Witch's Cottage up to Archwizard's Castle (spells to become a stronghold builder)

[Westhart]

For the class, here are my thoughts on it:
They are construction based, I would increase the HD to a d6 . i don't think it would be OP, they are giving up cantrips, 5-9th level spells after all.

I would increase the skill points to 4+Int (2+ is lame IMO)

Spellcasting: "In return for this ability, he looses access to all other spells, except when he is within his own wizard’s stronghold." So at home he gets 9ths?

Also on spell list: Maybe give them true creation at 4th?

Contractor: I would make this a class ability, as is you get it anyways with a 1 level dip, and you have to be from the class, so anyone that has it already has a level in this class. Making it a class ability instead of a feat just eliminates trading it away, whether with DCFS or retraining.

The spells look balanced, I like this class, now just need to find an epic game that isn't "infinite loops allowed" or highly optimized

[jqavins]

They are construction based, I would increase the HD to a d6 .

They're wizard variants, not likely to be doing the hand's on physical construction much. They should be knowledgeable on how it's done and able to do it now and then, but still they're basically highly specialized wizards. So I retained the wizard hit die.

I would increase the skill points to 4+Int (2+ is lame IMO)

I would increase skill points to (4+int mod)/level for Sor/Wiz in general, but to fit in with established classes I stayed with the lame wizard figure. (I could replace that with "as wizard" so anyone who house rules better skills for wizards will be giving them here too.) It's extra lame for a building specialist, which is why I compensated with the extra four per level.

Spellcasting: "In return for this ability, he looses access to all other spells, except when he is within his own wizard’s stronghold." So at home he gets 9ths?

Yes. With the help of the boost from his own stronghold he is able to remain a full caster.

Also on spell list: Maybe give them true creation at 4th?

Yes, I should take another pass through the Sor/Wiz list and there may be a handful more spells he should have.

Contractor: I would make this a class ability...

Indeed, that would be a simpler way to say the same thing. I'll make the change.

That prestige class is bizarre, to say the least. You can't enter it until 5th, due to the 7 ranks requirement, and if they're supposed to be substitution levels (hence the 16 level PrC!), then there's no point providing separate attack or save bonuses.

They can't enter it until 5th level explicitly, and the 7 ranks was chosen to fit with that. I chose 5th level for entry because the entry point for the stronghold spells that rferries started with is third level spells. At first I had thought of making Witch's Cottage a prereq., but that would have meant delaying entry until 6th, which I didn't want to do. (And if I had, the ranks prereq. would have been 8.)

If I can simplify the attacks/saves as you suggest, I should indeed do that.

Moreover, what skills do you envisage as being so useful as being so useful that you can potentially invest 64 points in them (above level caps!), other than Craft (construction), which you don't mention at all, Knowledge (engineering) or Profession (architect)?

Knowledge, Profession, and Craft skills are wide open in what can be learned, not limited to the paltry list of examples in print. I neglected to include Craft in the allowed skills for applying the bonus points and for the prereq. But as for what they may be applied to, it can be any Craft, Knowledge, or Profession in any building trade, architecture, surveying, engineering, landscaping, interior design, etc. 64 ranks actually isn't enough to spread around as much as one might like.

And, yes, as rferries noted it is absolutely an NPC class. "Creat[ing] wondrous and spectacular homes, keeps, strongholds, and estates for the rich and powerful, who pay handsomely for them" is a good career for someone with wizard training who doesn't want to come face to face with monsters, but it would make for pretty boring gaming.

I should have some updates tomorrow night. (I'll be turning in early tonight because I have to get to work stupid early tomorrow.)

[Westhart]

They're wizard variants, not likely to be doing the hand's on physical construction much. They should be knowledgeable on how it's done and able to do it now and then, but still they're basically highly specialized wizards. So I retained the wizard hit die.

Ahh, fair enough then.

I would increase skill points to (4+int mod)/level for Sor/Wiz in general, but to fit in with established classes I stayed with the lame wizard figure. (I could replace that with "as wizard" so anyone who house rules better skills for wizards will be giving them here too.) It's extra lame for a building specialist, which is why I compensated with the extra four per level.

Fair enough then, in the games I run I just give everyone a +2 to skills/level

Yes. With the help of the boost from his own stronghold he is able to remain a full caster.

