Overpowered Players

[RoboEmperor]

What's with all these people complaining about area dispels? Area dispels dispel at most ONE buff. DMM:Persist Clerics have an ungodly amount of buffs and losing one is absolutely no big deal.

Wasting a turn to dispel one of many buffs is a win for the cleric.

[Calthropstu]

What's with all these people complaining about area dispels? Area dispels dispel at most ONE buff. DMM:Persist Clerics have an ungodly amount of buffs and losing one is absolutely no big deal.

Wasting a turn to dispel one of many buffs is a win for the cleric.

True enough. Actually, the best way to disable such buffs is to force them (or trick them) to move through a dispel wall dispelling everything at once.

[Zanos]

True enough. Actually, the best way to disable such buffs is to force them (or trick them) to move through a dispel wall dispelling everything at once.

Wall of dispel caps at +10, and as far as I know there isn't a greater version. Considering you get it at CL 9, it doesn't stay viable for a super long time.

Rod of Chaining + (Greater) Dispel Magic works, IIRC.

But now we're just optimizing stuff to try to beat an optimizer, in any party where one guy is more optimized than the other party members, there's going to be problems whether the DM can provide appropriate challenges to the optimizer or not.

EDIT: There is a greater version, but it's an 8th level spell.

[Zombulian]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas.

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork. The most problematic "powergamers" are oftentimes those who have just recently discovered this concept of optimization and show up with some sort of uber-character meanwhile their party-mates are taking Toughness as their 6th level feat.

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.

[Zanos]

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.

I don't think they're terrible, since you can get great picks like at will flight, +6 to conversation skills, at will black tentacles+, animate dead with a free timed version, etc. But if you take them as a primary blaster I think you're going to be disappointed. They're usually aren't enough combat rounds in the day to make doing 5d6 at will better than 10d6 in an AoE eight times a day.

[Deophaun]

If you're going to spend a significant chunk of your wealth by level to jack up your buffs, you may as well be buying magic items at that point.

I dunno about you, but my characters generally start buying magic items at level 2.

You're rarely going to be hitting the dispel CL cap unless you're playing a super high level game, and even then, there are ways to surpass it with things like dispel chords and the inquisition domain. I'd call that an even game there.

This is poor reasoning.
A) Boosting CL affects more than just dispel chance. It affects duration and often the strength of the effect as well which are reason enough to pursue CL increases.
B) Even if you don't completely protect from dispelling with a CL boost, you still reduce the chance of the dispel from taking effect, making it worth while to build protection a little at a time. The more protection you have, the less desirable it is for your enemy to spend an action in combat hoping to get past it.
C) Aside from dispelling cords, which are limited use and provide a modest boost to dispell checks, things that go over the cap are heavily build dependent, requiring not just feats but levels.
D) No matter what you do, the cap still exists. There's no way to break it, only to raise it to keep dispelling relevant for a few more levels for those who specialize.
E) Enemy resources spent on boosting dispel checks just to keep up are resources they aren't spending elsewhere. Meanwhile, see point A.

[Calthropstu]

Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas.

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork. The most problematic "powergamers" are oftentimes those who have just recently discovered this concept of optimization and show up with some sort of uber-character meanwhile their party-mates are taking Toughness as their 6th level feat.

Quick Aside: Vanilla Warlocks are not bad, in fact they're actually quite good. But no, they are not ridiculous, especially in the realm of damage output.

This. I have never run into problems with major over-optimization, and the few people I know who have run into it executed banhammers quite quickly.

I know how to hit pretty hard with a melee character, and I know how to support my allies and disable my enemies with spells.

My powerful summoner oracle I made for the mythic campaign I was in had extreme offense, but almost no defense. He died more than once, and I was ok with that.

The only time I am liable to complain is when the gm instagibs almost the entire party with something stupid (like a 10th lvl spell equivalent scroll...)

[RoboEmperor]

I personally believe warlocks are superior to sorcerers once they hit that level where they can craft any item in the game (imbue item at level 12). It turns them into lesser artificers and lesser artificers are tier1.

