Illusory Army Is Pretty Bad

[chirality]

This spell has been rather over-nerfed. It certainly deserved some balancing, but it needs a slight boost to make it worth actually using.

I would like to address two problems. They both are rooted in the random nature of the spell's outcome, which admittedly is "fun" and true to DnD spirit (especially summon spells), but is, in practice, unrewarding and inherently difficult to balance (oh...hmm...yeah, just like DnD summon spells ).

The first problem is one that always existed (and is simply exacerbated by low damage output):

1) The 2d4 summon calculation doesn't feel good. It is very disappointing to have a 1/day paragon epic spell that "rolls" poorly and gives 2 or 3 henchmen. In the past, this wasn't "too bad" because each of them hit very hard (olden days) or fairly hard (pre-...2017?). Getting 2 or 3 was rare, and 2 was like "my spell basically fizzled--cool " and 4-5 would at least feel like the spell "succeeded." However, even when the damage output was far higher, a bad roll on the spell was just dumb.

I understand that 2d4 feels like a cool way to deal with the spell, but when it comes to summons, this is really quite a bit more variance than something like damage dice rolls. There's not really any other spell (especially paragon epic) that uses a similar mechanic--one that revolves around such a high degree of random chance that the result of the spell can swing so wildly. Most comparable spells that include dice roll variables produce an effect that closely resembles how the henchmen already deal damage: by rolling a bunch of dice for each of their attacks. However, a random number of summons, each doing a random amount of damage, is a bit overkill.

For example, lifeforce doesn't have a random duration that can vary by a factor of 4, nor does serendipity roll dice to see how many party members are effected. I understand that these comparisons are dramatic, but nonetheless, I do feel like the number of henchmen summoned should be dictated more by CL (like just about every other spell) or character level, rather than pure chance; especially when the range of numbers is so wide.

It's true that the random nature of both the number of summons, as well as the damage types (see below) feels chaotic and fun in a bard-y way, but it's pretty lame to have such a powerful and expensive character feature be so unstable. To make another comparison, if ensnare true denizen had a chance to summon a balor, a marilith, or a glabrezu, I don't think we would find it very entertaining to get a glabrezu. 8 henchmen vs 2 henchmen, or 6 vs 3, is quite a difference.

I would like to see the summon calculation changed to be less random and more reflective of scaling paragon level (as is common for most other epic spells).

As well, scaling only bard level would introduce a slight variable to create a very basic (1 henchman for splash bards) differentiation for different bard build archetypes (now, more than ever, a pure or 1-splash-levelled bard is not necessarily a universal guarantee). Scaling the summoncount with level would also serve the contemporary HG theme of reducing the power bump produced by attaining paragon features which lend themselves to cheese/dragging/etc.

Finally, it seems logical for the spell to scale with caster level (again--like everything else), and despite the cool PnP-ish feel of rolling 2d4 to see how many summons you get, it stretches credibility to imagine that a L63 bard's spell would be as powerful as a L80's. (On that note, karsus should get a similar treatment, but let's save that for next time.)

I propose:

-- Base of 1 henchman per 10 bard levels 1-40, with one additional henchman per 10 legendary/paragon levels.

This removes the chance for the spell to effectively fizzle out and produce a garbage result, while respecting character level. This ensures that balancing the damage output of the spell is more precise, and therefore the damage output of each henchman is more accurately fine-tuned to produce the desirable overall spell effect. I do believe that part of the problem with balancing the spell was that 8 henchmen was quite a lot, when each did significant damage; however, even in its original overpowered incarnation, 2 or 3 henchmen was at best "reasonable" and certainly would have never been worth nerfing in the first place.

The second problem is the fact that the damage output is not only wildly varying based on randomness, but also too weak. As mentioned above, it's cool and "fun" and PnP-nodding to have each henchman have random damage types, but this is pretty much the worst thing you could get in HG and is definitely something that no one would ever actually desire. When the damage output was generally high, this was acceptable, but the lower the damage got (and the less the spell was able to be exploited for cheeziness), the more this randomness is just bad.

2) Henchmen have random damage types, and paltry dicerolls of the damage that they deal (8d6 for ele and 4d6 for exo, which is quite pathetic, especially without the hefty chunk of phys they once did)

I propose:

(either)
-- Each henchmen deals every elemental and exo damage type. Adjust dice sizes and number of dice appropriately to balance; henchmen never trigger healing from mobs.

