|
Tell you what, when you can explain to me why Iron Heart surge ends an antimagic field, ends a mass spell for all the victims if you preform it, and does so as a maneuver you can get at 5th level, I'll be more inclined to think the book is balanced.
Wizards customer service reported that Ironheart surge can end any effect you are under, no questions. This means exactly that, and in the response they even specifically name anti-magic field as one of the things you can destroy.
Tell me why a 3rd level maneuver should beat a spell that Disjunction has a CHANCE of destroying.
Don't believe me?
Taken from here
Q: Dear Sage,
What exactly can or can’t iron heart surge (Tome of Battle p68) remove?
--Franco
A: Instantaneous effects can’t be removed by iron heart surge. However, any effect with a duration of 1 or more rounds, including permanent-duration spells or effects, may be removed by iron heart surge, nor does iron heart surge restore damage, ability burn, or ability drain. (Because ability burn can't be healed magically or psionically, it would be safe to assume that it can't be healed through maneuvers either.)Iron heart surge doesn’t replace lost levels (though it would remove any negative levels resulting from a single spell or effect). It would neutralize a single poison coursing through your system, or a single disease that afflicted you.
The ability was meant to end status affects, even though it was poorly written, and if both of us were to write customer service about the issue if 3.5 was still supported I am sure we would get different answers. It has happened more than once. Using customer service is about as valid as asking some random stranger walking the street.
You forgot to add this from the top of the page.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
If you have a question that hasn't been answered here, you can ask Customer...
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
So, to that end, how do I realize a Spanish fencing master of the arcane circle school via the Tome of Battle?I would use a Warblade choosing stances and maneuvers from the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart disciplines and describing the abilities as resulting from calculated precise angles of attack. Regaining maneuvers could be referred to as "redrawing the circle" as an example of altering the flavor to match the desired imagery, or "Sapphire Nightmare Blade" could become "Pass on the Oblique Chord".
Fair enough. I would consider that workable.
What I wouldn't consider workable is cheese like the Iron Heart Surge ruling listed above.
Any "trumps everything with no chance of failure" effect is the definition of cheese, especially when it's a lower level power that trumps a higher level effect.
Even if a high level spell has a lower level spell as an Achilles' heel, it should be something like the chain of spells used to bypass a Prismatic Sphere.
I think I'd still be disallowing it based on the balance issues unless a player offered a way to fix the most obvious abuses, such as the Iron Heart Surge cheese just cited.
So, to that end, how do I realize a Spanish fencing master of the arcane circle school via the Tome of Battle?I would use a Warblade choosing stances and maneuvers from the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart disciplines and describing the abilities as resulting from calculated precise angles of attack. Regaining maneuvers could be referred to as "redrawing the circle" as an example of altering the flavor to match the desired imagery, or "Sapphire Nightmare Blade" could become "Pass on the Oblique Chord".
I second this.
Warblade uses the mind as much as the body (int to a bunch of attack conditions), and is more of a light fighter, since it prefers light to medium armor and gets uncanny dodge.
Diamond Mind is great for representing fencing styles, with it focus on precise strikes and tricky abilities. I disagree somewhat on Iron Heart as the second school however; I would go with Tiger Claw for the dual wielding and acrobatic potential.
I feel that this would be a more appropriate build than a fighter, because the fencer uses cunning and agility to out MANEUVER an opponent, rather than just relying on consistent use of the same tricks (high BAB).
Another possibility, if you wanted to go with the more "mystic" angle would be swordsage, with Diamond, Tiger, and Setting Sun (especially good for voiding attacks). This would have the advantage of capturing the agile fighter concept even better (wisdom to ac), while giving a very esoteric feel.
Do note that to stay in feel, classes have to pick from appropriate stuff... While its true that a character with one of the above builds COULD pick up the ability to make a whirlwind of fire, or throw his rapier 20 feet in a line, it wouldn't be appropriate. But this is also no different than a fighter/barbarian/ranger buying a bunch of inappropriate feats, mashing them together, and calling themselves fencers.
If used with a bit of consideration, Bo9S can add a great deal of variety and novelty to builds that were formerly poorly realized within the scope of the system.