With PrCs like divine crusaders CL9 scrolls of gate and miracle is possible.

Through this every out of combat TO shenanigan is available to the warlock.

Mind Switch + Astral Seed + Gate to do a race change with any creature in the game either through transparency rules and miracle or wishing for those items and UPD.

Infinite wealth shenanigans and ambrosia/liquid pain

etc etc

[Crake]

I dunno about you, but my characters generally start buying magic items at level 2.

I meant, instead of spending wealth by level on protecting your buffs, you just buy magic items to achieve the same effect.

This is poor reasoning.
A) Boosting CL affects more than just dispel chance. It affects duration and often the strength of the effect as well which are reason enough to pursue CL increases.
B) Even if you don't completely protect from dispelling with a CL boost, you still reduce the chance of the dispel from taking effect, making it worth while to build protection a little at a time. The more protection you have, the less desirable it is for your enemy to spend an action in combat hoping to get past it.
C) Aside from dispelling cords, which are limited use and provide a modest boost to dispell checks, things that go over the cap are heavily build dependent, requiring not just feats but levels.
D) No matter what you do, the cap still exists. There's no way to break it, only to raise it to keep dispelling relevant for a few more levels for those who specialize.
E) Enemy resources spent on boosting dispel checks just to keep up are resources they aren't spending elsewhere. Meanwhile, see point A.

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark? My point isn't that you aren't boosting your CL, my point is your boosts can be mirrored by the dispel's boosts unless you're going above CL20.
B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.
C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.
D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.
E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.

[Heliomance]

But it's far more likely that a buff-focused cleric is going to have spent significant resources on making their buffs hard to dispel than it is that a random enemy is going to have spent significant amounts of resources on dispelling better.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark? My point isn't that you aren't boosting your CL, my point is your boosts can be mirrored by the dispel's boosts unless you're going above CL20.
B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.
C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.
D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.
E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.

You're right that in most games CL isn't buffed high enough stop a dedicated dispelling build (though it's certainly possible).
I disagree on the point that boosting CL is a 0 sum argument though, since boosting CL does a lot more than just protect your buffs.
Plenty of buffs scale with CL even if you don't take into account the offensive benefits.
Depending on what you paid for your CL increase that can be worth a lot more than getting similar buffs on items for the same cost even if you disregard the better protection against dispels, especially if it's buffs that affect the whole party.

[Deophaun]

I meant, instead of spending wealth by level on protecting your buffs, you just buy magic items to achieve the same effect.

If I spent money on magic items to achieve the same effect I can get from a CL-boosted armor of darkness, I'm looking at epic pricing.

A) Is all well and good, but how often are you boosting your CL above 20 at around the level 12-15 mark?

That's actually where I start looking to get my CL boosted above 20. Reserves of Strength, magic tattoo, bead of karma, even death knell. Totally doable. And then I fear dispels, so I spend some on a ring of enduring arcana and I've got an additional 13 to my CL.

B) May be true, unless the opponent has arcane mastery, at which point, if their dispel bonus exceeds your CL by even 1 point, they automatically succeed on their dispel.

And if they don't, they automatically fail. Which they won't, because boosting CL is easier.

C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point.

You don't need to Persist buffs to have them up all the time, so I don't see your point. Don't get me wrong, persist is great if you're looking at buffs that last 1 round or 1 minute a level, but you can make a nice CoDzilla limiting yourself to 10 min or hour/level spells.

Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17.

+8 is less than +13. You are not a threat.

D) The cap is extended by simply using higher level spells. Sure, if you're talking about the realm of high op where people boost spells by 40+ or even 20+, it becomes quickly irrelevant, but in a more normal game, you're looking at 4-8 CL boosts at most.

I didn't know 13 was between 4 and 8. This bloody Common Core math...

But the higher the level you are, the more openings there are for boosting CL. You are still spending resources just to ensure your one trick maybe keeps pace. That's a losing proposition. You're going to want to start looking to retrain those feats.

E) You spent resources on boost CL that weren't spent elsewhere, so that's a 0 sum argument.

