Best Reasons NOT to Gish

[liquidformat]

War Hulks definitely don't.

War Hulks can't gish, its not a matter of wanting to or not. Frenzied berserker or anything with rage that doesn't have runescarred berserker or CG rarely gish since its a pain to try and do so.

[AMFV]

War Hulks can't gish, its not a matter of wanting to or not. Frenzied berserker or anything with rage that doesn't have runescarred berserker or CG rarely gish since its a pain to try and do so.

What stops a War Hulk from Gishing? They can take levels in a class that grants spellcasting. "No Time To Think" only applies to skills. But yeah the principle reason why you wouldn't Gish is that you're getting better stuff from what you're taking than limited casting.

Edit: Actually Divine Power fixes probably your biggest problem as a War Hulk, not advancing your BAB, sounds like War Hulks would really want to Gish if they can.

[liquidformat]

What stops a War Hulk from Gishing? They can take levels in a class that grants spellcasting. "No Time To Think" only applies to skills. But yeah the principle reason why you wouldn't Gish is that you're getting better stuff from what you're taking than limited casting.

Edit: Actually Divine Power fixes probably your biggest problem as a War Hulk, not advancing your BAB, sounds like War Hulks would really want to Gish if they can.

hum weird, I thought it had expressly said you can't cast spells but you are correct.

[AMFV]

hum weird, I thought it had expressly said you can't cast spells but you are correct.

It would definitely make sense! I can understand that misunderstanding cause it's like a rule that would make sense for that. I hadn't thought about using Divine Power for that, but it's actually potentially a really good fix.

[Maat Mons]

Someone without magic is a "muggle."

I prefer the terms "mundane," "magically-challenged," or "loser."

[Troacctid]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle."

"Martial" is the 4e term for it.

[pabelfly]

You're missing every single feat, I mentioned. You're missing the fact that you have an accuracy penalty at 6 and I don't. You can't calculate your chance of hitting as being the same when you are taking away from that for Power Attack. But I guess we'll play. According to Optimization by the numbers the average AC at CR 6 is 19 and the average HP is 69.12. Of course since the DM is picking intentionally the averages are likely to mislead. Let's take the maximums instead... The maximum AC you will see is 29, and the maximum HP is 133. Notably you are by your own calculations doing lower damage than the average CR 6 Monster has.

Why do you have 2 more Strength than I do? Why would you assume that I wouldn't buy a strength item? That's just disingenuous we are into absolutely bull**** stuff here. But let's actually calculate.

We'll take your AC 20 though.

Using the power attack calculator given the factors that you have presented your average damage at AC 20, subtracting 1 is 31ish. That's pretty decent, that's not enough to necessarily kill the average monster but you'll do good damage.

Also important to note that I have Rage also... So Strength would be the same.

So I would probably buy a +1 Valorous Greatsword for double damage on a charge. And I'd probably buy a +2 Belt of Giant Strength, so I might actually have lower Strength here, but we'll calculate it out.

So assuming that I start with 18 Strength, cause of course I would. My strength is going to be:

22 (Starting Orc at 18) + 4 (Rage) + 1 (Stat Adjustment, Sadly odd numbers) + 2 (Gauntlets of Ogre Power). That puts me at 29 Strength with no buffs. That is a +9. I'll alter your calculations to also have that +9 assuming that you would probably make the same choices in that regard. Since that is the fair assumption. Cause I'm assuming you'd also grab power gloves, since that's well within WBL. Now you have explicitly stated that you have a +1 Weapon. So we'll go with that. In a Mid OP environment you wouldn't probably want Valorous.

So we both have a to-hit bonus of:

+9 (For Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement). And you have an additional +1 for Weapon Focus. Now you're highest damage option is actually to take -1 on your PA rather than a big minus. At least according to Donjon's PA calculator which I will be using for this and assuming that it is generally accurate. I will probably have to calculate my own stuff since they don't actually factor in a lot of what I'm doing.

That gives you an attack line of (Including Power Attack, since you can't talk about Power Attack and Shock Trooper and then just ignore the advantage of Shock Trooper... COME ON MAN)

+17 and and +12. (Once you take off the optimal amount for PA (I'll also include full PA cause it'll be edifying here)... Including the charge bonus.

And that gives you a damage of

7 (2d6) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Power Attack) + 13 (9 * 1.5) Strength with an extra +2 for Weapon Specialization.

Your chance to hit AC 20 is 90% on the first hit (you have to roll better than a 3) and 65% on the second (you have to roll better than an 8) so your average damage will be 37.2 on a charge, that's respectable. And assuming you bought a valorous weapon that'd be 74.4 That's damned respectable that is not enough to GAURANTEE you're killing an enemy charge, but it's real close.

Now let's do me!

I have Punishing Stance (Cause why not)... I have Leap Attack (cause I said that was mandatory).

So my to-hit is +9 (Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Charge) + (6/1). No minuses because we have Shock Trooper. So we're taking those penalties to AC and hoping that Wall of Blades will save us, or the fact that we are actually gonna kill what we hit at CR 6.

So that leaves us with +18 and + 13. So first hit is a 2 up, for 95%. Second is a 7 up for 70%.

My damage per hit will be:

7 (2d6) + 18 (300% Power Attack from Leap Attack, we're eating the whole thing) + 3.5 (Punishing Stance) + 13 (Strength)

So without Valorous Weapon that would be 68.475 damage on a charging full attack. You're at 37.2. With a Valorous Weapon that's 136.95. The highest health in Optimization by the numbers at CR 6 is 133. So basically I am guaranteed to delete a monster with that charge. (Of course if the is optimizing then there might be tougher monsters, but point still stands.)


I wouldn't have done all this but you came out and did super disingenuous math making really negative assumptions about my build and ignoring things I'd said. And our AC is still probably manageable, we're only at a -6 to AC, so we actually might be okay on AC. But yeah, when you're calculating other people's stuff you want to make assumptions that they are not being idiots. That's not at all okay to do

Edit: And that's not the peak Ubercharger that's a build thrown together.

Edit 2: I Also probably would have taken Whirling Frenzy so that's not going to significantly alter the difference, actually would increase the gap between our builds significantly. Recalculated for Whirling Frenzy you are at 51.6 damage by my calculations and I am at 95.45. With Valorous that puts you at [/s]74.4[/s] 103 (EDIT: Was reading off the wrong column). (enough to erase an average enemy but not the toughest) and puts me at 190.9 (Way more than I need to delete the toughest enemies at CR 6 (although possibly not enough to delete optimized DM enemies.)

