PDA

View Full Version : Reworking Core Spells[WIP][Contribute]



Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:25 PM
What I've been hearing on and on and on is that spells after a while become auto-win buttons.

One approach is to make them difficult or time consuming to cast. However, most people don't like it.

The other approach, which is much more time-consuming but might result in a more balanced system: check each and every spell (starting from the core books and then after finishing them progressing book by book). We'll nerf uber spells (banning is too easy- there should be ways to nerf them effectively, banning should be a last resort). We're aiming for a Tier 3, approximately.

What I would like from you is to do this: If you know a spell is broken, check it's modified version (I'll update as regularly as possible), and if you still think it's broken (or if you think it's too nerfed), then state what you think is wrong. Same goes for spells that are interesting in concept but have been given the shaft mechanically. There's no need to read every post in the thread, though you're more than welcome to. Also, keep in mind that I want to hear ANYTHING that you might have to say about a spell. I don't care if the only was to break it is to get 5 different PrCs; as long as it's pre-epic, bring it on.

This thread will only deal with core versions. But as I said above, if they can be broken, please tell me how even if it's from the most obscure supplement ever.

Organization: Spells will be grouped by class list (Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric, Druid and miscellaneous), level and school (and of course alphabetically within schools) In order to aid quick searches, each description will be put in a spoiler tag. I hope that helps.

Contributors:

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:27 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
1st level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:28 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
2nd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:29 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
3rd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:31 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
4th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:32 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
5th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:34 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
6th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:35 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
7th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:37 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
8th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:38 PM
Sorcerer/Wizard
9th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:40 PM
Cleric
1st level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:41 PM
Cleric
2nd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:42 PM
Cleric
3rd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:44 PM
Cleric
4th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:45 PM
Cleric
5th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:46 PM
Cleric
6th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:48 PM
Cleric
7th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:49 PM
Cleric
8th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:50 PM
Cleric
9th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:51 PM
Druid
1st level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:52 PM
Druid
2nd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:53 PM
Druid
3rd level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:54 PM
Druid
4th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:55 PM
Druid
5th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:56 PM
Druid
6th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:58 PM
Druid
7th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 04:59 PM
Druid
8th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:00 PM
Druid
9th level

Abjuration

Conjuration

Divination

Enchantment

Evocation

Illusion

Necromancy

Transmutation

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:01 PM
Miscellaneous Arcane
Bard

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:02 PM
Miscellaneous Arcane
Domains

Paladin

Ranger

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:03 PM
Reserved

Just in case, you never know.

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:04 PM
Alright folks, construction's over.

Let's start the discussion, with a rather heated topic:

Polymorph spells.

lesser_minion
2010-02-07, 05:16 PM
Alter Self is pretty easy - just revert it. It wasn't broken until 3.5 decided that it had to be Polymorph lite instead of a souped up Change Self.

I'd suggest starting by reverting the others as well. They were better in 3.0, even though they weren't perfect.

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:20 PM
Alter Self is pretty easy - just revert it. It wasn't broken until 3.5 decided that it had to be Polymorph lite instead of a souped up Change Self.

I'd suggest starting by reverting the others as well. They were better in 3.0, even though they weren't perfect.

It only allows you a form up to 5 HD. What can be so bad?

Also, I'm afraid I don't have the 3.0 version since I am using the SRD for this.

Temotei
2010-02-07, 05:21 PM
Allow blasting spells to do more, or lower all spells' capabilities to match that of blasting, which is better than most melee.

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:22 PM
Allow blasting spells to do more, or lower all spells' capabilities to match that of blasting, which is better than most melee.

The second is what I had in mind. I don't want to empower blasters, I want to remove uber spells so that other classes are actually viable.

Surgo
2010-02-07, 05:24 PM
Why don't you define what balanced even means, first?

There are clearly several levels of balance present in the PHB, and they are all valid (yes, even the Monk type of balance and the Wizard type of balance). Which do you even want?

Polymorph was already fixed in the Dungeonomicon anyway.

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 05:27 PM
Why don't you define what balanced even means, first?

There are clearly several levels of balance present in the PHB, and they are all valid (yes, even the Monk type of balance and the Wizard type of balance). Which do you even want?

Polymorph was already fixed in the Dungeonomicon anyway.

Tier 3 is fine, I suppose that since is what most people are shooting for it would be obvious. Guess I had to state it.

Dungeonomicon? Interesting, I'll check it out.

Glimbur
2010-02-07, 05:59 PM
I'd suggest starting by reverting the others as well. They were better in 3.0, even though they weren't perfect.

There are a couple that got fixed in the move to 3.5; namely Haste. 2 spells/round? Single Target? I like it much better as a party buff that really helps people that make full attacks, rather than a single target that helps everyone equally except spellcasters' actions are often more valuable.

lesser_minion
2010-02-07, 06:02 PM
There are a couple that got fixed in the move to 3.5; namely Haste. 2 spells/round? Single Target? I like it much better as a party buff that really helps people that make full attacks, rather than a single target that helps everyone equally except spellcasters' actions are often more valuable.

The other polymorph spells, I meant.

And bear in mind that the Haste changes didn't even fix it, they just delayed the problem.


It only allows you a form up to 5 HD. What can be so bad?

Also, I'm afraid I don't have the 3.0 version since I am using the SRD for this.

It starts out as a perfectly nice spell. 3.5 comes along and decides that a catastrophically broken monstrosity would be more interesting.

You can get a surprising amount out of "pick a form of up to 5 HD of the same type as you".

Cataphract
2010-02-07, 06:03 PM
There are a couple that got fixed in the move to 3.5; namely Haste. 2 spells/round? Single Target? I like it much better as a party buff that really helps people that make full attacks, rather than a single target that helps everyone equally except spellcasters' actions are often more valuable.

I believe she meant changing the rest of the polymorph spells to 3.0

3.0 Haste is obviously one of the worst examples of a broken spell :smallyuk:

//Ugh, Ninja'ed! What do you mean, delayed the problem?

lesser_minion
2010-02-07, 06:12 PM
I believe she meant changing the rest of the polymorph spells to 3.0

3.0 Haste is obviously one of the worst examples of a broken spell :smallyuk:

//Ugh, Ninja'ed! What do you mean, delayed the problem?

For a start, there was no free quickening of spells in 3.0, no celerity, and no chance of grabbing a form that gave you the same thing anyway (sure, the last one takes a feat, but considering what it gets you...).

Nero24200
2010-02-07, 06:15 PM
Worst offenders are generally the polymorph line, quite a few SOD and SOS spells like greese, colourspray, and I'd count ones which "step on toes" so to speak, like Glibness (which renders ranks in the actual skill obsolete pretty much) or Knock.

Incidently, I'd add something to boost DD spells, such as allowing alternate elements (ala Psionics) or allowing the elements to do something else other than damage (such as a lesser slow effect for some cold spells).

lesser_minion
2010-02-07, 06:18 PM
Glibness is a serious problem. Knock isn't so bad - it's only ever worth using on a scroll or a wand, and most characters can use those anyway.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 03:59 AM
I've been reading the Dungeonomicon's polymorph spells... and I like. Thanks to Surgo for letting me know.

Grease and Colourspray, now we're talking.

And Glibness-I think there's a simple fix.

Instead of granting a flat out +30 bonus, simply double your ranks in the skill.

That way it's still extremely effective but nowhere near that powerful. And by keeping the magical effect, it's still worth a 3rd level slot (especially in a more social-heavy campaign).

//The idea of alternate effects is also awesome. While I'd like to see things catching on fire, perhaps a simpler way would be to use the Orbs' effects and scale up or down.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 04:20 AM
I've been working on a version of alter self, actually. What was interesting about alter self to me, personally, was the flexibility, not the numerical bonuses. So I made a version that let you choose from a list of specific boni, like +2 to an ability score, or a very limited new movement form or sense. It's just more interesting that way.

Oh, and Knock: let it provide a skill bonus to open lock equal to caster level +X, and let the caster make open lock checks faster. That should make it mostly balanced, and most useful for rogue/wizard multiclassers.

Grease: I'd start by changing balance checks to reflex saves, honestly. It's not entirely logical, but at least slightly more balanced.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 04:42 AM
I've been working on a version of alter self, actually. What was interesting about alter self to me, personally, was the flexibility, not the numerical bonuses. So I made a version that let you choose from a list of specific boni, like +2 to an ability score, or a very limited new movement form or sense. It's just more interesting that way.

Oh, and Knock: let it provide a skill bonus to open lock equal to caster level +X, and let the caster make open lock checks faster. That should make it mostly balanced, and most useful for rogue/wizard multiclassers.

Grease: I'd start by changing balance checks to reflex saves, honestly. It's not entirely logical, but at least slightly more balanced.

Hmm, I like that idea about Alter self. Care to share? :smallbiggrin:

Unlike glibness, however, I don't see knock as being the same thing for a different skill. However, I see a simple solution: It's loud. VERY loud. It gives away your position and is meant for those times you're really in a hurry.

But when you want stealth? Use a skill.

And a simple way to balance it is to roll a CL check vs the DC an open lock skill check would. It might not always work, and it's loud- but it's much, much faster.

As for grease, I think a way to make it even more balanced is this:

Balance check DC 10 not to fall, not reflex.
Balance check DC 10 to move at half speed
Balance check DC 20 to move at full speed.

At any time you can exchange reflex for a balance check, but the DC is the same. More balanced? It also doesn't hinder really balanced people (Like Rogues or Iron Heart warblades :smalltongue:)

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 04:43 AM
For a start, there was no free quickening of spells in 3.0, no celerity, and no chance of grabbing a form that gave you the same thing anyway (sure, the last one takes a feat, but considering what it gets you...).

Hmm, interesting.

Free quickening of spells? Like, with rods or class features?
Yes, Celerity is a pain... but not our focus right now. Though it can be simply fixed as thus- you can't cast a spell using Celerity. Simple.
The last one is...? That might be important to polymorph spells.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 04:48 AM
...

I lost the Alter Self table. I'll try to recreate it this weekend, or maybe earlier.


Blast spells: they'd be much more interesting if they also had utility effects attached, to be honest. I'd use a fireball with reduced damage but built in explosive spell a lot more often. For me, the problem is that they are boring.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 05:00 AM
...

I lost the Alter Self table. I'll try to recreate it this weekend, or maybe earlier.


Blast spells: they'd be much more interesting if they also had utility effects attached, to be honest. I'd use a fireball with reduced damage but built in explosive spell a lot more often. For me, the problem is that they are boring.

Ouch. Tough luck!

As for the blast spells, I don't think they need reduced damage. They're already subpar unless metamagicked, really.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 05:02 AM
Still. I'd add some secondary effect to all of them, to be honest. Well, maybe not magic missile, that one is very useful already.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 06:14 AM
Well, let's see...


Alter Self
Transmutation
Level: Bard 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min/level

You assume the form of one creature of your type and size category (but see below). The change is purely cosmetic, except as noted below, and your ability score, special qualities, extraordinary or supernatural abilities and movement modes do not change.
You may change into a specific individual you are familiar with, or even into yourself, if you wish to do so, gaining a +15 circumstance bonus to disguise checks.
All your equipment stays on you, if the new form is capable of wearing it, or merges into

Apart from these cosmetic changes, you also gain two special abilities from the list below, and one additional special ability per two caster levels beyond the third, to a maximum of 6 abilities at level 11. The form you take has to reflect the abilities you choose.*

{table=head]Name|Effect|Special

Claws|Gain two natural claw attacks, each dealing 1d4 damage each.|Damage is for medium creatures, adjust for size.

Bite|Gain a natural bite attack dealing 1d6 damage.|Damage is for medium creature, adjust for size.

Ability bonus|Gain a +2 bonus to any physical ability score| Can be taken multiple times for different abilities.

Skill bonus|Gain a +4 racial bonus to Climb, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, spot or swim.|Can be taken multiple times for different skills, or twice for a +8 bonus.

Scent|Gain Scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent) at a range of ten feet.|Can be taken multiple times, each time increasing range by 10 feet, to a maximum of 30 feet.

Glidewings|All damage from falling is reduced by 2d6. You may move five feet horizontally for any ten feet you fall.|-

Size change|Increase or decrease your size by one category, change attributes accordingly|Does not stack with other size changing effects

Natural armor|Gain a +2 natural armor bonus|-

Lowlight Vision|See twice as far in dim light, such as candles or starlight|Does not stack with existing lowlight vision
[/table]




*Yes, I know, DM fiat isn't the best way to go here, but I can't think of a better way to say this.

That's the basics. I know I had a longer list, but I can't remember all of it. It was about 20 abilities to choose from, totally. Wings for a kind of slow fall were on there...
I'll add more later, when I remember them. Suggestions are also welcome.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:24 AM
I like this.

It's quite balanced as long as DM's fiat is applied, else I'm sure everybody might like a +2 to all of their attributes (they need CL 11 for that).

