Talk:Spellborg (3.5e Template)

Balanced?

Is this template considered to be at the Rogue Level Balance Point? --Be well 11:14, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Compared to most of the templates out there at +1 LA, I'd definitely say it's at the Wizard level of balance, especially when you take into account that it advises buying off the LA (something that's generally overpowered). --Ghostwheel 08:21, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Link's fixed, and clarified intent with the LA buyoff thing, I wasn't trying to suggest that you buy it off, rather that if one wished to offer it as a sort of 'item' this is how you do it. Actually one more thing to fixed. (And there.) -- Eiji Hyrule 01:34, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

	Enigma favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I love big templates with cool flavorful options.I will be using this template soon.

	Spanambula favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Huh, I thought I'd rated this. Anyway, I've used this for several PCs, none of which have been OP or broken, and they've been very flavorful, enjoyable characters. I do think some of the options are somewhat underwhelming, given their cost of 1/3rd of a class level, but after giving it some thought I don't have a viable alternative.

	Surgo favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	This is a pretty solid toolkit, quite well done. Used for several characters, sometimes to hilarious effect.

	Foxwarrior is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	The idea is cool, as are half of the options, but 15000 GP for +4 to your highest ability score, a bonus feat, and a Slotless Ring of Deflection +2 or +3 is definitely not balanced along item guidelines.

That's... a fair point. I'll re-evaluate the pricing of it, though keep in mind there's additional cost in the fact you have LA and not class levels, so it's not QUITE equal to items. Even so, I'll review it. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I thought the 15000 gp was an alternative to the LA? --Foxwarrior (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No no. The ability to purchase the LA is just a plot device a DM can use to apply the template post creation, short of direct fiat or giving it to them free. If they use LA buyoff, they can proceed to buy it off at the time if they like, but the LA isn't negated by nature. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So if you wanted to not have the LA, you'd need to buy the template and then buy the LA off separately? That's not clear from the introductory paragraph in the Creating section at all. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)\

I'll check the wording soon. Before I do, opinions... would people rather have it with LA buyoff built in, or with cost + optional buyoff? That'll determine if I shoot high or low when I rejigger the price (which needs rejiggering regardless). -- Eiji-kun (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no fondness for LA on characters, and making this function more like a graft (cost only) would be fine with me. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

	Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	Very easily broken--even moreso if using the rules as written, buying the template with xp or gold. Would be better overall if it gave racial HD instead of LA or allow you to get it effectively for free with xp/gold (which are a river).

Btw, you know you keep harping on that purchasing thing when those are expressedly optional, not default, rules, right? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything outside core is "optional rules"--even half of core is "optional". Being labeled thus doesn't make it any better IMO, since someone who gets to use the Spellborg (which is an optional template) will probably be able to access the optional rules within it as well. --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

Nah, but seriously, that seems faulty. There's a few articles floating on the wiki that give a rogue and a wizard level version, or a fighter and rogue, or whatever. By that logic, DM's will always permit the strongest possible option because DM's apparently don't approve or disapprove things on a case by case basis, especially from a non-compiled source like the wiki.

I think it's safe to assume that DM's can pick and choose, especially when the rules offer two ways of doing things. They'll have to decide if they want to do it one way, another way, or both. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The LA buyoff rules are already elsewhere and well-known. You might link to them, but there's no reason to make them an official part of this template unless you mean for players to use it--and the fact that that it's even possible to "buy off" these bonuses with either XP or gold warrants an oppose from me. --Ghostwheel (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked Rating

Rithaniel likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.

Block Reason: This is a legacy rating from before our current ratings scale. While the reasons should be valid, it is not counted in the ratings on the article page because of the inaccurate scale.I personally think this template is a very distinguished, very well balanced template. It gives a a good boost to power in exchange for loosing a level, especially since the template fades in an antimagic field, giving it a clear vulnerability

	DanielDraco is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
	I really like this template...in theory. It has a relatively predictable level of balance -- albeit a high one. It can quickly spiral out of control though, since its possibilities are so wide open. I like it a lot, but I'm not sure if the breadth of it can balance well -- it just opens the door to way too much minmaxing and cherrypicking.