Edit:
To the whole "IHS is broken" all I can say is that I've seen it in fiction on many occasions. Warrior martials their fighting spirit, overcomes bonds of magic and steel alike, and then bashes the big bad's head in. Or breaks the evil artifact. Or whatever. In a fluff sense it totally works. And in a balance sense it does too; a huge part of why casters always overpowered warriors was b/c they had no way of fighting the majority of effects casters could throw... IHS is that defense. It takes a round to do, can only be done once (unless refreshed, which will take more time), and takes up offensive maneuver slots (of which warblades get a limited number). The only thing I take issue with is that it was somewhat poorly worded, and should not "end effects" that are fields, but merely their impact on the character... However, I can see it thematically working, the spirit of the warrior shattering the spell matrix. But that may be too esoteric or high fantasy for some GM's.
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
So, to that end, how do I realize a Spanish fencing master of the arcane circle school via the Tome of Battle?I would use a Warblade choosing stances and maneuvers from the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart disciplines and describing the abilities as resulting from calculated precise angles of attack. Regaining maneuvers could be referred to as "redrawing the circle" as an example of altering the flavor to match the desired imagery, or "Sapphire Nightmare Blade" could become "Pass on the Oblique Chord".Fair enough. I would consider that workable.
What I wouldn't consider workable is cheese like the Iron Heart Surge ruling listed above.
Any "trumps everything with no chance of failure" effect is the definition of cheese, especially when it's a lower level power that trumps a higher level effect.
Even if a high level spell has a lower level spell as an Achilles' heel, it should be something like the chain of spells used to bypass a Prismatic Sphere.
I think I'd still be disallowing it based on the balance issues unless a player offered a way to fix the most obvious abuses, such as the Iron Heart Surge cheese just cited.
I agree that Iron Heart Surge as written is ridiculous, but I credit that to a lack of playtesting, and editing. There should have been an except....., but we know how well those guys edited books.
|
|
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Actually a Mass Spell is one effect that targets multiple people. The ruling wasn't that you end the effect for yourself, just that you end the effect. So when you end a Mass spell, it ends for you and everyone else. Also to clarify while it says Personal, only affects you, that means not that the Iron Heart Surge can't have effects that affect other people. Contact Other Plane ostensibly allows you to interact with someone else, but by your ruling I couldn't cast the spell, because it affects only me. Technically it does affect them too. The side effects can affect other people, its just you must be the primary person.
Its personal so you don't Iron Heart Surge your friend out of a dominate.
The common house rule is that Iron Heart Surge only stops the effect for yourself. This is a house rule, not at all the Raw, which someone else is saying was perfectly balanced.
|
|
Edit:
To the whole "IHS is broken" all I can say is that I've seen it in fiction on many occasions. Warrior martials their fighting spirit, overcomes bonds of magic and steel alike, and then bashes the big bad's head in. Or breaks the evil artifact. Or whatever. In a fluff sense it totally works. And in a balance sense it does too; a huge part of why casters always overpowered warriors was b/c they had no way of fighting the majority of effects casters could throw... IHS is that defense. It takes a round to do, can only be done once (unless refreshed, which will take more time), and takes up offensive maneuver slots (of which warblades get a limited number). The only thing I take issue with is that it was somewhat poorly worded, and should not "end effects" that are fields, but merely their impact on the character... However, I can see it thematically working, the spirit of the warrior shattering the spell matrix. But that may be too esoteric or high fantasy for some GM's.
My problem isn't the fact it exists.
My problem is the effect exists as such a low level, and does such ridiculous things at that level. Its one thing to have a surge of strength to overcome a hold person, quite another to end a Dominate monster in effect on you from a 20th level caster, at level 5.
The fact it ends an effect that is present on you, with no miss chance, and no taking into account the strength of that effect is the ridiculous part. Move it to Iron Heart 8 and we can talk then, because then its in line with other effects like it.
I just don't see the fifth level Warblade besting the 20th level casters strongest spell so easily.
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Actually a Mass Spell is one effect that targets multiple people. The ruling wasn't that you end the effect for yourself, just that you end the effect. So when you end a Mass spell, it ends for you and everyone else.
The common house rule is that Iron Heart Surge only stops the effect for yourself. This is a house rule, not at all the Raw, which someone else is saying was perfectly balanced.
