PDA

View Full Version : SC and MIC



Cicciograna
2010-03-09, 11:34 AM
Many times I've read good opinions on these books: a lot of people include these in their lists of "must have" books. But there's one thing I don't understand: it's vox populi that the most broken thing in D&D 3.5 are the spells, and the second most broken thing are the magic items. How can two books which add tons of the former and the latter be good books, or at least positive for a game? I mean, even sticking to Core a Wizard or a Cleric can break the game: if you add other sources of spells...

Tell me.

NOTE: I'm not stating that these books are bad (I don't even have them). I'm merely asking why so many people reagard them as good additions to tye game.

arguskos
2010-03-09, 11:37 AM
Because they provide options, which increases the health of the game and makes it far more fun in many ways.

Yes, spells have this tendency to be powerful, but they're also FUN, and having more and unique ones is even more fun. I like having fun, do you like having fun? Thought so. :smallcool:

The Glyphstone
2010-03-09, 11:40 AM
Mainly because the most broken spells are in Core. Some of the even more broken spells are in Complete Arcane or PHBII...but they are not really prevalent in Spell Compendium, except as reprints (for the Orbs). Contrary, SC is chock-full of goodness for every class, not just the Big Three/Five....Rangers get a huge boost with access to the spells in SC, so do the much-maligned Assassins. Even Paladins/Blackguards get a leg up with some new magic.

MIC is a completely different story - it's great because it adds variety. Aside from a few bombs (Healing Belts, Belt of Battle), very little of its content is broken, and a vast portion of it is exceptional compared to DMG loot because it's CHEAP. As in, under 4,000GP, often under 1,000GP, and not just potions/consumables. It lets you start handing out magical treasure rewards to PCs at a far lower level than if you just used the DMG, helping the overall feel of the game being 'magic'. It also makes generating said treasure waaaay easier.

Grumman
2010-03-09, 11:40 AM
Because everyone can get some use out of them.* By the time you get to level 20 you'll have a lot more spells and a lot more magic items than you will, say PrCs or feats. And you're more likely to have some gold burning a hole in your pocket than you are to have a level-up waiting until you find something to spend it on.

Except those VoP bozos and the can't-cast-spells bozos.

Saph
2010-03-09, 11:40 AM
Because the people who complain the most about 3.5's balance and the people who love having extra options generally aren't the same people. :smallsmile:

3.5 spellcasters and item crafters can be overpowered due to having so many options. But for many people, those options are exactly why the classes are so much fun to begin with. For these people having lots of options isn't a bug, it's a feature.

The people who don't like a character having lots of options and who are willing to accept less options in exchange for more balance have by now mostly switched to playing 4e, and don't use the SC or the MiC, or any other 3.5 books for that matter.

And then you get a few split-personality types who simultaneously claim that 3.5 magic is totally broken but also advocate for as many sources of spells as possible, but there's a much simpler explanation for this which doesn't have anything to do with consistency. :smalltongue:

lsfreak
2010-03-09, 11:41 AM
Magic items are broken in the sense that they are required. If you take a level 12 fighter and Chain Dispel all his gear, he'll essentially be useless. A lot of people don't like that it's not a character that's good, but his items. And even then, magic items still don't let a melee character catch up to spellcasters. But MIC makes it so that the lower-end characters can keep up longer. MIC isn't nearly as helpful to spellcasters as to melee, though it still helps.

Spells are broken, Core-only, fullstop. Adding a bunch of new spells that are, all-in-all, less powerful but more flavorful isn't a bad thing. Maybe your wizards will choose such fun spells as Manyjaws instead of something like Web or Gliterdust, or even in-between spells like Ice Lance. SpC is especially good to paladins and rangers, making their spells actually worth casting. There are a few exceptions (Orbs being broken with metamagic, but then again Core-only has enervation fun), but overall the SpC spells aren't overpowering, but rather solidly 'good.'

EDIT: Also, what Saph said. Most people don't actually have these massive disparities come up in their games, and those that had them, didn't want them, and didn't adjust things on their own, probably switched to 4e.

Devils_Advocate
2010-03-09, 09:23 PM
it's vox populi that the most broken thing in D&D 3.5 are the spells, and the second most broken thing are the magic items.
:smallconfused: Spells aren't a thing. Magic items aren't a thing. Each of those is many, many individual things, some of which are broken and some of which are not.

