PDA

View Full Version : Most broken spells in 3.5 core



Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-05, 01:46 PM
Collecting data for G&G rewrites, mostly. Disregarding save-or-dies and conditions and condition-inflicting spells like glitterdust, which are being addressed elsewhere, what would the Playground say are:

1) the most abusive spells in the PHB
1a) save-or-lose spells.
2) the most underpowered, "not-even-sometimes-useful" spells?

(Oh, and relevant: magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260452) and conditions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689) changes)

Eldan
2012-11-05, 02:55 PM
We should probably do base system before spell rewrites, but I'll go over it again, sure. Spells that might need changing:

Alter Self: might need some toning down, but I really don't think it's all that bad. Just really good compared to other buffs of the same level. Not broken, just good.

Astral Projection: should have a consequence for dying while projected (some form of coma, maybe), and a clause that items you use in astral form are used up as well in reality. At the very least. Broken.

Black Tentacles: tone it down a bit. Not broken, just good.

Blasphemy et al: no save kill. Hahaha no. Broken.

Contact other plane: divination is too certain for my tastes in 3.5

Create Food and Water/Create water: I just dislike them because they make world building a pain. Especially create water.

Deathward, Freedom of Movement, True seeing, Mind Blan: I also dislike total immunities to spell schools or entire categories of effects.

Divination: see contact other plane.

Explosive runes: as intended, not that bad. But stacking them and failing your own dispel needs to go.

Fabricate: wizards have whatever they want at hand, always.

Flesh to stone: is not adressed much with conditions. I suggest dexterity drain, then petrification at 0..

Invisibility: there were already suggestions on this. I hink options were a stealth bonus, or just constant concealment to allow hiding in plain sight.

Mage's Disjunctoin: needs quite a bit of rewrites.

Major Creation: antimatter shenanigans. Even without those, producing tons of, say, black lotus poison breaks any semblance of economy.

Planar Ally/Binding: should include some sort of negotation and payment, and no way around it. I suggest trading quests with the called creature.

Polymorph, shapechange: too good by far. I suggest going the route of giving only certain abilities, maybe from a list, and ability score bonuses (racial bonuses?) instead of flat scores.

Solid Fog: needs a way to move through the fog. strenght checks/acrobatics?

Walls of X shouldn't create permanent raw materials.

Ther'es probably more, but those jumped out to me.

Evocatoin might need a bit of a buff, in exchange. Meteor swarm is one of the worst ninth level spells.

DJDeMiko
2012-11-05, 03:08 PM
I enjoy clerics, but I feel their spell selection is far too absurd. So many spells are just never chosen.

How many times have you EVER prepared detect poison?

Deepbluediver
2012-11-05, 03:27 PM
Eldan's list is pretty comprehensive, the only major one I noticed as missing was Genesis. (create an entire demi-plane made of gold/platinum/adamantine and mine it out for infinite wealth)

In my version I tweaked a few things: added a line to the text stating that any material created by the spell could not be removed from the demiplane, and an extra feature that allowed classes without an inate plane-shift ability to get to/from the plane, and so could more easily benefit from your party's intra-planar stronghold.


Also, another thing that might help: more high level spells should be full round actions, or require even longer casting time, particularly the ones with complicated effects. The spells designed (and balanced) for combat should be simple and straightforward (non-abusable) to match their standard-action casting time.

I think Evocation could get a hand in the damage department with a few Full-round spells that actually do damage equaivalent to a Full-round melee attack at that level.



I'm working on my own fixes for a lot of these same spells, I'll add a few of my thoughts in case you want to use any:


Alter Self- most of the same changes as Rich's (The Giant's) fix. Appearance does not include things like wings/gills/extra limbs or size-chaning.

Create Food and Water/Create water- the food/water has a limited duration, and when consumed it can stave off hunger or thirst but eventually you need to eat something real or it comes back to bite you

Explosive runes- give the spell a limited duration (so that you can't carry around an entire book of them, and basically turned it into a land-mine with 2 options; it can be set off either by proximity or on a timer

Fabricate- this and some of the other transmutations spells need a material to work with, and can only alter things into similar properties. stone to stone, metal to metal, a chicken into a raven (maybe). You shouldn't be able to turn an acorn into a living person with the snap of your fingers.
Ninja-Edit: A Craft check to make a more complicated object seems like a fair compromise.

Flesh to stone- I have less of an issue with this, so long as saves are decent; alternatively, make it take effect slowly, so that your enemy has time to retaliate before turning into a statue

Invisibility- should be higher level, shorter duration, and/or make it more difficult to move around (ex. bang into things because you can't see yourself)

Mage's Disjunctoin- make it harder of it to effect objects, and/or give it a backlash (such as maybe needing to sacrifice a magical object of similar value for the arcane component)

Planar Ally/Binding- the negotiation aspect sounds very promising; after that it's up to the DM to haggle with his players (and in my book, even good outsiders always have an over-inflated sense of self-worth).

Polymorph- more limits on the power of an assumed shape (particularly with SLA or Supernatural abilities). Also, I like the idea that you can learn a spell that lets you turn into ONE SPECIFIC creature, so the sorcerer can only have a few different shapes, at most, and a wizard needs to prepare a specific shapeshift for any given day. (that along wouldn't fix it, but it might help)

Shapechange- again, more limits on what creatures you can turn into (maybe block of some types, like dragons, entirely). Also, lengthen the amount of time it takes to switch between forms so that players are vulnerable when they do so

Anything I didn't mention is probably because Eldan had much the same opinion.


Edit: Add Clone to the list, too. IMO it's too simple for what it does. At the very least you should lose a level when your soul is violently ripped from one body and transfered to a new one, possibly with other side effects.

Yitzi
2012-11-05, 03:41 PM
In addition to what's been mentioned so far:

Miss-chance granting illusion spells if you play that they stack (RAW, they don't).
Mirror image, unless there's a good way to eliminate a lot of images quickly (e.g. cleave/whirlwind attack or magic missile).
Wind Wall, for absolutely shutting down archery.
Comprehend Languages isn't broken per se, but shuts down some interesting quest options.
Knock, for making rogues less useful.
Rope Trick/M's Magnificent Mansion, when used for a quick way to get a safe place to recover spells.
Simulacrum; a permanent servant potentially as powerful as you are is way too much even with an XP cost.
Polymorph Any Object.
Gate.
Wish isn't necessarily broken (unless you let super-powerful Wishes be fulfilled if you can't twist them, rather than giving partial fulfillment as the rules suggest), but inherent bonuses do horrible things to MAD/SAD balance (which is bad enough as it is), due to the constant price per ability point.
Various spells that allow cheesy tricks (summoning a heavy creature in midair above an enemy, using Shrink Item for bombing with heavy items, etc.)
Teleportation when used to enter an enemy's fortress. See: Tippyverse.

I'd disagree with Blasphemy etc.; it's only a no-save kill if the caster is so much more powerful than you that he'd win anyway. (Well, unless you allow absurd CL boosting, but then you've got problems anyway.)

I'd disagree with Create Food and Water/Create Water; casters are fairly rare anyway, so it shouldn't mess up worldbuilding too much.

I'd disagree with the "immunity to a category of effects" issue, at least when it comes to magical categories of effects.

I'd disagree with the criticism of Fabricate; it still needs a Craft check, and utility should be casters' primary strength.

Eldan
2012-11-05, 03:57 PM
I'd disagree with the "immunity to a category of effects" issue, at least when it comes to magical categories of effects.

See, that's one of those that annoys me the most. "Oh, you're a beguiler? Sorry, I have mind blank and true seeing." Those spells are too good. Would they be so much worse if, say, True Seeing was "Gain a bonus to save against illusions equal to 5+1/2 caster level and automatically save against illusions without interacting with them"?

Yitzi
2012-11-05, 04:18 PM
See, that's one of those that annoys me the most. "Oh, you're a beguiler? Sorry, I have mind blank and true seeing." Those spells are too good. Would they be so much worse if, say, True Seeing was "Gain a bonus to save against illusions equal to 5+1/2 caster level and automatically save against illusions without interacting with them"?

Yes, because then it wouldn't help against no-save illusions such as Mirror Image and Invisibility.

As for beguilers, don't they also get a good selection of skills?

More importantly, a beguiler's most dangerous when he avoids directly confronting the enemy and plays the manipulation game. The hero might have True Seeing up; the five trustworthy citizens who are going to see him commit murder won't.

Eldan
2012-11-05, 06:05 PM
Good point about no-save illusions, that would have to be adressed. I just think those immunities are a bit too absolute. A fifth or sixth level spell shoulnd't protect against anything up to level 9 spells and even divine abilities.

Yitzi
2012-11-05, 09:08 PM
Good point about no-save illusions, that would have to be adressed. I just think those immunities are a bit too absolute. A fifth or sixth level spell shoulnd't protect against anything up to level 9 spells and even divine abilities.

Perhaps those spells work as written against anything of a lower or equal spell level, but against a higher-spell-level spell they merely grant a save if there isn't one (Will against illusion, Fortitude against negative energy, etc.) and either way grant +5 to the save.

Threadnaught
2012-11-06, 07:42 AM
Okay, it's insanely high, but a Spot and Listen Check of 80 or higher will cancel out ALL Illusions. Get your bonus to Spot/Listen checks high enough that you can consistently hit 80+ and you'll no longer have to worry about those nasty Illusions.

They may not allow a Save, but darn it they'd better allow a Spot/Listen check.

