PDA

View Full Version : Fixing 3.5 spells using a top-down approach



ken-do-nim
2007-04-01, 07:19 PM
A lot of very smart people have started threads about fixing spells in 3.5; there's one going on right now about forcecage. However it occurred to me that fixing all the spells in 3.5 is a gargantuan task if you do it from the bottom up. By that I mean looking at each spell individually. What I'd like to accomplish in this thread is a way to fix most of the spells (there will always be exceptions) without having to single out too many.

I plan to do this by ironing out a set of game design principles (something Wizards should have done for us). Once you have a principle, the fixes should flow free & easy.

Here's what we have so far that is mostly accepted:

Principle: A spell-caster should not be able to fight as well as a melee class without temporarily suspending their spellcasting ability to do so.
Result: The spell Tenser's Transformation is perfectly balanced because this is what it does. Divine power, however, is not. So the fix would be that for the duration of divine power, the cleric cannot cast any spells. Likewise, you'd have to ban the natural spell feat for druids, so that they can't spend all day wild shaped and be effective.

Principle: A spell-caster cannot trap a foe without a reflex save.
Result: Forcecage has to allow a reflex save.

Principle: All force effects allow spell resistance, and all can be brought down via a rod of cancellation.
Result: Wall of force & forcecage must allow spell resistance. [The idea that a golem can walk through a prismatic sphere but not a wall of force is silly beyond measure] Blade barriers can be neutralized by a rod of cancellation.

Principle: All mass spells are 4 levels higher than the normal version
Result: Bump mass resist energy up to 6th level and mass fire shield up to 8th. I think you'll find people still taking them.

Here's what we have that is still being debated:

Principle: Touch and ranged touch spells that inflict a condition (in other words, do something other than damage a foe) must allow a saving throw at -4 to negate. If there is already a save allowed, then the spell is negated if the save is made by 4 or more. If the save is made but not by 4, then the normal result occurs. Spells that already allow damage resulting on a save for half are unaffected. The save penalty increases from 4 to 8 on a successful critical.
Result: Look a few posts down.
Possible Mitigation: 7th level and up touch & ranged touch spells do not have to provide a saving throw.

Principle: All energy spells must allow spell resistance.
Result: The 4th level orb spells in Spell Compendium must allow spell resistance, as well as the blast of flame spell.

henebry
2007-04-01, 07:39 PM
I like what I see so far. I hope you'll add any new principles that you or others come up with to your first post, so it can serve as a repository for the thread.

Regarding the orb spells, it's worth noting that the school for these spells was set as conjuration precisely in order to allow spellcasters to bypass spell resistance. They also allow spellcasters (in particular Warmages) to bypass energy resistance, simply by choosing an orb spell that deals the right kind of energy damage. Because the spells are all of the same level and all have similar effects only with different energy types, taken together they function like a swiss army knife.

I suspect that this functionality (the ability to overcome both energy resistance and spell resistance) may have been necessitated by the Warmage class, given the Warmage's spell list, which is limited largely to dealing damage. One solution to the problem (this is what I do) is to limit these spells to Warmage colleges, requiring Wizards and sorcerers to go to extra trouble to obtain these secrets from the Warmage colleges.

In addition to skewing the system in other ways (as you note), the Orb spells also skew the system of magical schools, making Conjuration a viable alternative to evocation for dealing energy damage.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-01, 07:46 PM
Touch and ranged touch spells allowing saving throws to negate would by and large make them too much weaker--there's already a chance of missing the ranged touch, against most creatures, often roughly equivalent to the creature saving.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-01, 07:58 PM
Touch and ranged touch spells allowing saving throws to negate would by and large make them too much weaker--there's already a chance of missing the ranged touch, against most creatures, often roughly equivalent to the creature saving.

At low levels that's true, at medium to high levels it is not. One thing I noticed is that in 1E, the slow spell did not allow a save. In 2E, it did, but at -4. So what I was thinking is that touch & ranged touch spells that currently do not allow a save allow one but at a -4 penalty. This could even apply to spells that already allow a save. Let me explain:

Ray of enfeeblement
1E & 2E: no ranged touch, allowed a save to negate
3E: ranged touch, no save.
Proposal: ranged touch, save at -4 to negate

Ray of exhaustion
2E (ray of fatigue): no ranged touch, allowed a save to negate
3E: ranged touch, save for 1/2 first time, but already fatigued opponent gets no save
Proposal: ranged touch, if save at -4 is made, negated; if save made but not 4 more than needed, behavior as above.

Otto's dance:
1E & 2E: touch attack with no save, but it should be noted that these editions did not have a separate touch ac so the to hit was much harder AND the caster did not stay charged if the attack missed.
3E: touch attack with no save
Proposal: touch attack with save at -4 to negate

ken-do-nim
2007-04-01, 08:04 PM
I like what I see so far. I hope you'll add any new principles that you or others come up with to your first post, so it can serve as a repository for the thread.


Will do.



I suspect that this functionality (the ability to overcome both energy resistance and spell resistance) may have been necessitated by the Warmage class, given the Warmage's spell list, which is limited largely to dealing damage. One solution to the problem (this is what I do) is to limit these spells to Warmage colleges, requiring Wizards and sorcerers to go to extra trouble to obtain these secrets from the Warmage colleges.


Yeah, I thought these spells were fine in 3.0 but the change in 3.5 baffled me. If a wizard creates a magical orb in his hand and flings it at someone which then has a further possible effect, it's a magical attack that someone resistant to spells should be able to ignore. Saying that "Oh, well it's from the conjuration school, so that's why" makes no sense, and as you point out makes evocation irrelevant.

martyboy74
2007-04-01, 08:13 PM
Otto's dance:
1E & 2E: touch attack with no save, but it should be noted that these editions did not have a separate touch ac so the to hit was much harder AND the caster did not stay charged if the attack missed.
3E: touch attack with no save
Proposal: touch attack with save at -4 to negate
That kind of eliminates the point of the spell. It is Otto's Irresistable Dance, y'know.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-01, 08:23 PM
That kind of eliminates the point of the spell. It is Otto's Irresistable Dance, y'know.

Now it's Otto's Nearly Irresistible Dance. :smallcool:

Seriously though, I don't want to make exceptions for individual spells. Rather, we could change the principle so that it doesn't apply to spell levels 7-9 or something like that if the consensus thinks that is fair. (However I think that we've just made a broken spell balanced)

I'd also be happy to increase the save penalty from 4 to 8 on a critical hit, now that I think of it.

Edit: It just occurred to me that we've just made maze a lot better than Otto's Dance. Of course we could give that a save at 4 worse than normal too. Any other no save spells out there?

Variable Arcana
2007-04-01, 11:10 PM
I love the idea of a top-down approach.

I'm not so sure about the Orb spells, though. I'd have said that the point of making them conjuration was precisely to meet the condition you specify: you're hurling an orb of non-magical fire/acid/electricity/etc... that was initially created by magic. Compare to a spell where you hurl a pebble and magically transform it to a boulder in midair -- you need to roll to hit, but there's no save or spell resistance involved.

(On the other hand... I think I'd like to see the Orb spells moved into Evocation -- as a school of magic, it definitely needs all the help it can get, and these are right up Evocation's alley...)

daggaz
2007-04-02, 07:39 AM
I like the idea that force cage should give a reflex saving throw to avoid the effect (the force cage still pops into place, just you jump out of it in time). But SR? Why? Mechanically, I can understant the attempt at balance here, but in terms of realism, no. Just no. You aren't casting the spell ON a person, you are casting it on the space aound them. Inanimate objects dont get saving throws or SR. Also, its like bears said earlier, all you would really end up doing is making it so golems could walk thru force effects.

As for the Cleric nerf.... I dont quite agree. First, Divine Power is usually the last spell a good melee cleric (and not all clerics are good melee'ers) casts before he wades into battle and starts hacking stuff up, so you wont really be limiting them much there. Besides, it's short duration, the wait won't be terribly long. Also, I *like* the idea of a divine warrior who calls upon the power of the gods while in the midst of battle? Whats so terrible about that? If anything, it is mostly just divine metamagic and unbalanced splat feats/PrC's/items *cough cough nightsticks* that need to be nerfed.

A core cleric, with proper optimization, can outdue a fighter, but they are limited by their spell resources. No more spells, and are they do slightly worse. (Less feats, less hps, MAD dependancy, less weapon choices..) It seems pretty balanced to me, really.

Ramza00
2007-04-02, 07:50 AM
Principle: A magical effect has to allow spell resistance. Only when a spell produces something that is thereafter non-magical should spell resistance not apply.
Result: Wall of force & forcecage must allow spell resistance. The 4th level orb spells in Spell Compendium must allow spell resistance (so you'd probably consider moving them back to 3rd to re-balance them).

No, no, no!!!

Once a spell has "conjured" something, it does have spell resitance and it shouldn't have spell resistance. This is because it has now created a nonmagic item/effect and thus there is nothing magical about it. If I were to create an ice spear and throw it, the ice spear is no longer magical after the creation, it shouldn't get SR when it hits the monk.

If you find these spells unbalanced, such as the orb spells in CArcane/Spell Compedium the way to balance them is to make them occupy a higher slot, an orb that is 5th or 6th lvl suddenly loses much of its omph for you get it later and there is more of an opportunity cost for using the slot for such a spell. Furthemore it gets rid of orb spells with wands.


Principle: Touch and ranged touch spells that inflict a condition (in other words, do something other than damage a foe) must allow a saving throw at -4 to negate. If there is already a save allowed, then the spell is negated if the save is made by 4 or more. If the save is made but not by 4, then the normal result occurs. Spells that already allow damage resulting on a save for half are unaffected. The save penalty increases from 4 to 8 on a successful critical.
Result: Look a few posts down.
With this the devil is in the details, some spells -4 is balanced, some its too strong, some its not weak enough. You can't make a general rule, this one you have to tailor make.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-02, 08:36 AM
I like the idea that force cage should give a reflex saving throw to avoid the effect (the force cage still pops into place, just you jump out of it in time). But SR? Why?

That one's easy. It is a force effect. All other force effects in the game allow SR. Prismatic wall & prismatic sphere, both higher level effects allow SR. If a golem can walk right through a prismatic sphere, why not a forcecage?

Perhaps I should back off from the global change to what allows SR and what doesn't and limit it to force effects. I still don't see what is different about shooting a scorching ray at someone vs. throwing an orb of fire at them though.

As to clerics - divine power is a 4th level spell that is better than a 6th level wizard spell (Tenser's). My playing & DMing experience has shown me that it needs to be brought in line, and I think this is the best way. This will also make righteous might clearly better. From a game design perspective, we are basically saying if you want to match another class at what they do, you can't function well in your own class at the same time.

Fhaolan
2007-04-02, 09:04 AM
I approve of the top-down approach. In my day job I'm a systems analyst and top-down analysis pretty much always wins versus bottom-up. The only exception is when there's limited time and the product needs to be produced *fast*, in a damn-the-torpedoes kind of way. Top-down produces more consistant rules that can be applied to anything new coming down the pike. You'll end up with weird corner-case spells, of course, but that will prompt a more thorough analysis of the general rules. Very Lawful. :smallbiggrin:

I don't really have any comments about these particular rules yet, because I have to think them through. I just wanted to say good job so far.

Pocket lint
2007-04-02, 09:11 AM
I already decided on a top-down decision that no spell can affect your BAB. So Divine Power gets nerfed - still provides bonus to Str and such, but no "instant fighting mastery". It's ruled out for the same reason a fighter can't take a feat that lets him cast spells. A fighter spends years of training to get that extra edge in how to use weapons. No spell is allowed to replace that. This also takes care of some of the balance issues of polymorph et al - you might have the body of a huge dire boar, but underneath you're still this pencil-necked bookworm who barely knows one end of a sword from the other...

Dervag
2007-04-02, 09:25 AM
Regarding the orb spells, it's worth noting that the school for these spells was set as conjuration precisely in order to allow spellcasters to bypass spell resistance. They also allow spellcasters (in particular Warmages) to bypass energy resistance, simply by choosing an orb spell that deals the right kind of energy damage. Because the spells are all of the same level and all have similar effects only with different energy types, taken together they function like a swiss army knife.That's not so bad.

Remember that dealing direct damage is exactly where the 'warrior-type' classes excel. As many very intelligent people have pointed out on this site, it's battlefield control magic that allows arcane casters to dramatically outperform warrior-types, not direct damage ability. So allowing the arcane caster to throw bolts of magical energy capable of damaging almost any opponent probably won't cause as much of a problem as allowing them to cast irresistable trapping or crippling spells.


At low levels that's true, at medium to high levels it is not. One thing I noticed is that in 1E, the slow spell did not allow a save. In 2E, it did, but at -4. So what I was thinking is that touch & ranged touch spells that currently do not allow a save allow one but at a -4 penalty. This could even apply to spells that already allow a save. Let me explain:To balance this will take some math.

If touch/ranged touch spells have both a miss probability and a save probability, then we can determine the odds of the spell working by multiplying the two probabilities together.

If the wizard's ability to score a ranged touch tends to improve faster than the target's ability to avoid a ranged touch, then we need to introduce a second chance of evading. This should probably not be a Reflex save: you already benefit from dexterity once because it improves your armor class vs. the touch attack. Getting the benefit of high dexterity twice would make dextrous creatures nearly immune to ranged touch attacks.

I have no idea how to do the calculation to determine what additional probability would be appropriate to offset the fact that the wizard's ranged touch accuracy outpaces the target's touch AC; I only hope to narrow down the problem.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-02, 09:31 AM
I already decided on a top-down decision that no spell can affect your BAB. So Divine Power gets nerfed - still provides bonus to Str and such, but no "instant fighting mastery". It's ruled out for the same reason a fighter can't take a feat that lets him cast spells. A fighter spends years of training to get that extra edge in how to use weapons. No spell is allowed to replace that. This also takes care of some of the balance issues of polymorph et al - you might have the body of a huge dire boar, but underneath you're still this pencil-necked bookworm who barely knows one end of a sword from the other...

So does this mean you ban Tenser's Transformation as well?

ken-do-nim
2007-04-02, 09:34 AM
That's not so bad.

Remember that dealing direct damage is exactly where the 'warrior-type' classes excel. As many very intelligent people have pointed out on this site, it's battlefield control magic that allows arcane casters to dramatically outperform warrior-types, not direct damage ability. So allowing the arcane caster to throw bolts of magical energy capable of damaging almost any opponent probably won't cause as much of a problem as allowing them to cast irresistable trapping or crippling spells.



Actually I believe the orb spells have additional side effects too btw that the victim hit needs to save against.

There's also that blast of flame spell that does a cone of fire which does not allow SR. Um, why? Oh, because it's conjuration, see? Yeah, sure. It's like fuzzy math.