Though, honestly dude, upload that missing image already. → Rith ^(talk)

Eh, "[fading] in an antimagic field," isn't really a considerably downside, what with how few monsters have them. (The only one that comes to mind is the beholder, and that's a badly-designed monster anyhow.) --Ghostwheel 08:22, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's my favor, to give as I see fit, and this template, is balanced in my eyes. I personally think that 'dissapearing in an antimagic field' is a considerable detriment, because many creatures get them. Dragons are able to cast spells as sorcerers, beholders exist, gnolls and goblins can be casters, Liches will just SoD your ass instead, Colossi produce huge antimagic fields, and a creature can be a human (Omg, such radicle thinking). → Rith ^(talk) 08:55, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you shouldn't favor it--that's your right ;-) Just giving my 2 cents. --Ghostwheel 08:57, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

I reuploaded one of the pictures, I think, (I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing.) However, in my opinion the other picture didn't exactly fit. While the one I uploaded did look more like a full out robot than a cyborg, it had an axe and cape. Additionally, the art-style I felt like it put it into a relatively normal DnD aesthetic. I felt like I could show that picture to show the players (who happen to be playing such standard classes as Cleric and Rogue) to show them what they're going to fight and they'd go "oooh". The other picture looked like it belonged in a Cyberpunk Anime, which is a rather different feel, unless that happens to be the particular brand of DnD you're running. The 42nd Gecko 23:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A few issues

I'll rate this in good time, but there's a few rules (and writeup) issues I wanna clear up first:

• Buying one 'shot' of this template is very thinkable at 10th character level. Given the bonuses this could provide, I suspect that might not be what you were after. I'd like some feedback/opinions of yours on this.
• "You gain +2 deflection bonus to your AC. This bonus counts against touch attacks." Redundant text is redundant - deflection bonuses already count toward touch AC.
• "You gain +2 dodge bonus to your AC. You lose this bonus if you are denied your Dexterity bonus to AC." More redundant text - dodge bonuses are always lost when denied Dex.
• Magical Adept: How do you compute DCs?
• Expanded Ability: Is it your intent that this bypasses all prereqs?
• Failsafe Trigger: The wording can be interpreted to mean that you actually get to cherry-pick the wizard list and apply the buff to yourself in the process. While this is a somewhat literalist reading, I am fairly sure that's not what you meant, and I would advise correcting it.
• The abilities given by this template are nothing like balanced against each other. Like, at all.

- MisterSinister 10:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure they have to be balanced against each other. It's not like a class, where the different abilities are gained over time and a change in power is undesirable -- these abilities are gained all at once, so it simply means that it's a choice between optimization, flavor, utility, and other considerations. You are fully capable of simply picking the strongest ones, if power is what you want. --DanielDraco 20:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with DD on this issue, though maybe it would be nice to see a couple of the weaker options brought up. MS does have a very good point about the template purchase -- in fact, I'm in a game right now where my level 12 Barbarian "purchased" this template. It was far stronger than any other available option for the price. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's something to keep in mind. Surgo 21:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Purchasing the template was an alternative rule introduced to me some time ago and should be entirely DM dependent, that is, you can't buy it by default. But really that goes without saying since you probably want to run any gained templates by your DM anyway. That said, 10+ doesn't sound bad at all, actually, that seems plenty reasonable. I do realize the template on a whole tends to the Very High range, which is partly intentional*.

(*Partly. I was aiming lower, but with something like this there wasn't really any way for it to be anything BUT Wizard level, so I gave in and made it so.)

On deflection and dodge bonuses, it's copy pasta text from elsewhere in WotC land. It's redundant but harmless, so I didn't see fit to change it. On Magical Adept, it's the default for any SLAs, which I believe is "as the spell it mimics and Charisma based". Since it only goes up to 2nd level spells, the intent is a focus on utility more than awesome DCs.

Expanded Ability... ah, you must be refering to the nonsense of "if it doesn't say it by default bonus feats ignore pre-reqs" which is BS, but thats an arguement for another day. I'll close that hole now, it's just a normal bonus feat, not a rogue-gets-epic-feats bonus feat. On Failsafe, you act as a ring of spell storing, it doesn't say you have the spell. You have to gain whatever spell you want to load as normal. Got a better way to word it?

On balance.... ideally I do try to get them close to each other (each is supposed to be worth 1/3rd of an LA after all). I know it's not perfect, but I figure I got close enough. If you know of which ones seem wildly out of place of the general feel, do tell. That's worth tweaking. -- Eiji-kun 22:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DD, seriously, stop being retarded. Saying 'writing shit options is OK, it's flavour' is an argument so asinine, I can't believe you'd actually make it with a fucking straight face. But you just did. And don't try and hide behind your weak excuse - something is either level-appropriate or it's not, and forcing people to dumpster-dive and run collision analysis on your rules because you can't be fucked balancing them makes you a terrible designer and a terrible person by extension.

