PDA

View Full Version : Why Doesn't This Spell Idea Exist?



Defiant
2010-07-08, 01:38 PM
Enchanter wizards everywhere enjoy manipulating many living beings, through charming, hypnosis, or whatever means they research with their mighty arcane powers.

Yet they all give up when it comes to facing off a mindless creature (such as an undead or a construct, for example). Their arcane might is all for naught, and they just accept it and give up, finding other ways to vanquish their foes instead of manipulating the mind and will to their own purposes.

Well here's one wizard that is not willing to accept this fact of reality. After all, the entire point of wizardry is to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

Behold, a new spell idea (no, it's not fleshed out as an actual spell, just an idea):

Bestow Awareness

Why should you give up when the mindless robotic dog starts running after you? Why shouldn't you be able to charm it or hypnotize it? Oh, because it's mindless? Well not anymore.

Bestow unto a mindless creature self-awareness, thought, and sentience, perhaps even sapience. Then bend it to your will using your now again-useful enchantment magic.

I don't want to go into the details of how this would work (probably various spells at different tiers in the spell-levels), just to present that it should exist.

I've considered this for a long time. You can't charm something because it's a mindless automaton? Use magic to make it less mindless.

Thoughts?

Caphi
2010-07-08, 01:39 PM
Awaken and its family are pretty high-level.

Mastikator
2010-07-08, 01:42 PM
Creating consciousness isn't small potatoes dude. It should probably require some xp component.

Thalnawr
2010-07-08, 01:45 PM
There's also the fact that this probably wouldn't change the target's overall creature type, just it's subtype. And immunity to mind-affecting attacks is a function of creature type, since there are plenty of non-mindless undead who still have the same immunities.

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-08, 01:46 PM
Or you could just Fireball it.

Thalnawr
2010-07-08, 01:47 PM
Or buff the beatstick types in the group, and have them kill it for you.

Defiant
2010-07-08, 01:48 PM
Multi-quote :smallcool:


Awaken and its family are pretty high-level.

Usually not used for this purpose (I don't know how it would work), and is divine (not arcane).


Creating consciousness isn't small potatoes dude. It should probably require some xp component.

Lower/mid-level, maybe it's not creating a consciousness. Just a small part of it. Enough to make the target be afraid, but not full-blown sapient.

Eh? :smallamused:


There's also the fact that this probably wouldn't change the target's overall creature type, just it's subtype. And immunity to mind-affecting attacks is a function of creature type, since there are plenty of non-mindless undead who still have the same immunities.

Simple. Just add a line noting this as an exception. :smallconfused:

Defiant
2010-07-08, 01:50 PM
Or you could just Fireball it.


Or buff the beatstick types in the group, and have them kill it for you.

I'm more upset at the idea of schools of magic being rendered useless, as well as obvious choices in how to do things.

A game isn't "many options" and "lots of customization" when it is absolutely obvious that the best schools to drop are Enchantment and Evocation, for example.

Boci
2010-07-08, 01:52 PM
I made a 9th level swift action casting spell that stripped a target of mind affecting spell immunity for your next spell no save or SR, and a 6th level save or loose mind immunity for 1 round / caster level.

Thalnawr
2010-07-08, 01:54 PM
I'm more upset at the idea of schools of magic being rendered useless, as well as obvious choices in how to do things.

A game isn't "many options" and "lots of customization" when it is absolutely obvious that the best schools to drop are Enchantment and Evocation, for example.
Well, you could always charm/dominate/mindrape/whatever someone else into taking care of them for you. That way you'd still be using your specialization to solve the problem.

Zen Monkey
2010-07-08, 02:02 PM
There's also the position that maybe the wizard doesn't need a perfect answer for everything, and that the other classes would like to play once in a while too. I don't mean that to sound condescending or sarcastic, just asserting that it's probably a good thing to not have every combat challenge end when the wizard gets initiative during the first round. They are the last class to need help, and it's good to have a fight that lets the other party members shine. Also, specialization should involve drawbacks like this, otherwise it's extra spells for nothing. Similarly, Blasty McFireMage needs to run into a fire-immune once in a while to be a strategic challenge.

Unless it's a solo or all-wizard campaign. In that case, go nuts and invent whatever you want.

erikun
2010-07-08, 02:02 PM
An alternate class feature for Enchanters that makes their [Mind-Affecting] spells automatically succeed against anything with Int -- would be invaluable.

Boci
2010-07-08, 02:05 PM
There's also the position that maybe the wizard doesn't need a perfect answer for everything, and that the other classes would like to play once in a while too. I don't mean that to sound condescending or sarcastic, just asserting that it's probably a good thing to not have every combat challenge end when the wizard gets initiative during the first round. They are the last class to need help, and it's good to have a fight that lets the other party members shine. Also, specialization should involve drawbacks like this, otherwise it's extra spells for nothing. Similarly, Blasty McFireMage needs to run into a fire-immune once in a while to be a strategic challenge.

But blasty McFireMage has searing spell. This isn't about making wizards stronger, its about making enchanters compare a bit more to transmuters and conjurers.

Defiant
2010-07-08, 02:07 PM
Well, you could always charm/dominate/mindrape/whatever someone else into taking care of them for you. That way you'd still be using your specialization to solve the problem.

That's missing the point.


There's also the position that maybe the wizard doesn't need a perfect answer for everything, and that the other classes would like to play once in a while too. I don't mean that to sound condescending or sarcastic, just asserting that it's probably a good thing to not have every combat challenge end when the wizard gets initiative during the first round. They are the last class to need help, and it's good to have a fight that lets the other party members shine.

You completely missed the point.


An alternate class feature for Enchanters that makes their [Mind-Affecting] spells automatically succeed against anything with Int -- would be invaluable.

Never suggested an alternate class feature, merely a spell. It would be problematic given that the wizard would have to cast a spell and then cast its enchantment spell (it would effectively bring wizards down a notch), but at least wizards would then have a reason to want Enchantment.

EDIT: Also note, saves would still apply to both.

dextercorvia
2010-07-08, 02:14 PM
I like the idea of a metamagic feat that does this. It's a +3 spell level from Charm Person --> Charm Monster, and a +4 from Dominate Person to Dominate Monster. So, removing immunity to the spell (perhaps giving it a bonus on it's save a la Searing Spell doing half damage) I would peg at a +3. Maybe it could be a +2 metamagic, if it granted a chance to remove the immunity.

Defiant
2010-07-08, 02:16 PM
I like the idea of a metamagic feat that does this. It's a +3 spell level from Charm Person --> Charm Monster, and a +4 from Dominate Person to Dominate Monster. So, removing immunity to the spell (perhaps giving it a bonus on it's save a la Searing Spell doing half damage) I would peg at a +3. Maybe it could be a +2 metamagic, if it granted a chance to remove the immunity.

Hmmm... that might work better actually. And I like the idea of it too. While you're casting your spell, you use your metamagic to first prepare the mind for becoming assailable by this (though failure means you lose the entire spell).

Escheton
2010-07-08, 02:16 PM
Because it is a good thing that there are exceptions to its use?
Don't fireball the magma elemental, dont charm the zombie-sorta thing.
It makes pure specialisation a bad thing, as it should be.

erikun
2010-07-08, 02:16 PM
Never suggested an alternate class feature, merely a spell. It would be problematic given that the wizard would have to cast a spell and then cast its enchantment spell (it would effectively bring wizards down a notch), but at least wizards would then have a reason to want Enchantment.
It was just a suggestion. Enchantment is pretty weak overall, regardless of caster, and giving up your bonus spell slots would hurt quite a bit.

As for your question, there are various forms of Awaken for animals, plants, constructs, and undead that you could use. It seems wildly impractical, though. While dominating an Iron Golem is amazingly sexy, you still run into problems with hordes of undead... or hordes of almost anything else.

You are better off creating a new spell that specifically stuns Int -- creatures as a way to deal with the problem. Something like the Hypnotic Pattern line of spells, although without the flashy colors.

Zen Monkey
2010-07-08, 02:18 PM
Maybe I did miss the point, but it really looks like "I'm playing a specialist wizard, arguably the game's most powerful class, but I'd like my favorite school to overcome everything, so that I don't have any of the actual challenges from specialization." Shouldn't drawbacks be actual drawbacks? Enchantment's drawback is that, while overwhelming some things, it doesn't work on everything. It's a bit like arguing for a rogue feat that lets them sneak attack everything that's immune to the ability, except that the wizard in this case doesn't even have to use a feat.

Boci
2010-07-08, 02:24 PM
Maybe I did miss the point, but it really looks like "I'm playing a specialist wizard, arguably the game's most powerful class, but I'd like my favorite school to overcome everything, so that I don't have any of the actual challenges from specialization." Shouldn't drawbacks be actual drawbacks? Enchantment's drawback is that, while overwhelming some things, it doesn't work on everything. It's a bit like arguing for a rogue feat that lets them sneak attack everything that's immune to the ability, except that the wizard in this case doesn't even have to use a feat.

I think it would be acceptable if enchantment had the following drawbacks:
1. Few variations between saves. Almost always will.
2. Few offensive capabilities that aren't save or suck/loose. (Ray of clumsiness is the only thing I can think of that does not have a save)
3. Needs to invest resources into overcoming mind affecting immunity.


Don't fireball the magma elemental,.

Rule 1: Everything burns.
Rule 2: If something does not burn, consult rule 1 searing spell.


Hmmm... that might work better actually. And I like the idea of it too. While you're casting your spell, you use your metamagic to first prepare the mind for becoming assailable by this (though failure means you lose the entire spell).

There is Song of the Dead. +1 metamagic:

Mind-Affecting spells prepared with this feat effect Intelligence Undead, but not Mindless Undead, Constructs, or any living creatures of any type. Any spell prepared with this Feat becomes a Necromancy spell.

Could use that as a starting point.

subject42
2010-07-08, 02:26 PM
There is a prestige class (Dread Witch) that actually lets you bypass fear immunity, so part of it is already there.

Defiant
2010-07-08, 02:28 PM
Because it is a good thing that there are exceptions to its use?
Don't fireball the magma elemental, dont charm the zombie-sorta thing.
It makes pure specialisation a bad thing, as it should be.

Well... maybe we could research a low-level effect mid-level mass version of it... :smallamused:


It was just a suggestion. Enchantment is pretty weak overall, regardless of caster, and giving up your bonus spell slots would hurt quite a bit.

As for your question, there are various forms of Awaken for animals, plants, constructs, and undead that you could use. It seems wildly impractical, though. While dominating an Iron Golem is amazingly sexy, you still run into problems with hordes of undead... or hordes of almost anything else.

You are better off creating a new spell that specifically stuns Int -- creatures as a way to deal with the problem. Something like the Hypnotic Pattern line of spells, although without the flashy colors.

Not a bad idea. But I really like the concept of giving a creature self-awareness just so that you can control it :smallamused:


Maybe I did miss the point, but it really looks like "I'm playing a specialist wizard, arguably the game's most powerful class, but I'd like my favorite school to overcome everything, so that I don't have any of the actual challenges from specialization." Shouldn't drawbacks be actual drawbacks? Enchantment's drawback is that, while overwhelming some things, it doesn't work on everything. It's a bit like arguing for a rogue feat that lets them sneak attack everything that's immune to the ability, except that the wizard in this case doesn't even have to use a feat.

Your logic is flawed.

The current drawbacks to enchantment are irrelevant, since no-one will choose enchantment due to its comparatively weak potency.

With or without my idea, wizards will dominate the battlefield. This just gives more diversity to the way wizards can work.



This is like having a system where archery is so much more powerful over everything, and complaining against buffing up melee because "martial characters are already powerful enough". So the world continues to be dominated by archers, and no-one ever picks up a sword.

Similarly, the D&D world continues to be dominated by transmuters and conjurers, and no-one ever picks up enchantment.

Math_Mage
2010-07-08, 02:28 PM
Maybe I did miss the point, but it really looks like "I'm playing a specialist wizard, arguably the game's most powerful class, but I'd like my favorite school to overcome everything, so that I don't have any of the actual challenges from specialization." Shouldn't drawbacks be actual drawbacks? Enchantment's drawback is that, while overwhelming some things, it doesn't work on everything. It's a bit like arguing for a rogue feat that lets them sneak attack everything that's immune to the ability, except that the wizard in this case doesn't even have to use a feat.

Nitpick: Such a feat would not be overpowered by any means, especially not when you're running around with a specialist Wizard.

Boci
2010-07-08, 02:30 PM
Nitpick: Such a feat would not be overpowered by any means, especially not when you're running around with a specialist Wizard.

Yeah. Hell an errata that grated the rogues that as a class feature wouldn't be overpowered. It would be good.

Defiant
2010-07-08, 02:34 PM
Yeah. Hell an errata that grated the rogues that as a class feature wouldn't be overpowered. It would be good.

Indeed. I usually give it to my rogues for free or near-free when I DM.

For example, when the party's weapons become intelligent items, I decided that the rogue's intelligent weapon could figure out where to strike for maximum damage, and thus allow sneak attack on constructs et al.

Kyrthain
2010-07-08, 02:43 PM
It does seem odd that there's no spell that affects constructs or undead.
I get that the standard mind control wouldn't work, but as creatures with magical sentience, there should be a spell to take control of that. I'd make new spells, like "hijack construct" (not sure what level) that would work like dominate or charm for constructs, and another for undead. Lets you control them, but now you've either prepared spells that only work against undead/constructs, or you've used up some of your spells known

dextercorvia
2010-07-08, 02:50 PM
It does seem odd that there's no spell that affects constructs or undead.

Command Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm) and Control Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm) exist, they just are Necro instead of Enchantment

Bagelz
2010-07-09, 12:37 PM
awaken is lvl 5 druid transmutation(3d6 int) . create undead is lvl 6 necromancy(13 int 14 wis ghouls and ghasts).

"A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example...
Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects,"

So as long as your dm does not say that you're prohibited schools prevent you from creating this effect: limited wish fufills your need.

Grumman
2010-07-09, 12:44 PM
But blasty McFireMage has searing spell. This isn't about making wizards stronger, its about making enchanters compare a bit more to transmuters and conjurers.
Aww, poor widdle enchanter can't use her save-or-sucks! My heart goes out to her. :smallconfused:

Defiant
2010-07-09, 12:45 PM
awaken is lvl 5 druid transmutation(3d6 int) . create undead is lvl 6 necromancy(13 int 14 wis ghouls and ghasts).

"A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example...
Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects,"

So as long as your dm does not say that you're prohibited schools prevent you from creating this effect: limited wish fufills your need.

And costs XP. No thank you.

And I will have you note that I am not a prohibited school. I am human being!

Eurus
2010-07-09, 01:05 PM
Why haven't some wizards just researched spells specifically to deal with these kinds of creatures? A "Reprogram Construct" spell to let you give orders to a construct as if you were its master is surely within the realm of possibility. Or a spell that lets you create the illusion of whatever pheromones that oozes and vermin presumably use. Both of those would be niche enough that I really doubt they'd be considered overpowered by any stretch of the imagination.

For undead, I think necromancy has it pretty much covered with Command/Control Undead, so giving enchantment the ability to do it too would seem a bit unnecessary.

Hague
2010-07-09, 01:33 PM
Err... doesn't the Control Undead spell do this?

Also, just design an enchantment called "Override Construct" which lets you override the loyalty of a construct temporarily.

Also note, that most golems have Spell Immunity, so it would be impossible to target them with Awaken anyway.

Pechvarry
2010-07-09, 01:43 PM
Aww, poor widdle enchanter can't use her save-or-sucks! My heart goes out to her. :smallconfused:

I think you missed this part:


This is like having a system where archery is so much more powerful over everything, and complaining against buffing up melee because "martial characters are already powerful enough". So the world continues to be dominated by archers, and no-one ever picks up a sword.