Ah, that's nice, I like it!
[quote]
It looks nice, have a game I'm starting off a module, although I think (now, due to this, and rerries spells , if it goes that far...) I have an idea on how to expand it afterwards.

[Caelestion]

Knowledge, Profession, and Craft skills are wide open in what can be learned, not limited to the paltry list of examples in print. I neglected to include Craft in the allowed skills for applying the bonus points and for the prereq. But as for what they may be applied to, it can be any Craft, Knowledge, or Profession in any building trade, architecture, surveying, engineering, landscaping, interior design, etc. 64 ranks actually isn't enough to spread around as much as one might like.

Exactly how many skills do you think that encompasses? Are you the sort of person who thinks that Knowledge (occult) or Knowledge (divination) are suitable potential skills when Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft already exist? Knowledge (architecture and engineering) is already a weak skill as it is!

[jqavins]

Exactly how many skills do you think that encompasses? Are you the sort of person who thinks that Knowledge (occult) or Knowledge (divination) are suitable potential skills when Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft already exist? Knowledge (architecture and engineering) is already a weak skill as it is!

Weak for a PC, but damned useful for an architect! If any knowledge, craft, or profession is good for what you're doing or want to do, and the DM buys it, it's valid. Any druid or ranger is likely to have Knowledge (nature), but if you want to be especially an expert in bugs by taking ranks in knowledge (entomology) then go for it. Sure, it's nonoptimal, but that's a player's prerogitive.

And in this case, it's an NPC. So, when the rich merchant with pretenrions of nobility wants to show off his new magical stronghold, maybe he'll hire the stronghold builder with lots of ranks in craft (landscaping), knowledge (horticulture), and craft (gardening).

[Ranged Ranger]

I like this class...

They can't enter it until 5th level explicitly, and the 7 ranks was chosen to fit with that. I chose 5th level for entry because the entry point for the stronghold spells that rferries started with is third level spells. At first I had thought of making Witch's Cottage a prereq., but that would have meant delaying entry until 6th, which I didn't want to do. (And if I had, the ranks prereq. would have been 8.)

I'm assuming this is 7 ranks in a single skill, not a total of 7 ranks in appropriate skills or 7 ranks each in related skills...

Knowledge, Profession, and Craft skills are wide open in what can be learned, not limited to the paltry list of examples in print. I neglected to include Craft in the allowed skills for applying the bonus points and for the prereq. But as for what they may be applied to, it can be any Craft, Knowledge, or Profession in any building trade, architecture, surveying, engineering, landscaping, interior design, etc. 64 ranks actually isn't enough to spread around as much as one might like.

I like the bonus skill points, esp. giving highly specialized individuals the ability to exceed the normal rank cap.

And, yes, as rferries noted it is absolutely an NPC class. "Creat[ing] wondrous and spectacular homes, keeps, strongholds, and estates for the rich and powerful, who pay handsomely for them" is a good career for someone with wizard training who doesn't want to come face to face with monsters, but it would make for pretty boring gaming.

I don't know... if you're allowed the "right" shenanigans in the right setting, it could be fun on a PC... You are a full caster while in your own stronghold: "I cast Meteor Swarm out the window of my Moving Castle". Not particularly practical, but in a non-serious campaign it could be fun... especially if this is only one side of a Gestalt Build...

Fair enough then, in the games I run I just give everyone a +2 to skills/level

Accross the board +w skills/level? I like that rule.

[Caelestion]

If any knowledge, craft, or profession is good for what you're doing or want to do, and the DM buys it, it's valid. Any druid or ranger is likely to have Knowledge (nature), but if you want to be especially an expert in bugs by taking ranks in knowledge (entomology) then go for it. Sure, it's nonoptimal, but that's a player's prerogitive.

There's a difference between 'non-optimal' and 'essentially worthless', but I think that's a topic for a different thread.

[Westhart]

Accross the board +w skills/level? I like that rule.

I preferred it over consolidation, less work on the GM... and I'm lazy

[Jormengand]

So to be clear, a 9th-level wizard can, with these spells, create a flying fortress, surrounded by a constant hailstorm, with several effects like an infinite supply of potions, an infinite supply of nightmares, a gate, a teleportation circle, and so forth...

...and you don't think that this is a cause for concern?

