Spells that should be cut

[VoxRationis]

What spells in core 3.5 would be better off, in your opinion, removed from the game, for reasons of uselessness, redundancy, or poor design?

[Venger]

What spells in core 3.5 would be better off, in your opinion, removed from the game, for reasons of uselessness, redundancy, or poor design?

do you mean spells that are too powerful, too weak, overly specific, completely nonfunctional, or something else?

[Karl Aegis]

Get rid of Helping Hand. I seriously did not know this spell existed for over a decade.

[Crake]

do you mean spells that are too powerful, too weak, overly specific, completely nonfunctional, or something else?

I would say all of the above.

Honestly, I would start with the planar binding/ally spells. I love the concept, but the execution is just so poorly done. It's too easy to make them foolproof (or in the case of planar ally, they're ALREADY foolproof), and it acts as way too much of a force multiplier.

Spheres of power actually did it in an interesting manner, it's possible from level 1, but dangerous as all hell, and the capabilities scale with your level rather than just setting an arbitrary HD limit based on spell level.

[Cosi]

I don't know that there's anything that needs to be cut per se. But there are a lot of things that need to be better than they are.

polymorph et al need to be less deadly and faster to adjudicate. It should probably give you a menu of buffs and a big bonus to disguise checks, rather than playing mix-and-match with the Monster Manual.

planar binding needs to not be game breaking. I understand that Shadowrun has a good system for dealing with bound stuff.

Blasting in general needs to be more dangerous. I don't think this should necessarily be fixed at the spell level though. Changing HP curves to be closer to 2e has the potential to fix this and melee in one fell swoop.

Some spells need to be better written, either in terms of brevity or clarity. dispel magic doesn't need to be as long as it is. commune with nature needs to be substantially clearer.

Overall, a lot of spells are too geared towards dungeon delving, rather than the broader fantasy archetype 3e sells itself as, but that's a more complicated issue.

[Telonius]

Antiplant Shell. Has anyone ever used this?

Sympathetic Vibration. For a sixth level Bard spell, you might as well leave off the "Sym." 10 minute casting time, deals damage to an object, doesn't work on things that aren't freestanding (like most structural walls). I guess this is for when you really need to bring down an obelisk but can't be bothered with an adamantine weapon.

[Venger]

Antiplant Shell. Has anyone ever used this?

Sympathetic Vibration. For a sixth level Bard spell, you might as well leave off the "Sym." 10 minute casting time, deals damage to an object, doesn't work on things that aren't freestanding (like most structural walls). I guess this is for when you really need to bring down an obelisk but can't be bothered with an adamantine weapon.

I see antiplant shell and raise you diminish plants.

Plant growth, at the very least, offers you some utility if you're in the kind of game where you help the townspeople grow crops because they're not allowed to use resetting food and water traps like normal people, but I have never encountered a use for diminish plants.

While we're at it, blight. What the heck am I supposed to do with this? Why do the designers think I hate plants so much?

If we're talking overpowered stuff, the celerity line is pretty gross. While with most optimization staples, you can soothe yourself saying the designers probably didn't think about the interaction of x new content with y new content or vica versa, even in a vacuum, you can see celerity is not a good idea. did they really forget how easy it is to become immune to dazing?

I'll dig into the other categories later. There is an embarrassment of riches for them all.

[VoxRationis]

I see antiplant shell and raise you diminish plants.

Plant growth, at the very least, offers you some utility if you're in the kind of game where you help the townspeople grow crops because they're not allowed to use resetting food and water traps like normal people, but I have never encountered a use for diminish plants.

While we're at it, blight. What the heck am I supposed to do with this? Why do the designers think I hate plants so much?

If we're talking overpowered stuff, the celerity line is pretty gross. While with most optimization staples, you can soothe yourself saying the designers probably didn't think about the interaction of x new content with y new content or vica versa, even in a vacuum, you can see celerity is not a good idea. did they really forget how easy it is to become immune to dazing?

I'll dig into the other categories later. There is an embarrassment of riches for them all.

Diminish plants makes the keeping of a hedge maze trimmed much easier. As for blight, I suspect it's one of those spells that's really meant for NPC villains that players demanded access to for fairness' sake.

[Jeriah]

I'd cut basically all save-or-die spells. I hate when my character's entire future is tied to a single die roll over which I have no real control just because it happens to target my weakest save.

I hate it even more when these are used on the big bosses. There's nothing worse to me than finally encountering the final boss dragon at the end of an amazing campaign and having it be a hugely disappointing anticlimax because the mage tosses out a shivering touch. :smallmad:

[Venger]

I'd cut basically all save-or-die spells. I hate when my character's entire future is tied to a single die roll over which I have no real control just because it happens to target my weakest save.

I hate it even more when these are used on the big bosses. There's nothing worse to me than finally encountering the final boss dragon at the end of an amazing campaign and having it be a hugely disappointing anticlimax because the mage tosses out a shivering touch. :smallmad:

I'll definitely second that.

But on the flip side of that, when a gm picks out a cool sod like mummify or what have you and the pc makes his save then... nothing happens. It's as though the effect hadn't been included in the game at all.

And when you're fighting against your GM's end boss and you're being nice by giving him a spell with a save attached to it, when he makes it, you're sort of questioning why you bothered instead of just using orb of x like you did for the encounters up until now.

spells with lesser effects and no save, or the newfangled cmage or spc spells that offer a lessened effect on a successful save are much more fun, interesting, and well-balanced for both sides of the table.

[Jeriah]

I'll definitely second that.

But on the flip side of that, when a gm picks out a cool sod like mummify or what have you and the pc makes his save then... nothing happens. It's as though the effect hadn't been included in the game at all.

And when you're fighting against your GM's end boss and you're being nice by giving him a spell with a save attached to it, when he makes it, you're sort of questioning why you bothered instead of just using orb of x like you did for the encounters up until now.

spells with lesser effects and no save, or the newfangled cmage or spc spells that offer a lessened effect on a successful save are much more fun, interesting, and well-balanced for both sides of the table.I agree. Save-or-suck isn't as bad as save-or-die and can actually be rewarding on the ones that are done right.

The name of the game in D&D is Attrition: hit points, ability damage, spell slots, per day abilities, ammunition... The entire game is about attrition of resources, yours and your enemies'. Whoever runs out first loses. Save-or-die effects bypass this entirely and, in my opinion, cheapen the game experience by doing so.

[bekeleven]

and having it be a hugely disappointing anticlimax because the mage tosses out a shivering touch. :smallmad:...Which isn't a save-or-die spell.

To the OP: You can have a more balanced 3.5 experience if you cut everything from the player's handbook except for the mundane equipment, skills, and some races. Once you're done doing that, cut all of the wondrous items from the DMG.

[Ruslan]

Antiplant Shell. Has anyone ever used this?Every single Bard who was ever pelted with tomatoes wished he had it.

[zergling.exe]

I agree. Save-or-suck isn't as bad as save-or-die and can actually be rewarding on the ones that are done right.

The name of the game in D&D is Attrition: hit points, ability damage, spell slots, per day abilities, ammunition... The entire game is about attrition of resources, yours and your enemies'. Whoever runs out first loses. Save-or-die effects bypass this entirely and, in my opinion, cheapen the game experience by doing so.

