# Overpowered/Underpowered Spells?



## Dark Dragon (May 28, 2004)

Well, the thread title says it: which spells from the PHB and the splat books (Defenders of the Faith, Masters of the Wild, Song and Silence, Tome and Blood) do you consider overpowered or underpowered and why?

A friend and I are working on a homebrewed D&D, and perhaps some spells could need a revision...

So far we're considering the following spells as overpowered from gaming experience:

_Arcane Sight _ (3rd level): Detects _Illusionary Walls, Screen_, or illusionary creatures. This not a big deal because AS has a quite short duration. But when it is made permanent, you don't need to put funny illusions into your adventure.
_Energy Immunity _ (T&B, 6th level): Duration (24 h) too long.
_Mind Blank _ (8th level): Duration (24 h) too long, 100% protection against a complete school (enchantment), plus some illusion spells.
_Mordenkainen's Disjunction _ (9th): No fun at all: Auto-Dispel and item killer in an area.
_Overland Flight _ (5th level): Duration (1 h/level) too long, stupid feather falling effect, even if OF is dispelled (applies also for _Fly_). Makes non-magic traps like pits or switch-triggered traps in dungeons obsolete, as well as non-flying opponents, especially monsters without ranged weapons.

Underpowered:

_Cone of Cold _ (5th level): Low damage cap (15d6), sometimes difficult to use, if you don't want to freeze your allies.
_Foresight_ (9th level): Nice idea, but only a +2 insight bonus to AC and Ref from a level 9 spell?
_Summon Monster I-IX_: Some monsters have a really low CR at high levels compared to others. Equal CRs within e.g. Summon Monster IX would be fine, IMO.
_Power Word: Blind _ (7th level): Why is it in the enchantment school? Cast _Mind Blank_, and that's it... _Blindness/Deafness _ is a necromantic spell...
_Power Word: Kill _ (9th level): See above and compare it with _Wail of the Banshee_ (Neccromancy).


----------



## mikebr99 (May 28, 2004)

WRT... 3.0 or 3.5?


Mike


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 28, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> WRT... 3.0 or 3.5?
> 
> 
> Mike




D&D 3.5 core spells plus 3.0 splat books.


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2004)

_Teleport_, all versions, if your campaign involves traveling. 
_Gate_ is pretty damn overpowered as well, even with the XP cost.
_Miracle_, if the cleric can choose the spell effects to duplicate.
_Polymorph_, _Polymorph Any Object_ and _Shapechange_ are at least borderline overpowered.
_Miasma_ 
_Hide Life_ 

 About _Arcane Sight_, maybe you like my house rule:

 When magically detecting an illusion, you get a save for interacting with it. Only if you succeed, you find out that it's an illusion. Otherwise you'll get a false reading when determining the school, appropriate to the effect (often evocation, conjuration or transmutation).

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Li Shenron (May 28, 2004)

_Arcane Sight _ It may be effectively very good with Permanency, otherwise it is not much better than Detect Magic, only easier to use.

_Energy Immunity _ I bet this is going to be shortened by Complete Arcane.

_Mind Blank _ It is a very good spell, but not game-breaking. But if you play like someone says (immunity also to divinations, including the ones which do NOT target your mind like See Invisibility) then it may be very borken.

_Mordenkainen's Disjunction _ The fact that it can destroy magic items is often seen as a downside of the spell (makes combat easier but blows up the treasure   ). I don't think it's too powerful at all, but in general I don't bother much with the power of 9th-level spells because I accept the idea they can go over the top - to me it is acceptable since I don't play epic games.

_Overland Flight _ They key is average manouverability (Fly has good). I haven't considered this before, but since you cannot hover, then it means you have to always double-move and cannot attack or cast spells without some special feats. Of course you can if you land, but in that case your are not airborne anymore   


_Cone of Cold _ Slightly underpowered. It has the same damage as 3rd level spells, but the area is about double (225%). Considering that a Widened Fireball (lv 6) has quadruple area, the Cone of Cold could have some other advantages, especially because double area is only "potentially" double target creatures.

_Foresight_ This spell is very open for interpretation, and those bonuses are just the granted minimum. With good DM's call you can make this a very nice and useful spell (there is actually even the risk of going too far).

_Summon Monster I-IX_ Well, I think too that CRs are slightly low, and in combat it rather works as a mean to delay or block the foes for a couple rounds. However, there are still some occasional uses out-of combat that make this spell more versatile than it may seem.

_Power Word: Blind _ , _Power Word: Kill _ the whole point of Power Words is: NO SAVE!


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2004)

I suppose the nerfing of the summon monster line was a reaction to the 3.0 versions being too good (I think so, can't really say I found them overpowered back then).

 Oh, some more (IMHO) underpowered spells in 3.5:

 Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance, ..., Invisibility and Fly. All of these have a very short duration (10 min./level is fair enough for these).

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 28, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> _Mind Blank _ It is a very good spell, but not game-breaking. But if you play like someone says (immunity also to divinations, including the ones which do NOT target your mind like See Invisibility) then it may be very borken.




The three different Power Word spells are in 3.5 mind-affecting spells, and as such, MB works very well against them. I don't like the fact that one spell (MB) wards against the whole enchantment school for one day. No other spell has this capability.



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> _Overland Flight _ They key is average manouverability (Fly has good). I haven't considered this before, but since you cannot hover, then it means you have to always double-move and cannot attack or cast spells without some special feats. Of course you can if you land, but in that case your are not airborne anymore




An airborne creature has to take a double move with an average  manouverability?



			
				Li Shenron said:
			
		

> _Power Word: Blind _ , _Power Word: Kill _ the whole point of Power Words is: NO SAVE!




Yep, that's their advantage. But when you can foil them easily with MB, they are either underpowered or MB is overpowered, IMHO.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Oh, some more (IMHO) underpowered spells in 3.5:
> 
> Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Bear's Endurance, ..., Invisibility and Fly. All of these have a very short duration (10 min./level is fair enough for these).




Right, at least the ability buff spells and _Invisibility_ have a quite short duration.


----------



## Pax (May 28, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> _Energy Immunity _ I bet this is going to be shortened by Complete Arcane.



  This spell already *has* been "updated" to 3.5 - it's in the Draconoicon.  Still with a 24h duration.



> _Cone of Cold _ Slightly underpowered. It has the same damage as 3rd level spells, but the area is about double (225%). Considering that a Widened Fireball (lv 6) has quadruple area, the Cone of Cold could have some other advantages, especially because double area is only "potentially" double target creatures.



  I think upping the dice to d6's would work (using d4's is a holdover from 1E/2E days, IMO).

[/quote]
_Foresight_ This spell is very open for interpretation, and those bonuses are just the granted minimum. With good DM's call you can make this a very nice and useful spell (there is actually even the risk of going too far).
[/quote]



> _Summon Monster I-IX_ Well, I think too that CRs are slightly low, and in combat it rather works as a mean to delay or block the foes for a couple rounds. However, there are still some occasional uses out-of combat that make this spell more versatile than it may seem.



  The entire Summon Monster / Summon Nature's Ally subset needs a lot of work.


----------



## welby (May 28, 2004)

I always liked this thread "Problematic Spells In 3.5"

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86768&perpage=30&pagenumber=1


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2004)

The WotC "Problematic Spells" thread is very good.....for the first 2 pages.  After that, it's fluff.

*Dark Dragon*, I'm very suprised at your list of spells that "need work".  Only two of your list ever come up as being problematic - Cone of Cold and Mord's Disjuction.

What about:
Alter Self/Polymorph/Shape Change
Cone of Cold   
Entangle
Gate
Mord's Disjunction
Polar Ray
Scry/Teleport
Silence
These, at a minimum, are the problematic spells.  The others you list are mere gnats in comparison.


----------



## Nail (May 28, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> _Overland Flight _ They key is average manouverability ...(snip)... you have to always double-move...



Not true.  Read over page 20 in the DMG again.


----------



## Otterscrubber (May 28, 2004)

Pretty much every splatbook for 3.0 has broken spells.  So many are broken or unbalanced that IMC we don't even allow non core books.  One that stands out for me though was Ghostform from Tome & Blood.  I don't have the book in front of me but it basically made the caster incorporeal, with all the benefits and none of the drawbacks.  50% chance to be immune to even magical effects, totally immune to non-magical attacks/effects but still able to 100% affect the material world with your spells.  Also allows you to fly and go through walls as well.  Nice utility spell by way broken if you ask me.

Gate is very broken if you allow the caster to summon things up to twice their HD, what was the logic behind that? Minimum caster level is 17 for this spell so that's 34HD.  That's a bit over the top.  Yet if you are summoning multiple weaker things the total can only be equal to your HD.  3 wimpy things does not equal one super uber thing by a long shot. I can't beleive it was never erratted like Shapechange to only be equal to your HD.

Cone of Cold does kinda stink.  Cones in general kinda stink as the caster needs to be at the front of the fight to use it without affecting teammates.  How often does that happen?  My sorcerer does not like the front lines, does yours?

Mind Blank does seem broken. Lasts all day and gives total immunity to an entire school of magic, to 2 schools of magic depending on how you interpret it.  Definitely at least to 1 and 1/2 schools of magic though   I hate to say that though as my sorcerer uses it a lot.  Hope my DM isn't reading this....

Geas?  No Save, 6th level spell you are now my monkey boy.  Give an order like travel around the world and off they go.  Done deal.  You can defeat any monster if you can get past their SR.  At 11th level.  Wow.

Miracle.  Where do I start.  It's like wish, but you don't have to pay 5K xp unless you REALLY go overboard with what you want.  Why do arcane casters have to pay 5k xp for any use of it, while clerics get it for free basically?


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2004)

Otterscrubber said:
			
		

> Geas?  No Save, 6th level spell you are now my monkey boy.  Give an order like travel around the world and off they go.  Done deal.  You can defeat any monster if you can get past their SR.  At 11th level.  Wow.




Geas is not Charm or Dominate, it's no mind-control, victims are still free to act whatever way they wish... just some of those will give them penalties, but that doesn't really help you in that situation. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ForceUser (May 28, 2004)

_Entangle_ is on my list. It's too powerful for a 1st-level spell. When you're using it to great effect verses a band of hill giants, harassing and delaying them in such a way that your group can deal with the giants one or two at a time, that's a problem. A CR 7 monster shouldn't have much difficulty dealing with a 1st-level spell. 

If I were to redesign _entangle_, I'd make it a DC 15 Str check to escape, and I'd make it a 20-ft. radius instead of a 40-ft one. DC 20 is too high. Alternately, I'd leave the spell as-is but make it 2nd level.


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2004)

Yeah, it's more like the power level of _Web_ than _Grease_ for example.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## italianranma (May 28, 2004)

I can't believe that Tasha's Hidious Laughter isn't on this list:  It either needs a 1d4 round duration like it did in 3.0, or the target needs a will save every round, just like hold person.  My PCs have been using this on everything they come across, and much prefer it to Hold Person.  With Hold person, my villian can escape the next round if he's lucky, with THL he laughs his ass off for 7 rounds while the fighters power attack him to death.


----------



## iwatt (May 28, 2004)

Overpowered:

- Hunter's Mercy , specially when coupled to a Deepwood Sniper
- Ray of Enfeeblement. even with the cap, it just demolishes large creatures. 

Underpowered:

Cat's Grace, BS, .... (too short, change to 10/Lev at least)



On the overpowered front I was going to add Eneravtion, but then I noticed someone who said...using negative energy is evil. Your DM must enforce this.


----------



## Tyrol (May 28, 2004)

iwatt said:
			
		

> On the overpowered front I was going to add Enervation, but then I noticed someone who said...using negative energy is evil. Your DM must enforce this.




You sure about that?  Does it say that somewhere? Evil is not in the spell descriptor.  

I can easily imagine chaotic good characters using enervation to achieve good purposes and goals.  However, if it specifically says somewhere in a core book that negative energy is inherently evil, I will defer.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 28, 2004)

Underpowered:

Repel wood: A 6th Level spell that went from a useful area effect spell to a line spell that only works in the most limited of places. I have yet to see any reason to take it instead of any other 6th level spell.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (May 28, 2004)

I still think _Feeblemind_ is overpowered and scary for a 5th level spell; if it could be dispelled or removed by anything short of a _Heal_ or _Limited Wish_, or if it had a finite duration, it wouldn't be so bad.

--
but it doesn't, so it is
ryan


----------



## Thanee (May 28, 2004)

italianranma said:
			
		

> I can't believe that Tasha's Hidious Laughter isn't on this list.




I considered to add it (or Hold Person for underpowered ), but they are not enough removed from the average IMHO to be listed.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## isoChron (May 28, 2004)

Overpowered: 
 Arcane Sight (foils Illusions in 1 round)
 Blindsight
 Energy Immunity
 Find the Path (Tells you all about traps and passwords... )
 Teleport spells (come to early)
 Mindblank
 Hunters Mercy (watch a Deepwoodsniper with an energy burst bow ...)
 Animal Growth (with polymorph/wildshape)
 Blasphemy dazed condition can be a real killer. Fight a surprising balor with a kobold servant and you know what I mean.
 Firebrand (shapeable great area with good damage)
 Holy Star
 Hide Life
 M. Disjunction
 Gate


 A mess:
 Polymorph/Wildshape Pfffff. They got wildshape right in Masters of the Wild but then they tied it again completly to polymorph. Polymorph is a mess since I know it. No other spell has seen so many different versions and interpretations. 
 Know Protections
 Know Vulnerabilities
 Power Sight
 These give informations that are very off game and statistical.



 Underpowered:
 Sleep (3.5)
 Animal Buffs
 Cone of Cold
 Energy Drain
 Cocoon
 Foresight

 All just in my experience and opinion


----------



## Chris Parker (May 29, 2004)

Arcana Form, I believe lets you burn menial amounts of HP for spell slots. Maybe as a Sorceror... but not as a Wizard.



			
				Enervation said:
			
		

> releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes.




Sounds evil to me, specially that bit about the _negative_energy_ and _necromancy_


----------



## Pants (May 29, 2004)

Overpowered:
_Firebrand_ - Less of a morphable area works for me.  As it is, it's almost as good as _Horrid Wilting_
_Gate_ - Less broken than before, but the spell should be based off of CR rather than HD maybe
_Shapechange (the king of overpowered)_ - either reduce the duration and don't allow form switching or just get rid of the grants Su abilities nonsense
_Mord's Disjunction_ - Same as above
_Blasphemy_ - get rid of that nasty dazed for 1 round and bring it more inline with the other spells
_Entangle_ - too good of an area and too much of a hassle to get rid of.
_Miasma_ - Bleh, I banned this one right away

WTF were they thinking Spells:
_Fabricate/Polymorph Any Object_ - I'd just get rid of these
_Astral Projection_ - the loophole spell king

Underpowered:
_Cone of Cold_ - Not too sure on this one yet, but it doesn't look that good
_Sleep_ - Either increase the casting time and keep the 2d4 HD or put keep the static HD and make the casting time a standard


----------



## The Souljourner (May 29, 2004)

Enervation is not evil.  If it were evil, it would have the [Evil] descriptor or say so in the description.  Necromancy isn't evil.  Raising the dead is evil, but necromancy in general is not.  Negative energy is not evil.

Dude, Fireball *sounds* evil.  Which would you rather - have your "life force suppressed" or be burned alive?

Arcane Sight? It's a *third level* spell that duplicates detect magic, a _0th_ level spell, except at a minute a level.  One minute a level.   That's over in a flash.  Sure, permanancy... blow XP on a spell that can just be dispelled.  Sweet.

Overland Flight!  _Overland Flight_!?  I'm aghast.  That spell sucks!  It's not overpowered, it's horribly underpowered.  It's a *5th* level spell that only affects you!  If that spell is unbalancing your game, something is seriously wrong with your game.  Fly is two levels lower and can be cast on others.  _Pits_ aren't *supposed* to be dangerous to 9th level characters.

And oh yeah.... Mordenkainen's Disjunction is sick.  It does stuff you can't even do with epic spell seeds.  Nuh uh.

Cone of cold is the suck.
Sleep is the suck.

Power Word spells are underpowered.

Mind blank is fine.  It's personal only, 8th level, and only protects you against  spells you already have a really good save against.  Whatever.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Brother MacLaren (May 29, 2004)

Is Creeping Doom underpowered now?
It does, what, 9 points of damage per round per target to things that can't fly, don't have DR, and can't fight or outrun the swarm?
It used to be a good spell against tough melee brutes (e.g. giants), but I suppose now it is useful against armies of 1-HD foes.  Except that 13th-level druids rarely face armies of 1-HD foes.


----------



## dcollins (May 29, 2004)

If I'd written anything, it would basically just duplicate what Souljourner said, so count this as fully seconding his critique. Must be something in the water around here.

(One exception: I can live with Mordenkainen's Disjunction. I abstain from Epic so as a 9th level spell I haven't seen a problem with it.)


----------



## The Souljourner (May 29, 2004)

Thanks for the support   Disjunction bugs me more than it's overpowered I guess.   Automatic dispel is powerful... buffs at higher levels can really swing the tide of a battle, and I never like anything that destroys magic items.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Brekki (May 29, 2004)

_Mind blank is fine. It's personal only, 8th level, and only protects you against spells you already have a really good save against. Whatever.

-The Souljourner_
Mind Blank has a target of "one creature", so all your low-willsave fightertype buddies will be very happy.


----------



## iwatt (May 29, 2004)

> Enervation is not evil. If it were evil, it would have the [Evil] descriptor or say so in the description. Necromancy isn't evil. Raising the dead is evil, but necromancy in general is not. Negative energy is not evil.




Maybe it just how we play it in my groups, but sucking energy seems mighty  close to evil. I agree that it doesn't have the Evil descriptor, but IMCs (as player and DM) going around throwing harm and inflicts makes for an evil reputation at least.

But getting back on topic, I believe enervation is one of the nastiest spells in the game. Specially against clerics and mages. The losing of spells is really harsh.


----------



## Synchronicity (May 29, 2004)

Hey, don't anybody forget _Slime Wave_! In 3.0 it was sick as all hell; what do you mean 1d6 Con damage PER 5ft OF FACING?! Now in 3.5 (it's in Complete Divine)...wait for it....it's not changed a bit! The damn thing has only two redeeming features; a) Reflex negates, and b) The slime is dissolved by sunlight. However...1d6 Con damage per 5ft of facing! Throw it at Gargantuan and Colossal creatures, and laugh. So much Con drain it's not even funny. And if they flub the save, they can't do squat about it save a) blast themselves with fireballs/coldballs to burn/freeze the stuff off or b) spend a full-round action to scrape off a 5ft patch of the stuff. 'Cause getting rid of ONE of the patches is so going to save your life. So if they have bad Reflex and no fire or cold based area thingies, they're screwed. *sigh* It's so banned in all the games I play and run.


----------



## Khristos (May 30, 2004)

Timestop.... so broken it isnt even funny

 Holyword.... and its multi alignment brethern also very broken

Planar Binding..... Calling spells are insanely powerful

Truestrike... +20 at 1st level? makes quickening it handy 

Otto's Irresistable Dance... better hope you have Mind Blank


----------



## sithramir (May 30, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> Thanks for the support   Disjunction bugs me more than it's overpowered I guess.   Automatic dispel is powerful... buffs at higher levels can really swing the tide of a battle, and I never like anything that destroys magic items.
> 
> -The Souljourner




Does noone pay attention that Disjunction is a 1 round casting time? Yes the effect is very harsh but EVERY other person gets a chance to interupt the spell, move, escape, or what not. Yes it does suck for those without spellcraft.

But the large radius actually is what hurts it the most. Usually a combat ends up with either some of your allies too close to the foes or the foes too close to you. Basically this spell is powerful if you have archmage shaping and a greater quicken rod.

To do this however, you've had to spend 3 feats, a PrC, and spent 135,000 gps. I think it's ok.

My players were all psyched when we were at 18th level and they could use it. I explained to them that if they keep using it, other mages will start using it on them first and they didn't like that idea.

In my games it usually ends up that it's a mutually agreed thing throughout wizard ranks to not use the spell on other wizards but only in dire situations. Especially since a lot of mages worship Mystra or another god of magic that would not favor destroying lots of magical items.


----------



## Taren Seeker (May 30, 2004)

Mord is 1 standard action.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Mage’s Disjunction
> Abjuration
> Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
> Components: V
> Casting Time: 1 standard action


----------



## Khristos (May 30, 2004)

MDJ isnt overpowered for the reason it destroys magic items.  It is overpowered in the arsenal of GMs I suppose who probably care little for loot. An item MIGHT save against it if in a persons possession. it is pretty trivial magic compared to Time stop which if used in an enterprising fashion by a player can  guarantee victory for 4-8,000 gps  (they just need to make sure the payoff is worthwile)


----------



## WCrawford (May 30, 2004)

Underpowered Spell: Sound Burst.

IMO, this spell should have been 1d8 damage per 2 levels with a 5d8 max at 10th level. Save for half and avoid the stun.


----------



## Thanee (May 30, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Truestrike... +20 at 1st level? makes quickening it handy




You got to be kidding... Hunter's Mercy, ok, but True Strike?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## hong (May 30, 2004)

Synchronicity said:
			
		

> Hey, don't anybody forget _Slime Wave_! In 3.0 it was sick as all hell; what do you mean 1d6 Con damage PER 5ft OF FACING?! Now in 3.5 (it's in Complete Divine)...wait for it....it's not changed a bit! The damn thing has only two redeeming features; a) Reflex negates, and b) The slime is dissolved by sunlight. However...1d6 Con damage per 5ft of facing! Throw it at Gargantuan and Colossal creatures, and laugh. So much Con drain it's not even funny. And if they flub the save, they can't do squat about it save a) blast themselves with fireballs/coldballs to burn/freeze the stuff off or b) spend a full-round action to scrape off a 5ft patch of the stuff. 'Cause getting rid of ONE of the patches is so going to save your life. So if they have bad Reflex and no fire or cold based area thingies, they're screwed. *sigh* It's so banned in all the games I play and run.



 I don't see what's so horribly broken about slime wave. As a 7th level spell, the alternative is casting destruction, and killing the target outright instead of causing Con damage. Perhaps the area effect (which allows multiple instakills) might be overpowered against lots of enemies. Having a Ref save instead of Con might also make it more useful against melee brutes.


----------



## Synchronicity (May 30, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I don't see what's so horribly broken about slime wave. As a 7th level spell, the alternative is casting destruction, and killing the target outright instead of causing Con damage. Perhaps the area effect (which allows multiple instakills) might be overpowered against lots of enemies. Having a Ref save instead of Con might also make it more useful against melee brutes.




The Ref save's mostly the point I was making. I mean, Great Wyrm dragon. You can either throw a Fort save-or-die at them, which they pass in their sleep; or, they can try a Ref save (not their best feature); and if they fail, take multiple (what, 4d6+?) dice of Con damage for _1 round/lvl._ That's flipping harsh. It's both the Con damage and the fact the thing has a duration that makes it so ridiculous. Also, is Destruction still a death effect? I don't remember offhand; because if so, it becomes even weaker compared to Slime Wave, what with _soulfire_ armour and the like. However, maybe I've just seen it used to hideous effect, and it's coloured my perceptions a little.


----------



## Thanee (May 30, 2004)

Well, they could dispel it, or not? But the initial damage will stay, which is still quite a bit.

However, a dragon with such a high facing, might still be a pretty dangerous opponent. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Synchronicity (May 30, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Well, they could dispel it, or not? But the initial damage will stay, which is still quite a bit.
> 
> However, a dragon with such a high facing, might still be a pretty dangerous opponent.
> 
> ...




Heh. It's a Conjuration [Summoning] effect. While the slime evaporates at the end of the duration, I don't believe it's dispellable, much like other Conjurations. Yeah, sure, the dragon'd be dangerous..for the 3 or so rounds it survived. Dragons have high Con, but nobody has *that* much Con. :S


----------



## Thanee (May 30, 2004)

Conjurations are not dispelable? Why is that?

Only instanteneous conjurations, but that has nothing to do with being a conjuration, really. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Synchronicity (May 30, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Conjurations are not dispelable? Why is that?
> 
> Only instanteneous conjurations, but that has nothing to do with being a conjuration, really.
> 
> ...





Sorry, you're right. My brain randomly decided to short out for a moment there. It's dispellable; though the damage already taken will remain. It's really a problem when used on a) wizards ('I lose Con?!') or b) big stompy doom-machines with no spellcasting ability. And I stand by my assertion that blanketing a 30ft area with Con-draining slime's damn nasty.


----------



## Particle_Man (May 30, 2004)

Bigby's Hand spells seem underpowered.


----------



## Merlion (May 30, 2004)

I cant really think of any that I'd consider overpowered in and of themselves. The permanet de-magicing of magic items with Mord's Disjunction does seem a little heavy.
And I feel Divine Power and Righteous Might are over the top in the hands of the Cleric. And Miracle of course. I think a lot of Cleric stuff is overpowered, but not of itself, just in the context of the Cleric.

As for underpowered, well of course theres Cone of Cold. 

Ice Storm also seems weak to me, only doing 5 dice of damage as a 4th level spell. Yea its a cylinder but that only matters if you've got enemies in the air.

The whole Fly/Overland flight thing...Overland Flight is 2 levels higher and inferior in every way save duration. and once you've got it, you've got Teleport too.

The Summon Monster spells. They need a total overhaul...most of the stuff is no more than a speedbump in combat at the level you get it. And since the spells have super short duration, using them for utility is somewhat limited. 
The Summon Nature's Allies are ok now though.

Bull's Strength etc since their durations were more or less removed. Since they give Enhancement bonuses, and most people already have enhancement bonus granting items for their important ability scores. If their going to have super short durations, they need to give like morale or untyped bonuses.

Daze Monster is pretty silly.  For a second level spell you daze one creature with no more than 6 HD for a single round. make it like 1d4+1 rounds and it might be worth it. Of course I have problems in general with spells like this and Sleep, and Deep Slumber, and Circle of Death that have HD limits that render them almost useless after a few levels.

Spell Turning is a bit weak for 7th level since it only effects a super narrow range of spells, and a small number of spell levels of spells.

I'm not to wild about the Acid Fog/Incendiary cloud type spells. They deal very little damage and their easy to get away from.

I have to agree that in terms of the stated benefits, Foresight has always seemed weak for 9th level to me.

And yes, Sound Burst is pretty weak..although I'm not in favor of Cleric's getting more damage ability.


theres probably others but those sort of spring to mind.


----------



## Merlion (May 30, 2004)

And of course some stuff is basicaly ok except it got hit with the anti-utility magic duration nerf stick in 3.5 like Fly, Invisibility, Polymorph. Bull's Str etc were to my mind a little weak already...but those three are fine, until they have their duration taken away


----------



## Pax (May 30, 2004)

Synchronicity said:
			
		

> The Ref save's mostly the point I was making. I mean, Great Wyrm dragon. You can either throw a Fort save-or-die at them, which they pass in their sleep; or, they can try a Ref save (not their best feature); and if they fail, take multiple (what, 4d6+?) dice of Con damage for _1 round/lvl._ That's flipping harsh.



  IMC, Slime Wave will do *1 con damage per round per 5' of face*.  Period.  And a large creature gets whacked with 2 patches (10' of face), not 4 (10x10 occupied area).


----------



## two (May 30, 2004)

*How I do it*

The way I figure out if a spell is overopwered or not is to ask the following question:

"If this spell is used in intelligent and min/maxxy fashion, will it change the way every encounter must be run, or force the GM to change the campaign world?"

Of the already-commented-upon spells, some easily fit the criteria:

Alter Self/Polymorph/Shape Change
Gate
Mord's Disjunction
Scry/Teleport
Silence

I think Alter Self is fine.  But Polymorph Any Object/Shape Change, as written, with no limitations upon creatures polymorphed into, is ridiculous.  If this spell is used often, and well, it can the tailed to precisely fit an opponent, or to greatly reduce the party's weaknesses.  Yes, it might look stupid to have the party walking around in "troll form" or whatever, but it's incredibly effective and forces the GM to change every encounter.

Gate, if used often, is the same.  Gate in some appropriate help for any reasonably-scary battle and have your life made much easier.  Or have a Gated bodyguard for a while, etc.

Teleport is the same deal.  If used intelligently (i.e. all the time) it's nearly impossible for a GM to figure out what the party is going to do, and to control battles.  Unless the GM uses a lot of DimAnchors -- which substantially changes every encounter.  Just makes the campaign world a mess, and is it really that fun? 

Silence is another good example.  A 1st level bard cohort with a wand of silence, readying it to cast when an enemy start to cast, is far more effective than he has any right to be.  Basically, all enemy spell-casting can be shut down for the price of a 2nd level spell.  Fun?  (granted, this guy will be killed in an instant, but you get the point.  Sub in a 10th level cleric cohort, a dedicated "silencer", and it's all over).

Just my opinions, but removing these spells entirely simply makes for a more fun and more entertaining (i.e. less binary) game.


----------



## Khristos (May 30, 2004)

I am curious as to why people don't put time stop on here. Let me put out what I did with this beautiful spell. I cast time stop inside a time stop. Eventually this led to an enemy cleric inside a force cube, dimensionally locked, facing a projected image (which I had cast silence on via a scroll) with 4 delayed blast fireballs (76d6 damage). Typically I start a fight with my rod of maximization in hand and switch to my rod of quickening during the time stop. This way I could quicken spell attack and still hold action to use greater dispel as a counter.  Pretty powerful stuff


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 31, 2004)

Wow, losts of comments    Interesting, some spells are listed quite often, perhaps they will be revised, faq'd, errat'd ...some day...



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> The WotC "Problematic Spells" thread is very good.....for the first 2 pages.  After that, it's fluff.
> 
> *Dark Dragon*, I'm very suprised at your list of spells that "need work".  Only two of your list ever come up as being problematic - Cone of Cold and Mord's Disjuction.
> 
> ...




 

I posted those spells that just came into mind. 
I agree that most of the spells you're listing need some changes. The polymorphing stuff is badly worded and in parts horribly overpowered (especially when you're DMing epic campaigns), _Gate_ may just kill an encounter or the party.

_Time Stop_: Bad stuff if the wizzie uses some _Delayed Blast Fireballs_. Really bad stuff if an archmage with mastery of elements casts some DBFs. But if the PCs use this tactic often, it might be used on them. That's the way I handle it, and the players should never forget that.   

_Entangle_: Well, I never realised that it could be overpowered. Perhaps because my druid rarely had an opportunity to use it to full effect. But in the right conditions it is a very nasty spell.

_Silence_: Yep, quite good for an auto-spellcaster-shut-off. How many silent spells prepares a caster? Two? Three? Perhaps a silent dispel? Or a silent _teleport_? 