That is not a house rule
The book says "personal". Personal only affects you. Even without the "personal" the book never says anything that extends it past the user of the ability. RAW it only affects the Warblade.PS: If you would like to point me to the RAW that says it affects everyone this can be quickly ended.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Dude, don't go there. Most of the cust serv rulings were consistent, with that question in specific getting answered several times. Further, most of the serious rules community was in agreement on it. Sure, you CAN ignore it, but that was in fact the way it was meant. I would also argue that by RAW that is exactly what it does, and the ruling was just to clarify more than anything.
Edit: "ends the effect". That's all that really needs to be pointed out.
To those that do have a problem with it, why not just make it a dispel check, perhaps at a bonus equal to Wis or something? Seems more fair, but with enough advantage that the maneuver wouldn't be totally nerfed.
Honestly, I think Iron Heart Surge should do an effective caster level check contest, as with dispelling, with the hopes of carving a personal exemption, such that the Big Bad wizard gets to wrestle with the guy with the sword, the wizard's magic versus the warrior's determination.
And the refresh ability with dispelling is already a problem. My last game, the paladin got a Holy Avenger, which has Greater Dispel Magic once per round as a standard action. For noncombat situations, this consisted of him holding the sword and saying "Click.... Click.... Click...." until the dispelling succeeded. Much like a warlock's Voracious Dispelling and other similar unlimited effects.
I may have to rule that you get only one attempt per dispelling source, and consumable resources, including memorized spells and spell slots, count as separate sources.
I have no problem with the concept of a warrior wresting off a wizard's spell through force of will, apart from the idea that the warrior's will is always and without question by the RAWs raw cheese more powerful than the wizard's magic.
I have heard it said, more than once, that the Tome of Battle must have been written by someone who really hated wizards. And while wizards can make cool villains, and are the standard ones for the Conan stories, it should also be remembered for play balance that some of them are supposed to be your fellow party members.
|
|
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Actually a Mass Spell is one effect that targets multiple people. The ruling wasn't that you end the effect for yourself, just that you end the effect. So when you end a Mass spell, it ends for you and everyone else.
The common house rule is that Iron Heart Surge only stops the effect for yourself. This is a house rule, not at all the Raw, which someone else is saying was perfectly balanced.
That is not a house rule
The book says "personal". Personal only affects you. Even without the "personal" the book never says anything that extends it past the user of the ability. RAW it only affects the Warblade.PS: If you would like to point me to the RAW that says it affects everyone this can be quickly ended.
Actually this is rule by exclusion. Personal Spells are capable of affecting other people as well. By making a spell personal that means only you can be the target of the spell.
In the case of Iron Heart Surge, that means you can only end an effect that is on you. No where does it say the effect only ends for yourself. For example, if you are not in the anti-magic field you cannot end it, but when you do so, it doesn't end for JUST you, it ends for everyone else as well. By ruling mass works differently, (when mass itself doesn't specify that the targets are each separate effects) you are creating another house rule, which is fine, it makes sense like that. But by the rules each casting of a spell produce ONE effect.
Spells have a history of ending en masse when someone blows it, Hide from Undead being a popular one. The Spell is one huge effect, as the rules never state that regardless of how many targets they are sperate effects. Can you point out a rule that says otherwise?
Otherwise that's why Iron Heart Surge works the way it does, because it ends the ONE effect, and all creatures under that effect gain the benefits.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Dude, don't go there. Most of the cust serv rulings were consistent, with that question in specific getting answered several times. Further, most of the serious rules community was in agreement on it. Sure, you CAN ignore it, but that was in fact the way it was meant. I would also argue that by RAW that is exactly what it does, and the ruling was just to clarify more than anything.
Edit: "ends the effect". That's all that really needs to be pointed out.
To those that do have a problem with it, why not just make it a dispel check, perhaps at a bonus equal to Wis or something? Seems more fair, but with enough advantage that the maneuver wouldn't be totally nerfed.
To late I am already here, especially since their ruling contradicts RAW unless they errata'd "personal"
PS: There goes that "most" word again.
This was the answer from Sage.
Anti-Magic Aura is an effect that has a duration of longer than one round, therefore is fair game by the raw.
Mass Spells usually are effects with a duration of longer than one round, and when you end the effect, it was ruled all other targets were also freed of it, as the effect was a blanket over all the other.
By what they have answered and the raw, these are completely legitimate uses of Iron Heart Surge.
By RAW it does end the anti-magic affect, but I touched on that in the last post.
