How do you guys do it?

[tadkins]

With literally thousands of spells in the game to choose from, scattered across many different books and sources, how do you guys tell which ones are good, effective, or worthwhile?

I am certainly having a hard time figuring that out. xD

You're a wizard, cleric, or druid, with just so many options out there to pick each spell level. Nevermind the classes with an even *more* expanded list, like the Archivist. You can spend days reading spell lists and descriptions, and wonder which ones can actually be decent, or which ones end up being traps.

Even once you get past that, you've got metamagic to consider! So many different metamagic options to alter those thousands of spells in different ways. How do you tell which is the best way to go? If I hadn't been reading these forums for a while, I would never know that a Maximized Enervation is better than an Energy Drain. And that is just one example out of hundreds possible.

It's certainly overwhelming, and I am wondering how you guys manage it.

[nedz]

But you haven't considered that the most powerful effects come when you combine multiple spells/feats/class features and items.
Consider how many combinations of these things that there are.

[tadkins]

But you haven't considered that the most powerful effects come when you combine multiple spells/feats/class features and items.
Consider how many combinations of these things that there are.

Good gods, that is so true!

*tears hair*

[mabriss lethe]

I think the best answer is "Crowdsourcing"

There's so much information, it's a daunting task for a single person. But in a robust and long lived online community like this one, the workload gets spread around, and shows up in threads here or there, and eventually the gems get collected.

[tadkins]

I think the best answer is "Crowdsourcing"

There's so much information, it's a daunting task for a single person. But in a robust and long lived online community like this one, the workload gets spread around, and shows up in threads here or there, and eventually the gems get collected.

This is true. There's literally hundreds of questions I could ask on spells that I've found and look pretty cool (Moon Blade is one I found recently, lightsabers ftw?). Though, I'd feel bad about annoying you guys with them, which is why I am trying to figure out how to do it on my own. xD

[Kelb_Panthera]

Crowd sourcing.

There's been a fair sized community examining the entirety of the system, including the magic that makes up a rather large portion of it, for over a decade. The handbooks have a shortlist of the most broadly applicable spells and a few of the less obvious but quite potent interactions.

Then it's just a matter of spending time on the forums and absorbing what's bandied about by those who have done so before you.

In particular, Emperor Tippy has an utterly ridiculous (in a good way) mastery of the system. Nearly all of the things he mentions are unambiguously RAW legal if a bit higher on the optimization scale than most people play. A quick forum search for his posts will reveal a -lot- of -very- effective spells and spell combinations but be aware that much of it may prove more potent than some DM's can handle.

[tadkins]

Most of the handbooks do list a bunch of good ones, typically with straightforward uses that are good a lot of the time. Fly, Invisibility and such are good spells you should have by default.

What about the ones those handbooks don't list, though? The ones that might seem cool or interesting, but aren't worthy enough to be mentioned. Would you say that such spells are traps?

[nedz]

Traps do indeed exist, but also there are so many combinations that we, collectively, have only scratched the surface.

Certain spells (or abilities, feats, etc. ) do stand out as being more interesting whilst many of the options are quite routine — even if they are not traps. There is very little difference between many of the blast spells for instance. So the permutations are actually smaller than they seem — still there are a lot yet to be fully explored.

[atemu1234]

I've put time and hard work into it #lyingthroughmyteeth.

I let these guys do it, then look into the result.

[eggynack]

It's pretty simple. Basically, you just get a good baseline. Pick up a basic understanding of some of the more potent effects available at various levels, and the general interactions that exist, and use that as a jumping off point for any given spell you find. I'll give you a real example from my spell searching. You look at the spell dire hunger from the spell compendium, a spell that is, to my knowledge, rarely if ever talked about. How should that spell be assessed? Well, it's a 5th level spell, fortitude negates, at close range, and it kinda knocks opponents out of combat. So I figure, well, that's a lot like baleful polymorph. And it is. There are differences, obviously, and those differences are the entire point, but things are a lot easier once you're not doing assessment in a vacuum. You can start weighing the shorter duration against the interesting secondary effect, or even consider the secondary effect negative in some cases, but compare immune foes.

And soon, voila, you have yourself a spell assessment. So, is dire hunger a trap? Probably not. It's like a good spell, doesn't lose much of what you'd want from that good spell, and you can weigh those advantages and disadvantages. Most spell assessments are like that, when you get down to it, as are assessments of most kinds. Value should never be assessed in a vacuum anyway, because power level is a fully relative metric. Sure, sometimes you might find an effect that's unlike anything else you have as part of your baseline, but even then you can usually find some comparison points, and if you put together any kind of assessment then you wind up with a new spell for your baseline when a similar spell to that one comes along.

As your baseline grows, and as you get a better and better understanding of it, you get better at making new assessments. It becomes second nature to look at a spell and see all of the many spells it's similar to, and maybe even put it in the context of the kinds of abilities that are coming online at that level. There comes a time when optimization becomes less of an insane combinatorics problem, and becomes more about just slotting things into a massive yet well understood weave. The wisdom of the internet helps a lot with that, constructing the baseline, and questioning the assessments you make when they get too far off track. But, when there's no one else to guide you, that's how I tend to think you should guide yourself.

[tadkins]

Traps do indeed exist, but also there are so many combinations that we, collectively, have only scratched the surface.

Certain spells (or abilities, feats, etc. ) do stand out as being more interesting whilst many of the options are quite routine — even if they are not traps. There is very little difference between many of the blast spells for instance. So the permutations are actually smaller than they seem — still there are a lot yet to be fully explored.

This is true. A lot of the spells seem to overlap somewhat. You've got spells like Fly, then you've got spells that grant wings, which allow you to fly. Another example; a level 1 Cleric can choose between Command and Moon Lust. Both of them decent control spells, but how do you know which one to take?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Most of the handbooks do list a bunch of good ones, typically with straightforward uses that are good a lot of the time. Fly, Invisibility and such are good spells you should have by default.

What about the ones those handbooks don't list, though? The ones that might seem cool or interesting, but aren't worthy enough to be mentioned. Would you say that such spells are traps?

Not necessarily but they require a bit more foreknowledge of coming events to shine than the ones in the handbooks. There are some that are known traps but they're often cited in the handbooks as things to avoid like a necrotic plague.

If you're going to go off-handbook be careful and hedge your bets with stuff from the handbook as well. Generally useful spells are generally useful, specific spells are less so except in their niche.

Obvious as this sounds, I've seen people pack a mess of specific spells to "cover all their bases" and get completely screwed by not having covered the base they needed and not having a "good enough" spell either.

[tadkins]

It's pretty simple. Basically, you just get a good baseline. Pick up a basic understanding of some of the more potent effects available at various levels, and the general interactions that exist, and use that as a jumping off point for any given spell you find. I'll give you a real example from my spell searching. You look at the spell dire hunger from the spell compendium, a spell that is, to my knowledge, rarely if ever talked about. How should that spell be assessed? Well, it's a 5th level spell, fortitude negates, at close range, and it kinda knocks opponents out of combat. So I figure, well, that's a lot like baleful polymorph. And it is. There are differences, obviously, and those differences are the entire point, but things are a lot easier once you're not doing assessment in a vacuum. You can start weighing the shorter duration against the interesting secondary effect, or even consider the secondary effect negative in some cases, but compare immune foes.

And soon, voila, you have yourself a spell assessment. So, is dire hunger a trap? Probably not. It's like a good spell, doesn't lose much of what you'd want from that good spell, and you can weigh those advantages and disadvantages. Most spell assessments are like that, when you get down to it, as are assessments of most kinds. Value should never be assessed in a vacuum anyway, because power level is a fully relative metric. Sure, sometimes you might find an effect that's unlike anything else you have as part of your baseline, but even then you can usually find some comparison points, and if you put together any kind of assessment then you wind up with a new spell for your baseline when a similar spell to that one comes along.