Similarly, the D&D world continues to be dominated by transmuters and conjurers, and no-one ever picks up enchantment.

Pretty much everyone in this thread who has argued against this idea has used the same logic:

There's a few ways to play very strong wizard builds, so all the other flavorful options should be ignored.

candycorn
2010-07-09, 01:47 PM
I could see something like:
Awaken Thought
or something.

A spell that bestows minimal awareness (a 1 in any mental score with a -) and vulnerability to mind affecting effects for a short time, much like Spark of Life does for other undead immunities. Add in that at when the Awaken Thought spell ends, so does any mind affecting effect on the creature.

Morph Bark
2010-07-09, 01:49 PM
Bestow Insight
Enchantment
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: No
The creature you target gains greater insight. If it is mindless or an Int score of 1 or 2, it is given an Int score of 3 instead for the duration of the spell. This means mindless creatures becomes susceptible to mind-affecting effects unless it is a plant or it is undead and the target also becomes able to understand and speak any languages the caster is able to speak.
Being granted (greater) intelligence will likely cause the creature to start acting differently, usually resulting in an otherwise Int 1 or 2 creature voicing its opinions that it had to hold back for all its life due to not being able to make its opinions vocal or simply being too dumb to have opinions, whereas normally mindless creatures may begin to question their existence.
Once the duration of the spell ends, the creature starts to act as normal again.
Focus: A pawn chess piece.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-09, 01:53 PM
My DM offered me a chance to create such a spell. It gave mindless things a bit of Int, and let them be affected by Mind-Affecting effects. I haven't actually taken the spell yet, though... Anyway, here's what he gave me when I suggested it:
Spark of Intellect
Enchantment
Level: Sor/Wiz 2, Druid 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One mindless creature
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
For the duration of the spell, the creature gains 1d6 Intelligence. Should the creature's intelligence exceed 2, the creature becomes sentient, and will act accordingly. This makes it vulnerable to mind-affecting effects and other effects that only affect intelligent creatures.

An animal turned sentient by the use of this spell can not serve as an animal companion for the duration.

Defiant
2010-07-09, 01:54 PM
I'd really like some sort of tiered effect.

Level 3 (or thereabouts) spell gives a fraction of a consciousness. Not enough to actually be conscious or sapient, but enough to feel basic emphatic feelings. Makes subject susceptible to mind-affecting enchantments level 3 and below.

Level 6 spell gives a more robust consciousness. Fragments of thought actually connect, but real sapience is more in a dream-like state. Makes subject susceptible to mind-affecting enchantments level 6 and below.

Level 9 spell actually gives full-blown consciousness and sapience. Subject is now as self-aware as any intelligent being, and is fully susceptible to any mind-affecting enchantments. Counters and dispels Mind Blank.

Morph Bark
2010-07-09, 02:02 PM
I'd really like some sort of tiered effect.

Level 3 (or thereabouts) spell gives a fraction of a consciousness. Not enough to actually be conscious or sapient, but enough to feel basic emphatic feelings. Makes subject susceptible to mind-affecting enchantments level 3 and below.

This is basically mindless what you describe. You can't have feelings without consciousness though.


Level 6 spell gives a more robust consciousness. Fragments of thought actually connect, but real sapience is more in a dream-like state. Makes subject susceptible to mind-affecting enchantments level 6 and below.

Awakening animals and plants works for a level 5 spell that costs XP and they are granted Int, Wis and Cha scores of 3d6 (plant) or 3d6 Int and a boost to Cha (animal). Dunno the one for undead, constructs or oozes though.


Level 9 spell actually gives full-blown consciousness and sapience. Subject is now as self-aware as any intelligent being, and is fully susceptible to any mind-affecting enchantments. Counters and dispels Mind Blank.

Level 9 spells should do better than that.

But I guess you want all this to happen with no cost to yourself at all.

As if Enchanters weren't overpowered already. :smalltongue:

Ditto
2010-07-09, 02:11 PM
My last two casters were an Illlusionist and an Enchanter. I'm enjoying them very much, thanks. Transmuters bore me a little.

Another_Poet
2010-07-09, 02:34 PM
Let me propose this solution to you.

New Metamagic Feat: Ensoul Spell
Prereq: Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Special: Can only be applied to Enchantment (Charm) effects
Benefit: Allows a mind-affecting spell to affect a mindless creature on a failed Fortitude saving throw.
Normal: Mindless creatures are immune to mind-affecting spells.

An ensouling spell hijacks the primitive or non-functioning nerve centers of a mindless creature and imbues it with a basic sense of sentience, immediately awakening it to its new life of servitude to the caster of the charm spell. Any type of mindless creature (including undead) can be ensouled and made vulnerable. Creatures who are immune to mind-affecting spells for other reasons (such as a racial immunity or magical protection) are not made vulnerable.

When a mindless creature is targeted with an ensouling charm spell, it may make a fortitude saving throw to avoid being ensouled. The DC is the same as that of the charm spell itself. If it succeeds it is not ensouled and remains immune to the charm effect. If it fails, it is still entitled to any saving throws (such as a will save) that the charm spell normally allows.

A target who fails its fortitude saving throw gains an Intelligence score of 2. If it already had an Intelligence score higher than 2 its Intelligence is not affected. It does not gain the ability to speak or understand any languages it could not already speak or understand. It loses its "mindless" status and its immunity to mind-affecting effects (so additional charm spells could also affect it). Its alignment may also change, at the GM's discretion.

This new status lasts for as long as the duration of the original ensouling charm spell, after which it regains its mindless status and its original Intelligence score.

An ensouling spell takes up a spell slot 1 level higher than normal.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-09, 02:41 PM
This wouldn't work on any undead, as they are immune to fortitude saves that don't affect objects.

Defiant
2010-07-09, 02:46 PM
I really like that!


This wouldn't work on any undead, as they are immune to fortitude saves that don't affect objects.

That's OK, since otherwise there would be redundancy with the Control Undead line of spells.

candycorn
2010-07-09, 03:14 PM
Bestow Insight
Enchantment
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Short (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: No
The creature you target gains greater insight. If it is mindless or an Int score of 1 or 2, it is given an Int score of 3 instead for the duration of the spell. This means mindless creatures becomes susceptible to mind-affecting effects unless it is a plant or it is undead and the target also becomes able to understand and speak any languages the caster is able to speak.
Being granted (greater) intelligence will likely cause the creature to start acting differently, usually resulting in an otherwise Int 1 or 2 creature voicing its opinions that it had to hold back for all its life due to not being able to make its opinions vocal or simply being too dumb to have opinions, whereas normally mindless creatures may begin to question their existence.
Once the duration of the spell ends, the creature starts to act as normal again.
Focus: A pawn chess piece.

1 minute per level? I'd say 1 round per level, and an actual material component. I'd say that languages shouldn't be granted either.

Alternately, the spell you listed would probably be good for a level 5 or 6 spell.

afroakuma
2010-07-09, 03:15 PM
I wonder what inspired this.

Morph Bark
2010-07-09, 03:16 PM
1 minute per level? I'd say 1 round per level, and an actual material component. I'd say that languages shouldn't be granted either.

Alternately, the spell you listed would probably be good for a level 5 or 6 spell.

Could work. I haven't ever created custom spells and certainly not as on-the-fly like that one. I figured it was fair enough since the Awaken spell needs a focus and has an XP cost, but is permanent. I suppose the casting time should be bumped to a full-round action, duration 1 round/level and no languages granted (except maybe Common), but the creature does understand the caster.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-09, 03:46 PM
It's almost as if in focusing on just one school of magic we've limited ourselves somehow... weird.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-09, 04:09 PM
Pretty much everyone in this thread who has argued against this idea has used the same logic:

There's a few ways to play very strong wizard builds, so all the other flavorful options should be ignored.

I think you're missing the part where your "non-optimal casters" are still on par with the other classes in the game and you're choosing to buff them up to the powerful casters.

In your example, that's like taking the sword user and making him as powerful as the archer when the sword user was actually well-balanced with the other classes.

In this case, unless you're proposing ALSO giving a massive buff to EVERY OTHER CLASS save the broken Wizard schools, you're just making the problem worse. Especially since, and this is the big one here, making this a spell means that said broken wizards ALSO get a bit more power out of this. Seeing as this seems to be a problem of "my wizard isn't as broken as the other wizards", I don't think we're getting new fighter and rogue abilities out of this anytime soon.

Sorry. It's a legitimate complaint to say that Wizards really don't need anything new. Occam's razor practically screams for you to nerf the problem build rather than buff everything else.

That's assuming we're talking about creating perfect balance. Which we're not. We're talking about one wizard not getting to be as cool as another wizard.

We're talking about essentially a Tier 2 character not being a Tier 1 character and ignoring the non-melee build character (if we're to use your example) entirely. From a very obvious design philosophy, you shouldn't be allowed to pigeon hole some abilities to every scenario. They'd be broken. The point of a GROUP-BASED tabletop RPG is to work as a team. That means someone stepping out of the spotlight occasionally. If there's a way to always have the spotlight and its ruining everyone's fun, the answer is not to fix everything to be equally broken, it's to fix the broken class by either putting some nice houserule nerfs and bans on it. There's plenty of stuff banned from official organized games for a reason.

And for the record, shocking though it may be to some, not everyone plays a class purely for mechanical superiority. Some people play things because it's the kind of character they want to play. After all, the general idea of a cooperative game is to have fun as a group and not to see who "wins".

And Yes. I see no real point for this spell. Enchantment would be very powerful without the restriction of not working on some things, as sneak attack would. If your main complaint is that another wizard school is better, you should either:
1. Play said school.
2. Get your GM to nerf said school because its impeding with the group's ability to have fun.
3. Ignore it because perfect balance isn't going to happen and play the character you want to instead of focusing on what everyone else can do that you can't.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-09, 04:15 PM
It's almost as if in focusing on just one school of magic we've limited ourselves somehow... weird.
Ever played a rogue-type, focusing on precision damage and had constructs, elementals and undead constantly thrown at you?
Yeah, that's how it feels.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-09, 04:22 PM
Ever played a rogue-type, focusing on precision damage and had constructs, elementals and undead constantly thrown at you?
Yeah, that's how it feels.

And in that case, you either 1. Weren't listening to the GM when he explained what a Ravenloft campaign was or thought that "Eye of the Lich Queen" title was metaphorical

or...

2. Your GM's kind of a jerk and isn't really tailoring his campaigns to his players.

Of course, I've also seen players just flat out over-react about this (Note: I'm DEFINITELY not saying that you're necessarily one. I've seen this before) and just complains anytime their main trick doesn't work. I've seen that one a few times where a character will put flaws in his build to seem balanced and then complain on end or just go into the other room and ignore the game whenever they come up. In those cases, well, the answer is "tough dookie".

Still, if you even suspect the possibility of fighting undead as a rogue you should... I don't know. Have a back-up plan for those occasions. My two-weapon rogue had an undead bane rapier for a reason. Ditto with your enchanter. If you don't like having the possibility of all your spells becomes useless, prepare some outside of your specialized school. Specialized school doesn't mean all of your spells should be in that school. Sure, in both these cases you're weaker than usual, but you can always add SOMETHING to combat.

I guess I'm saying, if it's overdone, find a new GM, otherwise, get creative, don't get mad/even.

candycorn
2010-07-09, 04:32 PM
Could work. I haven't ever created custom spells and certainly not as on-the-fly like that one. I figured it was fair enough since the Awaken spell needs a focus and has an XP cost, but is permanent. I suppose the casting time should be bumped to a full-round action, duration 1 round/level and no languages granted (except maybe Common), but the creature does understand the caster.

I disagree on understanding the caster. The function is like spark of life. It removed immunities. Adding in education is.. counterproductive. Golems, nonintelligent undead, and the like naturally understand their creator typically. Otherwise, cast a Tongues.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-09, 05:13 PM
And in that case, you either 1. Weren't listening to the GM when he explained what a Ravenloft campaign was or thought that "Eye of the Lich Queen" title was metaphorical

or...

2. Your GM's kind of a jerk and isn't really tailoring his campaigns to his players.

Of course, I've also seen players just flat out over-react about this (Note: I'm DEFINITELY not saying that you're necessarily one. I've seen this before) and just complains anytime their main trick doesn't work. I've seen that one a few times where a character will put flaws in his build to seem balanced and then complain on end or just go into the other room and ignore the game whenever they come up. In those cases, well, the answer is "tough dookie".

Still, if you even suspect the possibility of fighting undead as a rogue you should... I don't know. Have a back-up plan for those occasions. My two-weapon rogue had an undead bane rapier for a reason. Ditto with your enchanter. If you don't like having the possibility of all your spells becomes useless, prepare some outside of your specialized school. Specialized school doesn't mean all of your spells should be in that school. Sure, in both these cases you're weaker than usual, but you can always add SOMETHING to combat.

I guess I'm saying, if it's overdone, find a new GM, otherwise, get creative, don't get mad/even.
Trouble is undead are very common foes. You can't swing dead kitten without hitting some wizard who thinks that raising the undead to do ones bidding is the cats meow. Undead just scream in big black and red letters "I am teh EVILS!"
And elementals are just so versatile, fitting at least four different thematic niches. And constructs? Who doesn't love magical fantasy robots? Perfect for the more mechanically inclined villain.
Mind you, an amulet of grave strike isn't expensive, nor is a golem strike amulet. For 1000 gp you can by pass those pesky immunities of a perticlar type.
But an enchanter, to the best of my knowledge, can't.

Pechvarry
2010-07-09, 10:42 PM
In this case, unless you're proposing ALSO giving a massive buff to EVERY OTHER CLASS save the broken Wizard schools, you're just making the problem worse.

This is "if you can't fix all of it, don't fix any of it" syndrome. Baby steps, good sir. Baby steps.

Blanket immunities never work. Saying "you're allowed to be overpowered because you're worthless a lot of the time" has yet to be good game design. See: precision damage, Intimidate skill (outside of core), Item Familiar feat ( <-- you're allowed to be better than everyone else if you agree to let the DM screw you over and make you worthless).

Ergo, this is a good first step and should be paired with other fixes that bring up the rest of the game. You can decide on what needs done from there.

But I'd rather just have a general feat that gives intelligent (but immune to mind-affecting) creatures a +4 on their saves but cuts through the immunity.

Morph Bark
2010-07-10, 04:36 AM
I disagree on understanding the caster. The function is like spark of life. It removed immunities. Adding in education is.. counterproductive. Golems, nonintelligent undead, and the like naturally understand their creator typically. Otherwise, cast a Tongues.

But if they understand the caster, that will generally give them an edge since they are still their enemies, so anything the caster says to his allies will be understood by them.

Sure, Diplomacy could become an option for the caster, but anyone with half a brain at least tries to fix or disallow certain broken things.

AslanCross
2010-07-10, 07:29 AM
There is actually a spell that allows a wizard to control oozes. Ooze Puppet, from Spell Compendium.

Kesnit
2010-07-10, 07:38 AM
Pretty much everyone in this thread who has argued against this idea has used the same logic:

There's a few ways to play very strong wizard builds, so all the other flavorful options should be ignored.

No, they're using the logic "why in the world do you think Wizards need more help?"

FelixG
2010-07-10, 09:27 AM
Slap it with a polymorph any object then dominate/charm/whatever

Pechvarry
2010-07-10, 12:20 PM
No, they're using the logic "why in the world do you think Wizards need more help?"