If the wizard's ability to score a ranged touch tends to improve faster than the target's ability to avoid a ranged touch, then we need to introduce a second chance of evading. This should probably not be a Reflex save: you already benefit from dexterity once because it improves your armor class vs. the touch attack. Getting the benefit of high dexterity twice would make dextrous creatures nearly immune to ranged touch attacks.


Sorry I didn't spell it out earlier, but I didn't expect the save to come as a reflex save. In most cases the save is obvious:
necromantic touch/ray -> fortitude
mind-affecting touch attack -> will

Ramza00
2007-04-02, 09:44 AM
Conjuration creates something nonmagical but it can be hostile like fire. D&D physics then apply suchs as it being hurled or you walk into a flamewall. Sometimes the magic "holds" the item together (such as the orb spells" but the spell doesn't do damage directly, no the elements themselves do it. No direct interaction thus no SR.

Evocation creates energy out of nowhere. It justs poofs and then its there. "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects," Since it directly affects a target there is SR.

Read more here
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm

henebry
2007-04-02, 09:46 AM
No, no, no!!!

Once a spell has "conjured" something, it does[n't] have spell resitance and it shouldn't have spell resistance. This is because it has now created a nonmagic item/effect and thus there is nothing magical about it. If I were to create an ice spear and throw it, the ice spear is no longer magical after the creation, it shouldn't get SR when it hits the monk.

To my mind, your example neatly works against the argument you're making. An ice spear should do no more and no less damage than a typical spear (and should probably be harder to hit with, as it is an improvised weapon). The orb spells (1d6/level, so 7d6 when the spell is first available to Wizards) do damage way out of range of alchemical acid or fire, say. So how is this a conjuration of some ordinary, non-magical fire/cold/acid/sound/force?

Morty
2007-04-02, 09:51 AM
Nevetheless, Orbs should be Evocation spells for the sake of spell school balance. Damage isn't the best option for a wizard, but it sohuld be Evocation thing- Conjuration has enough good, if stupid and badly written, spells.

Remember that dealing direct damage is exactly where the 'warrior-type' classes excel. As many very intelligent people have pointed out on this site, it's battlefield control magic that allows arcane casters to dramatically outperform warrior-types, not direct damage ability. So allowing the arcane caster to throw bolts of magical energy capable of damaging almost any opponent probably won't cause as much of a problem as allowing them to cast irresistable trapping or crippling spells.
For me, battlefield control spells shouldn't exist. It's them that make wizard so unbeatable- they can hamper oppontents or totally stop them without save or SR. Damage spells can bypass SR, since they aren't game-breaking.
Also, since we're at the subjest of SR- no spell should work in Antimagical Field. Yeah, AF rarely comes into play, but still it's supposed to render spellcasters defenceless.

martyboy74
2007-04-02, 09:52 AM
...it's magical non-magical fire?

Ramza00
2007-04-02, 10:21 AM
To my mind, your example neatly works against the argument you're making. An ice spear should do no more and no less damage than a typical spear (and should probably be harder to hit with, as it is an improvised weapon). The orb spells (1d6/level, so 7d6 when the spell is first available to Wizards) do damage way out of range of alchemical acid or fire, say. So how is this a conjuration of some ordinary, non-magical fire/cold/acid/sound/force?

Agreed, an "ice spear" should do similar damage to a normal spear, thus to do 15d6 damage you would need a very big spear :smallwink: and thus probably the 5th or 6th lvl spell.

Ramza00
2007-04-02, 10:22 AM
...it's magical non-magical fire?
Magical created it, magic has little effect now on it since it was created, you get burn still like normal fire.

Pocket lint
2007-04-02, 10:26 AM
So does this mean you ban Tenser's Transformation as well?
Not ban, nerf. It does everything but modify BAB. I'm a little hesitant towards the "grants proficiency" bit, but it won't matter all that much.
Haven't decided whether to drop spell level of Divine Power/Transformation or not. DP in particular gives you very little without the BAB increase. No skin off my back, though - it's not like either clerics or wizards are horribly underpowered for lack of that one spell.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-02, 10:34 AM
No spell should be so good that no caster is without it.

Variable Arcana
2007-04-02, 10:35 AM
Re: Ice Spear...

Unless the spell also hurls it much faster than a human thrower (or even a ballista) could.

Throw a bullet at someone -- it's not going to do nearly the damage the same bullet could when fired from a long rifle.

Re: Orbs and non-magical damage...

Who's saying that one orb of acid (7d6 damage?) is exactly the same amount of acid as in one flask of acid (1d6 damage)?

The magic of the spell lets you hurl an amount of acid that you ordinarily wouldn't be able to hurl and target accurately. That, or it's acid that's much too strong to carry around in a treated leather flask. Or some combination of the two.

On the other hand (I've never seen rules for this, but they must be out there) a Huge-sized giant ought to be able to hurl Huge flasks (casks?) of acid that do 4d6 damage instead of 1d6...

Ramza00
2007-04-02, 11:00 AM
Lets say the ice spear makes the ice spear is collosal size, a long spear does 1d8 size at medium size, and 6d6 at collosal size. Since a fighter can do multiple thrusts/throws due to bab it should be reasonable that a wizard can eventually create and throw two of them.

You get my point, do you?

Ikkitosen
2007-04-02, 11:04 AM
Lets say the ice spear makes the ice spear is collosal size, a long spear does 1d8 size at medium size, and 6d6 at collosal size. Since a fighter can do multiple thrusts/throws due to bab it should be reasonable that a wizard can eventually create and throw two of them.

You get my point, do you?

Yes, if your point is that you can make a poor argument for spell effects :smallwink:

If you asked yourself honestly (or looked at the graphics of any one of a number of D&D computer games) do you really think the spell Ice Lance makes a colossal lance? Or that Orb of Acid creates an orb a few metres across?

I personally agree that the Orb spells should be nerfed, maybe by raising their level.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-02, 11:17 AM
But there doesn't necessarily have to be more acid to deal more damage. It could just be more concentrated, or even a more potent kind of acid.

Ikkitosen
2007-04-02, 11:31 AM
Yes, it could. Or it could just be, y'know, magic.

martyboy74
2007-04-02, 12:35 PM
Yes, it could. Or it could just be, y'know, magic.

But it works in an AMF. So it has to be non-magical magic.

Ikkitosen
2007-04-02, 12:46 PM
But it works in an AMF. So it has to be non-magical magic.

Well that's whole point of the argument, isn't it? Stupid non-magical magic :smallmad:

Tellah
2007-04-02, 12:49 PM
My suggestions:

Principle: Save or Die spells aren't fun.
Result: Save or Die spells now have the effect of paralyzing the victim for hour/level.

Principle: Dominate and Charm spells have a retardedly long duration.
Result: Charm spells have a duration of hour/level. Dominate spells have a duration of minute/level.

Principle: Spells of the Polymorph school are broken, mainly because the caster retains his own mental attributes and spellcasting abilities.
Result: The caster receives the new form's mental attributes or his own, whichever is lower. Caster loses spellcasting abilities while in the new form and does not gain new spellcasting abilities.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-02, 01:01 PM
Principle: Antimagic fields prevent all magical effects from functioning inside them.
Result: No spell may be cast inside an AMF, and no spell effect that originates outside an AMF may persist within it.

martyboy74
2007-04-02, 01:22 PM
Define spell effect. Do Orb of Xs count? What about Wall of Stones?

Jothki
2007-04-02, 02:21 PM
Define spell effect. Do Orb of Xs count? What about Wall of Stones?

An orb would probably dissipate as soon as it entered the field.

Draz74
2007-04-02, 05:26 PM
No spell should be so good that no caster is without it.

Dang, guess I'd better get to work on a nerf for Detect Magic. :smalltongue:

Most wizards get Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Mage Armor, Dispel Magic, ... and I don't think any of those is very broken! I'm sure other examples could be come up with.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-02, 05:32 PM
Dang, guess I'd better get to work on a nerf for Detect Magic. :smalltongue:

Most wizards get Detect Magic, Read Magic, Prestidigitation, Mage Armor, Dispel Magic, ... and I don't think any of those is very broken! I'm sure other examples could be come up with.

They have those because they're useful, not because they're earth-shatteringly good. I can make a wizard without mage armor and people will look at me funny but it's still a functional character. I can't, however, make a wizard without ray of enfeeblement, because it's just that stupid.

Quietus
2007-04-02, 05:51 PM
Thanks... but most of my casters didn't have Ray of Enfeeblement for the longest time. *Le-gasp*

ken-do-nim
2007-04-02, 08:42 PM
They have those because they're useful, not because they're earth-shatteringly good. I can make a wizard without mage armor and people will look at me funny but it's still a functional character. I can't, however, make a wizard without ray of enfeeblement, because it's just that stupid.

My hope is that via coming up with the right spell principles aka guidelines, all the spells like that will be appropriately put in line. For instance, if ray of enfeeblement now allows a fort save at -4, it is still a good spell, but not so good as to completely overshadow all the other 1st level spells (assuming you agree it did in the first place, but you get the idea).

In other words, hopefully we won't need a principle that says, "Any spell that everybody feels stupid if they don't take" when we're all said and done with this thread.

By the way, a thank-you to all the posters so far for staying on topic.


Thanks... but most of my casters didn't have Ray of Enfeeblement for the longest time. *Le-gasp*

Mine didn't either; I didn't learn how deadly the spell was until I started DMing. When the party wizard started neutoring my big mythical monsters, I was like, "Let me fold up the DM screen and go back to 2E thank-you very much." I don't know how the game designers could have thought that a saving throw could be equated to a ranged touch attack (unless they were only thinking of low level play and medium-size critters). Also, the 1E & 2E version lasted for rounds and in 3E it is in minutes. Not to mention that in the former editions it is a 2nd level spell.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-02, 09:14 PM
My suggestions:

Principle: Save or Die spells aren't fun.
Result: Save or Die spells now have the effect of paralyzing the victim for hour/level.

Principle: Dominate and Charm spells have a retardedly long duration.
Result: Charm spells have a duration of hour/level. Dominate spells have a duration of minute/level.

Principle: Spells of the Polymorph school are broken, mainly because the caster retains his own mental attributes and spellcasting abilities.
Result: The caster receives the new form's mental attributes or his own, whichever is lower. Caster loses spellcasting abilities while in the new form and does not gain new spellcasting abilities.

Save or die - I see where you are coming from, but when you really start to think about it, you'll realize how invasive this is. If you make finger of death only paralyze, for example, you've greatly weakened the spell. You'd probably want to drop it to 3rd or 4th level. Remove paralysis, after all, is a low level spell. And what about poisons? Are you saying that the powers of arcane magic can't do better than a scorpion? Then there are the spells in place designed to prevent death, like death ward. So do those prevent paralysis too? Does freedom of movement now make one immune to finger of death? Etc. It's just more work then I'd care to do.

Dominate/charm duration - Agreed.

Polymorph - Sure you can say no casting while polymorphed, but this spell is still really broken when you cast it on the party fighter, or monk. Mental attributes? I dunno. I'm still trying to figure out a principle that works best for the polymorph chain. And you already don't get the new shape's spellcasting or spell-like abilities.


Principle: Antimagic fields prevent all magical effects from functioning inside them.
Result: No spell may be cast inside an AMF, and no spell effect that originates outside an AMF may persist within it.

Um, how is that different from RAW?

Caledonian
2007-04-02, 10:23 PM
I don't know how the game designers could have thought that a saving throw could be equated to a ranged touch attack (unless they were only thinking of low level play and medium-size critters). Also, the 1E & 2E version lasted for rounds and in 3E it is in minutes. Not to mention that in the former editions it is a 2nd level spell.

Rounds were minutes in 2E, if I remember correctly. It was probably just a sloppy transfer. I think Call Lightning in 3.0 had that problem, and was fixed in 3.5.

Nowhere Girl
2007-04-02, 10:58 PM
First, great post. I love your ideas, and I'm definitely noting them for the future. Making principles that can be applied broadly really is a stroke of genius.

Second, on the orbs: it's nonmagical once created, is it? Well then, that's easily dealt with: only a magical orb of (whatever) could be properly held and then thrown at all! A nonmagical one ...?

"Okay, you've just created an orb of acid in your hand. It promptly falls apart, as a nonmagical globe of acid summoned in midair will naturally do, and splashes all over you. Roll damage to see how badly you're hurt."

If it's nonmagical, it's instantly going to fall apart and/or hurt the caster. If it's magical -- which of course it must be -- then spell resistance applies. Case closed.

The only way you could get away with summoning a nonmagical orb and then throwing it would be to summon something like an "orb of iron" or "orb of stone." Provided the wizard is then strong enough to hold onto it, fine: he/she may attempt a normal (not touch) ranged attack with it.

As for Forcecage not being targetted on the person, sorry, nice try. I dealt with this in the thread I created on that topic already, making (I think) an excellent point about how Bigby's Interposing Hand is every bit as "indirect," yet looky looky, it allows spell resistance to walk right through it. Forcecage and Wall of Force are, as written, completely inconsistent with every other force effect, including the indirect ones.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-03, 06:50 AM
First, great post. I love your ideas, and I'm definitely noting them for the future. Making principles that can be applied broadly really is a stroke of genius.


*blush*



Second, on the orbs: it's nonmagical once created, is it? Well then, that's easily dealt with: only a magical orb of (whatever) could be properly held and then thrown at all! A nonmagical one ...?

"Okay, you've just created an orb of acid in your hand. It promptly falls apart, as a nonmagical globe of acid summoned in midair will naturally do, and splashes all over you. Roll damage to see how badly you're hurt."

If it's nonmagical, it's instantly going to fall apart and/or hurt the caster. If it's magical -- which of course it must be -- then spell resistance applies. Case closed.


Yeah, and when you look at the spells, the argument can no longer be sustained one iota.

Orb of acid - save or be sickened
Orb of cold - save or be blinded
Orb of electricity - save or be entangled
Orb of fire - save or be dazed
Orb of sound - save or be deafened
Blast of flame - cone of fire. Different than cone of cold how?

But the best of all ...

Orb of force. Yeah, that's non-magical, sure. Oh and no spell resistance of course.

It seems clear that the wizards in the conjuration school have figured everything out and have left the evocation wizards in their dust. I hear that enrollment is really, really low in the evocation school ever since the Spell Compendium came out :smallcool:

I've rewritten the principles in my 1st post to talk specifically about just energy & force effects btw.



As for Forcecage not being targetted on the person, sorry, nice try. I dealt with this in the thread I created on that topic already, making (I think) an excellent point about how Bigby's Interposing Hand is every bit as "indirect," yet looky looky, it allows spell resistance to walk right through it. Forcecage and Wall of Force are, as written, completely inconsistent with every other force effect, including the indirect ones.

And as for the inspiration for this post - I thank you

Vik
2007-04-03, 08:20 AM
Second, on the orbs: it's nonmagical once created, is it? Well then, that's easily dealt with: only a magical orb of (whatever) could be properly held and then thrown at all! A nonmagical one ...?