As your baseline grows, and as you get a better and better understanding of it, you get better at making new assessments. It becomes second nature to look at a spell and see all of the many spells it's similar to, and maybe even put it in the context of the kinds of abilities that are coming online at that level. There comes a time when optimization becomes less of an insane combinatorics problem, and becomes more about just slotting things into a massive yet well understood weave. The wisdom of the internet helps a lot with that, constructing the baseline, and questioning the assessments you make when they get too far off track. But, when there's no one else to guide you, that's how I tend to think you should guide yourself.

This is good advice. Take a spell, compare it to one of the more popular/well used version, weigh the stats and decide which one to take?

[eggynack]

This is good advice. Take a spell, compare it to one of the more popular/well used version, weigh the stats and decide which one to take?
Something like that, though sometimes you just have to accept that there's an incomparable at work in the comparison, and figure that they each have their advantages at different times. For example, taking a look at your desired comparison, moon lust has the advantage of duration, knocking the opponent out of combat unless there's interference, while command has the advantage of versatility, granting various forms of utility in various situations, effectively including a lower duration form of moon lust within itself. I'd tend towards command, because versatility so often is power, and because moon lust is a bit situational, relying on there being no nearby enemies to remove the fascinated condition. They're both good spells though, and moon lust seems like a clear non-trap, especially given the spell level.

[Emperor Tippy]

There is no easy set of rules that can be given to you to judge spells.

I mean take Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm). That is one of the best evocation spells in the game (actually it is straight up one the best spells in the game, being solidly in the tier below "utterly absurd").

I've given you that much, now tell me why that is the case.

[nedz]

Something like that, though sometimes you just have to accept that there's an incomparable at work in the comparison, and figure that they each have their advantages at different times. For example, taking a look at your desired comparison, moon lust has the advantage of duration, knocking the opponent out of combat unless there's interference, while command has the advantage of versatility, granting various forms of utility in various situations, effectively including a lower duration form of moon lust within itself. I'd tend towards command, because versatility so often is power, and because moon lust is a bit situational, relying on there being no nearby enemies to remove the fascinated condition. They're both good spells though, and moon lust seems like a clear non-trap, especially given the spell level.

Moon lust is situational though — unless maybe you could subvert "the moon" ?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is no easy set of rules that can be given to you to judge spells.

I mean take Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm). That is one of the best evocation spells in the game (actually it is straight up one the best spells in the game, being solidly in the tier below "utterly absurd").

I've given you that much, now tell me why that is the case.

Off the top of my head; offense: center on foe to capture, defensive: center on self to break LOE, BFC: center between party and enemy to create an obstacle to bypass.

It's particularly useful in these regards because it's nigh-indestructible unless you have one of the few explicit ways to destroy it such as disintegration or a rod of cancellation.

It's also only 4th level, making it a prime target for metamagic.

[Jeff the Green]

Aside from what's been mentioned, I suspect that a good memory is behind some of it; most questions that come up have been asked before, and if you can remember the discussion you have the crowd-sourced answer.

It certainly makes me seem smarter than I am.


Traps do indeed exist, but also there are so many combinations that we, collectively, have only scratched the surface.

Certain spells (or abilities, feats, etc. ) do stand out as being more interesting whilst many of the options are quite routine — even if they are not traps. There is very little difference between many of the blast spells for instance. So the permutations are actually smaller than they seem — still there are a lot yet to be fully explored.

Plus there are actually some things that aren't all that well known but are really good, or at least very fun. Price of loyalty, cloak of khyber, and dragoneye rune, for example. The first two are from obscure sources (Players Guide to Eberron and Sharn: City of Towers), at least.

[Pex]

I don't care what people on the internet whom I've never met and will never meet think about how good or not good a particular spell is. I read the spells and choose for myself if I like it or not to want to use. I pick spells that I know I will want to cast a lot. I make my own judgment how useful they are. To prevent monotonous boredom I will sometimes pick other spells that will get cast less often but are nonetheless just fun to use. When I have the slots available as the levels progress I pick important spells that are useless most of the time except for when I absolutely need it. If I can get them on a scroll or wand, great.

Then it just comes down to practice and experience of play. As adventures play out I note which spells I'm truly casting a lot and which I never do. The ones I never do are never taken again for any future spellcaster character I play.

As for metamagic, I hardly ever use it. I really would much rather cast the higher level spell for the spell slot. However, just because of mood and choice of tactics I'll pick a metamagic feat for my character once in a while. For example, I'm playing an Oracle of Life and chose Reach Spell so that I can cast Cure Wounds, remove affliction, and buff spells at a distance if I can't get to the party member for some reason. Occasionally it's for an attack spell, like Bestow Curse, when I don't want to be next to the bad guy. I haven't used the feat a lot, but I have used it a number of times with significant effectiveness. I'm now of high enough level to cast Reach Breath of Life in absolute emergencies and salivating for Reach Heal next level.

[tadkins]

If you're going to go off-handbook be careful and hedge your bets with stuff from the handbook as well. Generally useful spells are generally useful, specific spells are less so except in their niche.

Obvious as this sounds, I've seen people pack a mess of specific spells to "cover all their bases" and get completely screwed by not having covered the base they needed and not having a "good enough" spell either.

I think I'd take the approach of making half my lineup general spells that can cover a few bases (Lot of stuff you can do with Summon Monsters) and have the other half be full of cool, thematically appropriate spells that might be more niche.


Something like that, though sometimes you just have to accept that there's an incomparable at work in the comparison, and figure that they each have their advantages at different times. For example, taking a look at your desired comparison, moon lust has the advantage of duration, knocking the opponent out of combat unless there's interference, while command has the advantage of versatility, granting various forms of utility in various situations, effectively including a lower duration form of moon lust within itself. I'd tend towards command, because versatility so often is power, and because moon lust is a bit situational, relying on there being no nearby enemies to remove the fascinated condition. They're both good spells though, and moon lust seems like a clear non-trap, especially given the spell level.

This is true. I can see Moon Lust being superior if you want to take a prisoner, and can get him/her away from their comrades. Dazzle them, then just keep an eye out while the fight finishes.

But yep, I see what you mean. Might also be appropriate to take a weaker spell if it fits the character thematically too.



There is no easy set of rules that can be given to you to judge spells.

I mean take Resilient Sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resilientSphere.htm). That is one of the best evocation spells in the game (actually it is straight up one the best spells in the game, being solidly in the tier below "utterly absurd").

I've given you that much, now tell me why that is the case.

Beyond being versatile (use it as either a defensive maneuver or a control option), I couldn't really say. But I'm not super experienced with the game unfortunately.


I don't care what people on the internet whom I've never met and will never meet think about how good or not good a particular spell is. I read the spells and choose for myself if I like it or not to want to use. I pick spells that I know I will want to cast a lot. I make my own judgment how useful they are. To prevent monotonous boredom I will sometimes pick other spells that will get cast less often but are nonetheless just fun to use. When I have the slots available as the levels progress I pick important spells that are useless most of the time except for when I absolutely need it. If I can get them on a scroll or wand, great.

Then it just comes down to practice and experience of play. As adventures play out I note which spells I'm truly casting a lot and which I never do. The ones I never do are never taken again for any future spellcaster character I play.

As for metamagic, I hardly ever use it. I really would much rather cast the higher level spell for the spell slot. However, just because of mood and choice of tactics I'll pick a metamagic feat for my character once in a while. For example, I'm playing an Oracle of Life and chose Reach Spell so that I can cast Cure Wounds, remove affliction, and buff spells at a distance if I can't get to the party member for some reason. Occasionally it's for an attack spell, like Bestow Curse, when I don't want to be next to the bad guy. I haven't used the feat a lot, but I have used it a number of times with significant effectiveness. I'm now of high enough level to cast Reach Breath of Life in absolute emergencies and salivating for Reach Heal next level.

I trust the internet, mostly because I don't entirely know what i'm doing myself. xD

Maybe with more games, I'd be able to pick and choose an arsenal that's right personally.