_Teleport_: IMC, it was changed that it makes noise and light and leaves the creatures dazed, just like _Dimension Door_, IIRC. _Scry-Buff-Teleport _ is a bit rirkier then.

_Hunter's Mercy:_ Yes, that is really nasty. OK, the ranger changes his bow attacks for casting HM, but a crit with a bow in the next round hurts a lot. Now take a ranger/deepwood sniper with a bow enchanted with some sort of burst. Ouch!

_Ice Storm_: Aye, quite weak, I agree.

_Planar Binding_: Seems ok to me. It has a HD cap, and the creature must be persuaded to fulfil the caster's bidding.


----------



## Thanee (May 31, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> _Silence_: Yep, quite good for an auto-spellcaster-shut-off. How many silent spells prepares a caster? Two? Three? Perhaps a silent dispel? Or a silent _teleport_?




What do you mean... prepare... 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 31, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people don't put time stop on here.




Yeah, time stop is pretty nasty, altho I'm not sure it can (or should be able to) be maximized (since the d4 is duration), but I guess this has been clarified somewhere by now. 

The forcecage + dimensional lock would have killed the cleric in your example without the time stop already (usually clerics do have means to survive this and get out of the cage), so I don't see what it added to the mix there, except being overkill, really. 

Also quickened rods shouldn't work like I suppose you use them (and I'm unsure, whether they are meant to do), read my post in the quickened spontaneous spells thread (page 2) for a more detailed explanation, altho that doesn't change the validity of your example, it'd still be possible to quicken one spell and ready a counterspell.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## dcollins (May 31, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> "If this spell is used in intelligent and min/maxxy fashion, will it change the way every encounter must be run, or force the GM to change the campaign world?"...
> 
> Alter Self/Polymorph/Shape Change
> Gate
> ...




Good points. I'll briefly point out that in the past, 3 out of 5 of these spells had built-in limitations that could possibly kill the user -- but all such side-effects were taken out in 3rd Edition (to make a "softer" game for players), thereby breaking these spells.

In 1st and 2nd Edition:
- Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.
- Gate brought a free-willed entity who might leave or attack the caster.
- Teleport had a failure option that was instant-death.

In my game using some variant on 1st Ed. rules for these spells makes them not a problem.


----------



## Dark Dragon (May 31, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Good points. I'll briefly point out that in the past, 3 out of 5 of these spells had built-in limitations that could possibly kill the user -- but all such side-effects were taken out in 3rd Edition (to make a "softer" game for players), thereby breaking these spells.
> 
> In 1st and 2nd Edition:
> - Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.
> ...




Aye, and that is one reason why I liked AD&D. _Teleport_ was used only in dangerous situations, _Polymorph_ was a better attack spell than buffing some party members, and _Gate_ was rarely used at all.

Hmm, perhaps I should swap through my old AD&D PHB to get some ideas on how to balance some spells listed in this thread.


----------



## notjer (May 31, 2004)

a spell my DM used, very weird:

a corrupt spell - I only know that if I succed my check(the dc was 20) I maded a succesful save on 26, and I took 1d6 streng temp. damage and 1d6 con temp. damge. thats a kind of overpowered and wierd :S


----------



## Li Shenron (May 31, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Good points. I'll briefly point out that in the past, 3 out of 5 of these spells had built-in limitations that could possibly kill the user -- but all such side-effects were taken out in 3rd Edition (to make a "softer" game for players), thereby breaking these spells.
> 
> In 1st and 2nd Edition:
> - Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.
> ...




Well, I can kindly only but strongly disagree   

A death chance does not make any spell balanced. It just either (1) scares a player who will NEVER use the spell or (2) don't scare a player who will keep on using the spell the same way, or at best less often, until he dies, at which point he'll smile and make another char, perhaps with the same spell or otherwise never again.

Drawbacks could be fine and interesting, but not death as drawback.


----------



## Count Arioch the 28t (Jun 1, 2004)

I'd like to put forth an underpowered spell.

Wish.

The effects it grants are in no way worth 5,000 EXP each, and asking for more makes DMsdo terrible things to their players.  That's not in the rules, but face it,  all DMs do that, hell, I know of DMs who don't allow the stated effects of wish to work.  (I don't play with DMs of that mentality though.)


----------



## Dthamilaye (Jun 1, 2004)

True strike is kinda.... ergh.

Almost everyone in my campaign, especially fighter types, have taken 1 level of specialist wizard (Diviner) to get access to 1-3 + true strikes /day. And, of course, everyone has bought the lesser metamagic thingy (quicken), so they can use it whenever they like without problems. Yes, they lose 1 BAB, but gain alot of nice things with 1 level of Wizard.

Many of the spells mentioned in this thread have been and are problematic in my campagin too. M.Disjunction (I don't allow Archmage shaping with this), Antimagic field (again, I don't allow archmage shaping with this), polymorphs/shapechange (I made a max stat limit to these, SC=35 STR/CON/DEX max, (su) abilities are under my jurisdiction), Fleshsshiver, Mindblank, SPELL TURNING, Elminster effulgent epuration, Energy immunity etc.

Funny when the sorcerer in our games always casts the energy immunity for each energy before he goes to sleep. That way he gets the spells for the next day and still has all slots for emergencies. Add in Ring of Spell turning and bunch of other spells and it becomes quite hard to hurt him with anything.

Of course, just need to put more caster opponents against them... 5 players vs 8 casters and bunch of melee might be ok .


----------



## Thanee (Jun 1, 2004)

Rods of Quicken Spell aren't exactly cheap, so those 3 attacks per day wouldn't be something I'd worry about.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## apsuman (Jun 1, 2004)

Dthamilaye said:
			
		

> True strike is kinda.... ergh.
> 
> Almost everyone in my campaign, especially fighter types, have taken 1 level of specialist wizard (Diviner) to get access to 1-3 + true strikes /day. And, of course, everyone has bought the lesser metamagic thingy (quicken), so they can use it whenever they like without problems. Yes, they lose 1 BAB, but gain alot of nice things with 1 level of Wizard.




The DM is to blame for this, imho.  Sounds like powergamers run amok.

That said however, by my reading of the lesser metamagic thingy, you have to have it in hand to use it (I think Thanee thinks otherwise -- I might be wrong here).  So you have to pull it out (or go without a shield) cast the spell, drop it (which is a free action -- right?) and then draw your weapon (which is a free action -- right?) then attack.  Truestrike only give you a +20 on your very next attack, so the fighter might get two attacks in one round, but they would be at something like +30/+5 and if he power attacks he better hit with that first attack because the second one will be really really bad.  And since you dropped the metamagic thingy you just disarmed yourself of the item that made this all possible.  Heck, if your character power attacks and I were a fast mobility type (rogue, monk, duelist, etc.) I would run in and pick up the magic item and incurr an AOO on my way and one my way out from your character because your power attack penalty would making hitting me really really hard.

I guess it's possible, but it seems like such a bunch of work for such a small benefit.  I have never thought that TS was overpowered.


----------



## Dthamilaye (Jun 1, 2004)

Well, TS really is not that much overpowered. And the players are, after all, CR 21 at the moment (19th level, +3 LA races). So 3 strikes / day are not gamebreaking in any way .

And rods are in effect wondorous magical items and they can be made as any item in any slot (or slotless, with the added cost). There are cloaks and whatever. But thats really DM's problem, as he does not use the (imho dumb) affinity rules.

Many of the mentioned spells are much more problematic.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 1, 2004)

apsuman said:
			
		

> (I think Thanee thinks otherwise -- I might be wrong here).



 You should recast that _detect thoughts_ it's somehow not working correctly... 

 I have written what I think how they should work in the quickened spontaneous spells thread on page 2.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Drow Jones (Jun 1, 2004)

Anti-Magic Shell

Perhaps not overpowered in every game, but slightly so in mine. 

It's a trump card effective against everything remotely magical, which can be a bit frustrating. The spell is a basis for some very effective tactics both in and out of combat, which I don't want to deal with in my games.

Anti-Magic Shell is the only PHB that I have banned in my games so far.

- DJ


----------



## dcollins (Jun 1, 2004)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Drawbacks could be fine and interesting, but not death as drawback.




Do you feel the same way about petrification vis-a-vis _stone to flesh_, which has retained its death effect even in 3.5?

It's fine in theory to prefer a different balancing technique. However, beware of spells which were in fact formerly balanced with a harsh effect, that has been removed by revision designers without fully thinking through why it was there in the first place. 

No one ever had parties all in troll-form or a scry-buff-teleport problem in 1st Edition. _Polymorph_ was still used as an attack spell (perhaps until _shapechange_ was available). _Teleport_ was still used for emergency travel to a safe house (perhaps until _teleport without error_ was available).


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 1, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Good points. I'll briefly point out that in the past, 3 out of 5 of these spells had built-in limitations that could possibly kill the user -- but all such side-effects were taken out in 3rd Edition (to make a "softer" game for players), thereby breaking these spells.
> 
> In 1st and 2nd Edition:
> - Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.
> ...





That's how I do it IMC as well. No soft games here.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 1, 2004)

Here's a list of my pet peeves, along with some suggested fixes:

*Fireball vs. Lightning Bolt *- long running debate, I know.  My take is that Fireball is slightly overpowered, while Lightning bolts may be slightly underpowered.  I base this off of monitoring real in-game situations with some sorcerers that have had access to both.  In 99% of the situations, fireball is simply the better option.  It has longer range and the ability to pinpoint it without having an open path to the enemy.  A broader argument is that ranged burst effects will nearly always trump line effects if all other factors are equal.

To balance this, I'd first drop Fireball down to a medium range spell.  Then for lightning bolt, I'd allow it to have 2 versions, the 120 line as it currently does, as well as a bolt from the sky (kind of like call lightning).  The lightning bolt would be more precise, able to hit a single target in a crowd.  Finally, I'd also make the lightning bolt have a slightly higher DC (maybe +2) for folks in metal armor.

*Entangle vs. Web* - Entangle has longer range and a bigger area of effect, yet is a lower level spell.  Web has an advantage in duration, but during combat, it's not a big deal.  Entangle doesn't always work depending on location, but then again web has a similar problem.  Webs can be gotten rid of by burning them, but it's near impossible to get rid of entangle.  Entangle just seems too powerful for a 1st level spell.

I would move entange to 2nd level, reduce it's range to medium and it's affect to 20'  radius.  Duration could be extended, making it comparable to Web.  

*Flaming Sphere* - The spell is too wimpy because of the reflex negates issue.  The sorceress in my monthly campaign has this spells and has tried to use it, but more often than not, it's worthless as the monsters make their saves and take no damage.  I suggest either changing it to reflex for half, or making it work more like Spiritual weapon and requiring an attack (or maybe touch attack) each round to deal damage.

*Hideous Laughter* - There's a bard in both my campaigns with this, but it hasn't really gotten out of hand.  Why?  Most of the opponents are non-humanoid so they tend to get the +4 save bonus.  It seems balanced with that restriction.  But I can see in other campaigns where most foes are humanoids that this could be very abusive.  To fix it further, I'd recommend that members of your identical race and sub-race get no bonus, but different sub-races get a +2 bonus.  Members of different types still get the normal +4 bonus.  I'd also make it mandatory to know the langauge of the target, otherwise, the target gets an additional +2 bonus on their save.

Now for some of the ones that I think are balanced but have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread:

*Ice Storm* - It lasts for 1 full round, damaging anyone that enters the large area of effect and it affects movement in that area for the entire round.  It also has NO save.  This is clearly better than fireball in many regards (ie rogues will actually take damage from it), easily making it a worthy 4th level spell.

*Stat buff spells* - Even after the 3.5 nerf, these are still good spells.  They were WAY  broken & overpowered in 3e.  Too many folks seem to cling to the idea that these spells need to last longer to be any good.  Playtesting in my own groups has shown that anything longer than 1 min/level makes them too good and they wind up being the only spells taken once again, which indicates a problem.  Try out the 3.5 version, and you may be surprised how good they still are with 1 min/level duration.


----------



## Eldragon (Jun 2, 2004)

My biggest pet-peeve 3.5 underpowered spell has yet to be listed: Jump!

At level 1, you get +10 to your jump checks for 1 minute. That might get a weak mage over a pit, but you can't exactly rely on it. When its a life or death situation like jumping across a chasm, its pretty hard to convince someone to rely on the jump spell, thus no one really wants it. A 16 Str Figher who maxes out his Jump skill already has +7. And most fighters have a STR of 16 or more, and with so few skills to choose from, It's not uncommon for my players to max out their ranks in jump.

At level 5, you get +20 to jump checks, this is much better and is somewhat more useful. You can rely on a +20 to a jump check, but you cant expect to magically jump exceptionally high. However, what kind of wizard is going to memorize the jump spell when Fly is available? Sure there is a major level difference here, but Fly is MUCH more useful. Many arcane casters take Fly as early as possible. What sorceror is going to waste a level 1 spell known on Jump? 

Finally at level 9, Jump is back to its 3.0 status, a +30 to jump checks. Around this time, a wizard might be willing to memorize jump once, just in case he needs to jump over a wall, and not waste a Dimentional Door or Fly spell. But then again... Obsticles that jump will overcome are usually a non-issue for 9th level characters in most campaigns.

I don't remember anyone on these boards saying last year: "Gee, what really bothers me about 3.0 is my players' ability to magically leap over small thached huts in a single bound!"

When it comes to the 1 Min/Lvl animal buffs, (Which will be debated to the ends of time on these boards) It all depends on how your campaign operates. Most people agree 1 Hr/lvl was probably too long. However, IMC most 1 min/lvl spells are completely ignored. Too short in duration for PCs to cast when entering a dungeon, and not good enough to cast once combat has started. There are two situations where 1 Min/lvl works: A) PCs move from one combat to another very quickly and B) PCs often have time to cast spells within 3-6 rounds of combat starting. 

IMC neither A nor B happen that often. Most of the time, players know they will probably start combat within 10-15 minutes, but almost never within 1 minute.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 2, 2004)

Well in regards to quickened rods... the wording leaves a bit to be desired. In our campaign they are "on the fly"  not that it really matters to me one way or the other(sadly I probably have more man hours of being a wizard  than watching TV). 

 Funny thing about jump.... I have actually used the new "jumping" rules to my advantage. Almost acting as a multi rd spellcast on the run....  really in the long run it is using whatever spells you have in many different combinations to keep the GM off balance.  Really want to throw a GM off balance leave a spell slot open or 3 and rememorize in the middle of the day sure beats having to guess which full compliment of spells you need for the day. 

 Jump, quickened prismatic spray and land. How many rooftoop assassins would be expecting that? Also a good tactic for a dumbfounded DM look and a table bursting out in laughter. looks even better with the contingency of Mirror image almost a Lee Majors 6 Million Dollar Man. No my familiar is not evil.... it is a kitten


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 2, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Jump, quickened prismatic spray and land. How many rooftoop assassins would be expecting that? Also a good tactic for a dumbfounded DM look and a table bursting out in laughter. looks even better with the contingency of Mirror image almost a Lee Majors 6 Million Dollar Man. No my familiar is not evil.... it is a kitten



Hmm - at best you're going to get, what? A 12.5ft high leap out of that? I mean sure, it's better than nothing, but it's not exactly the sort of thing you bother with at that sort of level. You know - epic levels, where you can cast quickened prismatic sprays?


----------



## Khristos (Jun 2, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Hmm - at best you're going to get, what? A 12.5ft high leap out of that? I mean sure, it's better than nothing, but it's not exactly the sort of thing you bother with at that sort of level. You know - epic levels, where you can cast quickened prismatic sprays?




Well you dont need to be epic to quicken a prismatic spray ( Deus is currently lvl 19....hello metamagic rod) . also  12.5 feet is a very nice leap (Deus when feeling snazzy  starts with a +57 on a jump check and works up from there) In the end is about mixing it up just about any spell can be found to have uses.. 

 Consider this better than nothing jump spell that allowed me a LOS that I otherwise couldnt have gotten via another mechanic. Fly? would have presented me as a better target to the people who otherwise couldnt see me at the end of my rd.


----------



## Sereg (Jun 2, 2004)

*Thanee*



> Geas is not Charm or Dominate, it's no mind-control, victims are still free to act whatever way they wish... just some of those will give them penalties, but that doesn't really help you in that situation.




Common misconception here.  Geas is tagged as:  Enchantment (Compulsion) [Language-Dependent, Mind-Affecting]

Note: 







> The geased creature MUST follow the given instructions until the geas is completed, no matter how long it takes



 and 







> If the subject is prevented from obeying




You are in fact, COMPELLED to follow it.  The penality text is there in case your friends knock you out and place you in a jail cell until they can find a high level cleric to remove curse.  

Check out the description of compulsion vs charm in the srd for further clarification: 







> Compulsion is a different matter altogether. A compulsion overrides the subject’s free will in some way or simply changes the way the subject’s mind works. A charm makes the subject a friend of the caster; a compulsion makes the subject obey the caster.




Its pretty cut and dry.  Geas, even with 10 minutes casting time, is pretty insane.  


Sereg


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2004)

I will second anyone that said Polymorph Self is overpowered.

I played a (3.0) Druid/Shifter, and the only reason why I didn`t overshine the other characters because the whole campaign of this DM was a Powergaming campaign. (And we somehow restricted ourself by allowing the halfling bard to use our treasure to build our paladin/cleric/fighter/hospitaler a fortress - 500.000 gp were invested in that, as the player told a few days ago.)
Even the wizard constantly used it to become a fire giant. He could even wade into melee with that, and especially he wasn´t helpless in such a situation.

I think Polymorph self could be made more sensible if it simply didn`t allow any type of creature. Limit it to medium to large size animals and humanoids.
It might not be worth a 4th level slot then, but it would still be extremely useful - becoming a Cat to blend into the city, or transmuting into a hawk to travel overland is nothing to sneeze at ...

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## glass (Jun 2, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why people don't put time stop on here. Let me put out what I did with this beautiful spell. I cast time stop inside a time stop. Eventually this led to an enemy cleric inside a force cube, dimensionally locked, facing a projected image (which I had cast silence on via a scroll) with 4 delayed blast fireballs (76d6 damage). Typically I start a fight with my rod of maximization in hand and switch to my rod of quickening during the time stop. This way I could quicken spell attack and still hold action to use greater dispel as a counter.  Pretty powerful stuff




Can you do that? I don't have the text in front of me at the moment, but I wouldn't have thought you could cast a timestop within another timestop.

glass.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 2, 2004)

glass said:
			
		

> Can you do that? I don't have the text in front of me at the moment, but I wouldn't have thought you could cast a timestop within another timestop.
> 
> glass.





 There is nothing within Timestop that prohibits casting self effecting spells which is what time stop is.


----------



## Humanophile (Jun 2, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> There is nothing within Timestop that prohibits casting self effecting spells which is what time stop is.




However, there is excellent precedent for spells not stacking directly with themselves.

At best, you could say that a Time Stop within a Time Stop would have the durations overlap.  A pretty risky maneuver, considering how random the durations are, and the fact that your DM should not tell you how long random durations are.  (Granted, it could be a nasty trick with multiple Maximized Time Stops, but at the times you're epic level enough to pull that off, you're <i>supposed</i> to be obscenely powerful.)  That's probably the canon way of doing things, but I would not be at all surprised to see it sage errataed away if the question came up there.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 2, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Good points. I'll briefly point out that in the past, 3 out of 5 of these spells had built-in limitations that could possibly kill the user -- but all such side-effects were taken out in 3rd Edition (to make a "softer" game for players), thereby breaking these spells.
> 
> In 1st and 2nd Edition:
> - Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.
> ...




Except for Gate, these changes were made because of a philosophical shift in 3e:  If the DM wants to stack the deck, stack the deck; but do not expect the basic rules contained in the PHB to do that for you in an underhanded way.

The problem with the old Teleport, Polymorph, Haste, etc. is that they significantly penalized PCs for their use.  But these same penalties were never _really_ applied to NPCs.  Have you ever seen a BBEG Teleport himself to death?  Age to death?  Doesn't happen.

These peculiar disincentives may look good on paper, but in practice they are an extremely obnoxious form of DM cheating.  At least IME.  If the DM wants to make things tougher, give the bad guys more resources.  Don't twist & distort the rules for a tactical advantage; that only undermines the credibility of the rules...and the DM.

YMMV.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 2, 2004)

I agree.

There is still some of this type of thing in 3e - miss chance on Teleport for example - I can't think of a DM that wouldn't fudge that if the alternative was for the BBEG to appear far enough inside solid rock to be wiped out without an encounter.

Similarly MDJ and sunder are Mechanics that PCs would not use unless desparate, since appropriate amounts of gear are vital to the power curve as levels climb.  Even the most sunder-happy NPC/BBEG however always seems to have the right (NPC) amount of gear for their level.


----------



## andargor (Jun 2, 2004)

With regards to the original question, check out _Reality Maelstrom_ from the MotP.

A tactical nuclear weapon, if I've ever seen one. Launch it at an army of mooks of 6th level or less, and they're pretty much all gone.

Not bad for a 7th level spell...

Andargor


----------



## Khristos (Jun 2, 2004)

Humanophile said:
			
		

> However, there is excellent precedent for spells not stacking directly with themselves.
> 
> At best, you could say that a Time Stop within a Time Stop would have the durations overlap.  A pretty risky maneuver, considering how random the durations are, and the fact that your DM should not tell you how long random durations are.  (Granted, it could be a nasty trick with multiple Maximized Time Stops, but at the times you're epic level enough to pull that off, you're <i>supposed</i> to be obscenely powerful.)  That's probably the canon way of doing things, but I would not be at all surprised to see it sage errataed away if the question came up there.




 Bonuses dont overlap... Timestop isnt a "time bonus" the only rule that would currently effect this would be rule 0. Also I have been able to maximize 9th lvl spells since level 17 so I miss this whole epic effect that supposedly I need. 

 To add another quick overpowering effect..... illusion spells if well thought out can be pretty darn powerful.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 2, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> These peculiar disincentives may look good on paper, but in practice they are an extremely obnoxious form of DM cheating.  At least IME.  If the DM wants to make things tougher, give the bad guys more resources.  Don't twist & distort the rules for a tactical advantage; that only undermines the credibility of the rules...and the DM.




For where I'm sitting, the "twisting & distorting of the rules" is the 3rd Edition move to take away the only drawbacks on these very powerful spells, without properly thinking through the changes. NPCs who never happened to get killed by _teleport_ are a lot easier to swallow than PCs who are always in troll-form or do the scry-buff-teleport routine. The former is merely a theoretical curiousity, the latter actually breaks the game.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 2, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> Common misconception here.




Hmm... yeah, maybe I havn't read this thoroughly enough. 

So it's working more like Suggestion then with the added effect, that if you are prevented from following it, you get the penalties. And the lil no save part, of course. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (Jun 2, 2004)

IMHO:

_Timestop_: It's not broken, mostly because a) it does NOT stack with another Timestop (sorry!), and b) you have a hard time affecting a target (DBF is the best you can do??!  I'll see you in the arena!).

_Geas_: Huh.  I'll have to read that one over again..... 

_Entangle_: If you are *ever* outside during combat, this is the RAW  1st level spell to have, bar none.  _Briar Web_ is just gravy.

_Hideous Laughter_: Yep, it could be a problem...but change _Hold Person_ instead.  

_"Stat buff" spells_: They're fine, but YMMV.  Still, 1 hr per level was *way* too long.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 2, 2004)

> - Polymorph required a Con check (System Shock) or die.




Lost one of my favorite characters to that back in 2nd ed.  Party was investigating this underground city of evil, and we're trying to be sneaky about it so we're not carrying an open light source.  My PC's human, and the only one who can't see in the dark, the other two being an elf and a half-elf.  After leading my blind arse around for a while, the enchanter pipes up and says "Hey, I know!  I've got Polymorph Other. I'll just change you into an elf so you can see, Kaz, then once we're back up top I can change you back into your old self."  Sounds good.  Enchanter does her thing, and bam. I'm an elf.


DM nods his approval of the idea, looks over and say "Cool, go ahead and roll me quick system shock and you're set."
Which I blow.
By 1.
Killing me.
15 levels down the drain because getting pointy ears and night vision was just too much for my body to handle. *grumbles sourly*


----------



## Pax (Jun 2, 2004)

andargor said:
			
		

> With regards to the original question, check out _Reality Maelstrom_ from the MotP.
> 
> A tactical nuclear weapon, if I've ever seen one. Launch it at an army of mooks of 6th level or less, and they're pretty much all gone.
> 
> ...



  You can do the same with a Cloudkill.  Widened, if ABsolutely neccessary.  And that's a 6th level spell.

  By the time you're throwing 6th and 7th level spells, 6th level mooks aren't supposed to be more than a (mild) drain on party resources.


----------



## Pax (Jun 2, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> IMHO:
> 
> _Timestop_: It's not broken, mostly because a) it does NOT stack with another Timestop (sorry!), and b) you have a hard time affecting a target (DBF is the best you can do??!  I'll see you in the arena!).



  Maximised Timestop (via Greater Rod), followed by [Maximised Extended Incendiary Cloud (Rod) and Maximised Extended Incendiary Cloud (Rod)], [Extended Acid Fog (self) and Extended Acid Fog(self)], [Extended Acid Fog (self) and Extended Acid Fog(self)], [Extended Acid Fog (self) and Extended Acid Fog(self)].  Wrap it all up with [Quickened Dimensional Lock (self) and Forcecage (solid cube; self)], then sit back and read a good book while the six Acid Fogs and two maximised Incendiary Clouds - all eight spells under the effect of _Energy Substitution: Sonic_, of course - pile on 12d6+48 sonic damage per round, _for (say) fifty rounds_, assuming 25th level characters.

Unless your opponent has sonic resistance, he's in for a WORLD of hurt (even an epic spellcaster will have some trouble with concentration checks deriving from THAT much continuing damage - an average DC of 60 plus spell level).  The total damage would come to 600d6+2400; it just takes TIME, and is far more subject to energy resistance (even sonic resistance (5) will cut 40hp per round off of the damage, sadly).

And without a disintegrate spell handy, they're not getting out of there, either.

So.  Outside an arena ... it's potentially a very useful, and very powerful, strategy.  In an arena ... you can probably count on your opponent having useful defense(s) and/or escape mechanism(s).  ^_^  Then again, balancing for an arena is a different matter from balancing for a "Classic" sort of D&D campaign.



> _"Stat buff" spells_: They're fine, but YMMV.  Still, 1 hr per level was *way* too long.



  I tend to like the idea of 10 minutes per level.  Enough that they're good for either one mid-travel encounter, or an entire "day's" worth of effort at a single site-based adventure.  ^_^


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 2, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> The Summon Monster spells. They need a total overhaul...most of the stuff is no more than a speedbump in combat at the level you get it.




I beg to differ.  My group uses summons to good effect.  May depend partly on party make-up though.  The ability to suddenly provide flanking for the rogue or an extra set of creatures to tie up the enemy for just a round or two can easily sway the course of battle.




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Daze Monster is pretty silly.  For a second level spell you daze one creature with no more than 6 HD for a single round. make it like 1d4+1 rounds and it might be worth it.
> 
> And yes, Sound Burst is pretty weak...




From the sound of it, perhaps you are not handling Stun correctly.  When stunned, a creature drops all items in their hands and is much easier to hit.  Picking those items back up provokes an attack of opportunity.  A 1 round stun usually winds up acting like this: Stun foe, it drops its weapon, warriors charge it, getting in attacks effectively at +4 or higher (+2 from charge, -2 AC on stunned opponent and opponent loses dex bonus to AC).  The drawbacks from the charge are ignored since the creature is stunned this round.  On the next round, when the foe tries to pick up its weapon it suffers a bunch more attacks of opportunity, this time often with multiple creatures flanking it including the party rogue(s).  Combine all those together, and it's pretty hard for that foe to survive to even make another attack!  Hence, a 1 round stun is often fatal.  Of course the reverse situation can happen to the PCs if they are unlucky.

In regards to sound burst, the stun is very useful as noted above, but as an area effect that has no save, it's pretty effective in a pinch.  Soften up some tightly bunched foes, kill off an opponent who's near death, and since its sonic damage, it overcomes damage resistance problems.  Works well against enemy spellcasters or rogues who tend to have low fortitude saves.  In fact, I've seen a few higher level casters totally owned by this spell.  In one case, the cleric had a wand of sound burst and was able to essentially stun lock the enemy caster.  Each blast dealt another 1d8 sonic damage, and after a few rounds, dead caster.  Funny thing is, the caster was massively buffed with all the defensive and protective spells, and would have otherwise been very hard to bring down.  Since then, I've been a believer in the power of sound burst.

If you want to be a cruel DM, you can use the same tactic against your party spellcaster(s).  For example, pit them against a group of enemies including a sorcerer or bard with a pretty high stat bonus for a high DC and keep nailing the spellcaster(s)  and/or rogues round after round.  It's likely the PCs will get stunned multiple rounds, all the while taking damage.  It's bound to show them how powerful that spell is, as well as frustrating the bejeezus out of them during that fight.  Can be especially painful when that 1 sound burst keeps hitting multiple PCs!  

BTW, I think it's cool that bards now get sound burst in 3.5.  That was a very good change, though it competes with a several other equally cool spells at 2nd level.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 2, 2004)

@Pax: What, you don't enter a high level arena without immunity to all elements?  

But anyways, Time Stop is quite a killer, there are plenty really evil spells you can use in conjunction...

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 2, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I tend to like the idea of 10 minutes per level.  Enough that they're good for either one mid-travel encounter, or an entire "day's" worth of effort at a single site-based adventure.  ^_^




This is exactly why 10 min/lvl is too long for these spells.  When given the choice of the buff spells with a duration of 10 min/level or longer vs. other 2nd level spells, players will opt for a full set of buff spells and little or nothing else in their 2nd level spell slots.  When the duration is reduced to 1 min/level, they actually start memorizing other spells as options.

My groups still use the 3.5 version of the buff spells, but I typically only see 1 or 2 on any given list of spells per character.  IMHO, that's the way they should be used.  Players just need to get over the broken mentality of certain 3e spell versions and move on.  Try out the buff spells with 1 min/level and most find they are still good, but they aren't the braindead choices they used to be like this:

DM: You find that the stone slab moves to reveal stairs leading down.
Cleric: I cast bull's strength on all fighters, endurance on everyone.  Gee, I guess I'm out of 2nd level spells...again    Oh, I guess I'll cast light on my mace.
Wizard: I cast cat's grace on myself, the rogue and the fighter, and then cast owl's wisdom on myself, and the cleric.  Then I put up my mage armor.  Hah, I'm out of 2nd level spells again too.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 2, 2004)

Time Stop does stack... There is nothing inherantly against except personal opinion. Besides DBF is for chumps a mxaimized cloudkill inside a forcecage with a dimensional lock and a projected image silenced gives me all the time in the world to eat a sandwich while you die (I like the slow con death) sure you might get a restoration off if I miss my greater dispel counterspell..... merry christmas


----------



## Majere (Jun 3, 2004)

who the hell casts the new 3.5 buffs ?
They dont stack with anything useful, and +4 items to your main stat really arent that hard to get ahold of.
The new buffs suck, anyone who takes them is wasting a spell slot.
Make them 10 minutes a level, people wont take them after 6-8th level anyway because they wont stack with magical items the party already has, so at least give them a decent duration while they are of some limited use.