Eiji, if you intent the 'buying' option to come with heavy GM proviso, you should state it a little more clearly than you have here. I believe that in the case of redundant text, you should just not have it, because it forces people to read stuff which is unnecessary at best and needlessly confusing at worst.

In the case of Magical Adept, I'm not aware that a Cha-based default exists on SLAs - if you can provide me a citation, sure, that's cool. Also, what spell list can you get things from?

On Failsafe: Just adding 'this doesn't actually give you any spellcasting ability' won't hurt, just to be safe.

On weak options, in my opinion by comparison to others:

• Flight Controls (should just be given with additional purchases of the flying thing, and saves space too)
• Improved Acceleration (much weaker than the flight you provide)
• Heightened Reflexes (only a smidgeon worse than its AC alternatives IMHO)
• Internal Weapons
• Energy Fist (worst offender by far IMHO)
• Damage Control

- MisterSinister 07:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hectic week approaching, but I'll give those things a look over when I get the chance. By the by, those are all 'too weaks", anything you see which is too strong for 1/3rd an LA? -- Eiji-kun 07:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mu, because I got the too-weaks by a collision comparison with what was already there. Given that I don't use LA and don't understand its yardsticks (having not run collisions on that), I can't really say. - MisterSinister 09:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While the argument of flavor is pointless, it's okay to have some options that seem weaker -- for some characters, they might not even be weak and those characters will obviously pick them. Surgo 13:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Saying 'writing shit options is OK, it's flavour' is an argument so asinine, I can't believe you'd actually make it with a fucking straight face."

Implying gamism is the only way to play an RPG. Some people prefer to choose options for the purpose of flavor. It's entirely legitimate.

Disagreeing with me is okay. Being a little prickish about it is, around here, also apparently okay. But that level of outright, unprovoked, and unwarranted antagonism (i.e., "[you are] a terrible person") will get you a ban if it continues. --DanielDraco 13:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rejiggering happen. Cha specificed for Magic Adept (I'll find citation later), failsafe clarified, flight controls modified, acceleration buffed, heightened reflexes modified, internal weapons buffed slightly (this was a situation bonus anyway), energy fist buffed greatly, damage control modified. Something else too, I already forgot. -- Eiji-kun 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

DD: That sounded... awfully like a threat, and one I find you hardly qualified to make. The fact you just roped in a tired, unworkable and generally daft argument about gamism to justify your unworkable point in this context is hilarious inasmuch as it is sad. Threatening me with a ban... that's just hysterically funny. Thanks, you made my day.

Edit: Actually, you know what, fucking ban me. If you're gonna make threats, you gotta follow through on them. Frankly, if that kind of dick-waving flies here, I'm not sure I even care if I get banned or not. I know you can - so go on.

Surgo: I don't disagree with you - it's just in the cases of the noted abilities, I could hardly think of any reason why anyone would want them in that form. This is what I'm unhappy about - I believe that balance should be a first priority when designing something, to avoid people having to dumpster-dive your list in order to be efficient or to sacrifice flavour for mechanics - which having weak options nearly always leads to.

Eiji: Thanks for the prompt response! Gonna check those over and see how I feel about them. - MisterSinister 07:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is dickwaving here is you being pointlessly antagonistic. I'm fine with telling people their idea sucks, I'm very much not okay with destructive antisocial idiocy. This is not the Den. If you are legitimately unable to see how the argument and the personal defense are diferent, as it was in the case of DD's response, you need to step back and think about that last sentence some more. Surgo 12:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pricing

While I rejigger prices I come upon an issue, which is comparing what is gained (as Fox pointed out) with the levels I intended them to be plausible. That is, about every four levels, if you were focusing on it. But that makes the prices too low (and then too high, starting at a mere 5400g, and ending with 50,000g at the forth application. Well basically I'm trying to find a good pattern to make these things cost. "How much is it worth?"

Pricing from a sheer general numbers approach, I'm getting 27,000-30,000g each. I am running into the issue of it being pricy as lower levels and cheap as free at higher, though I suppose that is true with anything.

Thinking. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)