You could always supply example forms that other people can use. I'll try to give some later.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 06:33 AM
Well, it specifically says physical attributes, so it's limited to STR, DEX, CON. Basically, it should be a list of nifty, but not game-breaking boni. These up there are mostly the numerical ones, but if I remember correctly, there were more utility powers on the list.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:58 AM
Duh. I should pay more attention :smallyuk:

I suppose you won't mind if I start including this in Alter Self?

Eldan
2010-02-08, 07:01 AM
Go right ahead. That's what I'm here for, after all.

peacenlove
2010-02-08, 07:22 AM
Get rid of spell granted immunities (they already wreck 4 schools of magic namely evocation (energy immunity), enchantment and divination (mind blank) and necromancy (death ward), and being accessed only by wizards or clerics doesn't help things) and tone down spells with little or no means to be escaped (forcecage and time stop comes to mind).
Also clarifying what each school should do will be crucial to the re balancing (eg you want evocation to do direct damage, so move all damaging conjuration and transmutation spells there)

Eldan
2010-02-08, 07:26 AM
Let's see what we can do about those:

Death Ward: high save bonus.
True Seeing: not sure, actually. A save bonus to disbelieve would work, but doesn't quite make sense... I'd suggest moving it to a higher level as well.
Mind Blank is another candidate for a save bonus. +10 or so.

And I agree of getting rid of direct damage conjurations. At least the orb spells should go. The orb of nonmagical magic force is just stupid.


Edit: And I've included wings for gliding badly in the description.
Do people think waterbreathing would be too good for this level?

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 08:08 AM
Orb spells are non-core, so not something we should bother right now.

Death Ward (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathWard.htm)

Total immunity is too much, even for a 4th level spell. Maybe give a bonus equal to half CL? That's sizeable.

However, increase duration to 1 hour/level to compensate for that.


True Seeing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueSeeing.htm)

What I don't like is not only how clerics get access to it, they get access to it FASTER. Not to mention Druids. Am I the only guy who thinks that True Seeing should be removed from the Druid spell list and bumped to 6th level for Clerics?

Another way to nerf this is simple- just because you can see things as they are does not mean you instantly pinpoint everything into location, because you are overwhelmed (it's not like See Invisibility).
Thus, you should require spot checks for each effect aside from see invisible stuff and see through magical darkness. Suitable DCs would be 20 to notice Secret Doors, 10+5 per 10% of miss chance for blur/displacement (that could be partially successful, e.g. getting a 17 means you reduce miss chance by 20%).

For illusions, reroll the DC, with a +5 bonus. For polymorphed/transmute stuff, roll as if it was an illusion to disbelieve (without the previous bonus).

Anything else? Let's bring skills into play, folks, they don't get any love!

Mind Blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm)

Don't forget it's an 8th level spell, but still. Give it 1/2 CL bonus to said saves is still powerful (at least +7).

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 08:23 AM
Water breathing is a 3rd level spell...

If you use preset forms, you can include waterbreathing in forms with other penalties.

Also, you can include various penalties as a way to gain "points" which can be in turn spent to gain benefits. You get a number of free points based on your CL.

Or you could require a minimum CL for certain abilities; like Water breathing would require at least CL 5, but don't forget this renders water-breathing per se redundant.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 08:26 AM
Which is a good reason to drop it, then. How about "may hold your breath three times as long"?

Edit: Oh, and size changes. Reduce/Enlarge person are level one, have the same duration, and only work on humanoids. Should these effects be included? They would be unstackable, of course.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 09:54 AM
Sure, I think they should be, but it still needs to be balanced.

My idea is having either points or fixed forms. The first is more difficult at first but after you set the groundwork it just needs balancing, and the second requires you to find at least 4-6 different forms.

Your choice. I'd go for the first for more options, or the second for simplicity.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 09:57 AM
Well, currently, you just get to choose from a list of abilities. Why do you think this is not working? The old alter self really was too powerful, especially for exactly this reason: it was better than other spells of the same or even higher levels. By restricting it to a few not too powerful forms, we can keep it somewhat under control.


I think we could also do a more extensive and powerful version later, for polymorph. There we can add the really good special abilities: water breathing, true flight, two categories of size change, blindsight, better natural weapons like tentacles, perhaps also breath weapons.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 10:18 AM
Hmm, I guess you're right.

Then it's fine as it is ;)

Though I do like the Dungeonomicon's Polymorph.

Lysander
2010-02-08, 10:54 AM
Here's a spell that can use fixing: Mindrape. Permanently change anyone into your willing save forever, make them believe anything you want. It's better than the Enslave epic spell!

Solution: Mindrape simply alters a creature's memories and behavior but not their alignment and true underlying personality. You can make them believe whatever you wish (such as thinking that they are your loyal slave), but they will not do anything completely against their nature. In time their true personality may reassert itself.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 10:57 AM
Here's a spell that can use fixing: Mindrape. Permanently change anyone into your willing save forever, make them believe anything you want. It's better than the Enslave epic spell!

Solution: Mindrape simply alters a creature's memories and behavior but not their alignment and true underlying personality. You can make them believe whatever you wish (such as thinking that they are your loyal slave), but they will not do anything completely against their nature. In time their true personality may reassert itself.

Err, thanks for the info, but we're dealing with Core spells, as it is right now.

Which supplement has this spell? Nasty name, btw.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:08 AM
I agree with Eldan. Polymorph works better as a spell that lets you grab a few abilities and Frankenstein them together.

In fact, use the good version of Alter Self and make the polymorph line into Alter Self Plus. It lets you assume many forms, after all.

The big problem is the shopping element, which can be fixed by simply not using existing monsters as a baseline for the spell.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 11:11 AM
While it's much easier to deal with, what about the traditional fantasy notion of shapechanging into fabulous beasts?

While I know how it can be abused, how about not allowing anything except mundane animals and magical animals? Not even humanoids.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:18 AM
While it's much easier to deal with, what about the traditional fantasy notion of shapechanging into fabulous beasts?

While I know how it can be abused, how about not allowing anything except mundane animals and magical animals? Not even humanoids.

Frank and K's polymorph is just a restrictive version of Monster Summoning. It's still horribly abusable, just in the "step on everyone's toes" sense. And I find the premise flawed.

Turning into a mythical creature is fine, but Frank and K's method actually unbalances the fluff. If a mere spell can grant a character the knowledge and inherent power of a dragon, why can't I just grab that directly and start making spells that grant the character 30 bazillion experience points or fifty bazillion skill points?

Lysander
2010-02-08, 11:30 AM
Err, thanks for the info, but we're dealing with Core spells, as it is right now.

Which supplement has this spell? Nasty name, btw.

Oh my mistake. That appropriately is from Book of Vile Darkness.

Here are a few core spells to fix:

Teleport (and Greater Teleport) & Plane Shift. It's just too useful an escape. Solution: Increase casting time to 10 minutes. Dimension Door can stay as the fast emergency teleportation.

Contigency: This is far too vague and open ended. The spell is treated as if its omniscient
Solution: The trigger is limited to visual/audible triggers like Magic Mouth (which can be fooled by illusions), and ones based on the caster's physical/mental condition such as at a certain number of hitpoints, in reaction to conditions like petrification or blindness, when they want the spell to activate.

Explosive Runes: Ever here of the explosive runes nuke? Scribe explosive runes on every page of a book, toss it at an enemy, cast dispel magic on the book and deliberately fail to set off all the traps at once. 1000d6 force damage.
Solution: Simultaneous damage from multiple explosive runes doesn't stack. It's still limited to 6d6.

Shatter: Destroying any held object automatically is a bit much.
Solution: Allow people a reflex save to protect any object they're carrying.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 11:30 AM
Frank and K's polymorph is just a restrictive version of Monster Summoning. It's still horribly abusable, just in the "step on everyone's toes" sense. And I find the premise flawed.

Turning into a mythical creature is fine, but Frank and K's method actually unbalances the fluff. If a mere spell can grant a character the knowledge and inherent power of a dragon, why can't I just grab that directly and start making spells that grant the character 30 bazillion experience points or fifty bazillion skill points?

True that, true that.

Ok, let's take polymorph as it is.

Reduce the types available to animal and magical beast for starters.

You don't gain any Supernatural or Spell Like abilities, only extraordinary.

Also, you are NOT limited by HD but by ECL, even if you DON'T get the spell-like abilities.

Finally, you make a Concentration check every round in combat or every minute out of it to maintain the effect. DC is 10+the ECL of the monster assumed.

You can't change your shape into anything else, now it's just a beefed-up wildshape.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:33 AM
True that, true that.

Ok, let's take polymorph as it is.

Reduce the types available to animal and magical beast for starters.

You don't gain any Supernatural or Spell Like abilities, only extraordinary.

Also, you are NOT limited by HD but by ECL, even if you DON'T get the spell-like abilities.

Finally, you make a Concentration check every round in combat or every minute out of it to maintain the effect. DC is 10+the ECL of the monster assumed.

You can't change your shape into anything else, now it's just a beefed-up wildshape.

Again, start with a revert. The only serious balance issue with 3.0 polymorph was the permanent duration on Polymorph Other. Reverting to that spell and removing the permanent duration isn't going to make anyone cry.


A character's type should be practically inviolable as far as spells are concerned. Only a major supernatural transformation on many different levels should be able to effect a type change.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 11:35 AM
Oh my mistake. That appropriately is from Book of Vile Darkness.

Here are a few core spells to fix:



That's ok! Let's see what the cat brought in.


Teleport (and Greater Teleport) & Plane Shift. It's just too useful an escape. Solution: Increase casting time to 10 minutes. Dimension Door can stay as the fast emergency teleportation.


Hmm, nice touch. Teleport is not supposed to be used in Combat after all.


Contigency: This is far too vague and open ended. The spell is treated as if its omniscient
Solution: The trigger is limited to visual/audible triggers like Magic Mouth (which can be fooled by illusions), and ones based on the caster's physical/mental condition such as at a certain number of hitpoints, in reaction to conditions like petrification or blindness, when they want the spell to activate.

A command word requiring a standard action should also be enough, I'd wager.


Explosive Runes: Ever here of the explosive runes nuke? Scribe explosive runes on every page of a book, toss it at an enemy, cast dispel magic on the book and deliberately fail to set off all the traps at once. 1000d6 force damage.
Solution: Simultaneous damage from multiple explosive runes doesn't stack. It's still limited to 6d6.

Yes, I thought it was extremely funny when I first heard it! Still, it's broken alright, so I like the solution.


Shatter: Destroying any held object automatically is a bit much.
Solution: Allow people a reflex save to protect any object they're carrying.



I think it shouldn't be allowed for such an effect at all. Breaking glass etc is fine (and can be extremely nasty in plenty of cases), but a 2nd level sonic attack breaking up anything like some sci-fi weapon? Absolutely not. Damaging crystalline creatures is fine, though.

What it should do, however, is have a chance at destroying MAGICAL glass/brittle stuff, to make the spell worth it.

It's like a targeted dispel magic- if 1d20+CL is more than 11+item's CL, it's broken. No CL cap.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 11:38 AM
Again, start with a revert. The only serious balance issue with 3.0 polymorph was the permanent duration on Polymorph Other. Reverting to that spell and removing the permanent duration isn't going to make anyone cry.


A character's type should be practically inviolable as far as spells are concerned. Only a major supernatural transformation on many different levels should be able to effect a type change.

Again, I don't have access to 3.0 polymorph, I'm using the SRD.

As for Baleful Polymorph/Polymorph Other, I actually like it as a concept, but I don't know ways of making it viable.

Probably give it an hour/level duration at level 5, and have a Greater Baleful Polymorph at 8th or 9th level to do the same thing. By that level, spells outright kill targets with Fort Saves.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 11:41 AM
Well, I kinda skimmed over the posts. I'm doing something similar, so I'll probably be checking up on this. Anyways for the Polymorph spells you should probably have a list of abilities you can gain. You can only gain so many, and you can't gain abilities the target form does not have. There should be a feat/prestige class or something that would allow you to gain abilities that the form doesn't even have, or even without actually changing shape, but at any rate Polymorph should grant set abilities. Alter self could do the same, basically being Disguise Self but allowing very minor bonuses, and you could put intermediate spells in between Polymorph and Shapechange, with each spell offering a different of power (for example, maybe with Shapechange you could gain one of the assumed form's spell-like abilities, but not allow that for lower level effects). It could follow the lesser/greater scheme. Also you could get rid of polymorph any object and return baleful polymorph instead.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 11:47 AM
For save or die spells the solution I was looking at was to have them deal lots of negative energy damage (perhaps renaming it to something like Necrotic Damage; that's what they call it in 4e right?). They would be like evocation spells in that they deal damage, except it would usually only target one person and would be a fort save. The fluff would be the same (you kill someone by draining all their life energy, or in the case of illusion variants by scaring them to death), but powerful heroes can survive the effects. I mean, high level characters can be struck by meteors and live, or fall from infinite height, why the hell can't they survive a death attack, merely be somewhat wounded by it?
Edit: As for save or suck/lose spells, those are harder to deal with.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 11:54 AM
Thanks for the input- feel free to use this thread for your own purposes as well.