Majere


----------



## Majere (Jun 3, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Time Stop does stack... There is nothing inherantly against except personal opinion. Besides DBF is for chumps a mxaimized cloudkill inside a forcecage with a dimensional lock and a projected image silenced gives me all the time in the world to eat a sandwich while you die (I like the slow con death) sure you might get a restoration off if I miss my greater dispel counterspell..... merry christmas




Identical spells with differeing effects do not stack
They over lap, in the same way as casting 3 fales life spells on yourself doesnt give you 4d10 +4/ leve, only the best roll.

You could cast a time stop in a time stop, but they over lap, they dont stack.

MAjere


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Maximised Timestop (via Greater Rod), followed by [Maximised Extended Incendiary Cloud (Rod) and Maximised Extend... ... t spells under the effect of _Energy Substitution: Sonic_, of course - pile on 12d6+48 sonic damage per round, _for (say) fifty rounds_, assuming 25th level characters.
> 
> Unless your opponent has sonic resistance, he's in for a WORLD of hurt (even an epic spellcaster will have some trouble with concentration checks deriving from THAT much continuing damage - an average DC of 60 plus spell level).  The total damage would come to 600d6+2400; it just takes TIME, and is far more subject to energy resistance (even sonic resistance (5) will cut 40hp per round off of the damage, sadly).



Unfortunately incendiary cloud moves away from the caster at between 10 and 60 feet per round, meaning that it's only likely to work on the target for two rounds.

Beyond that, I'm not sure that acid fog will stack with itself... It would appear to be a case of two spells creating identical effects in the same area - IOW only the best applies. Since they're identical - it has the same effect as just casting the spell once.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Time Stop does stack... There is nothing inherantly against except personal opinion. Besides DBF is for chumps a mxaimized cloudkill inside a forcecage with a dimensional lock...




Would do precisely two rounds of damage to the target, less if you felt like it.

Cloudkill rolls away from you at between 10-60 feet per round, just like Incendiary cloud.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 3, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> who the hell casts the new 3.5 buffs ?
> 
> 
> Majere




Me.

An extend spell rod is only 3000 gp. Much cheaper than a +4 item.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 3, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> For where I'm sitting, the "twisting & distorting of the rules" is the 3rd Edition move to take away the only drawbacks on these very powerful spells, without properly thinking through the changes. NPCs who never happened to get killed by _teleport_ are a lot easier to swallow than PCs who are always in troll-form or do the scry-buff-teleport routine. The former is merely a theoretical curiousity, the latter actually breaks the game.




These things that you say "actually break the game" could well happen in 1e/2e at high levels, too.  The primary difference is that 3e supports & encourages high level play and 1e/2e did not.

Those oh so 'clever' Drow elves who use Haste and Teleport are not theorectical issues IME of 1e/2e.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 3, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Would do precisely two rounds of damage to the target, less if you felt like it.
> 
> Cloudkill rolls away from you at between 10-60 feet per round, just like Incendiary cloud.





) cloudkill inside a forcecage stays inside a forcecage... it is a windowless cell the cloudkill or incendiary cloud is not a disintergrate spell  and therefore may not pass... again all 6 sides are walls of force

2) we have to agree to disagree about time stop within a time stop... Until official errata is released saying the spell doesnt stack with itself there is nothing you can say that will cause me to agree with you. even that being said I cast Time stop on the last action of a time stop problem solved even for your more narrow view.... 

3) people should also beware of reduce person it is a handy spell for setting up devestating combos.... especially with gust of wind 

4) meteor swarm can be painful if you hit with the ranged touch attacks


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 3, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> ) cloudkill inside a forcecage stays inside a forcecage... it is a windowless cell the cloudkill or incendiary cloud is not a disintergrate spell  and therefore may not pass... again all 6 sides are walls of force
> 
> 2) we have to agree to disagree about time stop within a time stop... Until official errata is released saying the spell doesnt stack with itself there is nothing you can say that will cause me to agree with you. even that being said I cast Time stop on the last action of a time stop problem solved even for your more narrow view....



...just waiting for Hong to enlighten Khristos and Pax on how large his titanium penis is, to establish *beyond a shadow of a doubt* that he *IS* the master of all he surveys.


----------



## silentspace (Jun 3, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Me.
> 
> An extend spell rod is only 3000 gp. Much cheaper than a +4 item.




But you'd only double the duration.  Is that worth it?


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 3, 2004)

silentspace said:
			
		

> But you'd only double the duration.  Is that worth it?




Depends on the situation. If I know that I'm about to attack something, then yeah...same rationale works behind Spell Resistance, Shield of Faith, and anything else that is 1m/cl. Obviously, I'm going to eventually upgrade to items, but between level 3 and 13, I'd rather go for an Extend Spell rod, a Ring of Counterspelling (Dispel Magic) and eventually a Bead of Karma. 

At level 7, 14 minutes isn't bad. It just means that you have to go through one big encounter or two to three smaller encounters. Also, you can't sit around while the rogue searches every square inch of wall for treasure.


And generally, IMX, the PCs choose when to have encounters. Enemies rarely surprise the bad guys, and if they do, the PCs generally have the resources (and the wits) to flee.


I'm guessing that the 1min/cl buff spells see less use in games where the NPCs determine when encounters happen and/or when PCs must have encounters all day long.

In the first case, the PCs are not scouting effectively, or the DM is using NPCs who are more powerful than the PCs.

The second case arises when there is a time limit.  


.
.
.
Agreed, 10m/cl would probably have been better. But even at 1m/cl these spells aren't useless.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 3, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> who the hell casts the new 3.5 buffs ?




In the main campaign I run, magic is slightly more rare than usual.  The party is 9th level, but no one has a single stat buff item that grants more than +2 to any stat, and there's maybe only 1 or 2 such items in the entire party of 6 characters.  They do have a fair mix of magic weapons and armor, just not stat buff items.  For them, these spells are still good.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 3, 2004)

I can't believe no one has brought up Spell Resistance. This is the buff of choice for my party at high levels. Granted, the 1min/cl is annoying, but combined with a bead of karma, this spell gives the whole party SR 16+cl. That is awesome.

IMX, NPC mages have to be lower level that the PCs or else the EL is too high. This means that most spells bounce off that party. 

My 15th level cleric has an SR of 31. A typical 13th level wizard has a 15% chance of beating that, or in other words, I have an 85% chance to ignore his spells.

Even a 15th level wizard with SP and GSP has to roll a 12 or higher. A 55% chance of failure.



And IMX, the PCs have the capability of fighting all of their encounters a day within 19 minutes. Obviously, the DM can set up encounters in which this doesn't apply, but that is true of any spell.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 3, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> These things that you say "actually break the game" could well happen in 1e/2e at high levels, too.  The primary difference is that 3e supports & encourages high level play and 1e/2e did not.




No, the "primary" difference is obviously that 3rd Edition is so much softer by taking away all the limits on teleports, polymorphs, hastes, and raise deads -- are those not precisely the spells everyone complains about? To somehow look past that 180-degree flip-flop and blame the problem on just seeing the same thing more often is totally untenable.


----------



## isoChron (Jun 3, 2004)

Many posts in this thread propose tactics that rely heavily upon having some metamagic rod. 

 So I ask myself if the spell in question is the problem or the existence of metamagic rods ???

 I mean you have more than enough money to buy these rods if your DM allows them, but you only have a limited number of feats to spend. And if you take quickened spell you have to prepare it ahead.
 These are two limiting factors that are made obsolete with these rods of metamagic shortcutting.

 Just my opinion.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 3, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Many posts in this thread propose tactics that rely heavily upon having some metamagic rod.
> 
> So I ask myself if the spell in question is the problem or the existence of metamagic rods ???
> 
> ...




I think it's only really a problem in high level and epic play. The cost is just too much at lower levels, besides the fact that you have to have both hands free. (One hand holds the rod, the other does somatic components.)

I don't have an opinion for epic levels, but my 15th level cleric just doesn't have enough money for some of the better rods. This is besides the fact that I normally have a shield.


----------



## Tyrol (Jun 3, 2004)

What do you guys think of Starmantle from Book of Exalted Deeds?  I just found it and added it to my level 15 sorcerer's spell list recently (couple weeks ago), and it seems awesome.

I don't have the official spell description, as my DM owns the BoED, but here's a copy and paste (slightly editted) of the description from Crystal Keep:



> Starmantle(BoED p108)
> Sorc/Wiz Level 6
> Abj, VSM(20gp pixie dust), 1StdAct, Touch, 1min/lvl(D)
> – The touched living creature is surrounded by
> ...




Does that seem awesome, or what? A DC 15 reflex save at our level is nearly a sure thing.  

There is no saving throw when it is cast, so it will even work on my party's Forsaker who usually makes his save on every beneficial spell I cast on him (his 19 SR is easily overcome with greater spell penetration).

Now I'm wondering how it would work in conjunction with DR (Do they stack? if so, do you apply DR or halved damage first?).


----------



## Westwind (Jun 3, 2004)

Although I'm not really clear on the idea of other party members casting buff spells on Forsakers, my initial thought would be that the benefit of _starmantle_ would indeed stack with Damage Reduction.  DR is a specific game mechanic that reduces damage by a set amount whereas _starmantle_ reduces damage by a percentage.


----------



## Majere (Jun 3, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Me.
> 
> An extend spell rod is only 3000 gp. Much cheaper than a +4 item.




Yay
For 3000gp I can have +4 for 8 minutes a day instead of 4
Or for 4000gp I can have +2 ALL THE TIME and I dont need to waste a round of combat to cast a spell. 

AND Im have an extra spell per day by not taking the buff
That is equivalent to saving 4000gp (pearl of power) 

So you can get a  +2 item (4000gp) , which cant be dispelled (can be supressed) and lasts all day, takes up no spell slot and takes no time to cast in combat.
OR 
You can use an extend Rod (3000gp) AND a second level spell slot (4000gp) for a +4 that is dispellable, lasts 8 minutes a day, and takes a round to tcast in combat.

Hmm I WONDER which of these is the better option.

Majere


----------



## Majere (Jun 3, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> In the main campaign I run, magic is slightly more rare than usual.  The party is 9th level, but no one has a single stat buff item that grants more than +2 to any stat, and there's maybe only 1 or 2 such items in the entire party of 6 characters.  They do have a fair mix of magic weapons and armor, just not stat buff items.  For them, these spells are still good.




This is a non standard campeign.
If you follow the DMG guidlines most people will have +2 to their main stat by about 3rd or 4th level and at least +4, if not +6 by 9th-11th.

Obviously the power of spells goes up as the ability to get magic items goes down, but the same argument makes magic weapon and a whole list of spells more powerful than normal.

Majere


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 3, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Even a 15th level wizard with SP and GSP has to roll a 12 or higher. A 55% chance of failure.




The biggest part of the problem is the bead of Karma - if something like that is available for both parties that problem goes away.

For the poor wizards who don't have that option - at least he has a range of conjuration spells which can now be used that ignore spell resistance - he isn't as badly off as before (and presumably every wizard who might be facing a cleric who can have spell resistance is likely to have plans for that eventuality? The obvious bet would be acid fog + forcecage, since most clerics won't have a good answer to that apart from dispelling the acid fog.

Mind you - I notice that people are throwing around forcecages with gay abandon in this thread, but perhaps glossing over the cost of 1500gp per spell(!) This isn't an insignificant cost at all except the very highest levels of play.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 3, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Time Stop does stack... There is nothing inherantly against except personal opinion. Besides DBF is for chumps a mxaimized cloudkill inside a forcecage with a dimensional lock *and a projected image silenced *




I'm not sure - what is the point of the spell I've emphasised here? it can't be inside the forcecage while your outside it unless you have the barred version, in which case the cloudkill leaks away.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 3, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not sure - what is the point of the spell I've emphasised here? it can't be inside the forcecage while your outside it unless you have the barred version, in which case the cloudkill leaks away.




Yes it can... Read the full combinations of spells I used and it will begin to make sense (Hint specifically read projected image... hint specifically read time stop)... many other things that would promote the ability to cast it inside the cage but we can leave that for other posts.... also read the limited visibility of cloudkill and the ability to see through a wall of force... 

Prismatic Sphere is my friend.... well maybe not


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> There is still some of this type of thing in 3e - miss chance on Teleport for example - I can't think of a DM that wouldn't fudge that if the alternative was for the BBEG to appear far enough inside solid rock to be wiped out without an encounter.



Well, who knows - maybe the PCs did avoid countless adventures against evil wizards that wanted to kill them because they simply teleported into the nearest wall instead behind the PCs back... 
(Just because the DM didn`t write down the encounter doesn`t mean it did not happen...)
Maybe this also explains why it seems so easy for a bunch of 4 adventures to stop the next Drow invasion - the main drow forces simply always attempted to teleport somewhere and ended up in walls. 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 3, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> This is a non standard campeign.
> If you follow the DMG guidlines most people will have +2 to their main stat by about 3rd or 4th level and at least +4, if not +6 by 9th-11th.




The other campaign I run, set in Greyhawk, is pretty normal in terms of wealth and items.  In that campaign, characters are about 8th level, and there too, there are only a couple characters with stat boost items in the +2 range.  On the other hand, they have some incredibly powerful magic items in the group - for example, the ranger has managed to obtain a Frostrband.

It really depends on what the players want to do with their wealth, and is also somewhat affected by luck.  The DM item placement comes into play as well.  I've had NPC's and treasures that include stat boost items, but in some cases the party just sold of the item since they wanted the money for something else.  Example, two headbands of intellect have been sold because nobody really wanted them (party has a sorceress, not a wizard).  Sorceress has a cloak of charisma, and the rogue has gloves of dex, but that's about it.  The main fighter types have invested most of their wealth into weapons and/or armor.  As a result, the cleric in that group still finds his 2nd level buff spells to be quite useful.


----------



## Victim (Jun 3, 2004)

Hmm.

I my experience, Haste was even more broken in 2nd than in 3.0, perhaps mainly because we often had large groups.  Double the attacks of 6 characters good with weapons, and you end with with dead stuff very quickly.  While the aging meant it couldn't be used casually, it was still too good when the situation warranted its use. 

And the Polymorph spells weren't used on most people because characters didn't get the monster's stats (because monsters had no stats), not because of System Shock.  It's easy to see why Polymorph wasn't broken when it hardly did anything.

As for buff/scry/teleport, buffs were far less significant in 2nd, so the primary advantage of the tactic (hitting the target when fully buffed while he has nothing) is lost.  Scrying, aka Magic Mirror, was far less effective then in 3.0.  So why use a high risk spell for a tactic that probably won't work and doesn't do much even if it does?


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 3, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> _Entangle_ is on my list. It's too powerful for a 1st-level spell. When you're using it to great effect verses a band of hill giants, harassing and delaying them in such a way that your group can deal with the giants one or two at a time, that's a problem. A CR 7 monster shouldn't have much difficulty dealing with a 1st-level spell.
> 
> If I were to redesign _entangle_, I'd make it a DC 15 Str check to escape, and I'd make it a 20-ft. radius instead of a 40-ft one. DC 20 is too high. Alternately, I'd leave the spell as-is but make it 2nd level.





If you think _Entangle_ is tough, check out _Briar Web_ in (not sure) either DotF or MotW.  Now _that_ is a good spell.  If only _Summon Swarm_ had a larger area, that would be one hell of a combo.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 3, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Timestop.... so broken it isnt even funny




Especially with Improved Spell Capacity and Persistent Spell...  My DM won't let me do it (well, sort of- I cast it, and after a few minutes, I get persued by some uber-powerful extra-temporal creatures), but nowhere in the rules does it say I can't.

Then again, Persistent Spell is just plain broken IMO.  That doesn't stop me from abusing the heck out of it, though.  I'm fond of walking around with such craziness as _Persistent Mass Haste_, _Persistent Shapechange_, etc.  BrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrOKEN!!


----------



## Majere (Jun 4, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> The other campaign I run, set in Greyhawk, is pretty normal in terms of wealth and items.  In that campaign, characters are about 8th level, and there too, there are only a couple characters with stat boost items in the +2 range.  On the other hand, they have some incredibly powerful magic items in the group - for example, the ranger has managed to obtain a Frostrband.
> 
> It really depends on what the players want to do with their wealth, and is also somewhat affected by luck.  The DM item placement comes into play as well.  I've had NPC's and treasures that include stat boost items, but in some cases the party just sold of the item since they wanted the money for something else.  Example, two headbands of intellect have been sold because nobody really wanted them (party has a sorceress, not a wizard).  Sorceress has a cloak of charisma, and the rogue has gloves of dex, but that's about it.  The main fighter types have invested most of their wealth into weapons and/or armor.  As a result, the cleric in that group still finds his 2nd level buff spells to be quite useful.




Well aside from the intellect comment (I was refering to peoples prime stats, thust the fact people who dont need int sold a headband of int is neither here nor there) Id have to question what dsort of game you play.

If you character are in a game where they only fight for 16 minutes a day (at most), then yes the buffs look nice, and I bet your spell casters seem massively out of whack for they can dump every spell they have in just 16 minutes. 

If however this isnt the case your fighters are rubbing themselves of cash:

A +2 sword costs 8.5k
A +1 weapon and +2Str costs 5.5k

A +3 sword costs 18.5k 
A +2 weapon and +2str costs 12.5k

A +4 weapon costs 32.5k
A +2 weapon and +4 str costs 24.5k
A +3 weapon and +2 str costs 22.5k

If your fighters are going with straigh +'s on their weapons they arent getting the most bang for their buck. 
That is true from the moment they use anything better than a +1 sword.

So:
Either your not giving out appropriate stat items (consider if they would have sold a belt of giants strength as fast as they sold the circlet of intellect).
Or your letting people boil the day down to 16 minutes of combat. Which always favours the spell castrs and makes spells seem more powerful than they are. 

Majere


----------



## Pax (Jun 4, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> @Pax: What, you don't enter a high level arena without immunity to all elements?



  Sure, go ahead - that's five sixth level spells down the tubes.  And once you're observed to have them going - a _disjoin_ on the key protection puts you back into the fire. 



			
				Kalendraf said:
			
		

> This is exactly why 10 min/lvl is too long for these spells. When given the choice of the buff spells with a duration of 10 min/level or longer vs. other 2nd level spells, players will opt for a full set of buff spells and little or nothing else in their 2nd level spell slots. When the duration is reduced to 1 min/level, they actually start memorizing other spells as options.



  Strangely enough, I've found the groups locally to be much the opposite.  When the spells were 1d4+1 - and where the GM outlawed multiply-Empower-ing any spell - items were often preferred to spells.  An item, if dispelled, resumes function by itself, a few rounds later - and it's benefits are predictable and reliable, to boot.  OTOH, the spells were random and unreliable, and if dispelled, _stayed_ that way.

  For second level spells, I saw Melf's Acid Arrow, Web, even Glitterdust as being generally preferable to the attribute-boosters -- both for my own spellcasters, and for the PC's of those around me.

  Currently, I'd have to say, that the buffs (being now reliable and predictible in their benefit) are sometimes seen as desireable choices in the earlier levels (from third to around 8th), but once +4-enhancement items become available, the spells become a lot less desireable.

  I agree that one HOUR per level was too much - but one MINUTE per level is IMO way too harsh a nerf.



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Besides DBF is for chumps a mxaimized cloudkill inside a forcecage with a dimensional lock and a projected image silenced gives me all the time in the world to eat a sandwich while you die (I like the slow con death) sure you might get a restoration off if I miss my greater dispel counterspell..... merry christmas



  Shapechange to a Golem or other construct.  No more CON, no more worries.  And if that Forcecage is a Barred Cage, and you stay in LOS/LOE in order to Counterspell ... you're subjet to spells cast OUT of that 'cage.  If it's a solid cage, then you lose LOE, and cannot counterspell at all.

  Round one, dispel the dimension lock (_Disjoin_ works nicely for that task) and cast _nondetection_ on yourself; then on round two cast _mislead_ followed by a quickened _lutzaen's frequent jaunt_ to somewhere outside the 'cage (with your illusory double appearing somewhere OTEHR than where you are - and protected form most anti-illusion defenses by the Nondetection spell ^_^).



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately incendiary cloud moves away from the caster at between 10 and 60 feet per round, meaning that it's only likely to work on the target for two rounds.



  Except the point of origin cannot move through a solid barrier - like the edge of the _Forcecage (Cubic Prison)_ ... ^_^



> Beyond that, I'm not sure that acid fog will stack with itself... It would appear to be a case of two spells creating identical effects in the same area - IOW only the best applies. Since they're identical - it has the same effect as just casting the spell once.



  So, do you only deal the better of the two damage results if someone casts _*Twin* Fireball_ ... ?  The spells are damage-dealing, not penalty-inducing.  The speed effects would overlap (not stack), but each spell would deal it's own damage, IMO.



			
				Kalendraf said:
			
		

> In the main campaign I run, magic is slightly more rare than usual. The party is 9th level, but no one has a single stat buff item that grants more than +2 to any stat, and there's maybe only 1 or 2 such items in the entire party of 6 characters. They do have a fair mix of magic weapons and armor, just not stat buff items. For them, these spells are still good.



  Not entirely germaine to the issue at hand, though.  Core D&D is not, in fact, a low-magic environment - it's a high-magic environment.

  In a low-magic environment, *any* "buff spell" becomes MUCH more valuable - and arguably, shoudl become a level or more _higher_, or spellcasting itself should be _restricted_ in some way.



			
				Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> Especially with Improved Spell Capacity and Persistent Spell... My DM won't let me do it (well, sort of- I cast it, and after a few minutes, I get persued by some uber-powerful extra-temporal creatures), but nowhere in the rules does it say I can't.



  ... which is why the Exodus immediately ruled that Timestop's *true* duration is *INSTANTANEOUS*.  Nipped that abuse in the bud, but *good*.


----------



## mercucio (Jun 4, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> _Mind Blank _ (8th level): Duration (24 h) too long, 100% protection against a complete school (enchantment), plus some illusion spells.
> _Mordenkainen's Disjunction _ (9th): No fun at all: Auto-Dispel and item killer in an area.
> ...




Some suggestions & comments

_Mind Blank:_ 24 hours seems fine to me, the idea is to literally hide your mind from external influence, and for a 8th level spell, this seems about right.

_Mage's Disjunction:_ You could always change auto-dispel to a dispel check with a bonus equal to your caster level +5 or +10 (max +30 or +35). I say give a bonus on the caster level check otherwise greater dispelling is a better option.
__________________________

_Foresight:_ I dropped this to a 4th level spell and renamed it _intuition_. It's just plain silly as a 9th level spell -- _moment of prescience_ is a much better spell at a lower level.

_Summon Monster:_ I've been toying around with following changes
1st CR 1/2
2nd CR 1
3rd CR 2
4th CR 3-4
5th CR 5-6
6th CR 7-8
7th CR 9-10
8th CR 11-12
9th CR 13-14​
Also on this note, I have changed the planar ally/binding spells to affect CR, not HD. This nixs the whole "But I want it to have a template!" problem. Actually come to think of it, I've pretty much changed every reference from HD to CR (esp. for controlling undead--

Power Word X: Power words affect the mind, hence the enchantment school. Essentially you are commanding a creature's mind to stun, blind, or slay itself. Necromany affects directly affects a creatures life-force.


----------



## isoChron (Jun 4, 2004)

Mindblank
 Well, I don't think it is funny to see every wizard (and clerics with the right domain) to be immune vs. Enchantments (Power Words ... ) and many other spells (especially divinations). Put on top of it Improved Invisibility, Fly, Blur and energy protections (energy immunity for 24h).
 Now he is immun to Ench., most Evo., Sneak Attacks, Melee attacks, Divinations, ...
 How do you challenge this mage without magic ??? The fighter gets all the hits and can do nearly nothing. It's just stupid to have every encounter containing a magic user in order to challenge the mage.
 And at some point it is nearly deadly for every other party member to travel with the mage to be challenged. Only exception may be the cleric with similar spells running.

 Been there, seen that ... :\

 Just my experience.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 4, 2004)

mercucio said:
			
		

> Some suggestions & comments
> 
> _Mind Blank:_ 24 hours seems fine to me, the idea is to literally hide your mind from external influence, and for a 8th level spell, this seems about right.




Just compare it to ANY other protective spell in regards of duration and the spells it blocks at a 100% chance. There is none with such a wide array(except perhaps in some weird munchkin rule book). Let's take _Energy Immunity_. Duration 24 hours, used as Fire Immunity. It grants immunity to fire-based attacks, e.g. a Red Dragon's or Hellhound's breath, the heat of a Fire Elemental and other fire attacks of creatures with the fire subtype (this is a bit general, but you know what I mean). It grants also immunity to the following spells:

_Burning Hands
Scorching Ray
Fireball
Incendiary Cloud
Meteor Swarm_ (only partially against the targeted version!)
_Fire Trap
Produce Flame
Delayed Blast Fireball
Flaming Sphere
Fire Storm
Fire Shield
Fire Seeds
Flame Blade
Heat Metal
Wall of Fire
Flame Strike_ (not against holy/unholy damage!)

This is a list from the PHB. Now make a list for Mind Blank...



			
				mercucio said:
			
		

> _Mage's Disjunction:_ You could always change auto-dispel to a dispel check with a bonus equal to your caster level +5 or +10 (max +30 or +35). I say give a bonus on the caster level check otherwise greater dispelling is a better option.




Hmm, that's a good idea.



			
				mercucio said:
			
		

> __________________________
> 
> _Foresight:_ I dropped this to a 4th level spell and renamed it _intuition_. It's just plain silly as a 9th level spell -- _moment of prescience_ is a much better spell at a lower level.




I'm thinking of giving a +1 insight on AC and Ref saves per two caster levels, no matter if it is the caster or a touched creature.



			
				mercucio said:
			
		

> _Summon Monster:_ I've been toying around with following changes
> 1st CR 1/2
> 2nd CR 1
> 3rd CR 2
> ...




That seems to be a good alternative.



			
				mercucio said:
			
		

> Power Word X: Power words affect the mind, hence the enchantment school. Essentially you are commanding a creature's mind to stun, blind, or slay itself. Necromany affects directly affects a creatures life-force.




Where did you find that? Power Word: X says only what happens to THE CREATURE, not specifically its mind. 
_Power Word: Blind _ can be compared to _Blindness/Deafness_, a necromantic spell. Either PW:B is in the wrong school or B/D is. I'd say that PW is.
_Power Word: Kill _ has the descriptor [death]. Still, it is an enchantment. WTH?! AFAIK, there is no enchantment spell with the [death] descriptor in the PHB (and IIRC in no other splat book). So why is PW:K in this school?? 
This two Power Words are just inconsequently written, IMO.
_Power Word: Stun_. I could agree here, since stunning affects the mind of the target, IIRC.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Yes it can... Read the full combinations of spells I used and it will begin to make sense (Hint specifically read projected image... hint specifically read time stop)... many other things that would promote the ability to cast it inside the cage but we can leave that for other posts....




If you can't be bothered to explain it, I sure can't be bothered to look it up for you...


----------



## Khristos (Jun 4, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> If you can't be bothered to explain it, I sure can't be bothered to look it up for you...





 Well it is someone's choice of whether or not to be ignorant of spells they are discussing. However I would say that it weakens a position if you are ignorant of the spells involved. Needless to say with project image and Time Stop I can forcecage an area with a cloudkill inside of it and a rival character can begin to die while I remain safely outside. There I have explained it.


----------



## Merlion (Jun 4, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.  My group uses summons to good effect.  May depend partly on party make-up though.  The ability to suddenly provide flanking for the rogue or an extra set of creatures to tie up the enemy for just a round or two can easily sway the course of battle.





Perhaps. But with summoning spells you would think you could summon something that would do more than just let your rogue get a sneak attack, or have to summon several of them to simply tie up the enemy for a round or two.






> From the sound of it, perhaps you are not handling Stun correctly.  When stunned, a creature drops all items in their hands and is much easier to hit.  Picking those items back up provokes an attack of opportunity.  A 1 round stun usually winds up acting like this: Stun foe, it drops its weapon, warriors charge it, getting in attacks effectively at +4 or higher (+2 from charge, -2 AC on stunned opponent and opponent loses dex bonus to AC).  The drawbacks from the charge are ignored since the creature is stunned this round.  On the next round, when the foe tries to pick up its weapon it suffers a bunch more attacks of opportunity, this time often with multiple creatures flanking it including the party rogue(s).  Combine all those together, and it's pretty hard for that foe to survive to even make another attack!  Hence, a 1 round stun is often fatal.  Of course the reverse situation can happen to the PCs if they are unlucky.





One problem with that. Daze Monster doesnt Stun.....it Dazes. a 1 round daze just means just 1 round of no actions, no dropping anything, no defensive penalties.



> In regards to sound burst, the stun is very useful as noted above, but as an area effect that has no save, it's pretty effective in a pinch.  Soften up some tightly bunched foes, kill off an opponent who's near death, and since its sonic damage, it overcomes damage resistance problems.  Works well against enemy spellcasters or rogues who tend to have low fortitude saves.  In fact, I've seen a few higher level casters totally owned by this spell.  In one case, the cleric had a wand of sound burst and was able to essentially stun lock the enemy caster.  Each blast dealt another 1d8 sonic damage, and after a few rounds, dead caster.  Funny thing is, the caster was massively buffed with all the defensive and protective spells, and would have otherwise been very hard to bring down.  Since then, I've been a believer in the power of sound burst.
> 
> If you want to be a cruel DM, you can use the same tactic against your party spellcaster(s).  For example, pit them against a group of enemies including a sorcerer or bard with a pretty high stat bonus for a high DC and keep nailing the spellcaster(s)  and/or rogues round after round.  It's likely the PCs will get stunned multiple rounds, all the while taking damage.  It's bound to show them how powerful that spell is, as well as frustrating the bejeezus out of them during that fight.  Can be especially painful when that 1 sound burst keeps hitting multiple PCs!
> 
> BTW, I think it's cool that bards now get sound burst in 3.5.  That was a very good change, though it competes with a several other equally cool spells at 2nd level.





~shrug~ 1d8 +1 per level damage just seems sort of petty for a second level spell even with a stun. The cap for an area effect 2nd level spell is 5 dice of damage...I would rather have seen 5d6 or some such.


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> .....There I have explained it.