A splatbook that isn't decidedly underpowered next to the core books will add broken options. It will also add non-broken options. Players who dislike broken stuff like those as alternatives to broken stuff. And players who like broken stuff like the new broken stuff. Something for everyone! :smalltongue:


I'm merely asking why so many people reagard them as good additions to tye game.
Because they provide a bunch of additional material to work with, which is basically the point of supplements. Whether you want to do something not covered elsewhere in the rules, want to replace an existing option with something more balanced, want to explore new and unfamiliar options, or just plain want to break the game in new and interesting ways, buying new rulebooks can provide a wealth of crunch to assist you in your goals.

Similarly, lots of people like the Tome of Battle for giving non-spellcasters new and different ways of doing things and/or things to do, not just because it made it easier to optimize them.

Ormur
2010-03-10, 12:18 AM
Someone playing a wizard or a dedicated optimizer can break D&D in core just as badly as he can with supplements, he just has more ways of doing it. Someone whose aim isn't to break the game has a lot more of options with MIC and SC and it also helps classes that are too weak in core so the benefit of using those books is greater than the potential for brokenness.. Avoiding brokenness should be done either by banning specific broken things or by mutual consent anyway not by arbitrarily limiting options to those who won't break the game.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-10, 12:27 AM
As stated above, the most broken spells are already in Core. Moreover, in my experience, a group with access to the PHB and the SpC will be less likely to go hunting through other books for the 'best' spell *cough shivering touch cough*. SpC has enough variety that it can be the only additional source of spells a group needs. Though we have literally all of the 3.5 books between us, my group generally only uses the PHB and SpC as sources for our spells.

For the MiC, it adds variety and much-needed adjustments to the rules. Item combining means that while everyone who cares about AC may have a ring of deflection, they might have different secondary effects on those rings. Variety is a good thing.

Also, healing belt = cleric doesn't have to be a healbot, which nobody wants to play anyway.

obnoxious
sig

Runestar
2010-03-10, 12:29 AM
And the healing belt is far from broken (compared to a wand of CLW). I feel it is actually the poster boy for what a fun, cheap yet effective magic item ought to be. :smallsmile:

FishAreWet
2010-03-10, 12:45 AM
It significantly powers up Paladins/Rangers but doesn't do much in terms of power for anyone else.

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-10, 12:51 AM
It significantly powers up Paladins/Rangers but doesn't do much in terms of power for anyone else....it also boosts Assassins. (shifty eyes)

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-10, 12:55 AM
MiC also really helps the non-magic folk deal with stuff like forcecages with its short range teleport items.

Draz74
2010-03-10, 01:10 AM
And then you get a few split-personality types who simultaneously claim that 3.5 magic is totally broken but also advocate for as many sources of spells as possible, but there's a much simpler explanation for this which doesn't have anything to do with consistency. :smalltongue:

I think you missed those of us who like character variety, and like game balance, but who just aren't afraid to use the Banhammer on any overpowered options that MIC or SpC (or any other source, for that matter, including Core) introduce.

Runestar
2010-03-10, 01:11 AM
Not to mention that belt of battle helps to make melee viable again by allowing them to move and still make a full attack. :smallcool:

Superglucose
2010-03-10, 01:16 AM
From what I've seen, the SC really just gives the casters a few spells that really make sense. You know, like Mass Death Ward, Greater Mage Armor... things that are certainly level ups of Core spells, but are sensible level ups that aren't overpowered or broken.

Besides, I've yet to run into anything in Spell Compendium nearly as powerful as, say, the Polymorph line or Time Stop. It adds variety without too much power, and a lot of spells that just should have been in the damn books to begin with.

arguskos
2010-03-10, 01:28 AM
I think you missed those of us who like character variety, and like game balance, but who just aren't afraid to use the Banhammer on any overpowered options that MIC or SpC (or any other source, for that matter, including Core) introduce.
We have T-Shirts. They're made by a Solar-Sweatshop we access and made with banned gate spells. :smallwink:

Draz74
2010-03-10, 01:38 AM
We have T-Shirts. They're made by a Solar-Sweatshop we access and made with banned gate spells. :smallwink:

... that doesn't make any sense ...