High level characters having insane amounts of HP- let's not go into this, I hope every decent DM has enough authority to just kill characters outright if they do stupid things like that.

For spells, however, it's totally different.

One idea I'm thinking that requires double the rolls (but only for those powerful spells) was to roll two saves for such spell. Depending on whether you saved successfully once, twice or none at all, you have three variable effects instead of two. And you can build from that.

Example:

Finger of Death
0 saves: Creature Dies (original success effect)
1 save: Creature receives 10d6+1 per caser level (max 25) negative energy damage. (intermediate effect)
2 saves: Creature receives 3d6+1 per caser level (max 25) negative energy damage. (original failed effect)

And so on. But it should be used sparingly.
Yes, I know it's like Pokemon and coin flipping, what the heck :smallyuk:

Eldan
2010-02-08, 12:04 PM
I'd actually drop the immediate death effect entirely... it's anticlimatic, and if you allow multiple saves, it becomes, well, useless.

Suggestion:

X negative energy damage, fort save halves. A little boring, but, I'd say, far more balanced. Perhaps also some penalties from being close to death. (Stun, perhaps, as your heart stops for a few seconds?)


Now for the polymorph again: using my solution, I think you can still transform yourself into fantastic beasts all the same. Dragon?`Take a strength bonus, natural armour bonus, wings and a flame breath. Alter self into an eagle? Size reduction, wings, spot bonus, claws. Less if you are lower level, but wings and size alone already give you an eagle. Fluff it as "Has not mastered the form yet".

Then we can make a Master of Many Forms-like PrC which has better polymorph abilities available and gains more of them.

Lysander
2010-02-08, 12:12 PM
What always really bothered me were the various force barrier spells. Especially the invulnerable "screw you non-caster" Forcecage.

So here's my solution for all force barriers. They no longer are invulnerable, they instead have the strength of mithral. It's hard to break through but theoretically possible. Wall of Force thickness is 1 inch/4 caster levels, just like Wall of Stone. Breaking a section of a Wall of Force just causes that 10ft square of the wall to vanish entirely. If this would split the wall into two separate segments it destroys the whole thing. Permanent Walls of Force regain all lost hitpoints and destroyed sections every 24 hours.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 12:14 PM
A note on save or suck/lose: Half the reason these are so powerful is that combat in 3.5 is so short.
This part can be ignored if you already agree combat can end in one or two rounds:

Even a poorly optimized character (say, an evoker) does tons of damage compared to how many hit points a character typically has. For an example, a 10th level Barbarian with a 20 Con (maybe he started with 14 and got a pendant of health +6) has an average of 50 + 12 + 6.5 x 9 = 120 or so hp. A fireball does 10d6 or 35 damage. 120/35 is only 4 rounds to kill him, and that's if only one person is attacking! Four wizards (typical party) will kill him in a turn if he fails his saves (and he has poor reflex). A level 10 wizard on the other hand, even with 24 Con (18+pendant of health) has only 70 + 4 + 2.5 x 9 = 96 or so hp. 96/35 is only 3! A group of four would kill him if he fails even one save! Also take a Hill Giant: 142 HP. 142/35 is barely more than 4, so a party of four with concentrated firepower should expect to kill him in two turns. If they are all dual-wielding Rogues they can do it in one.

Now, take Sleep. You wake up right after you are attacked. In 95% of RPGs that I've played, this would only gain your group a turn. However, in D&D a sleeping character is helpless. If everyone in your group gets a Coup De Grace, that's the only turn you really need, so it might as well be a save or die. I'm not sure if adjusting the damage/hp of characters would solve this problem, but that is a change beyond just fidgeting with spells, and I don't know if you want to do that.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 12:29 PM
I most certainly do not want to mess with the rest of the mechanics.

This is part of a project to remodel D&D to my tastes, but I like to do it in bits- modules, if I may say so. In essence, I'm improving on parts of it at a time. It's faster, easier to integrate, does not change basic assumptions, and easier to modify without worrying about everything else.

One of the things I learned from software design in university :smalltongue:

I don't like how combat ends in 1-2 rounds. That's too fast even by realistic standards, and it's DEFINITELY anticlimactic. And the primary issue for this is casters, so that's what we're dealing with.

It doesn't become useless with two saves; essentially, the chance you had before hand is now multiplied by itself to survive, but you still have a fighting chance to shake it off. Still, however, it's annoying how so powerful spells, if not successful, are nigh useless (3d6+something damage for a 7th level spell?)

Examples: If you saved on a 16 or higher (25%), now there's only 12,5% chance to fully get out of this, but there's a 50% chance to at least shake some of it off.

If you saved on an 11 or higher (50%), now there's a good chance (25%) to get out of this unscathed, and effectively a (95%*95%=) 90% chance to at least shake some of it off.

If you saved on a 6 or higher (75%) almost guaranteeing escape, suddenly your chances are not as good (56,25%), but you're almost certain to at least shake most of it off.

I like the math. See a hole here? Also, if a benefit gives you a + or - to your next save (as opposed to all saves)... then only one of them is considered the next save (doesn't matter which).

Sleep is a powerful spell indeed, and I totally agree with its effects. You sleep, you die, simple as that. However, if it's that powerful despite the HD restriction, you might reduce the 1st level spell to induce only normal sleep (thus you wake up by loud sounds etc). Magical sleep should be the province of higher level spells.

As for the polymorph- yes, now I do get the fluff. You might look the same, but they're not functional or they're vestigial.

I SEE THE LIGHT.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 12:47 PM
Another part of university programming courses is learning how to plan. It's all well and good to tackle things in parts, but it all turns to crap if you latter find that one part of your code (say an object or a function), which worked fine in isolation, doesn't work at all with the rest of the program. At any rate I'll leave that to you.
As for your analysis on having to make 2 saves for a save or die: it's still crap. Even if I only fail a save on a 1, that's still a .25% chance. Almost no chance at all, right? Except for that one time it does kill you while you still have all your hp left. Either you are a player and now you have to lose a level to get revived (which is just crap) or you are an important NPC and the whole adventure just got derailed.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 12:50 PM
Again, I don't have access to 3.0 polymorph, I'm using the SRD.

As for Baleful Polymorph/Polymorph Other, I actually like it as a concept, but I don't know ways of making it viable.

Probably give it an hour/level duration at level 5, and have a Greater Baleful Polymorph at 8th or 9th level to do the same thing. By that level, spells outright kill targets with Fort Saves.

http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/

This may be of use to you.


The solution I originally considered for death effects was to beef up the 'death' portion - for example, I changed Finger of Death so that it chucked some d6s at the victim and forbade any kind of resurrection if it killed them (with a permanent duration and a resistance to being dispelled).


I'm still not sure though. Finger of Death might work best as something more gradual - e.g. it could chuck some d6s and some con damage at the victim, and then repeat that every round until the victim saved.

That keeps the dramatic element, because hitting a mook with it would leave a pair of smoking boots, but it doesn't horribly ruin the game. It also synergises with the damage dealers.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 12:54 PM
Another part of university programming courses is learning how to plan. It's all well and good to tackle things in parts, but it all turns to crap if you latter find that one part of your code (say an object or a function), which worked fine in isolation, doesn't work at all with the rest of the program. At any rate I'll leave that to you.

I never said I'm a good programmer :smallbiggrin:


As for your analysis on having to make 2 saves for a save or die: it's still crap. Even if I only fail a save on a 1, that's still a .25% chance. Almost no chance at all, right? Except for that one time it does kill you while you still have all your hp left. Either you are a player and now you have to lose a level to get revived (which is just crap) or you are an important NPC and the whole adventure just got derailed.

In that case, the dice have spoken. It's my firm belief that nothing should be untouchable, and there should be no safety net. Save or die effects are at least 5th level, and by then I like everything having at least that kind of danger.

It's still helluva lot better than dying on one out of twenty such spells thrown at you. This way there's a bell curve, giving a more standardised approach (most people will probably get one of the two saves) while still allowing a chance for end effects. Sometimes you're unscathed, sometimes you get served, but most of the time you pretty much get the brunt of the attack (said example was not very good. It should be CL x d6 negative energy damage, like most arcane spells)

If you REALLY, ABSOLUTELY need somebody to be alive regardless of the rules, just do it. But then you're purposefully ignoring the rules for the story, which can altogether be way too good or way too bad; never in between.

//EDIT: Oooh, thanks a bunch, LM!

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 01:11 PM
The problem is, if dying is a very real and normal penalty for, say, a Finger of Death spell (like it is now), then that's just how the rules work. If you instead make it so a Finger of Death spell still kills you, but it only works once in a blue moon, then it feels like crap when you are the one it finally hits. That doesn't really balance the spell, it just increases the luck element.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 01:13 PM
The problem is, if dying is a very real and normal penalty for, say, a Finger of Death spell (like it is now), then that's just how the rules work. If you instead make it so a Finger of Death spell still kills you, but it only works once in a blue moon, then it feels like crap when you are the one it finally hits. That doesn't really balance the spell, it just increases the luck element.

Then keep Finger of Death as a single save.

It's still a powerful Save or Suck spell, isn't it?

And since we're not allowing immunities anymore, then it's suddenly even more powerful.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 01:17 PM
Suggestion: Finger of Death reduces you to 0 HP and leaves you bleeding.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 01:20 PM
Suggestion: Finger of Death reduces you to 0 HP and leaves you bleeding.

So it would only be a save or die if you don't have a cleric nearby to save you?

Edit: Also it's not just spellcasters that end an encounter in two turns. At 10th level a rogue has 5d6 sneak attack and two attacks. Add in rapid shot and haste and they can throw 4 flasks of either acid or alchemist's fire, each dealing 6d6 damage, and since they are touch attacks they are almost guaranteed to hit. That's 24d6 or about 84 damage on average, much more than what the Wizard was dealing. Four Rogues can deal 336 damage a turn this way, enough to kill two CR 10 opponents a turn.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-08, 01:21 PM
I'm a fan of how some AD&D spells had drawbacks built in.

For example, make Fly of an unknown duration. Something like a d4 of variability of rounds built into the description that is secretly rolled by the DM. No Feather Fall effect is built in. If it gets cut-off, you take fall damage.

Fireball expands to fill the space it detonates in (roughly 33 cubes). So setting off a fireball in a tight corridor is inadvisable.

Of course, I'm not sure that nerfing blast spells are really the way to go. Although, part of the problem is that AD&D characters had hit points that leveled off around ~9 while 3E hit points has better bonuses for high Con and constantly increase at every level.

Another thing you might look into is to make spells easier to disrupt. Casters aren't supposed to be able to do their thing if somebody just stuck a sword into their spleen.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 01:25 PM
I'm a fan of how some AD&D spells had drawbacks built in.

For example, make Fly of an unknown duration. Something like a d4 of variability of rounds built into the description that is secretly rolled by the DM. No Feather Fall effect is built in. If it gets cut-off, you take fall damage.

Fireball expands to fill the space it detonates in (roughly 33 cubes). So setting off a fireball in a tight corridor is inadvisable.

Of course, I'm not sure that nerfing blast spells are really the way to go. Although, part of the problem is that AD&D characters had hit points that leveled off around ~9 while 3E hit points has better bonuses for high Con and constantly increase at every level.

Another thing you might look into is to make spells easier to disrupt. Casters aren't supposed to be able to do their thing if somebody just stuck a sword into their spleen.

Too many drawbacks makes them less fun to play though. As it is wizards already have some drawbacks (they need a spellbook, they can't wear armor, they need to have access to component's etc.) that most characters don't, and that doesn't help balance them, just like "this spell is all powerful but you can only prepare one of them a day" doesn't really work as a balancing point. I'm not sure how many drawbacks you can add to spellcasting and how often the DM can exploit them without the wizard's player feeling like they are getting picked on.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 01:33 PM
As I said, I'd add the effect of "Explosive spell" to a fireball. That way, it would be fun to use :belkar:

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 01:43 PM
Well, I think if there are some drawbacks they should vary from spell to spell, and I think blasty spells ought to have very few. I don't have a copy of AD&D on hand, but my Rules Cyclopedia does have fly spells with variable durations. For some reason there is a division in the game between rounds (10 seconds) and turns (10 minutes), and fly is 1d6 + 1/caster level turns. Just stay within caster level + 1 turns and you are fine, so that is a very small drawback and I wouldn't be averse to using it (it might be interesting if you absolutely need the extra time but don't know if you actually have it).
Edit: Also it doesn't say anything about whether or not the caster knows what he rolled, although maybe they changed that in AD&D.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 01:51 PM
This is pretty much what I tried doing in another thread, but it didn't help that much (at least not most people).