Edit 3: You'll note that when there's an option that both builds could take to their advantage I've given it to your build as well as mine.

Post your actual class selection and feat list and when you expect to get your feats. How do you get Leap Attack and Shock Trooper by level 6? Leap Attack is minimum fifth, due to skill point requirement, Shock Trooper is minimum level 6. You want two levels of Fighter and two Barbarian before 5th so when you pick Warblade at level 5 you get second-level manoeuvres, so how do you get both feats before level 6?

I don't have an accuracy penalty (or bonus damage from Power Attack, for that matter) because I'm not using Power Attack.

I have 4 more STR than you because I'm using Whirling Frenzy since I can use it multiple times a day (why I got Extra Rage, for the consistency). Keep in mind you don't actually want to use Rage because you are picking up "Moment of Perfect Mind" manoeuvre requires a Concentration check, but Rage won't let you make Concentration check. Let me know what you want to do here when you're posting your feat list.

[AMFV]

Post your actual class selection and feat list and when you expect to get your feats. How do you get Leap Attack and Shock Trooper by level 6? Leap Attack is minimum fifth, due to skill point requirement, Shock Trooper is minimum level 6. You want two levels of Fighter and two Barbarian before 5th so when you pick Warblade at level 5 you get second-level manoeuvres, so how do you get both feats before level 6?

First off your example WAS at level 6. So let's clear that up. You gave me an example of your character at level 6. Did you just want the free level? I mean I guess we could take off some that damage I'd only be doing 1.75ish times more than you. And also that build was an example of what you might do. Do you want me to build an actual optimized Ubercharger? I mean if you want to take this serious I will shred your damage totals. What ruleset are we using? Is LA buyback in effect. XP Penalties?

I don't have an accuracy penalty (or bonus damage from Power Attack, for that matter) because I'm not using Power Attack.

That makes sense, that's why my example version of your character was doing more damage, according to the power attack calculator you should have been taking a -1

I have 4 more STR than you because I'm using Whirling Frenzy since I can use it multiple times a day (why I got Extra Rage, for the consistency). Keep in mind you don't actually want to use Rage because you are picking up "Moment of Perfect Mind" manoeuvre requires a Concentration check, but Rage won't let you make Concentration check. Let me know what you want to do here when you're posting your feat list.

I didn't actually say I was picking MoPM. I said "that's a good one to pick up." You asked why a non-ToB would dip and that was the last example I provided. I have provided most of feat list. Also again why would i not take whirling Frenzy? I don't really think there's any reason to discuss this, you've been arguing in poor faith the whole time. Why should I spend time doing a build when you are arguing in such poor faith?

Edit: If you'd like me to build a character for the purposes of this we can start a different thread. Without Leap Attack I still significantly outdamage you. It's like 45ish, and I'd get another feat in there to play with. But yes, if you would like to actually compare builds instead of ranting about a build that was not an actual build like "Hey here's an example of a mid OP character" then we can do that.

[Darg]

Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

[AMFV]

Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

That's not really the major issue with it. There are a lot of metagame issues that make it a problem. It slows the game down. DMs don't like it. It's not actually a fun gameplay loop. And it's actually a lot harder to solve problems with minions in play. Like yeah a bunch of skeletons sounds great till a dragon breaths on them.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

If you're arbitrarily deciding gishes only get 5th lvl spells. That would fall under lower end power level. You're comparing TO to PO to make your own argument look better. Which if that's the case there's no real point to this if you limit the scale to only things that make your own argument look good. That's amusing, but that's also not reality. *shrug* And Hurlers and D2 Crusaders are basically buzzwords at this point, there's 50+ other old builds you could bring up, but I see you didn't. Because most of them prove my point. Rage Mage (one of said older builds, which you'd know about if you knew more than just the buzzword names of some builds)? Hmm that's a caster that does infinity damage. By.. melee? Whoa. That would make it a gish. See? It becomes pointless. Now, if you lower the scale from "builds nobody actually plays" to incredibly high power builds that actually have seen a table....... the point stands. Properly built gishes aren't losing out on 9th lvl spells. You just sacrificed some mental stat for physical and your spell/feat choice line you into melee damage.

Clerics that focus on self buffing, and melee damage fall under that.. certain Sorc builds that dip for defensive oriented power while not losing strength... RKV builds that aren't breaking the game etc.
Personally I'm a fan of Divine caster Gishes.

[AMFV]

If you're arbitrarily deciding gishes only get 5th lvl spells.

So you're just being disingenuous and deliberately ignoring that this was the original post:

There are so many prestige classes that can add ok to decent spellcasting with minimal loss of martial capabilities or continue a progression from a dip, so one could easily turn any fighter into a divine, arcane, or psionic gish

There are exactly three classes that gives you full casting under those circumstances. Divine Crusaders who are INCREDIBLY limited in their casting. Ur-Priests, who have a crapload of roleplay baggage and are a known power-gaming trick, and Sublime Chords, who are incredibly hard to qualify for (and require prior casting). Knight of the Weave gives you extremely limited 6ths. Nar Demonbinder gives you limited, but also requires prior casting. Everything else that you could go into after being a martial with limited loss of melee capability only gets you 5ths.

So the question is "Do I want to really jack up my martial abilities or potentially get limited casting" and both answers can be valid there. But there are definitely builds that value the martial stuff over limited casting, especially if you have FULL casters already covering down on that.

That would fall under lower end power level. You're comparing TO to PO to make your own argument look better.

I'm not, you have misunderstood my argument could you reread it please. Potentially slower. Because you are responding to something that I have not said.

Which if that's the case there's no real point to this if you limit the scale to only things that make your own argument look good. That's amusing, but that's also not reality. *shrug*

Are you arguing that MINIONMANCY isn't TO? Come on dude, be fricking serious here.

And Hurlers and D2 Crusaders are basically buzzwords at this point, there's 50+ other old builds you could bring up, but I see you didn't. Because most of them prove my point. Rage Mage much? Hmm that's a caster that does infinity damage. By.. melee?

They don't actually, because your point was "Martials have no TO stuff" so basically to disprove that all I have to do is show comparable TO builds. Since you were doing Minionmancy which is absofrickinglutely TO, don't even front man. Yes, Casters have TO builds too. I'm confused because that isn't something I was arguing against. Only that if you were talking PO you have to compare PO to PO. Not Minionmancy which is TO, to PO.

Rage Mage much?