That's the conscious thought process, yes. But that encourages what I said: stick to the cookie cutter builds, step out of it and you're not optimal.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-10, 12:41 PM
This is "if you can't fix all of it, don't fix any of it" syndrome. Baby steps, good sir. Baby steps.

Blanket immunities never work. Saying "you're allowed to be overpowered because you're worthless a lot of the time" has yet to be good game design. See: precision damage, Intimidate skill (outside of core), Item Familiar feat ( <-- you're allowed to be better than everyone else if you agree to let the DM screw you over and make you worthless).

Ergo, this is a good first step and should be paired with other fixes that bring up the rest of the game. You can decide on what needs done from there.

But I'd rather just have a general feat that gives intelligent (but immune to mind-affecting) creatures a +4 on their saves but cuts through the immunity.

Do you honestly think that the topic creator's intent is to go through all of the classes after this and fix them up in his games? Or is it more likely that this is a houserule to fix one thing he doesn't like?

Everyone keeps rationalizing that "well, it's all in the name of some kind of balancing", but it's not. There's been no statement as such, and quite frankly the idea of putting all the classes on the wizard's level is not only the least efficient way of balancing the game, it's probably flat out impossible. The Wizard is already currently more powerful than any class within the third edition structure really has a right being if you want to keep any balance of playability.

In a long term sense for this guy's campaign, this will really do nothing for balance but make balancing the other classes to Wizard harder.

Think of it more this way. EVERYTHING that's actually meant to balance wizards is either already fixed because of some cheesy spell, ignored by 90% of groups, or ends up in houserule topics like this.

-Limited spells? Nah. That's okay. Use a genesis spell or just convince your part to sleep for the night after every 2 battles.

-Spellbook can be destroyed? There's so many ways to permenantly ward the thing for free that it's practically got more kills than anyone else in the party.

-Losing spell components? Who even keeps TRACK of spell components, much less food and water. Not most people.

-Spell X can't effect Target X? Well, let's houserule a spell that fixes that.

The fact that enchanter spells don't effect everything is honestly a balancing factor. The fact that other wizards don't get equivalent issues is the non-balancing factor. That's not bad balance. Your wizard is NOT supposed to do everything for the party in theory. In theory, everyone's supposed to feel like they contribute to combat and have their moments in the sun. This means have some character occasionally fighting at a low capacity. EVERYONE ELSE has to go through it, the wizard shouldn't get to be an exception.

By the logic that this thread's going down, creature flight should be completely banned because it makes the melee fighter have to use his composite longbow, and that's not as effective as his sword. Or better yet. Let's make all melee weapons gain a magical capability to shoot laser 1000 meters. That'll fix everything and won't make ranged fighters obsolete.

My point, and several other people on this thread's point is that honestly the topic creator is bored when his spells don't work. This isn't necessarily a problem with the game as it is as its a problem of not preparing non-enchantment spells. There's no need for such a spell, and it only serves to further separate the distance between wizards and other characters. Trying to claim it as balancing for a greater cause is just trying to mask the real problem.

The topic asked why this spell doesn't exist. The answer is because Wizards don't need any more help and class abilities were designed to not always work. If you don't like the answer, it's still the answer you're going to get.


Trouble is undead are very common foes. You can't swing dead kitten without hitting some wizard who thinks that raising the undead to do ones bidding is the cats meow. Undead just scream in big black and red letters "I am teh EVILS!"
And elementals are just so versatile, fitting at least four different thematic niches. And constructs? Who doesn't love magical fantasy robots? Perfect for the more mechanically inclined villain.
Mind you, an amulet of grave strike isn't expensive, nor is a golem strike amulet. For 1000 gp you can by pass those pesky immunities of a perticlar type.
But an enchanter, to the best of my knowledge, can't.

If you don't like not being able to do anything when said creatures come up, PREPARE A SPELL FROM A DIFFERENT SCHOOL. You didn't ban all of the schools to gain that 1 spell. You can usually tell when its more likely that you'll fight Golems or animals or undead. Use that foreknowledge to prepare a couple of spells outside your school There's SOMETHING in your spellbook that'll work on mindless creatures. If you're throwing all your eggs into one basket like this, you're asking for what you get.

Honestly, undead and golems are only as common as your GM wants them to be, and if he or she plans to use them a lot, he or she should warn you. Also, having a magic item that does one thing doesn't mean said item is balanced and should be emulated on everything.

Really. If you want to play a game where you're always useful in combat and nothing has immunities and everyone is as powerful as the wizard without the wizard losing power, play another system. D&D isn't going to really work out too well for you in the long run or, at least, it won't work out as well as some other systems would. You're going to always have some issues to deal with though, and fixing your initial issues in the short run will always cause more problems in the long run.


That's the conscious thought process, yes. But that encourages what I said: stick to the cookie cutter builds, step out of it and you're not optimal.

...Or, and this could just be my insanity talking, some people just actually enjoy playing builds that aren't optimal because they find them more fun and that having a 100% efficient killing machine build isn't actually REQUIRED for playing the game.

The base assumption from the supporters of this spell in this thread seems to be that having a less optimal character is a sin and destroys the entire point of a cooperative game.

If you want to argue for this though, this assumption is just flat out wrong. Not everyone thinks in optimization terms and that's something you'll have to accept just like role-players have to accept that power gamers DO exist.

The short of it, if you want to play the super powerful character, you either have to come up with the next best thing or you have to make the concession that a cookie cutter build is the way you'll be going because you're not smarter than the conglomerate of every power gamer for D&D in the world.

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-10, 12:58 PM
I'm more upset at the idea of schools of magic being rendered useless

That's why there are eight of them. You don't use a longsword to trip they guy you're fighting, or to fight a flying enemy. You don't try to fire a bow at a skeleton. You don't try to cut down a tree with a drill or brush your teeth with a hammer.

The schools of magic are types of tools. Enormously versatile tools, yes, but they're stll tools, and therefore no one school is appropriate for every situation (even if WotC seems to want to make Conjuration that way...)

If you were playing an Evoker would you be complaining that there aren't any Evocation spells that let you convince the guards to let you sneak into the compound? (Obliteration does not count as "convincing" them, by the way.)

Defiant
2010-07-10, 02:54 PM
I love all the *putting words in my mouth* that's going on around this thread.

If you must know, the only reason I came up with this idea is it simply came to me. It seemed like a cool idea to give a mindless creature sapience just so that you can then manipulate it.

My thought process didn't involve "oh man, I wish there were fewer obstacles to wizards". It didn't even involve "oh man, I wish I could do more as an enchanter", because I never play enchanters. I always ban the enchantment school, because if I'm trying to be powerful, it's useless, and if I don't care about power, it's too narrow and useless at higher levels (it's an either "haha, I have Save-or-Sucks" or "I got nothing" type of thing).

And I'd like to point out that my spell idea would bring zero help to wizards. Most people in this thread have complained about that, when they are in fact wrong (if you think about it logically).

The wizard's maximum power potential would remain exactly where it is with my spell idea. "Casters don't need help", that's OK, they'd receive effectively none.

Without my spell idea, a player can make a very powerful wizard. With my spell idea, a player can make a very powerful wizard. There is no difference. Unless you mean to suggest that my spell idea makes specializing in enchantment more powerful than Transmutation or Conjuration.

The spirit behind this idea is to give enchanters some sort of functionality with their chosen school when everything starts being immune. Sure it's nice being a powerful wizard, but it's not so fun when there's about nothing you can do. My idea would hardly make things overpowered, since it would take 2 rounds for the wizard to do anything, and even then it would be only to one target.

I mean, why even have this school of magic, if it's so obviously weaker than the others as to be eliminated outright. Why not have 7 schools of magic, and reduce the specialization banning by one?

In your world, you would deny me, as a wizard, this spell idea, because it would be too overpowered. Well it's too bad for you, since I can still be overpowered by choosing Trans. or Conj. You would have achieved nothing.

This is assuming I was bent for power. And if we then assume the converse, then any overpowered build can be willingly scaled down. What if someone wants to roleplay a Conjurer, but it would be too powerful?

Adding this spell idea would have no effect on the power of wizards. That's what you need to understand.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-10, 03:06 PM
If you must know, the only reason I came up with this idea is it simply came to me. It seemed like a cool idea to give a mindless creature sapience just so that you can then manipulate it.


Speaking as a DM, I'd say that I concur. I don't DM for the relevant edition, admittedly, but I think the concept is fun enough that I would, were I your DM, go through and see if we couldn't balance up a fair spell (or chain of spells). Your Wizard would, of course, be required to research it first.

There are a couple of decent homebrew suggestions in the thread already, so the only obstacle I see that remains would be running it by your DM should you have a game you'd actually like to use this in. :smallsmile:

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-10, 03:10 PM
My enchantment focused sorcerer who ran through an entire dungeon of creatures immune to mind effecting heartily approves. :smallsmile:

But seriously, it's really annoying to be rendered completly useless. I think +1 or 2 spell level metamagic is perfect for this kind of thing. And it's not exactly overpowering. Blasting already has Searing Spell and the like, so why not this?

Dairun Cates
2010-07-10, 03:18 PM
Adding this spell idea would have no effect on the power of wizards. That's what you need to understand.

Except that it does. It may not be much, but if a wizard ever uses enchanter spells, this spell has the potential to make those spells more effective. And if you go all enchanter, it DEFINITELY makes you more effective.

It's a fundamental logical fallacy to say that adding ANY spell has no effect on the class. If it doesn't have an effect on the power of wizards, then it's a non-issue and the ability shouldn't even really exist. But if you give Wizards any new options, it's going to give them more power.

And you can claim that people that people are putting words in your mouth, but you are the one that SPECIFICALLY brought up the "archer/melee" fighter theorhetical and told people that they weren't getting it because you were trying to specifically put the enchanter BACK on the levels of transmuters and conjurers.


I'm more upset at the idea of schools of magic being rendered useless, as well as obvious choices in how to do things.

A game isn't "many options" and "lots of customization" when it is absolutely obvious that the best schools to drop are Enchantment and Evocation, for example.


Your logic is flawed.

The current drawbacks to enchantment are irrelevant, since no-one will choose enchantment due to its comparatively weak potency.

With or without my idea, wizards will dominate the battlefield. This just gives more diversity to the way wizards can work.

This is like having a system where archery is so much more powerful over everything, and complaining against buffing up melee because "martial characters are already powerful enough". So the world continues to be dominated by archers, and no-one ever picks up a sword.

Similarly, the D&D world continues to be dominated by transmuters and conjurers, and no-one ever picks up enchantment.

These are your exact words from previous posts, and yet you're back-pedaling and saying that this does nothing to add to the power of wizards even though your stated purpose has been buffing enchanters.

You tell people they don't get it. That people are completely missing the point because all you're doing is making enchantment more attractive of a specialization option. But you're doing that by specifically making them more powerful and removing some of their weakness.

This doesn't have 0 impact on wizard strength though. Because if a wizard HASN'T banned enchantment, they can still take a handful of enchantments and this spell and become more powerful.

You consistently argue that it's okay to buff up enchanter because transmuters are worse when a lot of the horrible over-powered tricks are universally banned, and you explain it as a way of creating balance so people will "pick the sword over the archer". When people explain to you how flawed this logic is, you get defensive and retract previous statements.

Kesnit
2010-07-10, 03:19 PM
That's the conscious thought process, yes. But that encourages what I said: stick to the cookie cutter builds, step out of it and you're not optimal.

Why would a Wizard need to be optimized? For a lower tier class, optimization is good, and maybe required (depending on the rest of the party). Wizards are already Tier 1 - they don't need help.

As another poster said, combat should not be over when the Wizard gets initiative in the first round.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-10, 03:28 PM
Just as a note, because it's the original concept that I am amused by, I would much rather see a line of low-utility but generally interesting spells on this theme, (granting of sentience or the appearance of it, with varying durations perhaps?) than a mere metamagic thingy to simply allow spells to target mindless creatures.

Because I can see a lot of fun to be had from spells that temporarily make robots, funiture or so on into people. They could very well be amusing and useful spells in their own right, and still leave the slight downside that it's cost you a turn to do, barring crazy op-fu or simple quickened spells, I guess.

Another_Poet
2010-07-10, 03:42 PM
This wouldn't work on any undead, as they are immune to fortitude saves that don't affect objects.

That was unintentional on my part. I've now fixed the feat writeup to state that undead are also affected.

@ Tiki Snakes: Note that the "mere metamagic" I posted gives an ongoing sentience to the target. It lasts as long as the duration of the spell that the feat was put on. So you can get your fun with sentient robots/oozes/undead with the feat as written.

Defiant
2010-07-10, 03:59 PM
Except that it does. It may not be much, but if a wizard ever uses enchanter spells, this spell has the potential to make those spells more effective. And if you go all enchanter, it DEFINITELY makes you more effective.

But it doesn't make you any more effective than a Transmuter or Conjurer. Therefore, wizards would not become more powerful.


It's a fundamental logical fallacy to say that adding ANY spell has no effect on the class. If it doesn't have an effect on the power of wizards, then it's a non-issue and the ability shouldn't even really exist. But if you give Wizards any new options, it's going to give them more power.

I did not claim that adding any spell has no effect on the class. I claimed that adding this effect has no effect on the power.

It gives them new options, but none that they don't already have.

Hence the 0 effect.


And you can claim that people that people are putting words in your mouth, but you are the one that SPECIFICALLY brought up the "archer/melee" fighter theorhetical and told people that they weren't getting it because you were trying to specifically put the enchanter BACK on the levels of transmuters and conjurers.

Not quite on the same level, but close enough so that it isn't a dead space in D&D 3.5 - i.e. no-one has any reason to choose it.

And even if they were on the same level as transmuters and conjurers, there would still be no effect on wizards. Wizards would be no more powerful than they already are, so I don't see the problem.


These are your exact words from previous posts, and yet you're back-pedaling and saying that this does nothing to add to the power of wizards even though your stated purpose has been buffing enchanters.

I'm not back-pedaling by saying this does nothing to add to the power of wizards. I am stating it as a fact, one that I have held from the beginning (except stating it more directly and clearly so you understand).

Buffing enchanters has zero effect to the power level of wizards. (unless you make them more powerful than anything there already is)


You tell people they don't get it. That people are completely missing the point because all you're doing is making enchantment more attractive of a specialization option. But you're doing that by specifically making them more powerful and removing some of their weakness.

Exactly, so that people won't ignore the class. Now instead of wizards dominating the world through conjuration, they also have a small chance at dominating the world through enchantment.

How does this make wizards any more dominant over the world? If wizards can't dominate through enchantment, they can still dominate through conjuration anyways. Nothing is changed, in terms of power level.


This doesn't have 0 impact on wizard strength though. Because if a wizard HASN'T banned enchantment, they can still take a handful of enchantments and this spell and become more powerful.

See, now that's making an argument.

And in response, I do not believe it would give them any more options than they already have. Phantasmal killer is a level 4 spell and kills on 2 failed saves.

My spell idea requires 2 failed saves, first to resist the new spell, and second to the enchantment itself. Where's the difference? How are wizards now suddenly any more powerful, when they could already do that (but not with the enchantment roleplaying fluff)?


You consistently argue that it's okay to buff up enchanter because transmuters are worse when a lot of the horrible over-powered tricks are universally banned, and you explain it as a way of creating balance so people will "pick the sword over the archer". When people explain to you how flawed this logic is, you get defensive and retract previous statements.

I never explained it as a way of creating balance. There is no balance in the system. All it would do is enhance the level of diversity, make specialization less obvious, make enchantment less obsolete, and most importantly, do all this without imbalancing the system any further than it already is.

Furthermore, I retracted no statements. The only statement I retracted was things you said about me wanting to buff up wizards because they're not powerful enough.