[jqavins]

The stronghold builder class updated according to feedback. As a summary of the changes:

1. Simplified by making Contractor a class ability rather than a new feat.
2. Simplified by removing the BaB and saves columns from the table in favor of a sentence.
3. Added the ability to add spells to the list and use them for construction through spell research. This portion could still use some fleshing out, or it can be left to the DM.

As to that last, I was on the verge of going through the entire Sor/Wiz spell list to pick out those that would be useful to this class, when I remembered that the original descriptions of the 14 spells list only certain particular spells that can be incorporated, and I already have all of those. (That's where I started.) So instead, I added the following:

Spell Research: The stronghold builder may learn other wizard spells and craft alterations to the stronghold building spells in order to incorporate them either into the stronghold’s defenses, structure, and decorations, or for use by the owner later. Creating the altered creation spell is a spell research activity, though with an improved chance of success and shortened time and cost. The spell to be included may be one that is accessible based on wizard levels, but if it is not then it must be created as special stronghold builder spell as standard spell research.

Spells researched in this way might include, for example, Hold Person as a defense, and Clairvoyance/Clairaudience as a capability for later use.

[rferries]

So to be clear, a 9th-level wizard can, with these spells, create a flying fortress, surrounded by a constant hailstorm, with several effects like an infinite supply of potions, an infinite supply of nightmares, a gate, a teleportation circle, and so forth...

...and you don't think that this is a cause for concern?

Yep! All linked creatures and effects vanish once you leave the stronghold (so you can't load up on potions of stoneskin etc. before leaving to fight a boss battle), it's really all flavour benefits. Adventures are generally based around the PCs going to their enemies, not about the enemies coming to the PCs (though these spells facilitate plot hooks like a siege on your stronghold).

[rferries]

The stronghold builder class updated according to feedback. As a summary of the changes:

1. Simplified by making Contractor a class ability rather than a new feat.
2. Simplified by removing the BaB and saves columns from the table in favor of a sentence.
3. Added the ability to add spells to the list and use them for construction through spell research. This portion could still use some fleshing out, or it can be left to the DM.

As to that last, I was on the verge of going through the entire Sor/Wiz spell list to pick out those that would be useful to this class, when I remembered that the original descriptions of the 14 spells list only certain particular spells that can be incorporated, and I already have all of those. (That's where I started.) So instead, I added the following:

Yeah I invested wayyyyy to much time in going through the spell lists for effects that were appropriate for a stronghold. Your generalised clause is much more elegant.

[Jormengand]

Adventures are generally based around the PCs going to their enemies.

What, you mean like with their flying, teleporting fortress?

[Ranged Ranger]

What, you mean like with their flying, teleporting fortress?

I kinda alluded to this option earlier... It's generally only useful as a siege tower, though... If you try to teleport to the Big Bad in their dungeon/stronghold/etc there probably won't be room for your stronghold to fit, and you risk having it destroyed by the collision/intrusion with the chamber walls...

[rferries]

What, you mean like with their flying, teleporting fortress?

Scry-and-die tactics are nothing new and are much more effective with other spells.

I kinda alluded to this option earlier... It's generally only useful as a siege tower, though... If you try to teleport to the Big Bad in their dungeon/stronghold/etc there probably won't be room for your stronghold to fit, and you risk having it destroyed by the collision/intrusion with the chamber walls...

Precisely. You can't really use it to target enemies, though you could perhaps lay waste to a countryside (and the low-level NPCs inhabiting it) by flying your fire-dominant tower through it, at least until the GM decides the local kingdoms are going to band against you.

[Jormengand]

Scry-and-die tactics are[...] much more effective with other spells.

Not really, apart from your other magnum opus of brokenness, omnipotence. Who wouldn't want a tower of infinite spells on their side in a battle?

Precisely. You can't really use it to target enemies, though you could perhaps lay waste to a countryside (and the low-level NPCs inhabiting it) by flying your fire-dominant tower through it, at least until the GM decides the local kingdoms are going to band against you.

"This is a really effective tactic, until the DM decides to use rule 0 to stop you" isn't really a compelling argument. Point out that the local kingdoms have no concievable way of knowing who was in the tower, let alone where the hell it came from, went, or any of the other information they would need to band against you. Not to mention that anyone who goes "Ah, this person with whom we have no quarrel in particular has demonstrated that they have the power to destroy entire kingdoms they don't like. We have no way of locating them and aren't certain of their motives or capabilities. Let's fight them!" is a complete idiot.

