th level Cleric Spellcasters, and has 18 different spell like abilities was always the measuring stick of Oh :censored: sure there are stronger monsters, and also lower cr angels that were perhaps the wrong cr but this was my premade worse case scenario where the DM was playing a monster straight prebuilt with minor changes and it was already scary.

[Pinkie Pyro]

It allows you to cast spells you could normally as free actions while in a rage, which is what the feat says.

While this is both a correct interpretation and the only way the feat actually does anything, this is one of those cases you really do have to set raw aside and figure they didn't updated it properly for 3.5 errata, such as how quickened spells went from free action to swift action.

"you can cast spells affected by metamagic:quicken while in a rage" would have solved this issue nicely.

As for the nagahydra in question:

is this thing that powerful? Having 7 casting actions per turn is powerful, but it's all on one body. If used as an NPC, I would hazard it would be weaker than 7 separate casters (with the other good bits from the monster, obviously), due to each being affected by debuffs separately. A PC getting 7 spells per turn is OP as hell though, yes, because they're expected to use it as efficiently as possible.

[Remuko]

As for the nagahydra in question:

is this thing that powerful? Having 7 casting actions per turn is powerful, but it's all on one body. If used as an NPC, I would hazard it would be weaker than 7 separate casters (with the other good bits from the monster, obviously), due to each being affected by debuffs separately. A PC getting 7 spells per turn is OP as hell though, yes, because they're expected to use it as efficiently as possible.

7 separate casters would also have 7 times the spell slots. 7 spells per round just means you run out of spell slots super fast.