You'll need to do a touch more than that, friend.


----------



## Nail (Jun 4, 2004)

mercucio said:
			
		

> _Summon Monster:_ I've been toying around with following changes
> 1st CR 1/2
> 2nd CR 1
> 3rd CR 2
> ...



As a confirmed SM fanatic, let me tell you: that's probably is a bad idea.  

SM spell's strength is their flexibility.  The list already has a monster for all sorts of contigencies....it seems as if you're openning up the field to allow even more.  This that your intent?   ....and can I play in your game? 

Still, the idea has some merit....perhaps a better bet would be linking it to ECL for a given monster.  Tougher to implement, tho'.


----------



## Pax (Jun 4, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Mindblank
> Well, I don't think it is funny to see every wizard (and clerics with the right domain) to be immune vs. Enchantments (Power Words ... ) and many other spells (especially divinations). Put on top of it Improved Invisibility, Fly, Blur and energy protections (energy immunity for 24h).
> Now he is immun to Ench., most Evo., Sneak Attacks, Melee attacks, Divinations, ...
> How do you challenge this mage without magic ???



  With a sack of flour and a strong arm.  Or a pump-sprayer and a lot of paint.  Seriously - the creature is invisible, not things you coat them with.

  Blur and Improved Invisibility won't stack.  They both provide a Concealment-based miss chance, and there's no way you can be *more* than _totally_ concealed.  The Blur spell is a waste.

  Mind Blank doesn't protect against blindsight, blindsense, or tremorsense.  Nor does invisibility fully protect against such things, either.  An archer with Blindsight and Improved Precise Shot laughs at invisible foes that don't get FAR away from them.

  For a wizard, in 3.5 rules, what you've descried is a LOT of spells to cast:


 Mind Blank - 8th level spell
 Energy Immunity (Fire) - 7th level spell
 Energy Immunity (Cold) - 7th level spell
 Energy Immunity (Acid) - 7th level spell
 Energy Immunity (Sonic) - 7th level spell
 Energy Immunity (Electric) - 7th level spell
 Improved Invisibility - 4th level spell, only lasts 1 round per caster level
 Fly - 3d level spell
  That's one eigth, one fourth, one third, and *five* seventh-level spells ... a not-inconsiderable investment.

  One second-level spell later, and the Invisibility is no longer effective against *any* of yoru foes (your choice of three PHB spells, in fact: Invisibility Purge, See Invisible, or Glitterdust).  And even without magic - someone with a (very) good Spot and/or Listen can possibly still pinpoint you - especially if you cast *any*thing with a (V)erbal component.

  Meanwhile, once you're targettable, there are plenty of non-PHB evocations and other direct-damage spells which don't use Elemental damage.  _The Sky Is Falling_ (Sor/Wiz 3, IIRC), from the Fey Feature on WOTC's website, for example - a decent bucketful of damage, in the form of rocks falling from above.  Completely nonelemental.  Or _Force Orb_ (Sor/Wiz 4) from Unapproachable East, for fireball-scale damage, but instead of being elemental damage ... it has the [force] descriptor.

  Then there're necromantic, non-death-effects.  _Horrid Wilting_, of course ... but also (from Savage Species) _Dehydration_ ... a second-level single-target spell, with the same "sucks the moisture from yoru body" basis for it's damage.

  And there's always the old standby ... _disintegrate_.

  All of that, without ever once tossing out a dispel-like effect.



> The fighter gets all the hits and can do nearly nothing. It's just stupid to have every encounter containing a magic user in order to challenge the mage.



  Potion of See Invisible.  Potion of Dragonsight (Draconomicon).  Wand of Glitterdust.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> There I have explained it.




But you can just do timestop-cloudkill-forcecage to get the same effect. I don't see why you want to use projected image, or what it gains you.

Are you perhaps thinking of using projected image to increase your range slightly?


----------



## apsuman (Jun 4, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Yes it can... Read the full combinations of spells I used and it will begin to make sense (Hint specifically read projected image... hint specifically read time stop)... many other things that would promote the ability to cast it inside the cage but we can leave that for other posts.... also read the limited visibility of cloudkill and the ability to see through a wall of force...
> 
> Prismatic Sphere is my friend.... well maybe not




Not to be rude here but Plane Sailing asked a good and logical question.  Why do you need the projected image here?

He said that it can not be in the cage.  Read the SRD and it will begin to make sense (hint read line of effect).


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 4, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Well aside from the intellect comment (I was refering to peoples prime stats, thust the fact people who dont need int sold a headband of int is neither here nor there) Id have to question what dsort of game you play.
> 
> If you character are in a game where they only fight for 16 minutes a day (at most), then yes the buffs look nice, and I bet your spell casters seem massively out of whack for they can dump every spell they have in just 16 minutes.




The greyhawk game is a once a month campaign.  There are usually a few combats each session, though they might be spread across hours or days of gametime.  Typically, the characters use the buff spells for the big fights where they are most needed.  There are 3 spellcasters (cleric, bard, sorcerer).  Of those, the bard has 1 buff spell (cat' grace) which sometimes get put on herself or the rogue.  The cleric usually memorizes some bull's strength or bear's endurance for various characters.



			
				Majere said:
			
		

> If however this isnt the case your fighters are rubbing themselves of cash:
> 
> A +2 sword costs 8.5k
> A +1 weapon and +2Str costs 5.5k
> ...




That kind of charting totally reaks of min/max power-gaming.  If that's your style, so be it.  This group isn't into that.  Sure they may not be the most effecient with their items list for their cash, but they are a lot more unique and interesting due to their choices.



			
				Majere said:
			
		

> So:
> Either your not giving out appropriate stat items (consider if they would have sold a belt of giants strength as fast as they sold the circlet of intellect).
> Or your letting people boil the day down to 16 minutes of combat. Which always favours the spell castrs and makes spells seem more powerful than they are.
> 
> Majere




I run a mix of published adventures alongside my own material.  Many of their foes are humanoids or giants w/o much magic, but they do find some +1 weapons and armor and quite a bit of gold and gems.  The headbands of intellect were loot from/near a wizard's tower.  It's mostly been up to the characters to spend their wealth on their items, and they just haven't seen the need to buy stat boost items.

The problem seems to be one of perspective.  Some players are always going to look things to optimize effeciency, opting to own the most powerful item setup they can obtain at each price point.  Fortunately, I don't have those kinds of players.  There's no rule that says characters need to have a stat boost item at any certain level, and nothing that says the DM has to hand those specific items out either.  And these characters are successful, so there's certainly evidence that such items are not necessary for success.

These characters just treat the buff spells like any other situational spells,  and they are still effective.

While I'm at it, though it's getting a bit off-topic here, this is my take on "fixing" stat item pricing:

From reverse engineering the cost of stat items using the formulas in the DMG, stat boost items are underpriced at 1000 x bonus squared to be equivalent to other 2nd level spells.  For example, making cat's grace permanent, providing +4 to dex, the cost would be 3 (min cl) x 2 (spell lvl) x 2000 (continuous) x 2 (adjustment for 1 min/level) = 24K.  Solve for a bonus squared x cost formula and it comes out to 1500 x bonus squared.  Personally, I think that's about right for the stat boost items.  If you use that price instead, your calculations from above turn out to be much closer as well:

A +2 sword costs 8.5k
A +1 weapon and +2Str costs 8.5k

A +3 sword costs 18.5k 
A +2 weapon and +2str costs 15.5k

A +4 weapon costs 32.5k
A +2 weapon and +4 str costs 32.5k
A +3 weapon and +2 str costs 25.5k

I've read several articles that seem to indicate the 3e and even the newer 3.5 item pricing is largely hogwash.  They never updated a lot things they should have in that section of the book.  This 1500 x bonus squared pricing makes sense to keep stat boost items in line with other spells made permanent.  I've implemented this pricing (along with other changes to magic items) in my other campaign that has the more limited magic.  So far it seems to be balanced from what I've seen.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 4, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> How do you challenge this mage without magic ??? The fighter gets all the hits and can do nearly nothing. It's just stupid to have every encounter containing a magic user in order to challenge the mage.
> And at some point it is nearly deadly for every other party member to travel with the mage to be challenged. Only exception may be the cleric with similar spells running.




Let me put it another way: If my high-level buffed-to-the-gills wizard could easily be defeated without resorting to any magic, why bother to play a wizard at all?

Now the example you cite could be defeated by even a party of grunts with a little foresight.  Retreat to restricted terrain, then drive the wizard off with 16-20 +1 adamantine arrows per round.  If just 25% find their mark, the wizard will flee in 2 rounds.

It does not actually take high level mojo to level the playing field significantly: Faerie Fire, Glitterdust, Potion of Flying, Scent (from a companion/cohort), Blindfight (go for a grapple).

It so happens that there are certain kinds of encounters that are much more difficult without the some key classes in the party.  That is part of the D&D genre.  If you want to play an adventuring party that is a bit outside of the box, the DM has to be helpful enough tweak the mix of encounters.  Ever go up against undead without a cleric?  Forget the turning, the damage, paralysis, and ability damage wears you down very quickly.  Ever go up against the G-series without some THICK meatshields?  It is hard to make progress if you cannot stand your ground for a couple rounds.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> With a sack of flour and a strong arm.  Or a pump-sprayer and a lot of paint.  Seriously - the creature is invisible, not things you coat them with.
> 
> Blur and Improved Invisibility won't stack.  They both provide a Concealment-based miss chance, and there's no way you can be *more* than _totally_ concealed.  The Blur spell is a waste.




Correct. But _Blur _ would be fine if an opponent has _See invisibility _ cast or a cleric with _Insibility purge _ is around.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Mind Blank doesn't protect against blindsight, blindsense, or tremorsense.  Nor does invisibility fully protect against such things, either.  An archer with Blindsight and Improved Precise Shot laughs at invisible foes that don't get FAR away from them.




The spell _Blindsight_ has a range of 30 ft., that's not very much. A flying caster will try to keep a greater distance if possible. Tremorsense wouldn't help to detect flying creatures and to get the blindsense ability, you have to _shapechange_ into a dragon, IIRC. The feat blindsight (MoW) is available only to druids.
_Mind Blank _ protects against EACH spell of the enchantment school, the whole day. An enchanter specialist will be quite frustated to face an enemy warded by that spell. A DM will be quite frustrated when an epic monster (say a LeShay) has no problems to charm the level 22 cleric and fighter buddies, but fails to handle the MB'ed wizzies without killing them (and even that will be not easy)



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> For a wizard, in 3.5 rules, what you've descried is a LOT of spells to cast:
> 
> 
> Mind Blank - 8th level spell
> ...




Go with _Protection from all Elements _ (6th, MoW) instead of _Energy Immunity_, lasts only 10 min/caster level, but wards against all energy types like _Protection from Energy_ does against one type. Or use only one _Energy Immunity_ (typical against fire, but depends on the campaign). Helps in most cases. _Improved Invisibility _ is not always needed, depends on the opponents. _Fly _ is a must in a non-dungeon fight. 



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> One second-level spell later, and the Invisibility is no longer effective against *any* of yoru foes (your choice of three PHB spells, in fact: Invisibility Purge, See Invisible, or Glitterdust).  And even without magic - someone with a (very) good Spot and/or Listen can possibly still pinpoint you - especially if you cast *any*thing with a (V)erbal component.




_Invisibility Purge _ will "uncloak" the party wizards as well under bad circumstances. But I don't consider _Invisibilty_ as a problematic or overpowered spell. It's quite easy to see the foe or make him visible.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, once you're targettable, there are plenty of non-PHB evocations and other direct-damage spells which don't use Elemental damage.  _The Sky Is Falling_ (Sor/Wiz 3, IIRC), from the Fey Feature on WOTC's website, for example - a decent bucketful of damage, in the form of rocks falling from above.  Completely nonelemental.  Or _Force Orb_ (Sor/Wiz 4) from Unapproachable East, for fireball-scale damage, but instead of being elemental damage ... it has the [force] descriptor.




Those spells are banned in the groups I'm part of. The rule is: If a splat book is owned by a player and the DM allows its use, the spells, feats, PrCs... can be used in the game. WotC enhancements are normally not allowed, but that depends on the DM. I'd take some new monsters from WotC's web side (the Time Dragon was really nice stuff). A stronger version of _The Sky is Falling _ is _Bombardement_ from Magic of Faerun (druid level 8, fixed 10d8 non-energy damage in an area, Ref for half and avoid being burried), quite nice and appropriate for level 8, IMHO.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Then there're necromantic, non-death-effects.  _Horrid Wilting_, of course ... but also (from Savage Species) _Dehydration_ ... a second-level single-target spell, with the same "sucks the moisture from yoru body" basis for it's damage.
> 
> And there's always the old standby ... _disintegrate_.
> 
> All of that, without ever once tossing out a dispel-like effect.




Yep, it comes down to these three or four spells to handle a MB'ed (level 8), blurring (level 3?), flying (level 3), spell turning (level 7), mirror imaged (level 2), shielded (level 1), perhaps stoneskinned and energy protected (level 3or 6)/resistant(level 2) wizard. Give him a scarab of protection (DMG) and he has a good protection against death effects.
But that's not the problem. The problem I have is, that some spells last too long. It is quite difficult to surprise a wizard with a monster that has its strength in mind attacks. Or the surprising attack of an enchanter. Or to survive in the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire without casting Energy Immunity (and having some EI in reserve). These spells can foil some good adventure hooks, and that I don't like.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Potion of See Invisible.  Potion of Dragonsight (Draconomicon).  Wand of Glitterdust.




A wand of _Glitterdust_ needs an arcane caster, IIRC. Potions are ok, but their effect can be easily dispelled.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 4, 2004)

So wait... the argument is that a powerful wizard who expends a significant portion of his personal resources can be well defended for a period of time?

This is a problem?

Besides, a few well placed dispels and the wizard's fun comes crashing down all the same.


----------



## isoChron (Jun 4, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> With a sack of flour and a strong arm. Or a pump-sprayer and a lot of paint. Seriously - the creature is invisible, not things you coat them with.
> 
> Blur and Improved Invisibility won't stack.  They both provide a Concealment-based miss chance, and there's no way you can be *more* than _totally_ concealed.  The Blur spell is a waste.
> 
> ...




 First of all we don't have/use Savage Species or the region specific books. Nor any online or dragon magazine stuff.

 No dehydration, no force orb, no the sky is falling.


 You say you can cancel invisibility-effects with a sack of flour, but where do you throw it (and how far/high) ??? Spot DC's are so extremly high (not mentioned the range increment of such checks...) that there is a very small chance anyone but the rogue will see it.
 And blur is just for the case you are made visible. No sneak attack because of concealment. But you can eliminate blur. It's not important.

 Potions of See Invisibility don't exist. Range PERSONAL spells are not allowed as potions.
 We don't use the draconomicon, so no potion of dragonsight (whatever it does).
 Who can use a wand of Glitterdust except perhaps the rogue ? Remember, no magic users.
 Blindsight has a range of 30 ft... not that difficult to stay higher than 30 ft.


 The point is that you have to be targetable for many damage spells. You can just pinpoint a location with spot checks/listen checks. That's enough to get the right square (if you are extremly good) but you still don't have a target ! No Horrid Wilting, no magic missile, .... beyond that: we still don't want a magic user in the opposite party.


 Scent takes a lot of time to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature and you have to be next to it (5ft). Not very easy for a wolf to keep up with a wizard flying 50 ft. above ground. He won't even smell the wizard, since he is more than 30ft apart.


 So it boils down to have glitterdust (10ft radius spread at medium range) or see invisibility/invisibility purge (max 100ft at 20th level) available. 


 I have seen what a single wizard level 11 can do to a party of 7 (!) characters level 15 (clr, wiz, wiz/rog, rog, pal/ftr/rgr, rog/asn, drd) in open range. We all died before we got a real chance to act. Not even our horses survived. And all that was done with PHB spells. Luckily our DM declared this event as a very vivid vision/daydream and we continued adventuring...


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 4, 2004)

Sejs said:
			
		

> So wait... the argument is that a powerful wizard who expends a significant portion of his personal resources can be well defended for a period of time?
> 
> This is a problem?




At least for Mind Blank and some other 24 hour spells the period of time is a problem, IMO.



			
				Sejs said:
			
		

> Besides, a few well placed dispels and the wizard's fun comes crashing down all the same.




Two rings of counterspells, mirror images and spell turning will need a few more well placed dispels. That is my experience for a "normal" level 18 wizard. Now take an archmage specialized in counterspelling...


----------



## andargor (Jun 4, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Two rings of counterspells, mirror images and spell turning will need a few more well placed dispels. That is my experience for a "normal" level 18 wizard. Now take an archmage specialized in counterspelling...




That's why I like AoE spells best. 

Permanent _Arcane Sight_ with Archmage _Mastery of Shaping_ will remove any fear of spell turning or invisible foes...

Andargor


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

How is everyone so sure that a sack of flour will defeat _Invisibility_?  The spell also affects items worn or carried in addition to the creature, so technically flour poured over a character should probably either be considered one or the other.  Of course, it might be easier to discern his or her location by looking for the footprints in the flour, so in that respect it might drastically reduce the Spot DC for determining the creature's general location.  Otherwise, I just can't come to terms with the assumption that this method would be effective.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 4, 2004)

srd said:
			
		

> Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature.




So if you're covered in flour, the flour would remain visible unless you somehow could tuck it into your clothing.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 4, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> So if you're covered in flour, the flour would remain visible unless you somehow could tuck it into your clothing.




Ok, thanks.  That's exactly the loophole I sought, although I feel it would be reasonable to consider a coating of flour to be an item worn as opposed to one carried, thereby rendering it invisible.  I still find this strategy very open to interpretation of the rules, and not quite as much of a given as it is often presented.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 5, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> How is everyone so sure that a sack of flour will defeat _Invisibility_?




More to the point, DMG under "Invisibility" (the example to the prior quote that got snipped from the SRD):



> One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour fell off or blew away).


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 5, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> More to the point, DMG under "Invisibility" (the example to the prior quote that got snipped from the SRD):




Does the term "object" necessarily include creature?  I think the answer is still unclear.  If the flour is essentially worn, it _becomes_ clothing, and therefore is "tucked into" itself.  Additionally, it would not be an item "picked up", as was mentioned in a previous post, but rather an item applied to one's person, which is an important differentiation to make.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 5, 2004)

Faerl'Elghinn said:
			
		

> Does the term "object" necessarily include creature?




Yes, in this context. There's not much need to "keep track of its position" for inanimate obects, that seems only relevant to creatures.

But you seem pretty determined to discount this rule, so decide whatever you want for your own game and have fun.


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 5, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Yes, in this context. There's not much need to "keep track of its position" for inanimate obects, that seems only relevant to creatures.
> 
> But you seem pretty determined to discount this rule, so decide whatever you want for your own game and have fun.




Nah- on the contrary, I think it's a brilliant idea- I'm just playing the devil's advocate, as the assumption that it would work just strikes me as essentially flawed given the nature of the _Invisibility_ spell, regardless of what the official or widely presumed official ruling for the sake of balance may be.  Sorry to be an off-topic threadjacker, all.  I'm just bored.


----------



## Majere (Jun 5, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> That kind of charting totally reaks of min/max power-gaming.  If that's your style, so be it.  This group isn't into that.  Sure they may not be the most effecient with their items list for their cash, but they are a lot more unique and interesting due to their choices.
> 
> The problem seems to be one of perspective.  Some players are always going to look things to optimize effeciency, opting to own the most powerful item setup they can obtain at each price point.  Fortunately, I don't have those kinds of players.  There's no rule that says characters need to have a stat boost item at any certain level, and nothing that says the DM has to hand those specific items out either.  And these characters are successful, so there's certainly evidence that such items are not necessary for success.




Personnally I find that attitude offensive.
Player characters are NOT stupid, they know the prices and effectiveness of items.

If I tgave you the option of buying a power drill with a magnetic screwdriver head built in for £200, or buying a power driver for £100 and a magnetic screw bit for £50 which one would you buy ?

These items are tools, and unless you are roleplaying an imbecile no intellegant character would NOT pick the best value for money.

Ive played in games where I got to 9th level and didnt have a SINGLE magic item. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
And I didnt object and I had fun. However this is a RULES forum, itis based about the RULES as printed in the DMG and the DMG has a printed wealth by level and a HIGH magic game setting. Insulting me for playing a character by the game AS WRITTEN is frankly rude.

The spells as written are some of the weakest in the game, make them 10 minutes per level.

Majere


----------



## Scion (Jun 5, 2004)

I've been debating whether or not to simply make the 3.5 buffs into 1st level spells actually. Havent decided yet though.

As for overpowered spells, silence is way up the list


----------



## Faerl'Elghinn (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> The spells as written are some of the weakest in the game, make them 10 minutes per level.





On the contrary, I find them to be far from the bottom of the list as written when compared to similar spells in previous editions.  In my opinion, people's current perspectives are vastly skewed by the original versions of the spells which, as written, had they been 3rd level spells, would have run a hard race against _Fireball_ in consideration for the repertoire of many a wizard.  Granted, large stat boosts are substantially less beneficial in the new rules than in earlier editions, but are still not something at which to be scoffed.  

My profile of an effective spellcaster is *generally* one who takes his position behind the front lines, granting power to combatants in order to make them more effective, and occasionally launching an offensive spell of his own, in which case the fact that the spells are most effectively cast at the beginning of combat is less of an issue, as combatants are still free to engage immediately.

That said, I don't feel that 10 minutes per level would be excessive, as this will still often require characters to save these spells until the beginning of combat, save for the times when a large encounter is expected, at which point I feel that it is usually fair to provide PCs with ample time to prepare.

At higher levels, a longer duration can still be achieved through the Persistent Spell feat, although the spells would require 6th-level spell slots.  Often, however, an effectively permanent +4 boost to an ability score would be worth the sacrifice.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 5, 2004)

1) Project image is used to resolve diffusion issues
  a) also as an illusion it can receive the illusion known as silence via scroll and cast it on itself

2) Buff spells are fine as they are. The mass versions are a bit underpowered though for the level

3) For the person questioning the magic items of players.
 A) when presenting views on a rules board I always use the "default" setting of the game as it allows a common point for people to differ from, Thus by DMG standards a character will have x gps of items at a given level.

 B) My wizard Deus is 7 years in the play so actually some of his magic item accrual would be terrifying under the rules (espec those received in 2nd ed incarnation). He was 12th in 2nd ed and is finally a solid 19 in 3.5 ( He has seen the white light a few times). Additionally as I got many feats in the conversion and was allowed to exchange 2 feats in 3.5 enhancement I have always been able to craft rods and since my wizzie is a metamagic addict I crafted metamagic rods. 

4) I apologise if my previous posting seemed harsh. It was not intended as such.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> If you character are in a game where they only fight for 16 minutes a day (at most), then yes the buffs look nice, and I bet your spell casters seem massively out of whack for they can dump every spell they have in just 16 minutes.




There really is something seriously out of whack if PCs are walking through combat in 16 minutes. What are they doing the 23:44 other minutes. More importantly, what the hell are your NPCs and monsters doing? Just waiting there, with a big target painted on their chests? If PCs are buffing to create unstoppable uber-combat freaks that last 16 minutes, guess what you ( as a DM) have to do.....hide the monsters for 16 minutes and 1 second. then go ahead and whack the PCs.

I'm whith Majere, spellcasting is really unbalanced when you allow PCs the aforementioned behavior. Unlike pregenerated modules, the world (even a fantasy one) is not static. Monsters shouldn't fight to the death, they shouldn't be stuck in a room. This doesn't mean they should be run as tactical geniuses, but a degree of monster self preservations goes along way in curbing PC power.

As a side note, I have a 13th Level melee (Strength and War) cleric that can singlehandedly demolish any creature 4 CR above his level. Of course this assumes I have enough time to buff myself apropriately. Guess what, unless we're fihghting golems or really stupid undead, I never get the chance. And I have no problem with this.

Thts's why I stick to my guns and say that the Buff spells with a 10/Lev aren't unbalanced.

And I insist, Hunters Mercy added to a Deepwood Sniper, coupled with a burst weapon (only time this enchantment is worth it by the way) is the sickest combination ever.....sorry, add in 3 levels of Peerlees archer (for Power shot) and watch dragons die.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Personnally I find that attitude offensive.
> These items are tools, and unless you are roleplaying an imbecile no intellegant character would NOT pick the best value for money.



If this were true, then everyone would buy and have virtually identical equipment each level.  Humans don't behave that way, and I doubt other races do either.

For a better modern day example, consider something like Consumer Reports or the trade magazine of your choice that does a careful study of products and finally determines what are the best and worst buys.  If all people acted as you suggest, then the only product that would ever sell any copies at all would be the recommended best buy.  That doesn't happen.  Quite often, the worst items actually sell quite well for a variety of reasons.  Often people think it's a good deal even though it may not be.  Perhaps the buyer liked the brand (equivalent to craftsmen in a fantasy world) or perhaps they had a similar item in the past and just want a newer one.  It's also possible they simply have different tastes or aesthetic values.

Variety is the key here.  Some folks would rather have that big TV, others just want a better sound system, and still others will hang onto their old equipment until it quits working.  Adventurers will likely have similar purchasing habits but instead they'd be favoring weapons vs. armor vs. wondrous items.

Something else to consider is that magic may be mysterious...likely as mysterious as technology is to some modern day folks such as those who can't set their VCR's.  Another example - Is it better to have more ram vs. a faster cpu vs. a bigger hard drive vs. the newest video card in your computer?  The same kind of confusion could easily exist in a fantasy world with characters pondering if its better to buy that cloak or those gloves or those boots or that amulet, etc.



			
				Majere said:
			
		

> Insulting me for playing a character by the game AS WRITTEN is frankly rude.




I was not trying to insult you.  Rather I'm trying to point out that this type of thinking is essentially power-gaming.  Of course, thinking like a power-gamer and being one are not the same thing, and I'm not accusing you of being one. However, your comments imply a certain play style that leans in that direction.  FYI, I see power-gamers as being just another breed of gamer, neither good nor bad.  In fact, we owe a lot of thanks to power-gamers since they are often the ones who find the loopholes in game rules and uncover the balance issues that need to be fixed.  However, I do personally prefer for my players to not min/max the game to death, and I am quite thankful that the ones I DM for don't do that.

If you think that "playing a character by the game AS WRITTEN" means you have to min/max your item purchases to obtain maximum effectiveness per gold spent, then go ahead do that.  As long as you, your DM and other players are enjoying yourselves, that's really what counts.  Just don't expect every other player or DM to behave that way.



			
				Majere said:
			
		

> The spells as written are some of the weakest in the game, make them 10 minutes per level.




We tried that, but they were still too powerful with that long of a duration.  Every 2nd level spell slot was a buff spell on the spellcasters wound up being used for buff spells.  That is a clear sign that they are too good compared to the other 2nd level spells.  When we dropped them down to 1 min/level, they started being mixed with other 2nd level spells like they should be.  Hence, the evidence from my campaigns suggests the current 1 min/level is the balanced duration for the buff spells.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> We tried that, but they were still too powerful with that long of a duration.  Every 2nd level spell slot was a buff spell on the spellcasters wound up being used for buff spells.  That is a clear sign that they are too good compared to the other 2nd level spells.




Try using ability draining monsters. Start seeing a resurgence in Lesser restoration. A whole flock of stirges is still a threat for PCs of any level.

Also, Silence is a second level spell. I think this is one of the better spells (many wouls still take it as a 3rd level IMO). Even nerfed, Hold person is still a very good option (for clerics) at Lev 2. Shatter is pretty good (against enemy cleric´s holy symbols   ) For mages you have Web, Invisibility, Scorching ray, etc.. Plenty of other spells. As mentioned before, if your players are all using up their 2nd level slots in the animal buffs, maybe you're running the game too fast. Try placing some traps. Taking 20 in your search checks really cuts into the duration of those spells.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 5, 2004)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Try using ability draining monsters. Start seeing a resurgence in Lesser restoration. A whole flock of stirges is still a threat for PCs of any level.




They tend to buy wands of lesser restoration just for such an emergency.



			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> Also, Silence is a second level spell. I think this is one of the better spells (many wouls still take it as a 3rd level IMO).



I certainly agree this is a great spell.  However, my Greyhawk campaign is using Liberation of Geoff as it's campaign theme, and there aren't many casters that they face.  Loads of giants and humanoids.  My other campaign's cleric does usually memorize a silence for any casters they might encounter.



			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> Even nerfed, Hold person is still a very good option (for clerics) at Lev 2.



But only works on humanoids of medium size or smaller.  Not terribly useful in either campaign at the moment as most foes usually not legal targets for this spell.



			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> Shatter is pretty good (against enemy cleric´s holy symbols   )



Haven't seen anyone try this.  I've had enemies use it against the PC's to bust potion vials on once in a great while.  The party usually doesn't want to wreck potential loot, which is probably why they shy away from this.



			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> For mages you have Web, Invisibility, Scorching ray, etc..




No arguments there.  All good spells.  However, the character mix in the groups is a bit different with one party having a sorceress/bard/cleric as the spellcasters and the other group having a druid/bard/cleric as the spellcasters.  The clerics in both groups wind up taking the buff spells along with a mix of utility ones like silence, etc.  



			
				iwatt said:
			
		

> As mentioned before, if your players are all using up their 2nd level slots in the animal buffs, maybe you're running the game too fast. Try placing some traps. Taking 20 in your search checks really cuts into the duration of those spells.



Spells with a 10 min/level duration seem to be long enough to last for a typical dungeon, even with a slow-moving party and taking a couple 20's along the way.  Even though fights may only last a few rounds, we usually assume at least 3 to 5 minutes are spent after each encounter with looting, healing and so forth.  But in a typical night, they may only have 3 to 6 encounters.  Sure I can make bigger dungeons or artificially stall them somehow, but it wouldn't deter them from taking those buff spells if they have a 10 min/level duration.

With the 1 min/level these just last for 1 battle, perhaps two if they are close enough together.  Players just use them for 1 or 2 battles where they are most useful.  Then for the other battles they are gone.

There are other 2nd level spells with 1 min/level duration such as Blur, Levitate, etc.  Think of how you use those spells in a combat situation, then apply similar thinking to the buff spells.  That's how the group is using them, and they have been working fine.


----------



## Pax (Jun 5, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> The spell _Blindsight_ has a range of 30 ft., that's not very much.



  It's certainly better than nothing.



> A flying caster will try to keep a greater distance if possible. Tremorsense wouldn't help to detect flying creatures and to get the blindsense ability, you have to _shapechange_ into a dragon, IIRC. The feat blindsight (MoW) is available only to druids.