[Solaris]

Off the top of my head; offense: center on foe to capture, defensive: center on self to break LOE, BFC: center between party and enemy to create an obstacle to bypass.

It's particularly useful in these regards because it's nigh-indestructible unless you have one of the few explicit ways to destroy it such as disintegration or a rod of cancellation.

It's also only 4th level, making it a prime target for metamagic.

Also, if the enemy has buffs you can 'can' him in the sphere (as it outlasts a lot of buff spells), deal with his buddies, and then wait for the spells to wear off before the sphere does.

[Emperor Tippy]

Beyond being versatile (use it as either a defensive maneuver or a control option), I couldn't really say. But I'm not super experienced with the game unfortunately.
Versatility has a lot to do with it, but it is more a matter of how it is versatile.

First, look at its casting time versus its duration. It is a standard action to cast and has a duration of minutes/level, what this tells you is that this is a spell that is meant for immediate impact. It's not a buff that you cast in the morning, or a divination that you cast the night before, or one of the many spells that provides some persistent benefit in other ways.

Now, is it an offensive or defensive spell primarily? Seeing as it doesn't incapacitate the enemy, has a save, and is SR: Yes, Resilient Sphere is a pretty crappy offensive spell. Not horrid by any stretch, being pretty much a "counter or loose" spell, but compare it to something like Orb of Fire (no Save, No SR, will often deal enough damage to kill an enemy, has an additional negative rider effect) and it becomes obvious that if this spells only usage is offensive then it is generally not worth the slot. So what about the defensive analysis? It can be cast on yourself and on your allies, it is ranged, it blocks Line of Effect, very few things can counter it, and it can no sell the vast majority of offensive abilities in the game. This is a very good defensive spell, a good enough one that even without any other usage it would still be a fairly solid pick up for any caster who has the option.

So now we have the basic foundation for Resilient Sphere. It is a good general purpose in combat defensive spell. Now start looking at other potential uses. Well it is a mediocre Save-or-Loose spell, that is fairly obvious. It is also a mediocre battlefield control spell, being a poor mans Wall of Force. It is also a method of containing dangerous things for a short time while you either flee or come up with a solution to the problem. Individually, none of these effects make a good 4th level spell but everyone of them is a mediocre 4th level spell and these are all alternative uses for an already good 4th level spell.

Now look at how it interacts with other spells, abilities, and class features. It is a 4th level spell which means that it can be used with Contingency. Its spell level also makes it a viable target for virtually all metamagic in the game. It is a standard action cast which means that it can be used with Celerity, effectively making it castable as an Immediate Action.

Then comes the second to the last step, think about when it becomes irrelevant. Sleep, for example, does nothing when all of your enemies have 4 or more HD while most enchantments have a sharp drop in value once Mindblank and Immunity to Mind Affecting effects become common (i.e. around levels 13+). What takes Resilient Sphere from being a very good spell to being a great spell is this last point, it never really ceases to be useful. Even in Epic it is one of my go to defensive spells.

Finally the last step, compare it to similar spells. In the case of Resilient Sphere that would be things like Force Cage, Telekinetic Sphere, Prismatic Sphere, and Wall of Force. Note how the first three are 7th (with an expensive material component), 8th, and 9th level spells.

---
Do the same kind of thing with other spells and eventually you get good enough that you can mostly do it at a glance.

[tadkins]

Damn Tippy, that's impressive. I bow to your knowledge. xD

So a big part of spells being useful is that they can be kept useful throughout the levels? Can definitely see how a Contingency + Resilient Sphere would be awesome. Just stuff like that I probably wouldn't figure out without posting here. Will have to keep that combo in mind.

I suppose part of it is just knowing all the spells out there to see if there's something to compare, as well as knowing the rules pretty well. Another example of a spell that caught my eye is Opalescent Glare (mostly for being a rare example of a Good Necromancy spell).

OPALESCENT GLARE
Necromancy [Death, Good]
Level: Arborea 4, Cleric 6, sorcerer/
wizard 6
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
You invoke the spell and your eyes begin to
glow with a rippling pearly radiance, like
those of a noble ghaele eladrin.
Inspired by the deadly gaze of the noble
ghaele eladrin, you gain a gaze attack
usable against creatures within 60 feet.
If an evil creature with 5 or fewer Hit
Dice meets your gaze (DMG 294), it
dies unless it succeeds on a Will save.
Even if the save succeeds, the creature
is affected as though by a fear spell (PH
229) for 2d10 rounds.
Non-evil creatures and evil creatures
with more than 5 Hit Dice are not slain
by the gaze, and they suffer the fear
effect only if they fail the Will save.

When it comes to the point where you're getting level 6 spells as a cleric, I'm not entirely sure how many evil creatures with that many hit dice you'd be facing. There's also the debate of whether or not Fear is a useful condition to afflict. Based off my amateur analysis, this spell's pretty worthless. Would I be wrong in this example?

[aleucard]

How's about the master provide an example of something that at least at first glance looks like it'd be a good spell for preparing day-to-day but in actuality is barely worth scrolling? It's always a good idea to see both sides of something, and analyzing something for being bad can be even more important than for it being good. Mainly because if it's barely worth more as an action than plucking away at your crossbow, then why the Hell are you preparing it?

[Emperor Tippy]

Damn Tippy, that's impressive. I bow to your knowledge. xD

So a big part of spells being useful is that they can be kept useful throughout the levels?
Kinda sorta. Sleep, for example, is a good spell for a level 1 caster. And yet it is something that a level 20 caster is never going to prepare. Or look at Shapechange, it is one of the best spells in the game but it isn't available until level 17+.

It is a relevant feature but it doesn't make or break a spell most of the time.


I suppose part of it is just knowing all the spells out there to see if there's something to compare, as well as knowing the rules pretty well. Another example of a spell that caught my eye is Opalescent Glare (mostly for being a rare example of a Good Necromancy spell).

OPALESCENT GLARE
Necromancy [Death, Good]
Level: Arborea 4, Cleric 6, sorcerer/
wizard 6
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
You invoke the spell and your eyes begin to
glow with a rippling pearly radiance, like
those of a noble ghaele eladrin.
Inspired by the deadly gaze of the noble
ghaele eladrin, you gain a gaze attack
usable against creatures within 60 feet.
If an evil creature with 5 or fewer Hit
Dice meets your gaze (DMG 294), it
dies unless it succeeds on a Will save.
Even if the save succeeds, the creature
is affected as though by a fear spell (PH
229) for 2d10 rounds.
Non-evil creatures and evil creatures
with more than 5 Hit Dice are not slain
by the gaze, and they suffer the fear
effect only if they fail the Will save.

When it comes to the point where you're getting level 6 spells as a cleric, I'm not entirely sure how many evil creatures with that many hit dice you'd be facing. There's also the debate of whether or not Fear is a useful condition to afflict. Based off my amateur analysis, this spell's pretty worthless. Would I be wrong in this example?

Depends on your DM. Note the target and duration. As written, Opalescent Glare gives you an at will gaze attack that uses no resources from the moment you cast the spell until the end of time. So really, you should buy one scroll of it and now you can stare any weak evil creature that meets your eyes to death.

If your DM rules that it is a targeted spell with a range of 60 feet (see the version in the Planar Handbook and not the Spell Compendium) then it is a horribly bad spell.

[Coidzor]

It's pretty simple. Basically, you just get a good baseline. Pick up a basic understanding of some of the more potent effects available at various levels, and the general interactions that exist, and use that as a jumping off point for any given spell you find. I'll give you a real example from my spell searching. You look at the spell dire hunger from the spell compendium, a spell that is, to my knowledge, rarely if ever talked about. How should that spell be assessed? Well, it's a 5th level spell, fortitude negates, at close range, and it kinda knocks opponents out of combat. So I figure, well, that's a lot like baleful polymorph. And it is. There are differences, obviously, and those differences are the entire point, but things are a lot easier once you're not doing assessment in a vacuum. You can start weighing the shorter duration against the interesting secondary effect, or even consider the secondary effect negative in some cases, but compare immune foes.