"Okay, you've just created an orb of acid in your hand. It promptly falls apart, as a nonmagical globe of acid summoned in midair will naturally do, and splashes all over you. Roll damage to see how badly you're hurt."

If it's nonmagical, it's instantly going to fall apart and/or hurt the caster. If it's magical -- which of course it must be -- then spell resistance applies. Case closed. Not really. It could be non-magical substance (from the relevant plane) included in some kind of force effect. Then the cast hurl it at the target, and on impact the very weak force effect is dispelled and release the non-magical stuff. Which would mean no SR.

That being said, I fully agree with you that it should allow SR, should be Evocation, etc. Same thing for Force effects, SR and Reflex save - in fact, I already houseruled these.

Matthew
2007-04-03, 06:57 PM
These seem like good ideas. I prefer a combined Bottom Up, Top Down approach myself (hmmn... something disturbing about that phrase...), but these seem like logical fixes. I like systemic consistancy, but the danger is always that it might stray into the realm of 'a bit boring'. Hopefully, that can be avoided.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-03, 09:28 PM
These seem like good ideas. I prefer a combined Bottom Up, Top Down approach myself (hmmn... something disturbing about that phrase...), but these seem like logical fixes. I like systemic consistancy, but the danger is always that it might stray into the realm of 'a bit boring'. Hopefully, that can be avoided.

I certainly don't want things to be boring! Maybe you can help me out with my current quandary:

I'm trying to decide whether the saving throw I'm giving to spells like ray of enfeeblement and enervate should be save negates or save for half. My first proposal was that these spells now allow a save to negate the effect, albeit at -4. But we could also do save for 1/2, round down*. Then the question becomes whether the save for half should still be at -4 or not.

*So if a 1st level wizard casts ray of enfeeblement and rolls a 1, the save for half would mean the effect is negated. Likewise if any wizard casts enervate and rolls a 1 and the save for half is made, the effect is negated.

Logos7
2007-04-03, 10:35 PM
I don't know why your trying to introduce a save @ -4 to save ray spells

Rays spells are inconsistant with your principals, Drop ray spells creating spells that require no touch attach but a save at the appropiate level.

By That measure also Save or Die Spells, also known as Offensive Necromancy needs to be dropped, as well as symbols, runes, traps, and quite possible melee touch attack spells.

I have a feeling your from the top down is gonna get a touch boring real fast,

Caledonian
2007-04-03, 11:23 PM
If we're truly fixing the magic system, there's no reason any particular spells need to be part of it. We can eliminate things if we wish.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-03, 11:41 PM
Um, how is that different from RAW?

There are certain spells and effects that are not affected by AMFs.

Dausuul
2007-04-04, 07:42 AM
As to clerics - divine power is a 4th level spell that is better than a 6th level wizard spell (Tenser's). My playing & DMing experience has shown me that it needs to be brought in line, and I think this is the best way. This will also make righteous might clearly better. From a game design perspective, we are basically saying if you want to match another class at what they do, you can't function well in your own class at the same time.

I would go further and say that you should never be able to match another class in its own specialty, if you have a different specialty. Clerics and wizards should never be equal to fighters in melee combat, because melee combat is what fighters do, and it's pretty much all they do.


They have [detect magic, mage armor, etc.] because they're useful, not because they're earth-shatteringly good. I can make a wizard without mage armor and people will look at me funny but it's still a functional character. I can't, however, make a wizard without ray of enfeeblement, because it's just that stupid.

Mage armor, I agree; there are substitutes available (bracers of armor, for instance). But detect magic? When have you ever seen a wizard without detect magic? Back in 2E, it didn't even count against your spells known and you got it automatically.

When everybody takes a particular spell or ability, that indicates one of three things:

1) The ability is brokenly powerful (e.g., Natural Spell for druids), or
2) The ability is an absolute necessity without which the class is pathetic (e.g., Power Attack for fighters), or
3) The ability performs a vital task which the party cannot do without (e.g., healing spells for clerics).

Spells in category 1 should be nerfed or removed; spells in category 2 should be made into class features. Detect magic falls into category 3, which is less clear-cut, but I would be inclined to make it a class feature for arcane casters (usable some level-dependent number of times per day).

ken-do-nim
2007-04-04, 08:26 AM
I would go further and say that you should never be able to match another class in its own specialty, if you have a different specialty. Clerics and wizards should never be equal to fighters in melee combat, because melee combat is what fighters do, and it's pretty much all they do.


Well getting full BAB alone doesn't make them equal fighters; that's why fighters have all those feats.



Mage armor, I agree; there are substitutes available (bracers of armor, for instance). But detect magic? When have you ever seen a wizard without detect magic? Back in 2E, it didn't even count against your spells known and you got it automatically.

When everybody takes a particular spell or ability, that indicates one of three things:

1) The ability is brokenly powerful (e.g., Natural Spell for druids), or
2) The ability is an absolute necessity without which the class is pathetic (e.g., Power Attack for fighters), or
3) The ability performs a vital task which the party cannot do without (e.g., healing spells for clerics).

Spells in category 1 should be nerfed or removed; spells in category 2 should be made into class features. Detect magic falls into category 3, which is less clear-cut, but I would be inclined to make it a class feature for arcane casters (usable some level-dependent number of times per day).

Some very good ideas there! Yeah, detect magic & dispel magic should be sorcerer & wizard class abilities, not spells. They should probably be able to spontaneously cast these just like clerics can spontaneously cast heal.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-04, 08:30 AM
I don't know why your trying to introduce a save @ -4 to save ray spells

Rays spells are inconsistant with your principals, Drop ray spells creating spells that require no touch attach but a save at the appropiate level.

By That measure also Save or Die Spells, also known as Offensive Necromancy needs to be dropped, as well as symbols, runes, traps, and quite possible melee touch attack spells.

I have a feeling your from the top down is gonna get a touch boring real fast,

I think you misunderstand. My principle is based on the fact that allowing a saving throw is a more fair way of affecting an individual with a condition than simply a touch attack alone. That's how 2E did it, and I never felt these system-wide problems occurred in 2E. In fact, I'm getting a bit nostalgic for 2E. Except then I pick up my shiny new Magic Item Compendium and those thoughts go away somewhat. :smallcool:

Btw, there are some ray spells that do already require a touch attack and a save. Prismatic ray, for example, is a perfectly balanced spell in the Spell Compendium; I wouldn't touch it at all.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-04, 02:02 PM
Why're saving throws more fair than touch attacks? Both have a certain chance of failure--more against some targets, less against others.

Matthew
2007-04-04, 02:12 PM
It's always seemed to me that the problem doesn't really lie with the Spells in these cases, but with the Saving Throw Mechanic. Imposing penalties on certain Spells is one way of handling this, but that is going to be case by case. It might be easier to just unify Saving Throws so that all Characters have a Saving throw equal to Character Level + Modifiers. Unfortunately, that solution both strays into wholesale reform of D&D and runs the risk of making things a bit boring.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-05, 01:07 PM
Why're saving throws more fair than touch attacks? Both have a certain chance of failure--more against some targets, less against others.

I think you know as well as I do that a 10th level wizard can pretty comfortably hit most of the time with a ranged touch attack. Certainly my sorcerer was able to hit practically all the time once he reached 13th and took greater heroism (+4 morale bonus to hit). Sure wizard BAB is low, but they tend to have good dex and can cast cat's grace to boost it even higher. Also, many of the higher CR monsters have low touch ac's because they are big. So hitting touch ac gets easier as you go up levels anyway.

On the other hand, saving throws are an excellent way to mitigate a spell's power. Low level spells have poor dc's, whereas high level ones have higher dcs. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know, but putting 2 & 2 together if you take a critter like our poor friend the dragon, why his touch ac isn't very good. There's tons of ray spells (or touch turned into ray) that will mute him easily. Ray of dizziness, for example, will force him only to standard actions. On a touch hit. Bye bye multiple attacks. Ray of enfeeblement will diminish his one attack left, and ray of clumsiness will lower his armor class.

Draz74
2007-04-05, 01:35 PM
I think you know as well as I do that a 10th level wizard can pretty comfortably hit most of the time with a ranged touch attack. Certainly my sorcerer was able to hit practically all the time once he reached 13th and took greater heroism (+4 morale bonus to hit). Sure wizard BAB is low, but they tend to have good dex and can cast cat's grace to boost it even higher. Also, many of the higher CR monsters have low touch ac's because they are big. So hitting touch ac gets easier as you go up levels anyway.

True ... but maybe the problem isn't where we think it is. BWL is right -- the principle is sound, that some spells should be resistable by dodging them rather than resisting them via saves. Easier against some targets, harder against others, etc.
Maybe it just needs to be harder for casters to hit with touch attacks. This could be ...
- Spells now require the caster to actually hit the AC, not just the touch AC (I actually really like this one!)
- Certain monsters, at least (e.g. dragons!) have the previous suggestion as a special ability. (Dragon hide is supposed to be so tough and magical ... so it repels magic in a way that makes Natural Armor count as part of the touch AC vs. spells?)
- Make big monsters actually have a decent Dex, and give them more Deflection bonuses or whatever to AC
- ... bring on the evil NPC Swashbuckler/Duelists! :smallwink:

ken-do-nim
2007-04-05, 01:51 PM
True ... but maybe the problem isn't where we think it is. BWL is right -- the principle is sound, that some spells should be resistable by dodging them rather than resisting them via saves. Easier against some targets, harder against others, etc.
Maybe it just needs to be harder for casters to hit with touch attacks. This could be ...
- Spells now require the caster to actually hit the AC, not just the touch AC (I actually really like this one!)
- Certain monsters, at least (e.g. dragons!) have the previous suggestion as a special ability. (Dragon hide is supposed to be so tough and magical ... so it repels magic in a way that makes Natural Armor count as part of the touch AC vs. spells?)
- Make big monsters actually have a decent Dex, and give them more Deflection bonuses or whatever to AC
- ... bring on the evil NPC Swashbuckler/Duelists! :smallwink:

I see where you are coming from, and in fact back in 1E and 2E touch spells like Harm, Destruction, and Otto's Irresistible Dance were much better balanced because (a) the caster had to hit the full armor class and (b) the caster wasn't able to hold the charge and try again.

On the other hand, one of the staples of D&D are "save or suck" spells. D&D players have ingrained in them that in general, before something really bad happens to them, the DM says, "Make a save!" Now they've got that one chance to survive, and the die is in their hands. This is key. Plus when you factor in action points and other myriad ways that a character can pump up his saving throw when it counts, you give players the illusion that the chance to "save or suck" is in their hands.

It gets really disheartening when the DM rolls to hit, says, "What's your touch ac?" and then says, "You've just been enervated for, let's see ... 3 levels." The player feels helpless. I mean, I can be a tough DM. But some of these ray spells, they're just ... cruel. At least let the players roll some dice.

TempusCCK
2007-04-05, 02:35 PM
Love the thread.

First things first. I am in total agreement with Iames, AMF should effect all spells, reguardless. ForceCage duration should be cut, and that line about it being immune to all physical attacks is bull. If a wall of force can effect me, then I can effect it. Also a reflex save would be good.

I'm not familiar with these orb spells, but it seems to me that they should be evocation spells, being as they're stronger than regular materials of their kind and created magically, I mean, sure you could create a stronger acid, but tougher ice, even if you do summon it much larger, then you've got space constriction issues, which would probably ruin the spell.

Lastly, we're forgetting one of the biggest abuses to date, Time Stop. 9th Level and considerably powerful, but casting it as a standard action is just ridiculous. You are effecting the entire universe with your magical prowess, and it only took you a few seconds. Extend the Time Stop cast time to 1 minute, ten rounds, which not only fixes it, but makes logical sense as you should be putting at least double the resources neccessary for stopping time as you get back, considering how it's working with the ENTIRE EFFING UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-05, 03:13 PM
Love the thread.

First things first. I am in total agreement with Iames, AMF should effect all spells, reguardless. ForceCage duration should be cut, and that line about it being immune to all physical attacks is bull. If a wall of force can effect me, then I can effect it. Also a reflex save would be good.


I have to read up on Anti-Magic Field; I'm not familiar with it. I've put it on my to-do list. :smallsmile:



I'm not familiar with these orb spells, but it seems to me that they should be evocation spells, being as they're stronger than regular materials of their kind and created magically, I mean, sure you could create a stronger acid, but tougher ice, even if you do summon it much larger, then you've got space constriction issues, which would probably ruin the spell.


Yeah, and like I said before when you throw in the saving throws they make you make and the fact that one of them is an orb of force, the idea that WOTC intended you to think of them as creating something non-magical doesn't hold. No, I think WOTC just thinks that the conjuration wizards invented a way to create magic that can bypass spell resistance. I happen not to be a fan of this idea.



Lastly, we're forgetting one of the biggest abuses to date, Time Stop. 9th Level and considerably powerful, but casting it as a standard action is just ridiculous. You are effecting the entire universe with your magical prowess, and it only took you a few seconds. Extend the Time Stop cast time to 1 minute, ten rounds, which not only fixes it, but makes logical sense as you should be putting at least double the resources neccessary for stopping time as you get back, considering how it's working with the ENTIRE EFFING UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.

I'm certainly not forgetting time stop. Please, please forgive me ... but I don't think time stop is broken. I love the spell. I hold it up as a model of how 9th level spells should be. Powerful indeed ... if you put the thought into it. I wish they'd fix shapechange, because it too has that flavor of requiring the player to invest some thought into how best to use it.

Just remember with time stop (& Otto's dance) that the DM rolls the spell's duration. It's not that you roll the die yourself and plan out x number of rounds. That makes a difference.

TempusCCK
2007-04-05, 03:20 PM
Which is alright, until you have Sudden Maximize or a Rod of Maximize, and you get 30 seconds of free action for 3 seconds of waving your hands and mumbling some words. The effort put forward is considerably less than the result, nothing should be that way.

I'm not saying change the spell, just increase the casting time so the enemy has a chance to stop the wizard before he can blast you with 4 Delayed Blast Fireballs or Forcecage your entire party.

elliott20
2007-04-05, 03:40 PM
I personally think the principles the OP has brought up should be even more general than what was said

Sum of it's Parts
Let's look at all possible parts of a spell
Spell Power (what it does)
Spell Slot Cost (spell level slot)
XP Costs
GP Costs
Time Cost
Verbal Comp
Somatic Comp
Special Material Comp (i.e. need to have special non-mundane item)
Duration of said spell power
mitigating condition (what kind of things will mitigate the effects of the spell)

to think of it simplistically:

spell power + duration - mitigating condition = time cost + GP cost + XP cost + Spell Slot Cost + other components

seeing as it's hard to quantify the worth being able to say, move freely underwater, this is really just a concept model rather than an actual formula. However, I think you guys generally will agree with this concept.
---------------------------------------------------------

1. fast, well, cheap, or long lasting: pick two

What this basically means that the cost of casting each spell needs to increase in some fashion, be it time, money, spell slots, or experience points spendage. Spells that utilizes a minimum of each resources should not do THAT much.