I stand by my logic.

Kesnit
2010-07-10, 04:01 PM
My enchantment focused sorcerer who ran through an entire dungeon of creatures immune to mind effecting heartily approves. :smallsmile:

But seriously, it's really annoying to be rendered completly useless.

You made yourself useless. No one forced you to take all enchantment spells.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-10, 04:05 PM
This also affects sorcerers. Say you want to play the alluring tempter who clouds peoples minds with their spells and more. But if you go this route, your much worse off then a specialist wizard as you can't simply slot out for something more useful. The idea that a seducer so tempting they, with effort, melt a heart of stone or rotted flesh is too cheesy not to be awesome.

Defiant
2010-07-10, 04:08 PM
You made yourself useless. No one forced you to take all enchantment spells.

And that's exactly the problem I seek the mitigate.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-10, 04:31 PM
And that's exactly the problem I seek the mitigate.

So, you're essentially seeking to mitigate the problem that enchantment spells cannot literally solve every problem in the game.

Is there something blasphemous about taking 1 or 2 spells outside of your chosen domain because you might fight a golem or undead? Because the way this is being argued. I'm starting to honestly believe that my fighter should be allowed to shoot laser beams out of his sword because I forgot to get a composite longbow in town or just decided to save the money for a better greatsword, and we're fighting flying animals.

Defiant
2010-07-10, 04:38 PM
So, you're essentially seeking to mitigate the problem that enchantment spells cannot literally solve every problem in the game.

Hyperbole.

I seek to mitigate the problem of enchantment being so underpowered as to be an obvious choice for banning.

The point of a variety in a system is actual variety, not "oh, you also have this option, but it sucks... but as you can see, you have many options!".


Is there something blasphemous about taking 1 or 2 spells outside of your chosen domain because you might fight a golem or undead?

There is something blasphemous about a character's niche being rendered useless and pointless in an abundance of situations. At most, it should be rendered considerably less useful (or just have less situations).

In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel like sneak attack damage being denied on so many targets is too harsh. It should be reduced, not eliminated outright, or at least be provided with a feat so as to mitigate this elimination.


Because the way this is being argued, I'm starting to honestly believe that my fighter should be allowed to shoot laser beams out of his sword because I forgot to get a composite longbow in town or just decided to save the money for a better greatsword, and we're fighting flying animals.

Melee vs. flying is a problem that I would honestly seek to mitigate as well. Except it already has a solution: buy a magic item that allows you to fly.

Enchantment does not offer such a solution. Its only solution is not to choose it. And that doesn't make sense.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-10, 04:48 PM
Hyperbole.

I seek to mitigate the problem of enchantment being so underpowered as to be an obvious choice for banning.

The point of a variety in a system is actual variety, not "oh, you also have this option, but it sucks... but as you can see, you have many options!".

You're talking about taking a class that has MIND CONTROL as a primary function and talking about imbuing things with no will with enough intelligence for these powers to be used. Even if you give the Golem a 20 wisdom by awakening it, it'll still have only a 5 will save and is going to fail the saves. Animals also aren't known for their high will, and neither are non-sentient undead. If you allow them to fail will saves, they're going to fail it more than the average sentient thing.

Even then, Mind control is mostly an "I win" button. So, even if you give them enough bonus to succeed most of the time, you're still opening up an instant win scenario.



There is something blasphemous about a character's niche being rendered useless and pointless in an abundance of situations. At most, it should be rendered considerably less useful (or just have less situations).

In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel like sneak attack damage being denied on so many targets is too harsh. It should be reduced, not eliminated outright, or at least be provided with a feat so as to mitigate this elimination.

You are aware that a niche is a specialization and that specialization means doing ONE TASK well, right? Bending an existing skill set to cover everything is no longer a niche.


Melee vs. flying is a problem that I would honestly seek to mitigate as well. Except it already has a solution: buy a magic item that allows you to fly.

Enchantment does not offer such a solution. Its only solution is not to choose it. And that doesn't make sense.

And actually, it's called buying a composite longbow. Buying flying shoes is overkill at levels under level 15. Same with your enchanter. It's called preparing different spells occasionally. I don't expect every class ability to work in every situation so I prepared back up plans. Just cause I'm focused in melee weapons DOES NOT mean that my NICHE has been compromised because I pull out a bow once to shoot a guy.

Doing otherwise is just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Kesnit
2010-07-10, 05:40 PM
And that's exactly the problem I seek the mitigate.

Mitigate a mistake the player should have know about and did anyway?

Shpadoinkle
2010-07-10, 07:22 PM
Okay, Defiant, let me put it this way.

You're playing a specialist who can't do everything, which is essentially the definition of a specialist. What do we think of this ability that lets you completely bypass any any all drawbacks of your specialization?

We think it's overpowered.

You specialized as an enchanter. Specialists, by definition, have weaknesses. This is yours.

Pechvarry
2010-07-10, 08:44 PM
Gotta be honest, Mr. Cates. I am not reading your very-large posts. I'm trying my best to be rational, not write a thesis to prove someone on the internet wrong.

To me, rationally, there's a reason everyone specializes in conjuration and ditches evocation and enchantment. I would say something clever like "no matter what, you still haven't addressed the fundamental issue of entire schools being shunned". But then, maybe you have. I'm not going to dig through your posts and find out. I'll respectfully bow out and unsubscribe to this thread, now.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-10, 09:23 PM
To me, rationally, there's a reason everyone specializes in conjuration and ditches evocation and enchantment.

You want a short explanation? This entire statement is based on the fundamental assumption that everyone plays D&D exactly the way you do, and that most players actually care about playing the most powerful character possible. This isn't only wrong, but said players don't even form the statistical majority of D&D players.

You want flavor? You'll have to sacrifice power. You want power? You'll have to sacrifice flavor. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to fix it? Making a less optimal build of a broken class match up to a broken build just ultimately causes bigger problems than the one you fixed.

You want statistics and proof to back all that up? Too bad, you wanted the short version.

EDIT NOTE: If you thought that came off sounding angry and snarky. That's why I tend to avoid short posts. Making too general of statements just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

Randel
2010-07-11, 01:37 AM
Spell Name: Fear Transplant
Spell Level: 2
Type: Probably Enchantment
Target: One unintelligent creature

Spell Component: The carefully preserved brain of a frightened and intelligent creature kept in a jar of syrup worth 500 gp.


Spell Description:

You point at the creature who is normally immune to mind-affecting spells while simultaneously holding up a jar containing the preserved brain of a frightened creature. With a wave of your hand the brain in the mindless creature before you is switched with the silently screaming brain you carry around in a jar.

The targeted creature is now considered intelligent and may be affected by mind-controlling spells. However, it loathes you with every fiber of its being and seeks nothing more than to see you dead... or better yet to tear your stinking head from your shoulders and keep it in the jar you had kept its disembodied brain in for all this time. That's if its in a hurry.

Also, the creature is not immune to mind-controlling spells but has huge bonuses (as determined by the DM) to resist mind control effects. Its artificially swollen brain also grants it super intelligence for the purpose of plotting revenge against you and its time spent as a disembodied brain in a jar in your backpack has allowed it time to learn many of your secrets and will shout your deepest secrets and personal information out to your enemies and fellow party members.

Every round, there is a chance that the target will try to flee the battle so that they may plot your horrible and painful demise at a later date.


Duration: Permanent

Kiroth6
2010-07-11, 02:37 AM
Spell Name: Fear Transplant
Spell Level: 2
Type: Probably Enchantment
Target: One unintelligent creature

Spell Component: The carefully preserved brain of a frightened and intelligent creature kept in a jar of syrup worth 500 gp.


Spell Description:

You point at the creature who is normally immune to mind-affecting spells while simultaneously holding up a jar containing the preserved brain of a frightened creature. With a wave of your hand the brain in the mindless creature before you is switched with the silently screaming brain you carry around in a jar.

The targeted creature is now considered intelligent and may be affected by mind-controlling spells. However, it loathes you with every fiber of its being and seeks nothing more than to see you dead... or better yet to tear your stinking head from your shoulders and keep it in the jar you had kept its disembodied brain in for all this time. That's if its in a hurry.

Also, the creature is not immune to mind-controlling spells but has huge bonuses (as determined by the DM) to resist mind control effects. Its artificially swollen brain also grants it super intelligence for the purpose of plotting revenge against you and its time spent as a disembodied brain in a jar in your backpack has allowed it time to learn many of your secrets and will shout your deepest secrets and personal information out to your enemies and fellow party members.

Every round, there is a chance that the target will try to flee the battle so that they may plot your horrible and painful demise at a later date.


Duration: Permanent

Hilarious. That is a spell I'd like to see in action.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-11, 03:40 AM
Eh, I never like Huge bonuses as determined by the DM. It's so open ended.
It basically says "the spells work, except when they don't"

tordirycgoyust
2010-07-11, 06:14 AM
First, once you realise the a level eleven unoptimized wizard or sorcerer can easily annhialate the entire multiverse you have no right to say that adding anything to these classes will make them more overpowered (ie. a lich using the anti-osmium trick and a method of interdimentional travel of your choice(it is interesting to note this is based around conjuration)).
Second, someone pointed out that one would think that wizards would put some effort into eliminating such a glaring weakness. I heartily agree.
Third, that the spell awaken exists shows that such an effect is possible.

Given this I say that a temporary method of mitigating this type of immunity should be (relatively) easily available.

Kiroth6
2010-07-11, 07:04 AM
1)Are you seriously arguing that they've reached the event horizon of brokenness so there no harm in adding a little more fuel to the fire?

2) Wizards have other spells that can effect those creatures so I think they're pretty well covered on their weakness.

3)If awaken exists, why do we need a separate spell? Also just because its arguably possible, doesn't mean its a good idea to include. It's seriously boring using mind control to solve all your problems, especially for the rest of the party. Variety in life is a good thing.

EDIT: Of course, there's an exception for the hilariously awesome spell above.

Saph
2010-07-11, 07:04 AM
I have to agree with Dairun. Sure, Enchantment spells have the major weakness that 1/3 of the Monster Manual is immune. The balancing factor for that is that they absolutely slaughter everything vulnerable to them. Enchantment is not weak.

And saying that no-one plays anything but a transmuter or conjurer really does come across as a bit clueless - it's the "I play D&D this way, therefore everybody else does too" attitude. For the record, the last two wizards I played were an enchanter and an illusionist, and mind-affecting immunity never bothered me too much.

satorian
2010-07-11, 05:57 PM
To those who oppose the idea, do you ban searing spell in your games? If not, why not? If you play Eberron, do you ban the Silver Flame holy damage? If not, why not?

While it is true that damage is generally overshadowed by save or sucks, enchantment is limited in a variety of ways, as mentioned above. Also, like evocation, it tends to suffer from the double whammy of SR and saves. Additionally, enchantment, unlike other schools, becomes less useful as the enchanter progresses in levels. As one approaches mid to high levels, the number of monsters completely immune to enchantment skyrockets. It would be one thing if, as in the case of pit fiends and such, it was merely very hard to affect higher tier monsters. However, far too many adversaries at high levels are immune to enchantment. Fighters can overcome DR. Clerics and Evokers can overcome ER. Other schools suffer very little from high level immunities. Why single out enchantment as the only specialty, the only class, to be rendered completely useless by vast numbers of enemies?

And for those arguing that wizards are strong enough, so screw 'em, in addition to the points raised above about only one school of wizards being hurt by this, I add that Bards, Beguilers and, um, PF Heavens Oracles, all of which are significantly weaker than wizards, are hurt far more by immunity to mind-affecting than the mighty wizards. Even specialized wizards, even Thayvian wizards, have other schools they can access.

Moreover, there is the issue of verisimilitude, which is admittedly by its nature more subjective. Nevertheless, it makes little sense to me for things with minds like vampires and liches to be immune to mind-affecting. They have minds. Perhaps those minds are alien, but they are no more alien than illithids or demons. Even if one insists that the minds of the undead and sentient constructs are beyond the ken of mortal understanding in a way that aberrations and outsiders are not, it would still make sense for a mere +1 metamagic feat to overcome that difference. Perhaps a +3, or a spell as the OP would have it, could bestow sentience on the truly mindless as a limited and temporary form of Awaken, but beings that have minds should be affected by enchantment.

Saph
2010-07-11, 06:09 PM
Why single out enchantment as the only specialty, the only class, to be rendered completely useless by vast numbers of enemies?

Illusion is rendered useless by True Seeing. Elemental damage is rendered useless by energy immunity. (Yes, you can use Searing Spell, but that requires a feat investment, costs +1 spell level, and you only get half the damage through anyway - high price.) Ranged touch attacks of all kinds are rendered useless by Ray Deflection. Anything that allows SR is rendered useless by anything with magic immunity, like golems.

Yes, enchantment runs a higher risk than normal of being useless, but that's partly because it's so devastating when it does work. Death spells just remove an enemy, enchantment spells can not only remove an enemy from the other team but also get him on yours.

satorian
2010-07-11, 06:25 PM
I see your point Saph, but the point here is that there is no way around the absolute immunity to mind-affecting granted by type, and that such types are very common.

True seeing, save for a very few VERY high level enemies, can be dispelled or disjoined. Also, even in those cases, it is a supernatural ability not a racial feature, so there are ways of overcoming it. The ray problem can be overcome in a variety of ways. One: rays are not an entire school, so specialists (and more importantly Beguilers and bards) aren't as gimped by things immune to them. Also, they can be metamagicked into being not rays, thus sidestepping the issue wholesale. The same is true for SR, though my case is further bolsters by the fact that enchantment, in addition to other issues, is ALSO affected by SR, and so is doubly hurt.

The OP was for finding a way to, a la searing spell, overcome the immunity with difficulty, not easily and fully. If you think his solution is too strong, argue another solution. Make it so that creatures affected by the feat or spell that overcomes immunity are granted a save every round, or get a native +4 bonus even with the feat or spell, or something. The fact remains, however, for bards and beguilers to a great extent and for enchanters to a lesser extent, that enchantment has problems. It is not so much that it is unfairly weak, but rather that there are no extant ways of any level of effectiveness around its weakness, no matter the tactics, feats, spells, items, or creative thinking at the character's disposal.

Saph
2010-07-11, 06:40 PM
The OP was for finding a way to, a la searing spell, overcome the immunity with difficulty, not easily and fully. If you think his solution is too strong, argue another solution. Make it so that creatures affected by the feat or spell that overcomes immunity are granted a save every round, or get a native +4 bonus even with the feat or spell, or something. The fact remains, however, for bards and beguilers to a great extent and for enchanters to a lesser extent, that enchantment has problems. It is not so much that it is unfairly weak, but rather that there are no extant ways of any level of effectiveness around its weakness, no matter the tactics, feats, spells, items, or creative thinking at the character's disposal.

I agree that enchantment has problems, but the rebuttal to that would be that there is no class, as far as I know, that's obliged to rely only on enchantment. An enchanter wizard can prepare other spells as well. An enchanter-focused sorcerer can choose to spend his spell slots on his other spells known. The closest to an enchantment-only class is the Beguiler, and they can also use illusion magic - and even if they have the bad luck to run into someone immune to both, Solid Fog, Slow, and Glitterdust are fairly reliable fallbacks.

Or to put it another way, I don't see a problem with forcing characters to diversify a bit.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-11, 07:17 PM
Illusion is rendered useless by True Seeing.
No its not. True seeing won't free you from shadow binding, it won't stop phantasmal killer, is utterly useless vs Scintillating/rainbow Pattern. If I bothered to pour through the spell compendium I bet I could find a dozen more illusion spells that True seeing does nothing against.

