Spirit Shaman

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:You realize that this is D&D 3.5, and not Pathfinder, right?

These are two different games, chief. The game mechanics work somewhat differently here.

Nice try, but you fail.
Hmmmm, but I distinctly remember you saying you had "never heard" of at-will spells. The argument wasn't whether that was what the class had, that was pretty clear, instead you claimed:
I've heard of spell-like abilities being cast at-will, but never....spells.
Well, at-will spells are one of the core class features of the currently available version of the 3e ruleset. So claiming that they are some out-of-left-field invention is pretty disingenuous.
Wait a second. I don't gain experience points for fighting someone's class features?
No. It's laid out in the DMG:
DMG wrote:Do not award XP for creatures that enemies summon or otherwise add to their forces with magic powers. An enemy’s ability to summon or add these creatures is part of the enemy’s CR already. (You don’t give PCs more XP if a drow cleric casts unholy blight on them, so don’t give them more XP if she casts summon monster IV instead.)
Some characters get class features that give them extra hp or damage on attacks, and some get the ability to summon a bear or an ethereal spirit buddy. One type of class feature doesn't make you worth more xp than another, because then you are explicitly saying that a level in one class makes you better than a level in another class and the whole unified xp chart comes crashing down. I mean, we all know it's true that a level in Druid is worth more than a level in Barbarian, but if the game admits that the whole thing falls apart.
Also, the Spirit Guide rules are poorly laid out, in that they are extremely vague. This isn't 5e; it's D&D 3.5.....so we deserve more appropriate clarification.
This is the only part of your rant that I thought had some actual meat to it. Yes, the Spirit Guide rules are incomplete and written rather informally. The intent is pretty clear, but Kaelik didn't fully lay out the limitations and abilities of the Spirit Guide. This could do with cleaning up and clarifying whether the Spirit Guide is a bona-fide Ethereal combatant or merely an observer, and what happens if it bites the dust. So I can get behind some clarification here.
I'm bored by a casting mechanic for a class that has no thematic justification for it.
I guess just I don't really see a strong "thematic justification" for most of the casting mechanics in D&D. Why do Clerics lose spells when they are cast instead of being able to cast healing all day? Does their God get too tired after one casting? Why does a Druid have to choose spells at the start of the day to cast whilst a Beguiler can pick from a list whenever they want? None of this seems overly thematic to me, so the Spirit Shaman getting a list that they can cast from all day is fairly by-the-by.
I'm bored by the fact that by mid-levels, this class doesn't engage in any meaningful resource management whatsoever.
Ah, I see. You like your casters to cast a few big spells and then force everyone else to have a rest. I think most people here have decided that the 5-minute workday is a bad thing and therefore don't feel the need to pander to it.
This class is a poorly-edited piece of shit, and you're getting butthurt because an outsider is hurting your buddy's delicate little feelings.
Me and Kaelik have had plenty of disagreements in the past. In fact I've been Kaeliked on numerous occasions, but instead of getting butthurt and following him around picking faults with his posts to try to make myself feel better I just got on with my life.

If I thought Kaelik's class was a poorly edited piece of shit I'd be first in line to lay out why. In fact you can see Denners lining up to rip apart each others work on this very forum. But for some reason only you seem to have an issue with this class. Why might that be, I wonder? Oh, it must be that famour Den groupthinkin action again... :rofl:
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:You posted something for public consumption, therefore, it should be properly labeled. You could have listed "Spells At Will" in the table, but you neglected to.....because you forgot to do so, and now you're trying to argue your way out of admitting that you made a mistake.
I didn't forget to put it there. I literally copied the table from a different class that also didn't label the table, because there is no reason to label the table. I then didn't add a label to the table, because when there is one table, you don't need to label it, since there is only one, and therefore obviously all references to the table refer to that one.

And once again, if I was going to label the table it would not be called "spells at will" it would be called "Daily spells known." Because that is what the table actually represents.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Do you have something against resource management? That's not a sin, but I just don't see what you're going for here. Your class will fuck the living shit out of most other base classes in D&D 3.5, with the exception of a few primary casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc.).....and even they will need to be properly optimized to keep up with your Spirit Shaman class.
This is a (stupid and wrong) power complaint, not a thematic complaint. If you have no justification for your claim that thematically the casting is wrong, then admit that you have no thematic complaint, and only power ones.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Let me get this straight:

You deliberately create a class with UNLIMITED SPELLCASTING, but then for reasons that escape me......you decide to use LESS POWERFUL spells to accomplish your goals.

So you either don't understand spell tactics, or are instead using spell choices to fit your character's "theme".....or you're deliberately hobbling yourself, in order to avoid pissing off your fellow players.

But you're definitely not using this class to anywhere near its full destructive potential, in order to determine what it can really do.
You are an idiot. Icelance and Kelpstrand are two of the best Druid spells of their particular levels. Your belief that summoned monsters are sooooo great is both 1) Wrong, 2) An Accounting Nightmare, 3) Often not more powerful, or even significantly less so, than casting Kelpstrand or Ice Lance.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:So no, you're NOT going to outshine the party using spells such as Icelance or Kelpstrand, especially if you only use them a handful of times.Those spells are nice, but they certainly aren't camapaign-busters.
Yes, because the Druid list is filled with nice spells that aren't campaign busters (although, I have personally busted a campaign with Kelpstrand before). I did in fact use them every single round of combat, it isn't my fault that across multiple encounters all my actions did not amount to huge amounts of spells.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:He does. There isn't a single base class in D&D 3.5 that has such a high degree of spell power.
Spell power is not a meaningful term without a definition. Define this term, and I will explain why either you are wrong, or no one cares. Otherwise, this lacks meaning.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I am NOT looking through that link. Seriously, you can fucking forget it.