So we're simply changing their toys for smaller ones so they can play with the rest of the children, instead of telling them how to use them.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 02:11 PM
You should give spellcasters medium size toys, but also give all the fighters and monks medium size toys instead of their small ones. Alright, I ruined that metaphor. Anyways are you planing on changing schools around? Taking all the damaging spells out of conjuration and putting them in evocation where they belong would help at least a little. Illusion needs some work too. Also rewriting Wish, and in particular getting rid of the xp cost, would be good. Now, other problem spells...
Mordenkainen's Disjunction: Make it so it doesn't destroy magic items.
Gate: Drop the XP cost but make it much more limited in scope (like make it so it can duplicate Summon Monster I-IX, except as calling instead of summoning, longer duration, and you have to try and place them under your control instead of automatically controlling them).
Planar Ally/Binding: Don't know what to do about these.
Healing Spells: Let wizards have them. They had them in BECMI after all.
Time Stop: Make it explicit that you can't use any effect that targets a creature other than yourself and that instantaneous effects don't work either.
Teleport: Make it take longer than a round to cast.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 02:22 PM
You should give spellcasters medium size toys, but also give all the fighters and monks medium size toys instead of their small ones. Alright, I ruined that metaphor.

You made it into an indirect phallic metaphor :smalltongue:

And yes, I am. I'm currently working on a ToB-like supplement that's all-martial as opposed to supernatural and wuxia stuff.


Anyways are you planing on changing schools around? Taking all the damaging spells out of conjuration and putting them in evocation where they belong would help at least a little. Illusion needs some work too. Also rewriting Wish, and in particular getting rid of the xp cost, would be good. Now, other problem spells...
Mordenkainen's Disjunction: Make it so it doesn't destroy magic items.
Gate: Drop the XP cost but make it much more limited in scope (like make it so it can duplicate Summon Monster I-IX, except as calling instead of summoning, longer duration, and you have to try and place them under your control instead of automatically controlling them).
Planar Ally/Binding: Don't know what to do about these.
Healing Spells: Let wizards have them. They had them in BECMI after all.
Time Stop: Make it explicit that you can't use any effect that targets a creature other than yourself and that instantaneous effects don't work either.
Teleport: Make it take longer than a round to cast.

I'll need to take a closer look at each one, but so far:

I like Mordenkainen's Disjunction as it is. But I would give it an XP cost for every magic item destroyed- so they should be careful where they point those things!

Why get rid of the XP cost of the wish? It's already powerful as it is.

As for Healing spells and wizards getting them; that's not about modifying existing spells but allowing wizards more toys. While I totally agree in concept, this WILL depend on the setting at large (in my books, clerics are vastly different from PHB clerics), so I'm a bit hesitant to put that change forward. I'm looking for ways to design it to fit D&D first, and then it can be more easily adapted when everything's on the same approximate power level.

Teleport's been already on the table.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 02:31 PM
Wish is a horrible spell that no one ever casts. Partly because both the PHB and the DMG encourage DMs to be jerks about trying to get good wishes (why the hell shouldn't I be able to make myself immortal with a 9th level spell and 5,000 XP?!), but mostly because the lesser wishes still have the XP cost. It should either work like Miracle, where only powerful wishes cost XP, or like the Rules Cyclopedia Wish, which doesn't cost anything but must be clearly worded and the DM is only encouraged to be a jerk if the Wish is super greedy. Also in the Rules Cyclopedia only characters of max level (36th) with max wisdom (18) were allowed to cast the spell anyways.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 02:34 PM
Gate can be relegated to... creating a gate between two planes.

I think Wish actually works for Gate's calling function - just call up a being that owes you a favour, and tell it to fulfil one request for you. Problem solved, and you'd be able to drop the XP cost as well.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 02:38 PM
Now that I think about it, can't you use gate to call a Noble Djinni, and thus get 3 wishes for less then half the price of one wish you cast yourself?

Eldan
2010-02-08, 02:41 PM
I usually demand a True Name for Gate to summon a creature, but that's really just plot power.

My suggestion for Planar Binding: drop the possibility to have the creature help for free. The creature either demands a favour of equal worth, or (gold cost*it's HD*days of service) in sacrifices.

Oh, and Gate: I'd include a line similar to "planar conditions don't extend beyond the gate", because I've heard too many plans starting with "and then I open a gate to the plane of vacuum".

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 02:45 PM
I usually demand a True Name for Gate to summon a creature, but that's really just plot power.

My suggestion for Planar Binding: drop the possibility to have the creature help for free. The creature either demands a favour of equal worth, or (gold cost*it's HD*days of service) in sacrifices.

No, the gold cost isn't very helpful. Make it demand a favor of equal worth or some similar (fair) trade unless the caster places it under some sort of compulsion. And also make it so genies and similar creatures won't use their wish abilities under compulsion, but must be bargained with.
Edit:


Oh, and Gate: I'd include a line similar to "planar conditions don't extend beyond the gate", because I've heard too many plans starting with "and then I open a gate to the plane of vacuum".
I thought it already did... at least, it doesn't specifically say that it has any other effect then allowing travel or summoning, so it shouldn't be interpreted as causing effects from the other plane to go through. Simply put, it's not described as part of the effect, so I don't think that would be raw.

Eldan
2010-02-08, 02:47 PM
The summoning circle works as a two-way circle of protection until the favours are negotiated: no one can attack or affect the other.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 02:50 PM
The summoning circle works as a two-way circle of protection until the favours are negotiated: no one can attack or affect the other.

Forgot about that. Well, it seems to me compulsions should be allowed, but the whole "make a charisma check" deal should definitely be axed. At any rate if you do manage to make a called creature do something it doesn't want it should be very angry with you afterwords.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 02:57 PM
Wish is a horrible spell that no one ever casts. Partly because both the PHB and the DMG encourage DMs to be jerks about trying to get good wishes (why the hell shouldn't I be able to make myself immortal with a 9th level spell and 5,000 XP?!), but mostly because the lesser wishes still have the XP cost. It should either work like Miracle, where only powerful wishes cost XP, or like the Rules Cyclopedia Wish, which doesn't cost anything but must be clearly worded and the DM is only encouraged to be a jerk if the Wish is super greedy. Also in the Rules Cyclopedia only characters of max level (36th) with max wisdom (18) were allowed to cast the spell anyways.

I do believe that paying 5.000 XP and being able to cast 9th level spells is not the sole prerequisite to immortality. I'm starting to think we're on a totally different train of thought here.

Rules Cyclopedia...? Is that AD&D or something?


Gate can be relegated to... creating a gate between two planes.

I think Wish actually works for Gate's calling function - just call up a being that owes you a favour, and tell it to fulfil one request for you. Problem solved, and you'd be able to drop the XP cost as well.

Yes, but make it permanent (since it's a 9th level spell). Still, there should be a way to not allow players to not just open holes whenever they deem necessary.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 03:01 PM
Well, if you are going to make gate permanent (which seems reasonable) then just make it take a while to cast (24 hours doesn't even seem bad for a permanent plane shift). Make it take less time if the caster doesn't want/need a permanent gate. Also the Rule's Cyclopedia is BECMI. BD&D was originally released in the Basic, Expert, whatever C stands for, Master, and Immortal sets. The Rules Cyclopedia is the final and definitive compilation of those rules, which are separate from AD&D.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-08, 04:51 PM
Regarding Mordenkainen's disjunction, here's the version I use:

---------------------------------

Mordenkainen's Disjunction
Abjuration
Level: Magic 9, Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: See text
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target or Area: See text
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

You can choose to use this spell in one of two ways, an area disjoining or a targeted disjoining.

Area Disjoining
This version of the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action. All magical effects within a 40-foot radius, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined—that is, spells and spell-like effects are negated as if subject to a dispel magic spell. You also have a 2% chance per caster level of destroying an antimagic field. If the antimagic field survives the disjunction, no items within it are disjoined.

Targeted Disjoining
This version of the spell has a casting time of 1 minute. While casting this version of the spell, you must be touching a single, unattended magic item that will be the target of the spell; when the spell is completed, that item is turned into a normal item, permanently losing any and all magical properties (intelligent items may make a Will save to resist disjunction). Even artifacts are subject to targeted disjoining, though there is only a 1% chance per caster level of actually affecting such powerful items. Destroying artifacts is a dangerous business, and it is 95% likely to attract the attention of some powerful being who has an interest in or connection with the device.

---------------------------------

One of its functions is simply an AoE auto-dispel that can remove antimagic fields and doesn't do anything to/about items, while function two utterly disjoins one item, up to and including artifacts. This lets disjunction accomplish its two primary functions (i.e. "Holy crap, his CL is too high for greater dispel but we need to get rid of his buffs!" and "Holy crap, evil intelligent item/artifact, we need to destroy it!") without screwing the caster by doing both at once.


Also the Rule's Cyclopedia is BECMI. BD&D was originally released in the Basic, Expert, whatever C stands for, Master, and Immortal sets. The Rules Cyclopedia is the final and definitive compilation of those rules, which are separate from AD&D.

C is Champion, I believe

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 05:14 PM
I like that version of Mordenkainen's disjunction, but I wouldn't let it work on artifacts. That's like Gandalf casting a spell to destroy the ring, thereby ending the book. Although I guess it's up to each DM; it was at least implied that if Feanor or Aule were there they could have unmade the ring with their own power, but it seems to me they are the equivalent of epic level characters (perhaps deity level).

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 05:37 PM
Oooh, spiffy. Me likey.

And yes, I agree with Drolyt on this one- artifacts should take more than a 9th level spell to destroy. They are, after all, artifacts!

Lapak
2010-02-08, 05:40 PM
One of its functions is simply an AoE auto-dispel that can remove antimagic fields and doesn't do anything to/about items, while function two utterly disjoins one item, up to and including artifacts. This lets disjunction accomplish its two primary functions (i.e. "Holy crap, his CL is too high for greater dispel but we need to get rid of his buffs!" and "Holy crap, evil intelligent item/artifact, we need to destroy it!") without screwing the caster by doing both at once.It's an excellent version of the spell, and a good callback to the 1e/2e version. Minor editing note: the area disjoin doesn't affect items, but the text states that items in a non-disjoined Antimagic Field are not affected.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 05:43 PM
It's an excellent version of the spell, and a good callback to the 1e/2e version. Minor editing note: the area disjoin doesn't affect items, but the text states that items in a non-disjoined Antimagic Field are not affected.

Hmm, depending on how you read the effect it would affect items just like dispel magic would, ie negates them for (iirc) 1d4 rounds (or was it minutes?). It specifically says spells and spell-like effects though, and I don't know if items are covered under the latter.

Edit: Cataphract, what are your thoughts on metamagic feats? Are they still in, are you gonna change them, etc.?

Lysander
2010-02-08, 05:50 PM
Oooh, spiffy. Me likey.

And yes, I agree with Drolyt on this one- artifacts should take more than a 9th level spell to destroy. They are, after all, artifacts!

To be fair, I don't think Disjunction can actually destroy Major Artifacts just Minor Artifacts. RAW explicitly states that Major Artifacts only have one specific method of destruction. Unless the only method is Disjunction then the spell can't affect it. A DM can protect any plot crucial artifact just by ruling that its Major.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 05:51 PM
Edit: Cataphract, what are your thoughts on metamagic feats? Are they still in, are you gonna change them, etc.?

They're not really covered since we're dealing with spells, though I can see how they are somewhere between directly and indirectly linked.

So far, though, I don't think that there's any "broken" metamagic feat.

Well, except Persist Spell. But it's not core, is it?

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 05:54 PM
To be fair, I don't think Disjunction can actually destroy Major Artifacts just Minor Artifacts. RAW explicitly states that Major Artifacts only have one specific method of destruction. Unless the only method is Disjunction then the spell can't affect it. A DM can protect any plot crucial artifact just by ruling that its Major.

That's not how it reads though. Minor Artifacts can be destroyed with a hammer, if Mordenkainen's Disjunction can't destroy Major Artifacts the description basically says it can be used as a glorified hammer.
Edit:


They're not really covered since we're dealing with spells, though I can see how they are somewhere between directly and indirectly linked.

So far, though, I don't think that there's any "broken" metamagic feat.

Well, except Persist Spell. But it's not core, is it?
No, it is not core. But empower spell is pretty down powerful, a empowered fireball is for example much better than a cone of cold.

Draz74
2010-02-08, 06:04 PM
Well, except Persist Spell. But it's not core, is it?

Even that isn't really so bad until you apply metamagic-reducing abilities to it.


No, it is not core. But empower spell is pretty down powerful, a empowered fireball is for example much better than a cone of cold.

As it should be, since it costs you a feat. :smalltongue:

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:09 PM
Where does it say that? Ugh, I call upon the mighty DM's fiat! Or common sense. That works too.

An empowered fireball takes a 5th level slot and does, tops, 15d6 fire damage.
A cone of cold takes a 5th level slot and does, tops.... you guessed it, 15d6 cold damage.

How is it more powerful? :smallconfused: Because it's a blast and not a cone? And as it was said, you DID spend a feat. Also, fire damage is the worst possible from what I've been hearing since the most common resistance/immunity is to fire (a sad, sad fact for us pyromaniacs).

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-08, 06:19 PM
Where does it say that? Ugh, I call upon the mighty DM's fiat! Or common sense. That works too.

