Spells that simply shouldn't be at that high a level

[atemu1234]

What are some spells you can think of, that should be at a lower level than they are? Simply because as is, they're remarkably weak.

[The Great Wyrm]

Mordenkainen's Sword

[Pex]

The Mass Cure Wounds spells should be two levels lower than they are to be worth casting.

Neutralize Poison would be fine at Cleric level 3.

[Telok]

Neutralize Poison would be fine at Cleric level 3.

Most people don't realize that Neutralize Poison also make you immune to poison for 10 min./level. I think it's borderline between 3rd and 4th.

Meteor Swarm and Weird are too high. Polar Ray and Greater Shout are wankers. Dimensional Lock and Dimensional Anchor are each a level to high. Cloak of Chaos, Holy Aura, Shield of Law, and Unholy Aura are too high for what they do, the AC / saves won't stack with items that are probably just as good or better and the spell resistance is a joke at that level. Regenerate should have it's level cut on half or be returned to what it did in previous editions (no save, reversible). Several spells on the druid spell list ought to be moved down to the same level as on the wizard/cleric lists.

[Rubik]

Geas/Quest. Lesser Geas has much stronger effects, only being limited by the stupid HD cap. If you can hit something with enough negative levels (via making it hold +1 un/holy arrows or something), Lesser Geas is better in every possible way.

[legomaster00156]

The Words of Power.
Power Word Blind blinds a creature for a brief period, or permanently if they have less than 50 HP. This is level 7, but the effects are achievable at spell level 3 with a Still Blindness/Deafness.
Power Word Stun stuns a creature for up to 4d4 rounds, depending on how much HP they have. This is also achievable at spell level 3, with a Still Hold Person, or at level 6 with a Still Hold Monster, and yet the spell is level 8.
The worst offender of all, though, is Power Word Kill. It is a level 9 spell that affects only creatures with 100 or less HP, and only one single target per casting. It instantly kills the opponent. Unfortunately, you can deal 100 damage with a spell as early as spell level 4, not to mention the plethora of much better Save-or-Dies it is competing with.

[Brova]

Basically all the evocations are over-leveled by a lot. I mean, polar ray does d6/level on a ranged touch. That's worse than scorching ray, and that's a 2nd level spell. polar ray is 8th.

[Flickerdart]

Dinosaur stampede. Just...look it up. Marvel at its uselessness.

[legomaster00156]

Dinosaur stampede. Just...look it up. Marvel at its uselessness.
As a level 6 spell, you can deal... 1d12+CL damage in a 20-ft. radius? :smallconfused: And only if your enemy is less than 10 feet from the ground? :smallsigh:

[Trickquestion]

Time Stop severely limits what you can actually do with the frozen time and I think it should be knocked down to 8th or even 7th level because of it.

[Kurald Galain]

It's always bothered me that Ice Storm deals about half the damage that Fireball does, despite being a level higher.

[legomaster00156]

Most of Pathfinder's L5 Evocation spells, but especially Fire Snake, which is in every way inferior to a Fireball, let alone an Empowered Fireball in the same slot.

[jesterjeff]

Instant summons.
You get arcane mark as a zero level spell but can't reasonably reasonably make use till your lvl 14+ be c a use the coresponding spell is a 7th level spell?
Pure dumb.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Time Stop severely limits what you can actually do with the frozen time and I think it should be knocked down to 8th or even 7th level because of it.

Most of these I don't feel strongly one way or the other but this one I had to comment on.

While you can't directly effect your enemies, you get several uninterruptable rounds to completely rewrite the battlefield, summon up reinforcements, or teleport home and back after collecting just the right scroll for the situation. Time stop is one of the most incredibly powerful spells in the game. If anything it should probably be raised in level to an epic spell, not dropped to become an even bigger headache for DM's than it already is.

[Strigon]

So, it's generally accepted that casters are the most powerful things in D&D (without cheese).
If all of their spells were brought to this power level, would martial classes become worthwhile?

[Greenish]

So, it's generally accepted that casters are the most powerful things in D&D (without cheese).
If all of their spells were brought to this power level, would martial classes become worthwhile?1. Which power level?
2. Martials are worthwhile, if only because always playing a caster would get old. Balanced is what you meant.
3. No. A wizard literally has a whole book of class features they get to pick from each day. Even if said options were individually weaker, non-casters would still be lacking in the sheer amount of options. (Also note that most of the nominated spells are mentioned because they're plain inferior to another spell, not because they're useless.)

[Strigon]

1. Which power level?
2. Martials are worthwhile, if only because always playing a caster would get old. Balanced is what you meant.
3. No. A wizard literally has a whole book of class features they get to pick from each day. Even if said options were individually weaker, non-casters would still be lacking in the sheer amount of options. (Also note that most of the nominated spells are mentioned because they're plain inferior to another spell, not because they're useless.)

1) Good point.
2) Also a good point, but you know exactly what I was asking.
3) Of course they're not useless; I meant if the inferior spells were suddenly the baseline power level, how would martials compare?
Certainly having more options is better, but having lots of options isn't the same as having good options.

[Greenish]

I meant if the inferior spells were suddenly the baseline power level, how would martials compare?If spells were weaker, spellcasters would be weaker. How much weaker the spellcasters would be would be based on how much weaker the spells were. If all spells were like Dinosaur Stampede, spellcasters would be pretty useless.

[Strigon]

If spells were weaker, spellcasters would be weaker.

That is the idea behind my question, yes.

Let me put a new spin on it that's less open to ambiguity; which spell would you say is just powerful enough that (assuming the amount of spells per day remained the same, and all spells were of similar quality) martials and full casters would be on roughly even footing?

[nedz]

It's always bothered me that Ice Storm deals about half the damage that Fireball does, despite being a level higher.
You cast Ice Storm to give your side a buff round, the damage is incidental.

The Words of Power.
Power Word Blind blinds a creature for a brief period, or permanently if they have less than 50 HP. This is level 7, but the effects are achievable at spell level 3 with a Still Blindness/Deafness.
Power Word Stun stuns a creature for up to 4d4 rounds, depending on how much HP they have. This is also achievable at spell level 3, with a Still Hold Person, or at level 6 with a Still Hold Monster, and yet the spell is level 8.
The worst offender of all, though, is Power Word Kill. It is a level 9 spell that affects only creatures with 100 or less HP, and only one single target per casting. It instantly kills the opponent. Unfortunately, you can deal 100 damage with a spell as early as spell level 4, not to mention the plethora of much better Save-or-Dies it is competing with.
I'm not a huge fan of the PW spells though they are Save: No
PWK is just a ranged CdG, it's not a SoD.


Meteor Swarm and Weird are too high.
Meteor Swarm is a statement not an attack and Weird is about 3 levels too high.

[Greenish]

Let me put a new spin on it that's less open to ambiguity; which spell would you say is just powerful enough that (assuming the amount of spells per day remained the same, and all spells were of similar quality) martials and full casters would be on roughly even footing?
Barring shenanigans, Fireball. Insofar as the game is balanced, it's balanced on Fireball.

Damage is relatively easy to quantify and balance, though. Offhand, I can't really come up with an utility spell I felt was balanced on the level of Fireball. Maybe Longstrider.

[Sir Chuckles]

Dinosaur stampede. Just...look it up. Marvel at its uselessness.

The fact that a spell named Dinosaur Stampede is that worthless genuinely made me sad.

[Flickerdart]

The fact that a spell named Dinosaur Stampede is that worthless genuinely made me sad.
There's even an illustration for it.

[Deophaun]

The Words of Power.

Power Word: Pain as a cantrip. :smallwink:

My nomination goes to Greater Harm. Harm gives you a flat 150 damage at level 15. Greater Harm gives you an average of 130 damage at level 20.


Dinosaur stampede. Just...look it up. Marvel at its uselessness.

It's actually... not. It's a [Force] version of flaming sphere that you can control as a free action. Not terrible.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Power Word: Pain as a cantrip. :smallwink:

My nomination goes to Greater Harm. Harm gives you a flat 150 damage at level 15. Greater Harm gives you an average of 130 damage at level 20.



It's actually... not. It's a [Force] version of flaming sphere that you can control as a free action. Not terrible.

Its a [Force] Flaming Sphere, that does marginally more damage (1d12+CL vs. 2d6) at 4 levels higher. Thats nothing. MAYBE a 1 level bump, if not for being purely better than Flaming Sphere, but Flaming Sphere is not anywhere near the ideal power level for a 2nd level spell.

I always felt that Reverse Gravity was a bit weak for its level. What doesn't have flight capabilities at level 13 (15 for Druids). All it does is hose low-OP melee threats that your equipement or Overland Flight spells were taking care of 4 levels ago.

[AvatarVecna]

Time Stop severely limits what you can actually do with the frozen time and I think it should be knocked down to 8th or even 7th level because of it.

Time Stop is not under-powered for a 9th level spell. If anything, Time Stop is too powerful for a 9th level spell, and always was. The biggest problem a mage faces is if they find themselves in combat before they're properly buffed, and can't get out of combat. Between things like Quicken Spell and Greater Arcane Fusion, you can get as many spells as you need in those free 2-5 rounds...and the only reason it's a mere 2-5 rounds is because we're not bringing metamagic abuse into it. Even if you're just in Core, you've got metamagic abuse available through the Greater Metamagic Rods. Hell, in OotS, the Giant tends to shy away from the super-powerful caster tactics because it takes away from the martial character's chances to shine...but when he needed to show just how super-powerful a caster could be, he used Time Stop. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) And rightfully so.

The spell doesn't prevent you from casting anything, it just prevents it from affecting others while Time Stop is in effect. This means instantaneous blasting spells like Fireball and instantaneous SoD spells like Finger of Death are pointless, but Time Stop is what you use to put up your defenses for the fight, summon allies, bring up BFC spells, and hide. Stacking up metamagic'd BFC on your opponents for when Time Stop ends is brutal.

EDIT: To put in simpler terms, Time Stop is too powerful for is level because it takes the concept of the Action Economy and breaks it into teeny tiny pieces. Before the errata, you could make Time Stop Persistent, making it last 24 hours. On any prepared caster, that meant they could sleep and repurpose their spells prepared specifically for kicking your ass.

[Deophaun]

Its a [Force] Flaming Sphere, that does marginally more damage (1d12+CL vs. 2d6) at 4 levels higher. Thats nothing. MAYBE a 1 level bump, if not for being purely better than Flaming Sphere, but Flaming Sphere is not anywhere near the ideal power level for a 2nd level spell.

It's also a 20' radius instead of a 5' diameter (that's fairly huge). Reflex half instead of Reflex none. Move up to 40' as free action instead of 30' as a move. 6 is too high, but I'd place it at level 5. It's no blizzard, but Frostburn is OP as hell.

[AvatarVecna]

It's also a 20' radius instead of a 5' diameter (that's fairly huge). Reflex half instead of Reflex none. Move up to 40' as free action instead of 30' as a move. 6 is too high, but I'd place it at level 5. It's no blizzard, but Frostburn is OP as hell.

I prefer Cloudkill.

[ericgrau]

I always felt that Reverse Gravity was a bit weak for its level. What doesn't have flight capabilities at level 13 (15 for Druids). All it does is hose low-OP melee threats that your equipement or Overland Flight spells were taking care of 4 levels ago.

You don't fight other PCs. You fight monsters. It's a great spell. When your foes don't fly, they're screwed. When your foes do fly, picking a different spell is a non-action.

I think half of the spells mentioned are merely niche. Half really are bad. I'm having a hard time justifying Mordenkain's sword over, say, magic missile. Dropping the sword and surrounding yourself with a resilient sphere might be mildly useful against foes with no way to harm it, except then they can simply walk out of range. Even if there is some trick to it, you shouldn't have to work so hard just to be mildly effective.

I noticed some other spells mentioned have a large area, which can be amazing in the right circumstances. Others are not-fire, which is meh when you have better splatbook not-fire. But in core it means it's highly unlikely to be resisted by something that is also resistant to fire.

[GilesTheCleric]

You don't fight other PCs. You fight monsters.

Does nobody else run city/political/open world campaigns where the majority of foes are humanoids?

[Deophaun]

I prefer Cloudkill.
Completely different applications. Cloudkill is slow, uncontrolled, and does nothing to undead, constructs, and plants. Otherwise, it's great on trapped targets.

Dinosaur stampede is also one of the few (six?) [Force] spells available to a druid.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does nobody else run city/political/open world campaigns where the majority of foes are humanoids?

Yo.

I actually prefer them over monster-heavy dungeon crawls. Monsters can be squished easily enough but politics, woof, there's a dauntless, implacable foe.

[Svata]

Sphere of Ultimate Destruction. Full stop. Disintegrate every round as a move action does not a ninth-level spell make.

[AvatarVecna]

Completely different applications. Cloudkill is slow, uncontrolled, and does nothing to undead, constructs, and plants. Otherwise, it's great on trapped targets.

Dinosaur stampede is also one of the few (six?) [Force] spells available to a druid.

Against targets of your level or higher, Cloudkills damage is comparable unless the enemy has that particular immunity...and there's ways around immunities. Against targets significantly below your level, Cloudkill just kills them. It's only in a very short range of HDs that Cloudkill isn't outright killing them while still dealing less HP damage than Dinosaur Stampede...and even then, it's not that much less, and it's also reducing their Fortitude save, not to mention that Con damage can kill you even without taking out all your HP. Oh yeah, and Cloudkill's "damage" is to Con, not HP, so the enemy can't directly heal/regenerate the resulting HP "damage". Oh yeah, and Cloudkill lasts 10 times as long.

The only reason to prepare Dinosaur Stampede is if you're not sure what you'll be facing; in every situation that could come up, there's a spell that does the job better...the problem ends up being knowing what spell you'll need. But only a fool goes into a situation without knowing what's ahead.

[legomaster00156]

Sphere of Ultimate Destruction. Full stop. Disintegrate every round as a move action does not a ninth-level spell make.
Is this missing the blue text? :smallconfused:

[Remedy]

Is this missing the blue text? :smallconfused:
Doubt it. If it actually worked the way it was summarized, no bells or whistles, it may be worthwhile. As it is, though, it's basically a heightened Disintegrate, because when you're casting 9th-level spells, expecting reasonably matched enemies to stay within 30 feet of where your sphere was last round is silly. If they stay outside thirty feet but within 60 feet, it'll take your whole round to hit them again... Which is a fairly small distance range at this level anyway, but also has you not casting other useful spells when you should be. For all the usefulness it actually has in combat against appropriately mobile enemies, you may as well have cast Disintegrate twice instead. The only times it's strictly better than Disintegrate are: 1) against high-HP enemies with Fort saves still low enough for them to reasonably consistently fail and who have lots of defenses against better options but who also aren't very mobile... So, what, some non-spellcasting but otherwise souped up undead and constructs could be goos targets?; 2) you're suddenly faced with a fifteen-wall thick series of force barriers and they're blocking the methods of teleportation that require line of effect, so the single 9th is more plausible than trying to find access to fifteen castings of Disintegrate. That's about it. It's even just rounds per level, so it's not even worthwhile for terrorizing or demolition purposes.

