Spells: What to Ban?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The retraining rules are only a confirmation of part of the rules. While they are not themselves mandatory rules, they clarify certain internal conditions of the game. Those being that feat slots retain their type, list restrictions*, and level after being expended.

I may not be using the proper terms, granted. these are rather difficult terms to understand what they may have been called


*Only relevant part of the DCFS argument

The bolded statement is flat-out false. There are no non-optional, default rules for replacing feats (or any other character building choice); because by the default rules changing such choices is impossible. The default rule is that these things are set in stone. It was only the later introduction of a set of optional retraining rules, as well as a set of spells and powers in completely unrelated sources that this became possible. All of these options are specific exceptions to the general rule that feats can't be changed, none of which takes precedent over any of the others.

[toapat]

toapat, properties of feat slots are sort of a mental construct we use to understand building characters better. However, if you have Improved Grapple, and do not go into the retraining rules the game does not care if it's a Monk bonus feat, Fighter bonus feat, or general HD feat. The feat is just a feat until something starts mucking with the feat's source.

Ebrace the Dark Chaos does not talk about the feat's source in any way. It turns a feat you currently have into an Abyssal Heritor feat you qualify for at the moment. If you got Improved Grapple from Fighter levels, the spell would have the exact some effect as if you had gotten Improved Grapple from reaching level 9. Memory of the source is not preserved in this new Abyssal Heritor feat--why would it? The game doesn't deal with the source of a feat until you use the retraining rules.

*Kelb reading the entire thing wrong*

The properties of feat slots are mostly, when used for character building, only used temporarily. Out of mind and out of sight, does not mean it doesnt exist.

while retraining itself is the only thing that confirms it, nothing in Core itself actually says that feat slots lose their properties once expended, filled, or whatever the term for using one is.

DCFS does care about qualifying for a feat though. In core this is a grey area, with no confirmation asto memory of the properties of Feat slots, the PHB2 clearly shows that, yes, feat slots do retain their properties. the vague line of Embrace that says if you do not qualify for the heritor, then the spell fails, was specifically written for Poison claws. But was left general or rewritten to be more general so that, as a result, the feat does care asto whether feat slots retain their properties

[Kelb_Panthera]

The properties of feat slots are mostly, when used for character building, only used temporarily. Out of mind and out of sight, does not mean it doesnt exist.

while retraining itself is the only thing that confirms it, nothing in Core itself actually says that feat slots lose their properties once expended, filled, or whatever the term for using one is.

DCFS does care about qualifying for a feat though. In core this is a grey area, with no confirmation asto memory of the properties of Feat slots, the PHB2 clearly shows that, yes, feat slots do retain their properties. the vague line of Embrace that says if you do not qualify for the heritor, then the spell fails, was specifically written for Poison claws. But was left general or rewritten to be more general so that, as a result, the feat does care asto whether feat slots retain their properties

There are no "feat slots" to have properties. You're just making stuff up wholesale now.

You get feats at 1st and every 3rd level and whenever some specific item* says you do. Some of those specific items* ask you to select from a subset of all feats rather than allowing you to choose any feat you like, and some simply give you a specific feat, but none of them give you "feat slots" or add any new prerequisites to the feat you choose (though some do allow you to waive the existing requirements of a feat).

*"item" in this case doesn't mean magic item but rather is being used in the context of rules items; clauses and paragraphs within the rules text of various feats, class-features, and indeed even a few magic items.

What you're saying may make a certain amount of sense from a logical standpoint, but it doesn't have a RAW leg to stand on.

[toapat]

There are no "feat slots" to have properties. You're just making stuff up wholesale now.

Feats occupy a slot, the name of that slot has no definition or name in the glossary, but it has properties of its own. these properties are typically the result of class features defining what can go into them.

Feats arent even in the game as terminology either.

[dextercorvia]

Feats occupy a slot, the name of that slot has no definition or name in the glossary, but it has properties of its own. these properties are typically the result of class features defining what can go into them.