Yeah. I spent resources making sure everyone in my party has a +5 enhancement to their weapon and armor. Which then is money I did not have to spend enhancing my weapon or armor. You, meanwhile, spent a lot of resources to still fail 100% of the time.

As an aside, once you start hitting super high levels CL checks become irrelevant because disjunction is a no roll automatic success dispel.

We're talking about dispel. I've already provided means elsewhere for ignoring CL checks at much lower levels.

[Deadline]

But it's far more likely that a buff-focused cleric is going to have spent significant resources on making their buffs hard to dispel than it is that a random enemy is going to have spent significant amounts of resources on dispelling better.

This. And before we go too far down the rabbit hole, I don't think anyone is suggesting that in an arms race, the Player wins. It's pretty clear that in that situation, the DM wins. Whether that win comes in the form of arbitrary "you lose" rulings, or simply amping the resources on an enemy to the point where it may as well be "you lose" doesn't really matter. I will go out on what to me looks like a very sturdy limb and say that a DM going out of their way to no-sell player actions is doing themselves and their players a dis-service, just as a player trying to break a game that isn't explicitly high-op is. Ignoring both of those extremes, the DM is going to try to present challenges for players, and players are going to find ways to mitigate bad stuff from happening.

The problems arise when DM's think that "challenge" means taking away the tools the players have (agency, abilities, or what have you), and when players think "mitigate" means "negate" or create "auto-win" options out of RAW arguments. And mostly those two happen because the responsible party is lazy, or lacks the ability to adapt.

If you play with the intent to have fun and help your fellows around the table have fun (and they do the same), you'll probably never run into a problem. Most of the "practical optimization" advice given around here at least seems to be based entirely on educating someone who may not know how a thing works. They aren't devils trying to ruin your games. Telling someone that two weapon fighting without damage boosters isn't as good as using a two-handed weapon isn't some big secret, but can come as a shock to newer players who mistakenly thought "two weapons means twice the damage!"

With regards to TO, well that's mostly just entertaining thought experiments. My hat is off to any table who can make a game work with TO.

[Crake]

You're right that in most games CL isn't buffed high enough stop a dedicated dispelling build (though it's certainly possible).
I disagree on the point that boosting CL is a 0 sum argument though, since boosting CL does a lot more than just protect your buffs.
Plenty of buffs scale with CL even if you don't take into account the offensive benefits.
Depending on what you paid for your CL increase that can be worth a lot more than getting similar buffs on items for the same cost even if you disregard the better protection against dispels, especially if it's buffs that affect the whole party.

If the spells are dispelled in the first round of combat, then the CL boosts provided no benefit other than making it harder for the dispeller to dispel them, so i'd say yes, it's a 0 sum game. Obviously, if you're using the CL boosts in combat, that's a different story, but the scenario here is a DMM persist buffer, who used his CL boosts at the start of the day.

[Zanos]

C) Same can be said for a cleric persisting his buffs, I don't see your point. Dispel chords are cheap, inqusition domain can be gotten with a feat, elven spell lore is also a feat, and so is arcane mastery. With those three feats and that minor magic item, you're getting +8 to your dispel checks, all of which boost above the CL cap. That CL10 dispel magic can now automatically dispel anything below CL17. It may not be that EVERYONE you fight has these feats and abilities, but it only takes one to ruin your cleric's day, and possibly career. Hell, put all that onto a warlock with voracious dispelling, for infinite targetted dispels/counters, or onto a cleric with divine defiance for immediate action counters, and you've got a pretty solid ruin your day dispeller.

For what it's worth you can get a +4 from a Ring of Enduring Arcana(6k) and a +5 from Dispelling Buffer, although some would have to check me for the best way to get a 6th level psion power. Those are increases to the DC to dispel, not caster level boosts.

[Crake]

+8 is less than +13. You are not a threat.

