Buugipopuu
First Post
Actually Shapechange has a limit of 50 Hit Dice and the Astral Hydra has 115 Hit Dice...plus Shapechange is negated within Anti-magic.
Neither of these things are stated in the ability write up (the only HD limit is 2x the user's). You explicitly have Divine abilities ignore antimagic (Shapechange the DvA doesn't actually reference the Shapechange spell, and it's Su, not Sp).
Actually the Astral Hydra gets each head to breath every 1d4 rounds, not 1d2. As regards the various [Effect] abilities, they may be slightly weaker but they are far more flexible AND remember that multiple uses stack.
Slightly weaker? You're calling 60 damage slightly weaker than 2,080 damage? And no, the effect abilities are not more flexible than Shapechange. Even taken six times (for 6 DvAs compared to Shapechange's 2), you're still restricted to one damage type. Shapechange lets you deal damage from pretty much every damage type printed, which is flexibility that's useful.
For every uber-build you can create I am sure someone else could come up with a build to defeat that character.
First, I haven't actually been talking about "über-builds". Everything I've mentioned so far is actually assuming core-only and basically no optimisation beyond 'Take this one broken ability'. And second, that has no bearing on balance. A balanced game would have a large proportion of its abilities see use in the course of normal play. Force Field and Regeneration just don't ever get taken because there's almost no circumstances in which they'd be better than the standard set of Unknowing/Heavenly/Whatever Mind/Soul, Learned Spell Immunity and Perfect Initiative that are practically required to accomplish anything.
I'd be the first to admit that the Portfolios are the weakest aspect of the book, but from your above mini-rant you seem to be contradicting yourself...you say that the Entropy portfolio has the best [Effect] ability and best Quasi-deity ability, but overall it isn't much better than the others?
Read that sentence again. That's not what I said.
Did you stop to think for one moment that with over 40 portfolios each with 20 powers (yes thats 800+ abilities folks) that maybe, just maybe, every single power wouldn't necessarily be completely equal at every level?
No, I stopped and thought for a moment and rewrote the Portfolios section to make the most egregious offenders back in line. It took about an evening.
I mean you have already waxed lyrical about Shapechange being the best spell in the game. Are you saying all 9th-level spells are not equal and WotC, with its dozens of designers and editors and hundreds, if not thousands of playtesters messed up and made Shapechange too powerful?
I haven't mentioned the Shapechange spell, or even talked about casters at all. I explicitly stated that I wasn't touching on the casters vs melee argument, precisely because you'd say this. Every balance issue I mentioned was carefully selected to be one introduced by your book. Shapechange as a spell caps out at low HD, so is actually perfectly fine at Epic, because you can only turn into relatively weak monsters (and there's no RAW way of improving it). The Shapechange DvA is uncapped, and so continues to be broken right through the game.
Parrying is a good way to defend.
And how is this a defence of the balance of the IH? Say you're a Monk Greater Deity, and are pretty poorly optimised, so only have Wis 64 and you want to improve your AC. You could take Unknowing Body, the AC-boosting ability, and get +16 AC. Or you could take Unknowing Mind, Cexpertise for the increase in your Attack Bonus (+30) and even without the ratio-boosting DvAs get +32 AC, and still have the option of converting it back to attack bonus if you think you're not in danger of being hit. AC boosting abilities are not balanced against attack bonus boosting abilities.
Heres the thing though, in roleplaying not everyone wants "TEH UBER". Not every power has to be the best thing ever! Did you ever stop to consider that some people may want the Thieving [Effect] just to have fun with it?
I have abilities in there that let a Rogue steal the writing from a page or snatch the colour from the eyes of a Princess. Probably not as useful to the Rogue as upgrading your Sneak Attack, but maybe a player might see that and think, thats pretty cool. Instead of "Look at how L33T I am with my Supreme Sneak Attack!"
So you're admitting that they're underpowered, but have role-playing applications? That's not well-balanced. In fact, the fact that not everyone is concerned with power is why it's even more important to make the abilities balanced. If they were, players could take whatever they thought was fun and not risk accidentally making themselves useless to the rest of the party.
