| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wanting to make a character that can create "elemental" creatures by animating objects. However, even if you consider the signature abilities of the various elementals to be 1CP traits, this means that I can never animate a small or medium object with all of these traits (all elementals have at least 2 signature traits, some up to 4).
As such, I'm wanting advice on a possible house rule that might allow the use of extra caster levels to increase the available CP for these animated creatures. I charted things out, and it appears to me that the bonuses these creatures get from size (Atk/Dmg/HD/etc.) account for about 3/4 of their overall power, if not possibly more once you enter the area of constructs of Huge size and larger, but I realize that the adaptability of the CP traits can also be quite potent.
Size ==== Net AC = Net CMB = Net CMD = Net Atk (Str) = Net Atk (Dex) = Net Dmg ==== HD ==== Avg HP = CP = CR = CL
Small ===== 2 ==== -3 ====== -2 ====== -1 ======== 2 ======== -2 === 2d10+10 === 21 ==== 1 = 2 == 1
Medium ==== 0 ==== 0 ======= 0 ====== 0 ======== 0 ========= 0 === 3d10+20 === 37 ==== 2 = 3 == 2
Large ===== 0 ==== 5 ======= 4 ====== 3 ======== -2 ========= 4 === 4d10+30 === 52 ==== 3 = 5 == 4
Huge ===== 1 ==== 10 ======= 8 ====== 6 ======= -4 ========= 8 === 7d10+40 === 79 ==== 4 = 7 == 8
Gargantuan= 3 ==== 16 ====== 14 ====== 8 ======== -6 ======== 12 === 10d10+60 == 115 === 5 == 9 = 16
Colossal === 4 ==== 24 ====== 22 ====== 8 ======= -10 ======== 16 === 13d10+80 == 152 === 6 = 11 = 32
(please forgive the table format)
Given this breakdown, would you consider it reasonable to permit a CP point buy-esque system in which a character may buy a single extra CP for 1 effective CL, with each additional CP costing one more than the previous? This extra CL cost would not increase the size, HD or other related properties of the animated object, but would allow an animated object of any size to potentially exceed the current posted limit of CP if the caster has the CLs to spare. Or would this be too weak/powerful?
CP / CL
1 == 1
2 == 3
3 == 6
4 = 10
5 = 15
Ultimately, I want this to represent the potency of these extra abilities, especially relative to the cost of animating smaller objects, but I don't want it so expensive that it can never be practically used. Any insight would be appreciated.
Of course, as I review what I have posted above, I note that my proposed CP costs would make a Small animated object (with unchanged HP, atk, dmg, etc) with 5 CP require CL11, as opposed to a Huge AO (also 5 CP, but massively increased HP, etc) which can be created with CL8.
So, might the following progression be more appropriate?:
CP / CL / (increase over previous cost)
1 == 1 == (+1)
2 == 2 == (+1)
3 == 4 == (+2)
4 == 6 == (+2)
5 == 9 == (+3)
6 = 12 == (+3)
Etc...
The matchup for an improved small AO (by CP) with CL relative to other standard AOs by size would then look more like this:
CL1 = 1 CP = small (1 CP)
CL2 = 2 CP = medium (2 CP)
CL3 = 3 CP = n/a
CL4 = n/a = large (3 CP)
CL5 = 4 CP = n/a
CL7 = 5 CP = n/a
CL8 = n/a = huge (4 CP)
CL10 = 6 CP = n/a
CL13 = 7 CP = n/a
CL16 = n/a = gargantuan (5 CP)
Etc...
I think your suggestion is fairly reasonable, and you've clearly put some thought into this. If anything, it's quite possibly underpowered compared to the animate objects spell's normal caster level benefit - I don't think a small object with extra CP is likely to be as strong as the larger object you could get normally.
The idea does, however, strike me as needlessly complicated, since elementals are already covered in the summon monster spell line. What is the reason to adapt Animate Objects?
The elemental thing is really more of a flavor text. The character is actually selectively animating aspects of his environment that represent (to him at least) the 5 elements (earth, wood, metal, fire, and water). As such, Animate Objects seems more appropriate to me for this purpose.