By RAW "personal" only affects you, so no matter what the sage or customer service says, unless errata came out it only affects the Warblade, now if you want to take someone's word over the rules that is up to you, but to ignore the rules to try to win a debate is another issue altogether.
You also saw where I bolded. That means that many of the answers are speculation. As a DM I would look over them to see which ones made sense, since they dont say which ones were answered by customer service, and which ones were answered by the writers of the book.
Actually a Mass Spell is one effect that targets multiple people. The ruling wasn't that you end the effect for yourself, just that you end the effect. So when you end a Mass spell, it ends for you and everyone else. Also to clarify while it says Personal, only affects you, that means not that the Iron Heart Surge can't have effects that affect other people. Contact Other Plane ostensibly allows you to interact with someone else, but by your ruling I couldn't cast the spell, because it affects only me. Technically it does affect them too. The side effects can affect other people, its just you must be the primary person.
Its personal so you don't Iron Heart Surge your friend out of a dominate.
The common house rule is that Iron Heart Surge only stops the effect for yourself. This is a house rule, not at all the Raw, which someone else is saying was perfectly...
So if something ends an affect, but you target yourself you beleive it affects everyone?
|
|
So if something ends an affect, but you target yourself you beleive it affects everyone?
Already answered in my post above. If you wish I could name other effects that end en masse. By the Raw, yes one well placed dispel magic could theoretically end a mass suggestion or hold person. Chain however is a different beast, as its recursive casting of the same spell.
When an effect stops working for ONE person, they specify, that is deliberate and in keeping with the ruling I created.
So, once again, show me were it says a spell produces multiple effects?
With regard to the Iron Heart Surge discussion, as wraithstrike pointed out it has a range of personal and a target of you. In effect it is a one shot targeted dispel magic that removes a single effect from your character. It does not affect any other characters nor does it remove an area effect. If you are inside a sphere of invisibility and use Iron Heart Surge to become visible, others under the same effect within the sphere do not become visible as well as the surge only affects you.
Notice how he is also saying, yes it ends Anti-Magic aura.
You're wrong, because Wraith agrees that it ends auras an area effects.
en masse .....
There are a lot of things the rules dont point out. By the one for all logic one person making a save should free everyone. By the logic of it not being stated that I can't do something I can jump, make a 91 degree turn get the rest of my jumping distance, and then come down.
So if something ends an affect, but you target yourself you beleive it affects everyone?Already answered in my post above. If you wish I could name other effects that end en masse. By the Raw, yes one well placed dispel magic could theoretically end a mass suggestion or hold person. Chain however is a different beast, as its recursive casting of the same spell.
When an effect stops working for ONE person, they specify, that is deliberate and in keeping with the ruling I created.
So, once again, show me were it says a spell produces multiple effects?
With regard to the Iron Heart Surge discussion, as wraithstrike pointed out it has a range of personal and a target of you. In effect it is a one shot targeted dispel magic that removes a single effect from your character. It does not affect any other characters nor does it remove an area effect. If you are inside a sphere of invisibility and use Iron Heart Surge to become visible, others under the same effect within the sphere do not become visible as well as the surge only affects you.Notice how he is also saying, yes it ends Anti-Magic aura.
You're wrong, because Wraith agrees that it ends auras an area effects.
I have been arguing that it does not affect area affects
Edit:
mass Charm monster
This spell functions like charm monster, except that mass charm monster affects a number of creatures whose combined HD do not exceed twice your level, or at least one creature regardless of HD. If there are more potential targets than you can affect, you choose them one at a time until you choose a creature with too many HD.
I read it as each monster being affect seperately, now if you want to read it as one big affect then one save should save them all, but I dont know any DM that would allow that ruling.
|
|
en masse .....There are a lot of things the rules dont point out. By the one for all logic one person making a save should free everyone. By the logic of it not being stated that I can't do something I can jump, make a 91 degree turn get the rest of my jumping distance, and then come down.
Actually no, not really.
Read under the section for Saving throw. Under Save Negates it talks about it having no effect on the subject.
It doesn't end the effect, the effect merely doesn't happen on that one target.
|
|
I have been arguing that it does not affect area affects
And you'd actually be wrong. It was MEANT for status effects yes, but the rulings and the way that effect reads says it works against any non instantaneous effect of longer than one round. Because of this, it affects spells as equally as the status effects it was meant to subvert.
especially since their ruling contradicts RAW unless they errata'd "personal"
Are you trying to argue that Contact Other Plane will allow me to talk with myself if I happen to be on two different planes simultaneously, but not allow me to contact any other resident of another plane?