It's not even hard to think of in-combat applications for Sideways Stealing, but since they have no rules, its "DM makes something up" time. I've had players annoy wizards by stealing the text from their spellbooks, and fighters by stealing the edges of their swords. Bypassing Prismatic Spheres by stealing their colour, rendering them powerless.
Basically, in a nutshell, your argument is that some powers can be better than other powers.
Apparently a lone designer (me) is culpable for not getting 1300 abilities perfectly balanced is a system that transcends Level 1000 play.
BUT, if WotC with dozens of staff and thousands of playtesters can't get about 300 abilities and spells balanced for play that only goes up to Level 20 then they get your seal of approval.
Did I ever say that WotC was fine? WotC's representatives aren't coming into this thread and claiming that 3rd edition is 'Wonderfully Balanced'. I am aware of the balance issues in 3.5e. And you're massively understating the scale of the issues here. I haven't even touched on '1300 abilities' or 'level 1000 play'. This is just the issues present at level 100 and below (well, probably between levels 30-100, prophet-level balance isn't that much worse than 3.5e, but that's mainly because they don't qualify for most of the good abilities.), since those are the only ones you're still claiming are balanced.
The Hulking Hurler requires 1 splat book as I recall.
Nope. You need War Hulk from the Miniatures handbook (which is pretty fringe as far as 'core' material goes) and Hulking Hurler from Complete Warrior.
You haven't proved anything is broken in the Immortals Handbook, you have just said that some powers and abilities are better than others.
Just like feats and spells in the PHB. Some are better than others.
Absolute perfect balance wasn't attained by WotC, I feel a tad hard done by being held to a higher standard than WotC...maybe I should be flattered by that.
Are there a few powers or combinations of powers in the Immortals Handbook that could be abused by power gamers - absolutely!
Again with the 00"could be abused by power gamers" thing. I haven't even talked about actual abuses and power gaming yet. And you seem to be massively unaware of just how huge the gulf in power between an even vaguely optimised character and an unoptimised one is. In 3.5, core only, I think you'd be called insane if you asked someone to make you a 10th level human fighter that could take on ten other 10th level human fighters with equal wealth but no optimisation*. A 60th level Lesser Deity Human Fighter can very easily be optimised (and not even using any of the really dirty tricks, like Cosmics on items) to take down ten on one, or even twenty on one odds with the same restrictions (and he probably wouldn't even take significant damage doing so). That's not "some abilities are more powerful than others", or "there's potential for power gamers to abuse the system", that's "even a small difference in the skill level of the players means they're totally incapable of playing the same game". If you want me to prove it, I will. I'll make three 60th level Lesser Deity Human fighters, one naïvely built but superficially viable, one well optimised one that can take down 10 of the weak one, and one "power gamer" one which demonstrates the gulf between what you think is power gaming, and what power gamers actually come up with.
And, if a representative of WotC comes along and starts making claims about how amazingly balanced 3.5th ed is, you can be sure that I won't be giving him an easy time.
*No optimisation, as opposed to deliberately sabotaged characters. I'm talking the Sample NPCs in the DMG, rather than, say, a Fighter with all his feats in Weapon Focus for weapons he doesn't own, with all his points put into Intelligence, but no Int-based skills. And all his wealth spent on lasagne and tiramisu, when he doesn't even like Italian food.
Are you suggesting there is zero way any character with one of the above mentioned powers can be beaten?![]()
No, I'm saying that a build that features one of those abilities will beat 90% other character concepts (not builds, concepts) without even being very good at anything else. Nullification is the worst, since a pure caster, monk or fighter cannot beat someone with Nullification, no matter what they do, unless they're massively higher level, also have Nullification, or have Abrogate and the other person does not.
Answer me this, has any WotC book ever needed errata?
I'll answer that by pointing out that when a product has needed errata, at least some of the time, that erratum has been published, and usually within four years.