There is absolutely no way I'm gonna delve through that endless word salad of countless pages of homebrew material, just so that I can evaluate one single class.

Not a chance.
1) If you refuse to evaluate a class within the balance paradigm it was designed for, then you refuse to have an informed opinion, and no one cares what you think.
2) The point of the post was to demonstrate that there are many at will casting classes that have already been designed, and all your criticisms are addressed in those discussions.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I'm not evaluating an entirely new game here; I'm evaluating a new class.
For a Tome game, even though you refuse to read the Tome rules, thus rendering your opinion meaningless.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Read my questions and statements in the other posts above, then try to tell me with a straight face that your game mechanics are clearly explained.
Which questions? You have asked lots of questions that have already been adequately addressed by others or myself.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
Sacrificial Lamb
Apprentice
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:36 am
Location: USA

Post by Sacrificial Lamb »

RelentlessImp wrote:
This class is a poorly-edited piece of shit, and you're getting butthurt because an outsider is hurting your buddy's delicate little feelings.
Actually, no, it sounds like you're getting butthurt. This is the Den. We use strong language. If you can't handle it, the door's over there, it looks like an X on your browser's tab. If you can't handle it yet think you get to claim the moral high ground while using it, you're a hypocritical piece of shit that needs to get the fuck out because only ridicule remains.
And the same applies to you, cupcake. If I'm hurting YOUR delicate feelings, the door is also right over there.

You can walk through it, if you'd like.

But seriously, Kaelik hasn't addressed most of my questions, and due to the fuarked layout of this site.....I'm not going to keep asking those very same questions, over and over again. It's just too time-consuming.

These re-posted questions below only cover part of my concerns. I posted other concerns earlier. Did Kaelik address most of them? Not really. And not that it matters, because he's certainly not gonna win the shitty ENNies with this poorly-written manure, nor would he ever win the rpg version of the Hugo Awards (if such a thing somehow existed, which it doesn't).
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(1.) If a Spirit Guide tethered to a 10th-level Spirit Shaman gains a +10 untyped bonus to all Knowledge skills, does that merit a bonus to its Challenge Rating?

(2.) If a Spirit Guide that ordinarily possesses a 10 Intelligence has its Intelligence amped up to a 20 Intelligence (because of the Spirit Shaman's Wisdom score), will its Challenge Rating increase?

(3.) Would the combination of +10 to all Knowledge skills, and a 10 point increase to Intelligence merit a modifier to the Spirit Guide's Challenge Rating?

(4.) If a spell or magic item temporarily increases the Spirit Shaman's Wisdom, does the Spirit Guide's Intelligence also temporarily increase?

(5.) If the Spirit Guide's Intelligence increases, does it gain bonuses to various Intelligence-based skills?

(6.) Does the Spirit Guide's potential Intelligence increase affect the Difficulty Class of spells and spell-like abilities (all of which need to be recalculated for saving throws)?

(7.) Can someone gain xp for fighting and destroying the Spirit Guide?

(8.) Does the Spirit Guide actually fight and defend itself in the Ethereal Plane?

I will repeat:

All monsters have skills and feats.

(9.) Why would the Spirit Guide not have skills and feats, unless it doesn't actually exist?

(10.) Does the Spirit Guide only have the physical appearance of a monster of appropriate Challenge Rating, but without any actual substance....even in the Ethereal Plane?

(11.) Does the Spirit Guide have a Challenge Rating equal to the Spirit Shaman's class level or character level?

(12.) Can the Spirit Guide be affected just like other creatures in the Ethereal Plane?

Remember, just because you exist only in the Ethereal Plane....and just because you're a spirit, doesn't mean that you can't be affected by other beings.

Now....do you understand what I mean by "editing problems"?

Not everything here is clear, as the written word is not Kaelik's forte.
Last edited by Sacrificial Lamb on Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

Well, I got well and truly Ninja'd there. This is what happens when trying to reply to each question brought up in a post that is just about long enough to be used in a fillibuster.

You are extremely boring, SL, so people are going to have difficulty going through your entire list and answering each one. I strongly recommend taking a course in being less boring.
Last edited by Koumei on Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:But seriously, Kaelik hasn't addressed most of my questions, and due to the fuarked layout of this site.....I'm not going to keep asking those very same questions, over and over again. It's just too time-consuming.

These re-posted questions below only cover part of my concerns. I posted over concerns earlier. Did Kaelik address most of them? Not really.
If you have questions you believe are unaddressed (and keep in mind, don't feel like you have to repost an obviously answered question that was explained to you with citations to the DMG just because I haven't answered it) post all of those. I'm not going to answer a bunch of already answered questions just to have you post different already answered questions and complain that I haven't addressed them.

Get all the questions you still think you need an answer to in one place, and I will waste entire large parts of my time (re)answering your stupid questions.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
RelentlessImp
Knight-Baron
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am

Post by RelentlessImp »

Seriously, these are the only thing you need to reply to in regards to Sacrificial Lamb:
You realize that this is D&D 3.5, and not Pathfinder, right?