Shivering touch isn't a SoD though, its a save-or-suck. It does ability damage, but when maximized it becomes a SoD against low Dex creatures. Or is ray of enfeeblement a SoD because low strength wizards are paralyzed when they get hit by it?

[Venger]

I agree. Save-or-suck isn't as bad as save-or-die and can actually be rewarding on the ones that are done right.

The name of the game in D&D is Attrition: hit points, ability damage, spell slots, per day abilities, ammunition... The entire game is about attrition of resources, yours and your enemies'. Whoever runs out first loses. Save-or-die effects bypass this entirely and, in my opinion, cheapen the game experience by doing so.

I thought mummify did the damage on a successful save, and killed on a failed save like disintegrate, but you seem to get what I mean.

I like save or sucks as a player and as a gm, because they let people see all the cool stuff I book-dived for, let me learn about new spells, and more importantly, that way if a player is affected by them, they can continue playing the game in a way they can't if they fail vs say flesh to stone.

Yeah, the game is about playing the game and stuff that sidesteps that kind of sucks.


...Which isn't a save-or-die spell.

To the OP: You can have a more balanced 3.5 experience if you cut everything from the player's handbook except for the mundane equipment, skills, and some races. Once you're done doing that, cut all of the wondrous items from the DMG.
Right. shivering touch is a no-save just die against all dragons who aren't immune to cold because of their laughable dex cap.

not really sure what point you're trying to make. all spells are overpowered? or that core is the source of most unbalanced spells? if the latter, that's genuinely agreed upon.


Shivering touch isn't a SoD though, its a save-or-suck. It does ability damage, but when maximized it becomes a SoD against low Dex creatures. Or is ray of enfeeblement a SoD because low strength wizards are paralyzed when they get hit by it?

In general, you are correct, but she said vs a dragon specifically, in which case it's an encounter ender due to their terrible dex the same way a sod is on any given target. it's not a save or suck, it has no save.

[Beheld]

In general, you are correct, but she said vs a dragon specifically, in which case it's an encounter ender due to their terrible dex the same way a sod is on any given target. it's not a save or suck, it has no save.

It really isn't. First off, you have like a 45% chance of not actually doing enough dex damage to do anything. And there is an extremely narrow range where Dragons don't usually have SR (though could easily have it with one feat) and you can cast the spell at all.

And that's before getting into things like "not being in melee touch range" or "casting scintillating scales" or "casting disguise self to look like a white Dragon."

[TheIronGolem]

Wish. I don't want it removed from the game as such, but I don't like it being a spell. I'd like to see it as a class feature for Sorcerers, where 1/day you can either cast any spell you want (following similar rules as the Wish spell: your highest spell level -1 for arcane spells, -2 for divine) or gain an item of up to X GP value (where X scales off your caster level).

[Venger]

It really isn't. First off, you have like a 45% chance of not actually doing enough dex damage to do anything. And there is an extremely narrow range where Dragons don't usually have SR (though could easily have it with one feat) and you can cast the spell at all.

And that's before getting into things like "not being in melee touch range" or "casting scintillating scales" or "casting disguise self to look like a white Dragon."

empower/maximize. assay spell resistance. reach spell/spectral hand/a familiar.

I'll give you scintillating scales. disguise is certainly very creative, but any gm who'd have a dragon do that (or the opposite, where a white diguised itself as a vulnerable color of dragon) clearly already knows about shivering touch and would've either had the dragon take some kind of precaution, or asked his players not to use it.

the primary issue is whipping out shivering touch against gms with a low degree of system mastery who may not know about scintillating scales, not even necessarily as a show of force or a munchkin move, the spell's just very clearly well suited to this and has the potential to nullify what may otherwise be a fun combat encounter.

[Jeriah]

I didn't intend to say shivering touch was an SoD effect, only that it caused an anticlimactic resolution similar to an SoD and wasn't overtly clear about that. Oh well. *shrug*

I had also mistakenly remembered it as offering a save rather than being an attack roll.

[Uncle Pine]

Out of core? Probably just Mage's Disjunction, because it's that spell that always penalises the players whenever it's cast: an opponent uses it? Players lose their stuff permanently. A player uses it? The party permanently loses the encounter loot. A player accidentally casts it on an artifact and rolls poorly? He permanently loses spellcasting.

[Gildedragon]

The [animal]'s [noun] line ought be just one spell. +4 enhancement to one ability score, chosen at the time of casting
Most of the elemental damage spells, especially the Orb of X, ought be a single spell. Maybe require a focus component to pick the element type, but it is a lot of spellbook cluttering.
Ditto the Protection from [Alignment] lines. Just lump them into one spell one customizes at time of casting.

A lot of the "counters a specific spell" spells could be folded into the main spell. "This spell may be used to undo the effects of a previous casting of this spell"

[Cosi]

Diminish plants makes the keeping of a hedge maze trimmed much easier. As for blight, I suspect it's one of those spells that's really meant for NPC villains that players demanded access to for fairness' sake.

What? Are we looking at the same blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blight.htm)? It does a pile of damage to plant creatures, putting it in the same "situational blast" pile as searing light. I don't see what makes it suited to villains unless you have way more Plant PCs than I've ever seen.


I'd cut basically all save-or-die spells. I hate when my character's entire future is tied to a single die roll over which I have no real control just because it happens to target my weakest save.

I kind of like save-or-dies. They ensure that fights end reasonably promptly, and don't drag out like they do in 4e. Any solution that removes them would have to avoid that pitfall.


To the OP: You can have a more balanced 3.5 experience if you cut everything from the player's handbook except for the mundane equipment, skills, and some races. Once you're done doing that, cut all of the wondrous items from the DMG.

Since no one else has said it, this is a terrible plan. Cutting core removes all the non-combat spells that keep you off the DM's rails, and all the healing spells that make Wights or Mummys not take weeks to recover from.


Out of core? Probably just Mage's Disjunction, because it's that spell that always penalises the players whenever it's cast: an opponent uses it? Players lose their stuff permanently. A player uses it? The party permanently loses the encounter loot. A player accidentally casts it on an artifact and rolls poorly? He permanently loses spellcasting.

I think that just points to magic items needing a fix.

[Venger]

The [animal]'s [noun] line ought be just one spell. +4 enhancement to one ability score, chosen at the time of casting
Most of the elemental damage spells, especially the Orb of X, ought be a single spell. Maybe require a focus component to pick the element type, but it is a lot of spellbook cluttering.
Ditto the Protection from [Alignment] lines. Just lump them into one spell one customizes at time of casting.

A lot of the "counters a specific spell" spells could be folded into the main spell. "This spell may be used to undo the effects of a previous casting of this spell"

Mandatory "you can do all that stuff with psionics" comment.

[bekeleven]

Since no one else has said it, this is a terrible plan. Cutting core removes all the non-combat spells that keep you off the DM's rails, and all the healing spells that make Wights or Mummys not take weeks to recover from.
You can replicate most things out of core. Core just has the super general versions, so you'll be forced to have spells that do 75% of things instead of all of the everythings.

[Venger]

You can replicate most things out of core. Core just has the super general versions, so you'll be forced to have spells that do 75% of things instead of all of the everythings.

How do you heal ability damage or remove negative levels without core? how do you rez your buddies if you don't have access to the druid list?

While a lot of unbalanced content does come from core, such as shapechange or polymorph, a lot of the game is predicated on the existence of these bandaid/busy work spells such as remove disease, break enchantment, remove curse, heal, etc. there are many offensive effects which would have no cure without these spells from core, and it's a real pain in the butt to account for them all since they're so common.