What the **** does that even mean? Like what are you even saying there. That's incomprehensible. Again maybe reread your own post.

Whoa. That would make it a gish. See? It becomes pointless. Now, if you lower the scale from "builds nobody actually plays" to incredibly high power builds that actually have seen a table....... the point stands. Properly built gishes aren't losing out on 9th lvl spells. You just sacrificed some mental stat for physical and your spell/feat choice line you into melee damage.

Yes, and Caster Gishes are not the subject of this thread, reread the OP. 9ths and +16 BAB is not what we're talking here. We're talking Fighter that takes Knight of the Weave. Or Divine Crusader. Those were the examples given.

Clerics that focus on self buffing, and melee damage fall under that.. certain Sorc builds that dip for defensive oriented power while not losing strength... RKV builds that aren't breaking the game etc.
Personally I'm a fan of Divine caster Gishes.

Yes and those are AS YOU SAY. Caster Gishes. Caster Gishes are not the subject of this thread. If you're asking why build an Ubercharger instead of a Sorcadin? There are quite a few reasons. A sorcadin has less offensive power unless you're doing something like minionmancy. Maybe you want to play something different. Maybe you don't want to be spending half your actions being an above average (but not top) martial and the other half being a **** caster.

[Maat Mons]

It might be worth considering Maho-Tsukai. With 5 levels in either Duskblade, Hexblade, or Sohei, you can take 1 level of Maho-Tsukai and jump straight to 3rd level spells using the Spell Conversion class feature.

[AMFV]

It might be worth considering Maho-Tsukai. With 5 levels in either Duskblade, Hexblade, or Sohei, you can take 1 level of Maho-Tsukai and jump straight to 3rd level spells using the Spell Conversion class feature.

That's not standard 3.5 right? That's like L5R?

Edit: Nevermind it's OA but it requires you be playin' with Taint... Which is probably bad.

[Gnaeus]

Are you arguing that MINIONMANCY isn't TO? Come on dude, be fricking serious here.



They don't actually, because your point was "Martials have no TO stuff" so basically to disprove that all I have to do is show comparable TO builds. Since you were doing Minionmancy which is absofrickinglutely TO, don't even front man. Yes, Casters have TO builds too. I'm confused because that isn't something I was arguing against. Only that if you were talking PO you have to compare PO to PO. Not Minionmancy which is TO, to PO.

TO means theoretical optimization. Stuff you can't use in play. Every single bit of minionmancy I have suggested (except for Stone Golems, which I just never had a caster bother with, and Mindrape) is stuff I have used in play at tables. Planar binding, check. Skeletal dragon, check. Cast dominate, check. Gate, check. If I'm NOT using them, its less likely that I can't use them than that I won't use them because someone is playing a martial and I don't want them to feel bad.

High op means stuff that is difficult to achieve, requiring advanced game knowledge, multiple moving parts, and planning. For example, most decent martial builds. High op doesn't mean better, it means using a high degree of system mastery. High opp is like knowing that your caster needs to be an outsider so that you can take alter self into a dwarf ancestor for +20 NA, an interaction with multiple elements that arent obvious in how they connect that combine to a sum greater than the parts.

Low op means easy to do. It means something you can pull off your power list without dumpster diving and realize it is useful without a game guide or being a 3.5 expert. Animate Dead is solid low op. Core. Obvious in its utility. Planar binding is slightly higher but still low op. Maybe low-mid opp on the grounds that you have to know to take 2 spells, the second being a magic circle. Still core. You might need to make some knowledge religion checks or glance at a guide to know what the best thing to summon is. The fact that Planar Binding is better than an entire fighter doesn't mean it is high op, it means fighters are bad. Everything I have suggested is available to a caster on an optimization level with a fighter who just realized 2handed style is better than sword and board. The same low opp sorcerer might take Gate and Meteor Swarm at 18.

Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

A well built gish could be medium or high op. It can, however, create a golem, or planar bind, or twice its hd in undead without changing that. And having a crazy high damage number doesn't make you more effective as a slot in your party than a character with a lower but still solid damage output, who can also drop a web or a solid fog to shut down a room full of damage monsters, or summon another fighter, or dimension door next to the boss. What you most want in your fighter type is control, followed by damage, with a big side of "can solve their own problems if their schtick gets blocked". I would usually rather have a tripper than a hurler in my party, because he is locking down a room. But he isn't locking down a room better than a druid + his pet + a bunch of walls and summons and other spell effects.

Ah - ok yes, if full minion-mancy is viable, then it's pretty much the apex of power. But IME, it isn't, not even in high-op games, for two reasons:
1) Practical time constraints. More minions means combat takes longer. A battle of "the five PCs and their 500 minions, vs several hundred foes" is going to take longer than anyone actually wants to play out. So even in a "bring the cheese" game there's always been a formal or informal limit.
2) Without a limit (which doesn't exist RAW) it becomes "arbitrarily large army vs arbitrarily large army" and not even possible to resolve by the rules. I mean, you mention "arbitrarily large number of bound and allied outsiders" right there.

The rules do also have a few choke-point factors on bringing massive armies, such as the fact that Wish is the only way to reach fully locked demiplanes, and it only brings 1 creature / CL.

But you know what? Let's toss all that aside, because it's moot. The key fact is that "arbitrary number" means it doesn't matter how many casters you have, because even with one caster you have an arbitrarily large number of minions. Controlled undead are the only ones limited per caster, all the others you mention are only limited by time and/or money, and since they're unlimited they dwarf the controlled undead into irrelevance when fully exploited.

It kinda suggest that the ideal party in a no-limits environment is "one caster who can generate arbitrarily many minions" and the rest of the party is specialized toward dealing with any situations that would prevent the minions being used, because if the minions are used then they win.

Arbitrary doesn't mean infinite, it means as many as you want. The exact number of fighters that helps you. You are casting Wish and you can only bring 1 creature/level, thats 5 PCs and 12 flunkies if you want them?

That last bit is a touch relevant, but it doesn't say you should bring a martial. Casters are vastly better than martials at problem solving. In the party I mentioned earlier, Wiz, Cleric, Druid, Beguiler, which martial is problem solving better than any of them? They all have different minions they bring to the table, and different skill sets to boot, especially if the Wizard chose to ban illusion or enchantment because there is a Beguiler there, and leave Abjuration to the Cleric and Druid. The Cleric and Druid can fill melee roles innately if they prefer. If they are supercrazymartially inclined the cleric could take a level or 2 of swordsage or crusader and grab some of that cheap TOB goodness and still bring an absurd level more utility than a muggle build.