These are two different games, chief. The game mechanics work somewhat differently here.

Nice try, but you fail.
I am NOT looking through that link. Seriously, you can fucking forget it.

There is absolutely no way I'm gonna delve through that endless word salad of countless pages of homebrew material, just so that I can evaluate one single class.

Not a chance.

I'm not evaluating an entirely new game here; I'm evaluating a new class.
Go fuck yourself. This isn't meant for D&D 3.5, this is meant for D&D 3.Tome. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with the game it's actually for, then go sit on a rusted, spiked rod, and spin. Okay, pumpkin?
Last edited by RelentlessImp on Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sacrificial Lamb
Apprentice
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:36 am
Location: USA

Post by Sacrificial Lamb »

Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:You posted something for public consumption, therefore, it should be properly labeled. You could have listed "Spells At Will" in the table, but you neglected to.....because you forgot to do so, and now you're trying to argue your way out of admitting that you made a mistake.
I didn't forget to put it there. I literally copied the table from a different class that also didn't label the table, because there is no reason to label the table. I then didn't add a label to the table, because when there is one table, you don't need to label it, since there is only one, and therefore obviously all references to the table refer to that one.

And once again, if I was going to label the table it would not be called "spells at will" it would be called "Daily spells known." Because that is what the table actually represents.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Do you have something against resource management? That's not a sin, but I just don't see what you're going for here. Your class will fuck the living shit out of most other base classes in D&D 3.5, with the exception of a few primary casters (Cleric, Druid, Wizard, etc.).....and even they will need to be properly optimized to keep up with your Spirit Shaman class.
This is a (stupid and wrong) power complaint, not a thematic complaint. If you have no justification for your claim that thematically the casting is wrong, then admit that you have no thematic complaint, and only power ones.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Let me get this straight:

You deliberately create a class with UNLIMITED SPELLCASTING, but then for reasons that escape me......you decide to use LESS POWERFUL spells to accomplish your goals.

So you either don't understand spell tactics, or are instead using spell choices to fit your character's "theme".....or you're deliberately hobbling yourself, in order to avoid pissing off your fellow players.

But you're definitely not using this class to anywhere near its full destructive potential, in order to determine what it can really do.
You are an idiot. Icelance and Kelpstrand are two of the best Druid spells of their particular levels. Your belief that summoned monsters are sooooo great is both 1) Wrong, 2) An Accounting Nightmare, 3) Often not more powerful, or even significantly less so, than casting Kelpstrand or Ice Lance.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:So no, you're NOT going to outshine the party using spells such as Icelance or Kelpstrand, especially if you only use them a handful of times.Those spells are nice, but they certainly aren't camapaign-busters.
Yes, because the Druid list is filled with nice spells that aren't campaign busters (although, I have personally busted a campaign with Kelpstrand before). I did in fact use them every single round of combat, it isn't my fault that across multiple encounters all my actions did not amount to huge amounts of spells.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:He does. There isn't a single base class in D&D 3.5 that has such a high degree of spell power.
Spell power is not a meaningful term without a definition. Define this term, and I will explain why either you are wrong, or no one cares. Otherwise, this lacks meaning.
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I am NOT looking through that link. Seriously, you can fucking forget it.

There is absolutely no way I'm gonna delve through that endless word salad of countless pages of homebrew material, just so that I can evaluate one single class.

Not a chance.
1) If you refuse to evaluate a class within the balance paradigm it was designed for, then you refuse to have an informed opinion, and no one cares what you think.
2) The point of the post was to demonstrate that there are many at will casting classes that have already been designed, and all your criticisms are addressed in those discussions.

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I'm not evaluating an entirely new game here; I'm evaluating a new class.
For a Tome game, even though you refuse to read the Tome rules, thus rendering your opinion meaningless.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Read my questions and statements in the other posts above, then try to tell me with a straight face that your game mechanics are clearly explained.
Which questions? You have asked lots of questions that have already been adequately addressed by others or myself.
I never cease to be amazed at the cosmically high degree of stupidity demonstrated by you, and other Denners like you.

I ask questions; you say you've answered these questions (while ignoring most of them), then ineptly try to declare victory at the argument.

The only thing left to address in your post is what I've set in bold. Somehow, you suffer under the mistaken belief that I should read hundreds...or even THOUSANDS of pages of Tomes material, in order to evaluate your single class, even though it's supposed to be compatible with D&D 3.5. Am I mistaken? Are the Tomes not compatible with D&D 3.5 at all?

I read through your class, assuming that it was intended to be compatible with D&D 3.5. A reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

Either the Tomes are fully compatible with D&D 3.5, or they're not. If they are 3.5 compatible, then I evaluate it based upon that. If this is not D&D 3.5 homebrew (but rather a totally different d20 game, that is strongly influenced by D&D 3.5), then just fucking say it. I absolutely shouldn't need to read endless amounts of word salad to properly evaluate a single class.....unless you're instead telling me to evaluate an ENTIRELY NEW d20 Heartbreaker game.

In which case, just print the damn thing.....because I'm not reading hundreds or THOUSANDS of pages on this computer screen.

I was going to post an update to My Luckbringer Druid class, but I've come to the conclusion that you guys are too epically stupid and narrow-minded to properly evaluate it.