I have been arguing that it does not affect area affectsAnd you'd actually be wrong. It was MEANT for status effects yes, but the rulings and the way that effect reads says it works against any non instantaneous effect of longer than one round. Because of this, it affects spells as equally as the status effects it was meant to subvert.
Sorry I misread the post. My mind was still in multi-target mode(the debate I am currently focused on. Yes by RAW an AoE emantion is done away with by Iron Heart Surge.
I would not allow it to end an anti-magic field however, not as a 5th level maneuver, anyway.
|
|
I have been arguing that it does not affect area affectsAnd you'd actually be wrong. It was MEANT for status effects yes, but the rulings and the way that effect reads says it works against any non instantaneous effect of longer than one round. Because of this, it affects spells as equally as the status effects it was meant to subvert.Sorry I misread the post. My mind was still in multi-target mode(the debate I am currently focused on. Yes by RAW an AoE emantion is done away with by Iron Heart Surge.
I would not allow it to end an anti-magic field however, not as a 5th level maneuver, anyway.
And that would be a house rule.
Something someone is arguing loudly is not needed.
EDIT: And your edit to your post is still negated by the RAW.
especially since their ruling contradicts RAW unless they errata'd "personal"Are you trying to argue that Contact Other Plane will allow me to talk with myself if I happen to be on two different planes simultaneously, but not allow me to contact any other resident of another plane?
Contact other planes is meant to contact deites, power entities, and the like. You cast it on yourself to speak to these beings.
I am curious as to how you are on two different planes though.
I did not look up the spell so I dont know if there is a way to use it to speak to a non-deity by RAW.
Another point: Asking me if something is valid by RAW, and asking me if I will allow it are two different things.
Contact other planes is meant to contact deites, power entities, and the like. You cast it on yourself to speak to these beings.
It's a spell with a range of Personal. It can't affect these other beings. Or am I misreading it?
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?
EDIT: And your edit to your post is still negated by the RAW.
I said a few posts ago it negates the anti-magic field by RAW. My argument is that it was not intended to affect everyone else under one spell(mass or chain spells).
Chain spells have a bunch of individual effects. IHS won't remove the effect from anyone else affected by it.
Mass spells have one effect which affects everyone, much like an AoE effect. IHS will remove the effect, which means that it's not affecting anyone anymore.
Contact other planes is meant to contact deites, power entities, and the like. You cast it on yourself to speak to these beings.It's a spell with a range of Personal. It can't affect these other beings. Or am I misreading it?
In the last post I said casting it on yourself allows you to be able to speak to them. That is right in the spell description, and since it gives the caster the ability to communicate 2 ways it is not a contradiction. If you try to cast it on your buddy to so he can speak with a deity that would be an issue.
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?
Never seen a WotC book that didn't.
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?
No.
B/c it had some incredible ideas, most of which DID work out. It had mistakes. Virtually every book that WotC put out either needed errata or had something that could be used to break the feel and/or mechanics of the game. The things that see the most hate however are generally things that are "different" somehow, because they either add a lot of content at once, or just rub people the wrong way simply BECAUSE they are different. Spell Comp saw far less hate than Bo9S, despite having some pretty scary stuff that amped the power of casters even further... but it was also safe, well traveled territory.
Chain spells have a bunch of individual effects. IHS won't remove the effect from anyone else affected by it.
Mass spells have one effect which affects everyone, much like an AoE effect. IHS will remove the effect, which means that it's not affecting anyone anymore.
Instead of wasting your time I will say I dont accept the ruling, but even if I did I would not allow the mass thing to work. Emanations such as the silence spell I would have to look at. It should definitely have a spell level cap if the affect is not a status.
I have never had to deal with it because my players are to don't care to learn the mechanics for the book so I only use it for NPC's.
Agreed on the quality. Few game companies IN THE WORLD, EVER have come close to their level of quality control and playtesting. The fact that they put out a system of the complexity and breadth of 3.5 and Magic, and that they both worked despite some occasional brokenness, is testament to their quality... It's just that they kept churning out stuff when it was unnecessary. But thus is the nature of any company.
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?Never seen a WotC book that didn't.