[TheifofZ]

... Control Undead hasn't been mentioned?
Unless they've errata'd that, then Command Undead (1 day/level Dominate on unintelligent Undead, and Charm on intelligent ones as a 2nd) is far too low level, and Control Undead (1 minute per level Dominate as a 7th) is far too high.
I always felt they had accidentally swapped the names on those, myself.

[Deophaun]

Against targets of your level or higher, Cloudkills damage is comparable unless the enemy has that particular immunity...and there's ways around immunities.
"That particular immunity" is having eyes and a working pair of legs.

The only reason to prepare Dinosaur Stampede is if you're not sure what you'll be facing

Incorporeal creatures.

Continue.

[AvatarVecna]

"That particular immunity" is having eyes and a working pair of legs.Because we all now how difficult it is to prevent a creature from moving. And Dinosaur Stampede has that issue as well; it can be outrun about as easily as Cloudkill can.
Incorporeal creatures.

Continue.Let's ignore that most incorporeal creature will prefer going under the ground, or over the 10 ft height of Dinosaur stampede, because they can fly, and are incorporeal, rendering your spell useless against them. Dawn Shroud is a level lower, lasts 100 times as long, and deals the damage both whenever the undead are within 60 of the touched creature at the start of your turn, or whenever the touched creature attacks them with a natural/unarmed attack...because we all know how difficult it is for a druid to ensure a creature has lots of natural attacks. Stick it on a powerful summon, or your animal companion, or yourself even, and go to town. Sure, they could try and outrun you, but at this level that's going to be difficult unless they can teleport. And sure, it only targets one creature, but combining its lower level with metamagic abuse, it's easier to get lots of use out of this than it is to get lots of use out of Dinosaur Stampede. Although it's also not immediately getting past incorporeality.

Of course, it doesn't do anything if they're not undead...but that's like 90% of incorporeal creatures, and most of the rest are either other mages, fey, or elementals; against the former, you need very different tactics to defeat them, so Dinosaur Stampede is equally useless, and against the latter two, a Druid has far better options that just blasting away (like talking, or fey/elemental-specific spells, or so on). Hell, Nature's Purity is a 3rd level ray spell that deals force damage as well; there's enough metamagic that can be put on ray spells that it can be far more devastating than Dinosaur Stampede (unless you're facing a veritable army of incorporeal creatures). Finally, Transdimensional Spell makes most any spell just as effective against incorporeal creatures as it is against other creatures

My point wasn't that Dinosaur Stampede is pointless to prepare, my point was that if you know what's coming, there's always something better. Dinosaur Stampede is either a mediocre blasting spell for its level, or is absolutely perfect in a very niche situation (facing large groups of slow, non-flying, incorporeal creatures who refuse to retreat underground), and both of those result in it being underpowered for the level it's currently at. I could totally see it as maybe a 4th level spell, maybe even a 5th level spell, but at 6th level

[Kurald Galain]

Does nobody else run city/political/open world campaigns where the majority of foes are humanoids?

Yes, but not at a high enough level that Reverse Grav becomes relevant.

[Deophaun]

Because we all now how difficult it is to prevent a creature from moving.
If you have to cast two spells to kill a group of creatures, you're doing it wrong. Cloudkill is for when you've already won.


And Dinosaur Stampede has that issue as well; it can be outrun about as easily as Cloudkill can.
No, it can't. It's four times faster and it isn't defeated by side-stepping and continuing towards your target.


Let's ignore that most incorporeal creature will prefer going under the ground, or over the 10 ft height of Dinosaur stampede, because they can fly, and are incorporeal, rendering your spell useless against them. Dawn Shroud is a level lower, lasts 100 times as long, and deals the damage both whenever the undead are within 60 of the touched creature at the start of your turn
Apparently we're also ignoring that they're incorporeal and so has a 50% chance to not be affected.

Also, ghost touch weapons.


I could totally see it as maybe a 4th level spell, maybe even a 5th level spell, but at 6th level
You know, I hate people that argue for no reason:


It's also a 20' radius instead of a 5' diameter (that's fairly huge). Reflex half instead of Reflex none. Move up to 40' as free action instead of 30' as a move. 6 is too high, but I'd place it at level 5. It's no blizzard, but Frostburn is OP as hell.

[MesiDoomstalker]

You don't fight other PCs. You fight monsters. It's a great spell. When your foes don't fly, they're screwed. When your foes do fly, picking a different spell is a non-action.

I think half of the spells mentioned are merely niche. Half really are bad. I'm having a hard time justifying Mordenkain's sword over, say, magic missile. Dropping the sword and surrounding yourself with a resilient sphere might be mildly useful against foes with no way to harm it, except then they can simply walk out of range. Even if there is some trick to it, you shouldn't have to work so hard just to be mildly effective.

I noticed some other spells mentioned have a large area, which can be amazing in the right circumstances. Others are not-fire, which is meh when you have better splatbook not-fire. But in core it means it's highly unlikely to be resisted by something that is also resistant to fire.

I'm not talking PCs. I'm talking a host of standard creatures in various books which lack native flight capabilities. While not nearly as plentiful as PCs with such ability, are still handled just as easily by the flight methods available to PCs at the level Revers Gravity comes online. And again, the number of enemies with native flight capabilities are plentiful at level 13+, which means its equally useless. The one saving grace is its a Reflex Save or Suck, which are rather rare.

[AvatarVecna]

Dawn Shroud can be argued to overcome that because it specifically targets undead: having it be less effective against incorporeal undead goes against RAI, even if it's RAW. Also, DS being 4 times as fast as Cloudkill doesn't change the fact that it's slow, especially for a 6th level spell.
You know, I hate people that argue for no reason:Ah, that explains the disconnect: I missed the part where you're arguing that it should be 5th level, not 6th. So we agree that it sucks for a 6th level blasting spell? Awesome.

[Sacrieur]

I think it's the case not that the spells are too high a level, but that other spells are too low a level.

[squiggit]

I think it's the case not that the spells are too high a level, but that other spells are too low a level.

That's definitely on a case by case basis. While there are certainly spells that are ridiculously powerful for the level you gain access to them to the point of making other magics obsolete, stuff Polar Ray's 15d6 damage once a day at 15 would still be terrible even if it was the only spell in the game.

[Heliomance]

Polar Ray and Greater Shout are wankers.

Um. Wow. I'm... going to guess you're not a Britlander. That is not something I ever expected to see on these forums.

[Sacrieur]

That's definitely on a case by case basis. While there are certainly spells that are ridiculously powerful for the level you gain access to them to the point of making other magics obsolete, stuff Polar Ray's 15d6 damage once a day at 15 would still be terrible even if it was the only spell in the game.

It's a spell you can cast that scales well (maximum 25d6 damage) with an acceptable range, and is a touch attack. That's not bad at all. None of that Reflex save shenanigans. This makes it one of the most lethal attack spells in core.

While you might want to compare it to Telekinetic Sphere, realize that Telekinetic Sphere has a material component where Polar Ray doesn't. I get the feeling a lot of people feel spells are overpowered because they read the description and go, "WOW YOU CAN DO THAT?" But how many DMs strictly enforce material components on all spells, not just Wish? Back when I was a lowly player, all the DMs I played with completely waived it for simplicity's sake.

You may argue he could just put it all in a handy haversack. But keep in mind taking anything out of a handy haversack is a movement action. So your standard action spell is actually costing you a full round.

[Heliomance]

It's a spell you can cast that scales well (maximum 25d6 damage) with an acceptable range, and is a touch attack. That's not bad at all. None of that Reflex save shenanigans. This makes it one of the most lethal attack spells in core.

While you might want to compare it to Telekinetic Sphere, realize that Telekinetic Sphere has a material component where Polar Ray doesn't. I get the feeling a lot of people feel spells are overpowered because they read the description and go, "WOW YOU CAN DO THAT?" But how many DMs strictly enforce material components on all spells, not just Wish? Back when I was a lowly player, all the DMs I played with completely waived it for simplicity's sake.

You may argue he could just put it all in a handy haversack. But keep in mind taking anything out of a handy haversack is a movement action. So your standard action spell is actually costing you a full round.

Spell component pouches are explicitly assumed to have any material component without a listed price, and it's a free action to take stuff out of them.

[ericgrau]

Does nobody else run city/political/open world campaigns where the majority of foes are humanoids?
Some high level foes are, not most. If you make most foes high level NPCs it breaks WBL like a twig. Even with the excessive treasure, NPCs still have much less wealth than PCs. Which means it takes longer for the non-caster NPCs to get flight. Or if you mean high level non-elite NPC foes (with NPC levels, nonelite array, and less wealth) to avoid making WBL cry, then they have even less money than that. So now we're into very high level play that most groups don't get into or most NPCs are casters. Except adepts don't get flight. So we're talking high level NPCs that are nonelite in wealth and stats and yet get PC class levels, or breaking WBL again, or flying mounts I suppose. Even then many flying creatures have limited maneuverability and stall when flipped upside down. With no save for that matter, since they have nothing to grab.

So... does nobody run high level political campaigns where most foes are humanoids riding flying mounts? Hmm, sounds pretty cool, but I don't think that matches most campaigns.


I'm not talking PCs. I'm talking a host of standard creatures in various books which lack native flight capabilities. While not nearly as plentiful as PCs with such ability, are still handled just as easily by the flight methods available to PCs at the level Revers Gravity comes online. And again, the number of enemies with native flight capabilities are plentiful at level 13+, which means its equally useless. The one saving grace is its a Reflex Save or Suck, which are rather rare.
Many have it, not all. Many don't. Already answered that part in my original post. And a flying PC doesn't take them out, he makes them switch targets or go for the Macguffin. In core at least 24 hour good maneuverability flight is 54k gp a head. 17k gp if you don't mind average maneuverability. And you don't want to necessarily blow a big part of your gold on it. It's often not practical to get 24 hour flight for the entire party until level 16 or so. More temporary solutions are cheaper but eat a round to activate for every person in the party, vs just 1 action for you. Plus a levitate or telekinesis or other spell on the Macguffin if needed, assuming that even works on whatever the Macguffin is. And it's only a lock if every single foe has no answer, otherwise you just blew party-member-number-of-actions on 1 measly foe. You could usually kill him faster with focused fire damage instead.

...Or you could cast one spell that costs your party no gold or turns.

[Darrin]

Neutralize Poison would be fine at Cleric level 3.

Seconding this. Delay poison should be 1st level, neutralize poison should be 2nd level. Monstrous vermin are popular encounters at lower levels where poison is actually dangerous. Not having an effective counter to poison until Cleric 7 (or Druid 5) is just needlessly killing low-level PCs to no useful purpose.

[unseenmage]

The spell level discrepancy between Animate Dead vs Animate Objects has always bugged me.

Though it bugs me more that PF, rather than address the undead vs constructs level availability issue, just jacked up all the prices and gimped construct hp while giving undead hp a Cha based boost. Urg. (Playing in a PF game where I'm construct master-ing and another player is a ghoul. The hp discrepancies are grotesque.)

Bugs me enough that I've been knocking around a homebrew idea for a lower level Animate Objects spell with a cap on animatable hardness and a HD limit identical to Animate Dead's.

[Kurald Galain]

Come to think of it: Telekinesis.

First, I think it's silly that (other than the cantrip Mage Hand) the first option for wizards to move things around is fifth level. Second, both in terms of damage and in terms of lifting capability, it is way underpowered for a L5 spell anyway.

[Heliomance]

Come to think of it: Telekinesis.

First, I think it's silly that (other than the cantrip Mage Hand) the first option for wizards to move things around is fifth level. Second, both in terms of damage and in terms of lifting capability, it is way underpowered for a L5 spell anyway.

That depends how hard you abuse it. The damage from hurling 15 Colossal javelins is quite substantial.

[Flickerdart]

It's also a 20' radius instead of a 5' diameter (that's fairly huge). Reflex half instead of Reflex none. Move up to 40' as free action instead of 30' as a move. 6 is too high, but I'd place it at level 5. It's no blizzard, but Frostburn is OP as hell.
None of that is particularly meaningful, because at the end of the say it's still only "about 20 damage per round." As a 6th level spell, it's being used against CR11 dudes, who are packing 100-200HP. In any situation where its area of effect and damage are useful, you're fighting mook armies, and mook armies are not a meaningful challenge because of how the game works.

[Rubik]

non-flying, incorporeal creaturesAll incorporeal creatures can fly; it's part of being incorporeal. The only time this doesn't help is if they're in a place where the walls are close and block incorporeal ingress.

So yeah, even worse than you thought.

[Nifft]

Come to think of it: Telekinesis.

First, I think it's silly that (other than the cantrip Mage Hand) the first option for wizards to move things around is fifth level. Second, both in terms of damage and in terms of lifting capability, it is way underpowered for a L5 spell anyway. Unseen Servant and Tenser's Floating Disc might also count as ways for a Wizard to move stuff around.


All incorporeal creatures can fly; it's part of being incorporeal. The only time this doesn't help is if they're in a place where the walls are close and block incorporeal ingress.

So yeah, even worse than you thought.
Times like that, you need to cast Ceiling and Floor of Force.

[Sacrieur]

Spell component pouches are explicitly assumed to have any material component without a listed price, and it's a free action to take stuff out of them.

In pathfinder the spell component pouch has a size of 1/8 cubic feet. I enforce players abide by this and keep an inventory of what's inside of it up to date if it has a cost greater than 1 gp. Also if the bag is ever stolen or destroyed the caster can be severely limited.

In any case, something like Forcecage requires 1500 gp of ruby dust. And if they don't have it listed in their spell component pouch, they can't cast it without spending at least a move action of getting it. I believe this highlights that these restrictions are too often overlooked.