Enjoy your shitty class.
RelentlessImp wrote:First, go fuck yourself. This isn't meant for D&D 3.5, this is meant for D&D 3.Tome. If you're not willing to familiarize yourself with the game it's actually for, then go sit on a rusted, spiked rod, and spin. Okay, pumpkin?
(1.) Fuck you right back.

(2.) His shitty class is still boring, and the game mechanics for the Spirit Guide are (still!) unclear.

(3.) How insanely powerful are the Tome classes (and monsters) that he can have a casting mechanic that permits him to cast cast cast ALL FUCKING DAY, without nuking the campaign?

(4.) If this class wasn't meant for D&D 3.5, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT at the top of this Godforsaken thread.
Kaeilik wrote:If you have questions you believe are unaddressed (and keep in mind, don't feel like you have to repost an obviously answered question that was explained to you with citations to the DMG just because I haven't answered it) post all of those. I'm not going to answer a bunch of already answered questions just to have you post different already answered questions and complain that I haven't addressed them.

Get all the questions you still think you need an answer to in one place, and I will waste entire large parts of my time (re)answering your stupid questions.
I almost believe that you're being sincere now, but I'm almost too tired to care.

Is what you're implying true? Do I really need to read the Tomes in its entirety to properly evaluate this class? If so, then this is just a completely new d20 game....and it's not your class that I should be evaluating, but rather....the Tomes itself. :ugone2far:
RelentlessImp
Knight-Baron
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am

Post by RelentlessImp »

I was going to post an update to My Luckbringer Druid class, but I've come to the conclusion that you guys are too epically stupid and narrow-minded to properly evaluate it.
Oh no, your shitty and thematically inconsistent class isn't going to get an update. Whatever shall we do.
(3.) How insanely powerful are the Tome classes (and monsters) that he can have a casting mechanic that permits him to cast cast cast ALL FUCKING DAY, without nuking the campaign?
You'd know this if you weren't a complete idiot that think you can comment on a class for a completely different power structure while going off on your mistaken assumption that it's for D&D 3.5's power structure. For your information, Tome classes are usually designed to go all day long.
(4.) If this class wasn't meant for D&D 3.5, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT at the top of this Godforsaken thread.
90% of the homebrew material posted here is for Tome, a Fantasy Heartbreaker, or a Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker. If it's vaguely D&D-like, it's probably Tome. This isn't a very difficult piece of information to come by.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I never cease to be amazed at the cosmically high degree of stupidity demonstrated by you, and other Denners like you.
Look, do you realize that you are using an insulting nickname when you say this? Like, as a general rule, when I want to take the moral high ground I don't call jewish people kikes. Like, if you mean to say that, it is fine, but you should be aware of what you are doing.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I ask questions; you say you've answered these questions (while ignoring most of them), then ineptly try to declare victory at the argument.
I have asked you to post everything you think hasn't been answered. You appear to be the only person trying to declare victory, such as when you claimed I obviously forgot something and was just lying to cover for this.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Am I mistaken? Are the Tomes not compatible with D&D 3.5 at all?
Define Compatible. Can you play any Tome class in 3.5? Mechanically, sure? But you shouldn't be surprised when teleport spells are given out more freely, because teleport works differently in Tome. And if you are going to complain about the at will casting of a Tome class, you have to explain why that class having at will casting is a problem when lots of other at will casting classes exist in Tome.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I read through your class, assuming that it was intended to be compatible with D&D 3.5. A reasonable person could come to that conclusion.
Again, this requires a definition of compatible to mean anything. Using the same rules does not mean being balance to the same standard. All of Tome is balanced against Monster in the MM, and Wizards and Druids, none of the Tome classes are balanced against 3.5 fighters. So if they are stronger than a fighter but the same as a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, that shouldn't be surprising.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(2.) His shitty class is still boring, and the game mechanics for the Spirit Guide are (still!) unclear.
No, they really aren't.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(3.) How insanely powerful are the Tome classes (and monsters) that he can have a casting mechanic that permits him to cast cast cast ALL FUCKING DAY, without nuking the campaign?
Many of the MM monsters can already cast cast cast cast all day. Many of the Tome classes can already cast cast cast cast all day. Many of the Tome classes can attack attack attack attack all day. The ability to keep playing the game all day long is not a particularly weird or bad thing. Even lots of 3.5 characters like Dragon Shaman/Warlock/Fighter/Rogue can do that.

The important thing to recognize is that actions taken matter a lot more than resources spent at a lot of levels.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(4.) If this class wasn't meant for D&D 3.5, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT at the top of this Godforsaken thread.
No, it shouldn't have. You decision to assume the class was made for 3.5 instead of something else is not a privileged special default assumption. The default assumption on TGD for classes is that they are for Tome.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Krusk
Knight-Baron
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 3:56 pm

Post by Krusk »

Wait, have you somehow not heard of tome before this thread? Isnt that like 95% of the reason people find this forum?
AcidBlades
Journeyman
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 12:54 am

Post by AcidBlades »

I'm a dumbass and will respond to this pile of useless questions. Alcohol is toxic to my brain.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(1.) If a Spirit Guide tethered to a 10th-level Spirit Shaman gains a +10 untyped bonus to all Knowledge skills, does that merit a bonus to its Challenge Rating?
Why would having a bunch of knowledge skills equate to an increase of CR?