An empowered fireball takes a 5th level slot and does, tops, 15d6 fire damage.
A cone of cold takes a 5th level slot and does, tops.... you guessed it, 15d6 cold damage.

How is it more powerful? :smallconfused: Because it's a blast and not a cone? And as it was said, you DID spend a feat. Also, fire damage is the worst possible from what I've been hearing since the most common resistance/immunity is to fire (a sad, sad fact for us pyromaniacs).

Yes, but at the level that you get cone of cold, it will do 9d6 cone (which is far worse, no range and you might hit your allies)
Fireball then will do 9d6*1.5 in long ranged blast. how is it not better?

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:39 PM
Yes, but at the level that you get cone of cold, it will do 9d6 cone (which is far worse, no range and you might hit your allies)
Fireball then will do 9d6*1.5 in long ranged blast. how is it not better?

9d6 x 1,5 is 13d6. 4d6 more damage, sure.

It has a 20-foot burst in a l-

LONG RANGE? Crap, that has to be mitigated to medium range. Thanks for pointing that out. Anybody in favor of dropping Fireball to Medium Range? I think 100+10/ft per caster level ought to be enough for everybody. Sniping with fireballs is NOT nice. (a 5th level caster can use a fireball out to 600 feet. That's 200 meters, the effective range of most bows. A 20th level caster can use a fireball out to 1200 feet, or 400 meters. Ouch. Almost half a kilometer away).

In that case, I can see how Cone of Cold sucks, since it only affects people out in a 60-ft cone. I think Cone of Cold needs something nice (like Fort save or lose an action or somesuch, can't remember what Orb of Cold does).

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-08, 06:48 PM
9d6 x 1,5 is 13d6. 4d6 more damage, sure.

It has a 20-foot burst in a l-

LONG RANGE? Crap, that has to be mitigated to medium range. Thanks for pointing that out. Anybody in favor of dropping Fireball to Medium Range? I think 100+10/ft per caster level ought to be enough for everybody. Sniping with fireballs is NOT nice. (a 5th level caster can use a fireball out to 600 feet. That's 200 meters, the effective range of most bows. A 20th level caster can use a fireball out to 1200 feet, or 400 meters. Ouch. Almost half a kilometer away).

In that case, I can see how Cone of Cold sucks, since it only affects people out in a 60-ft cone. I think Cone of Cold needs something nice (like Fort save or lose an action or somesuch, can't remember what Orb of Cold does).

Indeed. Once in our campaign, we were trying to figure out how to kill some of the hobgoblin commanders and burn their standards. We spent 15 minutes trying to figure out an intense alpha strike strategy before I looked at my spell list and realized I could stand on the battlements and ping them 6 times a day (sorcerer)

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 06:53 PM
Indeed. Once in our campaign, we were trying to figure out how to kill some of the hobgoblin commanders and burn their standards. We spent 15 minutes trying to figure out an intense alpha strike strategy before I looked at my spell list and realized I could stand on the battlements and ping them 6 times a day (sorcerer)

And that, my friends, is how bad calls at game design ruin your experience.

Or in other words, why to drop that frakkin f-ball to medium range.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 07:12 PM
The reason cone of cold is bad is that it's hard to avoid your allies. You can position a sphere such as a fireball so that only one person on the ground gets hit. Also fireball has ridiculous range. And with Archmage or a single feat you can make it deal sonic damage.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 07:21 PM
The reason cone of cold is bad is that it's hard to avoid your allies. You can position a sphere such as a fireball so that only one person on the ground gets hit. Also fireball has ridiculous range. And with Archmage or a single feat you can make it deal sonic damage.

Sculpt Spell is very useful, though it's not Core...

Fireball's range will be nerfed, totally.

There's no feat in core to make ti deal sonic, but as for Archmage, that is indeed important.

Since cone of cold is not something you use when allies are present, I suggest improving the range to 90ft or even 120ft. It would be something a wizard in the front line uses to take out A LOT of enemy mooks.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 07:41 PM
Sculpt Spell is very useful, though it's not Core...

Fireball's range will be nerfed, totally.

There's no feat in core to make ti deal sonic, but as for Archmage, that is indeed important.

Since cone of cold is not something you use when allies are present, I suggest improving the range to 90ft or even 120ft. It would be something a wizard in the front line uses to take out A LOT of enemy mooks.

Arhmage's usefulness is such that in core there is no excuse not to take the class. As for cone of cold, any spell that catches your allies in the blast (especially since you need meat shields when you're a spellcaster) is automatically a bad spell.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 08:10 PM
Arhmage's usefulness is such that in core there is no excuse not to take the class. As for cone of cold, any spell that catches your allies in the blast (especially since you need meat shields when you're a spellcaster) is automatically a bad spell.

That's something that a PrC fix should be responsible for.

But yeah, I get your point. What can we do to make CoC attractable? Aforementioned "numbing" effect?

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 08:32 PM
That's something that a PrC fix should be responsible for.

But yeah, I get your point. What can we do to make CoC attractable? Aforementioned "numbing" effect?

Well it would be cool if cold effects gave like a one turn slow or freezing effect, while fire effects did more damage, or something else to differentiate the different energy attacks (acid attacks are DOTs is another good one). I don't think the Archmage is necessarily overpowered, excluding allies from spell effects should be standard. I figure just allowing area effects like CoC to exclude your allies would go a long way towards making blasty wizards more attractive.

DracoDei
2010-02-08, 08:46 PM
I will just throw this out here, since it concerns a controversial spell...

When I was posting creating my Wing Dragons, I found out that the changes to Haste between 3.0 and 3.5 didn't suit them. I did, however, hear about the problems with 3.0 Haste as far as spellcasting goes... Here is how I created True Haste (IE a fixed Haste) for them:

As per Haste except that no bonus to base movement rate is given, but if the creature forgoes the extra attack granted, or does not attack in a given round it gains an additional move action (which may ONLY be used for movement), and it is single target only, with a range of touch.
This allows the wizard to negate the problems with Full-Attacks for one character for approximately one fight... team-work for the win.

Warning: Give the bonuses for charging (Thinking all the stuff uber-charger builds get) for ONLY the first attack in a round when using this.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 09:12 PM
Err, what's the difference...? From the 3.5 version, that is.

I can see its usefulness in a spring attack sort of way (move, attack once, move), and I see it's a self-only spell (which I don't deem necessary), but other than that?

Lapak
2010-02-08, 09:22 PM
I don't have a copy of AD&D on hand, but my Rules Cyclopedia does have fly spells with variable durations. For some reason there is a division in the game between rounds (10 seconds) and turns (10 minutes), and fly is 1d6 + 1/caster level turns.Rounds were actually 1 minute in AD&D, just to clarify that point. Turns were 10 rounds, and thus 10 minutes.

I'm against nerfing blasting spells, including Fireball, in general, because of how they have slid in effectiveness in 3rd edition; hit points have inflated drastically and the scaling of spells like Fireball has not. Reducing their effectiveness still further is a bad idea; if a caster manages to find a situation where they ARE useful - such as tossing Fireballs from extreme range from a fortified position - good for them!

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 09:41 PM
Nerfing Blasting spells damage is not a good idea, but range is. It's ridiculous for a fireball to be fired off at hundreds of meters- not for a 3rd level spell, at least.

Maybe there should be a higher level spell with a long range and a bit more oomph, but still.

In any case, a little math shows that:

An average fighter (d10 HD) with +3/+4/+5 Con (factoring magical items) has the following hit point totals compared to the average damage of an arcane spell of similar level (whether fireball, cone of cold or whatever- most blasting spells are 1d6 per CL anyway):

5th level, 47 HP vs 17,5 damage (5d6). Takes at least two, usually 3 spells to take out.
10th level, 100 HP vs 35 damage (10d6). Takes at least two, usually 3 spells to take out.
15th level, 162 HP vs 52,5 damage (15d6). Takes at least two, usually 3-4 spells to take out.

Of course, by then you have other spells, but this simple example shows that the designers intended, all things equal, to have 3 spells take out a front-liner (of course not counting reflex saves, evasion, or anything else, just sheer damage output vs HP of one opponent).

Of course, you can always empower/maximize/what have you reduces the necessary amount of "blasts" that you need to destroy an opponent, but usually it will take two, not three castings.

Upgrading them even more, I think, is overkill. It's not that they don't work (how many fighters of equal level can drop their opponent in three rounds without uber weapons or uber feat combos?), it's that other spells work better: they only require one round and thus one casting.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 09:48 PM
Rounds were actually 1 minute in AD&D, just to clarify that point. Turns were 10 rounds, and thus 10 minutes.

I'm against nerfing blasting spells, including Fireball, in general, because of how they have slid in effectiveness in 3rd edition; hit points have inflated drastically and the scaling of spells like Fireball has not. Reducing their effectiveness still further is a bad idea; if a caster manages to find a situation where they ARE useful - such as tossing Fireballs from extreme range from a fortified position - good for them!

Yeah fireball doesn't need a nerf. Again, I'm not sure about AD&D, but in BD&D you only rolled hit points till 9th level (a level called Name level for some strange reason), the highest die was 1d8 for fighter, you don't get max hit points at first level, and Con bonuses are smaller (and all abilities scores are 3d6 capping at 18 anyways). After 9th level (or starting at 9th level, I'm not sure how you're supposed to read it) you only get 1 or 2 hit points a level (2 for fighter) with no con bonus. Despite this Fireball still does 1d6/level, which is practically an insta kill at high levels unless I'm misreading something.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 09:52 PM
Yeah fireball doesn't need a nerf. Again, I'm not sure about AD&D, but in BD&D you only rolled hit points till 9th level (a level called Name level for some strange reason), the highest die was 1d8 for fighter, you don't get max hit points at first level, and Con bonuses are smaller (and all abilities scores are 3d6 capping at 18 anyways). After 9th level (or starting at 9th level, I'm not sure how you're supposed to read it) you only get 1 or 2 hit points a level (2 for fighter) with no con bonus. Despite this Fireball still does 1d6/level, which is practically an insta kill at high levels unless I'm misreading something.

Same in AD&D (I have the 2nd ed books, awesome artwork, much better than anything in 3/3.5 sourcebooks). Warriors get +3 per level, Wizards +1, Clerics and Rogues +2, IIRC. That's per level.

I'm still strongly considering giving fireball a range nerf, and giving it instead a secondary bonus, like Orb of Fire: Fort Save or be dazed for 1 round.

How's that?

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 10:00 PM
Same in AD&D (I have the 2nd ed books, awesome artwork, much better than anything in 3/3.5 sourcebooks). Warriors get +3 per level, Wizards +1, Clerics and Rogues +2, IIRC. That's per level.

I'm still strongly considering giving fireball a range nerf, and giving it instead a secondary bonus, like Orb of Fire: Fort Save or be dazed for 1 round.

How's that?

Well, Long certainly seems somewhat ridiculous, in BD&D it was set at 240'. I'm not sure about dazed, it is a blinding flash of light, but video games tend to go with a burn effect. Like you could make fire do a little damage each round after the first unless the burn is healed, but have acid deal less damage at first but more latter. Although really the orb spells should've been core (and should've been evocation). There should be good energy attacks of every kind at every level. Anyways just switching it back to 240' should work fine, I don't see why the range needs to go up every level or why I should have to look up what "long" means to use a spell (although it's usually in parenthesis anyways).

Lapak
2010-02-08, 10:00 PM
In any case, a little math shows that:
I was actually thinking in terms of how they affect non-classed opponents. Take your standard 5th-level 18-INT wizard throwing a Fireball against some iconic opponents:
An Orc: 2e or 3e, Fireball wipes out the way-under-CR threat. (4 hp, 5 hp, dies with or without saving) One orc or a crowd, the wizard should be fine.

An Ogre: In 2e, you've got shot at killing them with a barely above average 5d6 Fireball, and even on a save you're looking at taking away about half their hit points. (19 hp vs. 29; even though the 2e Ogre is significantly more likely to make their save the 3e ogre will almost certainly survive and has a chance to have most of their hp left.) Even two ogres are a very real threat to the fireball-thrower.

A Troll: Classic Fireball target. The 2e troll will likely survive, but probably loses about half its hit points. The 3e troll absolutely WILL survive - in fact, it will survive two max-power Fireballs - and has a 30% chance to lose less than a quarter of its hit points.


Upgrading them even more, I think, is overkill. It's not that they don't work (how many fighters of equal level can drop their opponent in three rounds without uber weapons or uber feat combos?), it's that other spells work better: they only require one round and thus one casting.The problem is that a running or even just double-moving opponent is unlikely to give a blaster more than a couple of shots regardless of range, except in a wide-open field with no cover. If the wizard manages to set up such a perfect scenario, I think they should benefit from it. Think about it; how many situations actually let a wizard USE spells at long range, against opponents who can't approach under cover or break LoS or otherwise prevent him from doing so?

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 10:05 PM
I was actually thinking in terms of how they affect non-classed opponents. Take your standard 5th-level 18-INT wizard throwing a Fireball against some iconic opponents:
An Orc: 2e or 3e, Fireball wipes out the way-under-CR threat. (4 hp, 5 hp, dies with or without saving) One orc or a crowd, the wizard should be fine.

