[3.5] Mineral Warrior

[Gaiwecoor]

I've heard many say that Mineral Warrior is a highly overpowered LA +1 template (and with DR 8/Adamantine plus all the rest, I'd agree). What would you do to fix it?

[Starbuck_II]

Don't forget you get mental penalties.
So you aren't a charismatic or smart hero.

You are just the dumb "fighter". Can be fun, but very limiting.

That said, I'd say High LA +1 or low LA +2. It needs something to be LA +2. Lower the penalties maybe.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

To fix it? And still keep it a template...Maybe something like this (off the top of my head)

-2 Dexterity
+2 Con

+2 Natural Armor
Darkvision +60 feet
Damage Reduction 3/adamanatine
Burrow 10 feet (through earth and natural stone only)


That might make it a middling to high LA +1 if stuck on a base race. I opted for a decreased Dex rather than mental stats since turing partly to stone would make you slower...not dumber.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

+2 Natural Armor

Damage Reduction 3/adamanatine

I'd actually go with DR 5/adamantine and no NA, since flavorwise stone (being mostly an object) lends itself to DR rather than AC and mechanically the number one reason to take it is for the DR so there's no reason to also give NA on top of that.

In fact, dropping the NA and changing the Wis (and/or Cha?) penalty to a Dex penalty might be enough to keep it in LA +1 territory without changing anything else, but I'd have to do a more thorough analysis to be sure.

[dragoonsgone]

To fix it? And still keep it a template...Maybe something like this (off the top of my head)

-2 Dexterity
+2 Con

+2 Natural Armor
Darkvision +60 feet
Damage Reduction 3/adamanatine
Burrow 10 feet (through earth and natural stone only)


That might make it a middling to high LA +1 if stuck on a base race. I opted for a decreased Dex rather than mental stats since turing partly to stone would make you slower...not dumber.

You never heard of dumb as a rock? Looks like it would be a fun tank though.

[woodenbandman]

Eh. Just leave it. It becomes totally irrelevant at high levels anyway, and it in fact becomes a hindrance if you're not immune to ability drain, because many monsters at that level have int or charisma drain, and since you took mineral warrior, you probably dumped those stats... see where I'm going with this?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Eh. Just leave it. It becomes totally irrelevant at high levels anyway, and it in fact becomes a hindrance if you're not immune to ability drain, because many monsters at that level have int or charisma drain, and since you took mineral warrior, you probably dumped those stats... see where I'm going with this?

That's the problem though...DR 8/adamantine and a burrow speed are both incredible good at lower levels, if subpar at higher levels.

Perhaps this might be better...

+2 Strength
-2 Dex (or -2 Int, -2 Cha if you'd prefer that flavor)
+2 Con

+2 Natural Armor
Darkvision +60ft
Burrow (10 feet through natural earth and stone only)
Damage Reduction (1 + 1/2 class level)/adamantine

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Damage Reduction (1 + 1/2 class level)/adamantine

Good idea. Might even want to make it DR [class level]/adamantine, since it starts out the same and you'll be fighting creatures to whom DR 11 is nothing by level 20.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Good idea. Might even want to make it DR [class level]/adamantine, since it starts out the same and you'll be fighting creatures to whom DR 11 is nothing by level 20.

Even better. I would, however, drop the natural armor in this case, and let the usefulness of a burrow speed carry the player for a level or two until the DR picks up.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Mineral Warrior is absolutely fine as it is, it doesn't need any fix at all. What most people fail to realize (and fail to tell their DM about when they do notice it) is that the only means by which the template can be gained is via a spell called Mineralize Warrior. It's a 6th level spell that has costly material and XP components (500 gp and 250 XP per HD of the target), and most importantly, it makes the affected creature the willing servant of the caster for a year and a day, no saving throw, no SR, from an instantaneous Transmutation so it cannot be overcome or resisted in any way. The caster can release the character from this debt of service, or if you have the template at character creation you can say that it's already passed, but that is entirely up to the DM. The template is just fine as it is considering the significant RP implications.