Part of the reason minionmancy gets crazy is that DMs attribute the full xp to parties using calling spells. You're supposed to split xp between all the characters that contributed, not just the PCs. I'm not saying minionmancy isn't strong, just that if exploited can really mess up the party in the long term.

So, assuming a standard cheese tolerance so we aren't using xp tricks to add xp.....

If on this encounter you don't NEED all the minions, you don't USE all the minions. I don't see why you would cut the clerics undead mount in for a split but not the ubercharger's mount. But regardless, if you don't want your 3 Devas in the mix, tell them to stand by.

On the other hand, if you have a muggle, is he going to be happy skipping his share of the loot because we didn't need giant stack of damage dice in this encounter? No party I have ever seen is splitting rewards by contribution, but if they aren't, it isn't the pets that are leaching, it is the fighter.

[Darg]

So, assuming a standard cheese tolerance so we aren't using xp tricks to add xp.....

If on this encounter you don't NEED all the minions, you don't USE all the minions. I don't see why you would cut the clerics undead mount in for a split but not the ubercharger's mount. But regardless, if you don't want your 3 Devas in the mix, tell them to stand by.

On the other hand, if you have a muggle, is he going to be happy skipping his share of the loot because we didn't need giant stack of damage dice in this encounter? No party I have ever seen is splitting rewards by contribution, but if they are, it isn't the pets that are leaching, it is the fighter.

It's not about splitting rewards based on contribution, xp rewards are split based on who is in the party. Unlike summons, called creatures aren't a spell effect. They can act in any fashion they so choose as long as it fulfills the terms of the contract. If the DM is following only your orders and not giving the creatures personality and an independent thinking mind, that's on them. If the deva notices nice loot and decides to take it because it would help their cause, they can. A lot of times people boil binding and ally into being summon monster when it is so much more complex and varied than people make it out to be. Of course spells when used in their most permissive state are simply stronger than anything else. While a deva IS better than a fighter of equal level, the argument is dismissive of the costs that could be involved because they are unquantifiable. Saying these spells are worth more than a fighter is like saying you'll always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship. It might work because plot demands it, but it's not a guarantee.

[Gnaeus]

It's not about splitting rewards based on contribution, xp rewards are split based on who is in the party. Unlike summons, called creatures aren't a spell effect. They can act in any fashion they so choose as long as it fulfills the terms of the contract. If the DM is following only your orders and not giving the creatures personality and an independent thinking mind, that's on them. If the deva notices nice loot and decides to take it because it would help their cause, they can. A lot of times people boil binding and ally into being summon monster when it is so much more complex and varied than people make it out to be. Of course spells when used in their most permissive state are simply stronger than anything else. While a deva IS better than a fighter of equal level, the argument is dismissive of the costs that could be involved because they are unquantifiable. Saying these spells are worth more than a fighter is like saying you'll always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship. It might work because plot demands it, but it's not a guarantee.

In general, you are the ones writing the contract. You can write in the contract what their orders are. Yes, if you do a terrible job writing a contract some devas could steal your $. But a LG Trumpet Archon probably can't. Or a golem or a dragon skeleton or the meatshield you dominated, or the undead you rebuked. The Ravid or the Hellcat don't care about your stupid human gold. And thats without even considering the actual summons, or the druids pet. Or the biggest ? of all, planar ally, which generally gets you a pretty compliant ally since you are both members of your god's team but is kind of a DM choice on what you get.

Its less like you will always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship, than that a ship with sails and motor and a crew of oarsmen is always better than hiring one big dude with oars who will get paid even when the motor is going, even though it is obviously better than him, and who is going to feel bad if he isn't rowing. In any game I have been in, I would rather have planar binding than a fighter. But that argument is unnecessary. I would always rather have a CoDzilla who can pretend to be a fighter and in some cases better than a fighter but who isn't going to be outclassed when I cast summon monster 3 times or make some undead or any of the other fighter equivalents we can utilize. Like, in the most extreme examples, a wall. There is a significantly non 0 number of encounters where a muggle is flat out worse than a wall.

The muggle is never truly competing with planar binding. He is competing with someone who can cast spells that are individually comparable to a fighter, but who also has a bunch more tools at his disposal than the muggle ever will. And who may, build depending, be only slightly worse than he is at being a fighter. Or better, depending on whether being a fighter includes solving all those unusual combat circumstance issues that muggles have to solve with WBL.

[Darg]

In general, you are the ones writing the contract. You can write in the contract what their orders are. Yes, if you do a terrible job writing a contract some devas could steal your $. But a LG Trumpet Archon probably can't. Or a golem or a dragon skeleton or the meatshield you dominated, or the undead you rebuked. The Ravid or the Hellcat don't care about your stupid human gold. And thats without even considering the actual summons, or the druids pet. Or the biggest ? of all, planar ally, which generally gets you a pretty compliant ally since you are both members of your god's team but is kind of a DM choice on what you get.

Its less like you will always have wind blowing into your sails on a ship, than that a ship with sails and motor and a crew of oarsmen is always better than hiring one big dude with oars who will get paid even when the motor is going, even though it is obviously better than him, and who is going to feel bad if he isn't rowing. In any game I have been in, I would rather have planar binding than a fighter. But that argument is unnecessary. I would always rather have a CoDzilla who can pretend to be a fighter and in some cases better than a fighter but who isn't going to be outclassed when I cast summon monster 3 times or make some undead or any of the other fighter equivalents we can utilize. Like, in the most extreme examples, a wall. There is a significantly non 0 number of encounters where a muggle is flat out worse than a wall.

Your analogy makes no sense. It'd be more accurate to say that the engine may or may not come with gas and the crew may or may not be too sloshed to understand a word you try to tell them. Either way, if CoDzilla isn't being challenged through their weaknesses of course it's better than a fighter. If you summon monster 3 times and plow through your daily allotment of encounters within the duration without having your full-round casts be interrupted, then yeah it's going to be super effective. You're comparing only the strengths of one while acknowledging only the weaknesses of the other. Binding and Ally are reliant on the whim of the DM, just like CoDzilla is reliant on the whim of the DM not to just dispel your persisted spells. A fighter has feats while a CoDzilla has to rely on raw stats and vulnerable spells. If you force a binding on a creature then maybe they don't want to be there and willingly fail a dismissal save just to spite you. I doubt we'll see eye to eye on the issues presented. My initial argument was about how the existence of characters can alter a reward when part of the encounter (not every creature is a character so your undead mount doesn't necessarily qualify, but that deva sure does).