[Brova]

In a weird way, wish. Obviously abusing wish to get magic items for free, or do chain binding, or turn planar binding into greater planar binding is stupid good. But just showing up as a 17th level Wizard and casting wish is just kind of ... not. Compared to miracle, it costs more XP, doesn't duplicate spells as well, and doesn't have the same "go nuts, do what you want" ability miracle does (short of arguing about "greater effects"). You can make a case that miracle is just too good though, so it's possible that wish is fine, but it seems weak. Also, you can't really justify having it be lower level.

[squiggit]

In pathfinder the spell component pouch has a size of 1/8 cubic feet. I enforce players abide by this and keep an inventory of what's inside of it up to date if it has a cost greater than 1 gp. Also if the bag is ever stolen or destroyed the caster can be severely limited.

In any case, something like Forcecage requires 1500 gp of ruby dust. And if they don't have it listed in their spell component pouch, they can't cast it without spending at least a move action of getting it. I believe this highlights that these restrictions are too often overlooked.

Priced and unpriced material components are explicitly differentiated though. Yeah, you'd need to keep track of Force cage's 500 gp ruby dust, but not telekinetic sphere's unpriced gum arabic and magnets or wall of force's powdered quartz.

[TheifofZ]

In pathfinder the spell component pouch has a size of 1/8 cubic feet. I enforce players abide by this and keep an inventory of what's inside of it up to date if it has a cost greater than 1 gp. Also if the bag is ever stolen or destroyed the caster can be severely limited.

In any case, something like Forcecage requires 1500 gp of ruby dust. And if they don't have it listed in their spell component pouch, they can't cast it without spending at least a move action of getting it. I believe this highlights that these restrictions are too often overlooked.

All material components with an unlisted price are assumed to be of inconsequential price, to the point where the book-keeping isn't part of it. That is: They pay no gold for, and do not have to keep track of, any balls of bat guano and sulfur they carry around for fireball, for instance.
Material components with a listed price are suppose to be tracked and consumed as per normal; this is not a homebrew thing, it's an actual rule. Like trail rations.
The diamonds for Resurrect, or the ruby dust for Force-cage don't magically replace the gold coins in your coin purse, after all. ... Unless you homebrew a spell for that, but that's different.
And spell component pouches are 5 gold, and non-unique. As soon as a caster hits town he can pick up another one at any shop, if his is destroyed. But until then, yes. He's S.O.L. because he has no components.

[Brova]

In pathfinder the spell component pouch has a size of 1/8 cubic feet. I enforce players abide by this and keep an inventory of what's inside of it up to date if it has a cost greater than 1 gp. Also if the bag is ever stolen or destroyed the caster can be severely limited.

In any case, something like Forcecage requires 1500 gp of ruby dust. And if they don't have it listed in their spell component pouch, they can't cast it without spending at least a move action of getting it. I believe this highlights that these restrictions are too often overlooked.

Balancing things by making them annoying to do doesn't work. If I have to run a spell components spreadsheet to get my real ultimate power, I won't not get real ultimate power. I will just run that spreadsheet and resent you making me do it.

[ComaVision]

Phantom Plow, it's a level 3 Cleric spell that plows the ground but stops if it hits a rock.

If it was a cantrip, at least NPCs could use it.

[Rubik]

Balancing things by making them annoying to do doesn't work. If I have to run a spell components spreadsheet to get my real ultimate power, I won't not get real ultimate power. I will just run that spreadsheet and resent you making me do it.There really ought to be a +1 button somewhere on the forums.

I've played with DMs that forced stuff like this. It not only adds nothing to the game, it actively subtracts from the game's fun quotient, which is never a good thing.

[edit]
Phantom Plow, it's a level 3 Cleric spell that plows the ground but stops if it hits a rock.

If it was a cantrip, at least NPCs could use it.Couldn't you just summon a dire badger or something to tear up the ground for you?

[nedz]

There really ought to be a +1 button somewhere on the forums.

I've played with DMs that forced stuff like this. It not only adds nothing to the game, it actively subtracts from the game's fun quotient, which is never a good thing.

There again I've played with players who like doing this sort of thing :smallconfused:

I only enforce unusual or expensive material components.

[Sacrieur]

Balancing things by making them annoying to do doesn't work. If I have to run a spell components spreadsheet to get my real ultimate power, I won't not get real ultimate power. I will just run that spreadsheet and resent you making me do it.

It's meant to be limiting. You're arguing that you should be able to cast Arcane Lock without 25 gp worth of gold dust (PF).

Anything without a listed price has a price below 1 gp because its cost is assumed to be negligible.

[Rubik]

It's meant to be limiting. You're arguing that you should be able to cast Arcane Lock without 25 gp worth of gold dust (PF).

Anything without a listed price has a price below 1 gp because its cost is assumed to be negligible.I read it as "making players run spreadsheets to keep tabs on negligible components is annoying and doesn't balance anything anyway."

[ComaVision]

Whenever someone in my games casts a spell with a material component of a value >1 gp, I just have them deduct the gold. Nobody wants to play the finding-spell-components mini game.

[Sacrieur]

I read it as "making players run spreadsheets to keep tabs on negligible components is annoying and doesn't balance anything anyway."

No of course not, that would be ridiculous.

[Brova]

Whenever someone in my games casts a spell with a material component of a value >1 gp, I just have them deduct the gold. Nobody wants to play the finding-spell-components mini game.

This was pretty much my thinking. Requiring me to write down that I have 250 GP in gold dust, 10,000 GP in diamond dust, a shapechange circlet, a spare mirror for scrying, and whatever else is annoying and not ultimately particularly important.

[Sacrieur]

This was pretty much my thinking. Requiring me to write down that I have 250 GP in gold dust, 10,000 GP in diamond dust, a shapechange circlet, a spare mirror for scrying, and whatever else is annoying and not ultimately particularly important.

Do you also not prepare spells and cast whatever one you like from your spellbook and just deduct it from your available spells per day because preparing spells is annoying an not particularly important?

[ComaVision]

Do you also not prepare spells and cast whatever one you like from your spellbook and just deduct it from your available spells per day because preparing spells is annoying an not particularly important?

Honestly, sometimes yes. If we're in a downtime sort of situation and want a particular spell we just assume that at some point it was prepared and cast.

[Rubik]

What level would a spell be that transmutes money into an appropriately priced spell component? For instance, transmuting 50,000,000 cp and 500,000 sp into a 10,000 gp diamond? 3rd level, maybe?

Note that the spell has other uses beyond simply casting spells. For instance, a 10,000 gp diamond is a LOT easier to cart around than 100,000,000 copper pieces.

[Starbuck_II]

Complete Arcane has a dozen:
Lightning Blade: It looks cool, but the casting action just creates it then next round you can attack with it. This would be fine as a 1st with limitation isn't removed. Plus, each 1d6 you deal up to max lowers duration. Unlike Flaming blade, this has a 1 minute duration until used up damage dice.

Earthen Grasp: Should be 1st as it is uncontrollable unless enemy in area.
Earth Bolt: Lightning bolt only works on certain places, why not 2nd with those restrictions?
Ice Blast: since damage is 1d6/2 levels, why not 1st level? Granted it has 30 ft cone competing with Burning hands 15ft (1d4/level).
Iron Scarf deals 1d8+1/LV with a ranged attack (not touch): should be a cantrip.
Rain of Needles: 1st level would be fine since another ranged attack (not touch)

Mostly Wu Jen spells, but they deserve love too.

[Brova]

What level would a spell be that transmutes money into an appropriately priced spell component? For instance, transmuting 50,000,000 cp and 500,000 sp into a 10,000 gp diamond? 3rd level, maybe?

Note that the spell has other uses beyond simply casting spells. For instance, a 10,000 gp diamond is a LOT easier to cart around than 100,000,000 copper pieces.

I mean, gems are literally money, so that's just "using the market" which is ... not a spell. This is also why I think Sacrieur's analogy is unreasonable. In many cases the difference between gold and spell components is just what you write down on your sheet. But in some cases it is not. For those cases, you have minor creation, which is a 4th level spell that creates a variety of material components from nothing and has added utility (make all the flasks of acid!). Also, it lasts long enough for you to Frank Cheat it, meaning it doesn't even cost you a slot. Apparently I can't read, and that doesn't work.

[Kurald Galain]

Whenever someone in my games casts a spell with a material component of a value >1 gp, I just have them deduct the gold. Nobody wants to play the finding-spell-components mini game.

Agreed. Ever since 2E every single DM I've met found that rule too silly or annoying to bother with.

[zergling.exe]

I mean, gems are literally money, so that's just "using the market" which is ... not a spell. This is also why I think Sacrieur's analogy is unreasonable. In many cases the difference between gold and spell components is just what you write down on your sheet. But in some cases it is not. For those cases, you have minor creation, which is a 4th level spell that creates a variety of material components from nothing and has added utility (make all the flasks of acid!). Also, it lasts long enough for you to Frank Cheat it, meaning it doesn't even cost you a slot.

Unless Pathfinder changed it, trying to use components made by minor creation automatically causes the spell to fail.

[Brova]

Unless Pathfinder changed it, trying to use components made by minor creation automatically causes the spell to fail.

Wow. I can't read. So that doesn't work at all.

[Sacrieur]

I mean, gems are literally money, so that's just "using the market" which is ... not a spell. This is also why I think Sacrieur's analogy is unreasonable. In many cases the difference between gold and spell components is just what you write down on your sheet. But in some cases it is not. For those cases, you have minor creation, which is a 4th level spell that creates a variety of material components from nothing and has added utility (make all the flasks of acid!). Also, it lasts long enough for you to Frank Cheat it, meaning it doesn't even cost you a slot.

1) You must have the spell prepared.
2) You must have the spell's component or focus at hand. Either on your person clipped to a belt or in your spell component pouch.
3) You must have a hand free to obtain the component or focus to use.

If at any time you can't meet these requirements, you can't cast the spell. You can't even use still spell metamagic to cast it if you're pinned, for instance. It doesn't needlessly hamper the game because spells with material components (the ones that require upkeep) make up around 10% if not less of all spells. It can be assumed that you put the prerequisite amount needed into your spell component pouch for the day when you prepare your spells. But you do have to keep a stock of gold dust, ruby dust, or otherwise around, even if it can be used as currency because the reverse is not true.

When I discussed spell components and removing them with a player of mine, he responded: "This sounds like it takes out a lot of interesting challenges and scenarios; you effectively remove "what if" or "if only" discussions and have a linear, predictable, and ultimately dull experience. But perhaps some people enjoy more mundane, cookie-cutter challenges than ones that require improvisation and compromise."

While it may seem unimportant to you, it's actually pretty important, as on any single adventure a wizard may be just that more hesitant to use certain spells because he knows has limited quantities before he can restock. Or he has to resort to something like Blood Money. In other words, by removing this restriction, you're increasing the caster's versatility, which is the very thing that makes him so powerful in the first place. And now we're all here saying that wizards are too strong when you're ignoring an entire mechanic dedicated to limiting them.

[AvatarVecna]

Re: Spell Component Discussion

Yeah, I'm invoking Grod's Law on this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17613518&postcount=102) Enforcing the gathering of spell components is not only a perfect example of the law in work, it's literally what inspired the law's creation.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Other than some higher level direct damage spells and some healing spells, very few are too high a level. There's a much larger list of ones that should be higher in level.

I will say one thing in general that I find a mistake is putting spells that inflict a status at the same level as spells that exist solely/mostly to cure said condition. The latter are far more limited in use (you don't beat 80% of encounters by removing blindness, but you sure as hell can win ~80% of them by inflicting it) and purely reactive. The fix-you-up spells should be in general one level lower than the spells who inflict said conditions.

[Brova]

When I discussed spell components and removing them with a player of mine, he responded: "This sounds like it takes out a lot of interesting challenges and scenarios; you effectively remove "what if" or "if only" discussions and have a linear, predictable, and ultimately dull experience. But perhaps some people enjoy more mundane, cookie-cutter challenges than ones that require improvisation and compromise."

But I can just keep all my wealth in spell components and not care. And to be totally frank, I'm not convinced that the constraint even comes up in adventuring. Unless you are consistently preparing several copies of a spell with material components and never get to shop, I don't think you're going to run out of them before you run out of castings.


In other words, by removing this restriction, you're increasing the caster's versatility, which is the very thing that makes him so powerful in the first place.

No, what makes spellcasters strong is the fact that they get spells that are awesome. The fact that they get cloudkill and lesser planar binding at all is vastly more important than the fact that they get both of those spells.


And now we're all here saying that wizards are too strong when you're ignoring an entire mechanic dedicated to limiting them.

No amount of accounting is going to change the fact that the Incantatrix is an Incantatrix and you are not.

[zergling.exe]

So what level would this spell be:

Componentizer
Transmutation
Level: 2 on classes with 6th level or higher spells, 1 on all others
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 free action
Range: Touch
Target: See text
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell turns gold into costly material compenents. You must use the same number of gp that the component is worth to create it. You may only cast this spell when either preparing or casting a spell with a costly material component.
You may also change one material component into another. If the new component is more expensive you must add addition gp to make up the difference. If the new component is less expensive you get half the excess value in back in gp.
Wizard's can spontaneously cast this spell from any slot equal to or above its level, to the maximum spell slot of that which it is prepared at. Casting it from the highest level slot expends the spell and you cannot cast it any longer if you have not prepared it elsewhere. This spell does not allow a prepared caster to qualify for anything that requires spontaneous casting.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Whether components are effective at limiting casters or are just an annoyance, casters DO NOT NEED MORE HELP, and the components were clearly meant to be a limit on them. If you want to remove that annoyance, that's fine.... as long as you institute massive, sweeping nerfs to their spells and access to those spells so there's still a balance going on. You'll almost certainly end up with a result much better balanced than it is now. But enough of the "they're overpowered either way, so who cares if we throw them another bone?" crap.

[Rubik]

So what level would this spell be:

Componentizer
Transmutation
Level:?
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 free action
Range: Touch
Target: See text
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell turns gold into costly material components. You must use the same number of gp that the component is worth to create it. You may only cast this spell when either preparing or casting a spell with a costly material component.How about allowing one component to another, as well? Doesn't seem too bad, especially if diamonds and a few other things are both components and money in and of themselves.

[Brova]

So what level would this spell be:

Componentizer
Transmutation
Level:?
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 free action
Range: Touch
Target: See text
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell turns gold into costly material compenents. You must use the same number of gp that the component is worth to create it. You may only cast this spell when either preparing or casting a spell with a costly material component.