[Lazymancer]

What spells in core 3.5 would be better off, in your opinion, removed from the game, for reasons of uselessness, redundancy, or poor design?
Removed completely, not adjusted/fixed (for example, make Blur grant AC bonus instead)?

Off the top of my head: Guidance, Detect Secret Doors, Rope Trick, Protection from Alignment, Permanency, Wall of Iron.

[flappeercraft]

Revivify is from SpC and works to resurrect and is a cleric spell

[Cosi]

While a lot of unbalanced content does come from core, such as shapechange or polymorph, a lot of the game is predicated on the existence of these bandaid/busy work spells such as remove disease, break enchantment, remove curse, heal, etc. there are many offensive effects which would have no cure without these spells from core, and it's a real pain in the butt to account for them all since they're so common.

Pretty much. I don't really understand the "ban core" sentiment. It seems to mostly be "2edgy4me" stuff. Why not just, I don't know, ban the broken spells? It's not like we don't know what the problems are in core (polymorph et al, planar binding et al), you can just ban those.


Off the top of my head: Guidance, Detect Secret Doors, Rope Trick, Protection from Alignment, Permanency, Wall of Iron.

That is a really weird list. Could I get some insight into why you think guidance or protection from alignment or permanency needs to be gone?


Revivify is from SpC and works to resurrect and is a cleric spell

revivify works for one round after death. You have to prepare it in advance, then be standing within a move action of your target. That's nowhere near good enough.

[Venger]

Removed completely, not adjusted/fixed (for example, make Blur grant AC bonus instead)?

Off the top of my head: Guidance, Detect Secret Doors, Rope Trick, Protection from Alignment, Permanency, Wall of Iron.

guidance and detect secret doors are super weak. I don't personally agree with banning rope trick, but I do appreciate that it's the scapegoat for people who don't like 15 minute adventuring days. is wall of iron for the list just for wblmancy? if so, you're gonna make a lot more holes in the system before you can patch that hole, such as banning fabricate, minor and major creation, and ladders.

agree on protection from alignment. enchantment sucks enough, we really don't need a single 1st level spell that invalidates it entirely from level 1.

I'l admit I don't understand your rationale against permanency. could you elaborate?

[Karmea]

revivify works for one round after death. You have to prepare it in advance, then be standing within a move action of your target. That's nowhere near good enough.

Have your entire party be outsiders or undead and use revive outsider/undead? :smalltongue:

[Cosi]

agree on protection from alignment. enchantment sucks enough, we really don't need a single 1st level spell that invalidates it entirely from level 1.

Enchantment is quite good. You get sleep at 1st level, and the charm and dominate lines at high level. Immunities suck, but they suck a lot less when things that aren't immune turn into your pets. Also, protection from alignment doesn't come close to "invalidating" it. If the enemy has a caster with protection from alignment, and they remember to prepare it, and they cast it, and you don't have dispel magic it counters the offensive uses of some Enchantment spells. That's not terrible.

[Venger]

Enchantment is quite good. You get sleep at 1st level, and the charm and dominate lines at high level. Immunities suck, but they suck a lot less when things that aren't immune turn into your pets. Also, protection from alignment doesn't come close to "invalidating" it. If the enemy has a caster with protection from alignment, and they remember to prepare it, and they cast it, and you don't have dispel magic it counters the offensive uses of some Enchantment spells. That's not terrible.

enchantment is the weakest school. many monsters are immune by virtue of type, there are effects from classes, items, and spells that grant immunity trivially, and unlike other subpar strategies, such as archery, there's no real goldilocks zone where it's an effective strategy.

charm person is a 1st level spell.

I get what you mean, but since the thread is about houserules to make the game more balanced, axing prot from x would let enchanters actually do something once in a while.

[Ashtagon]

The [animal]'s [noun] line ought be just one spell. +4 enhancement to one ability score, chosen at the time of casting
Most of the elemental damage spells, especially the Orb of X, ought be a single spell. Maybe require a focus component to pick the element type, but it is a lot of spellbook cluttering.
Ditto the Protection from [Alignment] lines. Just lump them into one spell one customizes at time of casting.


Just because two spells use essentially identical mechanics except for targeting a different alignment/energy type/whatever, it doesn't mean they should be merged. A beguiler type mage should probably not have easy access to bull's strength, or at least, not as easy as they have to the +4 Charisma spell. Similarly, a storm mage should have protection against electricity and orb of electricity, but probably not protection against cold or orb of acid.

tbh, I'd even consider making polymorph spells different for each unique creature type you turn something into (this is what d20 Call of Cthulhu did), so that wolf mages and bear mages can be distinct from spider mages.

[bekeleven]

remove negative levels Unyielding Roots, Psychic Chirurgery, Psionic Restoration, Essence of Lifespark? Plus the million ways to avoid getting them in the first place.

[Venger]

Just because two spells use essentially identical mechanics except for targeting a different alignment/energy type/whatever, it doesn't mean they should be merged. A beguiler type mage should probably not have easy access to bull's strength, or at least, not as easy as they have to the +4 Charisma spell. Similarly, a storm mage should have protection against electricity and orb of electricity, but probably not protection against cold or orb of acid.

tbh, I'd even consider making polymorph spells different for each unique creature type you turn something into (this is what d20 Call of Cthulhu did), so that wolf mages and bear mages can be distinct from spider mages.

You mean like all those terrible polymorph subschool spells?

[Ashtagon]

You mean like all those terrible polymorph subschool spells?

No, not like Pathfinder's "stat modifiers and the occasional special ability" line of polymorph spells. I would envision polymorph as an open-ended list of spells with similar mechanics, each specific to a particular animal form. Yes, some of these would obviously be better than others, but even the better ones would be nerfed compared to the baseline raw version by virtue of reduced flexibility.

Baseline polymorph is OP, and also creates issues such as "why is my spider mage intentionally restricting herself to what she can do with this spell?".

[DMVerdandi]

Antimagic Field

I think SR playing a bigger role, even with spells like resistance being up, on a normal leveled game would make a big difference. Yes, some spells ignore SR, just change them to SR 1/2.

If you overcome it, you simply have the juice, but if you don't, there are some things that are just defended against.

[Venger]

No, not like Pathfinder's "stat modifiers and the occasional special ability" line of polymorph spells. I would envision polymorph as an open-ended list of spells with similar mechanics, each specific to a particular animal form. Yes, some of these would obviously be better than others, but even the better ones would be nerfed compared to the baseline raw version by virtue of reduced flexibility.

Baseline polymorph is OP, and also creates issues such as "why is my spider mage intentionally restricting herself to what she can do with this spell?".

I am not especially familiar with pathfinder.

I was referring to the line of spells in phb2, such as trollshape.

What you're describing sounds like astral construct or the pf summoner's eidolon.

[Gildedragon]

Just because two spells use essentially identical mechanics except for targeting a different alignment/energy type/whatever, it doesn't mean they should be merged. A beguiler type mage should probably not have easy access to bull's strength, or at least, not as easy as they have to the +4 Charisma spell. Why not? They already have a bias for using the +Cha spell... No particular need, I think, for making their "this helps the party out" spell lineup easier.

