The weird thing is, I agree with both Zurai AND Pax. WOTC did not, to my knowledge, say anything negative about Gary Gygax or indeed anyone who worked on the game originally, preferring to hype the talents of their in-house staff. However, I could tell that Gygax wanted people to play a very specific way- either that or his adventures were deadly simply because he liked having a high rate of attrition. But yes, I do think WOTC did slip a bit of PC 'roids into their later products which COULD be seen as an attempt to intimidate the DM while egging on or "empowering" the PC. Not that they would ever say this, but when I stop to examine the tone of some of my WOTC stuff again, the DM IS sorta kinda the invisible evil 800 pound gorilla behind the screen throwing evil monsters that may just cause your character to- heavens forfend!- die-- unless of course you have the feats that are only available in splatbook X!
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I ran an epic FR games and sprinkled in Tomb of Horrors. I was told I had an obligation to let my players do anythingnthey wanted, since they were all going to be killed by epic, 3.5 Acererak anyway.
I didn't agree.
I did rule that in order to use Divine MEtamagic, you must also possess the feat you are using. The point of DM is to allow your channel ability to be useful in a campaign where it isn't - say, the borders of the Negative Material Plane.
In that case, your combination is pointless. You'd have to have Sudden Maximize for every time you wanted to use it. DM would simply lower the level required, which has no impact on Sudden Maximize.
Now, that is the point of Divine Metamagic. To allow more oomph into your spells, not to allow you to cast spells in a way you can't normally cast them. As DM was printed before there was a Sudden metamagic feat, I think you have to reconcile the purpose of the feat.
Again, it was never to allow you to Sudden Quicken a spell, and the feat has no downside or appreciable sacrifice if you allow it.
Isn't Divine Sudden Quicken a bit redundant? Tell me if I'm wrong! And IIRC the errata made it mandatory to have the metamagic feat the divine one was based on... or am I off on a tangent there?
In our games, I could only divine metamagic once on a spell I cast, so no divine quickened, extended, silebt Righteous Wrath of the Faithful for me (can't remember if the silent option is pointless on there, but you get the point).
After judging the various WOTC treatment and the balance on Splat book material in general, my generic answer has become .
Though DMM is one of the game's most broken feats, by and large, the splats are far more balanced than the PHB.
Though DMM is one of the game's most broken feats, by and large, the splats are far more balanced than the PHB.
Thanks I needed that laugh
Thanks I needed that laugh
And you consider the book that gives us Shapechange, Natural Spell, Polymorph Any Object, and Glitterdust more balanced than the book that gives us Warlocks, Warmages, and those orbs that suck slightly less than most other damage spells?
what is BBEG please?
what is BBEG please?
Big Bad Evil/Enemy Guy/Girl (depending on gender and alignment).
D&D is not a symmetrical game, so "If the players can do it, the GM can too" is not necessarily fair. And if your goal is just to be unfair to stop people from doing things, then you're better off having a chat with your players than channeling your inner Gygax.
Then I will clarify and state that no, that's not my goal. It is simply a standing policy of how I play the game. It makes no sense to have PCs have access to a wide array of stuff and no one else in the game to have it. If there are (insert class, race, spell, etc. here) in the world there are likely many others besides the party.
Perhaps it would be more accurate and more clear to be put this way. "Everything on the shelf is available to you, plus anything you find in a PDF I don't own/on the internet that I give my approval of. Go nuts. I may use it too, now that you've showed it to me and I've approved it."
|
Throwing my 2cp into the pile, I'll have to agree with the "no" people, for all of the same reasons they already posted.
Also, I thought I should let you know that I LOL'd pretty hard at:
The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal
Since they quite obviously don't.
But I'm not trying to be adversarial here
Thanks I needed that laughAnd you consider the book that gives us Shapechange, Natural Spell, Polymorph Any Object, and Glitterdust more balanced than the book that gives us Warlocks, Warmages, and those orbs that suck slightly less than most other damage spells?
yes I do. As it didn't give ya the crap that came in splat books, or the many many way to abuse feats and class and spell that where never playtested. I do not think ya can say WOTC splat book and balanced in the same sentence....it may case reality wrapping effects as well as mass laughter
And for the record I don't allow warlocks or the orb spells without rewrites
yes I do. As it didn't give ya the crap that came in splat books, or the many many way to abuse feats and class and spell that where never playtested. I do not think ya can say WOTC splat book and balanced in the same sentence....it may case reality wrapping effects as well as mass laughter
As opposed to the crap that came in core, or the piddly options that are nearly all horribly unbalanced.