HEH, QFT right there, some worse then others
Agreed on the quality. Few game companies IN THE WORLD, EVER have come close to their level of quality control and playtesting. The fact that they put out a system of the complexity and breadth of 3.5 and Magic, and that they both worked despite some occasional brokenness, is testament to their quality... It's just that they kept churning out stuff when it was unnecessary. But thus is the nature of any company.
I think(have no proof) they were given unreasonable deadlines to have the books out. Craven, as an example never should have made it out in its current form.
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?No.
B/c it had some incredible ideas, most of which DID work out. It had mistakes. Virtually every book that WotC put out either needed errata or had something that could be used to break the feel and/or mechanics of the game. The things that see the most hate however are generally things that are "different" somehow, because they either add a lot of content at once, or just rub people the wrong way simply BECAUSE they are different. Spell Comp saw far less hate than Bo9S, despite having some pretty scary stuff that amped the power of casters even further... but it was also safe, well traveled territory.
eh Bo9s would work great for a game with non core stuff, and a non standard setting, still needs rebalanced even then. It was a beta and it shows
I think(have no proof) they were given unreasonable deadlines to have the books out. Craven, as an example never should have made it out in its current form.
I am with you here, many things are unpolished and well frankly come off as need more testing, if it got testing. Alot of the later stuff seems rushed and unfinished. Big corporations often give unreasonable timetables and want something out then, no excuses. I never worked for one int hat industry but the one I did work for was like that.
Off-Topic: I like you guys. You are a lot more civil than the other board I used to go to.
I will be back in a few days(I just dont want you thinking I am ignoring anyone).
eh Bo9s would work great for a game with non core stuff, and a non standard setting, still needs rebalanced even then. It was a beta and it shows
Oh, I certainly agree that it would have to be non-core. But for 3.5 or pathfinder? I'm fine with that, think it works great.
The only things I would change about the book:
ORGANIZATION!
Better prestiges with more variety
switch the warblade d12 over to the crusader
add a section on adapting the stuff to various types of settings
EDIT: and I will agree that some of their stuff was a bit rushed at times, especially the things that came out around an edition change (3.0 to 3.5, as well as 3.5 to 4.0)
|
|
Chain spells have a bunch of individual effects. IHS won't remove the effect from anyone else affected by it.
Mass spells have one effect which affects everyone, much like an AoE effect. IHS will remove the effect, which means that it's not affecting anyone anymore.
Instead of wasting your time I will say I dont accept the ruling, but even if I did I would not allow the mass thing to work. Emanations such as the silence spell I would have to look at. It should definitely have a spell level cap if the affect is not a status.
I have never had to deal with it because my players are to don't care to learn the mechanics for the book so I only use it for NPC's.
Not to gloat, but that's the point I'm talking about. That book has several house ruling that are given to it, without even realizing it. It has to be heavily watched to make sure its working as intended. It is because of that, that most DM's would rather ban the book outright than be forced to rewrite an entire AP or campaign to work with it.
Now, when the people who KNOW about this book argue it in front of those never experienced with it. It taints it and that's when you get the people who don't understand WHY the Book of Nine is problematic saying "I'll just ban it because these guys made a good point, even if I don't understand it."
Then those who don't understand or maybe do see a flawed argument and begin to pick at it. The guy knows the argument is there he just might not be able to put it out correctly, or even remember it, so he stubbornly sticks to it thinking he's right.
That's when we get cases like Wraith here where you have someone stating something and looking for yes men, because the guys who knew and understood the effects of the ability, aren't around to correct the preconceptions.
If Iron Heart Surge worked the way intended, in that it ended one ongoing status effect, that's one thing, but it doesn't. They left it too vague, and so it has all kinds of effects that are fitting under its umbrella.
Hence why this version should have been a level 8 maneuver, and a lesser version, that clearly defines that it ends say stun, daze, fatigue, exhaustion, ect., ect.
This is a major part of why I dislike the book, half the people don't understand it, so when a valid argument is made they don't know why they are wrong, because the book requires you to read carefully through and understand the interactions of the system to a degree that hasn't been necessary before.
And in doing so we learn why dispel magic had been nerfed, I mean you get lucky enough you could effectively end mass spells on a lucky roll.