Feats arent even in the game as terminology either.

Citation needed.

Has it occurred to you that you are the only one arguing for this position?

[toapat]

Citation needed.

Has it occurred to you that you are the only one arguing for this position?

Fighter Bonus feats and p192-193 of PHB2, i already showed that. And the glossary doesnt have anything on feats


Half of the RAW problems come from the fact that 3rd and 3.5 were rough drafts with either dreadful Dawizards or short sighted designers.

Whatever the exact term is for whatever a feat is purchased with, that temporary token used to purchase the feat is not lost. Wizards hasnt disclosed or erratad what this specific thing is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feats occupy a slot, the name of that slot has no definition or name in the glossary, but it has properties of its own. these properties are typically the result of class features defining what can go into them.

Feats arent even in the game as terminology either.

Again, this just isn't true.

Feats are most definitely a defined game term. They've got an entire chapter in the PHB dedicated specifically to defining them. If there were any kind of feat slots or feat points to be considered it would've been explicitly spelled out somewhere.

For a point of contrast, skillpoints were clearly defined as how one aquires skill ranks, they were also defined as being irrecoverable after being spent.

You're arguing for something you want to be true, and probably should be true, but simply isn't true.

There is no trade, there is no expense, you just get the feats at the designated times.

Btw, there're a number of things that aren't defined in the glossary that are still recognized game terms. Feats are just one.

[toapat]

somewhere.

too bad we dont have whatever could be called the Source Papers (the intermediary stuff between the coke and 3rd).

Feats, although ill agree the glossary is unrelyable as it is hosted by the publisher, who also witch hunted its own product, arent in the glossary, PHB or WotC. its a chapter defining one of the 3 universal systems of D20

[dextercorvia]

Fighter Bonus feats and p192-193 of PHB2, i already showed that. And the glossary doesnt have anything on feats


Half of the RAW problems come from the fact that 3rd and 3.5 were rough drafts with either dreadful Dawizards or short sighted designers.

Whatever the exact term is for whatever a feat is purchased with, that temporary token used to purchase the feat is not lost. Wizards hasnt disclosed or erratad what this specific thing is.

Being in the glossary is not what makes something a defined game term.

Show me in fighter bonus feats where it says that there are feat slots, or tokens, or whatever you are trying to call them. Also show me that the feats 'remember' where they came from. Finally show me how the additional restrictions on feat choice at the time of selection becomes part of the 'prerequisites' as you asserted earlier.

The PHII does not apply to this, because that is rules for retraining feats. DCFS is not retraining.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wall of text, incoming.

A feat is a special feature that either gives your character a new capability or improves one that he or she already has. [Copyrighted material containing an example] Unlike a skill, a feat has no ranks. A character either has a feat or does not.

Acquiring Feats
Unlike skills feats are not bought with points. A player simply chooses them for his or her character. [Level based feat schedule and comment about some classes and humans getting bonus feats, that does not include any language pertaining the notion of feat slots or points]

Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level sat which he or she gains the prerequisite. [Example containing copyrighted material]

A character can't use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite. [Example containing copyrighted material]

Emphasis mine.

How the heck much more definition do you need? Except for the redacted portions that's what the book says, word-for-word.

Note that it includes language that specifically denies there being any expenditures of any kind to aquire your feats. Also note that the prerequisite section says nothing about bonus feats having extra prerequisites based on the fact they're bonus feats.

There is no specific language anywhere that disallows the DCFS's functioning exactly as everyone but you is saying it does. Your quote from PHB2 is invalid for being a seperate system from both normal character advancement and the magic system that contains the DCFS. It's not a clarification, it's a variant that's not available to all players and isn't assumed to be in play by anything in FC1.

Simply put, magic does it better, just like it always has.

[toapat]

The PHII does not apply to this, because that is rules for retraining feats. DCFS is not retraining.