The PHB is just another broken splat. Nothing more, nothing less. It's no less subject to your, "all splats are broken," stance than any other. And in comparison to that one broken splat that started it all, the vast majority of the remaining books are tremendously more balanced. Most of the really broken stuff, you have to go dumpster diving for.
And for the record I don't allow warlocks or the orb spells without rewrites
If you think either is overpowered, you're mad.
we'll have to agree to disagree. I found the warlock crap and the orbs BS as they were mere workarounds. I Banned one and rewrote the orbs
In your game ya can do what ya want. In mine I do not allow them
I did say it was crap didn't I?
No problems.
Warlocks aren't crap; in point of fact, they're extremely well-balanced. Quite possibly the best-balanced 3.5 class, in fact. Which, I imagine, was Viletta's point; Complete Arcane is a dramatically better-balanced book than the Player's Handbook. There's nothing in there to compare with a bare-bones PHB Druidzilla in terms of power, or even a PHB sorcerer.
Remember, of all the so-called "tier 1" classes, more than half of them are in the Player's Handbook.
your entitled to your opinion.
your entitled to your opinion.And nobody's opinion is going to change while you're decrying the warlock or orb spells as overpowered without some sort of justification or even explanation.
I am failing to see your point. And I never used the word overpowered or broken for them...not once.
irritated and annoyed covers it yeah. Eh, if ya like em more power to ya. I however will not allow them.
|
|
Eldritch Blast is a ranged touch attack, and I believe somewhere in the PF forums I saw a modified Warlock (to bring it up to the PF base classes in relative power level) which added their level as a static damage bonus to their EB (ie. a 7th level warlock does 4d6+7 damage) and they received an invocation at every level. I'm about to DM a campaign with one of my players using this, actually, so i can tell you how it goes in a few weeks I guess
EDIT: And with the boost in invocations, my player intends to get a few more essence and shape invocations, which I wholeheartedly encourage and am even allowing him a few homebrew ones that we're working out together
|
|
[threadjack]Oh, something else that I was wondering about, and what better time than 12:30am while doped up on pain meds after a tooth extraction in a thread not pertaining to it to ask about it? Anyways, does the warlock's eldritch blast provoke an AoO if used in melee range? I can't seem to wrap my head around this atm [/threadjack]
|
How can you Max 8 spells? I only count 3. One from sudden meta-magic and two from divine meta-magic, because maximized cost you four turn/rebuke attempt each time you use it. I think that you missed this partI am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximized spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt,
plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the
metamagic feat you’re using
But I have allowed this combo in my games, it not to powerful as it's written.
[threadjack]Oh, something else that I was wondering about, and what better time than 12:30am while doped up on pain meds after a tooth extraction in a thread not pertaining to it to ask about it? Anyways, does the warlock's eldritch blast provoke an AoO if used in melee range? I can't seem to wrap my head around this atm [/threadjack]
Yes. Both spell-like abilities (which eldritch blast is) and ranged attacks provoke. The only exception is the eldritch glaive blast shape, which IIRC specifically states that it does not provoke.
Throwing my 2cp into the pile, I'll have to agree with the "no" people, for all of the same reasons they already posted.
Also, I thought I should let you know that I LOL'd pretty hard at:
The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legalSince they quite obviously don't.
But I'm not trying to be adversarial here
No I dont think your being adversarial at all I appreciate everyone that pointed out( in a polite way) the rules mistake I made.
I made a mistake on my interpretaion of the rules so now I have to go back and find another way to crack out the cleric.
I think I'm going to be loading up on nightsticks and go with regualr maximized spell and Divine Metamagic.
I just hit second level so I am also trying to convince the DM to let me become an assimar.
My wisdom at 1st level is an 18 but I want a 20. This will stack with spellcasting prodigy so that I will have the bonus spells of a 22 wisdom and my charisma will go up to a 14. It costs me a spell casting level until I can buy off the ECL from unearthed arcanna.
Again I appreciate all the help from everyone and I'm glad you stopped me from making a rules mistake. I proudly admit I am mayor of all munchkins but I never cheat, not on die rolls & not on rules.
Making a rules mistake based on interpritation is one thing but no one tolerates outright cheating.
I would allow it, but I'd provide an in-game reason. Something like, you were trained by Master Po, the Last Illuminated Seer of the Ancient Order of Light. This eliminates other players using it b/c they recognize it as being something special for that PC. If they want to learn it, then a *LOT* of downtime has to be devoted to it. Uh-oh, ogres raiding again, guess your necessary *UN*interrupted study of this art is interrupted.
The player seems to intend to use it for healing. I never penalize healing for most of the reasons given. If the player starts to abuse it, making encounters too easy, then the DM isn't being creative enough.