And soon, voila, you have yourself a spell assessment. So, is dire hunger a trap? Probably not. It's like a good spell, doesn't lose much of what you'd want from that good spell, and you can weigh those advantages and disadvantages. Most spell assessments are like that, when you get down to it, as are assessments of most kinds. Value should never be assessed in a vacuum anyway, because power level is a fully relative metric. Sure, sometimes you might find an effect that's unlike anything else you have as part of your baseline, but even then you can usually find some comparison points, and if you put together any kind of assessment then you wind up with a new spell for your baseline when a similar spell to that one comes along.

As your baseline grows, and as you get a better and better understanding of it, you get better at making new assessments. It becomes second nature to look at a spell and see all of the many spells it's similar to, and maybe even put it in the context of the kinds of abilities that are coming online at that level. There comes a time when optimization becomes less of an insane combinatorics problem, and becomes more about just slotting things into a massive yet well understood weave. The wisdom of the internet helps a lot with that, constructing the baseline, and questioning the assessments you make when they get too far off track. But, when there's no one else to guide you, that's how I tend to think you should guide yourself.

That's a rather good way of putting it, I think. Bonus points for reminding me of how I've seen the way we pick up language and, indeed, other concepts, when we're early on in our development discussed.

[Emperor Tippy]

How's about the master provide an example of something that at least at first glance looks like it'd be a good spell for preparing day-to-day but in actuality is barely worth scrolling? It's always a good idea to see both sides of something, and analyzing something for being bad can be even more important than for it being good. Mainly because if it's barely worth more as an action than plucking away at your crossbow, then why the Hell are you preparing it?
Hmm, take the Summon Monster line I suppose.

On first glance it looks decent. You can call up a creature (or creatures) to fight for you, seems great right? Now start looking at the problems. It has a casting time of 1 round, which means that it is nigh worthless unless you know that you are getting into a fight and have time to cast the spell immediately before said fight. You start casting and every enemy will have a chance to attack you, forcing a massive concentration check to complete the spell, before it has any impact. Well lets say that you complete the spell, now you have something that will fight for you for 1 round per level. Sure, that isn't a huge problem as combat is usually over within 5 rounds anyways but it is a big hit against the spell. So I'm sure that you are agreed that the Summon Monster spells are supposed to be in combat spells and that is the criteria that they should be judged against.

So compare Fireball and Summon Monster 3. Fireball will, on average, deal more damage than Summon Monster 3 and none of the summons have special abilities that are exceptionally useful.

Fireball is a fairly crappy in combat offensive spell but it is still better than the comparable Summon Monster spells on average.

[jedipotter]

It's certainly overwhelming, and I am wondering how you guys manage it.

Well, first off remember what Honest Abe said: "The trouble with things posted on the Internet forums is that you can never know if they are genuine." --Abraham Lincoln

A lot of stuff you have has to do with an ''interpretation'' of the rules to fit the spin of the poster.

And just as importunately is to keep in mind the game your playing in. Every DM is different. Some let anything go, some a more strict, and so on.

Remember that there is no ''right'' way to pick spells or combos. And even if a spell combo sounds great, it can be countered or not even work.

The best advice is to just play the game and see what spells work good for you.

[tadkins]

Depends on your DM. Note the target and duration. As written, Opalescent Glare gives you an at will gaze attack that uses no resources from the moment you cast the spell until the end of time. So really, you should buy one scroll of it and now you can stare any weak evil creature that meets your eyes to death.

If your DM rules that it is a targeted spell with a range of 60 feet (see the version in the Planar Handbook and not the Spell Compendium) then it is a horribly bad spell.

Ooh, crazy spell in that case. Basically just adds extra power/options with little cost (one spell slot used up for a day, pray for a different one tomorrow).

In regards to the same spell being in two different books, is there an official rule for which one is the legal one, or is that entirely a DM decision?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ooh, crazy spell in that case. Basically just adds extra power/options with little cost (one spell slot used up for a day, pray for a different one tomorrow).

In regards to the same spell being in two different books, is there an official rule for which one is the legal one, or is that entirely a DM decision?

Most recent version holds precedence.

In most cases this is the spell compendium version.

In the case of any spell not in the spell compendium check the publication date of the book each version of the spell appears in. The more recently printed version is the "official" version.

[Emperor Tippy]

Ooh, crazy spell in that case. Basically just adds extra power/options with little cost (one spell slot used up for a day, pray for a different one tomorrow).

In regards to the same spell being in two different books, is there an official rule for which one is the legal one, or is that entirely a DM decision?

Mostly an ask your DM kind of thing, the rules are a bit iffy. Spell Compendium is the newer source though (being published in 2005 while the Planar Handbook was 2004).

[Kazyan]

Summon Monster is bad? Maybe in Tippy's games, but in mine, it is one of the most powerful spell lines yet demonstrated. Unless the monsters you're fighting are smart and can deal with the presence of a summon, Summon Monster is a "no save, just stop bothering me for several rounds" kind of spell. Summons require actions to take out, usually, which are actions spent not taking out the caster. And if you avoid the summon, you prolong its duration. Not the "spell times out in X rounds" duration, the "I will kill this in Y rounds" duration.

So you can either ignore the summon and take Attacks of Opportunity/Full Attacks/whatever that will just keep piling up because summoners never settle for just one summon, or you can spend 2+ rounds to kill it and do nothing else productive.

[aleucard]

Hmm, take the Summon Monster line I suppose.

On first glance it looks decent. You can call up a creature (or creatures) to fight for you, seems great right? Now start looking at the problems. It has a casting time of 1 round, which means that it is nigh worthless unless you know that you are getting into a fight and have time to cast the spell immediately before said fight. You start casting and every enemy will have a chance to attack you, forcing a massive concentration check to complete the spell, before it has any impact. Well lets say that you complete the spell, now you have something that will fight for you for 1 round per level. Sure, that isn't a huge problem as combat is usually over within 5 rounds anyways but it is a big hit against the spell. So I'm sure that you are agreed that the Summon Monster spells are supposed to be in combat spells and that is the criteria that they should be judged against.

So compare Fireball and Summon Monster 3. Fireball will, on average, deal more damage than Summon Monster 3 and none of the summons have special abilities that are exceptionally useful.

Fireball is a fairly crappy in combat offensive spell but it is still better than the comparable Summon Monster spells on average.

I'll more or less agree with you on SM3 at least. The only ones that are interesting as more than goons are the elementals, and the only reason you'd use them is as scouts with atypical movement methods, and for most applications something from SM2 or 1 is probably going to be either equally as good or not bad enough to be regretted. The later ones do have some interesting SLA access though. Lantern Archons are good sources of pocket change in the form of infinite-use Continual Flame for instance, and Bralani have some useful at-will SLA's and 2/day CSW if something truly wrong has occurred and it becomes the summoner's job to heal. The gems are pretty tightly packed underneath the mediocre crap, I'll admit. The biggest use of those spells is as methods of putting walls of meat between your opponent and where they want to be, and most of the things available to those spells are weak enough that you'd be better off putting an actual wall down instead.

I wonder what it says that such things are considered on roughly equal level with an equal-level fighter?

[Emperor Tippy]

Summon Monster is bad? Maybe in Tippy's games, but in mine, it is one of the most powerful spell lines yet demonstrated. Unless the monsters you're fighting are smart and can deal with the presence of a summon, Summon Monster is a "no save, just stop bothering me for several rounds" kind of spell. Summons require actions to take out, usually, which are actions spent not taking out the caster. And if you avoid the summon, you prolong its duration. Not the "spell times out in X rounds" duration, the "I will kill this in Y rounds" duration.

So you can either ignore the summon and take Attacks of Opportunity/Full Attacks/whatever that will just keep piling up because summoners never settle for just one summon, or you can spend 2+ rounds to kill it and do nothing else productive.

I find that it runs into one of three problems.