[Gnaeus]

Your analogy makes no sense. It'd be more accurate to say that the engine may or may not come with gas and the crew may or may not be too sloshed to understand a word you try to tell them.

Thats when you use the sails. Or the repulsorlift. The fighter is only ever one solution. Who is worse than most comparable individual solutions. But always worse than the combination of all the solutions that replace him. Every mid op caster, and even most low op ones, carries a bunch of different solutions.

Either way, if CoDzilla isn't being challenged through their weaknesses of course it's better than a fighter. Binding and Ally are reliant on the whim of the DM, just like CoDzilla is reliant on the whim of the DM not to just dispel your persisted spells. A fighter has feats while a CoDzilla has to rely on raw stats and vulnerable spells.

And if they are dispelled you are only a 3/4 bab character with some combat feats and a couple of undead giants and full tier 1 casting except for the 3 or 4 spells you had persisted. Oh wait, thats still better than a fighter. I'd rather shell out for some pearls of power than an entire fighter worth of gear loadout. Honestly the druid probably doesn't even stop chewing on your face. And thats assuming a low op animal druid, not the druid on an optimization level with some of the fighter types listed, using aberration wildshape to produce really broken effects, or planar shepherd to be outsider of choice.

If you summon monster 3 times and plow through your daily allotment of encounters within the duration without having your full-round casts be interrupted, then yeah it's going to be super effective.

And there are lots of ways to do that. And if you can't, it isn't the reason why you are better than a fighter, it is ONE reason you are better than a fighter. Its like something the druid can use if he doesn't feel like eating your face was a good option for some reason. Like maybe there are threats in multiple parts of the battlefield. Or the enemies have some really nasty AOE effect he doesn't want to be near. Maybe LoS issues. And none of his dozen or so high level spell options are quite the right fit. It is literally every druid's second best way to replace a fighter.

You're comparing only the strengths of one while acknowledging only the weaknesses of the other.

No, I am comparing characters who can obsolete other PCs with tiny fractions of their power, with PCs who can be made obsolete with tiny fractions of their power.

If you force a binding on a creature then maybe they don't want to be there and willingly fail a dismissal save just to spite you.

And the ways around that are as complicated as telling them not to in their contract or summoning creatures who match your goals.

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on the issues presented. My initial argument was about how the existence of characters can alter a reward when part of the encounter (not every creature is a character so your undead mount doesn't necessarily qualify, but that deva sure does).

And my response was that the fighter is taking his share of the reward even when he does not contribute. So the deva, who you admitted is often better than a fighter, has to be a bigger drain on usable resources than the fighter.

[AMFV]

TO means theoretical optimization. Stuff you can't use in play. Every single bit of minionmancy I have suggested (except for Stone Golems, which I just never had a caster bother with, and Mindrape) is stuff I have used in play at tables. Planar binding, check. Skeletal dragon, check. Cast dominate, check. Gate, check. If I'm NOT using them, its less likely that I can't use them than that I won't use them because someone is playing a martial and I don't want them to feel bad.

Those are 17th level options man. Those don't come up at most tables, most of the time. At 17th level casters have really solidified their position. But most games aren't super high level games unless you're playing in a really unusual environment.

High op means stuff that is difficult to achieve, requiring advanced game knowledge, multiple moving parts, and planning. For example, most decent martial builds. High op doesn't mean better, it means using a high degree of system mastery. High opp is like knowing that your caster needs to be an outsider so that you can take alter self into a dwarf ancestor for +20 NA, an interaction with multiple elements that arent obvious in how they connect that combine to a sum greater than the parts.

That is not the commonly used definition. Typically Op refers to both the effort and the power level involved

Low op means easy to do. It means something you can pull off your power list without dumpster diving and realize it is useful without a game guide or being a 3.5 expert. Animate Dead is solid low op. Core. Obvious in its utility. Planar binding is slightly higher but still low op. Maybe low-mid opp on the grounds that you have to know to take 2 spells, the second being a magic circle. Still core. You might need to make some knowledge religion checks or glance at a guide to know what the best thing to summon is. The fact that Planar Binding is better than an entire fighter doesn't mean it is high op, it means fighters are bad. Everything I have suggested is available to a caster on an optimization level with a fighter who just realized 2handed style is better than sword and board. The same low opp sorcerer might take Gate and Meteor Swarm at 18.

Assuming that Planar binding doesn't have it's RAW drawbacks is the high OP part.

[icefractal]

I guess my issue with minionmancy as PO is that while it's definitely possible in practice (I've done it as a player and GM'd for people using it), it requires either formal or informal limits on how many minions are allowed and how they'll be used, which will be table-specific, and that makes it hard to discuss in the context of "purely optimization".

Because without some kind of limit, it quickly goes into TO territory. Didn't somebody here (years back) talk about wearing a cloak where each individual strand of thread was a polymorphed Ice Assassin, thus yielding thousands of actions (and contingent spells) at once? Fun concept, but not by any means PO.

[Sinner's Garden]

Didn't somebody here (years back) talk about wearing a cloak where each individual strand of thread was a polymorphed Ice Assassin, thus yielding thousands of actions (and contingent spells) at once?

Tippy once made a joke that he'd still be dangerous if you stripped him to his underwear and confiscated his spellbooks because he had polymoprhed red dragon great wyrm ice assassins to make the fabric threads.

[Gnaeus]

Those are 17th level options man. Those don't come up at most tables, most of the time. At 17th level casters have really solidified their position. But most games aren't super high level games unless you're playing in a really unusual environment. .

Gate is a 17th level option. Dominate comes on line at 9. Animate at 5. Lesser PB and PA at 7. Druids have a pet at 1 and summons become decent at 4. Minionmancy probably doesn't invalidate fighters until 5, barring a party with a couple of druids. Although you could still have a battle cleric at 1, a functioning sorcadin at 3, etc.

That is not the commonly used definition. Typically Op refers to both the effort and the power level involved

1. Yes it is. There is a power level component, but only in the sense that some things aren't obvious with a high level of game mastery. A low opp fighter, lacking game mastery, might think TWF is better than THF because it gives more attacks, without thinking through strength and a half, extra weapon cost, feat cost etc. Optimization is a combination of system mastery and planning.