You are however right that an enchanter can just prepare something else, the power of a wizard is they have several schools to choose from. If an enchanter and your prohibited schools are conjuration, evocation, and transmutation. [say from being a focused specialist] they deserve to suffer.

Just because some enemies are immune doesn't mean all are. Its important to ask your DM about the style of campaign before making your character. If its centered around stopping "The Legion of The Fallen" then specializing in enchantment is probably a bad idea.

Saph
2010-07-11, 07:19 PM
No its not. True seeing won't free you from shadow binding, it won't stop phantasmal killer, is utterly useless vs Scintillating/rainbow Pattern. If I bothered to pour through the spell compendium I bet I could find a dozen more illusion spells that True seeing does nothing against.

By the same token, immunity to mind-affecting doesn't do much to stop you buffing your allies with enchantment spells like Heroism or Greater Heroism, either. :smalltongue:

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-11, 07:36 PM
By the same token, immunity to mind-affecting doesn't do much to stop you buffing your allies with enchantment spells like Heroism or Greater Heroism, either. :smalltongue:

Unless your ally is also immune to mind-affecting, but other then that...
You also bring up a very valid point. Instead of focusing on killing/defeating the enemy yourself you can help the party. To many players only consider what their character can do for themselves and not what they can do for the party.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-11, 09:34 PM
I generally hate "no" buttons like Mind Blank in general, so I like this idea.

But I don't really care about the argument, except this one thing:

You want flavor? You'll have to sacrifice power. You want power? You'll have to sacrifice flavor.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Please look up the Stormwind fallacy, and stop committing it.

(Because I know someone will complain; Yes, I know this is not precisely the Stormwind fallacy and that this would be a greater statement than is covered by the fallacy, but nonetheless I'm going to assert that Dairun Cates is completely and utterly wrong.)

Kiroth6
2010-07-12, 12:16 AM
I generally hate "no" buttons like Mind Blank in general, so I like this idea.

But I don't really care about the argument, except this one thing:

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Please look up the Stormwind fallacy, and stop committing it.

(Because I know someone will complain; Yes, I know this is not precisely the Stormwind fallacy and that this would be a greater statement than is covered by the fallacy, but nonetheless I'm going to assert that Dairun Cates is completely and utterly wrong.)

Dude, if you're going to claim someone is wrong about something then explain why and how given the context of their argument. If it doesn't precisely cover the situation, explain why it should. You just pointed out the flaws in your own argument, why should we be swayed by it? Because I say so doesn't cut it.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 12:23 AM
Dude, if you're going to claim someone is wrong about something then explain why and how given the context of their argument. If it doesn't precisely cover the situation, explain why it should. You just pointed out the flaws in your own argument, why should we be swayed by it? Because I say so doesn't cut it.

You can have your cake (a flavorful character) and eat it too (a mechanically optimal character.)

I agree with DC in terms of the general thread topic (that specialist enchanters should not be allowed to imbue their targets with sapience just to wrest control of it from them) - I just take issue with that specific point.

Kiroth6
2010-07-12, 12:45 AM
You can have your cake (a flavorful character) and eat it too (a mechanically optimal character.)

I agree with DC in terms of the general thread topic (that specialist enchanters should not be allowed to imbue their targets with sapience just to wrest control of it from them) - I just take issue with that specific point.

Thank you. I get what you are saying, it just bugs the hell out of me when people claim that something is wrong and then cite an obscure term without explaining things.

Granted I'm usually one to go for flavor first and optimization secondary, but I agree that there are degrees of balance where both can be satisfied.

Hague
2010-07-12, 01:19 AM
Well, I see a sort of "Suggestion for Golems" as a viable spell for an Enchanter to have, especially an arcane one. Now, "Suggestion for Plants" and "Suggestion for Undead" are Druid and Cleric spells (I always think it's funny how necromancers aren't good necromancers)

Now, being immune to mind affectation is alright, but I don't see why there can't be some high level spells that function like lower level spells but target specifically some types of immune creatures, but with a lesser effect. You can't charm a golem, you can't charm the tortured soul of the dead, but you can alter their energies, manipulate their arms or cloud their judgment matrix (or whatever it is that lets a golem decide what to do) Things like that can't be too powerful if their duration is shorter or have some other foils or limitations.

tordirycgoyust
2010-07-12, 03:52 AM
Also, remember that if such an ability proves more ridiculous than Planar Shepard or stacked nightsticks then you can just nerf or ban it.
The idea is that it be an option, not that it necessarily be (ab)used.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-12, 05:11 AM
You want flavor? You'll have to sacrifice power. You want power? You'll have to sacrifice flavor. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



As DragoonWraith and Optimystik have already expressed, there is NO reason, NONE, that I should have to sacrifice flavor to gain greater power or visa versa. If I am an adept roleplayer then whether I am role playing a gimpy old man or a titan slaying berseker should not matter, I should be able to play both roles with flavor and creativity.

I may roleplay a gimpy old man better than the titan slaying berserker, but that is a limitation imposed on me by my own ability as a roleplayer, it is NOT a limitation imposed on me in any way by the titan slaying berserker being the more mechanically advantageous of the two.




EDIT NOTE: If you thought that came off sounding angry and snarky. That's why I tend to avoid short posts. Making too general of statements just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.


Making ignorant comments makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about as well. :smallmad:

Kiroth6
2010-07-12, 08:44 AM
Making ignorant comments makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about as well. :smallmad:

Wait, if he just getting angry making an overly generalized and broad statement to point out why he risks people complaining of overly long posts, and we're getting angry at his example, have we reached a point of double reach around indignation?

DragoonWraith
2010-07-12, 09:49 AM
Dude, if you're going to claim someone is wrong about something then explain why and how given the context of their argument. If it doesn't precisely cover the situation, explain why it should. You just pointed out the flaws in your own argument, why should we be swayed by it? Because I say so doesn't cut it.
I didn't think it needed explanation - he claimed that you could not have flavor and mechanical effectiveness at the same time. I said he was wrong. I think, given he's the one who made the bold claim here, the burden of proof lies with him, anyway.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-12, 11:24 AM
Okay, as Saph said, to bypass immunities, you need to pay a heavy price. That's exactly what we're trying to do here. This is not an attempt to give enchanters an easy way to bypass immunity, just some kind of method at all. The question is, how high should that be? Searing spell does +1 level and half damage (well, more than that, because it's also +1 per level), so should a metamagic that does the same for enchantment be +2? Or +3?

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 11:30 AM
I didn't think it needed explanation - he claimed that you could not have flavor and mechanical effectiveness at the same time. I said he was wrong. I think, given he's the one who made the bold claim here, the burden of proof lies with him, anyway.

1. The statement was taken partly out of context. The specific point here was that simply, if you want to play a build that you personally like the flavor on that's less than optimum, but you want to be the most optimum character possible, you're going to have to sacrifice SOMETHING on one or the other. This isn't a theory discussion, it's basic logic. If you want two opposing things you'll have to compromise something. Expecting to always get the best of both worlds isn't just unrealistic, it's a bit selfish.

Now, there's nothing saying that the most optimum build possible can't be flavorful, but if you choose a non-optimum build because you honestly enjoy the flavor, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect people to start buffing up your flavored build up to same level cheese of another build. ESPECIALLY, and this is the big one, said buff causes severe long term ramifications to the game in question and could've been fixed by literally taking 1 non-enchantment spell.

In this case, we honestly have the unrealistic expectation that all wizard schools should be as game breaking as transmutation and conjuration. Why? Because the topic creator likes enchantment, but wants to be as powerful as other schools and should lose its inherent weakness. Thus, the statement. If your desire is to play the strongest character humanly possible, but you also want to play a character that is not the strongest character humanly possible, then you'll have to pick. You can power game and tweak all you want after you pick that enchanter, but it's an unrealistic expectation for your GM to concede that your enchanter should get spells that put him on par with transmutation and conjuration when his said school of choice is STILL likely more powerful than all of the other party members.

Think of it this way, if I decide to play a fighter because I enjoy them and refuse to play any class other than fighter, but insist that my 20th level fighter should be more powerful than the party wizard and start suggesting game-breaking house rules to achieve such end, would you as a GM say yes, suggest a class out of tome of battle, or flat out say no? And if you suggested the tome of battle class, would you say yes when I absolutely refuse because I like the flavor of the fighter more?

If you like the flavor on a class or class ability, play it. Max it out as much as it can go if you want, but if you want to play a character that's more powerful than what you can manage with min-maxing that class, then you should either get over the fact that your shiny enchanter wizard isn't QUITE as powerful as transmutation (sacrifice power for flavor), or just play the conujurer/transmutation wizard if being THAT powerful is that important to you (sacrifice flavor for power). Expecting every class and build you play to be buffed up to the most broken one that's allowed in standard play is unrealistic.

You'll have to make compromises here and there if you want to play with a group and GM.



2. For the record, that isn't the Stormwind Fallacy nor is it a subset. The Stormwind Fallacy is simply that power gamers can't be good roleplayers and is typically thought of as wrong.

A basic logical deduction about wanting to negate class weaknesses entirely because you don't like them, but wanting to still play the class without its weakness and expecting anyone to go along with it, IS NOT the Stormwind Fallacy. It's a case of "can't have your cake and eat it too".

EDIT: Correction. Word for word, the Stormwind Fallacy is

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

Doesn't change the point that in this specific case, the topic creator should either choose between playing the flavor of class he wants or the mechanical class he wants. The two don't connect at all in this case.




The reason said post was so short and brief is because someone was essentially complaining about my posts being too long, and I was pointing out that without qualifying my statements and giving proof, it'd just come off and snarky and angry.

Boci
2010-07-12, 11:54 AM
Doesn't change the point that in this specific case, the topic creator should either choose between playing the flavor of class he wants or the mechanical class he wants. The two don't connect at all in this case.

Or, you know, he could homebrew something to make the flavor of class he wants more optimal.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 12:17 PM
Or, you know, he could homebrew something to make the flavor of class he wants more optimal.

... And the million dollar question here is, "Why?".

Why should the GM let a homebrew ability that's explicit purpose is to make the current build "as powerful as the conjuration or transmutation schools"? Why does his enchanter HAVE to be as powerful as that when his enchanter is already more powerful than most builds for most classes? Why should character power be modeled after a class build that people have ADMITTED tends to break the game?

Is there some reason why its so wrong to play a character that's SLIGHTLY less optimized that the conjurer or transmutation wizard, and if this is the ideal power level for characters, why are most of the classes in the game not up to this standard?

In short, everyone keeps bringing up the Stormwind Fallacy like it somehow GIVES permission. It doesn't though.

Just because his character is not as powerful as a transmutation wizard does not mean he will roleplay it worse or that it is a worse to roleplay character. However, the constant assumption has been here that the most important thing is that his character be AS powerful as a transmutation or conjurer wizard. Which means that power is the motive here.

Why should his wizard be allowed more power JUST because another wizard is better? What is inherently wrong with playing a less than 100% optimum character?

The enchanter is honestly going to MORE than be able to make a contribution to the party and in the cases where enchantment doesn't work, he should have a couple of non-enchantment spells for such an occasion. We have brought this option on multiple occasions. It has constantly been ignored or flat out refused. Instead, we're trying to come up with a solution that negates the weakness of his school and ensures that he'll NEVER have to cast outside of it. So, I'm merely asking why it's SO important that he be allowed to "have the flavor of never casting a spell outside his school" without making a single compromise in any power level or flavor when this will still be more powerful than most of his party members?

You can't have EVERYTHING you want. You'll have to make some concessions. I see no reason as a GM to allow his Enchanter to be more powerful JUST because he could play a more broken build. I'm not going to start adding homebrews as a GM just because someone can't decide between playing a super optimized build and a certain class. If I let the enchanter mind control mindless creatures? Why don't I give the fighter a feat that ignores all DR ever or even shoot lasers out of his sword that do 8d6 damage on an attack action?

Your character build will always have weaknesses. You as a player have to accept these. They're what make classes unique and interesting to play. If you don't like a class' or sub-class' weakness and can't get over it, then don't play the class. If the flavor is more important to you than the weakness, then play the class, but neither I or many GMs are going to give you an ability to wave your inherent class weakness because you want it both ways.

That's what I meant. You either accept the inherent mechanical limitations of your build or not. There's no reason you should have your weaknesses removed because you could've played a stronger character. If the flavor really was that appealing to you, it shouldn't really matter. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Boci
2010-07-12, 12:33 PM
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But the transmuters and the conjurers can have their cake and eat it too. Why are you so against homebrewing an option to power up the enchanter? DMs won't be obliged to use it.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-12, 12:43 PM
1. The statement was taken partly out of context. The specific point here was that simply, if you want to play a build that you personally like the flavor on that's less than optimum, but you want to be the most optimum character possible, you're going to have to sacrifice SOMETHING on one or the other. This isn't a theory discussion, it's basic logic. If you want two opposing things you'll have to compromise something. Expecting to always get the best of both worlds isn't just unrealistic, it's a bit selfish.
Actually, I see no reason why I should expect to have to shoot myself in the foot in order to play a given character. That may be the case in D&D 3.5, but hey, that's what homebrew and houserules are for. There is absolutely no reason why someone who wants to play something other than the out-of-the-box, cookie-cutter classes that WotC designed should have to pay for it.


Now, there's nothing saying that the most optimum build possible can't be flavorful, but if you choose a non-optimum build because you honestly enjoy the flavor, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect people to start buffing up your flavored build up to same level cheese of another build. ESPECIALLY, and this is the big one, said buff causes severe long term ramifications to the game in question and could've been fixed by literally taking 1 non-enchantment spell.
Taking 1 non-enchantment spell doesn't work. More importantly, there's no good reason why Enchantment should be weaker than the other schools. Most importantly, everyone in the group should be roughly the same power level - no matter what character they want to play. I'd argue that a DM who doesn't work with players to make that happen is a bad DM. Is this the best solution? Perhaps not, but it's a pretty good one. It wastes actions (if it's a separate spell, as is my preference) or burns higher level spells for a lower level effect (for the metamagic), so it's hardly free.

But yes, if everyone's playing a cheesed-out Conjurer, Transmuter, CoDzilla, StP Erudite, then the Enchanter absolutely should get a buff. No reason, at all, that he should suffer just because WotC designed the school balance incredibly poorly.


In this case, we honestly have the unrealistic expectation that all wizard schools should be as game breaking as transmutation and conjuration. Why? Because the topic creator likes enchantment, but wants to be as powerful as other schools and should lose its inherent weakness. Thus, the statement. If your desire is to play the strongest character humanly possible, but you also want to play a character that is not the strongest character humanly possible, then you'll have to pick. You can power game and tweak all you want after you pick that enchanter, but it's an unrealistic expectation for your GM to concede that your enchanter should get spells that put him on par with transmutation and conjuration when his said school of choice is STILL likely more powerful than all of the other party members.
No one should expect to be more powerful than other party members. The OP isn't even doing this for a particular character in a particular campaign, he's talking about it hypothetically. In some games, yes, transmuters and conjurers should be nerfed. In others, though, maybe it's Enchanters and Evokers who need buffs. It depends on the campaign. Your blatant blanket generalizations are not generalizable, so you should stop making them.


Think of it this way, if I decide to play a fighter because I enjoy them and refuse to play any class other than fighter, but insist that my 20th level fighter should be more powerful than the party wizard and start suggesting game-breaking house rules to achieve such end, would you as a GM say yes, suggest a class out of tome of battle, or flat out say no? And if you suggested the tome of battle class, would you say yes when I absolutely refuse because I like the flavor of the fighter more?
I'd hit you with a DMG because the Warblade is a Fighter, and there is zero flavor difference between them. On the other hand, care to tell me exactly who has identical flavor to an Enchanter? I can't think of any. If a Warblade was still falling behind, though, and the group wanted to play on that higher power level, then yes, absolutely I would be interested in suggestions for improving the Warblade to allow him to remain competitive.


