Talk:Daemon Bound (3.5e Class)

Ratings

 * This is almost refreshing to see...normally, when people make and post classes like this, they end up unintentionally awfully weak. Finally one that's broken on the other end of the spectrum! Surgo (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Balance and Rating
Guys... "Too powerful" isn't a good reason for downvoting this. I've labeled it as VH, since that's what it's apparently aimed at, and VH is basically anything that's psion and higher. The upper limit of VH is Pun-Pun (or just about), and since this now fits into a balance category, downvoting it because it's "too powerful" is one of the poorest reasons that there are. "Too powerful" for what? For H-level? Sure. But for VH? Not the case. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a bad philosophy (but we've had this conversation before, haven't we?). Wizard level isn't "anything goes", it's wizard.  It's the difference between optimization and theoretical optimization, to put it in the Minmax's forum's words.  There is an upper limit to wizard and while I'm sure it's subject to vigorous debate (I'd say "planar shepard"), it's there.


 * I'd still oppose it on other reasons, but frankly, its balance (or lack thereof) is its biggest sin. In the meantime, please do not use "Very High" as some kind of trashbin for "things which are too strong". -- Eiji-kun (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if we did have the Planar Shepherd as the top level of Wizard-level, then this doesn't scratch it at all. This can't compare with semi-permanent time stop at a 10:1 ratio. And yes, I will be using VH as the place to put anything above H-level content. --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I quite get what's so overpowered about it exactly. Is playing a Demon with a level-appropriate CR so bad if you also get to play a not-completely statistically-insignificant boring fighter type too? I mean, I'd rather play this character archetype by being a Demon with Leadership, but this really seems quite similar. --Foxwarrior (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Placing content above H in VH is completely acceptable, even if it is 'too strong'. There are plenty of other articles that get a balance category that doesn't fit, and they get discussed or opposed on that and we move on. The category this goes in should be an indicator of goals, even if it fails to actually meet them.


 * That doesn't mean that we just let whatever sit in VH though. The upper limit of VH is not pun-pun, and that is explicitly stated as exceeding the category in the writeup. Planar shepherd isn't mentioned at all though, and if we want to lower the ceiling exclude things like that and cheater of mystara and incantratrix and whatever else, we can have that discussion in the appropriate place. That said, the majority of its content is closer to wizard than shepherd. People call out / oppose H balance material that steps out of line a bit, even if it doesn't actually cross the line, because they have a desire to keep H a more narrow range. And this is generally seen as acceptable, or at least not an offense. That seems to be the case here. If Eiji and Span think this is out of line with standard VH material, and Surgo would seem to agree, then they're welcome to oppose it. Even if it doesn't crack the top end of the range.- Tarkisflux Talk 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is not the case at all. The reason that people want to keep the other balance levels more restricted is due to the desire to maintain wiki credibility. I'm sure I've explained this in the past, but I'll do so again for clarity's sake if it helps.
 * Imagine if an ability was too high for its stated level. Say, it was actually H-level (and labeled M-level) when some DM who is trying out the wiki for the first time says, "Choose anything M-level or lower." So the player picks that ability, which by all rights should be allowed and fine automatically in a M-level game, and proceeds to pwn face. What does that do for wiki credibility? It is similarly ruined, and we are untrustworthy.
 * Now pretend it's the other way around. The ability is actually L-level when the M-level character picks it. What happens to the game? Nothing really. The character might be a bit weaker, but it's far easier to see when things are weak than when they are too strong, and when they are too weak it doesn't wreck the game. Everything continues as planned, and we've lost no real credibility.
 * By overestimating, rather than underestimating, balance at all levels, we have a much better chance of not losing credibility. This is the reason why some of us are so ardent on making sure that the bar doesn't creep up on the lower balance levels, and to not let things in if they're too powerful. If you want to split VH into two different categories, one that goes from psion-level to wizard-level, and one that goes from wizard-level up to Planar Shepherd levels (or even to Pun-Pun... whatever), then that's fine with me as well, and we should make just as big of an effort to make sure that line is carefully delineated, and that things that are too strong don't go into the lower of those two. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't accept your premise that underestimating hurts credibility less than overestimating, as everything I have seen suggests it is similarly or more damaging. Easier to fix perhaps, but that's a separate issue from a user standpoint. And whether that's your goal or not doesn't change the fact that your particular attention to H and consistent preference for that option makes it more narrow than the others. Complaining at people for making similar statements regarding other balance points strikes me as bizarre, even in the case where the balance category is probably the most broad. I don't see anything wrong with their concerns that wouldn't similarly apply to yours, which I also don't see as wrong. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've also spoken out a number of times in the past on M and L abilities. The only place where I have no problems with abilities being too powerful is at VH-level, which is why I don't generally read new articles listed as VH. That said, you are incorrect that I pay more attention to H articles; I look at every one of the new M and L articles as well, and gauge their strength and if they are too high for their listed rating, or too low if they are extremely such. I'm not sure why you don't accept that things being too strong hurts our credibility, as DMs are far more wary of homebrew abilities being too strong than too weak. They generally disallow homebrew for this reason, the next reason being generally that they don't want to read/learn new content. That said, if it's too strong, it hurts our credibility because that is the #1 reason DMs disallow custom content in my experience, and if something pops up at a listed balance level that's too strong, it removes much of the credibility of the rating system. If it's too weak, DMs generally don't care as much, as such abilities rarely unbalance the game. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed where I said "hurts credibility less than". I don't dispute that understating hurts, only that it hurts less than overstating. My experience with allowing or disallowing homebrew has been more along the lines of people not wanting to read it rather than worrying about whether it's over powered. DMs who are willing to read it in the first place seem similarly willing to line item edit it before it sees use, so actual problems with it are small or non-existent. We seem to have different experiences on the matter, /shrug. - Tarkisflux Talk 03:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Haven't followed the full discussion but can I just add if something is unbalanced in an unhealthy way, it can be "VH" but still be badly balanced. Example: a class that can 1/day deal 500000 true damage. Maybe that's "VH" by some metrics (I'd disagree but just go with it for now), but it's also completely unhealthy. Surgo (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Resetting indent, and getting back to the subject at hand. First off, I never said "too powerful," I said broken. Hey, Pit Fiend Daemon patron, have you used your 1/year CL 20 Wish? No? Well...
 * There are just too many exploitable loopholes here for me to be comfortable with. For example, most powerful demon/devils can summon other demon/devils, which would neither "risk its life" nor would summoned demons be bound by the same stipulations as the patron. Also, there's way too much that needs clarification. How do you even contact your patron?? Does it take 10 minutes? A swift action? What happens if your Demon Companion dies? How long until you get a new one? Etc., etc.
 * I have no problem with a VH gishy base class within reason. Like I also said, I think this class could be salvaged with some revision, some rebalancing, and some fluff that actually makes sense. Until then, I'll oppose it on the grounds that it's not up to wiki standards on both content and balance fronts. Spanambula (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Class abilities
Daemon Companion (Ex): So, you get to play two characters, and, right from the start, you get a "fighter but better"? Not to mention, how loyal is the demon, can it be gotten rid of or traded in for a better one, where does it come from, what kind can you get, etc. Soul Siphon (Ex): What type of damage? When does this activate, and with what attacks? Blood Ceremony (Ex):, Bonus Feat:, Plane Shift (Sp):, Evasion:, Tongues (Su), Greater Teleport (Sp):, Dark Defense (Ex):, Wings (Sp): All of these are relatively flavorless. Looks to me like a dude with a mashup of support abilities you can get elsewhere, and a monster who will probably do most of the actual work. --76.240.160.62 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)