Of the four resources, spell slot is perhaps the cheapest resource since said resource can be replenished by rest. this is followed by money (depending upon the amount), which at higher levels becomes a non-issue. (Also, considering the number of spells out there that can be abused to make vast amounts of fortune, it's not really that important of a resource.) Time and Experience, however, are probably the most expensive resources out there, seeing as action time can easily make or break combat and experience you have to earn only through questing. (thus there is no cheese you can do get free experience)

Currently, the most common measurement of cost is the spell slots. The higher the slot, the supposedly more expensive it gets. However, seeing as the spell power progression is not a linear one, being able to recover these spell powers in the same approach quickly makes caster fall out of touch with the other classes.

Raise dead, for example, has a mitigating cost of one 5,000 gp diamond. This cost prevents people from wantonly using the spell without restraint.

However, this does not cover spells that are just invincible and insta-winners. This brings me to this principle:

2. Everything should have an achille's heel
That is, all spells should have some kind of condition that allows it to be mitigated. Force Cage is a case where no such weakness exists. It's the reason why field control spells are so powerful, because once it's laid down, nothing barring an even MORE powerful spell can take it down. If you get dominated, nothing can you bring you out of it barring complete and utter stupidity of the caster to give you enough saves. This kind of very permanent and very one or all mentality is what makes a lot of spells break instantly.

What if Force Cage actually can be destroyed through mundane brute force? Maybe it's a ridiculously high hardness and hit points, but at least this means that it can be destroyed.
----------------------------------------

Let's combine these all together with the two previous principles. Here's the formula again as a refresher:

spell power + duration - mitigating condition = time cost + GP cost + XP cost + Spell Slot Cost + other components

Principle 1 essentially means that the benefits must justify the costs. And if you look at how the spells are currently laid out, they do try to justify the cost. They just do so very poorly, doing so only with spell slot level, one of the most easily renewed resources.

Time stop currently does this

Stops Time at 1d4+1 rounds = one standard action + 9th level slot.

That's it. As you can see, the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. What does this mean? It means any caster of high enough level will have no reason to NOT use this spell.

Now imagine if there is an XP cost to it, or that casting this spell takes 5 full round actions. The insta cheese for this spell disappears.

Combine it with the second principle, this means that all spells should have some kind of mitigating factor.

In the case of most spells, it's a single save or an SR. However, because you get one save and one save only, you get a lot of suck or die situations. (i.e. otto's dance, where you get one save and then you're done)

What if, however, you're allowed a will save every round in Otto's dance to stop dancing? Just that alone would probably bring the spell back in line as to what it can do. Spells like blade barrier allows a ref save every time you go through it, why can't spells like Dominate Person allow you to save every such and such period of time to break out of it?

If we can follow this line of thinking, we'll find that most spells don't really require a lot of extra working around, and we can use these principles to help trouble shoot a lot of the spells problems.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-05, 03:55 PM
No spell should be so good that no caster is without it.

So that means that Magic Missile is too powerful? I don't think so

edit: But I will allow that Ray of Enfeeblement should allow a save, even after the touch attack

Caledonian
2007-04-05, 06:38 PM
So that means that Magic Missile is too powerful? I don't think so

YES.

Magic Missile never misses. It's Force damage, so it's rarely resisted. It does reasonable damage per shot. It scales in power reasonably. It's excellent at disrupting spellcasting because it forces multiple checks if it's directed all at one target. It can be focused at one target or split up between several. It can attack incorporeal things. And it's a first-level spell.

It's far too powerful, and the only reason it's still in is because it's a iconic legacy spell.

Caledonian
2007-04-05, 06:41 PM
That's it. As you can see, the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. What does this mean? It means any caster of high enough level will have no reason to NOT use this spell.

I think you mean that the benefit is far, far greater than the cost.

If the benefit was equal to the cost, there'd be no reason to use the spell.


Now imagine if there is an XP cost to it, or that casting this spell takes 5 full round actions. The insta cheese for this spell disappears.

A minor XP cost wouldn't be so bad. Five full-round actions? That would make the spell utterly useless - the cost would be greater than the benefit.

I think spells like Sleep are in more need of fixes.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-05, 07:01 PM
Not all casters have magic missile. I ban evocation on a regular basis.

Magic Missile is NOT that good. Sure, it never misses. Oh noes! A small quantity of damage! Zomgies!

ken-do-nim
2007-04-05, 09:16 PM
Not all casters have magic missile. I ban evocation on a regular basis.

Magic Missile is NOT that good. Sure, it never misses. Oh noes! A small quantity of damage! Zomgies!

And come on ... you mess with magic missile, you think you're not gonna have a small revolt on your hands to deal with? It's kind of hard to DM without players.

Draz74
2007-04-05, 09:30 PM
Which is alright, until you have Sudden Maximize or a Rod of Maximize, and you get 30 seconds of free action for 3 seconds of waving your hands and mumbling some words. The effort put forward is considerably less than the result, nothing should be that way.

I'm not saying change the spell, just increase the casting time so the enemy has a chance to stop the wizard before he can blast you with 4 Delayed Blast Fireballs or Forcecage your entire party.

Making it a full-round action, so the enemy has one chance to stop the wizard, is certainly reasonable. More than that and the spell starts to become useless.

Note that the main cost of using Time Stop is supposed to be ... a 9th-level spell slot! If wizards don't care about burning one of those anymore, then maybe the problem is just that high-level spell slots are too easy to come by. Maybe we need to actually be messing with the wizard's Spells/Day table before anything else.

Morty
2007-04-06, 03:40 AM
YES.

Magic Missile never misses. It's Force damage, so it's rarely resisted. It does reasonable damage per shot. It scales in power reasonably. It's excellent at disrupting spellcasting because it forces multiple checks if it's directed all at one target. It can be focused at one target or split up between several. It can attack incorporeal things. And it's a first-level spell.

It's far too powerful, and the only reason it's still in is because it's a iconic legacy spell.
Since when Magic Missle is overpowered? It never misses, but damage is preety low. Works neatly when finishing off woudned enemies and the like, especially with Sudden Maximize. It's average spell.

elliott20
2007-04-06, 08:18 AM
I think you mean that the benefit is far, far greater than the cost.

If the benefit was equal to the cost, there'd be no reason to use the spell.



A minor XP cost wouldn't be so bad. Five full-round actions? That would make the spell utterly useless - the cost would be greater than the benefit.

I think spells like Sleep are in more need of fixes.
Well, I was merely using 5 rounds as an example of time costs. It could be 2 full round actions, it doesn't matter. The point of my post was to talk about the principle that I think needs to be applied to the design philosophy.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 08:36 AM
Well, I was merely using 5 rounds as an example of time costs. It could be 2 full round actions, it doesn't matter. The point of my post was to talk about the principle that I think needs to be applied to the design philosophy.

Two full-round actions to gain (at minimum) two rounds? What an utter waste of an ninth-level slot.

Spells should be useful, flexible, have reasonable power, and above all should be interesting. The problem with most existing spells is that they emphasize power over the other desirable features.

elliott20
2007-04-06, 08:59 AM
well, as far as time component goes, I'm not the best judge for that since I'm nto sure of all the possible combinations out of the time stop.

but my point is that balancing the spell requires additional costs to justify it's power. now obviously, a spell needs to justify it's spell level and it needs to be useful. But I still think casting a powerful spell should not be a simple affair. It should take some serious resources. if the round thing doesn't feel right, throw an XP cost, or a GP cost, or another component cost on it, it doesn't matter.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 09:06 AM
Since when Magic Missle is overpowered? It never misses, but damage is preety low.

Compared to what? It's better than other first-level spells by far. It does more damage than many, as much as a few, but its flexibility is greater than any of the others. More importantly, it can't be protected against by most spells and resistances, and it damages incorporeal things.
It's average spell.Name another first-level spell in core that's better than it.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-06, 09:09 AM
well, as far as time component goes, I'm not the best judge for that since I'm nto sure of all the possible combinations out of the time stop.

but my point is that balancing the spell requires additional costs to justify it's power. now obviously, a spell needs to justify it's spell level and it needs to be useful. But I still think casting a powerful spell should not be a simple affair. It should take some serious resources. if the round thing doesn't feel right, throw an XP cost, or a GP cost, or another component cost on it, it doesn't matter.

I always find it helpful to return to 2nd edition. In 2nd edition, time stop only gave 1d3 rounds of free time (and rolling a 1 means you pretty much wasted the spell) and it had a casting time of 9 segments. Back in 2E, 9 segments was a pretty hefty casting time, because it meant your opponents had a good chance to cancel your spell by hitting you (no concentration checks back then, even 1 hp of damage would do it) before you finished.

So I personally don't think time stop needs fixing (nor do I care all that much, how often do you play up to that high a level?), but I think an appropriate fix would be to either make it a full-round action or a 1 round action to cast.


Name another first-level spell in core that's better than it [magic missile].

Grease, if you play with the rule that merely standing in a slick area gives the "balancing" condition, even though the victim may not in fact be making balancing checks because they aren't moving. This means that unless the victim has 5 ranks in balance, he/she is flat-footed. Also, in order to step out of a slippery area, you have to succeed on a balance check. Heavily armored foes are doomed.

Ray of enfeeblement is more potent than magic missile against living foes with low touch armor classes. [Okay, we had a thread about this a while ago, and undead don't apparently have immunity to ability penalties, just ability drain, but I urge DMs to use common sense in this matter]

Btw, I've been working on fixes for the various ray spells. I can't find the post now, but whomever said it is right, there isn't a one-size-fits-all method that is going to work. For instance, ray of enfeeblement I've given a save for 1/2, but ray of weakness [spell compendium] is weak enough as it is so I wouldn't change it.

elliott20
2007-04-06, 09:17 AM
The only reason time stop becomes problematic, in my opinion, is when you're allowed to cast a time stop WITHIN a time stop or at least be able to time stop several times in succession without repraisal. but time stop is not the only spell that this principle would apply to. magic missile, for example, could be applied to it.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-06, 09:22 AM
The only reason time stop becomes problematic, in my opinion, is when you're allowed to cast a time stop WITHIN a time stop or at least be able to time stop several times in succession without repraisal. but time stop is not the only spell that this principle would apply to. magic missile, for example, could be applied to it.

Ah good point and an easy errata to add about time stop within time stop. (Actually I don't have a clue as to why you mentioned magic missile).

I will soon turn this theoretical thread into reality, as I've been working on an extensive 3.5 spell errata that I will post soon (in a separate thread). I hope it helps somebody.

Iron_Mouse
2007-04-06, 09:38 AM
Edit: What the heck...I confuse spells and no one tells me.


For the Orb spells, just keep using the 3.0 versions (Tome&Blood). Evocation, SR allowed, save for no extra effect AND half damage. Problem solved.

elliott20
2007-04-06, 09:40 AM
meh, it's because somebody mention magic missile. The truth is, I think the principle can be applied to ANY spell we have. Once you've put a spell through it, you'll know what kind of adjustments a spell should have.

What we need, however, is to first establish a median anchor to measure against. every level needs an emblematic spell to best represent a spell of it's proper power for it's given level. Everything else should be adjusted from there on out.

to start doing this, we need to divide the spells into functional groups. Here is how I see we can group most spells:

damage
information
mobility
compulsion

obviously, these are just something I came off the top of my head so it's probably not going to be very comprehensive.

but once we've established a list, we can then place each spell on the scale and measure it against each other that way.

Dervag
2007-04-06, 09:45 AM
YES.

Magic Missile never misses. It's Force damage, so it's rarely resisted. It does reasonable damage per shot. It scales in power reasonably. It's excellent at disrupting spellcasting because it forces multiple checks if it's directed all at one target. It can be focused at one target or split up between several. It can attack incorporeal things. And it's a first-level spell.

It's far too powerful, and the only reason it's still in is because it's a iconic legacy spell.How do we fix that while still giving arcane casters the ability to throw bolts of energy from first level (which they really really ought to have)?

elliott20
2007-04-06, 09:46 AM
make it a touch range attack and that solves some of the problem. make it so that the damage doesn't scale that well and you have a pretty safe spell.

Morty
2007-04-06, 09:48 AM
Compared to what? It's better than other first-level spells by far. It does more damage than many, as much as a few, but its flexibility is greater than any of the others. More importantly, it can't be protected against by most spells and resistances, and it damages incorporeal things.
It'd 1d4+1 damage/level. Not very much, especially before 3rd level. Not enough to kill anyone- you could finish someone with it, or maybe scratch him so he'll die from one fighter's blow, but not kill. It is more powerful than many other 1st level spell, but it's in no way overpowered. It doesn't do enough damage. It's useul, not overpowered.

Name another first-level spell in core that's better than it.
Sleep- can end the whole battle.
Ray of Enfeeblement- 1d6 strenght penalty. You can totally screw melee fighting opponent with it.
Color Spray- same as sleep, exectp it works in cone.
Shield- not very strong- Mage Armor is better- but it makes you completely immune to Magic Missle.

TempusCCK
2007-04-06, 12:01 PM
Magic missle is a good spell. No problems with it here, sure it's useful, but it's no "Save or Die" spell, which are the worst.

Lidjis
2007-04-06, 12:29 PM
Name another first-level spell in core that's better than it.

Core first level spells better than Magic Missile- Grease, Sleep, Color Spray, Enlarge person, Ray of Enfeeblement, Charm Person, Silent Image.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-06, 01:33 PM
Compared to what? It's better than other first-level spells by far. It does more damage than many, as much as a few, but its flexibility is greater than any of the others. More importantly, it can't be protected against by most spells and resistances, and it damages incorporeal things. Name another first-level spell in core that's better than it.


Magic Missile does little damage (3.5 per two levels, not 3.5 per level). It hits automatically, but that's all it has going for it.

Sleep, Grease, and other spells people named are better. Sleep especially is a great example--you can Magic Missile that ogre, or you can just KO him entirely.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 05:49 PM
Grease, if you play with the rule that merely standing in a slick area gives the "balancing" condition, even though the victim may not in fact be making balancing checks because they aren't moving. This means that unless the victim has 5 ranks in balance, he/she is flat-footed. Also, in order to step out of a slippery area, you have to succeed on a balance check. Heavily armored foes are doomed.

Incorporeal foes don't care about Grease. If you don't have someone capable of taking special advantage of flat-footedness, it's only a very minor advantage.