(or)
-- Using the !dam<type> command allows the caster to toggle a specific damage type. Each henchman is guaranteed to deal this damage type, amongst the other random types that it "rolls." Henchmen never trigger healing from mobs.

(and)
-- Henchmen elemental and exotic damage dice/number of dice are increased slightly (even in the first idea, there's still room for improvement on the actual damage dealt by each type; most mobs aren't vulnerable to more than a few damage types anyway, so dealing every type would ensure that any target mob is vulnerable to every henchman, but overall damage output from the spell still needs a reasonable buff--it's just garbage, now).

The simtool command would function as it does for other classes; it can by typed at any time and remains "set" until changed. (If the bard doesn't have the paragon spell token, there is either no echo, or an error returned from the command, etc). In this case, I think that the henchmen damage should still be boosted a bit, but allowing the caster to set a desired damage type beforehand would help the spell deliver a quality result. Often, the spell is used to help deal with a boss or difficult random, so ensuring that the primary target will be vulnerable to every henchman would help make casting the spell more rewarding and also help tweak and fine-tune the balancing for the spell (in other words, this option would allow desirable "average" expected damage output to be a bit lower than entirely random damage types).

[simpetar]

I'd be happy if henchmen 1) had at least gear level of kd immunity and 2) were bit more resistant to random cornugons banishment (they are 1 tier above epic summons who never get popped, much less instantly and without a save)

Devil's advocate here:
Illusion is a super powerful school for bards. It has Displacement / EV, GV, and possums. It was very clearly articulated that paragon spells were meant to provide a counterbalance to some school's epics; weak epic would get paired with strong paragon spell and vice versa. This goal was sometimes achieved (Missile Barrage - you can count on hand how many times you used this spell vs. Karsus - gonna need more hands to count), sometimes missed the mark completely (Winter is Coming is situational at best, Elucidate sucks big time), but the idea is out there. To pair already strong Possums with strong henchmen, in an already strong school seems like an overkill.

[chirality]

It's true that damage output is not the only problem. The vulnerability of the henchmen to several common endgame debilitating status effects leaves much to be desired. Being paralyzed or kd like a common trash mob is certainly not ideal, especially when compared to other top-tier summons. The most useful and best summons are, essentially as a rule, universally immune to being disabled. While most of these summons are admittedly lacking offense or filling a purely defensive role, to return again to the balor comparison, there's something to be said for being able to dish out damage without concern for becoming disabled by the plethora of various means that LL+ mobs have.

As for the corny banishment: It's certainly aggravating and strange for a paragon spell to have such vulnerability to the banishment that seems to exist only to completely neutralize weaker summons. I agree that the henchmen should be more resistant, if not outright immune. I do tend to think that the mechanism of cornies being "trashy" but exhibiting extreme neutralizing effects for specific PCs (summons) is interesting but a bit un-fun. When it's a random, that's one thing, but cornugons could probably stand to be a bit less obnoxious when they're not immediately deleted with instakills. Just a little--it has felt like balancing summons with a fine-toothed comb (likely one of the most time-intensive projects ever) was indefinitely postponed by simply having a common mob wave their hand and make the problem disappear.

In regards to the balancing act and power of illusion for bards: it's true that double possums is desirable and powerful. Is it so powerful that it warrants the paragon epic as being extremely weak? I don't think so.

I don't necessarily agree that having a popular or ubiquitous school is a solid reason to make said epic spell largely useless, even taking into account the compensatory value of doubled legendary epic. Actually, I think the other cases from any caster of a "must-take" school with a pretty-good doubled legendary epic + trash PSK are worth fixing as well. However, for these, I'd argue that a complete redux of the paragon spell would be the better approach, whereas bard army is a clear example of something that was overpowered to begin with, nerfed, more balanced but still abusable, and then nerfed again with a bit heavy of a hand.

If paragon epics were granted automatically by virtue of having the PSF feat--like legendary epic spells--then the value of the epic's power would require closer moderation along the lines of "illus is extremely good for bards, and the leg epic is great, so the PSK giving doubled leg epic + maxed desirable foci advantages on normal spells is worth the paragon feat providing only doubled leg epic and a distraction-/desperation-tier para epic."

Given that the PSF->PSK system was designed to be balanced around both the power of the paragon epic as well as the second use of the legendary epic, the balance does indeed properly include the immense value of PSF illus and doubled illus epic for the bard. However, at this point, if the para epic is so useless that it doesn't really serve much purpose outside of a distraction that seems truly illusory in impact, I'd suggest the spell doing something else, if buffing the damage output isn't an option.