An Ogre: In 2e, you've got shot at killing them with a barely above average 5d6 Fireball, and even on a save you're looking at taking away about half their hit points. (19 hp vs. 29; even though the 2e Ogre is significantly more likely to make their save the 3e ogre will almost certainly survive and has a chance to have most of their hp left.) Even two ogres are a very real threat to the fireball-thrower.

A Troll: Classic Fireball target. The 2e troll will likely survive, but probably loses about half its hit points. The 3e troll absolutely WILL survive - in fact, it will survive two max-power Fireballs - and has a 30% chance to lose less than a quarter of its hit points.

The problem is that a running or even just double-moving opponent is unlikely to give a blaster more than a couple of shots regardless of range, except in a wide-open field with no cover. If the wizard manages to set up such a perfect scenario, I think they should benefit from it. Think about it; how many situations actually let a wizard USE spells at long range, against opponents who can't approach under cover or break LoS or otherwise prevent him from doing so?

Wizards aren't expected to fight off foes on their own, they have meatshields. Baring that they should have to use other spells then straight blastery to get it done (like maybe have cold spells that slowed or froze, similar to, god forbid, WoW mages). Besides, with a simple expeditious retreat wizards have 60' movement speed, enough to outrun most monsters and just kite them.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-02-08, 10:06 PM
Yeah fireball doesn't need a nerf. Again, I'm not sure about AD&D, but in BD&D you only rolled hit points till 9th level (a level called Name level for some strange reason), the highest die was 1d8 for fighter, you don't get max hit points at first level, and Con bonuses are smaller (and all abilities scores are 3d6 capping at 18 anyways). After 9th level (or starting at 9th level, I'm not sure how you're supposed to read it) you only get 1 or 2 hit points a level (2 for fighter) with no con bonus. Despite this Fireball still does 1d6/level, which is practically an insta kill at high levels unless I'm misreading something.

One thing that should definitely change with blasting spells is removing the damage caps. They're really only there to allow you to put a higher cap on higher-level spells; removing the cap and adding something to differentiate every blasty spell from every other would go far toward making blasting not suck.

I'm personally in favor of the auto-Explosive Spell effect for fireballs and I'd support returning the expands-to-fill-33-cubes thing as well; that should more than counteract a range reduction. Also, bring back bouncing lightning bolts!

We could give status effects by damage type—cold spells could get the abovementioned speed reduction, acid spells might all do damage over time like Melf's acid arrow, and sonic could deafen—but then again, that leaves us with the problem of higher-level spells being "low-level spells, but more so." I'd prefer seeing unique effects by spell (like fireball and lightning bolt) rather than by energy type or other descriptor.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 10:10 PM
One thing that should definitely change with blasting spells is removing the damage caps. They're really only there to allow you to put a higher cap on higher-level spells; removing the cap and adding something to differentiate every blasty spell from every other would go far toward making blasting not suck.

I'm personally in favor of the auto-Explosive Spell effect for fireballs and I'd support returning the expands-to-fill-33-cubes thing as well; that should more than counteract a range reduction. Also, bring back bouncing lightning bolts!

We could give status effects by damage type—cold spells could get the abovementioned speed reduction, acid spells might all do damage over time like Melf's acid arrow, and sonic could deafen—but then again, that leaves us with the problem of higher-level spells being "low-level spells, but more so." I'd prefer seeing unique effects by spell (like fireball and lightning bolt) rather than by energy type or other descriptor.

Unique effect by spell, but themed by energy type. So one cold spell might slow but deal more damage, while another deals less damage but freezes. Or one acid spell deals damage faster while another deals more total damage and also causes disease/poison. One fire spell has a burn effect while another dazes you with blinding light. One sonic effect deafens while another shatters nonmagical objects. So on and so forth. Meteor Swarm should be pumped up and made into the ultimate in pure blastery, with no side effect whatsoever. Before that Magic Missile and later the (lesser/greater) missile storm spells could be the pure blastery spells.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 10:15 PM
I was actually thinking in terms of how they affect non-classed opponents. Take your standard 5th-level 18-INT wizard throwing a Fireball against some iconic opponents:
An Orc: 2e or 3e, Fireball wipes out the way-under-CR threat. (4 hp, 5 hp, dies with or without saving) One orc or a crowd, the wizard should be fine.

An Ogre: In 2e, you've got shot at killing them with a barely above average 5d6 Fireball, and even on a save you're looking at taking away about half their hit points. (19 hp vs. 29; even though the 2e Ogre is significantly more likely to make their save the 3e ogre will almost certainly survive and has a chance to have most of their hp left.) Even two ogres are a very real threat to the fireball-thrower.

A Troll: Classic Fireball target. The 2e troll will likely survive, but probably loses about half its hit points. The 3e troll absolutely WILL survive - in fact, it will survive two max-power Fireballs - and has a 30% chance to lose less than a quarter of its hit points.

The problem is that a running or even just double-moving opponent is unlikely to give a blaster more than a couple of shots regardless of range, except in a wide-open field with no cover. If the wizard manages to set up such a perfect scenario, I think they should benefit from it. Think about it; how many situations actually let a wizard USE spells at long range, against opponents who can't approach under cover or break LoS or otherwise prevent him from doing so?

The problem isn't really in dealing more damage. As it was said, they're already boring. All damage spells are.

Don't forget that if you really want range, there's a metamagic feat for it.

Finally, here's my thoughts.

Orbs have the following effects:

Acid, Fort or be sickened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#sickened)for 1 round
Cold, Fort or be blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded)for 1 round (what the??)
Fire, Fort or be dazed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed)for 1 round
Electricity, Fort or be entangled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#entangled)for 1 round

Ok, let's break them down one by one:

Acid is supposed to stick on you and create an agonizing pain.
Thus, sickened, which gives a -2 penalty, seems a logical choice mechanically, though not fluff-wise. I think sickened should stay.

Cold is supposed to numb your senses, slow you down, etc. While the first clause of Blinded does that, the second obviously does not. Thus, a more appropriate effect would be Entangled. Nauseated or Dazed are very powerful, though. Entangled is more appropriate as it simulates that loss of speed.

Fire is supposed to... well... set you on fire, really. Unless we come up with a mechanic to simulate the fact you're on fire (which I'm itching to do), the simplest way is to simulate it through sickened like acid.

Lightning is supposed to stun you and short-circuit you. Thus, I suggest giving it Fort or be dazed (or stunned for powerful effects, though I think dazed should do it).

Any other suggestions?

Also, somebody in here has been prodding us to make fireball into an explosive spell by definition. I wholeheartedly agree. That should probably be the secondary effect of all fire spells, that or catching on fire (which burning hands should deal with).

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 10:21 PM
The problem isn't really in dealing more damage. As it was said, they're already boring. All damage spells are.

Don't forget that if you really want range, there's a metamagic feat for it.

Finally, here's my thoughts.

Orbs have the following effects:

Acid, Fort or be sickened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#sickened)for 1 round
Cold, Fort or be blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded)for 1 round (what the??)
Fire, Fort or be dazed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dazed)for 1 round
Electricity, Fort or be entangled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#entangled)for 1 round

Ok, let's break them down one by one:

Acid is supposed to stick on you and create an agonizing pain.
Thus, sickened, which gives a -2 penalty, seems a logical choice mechanically, though not fluff-wise. I think sickened should stay.

Cold is supposed to numb your senses, slow you down, etc. While the first clause of Blinded does that, the second obviously does not. Thus, a more appropriate effect would be Entangled. Nauseated or Dazed are very powerful, though. Entangled is more appropriate as it simulates that loss of speed.

Fire is supposed to... well... set you on fire, really. Unless we come up with a mechanic to simulate the fact you're on fire (which I'm itching to do), the simplest way is to simulate it through sickened like acid.

Lightning is supposed to stun you and short-circuit you. Thus, I suggest giving it Fort or be dazed (or stunned for powerful effects, though I think dazed should do it).

Any other suggestions?

Also, somebody in here has been prodding us to make fireball into an explosive spell by definition. I wholeheartedly agree. That should probably be the secondary effect of all fire spells, that or catching on fire (which burning hands should deal with).

I think fireball actually is supposed to set things on fire in 3.5, its just very poorly written so its not at all clear.

Cataphract
2010-02-08, 10:44 PM
I think fireball actually is supposed to set things on fire in 3.5, its just very poorly written so its not at all clear.


Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.)

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

I never understood why magic fire does not set you on fire, even if it's just momentary. If it's SO momentary, then it wouldn't cause damage per se, since you wouldn't be heated to a damaging degree at all! It's like the old trick with the candle flame.

A DC 15 reflex check to avoid 1d6 damage, every round. Assuming you catch fire.

Any character can succeed in that at least half the time unless he's 1st level. And 1d6 damage is MINIMAL.

Truth be told, here's what I'm thinking about elemental spells, broadly:

Burning Hands- Set things on fire. It's a low-level spell anyway.
Shocking Grasp- Fort save or be dazed for a round.

Acid Arrow- As long as you take damage, you're sickened.
Flaming Sphere-Definitely set things on fire, it's not even instantaneous.
Scorching Ray- Set things on fire as well. By that level 1d6 HP per round is still some good damage.
Shatter- Fort save or be deafened for 1d4 rounds

Fireball- Explosive spell effect
Lightning Bolt- Fort save or be dazed for 1d4 rounds

Ice Storm- Reflex/Balance or fall down due to impacts
Cone of Cold- Fort save or be nauseated for 1d4 rounds

Chain Lightning- Fort save or be dazed for 1 round
Freezing Sphere- Fort save or be nauseated for 1 round

Delayed Blast Fireball- Explosive spell (never found the usefulness of that, duh)

Polar Ray- Fort save or be frozen

Meteor swarm: Reflex/Balance or fall down due to impact, also some minor explosive effect.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 10:52 PM
Fireball is specifically not supposed to set things on fire unless they say they can be set on fire by fire damage. It's horribly written, but the rules for catching on fire specifically say that fireballs can't do it. What it can do is burn things to a crisp.

Also, there is a reason why Bull's Strength, Bear's Endurance, and Cat's Grace were the only stat-boosting spells in 3.0 core. I wouldn't mind seeing them buffed to something that could conceivably be more useful than a cardboard cutout of an attack dog.


The cold should fatigue or demoralise characters.

A fireball does damage because of the rapid change in temperature, and because it's magic. Touching a piece of metal at 800 celsius might not set you on fire, but it could easily sear the meat from your hand.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 10:58 PM
Fireball really doesn't set things on fire? Who wrote those rules? Never mind that. Why would cold fatigue? The idea for why it slows is very simple misapplied physics, that is colder things move slower. At any rate cold = slow effect is very traditional even if it didn't start in D&D. Also touching a piece of metal at 800 degrees Celsius probably would set you on fire in real life, particularly if you happened to be made of a flammable material, or if it touched your clothes. How do you think the whole rubbing sticks together thing works?

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:09 PM
Fireball really doesn't set things on fire? Who wrote those rules? Never mind that. Why would cold fatigue? The idea for why it slows is very simple misapplied physics, that is colder things move slower. At any rate cold = slow effect is very traditional even if it didn't start in D&D. Also touching a piece of metal at 800 degrees Celsius probably would set you on fire in real life, particularly if you happened to be made of a flammable material, or if it touched your clothes. How do you think the whole rubbing sticks together thing works?

That's different.

Cold fatigues and demoralises because that really is fairly appropriate to hypothermia. Stunning would also be appropriate.

As for the fire thing, bear in mind that you're only touching it for a few seconds - enough to burn flesh and leave scorch marks everywhere, but certainly not long enough to start a self-sustaining reaction. Wood actually needs a lot of effort to set on fire (as far as I'm aware, rubbing sticks together is so difficult that the possibility doesn't need to be accounted for in the rules)

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 11:12 PM
That's different.

Cold fatigues and demoralises because that really is fairly appropriate to hypothermia. Stunning would also be appropriate.

As for the fire thing, bear in mind that you're only touching it for a few seconds - enough to burn flesh and leave scorch marks everywhere, but certainly not long enough to start a self-sustaining reaction. Wood actually needs a lot of effort to set on fire (as far as I'm aware, rubbing sticks together is so difficult that the possibility doesn't need to be accounted for in the rules)

It is rather difficult to start a fire with sticks, but that's only because 800 degrees Celsius is far beyond anything you can get from rubbing things together with human might. The only reason I say it would cause things to insto-fire is because you used such a large number. As for the effects of a cold spell, slow is simpler and more traditional, and really I don't think D&D needs to model the effects of hypothermia.

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:16 PM
It is rather difficult to start a fire with sticks, but that's only because 800 degrees Celsius is far beyond anything you can get from rubbing things together with human might. The only reason I say it would cause things to insto-fire is because you used such a large number. As for the effects of a cold spell, slow is simpler and more traditional, and really I don't think D&D needs to model the effects of hypothermia.