  "Dragonsight", a perfectly lovely (IMO) 5th level Transmutation spell (for sorcerors, wizards, *and* bards) from the _Draconomicon_ gives you lowlight vision, Darkvision with a range of 10' per caster level, *and blindsense with a range of 5' per caster level*.  ^_^



> _Mind Blank _ protects against EACH spell of the enchantment school, the whole day.



  You shouldn't over-generalise.  While it is true, I can't name any Enchantment-school spells which are *not* "mind affecting", never assume there isn't one SOMEwhere out there, nor that there will never *be* one in the future.  ^_^



> An enchanter specialist will be quite frustated to face an enemy warded by that spell. A DM will be quite frustrated when an epic monster (say a LeShay) has no problems to charm the level 22 cleric and fighter buddies, but fails to handle the MB'ed wizzies without killing them (and even that will be not easy)



  So?  Every class has it's strengths, and weaknesses.  If enchanters don't lay plans for removing Mind Blank spells from higher-level foes *ASAP*, then they deserve to get hosed.



> Go with _Protection from all Elements _ (6th, MoW) instead of _Energy Immunity_, lasts only 10 min/caster level, but wards against all energy types like _Protection from Energy_ does against one type.




  Okay, a resistance, rather than an immunity.  *shrug*  Besides, MotW is a 3.0 source, and not everything from there can be accepted as-is without re-assessment for balance in the 3.5 ruleset.



> Those spells are banned in the groups I'm part of [...]



  Hey, I'm not the one that first strayed form teh Core Rules.  And *everything* is subject to GM approval - even the spells in the PHB!  Ergo, non-issue.



> Yep, it comes down to these three or four spells to handle a MB'ed (level 8), blurring (level 3?), flying (level 3), spell turning (level 7), mirror imaged (level 2), shielded (level 1), perhaps stoneskinned and energy protected (level 3or 6)/resistant(level 2) wizard. Give him a scarab of protection (DMG) and he has a good protection against death effects.



  No, those are only the few spells I bothered to list - literally _off the cuff_.  There is a WIDE range of spells otu there that can handle a character like that.  Give me an evil-as-sin BBEG wizard with True Sight and *Crushing Fist of Spite*, and we'll see how long that invisi-wizard keeps breathing - as just one _more_ example.



> But that's not the problem. The problem I have is, that some spells last too long.
> 
> 
> > So, what, you want your wizards to NEVER be prepared for *anything* ...?
> ...


----------



## Pax (Jun 5, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> First of all we don't have/use Savage Species or the region specific books. Nor any online or dragon magazine stuff.



  Yuor campaign, then.  But that doesn't make the spell itself unbalanced _in terms of D&D as a whole_.  ^_^



> You say you can cancel invisibility-effects with a sack of flour, but where do you throw it (and how far/high) ???



  Ready action: chuck the flour at the wizad the moment he's detected in the act of casting a spell.



> Spot DCs are so extremly high (not mentioned the range increment of such checks...) that there is a very small chance anyone but the rogue will see it.



  Listen DCs won't be nearly as high, given any casting of any spell with a (V)erbal component -  and you only NEED the 5' square, so you don't have to make pinpoint DC's anyway.



> Who can use a wand of Glitterdust except perhaps the rogue ? Remember, no magic users.



  Anyone with ranks of UMD.  Given the level your flying wizard must be, even cross-class ranks could easily be enough that the character should only fail on a roll of 4 or less.

  There's also the simple expedient of one level of Cleric, with the Magic domain.  Suddenly, *every* spell=trigger item in the universe is yours for the using.  ^_^



> Scent takes a lot of time to pinpoint the location of an invisible creature and you have to be next to it (5ft). Not very easy for a wolf to keep up with a wizard flying 50 ft. above ground. He won't even smell the wizard, since he is more than 30ft apart.



  Improved Scent, Uncanny Scent.  Pinpoint you within 60' as a (IIRC) Move action.



> I have seen what a single wizard level 11 can do to a party of 7 (!) characters level 15 (clr, wiz, wiz/rog, rog, pal/ftr/rgr, rog/asn, drd) in open range. We all died before we got a real chance to act.



  Then, frankly, yoru characters were _dumb_, and/or the GM outright hosed you.  No defensive preparations?  No Contingencies?  You ALL lost initiative, *and* the GM decreed it was a surprise?  And you were all riding that CLOSE together ... ?!?


----------



## Thanee (Jun 5, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Listen DCs won't be nearly as high, given any casting of any spell with a (V)erbal component




Yep, base DC would be 0 probably.



> and you only NEED the 5' square, so you don't have to make pinpoint DC's anyway.




This is wrong. Pinpointing actually is the act of determining the exact 5' square.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## isoChron (Jun 5, 2004)

As I mentioned several times I want to make an encounter against a standard group containing that wizard. This encounter shouldn't use a magic using character class. 
 So no cleric with magic domain and no spells from other books/sources (since we restricted  our list to PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, Monsters of Faerun, Magic of Faerun, S&F, S&F, MotW, T&B, DotF and FRCS; this is a list long enough to cause DM's headaches).

 And I can't see how a spell get's balanced only if you allow other sources in your game. I always thought a spell must be balanced even if you you the PHB alone ... *Shrug*

 And again I ask you if you can throw a sack of flour 50ft up in the sky (given that the wizard is dumb enough to be directly above you as he sees you concentrating on the sky with a dusty sack in your hand ...).
 Even then you have a 50% miss chance (invisibility). So even if your ranged touch attack would hit at 50ft he isn't affected half of the time.

 quote pax  Then, frankly, yoru characters were _dumb_, and/or the GM outright hosed  you. No defensive preparations? No Contingencies? You ALL lost initiative,  *and* the GM decreed it was a surprise? And you were all riding that CLOSE  together ... ?!?

 Well I don't know how you travel overland in times of peace. we stick together and don't ride all along with 30ft distance between us. Remember we were 7 party members on the move through open country. 
 Yes sure we could all ride several tenth of feet apart and cast see invisibility the whole day over but that seems not very plausible for me. 
 And yes he surprised us. He fired out of the blue sky (invis., greater) so how should we not be surprised ??? 
 And some of our group had a better INI than the wizi. The Paladin for example. He managed to get his bow and strung it ... before his horse (and most other) was blast to death by a fireball.
 The contingency was a Dim.Door in case some melee attacked the party wizard .... not very good against a casting wizard.
 I don't think we played the characters dumb but simply realistic. Your character may ride apart from your companions and don't talk a word the whole boring day without reason. Our characters were friends with a life.

 And you can't target someone if you know the square but you can't see him. No targetted spells, only a very good chance to get him with area spells.


----------



## Majere (Jun 5, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Well I don't know how you travel overland in times of peace. we stick together and don't ride all along with 30ft distance between us. Remember we were 7 party members on the move through open country.
> Yes sure we could all ride several tenth of feet apart and cast see invisibility the whole day over but that seems not very plausible for me.
> And yes he surprised us. He fired out of the blue sky (invis., greater) so how should we not be surprised ???
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanee (Jun 5, 2004)

My wizard PCs probably wouldn't get hurt by such a fireball, thanks to energy buffer or energy immunity. 24h buffs are usually up even in peaceful times. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Merlion (Jun 5, 2004)

> You shouldn't over-generalise. While it is true, I can't name any Enchantment-school spells which are not "mind affecting", never assume there isn't one SOMEwhere out there, nor that there will never be one in the future. ^_^




I could be wrong about this, but I believe the PH states that all enchantments are mind affecting.
Edit: I just checked, it does in fact say that.

I've got no problem with Mind Blank blocking a whole school of magic, but I think it blocks to many divinations (like Discern Location), and I'd like to see spells that block other whole forms of magic (such as makking you immune to being transmutated against your will in any way, or making you immune to death and negative energy effects...wait there is a spell like that but Wizards dont get it for some odd reason...)




And I still cant believe people think the stat buffs are so great. I've never seen them used. In my experience characters usualy already have items adding enhancment bonuses to their important scores...and now that they only last for one combat...given a choice between raising the Fighter's Dex by 4 for one combat, or casting Blur, Mirror Image, Scorching Ray or the like well...

I mean their not useless or anything, but given the commonality of stat boosting items, your mostly going to be using them on the secondary stats, especially by the time a 10 minute/level duration would make them actually last all that long.

Even in special situations...rather than enhancing Dex to Move Silently or Hide just cast Invisibility. 

Of course I'm against the wholesale utility magic/duration nerf anyway (Invisbility, Fly, Polymorph, the stat buffs)

There does seem to be a drift toward making magic entirely for in-combat use.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 5, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> There does seem to be a drift toward making magic entirely for in-combat use.




Or at least make the ones that are useful in combat be rather bad otherwise. :\

Bye
Thanee


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2004)

Kalendraf said:
			
		

> There are other 2nd level spells with 1 min/level duration such as Blur, Levitate, etc.  Think of how you use those spells in a combat situation, then apply similar thinking to the buff spells.  That's how the group is using them, and they have been working fine.




 Maybe it's just a feature of my campaigns, but we don't usually have the chance to buff before every combat. Usually you get either 1 or 2 rounds of buffing (if you stick around to fight that is ). In those circumstances, ther'es always a better buff than the animal spells. LIke the ones you mentioned above. With 1 min /Lev, you've relegated the animal spells to "in combat" buffs. And there's always a better spell to cast than one of these while in combat. Including 1st leve spells like Divine Favor, Shield of faith, Portection from X, and Sanctuary. And if you aren't buffing you're spell slinging, so that's also a posibility.

By the way, in your circumstance (fighting giants), I agree that the physical buffs become the most useful of your 2nd level spells, at least for clerics. But remember, ther'es still spiritual weapon... Let your god do the giant stomping for you. d8 per round isn't to relevant,  but it's just fun to hide and have a Force battle-axe wacking those giants for a while.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> You didnt all spread out after the first one so you couldnt get hosed again ?
> The cleric forgot to heal people ? Only the mage should be seriously hurt after the fireball as the rouge has improved evasion, as 30 (or 45 if empowered) average damage shouldnt put much dent in a level 15 tank. Assuming they having got fire resitance on their armor (Excellent buy at this level)
> 
> I mean, you havent given us every detail, but it sound like you guys major screwed up on that combat.
> ...




I agree with your first point that they shoudl have spread out at first.

But then you list a specific set of spells and items and conditions to follow to defeat this surprise attack  over cross country territory. What, are all your PCs paranoid freaks that are expecting aerial ambushes all the time   . I hate using the word "realistic" for DnD, but  how real is this. Unless of course your DM is actually throwing Invisible aerial wizards at you all the time, there's no reason to have a complete set of spells ready for that condition. Maybe they were more worried about roaming bands of trolls, for example.

And not everyone is walking around with permanent see invisibilities all the time either. It does make sense (survival wise for wizards) but maybe the PC didn't want to take a 1,000 xp hit for it. This does not necessarily make the character unviable.

Basically (and I know I've kind of rambled on here ) It's really easy to dissect all they did wrong and how they should have handled it to survive. It's another thing to make the correct choices when the dice are rolling. And people make mistakes. My character almost died last session because I forgot to adjust my cohort 5'. And my DM is a crit rolling fiend


----------



## Majere (Jun 5, 2004)

iwatt said:
			
		

> But then you list a specific set of spells and items and conditions to follow to defeat this surprise attack  over cross country territory. What, are all your PCs paranoid freaks that are expecting aerial ambushes all the time   . I hate using the word "realistic" for DnD, but  how real is this. Unless of course your DM is actually throwing Invisible aerial wizards at you all the time, there's no reason to have a complete set of spells ready for that condition. Maybe they were more worried about roaming bands of trolls, for example.
> 
> And not everyone is walking around with permanent see invisibilities all the time either. It does make sense (survival wise for wizards) but maybe the PC didn't want to take a 1,000 xp hit for it. This does not necessarily make the character unviable.




Its 15th level
There are certain standard things. First off the only spells I mentioned were:
1) Healing from the cleric
-> Clerics get spontaineous cure spells so this insnt really asking a whole lot.

2) Greater Dispel magic
-> This spell is SO standard I cant believe anyone would quibble, its a gimmie, if you didnt learn it you have it on a scroll. I refuse to believe you play 15th level casters without dispel or greater dispel.

So the other question is permanent see invis. 
Your 15th level, you will meet invisible flying X Y Z.
Our mage cleric and main fighter got permanent true sight as soon as they could. Yes its an investment, but weigh off 1000xp for casting it vs the deaths you avoid via pummelings from improved invis attackers like the one suggested in this thread. It takes alot of sting out of rogues and assassins with improved invis like a charm.

If this combat taught that level 15th party anything its that they should either have had permanent true sight/see invisibilities. Or they should have item equivalents. When your enemy can be EXPECTED to have access to invisibility, permanemt see invis is simply too good not to have, stick it on your rouge as well if you can.

Majere


----------



## isoChron (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> So the other question is permanent see invis.
> Your 15th level, you will meet invisible flying X Y Z.
> Our mage cleric and main fighter got permanent true sight as soon as they could.



 I'm a bit confused. How do make a spell like true seeing permanent if not with the spell permanency ? 
 The spell has a very specific list of possible spells. See invisibility for example can not be cast on another person. This is explicitly mentioned in the description. And true seeing is not on the list. 
 As long as you want some spell made permanent, that's not on the list of permanency, you have to research this application which costs as much (time and money) as researching the selected spell. (just 3.0 rules; not even mentioned in 3.5 SRD)

 By the way, you have to have the spell permanency itself in your repertoire. This was not the case with both of our wizards.

 We don't have a magic walmart in our campaigns so it's not that easy to get exactly what you want. And if your character never encountered a permanency spell it's hard to find it in a catured spellbook. There are always other spells with similar interesting purposes. You have to decide what spell you write in your spell book, especially if you are low on money and time in a running campaign.



			
				Majere said:
			
		

> Yes its an investment, but weigh off 1000xp for casting it vs the deaths you avoid via pummelings from improved invis attackers like the one suggested in this thread. It takes alot of sting out of rogues and assassins with improved invis like a charm.
> 
> If this combat taught that level 15th party anything its that they should either have had permanent true sight/see invisibilities. Or they should have item equivalents. When your enemy can be EXPECTED to have access to invisibility, permanemt see invis is simply too good not to have, stick it on your rouge as well if you can.
> Majere



 The party is now level 18/19 and retired. But until the end of the days of that party, no one had a permanent spell. Contingency and greater contingency, yes, but no permanency. 
 If you encounter high level spell casters with MD and Greater Dispelling, it's just plain a waste of XP. First thing all highlevel BBE-wizards and Balors (had lots of them) did was Greater Dispelling. The chances were very low that this spell survived more than one day of encounter.

 Sure, you can always say:"Uh ! Didn't they have this or that?".
 We were equipped as the DMG character wealth proposed, some even better. But if you fight giants (trolls) and orkhordes and undead dragons you equip yourself a little different. 
 It's easy for me, too, to say that we should have won the encounter if we had done this or that first. But I ask you not to call our characters or their actions dumb or silly. It always depends on situation and equipment (a little to much on equipment if you ask me) and last but not least on the style you play D&D.


 But back to topic.
 We now play D&D 3.5+x (we have spontaneous casting for all classes now, a good thing but that doesn't belong here) and the animal buff spells are nearly never used in our poor equiped party. There are always better spells to cast in the short time of combat, even if you don't have to prepare spells. A 10 minute/level casting time would make them interesting for exploring a dungeon but 1 minute/level ist to short to cast them in advance. 1 hour was to long in higher levels in our experience.

 Another hot topic is hunters mercy. This is just to good in the hands of a ranger with some levels of deepwood sniper and a burst bow.


----------



## iwatt (Jun 5, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> If this combat taught that level 15th party anything its that they should either have had permanent true sight/see invisibilities. Or they should have item equivalents. When your enemy can be EXPECTED to have access to invisibility, permanemt see invis is simply too good not to have, stick it on your rouge as well if you can.
> 
> Majere




I hoped they learnt this as well   

It's just that I have a problem when somethings become a "must haves". I think it's a gut reaction 

Clever DMs can always find a new way to beat PC tactics and gear. So nothing is a Must have. And this is possible without  using to much metagaming even. Just replace the inv wiz with a flying druid. No need to be invisble then... Also, if this is the first time they were attacked by stealth artillery, there is no reason for them to have preemptive gear in the first place. I know that Ogre mages cast Cone of colds 1 per day, can fly and get Inv at will. My character only learns this once Shreck freezes his butt off and flies away.

Basically, the main point I was (trying) to make is that it's easy to find a way to beat an encounter after the fact, it's not that easy in the thick of things. The wiz got the drop on them (one spell) and then beat most of them in intiative. Add in no active protections (by the way you might as well add in contingency as a must have as well   ) and the low hps members might get toasted (bad saving rolls ahppen to anyone). The paladin won initiative, and made the first mistake: stringing his bow. He should have spread out.


----------



## Pax (Jun 5, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> As I mentioned several times I want to make an encounter against a standard group containing that wizard. This encounter shouldn't use a magic using character class.
> So no cleric with magic domain and no spells from other books/sources (since we restricted  our list to PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, Monsters of Faerun, Magic of Faerun, S&F, S&F, MotW, T&B, DotF and FRCS; this is a list long enough to cause DM's headaches).



  The point is, if YOU want to limit the playing field - butnot limit it to CORE only -  then any imbalance which arises is _your_ problem.



> And I can't see how a spell get's balanced only if you allow other sources in your game. I always thought a spell must be balanced even if you you the PHB alone ... *Shrug*



  Ideally, in a perfect world, yes.  However, it isn't a perfect world, and D&D is not - nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be - an ideal set of mechanics and rules. 



> And again I ask you if you can throw a sack of flour 50ft up in the sky (given that the wizard is dumb enough to be directly above you as he sees you concentrating on the sky with a dusty sack in your hand ...).



  There's no need to be directly above; anywhere within throwing distance.

  And for a thrown weapon with no aerodynamics - yes, 50' is entirely doable.



> So even if your ranged touch attack would hit at 50ft he isn't affected half of the time.



  And the other half the time, it's [sulu]"target that explosion"[/sulu].  I'll take 50/50 odds of victory, over 100% chance of defeat, any day.



> pax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Assuming you were riding double-file (taking up 20' of road width to do so - horses are Large animals and have a 10' face), that's still a line of people 40' long.

  And that assumes the horses ride nose-to-tail.  Which horses WON'T do, peacefully, for any real length of time - I've actually ridden (and cared for, including mucking out stables (blecch)), and an extra 5' distance from the back of one horse to the head of another would have been about where the horses would finally have settled down and behaved themselves.



> Yes sure we could all ride several tenth of feet apart and cast see invisibility the whole day over but that seems not very plausible for me.



  At 15th level?  One wonders why you were *riding*, especially on horses.  No overland flight?  No Teleportation Circle?

  And, *for very good reason*, modern militaries don't march from point A to point B all bunched up, when in potentially-hostile territory.  U.S.Army standard is 2m seperation; for extra caution, they might even open up to a 5m seperation.  That means there's from two to five meters between one soldier, and the next one in line.

  Specifically so that a single explosive, or a single long-burst from a machinegun (etc), doesn't take out the whole group.



> And yes he surprised us. He fired out of the blue sky (invis., greater) so how should we not be surprised ???



  At 15th level, you had NO protections?  No means of warning yourselves?  You deserved it.



> And some of our group had a better INI than the wizi. The Paladin for example. He managed to get his bow and strung it ... before his horse (and most other) was blast to death by a fireball.



  One fireball?  Teh 15th-level Paladin's mount was toasted by *ONE FIREBALL* ... ?!?  Okay, now I *know* you're making this up.  No way in the Nine Hells does 10d6[fire] take out the mount of a Paladin(15) - not even empowered *and* maximised (which would require an 8th level slot, and an 11th level wizard doesn't GET those).  So we're looking at, presumptively, a 60-point hit from a maximised fireball - whichowuld be the NPC wizard's single *best* spell for the day (if he was an evoker, he _might've_ had another of hte same, but then that'd be IT for his 6th level spell slots).

  Assuming a Light Warhorse as the base, a Paladin(15)'s mount would have Improved Evasion and 11d8 hit dice, with a +3 Constitution modifier, for 11d8+33.  That means it should have had 82hp.  If it FAILED the save, against TWO of those fireballs ... the horse woudl be badly hurt, BUT ALIVE.  Improved Evasion - half damage, save for none.

  As for that saving throw, it'd get the Paladin's save - base is +5, and it's safe to assume another (say) +7 between Dexterity, Charisma, Items, Feats, and/or Race.  At 15th level, frankly, having less than +11 just from items and attributes would SHOCK me (+6 item for each of dex and charisma, and a direct +5 resistance bonus - assuming 10 innate scores for both attributes!).

  But anyway, that's a +12 save bonus.  A stock human Wiz(15) NPC has an Intelligence of no more than 22 (base 15, +3 from level, +4 from headband) - so the save for that Fireball was only DC (10 + 3 + 6 =) 19.  If he took SF and GSF, that'd boost it to 21.  The horse needed to roll a 9 or above to take NOTHING, or an 8 or below to take 30hp, from each maximised 11-die fireball.

  *yawn*  So, tell me again how *a* fireball toasted the mount?



> The contingency was a Dim.Door in case some melee attacked the party wizard .... not very good against a casting wizard.



  Not the brightest contingency in the universe.  Wizard deserved what he got.



> I don't think we played the characters dumb but simply realistic. Your character may ride apart from your companions and don't talk a word the whole boring day without reason. Our characters were friends with a life.



  Actually, the party I played with for over a year (weekly games, mind) had two charactes on our wagon, and the other four in pairs before and behind, specifically leaving 10' gaps between the back of one group, and the front of the other.  We conversed fine; that's conversational range with a mildly-raised voice, no big deal there.



> And you can't target someone if you know the square but you can't see him. No targetted spells, only a very good chance to get him with area spells.



  Glitterdust is an area spell, and solves every problem with targetting.  And it's only second level - but it's SO useful, EVERY sorceror I play, will choose it unless it is *completely* opposed to that character's intended "theme"/feel/etc.



			
				isoChron said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused. How do make a spell like true seeing permanent if not with the spell permanency ?
> The spell has a very specific list of possible spells. See invisibility for example can not be cast on another person. This is explicitly mentioned in the description. And true seeing is not on the list.
> As long as you want some spell made permanent, that's not on the list of permanency, you have to research this application which costs as much (time and money) as researching the selected spell. (just 3.0 rules; not even mentioned in 3.5 SRD)



  Scrolls are wonderful things, if you have the ranks of UMD to activate them successfully.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 5, 2004)

Generally our campaign also has issues if players are overbuffed. I know my wizard usually isnt in Diplomacy situations because we take a negative if we are "buffed" as it is a sign of possible aggressive nature. I agree that greater Dispel magic is the mother's milk of wizardry( of course I also believe heavily in countermagic). That being said it is conceivable to wipe the floor with folks with a pair of spells (thanks to greater arcane sight) you just need to know which element(s) they are defending against.

P.S. hope they redo energy substitution in Complete Arcane... the current source material allowed doesnt have sonic damage as a substitute (curses 3.5). Luckily my fireballs sometimes become 8th level consecrated spells.... guess they werent immune to holy damage ( consecrated delayed blast fireball is a hoot)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 5, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> 1) Project image is used to resolve diffusion issues




I'm sorry, but I must have my stupid head on today. What do you mean by "resolve diffusion issues"?

Cheers


----------



## strongbow (Jun 6, 2004)

*Re-hijacking of thread*

<Loads Wand of Fireball>

Salvo 1: Don't post extensive information about your home campaign beyond what is necessary to answer the question at hand.  In fact, it is better to not post about your home campaign in the Rules forum at all if you can avoid it.  Some parellels and DM decisions are nice and dandy, but giving the equipment breakdown of your party is off topic [ot]

Salvo 2: Getting bogged down on the particulars of a strategy when talking about some of these overpowered or underpowered spells/combos of these spells.

Salvo 3: Flaming a DM for letting things go on in his campaign.  Man, Dm <insert name here> you suck because you let your players do <action y> or allow/disallow <option z> in your game.

Salvo 4: Killing that poor Paladin 15's horse with one fireball. LOL, LOL some more, ROTFL.  It hurts when someone calls you out on the math, doesn't it?  There might have been mitigating circumstances, but man that made this very ot thread for me, even if there was some reason why the mount should have died after only 1 fireball.

Salvo 5: Builder book spells reprinted in 3.5 by cutting and pasting with the same errors <cough Complete Divine cough>

Salvo 6: All the other hijackers out there.

In case any of you are thinking of replying, I have 44 charges left and Energy Immunity Fire.   
<Sheathes and of Fireball>


----------



## strongbow (Jun 6, 2004)

Mispost


----------



## Majere (Jun 6, 2004)

"We don't have a magic walmart in our campaigns so it's not that easy to get exactly what you want. And if your character never encountered a permanency spell it's hard to find it in a catured spellbook. There are always other spells with similar interesting purposes. You have to decide what spell you write in your spell book, especially if you are low on money and time in a running campaign."

Irrelevant
Every Level a mage automatically researches two spells.
So A SMART mage would get a list of every spell he can buy, and then research spells not on that list as his freebies.

I also have to hold my hands up to s light mislead. The Fighter in our group has an item of permanent true seeing. This will probably not be available to most parties, but there is no real reason for spell casters not to have permanent see invis. 

Majere
Avoids your slavos with a +25 Ref save an improved evasion !!


----------



## apsuman (Jun 6, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> 1) Project image is used to resolve diffusion issues
> a) also as an illusion it can receive the illusion known as silence via scroll and cast it on itself




Ok, I, too, might have my stoopid hat on today but I still don't get why projected image is a needed spell in your deadly combo.

Perhaps if you were to explain exactly your chartacter's actions (and the timing of such) for your timestop cloudkill forcecage projected image thingy.

Cause I still don't see how projected image helps.


----------



## Pax (Jun 6, 2004)

strongbow said:
			
		

> <Loads Wand of Fireball>
> In case any of you are thinking of replying, I have 44 charges left and Energy Immunity Fire.



  That's okay, I have a level of Archmage, and Mastery of Elements.  ^_^  Oh, and as a half-Dragon of Gold heritage, fire doesn't worry me at all.  ^_^


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jun 6, 2004)

It gets worse- every Pally I know has a heavy warhorse as a Mount- or better.  The Druid certainly could of shapeshifted to something flying and at the very least be out of the area for any area effect spells. Not to mention casting spells once he got up there.

 7 (!) characters level 15 (clr, wiz, wiz/rog, rog, pal/ftr/rgr, rog/asn, drd) in 


There were three PC's possibly with Evasion and one (the pure rogue) with almost certainly Improved Evasion. Even after two Maximized fireballs, he (at the very least ) shouldn't even be down a single HP.  The Pally should have been able to take two MAXed fireballs and still be alive.  

With 4 spellcasters it boggles the mind that NO "anti-invisible" spells (glitterdust, see invis, invis purge, true sight, etc etc etc) weren't at least on someones spell list fot that day. And- that fact that no one had any item or spell of fire resistance?? :\   

But still- having them all bunched together after the first fireball was silly. And, two MAXIMIZED fireballs still shouldn't have been able to kill all of the party- even if everyone rolled two consectutive ones. The cleric, druid, Pally, and the Mount all certainly could easily have more than 120 hit points (and PLEASE don't tell me everyone failed BOTH saving throws!!!!).

The contingency spell would at least have the wizard well out of the spread of fireball two, now wouldn't it?  

And- three PC's with healing, one of who could  have cast Cure Critical Wounds, Mass- Spontaneously, which would have healed everyone in the party of 43 points or so of damage.  I dunno about YOUR party, but even after taking 60 points- every 15th level PC I have played with would have been alive. It is statistically impossible that everyone failed their save (and thus 3 would have been unscathed)- and then- after a spell that every 15th level (non-evil) cleric has available- those who HAD failed would have been down only 17 points.  I don't care what kind of bear your party was loaded for- your cleric had access to high level mass healing spells. He HAS to. It's the rules.  

Ok, let's be frank here- _pull the other one, it's got bells on it._


----------



## Khristos (Jun 6, 2004)

Okay which way does a cloudkill travel? answer away from caster.  Does a cloudkill sink or rise? answer sink to lowest point. what happens when something the other direction  uses or has an effect that simulates gust of wind on it? Answer it moves the cloud back to the edge of the gust of wind. What can you do with a project image?  Use it as a focal point to cast a spell originating in a point other than itself. What spell can a projected image cast on itself? Answer illusion magics. Hmmm what advantage is one able to effect with different variations of forcecage? answer either have a line of effect or not into it.  What does a maximized cloudkill do when its area effect is stationary?   4 pts of Con Damage save for half if you make a fortitude save. 

Advantage?? the ability to use countermagic while the cloud does its dirty work 36-72 Con damage .. probably too busy thinking I am stupid or a noob instead of thinking how the directional aspect of casting can be used to great effect. Before you say "do you have 18 gust of winds?" ... no but I did spend 1500 xps to have it on an object

Yes I know I made reference to one option of the forcecage but I also said read the spells and think about how they can be used ( the solid also works in a different and more dangerous way)


----------



## Pax (Jun 6, 2004)

Hey, Khristos - I'm rather well-known (or is that ill-reputed) for being a tactlerss and oft insulting b*st*rd, and even *I* have GOT to say ... _chill._  I've heard of (and suffered from) lack of tact before, but ... you've gone *negative* on the tact scale, guy.

  Now, the problem with using the barred cage and the gust of wind is this: it allows you to be attacked by the person in the 'cage, while you do that.  And there are several ways to counter the effects of cloudkill.  One would be a Necklace ofAdaptation - not because it eliminates the need to breathe, but because it "creates a zone of fresh air all around the wearer" - meaning, a *small* space around yoru intended victimis kept *clear* of the _cloudkill_ itself.

  Another would be simply shapeshifting or polymorphing into something that isn't "living" (undead or construct).

  Alternately, just cast _gaseous form_ and slip right out of the 'cage.  It's slow, but it'd work.  Gaseous Form *and* shapeshifting would be ideal, of course.

  Barring gaseous form, shapechange into an Ooze, and just ... well ... *ooze* out of the 'cage.

  And so on.



> Before you say "do you have 18 gust of winds?" ... no but I did spend 1500 xps to have it on an object



  Your Projected Image cannot have or carry magic items, so *that* won't work.


----------



## Pax (Jun 6, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> 7 (!) characters level 15 (clr, wiz, wiz/rog, rog, pal/ftr/rgr, rog/asn, drd)



  So, let's see.  We'll assume front-loaded Ranger(2) at most, Fighter(4) for weapon spec, that's still Paladin(11).  2 less HD, so 2d8+6 less hitpoints - TWO maximised fireballs against a Light Warhorse paladin's mount *might* kill it, if it failed *both* saves.  Odds are it's HURT, yes, but definitely not dead.