I feel like this is too niche to matter. Making it a free action helps, but ultimately it seems like a slot is going to be too much of a cost for something you can do in downtime. For me to care, it needs to be a +0 metamagic that lets me use gold as a component (and probably give some other bonus) or give me a bigger value of components I can't sell.

[Kurald Galain]

I will say one thing in general that I find a mistake is putting spells that inflict a status at the same level as spells that exist solely/mostly to cure said condition. The latter are far more limited in use (you don't beat 80% of encounters by removing blindness, but you sure as hell can win ~80% of them by inflicting it) and purely reactive. The fix-you-up spells should be in general one level lower than the spells who inflict said conditions.

Yes. This is actually a legacy issue: in 2E, you could cure most spell-inflicted conditions by casting the spell "in reverse". That is, Stone To Flesh used to be the same spell as Flesh To Stone, just cast backwards. Of course, a reverse spell has to have the same level as the normal version.

...that rule got scrapped in 3E (and for good reason), but this is why some specific cure spells are still too high level: nobody's bothered changing them since they were a reversed inflict spell.

[Sacrieur]

Re: Spell Component Discussion

Yeah, I'm invoking Grod's Law on this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17613518&postcount=102) Enforcing the gathering of spell components is not only a perfect example of the law in work, it's literally what inspired the law's creation.

Give me a pathfinder example that holds true for those.

1) If you have a munchkin that's just going to ignore it, that's just plain and simple cheating. It falls into the same argument, "If he's going to cheat anyway why even have rules?" instead of appropriately concluding that he simply shouldn't be allowed to cheat.

2) A powergamer may have difficulty around the material cost, as it's not something that's so abusable. Even if you do Blood Money + Lesser Restoration, that's still costing you spells. Even if he does find a way around it, he's still going to have to pay up with class features or feats that somehow allow him to bypass the restriction.

I'm not aware of any legitimate exploits that render the restriction moot.

---


But I can just keep all my wealth in spell components and not care. And to be totally frank, I'm not convinced that the constraint even comes up in adventuring. Unless you are consistently preparing several copies of a spell with material components and never get to shop, I don't think you're going to run out of them before you run out of castings.

I'm glad it doesn't personally inconvenience you. But should you ever lose your spell component pouch you would also lose your wealth.

I've remembered several instances when my players had to go for about week without ever getting to shop, all while getting in repeated conflicts.



No, what makes spellcasters strong is the fact that they get spells that are awesome. The fact that they get cloudkill and lesser planar binding at all is vastly more important than the fact that they get both of those spells.

I think this has more to do with the weakness of mundanes than the strength of casters. When compared to a Stalker who can teleport at will as many times as he wants while being able to stay in a stance forever, casters suddenly don't seem so woefully overpowered.



No amount of accounting is going to change the fact that the Incantatrix is an Incantatrix and you are not.

The power is limited, that's the point.

[Zancloufer]

Come to think of it: Telekinesis.

First, I think it's silly that (other than the cantrip Mage Hand) the first option for wizards to move things around is fifth level. Second, both in terms of damage and in terms of lifting capability, it is way underpowered for a L5 spell anyway.

You do realize that if you get some really heavy rocks it does around 15d6 damage per attack, with 15 attacks right? 225d6 damage in a round is nothing to sneeze at, probably more 'blasting' damage than any other individual spell, and it's SR:No with no save to boot. Not to mention it has some decent utility and other applications as well.

I would say Foresight is rather lame. +2 AC/Ref saves (if not immobilized) and Uncanny Dodge for 10 min/level as a 9th level spell? Single target to boot and it get's nerfed if cast on a individual that isn't the caster.

[Brova]

I'm glad it doesn't personally inconvenience you. But should you ever lose your spell component pouch you would also lose your wealth.

What was stopping people from stealing my money when they stole my spell component pouch?


The power is limited, that's the point.

But it's not. The Incantatrix just cast his spells outside combat, then slaps you around in combat. The chain binder casts his spells outside combat, then has a bunch of pet demons. The guy who just casts good spells is not dealing with costly components on color spray, web, stinking cloud, evard's black tentacles, cloudkill, or acid fog.

[zergling.exe]

I feel like this is too niche to matter. Making it a free action helps, but ultimately it seems like a slot is going to be too much of a cost for something you can do in downtime. For me to care, it needs to be a +0 metamagic that lets me use gold as a component (and probably give some other bonus) or give me a bigger value of components I can't sell.

Right I forgot a line:

Wizard's can spontaneously cast this spell from any slot equal to or above its level, to the maximum spell slot of that which it is prepared at. Casting it from the highest level slot expends the spell and you cannot cast it any longer if you have not prepared it elsewhere.


How about allowing one component to another, as well? Doesn't seem too bad, especially if diamonds and a few other things are both components and money in and of themselves.

Does this work?

You may also change one material component into another. If the new component is more expensive you must add addition gp to make up the difference. If the new component is less expensive you get half the excess value in back in gp.

[Rubik]

Right I forgot a line:

Wizard's can spontaneously cast this spell from any slot equal to or above its level, to the maximum spell slot of that which it is prepared at. Casting it from the highest level slot expends the spell and you cannot cast it any longer if you have not prepared it elsewhere.So...it's kind of a reserve feat and a spell all in one?

How does this work with prereqs that require spontaneous casting?

[edit]
Does this work?

You may also change one material component into another. If the new component is more expensive you must add addition gp to make up the difference. If the new component is less expensive you get half the excess value in back in gp.Sure.

With all of that in there, I'm...not sure. We're competing with some awfully nice spells, even at level 2. It requires resources to cast in and of itself, but it grants more versatility in what can be done with expensive spell components and liquid assets.

I imagine the impact this spell would have is entirely contingent on the group in question's houserules regarding material components, if any. It's something that's widely done, probably more than most houserules, even though the Playground doesn't usually deal in houserules.

2nd level, maybe? Probably not 4th, though, since it's competing against Polymorph, in specific.

[zergling.exe]

So...it's kind of a reserve feat and a spell all in one?

How does this work with prereqs that require spontaneous casting?

I must be out of it. When I was coming up with that part I was going to add something about that but forgot. It would not count, I'll add that in.

So that should be everything for it. Which classes should get it? Sorc/Wiz only, or throw others like Cleric in as well?

[Rubik]

I must be out of it. When I was coming up with that part I was going to add something about that but forgot. It would not count, I'll add that in.Check the edit.

[P.F.]

Re: Spell Component Discussion

Yeah, I'm invoking Grod's Law on this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17613518&postcount=102) Enforcing the gathering of spell components is not only a perfect example of the law in work, it's literally what inspired the law's creation.

In fairness, that was in response to jedipotter's own ... unique interpretation of enforcing gathering spell components, not using the Rules on gathering spell components As Written.

[Svata]

So what level would this spell be:

Componentizer
Transmutation
Level:?
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 free action
Range: Touch
Target: See text
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell turns gold into costly material compenents. You must use the same number of gp that the component is worth to create it. You may only cast this spell when either preparing or casting a spell with a costly material component.
You may also change one material component into another. If the new component is more expensive you must add addition gp to make up the difference. If the new component is less expensive you get half the excess value in back in gp.
Wizard's can spontaneously cast this spell from any slot equal to or above its level, to the maximum spell slot of that which it is prepared at. Casting it from the highest level slot expends the spell and you cannot cast it any longer if you have not prepared it elsewhere.

Well, discounting the bit at the end, it'd make a good cantrip (in 3.5, not pf). You skight think its too strong, but hear me out. Its something useful from the get go, but never overpowered, and, as there is no way of obtaining more cantrips/day you're stuck with 4 (6 if you're a sorcerer. Oh look, bonus!) So yeah. Cantrip.

[Rubik]

So that should be everything for it. Which classes should get it? Sorc/Wiz only, or throw others like Cleric in as well?Give it to all spellcasting classes. At least, all the ones who use material components. Anyone who uses expensive components could use it, after all.

Artificers could use it as an infusion, as well, since they have a LOT of infusions with expensive material components.

[zergling.exe]

Well, discounting the bit at the end, it'd make a good cantrip (in 3.5, not pf). You skight think its too strong, but hear me out. Its something useful from the get go, but never overpowered, and, as there is no way of obtaining more cantrips/day you're stuck with 4 (6 if you're a sorcerer. Oh look, bonus!) So yeah. Cantrip.

The problem is you can still cast cantrips out of higher level slots. So unless it is specifically cast from 0th level slots then that makes it usable from any level of spells.

Give it to all spellcasting classes. At least, all the ones who use material components. Anyone who uses expensive components could use it, after all.

Artificers could use it as an infusion, as well, since they have a LOT of infusions with expensive material components.

I'll probably do that.

I think I shall put it as a 2nd level spell. Transmuting gold into things like mirrors feels beyond what a first level spell should be doing. I may be wrong about that and that is why threads like this exist.

We should probably also move this topic to the homebrew forum if we want to keep going. It's getting kind of long.

[Dondasch]

In reply to the conversation on expensive spell components: Why not just stock up on Primal Essence from Complete Mage?

[nedz]

So what level would this spell be:

Componentizer
Transmutation
Level: 2 on classes with 6th level or higher spells, 1 on all others
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 free action
Range: Touch
Target: See text
Duration: Instantaneous

This spell turns gold into costly material compenents. You must use the same number of gp that the component is worth to create it. You may only cast this spell when either preparing or casting a spell with a costly material component.
You may also change one material component into another. If the new component is more expensive you must add addition gp to make up the difference. If the new component is less expensive you get half the excess value in back in gp.
Wizard's can spontaneously cast this spell from any slot equal to or above its level, to the maximum spell slot of that which it is prepared at. Casting it from the highest level slot expends the spell and you cannot cast it any longer if you have not prepared it elsewhere. This spell does not allow a prepared caster to qualify for anything that requires spontaneous casting.

Just cast Teleport twice and go shopping.

[zergling.exe]

Thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445313-When-you-don-t-have-enough-dust&p=19870518#post19870518) for discussing my spell.

[Kurald Galain]

1) If you have a munchkin that's just going to ignore it, that's just plain and simple cheating. It falls into the same argument, "If he's going to cheat anyway why even have rules?" instead of appropriately concluding that he simply shouldn't be allowed to cheat.
The point is that complicating rules doesn't work as a balancing mechanism. If you require tracking components for the sake of balance, well, that's not really going to help the balance any. If you want tracking for the sake of flavor, that's another matter (however, do consider that a lot of components are literal reprints of 30-year-old puns...)


You do realize that if you get some really heavy rocks it does around 15d6 damage per attack, with 15 attacks right?
The spell is capped at 375 pounds total, not 375 pounds per object. So it deals 15d6, requiring attack rolls vs regular AC. Yeah, that doesn't strike me as very effective.

[Brova]

(however, do consider that a lot of components are literal reprints of 30-year-old puns...)

How did I forget that? Beyond any issues about balance, spell components are just dumb jokes. fireball requires you to have bat guano because it isn't actually magic, you're just making primitive explosives. There's some divination spell (maybe scry?) that has the components for a battery - to power the "TV" you're watching people on. I kind of think that's just bad for the game, balance aside.

[Arbane]

How did I forget that? Beyond any issues about balance, spell components are just dumb jokes. fireball requires you to have bat guano because it isn't actually magic, you're just making primitive explosives. There's some divination spell (maybe scry?) that has the components for a battery - to power the "TV" you're watching people on. I kind of think that's just bad for the game, balance aside.

The AD&D Run spell required "a drop of oil from a castor bean and a dried plum".
Yeah, most of the ones that don't cost real money are just dumb jokes.

[Aldrakan]

A number of components also seem to be written with the assumption that you're not paying attention to what they are beyond whether you have a spell component pouch or not. Very few people, I think, want to deal with the logistics of keeping a bunch of pet spiders with you throughout the adventure so you can cast spider climb when you need it, or making everyone crawl around turning over rocks looking for bugs. A number of seemingly arbitrarily chosen spells just become way harder to do.

[Karnith]

The AD&D Run spell required "a drop of oil from a castor bean and a dried plum".
Yeah, most of the ones that don't cost real money are just dumb jokes.
Or Tasha's Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hideousLaughter.htm), which has you throwing pies at someone to make them laugh.

[Starbuck_II]

Or Tasha's Hideous Laughter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/hideousLaughter.htm), which has you throwing pies at someone to make them laugh.

Which is why you never die of hunger while carrying a spell component pouch. Mmm, pie!

[mythmonster2]

Okay, wait, reading through this thread, I think some people misinterpreted the other side's point. Sacrieur (from what I read) isn't saying that players have to track bat guano for Fireballs, or other components that have no cost. It seems he only tracks components which have a listed cost, which is... literally what the rules say to do? I'm not sure sure why so many people are having a problem with that :smallconfused:.

[P.F.]

Okay, wait, reading through this thread, I think some people misinterpreted the other side's point. Sacrieur (from what I read) isn't saying that players have to track bat guano for Fireballs, or other components that have no cost. It seems he only tracks components which have a listed cost, which is... literally what the rules say to do? I'm not sure sure why so many people are having a problem with that :smallconfused:.

It makes breaking the game with playing casters more tedious. And potentially reduces versatility if you can't hand-wave transmuting various precious materials out of the gold piece total on your character sheet which also doesn't count against your encumbrance. And if you, as a DM, require this, casters will simply pick different overpowered spells that don't have expensive material components, and resent you for it every time they wish they could be casting a spell with an expensive material component.

[Sacrieur]

Okay, wait, reading through this thread, I think some people misinterpreted the other side's point. Sacrieur (from what I read) isn't saying that players have to track bat guano for Fireballs, or other components that have no cost. It seems he only tracks components which have a listed cost, which is... literally what the rules say to do? I'm not sure sure why so many people are having a problem with that :smallconfused:.

Pretty much nailed it spot on.

Even for all those "silly" materials you can pick up eschew materials.



It makes breaking the game with playing casters more tedious. And potentially reduces versatility if you can't hand-wave transmuting various precious materials out of the gold piece total on your character sheet which also doesn't count against your encumbrance.

Gold and gems do count towards encumbrance, and I do enforce it. It stops becoming an issue once the players get bags of holding, however.

It doesn't make the game anything, since the game includes it by default. You're the one making the game something else by not doing it.



And if you, as a DM, require this, casters will simply pick different overpowered spells that don't have expensive material components, and resent you for it every time they wish they could be casting a spell with an expensive material component.

How dreadful that I limit their versatility. And here I thought casters needed more versatility.