:smallwink:

Pluto
2010-03-10, 02:16 AM
Spells and toys are fun.

Especially the ones that don't balance well.

arguskos
2010-03-10, 02:17 AM
... that doesn't make any sense ...

:smallwink:
You see, players think that bans remove things from the game, when in reality, I siphon those banned substances off into my Demiplane of Banned Objects, where I abused them for personal lulz forever.

I am a bad, bad man. :smallcool:

Curmudgeon
2010-03-10, 06:25 AM
A bunch of spells from the Complete series were toned down in Spell Compendium. It's much more convenient to tote around and use than all those original books. Plus WotC's rules say you've got to use the updated versions anyway if you have them.

As for the Magic Item Compendium, it's got some bug fixes like correcting the price of a Strand of Prayer Beads that was wrong in the DMG. Plus what it adds are mostly low cost, fairly low power goodies that work in campaigns before PCs can afford the pricier magic stuff.

Optimystik
2010-03-10, 06:35 AM
And then you get a few split-personality types who simultaneously claim that 3.5 magic is totally broken but also advocate for as many sources of spells as possible, but there's a much simpler explanation for this which doesn't have anything to do with consistency. :smalltongue:

As others have said, the broken spells are in core already - adding Spell Compendium just buffs the weaker casters (like Paladins and Rangers), it doesn't do a thing to alter the balance away from or toward CoDzilla.

And even the most broken non-core spell is in PHB2, not SpC. (Celerity, in case you were wondering.)

magic9mushroom
2010-03-10, 06:38 AM
A bunch of spells from the Complete series were toned down in Spell Compendium. It's much more convenient to tote around and use than all those original books. Plus WotC's rules say you've got to use the updated versions anyway if you have them.

As for the Magic Item Compendium, it's got some bug fixes like correcting the price of a Strand of Prayer Beads that was wrong in the DMG. Plus what it adds are mostly low cost, fairly low power goodies that work in campaigns before PCs can afford the pricier magic stuff.

Maw of Chaos was not. Maw of Chaos was toned up (and way too high, it was already awesome). Also, some of the nerfs make no sense, like Reaving Dispel.

Optimystik
2010-03-10, 08:18 AM
On an unrelated note, what book can I find Streamers in?

Eldariel
2010-03-10, 08:27 AM
On an unrelated note, what book can I find Streamers in?

Shining South.


Btw, the only thing I'd worry about with Spell Compendium is buffing. In Core, without shapechanging magic, buffing leads to only a tad stronger character than fully equipped Fighter. With Spell Compendium though, there are few absolutely sick buffs like Bite of the Werebear, Fuse Arms + Girallon's Blessing and company which make buffed-up caster far more formidable than ever. Though of course, without means to persist them they aren't all that good; Bite is only 1 round/level and Fuse Arms-line is 10 mins/level.

PinkysBrain
2010-03-10, 08:31 AM
Many times I've read good opinions on these books: a lot of people include these in their lists of "must have" books. But there's one thing I don't understand: it's vox populi that the most broken thing in D&D 3.5 are the spells
This is true.

and the second most broken thing are the magic items.
This is not ... the magic items give options to non casters.

MiC minus the circlet of rapid casting and removing the standard action option from the belt of battle (make it a standard action attack) is good for balance.

AslanCross
2010-03-10, 09:27 AM
First you have to realize that these two are reprints of items and spells that did not appear in core. A great deal of the broken stuff is actually in core (Candle of Invocation for the items, and the spells are rather obvious.)

A lot of the MIC items are actually low-level tools that have interesting, if incidental, uses. None of them is on the level of say, the Candle of Invocation.

The same can be said for Spell Compendium to a lesser extent.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 12:45 PM
First you have to realize that these two are reprints of items and spells that did not appear in core. A great deal of the broken stuff is actually in core (Candle of Invocation for the items, and the spells are rather obvious.)

A lot of the MIC items are actually low-level tools that have interesting, if incidental, uses. None of them is on the level of say, the Candle of Invocation.

The same can be said for Spell Compendium to a lesser extent.

The closest thing to broken in the MiC is the Belt of Battle, but that's easily fixed by giving it the 24 hour attunement time.