Mind Blank protects against Mind Control, so basically the entire Enchantment School is out as it focuses on Mind Control. And several spells from the Divination School as it handles many spells that focus around reading a creature's mind, which is blank due to the spell. Until it becomes available for casting, you'd better use Protection from Evil a 1st level Spell and Nondetection a 3rd level spell. Protection from Evil has a duration in minutes per level so would need casting every time you'd expect to encounter anything that would attempt to control you, Nondetection is hours per level, so it'll last longer than Mind Blank if you Extend it when you're able to cast Mind Blank, which lasts 24 hours. However, being he higher level Spell, Mind Blank has the effects of both spells.

Eldan
2012-11-06, 08:34 AM
Edit: Add Clone to the list, too. IMO it's too simple for what it does. At the very least you should lose a level when your soul is violently ripped from one body and transfered to a new one, possibly with other side effects.

I only just saw this now and I just had an idea. How about making clones a magic item? Say, golemlike constructs that are inanimate until the mage dies?

Sgt. Cookie
2012-11-06, 09:29 AM
A quick fix for Wish that I think might work:

Your wish must be 10 words or less. Details about the wish, such as the actual enchantments on a wished for weapon, can run over 10 words.

Yitzi
2012-11-06, 09:42 AM
Okay, it's insanely high, but a Spot and Listen Check of 80 or higher will cancel out ALL Illusions. Get your bonus to Spot/Listen checks high enough that you can consistently hit 80+ and you'll no longer have to worry about those nasty Illusions.

Since this is part of a fix/remake that will hopefully remove the ability to get such high skills before high epic (as otherwise Diplomacy and Bluff become too powerful), that's not really an issue.

Oh, that reminds me: Glibness isn't all that easy to use to its fullest extent, but when that's managed it is extremely broken.


Mind Blank protects against Mind Control, so basically the entire Enchantment School is out as it focuses on Mind Control.

No, the entire Enchantment School can't be used directly against the protected individual. For something like Enchantment, that's very very very different.


A quick fix for Wish that I think might work:

Your wish must be 10 words or less. Details about the wish, such as the actual enchantments on a wished for weapon, can run over 10 words.

What does that accomplish? If the wish isn't overpowered, it will be fulfilled anyway. And if the wish is overpowered, then it doesn't matter how carefully it's worded; it can still be perverted into a partial fulfillment, and probably not the part you would have wanted (worst case, the missing part might be the bit you added to prevent it from being twisted.)

"Literal but undesirable" can be prevented by careful lawyering. "Partial fulfillment" can't.

My basic rule for Wishes (which might be worth making official) would be to enact the allowable Wish which is most similar to the stated Wish. No trickery, no intentional twisting...just find the closest not-too-powerful Wish (ignoring "what he obviously meant" if that allows a substantially closer Wish) and do that.

Eldan
2012-11-06, 09:45 AM
A quick fix for Wish that I think might work:

Your wish must be 10 words or less. Details about the wish, such as the actual enchantments on a wished for weapon, can run over 10 words.

"I wish to be omnipotent." Five words.

Sgt. Cookie
2012-11-06, 09:56 AM
You are omnipotent. All the gods are aware of this fact, and kill you before you attack them.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-06, 11:56 AM
You are omnipotent. All the gods are aware of this fact, and kill you before you attack them.

Stopping some one with game-breaking power by hitting them with more gamebreaking power is not the direction we want to run in....I think.

"I wish all the gods where dead" is 7 words, and yet it would screw things up so badly (how exactly does something immortal die?) and have so many consequences I wouldn't even begin to know how to implement it.

I'm a real big fan of fixing rather than banning, but this is one case where I just don't think it's workable. (certainly not for use by PC's, though if you can keep it out of their hands it has good story-telling potential)

If you like certain aspects of Wish, break the examples given down into various component parts (seperate spells, not all of which need to be 9th level). If the players want to do something for which no given spell exists, let the DM determine what the in-game cost for it will look like on a case by case basis.

That's my 2cp anyhow.



Another spell that just came to mind, which isn't always OP on it's own, but certainly has the potential: Permenancy
I think that the flat experience point cost is not a good way to balance it, especially if the DM starts having to make rulings on what (if any) core spells he will allow it to affect.
What I did in my fix was reduce the exp. cost, and instead have the caster of the spell being made permenant need to sacrifice a spell slot in order to continuously empower the spell. (it can be undone by recasting Permanancy, minus the exp. cost)

toapat
2012-11-06, 12:10 PM
*snip*

Wish:

You may add or remove any one Special to target other entity. You can not grant divine ranks to a target. A creature can only be granted one Special Quality at a time, but may have any number removed.

You may also imbue a tome with the power to grant a +5 inherent bonus permanantly to one attribute when read.

Edit: made it not SU on cast

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-06, 12:22 PM
Better yet, remove the "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these" line altogether. Or at least change it to "other effects whose power is not greater than a 9th level spell." BOOM! There go all the "I kill the gods" and "I become omnipotent" issues.

erikun
2012-11-06, 12:33 PM
Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, and many others:
The ironic part are that the effects of the spells, in themselves, are not necessarily overpowered. +3 to attack and damage are pretty minor, especially for a first-level spell slot on a 9th level character. The problem is that all these spells are Target: You, meaning that the cleric must cast them on themselves. Nevermind the fact the fact that casting a buff on the party fighter is little better than casting one on themselves. Between being forced to cast an inferoir buff on the fighter or something like Righteous Might on themselves, it is little wonder that buffing fighters seems silly.

(Yes: I realize your fighters will likely be better and your clerics worse than in D&D3, but the point still stands.)

I would also like to mention two types of spells that have already been covered.

Miss chances: We already have AC, which is really a chance of missing and dealing no damage. Adding in a second roll-or-miss that is completely independent of the first and is more effective regardless of the opponent's skill - and is easier to obtain, and can sometimes be stacked - rather defeats the point of AC. You'd be better rolling "miss chance" into an AC bonus, perhaps with concealment.

Invisibility, et al.: Full immunity is a problem, especially with silly rules already existing like "You may detect an invisible creature in a square with a DC 20 Spot check". Even if these spells/effects would grant +10 to the roll, thus granting anyone with competence an automatic success, it would be far better than the current system.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-06, 01:11 PM
Wish: *snip*


*snip*

It's probably possible to fix, one piece at a time, any game-breaking ideas that the players come up with for wish, but then you end up with a list 10 pages of long of increasingly specific limitations. I don't think the game should encourage that kind of open-ended power MECHANCIALLY. Give the players specific limits on what they can do via the rules, and let them explore the non-limited aspects of the game via roleplay or by combining other effects.

The problem with the spell is that even within the limits of what is outlined, it's VERY powerful, and it also has the potential to give virtually unlimited power or versatility for a very specific fixed cost. In the hands of the DM (via a character like a Genie) it's alright, because he can limit himself for the sake of the narative, but the players are under no such restrictions.

I'll ask again: why can't we just keep the parts that we like as new, seperate spells, and drop the rest?


Invisibility, et al.: Full immunity is a problem, especially with silly rules already existing like "You may detect an invisible creature in a square with a DC 20 Spot check". Even if these spells/effects would grant +10 to the roll, thus granting anyone with competence an automatic success, it would be far better than the current system.

On the one hand, I like invisibility, because it seems so classic and at the worst not as game-breaking as other spells. On the other, I recognize that it has the quick and easy potential to render obsolete the Rogue's (or other sneaky characters) entire purpose. What about if we did something like this: rather than rendering the user invisible right off the bat, the spell made your form appear translucent or blurred, granting a (increasing with caster level) penalty to checks made to spot you. In other words, you aren't actually invisible, just effectively invisible.

That way, it doesn't replace the rogue's skill set, and in fact has the potential to enhance a particular character, while still remaining useful for everyone else and not needing to force a Will save for balance.

Some fantasy stories use something similar with the idea of a "glamour" which makes people who see you either just forget or ignore your presence. But that is more like an enchantment kind of effect.


On a side note, my magic fix gives every spell a skill-check like score when cast, and every creature has Spell Resistance to oppose it, making it very easy to have a spell grant bonuses to either one or the other. :smallbiggrin:
Just saying.

erikun
2012-11-06, 01:37 PM
On the one hand, I like invisibility, because it seems so classic and at the worst not as game-breaking as other spells. On the other, I recognize that it has the quick and easy potential to render obsolete the Rogue's (or other sneaky characters) entire purpose. What about if we did something like this: rather than rendering the user invisible right off the bat, the spell made your form appear translucent or blurred, granting a (increasing with caster level) penalty to checks made to spot you. In other words, you aren't actually invisible, just effectively invisible.
Some fantasy treats invisibility not as a properity of not being seen in the light spectrum (i.e. being perfectly transparent) but by forcing people looking at you to pass over and not recognize that you are there. That is, it is possible to look at an invisible person, but you need to focus strongly at the spot to really tell there are there. Magi-camouflage, so to speak.

Such magi-camouflage works very well with rogues, because not only does it not automatically trump it, but it can stack with a rogue's natural sneakiness. I do find it fine that specialist + magic = near auto-win, as long as the specialist can't be the one casting the magic. It makes party members more necessary.

That doesn't mean literal invisibility should be unachievable, but that it would be a much higher level spell. For example, an invisibility/incorporality/astral projection spell.

Eldan
2012-11-06, 01:45 PM
The psionic version of invisibility does work by making people not notice you. That's one way to go. The other one is not making it total invisibility.

we are already going with perception as one skill (and specializations for things such as spot, listen, or smell), so invisibility wouldn't work against all perception anyway.

I suggest we take one or both of hte changes suggested earlier in the magic thread:

Invisibility allows hiding in plain sight: you still need a stealth check to be unnoticed. It's just much easier. You can still be heard or spotted by your tracks/disturbances in the air/strange light effects with a perception check.