[Sinfire Titan]

Mineral Warrior is absolutely fine as it is, it doesn't need any fix at all. What most people fail to realize (and fail to tell their DM about when they do notice it) is that the only means by which the template can be gained is via a spell called Mineralize Warrior. It's a 6th level spell that has costly material and XP components (500 gp and 250 XP per HD of the target), and most importantly, it makes the affected creature the willing servant of the caster for a year and a day, no saving throw, no SR, from an instantaneous Transmutation so it cannot be overcome or resisted in any way. The caster can release the character from this debt of service, or if you have the template at character creation you can say that it's already passed, but that is entirely up to the DM. The template is just fine as it is considering the significant RP implications.

I agree on the idea that the template is balanced, but not the reasons.


It's a template designed for a melee class, and it fails epically against minor spells. Why nerf it when the template makes the character vulnerable to spells that target Will saves? A single Color Spray or Sleep makes a 2nd level Fighter with the Mineral Warrior his b****.

If the template is a problem, don't solve it with melee. Casters can rape that template with ease.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The caster can release the character from this debt of service, or if you have the template at character creation you can say that it's already passed, but that is entirely up to the DM. The template is just fine as it is considering the significant RP implications.

You can't balance it based on RP implications; the fact that someone can take it at character creation without serving someone means that it must be balanced on the assumption that they will.

[Myrmex]

You can't balance it based on RP implications; the fact that someone can take it at character creation without serving someone means that it must be balanced on the assumption that they will.

Why?


some more letters

[Sinfire Titan]

Why?


some more letters

Because RP reasons can be hand-waved, whereas mechanical reasons have to be met. Its the reason RP reasons can never justify a powerful ability.

Just look at the Cleric or Druid. One of those has a restriction that is mechanical (actually, both of them do, but one of those restrictions is removed when you step into the right campaign setting), but both have RP restrictions.

How much does the alignment restriction actually affect a Cleric? Not much. It closes some options, but even then, WotC often puts an adaption section in to allow the option to other alignments.

How often does the druid's armor restriction come into play? More often than you think. Even using an option like Dragonhide or Leafweave armor means that you've admitted the restriction is there, and have found a mechanic that allows you to compensate for the restriction.

The Cleric's other restriction (spells with alignments) is bypassed by playing in an Eberron game. There, you don't even need to match your deity's alignment. You just have to justify it with a minor bit of background, and you're set.

[JellyPooga]

You can't balance it based on RP implications; the fact that someone can take it at character creation without serving someone means that it must be balanced on the assumption that they will.

The other balancing factor, which you fail to address, of it being a 6th level spell with material and XP components is also an important one. To have it cast on you will cost at least 660 for the spell service plus 500 for the material component + (1250 x your HD) for the XP cost. So I present a table of cost by your own HD (up to 10):

1: 2410
2: 3660
3: 4910
4: 6160
5: 7410
6: 8660
7: 9910
8: 11160
9: 12410
10: 13660

As you can see, to pay for the template out of your Starting Wealth by Level (as the template has a listed cost and is not a racial one or one aquired through disease like lycanthropy, that cost should should be paid as a player character), you can't even afford it at all until ECL 5 (6 including the template itself) and it's not viably affordable until you're around ECL 8 or 9 and even then you're blowing about half of your WBL on this one template and you have to suck up the year or servitude. By the time your character is at that sort of ECL, the Mineral Warrior abilities are starting to diminish on their utility because magic is starting to really dominate the game.

Where it starts becoming a problem is if a player starts making low-level Mineral Warrior minions of his own, but that can easily be rectified by slamming the banhammer on the Leadership feat anyway (without which a player should not be getting minions as a matter of game balance anyway).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Both the GP and XP costs are based on the target's HD, it's (500 gp and 250 XP) per HD, not 500 gp and (250 XP per HD).

[JellyPooga]

Both the GP and XP costs are based on the target's HD, it's (500 gp and 250 XP) per HD, not 500 gp and (250 XP per HD).

I was going off of vague memory and your post, but yeah, that emphasises my point even more...i.e. that you can't afford it until magic is dominating the game.

[Gaiwecoor]

Yeah, as far as the RP costs for the template, I was largely considering the mystic hand-wave, and coming up for another reason to explain its presence.