All you need is one Abjurer with improved counterspell and readied actions.
PC: "I cast my Sudden Maximizing spell that breaks your game. MWAAA--"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Yeah, well, I have 7 more. I cast --"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Uh, well --"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Uh, guys, a little help?"
DM: "Countered."
This assumes the OOG DM/Player conversation has already occurred to no good effect. And, yes, yes, yes, I get all the "Dude, if *MY* DM were like that, I'd . . ."
All I'm saying is, it doesn't take much for a creative DM to nullify an abuse of rules and it doesn't even need to lead to a TPK.
If the player starts to abuse it, making encounters too easy, then the DM isn't being creative enough.
All you need is one Abjurer with improved counterspell and readied actions.
PC: "I cast my Sudden Maximizing spell that breaks your game. MWAAA--"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Yeah, well, I have 7 more. I cast --"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Uh, well --"
DM: "Countered."
PC: "Uh, guys, a little help?"
DM: "Countered."This assumes the OOG DM/Player conversation has already occurred to no good effect. And, yes, yes, yes, I get all the "Dude, if *MY* DM were like that, I'd . . ."
I remember the last time I threw an Abjurer(/Initiate of Veils) at my party. She ended up fleeing after nullifying the party's caster while the melee-ers - her Duergar cohorts and the undead elf they'd brought who used to be a party member, player had moved away and left the game - duked it out amongst themselves with the PCs eventually coming out victorious. They - mainly said TN neutered caster, the LN Knight, and the CN Binder - spent much of the rest of the campaign gleefully planning horrible things to do to her when they finally caught her. The fact that she was a major antagonist and ended up putting even more thorns in their side later only increased the hate.
Sadly the campaign ended before they could eviscerate her duely. Then again, I've already stated repeatedly over and over how much my players seem to be odd-ones-out compared to what a lot of you consider "the norm", and they were quite happy OOCly to have a competent villainess to focus all their hatred on. Her Blue Dragon partner they'd encountered earlier, due to some lucky rolls on their part and poor ones and lousy pre-planning for him on mine, had been a bit of a disappointment.
[/hijack]
Unless she's concealed.
Or she's invisible.
Or she's got a rod of silent spell & a rod of still spell to be able to counter those spells unseen.
Or she's polymorphed into a piercer and is just hanging there.
Or she's shapechanged into a quickling.
Or her Diviner friend with the lesser artifact type Mirror of Mental Prowess that allows one to cast more than just the divination spells through it is letting the Abjurer come over and play with it.
Ad infinitim . . .
Letting The Player Go
Random Twinkie eating flunkie you found at your local hobby store: Fine.
Your best friend's brother: Not as easy. Even when your friend knows what his brother is doing, "but, hey man, it's my *brother*."
Had talks with --
I'm stopping there because that's just going to turn into a massive thread-jacking vent that I've hashed over too many times to no good effect.
"Tell your brother that combo doesn't work."
Must - avoid - vortex
As for countering being almost as useless as refocusing . . . I'll just agree with you that countering spells is more useful than refocusing and leave the specific amount in the nebulous cloud of let's not threadjack.
Since I've already strayed a bit, I'll just iterate my original point:
I'd allow the build.
The broken item in this combo is Spell-Storing weapons, which have long been known to be problematic.
But seriously, you're talking about destroying 56,000 gold worth of magical daggers (they are unattended objects eating a bunch of maximized fireballs) and taking a large number of levels in probably the weakest caster class in the game short of Healer in order to do a bunch of fire damage.
How on earth would the daggers be destroyed? Once the target of the nuke is dead, I simply walk over and pick them all back up. Or, depending on the money available, have them enchanted as Returning.
It's a one-time thing, and there are a lot of ways to get around it, and you're obviously high level. How is that more broken than just using Sudden Maximize on Disintegrate?
My point exactly. But, some DM's don't like the idea of throwing a handful of 60+ damage daggers in the same round, even if it takes me a week to be able to do it again(sudden maximize 1/day). Sometimes I just like taking classes that are considered weak and underpowered, and blowing the doors off of the enemy. Shadowcasters are another fave underdog class I love, but that's another story.
EDIT: Okay, so Fireball was an example spell. This was years ago I did this combo, and used Fireball a couple times. After re-reading the Spell Storing entry, only Targeted spells can be used. I did use a lot of Orb spells now that I recall. The Fireball example escaped both me and my DM. We just treated it as only affecting the target of the daggers and not exploding in the area of effect like normal.
If his plan was just to be tossing out maximized heals, I would, too.Since I've already strayed a bit, I'll just iterate my original point:
I'd allow the build.