1: If there is a term for what feats occupy, it has no name for it ingame. Slot is being used for convenience of speach.
2: The PHB2 retraining is specifically where we find that feats have knowledge of ALL of their "slot's" properties. What attributes you had at that level, skill ranks, class levels, and source of the feat. The memory of the source is what is important, because that is what shuts down DCFSing things such as Fighter bonus feats. Because Embrace itself has to check* whether the to be changed "feat slot" is able to accept the Abyssal Heritor feat, it cant just shove out your 11 extraneous weapon focus feats. Once the feat removes the chosen weapon focus, The "Feat slot" is no longer a valid target for an Abyssal Heritor feat, and as a result, the spell fails.

*

The subject immediately gains one Abyssal heritor feat for which it qualifies, chosen by you at the time of casting.
If the subject does not qualify for the designated feat, the spell fails.
This Abyssal heritor feat replaces one feat of the subject's choice that it already possesses.

The bolded line is supposed to be a cover for poison claws. It is worded more generally and so applies to all 12+ feats. More specifically, this Line is either superfluous fluff or RAW, and it is worded in the way of rules, not fluff. The line conflicts with the first line, in that the target already qualifies for the prerequisites of the heritor feat. But there is one thing they may not qualify for, and that is providing a suitable feat expenditure.


@Kelb: you bolded the parts which define feats as separate from skills. (IMO the entire PHB is fluff counteracting the delivery of the rules.) How do you partially learn a spell? how do you partially take a level? Not all systems in DnD are progressive in the same manner.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And there's the "the rules that say I'm wrong aren't really rules" argument.

I think we're done here.

[GilesTheCleric]

I don't know if you're running a strictly no-evil campaign or not, but from the perspective of a player cleric, I can say that many of the spells with an [evil] descriptor are things that seem too powerful for their level. Particularly things from the BoVD, which gives save-or-dies much earlier than non-[evil] spells, as well as a number of spells with hefty ability drain or damage, again at fairly low levels. Removing (at least some) [evil] spells seems reasonable to me if the party is N to G.

Any of the Quest/Geas spells seem like they might be a bit unbalancing in the hands of PCs as well.

Here's a quick list of some divine spells that I feel are especially over-powered for their level (I don't know anything about arcane spells).

0: slash tongue (BoVD)
1: heartache (BoVD)
seething eyebane (BoVD)
2: fangs of the vampire king (BoVD)
investiture of the X (FC, all of these spells)
lahm's finger darts (BoVD)
necrotic cyst (LM, and all of its related spells)
3: clutch of orcus (BoVD)
love's pain (BoVD)
ROTTING CURSE OF URFESTRA (BoVD - definitely get rid of this one)
wrack (BoVD)
4: infernal transformation, lesser (SC, and all of the related spells)
yochlol's blessing (DotU)
5: beblith blessing (DotU)
heartclutch (BoVD)
morality undone (BoVD)
6+: things are pretty balanced by this point. But save-or-die before 6 seems ridiculous in my opinion.

[toapat]

And there's the "the rules that say I'm wrong aren't really rules" argument.

I think we're done here.

no, you quoted exposition detailing the differences between skills and feats. Honestly the exposition takes away from that section of the rulebook. Alot. but the entire feats chapter was written without logic.

ok, so feats are not bought with points. They are bought with missing term. how do you get missing term? by leveling up. How do you level up? by using experience points. oh, wait, feats are obtained using points.

I dont know why someone would think the skills system could be mistaken for the feats system, why they would go through the effort to write what is a summary that provides no explanation to the reader, or the choices of the editors.

[Rejakor]

So, I just looked at the fighter bonus feats entry in the fighter class, and the short addendum in the feats section of the PHB, and I looked at the feat retraining rules (which ARE optional rules btw), and nowhere does it mention 'feat slots' or anything similar.

The retraining rules mention 'feat choices', i.e. that you chose a feat at a certain level, but the act of choosing is not some sort of 'token' or.. anything else.