1) It is too slow. Combat should be over with within 2 rounds at the outside, before your opponent can act in an ideal world, and it doesn't have a long enough duration to be pre-cast.
2) The summoned creature is too easily dealt with or ignored.
3) It is too easily blocked in an almost incidental manner.

Anywhere that blocks dimensional travel blocks summoning, and generally anywhere worth visiting has blocks against dimensional travel.

I find that Simulacrum's, Ice Assassin's, creatures called up via Planar Binding, Undead, mind controlled thralls, and constructs stored in a Smokey Confinement vial serve the same role far more effectively.

At least unless you are willing to invest in the items, feats, and classes required to make Summoning better.

[SowZ]

Most feats are garbge and most PrCs are good for just one or two abilities, so you don't really have to remember it all. Just the good bits.

[Emperor Tippy]

I'll more or less agree with you on SM3 at least. The only ones that are interesting as more than goons are the elementals, and the only reason you'd use them is as scouts with atypical movement methods, and for most applications something from SM2 or 1 is probably going to be either equally as good or not bad enough to be regretted. The later ones do have some interesting SLA access though. Lantern Archons are good sources of pocket change in the form of infinite-use Continual Flame for instance, and Bralani have some useful at-will SLA's and 2/day CSW if something truly wrong has occurred and it becomes the summoner's job to heal. The gems are pretty tightly packed underneath the mediocre crap, I'll admit. The biggest use of those spells is as methods of putting walls of meat between your opponent and where they want to be, and most of the things available to those spells are weak enough that you'd be better off putting an actual wall down instead.
The Summon line isn't bad. It just appears a lot better on first glance than it really is. If the Summon's had a duration of Minutes/Level it would be decently good simply for the ability to get them out for more than one combat and actually get real utility uses out of them.


I wonder what it says that such things are considered on roughly equal level with an equal-level fighter?
That most people really don't know how to make a good fighter. A well built Fighter of the same level as the Summon Monster X caster should destroy any of the summons fairly easily.

[Jeff the Green]

Lantern Archons are good sources of pocket change in the form of infinite-use Continual Flame for instance

No, they're not.


When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire.

[SowZ]

The Summon line isn't bad. It just appears a lot better on first glance than it really is. If the Summon's had a duration of Minutes/Level it would be decently good simply for the ability to get them out for more than one combat and actually get real utility uses out of them.


That most people really don't know how to make a good fighter. A well built Fighter of the same level as the Summon Monster X caster should destroy any of the summons fairly easily.

Although the spell list of many summons makes them more useful/powerful than an equivalent level fighter. Assuming the summon is played intelligently, of course.

[Kazyan]

I find that it runs into one of three problems.

1) It is too slow. Combat should be over with within 2 rounds at the outside, before your opponent can act in an ideal world, and it doesn't have a long enough duration to be pre-cast.
2) The summoned creature is too easily dealt with or ignored.
3) It is too easily blocked in an almost incidental manner.

Anywhere that blocks dimensional travel blocks summoning, and generally anywhere worth visiting has blocks against dimensional travel.

I find that Simulacrum's, Ice Assassin's, creatures called up via Planar Binding, Undead, mind controlled thralls, and constructs stored in a Smokey Confinement vial serve the same role far more effectively.

At least unless you are willing to invest in the items, feats, and classes required to make Summoning better.

No wonder there's such an observed difference, then--you have environmental, gameplay, or metagame (in the M:tG sense) conditions that don't occur in my groups.

Turns out this game is complicated.

[nedz]

I went through a period of trying out summoner NPCs and found that they were fairly poor in combat. This was against a mid-level mid-op party who had all optimised for AC. It got to the point where the PCs would just move past the summoned creatures provoking AoOs; which would usually miss, or do trivial amounts of damage. It did stop them charging down the casters, but that was about it.

The real value of these spells are the SLAs which are available. E.g. a 7+ level Druid always has Neutralise Poison available — which is a spell you scroll otherwise.

You can also use them with a stealth caster to create apparently left field encounters though. Such casters are easy to make recurring villains too since they just spew out a long stream of wandering monsters and then bug out if caught.

[eggynack]

Moon lust is situational though — unless maybe you could subvert "the moon" ?
It can work off of an imagined moon, so it doesn't seem all that situational.

Well, first off remember what Honest Abe said: "The trouble with things posted on the Internet forums is that you can never know if they are genuine." --Abraham Lincoln
Completely untrue in this case. All you need to do to know if something online is genuine is give it some basic tests against logic and your own knowledge. All of the information to give your own assessment is right there, so while you might give internet denizens a hefty stack of leeway, perhaps modified by optimization track record, if you start seeing stuff that doesn't at all match your understanding then you can doubt the information or even post a rebuttal.


A lot of stuff you have has to do with an ''interpretation'' of the rules to fit the spin of the poster.

Not really. Most spell screwery is straight from the tap RAW. Sure, sometimes you might wind up with a spell with a history of arguments behind it, and whose power in part relies on the result of those arguments, like polymorph (though it's good no matter what), but for the most part these spells are just about perfectly understood. People don't make far out rules interpretations to find solid fog good, for example.


And just as importunately is to keep in mind the game your playing in. Every DM is different. Some let anything go, some a more strict, and so on.
As above, many of these things are just RAW, and not open to interpretation RAW at that. Just as an example, consider Tippy's analysis of resilient sphere, and tell me where it relies on some far out rules interpretation.


Remember that there is no ''right'' way to pick spells or combos. And even if a spell combo sounds great, it can be countered or not even work.

There is, perhaps, no perfect and flawless approach, but you can do significantly better with spell selection if you approach it intelligently and with optimization in mind. As for combos, I suppose some can be countered, but if that's the case then you should just account for the possible counter in your analysis.


The best advice is to just play the game and see what spells work good for you.
That gets you to a reasonable game-state, certainly, but if a person is seeking the ability to run massive comparative analysis on this game's spells and other game objects, as the OP is, then they're going to need more than just gut instinct and experience.

Incidentally, I just remembered that I have a sweet spell assessment using somewhat a somewhat unexpected form of comparative analysis, at least from my perspective. In particular, I was skeptical of my initial thought that flesh to salt was some cool double threat SoD/blasting spell, or even an inefficient SoD/blasting spell. The relevant part of the assessment went as follows:


While it initially appears to be something more than that, something like a save or die with an upside, in actuality flesh to salt functions more as a completely standard blasting spell. This is because any enemy that would be killed through the save or die aspect of flesh to salt, taking half their HP in damage and failing the relevant save, would equally die by failing a save against your standard 1d6/level damage spell. After all, if you’re dealing half damage with 1d6/2 levels, then you should logically be dealing full damage with 1d6/level. Granted, this spell does bypass elemental resistance and evasion effects, but it’s also a higher level blasting spell than most, and lacks the secondary benefits you’d expect from that spell level.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I went through a period of trying out summoner NPCs and found that they were fairly poor in combat. This was against a mid-level mid-op party who had all optimised for AC. It got to the point where the PCs would just move past the summoned creatures provoking AoOs; which would usually miss, or do trivial amounts of damage. It did stop them charging down the casters, but that was about it.


That's less a problem with summoning and more a consequence of attacking a defense your opponent has optimised. Not that summoning is especially effective if you don't invest in it (standard action summoning, feats, etc.) but the example given is hardly a fair assessment of its value. There's quite a few summons that have attacks that target another defense, at least at the higher spell levels.

[Chronos]

Sometimes you look through all of the guides and still miss something. Take the melee cleric I played a few games ago, for instance: It wasn't until the third session that I noticed the Undead Bane Weapon spell. Now, granted it's a bit situational, in that we were running an undead-heavy campaign, and my cleric was a melee sort anyway... but it's still a fairly low-level spell with a very long duration, and undead are one of the more commonly-encountered creature types. It was also good in that my party expected me, as the cleric, to be handling undead, and I didn't have any other good way to do that (Turn Undead is highly overrated, and I was using all of my turns on persisting anyway). For comparison, the Ghost Touch Weapon spell is the same level, and also gives a +1 equivalent ability to your weapon, but only lasts for minutes instead of hours.