But beyond that, I always felt it was a little silly that it was effectively impossible (outside DM fiat) to animate a small metal object (a 2CP trait) but it was OK to animate a huge mithral (4CP) or colossal adamantine (6CP) object. After all, how often are you gonna have that much of a material? And if it's so difficult to animate, why would animating such a large amount be easier than animating a smaller amount of the same?
This also allows smaller AOs to have more "swiss army" functionality, without letting them overtake the sheer power of larger AOs, and keeps AOs in general relevant for a longer time, something which I have long thought was missing from this spell and class of creature, IMO. Granted, you can craft them with the Create Construct feat outside of the standard limits if you are willing to pay for the upgrades, but that goes well beyond the temporary effect I'm looking for and requires far more investment.
As for the Summon line of spells, I thought those were a bit over-hyped, especially if they were going to be restricted to elementals as in this case. Don't get me wrong, the ability to summon certain creatures tactically is wonderful, but seeing as their CR is at best 2/3 of your own and they will likely be taken out in a couple hits anyway makes keeping up with all of the different stat blocks seem like overstretching. Especially when you can have a single stat block per size and a list of abilities to choose from for the cost of one 6th level spell slot instead of having to keep up with multiple 1st through 9th level spells and how many of what they might* summon for you.
In other words, more consistent and easily tracked utility without necessarily more power.
It sounds like you've thought this through pretty well - I approve of your reasoning.
I'll admit that I haven't had much experience playing with the AO spell, but it is likely to come up a fair bit in a Steam & Sorcery campaign that I'll be running in the near future. Specifically, I hadn't realized that the rules make animating some objects (like a kitchen knife) essentially impossible without your proposed fix. That seems like a strange oversight.
That said, the idea behind your rework is solid, the only question is whether or not you've got the progression right.
You can match an increase in CP to CR and from there to how many size increases you give an object. The spell already has a progression for that, so I thought this would be a good route to go. Unfortunately, this gives you a horribly inelegant progression (it's a rounded exponential that doubles the cost every 4 CP) that is not exactly useful.
It did, however, convince me that your suggested progression is far from overpowered. In fact, I think a progression that increased more slowly might still be ok (say, every 4 CP instead of every 2).
The key, I think, is to find the point where deciding between additional CP or more/bigger AOs is a difficult choice.
It might well be OK to reduce the cost further, however, you must also consider that the table I included only placed things in terms of a small AO with boosted CP. As you could also apply these to Medium and Large AOs at relatively low levels, this can quickly become more powerful with a reduced cost, which Is the only reason I haven't decreased the cost further, though this might warrant investigation.
Consider the following:
CLx = Sma = Med = Lar = Hug = Gar
CL1 = 1CP = --- = --- = --- = ---
CL2 = 2CP = 2CP = --- = --- = ---
CL3 = 3CP = 3CP = --- = --- = ---
CL4 = 3CP = 4CP = 3CP = --- = ---
CL5 = 4CP = 4CP = 4CP = --- = ---
CL6 = 4CP = 5CP = 5CP = --- = ---
CL7 = 5CP = 5CP = 5CP = --- = ---
CL8 = 5CP = 6CP = 6CP = 4CP = ---