Stealth bonus: as written, invisbility is a gigantic bonus to hide. At least +40, if I remember the epic rules correctly. Scale that bonus down. That has the side effect that it's especially beneficial to rogues and others who already have stealth.

Yitzi
2012-11-06, 01:53 PM
Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, and many others:
The ironic part are that the effects of the spells, in themselves, are not necessarily overpowered. +3 to attack and damage are pretty minor, especially for a first-level spell slot on a 9th level character. The problem is that all these spells are Target: You, meaning that the cleric must cast them on themselves. Nevermind the fact the fact that casting a buff on the party fighter is little better than casting one on themselves. Between being forced to cast an inferoir buff on the fighter or something like Righteous Might on themselves, it is little wonder that buffing fighters seems silly.

Indeed. I'd say restrict them (except maybe Divine Favor) to war-domain spells and make them able to target any ally.


Miss chances: We already have AC, which is really a chance of missing and dealing no damage. Adding in a second roll-or-miss that is completely independent of the first and is more effective regardless of the opponent's skill - and is easier to obtain, and can sometimes be stacked - rather defeats the point of AC. You'd be better rolling "miss chance" into an AC bonus, perhaps with concealment.

I think the idea is that it's meant specifically for things where the opponent's skill is irrelevant, such as if he has only a vague idea of where the enemy is, or if he's relying on unreliable magic to even have a chance of hitting. I'd say break miss chance down to two categories. Multiple instances of each category overlap, whereas cases from two separate categories are rolled separately (you never add the miss chance):
1. Concealment. You get 20% if you're seriously hard to see (heavy fog, really good camouflage, illusions designed to make you hard to see.) You get 50% against attackers that don't see you (in your actual position) at all. You NEVER get higher than 50%.
2. Incorporeality. Flat 50% miss chance against incorporeal creatures.

And of course if you have a chance of not being there when the blow lands, such as due to the Blink spell, then that counts separately; such effects will generally be two-sided, though.

And all of those should be at least as difficult to obtain as corresponding AC bonuses; some way to make AC quite important will be needed as well, but that's desirable anyway to punish "sacrifice AC for damage" builds.


The problem with the spell is that even within the limits of what is outlined, it's VERY powerful, and it also has the potential to give virtually unlimited power or versatility for a very specific fixed cost.

Versatility I get. But how is it powerful, much less virtually unlimited power? It can't even replicate other spells of its own level within the limits of what's outlined, and once you go beyond that you're pretty much gambling that it'll give you what you want.


I'll ask again: why can't we just keep the parts that we like as new, seperate spells, and drop the rest?

Because there is purpose in having a high-level spell that grants high versatility at a cost of power. Depower Wish if necessary, but removing it or hugely reducing its versatility without redoing the whole spell system is probably a poor idea.


On the one hand, I like invisibility, because it seems so classic and at the worst not as game-breaking as other spells. On the other, I recognize that it has the quick and easy potential to render obsolete the Rogue's (or other sneaky characters) entire purpose. What about if we did something like this: rather than rendering the user invisible right off the bat, the spell made your form appear translucent or blurred, granting a (increasing with caster level) penalty to checks made to spot you. In other words, you aren't actually invisible, just effectively invisible.

Maybe combine it with Blur, and say that the resulting concealment is sufficient to let you make a hide check? And at higher levels you can even hide while being observed.

erikun
2012-11-06, 02:14 PM
Maybe combine it with Blur, and say that the resulting concealment is sufficient to let you make a hide check? And at higher levels you can even hide while being observed.
I am generally fine with magic behaving differently than mundane effects. That is, that casting an Invisibility spell would suddenly make you "disappear" when out in the open, rather than gaining Hide in Plain Sight and then needing to find something to duck behind. It makes the two abilities noticably different, and each with different advantages.




Heck, if the system will be going with the "roll Stealth v Perception twice" like someone mentioned in the skills thread, then true invisibility might not even be that much of a problem; a spell to automatically succeed at one of the rolls wouldn't be so bad. It's automatically succeeding at the only roll that's the problem. Also, it isn't unusual for spells to have other noticable effects beyond just what you desired: You'll notice that D&D Silence is never just a single-person effect.

Tvtyrant
2012-11-06, 02:21 PM
Mot of the stuff that gives casters other people's tricks IMO. Base attack bonus, sneak attack, trapfinding, lock picking, etc. were all meant to be those classes equivalent to casting, and while they obviously fall short they wouldn't fall so short if the casters weren't able to steal their thunder.

Eldan
2012-11-06, 02:21 PM
I am generally fine with magic behaving differently than mundane effects. That is, that casting an Invisibility spell would suddenly make you "disappear" when out in the open, rather than gaining Hide in Plain Sight and then needing to find something to duck behind. It makes the two abilities noticably different, and each with different advantages.

Is Hide in Plain Sight the wrong term, then? I meant the one where you don't need anything to hide behind. You still roll hide checks, but you don't need any cover.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-06, 03:15 PM
Because there is purpose in having a high-level spell that grants high versatility at a cost of power. Depower Wish if necessary, but removing it or hugely reducing its versatility without redoing the whole spell system is probably a poor idea.
Believe me, I'm all for fixing spells rather than removing them. But I haven't yet come up with a way for Wish to be balanced that keeps it as anything close to it's current form. I'm eagerly reading what other posters suggest to see if it's possible to salvage any part of it.


Mot of the stuff that gives casters other people's tricks IMO. Base attack bonus, sneak attack, trapfinding, lock picking, etc. were all meant to be those classes equivalent to casting, and while they obviously fall short they wouldn't fall so short if the casters weren't able to steal their thunder.

If you can't let a caster do any of that, I'm not sure how much is left. I think we should keep in mind that the problem is less that any individual caster can do any of those things, but that they can do ALL of them, better than the given class, and a free bag of chips.

For example, Knock isn't really normally on the list of gamebreaking spells, but it makes the "open lock" skill kind of useless. One suggestion that I read about a while back (from a poster who's name I've forgotten) was to basically make Knock a check made to burst a lock, replacing Strength with Intellect.

Eldan
2012-11-06, 03:31 PM
That's a good one. Another one would be to make knock give an open lock bonus, and let you make open lock checks as a standard action, instead of requiring a minute.

Tvtyrant
2012-11-06, 03:32 PM
If you can't let a caster do any of that, I'm not sure how much is left.

Let's see: Flight, teleportation, summoning, illusions, debuffs, control spells, blasting spells, burrow, creating lights/darkness, healing, transmuting substances, and item creation. 90% of the games options instead of 100% does not rob the casters of their role in the game.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-11-06, 04:21 PM
Regarding wish: Wish as commonly used basically does three things. It duplicates spells, in case there's some obscure-but-very-useful-right-now spell you didn't prepare; it serves as a panic button, to teleport you out of dimensional locks and rez people and undo screw-you effects; and it permanently enhances people, either inherently (stat boosts) or indirectly (magic items).

So here's a suggestion for how to change wish to make it more manageable while still letting you accomplish amazing things with it. Instead of a complicated list of effects, it just has the effect that it gives you a certain number of spells or spell levels to work with (let's say it gives you 1 9th level slot, which you can break down to 2 8th-level spells, 1 8th-level and 2 7th-level, 4 7th-level, 8 6th-level, etc., for the purposes of this example, since 1 level X = 2 level X-1 is the established 3e spell level equivalence) and lets you use them to fulfill your wish by duplicating spells of 8th level or lower to achieve the appropriate effects. These spells are treated as wish in terms of parameters (i.e. they are 9th level Universal spells with no descriptors, with no casting time because they're cast as part of wish) and they can be made permanent at the caster's option if he pays more XP.

If you want to teleport into a dimensional lock, you can do that with a wished teleport, since dimensional lock blocks teleportation spells and this teleport isn't a Conjuration (Teleportation) spell. If you want to create tons of gold, you can do that by duplicating 16 major creation spells which have a permanent duration. A +4 inherent bonus to an ability score is a permanent fox's cunning/bull's strength/etc. If you want to wish someone dead through a death ward, you hit them with a finger of death that doesn't count as a [Death] effect. If you want to get a powerful magic item, you duplicate a discern location to find its owner and then a greater teleport to the owner's location. If you want to destroy an army, you duplicate 64 fireballs.

And so on and so forth. This prevents ridiculous wishes like wishing to kill the gods because you can't do that with a bunch of low-level spells, limits legalese in wishes because there's no screwing of PCs going on, makes more creative wishers because you have to figure out ways to accomplish your wish using existing resources, and doesn't exceed the caster's normal power level by too much. It still has potential for abuse (e.g. spamming 4 fingers of death at someone), but by the nature of spell duplication none of these abuses are things you couldn't already accomplish with appropriate investment (e.g. via twinned quickened finger of death + twinned finger of death); you're trading a large XP cost for needing certain feats or items, which seems fair. This will necessitate some changes in other parts of the rules (like saying that effects that block planar travel block [teleportation] effects and then labeling all planar travel with the [teleportation] descriptor, reducing the amount of precious metal available per major creation, ruling that permanent bonuses change type to inherent and cap at +5, etc.) but changes like making descriptors more consistent and reining in instant-creation spells are a good idea anyway.


A secondary consideration that I use in my games to rein in wish abuse: Wish-granting creatures can only grant wishes if both parties are willing and un-coerced, otherwise they can only grant limited wishes instead. A wizard tries to planar bind a genie and threaten/dominate/coerce it to give him a wish? Limited wish. An efreeti orders a slave to wish for something to benefit his Sultan at the slaves' expense? Limited wish. A wizard negotiates a fair deal, or an efreeti's friend asks him for a favor? Full wish.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-06, 05:09 PM
Genius

I like it, sir. I very much like it.