[rferries]

Not really, apart from your other magnum opus of brokenness, omnipotence. Who wouldn't want a tower of infinite spells on their side in a battle?

Hey, I'm going to start off by saying that I have always made an effort to be as polite as possible in my posts here. I actually went so far as to apologise to the guy in the other thread by PM, because judging by the vehemence of his last post it seemed I had personally offended him (and I was worried we were going to draw the wrath of the mods haha!). Better safe than sorry; God knows tone is hard to assess in this medium! With that in mind, I'm going to ask you to extend me the same courtesy and refrain from insults, ok?

"This is a really effective tactic, until the DM decides to use rule 0 to stop you" isn't really a compelling argument. Point out that the local kingdoms have no concievable way of knowing who was in the tower, let alone where the hell it came from, went, or any of the other information they would need to band against you. Not to mention that anyone who goes "Ah, this person with whom we have no quarrel in particular has demonstrated that they have the power to destroy entire kingdoms they don't like. We have no way of locating them and aren't certain of their motives or capabilities. Let's fight them!" is a complete idiot.

Well, that works both ways. Even if the stronghold could be used as an offense, who do you aim it at? If you know who to gun for, they should have the chance to know you're coming. Similarly, any options available to the PCs (including stronghold spells) should be available to the kingdoms as well. A stronghold vs stronghold battle could make for an epic fight! :)

[Jormengand]

Hey, I'm going to start off by saying that I have always made an effort to be as polite as possible in my posts here. I actually went so far as to apologise to the guy in the other thread by PM, because judging by the vehemence of his last post it seemed I had personally offended him (and I was worried we were going to draw the wrath of the mods haha!). Better safe than sorry; God knows tone is hard to assess in this medium! With that in mind, I'm going to ask you to extend me the same courtesy and refrain from insults, ok?

I'm refraining quite well from attacking you, but attacking your work and your defence of it is the whole point of what I'm doing here. I can hardly critique your work without critiquing it. And honestly, your nonchalant dismissal of anyone with a modicum of game design experience (I don't know how long AvatarVecna has been doing this, but I know from his work that he's pretty good, and I've been doing this for thirteen years so I like to think I know what I'm on about) raising exceptionally serious concerns about your flagrant crimes against balance, and the fact that you seem to be totally incapable of agreeing with any feedback which doesn't excessively praise your work - work which in omnipotence's case wasn't particularly imaginative, wasn't very impressive in technical detail, flew in the face of the system it was intrinsically linked to, and caused issues with balance to the tune of being literally thousands of times as powerful as it had any right to be - makes it very, very difficult to be anything other than at least a little critical.

Well, that works both ways. Even if the stronghold could be used as an offense, who do you aim it at? If you know who to gun for, they should have the chance to know you're coming.

The fact that a teleporting flying fortress is way, way, way easier to hide than a non-teleporting non-flying city kinda defeats that point.

Similarly, any options available to the PCs (including stronghold spells) should be available to the kingdoms as well. A stronghold vs stronghold battle could make for an epic fight! :)

I think that "Yeah well the enemy can have one too and then it's balanced" is basically the ultimate admission that your thing is not balanced.

[Ranged Ranger]

-SNIP-The fact that a teleporting flying fortress is way, way, way easier to hide than a non-teleporting non-flying city kinda defeats that point.-SNIP-

-SNIP-Precisely. You can't really use it to target enemies, though you could perhaps lay waste to a countryside (and the low-level NPCs inhabiting it) by flying your fire-dominant tower through it, at least until the GM decides the local kingdoms are going to band against you.

Jormengand, I'm still not seeing how any of these abuses are usefully exploitable by PCs? Attacking major cities? Laying waste to vast swaths of the countryside (including mass-murder of the civilian population)? These sound like the activities of an archvillain and possibly a plot-hook for mid-to-high level adventures.

Unless the campaign was specifically designed for archvillain PCs, it seems like any PC behaving in this manner is inviting the invocation of rule 0.

Core spells can also become significantly more powerful under certain rare circumstances. So how are exploits that can only be used by non-villains in extremely rare situations a problem for balance?

[Westhart]

Jormengand, I'm still not seeing how any of these abuses are usefully exploitable by PCs? Attacking major cities? Laying waste to vast swaths of the countryside (including mass-murder of the civilian population)? These sound like the activities of an archvillain and possibly a plot-hook for mid-to-high level adventures.