Similarly, a storm mage should have protection against electricity and orb of electricity, but probably not protection against cold or orb of acid.
So they have a CL bonus for [electricity] spells, and a resistance to [electricity] damage.
Bunching all of them together makes as much sense as having Resist Energy be a single spell and not a series of five or six different spells that are all the same except they each resist a different energy type. I am v. much of a mind that those "same spell, different energy/ability" is merely a way to pad out the spell section.

[J-H]

Junglerazer (SpC) completely and utterly obsoletes Blight with its long range, AOE, and high damage.

[Quertus]

I'd probably add a few million spells, and fix at least half the existing ones. But remove? Hmmm... Disjunction, maybe. Destroying Artifacts seems better suited to epic spells, and destroying loot is just dumb. This spell doesn't seem like it should exist.

Although I wouldn't have thought of it, I can see the argument for removing Wish as a castable spell. Or maybe just moving it to epic would suffice.

I can see the argument for removing SoD/SoS, but, honestly, if you don't have Fate of One / Resurgence / Ring of 9 Lives / Iron Heart Surge / Contingency / one several of the countless other ways to make this a non-issue, I have no sympathy for you. Sorry. While you're sitting out, research how to keep your character in the game. Me, I prefer to run multiple characters, so that I can run them at that level of suboptimal, yet still keep playing when one gets taken out to a SoD/SoS.

[Venger]

I'd probably add a few million spells, and fix at least half the existing ones. But remove? Hmmm... Disjunction, maybe. Destroying Artifacts seems better suited to epic spells, and destroying loot is just dumb. This spell doesn't seem like it should exist.

Although I wouldn't have thought of it, I can see the argument for removing Wish as a castable spell. Or maybe just moving it to epic would suffice.
Sure, agree with all that


I can see the argument for removing SoD/SoS, but, honestly, if you don't have Fate of One / Resurgence / Ring of 9 Lives / Iron Heart Surge / Contingency / one several of the countless other ways to make this a non-issue, I have no sympathy for you. Sorry. While you're sitting out, research how to keep your character in the game. Me, I prefer to run multiple characters, so that I can run them at that level of suboptimal, yet still keep playing when one gets taken out to a SoD/SoS.

Here's where you lose me.

I also use most of those things in normal games, but there are a lot of people who are not experts at D&D. for the same reasons that the +2 skill feats are not good things to have in the game since they can easily be picked by people who don't know better, SoDs are kind of trap options for new gms in the same way. it may seem like a good idea to flesh to stone or what have you at the time, but having one of your party sit out for a 30 minute combat is not conducive to good gameplay.

[Lazymancer]

That is a really weird list. Could I get some insight into why you think guidance or protection from alignment or permanency needs to be gone?
Well, I didn't go for spells, but for tendencies in spell design I don't like. Hence a certain level of heterogeneity.


Guidance doesn't "do" anything. Even True Strike provides qualitative boost at the expense of an action in combat. But Guidance is a purely numerical bonus. This kind of design would culminate in Divine Insight and other nonsense that simply turns spell slots into bonuses. There is no fixing it.

Both Rope Trick and Protection from Alignment have a game-changing influence that should come online later, but at higher levels their effects could be duplicated by other spells. Hence - both are irrevocably redundant.

As for Permanency, there is simply too much wrong with the implementation to fix anything. It is not exactly a spell within 3.5 paradigm (Craft Permanent Spell would make more sense) and I personally hate the concept of turning XP (or gold) into permanent spells. The whole thing has to be redesigned completely.


is wall of iron for the list just for wblmancy?
Not as such. I don't care for WBL and it would make sense for spells to make money (within SLxCLx10 gp limit, at the very least). But Wall of Iron simply destroys suspension of disbelief with no survivors.

Create Water could condense moisture from the air, Stone Wall could draw stone from the ground below, but Wall of Iron has no excuse. And both mundane and magic (by changing effect from Instanteneous to Permanent) versions are be redundant: we already have Wall of Stone and Wall of Force.

[Mordaedil]

I think most spells are written sufficiently well that a DM can fiat them quite well to be appropriate. Ice Assassin, for instance, a DM can just insist that the crafting required for an ice statue means it isn't a negligble cost, so eschew materials doesn't work for it (a block of ice isn't a material component, the shaping of it is)

Could argue that creating an ice assassin for yourself is the biggest mistake of your life, and so on.

Polymorph spells just require that your DM is at least a little prepared for it, but maybe I talk too much with my DM for it to seem "fair" or "fun" for most people here.

[Cosi]

enchantment is the weakest school. many monsters are immune by virtue of type, there are effects from classes, items, and spells that grant immunity trivially, and unlike other subpar strategies, such as archery, there's no real goldilocks zone where it's an effective strategy.

Who gives a crap if "most" monsters are immune? If you encounter one monster every level that isn't immune, you just more than doubled your effectiveness. Enchantment is basically want you would get if you took away all the parts of Conjuration that aren't planar binding. For the most part, it's either totally insane, or very weak. There are some unconditional things you can do though (I think one of the Wizard guides has a list of non-mind effecting spells).


Unyielding Roots, Psychic Chirurgery, Psionic Restoration, Essence of Lifespark? Plus the million ways to avoid getting them in the first place.

You mean an 8th level spell, some psionic powers, and a 5th level utterance (available at 14th level) as substitutes for something you're supposed to get at 7th level? Funny joke.


Guidance doesn't "do" anything. Even True Strike provides qualitative boost at the expense of an action in combat. But Guidance is a purely numerical bonus. This kind of design would culminate in Divine Insight and other nonsense that simply turns spell slots into bonuses. There is no fixing it.

Fair.


Both Rope Trick and Protection from Alignment have a game-changing influence that should come online later, but at higher levels their effects could be duplicated by other spells. Hence - both are irrevocably redundant.

Without investing character resources rope trick lasts the entire night only at the same level you get teleport. I've never really understood the hype (also, it mostly serves to counter a bad form of DMing).


As for Permanency, there is simply too much wrong with the implementation to fix anything. It is not exactly a spell within 3.5 paradigm (Craft Permanent Spell would make more sense) and I personally hate the concept of turning XP (or gold) into permanent spells. The whole thing has to be redesigned completely.

Fair enough.


Not as such. I don't care for WBL and it would make sense for spells to make money (within SLxCLx10 gp limit, at the very least). But Wall of Iron simply destroys suspension of disbelief with no survivors.

Create Water could condense moisture from the air, Stone Wall could draw stone from the ground below, but Wall of Iron has no excuse. And both mundane and magic (by changing effect from Instanteneous to Permanent) versions are be redundant: we already have Wall of Stone and Wall of Force.

It's magic, I ain't gotta explain s***.

Seriously though, wall of iron seems like a really weird place to draw the line. teleport is fine (and at a lower level to boot), but wall of iron is a bridge too far? FFS, if you're okay with wall of stone drawing material from the ground, couldn't wall of iron do exactly the same thing? A quick google shows that the earth's crust is almost a third iron.


I think most spells are written sufficiently well that a DM can fiat them quite well to be appropriate. Ice Assassin, for instance, a DM can just insist that the crafting required for an ice statue means it isn't a negligble cost, so eschew materials doesn't work for it (a block of ice isn't a material component, the shaping of it is)

The problem with ice assassin is not that you can make cheap copies of your enemies. It's that you can make cheap copies of you.

[VoxRationis]

Ice assassin isn't a core spell, is it? I thought it was from Frostburn.