Do you have any proof in the rules text for your argument?



Also, on topic, people (especially DMs) who say that they want to ban things to 'balance' 3.5, in my experience, typically want to introduce a mandatory balance level (that is usually lower than their group's preferred play level) and are attempting to do so by declaring certain things 'broken' (read: more powerful than that specific balance level). This approach is flawed in that DnD is often too complex to be 'fixed' by ban lists, and often those taking this approach ban things that seem powerful to them but actually are not.

The only time i've seen ban lists work is in arena competitions, and even then, usually the list is quite small and often consists of more general concepts, like 'infinite loops'.

[Kelb_Panthera]

no, you quoted exposition detailing the differences between skills and feats. Honestly the exposition takes away from that section of the rulebook. Alot. but the entire feats chapter was written without logic.

ok, so feats are not bought with points. They are bought with missing term. how do you get missing term? by leveling up. How do you level up? by using experience points. oh, wait, feats are obtained using points.

I dont know why someone would think the skills system could be mistaken for the feats system, why they would go through the effort to write what is a summary that provides no explanation to the reader, or the choices of the editors.

How is the phrase "feats are not bought with points" any kind of ambiguous.

Moreover, where is it even implied anywhere that these phantom "slots" of yours even exist at all.

If that's how you phrase it to understand it that's fine, but it's not part of the rules anywhere.

The quote I posted even says in plain english that a "Player simply chooses them (feats) for her character, " with no mention of any kind of slot or point or expenditure of any kind.

[toapat]

So, I just looked at the fighter bonus feats entry in the fighter class, and the short addendum in the feats section of the PHB, and I looked at the feat retraining rules (which ARE optional rules btw), and nowhere does it mention 'feat slots' or anything similar.

The retraining rules mention 'feat choices', i.e. that you chose a feat at a certain level, but the act of choosing is not some sort of 'token' or.. anything else.


Do you have any proof in the rules text for your argument?

Fighter bonus feats create "featslots" that have restrictions.
normally these restrictions are ignored after the feat is chosen because you are not typically forced to scan whether you have a feat in a place that it doesnt belong (such as what DCFS does).

No where in the core/srd rules does it say these restrictions are maintained or removed afterwards.
the Feat retraining rules specify that these bonus feats retain their restrictions, for the sake of potentially retraining the feats.

When you use Embrace the dark chaos on a fighter bonus feat, the abyssal heritor feat scans to see if it is performing a legal action, but the action embrace the dark chaos is performing is no longer legal because of restrictions on the "featslot" being replaced.

*snip*

"Feats are not bought with points" isnt ambiguous. It is wrong, because they are obtained through leveling up.

saying that you just choose a feat is like saying you can have floating skill points at level up. you cant, because the rules require you to expend them at level up.

to word it without feat slots:

A feat which has the (what should be a descriptor) special: "Fighter Bonus Feat" may occupy a Feat granted by levels of Fighter. No Abyssal Heritor Feat has the special: A fighter may select this as his bonus feat. Because the restriction is not met, the feat can not take the "slot" of the feat to be replaced.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fighter bonus feats create "featslots" that have restrictions.
normally these restrictions are ignored after the feat is chosen because you are not typically forced to scan whether you have a feat in a place that it doesnt belong (such as what DCFS does).

No where in the core/srd rules does it say these restrictions are maintained or removed afterwards.
the Feat retraining rules specify that these bonus feats retain their restrictions, for the sake of potentially retraining the feats.

When you use Embrace the dark chaos on a fighter bonus feat, the abyssal heritor feat scans to see if it is performing a legal action, but the action embrace the dark chaos is performing is no longer legal because of restrictions on the "featslot" being replaced.

You still haven't shown anything that even suggests, much less proves, the existence of these feat-slots of yours. Until you do, there doesn't need to be anything regarding restrictions or allowances for them because they don't exist.