Ray of enfeeblement is more potent than magic missile against living foes with low touch armor classes. [Okay, we had a thread about this a while ago, and undead don't apparently have immunity to ability penalties, just ability drain, but I urge DMs to use common sense in this matter]

True. Magic Missile is good against everything, though. Ray of Enfeeblement is better than it against specific types of enemies, but I don't think better overall, because of its lack of utility.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 05:54 PM
It'd 1d4+1 damage/level. Not very much, especially before 3rd level. It's slightly more than a thrown dagger with True Strike would do, except that it can't attack objects, and it's better than a thrown dagger with True Strike.


It is more powerful than many other 1st level spell, but it's in no way overpowered. It doesn't do enough damage. It's useul, not overpowered.

It's useful indefinitely. 20th-level mages would still throw it around.


Sleep- can end the whole battle.

Unless the creatures you're facing have more than four hitdice. Sleep is too powerful at first, and then becomes utterly useless. Its utility is far below Magic Missile.


Ray of Enfeeblement- 1d6 strenght penalty. You can totally screw melee fighting opponent with it. Does nothing against incorporeal undead.


Color Spray- same as sleep, exectp it works in cone.

Almost as bad as Sleep.


Shield- not very strong- Mage Armor is better- but it makes you completely immune to Magic Missle.

Draz74
2007-04-06, 06:03 PM
Caledonian -- I think the people you're arguing with are thinking of low-level games. Sleep and Color Spray are Uberspells at low levels. You're right that Sleep becomes useless and Color Spray becomes "meh" as the game goes on.

... But as the game goes on, the Wizard doesn't CARE what his 1st-level spells are. I mean, he cares about some of them. But after, say, 9th level, he'll be equally good if he prepares Sleep, Magic Missile, or Color Spray in his leftover "non-utility" Level 1 spell slot, because he'll pretty much never run out of spells of higher levels.

Level 20 Wizards don't still use Magic Missile, not if they're contributing reasonably to the battle. Magic Missile does 17.5 points of damage, on average, max. Even Quickened, that's not a very good use of the Wizard's time at high levels.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 06:25 PM
It's a great way to interrupt spellcasting - which Sleep and Color Spray are not - and it has a nice range to it.

My 20th-level wizards have still used Magic Missile and found it quite useful indeed, particularly for those occasions where missing would be extremely bad.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-06, 07:17 PM
It's a great way to interrupt spellcasting - which Sleep and Color Spray are not - and it has a nice range to it.

My 20th-level wizards have still used Magic Missile and found it quite useful indeed, particularly for those occasions where missing would be extremely bad.

I've only played my sorcerer to 17th (dangit, one more level to get 9th level spells but no gaming group!), and I have found that magic missile has stopped being useful. The times I have used it, I wished I had ray of enfeeblement instead. At these levels, most foes have 200+ hit points, and the 17 I do with magic missile is a total drop in the bucket. Lowering a foe's attacks & damage by 3-5, however, would be really useful. My sorcerer rarely misses because I always make sure he has greater heroism on, so his BAB is 8 +4 for dex +4 heroism = +16 to ranged touch attacks. He usually attacks from greater invisibility making that +18 and opponent loses dex. If I want to nail a spellcaster, I empowered enervate. Remember that each negative level does 5 hp damage, so empowered enervate does 5-30 damage on top of draining 1-6 spells (which could be the one being cast).

I do believe that an arcane caster should keep one spell around to deal with incorporeal undead. It doesn't have to be magic missile. This reminds me I really do need to get back to that "optimal sorcerer" spells thread. My sorcerer has mordenkainen's sword, but with the house rule attached that switching targets is a move action.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-06, 07:41 PM
It's slightly more than a thrown dagger with True Strike would do, except that it can't attack objects, and it's better than a thrown dagger with True Strike.

It's useful indefinitely. 20th-level mages would still throw it around.
Why would a 20th level mage cast Magic Missile? In what circumstances?
Yeah, it's better than True Strike + thrown dagger. Of course, True Strike + dagger is a terrible, terrible waste of actions.


Unless the creatures you're facing have more than four hitdice. Sleep is too powerful at first, and then becomes utterly useless. Its utility is far below Magic Missile.You stop casting Sleep after the first few levels. Magic Missile stops doing anything significant after those levels. Do you really thing 5d4+5 damage matters at 20th?


Does nothing against incorporeal undead.Um, so? Why do you need, specifically, a first-level spell that deals with incorporeal undead? There are plenty of other ways.


Almost as bad as Sleep.Stays useful a lot longer, since it can stun enemies. Much better than Magic Missile.


Using an action to cast Magic Missile is, at high levels, effectively wasting your action.

You've yet to demonstrate why doing an insignificant amount of damage (At 20th you're doing 17.5 average damage) makes the spell good, much less great.
Interrupt spellcasting? Come on. What about Shield and Spell Turning? What about high-level casters making their concentration check?

ken-do-nim
2007-04-06, 08:23 PM
The outcome of this thread is being accumulated in this thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39928

Let's keep this thread going for more discussion though.

Caledonian
2007-04-06, 09:40 PM
Why would a 20th level mage cast Magic Missile? In what circumstances?

To negate Mirror Image. To do damage to incorporeal creatures without expending major resources. Any time that a specific spell is unlikely to be available, and so a spell that is effective in virtually any situation is necessary.


Yeah, it's better than True Strike + thrown dagger. Of course, True Strike + dagger is a terrible, terrible waste of actions.

Yes: it's a major commitment of resources for a return of damage. It's a terrible waste, especially considering that MM is superior to the combo in every possible way.


You stop casting Sleep after the first few levels. Magic Missile stops doing anything significant after those levels. Do you really thing 5d4+5 damage matters at 20th?

Yes.


Um, so? Why do you need, specifically, a first-level spell that deals with incorporeal undead? There are plenty of other ways.

For low-level characters? For wizards? Not really. There are specific other methods, but if you didn't happen to prepare them, the fact that they exist is scant consolation.


Interrupt spellcasting? Come on. What about Shield and Spell Turning? What about high-level casters making their concentration check?

Ideally, you cast the spell at someone engaged in combat with several of your compatriots. No need to see if you hit your allies accidentally. Casting ranged attack spells into melee is a terribly dangerous thing to do.

5d4+5, from 300 feet away? For a 1st-level slot? Priceless.

Alakallanar
2007-04-07, 03:43 AM
Ideally, you cast the spell at someone engaged in combat with several of your compatriots. No need to see if you hit your allies accidentally. Casting ranged attack spells into melee is a terribly dangerous thing to do

If an opposing spellcaster is engaged in combat with several of your compatriots your MM is the least of his problems. Especially at higher levels.

At high levels you will have utility spells in your first level slots, not something like MM. At low levels sleep or color spray are way better ( except if you are fighting undead 3-4 times a day ). MM gets somewhat more interesting during the levels 5-7 when sleep and color spray become less useful and first level spells are still a serious part of your magical arsenal, but even at that time there are better spells like enlarge. It probably is one of the best damage-dealing spells, but beeing the best of a group of rather sucky spells doesn`t make it good.





You stop casting Sleep after the first few levels. Magic Missile stops doing anything significant after those levels. Do you really thing 5d4+5 damage matters at 20th?
Yes.

At this level the damage will be negligible. And for interrupting spellcasters there are far more potent options. Chances are the opponent makes his concentration check or has some protection running (shield?).

Morty
2007-04-07, 04:58 AM
To negate Mirror Image. To do damage to incorporeal creatures without expending major resources. Any time that a specific spell is unlikely to be available, and so a spell that is effective in virtually any situation is necessary.
Sure, MM is useful. But that doesn't make it overpowered. The damage is far too low for this spell to be overpowered



You stop casting Sleep after the first few levels. Magic Missile stops doing anything significant after those levels. Do you really thing 5d4+5 damage matters at 20th?Yes.
What? On 20 level both casters and noncasters have so much better ways of dealing damage. Meteor Shower, for example. Or barbarian with some uber-enchanted greataxe.


For low-level characters? For wizards? Not really. There are specific other methods, but if you didn't happen to prepare them, the fact that they exist is scant consolation.
Yes, you can damage uncorporeal undead with MM. But this damage is low, so it doesn't make this spell broken.


Ideally, you cast the spell at someone engaged in combat with several of your compatriots. No need to see if you hit your allies accidentally. Casting ranged attack spells into melee is a terribly dangerous thing to do.
Yes, but you're doing 5d4+5 damage for maximum.


5d4+5, from 300 feet away? For a 1st-level slot? Priceless.
Any good archer build can make 5 attacks each one dealing at least 12 points of damage from that distance.
Compared to what can wizard do on 20th level MM is as worthless as other 1st level spells.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 06:36 AM
Sure, MM is useful. But that doesn't make it overpowered. The damage is far too low for this spell to be overpowered

The other useful 1st-level spells people mentioned have very short ranges. Color Spray and Burning Hands, for example, have a range of 15 ft. MM? 100 +10 ft/lvl.


What? On 20 level both casters and noncasters have so much better ways of dealing damage. Meteor Shower, for example. Or barbarian with some uber-enchanted greataxe.I just love that you're comparing MM against Meteor Shower to demonstrate that it's not overpowered.


Yes, you can damage uncorporeal undead with MM. But this damage is low, so it doesn't make this spell broken.Lower than what? How many 2nd-level spells will damage incorporeal undead?

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_152



But there's a lot more to spell conversions than just that—most of which comes down to balance. Here's a little secret: Some spells in the core rules are unbalanced. I bet you never knew.
Of course you knew that. Every wizard prepares mage armor. Everyone knows that magic missiles are better than every other 1st-level attack spell. They're better than many 2nd-level spells.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 06:42 AM
Magic Missile is far more powerful than other spells of its level, and I don't mean in raw damage (although it's better there as well), but in total utility. It allows mages to attack into melee without risk, to avoid to-hit rolls, to ignore saves, to damage living beings and undead equally, to hit incorporeal things and/or things on the Ethereal Plane, and to do so from a range great enough to avoid many of the threats of combat.

Even better, it lacks the sort of cheese that makes facing people with Sleep or Color Spray such a headache. Those spells are just poorly-designed, but Magic Missile is just pure good. And it never stops being good - eventually 1st-level slots aren't particularly potent, true, but even then there's only so many utility spells that *can* go in those slots. The leftovers? Put a MM into them.

This is really, really obvious, people.

Artemician
2007-04-07, 08:11 AM
Magic Missile is far more powerful than other spells of its level, and I don't mean in raw damage (although it's better there as well), but in total utility. It allows mages to attack into melee without risk, to avoid to-hit rolls, to ignore saves, to damage living beings and undead equally, to hit incorporeal things and/or things on the Ethereal Plane, and to do so from a range great enough to avoid many of the threats of combat.

Even better, it lacks the sort of cheese that makes facing people with Sleep or Color Spray such a headache. Those spells are just poorly-designed, but Magic Missile is just pure good. And it never stops being good - eventually 1st-level slots aren't particularly potent, true, but even then there's only so many utility spells that *can* go in those slots. The leftovers? Put a MM into them.

This is really, really obvious, people.

What I don't get... is your argument as to why Magic Missile would have to be removed. It's Utility, it lacks cheese, and its always useful. So... why then would you remove it? The whole point of Rule Changes is to allow players to have more fun, not to unecessarily weaken characters.

Plus, in the same way you could argue that Detect Magic and Greatswords are overpowered and banned as well.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 09:02 AM
What I don't get... is your argument as to why Magic Missile would have to be removed. That might have something to do with my not making such an argument.

Morty
2007-04-07, 11:24 AM
That might have something to do with my not making such an argument.
Quote from you post on the previous page:


It's far too powerful, and the only reason it's still in is because it's a iconic legacy spell.


Magic Missile is far more powerful than other spells of its level, and I don't mean in raw damage (although it's better there as well), but in total utility. It allows mages to attack into melee without risk, to avoid to-hit rolls, to ignore saves, to damage living beings and undead equally, to hit incorporeal things and/or things on the Ethereal Plane, and to do so from a range great enough to avoid many of the threats of combat.

Yes, but this damage is next to nothing. Against corporeal oppontents it's at least as powerful as Sleep or Grease, if not weaker. On low levels you don't have enough 1st level slots to do much damage, and on higher levels you have much better things to do. Above 12th level, MM's damage becomes insignificant, especially compared to what wizard can do with his 5th or 6th level spells.

Even better, it lacks the sort of cheese that makes facing people with Sleep or Color Spray such a headache. Those spells are just poorly-designed, but Magic Missile is just pure good. And it never stops being good - eventually 1st-level slots aren't particularly potent, true, but even then there's only so many utility spells that *can* go in those slots. The leftovers? Put a MM into them.
Yes, MM is well-balanced spell, and I wish there were more spells like that. But it's not overpowered, and it stops being useful after, say, 12th level just like other 1st level spells, except maybe Ray of Enfeeblement.

Dervag
2007-04-07, 11:41 AM
Level 20 Wizards don't still use Magic Missile, not if they're contributing reasonably to the battle. Magic Missile does 17.5 points of damage, on average, max. Even Quickened, that's not a very good use of the Wizard's time at high levels.There might be exceptions in specific cases, but you're right in general. Magic missile becomes a sidearm at high levels, and the guy with the artillery usually doesn't need the sidearm. However, if they do need the sidearm in one instance, they're generally very glad that they have it.


Sure, MM is useful. But that doesn't make it overpowered. The damage is far too low for this spell to be overpoweredMagic missile is arguably overpowered at first level, but at first level, the wizard has so few spell slots that being able to throw around d4+1 of guaranteed damage a couple of times a day doesn't overpower him. Compared to any combat-capable character, it isn't very valuable at all.


What? On 20 level both casters and noncasters have so much better ways of dealing damage. Meteor Shower, for example. Or barbarian with some uber-enchanted greataxe.Meteor shower does collateral damage; Magic Missile doesn't.

In 2nd edition, the Magic Missile was also slightly longer ranged than other direct damage spells, but that is no longer true.


But this damage is low, so it doesn't make this spell broken.Essentially my point.


Compared to what can wizard do on 20th level MM is as worthless as other 1st level spells.Ay, there's the rub.

When you can cast four spells of each level per day, the odds of your needing a first-level spell that does something nonunique (such as dealing damage) are very slim. You're much more likely to need a spell that does something only it can do, such as Feather Fall.

There are situations where a 20th-level wizard might use Magic Missile, but those situations are rare. However, I wouldn't call it a waste of a spell slot, because almost nothing that goes in those spell slots is particularly valuable.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 12:08 PM
Quote from you post on the previous page:

Yes, so? The only reason the existing version of Magic Missile was brought into 3.0 in the first place was because it's a legacy spell. Given that this thread is about fixing problematic spells, my argument should be perfectly clear.


Yes, but this damage is next to nothing. 1) All first-level spells ought to have effects that are of little consequence at high levels. Against high-level opponents, what use is an extra +4 to armor from Mage Armor or Shield? How effective is Burning Hands? Almost anything could make the save for Color Spray.

The damage from 9th-level and above Magic Missile, however, averages at 17.5. That would force a concentration check of 27.5 - no small feat for even high-level mages.