A wizard with points invested into relevant knowledge skills is pretty much going to beat the Spirit shaman's Knowledge pretty much 95% of the time, unless you are playing with hipsters who like low dice rolls for some reason.
(2.) If a Spirit Guide that ordinarily possesses a 10 Intelligence has its Intelligence amped up to a 20 Intelligence (because of the Spirit Shaman's Wisdom score), will its Challenge Rating increase?
It isn't exactly the same as having 20 intelligence m8. Not that INT is a particularly good stat for anyone who isn't a wizard to begin with. All the spirit shaman does is make someone a decent knowledge monkey. That's pretty much it.
(3.) Would the combination of +10 to all Knowledge skills, and a 10 point increase to Intelligence merit a modifier to the Spirit Guide's Challenge Rating?
Not really. Though the spirit shaman doesn't even fucking do that until level 10 anyways. Where the wizard should again be rocking out more than +10 than to relevant knowledge checks (which is pretty much knowledge Nature, Arcana, Dungeoneering, and The Planes) Everything else sort of a crapshoot.

That and a wizard probably rocks a better spell list at either case.
(4.) If a spell or magic item temporarily increases the Spirit Shaman's Wisdom, does the Spirit Guide's Intelligence also temporarily increase?
In the game that the class was being tested in, that was the ruling. Why wouldn't that be the case?
(5.) If the Spirit Guide's Intelligence increases, does it gain bonuses to various Intelligence-based skills?
Yes. Also you're stupid as shit if you can't figure out something painfully obvious.
(6.) Does the Spirit Guide's potential Intelligence increase affect the Difficulty Class of spells and spell-like abilities (all of which need to be recalculated for saving throws)?
No. The Spirit Guide itself doesn't have access to spell casting. What makes you think that a druid-based class would even have Int as a spell-casting score anyways?
(8.) Does the Spirit Guide actually fight and defend itself in the Ethereal Plane?
Probably. It is a monster in the ethereal plane. Of an appropriate CR level.
(9.)Why would the Spirit Guide not have skills and feats, unless it doesn't actually exist?
I would assume that the Spirit Guide would have skills of the original creature? Plus whatever the class-feature is granted to the Spirit Shaman.
(10.) Does the Spirit Guide only have the physical appearance of a monster of appropriate Challenge Rating, but without any actual substance....even in the Ethereal Plane?
I'd assume that's the case. Most likely is.
(11.) Does the Spirit Guide have a Challenge Rating equal to the Spirit Shaman's class level or character level?
No shit. The Spirit Guide is a creature of the same CR as the spirit shaman. It changes shape each time it levels up.
(12.) Can the Spirit Guide be affected just like other creatures in the Ethereal Plane?
More or less?
Remember, just because you exist only in the Ethereal Plane....and just because you're a spirit, doesn't mean that you can't be affected by other beings.

Now....do you understand what I mean by "editing problems"?

Not everything here is clear, as the written word is not Kaelik's forte.
I'm pretty sure that Kaelik had that in mind. Considering that the damn creature was chasing after a ghost, preventing it from doing whatever Paizo AP bullshit that it would've done.

Questions for Kaelik. Why was your Spirit Guide the form of a raven? Wouldn't it be more like the form of a Dire Lion or a Constrictor Snake? That is appropriate CR 5 creatures.
Last edited by AcidBlades on Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Acid, some of those answers make no sense at all. Like I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the question, which is fair, because they are really really stupid questions, but when he asks if the creature has only the physical appearance, but without substance on the ethereal, you say yes, probably, even though that is directly the opposite of what you say in answer to almost every other question.

Now, I of course answered that question already, when I pointed out: WTF, of course it physically exists on the Ethereal, did I just say that in the description? Why would I say that it is a creature on the ethereal if it isn't really on the ethereal?

DM choose the form, he picked Raven because he is lazy, I pointed out that Raven wasn't CR appropriate, so he said it was a huge badass raven. I expect him to put in more effort now that we/when we level next session.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
AcidBlades
Journeyman
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 12:54 am

Post by AcidBlades »

I didn't get that ...even in the ethereal plane part.

What I meant to say in a less long-winded way is that you should rest in a bed made out of rusty used needles lamb-man. You useless twat.

Don't worry, I'll join you Lamb. I'm equally as useless.
Last edited by AcidBlades on Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sacrificial Lamb
Apprentice
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:36 am
Location: USA

Post by Sacrificial Lamb »

RelentlessImp wrote:
I was going to post an update to My Luckbringer Druid class, but I've come to the conclusion that you guys are too epically stupid and narrow-minded to properly evaluate it.
Oh no, your shitty and thematically inconsistent class isn't going to get an update. Whatever shall we do.
Do? You'll probably be passive-aggressive. This type of behavior is practically an art form around here.
RelentlessImp wrote:
(3.) How insanely powerful are the Tome classes (and monsters) that he can have a casting mechanic that permits him to cast cast cast ALL FUCKING DAY, without nuking the campaign?
You'd know this if you weren't a complete idiot that think you can comment on a class for a completely different power structure while going off on your mistaken assumption that it's for D&D 3.5's power structure. For your information, Tome classes are usually designed to go all day long.
Ok, so the Tomes are for a different d20 Heartbreaker game, right?

And it's not actually D&D 3.5, right?