CL9 = 5CP = 6CP = 6CP = 5CP = ---
CL10= 6CP = 6CP = 7CP = 6CP = ---
CL11= 6CP = 7CP = 7CP = 6CP = ---
CL12= 6CP = 7CP = 7CP = 7CP = ---
CL13= 7CP = 7CP = 8CP = 7CP = ---
CL14= 7CP = 8CP = 8CP = 8CP = ---
CL15= 7CP = 8CP = 8CP = 8CP = ---
CL16= 7CP = 8CP = 9CP = 8CP = 5CP
CL17= 8CP = 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 6CP
CL18= 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 9CP = 7CP
CL19= 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 9CP = 7CP
CL20= 8CP = 9CP = 10CP= 10CP= 8CP
CLx = Sma = Med = Lar = Hug = Gar
CL1 = 1CP = --- = --- = --- = ---
CL2 = 2CP = 2CP = --- = --- = ---
CL3 = 3CP = 3CP = --- = --- = ---
CL4 = 4CP = 4CP = 3CP = --- = ---
CL5 = 5CP = 5CP = 4CP = --- = ---
CL6 = 5CP = 6CP = 5CP = --- = ---
CL7 = 6CP = 6CP = 6CP = --- = ---
CL8 = 6CP = 7CP = 7CP = 4CP = ---
CL9 = 7CP = 7CP = 7CP = 5CP = ---
CL10= 7CP = 8CP = 8CP = 6CP = ---
CL11= 8CP = 8CP = 8CP = 7CP = ---
CL12= 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 8CP = ---
CL13= 9CP = 9CP = 9CP = 8CP = ---
CL14= 9CP = 10CP= 10CP= 9CP = ---
CL15= 9CP = 10CP= 10CP= 9CP = ---
CL16= 10CP= 10CP= 11CP= 10CP= 5CP
CL17= 10CP= 11CP= 11CP= 10CP= 6CP
CL18= 10CP= 11CP= 11CP= 11CP= 7CP
CL19= 11CP= 11CP= 12CP= 11CP= 8CP
CL20= 11CP= 12CP= 12CP= 12CP= 9CP
As you may notice, both of these advancement tables show that the larger the object is you are animating, the more likely it is that you would actually be buying up to animate an object one size smaller than your maximum due to the increased # of abilities you could stack onto that AO.
While my proposal only makes this a minor trade up, forcing you to decide between a better stat block and potentially better defensive/offensive traits, the advancement you propose actually nearly doubles the # of CP you get for an AO at 8th level by reducing the size (and inherent stat block) weighing this clearly in favor of the trade, IMO. And this trend only worsens as the CL increases.
I also created a chart for an advancement that splits this difference.
CLx = Sma = Med = Lar = Hug = Gar
CL1 = 1CP = --- = --- = --- = ---
CL2 = 2CP = 2CP = --- = --- = ---
CL3 = 3CP = 3CP = --- = --- = ---
CL4 = 4CP = 4CP = 3CP = --- = ---
CL5 = 4CP = 5CP = 4CP = --- = ---
CL6 = 5CP = 5CP = 5CP = --- = ---
CL7 = 5CP = 6CP = 6CP = --- = ---
CL8 = 6CP = 6CP = 6CP = 4CP = ---
CL9 = 6CP = 7CP = 7CP = 5CP = ---
CL10= 7CP = 7CP = 7CP = 6CP = ---
CL11= 7CP = 8CP = 8CP = 7CP = ---
CL12= 7CP = 8CP = 8CP = 7CP = ---
CL13= 8CP = 8CP = 9CP = 8CP = ---
CL14= 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 8CP = ---
CL15= 8CP = 9CP = 9CP = 9CP = ---
CL16= 9CP = 9CP = 10CP= 9CP = 5CP
CL17= 9CP = 10CP= 10CP= 10CP= 6CP
CL18= 9CP = 10CP= 10CP= 10CP= 7CP
CL19= 10CP= 10CP= 11CP= 10CP= 8CP
CL20= 10CP= 11CP= 11CP= 11CP= 8CP
While at lower levels it mimics my own, at higher levels it starts to run into the same issue as yours. Ultimately, as I would not want to unbalance the intended power of the AOs this spell is meant to create based upon the official stat blocks, even at extreme levels, I would have to lean towards my proposed advancement in favor of either your own or the hybrid. Especially considering that most AO traits only cost 1 or 2 CP, with only a few exceptions, and there are only so many of them and there are even flaws which can be applied which allow you to gain additional CP as well (though I doubt that most people would use them in normal play).
Of course, this is all house rule territory anyway, so judge this as you will.
When you show the progression like that, I have to agree with you. I hadn't really considered how the two options would combine.
Seems well thought out. I'm inclined to add it as an option in my own games as well.