Unless the campaign was specifically designed for archvillain PCs, it seems like any PC behaving in this manner is inviting the invocation of rule 0.

Core spells can also become significantly more powerful under certain rare circumstances. So how are exploits that can only be used by non-villains in extremely rare situations a problem for balance?

Note, I'm not siding with anyone just felt like pointing some things out:
>A lot of parties don't play straight good characters... its boring
>Referring to rule 0 is not good for balance
>Core spells are some of the most broken spells in the game.

[Jormengand]

Jormengand, I'm still not seeing how any of these abuses are usefully exploitable by PCs? Attacking major cities? Laying waste to vast swaths of the countryside (including mass-murder of the civilian population)? These sound like the activities of an archvillain and possibly a plot-hook for mid-to-high level adventures.

Unless the campaign was specifically designed for archvillain PCs, it seems like any PC behaving in this manner is inviting the invocation of rule 0.

Core spells can also become significantly more powerful under certain rare circumstances. So how are exploits that can only be used by non-villains in extremely rare situations a problem for balance?

Attacking major bastions of evil might be a better use for PCs, say. Or just taking your free fortress with you that can blow up the evil dragon you're trying to slay, or throw on a bajillion buffs on the archer or mage PCs who are staying in the fortress. It's not "Extremely rare" that you might want to, essentially, destroy anything, kill anyone, heal anyone, or move anywhere - those are relatively standard PC activities. To say it's "Extremely rare" is disingenuous bordering on wilfully ignorant.

[Deepbluediver]

Attacking major bastions of evil might be a better use for PCs, say. Or just taking your free fortress with you that can blow up the evil dragon you're trying to slay, or throw on a bajillion buffs on the archer or mage PCs who are staying in the fortress. It's not "Extremely rare" that you might want to, essentially, destroy anything, kill anyone, heal anyone, or move anywhere - those are relatively standard PC activities. To say it's "Extremely rare" is disingenuous bordering on wilfully ignorant.

Dropping a building on someone actually seems like a decent way to resolve a LOT of problems, especially when it didn't cost you anything and you can just conjure up a new one.

Personally, I don't see this stuff as more broken than what's in core, but I'm not sure that's the best comparison to make because the stuff in core can be REALLY BROKEN. Now, you can run a perfectly fine game with just core material- whether its stated or just assumed, there are lots of people out there who agree not to abuse various possibilities because they know it makes the game less fun and leads to an escalating arms race. The problem is for people who see things the other way- they are given tools so why not use them? The GM wouldn't give this stuff to players if it wasn't meant to be exploited, right? A gameworld that's already dealing with all the tier 1 magic, like Tippyverse, might be able to handle it. But if you introduce this into a typical dung-ages fantasy setup, where 99% of NPCs are level-1 commoners and the party is the only real group with class-levels, things are going to start cracking pretty quickly.

[jqavins]

Dropping a building on someone actually seems like a decent way to resolve a LOT of problems, especially when it didn't cost you anything and you can just conjure up a new one.

I was in a party that actually did this once. We couldn't just conjure up another one, but that was OK because it wasn't ours. But I digress.

[Ranged Ranger]

-SNIP-"Extremely rare" is disingenuous bordering on wilfully ignorant.

Allow me to invoke the softer version of Hanlon's Razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

I'm sorry, my statements seem to have come from naivety on my part... I've only played with a few very similar groups... We didn't have any evil PC's at the table, and even when we weren't playing a dungeon crawl the enemy leader was almost always entrenched in a place where teleporting in something as large as a fortress would not have been possible.

In those campaigns it would have been extremely rare, If other DMs put their boss fights out in the open or have campaign worlds with "bastions of evil" large/open enough for those tactics to work, then it wouldn't be rare...

[noob]

I guess that you never considered the approach: destroy the bbeg fortress by making fortresses fall on it repetitively and spamming earthquake and any of the other dungeon breaking Technics.
Once the bbeg fortress have crumbled to ruins exploring is no longer adventuring: it is archaeology(and spamming that spell that makes eyes that travel through stone).