Thank you all for the suggestions. I've taken a stab at addressing the issues and posted them over on the magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14178993)thread.

Threadnaught
2012-11-06, 06:21 PM
Sorceror and Wizard
1st
Protection from Evil makes you immune to mind control, aka half of Mindblank.
Shield immunizes you to Magic Missile and protects against incorporeal touch attacks.
Mount gives you a free horse which you could theoretically have carry stuff for you.
Comprehend Languages, so you mean I can understand Druidic and all other languages? Sweet.
Floating Disc is like an early bag of holding, but without the pocket dimension.
Magic Missile can penetrate all early energy resistances.
Color Spray can end all encounters up to level 5.
Disguise Self, okay, not quite on it's own, it's stackable for a disgustingly high boost to the Disguise Skill.
Expeditious Retreat because just cause the spell's called "Retreat" doesn't mean that's all you can use it for.
Featherfall what's a Tumble check?

2nd
Obscure Object because Mind Blank isn't absolute.
Locate Object a totally cheaty way of finding someone with the Mindblank Buff active, is to use this to detect their equipment.
See Invisibility, what's Invisibility?
Touch of Idiocy overcome their Will Save once and it becomes easier each time.
Blur what'c AC?
Invisibility what's a Hide Check?
Mirror Image lol AC.
Command Undead wooh control enemies.
Alter Self stackable boost to Disguise Checks and Polymorph.
Rope Trick what's an Inn?

3rd
Explosive Runes home made magical nuke.
Magic Circle against Evil, step one of a well known Infinite Loop.
Nondetection hey, it's the other half of Mindblank.
Phantom Steed, oh how about that, now you have something that can be used in combat with all those neato Mounted Combat Feats. And it can also Fly later on allowing the Fighter to feel like they're contributing. Fun.
Tongues, so I can speak Druidic and every other language? Awesome.
Displacement, nope can't be bothered to make another AC joke.
Invisibility Sphere, why did the Order have to invade V's personal Space? They could've been throwing a party with all the goblins in the next room and turned all them invisible too.
Gentle Repose need Resurrection? This'll keep your component nice and fresh.
Blink, AC is for Fighters and low level.
Fly, walking? Jumping? Climbing? What are those?
Gaseous Form along with Still Spell and. What's an Escape Artist Check?
Shrink Item, oh hey want to carry around masonry and drop it on people for falling damage? Also it allows your component for Resurrection to be more portable.

4th
Dimensional Anchor part two of the Infinite Loop.
Black Tentacles isn't as good as people seem to think it is.
Dimension Door, what's a prison?
Solid Fog, I don't really see the problem here either. Unless your opponents are incapable of flying, but then they're mostly defeated by Fly anyway.
Locate Creature, what's Hide and Seek?
Scrying, what's a Gather Information Check?
Greater Invisibility, it's like Invisibility, but better.
Enervation lowers something's level and Saves by 1-4 and it's HP by 5-20... As long as it is a living creature.
Polymorph... Anyone who needs a comment about this spell to realize how powerful it is, is either inexperienced or someone I don't want to deal with. Next.
Stone Shape, who needs Earthquake when you can mess up a building's foundations with this?


Does anyone want me to go through the higher levels to find what can be abused? All this is just the Sorceror/Wizard by the way, there's more stuff in the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Rangers' Spell Lists that's as bad as any of this.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-06, 07:42 PM
Does anyone want me to go through the higher levels to find what can be abused? All this is just the Sorceror/Wizard by the way, there's more stuff in the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Rangers' Spell Lists that's as bad as any of this.

Yes please! (if you don't want to post it in thread I'd be happy with a PM)

I'm working on a magic fix which involves rewriting just about every Core spell, but unfortunately my groups are pretty...conventional, so most of my knowledge about specific spell abuses is either of the same one everybody knows or second-hand. I don't think all these are game-breaking, and some could be vastly improved with just a shorter duration (so that they had to be used siutationally instead of as hours/days-long-buffs).
Some of these I've already fixed, and I've got ideas for more, but there are also plenty that will definitely be a challenge to keep both relevant but not overpowering.
I have fun with this kind of thing!

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-06, 07:51 PM
Buhwuh... Mount? Magic Missile? Gentle Repose? These are your definitions of broken spells? Are you going to allow mages to do anything but 1d6/level fireballs?

Deepbluediver
2012-11-06, 08:39 PM
Buhwuh... Mount? Magic Missile? Gentle Repose? These are your definitions of broken spells? Are you going to allow mages to do anything but 1d6/level fireballs?

I want to preface my next statement by pointing out that I already put in one call to avoid being overly restrictive of magic users, so no one jump on my back.

I don't think that Threadnaught's list is supposed to be entirely about things that are inherently game-breaking by themselves, but when used in combination, one spell frequently subverts the limitations that the designers where counting on to keep other spells in check. There are several good example of things that can be used in ways I believe the designers did not fully consider (or anticipate) when writing 3.5.
That's one of the big reason that I think limiting the selection that any one spellcaster has access to will go a long way towards rebalancing the various classes.
For example, in my Wizard fix, a first level wizard has access to only a single school of magic, and by level 10 he gets access to a maximum of 4 schools. Granted, this by itself won't fix everything but when COMBINED with other tweaks, the cumulative effect will drop them at least to Tier 2, and hopefully all the way to Tier 3 (at least, at any given moment in game-play).


P.S. I don't fault the designers for not being able to concieve of every different trick that the combined might and experience of the internet can come up with, but that doesn't make things less unbalanced.

Yitzi
2012-11-06, 10:12 PM
I want to preface my next statement by pointing out that I already put in one call to avoid being overly restrictive of magic users, so no one jump on my back.

I don't think that Threadnaught's list is supposed to be entirely about things that are inherently game-breaking by themselves, but when used in combination, one spell frequently subverts the limitations that the designers where counting on to keep other spells in check.

So how does that apply to stuff like Mount, Magic Missile, and Gentle Repose? (The time limit isn't really a major part of keeping resurrections in check.)

Conor77
2012-11-07, 04:01 AM
Hello everyone. I'd just like to say a few things here:

On Wish: Well, I think receiving a Wish should be a huge, major, story-rending event, the kind of thing entire Planes balance on, not something available to every 17th level Wizard. I like the splitting-spell idea, and I think it works as a spiritual successor to Wish, but that it should be named something different (splitting hairs, I know). It just seems like the concept of a wish was thrown around in D&D because wishes show up so much in mythology, but the writers toned Wish's power down so that they could include it in more things, I guess. I want to have getting a wish be a giant, epic treasure. I suppose I feel the same way about Miracle, that it shouldn't be a spell granted to every cleric.

On Invisibility: Raise the level of the spell, by all means, but keep the actual full invisibility effect, please. There can be lower level spells called Camouflage or similar that give bonuses to Hide or Concealment to use to hide in (Hide in Plain Sight does in fact require you to be within your movement speed of Cover or Concealment to use, what you were looking for was that it grants you Concealment so that you can use the Hide skill anywhere). Heck, you could give similar abilities to different schools, like Enchantment getting one that erases you from the minds of those that see you that lets you use a Disguise check instead of a Hide check (are those the same skill now?), and an Illusion spell with a more traditional Hide check bonus. It may be some other school that gets the Concealment-granting effect (Conjuration?). But anyways, True Invisibility should definitely still be possible and real. (I didn't think it wasn't going to be on the table, but I wanted to make sure)

On spells that duplicate other Class' abilities, Grod already nerfed a bunch of the Rogue-eclipsing spells in his Rogue fix, like making Invisibility render you more clumsy, and Knock blowing hinges and latches rather than unlocking discreetly.

Eldan
2012-11-07, 05:55 AM
It woudl still be true invisibility. The question is what true invisibility does in the rules.

As written, you already basically get a bonus to hide and the ability to hide. The bonus to hide is just ridiculously huge for a second level spell. If you look at epic spot, you'll see the following:

DC 20 to find that an invisible creature is present.
+20 DC when it is perfectly still.
+20 DC to perfectly pinpoint it, though it still has concealment.

That is more or less just a high hide check that is rolled for you, combined with total concealment. Changing that to a +20 bonus to hide (just a suggestion) would not change the rules much at all. And since spot is now just Perception and invisible creatures can still be heard, perception checks to defeat invisibility should still be possible.
I would prefer a bonus to stealth for one reason, namely that creatures trained in stealth (namely moving silently and avoiding conspicuous spots of ground such as loose sand) would be better at staying unnoticed.

Yitzi
2012-11-07, 09:24 AM
On Invisibility: Raise the level of the spell, by all means, but keep the actual full invisibility effect, please

If invisibility is possible, then there needs to be a feasible way for non-casters to counter it. Even if it's just making See Invisibility into a touch-range spell so that it can be made into potions, there needs to be a way.

Threadnaught
2012-11-07, 11:52 AM
Buhwuh... Mount? Magic Missile? Gentle Repose? These are your definitions of broken spells? Are you going to allow mages to do anything but 1d6/level fireballs?

Mount, because you now have additional carrying capacity and, well a mount so the Fighter feels useful earlier. Not only that, but since it serves willingly, it may be able to offer some combat assistance in the form of flanking, or even attacks of it's own.

Magic Missile because it always hits and isn't weakened by Energy Resistance. Face it, Color Spray becomes useless long before everything gets hold of Force Resistance and yet that counts as abusable. Face it, until Epic Levels, the only thing stopping this is Shield, other blaster spells may be more damaging, but this is more consistently damaging.