If you like the flavor on a class or class ability, play it. Max it out as much as it can go if you want, but if you want to play a character that's more powerful than what you can manage with min-maxing that class, then you should either get over the fact that your shiny enchanter wizard isn't QUITE as powerful as transmutation (sacrifice power for flavor), or just play the conujurer/transmutation wizard if being THAT powerful is that important to you (sacrifice flavor for power). Expecting every class and build you play to be buffed up to the most broken one that's allowed in standard play is unrealistic.
I'd think it's very reasonable to expect to be roughly as powerful as everyone else in your group, no matter what flavor you're looking for. If your group doesn't have broken conjurers or transmuters, then maybe this spell is out of place. If it does, though, then this is a decent fix for keeping things even, making Enchantment less of an obvious ban school.

Again, none of your statements apply generally, but you continue to make them general. Conjurers and Transmuters are not overpowered in every campaign - some people actually do play the game at that level of power. In which case, the Enchanter should be able to play, too.

And most importantly, banning Enchantment shouldn't be an absolutely zero cost move as it is here.


You'll have to make compromises here and there if you want to play with a group and GM.
Yes, which is exactly what you seem to be opposed to. Sometimes the compromise is to nerf the Conjurer and Transmuter. Other times it will be to buff the Enchanter. Buffing the Warblade and banning the Fighter in favor of the Warblade may also be appropriate or not, depending on the campaign. Every campaign requires compromise.

But there's absolutely no reason why you should have to compromise having an equitable power level with the rest of your group just because the flavor of the character you want to play is ill-supported by WotC.


2. For the record, that isn't the Stormwind Fallacy nor is it a subset. The Stormwind Fallacy is simply that power gamers can't be good roleplayers and is typically thought of as wrong.

A basic logical deduction about wanting to negate class weaknesses entirely because you don't like them, but wanting to still play the class without its weakness and expecting anyone to go along with it, IS NOT the Stormwind Fallacy. It's a case of "can't have your cake and eat it too".

EDIT: Correction. Word for word, the Stormwind Fallacy is
Thank you, I am aware - that's exactly what my post script stated. No, it is not the Stormwind fallacy, but it's related. You're making a similar, albeit weaker claim, which the Stormwind fallacy does not cover, but it's indicative of the same thought process. More importantly, you're also still wrong, whether Stormwind applies or not.


Doesn't change the point that in this specific case, the topic creator should either choose between playing the flavor of class he wants or the mechanical class he wants. The two don't connect at all in this case.
No, he shouldn't. Not if others don't have to. He has every right to expect to play at a similar power level to that of his comrades. You seem to think that no one ever plays campaigns where this wouldn't be overpowered, and you are incorrect in that assumption.

Defiant
2010-07-12, 01:07 PM
Believe it or not, the greatest basis for why I suggested this idea is for the players that are new or simply inexperience in character optimization. Or maybe they just got swept up in the fluff of playing an enchanter, that they didn't stop to think of the consequences.

The biggest problem I seek to address is that these players will start running into more brick walls in higher levels. This will be very frustrating, as their entire specialization will be mostly rendered useless. No, this isn't a case of "well you specialize in something, you have to accept drawbacks", this is a case of the character's niche being rendered irrelevant more and more often.

This is to the point where experienced players will realize this, and stop choosing any sort of enchantment. Thus rendering your entire argument for the enchanter having drawbacks, irrelevant, since no-one will pick it (out of these players).

As an inexperienced player, it is not fun for your area of expertise to be rendered useless too often. As an experienced player, you will not choose the enchanter (or will be very adverse to choosing it because of knowing there's no point in doing it), so your entire argument is moot.

My biggest problem with it is that players would have to choose between playing a strong character or playing a character who gets rendered useless too often, but who is very flavoured to their desires.

Seeing as I DM usually new or mostly-new people, I don't want to make them make that choice. I'd rather they play to the roleplaying aspect of the game. However, if the choices they have are lined as such, then there will be a pull towards the mechanically-strong aspect of the game, an idea I want to remove.

"Why should I play an enchanter when he will become useless, and the conjurer is so much better?"
"Well, as you see, you won't be completely useless with this new spell."


Stop making this about me and me wanting to gain power as an enchanter. That's not the case, and it completely misses the point.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 01:34 PM
But the transmuters and the conjurers can have their cake and eat it too. Why are you so against homebrewing an option to power up the enchanter? DMs won't be obliged to use it.

Actually, if you paid attention, multiple times, I've said that transmuters and conjurers should be nerfed because bringing everything up to THEIR level
1. Breaks the games ridiculously and makes it nigh unplayable.
2. Is just a simpler solution.

I'm perfectly fine with homebrewing, but if I'm correct, one typically homebrews to either fix problems or add new options to the game that are fun, interesting, and unique.

The proposed spell manages to essentially further the gap between wizards and other classes while adding very little flavor to the wizard. I see it as a weak homebrew at best.


Long rebuttal.

You know what? I'm not going to argue this point for point anymore, because you've already decided that no matter what I say, I'm wrong if I don't agree with every point you say. You decide to nitpick every single word instead of seeing the general statement. I could write out 100 pages explaining every single nuance of the point here and you'd still pick on minor points.

You can argue all day that playing a weaker character hurts everyone's enjoyment of the game and that EVERYONE that plays a wizard bans enchantment. It's just not true. It's true for you, but it's not true for everyone.

However, you talk about how this rule is to put characters on equal footing so they don't feel useless. In most groups, this will only serve to make enchanters not NEED other party members and make most members in most parties obsolete. It makes other party members WEAKER in comparison.

It works for your group apparently, because in your group and some other people's groups in this topic, an enchanter IS the weakest build, but if you suggest a GENERAL fix to a system, it should be a positive fix for MOST games, not a small niche of them.

A rule that makes something like 6 out of the 11 base classes in D&D less useful is NOT a good rule. Maybe this works for you. That's what houserules are for, but I HONESTLY cannot endorse this spell for the VAST MAJORITY of D&D games.

EDIT:

As an inexperienced player, it is not fun for your area of expertise to be rendered useless too often. As an experienced player, you will not choose the enchanter (or will be very adverse to choosing it because of knowing there's no point in doing it), so your entire argument is moot.

This statement insinuates that ALL experienced players power game. This is patently wrong and is the basis for my argument. If you believe that, I can understand why you wouldn't understand my point.

Power is just not that important to some players. There are other motivators for playing D&D.

But honestly, some legitimate alternatives that DON'T include banning enchantment have been suggested and you've ignored them as unreasonable.

Honestly though, if you feel such a build is boring. Why not warn your players if most of your monsters will be immune to it and let them decide for themselves whether they find it to be too often and boring.

Boci
2010-07-12, 01:44 PM
I'm perfectly fine with homebrewing, but if I'm correct, one typically homebrews to either fix problems or add new options to the game that are fun, interesting, and unique.

It could have its place. Even if you as a DM do not want to use it in a general game, other DMs may want to, and it could be useful in an all wizard campaign.


The proposed spell manages to essentially further the gap between wizards and other classes while adding very little flavor to the wizard. I see it as a weak homebrew at best.

Not really. Enchanters would still lack versatility, since all their save or suck / loose spells only target will, and they have to devote resources to just having a chance to affect creatures with their spells, something transmuters and conjurers generally do not have to. End result: the most powerful possible wizard would still be a specialist/focust specialist, who most likely has echantment amougst his banned schools. Enchanters just become playable against a wider range of opponents.

Defiant
2010-07-12, 01:47 PM
This statement insinuates that ALL experienced players power game.

Or most. Someone that knows that a character choice will be very underpowered, will be very adverse to choosing it. It doesn't require power-gaming. It just requires a desire to not have the entire basis that your character is based around on, rendered useless more and more often.


Honestly though, if you feel such a build is boring. Why not warn your players if most of your monsters will be immune to it and let them decide for themselves whether they find it to be too often and boring.

That's like warning them against choosing weak options.

"Don't choose the monk. It looks good, but it actually isn't."

I prefer to fix the problems instead.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 01:50 PM
Not really. Enchanters would still lack versatility, since all their save or suck / loose spells only target will, and they have to devote resources to just having a chance to affect creatures with their spells, something transmuters and conjurers generally do not have to. End result: the most powerful possible wizard would still be a specialist/focust specialist, who most likely has echantment amougst his banned schools. Enchanters just become playable against a wider range of opponents.

Once again, I just simply ask the question, "Why does a player HAVE to have the most powerful character possible?" Because that seems to be the base assumption here. If your build isn't 100% optimized, it needs to be buffed. Everyone keeps talking about a party being equal in power, but how does this equal everyone being optimized to the highest level possible?

EDIT:

Or most. [quote]

You'd be surprised how wrong that is outside of message boards. There are FAR more motivations for playing a character a certain way than power. I know plenty of people that have been playing for years that play patently ridiculous or silly builds because they find them more fun. Having the BEST character isn't the only way to have fun.

[quote]That's like warning them against choosing weak options.

"Don't choose the monk. It looks good, but it actually isn't."

I prefer to fix the problems instead.

If you think overall power IS an issue, then you should. Some people will want to play builds even when they know they're weak though.

And as I've pointed out, I feel this fix causes more problems than it fixes. Your enchanter gets better, but a lot of melee character get worse as a consequence since monsters the enchanter would've previously relied on the fighter to kill can be removed from battle on turn 1.

Defiant
2010-07-12, 01:52 PM
Why does a player HAVE to have their entire specialization and focus be rendered useless often at high levels, just because fixing it would bring it on par with wizards (which they are - are wizards, that is)?

Boci
2010-07-12, 01:53 PM
Once again, I just simply ask the question, "Why does a player HAVE to have the most powerful character possible?" Because that seems to be the base assumption here.

That was more aimed at your claim that this will make wizards more powerful. I was just pointing out that optimized wizard's wouldn't really be changed by this rule.


If your build isn't 100% optimized, it needs to be buffed

No, more if there are loads of creatures who are immune to your abilities, options should exist around this.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 01:55 PM
No, more if there are loads of creatures who are immune to your abilities, options should exist around this.

Like choosing spells outside your school?

Boci
2010-07-12, 01:56 PM
Like choosing spells outside your school?

Yeah your right. Who needs to fix fighters. Everyone can just play a DMM persist cleric.

If you want to play an effective enchanter, you probably want your methods of being effective to involve something that is not "don't-be-an-enchanter".

DragoonWraith
2010-07-12, 01:57 PM
Actually, if you paid attention, multiple times, I've said that transmuters and conjurers should be nerfed because bringing everything up to THEIR level
1. Breaks the games ridiculously and makes it nigh unplayable.
2. Is just a simpler solution.
Nerfing Wizards is actually quite difficult; no one that I know of has a particularly satisfactory way to do that.


I'm perfectly fine with homebrewing, but if I'm correct, one typically homebrews to either fix problems or add new options to the game that are fun, interesting, and unique.

The proposed spell manages to essentially further the gap between wizards and other classes while adding very little flavor to the wizard. I see it as a weak homebrew at best.
I disagree with you greatly. It seeks to create a parity between the spell schools that makes dumping Enchantment something closer to meaningful (note that banning Enchantment and Evocation is still the mechanically superior option). Not to mention that Wizards are not the only one to use it; it helps Beguilers a good deal too, and those generally aren't considered overpowered. It's a simple fix, it's reasonably elegant, and it works for what it's intended to do. What more do you want?


You know what? I'm not going to argue this point for point anymore, because you've already decided that no matter what I say, I'm wrong if I don't agree with every point you say. You decide to nitpick every single word instead of seeing the general statement. I could write out 100 pages explaining every single nuance of the point here and you'd still pick on minor points.
What you mean to say is, you didn't actually read it. Because my response there, though long-winded, was consistently pointing out two facts:
Your statements assume that Conjurers and Transmuters are automatically overpowered in every campaign. This is incorrect. In campaigns where Conjurers and Transmuters are the expected power level, Enchanters are underpowered and could use the buff. Therefore the statements you make as generalizations aren't.
There is no reason why any flavor option should be mechanically weaker than another legal option. This is bad design when it happens. Thus, homebrew and houserules to rectify it are a good thing. Your statement that he cannot "have his cake and eat it, too" is fundamentally flawed because it accepts that you are allowed to have mechanically stronger options, but only if you give up flavor. This should not happen, and a DM who refuses to work with a player to rectify it is not doing his job.
I did not nitpick anything. I didn't take anything out of context. I didn't even flood you with a ton of separate rebuttals. I maintained a single, coherent argument, and replied to your entire post, as you refused to do, because my argument finds issue with everything you have said.

If you don't have any interest in continuing the debate, then do not post in response to me at all. Wagging your finger and telling me "Nyah nyah, I'm not even going to read your response, I'm just going to hand-wave a reason why the whole thing is not worth responding to" is just insulting.


You can argue all day that playing a weaker character hurts everyone's enjoyment of the game [...] but it's not true for everyone.
Having someone who isn't enjoying the game because he is underpowered for no reason other than WotC's poor design does hurt everyone's enjoyment. Unless your group gets off on one player's frustration and annoyance, but I doubt that, and would take issue with it even if you did. Yes, you can enjoy the game being mechanically weaker - but you shouldn't have to, which was your claim.


EVERYONE that plays a wizard bans enchantment. It's just not true. It's true for you, but it's not true for everyone.
No, it's not true for me. That said, just because people choose weaker options does not eliminate the obvious design issues of the fact that weaker options exist in the first place. Not everyone does ban Enchantment - but it is the mechanically strictly superior option.


However, you talk about how this rule is to put characters on equal footing so they don't feel useless. In most groups, this will only serve to make enchanters not NEED other party members and make most members in most parties obsolete. It makes other party members WEAKER in comparison.
I'm going to respond with your own words, here:
It's just not true. It's true for you, but it's not true for everyone.I'll agree that for most groups, this is true. Absolutely, no argument there. But my entire argument (you know, the one you failed to read, and then blamed that on me as if it's my fault) was that this isn't true of every group.


It works for your group apparently, because in your group and some other people's groups in this topic, an enchanter IS the weakest build, but if you suggest a GENERAL fix to a system, it should be a positive fix for MOST games, not a small niche of them.
Who said anything about a general fix? Where did that statement get made? It was just a thought by the OP. It was hypothetical to begin with. The fix achieves its goal of reducing the gap between Enchantment and other schools of magic. It doesn't particularly exacerbate the issue between casters and non-casters, really, but it's not particularly important if it does, because that's not what it was trying to do. This is like complaining that a stop light doesn't prevent people from dying of heart-attack - it wasn't meant to, and it's mostly unrelated.


A rule that makes something like 6 out of the 11 base classes in D&D less useful is NOT a good rule. Maybe this works for you. That's what houserules are for, but I HONESTLY cannot endorse this spell for the VAST MAJORITY of D&D games.
This is not what you said. If this had been what you said, there would have been no argument to begin with.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-12, 01:58 PM
Why does a player HAVE to have their entire specialization and focus be rendered useless often at high levels, just because fixing it would bring it on par with wizards (which they are - are wizards, that is)?

Because apparently trying to fix a single school is too much work. Instead we should be trying to nerf the seven other schools, much less work. :smalltongue:

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 02:01 PM
Why does a player HAVE to have their entire specialization and focus be rendered useless often at high levels, just because fixing it would bring it on par with wizards (which they are - are wizards, that is)?