Right?
RelentlessImp wrote:
(4.) If this class wasn't meant for D&D 3.5, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT at the top of this Godforsaken thread.
90% of the homebrew material posted here is for Tome, a Fantasy Heartbreaker, or a Cyberpunk Fantasy Heartbreaker. If it's vaguely D&D-like, it's probably Tome. This isn't a very difficult piece of information to come by.
Vaguely D&D-like? Fine. Now I know that the homebrew material here is not actually for the game of D&D 3.5, but rather for a separate d20esque OGL roleplaying game. I will endeavor to remember this in the future.
AcidBlades
Journeyman
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 12:54 am

Post by AcidBlades »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Do? You'll probably be passive-aggressive. This type of behavior is practically an art form around here.
I don't really think that you get what passive-aggressiveness is. He is explicitly telling you that your class sucks. What is regular aggression? Telling you to drown in a pile of lamb urine?
Vaguely D&D-like? Fine. Now I know that the homebrew material here is not actually for the game of D&D 3.5, but rather for a separate d20esque OGL roleplaying game. I will endeavor to remember this in the future.
It could be considered a bundle of homebrew fixes to the base 3.5 d20 schemata. You should really play a game of it, as it's probably the best game that I've ever really fucked around with. And nobody even gave a shit about what happened in my example. Maybe, if you gave a shit and not be so fucking lazy. You could even have even MORE fun than I had.
RelentlessImp
Knight-Baron
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am

Post by RelentlessImp »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:
RelentlessImp wrote:
I was going to post an update to My Luckbringer Druid class, but I've come to the conclusion that you guys are too epically stupid and narrow-minded to properly evaluate it.
Oh no, your shitty and thematically inconsistent class isn't going to get an update. Whatever shall we do.
Do? You'll probably be passive-aggressive. This type of behavior is practically an art form around here.
Oh, honey. There's nothing passive about my aggression. Or maybe you haven't noticed the difference between 'passive-aggressive' behavior and full on mocking.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote: And it's not actually D&D 3.5, right?

Right?
I see no need to answer this when it's already answered elsewhere on this forum. But oh, wait, you refuse to actually read things. Just like you refused to read the phrase 'at will', and now don't even know what the fuck Tome is despite being linked to it and willfully ignoring its existence while pretending your opinions on D&D 3.5 as it interacts with a class not made for 3.5 matter.
Last edited by RelentlessImp on Mon Sep 07, 2015 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sacrificial Lamb
Apprentice
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:36 am
Location: USA

Post by Sacrificial Lamb »

Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I never cease to be amazed at the cosmically high degree of stupidity demonstrated by you, and other Denners like you.
Look, do you realize that you are using an insulting nickname when you say this? Like, as a general rule, when I want to take the moral high ground I don't call jewish people kikes. Like, if you mean to say that, it is fine, but you should be aware of what you are doing.
What? I honestly don't even know where you're going with this statement, especially considering how tremendously insulting you were in the Luckbringer thread (thus, making you now sound like a royal hypocrite). Are you referring to "Denners"? Does the term have a hidden meaning that I am not aware of? You guys are from the Gaming Den, thus making you "Denners". Is it secretly a racial slur, or something? If so, I've never heard of it.
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I ask questions; you say you've answered these questions (while ignoring most of them), then ineptly try to declare victory at the argument.
I have asked you to post everything you think hasn't been answered. You appear to be the only person trying to declare victory, such as when you claimed I obviously forgot something and was just lying to cover for this.
Do you really want me to REPOST the myriad questions that I have ALREADY asked? You definitely saw what I wrote IN MY POSTS EARLIER IN THE THREAD, so I don't know why you won't address these issues point-for-point.
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Am I mistaken? Are the Tomes not compatible with D&D 3.5 at all?
Define Compatible. Can you play any Tome class in 3.5? Mechanically, sure? But you shouldn't be surprised when teleport spells are given out more freely, because teleport works differently in Tome. And if you are going to complain about the at will casting of a Tome class, you have to explain why that class having at will casting is a problem when lots of other at will casting classes exist in Tome.
Teleport works differently in the Tomes? How many spells work differently in the Tomes? One? A dozen? Half of them?
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I read through your class, assuming that it was intended to be compatible with D&D 3.5. A reasonable person could come to that conclusion.
Again, this requires a definition of compatible to mean anything. Using the same rules does not mean being balance to the same standard. All of Tome is balanced against Monster in the MM, and Wizards and Druids, none of the Tome classes are balanced against 3.5 fighters. So if they are stronger than a fighter but the same as a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, that shouldn't be surprising.
Compatibility does not mean "anything", and you damn well know it. Don't start with that disingenuous bullshit, like bringing up 3.5 Fighters....when everyone with horse sense knows that the 3.5 Fighter is possibly the weakest of PC classes in the game. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics from D&D 3.5 aren't balanced with 3.5 Fighters either.
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(2.) His shitty class is still boring, and the game mechanics for the Spirit Guide are (still!) unclear.
No, they really aren't.
No? Is your shitty Spirit Guide merely ethereal or does it also have the Incorporeal Subtype?