[nedz]

It can work off of an imagined moon, so it doesn't seem all that situational.
I had visions of the party barbarian dropping his britches, and having them become fascinated with his a*** :smallbiggrin:

[Sam K]

Relying exclusively on what someone else tells you to pick tends to get pretty dull after a while. On the other hand, while re-inventing the wheel can sometimes be fun, there's no need to start out with a square wheel.

Just combine the best of two worlds: start out with picking some spells that are recommended by alot of players. That gives you a solid foundation of spells that will most likely be useful in most situations you find yourself in. If there are some that seem like they could be interpreted in more than one way, talk to your DM about them.

Once you have a few levels and some experience in your "baseline" spells, you'll probably have a better idea of what kind of spells you like the feel of, and what playstyle you prefer. While battlefield control is indisputably better than blasting, perhaps you don't like the playstyle. And hey, as long as you're not in an extremely high powered game, it's actually ok to do some blasting despite what the forums may tell you. Don't take the handbooks as the ultimate truth; take them as useful information, and make informed decisions.

If that doesn't work? Ice assassin!

[WhamBamSam]

I find that it runs into one of three problems.

1) It is too slow. Combat should be over with within 2 rounds at the outside, before your opponent can act in an ideal world, and it doesn't have a long enough duration to be pre-cast.
2) The summoned creature is too easily dealt with or ignored.
3) It is too easily blocked in an almost incidental manner.

Anywhere that blocks dimensional travel blocks summoning, and generally anywhere worth visiting has blocks against dimensional travel.

I find that Simulacrum's, Ice Assassin's, creatures called up via Planar Binding, Undead, mind controlled thralls, and constructs stored in a Smokey Confinement vial serve the same role far more effectively.

At least unless you are willing to invest in the items, feats, and classes required to make Summoning better.Going off on something of a tangent, does this mean that you'd disagree with the generally held opinion that Zceryll raises Binders to T2? I guess Summon Alien doesn't have all those disadvantages, since it only refers to Summon Monster in terms of what it can summon, and therefore probably defaults to a standard action and the summons might not ever actually go away until something gets rid of them. And of course, you still get the various SLAs and things that the creatures have as a sort of downtime spell list.

Also I imagine that Binders in your games know a bunch of psionic powers and power versions of spells thanks to Psychic Chirurgery and the Psionic Vestiges, and probably use a few other high-power tricks as well, so maybe their place on your tier list has very little to do with Zceryll in the first place.

[Extra Anchovies]

Going off on something of a tangent, does this mean that you'd disagree with the generally held opinion that Zceryll raises Binders to T2? I guess Summon Alien doesn't have all those disadvantages, since it only refers to Summon Monster in terms of what it can summon, and therefore probably defaults to a standard action and the summons might not ever actually go away until something gets rid of them. And of course, you still get the various SLAs and things that the creatures have as a sort of downtime spell list.

Also I imagine that Binders in your games know a bunch of psionic powers and power versions of spells thanks to Psychic Chirurgery and the Psionic Vestiges, and probably use a few other high-power tricks as well, so maybe their place on your tier list has very little to do with Zceryll in the first place.

A few things worth noting about Zceryll:
1. There's no stated duration on the Summon Alien ability (and the ability doesn't copy the full spell effect of Summon Monster, so it's not just 1 round/EBL).
2. Even if you put a duration on the ability, there's still no limit to how many you can have out at a time.
3. Summon Alien is (Su), and is thus a standard action to use. That's free Rapid Spell on all of your summons, which turns them into viable combat options.
4. The vestige gives you 100-foot telepathy and Mindsight.
5. The vestige gives you the pseudonatural template, which grants SR, DR, acid/electricity resistance, and the outsider type (so you're immune to charm/dominate/hold person, and can do some serious alter self abuse if you're also a caster).

[WhamBamSam]

A few things worth noting about Zceryll:
1. There's no stated duration on the Summon Alien ability (and the ability doesn't copy the full spell effect of Summon Monster, so it's not just 1 round/EBL).
2. Even if you put a duration on the ability, there's still no limit to how many you can have out at a time.
3. Summon Alien is (Su), and is thus a standard action to use. That's free Rapid Spell on all of your summons, which turns them into viable combat options.
4. The vestige gives you 100-foot telepathy and Mindsight.
5. The vestige gives you the pseudonatural template, which grants SR, DR, acid/electricity resistance, and the outsider type (so you're immune to charm/dominate/hold person, and can do some serious alter self abuse if you're also a caster).I did sort of make note of the duration thing in my post and the fact that it should default to a standard action, due to being (Su), though I suppose I could've been clearer on those points.

The Mindsight is certainly a very nice thing, but not world-shattering on its own.

I didn't notice that Zceryll granted the pseudonatural template prior to now. That's a nice thing, though most non-caster Binders are Outsiders anyway due to Knight of the Sacred Seal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Although the spell list of many summons makes them more useful/powerful than an equivalent level fighter. Assuming the summon is played intelligently, of course.

None of the summons, IIRC, actually have any spell lists. They have a handful of SLA's that make them useful in a grand sense but none of them stand a snowball's chance against a well made warrior.

If you want fighter: the class feature, you want optimized animal companions, special mounts, familiars, and etc, not summoned monsters.

[Emperor Tippy]

Going off on something of a tangent, does this mean that you'd disagree with the generally held opinion that Zceryll raises Binders to T2? I guess Summon Alien doesn't have all those disadvantages, since it only refers to Summon Monster in terms of what it can summon, and therefore probably defaults to a standard action and the summons might not ever actually go away until something gets rid of them. And of course, you still get the various SLAs and things that the creatures have as a sort of downtime spell list.

Also I imagine that Binders in your games know a bunch of psionic powers and power versions of spells thanks to Psychic Chirurgery and the Psionic Vestiges, and probably use a few other high-power tricks as well, so maybe their place on your tier list has very little to do with Zceryll in the first place.

As I said, Summon Monster would be great with a duration measured in minutes/level. The unlimited duration of Zceryll combined with the standard action casting time makes it phenomenally good. I still don't generally think that it rates as Tier 2 but it is certainly borderline at the least.


None of the summons, IIRC, actually have any spell lists. They have a handful of SLA's that make them useful in a grand sense but none of them stand a snowball's chance against a well made warrior.

If you want fighter: the class feature, you want optimized animal companions, special mounts, familiars, and etc, not summoned monsters.

Couatl's do, for example, and they can be summoned with Summon Monster 9.

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Couatls

So they do. 9th level sorcerer casting on 9 outsider HD vs 17th level fighter comes out to dicey at best, not "the fighter's screwed."

A quick look also shows that lillends cast as 6th level bards from SM8 but that's essentially nothing at 15th level.

There may be a few others but, ultimately, the point remains. SM =/= total replacement for a well built fighter. Not even close.

[eggynack]

@Couatls

So they do. 9th level sorcerer casting on 9 outsider HD vs 17th level fighter comes out to dicey at best, not "the fighter's screwed."

A quick look also shows that lillends cast as 6th level bards from SM8 but that's essentially nothing at 15th level.

There may be a few others but, ultimately, the point remains. SM =/= total replacement for a well built fighter. Not even close.
I think that was really just a response to the, "You don't get real spells," thing. You're not going to summon a celestial charger if you want to outperform a fighter. Using summons to outperform a fighter is really more of a druid thing than a wizard thing anyway, though wizards can pull off the whole multiplied actions shtick. Point is, a huge earth elemental out of a 6th level slot might not replicate a fighter perfectly, but it's not all that far off. That's 16 HD at level 11, after all, and it's a creature that doesn't fall too far behind by most metrics.