  15th level cleric, and an invisible spellcasting enemy - sounds like a good time for an Antimagic Field spell to ME.  Pop a Widen on it, and crowd everyone together inside ...

  15th level Wizard; if he's lacking a Permanent _true seeing_, he's truly _earned_ the world of hurt coming his way.  Just because of how well True Seeing preserves his abilities to target enemies when he IS in combat, it's worth the XP - or the GP for a magic item of one sort or another.  With that, and a glitterdust, eh can "light up" the enemy spellcaster but GOOD.

  Wiz/Rogue, I don't know what the level split was, but however the levels are put together, there're several options that each combination could take.  Regardless, at least has Evasion, MIGHT even have improved evasion.

  Pure rogue ... improved evasion.  'nuff said.

  Rogue/Assassin ... ditto.

  Druid, wildshape to something that flies, head towards the general direction the spellcasting noise came from.  Should have the Blindsight feat, if he's worth the name "druid".

  So, even accounting for the multiclassing ... I fail to see how a single, unsupported wizard *four leels below your party's level* could possibly have been defeated, unless (a) your PCs were poorly built and/or played, (b) the dice were so strongly against you that a mob of blind kobold children (SANS buckets of snails) could have whupped yer backsides with one arm (and both legs) tied behind their backs ... or (c) the GM outright cheated.

  I prefer (d), "this scenario never actually occurred".  Unfortunately for your credibility,  others seem to agree with that assessment.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 6, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Hey, Khristos - I'm rather well-known (or is that ill-reputed) for being a tactlerss and oft insulting b*st*rd, and even *I* have GOT to say ... _chill._  I've heard of (and suffered from) lack of tact before, but ... you've gone *negative* on the tact scale, guy.
> 
> Now, the problem with using the barred cage and the gust of wind is this: it allows you to be attacked by the person in the 'cage, while you do that.  And there are several ways to counter the effects of cloudkill.  One would be a Necklace ofAdaptation - not because it eliminates the need to breathe, but because it "creates a zone of fresh air all around the wearer" - meaning, a *small* space around yoru intended victimis kept *clear* of the _cloudkill_ itself.
> 
> ...





First- I was responding to the sarcastic remarks of other posters (if they wish to be insulting I can be easily be condescending in return) 

Second- the necklace of adaption is nice but not fully proof against the full arsenal brought to bear ( ie it can be negated)

Third- The character is trying to cast while subjected to silence and vulnerable to counterspells. 

Fourth- The prjected image doesnt need to carry magic items as I cast the spell from it heading back towards myself ( Directional properties of a projected image)  actually my character isnt actively using the object in question either ( as this  effect can be obtained without me holding the item)

really I can go on and on but by using the logic that anything COULD be countered then frankly there are no underpowered or overpowered spells in the game and this entire thread is pointless. The combination listed bypasses SR and allows the character to take other actions (even if it is just counterspelling and using quickened spells) bypasses HPs ( it attacks an attribute) and unless the victim has immunity to poison it will result in death ( neutrilize poison can be can be countered with a 4th or 5th lvl conjuration spell and improved counterspell and is using an equal slot for the victim as it needed to be silent metamagic enhanced)


----------



## Khristos (Jun 6, 2004)

An 11th lvl wizard could kill 7 lvl 15 players with 2 consecutive rds of actions and some biblical die rolling Fireball 880' range True Sight 120' So start bombing at 140' and you wont be seen by true sight . Inivisibility Purge is 5 ft a lvl. See invisibility is field of vision however a camoflauged mage ( sky camo) could be hard to make out. Of course an industrious mage would have summoned monsters and carpet bombed 

" Nigel there seems to be a riding dog buried in my horse's skull"


----------



## isoChron (Jun 6, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> So, let's see. We'll assume front-loaded Ranger(2) at most, Fighter(4) for weapon spec, that's still Paladin(11). 2 less HD, so 2d8+6 less hitpoints - TWO maximised fireballs against a Light Warhorse paladin's mount *might* kill it, if it failed *both* saves.  Odds are it's HURT, yes, but definitely not dead.
> 
> 15th level cleric, and an invisible spellcasting enemy - sounds like a good time for an Antimagic Field spell to ME. Pop a Widen on it, and crowd everyone together inside ...
> 
> ...



 Nice try to push my Pali to high level but he was Fighter 10 then Ranger and Paladin (Torm) 'till 15th. Actually Ftr10/Rgr2/Pal3. And no he didn't have a mount. I never mentioned a "Paladins Mount". I was talking about a group traveling through the north of Tethyr after some heavy fighting with a troll/ork army at Eshpurta. All we had were light and heavy warhorses. In our campaign you don't get holy avengers and special mounts on the fly over night. In 3.0 it wasn't that useful to have a paladins mount if you teleport a lot. 

 I don't know your style of play but please don't call someone a liar you don't know. Your arguments are based on assumptions made from YOUR gaming experience not ours. 
 And please don't asume your choices are the best another group could have made in another complete different campaign/situation.
 As mentioned we didn't have permanency in our group. Are these wizards now a dump pack because they didn't have this one spell. They chosed other spells that fitted their situation more. 

 And I never said we were on enemy territory. That's one thing you said, not me. We were travelling on the road in Amn because in Amn it's not allowed to use teleportation spells and we had some places to visit along the way to Athkatla. 

 And no, I didn't make this encounter up in my mind. Ask the DM that made this encounter up. He is the thread starter ...

 And another point is that you still can't get True Seeing permanent on yourself, even if the fighter has spend his 2 skillpoints per level in UMD instead of ride, jump, climb, knowledge or whatever other nice skills are out there. (This would make +7.5 ranks in UMD vs. 3 checks to use a scroll with UMD. 
 1. Decipher Script 25+spell level=DC30.
 2. Emulate Spell ability DC 20 gives your caster level as result-20 ... must be 9 or better to cast from a scroll without problems
 3. Emulate Ability Score (WIS 15) gives you a virtual score of result-15. You need 30 to get there ...
 not that easy, or ?)
 And True Seeing is NOT on the list of possible spells given in the PHB list. Even not in T&B.

 If your DM houseruled that, nice for you. But that's not covered by the rules.

 I'm a little bit dissapointed about your way to draw conclusions on a basis of little information. That's ok for you but to call someone a liar is a totally different thing.


----------



## Merlion (Jun 6, 2004)

I hate to butt in but I do think it would be nice if this thread could return to people listing and discussing over or underpowered spells rather than people arguing over specfic tactics and combinations, or simply fighting amongst themselves.


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 7, 2004)

iwatt said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just a feature of my campaigns, but we don't usually have the chance to buff before every combat. Usually you get either 1 or 2 rounds of buffing (if you stick around to fight that is ).




There are 1 or 2 really good scout characters in both campaigns, and they tend to give the group enough warning in advance of most encounters that the buff spells can still be applied.  I agree that it's definitely a contributing factor in making buff spells more useful than they might otherwise be.  No doubt every spell is going to see somewhat different usefulness depending on party tactics and composition.  These groups lend proof that the buff spells are useful and balanced in their current 3.5 form.


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jun 7, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> An 11th lvl wizard could kill 7 lvl 15 players with 2 consecutive rds of actions and some biblical die rolling Fireball 880' range True Sight 120' So start bombing at 140' and you wont be seen by true sight .




Nope. Not even with two Maximized Fireballs. True, he could remain hidden for a while, but he couldn't kill a party of 7X 15th level PC's with any two spells- unless everyone failed both saves, and they all had crud hp, and no one did anything even halfway clever.  It is assuming all 3 of these that make us dubious.

OK, Isochron, so your Fighter10/Rngr2/Pal3 didn't have a Mount- but he'd still likely have over 120 hp. So how did two spells kill him? Which two spells were cast? The first was a FB, yes- and then....?  We are assuming the first was a Maximized FB- true?  And- everyone failed BOTH saves?  Even the rogue?


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jun 7, 2004)

Iwatt- I agree that folks who show their superbuild that assumes a dozen rounds of buffing prior to combat are living in woo-woo land.     They somehow forget the the enemy can buff also, or could be attacking or running away, and that just one combat per day isn't what you always get.  

But there are still a few buff spells that last hours per level, and extended these last a looooong time. I am in a game where we are 11th or so, and Greater magic weapon, Magic vestment, Mage armour and Shield other are just 4 we sometimes cast that last all day for most purposes.   I'd have to say that a normal mid level party would have a couple buffs up while traveling.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 7, 2004)

Strangely, True Seeing isn't an appropriate defence against flying greater invisible wizards, because it only has a range of 120ft and he can bombard happily from further away than that. See invisibility works out to range of vision, but True Seeing doesn't.  Seems a little funny but there you go.



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> First- I was responding to the sarcastic remarks of other posters (if they wish to be insulting I can be easily be condescending in return)




I have made every effort to be polite and inquiring in the face of your arrogant posturing. Just get over yourself.


----------



## Pax (Jun 7, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Second- the necklace of adaption is nice but not fully proof against the full arsenal brought to bear ( ie it can be negated)



  Got to target it to dispel it; got to SEE it to target it; got to remove the enemy's clothes and/or armor to see thenecklace.



> Third- The character is trying to cast while subjected to silence and vulnerable to counterspells.



  And if you don't have the right counterspell(s) prepared *shrug* ...



> Fourth- The prjected image doesnt need to carry magic items as I cast the spell from it heading back towards myself ( Directional properties of a projected image)  actually my character isnt actively using the object in question either ( as this  effect can be obtained without me holding the item)



  Spells *you* cast can originate from the image.  however, nothing in the RAW supports the notion that spells cast by an ITEM (that happens, coincidentally, to be in your possession) canoriginate form the Projected Image.



> really I can go on and on but by using the logic that anything COULD be countered then frankly there are no underpowered or overpowered spells in the game and this entire thread is pointless.



  Could does not equal WOULD.

  And yes, there ARE overpowered spells, and there ARE underpowered spells.  What those are tend to depend on several variables - high level or low, high magic or low, wealthy or poor treasure-returns, core-only or anything-wotc-is-okay, or ...points in between on all of those axes.



> The combination listed bypasses SR and allows the character to take other actions (even if it is just counterspelling and using quickened spells) bypasses HPs ( it attacks an attribute) and unless the victim has immunity to poison it will result in death ( neutrilize poison can be can be countered with a 4th or 5th lvl conjuration spell and improved counterspell and is using an equal slot for the victim as it needed to be silent metamagic enhanced)



  Or use a Rod of Silent Metamagic, stored in a Glove of Storing (a very smart trick - get a pair of such gloves, put a Rod of Silent Spell in one, and a Rod of Still Spell in the other - to allow escape spells in any restrictive situation, except only when a (M)aterial component is required).


----------



## Pax (Jun 7, 2004)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Nice try to push my Pali to high level but he was Fighter 10 then Ranger and Paladin (Torm) 'till 15th. Actually Ftr10/Rgr2/Pal3. And no he didn't have a mount. I never mentioned a "Paladins Mount".



  That character isn't a *Paladin* at all.  It's a *Fighter*, with a splash of front-loaded ranger and a splash of front-loaded paladin.  Your mention of "the paladin" in your description of the encounter was misleading.



> I was talking about a group traveling through the north of Tethyr after some heavy fighting with a troll/ork army at Eshpurta. All we had were light and heavy warhorses. In our campaign you don't get holy avengers and special mounts on the fly over night. In 3.0 it wasn't that useful to have a paladins mount if you teleport a lot.



  Then why weren't you teleporting?  ^_^



> I don't know your style of play but please don't call someone a liar you don't know. Your arguments are based on assumptions made from YOUR gaming experience not ours.



  No, my assumptions were made based on the RAW, alone.  My first group didn't blow wads of cash on permanent spells and such, either - but the Wizard DID get permanent _see invisible_, just because it IS far too useful for at least ONE person in the party to have that spell functioning 24/7.



> And please don't asume your choices are the best another group could have made in another complete different campaign/situation.



  What choices?

  I described _real-world_ spacing issues - just by dint of how many people you had, and the fact that you were riding, you should've been too far apart to catch BOTH ends of your party with a single fireball.

  Add to that, your comment that they were all WARhorses.  That means _stallions_, and that means no riding side-by-side, either.  Because I do mean _stallions_, not mares or even geldings.  A warhorse *needs* the aggression of _intact_ testosterone-producing gonads ... or it's just a riding horse, at _best_.  A minimum of ten feet, in all directions, between such horses, I'd say.



> As mentioned we didn't have permanency in our group. Are these wizards now a dump pack because they didn't have this one spell. They chosed other spells that fitted their situation more.



  No, but they should then have arranged between them to keep the party blanketed in _cast_ spells that would serve similar purpose, or to craft _items_ of similar function.



> And I never said we were on enemy territory. That's one thing you said, not me. We were travelling on the road in Amn because in Amn it's not allowed to use teleportation spells and we had some places to visit along the way to Athkatla.



  Wait, above you said TETHYR, now it's AMN.  *opens his FRCS and checks the maps* While Tethyr and Amn are adjacent, they're not the same place.  So, which *was* it ... Tethyr ... or Amn?



> And another point is that you still can't get True Seeing permanent on yourself, even if the fighter has spend his 2 skillpoints per level in UMD instead of ride, jump, climb, knowledge or whatever other nice skills are out there. (This would make +7.5 ranks in UMD vs. 3 checks to use a scroll with UMD.
> 1. Decipher Script 25+spell level=DC30.
> 2. Emulate Spell ability DC 20 gives your caster level as result-20 ... must be 9 or better to cast from a scroll without problems
> 3. Emulate Ability Score (WIS 15) gives you a virtual score of result-15. You need 30 to get there ...
> not that easy, or ?)



  PHB page 85, DC for using a scroll is 20 plus spell-level.  And that's *one roll*, all you have to do, once the spell is deciphered.  DC20 to activate the Wand ofRead Magic in order to decipher it check-free.



> And True Seeing is NOT on the list of possible spells given in the PHB list. Even not in T&B.
> 
> If your DM houseruled that, nice for you. But that's not covered by the rules.



  Beg to differ; it COULD be researched, per the Permanency rules.  Ergo, it doesn't have to be 100% house rule. 



> I'm a little bit dissapointed about your way to draw conclusions on a basis of little information. That's ok for you but to call someone a liar is a totally different thing.



*You* said - and I quote - "pal/ftr/rgr" ... and by listing paladin FIRST, it's entirely logical to assume that Paladin was the class with the most levels.

  You also merely said, earlier, - and again, I quote:



> And some of our group had a better INI than the wizi. The Paladin for example. He managed to get his bow and strung it ... before his horse (and most other) was blast to death by a fireball.



  "The paladin".  "His horse".  Logical conclusion, the horse was the paladin's Mount.  In combination with the above, logical assumption is 10-ish levels of Paladin.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 7, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Okay which way does a cloudkill travel? answer away from caster.



Bingo.  We are on the same page here.


			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Does a cloudkill sink or rise? answer sink to lowest point.



again, agreement


			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> what happens when something the other direction  uses or has an effect that simulates gust of wind on it? Answer it moves the cloud back to the edge of the gust of wind.



Whoa nelly!  Where did this come from?  In the SRD it says that cloudkill "This spell generates a bank of fog, similar to a fog cloud, except that its vapors are yellowish green and poisonous. "

And under fog cloud it says that "A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the fog in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round."

And finally, the SRD says that a  _GUST of Wind _ "creates a severe blast of air (approximately 50 mph) that originates from you, affecting all creatures in its path."

So, I would think that Gust of wind would wipe out a clouldkill spell.



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> What can you do with a project image?  Use it as a focal point to cast a spell originating in a point other than itself.




Right.



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> What spell can a projected image cast on itself? Answer illusion magics.




Again, true, and you mentioned silence and how your homebrew wizard can cast silence, not arguing with you there.


			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Hmmm what advantage is one able to effect with different variations of forcecage? answer either have a line of effect or not into it.




Right ...



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> What does a maximized cloudkill do when its area effect is stationary?   4 pts of Con Damage save for half if you make a fortitude save.



...right (if you can make it stationary -- like in a forcecage cube prison)...


			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Advantage?? the ability to use countermagic while the cloud does its dirty work 36-72 Con damage ..



Again, true IF you can keep the thing stationary and keep your opponent in the cloud


			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> probably too busy thinking I am stupid or a noob instead of thinking how the directional aspect of casting can be used to great effect.




Not what I was thinking.



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Before you say "do you have 18 gust of winds?" ... no but I did spend 1500 xps to have it on an object




why so you can eliminate your own cloudkill spell?



			
				Khristos said:
			
		

> Yes I know I made reference to one option of the forcecage but I also said read the spells and think about how they can be used ( the solid also works in a different and more dangerous way)




Yes I know that you told me to think about how they can be used, and I did.  After thinking about it, I was still confused as to why you think the projected image helps you with this combo.  You cited silence, so I must assume that in your killer combo the projected image is inside the silenced area and that is the big advantage.  Personally, when you get to the level you are talking about if you are going to use silence, you should (and should have at your disposal) the silent spell feat.  Really, is there any other reason (beside the silence) that you need the projected image?  I still don't see how it is useful to you.


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2004)

*Apsuman*: I'm _guessing_ that Khristos is implying that if he casts _Gust of Wind_ "away from" the _Cloudkill_ center, that the poisonious cloud will be sucked in that direction.  Hence, the _Cloudkill_ doesn't leave through the bars of the _Forcecage_; every itme it moves, Khristos sucks it back in.  

Convoluted?  Yep.  Would it work, given the RAW?  Nope.

Boy, it sure would be nice if Khristos could explain himself........


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2004)

So....how 'bout them Overpowerd/Underpowered spells?  

I'll add _Protection form Evil_ to this list, even though it's a sacred cow.  It's protections vs. Enchantments is too broad for a 1st level spell.

...that's why my Cleric loves to have it memorized.  (We've got a low Will save Ftr.)


----------



## Thanee (Jun 7, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> I'll add _Protection form Evil_ to this list, even though it's a sacred cow.  It's protections vs. Enchantments is too broad for a 1st level spell.




Broad?

IMHO it protects only against a single spell from the school (dominate).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Nail (Jun 7, 2004)

The point is: This spell gives AC and save bonuses, makes summoned creatures meaningless, _and_ negates against a broad range of spells.



			
				SRD3.5e said:
			
		

> Second, the barrier blocks any attempt ...(snip)... to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).




That's two very large chunks of the Enchantment school, nicht var?


----------



## Eldragon (Jun 8, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> So....how 'bout them Overpowerd/Underpowered spells?
> 
> I'll add _Protection form Evil_ to this list, even though it's a sacred cow.  It's protections vs. Enchantments is too broad for a 1st level spell.
> 
> ...that's why my Cleric loves to have it memorized.  (We've got a low Will save Ftr.)




Agreed, Protection from Evil as written is the universal cure-all for heroic adventurers. Everything that the stereotypical BBEG has at his disposal to suddenly turn a losing battle around is lost. Can't dominate the fighter, Can't summon undead minons to protect his retreat, AND the target gets a bonus to saves and AC.  BUT its not a real problem if the DM interprets all of it's functions as being protection against evil summoned creatures and evil spell casters.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 8, 2004)

danielinthewolvesden said:
			
		

> Nope. Not even with two Maximized Fireballs. True, he could remain hidden for a while, but he couldn't kill a party of 7X 15th level PC's with any two spells- unless everyone failed both saves, and they all had crud hp, and no one did anything even halfway clever.  It is assuming all 3 of these that make us dubious.
> 
> OK, Isochron, so your Fighter10/Rngr2/Pal3 didn't have a Mount- but he'd still likely have over 120 hp. So how did two spells kill him? Which two spells were cast? The first was a FB, yes- and then....?  We are assuming the first was a Maximized FB- true?  And- everyone failed BOTH saves?  Even the rogue?




As isochron mentioned, I was the DM that created the encounter (under 3.0 rules at that time). I don't have the stats of the mage at hand (I'm at a conference til end of the week), but the wizard attacked the traveling group at daytime in Amn. He had _Fly, Impr. Invis_. (silent), _Shield, Haste _ (silent), _Protection from Fire, Mirror Image _ and _Stoneskin_ cast prior to combat. I rolled a good initiative and gave him a surprise round. He brought one of the party wizards to negative hp during the surprise with three _magic missile _ versions: one quickened, one empowered during haste and one maximized.
In round 2, the dying wizard got a good initiative, but he couldn't do anything. Then the enemy wizard got his turn. He slaughtered the other party wizard with the same combo: Three _magic missiles _ in a round + movement afterwards. The cleric made a good guess and fortunately _flame striked _ the opponent. I don't recall what the druid did (perhaps she tried to get to the other party wizard). One rogue tried to escape, the other tried to help also one of the wizards. The fighter dismounted and tried to ready his bow.
Round 3: The cleric and the druid (and the fighter's horse I think) were hit by two _empowered fireballs_ (IIRC) leaving the druid almost dead (she failed both saves...).
The ftr/rgr/pal was not able to hit the enemy, one rogue was fleeing, the other was killed by _disintegration_ after she tried to fire on the invisible but casting wizard. The cleric cast _Invisibility Purge _ but the enemy stayed out of range.

That's what I recall by now. It ended in a TPK, the enemy killed the cleric, the second rogue and the fighter with area spells and by using a wand of magic missiles (CL 9).

Any questions? I can give you more details on saturday...

Perhaps we should keep on topic. BTW, the fight described above showed how overpowered _Haste_ was in 3.0


----------



## Thanee (Jun 8, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> The point is: This spell gives AC and save bonuses, makes summoned creatures meaningless



 Only those w/o spell resistance and ranged attacks.



> That's two very large chunks of the Enchantment school, nicht var?



 var? 

 I can't find any enchantment spell besides the dominate line, which fits into the above description.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 8, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> He brought one of the party wizards to negative hp during the surprise with three _magic missile _ versions: one quickened, one empowered during haste and one maximized.



 !?

 A 15th level wizard died to those three miserable spells?
 Pathetic whimp, he deserved no better! 

 17+25+25=67 dmg... 66 hp at 15th level!?

 And this was even 3.0 ... the land of ever-running spells!

 And even if you do not have triple empowered endurance up and running throughout the day, then you would at least have a magic item to boos Con to decent levels... well, or you die from three magic missiles! 



> He slaughtered the other party wizard with the same combo: Three _magic missiles _ in a round + movement afterwards.



 ...



> Round 3: The cleric and the druid (and the fighter's horse I think) were hit by two _empowered fireballs_ (IIRC) leaving the druid almost dead (she failed both saves...).



 More low hp characters?

 Even with full damage, that's something like hundred-some damage.
 Quite surviveable by a druid of that level.

 Well, happens.

 That's why you use long duration protection spells even in times of peace. 
 And why you always have some emergency spells prepared.

 Should teach them to be a bit more paranoid. 



> BTW, the fight described above showed how overpowered _Haste_ was in 3.0



 Only showed that your players deserved it! 

 Having trouble with the mage is one thing (flying invisible nasties surely are not to be taken lightly), having PCs die, ok, but having a WHOLE party die!?

 A whole party of 15th level characters... *shakes head*

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> var?



.....(sheepish)...I was kinda hoppin' you'd help me out there.  My German has never been a strong suit.    ...If I ask nicely?  Please?



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> I can't find any enchantment spell besides the dominate line, which fits into the above description.



This won't be complete, but it's probably close:

Enchantment(Charm)
 Charm Monster
 Charm Monster, Mass
 Charm Person
 Enthrall
 Symbol of Persuasion

Enchantment(Compulsion)
 Animal Trance
 Antipathy
 Binding
 Calm Animals
 Calm Emotions
 Command
 Command, Greater
 Demand
 Dominate Animal
 Dominate Monster
 Dominate Person
 Geas/Quest
 Geas, Lesser
 Hypnotism
 Suggestion
 Suggestion, Mass
 Sympathy


----------



## The Souljourner (Jun 8, 2004)

Gotta agree with those that say that a standard 15th level party shouldn't have died to a single well-prepared 11th level caster.  I don't hold with the "permancied X is a must have".  In fact, permanency is total crap, and no one I know has ever used it in 3.x.  Spending XP that can be blown away by a single 3rd level spell (dispel magic)?  Hell no.  However, a standard 3.0 15th level party should wake up and cast a bunch of day long buff spells that will keep them alive from the numerous baddies that have any ability to actually threaten the god-like beings they are.

Now.. it sounds like your 15th level group was somewhat weaker than standard, most of them having below average Con (at least, below average for D&D characters that survive that long) and below average hitpoints to boot.  Add in the ridiculous damage you can do with magic missile and 3.0 haste, and you had to realize you were going to kill off the two wizards pretty much right off the bat.

Once they're dead, you had to know the rest of the party really can't do much against a flying invisible wizard...  

This smacks of DM error.  Not that you broke the rules, but that the PCs were put in a position where they were almost certain to lose.  There's a reason why D&D requires a DM - the DM is supposed to judge the difficulty of the encounter and balance it against the strength of the party.  If this was supposed to be an insanely difficult fight that could easily result in half the party dying, then ok.... but most people don't like that kind of thing being a surprise.  Go up against a huge dragon that you know is going to kick your butt... ok.   Getting jumped on the way home from the grocery store?  Not so much.

Back on topic - Silence is good, but only against spellcasters and only against spellcasters who can't move out of the area of effect (which isn't that big).

10 min per level for the buffs would be nice.  The only spell I ever see cast is bull's strength, and that's almost always from the druid who has nothing better to do with his second level spells, and probably should have already turned into a bear and mauled people instead.

-The Souljourner


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2004)

The Souljourner said:
			
		

> ...  Go up against a huge dragon that you know is going to kick your butt... ok.   Getting jumped on the way home from the grocery store?  Not so much.



    Souljourner's on fire today.....      



			
				The Souljourner said:
			
		

> The only spell I ever see cast is bull's strength, and that's almost always from the druid who has nothing better to do with his second level spells, and probably should have already turned into a bear and mauled people instead.



Yep.  Me too.


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2004)

A-ha!  

Thanee: I know how to use an on-line german dictionary, "nicht wahr?"


----------



## apsuman (Jun 8, 2004)

A level 11 wizard with a 20 int starts the day with 4/6/5/5/4/3/1 spells

Bfore combat
3 Fly
5 Silent  Impr. Invis
1 Shield
4 Silent Haste  
3 Protection from Fire
2 Mirror Image 
4 Stoneskin

Leaving him with
4/5/4/3/3/2/1

On the surprize round
5 Quickened Magic Missile
3 Empowered Magic Missile
4 Maximized Magic Missile
Leaving,
4/5/4/2/2/1/1

On round 2
5 Quickened Magic Missile
3 Empowered Magic Missile
4 Maximized Magic Missile
Leaving,
4/5/4/1/0/0/1

On round 3
5 Empowered Fireball
5 Empowered Fireball
Leaving,
4/5/4/1/0/*-2*/1

Round 4
6 Disintegrate
Leaving,
4/5/4/1/0/*-2*/0

I am not trying to pick on Dark Dragon, he said if he recalled it was 2 empowered fireballs.  But unless he is using an item there is no way he could have 2 fireballs with any metamagic on them.  And, I don't know what area effect spells he could have left to wipe up the party.

A 15th level cleric could spontaneously cast up to 5 Cure cirtical wounds.  He could even cast cure critical wounds, mass at eighth level twice.

And for sure it bites that the guy lost the save to the disintegrate.  But given that the wizard shot his ENTIRE wadd of spells, if the cleric would have simply cured over and over again just to stay in the fight, the wizard would have been down to items only as a way to fight.


----------



## Majere (Jun 8, 2004)

Mmm 3.0 !!
And why wasn there a 22.5 hour bears endurance up on everyone who didnt alreay have a con item, ?
The mages can also vampiric touch the fighers for more extra hp lasting an hour/day and then the clerics cure the fighters for more twinkage.

To be ohnest it sounds like the party got caught with their pants down and thus full deserved to be smacked about like a bunch of prissy girls. Will teach them to not wonder about like they are immune to the rest of the campeign.
EVEN MORE under 3.0 when your buffs literally lasted all day, so there was no excuse not to cast them all off the bat after waking up. Hell they will be up most of the time you are sleeping too.

Also contigency has a million and one uses, but under 3.0, "cast shield whenever I am attacked" is something I liked personally (+7ac immune to MM nice, cast free action when ever Im held paralized or grappled is also very nice for a mage, but comes up less common). But that will vary too much to be a critical comment, more of a suggestion.

Basically the party was asleep and got whacked, no different from going to sleep with no guards and being told an assassin CDG the whole party while they slept.

Majere


----------



## Scion (Jun 8, 2004)

In that entire example, the only problem spell I saw was improved invisibility. Everything else was fine. Invis is very difficult to get around without a lot of planning, and every party should plan for it as heavily as possible starting from around level 3.

Edit: perhaps it would be helpful to note that I changed improved invis to be like the old psionic version. You get one freebie attack, but anymore will cause the invis to fail. Getting one attack and still being invisible certainly seems like it is worth the higher slot! It also helps keep it from being overpowered.


----------



## Nail (Jun 8, 2004)

Nice analysis, asupman.  I hadn't realized it was 3.0.  Thank g_d that's no longer an issue.

But be honest, everyone: when you're not used to high level "ambush" tactics, it's easy to make mistakes.   It sounds to me like the DM was trying to "teach the players a lesson".     Even as I'm playing (3.5e, BTW), I might forget to prepare for the "invisible attacker" contingency.  _Invisibility Purge_ or _See Invisibility_ should be S.O.P. for clerics over level 5.

...and really: why, by all that's holy, did the paladin just sit there and string his bow?  Hello?   

I think it might be interesting to start a new thread: "Standard Mid-Level Operating Procedure".   That is: what do you think is a "given" for a 10th to 14th lvl party to "have up" and "do right away" as they travel about and get ambushed?


----------



## Pax (Jun 8, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> As isochron mentioned, I was the DM that created the encounter (under 3.0 rules at that time). I don't have the stats of the mage at hand (I'm at a conference til end of the week), but the wizard attacked the traveling group at daytime in Amn. He had _Fly, Impr. Invis_. (silent), _Shield, Haste _ (silent), _Protection from Fire, Mirror Image _ and _Stoneskin_ cast prior to combat. I rolled a good initiative and gave him a surprise round. He brought one of the party wizards to negative hp during the surprise with three _magic missile _ versions: one quickened, one empowered during haste and one maximized.



  That was one sorry wizard, then, in terms of hp; I've got to agree with Thanee, 66hp at 15th level seems a bit slim.  Even with just a singly-Empowered Endurance for his waking hours, that's +3-6 Constitution, an average of +4.5, for +30hp right there.  Given an average of 2.5hp after 1st level, no innate constitution modifier (which would be silly, but we'll assume it anyway) ... that comes to 69hp.

  Given a smarter wizard build (one with a CON modifier of +1 or +2 - the wizard NEEDS those bonus HP more than the fighters do!), a 15th level Wizard should be in the low 80's for hitpoints, _on average_.