Bards already have healing spirit, but perhaps the phantom army could still serve a more utilitarian or defensive role, if being used for burst damage/dps check purpose is too difficult to balance. Perhaps the henchmen are an assorted gang of different classes, for example, rather than a clone army of melee bashers, and maybe one is a cleric that casts BT, prayer, and GR; maybe one is a mage that casts bestow curse or dispel magic or drops a weird; maybe one is a druid that uses NB and casts drown or cis.

Or, maybe the clone army is just a group of bbods that is capable of essentially surrounding a tough mob, and deals no damage, but serves as either mass distraction in a large spawn (several bbods at once that can't be morded or banished) or targeted crowd control for a difficult random or boss by encircling it. Maybe they just spawn and cast pre-nerf weapon buffs on tanks in the party

Anyway, much like advocating for class buffs, of course there's more broken things to be dealt with than this, and arguing for a buff to something that's not crying out to be fixed isn't very important. However, considering that a bard can still just take PSF for the foci ranks @ non-epic spells, spending a paragon feat for double possums is pretty much what the PSK boils down to. Not terrible, but considering how older versions of the army still were at least strong enough to justify a decision, I think there's something to be left desired. I don't believe that, until bard army really began finding a use again for limbo, it was very popular or desirable after the initial nerf way back in the day. With it now not having any abuse-able application, the feat exists mainly as double possums.

In contrast, something like mage PSK nec is no longer the powerhouse of double spawnbuff-blocking convenience that it once was, and the paragon epic itself, while always being arguably weak-to-mediocre, still at least has a much more reliable material impact than an army that either gets immediately banished/disabled and/or smacks away with the rough equivalent of unbuffed abyss weapons that a monkey crafted by picking colored blocks.

tldr; you're right about the PSF being undeniably useful and, if not a must-have, then close to it; and the PSK does have some value--even if there was no paragon epic at all, double possums would still be an interesting build choice. However, I feel like it could use some improvement or re-tooling, because if double possums is a no-brainer that justifies a worthless paragon spell, it's clear that reliance on so many possums is really the problem that needs to be addressed. In other words, how many fewer possums would balance out a stronger bard army? If this is a question with an easy answer, let's hash it out; if not, perhaps having so many possums--and having that many possums being so good that it feels required--is something that needs to be addressed.

[woqued]

I like the idea of an [[Illusion]] school paragon spell serving distraction and mischief over what it used to be - a way to curbstomp individual boss monsters. If that spell gets looked at, I'd hope for anything but higher damage numbers.

Giving them more tankiness, keeping random number in place and granting them taunt would be an interesting approach. Another option would be granting them debilitating features; an army of enemies spawns out of nowhere? Surely affects a poor monsters' morale!



... I like them being vulnerable to banishment though. It's an illusory army of henchmen, not an army of S-tier murder machines. Being banishable is right up in the alley for a spell like this. The KD immunity would help though.

[yune]

I'd take bard PSK illusion even if there was no paragon spell at all.

[chirality]

hard to believe anyone managed to play the game before paragon spells and doubled epics, especially in those damn troublesome L60 areas

snark aside though, I would be interested to see opinions (or even consensus) regarding a quantification of possums, and the psk.

a) is the above sentiment (take psk even if there was no paragon epic at all) shared by most or all players? if so, is this the same as "it's fine as it is, leave it alone and move on"?

b) how many possums is "worth" the valuation of the spell not even being a factor in taking psk? how many is too many, how few is too few?

at face value, if an epic spell is so strong that doubled use of it is worth a paragon feat, it seems like there's some balance issue. per standard "build diversity" intent, if there is no option other than taking this feat--and, even for the secondary benefit, not even caring about the para spell--then something is not right. the same could be said for other classes, of course, and i'm not arguing that only this class/school is special in this way, but i think tweaking these situations is a good thing, be it evo/karsus, div/serendip, or whatever.

and, if this is the case, it does away with the "illus is a must have spell for bards anyway" point of debate, since PSK is another feat on top of PSF, and there are other schools for bards and other casters which are strong enough to warrant PSF but perhaps not PSK, so this is a facet of build decision that other classes negotiate with as well.