Gentle Repose because, Clone. Which is easier to carry with, Shrink Item, it's a combo. Wouldn't it be funny if the villain of the week wiped out your entire party, using all their daily abilities and having lost most of their HP, only for you to spring back to life with full HP and most of your unspent spells to continue the fight?
Yes I know Clone is 8th level, but did you know that it costs 10% of the price and ten minutes less casting time than a Resurrection Spell and unlike Raise Dead which it replicate, your body doesn't need to be intact you just need a nice fresh clone, which is great if you hide your pickled shrunken clone back where the party rested while in a tough dungeon crawl.


You have to get creative and bring in a few higher level spells at points, but you asked for abusable. And oh boy, I could totally see one of my players as DM, screaming at me for using these this way because they'd be completely unable to handle them without abusing the specific counters, or just outright cheating.


I don't think that Threadnaught's list is supposed to be entirely about things that are inherently game-breaking by themselves

Exactly, you can't just cast Wish in instantly break the game, you need to think about how and why you're using it. Almost any Spell when applied at the right point can unbalance a game. The ones I listed however, are mostly the ones that end up limited to exactly what the description states.
Who thinks using a rules lawyered Wall of Stone to create a Large sized rock (shapable, c'mon), using Shrink Item to bring it down to Diminutive size (so it's now a football) and getting it up 50+ feet into the air by a multitude of means before dismissing Shrink Item is something any DM can prepare for and counter without difficulty?

Any answer saying "a good DM wouldn't allow a Wall of Stone to be shrunk using Shrink Item." Must also answer, where in the description for Wall of Stone, does it say, the Stone is magical?

Amechra
2012-11-07, 12:06 PM
What makes Mount more broken than, say, spending the less than 100 GP on a mount?

Note that the mounts that you can summon aren't war-trained, meaning that they aren't going to be very useful in a fight.

General Patton
2012-11-07, 12:44 PM
Cost to replace flesh and blood mount: 100 GP each
Cost to replace summoned mount: 1st level spell slot each

The spell doesn't just give you one mount. It gives you infinite mounts to abuse, sacrifice, and dispose of however you please.

Threadnaught
2012-11-07, 02:07 PM
What makes Mount more broken than, say, spending the less than 100 GP on a mount?

Note that the mounts that you can summon aren't war-trained, meaning that they aren't going to be very useful in a fight.

You can have as many as you want for as many slots you have available for casting 1st level spells. They can be summoned anywhere Conjuration spells work and there is no need for a Handle Animal check.

Whenever you buy or rent anything, there's always the possibility of being ripped off, or the service not being, satisfactory. Imagine being given the choice of riding a horse that hates your guts, or walking. Then there's the other problem with rental, if the mount dies, the owner is going to be annoyed when they find out and may not be willing to settle just for your money.

There are better spells for fighting, but here, you have at the cost of 100gp, as many Light Horses or Ponies as you want, 100gp that would be "better spent" if you bought 3 ponies for 90gp and spend the rest on a week's worth of feed (105cp) and other gear?
I think not, it's viability in combat is limited to the lower levels, but hey imagine taking a light horse into a dungeon that includes narrow corridors, ladders to climb up and down and spiral staircases. In the more open parts of the dungeon you could have a creature that can be anywhere in the room during your turn, it can flank anything your allies are fighting, kite anything of the relevant CR and take the spotlight off the team members who can't just be summoned back to life with a 1st level spell.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 04:00 PM
Errr...yes, it's a useful spell. But if mount and magic missile (which deals a piddling amount of damage without metamagic cheese) is too much, then I submit to you the question of what spells you think are ok?

Lord Vukodlak
2012-11-07, 04:24 PM
Sorceror and Wizard
1st
Protection from Evil makes you immune to mind control, aka half of Mindblank.Only effects thing that grant on going control. Suggestion, and Irresistible dance are stopped by mind blank but not Protection from Evil, Its a fraction of mind blank, charm and dominate but its only suppressed. If Protection from Evil runs out before dominate person your a mind slave. People apply more into this spell then it really does.
Shield immunizes you to Magic Missile and protects against incorporeal touch attacks. It gives a +4 AC bonus thar counts towards incorporeal touch attacks your not protected.
Mount gives you a free horse which you could theoretically have carry stuff for you.By the time the duration lasts a whole the cost of a horse is nothing
Comprehend Languages, so you mean I can understand Druidic and all other languages? Sweet.You can't speak it that limits the usefulness.
Floating Disc is like an early bag of holding, but without the pocket dimension. oh yes because dragging a piles of treasure behind you in the open couldn't possibly go wrong.
Magic Missile can penetrate all early energy resistances.The damage isn't good the certainty is all it has going
Color Spray can end all encounters up to level 5.Wizards are squishy and easy to kill at low level the one orc who gets a lucky roll can end you.
Disguise Self, okay, not quite on it's own, it's stackable for a disgustingly high boost to the Disguise Skill.Why wouldn't it be stackable? and theres a huge list of bonuses to see through disguises.
Expeditious Retreat because just cause the spell's called "Retreat" doesn't mean that's all you can use it for.It makes you run faster how is that OP
Featherfall what's a Tumble check?Attacks of Opportunity,

2nd
Obscure Object because Mind Blank isn't absolute.
Locate Object a totally cheaty way of finding someone with the Mindblank Buff active, is to use this to detect their equipment. Attempting to find a certain item requires a specific and accurate mental image; if the image is not close enough to the actual object the spell fails, and the range is long not miles. Its not really useful for tracking.
Touch of Idiocy overcome their Will Save once and it becomes easier each time.Actually agree with this. Also its no save. At least as a penalty it won't stack with its self.
Blur what'c AC?its a 20% miss chance not signifcant.
Invisibility what's a Hide Check?broken after hostile action does nothing for hearing and plenty of creatures can ignore it.
Mirror Image lol AC.Powerful but cleave/great cleave and magic missile quick disperses the advantage.
Command Undead wooh control enemies.Its charm person for undead but mindless undead are contrrolled. All the scary undead are intelligent
Alter Self stackable boost to Disguise Checks and Polymorph.Polymorph is just a greater alter self no stack.
Rope Trick what's an Inn?I can agree with this, only problem is it says not to bring in any extradimensional bags.

3rd
Explosive Runes home made magical nuke.A book is one object, and even if you cheat the first explosion destroys the book eliminating the other runes. If the book can somehow survive it absorb the blast providng cover to everything else.
Magic Circle against Evil, step one of a well known Infinite Loop.then complain about put step 3.
Nondetection hey, it's the other half of Mindblank.that can be over come by a CL check
Phantom Steed, oh how about that, now you have something that can be used in combat with all those neato Mounted Combat Feats. And it can also Fly later on allowing the Fighter to feel like they're contributing. Fun.Because flying items are hard to come by at level 14.
Tongues, so I can speak Druidic and every other language? Awesome.The subject can speak only one language at a time, in essence it works as a universal translator.
Displacement, nope can't be bothered to make another AC joke.wizards are allowed to have defenses, and a good perk for any meleer is blind-fight, greatly reducing its powe.
Invisibility Sphere, why did the Order have to invade V's personal Space? They could've been throwing a party with all the goblins in the next room and turned all them invisible too.Its only a 10-ft radius not alot of room.
Gentle Repose need Resurrection? This'll keep your component nice and fresh.And?
Gaseous Form along with Still Spell and. What's an Escape Artist Check?hope you can reach the mateerial component with out hands.
Shrink Item, oh hey want to carry around masonry and drop it on people for falling damage? Also it allows your component for Resurrection to be more portableYou mean the body right? I don't see the problem with shrunken corpes. The dropping giant objects is an issue though. .

4th
Dimensional Anchor part two of the Infinite Loop.would you just say the problem is planar binding.
Black Tentacles isn't as good as people seem to think it is.Wonderful against Will'o'Wisps
Dimension Door, what's a prison?they call them gags or cause its medieval society execution. Also a geas to stay in prison until your sentence is up.
Locate Creature, what's Hide and Seek?The range is long npt miles
Scrying, what's a Gather Information Check?You might need gather information before you have enough to reasonable attempt scrying also non-detection.
Greater Invisibility, it's like Invisibility, but better.glitterdust and see invisible are 2nd level spells. Powerfull but not breaking.
Enervation lowers something's level and Saves by 1-4 and it's HP by 5-20... As long as it is a living creature.the empwered split rayed, but not regular. It really needs tobe stacked with other debuffs.

I think you need to read more carefully into spells limitatons. It sounds like your opposed to magic entirely.

MrLemon
2012-11-07, 05:38 PM
Nice annotations, mylord :smallwink:

I myself second the previous posts about spells that render the specialty of other party members obsolete, like knock, etc.


Also, I suggest dropping the gentle falling line from fly and similar spells, especially when dispelled. The threat of falling should work against medium to long range altitude flyers...
Then again, there's always feather fall... Here's an idea:
In the next round after Feather Fall is cast, you only get a move action (or none at all)
Note: This is an ugly special ruling, but for a 1st level spell not getting smeared on the ground after a drop is pretty nice, even when it costs a round.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-07, 06:09 PM
I don't want to get into a snarky argument about every little spell, over what is worth nerfing or not. If some one wants to post something that they think is gamebreaking and WHY, let them, and then the final decision can come down to Eldan, Grod, and whoever else is heading up the G&G rewrite.

I do want to point out two general concepts about magic though:
For things like the magic mount, IMO the issue is less about what's comparable as a possibility between magic and mundane, but the fact that magic accomplishes the same thing, except cheaper and easier.