Do you notice how questions keep coming up, and your vague bullshit attitude keeps NOT PROVIDING CLEAR ANSWERS?
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(3.) How insanely powerful are the Tome classes (and monsters) that he can have a casting mechanic that permits him to cast cast cast ALL FUCKING DAY, without nuking the campaign?
Many of the MM monsters can already cast cast cast cast all day. Many of the Tome classes can already cast cast cast cast all day. Many of the Tome classes can attack attack attack attack all day. The ability to keep playing the game all day long is not a particularly weird or bad thing. Even lots of 3.5 characters like Dragon Shaman/Warlock/Fighter/Rogue can do that.

The important thing to recognize is that actions taken matter a lot more than resources spent at a lot of levels.
Ok, stop right there.

Just because this MINORITY of monsters in the Monster Manual are capable of using a few spell-like abilities at-will, does not mean that they are designed under the same expectations as character classes for PCs.

PCs are (by design) assumed to be part of a group (usually 4 people), and are EXPECTED to have to carefully conserve their resources (HP, food, water, spells, healing, ammunition, etc.) from encounter to encounter.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS A MAJOR PART OF THE D&D EXPERIENCE.

Monsters simply don't have to deal with the same degree of resource management that PCs do, because after encountering the PCs....they either die, kill the PCs, or they run away (and that's it). Monsters are NOT designed around the Resource Management Paradigm, in the way that PCs are.
Kaelik wrote:
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:(4.) If this class wasn't meant for D&D 3.5, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT at the top of this Godforsaken thread.
No, it shouldn't have. You decision to assume the class was made for 3.5 instead of something else is not a privileged special default assumption. The default assumption on TGD for classes is that they are for Tome.
FINE.

So this material isn't for D&D 3.5 at all then, but for another OGL game.

The class is still boring though, and the Spirit Guide game mechanics are poorly written manure. I mean, can I actually perceive or attack your Spirit Guide while I'm in the Ethereal Plane? Can the Spirit Guide be dispelled, or destroyed? Does it have the Incorporeal Subtype, in addition to being ethereal?

These are very simple questions that I asked before, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them.

I may not be very familiar with the Tomes, but this class is STILL.....

....poorly edited as fuck. :nonono:
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:What? I honestly don't even know where you're going with this statement, especially considering how tremendously insulting you were in the Luckbringer thread (thus, making you now sound like a royal hypocrite). Are you referring to "Denners"? Does the term have a hidden meaning that I am not aware of? You guys are from the Gaming Den, thus making you "Denners". Is it secretly a racial slur, or something? If so, I've never heard of it.
I asked for you to be aware you were using a shitty derogatory nickname made up by RPGsiters. It does not follow that I am hypocritical for shit talking you, because I am obviously aware of my own comments.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Do you really want me to REPOST the myriad questions that I have ALREADY asked? You definitely saw what I wrote IN MY POSTS EARLIER IN THE THREAD, so I don't know why you won't address these issues point-for-point.
I already addressed tons of your stupid questions point for point. Other people addressed other questions. I don't know which ones you still want addressed, because to me they have all been adequately addressed. If you want me to address something, you need to tell me that you think it is unaddressed.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Teleport works differently in the Tomes? How many spells work differently in the Tomes? One? A dozen? Half of them?
A few. Teleport, the polymorphs, Wish. Maybe a few others.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Compatibility does not mean "anything", and you damn well know it. Don't start with that disingenuous bullshit, like bringing up 3.5 Fighters....when everyone with horse sense knows that the 3.5 Fighter is possibly the weakest of PC classes in the game. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics from D&D 3.5 aren't balanced with 3.5 Fighters either.
You should, and I cannot stress this enough, learn to read. No one said compatible could mean anything. I said that your question is meaningless until you define compatible. Compatible can me lots of different things, and I don't know what you mean, and neither does anyone else.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:No? Is your shitty Spirit Guide merely ethereal or does it also have the Incorporeal Subtype?
???? Of course it does not have the incorporeal subtype, unless your DM chooses a form that has it. Literally no part of the ability description says that it is incorporeal, so why would you think it is?
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Do you notice how questions keep coming up, and your vague bullshit attitude keeps NOT PROVIDING CLEAR ANSWERS?
Once again, the answer to that question is super obvious and already clear. Things that are on the ethereal plane and not on the material plane are not incorporeal and on the material plane unless it says otherwise. This question has not come up previously, because this is literally the first time you have ever asked this question.

And once again, I cannot stress enough, if you think there are questions that need to be answered, make a single post with all of them.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Monsters simply don't have to deal with the same degree of resource management that PCs do, because after encountering the PCs....they either die, kill the PCs, or they run away (and that's it). Monsters are NOT designed around the Resource Management Paradigm, in the way that PCs are.
You really have an extremely limited idea of what monsters do. We already had this conversation with your RPGsite grognards once. Monsters with at will abilities and descriptions in the monster manual about how they kite and harass PCs kite and harass PCs, they don't just walk in and die for no reason.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:I mean, can I actually perceive or attack your Spirit Guide while I'm in the Ethereal Plane? Can the Spirit Guide be dispelled, or destroyed? Does it have the Incorporeal Subtype, in addition to being ethereal?
Can you perceive the base creature that the Guide is if you were there? Then yes, because it is a fucking creature on the Ethereal Plane. Can it be dispelled, of course not, because it is a goddam fucking creature and you cannot dispel creatures. You can kill it, because it is a creature. Does it have the incorporeal subtype, of course not, unless the base creature does, because once again, it still very clearly is a creature on the ethereal plane, and there is no possible reason you would think it is incorporeal.
Sacrificial Lamb wrote:These are very simple questions that I asked before, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them.
You never asked if it was incorporeal before this post. There is no fucking reason to think that it would be, literally none. I am genuinely amazed you even asked that question. You asked how it interacted with dispel magic, and I explained, because for fucks sake it is on another plane, so dispel magic doesn't effect it, but if it you went to the ethereal and cast it, it would be just like every other spell you might cast on it, and it would dispel magic effects currently on the creature. I already answered that. Even though the answer is super obvious. This is what I mean by answered questions, how can I know what you think is unanswered when you think I refused to answer a question you never asked, and a question I already answered.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
User avatar
Sacrificial Lamb
Apprentice
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:36 am
Location: USA