Thankfully, no one has had the gall to reprint the Thought Bottle.

Optimystik
2010-03-10, 12:48 PM
Thankfully, no one has had the gall to reprint the Thought Bottle.

Speaking of which, I wonder what the origins of that item are? A very similar item exists in Magic: The Gathering (Memory Jar) leading me to wonder if there is a mythological source for the concept.

Emmerask
2010-03-10, 12:55 PM
Many times I've read good opinions on these books: a lot of people include these in their lists of "must have" books. But there's one thing I don't understand: it's vox populi that the most broken thing in D&D 3.5 are the spells, and the second most broken thing are the magic items. How can two books which add tons of the former and the latter be good books, or at least positive for a game? I mean, even sticking to Core a Wizard or a Cleric can break the game: if you add other sources of spells...

Tell me.

NOTE: I'm not stating that these books are bad (I don't even have them). I'm merely asking why so many people reagard them as good additions to tye game.

MIC gives everyone nice stuff arguably the lower tiers profit even more then the higher ones because they can actually do stuff now while the higher tiers can do their stuff only a bit better ^^

with the spc I have mixed feelings about that book because while true that the most broken spells are in core it adds other very powerfull spells to the already extremely powerful spellselection the higher tiers enjoy. Which does not help balance and increases the stuff to be houseruled or banned to maintain a balanced game...

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 01:00 PM
Speaking of which, I wonder what the origins of that item are? A very similar item exists in Magic: The Gathering (Memory Jar) leading me to wonder if there is a mythological source for the concept.

I don't know myself, but saying it is based on the Memory Jar card is fairly solid (it was printed in CArc, which was way after Urza's Block).

Draz74
2010-03-10, 02:11 PM
Since the few "broken" items in MIC have been mentioned a few times, I'll just mention that there's at least two overpowered items that MIC nicely nerfed for us, as well.

Torc of Power Preservation (not inherently overpowered, but in combination, it led to some nasty psionic tricks)
and Retributive Amulet (which was just plain wrong).

Cicciograna
2010-03-10, 03:00 PM
Okay, from all of your answers I got that these two books are great both in terms of variety and of (relative) balance, as there are many boons for all the classes and the fluff too is good.

Now I ask, woulod it be possible and feasible to ban all the spells from Core and allow only those from SC? Is there enough material for all the classes to have fun?

Eldariel
2010-03-10, 03:06 PM
Okay, from all of your answers I got that these two books are great both in terms of variety and of (relative) balance, as there are many boons for all the classes and the fluff too is good.

Now I ask, woulod it be possible and feasible to ban all the spells from Core and allow only those from SC? Is there enough material for all the classes to have fun?

Sorta. Unfortunately though, Core has few so key spells I wouldn't play without them. E.g. Heal is an absolutely indispensible midlevel spell, as are the various Resurrections. And I really like the gas low-level Wizards have in Color Spray, Grease & al. Balances low levels out quite nicely.

And frankly, I can't really see D&D without Time Stop or Magic Missile. That's just wrong. But by and large, yeah, you could. Few exceptions do apply though.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-10, 03:10 PM
Since the few "broken" items in MIC have been mentioned a few times, I'll just mention that there's at least two overpowered items that MIC nicely nerfed for us, as well.

Torc of Power Preservation (not inherently overpowered, but in combination, it led to some nasty psionic tricks)
and Retributive Amulet (which was just plain wrong).

Torc is cheaper but weaker in MIC. It is better (at will instead of a few times/day) in XPH.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 03:13 PM
Sorta. Unfortunately though, Core has few so key spells I wouldn't play without them. E.g. Heal is an absolutely indispensible midlevel spell, as are the various Resurrections. And I really like the gas low-level Wizards have in Color Spray, Grease & al. Balances low levels out quite nicely.

And frankly, I can't really see D&D without Time Stop or Magic Missile. That's just wrong. But by and large, yeah, you could. Few exceptions do apply though.

Kinda agreed. But all you need to do is ask around and we can tell you which spells in Core need to be banned.