Also, saying "spell A is an easy counter to spell B" does not help the magic-melee imbalance, which I assume is a big part of what G&G wants to address.
(on a similar note, just because Spell B can be countered does not mean you can always rely on knowing or having prepared Spell A, and forcing your casters to spend 75% of their allotment on specific defensive spells does not seem like it makes for a very fun game)



On a different note: one potential idea I've had for summoning spells is that it takes power and/or concentration to maintin the creature (or it's link to this plain) so that it becomes much harder to cast additional spells while you have summoned allies in play. It doesn't directly stop summoning from being powerful, but it should reduce the ability of a caster to conjure up his own bodyguards and still rain down burning vengeance on his foes.

Yitzi
2012-11-07, 06:20 PM
Also, I suggest dropping the gentle falling line from fly and similar spells, especially when dispelled. The threat of falling should work against medium to long range altitude flyers...

Definitely. Ker-splat.


Note: This is an ugly special ruling, but for a 1st level spell not getting smeared on the ground after a drop is pretty nice, even when it costs a round.

Especially since the majority of the time, feather fall will be used where there aren't enemies at your destination point (e.g. a trap).

Lord Vukodlak
2012-11-07, 06:45 PM
Nice annotations, mylord :smallwink:

I myself second the previous posts about spells that render the specialty of other party members obsolete, like knock, etc.

Pathfinder has knock simply let you substitute your caster level for an open locks check with a +10 bonus. Its no longer a certainty, a very good adjustment. Also pathfinder rolls disable device and open locks into one skill.

Something to consider as a house rule in 3.5


Also, I suggest dropping the gentle falling line from fly and similar spells, especially when dispelled. The threat of falling should work against medium to long range altitude flyers..My group agrees with this largely because its funny. If the spell simply runs out a featherfall is fair but not when its dispelled.


On a different note: one potential idea I've had for summoning spells is that it takes power and/or concentration to maintin the creature (or it's link to this plain) so that it becomes much harder to cast additional spells while you have summoned allies in play. It doesn't directly stop summoning from being powerful, but it should reduce the ability of a caster to conjure up his own bodyguards and still rain down burning vengeance on his foes.
Summoning is already kind of weak.(not binding summoning). Gate aside. So really its an unnecessary kick.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 07:29 PM
Deepbluediver has the right of it. I posted this thread pretty much concurrently with the second magic thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14178993) (containing our newest draft) to gather ideas on what spells really need fixing, beyond the obvious (wish, polymorph, and so on).

Also, I will say again what I've said many times in the process: making a perfectly-balanced system is extremely difficult, and probably impossible starting with the base 3.5 gives us. On the other hand, in a mature group, it's possible to play a fairly balanced game of 3.5, as long as everyone picks T2-T4 classes and goes light on the cheese.

The goal of G&G is to do what Pathfinder failed to do: sand down the rough edges, oil the hinges, shore up the sagging walls and tear down that half-wrecked extension. To cut down the things that have grown too high, and to water the things that need to be grown.

Some spells are flat-out too powerful. Things like polymorph and gate, which are broken even when you don't try very hard. Some spells are inexcusable usurpations of class features, like knock, or shut down entire classes and archetypes, as wind wall can do. All those need fixing. And those are the ones that I'm asking be called out here. I'm less concerned about the spells that can be good with metamagic cheese, or that are situationally very good, or can be combined for abuse.

And remember: while weakening magic is an obviously-necessary step of any attempt to rebalanced 3.5, improving crappy mundane classes is just as, if not more important. When a spell seems to be overtaking mundanes, the solution is not always to nerf the spell into uselessness.

Eldan
2012-11-07, 07:35 PM
On your Astral Projection again... as it stands it's Planeshift, only several levels higher, with the weakness that you leave your body behind and an expensive material component.
Either find something for it to do, or just take it out.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 07:39 PM
On your Astral Projection again... as it stands it's Planeshift, only several levels higher, with the weakness that you leave your body behind and an expensive material component.
Either find something for it to do, or just take it out.

I think you may have put this in the wrong thread, but yeah.

Can anyone tell me what the spell is SUPPOSED to do? Because as I read it, the idea is to let you explore another plane in a backup body, which is... probably too good.

Threadnaught
2012-11-07, 08:32 PM
I think you need to read more carefully into spells limitatons. It sounds like your opposed to magic entirely.

I use spellcasters in every console RPG and my first character in D&D 3.5 was going to be a Wizard until I went Sorceror as a self nerf. Due to the DM for my first (and only PC) session not wanting me to break his game.
I love magic, there's nothing like coming up with the solution to every single problem you'll ever face after studying how to get zero weaknesses compared to a vast armoury of strengths.

As you should have been able to tell, not all my comments about the spells in the post with all the spells, were completely serious. I do see it all as abusable however.
In fact, if I were to create a whole new Wizard, I would be "that crazy wizard" the one people have heard of, and nobody takes seriously in a discussion, but there's just something about him, something that says, maybe he'll kill everyone with Prestidigitation (yeah I know it doesn't work like that). Ya call yourselves Wizards? :belkar:

I'm the dreaded cross between a Loonie and a Munchkin. Using spells that aren't powerful, to be powerful just because I can.


Errr...yes, it's a useful spell. But if mount and magic missile (which deals a piddling amount of damage without metamagic cheese) is too much, then I submit to you the question of what spells you think are ok?

Too much sir?

Naw, I'm thinking about all the wonderful new words a DM may teach a sailor if these spells are used by the right player.
I have a Druid and Wizard in my campaign, I'm constantly forced to encourage they think more carefully about when they cast their spells. The usual stuff you know, do it more often, prepare more utility spells and for the love of Kord, when I complain about what you do, make sure it's because you're smashing the campaign and not whining about a roll not going your way.

I'm okay with almost every single spell in core, any spell I have a problem with is a spell I can't understand the potential of, like Haste. Listed because it's supposed to be a bad spell and it's one I don't understand how to use.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 08:45 PM
Ok. I didn't think you were being serious, but, you know... hard to tell on the internet.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-11-07, 09:39 PM
Can anyone tell me what the spell is SUPPOSED to do? Because as I read it, the idea is to let you explore another plane in a backup body, which is... probably too good.

That is indeed entirely the point. The idea is that, at the levels you can use astral projection, you're heading to planes where you'll be outnumbered dozens to one by creatures that have at-will teleportation, spammable SoS/SoDs, better defenses than yours, and the ability to almost double their numbers via summoning.

For example, an 18th level party might run into a balor who wins initiative and summons another balor, who then proceed to tag-team the party with one spamming blasphemy to keep them dazed and the other swording them until he crits and decapitates them. Or a balor who summons and marilith and keeps the party dazed until the marilith's 66 damage per round kills them one by one. Or they might run into a nalfeshnee who dazes the low-Will PCs for 5+ rounds, then summons some vrocks to dance and hit the dazed party members while the nalfeshnee feebleminds the wizard and debuffs the cleric. Or two dozen vrocks who use hit-and-run greater teleports to hit the party with unresistable damage from spores and stun them with its screech. Or into a high-level caster who they tick off who teleports away, prepares to face them again, and then ambushes, kills, and soul binds them all.

Planeshopping at level 15th+ is incredibly lethal if you're facing competent enemies, and having a get-out-of-death-with-your-soul-intact-free card is important. Even if you tone down SoDs, boost saves, and otherwise fiddle with the math, keeping astral projection as a panic button is a good idea unless you completely change high-level monsters until they're unrecognizable and no longer a threat.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-07, 10:22 PM
Hmm. Well, the current version over on the magic thread takes off your magic items (because you're projecting your soul; less bad than it sounds because of G&G's lesser focus on magic items for balance) and drops you a level if your soul dies. So it's sort of a free-resurrection.

Yitzi
2012-11-07, 10:29 PM
That is indeed entirely the point. The idea is that, at the levels you can use astral projection, you're heading to planes where you'll be outnumbered dozens to one by creatures that have at-will teleportation, spammable SoS/SoDs, better defenses than yours, and the ability to almost double their numbers via summoning.

For example, an 18th level party might run into a balor who wins initiative and summons another balor, who then proceed to tag-team the party with one spamming blasphemy to keep them dazed and the other swording them until he crits and decapitates them. Or a balor who summons and marilith and keeps the party dazed until the marilith's 66 damage per round kills them one by one.

Actually, if you're fighting the balor in the Abyss, blasphemy spamming on the balor's part isn't all that dangerous. You can simply intentionally fail your Will save, and you're returned safe and sound to the Prime Material (though you can't go back for 24 hours.)

But yeah, high-level enemies probably do need to be depowered a bit; fortunately, a lot of that will happen automatically with spell nerfs.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-11-07, 10:50 PM
Actually, if you're fighting the balor in the Abyss, blasphemy spamming on the balor's part isn't all that dangerous. You can simply intentionally fail your Will save, and you're returned safe and sound to the Prime Material (though you can't go back for 24 hours.)

That's assuming you're in the Abyss--there are five chaotic-evil-to-some-degree planes where you might run into one and plenty of neutral ones, and balors can daze-lock you on all but one of them--and of course blasphemy is just one ability. But you get the overall point.

Realms of Chaos
2012-11-07, 11:57 PM
One problem that I thought I'd bring up is the topic of big bonuses. This can be anything from the +20 attack bonus of true strike to the large bonuses of moment of prescience to the effectively huge hide bonus of invisibility or glibness. Hell, this event applies to the lowly little jump spell.

With a d20 roll, there is only so much variability you can get. If you roll against a DC of your modifier +15, you have a 30% chance of succeeding. This is something pretty much set in stone.