It's not like you need a real fighter out of these spells if that's what you're looking for. You just need something that can fill in for the general role, by dealing damage, controlling the battlefield, and maybe absorbing some hits. That's just a generally true thing when it comes to the task of a caster emulating a melee character. Sure, if you can get perfect emulation at a reasonably low cost, that's great, but good enough is very much good enough. It helps that you get some combat variety if you want it, able to spontaneously pull on tripping or grappling or pouncing at a whim.

[JDL]

Apologies for persisting the discussion of one particular line of spells, but I think it bears further examination.

Summon Monster VI and Summon Monster VII are, in my opinion, two of the biggest, baddest straight damage dealing spells in the game, for one simple reason: Air Elementals.

An Air Elemental is a brutal, vicious creature due to its Whirlwind (Su) ability. Yes, that huge wall of text in the Monster Manual. Take the time to read it, if you would:

Whirlwind (Su)
The elemental can transform itself into a whirlwind once every 10 minutes and remain in that form for up to 1 round for every 2 HD it has. In this form, the elemental can move through the air or along a surface at its fly speed.

The whirlwind is 5 feet wide at the base, up to 30 feet wide at the top, and up to 50 feet tall, depending on the elemental’s size. The elemental controls the exact height, but it must be at least 10 feet.

The elemental’s movement while in whirlwind form does not provoke attacks of opportunity, even if the elemental enters the space another creature occupies. Another creature might be caught in the whirlwind if it touches or enters the whirlwind, or if the elemental moves into or through the creature’s space.

Creatures one or more size categories smaller than the elemental might take damage when caught in the whirlwind (see table for details) and may be lifted into the air. An affected creature must succeed on a Reflex save when it comes into contact with the whirlwind or take the indicated damage. It must also succeed on a second Reflex save or be picked up bodily and held suspended in the powerful winds, automatically taking the indicated damage each round. A creature that can fly is allowed a Reflex save each round to escape the whirlwind. The creature still takes damage but can leave if the save is successful. The DC for saves against the whirlwind’s effects varies with the elemental’s size (see the table). The save DC is Strength based.

Creatures trapped in the whirlwind cannot move except to go where the elemental carries them or to escape the whirlwind.

Creatures caught in the whirlwind can otherwise act normally, but must succeed on a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell. Creatures caught in the whirlwind take a -4 penalty to Dexterity and a -2 penalty on attack rolls. The elemental can have only as many creatures trapped inside the whirlwind at one time as will fit inside the whirlwind’s volume.

The elemental can eject any carried creatures whenever it wishes, depositing them wherever the whirlwind happens to be. A summoned elemental always ejects trapped creatures before returning to its home plane.

If the whirlwind’s base touches the ground, it creates a swirling cloud of debris. This cloud is centered on the elemental and has a diameter equal to half the whirlwind’s height. The cloud obscures all vision, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. Creatures 5 feet away have concealment, while those farther away have total concealment.

Those caught in the cloud must succeed on a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell.

An elemental in whirlwind form cannot make slam attacks and does not threaten the area around it.

Round 1: You begin defensively casting a full round spell. You hope your party can hold off the enemy for this round.
Round 2: Your spell completes at the start of your turn. An Air Elemental appears and can take its full turn.

Your Air Elemental transforms into a Whirlwind as a standard action and has 100 ft. movement remaining for its turn. Each time it enters an enemy's square, that enemy must make a reflex save or take damage unless it is the same size or larger than the Elemental.

On first glance this doesn't seem like much. 2d6 for a Large or 2d8 for a Huge Air Elemental is pretty low damage. However the key thing to note is that it's each time it enters the enemy's square. The enemy can be dropped at any point, then rinse and repeat as the Elemental enters their square again. This is a (Su) ability, so spell resistance, DR, AC, and other defences don't matter. With 100 ft. movement that equals 20d6 for the Large or 20d8 for the Huge against a single opponent, with repeated reflex saves each time. And the best thing is that every successive round of combat means twice this amount when the Air Elemental can make two move actions.

However the biggest advantage isn't the damage this creature can inflict. It's the battlefield control it exerts by moving your enemies where you want them to go. Very few if any abilities in 3.5e allow this sort of effect, where you can gather a half dozen creatures up and drop them 60 ft. away. The damage is just gravy.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think that was really just a response to the, "You don't get real spells," thing. You're not going to summon a celestial charger if you want to outperform a fighter.

You know that, I know that, Tippy certainly knows that, but the point of debate is to inform and sway the audience. Thus, I respond as much to the impicit point that could be read from the comment as much as to the actual comment and Tippy's intention in making it.


Using summons to outperform a fighter is really more of a druid thing than a wizard thing anyway, though wizards can pull off the whole multiplied actions shtick. Point is, a huge earth elemental out of a 6th level slot might not replicate a fighter perfectly, but it's not all that far off. That's 16 HD at level 11, after all, and it's a creature that doesn't fall too far behind by most metrics.

Good damage sponge and an easily moved 24 tons, not much else. Low AC, average to-hit, and no notable special abilities make it a very pedestrian combatant at 11th level.


It's not like you need a real fighter out of these spells if that's what you're looking for. You just need something that can fill in for the general role, by dealing damage, controlling the battlefield, and maybe absorbing some hits. That's just a generally true thing when it comes to the task of a caster emulating a melee character. Sure, if you can get perfect emulation at a reasonably low cost, that's great, but good enough is very much good enough. It helps that you get some combat variety if you want it, able to spontaneously pull on tripping or grappling or pouncing at a whim.

The point of contention here is that SM is -not- good enough as a means to fill the role of a martial character without spending at least -some- character resources on it. The casting time is far and away the biggest problem with it for such. This can be mitigated, quite easily really, but that doesn't change the fact it -does- need mitigation.

If a typical combat lasts 5 rounds, and even the WotC knuckleheads think that's about average, then spending the entire first round doing -nothing- can have a -huge- impact on your and your team's effectiveness and that's if the summons isn't disrupted. This is magnified as combat length is reduced and mitigated as it increases but shorter combats mean less resources spent overall; a desireable goal.

Something as simple as a craft contingency to activate your highest level SM monster when you exclaim "I choose you!" will dramatically improve the spell's effectiveness and probably buy you the necessary time to cast it properly as well if you still need the extra bodies.

@JDL

Elementals, including air, aren't immune to being grappled and nothing in the whirlwhind ability's description changes that. Still decent BFC but the damage is trivial to negate.

[eggynack]

Good damage sponge and an easily moved 24 tons, not much else. Low AC, average to-hit, and no notable special abilities make it a very pedestrian combatant at 11th level.
You don't generally need that much else. It's just a big friendly source of repetitive damage that stands in the way, which is the general role you want melee folks to fill. You can get other effects with other summons though, if you need more than that.


If a typical combat lasts 5 rounds, and even the WotC knuckleheads think that's about average, then spending the entire first round doing -nothing- can have a -huge- impact on your and your team's effectiveness and that's if the summons isn't disrupted. This is magnified as combat length is reduced and mitigated as it increases but shorter combats mean less resources spent overall; a desireable goal.
You lose initiative, but you're certainly not losing time. A full round casting time spell goes off on your next turn, and on that next turn you can cast a second spell. So, over a five round combat, you're getting five spells whether one of them is a full round spell or not, unless the full round spell is straddling the end of combat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You don't generally need that much else. It's just a big friendly source of repetitive damage that stands in the way, which is the general role you want melee folks to fill. You can get other effects with other summons though, if you need more than that.

Defensive damage sponge is only a portion of what a martial character can do but let's not get into a tangent on what's already a tangent. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the SM line is a powerful and versatile line of spells, just that it obsoletes having an actual martial character around.


You lose initiative, but you're certainly not losing time. A full round casting time spell goes off on your next turn, and on that next turn you can cast a second spell. So, over a five round combat, you're getting five spells whether one of them is a full round spell or not, unless the full round spell is straddling the end of combat.