Yes, MM is well-balanced spell, and I wish there were more spells like that.

It is NOT well-balanced. It has no risk of hitting an ally, doesn't require a to-hit roll, has a very long range, can't be saved against, and deals Force damage.

It is far too good for a 1st-level spell.

Morty
2007-04-07, 12:31 PM
1) All first-level spells ought to have effects that are of little consequence at high levels. Against high-level opponents, what use is an extra +4 to armor from Mage Armor or Shield? How effective is Burning Hands? Almost anything could make the save for Color Spray.

The damage from 9th-level and above Magic Missile, however, averages at 17.5. That would force a concentration check of 27.5 - no small feat for even high-level mages.
Well, one Shield spell makes you immune to Magic Missle. Not to mention that as 1st level spell, MM bounces off even Lesser Globe of Invunerability.


It is NOT well-balanced. It has no risk of hitting an ally, doesn't require a to-hit roll, has a very long range, can't be saved against, and deals Force damage.

It is far too good for a 1st-level spell.

Risk of hitting an ally? I don't remember anything about hitting an ally when shooting into melee. And yes, it has long range, no save, and 100% hit. But damage is low, and it's easily protected from by Shield.
I'm not in the "damage is teh suxxorz" camp, I use MM and other damage spells. But MM isn't overpowered in any way.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 02:06 PM
Well, one Shield spell makes you immune to Magic Missle. Which is an arcane-only spell.

And, as you all pointed out, high-level mages have better things to do with their rounds, so they won't bother casting Shield. Bet they'll wish they had when I begin disrupting all their spellcasting with repeated Magic Missiles.


Risk of hitting an ally? I don't remember anything about hitting an ally when shooting into melee. That might explain a lot about this conversation.


And yes, it has long range, no save, and 100% hit. But damage is low, and it's easily protected from by Shield. Lower than what?

Morty
2007-04-07, 02:16 PM
Which is an arcane-only spell.

And, as you all pointed out, high-level mages have better things to do with their rounds, so they won't bother casting Shield. Bet they'll wish they had when I begin disrupting all their spellcasting with repeated Magic Missiles.
Why cast Shield? High-level spellcaster can cast Globe Of Invunerability, which protects him against all low-level spells. So it won't be waste of time, and you won't hurt him with Magic Missle.

That might explain a lot about this conversation.
Well, if there's any rule for that, link the proper SRD section.


Lower than what?

Lower than Lesser Orb of X spells, or, say, damage done by any archer or meleer worth its salt. Sure, he has to hit. But he can attack until his arms fall off and he does more damage.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 03:02 PM
Well, if there's any rule for that, link the proper SRD section.

It's what the Precise Shot feat negates - the penalty for shooting into melee.

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll). Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious) or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)

If you miss the enemy because of the penalty, you run the risk of hitting your ally instead.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-07, 03:05 PM
No, if you miss the enemy because of the penalty, you miss. Notice how it says nothing about hitting your ally.

Edit: as for Magic Missile, you can't interrupt high-level spellcasters with it. Not only do they have defenses ranging from Shield to Spell Turning, but the 17.5 average damage isn't enough to make them fail a concentration check. You can shoot incorporeal undead... for a piddling amount of damage. It's just not useful, because the spell does nothing but inflict an amount of damage that, at high levels, is basically negligibke for a standard action. Negating Mirror Image? Incredibly situational. What can and will cast mirror image that can't also turn itself invisible, or create a whole bunch of better defenses?

You'd be better off preparing Ray of Enfeeblement, Grease, and all that jazz.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-07, 03:05 PM
Why cast Shield? High-level spellcaster can cast Globe Of Invunerability, which protects him against all low-level spells. So it won't be waste of time, and you won't hurt him with Magic Missle.


Globe of invulnerability isn't mobile. I think shield is a great choice for high-level wizards. They aren't going to get a +4 shield bonus to their ac any other way, it lasts minutes/level, so if they have time to include it in their buffing they should.

Flying Elephant
2007-04-07, 03:12 PM
My suggestions:

Principle: Spells of the Polymorph school are broken, mainly because the caster retains his own mental attributes and spellcasting abilities.
Result: The caster receives the new form's mental attributes or his own, whichever is lower. Caster loses spellcasting abilities while in the new form and does not gain new spellcasting abilities.

I do not think that the mental scores should be lowered. Why? The mental scores are who you are. Why would you get 2 INT if you polymorphed into a dog? However, yes, they should not be able to cast spells.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 04:16 PM
No, if you miss the enemy because of the penalty, you miss. Notice how it says nothing about hitting your ally.

If your ally is providing cover (which is frequently the case) and you miss the target, there's a chance you'll hit the ally instead.


Edit: as for Magic Missile, you can't interrupt high-level spellcasters with it. Not only do they have defenses ranging from Shield to Spell Turning, but the 17.5 average damage isn't enough to make them fail a concentration check.

A concentration check of 28? That's actually moderately hard. If full damage is dealt, that requires a check of 35.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-07, 05:16 PM
If your ally is providing cover (which is frequently the case) and you miss the target, there's a chance you'll hit the ally instead.
Except that the rules don't say that anywhere. Your shot goes wide, maybe. But you don't Scorching Ray the fighter in the back--ever.




A concentration check of 28? That's actually moderately hard. If full damage is dealt, that requires a check of 35.
A level 20 caster hs +23 to that check from ranks alone.
No, it's really not hard.


Sorry, but magic missile just plain isn't that good. It's damage in piddling quantities. If even doing damage in large quantities is usually not a good use of a wizard's time/standard actions, why would doing damage in small quantities be a good idea?

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 06:03 PM
Except that the rules don't say that anywhere. Your shot goes wide, maybe. But you don't Scorching Ray the fighter in the back--ever. You take the -4 penalty in order to avoid hitting your ally. It's the same as with any other weapon effect.

Tome and Blood had a whole section on how the archery-type feats affected spells for that very reason.


A level 20 caster hs +23 to that check from ranks alone.

Not necessarily. You're assuming the caster would actually put all those skillpoints into concentration.


Sorry, but magic missile just plain isn't that good. It's damage in piddling quantities. But it's better than the other damage-dealing spells of its level, and than many of the level above it, which is the point. You keep arguing as if I were claiming that Magic Missile were somehow equal to Timestop.

It is far better than it should be for its level, period. It entirely avoids multiple obstacles that affect the other spells.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-07, 07:13 PM
You take the -4 penalty in order to avoid hitting your ally. It's the same as with any other weapon effect.

Tome and Blood had a whole section on how the archery-type feats affected spells for that very reason.

It may well have. Welcome to 3.5, where there is no such rule.

You take a -4 penalty. This affects your chance of hitting your enemy. It does NOT mean you hit your friend. There is no rule to that effect--you're making it up.
You can't hit your friends, with missed ranged-touches, period.


Not necessarily. You're assuming the caster would actually put all those skillpoints into concentration.GEE, do you really think a spellcaster might put skill points into one of the top two most important skills for a spellcaster?


But it's better than the other damage-dealing spells of its level, and than many of the level above it, which is the point. You keep arguing as if I were claiming that Magic Missile were somehow equal to Timestop.No, it's really not. Scorching ray does 4d6 at level 3. Magic missile does 2d4+2. Sure, magic missile always hits, but Scorching Ray will hit most of the time.
As for first-level spells, look at burning hands. At low levels, the damage scales faster, and it's an AoE that can hit several targets.
Outside of core you have things like Scatterspray, Lesser Orb of X, and the like, which are easily comparable.
Being better than Shocking Grasp isn't exactly a shining commendation. Magic Missile is perfectly fine for a first-level spell--it's reliable, but its effect is very lackluster. It's certainly not a "must-have" like you were making it out to be.


It is far better than it should be for its level, period. It entirely avoids multiple obstacles that affect the other spells.No, it's really not better than it should be for its level. You're thinking of, say, Ray of Enfeeblement.
It entirely avoids multiple obstacles... and as a result, has a very weak effect. That's fine.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 08:28 PM
3.5 rules are silly. Thus, the fixing.


IGEE, do you really think a spellcaster might put skill points into one of the top two most important skills for a spellcaster?

Since all that skill does is aid in combat casting, I think it unlikely that so many points would be put into it.


No, it's really not. Scorching ray does 4d6 at level 3. Magic missile does 2d4+2. Sure, magic missile always hits, but Scorching Ray will hit most of the time. Will it?


As for first-level spells, look at burning hands. At low levels, the damage scales faster, and it's an AoE that can hit several targets.

Assuming the targets are within 15 ft. of the caster - which puts the caster at major risk.


Magic Missile is perfectly fine for a first-level spell--it's reliable, but its effect is very lackluster. It's certainly not a "must-have" like you were making it out to be.

It is more flexible than virtually any other 1st-level spell, is useful for longer, and does decent damage to virtually everything. It's that total lack of the real-play complications that makes it better than most other things. There are lots of spells that work wonderfully in specific circumstances - if you happened to have prepared it - and MM works in almost any circumstances. Which is why it's problematic.


It entirely avoids multiple obstacles... and as a result, has a very weak effect. That's fine.

It does force damage.

I'm tired of this conversation.

Caledonian
2007-04-07, 08:47 PM
I suggest that some of the guiding principles for spell fixing be that:

1) no spell should ever be able to end a wide variety of encounters by itself

2) multiple functions should be restored to spells that once had them if they're thematically appropriate, and new spells should be permitted to have more than one function - but flexibility should cost something

3) set values are more predictable and should be considered to be worth more than random ones, all other things being equal

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-07, 08:55 PM
3.5 rules are silly. Thus, the fixing.
Hitting your friends with arrows/rays doesn't improve gameplay. You're not "fixing" anything, you're adding an unnecessary rule... and you ARE adding a rule. That rule doesn't actually exist in other games. "MM can't hit your friends" isn't a valid argument, since nothing can.


Since all that skill does is aid in combat casting, I think it unlikely that so many points would be put into it.Well, since I guess you don't know too much about casters, trust me when I say that Concentration is pretty much the first priority. Precisely BECAUSE enemies will try to disrupt your spells, as well as for casting defensively, casting during bad weather, etc.
I've never made a single wizard without the Concentration skill. Hell, I've never even seen a wizard without the Concentration skill.


Will it?
Yes, it will. It's a ranged touch attack. With a decent dex those have very good odds of hitting. And at level 8, it's 8d6 versus 4d4+4. And at level 12, it's 12d6 vs. 5d5+5. It's a lot more damage.


Assuming the targets are within 15 ft. of the caster - which puts the caster at major risk.Cast. Then, move away. You just plain won't be able to always--or even regularly--be out of move-and-attack range at low levels.
Of course, Burning Hands is a pretty bad spell.


It is more flexible than virtually any other 1st-level spell, is useful for longer, and does decent damage to virtually everything. It's that total lack of the real-play complications that makes it better than most other things. There are lots of spells that work wonderfully in specific circumstances - if you happened to have prepared it - and MM works in almost any circumstances. Which is why it's problematic.Flexible? It does damage. Period. Yes, it can do damage to pretty much anything, but it's still just plain damage. A spell that does a tiny amount of damage to anything isn't anywhere near as good as a spell that stuns, trips, or puts to sleep most things.


It does force damage.

I'm tired of this conversation.Yes. Yes, it does. So what? That's really not that great. How many incorporeal undead do you meet at level 1 (and why doesn't the cleric just turn them)?
Magic Missile is NOT better than all other first-level spells. It's not even in the top five. Regardless of "flexibility", its effects are neglibile.
Damage is weak. Weak damage is even weaker. You keep insisting that it's good, but you can't get around the fact that it does freakin' 5d4+5 at level s 9-20. Casting Ray of Enfeeblement or Grease or Enlarge Person or Color Spray is going to be a better use of your time 99% of the time.... and that's assuming you don't want to use a slot higher than first level (which, if your enemy is actually dangerous, you do).

Magic Missile is not overpowered. It is not too good for its level. It's only good when you have nothing better to do with a standard action... which, for a spellcaster, is rare.

Draz74
2007-04-07, 11:24 PM
The "accidentally hitting allies" thing is from 2E. I don't know if some fragment of it survived into 3.0, but I think the confusion mostly comes from 2E memories.

In any case, it didn't survive into 3.5.
... except as part of the darn grappling rules. The sacred cow lives on!

ken-do-nim
2007-04-07, 11:56 PM
I suggest that some of the guiding principles for spell fixing be that:

1) no spell should ever be able to end a wide variety of encounters by itself

2) multiple functions should be restored to spells that once had them if they're thematically appropriate, and new spells should be permitted to have more than one function - but flexibility should cost something

3) set values are more predictable and should be considered to be worth more than random ones, all other things being equal

Thank you for getting back on topic. This back-and-forth arguing about magic missile when neither side was claiming the spell needed to be amended was driving me CRAZY. There are plenty of other threads about which spells a wizard should memorize.

So let's see, your point #1: ray of dizziness and ray of stupidity from Spell Compendium, and our old friend forcecage come to mind. In my errata posting which has already fallen off the first page of the forum, you'll see that I gave ray of dizziness a save to negate, albeit at -4, and I outright banned ray of stupidity. Forcecage allows sr, gives a reflex save, and we reduced it from a material component to a focus. If anybody can think of others let me know.

#2) Multiple functions restored? Sounds like you've got something in mind, please let us know.

#3) Especially when those set values are like the heal/harm spell and clock in at a whopping 10 pts/level. But I'm not going to bother nerfing either of those. Got any other spells in mind?

*****

I just thought of another principle. No spell should give an infinite bonus. I'm looking at you freedom of movement and find the path. Not sure how to fix the latter, but the former could switch to a bonus equal to the caster level on grapple checks (or just a flat +20). What do you all think?


I've never made a single wizard without the Concentration skill. Hell, I've never even seen a wizard without the Concentration skill.


So I was running a Spell Weaver from Monster Manual II. That critter has 6 arms, and each arm is capable of casting 1 spell level. I don't even know what it means for this monster to maintain concentration on a spell. Anyway, the party monk managed to grapple it, and I went to make its concentration check, and lo and behold discovered it doesn't have any ranks in concentration. Maybe because the intention is that it doesn't need to, but then that laughable challenge rating of 10 would just be even worse. As it is, it should be at least CR 13. Anyway, just wanted to let you know about that one.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-08, 12:39 AM
That's a (poorly-designed, apparently) monster, not a wizard.

Alakallanar
2007-04-08, 02:51 AM
Since all that skill does is aid in combat casting, I think it unlikely that so many points would be put into it.


Well, since I guess you don't know too much about casters, trust me when I say that Concentration is pretty much the first priority. Precisely BECAUSE enemies will try to disrupt your spells, as well as for casting defensively, casting during bad weather, etc.
I've never made a single wizard without the Concentration skill. Hell, I've never even seen a wizard without the Concentration skill.