The same could be said for all non-spell casters. Instead, we're fixing a caster that might already be at an appropriate level to other classes and making it equal to something you're admitting is overpowered. The Enchanter is NOT useless, they are useful. Just less so than transmuters and conjurers. This is a problem with transmuters and conjurers and not enchanters.

The term useless is relative here, but I fail to see how being able to make a better wizard makes another build useless. Just because A=B does not mean B=C. The transmuter is broken. This DOES not mean the enchanter is useless. Socrates is not a cat.


That was more aimed at your claim that this will make wizards more powerful. I was just pointing out that optimized wizard's wouldn't really be changed by this rule.

No, more if there are loads of creatures who are immune to your abilities, options should exist around this.

That's still assuming that all optimized wizards instantly ban enchantment.

And as stated previously, there are options around it. It's called learn fireball or carry scrolls of it. As someone said, if the skeletons have a DR against arrows, then there's no need to pull out new feats. Just keep a bludgeoning weapon handy. Weaknesses are what make class skills unique, without the immunities, enchantment is just an I win button and no REASONABLE amount of adjustment will make removing that weakness balanced.

EDIT:

Because apparently trying to fix a single school is too much work. Instead we should be trying to nerf the seven other schools, much less work. :smalltongue:

Since when did Evocation go up a notch? Seriously, snarkiness aside. Yes, nerfing 7 spell schools by banning broken spells and spell combos would be MASSIVELY easier than bringing every class in the game up to a transmuter's/conjurer's level.

Saph
2010-07-12, 02:01 PM
The biggest problem I seek to address is that these players will start running into more brick walls in higher levels. This will be very frustrating, as their entire specialization will be mostly rendered useless. No, this isn't a case of "well you specialize in something, you have to accept drawbacks", this is a case of the character's niche being rendered irrelevant more and more often.

See, that isn't really what I'm getting from listening to your argument here.

My response for the last few pages has been: what exactly is stopping you, as an enchanter, from preparing some Enchantment spells and some non-Enchantment spells? You use the Enchantment spells against the stuff that's not immune to mind-affecting. You use the non-Enchantment spells against the stuff that is.


This is to the point where experienced players will realize this, and stop choosing any sort of enchantment. Thus rendering your entire argument for the enchanter having drawbacks, irrelevant, since no-one will pick it (out of these players).

As an inexperienced player, it is not fun for your area of expertise to be rendered useless too often. As an experienced player, you will not choose the enchanter (or will be very adverse to choosing it because of knowing there's no point in doing it), so your entire argument is moot.

I'm an experienced player, and one of my longest-running characters was an enchanter. So your argument that "no-one experienced will want to play an enchanter" is, quite simply, wrong.

Kesnit
2010-07-12, 02:04 PM
Yeah your right. Who needs to fix fighters. Everyone can just play a DMM persist cleric.

If you want to play an effective enchanter, you probably want your methods of being effective to involve something that is not "don't-be-an-enchanter".

Which is not at all what was said. There is no rule that says a specialist Wizard has to take all their spells from their specialist school. An Enchanter who knowingly takes nothing but mind-controlling spells and then complains their spells are sometimes useless gets no sympathy. Why? Because they did it to themselves. All it would take is a few spells outside of mind-controlling and they are no longer "useless."

Boci
2010-07-12, 02:08 PM
That's still assuming that all optimized wizards instantly ban enchantment.

From a mechanical standpoint there is not much to loose from banning. That doesn't mean all optimizers will, but its certainly one of the more common ones to be banned.


And as stated previously, there are options around it. It's called learn fireball or carry scrolls of it. As someone said, if the skeletons have a DR against arrows, then there's no need to pull out new feats.

There are arrows that deal blugeoning damage. See, every "other" example I have seen on this thread of options not being universally aplllicable has failed.

SA immune creatures - ways around it.

Fire immune creatures - ways around it.

Arrows and skeletons - ways around it.

Mind affecting immunity - not really.


Which is not at all what was said. There is no rule that says a specialist Wizard has to take all their spells from their specialist school. An Enchanter who knowingly takes nothing but mind-controlling spells and then complains their spells are sometimes useless gets no sympathy. Why? Because they did it to themselves. All it would take is a few spells outside of mind-controlling and they are no longer "useless."

That would work if there were just a few creatures who were out right immune, but there are alot.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-12, 02:08 PM
EDIT:


Since when did Evocation go up a notch? Seriously, snarkiness aside. Yes, nerfing 7 spell schools by banning broken spells and spell combos would be MASSIVELY easier than bringing every class in the game up to a transmuter's/conjurer's level.


I disagree, nerfing seven schools that span almost every published book while maintaining the wizard as playable is not in fact easy. We have nerfed Wizards extensively in Test of Spite for example, yet it does not prevent them from being among the dominant competitors.

Saph
2010-07-12, 02:20 PM
There are arrows that deal blugeoning damage. See, every "other" example I have seen on this thread of options not being universally aplllicable has failed.

SA immune creatures - ways around it.

Fire immune creatures - ways around it.

Arrows and skeletons - ways around it.

Mind affecting immunity - not really.

The way around it is that you don't use mind-affecting spells against enemies immune to mind-affecting spells. You're a high-level Wizard, you have more spells than you know what to do with. Having a wide choice of spells is the whole point of the bloody class! If you know you're going to be facing a certain amount of enemies immune to spells of a certain school, then prepare something else.

I have sympathy for Rogues who can't sneak attack enemies, because Sneak Attack is often the only way they can effectively contribute in a battle. I don't have sympathy for high-level Enchanters who can't mind-frak enemies, because they've got about three hundred other things they can do instead and because they're outrageously powerful already.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 02:24 PM
I disagree, nerfing seven schools that span almost every published book while maintaining the wizard as playable is not in fact easy. We have nerfed Wizards extensively in Test of Spite for example, yet it does not prevent them from being among the dominant competitors.

That doesn't actually prove that buffing every class is easier unless you've gone back and buffed everyone up and managed to get everyone balanced. I never said nerfing was easy, it's just a simpler solution than going through and fixing every single possible non-optimum build.

Besides, what would a game HONESTLY be like if every single player and class was allowed abilities that are equal to ones that have been known to break campaigns?

Are we really better off if the transmuter that destroys encounters and campaigns with a thought now has a fighter friend that can do it as well? Doesn't that just make more work for the GM in the long run and increase the likelihood of the entire campaign just breaking down?

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 02:24 PM
Yeah your right. Who needs to fix fighters. Everyone can just play a DMM persist cleric.

If you want to play an effective enchanter, you probably want your methods of being effective to involve something that is not "don't-be-an-enchanter".

Nobody is telling you "don't be an enchanter." We're saying you should pick some other spells that aren't enchantment.

An enchanter who picks exclusively enchantment spells will be hosed, just as a telepath who picks all telepathy powers will be hosed. You can hose any kind of specialist, it's just easier with enchanters than most. (Hose conjurers with a dimensional lock around the dungeon, hose evokers with lots of SR-heavy monsters, etc.) The solution is to diversify your portfolio, not invent stock.

Boci
2010-07-12, 02:27 PM
The way around it is that you don't use mind-affecting spells against enemies immune to mind-affecting spells. You're a high-level Wizard, you have more spells than you know what to do with. Having a wide choice of spells is the whole point of the bloody class! If you know you're going to be facing a certain amount of enemies immune to spells of a certain school, then prepare something else.

But as an enchanter, you want to use enchanter spells. The odd enemy who is immune is fine and adds to the game feeling, but there are so many. All undead, all contructs, certain abberations, andone with access to mind blank.


I have sympathy for Rogues who can't sneak attack enemies, because Sneak Attack is often the only way they can effectively contribute in a battle. I don't have sympathy for high-level Enchanters who can't mind-frak enemies, because they've got about three hundred other things they can do instead and because they're outrageously powerful already.

But by sticking to enchantment spells, the wizard is bypassing the more outrageous options available to wizards. Surely that should be encouraged.


Nobody is telling you "don't be an enchanter." We're saying you should pick some other spells that aren't enchantment.

An enchanter who picks exclusively enchantment spells will be hosed, just as a telepath who picks all telepathy powers will be hosed. You can hose any kind of specialist, it's just easier with enchanters than most. (Hose conjurers with a dimensional lock around the dungeon, hose evokers with lots of SR-heavy monsters, etc.) The solution is to diversify your portfolio, not invent stock.

As I said, that would work fine, but I personally believe that there are too many creature out right immune to enchantments for this to be reasonable advice.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-12, 02:30 PM
While this talk of "screw enchantment, pick other spells" may be all well and good for a wizard, sorcerers will only have 1 or 2 of their highest level spells known.

Also, why not have this option? Seriously, what is so bad about it? If wizards actually published a metamagic like this would you think it was broken?

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 02:30 PM
But by sticking to enchantment spells, the wizard is bypassing the more outrageous options available to wizards. Surely that should be encouraged.

Except that the supposed fix is to make the Enchanter's options AS outrageous as said options you're trying to avoid. It's like sending a polar bear after someone when they say "no grizzly bears". The bear's color wasn't the problem. The problem was that it was a bear.


EDIT:


Also, why not have this option? Seriously, what is so bad about it? If wizards actually published a metamagic like this would you think it was broken?

Broken or Underpowered actually. You could put so many levels on it that it's way too much or you can put too little. I don't think there's really a good balance though.

1 level feels way too low.
2 levels ditto.
3 is a bit high.
4 is way too high.

The problem is. How do we quantify allowing enemies immune to what essentially is an "I Win" button gain weakness to it (and usually a HUGE weakness since they'll have low will save)? It's just about impossible to quantify without really looking at every immune monster ever published and determining whether controlling one of those for 2 extra spell levels would be broken or not.

It's an N+1 balancing equation waiting to happen.

PapaNachos
2010-07-12, 02:30 PM
But by sticking to enchantment spells, the wizard is bypassing the more outrageous options available to wizards. Surely that should be encouraged.

Not if the solution just creates another path to the same end, namely that wizards are a walking "I win" button.

Boci
2010-07-12, 02:32 PM
Not if the solution just creates another path to the same end, namely that wizards are a walking "I win" button.

It doesn't though. You are investing resoures into having a chance to affect enemies. Almost all your spells will offer a save, which will be will, and it is easy to get a bonus to this. Even with this option, enchanters won't be rivalling transmuters and conjurers.


Except that the supposed fix is to make the Enchanter's options AS outrageous as said options you're trying to avoid. It's like sending a polar bear after someone when they say "no grizzly bears". The bear's color wasn't the problem. The problem was that it was a bear.

Read the above. Giving enchanters a chance to affect a wider range of targets with their spells will not suddenly make them equal to transmuters and conjurers.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 02:36 PM
It doesn't though. You are investing resoures into having a chance to affect enemies. Almost all your spells will offer a save, which will be will, and it is easy to get a bonus to this. Even with this option, enchanters won't be rivalling transmuters and conjurers.

Except that for 90% of the new targets, their Will save will be SINGLE digits at best. Even the biggest monsters will be making some of the WEAKEST saves only maybe a quarter of the time. All things considered, it's not a very big resource drain, and if you made it one, no one would take it.

Boci
2010-07-12, 02:39 PM
Except that for 90% of the new targets, their Will save will be SINGLE digits at best. Even the biggest monsters will be making some of the WEAKEST saves only maybe a quarter of the time. All things considered, it's not a very big resource drain, and if you made it one, no one would take it.

No, your wrong. There are non-enchantment save or suck/loose/die spells that require a will save, and they alone are not enough to allow wizard to defeat 90% of mind affecting immune creatures. Of those on my list, contructs are the only ones with bad will saves.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-12, 02:44 PM
Okay, let's call it +3 levels. Now compare. A 9th level wizard would be casting a 2nd level spell with the adjustment, a sorcerer would only use 1st levels. Do you really think the ability to cast hideous laughter as a 5th level slot, and not even heightened, is an I-win button? Because if you do, you really need to look at some other 5th level wizard spells.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 02:51 PM
No, your wrong. There are non-enchantment save or suck/loose/die spells that require a will save, and they alone are not enough to allow wizard to defeat 90% of mind affecting immune creatures. Of those on my list, contructs are the only ones with bad will saves.

I'm looking through the SRD listing of monsters by CR as we speak now, and I'm not seeing anything with 2 or less intelligence that has a will higher than single digits. Most of them are even in the 1-2 range.

Care to enlighten me on which mindless creatures with high will save you're talking about? I guess you could be talking about a Gray Render Zombie with its +12... But yeah. I'm not seeing a lot of int 2/- creatures with higher than even a +4.


Okay, let's call it +3 levels. Now compare. A 9th level wizard would be casting a 2nd level spell with the adjustment, a sorcerer would only use 1st levels. Do you really think the ability to cast hideous laughter as a 5th level slot, and not even heightened, is an I-win button? Because if you do, you really need to look at some other 5th level wizard spells.

Exactly my point. Just doesn't work. At the same time, do you think being able to use hideous laughter as a 4 level spell on a 12-headed cryo hydra is fair game? It's only got a +6 Will. Your hideous laughter check is at MINIMUM maybe a 16? So we're looking at 50/50 negate its ability to act. Even if we're assuming that after it gains sentience it still keeps the +4 to saves... Well, that's still a 25% chance of removing all of its actions for your caster level.

There's a lot of big bruisers with even worse saves than that. Admittedly, wasting it on a dire wolf is mostly pointless, but it opens up a lot of creatures that probably shouldn't be allowed to be stopped entirely in their tracks like that.

So, considering that the strength of monsters determines the strength of the metamagic in this case, it's pretty hard to calculate. What really IS the right adjustment here?

Boci
2010-07-12, 02:56 PM
I'm looking through the SRD listing of monsters by CR as we speak now, and I'm not seeing anything with 2 or less intelligence that has a will higher than single digits. Most of them are even in the 1-2 range.

And whats the average CR of them?



Care to enlighten me on which mindless creatures with high will save you're talking about?

Undead, abberations, casters with access to mind blank. Anything with a low will save and mind affecting immunity can be taken out for glitterdust to name a core favourite. I am sure there are more options.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 03:12 PM
And whats the average CR of them?



Undead, abberations, casters with access to mind blank. Anything with a low will save and mind affecting immunity can be taken out for glitterdust to name a core favourite. I am sure there are more options.

I'm looking at some CR 10-13 ish monsters with a Will of 2 right now. Covers the whole spectrum. Animals, plants, oozes, magical beasts, etc. They generally have low Will over every level.

The mindless undead actually have pretty low Will saves. They're better than other mindless types, but they go up to around... 6-8 ish for the most part. Kinda moot anyway since their immunity on mental effects has nothing to do with sentience or not since even the super intelligent undead have it. I'll give you that those would make it most of the time if you allowed them to fail those saves with the metamagic though. So I guess Wraiths and Vampires and the like are hard.

Abberations. Not as much. They're higher than animals, but most of them are coming out in the 7-9 range. Good, but not amazing, especially if you're tweaking your enchantment spells and the DCs. Like I said, 16 should be the MINIMUM a level 2 spell is hitting. If you're specializing in Enchantment, it's probably going to be closer to 20.

Casters with Mind blank... Well, what are you doing trying to make ANY caster make a Will check and not his fighter buddy?

Boci
2010-07-12, 03:16 PM
I'm looking at some CR 10-13 ish monsters with a Will of 2 right now. Covers the whole spectrum. Animals, plants, oozes, magical beasts, etc. They generally have low Will over every level.

The mindless undead actually have pretty low Will saves. They're better than other mindless types, but they go up to around... 6-8 ish for the most part. Kinda moot anyway since their immunity on mental effects has nothing to do with sentience or not since even the super intelligent undead have it. I'll give you that those would make it most of the time if you allowed them to fail those saves with the metamagic though. So I guess Wraiths and Vampires and the like are hard.