What brought this all up is that I'm DMing for a group of 3 first timers. One of them - a beguiler/warlock working toward Eldritch Theurge - has, for story reasons, started down the path to becoming a half-fey. I'm looking for an option to present to the barbarian, so he doesn't feel like I'm trying to throw "free" abilities at the beguiler/warlock. Since he's largely a bash-in-the-door and squish the baddin' type character, Mineral Warrior seemed to fit on first glance. Do you think this would work, or do you have other recommendations?

(Also, the ranger/scout might be looking for something to add a unique flavor for her character. I'm still working that one out.)

Thanks!

[Myrmex]

Because RP reasons can be hand-waved, whereas mechanical reasons have to be met.

Mechanical requirements can be hand-waived just as easily as RP reasons. The assumptions CharOp makes have little bearing on an actual game.

Its the reason RP reasons can never justify a powerful ability.

That's... not an argument. You only have a premise.

How often does the druid's armor restriction come into play?

Never?

The Cleric's other restriction (spells with alignments) is bypassed by playing in an Eberron game. There, you don't even need to match your deity's alignment. You just have to justify it with a minor bit of background, and you're set.

...ok?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Mechanical requirements can be hand-waived just as easily as RP reasons. The assumptions CharOp makes have little bearing on an actual game.

No? Which would your DM be more likely to agree to?

"Hey, DM, I've found this template that looks really cool for my dwarf fighter--it turns you into a rock warrior! It's got a gold and XP cost, but there's also this 'one year of service' thing--that might not mesh well with the other characters' motivations, so could we say I've already done that and work in some plot hooks later, or maybe make this guy a patron for the whole group?"

or

"Hey, DM, I've found this template that looks really cool for my dwarf fighter--it turns you into a rock warrior! It's got this 'one year of service' thing, which is great for my backstory, but there's also a gold and XP cost--I rolled low on my starting gold, so could we say I've already paid that and the XP and work in just the story part?"

If your answer is "the first one," you've made his point. If your answer is "the second one," well, your DM is already giving out free gp and XP, so....

[Doc Roc]

With Dice here. I'm really frustrated by the "CharOp Ignores <X> By Cheating" arguments. They sit poorly with me for a wide-ranging variety of reasons. Most of us are rigorous, careful, and largely well-intentioned. I don't know why you demonize us.

Mineral warrior is strong, but has an actual literal cost associated with it. Feral is a much better choice, as it does in fact scale with level, is free, and grants many-tasty-things.

[imperialspectre]

Mineral warrior is strong, but has an actual literal cost associated with it. Feral is a much better choice, as it does in fact scale with level, is free, and grants many-tasty-things.

On the other hand, Mineral Warrior is undisputably legal in 3.5, isn't found in a book that can best be summed up as "WotC hates monsters," and isn't banned by every single 3.5 DM I've played with.

And yeah, CharOp people are not cheaters. "Optimization," in fact, is mutually exclusive with "cheating" because one is explicitly done within the limitations set by the rules and one is explicitly not done within those limitations. Sure, there are rules exploits, but none of the truly destructive ones are supposed to be used in games.

[Doc Roc]

I never said Feral wasn't too good to use. :) I just said it was the best choice. :)

[Sinfire Titan]

With Dice here. I'm really frustrated by the "CharOp Ignores <X> By Cheating" arguments. They sit poorly with me for a wide-ranging variety of reasons. Most of us are rigorous, careful, and largely well-intentioned. I don't know why you demonize us.

Mineral warrior is strong, but has an actual literal cost associated with it. Feral is a much better choice, as it does in fact scale with level, is free, and grants many-tasty-things.

That's TO, not CO. Most of the contributors for TO are CO-goers, but they are usually smart enough to know not to mix the two.

The difference is in the name. Character Optimization is meant to be practical, and is intended to be used in an actual campaign. CO will do whatever you ask them to do, provided you follow the guidelines (that said, ask them to give you the most powerful character ever or break a campaign and they will do so 6 ways to Sunday).

TO is Theoretical, pure and simple. TO is more lax with things, and does not (or tries not to) post ruling interpretations. Whereas CO will correct the poster when they are wrong, TO will run with the idea irrespective of if its RAW or not. At best, RAW gets a footnote in TO boards.