For this reason, I banned Iron Heart Surge outright. The interactions and whether it is technically legal or not is too much time for me to sit down and spell out. I'd rather not worry about it, than to pick at it and figure out if its even salvageable. My friend even mentioned a house rule he wanted to implement on iron heart surge, only to find it is actually a counter in Iron Heart already.
For this reason I also banned divine meta magic, I'm tired of players finding ways to apply meta magic without increasing the spell levels. If I find anymore feats that offer similar abilities they're gone too. I discovered that the meta magic has a cost, and players should be made aware of that cost, not be trying to subvert it repeatedly...
|
|
eh can't we all agree that the Bo9s had some interesting ideal but needs work?No.
B/c it had some incredible ideas, most of which DID work out. It had mistakes. Virtually every book that WotC put out either needed errata or had something that could be used to break the feel and/or mechanics of the game. The things that see the most hate however are generally things that are "different" somehow, because they either add a lot of content at once, or just rub people the wrong way simply BECAUSE they are different. Spell Comp saw far less hate than Bo9S, despite having some pretty scary stuff that amped the power of casters even further... but it was also safe, well traveled territory.
Spell Compendium gets hate because it merely brought back the horrid spells of 3.0. When it became obvious Wizards was merely repackaging the old spells players got tired of the Completes.
The general consensus is that while yes, the book makes full casters more borked than usual, it makes non full casters (Hi there bard, paladin, ranger, assassin) into decent classes with options.
1. If you dont play with munchkins then why do you have to tie their hands with "I said so" instead of explaining why. If that is not what you meant I apologize but that is the way you make it sound. W2. I never said you had to run by my rules, but you inferred that I am complaining because I never had to DM. I only countered your statement.
3. Why do I need to kill the party to be happy. I know you said cheer, not happy(ness), but there is not to much difference. If I bring them to the brink of death without killing them I am happy. I have never actually had to deal with players whining. I am sure any DM will come across the occasional whiner, and so will I one day, but players whining sounds like a consistent thing with the way you wrote it.
PS: It sounds like due to the fact that you are a rarity(DM) you get to do whatever you want. Would you still feel this way if your group had another DM?
1. I did play with munchkins before, not anymore. I used to be a powergamer once as a player but not anymore. I grew out of it all. Now I like roleplaying more then numbers and "cool" abilities from 100 books. Try it, it is fun.
And I do not tied their hands. I just state what is allowed in my game. Who does not like it can play with a DM that does allow it and I find players that do like it. Most important thing is to play with people you will not have problems with. As a player I have left some campaigns after getting fed up with the way DM ran things or decided things. It was not for me. There is not shame in not playing with people you dislike.That is the point I am trying to bring up with my posts. If you want to play with x,y,z books and x,y,z ways and the DM only wants x book and y way then find another DM or play the way DM wants to. Or you run then game where all you want is allowed.
Just as you will not play basketball with your friends if you do not like basketball, you do not need to play in games you do not like.
As you will not complain that basketball is stupid and why do you need to throw the ball all the way up to the basket do not complain about the rules of the game that DM is running.
2. No, I said you were complaining because you are a player in that game and if you want to change things you can do that when you are a DM.
3. I do not need to kill the party. But normally the fun of combat is mostly about defeating your opponent. I as a DM cannot do this. I get most fun out of out of combat situations, and during combat if they felt it was tough.
Maybe you did not experience players whining but you are doing exactly that here. Your original post I read as whining and that is why my responses have been as harsh.
I had people whine in my campaigns but I stopped playing with those people (mostly). There are plenty more players that do want to play without wasting time complaining all the time.
PS: I do not do whatever I want, LOL. I just set up rules before the campaign starts. And I explain this to players, and if they still want to play I expect they agree with these rules. I also change stuff I see as unbalancing and problematic during the campaign. I do not do it out of whim. Each of my changes got a good reason behind it (to me).
And I am not sure what you ment about my group having another DM. The whole group just leaving suddenly to play with another DM?
If that was going to happen I would not allow those kind of players to enter my game in the first place. And they would not either as I explain up front how I run things and what they can expect.
Contact other planes is meant to contact deites, power entities, and the like. You cast it on yourself to speak to these beings.It's a spell with a range of Personal. It can't affect these other beings. Or am I misreading it?
It's not affecting them at all. It's affecting you. It's making you able to hear what someone else says on another plane, and making you capable of being heard on another plane.
If the person you want to talk to you, it doesn't force them to.