2. But I can see why you want to use it the other way, as a synonym for powerful. Because if you say Minionmancy is powerful, I agree. Thats my point. You compare equivalent optimization (actual definition) because what you are comparing is how powerful a fighter or wizard is in the hands of a Newb, or a forum expert who wrote a guide. You don't generally need to compare a fighter built with a guide with a wizard played by a newb picking spells because they sound cool. But using your definition, Minionmancy is higher op than fighters. And in fact, replacing higher op with more powerful, you would be right. Wizards are more powerful than fighters, thats the issue. High opp is not a bad term, suggesting that things don't see play. High opp only means you compare veterans with veterans, like you compare casual players with casual players at low opp.

Assuming that Planar binding doesn't have it's RAW drawbacks is the high OP part.

1. I'm not the one suggesting planar binding isn't usable RAW. Nothing I have suggested in any way violates RAW. Violating RAW is in fact arguing that you CAN'T have 30 planar bound minions if you want them.

2. OP is a player side thing. Every wizard taking planar binding is the same level of op. How the DM interprets the rules has little to do with player optimization.

I guess my issue with minionmancy as PO is that while it's definitely possible in practice (I've done it as a player and GM'd for people using it), it requires either formal or informal limits on how many minions are allowed and how they'll be used, which will be table-specific, and that makes it hard to discuss in the context of "purely optimization".

OK, granted, but you don't generally need to exceed whatever informal limit your table may have to be able to do the muggles job better. And its difficult to disentangle tables where there is an issue on the administrative side with the tables who restrict minionmancy because its rude to the fighter, where if you didn't have a fighter, you would be allowed more minions. Honestly, in a lot of ways, the minions that are the best analogs to martials take the least time. I could probably run 3 large elementals or golems or devils (move up and slam) in the time it takes me to figure out one turn for an angel who is essentially a caster in his own right. And I've never been at a table that banned casting summons spells, which are probably the most time consuming (pick a monster, pull out its image, input a stat block). I wouldn't say that the existence of houserules makes minionmancy TO. I would say the variability of houserules suggests we should discuss raw, with the same * I made upthread that significant changes in the rules change the game, and changing the game changes what is good in the game. I will agree that if you are in timed play (you have 2 hours ooc to finish this room, like in a con tournament) that minionmancy is way worse.

[AMFV]

Gate is a 17th level option. Dominate comes on line at 9. Animate at 5. Lesser PB and PA at 7. Druids have a pet at 1 and summons become decent at 4. Minionmancy probably doesn't invalidate fighters until 5, barring a party with a couple of druids. Although you could still have a battle cleric at 1, a functioning sorcadin at 3, etc.

Dominate isn't permanent minionmancy and has significant drawbacks. PB, lesser and greater has the drawback that it is entirely DM dependent, "unreasonable requests are always refused" and there's no definition for what that is. So a DM can do whatever they want there and still be well within RAW. Druid pets are a problem, they're not going to make the druid better at combat that an optimized build Martial, who will have ToB classes or other options. Now the Druid being able to Wildshape, continue to cast, and have a pet is a problem. But the pet itself isn't that big a problem.

I would argue that minionmancy doesn't invalidate at all typically, because it's not typically used. Or if it is used, it's used at tables where martials are much higher optimization.

How is your Sorcadin "functioning" at level 3, dude? That build don't come online at level 3. You've got first level spells, a level late. You are weaker than a ToB Class would be, the only nice thing you have is that you're not going to be failing saves. And you've just lost a bunch of HP. What 1st level spell are you using to be competitive with a 3rd Level Warblade? Or a 3rd Level Crusader? Or even a 3rd Level Swordsage? That build doesn't come online till around level 8. At best. And I'm a huge fan of Sorcadins.

You can't have a Battle Cleric at 1, because you don't have any of your buffing spells at 1. Righteous Might and Divine Power are what makes your battle cleric viable. Maybe with Flaws you could do a tripping Cleric at 1... But you don't have the feats to make the work as is, or the stats, even if you're human. What is your "functional" battle Cleric build at level 1? (Of course almost no build is "functional" at level 1. So that's a big deal. But you're not going to be even in the same ballpark as martial characters until you get Divine Power and Righteous Might. And that's early teens. Well level 9.

1. Yes it is. There is a power level component, but only in the sense that some things aren't obvious with a high level of game mastery. A low opp fighter, lacking game mastery, might think TWF is better than THF because it gives more attacks, without thinking through strength and a half, extra weapon cost, feat cost etc. Optimization is a combination of system mastery and planning.

No it is typically used as a combination of things. Are you arguing that book diving to look up the right monsters to summon for you PB isn't exactly as intensive as me looking up guides for commonly used martial build tools? Like if you want your summoning to be half-decent you're looking through probably at least three guides. You're looking at what spells monsters get, what special abilities they get... and which ones are decent in combat. That's actually three separate guides (I think the Summoners handbook has most of it, but it's a lot more reading).

So now to make your summoner function you have to read through books.

2. But I can see why you want to use it the other way, as a synonym for powerful. Because if you say Minionmancy is powerful, I agree. Thats my point. You compare equivalent optimization (actual definition) because what you are comparing is how powerful a fighter or wizard is in the hands of a Newb, or a forum expert who wrote a guide. You don't generally need to compare a fighter built with a guide with a wizard played by a newb picking spells because they sound cool. But using your definition, Minionmancy is higher op than fighters. And in fact, replacing higher op with more powerful, you would be right. Wizards are more powerful than fighters, thats the issue. High opp is not a bad term, suggesting that things don't see play. High opp only means you compare veterans with veterans, like you compare casual players with casual players at low opp.

High Op isn't a bad term. My point is that you can't compare "Wizard built with a guide" to "Fighter built by an idiot". Also a Wizard built with a guide is likely to be less disruptive, since they'll know that Polymorph is too powerful for most tables, and that summoning is too powerful for most tables... I mean both Treantmonk and LogicNinja's guides suggest what spells are too good for your wizard to be using.

1. I'm not the one suggesting planar binding isn't usable RAW. Nothing I have suggested in any way violates RAW. Violating RAW is in fact arguing that you CAN'T have 30 planar bound minions if you want them.

Planar binding is entirely dependent on your DM, so you can't evaluate it. That's the problem. You're pretending that a reasonable thing to do is to give yourself the best interpretation. Which is absolute horsecrap. That's bad optimization right there.

2. OP is a player side thing. Every wizard taking planar binding is the same level of op. How the DM interprets the rules has little to do with player optimization.