Abberations. Not as much. They're higher than animals, but most of them are coming out in the 7-9 range. Good, but not amazing, especially if you're tweaking your enchantment spells and the DCs. Like I said, 16 should be the MINIMUM a level 2 spell is hitting. If you're specializing in Enchantment, it's probably going to be closer to 20.

Okay, so you've identified a load of creatures that can easily be taken out by save or suck spells that target will saves. Enchantments are not the only such spells.


Casters with Mind blank... Well, what are you doing trying to make ANY caster make a Will check and not his fighter buddy?

He might not have one.

Dairun Cates
2010-07-12, 03:23 PM
Okay, so you've identified a load of creatures that can easily be taken out by save or suck spells that target will saves. Enchantments are not the only such spells.


He might not have one.

I never said you couldn't. You brought that up as an argument. Of course there are other will-effecting save or sucks that do work. It's almost like the system was design to do that. For the most part though, they're not usually as effective as the enchantment save or suck.

Glitterdust blinds your opponent. Hideous laughter removes all actions for usually the entire combat. Hold Person makes them prone and unable to act. Mind Control and geas spells can actually make them attack their own allies. Blindness may be debilitating, but it's not going to entirely remove you from combat. Consequently, a lot of creatures in those high will categories are already immune to most of those status effects (such as blindness).

But yeah. I don't consider slow or blindness to be status effects quite equivalent to removing a creature from combat entirely or getting to control them as a weapon.

Boci
2010-07-12, 03:27 PM
I never said you couldn't. You brought that up as an argument. Of course there are other will-effecting save or sucks that do work. It's almost like the system was design to do that. For the most part though, they're not usually as effective as the enchantment save or suck.

Glitterdust blinds your opponent. Hideous laughter removes all actions for usually the entire combat. Hold Person makes them prone and unable to act. Mind Control and geas spells can actually make them attack their own allies. Blindness may be debilitating, but it's not going to entirely remove you from combat. Consequently, a lot of creatures in those high will categories are already immune to most of those status effects (such as blindness).

But yeah. I don't consider slow or blindness to be status effects quite equivalent to removing a creature from combat entirely or getting to control them as a weapon.

Yes, hence the cost of such an ability. The 9th level spell I suggested. The +3 mm.

Also, nitpick: Gease it not a combat spell due its casting time (at least I think) and glitter dust is an area affect andthus should be less debilitating than THL.

Defiant
2010-07-12, 03:33 PM
Shouldn't our debate be more based around what level is appropriate for such a spell or metamagic feat?

For Valor
2010-07-12, 03:37 PM
Dairun Cates has a point. The feat (a feat would be best) is incredibly strong.

However, Natural Spell.

This makes an enchanter very strong, but who gives a damn? If you want to play an enchanter-wizard, go ahead and take the feat. People will hate you.... but if you're a good wizard, they'd hate you anyway.

This is a powerful feat. It's a little less broken than Divine Metamagic.

dextercorvia
2010-07-12, 04:24 PM
Shouldn't our debate be more based around what level is appropriate for such a spell or metamagic feat?

I think +3 for a 50% chance of effecting a creature normally immune to mind effecting spells (normal save still applies). This negates some of the arguments that most enemies will auto fail the save vs. the spell itself. Searing spell has set the precedent for 50%. The +3 adjustment is because there is precedent for allowing new monster types to be affected to require such a boost. Also, enchantment is generally stronger than fire based damage spells. Being able to add an enemy to your team, not just removing them from combat thing is huge.

Boci
2010-07-12, 04:30 PM
The whole adding them to your team, not just removing them from combat thing is huge.

But hoe many spells are there that can actually do that? Dominate humanoid is now an 8th level spell that effectively grants the subject a +3 to save. I don't think a 50% failure chance is needed, unless metamagic reducers are abused.

dextercorvia
2010-07-12, 04:35 PM
But hoe many spells are there that can actually do that? Dominate humanoid is now an 8th level spell that effectively grants the subject a +3 to save. I don't think a 50% failure chance is needed, unless metamagic reducers are abused.

Most of these monsters have a crappy will save. And it shouldn't always work. Remember Searing Spell only deals half damage, and there isn't really a way to be half dominated. Your notion of +3 to save is dubious. They save against a 5th level spell DC easily in the neighborhood of 23-24 by that level. Hard to succeed on if your Will save is a +3.

When aren't metamagic reducers abused?

Heck if you are focusing on enchantment the DC is likely to be higher from SF, GSF.

Boci
2010-07-12, 04:41 PM
Most of these monsters have a crappy will save.

Yes and most monsters are not humanoid, so they cannot be dominated. So we are reduced to save or loose, of which there are already many, some of which target will saves and are not already mind affecting.


Remember Searing Spell only deals half damage

Yes but it also ignores resistence and is only +1.


Your notion of +3 to save is dubious.

What I meant was that by using a +3 MM, you are affecting granting your opponent a +3 to their save by not using a higher level spell.


When aren't metamagic reducers abused?

When the DM says "Look I'm houserulling this feat to allow you character to function against a wider range of foes. In return please refrain from using metamagic reducors"

dextercorvia
2010-07-12, 04:44 PM
Yes and most monsters are not humanoid, so they cannot be dominated. So we are reduced to save or loose, of which there are already many, some of which target will saves and are not already mind affecting.



When the DM says "Look I'm houserulling this feat to allow you character to function against a wider range of foes. In return please refrain from using metamagic reducors"


I don't know if I could pass up an Overwhelming/Invisible/Sanctum Thesis Dominate Monster.

Yes I have named my feat Overwhelming Spell.

Boci
2010-07-12, 04:46 PM
I don't know if I could pass up an Overwhelming/Invisible/Sanctum Thesis Dominate Monster.

Yes I have named my feat Overwhelming Spell.

That requires DM aproval though. Good name btw.

Lord Bingo
2010-07-12, 06:19 PM
I am new to this discussion, so bear with me :smallsmile:

IMO the enchanter is in no way under powered. The fact is, however, that to play an effective enchanter you need to take care and put more thought into your choices/actions than you would have to playing a conjurer, etc. In a word it is more difficult to be an enchanter :smallamused:

Please bear in mind that everything in the game is under powered compared to an epic level wizard. Does that mean that we should invent perks for every other class in the game? -or should we remove the wizard?

I will have to support the "you can't have your cake" side in this. When you chose to play an enchanter you did it fully knowing it has inherent weaknesses against certain types of creatures.
The idea that an enchanter should have an enchantment spell that can mind affect mindless creatures is equivalent to saying that a melee focused barbarian should have the ability to sprout wings or walk on air to close the gap between him-/herself and a flying opponent! :smallsigh:

Boci
2010-07-12, 06:34 PM
The idea that an enchanter should have an enchantment spell that can mind affect mindless creatures is equivalent to saying that a melee focused barbarian should have the ability to sprout wings or walk on air to close the gap between him-/herself and a flying opponent! :smallsigh:

You can. There are numberous ways to gain fly speed.

For Valor
2010-07-12, 06:40 PM
Besides, the barbarian SHOULD have a way to fly. If he doesn't, he sucks... that's why he's Tier 4, with the Fighter.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-12, 07:01 PM
As the other two have said: yes, at some point every class needs a way to operate in three dimensions. Not having one in a game where most do is a design flaw.

Terazul
2010-07-12, 07:18 PM
*Looks over thread*
This is why I just play a Telepath with Lycanthromancer's psionic power revision:

Shatter Mind Blank. Psion/Wilder 5. Telepath 3. 1/round level. You gain a +2 enhancement bonus to save DC or manifester level for the purposes of overcoming power resistance for the enchantment school or telepathy discipline. If you try to use a mind-affecting effect against a non-mindless target normally immune to it, it loses that immunity and instead gains PR 15+ its Hit Dice.

S'worked out pretty fine so far.

Kiroth6
2010-07-12, 07:28 PM
As a general rule of thumb I am against making swiss cheese of rules since a lot of things have to shift around because of it. Either way you go, re-enacting Flowers for Algernon or this (http://sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/050719) as a regular course of combat is messed up.

Consequently isn't Mind Blank a 7th level spell? Isn't it a little silly letting things with half that power innately counter?

Grumman
2010-07-12, 11:59 PM
Why does a player HAVE to have their entire specialization and focus be rendered useless often at high levels, just because fixing it would bring it on par with wizards (which they are - are wizards, that is)?
Because you get no sympathy from me if you choose to specialise in save-or-sucks that also make your side stronger, the most broken part of the game, and are whining that it just isn't uber enough.

Terazul
2010-07-13, 12:18 AM
Consequently isn't Mind Blank a 7th level spell? Isn't it a little silly letting things with half that power innately counter?

8th level. Also, only counters the mind-affecting part. If you beat their power/spell resistance (which is based off their caster level+15, if they got it via the spell). Doesn't get rid of the invulnerability to divinations. And lasts 1/round a level, as opposed to 24 hours. Before augmenting.

Kiroth6
2010-07-13, 12:32 AM
8th level. Also, only counters the mind-affecting part. If you beat their power/spell resistance (which is based off their caster level+15, if they got it via the spell). Doesn't get rid of the invulnerability to divinations. And lasts 1/round a level, as opposed to 24 hours. Before augmenting.

Ah, okay, I see. Well between the limitation of use, type of creature it can be used, scale of level and counter it doesn't seem too bad. It's a very narrow limitation as opposed to a large hole. Though I'm not sure how bad it could get with augmenting but at least its a counter to an actual spell rather than a state of being. That's still a different ball game from innately having the ability to a zombie or golem self-awareness just so you can hit it with mind affecting spells.

Boci
2010-07-13, 07:33 AM
that also make your side stronger

Could you show me those spells? In core you have dominate humanoid, dominate monster and dominate animal. Thats three. Dominate monster will be unavailable pre-epic without MM reducers if we use the +3 that has been reccomended. To me it seems you are not paying any attention to the details.

Kiroth6
2010-07-13, 02:43 PM
Could you show me those spells? In core you have dominate humanoid, dominate monster and dominate animal. Thats three. Dominate monster will be unavailable pre-epic without MM reducers if we use the +3 that has been reccomended. To me it seems you are not paying any attention to the details.

All details or just the details you want to focus on? Because if the prior is the case, you're just as guilty of that.

Boci
2010-07-13, 03:27 PM
All details or just the details you want to focus on? Because if the prior is the case, you're just as guilty of that.

The actual details, beyond "Being able to mind control everything will break the game". What details I am not paying attention to?

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-13, 03:28 PM
I'm looking through the SRD listing of monsters by CR as we speak now, and I'm not seeing anything with 2 or less intelligence that has a will higher than single digits. Most of them are even in the 1-2 range.

Care to enlighten me on which mindless creatures with high will save you're talking about? I guess you could be talking about a Gray Render Zombie with its +12... But yeah. I'm not seeing a lot of int 2/- creatures with higher than even a +4.



Exactly my point. Just doesn't work. At the same time, do you think being able to use hideous laughter as a 4 level spell on a 12-headed cryo hydra is fair game? It's only got a +6 Will. Your hideous laughter check is at MINIMUM maybe a 16? So we're looking at 50/50 negate its ability to act. Even if we're assuming that after it gains sentience it still keeps the +4 to saves... Well, that's still a 25% chance of removing all of its actions for your caster level.

There's a lot of big bruisers with even worse saves than that. Admittedly, wasting it on a dire wolf is mostly pointless, but it opens up a lot of creatures that probably shouldn't be allowed to be stopped entirely in their tracks like that.

So, considering that the strength of monsters determines the strength of the metamagic in this case, it's pretty hard to calculate. What really IS the right adjustment here?

I'm missing why you need the feat to cast hideous laughter on a hydra...

satorian
2010-07-13, 03:36 PM
I'm missing why this thread is so full of rage and bile. It's just a freaking idea for a feat/spell. Some of us like it, and some of those have ideas as to how it should be implemented. Some don't, and don't think it should be implemented at all.

Yes, yes, xkcd, someone is wrong on the internet. But, really?

Boci
2010-07-13, 03:39 PM
I'm missing why this thread is so full of rage and bile. It's just a freaking idea for a feat/spell. Some of us like it, and some of those have ideas as to how it should be implemented. Some don't, and don't think it should be implemented at all.

Yes, yes, xkcd, someone is wrong on the internet. But, really?

I'm not full of rage or bile at any poster on this thread, just having a debate with some whose opinions I disagree with.

Defiant
2010-07-13, 03:39 PM
I'm missing why this thread is so full of rage and bile. It's just a freaking idea for a feat/spell. Some of us like it, and some of those have ideas as to how it should be implemented. Some don't, and don't think it should be implemented at all.

Yes, yes, xkcd, someone is wrong on the internet. But, really?

It's because people like to make it personal.

"Just because you want your overpowered wizard to be even stronger, and don't care about your party members, doesn't mean it's like that at every gaming table"

Making it personal tends to irritate people.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-13, 05:13 PM
Could anyone care to inform my why you can't use hideous laughter on a hydra? Am I missing something painfully obvious here?

Hague
2010-07-13, 05:23 PM
Here's a solution:

1. Find a necromancer.

2. Charm said necromancer.

3. Get said necromancer to eliminate undead.

4. Find an abjurer

5. Charm said abjurer.

6. Order abjurer to disjoin troublesome constructs

7. ???

8. Profit.

Defiant
2010-07-13, 06:51 PM
Here's a solution:

1. Find a necromancer.

2. Charm said necromancer.

3. Get said necromancer to eliminate undead.

4. Find an abjurer

5. Charm said abjurer.

6. Order abjurer to disjoin troublesome constructs

7. ???

8. Profit.

Your argument is moot, since a Conjurer could do it anyways.

1. Conjure up a necromancer.

2. Get said necromancer to eliminate undead.

3. Conjure up an abjurer.

4. Order abjurer to disjoin troublesome constructs.

Even a transmuter could do it.

1. Use disintegration essence to create a necromancer loyal to you.

... and so on

Kiroth6
2010-07-14, 08:49 AM
The actual details, beyond "Being able to mind control everything will break the game". What details I am not paying attention to?

Well, aside from focusing on certain details being a problem of any argument on this board, it seems you're not taking account how this might affect other players. Judging by the reactions on this thread, there is serious opposition to implementing such a change. A GM or player runs the big risk of ticking other players off with this proposition. That is a reason not to implement this idea.


Could anyone care to inform my why you can't use hideous laughter on a hydra? Am I missing something painfully obvious here?

Not sure myself, but I think it has something to do with the fact that the hydra's intelligence to be low to be affected or something.

Tinydwarfman
2010-07-14, 11:25 AM
Not sure myself, but I think it has something to do with the fact that the hydra's intelligence to be low to be affected or something.

Ah, thats makes sense. But that's a specific Hideous laughter problem. It just doesn't get the joke. There are plenty more and better spells you could be using for 2nd level anyway.

Boci
2010-07-19, 04:27 PM
Well, aside from focusing on certain details being a problem of any argument on this board, it seems you're not taking account how this might affect other players.

I am. I am also failing to see how the proposed +3 metamagic feat would break the game. I just think some people on this thread are going "OMG, you can now dominate anything" without stopping to consider that most such spells become epic with a +3 level enhancer.



A GM or player runs the big risk of ticking other players off with this proposition.

So do lots of things.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-19, 05:01 PM
While this talk of "screw enchantment, pick other spells" may be all well and good for a wizard, sorcerers will only have 1 or 2 of their highest level spells known.
Yes, I also raised this point. You can't 'just use other spells' when you have little to no other spells.