So you're comparing literally a 1000gp minor item to your selection of spells, feats and wbl? +8 is where a dispeller starts. Karma bead alone brings it up to +12 for a fraction of what you've spent. Death knell and magic tattoo are from two different classes, so that's either not a thing, or you're spending extra character resources to access both of them, but even so, either are an option for a dispeller as well. To cover the last step to get +14 over your +13 for an automatic dispel, you take your pick, feats items, class features. Of course, anything before +13 doesn't mean an automatic fail, it simply means not an automatic success.

I didn't know 13 was between 4 and 8. This bloody Common Core math...

Yes, because everyone plays the game the same way you do, you must be the status quo, right?

For what it's worth you can get a +4 from a Ring of Enduring Arcana(6k) and a +5 from Dispelling Buffer, although some would have to check me for the best way to get a 6th level psion power. Those are increases to the DC to dispel, not caster level boosts.

Ring of enduring arcana certainly is an annoying hurdle for a dispeller, but when you think about it, all it does is being the process of evening the playing field. My whole point though, was that the CL level on dispel magic rarely comes into play, simply because the +8 a dispeller can get also isn't a CL boost, which means it goes above the cap. You go from needing to merely beat CL20, to needing to beat CL 28. Ring of enduring arcana ESSENTIALLY brings that back down to 24.

[Coretron03]

Yes, beads of karma. That Item that only lasts 10 minutes and requires a standard action to activate. I’m sure that will benefit the guy who has to activate it before/in combat to get use out of it, rather than the guy who casts all of his to-be dispelled spells at the start of the day that could happen to take less than ten minutes .

[Zanos]

Ring of enduring arcana certainly is an annoying hurdle for a dispeller, but when you think about it, all it does is being the process of evening the playing field. My whole point though, was that the CL level on dispel magic rarely comes into play, simply because the +8 a dispeller can get also isn't a CL boost, which means it goes above the cap. You go from needing to merely beat CL20, to needing to beat CL 28. Ring of enduring arcana ESSENTIALLY brings that back down to 24.

I also think there's a core disadvantage to dispelling in that buffs are usually cast in relative safety at the beginning of the day, so you're free to blow situational CL boosters on them, which is more difficult to do in the middle of combat. I'm not saying you can't make a dedicated dispeller that's pretty good, but I think the math is going to lean towards the defender if both people are optimizing.

[Deophaun]

So you're comparing literally a 1000gp minor item to your selection of spells, feats and wbl? +8 is where a dispeller starts.

What item is 1000 gp and gives you a +8? You're being ridiculous now.

Karma bead alone brings it up to +12 for a fraction of what you've spent.

Coretron03 successfully mocked this. Same for death knell. Or do you frequently ritually sacrifice livestock six seconds before a battle? I have characters that do that at the start of every day. I find it very appropriate for the religions of your run-of-the-mill D&D setting.

To cover the last step to get +14 over your +13 for an automatic dispel, you take your pick, feats items, class features. Of course, anything before +13 doesn't mean an automatic fail, it simply means not an automatic success.

If you're taking 10 on your check, it's an automatic fail. And taking 10 is the whole point of Arcane Mastery. Which is why it's actually a bad feat: If you've specialized in dispelling, you don't really need it against those who haven't taken precautions against it, and if you do run up against people who have taken precautions, you fail. Taking 10 is for when you know you will succeed, which in this case you cannot.

Yes, because everyone plays the game the same way you do, you must be the status quo, right?

You said 4-8 at most.. Your words, not mine. Your other category was people with +40.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That is the problem with magic users: defense can always outclass offense. You can throw reciprocal gyre into the mix, but there are ways around that, too.

There comes a point where the only solution is to sit down with the players and have a talk about power levels.

That is definitely true, and not at all limited to buffers, but the nice thing about buffers is that they can mitigate interparty balance issues by helping everyone. The DMM cleric might be a powerhouse, but if he persists Recitation/Righteous Wrath of the Faithful/Vigorous Circle along with his personal buffs, the DM can still find an encounter that challenges everyone without murdering some, and he doesn't even have to contrive metagame counters.