BEING AWARE OF WHICH THINGS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE A DM ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION. That's a feature in all the old guides. Treantmonk's, LogicNinja, every Person_Man guide talks about it. Knowing which rules are ambiguous [IS PART OF PRACTICAL OPTIMIZATION. Like if we're talking like builds for build contests or messing around, then loophole away. But if we're talking "I am actually bringing this to a table" knowing "Hey this thing is entirely dependent on how the DM treats one sentence" is pretty ****ing important.

Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

Unless you know exactly what the DM is going to define as unreasonable you can't rate that. Because the DM can literally shut down any request he doesn't like. That makes it not a reliable tool unless you happen to know what the DM is likely to do with it.

[vasilidor]

I played a level 20 character without spellcasting before, more than once. first was 10 levels of Fighter, 10 levels of Dragon Slayer from the Dragon book in the early 3.0 days. I thought it was cool, with cool features. Second was a Barbarian. level 20 barbarian, started at level 10. Both were played under different DMs. The Barbarian was able to get a few small spells from feats in the second game that helped a lot. I mean, night and day difference just from having a few spells like see Invisibility, resist elements, that sort of thing. I could not use them while raging, but I could cast them before raging and would in scenarios where I thought it would make sense to do so.

Then, later on, I played a fighter in Pathfinder. It was the first character I did without casting in a long while. The DM was free with the money, so I had level 20 gear by around level 9. So it is hard to say how good that guy would have been, as I had items casting spells for me.

Essentially, I don't really see a reason to not gish in some fashion, be it buying stuff to do the casting for you or taking levels in a casting class.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The way I see it, he spends his time rewriting the rules of the universe and bending them to his will. She hits stuff with a stick.

Why is she taking up resources in the party, again?

[Darg]

I played a level 20 character without spellcasting before, more than once. first was 10 levels of Fighter, 10 levels of Dragon Slayer from the Dragon book in the early 3.0 days. I thought it was cool, with cool features. Second was a Barbarian. level 20 barbarian, started at level 10. Both were played under different DMs. The Barbarian was able to get a few small spells from feats in the second game that helped a lot. I mean, night and day difference just from having a few spells like see Invisibility, resist elements, that sort of thing. I could not use them while raging, but I could cast them before raging and would in scenarios where I thought it would make sense to do so.

Then, later on, I played a fighter in Pathfinder. It was the first character I did without casting in a long while. The DM was free with the money, so I had level 20 gear by around level 9. So it is hard to say how good that guy would have been, as I had items casting spells for me.

Essentially, I don't really see a reason to not gish in some fashion, be it buying stuff to do the casting for you or taking levels in a casting class.

A lot of utility for mundane classes is tied into their ability to buy potions. It covers a lot of what they lack. Like your resist energy. See invisibility is covered by the caster pointing out the direction and distance and someone throws a dust of appearance or someone casts glitterdust. That said, personally I think the prices of scrolls and potions should be swapped, but that's neither here nor there.

[Pugwampy]

So my question is: when is it beneficial NOT to take levels in a spellcasting (or equivalent system) class?

1. When the players are newby dewby dews
2 When you playing from lvl 1
3 When you dont understand how magic works
4 When you have spellcaster in the group who knows his stuff
5. when you want to enjoy the bone crunching damage rolls of Magic Great axe
6 When you dont want to purposely weaken your character splitting levels between 2 classes . There is a mile wide difference between a lvl 10 Fighter and his buddy who is lvl 5 spell chucker and lvl 5 Clod.
7. When you actually want to be a good team player .

[Gnaeus]

Dominate isn't permanent minionmancy and has significant drawbacks. PB, lesser and greater has the drawback that it is entirely DM dependent, "unreasonable requests are always refused" and there's no definition for what that is. So a DM can do whatever they want there and still be well within RAW. Druid pets are a problem, they're not going to make the druid better at combat that an optimized build Martial, who will have ToB classes or other options. Now the Druid being able to Wildshape, continue to cast, and have a pet is a problem. But the pet itself isn't that big a problem.

Why are we comparing the low opp pet every druid gets to an optimized build martial? I'd rather have a healing druid + a riding dog than a badly built martial. Venomfire fleshrakers get compared to optimized build martials. Dominate lasts for 7 days when it comes on line, so plenty of time to dominate a couple bruisers and walk them into a dungeon. Or turn monsters in the dungeon into your pets. Druid+wildshape+casting+pet is only a problem in the sense that it makes martials look bad. So, problem for your argument? Yes. Problem for the game? no. It doesn't make wizards and clerics look bad.

In the early days, when ToB was new, before I had ever read a guide, I once played a druid. In a party with a swashbuckler, a samurai who decided samurai was OP and rerolled a monk, and a rogue. We had spell compendium, but I wasn't using venomfire or aberrant wildshape or anything we would now call high op, just your basic bear with a bear summoning bears. After a while, the DM would just copy every monster. My pet and I would fight one, the other 3 pcs would fight the other. A majority of the time I would finish first and help them out.

I would argue that minionmancy doesn't invalidate at all typically, because it's not typically used. Or if it is used, it's used at tables where martials are much higher optimization.

You can argue that green is red. Reality is clearly no bar to your arguing.

How is your Sorcadin "functioning" at level 3, dude? That build don't come online at level 3. You've got first level spells, a level late. You are weaker than a ToB Class would be, the only nice thing you have is that you're not going to be failing saves. And you've just lost a bunch of HP. What 1st level spell are you using to be competitive with a 3rd Level Warblade? Or a 3rd Level Crusader? Or even a 3rd Level Swordsage? That build doesn't come online till around level 8. At best. And I'm a huge fan of Sorcadins.

No, it isn't better than a warblade 3. ToB classes are notably front heavy. It IS better than a fighter 3. Honestly, even compared with ToB classes, you are disregarding the effects of just HAVING a spell list. A couple of useful first level wands are well within your abilities at 3. I'll just sit in my plate and shield with my battleaxe with a wand chamber holding my wand of Power Word Pain. (3, you have lost 3 hp, the difference between 5.5 and 2.5, which is probably less important than the extra +1 will. And not failing saves is commonly the difference between useful and useless, or alive or dead)

You can't have a Battle Cleric at 1, because you don't have any of your buffing spells at 1. Righteous Might and Divine Power are what makes your battle cleric viable. Maybe with Flaws you could do a tripping Cleric at 1... But you don't have the feats to make the work as is, or the stats, even if you're human. What is your "functional" battle Cleric build at level 1? (Of course almost no build is "functional" at level 1. So that's a big deal. But you're not going to be even in the same ballpark as martial characters until you get Divine Power and Righteous Might. And that's early teens. Well level 9.