I`ve never seen a wizard, sorcerer or druid without a maxed concentration skill. I remember one cleric which only put points in concentration every odd level.


It is more flexible than virtually any other 1st-level spell, is useful for longer, and does decent damage to virtually everything. It's that total lack of the real-play complications that makes it better than most other things. There are lots of spells that work wonderfully in specific circumstances - if you happened to have prepared it - and MM works in almost any circumstances. Which is why it's problematic.

It isn`t really flexible. Enlarge would be an example of a (slightly) more flexible spell. It is useful in combat and outside of combat. Protection from Evil is more flexible with it`s three different effects. Summon Monster I is way more flexible.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-08, 07:27 AM
That's a (poorly-designed, apparently) monster, not a wizard.

I'd call it a flawed gem. Spell weavers are SO cool; they just need a little fleshing out. If you have MMII I recommend checking it out.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-08, 07:28 AM
I don't. I've never been much for caring about monsters, anyway. People are monstrous enough.

SMEE
2007-04-08, 07:42 AM
Wait, just a minor detail.
Since magic missile hits with 5 missiles (at most), shouldn't the target be doing 5 concentration checks of DC 13 rather than one at DC 27?
The target is effectively being hit 5 times for an average of 3 damage, not once for 17.5 damage.
I don't remember any rule that says one has to do one concentration check against the whole damage one suffered in that round rather than one concentration check againts each hit he suffered.
A DC 13 concentration check is laughable at most.

Magic missile is good, not broken. The damage is too low to make it too good.

Caledonian
2007-04-08, 07:51 AM
I *may* have been thinking of the cover rules, which include a chance to hit whatever was giving cover and also have a -4 penalty at 50%. It's always been a rule in the games I play that missed shots can hit other things if you're incautious or unlucky.


#2) Multiple functions restored? Sounds like you've got something in mind, please let us know.

As examples of spells with (minor) multiple functions, I was thinking of things like Grease (targets an area or an object), Levitation (creature or object), Shatter (actually does things beyond sundering!), and so forth.

As examples of spells that have lost their multiple functions, I was thinking of the 3.0 spell Emotion that was split into Crushing Despair and the bard spell Good Hope. Even minor spells like Hypnotism function differently in different circumstances - but WotC has a terrible tendency to streamline spells, removing all of the interesting options and features in the process.


#3) Especially when those set values are like the heal/harm spell and clock in at a whopping 10 pts/level. But I'm not going to bother nerfing either of those. Got any other spells in mind?

Well, look at Sleep. Ignoring its "win this encounter now!" properties, it currently affects 4 HD of creatures. In 3.0, it was 2d4 HD. That value could be altered with metamagic (interesting) and made the spell unpredictable (also interesting).


I just thought of another principle. No spell should give an infinite bonus. I'm looking at you freedom of movement and find the path. Not sure how to fix the latter, but the former could switch to a bonus equal to the caster level on grapple checks (or just a flat +20). What do you all think?

But FoM does much more than aid in grapple checks. I disagree with the principle. Would you remove the versions of Invisibility because they guarantee success on Hide checks?

***

I've played many a spellcaster without major ranks in Concentration. Usually because their focus is on things other than casting spells in combat. What a concept!

ken-do-nim
2007-04-08, 09:56 AM
As examples of spells with (minor) multiple functions, I was thinking of things like Grease (targets an area or an object), Levitation (creature or object), Shatter (actually does things beyond sundering!), and so forth.

As examples of spells that have lost their multiple functions, I was thinking of the 3.0 spell Emotion that was split into Crushing Despair and the bard spell Good Hope. Even minor spells like Hypnotism function differently in different circumstances - but WotC has a terrible tendency to streamline spells, removing all of the interesting options and features in the process.


I agree with you, however the mission of this thread is "fix broken spells" not "make spells more interesting", which is an absolutely viable but different thread.



Well, look at Sleep. Ignoring its "win this encounter now!" properties, it currently affects 4 HD of creatures. In 3.0, it was 2d4 HD. That value could be altered with metamagic (interesting) and made the spell unpredictable (also interesting).


Wow! I didn't even notice. That 2d4 goes all the way back to 1E. That's kind of annoying that they changed it. Another thing about sleep that annoys me is that in previous editions, there wasn't a saving throw, so when the text reads "affects up to 4 hit dice" it was unambiguous. Now with the saving throw, I've seen many a table argument about whether a creature that makes its save is considered "affected".



But FoM does much more than aid in grapple checks. I disagree with the principle. Would you remove the versions of Invisibility because they guarantee success on Hide checks?


Are you sure it guarantees success? I thought if you got +20 over the target's hide check you could know the square or something like that (though you'd still get the 50/50 miss chance). Same for their move silent check.

Freedom of movement also fits another poster's principle that if "it is so good that everyone has to have it" then it is broken. I'm not sure we should change it though, because I've seen many adventures (like underwater ones) that rely on the party getting it.

Caledonian
2007-04-08, 12:23 PM
I agree with you, however the mission of this thread is "fix broken spells" not "make spells more interesting", which is an absolutely viable but different thread. Noted.


Are you sure it guarantees success? I thought if you got +20 over the target's hide check you could know the square or something like that (though you'd still get the 50/50 miss chance). Same for their move silent check.

Possibly - the spell does say that certain conditions (like stepping in a puddle) can give it away. It probably requires a very high Spot check indeed.


Freedom of movement also fits another poster's principle that if "it is so good that everyone has to have it" then it is broken. I'm not sure we should change it though, because I've seen many adventures (like underwater ones) that rely on the party getting it.

It's a 4th-level spell that is very useful, but not (IMO) grossly overpowered or broken.

We need a list of spells that we think are broken in 3.5.

Morty
2007-04-08, 01:08 PM
We need a list of spells that we think are broken in 3.5.

It's hard for two reasons: it would be damn long list, and it can be argued whether ceratin spell is broken/overpowered or not.
As for Freedom of Movement: it shouldn't work against grapple- it's not right if one spell/item beats wholde build. Besides, it can make wizard immune to grappling, which is one of his biggest weaknesses. It should give some bonus against grapple maybe, but not total immunity.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-04-08, 05:43 PM
It's hard for two reasons: it would be damn long list, and it can be argued whether ceratin spell is broken/overpowered or not.


While keeping with the Top Down Approach, we could perhaps ask the board for "spells that every single caster prepares" and discuss if those are overpowered and why.

Perhaps one or two spells from every spell level...

ken-do-nim
2007-04-09, 10:25 AM
While keeping with the Top Down Approach, we could perhaps ask the board for "spells that every single caster prepares" and discuss if those are overpowered and why.

Perhaps one or two spells from every spell level...

Well have a look at my spell fixes thread to get an idea of what *I* think is overpowered.

You know, another spell that violates even the principles that WOTC set down that no one ever talks about is shield of faith. According to WOTC, a 1st level spell is not supposed to increase in power past caster level 10. Yet shield of faith gives +4 at 12th and +5 at 18th. There should be a greater shield of faith spell which allows these higher bonuses. Meh, I don't have the desire to go that deeply into fixing every spell, I just wanted to point it out.

henebry
2007-04-09, 05:34 PM
Ken-do-rim,

I'm impressed with the running tally you're keeping over on the other thread; I'm responding to one of the suggestions you made over there. (Let us know in your reply if you'd prefer for this sort of question to be posted over there instead of in this discussion thread).

With the various disabling ray spells (ray of Enfeeblement, etc) you've taken two different tacks, so far as I can see. In cases where the effect of the spell is numerical, you offer a save for 1/2 effect; in cases where the effect can't be halved (ray of dizziness), you offer a save at -4 for no effect.

I'd prefer a single mechanic which can be applied consistently to all cases, and I thought of an alternative: ray spells which cause a disability take effect at full power for a limited time (say 2 rounds). At the end of this interval, the target can make a saving throw to recover from the penalty earlier than the normal duration of the spell.

This would mean that a caster who makes the ranged touch attack is guaranteed some positive outcome, but isn't guaranteed to knock the target permanently out of the battle. And it is a mechanic which makes sense for all the spells listed.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-09, 07:03 PM
Ken-do-rim,

I'm impressed with the running tally you're keeping over on the other thread; I'm responding to one of the suggestions you made over there. (Let us know in your reply if you'd prefer for this sort of question to be posted over there instead of in this discussion thread).

With the various disabling ray spells (ray of Enfeeblement, etc) you've taken two different tacks, so far as I can see. In cases where the effect of the spell is numerical, you offer a save for 1/2 effect; in cases where the effect can't be halved (ray of dizziness), you offer a save at -4 for no effect.

I'd prefer a single mechanic which can be applied consistently to all cases, and I thought of an alternative: ray spells which cause a disability take effect at full power for a limited time (say 2 rounds). At the end of this interval, the target can make a saving throw to recover from the penalty earlier than the normal duration of the spell.

This would mean that a caster who makes the ranged touch attack is guaranteed some positive outcome, but isn't guaranteed to knock the target permanently out of the battle. And it is a mechanic which makes sense for all the spells listed.

Either thread is fine; I'm actively reading them both. :smallsmile:

Hmm... I had thought of that, but my problem with some level of automatic success goes back to this situation:

The 25th level fighter walks into the arena. Facing him are a dozen or so 6th level wizards, pumped up with heroism (so they have that extra +2 to hit).

Scenario 1: By the RAW
The wizards start with ray of clumsiness to lower his ac so that their fellow caster's rays will hit. (Edit: Actually, they probably start with web & grease).
Once that is successful, the wizards use ray of dizziness to limit the fighter to standard actions.
Now he's toast. Ray of enfeeblement followed up with ray of exhaustion ... and it's not so pretty. Ray of sickness if he's still up, or heck, just ray of stupidity until he's out of int.

Scenario 2: As I have it.
As long as the fighter keeps making his saves, he should stay up. The penalties are halved and don't stack with each other, and he can negate the nasty effects like dizziness. Stupidity is just outright banned.

Scenario 3: Shorter durations
If we say that dizziness automatically works for 2 rounds, or even 1 round, the wizards can make sure they keep hitting him with it.

If you want a unified mechanic, I think it would be save at -4 to negate replaces current save: none.

Edit: My point in this example is that with their no save ranged touch spells, wizards are useful against foes with a much higher challenge rating, provided that foe doesn't have spell resistance.

Edit 2: So my first instinct was in fact to do that save at -4 for all of them. But you know what? Most of these hit up against fortitude, which the target usually has a high score in. So even with the -4, many foes - like dragons - are still going to make that save regularly against 1st-3rd level spells. So I decided that where I could I would go with save for 1/2 instead.

Whamme
2007-04-09, 07:06 PM
Invisibility actually only gives a bonus to Hide checks iirc.

Dervag
2007-04-09, 07:48 PM
I've played many a spellcaster without major ranks in Concentration. Usually because their focus is on things other than casting spells in combat. What a concept!D&D is a combat-oriented game. Casters without major ranks in Concentration aren't nearly as effective in combat because they're more likely to see their spells fizzle due to a variety of environmental factors and enemy actions. Therefore, if you're trying to design a non-nerfed caster, you need major ranks in Concentration. Even if your caster stays out of fights, they should still occasionally face challenges that make it harder for them to cast spells. They don't always have the luxury of casting in a well-lit, peaceful room with a locked door to keep any undesirables out.

I am not actually a very experienced player, but this is easy to deduce just from looking at the design of monsters and adventures and the Concentration skill itself, even without any play experience at all. Without concentration, wizards are very vulnerable to all sorts of tactics that make it hard for them to cast when someone is interfering with their efforts.


Invisibility actually only gives a bonus to Hide checks iirc.Yeah, but it's a really big bonus, so big that it makes it practically impossible for a spotter with level-appropriate Spot skills to detect a sneaker with level-appropriate Hide skills. Only if the opponent's Spot rank is much higher than the sneaker's Hide rank will the spotter be able to negate invisibility without using magical resources.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-09, 08:42 PM
Yeah, but it's a really big bonus, so big that it makes it practically impossible for a spotter with level-appropriate Spot skills to detect a sneaker with level-appropriate Hide skills. Only if the opponent's Spot rank is much higher than the sneaker's Hide rank will the spotter be able to negate invisibility without using magical resources.

Good, as this was in reference to toning down freedom of movement from +infinite to grapple to +20 (which is now +20 to escape artist), sounds like you are in agreement.

In my experience, I have run into colossal creatures which a +20 only gives you a chance against....

henebry
2007-04-09, 08:45 PM
Hmm... I had thought of that, but my problem with some level of automatic success goes back to this situation:

The 25th level fighter walks into the arena. Facing him are a dozen or so 6th level wizards, pumped up with heroism (so they have that extra +2 to hit).


I'm not convinced that this is really the encounter we should be designing the system to address. And, if we were, I'm quite certain that a 25th level fighter would have equipment that would grant spell resistance and/or up his Touch AC. Touch AC is, after all, a significant weakness in a fighter build. Nevertheless your point is taken. I'm interested to hear what others think. I've relatively little experience with the system (compared to some here, anyway).

ken-do-nim
2007-04-09, 09:55 PM
I'm not convinced that this is really the encounter we should be designing the system to address.

What I'm really thinking of is a scene from one of the Driz'zt books (or however you spell his name). I'll say right up front this isn't the greatest example because drow have spell resistance. But that didn't appear to really be a factor in this part. Driz'zt was coming after this wizard who had double-crossed him. The book very effectively got across the point that Driz'zt was just this total, unstoppable bad-ass. The guy blasted him with spells (I remember magic missile being one), but it didn't stop him (though it hurt him). He kept coming, and coming.

Had that story been written in 3.5, the wizard would have laughed and used any of the ray spells we've been talking about. With ray of dizziness he could at least have outrun him!

I'm afraid in 3.5 we've got a screwy save mechanic. At one end of the spectrum, most items suck because the save dc is so low. For instance, my 1E fighter used his rod of lordly might all the time to use paralyzation and fear. Now, forget it. The save dc is 13 or 14. At the other end of the spectrum, they removed the save entirely from spells like ray of enfeeblement. So naturally everyone gravitates towards the spells that don't offer a save at all.

I think we should have a separate thread about fixing item saving throws. They shouldn't always be at the minimum, particularly if we are talking about a high level item (like rod of lordly might).

Matthew
2007-04-10, 03:06 PM
Saving Throws in D&D are odd, indeed. A straight progression would have made a lot more sense, in my opinion.

Grr
2007-04-10, 04:10 PM
True ... but maybe the problem isn't where we think it is. BWL is right -- the principle is sound, that some spells should be resistable by dodging them rather than resisting them via saves. Easier against some targets, harder against others, etc.
You mean like how the Reflex saving throw is how you "dodge" spells already? Rays should be like any other spell. Reflex to avoid.

Amiria
2007-04-10, 04:38 PM
You mean like how the Reflex saving throw is how you "dodge" spells already? Rays should be like any other spell. Reflex to avoid.