@Lazymancer: Why do you hate guidance again? Most beneficial spells amount to numerical bonuses to one or more things. Are you just anti-buff?

[Venger]

Ice assassin isn't a core spell, is it? I thought it was from Frostburn.

@Lazymancer: Why do you hate guidance again? Most beneficial spells amount to numerical bonuses to one or more things. Are you just anti-buff?

ice assassin is from frostburn. the somewhat similar simulacrum is core and also involves making a clone out of ice.

[Quertus]

Here's where you lose me.

I also use most of those things in normal games, but there are a lot of people who are not experts at D&D. for the same reasons that the +2 skill feats are not good things to have in the game since they can easily be picked by people who don't know better, SoDs are kind of trap options for new gms in the same way. it may seem like a good idea to flesh to stone or what have you at the time, but having one of your party sit out for a 30 minute combat is not conducive to good gameplay.

I've scraped half a dozen responses, because none said exactly what I meant.

While I don't disagree with you, I think this is best solved with DM advice, sections on "know your players", "keeping the game fun" and "SoD/SoS" effects. Perhaps even labeling monsters by their "difficulty", little red hands saying, "stop - you may not want to use this monster until you understand the system better". Don't remove my cool tools just because there exist people who don't know how to use them.

[Venger]

I've scraped half a dozen responses, because none said exactly what I meant.

While I don't disagree with you, I think this is best solved with DM advice, sections on "know your players", "keeping the game fun" and "SoD/SoS" effects. Perhaps even labeling monsters by their "difficulty", little red hands saying, "stop - you may not want to use this monster until you understand the system better". Don't remove my cool tools just because there exist people who don't know how to use them.

I agree with you completely. It's an issue of system mastery.

I'm not going to whip out shivering touch during a beer and pretzels game, it's kind of a jerkstore move. the same way it's common knowledge that the game is best when the party is within a tier or so of each other, it's also helpful when the pcs and gm are both fielding equal levels of optimization.

[Lazymancer]

Without investing character resources rope trick lasts the entire night only at the same level you get teleport. I've never really understood the hype (also, it mostly serves to counter a bad form of DMing).
I assure you, only turning RPG into a boardgame could counter bad DMing.

So, you are saying Rope Trick is either useless or redundant? How this is an argument for keeping it?


Seriously though, wall of iron seems like a really weird place to draw the line.
Redundancy. Wall of Iron is simply sturdier Wall of Stone.


FFS, if you're okay with wall of stone drawing material from the ground, couldn't wall of iron do exactly the same thing? A quick google shows that the earth's crust is almost a third iron.
It should be 4-6%. And Aluminium is almost twice as common (~8%). Shall we have Walls of Aluminium? Though, Wall of Quartz seems like a neat idea...



@Lazymancer: Why do you hate guidance again? Most beneficial spells amount to numerical bonuses to one or more things. Are you just anti-buff?
Buff-intolerant, buffophobe, anti-buffist... Ahem.

The answer is no. It's not about Guidance being buff (especially to skill), but about being a number. If there was a spell that just said "target gets 1d6+CL damage", I would've also suggested it for removal.

[VoxRationis]

@Lazymancer: So could you describe to me your non-numerical paradigm for gameplay, particularly where spells like guidance are concerned? I'm not understanding your viewpoint.

[Cosi]

So, you are saying Rope Trick is either useless or redundant? How this is an argument for keeping it?

The reason to keep rope trick is that it's cool and thematic without breaking anything. Climbing up a rope and disappearing is magical feat people should be able to perform.


Redundancy. Wall of Iron is simply sturdier Wall of Stone.

So? Lots of high level spells are better versions of low level ones.


It should be 4-6%. And Aluminium is almost twice as common (~8%). Shall we have Walls of Aluminium? Though, Wall of Quartz seems like a neat idea...

Ah, it looks like I grabbed the overall, not the crust. Still, I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to conclude that magic can produce a bunch of iron. It's in the same school as the spells that produce a bunch of Demons, and there aren't any demons lying around in the real world. It's also specifically Conjuration (creation), which would seem to support just making a bunch of iron.

We could certainly have walls of Aluminium or Quartz, but we don't necessarily have every spell that's implied by another spell. If it's possible to create blast of fire the size and power of fireball, presumably it's possible to create comparable larger or smaller ball of fire with more or less power, but there mostly aren't such spells.

[Lazymancer]

@Lazymancer: So could you describe to me your non-numerical paradigm for gameplay, particularly where spells like guidance are concerned? I'm not understanding your viewpoint.
And I don't really understand what is there to explain.

Spells should provide effects, and then game mechanics should express those effects in numbers. Burning hands is not just damage, but flamethrower effect. You can set things on fire (or light your way, if briefly). People had attempted to use Message to bluff person into thinking that it is their conscience talking to them. Dancing Lights could be used as a semaphore. Even Cure Wounds could be used to damage undead.

But when it comes to "numerical" spells we have only numbers; neither interesting idea, nor tactical depth is added.

Guidance is boring.

[Zanos]

Here's where you lose me.

I also use most of those things in normal games, but there are a lot of people who are not experts at D&D. for the same reasons that the +2 skill feats are not good things to have in the game since they can easily be picked by people who don't know better, SoDs are kind of trap options for new gms in the same way. it may seem like a good idea to flesh to stone or what have you at the time, but having one of your party sit out for a 30 minute combat is not conducive to good gameplay.
Eh. SoD effects at lower levels tend to be very easily avoidable with a little bit of good thinking, have hilarious low save DCs, or just otherwise be immensely restricted. Bodaks seem nasty until you remember you can just close your eyes and beat them to death, for example. When SoD effects start to get really nasty the party has access to core spells like death ward that can just make them immune to them for a period of time.

There are outliers, of course, like the CR 10 wail of the banshee trap mentioned in that other thread, or Gorgons being encountered before people have access to break enchantment or stone to flesh. Stupid 60ft petrification cone.

[Lazymancer]

The reason to keep rope trick is that it's cool and thematic without breaking anything. Climbing up a rope and disappearing is magical feat people should be able to perform.
To be honest, I don't really see it as thematic. It's some semi-obscure Indian trick.


So? Lots of high level spells are better versions of low level ones.
We are talking about 5th and 6th spell levels.


Still, I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to conclude that magic can produce a bunch of iron.
Or diamonds. You should totally be able to grow some diamonds out of trees. There is more carbon in trees than there is iron in earth crust.

Come on. Wall of Iron doesn't add anything except necessity to adapt setting to Suddenly Iron.

[Cosi]

To be honest, I don't really see it as thematic. It's some semi-obscure Indian trick.

So? There's all sorts of obscure stuff in D&D. It's a kitchen sink fantasy setting, and you need a better reason than "its obscure" to exclude something.


We are talking about 5th and 6th spell levels.

fog cloud is just a level below stinking cloud.


Or diamonds. You should totally be able to grow some diamonds out of trees. There is more carbon in trees than there is iron in earth crust.

Sure, but not all logically justifiable spells exist. There's also game balance to consider.


Come on. Wall of Iron doesn't add anything except necessity to adapt setting to Suddenly Iron.

Anyone who can cast wall of iron can also summon servants to do anything they desire, and make whatever they want with a single spell. High level Wizards could disrupt the setting in any number of ways, but why would they? They live in a post-scarcity economy, and the medieval peasants who make up the setting as a whole cannot possibly make anything they desire.