if possums are such an important aspect of endgame play that getting more of them by any means is a must-have, i wonder if this is an indication that perhaps the way difficulty is scaled and the way toons survive is too predicated on situations where a fat stack of possums is necessary. if even the strongest, best-prepared, and most knowledgeable toons in the mod die but survive again immediately, entirely buffless after possuming until rebuffing (or, in some cases, surviving fine even largely buffless--some classes don't need much more than perhaps a neg pot and their primary defensive feature (strong conceal source, etc) to survive, often even without bardsong, or even any buff at all), then perhaps the ways endgame mobs kill pcs is a bit much on the side of punishment for a bad roll or mistake, and not enough on the side of consistent, long-duration threat to survival. we all know that if a toon is in a situation that they aren't equipped to handle, they will suck possums rapidly; similarly, a party that is losing control and nearing a wipe will eat possums very fast. yet, in difficult areas, deaths will happen even for the best toons and the strongest players, at a rate at which several possums may be consumed, over time.

in other words, are there so many autofail instakills or similar causes of death that make you possum but otherwise you're surviving fine, that possums make playing the game so much better and more enjoyable? are there other factors in play, such as controlling several bots?

are there any bards without psk illus? for those endgame runners that do have psk illus, how far do your possums stretch in the average run? do you usually run out, usually use about half, rarely use any but like to have a lot for when something goes wrong? would your runs fail or wipe more frequently with less possums? or would it just be less efficient and take longer/be more annoying?

[yune]

At least when I solo or low man limbo p2s (7 toons, with 1-3 humans), running out of possums and toons hitting the ground is rare. But they do get used and toons would hit the ground with only half as many. But lots of abyss runs even with PSK illu bard have people hit the ground, so it's totally party dependent. I know some people say possums will always run out so twice as many doesn't add much, but that's not how it works for me.

The tangible benefits for double possums for me solo or low man are skipping disint immunity entirely in limbo, skipping plode and PWK on anything not a melee tank in p1 and abyss, skipping weird on WIS-based casters with super will saves, since rolling a 1 just means using a possum rather than being a real problem. I never use army at all, so for me it doesn't actually exist.

Generally if people are dying a lot to getting beaten up by random mobs, extra possums won't do much. When 75%+ of deaths are to rolling 1s on instakills/casters getting too close to a marilith or single-target no save just die (Balor dominate), then double possums is the best thing you could have. So the better the party is, the better possums are.

I have gone possumless for a map in p1 hard soloing, but that is rare.

[chirality]

thanks for the feedback and breakdown

i like all the things you point out. in particular, i think it is important to note that playstyle surely has a lot to do with it, all else being equal. that is to say, it's not simply a matter of "skill" or gear; the way we actually play (and how aggressive we are) makes a difference.

anyway, all this brings to mind some similarities with a couple other epics. for immute, there wasn't always only an issue of being so powerful and indispensable that people relied on it to successfully complete at runs--much like having a bunch of possums, having double immute (and/or multiple immutes) allowed for tactics and aggression by powerful toons/players that otherwise may not have really been available. this lead to increased efficiency.

dom, on the other hand, was great for increasing efficiency and enabling faster/more aggressive play, but not so much for defending or saving the party/covering up for poor rolls. (having dangerous casters not spamming deadly spells is certainly a way to cut down on deaths, but primarily we used dom for killing those enemies faster unbuffed, not buying time and protecting the party). two dom was pretty nice for this. i wouldn't say that both of these mechanics/tactical devices being nerfed is reason to look at possums in the same light, but i do think it's interesting to note that a similar "overpowered" role is probably played by, say, immute/double immute and possums/double possums (and a closely-matching valuation in terms of--well, at one time anyway[pre-nerfz]--evo on druids and illus on bards).

I think this is one of those things that as long as it saves time/effort, it's going to be a very strong choice, and as long as there are instakills that you can either/or autofail, require immunity for in a way that even the richest toons find irritating to cover (especially if doing so interrupts other desired gear that would increase their tankiness or dps in other ways), or just plain have huge burst damage, possums are just really, really good, simply for saving time and making things feel smoother and/or enabling more aggressive play.

Probably: much like immute, possums can serve as a mechanism for enabling weaker players/parties/toons (eg weak toon in strong party) to survive fights that otherwise might be too difficult, and I think they allow more fun to be had by offering a safety net against failure in a game that's largely a gear check. For most vets, though, I think it is less about saving the day and more about just getting through the grind faster, and there's more fun to be had there as well.