Regarding the benefits of CL, here are some arcane spells that especially benefit from CL boosting:

• Any hrs/level or 10 minutes/level buff is helped tremendously by increasing buffing CL
• Skin of the Steel Dragon grants SR dependent on CL
• Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Mighty Wallop enhance weapons based on CL
• Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability grants a CL-dependent number of spells to transfer to one's familiar, which is important for an incantatrix without a caster buddy
• Loresong provides CL-dependent skill boost
• Ferocity of Sanguine Rage provides CL-dependent damage boost for gishes
• Otiluke's Suppressing Field uses CL to set a DC to no-sell types of spells, like a Spell Resistance that doesn't care about the SR:No tag. Technically you can use this to prevent dispels as well, if you have selective spell or don't mind never casting abjurations.

And as mentioned, Clerics have plenty of numeric CL-based buffs right in core.

Here are some ways that buffers find it easier to boost buff CL over in-combat CL:

• Bead of Karma, as mentioned, is easier to use out of combat
• Elder Giant Magic
• Reserves of Strength is at least slightly easier to use out of combat, since you can deal with stun or heal the damage over time without trouble
• Terran Brandy
• Death Knell
• For that spell that just must be high CL, there's also Spell Enhancer.

Psions, Dweomer Vortex users, and Adamantine Horrors aside, the dedicated dispeller is both far more niche in application and ends up falling behind dedicated buffers anyway due to the buffer's downtime advantages. It's a bit of trouble to dedicate some feats and items to protecting against dispel, but when you make buffing your shtick you tend to provide benefits that far outstrip all of your WBL put together. Should a regular wizard take Elder Giant Magic just so his few hrs/level buffs stay up and his Greater Magic Weapon probably gives another +1? Probably not. But a persister should take every opportunity to increase buffing CL.

[jdizzlean]

I think the issue OP notes that in his experience (and frankly in my experience), the VAST majority of players are not making super hyper tweaked optimized characters using material from 10 different books and five alternate class features. Most parties will have a few players who are totally fine playing a straight fighter because they just want to hit some goblins.

People who post here are more likely the exception, not the rule.

Let's make sure to not turn this into a discussion of charge and pounce rules fellas. or fighter vs wiz

For the record, I mostly agree with the OP. A lot of issues can come from a DM not knowing how to present meaningful challenges to their players, not being creative with counters to their strengths, etc. However, as some of the others noted already, this can be exacerbated by a stratification in the power of individual characters in the party. Interestingly enough, balance within the party is best achieved by either the newest types of players - where they don't know enough about the game to do anything other than use teamwork to overcome obstacles - or (as demonstrated by many players on this board) by players with incredible system mastery - where taking a fairly weak concept and doing their best with it is a fun enough challenge and again requires the use of party teamwork.

on this board, during competitions, building, judging, or just discussing, i'll usually research the ever living poo out of things to try and come up with, or understand what is being done.

in the game I play in, i might try to throw something in now and again, but it's not important to be the OMG best guy at the table.

point of fact, at my table, i probably know the very least about D&D despite having played it for going on 25 years now. I imagine most everyone on this board is probably pretty close to the same if they actually play in a game w/ people instead of just post about it on this forum.

[Menzath]

Some neat gems in here. Like how their are the various versions of pounce, you can have two different types, one that changes the single attack to a full attack, and another that let's you full attack after your pounce attack.
Of course the various dispelling and counter dispelling tricks.

But as far as PC's being to OP... A player only has as much power as a DM let's them attain.
Wether purposefully or out of neglect/naivety it is still up to the DM to balance gameplay accordingly, even of it means tunning prewritten campaigns.

And I like bfc warlocks, I mean, black tentacles and wall of force at will, with craft anything support.

[icefractal]

In the realm of theory vs practice -
It's common knowledge on here that magic like divinations, teleportation, etc disrupt a GMs plans much more than merely dealing enough damage to one-shot any foe. And thus, a GM who allows the former shouldn't raise an eyebrow at the latter.

IMO, no, not at all. While /IC/ it's certainly a bigger change to rework the BBEGs whole plan than for some monsters to have different stats, that's not the case OOC at all. The former I can do with mostly just thinking about it, occasionally checking the rules for something, and it can happen when I'm commuting or taking a walk. The latter is a lot of work custom-building foes, and requires dedicated time at home.