Except that getting off a full round casting time spell is far from guaranteed and not losing but -cedeing- the initiative is generally a poor idea. That's one full round where you're not harming or hampering the enemy in any way. That can make an immense impact on the resources burned in a successful fight and whether the fight even will end in success.

[eggynack]

Defensive damage sponge is only a portion of what a martial character can do but let's not get into a tangent on what's already a tangent. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the SM line is a powerful and versatile line of spells, just that it obsoletes having an actual martial character around.
It's not a perfect obsoleting without some effort, no, but it covers a good amount of ground.


Except that getting off a full round casting time spell is far from guaranteed and not losing but -cedeing- the initiative is generally a poor idea. That's one full round where you're not harming or hampering the enemy in any way. That can make an immense impact on the resources burned in a successful fight and whether the fight even will end in success.
Sure, it's a big deal, but I don't think the length of combat impacts how important it is that much. You're not losing a large fraction of total combat actions. You're just losing that first mover advantage, or perhaps trading it away on any given turn.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sure, it's a big deal, but I don't think the length of combat impacts how important it is that much. You're not losing a large fraction of total combat actions. You're just losing that first mover advantage, or perhaps trading it away on any given turn.

If the fight runs long it's because the enemy is more survivable (usually) and early mistakes aren't as impactful.

If the fight runs shorter it's because the situation is more explosive and early mistakes hurt.

It's correlation, not causation. I probably could have said so clearer in the first place.

In any case, it's my opinion that you're undervaluing the importance of being able to act first. Even if it doesn't change whether you will achieve victory, it -will- change the resources spent getting there the majority of the time.

[eggynack]

In any case, it's my opinion that you're undervaluing the importance of being able to act first. Even if it doesn't change whether you will achieve victory, it -will- change the resources spent getting there the majority of the time.
Quite possible, as it is a big advantage. However, summoning does a decent amount to make up for that loss by adding on weaker actions. You basically give up your actions turn one to get two actions turn two (your new spell and the elemental's slam), and then you can even give up that action as well to get three actions turn three, and it just keeps multiplying down like that. That's really where the length of combat would start being really relevant, I think.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Quite possible, as it is a big advantage. However, summoning does a decent amount to make up for that loss by adding on weaker actions. You basically give up your actions turn one to get two actions turn two (your new spell and the elemental's slam), and then you can even give up that action as well to get three actions turn three, and it just keeps multiplying down like that. That's really where the length of combat would start being really relevant, I think.

The problem is that what you can actually do with those extra actions is severely limited. You're giving up a spell in this round and getting a spell and a basic attack or a spell that you could've cast several levels previous. It's a poor trade.

The good SLA's don't start appearing until late game and the actions available before that just aren't worth giving up a whole round.

[aleucard]

The problem is that what you can actually do with those extra actions is severely limited. You're giving up a spell in this round and getting a spell and a basic attack or a spell that you could've cast several levels previous. It's a poor trade.

The good SLA's don't start appearing until late game and the actions available before that just aren't worth giving up a whole round.

This does change a good bit if one can summon in less than 1 round (even as a FRA), but that's mainly due to things such as Benign Transposition and the benefits that come with having something actively defending a location, even if that defense is at best meh for that level.

[eggynack]

The problem is that what you can actually do with those extra actions is severely limited. You're giving up a spell in this round and getting a spell and a basic attack or a spell that you could've cast several levels previous. It's a poor trade.

On the actions, sure, but those are presumably the sort of actions you want, in search of a fighter facsimile. It helps that the attack isn't necessarily a basic one, depending on what you're summoning. Summoning offers possibly the best path to grappling in the game, offering a sort of SoL with rapid death attached, and you can get pretty decent damage out of some options. As for spells, I don't think they're always that far behind, especially if we're talking summon monster. SM II, for example, can get you a bunch of first level spells out of a kaorti, and I don't know that, say, web is all that much better than ray of enfeeblement, color spray, and reduce person, all in a big pile. Similarly, SM III grants a bunch of second level spells, like invisibility, scare, and hideous laughter, along with stinking cloud, which is pretty high up there on the sorting algorithm of thirds.

SNA does worse on that front, of course, but there it obviously matters less. You're not sacrificing the preparation of one specific and powerful 5th level spell, say control winds, for the versatility of a few crappy SLA's like charm person, create food and water, and some cure X wounds out of a couple of unicorns. You're preparing the first and just holding onto the second if you need it. It's not a fun trade to make, but options are options. And then, of course, oreads happen, and everything becomes stupid.

[Necroticplague]

Not necessarily but they require a bit more foreknowledge of coming events to shine than the ones in the handbooks. There are some that are known traps but they're often cited in the handbooks as things to avoid like a necrotic plague. Am I really that off putting that I'm a standard of badness?

I knew having this name would end hilariously one day.

[Kelb_Panthera]

On the actions, sure, but those are presumably the sort of actions you want, in search of a fighter facsimile. It helps that the attack isn't necessarily a basic one, depending on what you're summoning. Summoning offers possibly the best path to grappling in the game, offering a sort of SoL with rapid death attached, and you can get pretty decent damage out of some options. As for spells, I don't think they're always that far behind, especially if we're talking summon monster. SM II, for example, can get you a bunch of first level spells out of a kaorti, and I don't know that, say, web is all that much better than ray of enfeeblement, color spray, and reduce person, all in a big pile. Similarly, SM III grants a bunch of second level spells, like invisibility, scare, and hideous laughter, along with stinking cloud, which is pretty high up there on the sorting algorithm of thirds.

Two levels is more than half a career back at SM2 and only slightly less so at SM3. The problem remains that, in most cases, you could've cast those lower level SLA's yourself immediately and at a higher dc instead of waiting a turn later to get a minion to do it and spent a higher level spot to boot. This becomes a lot less of a clear loss-on-investment when you can summon faster via any of several methods but at baseline it's just not a compelling choice to make -most- of the time.

Grappling doesn't become a relevant option until larger creatures with improved grab come online. You're definitely thinking of SNA rather than SM there.


SNA does worse on that front, of course, but there it obviously matters less. You're not sacrificing the preparation of one specific and powerful 5th level spell, say control winds, for the versatility of a few crappy SLA's like charm person, create food and water, and some cure X wounds out of a couple of unicorns. You're preparing the first and just holding onto the second if you need it. It's not a fun trade to make, but options are options. And then, of course, oreads happen, and everything becomes stupid.

SNA is an entirely different discussion.

[Threadnaught]

Anyone ever go back to a book after searching for stuff here and surprised at what they trip up over?

I'd totally forgotten about Ray Deflection on Treantmonk's guide to creating Wizards who are really good at casting the same Spell over and over, but since I saw it in the Spell Compendium, I've never forgotten about it.

In addition to that, Animate City from Races of Destiny and Urban Soul look interesting enough to build a concept around, I may need a little help on the concept in mind. Yeah I know, the Spell by itself is bad and the Class is situational, still, I like the idea.

[eggynack]

Two levels is more than half a career back at SM2 and only slightly less so at SM3. The problem remains that, in most cases, you could've cast those lower level SLA's yourself immediately and at a higher dc instead of waiting a turn later to get a minion to do it and spent a higher level spot to boot. This becomes a lot less of a clear loss-on-investment when you can summon faster via any of several methods but at baseline it's just not a compelling choice to make -most- of the time.
You're getting spells from the pretty distant past in the SM II case, but in exchange you're getting a pile of them, which isn't the worst trade out there, along with a bit of extra versatility from the ability to summon a fiendish wolf instead. Meanwhile, it doesn't even look like you're behind at all on SM III. On the exchange from stinking cloud to dretch, you're losing the initiative, and gaining a use of scare, a crappy stack of HP to throw in front of opponents, and of course, other summoning options from that slot. It's not a necessarily ideal trade, but it's not a bad one either by any means. e


Grappling doesn't become a relevant option until larger creatures with improved grab come online. You're definitely thinking of SNA rather than SM there. SNA is an entirely different discussion.
True. Things are just a bit muddled at this point.