Fatigue works fine though, as does demoralisation.

800 degrees is a lot higher than it really needs to be - 90 degrees would work fine.

Of course, this is a game where tree creatures are vulnerable to fire. It's difficult to imagine a harder fail.

Drolyt
2010-02-08, 11:32 PM
Fatigue works fine though, as does demoralisation.

800 degrees is a lot higher than it really needs to be - 90 degrees would work fine.

Of course, this is a game where tree creatures are vulnerable to fire. It's difficult to imagine a harder fail.

Here's a good question: How hot is a fireball spell? To quote the PHB "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze." Copper melts at 1084.62 degrees Celsius. Would burns at less than 1000 degrees Celsius, and at 2000 degree Celsius it more or less disintegrates. Seriously, a fireball, according to what I just described, must have heat in excess of 1100 degrees Celsius. Even it is just a few seconds long a 20' radius blast should set everything on fire.

Latronis
2010-02-08, 11:32 PM
Fatigue works fine though, as does demoralisation.

800 degrees is a lot higher than it really needs to be - 90 degrees would work fine.

Of course, this is a game where tree creatures are vulnerable to fire. It's difficult to imagine a harder fail.

and horrid wilting >_>

lesser_minion
2010-02-08, 11:37 PM
Here's a good question: How hot is a fireball spell? To quote the PHB "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze." Copper melts at 1084.62 degrees Celsius. Would burns at less than 1000 degrees Celsius, and at 2000 degree Celsius it more or less disintegrates. Seriously, a fireball, according to what I just described, must have heat in excess of 1100 degrees Celsius. Even it is just a few seconds long a 20' radius blast should set everything on fire.

But it's not "a few seconds long". It's a fraction of a second. I don't know where the hell they got "melts low-melting point metals", because it simply does damage to objects in its area - it's the same as the serious burns a human might receive if they touched something hot.

Remember that the spell does no bludgeoning damage, and is most effective against tree creatures, which are better-equipped to deal with it than humanoids. It just fails.

RebelRogue
2010-02-08, 11:37 PM
C is Champion, I believe
Nope, it's Companion.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-09, 12:44 AM
Too many drawbacks makes them less fun to play though. As it is wizards already have some drawbacks (they need a spellbook, they can't wear armor, they need to have access to component's etc.) that most characters don't, and that doesn't help balance them, just like "this spell is all powerful but you can only prepare one of them a day" doesn't really work as a balancing point. I'm not sure how many drawbacks you can add to spellcasting and how often the DM can exploit them without the wizard's player feeling like they are getting picked on.
Actually, the watch word of the day was caution and planning. Not just "I win."

The whole point was that magic users died easily, but you exchanged that frailty for versatility and long-term power. A fighter is a tad more forgiving as a "survivor."

The wizard is still "Batman." Still capable of ass-kicking if he has time to prepare. But with more emphasis on the "prepare" part.

===

It probably doesn't take the same amount energy to raise a wooden object 1 degree Kelvin as it would with a transition metal. Plus, that fireball would only be about 500 degrees Kelvin shy of melting iron.

Does stone melt? And why not? It would really depend on the type of stone, right?

The answer, at a cursory search, seems to be: Maybe (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_melting_point_of_stone).

A lot of of stones could conceiveably melt long before copper or gold does. Although that could depend quite heavily on the actual heat of fusion and heat capacity of different stones when compared to that of your average transition metal.

WOTC made a mistake singling out metals that aren't really actually that easy to melt even if they are "soft."

Either way, the realism discussion seems intellectually bankrupt since you're dealing with abstracted damage here.

===

A good way to buff fireball is simply to leave the damage cap off, so that it scales constantly. Not that saying this is necessarily advisable or anything.

But the damage cap was originally instituted to keep your theoretical 20th level wizard from hurling a 20d6 blast from a 3rd level spell slot. (And he gets something like 10 magic missiles from a 1st.)

It's not a bad idea to have that damage cap when your hit points level off. In third edition . . . maybe not so much.

But I need to qualify this:
In 3e, spells aren't easy to disrupt. Any caster worth his salt isn't going to be disrupted. Whereas, in 2e, I recall that 1 point of damage was enough to fizzle a spell.

I suppose disruption isn't as much of an issue with damage spells. Since it's more of an issue that a wizard can just teleport away from a fight or can jump-start his defenses before any harm can really happen to him.

And 3e includes things like metamagic feats and scaling spell DC's. While ability scores can scale pretty slowly with level, it's not so terribly difficult to get magic items to increase your Int/Cha/Wis or whatever. Doubly so because making magic items is much easier.

I guess the only real practical way to find out is to playtest it.

Eldan
2010-02-09, 03:03 AM
Well, then. Let's see:

Fireball:

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. +10 ft./level)
Area: 20 ft. radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex partial,
Spell Resistance: Yes

A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. All creatures of large or smaller size are knocked back by the force of the explosion, moved to the closest edge of the spell's area and knocked prone. A reflex save halves the damage and negates the knock back.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Material Component

A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.


That's the explosion included, how do we word the "always spreads to fill the same amount of squares"?

Also, a few more effects for Alter Self:


Alter Self
Transmutation
Level: Bard 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min/level

You assume the form of one creature of your type and size category (but see below). The change is purely cosmetic, except as noted below, and your ability score, special qualities, extraordinary or supernatural abilities and movement modes do not change.
You may change into a specific individual you are familiar with, or even into yourself, if you wish to do so, gaining a +15 circumstance bonus to disguise checks.
All your equipment stays on you, if the new form is capable of wearing it, or merges into

Apart from these cosmetic changes, you also gain two special abilities from the list below, and one additional special ability per two caster levels beyond the third, to a maximum of 6 abilities at level 11. The form you take has to reflect the abilities you choose.*

{table=head]Name|Effect|Special

Claws|Gain two natural claw attacks, each dealing 1d4 damage each.|Damage is for medium creatures, adjust for size.

Bite|Gain a natural bite attack dealing 1d6 damage.|Damage is for medium creature, adjust for size.

Ability bonus|Gain a +2 bonus to any physical ability score| Can be taken multiple times for different abilities.

Skill bonus|Gain a +4 racial bonus to Climb, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, spot or swim.|Can be taken multiple times for different skills, or twice for a +8 bonus.

Scent|Gain Scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent) at a range of ten feet.|Can be taken multiple times, each time increasing range by 10 feet, to a maximum of 30 feet.

Glidewings|All damage from falling is reduced by 2d6. You may move five feet horizontally for any ten feet you fall.|-

Size change|Increase or decrease your size by one category, change attributes accordingly|Does not stack with other size changing effects

Natural armor|Gain a +2 natural armor bonus|-

Lowlight Vision|See twice as far in dim light, such as candles or starlight|Does not stack with existing lowlight vision
[/table]

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-09, 03:34 AM
The volume of a 20 ft radius sphere is approximately
33,500 cubic ft, and there are 1,000 cubic ft in a 10 x 10 x 10 ft
area, so in an area with a 10 ft ceiling the fireball will fill approximately
thirty-three 10 x 10 ft squares. Thus, if a fireball
explodes in the middle of a corridor 10 ft wide and 10 ft high,
the blast will extend a staggering 165 ft in both directions.
This sounds complicated, but it really isn't if you keep it simple.

All the DM needs to do is have a good idea how much headroom the PC's have at any given time and do a rough estimation to figure out whether a character is in a space that will "fill to expand."

If the characters are 50 feet away from the point of a blast in the above-mentioned 10x10 corridor, it's a safe bet that they're in the blast.

However, it does raise questions in that if you impact a surface, does the fire blow outward from the surface even when there is a lot of room around the point of impact?

Of course, if you don't mind some abstraction, the "33 cubes" model based on a perfect sphere could work if you just assume that the fireball detonates normally if it does have that many cubes available to expand in above and "outwards." (Boiling air does rise upwards afterall, so it's not illogical that the backdraft would go that way, resulting in a slightly oblong pillar.)

Maybe it can be simplified down to something like seventeen 10x10 cubes to abstract the blast into a hemisphere rather than a perfect sphere?

Or you could simply calculate the surface area of a 20-ft radius blast and simplify it to a "flat" blast.

So pi-20-squared equals . . . ~1257 ft-squared. Divide by 25 ft-squared (5x5 tile) . . . and you get ~fifty 5x5 squares.

By the "flat" model, the DM could rule that unless the fireball has sufficient room to expand (20 foot radius in all directions along the "x" and "y" plane and upwards for "headroom" of 20 feet), the fireball fills up fifty 5x5 squares along roughly the same elevation.

Anyway, it's not a question that bears too much pondering. A quick rule is still miles better than a hyper-realistic one.

===

I'm still somewhat leary buffing/nerfing blast spells.

The consensus seems to be that wizards are great damage dealers but that direct damage still isn't competitive enough with his other spells.

Although maybe that's just a case of bringing the ceiling (i.e. utility/control spells/save-or-die) to the floor (i.e. blasting), rather than bringing the floor to the ceiling.

In which case, it's questionable if blasting really needs nerfing in the first place. After all, it's those other spells that people on these boards complain about being "broken."

Fly is really a much better spell to nerf than Fireball, since it's already a fairly restrictive damage spell.

Drolyt
2010-02-09, 07:27 AM
Oddly enough, my Rules Cyclopedia has no damage cap for fireball. It keeps getting stronger at the same rate even though hp leveled off. It's kinda weird that way. I think there should be a metamagic feat: "Increase all level based caps (such as how many missiles you can fire with magic missile) by 2 caster levels" which would increase the spell level by 1. So fireball in a 4th level slot could do up to 12d6, fireball in a 9th level slot could do up to 22d6. That sounds about right.

Eldan
2010-02-09, 07:59 AM
There is one in epic, actually. From what I heard, it's just totally not worth it for an epic feat.

lesser_minion
2010-02-09, 08:45 AM
Well yeah, but what epic feats are? You gain a +1 natural armour bonus to your AC, anyone?

Sure, there's Epic Spellcasting, but that's about it. Combat Archery is tolerable because it should have existed in some form well before that.

Eldan
2010-02-09, 09:03 AM
The one which allows you to cast multiple spells per turn, too. Otherwise, yeah, they suck.

lightningcat
2010-02-09, 10:47 AM
As a fix for Cone of Cold, I've increased the damage from d6/level to d8/level, otherwise it is always worse then Fireball, which it shouldn't be. That means an empowered fireball from a 10th level caster deals 15d6 (15-90, average of 53) while a cone of cold deals 10d8 (10-80, average 45) but it has the ability to grow while fireball is maxed out in damage.

Drolyt
2010-02-09, 11:27 AM
There is one in epic, actually. From what I heard, it's just totally not worth it for an epic feat.

I know of the feat to which you are referring, that's where I got the idea. My idea is intended to be more balanced for non-epic play and works on spells other than pure damage dealers. For example it could increase how many missiles you can fire with magic missile, which that epic feat does not. As for what epic feats are useful, when 3.5 first came out, before the nerf in Complete Arcane, the feat that made all your spells quickened was pretty nice. I had an Epic Level Sorcerer that knew all the best 9th level spells, cast all his spell quickened, and could cast like 5 quickened spells a round. He didn't bother with Epic Spellcasting since I wasn't trying to be that broken.

Cataphract
2010-02-11, 02:43 PM
Alright folks, so far we've got plenty of contributions.

Tomorrow or the day after that I'll do a big update and start typing things in the first posts.

Of course, we're far from done here :smallcool:

Thanks to everybody and keep up the good work!

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-12, 11:39 PM
Eh, to go back to the Fireball discussion. This may not have been clear, but my evaluation of it went something like:


Blasting is underpowered relative to other spells.

But blasting is still pretty good relative to everything else.

Overall, magic in 3.5 is too convenient and does not really exemplify the idea that magic could have some danger or requires planning.

So if we nerf magic by making its function require some planning but give a higher damage cap. So maybe raise the cap closer to 15d6 or something.
Of course, raising the damage cap does nothing for the spell's immediate usefulness. So the idea probably needs work.

Drolyt
2010-02-12, 11:44 PM
Eh, to go back to the Fireball discussion. This may not have been clear, but my evaluation of it went something like:


Blasting is underpowered relative to other spells.

But blasting is still pretty good relative to everything else.

Overall, magic in 3.5 is too convenient and does not really exemplify the idea that magic could have some danger or requires planning.

So if we nerf magic by making its function require some planning but give a higher damage cap. So maybe raise the cap closer to 15d6 or something.
Of course, raising the damage cap does nothing for the spell's immediate usefulness. So the idea probably needs work.