Huh ? The caster made the ranged touch attack to hit the target. 'Line' type spells have reflex saves to avoid them but being hit by a ray is like being hit by a physical object like a lucern hammer or an orcish shotput - no save, no discussion, deal with the consequences.

stainboy
2007-04-10, 04:41 PM
A couple more principles I'd like to throw on the pile:

Divine casters' nukes should not be as effective as arcane casters' nukes. Conclusion: nerf Flamestrike.

Range is extremely important in outdoor combat, to the point that each spell range increment beyond Short should be worth an extra spell level at least. Arcane casters control the terms of engagement in outdoor combat. They can fly, dimension door, trap opponents, and so on. Which is more valuable - the ability to Cone of Cold for 15d6 from within one round's move of melee range, or the ability to Fireball for 10d6 from a quarter-mile up in the air? Fireball's long range makes it way too good for its level.

Damage dice based on level should always be capped ~5 levels higher than the minimum level to learn the spell. Scorching Ray should be capped at 8d6 damage (2 rays).

Spells that overlap with "skillmonkey" characters' areas of expertise should either be less effective than max ranks in the overlapped skill, or should only be effective in combination with the overlapped skill. Disguise Self passes this test because its 1 round/level duration makes it a nonviable substitute for the Disguise skill. Charm Person passes because it accomplishes the same thing as a Diplomacy check, but on a single target only and with much worse consequences for failure (the target makes the save and realizes you were trying to charm him). Open Lock and Invisibility fail this test.

Grr
2007-04-10, 04:48 PM
Huh ? The caster made the ranged touch attack to hit the target. 'Line' type spells have reflex saves to avoid them but being hit by a ray is like being hit by a physical object like a lucern hammer or an orcish shotput - no save, no discussion, deal with the consequences.
Just what do you think touch AC is? It's your ability to avoid getting hit. Sorta like the reflex saving throw we already have. Using touch AC's for ray spells just makes them too strong. Make them reflex based instead.

Morty
2007-04-10, 04:49 PM
A couple more principles I'd like to throw on the pile:

Divine casters' nukes should not be as effective as arcane casters' nukes. Conclusion: nerf Flamestrike.

Range is extremely important in outdoor combat, to the point that each spell range increment beyond Short should be worth an extra spell level at least. Arcane casters control the terms of engagement in outdoor combat. They can fly, dimension door, trap opponents, and so on. Which is more valuable - the ability to Cone of Cold for 15d6 from within one round's move of melee range, or the ability to Fireball for 10d6 from a quarter-mile up in the air? Fireball's long range makes it way too good for its level.

Damage dice based on level should always be capped ~5 levels higher than the minimum level to learn the spell. Scorching Ray should be capped at 8d6 damage (2 rays).

Spells that overlap with "skillmonkey" characters' areas of expertise should either be less effective than max ranks in the overlapped skill, or should only be effective in combination with the overlapped skill. Disguise Self passes this test because its 1 round/level duration makes it a nonviable substitute for the Disguise skill. Charm Person passes because it accomplishes the same thing as a Diplomacy check, but on a single target only and with much worse consequences for failure (the target makes the save and realizes you were trying to charm him). Open Lock and Invisibility fail this test.

Damage spells are not the reason of wizard's brokeness. They're fine as they are, though area spells could use some range increments- what, wizard have problems hitting something from distance with Schorching Ray, but not with Fireball? But it's for the sake of realism, not game balance.

Golthur
2007-04-10, 04:58 PM
Just what do you think touch AC is? It's your ability to avoid getting hit. Sorta like the reflex saving throw we already have. Using touch AC's for ray spells just makes them too strong. Make them reflex based instead.

Yes, I've found this particular aspect of the rules contradictory at best. There are two separate ways to handle "getting out of the way of something" - an attack roll (or possibly touch attack, depending on the thing being avoided), and a Reflex save.

The way I usually differentiate the two consistently is to use the following rule:
If the thing in question is being aimed specifically at you and you need to avoid it, use an attack roll (or touch attack, as appropriate).


If the thing in question is not being aimed at you, but is rather aimed at the area you are in, then use a Reflex saving throw.

Now, this doesn't take care of the "touch attacks are just too damn easy" problem, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Grr
2007-04-10, 05:04 PM
So can I aim the fireball at someone since it's just a glowing pellet of energy that explodes when it hits something solid? That way I can avoid letting them have a reflex save.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-10, 05:19 PM
No, because Fireball Doesn't Work That Way.

Morty
2007-04-10, 05:31 PM
In fact, I belive that using Fireball you point at ceratin place and that ceratin place is a center of explosion. You don't send some missle that explodes on first solid surface.

Grr
2007-04-10, 08:39 PM
No, because Fireball Doesn't Work That Way.Oh yes it does. =p

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

~ Courtesy of the d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm).

If you can "aim" to go through an arrow slit, you should definitely be able to aim to impact the glowing bead on someone, thus denying them a reflex saving throw since it's functioning like a ray spell at that point. Even if you miss, you just set the distance to be five feet behind the target and it blows up there... dealing it's damage and giving the target a reflex saving throw.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-11, 12:19 AM
Since magic missile hits with 5 missiles (at most), shouldn't the target be doing 5 concentration checks of DC 13 rather than one at DC 27?
The target is effectively being hit 5 times for an average of 3 damage, not once for 17.5 damage.

That is indeed the case.

Read the Concentration skill. It says that you have to make a check whenever you're damaged to avoid losing your spell. Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, and other multishotting spells don't deal damage once, they deal it multiple times. This is a balancing factor, as they are far less useful for disruption purposes than they would be otherwise.

I have another rule for you too, one that applies to personal buffs: Buff spells should not be "Personal"; they should be "Touch" at shortest.

Fax Celestis
2007-04-11, 12:23 AM
If you can "aim" to go through an arrow slit, you should definitely be able to aim to impact the glowing bead on someone, thus denying them a reflex saving throw since it's functioning like a ray spell at that point. Even if you miss, you just set the distance to be five feet behind the target and it blows up there... dealing it's damage and giving the target a reflex saving throw.

The Reflex save is not to avoid the spell source, but to avoid its effects.

A Reflex save demarcates dodging the harmful effects of a spell or effect, while Touch AC demarcates dodging the spell itself. If I dodge a ray (Touch AC), it misses and has no effect. However, since a Fireball (Reflex) will explode whether it hits me or the ground behind me, I get a save to dodge its harmful effects.

Think of it this way: Touch AC dodges the grenade; Reflex dodges the shrapnel.

Helgraf
2007-04-11, 01:16 AM
Love the thread.

First things first. I am in total agreement with Iames, AMF should effect all spells, reguardless. ForceCage duration should be cut, and that line about it being immune to all physical attacks is bull. If a wall of force can effect me, then I can effect it. Also a reflex save would be good.

I'm not familiar with these orb spells, but it seems to me that they should be evocation spells, being as they're stronger than regular materials of their kind and created magically, I mean, sure you could create a stronger acid, but tougher ice, even if you do summon it much larger, then you've got space constriction issues, which would probably ruin the spell.

Lastly, we're forgetting one of the biggest abuses to date, Time Stop. 9th Level and considerably powerful, but casting it as a standard action is just ridiculous. You are effecting the entire universe with your magical prowess, and it only took you a few seconds. Extend the Time Stop cast time to 1 minute, ten rounds, which not only fixes it, but makes logical sense as you should be putting at least double the resources neccessary for stopping time as you get back, considering how it's working with the ENTIRE EFFING UNIVERSE AROUND YOU.

Well, actually, you aren't. You're essentially not stopping time at all, but expanding a single instant of time to perform 12 to 30 seconds worth of actions - and this follows through from the list of things you _can't_ do with time stop. What it really is, in most cases, is the hiccup wherein your non-persistant defenses are brought online - or if you're a paranoid bugger, your escape hatch.

Helgraf
2007-04-11, 01:18 AM
Oh yes it does. =p

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

~ Courtesy of the d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm).

If you can "aim" to go through an arrow slit, you should definitely be able to aim to impact the glowing bead on someone, thus denying them a reflex saving throw since it's functioning like a ray spell at that point. Even if you miss, you just set the distance to be five feet behind the target and it blows up there... dealing it's damage and giving the target a reflex saving throw.

In short, make it work like Meteor Swarm, with it's four ranged touch attacks that grant no save for each one that hits; but if it misses, they get the reflex save for half.

Helgraf
2007-04-11, 01:25 AM
Ken-do-rim,

I'm impressed with the running tally you're keeping over on the other thread; I'm responding to one of the suggestions you made over there. (Let us know in your reply if you'd prefer for this sort of question to be posted over there instead of in this discussion thread).

With the various disabling ray spells (ray of Enfeeblement, etc) you've taken two different tacks, so far as I can see. In cases where the effect of the spell is numerical, you offer a save for 1/2 effect; in cases where the effect can't be halved (ray of dizziness), you offer a save at -4 for no effect.

I'd prefer a single mechanic which can be applied consistently to all cases, and I thought of an alternative: ray spells which cause a disability take effect at full power for a limited time (say 2 rounds). At the end of this interval, the target can make a saving throw to recover from the penalty earlier than the normal duration of the spell.

This would mean that a caster who makes the ranged touch attack is guaranteed some positive outcome, but isn't guaranteed to knock the target permanently out of the battle. And it is a mechanic which makes sense for all the spells listed.

You know, you could always borrow the Hold {x} Mechanic. EG target gets a save vs the effect each round until they make it or it expires.

Helgraf
2007-04-11, 01:36 AM
Yes, so? The only reason the existing version of Magic Missile was brought into 3.0 in the first place was because it's a legacy spell. Given that this thread is about fixing problematic spells, my argument should be perfectly clear.

1) All first-level spells ought to have effects that are of little consequence at high levels. Against high-level opponents, what use is an extra +4 to armor from Mage Armor or Shield? How effective is Burning Hands? Almost anything could make the save for Color Spray.

The damage from 9th-level and above Magic Missile, however, averages at 17.5. That would force a concentration check of 27.5 - no small feat for even high-level mages.


It is NOT well-balanced. It has no risk of hitting an ally, doesn't require a to-hit roll, has a very long range, can't be saved against, and deals Force damage.

It is far too good for a 1st-level spell.

A few points - one of which was already made.


A) Shield. Magic Missile is dead.
B) Brooch of Shielding - see point A.
C) Minor Globe of Invulnerable - MM is dead, so is fireball and a number of other annoying spells - and it doesn't restrict spellcasting.
D) 27.5 Conc Check? Hmm - Level 9, Conc maxxed, that's 12 ranks. If you have even a +1 Con (and with your sucky d4 HP, gods I hope so), that's a +13 right there. We're looking at a 14+ to make the check. And that's presuming that it's not actually 5 Conc checks each for 11+2.5 - which is 13.5 - which is practically automatic; given it's five seperate missiles. I'll gladly throw 5d20s hoping not to roll 2 or less than throw 1 needing a 14+ on the die.

Now, the fact that it essentially has transdimensional spell (though against incorp only) built in might be a stronger argument, but that's an inherent issue with the Force descriptor.

There's a plentitude of ways around the "dangers of magic missile" _especially_ for other arcane casters.

Grr
2007-04-11, 01:45 AM
The Reflex save is not to avoid the spell source, but to avoid its effects. Spells should be consistent in the methods by which they work. Ray spells break this consistency. There is effectively no difference between Touch AC and Reflex save in the methods by which they are used to avoid the harmful effects of a spell.


A Reflex save demarcates dodging the harmful effects of a spell or effect, while Touch AC demarcates dodging the spell itself. If I dodge a ray (Touch AC), it misses and has no effect. However, since a Fireball (Reflex) will explode whether it hits me or the ground behind me, I get a save to dodge its harmful effects.

Think of it this way: Touch AC dodges the grenade; Reflex dodges the shrapnel.
Ray spells are simply smaller line spells. It should be reflex or touch. Not one or the other.

Caledonian
2007-04-11, 07:22 AM
A) Shield. Magic Missile is dead.
B) Brooch of Shielding - see point A.

Doesn't it occur to you that there are so many counters to MM for a reason?

It definitely needs to be changed.

As the discussion here demonstrates, there's a tremendous difference between possibly hitting and always hitting.

Morty
2007-04-11, 07:26 AM
Doesn't it occur to you that there are so many counters to MM for a reason?

It definitely needs to be changed.

As the discussion here demonstrates, there's a tremendous difference between possibly hitting and always hitting.

So? There are counters, so spell doesn't need to be changed. Quite simple.
As for Fireball, it could work as splash weapons.

Caledonian
2007-04-11, 07:32 AM
There are counters to every spell. By that reasoning, this thread is useless.

***

Let's start that list, shall we?

Ray of Enfeeblement
Glitterdust
Magic Missile


Let's also start a list of spells that people rarely use.

Mount
Animate Rope

ken-do-nim
2007-04-11, 09:37 AM
That is indeed the case.

Read the Concentration skill. It says that you have to make a check whenever you're damaged to avoid losing your spell. Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, and other multishotting spells don't deal damage once, they deal it multiple times. This is a balancing factor, as they are far less useful for disruption purposes than they would be otherwise.


I believe you are wrong. I asked customer service and they confirmed my answer, for what it's worth.

Damage done via a standard action is cumulative with regards to (a) resist energy and (b) concentration checks. Well, customer service answered that in regards to scorching ray; I didn't ask about multishot. So to spell it out, if you do a maximized scorching ray and all 3 hit for 72 damage, a foe with resist energy 30 takes 42 damage.

This brings me to another point. Resist energy should only provide resistance per round, not per hit. It actually states that in the monster manual or dmg when it talks about energy resistance the special ability. That would make resist energy not better then protection vs energy, which it currently is.



I have another rule for you too, one that applies to personal buffs: Buff spells should not be "Personal"; they should be "Touch" at shortest.

I can't wait for Tenser's Transformation/Divine Favor/Righteous Might to be cast on my monk! Seriously though, this has serious implications which need to be well thought out.

Pocket lint
2007-04-11, 09:44 AM
Does that hold true for monsters' energy resistance as well? It would change a lot of weapon abilities from being completely useless in those situations to at least doing some damage. (e.g. using flaming weapons against demons)

ETA: The bookkeeping involved would suck, though.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-11, 10:44 AM
Does that hold true for monsters' energy resistance as well? It would change a lot of weapon abilities from being completely useless in those situations to at least doing some damage. (e.g. using flaming weapons against demons)

ETA: The bookkeeping involved would suck, though.

I hear you on the bookkeeping. But here's what the SRD has (bolded italics mine):


Resistance To Energy

A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities)) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.
Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn’t matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source.
When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell. This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide.


A nice side effect of making the resist energy spell work the same way is that the question of whether the scorching rays add up or are treated as separate becomes irrelevant.