How did I forget that? Beyond any issues about balance, spell components are just dumb jokes. fireball requires you to have bat guano because it isn't actually magic, you're just making primitive explosives. There's some divination spell (maybe scry?) that has the components for a battery - to power the "TV" you're watching people on. I kind of think that's just bad for the game, balance aside.

Very disagree. If I were designing a spell I didn't want it to be able to be cast while you were grappled, pinned, or without your spell component pouch, for instance, a focus or material component is a way to do that.

But yes, negligible spell components have low impact on the game, as Paizo itself admits is there for fun. But this discussion was never about that.

From Paizo on costly spell components:


Costly material components should be used to prevent overzealous players from casting the spell as often as they want, because the spell either makes adventuring too easy if everyone in the party has it (such as stoneskin), allows the PCs to bypass key adventuring experiences like exploring and investigating (such as augury, divination, and commune), or allows the PCs to trivialize certain threats (such as raise dead and restoration). Balance a spell without costly material components if possible, usually by raising the spell level if it is too good for the intended level. Sometimes the power level of a spell is on target (like augury, as it makes sense to have a low-level divination spell for clerics), but the spell is valuable enough that players will overuse it if it's free, so you have to apply a gp cost to moderate how often the PCs use it. Long-lasting defensive spells such as glyph of warding also fit into this category; if they were free, every spellcaster would cover her lair in them, casting one per day for the weeks or months of planning the NPC has before the PCs arrive. By giving glyph of warding a gp cost, it allows for more traditional adventuring—otherwise every square the PCs walk on is a potential trap, slowing play to a crawl as the PCs are forced to slowly and carefully search every square to notice the glyphs (given that a typical 5th-level rogue has +14 to Perception against a DC 28 glyph, meaning she fails most searches unless she takes 20).

[DarkSonic1337]

So uh...am I the only one who actually buys expensive material components ahead of time and throws them in my spell component pouch?

Sure a lot of DMs handwaive them away and just let you take the gold off your character sheet, but it's not too difficult to just keep track of them...considering you shouldn't have that many spells that actually require expensive components anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So uh...am I the only one who actually buys expensive material components ahead of time and throws them in my spell component pouch?

Sure a lot of DMs handwaive them away and just let you take the gold off your character sheet, but it's not too difficult to just keep track of them...considering you shouldn't have that many spells that actually require expensive components anyway.

I do.

I enforce -expensive- components as a DM too. They're intended as a balancing factor for the spells that call for them and it's not exactly hard to account for them if you really want to use those spells. Ditto for expensive foci and (this is the one that's gonna get me yelled at) I even sometimes enforce costless components and foci that logic says should be particularly rare, such as the tuning forks for planeshift, if I strongly want to render accessing those spells difficult but not impossible or the effect could get out of hand, like the eyelash of a god for ice assassin. That last is not something I do often but sometimes you wanna simplify certain things.

[Svata]

I do.

I enforce -expensive- components as a DM too. They're intended as a balancing factor for the spells that call for them and it's not exactly hard to account for them if you really want to use those spells. Ditto for expensive foci This is a good thing.


and (this is the one that's gonna get me yelled at) I even sometimes enforce costless components and foci that logic says should be particularly rare, such as the tuning forks for planeshift, if I strongly want to render accessing those spells difficult but not impossible or the effect could get out of hand, like the eyelash of a god for ice assassin. That last is not something I do often but sometimes you wanna simplify certain things.

Eh, personally I disagree, but you were polite about it, and, honestly, its not terribly unreasonable. So to each his own, so long as you feel the same and it isn't a source of constant complaints from your players (which is when it becomes a problem, if anyone was curious/wondering how I support this yet bashed the one who caused the origination of Grod's Law).

[ericgrau]

Just cast Teleport twice and go shopping.
1. Ha this. In general make it easy to trade gold and precious gems in any reasonably sized town.
2. Making sure you have enough spells per day to get your valuable components is still something annoying to track. I have a feat instead:

Versatile Expensive Components
Prerequisite: Eschew Materials.
Benefit: You may use gems, gold or other precious metals in place of any material component costing more than 1 gp. The material used must be of equal or greater value, supported only by your hand, not attended by another creature and non-magical.


... is it bad that I've played D&D so long that the first (ab)use I thought of for this was to overcome traps, adamantine doors, adamantine armor and magic item/artifact destruction? Hence the end part of the feat. I still see a combo with telekinetic disarm adamantine weapon + pick it up + a costly spell, but whatever, at that point I'd let the mage do it if he can actually pull it off.

[nedz]

So uh...am I the only one who actually buys expensive material components ahead of time and throws them in my spell component pouch?

Sure a lot of DMs handwaive them away and just let you take the gold off your character sheet, but it's not too difficult to just keep track of them...considering you shouldn't have that many spells that actually require expensive components anyway.

I do this; also, when I'm DMing, so do my players.
Also obscure things like Tuning forks for Plane Shift.

[P.F.]

I even sometimes enforce costless components and foci that logic says should be particularly rare, such as the tuning forks for planeshift

At least I'm not the only one :smallwink:

And as I recall, the focus component of plane shift explicitly says the proper focus for certain planes might be rare/secret/expensive or something.

[Zancloufer]

At least I'm not the only one :smallwink:

And as I recall, the focus component of plane shift explicitly says the proper focus for certain planes might be rare/secret/expensive or something.

This does beg the question: If a Wizard makes a Demi-Plane with Genesis how does he/she get the material focus in order to planeshift to it?

[Daddoo]

It's always bothered me that Ice Storm deals about half the damage that Fireball does, despite being a level higher.

We just learned this again last night my wife cast it and everyone said "that it" complete bummer.

[Sacrieur]

We just learned this again last night my wife cast it and everyone said "that it" complete bummer.

There's more creatures with fire resistance than cold resistance. That's their reasoning for why it's a higher level and less powerful. This is also why you don't have a 1st level sonic damage spell equivalent to burning hands; Ear-Piercing Scream does 1d6 for every two CL while burning hands does 1d4 for every CL with a wider range of effect.

In addition, Ice Storm doesn't have a save. So it's full damage, while Fireball gets a Reflex save.

So it's actually perfectly balanced where it is.

[Kurald Galain]

There's more creatures with fire resistance than cold resistance.
While that is technically true, it doesn't really make a difference. On almost everything you'll ever face, a 10d6 fireball will do more damage than a 5d6 ice storm. This is because almost nothing has more than 10 points of fire resistance, and 10d6 - 10 still averages to more than 5d6.


Ear-Piercing Scream does 1d6 for every two CL while burning hands does 1d4 for every CL with a wider range of effect.
The point of EPS is that it stuns things. In terms of damaging spells, it's not even in the running.

Also, bear in mind that EPS is the same level as Burning Hands. Nothing you write justifies Ice Storm being higher level than Fireball.

[Sacrieur]

Also, bear in mind that EPS is the same level as Burning Hands. Nothing you write justifies Ice Storm being higher level than Fireball.

No save doesn't count towards anything?

[Rubik]

I'd say Ice Storm would be a good candidate for a 2nd level spell if you reduced the damage slightly and made it scale upwards, but definitely not 4th or 5th. I have no idea why the writers thought it should be as high as it is. Maybe the damage amount is an error that never got fixed?

[Psyren]

The Words of Power.
Power Word Blind blinds a creature for a brief period, or permanently if they have less than 50 HP. This is level 7, but the effects are achievable at spell level 3 with a Still Blindness/Deafness.


It's always bothered me that Ice Storm deals about half the damage that Fireball does, despite being a level higher.

These have no save though, which is definitely not worthless. The storm's damage isn't great but it beats zero from evasion or whatnot.

[Sacrieur]

These have no save though, which is definitely not worthless. The storm's damage isn't great but it beats zero from evasion or whatnot.

With the majority of it being bludgeoning damage, which isn't subject to any resistance at all. Plus it makes the terrain difficult, which can be extremely useful in the right situation.

[nedz]

These have no save though, which is definitely not worthless. The storm's damage isn't great but it beats zero from evasion or whatnot.

Yes, Ice Storm > Fireball so it should be a level higher
Also it lasts 1 round so it becomes terrain; which means that it does BC duty as well as damage.

[Nifft]

Yes, Ice Storm > Fireball so it should be a level higher
Also it lasts 1 round so it becomes terrain; which means that it does BC duty as well as damage.

Ice Storm > Fireball as cast by a 5th level character.

At character level 10, when Fireball deals 10d6 at Long range, the comparison is not quite so clear.

If Ice Storm started at lower damage (say 3d6 at caster level 5) and scaled up (say to 6d6 at caster level 10), they might be viable as spells of the same level.

[Sacrieur]

Ice Storm > Fireball as cast by a 5th level character.

At character level 10, when Fireball deals 10d6 at Long range, the comparison is not quite so clear.

It still gets Reflex half with the relatively same DC, which creatures are more likely to beat at a higher CR.

[Nifft]

It still gets Reflex half with the relatively same DC, which creatures are more likely to beat at a higher CR.

5d6 damage is not better than 10d6 damage (Reflex half), because half of 10d6 is 5d6.

[Sacrieur]

5d6 damage is not better than 10d6 damage (Reflex half), because half of 10d6 is 5d6.

But it doesn't do BFC at the same time, so we're back to where we started before, where Fireball still isn't as good, even at CL 10.

[nedz]

Ice Storm > Fireball as cast by a 5th level character.

At character level 10, when Fireball deals 10d6 at Long range, the comparison is not quite so clear.

If Ice Storm started at lower damage (say 3d6 at caster level 5) and scaled up (say to 6d6 at caster level 10), they might be viable as spells of the same level.

At CL 10 we have 3d6 Bludgeon + 2d6 Cold v 10d6 Fire with Reflex for half.
Fire res is more common than Cold res whilst Bludgeon res is very rare.
Also Evasion is quite common at level 10, so this could well be 5d6 v 0
This latter point is situational and depends upon the game, but can be very significant.

Also we have the BC effect, and BC > damage.

[Kurald Galain]

But it doesn't do BFC at the same time, so we're back to where we started before,

We're back where we started in that in most situations Fireball is much better, and in some niche cases Ice Storm has the edge, but it deals half damage otherwise. Still doesn't warrant it being a higher level. If one spell usually works, and another is usually worse and occasionally better, then the latter should be the same or lower level. Niche spells being higher level than staple spells is a problem.

(of course, if you're looking for BFC rather than damage, then the first-level Obscuring Mist beats Ice Storm at its own game, so again it has no business being 4th level)

[Nifft]

But it doesn't do BFC at the same time, so we're back to where we started before, where Fireball still isn't as good, even at CL 10. Fireball is an overrated spell, but it's still got great range and a good area of effect, and the damage is quite tolerable in conjunction with a Rod of Lesser Empower up through level 10.

Ice Storm has no damage scaling, and Resist 5 or 10 Cold is not particularly difficult to find.

The BFC effect has a terrible duration, and for that duration the effect is inferior to Sleet Storm (3rd level) or Spell Sculpted Grease (a level 2 slot).

Ice Storm is a very poor spell which ought to be re-written. The damage is bad and the BFC effect is lame.

[Anlashok]

whilst Bludgeon res is very rare.

Since when is DR/anything-other-than-bludgeoning 'very rare'?

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say Ice Storm would be a good candidate for a 2nd level spell if you reduced the damage slightly and made it scale upwards, but definitely not 4th or 5th. I have no idea why the writers thought it should be as high as it is. Maybe the damage amount is an error that never got fixed?

It's a legacy thing. 2E's Ice Storm got split into Ice Storm and Sleet Storm, but originally let you pick either effect when you cast it. Also, 2E fireball can cause a backdraft effect that blows up your party, and 3E's version doesn't do that. So FB got buffed and IS got nerfed and they forgot to change the levels.

Funnily enough, Sleet Storm is both much better BFC than Ice Storm, and also a lower level.

[AzraelX]

5d6 damage is not better than 10d6 damage (Reflex half), because half of 10d6 is 5d6.

My character strongly disagrees with your math; she's pretty sure that half of 10d6 is 0.

[Kurald Galain]

My character strongly disagrees with your math; she's pretty sure that half of 10d6 is 0.

So, do you think that it's common for PCs to fight "your character" or a group of "your character"s in combat? :smalltongue:

[AzraelX]

So, do you think that it's common for PCs to fight "your character" or a group of "your character"s in combat? :smalltongue:
Hey, all I know is that when I'm up against spellcasters, I'd much rather fight 5 spellcasters that are double my level and only using Fireball, as opposed to 1 spellcaster the same level as me only using Ice Storm. The difference is that the former will be mowed down like they aren't even there, without leaving a scratch, while the latter will be able to negatively impact me in multiple ways, including slowing me down and hurting me, and maybe even successfully fleeing in addition to that.

[Nifft]

My character strongly disagrees with your math; she's pretty sure that half of 10d6 is 0.

Against Rogues, both fireball and ice storm are poor choices.

A smart Wizard would throw Will saves and Fort saves at your character.

... but honestly, a PC is supposed to be the exception. PCs are supposed to have ways to beat any spell. That doesn't mean the spells that get beaten are bad spells, it just means the PCs are special and the PCs find a way to win. Which they should, because a game where the PCs never win is probably not much fun.

So.

Your character is a terrible example, since hopefully most targets in the campaign are not your character... I'm just assuming that your party-mates don't target you with fireballs, so please let me know if that's an invalid assumption.

(Of course, if your strategy is to serve as the distraction and get surrounded by enemies which then get fireballed, and you Evade the blast, that's actually a pretty nice bonus to the utility of fireball.)

[ericgrau]

At CL 10 we have 3d6 Bludgeon + 2d6 Cold v 10d6 Fire with Reflex for half.
Fire res is more common than Cold res whilst Bludgeon res is very rare.
Also Evasion is quite common at level 10, so this could well be 5d6 v 0
This latter point is situational and depends upon the game, but can be very significant.

Also we have the BC effect, and BC > damage.

Huh there's a BFC effect? Oh the decreased movement speed. That means melee can't charge and often you've bought a round against them. Very nice. And anything with spells or a spell like ability needs a DC ~19 concentration check. At level 7 that's about a 50:50 shot if it even has concentration ranks, or if it doesn't like most monsters it's nearly an auto-fail. So that covers most foes. Cold resistance is pretty rare. Out of the resistances it's not super uncommon, but the all the resistances put together are uncommon. I'd be more worried about DR/magic or other DR. I don't think spell bludgeoning overcomes it by RAW, since it's not a +X magic weapon. Even then the spell does some damage.