[ross]

So? There's all sorts of obscure stuff in D&D. It's a kitchen sink fantasy setting, and you need a better reason than "its obscure" to exclude something.



fog cloud is just a level below stinking cloud.



Sure, but not all logically justifiable spells exist. There's also game balance to consider.



Anyone who can cast wall of iron can also summon servants to do anything they desire, and make whatever they want with a single spell. High level Wizards could disrupt the setting in any number of ways, but why would they? They live in a post-scarcity economy, and the medieval peasants who make up the setting as a whole cannot possibly make anything they desire.

Not the peasants, but the NPC shopkeepers. Who can trade an infinite number of gold coins for an infinite amount of iron.

[VoxRationis]

The reason to keep rope trick is that it's cool and thematic without breaking anything. Climbing up a rope and disappearing is magical feat people should be able to perform.
I'd dispute that the spell doesn't break anything; a lot of people point to it as a keystone of the "15-minute adventuring day," which itself is a major facet of caster dominance in GitP-style play.



So? Lots of high level spells are better versions of low level ones. I myself would find that to be a good example of redundancy. Spells have been scaling for a long time; there's no need to bloat the magic section with non-scaling spells that rely on higher-level versions to carry those effects into higher levels.

[Gildedragon]

So: in defense of rope trick, it is an essential dungeon-crawl camp-preparation spell.
It doesn't really help much for the short adventuring day until around level 10. And by then there are other camp securing options to be had.

[Cosi]

Not the peasants, but the NPC shopkeepers. Who can trade an infinite number of gold coins for an infinite amount of iron.

That seems like a problem with the economics engine.


I'd dispute that the spell doesn't break anything; a lot of people point to it as a keystone of the "15-minute adventuring day," which itself is a major facet of caster dominance in GitP-style play.

What rope trick lets you do is (largely) safely rest. The only reason to remove it is to make resting less safe, which is unlikely to reduce the "15 minute adventuring day". The reason for that phenomena is that people don't want to risk continuing to have encounters, and instead want to rest. If you make "resting" risky by adding ambushes to it, people will rest sooner in an attempt to save spell slots for the nightly ambush. That makes the problem worse, not better.

If you want to solve the 15 minute adventuring day, the simplest solution is just to let casters prepare spells with a 15 minute trance, rather than requiring 8 hours of rest. If people don't have daily limits, the idea of nova-ing then resting goes away.


I myself would find that to be a good example of redundancy. Spells have been scaling for a long time; there's no need to bloat the magic section with non-scaling spells that rely on higher-level versions to carry those effects into higher levels.

I think both "spells scale naturally" and "higher level spells replace lower level ones". In general, scaling spells mean casters will tend to have a more tightly themed set of tricks they rely on over the course of the game (for example, Cloud Guy will upgrade from fog cloud to stinking cloud to cloudkill, rather than maybe selecting fireball or wall of stone instead), while non-scaling spells means characters strategies will have more opportunities to shift over the course of the game (you can be Cloud Guy at 5th level, Blast Guy at 9th level, and Summon Guy at 13th level). Both of those have advantages and disadvantages, and frankly the optimum solution is probably to have different classes do different things.

I also don't think you need that much bloat to support non-scaling spells. If you write spells in effective ways, there shouldn't be much difference between the language to describe the scaling of a spell and the language to describe a new spell. It's pretty much "X, but instead of Y, Z" in both cases.

[Jeriah]

What rope trick lets you do is (largely) safely rest. The only reason to remove it is to make resting less safe, which is unlikely to reduce the "15 minute adventuring day". The reason for that phenomena is that people don't want to risk continuing to have encounters, and instead want to rest. If you make "resting" risky by adding ambushes to it, people will rest sooner in an attempt to save spell slots for the nightly ambush. That makes the problem worse, not better.

If you want to solve the 15 minute adventuring day, the simplest solution is just to let casters prepare spells with a 15 minute trance, rather than requiring 8 hours of rest. If people don't have daily limits, the idea of nova-ing then resting goes away.I've found it more expedient to simply disallow resting if trying to solve this issue. If the spellcasters know they won't get a chance to rest until after several encounters have passed, they don't go nova then need to sleep 8 hours after each encounter.

[Quertus]

Eh. SoD effects at lower levels tend to be very easily avoidable with a little bit of good thinking, have hilarious low save DCs, or just otherwise be immensely restricted. Bodaks seem nasty until you remember you can just close your eyes and beat them to death, for example. When SoD effects start to get really nasty the party has access to core spells like death ward that can just make them immune to them for a period of time.

There are outliers, of course, like the CR 10 wail of the banshee trap mentioned in that other thread, or Gorgons being encountered before people have access to break enchantment or stone to flesh. Stupid 60ft petrification cone.

You can always get it as a scroll. My first 3.0 party developed a list of "must have" scrolls. But it is impossible to encounter Stone to Flesh at the level where you do not have access to Resurgence. Unless you're peasants. Stoned peasants.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'd cut basically all save-or-die spells. I hate when my character's entire future is tied to a single die roll over which I have no real control just because it happens to target my weakest save.

I hate it even more when these are used on the big bosses. There's nothing worse to me than finally encountering the final boss dragon at the end of an amazing campaign and having it be a hugely disappointing anticlimax because the mage tosses out a shivering touch. :smallmad:

White Dragons are immune to Shivering Touch. Silver Dragons are too.

Use more of those.

[Beheld]

White Dragons are immune to Shivering Touch. Silver Dragons are too.

Use more of those.

Or have SR, or have the Dragon not put up a giant sign that tells the PCs 3 days in advance that it's a dragon, or not be in melee range with the Wizard, or full attack the wizard and knock him out.

[Florian]

do you mean spells that are too powerful, too weak, overly specific, completely nonfunctional, or something else?

Interestingly enough, it´s quite helpful to look at D&D 4E and look at what kind of spells didn't´t make the translation to this edition, as they were either too open ended or too powerful as building blocks for combos to fit into a balanced game.

I think the more problematic spells are actually those that need straight access to gm material to work, like binding, polymorph and dominate.

[Lazymancer]

Interestingly enough, it´s quite helpful to look at D&D 4E and look at what kind of spells didn't´t make the translation to this edition, as they were either too open ended or too powerful as building blocks for combos to fit into a balanced game.
No. 4e was a cop-out. Spells has to be able to do things. If Mundanes can't compete, they should not exist past level 5. Removing magic is not a solution.

And problem of Polymorph/Binding is poor implementation, not concept.

[TheIronGolem]

No. 4e was a cop-out. Spells has to be able to do things. If Mundanes can't compete, they should not exist past level 5. Removing magic is not a solution.

And problem of Polymorph/Binding is poor implementation, not concept.

"Mundanes" shouldn't exist even at level 1, except as NPC's. But non-magic martials should exist and be viable all the way through the game.

[Lazymancer]

non-magic martials should exist and be viable all the way through the game.
Why "should"? Is there some imperative that mandates their viability?

I say, there is a limit to abilities of non-augmented humans.

[TheIronGolem]

Why "should"? Is there some imperative that mandates their viability?
No less (or more) than there is mandating the viability of magic-based characters.


I say, there is a limit to abilities of non-augmented humans.
Proper martials aren't "non-augmented".