It starts with Astral Projection, Planar Binding (and variants), Planar Ally, and Gate. It may end all the way down at Glitterdust.

faceroll
2010-03-10, 03:18 PM
SpC has some really nice spells. Superior Invisibility, Ironguard, Freezing Fog, that one that gives you the Ex ability of whatever you're wildshaped into, and tons of terrific gish spells. Bite of X, shared with your AC, absolutely dominates in combat. Oh yeah, the orb spells are in there too.

SpC definitely boosts the power of casters. Saying otherwise is being disingenuous.

Eldariel
2010-03-10, 03:23 PM
SpC has some really nice spells. Superior Invisibility, Ironguard, Freezing Fog, that one that gives you the Ex ability of whatever you're wildshaped into, and tons of terrific gish spells. Bite of X, shared with your AC, absolutely dominates in combat. Oh yeah, the orb spells are in there too.

SpC definitely boosts the power of casters. Saying otherwise is being disingenuous.

Right, but caster with all core-spells only is just gonna school a caster with all SC-spells only.

lsfreak
2010-03-10, 03:23 PM
It starts with Astral Projection, Planar Binding (and variants), Planar Ally, and Gate. It may end all the way down at Glitterdust.

To be fair, a lot of those of questionable ban-worthiness (many of the save-or-lose/save-or-suck/rays) can be fixed by allowing a new save every round or adding a save for negation/partial/half effect.

Caphi
2010-03-10, 04:05 PM
The SpC is great because it updates defenestrating sphere with a clause that actually defenestrates, restoring it to the status of Best Spell Ever.

Ormur
2010-03-10, 04:06 PM
Okay, from all of your answers I got that these two books are great both in terms of variety and of (relative) balance, as there are many boons for all the classes and the fluff too is good.

Now I ask, woulod it be possible and feasible to ban all the spells from Core and allow only those from SC? Is there enough material for all the classes to have fun?

The SC is naturally meant as a supplement to core so that would be very weird. First of all you'd have "mass" spells in SC but not the less powerful lower level version in Core and similar counterparts. It would also mean you'd lose many iconic or basic spells casters should be able to cast. Stuff like minor/major image, utility spells, fireballs, sending etc. etc.

I'm sure you could weed core pretty intensely to improve balance without sacrificing fun but banning it completely would be strange. I don't think you should ever put a blanket ban on books except for campaign specific reasons or lack of familiarity with them.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 04:28 PM
To be fair, a lot of those of questionable ban-worthiness (many of the save-or-lose/save-or-suck/rays) can be fixed by allowing a new save every round or adding a save for negation/partial/half effect.

Planar Binding? Maybe. Astral Projection? How the hell do you justify that saving throw (other than the obvious IHS the Sun trick)?

Pluto
2010-03-10, 04:37 PM
Now I ask, woulod it be possible and feasible to ban all the spells from Core and allow only those from SC? Is there enough material for all the classes to have fun?You might put the classes infinitesimally closer to one another in terms of raw power...

But lose the Big Evil Warlock who turns into a dragon and eats the people who meddle in his affairs?
Or the Faustian Sorcerer who gambles his soul for well-intended purposes?
Or the Diabolical Voice Behind the Throne who uses his magic words to control the King's every decree?

You could do it, but Balance != Good times.

AslanCross
2010-03-10, 05:28 PM
Sorta. Unfortunately though, Core has few so key spells I wouldn't play without them. E.g. Heal is an absolutely indispensible midlevel spell, as are the various Resurrections. And I really like the gas low-level Wizards have in Color Spray, Grease & al. Balances low levels out quite nicely.

And frankly, I can't really see D&D without Time Stop or Magic Missile. That's just wrong. But by and large, yeah, you could. Few exceptions do apply though.

Agreed.

I think it's easier to blacklist spells than to whitelist them. OP, I think you're better off banning certain items and spells than just banning core, even with exceptions.

lsfreak
2010-03-10, 05:35 PM
Planar Binding? Maybe. Astral Projection? How the hell do you justify that saving throw (other than the obvious IHS the Sun trick)?

Sorry, I meant 'questionable ban-worthiness' to mean those on the lower end of the scale, like Glitterdust, Enervation, Pyrotechnics, and the like. Allowing a save for negation for Pyrotechnics, taking an action to make an additional save for Glitterdust, an giving a Fort save for half for Enervation will likely remove them from the list of 'abusive spells' for those DM's that view them as too powerful.