I don't really see a meaningful "solution" to wanting to buff army, if the problem is presented as "possums are so nice that psk illus on bard is great, regardless of what the para does or even if it exists at all." If this is the case, then so be it, I guess.

However, I do think it would be great to see some kind of improvement or redux of the spell to make it feel better. Again, though, it's not as if there aren't other paragon spells that could use a tweak either, nor do I think the henchmen should be as powerful as they were in the past. Like other summons, however, they are difficult to balance, and unfortunately it feels like there is a sweet spot somewhere, we just haven't quite found it yet, because right now they're underwhelming even against LL mobs.

[simpetar]

Jul 15, 2022 1:26:16 GMT chirality said:

a) is the above sentiment (take psk even if there was no paragon epic at all) shared by most or all players? if so, is this the same as "it's fine as it is, leave it alone and move on"?

b) how many possums is "worth" the valuation of the spell not even being a factor in taking psk? how many is too many, how few is too few?

a) As I see it, the army is just a side effect of wanting to double possums, simple as that.

b) Historically the standard build hits 60 charisma for max range of auras (couple reincs along the way are expected), the # of possums is its derivate (5 under the current ruleset) and then you double that with PSK. You can always deviate from this trend; take more or less bard levels, have lower of higher cha, e.g. make a rapier wit bard, dex bard, DC caster bard, but doubling possums is often desirable (even though not necessary), if the build allows it.

at face value, if an epic spell is so strong that doubled use of it is worth a paragon feat, it seems like there's some balance issue.

No, quite the opposite. This was precisely the outline balancing act that we got a sneak peek into when paragon spells were designed: if an epic spell is so good that you want to double it via PSK, let the paragon spell suck, and vice versa.

per standard "build diversity" intent, if there is no option other than taking this feat--and, even for the secondary benefit, not even caring about the para spell--then something is not right. the same could be said for other classes, of course, and i'm not arguing that only this class/school is special in this way, but i think tweaking these situations is a good thing, be it evo/karsus, div/serendip, or whatever.

This very well may be the case, but now you are talking about retroactively balancing out all epics across the board. You know that is never going to happen, it's not how HG development works.

and, if this is the case, it does away with the "illus is a must have spell for bards anyway" point of debate, since PSK is another feat on top of PSF, and there are other schools for bards and other casters which are strong enough to warrant PSF but perhaps not PSK, so this is a facet of build decision that other classes negotiate with as well.

Other classes DO have to make tough decisions in this regard. Your standard cookie-cutter support bard build is a special case: they don't have to make difficult decisions 1. because they are alrdy the established meta (with tiny variations) 2. and because they don't need to max out their casting stat, bother with spell penetration, take metamagics etc. Other primary casters need to do just that, even though if they follow the meta, most decisions are for the most part already made for them. If you want to deviate, say make a proper DC caster bard, chances are that you won't take PSK illu - there's the build diversity for you. Yes, people might grind their teeth doing a run with you, but they will take you to fill the bard spot anyway (just as they would take a chanter). Heck, I've been on runs with a veteran player who made a cleric with no divination whatsoever, and we somehow made it.

in other words, are there so many autofail instakills or similar causes of death that make you possum but otherwise you're surviving fine, that possums make playing the game so much better and more enjoyable? are there other factors in play, such as controlling several bots?

Other factors in play: the human behind the keyboard. Player skill, luck, brainfarts, randoms, disconnects, all of these have a bearing on the level of necessity of possums, in both ways.

are there any bards without psk illus?

Yes.

for those endgame runners that do have psk illus, how far do your possums stretch in the average run? do you usually run out, usually use about half, rarely use any but like to have a lot for when something goes wrong?

It varies, mostly on the party.

would your runs fail or wipe more frequently with less possums? or would it just be less efficient and take longer/be more annoying?

Same answer as above.

[chirality]

Jul 15, 2022 9:12:45 GMT simpetar said:

No, quite the opposite. This was precisely the outline balancing act that we got a sneak peek into when paragon spells were designed: if an epic spell is so good that you want to double it via PSK, let the paragon spell suck, and vice versa.

This seems like a bit of revisionism. The reasoning sure sounds good, but the problem is that it doesn't actually follow what really happened.

If that logic was employed from the development stage, then army upon inception would have been exactly as bad as it is now, in order to balance out how good possums are.