[Arbane]

Why "should"? Is there some imperative that mandates their viability?

I say, there is a limit to abilities of non-augmented humans.

Yes, and if we go by real-world mythology it includes outrunning thoughts, lasso-ing and riding tornadoes, fighting an entire army solo and winning, wrestling giants and winning, swimming for three days in armor, fighting from sunrise to sunset, and flying by making wings and flapping their arms REALLY HARD.

Not to mention real-world people who do things 'common sense' would tell us is impossible.

So yeah, 'non-augumented humans' have a limit in D&D 3.5: 20th level, same as the God-Kings of Cre spellcasters.

[Lazymancer]

Yes, and if we go by real-world mythology it includes outrunning thoughts, lasso-ing and riding tornadoes, fighting an entire army solo and winning, wrestling giants and winning, swimming for three days in armor, fighting from sunrise to sunset, and flying by making wings and flapping their arms REALLY HARD.

Not to mention real-world people who do things 'common sense' would tell us is impossible.

So yeah, 'non-augumented humans' have a limit in D&D 3.5: 20th level, same as the God-Kings of Cre spellcasters.
I'm sorry, was outrunning thoughts and riding tornadoes supposed to non-magical abilities?

[Fitz10019]

Identify
I may be alone on this, but as a DM, I hate Identify. Not because it's powerful, but because no one experiments with newly-found weapons or items when they find them on the go. It's always toss the thing into a bag until we Identify it. And there's about zero chance of buying something from a merchant and later being surprised as you uncover additional powers. The spell kills the mystery and suspense of magic items IMHO.

[Arbane]

I'm sorry, was outrunning thoughts and riding tornadoes supposed to non-magical abilities?

Thjalfi and Pecos Bill aren't spellcasters. Draw your own conclusions, but let's do it in a different thread. This one is about which parts of spellcasters' existing ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER ought to get the axe and why.


Identify
I may be alone on this, but as a DM, I hate Identify. Not because it's powerful, but because no one experiments with newly-found weapons or items when they find them on the go. It's always toss the thing into a bag until we Identify it. And there's about zero chance of buying something from a merchant and later being surprised as you uncover additional powers. The spell kills the mystery and suspense of magic items IMHO.

Due to older editions' love of cursed items, a lot of that 'mystery and suspense' was like defusing unexploded ordnance.

[VoxRationis]

What rope trick lets you do is (largely) safely rest. The only reason to remove it is to make resting less safe, which is unlikely to reduce the "15 minute adventuring day". The reason for that phenomena is that people don't want to risk continuing to have encounters, and instead want to rest. If you make "resting" risky by adding ambushes to it, people will rest sooner in an attempt to save spell slots for the nightly ambush. That makes the problem worse, not better.

If you want to solve the 15 minute adventuring day, the simplest solution is just to let casters prepare spells with a 15 minute trance, rather than requiring 8 hours of rest. If people don't have daily limits, the idea of nova-ing then resting goes away.
Enabling nova-ing for every encounter seems a questionable response to the problem of "game balance and adventure pacing is thrown off by players' resting all the time so they can nova every encounter."


I also don't think you need that much bloat to support non-scaling spells. If you write spells in effective ways, there shouldn't be much difference between the language to describe the scaling of a spell and the language to describe a new spell. It's pretty much "X, but instead of Y, Z" in both cases.

It still takes up at least a few lines on a page, as well as a full slot for purposes of spells known and similar matters.

[Cosi]

Enabling nova-ing for every encounter seems a questionable response to the problem of "game balance and adventure pacing is thrown off by players' resting all the time so they can nova every encounter."

I guess that depends on what you thought the problem was. If you thought the problem was "people rest too often", putting stuff on a refresh cycle that doesn't require resting solves that problem. If you think the problem is that nova-ing is too good, I submit that reducing the refresh timer still solves that problem, as all encounters can now be designed to challenge a fully rested party. Note that "encounter" could be defined pretty broadly as any period where you can't successfully rest, to account for more endurance oriented challenges.


It still takes up at least a few lines on a page,

Sure, it takes more space. But there are advantages to doing it. Notably, if you select powers a la carte, that means you get a much broader variety of possible characters.


as well as a full slot for purposes of spells known and similar matters.

If different classes have different paradigms for ability scaling, they can just know different numbers of spells. The Shaman (whose spirits get new abilities every level) can have less spirits than the Wizard (whose spells are self contained abilities) has spells.

[Melcar]

What spells in core 3.5 would be better off, in your opinion, removed from the game, for reasons of uselessness, redundancy, or poor design?

None at all!

[Venger]

Identify
I may be alone on this, but as a DM, I hate Identify. Not because it's powerful, but because no one experiments with newly-found weapons or items when they find them on the go. It's always toss the thing into a bag until we Identify it. And there's about zero chance of buying something from a merchant and later being surprised as you uncover additional powers. The spell kills the mystery and suspense of magic items IMHO.
You are absolutely alone on this.

Why would you want to waste time figuring out what items did instead of playing the game?

Every game I've ever played in, either I or someone else contrives a method of detect magic so we can use the artificer's monocle and skip past this busy work. when I GM and no one is able to do this, I just tell my players what the items are so they can decide what they want to keep and what vendor trash they want to toss in the grinder to turn into money to buy things they like.

mystery and suspense of magic items is not something that fits very well with 3.x. from my understanding, this was a big part of 2e and older, and it's also present in more rules-lite systems such as unknown armies, but 3.x is written with the understanding you know what to do with the junk you find by the corpses of your enemies.

if you want to give your PCs extra goodies in custom items there's nothing stopping you, you can just say identify finds x properties and then there's also some special properties it can't pick up on if you want them to lug it around til you reveal its extra powers at a dramtic moment. as a pc, I certainly wouldn't complain.


Due to older editions' love of cursed items, a lot of that 'mystery and suspense' was like defusing unexploded ordnance.
That too.

[Shackel]

Personally, I find that whether or not there are "easy"(for optimizers) ways to stop save-or-dies doesn't particularly matter in the long run. The results are the same: either it does nothing, or it removes a player or a boss(because who wastes it on mooks) in about as anticlimatic a way as it gets. Their existence just being another entry on the "list of things you need to be immune to" and nothing more after it's been neutralized doesn't sound necessary either.

[Zanos]

Due to older editions' love of cursed items, a lot of that 'mystery and suspense' was like defusing unexploded ordnance.
Yeah, using unidentified magic items was basically asking to have your head exploded, alignment switched, arms melted, soul trapped, etc.

[Quertus]

Interestingly enough, it´s quite helpful to look at D&D 4E and look at what kind of spells didn't´t make the translation to this edition, as they were either too open ended or too powerful as building blocks for combos to fit into a balanced game.

Alternately, anything that made it into 4e isn't interesting enough to be a spell :smalltongue:

But, then, I care less about "balance" than I do about "cool". :smallwink:


"Mundanes" shouldn't exist even at level 1, except as NPC's. But non-magic martials should exist and be viable all the way through the game.

And, IMO, should be the "best" choice. But I play wizards, what do I know?


Identify
I may be alone on this, but as a DM, I hate Identify. Not because it's powerful, but because no one experiments with newly-found weapons or items when they find them on the go. It's always toss the thing into a bag until we Identify it. And there's about zero chance of buying something from a merchant and later being surprised as you uncover additional powers. The spell kills the mystery and suspense of magic items IMHO.