Post by Sacrificial Lamb »

Talking to you is like talking to a wall; an obscenely, obnoxious, idiotic wall.

I'm done; you won't listen to reason, and you don't know how to read.....so forget this nonsense.

Good luck with your non-D&D 3.5 game.
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Sacrificial Lamb wrote:Talking to you is like talking to a wall; an obscenely, obnoxious, idiotic wall.

I'm done; you won't listen to reason, and you don't know how to read.....so forget this nonsense.
Pleasure run away because you got caught talking about how I didn't answer your previous question about incorporeal that you never asked, and your bold proclamation that it is not clear from the rules what happens when you cast dispel on a location the creature isn't it, and if that causes the creature not being effected by dispel to cease to exist.

The world would be a better place without you in, and this forum will be a better place without you in it as well.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

Well thank fuck that's over with.

Now, onto some actual discussion about the class. I would be worried about the impact of constant summoning, and I don't think relying on the player's intolerance for accounting is a good enough safety valve. At level 6 you can have 6 Lions going at a time, which is a hell of a lot of high-hp pounce-grapple monsters. Would a reasonable fix to specify the Shaman can have no more than one summon spell active at a time? That way you can chain one summon if you like, but you can't flood every encounter in Lantern Archons.

On a more general note, spells with long durations could be problematic. A Level 3 Spirit Shaman can take a day out to Create 57,000 gallons of water or set 9,000 Fire Traps which seems abuseable. Having a rotating selection of at-will abilities is fine, but drawing directly from a list intended as uses-per-day could create some unintended consequences.

I'd also say that in among Lamb's incoherent tirade were a few nuggets of truth. It would be good to define the Spirit Guide a little better - does it follow the rules for Animal Companions unless otherwise explained, what happens if it dies on the Ethereal etc.

Finally I'm a little concerned about the quantity of at-will spells you get at high levels. It seems like it could introduce some pretty heavy decision paralysis if you pick a suite of generally applicable utility spells. Also, the class states that spell DC's are based off Wisdom but doesn't say you get bonus spells from Wisdom. Given it starts each level with 2 spells I'm inclined to say that's intentional but I thought I'd check.
Last edited by Red_Rob on Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14757
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

Red_Rob wrote:At level 6 you can have 6 Lions going at a time, which is a hell of a lot of high-hp pounce-grapple monsters. Would a reasonable fix to specify the Shaman can have no more than one summon spell active at a time? That way you can chain one summon if you like, but you can't flood every encounter in Lantern Archons.
At level 1 you can have ten whole badgers using my duration rules. Of course, you have to literally stop moving to keep that up, be talking every round to guarantee that any enemies detect you in advance, and as soon as combat of any kind started you could be punched in the face and your badger count would drop. Summon spells just aren't as good as people claim they are.
Red_Rob wrote:On a more general note, spells with long durations could be problematic. A Level 3 Spirit Shaman can take a day out to Create 57,000 gallons of water or set 9,000 Fire Traps which seems abuseable. Having a rotating selection of at-will abilities is fine, but drawing directly from a list intended as uses-per-day could create some unintended consequences.
Create Water is instantaneous in duration. I do not care if he creates a bunch of water, he can't even carry all that water.

I do not care if he has a whole bunch of fire trapped objects, because fire traps require that the person themselves open it, so there is no way to even get them triggered on enemies, much less do more than one per round.

There might theoretically be spells with long durations that can be a problem, but I sure don't see either of those being a problem.
Red_Rob wrote:I'd also say that in among Lamb's incoherent tirade were a few nuggets of truth. It would be good to define the Spirit Guide a little better - does it follow the rules for Animal Companions unless otherwise explained, what happens if it dies on the Ethereal etc.
I left replacement thing deliberately vague, I don't know whether it is better to have the Shaman go to the Ethereal and reincarnate his guide, or just have a generic 24 hour meditate and get it back. Obviously at lower levels, that might matter a lot, but right now I just left it as, go to the plane and do it yourself.
Red_Rob wrote:Finally I'm a little concerned about the quantity of at-will spells you get at high levels. It seems like it could introduce some pretty heavy decision paralysis if you pick a suite of generally applicable utility spells.
I'm not sure that we are using the same definition of any of those terms. To me, you can't possibly have worse decision paralysis in game than a Druid in the first round of the first day.
Red_Rob wrote:Also, the class states that spell DC's are based off Wisdom but doesn't say you get bonus spells from Wisdom. Given it starts each level with 2 spells I'm inclined to say that's intentional but I thought I'd check.
Yes, that is because there are no bonus spells known from attribute. Just like Sorcerer's don't get bonus spells known from attribute either.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Post Reply