Dissenger:
Banning the book seems a bit uncalled for, at least for the reasons you stated. Simply because it requires a deep level of knowledge of the rules doesn't mean it is bad... all new systems within the game require additional effort to read and grasp (psi, truenaming, vestiges, maneuvers, blah), but the rules on many of those systems are actually more balanced and well written than the core, as long as you actually do understand the rules (psi, so often reviled, was nonetheless a well written work in 3.5).
Further, the statement about just banning "what doesn't work" implies that you are willing to just toss certain things, instead of whole books (divine meta instead of tossing all of... C.Div was it?). Why not just remove the individual maneuvers that bother you, instead of the whole book, which is in large part not beset by the rules weirdness of IHS?
-----
I'll readily agree that the half-casters got a great deal out of the Spell Comp. I'm just not a fan of giving the most powerful classes in the game a whole new toolbox to dump into their pre-existing tool shed of equipment.
-----
And I have to say, looking back over this thread, it reminds me of WotC threads in the "I don't understand the rules" section of the boards. Everyday there would be someone stating "psi is/are brokenz and stupid" or "banning Bo9S makes DD better cuz fighters are kewl". A FEW people have valid reasons backing them, but for the most part they cherry pick some flaw, ignoring the dozens in the core or standard 3.5 splats they are more familiar (and comfortable) with, and then condemn every new system that comes out unless it is so weak as to be unusable, which they then call "balanced" (go go truenaming and shadow magic).
I do find it curious however that all the boards I've seen break down into this sort of argument. Why? Usually those with the best rules knowledge of the systems in question are perfectly fine with the new systems, but the ones without it, or that don't understand the overall impact of 3.5 (splats and all) and only grok core mechanics, tend to hate them. It just seems... odd.
Ok here's how I decide how and what to ban/not use.
1. Do I have a copy of it? If not it isn't likely to get in the game, but I have most of the books and will order others as long as it's from a known 3rd party or WotC and I can get it. If I can't well I will look at your copy long enough to get the basics, then likely let you try it for a weak with the agreement if the class/spell/power ends up causing issues or needing tweeks it will be changed later after we talk it out.
2. Some PrCs and even classes make no sense in the current campaigne, I will generally explain why and then let you know long before the game begins. I've done things like ban clerics because they don't really make sense in a middle earth game, stuff like that.
3. If the group decides something simply isn't fun or right we will in general agree to a rules change or ban something ahead of time. But I don't do it without input and agreement, we had one of our dms do that and well it turned us all off that type of DM. Now when we want to change a rule we try and agree ahead of time. For instance we agreed to play pathfinder raw for two weeks, before the game came out. Now we are writing it would seem books of house rules, is it me or does pathfinder seem to need more then 3.5 did?
In general we all try to decide things together. About half of us bought 4e, in less then a month we had either put it away forever or sold our copies. But it wasn't one DM saying we will now convert, or we will never use those books. It was a group thing, we read the books, talked, tried it out then decided as a group it wasn't for us. Pretty much that's how we decide things are so powerful they need to be changed. Our current target is the Paladin, he's scaring us with his power, at level 11 he seems able to replace both the fighter and cleric with little loss, could be the guy playing him could be the class. It's a hot topic with us but there are no harsh words or hurt feelings, we are all just talking about things after the session.
Ok here's how I decide how and what to ban/not use...
Not a bad way to go about it, all in all.
Regarding more houserules for PF, I think it's more that people expect it to run exactly like 3.5, which it just won't do. So they feel the need to houserule to meet prior expectations.
Regarding pally, I don't precisely want to get into it here, but yeah. I think it is easily the most powerful of the warrior classes, and definitely the more swingy of them as far as altering the CR of an encounter. Smite is, to me, what puts it over the top...
Anyway, a thread talking about this:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/smiteEvilISEVIL
Stuff
This is probably the best way to handle stuff, banning it due to group decisions or fluff issues. Overpowering/Underpowering options can always be tweeked as needed, but if fluff is tied to much to mechanics it can be a royal pain to remove (if you can remove such fluff aspects, some classes just plain don't work if fluffy abilities are removed).
If I disallow something IG, odds are I don't like the fluff, I dolike but it doesn't fit, or I think the mechanics are clunky. It'll rarely be due to power, since that's something that can always be fixed with the right level of imagination.