Even if it were weaker than a 1st level and 3rd level spell put together, that doesn't make it a weak spell. That would be fireball + quickened obscuring mist fog cloud, a 6th level spell. Just like a spell that does less damage than 2 scorching rays doesn't belong on 1st or 2nd level. That makes no sense. Nor does being worse than a 1st + 3rd combined put a spell at 2nd level. It's 2 spells combined, that makes it stronger, that's the whole point.

Also a fireball is 7 or 8d6 around the level you get it, save half. So maybe ~6d6 average. A hair more damage vs an added effect isn't even worth comparing. 1d6 isn't even a 1st level spell.

I didn't notice the slowed speed before. I may take ice storm now. Trading a turn with 1-2 foes plus dealing some damage on top of that is rather exceptional.

[nedz]

Huh there's a BFC effect? Oh the decreased movement speed. That means melee can't charge and often you've bought a round against them. Very nice. And anything with spells or a spell like ability needs a DC ~19 concentration check. At level 7 that's about a 50:50 shot if it even has concentration ranks, or if it doesn't like most monsters it's nearly an auto-fail. So that covers most foes. Cold resistance is pretty rare. Out of the resistances it's not super uncommon, but the all the resistances put together are uncommon. I'd be more worried about DR/magic or other DR. I don't think spell bludgeoning overcomes it by RAW, since it's not a +X magic weapon. Even then the spell does some damage.

Even if it were weaker than a 1st level and 3rd level spell put together, that doesn't make it a weak spell. That would be fireball + quickened obscuring mist fog cloud, a 6th level spell. Just like a spell that does less damage than 2 scorching rays doesn't belong on 1st or 2nd level. That makes no sense. Nor does being worse than a 1st + 3rd combined put a spell at 2nd level. It's 2 spells combined, that makes it stronger, that's the whole point.

Also a fireball is 7 or 8d6 around the level you get it, save half. So maybe ~6d6 average. A hair more damage vs an added effect isn't even worth comparing. 1d6 isn't even a 1st level spell.

I didn't notice the slowed speed before. I may take ice storm now. Trading a turn with 1-2 foes plus dealing some damage on top of that is rather exceptional.
It's also an obstacle. Opponents may have to move around it, or through it at half speed taking damage.
Used well it should buy you a round.

[Sacrieur]

It's also an obstacle. Opponents may have to move around it, or through it at half speed taking damage.
Used well it should buy you a round.

It could be used well against flying opponents, since you could argue it gives a penalty against fly checks while simultaneously causing them damage that can't be avoided. That's a nightmare for any flying enemy that relies on the use of wings.

[martixy]

How do you guys evaluate the following change to Power Words:
Levels 1-3: -0
Levels 4-6: -1
Levels 7-9: -2

Seems like it would make them somewhat useful.

[Sacrieur]

How do you guys evaluate the following change to Power Words:
Levels 1-3: -0
Levels 4-6: -1
Levels 7-9: -2

Seems like it would make them somewhat useful.

I don't understand the hate for power words that they're useless or something. It's like magic missile, but for status effects.

[martixy]

I don't understand the hate for power words that they're useless or something. It's like magic missile, but for status effects.

It's not hate... there's no hate. I like the design idea behind their mechanic. I just feel the numbers are just a little bit off. I think a little edit on the higher levels to account for HP bloat would go a long way to aligning expectations with reality.

[Bucky]

I remember the time a cleric hit my 7th level party with Storm of Vengeance (9th level) and channeled it all the way through. It was a mild inconvenience.

[Sacrieur]

It's not hate... there's no hate. I like the design idea behind their mechanic. I just feel the numbers are just a little bit off. I think a little edit on the higher levels to account for HP bloat would go a long way to aligning expectations with reality.

A level 20 wizard probably doesn't even have 100 hp. Of course, he probably has a permanent Death Ward on himself, but that doesn't protect him from being stunned. Even a level 20 barbarian with max hp and a +8 Con mod has 400 HP. So fighting any wizard capable of using power words, you have to consider your HP to be that much lower, since once it dips below a certain amount it makes you vulnerable to something that can render you as good as dead. It's save or suck, without the save.

They're also very powerful because they only have a V component, meaning you can use it while pinned, tied up, or otherwise unable to move (but still take actions).

[martixy]

A level 20 wizard probably doesn't even have 100 hp. Of course, he probably has a permanent Death Ward on himself, but that doesn't protect him from being stunned. Even a level 20 barbarian with max hp and a +8 Con mod has 400 HP. So fighting any wizard capable of using power words, you have to consider your HP to be that much lower, since once it dips below a certain amount it makes you vulnerable to something that can render you as good as dead. It's save or suck, without the save.

They're also very powerful because they only have a V component, meaning you can use it while pinned, tied up, or otherwise unable to move (but still take actions).

Yea, that's that design idea I mentioned. The threat of them on the table lowers your effective HP by X.
Besides, they're based on meta information which, barring that one obscure feat, you can only estimate.

It's just that I haven't seen them used all that often and since, as I said, I actually like the idea, I figure granting earlier access will make them see more play.

[Sacrieur]

Yea, that's that design idea I mentioned. The threat of them on the table lowers your effective HP by X.
Besides, they're based on meta information which, barring that one obscure feat, you can only estimate.

It's just that I haven't seen them used all that often and since, as I said, I actually like the idea, I figure granting earlier access will make them see more play.

The last time I used it on a player tables were thrown.

[Nifft]

Yea, that's that design idea I mentioned. The threat of them on the table lowers your effective HP by X.
Besides, they're based on meta information which, barring that one obscure feat, you can only estimate.

It's just that I haven't seen them used all that often and since, as I said, I actually like the idea, I figure granting earlier access will make them see more play.


The last time I used it on a player tables were thrown.

Heh, yeah, that's another design flaw: the information imbalance between players and the DM.

Personally I like the Bloodied condition from 4e as a "gateway" condition for effects like Power Word spells, but I also like the status Power Words a lot more than Power Word Kill.

Full disclosure: I've used Power Word: Blind on a PC before. No table was overturned.

[Greenish]

They're also very powerful because they only have a V component, meaning you can use it while pinned, tied up, or otherwise unable to move (but still take actions).If the enemy is letting a pinned or tied up caster to speak freely, they deserve what they get.

[Troacctid]

Since when is DR/anything-other-than-bludgeoning 'very rare'?

Damage reduction is fairly common. Bludgeoning resistance, on the other hand, is extremely rare and possibly nonexistent. It is the latter that protects you from Ice Storm, not the former.

[GilesTheCleric]

A level 20 wizard probably doesn't even have 100 hp.

If you'd like to see HP scaling on classes, I have a graph in the Lesser Vigor Wands thread in my signature. Wizards who make sure to get all bonus types to con and a starting con of 14 have over 300 hp (38 con @20); wizards who don't put +5 ability increases can still have 33 con @ 20 after buffs, for 51+240 = 291 hp.

[martixy]

Personally I like the Bloodied condition from 4e as a "gateway" condition for effects like Power Word spells, but I also like the status Power Words a lot more than Power Word Kill.

That's actually been my solution as well.

Edit:

Damage reduction is fairly common. Bludgeoning resistance, on the other hand, is extremely rare and possibly nonexistent. It is the latter that protects you from Ice Storm, not the former.

Wait, what?

It is non-existent.
DR protects against physical damage, of which Bludgeoning is one type.

Resistance is against the elemental(and acid) types of damage, not against damage from spells as a source.

[Zancloufer]

Power Words could use a buff, or maybe some HP scaling. A level 9 spell that instantly kills a 100HP enemy. I mean Metor Swarm is consider UP and it does ~100 damage in an AoE. The higher level Power Words could be ~2 levels lower and it wouldn't be out of place. I mean there is a level 2 spell that does the same thing Power Word Blind does, except it allows a Saving Throw.


I remember the time a cleric hit my 7th level party with Storm of Vengeance (9th level) and channeled it all the way through. It was a mild inconvenience.

9d6 Acid damage would probably be annoying. Though the 35d6 Blunt damage afterwards should be more than an inconvenience. I'm outright confused on how 480d6 worth of LIGHTNING BOLTS is a 'Mild Inconvenience' though. I mean you have to spit them so it's at most 80d6 lightning damage to 6 different people but that is in no way light damage.

[Rubik]

Wait, what?

It is non-existent.
DR protects against physical damage, of which Bludgeoning is one type.

Resistance is against the elemental(and acid) types of damage, not against damage from spells as a source.DR only protects against physical attacks, not physical damage types. It never protects against spells unless said spells actually produce a creature or weapon that attacks and deals damage. Ice Storm does neither.

[Greenish]

DR protects against physical damage, of which Bludgeoning is one type.Quoth SRD:
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

[nedz]

It is non-existent.
DR protects against physical damage, of which Bludgeoning is one type.

Resistance is against the elemental(and acid) types of damage, not against damage from spells as a source.
Well they are magical hailstones so that probably ignores several types of DR; but DR works against attacks and not spells. Also, if Ice Storm did work this way then it would be a solid counter to Mirror Image.

I remember the time a cleric hit my 7th level party with Storm of Vengeance (9th level) and channeled it all the way through. It was a mild inconvenience.

Storm of Vengeance has a massive AoE — it's designed to wreck armies not 7th level parties. It's still quite a statement though.

[martixy]

Wow... well I didn't know, but the alternative seemed so incredibly silly I thought there's no way I'd put my foot in my mouth on this one.

Can someone actually point me to a place in a book there the words "bludgeoning"(or any of the other types) and "resistance" sit right next to each other. Cuz this I have to see.

[Troacctid]

Detect Incarnum should probably be a cantrip, considering that Detect Magic can already detect incarnum too. Also, Soulmeld Disjunction is a 9th level spell. I mean, what.


Well they are magical hailstones so that probably ignores several types of DR; but DR works against attacks and not spells. Also, if Ice Storm did work this way then it would be a solid counter to Mirror Image.
Dunno what the "probably" and "if" are about. It's not really an ambiguous rule. Damage reduction only applies to weapon damage; spells explicitly ignore it. That's just how DR works.

[Rubik]

Wow... well I didn't know, but the alternative seemed so incredibly silly I thought there's no way I'd put my foot in my mouth on this one.

Can someone actually point me to a place in a book there the words "bludgeoning"(or any of the other types) and "resistance" sit right next to each other. Cuz this I have to see.I've never seen "bludgeoning resistance." It's either DR or immunity to bludgeoning damage, and even the latter is incredibly rare.

Hardness is probably the best you'll get, honestly.

[ericgrau]

In Pathfinder DR applies to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing spells per a rules clarification. Does 3.5 have this same rule or clarification of a rule?

[martixy]

In Pathfinder DR applies to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing spells per a rules clarification. Does 3.5 have this same rule or clarification of a rule?

The whole thing seems like an oversight. A mistake.

And the difficulty in pointing to an instance "bludgeoning resistance" or similar in printed material is just another nail in the coffin.

Therefore I shall unanimously completely ignore that sentence in favor of common sense.

[Troacctid]

The whole thing seems like an oversight. A mistake.

And the difficulty in pointing to an instance "bludgeoning resistance" or similar in printed material is just another nail in the coffin.

Therefore I shall unanimously completely ignore that sentence in favor of common sense.

Oh, it's quite intentional. It even says so in the FAQ, which, although it may not be authoritative, should at least give some insight into the rules' intent.

[SangoProduction]

Um. Wow. I'm... going to guess you're not a Britlander. That is not something I ever expected to see on these forums.

lol. That was a hillarious response.

[SangoProduction]

Balancing things by making them annoying to do doesn't work. If I have to run a spell components spreadsheet to get my real ultimate power, I won't not get real ultimate power. I will just run that spreadsheet and resent you making me do it.

Yeah. Basically this.

[SangoProduction]

I'm glad it doesn't personally inconvenience you. But should you ever lose your spell component pouch you would also lose your wealth.

So, your solution to spell components...is taking them away, and depriving them of all their wealth?

Well, at least it's not as bad as lopping off a scythe-paladin's arm for no reason. And making them fall for punching a prison guard who was starving the party.

If you don't want them to do something, just say so out of game. Really, it's fine to talk to the players.

[SangoProduction]

Give me a pathfinder example that holds true for those.

2) A powergamer may have difficulty around the material cost, as it's not something that's so abusable. Even if you do Blood Money + Lesser Restoration, that's still costing you spells. Even if he does find a way around it, he's still going to have to pay up with class features or feats that somehow allow him to bypass the restriction.

I'm not aware of any legitimate exploits that render the restriction moot.

Well, you don't even need additional rules - neither feats or spells, or class features, or obscure splat books, or weird RAW interpretations, or 3rd party material, or homebrew - just logic.

The conditions you have laid out for your games:
1) you must micromanage your expensive components
2) you have long periods of time where you don't have access to towns (and thus can't easily exchange gold for spell crafting materials).

So, what you need to do is make sure, for every single spell that you think might be used, you have as many copies of the material components as possible. (Convert all or most of your wealth to material components.) Else, you won't have them when you need them.

And then you punish the rather rational decision to stock up before heading out where you know you can't stock up again...by having a magical thief steal their spell components pouch (and yet, mysteriously, would not have stolen loose gold).

On the bright side, it still leaves them with *something* to do, since you left the spell book.

Personally, I don't like to use spells with expensive components, so this would never effect me, but I fundamentally disagree with the proposed ideas.

[Sacrieur]

If you'd like to see HP scaling on classes, I have a graph in the Lesser Vigor Wands thread in my signature. Wizards who make sure to get all bonus types to con and a starting con of 14 have over 300 hp (38 con @20); wizards who don't put +5 ability increases can still have 33 con @ 20 after buffs, for 51+240 = 291 hp.

Nice research! Thanks for the correction (:



So, your solution to spell components...is taking them away, and depriving them of all their wealth?

Well, at least it's not as bad as lopping off a scythe-paladin's arm for no reason. And making them fall for punching a prison guard who was starving the party.

If you don't want them to do something, just say so out of game. Really, it's fine to talk to the players.

I'm saying it could be a potential consequence of those actions.



Well, you don't even need additional rules - neither feats or spells, or class features, or obscure splat books, or weird RAW interpretations, or 3rd party material, or homebrew - just logic.

The conditions you have laid out for your games:
1) you must micromanage your expensive components
2) you have long periods of time where you don't have access to towns (and thus can't easily exchange gold for spell crafting materials).

Not really micromanage, just manage.