I think the bigger issue is what comes after. Sure, his build is just to maximize healing, but what about the next player who takes that idea and rolls a different way. There's a whole "opening the floodgate" scenario at play here. It's a slippery slope, and if the DM allows this, he's certainly in for some headaches down the road. I wouldn't allow it, personally.
I think the bigger issue is what comes after. Sure, his build is just to maximize healing, but what about the next player who takes that idea and rolls a different way. There's a whole "opening the floodgate" scenario at play here. It's a slippery slope, and if the DM allows this, he's certainly in for some headaches down the road. I wouldn't allow it, personally.
In my group, "The floodgates don't open," is pretty much a rule; I allow many, many things that I know would be horribly broken in other cases simply on the grounds that it probably won't be broken in this case. Particularly with newer players in shorter campaigns; the stuff I give them is often bordering on insanely overpowered simply because they don't know how to truly bring it to bear just yet and the other players know how to keep up. And I once allowed a Warmage to make a feat that let him determine HP from wisdom rather than constitution; an utterly broken feat were a divine caster to get her hands on it, but for the Warmage, not much of a problem at all. Just a minor convenience, providing some more synergy with Arcane Disciple feats.
Though for this case, I'd probably make an entirely new divine feat that allows for maximized healing (and only healing) at the cost of a turning attempt. Get the effect desired without worrying about the floodgates.
|
|
Though for this case, I'd probably make an entirely new divine feat that allows for maximized healing (and only healing) at the cost of a turning attempt. Get the effect desired without worrying about the floodgates.
+1
Actually, I believe there is a feat for this. As a free action, you spend a turning attempt and all cure spells cast within 1 round and 60ft of you are maximized. I actually forgot all about this until you brought it up
EDIT: sorry, it's as a standard action, so it would only benefit other healers. But I'm sure there could be a work-around, like make it only you and a swift action, rather than your army of clerics for a standard
EDIT EDIT: sorry, misread it again; just woke up. Any cure spells cast on any of the creatures in the area before the end of your next turn are maximized. So, turn one- sacred boost, turn 2- mass cure light wounds
How on earth would the daggers be destroyed? Once the target of the nuke is dead, I simply walk over and pick them all back up.
Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the broken condition, and might not function properly.
Emphasis mine.
How on earth would the daggers be destroyed? Once the target of the nuke is dead, I simply walk over and pick them all back up.Emphasis mine.Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort. A damaged magic item continues to function, but if it is destroyed, all its magical power is lost. Magic items that take damage in excess of half their total hit points, but not more than their total hit points, gain the broken condition, and might not function properly.
A little unnecessary, but thank you for the research.
EDIT: Okay, so Fireball was an example spell. This was years ago I did this combo, and used Fireball a couple times. After re-reading the Spell Storing entry, only Targeted spells can be used. I did use a lot of Orb spells now that I recall. The Fireball example escaped both me and my DM. We just treated it as only affecting the target of the daggers and not exploding in the area of effect like normal.
I explained why my daggers were not destroyed in game, a good 4 hours before you explained why they would be destroyed. Note to self: can't (and shouldn't) use area effect spells in Spell Storing weapons.
|
Thanks I needed that laughAnd you consider the book that gives us Shapechange, Natural Spell, Polymorph Any Object, and Glitterdust more balanced than the book that gives us Warlocks, Warmages, and those orbs that suck slightly less than most other damage spells?
Let's see you're forgetting solid fog, divine power, wild shape, time stop, grease, Enveration (sp?), fighter and monk (both unbalanced in the other direction), and host of other stuff.
Enveration (sp?)
Enervation. Close though. :)
I am playing a cleric in a newbie GM's game.
I came up with a great combo using the divine meta-magic feat and the sudden maximize feat. Mind you there is no lvl adjustment for SUDDEN anything because it's once per day; well divine metamagic says you can use your turns to get your feats lvl adjustment +1.
According to my math my cleric can now maximize his spells 8 times a day(3+1 for cha+4 extra turning)
The question is Would you let a player get away with something like this in YOUR game. The 3.5 rules state it's perfectly legal but it does break the spirit of +3 lvl adjustment for maximised spells.
I as a player think anything that lets me max my lower lvl cures is something to be used but I can see how it can be abused as well.
No I did not allow divine metamagic when I DMed 3e; the undead turning ability is for turning undead. If you want better spells, take the real metamagic feats. If you would rather have the metamagic than the turning, I'd let you permanently trade turning for a few bonus feats.
You can take this with a grain of salt, because stuff like this is part of the reason I DM 4e now.