You are absolutely alone on this.

Why would you want to waste time figuring out what items did instead of playing the game?


Yeah, using unidentified magic items was basically asking to have your head exploded, alignment switched, arms melted, soul trapped, etc.

As player or GM, I enjoy the game of investigating the world, the environment. The Exploration minigame is huge for me. But even I don't like having my (or, honestly, my minion's) head ripped off by a vorpal necklace, drinking from the poisoned fountain, etc. Nor is it terribly fun to watch my players go through the same. That minigame just doesn't seem fun to me.

The blind science / blind magic minigame of, "I combine 2 parts of the red crystal with 3 parts of the blue fungus, mixing them together in a wooden bowl with an iron rod, stirring clockwise at midnight, while chanting the 27th verse of the Hymn of Magic. What happens?" also doesn't interest me. Identifying an item by trial and error is pretty much like this, but with more metagaming. :smallyuk: Unlike the item identification minigame, however, I have met people who enjoy this particular drudgery.

That having been said, I did have a player identify a magic helm once. Result was, it protected the wearer's head (duh), and taught blind fighting. Cool. That party had developed "Detect Curse", and were initially shocked to learn that the helm registered. Then they thought it through, and realized that it "taught", not "gave" blind fighting. Yes, in battle, the helm sealed shut, blinding the wearer. To be fair, this experience gave them a bonus to learning the blind fighting feat.


Personally, I find that whether or not there are "easy"(for optimizers) ways to stop save-or-dies doesn't particularly matter in the long run. The results are the same: either it does nothing, or it removes a player or a boss(because who wastes it on mooks) in about as anticlimatic a way as it gets. Their existence just being another entry on the "list of things you need to be immune to" and nothing more after it's been neutralized doesn't sound necessary either.

This can still make for both an enjoyable minigame, and enjoyable gameplay. For example, mind control.

Example 1 - skilled characters. You get to enjoy laughing at the idiots (elder vampires, say) attempting to dominate your characters. Good times.

Example 2 - unskilled characters. You get to enjoy playing the game "as intended", experience how this character / this party feels when they are affected by this technique, exactly once. Then you get the experience of laughing at the idiots who make subsequent attempts with the same technique. Good times.

Example 3 - incompetent characters. You get the joy of being affected by this tactic with the same characters again and again, to demonstrate their utter incompetence. Good times.

Example 4 - overwhelmed characters. Your characters are perfectly competent, but the party composition lacks easy answers. So you get to play the puzzle minigame of trying to fill this round hole with a square peg. Say you buy your skill monkey a Ring of Protection from Law, have him max out Sense Motive, and always listen to what he says about who is dominated. Give him a few charges of Protection from Whatever, Resurgence (he should already have that), etc. Good times.

[Shackel]

This can still make for both an enjoyable minigame, and enjoyable gameplay. For example, mind control.

Example 1 - skilled characters. You get to enjoy laughing at the idiots (elder vampires, say) attempting to dominate your characters. Good times.

Example 2 - unskilled characters. You get to enjoy playing the game "as intended", experience how this character / this party feels when they are affected by this technique, exactly once. Then you get the experience of laughing at the idiots who make subsequent attempts with the same technique. Good times.

Example 3 - incompetent characters. You get the joy of being affected by this tactic with the same characters again and again, to demonstrate their utter incompetence. Good times.

Example 4 - overwhelmed characters. Your characters are perfectly competent, but the party composition lacks easy answers. So you get to play the puzzle minigame of trying to fill this round hole with a square peg. Say you buy your skill monkey a Ring of Protection from Law, have him max out Sense Motive, and always listen to what he says about who is dominated. Give him a few charges of Protection from Whatever, Resurgence (he should already have that), etc. Good times.

At least with mind control, it doesn't completely remove you from the game or, if you have a kind enough DM, even from the session if you're allowed to control them attacking the party/as long as it is to the person's wishes.

Now mind you, I genuinely dislike most long-term hard CC when used on players, but I can't bring myself to say it should be removed. By all means, it is a completely balanced set of conditions and it's always fun to drop them on, say, the GM who has a lot of enemies they can use.

But when it's used on a player it can just knock them out of the session completely even if they aren't killed by whatever targets them while they're paralyzed/stunned/dazed/petrified/locked/screaming in fear/in a cage/asleep for 3+ rounds. And when that's hours out of your once a week or more game time, that sucks.

However, this might be because I play online primarily.

(Not to mention how even in your examples, it just kind of comes off as "ha ha you deserve it for not optimizing against every hard CC in the game")

[Lazymancer]

Thjalfi and Pecos Bill aren't spellcasters. Draw your own conclusions, but let's do it in a different thread. This one is about which parts of spellcasters' existing ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER ought to get the axe and why.
It's Phenomenal. And I'm not derailing thread - you are. We are discussing DnD, not Pecos Bill.


It is important to understand what is the standard we should compare DnD magic to. Ignoring underlying assumptions will not help anyone. Posters can argue ad infinitum, if some think full-casters should do the same things as Fighters, while the others want Fighters to do the same things as full-casters - but none admit it.

Saying that we should take inspiration from 4e clearly implies a paradigm different from mine. But if we are discussing different things (because "how to make magic conform to the non-caster power curve" is markedly different from "how to make magic more interesting"), this difference should be clarified immediately. Otherwise we'll simply get yet another "Tiering" thread filled with people expressing their opinions in the vacuum of context. Noise.

[Doctor Awkward]

Or have SR, or have the Dragon not put up a giant sign that tells the PCs 3 days in advance that it's a dragon, or not be in melee range with the Wizard, or full attack the wizard and knock him out.

All of those things can be trivially bypassed: Assay Spell Resistance, any divination spell, Spectral Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spectralHand.htm).

I prefer the option that just says, "No. Stop trying to one-shot my encounters."

[Arutema]

Wishes and Miracles should be plot devices granted by powerful outsiders, not something the party's casters start tossing out once they hit 18th level. (Or earlier with the various levels of early access cheese).

[Florian]

No. 4e was a cop-out. Spells has to be able to do things. If Mundanes can't compete, they should not exist past level 5. Removing magic is not a solution.

And problem of Polymorph/Binding is poor implementation, not concept.

4E had the right idea but implemented it poorly.

The basic flaw is, that 3E is balanced on resource attrition, thereby rating anything that is even remotely "at will" higher than anything that is limited. See the core assumption that an equal CR encounter should cost roughly 25% of resources.
Compare those two statements and find that there´s a bizarre clash here, as it´s assumed that the number of encounters that could be done with a freshly rested party still is limited, so the infinite nature of "at will" abilities doesn´t actually come into it, negating the innately higher rating.

The other flaws is "magic equals spell" and "spells must be in a combat format". I actually find separating "magic" into "spells" and "rituals", making the later available to each and any class as that´s fitting to a high fantasy world a very good design decision and I´m glad that Occult Rituals now finally crop up in PF in larger numbers. Taking that step actually opens new possibilities to rebalance spells that are "in combat".

Edit: I´m a fan of how Splittermond tackled that issue. That´s a skill-based system where each school of magic is a separate skill and they work together with the mundane skills. So it´s nearly impossible to build a pure mundane, wouldn't be fitting, too.
The system uses power point, but in different ways: "big spells" reduce the point pool for the day, while "small spells" just cost points that refresh after an encounter.