The problem with spells that grant big bonuses either by themselves or (perhaps especially) when stacked on top of one another is that it makes things pretty much impossible for DMs to set DCs ahead of time as they don't know what resources the players will have (and think to use).

For example, lets say that a player has a bard with access to glibness. Should I set opponents up with a sense motive high enough that he'll need it (meaning that the bard will automatically fail if he doesn't think to use it for some reason) or should I set them with modifiers low enough that he can manage without the spell (meaning that the bard will automatically succeed if he does cast it)?

While it may be hard to imagine a bard forgetting one of the most famous bard spells of all time, the same general principle can easily apply in more believable circumstances (such as with prepared casters, when you don't know if your party wizard will or won't prepare a certain buff or when auto-success/auto-failure relies on a combination of multiple stacking buffs that a player may not want to expend all at once).

Long Story Short: the d20 system literally breaks when you start including temporary (magical) bonuses of at least +20 to just about anything with failure and success.

Eldan
2012-11-08, 08:57 AM
That one is being handled, we hope. I couldn't really do it myself, but other people have had a long look at the basic maths and they are telling me they can fix it. We are especially eliminating bonuses from items and feats, but there will be others as well.

Realms of Chaos
2012-11-08, 10:09 AM
The trick is probably to put a cap on temporary bonuses from any source somewhere around +10 (the difference between a 25% chance of success and a 75% chance of success, for example) so that buffs can generally make things easier without making them essential or having them trivialize things.

Yitzi
2012-11-08, 10:29 AM
For example, lets say that a player has a bard with access to glibness. Should I set opponents up with a sense motive high enough that he'll need it (meaning that the bard will automatically fail if he doesn't think to use it for some reason) or should I set them with modifiers low enough that he can manage without the spell (meaning that the bard will automatically succeed if he does cast it)?

The answer there is "set up a sense motive such that he has a decent chance of success without glibness if he keeps his lies believable, and Glibness then serves to give him options for more extreme/extravagant lies." The problem, of course, is that the ability to lie with such extreme lies is itself overpowered.

General Patton
2012-11-08, 12:33 PM
The answer there is "set up a sense motive such that he has a decent chance of success without glibness if he keeps his lies believable, and Glibness then serves to give him options for more extreme/extravagant lies." The problem, of course, is that the ability to lie with such extreme lies is itself overpowered.

A valid point, but then, Bluff is one of the few skills where the player can modulate the DC in that way. I suppose a DM could try to provide multiple options for using a skill, and have the more difficult ones be more advantageous. One route into a dungeon has a moderately hard to jump gap, another has a longer gap but provides a tactically superior means of infiltrating the place. Of course, this would ruin the feel of the game if done too much. Various situations would turn into a sort of multiple choice "how hard do you want it" scenario, with players overbuffing themselves to try to qualify for the most rewarding options.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-08, 12:56 PM
One problem that I thought I'd bring up is the topic of big bonuses. This can be anything from the +20 attack bonus of true strike to the large bonuses of moment of prescience to the effectively huge hide bonus of invisibility or glibness. Hell, this event applies to the lowly little jump spell.

With a d20 roll, there is only so much variability you can get. If you roll against a DC of your modifier +15, you have a 30% chance of succeeding. This is something pretty much set in stone.

I think there's two issues here: the fact that the spell itself is a little overpowering, and that it allows it magic-users to hop right into melee. My preference would be to alter it to something like: The target gains a bonus on attack rolls equal to their BAB (effectively doubling the BAB). This means anyone CAN use it, but it's more effective as a buff on a melee-heavy class.

Alternatively, we can do fun things with dice like letting you roll two d20 and add them together or use the better one. That way it will give you a nice boost while still preserving the randomization aspect.

Eriash'demaa
2012-11-21, 04:53 PM
Here's one: Delayed Blast Fireball. It's not really broken; it's just that most people want results now and not in a few rounds.

General Patton
2012-11-21, 06:17 PM
Here's one: Delayed Blast Fireball. It's not really broken; it's just that most people want results now and not in a few rounds.

Of course, Delayed Blast Fireball is an integral part of Time Stop shenanigans. Scry, Time Stop, Greater Teleport, Delayed Blast Fireballs, Greater Teleport. Your target is just walking along, possibly feels like he's being watched if he's sharp enough, and then starts exploding repeatedly.

Yitzi
2012-11-21, 08:04 PM
Here's one: Delayed Blast Fireball. It's not really broken; it's just that most people want results now and not in a few rounds.

Of course, there are all sorts of nifty things that could be done (legitimately) with the delay...of course, that's assuming it's not a simple fight. Which is actually what casters should be good at, so I'd say that DBF should be ok.


Of course, Delayed Blast Fireball is an integral part of Time Stop shenanigans. Scry, Time Stop, Greater Teleport, Delayed Blast Fireballs, Greater Teleport. Your target is just walking along, possibly feels like he's being watched if he's sharp enough, and then starts exploding repeatedly.

That only works if you know when the Time Stop is going to end; RAW it's random (though maximizing it with a rod could pose issues.)

toapat
2012-11-21, 08:17 PM
Of course, there are all sorts of nifty things that could be done (legitimately) with the delay...of course, that's assuming it's not a simple fight. Which is actually what casters should be good at, so I'd say that DBF should be ok.



That only works if you know when the Time Stop is going to end; RAW it's random (though maximizing it with a rod could pose issues.)


Puny Maximize. Real caster use Intensify.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-21, 11:12 PM
Of course, there are all sorts of nifty things that could be done (legitimately) with the delay...of course, that's assuming it's not a simple fight. Which is actually what casters should be good at, so I'd say that DBF should be ok.
Does it need to be modified to encourage the more balanced uses or discourage shenanigans, or is that the kind of thing that starts to get to nit-picky when it comes to rewritting spells?



Puny Maximize. Real caster use Intensify.

Maybe this isn't the right thread, but for the G&G project was there going to be any work done on metamagic as well? The most immediate problems are free metamagic (via stacking class features that where never meant to be stacked or using wands and such) and the fact that the half casters (paladins, rangers, bards) can't use metamagic very well because of both the feat tax and the lack of higher-level spell slots.
Secondary concerns might include re-pricing the effects (in terms of spell slot adjustment) and equalizing the spontaneous/prepared differences.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-21, 11:28 PM
Does it need to be modified to encourage the more balanced uses or discourage shenanigans, or is that the kind of thing that starts to get to nit-picky when it comes to rewritting spells?
Meh. I suppose you could state that the damage from multiple overlapping AoE's doesn't stack, but it hardly seems worth it.


Maybe this isn't the right thread, but for the G&G project was there going to be any work done on metamagic as well? The most immediate problems are free metamagic (via stacking class features that where never meant to be stacked or using wands and such) and the fact that the half casters (paladins, rangers, bards) can't use metamagic very well because of both the feat tax and the lack of higher-level spell slots.
Secondary concerns might include re-pricing the effects (in terms of spell slot adjustment) and equalizing the spontaneous/prepared differences.
Not really the right thread, but since I'm here.... Reductions will be capped and/or completely eliminated. Half-caster will be moved to CL equal to their class level minus however many levels they weren't casting (so, 3 for paladins and rangers, short of drastic changes). At least I'm assuming; that part hasn't been discussed but it's what I've done in all of my fixes, so...

toapat
2012-11-21, 11:32 PM
Not really the right thread, but since I'm here.... Reductions will be capped and/or completely eliminated. Half-caster will be moved to CL equal to their class level minus however many levels they weren't casting (so, 3 for paladins and rangers, short of drastic changes). At least I'm assuming; that part hasn't been discussed but it's what I've done in all of my fixes, so...

I would suggest the standard permanent MM reduction for non-full casters i sugested in an old thread somewhere, but its gone otherwise. I completely forgot where i originally did this, but basically:

For every Spell level you are behind a Mage/Priest, you get -1 spell level adjustment, to a minimum of +2 for bard types, or +0 for paladins/rangers

Edit: actually, i remember where i originally submitted it: Kane0's 3.U project that i had a bit of input on, but then it disappeared

Yitzi
2012-11-22, 08:23 AM
Puny Maximize. Real caster use Intensify.

Well yeah, if you're epic. I was speaking of pre-epic.


Does it need to be modified to encourage the more balanced uses or discourage shenanigans, or is that the kind of thing that starts to get to nit-picky when it comes to rewritting spells?

Most if not all of the shenanigans are based on flawed uses of other spells, so better to rewrite those spells when necessary, and DBF will naturally tend toward the more balanced uses. The only shenanigan I know if is Time Stop, and enforcing "you don't know how long it lasts" and banning metamagic on it would solve the problem nicely.

willpell
2012-11-22, 08:33 AM
On Wish: Well, I think receiving a Wish should be a huge, major, story-rending event, the kind of thing entire Planes balance on, not something available to every 17th level Wizard.

I'm inclined to agree with the concept that something as powerful as "a wish" should be that big a deal, but the Wish spell serves several very important and purely utilitarian purposes which I think are necessary. Notably, a Wish can give you a +1 Inherent Bonus to an Attribute, and if you later cast Wish again you get another +1 Inherent Bonus which doesn't stack...to get a +2 Inherent Bonus, which is enough to change your modifier, you need two cast two Wishes at the same time. Potentially you may need as many as 4 or 5 wishes before you can be satisfied with the result; without that option, you basically just can't increase your attributes in a permanent way (magic items can be taken away), except with the every four levels bonus which is only a +1. This is too important a functionality to prohibit, and Wish is also necessary for things like resurrecting an Outsider.