The retraining rules still have nothing to do with embrace/shun the dark chaos, since you've provided absolutely no evidence to link them other than a completely unsubstantiated "I say this is how it works."

You have to prove that feat-slots exist before you can base any further argument on them. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

I realize that I'm starting to sound a little antagonistic at this point, so I'll point out that this post isn't "you're wrong, just stop talking," it's me pointing out that you're not following any substantiated logic.

It's true that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in many cases, but an exception based rules system isn't one of those places. In this discussion, the absence of evidence very much -is- the evidence of absence.

[Rejakor]

The text of the fighter bonus feat entry in the fighter class in the PHB makes no mention of 'feat slots'. It says that you are granted one feat at the appropriate levels by the ability, but that feat must be chosen from a specific list.

I don't see where 'slots' come into it. They aren't mentioned, and all it says is that this bonus feat comes with caveats on what can be chosen above and beyond the normal pre-requisites of feats. Thus, i'm going to have to ask again if you have any proof for the existence of 'feat-slots' from the rules text.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please take this off-topic discussion to a different thread. Or better yet, let it drop.

[ShriekingDrake]

Really? The most common way i have seen it used it to turn into bat and actually get blindsight/sense or otherwise get animal senses. Has it been being abused in your games? I'm sure there is a way to break the heck out of it, but its normal use seems quite rational to me.

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.

With respect to Shivering Touch, I think this is a useful, flavorful spell that can be "fixed" rather than banned.

I'm not sure whether/how Wraithstrike is broken. Can someone make the case either way? Or can it be fixed rather than banned?

[LordBlades]

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit

I'm not sure whether/how Wraithstrike is broken. Can someone make the case either way? Or can it be fixed rather than banned?

Wraithstrike (especially persisted) bypasses a significant number of components in AC (armor, natural armor, shield etc.) and that bothers some people. IMO it's not broken per se, as there are a whole lot other ways to make powerful characters that make AC irrelevant (casters rarely roll vs. AC, and you can boost your to-hit enough so that AC no longer matters anyway). Most people that consider Wraithstrike broken seem to have a problem with trivializing AC (which is a valid complain), but that's a much wider problem that's unlikely to be solved with banning Wraithstrike alone.

[Gnaeus]

Druids are powerful enough, it seems, and I recall some challenges with assuming the extraordinary abilities of certain forms. Though, I can't recall anything off hand. It is possible that I'm misremembering.?

Druids are Tier 1, to be sure. But the Druids are powerful enough argument could be just as easily used with clerics and wizards and on any decent spell.

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit
.

Thanks Blades, I had forgotten that one. I agree, that one sucks in a low/mid op group. I still don't think it is worth banning the spell, only a caveat that it should be used responsibly, or at most adding a sentence to the spell that it only confers certain types of ex abilities, like senses and skill buffs.

If I were worried about Wildshape, I would ban some of the related feats, or Venomfire. Not Enhance WS.

[ShriekingDrake]

1) Be a 12th level druid
2)Wild Shape into a Shambling Mound using Enhance Wild Shape to get it's Immunity to Electricity (Ex)
3)Blast yourself with electricity damage to taste
4)???
5)Profit

Perfect example. I think this is enough of a reason. Enhance Wildshape is not a necessary spell. I have no problem seeing it go, but see below.

Wraithstrike (especially persisted) bypasses a significant number of components in AC (armor, natural armor, shield etc.) and that bothers some people. IMO it's not broken per se, as there are a whole lot other ways to make powerful characters that make AC irrelevant (casters rarely roll vs. AC, and you can boost your to-hit enough so that AC no longer matters anyway). Most people that consider Wraithstrike broken seem to have a problem with trivializing AC (which is a valid complain), but that's a much wider problem that's unlikely to be solved with banning Wraithstrike alone.

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

If I were worried about Wildshape, I would ban some of the related feats, or Venomfire. Not Enhance WS.