So, what you need to do is make sure, for every single spell that you think might be used, you have as many copies of the material components as possible. (Convert all or most of your wealth to material components.) Else, you won't have them when you need them.

To start, I assume when a wizard prepares his spells he also puts the prerequisite components into his pouch unless he says otherwise. Spontaneous casters must also prepare this in advance, but they don't prepare spells, so if they find themselves wanting to cast a spell with a material component that they don't have in their pouch or on their person, they're going to have to dig it out of their pack.

How they deal with this is largely up the player. Spells with material components aren't all that prevalent and many aren't combat spells, so having them on hand isn't really a matter of importance.



And then you punish the rather rational decision to stock up before heading out where you know you can't stock up again...by having a magical thief steal their spell components pouch (and yet, mysteriously, would not have stolen loose gold).

I'm saying keeping a bag filled with wealth attached to your belt could lead to it more easily being stolen than if you had kept in your pack. You can lose your spell component pouch, it can happen if you don't prepare for it. The onus is on the player to take steps to ensure this event doesn't happen.

I never said I was going to take it; I said in the event it was taken your wealth would be taken as well. I would never metagame against my players.



On the bright side, it still leaves them with *something* to do, since you left the spell book.

Personally, I don't like to use spells with expensive components, so this would never effect me, but I fundamentally disagree with the proposed ideas.

The "proposed ideas" are the rules.

And so far it seems the only people who have had an issue with it have been powergamers who have been ignoring the rules so they can be that much more powerful. When pointed out that the rule exists, the reaction appears to be complaining that it's a horrible annoyance and nuisance—basically any excuse to keep the status quo—because being more powerful is more important than following the rules and making sure everyone is playing the game fairly.

[squiggit]

I didn't even know this was a point of contention. I just assumed everyone tracked expensive material components since that's the whole point of them.

I even have my players manage components for spells like ice assassin.

[SangoProduction]

I'm saying keeping a bag filled with wealth attached to your belt could lead to it more easily being stolen than if you had kept in your pack. You can lose your spell component pouch, it can happen if you don't prepare for it. The onus is on the player to take steps to ensure this event doesn't happen.

Why do you assume that by converting wealth into spell components means having it all in the spell pouch, if you then say


To start, I assume when a wizard prepares his spells he also puts the prerequisite components into his pouch unless he says otherwise.
Besides, it can't be incredibly easy to steal a spell pouch anyway, compared to say a backpack (handy haversack), as you can just have it on the inside of your pants, rather than on the belt, and few would even suspect anything.
Just to clarify, by "inside the pants" I do mean around the waist (at least when in use), not all the way at the feet, or something silly like that.



I never said I was going to take it; I said in the event it was taken your wealth would be taken as well. I would never metagame against my players.
Then why even bring it up?



The "proposed ideas" are the rules.

And so far it seems the only people who have had an issue with it have been powergamers who have been ignoring the rules so they can be that much more powerful. When pointed out that the rule exists, the reaction appears to be complaining that it's a horrible annoyance and nuisance—basically any excuse to keep the status quo—because being more powerful is more important than following the rules and making sure everyone is playing the game fairly.

The idea of making one lose their spell component pouch for having invested into it wasn't in any of the rules I read. Nor the implication that they'd not be able to replace the components if they don't stock up. (Though, at least you said you wouldn't do that, even if you implied you would.)

And...you just said that the number of spells with material components is limited, and losing the component pouch doesn't make much of a difference.
Not to mention you are calling me a power gamer? A guy who sticks to tier 5-3? One who has said that he didn't use expensive spells in the first place? OK. I guess I'm a power gamer, trying to make myself powerful.

[Troacctid]

Is keeping expensive material components in your component pouch really more risky than keeping coins in your coin pouch?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay seriously, when did pursuit of power become a bad thing? That's kinda the whole point behind a leveling system, ya know. Playing a well optimized T1 character does not make you a bad person. Being a douche-bag playing a well optimized T1 does that.

Even if the DM isn't up to the task of countering the highest of high-op maneuvers and tactics a skilled caster player can simply act as a force multiplier for his allies through buffing, debuffing, and BFC effects whereby he never removes anybody's ability to shine and the DM can simple muscle combat encounters with higher level threats.

High-op =/= powergamer =/= bad player and caster =/= cheater.

Damn it that attitude is frustrating. :smallfurious:

[SangoProduction]

Okay seriously, when did pursuit of power become a bad thing? That's kinda the whole point behind a leveling system, ya know. Playing a well optimized T1 character does not make you a bad person. Being a douche-bag playing a well optimized T1 does that.

Even if the DM isn't up to the task of countering the highest of high-op maneuvers and tactics a skilled caster player can simply act as a force multiplier for his allies through buffing, debuffing, and BFC effects whereby he never removes anybody's ability to shine and the DM can simple muscle combat encounters with higher level threats.

High-op =/= powergamer =/= bad player and caster =/= cheater.

Damn it that attitude is frustrating. :smallfurious:

I agree completely. But meh. Can't really change people's opinions. Getting yourself frustrated over it doesn't help either, lol.


Is keeping expensive material components in your component pouch really more risky than keeping coins in your coin pouch?

I was going to try and make a joke, but then realized that you said pouch, not purse. ;)

[Rubik]

I was going to try and make a joke, but then realized that you said pouch, not purse. ;)I try to keep most of my money in an extraplanar container of some sort, and keep a bunch of copper pieces in my money pouch.

But instead of E pluribus unum, the coins say Parabant explosivae litterarum hoc mane.

[SangoProduction]

I try to keep most of my money in an extraplanar container of some sort, and keep a bunch of copper pieces in my money pouch.

But instead of E. Pluribus Unum, the coins say Parabant explosivae litterarum hoc mane.

I assume that that has something to do with a certain rune known for its explosive personality?

[Rubik]

I assume that that has something to do with a certain rune known for its explosive personality?Study a few of them and find out. :smallamused:

[Sacrieur]

Why do you assume that by converting wealth into spell components means having it all in the spell pouch, if you then say.

Because I didn't.


But I can just keep all my wealth in spell components and not care.


Besides, it can't be incredibly easy to steal a spell pouch anyway, compared to say a backpack (handy haversack), as you can just have it on the inside of your pants, rather than on the belt, and few would even suspect anything.

This is what Sleight of Hand was created for.



Just to clarify, by "inside the pants" I do mean around the waist (at least when in use), not all the way at the feet, or something silly like that.

The general understanding is that because your spell components can be gotten to as a free action, the components are readily available. Sticking them in your pocket so they're not as available is something you're more than welcome to do, but then they wouldn't be available to use as a free action. That sort of thing is really up to the DM to determine, but I believe a reasonable one would require you to withdrawal it as a move action.

You can actually use sleight of hand to hide something on your person, but there is no rule withdrawing a hidden item on your person, but a hidden weapon (including something small like a dagger) is a standard action, so it stands to reason a spell component pouch could be done the same. Nonetheless, hiding it on your person is one of the ways to keep it from being taken from you.



Then why even bring it up?

I was pointing out a flaw in Bravo's attempt to work around the system.



The idea of making one lose their spell component pouch for having invested into it wasn't in any of the rules I read.

Because that's not an idea I had.



Nor the implication that they'd not be able to replace the components if they don't stock up. (Though, at least you said you wouldn't do that, even if you implied you would.)

Since you can't conjure up expensive spell components like gold dust, diamond dust, or ruby dust out of thin air, you would have to obtain them through some mundane fashion. This usually means buying it from a magic shop.



And...you just said that the number of spells with material components is limited, and losing the component pouch doesn't make much of a difference.
Not to mention you are calling me a power gamer? A guy who sticks to tier 5-3? One who has said that he didn't use expensive spells in the first place? OK. I guess I'm a power gamer, trying to make myself powerful.

Maybe you've been misled into believing otherwise, but I'm just arguing to do what the rules say to do to keep the game fair. The restriction on it isn't only on the players but also on the DM, and even while he can conjure up ruby dust out of nowhere, it would be in bad faith and a betrayal of players' trust.

Ask yourself if you really want to have a game where expensive spell components are ignored. A villain could (and would) glyph every five foot space in their castle. This is not a desirable scenario for anyone. Keep in mind if a player can do it, a DM can do it. And off the top of my head a reason why not to allow gold to be used as a substitute is that it can be abused in a number of ways, such as walking into a bank vault and simply using all of the gold as material components for a Wish. Gold is more prevalent and available in the campaign world than gem dust, so it's more limiting to player and helps safeguard against possible abuse while also remaining thematically appropriate.



Okay seriously, when did pursuit of power become a bad thing? That's kinda the whole point behind a leveling system, ya know. Playing a well optimized T1 character does not make you a bad person. Being a douche-bag playing a well optimized T1 does that.

Even if the DM isn't up to the task of countering the highest of high-op maneuvers and tactics a skilled caster player can simply act as a force multiplier for his allies through buffing, debuffing, and BFC effects whereby he never removes anybody's ability to shine and the DM can simple muscle combat encounters with higher level threats.

High-op =/= powergamer =/= bad player and caster =/= cheater.

Damn it that attitude is frustrating. :smallfurious:

It isn't and I don't understand your frustration. You can optimize your character as much as you want within the rules. It's when you start ignoring rules for the sake of being more powerful that things become a problem. At that point you're disrespecting your fellow players who follow the rules.

Maintaining a stock of different types of gem dust is not difficult. It takes fractions of less time than stocking up on all your essential gear like potions and scrolls and is no more challenging to keep track of than pp/gp/sp/cp is, if not more easy to keep track of. I haven't heard a single good argument against their use and a bunch of bad arguments, which to me, seem like they were conjured out of a personal desire to keep ignoring the rules.

Take care to read through the comments of people saying they have absolutely no problem with expensive spell components, all explaining they were surprised there are people who do. It doesn't strike you the least bit odd that there are more than a handful of people who think it's perfectly fine and not at all difficult while a smaller number of individuals think it's bogging the system down with pointless drudgery like it's filling out taxes?

You're welcome to powergame. You are not welcome to cheat.

[SangoProduction]

You didn't assume that by "But I can just keep all my wealth in spell components and not care." He meant "in my spell components pouch." That seems like an assumption to me.



The general understanding is that because your spell components can be gotten to as a free action, the components are readily available. Sticking them in your pocket so they're not as available is something you're more than welcome to do, but then they wouldn't be available to use as a free action. That sort of thing is really up to the DM to determine, but I believe a reasonable one would require you to withdrawal it as a move action.

You can actually use sleight of hand to hide something on your person, but there is no rule withdrawing a hidden item on your person, but a hidden weapon (including something small like a dagger) is a standard action, so it stands to reason a spell component pouch could be done the same. Nonetheless, hiding it on your person is one of the ways to keep it from being taken from you.


Actually it wouldn't, because rustling your clothes, or adjusting them is not an action. It's kept under the belt for quick access, as it takes no true effort, time, or concentration to make your bag available (even IRL with wallets and such). You could make a case for it taking a move action, as a standard "manipulate an item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#manipulateanItem)" to make it out in the open, as this rule includes pulling stuff from a backpack ("Stored")....which I'd argue is a bit harder than popping something out of your clothes, but maybe I have quick draw feat, or some shift. Even bag of holding makes the comparison to back packs for its action.
(Do note that drawing a weapon is normally a move action. Making the weapon hidden doesn't even make it a full-round action .)
I'd even argue that it's probably the closest to drawing a weapon normally. Hold the scabbard compares to hold your pants, and pulling the weapon compares to pulling the string/chain whatever.



Since you can't conjure up expensive spell components like gold dust, diamond dust, or ruby dust out of thin air, you would have to obtain them through some mundane fashion. This usually means buying it from a magic shop.
I never said you could. My inference was: "You don't have the chance to stock up in the short term, and if you stock up for the long term, I'm going to steal your bag." And I even said you admitted this was not your intent.



Maybe you've been misled into believing otherwise, but I'm just arguing to do what the rules say to do to keep the game fair. The restriction on it isn't only on the players but also on the DM, and even while he can conjure up ruby dust out of nowhere, it would be in bad faith and a betrayal of players' trust.

Ask yourself if you really want to have a game where expensive spell components are ignored. A villain could (and would) glyph every five foot space in their castle. This is not a desirable scenario for anyone. Keep in mind if a player can do it, a DM can do it. And off the top of my head a reason why not to allow gold to be used as a substitute is that it can be abused in a number of ways, such as walking into a bank vault and simply using all of the gold as material components for a Wish. Gold is more prevalent and available in the campaign world than gem dust, so it's more limiting to player and helps safeguard against possible abuse while also remaining thematically appropriate.

Ah, the famous strawman. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0) Long friends we were. Lovers, perhaps. But it was not our fate to be together, you and I. So, I must take leave here. I give you my best wishes.

More seriously: a DM can do anything he damn well pleases. The monster he unleashed on you was not in the manual? Doesn't matter. The world is not the book. If the DM chooses to not enable fun gameplay at his table, he's not doing something right.
So what if the lich had a glyph on every space on the castle? If you and the players are having fun that's all that matters. If it seems fun, refer to rule 0.

Hell, even homebrew, so long as everyone agrees, is 100% fair. Is it balanced? That's a case by case basis.
And, I never said, not once, "You should ignore expensive materials."



It isn't and I don't understand your frustration. You can optimize your character as much as you want within the rules. It's when you start ignoring rules for the sake of being more powerful that things become a problem. At that point you're disrespecting your fellow players who follow the rules.
Who said anything about not following rules that others in the game are? And, as mentioned, it doesn't make you any more powerful, especially when you never used spells that required the requirement to begin with. But, only power gamers disagree with you.


Maintaining a stock of different types of gem dust is [I]not difficult. It takes fractions of less time than stocking up on all your essential gear like potions and scrolls and is no more challenging to keep track of than pp/gp/sp/cp is, if not more easy to keep track of. I haven't heard a single good argument against their use and a bunch of bad arguments, which to me, seem like they were conjured out of a personal desire to keep ignoring the rules.

Ah, yes, the Ad Hominem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg). Long friends...OK, I'll stop.
There is nothing difficult about entering data in to a data base either. Try and find someone who does that as a living and has high job satisfaction.
And, it is not more "challenging", but more "tedious" than tracking gp. Hell, people even don't bother keeping track of other currencies, but just uses it as a portion of GP, if at all (1 CP is insignificant compared to >1,000 GP, and thus is often not worth consideration). And it takes demonsterably more time and effort to track individual spell components than GP. For both hard and digital versions.