[Westhart]

I guess that you never considered the approach: destroy the bbeg fortress by making fortresses fall on it repetitively and spamming earthquake and any of the other dungeon breaking Technics.
Once the bbeg fortress have crumbled to ruins exploring is no longer adventuring: it is archaeology(and spamming that spell that makes eyes that travel through stone).

BBEG- What are you doing?
Me- Waiting
BBEG- Waiting? but why?
[CRASH]
Me-That.


Of course that ignores the only 1 at a time thing I think?

[jqavins]

Of course that ignores the only 1 at a time thing I think?

The one at a time thing combined with the fact that the stronghold building spells don't create the structure; that has to be done first by other means, magical or mundane. And if you have magical means of creating and/or assembling large quantities of stone then the stronghold spells don't change much when it comes to dropping said stones on the BBEG. And they change nothing when it comes to spamming earthquakes, using umberhulks to undermine, spamming fireballs to set the countryside ablaze, etc.

[rferries]

I'm refraining quite well from attacking you, but attacking your work and your defence of it is the whole point of what I'm doing here. I can hardly critique your work without critiquing it. And honestly, your nonchalant dismissal of anyone with a modicum of game design experience (I don't know how long AvatarVecna has been doing this, but I know from his work that he's pretty good, and I've been doing this for thirteen years so I like to think I know what I'm on about) raising exceptionally serious concerns about your flagrant crimes against balance, and the fact that you seem to be totally incapable of agreeing with any feedback which doesn't excessively praise your work - work which in omnipotence's case wasn't particularly imaginative, wasn't very impressive in technical detail, flew in the face of the system it was intrinsically linked to, and caused issues with balance to the tune of being literally thousands of times as powerful as it had any right to be - makes it very, very difficult to be anything other than at least a little critical.

I realised too late in the other thread that while I was aiming for "good-natured" in my responses they were coming off as "nonchalant", hence my apologising to AvatarVecna after his blow-up. Though after a recent PM from him I've come to the unfortunate conclusion it wasn't worth taking his feelings into consideration after all.

The rest of your comment kind of underlines my point - not only are you bringing up homebrew from an entirely different thread but you're not being constructively critical while doing so - a lot of negatives but no suggestions for improvement. You're being particularly unfair in that I did edit the spells according to feedback, albeit not to anyone's total satisfaction perhaps (least of all my own haha).

The fact that a teleporting flying fortress is way, way, way easier to hide than a non-teleporting non-flying city kinda defeats that point.

I think that "Yeah well the enemy can have one too and then it's balanced" is basically the ultimate admission that your thing is not balanced.

RAI is indeed a cop-out but sometimes you have to use it, same as you do for the wall of iron/fabricate cheat. The stronghold spells are clearly written for flavour rather than function - if a GM allows a PC to use these spells it's with the understanding that they won't be abused.

Jormengand, I'm still not seeing how any of these abuses are usefully exploitable by PCs? Attacking major cities? Laying waste to vast swaths of the countryside (including mass-murder of the civilian population)? These sound like the activities of an archvillain and possibly a plot-hook for mid-to-high level adventures.

Unless the campaign was specifically designed for archvillain PCs, it seems like any PC behaving in this manner is inviting the invocation of rule 0.

Core spells can also become significantly more powerful under certain rare circumstances. So how are exploits that can only be used by non-villains in extremely rare situations a problem for balance?

Hah! You're right, these spells SHOULD be abuseable by evil PCs :D Otherwise agreed; games don't happen in a vacuum so if a PC is running wild with the spells they should be smacked down just as Pun-Pun would be.

Note, I'm not siding with anyone just felt like pointing some things out:
>A lot of parties don't play straight good characters... its boring
>Referring to rule 0 is not good for balance
>Core spells are some of the most broken spells in the game.

All good points.

Attacking major bastions of evil might be a better use for PCs, say. Or just taking your free fortress with you that can blow up the evil dragon you're trying to slay, or throw on a bajillion buffs on the archer or mage PCs who are staying in the fortress. It's not "Extremely rare" that you might want to, essentially, destroy anything, kill anyone, heal anyone, or move anywhere - those are relatively standard PC activities. To say it's "Extremely rare" is disingenuous bordering on wilfully ignorant.

Again, in the unlikely event that the DM allows you to use the stronghold in combat your foes (whether good or evil) should have appropriate defenses/counterattacks, be they stronghold spells or anti-stronghold spells or somesuch.