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

Are you only looking for spells? I personally think, outside of maybe the list Tippy posted, no spells can compete with the brokenness of renewable spells. What do I mean, I mean automatic resetting traps of X. And it doesn't matter what it will always break the campaign. I also think eternal wands are pushing it but that's more personal preference.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by renewable spells.

[peacenlove]

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

May I suggest adding strength too or instead of dexterity to Touch armor class? Even with a feat with a level prerequisite (so as not to see untouchable half orc barbarians from level 1).

[Gnaeus]

Perfect example. I think this is enough of a reason. Enhance Wildshape is not a necessary spell. I have no problem seeing it go, but see below..

I think having a druid that can turn into a dog and get scent or into a bat to go somewhere dark is necessary flavor, but YMMV.

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

Then just ban it. The other uses are worthless. If it doesn't give EX abilities, they are better with a wildling clasp.

[toapat]

Banning feats is something I'll consider as well, but I really don't see the value of Enhance Wildshape. I suppose one way to address it is to remove the extraordinary abilities element and keep it around. I'll think on it.

banning? no. Any 1 of the three major druid choices, is only so powerful. getting Natural Spell, Enhance Wild Shape, and (third one im derping on) together are what put druid way over in power. restrict a druid from using all 3 together and you limit alot of their power. planar shepherd is outright banned though.

[LordBlades]

I suppose the may be ways to "fix" Wraithstrike such that it is a useful spell but notched down a little. I'll give it some thought, but I remain disinclined to ban it.

Only thing I can think of if you want to lower it's power is make it work like Brilliant Energy (ignore armor and shield, but not natural armor, and can't harm constructs&undead). It's still strong but less so, and it discourages persisting it until you have used CoP and asked if you would fight any constructs and undead that day.

[ShriekingDrake]

Looking at your list there, you missed shivering touch, and contingency doesn't belong on there. You should also include the lower end polymorph subschool effects.

Shivering touch is written poorly enough that it demands interpretation, this leaves it ripe for abuse. Just nix it and save yourself an argument.

I agree that Shivering Touch is a mess. But I think it can be fixed rather than nixed. It's interesting enough as a spell.

Contigency is a personal range spell with a focus (hi there sleight of hand) and you can only have one in effect at a time. The broken uses for contingency you always here about are uses of the craft contingent spell feat, not the spell.

I find it cumbersome to manage this spell. It's like the problem with wishes, people end up using a lot of time arguing of nuances. (I suppose this is an argument for getting rid of wishes). I admit that I put Contingency on the list with some reticence. I'd be interested in more opinions on this one.[/quote]

The entire polymorph subschool is problematic. Just nix anything that doesn't call out a specific form and/or isn't very specific about what the new form gives you. This should include polymorph and alter self at the very least.

So, are you suggesting to get rid of Polymorph and Baleful Polymorph (and Alter Self?)?

On a personal note, I don't think the planar binding line or gate really belong up there either (because forcing wishes can only end poorly. Read; the death of your character at best, and his total annihilation from the planes of reality at worst) but mileages vary on this group so I won't make a big fuss over it unless someone wants a discussion.

I agree that wishes are a problem, but I think there are other issues as well . . . the ability to access spells of a higher level via Planar Binding spells, for instance. There are a variety of ways to get specific/named creatures to come to your aid and that predictability seems better. I suppose one thing to consider is listing possible creatures from which to choose or limiting--the way Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally do--the summoned creatures can act.

Otherwise, that looks about right to me. You might consider Wraith-strike, depending on the overall power level you're shooting for. It's a bit busted at the lower levels of power but at high-octane it's just a staple.

Thanks

[Venger]

banning? no. Any 1 of the three major druid choices, is only so powerful. getting Natural Spell, Enhance Wild Shape, and (third one im derping on) together are what put druid way over in power. restrict a druid from using all 3 together and you limit alot of their power. planar shepherd is outright banned though.

what third thing? could you describe it a little bit? what does it do? is it a spell like enhance wild shape, or is it a feat like natural spell?