I'm not getting this "magic should be dangerous" line of thought. Yes there are many stories where it is. There are many where it is not. Admittedly in few creative works are spellcasters as varied and powerful as in D&D, but I just don't see D&D being as fun if spellcasting is too dangerous. A lot of people like to break in the door and start killing things, not worry about the consequences of spellcasting. Other people like political intrigue, which also isn't helped by spellcasting having consequences. Really I can't see any style of play that is helped by spellcasting having extra consequences or restrictions. It might be more balanced and it might fit your idea for a campaign world, but I don't think a general system like D&D should use such restrictive magic.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-12, 11:52 PM
I'm not getting this "magic should be dangerous" line of thought. Yes there are many stories where it is. There are many where it is not. Admittedly in few creative works are spellcasters as varied and powerful as in D&D, but I just don't see D&D being as fun if spellcasting is too dangerous. A lot of people like to break in the door and start killing things, not worry about the consequences of spellcasting. Other people like political intrigue, which also isn't helped by spellcasting having consequences. Really I can't see any style of play that is helped by spellcasting having extra consequences or restrictions. It might be more balanced and it might fit your idea for a campaign world, but I don't think a general system like D&D should use such restrictive magic.
I explained this. If magic is too powerful, the obvious nerf is to make it require planning and forethought and limit the circumstances where it is readily useable. In short: make it require player skill.

In terms of game philosophy:
Earlier versions of D&D were more about survival through wits than it was about a power creep. And this is an element I think that 3E was too ready to throw to the wind because players just wanted more power fantasies rather than a game of skill. You had to plan around your low hit points. Spells were easier to disrupt.

This is no longer a weakness since now since the Concentration check is easy to pass and because spell-based defensive measures are easy to pull off. Dispelling a Fly spell doesn't break the wizard's neck if he forgot to prepare Feather Fall. Instead, it's pretty much a great defensive combat measure.

And yes, it doesn't hurt that there's a literary pedigree in the whole thing. So I'm partial to it as a rule. A part of me is annoyed that magic is too convenient, too safe and too exact a science (e.g. Harry Potter and most video game depictions of magic). Whatever happened to magic being portrayed as a dark ages proto-science? Seriously, that's way cooler than the adolescent fantasies we currently have about magic.

Gone are the djinns who twist the intent of a wish. Gone are the cursed magic items. Gone is the whole idea of bargaining with demons who'd rather rip you to shreds. Gone is the idea that playing with fire or nuclear waste could hurt you. Icarus doesn't get screwed for flying too close to the sun because Feather Fall is in-built.

Drolyt
2010-02-13, 12:13 AM
I explained this. If magic is too powerful, the obvious nerf is to make it require planning and forethought and limit the circumstances where it is readily useable. In short: make it require player skill.

In terms of game philosophy:
Earlier versions of D&D were more about survival through wits than it was about a power creep. And this is an element I think that 3E was too ready to throw to the wind because players just wanted more power fantasies rather than a game of skill. You had to plan around your low hit points. Spells were easier to disrupt.

This is no longer a weakness since now since the Concentration check is easy to pass and because spell-based defensive measures are easy to pull off. Dispelling a Fly spell doesn't break the wizard's neck if he forgot to prepare Feather Fall. Instead, it's pretty much a great defensive combat measure.

And yes, it doesn't hurt that there's a literary pedigree in the whole thing. So I'm partial to it as a rule. A part of me is annoyed that magic is too convenient, too safe and too exact a science (e.g. Harry Potter and most video game depictions of magic). Whatever happened to magic being portrayed as a dark ages proto-science? Seriously, that's way cooler than the adolescent fantasies we currently have about magic.

Gone are the djinns who twist the intent of a wish. Gone are the cursed magic items. Gone is the whole idea of bargaining with demons who'd rather rip you to shreds. Gone is the idea that playing with fire or nuclear waste could hurt you. Icarus doesn't get screwed for flying too close to the sun because Feather Fall is in-built.

Making it require player skill... doesn't really balance anything. I think making spells less broken is a more obvious nerf than making them more difficult to cast, which I am still convinced doesn't really balance anything. Yes the power creep power seep thing is new to 3e, and yes previous editions made it harder to survive. You may or may not perceive that as a good thing, but overall magic was not that hard to cast in previous editions either. The only really true thing is that spells were easier to disrupt, the actual casting was just as easy in most cases. The BD&D Wish is actually nicer than the 3.5 one. Also, what's wrong with having adolescent fantasies about magic? It's a game after all, and personally although I don't mind DMs coming up with real world consequences to player actions (you wiz on the king; good job now he executes you) I don't see the need for fantastic consequences (you cast fireball; now an evil demon eats your soul). That's a matter of opinion of course, but an RPG like D&D needs to make as few assumptions as possible about how people want to play their game, and the easiest way to do that is with functional magic with few consequences. Consequences can be added by those who play the game, but this thread is about making the D&D magic system work without altering its basic premises (unless of course I misunderstood the premise of the thread).

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-13, 03:27 AM
Eh. The skill thing is more of design decision.

The fact that there are limitations on how and when you can use spells doesn't make it any less of a nerf.

Basically, I think it's a win-win from a design standpoint.

I'd also say that easily disrupted spells is what I was getting at with "harder to cast." The point is that defenses are so very easy to throw up, in part because you can't disrupt them. Also, spell-casting brought you down the initiative order. The higher the spell level, the slower you got.

Now I can understand reasons why fireballs shouldn't be nerfed. But there's no good reason for letting Fly have a built-in Featherfall. I'd go further and put in a variable duration (which probably will matter more at lower levels).

Thames
2010-02-13, 03:31 AM
Also, a few more effects for Alter Self:


Alter Self
Transmutation
Level: Bard 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 min/level

You assume the form of one creature of your type and size category (but see below). The change is purely cosmetic, except as noted below, and your ability score, special qualities, extraordinary or supernatural abilities and movement modes do not change.
You may change into a specific individual you are familiar with, or even into yourself, if you wish to do so, gaining a +15 circumstance bonus to disguise checks.
All your equipment stays on you, if the new form is capable of wearing it, or merges into

Apart from these cosmetic changes, you also gain two special abilities from the list below, and one additional special ability per two caster levels beyond the third, to a maximum of 6 abilities at level 11. The form you take has to reflect the abilities you choose.*

{table=head]Name|Effect|Special

Claws|Gain two natural claw attacks, each dealing 1d4 damage each.|Damage is for medium creatures, adjust for size.

Bite|Gain a natural bite attack dealing 1d6 damage.|Damage is for medium creature, adjust for size.

Ability bonus|Gain a +2 bonus to any physical ability score| Can be taken multiple times for different abilities.

Skill bonus|Gain a +4 racial bonus to Climb, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, spot or swim.|Can be taken multiple times for different skills, or twice for a +8 bonus.

Scent|Gain Scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent) at a range of ten feet.|Can be taken multiple times, each time increasing range by 10 feet, to a maximum of 30 feet.

Glidewings|All damage from falling is reduced by 2d6. You may move five feet horizontally for any ten feet you fall.|-

Size change|Increase or decrease your size by one category, change attributes accordingly|Does not stack with other size changing effects

Natural armor|Gain a +2 natural armor bonus|-

Lowlight Vision|See twice as far in dim light, such as candles or starlight|Does not stack with existing lowlight vision
[/table]




I like the idea behind this, but do not think that it should have ability increases as an option considering that other 2nd level spells do that and this can eventually do it better (+2 to all physical stats at higher levels) not to mention the greater versatility of the spell. I think having WINGED flight as a pickable option would be good but it should require a certain are to use, no indoors flight unless in a big cavern or some such and require a run-off to achieve flight to begin with. Glidewings should just cancel all falling damage as that isnt even the same as feather fall (less targets, more preparation required). Scent is good, claws are good, bite is good (might not be equal to the other options though so maybe a half weighting or point system could be good - im thinking like the lists for the astral construct special abilities), I'm not sure about the amount of nat AC though it may need to be higher or lower, size change is good, your skill bonuses look a bit weak - maybe +8 on the first pop and can always take 10 on the second

LurkerInPlayground
2010-02-13, 03:42 AM
Another thing is that save-or-dies got a lot more viable.

Save or dies used to suck. But now they pretty much scale semi-linearly with level.

Spell DC goes up roughly 1 per every 2 levels of wizard. Int would then increase up to about a total of +16 (headband of intellect, 5 intrinsic points and 5 freebie from leveling, with fox's cunning picking up the slack in between).

So theoretically, a maxed-out Finger of Death spell would have of something like DC 27 or 28.

Eldan
2010-02-13, 03:47 AM
I like the idea behind this, but do not think that it should have ability increases as an option considering that other 2nd level spells do that and this can eventually do it better (+2 to all physical stats at higher levels) not to mention the greater versatility of the spell. I think having WINGED flight as a pickable option would be good but it should require a certain are to use, no indoors flight unless in a big cavern or some such and require a run-off to achieve flight to begin with. Glidewings should just cancel all falling damage as that isnt even the same as feather fall (less targets, more preparation required). Scent is good, claws are good, bite is good (might not be equal to the other options though so maybe a half weighting or point system could be good - im thinking like the lists for the astral construct special abilities), I'm not sure about the amount of nat AC though it may need to be higher or lower, size change is good, your skill bonuses look a bit weak - maybe +8 on the first pop and can always take 10 on the second

I agree on the physical stats, now that I think about it. It's also an unnamed bonus, the way I wrote it, which sounds too good for this level.
Winged flight, to me, should be out: flight is a level 3 spell, and should not be (partially) replicated by a versatile level 2 spell.
The skill boni are indeed a little weak. Let's increase them. Negate all falling damage is acceptable. Weighting, to me, seems a little complicated. I think I'll save that for polymorph when I get around to doing that. (With alter self as the low level boni).

Any ideas for more small utilities to add?

Cataphract
2010-02-13, 04:59 AM
@Drolyt/LurkerInThePlayground

While I have toyed around with the idea of that kind of nerfing (skills/dangerous magic), as Drolyt pointed out it's not what I'm aiming for in this thread/project.

I've decided that instead of making huge changes in D&D to incorporate my style of play, I'll first try to fix what's universally broken, to have a better version of standard D&D. Which, then, would be easier to customise.

Simple, no?

Thames
2010-02-13, 06:23 AM
I'll post a list of effects that i think should be available for alterself and other polymorph type spells but right now I'll extend on what I meant about lists similar to astral construct.

For caster levels 1-3 you could pick from List A, 4-6 List B, 7-9 List C and cap it at caster level 9 for alter self. You could pick a number of abilites 2+1 per 2 levels after 3rd and Polymorph self and shapechange would give more abilites, have a higher cap and provide access to more lists with more powerful options. An abilitiy from list B would be worth twice as much as list A and list C would be worth 3 or 4 times as much as list A, so you would either go for more powerful abilites or more of them (versatility). I think that winged flight would then be justifiable as a List B or C ability for alter self as you would get it after or the same time as flight and it gives a penalty to ranged attacks, requires a concentraion check to cast when flying, you need more space to fly and would require a run to achieve flight and couldn't hover.

Also I think the +15 on disguise checks for the spell is too much, +10 is plenty and may even be worth including as a ability to be selected instead of something which comes of it automatically - in case someone gets claws and fangs but doesn't bother to alter their shape past recognition.

Edit: oh yeah - supernatural abilities and some extraordinary ones should only be made available for shapechange and polymorph - which is obvious but I thought I'd put it down just to be safe
2nd Edit: Maybe 4 legs/arms should be a thing as it makes it easier to grapple, avoid trips, bullrushes; maybe reach could be an option; poison is probably better left for polymorph; increases to the damage of claws and bite if you take it multiple times (get the natural attack the first time and gain the improved natural attack feat the second time - for the duration of the spell), darkvision, speed increase: thats all im going to put down right now

Drolyt
2010-02-13, 11:08 AM
I think +2 to all physical stats is fairly reasonable for a 2nd level spell, even if it is untyped. For one thing it is a self only spell only castable by wizards and sorcerers, so it would be most useful to a gish. For another +2 to physical stats isn't necessarily that powerful. A temporary bonus to Constitution is essentially +1 fort, a dex bonus is more powerful with +1 reflex, +1 ac, and +1 ranged attack rolls, and the strength bonus is just +1 attack roll +1 damage. That's really good, but part of the problem is you allow too many abilities. 6 Abilities from a level 2 spell is probably overdoing it even at higher levels. I'd limit it to 3, so that +2 to all physical stats is the absolute best you can do. I'd also make them some sort of type, though I'm not sure what type they would be.

Which brings me to something else. How about implementing an augmenting feature similar to that in some psionic abilities where you can make certain spells more powerful by putting them in higher level slots?

Thames
2010-02-13, 11:51 AM
augmentation combined with the spells increasing in power as caster level increases would be unbalanced - getting rid of the former makes some spells useless at higher levels, also there is usually a higher level form of a spell which is more powerful for example polymorph and shapechange: in essence you would either be giving them free spells which is nice or in the case of a sorcerer massive or creating a something overpowered or making a redundancy

In other other words it has already been done and is in built into the system if yo mean alter self becoming polymorph or it is overpowered or redundant if you mean alter self becoming ubercharged (alterself is used for convenience)

Edit: although you do make a good point about the +2 to a stat being personal only: combined with it not effecting mental stats - i may backflip on this but it should definitely be a typed bonus of some sort.