Situation 1, Tracks just GP: action 1) finds out he needs to use x GP. Action 2) find out if (current gold > required gold) Action 3) announce you are doing y. Action 4) Get your character sheet out/pull it up. Action 5) Find a pencil, or move your curser to the appropriate section [scrolling portion of the digital version factored into action 2]. Action 6) memorize, or write down your current value. Action 7) Do maths. Action 8) Delete the old number. Action 9) Insert new number. Action 10) None, or add item to character sheet, depending on what's going on.

Situation 2, micro manages spell components: All of Situation 1, for buying the spell component. Then, all of situation 1, again, for when you use the spell component, but add +1 action for searching a list of other spell components between 1 and 2.

Where "x" = gold required for action/purchase. And "y" = action provoking this sequence of events.

There, done. And before you say "Oh, consumables". Ask yourself, how often do you use consumables, and how often do you cast spells as a spell caster.



Take care to read through the comments of people saying they have absolutely no problem with expensive spell components, all explaining they were surprised there are people who do. It doesn't strike you the least bit odd that there are more than a handful of people who think it's perfectly find and not at all difficult while a smaller number of individuals think it's problematic?

You're welcome to powergame. You are not welcome to cheat.
Ah, Strawma..right, I said I'd stop.
No one had said they were surprised others do this. Not a single person. People were only saying that they don't like it. And it's tedious, not difficult.

You just said you had a problem with power gamers, but I appreciate that you came around to seeing the light. Again, no one recommended cheating.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It isn't and I don't understand your frustration. You can optimize your character as much as you want within the rules. It's when you start ignoring rules for the sake of being more powerful that things become a problem. At that point you're disrespecting your fellow players who follow the rules.

Maintaining a stock of different types of gem dust is not difficult. It takes fractions of less time than stocking up on all your essential gear like potions and scrolls and is no more challenging to keep track of than pp/gp/sp/cp is, if not more easy to keep track of. I haven't heard a single good argument against their use and a bunch of bad arguments, which to me, seem like they were conjured out of a personal desire to keep ignoring the rules.

Take care to read through the comments of people saying they have absolutely no problem with expensive spell components, all explaining they were surprised there are people who do. It doesn't strike you the least bit odd that there are more than a handful of people who think it's perfectly fine and not at all difficult while a smaller number of individuals think it's bogging the system down with pointless drudgery like it's filling out taxes?

You're welcome to powergame. You are not welcome to cheat.

If you'll notice, I was one of those people that said there's nothing wrong with tracking expensive components as the rules call for. It is indeed a fairly simple task.

The frustration comes from you, and people like you, conflating the terms powergamer, munchkin, cheater, and optimizer.

A player who simply marks off the necessary gp from his sheet when he casts such a spell when that's something his DM allows isn't cheating. Neither is he being a munchkin or even, necessarily, powergaming. He's working within his DM's (possibly ill-advised) houserules.

Most of the people invoking grod's law upthread were almost certainly confused and thought you meant you enforced -all- material components being tracked, which is indeed a stupid and ineffective ruling. Several others said quite plainly that they or their DM's expressly allowed them to save the paperwork and just mark off the appropriate amount of gp. You called all of them "power gamers" and apparently meant "cheaters." If you can't understand why that might ruffle some feathers, I don't know what to tell you.

If you mean cheater, say cheater. Maligning separate groups because of occasional overlap with a group you take issue with is a very quick way to alienate people.

[squiggit]

And it takes demonsterably more time and effort to track individual spell components than GP. For both hard and digital versions.
Situation 1, Tracks just GP: action 1) finds out he needs to use x GP. Action 2) Get your character sheet out/pull it up. Action 3) Find a pencil, or move your curser to the appropriate section [scrolling portion of the digital version factored into action 2]. Action 4) memorize, or write down your current value. Action 5) Do maths. Action 6) Delete the old number. Action 7) Insert new number. Action 8) None, or add item to character sheet, depending on what's going on.

Situation 2, micro manages spell components: All of Situation 1, for buying the spell component. Then, all of situation 1, again, for when you use the spell component, but add +1 action for searching a list of other spell components between 2 and 3.


Ah hyperbole, my old friend. I- you probably don't want it flipped back on you any more than I want to hear you repeat that joke so I won't.

It's really not that complicated, time involved or particularly tedious to just say "I buy 5 diamonds" and slap that somewhere on your character sheet. Even arguably less complicated, since counting out gold mid combat is a bit more involved than replacing that 5 with a 4.

[SangoProduction]

Ah hyperbole, my old friend. I- you probably don't want it flipped back on you any more than I want to hear you repeat that joke so I won't.

It's really not that complicated, time involved or particularly tedious to just say "I buy 5 diamonds" and slap that somewhere on your character sheet. Even arguably less complicated, since counting out gold mid combat is a bit more involved than replacing that 5 with a 4.

Hyperbole, perhaps (and I did miss the original guy's hyperboles as well, as I forgot they existed). But I didn't repeat the joke (cutting it off so only enough to call it out). Though you are right, I have little creativity, but still wanted to make the pointers seem more funny or endearing than whiny.

And, please, if I make an error, call me out, by all means. I can't fix it if I don't know the error. I did also make a Tu Quoque, where I said he was inconsistent. But, I didn't use it as an argument, so it's not a fallacy (and thus I didn't actually make it), and I did thank him for acting inconsistent. (I'd personally prefer someone who's inconsistent than someone who's consistently bad in some manner.)

As a computer scientist, I know that each and every action must be taken into account, or the program just doesn't work. But it was merely a demonstration, else I made a statement that I did not back up. [Hell, even a programmer would know this.]

And, mid-combat, you have turns in which you don't act. I didn't include "announce what you are doing" which was a mistake, I admit.

So, actually, put in between actions 1 and 2, is Action 2) figure out if (current gold > gold required), or if you can have negative gold. And between this 2 and the newly pushed 3, Action 3) "Announce you are doing y".

Once you announce what you are doing, then the next person can take their turn, and you can perform the rest of the actions when you're not required.

Also, if you have 10 Roots of Grute, or 100, or any number, and you have to reduce it mid-combat, it's no different from reducing gold. Although, you would add another action, and move the search action so you can determine if you have enough (and moving the search to before the time when your time is free is not ideal). Then record (or remember) where this Root was on the sheet so you don't have to search again to reduce it.

I'll edit the original post.

Perhaps not "complicated", but "complex" in that it involves more parts. And if you don't organize your list, it's going to be much more difficult/slow to search it. And...sorting requires quite the deal of actions, even on the computer.

Also, we are quite crowding out the original OP's inquiry, I made a new thread, "Argument thread" for this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445804-Argument-thread&p=19876741#post19876741

[Sacrieur]

Actually it wouldn't, because rustling your clothes, or adjusting them is not an action. It's kept under the belt for quick access, as it takes no true effort, time, or concentration to make your bag available (even IRL with wallets and such).
You could make a case for it taking a move action, as a standard "manipulate an item (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#manipulateanItem)" to make it out in the open, as this rule includes pulling stuff from a backpack ("Stored")....which I'd argue is a bit harder than popping something out of your clothes, but maybe I have quick draw feat, or some shift. Even bag of holding makes the comparison to back packs for its action.
(Do note that drawing a weapon is normally a move action. Making the weapon hidden doesn't even make it a full-round action [ie. double move].)

I advise you to read the Sleight of Hand skill.



Ah, the famous strawman. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0) Long friends we were. Lovers, perhaps. But it was not our fate to be together, you and I. So, I must take leave here. I give you my best wishes.

If I did, which position did I distort to disprove and where did I assert that this that this position was then faulty as a result of that?



More seriously: a DM can do anything he damn well pleases. The monster he unleashed on you was not in the manual? Doesn't matter. The world is not the book. If the DM chooses to not enable fun gameplay at his table, he's not doing something right.
Hell, even homebrew, so long as everyone agrees, is 100% fair. Is it balanced? That's a case by case basis.

The DM is welcome to homebrew whatever rules he likes.



And, I never said, not once, "You should ignore expensive materials."

I'm glad you don't oppose using a reasonable and worthwhile game mechanic that is included in the core rules.



Who said anything about not following rules that others in the game are? And, as mentioned, it doesn't make you any more powerful, especially when you never used spells that required the requirement to begin with. But, only power gamers disagree with you.

It's unfair to others that you can ignore a rule that benefits your character but may not benefit their's, especially. Just because the DM waives it doesn't mean it's acceptable. There have been several threads in the past I can remember where a player has experienced frustration that another player wasn't following the rules and the DM just let them do it or won't accept that the rules say what they say. If you're going to houserule otherwise, it should be upfront; but simply treating the game all along like it's just not something that really matters is bad. I've been in multiple groups and have experienced this as a player firsthand, I'm not just talking about theory here. I've been there, on both sides of the table, and I can tell you flat out that only one group I was in actually said, "We're a bunch of power gamers so we just changed the rules a bit" upfront instead of me learning later on that the Wizard using his Limited Wish spell constantly wasn't actually paying for it.



Ah, yes, the Ad Hominem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg). Long friends...OK, I'll stop.

An ad hominem is an attack against a person with the conclusion that their argument must be bad as a consequence. I concluded their arguments were bad before I resorted to calling anyone a power gamer. And pointing out that someone's motives seem selfish isn't fallacious in the least, since I haven't disagreed with any legitimate argument.


There is nothing difficult about entering data in to a data base either. Try and find someone who does that as a living and has high job satisfaction.

I'd say this is the closest thing contending for a strawman in this post. You equated writing down a few numbers to spending 40 hours a week entering data into a machine, then proceeded imply because people don't like entering data into a computer for 40 hours a week, keeping track of a handful of numbers is too tedious.



And, it is not more "challenging", but more "tedious" than tracking gp.

Taking about 20 seconds a session to write down some numbers is more tedious than keeping track of multiple numbers that all convert between each other?



Hell, people even don't bother keeping track of other currencies, but just uses it as a portion of GP, if at all (1 CP is insignificant compared to >1,000 GP, and thus is often not worth consideration).

So you're telling me other people also don't follow the rules and the DM waives it over. If that's how he wants to houserule it, that's fine, but don't tell me that's how the game should be played because it isn't.

I keep track of every copper the PCs spend and regularly audit their sheets so they have the the legitimate amounts. And I have found pretty large discrepancies not because of cheating, but merely from mistakes in keeping track of it. Discrepencies as large as 100's of gp, and this group is very good with numbers and paying attention to detail. In any case, I'm going to keep following the rules on this and not waive over this mundane aspects for DM reasons that would take too long to explain and would be off topic.



And it takes demonsterably more time and effort to track individual spell components than GP. For both hard and digital versions.
Situation 1, Tracks just GP: action 1) finds out he needs to use x GP. Action 2) Get your character sheet out/pull it up. Action 3) Find a pencil, or move your curser to the appropriate section [scrolling portion of the digital version factored into action 2]. Action 4) memorize, or write down your current value. Action 5) Do maths. Action 6) Delete the old number. Action 7) Insert new number. Action 8) None, or add item to character sheet, depending on what's going on.

That's maybe 10-20 seconds of minimal effort, tops.



Situation 2, micro manages spell components: All of Situation 1, for buying the spell component. Then, all of situation 1, again, for when you use the spell component, but add +1 action for searching a list of other spell components between 2 and 3.

It's not micromanaging. I'm not telling them where to put it on their sheet and how to put it on their sheet. It's simply managing.



There, done. And before you say "Oh, consumables". Ask yourself, how often do you use consumables, and how often do you cast spells as a spell caster.

Food is the one thing I did simplify because it does very often needlessly bogged down the game during traveling (so I created a basic ration pack that costs a standard amount everywhere). It retains balance while removing some of the more boring aspects out of the equation. The reason I kept it in the game is because there are races which don't have to eat or drink and this is factored into their CR as a racial trait.




Ah, Strawma..right, I said I'd stop.
No one had said they were surprised others do this. Not a single person. People were only saying that they don't like it. And it's tedious, not difficult.

You just said you had a problem with power gamers, but I appreciate that you came around to seeing the light. Again, no one recommended cheating.

I think we're getting off topic and I'm getting carried away so I'll reassert the original position.

It's unreasonable to say that casters are overpowered while simultaneously ignoring many of the restrictions that go with casting. This is to say if you're applying houserules to change the game's balance, then you can't argue that the unaltered game is imbalanced from your own experiences.


---


If you'll notice, I was one of those people that said there's nothing wrong with tracking expensive components as the rules call for. It is indeed a fairly simple task.

Then I'm glad we're in agreement.



The frustration comes from you, and people like you, conflating the terms powergamer, munchkin, cheater, and optimizer.

A player who simply marks off the necessary gp from his sheet when he casts such a spell when that's something his DM allows isn't cheating. Neither is he being a munchkin or even, necessarily, powergaming. He's working within his DM's (possibly ill-advised) houserules.

Okay I got carried away; you're right.



Most of the people invoking grod's law upthread were almost certainly confused and thought you meant you enforced -all- material components being tracked, which is indeed a stupid and ineffective ruling. Several others said quite plainly that they or their DM's expressly allowed them to save the paperwork and just mark off the appropriate amount of gp. You called all of them "power gamers" and apparently meant "cheaters." If you can't understand why that might ruffle some feathers, I don't know what to tell you.

If you mean cheater, say cheater. Maligning separate groups because of occasional overlap with a group you take issue with is a very quick way to alienate people.

I don't think it's the case that they should be upset with me for missing the repeated explicit mentions otherwise, but I can see why they might be frustrated even if it isn't justified. This happened in a previous thread where I recall someone asking for help and it turned into a long debate about what the original author originally intended. This seems to be a recurring trend.

I recognize that you're not accusing me of being at fault here (nor been a culprit in misunderstanding me), but I do want to make clear to everyone that understanding what's been written is important. In the future I'll strive to make a greater effort to be less argumentative, but it should certainly not be the case that after someone explicitly mentions something it's completely overlooked. And it should especially not be the case that they're at fault for upsetting anyone.

[SangoProduction]

Continuing this in the thread: Argument Thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445804-Argument-thread)

[Svata]

Most of the people invoking grod's law upthread were almost certainly confused and thought you meant you enforced -all- material components being tracked, which is indeed a stupid and ineffective ruling.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly did.


If you mean cheater, say cheater. Maligning separate groups because of occasional overlap with a group you take issue with is a very quick way to alienate people.

Seems he has the opposote problem of the one who caused the origination of Grod's Law. They would say cheater and mean something else, while here we see someone meaning cheater and saying something else.