We're not always asses though. Most of us only get vitriolic when someone pushes the wrong button or ignores the guidelines.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That's TO, not CO. Most of the contributors for TO are CO-goers, but they are usually smart enough to know not to mix the two.

I have seen people complain of CO breaking the rules, though--things like Hellfire Warlock and Strongheart Vest/Naberius (most recently), or really anything else that gets into RAW, can be completely legal beyond the shadow of a doubt yet COers are accused of cheating because "it shouldn't work that way."

[Sinfire Titan]

I have seen people complain of CO breaking the rules, though--things like Hellfire Warlock and Strongheart Vest/Naberius (most recently), or really anything else that gets into RAW, can be completely legal beyond the shadow of a doubt yet COers are accused of cheating because "it shouldn't work that way."

Well, Naberuis+Hellfire works no matter how you read it, as you are actually healing the damage after taking it (they even advocate this kind of ability in FC2 by suggesting Hellfire Warlocks keep hold of wands of Lesser Restoration). Strongheart Vest is a matter of flavor (if you agree with the idea of using unborn/dead souls in place of your own to fuel Hellfire)/opinion on if Ability DR counts as immunity.

One of those is sketchy and very difficult to rule on, while the other is guaranteed to work no matter how you read it. Big difference there.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, Naberuis+Hellfire works no matter how you read it, as you are actually healing the damage after taking it (they even advocate this kind of ability in FC2 by suggesting Hellfire Warlocks keep hold of wands of Lesser Restoration). Strongheart Vest is a matter of flavor (if you agree with the idea of using unborn/dead souls in place of your own to fuel Hellfire)/opinion on if Ability DR counts as immunity.

One of those is sketchy and very difficult to rule on, while the other is guaranteed to work no matter how you read it. Big difference there.

Incarnum uses living, unborn, and dead souls: not just the unborn and dead.
Yes, you power your Strongheart vest with your very essence if you want.
Necrocarnums are the only once who only use the dead.


Strongheart vest reads as if Hardness not immunity, but I think DR should block useage of Hellfire personally.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

One of those is sketchy and very difficult to rule on, while the other is guaranteed to work no matter how you read it. Big difference there.

That was part of my point, actually; in HFW discussions, people shoot down Naberius even though it works by RAW and RAI. Regarding Strongheart Vest, it's no more immunity to ability damage than DR X/adamantine is immunity to hit point damage--however, for every person arguing that it is immunity, there's usually another person saying "If you reduce or heal the Con damage you shouldn't get a hellfire blast, because it's not fair."

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That was part of my point, actually; in HFW discussions, people shoot down Naberius even though it works by RAW and RAI. Regarding Strongheart Vest, it's no more immunity to ability damage than DR X/adamantine is immunity to hit point damage--however, for every person arguing that it is immunity, there's usually another person saying "If you reduce or heal the Con damage you shouldn't get a hellfire blast, because it's not fair."

Strongheart Vest is disputed because it prevents you from taking the damage, thus putting it on shaky ground.

Naberius is perfectly legit, because you are taking the damage, even if the damage heals the following round.

Going back to the original topic, RP requirements are *not* optional or 'handwaived' in any game I run. I consider them to be just are real as mechanical requirements.

[Sinfire Titan]

That was part of my point, actually; in HFW discussions, people shoot down Naberius even though it works by RAW and RAI. Regarding Strongheart Vest, it's no more immunity to ability damage than DR X/adamantine is immunity to hit point damage--however, for every person arguing that it is immunity, there's usually another person saying "If you reduce or heal the Con damage you shouldn't get a hellfire blast, because it's not fair."

And that's where someone like me pipes in and says: "Not fair, to who? The Baatezu? They get cheated out of profit damn near every day. Casters? So what? Let the Warlock have its cake and eat it. Casters have other toys. Archers? Even if you got 90d6/round out of the Hellfire Warlock, it wouldn't compare to the damage a properly optimized archer build can do in a single standard action (Greater Manyshot+Splitting enhancement+Skirmish)."


The fact is, there's no actual answer to the whole Strongheart Vest+HFW other than what the DM rules, and once that happens there's no point in arguing it with each other if the DM isn't amongst us.