The battle cleric is down 1 bab 2 hp and 1 feat from a fighter. He has +2 will save, which is important in not being made useless in encounters as early as level 1. He has 2 domains, maybe a war domain for martial weapon proficiency and weapon focus and a devotion. THEN he has spells. And turn attempts which may only be for powering his devotion. I would rather have a melee cleric in my party than a melee fighter at any level. Its not an optimized build for casting, but its more optimal than having a non caster.

No it is typically used as a combination of things. Are you arguing that book diving to look up the right monsters to summon for you PB isn't exactly as intensive as me looking up guides for commonly used martial build tools? Like if you want your summoning to be half-decent you're looking through probably at least three guides. You're looking at what spells monsters get, what special abilities they get... and which ones are decent in combat. That's actually three separate guides (I think the Summoners handbook has most of it, but it's a lot more reading).

So now to make your summoner function you have to read through books.

Honestly, you don't. You only have to be smart enough to know that summoning monsters is useful. You have a list. You pick the top monster. Figure out what it can do. If it sucks, don't use it again. Pick the next monster. Repeat. Other options are even easier. Buy some onyx. The next time you fight some big monster, after we kill it, make it your pet. 0 system mastery required, only planning is buying some onyx, or going back to town to get some onyx.

I don't think a low opp wizard is turning people into a war troll. I think he is turning them into the inferior giant. You don't need a guide to say: can I turn him into a giant? or a giant octopus? or a huge bird?

Making a martial, on the other hand, has very few opportunities for fighters who make bad choices. I can make the worst wizard in the world, and be trash for 6 levels, Decide Animate Dead and Polymorph seem cool at level 7 and be awesome. You can make a fighter with cool sounding feats like Toughness, Weapon Focus and Two Weapon fighting and maybe suck less than the wizard for a couple of levels. What choice are you going to make at level 8 to turn your trash build around? Thats what low opp means. You AREN'T planning a build, you are taking options that seem good, maybe some mix of traps and actually good choices. A low opp wizard might lose half of his 40+ spells to bad picks, and still have 20 spells, some of which are individually better than a fighter. Make a good fighter with half of his feats silly. If I, an experienced player, am sitting at the table with a badly built wizard. I can buy him a few scrolls and ask him to scribe them. If he is a badly built CoD, even easier. With a Sorcerer or Favored Soul I might have to wait until they level to make a spell suggestion. If I'm next to a bad fighter, I can't even fix him. I may be able to ask the DM for a rebuild, but even then, in most groups I have been in, "Hey, I bought you this scroll of Haste, would you scribe it?" is taken a lot better than "Hey, your fighter is unfixable. Would you mind if I threw out all your feats? Your choices are Archer, Charger or Tripper. Actually, we are crossing out the word Fighter and replacing it with Warblade."

High Op isn't a bad term. My point is that you can't compare "Wizard built with a guide" to "Fighter built by an idiot". Also a Wizard built with a guide is likely to be less disruptive, since they'll know that Polymorph is too powerful for most tables, and that summoning is too powerful for most tables... I mean both Treantmonk and LogicNinja's guides suggest what spells are too good for your wizard to be using..

1. I'm suggesting obvious core options. You are suggesting builds. A 12 year old who has never played the game but is intelligent and adaptive and playing a full caster can usually outperform a veteran with a martial build.
2. Yes, because they are concerned with showing up fighters. The problem is that muggles are so bad, they force casters to play suboptimally just to keep the table running. You can solve the problem by not taking your best spells. Or you can solve the problem by not taking a fighter with you. The party is mechanically better if you chose #2.

Planar binding is entirely dependent on your DM, so you can't evaluate it. That's the problem. You're pretending that a reasonable thing to do is to give yourself the best interpretation. Which is absolute horsecrap. That's bad optimization right there.

BEING AWARE OF WHICH THINGS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE A DM ISSUE IS OPTIMIZATION. That's a feature in all the old guides. Treantmonk's, LogicNinja, every Person_Man guide talks about it. Knowing which rules are ambiguous [IS PART OF PRACTICAL OPTIMIZATION. Like if we're talking like builds for build contests or messing around, then loophole away. But if we're talking "I am actually bringing this to a table" knowing "Hey this thing is entirely dependent on how the DM treats one sentence" is pretty ****ing important.

If it works, that one spell singlehandedly outclasses muggles. If it doesn't, you have to look at the other ways to do it, like undead creation, mind control, constructs, etc. And nothing I have suggested is a loophole.

All you need to be wildly better than a fighter is to use monsters that like to fight things, or use monsters against things they like to fight. Suggesting that the spell can't be used to compel a service, when it clearly states that it can, is the intellectually dishonest side of that argument. No, I don't think you could use planar binding to order an angel to burn down an orphanage. But ordering it to protect your party while you fight dark cultists in the temple of evil is pretty much exactly what the spell is for. And the more obviously fighter replacing the thing is, the less likely you are going to have problems. The angels, which means the casters, tend to have both intelligence and morals. An int 6 earth elemental isn't terribly likely to object to smashing things that attack you in the dungeon, and even less likely to be able to seek revenge afterwords.

Unless you know exactly what the DM is going to define as unreasonable you can't rate that. Because the DM can literally shut down any request he doesn't like. That makes it not a reliable tool unless you happen to know what the DM is likely to do with it.

I have been at a lot more tables that allow open core or core +1 than ones that ban or effective ban planar binding. Heck, IME, ToB is banned more than Planar Binding. So since we are looking at what DMs might ban, we'll just take our core options, shall we? Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm not talking about Ice Assassin. Everything on my side of the argument (other than Sorcadin's wand) is core.

[AMFV]

I have been at a lot more tables that allow open core or core +1 than ones that ban or effective ban planar binding. Heck, IME, ToB is banned more than Planar Binding. So since we are looking at what DMs might ban, we'll just take our core options, shall we? Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm not talking about Ice Assassin. Everything on my side of the argument (other than Sorcadin's wand) is core.

Let's take ToB here as an example. Iron Heart Surge... how strong is it? Can you tell me? Well if you were being honest you'd say "It depends on how the DM rules it" because it requires rulings. Same with Planar Binding. Its not that it's "likely to banned" something I've never suggested it's that "the power level of the spell depends heavily on things that the DM is expected to rule on in the context of the spell." The DM deciding if it works is literally RAW.

Edit: This is the problem with Schrodinger's Wizard in general, and that's what you're doing here. You're assuming extremely favorable rulings.