Of course, the opposite is true: not only was army so strong when it was first released that it was nerfed hard, but even the post-nerf version of it survived for many more years in a form that was proven valuable enough for us to use as a dps check beatdown button in limbo, at which point it was nerfed again. Clearly, the balancing to this spell has always been reactive rather than constructed to be useless from the start.

I'd also point out that much of PL content was not only theorycrafted long in advance, but also brainstormed and implemented in what appears--in several cases--without even playtesting (I find it hard to believe that anyone dropped the original bard army version on asmo to see what would happen before it was released).

As for para spells, there's yet more: they weren't even all implemented fully at release, with some not even being usable for quite some time. That, of course, isn't the point--it's a beta server with a volunteer team, so this isn't a whine--but this is just to point out that looking back 15 years later and assigning a balancing rationalization based on the state of affairs long after release is kind of like retconning a backstory to fix what was out of place.

Aside from bard illus/possums/army itself, there's also other school/epic/para spell examples that starkly oppose this proposed balance logic. For example, what about cleric/div/miracle/serendip? Miracle has always been one of the most popular epic spells and one of the textbook cases of "no-brainer must-have school+epic" for a class.

It's true, of course, that for a long time, div as a school was nowhere near as strong as it was following the release of PLs, but nonetheless, lsf div was strong, miracle was basically a given, and in order for this line of balance reasoning to not be mental gymnastics, the cleric div paragon spell would have had to been designed as total crap to balance out how strong 2 miracles and PSF div would be.

However, even before limbo, it would be clear that a partybuff which completely negates HG's best PC-killing mechanism (autofail) as well as granting temporary effective-immunity-to-alot-of-stuff-even-aside-from-autofails would be invaluable and desirable.

Another example could be KFC, which was used in early days to hilarious effect. If the paragon spell was developed following the logic of "trans is a must-have for druids, and the epic is great, so the paragon should be bad" then surely from initial implementation the spell would have been as useless as bard army is now. However, the concept for the spell was clearly very strong and it took a nerf to bring balance.

There's more, but I think I made my point. To be clear, there's also no dearth of counter-examples; there are various school/epic/para combinations that do line up with a pattern of "bad school/bad epic/great para" or "good school/good epic/bad para" or a similar combination that results in the paragon spell either not being super-stacked or appearing to be strong because the school and epic are weak. However, the fact that these cases exist doesn't convincingly indicate that this logic was applied consistently from conception.

I think there was some attention paid, certainly, but the idea that the paragon spells were planned out to match what we now see as correlation simply doesn't hold water. If that were the case, then as I said above, bard army would have appeared exactly as bad as it is now, rather than incredibly potent and requiring successive nerfs years apart to balance.

Jul 15, 2022 9:12:45 GMT simpetar said:

Your standard cookie-cutter support bard build is a special case: they don't have to make difficult decisions

I disagree, or at any rate, if this is true now, I don't think it was always the case. Bard builds shifted over time in regards to paragon feat choice and PSK choice, precisely because difficult decisions were forced from the first release of PLs, and the desirability of particular para spells was re-evaluated as updates changed other variables (including limbo release, etc).

Again, without being too sarcastic in regards to revisionism, let's not forget that even things like EV conceal scaling and foci were changed, and the calculus of how good bard army was, went from "really good"->"no longer broken"->"difficult decision? worth taking? limboh!"->"who cares if it exists, double possums!"

When taken in total with something like cacophony, I believe this does show that the variations amongst the cookies being cut aren't quite minor. Or, perhaps I am being a bit dramatic about differing definitions of "minor."

At any rate, my point is that crappy para spells intentionally balancing op schools/epics doesn't seem to hold water--at least not universally--and while it seems true that bard army could just as well summon 2d4 half-orc bandits without anyone caring, I don't see the attractiveness in arguing for balance from this kind of angle. Entering logical fallacy territory just for fun: should bards get a penalty to all saving throws to make up for their paladin splashes? Should missile barrage do literally zero damage just because people would still take karsus? Should monk splash give a 10% xp penalty because people would still take it?

[desocupado]

The way balance and builds work in D&D leads to several feel bad moments. After all isn't mobility feat boring? Or the innability to use spell from a minor splash not fun?

That being said I don't really see any point in the number of summoned army henchmen varying. Maybe always having 8 summons with (slightly) lower duration would feel more exciting.

[Yojimbo]

Fix the number based on CL and roll the duration or some other aspects of them might be a decent compromise.