  And just to supprot the above: I had a Necromancer/Loremaster, 15th level in fact, under 3.0 rules.  Constitution was his second-best attribute, at 16.  Endurance, singly-empowered, was on my spell list every day, and was *cast* first thing.  His hitpoints were a bit BELOW average (only 36 from hit dice), but I could generally *count* on +75 from constitution, for over 100hp each day.



> In round 2, the dying wizard got a good initiative, but he couldn't do anything. Then the enemy wizard got his turn. He slaughtered the other party wizard with the same combo: Three _magic missiles _ in a round + movement afterwards.



  Since "the other wizard" was a Rogue/Wizard multiclass, he should have had MORE hitpoints (rogues average +1hp per level, compared to wizards).



> The cleric made a good guess and fortunately _flame striked _ the opponent.



  Grievous tactical error - made that MORNING, in fact.  Whatever was the player THINKING, not to have at least ONE Invisibility Purge prepared for the day ...?!?



> I don't recall what the druid did (perhaps she tried to get to the other party wizard).



  Targetted spells raining down - the smart thing would have been an _obscuring mist_ to conceal the party from the enemy's sight, and buy some breathing room.  _Inexcusable_ tactical error, there!



> One rogue tried to escape, the other tried to help also one of the wizards. The fighter dismounted and tried to ready his bow.



  At 15th level, if someone drops - leave 'em, and try to take out the THREAT, before it drops YOU.  The party cleric, if he lives (and he should, he's got two good saves and plenty of hitpoints), can bring his 'mates back to life the next morning, at the worst.



> Round 3: The cleric and the druid (and the fighter's horse I think) were hit by two _empowered fireballs_ (IIRC) leaving the druid almost dead (she failed both saves...).
> The ftr/rgr/pal was not able to hit the enemy, one rogue was fleeing, the other was killed by _disintegration_ after she tried to fire on the invisible but casting wizard. The cleric cast _Invisibility Purge _ but the enemy stayed out of range.



  Facing a spellcaster, *and they didn't spread out* ... ?



> Perhaps we should keep on topic. BTW, the fight described above showed how overpowered _Haste_ was in 3.0



  Yes, that was the primary problem with that encounter - the wizard was able to double- and triple-cast.  The REST of the problem, though, was extremely poor forethought, and a lackadaisical attitude, on the part of hte PC's and their players.

  The cleric should have cast _invisibility purge_, first thing.  The Druid, meanwhile, should have cast _obscuring mist_ (or the like), to conceal the party from the enemy.  Throw in some healing spells, especially of hte _Mass_ variety, and then go after that silly, foolish wizard(11) who just comitted "suicide by PC".

  Apsuman's analysys is also ... _interesting_.  It leaves me, still, with some serious doubts as to the veracity of accounts regarding that encounter, sorry.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

Don't forget that invisibility purge is only 5ft radius per level; a 15th level cleric would only reveal him within 75ft and his ambush is probably from further away than that.

One wonders how the cleric targetted him with the flamestrike - if he could have seen him I would have thought a destruction would have been considerably more appropriate.

Better yet would have been to use Word of Recall to bug out with your mates (up to 5 willing targets, the dead guys probably count as willing), then use divination to find out who it was and what they were up to, then show the wizard the error of his ways with the 15th level buff/greater scry/teleport without error treatment.


----------



## James McMurray (Jun 9, 2004)

Its easy to play armchair quarterback and say all the things that should have been done differently, but isn't this thread about over and underpowered spells?


----------



## Pax (Jun 9, 2004)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> Its easy to play armchair quarterback and say all the things that should have been done differently, but isn't this thread about over and underpowered spells?




Yes, and the claim was made that buff spells - period - were overpowered ... based on  flying.invisible wizard(11) supposedly pulling off a TPK against seven 15th-level PC's.

Which has been proven NOT to be due to anything but the now-fixed Haste, and the singly most substandard assortment of 15th level characters.


----------



## notjer (Jun 9, 2004)

Prestidigitation
Why? if you take a gold piece, make it to a ring - in some way let a wizard get the ring... when the time stop the Ring will be a gold piece again, and cut off the finger on the wizard - the wizard can't cast spell


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

notjer said:
			
		

> Prestidigitation
> Why? if you take a gold piece, make it to a ring - in some way let a wizard get the ring... when the time stop the Ring will be a gold piece again, and cut off the finger on the wizard - the wizard can't cast spell




What makes you think this would work? Of course it wouldn't


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

This thread is so long I can't remember whether it has been covered yet or not:

*Entangle*
As a 1st level spell this has a vast area (40ft radius) and anyone who fails the save is entangled and can't move out of the area so they can be shot to pieces with missile weapons/magic and they can't get out of the way. The vast area can capture an immense number of people. If they save they move at half speed and can't run, and if they can't get out in one round (i.e. don't have at least 40ft move if it landed right on top of them) they have to save *again* to avoid being entangled to one place.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 9, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> That was one sorry wizard, then, in terms of hp; I've got to agree with Thanee, 66hp at 15th level seems a bit slim.  Even with just a singly-Empowered Endurance for his waking hours, that's +3-6 Constitution, an average of +4.5, for +30hp right there.  Given an average of 2.5hp after 1st level, no innate constitution modifier (which would be silly, but we'll assume it anyway) ... that comes to 69hp.




Everything I've posted so far (and will post now) about that encounter was off my mind. I can give you details about that hostile wizard at the end of the week when I'm back at home.
Some details about the PCs I just remembered. They're, except for the druid (and the ftr/pal/rgr?), converted AD&D characters. The cleric was a ftr1/clr14 of Tempus with high Str, Dex and Wis, but only Con 10 and Cha 10(?). Don't ask me why he took a quite low Con. The druid had a high Dex, Wis and Cha and also a Con of 10. The player had chosen these stats for pure flavour reasons and she shouldn't be critizised for that IMHO. The first wizard was a drd1/wiz14, high Dex, Int, Wis and Cha (remember, these PCs came from AD&D!), Con 10. The second wizard was a rog4(?)/wiz10, high Int, Dex, Wis but don't know the Con stat now. The first "pure" rogue (a halfling) had a high Dex, Con, and Cha (for flavour reasons), this rogue was disintegrated during the encounter, IIRC. The second rogue (my PC) was an elven rog12/asn3 with the highest Con in the group and high Str and Dex (he was a former galley slave, so he got high physical stats). He was of NE alignment, but the paladin of the group never used Detect Evil on my PC...  When he saw that the group was attacked, he tried to get away because he was expecting area spells and he wouldn't risk his life for the group (except for the halfling, they were good friends). The stats of the ftr/pal/rgr I don't recall



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Given a smarter wizard build (one with a CON modifier of +1 or +2 - the wizard NEEDS those bonus HP more than the fighters do!), a 15th level Wizard should be in the low 80's for hitpoints, _on average_.




See above.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> And just to supprot the above: I had a Necromancer/Loremaster, 15th level in fact, under 3.0 rules.  Constitution was his second-best attribute, at 16.  Endurance, singly-empowered, was on my spell list every day, and was *cast* first thing.  His hitpoints were a bit BELOW average (only 36 from hit dice), but I could generally *count* on +75 from constitution, for over 100hp each day.




Yep, the wizards in another group have a base Con of 16. But if you play a PC with a "flavour" background, you're not always looking on a high Con.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Since "the other wizard" was a Rogue/Wizard multiclass, he should have had MORE hitpoints (rogues average +1hp per level, compared to wizards).




That's right. But you can roll bad for the rogue and good for a wizard. Anyway, I'm quite sure he hadn't high HP.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Targetted spells raining down - the smart thing would have been an _obscuring mist_ to conceal the party from the enemy's sight, and buy some breathing room.  _Inexcusable_ tactical error, there!




Bad idea, IMHO. Just cast a fireball or two into the fog. And the party members would have a hampered vision: Just try to find an unconcious character lying on the ground in a thick fog...



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> At 15th level, if someone drops - leave 'em, and try to take out the THREAT, before it drops YOU.  The party cleric, if he lives (and he should, he's got two good saves and plenty of hitpoints), can bring his 'mates back to life the next morning, at the worst.




Yes he could, but those would be grateful to lose a level. 
The party had some problems to deal with a flying invisible wizard without some proper FLAK cannon (in this case, the party wizards).



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Facing a spellcaster, *and they didn't spread out* ... ?




Some of them didn't and those were targeted.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Yes, that was the primary problem with that encounter - the wizard was able to double- and triple-cast.  The REST of the problem, though, was extremely poor forethought, and a lackadaisical attitude, on the part of hte PC's and their players.




The cleric had _Endurance_ on the whole day, plus _Magic Weapon_, plus _Magic Vestment _ (he cast them twice per day), plus _Energy Immunity _ (don't recall which version, he changed it often), plus some other long lasting spells. In the end, the cleric was buffed to the end, but low on attack and healing spells...



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> The cleric should have cast _invisibility purge_, first thing.  The Druid, meanwhile, should have cast _obscuring mist_ (or the like), to conceal the party from the enemy.  Throw in some healing spells, especially of hte _Mass_ variety, and then go after that silly, foolish wizard(11) who just comitted "suicide by PC".




No mass cure x wounds in 3.0, the only option was _healing circle_. And I'm not sure if the cleric had prepared it. 



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Apsuman's analysys is also ... _interesting_.  It leaves me, still, with some serious doubts as to the veracity of accounts regarding that encounter, sorry.




Come on, I had to recall a fight that I DMed about two years ago! The wizard was "designed" after 3.0 core rules and his spell list was ok, I'm sure about that. I'm not sure about his equipment by now, the two empowered fireballs (just have a look at my previous post, thanks apsuman for checking    ) and his stats.

Back to topic: _Protection from Evil _ is ok, IMHO. The protected creature is warded only against evil creatures, IIRC (or has it been changed?). If a slaad is summoned, PfE won't help you that much. You'll need Pf Chaos in this case.


----------



## Majere (Jun 9, 2004)

Well then the problem is not that buff pells were broken (although there was still no reason not for all those con 10 people to have a day long bears andurance). 
It was that ADD didnt translate to D&D characters. I have a 9th level ADD character with 18hp who died to the first fireball of the game .. even after he made his save 

Flavour is all very well and good, but quite simply you have to have at least 12 or 14 con in 3E or your characters wont live part 6-9th level.
Its how the game is written. 

Majere


----------



## apsuman (Jun 9, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Come on, I had to recall a fight that I DMed about two years ago! The wizard was "designed" after 3.0 core rules and his spell list was ok, I'm sure about that. I'm not sure about his equipment by now, the two empowered fireballs (just have a look at my previous post, thanks apsuman for checking    ) and his stats.




I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire on this one encounter.  I think the primary reasons for the characters' demises have been fully explained by now.  Low CON, the broken 3.0 haster, character laziness in not casting available (in 3.0) spells for protection, AD&D converted characters, poor tactics, and a wizard willing to cast every spell he knew for the day (plus two 5th level spells he did not have  ) all seem to create a "perfect storm" for the ambush.

I am, however, curious as to how the 11th level wizard cast that many spells, like I said in my earlier post, it looks like he was two 5th level spell slots short.


----------



## Nail (Jun 9, 2004)

*Back On Topic!*



			
				Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Everything I've posted so far (and will post now) about that encounter was off my mind. I can give you details about that hostile wizard at the end of the week when I'm back at home.




In fact: enough is enough, guys.   Let's let this dead horse pass away to the Great Threads Beyond.



			
				Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Back to topic: _Protection from Evil _ is ok, IMHO. The protected creature is warded only against evil creatures, IIRC (or has it been changed?). If a slaad is summoned, PfE won't help you that much. You'll need Pf Chaos in this case.




That's incorrect.  Prot./ Evil also protects against neutral summoned creatures.  It says:







			
				SRD_3.5e said:
			
		

> Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect.





Besides _even if it did only this_ it would be a useful spell.  It does two other significant things, and it's a 1st level spell.

Brrrrrrrrrrrroke!


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 9, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> That's incorrect.  Prot./ Evil also protects against neutral summoned creatures.  It says:
> 
> Originally Posted by SRD_3.5e
> Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect.
> ...




Ah yes, totally forgot that. Hm, an EVIL cleric will be in trouble since he can't cast PfE. IIRC, _Protection from Good _ does not help against neutral creatures. Unfortunately, I have no access to the SRD to verify this. If there is a difference between PfE and PfG/C/L, only the PfE version needs to be changed by adding "evil": _Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by *evil* summoned creatures_. The last sentence about good creatures should be removed, IMO.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 9, 2004)

I have made every effort to be polite and inquiring in the face of your arrogant posturing. Just get over yourself.[/QUOTE]

 No you made sarcastic remarks and then I became arrogant in response.

Silence is important as it also has the side effect of blocking sonic effects. It should be noted as a rule of thumb my wizard makes extensive use of of planar binding and I have a healthy dislike for the holy word line of magics which are sonic effects. The creatures I use are immune to poison so they are unaffected by the cloudkill as they do the bloody business inside a forcecage.  As to gust of wind the effect itself dictates its effects on clouds etc. When used in conjunction of range vs cloudkill movement it can be used as a stopgap to maintain the cloud into place. Which is the point the gust actually serves as. Again it is not dependent on me holding it or coming from a projected image.  The projected image changes the directional of the cloudkill spell so in effect it would roll towards the placed object that is gusting wind as the projected image becomes the caster. The only 3 classes that have an easy time defeating this combination are druids hexblades and monks. Also prestige classes that grant mettle are very helpful. 

 Silence can be used via use magic device and a scroll or imbue spell ability ( used heavily within our group). A typical encounter where the stops need to be pulled out costs me around 17,000 gps worth of components and around 1500 xps. The group is happy to pay the cost since the alternatives could be death


----------



## Scion (Jun 9, 2004)

> Which has been proven NOT to be due to anything but the now-fixed Haste




I will have to disagree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Not trying to single anyone out, because a couple of people said this.

Look back over the encounter, there was only one overpowered spell used, and it was not haste.

The haste part barely even mattered, it allowed for a few more points of damage sure, but there are so many ways under the sun around that sort of thing it isnt even funny.

No, the overpowered spell was improved invis. Going through the encounter step by step how different would the situation have been if improved invis had not been available? Say just invis.

Surprise round: first attack spell = becomes visible.
First real round: Anyone who beat the wizard in initiative (and with a party this size and of this level it should have been easy for half of the party to do so) can either lay the smack down or ready an action to do something similar.

Along with, if there was any cover anywhere what-so-ever then simply saying 'I am going to hide behind that with my buddy over here and we are going to heal up' is perfectly viable as well.

Mostly lack of the power needed to be actualy 15th level characters, lack of valid tactics for this type of encounter, and the broken _improved invis_ spells were the culprits. Take away haste and the same thing happens. Take away improved invis and suddenly it is a whole 'nother ball game.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 9, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> No you made sarcastic remarks and then I became arrogant in response.
> 
> Silence is important as it also has the side effect of blocking sonic effects. It should be noted as a rule of thumb my wizard makes extensive use of of planar binding and I have a healthy dislike for the holy word line of magics which are sonic effects. The creatures I use are immune to poison so they are unaffected by the cloudkill as they do the bloody business inside a forcecage.  As to gust of wind the effect itself dictates its effects on clouds etc. When used in conjunction of range vs cloudkill movement it can be used as a stopgap to maintain the cloud into place. Which is the point the gust actually serves as. Again it is not dependent on me holding it or coming from a projected image.  The projected image changes the directional of the cloudkill spell so in effect it would roll towards the placed object that is gusting wind as the projected image becomes the caster. The only 3 classes that have an easy time defeating this combination are druids hexblades and monks. Also prestige classes that grant mettle are very helpful.




Ok, not to nitpick here but a couple of things come to mind...

The planar binding idea is good, and newly introduced in this thread iirc.

As for the Gust of wind, it dictates how it would effect "gases and vapors" and it says that the effect is a "line-shaped gust of severe wind emanating out from you to the extreme of the range".  I don't know who wide a line of wind it would make, 5ft?, 10 ft?, and I don't know how high that line of wind is  but the cloudkill spell makes a cloud with a 20ft radius, 20ft high.  I really don't think that a 5 or 10 foot wide gust of wind would keep a cloud 40 feet across and 20 feet high at bay.  Either, imho, the gust of wind would the Fog Cloud description says, disperse the cloud, or simply provide an obstacle that the moving cloud, well, moves around to the left or right.

I really don't understand when you say "Again it is not dependent on me holding it or coming from a projected image.  The projected image changes the directional of the cloudkill spell so in effect it would roll towards the placed object that is gusting wind as the projected image becomes the caster. "

I thought that the gust of wind only lasts for one round (unless you keep casting it of course -- or make it permanent).  But that's not the confusing (to me) part.  When you say the projected image changes the directional [sic] of cloudkill I get confused.  Are you implying that the caster casts the cloudkill and it moves away from him, and then you change the focus to the shadow caster so that the cloud now moves away from the shadow (and back to the real caster)?  Or are you simply saying that the shadow caster allows you cast the spell from afar and have it more easily move toward your target of choice?


----------



## Pax (Jun 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Look back over the encounter, there was only one overpowered spell used, and it was not haste.
> 
> The haste part barely even mattered, it allowed for a few more points of damage sure, but there are so many ways under the sun around that sort of thing it isnt even funny.
> 
> No, the overpowered spell was improved invis. Going through the encounter step by step how different would the situation have been if improved invis had not been available? Say just invis.



  I strongly disagree.  There were plenty of spells available to the PCs that would have completely countered the improved invisibility: _See Invisible, True Seeing,_ and _Glitterdust_.  Either of the first two, followed by the last, would have negated the entire benefit of the Improved Invisibility.

  Let's do as you did, and look at that encounter without the *haste*.

  Round one, the first wizard *could not* have been dropped with mere MM's; one quickened and one empowered, then that's _it_ - no second empowered MM.

  Round two, the same for the second PC wizard - either he takes two MMs (one quickened, one empowered), OR, he takes only ONE, as the first wizard is finished off with the empowered MM for this round.

  Already we've got one or two PC's still standing, who weren't while Haste was going.

  Round three, the double-tap with empowered fireballs wouldn't have happened ... it'd've been just ONE such.  Which means the Druid would have still been in on the action.

  And at this point, if the one or two wizards hasn't managed to do SOMEthing productive (for example, see invisible in round 2, followed by glitterdust in round three), the failure falls back *squarely* into the laps of the players.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 9, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree.  There were plenty of spells available to the PCs that would have completely countered the improved invisibility: _See Invisible, True Seeing,_ and _Glitterdust_.  .




True seeing only has a range of 120ft. If the wizard stays outside that range then see invisibility is the only counter.

(admittedly the wizard used short range spells - magic missiles - in this particular instance, but he could equally have made all his attacks from further than 120ft away)


----------



## Scion (Jun 9, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree.




That is fine, but I'll post a few counters. It wont solve anything between us in all likelyhood  I have never seen problem one with haste in any game I have run or been in, but there have been dozens of problems with improved invis all over the place.

Haste was more of a workaround for a problem inherant in the system, much like the mystic theurge. There has yet to be a completely workable solution within the core, although I have several houserules that work fine now.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> There were plenty of spells available to the PCs that would have completely countered the improved invisibility: See Invisible,




Yep, but you just got surprised, and now you are useing your turn to cast a spell just so that 'next turn' you can have a useful action. Effectively the enemy has 2 full turns to act.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> True Seeing,




Range is too short.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> and _Glitterdust_.




If you could guess where they were at well enough to drop this, then you are probably better of blasting with something bigger, and are one of the luckiest people on earth.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Either of the first two, followed by the last, would have negated the entire benefit of the Improved Invisibility.




For your fix we are looking at: surprise round, first round you get to where you can see the opponent, second round you do something so that others can see the opponent. Now the enemy probably has around 3 actions before anything useful happens. The turns are just piling up now.



			
				Pax said:
			
		

> Let's do as you did, and look at that encounter without the *haste*.
> 
> Round one, the first wizard *could not* have been dropped with mere MM's; one quickened and one empowered, then that's _it_ - no second empowered MM.




Sure, but then the 11th level mage is useing a 'first level spell'. It may be a good one, but it certainly shouldnt be dropping any 15th level characters, even on the third casting (if it does then something is seriously wrong with the party, as has been said before).

But still, no one knows where the bad guy is, and the badguy could have blasted with a number of better spells instead.

So, without haste, the guy uses one less 1st level spell (assuming rods of metamagic of course). But then he could have instead dropped an empowered fireball and fried the whole party at once.

With haste he could do even more damage, but the total damage dealt by a full barage round of empowered fireballs shouldnt be enough to take out a 15th level wizard (who should have the least hp), let alone anyone else in the party.

At this point: with haste but no improved invis everyone is hurt, mage is near death, but everyone knows where the enemy is and can do whatever they want with impunity. 7 15th level characters, 1 11th level wizard = 11th level wizard is dead.

Without haste but with improved invis: everyone is hurt, no one knows where the badguy is, someone will cast see invis and maybe glitterdust next round. Granting the badguy at least one more round of actions. Which is more than the haste does.

With both, dead party because they were not prepared in a useful fashion.

Again, at the end of round 1 we still have a full party members alive, and the enemy dead without improved invis but with haste even.

With improved invis, haste or not, the whole party is going to be dead (with this group at least).

So, which is the broken one? haste was barely even a blip on the radar. Nice? of course, but broken? no way, that honored position falls to improved invis by nearly the whole track.

Edit: especially since the extra haste action only happens on rounds where you have a full turn. On surprise rounds you only get single action, so no haste bonus.


----------



## Majere (Jun 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Edit: especially since the extra haste action only happens on rounds where you have a full turn. On surprise rounds you only get single action, so no haste bonus.




So the truth is out.
None of the spells were broken, the Dm just didnt know the rules and took a full turn in the suprize round.
OOOPSS !!!

Majere


----------



## danielinthewolvesden (Jun 9, 2004)

3.0 haste was broken. However, what is odd, is that my 3.0 party used to "buff up" every morning- with STR, CON & DEX spells (and a few others) that practically lasted all day (and we were only 12th or less). I remember making the chart!  Just about everyone (who didn't have a Con boost item) had Endurance, those not in heavy armour had cats grace, and the fighter-types all had bulls str.  Some PC's had 4 spells up.

Why the two wizards didn't have Endurance is beyond me- not to mention just about everyone else. I mean if you're playing in 3.0 land, then you're gonna have those buff spells up. Period.  And note- the combat the DM described was at least 5 rounds long. Not two. Big difference.

As had been said- two many high level spells were cast by the wizard, and he should not have got 3 spells off during the surprise round.  But I can't beleive neither wizard had Sheild- another spell which in 3.0 was rather overpowered. That make him 100% MM proof. 

Those three spells (End, Bull s, Cats)WERE broken in the 3.0 period- and everyone had at least one, sometimes 3 on just about all day (and this is back to being on topic), and so was Haste.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 10, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Yes I know I made reference to one option of the forcecage but I also said read the spells and think about how they can be used ( the solid also works in a different and more dangerous way)



So you were obscure and condescending. Great. You're also (from what I can tell) wrong.

A few points
1. You can't have your projected image inside a solid cube - you need line of effect to it at all times.
2. It's debateable (at best) what happens when the point of origin of a spell is supposed to pass through a wall of force - at a guess, the spell ceases functioning at that point in time as it is destroyed. Hell, it's debateable whether you can even sustain the spell in there - as far as I can tell, all references to 'point of origin' say that you need line of effect, or the spell ceases. So cloudkill inside a solid forcecage would simply... not happen.
3. Gust of wind dissipates a cloudkill in a single round, per the description of cloudkill. Full stop.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 10, 2004)

danielinthewolvesden said:
			
		

> As had been said- two many high level spells were cast by the wizard, and he should not have got 3 spells off during the surprise round.  But I can't beleive neither wizard had Sheild- another spell which in 3.0 was rather overpowered. That make him 100% MM proof.
> 
> Those three spells (End, Bull s, Cats)WERE broken in the 3.0 period- and everyone had at least one, sometimes 3 on just about all day (and this is back to being on topic), and so was Haste.




Shield, now there's a spell that's overpowered.  Mind you I don't think that MM is overpowered but Shield in some flavor is a must have.  A brooch of shielding is practically required equipment just to avoid things like this.  DM mistake or no, haste broken or not, poor tactics not withstanding, if the two wizards would have had a brooch of shielding on at the time none of us would be having this discussion.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 10, 2004)

danielinthewolvesden said:
			
		

> As had been said- two many high level spells were cast by the wizard, and he should not have got 3 spells off during the surprise round.  But I can't beleive neither wizard had Sheild- another spell which in 3.0 was rather overpowered. That make him 100% MM proof.
> 
> Those three spells (End, Bull s, Cats)WERE broken in the 3.0 period- and everyone had at least one, sometimes 3 on just about all day (and this is back to being on topic), and so was Haste.




Shield, now there's a spell that's overpowered.  Mind you I don't think that MM is overpowered but Shield in some flavor is a must have.  A brooch of shielding is practically required equipment just to avoid things like this.  DM mistake or no, haste broken or not, poor tactics not withstanding, if the two wizards would have had a brooch of shielding on at the time none of us would be having this discussion.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 10, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> So you were obscure and condescending. Great. You're also (from what I can tell) wrong.
> 
> A few points
> 1. You can't have your projected image inside a solid cube - you need line of effect to it at all times.
> ...




Line of effect has been covered elsewhere... the solid being more dangerous is because there are ways to maintain line of effect when your target is inside a force cube(2 that I know of both of which are not mage friendly) . The option presented used the more enjoyable barred version

 I prefer people actually read the spells being discussed instead of just reading something here and accepting it as canon. 

 Okay in response to a separate post. 
 1) Planar calling was in my original series of statements however as the spell itself was not cast during the time stop it was dropped in later posts I guess as it wasnt a point of contention. Planar calling by far is a horribly broken spell as it doesnt come with any real cost like its clerical counterpart.

 2) The range of gust of wind is 60 ft. I appreciate the fact you have surmised the ranging effects of the gust of wind as being the "loophole" and not assuming I am blowing the cloudkill about which would dissipate it. 

 3) In regards to projected image it becomes the point of origin as the caster. therefore by changing its facing you can direct spells at different angles  you wouldnt normally be able to obtain (which is why it made my overpowered list) 

4) once again this was meant to show spells that work around SR and within the framework of  time stop. also by attacking constitution directly instead of hps it becomes more favorable at higher levels over damaging effects that effect hps.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> So the truth is out.
> None of the spells were broken, the Dm just didnt know the rules and took a full turn in the suprize round.
> OOOPSS !!!
> 
> Majere




AFAIK, 3.0 _Haste_ said that you get an extra partial action, regardless the situation (in this case a surprise round). Surprise round: Standard action + 5ft. step + free action (e.g. casting a quickened spell) + partial action given by _Haste_.

But the whole wiz11 vs. party15 discussion is not important because it deals with spells from 3.0 rules and converted AD&D characters which had bad luck and were not paranoid/using all their power to protect themselves to the limit.

Perhaps we should stick to the thread title and be polite


----------



## Merlion (Jun 10, 2004)

Its interesting to note, on a related topic, spells that are technically "overpowered" or break the rules, but are still fine.

Scorching Ray for instance does 12 dice of damage eventually and should only do 10, by the charts

Flame Strike as 4th level Druid spell and 5th level Cleric spell has a cap to high for an Arcane 4th level spell, by the charts.

But no one ever seems to have problems with them

I'd say thats a sign that the charts arent 100% infallible...of course I'd also say its another sign that the whole arcane/divine thing is rather silly.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 10, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Its interesting to note, on a related topic, spells that are technically "overpowered" or break the rules, but are still fine.
> 
> Scorching Ray for instance does 12 dice of damage eventually and should only do 10, by the charts
> 
> ...




Hmm, good point. I don't know in how this would affect the game (because I'm at least used to the errors you're just pointing out   ), but I think it is worth a try. Either change the spell level or reduce the damage dice cap, IMHO.

I'd say thats a sign that the charts arent 100% infallible...of course I'd also say its another sign that the whole arcane/divine thing is rather silly.[/QUOTE]

Could you specify that, please?


----------



## Merlion (Jun 10, 2004)

I dont think the damage die caps are always accurate, since like I said, theres spells that break its rules, but dont seem to cause any balance problems


I also feel its rather incomplete since it gives no suggestions on how it interacts with things like secondary effects, different die types, certain energy types (such as force) and the like (and of course theres no real guidlines at all for non-offensive spells)

And as to the other...I just find the arcane/divine divide of magic in DnD to be redundant, silly and distasteful. I'd rather have magic just be magic and any different forms stem solely from class (and to me the fact that the Druid as a "divine" spellcaster can have a 4th level damage spell thats better than Arcane 4th level damage spells without any real problems is just further proof of this).

Produce Flame is another good example, as a 1st level spell that can potentialy do as much as 20d6+100 points of damage over the course of 20 rounds at 20th level. Its spaced out and all, but it still sort of breaks the cap


And Burning Hands, as a 1st level spell, can do 5d4 damage to everyone in a 15 foot cone...and according to the chart, 1st level spells are supposed to be able to damage multiple enemies (unless the damage is divided amongst them)


----------



## Nail (Jun 10, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should stick to the thread title and be polite



Amen.

3.5e _Sheild_ is fine.  Both the duration, range, and affect (only AC bonus and MM immunity) make it quite acceptable.  It's only a problem if some yahoo tries to put it into a magic item as-is (1st level spell, Caster Level 1 = very cheap magic item).


...Then again, that's really a problem with several 1st level spells.


----------



## apsuman (Jun 10, 2004)

Khristos said:
			
		

> Line of effect has been covered elsewhere... the solid being more dangerous is because there are ways to maintain line of effect when your target is inside a force cube(2 that I know of both of which are not mage friendly) . The option presented used the more enjoyable barred version
> 
> I prefer people actually read the spells being discussed instead of just reading something here and accepting it as canon.
> 
> ...





Khristos,

I am not trying to be ugly here, quite the opposite, I am trying to find out exactly what your killer combo is here.  You never answer my posts directly (which is ok, I am not *THAT* big of an egomaniac) but you instead answer several posts in one reply (which would be fine) except that you never really answer my question(s).  You might get closer to an answer but there is no real resolution.

So, I will try again.  EXACTLY how do you use projected image especially as it relates to your cloud kill-planar ally-timestop-gust of wind combo?  Given that the cloud is 40 feet across i just don't see how having a new location (the shadow caster) as it's "start spot" is useful.

Also, I don't know who the "loophole" comment is directed toward, but I really don't see how you can use gust of wind to in any way with a cloudkill.  Since you think you can I am asking you, would you please explain how you use gust of wind with cloudkill?