Also, it's hard to handle ubercharger-level damage except by negating it entirely (multiple foes only works vs certain types, it won't hinder an uber-shooter for instance). And for many characters, that means making them mostly useless for the fight.

And yes, I /could/ handle this by just thinking of fights as very short affairs that aren't a big part of gameplay, like making Survival checks or something; I wouldn't necessarily mind that. Problem is that most people who sign up for D&D do care about the fights.

[Doctor Awkward]

Some neat gems in here. Like how their are the various versions of pounce, you can have two different types, one that changes the single attack to a full attack, and another that let's you full attack after your pounce attack.

I would definitely take those assertions with a heavy dose of salt.

So far as any reasonable DM is concerned, there is definitely only one version of pounce, because the intent is obvious enough from the description what is supposed to be happening: instead of a single attack on a charge, you make a full attack action, all of which is part of the same charge action.

Contrary to popular opinion, mildly ambiguous wording is not, and never has been, license to ignore obvious intent. And common sense has always mattered when adjudicating the rules as written.

I didn't say this earlier because I really have no interest in derailing this thread by arguing as such, nor am I invested enough in such a debate to start a brand new thread my self.

[icefractal]

So far as any reasonable DM is concerned, there is definitely only one version of pounce, because the intent is obvious enough from the description what is supposed to be happening: instead of a single attack on a charge, you make a full attack action, all of which is part of the same charge action.

Bit of an assumption there. Going only by the MM version, "one charge attack plus a non-charge full attack" seems like the more obvious reading. And conceptually, it seems like as good or better of a fit. So I'm not sure why I'd "obviously" want to use something else instead.

[jdizzlean]

what pretty much no one will ever admit, because they are all trying to change your mind, is that in D&D, EVERY DM is right, all the time.

so all the various opinions about things in this or any thread are all valid, just not as valid in each individual's mind as their opinion.

[JNAProductions]

what pretty much no one will ever admit, because they are all trying to change your mind, is that in D&D, EVERY DM is right, all the time.

so all the various opinions about things in this or any thread are all valid, just not as valid in each individual's mind as their opinion.

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.

[frogglesmash]

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.

Your example is a statement of fact, not opinions. Opinions have no intrinsic validity, instead their validity is derived from integrity of the premises they're based on. The exception being purely subjective opinions.

[Crake]

What item is 1000 gp and gives you a +8? You're being ridiculous now.

+4 from inquisition domain (obtainable with a feat for non-clerics), +2 from elven spell lore, and +2 from a 1,000gp item, dispelling cord. Adds up to +8 there.

If you're taking 10 on your check, it's an automatic fail. And taking 10 is the whole point of Arcane Mastery. Which is why it's actually a bad feat: If you've specialized in dispelling, you don't really need it against those who haven't taken precautions against it, and if you do run up against people who have taken precautions, you fail. Taking 10 is for when you know you will succeed, which in this case you cannot.

Except when you fail the roll against the first buff with arcane master you can just roll for the next buff to be dispelled. You don't have to take 10 or roll for EVERY buff the enemy has, that's how pathfinder dispel magic works, one roll against all buffs.

[jdizzlean]

Um... No? Not even close.

If a DM says "The rules in 5E say you gain a +5 bonus on rolls when you have advantage", that DM is flat-out wrong. Now, they can make a houserule saying that's the case, but they're fully capable of being objectively wrong.

In a less clear case, it's fully possible to DM in a fashion that makes it not fun for yourself or others. I wouldn't necessarily equate that to being wrong, but it's comparable, and something that should be improved.

I find it funny in a community that so heavily relies on RAW and RAI that you ignore both.

DMG, page 5:

The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and
leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the
game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun.

so every DM is correct whether you like it or not. We're not talking shades of correct, or right vs wrong correct, or it's the blue plate special of correct. in that game, in that world, the DM is law, and therefor correct.

whether through argumentation or otherwise you manage to change that ruling, the DM is still infallible.