Dropping a building on someone actually seems like a decent way to resolve a LOT of problems, especially when it didn't cost you anything and you can just conjure up a new one.

Personally, I don't see this stuff as more broken than what's in core, but I'm not sure that's the best comparison to make because the stuff in core can be REALLY BROKEN. Now, you can run a perfectly fine game with just core material- whether its stated or just assumed, there are lots of people out there who agree not to abuse various possibilities because they know it makes the game less fun and leads to an escalating arms race. The problem is for people who see things the other way- they are given tools so why not use them? The GM wouldn't give this stuff to players if it wasn't meant to be exploited, right? A gameworld that's already dealing with all the tier 1 magic, like Tippyverse, might be able to handle it. But if you introduce this into a typical dung-ages fantasy setup, where 99% of NPCs are level-1 commoners and the party is the only real group with class-levels, things are going to start cracking pretty quickly.

Agreed, there must always be a contract between DM and players not to break the game and players who can't be trusted to follow that compact souldn't be allowed to use the new "toys". I don't get too worked up about the potential for things being 'broken" when I've gone out of my way to detail how they should be kept under control (linked effects etc.) - any potential exploits are something to address with the players at that point rather than rewriting the spells.

I was in a party that actually did this once. We couldn't just conjure up another one, but that was OK because it wasn't ours. But I digress.

Ha awesome.

Allow me to invoke the softer version of Hanlon's Razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

I'm sorry, my statements seem to have come from naivety on my part... I've only played with a few very similar groups... We didn't have any evil PC's at the table, and even when we weren't playing a dungeon crawl the enemy leader was almost always entrenched in a place where teleporting in something as large as a fortress would not have been possible.

In those campaigns it would have been extremely rare, If other DMs put their boss fights out in the open or have campaign worlds with "bastions of evil" large/open enough for those tactics to work, then it wouldn't be rare...

Yes, a little graciousness goes a long way, especially in this medium where tone can be so hard to read. We're all here to have fun at the end of the day, no need to be venomous with each other.

It's funny how mechanics (be they spells, feats, magic items etc.) an have radically different applications, depending on the campaign setting, yes.

I guess that you never considered the approach: destroy the bbeg fortress by making fortresses fall on it repetitively and spamming earthquake and any of the other dungeon breaking Technics.
Once the bbeg fortress have crumbled to ruins exploring is no longer adventuring: it is archaeology(and spamming that spell that makes eyes that travel through stone).

Most of the mass of the stronghold would vanish when the spell effect ended... plus you need a lot of prep time to spam the spell so after the first attempt the BBEG would be ready (assuming he/she wasn't already forewarned). Makes for a hilarious, Wizard of Oz-type visual though ("Now begone, Sauron! Before somebody drops a house on you, too!"). :D

BBEG- What are you doing?
Me- Waiting
BBEG- Waiting? but why?
[CRASH]
Me-That.


Of course that ignores the only 1 at a time thing I think?

Details, details... :D

The one at a time thing combined with the fact that the stronghold building spells don't create the structure; that has to be done first by other means, magical or mundane. And if you have magical means of creating and/or assembling large quantities of stone then the stronghold spells don't change much when it comes to dropping said stones on the BBEG. And they change nothing when it comes to spamming earthquakes, using umberhulks to undermine, spamming fireballs to set the countryside ablaze, etc.

Yeah, magic has an infinite number of destructive applications.

[Deepbluediver]

Agreed, there must always be a contract between DM and players not to break the game and players who can't be trusted to follow that compact souldn't be allowed to use the new "toys". I don't get too worked up about the potential for things being 'broken" when I've gone out of my way to detail how they should be kept under control (linked effects etc.) - any potential exploits are something to address with the players at that point rather than rewriting the spells.

My point was mainly that the possibility of exploitation is something you should be aware of when homebrewing.
One thing that I've found helpful is to state right at the start of my original post (where it can't be missed) what my intended goal with a particular 'brew is. That can help people determine if you want them to look for balance or point out things that need clarification or you simply want them to consider the story elements or anything else, and you won't get it (or maybe just have fewer) arguments over stuff that you might not care about.

[Jormengand]

I think excessive use of Oberoni Fallacy to defend this kinda proves it's broken. Ideally, you should write homebrew that the DM shouldn't have to nerf or restrict via rule zero in order for it to be remotely playable, let alone actually balanced.