----------



## dcollins (Jun 10, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Its interesting to note, on a related topic, spells that are technically "overpowered" or break the rules, but are still fine.
> 
> Scorching Ray for instance does 12 dice of damage eventually and should only do 10, by the charts
> 
> ...




Those charts are not rules. They are guidelines for new house-ruled spells created by the DM and/or players. They have nothing to do with spells in the core rules, they have been (in theory) balanced for the game on their own terms.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 10, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> And Burning Hands, as a 1st level spell, can do 5d4 damage to everyone in a 15 foot cone...and according to the chart, 1st level spells are supposed to be able to damage multiple enemies (unless the damage is divided amongst them)




With such a short range, the wizard is nearly stepping into melee to use the spell at all.  Spells that have very short range and/or require ranged or melee touch attacks tend to be more powerful than the guidelines seem to suggest.


----------



## strongbow (Jun 10, 2004)

Has anyone mentioned Control Winds yet?


----------



## Merlion (Jun 11, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Those charts are not rules. They are guidelines for new house-ruled spells created by the DM and/or players. They have nothing to do with spells in the core rules, they have been (in theory) balanced for the game on their own terms.




I'd say thats extremely debatable on several levels. Technically, all DnD "Rules" are guidlines to a point....but I dont think they were really presented in a fashion anymore guidline-y than anything else.

Certainly, most people on these boards and in the rest of the online gaming community feel that they are rules since if they write anything that "breaks" them in any way (such as a spell that does the recomended cap in damage, and has some small secondary effect) it is called overpowered.

And, why would the balance the spells in the PH by one set of guidlines/rules and then present different ones in the DMG?


----------



## Merlion (Jun 11, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> With such a short range, the wizard is nearly stepping into melee to use the spell at all.  Spells that have very short range and/or require ranged or melee touch attacks tend to be more powerful than the guidelines seem to suggest.





Oh indeed...I've got no problem with any of the spells I mentioned


I just think the rules/guidlines are far to limited and narrow. A page or so of advice and explanations and guidlines for all spell types would, I think, have been better


----------



## dcollins (Jun 11, 2004)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I'd say thats extremely debatable on several levels. Technically, all DnD "Rules" are guidlines to a point....but I dont think they were really presented in a fashion anymore guidline-y than anything else.




It's in the section on "Creating New Spells". A spell like _burning hands_, is not a "new spell". The DMG says "A viable spell is one that you allow into the game." It also says "When creating a new spell, use the existing spells as benchmarks, and use common sense." It also says the chart is "more accurate" for some classes and less so for others. That's not a rule -- it's not even in the SRD -- it's just a suggestion.



> Certainly, most people on these boards and in the rest of the online gaming community feel that they are rules since if they write anything that "breaks" them in any way (such as a spell that does the recomended cap in damage, and has some small secondary effect) it is called overpowered.




I disagree. This thread is on page 12 and you're the first person to bring these spells up. "Most people" (actually, anybody at all besides you) are not making an issue of this.


----------



## Merlion (Jun 11, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> It's in the section on "Creating New Spells". A spell like _burning hands_, is not a "new spell". The DMG says "A viable spell is one that you allow into the game." It also says "When creating a new spell, use the existing spells as benchmarks, and use common sense." It also says the chart is "more accurate" for some classes and less so for others. That's not a rule -- it's not even in the SRD -- it's just a suggestion.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This thread is on page 12 and you're the first person to bring these spells up. "Most people" (actually, anybody at all besides you) are not making an issue of this.





Your misunderstanding me. I dont have a problem with Burning Hands or Flame Strike etc etc

I have a problem with the lack of useful consistent information on balancing spells in the DMG.

And, it has been my experience that on these boards, and elsewhere, with regard to _new spells_ many seem to regard the damage die cap as a holy grail of spell design, and if you dont follow it exactly, whatever you've written is called overpowered.


You may well be right that that chart is not a "rule"

but large numbers of people I have encountered seem to treat it as such


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> .....(sheepish)...I was kinda hoppin' you'd help me out there. My German has never been a strong suit. ...If I ask nicely? Please?



  "..., nicht wahr?" would be correct. 



> This won't be complete, but it's probably close:
> 
> Enchantment(Charm)
> 
> ...



  Ok, now tell me please, how many of those spells allow the caster _ongoing control_ over the subject?


  Bye
  Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> A-ha!
> 
> Thanee: I know how to use an on-line german dictionary, "nicht wahr?"



 Heh. Yeah, obviously... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

apsuman said:
			
		

> I am not trying to pick on Dark Dragon, he said if he recalled it was 2 empowered fireballs.



 Metamagic Rod, I guess.

 And don't forget, that the NPC wizard must have had tremendous knowledge about the PCs, while they didn't know of him, seeing how he so perfectly picked his targets with his spells.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> ... Don't ask me why he took a quite low Con. The druid had a high Dex, Wis and Cha and also a Con of 10. The player had chosen these stats for pure flavour reasons and she shouldn't be critizised for that IMHO.



 No, absolutely not!

   It's not inherently bad to not put your second highest stat into Con.
   But at 15th level there are plenty items and spells to even this out.

 It is, however, not excuseable, that the PCs didn't have ANY kind of plan for this situation. I can only guess, that they had not yet fully grasped the 3E rules and were therefore completely unprepared as players.

 So it was probably the fault of the inexperience from the players (15th level characters generally aren't that inexperienced) and maybe even the DM (you ), who might not have seen that this wizard could actually slaughter the party, altho he was significantly less powerful.

 It surely wasn't the fault of overpowered spells, not even 3.0 Haste, in that encounter. Haste was powerful for sure, but not THAT powerful! 

 There were numerous ways to live through that encounter, all very much within the limits of the characters, even with a 10 in Con. 

   Bye
   Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> The cleric had _Endurance_ on the whole day, plus _Magic Weapon_, plus _Magic Vestment _ (he cast them twice per day), plus _Energy Immunity _ (don't recall which version, he changed it often), plus some other long lasting spells. In the end, the cleric was buffed to the end, but low on attack and healing spells...



 He must have cast a lot of spells, if he was _low on healing spells_ afterwards. 

 Well, that or worship an evil deity... 

 BTW, in 3.0 you could cast the buff spells in the evening and have them up and running pretty much all day with the full alotment of spells prepared still!

 That's at least how we did it back then... *shrug*

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> No, the overpowered spell was improved invis. Going through the encounter step by step how different would the situation have been if improved invis had not been available? Say just invis.



 Yep, the invis was the biggest problem here... the only one, really.

 However, I like the 3.5 version, it's cool for one combat, but not good enough for anything else. The 3.0 version had a decent enough duration to be used in stealth situations as well, protecting retreat and all that.

 And there are plenty countermeasures for invisibility available!

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (admittedly the wizard used short range spells - magic missiles - in this particular instance)



 Psst... Magic Missile... Range: Medium. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 11, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Psst... Magic Missile... Range: Medium.




Heh. That'll teach me to buy cheap memory without parity 

OK, so that basically makes my point stronger - the whole attack could be pulled off outside the range of true seeing

- which rather begs the question "what's the point of true seeing then?" Sure, it's good for some other stuff, but it seems odd that it doesn't equal the efficiency of the 2nd level see invisible (which is the *only* effective counter to the invisible flying mage)


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Faerie Fire and Glitterdust would work with a readied action.
 Most spells used gave away the position of the mage at that moment.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 11, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Most spells used gave away the position of the mage at that moment.




How so?

Some of the direct damaging spells certainly (lightning bolt, fireball, magic missile) but "most" spells? I would have thought that the majority don't actually give anything away.

It is also arguable whether you can ready an action to do something to someone you can't see. the examples in the SRD imply an awareness of the casting process, which must normally mean either being able to see or hear them.



> Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).
> Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster’s spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.




If you can't see them start casting a spell, you can't do it. 

I suppose it might be possible to ready an action to cast a spell against someone "as soon as they have cast their spell", as long as the DM is happy that it is not too general a stipulation (readied actions normally have to be pretty precise, don't they?)

Cheers


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

Most spells _*used*_ ... as in used by that particular wizard.

 I neither want to distract the spellcaster nor counterspell. *shrugs*

 Ready Action: As soon as some visible spell effect originates within sight, which gives away the attacker's location, I'll cast Faerie Fire/Glitterdust on that position.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 11, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Most spells _*used*_ ... as in used by that particular wizard.




OK, I see your point now.

Cheers


----------



## Nail (Jun 11, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Ok, now tell me please, how many of those spells allow the caster _ongoing control_ over the subject?



Ooh, an easy one:  All of the ones listed.

.... the 1st level spell "Command" is out, but not _Greater Command_.   (Duration: one round per level)


----------



## Thanee (Jun 11, 2004)

I know what you mean, Nail, but I think you are very wrong there.

Control is only, if you can actually direct actions, otherwise there is no control, and ongoing control is, if you can do that throughout the duration, quite obviously. Dominate allows this, but none of the other spells really do. Some don't even allow control of any kind (i.e. charm).

With most of those spells you give the target a command or a course of action, which it follows, but you cannot change it later, thus no _ongoing control_.

Also, only dominate (from what I can recall) actually lists _control_ in the spell description.

And I'm pretty sure, that's exactly how it is meant.
Otherwise it would be insanely powerful, you are right there! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 14, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Most spells _*used*_ ... as in used by that particular wizard.
> 
> I neither want to distract the spellcaster nor counterspell. *shrugs*
> 
> ...




Hmm, this is not bad. That reminds me of some Star Trek films: When a Romulan Warbird attacks, it becomes visible. When the attack is over, it camouflages again. Why not the same for _Improved Invisibility_? The party still has some difficulties to distract the invisible caster, but when he uses an attack spell (and does so successfully), the group can at least ready an attack when his invisibility is offline for a few moments.

BTW: I found the stats of the wizard and how the combat was going, here is my wiz11:

Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 20, Wis 12, Cha 8, HP 62, AC 16, human
Feats: Scribe Scroll, Improved Intiative, Silent Spell, Combat Casting, Empower Spell, Maximise Spell, Quicken Spell
Equipment: Bracers of Armor +3, Cloak of Resistance +1, Ring of Protection +1, Wand of _Magic Missiles _ (CL 9, 20 charges), Wand of _Fireballs_ (CL 9, 15 charges), Headband of Intellect +2, MW quarterstaff, MW light crossbow +15 bolts, dagger, robe, belt, boots, spell component pouch, scroll case
Potions: _Cure moderate wounds _ (2d8+3)
Scrolls: _Dispel Magic _ (CL 5), 2x Empowered _Fireball _ (CL 10), _Teleport _ (CL 9), _Disintegrate_ (CL 11), _Fly_ (CL 5), Empowered Maximised _Magic Missile_ (CL 11), _Improved Invisibility _ (CL 7)
Spells:
Level 0: 2x _Detect Magic, Ray of Frost, Prestidigitation_
Level 1: _*Shield, Expeditious Retreat, Mage Armor*_, 2x _Magic Missile, *Protection from Good*_
Level 2: _*See Invisibility, Mirror Image, Protection from Arrows*, Invisibility, *Endurance*_
Level 3: _*Fly, Protection from Fire*_, 2x _Empowered Magic Missile, Fireball_
Level 4: _*Silent Haste*_, 2x _Maximised Magic Missile, *Stoneskin*_
Level 5: _*Silent Improved Invisibility*_, 2x _Quickened Magic Missile_
Level 6: _Empowered Maximized Magic Missile_

Spells in bold were active before the attack began. 
In the surprise round, he cast the emp. max. _Magic Missile _ (standard action), dealing 37 damage, plus a quickend one (free action) dealing about 18 to 20 damage (I remember that I rolled quite good), plus a maximised one (haste!) with 25 damage. One party wizard received about 80 to 82 damage in round 1, bringing him to negative HP.
The same tactic for round 2, he used his scroll with emp. max. MM, the other two MM as in round 1. When he saw that his attack was going very well (the second party wizard was down), he decided to continue. The druid tried to get to one of the wizards, the halfling dismounted and loaded his crossbow, the assassin tried to get away from the group and drew his bow. The cleric used an area _Dispel Magic_, removing _Improved Invisibility _ by guessing the right area and follows the druid in his move action. The fighter dismounted and drew his bow. 
Round 3: The wizard kills the druid and a wounded wizard with his two emp. _Fireballs_ cast from scrolls and harms the cleric. The halfling fired once on the enemy with a magic bolt and caused some damage, then she moved to the second wizard. The assassin fires at the enemy but caused only minor damage, but he removed two mirror images. The cleric used a _flame strike_, but the wizard made his save. The fighter readied to fire at the enemy when he casts again.
Round 4: The wizard cast _disintegrate_ from his scroll on the halfling to prevent that she helps the party wizard. The fighter shot at the wizard but damage was too low. The halfling died, the wizard cast _improved invisibility_ again. The assassin decided that this day is a bad day and tried to escape. The cleric cast _invisibility purge_, but no success. The ftr/pal/rgr healed the badly wounded cleric a bit with lay on hands.
Round 5: Two _fireballs_ hit cleric and fighter, killing the cleric.
The rest is easy to imagine.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 14, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> BTW: I found the stats of the wizard and how the combat was going, here is my wiz11...




Yowch, guess he sure likes _magic missiles_, eh?

An 11th level NPC wizard is meant to have about 21,000 gp in possessions by the rules. By my calculation, his gear adds up to 33,860 gp (even allowing for half-price scrolls and wands), i.e., about +50% gear, the equivalent of a 13th-level NPC.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 14, 2004)

dcollins said:
			
		

> Yowch, guess he sure likes _magic missiles_, eh?
> 
> An 11th level NPC wizard is meant to have about 21,000 gp in possessions by the rules. By my calculation, his gear adds up to 33,860 gp (even allowing for half-price scrolls and wands), i.e., about +50% gear, the equivalent of a 13th-level NPC.




*shrug* Remove the bracers (he had cast Mage Armor which gave a better AC), the cloak (he had cast Protection from Good), exchange his weapons from MW to normal, and you can roughly substract 11.000 gp, resulting in nearly 22.000 gp gear value. These items were just for completion but they didn't had any impact on the encounter.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 14, 2004)

Out of interest, do you remember why he wanted to ambush the PCs? It seems that they were unaware that they had a price on their head, but there was a wizard out gunning for them.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 14, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> *shrug* Remove the bracers (he had cast Mage Armor which gave a better AC), the cloak (he had cast Protection from Good), exchange his weapons from MW to normal, and you can roughly substract 11.000 gp, resulting in nearly 22.000 gp gear value. These items were just for completion but they didn't had any impact on the encounter.




Well, the other thing I _almost_ said in the last post is that he's suspiciously offensive-based, with a dearth of protective spells/abilities that wizards commonly have. Yanking out his only defensive items in favor of keeping his offensive scrolls and wands only exacerbates that criticism.

My critique would be that this wizard is very meta-gamed for specifically this one ambush. I don't see that he could do much more in the campaign than this, and that's at least a little bit out-of-bounds for a DM, IMO. Metamagicked offensive scrolls (instead of utility stuff) is rather abnormal. I would frown on a player who cheesed it with some one-trick race/ability combination, in the same way.

Nontheless, the _fly/ improved invisibility_ (and 3E _haste_) combination is very powerful, but this example at least pours salt into the wound by making a character optimized for almost nothing but that tactic.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 14, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Out of interest, do you remember why he wanted to ambush the PCs? It seems that they were unaware that they had a price on their head, but there was a wizard out gunning for them.




The group was unaware that some mighty guys were quite unpleased about the party's actions. IIRC, the adventueres believed that they had won the battle against a troll king and his army and his ally, a very powerful gythianky psychic warrior. Both the troll king and the gythianky were killed by the group in a large battle at Eshpurta in Amn. The party was on the way to Athkatla and wanted to take out the remaining troups of the troll army. The trolls were encamped at strategic important places along the way between Eshpurta and Athkatla, attacking caravans and reinforcements for Eshpurta.

The wizard attack was meant to warn the group that someone is trying to obliterate the party. The fight was a very vivid dream about what might happen in the future. Some days later, the group had to face a nearly similar but not so heavy front-loaded wizard, but they were better prepared and finished him off after a short fight. It showed also the power of a single flying invisible spell caster whose only goal is to kill the PCs and who will equip himself accordingly to reach this goal. And it wasn't really difficult to design such an encounter because of the power of some spells that are combined to a deadly effect. 

Which leads to the question: When is a spell overpowered? A spell might be ok when used alone, but deadly when it is combined with another spell. In this case: _Fly_ and _Improved Invisibility_.


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2004)

*Dark Dragon*: excellent post and set-up....

....but you kinda lead us along there, eh?  That is: this was an offensively optimized BBEG in a "dream" setting among non-optimized PCs......PCs that did, apparently, do things that were well-played.   Your first post didnt give us that information.

Re: Over powered combinations
   It's true that this wizard kicked butt given his pre-cast spells.  That doesn't make *any* of the spells he cast over-powered....that's the "over-powered" encounter, rather than spell.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 14, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Which leads to the question: When is a spell overpowered?




Well, definitely not based on such a heavily stacked situation alone. 

BTW, was that "vivid dream" part decided upon _after_ the TPK? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 15, 2004)

Nail said:
			
		

> *Dark Dragon*: excellent post and set-up....
> 
> ....but you kinda lead us along there, eh?  That is: this was an offensively optimized BBEG in a "dream" setting among non-optimized PCs......PCs that did, apparently, do things that were well-played.   Your first post didnt give us that information.




Sorry, but I wasn't at home when I wrote the first posts about the encounter. When I was back, I checked my old D&D stuff and found the wizard and combat sheet, so I clarified some points.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Re: Over powered combinations
> It's true that this wizard kicked butt given his pre-cast spells.  That doesn't make *any* of the spells he cast over-powered....that's the "over-powered" encounter, rather than spell.




Hmm, obviously it was overpowered. But from the point of CR, it was not: ECL 12 (wiz11 + 1 of difficulty because of surprise, perhaps another +1 because of special equipment) vs. party ECL of about 16 to 17 (oversized party of PCs level 15).



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> BTW, was that "vivid dream" part decided upon after the TPK?




No, I decided that before. PCs die normally (at least IMC) by bad luck (e.g. failed save) or stupidity, not because I want to see a certain PC dead.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 15, 2004)

Ah I see, that's why you didn't hold back during the encounter. 

 ECL doesn't mean much. In the end, it's not more than a general guideline, which according to situation can vary extremely in result. You certainly did prove _that_. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> .... But from the point of CR, it was not: ECL 12 (wiz11 + 1 of difficulty because of surprise, perhaps another +1 because of special equipment) vs. party ECL of about 16 to 17 (oversized party of PCs level 15).



Before I go on: It looks like you gave this encounter quite a bit of thought, it had a reasonable purpose, and it provided a (perversely! ) fun game.  Good job!

As to the EL: EL does a reasonable job as long as "all else is equal".  The system is not capable of dealing with a specialized encounter such as this one....at least not without some major assumptions.

The surprise probably adds more than 1 to the EL...after all, it's not just the surprise, but the perfectly timed preparations of the attacking Wiz that made this thing so tough.  Given that it resulted in a TPK, I'll wager the EL is at least 18, not 12.

Moreover, EL isn't a "linear" thing once you get over level 12 or so.  I wonder what would happen if you used *Upper Krust*'s system for calculating CR and EL.  Anyone more familiar with that system than I am?  I could muddle through it, but not quickly or accurately.


Still: thanks for telling us about it!  It's fun.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 16, 2004)

The big thing that stood out to me is that this seemed very much like 15th level characters played by people who'd never been beyond 4th level under 3rd edition rules.

Using a crossbow at 15th?

Using horses without a single person with a ride skill?

Noone could fly?

Noone had an alternate vision mode?

Noone could spot or listen? (invis and flying doesn't trump the skills move silently and hide - they enhance them, sure...)

Noone could cast darkness or obscuring mist to level the playing field?

The cleric had no area-effect cure spells?

Noone had resistance to fire?

Noone tried to escape?

Bizarre.


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jun 16, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The big thing that stood out to me is that this seemed very much like 15th level characters played by people who'd never been beyond 4th level under 3rd edition rules.
> 
> Using a crossbow at 15th?




Why not? The halfling had low Str, the crossbow she used was +2 ranged seeking and could fire three bolts per day of light that do additional damage to undead.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Using horses without a single person with a ride skill?




The ftr/pal/rgr was a very good rider, as well as the assassin and the halfing. IIRC, she had a pony.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone could fly?



 Those with _fly/teleport_ spells died before they could cast something....



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone had an alternate vision mode?




That is? The group had two elven and two half-elven PCs...But no blindsight or so.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone could spot or listen? (invis and flying doesn't trump the skills move silently and hide - they enhance them, sure...)




No need to spot when the enemy is visible...Remember, the cleric brought the _Improved Invisibility _ down. When the wizard got invisible again, it was too late to escape, the cleric was hurt badly in the rounds before.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone could cast darkness or obscuring mist to level the playing field?




Those who died in the first two rounds could certainly. And the wizard could certainly cast a _fireball_ or two into the _darkness_/fog...



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The cleric had no area-effect cure spells?




IIRC, he had prepared _Healing Circle_. That cures 1d8+14 hp (CL 14) in an area. Not very much, but that was after 3.0 rules.



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone had resistance to fire?




One of the wizards had, but he died from _Magic Missiles_. The cleric had _Energy Immunity_: Electricity online. Don't ask me why.


			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Noone tried to escape?
> 
> Bizarre.




The assassin tried, but _Magic Missiles _ killed his horse before he was killed by MMs...


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 22, 2004)

Okay, for my two cents as a DM, I have banned Hide life, way to powerful, why even bother playing.  Also, holy word really messes up a well thought out ambush, the PCs cast it ass the time.  Enervation is way to powerful, back in .0 when you could keep adding empowers to it, you could easily make it more powerful that an energy drain.  The ultimate in ppower is Time Regression from the psionic handbook.  Time stop sucks, but being able to go back in time 1d4+1 rounds is just nuts, you don't like what Mords did to you, just undo it.  Of course the 3.5 is a bit stricter with a one round duration, but if you have the extend feat, you could still go back and undo two rounds of combat, and usually, that is enough.

*I have a question for all of you though **what is Miasma** and where can I find the description?*

You guys keep mentioning it, but I can't find it and I don't know what it does.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 22, 2004)

Miasma is a druid spell, which first appeared in Masters of the Wild.

 It's a 4th level save-or-die spell... oh, wait... it doesn't allow a save, so you just die then, I guess.

 The only "restriction" is, that it takes quite some time (a rather slow process of suffocating), but since it makes you unable to speak (fills your lungs and mouth with gas), it's a real killer against spellcasters.

 Completely nuts.

 It's reprinted in Complete Divine as a 6th level spell, I think, not sure about any changes, tho.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Dark Dragon (Jul 22, 2004)

DM-Rocco said:
			
		

> Okay, for my two cents as a DM, I have banned Hide life, way to powerful, why even bother playing.  Also, holy word really messes up a well thought out ambush, the PCs cast it ass the time.  Enervation is way to powerful, back in .0 when you could keep adding empowers to it, you could easily make it more powerful that an energy drain.  The ultimate in ppower is Time Regression from the psionic handbook.  Time stop sucks, but being able to go back in time 1d4+1 rounds is just nuts, you don't like what Mords did to you, just undo it.  Of course the 3.5 is a bit stricter with a one round duration, but if you have the extend feat, you could still go back and undo two rounds of combat, and usually, that is enough.




Yeah, _Hide Life _ is quite a mess. It is now rewritten in my group, so that it is not that overpowered anymore. Still, it hasn't been used yet...

_Holy Word _ can be a problem if not every character in a party is of good alignment.

_Time Regression_: Hehe, there was a similar spell in good ol' Tome of Magic. My druid really liked it, but the material component was quite expensive (and my druid was constantly low on cash). It was really fun to use that spell, but the druid used it only in dire circumstances.


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 22, 2004)

Okay, I foud the Miasma spell.  If you hate that, you will really hate this, Crisis of Breath.


It is a 3rd level telepath power, it basically does the same thing, but instead of filling your lungs with gas, you force your opponent to expel all air from their lungs, but the result is the same.  

You do get a will save, at least in 3.5, otherwise it is amost exactly the same, with this more important exception, you can augment it.  If you spend 6 extra power points you can effect up to four additional creatures, and for every 2 power points you spend in augmentation, the DC for the save increases by 1.  So, if you hate Miasma, I can only imagine what you think of Crisis of Breath.


----------



## Scion (Jul 22, 2004)

crisis of breath vs miasma

crisis has a much lesser duration, has a save, humanoid only without augmentation, compulsion, mind effecting (not exactly a huge benefit, as things that dont breath are usually what is immune), and is easy to get around (every 10 rounds or so you simply spend your standard action to regain all of your rounds of holding breath.

Vs the death that is miasma.. with no way to regain breath, much longer duration and no save.

Is there even a comparison here? Crisis seems more like an annoyance that might matter now and then, maybe. Miasma is almost guarenteed death.

Edit: I was a bit harsh in the comparison  crisis definately has its own power, but with its much shortened duration and the ability of the target to ignore it.. well.. the save to negate at the beginning is especially a power hit. So miasma, fire it off (extended even) and run away.. wait for whatever it is to die.. crisis you cannot do the same for, although it can be potentially more dangerous in an actual combat situation, but then that is much more reasonable than 'kill anything that breathes if you have a bit of time'.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 23, 2004)

Yep, Crisis of Breath is a good power, but Miasma is a completely broken killer spell. There is no comparison between these two.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Destil (Jul 23, 2004)

Dark Dragon said:
			
		

> Which leads to the question: When is a spell overpowered? A spell might be ok when used alone, but deadly when it is combined with another spell. In this case: _Fly_ and _Improved Invisibility_.



Basicly, I agree. Arguing that such and such a spell is overpowered because you can use this and that and then do this and some of this with it is silly. Who know what's overpowered about that sort of combination?

Example: People talk about timestop and delayed blast fireballs. Per the rules, you don't know how long time stop lasts (if a spell has a random duration the DM rolls it without the players knowing, at least in 3.0). So you need to just kinda guess when to set off the fireballs. Not a big deal.

People start adding a metamagic rod and I cry foul, though. Because we don't know if it's timestop or the rod that's overpowered at that point (I know which I have a problem with, though).


----------



## DM-Rocco (Jul 23, 2004)

After comparing them I would say that they both are just as deadly, of course I would agree that miasma is the better killer, if you are looking at just killing one creature.  If you have the power points to spend and the manifester level to use them, Crisis of Breath could potentially be worse.

Yes, Crisis of Breath has a saving throw, but it can increase, where Miasma can not.  Of course, if you don't have spell resistance you are up a creek without a paddle if someone casts Miasma on you but, Crisis of Breath can kill everyone in the final encounter of the dungeon with the casting of just one spell.  By effecting multiple targets, for every four you effect you add 3 to the save DC, that is huge.  If they can make that save, then they can make the save against Miasma, run you down, kill you, and in most campaigns, end the spell.  

I agree that Miasma is a better one on one killer, but I think that for its money, Crisis of breath, can potenially be better and is at least comparable.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 23, 2004)

The no save part makes Miasma stand out.

I mean, even Sleep is a killer spell, but has a save. Miasma is just automatic death. There's almost no way to avoid it.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jul 23, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I know what you mean, Nail, but I think you are very wrong there.
> 
> Control is only, if you can actually direct actions, otherwise there is no control, and ongoing control is, if you can do that throughout the duration, quite obviously. Dominate allows this, but none of the other spells really do. Some don't even allow control of any kind (i.e. charm).
> 
> ...




I think Thanee is on the right track with regard to the the workings of _protection from chaos/evil/good/law_ (hereafter referred to as _protection from alignment_).

The protection provided against summoned creatures can be useful but it is not guaranteed. Granted it will be fairly effective as the spell resistance of summoned creatures (of those that have it, anyway) is generally low enough that it will not allow the summoned creature to bypass the _protection from alignment_ effect. I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes summoned creatures useless, though.

Regarding _protection from alignment_ being overpowered on the basis of the protection it provides versus mental control I think we first need to get a solid understanding of what "mental control" actually is to see what it protects against.

1) From the _protection from evil_ descriptive text:


> the barrier blocks any attempt ... to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature.




2) From the 3.0 FAQ, which should still be relevant for this issue:


			
				MainFAQv06272003 said:
			
		

> "Mental control" includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool ... also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster.
> 
> Compulsions that merely dictate the subject's action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto's irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth.




So rather than concentrating on the subschools of Charm and Compulsion the important distinction seems to be "mental control". All of the spells in question have the Mind-Affecting descriptor so that may seem like a flimsy distinction to make, but it does seem to be a valid distinction unless you want to extend the range of spells subject to blocking by _protection from alignment_ to all Compulsions or even all Mind-Affecting spells, which would obviously be a mistake.

Based on items 1 and 2, then, here's my understanding of the scope of protection versus mental control provided by _protection from alignment_ in the form of two examples.

***

*Example*

Tom thinks I'm a jerk so I cast _charm person_ on him and now he thinks I'm a champ. I then cast _dominate person_ on Dick and give him a command to do one thousand pushups, and then I cast _suggestion_ on Harry and suggest that he do one thousand pushups. Dick and Harry both drop and start doing pushups while Tom fetches me a beer.

Next I cast _protection from alignment_ on Tom, Dick, and Harry. The charm is suppressed by _protection from alignment_ so Tom goes back to thinking I'm a jerk and gives the beer he just fetched for me a good shake up before handing it over. The compulsions are not suppressed by _protection from alignment_, so both Dick and Harry should keep doing pushups. If I try to mentally command Dick to do something else, though, he'd be protected from that control by _protection from alignment_. When the _protection from alignment_ expires Tom will apologize for shaking up my beer, I'll be able to mentally command Dick to do something else, and Harry will just keep on doing pushups.

***

*Example*

I cast _protection from alignment_ on Tom, Dick and Harry. Then I cast _charm person_ on Tom, _dominate person_ on Dick and mentally command him to do one thousand pushups, and _suggestion_ on Harry with the suggestion being that he do one thousand pushups.

Tom will be charmed but _protection from alignment_ will suppress the charm effect and so he will tell me where to stick my beer, Dick will be protected from my control by _protection from alignment_ although he is dominated, while Harry - who of the three is the only one who has not been subjected to mental control - will drop and start doing pushups. When _protection from alignment_ expires Tom will apologize and go grab me a beer, I will be able to mentally command Dick to do his pushups, while Harry just keeps toiling away on the pushups.

***

Assuming my understanding and the examples are correct _protection from alignment_ does not seem overpowered against mental control effects, particularly considering the short duration of the spell (1 min./level, or 10 min./level for _magic circle against alignment_) relative to the long durations (typically hours or days) of the spells it protects against.


----------