So we need Wish to be able to do those kinds of things. What don't really need is the ability to Wish for a magic item, especially since there's nothing other than GM fiat stopping you from using every Wish to get a magic item which casts Wish twice, getting two more such items, using one for an actual Wish and the other to perpetuate the loop. Conjuring up such items is more in line with what "a wish", rather than x1 Wish, ought to be able to do. Perhaps the answer is to treat "a wish" as an epic-level Greater Wish spell, and keep some of the existing functions of Wish while declaring others to be the province of Greater Wishes.


On your Astral Projection again... as it stands it's Planeshift, only several levels higher, with the weakness that you leave your body behind and an expensive material component.
Either find something for it to do, or just take it out.

The idea of astral projection is supposed to be that only your mind goes somewhere; that ought to sharply limit what it's useful for.

Yitzi
2012-11-22, 12:48 PM
I'm inclined to agree with the concept that something as powerful as "a wish" should be that big a deal, but the Wish spell serves several very important and purely utilitarian purposes which I think are necessary. Notably, a Wish can give you a +1 Inherent Bonus to an Attribute, and if you later cast Wish again you get another +1 Inherent Bonus which doesn't stack...to get a +2 Inherent Bonus, which is enough to change your modifier, you need two cast two Wishes at the same time. Potentially you may need as many as 4 or 5 wishes before you can be satisfied with the result; without that option, you basically just can't increase your attributes in a permanent way (magic items can be taken away), except with the every four levels bonus which is only a +1. This is too important a functionality to prohibit

I'd say the opposite: The ability to grant inherent bonuses is the most gamebreaking use of Wish, because it shifts things further in favor of SAD classes instead of MAD classes, which of course further unbalances the game. I'd say better to remove that functionality, increase the rate of ability gain as you level to compensate, and make it easier to gain in abilities that are low than to gain in abilities that are already high.


and Wish is also necessary for things like resurrecting an Outsider.

No, True Res does the job better and more cheaply.


especially since there's nothing other than GM fiat stopping you from using every Wish to get a magic item which casts Wish twice, getting two more such items, using one for an actual Wish and the other to perpetuate the loop.

Actually, there is. When a Wish creates a magic item, you have to pay twice the XP cost of the item, on top of the usual 5000. When a magic item gives a spell, the XP cost of the item includes the XP cost of the spell. So you can't loop it unless the first one cost infinite XP.

TuggyNE
2012-11-22, 03:58 PM
I'm inclined to agree with the concept that something as powerful as "a wish" should be that big a deal, but the Wish spell serves several very important and purely utilitarian purposes which I think are necessary. Notably, a Wish can give you a +1 Inherent Bonus to an Attribute, and if you later cast Wish again you get another +1 Inherent Bonus which doesn't stack...to get a +2 Inherent Bonus, which is enough to change your modifier, you need two cast two Wishes at the same time. Potentially you may need as many as 4 or 5 wishes before you can be satisfied with the result; without that option, you basically just can't increase your attributes in a permanent way (magic items can be taken away), except with the every four levels bonus which is only a +1.

A tome, once used, gives an inherent bonus of up to +5 that cannot be taken away. (Of course, removing wish would necessitate a new prerequisite for the tomes, but that's not an unsolvable problem.)

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-22, 04:22 PM
Given that controlling number creep is one of our big goals with G&G, I think that Wish's ability to permanently boost ability scores will be sharply limited.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-22, 10:27 PM
No, True Res does the job better and more cheaply.


This one may need a vote or something, but does anyone else think that True Resurection is an overpowered spell? It basically eliminates any penalties for or difficulties with death, ever, rendering it effectively meaningless.

Grod_The_Giant
2012-11-22, 10:43 PM
This one may need a vote or something, but does anyone else think that True Resurection is an overpowered spell? It basically eliminates any penalties for or difficulties with death, ever, rendering it effectively meaningless.

Except for the whole level loss bit...

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-11-22, 11:12 PM
Except for the whole level loss bit...

On the contrary:


Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of level (or Constitution points) or prepared spells.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-22, 11:12 PM
Except for the whole level loss bit...

I'm pretty sure that True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm) specifically negates the normal level loss that you get when you bring some one back from the dead.

Even the loss of single level would be a fairly minor consequence for bringing back a high-level character from pretty much nothing, up to several centuries after their death. It makes it really hard to actually keep anyone dead, which can be frustrating for both players and DMs.


Edit: Swordsage'd :smallfrown:

Acanous
2012-11-22, 11:20 PM
Rope trick duplicates a spell of a much higher level (Tiny hut) but even better, because you're invisible, as well. Any wizard who does NOT take Rope Trick immediately upon hitting level 3 has probably banned it's parent school.

Making it so the Rope trick can only hold one person may fix this.

Yitzi
2012-11-22, 11:29 PM
This one may need a vote or something, but does anyone else think that True Resurection is an overpowered spell? It basically eliminates any penalties for or difficulties with death, ever, rendering it effectively meaningless.

Well, 25k is not insignificant even at high levels, but yeah, death becomes only a minor setback.

Of course, at those levels, something like Soul Bind or a simple TPK is a potentially serious concern.

Conor77
2012-11-24, 11:50 AM
Well yes, the Wish spell as used in D&D has some very major uses. I'm not disagreeing with that. Calling it Wish though makes it sound like one of those game-altering quest/macguffin/phlebtonium things that you get that allows you to defeat the BBEG. It may simply be a matter of aesthetics to rename it to something like Anyspell (I know, that one's taken too, and doesn't entirely fit), but I think that aesthetics are part of design. Once it isn't supposed to be a Wish, anything called a wish gets more valuable. I spent almost 15 minutes convincing my party one time that what they were getting if they flew across the planes to finish the quest was a wish, not a Wish. Like, one they could use for anything. Then they went ahead and used it on something a Wish could do in the first place, but that's what you get with those knuckleheads. My point is that names are important, and that something called wish should be out of the standard rulebook and be a specific case if a DM wants to put it in. Not that it matters in a game format, necessarily.

Deepbluediver
2012-11-26, 10:58 AM
Well, 25k is not insignificant even at high levels, but yeah, death becomes only a minor setback.

Of course, at those levels, something like Soul Bind or a simple TPK is a potentially serious concern.

I admit that not every DM runs their games with resources as freely availabe as the RAW potentially allows, but gold is still usually the easiest thing to get a hold of. And that's not even counting how high-level characters could probably "convince" their friends to cut them a discount anyway.
And I recognize that losing a hoard of magic items might be a pain, but probably less painful than needing to rebuild your character from scratch if your DM is picky like that.

I think a lot of players have sort-of ambiguous feelings on death in D&D, because on the one hand losing the epicly-cool character you've played for 15 levels sucks, but on the other if you cheapen death then individual characters (and lives) start to become replaceable and less meaningful.


I'm not sure exactly what side of the argument your comment about TPK is coming from. If your party is foolish or unlucky enough to end up dead, that's a tragedy, but it can also make for a fun game or good drama. If your entire party wipes and pops back up and the nearby friendly-temple ready for another shot just days later, that's practically bordering on comedy here.

Soul Bind seems like it was specifically designed to deal with the problems brought up by easy resurection magic. I can't think of any other real use for the spell.
Either Soul Bind should be expanded so it has a use beyond keeping people down, or it should be scrapped along with True Resurection.

I have a few ideas about a revamped Soul Bind, mostly in the vein of stealing some one's soul gives you effective control over their body and mind so you can play them like a puppet via necromancy instead enchantment.



*snip*

I'm mostly in agreement with all this; that's why I suggested breaking apart the useful pieces of wish into seperate, other-named spells and scrapping the open-ended "anything else" category.

Yitzi
2012-11-26, 12:16 PM
I admit that not every DM runs their games with resources as freely availabe as the RAW potentially allows, but gold is still usually the easiest thing to get a hold of.

Oh, it's definitely easier than XP or levels. But a party that has a death every encounter is going to find that it's a substantial decrease in their income.


And that's not even counting how high-level characters could probably "convince" their friends to cut them a discount anyway.

I'm just talking of the material component cost of True Res; there's no convincing or discounts there.


And I recognize that losing a hoard of magic items might be a pain, but probably less painful than needing to rebuild your character from scratch if your DM is picky like that.

No question that it's a lot less of a big deal than with no resurrection at all, or even with a level loss. But it's not trivial.

An idea I'm planning for my system remake that would make death never trivial is that whenever you resurrect someone, the deity who performed the resurrection expects a return favor (some sort of quest on said deity's behalf). Thus, death means that your party has to do something because an NPC said so, rather than what the party wants to do (though they do have some control on what the quest is by picking whose cleric to use, if they're willing to pay for an NPC casting).


I'm not sure exactly what side of the argument your comment about TPK is coming from. If your party is foolish or unlucky enough to end up dead, that's a tragedy, but it can also make for a fun game or good drama. If your entire party wipes and pops back up and the nearby friendly-temple ready for another shot just days later, that's practically bordering on comedy here.

If your entire party wipes, they're not going to pop up at the nearby friendly temple, because the only 9th-level-spell-capable friendly cleric on the continent (your party cleric) just died, and nobody's bringing his body back for a regular resurrection. And of course it's even worse if the enemy then takes the opportunity to cast Soul Bind.


Soul Bind seems like it was specifically designed to deal with the problems brought up by easy resurection magic. I can't think of any other real use for the spell.

Of course that's its purpose...and once True Res comes online, it's a very important one. I see no problem with this.


and scrapping the open-ended "anything else" category.

It's not really open-ended, as its power (if you want to get the Wish as you said it) is quite limited.